Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

kristen Blog

  • Selfish bedtime stories

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Bedtime Stories (2008, Adam Shankman, USA) **1/2

                Cinema explores the ways in which fiction and life interact to the point of cliché. That is not to say that this theme is not worth exploring. Many movies (Stranger than Fiction), and many kid's movies use the theme in a charming and profound way (My favorite of these kids movies are Labyrinth and Spirited Away). But so many kids' movies use this theme (like Enchanted, The Never Ending Story, A Kid in King Arthur's Court) that I groaned at the idea of another one. I hoped that Bedtime Stories wouldn't be as bad as the most basic exploration of this theme, the dream wakeup twist. The idea of "It's not real, it's all a dream. Or is it…" The dream wakeup shows that fantasy does have real effects, but who cares? Obviously I came into the movie with very low expectations. I expected the to see the simple idea that stories have an effect on real life and real life shapes stories. And that essentially is the story of the movie. But the characters defy the conventions of the theme in such a way as to make this movie worth watching.

                Skeeter Bronson (Adam Sandler) is an atypically selfish person for the hero of a fairy tale. While babysitting as a favor for his sister, Skeeter quickly finds out that his niece and nephew have prophetic imaginations. When together the three create a bedtime story, mysteriously the story manifests the next day into a real life equivalent. And Skeeter, being a selfish person, immediately realizes the many ways he can use this for his personal advantage. For the rest of the movie, Skeeter tries to manipulate the kids into writing the perfect scenario for his life- where he's the hero who gets the girl (Jill, played by Keri Russell), beats the enemy (Kendall, played by Guy Pierce), saves the town, pleases his boss (Barry Nottingham, played by Richard Griffiths), and gets his dream job (running a hotel) so that he lives happily ever after. Even when the kids write a bad ending for him, he doesn't tell them their powers and enlist their help. He instead tries to counteract their ending through means of his own (and by making himself fireproof).

                Skeeter's best friend Mickey (Russell Brand) graces us with a unique kind of stupidity. He is not the same kind of stupid as Lloyd Christmas, Peter Griffith, or Billy Madison though he has the same IQ. Brand works with standard material (like the joke that he's too stupid to read) and makes his own brand (haha) of hilarity. Maybe it's because he looks like a European snob that his stupidity is so refreshing. Mickey has an ineffable magic worthy of a comedic starring role. He immensely adds to the enjoyment of the movie.

                Bedtime Stories ends in cliché fashion of happily ever after. Skeeter, however, is rewarded for his selfishness. What kind of moral is that? Skeeter gets everything he wants from life because he manipulated others and decided to use the kids magic on himself instead of trying to do something noble like save the world or end poverty (which he easily could have done). This at least gives the movie some dimension and brings it a little closer to life, which is what it intended to do all along.


  • It is written to manipulate

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Slumdog Millionaire (2008, Danny Boyle, USA/UK) zero stars

    The movie opens with a device it will use to tell the rest of the story- a question followed by a very pointed yet mystical explanation of how Jamal will succeed. Jamal is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it? A. He cheated. B. He’s lucky. C. He’s a genius. D. It is destiny. It is written. And that is half of the problem. Jamal’s life has a predetermined outcome calculated by the filmmaker to meet the desires of a hopeful audience. 

    Police kidnap Jamal (they suspect him of cheating on game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire) and torture him in order to elicit a confession. Torture methods of our innocent victim include beating, suspension by the arms, and electrocution. From this moment the audience naturally sympathizes with innocent hero. Jamal maintains that you don't have to be a genius to know the answers to those questions. Intrigued at this slumdog's stubbornness, the authorities agree to listen to an explanation, question by question, of how Jamal knows the answers.  This device allows the movie to explore Jamal's life, providing insight into his character and setting up the love story.

    Jamal explains situation after situation where he is the victim of some horrible atrocity (like having to jump in excrement because of his brother, having his mother's head bashed in before his eyes, him inches away from being blinded by an orphan collector, leaving his love in the hands of this horrible man, being threatened at gunpoint by his brother, and finally his brother raping the love of his life Lakita (she agrees so that Salim wont kill Jamal)).  Each one of these atrocities explains how he knew the answer to the game show questions. Unfortunately, he did not learn a single thing at school (the final question asks about The Three Musketeers, a book he was supposed to read). Fortunately, his life “is written".

    We learn that we are dealing with a saint. Everything Jamal says is true. Here is a person who never inflicts harm on others. A person who is always innocent but always suffers. Even being on the show tortures Jamal for he must relive these horrible events. Because of his propensity for truth, the police come to believe what we knew from the beginning, Jamal is innocent.

    But memory is a funny thing. Memory, even the memory of saints, fails. What human can possibly relate the story of his/her life objectively? No human I know.  No Holden Caulfield. No Guido. Not even me. However, the movie believes sincerely that Jamal is a completely reliable narrator and asks us to believe the same. This is how we know that the story is told by device, not person. Even a person who is truthful to a fault will tell his or her story unfaithfully. If the movie wants to give us a character, shouldn't it allow him to fail?

    Jamal is infallible therefore he lacks human dimension. The movie tries to avoid this by saying that he is human but a mystical hand guides him to success. This touch of magic harms what could have been really beautiful about the movie- the love story. Again the movie relies on techniques, this time it’s a technique that continually separates Jamal and Latika to make their love seem urgent and to force magic into their final reunion. Because of Jamal’s magical destiny he finds Latika immediately every time he looks for her. In Mumbai, with 19 million people (as his brother Salim points out) Jamal finds Latika in less than thirty minutes. He asks one person and then there she is, waiting to run to Jamal. Yes, the story was written that way.

    However, Jamal must win Latika. It seems that her heart knows money and security offer happiness. She refuses to run away with Jamal out of love even if it means suffering abuse from a rich misogynist. Jamal must win 20 million rupees to win her heart. The problem is that true love doesn’t love money; it loves the person. If the movie wanted genuine romance, it should have (SPOILER) allowed Jamal to loose the 20 million rupees but win the priceless prize of love. Then love will have its victory. Instead, we have reason to doubt Latika’s love. Why wouldn’t she run away with a rich friend who loves her, who she’s known all her life, and who will not beat her under any circumstance? Any woman like her would choose Jamal over an abusive millionaire.

    It has been written that "Slumdog Millionaire is the film world's first globalized masterpiece" (Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal). It seems that some critics completely overlook the facts. Though there are many internationally known movies like Modern Times, La Strada, Titanic, I guess that Danny Boyle is the only filmmaker with an internationally recognized "masterpiece". Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times described it as "a Hollywood-style romantic melodrama that delivers major studio satisfactions in an ultra-modern way". Yes, every section does feature at least one club song in its entirety from ultra-modern artists such as M.I.A. "The film uses dazzling cinematography, breathless editing, driving music and headlong momentum to explode with narrative force, stirring in a romance at the same time" (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times).  The characters do spend most of their time running. McCarthy concluded, "As drama and as a look at a country increasingly entering the world spotlight, Slumdog Millionaire is a vital piece of work by an outsider who's clearly connected with the place".  How? By making a movie about it? (as my friend Ryan said). 

    As the movie readily admits "It is written”, written to manipulate this response from its audience.

     


  • Cruise so powerful he intimidates Hitler!

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Valkyrie  (2008)

    Valkyrie (2008, USA, Brian Singer) **

    Clearly, there is something entertaining about trying to kill the world’s best movie villain- Hitler, leader of the (dare I say?) NAZIS!!! Yes, the same Nazi’s that grace Indiana Jones. And now in Valkyrie American icon Tom Cruise plays Claus von Stauffenberg- a Nazi who attempts to assassinate Hitler.  Fortunately, Stauffenberg is not the villain Nazi we American’s know so well. He is the leader of American dreams- our dreams to stop an unstoppable evil force.  Stauffenberg’s mission then is to show American’s that, contrary to what the movies tell us, not all Germans are evil Jew killing Nazis. 

    Cruise reprises his iconic role as a confident to the point of arrogant, unswerving individual, headstrong hero (as best seen in Top Gun and Mission Impossible). The historical Stauffenberg tells a fellow conspirator in their first meeting "Let's be blunt, I am committing high treason with all my might and main...." Such boldness from the historical person gives a fair clue into the (slightly odd) casting choice of Cruise as a German Nazi (Who thought Cruise could convincingly portray a German?). Though Cruise will always be American, his strength as Stauffenberg is this shared confidence in themselves and in their missions.  Cruise’s natural intensity on screen fits the character needed to assassinate the ultimate villain.

    Only in this movie, Cruise is so powerful that he intimidates Hitler.  What kind of villain is this Hitler? This pale, meek Hitler bends at the knee at the sight of Cruise then lavishes him with the highest praise. This Hitler loves Cruise so much that he jumps at the chance to sign any document Cruise brings him. This trust seems most inspired by worship. Cruise has all the power but unfortunately, Hitler has all the luck.

    Luck, the element Gen. Ludwig Beck  (Terrence Stamp) warns Stauffenberg of when he reminds, “Nothing ever goes according to plan”.  Why is it that the gods seem to be on the side of evil? How could God protect the man who most deserves to die? These men have done all that’s humanly possible to do what’s right and yet they fail. However, because of the form of the movie, this tragedy is overlooked.  

    Bryan Singer transforms history into a heist movie (of the conspiracy thriller kind). As typical of heist movies, Valkyrie has a three-act plot. In the first act the team comes together, the originators find their main conspirator Stauffenberg, and together they begin preparations for the coup. In heist fashion, the movie explains the type of bomb being used, explores the details of the room where the bomb will be detonated, and emphasizes the danger and shortage of time they will have to complete the assassination plot and initiate Operation Valkyrie. In the second act, Cruise plays mission impossible.  He carries out the plan and puts Operation Valkyrie into effect. In the third act, things go wrong. Hopefully people know that Hitler does not die (he poisoned and shot himself). Though life does not go according to plan, Stauffenberg heroically proclaims, “Long live our Holy Germany!”.

    The heist movie formula does not support tragedy because characters are traded for plot details. Character motivations are lost. The movie never explores why a member of Hitler’s party would turn on his leader? What conflicts would Stauffenberg have in putting his family at risk? Why is this mission so essential to their moral fiber? And the tragedy of the failed mission is not felt. Why was Hitler so lucky? Is there any justice in the world?

    Most people know how Hitler died and so there is no suspense. Bryan Singer creates a false suspense by only revealing what Stauffenberg and the other conspirators’ think happened to Hitler, but we already know what they don’t. In the end, Singer tries to heighten the suspense but he should have heighted the sense of tragedy.  

     


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<January 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement