minjoe Blog

Under discussion:

Halloween  (2007)

Hi, my name is Minjoe and I have a problem with this movie.

"What's your problem with it Minjoe?"

Ummm, you remember the original correct?

"vaguely."

Let me refresh you.  Michael Myers is institutionalized.  We know he kills his sister in the original but we don't know what led up to that night other than him apparently being an evil kid. 

"Ah yes, I recall.  But the remake filled in the gaping plot hole by showing you the man behind the mask and why he became the killer he was."

Right, and in theory, that sounds like a good idea.  However, you didn't show us the man behind the mask, you showed us the boy--and when you take a character that was great because he was essentially the incarnation of evil and turn him into an angst-filled kid who doesn't have the best home life it takes something away from the film I think.  In the original we are left to let our imaginations run wild with why a small child would knife a family member, in the new one we are to presume its because he was a kid who led an incredibly difficult life and snapped.

"Yes and that turned him into the evil killing machine that is Michael Myers"

...which brings me to my next point.  In the original, the man behind the mask appeared to be an average sized guy who moved and killed completely without sound or mercy.  The white mask adequately conveyed the emotionless character who lurked behind it.

"Yeah...but isn't that a bit...strange?"

Yes.  It is a horror movie.  Strange, unexplained things are supposed to happen.  But apparently in your world, that is not good enough, everything can, and must, be explained.  Which is why the unstoppable killer in your remake appears to be a 7 ft tall monster who is anything but silent.  Every 5 seconds you could hear his heavy breathing or his grunts--it was wildly distracting.  in the original the only time you hear him is when he is breathing and the camera is portraying a first person view point through the killers eyes.  Furthermore, the scenes of him showing his long lost little sister pictures and trying to empathize with her behind an emtionless mask came off as, dare I say it, stupid.

"Well you're more than welcome to have your opinion, but aren't you glad to have the back story of this invincible killer!?"

Ah yes, that brings me to my final point.  Michael Myers is invincible.  Throughout the original, and countless sequels, he is shot, stabbed, and brutalized in pretty much every way possible and yet he never falls and always comes back for more. 

"Absolutely, its part of the horror of the character"

So would you mind explaining to me, now that you gave us your wonderful back story, how an angsty kid who grew up to be 7 ft tall is also invincible--where is the back story on that one?  You seem keen on having an explanation for everything except this, why?  In the original the answer was that he was pure evil stalking the earth and we could think about that in any way we choose.  After seeing some 12 year old actor picking through candy in the opening scenes and crying about his terrible life, the idea of him becoming invincible for unknown reasons seems a bit--strange...

"Well....ummm.....we.....backstory...umm....remake..."

Yeah, thats what I thought.  But hey, don't get to down.  The movie was still filmed pretty decent and the kills were ok I suppose.  Chin up buddy, I won't give you a 1 star rating--you'll get a two star for when I "lost interest" over the backstory of Michael Myers.

"Thanks for doing that for me, we'll try to come up with better ideas next time..."

Thank you.

Under discussion:

Sideways  (2004)

I remember when the trailer for Sideways was first introduced to the public back while I was in college.  For those of you who have not seen the trailer, it is available on the DVD and is possibly one of the best trailers I have ever seen for a non-action movie.  Upon seeing the trailer I was anticipating a great film and Sideways did not dissapoint.

First off, let me start with a brief acknowledgement that some Sideways fans do not care to admit.  The movie in question moves very, very slow and moves from drama to comedy (and back again) so quick, and so frequently that it is often hard to keep up.  After seeing it the first time I told all my friends and family to check it out only to have them scold me for reccomending something so "boring."

However, the reason many people hate it happens to be the reason I have such a passion for this film.  Alexander Payne directs this film to play out with all the grace and power of a fine opera.  It certainly is slow moving, but life can be like that sometimes, and is certainly so for the characters of this film.  We see depression and happiness standing side by side, constantly battling for supremecy over the lives of Jack and Miles.  Such conflicting emotion takes time to play out properly and therefore the pacing of the movie, albeit slow, is perfect for showing the evolution of how our main characters are going to find happiness.

This brings me to the second critique people often have about this film and that is:  What is this?  A drama or a comedy?  So many people I know were put off by scenes which started very funny only to end with a crushing and depressing moment.  For those Payne fans out there, you may remember such techniques being used in the film "About Schmidt."  Again, Miles, who suffers from severe depression in the movie has moments when he is funny and uplifting, but that is how life goes.  Giamatti, Madsen, Church, and Oh work together incredibly well to put forth this masterpiece of what it means to age in this country alone.

Finally, the mirrors and symbolism between the plot of this movie and the aging and harvesting of grapes was remarkable.  Payne did not feel the need to shove the parallels down our throat as an audience, despite the fact that wine was such a prominent role in the film.

Just like a fine bottle of Pinot Noir, Sideways proves that subtlety and great care during its making can produce a very satisfying, and haunting, finished product.

Under discussion:

Gladiator  (2000)

Alexander  (2004)

Upon watching Alexander, I found myself with a lot of questions, and very few answers.  In fact, it has been almost four years since I saw this film, and yet I remain haunted by the many inconsistincies and poor choices which were displayed in the film.

I had the unfortunate privelage of seeing this movie in a sold out theatre where I was forced to take in the action from the front row.  From that vantage point I watched one of the most uninspired, miserable films I have ever seen.  If the constant comments by the audience throughout the length of the film were any indication--I was not alone in my feelings toward this movie.

Alexander, as you may recall, was a heavily anticipated movie and rightfully so with its ridiculously large budget and star studded cast.  As the film opened, I have to admit, I was hoping for an epic of Gladiator like proportions.  Unfortunately, Collin Farrell is no Russel Crowe, and the film did not take very long to unravel.

Rather than discuss the plot, which apparently Director Oliver Stone felt was an optional part of making a movie, lets discuss where this film went so horribly wrong:

• Collin Farrell is not convincing as a conquering hero.
• Angelina Jolie is not convincing as his mother, and she makes the choice to talk with an accent that can only be described as "bad."
• The bi-sexual subplot revolving around Alexander and his right hand man was never developed and therefore came off as forced and awkward in every scene.
• The shots during the battle scenes looked as though a camera man was told to run around in circles with his camera on his shoulders and occassionally shake the device wildly for added effect.
• Actors were apparently told that "intense" dialouge meant you were supposed to "scream or "bellow."

Thus, it was no surprise that, when Alexander died in the film, uproarious applause echoed through the theatre.

The greatest failure of Alexander was squandering a $155,000,000 budget on a film that never came close to living up to the epic nature of its content.  Once again, it is proven that money does not necessarily make great art.

Alexander, as it turns out, was not so great...