I may need to brush up on my cinematic history at some point, but to the best of my knowledge it was Walt Disney who ushered feature-length animated films to movie screens many, many years ago. Whether or not that's true, for many years, Walt Disney animated films were once the standard by which all other animated films used to be measured. That hegemony was never really challenged until the mid-1990s, Pixar Studios, whose films Disney only distributed at first, changed the rules of the game forever, not only by introducing computer generated animation, which would eventually become the standard, but by telling stories that the Disney films of old were a tad too timid to tell. They told stories about insecure, scheming, neurotic people like Woody the Cowboy, narcissistic middle-aged has-beens like Mr. Incredible, and overprotective fathers like Marlin the Clownfish to name but a few. They made their first princess movie, Brave, seventeen years after the release of their inaugural release, Toy Story, and there wasn't a Prince Charming in sight.
Disney's bread and butter has been whimsical movies about princesses and their happily-ever-afters, with a few exceptions here and there. In the 1990s, the Disney princess evolved considerably from the stereotypical damsel-in-distress to the independent-minded Belle of Beauty and the Beast to the feisty Jasmine of Aladdin, to the brave and noble Mulan of, well, Mulan. Still, even in those more recent years, the stories the films told were still just a variation on more or less the same set of tropes.
Wreck-It-Ralph, released back in 2012, constituted arguably the biggest departure from that norm when it told its story from the point of view of a video game bad guy, but as it turned out, Disney were just getting warmed up for the film that, if early reviews are to be believed, should reestablish them as the king of the hill in the feature-length animated film department: Zootopia.
Sure, Frozen defied some conventions by making a love story about sisterly love rather than the usual romantic relationship between a man and a woman, but succumbed only too willingly to another convention by having one of the leads fall in love and end up with a male character whom she had only known for a few days by the end of the film. Big Hero 6 may have scored some points for diversity considering its Asian lead character, but didn't really have that much to say about the human condition other than that anime and superheroes rock.
Zootopia could have easily fit into that mold; its early marketing sold it as a movie about following one's dreams and being anything one wanted to be, and truth be told Disney could probably have stuck with that and made a respectable amount of money and even earned good reviews in the process. The film works as a feel-good family movie packed with laughs for kids of all ages, and could have been nice and safe. But that's not what they did.
This film's protagonist, Judy Hopps, however, is a first for Disney and for animated films in general: she is a closet racist, modeled after millions of people the world over who fancy themselves as open-minded and cosmopolitan but who, when push comes to shove, are only too willing to believe in the evil of "the Other," whether that "Other" is a Muslim, a Latin American immigrant, or an inner-city black kid. The moment when she realizes her own bigotry against "predators" in the film is one of the most powerful I've ever seen in a Disney film, one that I suspect will resonate with millions of Americans this weekend as the film opens in the United States, two weeks after many "Others" have seen it. After all, this is a society that wholeheartedly embraced a film that lionized a racist in American Sniper less than two years ago, and one that, even worse, may well elect as its President one of the most blatant bigots ever to run for the office, at least after the Civil War. Judy Hopps is a life-sized mirror held up to America to show how ugly it's become.
Sure, Hopps is yet another Disney avatar for feminism in the mold of recent heroines like Frozen's Elsa, and Brave's Merida, but its her glaring character flaw, her all-too-human frailty that sets her apart from any sympathetic character, let alone any lead character, ever to come out of the Mouse House. It is utterly gratifying that they're finally using their brand for something other than selling toys and home videos; I would argue that this is one of the ballsiest things they have ever done.
In a year when all Pixar can offer is yet another sequel to one of its most beloved movies, Disney's gone back to its familiar role of showing everyone how feature-film animation storytelling SHOULD be done.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Sunday, February 28, 2016
The One Disney Film Donald Trump and His Followers Should Watch: A Review of Zootopia (Very Mild Spoilers)
directed by Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Jared Bush
written by Jared Bush, Phil Johnston, Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Jennifer Lee
Walt Disney Animation's new anthropomorphic film Zootopia, starts out well enough. It lays down its premise quickly and efficiently: animals used to exist in a predator and prey relationship, but they have evolved past that and live in harmony, as acted out by the young Judy Hopps (Della Saba) and her friends in a school play. Not long thereafter, though, Judy, who dreams of becoming a police officer someday, faces down a school bully who happens to be a fox, who overpowers her, but only firms up Judy's resolve to become a police officer someday.
Fifteen years later, Judy (Ginnifer Goodwin) is even more determined to become a police officer. She faces prejudice and contempt on account of her diminutive stature relative to the other recruits, and even after she graduates top of her class at the academy, she is treated badly by her superior Chief Bogo (Idris Elba) an ill-tempered cape buffalo, who puts her on traffic duty initially. When Judy busts a small-time criminal (Alan Tudyk), she manages to earn Bogo's ire for leaving her post, but also gets put on a missing mammal case when, while Bogo is chewing her out, the wife of a missing otter, one of several missing predators who have the Zootopia police on an extensive "animal" hunt, bursts into Bogo's office pleading desperately for help, upon which Hopps volunteers. Hopps is determined to solve the case, but first she must team up with someone she trusts the least: a con artist named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman) who happens to be a fox. While their partnership is a tumultuous one at first, working together, they soon discover something shocking that could affect the entire Zootopia.
What starts out as a fairly standard cartoon about following one's dreams metamorphoses pretty quickly into a startling story about prejudice going one way, and then another. The good thing about the writing is that it pretty much lays the basis for its third-act revelations, unlike the twist in Frozen that felt a tad forced. It's actually some pretty clever bait-and-switch writing and I appreciate the writers for turning some storytelling tropes on their heads. I can't really say much more without spoiling crucial plot twists, but suffice it to say this film's script was very well-realized and has a lot of really important things to say about fear-mongering and minorities.
The film, of course, is a technical marvel, as most of them have been since Disney abandoned hand-drawn animation for good with Tangled. I had thought that the fantastic Japanese-American-inspired cityscape of Big Hero 6 would be a tough act to top, and I imagine it was, but Disney went and did it anyway. Rendering animals could not have been an easy feat. One look at Hopps along reveals how astonishingly detailed her fur was, and one realizes that having the animals wear clothes was actually a bit of a "cheat" as it saved the animators considerable effort in having to render all of their fur. Still, considering the detail lavished on the entire production I'd hardly take a little labor saving against them. Also, it made for a pretty good gag when Judy and Nick walk into a community of "naturalists" or animals that don't wear clothes.
I really love it when I walk out of a film pleasantly surprised. I had already expected to enjoy this film with my children, but I had not at all expected it to tackle such a topical theme, much less this skillfully. This is the kind of movie I would have expected from Disney's more highbrow cousin Pixar. I can think of no higher praise.
10/10
written by Jared Bush, Phil Johnston, Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Jennifer Lee
Walt Disney Animation's new anthropomorphic film Zootopia, starts out well enough. It lays down its premise quickly and efficiently: animals used to exist in a predator and prey relationship, but they have evolved past that and live in harmony, as acted out by the young Judy Hopps (Della Saba) and her friends in a school play. Not long thereafter, though, Judy, who dreams of becoming a police officer someday, faces down a school bully who happens to be a fox, who overpowers her, but only firms up Judy's resolve to become a police officer someday.
Fifteen years later, Judy (Ginnifer Goodwin) is even more determined to become a police officer. She faces prejudice and contempt on account of her diminutive stature relative to the other recruits, and even after she graduates top of her class at the academy, she is treated badly by her superior Chief Bogo (Idris Elba) an ill-tempered cape buffalo, who puts her on traffic duty initially. When Judy busts a small-time criminal (Alan Tudyk), she manages to earn Bogo's ire for leaving her post, but also gets put on a missing mammal case when, while Bogo is chewing her out, the wife of a missing otter, one of several missing predators who have the Zootopia police on an extensive "animal" hunt, bursts into Bogo's office pleading desperately for help, upon which Hopps volunteers. Hopps is determined to solve the case, but first she must team up with someone she trusts the least: a con artist named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman) who happens to be a fox. While their partnership is a tumultuous one at first, working together, they soon discover something shocking that could affect the entire Zootopia.
What starts out as a fairly standard cartoon about following one's dreams metamorphoses pretty quickly into a startling story about prejudice going one way, and then another. The good thing about the writing is that it pretty much lays the basis for its third-act revelations, unlike the twist in Frozen that felt a tad forced. It's actually some pretty clever bait-and-switch writing and I appreciate the writers for turning some storytelling tropes on their heads. I can't really say much more without spoiling crucial plot twists, but suffice it to say this film's script was very well-realized and has a lot of really important things to say about fear-mongering and minorities.
The film, of course, is a technical marvel, as most of them have been since Disney abandoned hand-drawn animation for good with Tangled. I had thought that the fantastic Japanese-American-inspired cityscape of Big Hero 6 would be a tough act to top, and I imagine it was, but Disney went and did it anyway. Rendering animals could not have been an easy feat. One look at Hopps along reveals how astonishingly detailed her fur was, and one realizes that having the animals wear clothes was actually a bit of a "cheat" as it saved the animators considerable effort in having to render all of their fur. Still, considering the detail lavished on the entire production I'd hardly take a little labor saving against them. Also, it made for a pretty good gag when Judy and Nick walk into a community of "naturalists" or animals that don't wear clothes.
I really love it when I walk out of a film pleasantly surprised. I had already expected to enjoy this film with my children, but I had not at all expected it to tackle such a topical theme, much less this skillfully. This is the kind of movie I would have expected from Disney's more highbrow cousin Pixar. I can think of no higher praise.
10/10
Schlock as Allegory: A Review of EDSA XXX: Ganito Kami Noon, Ganito Pa Rin Kami Ngayon
written and directed by Khavn de la Cruz
Up until last Wednesday night, I had never sat through a movie thinking that I was experiencing "The Emperor's New Clothes." Watching Khavn de la Cruz's political-satire-cum-musical-cum-comedy EDSA XXX, I sincerely couldn't help but wonder if the filmmaker was sitting the corner snickering and waiting for someone in the audience to holler "this film is terrible!" the same way the child in that fairy tale pointed out the emperor's obvious nakedness.
EDSA XXX is billed as an "absurdist" look at the EDSA phenomenon. In this "alternate universe" the fictionalized Philippines, here dubbed the Republic of "Ek-Ek-Ek" has had thirty EDSA uprisings in all, and as presidents as a result, but for reasons no one can understand, life doesn't seem to have improved at all for its citizens. The film begins as yet another President, "Kulog Negro" (translated rather viciously as "Thunder Nigger" rather than "Black Thunder"), about to be deposed via another uprising, is found dead in his house. He is promptly replaced with "Three Eyes" (Epy Quizon) a president supposedly divinely preordained for the position. Unfortunately, things seem just as bad as they were before, and soon Three Eyes, actually a simpleton named Kulas, must discover the truth behind why nothing good has happened even after thirty "EDSA" revolutions, something he can only do with the help of a prostitute and his constant companion (Sheree).
The synopsis really doesn't quite capture the utter strangeness of this experience. The film is loaded from beginning to end with inside jokes and references to Filipino history and pop culture, but given that there does seem to be some intent to sell this film to an international audience, I think de la Cruz might have laid the "absurdity" on a little too thick.
Also, I have never seen a film more deliberately wear its nano-budget heritage so proudly on its sleeve. From the consistently horrible looping (or the dubbing of the dialogue), which could only have been deliberate and a likely reference to the awful looping of most Filipino films of the 80s, to the special effects, in particular fake digital blood, that look like they were hatched in a smartphone, this film just seems to scream: "hey, look at how deliberately schlocky I am. I could have been better, if the filmmakers had an actual budget for things like locations, costumes and that sort of thing." There are even two scenes of characters defecating, replete with farting sounds, another possible reference to the low-budget Filipino comedies that were en vogue in the dying days of martial law. The thing is, as deliberate as it is, I still don't know if that's a good thing. Yes, most Filipinos familiar with films of the era will probably get the references, but few other viewers will. It's a bit too much of an inside joke.
The good news, though, is that the film does have its heart in the right place, so to speak, as Khavn peppers the entire affair with archival footage from the three actual uprisings dubbed "EDSA," the first in 1986, the second and third in 2001, as if to remind people what this film is really about. The problem to me, though is that the filmmakers are so meticulously dedicated to making the film as off-the-wall goofy as possible that it ultimately dilutes whatever advocacy they're pushing, which is really a shame because I think they have something really important to say here.
5/10
Up until last Wednesday night, I had never sat through a movie thinking that I was experiencing "The Emperor's New Clothes." Watching Khavn de la Cruz's political-satire-cum-musical-cum-comedy EDSA XXX, I sincerely couldn't help but wonder if the filmmaker was sitting the corner snickering and waiting for someone in the audience to holler "this film is terrible!" the same way the child in that fairy tale pointed out the emperor's obvious nakedness.
EDSA XXX is billed as an "absurdist" look at the EDSA phenomenon. In this "alternate universe" the fictionalized Philippines, here dubbed the Republic of "Ek-Ek-Ek" has had thirty EDSA uprisings in all, and as presidents as a result, but for reasons no one can understand, life doesn't seem to have improved at all for its citizens. The film begins as yet another President, "Kulog Negro" (translated rather viciously as "Thunder Nigger" rather than "Black Thunder"), about to be deposed via another uprising, is found dead in his house. He is promptly replaced with "Three Eyes" (Epy Quizon) a president supposedly divinely preordained for the position. Unfortunately, things seem just as bad as they were before, and soon Three Eyes, actually a simpleton named Kulas, must discover the truth behind why nothing good has happened even after thirty "EDSA" revolutions, something he can only do with the help of a prostitute and his constant companion (Sheree).
The synopsis really doesn't quite capture the utter strangeness of this experience. The film is loaded from beginning to end with inside jokes and references to Filipino history and pop culture, but given that there does seem to be some intent to sell this film to an international audience, I think de la Cruz might have laid the "absurdity" on a little too thick.
Also, I have never seen a film more deliberately wear its nano-budget heritage so proudly on its sleeve. From the consistently horrible looping (or the dubbing of the dialogue), which could only have been deliberate and a likely reference to the awful looping of most Filipino films of the 80s, to the special effects, in particular fake digital blood, that look like they were hatched in a smartphone, this film just seems to scream: "hey, look at how deliberately schlocky I am. I could have been better, if the filmmakers had an actual budget for things like locations, costumes and that sort of thing." There are even two scenes of characters defecating, replete with farting sounds, another possible reference to the low-budget Filipino comedies that were en vogue in the dying days of martial law. The thing is, as deliberate as it is, I still don't know if that's a good thing. Yes, most Filipinos familiar with films of the era will probably get the references, but few other viewers will. It's a bit too much of an inside joke.
The good news, though, is that the film does have its heart in the right place, so to speak, as Khavn peppers the entire affair with archival footage from the three actual uprisings dubbed "EDSA," the first in 1986, the second and third in 2001, as if to remind people what this film is really about. The problem to me, though is that the filmmakers are so meticulously dedicated to making the film as off-the-wall goofy as possible that it ultimately dilutes whatever advocacy they're pushing, which is really a shame because I think they have something really important to say here.
5/10
Friday, February 12, 2016
Ryan Reynolds' Dream Come True: A Review of Deadpool
directed by Tim Miller
written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick
When Wade Wilson made his first ever on-screen appearance in X-Men Origins: Wolverine back in 2009, people saw promise; he had the character's one-liners down pat, and was brilliant with swordplay, as the character was supposed to be. It all went south, however, when the character reappeared in the film's climax with his mouth having been sewn shut and a pair of adamantium swords emerging from his hands.
For over six years after that, Ryan Reynolds, who portrayed him in that film, fought an uphill battle with the studio executives to give the character a second crack at big screen stardom, and this weekend, he finally gets his wish as the Deadpool feature film opens around the world.
Deadpool is the story of Wade Wilson (Reynolds) which, in this film, is told almost completely out of sequence as the film opens with a freeze-frame of an SUV in mid-tumble along a freeway, with the title character in mid-action pose, punching one of the armed man in the SUV, kicking another, sitting on yet another, and pulling on the pants of a motorcycle rider (also in mid-air). In incremental flashback sequences, Wade narrates how he has gone from being an ex-Special Forces operative to a small-time enforcer, terrorizing teen stalkers and other lowlifes (for a fee), in between hanging out and feeling melancholy at a bar for ex-Special Forces people just like him, to finding the girl of his dreams in Vanessa, a similarly disillusioned hooker (Morena Baccarin), to finding out he has terminal cancer, to volunteering for an experimental treatment at the hands of the shady Francis (Ed Skrein) that has left him disfigured and ultimately wanting revenge and a cure. Two of the X-Men, Colossus (a CGI character voiced by Stefan Kapicic) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand), keep tabs on Deadpool to prevent him from completely destroying downtown, but in the end he may end up recruiting them if he is to take on Francis and his deadly henchwoman, the superstrong Angel Dust (Gina Carano).
Of course, the summary makes this sound like another generic comic-book based revenge flick, but to be fair to this film, it is anything but that.
It's almost been a whole day since I watched this with my wife, and I still can't help but marvel (pun intended) at the massive cojones that the executives at Fox, infamous for mangling known comic-book properties beyond all recognition (Exhibit "A" being the previous screen incarnation of Deadpool) in the name of playing it safe, have shown in making this film.
This is a film that goes against every instinct of anyone looking to sell a blockbuster: the leading man looks like a hamburger, he's kind of a bastard, and the family market is virtually completely excluded by virtue of all the sex, violence, profanity and drug references. In short, by rights, considering the market superhero movies are usually aimed at, this movie shouldn't have been made at all. When the similarly uber-violent, horror-history mashup Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter tanked four years ago I was pretty sure that Deadpool, which was still very much in development hell back then, would never be made. I was really happy to be proven wrong. To be honest, I'll even go one further, even though I never ever thought I'd be saying this: for all their massive chutzpah in launching their unified cinematic universe, I don't think Marvel has the balls to make a movie like this, at least not yet. And no, their hard-hitting Netflix series don't count.
This movie is to superhero movies was Kingsman: The Secret Service was to spy movies and what Shrek was to fairy tales: a send-up of truly epic proportions. Like those two it throws in a barrage of good-natured pop-culture jabs all throughout as well, including a Ferris-Bueller parody in the post-credits sequence.
It does feel a little smug here and there, but overall, most of its endless barrage of jokes hit their mark, the action, while ridiculous at times, still looks good onscreen, and the actors have good comedic chemistry. And the filmmakers remember never to take themselves too seriously. Yes, the filmmakers know Colossus looks like he stepped out of a video game, yes, they know the constant bloodletting looks ludicrous and basically makes Kingsman's "hate church" scene look absolutely demure, and yes, they know that their movie is as much a product as the films it's lampooning. For all of that, somehow, Reese, Wernick, Miller and their cast, most especially Reynolds, still manage to hit the sweet spot (most of the time), in this extremely unwieldy mix of sex, violence and comedy. The thing is, this was a movie that was so over-the-top that it could very easily have fallen off the cliff, so kudos to the cast and crew for keeping it all together.
Special mention, however, must go to the man who has relentlessly been championing this character's journey to the screen for the last decade or so with whatever remnants of clout he had left after Green Lantern tanked: Ryan Reynolds.
Thanks for never giving up on this character, Ryan.
7.8/10
written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick
When Wade Wilson made his first ever on-screen appearance in X-Men Origins: Wolverine back in 2009, people saw promise; he had the character's one-liners down pat, and was brilliant with swordplay, as the character was supposed to be. It all went south, however, when the character reappeared in the film's climax with his mouth having been sewn shut and a pair of adamantium swords emerging from his hands.
For over six years after that, Ryan Reynolds, who portrayed him in that film, fought an uphill battle with the studio executives to give the character a second crack at big screen stardom, and this weekend, he finally gets his wish as the Deadpool feature film opens around the world.
Deadpool is the story of Wade Wilson (Reynolds) which, in this film, is told almost completely out of sequence as the film opens with a freeze-frame of an SUV in mid-tumble along a freeway, with the title character in mid-action pose, punching one of the armed man in the SUV, kicking another, sitting on yet another, and pulling on the pants of a motorcycle rider (also in mid-air). In incremental flashback sequences, Wade narrates how he has gone from being an ex-Special Forces operative to a small-time enforcer, terrorizing teen stalkers and other lowlifes (for a fee), in between hanging out and feeling melancholy at a bar for ex-Special Forces people just like him, to finding the girl of his dreams in Vanessa, a similarly disillusioned hooker (Morena Baccarin), to finding out he has terminal cancer, to volunteering for an experimental treatment at the hands of the shady Francis (Ed Skrein) that has left him disfigured and ultimately wanting revenge and a cure. Two of the X-Men, Colossus (a CGI character voiced by Stefan Kapicic) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand), keep tabs on Deadpool to prevent him from completely destroying downtown, but in the end he may end up recruiting them if he is to take on Francis and his deadly henchwoman, the superstrong Angel Dust (Gina Carano).
Of course, the summary makes this sound like another generic comic-book based revenge flick, but to be fair to this film, it is anything but that.
It's almost been a whole day since I watched this with my wife, and I still can't help but marvel (pun intended) at the massive cojones that the executives at Fox, infamous for mangling known comic-book properties beyond all recognition (Exhibit "A" being the previous screen incarnation of Deadpool) in the name of playing it safe, have shown in making this film.
This is a film that goes against every instinct of anyone looking to sell a blockbuster: the leading man looks like a hamburger, he's kind of a bastard, and the family market is virtually completely excluded by virtue of all the sex, violence, profanity and drug references. In short, by rights, considering the market superhero movies are usually aimed at, this movie shouldn't have been made at all. When the similarly uber-violent, horror-history mashup Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter tanked four years ago I was pretty sure that Deadpool, which was still very much in development hell back then, would never be made. I was really happy to be proven wrong. To be honest, I'll even go one further, even though I never ever thought I'd be saying this: for all their massive chutzpah in launching their unified cinematic universe, I don't think Marvel has the balls to make a movie like this, at least not yet. And no, their hard-hitting Netflix series don't count.
This movie is to superhero movies was Kingsman: The Secret Service was to spy movies and what Shrek was to fairy tales: a send-up of truly epic proportions. Like those two it throws in a barrage of good-natured pop-culture jabs all throughout as well, including a Ferris-Bueller parody in the post-credits sequence.
It does feel a little smug here and there, but overall, most of its endless barrage of jokes hit their mark, the action, while ridiculous at times, still looks good onscreen, and the actors have good comedic chemistry. And the filmmakers remember never to take themselves too seriously. Yes, the filmmakers know Colossus looks like he stepped out of a video game, yes, they know the constant bloodletting looks ludicrous and basically makes Kingsman's "hate church" scene look absolutely demure, and yes, they know that their movie is as much a product as the films it's lampooning. For all of that, somehow, Reese, Wernick, Miller and their cast, most especially Reynolds, still manage to hit the sweet spot (most of the time), in this extremely unwieldy mix of sex, violence and comedy. The thing is, this was a movie that was so over-the-top that it could very easily have fallen off the cliff, so kudos to the cast and crew for keeping it all together.
Special mention, however, must go to the man who has relentlessly been championing this character's journey to the screen for the last decade or so with whatever remnants of clout he had left after Green Lantern tanked: Ryan Reynolds.
Thanks for never giving up on this character, Ryan.
7.8/10
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
A Different Sort of Revenge Movie: A Review of The Revenant
directed by Alejandro Inarritu
written by Alejandro Inarritu and Mark Smith
There's something primal about the appeal of a revenge movie, the thought of someone who does great evil to another receiving his comeuppance, especially since it's something that rarely happens in real life. The more heinous the offense, the more gruesome the revenge, and ultimately the more satisfying the viewing experience. Revenge stories have been told on the silver screen so frequently over the years that the secret to a really good one anymore is all in the telling. It's all about atmosphere, and creating both a protagonist and an antagonist who are utterly compelling to watch.
In this regard, Alejandro Inarritu succeeds with his new film The Revenant, in which his protagonist played by Leonardo diCaprio and his antagonist played by Tom Hardy are written and played to utter perfection.
The film is loosely based on the story of 19th century fur trapper Hugh Glass (diCaprio). The events in the film take place in 1823, in which Glass is accompanying a party of trappers under the command of another fictionalized historical figure Captain Andrew Henry (Domnhall Gleeson) somewhere in North Dakota. Animal pelts are extremely valuable and are used as currency by the Americans, the French and the native tribes populating the landscape, and it is no surprise that the band of trappers are attacked by a group of natives known as the Ree, who kill most of their party before they are able to escape to their boat. Due to the terrible weather the group is forced to abandon their boat and their haul of pelts and make their way back to their outpost, Fort Kiowa, on foot, over the loud protests of one of the trappers, John Fitzgerald (Hardy). Glass, who has been invaluable to the troop as their guide, is then attacked and nearly killed by a grizzly bear. The troop patches him up as best they can and take him with them as they try to find their way back, but when they are unable to navigate the frozen wasteland without Glass's help, they are forced to leave him, albeit with three people standing guard: his half-Pawnee son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), Jim Bridger (Will Poulter) and Fitzgerald. Fearing for his own safety and sure that Glass is as good as dead given the severity of his injuries, Fitzgerald attempts to murder Glass as he lies helpless on his stretcher, after convincing himself that Glass has consented to being euthanised. Bridger is away fetching water, but Hawk intervenes, and Fitzgerald murders him right before the helpless Glass's eyes. Fitzgerald hides Hawk's body, then lies to Bridger, telling him they are about to be attacked by a large band of Ree, convincing him to basically abandon Glass to his fate, and the two of them leave Glass for dead.
But Glass doesn't die, and as he crawls out of the makeshift grave Fitzgerald dug and then hastily dumped him into, his body still a mangled shell of what it once was, he is fueled with rage and the desire for revenge, but he knows that, before all else, he must survive.
As revenge movies go, this one ticks all the boxes with a truly despicable villain in Hardy's Fitzgerald, a foul-mouthed bigot whose attitude towards Glass and his son is established early on in the film to the extent that, even without the marketing for this movie describing him as the heavy, viewers will be able to see from a mile away what he's going to do. Glass's journey, however, isn't just towards revenge as he claws his way back from the very edge of death itself, but towards some truly important realizations as he makes his way across the inhospitable landscape and slowly manages to heal.
The film is as much about Glass's titanic (sorry, couldn't resist) battle to survive as it is his desire to avenge his son, and it is a raw, extreme experience. Seeing diCaprio endure freezing weather, I had to wonder just how much of this experience Hollywood was able to sanitize for him; I highly doubt the rapids in which he floated about were heated to his liking. While he certainly was not attacked by a bear in real life (and the computer-generated imagery that went into that horrifying encounter deserves special mention), it is quite clear that diCaprio, and to a lesser extent the cast in general, endured some pretty challenging conditions to shoot this movie. In short, if diCaprio walks home with the golden statue come Oscar night, one could justifiably say he went well above and beyond the call of duty to earn it.
Although the film was based on real events, I get that, at least at some point, it is meant to be impressionistic rather than realistic, which would explain the many dream sequences and visions Glass has and the fact that in the third act, verisimilitude kind of goes out the window with some pretty extreme action sequences. There's a beauty and irony to the way the harsh landscape in which Glass nearly dies actually plays a part in his healing.
Though the action and violence was unabashedly over the top, I have to say, I like how the revenge plot played out. I confess, though, that the way the movie resolved its central conflict felt a little heavy-handed, and somewhat out of left field. Sure, by the time the big reveal is made, the script has already dropped plenty of hints at what is going to happen, but I still felt incredulous when I saw it; a revenge flick was the last place I had expected to find a religious theme, but there it was, in bright neon letters.
This is actually a movie I can wholeheartedly recommend to Christians of all denominations, especially Catholics, what with the depiction of redemptive suffering. Also, it champions indigenous people and the environment more effectively than overwrought narrative cliches like Dances with Wolves and Avatar ever did.
There are some cons, though; like I said, the violence gets over-the-top at some points (though I'm not referring to the bear attack, which is easily the most extreme sequence of the film), and the film is at least fifteen minutes too long.
It is a rewarding, if somewhat exhausting film to watch. One caveat I have for viewers is to try to avoid watching it in an empty theater, as an overpowering air conditioner, accompanied with the vivid imagery of snow and ice, can make for a somewhat unpleasant sensory experience.
8.1/10
written by Alejandro Inarritu and Mark Smith
There's something primal about the appeal of a revenge movie, the thought of someone who does great evil to another receiving his comeuppance, especially since it's something that rarely happens in real life. The more heinous the offense, the more gruesome the revenge, and ultimately the more satisfying the viewing experience. Revenge stories have been told on the silver screen so frequently over the years that the secret to a really good one anymore is all in the telling. It's all about atmosphere, and creating both a protagonist and an antagonist who are utterly compelling to watch.
In this regard, Alejandro Inarritu succeeds with his new film The Revenant, in which his protagonist played by Leonardo diCaprio and his antagonist played by Tom Hardy are written and played to utter perfection.
The film is loosely based on the story of 19th century fur trapper Hugh Glass (diCaprio). The events in the film take place in 1823, in which Glass is accompanying a party of trappers under the command of another fictionalized historical figure Captain Andrew Henry (Domnhall Gleeson) somewhere in North Dakota. Animal pelts are extremely valuable and are used as currency by the Americans, the French and the native tribes populating the landscape, and it is no surprise that the band of trappers are attacked by a group of natives known as the Ree, who kill most of their party before they are able to escape to their boat. Due to the terrible weather the group is forced to abandon their boat and their haul of pelts and make their way back to their outpost, Fort Kiowa, on foot, over the loud protests of one of the trappers, John Fitzgerald (Hardy). Glass, who has been invaluable to the troop as their guide, is then attacked and nearly killed by a grizzly bear. The troop patches him up as best they can and take him with them as they try to find their way back, but when they are unable to navigate the frozen wasteland without Glass's help, they are forced to leave him, albeit with three people standing guard: his half-Pawnee son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), Jim Bridger (Will Poulter) and Fitzgerald. Fearing for his own safety and sure that Glass is as good as dead given the severity of his injuries, Fitzgerald attempts to murder Glass as he lies helpless on his stretcher, after convincing himself that Glass has consented to being euthanised. Bridger is away fetching water, but Hawk intervenes, and Fitzgerald murders him right before the helpless Glass's eyes. Fitzgerald hides Hawk's body, then lies to Bridger, telling him they are about to be attacked by a large band of Ree, convincing him to basically abandon Glass to his fate, and the two of them leave Glass for dead.
But Glass doesn't die, and as he crawls out of the makeshift grave Fitzgerald dug and then hastily dumped him into, his body still a mangled shell of what it once was, he is fueled with rage and the desire for revenge, but he knows that, before all else, he must survive.
As revenge movies go, this one ticks all the boxes with a truly despicable villain in Hardy's Fitzgerald, a foul-mouthed bigot whose attitude towards Glass and his son is established early on in the film to the extent that, even without the marketing for this movie describing him as the heavy, viewers will be able to see from a mile away what he's going to do. Glass's journey, however, isn't just towards revenge as he claws his way back from the very edge of death itself, but towards some truly important realizations as he makes his way across the inhospitable landscape and slowly manages to heal.
The film is as much about Glass's titanic (sorry, couldn't resist) battle to survive as it is his desire to avenge his son, and it is a raw, extreme experience. Seeing diCaprio endure freezing weather, I had to wonder just how much of this experience Hollywood was able to sanitize for him; I highly doubt the rapids in which he floated about were heated to his liking. While he certainly was not attacked by a bear in real life (and the computer-generated imagery that went into that horrifying encounter deserves special mention), it is quite clear that diCaprio, and to a lesser extent the cast in general, endured some pretty challenging conditions to shoot this movie. In short, if diCaprio walks home with the golden statue come Oscar night, one could justifiably say he went well above and beyond the call of duty to earn it.
Although the film was based on real events, I get that, at least at some point, it is meant to be impressionistic rather than realistic, which would explain the many dream sequences and visions Glass has and the fact that in the third act, verisimilitude kind of goes out the window with some pretty extreme action sequences. There's a beauty and irony to the way the harsh landscape in which Glass nearly dies actually plays a part in his healing.
Though the action and violence was unabashedly over the top, I have to say, I like how the revenge plot played out. I confess, though, that the way the movie resolved its central conflict felt a little heavy-handed, and somewhat out of left field. Sure, by the time the big reveal is made, the script has already dropped plenty of hints at what is going to happen, but I still felt incredulous when I saw it; a revenge flick was the last place I had expected to find a religious theme, but there it was, in bright neon letters.
This is actually a movie I can wholeheartedly recommend to Christians of all denominations, especially Catholics, what with the depiction of redemptive suffering. Also, it champions indigenous people and the environment more effectively than overwrought narrative cliches like Dances with Wolves and Avatar ever did.
There are some cons, though; like I said, the violence gets over-the-top at some points (though I'm not referring to the bear attack, which is easily the most extreme sequence of the film), and the film is at least fifteen minutes too long.
It is a rewarding, if somewhat exhausting film to watch. One caveat I have for viewers is to try to avoid watching it in an empty theater, as an overpowering air conditioner, accompanied with the vivid imagery of snow and ice, can make for a somewhat unpleasant sensory experience.
8.1/10
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Another Ascends to the Bloody Throne: A Review of Macbeth (2015)
directed by Justin Kurzel
written by Jacob Koskoff, Todd Louiso and Michael Lesslie
William Shakespeare's tale of treachery, murder and absolute power corrupting absolutely gets a fresh treatment in 2015 courtesy of director Justin Kurzel and stars Michael Fassbender as the title character and Marion Cotillard as his scheming wife. Paddy Considine plays Macbeth's faithful colleague Banquo, David Thewlis plays King Duncan and a very capable bunch of British actors including the bad guy from the latest Mission Impossible movie round up the cast of supporting characters.
Bringing Shakespeare's work to screen is always a challenge, and whoever does it, and at least attempts to do it well usually deserves kudos just for the effort, but Kurzel deserves a huge pat on the back here for getting one of the finest young actors of this generation to play one of literature's most infamous villains. The story of a lord who thirsts for power when his destiny is revealed to him by three mysterious old women is one that has been done several times over, but what Fassbender brings to the table is something very special.
Since taking the Magneto role in X-Men: First Class, which was more of a tortured anti-hero than anything else, Fassbender has gone full-on bad guy in films like 12 Years a Slave. Here, his malevolence is tempered by the madness and paranoia that overwhelms the murderous Scot when he realizes the people he has to kill to consolidate his hold on power. It's a nice, meaty role for Fassbender to sink his teeth into, and I daresay he makes the most out of the opportunity.
It's a rather spartan production; the colors are muted and just about everyone is dressed in black, white or gray; the sets are simple and unobtrusive, and at the end it's really down to the actors, mainly Fassbender and Cotillard, to carry the proceedings, which they do quite well.
I don't consider myself a Shakespeare buff or expert by any means, and perhaps it was this that makes me view this film as successful in telling the story, which is told in an English that is no longer spoken. It's worth noting that the distributors had the courtesy to put subtitles for all the dialogue. I doubt this will win over the blockbuster crowd, but as an exercise in effective storytelling this is a very good one.
8.7/10
written by Jacob Koskoff, Todd Louiso and Michael Lesslie
William Shakespeare's tale of treachery, murder and absolute power corrupting absolutely gets a fresh treatment in 2015 courtesy of director Justin Kurzel and stars Michael Fassbender as the title character and Marion Cotillard as his scheming wife. Paddy Considine plays Macbeth's faithful colleague Banquo, David Thewlis plays King Duncan and a very capable bunch of British actors including the bad guy from the latest Mission Impossible movie round up the cast of supporting characters.
Bringing Shakespeare's work to screen is always a challenge, and whoever does it, and at least attempts to do it well usually deserves kudos just for the effort, but Kurzel deserves a huge pat on the back here for getting one of the finest young actors of this generation to play one of literature's most infamous villains. The story of a lord who thirsts for power when his destiny is revealed to him by three mysterious old women is one that has been done several times over, but what Fassbender brings to the table is something very special.
Since taking the Magneto role in X-Men: First Class, which was more of a tortured anti-hero than anything else, Fassbender has gone full-on bad guy in films like 12 Years a Slave. Here, his malevolence is tempered by the madness and paranoia that overwhelms the murderous Scot when he realizes the people he has to kill to consolidate his hold on power. It's a nice, meaty role for Fassbender to sink his teeth into, and I daresay he makes the most out of the opportunity.
It's a rather spartan production; the colors are muted and just about everyone is dressed in black, white or gray; the sets are simple and unobtrusive, and at the end it's really down to the actors, mainly Fassbender and Cotillard, to carry the proceedings, which they do quite well.
I don't consider myself a Shakespeare buff or expert by any means, and perhaps it was this that makes me view this film as successful in telling the story, which is told in an English that is no longer spoken. It's worth noting that the distributors had the courtesy to put subtitles for all the dialogue. I doubt this will win over the blockbuster crowd, but as an exercise in effective storytelling this is a very good one.
8.7/10
Friday, January 22, 2016
Good Grief! A Review of Snoopy and Charlie Brown: The Peanuts Movie
directed by Steve Martino
written by Brian Schulz, Craig Schulz and Cornelius Uliano
Fifteen years after the death of Peanuts creator Charles Schulz, his beloved characters have come to the big screen in a film that is reverent, innovative and full of the heart that has made the original comic strip well-known the world over.
The Peanuts Movie is the story of Charlie Brown (voiced by Noah Schnapp), an insecure elementary school student and his quirky dog named Snoopy (voiced by Bill Melendez). Charlie Brown's life gets turned upside down when a pretty red headed girl (voiced by Francesca Capaldi) moves in next door to him, and enrolls at his school. The film follows his efforts to impress the girl, invariably with results that are both hilarious and cringe-inducing.
The film hews pretty closely to both the comic strip and the various hand-drawn animated features based on it that have come out over the years. Charlie Brown's entire supporting cast of Linus and Lucy, Schroeder, Peppermint Patty, Marcie are all in attendance, along with the indecipherable adults who dialogue consists of muffled audio. It's a very traditional take on the cartoon, and even though the dialogue has been updated, much of remains charmingly, almost defiantly old-fashioned, like the characters' clothes, hairstyles, and almost everything else (although in the end, the characters do play in an inflatable playground). It's safe and charming and that was, to be honest, pretty much the best way to go with characters and a world this well-loved. Innovations made possible by computer-generated imagery, like the amazing detail put into rendering the characters' hair, and other little touches, were most welcome.
The good news about this movie is that it's accessible even to people who've never read a "Peanuts" strip in their lives, which would probably characterize most of the young viewers who would watch it (like my younger daughter), but it is a much richer experience for longtime readers of the strip, and even moreso for kids who have read the strip and have seen the cartoons. As someone who's done both, I quite enjoyed the film, and was happy to see that both of my children who watched it with me did as well. The highlight, for me, was the realization of Snoopy's "World War I flying ace" fantasy.
It was really pleasant viewing, and I recommend it highly to lovers of the long-running Peanuts strip and people who have yet to discover it.
8.5/10
written by Brian Schulz, Craig Schulz and Cornelius Uliano
Fifteen years after the death of Peanuts creator Charles Schulz, his beloved characters have come to the big screen in a film that is reverent, innovative and full of the heart that has made the original comic strip well-known the world over.
The Peanuts Movie is the story of Charlie Brown (voiced by Noah Schnapp), an insecure elementary school student and his quirky dog named Snoopy (voiced by Bill Melendez). Charlie Brown's life gets turned upside down when a pretty red headed girl (voiced by Francesca Capaldi) moves in next door to him, and enrolls at his school. The film follows his efforts to impress the girl, invariably with results that are both hilarious and cringe-inducing.
The film hews pretty closely to both the comic strip and the various hand-drawn animated features based on it that have come out over the years. Charlie Brown's entire supporting cast of Linus and Lucy, Schroeder, Peppermint Patty, Marcie are all in attendance, along with the indecipherable adults who dialogue consists of muffled audio. It's a very traditional take on the cartoon, and even though the dialogue has been updated, much of remains charmingly, almost defiantly old-fashioned, like the characters' clothes, hairstyles, and almost everything else (although in the end, the characters do play in an inflatable playground). It's safe and charming and that was, to be honest, pretty much the best way to go with characters and a world this well-loved. Innovations made possible by computer-generated imagery, like the amazing detail put into rendering the characters' hair, and other little touches, were most welcome.
The good news about this movie is that it's accessible even to people who've never read a "Peanuts" strip in their lives, which would probably characterize most of the young viewers who would watch it (like my younger daughter), but it is a much richer experience for longtime readers of the strip, and even moreso for kids who have read the strip and have seen the cartoons. As someone who's done both, I quite enjoyed the film, and was happy to see that both of my children who watched it with me did as well. The highlight, for me, was the realization of Snoopy's "World War I flying ace" fantasy.
It was really pleasant viewing, and I recommend it highly to lovers of the long-running Peanuts strip and people who have yet to discover it.
8.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)