For both of his Dan Brown adaptations, the best choice director Ron Howard made was to populate the cast with thoroughly reliable actors. In The Da Vinci Code, he had Sir Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Alfred Molina, Paul Bettany, and our most reliable actor working today, Mr. Tom Hanks as protagonist Robert Langdon. For this summer's Angels & Demons, we get Ewan McGregor, ultimate Swedish badass Stellan Skarsgård, and Armin Mueller-Stahl (so great in Eastern Promises).
But here's the problem: there's so much goddamned running around Vatican City (or in the case of the first one, Paris, London, etc.) that not one of them is given the chance to do more than solid, competent work, than to be totally and unremarkably reliable. No one gets a chance to shine. I will say that the film is a step-up from Da Vinci, mostly because it's not nearly as up-its-own-ass as that film was. I'm not sure if that should be attributed to the source material (I never read the books) or to the script by blockbuster go-to guys David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman, but Howard seems to have tonded down the twists/symbol explanations/kookiness which came along at such a furious clip in the first film. However, there's still not much room for the characters to breathe, and Demons hurts because of that.
What the first movie did right, this one does better. Howard can craft a suspenseful film, I'll give him that. Some of the action set pieces are pretty damn captivating, and when it goes for laughs, it usually gets them. As for what Da Vinci did wrong, well, that stays about the same. Ayelet Zurer (Eric Bana's wife in Munich; lovely) is a perfectly suitable surrogate for Audrey Tautou's character in the first film (and mercifully, she's not related to Jesus), but likewise isn't given very much to do besides sprint alongside Hanks and offer up information when it's helpful in moving the script forward. Speaking of the script, too much exposition comes in the form of seemingly throw away bits of dialogue. It's the nature of the beast, I guess, the beast here being silly action films with outlandish plots about religious intrigue (though, not so outlandish as to piss off your average moviegoer and not be a little, ok, a lot predictable).
But, you know, it's not a bad film. It's an enjoyable bit of popcorn escapism. I just wish that with the talent both onscreen and behind the camera, it would have been of a little more consequence. [C+]
Monday, May 25, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
"Antichrist" at Cannes
After reading roughly twenty articles about/reactions to the screening of Lars Von Trier's latest film, Antichrist, at the Cannes Film Festival, I can now say with utter certainty that it is my most anticipated film of the year.
I first read about the film when its premise ("...the English language pic is set in nature and based on the theory that it was Satan, not God, who created the world") was announced on, of all things, a website dedicated to horror movies. Now, I've never seen any of Von Trier's films (I know, I know), but being somewhat familiar with his reputation as an iconoclast and provocateur, coupling that knowledge with the title and brief write-up, I was pretty sure that it would be far from a typical horror film.
Further plot details, the casting of Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the trailer and teaser stills confirmed this. It very quickly ended up high on my list of films I'm looking forward to this year.
Now, with news of the genuine uproar the film caused this weekend at Cannes (booings at the screening, the extremely uncomfortable press conference that followed, the critical consensus that it's, well, not very good to say the least), I officially can't wait to see this movie. I love that Von Trier made it as a reaction to a two-year-long depression, something a modern American director would never do (or would never admit to doing). I love that he considers it "the most important film of my entire career!", though to be fair, in the aforementioned press conference he repeatedly claimed to be the "greatest living filmmaker," so who's to say how serious he is about this. But mostly I love how up in arms the critics have been about it. They're pissed. Extremely pissed. Some of them, I think, feel personally attacked. And this is awesome to me.
I think I'm going to hold off on watching any of his earlier films so this can be my first.
Somehow, it just seems right.
I first read about the film when its premise ("...the English language pic is set in nature and based on the theory that it was Satan, not God, who created the world") was announced on, of all things, a website dedicated to horror movies. Now, I've never seen any of Von Trier's films (I know, I know), but being somewhat familiar with his reputation as an iconoclast and provocateur, coupling that knowledge with the title and brief write-up, I was pretty sure that it would be far from a typical horror film.
Further plot details, the casting of Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the trailer and teaser stills confirmed this. It very quickly ended up high on my list of films I'm looking forward to this year.
Now, with news of the genuine uproar the film caused this weekend at Cannes (booings at the screening, the extremely uncomfortable press conference that followed, the critical consensus that it's, well, not very good to say the least), I officially can't wait to see this movie. I love that Von Trier made it as a reaction to a two-year-long depression, something a modern American director would never do (or would never admit to doing). I love that he considers it "the most important film of my entire career!", though to be fair, in the aforementioned press conference he repeatedly claimed to be the "greatest living filmmaker," so who's to say how serious he is about this. But mostly I love how up in arms the critics have been about it. They're pissed. Extremely pissed. Some of them, I think, feel personally attacked. And this is awesome to me.
I think I'm going to hold off on watching any of his earlier films so this can be my first.
Somehow, it just seems right.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Cruel Story of Youth (Nagisa Oshima, 1960)
Fast, sweaty, and mean like its protagonists, Cruel Story of Youth is a slick, fun ride following a pair of doomed lovers during the course of their short and seedy affair.
When a local hood rescues a young woman from a lecherous old man only to later rape her, and the young woman proceeds to fall in love with him and become his partner in crime, you know you’re not in for a traditional love story This is, after all, an Oshima film. We follow the pair's exploits, from bar fights to stick-up's, from the abortion clinic to jail and beyond, until they reach their inevitably bloody demise (and what a demise it is).
The film bears little resemblance to Night and Fog in Japana film made in the same year (Oshima was never one to repeat himself, varying his style from film to film, sometimes going so far as to switch up aspect ratios). Whereas that film was calculated and deliberately paced, favoring long takes and involved flashbacks, Youth, like the French New Wave films to which it is so often compared, is stylish, colorful, and pulpy. With its quick cuts, scrappy violence, and rockabilly music, every frame bursts with youthful energy. It's instantly easier to understand than Fog.
Ultimately, it's an easier film to enjoy, too. [B+]
When a local hood rescues a young woman from a lecherous old man only to later rape her, and the young woman proceeds to fall in love with him and become his partner in crime, you know you’re not in for a traditional love story This is, after all, an Oshima film. We follow the pair's exploits, from bar fights to stick-up's, from the abortion clinic to jail and beyond, until they reach their inevitably bloody demise (and what a demise it is).
The film bears little resemblance to Night and Fog in Japana film made in the same year (Oshima was never one to repeat himself, varying his style from film to film, sometimes going so far as to switch up aspect ratios). Whereas that film was calculated and deliberately paced, favoring long takes and involved flashbacks, Youth, like the French New Wave films to which it is so often compared, is stylish, colorful, and pulpy. With its quick cuts, scrappy violence, and rockabilly music, every frame bursts with youthful energy. It's instantly easier to understand than Fog.
Ultimately, it's an easier film to enjoy, too. [B+]
Monday, May 11, 2009
Night and Fog in Japan (Nagisa Oshima, 1960)
Night and Fog in Japan is a difficult film, but I feel like it was an appropriate choice as the first of a pair of the director's early films which opened the Wexner Center's month-long Oshima retrospective on Friday, May 1. The touring retrospective, which is the first of Oshima's work in North American in more than two decades, was organized by renowned curator and film scholar James Quandt of the Cinematheque Ontario and is comprised of eleven films in its Columbus encarnation.
Quandt was on hand to introduce the evening's films (he also gave a rather, ahem, thinly attended, while extremely informative, lecture earlier in the day where he mostly read from his own notes on the retrospective before taking questions from the dozen or so attendees). Quandt noted that even Oshima scholars agree it would take multiple viewings to fully grasp everything that the Japanese auteur was getting at with Fog. Knowing next to nothing about Japanese history as I do (in particular, the student rebellions and left-wing struggles of the post-war era, subjects Oshima frequently addressed in his film) surely didn’t help.
The plot centered around the wedding of two political activists which is repeatedly interrupted by guests, both invited and not on the guest-list, who are keen on dredging up events from the couple's past. These scenes deal primarily with numerous characters yelling at each other, accusing others of betraying their friends/not being true to the cause/various infidelities/etc. Oshima's long takes (especially the films opening shot where the camera glides through a forest on a foggy night into the wedding hall) are impressive, the performances (mostly) admirable, but unfortunately, there just wasn't too much immediately compelling about this wedding.
It's in the numerous flashbacks that the film thrives. Oshima gets stylistically experimental with these sequences, highly theatrical in their form. We're treated to elaborate staging and lighting, with character fading in and out of the scenes, more Mizoguchi-esque floating long takes, characters giving testimony to the camera, and more. We also learn more about the characters and their issues with one another. It's in these scenes where we get most of the social theory and political rhetoric. My understanding was that the problems the characters have with each other are mostly the result of conflicting views on how to approach left-wing activism in Post-war Japan, but I don't think I could get much more specific than that (some of them though singing and dancing bred camaraderie, others didn't...that's all I got). Like I said, it's a hard flick.
But definitely not a bad one. The trick was to kind of just let myself go with the flow of the narrative even if I didn't necessarily, you know, get all of what was going on. Visually, it was more that interesting enough to keep my attention and I can say with confidence that its reverence (with a disclaimer: Not Immediately Accessible) in Oshima's oeuvre is deserved. It's a dense film, but an important one. Hopefully a forthcoming DVD release will give me a chance to dig a little deeper into an interesting early film from a true original of Japanese cinema. [B-]
Quandt was on hand to introduce the evening's films (he also gave a rather, ahem, thinly attended, while extremely informative, lecture earlier in the day where he mostly read from his own notes on the retrospective before taking questions from the dozen or so attendees). Quandt noted that even Oshima scholars agree it would take multiple viewings to fully grasp everything that the Japanese auteur was getting at with Fog. Knowing next to nothing about Japanese history as I do (in particular, the student rebellions and left-wing struggles of the post-war era, subjects Oshima frequently addressed in his film) surely didn’t help.
The plot centered around the wedding of two political activists which is repeatedly interrupted by guests, both invited and not on the guest-list, who are keen on dredging up events from the couple's past. These scenes deal primarily with numerous characters yelling at each other, accusing others of betraying their friends/not being true to the cause/various infidelities/etc. Oshima's long takes (especially the films opening shot where the camera glides through a forest on a foggy night into the wedding hall) are impressive, the performances (mostly) admirable, but unfortunately, there just wasn't too much immediately compelling about this wedding.
It's in the numerous flashbacks that the film thrives. Oshima gets stylistically experimental with these sequences, highly theatrical in their form. We're treated to elaborate staging and lighting, with character fading in and out of the scenes, more Mizoguchi-esque floating long takes, characters giving testimony to the camera, and more. We also learn more about the characters and their issues with one another. It's in these scenes where we get most of the social theory and political rhetoric. My understanding was that the problems the characters have with each other are mostly the result of conflicting views on how to approach left-wing activism in Post-war Japan, but I don't think I could get much more specific than that (some of them though singing and dancing bred camaraderie, others didn't...that's all I got). Like I said, it's a hard flick.
But definitely not a bad one. The trick was to kind of just let myself go with the flow of the narrative even if I didn't necessarily, you know, get all of what was going on. Visually, it was more that interesting enough to keep my attention and I can say with confidence that its reverence (with a disclaimer: Not Immediately Accessible) in Oshima's oeuvre is deserved. It's a dense film, but an important one. Hopefully a forthcoming DVD release will give me a chance to dig a little deeper into an interesting early film from a true original of Japanese cinema. [B-]
Sunday, May 3, 2009
By way of introduction.
My name is Zach and this is a blog about film.
I'm not a professional writer or journalist. I'm not a critic (at least, I'm not paid to be). Nothing like that.
What I am is a Film Studies major at The Ohio State University, and more importantly, a life-long lover of film. I credit seeing Jurassic Park for my fourth birthday as a major turning point in my life: my love of dinosaurs was replaced with a love for movies. I haven't looked back (alas, my dreams of becoming a paleontologist fell by the wayside as well).
Recently, I've made the leap from being a 'movie lover' to a full-blown cinephile (and yeah, I do believe there's a difference). I'm at a mainstream theater most weekends catching a new release. I frequent Columbus' art house theaters when I can, as well as OSU's Wexner Center for the Arts, which hosts a plethora of special events, including director-introduced screenings and touring retrospectives. I'm a DVD addict with the leap to Blu-Ray coming soon, and a rabid Criterion Collection enthusiast (though the emphasis has mostly been on the collecting aspect of late, but that's for another day). And yes, I may be one of the last people to still pop into a Blockbuster when something new drops, though a switch over to Net Flix is not out of the question.
I've finally decided to start this blog to sort of chronicle my love affair with film and to be a place for all my reviews/ musings/ year-end lists/ etc. There will be regular reviews of both theatrical releases and films (new and old) on DVD and Blu-Ray. I'll also do write-ups of any special event-type screenings and marathons I go to, as well as top ten lists and any number of other random things that I feel like sharing.
Like a good deal of college students (and in my experience, most Film Studies majors), I have no idea what the future holds, but aside from the standard pipe dreams of an indealistic young man, I do know that I plan to love and to think about and write about film for the rest of my life. Hopefully, this blog will be a place for me to hone my skills as a writer and develop my voice and to grow as both a critic and a fan.
We'll see what happens.
I'm not a professional writer or journalist. I'm not a critic (at least, I'm not paid to be). Nothing like that.
What I am is a Film Studies major at The Ohio State University, and more importantly, a life-long lover of film. I credit seeing Jurassic Park for my fourth birthday as a major turning point in my life: my love of dinosaurs was replaced with a love for movies. I haven't looked back (alas, my dreams of becoming a paleontologist fell by the wayside as well).
Recently, I've made the leap from being a 'movie lover' to a full-blown cinephile (and yeah, I do believe there's a difference). I'm at a mainstream theater most weekends catching a new release. I frequent Columbus' art house theaters when I can, as well as OSU's Wexner Center for the Arts, which hosts a plethora of special events, including director-introduced screenings and touring retrospectives. I'm a DVD addict with the leap to Blu-Ray coming soon, and a rabid Criterion Collection enthusiast (though the emphasis has mostly been on the collecting aspect of late, but that's for another day). And yes, I may be one of the last people to still pop into a Blockbuster when something new drops, though a switch over to Net Flix is not out of the question.
I've finally decided to start this blog to sort of chronicle my love affair with film and to be a place for all my reviews/ musings/ year-end lists/ etc. There will be regular reviews of both theatrical releases and films (new and old) on DVD and Blu-Ray. I'll also do write-ups of any special event-type screenings and marathons I go to, as well as top ten lists and any number of other random things that I feel like sharing.
Like a good deal of college students (and in my experience, most Film Studies majors), I have no idea what the future holds, but aside from the standard pipe dreams of an indealistic young man, I do know that I plan to love and to think about and write about film for the rest of my life. Hopefully, this blog will be a place for me to hone my skills as a writer and develop my voice and to grow as both a critic and a fan.
We'll see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)