March 2013 Movie Journal - Xanadon't

The two young leads lend quite a lot of charm to the movie and most of the supporting players are satisfyingly presented. The giants themselves are impressive enough, but lack a certain amount of freshness-- probably Peter Jackson's take over of the world is as much to blame as anything.

The manner in which the story is told and the handling of ideas around myth, legend, and tales of adventures of long ago work really well for the movie. And these things come together in clever and neat little ways. There are however some flaws in dramatic presentation-- often I felt too much attention, swelling music etc. were attached to certain scenes, and then not enough dramatic or emotional clout lent to other happenings.

And, as is often the case, some of the noisy CGI-fueled action goes on for too long near the climax of the movie. Still, Jack the Giant Slayer is a good bit of fun and taps into my personal taste more often than not. The story-construction is clever, the visuals are imaginative, and there's an emphasis placed on script and surprise when dealing in matters of humor, rather than post-modern irony and lame pop-culture references.

I don't expect much company in this, but I'd sooner revisit Jack the Giant Slayer than The Hobbit: An Unexpected and Needlessly Three Part Journey.

The two best characters in the movie, and James Franco

It might be half as good as last year's major prequel release, but I think even that would be giving Oz the Great and Powerful too much praise, and Prometheus not enough. This movie is riddled with problems ranging from rather minor to quite fundamental. Only rarely did it actually transport me to somewhere fascinating (and much of this took place inside the first 15 Black & White minutes) and I'm not positive that the words "magical" or "wonder" ever crossed my mind.

So what went wrong? Well for starters, we're given a character that didn't do much for me-- both in terms of the way Oz is performed and written. It seems I like James Franco less and less these days, and certainly this was a continuation of the trend for me. The absolute lack of complexity to his character didn't help matters-- yes, yes, we get it-- the guys not a real wizard, but just a self-absorbed huckster side-show magician/carny performer. Let's move on. No? Okay fine, 100 more minutes peppered with the same conversations regarding the man's character faults and internal battle to become someone great. *Sigh* There's just not much in to care about or root for with this Oz.

Ah, but luckily we've got a bunch of witches. Surely they'll rise to the occasion. Oh, wait... no. No, not really. Mila Kunis is flat-out miscast in her role here. It's not as noticeable pre-transformation (though the greatest of her talents might just be having big eyes), but it becomes painfully evident once her character goes green. I generally like Mila Kunis, just not here. She simply can't sell "angry witch". Every time she screams or yells is just sounds like pissed off Meg. Luckily Rachel Weiss feels like a more natural fit as her sister, but she doesn't exactly run around stealing scenes either.

And then we have Good Witch, Michelle Williams-- probably the best performance of the 4 leads. She brings a bit of grace and muted charm to the role. The problem is that by the end her character just feels bland and there's simply not a whole lot for her to do.

Things would've gotten truly hopeless, except that the two main computer animated characters are both fairly strong. The monkey and the little china doll girl are easily the most interesting characters on screen, if that tells you anything about the mediocrity we're dealing with here.

Visually the movie is full of vivid colors and computerized effects leaping in all directions (I avoided the extra expense of 3D effect), but it never amounts to a place that's terribly memorable or stamped by especially interesting style. The Emerald City looked cool and all, but that's about as far as it all goes. Finally, in the final act of the film we're given a couple "final showdown" sequences that truly are enjoyable, but now these scenes can only do so much to buoy a films that's basically sunk.

One has to admire the enthusiasm and love that went into the creation of Wreck-It Ralph, even if the moral of the story is one that's been done to death. But even despite the generic "be yourself and learn to love yourself" crux of the story, the movie does have undeniable heart and a genuinely affecting way of delivering on this theme.

The comedy here is pretty strong,and often very clever-- both inside and outside of the many gaming references. I wasn't completely sold on all the casting choices for the voice acting (Jane Lynch was a distraction and I'm not sure what Alan Tudyk was trying to achieve with the King Candy character but it didn't work) but luckily John C. Reilly was perfect as the hero, Ralph. In fact, I couldn't imagine having nearly as much fun with the film without him. Sarah Silverman wasn't as consistently great as Reilly, but her presence was a mostly welcome one. And I was really surprised to hear Jack McBrayer's distinctive voice playing the part of Fix-It Felix-- it was an unusual choice, but definitely the right one.

The movie is agreeably crowded with various problems, emergencies, and fires to put out. The sensory-overload setting for Sugar Rush and all its cavity-inducing wonder is swarming with viruses, glitches, moral dilemmas, soul-searching sessions, diabolical schemes, and the general sense of everything being on the brink of disaster at once. The pace of the film is more hyper-sonic than brisk-- it's all a bit dizzying at times, really, but I'd much prefer this than an animated slog-fest.

A more iconic and effective villain would've helped the film out a bit, but Wreck-It Ralph is still a strong animated effort that's worth checking out.

Like Monster, this is another tough movie featuring a true stunner of a performance from its central lead actress. Mary Elizabeth Winstead gives what is easily one of the best performances of 2012, though with such a limited release, the role was never destined to attract much attention.

Smashed is one of the most honest and thoughtful and completely in-touch depiction of alcoholism and the shaky recovery process I've ever seen tackled in cinema. (It beats Flight senseless in this department.) The movie centers around Kate, a late-twenties/early-early thirties 1st grade school teacher with a mounting drinking problem. Her husband, Charlie, consumes a great deal, too. On of the main differences between the two (at least at the onset), is that Charlie's life is one that more or less allows for this behavior without as much threat of negative consequence. In other words, in some ways, he has less to lose. Kate and Charlie are close, but much of the closeness is fueled by drink and the lifestyle that comes with it.

The movie is smart, raw, and professionally made-- and it manages to deliver a surprisingly comprehensive view of alcoholism and the culture that surrounds it while also working as a very effective and intimate case study of sorts. There isn't a whiff of judgmental or condescending attitude, nor does the movie cop to inspirational cliches or glossed over solutions to the conflicts presented. People behave and speak to each other in ways that feel so real it's almost uncanny. While it's in many ways Winstead's movie, a number of strong performances from a perfectly assembled supporting cast adds an extra level of authenticity to the film.



There is a subplot to the movie involving an invented pregnancy that doesn't always strike the perfect notes, but it's integral to the way the film unfolds so I found some room for forgiveness there. Oh, and the ending is brilliant. Smashed may not be the most user-friendly movie to come along, but despite the tough material on hand, it's ultimately a rewarding and worthwhile watch.

A gritty movie and something of a downer tracking the unlikely and unconventional romance between a whale trainer (Cotillard) who loses her legs in a freak accident and a drifting street-fighter (Schoenaerts). The movie is tough and beautiful, often at the same time, but a detached approach in it's telling and a somewhat problematic final act turn a film that should be more memorable into something somewhat forgettable.

The circumstances surrounding why I watched this piece of garbage (and worse, watched the entire fucking thing) were utterly terrible. The movie itself was arguably worse. I've more to say, but for now I'm doing my best to distance myself from the entire situation.

Sean Penn overdoes things as he's apt to do. I understand that this movie worked for some people. But not me.

Vastly superior to just about everything I've seen in the last ten (twenty?) years that tackles the emotional roller-coaster of teen-romance. After a generic opening title sequence, the movie quickly won me over and gained my affection completely as it went along. Great jobs from all the young performers and a script that is smart, earnest, and actually in-touch with emotional reality. It's the type of movie that is such a wonderful compromise between light/conventional Rom-Com and self-consciously quirky indie-fare, that dwelling on any slight faults just feels wrong to me.

It's sweet, it's fun, and it's not afraid to be either of those things, plus more.

By this time I'd forgotten anything I might have heard about Monster when it came out 10 years ago. All I really knew going into it was that it was a "heavier" film and that it featured Charlize Theron in a character that required true transformation.

What I did not know about Monster is that it is, A: based on real people and real events and, B: that it is a complete and total fucking downer of a movie.

Monster really is about as grim as well-known English-language movies get. In fact, I'm positive that I'll never watch it again. There's an almost unbearable sadness that clings to Charlize Theron's performance, in the way that it conjures up the very real tragedies and misfortunes and desperations that are often attached to many of the down and out and/or never-had-a-chance-to-begin-with people that I've encountered or known in my life, and that I surely will continue to encounter. The people that society doesn't have a place for. Or the people that society has given up on. Or sometimes the people that have given up on themselves.

The people I'd rather didn't stroll into my bar, and possibly upset one of the unspoken contracts that exists between ownership, myself, and the patrons. The unspoken contract that basically states, "This is a safe and respectable place to hang out where you can drink/eat in a comfortable setting surrounded by others that are more or less like you. Where the chances of being confronted with unpredictable/irrational behavior or being forced to endure the nonsensical ravings of somebody off the street is minimal. And should such event occur, it will be dealt with swiftly and accordingly."

This may all sound slightly off subject, but this, for me, is what Theron's devastating and incredible performance evokes. It's a performance that is frightening and powerful in its uncanny realness. It reminds of the people that we've encountered, but that we haven't been able to truly help. The sheer humanity in her performance reminds of the scary realization that the separation between myself or yourself and "these" people is perhaps thinner than any of us would like to imagine.

As great as Charlize Theron is, Monster itself never adds up to a GREAT movie. Perhaps that's for the best. I don't know if I could've taken it if it had.

A world-class violinist, husband, and father of two young children has decided to die and we jump forward to his funeral 8 days later. The bulk of the film takes place inside the happenings of those eight days. We follow his actions and his thoughts in present time, across memory, and even venture into his imaginings for a future that excludes him.

Of course there is a girl.

The movie is certainly imaginative and playful, despite the somber backdrop to the story. It's visual techniques are all over the place, and for the most part this works. Maybe think of it as something akin to a lesser effort from the contemporary visionary Jean-Pierre Jeunet. And really, that still ain't half-bad.

I'm clueless (and a bit frustrated) as to how this was ever nominated for an Academy Award. The animation is rough, if not outright bad, and features nothing in the way of individual style or unique quirk to absolve it of its basic mediocrity.

The story and characters are arguably worse. There's very little creativity or imagination when it comes to the events of the story and the characterization is completely bland and without charm. The writers rely on simple archetypes and labored and blunted references to other characters in other (better) movies.

I really don't think it's that my taste has been "Disnified" or "Pixar-ed" to an offensive degree. If my animation doesn't "pop" and the jokes don't roll off at 20 laughs per minute, that's fine. But then I'd better be moved in some way, or be given something to think on while I'm watching the latest Not Major Animation Studio kid's movie.

8 movie monsters (awesome) compete in a series of early 90s style Saturday afternoon televised wrestling matches (double-awesome). David Foley, of Kids in the Hall fame, stars (triple-awesome). So how is nobody talking about this?

Monster Brawl is awesome and also quite terrible. I don't recommend watching it sober. Let me know when you want to borrow it.


Official Monster Brawl Teaser Trailer.mov

Yes, well... this one's got a little bit of everything. Vincent Cassel is superbly crazy here.

Dave Grohl [deyv grohl]
noun

1. workaholic; constant juggling of many projects at once, continual pursuit of new ventures and challenges; a real dave grohl around the office
2. multi-talent; particularly as concerns musical instrumentation; Bo Jackson was the dave grohl of sports back in the day
3. perpetually relevant figure; highly respected within music industry and amongst musical artists spanning genre and era; it would be easy to hate on Dave Grohl if he wasn't such a... well, such a dave grohl
4. music industry anomaly, ie: Dave Grohl gained fame while playing in an early 90s Seattle-based grunge band and not only didn't die but in fact has maintained a prolific creative and musical career and is widely considered to be "legitimate" in all senses of the word
5. badass human being; Dave Grohl seems like a genuinely awesome dude that appreciates artistry, passion, and humor-- the guy is just really fucking cool. Wouldn't it be neat if more people were like Dave Grohl?
6. director of the 2013 documentary entitled Sound City

Since I'm spending a good chunk of time with animated features these days, I decide to push Akira to the top of my 5x5 queue. I figure this would be a nice way provide some context and point of comparison.

I'm not sure how I've managed to make it this long in life without encountering this movie before, but I suppose stranger things have happened. At any rate, it was never an intentional thing... just something that didn't happen for one reason or another. Thanks goes out to the giraffe for taking a proactive approach to my passive negligence :)

So... how did Akira measure up to the hype?

To put it simply, pretty damn well.

Having finally seen the film it's pretty easy to recognize it as a cinematic landmark of sorts. Not only was the film no doubt far ahead of its time upon its 1988 release, but it still felt fresh and innovative watching it tonight. The animation is superb- it's extremely colorful, it handles "light" and "dark" with equal expertise and stylish beauty, and demonstrates a very impressive attention to detail. At times the images rush at us in hyper-kinetic speed, while other sequences linger lovingly, and are often presented with a highly cinematic sensibility. Fantastic "establishing shots" of grand proportions give way to "tracking shots" in which the viewer sort of rolls over and through the images, drawing closer and closer to the focal point of a scene. It's really brilliant, the way the animators lead us through Neo-Tokyo in imaginative and thoughtful ways, often bringing this world to the viewer in a way that a camera could never do.



All of these dizzying heights in animation serve the story of a post-World War III, structurally and morally decimated Tokyo. Here we meet a young biker-gang that fill their days and nights by kicking up trouble and excitement wherever they can find it in this dystopian society overrun with secret military activities, over-zealous scientists, and corruption as far as the eye can see. One such secret military operation involves the locating and developing of Japanese youths that demonstrate psychic ability. We're not certain what the ultimate aim of all this is, but we get the feeling that it can only end badly. Anyway, one of these biker kids, Tetsuo, attracts the attention of the powers that be, and it is discovered that he may contain everything these suspicious characters are looking for. His friend and "superior", Kaneda, must try to rescue Tetsuo from this no good agency's nefarious grasp.

And so we have the basic outline of the story. But as one can imagine, a 2 hour movie (apparently based off of... like, a million or something, pages of graphic novel) has a tendency of taking us all sorts of places. For the most part, things proceed in a comprehensible and satisfying manner. But if I do have a complaint about the film it's that it leaned on my patience a bit at times (thought not to the point that I was ever bored). The characters are mostly well drawn, but there is some lack in characterization amongst even the main players that had me wrestling with plot logic or motivations or connections at times.

Still, the events all lead to a pretty powerful series of concluding sequences, and there's enough in the way of ideas and imagination at play that viewers can approach the film at as deep or as shallow a level as they like and ought to walk away satisfied.

And I shouldn't depart without mentioning just how great much of the music is. The entire setting and atmosphere of this Sci-fi/anime/dystopian nightmare/human-drama/epic is complimented in some awesome ways by the music. Whether it's lyrical strings and Japanese drumming or ominous, energetic, "industrial" sounding instrumentation, the music in the movie has a distinct and powerful presence that can be ranked high among Akira's achievements.




Oh, and as long as I'm having trouble shutting up about this movie...

Pretty astonishing how Akira and Grave of the Fireflies (see below) came along in the same year to completely explode the scope of animation as an art-form and vehicle for social consciousness. Probably in many ways the most important single year in Japanese animation.

A fun offering from director Hayao Miyazaki that predates the formation of Studio Ghibli proper. The central character, Lupin, is based (I guess) on a Manga comic (whatever that is) and there are other movies that feature him. Maybe I'll check some of them out.

At any rate, he's a very fun and likeable smart-ass, jokester, smooth operator of a guy and his side-kick is pretty chill too (I really don't know how else to say it). They're a couple of well-practiced, most-wanted, and highly unprofessionally professional thieves that I imagine always have their eye out for the next big score. And for Lupin that "score" is as just as likely to be a charming female as a bank-job or some other cash-grab.

The Castle of Cagliostro certainly has a bit of James Bond in it. But it also has a sort of humorous take on 1970s New Hollywood feel to it that I really liked. The animation is playful and sharp and highly expressive in an efficient way. There are times when the story lags a bit, and some of this is due to a possible over-abundance of characters, but all in all there are enough inspired suspense/action pieces to keep things moving along at a nice pace and I did have fun rooting for our hero.

Definitely an enjoyable watch!

Miyazaki's follow up to his Lupin installment is a much more serious-minded affair, though that's not to say the movie is without its points of levity. The film is fable-like in some ways, and much of it trades on environmental consciousness and eco-sentiment. I don't mean to make this sound like a negative attribute-- it's not. And certainly there is a love and a poetry and a level of thoughtfulness to it all that really gives the film its soul.

One the things that strikes me about Miyazaki's work is his ability to create small surprises within his films. One such moment in Nausicaa occurs when our young aviation-skilled heroine is attempting to lead a crew of her people out of danger. When all hope seems lost, she restores everyone's hope with the smallest of gestures- a smile. Within the context of the scene, no larger form of bravery and leadership could ever be humanly displayed. It's one of those wonderful moments that Miyazaki has a tremendous knack for.

At 124 minutes long, Laputa is every bit as long as an animated film has any right to be, and probably a little longer. Luckily this exorbitance is relatively forgivable due to the movie's many strengths. This is technically the first Studio Ghibli release, in that the production studio was not yet fully formed at the time the previous titles were produced. And who better to lead the way than the master himself, Hayao Miyazaki.

While Laputa may never quite muster up the poetry of Nausicaa, it rivals and perhaps exceeds it in sheer power of imagination. The characters are well drawn, and certainly we see incarnations of some of them in some of his later works. The settings are vivid and fun, and there's a good bit of fun to be had any time you get air-pirates involved. I can't help but think that the creators of the kid's cartoon series TaleSpin had seen this one a time or two.

Rewatch

Honestly, I was not looking forward to revisiting the impossibly sad Grave of the Fireflies. Even before I began the Studio Ghibli Mission, it loomed as a unwanted hurdle that I'd have to clear in order to keep moving through this project of mine. If you've seen the film, you might know what I mean. Then again, you might think me foolish for not embracing the chance to reacquaint myself with a true animation masterpiece.

In any case, rewatch Fireflies I did. While I'm still not entirely grateful for the opportunity, I'm mostly glad that I did it.

Truly Grave of the Fireflies is a testament to the powerful story-telling potential that animation can possess in ways that we're not generally accustomed to. It's tough to find any movie that presents the horrors and tragedies that war-culture can bestow upon humanity in ways as acute and moving as this one does. The fact that the film is animated would almost feel like a trick or a gimmick, were it not so authentically affecting at times and professionally crafted in every way.

Even still, there's a part of me that can't help but feel that Grave of the Fireflies smacks of just a bit too much self-pleasing dramatics at times. Don't crucify me for saying so-- there ARE many moments of profound and touching humanity and I generally like and appreciate the movie. It's only now and then that I feel like the movie gets a bit too bogged down in its own sad waters.

I'll be quite honest. I do not gravitate toward Westerns. In fact, I was a bit bummed that this earned the most votes in the list described above because there's a reason I've been putting it off. The funny thing is, for the most part I've enjoyed the Western films I have seen (though I don't think as much of the Dollars Trilogy as most, or anything Sergio Leone for that matter), and yet I generally go into them as something of a chore. But the people have spoken, and I thought better than to argue about it :)

Here we have a movie directed by and starring Clint Eastwood as the titular character. It takes place at the close of the American Civil War, and Eastwood soon becomes the last of a band of Rebel forces. No matter what the causes, war has a habit of bringing with it many atrocities and evils against mankind and things are not different here-- Josie Wales experiences this first-hand at a heartbreaking and tragic level, and these wrongs done to him at the hand of a group of Union soldiers is what informs the driving force of his character. All of this is told efficiently and by and large the movie movies swiftly forward without fussing over itself too much, and instead providing some good-old-fashioned entertainment, but the kind that's not afraid to get down and dirty when its called for.

I will say upfront that I'm not especially keen on Eastwood's movie persona as a rule. For me the tobacco-spitting, quick-on-the-draw, tough guy antics are fine and all, but over the years I've simply grown a bit tired of it. (I know. I must be a communist.) But it pleased to me and surprised me to find a good deal of humor at work in this script and this kept me engaged. In fact, I'll trade the lack of visual accomplishment when held up against one of Leone's installments for the added bonus of some extra wit present in Eastwood's directing effort and call it even. The presence of a couple of fun and nicely humanized and fleshed out supporting characters at play here was a bonus as well.

All in all, The Outlaw Josey Wales doesn't strike me as an extremely noteworthy cinematic event and it certainly doesn't qualify as a personal favorite, but at the same time I can easily see why people are taken with it. And it was nice to branch out and spend some time in a universe I don't often delve into, and one that presented itself as surprisingly agreeable.

More achingly and deliciously tragic than I remembered, and I mean this in a good way. There's not a character here that left me wanting, and the visual splendor and imagination on display can't be overstated. Still my favorite movie of 2012.

If ever there was mid 1990s film whose marketing campaign begged 14 year-old boys to sneak in to see it, 2 Days in the Valley was it. And that's exactly what my best friend and I did 16 years ago. As far as I could tell at the time, this movie looked as though it would be the next Pulp Fiction, but packed with sex-appeal.

Well, from what I could recall, the movie fell considerably short of Pulp Fiction greatness, but I remember feeling that it was still an agreeably charismatic and darkly funny movie with guns, girls, and a mostly clever, nontraditional story structure. Nothing life changing, but entertaining, nonetheless.

So why revisit it now? Simple. I happened upon a cheap, used copy and added it to my collection. And since I watched Monster a couple weeks ago, I simply had to even things out by watching the outrageously beautiful Charlize Theron in her feature film debut, and most sexually provocative role to date. There's no sense in denying the fact that my reasons for revisiting the film really aren't much different then they were way back then.

I do think that people were a bit two harsh in dismissing the film as simply a lack-luster Pulp Fiction clone. 2 Days in the Valley works because it allows itself and its characters to have fun. It's not afraid to be gritty and silly, and for me this works and succeeds in various degrees on both fronts. Still a major flaw in that Jeff Daniel's character simply disappears from the film without any real conclusions to his character.

My 7/7 rating stands.

This only barely qualifies as a rewatch as a friend and I were pretty intoxicated at the time. You might imagine there was a good deal of drunken chatter --both related and not at all related-- to the movie happening in front of us. But yeah, really not a thing I disliked about the movie from what I recall. So its 10/10 rating stands and I'll likely visit it again soon enough.