Tag: review

I have recently seen two movies that portray the future of mankind as bleak, Children of Men and Idiocracy. The first is the film adaptation of PD James’s novel, and the latter is from the mind of Mike Judge who brought us Beavis and Butthead and Office Space. Their tones are so much different the one a high-falutin’ angsty expression the other downright absurd comedy, but they point to the fact that mankind’s future is not so bright. I liked the comdey, but the drama in Children of Men held some problems.

Several minutes into Children of Men, you are left to ponder how, scientifically, the world’s human females could not produce children. In science fiction, usually that question doesn’t have to be answered. You should let the story unfold. You should settle in and feel what the movie should be telling you.

Except with this movie you get doubts. Why? How does the world devolve into a state of chaos after the realization that the human race cannot reproduce? Wouldn’t it be that human life has become more valuable?

It is missing the backstory. Not that every distopian future needs a backstory, but it needs to be believable that this could happen. I needed an explanation for why it was the female humans could not have babies. So that the lady with the baby becomes even more fantastic. A miracle of sorts. Without the scientific explanation, I couldn’t buy into the story.

Several minutes into Idiocracy, you feel that this is the future if we don’t wise up. The people are stupid because only the stupid are making babies. It points out that our worship of stupid will get us into some trouble in the future. It’s stupid and funny, but downright scary and sad. “So basically it says here you’re fucked up, you sound like a fag, and your shit’s all retarded.”

3 of 5 stars. Children of Men
4 of 5 stars. Idiocracy

I saw the best picture so far this year just two days shy of the end. While it certainly doesn’t make up for the fact the year in movies sucked, it definitely made watching film a nice experience again.

The Queen deals with the death of Lady Diana and how the royal family dealt with it the week leading to her funeral. The Queen decided to show the famous British stiff upper lip which didn’t play too well with the English mood at the time. They wanted to see remorse and mourning, but got no show of emotion. It left the royalty in a bad situation. Compounding it was the newly elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who had summed up the value of the dead Diana as the People’s Princess. The film focuses upon his craft at getting the royals to open up.

What struck me most about this film is the parallels with the US. Or more particularly George Bush. As the death of Lady Diana plays out, the Queen stoically does nothing to show that her death is important. She spends days ill prepared on what to do. She seemed like W in his infamous minutes after the 9-11 attacks. Quietly thinking should I be doing something. Another thing is the aspect of paying respects for someone not quite royalty. Think about former President Ford’s week of mourning ritual being carried out right now. We have elevated the post of President into something of a royal position. Which leads to the contrast of the Prime Minister. I thought he lived in a hovel (10 Downing St.) in the movie and I was amazed how common his home was. A leader of a quasi-democratic government being of the people. Fucked up thing about the US is that only millionaires can be President. We have become the British.

Anyway the movie was well acted. The story line was suspenseful. I laughed a few times. It was a good show. The best this year. Why did it take 363 days for it to happen? And why the Brits?

5 of 5 stars.

I’ve seen several of the films that have come out during this holiday season. They reinforce the fact that movies suck. I need a hiatus. You may also want to take a hiatus.

The Holiday. I am waiting for Nancy Myers to direct a Nora Ephron screenplay. Then I am waiting for Nora Ephron to direct a Nancy Myers screenplay. Then I will die.

2 of 5 stars.

Blood Diamond. Diamonds are forever. And so is the grief it causes to the African nations which mine them. At least there was action in this film. Something missing in these that I had seen.

3 of 5 stars.

The Good Shepherd. Long and involved. I have nothing bad to say about it, because they’re listening. (All hail the mighty CIA. Thanks for protecting America!) I have nothing good either.

3 of 5 stars.

The Pursuit of Happyness. Will Smith wants an Oscar badly.

3 of 5 stars.

This review of The Fountain is overdue. I had seen it last weekend. While the Ravens were beating up on Pittsburgh, I was contemplating the meaning of life with Hugh Jackman and Racheal Weisz. If that isn’t a mindfuck Sunday, then what is?

When the credits started rolling, a lady behind us asked, “Did anyone get that?” The audience muttered something that wasn’t a resolute yes, but a half-hearted no. Most people laughed as well figuring that everyone didn’t get the film.

But what was there to get? It was another movie contemplating life. In fact it can be summed up simply with “live your life to the fullest or you’ll regret it.” It just so happens that if you live forever and you don’t follow this maxim, you’ll want to plunge yourself into a dying star to make up for this regret.

2 of 5 stars.

The new James Bond film is fantastic. But it’s too long and there are some slow spots in the film. Especially with James Bond in love. That’s right. James Bond falls in love in this one. And like “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” that doesn’t work out too well. It makes him into the Bond that he is today. Except for the misstep in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.”

4 of 5 stars.

There once was a blogger who wrote a review about the movie, Stranger Than Fiction. He had seen it the previous night. Now, it wasn’t the movie he went to see, but since that was sold out, it was either Stranger Than Fiction or The Return. Being tired of trite horror films since Halloween had just past and not wanting to watch a movie from behind the brim of his ball cap, Stranger Than Fiction was the only choice. He bought a ticket as did his companions, waited a half hour before getting seated, and patiently watched the film unspool before him.

While devouring a ridiculously large bucket of popcorn, he felt that the movie was trying too hard. That it was too clever by a half. It was as if the writer and director wanted to out clever Charlie Kaufman’s writing and out wit Michel Gondry direction. The “meta” style and “wink-wink” that the plot represented indicated to the blogger that the story was very much about a story. The flashes of graphics thought to enhance the picture were gratuitous and show-offy. He was so aware that this was going to be another movie he would not like.

Yet, there was some doubt. How can he not like it when the main character gets the girl? He thought the writers would surely make it a dream, but no it was real. The audience cheered this development. How can you not like it when the fictional writer had ten years of writers block? He knows how that feels. He was pulling for her hoping that she would write, “Fish for sale! Fish for sale!” referencing another of filmdom’s infamous writer with writer’s block.

Can this movie win him over? It did! The characters live happily ever after. Imagine that! Love conquers all. Live your life as if dying tomorrow would not be bad. The cliches he had to think about. They would’ve made him give this film a terrible review, but in the end, he has to admit…

…3 of 5 stars. Much better than expected.

The Prestige

Back in the day, magicians ruled entertainment. I found it hard to believe. You’ll also find this movie hard to believe once you realize that it is truly fictional. The conceit of this movie turns upon the idea that science can conjure up something truly fantastical. That scientists through there work create an unreality that is macabre. This movie asks us to believe that magicians practice magic, but scientists practice a dark art. The revelation at the end wherein we learn that Tesla was a mad genius who produced a scientific body that defies science. No wonder Thomas Edison and his thugs had to discredit him; his work was not science but magic. And the magicians’ illusions were not slight of hand, but pure fantasy.

Hugh Jackman I can’t take seriously. For me he is always a comical character. I don’t know why, perhaps it was his role in Kate & Leopold. No matter, he was a distraction.

2 of 5 stars.