2006 Screening Log

[Loomis]

March of the Penguins (Viewed April 11): Once you get past the "awwww" factor - and there is plenty of that to go around - March of the Penguins is essentially a lengthy Discovery Channel/National Geographic documentary. (Indeed, the opening credits listed NG). It is interesting that the Christian right/family values groups have picked up on this film, and while that isn't entirely the film's fault, they have certainly encouraged the attention. The film focuses on the monogamous relationships the penguins share during mating season; yet largely ignores the fact that they mate with a different partner every year (it is mentioned once in a throwaway joke line). Some of the "facts" in the film are a little garbled, with the film not quite deciding whether the penguins have been following this ritual for thousands or millions of years. Plus, what about the fact that humans are now destroying this habitat? Morgan Freeman's narration is fine, although many will be sick of the sound his voice over the top of film by now. It is also interesting that the English language version has chosen to use the narration - make this much more of a typical documentary - rather than the original French version that gave each of the penguins their own voice. Unorthodox, sure, but it would have lifted this above the otherwise average nature of this documentary. To be honest, I didn't even find the photography that impressive.
Until I see the French version, a rating of B-/borderline C from me.

[Prince Eric]

April 10, 2006

Ice Age: The Meltdown
I don't like nostalgia, and I firmly believe that trying to remember the past in an accurate light is a futile exercise. We have selectively memory, so we see the past through rose-colored glasses. I feel the same way about animated films. I don't condem the new wave of CG features, because I know that the era of traditional animation had as many misses as it did hits. With that said, I welcome this new technology with open arms. If a movie is a good one, I could really care less about the medium it is rendered in. I was fond of the original Ice Age. The story was quaint, slightly precious for my taste, but on the whole, thoroughly enjoyable. The simplistic animation went along nicely with the simple story. Everything fit very well together. The same goes for this even more pleasant sequel. The tone is much lighter, with more comedy that relies on with than cheap gags. One of the reasons I like this much maligned franchise (with animation fans, at least ) is that the voice work is absolutely stunning. The actors are basically being themselves, using their own voices, but their unique personalities fit their onscreen personas like a glove. I thought the inclusion of Queen Latifah might turn out to be a failed attempt at stunt casting, but I was proven wrong. I was given another reason to bow to the Queen, which I'm always ready to do. There were some problems, though, mainly the physics involved. Two mammoths balancing on a teetering pole of boulders is too much for me, but I bought it because it was in the service of a nice story. The faux laws of physics were no more harmless than the unbelievable Looney Toons, so I'm OK with it. A deserving blockbuster and a worthy contender for you-know-what. Grade: B

[Loomis]

Scary Movie 4 (Viewed 15 April 2006): The Scary Movie franchise has been patchy at best. The first film attempted to parody Scream, a film that needed no parodying given that it was already a post-modern twist on the horror genre. It failed - as a film, not at the box office - because it virtually transcribed the Scream script while adding a few prat falls, pot jokes and bodily fluid comedy. It was not a clever parody in any sense of the word. It was simply dumb. The second film was even more unecessary, but it did well enough to warrant a third film. Scary Movie 3 is quite possibly the biggest turnaround in a franchise ever, with the Zuckers showing us how it should have been done from the start. As such, I was expecting funny things from the fourth entry. Sadly, it was at least 10 minutes into the film before I found myself laugh at anything, and the laughs after that came few and far between. The film, and the laughs, certainly picked up pace in the late second and final acts, although I fear this was too late. Highlights included anything with Leslie Nielsen and Ma Sheen, the Brokeback Moutain parody and the film's finest hour, the Million Dollar Baby send-up. The HOWLS of laughter from 5 year olds at all of the 'something/someone humps an object'/take a hit to the groin jokes indicated exactly what audience this was going for. Still, it kind of amused and any film that makes fun of Tom Cruise is fine by me: C

[The Little Merman]

April 14, 2006

Downfall (Der Untergang)



Downfall (Der Untergang) follows Traudl Junge (Lara), the subject of the 2002 documentary "Blind Spot". Still a young woman, Traudl was Hitler’s (Ganz) secretary and took down his last will. The film opens as Junge is hired, and ends with her escape. The a clip from Blind Spot, the real Junge questions her own "childish" innocence.

Swiss actor Bruno Ganz is, simply astonishing in the role of history's most hated monstrosity. Bent, shaking, and shuffling from Parkinson's Disease, Ganz's Adolf Hitler at one end charms his new secretary, and on the other, is throwing a vile, incredible tantrum - barking what seems louder than his dog - Blondi. From this, we realize, Downfall (Der Untergang) is trying to ask the audience a question - "How human can you make such a horrendous being?", and the film gains much of its effectiveness from Ganz’s uncanny impersonation.

As the cement corridors shake under artillery fire and his closest advisors urge him to leave the city, Adolf continues to rave wildly of his unstoppable plans to cleanse Germany and "his" world. Amidst the turmoil, Eva Braun (Köhler) tries to dance her eminent fear away as the generals discuss the best ways to kill themselves. Hitler's imperialistic idiosyncrasies find traitors everywhere, only pushing him further over the edge as he tries punish the country that had failed his plans.

Hirschbiegel shows the immediate results of this hatred in terrible detail; death comes in plenty - graphic and pointless. Unrelenting Nazis string reluctant cannon fodder up on lampposts - as they say- in an effort to “restore order” - as if that were possible.

"Downfall" ("Der Untergang") is a gripping psychological study of a madman, only further perfected by awards-worthy performances and direction. One of the most finely-crafted World War II films ever made.

[Prince Eric]

January 16, 2006

Scary Movie 4
It's weird, but I get the jokes in these movies but I don't laugh. When they hit, they really hit, but when they miss, they just leave an awkward silence in the theater, so I know it's not me. I really enjoy watching Anna Faris in pretty much everything she does. She's a smart actress. The many cameos are just too much, especially the ones that aren't integral to the story or serve the purpose of the movie's humor. Like it's been said before, any movie that makes fun of Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise is OK by me, even though I'm surprised they didn't even tackle the issue of Tom's obvious heighth problem. Not quite zesty, but not quite stale...yet. Grade: C+

[The Little Merman]

April 17, 2006

Scary Movie 4



Anna Faris returns as the caring, albeit dim-witted Cindy Cambell in the fourth installment of the Scary Movie franchise. Cindy has taken up a job as a caretaker for an old woman (Leachman) in a house that is said to be cursed. The house happens to be located next to Tom Rayn (Bierko), a down-on-his-luck father of two.

As the two's relationship starts to blossom, an enormous storm rolls into town. Tom then discovers a giant hole in the ground filled with an alien race known as the "triPod." Meanwhile, Cindy finds the soul of a tortured boy living inside the house who tells her he knows the secret of how to defeat the invading aliens. The only way to figure out the mystery is to find the boy's father.

Cindy and Tom split from each other, promising to find one another some day. Tom and his children - Rachel (Campbell) and Robbie (Mirchoff) - then seek refuge in the basement of the shotgun-wielding Oliver (Madsen). Cindy, while trying to figure out her own mystery, bumps into her old friend Brenda Meeks (Hall). Together, the pair decides to find the boy's father and destroy the triPods. They then travel to a hidden village outside of town where the man apparently lives. It's up to Cindy and Brenda to find him and unfold the mystery of how to defeat the aliens, who in fact have plans of their own.

The main targets of Scary Movie 4 are Spielberg's War of the Worlds, the recent American remake of The Grudge, M. Night Shyamalan's The Village, the Saw series, Brokeback Mountain, and Million Dollar Baby. Combining such opposite story lines, of course, leads the audience to an unavoidable stupidity - yet, one cannot help but suspend all beliefs when a Tokyo-styled haunted house resides in New Jersey.

Anna Faris is as charismatic as ever, in a role she seems undeniably comfortable slipping in to. Her coy smile and bugging eyes pull in the audience with a charm that seems all too promising to be used repeatedly in one franchise. Craig Bierko provides his character an attractive aura, and a knack for bashful comedic timing.

Scary Movie 4 provides plenty of chuckles at the expense of Charlie Sheen, Carmen Electra, and series staunch Leslie Nielsen. But with bar-none comic carryover from one parody to the next, true laughs are few and far between. There's only so much humor left to squeeze from the pulp of Brokeback Mountain or the Japanese horror genre.

*tlm

[Loomis]

Eight Below (Viewed 24 April 2006): It seems to be animal movie month around here! Disney's live action animal fare can tend towards the schmaltzy, and while there is a little bit of that in here, Eight Below contains all those classic elements of a solid Disney film: striving against the odds; seemingly hopeless setbacks and a sense of family/kinship. It is very difficult not to like a film that has eight huskies in it, but the film never simply relies on the adorable dogs to carry all of the film's weight. There is genuine emotion here, and the dogs SHOULD be nominated for best supporting actors this year. The only real question is: what the #@!$ is up with Jason Bigg's hair? Rating: B+

[Loomis]

The Hills Have Eyes (2006) (Viewed 25 April 2006): I'll preface this by saying two things: I haven't seen the original THHE, much to my great shame. Therefore I can't compare the two. For the most part, I have also avoid many recent 'gore for the sake of it' horror films such as the SAW series and Hostel. That said, this was an incredibly enjoyable venture into modern horror.

The trend with horror remakes (especially something like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) is to take first time music video directors and give them classic horror films to remake. I was intrigued to see that they had given the French director Alexandre Aja (known most recently for Haute Tension) this task. The difference is amazing. From the opening titles it is clear that we have a far more skilled director at the helm.

The film does fall on a few horror cliches: easy scares being the main one. However, what I love about this film is that it spend the first half building up a great atmosphere, and then tears it all down in the last act. Many have criticised this for its "over the top Americana" at the end, as well as the violence. As to the latter, the violence is really no worse than your average modern horror film. However, as to the former, I think this was a parody. Keep in mind this is a French director. We have a people in this film that have been screwed over by their government and remain patriotic. We have a religious family that prays together, then gets attacked in the most ungodly way possible. Like the best horror films, we see that beneath the glossy exterior of civilization we have created, there is a very thin line between us and the base violent instincts we all share.

Rating: B+

[The Little Merman]

Adaptation



Requiem for a Dream



Superstar



---------------------------------------------

I'm on a streak.

*tlm

[Loomis]

Inside Man (2006) (Viewed 29 April 2006): Having seen so many heist films over the last few years, I felt as though the concept had been done to death. However, with Spike Lee's name attached and an excellent cast, I thought it was worth a shot.

This film is more about character and great dialogue than it is about the heist itself. This is not to take away from the heist plot, which manages to remain interesting and draws you in long after you've placed where the majority of the players are heading. It is also visually quite interesting, with Lee playing with the chronology of events, camera angles and narrative techniques not often used in this type of film.

An interesting twist on what could have been a by-the-numbers bank robbery. Rating: B-

[Loomis]

The Squid and the Whale (2005) (Viewed 30 April 2006): While I hadn't seen any of Noah Baumbach's previous films, and I was less than excited by his screenplay for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, I'd been looking forward to seeing The Squid and the Whale for a while now. The terrific cast was what drew me to the film, and ultimately, this is what holds your attention for the 81 minute running time.

Like many films that have concentrated on personal issues lately (such as Me and You and Everyone We Know; Thumbsucker; Everything is Illuminated; Broken Flowers) this is one of those films where very little happens. The term "independent whimsy" has been used in relation to these films, where long and lingering shots substitute mile-a-minute action. It can be used negatively and positively. In this case, I think it is one of the film's strengths. Of course, it helps that we have a wonderfully strong cast to help fill in those moments.

At the end of the film, not everything wraps up neatly. There are obviously still problems within the family, and personal issues both children have to resolve. But hey - that's life. It also manages to deal with some sensitive childhood and teenage issues, and like Me and You and Everyone We Know, deals with them in such a way as to be matter of fact rather than judgmental or coy. One of those films that is sure to be largely overlooked, but that is sometimes a good thing. Nothing can kill a quiet little film for some people more than a whole lot of hype.

Rating: B

[Prince Eric]

April 29, 2006

The Prize Winner of Defiance Ohio
There's nothing more wrong than a woman director directing a women's picture and ends up doing making a mess in the process. You begin to question if even women can tell their own stories, which is really quite heartbreaking. Jane Anderson's directorial debut is a glossed-up recreation of a real life woman who kept her family going through the arbitrary process of contesting and specifically, by coming up with winning jingles from major corporations. Anderson committs several filmmaking faux paus, including using high production values when they are not needed, breaking down the fourth wall to introduce an element of theatricality which is not needed, and forcing over-the-top dramatic performances from comedic actors (again, not needed - get the picture?). Julianne Moore is wonderful, of course, but her performance proves to be a retread to the archetype of the repressed 50's housewife which she has already mastered twice before. For a movie with such a positive driving force behind it, I didn't believe a moment of the protagonist's pain or joy. It was a sob story that didn't require any tissue, and what's the point in that? Grade: C+

April 27, 2006

An Unfinished Life

The adaptation of the novel, An Unfinished Life, should have remained unfinished, or at least unrealeased. Along with Proof and The Brothers Grimm, An Unfinished Life was a part of the 2005 release dump of long-held titles once thought to be strong enough to compete for industry awards. They may have had something going by keeping these three on the shelves for so long. Directed by the irritatingly precious Lasse Hallstrom, An Unfinished Life features performers who are in archetypal roles of themselves. (Morgan Freeman ends up the white man's best friend/mentor for the thousandth time - snooze.) For all the drama and human trauma involved, the film remains unbelievably inert throughout. Redford has lost his son, Freeman has been mauled by a bear, and Lopez is escaping an abusive boyfriend. The film tries to tell of each character's reconciliation of a life gone awry, but any moment of sincerity on behalf of the actors is ruined by the fimmaker's hokey eye for caramalized grief. Grade: D+

Last Holliday
I saw this some time back in February, but I see I forgot to mention it. All I can say is that Queen Latifah is true royalty. I love her naturalistic and earnest performances. She really knows how to hold an audience. Too bad her movies are far too easily disposible. Grade: C+

[Loomis]

So much dislike, he said it twice.

Just curious - I have no interest in Last Holiday, and you state that you enjoyed QL's performance. However, you state the film was "disposable". I think I know what you mean, but what in particular about the film didn't you like? As I said, this is just out of curiosity... Sometimes a performance is a saving grace, sometimes it is the only grace.

[Prince Eric]

So much dislike, he said it twice.

Just curious - I have no interest in Last Holiday, and you state that you enjoyed QL's performance. However, you state the film was "disposable". I think I know what you mean, but what in particular about the film didn't you like? As I said, this is just out of curiosity... Sometimes a performance is a saving grace, sometimes it is the only grace.

It was a cute movie, with a nice happy ending, but I totally forgot about it the next day. I just remember how much fun I had watching Queen Latifah.

[Loomis]

Mission: Impossible III (Viewed 6 May, 2006): Yes, friends, the Loom went and saw a Tom Crusie movie at the cinema. I guess there is a first time for everything. While pretty much everything you need to know about this film can be gathered from reading the title, this plays out like a feature-length version of an Alias episode. Except it doesn't have the wit, dialogue or the sexy Jennifer Garner in various skimpy outfits. A really nonsensical plot, coupled with terrible "forced" emotional moments in which Tom Cruise does his only method of acting (widening his eyes to various degrees), is only lightened by the hilarious site of Cruise trying to run like a man - which he does every five minutes. Most of the positive aspects of this film can be attributed to the terrific casting of Hoffman as the bad-guy, as well as the rest of the supporting cast. However, all of the negative aspects can fall squarely on the star, Tom Cruise, who also serves as producer and Uberlord for this production. Big, dumb and loud - we get what we expect and that's probably why I'll give this a C Rating.

[Loomis]

The New World (2005) (Viewed 7 May 2006): They call this a re-telling of the Pocahontas story? Where were Meeko and Flit? Pffft. No accuracy whatsoever!!!

Seriously though, this is Malick's best film since The Thin Red Line. Sure, it is his only film since The Thin Red Line but the wait was certainly worth it. Unlike the film I saw last night, this film has an amazing cast and it doesn't waste a single one of them. Indeed, there were no egos in this cast either. Everybody got their turn in front of the camera, and made the most of it. The beautiful photography, unique camera angles and almost ethereal nature of the film made the two-hour plus running time just fly by. Easily gets an A Rating.

[Prince Eric]

The New World (2005) (Viewed 7 May 2006): They call this a re-telling of the Pocahontas story? Where were Meeko and Flit? Pffft. No accuracy whatsoever!!!

Seriously though, this is Malick's best film since The Thin Red Line. Sure, it is his only film since The Thin Red Line but the wait was certainly worth it. Unlike the film I saw last night, this film has an amazing cast and it doesn't waste a single one of them. Indeed, there were no egos in this cast either. Everybody got their turn in front of the camera, and made the most of it. The beautiful photography, unique camera angles and almost ethereal nature of the film made the two-hour plus running time just fly by. Easily gets an A Rating.

Wow, I'm so glad you liked this movie Loomis! It really is one of my favorites from last year - I've been thinking about it ever since I saw it in late January, it's that emotionally resonant. It may go up considerably with my much anticipated DVD viewing. I think the cinematography is just gorgeous, but what impressed me just as much were the authentic Native American costumes and body paint, the first I've seen with such accurate quality in a movie. Just for the record, does your love for this film rival that of Brokeback Mountain?

[Prince Eric]

March 5, 2006

Memoirs of a Geisha
This is why the technology of DVDs is, and always will be, limited: the small screen is not the big screen. I am definately not a person who has falled victim to the idea that all films are just as equally suited to the television as they are to the silver screen. No way, no how. I'm not buying it. It's hardly explainable, but there is nothing quite like watching a movie in a darkened theater, where the ART takes place. I saw this title in theaters and marveled at its production values. I see it again with pristine DVD quality, and the awe dissappeared. I even began to see why some critics labeled this a bad movie (which is really not the case). The costumes lost their glamour, the art direction lost its mysterious appeal, and the cinematography looked quite pedestrian in places - and these are all the disciplines that earned the film 3 Academy Awards. Not even the combined talent Zhang Ziyi, Gong Li, or Michelle Yeoh could keep my focus this time around. On a side note, the extras are top-notch.

[Loomis]

Wow, I'm so glad you liked this movie Loomis! ...Just for the record, does your love for this film rival that of Brokeback Mountain?

While they are very different movies, I think I can say that I liked them equally, but in different ways. The comparison I will make is this: very few films make me just sit there for a few moments afterwards and just say "Wow". I do enjoy a wide variety of films, even the disposable ones, and many I will watch again and again. However, those two films are the only two recent examples of the "Wow" factor. That might be a clumsy way of saying they both had a deeper emotional resonance with me than most films, but I'm a clumsy kind of guy.

Also, just to run on from your Geisha comments (a film I am yet to see), The New World is another one of those films that is going to sorely suffer on the small screen. Much of the film's strength comes from the beauty the camera catches, and while some of that is still going to be present on the small screen, it is going to be hard to recaputre that feeling of sitting in a darkened room with a giant screen.

[Prince Eric]

Also, just to run on from your Geisha comments (a film I am yet to see), The New World is another one of those films that is going to sorely suffer on the small screen. Much of the film's strength comes from the beauty the camera catches, and while some of that is still going to be present on the small screen, it is going to be hard to recaputre that feeling of sitting in a darkened room with a giant screen.

I will disagree on that one. Memoirs of a Geisha really only had its production values to boast itself as a credible movie. Other great films with stunning visuals that I appreciate (perhaps even more) on the small screen are Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Girl With a Pearl Earring.