I've been asked to share my opinions the following movies. You have been warned.
The Ward
John Carpenter is one of my favorite directors of all time. It's been 10 years since his last movie ("Ghosts of Mars" - disappointing compared to most of his films, yet fun in a cheesy sort of way), so I was a little hesitant to see this at first. Turns out it's a decent little horror movie. In the 1960s, Amber Heard is sent to an all-female nuthouse after committing arson while wearing naught but her nightie. Faster than you can say "Sucker Punch", the other inmates begin to disappear, killed by what appears to be a filthy rotten ghost girl. I won't spoil anything for you, since the movie has a twist ending, but let me just say this - it's all been done before. While watching this movie, I came up with three options as to how exactly the movie would end. One of those options was correct. There are many creaky plots devices and horror movie cliches on display in this movie, which gives it a lot of the "been there, done that" syndrome. However, Amber Heard is a rather game lead actress, and the sound design and music are exceptionally creepy and atmospheric, with that classic spooky Carpenter aura (for me, that's like a warm blanket). And, even though I saw the end coming, it makes me want to rewatch the movie and see how it all fits together. While I feel this is ultimately a "middle-of-the-road" movie, this is one of the better horror movies of 2011. Unfortunately, it's been a rather lax year for horror. So far. . .
The Tree of Life
This is one of those movies that means something different to each and every person that watches it, as it was intended to. Some people experience intense personal revelations while watching it, others are bored stiff. For me, it's one of my favorite movies of the year. Here's a little filmgoing litmus test - if you can sit through "2001: A Space Odyssey" without getting restless, then this is exactly the movie for you. "The Tree of Life" not a science fiction movie, but it has that same sort of cosmic perspective and meandering pace that marks the Stanley Kubrick classic. What's the plot, you ask? There really isn't one. It's an experience, not a story. Sean Penn plays a high powered big city architect who's dissatisfied with his life, specifically in relation to his father (Brad Pitt). He reminisces on his life growing up with his family in the 1950s, and the loss of innocence that occurs over this period of time. Supposedly this is a rather autobiographical film for director Terrence Malick, but it's far more than just a mere biopic. It's about the eternal struggle between grace and nature, presented in microcosm (the story of the boy and his father) and macrocosm (the story of the creation of the universe and man's place within it). Like Mr. Malick's other films, the photography is rich and beautiful and unique, as is the sound design. There is an entire sequence depicting the creation of earth, featuring some startlingly gorgeous shots of outer space, as well as some extremely well done CGI dinosaurs. There's that creepy metaphorical attic. And then there's the end sequence, which is entirely interpretive and totally up to the viewer to decipher and find meaning in (like the Sean Penn character is trying to do through the entire movie). I know what the ending means to me. But I'm not telling.
13 Assassins
Lord Naritsugu is an Asshole. The first twenty minutes of this movie make that perfectly crystal clear. You really want to see him pay. Even worse, he's on the fast track to becoming a very influential player in the government of feudal Japan, which will put the entire country at the mercy of his Assholeness. So Lord Doi, the "chief justice" of Japan, goes behind the shogun's back and hires old samurai Shinzaemon to kill Naritsugu and save the country. For the next hour, we see Shinzaemon recruit and train his fellow samurai squad, plan the attack, mentally spar with Narisugu's head bodyguard (Shinzaemon's ex-classmate at samurai school) and prepare for the coming battle. The last 45 minutes or so is a very,very satisfying battle indeed. This, in case you haven't already deduced, is a samurai film. And it's also the perfect example of how to do a great action film. Director Takashi Miike dials back his usual over-the-top weirdness and plays it (mostly) straight, delivering a flick full of Japanese codes of honor and self-sacrifice, choice moments of humor, well-shot bloody swordplay, clear and simple (but effective) characterizations, and solid performances by many great Japanese character actors. And there are flaming bulls. This is my most-viewed movie of 2011, as of right now. It's a total crowd pleaser (yes, I've seen it with a couple of crowds). The only flaw - the English subtitle translations for the opening setup fly by waaaaay too quickly, but that's not a problem if you're watching it on dvd. By the way, it's on dvd now. Hint, hint.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Giant robots beating the crap out of each other, Part 3. That's pretty much it. On those terms, however, it succeeds smashingly well (ha ha, smashingly - get it?). I grew up with the original Saturday morning cartoon series in the 80s. While it was merely a marketing tool used to sell toys to young schmoes like me, there was still a solid mythology, stark characterizations and a few rather intriguing and imaginative plotlines. Then came the 1986 animated movie. In order to sell new toys, they killed off and replaced a helluva lot of characters, traumatizing thousands of kids (like me). Optimus Prime was replaced by Rodimus Prime, and I ceased to care about 'Transformers". The show and it's various incarnations continued, on and off, for next two decades. Then it was announced that Michael Bay would be making a new "Transformers" movie in 2007, based on the classic 80's cartoon series. I instantly knew from seeing Bay's previous movies that any of the intriguing storylines or well-drawn characters from the show would be jettisoned in favor of breakneck action, pretty music video imagery and lots of unfunny comic relief. I was not disappointed. However, friends, I actually enjoy watching a braindead Michael Bay movie now and again (like "The Rock" or "Armageddon" or "Bad Boys 2") so I felt that the original "Transformers" was 'okay' in my book.
The sequel sucks. It's so action packed it puts me to sleep. There was literally no script. And the less said about the twin "Jar-Jar" bots, the better.
Michael Bay's intention with the third movie was to make up for the horrible second movie. He succeeded. It's still full of unrealized potential, but it's the very definition of the term 'spectacle'. I urge you to see it in IMAX 3-D, if you've got the chance. Sure, it's still full of lame comic relief (although this is the funniest movie of the three), too-similar robot designs, Shia LaBeof's stupid domestic problems (although it is rather funny that he's saved the world twice and still can't get a job), a really fake-looking digital John F. Kennedy and wafer thin characterizations - but it's got Leonard Nimoy (freakin' awesome as Sentinel Prime), the real Buzz Aldrin (talking face-to-grill with Optimus Prime!), a high robot body count (traumatize those kids, Michael), the lovely Rosie Huntington-Whitely (replacing Megan Fox, who's presence is not missed), some actual emotional content that is effective and slightly moving, and a final hour-long action sequence in Chicago that is, by far, the high point of the series. Did I mention spectacular? And that slimy bastard Lazerbeak is in the movie. And I think the trailer is good, too. So when are the Dinobots gonna show up? In part 4? I needs me some Grimlock.
I did enjoy Tree of Life. I did. But I think it was a little too abstract for its own good. There is no better example of this than the fact that my wife and I walked out of the theater with completely different ideas of who Sean Penn's character even WAS.
ReplyDeleteI thought he was the blond kid, but I wasn't sure, and she thought he was the dark-haired kid, but she wasn't sure, and neither of us knew for sure if there had been two kids, or three. It seemed like there were three kids, but then one of them just sort of disappeared entirely from all further scenes, and that was well before (spoiler) the death.
That was sloppy, IMO. Understanding AT LEAST how many sons there were and which one grew up to be Sean Penn (:P) was critical to the emotional evocation he was going for, and I thought it was flubbed.
I did think everything else was fantastic. I loved the creation scenes. I feel the same sense of cosmic importance when I look at my own children and deeply consider my own death, so the juxtaposition of close family lives with cosmos-shattering galactic events resonated with me. I just wish it would've been a little tighter in certain places.
Also - I think it would have been a more powerful story without as much "God" in it. It was a very religious story, or tried to be, and I accepted it for what it was early on. But I'd love a similar movie delivered from an atheistic perspective. I don't think you NEED God in a story like this to lend it deeper meaning. It actually kind of cheapened it for me
ReplyDeleteBut that probably has more to do with my own evolving belief structure than anything else.
There were absolutely three brothers.
ReplyDeleteSean Penn was supposed to be the dark haired boy who is the center of most of the 1950's action. The blonde, guitar playing brother is the one who dies and is mourned by the parents near the beginning of the movie. The director didn't seem to give a crap about the third brother, since he does indeed fade into the background. He's there, just in a peripheral sort of way. Actually, the director's original cut of the movie was an extra hour longer, so maybe there's more of brother #3 in that version.
Terrence Malick made a conscious decision to leave the character's names out of the movie. Interesting experiment, but I would have chosen differently, and there would have been less confusion.
And I think I read once in an interview that the director is an atheist, but don't quote me on that. Even if he isn't, I think whether or not you perceive the presence of God in the narrative is up to the viewer. At least, that's what it seemed to me. Personally, I think that the lady on the beach at the end is a manifestation of Mother Nature. But that's just me.
We're talking about Transformers, right?