Updation... has it really been a month?! and MOVIES!
Hi again. I'm doing this a lot lately. Only difference is mostly I'm not posting coz I'm WRITING! hah. Trying, that is, succeeding on occasion. There is E&A progress and I am sorry to tease you all with it but I want to let the interested parties know that yes, there is progress.
I have seen a LOT of movies lately. Somehow, all of them were entertaining; hardly along the lines of brilliant or must-see, but a lot of fun... Spoilers in each cut, beware!
Lord of War:
I am not usually the hugest Nick Cage fan, but I have enjoyed a lot of his films in the past few years. National Treasure appealed to my goofy adolescent side without being in the slightest bit dumb, especially, and has an "indiana jones" quality that makes me sort of anticipatory for the sequel they're making. I found him extremely memorable in the unusual and (unneccesarily) violent Face/Off, although the John Travolta bad guy thing usually steals the show. But Lord of War was different, quirky, uncomfortable, violent, abstract, thought-provoking, mindless and brilliant. All at once, contradictory as that may sound.
It's a fine script, and the director does a fine job of fucking with our moral sense. Are we supposed to sympathise with Yuri (Cage) with his pragmatism and genius and not-quite-complete remove, because he is a genius, because he tries to control circumstances to minimize the fallout? We do - often. But then in counterbalance is Vitale (Jared Leto) who is mesmerising as Yuri's younger brother, coke-addled and tortured by his part in the arms trade, flipping from addiction to addiction, relying on the brother who helped destroy his soul to be the one who helps him rebuild it.
The elaborate wooing of Yuri's supermodel wife (Bridget Moynahan), the facade of their marriage, the circumstances that draw him back into arms trade after she induces him to stop, and their final schism are at odds with the desperate pursuit of evidence and Yuri himself that is the obsession of Ethan Hawke's character, Interpol Agent Jack Valentine, with whom it's obvious we should sympathise... but we don't. At least, not until the end with its thought-provoking and frustrating and enlightening twist.
Special mention here to Ian Holm, of whom no mention or praise is too much, in his ambiguous role as an arms dealer with an agenda; the death of Simeon Weisz cements Yuri's fate... and yet we can't help but sympathise, all the same. At least until just before the credits roll.
Cinematographically, the movie's surprisingly complex. Some scenes have too much impact, visually; they're graphic-novel freeze-frames and it becomes hard to encompass everything you're seeing. Some are stark and hit that much harder: the scene where Yuri, stoned and despairing, encounters the hyenas, for example: the subtext is blinding. I think, however, that the lead-up to Vitale's death and the manner of it was perhaps the best in the movie.
An excellent movie. I love it and hate it at the same time... and, like very few other movies, Schindler's List among them, it'll be one of those DVD's that I buy that may still be in the shrink-wrap in three years time. I saw this a few months ago, and it's all still incredibly vivid. I don't need to see it again, but then again, it may be one of those movies you have to see five times to comprehend.
Ice Age 2:
OMG, fun. A mammoth thinks she's a possum. An ice-age water-park. But the sloth steals the show: the fire-king sequence? Hilarious. Nearly as good is the vultures doing their rendition of "Food, Glorius Food" from Oliver!, which had me laughing and cringing at the same time.
This was a lot of fun, and even with my I'm-not-a-grown-up delight in animated movies making sure I see a lot of them, I'd put this on the DVD purchase list. Crash and Eddie remind me of the Weasley twins. And is it wrong that every time Diego speaks, the Denis Leary voice makes me a little hot under the collar? Is it wrong to like Denis Leary's voice?
I'm going to hell, obviously.
M:I:3 -
As my dear friend Janus says: Tom Cruise died (briefly)... what's not to like?
A well-crafted MI movie that had good teamwork, clever scripting, and a minimum of Cruise focus. Much more like the first MI movie, and therefore much more entertaining than the hero-shot-fest of MI2. Laurence Fishburn was a welcome (if ambiguous) presence; he does malice and authoritas just so well. Phillip Hoffman is a creepily effective villain; perhaps its the contrast between his rather benign face and voice and the words that come out of him... he was GOOD. And Ving Rhames, Maggie Q and Jonathon Rhys Meyers are fantastic as the team. The by-play is one of the best features of the film.
On the downside, the romantic moments and emotional vistas presented us by Mr. Cruise as Ethan Hunt were, in my opinion, unnecessarily gooey and forced at times. Long moments of close-focus Tom were wonderful when he was a young maverick pilot, but now they're... a tad too much. Still, the action-emotion is great; I think he may actually do his best performances in his anti-hero moments. The count-to-ten sequence was surprisingly effective.
My favorite moments of the film, outside the wonderful IMF team sequences (which I love, not just because the team is great, but because of the callback to the original show and the original spirit of it, that MacGuyver-esque quality: ingenuity, timing, humor, action) were the final few scenes in China - particularly the part where Ethan dies, but surprisingly not because he dies. His resurrection is a gooey moment, but acceptable, I guess. But particularly the part where his wife's about to save him by killing him and he makes her stop; the timing was perfect, and funny. I also really enjoyed the brief appearances by Simon Pegg as Benji-the-IT-genius; hilariously done. And, of course, Mr. Fishburne: Please do not interrupt me while I'm asking rhetorical questions.
Is it just me, or does Michelle Monaghan look eerily like Katie Holmes? Anyway, she makes a charming Mrs Julia Hunt, and the wedding scene is gooey and giggly at the same time.
All in all, a huge improvement on the 2nd MI movie; the return to the MI mode of the first and the series is a welcome one. And the surprisingly clever plot line entertains despite preponderance of Tom. Worth seeing, but this one I'll rent if I'm in the mood, not buy, unless I'm having a wealthy, weak moment.
DaVinci Code: dear God (literally)! Well, maybe his ulti-great-grandaughter. It occurs to me that if the Churches want this ignored, the best thing they could have done was keep their opinions to themselves. It's watchable (though the guy two rows in front of me was snoring... SNORING!) and quite entertaining if you don't think about it much.
The book utilised an intriguing but hardly original historical backdrop to frame another treasure-hunt; the movie follows suit without any epiphany of unexpected quality. The heroes have pleasant, but muted, appeal, and the bad guys are melodramatically drawn. Still, as one could expect from an adaptation of pop-fiction miracle of controversy over art, the best things about this movie is the people in it. Tom Hanks brings quality to a role that is not particularly brilliantly written; Audrey Tautou shows flashes of the charm she brought to Amelie, and Sir Ian, of course, steals the show. He has all the best lines, after all.
Some moments are unbearably sustained: the castigo corpus meum moments of Silas' self-flagellation for example. Even with the leavening of a bleached Paul Bettany, the character of Silas is so melodramatically overdrawn that I found myself wanting Adam Sandler's universal remote to skim forwards through the moments (again and again) where they remind us he's a tortured, self-torturing, fanatically loyal, albino monk of the Opus Dei. Even naked Paul doesn't redeem the unneccesary attention to the cilice and whip. A very little goes a very long way.
Jean Reno, who is a wonderful performer (given something to perform) is competant as Bezu Fache; still, the presence and malice Dan Brown gifted the book character with - and if I do Brown any credit in his work, it's for his ability to draw character - just isn't there. He's a relatively impotent opponent; as are, sadly, all of Langdon's antagonists in the movie. McKellan, who performs superbly in the role of Sir Leigh Teabing right up until the revelation of his treachery, tries to be a sympathetic villain at the last. He succeeds, but given the vividness of his academic character, his bad-guy act seems lacking. However, he redeems himself with the post-arrest sequence, including his soundless yelling at Langdon from inside the police car. That was beautifully framed. Still, I can't call any part of his performance less than 'quality work', because I don't think the fault is his. What weakened the denoument was scripting, perhaps, or direction? Both, no doubt.
The drawn-out, syrupy conclusion in Scotland was not particularly entertaining, although Robert and Sophie's half-joking conversation on miracles, and her amused attempt at one, was cleverly performed. The last sequence in Paris was actually very nicely filmed, but as Janus said (he's so quotable!) the whole thing was just to make sure that the audience really HAD been watching. There's rarely an element of surprise in the movie, but once again, I'm not sure that's the fault of the movie. After all, they're reproducing a book in which the only surprise for me was how gullible everyone was.
Another entertaining, but not overly so, movie. I doubt I'll buy it; it was clever, but I saw everything there is to see the first time around. The quality cast were wasted on a Ron Howard adaptation of a Dan Brown book... but it was nice to see them together, all the same.
X3:
Dare I hope that this will not be the last X-movie? We're told they're through, but they didn't shut the door, story-telling wise. And if they can make another movie like this, I shan't be sorry to see it.
Not that it's a brilliant movie - brilliantly entertaining at times, and clever, and fun while it lasts - but that wasn't what I was looking for in an X-Men, anyway. Escapism is the point, and they made it. I liked it. Well, I liked most of it.
Some things about these movies I've adored: Cyclops has 'tude, and it SUITS him. I like him in these movies, which never ever happened in years of comic reading. There's sly humor and fan-callouts and a lot of good action. Hugh Jackman is easy on the eyes. Shawn Ashmore is cute (yes, I'm going to hell again) and for some reason, Ben Foster makes me think of Draco Malfoy. In a nice way. Storm is a little more queenly in this movie, despite the fact that I'm still not sure Halle Berry is actually required to... you know, act. I don't have any faults to find with our pater mutant patriae: Patrick Stuart is above praise and criticism alike in this role, and I am glad to see them point out the moral knife-edge of his abilities, at long last. McKellan is, as Magneto, wonderfully chilly and malignant; his tentative manipulation of Jean/Phoenix is masterly.
Also, I have to profess to rather liking Ms. Pryde; especially her action work and attitude, and to appreciating the work of Kelsey Grammer (yet again) as Beast. But Hank lacked his usual loquatiousness, and there was not enough scientist about him; still, I can't blame that on the actor. And the-Iceman-cometh moment? rocked. I liked that. Though why he hasn't yet developed ice-slides if he realises he can make skates, I don't know... though it did allow for the fun phase-off-the-roof thing with Kitty.
On the downside: Rogue. OMG, wimp. When was Rogue (in the comic-U) ever a wimp? Even powered-down and half-naked in the Savage Land, the real Rogue is never, EVER a wimp. And give up her powers for Bobby? Nuh-uh, Sugah. I know the writers wrote themselves into a corner with the Marie character, but please... at least give the girl attitude and moxie and some of the charm that makes her the X-character I love most. Add to that the unforgivable lack of Gambit, and you see why I want another movie. GRR. FUCKING FIX ROGUE and GIVE US REMY.
(I'm not holding my breath.)
Also on the downside, the million glimpses of recognisable talents were cool, but how often do we have to see Ororo's eyes white out? Or Phoenix disintergrate someone? I kept wanting to hear Pyro say "Pull" every time Magneto hoisted a car, and while picking out the recognisable talents was a lot of fun, the movie had periods where there was more 'spot the name-mutant' than story. Of course, the presence of Jamie Madrox makes up for quite a bit.
However, I think it's ulimately the desire to name-drop that is the biggest downfall in this movie. They tried to include too much, so we get a lot of half-baked characters about whom we really know very little. Colossus looks cool, but do we even know his name is Piotr? Do we even know the names of the rest of the Brotherhood / Morlock crew that Magneto recruits? We get handed Arclight (Hey, shout-out!) on a platter, but the only reason we know Callisto's name is because she's in the publicity blurbs. A streamlined approach, with better focus on the people who mean something, usually makes a better story; instead, we get a whole four minutes of Angel and his family issues (though his first scene as a panicked boy is brilliant) which serve very little purpose other than poetic justice.
I don't think that it ruins the movie, though; the action is well done, the premise coherent, the moments of denoument effective and affecting. It's a fun movie. And when it winds up with Hank as a figurehead of human/mutant relations, and Magneto's powers evidently NOT gone... I have no serious criticisms. My regret, apart from the Rogue & Gambit thing, is that I didn't get to see the scene after the credits, as my friends did the post-movie OMG too much coke! rush to the ladies room. Someone able to summarise for me?
DVD? Sure, I'll buy it. I bought the other two, and I'm a sucker for X-Men and box-sets alike. And it was fun.
---
I miss BSG. I miss the regular appearance of good K/L on my flist; I miss having the impetus to write more of it myself. I hate that my TV-watching now seems to be mostly changing channels to avoid either a) Big Brother or b) Big Brother Adults Only. Is it October yet? And where is the fic, people?
Doc moment: My hypocrisy knows no bounds! Hee.
Hugs to the flist~!
I have seen a LOT of movies lately. Somehow, all of them were entertaining; hardly along the lines of brilliant or must-see, but a lot of fun... Spoilers in each cut, beware!
Lord of War:
I am not usually the hugest Nick Cage fan, but I have enjoyed a lot of his films in the past few years. National Treasure appealed to my goofy adolescent side without being in the slightest bit dumb, especially, and has an "indiana jones" quality that makes me sort of anticipatory for the sequel they're making. I found him extremely memorable in the unusual and (unneccesarily) violent Face/Off, although the John Travolta bad guy thing usually steals the show. But Lord of War was different, quirky, uncomfortable, violent, abstract, thought-provoking, mindless and brilliant. All at once, contradictory as that may sound.
It's a fine script, and the director does a fine job of fucking with our moral sense. Are we supposed to sympathise with Yuri (Cage) with his pragmatism and genius and not-quite-complete remove, because he is a genius, because he tries to control circumstances to minimize the fallout? We do - often. But then in counterbalance is Vitale (Jared Leto) who is mesmerising as Yuri's younger brother, coke-addled and tortured by his part in the arms trade, flipping from addiction to addiction, relying on the brother who helped destroy his soul to be the one who helps him rebuild it.
The elaborate wooing of Yuri's supermodel wife (Bridget Moynahan), the facade of their marriage, the circumstances that draw him back into arms trade after she induces him to stop, and their final schism are at odds with the desperate pursuit of evidence and Yuri himself that is the obsession of Ethan Hawke's character, Interpol Agent Jack Valentine, with whom it's obvious we should sympathise... but we don't. At least, not until the end with its thought-provoking and frustrating and enlightening twist.
Special mention here to Ian Holm, of whom no mention or praise is too much, in his ambiguous role as an arms dealer with an agenda; the death of Simeon Weisz cements Yuri's fate... and yet we can't help but sympathise, all the same. At least until just before the credits roll.
Cinematographically, the movie's surprisingly complex. Some scenes have too much impact, visually; they're graphic-novel freeze-frames and it becomes hard to encompass everything you're seeing. Some are stark and hit that much harder: the scene where Yuri, stoned and despairing, encounters the hyenas, for example: the subtext is blinding. I think, however, that the lead-up to Vitale's death and the manner of it was perhaps the best in the movie.
An excellent movie. I love it and hate it at the same time... and, like very few other movies, Schindler's List among them, it'll be one of those DVD's that I buy that may still be in the shrink-wrap in three years time. I saw this a few months ago, and it's all still incredibly vivid. I don't need to see it again, but then again, it may be one of those movies you have to see five times to comprehend.
Ice Age 2:
OMG, fun. A mammoth thinks she's a possum. An ice-age water-park. But the sloth steals the show: the fire-king sequence? Hilarious. Nearly as good is the vultures doing their rendition of "Food, Glorius Food" from Oliver!, which had me laughing and cringing at the same time.
This was a lot of fun, and even with my I'm-not-a-grown-up delight in animated movies making sure I see a lot of them, I'd put this on the DVD purchase list. Crash and Eddie remind me of the Weasley twins. And is it wrong that every time Diego speaks, the Denis Leary voice makes me a little hot under the collar? Is it wrong to like Denis Leary's voice?
I'm going to hell, obviously.
M:I:3 -
As my dear friend Janus says: Tom Cruise died (briefly)... what's not to like?
A well-crafted MI movie that had good teamwork, clever scripting, and a minimum of Cruise focus. Much more like the first MI movie, and therefore much more entertaining than the hero-shot-fest of MI2. Laurence Fishburn was a welcome (if ambiguous) presence; he does malice and authoritas just so well. Phillip Hoffman is a creepily effective villain; perhaps its the contrast between his rather benign face and voice and the words that come out of him... he was GOOD. And Ving Rhames, Maggie Q and Jonathon Rhys Meyers are fantastic as the team. The by-play is one of the best features of the film.
On the downside, the romantic moments and emotional vistas presented us by Mr. Cruise as Ethan Hunt were, in my opinion, unnecessarily gooey and forced at times. Long moments of close-focus Tom were wonderful when he was a young maverick pilot, but now they're... a tad too much. Still, the action-emotion is great; I think he may actually do his best performances in his anti-hero moments. The count-to-ten sequence was surprisingly effective.
My favorite moments of the film, outside the wonderful IMF team sequences (which I love, not just because the team is great, but because of the callback to the original show and the original spirit of it, that MacGuyver-esque quality: ingenuity, timing, humor, action) were the final few scenes in China - particularly the part where Ethan dies, but surprisingly not because he dies. His resurrection is a gooey moment, but acceptable, I guess. But particularly the part where his wife's about to save him by killing him and he makes her stop; the timing was perfect, and funny. I also really enjoyed the brief appearances by Simon Pegg as Benji-the-IT-genius; hilariously done. And, of course, Mr. Fishburne: Please do not interrupt me while I'm asking rhetorical questions.
Is it just me, or does Michelle Monaghan look eerily like Katie Holmes? Anyway, she makes a charming Mrs Julia Hunt, and the wedding scene is gooey and giggly at the same time.
All in all, a huge improvement on the 2nd MI movie; the return to the MI mode of the first and the series is a welcome one. And the surprisingly clever plot line entertains despite preponderance of Tom. Worth seeing, but this one I'll rent if I'm in the mood, not buy, unless I'm having a wealthy, weak moment.
DaVinci Code: dear God (literally)! Well, maybe his ulti-great-grandaughter. It occurs to me that if the Churches want this ignored, the best thing they could have done was keep their opinions to themselves. It's watchable (though the guy two rows in front of me was snoring... SNORING!) and quite entertaining if you don't think about it much.
The book utilised an intriguing but hardly original historical backdrop to frame another treasure-hunt; the movie follows suit without any epiphany of unexpected quality. The heroes have pleasant, but muted, appeal, and the bad guys are melodramatically drawn. Still, as one could expect from an adaptation of pop-fiction miracle of controversy over art, the best things about this movie is the people in it. Tom Hanks brings quality to a role that is not particularly brilliantly written; Audrey Tautou shows flashes of the charm she brought to Amelie, and Sir Ian, of course, steals the show. He has all the best lines, after all.
Some moments are unbearably sustained: the castigo corpus meum moments of Silas' self-flagellation for example. Even with the leavening of a bleached Paul Bettany, the character of Silas is so melodramatically overdrawn that I found myself wanting Adam Sandler's universal remote to skim forwards through the moments (again and again) where they remind us he's a tortured, self-torturing, fanatically loyal, albino monk of the Opus Dei. Even naked Paul doesn't redeem the unneccesary attention to the cilice and whip. A very little goes a very long way.
Jean Reno, who is a wonderful performer (given something to perform) is competant as Bezu Fache; still, the presence and malice Dan Brown gifted the book character with - and if I do Brown any credit in his work, it's for his ability to draw character - just isn't there. He's a relatively impotent opponent; as are, sadly, all of Langdon's antagonists in the movie. McKellan, who performs superbly in the role of Sir Leigh Teabing right up until the revelation of his treachery, tries to be a sympathetic villain at the last. He succeeds, but given the vividness of his academic character, his bad-guy act seems lacking. However, he redeems himself with the post-arrest sequence, including his soundless yelling at Langdon from inside the police car. That was beautifully framed. Still, I can't call any part of his performance less than 'quality work', because I don't think the fault is his. What weakened the denoument was scripting, perhaps, or direction? Both, no doubt.
The drawn-out, syrupy conclusion in Scotland was not particularly entertaining, although Robert and Sophie's half-joking conversation on miracles, and her amused attempt at one, was cleverly performed. The last sequence in Paris was actually very nicely filmed, but as Janus said (he's so quotable!) the whole thing was just to make sure that the audience really HAD been watching. There's rarely an element of surprise in the movie, but once again, I'm not sure that's the fault of the movie. After all, they're reproducing a book in which the only surprise for me was how gullible everyone was.
Another entertaining, but not overly so, movie. I doubt I'll buy it; it was clever, but I saw everything there is to see the first time around. The quality cast were wasted on a Ron Howard adaptation of a Dan Brown book... but it was nice to see them together, all the same.
X3:
Dare I hope that this will not be the last X-movie? We're told they're through, but they didn't shut the door, story-telling wise. And if they can make another movie like this, I shan't be sorry to see it.
Not that it's a brilliant movie - brilliantly entertaining at times, and clever, and fun while it lasts - but that wasn't what I was looking for in an X-Men, anyway. Escapism is the point, and they made it. I liked it. Well, I liked most of it.
Some things about these movies I've adored: Cyclops has 'tude, and it SUITS him. I like him in these movies, which never ever happened in years of comic reading. There's sly humor and fan-callouts and a lot of good action. Hugh Jackman is easy on the eyes. Shawn Ashmore is cute (yes, I'm going to hell again) and for some reason, Ben Foster makes me think of Draco Malfoy. In a nice way. Storm is a little more queenly in this movie, despite the fact that I'm still not sure Halle Berry is actually required to... you know, act. I don't have any faults to find with our pater mutant patriae: Patrick Stuart is above praise and criticism alike in this role, and I am glad to see them point out the moral knife-edge of his abilities, at long last. McKellan is, as Magneto, wonderfully chilly and malignant; his tentative manipulation of Jean/Phoenix is masterly.
Also, I have to profess to rather liking Ms. Pryde; especially her action work and attitude, and to appreciating the work of Kelsey Grammer (yet again) as Beast. But Hank lacked his usual loquatiousness, and there was not enough scientist about him; still, I can't blame that on the actor. And the-Iceman-cometh moment? rocked. I liked that. Though why he hasn't yet developed ice-slides if he realises he can make skates, I don't know... though it did allow for the fun phase-off-the-roof thing with Kitty.
On the downside: Rogue. OMG, wimp. When was Rogue (in the comic-U) ever a wimp? Even powered-down and half-naked in the Savage Land, the real Rogue is never, EVER a wimp. And give up her powers for Bobby? Nuh-uh, Sugah. I know the writers wrote themselves into a corner with the Marie character, but please... at least give the girl attitude and moxie and some of the charm that makes her the X-character I love most. Add to that the unforgivable lack of Gambit, and you see why I want another movie. GRR. FUCKING FIX ROGUE and GIVE US REMY.
(I'm not holding my breath.)
Also on the downside, the million glimpses of recognisable talents were cool, but how often do we have to see Ororo's eyes white out? Or Phoenix disintergrate someone? I kept wanting to hear Pyro say "Pull" every time Magneto hoisted a car, and while picking out the recognisable talents was a lot of fun, the movie had periods where there was more 'spot the name-mutant' than story. Of course, the presence of Jamie Madrox makes up for quite a bit.
However, I think it's ulimately the desire to name-drop that is the biggest downfall in this movie. They tried to include too much, so we get a lot of half-baked characters about whom we really know very little. Colossus looks cool, but do we even know his name is Piotr? Do we even know the names of the rest of the Brotherhood / Morlock crew that Magneto recruits? We get handed Arclight (Hey, shout-out!) on a platter, but the only reason we know Callisto's name is because she's in the publicity blurbs. A streamlined approach, with better focus on the people who mean something, usually makes a better story; instead, we get a whole four minutes of Angel and his family issues (though his first scene as a panicked boy is brilliant) which serve very little purpose other than poetic justice.
I don't think that it ruins the movie, though; the action is well done, the premise coherent, the moments of denoument effective and affecting. It's a fun movie. And when it winds up with Hank as a figurehead of human/mutant relations, and Magneto's powers evidently NOT gone... I have no serious criticisms. My regret, apart from the Rogue & Gambit thing, is that I didn't get to see the scene after the credits, as my friends did the post-movie OMG too much coke! rush to the ladies room. Someone able to summarise for me?
DVD? Sure, I'll buy it. I bought the other two, and I'm a sucker for X-Men and box-sets alike. And it was fun.
---
I miss BSG. I miss the regular appearance of good K/L on my flist; I miss having the impetus to write more of it myself. I hate that my TV-watching now seems to be mostly changing channels to avoid either a) Big Brother or b) Big Brother Adults Only. Is it October yet? And where is the fic, people?
Doc moment: My hypocrisy knows no bounds! Hee.
Hugs to the flist~!