Vertigo

Marge and I caught the latest Hitchcock film at the Charles, Vertigo. After sitting in traffic and getting to the theatre just in time, we settle in for a really great film.

Jimmy Stewart’s character’s obsession is one of the loneliness and sad realizations in film. Novak’s Madeliene/Judy should’ve gotten out of there when she had the chance. She should’ve forgotten all about Scotty.

My reaction to the film was very different from the one I had when I saw it on DVD. I think that in private, at home, I was able to connect with Scotty’s obsession. It was more intimate and immediate. At the theatre, that feeling of obsession out in public was replaced with apprehension and I connected more with Judy. It is like I was acutely aware of my obsessiveness, and I was embarrassed by it so I chose to be appalled for my self like Judy was for Scotty’s choices. I don’t need her to wear a grey suit.

5 of 5 stars.

Speed Racer

The Wachowski’s Speed Racer is certainly ambitious. With it’s candy coated visuals and cgi backdrops, it makes for an entertaining experience. Yet, it fails because of the use of cgi, because the meager plot couldn’t hide behind the pretty lights, the film relied on the flash rather than the story. And that is what’s so frustrating about this movie, the flashy visuals were good, but the tale was weak especially in the exposition of the fiendish Royalton. It was boring.

Until the races started up. I loved it. They looked like skaters doing ollie shove-its and 360 kick flips. This was the first time I felt like I had to play the video game. If it was about bashing other cars, it would be awesome like Mario Cart.

Christina Ricci is dangerous. Her Trixie enters and you know that the sugar coated affair has changed to something slightly off-kilter. John Goodman looking old, but serviceable as Pops. Sprittle was annoying, but needed to provide some comic relief for the children in the audience to laugh. Emile Hirsch is once again a blank 2d character like the animated version of speed racer.

The story did pick up until the racing. The early part was boring. In fact, I still don’t get the fiendish Royalton’s machinations because my eyes glazed over and I checked out for a bit.

It’s not as bad as the reviews its getting, but it needs some work. This is the first movie that seems to have been expressly made for high definition DVDs. I couldn’t help but think that hd DVD should’ve been its original release format.

3 of 5 stars.

Iron Man

Bully for Jon Favreau for directing Iron Man to the opening of Summer Movie Season 2008, and making some bucks as well as garnering well deserved kudos.

I found it good. Not on the Spidey 2 level, but better than a Fantastic Four catastrophe. That a suit is fantastic. The iron monger one reminded me of Appleseed’s Mecha.

The cast was first rate. Robert Downey, Jr. displayed a flair for being debonair and an asshole but winningly so. Gweneth Paltrow was hot as Pepper Potts. The dude, Jeff Bridges, was the villainous Lex Luthor out to make bombs not love. Shield was there.

The interesting part was the play on the military industrial complex. If I didn’t know it, Stark industries is a facsimile of Lockheed Martin. Even down to the corporate logo. They got that covered.

All in all, an enjoyable comic book movie. Good opening salvo for the Summer of 2008.

4 of 5 stars.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula

Nov. 19, 1992

Director Francis Ford Coppola gives a refreshing and interesting interpretation of the legend of Dracula. He does not offer the overdone Hollywood view of the Prince of Darkness as a bloodsucker, but instead, he chooses to remain faithful to Bram StokerÕs novel and to elevate the Victorian romance to the forefront. CoppalaÕs Dracula does not say, ÒI vant to suck your blood,Ó in a cheesy Rumanian accent nor does he have the hypnotic stare as popularized in many of the vampire films including the 1931 classic starring Bela Legosi. In fact, CoppolaÕs Dracula has an entirely different theme from its predecessors. It does not fall under the genre of horror film, but it encapsulates a variety of styles from horror to romance to even action-adventure. Coppola turns the Dracula legend upside-down, and redeems himself as one of AmericaÕs premiere directors.

Dracula is not like any vampire film that you have seen. Working from a script by James Hart, Coppola from the beginning wants you to feel the passion behind the motives of the man who was called Count Dracula. In the first scene which takes place a few hundred years before the Victorian age in London, the theme of undying love is established. Dracula is a man with a history behind his blood lust; he wants to become undead (never dying) in order to find his lost love, Elisabeta. Dracula having reason to his pursuit of blood is not what you would expect from a telling of the Dracula legend. If you enter thinking that you are going to see a lot of neck biting and other contrived devices of previous vampire films, then you are in for a surprise. Coppola wants to remain true to Bram StokerÕs novel and change the way audiences perceive the Dracula tale. He still shows a lot of blood, but focuses more on the attraction between Mina Murray (Winona Ryder) and Dracula (Gary Oldman).

Coppola returns to the screen in a highly stylized way. He starts out to take a look at passion and obsession and achieves that goal in his direction of the film. He takes you for a ride which does not slow down until the ending. Dracula constantly moves at an exciting pace; it never slows down. Even when there is not much action on screen, Coppola enlivens the film with dazzling cinematic techniques. From the opening moments of Count DraculaÕs battle against the Turks to the chase at the end, Coppola maintains a visual assault on your eyes with techniques that are flashy and uncustomarily unlike the director. The technique he uses in showing the countÕs point of view while stalking his prey is exhilarating. All this flashy camera work and special effects may sometimes get in the way of the story, but they are meant to highlight certain themes being played out. Also, his transitions between scenes are solid, even if at times they are confusing. But what makes his direction of the film stand out is the faith he had in the relatively young cast.

In the title role of Dracula, Gary Oldman does a convincing job. His Dracula is something other than a bloodsucking, undead creature of the night. Rather, he is charming and dramatic and able to exist beneath the midday sun, although his shadow has a life of its own. Oldman follows CoppolaÕs lead in changing Dracula from a man of evil nature to a man compelled by love. Bela Legosi would have a hard time recognizing the character he so much had created. Where LegosiÕs Dracula would have been more formal and staid, OldmanÕs rendition is irreverent to the notion that a vampires life is just lying around waiting for the sun to go down. Oldman shows the twisted side of lost mortality in Dracula. When Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) cuts himself shaving, its amusing to see Dracula lick the razor clean; he needs the blood of a vibrant young person to maintain the illusion of living. Oldman makes Dracula seem more human which makes Dracula all the more creepy and spooky . Dracula doesnÕt do much to scare you but does enough to send shivers up your spine.

Other members of the young cast have impressive performances. They easily overcome the difficulties with an English accent. Winona Ryder turns in a remarkable performance as Mina Murray, DraculaÕs replacement for Elisabeta and HarkerÕs fiancŽe. Her fragile look fits that of a coy young, Victorian lady. At times, she is devoted to Harker, but when Dracula steps into her life she quickly falls for him. The sudden shift of her affection seems unbelievable at first, but it is within her character to give her undying devotion to someone. And it so happens that she fears Jonathan is dead. Keanu Reeves, as Jonathan Harker, overcomes his image of a burnt out surfer dude to give a spotty performance. When Harker is first introduced, Reeves seems to be unsuited for the role. His English accent sounds terrible, but by the close of the film, ReevesÕ performance increases in strength. Newcomer, Sadie Frost , does an amazing job with Lucy. As her name suggests, Lucy is a up front about her sexuality which is a contrast to RyderÕs upright Mina. She exemplifies the erotic nature to a vampireÕs blood lust.

The biggest surprise performance comes from Anthony Hopkins who plays DraculaÕs nemesis, Van Helsing. As with OldmanÕs portrayal of Dracula, Hopkins gives a refreshingly new interpretation to the Van Helsing role. In this film, Van Helsing is no longer a serious vampire slayer, but a swaggering old man who finds fun in hunting Dracula. It Ôs not just a job but an adventure. The two most serious characters, Dracula and Van Helsing, are played with a lighthearted feel. In fact, Hopkins illicits many of the laughs in the movie. He is just as comfortable at commenting on the action with witty one-liners as he is in driving a stake through a vampireÕs heart.

The opening of Dracula is surrounded by much hype. It is an eagerly awaited film. Lines are long to get into the theater, but you will get your moneyÕs worth in the first few minutes of an exhilarating film. Coppola changes the Dracula myth which will be a surprise to you. He renews the life of vampire films, and takes the genre to another level. Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins give the Van Helsing-Dracula rivalry a different perspective; they make it an age old rivalry for a manÕs humanity as well as entertaining to watch. With performances that are stellar and a visual style that is breathtaking, Dracula goes directly for the jugular and scores a hit.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Forgetting Sarah Marshall may only have been produced by Judd Apatow, but it still manages to find the same time warp capability to make 112 minutes seem like 130 minutes. It felt long, because Apatow seems to have a way at imparting length to his films by not doing much.

The first half was not making anyone laugh. The second half started to be funny. Not until the third half did we find some good comedy. Three halves? It felt like that long.

When did little Jackie, Mila Kunis, get hot?

That dude playing Aldous Snow — his funny accent — was a riot.

Ridiculous, but since it got funny towards the end, I’ll amuse myself and give it a so-so rating rather than below average.

3 of 5 stars.

5 cm/s

5 Centimeters Per Second is a short film anime about love and separation. The characters grow close, but slowly drift apart. They love, but can’t make a lasting relationship. They are.

This so captures many of the feelings I have in my dreams. That, when I was young, I had fallen for a girl. That we had some sort of relationship that was. That as I never told her my feelings, they and her drifted away over time. Then we grew up and became older, mature, adults. And these dreams and feelings of love could not be expressed again because of their childish nature. Then I wake up wondering where she is, what she’s doing, and wish to go back to those younger days. Yet, all that is left is the present and the future coming with no hope of re-establishing those days. And I feel sad.

The anime is divided into three stories following the character, Takaki Tono, as he ages. It shows the first blossoming of love and its end as it just started. Then it moves a few years to show him inspiring a surfer gal to love him, but not express that love. Finally, he is a programmer in Tokyo who may have seen the love of his life pass by. Regrets they have, but life is meant to be lived and only if.

5 of 5 stars.

Leatherheads

George Clooney acts and directs the roaring twenties football rom-com, Leatherheads. George Clooney in a film set in the twenties should remind you of “O brother, where art though?” And that should remind you of his work with the Coen brothers and their love for staging an exact simulacra of a period in America. Then you find out that Renee Zellwegger plays a fast talking career gal reporter and this may be some kind of screwball comedy homage.

Then you watch the movie.

It’s nothing like this.

Leatherheads completely missis the point of all that. Clooney, you would think, could’ve captured the magic of the Coens and served a throwback to screwball comedies, but decided to mix and match story and tone of the show. It was a mess. A romantic comedy that had no laughs. A grid iron story that lacked oomph. A sad spectacle as the final big game in the mud. It was 3-0 until the end. And it was a boring game. Same for the movie.

2 of 5 stars.

Run Fatboy Run

There should be commas there shouldn't there?In support of Fat War, the seed, fish tank and I caught this movie.
Fish tank and I eating some popcorn. The premise of the movie is simple: after running away from his pregnant
bride on their wedding day, Dennis (Simon Pegg) will run back to her
graces in a marathon. Of course, he's a shlub whose only exercise is
going to the market for smokes. He must face off with smug, American
Whit (Hank Azaria) who makes running a part of his daily routine. You know how this one plays out. So why bother? Simon Pegg, he of
Shaun of the Dead fame and Hot Fuzz, is always a winning character.So British, but somewhat fun. Fat War continues on the screen!http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425413/3 of 5 stars

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day features Amy Adams in all her princess-ness as singer/actor, Delysia LaFosse juggling three men. Frances McDormand is the titular character who helps her Delysia sort the men until she finds her true love.

It doesn’t sound appealing. It wasn’t at times, but what can you ask for a Sunday matinee. I feel that this was one of those stories that old time Hollywood gave to their leading ladies to pass the time. Not the classic, but a solid sub-par A. It will fill out the bill.

McDormand must have jumped on this at the urging of her husband, Joel Coen, because this looked like one of the Coen brother period pieces they so love. Except in London, every thing was the look.

3 of 5 stars.

Red Mars

Not only has it been a while since I wrote a blog post (only broken by this flurry today), but it’s been a while since I read a novel. I think I’ve read a few non-fiction books, but no work of fiction since the trip to Spain and the darn jPod by Douglas Coupland.

Well, I did it. I finished a novel, Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. I fell back into my love for science fiction and decided to pick up one of the better hard science fiction books out there. It seems that this novel is beloved by sci-fi fans. And after breezing through it for the past 10 days. I can understand why.

The story follows the colonization of Mars in the middle of this century by 100 men and women scientists. They establish a toehold of civilization on the red planet. Once mankind has landed, then it was inevitable that things started to change. The story weaves through a couple of decades as mankind begins to terraform amd mine the planet bending it to mankind’s needs. Eventually, like Heinlen’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, this outpost must decide to break from the control of its masters, and like the British colonies, a revolution is staged to make Mars and its population the governors of the fate of Mars.

The story segues from scientific exploration of life and living on Mars to that of politics of independence and colonization to social order of capitalism versus benevolent communism and to religious and spirituality of a new world order. The themes permeate the book. And the author tells the story of the first 100 from several perspectives.

It ends with the death of the red mars. A small contingent of survivors ready to bring about a new green mars. And the bevy of corporations ready to take over.

My first reaction to the book was one of a good read. I probably breezed through the first 200 pages in a night. Then I came back nightly reading a few chapters before I fell asleep. That is until the John Boone chapters which were difficult to get through. It dealt with him becoming the legend that he is, but was not as fun as the other narrators. Not until after his part did things really move forward to the revolution and it became hard to put the book down.

So, now I’m finished it. It’s just the first installment of the three books of Mars. Why is it always a trilogy? Yet, I don’t know if I can read the next two. I was bogged down in the middle there worried about the politics of creating a new martian order, so I am worried that the next will be the same. It’s like when I read The Golden Compass did I want to read the next three. But that wasn’t as good a read as this book. I might have to.

Grade: A-