like to viddy the old films now and again
Hail, o my brothers.
I recently watched "Blindness". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861689/
I tell you, "Blindness" is "The Grapes of Wrath" of this decade (in cinema form). It is a zombie movie without the zombies. It is more depressing than "Life Is Beautiful" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118799/). "Blindness" is nearly as painful to watch as a pre-release screening of "Spanglish". It is that bad, just a terrible way to spend two hours and forty minutes. I suppose I may recommend it in good conscience to someone whom hated both themselves and other people.
Without need to, I tell you that "Blindness" is one of those movies which prompts one to ask "why" during the plot, and leaves one with a larger, emptier questioning "why" at the end.
Spoilers! after the cut, as per usual
The one joke, a contrasting bit of levity in "Blindness" is when one character, blind, asks their blind comrades to raise hands to volunteer. Weak sauce, "Blindness". Frankly I was more amused by the suffering death of the thief.
In contrast to "Blindness" I viewed a much better film. Better in artistic vision, better in characters, and certainly better in cinematography. (Although it would not be difficult to trump the cinematography of a pseudo-artsy film about blindness. Still, they might just have meaningfully attempted a broadcast radio serial about deafness.)
The better film was "Where the Wild Things Are".
Although the film adaptation of the book may have many faults (as one expects of Hollywood whorishly mining our treasured childhood books), know that unlike Lord of the Rings, the modern "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", "The Cat in the Hat", Chronicles of Narnia, et al, the author Maurice Sendak is still alive. So "Where the Wild Things Are" gets authenticity credit for that. Additionally, the film is a decent re-invention of a brief children's book. (Paradoxically, I believe the duration of the film directly negatesat least partlyconsidering it as a film for children.) I approve of the casting of Wild Things Are as well. Though the title sequence of the protagonist Max is a bit baffling, as he appears to be attacking his dog unprovoked, in retrospect I believe it serves as introduction: this is a film about one boy's rage.
For an angry, sort-of artistic film, perhaps "Where the Wild Things Are" can precede "A Clockwork Orange" and "Falling Down" in a film night of male id exploration.
(Randomwalker, there was a film I used to put with ACO and Falling Down: Do you recall what it was?)
"Where the Wild Things Are" is notably a superior film to faux-edgy "9". However, I personally feel the recent, live-action G. I. Joe movie was a more interesting interpretation of an existing work/plot.
(One thing I might say for "9" - it's plot had more direction than that of "Where the Wild Things Are". However, given that the animated characters of "9" were two-dimensional and might have actually been more interesting if they had been intended to be uninteresting and more identical, one would probably care little for the clichéd story in "9". "Where the Wild Things Are" centers around a single character, Max, and the larger-than-life projections of his child's mind into fearsome, ogre forms. In between the blandness of "9" and the emotionally-driven glimpse into a child's imagination/perceptions of WtWTA is the G. I. Joe movie, with more interesting characters and interesting plot twists than I had anticipated. Okay, so the Joes and their relationships are fairly predictable. And the over-all plot is what a reasonably bright person predicts a few minutes into the show. But I was impressed how well one of the cartoon's themes of "trying to do right" adapted to both live-action and our modern world and problems with potential threats from terrorism and other threats. I was pleased at the depiction of moral quandaries, the shades of gray in warfare when the enemy has a human face, and secretly thrilled that the heavy hand I expected to fall to the tune of "America Is Right" or "they're evil ~ they deserve it" did not fall. Okay, I have gotten waaay off track now.)
To wrap things up a bit, I would stress that "Where the Wild Things Are" does not seem intended for children. Perhaps artistic or emotionally unstable children. It lacks a clear, moral message apart from that mothers love their children, even if the child is a brat.
In more spoiler-ific words, Max has a poor attitude, bites his mother, and finally runs away, only in the end he receives milk and cake. The sister abandoning her younger brother at home, Max damaging his sister's room, the mother's date, any punishment Max or the sister might deserve - these are all left unresolved. Boys will be boys, and single mothers will spoil their son and raise them to be a fat kid.
I recently watched "Blindness". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861689/
I tell you, "Blindness" is "The Grapes of Wrath" of this decade (in cinema form). It is a zombie movie without the zombies. It is more depressing than "Life Is Beautiful" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118799/). "Blindness" is nearly as painful to watch as a pre-release screening of "Spanglish". It is that bad, just a terrible way to spend two hours and forty minutes. I suppose I may recommend it in good conscience to someone whom hated both themselves and other people.
Without need to, I tell you that "Blindness" is one of those movies which prompts one to ask "why" during the plot, and leaves one with a larger, emptier questioning "why" at the end.
Spoilers! after the cut, as per usual
The one joke, a contrasting bit of levity in "Blindness" is when one character, blind, asks their blind comrades to raise hands to volunteer. Weak sauce, "Blindness". Frankly I was more amused by the suffering death of the thief.
In contrast to "Blindness" I viewed a much better film. Better in artistic vision, better in characters, and certainly better in cinematography. (Although it would not be difficult to trump the cinematography of a pseudo-artsy film about blindness. Still, they might just have meaningfully attempted a broadcast radio serial about deafness.)
The better film was "Where the Wild Things Are".
Although the film adaptation of the book may have many faults (as one expects of Hollywood whorishly mining our treasured childhood books), know that unlike Lord of the Rings, the modern "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", "The Cat in the Hat", Chronicles of Narnia, et al, the author Maurice Sendak is still alive. So "Where the Wild Things Are" gets authenticity credit for that. Additionally, the film is a decent re-invention of a brief children's book. (Paradoxically, I believe the duration of the film directly negatesat least partlyconsidering it as a film for children.) I approve of the casting of Wild Things Are as well. Though the title sequence of the protagonist Max is a bit baffling, as he appears to be attacking his dog unprovoked, in retrospect I believe it serves as introduction: this is a film about one boy's rage.
For an angry, sort-of artistic film, perhaps "Where the Wild Things Are" can precede "A Clockwork Orange" and "Falling Down" in a film night of male id exploration.
(Randomwalker, there was a film I used to put with ACO and Falling Down: Do you recall what it was?)
"Where the Wild Things Are" is notably a superior film to faux-edgy "9". However, I personally feel the recent, live-action G. I. Joe movie was a more interesting interpretation of an existing work/plot.
(One thing I might say for "9" - it's plot had more direction than that of "Where the Wild Things Are". However, given that the animated characters of "9" were two-dimensional and might have actually been more interesting if they had been intended to be uninteresting and more identical, one would probably care little for the clichéd story in "9". "Where the Wild Things Are" centers around a single character, Max, and the larger-than-life projections of his child's mind into fearsome, ogre forms. In between the blandness of "9" and the emotionally-driven glimpse into a child's imagination/perceptions of WtWTA is the G. I. Joe movie, with more interesting characters and interesting plot twists than I had anticipated. Okay, so the Joes and their relationships are fairly predictable. And the over-all plot is what a reasonably bright person predicts a few minutes into the show. But I was impressed how well one of the cartoon's themes of "trying to do right" adapted to both live-action and our modern world and problems with potential threats from terrorism and other threats. I was pleased at the depiction of moral quandaries, the shades of gray in warfare when the enemy has a human face, and secretly thrilled that the heavy hand I expected to fall to the tune of "America Is Right" or "they're evil ~ they deserve it" did not fall. Okay, I have gotten waaay off track now.)
To wrap things up a bit, I would stress that "Where the Wild Things Are" does not seem intended for children. Perhaps artistic or emotionally unstable children. It lacks a clear, moral message apart from that mothers love their children, even if the child is a brat.
In more spoiler-ific words, Max has a poor attitude, bites his mother, and finally runs away, only in the end he receives milk and cake. The sister abandoning her younger brother at home, Max damaging his sister's room, the mother's date, any punishment Max or the sister might deserve - these are all left unresolved. Boys will be boys, and single mothers will spoil their son and raise them to be a fat kid.