What took you so long?

After a long wait, the next installment of the Bond franchise is finally here, and it was well worth the wait. After the last Bond film, I went in to the latest addition to the reboot of the 50 year old franchise with some hesitation. However, the third film in the triumvirate of Daniel Craig films picks up the slack left by The Quantum of Solace and then some, a masterful transition between the earlier films, dominated by a stripped down and gritty version of the Bond universe as the franchise moves into known and loved territory. Skyfall gives plenty of nods to fans of the franchise of elements missing (and perhaps missed) in the earlier films. Some subtle, some not so much, many of the classic elements are reintroduced in this film and will have fans of the gadgets, cars, and bond girls cheering as they pave the way for the next films to delve back into this territory. As a person who has not necessarily been a fan of the Bond films before Daniel Craig's reign, due to a certain level of cheese, and perhaps even camp in some of the films, I found myself cheering at the reappearance of characters such as Q, and the allusion to the way Bond takes his drink.

The cinematography is beautiful, and the use of surfaces and reflections stunning to create layers and depth to the screen. Of particular beauty, watch for the scene in Shanghai where the lights and moving image that surround you in big cities make for an incredibly visually powerful scene. Also, it is refreshing to see a modern action film that is not afraid of long takes to allow the scene to unfold, and in this film, perhaps one of the best scenes is the introduction of the villain, Silva (Javier Bardem) as he walks onscreen, slowly filling the frame in one long shot and dominating every scene he is in after. The performance of Bardem steals the show, creating a character who will go down as one of the best villains in Bond history. He is simply magnificent. As the creators of the best villains know, the best villains have something imminently likeable about them (think of the levels of charm, grace and attractiveness of many of Hitchcock's villains, for example). Silva is evil, and insane...perhaps with some reason as the story unfolds, but it is impossible not to like him, and Bardem dominates the screen every second he is on it.

Finally, one of the best elements of this film is the fact that Mendes is unafraid to slow down the beginning and take time to reflect. While the movie begins with a high speed chase, Mendes slows down a notch and takes a moment to pause. The first half of the film is about the failings of the Bond institution. The mistakes (or not) that M has made. Bond himself, as the film concentrates on his aging body. In this trilogy where Bond's body is his ultimate tool, since he lacks much of the gadgetry of earlier films, the slow deterioration of his physical abilities calls his position as an agent into question. He is perhaps himself becoming too old for the job. His aim falters, his hand shakes. We see more of his origin story, and find out more about Bond's youth. It is a perfect way to round of the first trilogy of the reboot. Even if Craig is coming back, this feels like the perfect way to wrap up this gritty era of Bond and bring it full circle back to the feel of the original films (although, hopefully they won't lose all of the grit and darkness that have become the style of the new films), and it is exciting for fans and newer viewers of the series alike. While I could go on about how much I liked this film, and how all the elements fit together perfectly, I will concluded here. All of these elements add up for an incredible film, one highly worth seeing, and seeing in the theater. Rating=A

My Kingdom for a Blunderbuss!

As always, a warning about spoilers! Looper, perhaps one of the more anticipated films of the fall, judging by the lines at the theater, does not disappoint. The story is tight and involving, the film has strong performances, and the world built is a believable extension of our own (i.e., they have some flying cars, but most are old beat up hybrids that have solar panels strapped to them. Little details like making not everyone wealthy enough to own expensive gadgetry is a nice touch in an effort towards a sense of believability in this as America’s future).

So, let the spoilers begin! While this is a science fiction story, the strongest element of it is the journey of the main character, and I don’t just mean through time. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a young “looper”, who exterminates people sent back to him by a crime lord in the future (the “Rainmaker”). He knows, as do all loopers, that one day, they will be killing themselves, and thus closing the loop. I won’t go too much into detail, because it’s fun to watch and discover on your own. Needless to say, if you’ve seen the trailer, when Bruce Willis comes back as his future self, Joe can’t kill him, thus setting up the main conflict of the film. What I want to discuss though, is the fact that this film reminds me in certain ways, of some of Hitchcock’s work. Not obviously, so let me explain. As one Hitchcock scholar likes to point out, Hitchcock’s films are all about the journey from personality to person. The characters start out as outlines for people, stereotypes, or personalities. As the film progresses, and their relationships with other people along with it, they become rounded, complete characters. While the plots aren’t meaningless, they are often not the main point. Yes, the narrative is wonderful, but the characters are what make Hitchcock’s films great. I would argue the same about Looper. The story is about a man—junkie, killer, amoral, and incredibly selfish. What he does, and lets happen for money is terrible and he knows it, but can’t let it go. He thinks he can buy his way out of his problems. Even future Joe is the same way. He is still ultimately driven by more selfish motives. But the movie goes on, and in the true personality to person style, Joe develops more and more as his relationships with a young woman (Emily Blunt) and her son grows after he ends up on their doorstep looking for help.

The science fiction and time travel aspects are solid, even though it might be best not to look too closely at this part, as there would be major gaps and pitfalls, as there are in most time travel movies. It avoids a lot of the traps that these other films, while stronger sci-fi, can fall into trying to wrap up all their loose ends because in the end, Johnson reaches in, and virtually makes the time travel moot (he closes a loop in a very nicely executed, not quite deus ex machina move). While it's a great and essential part of the story, it’s not the science fiction that matters the most, but Joe’s journey and personhood, and his relationship to the other characters. Time travel is simply the way he finds himself (although, perhaps ironically, it is not the time traveling self that achieves it). That’s the main loop of the story, and it is brought to a close beautifully as Joe learns to act in someone's interest other than his own. Definitely a movie to see!

Warning: the movie is quite graphic, and is rated R for a reason. I still recommend it highly.

For love of the theatre

I have been sorely lacking in reviews recently, and the only excuse I can make is that I’ve spent all that time sitting in a theater watching The Dark Knight Rises over and over. So, I will try to play catch-up with the movies that I have seen this summer that I feel are worthy of comment. However, I want to devote this post to a description of my favorite theater in Los Angeles, and potentially the world (although I don’t know yet, since I’m still trying to get to all of them) for those who have not been fortunate enough to go to it. One of my favorite things about the movies is the experience of them in public, in a venue that’s sole purpose is the escapist adventure that is movie going. Even if you see a documentary, you escape from your own world to enter someone else’s, and from the moment you buy your ticket and walk through the doors, to when you exit, crawling out of the darkness and into the real world, the experience of movie-going is one of the more valuable entertainments since its inception in the late 19th, early 20th century.

One theater that gets the movie experience incredibly right is the Vista Theatre in Los Feliz, at the apex of the gigantic intersection of Hillhurst, Sunset Blvd., Hollywood Blvd., and Sunset Dr. It is one of the scarier and more confusing intersections that I have experience, but it is well managed, and there is nothing like the confusion of not being quite sure if you are, in fact, turning down the road you meant to. You may, of course, walk to the theater, but it takes approximately 7 minutes to cross the street, since there are only 3 crosswalks that you can use to get there, and with 6 or 7 directions of oncoming traffic, it takes time for the little man to light up, meaning you can finally safely cross to your destination. Of course, you can see the Vista and know its purpose long before you actually stand under the large signboard advertising the film currently playing. Neon green and pink lights advertise the theater, and a thrill runs through you as you recognize this experience as different from the normal multiplex, and somehow linked with past movie-goers and times in a vintage experience. The design and style are obviously older, and you feel you are part of history as you walk up to the entrance. The walk up to the ticket window is lined with handprints from sponsors of the theater, walking up the slight incline to the ticket booth outside the theater reminds you of old black and white movies you have seen. You may or may not have to stand back on the side of the road then, it depends on how popular the movie you are going to see is, and whether or not it’s opening night. The Vista is quite popular.

After the appropriate amount of anticipation has built up, and you feel connected to the other movie-goers somehow even though you all stand in your individual parties. The manager has been talking to patrons dressed as a character from the movie you are about to see (he has been The Phantom, Captain America, Jack Sparrow, Batman, and many more), and finally, he opens the doors about 15 minutes before the movie begins. You hand him your ticket and walk inside, already excited by the intrusion of the fantastical into the everyday through the manager’s costume, and are immediately transported into an even more fantastical experience. The lobby is decorated with faux hieroglyphics painted onto the walls, and palm branches above them. The concession stand is right in front of you, small and prominent, and the lobby is still lined with cardboard cutouts for the latest films. However you have already been blown away from the uniqueness and personality that assail you, so different from the bright lights and blaring screens that adorn so many larger cinemas. Once you have your popcorn, candy, or soda, you head into the theater, and stop short. The walls are lined with Egyptian statues, staring down at the audience through blank eyes. A plush red curtain covers the screen, and to either side, speakers are masked by intricate golden screens with snakes. Large, conic lighting fixtures create a soft lighting scheme, and give the room texture, and there is so much space in the room, aided in appearance by the fact that the walls are not painted black, that you just breath in the room for a minute, taking in the décor, and the music playing from somewhere overhead. As you walk down the aisle to choose a seat, you wonder about the history of the theater, because it looks like it belongs to the group of old theaters that were exotically themed (Egypt, China, and Persia were all popular) to draw in audiences. However, your friend tells you that in fact, The Mummy had their premier here in the 90s, and since the theater had fallen into disrepair, they revamped everything for that. When they asked the owner if he wanted them to take it down after, he said no, and you think it was perhaps the best decision ever.

Choosing seats, the first thing you notice is how much leg-space there is. You can stick your legs straight in front of you, and not come close to hitting the chair in the row ahead. During the movie, patrons will be able to get up and leave without the jostle and whispered apologies that usually accompany theaters trying to cram as many people in as possible, and you have decided already that this is your favorite theater in town for that reason alone. Finally, as the lights dim, and old-fashioned cartoon plays with a catchy song telling the audience, “Let’s all go to the lobby, to get ourselves a treat”. The vintage ad only increases the antique feeling of the experience, and you almost forget what you are seeing as trailers play, and then an announcement to turn off cellphones. These are faded and worn, and the switch to the new movie is something of a shock, but you settle down in the comfy chairs to enjoy it. After the credits roll, and the lights come up, you remember where you are and look around in wonder at the décor of the room as patrons get up to leave. You shuffle up and out into the light, and leave the small lobby behind as you walk, either to your car, parked on one of the streets in the surrounding residential neighborhood (but not the first one, because that one only has 2 hour parking unless you have a permit), or you head off into the evening, the sign lit up and glowing behind you as the theater gets ready to let in its next crowd to be charmed, enchanted and entertained.

New name!

How exciting, this blog has a new name! Let me know what you think! And until my next post, just bask in the fact that Cougar Town got picked up, despite being under a new show runner, by TBS. Yay!!

Snow White and the Huntsman

Please be aware, this review contains spoilers.

The trend for retelling fairy tales in recent years, while popular, has seemed to me to have produced mostly mediocre works that attempt to pull major twists on genre, plot or characterization, and often fall quite short (Beastly, Red Riding Hood, Mirror Mirror, etc. to name a few). Fairy tales focus on the psyche, and use the fantastical to project our own fears, wishes and personalities onto a safe screen to deal with them. Unfortunately, most of the recent re-tellings do not succeed in this. While there have been exceptions to this rule, (for example, Tangled, which I discuss later), for the most part, these films have been focused on glitz and glamor versus a more substantial engagement with the purpose and use of fairy tales. Snow White and the Huntsman is no different in this regard, except for perhaps the number of people that will go see it due to its star power and production budget. As an avid lover of fairy tales, I am unashamed to admit that Snow White was one of the films that I most looked forward to for this summer. Potential for strong female leads, a wonderful looking trailer due to an elaborate and intricate production design, and a strong cast (say what you will about Twilight, anyone who can make Bella Swan remotely human is a good actress), Snow White held a lot of promise. However, it is clear that in the case of this film, once again, all the focus went in to making the film very glossy, and very little went into the actual story. The scripts is one of the worst that I have experienced, with little for Stewart, Theron, and Hemsworth to do, as none of them are given tasks up to their abilities. There are layers hinted at for the characters, particularly Ravenna (the evil queen), and the Huntsman, however they are only hints at dark and torturous, and are left unexplored and un-characterized in favor of detailing the world and its minutia. I am a huge fan of complex story worlds, and perhaps Universal is setting up for a continuing story universe, especially given the way the film draws to a close. However, I found myself completely lacking any interest in the characters, merely because they are not the focus of the story. Snow White, whose main attributes are her innocence and purity (although, lip service is given to her “defiant spirit” in the beginning, is one note and boring, and apparently it is her beauty and goodness alone that inspire all these men to follow her. This leads to one of my main frustrations, because they movie seems very confused about what direction to take with her. She’s innocent and pure, but they also want to dress her in a suit of armor and have her fight in the final battle (and don’t get me started on how heavy that would actually be…especially for a girl who has supposedly been locked in a tower for 10 years). Ok...but pick one! Anyone who has seen or read anything good about female knights (Tamora Pierce's Tortall Universe features some great ones, as does Game of Thrones) knows how much work and effort goes into what is extremely physical, and what would have been considered an extremely unfeminine profession. It's okay if she can magically know how to fight and manage to hold herself upright under plate armor because hey, this means that reductive stereotyping in terms of personality is okay because look, she's been masculinized! See, she's holding a sword! And she's leading these people because...why again? Oh yes, because she's so pure and innocent! She likes wildlife! And she said the Our Father earlier (somewhat confusingly-so, we are in the real world?), so you know she's an angel! But I guess to appease any of those feminist people, she can fight too. See! She isn't only defined by innocence and purity! Except she is, and we are constantly reminded of it, which makes it harder and harder to take her seriously, as she is given virtually no motivation except for her goodness, and the vague mention of her as "the one". I guess she's kind of "plucky" as she has been called, but Stewart is called on to do so little except stand around with tears in her eyes, it's hard to get a sense of the character. Which brings me to the question of the romance. While I love making female characters strong and individualistic, I do admit to sometimes wanting the schloppy romance. This film steers pretty well clear of that, which has pros and cons I think (more later). The writer's start off by giving Stewart and Hemsworth a bit of sexual tension (and I mean, it’s not subtle or anything. He rips her skirt off for heaven’s sake), and completely abandon it once he finds out who she is (perhaps word of her innocence and purity had spread throughout the land? I don’t know). Heaven forbid she be tainted by a little actual sexuality. (Seriously, her first kiss has disastrous consequences). I do admire the aspect of her independence at the end of the film (you’ll see), but that was pretty much the only redeeming thing for her to me. The inconsistencies in her characterization show a lack of a true idea of who these characters are, which adds to a lack of feeling of any sense of connection between any of them. Am I supposed to care about her because she's the embodiment of all that is good? It might have helped if there was a little interaction between the adult Stewart and Theron's characters before the end of the film. I’m guessing there was a love triangle, but it was so poorly developed that I didn’t care at all about it. And the strongest relationship should have been between Snow White and Ravenna. Which brings me to Tangled. The best thing about Tangled was how it got so much right about mother daughter relationships. The original point of the evil stepmother was to allow children who felt angry or did not like aspects about their own mothers to safely displace these emotions onto another figure, who acted as the opposite of the figure of a caring, nurturing mother. (for a great discussion, see Maria Tatar’s The Hard Facts of the Grimms’ Fairy Tales). Bruno Bettelheim posited the theory that this allows for a splitting of the mother into a good (and absent) biological mother and an evil stepmother, preventing one from feeling guilty about being angry with one’s own mother. In Tangled, Mother Gothel has cared and nurtured for Rapunzel since she was a baby (does anyone else feel a little sympathy for the fact that she obviously was the one doing all the 3 a.m. feedings?), but in the true spirit of fairy tales, turns out to be an evil monster. I would have liked to see this kind of complexity from Snow White and the Huntsman, instead of a vilification from pretty much the beginning, with very little to humanize Ravenna. Even flashbacks to her past can’t make you empathize with her because she is such a monster.

Also, in brief, as alluded to before, are my issues with the romance of the story (there really almost isn't any). Yes, I like the fact that it stays away from many of the traditioanl pitfalls or teen movies here, but again, it can't decide what to be. Sure, they don't spend time building the romance...so why does Snow White still have to be kissed awake? And gosh darn it, if you try to set up a love triangle, I want there to be at least some heat between love interests. There isn’t any here, mostly because we don’t get many scenes with them actually interacting. I mean, the movie is named Snow White and the Huntsman. They should have more than, I don't know, 5 lines spoken to each other. There is so little dialogue between any of the lovers, that when Hemsworth has a monologue about Snow White, I am left completely unconvinced--not to mention the fact that she is unconscious at this time (SPOILER: except, interestingly, one of his lines is that she reminds him of his wife, who just died, so in this case, she is an interesting rebound case…another element that could have been brought up to complicate the characters, but wasn’t, and still, doesn't point to their connection, but to his and his dead wife's. Still, unconsciousness aside, I guess Snow heard it because of all the tears that leak out once she awakens by his smooch). END SPOILER. Several of the action scenes could have been cut in favor of more development between these characters—I’m thinking specifically of the fight with the troll, who is stopped in its tracks by staring deeply into Snow White’s eyes. Please. Why not cut this, which doesn’t advance the plot or the characterization (yes, I get it, she’s pure and innocent, and will save everyone) and in its place, add some actual human interaction. But I guess when your relationship is built on tears, gorgeous hair and beautiful biceps, who needs conversation? Side note: after seeing the wonderful sequence in Game of Thrones in “Blackwater”, and Tyrion Lannister’s rousing speech of “Those are brave men knocking at that gate. Let’s go kill them!”, Stewart’s overblown and preposterous rallying speech in this film rivaled Elizabeth Swan’s in POTC: At World’s End in terms of laughableness. I almost couldn’t keep a straight face. And when I say almost, I mean couldn’t. That’s right, I laughed. I do want to take a moment however, to mention the production design, which is gorgeous. The costumes are amazing, particularly Ravenna’s. There is wonderful imagery built around her and her connections to ravens (see, she’s named Ravenna, and she’s linked with ravens, which are a bird portending doom in many cultures. Get it? Get it?). The dreary and murky tone of the movie really works well, with brief splashes of color popping out. The CGI is wonderful in places, making textures interesting and creepy, particularly again in the palace of the queen (it is somewhat overdone and cheesy in the spiritualized “sanctuary” where the dwarfs take Snow White and the Huntsman. And I mean, Once Upon a Time cheesy. It doesn’t work here, while it does work in the tv show). However, the dark forest is pretty great, specifically when Snow White accidentally takes a trip on some hallucinogenic mushrooms, and images reminiscent of Disney’s 1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. In addition, much of the action is pretty good. Snow White’s escape from the castle in particular is one of the only really well paced sequences in the film (due in large part, I’m sure, to the lack of gratuitous slow motion in this one section). One of the main characters is also an archer (which I am always a sucker for ever since the Legolas days), and the choreography is very nice in many of the hand to hand combat sequences. The metallic phantom warriors were also quite impressive, and executed well. All in all, not the re-imagining that I was hoping for. Instead of infusing creativity and vitality into an old story, and re-telling it to fit society’s hopes and fears today, we are left with a paltry eye candy piece that wants to be too many mediocre things instead of trying to be one, unified, stunning piece. It had potential, and if you can find a cheap screening, I would see it I guess. Try not to be too disappointed though. If you want a really solid movie version of Snow White (besides Disney's that is), try the 1997 film "Snow White: A Tale of Terror", with Sigourney Weaver, which features far more humanizing characterizations and relationships. Also interestingly for those of you who might like this, (I'm looking at the somewhat more feminist among you), Snow White is not awakened with True Love's first kiss, but by her love interest (well some things don't change), shaking her violently until the piece of apple lodged in her throat gets coughed up. He's shouting "Breathe" at her all the while, and it's quite entertaining. Here's a trailer for it, and I definitely recommend this one. My rating: C+