Escanaba in da Moonlight is an ungodly hybrid of a creepy horror movie, a slap-stick comedy, a Rocky Horror Picture Show-esque cult fantasy, a serious drama, and just about everything else. Like EvilDead met the Three Stooges and Dumb and Dumber and they all went to a Michigan theme park with It's a Wonderful Life and Fargo.
It's bloody hilarious.
There are a lot of strange movies out there, but this is "Strange and Stranger" than any I have ever seen. At least, any that have remained watchable. This movie can be a bit off putting because of its reckless style, but it is worth it to get passed that. It may be a film like Napoleon Dynamite, notorious for requiring a second viewing to appreciate it. It's ability (and tendency) to bounce straight from creep show to fart joke is simply fascinating. It shows the versatile talents and arrogance of Jeff Daniels as he casts and directs himself in the lead role of a plot he wrote.
I'm a little surprised he didn't just break out into song. It wouldn't have been outrageously out of place.
Yet despite it's brazen leap-frogging and silliness, Escanaba in da Moonlight also has some important things to say. It uses as its vehicle a metaphor and scenario I don't understand (hunting), but I was still able to appreciate what it was saying with it.
I'd like to see the other film written by Daniels and Guy Sanville, which came out just one year later, Super Sucker.
Monday, June 21, 2010
9 to 5 (1980 movie)
9 to 5 only has two writers, but it seems like there were four who took turns. One would write a quarter, then hand it off. The character of the film would change pretty dramatically, but the pieces go together into a cohesive movie.
And it's a good cohesive movie. It is very funny and intelligent at the same time. Dabney Coleman, the male role, is ironically my favorite character to watch. He has to play an impressive smattering of different styles for the same character and he can make really funny faces.
This movie has an almost I Love Lucy style of humor which makes me cringe, watching in anticipation of some very bad things. It's also got some bizarrist humor and some realistic scenarios. In the end, it is a very eloquent and enjoyable film about womens rights, similar to a few other Dolly Parton movies, which everyone should see.
The movie does start out a little slow. I wasn't sure I would like it in the first ten minutes. But once the second segment began, I was hooked. The third segment was even better; the last segment was the funniest and tied it all up masterfully. I have been complaining about a lot of poor endings lately, but this movie had a good ending which matches the rest of the movie. It doesn't feel rushed, it doesn't seem like they got tired of writing, it is a planned denouement.
So even if the movie is a little fractured, it's fractured "Like Stained Glass" into a beautiful collage.
And it's a good cohesive movie. It is very funny and intelligent at the same time. Dabney Coleman, the male role, is ironically my favorite character to watch. He has to play an impressive smattering of different styles for the same character and he can make really funny faces.
This movie has an almost I Love Lucy style of humor which makes me cringe, watching in anticipation of some very bad things. It's also got some bizarrist humor and some realistic scenarios. In the end, it is a very eloquent and enjoyable film about womens rights, similar to a few other Dolly Parton movies, which everyone should see.
The movie does start out a little slow. I wasn't sure I would like it in the first ten minutes. But once the second segment began, I was hooked. The third segment was even better; the last segment was the funniest and tied it all up masterfully. I have been complaining about a lot of poor endings lately, but this movie had a good ending which matches the rest of the movie. It doesn't feel rushed, it doesn't seem like they got tired of writing, it is a planned denouement.
So even if the movie is a little fractured, it's fractured "Like Stained Glass" into a beautiful collage.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
James and the Giant Peach (1996 movie)
James and the Giant Peach turned out rather different from how I anticipated. I didn't anticipate so much live acting. I anticipated some fantasy realm peopled by stop-motion characters.
Instead, this film is a little in the vein of Pan's Labyrinth and Coraline as it integrates fantasy and reality. This movie has the most blatant and forward integration. Fantasy is real for everyone to see. It comes off as more of a kids movie than either of the others.
It is a decent little family movie, a Cinderella story, with music intertwined in a rather important way, but some of the songs that are song are laughably stupid. They might be entertaining to a 5 year old, but anyone else caught watching at that moment might choke. It's got several highly stereotyped characters, similar to other projects by Roald Dahl, and some architecture characteristic of Tim Burton.
James and the Giant Peach doesn't do anything particularly unique or highly interesting, but it can be a simple and entertaining movie. Watch it with young kids, older kids will just scoff at it.
I haven't read the book yet, so there is no comparison I can make. However, Burton seems to usually appreciate Dahl's vision.
Wizard People Dear Reader by Brad Neely (2004 audio movie parody)
Wizard People Dear Reader is meant to be played over the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, replacing the sound. However, I like it more on its own. It allows your imagination to fill in the details rather than having to watch the rather bad acting in that film, made all the worse when you can't hear what they are saying.
There are times while listening to Wizard People Dear Reader that the style gets tiresome. When the cursing and the shouting becomes all there is and therefore boring. But there are enough funny moment, enough style, enough departures from the original story to make it a good work in its own right and an "Awesome Parody". The humor is at its best in the simple metaphors and epitaphs that the characters use. Wizard People is infinitely "Quotable" and a great piece of underground pop culture.
There are times while listening to Wizard People Dear Reader that the style gets tiresome. When the cursing and the shouting becomes all there is and therefore boring. But there are enough funny moment, enough style, enough departures from the original story to make it a good work in its own right and an "Awesome Parody". The humor is at its best in the simple metaphors and epitaphs that the characters use. Wizard People is infinitely "Quotable" and a great piece of underground pop culture.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Understanding Comics The Invisible Art by Scott McCloud (1993)
A non-fiction comic. There aren't many of those. But a comic book that could be a text book, and the most readable text book I have ever seen, that is an achievement.
An achievement aided by its chosen medium. Comics are usually easier to read than straight text.
Understanding Comics is a very "Intelligent and Entertaining" at the same time. Seeing as it was about comics, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Neil Gaimain showed up again. To anyone who doesn't yet believe that comics can compete with any other "fine art" or "literature", read this book. Then go read Watchmen.
Mr. McCloud understands comics in a rather profound way; and he understands art and creating in just as profoundly. Profound enough to end his book by saying, "This book is meant to stimulate debate, not settle it." There are some things I would argue with, which could take up quite some room*, but on whether comics are an art or not, I don't want to devote any more time right now.
Understanding Comics describes in words all the strategies that a comic artist can use that Scott knows about. But, because it is a comic itself, he can also demonstrate it and he does so in many ways (every way he knows about). It makes for a variety of texture that is rather fun. At the same time, Scott's style shows through and his little avatar ties the whole thing together into an impressive continuous work.
I learned a lot and I enjoyed myself doing so. What more could an educator ask for?
It begs the question: should more text books take this style?
An achievement aided by its chosen medium. Comics are usually easier to read than straight text.
Understanding Comics is a very "Intelligent and Entertaining" at the same time. Seeing as it was about comics, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Neil Gaimain showed up again. To anyone who doesn't yet believe that comics can compete with any other "fine art" or "literature", read this book. Then go read Watchmen.
Mr. McCloud understands comics in a rather profound way; and he understands art and creating in just as profoundly. Profound enough to end his book by saying, "This book is meant to stimulate debate, not settle it." There are some things I would argue with, which could take up quite some room*, but on whether comics are an art or not, I don't want to devote any more time right now.
Understanding Comics describes in words all the strategies that a comic artist can use that Scott knows about. But, because it is a comic itself, he can also demonstrate it and he does so in many ways (every way he knows about). It makes for a variety of texture that is rather fun. At the same time, Scott's style shows through and his little avatar ties the whole thing together into an impressive continuous work.
I learned a lot and I enjoyed myself doing so. What more could an educator ask for?
It begs the question: should more text books take this style?
*One point I have contention with is Scott's definition of "art". It is just a teensie bit too broad. It is the definition I use for "culture". This level of broadness does a disservice to art and to the word itself by rendering it next to useless ("culture" means almost nothing because the word is so bloody broad, but in so many ways that is a good thing). That being said, there is a 'wisdom' in his definition. "Art" is a broader and harder to define concept that even pornography and obscenity. Really, it's a rather fluid concept and as such quite impossible to solidify without losing most of what you are trying to define. However, I feel that an important part of what makes "Art" art is an intent or purpose. Some sort of reason for making/doing what you have just made/done, even if that reason is to be seen as an "artist" making "art".
Sometimes. It's hard to avoid some pretentiousness. But see, I don't quite consider this review a piece of "art". It's more like an essay.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1866; translated by Sidney Monas, 1968)
Crime and Punisment is a "Pseudo-realistic Russian serial novel with massive philosophical and political intent written in 1866, before the USSR, World War II, or even the Franko-Prussian war which preceded World War I". How's that for a rating! Be unsurprised to find it very, very dry and a little longer than absolutely necessary.
Half of my criticism belongs to Dr. Sidney Monas, professor emeritus from the University of Texas and the translator of my copy. He looks like a decent fellow, pretty fun loving judging from his magnificent smile, however, I don't find him to be as much of a novel writer as a scholar. He didn't add anything to this work, which was probably his goal. I am very, very grateful to him for including whole names, though. Instead of saying something unilluminating like "S. Place" or "S--- Place" he uses the entire name "Stoliarny Place". Even though I don't know where that is, it is nice to have a handle. I just wish there was a glossary of names and places. Especially because everyone's got nineteen names and they look so similar to their friends to my untrained eye. By the time I finished the book, I was familiar enough with Russian naming and nicknaming that it wasn't a problem; but it took a lot of getting used to.
I admit that I am not a fan of this type of writing, if you couldn't tell. It is my bias. I am somewhat partial to our current writing style which doesn't go into quite this level of detail. I also like projects which are difficult to pull off in a serial publication style (though Watchmen is pretty good in those regards). Projects that refer back to themselves and are woven so tightly that the author almost has to edit the beginning after finishing the end.
The best part of Crime and Punishment is that it is wonderfully philosophical. There's a lot to think about and a lot to learn. This is not "empty writing". There are some brilliant discussions on topics such as justice and the nature of crime (the main subject) and human value. What makes a person a good person, and is that different than being a 'great' person? Is a man worth the same as an idea? The nature versus nurture debate comes up a few times as well.
It's just a pity there is so much dry text between the 20 or so interesting conversations.
Russian literature has this reputation for being "realistic". But in the case of Crime and Punishment, I find this not to be the case. Aspects are realistic, usually to its detriment, but over all, it is not. Most conversations are realistic, people just talk and wander off topic just as most real conversations hardly seem to even have a topic. Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov acts as a good device to keep things focused because he's so flighty and strange, constantly showing up and leaving perhaps for the sole purpose of ending conversations in a little more timely matter. Also, a lot happens which is a little hard to remember because it's hard to care about, just like reality (I have no idea what I was thinking about this time last week). What is unrealistic is how people behave. Dmitri Prokofitch Razumikhin's neive behavior can be explained away by his character, but Sonia Semionovna Marmeladov's irrational attachment to Rodia is just bizarre to me. She's known him for about five days by the end of the story (not the end of the book) and talked with him for maybe three or four hours and he's been an ass the entire time. And I have never heard anyone narrate every move they make to a person they are talking to. Too many characters are too queerly forgiving and, as is the case with a lot of literature from the industrial revolution, everyone's excessively sickly.
Perhaps that was just a true effect of all the pollution, but I've never known anyone half so sickly as the healthiest character from a 19th century novel.
I find this book to have an interesting idea, good conversations, but to be told in a boringly formulaic manner. People are very forgiving of ancient authors for if this novel were newly published by a modern author, he would be accused of underestimating his readers and for a good reason. Sidney admits himself in a preface that, well, Dostoyevsky wrote in such a hurry because it was for serial publicaion, so there are bound to be some inconsistencies. But let us admit these, and his penchant for reusing words over and over and over, as errors. It is somewhat nice that his style gradually, and sometimes starkly, changes style for it infuses a little color into the drab work.
I suppose, in the end, that the most distracting part of this book, the thing that makes it hard to pick up and continue reading, is that the main character is such a douche bag. If that's okay with you, then the book may be worth it to read.
Half of my criticism belongs to Dr. Sidney Monas, professor emeritus from the University of Texas and the translator of my copy. He looks like a decent fellow, pretty fun loving judging from his magnificent smile, however, I don't find him to be as much of a novel writer as a scholar. He didn't add anything to this work, which was probably his goal. I am very, very grateful to him for including whole names, though. Instead of saying something unilluminating like "S. Place" or "S--- Place" he uses the entire name "Stoliarny Place". Even though I don't know where that is, it is nice to have a handle. I just wish there was a glossary of names and places. Especially because everyone's got nineteen names and they look so similar to their friends to my untrained eye. By the time I finished the book, I was familiar enough with Russian naming and nicknaming that it wasn't a problem; but it took a lot of getting used to.
I admit that I am not a fan of this type of writing, if you couldn't tell. It is my bias. I am somewhat partial to our current writing style which doesn't go into quite this level of detail. I also like projects which are difficult to pull off in a serial publication style (though Watchmen is pretty good in those regards). Projects that refer back to themselves and are woven so tightly that the author almost has to edit the beginning after finishing the end.
The best part of Crime and Punishment is that it is wonderfully philosophical. There's a lot to think about and a lot to learn. This is not "empty writing". There are some brilliant discussions on topics such as justice and the nature of crime (the main subject) and human value. What makes a person a good person, and is that different than being a 'great' person? Is a man worth the same as an idea? The nature versus nurture debate comes up a few times as well.
It's just a pity there is so much dry text between the 20 or so interesting conversations.
Russian literature has this reputation for being "realistic". But in the case of Crime and Punishment, I find this not to be the case. Aspects are realistic, usually to its detriment, but over all, it is not. Most conversations are realistic, people just talk and wander off topic just as most real conversations hardly seem to even have a topic. Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov acts as a good device to keep things focused because he's so flighty and strange, constantly showing up and leaving perhaps for the sole purpose of ending conversations in a little more timely matter. Also, a lot happens which is a little hard to remember because it's hard to care about, just like reality (I have no idea what I was thinking about this time last week). What is unrealistic is how people behave. Dmitri Prokofitch Razumikhin's neive behavior can be explained away by his character, but Sonia Semionovna Marmeladov's irrational attachment to Rodia is just bizarre to me. She's known him for about five days by the end of the story (not the end of the book) and talked with him for maybe three or four hours and he's been an ass the entire time. And I have never heard anyone narrate every move they make to a person they are talking to. Too many characters are too queerly forgiving and, as is the case with a lot of literature from the industrial revolution, everyone's excessively sickly.
Perhaps that was just a true effect of all the pollution, but I've never known anyone half so sickly as the healthiest character from a 19th century novel.
I find this book to have an interesting idea, good conversations, but to be told in a boringly formulaic manner. People are very forgiving of ancient authors for if this novel were newly published by a modern author, he would be accused of underestimating his readers and for a good reason. Sidney admits himself in a preface that, well, Dostoyevsky wrote in such a hurry because it was for serial publicaion, so there are bound to be some inconsistencies. But let us admit these, and his penchant for reusing words over and over and over, as errors. It is somewhat nice that his style gradually, and sometimes starkly, changes style for it infuses a little color into the drab work.
I suppose, in the end, that the most distracting part of this book, the thing that makes it hard to pick up and continue reading, is that the main character is such a douche bag. If that's okay with you, then the book may be worth it to read.
The Invention of Lying (2009 movie)
The Invention of Lying reminds me a little of Plain and Normal. Which isn't really a good thing. The humor is a little more palatable, but it is depressing, dry british humor all the way though. Occasionally, it is very, very funny. More and more so as the movie progresses. But the movie really shouldn't have been created as a romance. It's a very bad romance.
The movie also has trouble staying consistent with itself. It's 'world without lying', where everyone also blurts out everything they think without filter, is unthought out. It is an interesting concept that is poorly pulled off kinda like Avatar's hair linking system (wonderful idea with poor execution in that case).
Eh, the movie's a "Little Less than OK", but it's worth a few laughs.
Analysis (spoiling the movie!):
In the first two minutes of having begun The Invention of Lying, Ellie "Doodlepad" Fortune predicted the entire plot with impressive accuracy. Unfortunately, I don't find this to be at all movie writing. Especially because of the character she predicted.
The movie is paternalistic. The shallow ugly guy gets the shallow pretty girl after she hurdles her shallowness and doesn't reject him because of his looks. The fact that shallow ugly man is shallow himself and never has eyes for anyone but the pretty girl isn't even questioned.
When Lying Mark becomes moses and devises his own religion (seeing as there is no religion in a world without lies...) he makes his deity every race, but doesn't seem to even realize that he chose a superior sex and no one else in that world realizes it either.
This movie would have benefitted from an ending more akin to Bedazzled. Instead, it's just an average and kinda poor movie.
The movie also has trouble staying consistent with itself. It's 'world without lying', where everyone also blurts out everything they think without filter, is unthought out. It is an interesting concept that is poorly pulled off kinda like Avatar's hair linking system (wonderful idea with poor execution in that case).
Eh, the movie's a "Little Less than OK", but it's worth a few laughs.
Analysis (spoiling the movie!):
In the first two minutes of having begun The Invention of Lying, Ellie "Doodlepad" Fortune predicted the entire plot with impressive accuracy. Unfortunately, I don't find this to be at all movie writing. Especially because of the character she predicted.
The movie is paternalistic. The shallow ugly guy gets the shallow pretty girl after she hurdles her shallowness and doesn't reject him because of his looks. The fact that shallow ugly man is shallow himself and never has eyes for anyone but the pretty girl isn't even questioned.
When Lying Mark becomes moses and devises his own religion (seeing as there is no religion in a world without lies...) he makes his deity every race, but doesn't seem to even realize that he chose a superior sex and no one else in that world realizes it either.
This movie would have benefitted from an ending more akin to Bedazzled. Instead, it's just an average and kinda poor movie.
Metropolis (2001 movie)
Like so many anime movies, the story in Metropolis is told rather poorly. It tells you everything that is happening rather than showing you. It's somewhat ironic, considering that eastern cultures (such as the Japanese) aren't quite so obsessed with the destination and can enjoy the journey, that they can't show it better. But then, perhaps it's just in the translation.
Metropolis is interesting philosophically, the plot is good, the visual style is fun. But it could have been done better, for the most part.
What could not have been done better was the jazzy musical choice and score. That was the most brilliant part of the movie and added a lot to the humor and style of the film. It is worth watching just to listen to Ray Charles singing in the end of the movie. It's hilarious and sad at the same time and infinitely appropriate.
In fact, that is what I'll rate it: "Jazzy Japanese".
Metropolis is interesting philosophically, the plot is good, the visual style is fun. But it could have been done better, for the most part.
What could not have been done better was the jazzy musical choice and score. That was the most brilliant part of the movie and added a lot to the humor and style of the film. It is worth watching just to listen to Ray Charles singing in the end of the movie. It's hilarious and sad at the same time and infinitely appropriate.
In fact, that is what I'll rate it: "Jazzy Japanese".
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Evil Dead (1981 movie)
"Gooey" Evil Dead is a very, very gooey movie. I have no idea why it is nearly as popular as it is. I found it to be rather mediocre at best.
Coraline (2009 movie)
Coraline is a good movie and another thing written by Neil Gaiman (at least the book was) who I've been seeing a lot of lately. I wasn't taken by the visual style in the beginning, but I got over it. It's not as pretty as The Nightmare Before Christmas or the Corpse Bride, but the story is just as good and it's told almost as well. Coraline uses less music than the other two titles, however.
It is a fun and "Imaginative" movie which explores a little of a faery land. It It balances between reality and fantasy, waiting until the end to commit to any relationship between the two. Even then, it is a vague relationship, but not so vague as Pan's Labyrinth. Nor is the land quite so far on the side of "faery" of my fairy/faery division as Pan's Labyrinth.
It is dark in places, but it isn't so horrifying that it can't be watched by most people. Plus, there are positive morals that can be extracted pretty easily. There are parts in the movie that play almost like a video game, but over all, it is a fine product.
I am interested in reading the book, for one of the major characters apparently doesn't exist.
Analysis (with Spoilers):
I was struck by how awful Coraline's parents are in the beginning of the movie. There characters change a lot by the end, but I am not sure it is justified. Sure, they are trapped by the evil dolls for a time, but they don't remember it. It could also be that we are now just seeing a different side of them and they aren't actually awful parents. They just were for a short time. However, it isn't adequately explained.
It is a fun and "Imaginative" movie which explores a little of a faery land. It It balances between reality and fantasy, waiting until the end to commit to any relationship between the two. Even then, it is a vague relationship, but not so vague as Pan's Labyrinth. Nor is the land quite so far on the side of "faery" of my fairy/faery division as Pan's Labyrinth.
It is dark in places, but it isn't so horrifying that it can't be watched by most people. Plus, there are positive morals that can be extracted pretty easily. There are parts in the movie that play almost like a video game, but over all, it is a fine product.
I am interested in reading the book, for one of the major characters apparently doesn't exist.
Analysis (with Spoilers):
I was struck by how awful Coraline's parents are in the beginning of the movie. There characters change a lot by the end, but I am not sure it is justified. Sure, they are trapped by the evil dolls for a time, but they don't remember it. It could also be that we are now just seeing a different side of them and they aren't actually awful parents. They just were for a short time. However, it isn't adequately explained.
Pokemon LeafGreen (2004 Game Boy Advance Game, unfinished)
I didn't finish playing Pokemon LeafGreen, a turn-based RPG, because I got too bored. The game is just a little too slow for me.
I can't see what everyone likes in it! I suppose you can collect warriors and such.... Get creature after creature. It is a somewhat unique thing for an RPG, to be able to play as any enemy you face. Still, it's not nearly enough. Every creature (at least to the point I got to: seeing about 15) are far too similar. They have their own moves, but most of their moves are shared with all the other pokemon.
"Meh". That's about all I can say about it.
I can't see what everyone likes in it! I suppose you can collect warriors and such.... Get creature after creature. It is a somewhat unique thing for an RPG, to be able to play as any enemy you face. Still, it's not nearly enough. Every creature (at least to the point I got to: seeing about 15) are far too similar. They have their own moves, but most of their moves are shared with all the other pokemon.
"Meh". That's about all I can say about it.
Plain and Normal by James Wilcox (1998 novel, unfinished)
My copy of Plain and Normal is interrupted in the last quarter by another story for 48 pages. I don't know what this story was, but it seems to be a printing error. Two books got spliced together. But, it was a happy accident for me, for it interrupted the story I was reading for one I would redoubtably like more. I only feel sorry for the poor soul who got 48 pages of Plain and Normal.
So I never finished it. I try to finish all the books I start, but I'm just not going to spend the energy to find an unbroken copy. Not when I am certain to not enjoy it. Besides which, I don't feel that it's completely necessary. I've got a pretty decent picture of the book and though I don't know the ending, I can critique the writing style.
I didn't enjoy it. What I can say in favor of the book is that it has a very divided response. Some people love this book, and others simply hate it. While I am in the latter category, I can appreciate this accomplishment. My favorite works of my own are things which garner a split review.
The book just has such a "Maudlin" sense of humor. It can bee good from time to time, but it hardly makes up for the drabness of the overall work. The wretchedness of every single character. The frustration of every situation. It was annoying to pick up the book at all. Now, perhaps it's just me, but I can't understand why anyone would be so determined to fail in everything. So hell bent on making all of their communication, with everyone, fail. It's baffling, but more importantly obnoxious to read about.
Things just sort of happen. The book willy-nilly goes here to there and everywhere but instead of being interesting, being fun, it's just tiring and boring.
Others that didn't like this book liken it to Seinfeld, others to Woody Allen. If you like them, perhaps you will like this. It has a peculiar "1950's Brooklyn" reading style to me, somewhat reminiscent of Paul Zindel, but I remember liking The Pigman.
So I never finished it. I try to finish all the books I start, but I'm just not going to spend the energy to find an unbroken copy. Not when I am certain to not enjoy it. Besides which, I don't feel that it's completely necessary. I've got a pretty decent picture of the book and though I don't know the ending, I can critique the writing style.
I didn't enjoy it. What I can say in favor of the book is that it has a very divided response. Some people love this book, and others simply hate it. While I am in the latter category, I can appreciate this accomplishment. My favorite works of my own are things which garner a split review.
The book just has such a "Maudlin" sense of humor. It can bee good from time to time, but it hardly makes up for the drabness of the overall work. The wretchedness of every single character. The frustration of every situation. It was annoying to pick up the book at all. Now, perhaps it's just me, but I can't understand why anyone would be so determined to fail in everything. So hell bent on making all of their communication, with everyone, fail. It's baffling, but more importantly obnoxious to read about.
Things just sort of happen. The book willy-nilly goes here to there and everywhere but instead of being interesting, being fun, it's just tiring and boring.
Others that didn't like this book liken it to Seinfeld, others to Woody Allen. If you like them, perhaps you will like this. It has a peculiar "1950's Brooklyn" reading style to me, somewhat reminiscent of Paul Zindel, but I remember liking The Pigman.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Bedazzled (2000 movie)
Even though they are radically different movies, I thought of Pan's Labyrinth when I was watching Bedazzled. When I was reviewing Pan's Labyrinth, I came across a few things that pointed out the classic good and evil dichotomy in the movie. They pointed it out as a good thing, usually, but I have a different opinion. I like the portrayal that Bedazzled gives. It may be a somewhat ditsy movie, very light-hearted and humorous and downright sappy. But what's wrong with that? Pan's Labyrinth is intelligent, dark, serious, largely humorless, and yet it still doesn't quite achieve the same level of wisdom to me.
Yet is is far more popular. Ah well.
I found Bedazzled to be a really "Entertaining" movie. It may be composed of a series of short scenes, almost like a "WarioWare" movie, but each scene is a lot of fun. Like The Cat in the Hat, it's mostly a film showcasing one actor's talents. Brendan Frasier is far less obnoxious than Mike Myers when given this opportunity.
If you like to enjoy the movies you watch, but also like some substance, I feel that Bedazzled delivers.
Analysis (with Spoilers):
The wisdom which I value so highly in this movie is the view it has on good and evil. In the end of the movie, the audience is told, point blank, that good and evil really aren't that divided. It is up to you.
In the real world, good and evil are never black and white. There is always a huge swath of grey area. Those who we call "evil" are just our antagonists, but we are our enemies antagonist, so they call us evil as well. I am happy with the lack of wickedness in this movie that other critics have been disappointed in.
Another aspect of this movie that I liked is that he doesn't get "the girl" in the end. He gets "a girl", so it's got its happy ending, but the girl he obsesses over isn't it. Nor does anyone have sex in the movie. Now, it's not because I'm a 'prude' that this makes me happy, its because it's unusual. And it wouldn't have really fit with the rest of the movie.
Yet is is far more popular. Ah well.
I found Bedazzled to be a really "Entertaining" movie. It may be composed of a series of short scenes, almost like a "WarioWare" movie, but each scene is a lot of fun. Like The Cat in the Hat, it's mostly a film showcasing one actor's talents. Brendan Frasier is far less obnoxious than Mike Myers when given this opportunity.
If you like to enjoy the movies you watch, but also like some substance, I feel that Bedazzled delivers.
Analysis (with Spoilers):
The wisdom which I value so highly in this movie is the view it has on good and evil. In the end of the movie, the audience is told, point blank, that good and evil really aren't that divided. It is up to you.
In the real world, good and evil are never black and white. There is always a huge swath of grey area. Those who we call "evil" are just our antagonists, but we are our enemies antagonist, so they call us evil as well. I am happy with the lack of wickedness in this movie that other critics have been disappointed in.
Another aspect of this movie that I liked is that he doesn't get "the girl" in the end. He gets "a girl", so it's got its happy ending, but the girl he obsesses over isn't it. Nor does anyone have sex in the movie. Now, it's not because I'm a 'prude' that this makes me happy, its because it's unusual. And it wouldn't have really fit with the rest of the movie.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Pans Labyrinth (2006 movie)
Everyone keeps calling El laberinto del fauno (or "Pan's Labyrinth") a "fantasy", but I wouldn't classify it there. It is as much of a fantasy as A Little Princess, a movie it actually shares a lot in common with. They are both good movies and they both create an impressive environment. They just have very different flavors. Pan's Labyrinth is just the "Grimmer than Grimm" one.
The movie could be classified as a 'modern faery tale' (not 'fairy tale'); it is dark and cruel and melds old fashioned faery-tale imagery and old-fashioned cruelty with modernity (1944 modernity). It is in the modern world where the cruelty comes and it is the faery world that is a relief from it.
So that's a little realistic, I suppose, and what causes me to question even calling it a 'faery tale'. But it is vague, and that is my favorite aspect of this movie. Del Torro skillfully weaves Ofilia's imagination with the world that everyone else sees. It keeps you questioning whether what she sees is real real kind of like Calvin and Hobbes.
In production values, it is a great movie. I am not sure how they got some of the effects that they achieved in the movie, other than guessing they used computer graphics. The music is beautiful and chilling and fits the film impressively well. It is very popular and few people give it a bad rating, but I would cite a grievance with the black and white portrayal of good and evil which is characteristic of Hollywood. The movie successfully had me talking to the characters, but it was in frustration.
It was a good movie, but not my type of movie. Set in the Spanish Civil War, it very aptly is depressing.
Analysis (with spoilers):
The movie could be classified as a 'modern faery tale' (not 'fairy tale'); it is dark and cruel and melds old fashioned faery-tale imagery and old-fashioned cruelty with modernity (1944 modernity). It is in the modern world where the cruelty comes and it is the faery world that is a relief from it.
So that's a little realistic, I suppose, and what causes me to question even calling it a 'faery tale'. But it is vague, and that is my favorite aspect of this movie. Del Torro skillfully weaves Ofilia's imagination with the world that everyone else sees. It keeps you questioning whether what she sees is real real kind of like Calvin and Hobbes.
In production values, it is a great movie. I am not sure how they got some of the effects that they achieved in the movie, other than guessing they used computer graphics. The music is beautiful and chilling and fits the film impressively well. It is very popular and few people give it a bad rating, but I would cite a grievance with the black and white portrayal of good and evil which is characteristic of Hollywood. The movie successfully had me talking to the characters, but it was in frustration.
It was a good movie, but not my type of movie. Set in the Spanish Civil War, it very aptly is depressing.
Analysis (with spoilers):
The two best examples of this are when Ofilia's root soaking in milk apparently helps her mother get better (it baffles the physician), it's burning causes her mother pain; and when she's able to get into Captain Vidal's locked room. Everything else, including how she evades Vidal in the labyrinth, is more easily explained away. It is a pity that the tagline was "what happens when make-believe believes it's real?", as that somewhat undermines this quality.
It may have been appropriate, given the 'faery-tale' nature of the film, but I was disappointed when Ofilia ate the grapes during her second test. Why does everyone who is ever given that test fail it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)