It's been a little over four years since I last made a top 50 list. I've seen a lot of films since then, so I figured it was time to revise the list. Of course it's ever-changing and would be different if I made it again tomorrow. These lists are more to capture what I thought in the moment. I could easily list 100 movies, but 50 is a challenge and I don't prescribe to an easily made list. I've decided to do away with ranking the movies, which I know is not fun, but I have a hard time picking a number one, and numbers 11 through 50 are arbitrarily ranked anyway. Each title contains a link to a trailer or movie clip.
12 Angry Men (1957)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The 36th Chamber of Shaolin (1978)
Amadeus (1984)
Another Year (2010)
The Battle of Algiers (1966)
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Blade Runner (1982)
The Blues Brothers (1980)
Brazil (1985)
Casablanca (1942)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Ed Wood (1994)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
The Exterminating Angel (1962)
Fantasia (1940)
Forbidden Games (1952)
The Godfather (1972)
The Gold Rush (1925)
Grand Illusion (1937)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Jaws (1975)
L.A. Confidential (1997)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
Last Year at Marienbad (1961)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Minority Report (2002)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Out of the Past (1947)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
Pinocchio (1940)
The Producers (1968)
Psycho (1960)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Ran (1985)
A Separation (2011)
Seven Samurai (1954)
The Seventh Seal (1957)
The Social Network (2010)
Spirited Away (2001)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
The Wages of Fear (1953)
The World of Apu (1959)
Vertigo (1958)
Wings of Desire (1987)
Woman in the Dunes (1964)
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Les Misérables (2012)
Tom Hooper was probably the wrong person to direct the big screen adaptation of the hit musical Les Miserables. Its not that he's a bad director; his King's Speech (2010) won him an Oscar, though I think most remember that film for Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush then they do for Hooper's direction. He's better at framing small, personal relationships and playing with more subtlety. I admire King's Speech a great deal, but I don't think it showed Hooper having the know-it to direct Les Miserables. This is almost like when David Yates took over the Harry Potter franchise, a move I still say was a poor one on the producers' part.
Les Miserables is not subtle. Characters sing everything they feel, and sometimes what they sing is heartfelt and wrought, and sometimes its simply pining for a loved one who will not love them back. There is nothing wrong with being big and grand, but Hooper doesn't seem to know when to focus intimately on his characters and when to let the camera and editing take over.
Les Miserables is a sprawling story, but the core focus is on criminal Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a man serving a 19 year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread. He is paroled, but Javert (Russell Crowe) is sure to let him know that he'll always be watching since he believes criminals never reform. Through various circumstances, Valjean decides to seek redemption by taking in an orphaned child and raising her as his own, before he's caught in a student uprising that forms a feeble attempt at a Second French Revolution.
There are many solos throughout this movie; its an operetta, and people tend to sing through most of these. While I'm fine with this art form, I find Hooper's staging of many numbers to be insufferable. I should note that I have no familiarity with the stage musical beyond listening to the cast album, so this is my first time really seeing the material. Just throwing that out there.
Where it does work is when characters have hit rock bottom. Early on, Valjean contemplates the charity of a preacher, and vows to reform his life. Jackman, sporting a great, big, bushy beard, infuses this song with great gusto and establishes what we can expect from the coming performances. Next is Anne Hathway as Fantine, the mother who just wants to earn enough money for her child, and is forced into prostitution to do so. After her first customer, she lays, shamed, and sings I Dreamed a Dream. Hooper holds on Hathaway's face for the entire duration of the song and never once cuts away. Its a stunning performance, and will bring even the most skeptical close to tears. I don't like making predictions in reviews, but Hathaway is a shoe-in for Best Supporting Actress.
But once Hathaway departs you realize she has cast a shadow over the rest of her co-stars. Hooper repeats the use of close-ups during emotional solos, but none of the actors come close to matching Hathaway, except perhaps for Eddie Redmayne's performance of Empty Chairs at Empty Tables. But Eponine (Samantha Bark) pines for a love that will never be hers, Valjean decides to save a certain character, and Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) & Marius (Redmayne) fall in love. Hooper focuses on their faces, and while the actors are all admirable, they can't hold my attention for three minutes the way Hathaway did earlier.
Perhaps I would have found it more bearable if Hooper found more compelling ways to stage some of his songs. A Heart Full of Love, which is a powerful ballad, is fairly boring when we simply cut back and forth between Seyfried and Redmayne singing to each other through a fence gate. It's boring, boring, boring! However, you can sense where Hooper knew to maybe add a little more to the editing, and that is with Javert. Russell Crowe can't sing very well, and he looks like he's suffering through this role just trying to get by, which is a shame since Javert is easily the most interesting character. His two big solo numbers, however, are covered and shot to hide the stiff performance, and it works. I was more entertained by Javert's songs, though the singing was off, then I was by many other solos where the singing and acting were better. Film is not the stage, and if you don't realize that, you're lost.
Hooper's framing also irritates me. Many times characters are placed in odd parts of the screen, or facing the edge of the screen with a big blank wall behind him. This is not artful, its artless, and a cheap way to seem cooler and edgier. And his mad focus on close ups makes the Master of the House song almost incomprehensible, as we watch Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter maliciously pickpocket their guests, but only at the edge of the frame. It's still a good song, but the camera direction is as muddled and confusing as the fights in Batman Begins (2005).
For all the bickering, though, I did enjoy large portions of the film. Javert and Valjean's story is a great moral lesson on black-and-white versus redemption, and Fantine's descent to the bottom is heart wrenching. The revolutionaries hopeless battle is also hard to watch, and little Cosette's desire to just be loved is very touching. There's a lot of stuff that works here, and I want it known that the good does outweigh the bad. However, I get very frustrated when someone was so close to making a great movie, and let time cut them short. It was little more then a year ago that it was announced this movie was going to be made, and I feel Hooper had to be more economic in planning out his shots when dealing with the huge subject matter.
The live singing has been touted about this film for awhile now, and it works. The actors are allowed to live in the moment, and it lends a natural aesthetic to the whole picture. But perhaps it was this live singing that also lead to more unbroken takes, since many takes were most likely disimilar to the last.
Whatever the case, Les Miserables is a bit of an endurance. Fans of the musical should love parts of it, and newcomers may find an appreciation for this story. Of the three most recent operettas released, which includes The Phantom of the Opera (2004) and Rent (2005) this one is the best. But that's faint praise.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Holy Motors (2012)
Every so often a film comes along and provides you with a sharp jab to remind you why you watch movies in the first place. 2012 has been an exceptional year in film, at least in my opinion, but one has to admit that there hasn't been a lot of inspired cinema. Then along comes a director like Leos Carax to slap you in the face with what is surely the most audacious film released this year.
There is no simple way to describe the plot of Holy Motors, but all you really need to know is that it concerns Monsieur Oscar (Denis Lavant), a man who rides around Paris in a limousine and dons several disguises. First he's dressed as a beggar woman, then a motion capture performer, then a weird troll/leprechaun. Lavant is a modern day Lon Chaney, and what makes the movie work so well is his total commitment to all the characters he plays.
More so then that, though, this is a film that, if you go in cold like I did, you cannot possibly predict whats going to happen next. There is no solid narrative structure, and while that might frustrate some, it delighted and entertained me to no end. I was at first apprehensive about the film's strange open, which features Carax himself unlocking a door with his finger that leads to a balcony of an old movie house, but I was soon swept into the world of this picture, and was eagerly anticipating what would happen next.
A lot has been made out of what this film actually means. Some point to an ode to film's better days, when cinema was still fresh and new. Some will say it is about the art of classic film dying out, and the old methods of making them as digital technology absorbs all aspects of the craft. Carax himself has admitted that the film is little more then an amalgam of scenes from other features he's been trying to get off the ground for the past decade. Each segment does feel like a snippet of a larger film, but Carax's work coalesces and never feels disjointed. It's similar to the Wachowski's Cloud Atlas earlier this year, except better.
Whatever the case may be, Carax achieves a level of pure cinema that few other auteurs can match, the pinnacle of which is an accordion interlude in a church, that builds on itself until it reaches an ecstatic climax, then continues on. Eva Mendes has her most bizarre role as a model that Lavant captures whilst in leprechaun/troll form, and Kylie Minogue breaks out into a musical number, though it is the weakest point of the movie for me (the lyrics are not very inspired: "Who were we, who were we, when we were who we were.")
Rarely have I been so delighted by everything in a film all at once. It should be noted that the film does contain some graphic nudity and violence, but for those that aren't annoyed by that this film should be a feast for the eyes. Rarely do I say this, but Holy Motors floored me, and is one of those films I will buy just so I can sit down with friends and watch their reactions to it. Long after 2012 is past, when the dust settles and we've forgotten Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty, and many other awards-bait films, this one will be remembered.
There is no simple way to describe the plot of Holy Motors, but all you really need to know is that it concerns Monsieur Oscar (Denis Lavant), a man who rides around Paris in a limousine and dons several disguises. First he's dressed as a beggar woman, then a motion capture performer, then a weird troll/leprechaun. Lavant is a modern day Lon Chaney, and what makes the movie work so well is his total commitment to all the characters he plays.
More so then that, though, this is a film that, if you go in cold like I did, you cannot possibly predict whats going to happen next. There is no solid narrative structure, and while that might frustrate some, it delighted and entertained me to no end. I was at first apprehensive about the film's strange open, which features Carax himself unlocking a door with his finger that leads to a balcony of an old movie house, but I was soon swept into the world of this picture, and was eagerly anticipating what would happen next.
A lot has been made out of what this film actually means. Some point to an ode to film's better days, when cinema was still fresh and new. Some will say it is about the art of classic film dying out, and the old methods of making them as digital technology absorbs all aspects of the craft. Carax himself has admitted that the film is little more then an amalgam of scenes from other features he's been trying to get off the ground for the past decade. Each segment does feel like a snippet of a larger film, but Carax's work coalesces and never feels disjointed. It's similar to the Wachowski's Cloud Atlas earlier this year, except better.
Whatever the case may be, Carax achieves a level of pure cinema that few other auteurs can match, the pinnacle of which is an accordion interlude in a church, that builds on itself until it reaches an ecstatic climax, then continues on. Eva Mendes has her most bizarre role as a model that Lavant captures whilst in leprechaun/troll form, and Kylie Minogue breaks out into a musical number, though it is the weakest point of the movie for me (the lyrics are not very inspired: "Who were we, who were we, when we were who we were.")
Rarely have I been so delighted by everything in a film all at once. It should be noted that the film does contain some graphic nudity and violence, but for those that aren't annoyed by that this film should be a feast for the eyes. Rarely do I say this, but Holy Motors floored me, and is one of those films I will buy just so I can sit down with friends and watch their reactions to it. Long after 2012 is past, when the dust settles and we've forgotten Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty, and many other awards-bait films, this one will be remembered.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
The Wonderful World of Disney: Part 5
Robin Hood (1973)
The next few films in Disney's oeuvre are, undoubtedly, some of their roughest. That's not to say they are the absolute worst, but without someone providing a unifying vision, the department seemed scattered and less focused. With all that being said, Robin Hood is still one of Disney's better efforts, and probably my favorite telling of the classic story (though I may be biased). You know it by now, Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor.
This is Disney's first fully anthropomorphic feature, in which human beings occupy no space within the realm of this world. Robin Hood and Maid Marion are foxes, Little John is a bear (looking exactly like Baloo, and being voiced by Phil Harris), Prince John is a Lion, and the Sheriff of Nottingham is a...something, I'm not sure (voiced by Pat Buttram). Robin Hood is a good time for kids, and definitely delivers the pathos in later scenes where Robin Hood's survival is briefly left unclear (one of the few Disney movies that earns its "the main character is dead PSYCH" ending).
There's a few decent songs, but nothing too memorable. Oo-de-Lally and the Nottingham Ballad will stay with you briefly, but the rest will fall to the wayside. Robin Hood is a solid entertainment, but its not one people always recall when listing off their favorite Disney movies, which is a shame, because its definitely better then some of Disney's other offerings. It also borrows a lot of movements from past Disney films. Watch this if you don't believe me.
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
I never realized it, but upon watching Winnie the Pooh after over a decade, I was struck by how brilliant this film is. It was released in 1977, though its a compilation of three Winnie the Pooh shorts that had run in front of other Disney features in the past. In some ways it was a greedy cash grab because it was simply repackaged and released for the public to pay for again, but I'm happy that they did it.
The various plots follow Winnie the Pooh, Tigger, Eeyore, Piglet, Rabbit, Owl, Kanga, and Christopher Robin on their various adventures through the Hundred Acre woods. There's Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree in which Pooh bear tries to steal honey from a hive, then gets his fat keister stuck in Rabbit's hole and proceeds to eat Rabbit's generous honey stores. Blustery Day focuses on Piglet being a scared little fella, and Tigger Too deals with Rabbit's continued annoyances with Tigger's never ending bouncing.
The way the story is told, though, is a lot of fun. Quite literally this is being read to us from a book, and Winnie the Pooh and friends interact with the text and break the fourth wall several times, talking directly to the narrator. This is tricky as it can be self-serving and lazy, but somehow the writers infuse this technique with its own charm that radiates throughout the film. There is also a sequence, dubbed Heffalumps and Woozles, that features some of Disney's best animation since the Pink Elephants on Parade from Dumbo (1941).
Finally, there's Sterling Holloway, who provides the voice of Winnie the Pooh. A veteran of the Disney stable, and with his own great cast of characters, here Holloway gives his most memorable performance. The voice of Pooh bear has stuck with us for generations and has become the model for anyone filling in for Holloway (who passed away in 1992). The film ends with a poignant scene in which Christopher Robin and Pooh ruminate on the future, and the prospects it holds. That scene resonates now as an adult more then it did when I was a child, and I can say without a doubt that The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is one of the best Disney films ever made.
The Rescuers (1977)
And with one of Disney's best comes one of Disney's worst. The Rescuers isn't a bad film, but its a boring one and thats almost as condemnable. It was a weird premise: a society of mice answer distress calls from around the world and set off to help those in need. The hapless Bernard (Bob Newhart) and lovely Miss Bianca (Eva Gabor, from AristoCats) are paired together to rescue a little girl being held against her will by some crazy lady. And they set off to rescue her.
The film makes the obvious point that even the littlest of creatures can make a big difference, as Bernard and Miss Bianca convene with several other critters to rescue the little girl, Penny, from her captor, a woman named Madame Medusa who is set on using her to retrieve a rare diamond only she can get because she's the only one small enough to fit down in the hole. Yep. Medusa has two crocodile pets that are the best part of the movie, and provide the funniest scene when Bernard and Bianca hide in an organ and the crocodiles play them out.
But there's no spirit of adventure or fun here, and the movie comes across as mostly flat. Especially notable is Bob Newhart's line readings as Bernard, which are about the most emotionless I think I've ever heard. I know Bob Newhart is a funny man and has a lot of energy, so I'll chalk this up to bad direction, leaving Newhart confused and with no other options but to read the lines in a soporific voice. The Rescuers only runs 78 minutes, but it feels longer, and hardly leaves an impression on you.
The Fox and the Hound (1981)
This one provides a lot of people with fond childhood memories, and is definitely one of Disney's more adult-themed stories. It starts off with the Disney signature of killing the mom and orphaning the hero, a little baby fox who is adopted by a kindly old woman. The fox grows and develops a friendship with the neighborhood puppy, and they become the "Best of Friends." They are Tod (Mickey Rooney) and Copper (Kurt Russell), and they are forced to learn the hard lesson that foxes and hunting dogs cannot grow up to be friends.
This could have been one Disney's best and ballsiest films if they had committed to killing off Chief (Pat Buttram again), Copper's mentor. There's a chase that ensues, in which Chief pursues Tod onto some train tracks, and Chief is hit by a train. This is the catalyst that sets forth the rivalry between Tod and Copper, but I don't buy it because Chief merely breaks his leg and eventually recovers. Now, broken legs are bad, but they are by no means the basis for swearing revenge. Granted Chief's death might have pulled this out of children's territory, since Tod's mother is already killed at the outset, but this would have established the conflict in a more convincing manner.
Still, the film develops the relationship between Tod and Copper well, and we sense the sweet bond of friendship between them. When you're young, the corruption of the world hasn't jaded you, and you don't yet understand prejudice. For delivering those messages alone I applaud this Disney movie, even if I recognize its faults. Oh yeah, it ends with an epic battle with a Grizzly Bear.
The Black Cauldron (1985)
For many, this film represents the absolute nadir of Disney animation. It took 12 years to make, 5 of which involved the actual production. Disney wanted to go to a really dark place with this one, but unfortunately a new face was running the show, Jeffrey Katzenberg, who hated the direction the story was heading and insisted that the animators pull back. When he demanded the film be edited, the animators responded that this was impossible, so he did it himself.
The plot involves a young boy named Taran who dreams of becoming a great knight. One day his magical pig Henwen has a premonition about the Black Cauldron, a device that can raise an unstoppable army of the dead. The Horned King (John Hurt), an evil force ruling the land, wants this Cauldron for himself, so its up to Taran to keep Henwen away from the King for fear she might reveal its secret location. Of course, he ballses it up.
Despite Katzenberg's best efforts, the film still earned a PG rating, a first for Disney animation. You can feel the elements of a great film at work here, but unfortunately the whole thing feels rushed, and you arrive at the climax before you even get started. The problem with a lot of fantasy stories is they need to time to build the world, and let you revel in it. Black Cauldron would have benefitted from more time in the world, but alas Katzenberg had his way.
There's also the character of Gurgi, a love-him or hate-him creature who many would compare to Jar-Jar Binks. Personally I enjoy Gurgi; he's a lighter version of Gollum, dishonest and selfish, until the end when he redeems himself (whereas Gollum doesn't). There's a also a flighty princess and some old codger along for the ride, but again the film is so short it never makes do with them.
This is also the first Disney film since Sleeping Beauty (1959) to be filmed in widescreen; all the rest were animated in a full frame aspect ration and then matted to suit theater's exhibiting standards. Its a look I sorely miss and benefits the film greatly, but it also explains the high production costs and time. Its certainly not the worst Disney film around, but its a shell of what it could have been, and as a result the final product is a weird blend of dark material and comedy that doesn't quite work, and makes the movie forgettable.
Part 6 will cover:
The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
Oliver and Company (1988)
The Little Mermaid (1989)
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
The next few films in Disney's oeuvre are, undoubtedly, some of their roughest. That's not to say they are the absolute worst, but without someone providing a unifying vision, the department seemed scattered and less focused. With all that being said, Robin Hood is still one of Disney's better efforts, and probably my favorite telling of the classic story (though I may be biased). You know it by now, Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor.
This is Disney's first fully anthropomorphic feature, in which human beings occupy no space within the realm of this world. Robin Hood and Maid Marion are foxes, Little John is a bear (looking exactly like Baloo, and being voiced by Phil Harris), Prince John is a Lion, and the Sheriff of Nottingham is a...something, I'm not sure (voiced by Pat Buttram). Robin Hood is a good time for kids, and definitely delivers the pathos in later scenes where Robin Hood's survival is briefly left unclear (one of the few Disney movies that earns its "the main character is dead PSYCH" ending).
There's a few decent songs, but nothing too memorable. Oo-de-Lally and the Nottingham Ballad will stay with you briefly, but the rest will fall to the wayside. Robin Hood is a solid entertainment, but its not one people always recall when listing off their favorite Disney movies, which is a shame, because its definitely better then some of Disney's other offerings. It also borrows a lot of movements from past Disney films. Watch this if you don't believe me.
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
I never realized it, but upon watching Winnie the Pooh after over a decade, I was struck by how brilliant this film is. It was released in 1977, though its a compilation of three Winnie the Pooh shorts that had run in front of other Disney features in the past. In some ways it was a greedy cash grab because it was simply repackaged and released for the public to pay for again, but I'm happy that they did it.
The various plots follow Winnie the Pooh, Tigger, Eeyore, Piglet, Rabbit, Owl, Kanga, and Christopher Robin on their various adventures through the Hundred Acre woods. There's Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree in which Pooh bear tries to steal honey from a hive, then gets his fat keister stuck in Rabbit's hole and proceeds to eat Rabbit's generous honey stores. Blustery Day focuses on Piglet being a scared little fella, and Tigger Too deals with Rabbit's continued annoyances with Tigger's never ending bouncing.
The way the story is told, though, is a lot of fun. Quite literally this is being read to us from a book, and Winnie the Pooh and friends interact with the text and break the fourth wall several times, talking directly to the narrator. This is tricky as it can be self-serving and lazy, but somehow the writers infuse this technique with its own charm that radiates throughout the film. There is also a sequence, dubbed Heffalumps and Woozles, that features some of Disney's best animation since the Pink Elephants on Parade from Dumbo (1941).
Finally, there's Sterling Holloway, who provides the voice of Winnie the Pooh. A veteran of the Disney stable, and with his own great cast of characters, here Holloway gives his most memorable performance. The voice of Pooh bear has stuck with us for generations and has become the model for anyone filling in for Holloway (who passed away in 1992). The film ends with a poignant scene in which Christopher Robin and Pooh ruminate on the future, and the prospects it holds. That scene resonates now as an adult more then it did when I was a child, and I can say without a doubt that The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is one of the best Disney films ever made.
The Rescuers (1977)
And with one of Disney's best comes one of Disney's worst. The Rescuers isn't a bad film, but its a boring one and thats almost as condemnable. It was a weird premise: a society of mice answer distress calls from around the world and set off to help those in need. The hapless Bernard (Bob Newhart) and lovely Miss Bianca (Eva Gabor, from AristoCats) are paired together to rescue a little girl being held against her will by some crazy lady. And they set off to rescue her.
The film makes the obvious point that even the littlest of creatures can make a big difference, as Bernard and Miss Bianca convene with several other critters to rescue the little girl, Penny, from her captor, a woman named Madame Medusa who is set on using her to retrieve a rare diamond only she can get because she's the only one small enough to fit down in the hole. Yep. Medusa has two crocodile pets that are the best part of the movie, and provide the funniest scene when Bernard and Bianca hide in an organ and the crocodiles play them out.
But there's no spirit of adventure or fun here, and the movie comes across as mostly flat. Especially notable is Bob Newhart's line readings as Bernard, which are about the most emotionless I think I've ever heard. I know Bob Newhart is a funny man and has a lot of energy, so I'll chalk this up to bad direction, leaving Newhart confused and with no other options but to read the lines in a soporific voice. The Rescuers only runs 78 minutes, but it feels longer, and hardly leaves an impression on you.
The Fox and the Hound (1981)
This one provides a lot of people with fond childhood memories, and is definitely one of Disney's more adult-themed stories. It starts off with the Disney signature of killing the mom and orphaning the hero, a little baby fox who is adopted by a kindly old woman. The fox grows and develops a friendship with the neighborhood puppy, and they become the "Best of Friends." They are Tod (Mickey Rooney) and Copper (Kurt Russell), and they are forced to learn the hard lesson that foxes and hunting dogs cannot grow up to be friends.
This could have been one Disney's best and ballsiest films if they had committed to killing off Chief (Pat Buttram again), Copper's mentor. There's a chase that ensues, in which Chief pursues Tod onto some train tracks, and Chief is hit by a train. This is the catalyst that sets forth the rivalry between Tod and Copper, but I don't buy it because Chief merely breaks his leg and eventually recovers. Now, broken legs are bad, but they are by no means the basis for swearing revenge. Granted Chief's death might have pulled this out of children's territory, since Tod's mother is already killed at the outset, but this would have established the conflict in a more convincing manner.
Still, the film develops the relationship between Tod and Copper well, and we sense the sweet bond of friendship between them. When you're young, the corruption of the world hasn't jaded you, and you don't yet understand prejudice. For delivering those messages alone I applaud this Disney movie, even if I recognize its faults. Oh yeah, it ends with an epic battle with a Grizzly Bear.
The Black Cauldron (1985)
For many, this film represents the absolute nadir of Disney animation. It took 12 years to make, 5 of which involved the actual production. Disney wanted to go to a really dark place with this one, but unfortunately a new face was running the show, Jeffrey Katzenberg, who hated the direction the story was heading and insisted that the animators pull back. When he demanded the film be edited, the animators responded that this was impossible, so he did it himself.
The plot involves a young boy named Taran who dreams of becoming a great knight. One day his magical pig Henwen has a premonition about the Black Cauldron, a device that can raise an unstoppable army of the dead. The Horned King (John Hurt), an evil force ruling the land, wants this Cauldron for himself, so its up to Taran to keep Henwen away from the King for fear she might reveal its secret location. Of course, he ballses it up.
Despite Katzenberg's best efforts, the film still earned a PG rating, a first for Disney animation. You can feel the elements of a great film at work here, but unfortunately the whole thing feels rushed, and you arrive at the climax before you even get started. The problem with a lot of fantasy stories is they need to time to build the world, and let you revel in it. Black Cauldron would have benefitted from more time in the world, but alas Katzenberg had his way.
There's also the character of Gurgi, a love-him or hate-him creature who many would compare to Jar-Jar Binks. Personally I enjoy Gurgi; he's a lighter version of Gollum, dishonest and selfish, until the end when he redeems himself (whereas Gollum doesn't). There's a also a flighty princess and some old codger along for the ride, but again the film is so short it never makes do with them.
This is also the first Disney film since Sleeping Beauty (1959) to be filmed in widescreen; all the rest were animated in a full frame aspect ration and then matted to suit theater's exhibiting standards. Its a look I sorely miss and benefits the film greatly, but it also explains the high production costs and time. Its certainly not the worst Disney film around, but its a shell of what it could have been, and as a result the final product is a weird blend of dark material and comedy that doesn't quite work, and makes the movie forgettable.
Part 6 will cover:
The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
Oliver and Company (1988)
The Little Mermaid (1989)
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
If one thing is for certain, Zero Dark Thirty (2012) will be the most talked about film this winter, as it has already been lauded with accolades from several critics groups (currently appears as number 1 on most top ten lists), and will go on to garner several awards nods throughout the next two months. It is also already the center of a lot of controversy surrounding its depiction of the CIA's methods in obtaining information from detainees, and a general attitude that is very pro-USA.
The film details one woman's near decade long hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and the lengths she goes to dig up any information that will lead her back to Bin Laden. This woman is Maya, played by Jessica Chastain in her first big starring role, after fantastic supporting roles in last year's The Help and The Tree of Life. We learn little about her, but we see her as a machine working non-stop to nail Bin Laden to the wall. This includes ignoring her superior's orders to focus on where the next terrorist attack will take place to focus all her effort in her hunt.
Opening on a blank screen, September 11th is established by the 911 phone calls made by terrified Americans trapped in the tower, realizing they are facing their doom. Next, its 2003, and Maya has just landed in Pakistan to begin her work on the search. She witnesses a very brutal torture scene where detainee Ammar (Reda Kateb) is waterboarded, treated like a dog, and stuffed into a box smaller then a coffin. Maya is visibly shaken by the experience, but when left alone briefly with Ammar, who tells her that his torturer Dan (Jason Clarke) is an animal, she simply responds he can end all this by being honest.
These first scenes are definitely the most controversial of the film. For one, the 9/11 intro feels a tad exploitive, since the WTC attacks are an easy way to get any patriotic American riled up. Then the torture scenes, which eventually yield crucial information about one of Bin Laden's couriers that drives Maya's hunt for the rest of the film. Director Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) never takes a solid stance either way on whether torture is good or bad, and leaves it up to the audience to react on their own. Some will be appalled at what happens, others will support the action as a means to an end, and the lazy will criticize Bigelow for not taking a stance and telling us how to think.
In reading other reviews, I ran across a theory on the movie that I quite like and support. Zero Dark Thirty is the story of America's revenge on Bin Laden; he organized the terrorist attacks, and we hunted him down. Zero Dark Thirty plays out like a revenge film, and has America so desperate for retaliation and closure that we will go to any lengths to hunt down those responsible. Its really no different then movies like Gladiator (2000), Kill Bill (2003-2004), or any number of films that involve heroes going to desperate lengths to exact their revenge on those that wronged them.
We are shown several other terrorist attacks that happened throughout the last decade, including the London bus bomb, the Marriott in Islamabad, and an attack on a CIA base that kills one of Maya's close friends and really propels her forward on her hunt. Through this the film is able to maintain a state of suspense, as Bin Laden's continued freedom supposedly leads to all these other attacks. The film also provides us with a literal representation of Hitchcock's definition of suspense, in which a bomb quite unexpectedly goes off near Maya. Suspense is knowing the bomb is there, and that it will eventually go off. Surprise is the bomb going off. Bigelow plays out both versions of this theory in different scenes, and they work out fantastically.
Of course this all boils down to the final act, in which the final raid on Bin Laden's compound is meticulously restaged. We watch as the soldiers systematically blow up doors, enter, and engage in firefights with the few terrorists living there. Shot mostly in night vision, this is the scene everyone will remember, as we become active participants in the event. The final killing of Bin Laden is not treated with loud trumpets (for one thing, the soldiers aren't sure if it is Bin Laden), and we never see his face, a wise choice on Bigelow's part. When he is finally identified by Maya, she gets on her plane, relieved, but also lost. For eight years she has been hunting this man, and now that he's caught, her life seems to have lost purpose. She doesn't have any real friends or relationships, her whole life has been devoted to finding this one man.
All the actors do a fine job, and Chastain especially is superb. She reminds one of Clarice Starling from Silence of the Lambs (1991), another headstrong woman trying to make it in a man's world. She is fierce, tenacious, and unrelenting, and Chastain is the perfect actor for this role. She has emerged as one of our most versatile performers today, and I look forward to many roles for her in the years to come. The film itself is also a well crafted suspense thriller, a revenge tale for the ages. It recounts a decade in our history, without reveling in politics. We never glimpse Bush or Cheney, and Obama only surfaces in a Campaign interview to indicate where we are in the timeline. Bigelow is a master at keeping her own politics at bay.
With all that being said, how did I actually feel about this film? Is it really the best of the year? I believe a film like this is, to a degree, critic proof (at least in the USA) because any major criticisms leveled against it could be seen as a criticism against America. There almost seems to be an overwhelming amount of people declaring love for it because how can you talk ill of the people that were responsible for hunting down Bin Laden? I, for one, do not consider it the best of the year, but that's also how you define the best. For me, its a movie I want to revisit again immediately, and will enjoy a long shelf life in my DVD collection. Zero Dark Thirty is expertly made in all aspects, but its not one I will find myself watching again anytime soon.
The film details one woman's near decade long hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and the lengths she goes to dig up any information that will lead her back to Bin Laden. This woman is Maya, played by Jessica Chastain in her first big starring role, after fantastic supporting roles in last year's The Help and The Tree of Life. We learn little about her, but we see her as a machine working non-stop to nail Bin Laden to the wall. This includes ignoring her superior's orders to focus on where the next terrorist attack will take place to focus all her effort in her hunt.
Opening on a blank screen, September 11th is established by the 911 phone calls made by terrified Americans trapped in the tower, realizing they are facing their doom. Next, its 2003, and Maya has just landed in Pakistan to begin her work on the search. She witnesses a very brutal torture scene where detainee Ammar (Reda Kateb) is waterboarded, treated like a dog, and stuffed into a box smaller then a coffin. Maya is visibly shaken by the experience, but when left alone briefly with Ammar, who tells her that his torturer Dan (Jason Clarke) is an animal, she simply responds he can end all this by being honest.
These first scenes are definitely the most controversial of the film. For one, the 9/11 intro feels a tad exploitive, since the WTC attacks are an easy way to get any patriotic American riled up. Then the torture scenes, which eventually yield crucial information about one of Bin Laden's couriers that drives Maya's hunt for the rest of the film. Director Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) never takes a solid stance either way on whether torture is good or bad, and leaves it up to the audience to react on their own. Some will be appalled at what happens, others will support the action as a means to an end, and the lazy will criticize Bigelow for not taking a stance and telling us how to think.
In reading other reviews, I ran across a theory on the movie that I quite like and support. Zero Dark Thirty is the story of America's revenge on Bin Laden; he organized the terrorist attacks, and we hunted him down. Zero Dark Thirty plays out like a revenge film, and has America so desperate for retaliation and closure that we will go to any lengths to hunt down those responsible. Its really no different then movies like Gladiator (2000), Kill Bill (2003-2004), or any number of films that involve heroes going to desperate lengths to exact their revenge on those that wronged them.
We are shown several other terrorist attacks that happened throughout the last decade, including the London bus bomb, the Marriott in Islamabad, and an attack on a CIA base that kills one of Maya's close friends and really propels her forward on her hunt. Through this the film is able to maintain a state of suspense, as Bin Laden's continued freedom supposedly leads to all these other attacks. The film also provides us with a literal representation of Hitchcock's definition of suspense, in which a bomb quite unexpectedly goes off near Maya. Suspense is knowing the bomb is there, and that it will eventually go off. Surprise is the bomb going off. Bigelow plays out both versions of this theory in different scenes, and they work out fantastically.
Of course this all boils down to the final act, in which the final raid on Bin Laden's compound is meticulously restaged. We watch as the soldiers systematically blow up doors, enter, and engage in firefights with the few terrorists living there. Shot mostly in night vision, this is the scene everyone will remember, as we become active participants in the event. The final killing of Bin Laden is not treated with loud trumpets (for one thing, the soldiers aren't sure if it is Bin Laden), and we never see his face, a wise choice on Bigelow's part. When he is finally identified by Maya, she gets on her plane, relieved, but also lost. For eight years she has been hunting this man, and now that he's caught, her life seems to have lost purpose. She doesn't have any real friends or relationships, her whole life has been devoted to finding this one man.
All the actors do a fine job, and Chastain especially is superb. She reminds one of Clarice Starling from Silence of the Lambs (1991), another headstrong woman trying to make it in a man's world. She is fierce, tenacious, and unrelenting, and Chastain is the perfect actor for this role. She has emerged as one of our most versatile performers today, and I look forward to many roles for her in the years to come. The film itself is also a well crafted suspense thriller, a revenge tale for the ages. It recounts a decade in our history, without reveling in politics. We never glimpse Bush or Cheney, and Obama only surfaces in a Campaign interview to indicate where we are in the timeline. Bigelow is a master at keeping her own politics at bay.
With all that being said, how did I actually feel about this film? Is it really the best of the year? I believe a film like this is, to a degree, critic proof (at least in the USA) because any major criticisms leveled against it could be seen as a criticism against America. There almost seems to be an overwhelming amount of people declaring love for it because how can you talk ill of the people that were responsible for hunting down Bin Laden? I, for one, do not consider it the best of the year, but that's also how you define the best. For me, its a movie I want to revisit again immediately, and will enjoy a long shelf life in my DVD collection. Zero Dark Thirty is expertly made in all aspects, but its not one I will find myself watching again anytime soon.
Monday, December 17, 2012
The Wonderful World of Disney: Part 4
Sleeping Beauty (1959)
Four long years separates Sleeping Beauty from Lady and the Tramp, due once again to the use of CinemaScope's 2.55:1 ratio, allowing the artists to paint on a larger canvas. This film has a very distinctive look from most other Disney films, and each background took seven to ten days to complete, versus the typical one day for other Disney films. As a result, the backgrounds are rather lifeless, as only prominent characters are given the ability to move. Its still one of the most striking looks a Disney film has ever attained.
This is another Disney film carried by the supporting characters, rather then the leads. The story opens on the birth of Princess Aurora, and the curse the evil Maleficent places on her. Jealous that she was not invited to the Princess' birthday, she declares that before the sun sets on her 16th birthday, the Princess will prick her finger on a spinning wheel and die. The King sends his daughter into hiding with three fairies, who place a counter charm that will simply but Aurora into a deep sleep, only to be awakened by true love's kiss.
It's amazing how Disney romance made sense when I was younger. Perhaps it bored me, so the faster the characters fell in love the happier I was. Now, of course, its almost laughable how quickly people fall for each other. Aurora meets her betrothed, Prince Phillip, though neither knows the other; and though she is apprehensive, it takes one song (Once Upon a Dream) to convince them they were in love. If only it were that easy.
But if Aurora and Phillip don't provide much in the way of character, its made up by the three fairies (Merryweather being the best), and imposing force that is Maleficent. True her gripe with Aurora is a weak reason, but then again there are plenty of people out there who would do the same. It comes down to a fantastic final fight, as Maleficent transforms into a huge dragon. And, of course, true love's kiss.
101 Dalmatians (1961)
101 Dalmatians is a watershed film in the Disney animation style; before you couldn't fault a single Disney film for its look, they were all wonderful to behold. But production costs were too high, and so a new process was developed known as Xerography, a photocopying technique that gave the films a rough look. To swap Sleeping Beauty for 101 Dalmatians feels like taking a few steps back from where animation had come.
101 is one of those films I watched a million times as a kid because those puppies were so darn cute. The story opens with Pongo the dalmatian narrating the everyday droll life he leads, and how he hooks up his human pet Roger (see, they think of us as pets!) with a beautiful young lady named Anita. Bonus for Pongo: she has a dalmatian named Perdita. Both couples get married, and Perdita gives birth to fifteen puppies. In one of Disney's darker moments, one of the puppies doesn't make it, though of course Roger uses massaging techniques to revive the little guy.
This is all threatened by Anita's extravagant employer, Cruella De Vil (possibly the best name for any Disney villain ever), who steals the puppies intent on skinning them all and making a Dalmatian fur coat. Ethics aside, I imagine a Dalmatian fur coat would look horrible, but then again I've been told I have no sense of fashion so what do I know.
As far as Disney films go this one's fairly decent, once again featuring a myriad of supporting characters that help Pongo and Perdita on their quest to rescue their puppies (and the 84 others Cruella has somehow rounded up). There's also the bumbling henchmen Jasper and Horace who provide a few chuckles. The best scene is the climax, in which Cruella's vehicle turns into a hellmobile and her eyes blaze with the rage of 1,000 suns.
The Sword in the Stone (1963)
There are two ways people know the Arthur mythology, neither from reading any of the books. One is Monty Python's classic telling of Arthur's quest for the Holy Grail. The second is this film, which tells Arthur's origins, his schooling with Merlin, and his eventual pulling of the sword from the stone. A third would probably be the musical Camelot.
Arthur is a squire, referred to as Wart, until one day Merlin comes along and begins schooling him in the ways of the world. This film is one of the first, in animation anyways, to make winking references to the future. Merlin has time traveled and seen all the latest inventions, and mentions several different technologies that leaves Wart confused but will have the audience laughing, if they haven't seen Shrek (2001) a million times yet.
There's not much forward momentum to the plot, but what is here is fairly enjoyable. Merlin transforms Wart into a fish, a squirrel, and a bird, and each leads to dire misadventures. The highlight is a duel between Merlin and Madam Mim, as they transform into several different creatures to try and one up each other. The Merlin wins is quite ingenious actually.
Merlin's sidekick is the owl Archimedes, voiced by Junius Matthews who also does Rabbit in Winnie the Pooh. He's a nice little character, dropping several dour remarks about the situation, and always keeping a pessimistic outlook, though he helps when he can. In the end, Sword in the Stone might not be much, but whats there is pretty damn entertaining and provides youngsters with a neat entry point into the Arthur mythology.
The Jungle Book (1967)
You know what's been missing from the past several Disney films? Great music. Sure most of the past couple films had songs, but none of them are ones I pull up regularly and sing along too. Jungle Book, on the other hand, has several great songs, the highlights of which include Bare Necessities and I Wanna Be Like You. Strong songwriting wouldn't pervade Disney until the Renaissance era, but of all the past Disney films, this one has the most memorable songs.
It's also a significant film because its the last Walt oversaw before his death in December 1966. While the quality of Disney films had begun to wane at the start of WWII, here the films really start to dip in quality, with a few real duds on the horizon. Jungle Book is still overall a good film and one I will continue to revisit through my life, featuring several wonderful characters including George Sanders' wonderfully deep voice as Shere Khan. Also notable are the Vultures, modeled to look like the Beatles because they were originally going to do the voices, until John Lennon vetoed the idea.
Making his first of three appearances in Disney is Phil Harris, providing the voice of Baloo. He brings a swinging, easy going edge to the scene, and Disney would use him in their next to films to bring a little life to the scene. The journey of little Mowgli from the Jungle to the village is always fun, with one of Disney's better endings as he is charmed by a girl away from his friends. Oh Disney, sometimes you know life too well.
More importantly, this film saved Disney animation. Because Walt had died, the future of the animation studio was called into question, and had this film been a financial failure, it is likely Disney Studio Animation would have closed indefinitely. Luckily, the film has a huge box office hit, and resuscitated the studio, but it would be 22 years before Disney animation truly returned to form.
The AristoCats (1970)
Jungle Book saved Disney Animation so we could get...this. It's a highly unremarkable film about a cat and her kittens who are going to inherit their wealthy owner's entire estate. This makes her Butler extremely jealous, and so he sets out to drown the cats, since the lady will bequeath her estate to him instead, if the cats aren't there. My what a dastardly plan.
If the plot is slightly ridiculous, it is saved by several good characters and some good scenes. The highlight of the film involves two dogs, Napoleon and Lafayette. (Pat Buttram voices Napoleon, and if the name sounds familiar, it's because he resurfaces in several coming Disney films.) Napoleon and Lafayette chase the Butler for no other reason then thats what they do, and inadvertently foil his dastardly plans.
Phil Harris is back as Thomas O'Malley Cat, providing the same swagger he did for Baloo. Eva Gabor voices Duchess, the lead Cat, and she'll be back in a future prominent Disney role. They go on several misadventures and have a run-in with some other alley cats, who sing the films only semi-memorable song, Everybody Wants to Be a Cat. This is all finished off with another great climax in which the Butler is shipped far, far from Paris. Disney is pretty good at climaxes.
Disney does produce some good films through the 70s and 80s, but none have that timeless classic feel to them (save one thats coming up). Disney's animation department was heading towards their lowest point, as they operated on tight budgets and the pressure to deliver successes that would keep the company afloat. Its definitely not smooth sailing, as we'll see next time.
Part 5 will cover:
Robin Hood (1973)
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
The Rescuers (1977)
The Fox and the Hound (1981)
The Black Cauldron (1985)
Four long years separates Sleeping Beauty from Lady and the Tramp, due once again to the use of CinemaScope's 2.55:1 ratio, allowing the artists to paint on a larger canvas. This film has a very distinctive look from most other Disney films, and each background took seven to ten days to complete, versus the typical one day for other Disney films. As a result, the backgrounds are rather lifeless, as only prominent characters are given the ability to move. Its still one of the most striking looks a Disney film has ever attained.
This is another Disney film carried by the supporting characters, rather then the leads. The story opens on the birth of Princess Aurora, and the curse the evil Maleficent places on her. Jealous that she was not invited to the Princess' birthday, she declares that before the sun sets on her 16th birthday, the Princess will prick her finger on a spinning wheel and die. The King sends his daughter into hiding with three fairies, who place a counter charm that will simply but Aurora into a deep sleep, only to be awakened by true love's kiss.
It's amazing how Disney romance made sense when I was younger. Perhaps it bored me, so the faster the characters fell in love the happier I was. Now, of course, its almost laughable how quickly people fall for each other. Aurora meets her betrothed, Prince Phillip, though neither knows the other; and though she is apprehensive, it takes one song (Once Upon a Dream) to convince them they were in love. If only it were that easy.
But if Aurora and Phillip don't provide much in the way of character, its made up by the three fairies (Merryweather being the best), and imposing force that is Maleficent. True her gripe with Aurora is a weak reason, but then again there are plenty of people out there who would do the same. It comes down to a fantastic final fight, as Maleficent transforms into a huge dragon. And, of course, true love's kiss.
101 Dalmatians (1961)
101 Dalmatians is a watershed film in the Disney animation style; before you couldn't fault a single Disney film for its look, they were all wonderful to behold. But production costs were too high, and so a new process was developed known as Xerography, a photocopying technique that gave the films a rough look. To swap Sleeping Beauty for 101 Dalmatians feels like taking a few steps back from where animation had come.
101 is one of those films I watched a million times as a kid because those puppies were so darn cute. The story opens with Pongo the dalmatian narrating the everyday droll life he leads, and how he hooks up his human pet Roger (see, they think of us as pets!) with a beautiful young lady named Anita. Bonus for Pongo: she has a dalmatian named Perdita. Both couples get married, and Perdita gives birth to fifteen puppies. In one of Disney's darker moments, one of the puppies doesn't make it, though of course Roger uses massaging techniques to revive the little guy.
This is all threatened by Anita's extravagant employer, Cruella De Vil (possibly the best name for any Disney villain ever), who steals the puppies intent on skinning them all and making a Dalmatian fur coat. Ethics aside, I imagine a Dalmatian fur coat would look horrible, but then again I've been told I have no sense of fashion so what do I know.
As far as Disney films go this one's fairly decent, once again featuring a myriad of supporting characters that help Pongo and Perdita on their quest to rescue their puppies (and the 84 others Cruella has somehow rounded up). There's also the bumbling henchmen Jasper and Horace who provide a few chuckles. The best scene is the climax, in which Cruella's vehicle turns into a hellmobile and her eyes blaze with the rage of 1,000 suns.
The Sword in the Stone (1963)
There are two ways people know the Arthur mythology, neither from reading any of the books. One is Monty Python's classic telling of Arthur's quest for the Holy Grail. The second is this film, which tells Arthur's origins, his schooling with Merlin, and his eventual pulling of the sword from the stone. A third would probably be the musical Camelot.
Arthur is a squire, referred to as Wart, until one day Merlin comes along and begins schooling him in the ways of the world. This film is one of the first, in animation anyways, to make winking references to the future. Merlin has time traveled and seen all the latest inventions, and mentions several different technologies that leaves Wart confused but will have the audience laughing, if they haven't seen Shrek (2001) a million times yet.
There's not much forward momentum to the plot, but what is here is fairly enjoyable. Merlin transforms Wart into a fish, a squirrel, and a bird, and each leads to dire misadventures. The highlight is a duel between Merlin and Madam Mim, as they transform into several different creatures to try and one up each other. The Merlin wins is quite ingenious actually.
Merlin's sidekick is the owl Archimedes, voiced by Junius Matthews who also does Rabbit in Winnie the Pooh. He's a nice little character, dropping several dour remarks about the situation, and always keeping a pessimistic outlook, though he helps when he can. In the end, Sword in the Stone might not be much, but whats there is pretty damn entertaining and provides youngsters with a neat entry point into the Arthur mythology.
The Jungle Book (1967)
You know what's been missing from the past several Disney films? Great music. Sure most of the past couple films had songs, but none of them are ones I pull up regularly and sing along too. Jungle Book, on the other hand, has several great songs, the highlights of which include Bare Necessities and I Wanna Be Like You. Strong songwriting wouldn't pervade Disney until the Renaissance era, but of all the past Disney films, this one has the most memorable songs.
It's also a significant film because its the last Walt oversaw before his death in December 1966. While the quality of Disney films had begun to wane at the start of WWII, here the films really start to dip in quality, with a few real duds on the horizon. Jungle Book is still overall a good film and one I will continue to revisit through my life, featuring several wonderful characters including George Sanders' wonderfully deep voice as Shere Khan. Also notable are the Vultures, modeled to look like the Beatles because they were originally going to do the voices, until John Lennon vetoed the idea.
Making his first of three appearances in Disney is Phil Harris, providing the voice of Baloo. He brings a swinging, easy going edge to the scene, and Disney would use him in their next to films to bring a little life to the scene. The journey of little Mowgli from the Jungle to the village is always fun, with one of Disney's better endings as he is charmed by a girl away from his friends. Oh Disney, sometimes you know life too well.
More importantly, this film saved Disney animation. Because Walt had died, the future of the animation studio was called into question, and had this film been a financial failure, it is likely Disney Studio Animation would have closed indefinitely. Luckily, the film has a huge box office hit, and resuscitated the studio, but it would be 22 years before Disney animation truly returned to form.
The AristoCats (1970)
Jungle Book saved Disney Animation so we could get...this. It's a highly unremarkable film about a cat and her kittens who are going to inherit their wealthy owner's entire estate. This makes her Butler extremely jealous, and so he sets out to drown the cats, since the lady will bequeath her estate to him instead, if the cats aren't there. My what a dastardly plan.
If the plot is slightly ridiculous, it is saved by several good characters and some good scenes. The highlight of the film involves two dogs, Napoleon and Lafayette. (Pat Buttram voices Napoleon, and if the name sounds familiar, it's because he resurfaces in several coming Disney films.) Napoleon and Lafayette chase the Butler for no other reason then thats what they do, and inadvertently foil his dastardly plans.
Phil Harris is back as Thomas O'Malley Cat, providing the same swagger he did for Baloo. Eva Gabor voices Duchess, the lead Cat, and she'll be back in a future prominent Disney role. They go on several misadventures and have a run-in with some other alley cats, who sing the films only semi-memorable song, Everybody Wants to Be a Cat. This is all finished off with another great climax in which the Butler is shipped far, far from Paris. Disney is pretty good at climaxes.
Disney does produce some good films through the 70s and 80s, but none have that timeless classic feel to them (save one thats coming up). Disney's animation department was heading towards their lowest point, as they operated on tight budgets and the pressure to deliver successes that would keep the company afloat. Its definitely not smooth sailing, as we'll see next time.
Part 5 will cover:
Robin Hood (1973)
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
The Rescuers (1977)
The Fox and the Hound (1981)
The Black Cauldron (1985)
Friday, December 14, 2012
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Full spoilers for everything Hobbit-related below.
We seem to have entered a new age of cinema, and its not necessarily for the better. Instead of figuring out how to adapt books for feature length movies by reducing content, we are now at a time when books are being chopped up into multiple parts to "give the story the most attention" when really its at the service of maximizing profits. I was a big supporter of Harry Potter doing this with its seventh book; one movie would have felt slight and rushed, but two gave ample time for the whole story to be told. Granted, Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a much slower pic then Part 2, where the final battle comes to a head, but there was enough content to justify the split.
Twilight followed suit with its final two parts, and Hunger Games will do the same with its final book, though if you've read Mockingjay you'll understand what a punishing time we're all in for, as that book is slow, boring, and pretty awful compared to the other, more exciting Hunger Games novels. But I digress.
Peter Jackson now has enough clout that he can demand what he wants from the studios because his Middle-Earth films deliver the returns. Hell, when he made the highly debated decision to make Hobbit three movies instead of two, I bet the studios wet themselves with joy since he upped their potential profits that much more, and only had to stretch the budget a bit to accomodate extra shooting, post-production, and marketing for a third film.
So how does Part 1, An Unexpected Journey, hold up? Well, for Middle Earth enthusiasts, this is everything they could have hoped for and more. Jackson dives right back into Middle Earth and adds lengthy scenes explaining the backstory of Smaug's takeover of the Lonely Mountain, and fleshing out Thorin's (Richard Armitage) character more thoroughly then the book does.
The film is framed by an old Bilbo (Ian Holm) committing to paper his various travels, addressing them directly to Frodo (Elijah Wood), who is shoehorned in to establish why he's sitting under that tree at the opening of Fellowship of the Ring. We finally launch into The Hobbit proper with Martin Freeman in the role of Bilbo being greeted by Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen, returning from his LOTR days). Gandalf chooses Bilbo to join his company of dwarves, led by Thorin, on a quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug, and Bilbo initially refuses. But soon he's off with the 13 dwarves on an epic adventure filled with many perilous dangers.
The Hobbit is a short book, running barely over 300 pages, whereas The Fellowship of the Ring is nearly 400. So why does The Hobbit get the trilogy treatment when the 1,000 page LOTR saga was condensed into three movies instead of six or nine? Well, Jackson adds a lot of new material found in The Silmarillion and the Appendices to Return of the King, which explain where Gandalf runs off to all those times he goes missing. With all this material, Jackson is aiming to complement his LOTR films with the most comprehensive set of films he could make. So does it work?
Yes and no. While the embellishments help to paint the world of Middle Earth, all the added stuff grinds the forward momentum of the narrative to a halt. There's so much set-up and exposition going on in the first half of the film that you're head is literally spinning from the vast amount of plot being thrown your way. There's the addition of Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), a wizard more in tune to nature's creatures, to the point where he comes across as a Disney Princess. Some have been going so far as to call the character the Jar-Jar Binks of the series, and while I found the character vexing, I wouldn't go that far. He does serve a purpose (to introduce the Necromancer that we'll get more of in the coming films), though its a slight one.
What's really missing from this film, though, is an epic sense of purpose to the quest. The Hobbit is about Bilbo coming to terms with his adventuresome spirit, and proving that Hobbits and indeed all creatures can be more cunning then originally conceived. The quest to reclaim the treasure doesn't carry the same weight as the quest to destroy Sauron and his minions. Try as Jackson might, the whole thing doesn't ring with the same epic sweep the original trilogy seemed to manage so effortlessly. Even now I can go back to those films and become engulfed in the story.
The film's best scenes come when the gang is swept into the Goblin's lair and Bilbo is separated from the group and his infamous run-in with Gollum (Andy Serkis). This character is classic now, and to see him again filled me with excitement. The game of riddles is wonderfully rendered, and is the only section of this film I can find no fault in. Its perfect, and worth sitting through the rest of the film. The mo-cap has never been better. The dwarves also do battle with the Goblins with Gandalf, which serves as the film's one truly exciting action scene.
On top of all this is another story involving an orc who has a thorn up his ass about Thorin and is determined to kill him at all costs. This character is fairly boring, and while it offers an explanation for all the roaming orcs, and sets up an emotional payoff between Bilbo and Thorin, the character itself is little more then a lazy plot device to give this film some semblance of a three-act structure. I guess its good to have an enemy to fight against, but this one inspires no sense of fear or dread like the Urukhai managed to do.
Much has also been made by Jackson's controversial decision to shoot in 48 fps, doubling the frame rate that has been standard for nearly 120 years. Many have complained that the higher frame rate gives the film a daytime soap opera aesthetic, and makes the sets look fake and CGI worse. I cannot weigh in on this debate, having seen the film displayed in good ol' 2D 24 fps. In certain sweeping wide shots the characters seemed to be moving at a remarkable speed that didn't match their Close-ups, like those badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy. But overall the film looked fine, though the term film can't really apply because this was shot on the Red EPIC. If I do see the HFR 3D for some reason, I'll add a footnote.
Much has also been made by Jackson's controversial decision to shoot in 48 fps, doubling the frame rate that has been standard for nearly 120 years. Many have complained that the higher frame rate gives the film a daytime soap opera aesthetic, and makes the sets look fake and CGI worse. I cannot weigh in on this debate, having seen the film displayed in good ol' 2D 24 fps. In certain sweeping wide shots the characters seemed to be moving at a remarkable speed that didn't match their Close-ups, like those badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy. But overall the film looked fine, though the term film can't really apply because this was shot on the Red EPIC. If I do see the HFR 3D for some reason, I'll add a footnote.
For purists, this film is heaven. For the rest of us, this is an exercise in self-indulgent gratification, as we realize its going to be at least another year and two or so hours before we get to meet Smaug (here only seen flashing by). The Prologue to LOTR effectively establishes the menace that is Sauron, but Smaug's prologue does little service to him. I understand what Jackson is trying to achieve: the sense of an evil force returning is given a little notice here. But this isn't Sauron's story, this is Bilbo's. I've barely talked about the title character this whole time, and when you think about it, Bilbo is relegated to the background through most of the middle until the Gollum scene and his pivotal character shift at the end. Delicious teasers, hints, and name dropping would have been more satisfying then all the padding given to this movie. Jackson tries to give this small little story about a company of dwarves and a Hobbit deeper significance to Middle Earth at large, but sadly he falls well short of the mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)