I have fond memories of Robin Hood Men in Tights, but re-watching it made me forget most of them. True, there are some really funny moments in this movie, but it's delivered so very, very stiffly.
So very, very stiffly. "I was disappointed". It is probably better if you know the other Robin Hood movies better, but I don't have that background. Still, it has some very quotable moments, as one would expect from a Mel Brooks comedy.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Stranger than Fiction (2006 movie, rewatched)
There are a lot of people who are apprehensive of Will Ferrell movies. Some people love him. I am one of the people that doesn't, generally, like what he does. He's a little funny, but for the most part, I like his SNL Celebrity Jeopardy skits more than most of his movies.
Stranger than Fiction, however, is not a "Will Ferrell Movie". It is a movie that happens to have Will Ferrell in it. Will also happens to do a fantastic job. This is his Butterfly Effect, It shows that he has far more talent than his previous roles have illustrated. He keeps up with Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman, and Kristin Chenoweth.
This film is a wonderful "Work of Art": entertaining all the way though, funny, engaging, unique. It is bizarre, but has very real characters in spite of that. And it is more touching than most any film I've seen. This movie is in a class with Lars and the Real Girl and Waitress.
Analysis (Spoilers to Follow):
I love this movie. Professor Jules Hilbert is just like an obsessive literature theorist, Karen Eiffel is a weird writing recluse. Probably a lot like ol' J.D. Salinger except he probably would have gone ahead and killed poor Harold Crick. (I shouldn't say that. I've only read one of his books, after all...). I am interested to see what the book Karen Eiffel wrote was because it isn't the same story as is shown in the movie. Perhaps the movie is her revision, but that doesn't make complete sense, either. There are errors.
Is that a flaw, however? In the continuity, it is, a bit, I suppose... But it allows the story to be told the way it is, which is better than Eiffel's hypothetical first draft, of that I am sure even though I haven't read it. It could be, as long as there is a non-omniscient narrator and she put herself in the book (or changed names), the story as told in her second draft. But I don't think it would have worked very well as a book. This movie is made for its format, thankfully.
Stranger than Fiction, however, is not a "Will Ferrell Movie". It is a movie that happens to have Will Ferrell in it. Will also happens to do a fantastic job. This is his Butterfly Effect, It shows that he has far more talent than his previous roles have illustrated. He keeps up with Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman, and Kristin Chenoweth.
This film is a wonderful "Work of Art": entertaining all the way though, funny, engaging, unique. It is bizarre, but has very real characters in spite of that. And it is more touching than most any film I've seen. This movie is in a class with Lars and the Real Girl and Waitress.
Analysis (Spoilers to Follow):
I love this movie. Professor Jules Hilbert is just like an obsessive literature theorist, Karen Eiffel is a weird writing recluse. Probably a lot like ol' J.D. Salinger except he probably would have gone ahead and killed poor Harold Crick. (I shouldn't say that. I've only read one of his books, after all...). I am interested to see what the book Karen Eiffel wrote was because it isn't the same story as is shown in the movie. Perhaps the movie is her revision, but that doesn't make complete sense, either. There are errors.
Is that a flaw, however? In the continuity, it is, a bit, I suppose... But it allows the story to be told the way it is, which is better than Eiffel's hypothetical first draft, of that I am sure even though I haven't read it. It could be, as long as there is a non-omniscient narrator and she put herself in the book (or changed names), the story as told in her second draft. But I don't think it would have worked very well as a book. This movie is made for its format, thankfully.
Despicable Me (2010 movie)
Despicable Me is just about the cutest movie there is in theaters and yet another movie for Pixar to attempt to compete with. Good luck, Pixar. This movie manages to be funny all the way though and doesn't flounder in the end like some of their recent movies have (*cofWalleff* though I admit I haven't seen Toy Story 3).
Steve Carell is making quite a varied career. He's been very interesting to watch, but I never realized before this movie how good a voice actor he can be. Though it is a pity that real voice actors have lost their jobs to his and Robin Williams ilk, his portrayal of Gru is laughable and brilliant. Like so many real people, Gru is so serious that it is impossible not to make fun of him and, in fact, he pretty much does it for you.
And yet there are moments in this movie that are rather touching. It seamlessly becomes serious when it needs to and never gets depressing or unentertaining. It's "Cute and Funny"! How can you go wrong?
Steve Carell is making quite a varied career. He's been very interesting to watch, but I never realized before this movie how good a voice actor he can be. Though it is a pity that real voice actors have lost their jobs to his and Robin Williams ilk, his portrayal of Gru is laughable and brilliant. Like so many real people, Gru is so serious that it is impossible not to make fun of him and, in fact, he pretty much does it for you.
And yet there are moments in this movie that are rather touching. It seamlessly becomes serious when it needs to and never gets depressing or unentertaining. It's "Cute and Funny"! How can you go wrong?
Friday, July 9, 2010
Labyrinth (1986 movie, many watches)
Even though I've seen it many times, the movie Labyrinth is "Still Entertaining". I didn't like it the first time I saw it (probably mostly because my sister did like it) but it has grown on me. There are a number of quotable moments, there are songs, and there's fun fantasy everywhere. 'Fantasy' is dominant to 'reality' in this movie which it hardly even deigns to interact with.
Puppets beat computer animation every time. It is such a pity that we don't see this type of "visual effect" more often now a days. It at once looks more real and less real that computer animation. To me, they are more fun to look at.
Outside the puppets, however, the acting isn't always stellar but it isn't distracting. David Bowie makes a wonderful king of the goblins with his infamous glowing, growing crotch.
Labyrinth is a pretty popular movie that most people have seen. If you haven't, it is probably worth the view. Unless you really don't like fantastic and fun movies, of course.
Puppets beat computer animation every time. It is such a pity that we don't see this type of "visual effect" more often now a days. It at once looks more real and less real that computer animation. To me, they are more fun to look at.
Outside the puppets, however, the acting isn't always stellar but it isn't distracting. David Bowie makes a wonderful king of the goblins with his infamous glowing, growing crotch.
Labyrinth is a pretty popular movie that most people have seen. If you haven't, it is probably worth the view. Unless you really don't like fantastic and fun movies, of course.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tropic of Orange by Karen Tei Yamashita (1997)
Tropic of Orange is a story which could only be told with the written word. It reads like poetry in that it isn't ever really clear what on earth is going on. It is so unrealistic, not just because there are impossible events, and not at all because there are inconsistencies within the world that is created, but because the "world" that is created is... weird. Infinitely small, unconcerned of anything outside of the micro-cosmic stories that are told, and constantly changing. Events, or whatever you would call them, are hardly described or explained by the Karen resulting in an almost an 'Alice in Wonderland' feel.
But not really. It is unique. The blending of fantasy and reality in this book is more, how to say, 'adult' than in any of the other stories I have been experiencing lately. Because it affects adults who sort of ignore it. Because they, and you as the reader, have trouble understanding it and putting it to words.
This book is very complicated. I do not really feel adequate to writing a review of Tropic of Orange after having read it only once. It really must be read twice or thrice to get the whole picture. This is a book for "Bibliophiles Only". It's brilliance is in its the diversity of writing and the skill of the prose. There are thoughtful morsels of philosophy, which everyone can benefit from, and which are needed now, 13 years after it was first published, about globalization, the idiocy of NAFTA, and tolerance, but I fear that they are inaccessible to most readers who will tire of reading such a complex book. This book takes some work.
If a challange, or a unique book, are what you are after, Tropic of Orange is a very good one to pick up. It is enjoyable though there are some rather long lists, some of which go on for almost a page, which blend into the style. Still, on one or two I wondered if they were methods Karen employed simply to extend the length of the book. The weave of this book impresses me greatly and I am grateful for the character-chapter map which comes after the more standard table of contents.
But not really. It is unique. The blending of fantasy and reality in this book is more, how to say, 'adult' than in any of the other stories I have been experiencing lately. Because it affects adults who sort of ignore it. Because they, and you as the reader, have trouble understanding it and putting it to words.
This book is very complicated. I do not really feel adequate to writing a review of Tropic of Orange after having read it only once. It really must be read twice or thrice to get the whole picture. This is a book for "Bibliophiles Only". It's brilliance is in its the diversity of writing and the skill of the prose. There are thoughtful morsels of philosophy, which everyone can benefit from, and which are needed now, 13 years after it was first published, about globalization, the idiocy of NAFTA, and tolerance, but I fear that they are inaccessible to most readers who will tire of reading such a complex book. This book takes some work.
If a challange, or a unique book, are what you are after, Tropic of Orange is a very good one to pick up. It is enjoyable though there are some rather long lists, some of which go on for almost a page, which blend into the style. Still, on one or two I wondered if they were methods Karen employed simply to extend the length of the book. The weave of this book impresses me greatly and I am grateful for the character-chapter map which comes after the more standard table of contents.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Watchmen (2009 movie, post read)
Adapting a work as well made as Watchmen is to any medium but its original choice is a very difficult undertaking. The original comic is written to take full advantage of its form. It was not written with any consideration to the idea that someone might want to make a movie of it. Thus, making the movie requires a certain amount of sacrifice which must be tempered by taking advantage of what a movie can do that a graphic novel cannot.
The makers of Watchmen the Movie did not do this. It stays startlingly close to the book. As a consequence, there are some parts that really did not translate well. Chapter IV, Watchmaker stands out garishly. The movie also tries to reproduce the panel to panel cutting that occurs in the book to rather disastrous effect. There is a lot cut from the book, because it would have made it too long and it wasn't important to the "superheroes", but we are still left with a 2:30 long movie. Full of exaggerated scenes that still should have been cut or reduced. Every departure from the comic stands out to one who has red it as a flaw, even if it isn't (I like the movie's ending more, actually). Adrian Ozymandias Veidt is too skinny and too full of himself, the Comedian is too small, Hooded Justice is way too small. Where'd this go, where's that? In the book he said this, not that!
It also seems that there were two directors who took turns. Some fights are randomly over-violent. Shaming the level of violence in the grisly comic. Others really aren't. At all. I don't know why. I liked the less graphic scenes more, partially considering that the "superheroes" in watchmen don't actually have super powers (besides John, o'course).
It is still a decent little movie, but I would advise: "Just Read the Book". You'll get a lot more out of it. The casing, with the afore mentioned exceptions, is very good. Especially if you want fidelity with the book. The acting is usually good, but Malin Åkerman falters in her most important moments. It has some comedic musical choices. As with the book, I disagree with most of the philosophy of it, but that doesn't say anything about the work's quality. Just that it's wrong.
Watchmen the movie isn't as deliberately confusing as the book, and it doesn't require reading. And it doesn't achieve as much. If you can stomach laughably exaggerated violence, then give the movie a view. But otherwise, just pick up the book and read it.
Analysis (spoilers to follow):
"Where's the giant alien!" many people scream at the end of this movie. Then they'll grumble that it "cheapens" the story, somehow. In fact, though, I like it much more than the ending in the comic. It is the only true improvement.
Because it has a greater chance to work. One appearance of an alien will not give us world peace for long if it isn't followed by more. It was a rather idiotic plan for the smartest man in the world. This one is a little better.
As for philosophy, people are not so inherently vile. Many of us are, especially those who have sought power and control though vile means (90% of our leaders), but most of us are good people. No one (almost no one) wakes up thinking they want to be the worst person they can be. Some just don't wake up and think. The thing is, in reality as in Watchmen, our villains are often those most hell-bent on being saviors of some sort. They want to do good and in the process do evil.
But I think it is wise to say that every individual is a miracle, including the dumbest termite. And I agree that the world would be worse if Nixon were re-elected for a third term.
And it depresses me that there are people who look up to Rorschach. Ccompromise is very, very important. He's a bleeding sociopath as unworthy of respect as Veidt.
The makers of Watchmen the Movie did not do this. It stays startlingly close to the book. As a consequence, there are some parts that really did not translate well. Chapter IV, Watchmaker stands out garishly. The movie also tries to reproduce the panel to panel cutting that occurs in the book to rather disastrous effect. There is a lot cut from the book, because it would have made it too long and it wasn't important to the "superheroes", but we are still left with a 2:30 long movie. Full of exaggerated scenes that still should have been cut or reduced. Every departure from the comic stands out to one who has red it as a flaw, even if it isn't (I like the movie's ending more, actually). Adrian Ozymandias Veidt is too skinny and too full of himself, the Comedian is too small, Hooded Justice is way too small. Where'd this go, where's that? In the book he said this, not that!
It also seems that there were two directors who took turns. Some fights are randomly over-violent. Shaming the level of violence in the grisly comic. Others really aren't. At all. I don't know why. I liked the less graphic scenes more, partially considering that the "superheroes" in watchmen don't actually have super powers (besides John, o'course).
It is still a decent little movie, but I would advise: "Just Read the Book". You'll get a lot more out of it. The casing, with the afore mentioned exceptions, is very good. Especially if you want fidelity with the book. The acting is usually good, but Malin Åkerman falters in her most important moments. It has some comedic musical choices. As with the book, I disagree with most of the philosophy of it, but that doesn't say anything about the work's quality. Just that it's wrong.
Watchmen the movie isn't as deliberately confusing as the book, and it doesn't require reading. And it doesn't achieve as much. If you can stomach laughably exaggerated violence, then give the movie a view. But otherwise, just pick up the book and read it.
Analysis (spoilers to follow):
"Where's the giant alien!" many people scream at the end of this movie. Then they'll grumble that it "cheapens" the story, somehow. In fact, though, I like it much more than the ending in the comic. It is the only true improvement.
Because it has a greater chance to work. One appearance of an alien will not give us world peace for long if it isn't followed by more. It was a rather idiotic plan for the smartest man in the world. This one is a little better.
As for philosophy, people are not so inherently vile. Many of us are, especially those who have sought power and control though vile means (90% of our leaders), but most of us are good people. No one (almost no one) wakes up thinking they want to be the worst person they can be. Some just don't wake up and think. The thing is, in reality as in Watchmen, our villains are often those most hell-bent on being saviors of some sort. They want to do good and in the process do evil.
But I think it is wise to say that every individual is a miracle, including the dumbest termite. And I agree that the world would be worse if Nixon were re-elected for a third term.
And it depresses me that there are people who look up to Rorschach. Ccompromise is very, very important. He's a bleeding sociopath as unworthy of respect as Veidt.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Drop Dead Fred (1991 movie)
The beginning of Drop Dead Fred reminded me of The Cat in the Hat because it was all about a comedian who was acting as bizarre as he could. I wasn't impressed. However, Drop Dead Fred becomes so much more than that. While both movies finish with morals, the Cat's has such a wishy washy, childish delivery that I don't really care. Fred finishes strong and is never so obscenely obnoxious (to the viewer) as the Cat.
The movie is still a little hard to watch. Partly because it has such a maniacal level of the "I Love Lucy syndrome" that I just want to cover my eyes. Partly because it's depressing most of the way though -odd for such a "screwball" comedy- and filled with failures to communicate.
Once the movie was over, however, I find that I really, really like it. Not because it's not playing anymore, but because the movie has a good ending and good closure. As good or better, even, than 9 to 5. And I really, really like Fred, despite all his foibles. Rik Mayall did a bloody fantastic job with that character. People have asked, what would this movie be like with Jim Carrey as Fred, and I must say, though I really like Jim Carrey, that I think the movie would have suffered.
There is a remake being planned. But it is not with Carrey. I am interested in what it will become, if only for comparison and curiosity's sake. I do not expect it to be as good of a movie as the original independent film.
This movie is much more than just "booger jokes", as some pretentious critics insinuate. Most of the humor is physical, but that's all.
Most intriguingly, for me, Drop Dead Fred has a very wonderful balance and integration of its fantasy world and its non-fantasy world, which is something I have been seeing a lot of and comparing a lot of recently (Pan's Labyrinth, Coroline, James and the Giant Peach, et cetera). It is never fully explained, but that's not the point.
Drop Dead Fred is one of the best films I have seen recently. It comes "Highly Recommended".
The movie is still a little hard to watch. Partly because it has such a maniacal level of the "I Love Lucy syndrome" that I just want to cover my eyes. Partly because it's depressing most of the way though -odd for such a "screwball" comedy- and filled with failures to communicate.
Once the movie was over, however, I find that I really, really like it. Not because it's not playing anymore, but because the movie has a good ending and good closure. As good or better, even, than 9 to 5. And I really, really like Fred, despite all his foibles. Rik Mayall did a bloody fantastic job with that character. People have asked, what would this movie be like with Jim Carrey as Fred, and I must say, though I really like Jim Carrey, that I think the movie would have suffered.
There is a remake being planned. But it is not with Carrey. I am interested in what it will become, if only for comparison and curiosity's sake. I do not expect it to be as good of a movie as the original independent film.
This movie is much more than just "booger jokes", as some pretentious critics insinuate. Most of the humor is physical, but that's all.
Most intriguingly, for me, Drop Dead Fred has a very wonderful balance and integration of its fantasy world and its non-fantasy world, which is something I have been seeing a lot of and comparing a lot of recently (Pan's Labyrinth, Coroline, James and the Giant Peach, et cetera). It is never fully explained, but that's not the point.
Drop Dead Fred is one of the best films I have seen recently. It comes "Highly Recommended".
Billy Elliot (2000 movie)
Billy Elliot is a rather "Bittersweet" movie and quite moving. It isn't very dark, but it definitely has some difficult material and portrays a difficult culture. In the end, however, you know that everyone loves each other, even if they have somewhat violent ways of showing it.
What more is there to say? I recommend the movie.
What more is there to say? I recommend the movie.
The Tale of Despereaux (2008 movie, pre read)
Like Ratatouille, The Tale of Despereaux is an extravagantly quirky movie with a french word in the title. And of course rodents. There the similarities end.
Many people are fairly harsh on this movie, probably because of Pixar and their amazingly devoted following. It isn't Pixar, but on the surface, it seems to rip them off. Anger insues. In fact, The Tale of Despereaux was first a book; I like it more than Pixar's mouse movie. However, it seems to be quite watered down from the original tale which I would very much like to read.
Without having read the book, the primary flaw I find in this movie is that is is trying to say too much, trying to do too much, in too little time. It gets a little "Busy". The movie remains watchable and avoids feeling like an "inexpert abridgment". What it has to say is pretty heart-warming and would be useful for many people if they would listen to it. Like Man of Le Mancha.
Many people are fairly harsh on this movie, probably because of Pixar and their amazingly devoted following. It isn't Pixar, but on the surface, it seems to rip them off. Anger insues. In fact, The Tale of Despereaux was first a book; I like it more than Pixar's mouse movie. However, it seems to be quite watered down from the original tale which I would very much like to read.
Without having read the book, the primary flaw I find in this movie is that is is trying to say too much, trying to do too much, in too little time. It gets a little "Busy". The movie remains watchable and avoids feeling like an "inexpert abridgment". What it has to say is pretty heart-warming and would be useful for many people if they would listen to it. Like Man of Le Mancha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)