Prometheus

Going into the film Prometheus, I remembered a few things about the titular titan.  One, he gave fire to man at great cost to himself, getting himself chained to a rock and sentenced to an eagle-eaten liver a day.  I knew he had something to do with Pandora's story, though I couldn't remember exactly what it was.  I missed, of course, the biggest and most relevant part of his myth: he created man out of clay.  That was a pretty major one to miss, given the premise of the film.

Man's search for his creator is a common theme throughout history, though it's rarely as overt in modern stories as it is in Prometheus.  My favorite moment in the entire film came between a drunk, disappointed scientist and an android:

"We made you because we could."

"Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for you to hear the same thing from your Creator?"

The problem, for me, was that the rest of the film did not keep up with the standard set in that small exchange.  There were some interesting questions posed and some frightening moments and imagery (more on that later) but overall I felt rather disappointed by the film.

I am by no means an expert on the Alien movies.  I've seen the first and a good part of the second (though I don't think I've ever seen the whole thing), but if I've seen even a frame of Alien III or Alien: Resurrection (or Alien vs. Predator, for that matter) none of it has stuck with me.  As such, I can't really speak to this film as a prequel of sorts to those movies.

What I can do, however, is lament that every "twist" was telegraphed well in advance; there were no true surprises in store.  I know that a good storyteller needs to leave clues so an ending doesn't smack the audience as random or unearned, but those clues could do to be more subtle than the ones in Prometheus.

The film also fell into a trap that has always bothered me.  That is, when a character is revealed to have more sinister motives than previously expected and suddenly the way he acts around others is changed.  Prometheus is far more subtle than, say, the villain's sudden German accent after he's outed as a Nazi in The Rocketeer, but the shift was certainly present and it just didn't sit well with me.

Now, on to the scary moments and imagery I mentioned earlier.  The first Alien used a lot of rape and birth imagery to horrify its audiences, even if those audiences weren't quite aware of it as it was happening.  Prometheus follows that trend in no uncertain terms; in fact, one of the most unsettling (and effective) sequences in the entire film dealt with the latter in a fairly literal way.  It builds into the theme of the film quite well, really.  In Greek mythology, the new generation of deities always defeated and surpassed their parents.

As I write this, I think I'm talking myself into liking it more than I had originally done.  My initial criticisms still stand but I do have to give the film credit at least for the ideas it presents, even if it doesn't support them as well as I'd like.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

I don't know the last time I heard so many characters monologuing in such a short period of time.  I understand that exposition and backstory aren't the easiest thing to bring across on screen, but it seems like nearly every character got a chance to tell the important and relevant parts of their life to at least one other character with very little prompting and no hesitation.  "Show, don't tell" had very little place in this film.

The movie was longer than it needed to be, certainly, and rather on the predictable side.  Of course one of the characters was going to die--even the suddenly-all-knowing narration called it inevitable.  Of course that couple was going to get together.  Of course they all (or most) were going to decide to stay in the still open and triumphant hotel. 

I found the acting mostly charming and the characters mostly likeable, save for one completely thankless role.  The scenery was pretty, the imagery was obvious, the writing was somewhat lifeless.  Really, it's thanks to the actors that the film had what likeable moments it did have.  It meandered nearly as much as this blog post.

I can see this film appealing to a certain audience; there are not many films made directly for the retirement set and that's too bad, really.  What else is too bad is that this movie brought together such a fantastic cast and a cute name and premise and wound up being only mediocre.

The Avengers

As we were leaving The Avengers--my second viewing in less than a week--my sister asked me a movie-related question.  I always love those.  She asked me which movie I thought was better--not which I liked more, not which I found more entertaining, which movie was better--The Avengers or The Hunger Games.  I answered the former with no hesitation whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoyed The Hunger Games.  I thought it was a solid adaptation of an enjoyable, memorable book.  The Avengers eclipses it, though, in several ways, but the one that sticks out to me the most is its character beats.  The movie gives each of its characters a chance to breath, to grow, to respond--and I loved all of them.  I loved Phil Coulson and Pepper Potts as friends, even as Tony doesn't know his first name.  I love Steve Rogers always calling Maria and Natasha "ma'am" and the fact that he's religious.  I love Bruce Banner's insistence on calling The Hulk "The other guy," and his reactions to everyone's reactions to him.  I love Coulson as a Captain America fanboy.  I love Loki's moments of doubt, even fear.  I love Thor's faux-Shakespearean dialogue.  I love Tony Stark's sass.  I love everything about Black Widow and Hawkeye's relationship--their shared history, their comfort with each other, their teaming up.  This last set is probably my favorite small touch of the movie.  Putting these two, who frankly seem rather outranked by the rest of the Avengers, together and making them both SHIELD Agents first and Avengers almost by accident was a great stroke.  It incorporated both characters smoothly and effectively--not easy when one of them is an archer, for crying out loud.

Honestly, there was no part of this movie I didn't enjoy.  I thought the casting was fantastic (though I did feel that Robin Sparkles--er, Cobie Smulders's role was rather thankless).  I especially liked Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. 

This is, frankly, an ideal summer movie.

The Cabin In The Woods

One, I'll start out saying this is one of the best horror movies I've seen in years.  Two, I'll add that the less you know about it going in, the better.  Three, I'll temper that just a bit by saying that if you're expecting a typical slasher film, you might end up disappointed, and we wouldn't want that.

I won't spoil anything serious here, but I still have to say that I recommend against reading further if you haven't seen the movie and plan to.

As the crowd were leaving the theater--and the crowd was definitely sizable--we heard one man laugh sadly, saying this was the worst movie he'd ever paid money to see in theaters.  I didn't say anything to him, but had to laugh because the words about to come out of my own mouth were "That may be the best horror movie I've ever seen."  I'm not sure what caused disappointed patron to hate the movie so much.  Perhaps it defied his expectations.  Perhaps he was looking more for straight horror than horror-comedy.  Perhaps it got too weird for him.  Whatever it was, I'm both sorry and flabbergasted that he had such a bad experience.  I mean, the movie isn't for everyone--what movie is?--but to say it's the worst he's seen in theaters?  What could possibly have set him off like that?

I digress.  Unfortunately, unless I address some elements of the film head-on, it's rather hard not to digress.  I suppose I'll just have to touch lightly.  I love when genre films acknowledge the tropes and archetypes that form them.  I love even more when those tropes and archetypes are subverted.  Though I'm not a horror fan, this movie could have been made just for me.  I thoroughly enjoyed it and I recommend it especially to fans of horror, but also to fans of movies in general.

Mirror Mirror

I saw Mirror Mirror nearly a week ago, and the fact that it's taken me this long to say anything about it probably says quite a bit about the movie.  It was exactly what it looked like it would be in the previews--silly, fluffy, harmless.  The costumes were colorful and bizarre.  The performances were lighthearted and amiable.  The story was straightforward and low-stakes.   Really, I'm not sure there's much more to be said about Mirror Mirror. 

At some point before seeing the film, I remember learning that it was directed by Tarsem (or Tarsem Singh, depending where in the credits one looks), the mind behind one of the most fascinating moves I've seen in the last year, The Fall.  There are plenty of criticisms one can lob against The Fall, but one thing it can't be accused of is being generic.  For what it's worth, I liked the film quite a bit.

So when Tarsem's name came up in the credits, I realized I'd forgotten his role in the film altogether--and then immediately found myself unsurprised to see it there.  The film did have a certain visual flair.  However, I found myself more reminded of the decade-old miniseries The Tenth Kingdom than The Fall.  Granted, a lot of that came from the puppy-tinged relationship between the Prince and the Evil Queen.

One positive I will offer is this: I liked that many of the seven dwarves were established beyond just one character trait (Sleepy, Grumpy, etc.)  Granted, they weren't that much more defined, but any time you have that many characters sharing all their camera time it's hard to establish complete personalities.  They were even given a backstory, and an explanation for why they all came together.  It was a refreshing touch.

Overall, I'd rate the movie as harmless and fluffy.  I laughed a few times and promptly forgot about it.

The Hunger Games

Well, the first Movie Event of the year was The Hunger Games, and good for it.  I did the whole thing--bought advance tickets, got to the theater an hour early to wait in line, cried a bit.  Overall, I thought the movie was a fully faithful to the book and contained stirring, engaging performances.

The first thing I noticed as I waited in line was the span of ages.  Sure, roughly half of the audience was under the age of fourteen--and that's fine.  After all, the novel IS a young adult book.  Still, there were older couples, older teens, twenty somethings without kids--it was all in all a pretty diverse audience, age-wise.  The next thing I noticed was that even among the younger audiences, girls only outnumbered boys by a little.  To me, that's just fantastic.  The Hunger Games may not be for everyone but at least we don't have to hear complaints that it's just for girls.  A strong female protagonist naturally engages more girls than boys, while a strong male protagonist is more likely to appeal to both.  Maybe The Hunger Games is showing a turn of the tide.

On the other hand, maybe I'm giving it too much credit.  Perhaps we'll see.

As far as the film itself goes, what is there to say that hasn't been said already?  Jennifer Lawrence was fantastic.  The Capitol was callous and gorgeous.  I really enjoyed the added scenes--the small snippets we didn't get in the book.  Of all characters, Seneca Crane probably benefited the most by these additions.  President Snow will get his chance in future movies, as will Haymitch.  But between scenes with these two characters and the Gamemaking room, Seneca (and his beard) really comes into his own in a way he didn't in the books.  I also liked the addition of the District 11 scene.  Having the book from Katniss's perspective made the action more immediate, but the movie had a little room to breathe and took advantage of it.

As I said, there's little to more I can add to the discussion of The Hunger Games--so much has already been written.  But I must say, I'm on a winning streak for movies this year.  Even those which I liked a little less than others were still not bad.  Here's hoping it continues.

Coriolanus

Shakespeare is meant to be seen, not read.  This was more clear than ever to me with Coriolanus.  While I like to say I understand Shakespeare well when I read it, the action and visual with it just makes it so much better, so much clearer.

Overall, I recommend this movie.  There are moments about which I am unsure but as a whole, it's a compelling and pointedly well-acted movie.  I was universally impressed by the performances, with Vanessa Redgrave's standing out even above the rest.

I'm not familiar with the original play, beyond a few lines here and there, but still found the plot and motivations easy to follow.  If you are the kind of viewer who requires a purely good, easy to cheer for character, this may not be the film for you.  While every character had a logical motivation, it was hard to wish for one to succeed over the others.

The citizens of Rome are certainly not shown in a great light, but then, neither are the soldiers.  Every character wants what is best for him or herself under the guise of what is best for everyone--but not one character (save perhaps Brian Cox's Menenius) is able to consider what is truly best for all.  The citizens, demanding their share, cannot accept a leader who does not respect their needs.  Coriolanus thought the citizens well below him, which is not exactly an admirable trait in a leader.

This story is rich with political intrigue and questionable themes, but even then I can see why it's not one of Shakespeare's more well-known stories.  Some of its characters are rather shallowly drawn and not a single one is purely likeable.

I must question one decision.  Without spoiling a 400+ year-old story, I have to say that the last shot (not the last scene, but the final shot itself) was an odd choice.  The end was clear in the second-to-last shot, which was framed much more memorably and beautifully than the last.  And perhaps the choice to end with an awkward shot was meant to have a deeper meaning, but I still have to question it.  The pentultimate shot was, in my opinion, a much better ending.

Still, Fiennes' modern twist to an old Roman story grounds it in an interesting way, and as I said the performances are universally riveting.  It's not a movie for everyone, but it's certainly one that's well done.

The Artist

This year's Best Picture winner was the silent film The Artist.  I haven't seen enough of the nominees this year to make a decision over whether or not it was the right choice, but I enjoyed it quite a bit.  It was clever and "artsy" without being too out of reach.  I can see why it will never be a blockbuster hit, and that's alright.  Not every movie should be a blockbuster.  How dull would that be?

My favorite parts where those where the film almost became self-aware; George's dreams about suddenly getting caught in a "talkie" and his fixation on the cop's moving lips come to mind.  I suppose "meta" could be the right term here.

I can't say the film was subtle, exactly--then again, what silent film is?  The opening lines of the movie included its silent star proclaiming that he'll never talk--words that become more and more significant as the film goes on.  He and his wife can't ever communicate.  His strongest relationship is with his dog, and even that never requires speaking.  His film audience loves him, and he never says a word to them.  Even the film posters ("The Thief of his Heart" and "Guardian Angel," for example) reflected what was going on on screen.  While the film never quite spells out the subtext, the subtext resonates pretty strongly throughout.

 Still, I recommend the film.  It was emotional and evocative, artistic without being overbearing, and featured a very strong lead performance from its Best Actor Jean Dujardin.  Thumbs up.

Chronicle

I saw this movie nearly a month ago, and it has taken me this long to write about it.  I actually enjoyed almost all of it.  I think that the end was a little too big, but I loved many elements of it.

First, I really enjoyed that it seemed like exactly what seventeen-year-old boys would do if they suddenly found themselves with superpowers.  They push themselves, they have fun, they don't bother to try too hard to figure out what was causing it. 

In every scene, the stakes rose higher and higher, so I suppose the ending was really inevitable.  I just found it...overblown, perhaps.  The only real issues I remember having, both in watching the movie and in thinking about it later, occurred within the last half-hour of the movie.  I don't wish to go into too much depth for the sake of anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet, but while the narrative doesn't fall apart, its tonal shifts are pretty serious.

On a more positive note, I really enjoyed the found-footage aspect of the film.  For one thing, it mostly made sense (though the addition of the video-blogger girl seems pretty forced).  For another, it allowed for some truly gorgeous camera angles, which is generally unusual in this style of filmmaking.  The floating camera work was intriguing and engaging and really well-rendered. 

Overall, I recommend the film.  I enjoyed it well enough to overcome the problems I have with it.  I found the performances engaging and the special effects enjoyable without being overwhelming.

The Woman In Black

The other day, I went to see the Victorian horror flick "The Woman In Black."  While it was an effectively creepy story and setting, I found myself feeling ... underwhelmed.  I'm not sure what I was expecting--and I'm not sure why I was expecting anything more than a creepy, jump-filled haunted house story.  I certainly jumped plenty of times, whisper-hissing "shut up!" to my sister each time she laughed at me.  I lost count of how many times faces (or other startling images) appeared in previously empty spaces.  Still, those jumps didn't end up adding up to much.

I do think Daniel Radcliffe acquitted himself quite nicely.  His character's motivations were always clear and relatable, he interacted well with everyone with whom he shared the screen, and his scenes of growing fear and tension worked really, really well.  I admit, I was not all that impressed with his early career but I think he's grown a lot, and I wish him well.  I hope he's able to distinguish himself from Harry Potter.  This film is a good step.

Despite the strength of its lead's performance, however, the film was really quite slight.  The film began to explore some interesting ideas--particularly in its dealings with Mr. Daily, Mrs. Daily, and Arthur and how they each dealt with their grief in personal, tragic ways.  Mr. Daily rejecting the supernatural outright, insisting later that it helped him to believe his son was happy and safe in heaven.  Mrs. Daily clinging to her "twins," the tiny puppies she so clearly took in as surrogate children.  Arthur's growing interest in spiritualism and the occult as a way to stay connected to his late wife.  Each of these could have helped build more weight into the film, but each was only touched on.

Despite its lean middle, I was satisfied with the ending of the film.  It seemed to fit with what we know of all the characters.  I'm not one to spoil, but an ending that leaves a few questions unanswered is rarely a bad thing, especially in a horror movie.


As is my way, I spent part of the evening after watching the movie researching it.  I knew that it was based on a novel and that that novel had also been adapted to a play.  I discovered the differences between the movie and the book, especially in the way each ended, but haven't decided which I find more effective.  I read about the stage play--a two-man show with a minimalist set seemed to match the slight feel of the story, and everything I've read about the staging sounds delightfully creepy.

All in all, The Woman in Black left me with a few thoughts, but none greater than this: I would love to see (or even stage) that play.