What films have you seen recently?

[Kaikyaku]

So I just watched The Graduate and I have to say I was underwhelmed. It started out interesting and the part of Mrs Robinson was played expertly by Anne Bancroft. Her character reveals a lot of depth with very little dialogue. Her presence is powerful. However, once the focused switched to Ben and Elaine the movie started to stumble.

Elaine had next to no character and why she would be at all interested in Ben after what, one date, is completely beyond me. He comes across as a huge jerk and the only reason they were together at the end is because they wanted the happy ending. Ben didn't deserve one, honestly. When Elaine was wavering I was really hoping she would say no and teach him a lesson. If the focus had been kept on the affair and Mrs Robinson it would have been an interesting film, but it ended up falling into a predictable and boring storyline.

I did enjoy some of the directing and cinematography though. There were some clever shots and sequences. But for a film that still gets mentioned and referenced a lot, I was expecting a lot more.

[Sorrows Neptune]

The Dark Knight Rise: (Almost a month since the movie came out; I sure am late to the discussion.)

I actually really liked the ending to the film. It's pretty similar to Inception's ending, in that on the surface it appears to be the typical cliche ending, but there's actually a lot more to it.

Spoiler for Hiden:

While re-watching Batman Begins, I noticed that there's a whole subtext to Wayne having identity issues. He acts as if Batman is his alter-ego to Bruce Wayne, yet the Bruce Wayne that he shows to others is really just another alter-ego; he acts like your typical playboy millionaire only to help support his role as Batman. When Rachael witnesses Bruce flaunting his wealth like a jerkass, he hurriedly assures her that it's only act; it's not really him. But throughout most of the movies, all you see playing the role of his alter-egos; of Batman and the playboy millionaire. His whole life is devoted to these egos, leaving us to question what he's actually like underneath.

Now at the start of Rises, Wayne is a hermit who hasn't left his mansion for eight years. After giving up the identity of Batman in the conclusion of The Dark Knight, he didn't see the point in maintaining his other alter-ego of a playboy millionaire, and no longer had any purpose in life. His true-ego is just a sad, lonely orphan who doesn't know what to do with himself; he was an empty shell of a man. It's why he's so eager to get back into crime fighting despite his disabilities; he perceives the Batman to be his true self, or at least its only thing that gives his life meaning. (Especially after the death of Rachael in TDK.)

But as Alfred points out to him, he's not really happy. Ever since he left Gotham and came back to fight crime in the events of Batman Begins, all he's done is suppress the hatred within him, and nurture the bitterness he still holds over the death of Rachael and his parents. He's never tried to actually improve himself as a person.

Only during Batman's final adventure--the time-bomb crisis--does Bruce learn to truly move on. By faking the death of both Batman and himself, he destroys both of his alter-egos, and goes on to pursue a life that truly satisfies him.

Overall TDK was the better film, but Rises had a much more powerful ending.

[Kaikyaku]

I watched a couple of really fantastic films this last week.

The first was Mildred Pierce from 1945. Wow. At first it seems like a basic noir murder mystery, but it turns into a very detailed character study of Mildred herself. Her relationship to her children and the men in her life is quite fascinating and the part is incredibly well acted by Joan Crawford. It's quite a famous film, so I won't bother to go into detail, but I really enjoyed it.

The second was Mary and Max. I stumbled across a mention of it quite by accident. I'd never heard of the film, though it came out in 2009, but managed to find it at the Library. I have honestly never seen a movie so beautiful yet so ugly. It may be done in claymation, but this is not a kids film. It deals with a lot of the worst parts of life - being alone, mental illness, suicide, alcoholism, death, etc. The two main characters, Mary and Max, go through a lot and even their friendship is far from perfect. There is hardly any colour. Almost everything is grey or brown. The characters are purposefully exaggerated to be ugly. Yet the story of two people struggling to be happy in such an ugly world managed to be quite touching. The storytelling is absolutely perfect, with the voice acting and narration giving that storybook feel, yet not quite. It's dark sense of humour keeps the story afloat through the sorrows. It's not an easy film to watch, but it is one I think will stick with me for a long time. I'm glad I went out of my way to find it. This is a bold project by a filmmaker who was not afraid to take risks.

[Kaikyaku]

I went to the library again last week, which means I rented a bunch more movies.

The Remains of the Day - I just finished reading the book a few weeks ago. It pretty much goes without saying that the book was better, but the movie is very charming. The acting is really good and they do an excellent job of exploring the huge house (which is actually something like 6 different houses). Stevens has an innocence that the film captures very well, though in the movie he seemed to be a little more self aware than he was in the novel. In the book he seemed to lie about his past because he couldn't accept the possibility that he was wrong. In the film it was more because he did realize he was wrong. Overall a very well made film that makes its point but is subtle about it.

The Hurt Locker - I've been meaning to watch this for a long time, but I often find it hard to watch war movies. I was surprisingly ok with this one and I'm glad a movie like this has been made. I honestly could not imagine being in a situation like that, either as part of the military or even as a civilian. This is not the war of the past, it is a modern reality. And it's a really well made movie.

Babies - So after a war movie I thought I should watch something cute, right? Well, Babies was cute, but a little boring. I appreciated that they let the babies be the stars, but I would have liked some more information. The fact that babies are babies and will all cry, laugh and play regardless of their culture and situation is important, but not really enough to sustain the whole movie. I would have been more interested in the role of babies in each of the societies.

[historymanzp]

I've been going down memory lane with a bunch of Disney movies lately.

Last one I saw was The Rescuers (1977). Even for a film made in a time when recycling animation was the norm (thanks Hanna-Barbera), I'm surprised how good this looks. The acting is great too, with Bob Newhart filling in perfectly as Bernard and Eva Gabor as Bianca. Something else I noticed about the film is how incredibly dark and grim it is for a Disney film: the entire plot revolves around child abduction and a girl being threatened to get a diamond from a cave. There's one scene where the villain refuses to pull up the girl until she retrieves it. Incidentally, said scene is one of the most tense and dramatic I've ever seen in a Disney film. It's not exactly for kids just because it has talking mice....

What really stuck out to me was how it stands in stark contrast to the films Disney made in the 1960s and 1970s. Disney had gone more for comedy in this time with films like The Aristocats and Robin Hood, while trading in story, drama and character. The Rescuers is one of my favorite Disney films for this reason; it stands as a return to form, as Disney going back to its roots, trying to replicate what they did in earlier films like Bambi or Pinocchio. It makes me sad to think that Disney can't be like this again.

Also, how can you not love the opening credits?
http://youtu.be/Y8hti2R4CTY
The music swell at 2:10 always gets me.

[The Big Guy]

Saw two really good movies this week.

Looper: It's been touted as this generation's Matrix, but it is more like a sci fi version of Drive. It doesn't get caught up in explanations about the sci fi, rather choosing to tell a gritty, violent, and complex tale. Bruce Willis really steals the show here, playing a sympathetic antagonist that does some truly horrifying things to achieve his goal. I would go as far as to say that this is the best movie this year. 9/10.

Seven Psychopaths: It's basically a Quentin Tarantino film, and I mean that in a good way. Amazing characters (including a good performance from Christopher Walken), hilarious dialogue, and a surprisingly meta plot line. Highly recommended. 8/10.

[Kavik Ryx]

Two recent science fiction movies about relationships that simultaneously do and do not exist.

Safety not Guaranteed: 7/10

I'm not sure whether to call this a time travel story or not. But it is a clever way of discussing it, while also addressing issues of mental health. Mark Duplass's character, the poster of the "Safety no Guaranteed" ad is a clearly imbalanced man. He his humorless and convinced enough, that he might as well be schizoid. But he delivers with such conviction, that it is not difficult to believe at moments that he may actually have time travel capabilities. Though in terms of performances, Aubrey Plaza is the star in both senses. She gives off what I can only call a sarcastic, detached, Ellen Page vibe. The inability of the two characters in interact properly with the world allows the actors to play off each other well, even as Duplass's character is too out of touch to be capable of normal human interaction while Plaza's is simply using his possibly psychosis for a story. On a slight downside, the content of the main story is not substantial enough for its own movie, resorting to a montage at one point, and it also is padded out by a less engaging B plot about the head journalist's love life. However, the movie still serves as an effective mystery with a sharp, dry sense of humor.

Robot and Frank: 8/10

A sweet five minutes into the future film about aging and companionship that manages not to fall into saccharine territory. The chemistry between the robot and Frank is fantastic, which is strange considering that from the perspective of the story, the two should have about as much chemistry as a man should have with his iPhone. Because of the nature of the relationship, it is difficult to tell how genuine the emotions are on both sides. For Frank, he is clearly taking advantage of the robot's protocols for his own selfish gains. But in the end, it is hard not to see his interaction with the machine as anything other than genuine. For the robot, it is just as clearly exploiting Frank's less than savory habits to ensure his mental health. The movie is more clear cut about its lack of emotion. However, because of its communicative adaptability on the part of Peter Sarsgard and movements on the part of the suit actor, it is easy to forget this, and see it as a caring, feeling entity. This movie is a perfect example of how to convey depth of character through a suit where it is not possible to see micromovements or facial expressions, and how it can outdo CG in many situations. It is unapologetically cynical; however, I can say I was not prepared for how wrenching the ending was.

[Sorrow-kun]

Les Miserables

I'm probably the least qualified person to comment on Victor Hugo's epic, seeing as this is my first exposure to the classic story, but this movie is worth it for the performances alone.  Hugh Jackman is just incredible as Jean Valjean, who has been described at various times as one of the greatest protagonists in all of literature, and Anne Hathaway, OMG, give her an Oscar right this minute.  It's overdue for her performance in Rachel Getting Married anyway.  If she's not the most talented actress going around in Hollywood right now she's right up there.  The movie is beautifully shot and so incredibly lively, and the emotional scenes are well done and hit really hard.  A few little flaws... Russel Crowe is a little out of his depth (it's not so much that he's bad, it's just that the others around him are so good), and the movie, despite going for two and a half hours still feel way too spritely in pacing.  Still, well worth seeing, and this is coming from someone who's relatively skeptical of the musical format.

Rating: 8/10

[TypicalIdiotFan]

The Hobbit:

Spoiler heavy.  You have been warned.

What was always going to make or break this adaptation for me was the planned addition of story elements not shown in the book, though they were story elements that existed at the time of the story's events.  By that I'm referring to the stuff involving the Necromancer of Mirkwood.

And it came off clumsy.  The reason is that Jackson, for whatever reason, is rewriting that story entirely.  At the time that Bilbo and the Dwarfs set out to Erebor, the Necromancer of Mirkwood was already a known entity and the White Council had already decided to move against him.  Gandalf was on this journey with Thorin and Company specifically for this reason.  When Gandalf repeatedly disappears, he's off handling business related to this incursion.  He then leaves everybody when they get to Mirkwood to go off and handle driving the Necromancer (actually Sauron) out.

So, the forcing... and I use this term intentionally... of the Necromancer story elements into the story of the Hobbit just felt off.  It makes Gandalf's reason for being with Thorin sketchy in the first place, they had to add things like Radagast the Brown (gah...) informing Gandalf of things going on in Mirkwood, and they added in a rather stupid element where the White Council might have opposed and somehow stopped Thorin from continuing his quest.  Of these, Radagast's portrayal is just obnoxious and childish, but the main issue is the last one.  NOBODY cared that Thorin was going to try to retake Erebor and certainly NOBODY was going to try to stop him.  There was never any concern that Smaug would join Sauron, and even if there was, having Thorin go and kill the beast would have been a good thing.  So, none of it made sense.  Having the dwarfs have to somewhat ESCAPE Rivendell made NO SENSE AT ALL.

I have a few other minor beefs, but... they're minor, so they're not important.  The famous last words of the Goblin King, for example, made me (and most of the audience) groan.  Just a really stupid idea.  But the big issue was the added stuff.  Contrarily, I didn't care much for the severely increased importance of Azog the Defiler (real character, but in the book he WAS killed at Moria by Thorin), and by that I mean I don't mind it.  Gives Thorin a good dramatic reason to fight and die in the Battle of Five Armies instead of just being mortally wounded somehow in the frackus as he was in the book.

Madagascar 3:

I found this movie more humorous and entertaining than the first two.  However, it is easily the weakest one story wise.  They literally hand wave how the animals get to Monte Carlo in the first place, and from there on it's just one coincidence after another to get them to the circus, where most of the movie's relevant plot takes place.  From there on, they don't bother going into great depth with each character and their respective take on the circus life.  The movie focuses the most on Alex for some reason, with Marty, Gloria, and Melman relegated to near insignificance.  As for said plot, meh; despite the visuals, especially of the circus acts, were stunning, it's just not great material overall.

[Kaikyaku]

I just got back from seeing the Hobbit. I read the book, but in highschool so all I remember is that there was a hobbit and a dragon. I even forgot there were Dwarves in it, so essentially I went in blind.

Anyways, I enjoyed the movie overall. I thought the acting was strong and the scenery was, again, gorgeous. There was some good humour and I'm very curious where the political angle is going. However, I thought the action scenes were too long and too many. They had just escaped the Goblin King and two minutes later the orcs are upon them. I would have preferred more time with the group, getting to know them and seeing how hard the journey itself is. I wasn't a big fan of the one armed orc, but I actually liked Radagast and his rabbit sleigh.

This was the very first movie I've seen in 3D and I have to say I didn't like it. I came away with a massive headache at the end. I don't think I'll be trying that again any time soon.

[TypicalIdiotFan]

3D movies are a retarded concept that went out of style after the 1960s.  I seriously don't know why James Cameron (etc) wanted to bring that crap back, especially since NO director anywhere has ever made a movie that uses it for anything other than a gimmick.

But, your headache might have been from the 48 fps film instead of the 24 fps.  Supposedly that higher frame rate took a while for people to get used to and a lot of them reported that they didn't care for it or it caused headaches.  Unless, of course, you just forgot to wear the 3D glasses...

As for the movie, the dwarfs and Bilbo are beset by those goblins right after they escape the Misty Mountains, so that's accurate.  It's just how it goes in the book, though it is not Azog and his gang but the vengeful remnants of the goblins they just escaped.

[Kaikyaku]

I actually saw it in the regular 24 fps.

I just don't think the 3D really added anything anyways. I kept get distracted by random rocks in the foreground because they stuck out. The Hobbit: An Unexpected bunch of rocks in your face.

[Fumoffu!!]

I've seen the Hobbit as well, I saw it with the 48 fps, it didn't hurt my eyes or anything, it did look different though, though I'm not sure how exactly.

Anyway, it was good film, not perfect, but thoroughly entertaining. However, there's that question bugging me, again: Why didn't they take the ****ing eagles?

[TypicalIdiotFan]

Because the eagles are sentient, intelligent beings with their own free will.  The only reason they aided Gandalf and co is because Gandalf rescued their lord when an arrow felled him.  They do not stray far from the Misty Mountains in general, where their nests are, and only have done so at the behest of wizards (Gandalf and Radagast) or high elves (Galadriel).  Their part in the Battle of Five Armies was partially due to their debt to Gandalf and partially because the eagles are blood enemies of the goblins.

[AC]

Looper - 8/10

Wow, seems like Joseph Gordon-Levitt is popping up in every great movie lately.

Time traveling is, I should say, quite a worn-out concept so if any movie or show is going to use it in their story, it's going have to bring it to the next level in order to distinguish itself from the rest. Looper did the job pretty well, and I love how it intertwines time traveling with post-economic meltdown US. I wouldn't really compare this with Inception though even if the reviews do so, not just because the concepts are entirely different but so are the execution and presentation styles (Nolan just does it better at presenting something on a larger-than-life scale).

But there is one thing I don't like about Looper:

Spoiler for Hiden:

The whole TK theme lacks coherence in light of time traveling. It feels as though it's only something that's added on just to render the Rainmaker a fearsome mysterious figure when it thematically has no relation to the mechanics of time traveling. What's more important is the motive of the Rainmaker to "close all the loops", anyway.

Oh, and Gordon-Levitt should continue with his acting prowess. Another good job from him... even if I thought his prosthetic makeup was too obvious.