WALL·E (2008)

WALL-E. Directed by Andrew Stanton. Written by Andrew Stanton and Jim Capobianco. Release Date: June 27, 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast (vocal talent and sound design): Ben Burtt (WALL-E / M-O), Elissa Knight (Eve), Jeff Garlin (Captain).

Well, just when you thought that Pixar couldn't possibly keep outdoing themselves with such a stellar record and an incomparable ability to consistently redefine the standards of computer animation, they did. This time they launch you into an intergalactic science fiction tale that focuses on a robot, WALL-E, who falls in love with a far more graceful and advanced female robot, Eve (be on the lookout for the Mac/PC jabs).

Tackling a science fiction story seems humbly poignant, especially since "the future" has implanted itself into the social consciousness in contemporary politics, economy, film and TV. Everyone wants to talk about what the future is going to be like, and project what sort of impact or "footprint" our society and civilization will leave on the planet (to use one of the buzzwords). In WALL-E, Pixar paints a whimsically dark portrait of the future in which, not unlike Stanley Kubrick's and Arthur C. Clarke's vision of the future in 2001, the robots that we have created end up controlling us (this film is also abound with nods to Kubrick's space opus).

Technically, this film reaffirms that Pixar is a force to be reckoned with, and you would be hard-pressed to find any film more visually accomplished. Even thinking about it now, I am bowled over by the character that they implanted in the inorganic machines that make up the film's cast. The one thing that I was worried about was that the environmentalist message would be too overbearing, but just as they are visually accomplished, so too is their storytelling capacity, and they managed to get the message across without being too heavy-handed, or relying on the ominous and desolate doomsday scenario. I was honestly more caught up in the heartfelt love story between WALL-E and Eve than I was the "go green" moral, if you could even call it that.

One thing that I heard through the grapevine was that there was special consideration given to the cinematography of the film. I thought this was worth investigating, and lo and behold: the brilliant cinematographer Roger Deakins (who just so happens to be the Coen Brothers go-to-guy) worked on WALL-E as a visual consultant, and helped to bring those amazingly realistic scenes to life. The scenes in this movie have an incredibly real-feeling depth of field. The virtual camera struggles to reconcile the focus almost as if the characters occupy a real space.

I am excited to be growing up on the cusp on computer animation. This is a really exciting field taking giant strides. Each new Pixar movie is a feast for the eyes and the brain. It seems that each new step has me not only floored by their prowess of creating mythology, but I also catch myself wondering, "How did they do that?" Indeed, as tongue-in-cheek as the homage to 2001 was in this film, I cared almost as much about these robots (I mean, these representations of robots) as I do about many people. These are characters that are removed by at least two steps from real humanity, and yet they can tug my heartstrings just the same. Maybe that just makes me a sap, but perhaps it's because we are rocketing upward on that cusp aforementioned. I believe we are hurtling toward the uncanny valley at a dead sprint, perhaps planting our last step before we launch ourselves over it like an Olympic long jump competitor. Here we go!

Diary of the Dead (2007)

Diary of the Dead. Directed by George A. Romero. Written by George A. Romero. Release Date: 7 March 2008 (UK). Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Michelle Morgan (Debra Moynihan), Joshua Close (Jason Creed), Shawn Roberts (Tony Ravello).

I will begin by letting you know right off the bat that I love zombie movies. It's a strange, wonderful sub-genre that never, ever leaves me unsatisfied. It's either horrifying and awesome or hilarious and awesome. The idea of human beings more or less inexplicably eating each other is a terrifying prospect. When a zombie movie works, it combines the supernatural paranoia of a classic, superstition-driven horror with the modern terror of extreme person-on-person violence. When working poorly, its a campy record of some unfortunate grad students limping around and moaning. Either way, worth a viewing.

Romero walks the line between badass and ridiculous in his latest movie. His first three "Dead" films are untouchable in many ways, but after Land of the Dead George had ground to make up. Being that the dead are handily the victors in Land, one notices the imbalance of zombie and human kills. The occasional zombie is shot, but its the human beings who die in truly grotesque fashion. In Diary, Romero swings the pendulum back, giving us your standard neck and arm bites while it is the zombies who receive the more inventive death blows. Perhaps it's mandatory to try and up the death ante, but I must admit Romero walked a thin line here. Acid head? Murder-suicide with a scythe? I'm skeptical.

More to the point, the most striking thing about Romero's latest film is the somewhat disconcerting fact that the whole thing is shot first-person from character perspective. I was wary, but in the end the movie is shot more or less how it would have been anyway. The character's presence is really only felt when it suited a scare or to pound home Romero's relentless message, which I will come to momentarily. I was frankly impressed that he was able to pull it off without it becoming a nuisance.

What was bothersome, though, was Romero's highly self-conscious social commentary. Romero successfully uses the first-person style to alienate the viewer from Jason, who is more or less the main character. He's the visual narrator, even if Debra is the one with the actual voice-over. Romero goes on to highlight the over-saturation of communication technology in the film with constant television and computer displays. He further fosters a distrust in these information sources with unscrupulous television edits and distorted internet messages.

This would all be fine--even downright interesting--if it weren't for the unbearably heavy-handed direct addresses of Debra and the other characters which drive the point explicitly into the viewer like a spike. The professor character's poor excuse for an Alan Rickman impression is particularly obscene. I am an enormous fan of subtlety, and its this kind of outright exposition that really grates me. The last scene is absolutely loathsome, where Debra asks us in narration if humanity is even worth saving as a blood tear runs down an abused zombie's cheek. Did someone litter body parts somewhere? What the fuck are you talking about? Yes! Kill all of them!

As far as zombie movies go, though, it isn't bad. I admire Romero for sticking to his guns on the issue of slow zombies. While 28 Days Later has made the fast zombie all the rage, Romero manages to make a creepy movie with the same old fashioned zombie shuffle. I wish, on the other hand, that he would reinvest in physical gore effects. I'm sure it's cheaper and faster to use CGI for the more complicated kills, but its painfully obvious and lazy to boot. If I'm gonna see the flaws in your effects, you should at least earn them. I'd rather watch spaghetti sauce drip out of a wound than red pixels.

Absolutely see this film. If nothing else, the world owes Romero a few dollars each for creating and continuing a tradition of horror that has enriched the genre and inspired millions of teenage boys to secretly devise in complete earnest how to survive the zombiepocalypse. Do any of us have contingency plans for thwarting Scream Guy? I didn't think so.

Wanted (2008)

Wanted. Directed by Timur Bekmambetov. Written by Michael Brandt & Derek Haas. Release Date: June 27, 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: James McAvoy (Wesley Gibson), Morgan Freeman (Sloan), Angelina Jolie (Fox).

Enter the wild world of curving bullets and super-assassins in this stylish action-packed thriller.  This movie is based on a comics mini-series by Mark Millar and J. G. Jones, and tough I never read it, after watching this, I really want to.  This movie has everything that a movie about assassins should have:  high intensity action, deception, betrayal, all tempered with a healthy dose of sexiness that Miss (Mrs.?) Jolie easily carries almost entirely on her own shoulders.

Apparently the one thing that the comic creators (according to wikipedia) would have liked to see in the film that did not come through for them was an element of super-heroes and super-villains, in the traditional costumed sense of the terms.  However, also according to wikipedia, director Bekmambetov said that he wanted this film to be an opposition to the moral tale of Spider-Man in that this story involves a character whose humdrum existence is given new life when he discovers his own powers, but upon realizing his potential, he chooses a dark path instead.

Also, as you may have noticed in the coming attractions:  there's a train in this movie.  What is it about trains that is so filmic?  Actually, I kind of resent asking that question, because as a certain UF Professor can tell you:  everything about trains is filmic.  If you don't believe me, just watch Frankenheimer's The Train (1964) and write a paper on it.  Now, with the assistance of a few professors, I have been cultivating a theory about the filmic train for a while, and if you've read this far already, I ask that you continue to indulge for a couple more paragraphs:

Well, we'll begin with the tracks, because that's where the train starts, and accordingly that's where the film starts as well: with the reel.  Before it can be traversed by any audience, the narrative and the physical film itself must be laid down, and completed.  So, you can probably see where this is going, the audience's journey through a film is like the train's journey over a given length of track.  But the audience is not the train itself, it is merely the vessel, the projector, or the theater, if you will.

At first, my thinking was that the audience is most like a passenger sitting in the middle of one of the cars, watching as the scenery passes.  The passenger's view out of the window is perpendicular to the tracks, reminiscent of the way in which light is projected through each frame of the film in succession, and therefore as he watches out the window, he experiences his journey on length of track at a time.  I have recently changed my theory though, because one of the interesting things about film  is that there is no simultaneity.  In reality, you are viewing events that appear to be happening before you, but that have already happened, creating a strange temporal displacement for the audience.  You are caught up in a story that already has a determined ending (which further complicates Wanted's themes of fate and destiny, but I digress).  In this way, I conjecture that the audience is more like a passenger standing on the back of the caboose, watching as the track disappears behind him.  He can see the scenic and natural elements that the train has passed, but not until the train has already passed them, and with this perspective, does not know when the train will arrive until he gets there.

Also, for more trains and fantastically thrilling action, I would recommend Bekmambetov's Nochnoy dozor (a.k.a. Night Watch) from 2004.  It's got vampires and stuff.

-PT

Akira (1988)

Akira. Directed by Katsuhiro Otomo. Written by Izo Hashimoto and Katsuhiro Otomo. Release Date (Japan): July 16, 1988. Country of Production: Japan. Key Cast (vocal talent): Mitsuo Iwata (Shotaro Kaneda), Nozomu Sasaki (Tetsuo Shima), Mami Koyama (Kei).

What can I say that has not already been said of what is considered by some to be the greatest anime of all time?  You may ask:  "But how can an animated movie from the 80s still stand on its own against the contemporary expectations of animated movies?  Certainly the advent of CGI and the explosion of this field has raised the bar so high that nothing from earlier generations can hold a candle to something so visually accomplished as Finding Nemo."  Well, first of all, I wouldn't really call it a film since I watched it on DVD, and secondly, it's because Akira represents the pinnacle of cel animation, reaching a level of interactivity between the hand-painted backgrounds and the animated elements that had never been seen before, and with computer technology quickly on the rise, will probably not be seen again.  Each one of the 160,000+ cels prepared with such care and consideration that the anime genre would finally make its presence known in the critical circles of the west.

The main focus of the movie's narrative harkens back to the Frankenstein complex, the great power that humans are not ready to tamper with yet, which certainly deserved reexamination after the world had borne witness to the destructive power of the atomic bomb.  I believe these are the historical roots in which this movie has grown from, and the atomic bomb certainly has had an irrefutable impact on Japanese society and culture.

Another thing the movie does so masterfully is to juxtapose the coming of age of the main characters on such a local and introspective level with the growth of the entire country politically and societally.  Tetsuo and Kaneda are two teenage delinquents living in post-World War III-Japan.  They are members of a bike gang, and inadvertently become involved in a government science experiment when, after having been liberated from a government compound by a member of the terrorist resistance, Takashi (one of the children upon whom the government has been experimenting) and Tetsuo literally collide.

Since this post is following one of National Treasure 2 I think this would be a good time to talk about the lack of good American storytelling in Hollywood these days.  It seems like there are more sequels and remakes coming out than ever, and not just of American movies.  More and more, the movie industry is looking abroad for untapped resources, and I was recently discussing with a friend of mine the wealth of wonderful stories that are tucked away within the folds of Japanese culture.  I think it's no coincidence that the horror genre has more or less converted to one dealing almost exclusively with remakes of Japanese movies, and now I hear that Leonardo DiCaprio is producing a live-action version of Akira that will be hitting theaters in 2009!

In my opinion, aside from the story, this movie is historically unforgettable as a gem of animated cinema, and for any animation fiends out there who haven't seen this yet, you better get your ass in gear.  Another thing I wanted to discuss was the screening of anime in English versus Japanese with subtitles.  Usually, when it comes to foreign cinema, I prefer to view them subbed rather than dubbed, because I like to hear the intonation of the actors, even though I can't really understand them.  For an animated movie like Akira though, I might have to reverse my stance.  Reason being:  an animated movie is so visually involved that in jumping back and forth from the subtitles, I became extremely anxious that I would miss something.  Personally, and especially with this movie, the vocal talent, although certainly deserving of respect and admiration, should be the least of your concerns.  This movie has so fucking much going on, that you may want to forego your purism in favor of staying on top of the plot and to really take in the visuals.  They are just as much a part of the story as the discourse.

-PT

National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)

National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Directed by Jon Turtletaub. Written by Marianne Wibberley and Cormac Wibberley. Release Date: December 21, 2007. Country of Production: United States of America. Key Cast: Nicolas Cage (Ben Gates), Jon Voight (Patrick Gates), Diane Kruger (Abigail Chase), Ed Harris (Mitch Wilkinson), Justin Bartha (Riley Poole), Helen Mirren (Emily Appleton), Harvey Keitel (Sadusky).

The first National Treasure came out of the hype surrounding the success of The Da Vinci Code. It seemed that Hollywood was looking for more conspiracy theory movies. So the Wibberleys popped out a script (these were the lovely writers who brought us such films as The Shaggy Dog and Bad Boys II).

Yet, in my opinion, The Da Vinci Code worked so well because it dealt with the history of countries that seem full of “mystery” to an American audience. The integration of the Freemasons and the Knights Templar, along with Biblical legend and art history caused the story to feel “rich.” Because the time periods of these aforementioned societies had variety of unreliable historical sources, these conspiracies seem to hold more weight. Who knew what really happened during the First Crusade? Dan Brown invented (or derived) these complex ideas that maybe...possibly...could have happened.

The original National Treasure was hokey. The history seemed more ridiculous than that of Code because it was American. We are living in an age of information technology; an age where conspiracies have no room to be born and conspiracies of the past are being disproved every day. America is too young to have enough semi-believable historical conspiracies to carry an entire film. So, in Hollywood tradition, they made two.

But, let me tell you, I saw the first National Treasure and laughed. I laughed at every line Nicolas Cage delivered. I laughed at how much it wanted to be the love child of Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible. I laughed every time someone said, “Dude,” and “Declaration of Independence” in the same sentence. I believed the movie to be one of the worst movies of the year.

And when the sequel was announced, I found myself asking several questions: Who liked this movie? Who could have possibly taken this movie seriously? Who liked this movie? And more importantly, WHO LIKED THIS MOVIE?

The sequel was vastly disappointing. There was the bad acting and ridiculous story lines from the first installment, but without the charm. The lines were more serious, John's Voight's hair was more out-of-control, and Justin Barha still made me want to give him a good pop on the head. Yet I couldn't help but feeling dragged into the film. It was like the Wibberleys kidnapped me for 124 minutes. They took the first film and dehydrated it.

I visited the George Washington Masonic Memorial a few days before seeing the film. The second scene of National Treasure: Book of Secrets was shot inside the Masonic Memorial, in the Auditorium and Theater (it’s the room where Ed Harris stands up and announces the existence of the half-burned document). A Master Mason gave a tour of the Memorial and the meeting halls. When my tour group arrived at the Auditorium, he told us that National Treasure 2 was filmed here, and that the Masons had a surge of popularity because of the movie. He also said that while they were filming, Nicolas Cage would not come out of his trailer and acted like a “big prick.”

That was the most valuable information I’ve ever received on a memorial tour.

Although I’m always thankful for a new reason to make fun of Nicolas Cage, the movie was a piece of tripe.

Love,

Sally

Diggers (2006)

Diggers. Directed by Katherine Dieckmann. Written by Ken Marino. Country of Production: United States of America. Key Cast: Paul Rudd (Hunt), Ken Marino (Lozo), Maura Tierney (Gina).


If you haven't heard of Diggers, don't feel bad. I haven't either. It's an HDNet film that had only a brief theatrical release. It was written by and co-stars Ken Marino, who is best known for his television work--usually in comedy. Diggers revolves around four friends who live on Long Island in 1976. They are clam diggers who are being slowly but surely pushed out of the clam game by big clam corporations. Hunt (Paul Rudd) and Gina's (Maura Tierney) father has recently died, and a series of events soon ensue that changes everyone's lives forever.

This is a decent movie. The cinematography is interesting without being overbearing, and seems to have a photographic quality. By that I mean the shots tend to be constructed with a certain obvious care. It is interesting to note that the photographs used in the film--meant to be taken by Paul Rudd's character--were in fact taken by Katherine Dieckmann, the director.

I also enjoyed the editing style, which was in retrospect disjointed yet not at all confusing. Each scene seemed almost completely isolated from the one before, with no apparent cause and effect to mention. On the other hand, the movie flowed with an overall logic that was unmistakable, and despite not having a clear sense of time, I never found myself at a loss.

The real draw of the movie, though, is Ken Marino's performance. He is simultaneously funny and interesting as Lozo, the alcoholic and verbally abusive, yet ultimately loving husband and father of four. Though Hunt is meant to be the central character, Paul Rudd's performance comes across as simply decent in comparison with Ken Marino's quietly gripping role. It may come down to Marino's ability to make this at best half-way-decent character seem so damn likeable.

In all, though, the movie itself does not quite make the leap out of limited release obscurity. Despite a solid cast, an appealing look, and an interesting structure, I can't do much more than like this film. If you get a chance, see it. If not, I doubt you'll be the worse for it.

Iron Man (2008)

Iron Man. Directed by Jon Favreau. Written by: Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby. Release Date: May 2, 2008. Country of Production: United States of America. Key Cast: Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Terrence Howard (Col. James Rhodes), Jeff Bridges (Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Shaun Toub (Yinsen).

Tony Stark is a successful inventor and head of a weapons manufacturing company. While exhibiting a new missile in the Middle East, Tony is kidnapped by a group of terrorists who want Tony to make them his new missile. Instead, Tony, makes himself an iron suit to escape the terrorist camp, and while doing so he sees that the terrorists had been using his weapons. When he returns to the US, Tony pledges to dismantle his company. He then reconstructs his iron suit and begins to makes trips to the Middle East to fight the terrorists. There he finds that the terrorist’s weapons were obtained directly from his business partner, Obadiah Stane. Tony decides to destroy him, but Obadiah has built his own model of the Iron Man suit. Iron Man wins the iron-person fight, and the film ends when Tony Stark reveals to the public that he is the hero.

The main themes of the film include those of vigilantism, warmongering, personal discovery/rebirth (Tony), hubris/greed/sin (Tony, and then Obadiah), redemption (Tony), sacrifice/sacrificial death (Yinsen), and terrorism—war and weaponry. There is also the theme of man versus his former self, which is evident during the final battle. Obadiah Stane represents Tony Stark’s past life of warmongering.

The film, Iron Man, was originally based on the hero appearing in the Tales of Suspense. Iron Man then moved to Iron Man and the Sub-Mariner, and finally to The Invincible Iron Man. The story was originally set in Vietnam, where Iron Man fought communist agents. Stan Lee, who co-wrote the comic with Larry Lieber, has said that the comic was meant to explore the role of scientists and businessmen in the Cold War. The setting of the comic was later changed to the Gulf War, and after that to Afghanistan.

The film was set in the Middle East, and in the first third of the movie the enemy is perceived to be these terrorists. The terrorists threaten torture, kill a sympathetic character (Yinsen), and bomb American soldiers. When the terrorists are on screen sinister, bass-heavy music plays. As with 300, there are scenes of the terrorist speaking which have no translation, making these people seem more foreign and threatening.

When Iron Man sets out to defeat the terrorists (many of which are the surviving members of the same band from earlier in the movie) who are raiding a small village, there are several shots of innocent Middle Eastern people being attacked. This footage serves as a way for the audience to separate the terrorists from their country (a very important political message in such films where a person or group of people represents their entire country). The film shows a family being ravaged by these terrorists—a father is about to be killed in front of his wife and children. This scene is a way for the audience to connect on an intimate level with the victims.

The true antagonist of the film turns out to be Obadiah Stane, who is not a bearded terrorist, but a bearded American! The audience is brought through the process of having to reevaluate our former assumptions and prejudices. Evil does not just exist in foreign countries—even though many hero and action movies get their villains from other continents. When the villains in a movie are primarily from other countries they nearly always correspond with current country prejudices and conflicts, which makes the threat of the “evil” more relatable. Yet this choice also serves to reiterate such prejudices. Although the Iron Man story has been adapted to correspond with the conflicts of the United States (even within its lifespan as a comic book), the story also addresses the evils in our own country. By making the villains of the story based on terrorists of familiar national distrust and big businessmen whom we are told to trust, the viewers are encouraged to question the powers that be, no matter how many times they have appeared on magazine covers.

Another political message of this film is that of vigilantism being the solution. The military powers in this film are shown only to be in the way of the hero as he is trying to fight. In the final battle scene Col. James Rhodes only role is to make sure that the military does not interfere. Peaceful resistance is also tossed aside—even when Tony pledges to do no more harm, he builds his own “bigger stick” weapon. Robert Downey Jr. is quoted as saying that Iron Man is “American.” What he should have said is that Iron Man is America—the vigilante in its own comic book...that was one of the film's primary messages, was it not?

The formal elements in Iron Man tended to follow the conventions of most hero/comic book/action films, with very quick shots and camera work primarily focused on highlighting the action scenes. The special effects in Iron Man, though, were different from similar films in the way that Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) was not used heavily. Humans in the film, unless aided by robotics, do not perform any spectacular physical feats. Because Iron Man is not a superhero (he is a vigilante) even his movements in the suit should stay within human limitations. With the special effects remaining confined to these limitations, the movie is enhanced, and the audience is allowed to view without constantly questioning the physics in world of the film.

The script in the film also has a few surprises, namely at the end. When Tony Stark is discussing his new public image with Pepper Potts, he discusses the “hero role” and the “hero’s girlfriend role.” This is interesting because this denotes that in the world of the film there exists at least the mythology of heroes. Most hero movies (Batman Begins, Spiderman) do not make mention of other heroes while discussing their roles in society—instead they have consistent struggles with the isolation. Perhaps the screenwriters (Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby) added this dialogue in because Iron Man (in the comic books) was part of a team of heroes.

As a society, we need these vigilante heroes. We need Jack Bauer and Tony Stark—those who follow their own rules, those who have a greater moral compass than “the system” in which we function.

I found the movie to be a very interesting break in convention with the hero/comic book movies made over the past few years. There are psychological elements of the character Tony which are fascinating. Tony is part robot (his automated heart) when he returns from his kidnapping, meaning that he is not a “whole” man. While his former self was a man’s man—powerful, rich, attractive, fit, virile—he now has a physical disability. Although it is not focused on in the film, it was a fascinating character choice for Stan Lee. While all heroes have some sort of Achilles Heel Iron Man’s weakness is always a part of him.

All in all, decent film.

--Sally