Remember watching the first Ghost Rider movie and thinking, 'This might be the worst comic book adaptation in move history"? The Spirit of Vengeance will change your previous opinion.
Nicolas Cage sets new lows as he resumes his role of Johnny Blaze (AKA The Ghost Rider). And his phoned-in performance is what we've come to know and expect out of Cage: stiff and bordering on insanity.
This new film retains it's namesake character but changes everything else. New setting (now in Eastern Europe as Blaze is trying to run away from his demons). New damsel in distress. New villains (even cheezier than those in the first film). They even re-wrote history inserting a new character (Roarke - played by Ciarán Hinds) as the devil who made a deal with Blaze and transformed him into The Ghost Rider. In the first movie that role was fulfilled by Peter Fonda as the character Mephistopheles.
The sad part of of Spirit of Vengeance is that the rest of the cast is far more entertaining than the central character. Riordan as the son of the devil and Placido as his mother trying to save him from evil both turn in more compelling performances than Cage. Elba's character Moreau (a drunken warrior monk) is infinitely more interesting than The Ghost Rider. In fact, the first few minutes of the film featuring Moreau and the boy/mother escaping a handful of assassins after an attack at a monastery hold promise that this might actually be an enjoyable movie.
But our hopes of a good film are trampled as soon as The Ghost Rider's animated introduction is splashed across the screen. What we're left with is overblown special effects, CGI that dances between spectacular and shoddy, a frantic story line, and Cage's throwaway one liners. Toss in Cage's typical performance alternating from manic to stoic, and we're left with an abysmal movie that makes it's predecessor look like an Oscar worthy work of genius. Not an easy task considering the first Ghost Rider movie was an utter pile of trash.
Showing posts with label Warner Bros.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warner Bros.. Show all posts
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
There was an extended preview for Extremely Loud before The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and through the whole 3 minute clip I kept thinking, "This kid is on the Autism Spectrum." I got my phone out and quickly texted my wife: "We must see this movie." (don't worry, the movie hadn't started yet so I wasn't one of those movie goers)
Extremely Loud follows Oskar (Thomas Horn), a precocious ten year old New Yorker, as he tries to make sense of losing his father in the World Trade Center attacks - an event which Oskar repeatedly refers to as "the worst day."
Oskar is abnormally intelligent; possesses a legion of phobias; has an obsession with facts, numbers, and maps; has a foul mouth; speaks his mind without weighing the possible impact of his words; employs self stimulating routines; and has several other peculiar habits.
In his grieving, Oskar finds a key and thinks it's a clue to a quest that his father left for him to explorer and dicsover New York's lost sixth borough. His self imposed search to find the lock that the key unlocks is an attempt to find order in the disorder of life and make sense of an inexplicable tragedy. In it he touches the lives of many people - most of them strangers.
We also see the struggles of parenting a unique child. We see Oskar's dad (Tom Hanks) step into his child's world. We see Oskar's mom (Sandra Bullock) care for her son while coping with her own loss. You see the heartbreak and the joy of raising a kid that is just a step out of sync with society.
As the movie started, I couldn't help but laugh (perhaps inappropriately) at Oskar's eccentricities. It's a somber film and you should feel sorry for this kid that learned of his father's death through a series of six answering machine messages and TV news reports. But I couldn't help but chuckle as he counts the number of lies he tells, or sorts through the essentials he needs to pack to take on his search, or compulsively shakes a tambourine to find courage to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. I laughed because it was like watching my son on that big screen. It was a glimpse into my son's inner psyche.
At last the moment of justification came. Oskar is interviewing (interrogating) strangers to find who knew his dad and recognizes the key. He explains to the first stranger, "People tell me I'm very odd all the time. I got tested once to see if I had Asperger's disease. Dad said it's for people who are smarter than everybody else but can't run straight. The tests weren't definitive."
But Bekah and I both recognized the signs of ASD. Oskar is just quirky enough to be described as an aspie child with or with out an official diagnosis explained in the script. And the oddities of being a kid with Aspergers was expertly portrayed by Horn.
But of course the movie isn't all about Oskar's disorder. But it does help explain why and how Oskar executes his search for the missing lock. It is this understanding that may be lost on many movie goers. It is a frame of reference that helps audiences understand that Oskar is not a normal child.
If you want to see what life is like for parents like Bekah and me or thousands of other parents whose kids are on the Autism spectrum, go see Extremely Loud. If you are the parent of a kid on the spectrum, this is a must see film. And if you're just looking for a good film, this movie packs a well composed script, a gut wrenching story, and believable portrayal of dealing with loss.
Extremely Loud follows Oskar (Thomas Horn), a precocious ten year old New Yorker, as he tries to make sense of losing his father in the World Trade Center attacks - an event which Oskar repeatedly refers to as "the worst day."
Oskar is abnormally intelligent; possesses a legion of phobias; has an obsession with facts, numbers, and maps; has a foul mouth; speaks his mind without weighing the possible impact of his words; employs self stimulating routines; and has several other peculiar habits.
In his grieving, Oskar finds a key and thinks it's a clue to a quest that his father left for him to explorer and dicsover New York's lost sixth borough. His self imposed search to find the lock that the key unlocks is an attempt to find order in the disorder of life and make sense of an inexplicable tragedy. In it he touches the lives of many people - most of them strangers.
We also see the struggles of parenting a unique child. We see Oskar's dad (Tom Hanks) step into his child's world. We see Oskar's mom (Sandra Bullock) care for her son while coping with her own loss. You see the heartbreak and the joy of raising a kid that is just a step out of sync with society.
As the movie started, I couldn't help but laugh (perhaps inappropriately) at Oskar's eccentricities. It's a somber film and you should feel sorry for this kid that learned of his father's death through a series of six answering machine messages and TV news reports. But I couldn't help but chuckle as he counts the number of lies he tells, or sorts through the essentials he needs to pack to take on his search, or compulsively shakes a tambourine to find courage to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. I laughed because it was like watching my son on that big screen. It was a glimpse into my son's inner psyche.
At last the moment of justification came. Oskar is interviewing (interrogating) strangers to find who knew his dad and recognizes the key. He explains to the first stranger, "People tell me I'm very odd all the time. I got tested once to see if I had Asperger's disease. Dad said it's for people who are smarter than everybody else but can't run straight. The tests weren't definitive."
But Bekah and I both recognized the signs of ASD. Oskar is just quirky enough to be described as an aspie child with or with out an official diagnosis explained in the script. And the oddities of being a kid with Aspergers was expertly portrayed by Horn.
But of course the movie isn't all about Oskar's disorder. But it does help explain why and how Oskar executes his search for the missing lock. It is this understanding that may be lost on many movie goers. It is a frame of reference that helps audiences understand that Oskar is not a normal child.
If you want to see what life is like for parents like Bekah and me or thousands of other parents whose kids are on the Autism spectrum, go see Extremely Loud. If you are the parent of a kid on the spectrum, this is a must see film. And if you're just looking for a good film, this movie packs a well composed script, a gut wrenching story, and believable portrayal of dealing with loss.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Contagion
What better way is there to wrap up the summer movie season than a film about a contagious disease that decimates our home planet's population? Am I right?
Before we continue, let's make one thing clear. This is not a raging virus movie like Outbreak (1995). That movie was nothing more than a monster movie where the heroes spend all their time figuring out how to win. Where Outbreak was steeped in action, Contagion has more of an intellectual bent grounded more in reality. Rather than following an A + B = C formula (where A is the virus, B is the doctors, and C is a cure), Contagion follows the tragedy and human reaction to a massive epidemic. The media and medical personnel attempt to downplay the scope to prevent a swine flu kind of public panic. The interactions between those in-the-know and the lives of those around them. The tender moments between a protective father and his daughter. The Chinese government trying to hide their possible involvement in causing the outbreak. Political hostages. Government assumptions. Military reaction. Widespread fear. Riots. Looting. Truth vs disinformation.
This isn't an easy movie to watch as the subject matter is heavy and the imagery is gritty and occasionally unsettling. The film makers appear to be aware of this potential buzz kill and break up the dismal prospects of their characters with a few moments of levity (snow angels) and quick one-liners. Some of those one-liners work ("Blogging is not writing. It's just graffiti with punctuation.") and some don't ("Someone doesn't have to weaponize the bird flu. The birds are doing that.")
By no means is this a perfect movie. It is slow paced making it feel longer than its actual running time. And while the film makers made every attempt to keep the story as scientifically accurate as possible, they cast Demetri Martin as one of the scientists engineering the cure. I kept waiting for him to crack a dead-panned non sequitur joke - which was a bit of a distraction from the actual story.
My biggest complaint is that Contagion comes across as a long "you should always wash your hands" PSA. But that one squabble aside, Contagion is an great movie. Bekah enjoyed Contagion and recommends it - which says a lot because she doesn't often recommend movies. My father-in-law said it was a bit "sterile" but overall an excellent film. He also lauded the ending as being a fantastic piece of story-telling (though I will not spoil the ending here).
Maybe not, but Contagion fills that role and does it with near expert precision. Aside from a couple of flaws, this film has a lot working in its favor: an all-star ensemble cast, dynamic filming locales, a fantastic script, with a relevant and plausible story.
Let's start with that cast.
There are four divergent yet overlapping stories fleshing out Contagion's plot. First is Mitch Emhoff (Matt Damon), whose wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) and stepson die from a mysterious illness. He's been exposed to the pathogen, and must cope with his loss while trying to protect his daughter and prevent her from becoming sick. Next are two CDC doctors (Laurence Fishburne and Kate Winslet) researching the effects and spread of the virus. Jude Law plays a smarmy blogger/journalist/conspiracy theorist capitalizing on the medical crisis, advertising a cure that doesn't work. And the final story arc involves a World Health Organization doctor (Marion Cotillard) sent to Hong Kong to investigate the source of the virus.
Before we continue, let's make one thing clear. This is not a raging virus movie like Outbreak (1995). That movie was nothing more than a monster movie where the heroes spend all their time figuring out how to win. Where Outbreak was steeped in action, Contagion has more of an intellectual bent grounded more in reality. Rather than following an A + B = C formula (where A is the virus, B is the doctors, and C is a cure), Contagion follows the tragedy and human reaction to a massive epidemic. The media and medical personnel attempt to downplay the scope to prevent a swine flu kind of public panic. The interactions between those in-the-know and the lives of those around them. The tender moments between a protective father and his daughter. The Chinese government trying to hide their possible involvement in causing the outbreak. Political hostages. Government assumptions. Military reaction. Widespread fear. Riots. Looting. Truth vs disinformation.
This isn't an easy movie to watch as the subject matter is heavy and the imagery is gritty and occasionally unsettling. The film makers appear to be aware of this potential buzz kill and break up the dismal prospects of their characters with a few moments of levity (snow angels) and quick one-liners. Some of those one-liners work ("Blogging is not writing. It's just graffiti with punctuation.") and some don't ("Someone doesn't have to weaponize the bird flu. The birds are doing that.")
By no means is this a perfect movie. It is slow paced making it feel longer than its actual running time. And while the film makers made every attempt to keep the story as scientifically accurate as possible, they cast Demetri Martin as one of the scientists engineering the cure. I kept waiting for him to crack a dead-panned non sequitur joke - which was a bit of a distraction from the actual story.
My biggest complaint is that Contagion comes across as a long "you should always wash your hands" PSA. But that one squabble aside, Contagion is an great movie. Bekah enjoyed Contagion and recommends it - which says a lot because she doesn't often recommend movies. My father-in-law said it was a bit "sterile" but overall an excellent film. He also lauded the ending as being a fantastic piece of story-telling (though I will not spoil the ending here).
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Inception
We've seen the commercials with cityscape curling up into itself for months - hinting that Christopher Nolan is preparing a mind bending adventure for movie audiences. Until recent weeks the previews were vague, only teasing us that Nolan had a few tricks up is sleeve. The secretive strategy was worth the effort as Inception is the kind of movie that dares it's audience to lose themselves in a world of imagination.
Inception now joins the ranks of Fight Club, the first Matrix, and Nolan's own Memento as films to toy with your psyche. The brain boggling story telling is done with surgical precision. While there are flaws in the story those errors are inconsequential as Inception is easily one of the best movies I've seen in years and the kind of movie that reminds us of the magical allure that the theater experience once held.
The story opens up the opportunity to experience shared dreams, and for thieves to enact elaborate heists to steal information from the minds of other people inside the dreamscape. If this was the only psychological aspect of the movie, we'd be left with an unoriginal and wholly disappointing two and a half hours of film. Instead, Nolan weaves in the notion that shared dreams are commonplace and widely accepted as normal by the characters involved. He even gives the act of stealing intellectual property through dreams a name: extraction. The plot device that drives the real story (and lends the movie its name) is the possibility that ideas can be planted into the deepest recesses of a person's subconscious where the subject views the planted idea as one of their own design - an feat called inception.
The protagonist, Dominic Cobb (DiCaprio), is the brains behind the operation. Along for the ride is his sidekick Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) whose primary job is to research Cobb's targets. The pair needs a new architect - a person who designs and builds the world experienced by dreamers. Dominic once was able to be an architect but now refuses to build dream worlds for reasons explained in the film. They hire and train a new architect (Ellen Page of Juno fame) to help work one final job given to them by a former target (Ken Watanabe).
The mission is plagued with complications of unexpected subconscious projections (including Cobb's dead wife), layers of unreal realms, and warped physics that defy every ounce of gravity we've come to enjoy in the real world.
The character work is portrayed with brilliance, the scenery is beautifully rendered, Nolan provides expert direction that exceeds either of his two Batman projects, and the action is both captivating and bewildering. The fight sequence with manipulated gravitational pulls is one of the greatest action scenes in the past 10 years of cinema.
Inception is two and a half hours of suspense. It is filled with mind blowing surrealism and jaw dropping special effects. This movie about dreams invites us to dream with with the characters on screen. Once the final credits begin to roll your mind will continue to ponder not only the psychological elements of the story, but also the unknown fate hinted in the final frame of film.
This is the single most satisfying film of the year. If Inception does not garner at least one Oscar, I will be surprised. This is the kind of movie more film makers should strive to create.
Inception now joins the ranks of Fight Club, the first Matrix, and Nolan's own Memento as films to toy with your psyche. The brain boggling story telling is done with surgical precision. While there are flaws in the story those errors are inconsequential as Inception is easily one of the best movies I've seen in years and the kind of movie that reminds us of the magical allure that the theater experience once held.
The story opens up the opportunity to experience shared dreams, and for thieves to enact elaborate heists to steal information from the minds of other people inside the dreamscape. If this was the only psychological aspect of the movie, we'd be left with an unoriginal and wholly disappointing two and a half hours of film. Instead, Nolan weaves in the notion that shared dreams are commonplace and widely accepted as normal by the characters involved. He even gives the act of stealing intellectual property through dreams a name: extraction. The plot device that drives the real story (and lends the movie its name) is the possibility that ideas can be planted into the deepest recesses of a person's subconscious where the subject views the planted idea as one of their own design - an feat called inception.
The protagonist, Dominic Cobb (DiCaprio), is the brains behind the operation. Along for the ride is his sidekick Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) whose primary job is to research Cobb's targets. The pair needs a new architect - a person who designs and builds the world experienced by dreamers. Dominic once was able to be an architect but now refuses to build dream worlds for reasons explained in the film. They hire and train a new architect (Ellen Page of Juno fame) to help work one final job given to them by a former target (Ken Watanabe).
The mission is plagued with complications of unexpected subconscious projections (including Cobb's dead wife), layers of unreal realms, and warped physics that defy every ounce of gravity we've come to enjoy in the real world.
The character work is portrayed with brilliance, the scenery is beautifully rendered, Nolan provides expert direction that exceeds either of his two Batman projects, and the action is both captivating and bewildering. The fight sequence with manipulated gravitational pulls is one of the greatest action scenes in the past 10 years of cinema.
Inception is two and a half hours of suspense. It is filled with mind blowing surrealism and jaw dropping special effects. This movie about dreams invites us to dream with with the characters on screen. Once the final credits begin to roll your mind will continue to ponder not only the psychological elements of the story, but also the unknown fate hinted in the final frame of film.
This is the single most satisfying film of the year. If Inception does not garner at least one Oscar, I will be surprised. This is the kind of movie more film makers should strive to create.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Book of Eli
"What movie are we going to go see?" Bekah asked.
"Book of Eli."
"Who's in it?"
"Denzel Washington."
"You know I love me some Denzel. What is it about?"
"30 years after a cataclysmic war..."
"Is it another post-apocalyptic movie?"
I nodded my head, "Yes."
"What is it with you and post-apocalyptic movies?!"
This is how our conversation started as my wife and I left the house on Saturday afternoon. Yes, it is a post-apocalyptic movie, but it’s got Denzel and Bekah is a fan of Denzel.
Now to finish the thought: 30 years after a cataclysmic war, we meet Eli (Denzel Washington). He’s been walking for 30 years because God told him to take the only remaining Bible west to someplace where it would be safe. Religion was blamed for the war and all known religious texts were destroyed. (However, both Mussolini’s biography and Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code survived.)
All is going well. Eli has cat for dinner (which he shares with a mouse), acquires a new pair of boots from a corpse, and falls asleep while listening to Al Green. All Eli has to do is stay on the path. But his MP3 player’s battery dies and needs recharged. He passes through a town that has the ability to recharge electronics and access to clean drinking water (aka – the good stuff). It is at this point that Eli’s path is broken.
The town is ruled by the intelligent yet diabolical Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who is hungry for power. He is an avid reader, and is searching for a Bible. When he finds out Eli has one, Carnegie pursues Eli to forcibly take it. To complicate matters, rebellious girl Solara (Mila Kunis), the daughter of Carnegie’s blind servant wants to go with Eli to where ever he is going. Eli is reluctant (for her own protection) but agrees to her company.
The movie is a sci-fi homage to the western genre (including a mid-town standoff and ensuing shootout). It is also a morality tale filled with religious allegory. God’s word is presented from two diametrically opposite view points: Eli believes the Bible has the power to save humanity, and Carnegie sees it as a weapon. Eli’s violent methods of self defense (and the lengths he takes to protect the Bible) are a stark contrast to his beliefs. In a short explanation for his actions, Eli admits that after reading the Bible every day for 30 years, he’s missed the message it teaches.
Graciously, the film makers do not use the religious tone to harangue non-believers into becoming God-fearing believers. While the message of the movie is about the power of faith, the only condemnation portrayed is a discourse on modern consumerism. Solara asks what life was like before the war; Eli explains we had more than we needed and we threw away stuff that people now kill for.
Coloring is as much a part of the cast as Denzel or Oldman. The Hughes Brothers drained the film of color leaving mostly sepia tints of brown, gray, and green. It is an interesting lesson in using color to tell a story, but in the long run is a burdensome. The desert landscapes and burnt skies set the mood for the movie but it adds a sense of somnolence to an all ready despondent plot. The Hughes Brothers play this aspect of film making to a maddening degree – exploiting it with wide panoramic shots of clouds, distant injections of barren wastelands, excessive close ups, and silhouetted action sequences.
While the coloring is overbearing, it also highlights moments of poignant grief – most memorably (without spoiling the plot) is Eli reading from Second Timothy chapter four in the final scene.
There are bits of biting humor. Eli smelling roadside bandits. Eli sending Solara to retrieve his sunglasses. The crazy old couple serving tea. And in one of my favorite scenes, Solara asks Eli to read the Bible to her (she – like most people under the age of 30 can’t read because they were born after the war). Eli quotes Psalm 23 which Solara states is beautiful. She asks Eli if he wrote it; he answers “yes” before admitting he’s joking.
However, neither heartbreak nor humor is the vehicle that carries this mission of faith. This is more Bekah’s warning than mine: it is a little violent. And by a little, I mean it is violent on an epically gratuitous scale. Limbs are severed, heads are decapitated, the air is filled with gunfire and explosions, and there are several references to cannibalism. Eli handles his weaponry (machete, bow & arrow, pistol and sawed-off shotgun) with surgical accuracy. Carnegie uses a brutally destructive arsenal to hunt down Eli (rocket launchers and gatling guns). And it is all done with the stylistic finesse of the gospel according to Kill Bill.
Be prepared. The pacing is slow. In the first ten minutes of film, the only dialog is Eli talking to a mouse. The tenor of the movie is also unsettling (likely done intentionally). Watching Eli sharpen his machete while listening to How Can You Mend a Broken Heart is a little disconcerting.
The acting is as good as it the post-apocalyptic genre gets. Gary Oldman is convincing in his maniacal thirst for power. Denzel Washington’s devotion (and ultimately compassion) proves his worth in Hollywood. Even Mila Kunis (despite looking like she’s dressed in the best Banana Republic the apocalypse has to offer) perfectly portrays the dichotomy of naïveté and emotional strength. There are also a couple of great cameos from Tom Waits (musician) and Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange).
Bekah recommends it as a movie worth watching but not one she’d want to see more than once. I want to see it again – if only to see if Denzel’s character stays true to the story’s final twist. The Book of Eli is also a great way to launch conversations about matters of faith. This movie sparked more discussion between Bekah and me than any other movie since... well... that I can remember.
Our dialog continued from the theater to the car (and for most of the drive home from Spokane Valley).
“Would you do that? Would you walk for 30 years?” Bekah asked.
“I don’t know.”
“It was a little too violent... and too much swearing.” Yet she likes the Die Hard movies which expels more bullets than a trigger happy NRA member at a shooting range and drops more f-bombs than a drunken sailor.
“Well,” I rebutted, “most of the violence was in self defense, and the vulgarity was from the bad guys.”
“True. And Eli’s motivation made sense. But still... did they have to show the guys head getting chopped off? And with a machete? It’s just so much more personal.”
PS: for the record, I’ve satisfied my post-apocalyptic fix for a while.
"Book of Eli."
"Who's in it?"
"Denzel Washington."
"You know I love me some Denzel. What is it about?"
"30 years after a cataclysmic war..."
"Is it another post-apocalyptic movie?"
I nodded my head, "Yes."
"What is it with you and post-apocalyptic movies?!"
This is how our conversation started as my wife and I left the house on Saturday afternoon. Yes, it is a post-apocalyptic movie, but it’s got Denzel and Bekah is a fan of Denzel.
Now to finish the thought: 30 years after a cataclysmic war, we meet Eli (Denzel Washington). He’s been walking for 30 years because God told him to take the only remaining Bible west to someplace where it would be safe. Religion was blamed for the war and all known religious texts were destroyed. (However, both Mussolini’s biography and Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code survived.)
All is going well. Eli has cat for dinner (which he shares with a mouse), acquires a new pair of boots from a corpse, and falls asleep while listening to Al Green. All Eli has to do is stay on the path. But his MP3 player’s battery dies and needs recharged. He passes through a town that has the ability to recharge electronics and access to clean drinking water (aka – the good stuff). It is at this point that Eli’s path is broken.
The town is ruled by the intelligent yet diabolical Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who is hungry for power. He is an avid reader, and is searching for a Bible. When he finds out Eli has one, Carnegie pursues Eli to forcibly take it. To complicate matters, rebellious girl Solara (Mila Kunis), the daughter of Carnegie’s blind servant wants to go with Eli to where ever he is going. Eli is reluctant (for her own protection) but agrees to her company.
The movie is a sci-fi homage to the western genre (including a mid-town standoff and ensuing shootout). It is also a morality tale filled with religious allegory. God’s word is presented from two diametrically opposite view points: Eli believes the Bible has the power to save humanity, and Carnegie sees it as a weapon. Eli’s violent methods of self defense (and the lengths he takes to protect the Bible) are a stark contrast to his beliefs. In a short explanation for his actions, Eli admits that after reading the Bible every day for 30 years, he’s missed the message it teaches.
Graciously, the film makers do not use the religious tone to harangue non-believers into becoming God-fearing believers. While the message of the movie is about the power of faith, the only condemnation portrayed is a discourse on modern consumerism. Solara asks what life was like before the war; Eli explains we had more than we needed and we threw away stuff that people now kill for.
Coloring is as much a part of the cast as Denzel or Oldman. The Hughes Brothers drained the film of color leaving mostly sepia tints of brown, gray, and green. It is an interesting lesson in using color to tell a story, but in the long run is a burdensome. The desert landscapes and burnt skies set the mood for the movie but it adds a sense of somnolence to an all ready despondent plot. The Hughes Brothers play this aspect of film making to a maddening degree – exploiting it with wide panoramic shots of clouds, distant injections of barren wastelands, excessive close ups, and silhouetted action sequences.
While the coloring is overbearing, it also highlights moments of poignant grief – most memorably (without spoiling the plot) is Eli reading from Second Timothy chapter four in the final scene.
There are bits of biting humor. Eli smelling roadside bandits. Eli sending Solara to retrieve his sunglasses. The crazy old couple serving tea. And in one of my favorite scenes, Solara asks Eli to read the Bible to her (she – like most people under the age of 30 can’t read because they were born after the war). Eli quotes Psalm 23 which Solara states is beautiful. She asks Eli if he wrote it; he answers “yes” before admitting he’s joking.
However, neither heartbreak nor humor is the vehicle that carries this mission of faith. This is more Bekah’s warning than mine: it is a little violent. And by a little, I mean it is violent on an epically gratuitous scale. Limbs are severed, heads are decapitated, the air is filled with gunfire and explosions, and there are several references to cannibalism. Eli handles his weaponry (machete, bow & arrow, pistol and sawed-off shotgun) with surgical accuracy. Carnegie uses a brutally destructive arsenal to hunt down Eli (rocket launchers and gatling guns). And it is all done with the stylistic finesse of the gospel according to Kill Bill.
Be prepared. The pacing is slow. In the first ten minutes of film, the only dialog is Eli talking to a mouse. The tenor of the movie is also unsettling (likely done intentionally). Watching Eli sharpen his machete while listening to How Can You Mend a Broken Heart is a little disconcerting.
The acting is as good as it the post-apocalyptic genre gets. Gary Oldman is convincing in his maniacal thirst for power. Denzel Washington’s devotion (and ultimately compassion) proves his worth in Hollywood. Even Mila Kunis (despite looking like she’s dressed in the best Banana Republic the apocalypse has to offer) perfectly portrays the dichotomy of naïveté and emotional strength. There are also a couple of great cameos from Tom Waits (musician) and Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange).
Bekah recommends it as a movie worth watching but not one she’d want to see more than once. I want to see it again – if only to see if Denzel’s character stays true to the story’s final twist. The Book of Eli is also a great way to launch conversations about matters of faith. This movie sparked more discussion between Bekah and me than any other movie since... well... that I can remember.
Our dialog continued from the theater to the car (and for most of the drive home from Spokane Valley).
“Would you do that? Would you walk for 30 years?” Bekah asked.
“I don’t know.”
“It was a little too violent... and too much swearing.” Yet she likes the Die Hard movies which expels more bullets than a trigger happy NRA member at a shooting range and drops more f-bombs than a drunken sailor.
“Well,” I rebutted, “most of the violence was in self defense, and the vulgarity was from the bad guys.”
“True. And Eli’s motivation made sense. But still... did they have to show the guys head getting chopped off? And with a machete? It’s just so much more personal.”
PS: for the record, I’ve satisfied my post-apocalyptic fix for a while.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
The Last Samurai
Pop culture quiz.
Q: After a white American soldier lives with an indigenous population, he begins to understand their ways. He develops sympathies for the culture and falls in love with one of the women there. At the end of the movie, the soldier fights with the natives instead of against them.
This is the plot for what movie?
a) Kevin Kostner's 1990 movie Dancing with Wolves
b) Tom Cruise's 2003 movie The Last Samurai
c) James Cameron's blockbuster from this past holiday season - Avatar
d) All of the above
When it comes to the fundamental plot, The Last Samurai proposes nothing new. It wasn't the first time we saw this story, and Avatar will not be the last.
Each of the three movies are cinematically excellent in their own right. Of the three, The Last Samurai is my favorite. Taking place about the same time frame as Dances with Wolves (1870's), Samurai has a different tone to it. While both stories are completely fictional, Samurai has more of a truthiness feel to it with a greater degree of historical accuracy. The Japanese countryside plays a scenic backdrop far more beautiful than the American plains. And as batty as Cruise is in real life, he is a better actor than Costner.
Cruise plays an American soldier - Captain Nathan Algren - once apart of Custer's 7th cavalry. He's an alcoholic (fairly true to the character of many of Custer's men) with many personal demons. He is hired to train the new Japanese army, many of whom have never held a gun. When the military is prematurely sent to battle, Algren is captured and held prisoner at the Samurai's remote village. It is here that Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe) begins to hold conversations with Algren... to practice his English. If you've seen Dances with Wolves (or Avatar for that matter) the rest of the story is predictable. Algren learns ancient Japanese culture and how to fight like a samurai. He earns the respect of his captors and fights side by side with those he once considered an enemy.
The story itself is not based on one singular event in history, but rather an amalgamation of several events - covering a broad scope of both American history (Washita River massacre, Winchester gun shows) and Japanese (Boshin War, the Satsuma Rebellion, real life samurai Saigō Takamori). Through this story we're given lessons in perseverance (there is a fabulous scene when Ujio repeatedly beats Algren with sticks in a mock sword fight and Algren keeps getting off the ground to try again), redemption, honor, personal revenge, the importance of culture, and (of all things) Japanese poetry. The movie doesn't have a happy ending and that is likely the most important lesson of all: in war, there are no happy endings.
My take: gorgeous scenery, masterful recreation of late 19th century Tokyo, thorough attention to detail in costume and prop design, the social commentary is neither preachy nor overbearing, and the familiar storyline is told with the passion of an expert raconteur. Yet it is a sad story with slow pacing, heart-rending flashbacks, and gratuitous blood splatter (a couple people lose heads, others lose limbs, and one soldier - I believe - loses his gluteus maximus).
Bekah's take: Good. A little violent, but good. She didn't remember watching The Last Samurai when we first saw it in the theater, so (for her) this was like seeing it brand new. While true to history, the flashback scenes of the Washita River massacre were distressing. She's always found sorrow in the depiction of violence toward children but more so now than she used to. I'm not sure if the scenes from The Last Samurai were more poignant because we have kids of our own or because our daughter is Native American. During the movie's final battle she remarked at how it was such a sad story.
Overall: As Simon Graham, the British photographer and historian who served as Algren's translator said, jolly good. Only not so jolly, but very good indeed.
Q: After a white American soldier lives with an indigenous population, he begins to understand their ways. He develops sympathies for the culture and falls in love with one of the women there. At the end of the movie, the soldier fights with the natives instead of against them.
This is the plot for what movie?
a) Kevin Kostner's 1990 movie Dancing with Wolves
b) Tom Cruise's 2003 movie The Last Samurai
c) James Cameron's blockbuster from this past holiday season - Avatar
d) All of the above
When it comes to the fundamental plot, The Last Samurai proposes nothing new. It wasn't the first time we saw this story, and Avatar will not be the last.
Each of the three movies are cinematically excellent in their own right. Of the three, The Last Samurai is my favorite. Taking place about the same time frame as Dances with Wolves (1870's), Samurai has a different tone to it. While both stories are completely fictional, Samurai has more of a truthiness feel to it with a greater degree of historical accuracy. The Japanese countryside plays a scenic backdrop far more beautiful than the American plains. And as batty as Cruise is in real life, he is a better actor than Costner.
Cruise plays an American soldier - Captain Nathan Algren - once apart of Custer's 7th cavalry. He's an alcoholic (fairly true to the character of many of Custer's men) with many personal demons. He is hired to train the new Japanese army, many of whom have never held a gun. When the military is prematurely sent to battle, Algren is captured and held prisoner at the Samurai's remote village. It is here that Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe) begins to hold conversations with Algren... to practice his English. If you've seen Dances with Wolves (or Avatar for that matter) the rest of the story is predictable. Algren learns ancient Japanese culture and how to fight like a samurai. He earns the respect of his captors and fights side by side with those he once considered an enemy.
The story itself is not based on one singular event in history, but rather an amalgamation of several events - covering a broad scope of both American history (Washita River massacre, Winchester gun shows) and Japanese (Boshin War, the Satsuma Rebellion, real life samurai Saigō Takamori). Through this story we're given lessons in perseverance (there is a fabulous scene when Ujio repeatedly beats Algren with sticks in a mock sword fight and Algren keeps getting off the ground to try again), redemption, honor, personal revenge, the importance of culture, and (of all things) Japanese poetry. The movie doesn't have a happy ending and that is likely the most important lesson of all: in war, there are no happy endings.
My take: gorgeous scenery, masterful recreation of late 19th century Tokyo, thorough attention to detail in costume and prop design, the social commentary is neither preachy nor overbearing, and the familiar storyline is told with the passion of an expert raconteur. Yet it is a sad story with slow pacing, heart-rending flashbacks, and gratuitous blood splatter (a couple people lose heads, others lose limbs, and one soldier - I believe - loses his gluteus maximus).
Bekah's take: Good. A little violent, but good. She didn't remember watching The Last Samurai when we first saw it in the theater, so (for her) this was like seeing it brand new. While true to history, the flashback scenes of the Washita River massacre were distressing. She's always found sorrow in the depiction of violence toward children but more so now than she used to. I'm not sure if the scenes from The Last Samurai were more poignant because we have kids of our own or because our daughter is Native American. During the movie's final battle she remarked at how it was such a sad story.
Overall: As Simon Graham, the British photographer and historian who served as Algren's translator said, jolly good. Only not so jolly, but very good indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)