By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Imagine waking up in a place that you have never even seen before. Everyone else seems to know why you are where you are, but you don’t have a clue. You don’t know where you are, why you are there, or how you got there. This is the “Source Code” experience. Both the main character and we, the audience, are together in the dark, clawing around for clues and answers. This makes “Source Code” both inventive and fun, at least for a while.
When Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a train just outside of Chicago, he is both confused and startled. He is confused because he has no recollection whatsoever of getting on the train, or of being anywhere near Chicago. Colter is startled because, as he becomes conscious of his surroundings, it is obvious that he is not where he is supposed to be. For one thing, the woman sitting across from him on the train—whose name turns out to be ‘Christina’ (Michelle Monaghan)—calls him “Sean” and talks to him as if he were her friend. Colter tries to make sense of his situation. He scrambles for answers. But before he can get a grip, his train explodes—a giant fireball engulfs him, Christina, and everyone else.
But Colter does not die. Rather, he wakes up strapped to a chair in some sort of pod. A video monitor crackles to life and a woman named ‘Goodwin’ (Vera Farmiga), who is dressed in military attire, begins to speak to him. Colter begs for answers, but Goodwin leaves him (as well as the audience) in the dark. All that Colter knows is that he is on a special mission, and that his task is to find out who bombed the train that he was just on.
Then Colter is sent back to the train; he wakes up, just as he did before, across from Christina. Still trying to figure out what is going on, Colter wastes time and energy, and so is once again caught up in the explosion. Time and time again Colter is jolted back to his pod and then sent back to the train. With each trip to the train, Colter comes closer to discovering who the bomber is, and with each trip back to the pod, Colter learns a bit more about the mission and why it was assigned to him.
Colter discovers that he is part of an experimental program in which he taps into the memory traces of someone who has just died. Colter literally relives someone else’s life. The point of this program is to find out information about an event—the explosion, in this case—that only a person who was there would have access to. The U. S. government needs this information because they know that the bomber will attack again soon. Colter’s job is to find out who the bomber is so that this terrorist can be apprehended before it is too late.
The idea behind “Source Code” is inventive and interesting. Although its premise relies on some shakily described science and technology, this movie mostly maintains the minimal threshold of plausibility that is required for the audience to engage with the story. That is, until the end. Unfortunately, at the end, the sort of “anything goes” character of pop physics takes a hold of the plot and runs away with it. And that is both perplexing and frustrating.
But what’s fun about this movie is how we (the audience) get to figure things out at the same time that Colter figures them out. It is as if we, the audience, are being transported back and forth from the train to the pod. Colter knows little more than we do, and as a result, the mystery somehow seems more real. But there is a downside to riding alongside Colter. Being sent back and forth gets tedious—at least, that is, from the audience’s side of the screen. We see the same scene over and over again, and that gets tiring.
In all, “Source Code” is an amusing movie that is worth seeing one time. It does not have much lasting appeal, and the plot gets a bit sloppy at times, but this movie is nonetheless thought provoking and fairly entertaining.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
"Hall Pass"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
It is a truism that even the best of marriages are not always a walk in the park. The onus that comes with such a commitment can of course be challenging to bear. It can be easy to imagine how things could have been different.
These things are true of marriage, and unfortunately, they are also true of “Hall Pass”. Despite a likeable cast and a promising premise, this movie is not altogether easy to endure.
Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) are two middle-aged boys who are each suffering from marital doldrums. Although their wives—Maggie (Jenna Fischer) and Grace (Christina Applegate), respectively—are beautiful, loving and kind, the eyes and minds of Rick and Fred are nonetheless prone to wander. They imagine what their lives would be like if they were single; they picture droves of gorgeous women throwing themselves at their feet. They seem to think that, if only they were free to play the field, they would have endless scoring opportunities.
Maggie and Grace cannot help but be embarrassed by the outward manifestations of Rick and Fred’s active fantasy lives and deluded swagger. However, confident that their husbands will in fact strike out if they are given a chance to swing away, Maggie and Grace decide to give them a “hall pass”. Rick and Fred’s hall pass comes in the form of a week off from marriage—a week to do whatever they want without any consequences. Rick and Fred gratefully accept their hall passes, fully expecting to get laid more times in a week than they had in all of the prior decade.
But, even with the help of their equally pathetic forty-something friends, Rick and Fred quickly realize that picking up beautiful women is not as easy as they remembered. They go to all of the wrong places and make all of the wrong moves. In fact, their most noteworthy accomplishment turns out to be the dizzying pace at which they are able to repel women.
Nonetheless, by the end of the week Rick and Fred manage to turn their luck around. After virtually reinventing the wheel, they finally move in on a couple of good-looking (if not altogether savory) women. Meanwhile, Maggie and Grace are, much to their surprise, finding new suitors of their own. And so the wives quickly realize that their husbands are not the only ones who were longing for some kind of change. Rick, Fred, Maggie and Grace must each figure out what is more important: dedication to their respective spouses, or the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take advantage of a hall pass.
Unfortunately, “Hall Pass” is not, in general, funny. Nor is it particularly interesting, thought-provoking, true-to-life, or amusing. The concept behind “Hall Pass” could have made for a worthwhile movie, not of course because any thoughtful couple would consider a hall pass to be a productive marital experiment, but because this movie had a chance to play on the complicated psychology that comes with being married. But directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly turn an interesting concept into a painful and annoying march through emotional and intellectual bankruptcy. It could have been funny to see how being off the market causes Rick and Fred to foster delusions of sexual grandeur. But it wasn’t. There could have been a compelling moral in the way each spouse comes to realize that the costs of playing the field outweigh the benefits. But there wasn’t.
Maybe my hopes were too high for this movie (though that is tough to imagine). But I cannot see how my hopes could have been so modest that they would not have been let down by “Hall Pass”. Even actors who are normally reliable came up short. Owen Wilson, for instance, is normally the height of funny. But in “Hall Pass” he’s not. So it is at times painful to watch Wilson, with his boyish grin and high-pitched voice, trying to turn an intrinsically flat script into something dynamic and charming. Unfortunately, Wilson’s climb is too steep.
By my count, “Hall Pass” has one very funny line (at the very end) and a handful of somewhat funny moments. This does not add up to a good comedy.
Coastal View News
It is a truism that even the best of marriages are not always a walk in the park. The onus that comes with such a commitment can of course be challenging to bear. It can be easy to imagine how things could have been different.
These things are true of marriage, and unfortunately, they are also true of “Hall Pass”. Despite a likeable cast and a promising premise, this movie is not altogether easy to endure.
Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) are two middle-aged boys who are each suffering from marital doldrums. Although their wives—Maggie (Jenna Fischer) and Grace (Christina Applegate), respectively—are beautiful, loving and kind, the eyes and minds of Rick and Fred are nonetheless prone to wander. They imagine what their lives would be like if they were single; they picture droves of gorgeous women throwing themselves at their feet. They seem to think that, if only they were free to play the field, they would have endless scoring opportunities.
Maggie and Grace cannot help but be embarrassed by the outward manifestations of Rick and Fred’s active fantasy lives and deluded swagger. However, confident that their husbands will in fact strike out if they are given a chance to swing away, Maggie and Grace decide to give them a “hall pass”. Rick and Fred’s hall pass comes in the form of a week off from marriage—a week to do whatever they want without any consequences. Rick and Fred gratefully accept their hall passes, fully expecting to get laid more times in a week than they had in all of the prior decade.
But, even with the help of their equally pathetic forty-something friends, Rick and Fred quickly realize that picking up beautiful women is not as easy as they remembered. They go to all of the wrong places and make all of the wrong moves. In fact, their most noteworthy accomplishment turns out to be the dizzying pace at which they are able to repel women.
Nonetheless, by the end of the week Rick and Fred manage to turn their luck around. After virtually reinventing the wheel, they finally move in on a couple of good-looking (if not altogether savory) women. Meanwhile, Maggie and Grace are, much to their surprise, finding new suitors of their own. And so the wives quickly realize that their husbands are not the only ones who were longing for some kind of change. Rick, Fred, Maggie and Grace must each figure out what is more important: dedication to their respective spouses, or the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take advantage of a hall pass.
Unfortunately, “Hall Pass” is not, in general, funny. Nor is it particularly interesting, thought-provoking, true-to-life, or amusing. The concept behind “Hall Pass” could have made for a worthwhile movie, not of course because any thoughtful couple would consider a hall pass to be a productive marital experiment, but because this movie had a chance to play on the complicated psychology that comes with being married. But directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly turn an interesting concept into a painful and annoying march through emotional and intellectual bankruptcy. It could have been funny to see how being off the market causes Rick and Fred to foster delusions of sexual grandeur. But it wasn’t. There could have been a compelling moral in the way each spouse comes to realize that the costs of playing the field outweigh the benefits. But there wasn’t.
Maybe my hopes were too high for this movie (though that is tough to imagine). But I cannot see how my hopes could have been so modest that they would not have been let down by “Hall Pass”. Even actors who are normally reliable came up short. Owen Wilson, for instance, is normally the height of funny. But in “Hall Pass” he’s not. So it is at times painful to watch Wilson, with his boyish grin and high-pitched voice, trying to turn an intrinsically flat script into something dynamic and charming. Unfortunately, Wilson’s climb is too steep.
By my count, “Hall Pass” has one very funny line (at the very end) and a handful of somewhat funny moments. This does not add up to a good comedy.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
"The King's Speech"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Sometimes little details make a big difference, and simple plots make for complex stories. “The King’s Speech”, which is nominated for 12 Oscars (more than any other movie this year), is a perfect illustration. And regardless of whether the attention it is getting is wholly deserved, this movie is thoroughly charming, well executed and, at times, moving.
Albert (Colin Firth), Duke of York and second in line to the throne of England, has a stammering problem. He is a gifted statesman and lucid thinker, but when Albert opens his mouth, his voice fails him. Albert’s jaw tightens up, a harsh guttural noise issues from his throat, and only seldom are words actually produced.
Because he is a duke—the second son of King George V—Albert is required to make public appearances and, every so often, he is asked to give a speech. But despite constant urging from his father and continual help from the best speech pathologists Britain has to offer, Albert flounders in front of the microphone.
After having seen countless doctors and elocutionists, Albert is goaded by his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), into seeing speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel comes off as smart and witty, but his unorthodox methods do not initially meet with Albert’s satisfaction. Lionel asks Albert to perform various (often goofy) physical exercises, while also hinting that Albert’s problem is deeper than physical.
As they work and talk through a wide array of issues, Lionel and Albert become friends. Albert’s rehabilitation is slow and intermittent, but also encouraging. So long as he avoids too much pressure, Albert is able to give passable speeches here and there. Nonetheless, Albert’s feels fortunate that it is his older brother, David (Guy Pierce), and not him, who is set to be thrust into the limelight and onto the throne when their father dies.
Yet, whatever oratorical advantages David possesses are more than offset by his foolhardiness, indifference to the responsibilities that come with the crown, and ignorance of political and foreign affairs. When he is finally crowned King Edward VIII, David’s party guests and love interests capture his attention more often than does his exasperated brother or the impatient British government. As a consequence, Albert begins to realize that he may soon have to take over for his brother. He may be king after all.
With World War II looming, and with countless other domestic and foreign stresses confronting his nation, there is nothing that Albert fears more than the prospect of giving a speech. The mere thought of addressing his people as king seems to make his throat swell. But when he is finally crowned King George VI, Albert must, with the help of Lionel, find a way to rise to his greatest challenge.
“The King’s Speech” is slow and surprisingly simple. It does not contain many (if any) particularly emotional or triumphant moments. More tea is poured than arms drawn, and you are likely to see more special effects in a home video.
And yet, there is something remarkable about this movie. Somehow one man’s stammering is dramatic. Somehow, despite their strict adherence to stiff British etiquette, Albert and Lionel’s relationship is tender, complex, and even stirring. Somehow, “The King’s Speech” is more than the sum of its parts.
Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush deserve most of the credit for the artistic success of this movie. Firth does a marvelous job of communicating how maddening a seemingly small problem can be, and Rush’s cool-headed performance exhibits a perfect balance of patience and wit. I don’t know if “The King’s Speech” is the best picture of the year, but it certainly includes some of the year’s best performances.
Coastal View News
Sometimes little details make a big difference, and simple plots make for complex stories. “The King’s Speech”, which is nominated for 12 Oscars (more than any other movie this year), is a perfect illustration. And regardless of whether the attention it is getting is wholly deserved, this movie is thoroughly charming, well executed and, at times, moving.
Albert (Colin Firth), Duke of York and second in line to the throne of England, has a stammering problem. He is a gifted statesman and lucid thinker, but when Albert opens his mouth, his voice fails him. Albert’s jaw tightens up, a harsh guttural noise issues from his throat, and only seldom are words actually produced.
Because he is a duke—the second son of King George V—Albert is required to make public appearances and, every so often, he is asked to give a speech. But despite constant urging from his father and continual help from the best speech pathologists Britain has to offer, Albert flounders in front of the microphone.
After having seen countless doctors and elocutionists, Albert is goaded by his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), into seeing speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel comes off as smart and witty, but his unorthodox methods do not initially meet with Albert’s satisfaction. Lionel asks Albert to perform various (often goofy) physical exercises, while also hinting that Albert’s problem is deeper than physical.
As they work and talk through a wide array of issues, Lionel and Albert become friends. Albert’s rehabilitation is slow and intermittent, but also encouraging. So long as he avoids too much pressure, Albert is able to give passable speeches here and there. Nonetheless, Albert’s feels fortunate that it is his older brother, David (Guy Pierce), and not him, who is set to be thrust into the limelight and onto the throne when their father dies.
Yet, whatever oratorical advantages David possesses are more than offset by his foolhardiness, indifference to the responsibilities that come with the crown, and ignorance of political and foreign affairs. When he is finally crowned King Edward VIII, David’s party guests and love interests capture his attention more often than does his exasperated brother or the impatient British government. As a consequence, Albert begins to realize that he may soon have to take over for his brother. He may be king after all.
With World War II looming, and with countless other domestic and foreign stresses confronting his nation, there is nothing that Albert fears more than the prospect of giving a speech. The mere thought of addressing his people as king seems to make his throat swell. But when he is finally crowned King George VI, Albert must, with the help of Lionel, find a way to rise to his greatest challenge.
“The King’s Speech” is slow and surprisingly simple. It does not contain many (if any) particularly emotional or triumphant moments. More tea is poured than arms drawn, and you are likely to see more special effects in a home video.
And yet, there is something remarkable about this movie. Somehow one man’s stammering is dramatic. Somehow, despite their strict adherence to stiff British etiquette, Albert and Lionel’s relationship is tender, complex, and even stirring. Somehow, “The King’s Speech” is more than the sum of its parts.
Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush deserve most of the credit for the artistic success of this movie. Firth does a marvelous job of communicating how maddening a seemingly small problem can be, and Rush’s cool-headed performance exhibits a perfect balance of patience and wit. I don’t know if “The King’s Speech” is the best picture of the year, but it certainly includes some of the year’s best performances.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
"Black Swan"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“Black Swan” is the story of an artist’s desperation for perfection. It depicts the tirelessness, obsession and madness that is required for her—and, indeed, for any artist—to be better than the rest. This movie is a thoroughly remarkable cinematic achievement, especially for its director and actors. “Black Swan” is one of the best movies of 2010 and a worthy start to the new year.
“Black Swan” is about a talented but aging ballet dancer named Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman). Nina is the hardest working and most technically proficient member of her company, but she struggles to land major roles because she has difficulty exhibiting the kind of carefree and passionate lust for dancing that wins over audiences. For Nina, dancing is not simply an artistic expression; it is her career, her obsession, her life.
In contrast, Lily (Mila Kunis), who is the newest member of the ballet company, is not as technically gifted a dancer as Nina, but when she dances, she lets loose—she shows the warmth and élan that is absent from Nina’s repertoire.
As the new season opens, “Swan Lake” is scheduled to be the ballet company’s first performance. In this ballet, the lead dancer must master two parts: the pure and elegant White Swan, and her evil twin, the Black Swan. Nina is perfect for the role of the White Swan, and Lily is well suited for the Black Swan. But one dancer must play both roles.
Desperate for the lead role, Nina takes her obsession for perfection to a new level. She practices constantly and strives to master the Black Swan, all while keeping an eye on her competition. Nina makes progress toward her goal, but at the cost of losing her grip on reality. As the opening of “Swan Lake” approaches, Nina must ward off a whole host of challenges, including Lily, her overprotective mother and her own inner demons. Nina’s desperation for mastering the Black Swan threatens to dissolve her mastery over the purity and innocence she once embodied.
“Black Swan” is hardly what one would expect from a movie about ballet. It is edgy and visceral; both gripping and psychotic. Although this movie seamlessly weaves the drama of “Swan Lake” into its plot and score, “Black Swan” is really a horror story. This movie shows that, while competition and obsession do breed drama, they can also give rise to gruesome horrors.
In nearly all of its facets, “Black Swan” is powerful and captivating. Director Darren Aronofsky (who also directed “The Wrestler”) has a special flare for drawing out the behind-the-scenes struggles of entertainers who are grasping for success. He has a talent for portraying the unique battles and insights that come with an obsessive need to please others. Although audiences (of either film or ballet) typically care only about whether the end product that they see is flawless and entertaining, Aronofsky gives his audience a sense of the cost of their (that is to say, our) demands. We see that perfection requires an extremely narrow focus, an obsession with detail, an ignorance of the value of a balanced life, and, indeed, a sort of insanity. Hard work is not the only price that one must pay in order to be great.
“Black Swan” is interesting, and it is extremely well-acted. Natalie Portman’s performance is Oscar-worthy, and both Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassel (who plays the director of “Swan Lake”) provide admirable support. The combination of great acting and Aronofsky’s thematic and cinematic achievements make “Black Swan” a very well rounded movie. It is captivating even when it is not altogether pleasing to watch. So while it is not for the faint of heart, “Black Swan” is, in my view, one of the best movies of 2010.
Coastal View News
“Black Swan” is the story of an artist’s desperation for perfection. It depicts the tirelessness, obsession and madness that is required for her—and, indeed, for any artist—to be better than the rest. This movie is a thoroughly remarkable cinematic achievement, especially for its director and actors. “Black Swan” is one of the best movies of 2010 and a worthy start to the new year.
“Black Swan” is about a talented but aging ballet dancer named Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman). Nina is the hardest working and most technically proficient member of her company, but she struggles to land major roles because she has difficulty exhibiting the kind of carefree and passionate lust for dancing that wins over audiences. For Nina, dancing is not simply an artistic expression; it is her career, her obsession, her life.
In contrast, Lily (Mila Kunis), who is the newest member of the ballet company, is not as technically gifted a dancer as Nina, but when she dances, she lets loose—she shows the warmth and élan that is absent from Nina’s repertoire.
As the new season opens, “Swan Lake” is scheduled to be the ballet company’s first performance. In this ballet, the lead dancer must master two parts: the pure and elegant White Swan, and her evil twin, the Black Swan. Nina is perfect for the role of the White Swan, and Lily is well suited for the Black Swan. But one dancer must play both roles.
Desperate for the lead role, Nina takes her obsession for perfection to a new level. She practices constantly and strives to master the Black Swan, all while keeping an eye on her competition. Nina makes progress toward her goal, but at the cost of losing her grip on reality. As the opening of “Swan Lake” approaches, Nina must ward off a whole host of challenges, including Lily, her overprotective mother and her own inner demons. Nina’s desperation for mastering the Black Swan threatens to dissolve her mastery over the purity and innocence she once embodied.
“Black Swan” is hardly what one would expect from a movie about ballet. It is edgy and visceral; both gripping and psychotic. Although this movie seamlessly weaves the drama of “Swan Lake” into its plot and score, “Black Swan” is really a horror story. This movie shows that, while competition and obsession do breed drama, they can also give rise to gruesome horrors.
In nearly all of its facets, “Black Swan” is powerful and captivating. Director Darren Aronofsky (who also directed “The Wrestler”) has a special flare for drawing out the behind-the-scenes struggles of entertainers who are grasping for success. He has a talent for portraying the unique battles and insights that come with an obsessive need to please others. Although audiences (of either film or ballet) typically care only about whether the end product that they see is flawless and entertaining, Aronofsky gives his audience a sense of the cost of their (that is to say, our) demands. We see that perfection requires an extremely narrow focus, an obsession with detail, an ignorance of the value of a balanced life, and, indeed, a sort of insanity. Hard work is not the only price that one must pay in order to be great.
“Black Swan” is interesting, and it is extremely well-acted. Natalie Portman’s performance is Oscar-worthy, and both Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassel (who plays the director of “Swan Lake”) provide admirable support. The combination of great acting and Aronofsky’s thematic and cinematic achievements make “Black Swan” a very well rounded movie. It is captivating even when it is not altogether pleasing to watch. So while it is not for the faint of heart, “Black Swan” is, in my view, one of the best movies of 2010.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
"Tangled"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
The very best Disney animated movies from the 1980s and 1990s breathed new life into old stories; they took the themes and morals from classic tales and made them relevant to contemporary audiences. “Tangled”—a take on the story of Rapunzel—is worthy of the classic Disney films that came before it. Its animation pops with the latest graphics, but “Tangled” also hearkens back to the strong stories, enrapturing songs, and sentimentality of Disney classics.
“Tangled” is the story of the long-lost, long-locked Rapunzel. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) is born the treasured daughter of the righteous king and queen of a harmonious kingdom. Despite their power and riches, Rapunzel’s parents value their daughter above all else.
But Rapunzel’s value goes beyond her bloodline. While in labor, the queen, in order to survive childbirth, takes a draught containing a magical golden flower. As a result, Rapunzel’s hair is imbued with special magical properties. So long as it is not cut, Rapunzel’s hair has special healing and regenerative powers.
Unfortunately, Rapunzel’s gift elicits envy. As a consequence, a wicked and self-absorbed woman, who knows about the magical flower that gave Rapunzel her powers, finds Rapunzel and kidnaps her in the dead of night. This woman—Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy)—discovers that so long as she remains in contact with Rapunzel’s hair, she remains young. Thus, she imprisons Rapunzel in a hidden tower, never letting her newfound treasure out of her grasp.
After eighteen years of confinement, Rapunzel is naturally eager to stretch her legs a bit. Her wanderlust is stoked by the fact that, once a year on her birthday, Rapunzel can see thousands of glowing lanterns are set off into the distant sky. Little does she know that these lanterns are released in her honor; they are a token of the king and queen’s heartbreak. But Rapunzel’s instincts are sound—the lost princess wants nothing more than to see the place where these lanterns are lit and released. And yet, Mother Gothel refuses to let Rapunzel go.
Just when Rapunzel thinks that all hope of escape is lost, a dashing (but arrogant) marauder named Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi) finds his way into Rapunzel’s tower while attempting to escape from the authorities. Rapunzel is initially frightened by Flynn, but quickly sees that he is her way out of the tower. The clever and quick-thinking Rapunzel makes Flynn promise to take her to the lanterns in exchange for a piece of treasure. Rapunzel thus escapes from her tower.
But the twisted and tangled saga of Rapunzel only begins there. With the devious Mother Gothel after Rapunzel, and a whole army after Flynn, Rapunzel’s journey home is winding and treacherous. Add Rapunzel’s budding romantic feelings for her guide, and it is easy to see that Rapunzel has her hands full. The young princess must find the courage to abandon the familiar, follow her heart, and chase her dreams.
“Tangled” is delightful and refreshing in nearly all of its facets. This film is reminiscent of “Aladdin” and “Beauty and the Beast” in that fanciful and carefree energy and wondrous romance are added to an already compelling story. The characters are engaging and believable—partly because their flaws are not muted or shunted aside. What’s more, several of the songs (many of which are sung by Mandy Moore) are instant classics.
In general, it is nice to see a return to the style of classic Disney animated movies, which I think serve as a balance to the now-dominant Pixar movies. Given the nature of their complexity and humor, Pixar films (which are great of course) seem to be aimed at older kids and adults while still being appealing to younger children. In contrast, classic Disney movies like “The Jungle Book” and “Aladdin” strike me as just the opposite; they are aimed at younger children, and yet, older kids and adults can also appreciate them. “Tangled” fits into the latter category. The themes and morals of this movie are simple, and the plot taps into basic emotions like envy, fear, and love. I think that this sort of movie is important (especially for children) because it serves as a bridge from more basic concepts and morals to the complex themes and ideas found in other movies.
In all, “Tangled” is entertaining, endearing, and insightful. It is a success on many levels.
Coastal View News
The very best Disney animated movies from the 1980s and 1990s breathed new life into old stories; they took the themes and morals from classic tales and made them relevant to contemporary audiences. “Tangled”—a take on the story of Rapunzel—is worthy of the classic Disney films that came before it. Its animation pops with the latest graphics, but “Tangled” also hearkens back to the strong stories, enrapturing songs, and sentimentality of Disney classics.
“Tangled” is the story of the long-lost, long-locked Rapunzel. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) is born the treasured daughter of the righteous king and queen of a harmonious kingdom. Despite their power and riches, Rapunzel’s parents value their daughter above all else.
But Rapunzel’s value goes beyond her bloodline. While in labor, the queen, in order to survive childbirth, takes a draught containing a magical golden flower. As a result, Rapunzel’s hair is imbued with special magical properties. So long as it is not cut, Rapunzel’s hair has special healing and regenerative powers.
Unfortunately, Rapunzel’s gift elicits envy. As a consequence, a wicked and self-absorbed woman, who knows about the magical flower that gave Rapunzel her powers, finds Rapunzel and kidnaps her in the dead of night. This woman—Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy)—discovers that so long as she remains in contact with Rapunzel’s hair, she remains young. Thus, she imprisons Rapunzel in a hidden tower, never letting her newfound treasure out of her grasp.
After eighteen years of confinement, Rapunzel is naturally eager to stretch her legs a bit. Her wanderlust is stoked by the fact that, once a year on her birthday, Rapunzel can see thousands of glowing lanterns are set off into the distant sky. Little does she know that these lanterns are released in her honor; they are a token of the king and queen’s heartbreak. But Rapunzel’s instincts are sound—the lost princess wants nothing more than to see the place where these lanterns are lit and released. And yet, Mother Gothel refuses to let Rapunzel go.
Just when Rapunzel thinks that all hope of escape is lost, a dashing (but arrogant) marauder named Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi) finds his way into Rapunzel’s tower while attempting to escape from the authorities. Rapunzel is initially frightened by Flynn, but quickly sees that he is her way out of the tower. The clever and quick-thinking Rapunzel makes Flynn promise to take her to the lanterns in exchange for a piece of treasure. Rapunzel thus escapes from her tower.
But the twisted and tangled saga of Rapunzel only begins there. With the devious Mother Gothel after Rapunzel, and a whole army after Flynn, Rapunzel’s journey home is winding and treacherous. Add Rapunzel’s budding romantic feelings for her guide, and it is easy to see that Rapunzel has her hands full. The young princess must find the courage to abandon the familiar, follow her heart, and chase her dreams.
“Tangled” is delightful and refreshing in nearly all of its facets. This film is reminiscent of “Aladdin” and “Beauty and the Beast” in that fanciful and carefree energy and wondrous romance are added to an already compelling story. The characters are engaging and believable—partly because their flaws are not muted or shunted aside. What’s more, several of the songs (many of which are sung by Mandy Moore) are instant classics.
In general, it is nice to see a return to the style of classic Disney animated movies, which I think serve as a balance to the now-dominant Pixar movies. Given the nature of their complexity and humor, Pixar films (which are great of course) seem to be aimed at older kids and adults while still being appealing to younger children. In contrast, classic Disney movies like “The Jungle Book” and “Aladdin” strike me as just the opposite; they are aimed at younger children, and yet, older kids and adults can also appreciate them. “Tangled” fits into the latter category. The themes and morals of this movie are simple, and the plot taps into basic emotions like envy, fear, and love. I think that this sort of movie is important (especially for children) because it serves as a bridge from more basic concepts and morals to the complex themes and ideas found in other movies.
In all, “Tangled” is entertaining, endearing, and insightful. It is a success on many levels.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
"Hereafter"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Somewhere between the here and now, and the great beyond—between life and death—lies the hereafter. This ethereal realm is a maze of backlit, monochromatic shapes. Much like the world it seeks to capture, Clint Eastwood’s “Hereafter” is neither here nor there. It is neither memorable nor forgettable, neither compelling nor dull, neither good nor bad. In this movie, Eastwood shows his talent, but also shows that the talented sometimes strikeout.
“Hereafter” follows the story of three individuals in the grip of facts and forces beyond the realm of the physical world. George Lonegan (Matt Damon) is a psychic in denial; he sees his ability to communicate with the dead as a curse rather than a gift. Without intending to do so, George jumps into the misty world of the dearly departed just by making physical contact with any other person. Needless to say, George does not experience the touch of another in anything like the same way that a normal person does. Instead of feeling a human connection, George feels a superhuman connection; instead of warmth, he feels only the cold of death.
Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren) has the opposite problem. Marcus is a small boy who loses someone who is very dear to him, and so is all too familiar with the struggles of the present world. Whereas George wants only to be bereft of the dead, Marcus wants nothing more than to be reunited with the lost. Thus, while George runs from the hereafter, Marcus seeks after it.
Marie Lelay (Ceclie de France) is somewhere in the middle. After having an after-death experience, Marie begins to doubt the firm grounding that was once the wellspring of her success. On the one hand, Marie wants to pretend that her mystical experience was reducible to extreme stress and trauma. On the other hand, Marie cannot deny the deeper reality of what she saw. As a result, Marie meets both internal and external conflict; she struggles to make sense of her experience while also learning more about life after death.
In the end, the stories and needs of each of the characters collide. George, Marcus, and Marie find that they can meet each others’ needs in ways that their friends and loved ones cannot. They each have very different needs and very different abilities, but together they are able to make cohesive sense of some of the bigger questions.
“Hereafter” is sometimes very compelling and interesting, but at other times it is painfully cliché. That is to say, this movie is very uneven. At times, director Clint Eastwood puts his genuine talent on display with carefully crafted scenes that are absolutely stirring. Other scenes that have tremendous potential are ruined by trite dialogue or unnecessarily cheesy talk of the supernatural. Still other scenes are too excruciatingly cliché to even get off of the ground. The end result is a movie that is paradoxically both memorable and forgettable.
Thematically, Eastwood is out of his depth. Certain concepts that are at very least interesting are treated with kid gloves and some genuinely deep questions are answered with mind-numbing shallowness. For instance, when Marie asks her boyfriend if he believes in an afterlife, he responds by saying that he does not believe in an afterlife because he figures that, if there were an afterlife, someone would have discovered it already.
Now, I know that the intellectual depth of a movie’s characters is not tied to or constrained by the brains of the writer or director. But really, in a movie that attempts to take the afterlife seriously, that is the answer?
In all, “Hereafter” is a squandered idea.
Coastal View News
Somewhere between the here and now, and the great beyond—between life and death—lies the hereafter. This ethereal realm is a maze of backlit, monochromatic shapes. Much like the world it seeks to capture, Clint Eastwood’s “Hereafter” is neither here nor there. It is neither memorable nor forgettable, neither compelling nor dull, neither good nor bad. In this movie, Eastwood shows his talent, but also shows that the talented sometimes strikeout.
“Hereafter” follows the story of three individuals in the grip of facts and forces beyond the realm of the physical world. George Lonegan (Matt Damon) is a psychic in denial; he sees his ability to communicate with the dead as a curse rather than a gift. Without intending to do so, George jumps into the misty world of the dearly departed just by making physical contact with any other person. Needless to say, George does not experience the touch of another in anything like the same way that a normal person does. Instead of feeling a human connection, George feels a superhuman connection; instead of warmth, he feels only the cold of death.
Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren) has the opposite problem. Marcus is a small boy who loses someone who is very dear to him, and so is all too familiar with the struggles of the present world. Whereas George wants only to be bereft of the dead, Marcus wants nothing more than to be reunited with the lost. Thus, while George runs from the hereafter, Marcus seeks after it.
Marie Lelay (Ceclie de France) is somewhere in the middle. After having an after-death experience, Marie begins to doubt the firm grounding that was once the wellspring of her success. On the one hand, Marie wants to pretend that her mystical experience was reducible to extreme stress and trauma. On the other hand, Marie cannot deny the deeper reality of what she saw. As a result, Marie meets both internal and external conflict; she struggles to make sense of her experience while also learning more about life after death.
In the end, the stories and needs of each of the characters collide. George, Marcus, and Marie find that they can meet each others’ needs in ways that their friends and loved ones cannot. They each have very different needs and very different abilities, but together they are able to make cohesive sense of some of the bigger questions.
“Hereafter” is sometimes very compelling and interesting, but at other times it is painfully cliché. That is to say, this movie is very uneven. At times, director Clint Eastwood puts his genuine talent on display with carefully crafted scenes that are absolutely stirring. Other scenes that have tremendous potential are ruined by trite dialogue or unnecessarily cheesy talk of the supernatural. Still other scenes are too excruciatingly cliché to even get off of the ground. The end result is a movie that is paradoxically both memorable and forgettable.
Thematically, Eastwood is out of his depth. Certain concepts that are at very least interesting are treated with kid gloves and some genuinely deep questions are answered with mind-numbing shallowness. For instance, when Marie asks her boyfriend if he believes in an afterlife, he responds by saying that he does not believe in an afterlife because he figures that, if there were an afterlife, someone would have discovered it already.
Now, I know that the intellectual depth of a movie’s characters is not tied to or constrained by the brains of the writer or director. But really, in a movie that attempts to take the afterlife seriously, that is the answer?
In all, “Hereafter” is a squandered idea.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
"The Social Network"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
In late 2003, on the storied campus of Harvard University, after a bad breakup and several beers, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) began what would eventually become a multi-billion dollar social networking website called ‘Facebook’. Just seven years later, “The Social Network”, a movie concerning history in the making, chronicles the rise of Zuckerberg and Facebook. Its combination of great directing and even greater writing make “The Social Network” a must-see movie—one of the best of the year.
Far from a romantic inception, the spite-driven, alcohol-fueled epiphany that eventually leads to Facebook is at first nothing more than a website that allows students to compare and rate the attractiveness of Harvard’s female population. Zuckerberg thus gets his first taste of the spotlight, as his original idea, base as it is, quickly draws the attention of both the Harvard student population and the university’s administration.
Despite a hateful onslaught from bitter co-eds and angry deans, Zuckerberg’s whim pays dividends, as two popular and well-connected students—twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer and Josh Pence, respectively)—approach Zuckerberg with a business proposal. The Winklevoss brothers ask Zuckerberg to design a social networking website specifically for the students of Harvard University. Unlike MySpace and other social networking sites, the Winklevoss’ proposal puts a premium on status and exclusivity.
Zuckerberg agrees to work with the Winklevoss brothers, but soon thereafter begins building his own website based on the idea that he was given. With the help of his best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), Zuckerberg constructs, tweaks and launches “The Facebook”. The Facebook is an instant success, drawing thousands of hits and requests, and calling for immediate expansion. In near no time, The Facebook is on college campuses across the country and Zuckerberg is the talk of Harvard.
However, the silver lining quickly begins to fade as the Winklevoss storm cloud gathers. Before too long, Zuckerberg finds himself amidst legal turmoil and, worse still, his extremely narrow focus causes his relationship with Saverin to fray. Zuckerberg finds comfort in the encouragement and friendship of Napster creator, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), but he quickly discovers that the attainment of a million online friends may have cost him more than one real friend.
“The Social Network” is a delight to watch. The story, the drama, the acting, the writing, the wit and the humor work perfectly in concert to give substance and style to a story in the making. Director David Fincher and writer Aaron Sorkin make a marvelously quirky film, as each scene brims with frenetic imagery and dialogue.
One might not expect it, but it is somehow enthralling to watch Zuckerberg and Saverin “geek out” over immensely complicated bits of code, programs and algorithms, all while jabbering at a rate that outstrips the expressive power of ordinary English. Aaron Sorkin is truly impressive in his ability to maintain the audience’s interest with dialogue that takes place on an extremely technical level and at a very fast pace. Instead of watering complex ideas down to the level of mere mortals, Sorkin embraces esotericism, showing that a topic can be interesting—downright fascinating—even if you don’t understand it.
Jesse Eisenberg fits his smart-aleck role perfectly, and the rest of the cast (including Justin Timberlake) play their parts admirably. “The Social Network” is rich in plot and character development, and has the added virtue of managing to be both synoptic and relevant. We’re just lucky that a friend request is not required for admission.
Coastal View News
In late 2003, on the storied campus of Harvard University, after a bad breakup and several beers, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) began what would eventually become a multi-billion dollar social networking website called ‘Facebook’. Just seven years later, “The Social Network”, a movie concerning history in the making, chronicles the rise of Zuckerberg and Facebook. Its combination of great directing and even greater writing make “The Social Network” a must-see movie—one of the best of the year.
Far from a romantic inception, the spite-driven, alcohol-fueled epiphany that eventually leads to Facebook is at first nothing more than a website that allows students to compare and rate the attractiveness of Harvard’s female population. Zuckerberg thus gets his first taste of the spotlight, as his original idea, base as it is, quickly draws the attention of both the Harvard student population and the university’s administration.
Despite a hateful onslaught from bitter co-eds and angry deans, Zuckerberg’s whim pays dividends, as two popular and well-connected students—twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer and Josh Pence, respectively)—approach Zuckerberg with a business proposal. The Winklevoss brothers ask Zuckerberg to design a social networking website specifically for the students of Harvard University. Unlike MySpace and other social networking sites, the Winklevoss’ proposal puts a premium on status and exclusivity.
Zuckerberg agrees to work with the Winklevoss brothers, but soon thereafter begins building his own website based on the idea that he was given. With the help of his best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), Zuckerberg constructs, tweaks and launches “The Facebook”. The Facebook is an instant success, drawing thousands of hits and requests, and calling for immediate expansion. In near no time, The Facebook is on college campuses across the country and Zuckerberg is the talk of Harvard.
However, the silver lining quickly begins to fade as the Winklevoss storm cloud gathers. Before too long, Zuckerberg finds himself amidst legal turmoil and, worse still, his extremely narrow focus causes his relationship with Saverin to fray. Zuckerberg finds comfort in the encouragement and friendship of Napster creator, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), but he quickly discovers that the attainment of a million online friends may have cost him more than one real friend.
“The Social Network” is a delight to watch. The story, the drama, the acting, the writing, the wit and the humor work perfectly in concert to give substance and style to a story in the making. Director David Fincher and writer Aaron Sorkin make a marvelously quirky film, as each scene brims with frenetic imagery and dialogue.
One might not expect it, but it is somehow enthralling to watch Zuckerberg and Saverin “geek out” over immensely complicated bits of code, programs and algorithms, all while jabbering at a rate that outstrips the expressive power of ordinary English. Aaron Sorkin is truly impressive in his ability to maintain the audience’s interest with dialogue that takes place on an extremely technical level and at a very fast pace. Instead of watering complex ideas down to the level of mere mortals, Sorkin embraces esotericism, showing that a topic can be interesting—downright fascinating—even if you don’t understand it.
Jesse Eisenberg fits his smart-aleck role perfectly, and the rest of the cast (including Justin Timberlake) play their parts admirably. “The Social Network” is rich in plot and character development, and has the added virtue of managing to be both synoptic and relevant. We’re just lucky that a friend request is not required for admission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)