By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“Capitalism is an evil,” says Michael Moore, “and you cannot regulate evil.”
Capitalism, an evil? We might have been inclined to go along with “Guns are evil,” “George Bush is evil,” and maybe even “Private healthcare is evil,” but surely we cannot so slander our beloved friend, capitalism. The economic superiority and moral uprightness of the free market is simply a given, right? Not so, says Michael Moore.
America and capitalism are what Forrest Gump might have said are “like peas and carrots”, and for this reason, “Capitalism: A Love Story”—a blistering criticism of all things free market—is Moore’s boldest and most ambitious project to date. It’s bold, but not great. It is emotionally stirring at times, but because capitalism is itself such an elusive concept for Michael Moore, his movie is unclear, unfocused, heavy on emotional conclusions, and light on damning premises.
“Capitalism: A Love Story” sputters out of the gates with several disjointed scenes and interviews that are only loosely connected. Moore interviews families being thrown from their homes and zooms in for shot after shot after shot of tear-stained faces and boarded-up shanties. Moore compares America to ancient Rome, drawing parallels between the social factors that led to Rome’s downfall and the milieu that now characterizes American society: too much greed; too great a divide between the rich and the poor.
While there is no tight working definition of ‘capitalism’ provided by Moore, there is the impression that ‘capitalism’ loosely refers to something like greed, the privilege of the few at the expense of the many, or maybe just meanness. As per usual, Moore attacks the system-“the Man” if you will—through a witty combination of emotional instances and conspiracy theories, all set to bouncing, ironic music.
For all of its initial flaws, “Capitalism: A Love Story” picks up some steam, interest, and credibility as Moore casts the financial elite as a corrupt aristocracy. He cleverly juxtaposes capitalism not with socialism or communism, but democracy. For Moore, the real tension is between two basic American ideals: liberty and equality. On the one hand, Americans are attracted to the personal liberty espoused by capitalism because they want to think that they have the freedom to make it big, to rise above their respective classes, to live the American dream. But on the other hand, there is also the moral compass of America that seeks to provide adequate conditions for all. We believe that everyone should have equal access to happiness and security.
We can’t have it both ways, claims Moore. We can’t obtain fabulous wealth for ourselves while at the same time providing adequate conditions for all. Thus, the tension between liberty and equality. Of course, Moore thinks that the so-called economic liberty provided by capitalism is, in reality, a sham. According to Moore, the reason we allow investment bankers and Wall Street whizzes to make it rich while hard working families are kicked to the curb is because we like the idea that someday we could be rich, on top of the heap. But this is an illusion, claims Moore, because the simple fact is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
For those viewers who are not already inclined to believe Moore’s conclusions, “Capitalism: A Love Story” will be nothing short of exasperating. As is usually the case, Moore’s premises are aimed at the gut, not the head. He uses public outrage to egg his audience on; he is the trumpeter of discontent, a sympathizer, a rabble-rouser. Moore tells people what they are mad at and then makes them madder at it, all without making a clear connection between their woe and his ill-defined object of hatred.
For those viewers who are inclined to believe Moore’s conclusions, “Capitalism: A Love Story” will no doubt be a moving rally cry. For those who have the feeling that the problem really is systemic, this film provides emotional punch. For these folks, Michael Moore is in their corner; he is their champion.
But whether you are a capitalist, socialist, anarchist or communist, it is clear that “Capitalism: A Love Story” could have been better. It could have been more penetrating and focused. It could have more coherently dealt with the connections between our current economic troubles and capitalism as an economic system. But that’s not really Michael Moore’s style, so take this movie for what it’s worth.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
"Extract"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Mike Judge’s career is an ode to the workingman. It is an ode composed of a series of tales chronicling the exasperation of suburban life. “Office Space,” “King of the Hill,” and now “Extract”, all give a ridiculous but somehow accurate look at what is most trying about being average. “Extract” is an oddly realistic farce—a good illustration of what makes Judge’s movies so unique, and so funny.
Joel (Jason Bateman) may be the creator and owner of his own company, but at heart, Joel is a simple guy. He really wants what every simple guy wants: stability, honesty, and an occasional retreat from the doldrums. Joel’s ingenious and moderately successful extract manufacturing business testifies to the fact that all he really needs is his little corner of the world.
That is, until the combination of a dissatisfying home life, the fresh presence of a sexy temptress at work and the jarring influence of a freak accident at the extract factory moves Joel to shake things up a bit—to hatch a scheme. At the insistence of Joel’s hippie friend Dean (Ben Affleck), Joel decides to hire a male prostitute to seduce his wife so that he—Joel—can sleep with his new temp, Cindy (Mila Kunis), without feeling guilty. Unfortunately, the plan works too well. Brad (Dustin Milligan), the moronic gigolo, not only finds it easy to lure Joel’s wife into bed, he also finds it easy to turn this one-time job into a lingering affair.
Meanwhile, Joel discovers that Cindy is not the sweet, honest girl that he thought she was. Instead, she is an underhanded con artist/petty thief who is threatening to bring his entire company to its knees. Joel sees his entire world crumbling around him, and all because he tried to combat his boredom with Hollywood shenanigans. Joel realizes that he never really wanted what he thought he wanted. In other words, his old life, though at times exasperating, provided comfort and contentment. Joel discovers that he was meant to be a small-time extract maker, not James Bond.
In “Extract”, Mike Judge does what he does best: he simultaneously glorifies and mocks the life of the average Joe. He creates characters that are at once over-the-top and yet strikingly familiar. He puts these characters into situations that seem outrageous, but that every member of the audience has somehow experienced. Mike Judge is the master of working class exasperation.
In Judge’s stories, it is interesting to note that the worst possible thing a character can do is attempt to be something that they are not. Although the desirability of fleeing from suburbia is palpable in the beginning of these stories, the actual act of fleeing serves only as a catalyst for misery, and the process of redemption is always identical to the process of coming back to where things started. It seems to be a transformation of attitude, not necessarily a transformation of lifestyle, which is the solution to chronic boredom, according to Judge. The most valuable lesson Judge’s characters can learn is that they are nothing special; or, rather, it is that their simplicity is precisely what makes them special.
“Extract” is not just interesting; it’s funny too. Jason Bateman is perfect for the role of the punching bag, and is supported by a whole slew of outrageous but believable characters. In particular, David Koechner, who plays Bateman’s neighbor Nathan, is a side-splitting rendition of the kind of vapid acquaintance that just won’t leave you alone. It seems to me that Judge’s work is successful only insofar as he can create characters that are both remarkably unreasonable and remarkably believable. In “Extract”, there are plenty to choose from.
Coastal View News
Mike Judge’s career is an ode to the workingman. It is an ode composed of a series of tales chronicling the exasperation of suburban life. “Office Space,” “King of the Hill,” and now “Extract”, all give a ridiculous but somehow accurate look at what is most trying about being average. “Extract” is an oddly realistic farce—a good illustration of what makes Judge’s movies so unique, and so funny.
Joel (Jason Bateman) may be the creator and owner of his own company, but at heart, Joel is a simple guy. He really wants what every simple guy wants: stability, honesty, and an occasional retreat from the doldrums. Joel’s ingenious and moderately successful extract manufacturing business testifies to the fact that all he really needs is his little corner of the world.
That is, until the combination of a dissatisfying home life, the fresh presence of a sexy temptress at work and the jarring influence of a freak accident at the extract factory moves Joel to shake things up a bit—to hatch a scheme. At the insistence of Joel’s hippie friend Dean (Ben Affleck), Joel decides to hire a male prostitute to seduce his wife so that he—Joel—can sleep with his new temp, Cindy (Mila Kunis), without feeling guilty. Unfortunately, the plan works too well. Brad (Dustin Milligan), the moronic gigolo, not only finds it easy to lure Joel’s wife into bed, he also finds it easy to turn this one-time job into a lingering affair.
Meanwhile, Joel discovers that Cindy is not the sweet, honest girl that he thought she was. Instead, she is an underhanded con artist/petty thief who is threatening to bring his entire company to its knees. Joel sees his entire world crumbling around him, and all because he tried to combat his boredom with Hollywood shenanigans. Joel realizes that he never really wanted what he thought he wanted. In other words, his old life, though at times exasperating, provided comfort and contentment. Joel discovers that he was meant to be a small-time extract maker, not James Bond.
In “Extract”, Mike Judge does what he does best: he simultaneously glorifies and mocks the life of the average Joe. He creates characters that are at once over-the-top and yet strikingly familiar. He puts these characters into situations that seem outrageous, but that every member of the audience has somehow experienced. Mike Judge is the master of working class exasperation.
In Judge’s stories, it is interesting to note that the worst possible thing a character can do is attempt to be something that they are not. Although the desirability of fleeing from suburbia is palpable in the beginning of these stories, the actual act of fleeing serves only as a catalyst for misery, and the process of redemption is always identical to the process of coming back to where things started. It seems to be a transformation of attitude, not necessarily a transformation of lifestyle, which is the solution to chronic boredom, according to Judge. The most valuable lesson Judge’s characters can learn is that they are nothing special; or, rather, it is that their simplicity is precisely what makes them special.
“Extract” is not just interesting; it’s funny too. Jason Bateman is perfect for the role of the punching bag, and is supported by a whole slew of outrageous but believable characters. In particular, David Koechner, who plays Bateman’s neighbor Nathan, is a side-splitting rendition of the kind of vapid acquaintance that just won’t leave you alone. It seems to me that Judge’s work is successful only insofar as he can create characters that are both remarkably unreasonable and remarkably believable. In “Extract”, there are plenty to choose from.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
"The Hurt Locker"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Most military heroes make their name by deftly destroying the enemy or perhaps by pulling a fellow soldier out of harm’s way; they either create ruthless havoc or shield friends from the havoc of others. In the widely acclaimed “The Hurt Locker”, one man recklessly puts himself and his friends in harm way while mastering the art of quieting the havoc. Whether or not he is a hero, this man is the Shakespeare of bomb diffusers—bold, courageous, and breathtaking to behold.
U.S. Army Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) enters the Iraq War when his predecessor, Sergeant Matt Thompson (Guy Pearce), is killed while attempting to diffuse a bomb. James thus joins a bomb squad shaken by the loss of their beloved leader, and unfortunately, James’ brazen methodology and lackadaisical personality only serves to heighten the tensions of his new colleagues. Whereas the deceased Thompson observed every precaution and sweated the details, James slaps on the suit and strolls into harm’s way without a second thought. Thompson was visibly aware of the dangers that ended up killing him, while James seems no more concerned in fiddling with deadly bombs than he would be if he were fixing a carburetor.
James draws the ire of his equals but the praise of his superiors, the latter seeing James’ stunts as courageous and amusing. However, as time passes and countless bombs are successfully neutralized, even James’ nervous teammates cannot ignore the fact that James is a highly skilled bomb technician. He approaches a bomb with the same confidence that must have brought Rembrandt to the canvas or Mozart to the piano. He responds to the news that there is a bomb in the trunk of a car like one might respond to the news that there is a spider in the cupboard. “All right, I’ll take care of it,” he says. His confidence allows him to work quickly and efficiently, and his curiosity allows him to consider new possibilities and understand unheard of techniques employed by the enemy.
James’ teammates are counting down the days until they go home while James is playing a game. However, James’ seeming indifference to death does not keep him from feeling the pain of war. We see that he is compassionate, and is surprisingly affected by harm inflicted on others, particularly the innocent. The combination of his lack of care for the safety of himself and his extreme care for the safety of others make Sergeant James an ideal bomb diffuser. For James it is far better to save lives diffusing bombs than it is to take lives setting them off.
Each scene of “The Hurt Locker” is masterfully done. Director Kathryn Bigelow creates a realism that is both breathtakingly beautiful and devastatingly gruesome. This film is comprised of a succession of scenes that are mesmerizing and nerve-wracking; over two hours without a dull moment. What’s more, Jeremy Renner does a wonderful job as the implacable James.
And yet, this film lacks a strong narrative. While each scene is crafted well, the whole is not much more than the sum of its parts. There is no particular plot that the audience is meant to follow, meaning that we are dropped off rather near the place where we were picked up.
It certainly could be argued that this movie was a character study more than it was a war story, and what we learn of James’ character in the first half hour definitely provides the impetus for a great character study. But what is captivating about James is his peculiar indifference to death, and unfortunately what’s behind this odd character trait remains murky until the end. The first half of “The Hurt Locker”—the setup and rising action of the movie—is Oscar-worthy. But then the movie stalls, and in the end “The Hurt Locker” does not provide the climax or resolution worthy of its first half.
Coastal View News
Most military heroes make their name by deftly destroying the enemy or perhaps by pulling a fellow soldier out of harm’s way; they either create ruthless havoc or shield friends from the havoc of others. In the widely acclaimed “The Hurt Locker”, one man recklessly puts himself and his friends in harm way while mastering the art of quieting the havoc. Whether or not he is a hero, this man is the Shakespeare of bomb diffusers—bold, courageous, and breathtaking to behold.
U.S. Army Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) enters the Iraq War when his predecessor, Sergeant Matt Thompson (Guy Pearce), is killed while attempting to diffuse a bomb. James thus joins a bomb squad shaken by the loss of their beloved leader, and unfortunately, James’ brazen methodology and lackadaisical personality only serves to heighten the tensions of his new colleagues. Whereas the deceased Thompson observed every precaution and sweated the details, James slaps on the suit and strolls into harm’s way without a second thought. Thompson was visibly aware of the dangers that ended up killing him, while James seems no more concerned in fiddling with deadly bombs than he would be if he were fixing a carburetor.
James draws the ire of his equals but the praise of his superiors, the latter seeing James’ stunts as courageous and amusing. However, as time passes and countless bombs are successfully neutralized, even James’ nervous teammates cannot ignore the fact that James is a highly skilled bomb technician. He approaches a bomb with the same confidence that must have brought Rembrandt to the canvas or Mozart to the piano. He responds to the news that there is a bomb in the trunk of a car like one might respond to the news that there is a spider in the cupboard. “All right, I’ll take care of it,” he says. His confidence allows him to work quickly and efficiently, and his curiosity allows him to consider new possibilities and understand unheard of techniques employed by the enemy.
James’ teammates are counting down the days until they go home while James is playing a game. However, James’ seeming indifference to death does not keep him from feeling the pain of war. We see that he is compassionate, and is surprisingly affected by harm inflicted on others, particularly the innocent. The combination of his lack of care for the safety of himself and his extreme care for the safety of others make Sergeant James an ideal bomb diffuser. For James it is far better to save lives diffusing bombs than it is to take lives setting them off.
Each scene of “The Hurt Locker” is masterfully done. Director Kathryn Bigelow creates a realism that is both breathtakingly beautiful and devastatingly gruesome. This film is comprised of a succession of scenes that are mesmerizing and nerve-wracking; over two hours without a dull moment. What’s more, Jeremy Renner does a wonderful job as the implacable James.
And yet, this film lacks a strong narrative. While each scene is crafted well, the whole is not much more than the sum of its parts. There is no particular plot that the audience is meant to follow, meaning that we are dropped off rather near the place where we were picked up.
It certainly could be argued that this movie was a character study more than it was a war story, and what we learn of James’ character in the first half hour definitely provides the impetus for a great character study. But what is captivating about James is his peculiar indifference to death, and unfortunately what’s behind this odd character trait remains murky until the end. The first half of “The Hurt Locker”—the setup and rising action of the movie—is Oscar-worthy. But then the movie stalls, and in the end “The Hurt Locker” does not provide the climax or resolution worthy of its first half.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
"Public Enemies"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Director Michael Mann is the man when it comes to details. Whether it be the resonant crack of a Tommy gun or the grainy haze of a midnight confrontation, Mann seems to go to the greatest of lengths to provide an audience with experiences that are somehow sharper, realer and more pungent than other shootout flicks. “Public Enemies”, Michael Mann’s latest crime drama, incorporates the presence—the glamour—of the icon that is bank robber John Dillinger while simultaneously bringing it down to dirty, gritty earth.
The John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) of this film is as ruthless and calculating as one would like to think, but his warmth and care for the common person makes Dillinger the right kind of criminal—like Danny Ocean or Thomas Crown, the kind of thief that you can root for. Dillinger will shove a fellow conspirator out of a moving car for slipping up, but refuses to take the pocket change from a citizen hoping to deposit his dollars and cents. Johnny Depp might not be the Dillinger we are used to, but who cares?
After perpetrating a slew of bank robberies and picaresque ruses, Dillinger inevitably pits himself against the concerted efforts of high-ranking U. S. officials, who promise to restore order by defeating “public enemy number one.” Chief amongst these government officials is Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), a straight-laced policeman whose methodical workmanship becomes famous for its ability to bring down the heavy hand of justice with booming resonance. It’s Dillinger versus Pervus, although this bout is more of a competitive sport for the former and an ominous battle for the latter.
Dillinger is used to dealing with inept local authorities, so Pervus’ persistent and well-funded attention becomes more than a bother before too long. Dillinger’s associates are dropping like flies, and the smirk that illuminates the face of public enemy number one is dimmed while Dillinger attempts to protect those around him. When the dark and beautiful Billie Frenchette (Marion Cotillard) enters the picture, Dillinger’s fun and games quickly become an earnest effort to protect the woman with whom he has fallen in love. Despite continual promises claiming that everything is going to be all right, Dillinger’s control is gradually wrenched from him by Pervus, the first lawman able to equal Dillinger’s cunning.
When it comes to crime dramas, it is surprising how much the details matter. For example, the mild popcorn popping sound of the machine guns wielded in James Bond films or other big budget action movies can easily create the sensation of being caught in a ludicrous arcade game. In contrast, each gunshot in Michael Mann movies, including “Public Enemies,” brings with it a loud and piercing resonance that demands the full attention of viewers; it disturbs the very air the audience breaths. If you could imagine sleeping through the gunfire in a movie, something isn’t right; like orange ketchup blood and robot sharks, weak gunfire reeks of phony bologna Hollywood effects. Anyone who has actually heard a gunshot knows that it is scary—it goes straight to the gut of a person, and shortly thereafter to at least two legs eager to fly away. An authentic gunshot may seem like a trifling detail, but this is precisely the kind of detail that can make or break a gangster movie. Mann’s scenes are real and jarring, and this effect ironically adds to the larger-than-life persona typically associated with depression-era outlaws like John Dillinger.
Johnny Depp’s performance is perfect for this movie, even if the character is a departure from other Dillinger portrayals. It strikes me as impossibly presumptuous and inevitably vain to worry too much about mimicking the true character of an historical figure so distorted by romance and propaganda. “Public Enemies” creates a Dillinger worth watching. The first half of the film lags a bit, but the second half delivers all that is to be expected from Mann—the intrigue of two geniuses on opposite sides of the law, the interest of the honorable villain, and yes, the jolt of Tommy guns piercing the still night air with strobing infernos erupting from their barrels.
“Public Enemies” is rated R for gangster violence and some language.
Coastal View News
Director Michael Mann is the man when it comes to details. Whether it be the resonant crack of a Tommy gun or the grainy haze of a midnight confrontation, Mann seems to go to the greatest of lengths to provide an audience with experiences that are somehow sharper, realer and more pungent than other shootout flicks. “Public Enemies”, Michael Mann’s latest crime drama, incorporates the presence—the glamour—of the icon that is bank robber John Dillinger while simultaneously bringing it down to dirty, gritty earth.
The John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) of this film is as ruthless and calculating as one would like to think, but his warmth and care for the common person makes Dillinger the right kind of criminal—like Danny Ocean or Thomas Crown, the kind of thief that you can root for. Dillinger will shove a fellow conspirator out of a moving car for slipping up, but refuses to take the pocket change from a citizen hoping to deposit his dollars and cents. Johnny Depp might not be the Dillinger we are used to, but who cares?
After perpetrating a slew of bank robberies and picaresque ruses, Dillinger inevitably pits himself against the concerted efforts of high-ranking U. S. officials, who promise to restore order by defeating “public enemy number one.” Chief amongst these government officials is Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), a straight-laced policeman whose methodical workmanship becomes famous for its ability to bring down the heavy hand of justice with booming resonance. It’s Dillinger versus Pervus, although this bout is more of a competitive sport for the former and an ominous battle for the latter.
Dillinger is used to dealing with inept local authorities, so Pervus’ persistent and well-funded attention becomes more than a bother before too long. Dillinger’s associates are dropping like flies, and the smirk that illuminates the face of public enemy number one is dimmed while Dillinger attempts to protect those around him. When the dark and beautiful Billie Frenchette (Marion Cotillard) enters the picture, Dillinger’s fun and games quickly become an earnest effort to protect the woman with whom he has fallen in love. Despite continual promises claiming that everything is going to be all right, Dillinger’s control is gradually wrenched from him by Pervus, the first lawman able to equal Dillinger’s cunning.
When it comes to crime dramas, it is surprising how much the details matter. For example, the mild popcorn popping sound of the machine guns wielded in James Bond films or other big budget action movies can easily create the sensation of being caught in a ludicrous arcade game. In contrast, each gunshot in Michael Mann movies, including “Public Enemies,” brings with it a loud and piercing resonance that demands the full attention of viewers; it disturbs the very air the audience breaths. If you could imagine sleeping through the gunfire in a movie, something isn’t right; like orange ketchup blood and robot sharks, weak gunfire reeks of phony bologna Hollywood effects. Anyone who has actually heard a gunshot knows that it is scary—it goes straight to the gut of a person, and shortly thereafter to at least two legs eager to fly away. An authentic gunshot may seem like a trifling detail, but this is precisely the kind of detail that can make or break a gangster movie. Mann’s scenes are real and jarring, and this effect ironically adds to the larger-than-life persona typically associated with depression-era outlaws like John Dillinger.
Johnny Depp’s performance is perfect for this movie, even if the character is a departure from other Dillinger portrayals. It strikes me as impossibly presumptuous and inevitably vain to worry too much about mimicking the true character of an historical figure so distorted by romance and propaganda. “Public Enemies” creates a Dillinger worth watching. The first half of the film lags a bit, but the second half delivers all that is to be expected from Mann—the intrigue of two geniuses on opposite sides of the law, the interest of the honorable villain, and yes, the jolt of Tommy guns piercing the still night air with strobing infernos erupting from their barrels.
“Public Enemies” is rated R for gangster violence and some language.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
"Up"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Pixar is still batting a thousand, which is clearly a record—a statistic itself sufficient to put the production company in the hall of fame. But Pixar does not settle for mere hits; they insist on hitting it out of the ballpark, and “Up” is no exception. “Up” is funny, instructive, entertaining, cute, visually stunning, but most of all touching.
His humble stature and harsh, square jaw misleadingly give the impression that Carl Fredrickson (Edward Asner) is a petty, curmudgeonly old man locked away in his memories and bitterness. In fact, Fredrickson is the biggest dreamer of them all. He has a heart two sizes too big and an imagination that travels places his eyes will never meet.
“Up” begins as a younger, rounder Fredrickson sits on the edge of his seat in an old movie, his eyes wide, having his imagination insatiably piqued by Limburg-esque world explorer, Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer). Later that day, while buzzing along the sidewalk, hurdling ultra-perillous cracks in the pavement (with near the grace displayed by Muntz while zipping over the Andes) with leather helmet, goggles and all, Fredrickson finds his soul mate, his Ellie.
This buck-toothed, redheaded wonder possesses just as much love for adventure as Carl, and twice as much gusto for chasing it down. Little Carl Fredrickson’s wide eyes and gaping jaw are suddenly aimed at a new explorer—this one far more impressive than the last. Ellie jumps around the beaten walls of an abandoned house—her clubhouse—a mile-a-minute and a 10 words-per-second, while Carl silently stares in humbled awe. Though they have yet to see the age of 10, Carl and Ellie begin to plan their lives together. Ellie forces Carl to cross-his-heart-hope-to-die promise that he will take her to Paradise Falls someday. Carl willingly complies, and Ellie whips out a scrapbook, where she draws their clubhouse perched atop Paradise Falls. Ellie then apportions half the book for the adventures to be had once they get there.
As the years pass, Carl and Ellie travel through life together, never quite becoming the globetrotters once imagined, but always finding excitement and adventure in everyday life. The couple buys and renovates the house that was once their clubhouse. They save for their trip to Paradise Falls, but regularly empty their savings for life’s necessities. Just as his promise is about to be fulfilled, Carl is left without his Ellie. Fredrickson fiercely clings to his memories—to his house, pictures, and Ellie’s old sitting chair. It is not until his house is threatened by greedy developers that Fredrickson is shaken from his reverie. Instead of relenting, the 78-year-old Fredrickson ties thousands and thousands of balloons to his house and flies away. Destination: Paradise Falls.
Little does Fredrickson know that Russell (Jordan Nagai), a plump boy scout, was on the porch of the upward-bound house when it took off. The grumpy Mr. Fredrickson intends to drop Russell off on a tall skyscraper, but a storm pushes them off course. After a violent ruckus, Fredrickson awakens to find Russell guiding the house over the jungles of South America. Fredrickson manages to land the house mere miles from the sharp cliffs of Paradise Falls. The aging explorer is not about to give up now, so he walks his floating house, alongside Russell and a couple of pesky friends he meets on the way, toward the falls. Yet, the journey is not easy, as Fredrickson must overcome the harsh terrain and the wiles of an old icon in order to attain his dream. Fredrickson is stubborn and persistent, but he must learn to soften his heart in order to embody the adventurer’s spirit instilled in him by Ellie.
“Up” is the most touching of the Pixar films, and Carl Fredrickson is perhaps one of Pixar’s most endearing characters. This movie will make you cry as much as it will make you laugh and smile. Just when this movie appears to hit a lull, and the masterful dialogue seems to turn cliché and preachy, a short sequence of scenes strikes with a lightning bolt, an emotional epiphany, both potent and profound. Last year, “WALL-E” showed us the dangers of complacency—the decay of lives not lived. This year, “Up” shows us that life can be lived and adventure can be sought at any location, in any circumstance; that true explorers do not need to find exotic creatures or timeless artifacts. Carl Fredrickson is a simple man with few needs, but he embodies what he always admired in others by being willing to take risks and budge from his nostalgic rut in order to write the next chapter in the book he dreamt of as a child.
Coastal View News
Pixar is still batting a thousand, which is clearly a record—a statistic itself sufficient to put the production company in the hall of fame. But Pixar does not settle for mere hits; they insist on hitting it out of the ballpark, and “Up” is no exception. “Up” is funny, instructive, entertaining, cute, visually stunning, but most of all touching.
His humble stature and harsh, square jaw misleadingly give the impression that Carl Fredrickson (Edward Asner) is a petty, curmudgeonly old man locked away in his memories and bitterness. In fact, Fredrickson is the biggest dreamer of them all. He has a heart two sizes too big and an imagination that travels places his eyes will never meet.
“Up” begins as a younger, rounder Fredrickson sits on the edge of his seat in an old movie, his eyes wide, having his imagination insatiably piqued by Limburg-esque world explorer, Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer). Later that day, while buzzing along the sidewalk, hurdling ultra-perillous cracks in the pavement (with near the grace displayed by Muntz while zipping over the Andes) with leather helmet, goggles and all, Fredrickson finds his soul mate, his Ellie.
This buck-toothed, redheaded wonder possesses just as much love for adventure as Carl, and twice as much gusto for chasing it down. Little Carl Fredrickson’s wide eyes and gaping jaw are suddenly aimed at a new explorer—this one far more impressive than the last. Ellie jumps around the beaten walls of an abandoned house—her clubhouse—a mile-a-minute and a 10 words-per-second, while Carl silently stares in humbled awe. Though they have yet to see the age of 10, Carl and Ellie begin to plan their lives together. Ellie forces Carl to cross-his-heart-hope-to-die promise that he will take her to Paradise Falls someday. Carl willingly complies, and Ellie whips out a scrapbook, where she draws their clubhouse perched atop Paradise Falls. Ellie then apportions half the book for the adventures to be had once they get there.
As the years pass, Carl and Ellie travel through life together, never quite becoming the globetrotters once imagined, but always finding excitement and adventure in everyday life. The couple buys and renovates the house that was once their clubhouse. They save for their trip to Paradise Falls, but regularly empty their savings for life’s necessities. Just as his promise is about to be fulfilled, Carl is left without his Ellie. Fredrickson fiercely clings to his memories—to his house, pictures, and Ellie’s old sitting chair. It is not until his house is threatened by greedy developers that Fredrickson is shaken from his reverie. Instead of relenting, the 78-year-old Fredrickson ties thousands and thousands of balloons to his house and flies away. Destination: Paradise Falls.
Little does Fredrickson know that Russell (Jordan Nagai), a plump boy scout, was on the porch of the upward-bound house when it took off. The grumpy Mr. Fredrickson intends to drop Russell off on a tall skyscraper, but a storm pushes them off course. After a violent ruckus, Fredrickson awakens to find Russell guiding the house over the jungles of South America. Fredrickson manages to land the house mere miles from the sharp cliffs of Paradise Falls. The aging explorer is not about to give up now, so he walks his floating house, alongside Russell and a couple of pesky friends he meets on the way, toward the falls. Yet, the journey is not easy, as Fredrickson must overcome the harsh terrain and the wiles of an old icon in order to attain his dream. Fredrickson is stubborn and persistent, but he must learn to soften his heart in order to embody the adventurer’s spirit instilled in him by Ellie.
“Up” is the most touching of the Pixar films, and Carl Fredrickson is perhaps one of Pixar’s most endearing characters. This movie will make you cry as much as it will make you laugh and smile. Just when this movie appears to hit a lull, and the masterful dialogue seems to turn cliché and preachy, a short sequence of scenes strikes with a lightning bolt, an emotional epiphany, both potent and profound. Last year, “WALL-E” showed us the dangers of complacency—the decay of lives not lived. This year, “Up” shows us that life can be lived and adventure can be sought at any location, in any circumstance; that true explorers do not need to find exotic creatures or timeless artifacts. Carl Fredrickson is a simple man with few needs, but he embodies what he always admired in others by being willing to take risks and budge from his nostalgic rut in order to write the next chapter in the book he dreamt of as a child.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
"Star Trek"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
In the late 1960s, “Star Trek” went boldly where no TV series had gone before. In the ensuing decades, “The Next Generation,” “Voyager,” “Deep Space Nine,” and several other Star Trek series, spin-offs and movies came onto the scene, some more boldly than others, all hoping to capture some of the magic and wonder so uniquely introduced by the likes of Captain Kirk and Professor Spock. Now, over 40 years later, director J. J. Abrams has brought both Trekkies and the sci-fi laity back to the beginning—actually, back before the beginning.
When the movie begins—before it all began—George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth) is realizing his potential at just the wrong moment. Under attack from an unknown vessel, Kirk takes over command of his own starship while the previous captain attempts to negotiate with a hostile force. Things take a turn for the worse just minutes after Kirk’s promotion, and the valiant Kirk goes down with the ship in order to protect his crew and newborn son.
George is therefore physically absent from his son’s (James Tiberius Kirk) childhood, though James does seem to channel the reckless bravado that made his father a legend. With some mild cajoling, James (Chris Pine) decides to enlist in the Starfleet Academy to follow in his father’s footsteps. James is cocky, bold, perhaps even foolhardy, but he is also brilliant. He knows how to lead better than anyone, but he also refuses to abide by rules or conventions. The future Captain James T. Kirk of Star Trek lore flies by the seat of his pants, relying on his gut to call the shots. This portrait contrasts with that of Spock (Zachary Quinto), a human/Vulcan mix who has embraced the Vulcan allegiance to impeccable logic. Spock is cool and in control, and at least appears to analyze life-threatening situations as if they were engendered in a petri dish.
Spock and James are quickly thrust into the thick of a mysterious and nefarious interaction with the same unidentified vessel that ended the life of James’ father. Just as before, the captain of the Starship—now the newly launched USS Starship Enterprise—boards the enemy vessel to negotiate a ceasefire with an enemy named Nero (Eric Bana). In actuality, Nero is implacable, as he only desires revenge for a past (or future, depending upon how you look at it) misunderstanding. After capturing the captain of the Enterprise, Nero destroys one planet and sets course to destroy Earth.
James and Spock are left at the helm of the Enterprise, but disagreements over the correct course of action complicate the cohesiveness of Nero’s opposition, thus threatening the fate of earth. In order to save earth and restore peace to the universe, James and Spock must learn to work together; they must balance each other’s contrasting dispositions. As the story unfolds, the familiar pieces of the Star Trek puzzle are put into place, yielding an inchoate yet formidable generation of science fiction heroes.
There is never a dull moment in the latest “Star Trek.” From beginning to end, this film flies at maximum warp, and yet somehow stays on track—that is, it does not get lost somewhere in outer space. The movie is fantastical and even cheesy at times, but as four decades of “Star Trek” has shown, these things often go hand-in-hand, with exhilarating results. However, while this movie is fantastical, it is not that fantastical. In other words, “Star Trek” is true to its galactic setting, but avoids most of the truly bizarre, otherworldly scenarios long associated with the series. This movie purchases action at the price of geeky science fiction. Of course, this could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, depending upon whom you talk to. This year’s “Star Trek” is sure to have broader, non-Trekkie, appeal, but lacks some of the thought-provoking counterfactual scenarios that were once the hallmark of the original and subsequent series.
“Star Trek” is entertaining and worth watching. However, it strikes me that the original and ultimate appeal of the series is in its ability to provoke thought about the way things could have been, or the way things are in a far distant galaxy. Perhaps unlike any other science fiction endeavor, “Star Trek” has inspired wonder over scientific endeavor, human nature, and the boundaries of the universe. The most recent “Star Trek” is light on wonder, but hefty when it comes to action and adventure.
Coastal View News
In the late 1960s, “Star Trek” went boldly where no TV series had gone before. In the ensuing decades, “The Next Generation,” “Voyager,” “Deep Space Nine,” and several other Star Trek series, spin-offs and movies came onto the scene, some more boldly than others, all hoping to capture some of the magic and wonder so uniquely introduced by the likes of Captain Kirk and Professor Spock. Now, over 40 years later, director J. J. Abrams has brought both Trekkies and the sci-fi laity back to the beginning—actually, back before the beginning.
When the movie begins—before it all began—George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth) is realizing his potential at just the wrong moment. Under attack from an unknown vessel, Kirk takes over command of his own starship while the previous captain attempts to negotiate with a hostile force. Things take a turn for the worse just minutes after Kirk’s promotion, and the valiant Kirk goes down with the ship in order to protect his crew and newborn son.
George is therefore physically absent from his son’s (James Tiberius Kirk) childhood, though James does seem to channel the reckless bravado that made his father a legend. With some mild cajoling, James (Chris Pine) decides to enlist in the Starfleet Academy to follow in his father’s footsteps. James is cocky, bold, perhaps even foolhardy, but he is also brilliant. He knows how to lead better than anyone, but he also refuses to abide by rules or conventions. The future Captain James T. Kirk of Star Trek lore flies by the seat of his pants, relying on his gut to call the shots. This portrait contrasts with that of Spock (Zachary Quinto), a human/Vulcan mix who has embraced the Vulcan allegiance to impeccable logic. Spock is cool and in control, and at least appears to analyze life-threatening situations as if they were engendered in a petri dish.
Spock and James are quickly thrust into the thick of a mysterious and nefarious interaction with the same unidentified vessel that ended the life of James’ father. Just as before, the captain of the Starship—now the newly launched USS Starship Enterprise—boards the enemy vessel to negotiate a ceasefire with an enemy named Nero (Eric Bana). In actuality, Nero is implacable, as he only desires revenge for a past (or future, depending upon how you look at it) misunderstanding. After capturing the captain of the Enterprise, Nero destroys one planet and sets course to destroy Earth.
James and Spock are left at the helm of the Enterprise, but disagreements over the correct course of action complicate the cohesiveness of Nero’s opposition, thus threatening the fate of earth. In order to save earth and restore peace to the universe, James and Spock must learn to work together; they must balance each other’s contrasting dispositions. As the story unfolds, the familiar pieces of the Star Trek puzzle are put into place, yielding an inchoate yet formidable generation of science fiction heroes.
There is never a dull moment in the latest “Star Trek.” From beginning to end, this film flies at maximum warp, and yet somehow stays on track—that is, it does not get lost somewhere in outer space. The movie is fantastical and even cheesy at times, but as four decades of “Star Trek” has shown, these things often go hand-in-hand, with exhilarating results. However, while this movie is fantastical, it is not that fantastical. In other words, “Star Trek” is true to its galactic setting, but avoids most of the truly bizarre, otherworldly scenarios long associated with the series. This movie purchases action at the price of geeky science fiction. Of course, this could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, depending upon whom you talk to. This year’s “Star Trek” is sure to have broader, non-Trekkie, appeal, but lacks some of the thought-provoking counterfactual scenarios that were once the hallmark of the original and subsequent series.
“Star Trek” is entertaining and worth watching. However, it strikes me that the original and ultimate appeal of the series is in its ability to provoke thought about the way things could have been, or the way things are in a far distant galaxy. Perhaps unlike any other science fiction endeavor, “Star Trek” has inspired wonder over scientific endeavor, human nature, and the boundaries of the universe. The most recent “Star Trek” is light on wonder, but hefty when it comes to action and adventure.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
"Adventureland"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“Adventureland” is a well-executed, perfectly idyllic summer camp romance. Its style is as distinctive as it is attractive. Both funny and touching, “Adventureland” is without a doubt one of the best movies of the year.
James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) is a geeky-cool kid fresh out of college in the mid-1980s. Like most of his friends, James has enjoyed a life of relative comfort and privilege—his biggest challenge being the opposite sex. James’ future is falling into place, as he prepares to conquer graduate school and then the world.
Much to his chagrin, James’ bubble is burst when his plans for a European vacation and enrollment at Columbia graduate school are put on hold with his parents’ announcement that they can no longer afford James’ lifestyle. Instead of bouncing around Europe with wine in one hand and Hemmingway in the other, James is forced to do something he has never done before: enter the job market.
With no work experience and no leads, James plight becomes nightmarish as his options dwindle. Instead of working at some swanky corporation reflective of his intelligence, James must settle for a job at Adventureland, a hokey, cheesy local carnival. James mans the games section, meting out cheap stuffed animals to obnoxious ring tossers while listening to an endless play list of bad pop music.
Adjustment is no easy task for James. During his very first day on the job, James is robbed of a giant, stuffed panda bear. Luckily he is rescued by Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart), a fellow worker at Adventureland. Em quickly catches James’ eye while she shows him the ropes. The work remains demeaning, but James finds a cast of close friends like Em who share both James’ interests and his attitudes. This booze-drinking, pot-smoking crowd floats through life shaking their fists at adults with ironic gestures and savvy smiles. Life at Adventureland becomes the perfect summer fling with a healthy mix of groans and grins. Solidarity springs from misery.
It is not long before James falls in love with Em, who is dark, cool and perhaps even more ironic in her disposition than James. The pair is absolutely perfect for each other, and their friendship evolves naturally into a carefree romance. But while Adventureland provides an alternate universe perfect for nurturing the budding love, Em is troubled by stress at home and elsewhere. She feels trapped in a home full of phonies and hopelessly caught up in a lingering relationship with a married man.
James and Em are intoxicating characters and easy to root for. Amidst the waning summer days, the kind of drama that begs to be overcome threatens their relationship and the unity of the gang formed in the plywood booths of Adventureland. This cotton candy hell becomes the stomping ground for this pack of smart aleck twenty-somethings united by their miserable vocation and their youthful disdain for all things boring.
“Adventureland” is wonderfully written and acted. Jesse Eisenberg is enjoyably clever and Kristen Stewart flawlessly portrays the elusive summer beauty. This film celebrates youth without glorifying immaturity … well, for the most part. “Adventureland” clearly differs from superficial summer romps while also avoiding taking itself too seriously. It beautifully, almost painfully, captures that golden time in life just before responsibility becomes a mainstay. This deeply nostalgic movie has a distinctive retro style perfect for portraying the summers when bad decisions were not so bad; with characters who care about the right things yet aren’t afraid to act their age.
In addition to Eisenberg and Stewart, Matt Bush, Martin Starr and Bill Hader are hilarious and enriching. The subtle and smart humor of this movie fits its style. The characters are goofy but have good heads on their shoulders. They are screw-ups but destined for success. Thus, it is easy to love this cast. With summer just a few weeks away, “Adventureland” is the perfect way to celebrate the season.
Coastal View News
“Adventureland” is a well-executed, perfectly idyllic summer camp romance. Its style is as distinctive as it is attractive. Both funny and touching, “Adventureland” is without a doubt one of the best movies of the year.
James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) is a geeky-cool kid fresh out of college in the mid-1980s. Like most of his friends, James has enjoyed a life of relative comfort and privilege—his biggest challenge being the opposite sex. James’ future is falling into place, as he prepares to conquer graduate school and then the world.
Much to his chagrin, James’ bubble is burst when his plans for a European vacation and enrollment at Columbia graduate school are put on hold with his parents’ announcement that they can no longer afford James’ lifestyle. Instead of bouncing around Europe with wine in one hand and Hemmingway in the other, James is forced to do something he has never done before: enter the job market.
With no work experience and no leads, James plight becomes nightmarish as his options dwindle. Instead of working at some swanky corporation reflective of his intelligence, James must settle for a job at Adventureland, a hokey, cheesy local carnival. James mans the games section, meting out cheap stuffed animals to obnoxious ring tossers while listening to an endless play list of bad pop music.
Adjustment is no easy task for James. During his very first day on the job, James is robbed of a giant, stuffed panda bear. Luckily he is rescued by Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart), a fellow worker at Adventureland. Em quickly catches James’ eye while she shows him the ropes. The work remains demeaning, but James finds a cast of close friends like Em who share both James’ interests and his attitudes. This booze-drinking, pot-smoking crowd floats through life shaking their fists at adults with ironic gestures and savvy smiles. Life at Adventureland becomes the perfect summer fling with a healthy mix of groans and grins. Solidarity springs from misery.
It is not long before James falls in love with Em, who is dark, cool and perhaps even more ironic in her disposition than James. The pair is absolutely perfect for each other, and their friendship evolves naturally into a carefree romance. But while Adventureland provides an alternate universe perfect for nurturing the budding love, Em is troubled by stress at home and elsewhere. She feels trapped in a home full of phonies and hopelessly caught up in a lingering relationship with a married man.
James and Em are intoxicating characters and easy to root for. Amidst the waning summer days, the kind of drama that begs to be overcome threatens their relationship and the unity of the gang formed in the plywood booths of Adventureland. This cotton candy hell becomes the stomping ground for this pack of smart aleck twenty-somethings united by their miserable vocation and their youthful disdain for all things boring.
“Adventureland” is wonderfully written and acted. Jesse Eisenberg is enjoyably clever and Kristen Stewart flawlessly portrays the elusive summer beauty. This film celebrates youth without glorifying immaturity … well, for the most part. “Adventureland” clearly differs from superficial summer romps while also avoiding taking itself too seriously. It beautifully, almost painfully, captures that golden time in life just before responsibility becomes a mainstay. This deeply nostalgic movie has a distinctive retro style perfect for portraying the summers when bad decisions were not so bad; with characters who care about the right things yet aren’t afraid to act their age.
In addition to Eisenberg and Stewart, Matt Bush, Martin Starr and Bill Hader are hilarious and enriching. The subtle and smart humor of this movie fits its style. The characters are goofy but have good heads on their shoulders. They are screw-ups but destined for success. Thus, it is easy to love this cast. With summer just a few weeks away, “Adventureland” is the perfect way to celebrate the season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)