By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Sean William Scott and Paul Rudd wed coarseness with wit as they attempt to transform from immature hooligans into thoughtful albeit court-ordered philanthropists in “Role Models.” A warranted but frustrating comeuppance turns out well for the pair by eliciting both reparation and moral development. A hackneyed storyline is the true misdemeanor here, but this crime is atoned for by inconsistent yet witty laughs.
Danny Donahue (Paul Rudd) is a self-aware, underachieving spokesman for Minotaur energy drink, who begrudgingly visits schools to urge kids to drink the semi-toxic energy drink instead of doing drugs. Wheeler (Seann William Scott) is Danny’s immature sidekick dressed in a Minotaur costume who, unlike Danny, has no desire to pursue a more meaningful career or lifestyle. Born out of ubiquitous frustration, it is Danny’s immature behavior, not Wheeler’s, that ends up costing Danny not only his longtime girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth Banks), but also both Danny and Wheeler their jobs and standing with the law.
As the result of a day of Danny’s reckless behavior, both he and Wheeler are sentenced to 150 hours of community service at a big brother agency called Sturdy Wings. However, jail time begins to look rather rosy next to the combination of an insane supervisor (Jane Lynch) and two of the most difficult kids to mentor. A difficult situation quickly becomes a nightmare. Wheeler is forced to contend with hell-raiser extraordinaire, Ronnie (Bobb’e Thompson), and Danny is assigned the geeky, foam-sword-wielding Auggie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse).
As is to be expected, both Danny and Wheeler are inept and uninterested at first, but the challenges they are forced to face bring about soul searching and a behavioral turnaround. Wheeler learns that there is more to life than skirt chasing and drinking, while Danny learns to appreciate other people for who they are instead of expecting everyone to see the world as he does. Four characters, all in a uniquely bad place in life, come together to both accept and change who they are. It is when each abandon their own well-being in favor of the group that each begins to thrive.
If “Role Models” is not completely unoriginal, this film at least gives the appearance of being built on an oft-used Hollywood assembly line. Six writers penned “Role Models” (rarely a very good thing), which means that this comedy was not so much focused on unity of voice or a strong narrative as much as it was focused on one-liners and situational humor. The result is a noticeably slapped-together set of scenes.
However, most moviegoers do not go to a comedy, especially one like “Role Models,” for a powerful story as much as they go for a good laugh. If the story is great, so much the better, but as long as the film is non-stop funny, all is well. Unfortunately it is not so easy to partition laughs from a storyline, especially when situational humor requires building steam to get moving. Danny and Wheeler are meant to be humorously stuck between a rock and a hard place, but this aspect of the film is rarely funny. What are funny are the jokes and one-liners, particularly the ones delivered by Paul Rudd and Jane Lynch. Rudd’s sarcasm and wit are believable and charming, even if they are painful to witness. Seann William Scott draws a few laughs, but not many.
“Role Models” is better than most other comedies similarly conceived, but certainly not a classic. Expect to laugh out loud, but don’t expect to remember it the next day.
“Role Models” is rated R for crude and sexual content, strong language and nudity.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
"Quarantine"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
If come Oct. 31, you see a dark, deserted corridor covered in dust and cobwebs with creepy noises emanating from deep within, you are most likely in one of two places: a haunted house or in a theater watching a horror flick. True to form, “Quarantine” will get your heart pumping and blood curdling. Although the plot makes hardly any sense, and the aura falls short of terrifying, this film’s horrific images and shocking jump scenes are true to the Halloween spirit.
Reporter Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) and her cameraman Scott Percival (Steve Harris) gear up for a special segment on the Los Angeles Fire Department. When the bell rings and firefighters fly down their pole, the aspiring Vidal is thrilled to be part of some real action, even if it turns out to be nothing more than rescuing a kitten from a tree. But when they arrive at an apartment complex curiously designed like a haunted mansion, it quickly becomes clear that this is no routine call.
As the camera keeps rolling, a crazed resident who is foaming at the mouth attacks one of the firefighters. Panic ensues and tensions dial up when, on their way out of the house to get their injured friend to a hospital, police close the doors and lock the group inside the complex. No explanation is given.
Eventually it becomes clear that the group is being quarantined from the rest of the city because it is suspected that a deadly virus is loose in the building. A resident who also happens to be a veterinarian recognizes the symptoms as resembling rabies, but with one twist: instead of taking hours or days for symptoms to show up, bitten or infected victims become rabid in just minutes.
A battle between the infected and uninfected develops, turning a compassionate group of people who desire the well being of everyone into a desperate army fighting against what looks like a growing cohort of zombies. The police will not let anyone out of the building, at least not while anyone is alive. Those who remain uninfected struggle to find a way out before they too fall victim to their former compatriots.
Just like the spider-webbed, zombie-ridden halls of a haunted house, “Quarantine” was not crafted to make much sense; it was crafted to frighten an audience. Viewers may wonder, for example, why the police insisted on closing off the building when the virus is only transmitted through blood or saliva, instead of isolating the lone victim and thereby saving the rest of the group.
But logic is no reason to watch a horror film. When it comes to Halloween movies, each has plenty of blood and gore, but for a horror flick to leave a real impression, a few things need to be accomplished. First, there needs to be a bit of mystery. It is important for the audience to be kept guessing, whether that is done with shaky cameras, dark corridors or mysterious occurrences. Second, there needs to be a real sense of isolation or hopelessness. In other words, an audience needs to feel like the actors and actresses are alone in the world and completely vulnerable. Finally, for a horror movie to be truly horrific, there needs to be a sense of grandeur in the enemy. This grandeur could be something quasi-ideological as in psycho movies, something paranormal as in exorcist or alien movies, or something apocalyptic as in virus movies or doomsday flicks.
Most of the mystery was taken out of “Quarantine” once the group knew that something like rabies was infecting certain members. One would think that isolation was a given, seeing as how that is pretty much the definition of quarantine, however, the fact that the desperate group was separated from the rest of the world only by a thin layer of concrete or stucco diminished the sense of loneliness. Finally, the sense of grandeur only really picks up at the end of “Quarantine.” What is left is a startling and disturbing set of shots captured on an eerie reel of film. This movie is grotesque, and succeeds in transporting the audience into a deep mood of anxiety over imagining taking a step into that horrible place.
All in all, “Quarantine” is not all that great of a movie, but will do the job if what you are looking for this Halloween is a few decent screams.
Coastal View News
If come Oct. 31, you see a dark, deserted corridor covered in dust and cobwebs with creepy noises emanating from deep within, you are most likely in one of two places: a haunted house or in a theater watching a horror flick. True to form, “Quarantine” will get your heart pumping and blood curdling. Although the plot makes hardly any sense, and the aura falls short of terrifying, this film’s horrific images and shocking jump scenes are true to the Halloween spirit.
Reporter Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) and her cameraman Scott Percival (Steve Harris) gear up for a special segment on the Los Angeles Fire Department. When the bell rings and firefighters fly down their pole, the aspiring Vidal is thrilled to be part of some real action, even if it turns out to be nothing more than rescuing a kitten from a tree. But when they arrive at an apartment complex curiously designed like a haunted mansion, it quickly becomes clear that this is no routine call.
As the camera keeps rolling, a crazed resident who is foaming at the mouth attacks one of the firefighters. Panic ensues and tensions dial up when, on their way out of the house to get their injured friend to a hospital, police close the doors and lock the group inside the complex. No explanation is given.
Eventually it becomes clear that the group is being quarantined from the rest of the city because it is suspected that a deadly virus is loose in the building. A resident who also happens to be a veterinarian recognizes the symptoms as resembling rabies, but with one twist: instead of taking hours or days for symptoms to show up, bitten or infected victims become rabid in just minutes.
A battle between the infected and uninfected develops, turning a compassionate group of people who desire the well being of everyone into a desperate army fighting against what looks like a growing cohort of zombies. The police will not let anyone out of the building, at least not while anyone is alive. Those who remain uninfected struggle to find a way out before they too fall victim to their former compatriots.
Just like the spider-webbed, zombie-ridden halls of a haunted house, “Quarantine” was not crafted to make much sense; it was crafted to frighten an audience. Viewers may wonder, for example, why the police insisted on closing off the building when the virus is only transmitted through blood or saliva, instead of isolating the lone victim and thereby saving the rest of the group.
But logic is no reason to watch a horror film. When it comes to Halloween movies, each has plenty of blood and gore, but for a horror flick to leave a real impression, a few things need to be accomplished. First, there needs to be a bit of mystery. It is important for the audience to be kept guessing, whether that is done with shaky cameras, dark corridors or mysterious occurrences. Second, there needs to be a real sense of isolation or hopelessness. In other words, an audience needs to feel like the actors and actresses are alone in the world and completely vulnerable. Finally, for a horror movie to be truly horrific, there needs to be a sense of grandeur in the enemy. This grandeur could be something quasi-ideological as in psycho movies, something paranormal as in exorcist or alien movies, or something apocalyptic as in virus movies or doomsday flicks.
Most of the mystery was taken out of “Quarantine” once the group knew that something like rabies was infecting certain members. One would think that isolation was a given, seeing as how that is pretty much the definition of quarantine, however, the fact that the desperate group was separated from the rest of the world only by a thin layer of concrete or stucco diminished the sense of loneliness. Finally, the sense of grandeur only really picks up at the end of “Quarantine.” What is left is a startling and disturbing set of shots captured on an eerie reel of film. This movie is grotesque, and succeeds in transporting the audience into a deep mood of anxiety over imagining taking a step into that horrible place.
All in all, “Quarantine” is not all that great of a movie, but will do the job if what you are looking for this Halloween is a few decent screams.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
"Choke"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
It's rare that a deity and a scoundrel are one and the same. Victor Mancini (Sam Rockwell) is not sure where the needle on his self-assessment barometer lies, but he has a strong feeling that it is not somewhere in the middle; either that or the barometer is broken. “Choke”—an off-color comedy based off a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, author or “Fight Club”—is an eccentric look at a man incapable of being satisfied. Although amusing and interesting, this film is likely to leave audiences, like the protagonist, just short of fulfilled.
Victor is a sex addict, and an ornery one at that. He utilizes any setting—from rehabilitation classes to the colonial pasture where he works as a reenactment tour guide—to sate his insatiable impulses. However, Victor’s life does not revolve solely around lewd and superficial behavior. He also scams the wealthy by pretending to choke on his meal while in high-end restaurants; a move that Victor finds endears him to potential financial backers.
To be fair, Victor does have a nobler side. He spends his money, both earned and scammed, to help pay for his mother Ida (Anjelica Huston) to be hospitalized in an expensive treatment center for individuals suffering from dementia. Because Ida does not recognize her son, Victor assumes a variety of roles as a way to interact with his mother in the hospital.
The story takes a turn when Ida hints at the identity of Victor’s father, a bit of information Victor is desperate to learn about. With the help of his sex-addict friend Denny (Brad William Henke) and a tempting nurse named Paige (Kelly Macdonald), Victor seeks to find out about his past, all the while flashing back to his chaotic childhood.
As the story unfolds and more information about Victor’s past is revealed, the details of his parentage take on Biblical proportions. Still convinced that he is the scum of the earth, Victor has reason to doubt claims that he may be of divine origin.
Victor is used to being the lying cheat, and thus incorporates his character flaws into what he expects from the world. He expects to be treated as the liar, and the audience does too—after all, he deserves it, right? As it turns out, this deeply flawed person is quite a bit more honest than those around him. The juxtapositions created by ironies of this sort cause viewers to question the legitimacy of distinctions like ‘sinner’ versus ‘saint’, ‘helper’ versus ‘helpless’. Although Victor’s character is tossed from the gutter to the clouds and back again, Victor finds himself somewhere in between, or perhaps not on the scale at all.
“Choke” is as odd as it is lewd. The many-layered story is more coherent beneath the surface than it is at face value. The humor is quirky, smart and delivered well. Although “Choke” does not come close to the merits of “Fight Club” it has its own charm and might be worth watching if you have the patience and stomach to see the story play out. This movie had more potential than the final product delivered, but perhaps not a great deal more. Some of the more outlandish plot developments, which carried a minor thematic load, were probably too cliché, oddly enough, to be worthwhile. The sum total is only slightly more worthwhile.
“Choke” is rated R for strong sexual content, nudity and language.
Coastal View News
It's rare that a deity and a scoundrel are one and the same. Victor Mancini (Sam Rockwell) is not sure where the needle on his self-assessment barometer lies, but he has a strong feeling that it is not somewhere in the middle; either that or the barometer is broken. “Choke”—an off-color comedy based off a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, author or “Fight Club”—is an eccentric look at a man incapable of being satisfied. Although amusing and interesting, this film is likely to leave audiences, like the protagonist, just short of fulfilled.
Victor is a sex addict, and an ornery one at that. He utilizes any setting—from rehabilitation classes to the colonial pasture where he works as a reenactment tour guide—to sate his insatiable impulses. However, Victor’s life does not revolve solely around lewd and superficial behavior. He also scams the wealthy by pretending to choke on his meal while in high-end restaurants; a move that Victor finds endears him to potential financial backers.
To be fair, Victor does have a nobler side. He spends his money, both earned and scammed, to help pay for his mother Ida (Anjelica Huston) to be hospitalized in an expensive treatment center for individuals suffering from dementia. Because Ida does not recognize her son, Victor assumes a variety of roles as a way to interact with his mother in the hospital.
The story takes a turn when Ida hints at the identity of Victor’s father, a bit of information Victor is desperate to learn about. With the help of his sex-addict friend Denny (Brad William Henke) and a tempting nurse named Paige (Kelly Macdonald), Victor seeks to find out about his past, all the while flashing back to his chaotic childhood.
As the story unfolds and more information about Victor’s past is revealed, the details of his parentage take on Biblical proportions. Still convinced that he is the scum of the earth, Victor has reason to doubt claims that he may be of divine origin.
Victor is used to being the lying cheat, and thus incorporates his character flaws into what he expects from the world. He expects to be treated as the liar, and the audience does too—after all, he deserves it, right? As it turns out, this deeply flawed person is quite a bit more honest than those around him. The juxtapositions created by ironies of this sort cause viewers to question the legitimacy of distinctions like ‘sinner’ versus ‘saint’, ‘helper’ versus ‘helpless’. Although Victor’s character is tossed from the gutter to the clouds and back again, Victor finds himself somewhere in between, or perhaps not on the scale at all.
“Choke” is as odd as it is lewd. The many-layered story is more coherent beneath the surface than it is at face value. The humor is quirky, smart and delivered well. Although “Choke” does not come close to the merits of “Fight Club” it has its own charm and might be worth watching if you have the patience and stomach to see the story play out. This movie had more potential than the final product delivered, but perhaps not a great deal more. Some of the more outlandish plot developments, which carried a minor thematic load, were probably too cliché, oddly enough, to be worthwhile. The sum total is only slightly more worthwhile.
“Choke” is rated R for strong sexual content, nudity and language.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
"Burn After Reading"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Joel and Ethan Coen may suffer from what could be called Cinematic Bipolar Disorder—an ability more than an ailment, really, that entails alternatively creating dark dramas and then bizarre comedies. After proving themselves masters of edge-of-your-seat thrills with Oscar-dominating film “No Country for Old Men,” the Coen brothers shifted minds and set out to make a most frustratingly absurd farce named “Burn After Reading”. Few have proven adept at drawing both the laughers and screamers, but gems like “O Brother, Where Art Though” and “The Big Lebowski” illustrate the fact that the Coen brothers possesses what few Oscar-winning directors can claim to possess: a sense of humor. Alas, although the wit and quirk coloring the latest Cohen brothers foray into comedy is bound to stick with an audience predisposed to odd humor, “Burn After Reading” is far from attaining the classic status expected from the Coens.
“Burn After Reading” is a mishmash of eccentric but real characters all hanging on for dear life as their worlds spin out of control. Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is an ex-CIA analyst looking for respect, and his feisty wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is not about to give it to him; nor to her love affair Harry Pfarrar (George Clooney), who is an affable womanizer looking for a good time and a great jogging trail. Meanwhile, gym employee Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) wants a slew of cosmetic surgeries to match her physique with the name of her gym (Hard Bodies). Litzke enlists the help of her ebullient co-worker Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) to help her on her way to greater sex appeal.
After seemingly picking a bunch of characters out of hat, Joel and Ethan Coen set to crafting a comedy of errors. In an attempt to make his life worthwhile, the stuck-up Osborne Cox decides to ignore his pestering wife’s criticisms and write a memoir. Little does he know that his lack of lucrative ambition has caused his wife to prepare for a divorce by laying hands on his financial information, and perhaps accidentally, his memoir. The disk containing this information is mistakenly left at Hard Bodies, and when the contents are examined by the ever-excitable Chad Feldheimer, who thinks the data is top-secret CIA information, he joins forces with Litzke to blackmail the unsuspecting Cox. Litzke wants the cash for a tummy tuck and breast implants, while the enthusiastic but dim Feldheimer simply wants to play a game of cops and robbers.
Although the data is hardly CIA classified, Cox treats his personal information as if it were for his eyes only. Litzke and Feldheimer are over their heads, which only complicates matters furthers, and the fact that divorce and bankruptcy loom on more than one character’s horizon causes patience to ebb and rash behavior to flow. Already moving steadily from order to disorder, this absurd tale becomes more outlandish by the minute. Cox wants respect and his disk, but is having an equally difficult time attaining either. Feldheimer is having a good time, but Litzke is not getting any closer to her artificially constructed goals. This movie shows that sometimes when you get all the right ingredients working in just the right proportions at just the right temperature, a perfect fiasco ensues.
“Burn After Reading” pits the wits of elite minds against the unpredictability of banal scheming. It is both painful and amusing to watch so many people make so many poor choices at the same time. In a farce, character development is sacrificed for situational development. The Coen brothers enlisted a phenomenal cast to bring life to the story, but their talents may have been better implemented in more amusing circumstances.
For all the bizarre plot turns, “Burn After Reading” is well crafted. It is well crafted, but not all that enjoyable. Most of the potentially laugh-out-loud moments in this movie elicit a chuckle, and thus the audience is bound to become restless while the perfect storm takes too long to develop. Yet although “Burn After Reading” might be a letdown for fans of the Coen brothers, it is easy to admire a sharply built and fast moving cyclone of human drama.
“Burn After Reading” is rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence.
Coastal View News
Joel and Ethan Coen may suffer from what could be called Cinematic Bipolar Disorder—an ability more than an ailment, really, that entails alternatively creating dark dramas and then bizarre comedies. After proving themselves masters of edge-of-your-seat thrills with Oscar-dominating film “No Country for Old Men,” the Coen brothers shifted minds and set out to make a most frustratingly absurd farce named “Burn After Reading”. Few have proven adept at drawing both the laughers and screamers, but gems like “O Brother, Where Art Though” and “The Big Lebowski” illustrate the fact that the Coen brothers possesses what few Oscar-winning directors can claim to possess: a sense of humor. Alas, although the wit and quirk coloring the latest Cohen brothers foray into comedy is bound to stick with an audience predisposed to odd humor, “Burn After Reading” is far from attaining the classic status expected from the Coens.
“Burn After Reading” is a mishmash of eccentric but real characters all hanging on for dear life as their worlds spin out of control. Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is an ex-CIA analyst looking for respect, and his feisty wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is not about to give it to him; nor to her love affair Harry Pfarrar (George Clooney), who is an affable womanizer looking for a good time and a great jogging trail. Meanwhile, gym employee Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) wants a slew of cosmetic surgeries to match her physique with the name of her gym (Hard Bodies). Litzke enlists the help of her ebullient co-worker Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) to help her on her way to greater sex appeal.
After seemingly picking a bunch of characters out of hat, Joel and Ethan Coen set to crafting a comedy of errors. In an attempt to make his life worthwhile, the stuck-up Osborne Cox decides to ignore his pestering wife’s criticisms and write a memoir. Little does he know that his lack of lucrative ambition has caused his wife to prepare for a divorce by laying hands on his financial information, and perhaps accidentally, his memoir. The disk containing this information is mistakenly left at Hard Bodies, and when the contents are examined by the ever-excitable Chad Feldheimer, who thinks the data is top-secret CIA information, he joins forces with Litzke to blackmail the unsuspecting Cox. Litzke wants the cash for a tummy tuck and breast implants, while the enthusiastic but dim Feldheimer simply wants to play a game of cops and robbers.
Although the data is hardly CIA classified, Cox treats his personal information as if it were for his eyes only. Litzke and Feldheimer are over their heads, which only complicates matters furthers, and the fact that divorce and bankruptcy loom on more than one character’s horizon causes patience to ebb and rash behavior to flow. Already moving steadily from order to disorder, this absurd tale becomes more outlandish by the minute. Cox wants respect and his disk, but is having an equally difficult time attaining either. Feldheimer is having a good time, but Litzke is not getting any closer to her artificially constructed goals. This movie shows that sometimes when you get all the right ingredients working in just the right proportions at just the right temperature, a perfect fiasco ensues.
“Burn After Reading” pits the wits of elite minds against the unpredictability of banal scheming. It is both painful and amusing to watch so many people make so many poor choices at the same time. In a farce, character development is sacrificed for situational development. The Coen brothers enlisted a phenomenal cast to bring life to the story, but their talents may have been better implemented in more amusing circumstances.
For all the bizarre plot turns, “Burn After Reading” is well crafted. It is well crafted, but not all that enjoyable. Most of the potentially laugh-out-loud moments in this movie elicit a chuckle, and thus the audience is bound to become restless while the perfect storm takes too long to develop. Yet although “Burn After Reading” might be a letdown for fans of the Coen brothers, it is easy to admire a sharply built and fast moving cyclone of human drama.
“Burn After Reading” is rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
"Traitor"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Samir Horn is the new international man of mystery. Unfortunately, that is not a good thing. What is mysterious in this action movie has nothing to do with espionage or intrigue. What is mysterious is why a peaceful, intelligent, God-fearing man would undertake a violent, utilitarian mission brainstormed by a single cowboy in the United States government … all in the name of peace? The tagline for “Traitor,” starring Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce, reads, “The truth is complicated.” The truth is that the point of this movie gets complicated, but never irons itself out.
Samir Horn (Cheadle) is a high-tech arms dealer for terrorist groups in the Middle East. This devout Muslim makes bombs and fuses that help end innocent, civilian lives. But when the local police and the Americans find out about a deal Horn is set to make, they raid the party. Horn is arrested, beaten and imprisoned. He refuses a deal offered by a sharp FBI agent named Roy Clayton (Pearce), instead choosing to display solidarity with his captured comrades.
Lucky for Horn, when his terrorist buddies manage to escape from prison, they decide to take him along for the ride. Horn is immediately immersed in a terrorist underworld that involves the recruitment and deployment of suicide bombers to civilian targets. Horn enthusiastically joins in the festivities, offering his own technological expertise in order to make bombings more efficient.
Meanwhile, agent Clayton is hot on Horn’s trail. He and his team discover mountains of evidence linking Horn to numerous bombings throughout the world. Clayton is thorough and efficient, but also thoughtful and understanding. Whereas others in his posse associate all Muslims with terrorism, Clayton beleives every ideology has its heroes and its villains. Thus, Clayton is more willing to believe that something more than meets the eye is going on.
Indeed, beneath the bombings and violence is a story that makes the whole affair quite a bit more complicated. Before thousands are killed and millions are thrown into terror, the characters in this movie have to find a way to look below the surface, work together and end a threat.
Although this premise had promise, “Traitor” ends up flopping at the end. None of the questions the audience needs answered—particularly in terms of motivation—are even remotely satisfied. The intelligence of Cheadle’s character conflicts with the foolhardy risks he is willing to take with his life and the lives of others. The uniformity of the evidence mounting in front of Pearce’s by-the-book character conflicts with how he ends up seeking resolution. Thus, it is neither easy to like nor to understand any of the main characters. Some interesting religious undercurrents were present, but they were not developed into anything meaningful.
All in all, watching this movie is a bit like being privy to a hotshot teenager who tries to show off by racing his parents’ car, only to crash the thing into a ditch. Even if he would have won the race, you probably wouldn’t have admired him. Sound acting performances were delivered by Cheadle and Pearce, but this movie with a head full of steam spun out well before the closing credits.
“Traitor” is rated PG-13 for intense violence sequences, thematic material and brief language.
Coastal View News
Samir Horn is the new international man of mystery. Unfortunately, that is not a good thing. What is mysterious in this action movie has nothing to do with espionage or intrigue. What is mysterious is why a peaceful, intelligent, God-fearing man would undertake a violent, utilitarian mission brainstormed by a single cowboy in the United States government … all in the name of peace? The tagline for “Traitor,” starring Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce, reads, “The truth is complicated.” The truth is that the point of this movie gets complicated, but never irons itself out.
Samir Horn (Cheadle) is a high-tech arms dealer for terrorist groups in the Middle East. This devout Muslim makes bombs and fuses that help end innocent, civilian lives. But when the local police and the Americans find out about a deal Horn is set to make, they raid the party. Horn is arrested, beaten and imprisoned. He refuses a deal offered by a sharp FBI agent named Roy Clayton (Pearce), instead choosing to display solidarity with his captured comrades.
Lucky for Horn, when his terrorist buddies manage to escape from prison, they decide to take him along for the ride. Horn is immediately immersed in a terrorist underworld that involves the recruitment and deployment of suicide bombers to civilian targets. Horn enthusiastically joins in the festivities, offering his own technological expertise in order to make bombings more efficient.
Meanwhile, agent Clayton is hot on Horn’s trail. He and his team discover mountains of evidence linking Horn to numerous bombings throughout the world. Clayton is thorough and efficient, but also thoughtful and understanding. Whereas others in his posse associate all Muslims with terrorism, Clayton beleives every ideology has its heroes and its villains. Thus, Clayton is more willing to believe that something more than meets the eye is going on.
Indeed, beneath the bombings and violence is a story that makes the whole affair quite a bit more complicated. Before thousands are killed and millions are thrown into terror, the characters in this movie have to find a way to look below the surface, work together and end a threat.
Although this premise had promise, “Traitor” ends up flopping at the end. None of the questions the audience needs answered—particularly in terms of motivation—are even remotely satisfied. The intelligence of Cheadle’s character conflicts with the foolhardy risks he is willing to take with his life and the lives of others. The uniformity of the evidence mounting in front of Pearce’s by-the-book character conflicts with how he ends up seeking resolution. Thus, it is neither easy to like nor to understand any of the main characters. Some interesting religious undercurrents were present, but they were not developed into anything meaningful.
All in all, watching this movie is a bit like being privy to a hotshot teenager who tries to show off by racing his parents’ car, only to crash the thing into a ditch. Even if he would have won the race, you probably wouldn’t have admired him. Sound acting performances were delivered by Cheadle and Pearce, but this movie with a head full of steam spun out well before the closing credits.
“Traitor” is rated PG-13 for intense violence sequences, thematic material and brief language.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
"Tropic Thunder"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
After 15 minutes of previews, moviegoers rushing to see “Tropic Thunder” have to sit through a few more coming attractions. First, a commercial for an energy drink called “Booty Sweat.” Second in the lineup is a preview for the most stereotypical action movie one could ever imagine … and then the audience begins to catch on—this is part of the movie. Yet audiences who need a bit more than slapstick comedy to crack a smile will continue to be confused throughout the film. Forget a war between nations, or bickering amongst agents, actors and moguls; the real conflict in “Tropic Thunder” is its own style. Is it a clever satire or is it a silly spoof? Splitting hairs, one might think, but the ironic voice in this star-studded movie is confused.
Three big-time actors, each dominating their respective genre (action, comedy and drama), are brought together for what is billed as “the greatest war movie ever made.” Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is the perennial action star, with guns and biceps ablaze. Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a slapstick master who makes a living off farting while dressed in various fat suits. Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is the Oscar winner, winning the hearts of audiences with powerfully emotional performances. With such a cast, how could anything go wrong?
Yet, as the actors fail to gel with each other and as the enormous budget gets stretched, production company executives begin to put the squeeze on the movie’s rookie director (Steve Coogan). Feeling the pressure, the director decides to throw the cast out into the middle of a Vietnamese jungle in an attempt to motivate the spoiled stars. At first the actors feel the mixed emotions of leaving their posh hotels while at the same time being a part of something fresh and exciting. However, as time goes on and the war blazes, the actors begin to realize that they are no longer on the set of a movie. Instead, they have found their way onto the territory of a dangerous Vietnamese drug ring, placing them in real-life peril.
These phony actors are forced to look below their superficial exteriors to find a way to live what they have only pretended to do for so long. One of the actors is captured and put in serious danger, and the others take it upon themselves to bring him back. Meanwhile, agents and executives back home are mostly unaware of what is happening. With stumbling hiccups, these Hollywood stars attempt to become real heroes.
Good actors can always deliver good lines, and there are certainly some laugh-out-loud moments produced by Jack Black, Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder.” Yet, what began as a witty commentary on stereotypical movies ended up being more like a spoof in the mold of “Hot Shots” or “Naked Gun.” The movie these actors are supposed to be creating is ridiculous in itself, but the story that unfolds once the cameras stop rolling is just as void of merit. Thus, it is difficult to place this movie in its cinematic space. If there were a more consistent motif being portrayed, it might be easier to laugh at the circumstances, but as it is, “Tropic Thunder” is a sprawling story punctuated by moments of hilarity. Those who liked “Hot Shots,” “Naked Gun” or even “Dogma” are sure to like this movie, but those who yawned at the aforementioned flicks might lack the patience for “Tropic Thunder.”
“Tropic Thunder” is rated R for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material.
Coastal View News
After 15 minutes of previews, moviegoers rushing to see “Tropic Thunder” have to sit through a few more coming attractions. First, a commercial for an energy drink called “Booty Sweat.” Second in the lineup is a preview for the most stereotypical action movie one could ever imagine … and then the audience begins to catch on—this is part of the movie. Yet audiences who need a bit more than slapstick comedy to crack a smile will continue to be confused throughout the film. Forget a war between nations, or bickering amongst agents, actors and moguls; the real conflict in “Tropic Thunder” is its own style. Is it a clever satire or is it a silly spoof? Splitting hairs, one might think, but the ironic voice in this star-studded movie is confused.
Three big-time actors, each dominating their respective genre (action, comedy and drama), are brought together for what is billed as “the greatest war movie ever made.” Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is the perennial action star, with guns and biceps ablaze. Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a slapstick master who makes a living off farting while dressed in various fat suits. Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is the Oscar winner, winning the hearts of audiences with powerfully emotional performances. With such a cast, how could anything go wrong?
Yet, as the actors fail to gel with each other and as the enormous budget gets stretched, production company executives begin to put the squeeze on the movie’s rookie director (Steve Coogan). Feeling the pressure, the director decides to throw the cast out into the middle of a Vietnamese jungle in an attempt to motivate the spoiled stars. At first the actors feel the mixed emotions of leaving their posh hotels while at the same time being a part of something fresh and exciting. However, as time goes on and the war blazes, the actors begin to realize that they are no longer on the set of a movie. Instead, they have found their way onto the territory of a dangerous Vietnamese drug ring, placing them in real-life peril.
These phony actors are forced to look below their superficial exteriors to find a way to live what they have only pretended to do for so long. One of the actors is captured and put in serious danger, and the others take it upon themselves to bring him back. Meanwhile, agents and executives back home are mostly unaware of what is happening. With stumbling hiccups, these Hollywood stars attempt to become real heroes.
Good actors can always deliver good lines, and there are certainly some laugh-out-loud moments produced by Jack Black, Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder.” Yet, what began as a witty commentary on stereotypical movies ended up being more like a spoof in the mold of “Hot Shots” or “Naked Gun.” The movie these actors are supposed to be creating is ridiculous in itself, but the story that unfolds once the cameras stop rolling is just as void of merit. Thus, it is difficult to place this movie in its cinematic space. If there were a more consistent motif being portrayed, it might be easier to laugh at the circumstances, but as it is, “Tropic Thunder” is a sprawling story punctuated by moments of hilarity. Those who liked “Hot Shots,” “Naked Gun” or even “Dogma” are sure to like this movie, but those who yawned at the aforementioned flicks might lack the patience for “Tropic Thunder.”
“Tropic Thunder” is rated R for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material.
Monday, July 21, 2008
"The Dark Knight"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
For numerous reasons, both auspicious and not, “The Dark Knight” has been burdened with anticipation—forced to outdo any film in the Batman series and perhaps even in the superhero genre. The unique atmosphere surrounding this film has only born questions to further inflate expectations. Could the late Heath Ledger win an Oscar? Could this be the best superhero movie of all time? If box office numbers decided these questions, the golden statue would have been engraved two weeks ago. But putting aside questions, expectations, hopes, genre, history and tragedies, “The Dark Knight” lived up to itself, and surpassed itself, as a truly great movie.
In “The Dark Knight,” Batman (Christian Bale) is attempting to subdue Gotham’s crime, but the riffraff of criminality mixed with complications associated with his own imitators keep the superhero distracted and disillusioned. It is Batman’s belief that what the city needs is a police infrastructure, not a vigilante warrior. At just the right moment, Harvey Dent (Aaaron Eckhart) becomes Gotham’s new district attorney, swearing to be tough on crime and pledging to pull no punches. The presence of this impressive new addition to the city’s crime-fighting force is immediately felt—scores of big-time criminals are put behind bars.
Batman, who was feeling stretched thin, is pleased with what he is seeing from Dent and looks forward to stepping down as Gotham’s crime-fighting hero. However, a new kind of criminal comes on the scene. Calling himself the Joker (Heath Ledger), this scarred, painted, greasy-haired maniac is true to his name, perpetrating his crimes for the mere pleasure of it all. At first, Batman and Dent downplay the importance of the Joker, but when the latter ups the ante by throwing the city into chaos, Batman is called back into action.
The Joker is far more sophisticated than the average criminal, or even the average villain. He is clever, diabolical and at least two steps ahead of everyone, including Batman. What is more disturbing about the Joker is that he is not interested in money, revenge or any sensible objective. He claims to want nothing more than to have Batman unmasked, but in the end all he wants is to make a game out of killing and chaos. Make no mistake, the Joker is refined and ideological, but paradoxically, in a nihilistic sort of way. He has a purpose and a plan—a way he wants things to unfold—while at the same time not ultimately caring, even for his own life. He wants to show that “everything burns,” and what better way to do that than to send a city of 30 million inhabitants into anarchy?
The mayhem brought on by the Joker causes Batman, Dent, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bruce Wayne’s perennial love and Dent’s current girlfriend) and the police department to re-evaluate their ideology, their values and what they are willing to do to win the war against the Joker. The truly terrifying fact is that defeating the Joker does not come down to putting him behind bars or killing him, for the Joker would gladly submit himself to either, so long as the images of the heroes and shining faces of the city go down with him.
This film begins as a fairly commonplace, action-packed superhero movie, but by the end, it transformed itself into a thought-provoking, profound social commentary. In particular, the concepts evoked by the Joker are startling and sinister. He is a true Nietzschean villain: he believes in nothing, and so determines to make his life a work of art. He unmasks all the hypocrisy and false ideology typical of any organized society—hoping to cause its very structure to crumble.
Heath Ledger does a truly remarkable job as the Joker, and the rest of the cast is fairly good. Christian Bale is good, but not as good as he could be or has been in other roles. Aaron Eckhart was just O.K., as was Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gary Oldman as Lt. James Gordon was perhaps second only to Heath Ledger in quality of performance.
This movie is fast, thrilling and dramatic. It keeps the audience on the edge of their seats and causes them to feel the ups and downs of the plot as if they were personally involved in the story. With superhero movies currently all the rage, “The Dark Knight” is the only one that stands above the rest—the only superhero movie that surpasses the genre.
“The Dark Knight” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.
Coastal View News
For numerous reasons, both auspicious and not, “The Dark Knight” has been burdened with anticipation—forced to outdo any film in the Batman series and perhaps even in the superhero genre. The unique atmosphere surrounding this film has only born questions to further inflate expectations. Could the late Heath Ledger win an Oscar? Could this be the best superhero movie of all time? If box office numbers decided these questions, the golden statue would have been engraved two weeks ago. But putting aside questions, expectations, hopes, genre, history and tragedies, “The Dark Knight” lived up to itself, and surpassed itself, as a truly great movie.
In “The Dark Knight,” Batman (Christian Bale) is attempting to subdue Gotham’s crime, but the riffraff of criminality mixed with complications associated with his own imitators keep the superhero distracted and disillusioned. It is Batman’s belief that what the city needs is a police infrastructure, not a vigilante warrior. At just the right moment, Harvey Dent (Aaaron Eckhart) becomes Gotham’s new district attorney, swearing to be tough on crime and pledging to pull no punches. The presence of this impressive new addition to the city’s crime-fighting force is immediately felt—scores of big-time criminals are put behind bars.
Batman, who was feeling stretched thin, is pleased with what he is seeing from Dent and looks forward to stepping down as Gotham’s crime-fighting hero. However, a new kind of criminal comes on the scene. Calling himself the Joker (Heath Ledger), this scarred, painted, greasy-haired maniac is true to his name, perpetrating his crimes for the mere pleasure of it all. At first, Batman and Dent downplay the importance of the Joker, but when the latter ups the ante by throwing the city into chaos, Batman is called back into action.
The Joker is far more sophisticated than the average criminal, or even the average villain. He is clever, diabolical and at least two steps ahead of everyone, including Batman. What is more disturbing about the Joker is that he is not interested in money, revenge or any sensible objective. He claims to want nothing more than to have Batman unmasked, but in the end all he wants is to make a game out of killing and chaos. Make no mistake, the Joker is refined and ideological, but paradoxically, in a nihilistic sort of way. He has a purpose and a plan—a way he wants things to unfold—while at the same time not ultimately caring, even for his own life. He wants to show that “everything burns,” and what better way to do that than to send a city of 30 million inhabitants into anarchy?
The mayhem brought on by the Joker causes Batman, Dent, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bruce Wayne’s perennial love and Dent’s current girlfriend) and the police department to re-evaluate their ideology, their values and what they are willing to do to win the war against the Joker. The truly terrifying fact is that defeating the Joker does not come down to putting him behind bars or killing him, for the Joker would gladly submit himself to either, so long as the images of the heroes and shining faces of the city go down with him.
This film begins as a fairly commonplace, action-packed superhero movie, but by the end, it transformed itself into a thought-provoking, profound social commentary. In particular, the concepts evoked by the Joker are startling and sinister. He is a true Nietzschean villain: he believes in nothing, and so determines to make his life a work of art. He unmasks all the hypocrisy and false ideology typical of any organized society—hoping to cause its very structure to crumble.
Heath Ledger does a truly remarkable job as the Joker, and the rest of the cast is fairly good. Christian Bale is good, but not as good as he could be or has been in other roles. Aaron Eckhart was just O.K., as was Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gary Oldman as Lt. James Gordon was perhaps second only to Heath Ledger in quality of performance.
This movie is fast, thrilling and dramatic. It keeps the audience on the edge of their seats and causes them to feel the ups and downs of the plot as if they were personally involved in the story. With superhero movies currently all the rage, “The Dark Knight” is the only one that stands above the rest—the only superhero movie that surpasses the genre.
“The Dark Knight” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
"Mongol"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“Do not scorn a weak cub; he may become a brutal tiger.” Most individuals have heard the name Genghis Kahn, but few have heard of Temudjin. Likewise, and true to the Mongolian proverb which prefaces “Mongol,” most individuals know the protagonist of this Best Foreign Film nominee as a brutal tiger, not the weak cub who was once scorned. Although this story of Genghis Kahn’s rise to power is surely a fictional portrayal, “Mongol” is a genuine cultural experience, both charming and alarming.
Temudjin is a proud and disciplined young boy whose father is a Kahn, the leader of his clan. Temudjin’s future seems certain: he will choose a wife and rule the clan in prosperity. However, when the Temudjin’s father suddenly dies on the way home from a trip to help find his son a wife, the headstrong boy’s secure future dies as well. Instead of becoming the young Kahn, Temudjin is immersed in a dangerous environment more suitable for experienced warriors. Temudjin is driven from his home and left for dead. Yet with the aid of an unexpected friend, the rightful Kahn returns, but only to be captured and made a slave.
The next few decades of Temudjin’s life are a struggle to stay alive, to stay free and to grab what is his. He fights his enemies as well as his friends, making sure to form plenty of grudges along the way. In this Mongolian culture, everything is transitory. What is yours is that which you are strong enough to take. Whether it is horses or a wife, property and relationships trade hands as often as territories in a game of Risk—often as if settled by a roll of the dice. At one and the same time, Temudjin learns to both embrace and scorn this way of life. He believes his wife and his horses are his own, yet he often shows a willingness to play the power struggle game, and in the process endangers that which he holds precious. A very fine line between greatness and great failure develops, and if the audience did not know how the story turned out, they might have wondered whether Temudjin was destined to be a king or a slave.
This film only reveals glimpses of Temudjin as Genghis Kahn, the king of all the kings; a man who expresses his desire to bring law to Mongolians, even if he has to kill half of them. Herein lies a central ideological conflict that remains unsettled. Was Genghis Kahn’s legacy positive because he brought order to mayhem, or was it negative because he was part of the mayhem—perhaps the most brutal part? Which is worse, anarchy or dictatorship? These unresolved conflicts are intentional and important. The tagline for this movie, “Greatness comes to those who take it,” appropriately portrays Temudjin, with all his moral complication, as a great man for his willful persistence and disciplined focus.
In addition to being a unique ideological experience, the setting and production of this film is sharp and beautiful. Not since “The Lord of the Rings” has scenery in a movie been this appealing. However, “Mongol” also had its flaws. Those who come to see Genghis Kahn the warrior will be mostly disappointed. This movie is slow and sometimes sprawling, punctuated with a few fast-paced battle scenes. The film’s transitory feel is critical to its themes, but at times this sensation causes detachment from the audience and hurts the logical flow of the story. “Mongol” will always be interesting, but you may have to be in the right mood to enjoy it.
“Mongol” is rated R for sequences of bloody warfare.
Coastal View News
“Do not scorn a weak cub; he may become a brutal tiger.” Most individuals have heard the name Genghis Kahn, but few have heard of Temudjin. Likewise, and true to the Mongolian proverb which prefaces “Mongol,” most individuals know the protagonist of this Best Foreign Film nominee as a brutal tiger, not the weak cub who was once scorned. Although this story of Genghis Kahn’s rise to power is surely a fictional portrayal, “Mongol” is a genuine cultural experience, both charming and alarming.
Temudjin is a proud and disciplined young boy whose father is a Kahn, the leader of his clan. Temudjin’s future seems certain: he will choose a wife and rule the clan in prosperity. However, when the Temudjin’s father suddenly dies on the way home from a trip to help find his son a wife, the headstrong boy’s secure future dies as well. Instead of becoming the young Kahn, Temudjin is immersed in a dangerous environment more suitable for experienced warriors. Temudjin is driven from his home and left for dead. Yet with the aid of an unexpected friend, the rightful Kahn returns, but only to be captured and made a slave.
The next few decades of Temudjin’s life are a struggle to stay alive, to stay free and to grab what is his. He fights his enemies as well as his friends, making sure to form plenty of grudges along the way. In this Mongolian culture, everything is transitory. What is yours is that which you are strong enough to take. Whether it is horses or a wife, property and relationships trade hands as often as territories in a game of Risk—often as if settled by a roll of the dice. At one and the same time, Temudjin learns to both embrace and scorn this way of life. He believes his wife and his horses are his own, yet he often shows a willingness to play the power struggle game, and in the process endangers that which he holds precious. A very fine line between greatness and great failure develops, and if the audience did not know how the story turned out, they might have wondered whether Temudjin was destined to be a king or a slave.
This film only reveals glimpses of Temudjin as Genghis Kahn, the king of all the kings; a man who expresses his desire to bring law to Mongolians, even if he has to kill half of them. Herein lies a central ideological conflict that remains unsettled. Was Genghis Kahn’s legacy positive because he brought order to mayhem, or was it negative because he was part of the mayhem—perhaps the most brutal part? Which is worse, anarchy or dictatorship? These unresolved conflicts are intentional and important. The tagline for this movie, “Greatness comes to those who take it,” appropriately portrays Temudjin, with all his moral complication, as a great man for his willful persistence and disciplined focus.
In addition to being a unique ideological experience, the setting and production of this film is sharp and beautiful. Not since “The Lord of the Rings” has scenery in a movie been this appealing. However, “Mongol” also had its flaws. Those who come to see Genghis Kahn the warrior will be mostly disappointed. This movie is slow and sometimes sprawling, punctuated with a few fast-paced battle scenes. The film’s transitory feel is critical to its themes, but at times this sensation causes detachment from the audience and hurts the logical flow of the story. “Mongol” will always be interesting, but you may have to be in the right mood to enjoy it.
“Mongol” is rated R for sequences of bloody warfare.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
"WALL-E"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Whether it is toys, bugs or monsters; fish, cars or rats, Pixar Studios has turned the unconscious conscious by cleverly animating the inanimate. In WALL-E, Pixar took the next step in humanization, turning a post-apocalyptic dystopia into a charming adventure with a moral punch. WALL-E gives audiences everything they have reason to expect from Pixar, and even a bit more.
WALL-E is a garbage man, trash compactor and architect rolled into one rusted-over, sentimental machine. He wakes up in the morning (reboots), grabs a nice, hot dose of solar energy, and then sets off to work with his plastic lunch pale and cockroach friend. His job, his directive, is to clean up the trash heap that is Earth. He chugs across cities of garbage, picks a few morsels up, tosses them into his stomach compartment and mashes the trash into a neat little cube, which he then stacks into enormous, refuse skyscrapers. WALL-E also has a personal life, which is time spent cataloging insignificant treasures from the rubbish heaps while longing for humanesque contact.
The lonely world of WALL-E is rocked when a giant rocket lands into his life, right on top of his life. Out comes Eve, a shiny, spectacular and grossly intimidating babe of a robot. While Eve is buzzing around in search of her directive, WALL-E is a puppy dog, following her all over, hoping to get noticed by this dreamy cyborg while managing to look like a banged-up old klutz. Eventually Eve takes notice, finds WALL-E’s plain and unassuming nature charming, and a relationship develops.
Yet just when things are going perfectly for WALL-E, Eve unconsciously clams up and the rocket returns, snatching her back into space. But WALL-E is not about to let the best thing that ever happened to him just fly off. He clings to the side of the rocket ship and flies across the universe, ending up at an even larger space vessel. WALL-E, a cantankerous old simpleton of a robot, is introduced to a comfort-driven, automated society as if sprung from the pages of a Huxley novel. Grossly overweight humans ride around on flying chairs with video screens plastered in front of them. Everything is streamlined and automatic, making life outside the video screen unnecessary and uncomfortable. WALL-E has far more personality—seems like much less of an automaton—than these vapid Homo sapiens.
WALL-E never loses sight of his primary mission—reunification with Eve—but along the way plays an integral role in another mission. By being his same, old, outdated self, WALL-E opens the eyes of the bloated passengers and helps them take their first steps toward liberation from self-indulgent complacence. All he wanted was a companion, but WALL-E shows the depth of his character once he realizes that the universe’s problems are larger than his own.
The employees of Pixar Studios are masters of the human simile: they have a knack for making any ordinary object seem like a real person replete with idiosyncratic quirks and foibles. It is intrinsically amusing to see a rusty trash compacter buzz around like a human, as if specific human needs and desires could be directly translated into the robot world. Instead of a cup of coffee, for example, an energizing zap of solar power gets WALL-E going each morning.
Beyond the animation and the simile, Pixar knows how to tell a great story and WALL-E is no exception. But even beyond the storyline, WALL-E has a message that is more specific and more profound than the average moral truisms expressed in most animated features. The true accomplishment of this film is that it garners the perspective and meaning of the best dystopia stories without losing the Pixar charm.
Comparing Pixar’s nine films is like comparing the SAT scores of Harvard students, but if a comparison had to be done, WALL-E would be somewhere in the middle, perhaps above Cars and A Bug’s Life, but below Finding Nemo and Toy Story. WALL-E might not be quite as endearing or constantly engaging as some of the others, but its strength of message bumps it up a few notches. Like all Pixar films, this is definitely a movie to see again and again.
Coastal View News
Whether it is toys, bugs or monsters; fish, cars or rats, Pixar Studios has turned the unconscious conscious by cleverly animating the inanimate. In WALL-E, Pixar took the next step in humanization, turning a post-apocalyptic dystopia into a charming adventure with a moral punch. WALL-E gives audiences everything they have reason to expect from Pixar, and even a bit more.
WALL-E is a garbage man, trash compactor and architect rolled into one rusted-over, sentimental machine. He wakes up in the morning (reboots), grabs a nice, hot dose of solar energy, and then sets off to work with his plastic lunch pale and cockroach friend. His job, his directive, is to clean up the trash heap that is Earth. He chugs across cities of garbage, picks a few morsels up, tosses them into his stomach compartment and mashes the trash into a neat little cube, which he then stacks into enormous, refuse skyscrapers. WALL-E also has a personal life, which is time spent cataloging insignificant treasures from the rubbish heaps while longing for humanesque contact.
The lonely world of WALL-E is rocked when a giant rocket lands into his life, right on top of his life. Out comes Eve, a shiny, spectacular and grossly intimidating babe of a robot. While Eve is buzzing around in search of her directive, WALL-E is a puppy dog, following her all over, hoping to get noticed by this dreamy cyborg while managing to look like a banged-up old klutz. Eventually Eve takes notice, finds WALL-E’s plain and unassuming nature charming, and a relationship develops.
Yet just when things are going perfectly for WALL-E, Eve unconsciously clams up and the rocket returns, snatching her back into space. But WALL-E is not about to let the best thing that ever happened to him just fly off. He clings to the side of the rocket ship and flies across the universe, ending up at an even larger space vessel. WALL-E, a cantankerous old simpleton of a robot, is introduced to a comfort-driven, automated society as if sprung from the pages of a Huxley novel. Grossly overweight humans ride around on flying chairs with video screens plastered in front of them. Everything is streamlined and automatic, making life outside the video screen unnecessary and uncomfortable. WALL-E has far more personality—seems like much less of an automaton—than these vapid Homo sapiens.
WALL-E never loses sight of his primary mission—reunification with Eve—but along the way plays an integral role in another mission. By being his same, old, outdated self, WALL-E opens the eyes of the bloated passengers and helps them take their first steps toward liberation from self-indulgent complacence. All he wanted was a companion, but WALL-E shows the depth of his character once he realizes that the universe’s problems are larger than his own.
The employees of Pixar Studios are masters of the human simile: they have a knack for making any ordinary object seem like a real person replete with idiosyncratic quirks and foibles. It is intrinsically amusing to see a rusty trash compacter buzz around like a human, as if specific human needs and desires could be directly translated into the robot world. Instead of a cup of coffee, for example, an energizing zap of solar power gets WALL-E going each morning.
Beyond the animation and the simile, Pixar knows how to tell a great story and WALL-E is no exception. But even beyond the storyline, WALL-E has a message that is more specific and more profound than the average moral truisms expressed in most animated features. The true accomplishment of this film is that it garners the perspective and meaning of the best dystopia stories without losing the Pixar charm.
Comparing Pixar’s nine films is like comparing the SAT scores of Harvard students, but if a comparison had to be done, WALL-E would be somewhere in the middle, perhaps above Cars and A Bug’s Life, but below Finding Nemo and Toy Story. WALL-E might not be quite as endearing or constantly engaging as some of the others, but its strength of message bumps it up a few notches. Like all Pixar films, this is definitely a movie to see again and again.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
"The Happening"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Equipped with mountains of talent, writer/director M. Night Shyamalan unfortunately gave his blood-thirsty critics reason to lick their lips when he crafted, “The Happening”: a promising, titillating concept turned sour by poorly executed acting or directing or writing, or maybe a combination of all three.
Droves of people stop dead in their tracks, and then set forth on the most expedient path toward death. “The Happening” opens with a jolt more jarring than the average Shyamalan movie. Movies such as “Signs” or “The Village” each appeared to be of the horror genre when judged by the previews, but turned out to be sci-fi dramas laden with a few jump scenes. Not in keeping with the historic trickery, “The Happening” is truly horrifying.
Something is happening, but no one has the slightest clue why. What is known is that a toxin is changing the brain’s chemistry, altering the human survival instinct, and in fact reversing the effect, causing everyone exposed to the toxin to commit suicide. Scientists, analysts and reporters cycle through countless theories: from terrorist attacks to leaks in nuclear power plants to government testing, but the explanations fall out of favor more quickly than bodies falling from high-rises. The event appears to be relegated to the Northeast United States, where at first large populations are inflicted and then smaller and smaller groups are driven to suicide. The madness is unnerving. Lifeless bodies jump from roofs, small groups of strangers share a dead police officer’s gun and one person lies down in front of a large, churning lawnmower.
Enter Elliot Moore (Mark Walberg), a high school science teacher with atypical accessibility and dedication to his work. When Elliot hears of the event, he, his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), his friend Julian (John Leguizamo) and Julian’s daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez) set off together to try and evade the inexplicable. Meanwhile, Elliot attempts to apply the scientific method to gather observations, form a hypothesis, design an experiment…etc., and Julian, a math teacher, applies his trade in statistics to make decisions for the group. However, without much scientific progress, Elliot is forced to face his parting exhortation to his students: although science will always find a story to tell, theories are theories and some things may not ultimately be scientifically explainable. In other words, a coherent explanation of how something could happen is not necessarily the same thing as explaining how it did happen.
Elliot continues to theorize and wonder as the borders of mayhem begin to close in on him, his family and his friends. Some theories seem serviceable, but although the scientific method often guides the group’s action, it leaves them without the hope and security usually associated with cold, hard facts. It is ultimately a crack-pot, conspiracy-theorizing, hot dog-loving old man that puts them on to the truth: that plants are emitting the toxin as a self-defense mechanism. A billboard sign for model homes ironically reading “You deserve this,” offers a thematic harbinger for an environmentalist message. Elliot and his group press on, driven by the very instinct to survive that is absent in those around them.
For the sake of transparency, it is worth mentioning that Shyamalan has an ongoing feud with mainstream film critics. The critics think he has lost the magic he managed to create in “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs,” becoming increasingly whacky and arcane, but ultimately inane. Shyamalan and his fans, on the other hand, brashly claim that the critics simply don’t get it—or refuse to get it. I must admit that I am an entrenched member of the latter group. I have no clue whether other critics just don’t get the ubiquitous symbolism and profound themes, but it is my view that Shyamalan is a nearly matchless master of such devices.
In “The Happening,” Shyamalan questions the scope of scientific inquiry, while at the same time exhorting the audience to shape up before it is too late—with the latter theme being slightly more mundane than the former. Elliot tells his students that there are things science may not be able to explain, but will attempt to explain anyway. As the story unfolds, we are given a somewhat plausible example of an event that scientists and intellectuals fumble and bumble with, yet they do not fail to emphatically assert their own theories as the only logical explanation. The cultural scientific caricature at work in this film is right on the money. Amidst the unending promises and claims of modern science, this is certainly something to talk about.
However, the chic grandeur that typically accompanies Shyamalan’s movies is utterly lacking in “The Happening.” The dialogue is cheesy and awkward throughout most of the film. All in all, for those going into the movie with their eyes open to the deeper themes, it will be like having a meaningful conversation with someone who uses poor grammar and smells funny. Take what you can get from this movie. It is shocking and profound, but with far more potential than was realized.
“The Happening” is rates R for violent and disturbing images.
Coastal View News
Equipped with mountains of talent, writer/director M. Night Shyamalan unfortunately gave his blood-thirsty critics reason to lick their lips when he crafted, “The Happening”: a promising, titillating concept turned sour by poorly executed acting or directing or writing, or maybe a combination of all three.
Droves of people stop dead in their tracks, and then set forth on the most expedient path toward death. “The Happening” opens with a jolt more jarring than the average Shyamalan movie. Movies such as “Signs” or “The Village” each appeared to be of the horror genre when judged by the previews, but turned out to be sci-fi dramas laden with a few jump scenes. Not in keeping with the historic trickery, “The Happening” is truly horrifying.
Something is happening, but no one has the slightest clue why. What is known is that a toxin is changing the brain’s chemistry, altering the human survival instinct, and in fact reversing the effect, causing everyone exposed to the toxin to commit suicide. Scientists, analysts and reporters cycle through countless theories: from terrorist attacks to leaks in nuclear power plants to government testing, but the explanations fall out of favor more quickly than bodies falling from high-rises. The event appears to be relegated to the Northeast United States, where at first large populations are inflicted and then smaller and smaller groups are driven to suicide. The madness is unnerving. Lifeless bodies jump from roofs, small groups of strangers share a dead police officer’s gun and one person lies down in front of a large, churning lawnmower.
Enter Elliot Moore (Mark Walberg), a high school science teacher with atypical accessibility and dedication to his work. When Elliot hears of the event, he, his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), his friend Julian (John Leguizamo) and Julian’s daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez) set off together to try and evade the inexplicable. Meanwhile, Elliot attempts to apply the scientific method to gather observations, form a hypothesis, design an experiment…etc., and Julian, a math teacher, applies his trade in statistics to make decisions for the group. However, without much scientific progress, Elliot is forced to face his parting exhortation to his students: although science will always find a story to tell, theories are theories and some things may not ultimately be scientifically explainable. In other words, a coherent explanation of how something could happen is not necessarily the same thing as explaining how it did happen.
Elliot continues to theorize and wonder as the borders of mayhem begin to close in on him, his family and his friends. Some theories seem serviceable, but although the scientific method often guides the group’s action, it leaves them without the hope and security usually associated with cold, hard facts. It is ultimately a crack-pot, conspiracy-theorizing, hot dog-loving old man that puts them on to the truth: that plants are emitting the toxin as a self-defense mechanism. A billboard sign for model homes ironically reading “You deserve this,” offers a thematic harbinger for an environmentalist message. Elliot and his group press on, driven by the very instinct to survive that is absent in those around them.
For the sake of transparency, it is worth mentioning that Shyamalan has an ongoing feud with mainstream film critics. The critics think he has lost the magic he managed to create in “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs,” becoming increasingly whacky and arcane, but ultimately inane. Shyamalan and his fans, on the other hand, brashly claim that the critics simply don’t get it—or refuse to get it. I must admit that I am an entrenched member of the latter group. I have no clue whether other critics just don’t get the ubiquitous symbolism and profound themes, but it is my view that Shyamalan is a nearly matchless master of such devices.
In “The Happening,” Shyamalan questions the scope of scientific inquiry, while at the same time exhorting the audience to shape up before it is too late—with the latter theme being slightly more mundane than the former. Elliot tells his students that there are things science may not be able to explain, but will attempt to explain anyway. As the story unfolds, we are given a somewhat plausible example of an event that scientists and intellectuals fumble and bumble with, yet they do not fail to emphatically assert their own theories as the only logical explanation. The cultural scientific caricature at work in this film is right on the money. Amidst the unending promises and claims of modern science, this is certainly something to talk about.
However, the chic grandeur that typically accompanies Shyamalan’s movies is utterly lacking in “The Happening.” The dialogue is cheesy and awkward throughout most of the film. All in all, for those going into the movie with their eyes open to the deeper themes, it will be like having a meaningful conversation with someone who uses poor grammar and smells funny. Take what you can get from this movie. It is shocking and profound, but with far more potential than was realized.
“The Happening” is rates R for violent and disturbing images.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
After almost two decades of waiting, Harrison Ford shakes the dust off his iconic, brown leather hat; grabs his whip, and takes viewers for one more archaeological romp in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” The nostalgia, adventure, mystery and Ford’s toothy grin make outlandish action and wild plot developments beyond palatable: the kind of implausibility that dooms other action movies makes Indy oh-so-tasty.
Well into retirement from his grail-finding days, Jones is introduced to the audience in the latest Indiana Jones movies as a captive, held by Soviets who wish to use his expertise to find a top-secret item buried in a military warehouse at Area 51. After heroically escaping the mess, Dr. Jones’ already-piqued interest needs little bolstering to to be pulled right into the middle of the conflict. He is finally nabbed by the storyline full force when he is enlisted by a brash, young greaser named Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), whose mother has been kidnapped by the Soviets (Mutt and his mother turn out to also have a special connection with Jones.).
Hot on the trail, Jones discovers that the Russians are after the mythical Crystal Skull, which is a highly-magnetic piece of alien anatomy that supposedly provides the bearer with all sorts of special psychological powers. Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, depending on how you look at it, Indiana had intimate knowledge of the folklore surrounding the skull, but had given this mystery up as pure fiction. Now with a new lead, Indiana and Mutt make their way to South America, where a former colleague, professor “Ox” Oxley (John Hurt), had been searching for the skull amongst ancient ruins. Great perils beset the good guys as they have to vie for the skull and its rightful usage against angry Russian psychologist Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), natives who wish to protect their home and bizarre and dangerous magic.
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” quickly embraces the worrisome queries of the audience: Is Ford too old? Yes, Ford is old, but his old-guy, pickup-basketball finesse takes the place of the youthful exuberance present in the first three movies. Is the fourth movie just more of the same? Yes, it is more of the same, but in a good way. This Indiana Jones movie has much of the intriguing archaeological mystique and crazy action that filled the first three movies, but with a plot that is unique enough to distinguish it from the others. Indy might be doing the same thing he has always done, and against the same kind of enemies, but God bless him for that. Although the impossible escapes are worth a chuckle, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” might not have tapped into the nostalgic wonderment of the iconic series unless Indy avoided an atomic blast by jumping inside a refrigerator or unless Mutt and Irina engaged in an inter-vehicle swordfight.
The thrills are impossible, yet also imaginable. As with previous Indiana Jones movies, science and logic meet mystery and the possibility of something beyond what we think we know about our world. The series makes you open up your eyes and wonder, even if just a little.
If anything, the ending of the movie stretches the imagination and good spirits of the audience too much, but the most important thing is that the latest Indiana Jones leaves viewers feeling satisfied. As the Indiana Jones theme music fills the theater at the end of the showing, fans of the first three movies will surely have an extra bounce in their step.
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is rated PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images.
Coastal View News
After almost two decades of waiting, Harrison Ford shakes the dust off his iconic, brown leather hat; grabs his whip, and takes viewers for one more archaeological romp in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” The nostalgia, adventure, mystery and Ford’s toothy grin make outlandish action and wild plot developments beyond palatable: the kind of implausibility that dooms other action movies makes Indy oh-so-tasty.
Well into retirement from his grail-finding days, Jones is introduced to the audience in the latest Indiana Jones movies as a captive, held by Soviets who wish to use his expertise to find a top-secret item buried in a military warehouse at Area 51. After heroically escaping the mess, Dr. Jones’ already-piqued interest needs little bolstering to to be pulled right into the middle of the conflict. He is finally nabbed by the storyline full force when he is enlisted by a brash, young greaser named Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), whose mother has been kidnapped by the Soviets (Mutt and his mother turn out to also have a special connection with Jones.).
Hot on the trail, Jones discovers that the Russians are after the mythical Crystal Skull, which is a highly-magnetic piece of alien anatomy that supposedly provides the bearer with all sorts of special psychological powers. Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, depending on how you look at it, Indiana had intimate knowledge of the folklore surrounding the skull, but had given this mystery up as pure fiction. Now with a new lead, Indiana and Mutt make their way to South America, where a former colleague, professor “Ox” Oxley (John Hurt), had been searching for the skull amongst ancient ruins. Great perils beset the good guys as they have to vie for the skull and its rightful usage against angry Russian psychologist Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), natives who wish to protect their home and bizarre and dangerous magic.
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” quickly embraces the worrisome queries of the audience: Is Ford too old? Yes, Ford is old, but his old-guy, pickup-basketball finesse takes the place of the youthful exuberance present in the first three movies. Is the fourth movie just more of the same? Yes, it is more of the same, but in a good way. This Indiana Jones movie has much of the intriguing archaeological mystique and crazy action that filled the first three movies, but with a plot that is unique enough to distinguish it from the others. Indy might be doing the same thing he has always done, and against the same kind of enemies, but God bless him for that. Although the impossible escapes are worth a chuckle, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” might not have tapped into the nostalgic wonderment of the iconic series unless Indy avoided an atomic blast by jumping inside a refrigerator or unless Mutt and Irina engaged in an inter-vehicle swordfight.
The thrills are impossible, yet also imaginable. As with previous Indiana Jones movies, science and logic meet mystery and the possibility of something beyond what we think we know about our world. The series makes you open up your eyes and wonder, even if just a little.
If anything, the ending of the movie stretches the imagination and good spirits of the audience too much, but the most important thing is that the latest Indiana Jones leaves viewers feeling satisfied. As the Indiana Jones theme music fills the theater at the end of the showing, fans of the first three movies will surely have an extra bounce in their step.
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is rated PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Like a younger brother walking into high school for the first time—with teachers and coaches expecting a younger version of the older sibling—High King Peter continues to be overshadowed by Aragorn and Frodo in the latest installment of C.S. Lewis’ series: “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.” Despite the movie’s adequacy, it is hard to avoid seeing this series as “Lord of the Rings-Light” or “Lord of the Rings-Junior.”
Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy Pevensie are just getting used to life back in England after a rip-roaring adventure in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” with each child coping with the absence of magic in a difference way. Peter (William Moseley), who misses the mystical kingdom he once ruled, is restless to return. Susan (Anna Popplewell), on the other hand, has begun to accept the normal life she now leads. Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) are somewhere in-between.
Just as Peter begins to express his complete frustration, the four siblings are returned to Narnia in a windstorm. However, after a moment of jubilation, the family learns that their beloved kingdom is in trouble. In their absence, and without the help of their beloved lion Aslan (Liam Neeson), the human race has become corrupt—killing off all that is magical and innocent.
The lone dissenter in this tragedy is Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), rightful heir to the human throne. However, Caspian’s uncle, Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), desires the throne and is aiming to rid the kingdom of his nephew and only competitor. While on the run, Caspian blows on an ancient horn that summons the “kings and queens of old” (the Pevensie children)—thus resulting in the Pevensie’s wind-swept transportation to Narnia.
Now accompanied by two kings, two queens and a prince, the once-hidden centaurs, dwarfs, skunks and miscellaneous creatures rally together to stage a battle against Miraz and his terrible kingdom. High King Peter goes about battle preparations, but he lacks faith in the absent Aslan—preferring to do things his own way. What results is a bungled attack on the enemy’s castle, dozens of dead friends and a bickering cast of young heroes.
When at their lowest—with the enemy now closing in on their dilapidated sanctuary—the group finally decides to send Lucy to find Aslan. Meanwhile, a challenge and a battle ensue, pitting the wits, minds and hearts of the noble Prince Caspian and High King Peter against the twisted Miraz.
One can imagine C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, good friends living in England in the mid-1900s, sitting down next to each other to write a story. It is tough to tell who was copying off whose paper, considering “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “The Lord of the Rings” were written at about the same time. Although both Lewis and Tolkien were well-versed in mythology, so many details and images in “The Chronicles of Narnia” are strikingly similar to “The Lord of the Rings,” that a viewer cannot help but think the two authors were sharing ideas. The religious imagery, the mythical creatures, the fighting trees—although these are different stories, the cast and setting seem to be the same.
Because it is impossible to avoid comparing Lewis’ and Tolkien’s stories, and because “The Lord of the Rings” was so wonderful, “The Chronicles of Narnia” is going to be worse off. However, the latest Narnia flick is good in its own right and tons of fun. “The Chronicles of Narnia” is directed at a younger audience, as evidenced by children in the lead, simpler concepts and religious symbolism that is more transparent. The acting is slightly sub-par on the whole (mostly due to the casting of Ben Barnes as Prince Caspian), but about average for a children’s movie. Yet the true shortcoming of “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is that the movie does nothing new or original to set it apart. It is not enough to remind viewers that the story may have been original in the 1950s.
It really is the climate that is going to hurt this movie, because the story is rich in meaning and the movie is exciting. Children will the love the movie and adults will like it too, as long as they have not watched “The Lord of the Rings” recently.
“The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is rated PG for epic battle action and violence.
Coastal View News
Like a younger brother walking into high school for the first time—with teachers and coaches expecting a younger version of the older sibling—High King Peter continues to be overshadowed by Aragorn and Frodo in the latest installment of C.S. Lewis’ series: “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.” Despite the movie’s adequacy, it is hard to avoid seeing this series as “Lord of the Rings-Light” or “Lord of the Rings-Junior.”
Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy Pevensie are just getting used to life back in England after a rip-roaring adventure in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” with each child coping with the absence of magic in a difference way. Peter (William Moseley), who misses the mystical kingdom he once ruled, is restless to return. Susan (Anna Popplewell), on the other hand, has begun to accept the normal life she now leads. Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) are somewhere in-between.
Just as Peter begins to express his complete frustration, the four siblings are returned to Narnia in a windstorm. However, after a moment of jubilation, the family learns that their beloved kingdom is in trouble. In their absence, and without the help of their beloved lion Aslan (Liam Neeson), the human race has become corrupt—killing off all that is magical and innocent.
The lone dissenter in this tragedy is Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), rightful heir to the human throne. However, Caspian’s uncle, Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), desires the throne and is aiming to rid the kingdom of his nephew and only competitor. While on the run, Caspian blows on an ancient horn that summons the “kings and queens of old” (the Pevensie children)—thus resulting in the Pevensie’s wind-swept transportation to Narnia.
Now accompanied by two kings, two queens and a prince, the once-hidden centaurs, dwarfs, skunks and miscellaneous creatures rally together to stage a battle against Miraz and his terrible kingdom. High King Peter goes about battle preparations, but he lacks faith in the absent Aslan—preferring to do things his own way. What results is a bungled attack on the enemy’s castle, dozens of dead friends and a bickering cast of young heroes.
When at their lowest—with the enemy now closing in on their dilapidated sanctuary—the group finally decides to send Lucy to find Aslan. Meanwhile, a challenge and a battle ensue, pitting the wits, minds and hearts of the noble Prince Caspian and High King Peter against the twisted Miraz.
One can imagine C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, good friends living in England in the mid-1900s, sitting down next to each other to write a story. It is tough to tell who was copying off whose paper, considering “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “The Lord of the Rings” were written at about the same time. Although both Lewis and Tolkien were well-versed in mythology, so many details and images in “The Chronicles of Narnia” are strikingly similar to “The Lord of the Rings,” that a viewer cannot help but think the two authors were sharing ideas. The religious imagery, the mythical creatures, the fighting trees—although these are different stories, the cast and setting seem to be the same.
Because it is impossible to avoid comparing Lewis’ and Tolkien’s stories, and because “The Lord of the Rings” was so wonderful, “The Chronicles of Narnia” is going to be worse off. However, the latest Narnia flick is good in its own right and tons of fun. “The Chronicles of Narnia” is directed at a younger audience, as evidenced by children in the lead, simpler concepts and religious symbolism that is more transparent. The acting is slightly sub-par on the whole (mostly due to the casting of Ben Barnes as Prince Caspian), but about average for a children’s movie. Yet the true shortcoming of “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is that the movie does nothing new or original to set it apart. It is not enough to remind viewers that the story may have been original in the 1950s.
It really is the climate that is going to hurt this movie, because the story is rich in meaning and the movie is exciting. Children will the love the movie and adults will like it too, as long as they have not watched “The Lord of the Rings” recently.
“The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is rated PG for epic battle action and violence.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
"Iron Man"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Robert Downey Jr. seems about as likely a superhero as Tobey Maguire, and Iron Man is about as well-known and popular as Plastic Man. Yet Downey’s performance in the latest superhero thriller, “Iron Man,” is smoother and more convincing than any number of Batmen or Supermen, and the man of iron ends up being more formidable than the man of steel.
Tony Stark (Robery Downey Jr.) is half suave-playboy, half engineering-genius. He is also very rich and successful, having inherited his father’s engineering company, Stark Industries, which specializes in weapons manufacturing (a lucrative industry indeed). Due to Tony’s unparalleled technical abilities, the company thrives under his control. However, while demonstrating some of his latest military technology in the Middle East, Stark’s convoy is attacked and Stark is captured by thuggish, cave-dwelling terrorists.
Having obtained shrapnel wounds during the skirmish, Stark is lucky enough to be treated by a doctor who implants a mechanical device powered by a car battery into his chest to keep the shrapnel from entering his heart, thus keeping him alive. But shrapnel is the least of his worries, as the terrorists command Stark to build them a copy of his latest weapon, the Jerusalem missile. It is compliance or death. The brash and noble Stark feigns obedience while instead building a method of escape—and so Iron Man is born!
After kicking tons of butt, Stark returns to his California home and announces his intention to quit making weapons. This announcement is to the chagrin of the Stark family’s long-time business partner, Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges), and to the surprise of Stark’s long-time beautiful assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). While both seem initially supportive, only one is genuine. With the help of Potts, Stark puts his genius to work in developing a more sophisticated version of Iron Man, while Stone struggles to undo Stark’s position in the company.
The new Iron Man kicks even more butt, and as the design improves, greater evils arise and Stark’s nobility and sense of responsibility kick into overdrive. Stark is forced to discover just how impenetrable his armor really is.
Most people do not go into a superhero movie expecting to see the next Best Picture winner. They do not expect a unique plotline or a profound message. If the average moviegoer is astute, such a person will have noticed that every superhero movie is pretty much the same: an unlikely individual, flawed but genuinely noble, is thrust into a position of responsibility that is at once exciting and frightening. Along the way, this superhero will be confronted with an archenemy—a person that was once a close friend and personal ally. Love will be involved; most assuredly including another unlikely person; perhaps a person that has been in the superhero’s life for a while, and who the audience hopes (and secretly knows) will be “the one.” There will be moments of excitement followed by moments of deep despair and doubt. But ultimately, as if from the ashes, the superhero will triumph.
These facts are rarely short of given. Therefore, because nearly every superhero movie follows the same plotline, what makes such a film stand out is more-or-less unique to the genre. For a superhero movie to be successful the acting has to be good (nothing short of inspirational will do); the action scenes and explosions have to be fast-paced, exciting and somewhat unique, and the screenplay must be smooth, witty and often funny.
“Iron Man” certainly does not transcend the standard superhero storyline, but it is successful because the acting is good, the action is fun and the writing is slick. Robert Downey Jr. is sharp, quick and sassy—characteristics that are strengths for Downey and well-designed in the screenplay. Jeff Bridges’ voice alone makes him well cast as a villain, and Gwyneth Paltrow is nearly always golden.
There are many moments of implausibility in “Iron Man,” but so long as the implausibility is coherent and consistent, which is it is for the most part in this movie, it is the glue that holds all superhero movies together. If you have no patience for this type of movie, don’t waste your time, but if you loved Spiderman, Superman and Batman, “Iron Man” is a worthy superhero flick.
“Iron Man” is rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Coastal View News
Robert Downey Jr. seems about as likely a superhero as Tobey Maguire, and Iron Man is about as well-known and popular as Plastic Man. Yet Downey’s performance in the latest superhero thriller, “Iron Man,” is smoother and more convincing than any number of Batmen or Supermen, and the man of iron ends up being more formidable than the man of steel.
Tony Stark (Robery Downey Jr.) is half suave-playboy, half engineering-genius. He is also very rich and successful, having inherited his father’s engineering company, Stark Industries, which specializes in weapons manufacturing (a lucrative industry indeed). Due to Tony’s unparalleled technical abilities, the company thrives under his control. However, while demonstrating some of his latest military technology in the Middle East, Stark’s convoy is attacked and Stark is captured by thuggish, cave-dwelling terrorists.
Having obtained shrapnel wounds during the skirmish, Stark is lucky enough to be treated by a doctor who implants a mechanical device powered by a car battery into his chest to keep the shrapnel from entering his heart, thus keeping him alive. But shrapnel is the least of his worries, as the terrorists command Stark to build them a copy of his latest weapon, the Jerusalem missile. It is compliance or death. The brash and noble Stark feigns obedience while instead building a method of escape—and so Iron Man is born!
After kicking tons of butt, Stark returns to his California home and announces his intention to quit making weapons. This announcement is to the chagrin of the Stark family’s long-time business partner, Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges), and to the surprise of Stark’s long-time beautiful assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). While both seem initially supportive, only one is genuine. With the help of Potts, Stark puts his genius to work in developing a more sophisticated version of Iron Man, while Stone struggles to undo Stark’s position in the company.
The new Iron Man kicks even more butt, and as the design improves, greater evils arise and Stark’s nobility and sense of responsibility kick into overdrive. Stark is forced to discover just how impenetrable his armor really is.
Most people do not go into a superhero movie expecting to see the next Best Picture winner. They do not expect a unique plotline or a profound message. If the average moviegoer is astute, such a person will have noticed that every superhero movie is pretty much the same: an unlikely individual, flawed but genuinely noble, is thrust into a position of responsibility that is at once exciting and frightening. Along the way, this superhero will be confronted with an archenemy—a person that was once a close friend and personal ally. Love will be involved; most assuredly including another unlikely person; perhaps a person that has been in the superhero’s life for a while, and who the audience hopes (and secretly knows) will be “the one.” There will be moments of excitement followed by moments of deep despair and doubt. But ultimately, as if from the ashes, the superhero will triumph.
These facts are rarely short of given. Therefore, because nearly every superhero movie follows the same plotline, what makes such a film stand out is more-or-less unique to the genre. For a superhero movie to be successful the acting has to be good (nothing short of inspirational will do); the action scenes and explosions have to be fast-paced, exciting and somewhat unique, and the screenplay must be smooth, witty and often funny.
“Iron Man” certainly does not transcend the standard superhero storyline, but it is successful because the acting is good, the action is fun and the writing is slick. Robert Downey Jr. is sharp, quick and sassy—characteristics that are strengths for Downey and well-designed in the screenplay. Jeff Bridges’ voice alone makes him well cast as a villain, and Gwyneth Paltrow is nearly always golden.
There are many moments of implausibility in “Iron Man,” but so long as the implausibility is coherent and consistent, which is it is for the most part in this movie, it is the glue that holds all superhero movies together. If you have no patience for this type of movie, don’t waste your time, but if you loved Spiderman, Superman and Batman, “Iron Man” is a worthy superhero flick.
“Iron Man” is rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
"The Forbidden Kingdom"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
At first glance, it might be hard to tell what is forbidden in the newly-released Jackie Chan/Jet Li action thriller, “The Forbidden Kingdom.” Is it an ancient Chinese realm? A mystical world of magic? As it turns out, ‘forbidden’ is referring to the prospects of a good script or good acting; to an original storyline or quality editing—all of which must have been forbidden long before Jackie Chan and Jet Li signed on to do this movie. Even if enamored with high-flying kung foo and acrobatic sword-fighting, “The Forbidden Kingdom” falls well short of what it was aspiring to accomplish: anything worthwhile.
Jason Tripitikas (Michael Angarano) is a kung foo-crazed teenager from Boston whose secret obsession with old combat movies is satisfied by buying bootlegged movies at a shop owned by an old Chinese man. On his way home from the shop one day, Jason is confronted by a gang of teenage ruffians who criticize his taste in film. After some pushing and shoving, the gang forces Jason to take them to the old man’s shop so that they can rob him. Jason obliges, and in the uproar of theft, the shop owner is shot. As he crumbles to the ground, the shop owner, who does not seem to be peeved with Jason for letting burglars into his shop, hands the teenager an old staff from the back of his shop and cryptically instructs Jason to take the staff to its rightful owner. Jason then runs away while being chased by the murderous hooligans. When cornered, the staff does its magic and transports him to ancient China.
Jason understandably feels overmatched in a world run by a repressive and cruel dictatorship and vigilante kung foo masters. Luckily he finds Lu Yan (Jackie Chan) who is a drunken immortal—he can live forever so long as he consumes copious amounts of alcohol. Lu Yan informs Jason that he is carrying a mythical staff once owned by the Monkey King, a loveable rascal who cannot be defeated in battle. According to a prophecy, the Monkey King lost his staff when an evil warlord tricked him and turned him to stone, and now the Monkey King is waiting for the foretold person to bring it to him.
Although Jason manages to augment his warrior clan by adding a vengeful dart-thrower named Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) and a testy monk (Jet Li), he continues to sense his own inadequacy, and thus despairs. But with the help of his friends, Jason begins to learn kung foo and takes to is mission of returning the staff to the Monkey King. As the clan makes their way to the home of the warlord, many dangers beset them, and when they actually arrive to challenge the warlord, the odds against their survival seems insurmountable.
Everyone has a few movies that they remember loving as a child, but when they return to the movie as an adult, they realize just how cheesy it is. It most likely seems cheesy now because movies have become more sophisticated and what were once original stories have been redone so many times that they seem nothing short of hackneyed. “The Forbidden Kingdom” is this movie without the aid of 20 years of reverie to bolster its sentimental value. Whereas “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “Hero” can boast beautiful choreography and cinematography, a genuine and coherent sense of eastern perspective, and quality acting, “The Last Kingdom” offers none of these. The fighting scenes would be entertaining if they were not encased in cheesy dialogue, hollowed-out eastern philosophy and one predictable plot twist after another. Indeed, a way to redeem this movie might be to see if you can find each and every line, each and every interaction, from another movie.
Although mixing east and west in this style is almost always a recipe for disaster and a sure-fire way to make both cultures seem less authentic, the particularly shoddy performance of Michael Angarano as Jason Tripitikas puts this movie beyond repair. A combination of his over-the-top facial contortions and his neat triangle of pubescent chest hair are enough to make you choke on your popcorn without him even saying a word. Yet, perhaps it would have still been better for the movie if he played a mute teenager from South Boston.
Coastal View News
At first glance, it might be hard to tell what is forbidden in the newly-released Jackie Chan/Jet Li action thriller, “The Forbidden Kingdom.” Is it an ancient Chinese realm? A mystical world of magic? As it turns out, ‘forbidden’ is referring to the prospects of a good script or good acting; to an original storyline or quality editing—all of which must have been forbidden long before Jackie Chan and Jet Li signed on to do this movie. Even if enamored with high-flying kung foo and acrobatic sword-fighting, “The Forbidden Kingdom” falls well short of what it was aspiring to accomplish: anything worthwhile.
Jason Tripitikas (Michael Angarano) is a kung foo-crazed teenager from Boston whose secret obsession with old combat movies is satisfied by buying bootlegged movies at a shop owned by an old Chinese man. On his way home from the shop one day, Jason is confronted by a gang of teenage ruffians who criticize his taste in film. After some pushing and shoving, the gang forces Jason to take them to the old man’s shop so that they can rob him. Jason obliges, and in the uproar of theft, the shop owner is shot. As he crumbles to the ground, the shop owner, who does not seem to be peeved with Jason for letting burglars into his shop, hands the teenager an old staff from the back of his shop and cryptically instructs Jason to take the staff to its rightful owner. Jason then runs away while being chased by the murderous hooligans. When cornered, the staff does its magic and transports him to ancient China.
Jason understandably feels overmatched in a world run by a repressive and cruel dictatorship and vigilante kung foo masters. Luckily he finds Lu Yan (Jackie Chan) who is a drunken immortal—he can live forever so long as he consumes copious amounts of alcohol. Lu Yan informs Jason that he is carrying a mythical staff once owned by the Monkey King, a loveable rascal who cannot be defeated in battle. According to a prophecy, the Monkey King lost his staff when an evil warlord tricked him and turned him to stone, and now the Monkey King is waiting for the foretold person to bring it to him.
Although Jason manages to augment his warrior clan by adding a vengeful dart-thrower named Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) and a testy monk (Jet Li), he continues to sense his own inadequacy, and thus despairs. But with the help of his friends, Jason begins to learn kung foo and takes to is mission of returning the staff to the Monkey King. As the clan makes their way to the home of the warlord, many dangers beset them, and when they actually arrive to challenge the warlord, the odds against their survival seems insurmountable.
Everyone has a few movies that they remember loving as a child, but when they return to the movie as an adult, they realize just how cheesy it is. It most likely seems cheesy now because movies have become more sophisticated and what were once original stories have been redone so many times that they seem nothing short of hackneyed. “The Forbidden Kingdom” is this movie without the aid of 20 years of reverie to bolster its sentimental value. Whereas “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “Hero” can boast beautiful choreography and cinematography, a genuine and coherent sense of eastern perspective, and quality acting, “The Last Kingdom” offers none of these. The fighting scenes would be entertaining if they were not encased in cheesy dialogue, hollowed-out eastern philosophy and one predictable plot twist after another. Indeed, a way to redeem this movie might be to see if you can find each and every line, each and every interaction, from another movie.
Although mixing east and west in this style is almost always a recipe for disaster and a sure-fire way to make both cultures seem less authentic, the particularly shoddy performance of Michael Angarano as Jason Tripitikas puts this movie beyond repair. A combination of his over-the-top facial contortions and his neat triangle of pubescent chest hair are enough to make you choke on your popcorn without him even saying a word. Yet, perhaps it would have still been better for the movie if he played a mute teenager from South Boston.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
"The Counterfeiters"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“The Counterfeiters” is a moral dilemma. This Austrian film, winner of Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, asks: At what point is it wrong to save one’s own life? When all available options have severe moral consequences, how does one weigh the choices at hand?
“The Counterfeiters” (“Die Fälscher”) is the story of Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics), a Russian Jew living in Germany in the late 1930s, who made a fortune by becoming the best counterfeiter of documents and currency in the world. But when Sorowitsch is caught and arrested for this crime, he is sent to a Nazi concentration camp where he is left to fight for his life.
However, Sorowitsch’s artistic skills ensure his survival, and he finds himself being favored by SS leaders within the camps he and his less fortunate comrades inhabit. Sorowitsch manages to sell himself as a useful commodity, and his interaction with Sturmbannführer Friedrich Herzog (Devid Striesow) lands him in a relatively comfortable and secure job within a camp. The only problem is that the job requires him to forge the British pound and the American dollar in an attempt to undermine the economies of the Nazi opposition. Sorowitsch is no longer simply asked to go along with relatively innocuous Nazi projects, but instead, is ordered to knowingly sabotage the Allied war effort, thus indirectly leading to the continued suffering and death of the Jewish people.
Sorowitsch accepts the Faustian bargain, explaining to one questioning compatriot that “One adapts, or dies!” Adapts, but adapts at what price? As the story develops, Sorowitsch becomes more and more aware of the consequences of his decisions, while at the same time realizing that the results of any alternative are equally tragic.
Sorowitsch’s character is foiled by Adolf Burger (August Diehl), a young and brash prisoner who actively and openly sabotages the counterfeiting team’s efforts to make the dollar. As the story plays out, all the men involved struggle with the instinctive desire to stay alive, but become more and more aware of the potential implications of their work. Although they are all in it together, some wish to favor their own fortunes and some the fortune of their ideals, but Sorowitsch, the leader of the group, is clearly torn. He attempts to strike some middle ground, but finds himself incapable.
Something hollow ensues. Mirroring the words of Soren Kierkegaard, who once said, “Do it or do not do it—you will regret both,” the ideals of both Sorowitsch and his friends are not practicable in a world where no good result is possible.
The story told in “The Counterfeiters” is intrinsically interesting for the complexity of the moral questions it raises. As the box offices continue to be populated by concentration camp movies, “The Counterfeiters” will stick out because in this story, the victims are asked to take part in the crime—not just to turn a blind eye to the crime, but to actually participate in it. The movie is well acted, well directed, well written and suspenseful enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat.
“The Counterfeiters” is rated R for some strong violence, brief sexuality/nudity and language.
Coastal View News
“The Counterfeiters” is a moral dilemma. This Austrian film, winner of Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, asks: At what point is it wrong to save one’s own life? When all available options have severe moral consequences, how does one weigh the choices at hand?
“The Counterfeiters” (“Die Fälscher”) is the story of Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics), a Russian Jew living in Germany in the late 1930s, who made a fortune by becoming the best counterfeiter of documents and currency in the world. But when Sorowitsch is caught and arrested for this crime, he is sent to a Nazi concentration camp where he is left to fight for his life.
However, Sorowitsch’s artistic skills ensure his survival, and he finds himself being favored by SS leaders within the camps he and his less fortunate comrades inhabit. Sorowitsch manages to sell himself as a useful commodity, and his interaction with Sturmbannführer Friedrich Herzog (Devid Striesow) lands him in a relatively comfortable and secure job within a camp. The only problem is that the job requires him to forge the British pound and the American dollar in an attempt to undermine the economies of the Nazi opposition. Sorowitsch is no longer simply asked to go along with relatively innocuous Nazi projects, but instead, is ordered to knowingly sabotage the Allied war effort, thus indirectly leading to the continued suffering and death of the Jewish people.
Sorowitsch accepts the Faustian bargain, explaining to one questioning compatriot that “One adapts, or dies!” Adapts, but adapts at what price? As the story develops, Sorowitsch becomes more and more aware of the consequences of his decisions, while at the same time realizing that the results of any alternative are equally tragic.
Sorowitsch’s character is foiled by Adolf Burger (August Diehl), a young and brash prisoner who actively and openly sabotages the counterfeiting team’s efforts to make the dollar. As the story plays out, all the men involved struggle with the instinctive desire to stay alive, but become more and more aware of the potential implications of their work. Although they are all in it together, some wish to favor their own fortunes and some the fortune of their ideals, but Sorowitsch, the leader of the group, is clearly torn. He attempts to strike some middle ground, but finds himself incapable.
Something hollow ensues. Mirroring the words of Soren Kierkegaard, who once said, “Do it or do not do it—you will regret both,” the ideals of both Sorowitsch and his friends are not practicable in a world where no good result is possible.
The story told in “The Counterfeiters” is intrinsically interesting for the complexity of the moral questions it raises. As the box offices continue to be populated by concentration camp movies, “The Counterfeiters” will stick out because in this story, the victims are asked to take part in the crime—not just to turn a blind eye to the crime, but to actually participate in it. The movie is well acted, well directed, well written and suspenseful enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat.
“The Counterfeiters” is rated R for some strong violence, brief sexuality/nudity and language.
Friday, April 4, 2008
"Stop-Loss"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Aimless, reckless, hopeless; a testosterone-driven rebellion; brash, illogical chaos—like a teenage boy navigating his way through awkward adolescence, “Stop-Loss” trips, stumbles and overstates itself for a sometimes moving but mostly perplexing and exasperating two hours. In the end, what you have is an unfortunate cross between “Cruel Intentions” and “Saving Private Ryan.”
Having faithfully fulfilled their contracts amidst brutal battles and terrifying ambushes, a group of enthusiastic and patriotic Texan-American soldiers in Iraq are sent home battle-worn and relieved to end their tour of duty. After a weekend of partying, drinking and fighting, the leader of the pack, Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), learns that he is being stop-lossed: by executive order, he is being sent back to Iraq for another tour of duty. King argues with his commander over this decision, suggesting that although stop-lossing is legal during time of war, the president had declared the Iraq War a victory, and thus, stop-losses are illegal.
Predictably, the heartless commander would not have it. Instead of facing another tour of duty, King goes AWOL, pinning his hopes on talking to a Senator who promised to help him if he ever needed anything. While King is on the run, his friends and fellow soldiers, Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) and Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are falling apart mentally, emotionally and physically. Severe post-traumatic stress syndrome sets in for all of them, causing hallucinations, binge drinking and physical violence. Burgess quickly obtains two DUIs and Shriver digs trenches in his front yard with a spade in one hand and a gun in the other.
As the well-being of the group unravels further, Shriver pleas with King, who is making his way to the Canadian border, to turn himself in and help out his struggling comrades. King is torn between loyalty to his brothers-in-arms and what he thinks is right.
The weight of the topic and the power of the opening scenes set this movie up to be thought-provoking and convicting, but as soon as the young soldiers come home, this movie falls to pieces. Moral sympathy for the protagonists quickly fades, as it appears these combat vets have pre-existing dispositions towards reckless and immoral behavior, almost as if that is just the way things are done in Texas. They instantly become drunk, get in fist fights, drive drunk and crash into light poles, all with the approving grins of their parents and loved ones. This is all cast as harmless fun in this MTV production, with the only serious moral issue being the semantics of war.
The best way to think about this movie is to envision a ticked-off high school male, who is always angry and never in control of his emotions, has a tendency to overstate himself with abundant drama, and rarely supplements these attitudes with clarity or logic.
“Stop-loss” is politically charged, with the stated purpose being to portray the injustice of stop-lossing soldiers. But because this common practice is legal in time of war, unless audiences fail to make the distinction between the politics of the current war and long-standing military practices, the ethics of stop-lossing will remain murky at best. Furthermore, the film deals more with the psychological trauma that inflicts veterans after being exposed to war, as well as the legitimacy of the Iraq War, which are only tangentially related to the topic in the title of this movie. A straightforward discussion of the merits of stop-lossing might have been valuable, but this movie has an awkward message: war is ugly, particularly this one, and because this war is ugly, we should talk about common military practices that result in multiple tours of duty instead of criticizing the legitimacy of the first tour.
The acting was adolescent, the screenplay was adolescent, the attitudes were adolescent and the material was adult. Unless you are a teenager apt to be angry at anything, avoid “Stop-Loss.”
“Stop-Loss” is rated R for graphic violence and pervasive language.
Coastal View News
Aimless, reckless, hopeless; a testosterone-driven rebellion; brash, illogical chaos—like a teenage boy navigating his way through awkward adolescence, “Stop-Loss” trips, stumbles and overstates itself for a sometimes moving but mostly perplexing and exasperating two hours. In the end, what you have is an unfortunate cross between “Cruel Intentions” and “Saving Private Ryan.”
Having faithfully fulfilled their contracts amidst brutal battles and terrifying ambushes, a group of enthusiastic and patriotic Texan-American soldiers in Iraq are sent home battle-worn and relieved to end their tour of duty. After a weekend of partying, drinking and fighting, the leader of the pack, Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), learns that he is being stop-lossed: by executive order, he is being sent back to Iraq for another tour of duty. King argues with his commander over this decision, suggesting that although stop-lossing is legal during time of war, the president had declared the Iraq War a victory, and thus, stop-losses are illegal.
Predictably, the heartless commander would not have it. Instead of facing another tour of duty, King goes AWOL, pinning his hopes on talking to a Senator who promised to help him if he ever needed anything. While King is on the run, his friends and fellow soldiers, Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) and Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are falling apart mentally, emotionally and physically. Severe post-traumatic stress syndrome sets in for all of them, causing hallucinations, binge drinking and physical violence. Burgess quickly obtains two DUIs and Shriver digs trenches in his front yard with a spade in one hand and a gun in the other.
As the well-being of the group unravels further, Shriver pleas with King, who is making his way to the Canadian border, to turn himself in and help out his struggling comrades. King is torn between loyalty to his brothers-in-arms and what he thinks is right.
The weight of the topic and the power of the opening scenes set this movie up to be thought-provoking and convicting, but as soon as the young soldiers come home, this movie falls to pieces. Moral sympathy for the protagonists quickly fades, as it appears these combat vets have pre-existing dispositions towards reckless and immoral behavior, almost as if that is just the way things are done in Texas. They instantly become drunk, get in fist fights, drive drunk and crash into light poles, all with the approving grins of their parents and loved ones. This is all cast as harmless fun in this MTV production, with the only serious moral issue being the semantics of war.
The best way to think about this movie is to envision a ticked-off high school male, who is always angry and never in control of his emotions, has a tendency to overstate himself with abundant drama, and rarely supplements these attitudes with clarity or logic.
“Stop-loss” is politically charged, with the stated purpose being to portray the injustice of stop-lossing soldiers. But because this common practice is legal in time of war, unless audiences fail to make the distinction between the politics of the current war and long-standing military practices, the ethics of stop-lossing will remain murky at best. Furthermore, the film deals more with the psychological trauma that inflicts veterans after being exposed to war, as well as the legitimacy of the Iraq War, which are only tangentially related to the topic in the title of this movie. A straightforward discussion of the merits of stop-lossing might have been valuable, but this movie has an awkward message: war is ugly, particularly this one, and because this war is ugly, we should talk about common military practices that result in multiple tours of duty instead of criticizing the legitimacy of the first tour.
The acting was adolescent, the screenplay was adolescent, the attitudes were adolescent and the material was adult. Unless you are a teenager apt to be angry at anything, avoid “Stop-Loss.”
“Stop-Loss” is rated R for graphic violence and pervasive language.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"Horton Hears a Who"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“Even though you can’t see them at all, a person’s a person no matter how small.” The rhyme, the meter and the message, all distinctly Seuss, join forces with Jim Carrey, Steve Carell and engaging animation to make “Horton Hears a Who” a delightful movie for children of all ages as well as adults who have Dr. Seuss in their blood.
“Horton Hears a Who” is about Horton (Jim Carrey), an aloof elephant, who hears a faint, high-pitched voice emanating from a tiny speck floating through the air. Oddly concerned, Horton instinctively tromps through the jungle to save this squeaky speck from destruction. After saving the speck by catching it on a bright pink flower, he establishes a connection with the zany mayor (Steve Carell) of a miniscule town called Whoville located in the center of the speck. Of course, the citizens of Whoville do not know they are little bigger than a molecule, and thus the populace of the community is about as likely to believe their mayor is talking to a giant elephant in the sky as the populace of a jungle is to believe that a goofy elephant has found a microscopic city on a speck.
On the one hand, Horton has to vie with a grouchy and obstinate kangaroo (Carol Burnett) who despises anyone claiming to believe in anything she cannot see, hear or feel. She tries to get Horton to give up his speck, and although one might ask why anyone would care about one elephant’s apparent fantasy, this kangaroo on a mission sees dispelling such fairy tales as a matter of principle. On the other hand, the mayor of Whoville is forced to cope with a pragmatic but delusional city council that strictly defends anything that threatens to sour the happy-go-lucky atmosphere of Whoville. This is not an easy sell-job, to say the least. “Hey, hon,” said the mayor to his wife. “Did you ever get the feeling that you are being watched, and that maybe that thing watching you is … eh, a giant elephant?”
While Horton and the mayor scramble to convince their friends, family and community of what they know, they both discover that Whoville is in great danger, as any slight change in Horton’s environment results in potentially catastrophic changes in Whoville. No one seems to get it besides Horton, the mayor and a select few who are more loyal to their eccentric friends than they are loyal to the idea that another world could exist. Thus, the task is left to Horton to save the speck, and to the mayor to convince the town to prepare for the worst.
How is it that a movie intended for a five-year-old can have more allegory, more metaphor and more meaning than 90 percent of the movies intended for adults? Are kids just more likely to listen? To learn? “Horton Hears a Who” is about faith, about standing up for what you know is right and true no matter what, and about opening ourselves up to the possibility of a world greater or more intricate than our own. Horton promises to save this tiny world, and “he says what he means and he means what he says.” It makes sense that the only characters who are open to the possibility of such alternate realities are the ones that are seen as eccentric, crazy and zany.
The typically-overacting Jim Carrey was perfectly cast as the voice of Horton, as was Steve Carell for the mayor of Whoville. Seth Rogan, Carol Burnett, Will Arnett and Isla Fisher filled out the cast nicely. The animation was brilliant and engaging, and the portion of the screenplay that was in addition to Seuss’ book did not miss a beat. “Horton Hears a Who,” although not at the Pixar level of a genius, was funny, instructive and endearing.
“Horton hears a Who” is rated G.
Coastal View News
“Even though you can’t see them at all, a person’s a person no matter how small.” The rhyme, the meter and the message, all distinctly Seuss, join forces with Jim Carrey, Steve Carell and engaging animation to make “Horton Hears a Who” a delightful movie for children of all ages as well as adults who have Dr. Seuss in their blood.
“Horton Hears a Who” is about Horton (Jim Carrey), an aloof elephant, who hears a faint, high-pitched voice emanating from a tiny speck floating through the air. Oddly concerned, Horton instinctively tromps through the jungle to save this squeaky speck from destruction. After saving the speck by catching it on a bright pink flower, he establishes a connection with the zany mayor (Steve Carell) of a miniscule town called Whoville located in the center of the speck. Of course, the citizens of Whoville do not know they are little bigger than a molecule, and thus the populace of the community is about as likely to believe their mayor is talking to a giant elephant in the sky as the populace of a jungle is to believe that a goofy elephant has found a microscopic city on a speck.
On the one hand, Horton has to vie with a grouchy and obstinate kangaroo (Carol Burnett) who despises anyone claiming to believe in anything she cannot see, hear or feel. She tries to get Horton to give up his speck, and although one might ask why anyone would care about one elephant’s apparent fantasy, this kangaroo on a mission sees dispelling such fairy tales as a matter of principle. On the other hand, the mayor of Whoville is forced to cope with a pragmatic but delusional city council that strictly defends anything that threatens to sour the happy-go-lucky atmosphere of Whoville. This is not an easy sell-job, to say the least. “Hey, hon,” said the mayor to his wife. “Did you ever get the feeling that you are being watched, and that maybe that thing watching you is … eh, a giant elephant?”
While Horton and the mayor scramble to convince their friends, family and community of what they know, they both discover that Whoville is in great danger, as any slight change in Horton’s environment results in potentially catastrophic changes in Whoville. No one seems to get it besides Horton, the mayor and a select few who are more loyal to their eccentric friends than they are loyal to the idea that another world could exist. Thus, the task is left to Horton to save the speck, and to the mayor to convince the town to prepare for the worst.
How is it that a movie intended for a five-year-old can have more allegory, more metaphor and more meaning than 90 percent of the movies intended for adults? Are kids just more likely to listen? To learn? “Horton Hears a Who” is about faith, about standing up for what you know is right and true no matter what, and about opening ourselves up to the possibility of a world greater or more intricate than our own. Horton promises to save this tiny world, and “he says what he means and he means what he says.” It makes sense that the only characters who are open to the possibility of such alternate realities are the ones that are seen as eccentric, crazy and zany.
The typically-overacting Jim Carrey was perfectly cast as the voice of Horton, as was Steve Carell for the mayor of Whoville. Seth Rogan, Carol Burnett, Will Arnett and Isla Fisher filled out the cast nicely. The animation was brilliant and engaging, and the portion of the screenplay that was in addition to Seuss’ book did not miss a beat. “Horton Hears a Who,” although not at the Pixar level of a genius, was funny, instructive and endearing.
“Horton hears a Who” is rated G.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
"The Spiderwick Chronicles"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“Their world is closer than you think,” or so the movie tagline says. This world full of fairies, griffins and ogres, the world of “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” is a battle of good versus evil. It excites the imagination; it is fantastical—or so the ads say. The growling voices and flittering wings of “The Spiderwick Chronicles” may be whimsical enough to wow younger children, but the sub-par acting and cliché screenplay will ultimately fail to give older kids and adults an adequate excuse to stay inside on a Saturday afternoon.
Originally a book series by Holly Black and Tony DiTerlizzi, the cinematic version of “The Spiderwick Chronicles” begins with an obviously discontented single-parent family arriving at their new haunted-mansion-esque home in the wilderness. Originally from New York, Helen Grace (Mary-Louise Parker), her daughter Mallory (Sarah Bolger) and her twin sons Jared and Simon (Freddie Highmore), clearly have some adapting to do if they are to properly adjust to their new, creepy home—the only thing of which they know is that a relative and the last owner of the home was taken to a “nut house” after claiming that her father, Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn) was taken away by fairies.
As is to be expected, the children quickly discover that their long-forgotten relative was not so nutty after all, and her father was indeed taken away by fairies because he authored a book, “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” revealing the many secrets of a magical world not seen by most. As quickly as the family discovers that there is more to their new home than meets the eye, they also discover that this magical world is not all fairies and pixies. An evil ogre named Mulgarath (Nick Nolte) is trying to get his hands on the book so that he can discover the magical secrets chronicled by Spiderwick and use them to destroy everyone and everything. Thus, the task is left to three, out-of-place New York children to protect the book and the magical world from the wrath of this horrible creature.
While these three children are discovering facts about their family’s past, audiences are discovering that this plot is nothing short of formulaic. Even so, the details of the story are somehow still unpredictable at times, and honestly, just about anything with fairies and ogres is fun. At first, the movie seems to be about opening one’s eyes to an imaginative world so often ignored by busy, city-types, but as the story unfolds, the tale also becomes a caution against crippling escapism. Everything in moderation, I suppose is one of the less hackneyed messages of this film. But messages aside, this story is just that—a story. It is a battle between good and evil, and the torn family backdrop gives audiences an easy jumpstart of sympathy for the protagonists.
Unfortunately, the acting was rarely riveting and often inadequate. Even the ever-endearing Freddie Highmore (“Finding Neverland” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”) and David Strathairn (“Good Night and Good Luck”) register sub-par performances. Hearing the names of these familiar faces is usually reason enough to be excited about a movie, but that is all the more reason to be disappointed with this particular result. Movies like this hinge on the audience-protagonist relationship, and the lack of such a connection in “The Spiderwick Chronicles” kept it from delivering a knockout punch.
This movie is fun, this movie is fun—I keep telling myself. It is fun, but not good. If that is all right with you or your children, check out “The Spiderwick Chronicles.” “The Spiderwick Chronicles” is rated PG for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements.
Coastal View News
“Their world is closer than you think,” or so the movie tagline says. This world full of fairies, griffins and ogres, the world of “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” is a battle of good versus evil. It excites the imagination; it is fantastical—or so the ads say. The growling voices and flittering wings of “The Spiderwick Chronicles” may be whimsical enough to wow younger children, but the sub-par acting and cliché screenplay will ultimately fail to give older kids and adults an adequate excuse to stay inside on a Saturday afternoon.
Originally a book series by Holly Black and Tony DiTerlizzi, the cinematic version of “The Spiderwick Chronicles” begins with an obviously discontented single-parent family arriving at their new haunted-mansion-esque home in the wilderness. Originally from New York, Helen Grace (Mary-Louise Parker), her daughter Mallory (Sarah Bolger) and her twin sons Jared and Simon (Freddie Highmore), clearly have some adapting to do if they are to properly adjust to their new, creepy home—the only thing of which they know is that a relative and the last owner of the home was taken to a “nut house” after claiming that her father, Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn) was taken away by fairies.
As is to be expected, the children quickly discover that their long-forgotten relative was not so nutty after all, and her father was indeed taken away by fairies because he authored a book, “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” revealing the many secrets of a magical world not seen by most. As quickly as the family discovers that there is more to their new home than meets the eye, they also discover that this magical world is not all fairies and pixies. An evil ogre named Mulgarath (Nick Nolte) is trying to get his hands on the book so that he can discover the magical secrets chronicled by Spiderwick and use them to destroy everyone and everything. Thus, the task is left to three, out-of-place New York children to protect the book and the magical world from the wrath of this horrible creature.
While these three children are discovering facts about their family’s past, audiences are discovering that this plot is nothing short of formulaic. Even so, the details of the story are somehow still unpredictable at times, and honestly, just about anything with fairies and ogres is fun. At first, the movie seems to be about opening one’s eyes to an imaginative world so often ignored by busy, city-types, but as the story unfolds, the tale also becomes a caution against crippling escapism. Everything in moderation, I suppose is one of the less hackneyed messages of this film. But messages aside, this story is just that—a story. It is a battle between good and evil, and the torn family backdrop gives audiences an easy jumpstart of sympathy for the protagonists.
Unfortunately, the acting was rarely riveting and often inadequate. Even the ever-endearing Freddie Highmore (“Finding Neverland” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”) and David Strathairn (“Good Night and Good Luck”) register sub-par performances. Hearing the names of these familiar faces is usually reason enough to be excited about a movie, but that is all the more reason to be disappointed with this particular result. Movies like this hinge on the audience-protagonist relationship, and the lack of such a connection in “The Spiderwick Chronicles” kept it from delivering a knockout punch.
This movie is fun, this movie is fun—I keep telling myself. It is fun, but not good. If that is all right with you or your children, check out “The Spiderwick Chronicles.” “The Spiderwick Chronicles” is rated PG for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
"Definitely, Maybe"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“It’s complicated … It’s complicated,” recited Will Hayes to his daughter, Maya, as he recounts his winding journey from attraction to love to marriage—marriage to Maya’s mother. This slumber party storytelling adventure called “Definitely, Maybe” is indeed complicated, and unique, but is it fulfilling?
Disillusioned with the impending divorce of her parents, the precocious Maya (Abigail Breslin) asks her dad to recall the story of how he and his soon-to-be ex-wife met and fell in love. When Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) repeatedly retreats to his mantra of “It’s complicated,” Maya refuses to let her father off the hook. The father and daughter compromise, deciding to turn the story into a love mystery—with names and facts askew, Maya has to figure out which woman in her father’s tangled love story is her mother.
Hayes lives up to his mantra, as he goes from gorgeous woman to gorgeous woman; blonde, brunette, and redhead; feeling all the woes of romantic hardship—mostly self-inflicted. At various points in this story, Maya interjects with her own thoughts, feelings and hopes. She cannot help but root for various characters in her dad’s narrative, hoping both that her mother will be the character she likes best and that her dad will have chosen the woman best suited for him.
In “Definitely, Maybe” writer/director Adam Brooks has given himself the ample of task of forging a connection between the main character and not one woman, but three. This web of love and attraction leaves the viewer wondering where the story is going—which can be a great thing if it does go somewhere, but a terrible thing if it goes nowhere at all.
Although the plot of this movie jumps and stalls like an old car, it does go somewhere, but mostly thanks to an able cast. Abigail Breslin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) and Rachel Weisz (“The Constant Gardner”) are as wonderful as ever, and Ryan Reynolds (“Van Wilder”) and Isla Fisher (“Wedding Crashers”) contribute a respectable amount of that charming gooey-glue that holds together every successful chick flick.
Unfortunately, there was not quite enough of that gooey-glue in the movie to hold together the labyrinthine plot and the awkward political setting (Hayes works on a presidential campaign), but I know that plenty of movie-goers will still enjoy this movie. Like me, many people will find “Definitely, Maybe” easy to sit through, but also like me, most people will instantly forget the movie. “Definitely, Maybe” should get some credit for a unique idea and a decent cast, but the praise ends there.
“Definitely, Maybe” is rated PG-13 for sexual content, including some frank dialogue, language and smoking.
Duncan’s Oscar Predictions
The following is a list of my predictions for the 80th Annual Academy Awards, which will air on Sunday, Feb. 24. All nominations are listed in alphabetical order, my predictions are in bold and the nominees I think are most deserving of the award are in italics.
Best Picture: “No Country for Old Men,” “There Will Be Blood,” “Michael Clayton,” “Juno,” and “Atonement.”
Best Actor: George Clooney (“Michael Clayton”), Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”), Johnny Depp (“Sweeney Todd and the Demon Barber of Fleet Street”), Tommy Lee Jones (“In the Valley of Elah”), and Viggo Mortenson (“Eastern Promises”).
Best Actress: Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth: The Golden Age”), Julie Christie (“Away From Her”), Marion Cotillard (“Le Vie en Rose”), Laura Linney (“The Savages”), and Ellen Page (“Juno”).
Best Director: Julian Schnabel (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”), Jason Reitman (“Juno”), Tony Gilroy (“Michael Clayton”), Joel and Ethan Coen (“No Country for Old Men”), and Paul Thomas Anderson (“There Will Be Blood”).
Coastal View News
“It’s complicated … It’s complicated,” recited Will Hayes to his daughter, Maya, as he recounts his winding journey from attraction to love to marriage—marriage to Maya’s mother. This slumber party storytelling adventure called “Definitely, Maybe” is indeed complicated, and unique, but is it fulfilling?
Disillusioned with the impending divorce of her parents, the precocious Maya (Abigail Breslin) asks her dad to recall the story of how he and his soon-to-be ex-wife met and fell in love. When Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) repeatedly retreats to his mantra of “It’s complicated,” Maya refuses to let her father off the hook. The father and daughter compromise, deciding to turn the story into a love mystery—with names and facts askew, Maya has to figure out which woman in her father’s tangled love story is her mother.
Hayes lives up to his mantra, as he goes from gorgeous woman to gorgeous woman; blonde, brunette, and redhead; feeling all the woes of romantic hardship—mostly self-inflicted. At various points in this story, Maya interjects with her own thoughts, feelings and hopes. She cannot help but root for various characters in her dad’s narrative, hoping both that her mother will be the character she likes best and that her dad will have chosen the woman best suited for him.
In “Definitely, Maybe” writer/director Adam Brooks has given himself the ample of task of forging a connection between the main character and not one woman, but three. This web of love and attraction leaves the viewer wondering where the story is going—which can be a great thing if it does go somewhere, but a terrible thing if it goes nowhere at all.
Although the plot of this movie jumps and stalls like an old car, it does go somewhere, but mostly thanks to an able cast. Abigail Breslin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) and Rachel Weisz (“The Constant Gardner”) are as wonderful as ever, and Ryan Reynolds (“Van Wilder”) and Isla Fisher (“Wedding Crashers”) contribute a respectable amount of that charming gooey-glue that holds together every successful chick flick.
Unfortunately, there was not quite enough of that gooey-glue in the movie to hold together the labyrinthine plot and the awkward political setting (Hayes works on a presidential campaign), but I know that plenty of movie-goers will still enjoy this movie. Like me, many people will find “Definitely, Maybe” easy to sit through, but also like me, most people will instantly forget the movie. “Definitely, Maybe” should get some credit for a unique idea and a decent cast, but the praise ends there.
“Definitely, Maybe” is rated PG-13 for sexual content, including some frank dialogue, language and smoking.
Duncan’s Oscar Predictions
The following is a list of my predictions for the 80th Annual Academy Awards, which will air on Sunday, Feb. 24. All nominations are listed in alphabetical order, my predictions are in bold and the nominees I think are most deserving of the award are in italics.
Best Picture: “No Country for Old Men,” “There Will Be Blood,” “Michael Clayton,” “Juno,” and “Atonement.”
Best Actor: George Clooney (“Michael Clayton”), Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”), Johnny Depp (“Sweeney Todd and the Demon Barber of Fleet Street”), Tommy Lee Jones (“In the Valley of Elah”), and Viggo Mortenson (“Eastern Promises”).
Best Actress: Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth: The Golden Age”), Julie Christie (“Away From Her”), Marion Cotillard (“Le Vie en Rose”), Laura Linney (“The Savages”), and Ellen Page (“Juno”).
Best Director: Julian Schnabel (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”), Jason Reitman (“Juno”), Tony Gilroy (“Michael Clayton”), Joel and Ethan Coen (“No Country for Old Men”), and Paul Thomas Anderson (“There Will Be Blood”).
Thursday, February 7, 2008
"No Country for Old Men"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
The streets of Santa Barbara were littered with casts and crews, fans and flatterers, during the Santa Barbara International Film Festival last week, all abuzz over the Coen brother’s latest film, “No Country for Old Men.” The film, which matched “There Will Be Blood” for most Oscar nods (including nominations for best supporting actor, best director and best picture), sent two of its cast, Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem, to Santa Barbara to be honored with special awards. At the Montecito Award ceremony for Javier Bardem, film festival executive director Roger Durling described Bardem’s performance as “the defining performance of the year,” specifically vaulting him over Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth: The Golden Age”), Julie Christie (“Away From Her”) and Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”).
In “No Country for Old Men,” Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a simple West Texan, comes across a satchel filled with cash from a drug deal gone awry. Instead of turning the money in or avoiding the potential dangers altogether, Moss decides to keep the money, hiding it under his house until he can make accommodations for him and his wife to leave. However, a tracking device planted in the money reveals his location both to Mexican drug dealers and to Anton Chigurh (Javier Barden), a senseless, psychopathic killer on the loose. It soon becomes clear that the biggest hurdle Moss will have to overcome to maintain both the money and his family’s livelihood is Chigurh, as he spends most of the movie fleeing from the stone-faced murderer the audience knows nothing about except that he has a bizarre haircut and that he uses his preferred weapons, a cattle gun and a tank of compressed air, with ruthless dexterity.
As the plot progresses, the conflict becomes more complex due to Chigurh’s principled, albeit random, acts of evil. Chigurh’s pursuit of Moss shows all the hallmarks of greater purpose, yet lacks any definable motivation typically associated with sanity. When Chigurh is offered the money by a cornered Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson), a man sent to find and kill him, he turns it down, saying that he prefers “something better,” that is, to have the money placed under his feet by Moss.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) investigates the crimes surrounding the money with a nonplussed demeanor. He is not confused by the nature of the crimes, but by the purpose or reason behind the crimes. Bell is more of a thematic narrator, as his biggest role in the film is as an “old man,” who is set in contrast to a new kind of criminal; a criminal with no soul.
In the beginning of the film, Bell says, “The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job—not to be glorious. But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. You can say it's my job to fight it, but I don't know what it is anymore. More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, ‘OK, I'll be part of this world.’”
And thus, this on-the-edge-of-your-seat thriller becomes more than just a fast-moving plot line. It becomes a metaphor for evil, violence and greed.
So does “No Country for Old Men” live up to the hype? Of course not. It is good, but not that good. It is deep enough, but just as much about filling the seats with moviegoers eager to see a suspenseful bloodbath as it is about the nature of violence and criminality in the United States and abroad. Bardem’s performance was good enough to earn him the Oscar for best supporting actor, but it was not “the defining performance of the year,” as Roger Durling so fawningly pronounced. If that distinction could be given to anyone, it would be to Daniel Day-Lewis for “There Will Be Blood.”
“No Country for Old Men” was a good movie, and very entertaining. Although many viewers were dissatisfied with the perplexing ending, the conclusion was part of the Coen brother’s art, and without it the film could not have been the artistic success that it was.
“No Country for Old Men” is rated R for strong, graphic violence and some language.
Coastal View News
The streets of Santa Barbara were littered with casts and crews, fans and flatterers, during the Santa Barbara International Film Festival last week, all abuzz over the Coen brother’s latest film, “No Country for Old Men.” The film, which matched “There Will Be Blood” for most Oscar nods (including nominations for best supporting actor, best director and best picture), sent two of its cast, Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem, to Santa Barbara to be honored with special awards. At the Montecito Award ceremony for Javier Bardem, film festival executive director Roger Durling described Bardem’s performance as “the defining performance of the year,” specifically vaulting him over Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth: The Golden Age”), Julie Christie (“Away From Her”) and Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”).
In “No Country for Old Men,” Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a simple West Texan, comes across a satchel filled with cash from a drug deal gone awry. Instead of turning the money in or avoiding the potential dangers altogether, Moss decides to keep the money, hiding it under his house until he can make accommodations for him and his wife to leave. However, a tracking device planted in the money reveals his location both to Mexican drug dealers and to Anton Chigurh (Javier Barden), a senseless, psychopathic killer on the loose. It soon becomes clear that the biggest hurdle Moss will have to overcome to maintain both the money and his family’s livelihood is Chigurh, as he spends most of the movie fleeing from the stone-faced murderer the audience knows nothing about except that he has a bizarre haircut and that he uses his preferred weapons, a cattle gun and a tank of compressed air, with ruthless dexterity.
As the plot progresses, the conflict becomes more complex due to Chigurh’s principled, albeit random, acts of evil. Chigurh’s pursuit of Moss shows all the hallmarks of greater purpose, yet lacks any definable motivation typically associated with sanity. When Chigurh is offered the money by a cornered Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson), a man sent to find and kill him, he turns it down, saying that he prefers “something better,” that is, to have the money placed under his feet by Moss.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) investigates the crimes surrounding the money with a nonplussed demeanor. He is not confused by the nature of the crimes, but by the purpose or reason behind the crimes. Bell is more of a thematic narrator, as his biggest role in the film is as an “old man,” who is set in contrast to a new kind of criminal; a criminal with no soul.
In the beginning of the film, Bell says, “The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job—not to be glorious. But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. You can say it's my job to fight it, but I don't know what it is anymore. More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, ‘OK, I'll be part of this world.’”
And thus, this on-the-edge-of-your-seat thriller becomes more than just a fast-moving plot line. It becomes a metaphor for evil, violence and greed.
So does “No Country for Old Men” live up to the hype? Of course not. It is good, but not that good. It is deep enough, but just as much about filling the seats with moviegoers eager to see a suspenseful bloodbath as it is about the nature of violence and criminality in the United States and abroad. Bardem’s performance was good enough to earn him the Oscar for best supporting actor, but it was not “the defining performance of the year,” as Roger Durling so fawningly pronounced. If that distinction could be given to anyone, it would be to Daniel Day-Lewis for “There Will Be Blood.”
“No Country for Old Men” was a good movie, and very entertaining. Although many viewers were dissatisfied with the perplexing ending, the conclusion was part of the Coen brother’s art, and without it the film could not have been the artistic success that it was.
“No Country for Old Men” is rated R for strong, graphic violence and some language.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"There Will Be Blood"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
There will be no second-guessing the merits of “There Will Be Blood” when it is propelled to the top of the list for this year’s Academy Awards, as Daniel Day-Lewis provides a shockingly convincing performance and writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Magnolia,” “Punch-Drunk Love”) comes through once again by brilliantly developing the subtle symbolism and profound metaphor of a story pregnant with meaning.
“There Will Be Blood” is based on the novel “Oil!” by Upton Sinclair, who is best known for his bleak exposé of the abuses of free market capitalism in “The Jungle.” “There Will Be Blood” follows Daniel Plainview (Lewis), a self-proclaimed “oil man,” through his unflinching pursuit of profit and domination in the oilfields of the California countryside at the start of the 20th century. Although Plainview battles with genuine feelings of love for his adopted son, H.W. (Dillon Freasier), he shows an unabashed willingness to use, manipulate, deceive, and destroy anything or anyone on his path to riches. Anderson uses Sinclair’s story to portray a competitive economic landscape intrinsically designed to corrupt all those grasped within its clutches.
The movie opens with violent, horror-flick-like shrieks from a score that hangs over the entire movie like an ominous rain cloud, foretelling the impending doom of those trapped within the barren setting and even more barren lifestyle of greed. Plainview, both the character and the idea, interacts with the concepts of community, family, and religion, revealing that no one, no matter how innocent or holy, is immune to corruption in a system that necessitates competition and duplicity for survival. Although Plainview bears the largest thematic load in this story, manipulation in the name of money is by no means a quality limited to the oil tycoon.
Despite the fact that this screenplay can stand on its own two feet, Lewis’ performance gives the film an added punch that truly makes its sinister ambience work well. The only weak performance delivered in this movie came from Paul Dano (“Little Miss Sunshine”), who played Eli Sunday, a passionate, yet hypocritical preacher. Even though Lewis’ performance more than made up for Dano, the latter still managed to make several scenes feel like a high school play.
“There Will Be Blood” is not a good pick if you are looking for a light-hearted day at the movies or if you are looking for an energetic action thriller. But if you are in the mood for a powerful and profound movie that may depress rather than elate, “There Will Be Blood” is a perfect pick. Anderson’s subtle symbolism enriches this movie greatly, but the power of the imagery and acting alone is enough to make his point. Although it is doubtful that this movie will be for everyone, Anderson more than succeeds in doing what he set out to do.
“There Will Be Blood” is rated R for some violence.
Coastal View News
There will be no second-guessing the merits of “There Will Be Blood” when it is propelled to the top of the list for this year’s Academy Awards, as Daniel Day-Lewis provides a shockingly convincing performance and writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Magnolia,” “Punch-Drunk Love”) comes through once again by brilliantly developing the subtle symbolism and profound metaphor of a story pregnant with meaning.
“There Will Be Blood” is based on the novel “Oil!” by Upton Sinclair, who is best known for his bleak exposé of the abuses of free market capitalism in “The Jungle.” “There Will Be Blood” follows Daniel Plainview (Lewis), a self-proclaimed “oil man,” through his unflinching pursuit of profit and domination in the oilfields of the California countryside at the start of the 20th century. Although Plainview battles with genuine feelings of love for his adopted son, H.W. (Dillon Freasier), he shows an unabashed willingness to use, manipulate, deceive, and destroy anything or anyone on his path to riches. Anderson uses Sinclair’s story to portray a competitive economic landscape intrinsically designed to corrupt all those grasped within its clutches.
The movie opens with violent, horror-flick-like shrieks from a score that hangs over the entire movie like an ominous rain cloud, foretelling the impending doom of those trapped within the barren setting and even more barren lifestyle of greed. Plainview, both the character and the idea, interacts with the concepts of community, family, and religion, revealing that no one, no matter how innocent or holy, is immune to corruption in a system that necessitates competition and duplicity for survival. Although Plainview bears the largest thematic load in this story, manipulation in the name of money is by no means a quality limited to the oil tycoon.
Despite the fact that this screenplay can stand on its own two feet, Lewis’ performance gives the film an added punch that truly makes its sinister ambience work well. The only weak performance delivered in this movie came from Paul Dano (“Little Miss Sunshine”), who played Eli Sunday, a passionate, yet hypocritical preacher. Even though Lewis’ performance more than made up for Dano, the latter still managed to make several scenes feel like a high school play.
“There Will Be Blood” is not a good pick if you are looking for a light-hearted day at the movies or if you are looking for an energetic action thriller. But if you are in the mood for a powerful and profound movie that may depress rather than elate, “There Will Be Blood” is a perfect pick. Anderson’s subtle symbolism enriches this movie greatly, but the power of the imagery and acting alone is enough to make his point. Although it is doubtful that this movie will be for everyone, Anderson more than succeeds in doing what he set out to do.
“There Will Be Blood” is rated R for some violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)