Disney's new Tangled starts off a little slow, and finishes a overly predictably, and has pretty much exactly the plot you would expect. But it is told so very, very well. This movie has mastered the running gag. There are several and they are all very funny. But this is only the beginning of Tangled's brilliance.
All of its brilliance is in the humor. It is filled with dry wit and physical humor to satisfy anyone but the grouchy lady who sat in front of me and demanded that I shut up my laughter. She was funny too. If the movie had stuck there, it would have been straight through brilliant. But, it doesn't. It falters once or twice when it tries to be sincerely romantic. It fails worse than a pick-up line on a park bench.
Tangled is a movie designed to resurrect the Disney princess in the age of computer animation and pre-teen puberty. It takes a little from Shrek, a little from How to Train Your Dragon, and doesn't quite measure up to either. Though it is a little funnier than Mike Myers' movie, it wont have the replay value. It's linage, while supplying some very choice jokes, is the greatest detraction from an otherwise wonderful film. It holds it back. Rapunzel will join Belle and Cinderella among Disney's best, but will likewise be remembered as just a princess with scarily large eyes.
But it is very, very Funny. "Hilarious". If that is what you are here for, you will not be disappointed.
Short Analysis:
In the very end, they had a good joke. It wasn't a great joke. It is a somewhat old joke. But I was disappointed that they killed it. It ends with the same narration that begins the movie, that of the hero-man Eugene. And he says that, after asking and asking him to marry her, he finally says yes to Rapunzel. Ha ha. But immediately re-establishes the expected norm by saying, no, he did actually ask her.
What a pisser.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Lilo and Stitch (2002 movie)
Lilo and Stitch looked to me, through the last 8 years, to be a fairly basic movie with an odd little alien gremlin thing in it. So a Disney movie with a gremlin. Disney does make a lot of good movies, always has, but rarely are their movies very spectacular. This particular movie does unique visual style, and I did hear a lot of good things about it, but Disney is best at presentation so that didn't mean much.
My skepticism wasn't unfounded, but I should have seen it a long time ago. Lilo and Stitch is a "Very Good" movie. I would go so far as to say it is one of the best movies Disney has ever made. It does suffer from some of the problems inherent in being a Disney movie (enough sap to sting my cavities) but the film is still new enough and deep enough to stand on its own as a pretty brilliant flick. It has it's own style, a good starting point, but what really sells the movie is the sense of humor. It reminded me a little of The Iron Giant.
The humor is just the beginning and the end of what makes this a great movie. The characters which populate the environment are dynamic and engaging with some realistic problems to deal with. And they navigate these problems as they should. But despite being a little dismal in plot, Lilo and Stitch manages to tell the story in a very fun and engaging way. The plot is tightly woven with patterns that re-enforce each other but aren't just echos rebounding off of each other. The film is done an injustice by its ending, but it's hard to blame anyone for that. No one can get a good ending now-a-days, not even the famous Harry Potter (epilogues suck). But it ties up well enough that I am very disappointed there are sequels.
The final bow on this package is the music. Unfortunately, it is a little peripheral. No one bothered to integrate it, as music was in much older movies. But it makes a beautiful bow. It is worth unwrapping this package just to listen to it.
My skepticism wasn't unfounded, but I should have seen it a long time ago. Lilo and Stitch is a "Very Good" movie. I would go so far as to say it is one of the best movies Disney has ever made. It does suffer from some of the problems inherent in being a Disney movie (enough sap to sting my cavities) but the film is still new enough and deep enough to stand on its own as a pretty brilliant flick. It has it's own style, a good starting point, but what really sells the movie is the sense of humor. It reminded me a little of The Iron Giant.
The humor is just the beginning and the end of what makes this a great movie. The characters which populate the environment are dynamic and engaging with some realistic problems to deal with. And they navigate these problems as they should. But despite being a little dismal in plot, Lilo and Stitch manages to tell the story in a very fun and engaging way. The plot is tightly woven with patterns that re-enforce each other but aren't just echos rebounding off of each other. The film is done an injustice by its ending, but it's hard to blame anyone for that. No one can get a good ending now-a-days, not even the famous Harry Potter (epilogues suck). But it ties up well enough that I am very disappointed there are sequels.
The final bow on this package is the music. Unfortunately, it is a little peripheral. No one bothered to integrate it, as music was in much older movies. But it makes a beautiful bow. It is worth unwrapping this package just to listen to it.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Bug (2006 movie)
As the director points out, one doesn't really know where the plot of Bug is going if they haven't seen it before. It is creepy, dark, twisted, sometimes humorous, sick, demented, erotic, paranoid, and schizophrenic film. And it raises more questions than it ever answers. Stuff happens, and you never can quite tell why or exactly what it was, even by the end.
As impressive as that is, I didn't enjoy my time with it, per se; but I sorta almost like it. It is a good movie, I suppose it would be hard to dispute that. Despite the fact that I thought I was watching some amateur, low-brow horror in the beginning. That sense gradually disappears into something else. Very else.
To give you a sense of what you are getting into if you decide to try out the trip that is Bug, this is the same well-respected Hollywood director who created The Exorcist and The French Connection. I haven't seen the latter, but there are some similarities to the former that I can see now that I know. He is an older director and this movie doesn't really fit it with the current film-making style in Hollywood; especially featuring big name actors like Ashley Judd and Harry Connick Jr.. It has more similarities with contemporary plays or '70s film making.
The acting in the film is very good. I can appreciate that now. In the beginning, I thought it was some cheese-ball movie, as I said, but the characters flesh out into something quite dynamic. Almost too dynamic. But as everyone is bleeding crazy, it all still makes sense. This could be seen as a cop-out, crazy people are easy. Generally. In drama, it is probably a little more difficult. There is still a thin line to straddle, the character shouldn't be so extreme they turn the audience away, but still be unique. Considering Bug's usual review, they seem to have done that, however.
The sound in the movie is requisitely creepy to keep a very paranoid movie "Paranoid". If you like a good psycological thriller, Bug may be your bag.
As impressive as that is, I didn't enjoy my time with it, per se; but I sorta almost like it. It is a good movie, I suppose it would be hard to dispute that. Despite the fact that I thought I was watching some amateur, low-brow horror in the beginning. That sense gradually disappears into something else. Very else.
To give you a sense of what you are getting into if you decide to try out the trip that is Bug, this is the same well-respected Hollywood director who created The Exorcist and The French Connection. I haven't seen the latter, but there are some similarities to the former that I can see now that I know. He is an older director and this movie doesn't really fit it with the current film-making style in Hollywood; especially featuring big name actors like Ashley Judd and Harry Connick Jr.. It has more similarities with contemporary plays or '70s film making.
The acting in the film is very good. I can appreciate that now. In the beginning, I thought it was some cheese-ball movie, as I said, but the characters flesh out into something quite dynamic. Almost too dynamic. But as everyone is bleeding crazy, it all still makes sense. This could be seen as a cop-out, crazy people are easy. Generally. In drama, it is probably a little more difficult. There is still a thin line to straddle, the character shouldn't be so extreme they turn the audience away, but still be unique. Considering Bug's usual review, they seem to have done that, however.
The sound in the movie is requisitely creepy to keep a very paranoid movie "Paranoid". If you like a good psycological thriller, Bug may be your bag.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Life of Brian (1979, rewatched)
I love Monty Python. I find them hilarious. And while the Life of Brian isn't as out-loud laughably funny as their Quest for the Holy Grail, it has some very funny scenes and the best ending of a Monty Python feature! Hell, most any movie.
Life of Brian almost stands as one continuous story, it's less sketchy than their other films (and their show, of course) and the 'sketches' more like actual 'scenes'. This is unique for Monty Python and I like it. But the troupe is obviously not very used to the idea. It's a great movie, with wonderful quotable moments, but less of them than the Holy Grail.
Life of Brian almost stands as one continuous story, it's less sketchy than their other films (and their show, of course) and the 'sketches' more like actual 'scenes'. This is unique for Monty Python and I like it. But the troupe is obviously not very used to the idea. It's a great movie, with wonderful quotable moments, but less of them than the Holy Grail.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
At Work
Today at work, we had a problem.
I work at a nursing home serving people food. We try to keep track of how much everyone eats ('try' being used about as loosely as possible. We actually just inconvenience ourselves with utterly useless data collection. The only thing it really tells us is if someone was in the dining room that day.) using a little hand-held touch screen device.
That runs Windows.
Consequently, it doesn't hardly work most of the time. While all you put in is: 'they ate 100% of their meal', one choice out of about ten, it takes a surprisingly long time from pushing a virtual button on the screen and any effect taking place. Anywhere from 2 to 10 seconds. Which may not seem like much, but imagine if it took ten seconds from when you struck the "q" key and a q actually appearing on the screen. The amount of data is incredibly small, but for some reason, this little "shit pad" (as it is affectionately known among the staff) can't quite handle it. It takes several minutes for this tiny file of around 40 residents to actually transfer to the computer. Sometimes, it doesn't.
I would wonder why it has so much trouble if it weren't for that multi-colored window logo. But as that graces the front of the device, that question is answered. A question that has not be sufficiently answered is why Windows hasn't been fired. If my performance were so dismal, they wouldn't keep me on, I am sure of it. You can only show up to work late so often, especially if you live there.
Another topic with computers:
I attend Western State College of Colorado. But I need a new computer password.
I looked, but I couldn't find the page that allows one to change this basic thing. Most commercial web-sites have it fairly close to the front where it is easy to find.
But I couldn't find it. I decided to try the web-sites search feature, even though those rarely work.
This is what I was given:
I have to ask myself, since there isn't anyone else near, what the hell is GUAPSWDLKLEK? Looks like a bunch of pointless letters to me. It doesn't mean anything. At all.
Why oh why are so many people obsessed with acronyms! They only de-stable communication! WTF!
I still cannot find where to change my bloody password.... I see nothing labled as a "General Menu". "General Financial Aid", but not "General Menu" and I doubt it is under the "Financial Aid" tab.
...Unless they're a little more crazy than I thought...
Nor do I see "My Links". Anywhere. If you search for that phrase, the only thing that comes up that has to do with the web-site is a page called: "How do I change my Banner password?"
But we've already seen how useless that page is. These pages apparently don't exist.
Perhaps I can't change my password. It will forever be something like: Lkailn(0879eokNOJ,ljd092wnjolkdn. Which I can't remember.
Oh well. I guess I'll just cary a piece of paper around with me. Because that's really secure.
I work at a nursing home serving people food. We try to keep track of how much everyone eats ('try' being used about as loosely as possible. We actually just inconvenience ourselves with utterly useless data collection. The only thing it really tells us is if someone was in the dining room that day.) using a little hand-held touch screen device.
That runs Windows.
Consequently, it doesn't hardly work most of the time. While all you put in is: 'they ate 100% of their meal', one choice out of about ten, it takes a surprisingly long time from pushing a virtual button on the screen and any effect taking place. Anywhere from 2 to 10 seconds. Which may not seem like much, but imagine if it took ten seconds from when you struck the "q" key and a q actually appearing on the screen. The amount of data is incredibly small, but for some reason, this little "shit pad" (as it is affectionately known among the staff) can't quite handle it. It takes several minutes for this tiny file of around 40 residents to actually transfer to the computer. Sometimes, it doesn't.
I would wonder why it has so much trouble if it weren't for that multi-colored window logo. But as that graces the front of the device, that question is answered. A question that has not be sufficiently answered is why Windows hasn't been fired. If my performance were so dismal, they wouldn't keep me on, I am sure of it. You can only show up to work late so often, especially if you live there.
Another topic with computers:
I attend Western State College of Colorado. But I need a new computer password.
I looked, but I couldn't find the page that allows one to change this basic thing. Most commercial web-sites have it fairly close to the front where it is easy to find.
But I couldn't find it. I decided to try the web-sites search feature, even though those rarely work.
This is what I was given:
How do I change my Banner password?
You can change your BANNER password from the My Links section of General Menu. You can also change it by using the BANNER form GUAPSWD. Type your current BANNER password (leave the database box blank), then type a new password, and verify your new password.
I have to ask myself, since there isn't anyone else near, what the hell is GUAPSWDLKLEK? Looks like a bunch of pointless letters to me. It doesn't mean anything. At all.
Why oh why are so many people obsessed with acronyms! They only de-stable communication! WTF!
I still cannot find where to change my bloody password.... I see nothing labled as a "General Menu". "General Financial Aid", but not "General Menu" and I doubt it is under the "Financial Aid" tab.
...Unless they're a little more crazy than I thought...
Nor do I see "My Links". Anywhere. If you search for that phrase, the only thing that comes up that has to do with the web-site is a page called: "How do I change my Banner password?"
But we've already seen how useless that page is. These pages apparently don't exist.
Perhaps I can't change my password. It will forever be something like: Lkailn(0879eokNOJ,ljd092wnjolkdn. Which I can't remember.
Oh well. I guess I'll just cary a piece of paper around with me. Because that's really secure.
Monday, November 15, 2010
X-Men Evolution, season 3 (TV series, remote background knowledge)
X-Men Evolution is a return to the days of the X-Men when they were still young. In high school, actually. So it is a re-telling and re-envisioning. Some of the characters have change a little in their, um, character; but are still recognizable for who they are. The show is far deeper than the early comics were, are more in line with the later comics, but are a little less action oriented, which I appreciate. Though there are still scenes with Wolverine just going berserk and random, apparently pointless, fights with devastating effects on the local cityscape.
There are some characters who are new as well. Spyke is a new character in this universe and Season 3 is the first appearance of a character known as X-23 who has since spread to other X-Men universes and was even included in the recent movies.
The show is "Fun" and I'd like to see a little more of it. And compare and contrast it to the other long-running, critically acclaimed animated Superhero shows like Batman, Superman, and Marvel's own, Spiderman. And, of course, the canon X-Men: The Animated Series. Perhaps that's too geeky for a rating of 'fun'...
The series opens with the conclusion to some great conflict from the previous season, and ends with a similar (but of course greater) cliff-hanger. All very important for anything to do with action super-heroes. Or anything on television, actually. But the best episodes are more intimate and more quietly enjoyable.
There are some characters who are new as well. Spyke is a new character in this universe and Season 3 is the first appearance of a character known as X-23 who has since spread to other X-Men universes and was even included in the recent movies.
The show is "Fun" and I'd like to see a little more of it. And compare and contrast it to the other long-running, critically acclaimed animated Superhero shows like Batman, Superman, and Marvel's own, Spiderman. And, of course, the canon X-Men: The Animated Series. Perhaps that's too geeky for a rating of 'fun'...
The series opens with the conclusion to some great conflict from the previous season, and ends with a similar (but of course greater) cliff-hanger. All very important for anything to do with action super-heroes. Or anything on television, actually. But the best episodes are more intimate and more quietly enjoyable.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Where the Wild Things Are (2009 movie)
I really expected something else from this movie. Perhaps that's the reason I didn't like it, or at least part of the reason, but Where the Wild Things Are is a bit too much of a roller-coaster for me. It reminded me (just a little, mind) of Wild Animus which annoyed me so much I didn't finish it. I try not to be judgmental, but that book isn't worth the paper it's printed on. A good summary of what I read: Oh, life sucks... Im gonna go walk in the snow; oh! life is grand! Oh, we love each other more than anyone could ever love anyone else-- Oh.. it probably wont work... But Oh! We love each other so much... Let's break up. Oh life sucks but is so awesome!
Where the Wild Things Are isn't half so annoying, but it does boil down to being dramatic for drama's sake. I like comedy for the sake of comedy, but drama is a little different. Drama isn't enjoyable without due cause and while there is some point in this film, it isn't accessible enough for my taste. This movie feels a little hashed together. A little looser than it could have been. A little more tiresome than I'd like. All of the characters are like 7 year olds having tantrums. While all the characters look cool, and are reminiscent of Maurice Sendak's drawings, they don't actually have enough character of their own. They are all just sides of the main character, Max.
The movie is too long for telling too short of an actual story. I think the best rating for it is to say that it "Doesn't Have Enough Character". Surficially, there is a lot of character, but deeper, its vapid and obnoxious.
I was disappointed.
Where the Wild Things Are isn't half so annoying, but it does boil down to being dramatic for drama's sake. I like comedy for the sake of comedy, but drama is a little different. Drama isn't enjoyable without due cause and while there is some point in this film, it isn't accessible enough for my taste. This movie feels a little hashed together. A little looser than it could have been. A little more tiresome than I'd like. All of the characters are like 7 year olds having tantrums. While all the characters look cool, and are reminiscent of Maurice Sendak's drawings, they don't actually have enough character of their own. They are all just sides of the main character, Max.
The movie is too long for telling too short of an actual story. I think the best rating for it is to say that it "Doesn't Have Enough Character". Surficially, there is a lot of character, but deeper, its vapid and obnoxious.
I was disappointed.
Resilience (WSC original play, Friday, Nov 5, 2010)
The first play I saw performed at Western State College was an attempt at Amadeus. It was... pretty... bad. Not that the attempt wasn't a little admirable, but the department wasn't quite capable of pulling it off. Trying to do a play about Mozart when you don't have a good enough relationship with your own music department to have a Real soprano instead of a recording that cuts in a second after the actress begins singing isn't the greatest idea.
Western probably still isn't capable of doing Amadeus. Especially with their main stages all broken apart for remodel. But the department is getting better and better. I especially like it when they try something original. Their latest play, entitled Resilience and written by professor Paul A. Edwards (and his ensemble) at making their own stuff. Resilience, written by professor Paul A. Edwards, was impressive. It was humorful, it was artistic, it was entertaining. All the while having philosophical and political implications. "Enjoyable and Thought-Provoking". What else is there to put into a play?
Acting. Good acting. 'Tis the weakness at Western State College. The students aren't bad actors, though some of them border it from time to time, but they aren't as impressive as the writers in the Gunnison valley. Which, apparently, are them.
As this play probably will not be seen in its entierty again for a while, if ever, by anyone who wasn't involved in its production and has a DVD, I don't feel bad about Analysing the work for a bigger portion of this review:
First, Resilience is a story about a small town TV station, its employees, and their little domestic lives in a slow-moving mountain town. With characters who are, by and large, not very slow moving. Going with this theme, there were old '50s commercials shown between each scene which turn out to be the plays best joke and compositional element. The audience laughed harder at that then at anything in the play. And harder at that than I have heard most audiences laugh at anything. The advertising techniques they used back then are pretty silly.
The other simple and running gag in the play was a hyper-actively tweaked producer who doesn't have any idea how bloody crazy she is. She gets a little tiresome by the end, but is an important key in the play.
The second big plot element in the play is the romantic story between an over-worked employee of the TV station who is slowly turning into her crazy boss and a local and green t-shirt maker who's running apprehensively for County Commissioner.
Underneath all of it is a theme of "Sustainability" because Edwards wanted to write a play that has to do with WSC's "Year of Sustainability". It is faithful in its depictions of reality. I especially like the scene where some peace-loving 'hippies' (for lack of a better word) throw their recyclable cups away right after the restaurateur told them of her new recycling system! The play was full of little points like that, including the final climatic crux: for the station's "Be Local" campaign, they ordered t-shirts off line.
...Even though her beau is a t-shirt maker....
Ooops.
Despite how trite that sounds, the play is well woven and reminds me a little of plays by Arthur Miller. I quite enjoyed it and hope that other little theaters in little towns play it someday.
Western probably still isn't capable of doing Amadeus. Especially with their main stages all broken apart for remodel. But the department is getting better and better. I especially like it when they try something original. Their latest play, entitled Resilience and written by professor Paul A. Edwards (and his ensemble) at making their own stuff. Resilience, written by professor Paul A. Edwards, was impressive. It was humorful, it was artistic, it was entertaining. All the while having philosophical and political implications. "Enjoyable and Thought-Provoking". What else is there to put into a play?
Acting. Good acting. 'Tis the weakness at Western State College. The students aren't bad actors, though some of them border it from time to time, but they aren't as impressive as the writers in the Gunnison valley. Which, apparently, are them.
As this play probably will not be seen in its entierty again for a while, if ever, by anyone who wasn't involved in its production and has a DVD, I don't feel bad about Analysing the work for a bigger portion of this review:
First, Resilience is a story about a small town TV station, its employees, and their little domestic lives in a slow-moving mountain town. With characters who are, by and large, not very slow moving. Going with this theme, there were old '50s commercials shown between each scene which turn out to be the plays best joke and compositional element. The audience laughed harder at that then at anything in the play. And harder at that than I have heard most audiences laugh at anything. The advertising techniques they used back then are pretty silly.
The other simple and running gag in the play was a hyper-actively tweaked producer who doesn't have any idea how bloody crazy she is. She gets a little tiresome by the end, but is an important key in the play.
The second big plot element in the play is the romantic story between an over-worked employee of the TV station who is slowly turning into her crazy boss and a local and green t-shirt maker who's running apprehensively for County Commissioner.
Underneath all of it is a theme of "Sustainability" because Edwards wanted to write a play that has to do with WSC's "Year of Sustainability". It is faithful in its depictions of reality. I especially like the scene where some peace-loving 'hippies' (for lack of a better word) throw their recyclable cups away right after the restaurateur told them of her new recycling system! The play was full of little points like that, including the final climatic crux: for the station's "Be Local" campaign, they ordered t-shirts off line.
...Even though her beau is a t-shirt maker....
Ooops.
Despite how trite that sounds, the play is well woven and reminds me a little of plays by Arthur Miller. I quite enjoyed it and hope that other little theaters in little towns play it someday.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Frankenstein (1994 movie, post read a long, long time ago)
It really is the first, or most famous, Zombie story. Mary Shelley supposedly won a personal contest between Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley with Frankenstein for it being scary. However, the movie that was filmed in 1994 based, fairly closely, on the book is not a 'horror' movie. It is not filmed to be particularly scary; not in the instantaneous, creepy way that is expected in a horror movie and not to a modern audience.
Still, the concept should be more scary in todays world than in Shelley's: Science has become pretty much as arrogant as her novel predicts. We aren't re-animating people, but we do have a few wackos trying to 'cure' aging. Which could be an even scarier story. But still not in the 'horror' genre style.
Perhaps I am being to limiting to the genre, but Frankenstein feels more like a dark, scary, and a little gory drama movie and it drops the scariest element of Shelley's book. The 'monster' is vilified far more than Victor is, though he is rather stupid. Everything is grandiose, white and clean or dirty and evil, and very "Melodramatic". There were a few movies made in this visual style in the 90's and 00's, such as Van Helsing or Underworld; but it also reminds me a little of Kill Bill, though that was at least supposed to be a parody (I hope...).
I don't really like the movie. Victor Frankenstein is a little too much of a retarded scientific genius for me. The plot moves forward mostly because of his idiocy (which I don't remember from the book, but it has been several years) or for some sort of dramatic confrontation. But, it is cheaply entertaining. I would like to see the Old One.
Analysis (spoilers will follow):
In the end of the movie, Victor wants to save his late wife because she died when he took both pistols out of the room with him to hunt his monster instead of just staying there with his weapons and protecting her. So he decides to cut off her head, with her brain in it, and sew it on to the corpse of one of their friends.
When next you see her, There are jagged scars running over her face just like his first creature. Now, I wonder, why are those there? Just to make her look horrid and deformed? Why would you need to do anything to her face? Her head had all the components you could possibly want for a head. It was just her body that was without a heart.
This is what I mean by 'melodramatic' action. Most parts of the film are done for their dramatic potential as long as the audience isn't thinking too much or completely ready to accept anything the movie offers. My own ability to suspend disbelief is pretty good, but I would like a little credit for being a thoughtful individual.
Still, the concept should be more scary in todays world than in Shelley's: Science has become pretty much as arrogant as her novel predicts. We aren't re-animating people, but we do have a few wackos trying to 'cure' aging. Which could be an even scarier story. But still not in the 'horror' genre style.
Perhaps I am being to limiting to the genre, but Frankenstein feels more like a dark, scary, and a little gory drama movie and it drops the scariest element of Shelley's book. The 'monster' is vilified far more than Victor is, though he is rather stupid. Everything is grandiose, white and clean or dirty and evil, and very "Melodramatic". There were a few movies made in this visual style in the 90's and 00's, such as Van Helsing or Underworld; but it also reminds me a little of Kill Bill, though that was at least supposed to be a parody (I hope...).
I don't really like the movie. Victor Frankenstein is a little too much of a retarded scientific genius for me. The plot moves forward mostly because of his idiocy (which I don't remember from the book, but it has been several years) or for some sort of dramatic confrontation. But, it is cheaply entertaining. I would like to see the Old One.
Analysis (spoilers will follow):
In the end of the movie, Victor wants to save his late wife because she died when he took both pistols out of the room with him to hunt his monster instead of just staying there with his weapons and protecting her. So he decides to cut off her head, with her brain in it, and sew it on to the corpse of one of their friends.
When next you see her, There are jagged scars running over her face just like his first creature. Now, I wonder, why are those there? Just to make her look horrid and deformed? Why would you need to do anything to her face? Her head had all the components you could possibly want for a head. It was just her body that was without a heart.
This is what I mean by 'melodramatic' action. Most parts of the film are done for their dramatic potential as long as the audience isn't thinking too much or completely ready to accept anything the movie offers. My own ability to suspend disbelief is pretty good, but I would like a little credit for being a thoughtful individual.
Silent Hill (2006 movie, never played the game)
Out of the three horror movies I watched around Halloween, The Exorcist, Frankenstein, and Silent Hill, the last was, by far, the most scary.
I didn't go into it expecting much from the movie. It was adapted off of a video game, after all, and those rarely go very well (I would mention Alone in the Dark, but I haven't actually seen it). But I was surprised. Not only is Silent Hill a scary movie, but it is fairly thought provoking, has some philosophical elements, and succeeds in being entertaining.
Silent Hill is almost entirely populated by women. If anyone has any feminist ideals, you could take this good or ill: on the one hand, it's a horror movie with a bunch of helpless women, no wonder everything's going wrong; on the other, these aren't weak women. Half of them are the evil powers, one or another, and the other half are the rescuing powers.
I hope that doesn't spoil anything. The eventual cruxes of the plot are reveled in a little spot of narration, which is really the biggest problem with this film. They couldn't figure out how to reveal everything without just sidetracking and telling you what happened. It's also a little weird when they use some computer-animated footage from the game. Sometimes, this is unnoticeable, but often it is a little distracting.
Silent Hill is a "Damn Creepy" movie and I found it to be really rather good. However, there don't seem to be a lot of people who share my view, so perhaps proceed with caution.
I didn't go into it expecting much from the movie. It was adapted off of a video game, after all, and those rarely go very well (I would mention Alone in the Dark, but I haven't actually seen it). But I was surprised. Not only is Silent Hill a scary movie, but it is fairly thought provoking, has some philosophical elements, and succeeds in being entertaining.
Silent Hill is almost entirely populated by women. If anyone has any feminist ideals, you could take this good or ill: on the one hand, it's a horror movie with a bunch of helpless women, no wonder everything's going wrong; on the other, these aren't weak women. Half of them are the evil powers, one or another, and the other half are the rescuing powers.
I hope that doesn't spoil anything. The eventual cruxes of the plot are reveled in a little spot of narration, which is really the biggest problem with this film. They couldn't figure out how to reveal everything without just sidetracking and telling you what happened. It's also a little weird when they use some computer-animated footage from the game. Sometimes, this is unnoticeable, but often it is a little distracting.
Silent Hill is a "Damn Creepy" movie and I found it to be really rather good. However, there don't seem to be a lot of people who share my view, so perhaps proceed with caution.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Exorcist (1973 movie)
The first horror movie I watched this Halloween season was the famous Exorcist. The version never seen in theaters!, apparently, with extended material and whatnot.
It is a "Freaky Movie". The soundtrack, which isn't so much 'music' as horrific noise, lends itself to creepy-ness just as well as 'subliminal messages' accomplished with watermarks and flashes of satanic, demonic images. But at it's core, the Exorcist is about a child being grossly abused which makes all but the most psychotic a little uncomfortable.
The movie starts slowly enough. Setting the stage a few thousand miles from where the story actually takes place. However, this somewhat unconventional approach works well, especially when it is in the mystical and dangerous landscape of the middle east. The birth of Judeo-Christian religion as well as Western Society in general.
The movie makes me wonder, idly, if it is because of Horror movies like this that there is such a hatred of anything christian. It's been associated with the squirmy feelings of a horror movie, even if they are (usually) battling the forces of darkness. Watching Silent Hill a few days later just made this thought more prevalent in my mind.
Short Analysis (spoilers):
Especially since the Exorcist doesn't actually have the warriors of God win, really. Not through their faith. Despite all of its christian symbolism, it doesn't make a stance that Christianity is the true religion opposed to such dastardly things. The priest has to go to the point of killing himself; taking the demon into his own body and then destroying it to rid the girl of her possession.
A reappearance of Christian themes, but the demon won.
I suppose there aren't a lot of Horror movies with happy endings...
It is a "Freaky Movie". The soundtrack, which isn't so much 'music' as horrific noise, lends itself to creepy-ness just as well as 'subliminal messages' accomplished with watermarks and flashes of satanic, demonic images. But at it's core, the Exorcist is about a child being grossly abused which makes all but the most psychotic a little uncomfortable.
The movie starts slowly enough. Setting the stage a few thousand miles from where the story actually takes place. However, this somewhat unconventional approach works well, especially when it is in the mystical and dangerous landscape of the middle east. The birth of Judeo-Christian religion as well as Western Society in general.
The movie makes me wonder, idly, if it is because of Horror movies like this that there is such a hatred of anything christian. It's been associated with the squirmy feelings of a horror movie, even if they are (usually) battling the forces of darkness. Watching Silent Hill a few days later just made this thought more prevalent in my mind.
Short Analysis (spoilers):
Especially since the Exorcist doesn't actually have the warriors of God win, really. Not through their faith. Despite all of its christian symbolism, it doesn't make a stance that Christianity is the true religion opposed to such dastardly things. The priest has to go to the point of killing himself; taking the demon into his own body and then destroying it to rid the girl of her possession.
A reappearance of Christian themes, but the demon won.
I suppose there aren't a lot of Horror movies with happy endings...
Monday, November 1, 2010
Spirited Away (2001 movie)
Another film from Hayao Miyazaki, another testament to his ardor for the environment.
Another brilliant work in its own right.
Of course Spirited Away is a good movie. Many people consider it Hayao's best movie out of a very impressive lineup. It is up there, but I still like Totoro a little more for it's quietness. Totoro is a very contented movie.
Spirited Away is halfway between the two types of movies I have seen from Miyazaki: his epic fantasy movies set in a more unearthly environment and his 'this-is-sorta-earth' movies. The 'this-is-sorta-earth' movies are more homey feeling, even though I have never been to Japan. They usually have more dynamic, less extreme personalities populating the animated landscape.
Spirited Away moves from earth to the spirit world (faery) and then back again. It has a very similar balance between fantasy and reality as one would see in a Neil Gaiman work (such as Coraline). It is very good at pulling emotion out of the viewer as Chihiro, the main character, reacts as one would expect as her world begins to be destroyed around her. That doesn't mean that this is a sad movie (throughout), for she adapts and grows and becomes much stronger.
The movie means a lot of things. Some of them blatantly, some of them not so much. It has an ideology which it pushes, but it also has characters who have purposes and motives and things just happen, like in real life. There are a lot of lessons which can be learned here.
Another brilliant work in its own right.
Of course Spirited Away is a good movie. Many people consider it Hayao's best movie out of a very impressive lineup. It is up there, but I still like Totoro a little more for it's quietness. Totoro is a very contented movie.
Spirited Away is halfway between the two types of movies I have seen from Miyazaki: his epic fantasy movies set in a more unearthly environment and his 'this-is-sorta-earth' movies. The 'this-is-sorta-earth' movies are more homey feeling, even though I have never been to Japan. They usually have more dynamic, less extreme personalities populating the animated landscape.
Spirited Away moves from earth to the spirit world (faery) and then back again. It has a very similar balance between fantasy and reality as one would see in a Neil Gaiman work (such as Coraline). It is very good at pulling emotion out of the viewer as Chihiro, the main character, reacts as one would expect as her world begins to be destroyed around her. That doesn't mean that this is a sad movie (throughout), for she adapts and grows and becomes much stronger.
The movie means a lot of things. Some of them blatantly, some of them not so much. It has an ideology which it pushes, but it also has characters who have purposes and motives and things just happen, like in real life. There are a lot of lessons which can be learned here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)