Change Your Image
chrisq28
Reviews
The Incredibles (2004)
Well-Told and Well-Animated
With "The Incredibles" and the under-viewed masterpiece "The Iron Giant", as well as some fine Simpsons episodes under his belt, Brad Bird has shown himself to be one of the finest writer/directors in animated films. "The Incredibles" is simply a beautiful and well-done movie, with an exciting storyline, well-developed themes, and breathtaking animation.
In short, the movie tells the story of Mr. Incredible (played by Craig T. Nelson, who they picked after realizing they shouldn't use John Goodman again, I'm sure) and Elastigirl (Holly Hunter), two superheroes who are shown getting married at the beginning of the movie. After a bungled rescue attempt (foiled by an incompetent fan named Buddy, who calls himself Incrediboy), would-be victims file civil suits against Mr. Incredible and other superheroes. After a developing public outcry, the government puts the superheroes in hiding, and asks that they refrain from publicly using their powers, even if it's for the greater good.
Cut to fifteen years later, and we see that Mr. Incredible (now Bob Parr) and Elastigirl (who goes by Helen Parr) are now raising children (Dash and Violet, who have superpowers as well, but aren't allowed to use them for fear of being found out) and Bob works at an insurance company that makes its business by screwing its clients in their hour of need. Unsatisfied with his job and stuck in the past of his glory days, Bob leaps at the opportunity to go on a secret mission and utilize his powers of super-strength. Of course, things aren't exactly as they seem, and the entire family ends up getting caught up in an adventure that allows them to utilize their strengths, rather than be ashamed of them. Their escapade changes the lives of superheroes all over the world from then after.
The film has strong themes of family, restraint, and individuality, the latter being the most well-defined. There is one line that is used at least twice in the movie: "If everyone is special, that means that no one really is." A lot of people have looked at the individuality theme and thought that Bird wants to make a statement about all people not actually being equal. I believe the statement is true, not all people can do the same things (although they should be given the same opportunities), but is an incorrect interpretation. Actually, Mr. Bird seems to be saying that people should be allowed to use and develop their strengths to the best of their abilities, and always in the best interest of the general public. (The movie's villain develops his talents, but for evil, and we see that he isn't rewarded for it.) After all, they're all much happier when they're allowed to be all that they can be (watch Dash's eyes light up when his mother directs him to run as fast as he can if he gets into trouble).
The animation is unbelievable in this movie. As it ended, I thought to myself that if this is the future of animation, then live-action has a lot to live up to. Of course, live-action will never be eliminated, there's too much to offer in the medium. However, there are some scenes that took place in The Incredibles that couldn't have happened without great cost, and likely with a loss to the scene. This is Pixar's first film in which all the characters were human, and I would be interested to see what it would be like if they took animation just a few steps (or less) further into other genres.
9.75/10.00 for The Incredibles.
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
Better Than Most, But That's Not Saying Much
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is director Wes Anderson's fourth film. I should mention that I've loved every one of Anderson's previous films in the following order, favorite to least-favorite:
1. "Rushmore"
2. "The Royal Tennenbaums"
3. "Bottle Rocket"
It's hard to put a place number on this one, and I generally prefer critiquing a film on its own merit rather than against others of the genre, or others by the same director. Since Wes Anderson is such a unique director though, I think it would be appropriate to review this movie in comparison to his others.
The film is about Steve Zissou (Bill Murray), an explorer who has become famous with his increasingly poor documentaries on nature and wildlife. At Zissou's latest premier, a film that features the death of Zissou's longtime partner, Esteban, he meets a man who is rumored to be his son, Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson).
While in the crowd, Ned addresses Zissou:
"What will be your next adventure?"
"I'm going to find it (the shark) and I'm going to destroy it. Possibly with dynamite."
Zissou puts together a group of shipmates that consists of himself, Ned, Jane (Cate Blanchett, a journalist doing a piece on Zissou), Klaus (Willem Dafoe), and other various eccentrics in order to film their newest documentary and avenge Esteban's death.
The result of their quest and the plot itself isn't the point of this movie. The movie is about the way these characters interact with each other--and of course, it's all centered around Bill Murray, who does an effective job in his familiar role as the tired and jaded but otherwise amusing old guy.
"I'm sick of Bill Murray playing the sad old man," a friend of mine said. "It's not a character I have any sympathy for."
"You're not supposed to like him," I said. "You're just supposed to understand him."
In knowing this, and the fact that the film simply isn't any more than a bunch of quirky people in a boat, the film becomes easier to love. It's funny, it's bittersweet, and it's enjoyable.
That isn't to say that it's without fault. "Wes Anderson knows that he's clever, and it's hurting him," I wrote in my notes as I watched. Roger Ebert calls this "terminal whimsy", and I agree. I really hope Anderson experiments with other styles of film-making, because if he can't do any more than this, it will expose him as a shallow director.
I believe "Rushmore" is Anderson's masterpiece, and the two films subsequent to it have been slightly watered-down versions of it. Stylistically, thematically, and even with the same actors.
If I had to put Anderson's films in order of best-worst after having seen Life Aquatic, it would look like this:
1. "Rushmore"
2. "Royal Tennenbaums"
3. "Life Aquatic" 4. "Bottle Rocket"
Wes Anderson is a good director (and a fellow Texan!), but I think he can't escape himself--to the point that he's almost self-parodic. He's also brought himself down to earth with this film (it could have gone either way after "Tennenbaums")--he's not so much a giant with the potential to do anything, but more of a cult director. When he goes up against often-compared latter-day directors--P.T. Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, for example--there's just no question that they're out of his league. Anderson has made a number of very good films, but at the end of this one, I found that I didn't feel anything more than amused--not precisely what he was going for, I think.
7.8/10.00 for "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou."
Top Gun (1986)
Non-stop Action and Homoeroticism
I hated "Top Gun" before I even watched it. That doesn't sound very fair, but it's true. I hate the way that people reference it, I hate the way it's become a cult favorite among people who aren't smart or interesting. And with only a few exceptions, I hate the work of Jerry Bruckheimer (who produced this movie).
Now, to be fair, I know a lot of those stupid and uninteresting people enjoy the movie ironically. But even when looking at it that way, I couldn't help but find it more annoying than silly. I mean, it's not Journey's "Separate Ways" video or anything.
Where to begin? Should I start with the egregious and unnecessary homosexual undertones? The awkward dialogue? The intense love story that seems to appear as if from nowhere? The stereotypical and flat characters? The bad attempts at theme? The enormous plot holes? I'll just pick at the things that bugged me the most. First, the shockingly obvious and strange homosexual undercurrent that exists between nearly every male character in the movie. From the minute that Goose and Maverick enter Top Gun, there are encouraging glances, knowing looks, and even arms around each other that left me puzzled. Why was that "intense" scene between Iceman and Maverick shot in such a way that it looks like they may kiss at any moment? Maybe you have to fly a jet to understand it. "I want some butts!" one of the flight commanders yells in frustration after Maverick does a tower fly-by. And don't even get me started with the volleyball scene.
If I had to create an idealized version of this movie in my mind, a version that was actually decent, it would probably involve a love story. In fact, the love story might even involve the same characters that the movie uses--but the way it's done is puzzling, and time just doesn't seem to be a factor in the way Maverick and Kelly McGillis' character get to know each other. What exactly do they have in common besides the fact that Maverick is extremely arrogant and she apparently likes arrogant men? "Top Gun" was one of the most financially successful films of 1986. It seems puzzling to me, because it truly is terrible, in almost every way. But if you break it down, it's easy to figure out. Does the film have: - Things blowing up? Yes, lots of airplanes.
- Tom Cruise with his shirt off? Yes, along with everyone else but the less-endowed Goose, in that volleyball scene.
- Memorable scenes, even if they are awkwardly placed? How about where Maverick and Goose sing The Righteous Brothers' "You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling?" to Kelly McGillis in the bar? - A high-five that everyone will remember and attempt to perfect for the next century? Yes, in that damned volleyball scene.
- A trite emotional scenario? Goose dies a never-explained death (I think he hit his head on the roof of the cockpit when they ejected); there is absolutely no depth to this occurrence, it just happens, and as a result, Tom Cruise can't fly properly. Also the whole sub-plot with Maverick's father being a pilot who crashed in 'Nam.
- A feel-good triumphant climax? Of course, when it all hits the fan, Maverick is back up on top and we're happy that he blows up the bad guys and returns home.
- A soundtrack that features Kenny Loggins? Yes. Oh god, yes.
I get that people like this movie because it's silly. I also get that others like this movie because they look at it as the prototype for high-adrenaline action/romance movies. But the film isn't silly, and it isn't one of those "so bad it's good" movies, either. It's just bad. That place between bad-bad and funny-bad is where most films lie, and Top Gun is right there with them.
3.40/10.00 for Top Gun.
Showgirls (1995)
Terrible, but recommended.
"Showgirls", as I remember it, was basically a film about "Saved by the Bell"'s Jessie Spano getting naked. This, of course, is my memory from the age of fourteen, so when the movie came up in conversation a few days ago, I thought I'd re-watch it and see how I viewed it now. Turns out that it's basically a film about "Saved by the Bell"'s Jessie Spano getting naked.
Screenwriter Joe Eszterhas presents Elizabeth Berkley's nudity through the guise of a tell-all look into strip clubs, Las Vegas, hooking, and greed. It ends up being simply the shallow masturbatory fantasies from a mind that has no knowledge of any of those things. I found the film at the video store under the "Erotica" section. "Eroticism" said Roger Ebert in his review of the film, "requires a mental connection between two people, while masturbation requires only the other person's image." Too true. Every scene that involved sex of some sort was as emotionless as a bad porno flick, and contained at least three times as much gyration and body-thrashing as a good porno flick.
"Showgirls" begins with a hopeful Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley), hitchhiking out to Las Vegas to make it big. After easily getting a lift with a stranger, she meets and befriends a woman named Molly who gives her a place to stay. Her generosity is strange to me, because within the first five minutes of the film, Nomi proves to be an emotional, violent wreck. So far she's pulled a switchblade, gotten into a fight, thrown french fries all over the place, and generally behaved like a spoiled child with Torret's syndrome.
Nomi works as a stripper, and after meeting Cristal Connors (Gina Gershon), the star of a topless expensively-produced dance show at a real Vegas hotel, she reveals to Connors her profession.
"I'm a dancer," she says.
"Oh? Where?"
"At the Cheetah."
"I don't know what it is you do over there, but if it's at the Cheetah, it ain't dancing."
Nomi, of course, flies out of control, but piques the interest of the seemingly bisexual Connors, who soon comes to visit her with her boyfriend Zack (Kyle MacLachlan) at the Cheetah. Nomi seems insulted that Connors would objectify her the way she does, but performs an alarmingly violent lap-dance, which she's paid handsomely for. Through her performance at the club, she's invited to the hotel where Connors stars for an audition. She does well, but again feels objectified, so she runs off the stage in frustration. (This running off the scene in frustration comes to become a recognizable trait in Nomi.) To calm herself, she and Molly go dancing where she meets James, a horny but seemingly well-meaning dancer/choreographer who wants her to take dancing seriously.
It turns out that she's gotten the job in the chorus, which of course fills her with delight--she's beginning to see her dreams take place. The plot now develops into a glimpse inside the world of showgirls--we see monkeys run around backstage, vindictive and spiteful dancers willing to disable each other to get ahead, and an underworld of greed and malice that is encouraged by managers and producers.
The film is exceedingly terrible. I mentioned in my review for "Top Gun" that the Tom Cruise movie wasn't one of those "so bad it's good" types that people make it out to be--it was just bad. As a whole, "Showgirls" is a film that is so awful it's enjoyable to watch. Nomi's overly-aggressive behavior is hilarious and entertaining in itself, but the plot and the rest of the film is the icing on the cake. Here's a couple of examples:
1. Cristal (who reveals in this conversation that she's named herself after the champagne) asks Nomi if she likes brown rice and vegetables (the preferred diet for girls in their show). Nomi says that she does. "Really?" Connors asks. After some persuasion, Nomi admits: "It's worse than dog food." "I've had dog food," Cristal replies. Nomi's face lights up, as if they've got something in common, but Cristal puts on a far-away look: "A long time ago." Nomi admits to eating the same dog food, and they grow closer. My reaction: "What? Eating dog food? Who talks about that when they're eating lunch at the Bellagio?"
2. The lap-dance scene and the sex scene between Nomi and Zack. There are two parts of your nervous system that control orgasms and arousal in humans, the sympathetic and the parasympathetic. The parasympathetic controls arousal--if there is too much going on in the body, the system will receive the message that it's not worth the energy to be aroused right now, and in the male case, he will lose his erection. This is why, for example, you won't ever find yourself getting a hard-on while going for a jog. My question is: how the hell could Zack maintain an erection with Nomi's violent thrashing? She does things with her back that I've only seen performed with a safety net. I would have been scared for my life if I were in his place, forget the orgasm. After doing a bit of research, I found that Elizabeth Berkley was only paid $100,000 for her role in this movie. What did they have to pay the chiropractors that they must have had on call throughout the filming?
At 133 minutes, you might expect that the film would get boring after awhile. It never does. It only grows worse as time goes on, but no matter what's happening it's always entertainment.
2.40/10.00 for "Showgirls", but I recommend that everyone watch this movie at least once.
Risky Business (1983)
Quotable and Memorable, but Still Lacking
I have to admit that before I saw this film, I only knew two things about it:
1. The soundtrack was done by Tangerine Dream. 2. Tom Cruise dances around the house in his underwear to Bob Seger.
It turns out that both of those things are true.
"Risky Business" is about a kid named Joel Goodsen ("Good" "Son", get it?) (played by Tom Cruise), a clean-cut high school kid who learns what it's like to say "f--- it," and take risks when his parents go out of town. Joel's goals at the beginning of the movie center around getting into a good college and planning for his future. As the film progresses, however, we watch Joel make decisions that get him further and further into trouble, and we're expected to be amused as he tries to make his way out of it.
The trouble that Joel gets himself into centers mainly around an attractive hooker, Lana, who is played by Rebecca de Mornay. One thing I did like about this movie was that de Mornay didn't play the "hooker with a heart of gold" role that has become all-too-familiar with post-Pretty Woman actresses who play hookers. Joel gets involved with Lana and her hooker friends, tries to help them out of trouble, and ends up getting getting into a tailspin of drama that includes, but is not limited to, death threats from "Guido the killer pimp." He eventually gets trapped into a situation where he needs lots of money, fast, and ends up compromising pretty much every value he held dear to him before his parents went out of town. Plus, he ends up with a hooker for a "girlfriend," which I think is pretty gross, and I was confused as to why Joel Goodsen (or anyone besides a junkie or something) would want a girlfriend who sleeps with random dudes for money.
My biggest complaint is that Joel ended up as a much worse person by the end of the movie than he did at the beginning. The film had absolutely no pathos. Pre-corruption Joel asks his friends if they're interested in doing anything in life besides making money. He mentions cornily that he wants to help his fellow man. By the end of the film, Joel's last lines are: "My name is Joel Goodson. I deal in human fulfillment. I grossed over eight thousand dollars in one night." The kid compromises all of his values, and seems to have learned absolutely nothing about how dirty and hopeless prostitution can be--the closest he comes to having an epiphany on his actions seems to be that "If there were any logic to our language, trust would be a four letter word." But shortly after saying that, he makes multiple decisions that would have one guess that he's never been there or done that before, which includes trusting a prostitute, for God's sake, over and over again, even though she screws him over each and every time.
I guess if the goal of this movie was to watch high school kids get into various debaucheries with women who get paid to screw for a living, they've succeeded well. Additionally, if writer/director Paul Brickman (who went on to do pretty much nothing, by the way) meant to show that becoming a pimp can bring money, success, and entrance to the university of your choice, then he succeeded. Maybe he meant this to be a little darker than the average comedy, and maybe this movie would have found a more supportive audience in the year in which I was two years old, but I just found my sympathy for the characters and the movie as a whole went nowhere but down as the movie went on.
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Great film, but still somehow overrated.
There wasn't a whole lot wrong with what the Academy of Arts and Sciences called 2004's best picture, but I wasn't necessarily moved to tears by it--Clint Eastwood has put out better pictures.
"Million Dollar Baby" is the story of Maggie Fitzgerald (Hillary Swank), a thirty-one year-old woman who grew up as trailer park trash with the dreams of being a boxer. She seeks out Frankie (Clint Eastwood), a life-long trainer and cut man who has a particular distaste for training girls. Maggie has been practicing boxing for four years without any training whatsoever, and dilligently courts Frankie to train her. Frankie denies her time and time again, but finally gives in with a combination of embarrassment of her poor skills, and the fact that his former protégé has left him for a manager that will put him in a title fight.
After taking Maggie under his wing, Frankie trains the eager but often disobedient boxer into a top-notch fighter. He still hesitates to take chances and put Maggie at risk, but if movies have taught us anything, it's that without big risk, there is no big payoff. The trainer and the fighter grow closer and closer as Maggie moves up in the ranks, but when Maggie goes up for the title fight, tragedy strikes, and the two are forced to work through it together.
Clint Eastwood has a fondness for character-driven pieces, and he does a good job in this one (as he did in "Mystic River" (2003)). In the extras on the DVD for "Mystic", Eastwood is interviewed and says that he enjoys stories where characters "have to overcome something." I agree that this makes a story more interesting, but there were moments, albeit only a few here and there, where I felt like the whole story was just a bit cliché--a nobody rising up to become something! only to tragically lose it is a theme that's been explored time and time again. Wisely, the story doesn't follow the same old pattern that many of these do, but it's still part of the reason that I viewed the movie as less than perfect.
Many critics have called "Baby" a character piece, which it is--mostly. The film is driven by Frankie's internal struggle with his demons from the past (including a sub-plot reminiscent of Kevin Bacon's character in Mystic--Frankie's daughter returns all his letters, just as Sean's wife in the 2003 release would call him and hang up without saying a word), and Maggie's role as "the fighter" who rises up to become something!--as Scrap (Morgan Freeman) says, "She grew up knowing one thing--she was trash." It is within Maggie though that I found the movie to become a bit less believable. Once she is paralyzed, and things don't look so good for recovery, she asks Frankie to put her out of her misery, and allow her to leave with the memory of all those people in the stands cheering her name. I had a hard time believing that Maggie would just give up and resort to assisted suicide. ("This? From a woman who had to fight for everything she ever got?" I wrote in my notes while watching the film.) Of course, following this storyline allows Eastwood to avoid the tired montage of scenes where Maggie learns to walk again with inspirational pop music playing in the background--I'm not sure which is worse, sacrificing the character for the story, or maintaining the character at the expense of the story.
Also frustrating to me was being beaten over the head with Maggie's hillbilly family. OK, they're ignorant rednecks. I get it. They don't appreciate or believe in Maggie. I get it. They have old-fashioned beliefs and are greedy for Maggie's success which they never helped make happen in the first place. I get it. The whole presence of the family was a bit over-the-top for me.
I'm willing to give Eastwood a bit of artistic license in his use of Scrap as the narrator. Scrap describes events he wasn't present at (the climax of the movie, for example), and in the end we find that Scrap's narration is actually the reading of a letter to Eastwood's daughter, to let her know "what kind of man (he) really is." Forgivable, but still, chinks in the armor of what many critics called "a masterpiece." Don't get me wrong--this was a good movie. It was an example of great storytelling, the acting was very good, it was light in all the right places, the lighting and cinematography was very well-done, it explored a set of characters in such a way that made you believe and care about their story, and it kept my interest. My point is simply that it wasn't film-making perfection, and furthermore, Eastwood has put out better films. (Unforgiven, is the obvious example, and Sean Penn's performance in Mystic River was better than anything I saw in this movie.) Frankly, it's time I grow up and stop expecting the academy to make consistently good decisions--I guess I should have figured that out when "Gladiator" won best picture in 2000. Despite its flaws, "Baby" won awards for Best Picture, Best Actress (Hillary Swank), Best Director (Clint Eastwood), and Best Supporting Actor (Morgan Freeman). I shouldn't be surprised--the film is exactly what the Academy looks for--it's not too challenging, it's emotional, it's a slight twist on an old theme, and it stars actors and a director that we have come to expect good things from.
8.0/10.00 for "Million Dollar Baby".
12 Angry Men (1957)
Great Movie
Ostensibly, 12 Angry Men is a chamber piece about twelve motley jurors who are stuck with deciding the guilt or innocence of an eighteen-year-old kid who is charged with the murder of his father. It's actually more than just that, though. It's an examination into the unknowability of the truth, and a character film that cross-examines the lives of men from all walks of life.
When the film begins, the men take a preliminary vote. The results show that there are eleven men who think he is very obviously guilty, and only one man (Peter Fonda) who thinks that there is a reasonable doubt of his guilt. Of course, most of the other men think he's crazy for even suggesting innocence--half of them are already out the door and ready to send the boy to the chair.
"How do you know?" Fonda is consistently asked.
His response is the same every time. "I don't know anything, I'm just saying we should ask some questions, that's all." The story unfolds magnificently and cleverly, a smorgasbord of personalities clashing and interacting with each other--all within the confines of a stiflingly hot sixteen by twenty-four foot jury room.
The performances in this film are amazing. Each juror comes across as a man who has his own reasons for deciding the guilt or innocence of the alleged murderer, and the method with which each man ultimately decides are all unique to his person.
12 Angry Men comes across as a bit of a tribute to the American justice system as well. Careful not to claim perfection for it, director Sidney Lumet simply portrays it as the best system we have available.
"What if you convince us all and we set a murderer free?" one of the jurors asks Fonda. Fonda doesn't answer.
A friend noted that she felt that the motivations for some of the juror's final conclusions came on a little strong, most notably in the case of the biggest advocate of the accused's guilt, who is played by Lee J. Cobb. Cobb seems to have some inner demons with his son, who he reveals he hasn't spoken to in years, and it's clear that at least several of the jurors begin to suspect Cobb's feelings aren't due to the facts but are the result of personal issues towards youth as a whole. I disagree with my friend. When critiquing a film, it's certainly important to gauge your feelings on the subtleties brought forth by it--in this particular scenario though, I feel that the complaint is a reach. I never found the scenarios that were brought forth by any of the characters was too heavy-handed or polemic. Quite the opposite--I viewed the story as the simple unfolding of a murder case that was to be decided by twelve very different individuals, each with his own background and story to contribute.
12 Angry Men is a straight-forward and fascinating story that is well-directed, well-acted, and makes a valuable point. I can easily add this to the list of my favorite films.