Four Eyed Monsters
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up
Find movies you'll love

minerwerks Blog

  • E Good?

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

    Hello, Dolly!  (1969)

    Toy Story  (1995)

    Ratatouille  (2007)

    Wall-E  (2008)

    Last year's Super Bowl featured a car ad with a depressed assembly-line robot who jumps off a bridge. The car company faced some controvery over the suicide angle, and this just goes to prove exactly what I took away from the spot - they successfully managed to give a personality to a machine. Why else would people get so worked up over a hunk of metal toppling into the river? It's hard not to think of this watching Pixar's 'WALL-E,' which also hangs on the ability of the storytellers to make us care about a machine.

    WALL-E is the last of a fleet of waste management robots designed to scurry around Earth's surface and pile our trash into towers. This particular robot, however, has become fascinated with the remnants of our world - a video tape of 'Hello, Dolly!,' christmas lights, Zippo lighters, bubble wrap are among the items brought back to WALL-E's makeshift home. One day a sleek probe named EVE is left on Earth and WALL-E is smitten. He watches sheepishly from afar as EVE momentarily abandons her programming and flies gracefully over the barren landscape.

    As WALL-E courts EVE, her purpose is revealed - to collect evidence of living vegetation and return home. A ship soon arrives to collect EVE, and WALL-E becomes a stowaway to follow her. WALL-E is never deterred from his desire to find EVE, but we as the audience are next thrust into a kinetic, colorful and bizarre vision of the future of humankind represented by a giant ship called Axiom. As the fate of the humans becomes intertwined with EVE's mission and WALL-E's persistence, we are treated to a fun, exciting and thematically rich tale that explores the conflicts between our programming and our passions.

    It's almost a given at this point that Pixar's storytelling gurus can string together compelling character moments and exciting setpieces with ease. I can't ever see having the same reaction as I did watching 'Toy Story' all those years ago, but I am always pleased that there are filmmakers who care about giving the audience great characters and exciting moments based on goodwill between the viewer and the story. As with last year's 'Ratatouille," Pixar takes a risk in placing so much faith in a protagonist that must overcome preconceived notions - how much can we care about something that we are used to understanding as inhuman? I'm not sure they have managed to solve all the believability issues in giving programmed machines personalities, but old-fashioned charm goes a long way.

    The subtle themes of free will become more evident as the robots become intertwined in a drama with the humans, but a second viewing seems necessary to best take in the full meaning. And that's got to be one of the best ways to spend a summer afternoon this year.


  • Dear Clearwater Public Library System

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

    Helvetica  (2007)

    Why have you had two copies of the DVD 'Helvetica' in "Processing" for over a month?

    You make me sad.


  • Not so Smart, But Not so Dumb

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

    Get Smart  (2008)

    There are two things I expected from this big-screen reinvention of 'Get Smart.' First, I figured Steve Carell would be charming and amusing (note I did not require 'hilarious') and second, that Anne Hathaway would be quite fetching. Expectation one turned out to be right on, and expectation two was actually surpassed. The question remains, however - is this enough to actually recommend the film?

    As a fan of much 60s pop culture, I was completely aware of the TV series 'Get Smart' but I never watched any complete episodes. I can imagine the tone from much of the contemporary sitcoms of the time, though. I don't understand the outright vitriol against the idea of making a film with the characters and basic setup of the original without being faithful to the style or tone, however. There are people who consider this an "abomination," and that's just a flat out overreaction.

    The truth is that this film is ultimately harmless and nowhere near as offensive as I'd feared. In the context of what passes for major studio fare today, it's actually not that dumb. The biggest sins of this film are mildly inconsistent characterization and a lack of great jokes (though there are a handful of acceptable ones). As an action film, it's completely passable, and it even manages to evoke a slightly more innocent era.

    But people associate the "brand" of 'Get Smart' with comedy, and it seemed like a slam dunk to hire Steve Carell as the new Maxwell Smart. And, yes, this is great casting, but despite a fair attempt at a backstory, this Max is never fully realized. In the "character is action" department, we're mostly covered, but in a movie that gives us a no-nonsense, independent Agent 99, Max comes across as more of an idiot savant than a smart but inexperienced agent.

    But this is just a mild romp and everyone involved is obviously having fun. Carell has the charisma to pass off half-baked material, and Hathaway is quite good throughout, even in the more serious moments. Sheer goodwill convinced me to overlook a ridiculous, slapstick airplane bathroom sequence that the rest of the audience seemed to enjoy. Everything else went down pretty smoothly.

    In the end, with obligations to the original material satisfied, there remain some interesting possibilities for a follow-up. In particular, a last-minute cameo pre-sold me on a ticket, conditional on said actor returning, of course.

    In the meantime, I hear there's a direct-to-video semi-sequel on the way(taking place in parallel to the feature film) featuring some of the minor characters of 'Get Smart.' I'm not so sold on this, but as long as it's not too crass of a cash-in, I might actually have fun with it.


  • Send More Documentaries LIke This, Please!

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

    City of God  (2002)

    Bus 174  (2002)

    Manda Bala  (2007)

    Elite Squad  (2008)

    You may not have noticed, but this country seems to have been developing a bit of a cinematic obsession with Brazil over the past few years. Most cinephiles have affection for the spectacular 'Cidade de Deus,' ('City of God') which hit our shores in 2002 but took about a year to gain its due respect. In the meantime, a fascinating documentary about a hostage situation in Rio de Janeiro, 'Bus 174' made the festival rounds. Just last year, I had the pleasure of reviewing 'O Caminho das Nuvens' ('The Middle of the World'), a Brazilian film from 2003, released here through Film Movement. Later this year, another highly acclaimed Brazilian release, 'Tropa de Elite' ('Elite Squad') is due for limited release.

    The latest, greatest Brazilian film, however, turns out to not be from Brazil at all. 'Manda Bala' ('Send a Bullet') is an enthralling documentary by an American filmmaker, Jason Kohn. The film parallels the rise of kidnappings in the city of Sao Paulo with a history of political corruption within the country. The dynamic between the rich and the poor within Brazil is also the engine that drives all the films I previously mentioned, with an emphasis on the extremes that the desperate members of society will resort to. The new twist in 'Manda Bala' is the additional exploration of a corrupt system that used economic development in the northern part of the country as a cover to embezzle funds, providing a more explicit exploration of the cause and effect relationships that simultaneously affect the government and the citizens in complex ways.

    Instead of a broad survey of the situation, 'Manda Bala' takes the more elegant approach of presenting the stories of individuals to illuminate the larger issues. This is a more risky approach, but Kohn proves to be a natural at this. Perhaps this is related to Kohn's background as a research assistant with master documentarian Errol Morris. The result is reminiscent of Morris' best work, melding a flair for visuals with a compelling humanism. The film is filled with spectacular views of Brazil and inventively shot interviews, all presented in glorious widescreen. Add in a smattering of smart musical choices, and you have a documentary firing on all cylinders. It's not surprising that the film took the Documentary Grand Jury Prize at Sundance last year and received an Excellence in Cinematography Award to boot.

    The title, 'Send a Bullet' doesn't have a direct literal meaning in the context of these stories, but many of these people live in the shadow of violence. One subject is a police officer assigned to a unit exclusively devoted to kidnappings who has taken several bullets, another is a businessman who buys bullet-proof cars and takes courses on how to evade kidnappers. We also meet a former victim who lost an ear in a ransom plot as well as a doctor who is a specialist in ear reconstruction. Some of the stories (particular that of the kidnapping survivor) are harrowing, but others are hopeful. The commitment of some of the police and politicians to bring wrongdoers to justice, regardless of status, is heartening.

    By focusing on the human drama behind the headlines, 'Manda Bala' brings the documentary to the same level of the best fiction. This is a haunting film that I won't soon forget.


  • We Didn't Start the Fire

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

    Casablanca  (1942)

    King Kong  (1933)

    The Wizard of Oz  (1939)

    Many film fans felt a tinge of sadness this past Sunday when we learned a major fire had broken out on the Universal Studios lot in Hollywood. Losses included the soundstage that housed a 'King Kong' attraction on the famous tram tour, New York and New England street facades and part of the courthouse square, most famous for the 'Back to the Future' films. Most controversially, however, was the loss of a vault that stored video tapes and film prints. Fears of the loss of Universal's storied history abound on the internet through the week.

    On Sunday, Universal Studios president Ron Meyer was quoted that "nothing irreplaceable was lost." Theoretically, the only films found in this vault were archival prints, generally shipped to repertory theaters from this facility on the lot. The Vice President of Universal took the step of sending notice to exhibitors that "nearly 100%" of the archival prints had been destroyed and that bookings to be shipped from the lot were suspended pending inventory.

    On Wednesday, Variety ran an article featuring interviews with film curators fanning the flames that the losses might be worse than reported. The curators suggest that new prints from older negatives may never look like the lost prints whether through fading, damage, or the simple change of materials and processes over time.

    By most accounts, Universal has a great reputation for preservation and intends to replace the destroyed assets. But even though this may be true, there is bound to be a long-term effect felt primarily by the most devoted film buffs.

    With the growing popularity of big-screen televisions and DVD, specialty film markets - independent and repertory film particularly - are attracting ever smaller audiences. And some art and specialty houses are resorting to cutting costs by dong screenings from DVD. I'm not sure if I am more saddened by the fact that I can walk into a classic movie house and be subjected to a DVD because actual film is too expensive, or that many people never notice the difference.

    The fear is that even though Universal should be able to create new prints to replace the lost ones, there will be little or no demand for them to actually do so. With the cost of a single 35mm print in the neighborhood of $2,500-$6,000, potential return of $300-$500 every few years seems insufficient to justify the expense for obscure titles.

    In the end, the damages suffered in the Universal fire become a reminder that the true experience of film - "as it was meant to be seen" as they say - is what is truly in danger. With increasing digital resolutions and decreasing costs for data storage, it becomes more and more likely that the public will primarily  (or exclusively) experience classic films on video or computer screens.

    Unless you live in a very large market, specialty theaters can't draw audiences for 35 mm screenings of anything but first run films or a handful of absolutely undisputed classics ('Casablanca,' 'The Wizard of Oz,' etc.). Repertory theaters in cities such as San Francisco are even feeling the pinch. And though high-resolution digital projection is becoming more widely available, I can't yet muster the excitement to see "classic" films (which I define rather loosely as anything over a year old that I enjoy) in this format.

    So while Universal can truthfully claim the studio did not lose anything that was irreplaceable, the world's most devoted film buffs may not be able to say the same. While Universal may have the elements for some titles protected in deep storage, there will only be videos in general circulation, a merely adequate stand-in for the glorious celluloid that these films originated on.


  • They make real documentaries, don't they?

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

    Trekkies  (1997)

    Hacks  (2002)

    In 'They Shoot Movies, Don't They?', a documentary crew follows Tom Paulson, a young guy who gives up a development deal and dumps all his savings into his first feature film. But he runs out of funding and must try to beg borrow and steal the completion funds to make a final cut.

    I happened to notice this film at the end of a shelf in my local library. Since I had never heard of it, I thought I'd check it out. When they're good, I love movies about movies, but they are rarely transcendent. It looks like a documentary, but I had my suspicions, and the tagline on the box ("A true story based on a lie") sounded perfectly cagey.

    If you care to check this film out and don't want it spoiled, stop reading.

    There are some interesting ideas at work here that really deserved a much better film. At one point, the despondent filmmaker asks the documentary director if he can help with funds. Now, most of us would probably believe in the concept that a documentary filmmaker should remain detached and neutral from the subject. But as the filmmaker's girlfriend points out to the documentarian, the fact that they are making the documentary about this difficult situation is affecting the situation to begin with. Are they preying upon a desperate person? It's a provocative concept that could be explored in many ways that are hinted at here.

    In case you hadn't guessed from my tone, this is not a real documentary. The filmmaking team has done an admirable job keeping the look and performances natural enough to fool most people. But anyone who really gets into the business of filmmaking might be suspicious of the flashes of trade magazine articles we see with no recognizable names. It also seems odd that we don't see minute one of the film that is supposedly being completed, 'Mirage.' Not sure if that title was chosen as a hint or a joke, though.

    Now, the other thing that drags this film down is the decision to set it in the world of filmmaking and dive into the reality of that world. While there are attempts to make all the people in this film relatable, the depth of immersion in the film world can be a bit off-putting. Adding to this, the story is built on the well-worn conflict of art and commerce that can be painfully obvious. The ending puts a new twist on this, but the film doesn't earn it by weaving it in to the fabric of the story.

    Like I said, the team that put this film together had an amazing eye for detail and a talented group of actors putting in extra effort to manage their illusion. But in the end, making people appreciate the quality of the deception can't really drive interest to a bigger audience.

    On the subject of the ethics of this...

    There is a quite entertaining commentary track on the DVD where the filmmaking team describes their attempt to sell this film. Finding that most people lost interest as soon as they knew the film was fake, they adopted the mysterious answer, "It's as real as it gets." With this, they manage to get a meeting with the marketing guy who masterminded the 'Blair Witch Project' campaign. But that meeting doesn't go quite as you may expect. It's a fun listen.

    Now, even though this film isn't a real documentary, I wasn't too offended by the deception. Someone smart at the library placed this in the fiction category, so that was a hint. I mention this because there was a film I previously picked up from the library called 'Hacks,' released by Film Threat on DVD.

    The 'Hacks' deception was so elaborate that the film ended up in the documentary section at my library. As soon as I popped the disc in, not only did I discover that the film wasn't real, but I also discovered that it was awful. Full of weak attempts to play "fake" and rambling improvisations that thought they were funny when they were really just tedious. Some critic on the IMDB suggested that if you didn't like this movie, you probably were turned off by the humor and missed the satirical point. Honestly, I wasn't offended by anything I saw. It wasn't tasteless, it wasn't edgy, it was just bad.

    Now if someone could only confirm my suspcions that several sequences of 'Trekkies' were faked.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<June 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345


Categories
 


Advertisement