ilyusha Blog

Under discussion:

Stardust  (2007)

As an admitted fan of fantasy, I was very much looking forward to finally seeing Stardust.  It did not disappoint.  Engaging plot, a universe populated by well-developed characters, a healthy sprinkling of magic - it all comes together to serve as a wonderful stage to explore The Big Idea.  Which happens to be not about an affirmation of some philosophical credo or a celebration of the triumph of good over evil, - make no mistake, the good does prevail, - but a simple lovely truth.

A young man sets out to capture a fallen star, so that he can win the hand in marriage of the fairest girl in his village.  Little does he know that the star - who turns out to be a beautiful, if slightly neurotic, young woman - is greatly prised by two less-then-good forces: A clan of old witches who seek to recover their youth and the remaining members of a family of fratricidal princes who seek to assert each of their claims to the vacant throne.  Many perilous adventures ensue, the boy transforms himself - with a little help from an unconventional captain of the flying pirate ship - from a naïve shop assistant to a strapping romantic hero, and discovers that true love is about lighting up when the person that you love is with you.

That the story is delivered in light tones makes it all the more entertaining - there is plenty of comical happenstance and dialogue interspersed with all sorts of wickedness.  It also makes the movie seem less than serious at times, which could be viewed as a negative.

The heavyweights, Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert DeNiro - the latter, especially, - steal the show on more than one occasion, but the rest of the cast gives convincing performances all around.  The supporting characters, among them the devotedly protective pirate crew, the goat turned into a man, the fast-talking trader in magic goods, and the improbably good-natured troupe of specters, contribute their share to the delightful narrative, adapted from the novel of a contemporary fantasy luminary Neil Gaiman.

One for my DVD collection, surely.

This review is also posted on my personal website.

Under discussion:

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer  (2006)

I should note right from the start that I probably would not pick up the book on which this movie is based.  Nonetheless, I came across its showing on cable completely by accident and one fleeting look was enough for me to record its subsequent re-run and watch it beginning to end.  Despite my natural aversion to these types of stories, I am a bit surprised to admit that Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is one of the best dramas that I watched in a long time.

A young man in mid-eighteenth-century Paris develops unparalleled olfactory abilities while growing up in an orphanage and then slaving away in a tannery.  His sense of smell is the guiding force in his life, to the extent of stunting his other senses and feelings.  Upon an unfortunate encounter with a young and presumably full of fantastic smells woman, he becomes obsessed with capturing the essence of virginal beauty, and to that effect first seeks instruction from an accomplished perfumer and later engages in murdering beautiful women all over the famous perfume town of Grasse to gather their scents in his quest.  He achieves his life's ambition just as he is caught, but with a few drops of his concoction he manages to bewitch the entire town and escape the execution.  Observing the effects of his perfume on the townsfolk, he realizes how empty and devoid of love his life has been, and, instead of using the elixir for power and riches, he uses it to leave the world.

Ok.  As fables go, this one is rather too disturbing and messianic for my taste, but it is, after all, a fable.  I keep wondering how a sensitive nose can operate and continue to be refined in constant conditions of grime and slime (and whether a woman of less than noble descent would, in fact, smell wonderfully in the 18th century France), but again, this is meant to be a legend, not a factual history lesson.  And it is a legend quite beautifully made.

Everything from recreation of the times to depiction of the single-minded obsession of the  unfortunate Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, to visual clues of the plethora of smells that influence him is done magnificently.  The graphic palette that accompanies the development that we cannot ourselves, pardon the pun, get a whiff of, is simply breathtaking.  Conversely, the murders are pretty much all implied, rather than acted out, and the victims are never savaged, which allows the notion of the magical perfume that is harvested from their bodies and ultimately brings joy to people to remain untainted. 

Heretofore unknown to me Ben Whishaw, who plays the main character, projects anguish, maniacal obsession and absence of moral values in a powerful and restrained way.  You cannot help but want Jean-Baptiste to be thwarted in his pursuit of his innocent prize victim, yet at the same time, you want to know what the ultimate perfume will be about. 

I liked Dustin Hoffman's turn as a declining master of perfumery, but less so Alan Rickman's as a wealthy Grasse merchant.  But the acting, in the end, is secondary in this picture, overtaken by the portrayal of smells that surround us, not least of them the scent of a woman.

If you cannot get past the turns of the plot, you will not think highly of this movie.  But this is a case where you need to stop thinking and start sensing... 

This review is also posted on my personal website.

Under discussion:

The Golden Compass  (2007)

I am a firm believer that you have to read the book prior to watching a movie based on it.  If the movie is well-made, you benefit from understanding the context from the outset.  If the movie is less than good, you probably will be further annoyed by your involuntary mental comparison with the written work; but then, could not being familiar with the original work ever make a bad movie better?...  I guess there is an outside chance of stumbling across a good movie that is not truthful to the book it is based on, in which case, not having read the book could actually be beneficial for the cinematic appreciation, but I'd rather disassociate the movie from the book in that case altogether... 

Unfortunately, I have not read Northern Lights by Philip Pullman yet.  And that quite possibly coloured my impression of The Golden Compass as oddly dissatisfying.

Maybe it was because some concepts of that particular fantasy world were not adequately explained, or because some events veered too much into the realm of "accidental" narrative, or because I had no prior inclination that the story is not going to be complete until undoubtedly forthcoming sequel, or simply because I cannot get behind an idea of a tween girl as an astute and sage heroine. But overall, this reminded me too much of The Chronicles of Narnia: Visually arresting at times, extremely well-made, yet lacking the masterly storytelling of The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.

There are simply too many details of this fantasy that probably have a well-grounded explanation on the pages of the book, but leave me scratching my head in bewilderment.  Why do all animals appear only as daemons whereas bears enjoy special status?  Why does Mrs. Coulter's daemon never speak, even though other adults' daemons do?  What exactly does the Magisterium do and why is it evil, beyond obvious fact of one of its functionaries trying to poison a noble lord and its established plan to cruelly mold the next generation?  Who are the witches and exactly what it is that they do with their long lives besides flying and shooting arrows?  The list of questions can continue for a long time.  The plot just lurches ahead without much of an explanation.

But the visuals are astounding, the CGI is close to perfect (in some scenes, Iorik is discernibly "animated"), and the acting ensemble is rather good, although the utter disappearance of Daniel Craig's Lord Asrail from the screen upon his capture in the North, - very early in the movie, - even though we are later shown his image as being alive and well, - is another incongruity. 

Nicole Kidman is perfect for the role of beautiful, powerful and altogether villainous Mrs. Coulter, but even she struggles with maintaining a depth of character.  Sam Elliot, with his unmistakable voice and manner, is just as perfect as Lee Scoresby, although his participation in the proceedings never rises beyond accidental.  I cannot imagine a better voice for Iorik than that of Patrick Stewart's.

The movie ending - not at the same point as the ending of the first book of the trilogy, I am told, - is neither an obvious place for a to-be-continued, nor a cliffhanger.

If you read this far, you might be wondering why I gave the movie a partial endorsement in the form of 4 stars.  It's a case of form over substance.  I liked the way the movie looked enough to say that it is a worthwhile viewing, especially for an admirer of the fantasy genre.  Plus, I will certainly read the book shortly, and possibly, my appreciation of the movie will improve with better contextual understanding.

I did appreciate the nice touch of having the Tartar commander respond in perfect - and consistent with English subtitled translation - Russian before the culminating battle. It may be literally taken from the book (the depicted parallel universe does have enough in common with ours to suggest that northern warriors could be Russian equivalents), or it may be director's Cold War prejudice; either way, for all other patrons in the audience, it was foreign gibberish, while my family almost burst out in laughter...

This review also appears on my personal website.