Moonrise Kingdom

Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom has to grow on you or else you don’t believe in anything that Wes Anderson does. I’m almost there. He’s very mannered and within Moonrise Kingdom those mannerism started to grate. I was ready to hate it until I figured it out. Moonrise Kingdom is his homage to the French New Wave, Nouvelle Vague.

There was the off-kilter angles, the jump cuts, the strange close ups, the disaffected youth running from authority. Nouvelle Vague, a genre I don’t watch too much of. It took me a while to understand that it was, and when I did I started to enjoy it more. The Wes Anderson mannerisms were sublimated to some Nouvelle Vague conventions. It’s been a while since I was a film student; luckily this film resurrected those dim recesses of my mind.

3 of 5 stars.

Brave

Brave isn’t one of the best Pixar movies. It’s perfectly adequate. I think that I find it such maybe because of the fact that it falls into the “Disney princess” realm. I wish it was a “Miyazaki princess.”

Brave is about Merida’s hair. That’s the first thing you’ll notice. It’s there and I don’t think even real hair would act that way. You’ll be too busy to make note of anything else, but if you do, you’ll find that Pixar has come a long way with real people. The figures of humans are very good and you can almost see the direct lineage from the human figures in The Incredibles.

The story follows Merida as she wants to not be tied down with what her mother wants for her. She rejects having to have suitor. Then she runs away and finds a fairy god mother to make her real mother change. It’s a story about family and finding that compromise is good. You have to accept each other.

I still wish Pixar could do a Miyazaki film. Perhaps its because I thought that they could learn a few things from the anime master.

It was good to see the thanks given to Steve Jobs.

3 of 5 stars

Prometheus

I had a lot to say about Prometheus, two weeks ago, but now I can’t even bother. It’s gone from my memory quickly. I can’t remember my arguments against the movie, but they track with many of the complaints from others.

Number one complaint is how the story wasn’t organic; things happened because they had to happen to advance the plot and not because it was the logical progression of the story. For example, [SPOILER ALERT] two of the explorers get lost just because. Another example, one of the scientist decides to get all drunk even though he kind of proved where life began. It was out of character and just seemed that it was thrown in to get to the next chase.

The movie looked visually stunning in 3-D. That may be all that it has going for it. I wonder if this is going to age just like Blade Runner did.

3 of 5 stars.

Dark Shadows

Johnny Depp in that make up would lead you to believe that Dark Shadows, the latest Tim Burton film, would be campy just like Edward Scissorhands or Beetlejuice. Not really. It’s somewhat campy, but campy like Mars Attacks! In other words, it’s not a good movie.

The somewhat campy feeling — from the setting in the 1970s to vampires (!) — would make a movie bright. It is Burton’s signature atmosphere except the movie gets somewhat dark — from the setting in the 1970s to vampires! There’s some death which goes against the whole feel of the camp. It felt like the movie was caught between the two. Not campy enough and not dark enough. It was confusing. As well as that werewolf that shows up late in the film. What?!

2 of 5 stars

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Bill Nighy channelling Crispin Glover and a really old and looney, bigoted Maggie Smith are a few of the sights to see in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. Too bad that’s all there is to this movie. It’s good enough for the old folks to watch to skip out on the bang-bang, pow-pow of the blockbuster summer movies. It’s just not good enough for anyone younger than 55.

I’m giving it a decent rating as I didn’t hate it. I didn’t love it either. I’m writing this a week after watching so I can’t remember too much. Maybe you might.

3 of 5 stars

Midnight Cowboy

Nov. 5, 1991

In 113 minutes, director John Schlesinger can make you feel uncomfortable. His film, Midnight Cowboy is a tale of attempted sexual exploits of a young Texan stud. It contains themes that are less risqué today than when the picture was released in 1969. Homosexuality, prostitution, gang rape, and sordid sex abound and last throughout the film. Back in 1969, these topics were not as openly discussed, or shown, as they are today, and the film seems less likely to cause a stir now than during its first release. But the reason you’ll feel uncomfortable is that this film breaks down in the telling. The plot is simple, but Schlesinger’s direction is unclear; it makes hardly any sense when seeing it for the first time. Schlesinger takes liberties with the film medium. Certain filmic aspects which he uses confuse an otherwise simple story. Flashbacks occur so often that they’ll leave you wondering about what you are seeing. Odd angles and shots make the film seem twice as strange. You don’t understand what you’re seeing. You don’t know what the point is being made by the director . You won’t care about what you’re watching. It’s too bad, because Midnight Cowboy makes a good point about friendships.

At the heart of the film is the character of Joe Buck who is played brilliantly by Jon Voight. He is a swaggering cowboy who believes that he’ll make lots of money in New York City sexually satisfying rich, middle-aged women by prostituting himself. Needless to say, he doesn’t make it big as a male prostitute. In fact, his first trick not only ends up not paying but also swindles Joe Buck into loaning her money for cab fare. Joe Buck is completely out of place in the big city which leaves him at a disadvantage. He is a man innocent of the ways of hustling, and cannot hustle a trick without a the help of someone with some street knowledge. He eventually meets a crippled small time hood, Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), who thinks of using Joe as his meal ticket in exchange for help. Ratso wants to be his pimp, but their relationship starts off ugly as Ratso cons Joe Buck out of twenty dollars. Later, they become the best of friends, and it’s Joe Buck who supports them and cares for the sick Ratso.

Now that doesn’t sound too confusing, right? Wrong. The characters are more complicated than that. Schlesinger, in his attempt to show the underside of life in the big city, peoples the film with indecent characters. They run the gamut from a two bit, hustling thief, Ratso, to Warhol-like, drugged out artists. Not one of the characters are likable. Even Joe Buck, who at the end seems to be a decent person, leads the life of a male prostitute. This is not a job for such an ambitious person. Yet, his complex character is interesting for the fact that his life has been dominated by prostitution. Schlesinger points out through flashbacks that Joe Buck had a rotten childhood. His grandmother had plenty of male friends who had visited her plenty of times; she seemed to be a prostitute. He was also victimized at his peak sexual age by a gang. What little attention he got from his grandmother hinted toward sexual advances; he could’ve been molested as a child. Who knows, because the flashbacks to his childhood are indecipherable.

The most dizzying scene of the film is the party scene. It is of a Warhol-like gathering. Artists, stoners, and groupies gather in a loft to smoke dope and watch pretty, dancing lights. Joe Buck and Ratso go the party in order to get food and maybe make some money by picking up women. In this scene, Schlesinger reaches the epitome of distraction with plenty of flashy tricks. More flashbacks into Joe Buck’s past occur which are just as confusing. During the party scene, Schlesinger continues to make the plot confusing by his untimely switch into a psychedelic state. He has groovy music play as Joe Buck takes his first hit of a marijuana cigarette. Grotesque images flash on screen to highlight the weird atmosphere of the party. Strange camera angles and rough editing also impart a disorienting feel to the party. If you had hardly followed the film up until this scene, when you get to this point, you’ll probably furrow your brow and ponder what is it that Schlesinger wants to say.

Midnight Cowboy is obsessed with sex. Joe Buck thinks to make money from being a gigolo, but the cowboy routine suggests homosexuality. Throughout the movie, Joe Buck isn’t the only male prostitute prowling the streets in western garb; there are plenty of others who have the fringed shirt and cowboy hat. They all are gays, and in fact, Joe Buck has a few homosexual encounters to help pay the bills. In its time, the openly expressed homosexuality would have been considered very risqué for a major motion picture, but now in this politically correct world, men loving men is almost casual to hear about and see. The film doesn’t exploit gay love, but makes more of a statement on the relationship of two men, namely Joe Buck and Ratso. They don’t have homosexual tendencies, but what they do have is friendship. Their relationship is like the one between Lenny and George in Of Mice and Men. One is the brains; the other is the muscles. They have dreams of going to Florida and basking in the sun. They rely on each other to the point that if one falls so does the other.

Midnight Cowboy tries hard to establish itself as an important film. In some ways it does, and in others it falls short. The general story without the confusing details is a tragic tale of man’s search for an end to his loneliness. It’s a simple story that is similar to a great classic of literature, Of Mice and Men. It is a moving film, but John Schlesinger’s direction hinders the film from achieving its goal. Schlesinger mistakenly adds unnecessary elements to the film. He imposes his authority onto the story and creates confusion. Schlesinger cannot tell the story straight, but has to embellish it with a confusing style which ultimately leaves you puzzled. In Midnight Cowboy, the telling overshadows the tale.

The Avengers

Joss Whedon wrote one of my favorite X-Men arcs, the first twenty-four issues of Astonishing X-Men including its Giant Sized Annual. In it, he resurrects Colossus, makes Kitty Pryde into a Buffy clone, and furthers Emma Frost ambition to be the hottest mutant alive. It’s one helluva run on an X-Men book that rivals any of the Claremont/Byrne stories. Whedon forged a team from Cyclops, Emma Frost, Colossus, Wolverine, Kitty Pryde, and the Beast even though they battled each other throughout. Then he threw in an alien invasion that had to be stopped. All this and more happened too in Whedon’s The Avengers.

What was good about Astonishing X-Men is that he added tons of action to the team and gave them a purpose. He changed their dour whining into something heroic. He made them heroes that would give all they can to save the world. He did it too with the Avengers.

They wrap up the Avengers in a great way bringing everything and everyone together from their individual movies. You’ve got Iron Man and his brashness, Captain America and his patriotism, Hawkeye and Black Widow and Thor. Then you have the Hulk. HULK SMASH!

It was great seeing Thor versus the Hulk. The two most powerful superheroes in the Marvel universe. They were beating each other up! And just like in Astonishing X-Men, they had to forge themselves into a team to defeat an alien invasion. And they did. And they were still a fun thing to watch.

4 of 5 stars.

The Three Stooges

I was awoken on Saturday by the hammering and the pounding of the work that’s happening on the buildings of my condominium development. They’re pulling down the siding and the brick and installing a better building wrap. The workers are all over and I get worried about the car out back. I needed to get the car out of there. So I go about and find an early movie to watch. Not really caring what it is, I pick The Three Stooges. I’m hoping to see heads being banged together so that I don’t rage and bang some heads together around my house. I want to go all Moe on someone.

The nice part about The Three Stooges is that they did old school style. Three different vignettes. Three different two reelers. Just like they had been presented back in the day. The also had the intro with their theme song and their floating heads — I’m hearing “3 Blind Mice” in my head now. This was nice and unexpected. They strung their story in these three segments.

The first was the Three Stooges origin story. They’re orphans raised by Larry David taking a nun’s vow. Larry David as a nun is funny. The second was the Three Stooges out at work. They were doctors and carpenters. They caused mayhem. The final was a big hoighty-toighty party. I was expecting many pies thrown. They disappointed me.

It was a fun and funny time waster. You couldn’t ask for anything more. I laughed. Everyone laughed. Guffaws! I’ve never heard a real deep belly laugh until the first noggin was knocked together. This lady laughed real loud for every head slap and eye poke. She infected the audience as she made us laugh when at times we didn’t need to. She made it enjoyable.

3 of 5 stars.

The Cabin in the Woods

The Cabin in the Woods is Scream for the Saw age. It takes the “wink-wink, nudge-nudge, no whatta mean-no whatta mean, say no more” snark and self-consciousness to another plane and cuts it up like a funny man. It’s so post-modern it’s back into the pre-historic days.

I couldn’t get into it. It writes itself; you know what was going to happen. Even the big “twist,” you’ll see it coming. Then you wonder if they would go there, and they went there.

2 of 5 stars.

The Hunger Games

Usually, I am in tune with pop culture. I know of, watched, or read lots of what’s been in pop culture. The Hunger Games came out of no where for me. Even when I spent weekends upon weekends in the bookstores, I’ve never heard of it until they started the advertising blitz last year. Should I read the book before the movie comes out? So I went in to the theatre last week blind. I didn’t even read the wikipedia page.

As I sat there I had to process the film on several levels. The first being as a film in and of itself. The second being the adaption of a book I didn’t even read. The third being the film as a pop culture phenomenon.

As a film, I liked it. It was enough action to keep me interested. Yet, I was bugged by it. As an adaption did it miss something from the book? I felt that it did, as plot points and themes that the readers of the book would figure out. I bet there was plenty I missed from not reading the book. It’s funny because my brother complained about the film and most of his complaints could’ve been handled if he had at least read the blurbs on the back of the soft cover his son was in the process of reading.

So the readers of the book could love this movie. There are points that those who haven’t can feel attached to the story, but it could be better if you know about the book before hand.

3 of 5 stars.