Reel Thoughts

Under discussion:

Children of Men  (2006)

Children of Men.  I just finished watching it.  I probably should spend more time thinking about it, but I already know where I stand.

This was a tough movie to watch.  I watched it on recommendation from a friend and because it was nominated for an Oscar or two.  I can't really say I loved it.  It's a story of hope, but it is told amongst despair, unending violence, anarchy, despondency, and death.  The message of hope is beautiful.  The symbol of hope is beautiful.  The suspension of disbelief is heartbreaking.  The emotional investment in this film was almost too much for me, though Alfonso Cuaron's point-of-view camera direction added to that immersion.

Imagine it's the future, and through some inexplicable world event in which the world has descended to the brink of anarchy, women can no longer have children.  The hope of humanity is near lost, and that despair has led to riots, terrorism, and unflinching and abusive martial law.  While the state of the world at large is abysmal, clearly Britain has suffered the least, for refugees from countries worldwide flock to England, but the British government has decided to close its borders to stymie the influx.  A bureaucrat named Theo (Clive Owen) gets pulled back into his former activist roots by his ex-wife Julia (Julianne Moore) when it is discovered that a refugee named Kee is pregnant.  When Julia dies in an attack by domestic insurgents, Kee's survival becomes Theo's cause, wherein he must protect her not only from the authorities but from the political ideologues within Julia's organization and the rapidly increasing violence of laymen in the streets.

I know that's quite a bit of plot summary, but it's also quite a bit to digest.  It's hard to enter into a movie where the premise is so bleak and dark to start.  Yet, the cause of protecting a pregnant woman who may present the key to the survival of the human race would not be believable without it. 

My heart is very heavy, but the movie was good.  I don't think I could ever watch it again, though.  So, at the outset, I can say it does not pass my test.  It's too much to process and too dark to enjoy repeatedly.

The message is beautiful, though.  I think Clive Owen did an exceptional job, and he's never failed to impress me in whatever movie he's in (even if the film itself is not particularly impressive). 

Mostly, I was impressed with the choice of direction.  The camera work was shot almost strictly from Theo's point of view, as if presenting his omniescient viewpoint.  It was truly effective in helping the viewer to identify with his cause, his faith, and his disillusionment.

Yet, I was left wondering how the world got to where it was.  Michael Caine played Jasper, a hippie-type who delights in contraband drugs, and whose main purpose for existence in this story was to provide some verbal snapshot of how the world arrived at its current state.  It wasn't enough.  For some reason, and perhaps it's my own internal optimism and hope, I could not fully accept that the world would deteriorate to this level with only cursory hints as to how and why.  I see this as the only major flaw of the movie.  Maybe the book this film was based on offered a little more.  I don't know.

For that reason, I have to rate this movie an 8 (minor flaws but very good).  I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece, and I can't call the film perfectly entertaining.  I can call it a searing look into how current political situations might transform into something much worse in the future.  I can call it a unique study of hope.  Yet, I can't bring myself to like this movie much more than that.  It's too hard (but at least I watched it).

Under discussion:

Night at the Museum  (2006)

Let me start off by saying this much: when I first saw the trailers for Night at the Museum, I was not impressed.  I knew that it would probably be kind of stupid, what with Ben Stiller running around a museum full of animate inanimate objects.  Robin Williams as Teddy Roosevelt?  His movies, well his comedies, have really deteriorated recently, and I just knew he'd finally have a legitimate (?) opportunity to say "bully!"

Then, I talked to a few people who saw this movie who tried to convince me it was really better than they expected and not a bad movie.  Ok, I said.  I guess it'll be a rental, and now that I'm in an off-season for theater, I've started to rent movies.

Night at the Museum is actually more along the lines of what I expected.  It was kind of dull, and there was really not much to the plot.  The worst part is, it wasn't even that funny.  It was a good concept (based on a book, I believe), but nothing to get excited over.

Larry (Stiller) is a down-on-his-luck divorce who can't seem to hold a job or an apartment and is becoming something of a disappointment to his son and ex-wife.  In a last resort move, an employment agency sends him to New York's Museum of Natural History (is there really such a place?  I'm asking...) to be the night watchman.  Trouble is, the job is more than Larry bargained for, especially since he is replacing three old geezers played by Dick Van Dyke, Bill Cobb, and (crikey) Mickey Rooney who have been the night watchmen for decades.  When sunset strikes, a mystical Egyptian tablet brings everything in the museum to life, and Larry must rein it all in without losing any of the exhibits or his job in the process.

Frankly, I was bored.  The movie was slow, the plot thin, and the comedy missing.  I watched this in two parts because I almost fell asleep during the first go-round. 

Were there any redeeming features to this movie?  The visual effects were ok, I guess.  The acting was really wooden, though.  All the potentials for true comedy were squandered.  I sort of laughed when Larry got slapped around by Dexter the monkey and then later tried to have a verbal tete-a-tete with him.  Owen Wilson as this little cowboy named Jeddidiah (if he's real, I've never heard of him) was simply annoying. 

The only other true bright spot was Ricky Gervais as the museum director.  He was kind of weirdly hilarious, and it was hopeful for the movie when he would appear (those hopes were mainly dashed, though, because his appearances were infrequent and didn't last very long).

On my patented ratings scale, I would have to give this movie a 5.5.  Somewhere between cute and utterly mediocre.  I think Ricky Gervais is what pumped that half point on to the rating now that I've had time to digest and write about it.

Night at the Museum does not pass my test, however.  I will not be buying it.  I can't see myself watching it again when it was such a struggle the first time.  This night was just plain too boring.