I won't give too much away, but this post is special: contained here, somewhere below, is a film that is possibly my least favorite movie, ever. If you really want to see me rip something apart, then scroll all the way to the bottom. But don't stop there necessarily- there are a good amount of other films collected here for your approval, many of which you may remember seeing at some point in theaters. Some beautiful (Jane Eyre), and others beautifully bad (Atlas Shrugged). We saw here contained, some original ideas (Melancholia), some sequels (Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol), some critical successes (Bridesmaids), and some forgotten failures (Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows). But all were worth looking back at, for some reason or another.
Director: Lars von Trier
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, John Hurt
Release Date: May 26, 2011
Running Time: 136 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Lars von Trier begins Melancholia with something of a visual overture: as the prelude to Wagner's "Tristan und Isolde" plays, we see a series of slow-motion images that clue us in to the mood, atmosphere, characters, setting, and story of the film. These images are like thematic phrases that echo throughout the rest of the film, each frame presents a key idea that will show up later on in the story in different ways. This "overture" is not only the best part of the film, it's probably one of the best pairings of music, cinematography and mise en scéne I've ever seen. The downside to that is that the rest of the film is disappointing by comparison. And yet, it's hard to pinpoint exactly where Melancholia goes wrong. Structurally, the film is divided into two halves: each half of the film deals with one of two sisters. The first half takes place mostly at night and handles the wedding reception of the disenchanted Justine; the events of the second half, by contrast, happen almost entirely in broad daylight, and chronicle the actions of Justine's sister Claire after the wedding, as she cares for the mentally damaged Justine and prepares for a potentially catastrophic astronomical occurrence. After complaining about this film to a friend, they immediately watched it so they could come to their own conclusions. I found Justine to be unbearable as the story's heroine, whilst I readily identified with the behavior of her sister Claire. (Kirsten Dunst really pours her all into this role, but that doesn't mean that any of the results are interesting to watch). My friend, by contrast, strongly empathized with Justine and found the character Claire to be repulsive and irritating. The bottom line is that the characters are frustrating, for one reason or another: aside from the world ending, they deserve most of what's coming to them, and as both of them are defined by their relative inactivity, what we're really watching is both of them doing nothing for two hours. Depression and melancholy are large thematic elements in this movie. In translating these emotions into a drama, Lars von Trier has demonstrated he is not only a capable director, but also a highly talented artist. But even if the film succeeds at everything it aimed to do, there's still this feeling that there are either too many components or too little, and it's hard to say which of those two is more true. Everything here is inert, we see characters, scenes, and entire planets remain completely still, locked in painful resignation. All of this could work so well towards a profound meditation on mortality, were it not so obnoxious and misguided. Don't mistake my criticisms for condemnations: Melancholia is an amazing cinematic achievement in some ways, but the pervasive levels of stagnation and lethargy offset the movie's spiritual balance. In short, this film will never be regarded as a classic. But for now, it remains memorable as the most artistic disaster movie: what is presented to us is not the disaster as it happens, but rather, the emotional state of the world itself, as it becomes increasingly aware of its impending termination, brought to us in drama form, in a quiet Danish style. There are no explosions or burning buildings, there are no big Hollywood special effects. There are only snapshots of a burning painting, falling leaves, and a small planet in the sky growing ever larger as it approaches.
Director: Cary Fukunaga
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbinder, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell
Release Date: March 11, 2011
Running Time: 120 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Cary Fukunaga's 2011 version of Jane Eyre contains no surprises, and that works to both its detriment and to its benefit. That is, the film is pretty much what everyone expected it to be; a slightly new interpretation a very old story. It sports direction that is soft enough to be invisible to large audiences and loud enough to be considered art-house among different audiences. It also introduces older Jane Eyre fans to the acting talents of Michael Fassbinder and Mia Wasikowska. Fassbinder is intriguing as the dark and brooding Mr. Rochester, but it's Wasikowska's acting that leaves the biggest impression. Her rendition of the Jane Eyre character is quiet and stiff, but still empathetic. We understand that Eyre has a storm of emotion that she's been conditioned to repress by her social circumstances. We also understand, from our first glimpse of her, that there's a lot going on inside of her head in between the lines of dialogue she speaks, and the movie does well to keep us guessing as to what those thoughts are. I must also, of course, commend the strength of Judi Dench and Jamie Bell in supporting roles as Mrs. Fairfax and John Rivers, respectively. The film's style carries the gothic-romantic atmosphere of the source material across to the screen, but enlivens it with a fresh burst of color, dwelling heavily on nature-oriented imagery and using motifs such as rain and fire to achieve a sophisticated level of symbolism and foreshadowing. It would be hard to judge the film as an adaptation considering I have yet to read Jane Eyre (yeah, I'm ashamed); however, according to those who did read the book who saw the film with me, I was told that the long and dense plot of the book seemed a bit forced and rushed within the film's relatively short two-hour timespan, and the quick pace of the film's events was something that I could sense even without the book for contrast. Still I must say: beautiful and well-acted, Jane Eyre should still prove satisfactory and actually quite enjoyable for fans of the book as well as fans of period romance pieces in general.
Director: Joe Johnston
Starring: Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell
Release Date: July 22, 2011
Running Time: 124 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Surprisingly, Captain America: The First Avenger has proven to be one of the more remembered and celebrated of the pre-Avengers Marvel films. I don't really discuss political views, period, but let's leave it to say that as I'm probably not the most patriotic person, a film about a superhero sporting a stars-and-stripes uniform wasn't really something I was enthusiastic about. Captain America takes place in during the Second World War, one of the few times in history during which we can firmly say America was in the right: a time period where we knew what was right and what was wrong, where we knew who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. Of course, black-and-white good guys vs. bad guys simplicity is a trait present in most Marvel films I come across, no exception. But for all of this movie's pervasive American-ness it does an incredible job at not being a propaganda piece. In fact, the film lampoons the American war propaganda of the time- the primary conflict for Captain America's character is to break out of his public role as a figurehead and become not only a soldier who fights for America, but a hero who fights for what's right. The film creates its own portrayal of the 1940's that in turn creates the film. Of course, there are downsides to this as well. While some consider it a smart move to avoid Nazi cliches, having Captain America focus on Hydra as the villain instead creates a new problem: a World War II movie that ignores the evils of the third Reich. Though the battle is clear-cut, the message is murky: Steve Rogers begins the film as a skinny, defenseless wimp who only gets a chance to become a hero through volunteering as a guinea pig for genetic testing- I feel like the film is trying to constantly remind us that it's the heart, not the muscle that makes the hero because it would be kind of hard to pick that idea up from looking at the story alone. There's a difference between being profound ambiguity and sloppy vagueness. And the difference is determinable by an examination of that film's grounding in reality: which, of course, is determinable by an examination of its characters. If anything, it's this film's characters that have led to its faithful fan following- and frankly, I'm not sure why. The villains are among the worst I've encountered in Marvel, and all of the minor characters only serve to play off of Captain America's blandly archetypal altruism. Yes, yes, I know Peggy Carter is an interesting character, but in this film, she kind of seems thrown in as the necessary "independent cool intelligent woman", like some ingredient to a plot stew. I mean, Black Widow is memorable as an independent character because of her internal struggle with her past: Peggy Carter is memorable only as Captain America's girlfriend. (Although I am anxious to see Carter on her own in the spinoff series). If all of the problems I have with Captain America: The First Avenger could be boiled down into a single, simple idea, it would have nothing to do with patriotism or morals or anything like that. It would have everything to do with its formula. After I passed the half-way point of the film, I could see every single plot development coming before it happened. Every scene was a cliche waiting to happen. Because of spoilers, I won't necessarily go into that, but aside from its American retro aesthetic, Captain America has very little fresh material. It's, at best, a feel-good superhero film, a regular pleaser like any other, so mostly harmless. But for people with more selective tastes, there are better things Marvel has to offer.
Director: Brad Bird
Starring: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton
Release Date: December 21, 2011
Running Time: 133 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
To be blatantly honest: I was never impressed with the Mission: Impossible movies, despite being a rabid fan of the original 1960's TV series (What? You haven't seen it? You haven't even heard of it? No. Just go. Just leave now, and don't come back until you've seen the entire first season). I saw Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol first, which naturally sparked my interest in the film series, so I was lured into seeing the first film Mission: Impossible (the late 90's one- my word, did Brian DePalma direct that?) which sadly disappointed me and prevented me from seeing Mission: Impossible 2, Mission: Impossible III, or the latest installment Rogue Nation. Even though Ghost Protocol showed the world that the series wasn't dead yet and that Tom Cruise could still deliver, it's still just another installment in a bloated series where all of the movies suffer from one key problem: each Mission: Impossible film is memorable for primarily one thrilling scene. Seriously, the mission that's truly impossible is trying to figure out the plot of the first movie- even the plot details of Ghost Protocol are intensely sketchy in my memory, other than the fact that the IMF shuts down. I guess that ups the stakes a little bit for the whole missions team, but even though there's a doomsday device with one big button they have to press to stop it at the end, and even though they're all technically decommissioned at this point, it's really not that different from a normal mission in many respects. The first movie was memorable for a helicopter in a tunnel, and a scene where he's typing in a computer whilst suspended from a single wire from the ceiling. This movie is memorable for a scene where he's climbing up the tallest building in the world using adhesive gloves, and then sure, there's a cool climax in this parking garage in India. There's visible improvement, but the difference is only so slight. It provides a lot of interesting sights and locations and a fair share of suspense and action sequences, but isn't any spy film obligated to do that? It's been years since The Bourne Identity was released, but it still seems to me like that was the last spy movie that could deliver thought-provoking and emotional thematic material that was just as strong as its action and high risk. Though Tom Cruise is consistently appearing in better and better films, his acting still remains as bland as the stereotypical male lead roles he's cast in. If there's any stylistic strong point in Ghost Protocol, it's the direction of Brad Bird, who takes us through a 3D opening credits sequence that moves through every location visited in the film, following the fuse, continuing the constant homage to the title sequence of the original series. Bird is ever-sensitive to a film's needs for speed and mobility, moving the camera through swoops, dives, and close crawls, as if we're seeing the action through the eyes of a well-constructed paper airplane soaring into the heat of the fight. While Ghost Protocol does deliver a few new images and concepts, it isn't anything new as far as the spy film genre goes- but that doesn't stop it from being a decent and entertaining thriller. It's a blockbuster film; it's hard not to cut it some slack. But much better films of the same family, such as Casino Royale, Skyfall, and the already mentioned Bourne films, leave it sprawling in the dust.
Director: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry, Rachel McAdams
Release Date: December 16, 2011
Running Time: 129 minutes
Rating: 3/5
Some films are so good that they don't really need a sequel. I would have considered Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes to be one of them, but when I heard news of a sequel, I was eager to see what the franchise had to offer us. Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films, though dark and stylish, just happened to come out at the wrong time in the wrong place, losing against the tough competition brought on by the Sherlock of the BBC television show, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. And though I prefer Cumberbatch's portrayal, there is so much that I like about Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law in these roles, and the same can be said for what a little bit of digital magic can do to give us a truly eye-popping vision of London. If Game of Shadows wound up being as good as the first- or better- perhaps it could lead to a third film and round off the series as a complete and cohesive trilogy, and maybe then would it stand a chance against the indefatigable Cumberbatch. The final product is evidence that the writers of this film were just as tentative and in-the-dark as I was about how successful the film would be, as their lack of confidence shows in practically every part of the story. It's true that despite its faults Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is fairly adequate as a sequel- it presents the same characters and the same scenes, and Sherlock himself is as delightful and witty as ever, but there's a different conflict, with new stakes. In short: there are explosions. This is everything you could ask for from a sequel. But it's still not quite enough. Game of Shadows fails to rekindle our passion for the Guy Ritchie universe because it doesn't really feel like a Sherlock Holmes movie. Maybe it's the gunfights, the explosions, the trains, the chases, the international hijinks- this film is more action than mystery, and most of the time I could see any normal spy or superhero doing the same things that I see Sherlock doing in this film- dodging searchlights, hiding under gunfire, going on covert missions, etc. The bearded Moriarty leaves hardly any impression at all, which is sad, because he's supposedly the focal point of the movie. The plot itself is messy, lacking in any soul or style. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is solid as pure entertainment, but it guarantees for us that we won't be seeing any more installments in this series- at least, not for quite some time.
Dishonorable Mentions
Director: Paul Johansson
Starring: Taylor Schilling, Grant Bowler
Release Date: April 15, 2011
Running Time: 102 minutes
Rating: 2/5
Splitting one book into two movies is bad enough... splitting one book into three movies is criminal. No, for once, I'm actually not talking about Peter Jackson's atrocious Hobbit trilogy. I'm talking about Atlas Shrugged, produced by The Strike Productions and distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures. Many have criticized Atlas Shrugged: Part I for the same things that they criticize the book for: its political ideas. First off, I'm not one to take down a movie for presenting some strong right-wing notions- that's lazy critique. If Atlas Shrugged: Part I is a bad movie, it's because it's the most boring movie ever. Yes, that's right; I've found it. I mean, I have seen some boring movies, but this one, this one takes the cake. What's the plot? Rich people talk about finances and business dealings... and that's it. That's the whole movie is just entrepreneurs chatting about new metal alloys and safety tests and funding and profits and government intervention- seriously, it's like some sort of nirvana that's been achieved here. It's inconceivable how this series of droll dinner parties and office meetings could somehow manage work more effectively than any sleeping pill, it's so mind-numbingly relaxing that I'm almost putting myself to sleep just thinking about it; and it's the middle of the flippin' daytime. In fact, while we have time, let's go ahead and discuss the politics as presented in the film. The thing is, Atlas Shrugged actually presents some pretty sound concerns about socialist political thinking creeping into the capitalist framework. The problem is, that unlike say, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or Watership Down, we don't care for these characters as characters. They're just puppets in some puppet show, designed to present some political allegory- we don't see them as real people, and even if we did, we wouldn't care about them because they're totally uninteresting and undeveloped. Their blandness only opens the gate for this film to bash its point over our heads some more. If you do enjoy this film, it's only because you're part of the small group of people that the film was geared towards in the first place, and that's not necessarily something to be proud of. Atlas Shrugged is by no means unbearable or nauseating- but it's still an insult to our intelligence and to our time spent watching it.
Director: Paul Feig
Starring: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne, Melissa McCarthy, Chris O'Dowd
Release Date: May 13, 2011
Running Time: 125 minutes
Rating: 2/5
Don't see Bridesmaids. Just don't. This was the first time I've ever seen a Paul Feig movie, and trust me, it is the last time. Ever. After the box office and critical success of the film, people have gone so far as to claim the film is "feminist". This, to me, seems even more outrageous than claiming the film is "good comedy". How could either of these two things happen? What Bridesmaids does differently than other films is that it essentially shows that women can be just as gross as men. Yup; that's it, that's the huge feminist principle that we're supposed to take home here. We shatter the idealized stereotype of the "beautiful, precious, fragile" opposite sex, but in the process the movie just further enforces other negative stereotypes of women. Yeah, the women are rough and rowdy in this film, but when you get past all the dirty jokes they keep telling each other, they actually perfectly encapsulate every misogynistic theory of women being "led by their emotions", "fickle and vengeful", and "using men just for sex". But they aren't just terrible representations of women, they're just terrible representations of human beings. Kirsten Wiig's character selfishly searches for attention, hogging the spotlight at the expense of her best friend's wedding procedures, and ignores the things in her life that will truly make her happy. These are well-crafted characters, but awful ones. It pains me to have to dive into the film's symbolism (because symbolism is present), but this is a tangent worth going on: heroine Annie had a failed dream of a bakery; on the plane, she claims to have hallucinations of a colonial woman churning butter on the wing of the plane- subconsciously, it demonstrates her fears of patriarchal stereotypes of the "woman in the kitchen" that are so strongly engrained in her that when a man in her life encourages her to follow her talent and her passion, she internally mistakes the gesture as a male-driven society's attempt to repress her feminine independence. Hence she abandons the positive bond she has formed with that friend to pursue a destructive rivalry with an equally self-interested harpy Helen, who attempts to sabotage the friendship between Annie and the bride-to-be. Believe it or not, Melissa McCarthy is actually the bright spot of the film- she is the funniest character: rather than having her be the gross "butt of the joke" in most scenarios; she's actually the only character who brings any real wisdom or advice into the situation- advice which our heroine is likely to ignore. She's the only person in this movie that actually seems to care about the girls she's hanging out with. And yet her character Megan is more frequently remembered for having diarrhea in the bathroom sink of a bridal shoppe. I understand gross-out comedy, but gross-out comedy doesn't work unless it has the proper framework around it to make it work. The things that the women do in this movie wouldn't be funny even if men were doing the same things; and that's a fact that I think a lot of people who have celebrated this movie are blind to. A woman soils her wedding dress and it's considered "groundbreaking"- yeah, sure, high-class state-of-the-art comedy right there- the real joke is that people think that it's funny. This doesn't break new ground; in fact, it's further evidence of the decline of comedy in film. I apologize to the many people who believe the contrary, but I haven't personally met a single person who has liked this film. And if I happen to meet someone who does, I will personally tell them that they are the reason that garbage like this keeps getting made. I'm not concerned that the new Ghostbusters movie will have an all-female leading cast. I'm concerned that it will be loaded with fart jokes and then hailed as a masterpiece.
Director: Cameron Crowe
Starring: Matt Damon, Scarlett Johansson, Colin Ford, Maggie Elizabeth Jones, Elle Fanning
Release Date: December 23, 2011
Running Time: 124 minutes
Rating: 1/5
With Hugo and The Artist in theaters, I find it hard to believe that my family wound up at the theater and found nothing good playing but We Bought a Zoo. Trust me. I had seen the trailers, I had seen the boring posters. I had seen people pointing to the 61% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and saying "look! positive reviews!". I was dragged to this movie practically by my feet, clutching at the earth with my hands. And so I sat down and witnessed a bland yet unforgettable 90 minutes of forced smiles and saccharine PG family conflict. Maybe it was the circumstances that led to We Bought a Zoo becoming my least favorite movie (and I understand this is a pretty weak pick for such a strong superlative as "least favorite movie"), but trust me, I have my reasons. We Bought a Zoo evokes every single sappy family movie cliche in the book- I can't tell you how many horse movies I've seen that have the exact same plot. I've seen many five or more in my community's search for clean "heartwarming" movies, and they're indistinguishable. But We Bought a Zoo kind of takes the cake as the cliche codifier: first, it's not a horse, it's a whole dang zoo. Second, while the other horse movies bear at least some delusion that they're a good satisfying movie, this movie was done with all of the effort and absolutely none of the heart. Cameron Crowe is stuck with a project that he clearly doesn't want to do, so he studies all of the cliches he's tired of, and reluctantly takes the wheel. This is a movie that is tired and bored of itself, wearing a mask of dreamy "wow" and cheesy "aww..". There's a family. They have weird financial troubles, they're dysfunctional, they're coping with the loss of a loved one. Aww. But then, they have an opportunity to start things over... they look for houses... and then, they find out that one of the options is a zoo. Even the real estate agent is basically like, "oh, this was a mistake, I just showed you this house for kicks". Then the father sees his little girl prancing around with the animals and suddenly decides to take on the responsibility of an entire zoo, because empty cheery films like this confuse impulsiveness with charm, and spontaneity with meaningful living. I know that this is based on a real story, but this movie just takes a simple news article and transforms it into some kind of modern fairy tale to be "inspirational". But whatever advice this movie is giving you to add a little dash of joy to your life is clouded and deceived- yes, you can have a better family life and feel fulfilled, but doing that is never this easy. The subplot with the protagonist's son Dylan just about fulfills every modern adult's stereotype about teenagers- "oh, he's just my happy little boy on the outside, but why is he drawing death and skulls and stuff... oh, he's harboring sad feelings, where did I go wrong?". Repairing relationships with kids comes through empathy, not whimsy and happenstance. The plot itself is loaded with cliches and setbacks, fakeouts, an "evil inspector" coming for the "big inspection day", the "team of misfits", the "cute girl next door", etc, etc. And to top it all off we have this toddler, played by Maggie Elizabeth Jones: an unbearable sickening sack of cuteness just thrown in to make the package complete. This isn't about hate for We Bought a Zoo: this is about hate for all movies like it, and for all of the movies that it represent, that try to pass on the same crappy, empty story to audiences again and again just because the writers think that the sweet smiles, the basic formula, and the manipulative soundtrack will just make people feel satisfied while watching it. I won't say that this movie didn't try. I will say that this movie soullessly tried to make cash: low on intelligence, high on greeting card material- it's a perfect recipe for success. But what We Bought a Zoo really succeeds at is being fake.
-Julian Rhodes
No comments:
Post a Comment