 Sound Of My Voice is a little film and that is a good thing. It is a curious film in how it is extremely and deceptively simple; a couple is making a documentary on a cult. He is a substitute teacher and his co-filmmaker girlfriend is a former party girl who has cleaned up her act. They go into expose a mysterious cult leader but first they have to find their way into the arms of the cult.
Christopher Denham and Nicole Vicius co-star as the would-be filmmakers and the mesmerizing Brit Marling is Maggie, the mysterious cult leader. Marling co-wrote the script. Marling was also co-writer of the film, Another Earth (which she starred in). This film is a much better, tighter effort than the previous one. Maybe that is due to Zal Batmanglij or maybe Marling and her partners have just honed their skills.
This film focuses in on the basics. There is very little set-up. We do not know how the couple first became aware of the cult. We don’t know how the original cult began even. There are a number of details that the viewer has to figure out themselves. While some conclusions are not really open to interpretation there are others that are—and these are the more human aspects of the story. What does it mean?
We find out who these humans are in small snippets of their lives—as they describe them to others. We believe what they do and the conflicts. While it is focused there is no attempt to tie it all up and show what happens to everyone. There is no place for that in this film. It is a very “indie” production. It isn’t trying to spell it all out.
But let’s get back to Marling. She is not the star of the film but she steals it as the cult leader who is beautiful, seductive, threatening and even a little cruel. But all this is displayed with subtlety that leaves the audience guessing. Part of the guessing also comes from Marling’s performance. She is an ethereal, otherworldly presence. You can believe people would believe her—even when her logic is dubious.
But that is part of how cults work? They work like con artists; they convince people silly things are true. But what if they were true?
Denham’s character is vaguely annoying. It isn’t that the actor is annoying; the character, Peter, is. Denham plays it well with small ticks and increasing neurosis. You probably find out more about Peter than any other character in the film. You don’t hate him but you seriously wouldn’t want to have a beer with the guy.
Vicius’ Lorna is a less sexy (using the term figuratively) role but Vicius certainly does everything she has to in bringing her character to life. In a subtle movie with three main characters hers is the character that is least defined. Lorna’s demons are not paraded publicly but are shown as an aside, a flashback. She has less to work with script-wise but makes the role come to life.
If you are fans of smaller films, of indie films, this is one that will appeal to you. If you need explosions it will not. If you need a bad guy who “gets theirs” at the end? Likewise you should look elsewhere. More than anything else the film may be the one people look back on when Marling writes and or stars in a film that reaches a large audience. You will hear from her again.
 The reviews on Cabin in the Woods are out. Hell, even the contrarian follow up reviews by people calling the film “overrated” are out (the latter are full of crap). But the film is worth a little further examination.
Every once in awhile a film takes a stab at redefining a genre. The ones that hit it out of the park include Night of the Living Dead for the zombie film and The Godfather for gangster films. Go check out pre-Night zombie movies or pre-Godfather gangster movies; they do not remotely resemble those that follow these two films. Many films, over the past hundred years, can make this claim.
Cabin in the Woods probably can’t but it comes damned close.
It takes the Friday the 13th style, “kids out in the woods” sort of movie and gives it form. It attaches an overarching theme to 50 years of horror film making and it does it with humor and splash of gore.
One of the problems with a film like this is that it might not withstand spoilers very well—which also can mean it might not bear multiple viewings. There is no way to tell at the moment. Everyone will need to wait a few decades (or at least a few viewings) to determine that.M. Night Shymalan’s The Sixth Sense might seem the sort of film to fall apart on second viewing but it doesn’t. It just seems like an entirely different film when you know the “twist.”
The twists and turns in Cabin are, at once, more obvious and more subtle. No spoilers here but it is very reminiscent of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Joss Whedon once said he was inspired to create Buffy by how EVERY horror film had a scared blond woman running from a monster or a killer. She was always helpless and always wound up dead. Buffy turned that on its head. The blond girl was the one who KILLED the monsters. She was the one who scared the monsters. Cabin in the Woods does a similar thing with not just “slasher” films but ANY film that sends a group of teens out into the woods. It pokes fun at HOW they wind up there, all the warnings they receive not to go and, once they are there, about precisely what predicament they will face.
If you know Whedon then you will expect humor and you will be happy to see some “old friends” from some of his previous efforts on television --s well as actors from such shows as The West Wing, Six Feet Under, Grey’s Anatomy and The Shield. This is to say nothing of the appearance of Thor.
The movie isn’t a one note film either, it isn’t Scream. It isn’t something there will be a sequel to as the plot, slyly, precludes any sequel. The ending also is a neat turn on some of Whedon’s earlier TV efforts. The film isn’t the best horror film ever made. It is somewhere between scary and the Evil Dead. You are never going to be really afraid here but this works and it should be a welcome change for fans of more mainstream horror films.
 21 Jump Street is incredibly stupid and yet, in this instance “stupid” also means “awesome”. See, many are unaware of the inescapable fact that there are different kinds of stupid. There is the mundane 80s Fox stupid of the original SHOW, 21 Jump Street and the hilarious, awesome stupid of the new movie. This is the sort of stupidness that will make you laugh while simultaneously making you feel embarrassed that you are laughing. I sort of glanced around, thinking; Lord, I hope no one saw me laugh at that. This is truly something for the filmmakers, actors and writers to be incredibly proud of—it is a feat more trying than winning the Decathlon.
I read one review of the film that decried the number of dick jokes, stating unequivocally, that there were too many. This is asinine. There can NEVER be too many dick jokes.
Ever. Period.
Provided, of course, that the jokes are funny. The same goes for fart jokes, poop jokes, racist jokes, drug jokes and teen sex jokes. People do not get offended at jokes that are funny and told with humanity. Recall the mentally handicapped brother in Something About Mary.
If you approach this movie as a critic, or as a human being, with the slightest bit of seriousness, if you are looking for the message, then you are doomed. I do not mean just while you are watching the film. You are totally doomed. Korean Jesus is going to send you right to hell (if you don’t get that, you will after the movie).
21 Jump Street sends up the original TV show and Hollywood’s lamebrainedness at regurgitating old TV shows. It also pokes fun at those TV shows and movies. This "fun-poking" is sometimes obvious. You will see some of the jokes coming down Main Street like Robert Preston in Music Man but odds are you will still laugh. You will laugh again when they use the same gag twice. You will laugh at the little sideline jokes you see out of the corner of your eye (not as many or as funny in films like The Other Guys or Airplane but still, a good number). The film manages to make fun of itself without turning into a Johnny Carsonmonologue—the ones where he made fun of the bad the joke he just told. That is hard to pull off. Channing Tatum? Known more for lightweight romances? He is funny and should be in more comedies. We all know Jonah Hill, at his best, is funny. But Tatum is his equal here.
The cast includes appearances by Ice Cube, Rob Riggle and Chris Parnell who all make the most of their relatively small roles. Ice Cube gets the most screen time of the three but Parnell may get the most laughs per minute. Ellie Kemper also has a few moments. She is also adorable and ergo requires mentioning. Dave Franco is sort of the straight man. How could the eco-friendly popular high school kid not be that? But he also has some funny lines. Brie Larson also deserves mention. If you can be in this movie AND Rampart in the space of a year, kudos are in order for your range! Plus she was in Scott Pilgrim Versus the World which always means, for the rest of your career, you will get bonus credits. You can even be in an Adam Sandler “comedy.”
This brings us back to the rarity of actually funny comedies. I have a standard these days—the six out-loud laughs standard. A film is above average if it can manage that. I was there about 20 minutes into 21 Jump Street. The previews for upcoming “comedies?” If you cannot get ONE funny thing for the previews even with creative editing? It bodes ill. 21 Jump Street is funnier than the previews.
 When a movie costs a lot of money and it flops there is glee amongst late night network talk show host writers. They don’t have to think for a week. All you have to do is compare said movie to pretty much anything and the sheep will baaaaah. Part of the reason for seeing John Carterwas to see if the movie was actually worth a joke. Is it Heaven’s Gate? Is it Ishtar? (please do not post about how Ishtar is underrated. It sucks).
John Carter isn’t bad at all. And they charged me the same amount they usually do—despite how much Disney spent on the film.
In the realm of the comic book hero film (and yes I am aware this isn’t from a comic) this is actually pretty decent. People loved Thor last year. Of course that was, in part, because everyone expected it to be unwatchable and it is actually O.K. A couple of the reasons Thor is decent are shared by John Carter; they don’t try to over explain silly bits of the plot and the supporting actors are all top notch. When a movie like John Carter bends over backward to explain something like “the ninth ray” it spirals around the bowl. We get it when you just show us a guy with a “ninth ray” shiny glove frying everyone. And if the actors, even in small or voice only parts, are bad it makes the audience notice silliness more. To be sure there are failures with great casts but bad actors can kill even coherent fantasy and sci-fi writing.
It is kind of embarrassing to like either Thor or John Carter too much. There just isn’t that much there to get too crazy about. Sure, you can pretend that your interest is ironic and you are an intellectual. You can pretend to be looking at a literary comparison with the Edgar Rice Burroughs story (try to get your thesis committee to bite on THAT). All of that is crap. It is just silly crap that is put together well and gets fuzzy on details that bog it down.
Compared to other comic-like films (Captain America...brrr) it moves along fairly well. It is basically coherent, if silly, in plot. We really do not need to know the details of Thune culture or why some Martians have four arms and some look totally human (but with face tattoos..wait…Mike Tyson is a MARTIAN. That explains a great deal).
But there isn’t much more to say on John Carter. It is watchable. It is entertaining. It has attractive people and decent actors in it. It looks good (3D isn’t necessary to enjoy the film go to a cheap 2D showing). Other “fantastical” films like the brutal adaptations of young adult fiction such as The Lightening Thief or The Vampire’s Assistant or comic book hero fiascos like Iron Man 2, Ghost Rider or any of the X-Men related films after the first two, make you want to get more popcorn.
What is it about a movie like John Carter that makes it not connect with audiences when other, similar, films do? Is it really that John Carter cost so much more? Did it just come out too early or too late? It might be hype. Maybe just not enough Tarzan fans are around these days.
Fortunately in catching up with movies this week I also saw a film with a lot of penis jokes. More on that soon.
 Yeah, Terrible Poster... Some Guy Who Kills People is a horror thriller comedy that is making the film fest rounds. It better get a wide release. In part because it is so clever on multiple levels but also because it could make money--which would help other less-than-giant budget films getting out to the people. Insidious should have taught the lesson but perhaps it didn't. I saw this film at a festival that had a really solid selection of shorts (for the most part). While this was especially true of the shorts even the features were bearable. This film stood out from this pack even--way out. Produced by John Landis and directed by Jack Perez ( Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus) the film manages to be suspenseful, funny, kind of touching and has plenty of splatter--but all of that is pretty tongue in cheek. Shaun of the Dead (which is a great movie) may spring to mind while watching this but the similarities tend to be more in tone than anything else--the mix of horror and humor. It has nothing to do with Lucy Davis being in the film!
Speaking of cast, the film stars the likes of Kevin Corrigan (The Departed, Pineapple Express etc), Barry Bostwick (in a really funny, movie stealing, somehow channeling Peter Falk-performance), Karen Black as a chain-smoking smart-assed mom, Leo Fitzpatrick (The Wire, Kids, My Name is Earl). It also features a really endearing performance by child actor, Ariel Gade, who appeared on the TV show, Invasion.
All the actors put in memorable performances which are, in part, due to the snappy writing and pace of the film. If you have good writing and a film that moves . It might not be quite on the Shaun of the Dead level but it is, let's say, every bit as good, if not better than Hot Fuzz. You will find yourself laughing more in this film that you will in most films billed as straight up comedies.
The basic plot revolves around a man released from an asylum. He gets a job at an ice cream parlor and lives with his mom. Suddenly a series of rather gruesome murders begin. More alarming for Corrigan's character, he meets his 11 year old daughter from a week-long relationship.
He is an artist, with rather gruesome proclivities, he doesn't talk much but his life changes, for the better, when his daughter enters it. The smart and sometimes surprisingly subtle, writing makes it all work--and the direction and pacing rarely let it lag.
It may be that the film doesn't look like a Hollywood film. But I will point out--neither did Insidious. If anyone got behind this film; if it had distribution and some ads, it might surprise people. It is a humor-horror hybrid that, if it isn't a home run, is at least a solid triple. Come on, this is being written during the World Series, there has to be a baseball analogy.
 Contagion is a message film and the message is; you are not safe. And when it comes to epidemics or pandemics this is totally true. Your wealth won't help you much. Nor will your current state of health. Sure, those already ill or weak are at greater risk but sometimes the young and hale lack resistance that their elders have. Ergo, no one is safe. And then they start rattling of information on how many times we touch our faces in a minute after touching GOD knows what else. Then we hear about fomites (basically anything can carry and transfer an infectious agent). AND then we see subtle shots of everyone touching things and other sneezing, hacking cough sufferers touching those SAME surfaces. If this doesn't make you want to wash your hands more then you are the nut. The film is a masterwork of pacing and making you care about the smallest of characters. Yes, this has a lot to do with fine acting but it also doesn't happen without fine directing as well. The message "you are not safe" well worth hearing. Every time there is a warming about a potential epidemic that sputters out or doesn't appear it makes people skeptical and lackadaisical which makes the almost inevitable real epidemic all the more dangerous. Between 1976 and 2006 estimates of yearly deaths, in the USA, from flu range from lows of 3,000 to highs of 49,000. . Find out more on flu at the CDC website. Even the regular yearly flu can kill you.
Contagion seems almost a docudrama but it is one with fine acting and a story that never allows it to slow down or get caught up in jargon or scientific mumbo jumbo. Other efforts at "epidemic" film making that have turned out dismally ( Outbreak springs to mind) usually side-step reality and into Hollywood crapola. The crapola usually indicates the government CREATED the plague afflicting mankind. Those bad BAD men in Washington! There is almost always an "evil general" in the bad epidemic movies but not in Contagion. In fact, there are few bad guys in this film--at least among major characters (with one exception). Everyone is trying to do their job and when some of them fail, when they do something "bad," audience members generally cannot blame them. For instance, we'd all put our families before protocol wouldn't we? Even if that wound up being a disaster? Yes, we would. That is another way Contagion is realistic. People behave as you might expect. Some loot, some panic, some are led into profiteering they justify, some are brave but none turn into Darth Vader. But back to hand washing. Hand washing gets knocked but it is one of the most effective ways to keep from getting sick. That includes run of the mill flu or a 1918-style pandemic. One place you can find out information on infections disease is the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. They have information and links to information on infectious disease info everyone should know. They also have a section on bio terrorism. I had occasion to interview Michael Osterholm who is the director at CIDRAP during the Anthrax attacks. In a general discussion on infectious disease he said the one vital thing we can ALL do ourselves is to frequently wash our hands.If Contagion causes people to do this we may have fewer flu cases this year!One last not on the film. Often when you see a large ensemble cast of big name actors you can almost SMELL a bad movie. This is not the case in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow has minimal screen time and makes the most of it. Matt Damon, again, proves he can handle just about any role. He can be over the top or he can be subtle and convey emotion with an expression. Laurence Fishburne has the gravitas of Gregory Peck. Jennifer Ehle also stands out as an incredibly brave researcher. I'd use the word "gravitas" but I already did. None of these actors are alone. Everyone in this film makes you care about them--one way or another--without tons of character development. When that happens it means you have a great group of actors.
 So this is late. Shockingly, I went to see a "Planet of the Apes" related movie two weeks or so after it was released. I have no excuse. But it does give me an out on the trap I hoped to avoid when I first began this movie section here.I wanted to avoid reviewing movies. Of course, essentially that is what I have done.
No apologies, not to any of the films I hated or the dumbass who really liked that dull-witted Another Earth movie (seriously....who would leave a COMMENT on a website asking for my "credentials" over such a mundane lifeless piece of shit). See? Already you can tell this isn't a review. But damn, it seems like a BLOG now.
I had hoped to avoid that too. I hate blogs; "Here is what I ate today" or "I am so blessed." That's all great I am only mocking a little but I don't want to do that (I did have some awesome Chinese noodles I bought at an Asian Grocery store on Kimball Ave by the highway in Chicago and I am blessed with incredible good looks).
What I wanted to write about is perception and movies. Usually when people do this they are writing about some tedious Godard film (I admit. Most of the time, I hate Godard). But it doesn't need to be high brow. We perceive the low brow every day. I sometimes get up early enough to watch morning talk shows. I once watched part of that Ozzy Osbourne reality show thing.
The first two opinions I had of Rise of the Planet of the Apes came from professional journalists, writing for a major newspaper. I saw their interaction on Facebook. One reviewed the movie. The other wrote an excellent "history" of the previous "apes" efforts. The latter liked the movie while the former disliked it.
I Hate This Movie. If you Like It You Are A Pretentious Douchebag. I don't even really like, Breathless, so THERE.
But let's look at this movie, this film of the rise of the apes.
It is about an hyper intelligent ape who becomes that way via testing for a drug aimed at defeating Alzheimers. This is Citizen Kane plot-wise compared to ANY film in the previous series. This could almost HAPPEN. They also make you FEEL something for a CGI ape. It isn't even Roddy McDowell in an ape costume. Who didn't love Roddy McDowell?
The film also make sense within its own parameters. There are no real red herrings. The performances are all, at worst, tolerable. Tom Felton (Harry Potter's Drago Malfoy) is basically used as a device to toss references to the old movies in but that is hardly his fault. John Lithgow delivers a fine performance in a small role, understated but real. James Franciscus...oh wait...he isn't in this. James Franco, is fine. He doesn't get to show his skill as he did in 127 Hours (another Best Actor Oscar robbery, King's Speech my ass) but he is fine. And stop whining about him on the Oscars. He was fine there too. No one is ever really GOOD doing that. Awards shows blow.
So what is to HATE? I get not liking it as a matter of taste. But hate?
I suspect there are a lot of things going on when we hate something that isn't THAT bad. We might have expectations that are unreasonably high. Previews might stoke us up for a film that was never really made. The best bits might ALL be in the previews. The people who edited the previews often seem more adept editors than those who edit the films. If I hit the lottery the preview editors will be editing the entire first Patrick Ogle produced film. I want the ghost of Erik Von Stroheim or Billy Bob Thornton--someone nuts and on a career suicide trajectory--to direct. In this expectation mode we walk in expecting a GREAT film and find a GOOD film and it pisses us off. It makes us HATE the movie.
Sometimes you see a film again and reassess it. But then what does that mean? Did you like it better when you saw it on cable because you perceived merits you missed? Or did you not have to pay $10 to get in and $8 for popcorn (and god forbid it is in 3D because you really get clipped on that).But regardless of the reason you do reassess. I am sure were I too see that horrible Resident Evil IV movie again I could relax and just stare at Milla Jovovich.
It can maybe be chalked up to environment when the shift is only from HATE to mild dislike (theater vs. home). I could discuss LOVING a film like Rise of the Planet of the Apes too, which is equally irrational and possibly based on blind fanboyness, How the fuck did anyone sit through any of that second set of Star Wars films? I wanted to poke out my eyes watching the first one.
Fanboy or Fangirlness are explanation one
But this love could also be based on wildly LOW expectations. Like when I saw 2012, the disaster movie. I had similar expectations to what most people would have watching a 7 hour documentary on Soviet farm collectives made under Stalin. But in 2012 as long as shit was blowing up or Woody Harrelson was on screen? I was tolerant. Harrelson should be in every movie by the way.
This movie does not suck and was not directed by Godard, proving Godard sucked.
An example of where I realized something I thought SUCKED but not only didn't SUCK but was pretty close to great, was Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys. I saw it in the theater and hated it like poison. HATED it. Then, years later a friend who I hadn't seen in awhile busted it out and said; "Hey this is really good, want to watch it?" I didn't feel like being rude.
And after the second viewing? I thought it was pretty close to a great movie. What happened? Was I just in a piss poor mood at first viewing? I do not recall that. It wasn't that MANY years between viewings. I was an adult in both situations with my tastes pretty well set. I mean I loved Every Which Way But Loose when I was 11 but my opinion was wildly different at 16.
There are no conclusions I can come to on this. It is more a starting point for discussion and thought. It may also just be an excuse to mention Godard and Every Which Way But Loose in the same piece.
Another Earth is proof that not every small film, not every indie film, is a brilliant masterpiece. Some of them are mundane drudgery. It isn't the worst film ever made and that is the best thing you can say about it. It is professionally shot, it is paced reasonably and it has a basic premise that is interesting.
But, those things alone don't make a watchable film or a film where you won't hear audience members groaning and guffawing at various points (especially the predictable, eye-roller of an ending).
Why do indie films go wrong?
It is often the same reason better-funded films stink up the screen; someone comes up with an idea but never bother to craft a story beyond that idea. With Blockbusters sometimes they decide to make up for lack of content with explosions. Indies often do it with pretension.
Another Earth has an interesting premise. Another world appears in the sky, apparently inhabitable. As this news is breaking a young woman, Rhoda, played by Brit Marling (who co-wrote this mess with director Mike Cahill), does something terrible throwing her life away and ruining another life in the process. But that is it. There is nothing much else to it. The idea of parallel worlds is given short shrift. The idea of redemption is made to seem as mundane as buying a Big Mac, fries and a Coke.
As the movie moves forward this other world figuratively and literally (it gets bigger in the sky) moves nearer. And the main character, Rhoda enters a contest to fly to this other world. I won't give away more details but, be aware, there are not many more to give away.
The problem here isn't the sci-fi. It is everything else. The most believable thing about the film is that this other, identical earth appears in the sky. Most of the dialog is forced and a great deal of the story is told via voice over "news coverage." The people just don't do or say what you would expect people to do or say in these situations. The writers, at least, make an effort to explain the most ludicrous part of the plot but it still doesn't fly. How does someone not know who it was that killed his family? A lame explanation is given but it doesn't withstand much scrutiny.
The writing is stilted, the acting so robotic that it is difficult to tell if they are good actors or not (William Mapother was fine on Lost!). Every word out of Rhoda's brother's mouth sounds like it was written for a reality show (until the last words out of his mouth which ring more true).
This is a film that it is difficult to even come up with something to say about it; it is just so mediocre. It is a waste of effort and a waste of time to watch. You will feel nothing watching it and you won't think about it ten seconds after you leave the theater except to say "Damn, maybe I should have gone to see Captain America."
Another irksome thing about the film is that it really thinks it is profound. It oozes self-regard. It is not profound. There is no depth to the concepts approached. It has no charm and I challenge you to give a rat's ass about any character in the film (should you be unfortunate enough to see it).
I think the reason I wrote about this at all, because I take no joy in writing negatively about modest movies, is that I take issue with those who laud every movie that isn't about a super hero. Or any movie that can be labeled as "independent." I have seen a lot of such films in the past five years and their rate of failure is as high as Hollywood. They are not all good, many are mediocre and many will make you want to poke out your eyes (this one isn't quite that bad). The real question is why does this film get the distribution other, much better, films never see? I have seen great films, GREAT ones, that only made it into the dingiest big city art house theaters. How does Another Earth get the exposure they deserve?
I don’t want to write a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. Too many others are going to weigh in—calling it a masterpiece or calling it a travesty because they got the color of Professor McGonagall’s undergarments wrong (super fans can be nit pickers, I mean I threw away my Gandalf pajamas after the second Lord of the Rings movie). My reaction to the movie interests me more than a specific review; I found myself disappointed when the movie ended and it wasn’t because the film wasn’t good.
It was because I am sad these films are done. I had a similar feeling when I put down the last book. There are not going to be any more of them.
The films were not all brilliant perhaps and Order of the Phoenix (the book) was drudgery. And yes, I have read those braying about how J.K. Rowling would NEVER been allowed to sit at the Algonquin Round Table and how she is CERTAINLY not (fill in your favorite writer pompous people name drop and often haven’t actually read-- Proust for instance). But snotty assessments and recommendations led me to read Philip Pullman. It was a good atheist screed. But the story fell apart like the Dune series.
I find J.K. Rowling’s series, as a whole, to be as fine a series of books written for young adults that I can think of. I would add that they stand quite high in the world of fantasy writing as well.
Admittedly, one of the reasons people latch on to even mediocre fantasy as brilliant is that so much of it is dismal. It is always about a magic sword, or ring or douche. The magic douche must be wielded by a special person and have just the right amount of vinegar.
Yawn. Tolkien did it. He did it better. Please stop.
Occasionally, however, someone comes along post-Tolkien, who captures the imagination and creates a new world, one that transports us. Frank Herbert maybe did it for a bit. Philip Pullman did to I confess, until his ideology overcame his story. But neither of them was really writing for kids and the movies for Herbert and Pullman’s books are also dismal. I hold the unpopular opinion that only the first of the three Lord of the Rings movies is actually good (the other two being moderately entertaining masterpieces of CGI).
So when it comes to fantasy-for young adults or for general audiences-really only the Harry Potter films manage to capture the magic of the books. Sure the first two are pedestrian but they improve they move on and become darker, as the characters grow up and as the stories grow up. The movie for the book Order of the Phoenix is significantly better than the book. And the books and movies differ in many ways but the filmmakers usually capture the essence.
These films often do something other adaptations do not—at least when they are at their best. They subtract more than they add. If you tried to make a film including extensive screen time for all the peripheral characters in these books the movies would be an unwatchable mess. Some of the side plots have to go, or at least be severely curtained. Sure there are mistakes and additions and subtractions that may cause fans of the books to scratch their heads a little. But overall?
All I have to say is go try to watch the original Dune.
In Potters world they subtract but they leave it open to the viewers imagination that, somewhere in the world of the movie, these acts and characters are living and acting and breathing off the screen somewhere. So goodbye to this fine series and I am not sure I want Rowling to write anymore. They can stand on their own. Start something new.
Now, let’s just hope The Hunger Games films surpass these.
The movie Buck is a small movie. That term can imply a lot of things but usually it is a movie about something specific, something not grand; there are no cavalry charges, there are no alien space ships or giant earthquakes. Some small movies are good and some are bad. Buck is good. It is a simple movie about a man who is probably more complicated than he comes off in the film. He is a man who, despite personal physical and mental abuse, repudiated violence in his own life. And what he does with his own life is “train” horses. He doesn’t whisper to them (although he was a consultant on Robert Redford’s film). I went to see this movie because I was not paying $32 (for 2 people) to see Transformers, Dark of The Moon. I knew I was going to see it but there is a limit to how much I will allow myself to suffer. And the day after seeing Buck, boy, did I suffer. I was one of the only people over the age of 12 who was tolerant of the second Transformers movie. I apparently liked it better than the cast or the director--although I use the word “like” in the loosest possible way. I use the word in the “I only wanted to sort of poke out my eyes while watching this film” way. The new Transformers made me want to poke out my eyes. Really. That is not hyperbole. I got up and went to the bathroom even though I didn’t have to go. Anytime any character talked for more than 20 seconds all I could think was “God I hope a robot comes in and freaking blows something up.” If you enjoyed this film and are over the age of 13 you should go to your medical professional for a CAT scan.
But let’s get back to Buck. The point of this movie, in addition to loosely sketching the story of a man’s life, is that violence is not the answer. You do not need to beat hell out of a horse to get it on your side. And even more important that the victims of violence are not doomed to, themselves, be violent.
It is also a movie for people who like horses and old fashioned documentaries. There is a curious glossing over of some details. Buck talks, his friends talk, one of his daughters and his wife talk. But other, presumably important, people in his life do not. He talks but there is a reticence there. In some ways this is a little frustrating.
But it is also sort of refreshing. After all in today’s world “celebrities” have reality shows where they talk about their bowel movements on national television isn’t it nice to have a retiring, private man who shares enough, just enough, to let us into his world and life and to teach us something? And this isn’t just a subtle lesson about how violence is unnecessary but how patience is. He scoffs, at one point in the film about how people who are 40 and say they are “too old.” He then notes how one of his mentors was “breaking” horses when he was 94.
Buck is a small film but there are big lessons there if we choose to take them to heart. You can also just eschew that and watch a movie about a man with a different way of “breaking” (the term is not really apropos) horses. It isn’t all happy and cheery. But ultimately the film is low key, hopeful and if it doesn’t give you a laundry list of important life changing issues to think on, it gives you a handful and some very clear and specific reasons why you should think on those issues it does touch upon.
|
RSS Feed