Monday at the Movies - March 26, 2012

Welcome to Week Thirteen of “Monday at the Movies.” This week, we continue a trend that began on this blog three weeks ago and finally conclude a journey nearly a decade in the making.

The Jazz Singer (1927) – First up, another silent film, the third in as many weeks on this site; again, an unintended and unofficial “series” within this series of weekly reviews. While I didn’t enjoy The Jazz Singer as much as The Artist, it was a bit more fast-paced than The Italian and contains a lot of formal innovation on which I can now tell The Artist was riffing. Al Jolson stars as cantor-in-training Jakie Rabinowitz, who reinvents himself as ragtime performer Jack Robin against the wishes of his traditional father (Warner Oland, before his stint as Charlie Chan). But most don’t remember the film for the story, instead focusing on the technical novelty of lip-synchronized audio and the absolutely brilliant self-conscious meta-commentary of Jolson’s big line, “Wait a minute, wait a minute – you ain’t heard nothin’ yet!” I’ll voice the same complaint that I’ve had about all three silent flicks thus far; they’re a bit slower than what I’m used to, and in this one especially the conflict between personal success and familial obligation is dragged out a little too long for my tastes. But The Jazz Singer wins points for continually surprising me with the ways it uses audio; while a few moments are obviously just showing off and flexing muscles, most of them seem to be deployed cleverly and with just the right amount of self-reflexivity. And I have to comment on the blackface scenes, since they seem to be the most widely discussed; it’s controversial, sure, but what’s most distressing for me is that the film doesn’t provide a reason for Jack to don the burned cork, leading to a controversy which could distract from what the film seems truly to be about – moving forward.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) – Finally, we come to the end of a long road, more than nine hours long and ten years of doubts and procrastination. The first two of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films were among the inaugural reviews in this series; I was surprised to enjoy Fellowship of the Ring but retained my position that The Two Towers was dull and overlong. With this third installment, Lord of the Rings finishes two and one... in the films’ favor. The Return of the King is exciting and fast-paced, with a lot of plotlines coming to satisfying fruition amid a sense of impending danger, something most action films don’t pull off successfully. The film is, admittedly, overlong, a fact of which it seems to be aware, what with the widely-lampooned “multiple endings” in which the film seems to conclude with a meditation on the nature of endings before starting up again. What comes before, though, is high action, easily the equivalent of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End for this franchise and most likely my favorite installment of this trilogy. The ensemble cast is successful, perhaps more so than in The Two Towers, but the inclusion of characters like Theobard and Faramir even redeem the middle film a bit by validating those plotlines which seemed to meander away from what really mattered. Again, the star performance is from Sean Astin, whose devotion to his friend and to the mission even might moisten a few otherwise dry eyes. All told, I’m glad I saw this thing through, and I’m happy to have been there and back again.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday at the Movies - January 9, 2012

Welcome to Week Two of "Monday at the Movies." On the docket for this week, four films adapted from popular novels (an unintentional link), including one where The Cinema King reverses a decade-long antipathy toward a particular fantasy film!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 (2011) – I’ve never been overly captivated by the Harry Potter franchise. That is, I’ve never fallen head over heels in love with the movies, but I’ve taken them for what they are – well-done and imaginative but otherwise unremarkable fantasy adaptation films. And this film (affectionately dubbed 7B by myself and others) had to do a lot to win me over, mostly because I couldn’t approve of paying to see it after my now-legendary attempt at a midnight show of 7A. Now that I’ve rented it (for free), I’m ready to say that 7B was a well-done close to the franchise, but I think a lot of reviewers fell over this movie in a dead faint by overstating the film’s good attributes – chief among them a strong cast of England’s Finest (including a great turn from Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort) and exciting action sequences. This is an effective second half of a film, but as a film in its own right 7B doesn’t quite work. There were plenty of moments where the film faltered by standing on its own, including moments where a quick expositional memory jog would have filled in gaps or even moments where the film didn’t clearly articulate what was happening (i.e., the moment when one character dies – but it’s not clear which of two characters). I liked it, and I wouldn’t unsee it, but it didn’t quite live up to the hype. Fans and devotees, though, will gobble this up.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) – Mark it, loyal readers. The Cinema King has to reverse policy. The first time I saw Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the Tolkien series, I fell asleep. After a rousing introduction narrated by Cate Blanchett, the film faltered for me. But after ten years of decrying the film as “The Wizard of Oz without ever actually getting to Oz,” the browbeating of literally everyone else who saw it induced me to give it a second shot. And honestly, I’m kind of glad I did. Fellowship is much more exciting then I remember, with plenty of great cast members and a plethora of well-directed rousing battle scenes. I’ve also tried reading the Tolkien novels, but those I find completely impenetrable because the story takes a backseat to the mythology and the linguistics; fortunately, Jackson makes knowledge of each creature’s name nonessential and wisely prizes the narrative and character interactions. The best of these is Sean Astin’s level-red dedication to and compassion for his friend Frodo (Elijah Wood, who’s nowhere near as amiable as his traveling companion). I was glad that I opted to rewatch this film and moved toward the second one with eager anticipation.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) – After a good experience with the first film, I was incredibly disappointed with The Two Towers. Here is the glacial pace I remember, the problems of divergent focus, the not-much-happening mood pervading most of the whole film. After a promising first installment, the Lord of the Rings franchise starts to fall apart for me. Where the first film had strong character interaction, here Peter Jackson loses track of many of his key players every so often without a thematic link to bind them together. The film’s only significant action sequence comes at the end, much like in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End; here, though, the two hours of buildup are nowhere near intriguing enough to merit a three-hour runtime. While new characters Gollum and the Ents are entertaining and well-performed, they’re not given much to do other than tease things to come in the third installment. And my problems with Frodo continue here; he’s generally unlikeable, frequently misled, and more than a bit condescending. And a closing monologue about the nature of endings alludes to the problems of this film as a story – there isn’t one. But the promise of an ending is enough, I believe me, to do something I never thought I'd do - watch the third film.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) – Knowledge of the cast alone (Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Toby Jones, Ciaran Hinds, Mark Strong, and John Hurt) was enough for me to pick up the John le Carré novel before even seeing a trailer, and I’m pleased to report that the film lives up to the book’s reputation and does a classy, thorough job of adapting the source material. Gary Oldman plays the uber-collected mole-hunter George Smiley, pursuing a double agent at the top of British intelligence during the height of the Cold War. The performances here are solid, as expected, although the atypical nature of this spy story (nothing blows up, and more relies on what is not said than what is actually done) might alienate some. Additionally, the plot is obtuse, although like Inception the right amount of mental calisthenics will prevent audiences from getting too lost in the details. But director Tomas Alfredson does an extremely solid job creating a very 1970s vibe throughout the whole movie, juggling flashbacks and multiple settings with great visual cues (such as the color of Smiley’s trademark specs). If Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy doesn’t net Oldman the Oscar he’s deserved for so many years, it might be time to hang it up as far as the little gold man is concerned.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

I finally sat down to watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind for three reasons: I'd run out of "must-see" movies, I personally know people who love this movie, and it's landing at the top of many "Best of 2000-2009" lists. And after seeing the movie, I can't fathom why people are saying this is the best film of the last decade.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not being glib. I'm not deliberately trying to be antagonistic by penning a negative review of one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of my lifetime. I wanted to like Eternal Sunshine. I really did, and I tried my darndest to do so. But in the final analysis, I switched off my television, took the DVD out of the player, and shrugged, "Meh."

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind represents the latest in an unintentional series of "boy-meets-girl" movies here at The Cinema King. Here, the boy is Joel (Jim Carrey), and the girl is Clementine (Kate Winslet with a "you won't believe she's British" voice). Following a nasty break-up, the two separately elect to undergo a memory erasure procedure pioneered by Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (an underused Tom Wilkinson). Though Clementine accepts the ignorance-is-bliss philosophy offered by Mierzwiak and his team (which includes Mark Ruffalo, Kirsten Dunst, and Elijah Wood), Joel begins to regret his decision midway through the procedure as he struggles to remember his time, however bitter, with Clementine.

Aside from the imaginative premise of memory erasure and the inventive ways that director Michel Gondry devises to depict the practice, the film is disappointingly formulaic but without any effort put into making the formula believable. I didn't detect very much chemistry between Joel and Clementine; indeed, it seems as though all they do is goof around before making each other miserable. Consequently, the film's basic throughline - Joel's quest not to forget Clementine - is shallow and uninspiring. Simply put, the only reason to root for these characters is because we're told to. Clementine is mildly endearing - thank the always-divine Winslet for that - though she barely develops beyond the "manic pixie dream girl" trope. Carrey develops even less; he mopes lethargically through the movie without the convincing ennui that JGL employed in (500) Days of Summer. The supporting cast is decent, though they float through the movie with little to do beyond advance the plot; Wood's character shows creepy promise, but it's as though Kaufman & Co. didn't quite know what to do with him. Disappointment ensues.

The other major grievance I have against Eternal Sunshine is that it's brutally slow-paced, and when all your characters are extremely depressed without providing any reason for us to sympathize with them this can be a painful experience. Combine this with the predictability quotient exhibited by this movie, and the only reason I finished the movie was because I'm just that kind of a guy.

But I guess I can see why so many people love this movie. It's innocuous, and it's uncomplicated; it's got neat visual effects, a narrative spine (albeit a misued one), and a hopeful ending that affirms an optimism in the human condition. But for a #1 movie of the last ten years, I need a little more than marshmallow fluff. I need something incisive and at least slightly subversive, a movie that either tells me something I didn't know or tells me something that feels like the truth - not a Hollywood version of the truth. (An uncompromised ending apparently suggested that patients of the memory-loss program were bound to repeat their mistakes and need the procedure several times; this might have been more intriguing and would have at least made the film feel inventive and not just lethargically and slavishly optimistic.) So for some this may be a divine movie, but for me it's just plain disappointing. But that's the point of reviews; I'm leaning toward The Departed being the best movie of the last ten years, but maybe Eternal Sunshine fans find it deplorable. Fine.

Let me conclude by clarifying that I don't think that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a terrible movie. It's not; it's certainly no Next. It may not be great, but moreover it's just not "to my liking," nor can I explain why so many people are saying it was the best film of the last ten years. Now I almost have to write my own list.
The MPAA rated Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind R "for language, some drug and sexual content." F-bombs get dropped, there's some mild nuzzling/cuddling, all the girls end up in their underwear at some point in the movie, and a few characters smoke mariijuana. Language aside, this probably could have been a hard PG-13 if the filmmakers had aimed for it.

9 (2009)

The names "Tim Burton" and "Timur Bekmambetov" appear on the promotional material for 9, but don't let that fool you; 9 bears little resemblance to works from either canon. It's visually arresting, but there's little else of note in 9.

9 is adapted from the Oscar-nominated short film of the same name, both directed by Shane Acker. Given life by the scientist who created him, 9 (voiced by Elijah Wood) awakens in a post-apocalyptic world where mankind has destroyed itself during a last great war. After 9's first friend 2 (Martin Landau) is kidnapped by a strange beast, 9 recruits the help of 5 (John C. Reilly) to save him - against the wishes of the king, 1 (Christopher Plummer). Along the way, they meet 7 (Jennifer Connelly) and awaken a terrible new machine which threatens the remaining life on the planet.

When I'm watching a movie about nonhuman characters, my first point of analysis inevitably centers around how human the filmmakers are able to make these characters. In 9, most of the characters are given personalities and mannerisms that quickly and solidly establish them as character types. Reilly's quaver and 5's posture establish him as the cowardly one, 6's appearance makes him the nutty one, and the silent 3 & 4 (my personal favorites) are quickly characterized as intelligent and overcommitted. And Plummer as 1 is perfectly haughty and power-mad, though this character slips into a forced redemption as the film ends. Unfortunately, though, 9 and 7 - the two main protagonists - aren't given solid characterizations; 9 is inventive, and 7 is kind of rugged, sure, but for the most part we're told to root for them rather than arriving at that decision voluntarily.

When it comes to the villains, 9's visual flair really shines. From the skull-headed prowler to the caterpillar-like abductor, there's no question who the bad guys are in this film. While the heroic nine doll-like heroes are all cutesy and fairly one-note as far as design is concerned, the baddies are as varied as an 80s wardrobe, allowing the creative team to really flex their ingenuity muscles. Often, the first appearances of these villains is arresting, such that their unique appearance gets that extra oomph added to it.

Where the film is long on visual creativity, though, it leaves a lot to be desired as a story. The parable that overarcs the film is ungainly, distracting from the basic plotline of the movie; whenever flashbacks or newsreel footage explains the fall of man, it feels forced and jammed into the movie in spite of itself. What's more, since I had a hard time getting behind 9 for any reason beyond a sense of obligation, I found it difficult to enjoy the plot; it moves from "search and rescue" to "fixing my mistake" with little dramatic necessity. What's more, neither of these two plot threads are particularly original. Visuals aside - and please pardon the pun - we've seen this before.
Rated PG-13 "for violence and scary images," 9 would probably have been rated PG if it were made ten years ago. The creature designs are a little frightening for younger viewers, but really - it's pretty tame.