(no subject)
I came across a phrase I liked when looking at an authors' twitter lately. In reference to a Lego-related problem: "that's not even a first world problem. It's a zeroth world problem."
My inability to immediately find Oryx and Crake to read from a library is a zeroth world problem.
This week we saw two movies from the nineties. Part of the movies were even set in the same year. I am going to write about them with untagged spoilers because they are so old. So, fair warning to anyone like me who had not previously seen them.
Movie 1: 12 Monkeys
I liked this movie, but I didn't love it. It hasn't aged that well. I thought the studio had probably forced Terry Gilliam to make some of the editing choices, but it turns out he had the final say - at least, according to Wikipedia. Overall, I think the movie is less than the sum of its parts. Great concept, some excellent visuals, very good performance by Brad Pitt and a strong one from Bruce Willis.
It falls down in a few places, though. The post-apocalyptic future is by far the most interesting part of the film and it spends the least time there. Other very interesting elements, such as another prisoner being sent back and the psychiatrist becoming more and more uncertain of her reality, get minimal attention. Instead we get long stretches set in the 90s where 90s things are happening.
Some of those aspects raise questions, too. If the scientists get their time travel down so precisely by the end of the movie, why don't some of them come back? Why would they have a loyal prisoner give Bruce Willis a gun and order him to shoot someone, when the loyal guy could do it? Or, this is really crazy, give them both guns to shoot the virus-carrier.
It's really hard to tell if this is intentional on the part of the scientists - that they have a vested interest in the post-apocalyptic world where they appear to be in control - or if it's a plot hole. It's even more jarring because it doesn't show up until the 11th hour of the film, at which point yes we get it, the flashback is happening okay yeah.
It's a daring and bold movie, but not every bold approach is a good one. With the ending how it is, I think the movie should've been considerably leaner and shorter. If you have a long movie and a "nothing really changed" ending, the audience is going to feel like their time has been wasted.
I think the concept behind the movie - time travel to avert or mitigate a global collapse - is pretty great. I may steal it for Apocalypse World or Paranoia.
Movie 2: Silence of the Lambs
Not to be unfair, but this one aged better and is just a better movie. Accordingly, I actually have less to say about it. The pacing is pretty good. The performances by the two leads are fantastic and - unlike a lot of movies that are quoted to death - it still works when you've heard like half the lines out of context. I can see why it was such a big deal in the 90s.
At the same time, it actually wasn't quite as visually disturbing and splatter-y as I expected. There's some gore but it's definitely more of a thriller than a modern "horror" title. In several scenes they very consciously choose not to show the gore and leave it to your imagination. This makes it more effective later on when you do really see Hannibal cut loose.
I'd heard, though, that it was just super disturbing in every way. It works, but it's hard not to share Clarice's faith in Hannibal's decorum - towards her, at least.
Some of the outfits are frighteningly dated, but otherwise this one is still a really fine movie.
It's only slightly shorter than 12 Monkeys, but flows in such a way that it feels quite a bit shorter. Moments of the film come across in a very Hitchcock-like way. After drinking some chianti while watching it (of course) I was quite ready to fall asleep.
My inability to immediately find Oryx and Crake to read from a library is a zeroth world problem.
This week we saw two movies from the nineties. Part of the movies were even set in the same year. I am going to write about them with untagged spoilers because they are so old. So, fair warning to anyone like me who had not previously seen them.
Movie 1: 12 Monkeys
I liked this movie, but I didn't love it. It hasn't aged that well. I thought the studio had probably forced Terry Gilliam to make some of the editing choices, but it turns out he had the final say - at least, according to Wikipedia. Overall, I think the movie is less than the sum of its parts. Great concept, some excellent visuals, very good performance by Brad Pitt and a strong one from Bruce Willis.
It falls down in a few places, though. The post-apocalyptic future is by far the most interesting part of the film and it spends the least time there. Other very interesting elements, such as another prisoner being sent back and the psychiatrist becoming more and more uncertain of her reality, get minimal attention. Instead we get long stretches set in the 90s where 90s things are happening.
Some of those aspects raise questions, too. If the scientists get their time travel down so precisely by the end of the movie, why don't some of them come back? Why would they have a loyal prisoner give Bruce Willis a gun and order him to shoot someone, when the loyal guy could do it? Or, this is really crazy, give them both guns to shoot the virus-carrier.
It's really hard to tell if this is intentional on the part of the scientists - that they have a vested interest in the post-apocalyptic world where they appear to be in control - or if it's a plot hole. It's even more jarring because it doesn't show up until the 11th hour of the film, at which point yes we get it, the flashback is happening okay yeah.
It's a daring and bold movie, but not every bold approach is a good one. With the ending how it is, I think the movie should've been considerably leaner and shorter. If you have a long movie and a "nothing really changed" ending, the audience is going to feel like their time has been wasted.
I think the concept behind the movie - time travel to avert or mitigate a global collapse - is pretty great. I may steal it for Apocalypse World or Paranoia.
Movie 2: Silence of the Lambs
Not to be unfair, but this one aged better and is just a better movie. Accordingly, I actually have less to say about it. The pacing is pretty good. The performances by the two leads are fantastic and - unlike a lot of movies that are quoted to death - it still works when you've heard like half the lines out of context. I can see why it was such a big deal in the 90s.
At the same time, it actually wasn't quite as visually disturbing and splatter-y as I expected. There's some gore but it's definitely more of a thriller than a modern "horror" title. In several scenes they very consciously choose not to show the gore and leave it to your imagination. This makes it more effective later on when you do really see Hannibal cut loose.
I'd heard, though, that it was just super disturbing in every way. It works, but it's hard not to share Clarice's faith in Hannibal's decorum - towards her, at least.
Some of the outfits are frighteningly dated, but otherwise this one is still a really fine movie.
It's only slightly shorter than 12 Monkeys, but flows in such a way that it feels quite a bit shorter. Moments of the film come across in a very Hitchcock-like way. After drinking some chianti while watching it (of course) I was quite ready to fall asleep.