Roll one gives us Netflix, which leads into my uncle's Netflix, which takes us to international movies, which gives us our pick for the day...
My exposure to Asian entertainment is limited largely to the anime my dad and brother watch on adult swim. S'good stuff, pretty well put together most of the time, but it's only one form of entertainment, and one oftentimes defined by cheapness and poor dubbing at that. I've only watched a small handful of really, properly foreign films (when I say that, I mean films not made over in the UK, which for all the differences you could mention still subscribes to enough of the same conventions as US films that I can keep up without much effort), most of which are either martial arts or Godzilla flicks. I say all this because going into today's film, The Taking Of Tiger Mountain (courtesy of my uncle watching Iron Sky and rating it high enough for international movies to pop up on his dash), I expected to be completely alienated. A historical action film set in the aftermath of World War II focusing on a bunch of Chinese soldiers in the middle of nowhere? The cultural differences alone would be enough to put me off, not to mention my complete lack of knowledge of Chinese history. It was a film I went into with a certain degree of wariness.
After having seen it, I have only one thing to say.
Holy shit, why didn't anyone tell me about The Taking of Tiger Mountain sooner?
OK, OK, maybe I should back up just a touch. I really liked the movie, but I should probably provide some backstory before getting into gushing over it, because I feel it's important to the review making sense, and also showing that for as great as the movie is, there's reasons to have reservations about liking it.
The original story Tiger Mountain takes its inspiration from comes out of Chinese novelist Qu Bo's first book, 1957's Tracks in the Snowy Forest, a series of tales about members of the People's Liberation Army tracking down bandits and marauders in the snowy mountains of China's northeastern mountains, largely drawn from his own experiences as a member of the PLA. During the reign of Mao Zedong, a portion of the book was adapted into the opera Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy, which became one of the eight model operas in China - the plays used by the government to emphasize China's strength and power while limiting the citizenry's exposure to outside or contrarian ideas. Director Xie Tielli created a film adaptation in 1970, and the opera remained a popular mainstay of the Peking Opera.
All of this is to say the story of Yang Ziorang and the 203rd unit is, to my understanding, a very familiar, well-worn story to the Chinese people. It's so inherently Chinese that, upon reading all this information after finishing the film, I was all the more impressed with how accessible it is. Director Tsui Hark is apparently a very popular, highly regarded director in his home country, and even directed Double Team stateside (a film which, for those like me whose first experience with internet film criticism was the Nostalgia Critic, is notable for helping to reveal that Doug Walker does not have the slightest clue how internet memes work), but if I had read any of this BEFORE watching the film, I might not have had any inclination to check out the rest of his work. Now, having seen how he managed to communicate the story in such a timeless yet effortlessly cool and relatable manner, I'm all for seeing what Flying Swords of Dragon Gate.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. The story first, then. In the aftermath of the second World War, bandits run rampant across China, and only the People's Liberation Army stands between them and the helpless, famished villages in the mountains. While moving through northeastern China, Commander 203 and his unit come across a group of bandits working for Lord Hawk, a ruthless warlord who has holed himself up in the fortress at Tiger Mountain. They soon discover his plot to assemble the three Advance Maps, which will allow him to assemble hoards of Japanese resources and dominate the region - and soon after, all of China - from his isolated mountain fortress. Only with the aid of a new arrival, the spy and counterintelligence expert Yang Ziorang, can they infiltrate the fortress and find a way to take down Lord Hawk's gang once and for all.
Right away, I want to note the story is very well paced. Despite being a 140 minute movie, the runtime only occassionally makes itself known during some of the slower scenes with the villages. Everywhere else, from the opening battle, to the slow yet steady reveal of Lord Hawk's plot, from Yang's adventures while infiltrating to the tense protracted wait for Hawk's men, moves so smoothly that I don't even care time is passing. And this is without getting into the numerous subplots with characters on both sides. I will note that I don't exactly remember any of their NAMES (especially not the various brothers in Hawk's gang), but they all give such good performances and have such interesting designs that I could probably pick them out of a lineup and rattle off their role in the film easily.
Speaking of performances, we get some great stuff from the leads. Commander 203, Tank and Gao all get pretty solid ones out of their actors, but it's our hero and lead villain who give the best shows. Zhang Hanyu plays Yang Ziorang, who seriously reminds me of a somewhat more comedic Chinese take on James Bond. Once he starts going, he doesn't stop, either chewing the scenery or speaking in soft, serious tones as the scene demands it, and generally giving off an air of a man who untangles every situation inside of ten seconds without letting you onto the fact that he did so in the first place until after he's done it. He's definitely playing a proto-spy character in a nontraditional setting, which gives him a really good villain to work off.
Tony Leung Ka-fei's Lord Hawk is, in theory, just a good villain. For the first hour of the movie they only let you hear him, which gives Ka-fei ample chance to do his best Doctor Claw (I don't know enough about China to come up with a suitable substitute), and when he's finally revealed, he takes on a fair deal of large ham, slightly comedic traits. In another movie, he might be a nonthreatening bad guy. But in this movie, his sudden outbursts through slow, self-contradicting speeches and displays of both ruthlessness and gentleness with his men give him just enough unpredictability to add tension to every scene he's in. Overall, Ka-fei just plays him wonderfully, and acts as a great foil to Yang.
But a movie like this isn't going to win just off its characters. The action has to play well too. And, admittedly, there aren't all that many action scenes in this movie. Going off my memories, the big set-pieces are the skirmish at the start, Yang fighting a tiger at fifty minutes (silly and out of nowhere, but effective), the battle at the village at around an hour and a half, and the final assault on Tiger Mountain at the end (plus one more, but I'll get to that in a moment). Fortunately the plotting in the first half and character of the bandits in the second half more than make up for the lack of action, and when they aren't available, there's a good tense argument going to fill the gaps. Yet even for the lack of action, it's all really good. There's a slow-mo, slightly 3D effect going on in certain shots, and they add a certain flair to the scenes that I'm a big fan of - although I could see why others might call it hokey.
I want to pay special attention to the bits in the last two action scenes where the characters employ skis; first as a means of getting around the battlefield faster and making themselves harder targets, and then to jump the crevice towards the back of Tiger Mountain and create a zip line across for the rest. It might be a silly thing to like, but I've never seen an action or war movie using skiing as a prominent aspect, and it's a refreshing addition that makes perfect sense for the snowy mountain setting. Plus, it just looks cool. Can't really fault anything in a movie like this for looking cool.
It all just works and blends together in a manner I can't help but love. Like I said, I was expecting a movie I couldn't penetrate for the cultural differences, but Tiger Mountain is very accessible to an American whose palette is more used to the Avengers than anything else. Beyond the setting and scenario (which they explain within the first ten minutes), there's not much need to understand the Chinese culture at the time, and the direction plays everything off as more a timeless tail with modern trappings, something anyone can get into. It's less like reading a different language and more like listening to a different accent of action films - unfamiliar, but still understandable. I'm definitely interested in seeing more of Hark's work, and more Chinese action films in general.
For all my praise, though, I do have my fair share of issues with the movie. I've already noted some of the village scenes have a tendency to drag, but my main problem is with the framing device. For some reason that I can't begin to understand, the film starts with a modern day Chinese-American man hearing a song from the original opera during a karaoke party and deciding to return home for New Years. He then vanishes until the end, when he arrives at home in the same village the soldiers defended, and his grandfather was a child they'd rescued during their adventure. Then he imagines how Lord Hawk's defeat MIGHT have gone in a manner that reminds me of James Bond played completely unironically. Then he and all the soldiers (still played by the same actors) eat New Years dinner, and the movie ends.
I can't, for the life of me, work out why the film is contextualized this way. It doesn't add anything to our understanding of the plot or characters, or even the man at the center of the framing device. I glanced around at some other reviews, and found a few hypotheses as to why it's here. Two that stick out to me particularly are Hark resenting the restrictions the government placed on his creativity and added the final sequence as a means of showing what he REALLY wanted to do, and Hark making fun of younger Chinese people for twisting a classic tale into something over the top. Me, after watching the film but before doing my supplementary reading, I thought it was an attempt to let off steam after finishing the movie and have a bit of fun poking at American styles of filmmaking (as the character in the framing device is Chinese-American). None of it really seems right though, and the film's final sequence just confuses me.
And... well, as I alluded to in the last paragraph, the Chinese government apparently had a pretty big hand in funding the film. The Chinese military in particular. Given the history of the Tiger Mountain story being used as a means of promoting compliance amongst the populace (although the characters are heroic, they're also communist revolutionaries trying to claim China for the party that would eventually lead to an oppressive regime in the late 20th century), this raises some questions as to the intentions behind this remake. Is it just the director's desire to give a fresh take on an old story, or the government funding a retelling in an effort to forward its interests? And if it is the latter, am I in the wrong for recommending the movie as heartily as I have?
I really don't have the answer to that question. As I've stated multiple times here, my knowledge of China and its culture and politics is especially limited, so even passing negative judgement on what may be a propaganda piece in disguise would be foolhardy without proper cultural context. I will say, however, that for whatever it is, The Taking of Tiger Mountain impressed me greatly while I was watching it, and turned out as a great find from Netflix. I'd say look into the matter and decide for yourselves how you feel, but still do recommend the film, if only on the basis of being a great action film.
(Assorted thoughts
- While the film's description purposes a degree of historical accuracy, I highly doubt anyone quite so lavishly costumed and flamboyant as Lord Hawk and his gang were running around northern China after World War II.
- Seriously, I don't think I can emphasize how much combat-ready skiing makes me feel all giddy inside.
- A 1970 recording of the original opera is up on YouTube as of this writing. I might give it a look over the weekend, and I recommend you do the same.)
I wound up with a few things coming up during the writing of this article that prevented a second pass at polishing and editing from being done, so I hope the raw text I have here is good enough. Also, I'm not sure what happened with Elena, but she never got around to writing her review of Black Christmas. Here's to hoping she's able to start up tomorrow.
(There IS a reason why the sidebar says the schedule is only hypothetical, though...)
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Monday, August 17, 2015
Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn - Eh kills aliens and doesn't afraid of anything for maybe twenty minutes or so.
Roll one gives us Netflix, which gives us my brother's account, which leads us into Violent Action and Adventure, which gives us our film for today...
Unlike Hulu Plus and Amazon Instant, Netflix's list of choices isn't exactly the same thing every time. They always tailor the movies and shows you see based on whatever you happen to have watched before, which means my options are always tailor-made to my interests. The purpose of this blog, however, is not to constantly explore my own likes, but to randomly subject me to whatever movie happens to come up as a result of my viewing habits. Thus, in order to avoid any sort of stagnancy with my reviews when Netflix is rolled, I've decided to add an extra layer, and roll on whether or not to make the choice from my Netflix, or the ones shared with me by my dad, uncle, and brother (all of whom use the same account.) This should keep the exposure at least somewhat fresh, as all of us have rather different tastes in our browsing habits.
This role brought up my brother's account, which he has never used for anything at all, and should give us the closest thing to a completely unbiased set of Netflix suggestions as possible.
However, this lack of bias leads to dangerous territory. Dangerous territory such as movies I know absolutely nothing about and have no interest in being recommended, and subsequently chosen through the random rolls. Such is the situation I'm in today with the movie I am stuck with because of my refusal to reroll - Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn.
I know fucking nothing about Halo. I've never owned an XBox of any sort, and the series never wound up as one I obsessively read about on Wikipedia when it became apparent I'd never play it in depth. The only time I've even seen it in action was when I was ten and played it for twenty minutes at someone's house. I tried to use the energy sword and got killed a lot. That's the entirety of my Halo experience. So as you might guess, I'm about as qualified to say whether or not this movie is good or bad or enjoyable as someone dropped dead into Act 3 of Metal Gear Solid 4.
That said, the movie isn't quite as impenetrable as I just made it sound, but it IS a film primarily for fans. The big draw seems to be around seven or eight moments where a thing from the games shows up and does the thing it does in the games. Beyond those, the story - told through the flashback of some military guy at the start making a decision to save Master Chief from deep space cryostasis despite nobody liking him much - looks to exist entirely as a means of saying, "So THAT'S who generic military commander from the opening cutscene of the new game is!" There's nothing wrong with that sort of goal, and I think it could have led to an interesting stand-alone story with elements from the games thrown in to appease fans while still creating a satisfying narrative for newcomers and casuals.
It's just too bad they didn't roll with it.
The bulk of the film concerns itself with the misadventures of Tom "the wiki informs me his last name is" Lasky - whose first name I only remember because it's the same as his actor's, Tom Green - at Corbulo Academy of military science, and his various conflicts with his drill instructor, general and headmistress of the academy, and, most disastrously, his teammates. I do not know a single thing about them. The film spends a fair deal of its opening moments dedicating a series of reality TV/start of a serious military documentary introductions to them (and just a lengthy side note - it never bugs me much, but the fact that they're 500 years in the future and at a hig-tech military academy on the eve of a war against aliens and all still talk and act like young adults do today just really tweaks me. I don't know why), and they're on screen for a fair deal of the film, but even the ones who are actually important and not just cannon fodder later on left no impression on me in the slightest. I remember one of them was sort of a dick, and one was Russian and then never spoke again, but beyond that, nothin'.
Lack of character is a big problem with this film. Everything really picks up once the Covenant (an earlier draft of this article said aliens for every instance of Covenant, until a friend virtually slapped me around and told me it made me sound like I wasn't paying attention) attacks and Master Chief shows up to do his thing, but it happens around fifty minutes into the movie, and even taking its origin as a five-part web series into account, spending three-fifths of the running time on generic military training plots just doesn't cut it. I barely consume any military fiction, and I've seen all these plot points before a million times over. New cadet doesn't like orders but he still functions well under the right conditions. Older sibling already in the forces who he has to live up to. Same with a parent. Reacting poorly to a part of the training that almost disqualifies him. Everything about clashing with his teammates. It doesn't make the film boring, but it does make it hard to care about any of the characters when the aliens attack.
Fortunately, things DO pick up when the Covenant attacks. Despite not caring about the deaths of anyone in the cast (or even realizing when a death happened sometimes), the action and effects look great, especially for a web series, and everything has a good layer of tension to it. Not edge of your seat pulse pounding, but more like "Where is? Is he gonna get 'em? Is he gonna get 'em? I know he's gonna get 'em but when's he gonna get OH LOOK HE GOT 'EM!" It's probably a result of finally using the stuff from the games everyone came to see, but it's still well done.
By the same merit, I also like Master Chief in the film. Having never played the games, I can't really say if he's portrayed accurately or lacks any depth he might have, but what's shown is pretty good. He's appropriately strong and heroic, but also cold and distant enough to cause tension amongst the main cast. A savior who won't turn on you but you're not sure you can trust until he's blown up a giant alien tank monster twice for you (I'm informed the tank monster is, in fact, a Hunter). His character's more badass than compelling, but given the "GET HYPE FOR HALO 4" reasoning behind making this, I can't complain.
Even with those positive merits, though, the film waits too long to actually use them. There's a bit I like after Chief first shows up where one of the surviving cadets talks about him like he's a robot and inferior to the ACTUAL soldiers, which intrigued me a bit. I wish it had been more than a throwaway line, because further tension between Master Chief and the soldiers could have helped Lasky's arc throughout the film. Something along the lines of being terrified of his "inner soldier" by the cold, callous Spartan, only to realize what a hero he is and save his life in return. Would have given his arc a lot more punch.
Really, the whole movie could have benefited from the Covenant showing up a half hour earlier. It would have alleviated the problems with the rest of the squad being too shallow, and might've even made them more memorable, by drawing out stronger performances during stressful times. The filmmakers might have even been able to spread out the limited amount of "Oh SHIT it's the WARTHOG, you guys know the WARTHOG, right?" moments instead of cramming them into the last half hour, and generally had more of Master Chief around - which, again, given the mission statement of this film, can't possibly be a bad thing.
I rated this film two stars out of five on Netflix, but I don't think the descriptor of "didn't like it" is accurate. I enjoyed the movie, and it actually made me want to learn a little more about the Halo universe (a wiki binge might be in my near future), but I was disappointed in its overall structure and lack of punch where it was needed. "Flawed but still enjoyable, even for a nonfan" would be a much better description of my thoughts on this one.
(Assorted thoughts:
-There's way too many slow motion shots that last for three to five seconds, which are quite obviously made for trailer purposes.
-Seeing as the energy sword is the one thing I remember from my one time playing Halo, it was neat seeing it here, and everyone's confusion about it helped me work out that this was supposed to be a prequel to the entire series, and not just something tossed in the middle of the chronology.
-How the hell do you kill a planet's entire human population in fifteen minutes but leave all the trees perfectly intact? (Something about using plasma cannons to glass the planet)
-How the hell are you certain the only living people left on the entire planet were these four or five people? (The answer is apparently they used their tech to scan the planet.)
-How the hell do four or five people manage to be the only surviving individuals on a planet at ground zero of a ruthless alien attack?)
Anyways, I'd like to thank my co-contributor, Elena Young, for talking to me about the film afterwards and clearing up a few things so I don't sound like a total idiot. Elena, for the record, is going to fill in the blog's Tuesday-Thursday slots, using the same methods I do to choose movies, except only with Netflix. Look forward to her first article coming tomorrow. I'll see you guys Wednesday with another movie - one I'm hopefully more qualified to review.
Unlike Hulu Plus and Amazon Instant, Netflix's list of choices isn't exactly the same thing every time. They always tailor the movies and shows you see based on whatever you happen to have watched before, which means my options are always tailor-made to my interests. The purpose of this blog, however, is not to constantly explore my own likes, but to randomly subject me to whatever movie happens to come up as a result of my viewing habits. Thus, in order to avoid any sort of stagnancy with my reviews when Netflix is rolled, I've decided to add an extra layer, and roll on whether or not to make the choice from my Netflix, or the ones shared with me by my dad, uncle, and brother (all of whom use the same account.) This should keep the exposure at least somewhat fresh, as all of us have rather different tastes in our browsing habits.
This role brought up my brother's account, which he has never used for anything at all, and should give us the closest thing to a completely unbiased set of Netflix suggestions as possible.
However, this lack of bias leads to dangerous territory. Dangerous territory such as movies I know absolutely nothing about and have no interest in being recommended, and subsequently chosen through the random rolls. Such is the situation I'm in today with the movie I am stuck with because of my refusal to reroll - Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn.
I know fucking nothing about Halo. I've never owned an XBox of any sort, and the series never wound up as one I obsessively read about on Wikipedia when it became apparent I'd never play it in depth. The only time I've even seen it in action was when I was ten and played it for twenty minutes at someone's house. I tried to use the energy sword and got killed a lot. That's the entirety of my Halo experience. So as you might guess, I'm about as qualified to say whether or not this movie is good or bad or enjoyable as someone dropped dead into Act 3 of Metal Gear Solid 4.
That said, the movie isn't quite as impenetrable as I just made it sound, but it IS a film primarily for fans. The big draw seems to be around seven or eight moments where a thing from the games shows up and does the thing it does in the games. Beyond those, the story - told through the flashback of some military guy at the start making a decision to save Master Chief from deep space cryostasis despite nobody liking him much - looks to exist entirely as a means of saying, "So THAT'S who generic military commander from the opening cutscene of the new game is!" There's nothing wrong with that sort of goal, and I think it could have led to an interesting stand-alone story with elements from the games thrown in to appease fans while still creating a satisfying narrative for newcomers and casuals.
It's just too bad they didn't roll with it.
The bulk of the film concerns itself with the misadventures of Tom "the wiki informs me his last name is" Lasky - whose first name I only remember because it's the same as his actor's, Tom Green - at Corbulo Academy of military science, and his various conflicts with his drill instructor, general and headmistress of the academy, and, most disastrously, his teammates. I do not know a single thing about them. The film spends a fair deal of its opening moments dedicating a series of reality TV/start of a serious military documentary introductions to them (and just a lengthy side note - it never bugs me much, but the fact that they're 500 years in the future and at a hig-tech military academy on the eve of a war against aliens and all still talk and act like young adults do today just really tweaks me. I don't know why), and they're on screen for a fair deal of the film, but even the ones who are actually important and not just cannon fodder later on left no impression on me in the slightest. I remember one of them was sort of a dick, and one was Russian and then never spoke again, but beyond that, nothin'.
Lack of character is a big problem with this film. Everything really picks up once the Covenant (an earlier draft of this article said aliens for every instance of Covenant, until a friend virtually slapped me around and told me it made me sound like I wasn't paying attention) attacks and Master Chief shows up to do his thing, but it happens around fifty minutes into the movie, and even taking its origin as a five-part web series into account, spending three-fifths of the running time on generic military training plots just doesn't cut it. I barely consume any military fiction, and I've seen all these plot points before a million times over. New cadet doesn't like orders but he still functions well under the right conditions. Older sibling already in the forces who he has to live up to. Same with a parent. Reacting poorly to a part of the training that almost disqualifies him. Everything about clashing with his teammates. It doesn't make the film boring, but it does make it hard to care about any of the characters when the aliens attack.
Fortunately, things DO pick up when the Covenant attacks. Despite not caring about the deaths of anyone in the cast (or even realizing when a death happened sometimes), the action and effects look great, especially for a web series, and everything has a good layer of tension to it. Not edge of your seat pulse pounding, but more like "Where is? Is he gonna get 'em? Is he gonna get 'em? I know he's gonna get 'em but when's he gonna get OH LOOK HE GOT 'EM!" It's probably a result of finally using the stuff from the games everyone came to see, but it's still well done.
By the same merit, I also like Master Chief in the film. Having never played the games, I can't really say if he's portrayed accurately or lacks any depth he might have, but what's shown is pretty good. He's appropriately strong and heroic, but also cold and distant enough to cause tension amongst the main cast. A savior who won't turn on you but you're not sure you can trust until he's blown up a giant alien tank monster twice for you (I'm informed the tank monster is, in fact, a Hunter). His character's more badass than compelling, but given the "GET HYPE FOR HALO 4" reasoning behind making this, I can't complain.
Even with those positive merits, though, the film waits too long to actually use them. There's a bit I like after Chief first shows up where one of the surviving cadets talks about him like he's a robot and inferior to the ACTUAL soldiers, which intrigued me a bit. I wish it had been more than a throwaway line, because further tension between Master Chief and the soldiers could have helped Lasky's arc throughout the film. Something along the lines of being terrified of his "inner soldier" by the cold, callous Spartan, only to realize what a hero he is and save his life in return. Would have given his arc a lot more punch.
Really, the whole movie could have benefited from the Covenant showing up a half hour earlier. It would have alleviated the problems with the rest of the squad being too shallow, and might've even made them more memorable, by drawing out stronger performances during stressful times. The filmmakers might have even been able to spread out the limited amount of "Oh SHIT it's the WARTHOG, you guys know the WARTHOG, right?" moments instead of cramming them into the last half hour, and generally had more of Master Chief around - which, again, given the mission statement of this film, can't possibly be a bad thing.
I rated this film two stars out of five on Netflix, but I don't think the descriptor of "didn't like it" is accurate. I enjoyed the movie, and it actually made me want to learn a little more about the Halo universe (a wiki binge might be in my near future), but I was disappointed in its overall structure and lack of punch where it was needed. "Flawed but still enjoyable, even for a nonfan" would be a much better description of my thoughts on this one.
(Assorted thoughts:
-There's way too many slow motion shots that last for three to five seconds, which are quite obviously made for trailer purposes.
-Seeing as the energy sword is the one thing I remember from my one time playing Halo, it was neat seeing it here, and everyone's confusion about it helped me work out that this was supposed to be a prequel to the entire series, and not just something tossed in the middle of the chronology.
-How the hell do you kill a planet's entire human population in fifteen minutes but leave all the trees perfectly intact? (Something about using plasma cannons to glass the planet)
-How the hell are you certain the only living people left on the entire planet were these four or five people? (The answer is apparently they used their tech to scan the planet.)
-How the hell do four or five people manage to be the only surviving individuals on a planet at ground zero of a ruthless alien attack?)
Anyways, I'd like to thank my co-contributor, Elena Young, for talking to me about the film afterwards and clearing up a few things so I don't sound like a total idiot. Elena, for the record, is going to fill in the blog's Tuesday-Thursday slots, using the same methods I do to choose movies, except only with Netflix. Look forward to her first article coming tomorrow. I'll see you guys Wednesday with another movie - one I'm hopefully more qualified to review.
Friday, August 14, 2015
The Cider House Rules - There's not as much crying as the Toby Maguire caricature would have you believe.
Roll one gives us Amazon Prime, which leads to roll two with editor's picks for movies, which leads to Oscar winners, which leads to today's film.
A problem inherent with running a blog like this, I think, is that there's really no way of getting around being a jackanape from time to time. I am, by no means, a film critic (the first of many professions and hobbies I am by no means a practitioner of), nor am I a student of filmmaking (there's a second), so my take and analysis on some of the more prestigious films bound to crop up from time to time are inevitably going to be ill-informed, and perhaps even flat-out wrong. I haven't thought of any means of avoiding the issue yet, and I highly doubt I'll be able to do so 100%, but I'll at least do what I can to talk about the movies in a somewhat mature, analytical manner.
I mention this because the first film I'm set to talk about for this blog is Lasse Hallström's The Cider House Rules, a film about the moral righteousness or lack thereof of abortions, one nominated for Best Picture and several other categories at the Academy Awards - and one that caught my eye when I rolled it primarily because the cast had a lot of actors from superhero movies.
Like an awful lot of folks my age (early 20s, in case you're wondering), I'm an absolute dork for superhero films. I've been a huge fan ever since the first Spider-Man came out, and have followed them quasi-religiously for close on fifteen years now. My early Wikipedia binges were dedicated largely to reading about the characters and the upcoming films, and I scour my current internet lurking spots for any news on them. I've seen almost every single one of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films in theaters, I'm extremely excited for the upcoming Batman V Superman movie, and Nic Cage's Ghost Rider is one of my favorite films despite the fact that I know it's objectively a bad film. I don't regret any of this, as I don't think there's anything WRONG with liking and getting heavily invested in this stuff, but it makes me feel a little odd here. I open up the cast for a movie, see Toby Maguire, Paul Rudd, and Charlize Theron, and think to myself, "Oh neat, Spider-Man, Ant-Man and Furiosa."
(I liked Fury Road, OK?)
((Also, on further reading, I found out Charlize Theron was in Hancock as the wife, but I didn't know that before and thus didn't bring it up.))
The idea of there being levels of film ,with the higher ones possessing an intrinsically higher quality and worth towards the culture, has never appealed to me, but identifying the actors in that manner makes me feel like a plebeian walking into a showing of 8 1/2 and pissing on the projector.
Not helping matters any was turning the movie on and finding its intro somewhat humorous. Not laugh out loud funny, but more in the "what is happening on screen and what is happening in the editing seem a little bit at odds with each other" sort of funny. You get the introductions to Doctor Larch (hi Alfred - I mean, My Cocaine - I mean, Michael Caine) and baby Homer Wells, which is perfectly fine, but when they start talking about how nobody wants him because he's too quiet, and one of his foster parents beating him, and Doctor Larch showing him how to perform an abortion against his objections... and all the while the happy, tinkly piano music just sorta powers on through. I don't really know much about music, but I am around... ninety, ninety-five percent certain "they beat him to stop him crying" is the sort of statement you don't play "isn't everything idyllic and wonderful right now" music over.
If I had to criticize the movie on any one major point, it'd be one related to that music. It deals with some pretty heavy stuff, even for a movie from the late 90s almost two decades after abortion was legalized in America; lots of stuff about how breaking the law may be the right thing to do if the law goes against your personal convictions and ignores the suffering of innocents, the morality of not using talents you have because they don't align with your beliefs, loss of a child figure, so on and so forth. But for some reason, I never really feel any of it. The film tends towards what I'd consider a fairly... i want to say lighthearted, but more laid back air would be the right term. You've got happy music playing over montages of people cheating on their spouse pulled away to war, or the secret funeral of a recently deceased orphan boy. And while the actors definitely show emotions (Toby Maguire's crying scenes make it easy for me to see why he was tapped for Spider-Man), it never seems quite as strong as feels it should be.
Some of this may be me and my preferences. I can appreciate subtle acting, and somewhat prefer larger than life characters. But even the strongest of performances in the film don't click with me. They are fine performances, don't get me wrong - special shout-out to Michael Caine as Doctor Larch and Delroy Lindo as Arthur Rose - but for a movie that seems tailor made to tug at the heartstrings, it really never does for me.
Having outed myself out as a complete know-nothing by criticizing the performances in a movie particularly noted for the strength of its performances, let me go on to say I do still like the story and thematic structure of the movie. For those not in the know and whom I've completely alienated by this point by talking in-depth about the film's characters without establishing any of them - the plot concerns perpetual orphan Homer Wells growing into his own man at the orphanage slash illegal abortion clinic where he lives with proprietor slash father figure Doctor Wilbur Larch. The board wants to replace Doctor Larch with someone younger (and presumedly more compliant with the law on abortions), but Homer is morally opposed to the abortion process, and eventually leaves with young couple Candy and Wally to live his own life and become an apple picker. While away, the situation back home slowly becomes more dire for Doctor Larch as the inevitable closes in, and Homer develops his own problems with his growing feelings for Candy. From there, it's a slow, steady boil to see if Homer will become his own man or return and use his skill as an abortionist to help those around him.
I suppose the tonal problem I mentioned is one inherent to the story and the way it's told. This isn't a huge, epic war between two towering egos who won't budge on their IMPLACABLE AND COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED VIEWS on THE SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT PROBLEM PLAGUING OUR COUNTRY.; it's the story of an adoptive father and son slowly drifting apart, and the potential for prosperity or tragedy for the both of them. The emotions ramping up too high would more than likely ruin the audience's perception of either character, and make it hard to sympathize with them for running away from responsibility or attempting to trick the other into coming back. I don't agree with it for the problems it causes with the tone for me, but I can understand why it's done that way.
They're not incredibly complicated characters (especially due to the need for them to remain simple to retain sympathy), but they are well-drawn. Homer's endearing for the passion he shows for the children, movies, and life beyond the orphanage. Despite his implied addiction to ether and determination to control Homer's life because he knows better, Doctor Larch comes off as a man far too set in his ways, yet still loving and well-meaning. And while I could talk about Candy or Wally, I'm much more interested in saying something about Arthur Rose, whose bits in the final third make a man who has done terrible, terrible things and isn't willing to cut people to get his way surprisingly relatable and pitiable. Really, he's my favorite character in the movie.
(Interesting side-note about Larch before moving on - I looked it up during the movie, and the use of ether for medical purposes was apparently banned in America decades before the movie takes place. Given his age, it makes his willingness to do abortions seem less progressive and more recessive - he probably learned the practice from someone else when he was younger and stuck with it throughout the decades because that's just how he does things. Adds a little extra layer to his character.)
And on the note of the characters being simple, I think it's also somewhat necessary for the themes to play out. They're best exemplified by one quote from late in the film - "Sometimes you gotta break some rules to put things straight." The central conflict is ultimately whether or not Homer will return to the orphanage to look after the children, even though someone else could take over and do just a good a job as him, even aligning with his own personal beliefs. But if he were to stay away, the abortions would stop, and some would suffer for it. The friction caused by his personal desires rubbing up against a legally questionable but morally righteous "destiny" is what makes the film compelling through the lack of engrossing, emotional performances - for me, anyways - and losing that by making someone empathize with Homer too much would take attention away from the purity of the thematic center.
Of course, that thematic strength is undermined somewhat by the lack of engaging performances. I think I understand why the choice was made to make the movie in this way, but it still keeps interesting themes from reaching their full potential. Maybe a little more energy, or less noodling around during the period where Homer's trying to avoid responsibility. But I really don't know.
Again, it's a little weird doing analysis of this film. I like to style myself a writer and teller of stories in general, so I should know a thing or two about it, even if I'm not very good at it. Just look at the writing above - jumping into analyzing things before I even introduce the story. But even for that, I'm just not experienced in analyzing and critiquing movies, and saying I have problems with a Best Picture nominee in a public space, even if I try to justify my reasoning and say I understand why the decisions were made the way they were - makes me feel like I'm committing some kind of cardinal sin. It's a compromising position is what it is.
Either way, I'd say The Cider House Rules is, for someone of my background and tastes, an enjoyable, if not particularly rewarding movie. It has enough charm (especially in the first third) and thematic depth (especially in the last third) to be engaging through performances that are well done but not very attention grabbing. I'm not really going to set up any kind of numbered rating system, but I'd say it's worth a watch if you've got the time and hankering.
(Just some quick assorted thoughts
- I saw that JK Simmons was in the movie, but I must've not been paying close attention in his scene, because I never saw him.
- The kids in the orphanage are really likable, although there wasn't any way Fuzzy was making it through the movie, being an innocent question-asker with bronchitis in a December release drama film.
- The various migrant workers all give good performances, but aren't really what I'd consider memorable by side character standards.
- Wuthering Heights officially confirmed for not as good as King Kong.
- I wasn't really sure where to put this in the review, so I'll say here while the film's central conflict of responsibility rubbing up against personal choice is intriguing, and it pulls off the finale well, I don't necessarily agree with the implication of one HAVING to use skills just because they have them and it's the "right thing to do, trademark." It just rubs me the wrong way for some reason, even though the film presents a very good argument that it IS the right thing for Homer to do.
-Amazon Prime's Oscar Winners category quite prominently displays Skyfall, yet they do not actually have Skyfall. Either it's a relic of when all the Bond movies were available on Prime, or they're trying to tempt me to actually spend money on individual films. I suspect the latter.)
So that's how things'll be operating around here. Poorly structured essays on whichever films I wind up rolling, followed by a half-assed rating and some various thoughts I didn't bother weaving into the actual body of the text. With any luck, I've succeeded in writing a piece you find entertaining, if not well put together, and I'm going to stop writing before I wind up unable to use anything but online film critic stock phrases. Have a good day, and see you next review.
A problem inherent with running a blog like this, I think, is that there's really no way of getting around being a jackanape from time to time. I am, by no means, a film critic (the first of many professions and hobbies I am by no means a practitioner of), nor am I a student of filmmaking (there's a second), so my take and analysis on some of the more prestigious films bound to crop up from time to time are inevitably going to be ill-informed, and perhaps even flat-out wrong. I haven't thought of any means of avoiding the issue yet, and I highly doubt I'll be able to do so 100%, but I'll at least do what I can to talk about the movies in a somewhat mature, analytical manner.
I mention this because the first film I'm set to talk about for this blog is Lasse Hallström's The Cider House Rules, a film about the moral righteousness or lack thereof of abortions, one nominated for Best Picture and several other categories at the Academy Awards - and one that caught my eye when I rolled it primarily because the cast had a lot of actors from superhero movies.
Like an awful lot of folks my age (early 20s, in case you're wondering), I'm an absolute dork for superhero films. I've been a huge fan ever since the first Spider-Man came out, and have followed them quasi-religiously for close on fifteen years now. My early Wikipedia binges were dedicated largely to reading about the characters and the upcoming films, and I scour my current internet lurking spots for any news on them. I've seen almost every single one of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films in theaters, I'm extremely excited for the upcoming Batman V Superman movie, and Nic Cage's Ghost Rider is one of my favorite films despite the fact that I know it's objectively a bad film. I don't regret any of this, as I don't think there's anything WRONG with liking and getting heavily invested in this stuff, but it makes me feel a little odd here. I open up the cast for a movie, see Toby Maguire, Paul Rudd, and Charlize Theron, and think to myself, "Oh neat, Spider-Man, Ant-Man and Furiosa."
(I liked Fury Road, OK?)
((Also, on further reading, I found out Charlize Theron was in Hancock as the wife, but I didn't know that before and thus didn't bring it up.))
The idea of there being levels of film ,with the higher ones possessing an intrinsically higher quality and worth towards the culture, has never appealed to me, but identifying the actors in that manner makes me feel like a plebeian walking into a showing of 8 1/2 and pissing on the projector.
Not helping matters any was turning the movie on and finding its intro somewhat humorous. Not laugh out loud funny, but more in the "what is happening on screen and what is happening in the editing seem a little bit at odds with each other" sort of funny. You get the introductions to Doctor Larch (hi Alfred - I mean, My Cocaine - I mean, Michael Caine) and baby Homer Wells, which is perfectly fine, but when they start talking about how nobody wants him because he's too quiet, and one of his foster parents beating him, and Doctor Larch showing him how to perform an abortion against his objections... and all the while the happy, tinkly piano music just sorta powers on through. I don't really know much about music, but I am around... ninety, ninety-five percent certain "they beat him to stop him crying" is the sort of statement you don't play "isn't everything idyllic and wonderful right now" music over.
If I had to criticize the movie on any one major point, it'd be one related to that music. It deals with some pretty heavy stuff, even for a movie from the late 90s almost two decades after abortion was legalized in America; lots of stuff about how breaking the law may be the right thing to do if the law goes against your personal convictions and ignores the suffering of innocents, the morality of not using talents you have because they don't align with your beliefs, loss of a child figure, so on and so forth. But for some reason, I never really feel any of it. The film tends towards what I'd consider a fairly... i want to say lighthearted, but more laid back air would be the right term. You've got happy music playing over montages of people cheating on their spouse pulled away to war, or the secret funeral of a recently deceased orphan boy. And while the actors definitely show emotions (Toby Maguire's crying scenes make it easy for me to see why he was tapped for Spider-Man), it never seems quite as strong as feels it should be.
Some of this may be me and my preferences. I can appreciate subtle acting, and somewhat prefer larger than life characters. But even the strongest of performances in the film don't click with me. They are fine performances, don't get me wrong - special shout-out to Michael Caine as Doctor Larch and Delroy Lindo as Arthur Rose - but for a movie that seems tailor made to tug at the heartstrings, it really never does for me.
Having outed myself out as a complete know-nothing by criticizing the performances in a movie particularly noted for the strength of its performances, let me go on to say I do still like the story and thematic structure of the movie. For those not in the know and whom I've completely alienated by this point by talking in-depth about the film's characters without establishing any of them - the plot concerns perpetual orphan Homer Wells growing into his own man at the orphanage slash illegal abortion clinic where he lives with proprietor slash father figure Doctor Wilbur Larch. The board wants to replace Doctor Larch with someone younger (and presumedly more compliant with the law on abortions), but Homer is morally opposed to the abortion process, and eventually leaves with young couple Candy and Wally to live his own life and become an apple picker. While away, the situation back home slowly becomes more dire for Doctor Larch as the inevitable closes in, and Homer develops his own problems with his growing feelings for Candy. From there, it's a slow, steady boil to see if Homer will become his own man or return and use his skill as an abortionist to help those around him.
I suppose the tonal problem I mentioned is one inherent to the story and the way it's told. This isn't a huge, epic war between two towering egos who won't budge on their IMPLACABLE AND COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED VIEWS on THE SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT PROBLEM PLAGUING OUR COUNTRY.; it's the story of an adoptive father and son slowly drifting apart, and the potential for prosperity or tragedy for the both of them. The emotions ramping up too high would more than likely ruin the audience's perception of either character, and make it hard to sympathize with them for running away from responsibility or attempting to trick the other into coming back. I don't agree with it for the problems it causes with the tone for me, but I can understand why it's done that way.
They're not incredibly complicated characters (especially due to the need for them to remain simple to retain sympathy), but they are well-drawn. Homer's endearing for the passion he shows for the children, movies, and life beyond the orphanage. Despite his implied addiction to ether and determination to control Homer's life because he knows better, Doctor Larch comes off as a man far too set in his ways, yet still loving and well-meaning. And while I could talk about Candy or Wally, I'm much more interested in saying something about Arthur Rose, whose bits in the final third make a man who has done terrible, terrible things and isn't willing to cut people to get his way surprisingly relatable and pitiable. Really, he's my favorite character in the movie.
(Interesting side-note about Larch before moving on - I looked it up during the movie, and the use of ether for medical purposes was apparently banned in America decades before the movie takes place. Given his age, it makes his willingness to do abortions seem less progressive and more recessive - he probably learned the practice from someone else when he was younger and stuck with it throughout the decades because that's just how he does things. Adds a little extra layer to his character.)
And on the note of the characters being simple, I think it's also somewhat necessary for the themes to play out. They're best exemplified by one quote from late in the film - "Sometimes you gotta break some rules to put things straight." The central conflict is ultimately whether or not Homer will return to the orphanage to look after the children, even though someone else could take over and do just a good a job as him, even aligning with his own personal beliefs. But if he were to stay away, the abortions would stop, and some would suffer for it. The friction caused by his personal desires rubbing up against a legally questionable but morally righteous "destiny" is what makes the film compelling through the lack of engrossing, emotional performances - for me, anyways - and losing that by making someone empathize with Homer too much would take attention away from the purity of the thematic center.
Of course, that thematic strength is undermined somewhat by the lack of engaging performances. I think I understand why the choice was made to make the movie in this way, but it still keeps interesting themes from reaching their full potential. Maybe a little more energy, or less noodling around during the period where Homer's trying to avoid responsibility. But I really don't know.
Again, it's a little weird doing analysis of this film. I like to style myself a writer and teller of stories in general, so I should know a thing or two about it, even if I'm not very good at it. Just look at the writing above - jumping into analyzing things before I even introduce the story. But even for that, I'm just not experienced in analyzing and critiquing movies, and saying I have problems with a Best Picture nominee in a public space, even if I try to justify my reasoning and say I understand why the decisions were made the way they were - makes me feel like I'm committing some kind of cardinal sin. It's a compromising position is what it is.
Either way, I'd say The Cider House Rules is, for someone of my background and tastes, an enjoyable, if not particularly rewarding movie. It has enough charm (especially in the first third) and thematic depth (especially in the last third) to be engaging through performances that are well done but not very attention grabbing. I'm not really going to set up any kind of numbered rating system, but I'd say it's worth a watch if you've got the time and hankering.
(Just some quick assorted thoughts
- I saw that JK Simmons was in the movie, but I must've not been paying close attention in his scene, because I never saw him.
- The kids in the orphanage are really likable, although there wasn't any way Fuzzy was making it through the movie, being an innocent question-asker with bronchitis in a December release drama film.
- The various migrant workers all give good performances, but aren't really what I'd consider memorable by side character standards.
- Wuthering Heights officially confirmed for not as good as King Kong.
- I wasn't really sure where to put this in the review, so I'll say here while the film's central conflict of responsibility rubbing up against personal choice is intriguing, and it pulls off the finale well, I don't necessarily agree with the implication of one HAVING to use skills just because they have them and it's the "right thing to do, trademark." It just rubs me the wrong way for some reason, even though the film presents a very good argument that it IS the right thing for Homer to do.
-Amazon Prime's Oscar Winners category quite prominently displays Skyfall, yet they do not actually have Skyfall. Either it's a relic of when all the Bond movies were available on Prime, or they're trying to tempt me to actually spend money on individual films. I suspect the latter.)
So that's how things'll be operating around here. Poorly structured essays on whichever films I wind up rolling, followed by a half-assed rating and some various thoughts I didn't bother weaving into the actual body of the text. With any luck, I've succeeded in writing a piece you find entertaining, if not well put together, and I'm going to stop writing before I wind up unable to use anything but online film critic stock phrases. Have a good day, and see you next review.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Testing, testing, one two three.
So I decided to create a blog. On blogger. In 2015. When I already have multiple blogs on tumblr.
Reasonably speaking, that should tell you all you need to know about me, but for the sake of having a post that's not just a self-depreciating remark, I'm Gilbert, also known as Gargus. I'm utterly atrocious at keeping schedules, and have a fair deal of mental health problems that are exacerbated by the resulting loneliness, boredom, and ennui. Watching movies and writing stuff helps, but even with all the time and resources in the world, I just never get around to any of it, which only makes the situation worse.
I get to figuring, what if I set up a blog for movie reviews that constantly gives me fresh content, something of an obligation to watch regularly, and put down my thoughts in a semi-coherent, even less semi-structured manner? Sounds like the sort of thing I could make work if I kicked myself in the hindquarters hard enough.
And thus was Randomized Movie Viewing born.
The way this exercise in giving myself things to do that doesn't involve real human interaction works is I take this online random number generator I found, and have it choose between Netflix (1), Hulu (2), and Amazon Prime (3). Whichever one I get, I go to and count off all the movie categories they have (TV is right out, I'm not about to commit to an entire show for this sort of thing), assign them numbers, and randomly choose again. From there, the same process is repeated with the movies within that category (or, in Amazon's case, after several category selections), and the movie is turned on and watched, no matter what it is. Even if it's Elf Bowling.
OK, maybe not if it's Elf Bowling. We'll see what happens when we get there.
Anyways, once I'm done, I just take my thoughts on the movie - anything that pops into my head while watching, stuff I say in online chats, the works - and compile it into a semi-coherent post. Hopefully I can manage something like 2000 words a post. Hopefully I can come off as entertaining and maybe even a touch insightful. More than likely not insightful - I like to consider myself well-educated and culturally rounded, but I know it's totally bullshit. Still, doesn't mean I can't try, right?
That's what we're doin' here. With any luck, I'll slap myself into a good enough mood to watch something Thursday, and get a post up on Friday. Till then, read this post over and over again and tell your cat about it. Not your friends or family, though, they'll probably just laugh at you.
Tell your friends and family.
So I decided to create a blog. On blogger. In 2015. When I already have multiple blogs on tumblr.
Reasonably speaking, that should tell you all you need to know about me, but for the sake of having a post that's not just a self-depreciating remark, I'm Gilbert, also known as Gargus. I'm utterly atrocious at keeping schedules, and have a fair deal of mental health problems that are exacerbated by the resulting loneliness, boredom, and ennui. Watching movies and writing stuff helps, but even with all the time and resources in the world, I just never get around to any of it, which only makes the situation worse.
I get to figuring, what if I set up a blog for movie reviews that constantly gives me fresh content, something of an obligation to watch regularly, and put down my thoughts in a semi-coherent, even less semi-structured manner? Sounds like the sort of thing I could make work if I kicked myself in the hindquarters hard enough.
And thus was Randomized Movie Viewing born.
The way this exercise in giving myself things to do that doesn't involve real human interaction works is I take this online random number generator I found, and have it choose between Netflix (1), Hulu (2), and Amazon Prime (3). Whichever one I get, I go to and count off all the movie categories they have (TV is right out, I'm not about to commit to an entire show for this sort of thing), assign them numbers, and randomly choose again. From there, the same process is repeated with the movies within that category (or, in Amazon's case, after several category selections), and the movie is turned on and watched, no matter what it is. Even if it's Elf Bowling.
OK, maybe not if it's Elf Bowling. We'll see what happens when we get there.
Anyways, once I'm done, I just take my thoughts on the movie - anything that pops into my head while watching, stuff I say in online chats, the works - and compile it into a semi-coherent post. Hopefully I can manage something like 2000 words a post. Hopefully I can come off as entertaining and maybe even a touch insightful. More than likely not insightful - I like to consider myself well-educated and culturally rounded, but I know it's totally bullshit. Still, doesn't mean I can't try, right?
That's what we're doin' here. With any luck, I'll slap myself into a good enough mood to watch something Thursday, and get a post up on Friday. Till then, read this post over and over again and tell your cat about it. Not your friends or family, though, they'll probably just laugh at you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)