First viewings I’ve seen in 2010

Just to keep record of every first viewing I see this year, something I slacked on last year.

1. Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)

2. Miami Vice (Michael Mann, 2006)

3. Scarface (Howard Hawks, 1932)

4. The Killing (Stanley Kubrick, 1956)

5. Bright Star (Jane Campion, 2009)

6. Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker (Curt Geda, 2000)

7. Twilight (Catherine Hardwicke, 2008)

8. Trick ‘r Treat (Michael Dougherty, 2009)

9. Halloween II (Rob Zombie, 2009)

10. The Hangover (Todd Phillips, 2009)

Indiana Jones and the legend of Indiana Jones

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has often been criticized by the series fans, and unfairly I might add, for not being the ‘old’ Indy they grew up on. Well no, Crystal Skull isn’t like the first three, and the character of Indiana Jones has evolved, just like he evolved from Raiders to Last Crusade. Now 19 years later, Indy has found himself an older and wiser man not capable of some of the things he might have been able to do as a younger man, but he’s still very much the Indy we all knew and loved, rugged, imperfect and always going the hard way about things. It’s hard when praising this movie not addressing it’s very vocal critics, especially when their ‘criticisms’ either misunderstand certain aspects or are actually part of the film’s biggest strengths. First of which, this isn’t the old Indy many grew up on, it’s still Indiana Jones and perhaps more of it, but why should Crystal Skull be like the first three? Not just has time in the story passed 19 years, but naturally, as the older Indy movies were inspired by 30’s serial action flicks as the films were set in the 30’s, as the character is now living in the 50’s, what was the popular entertainment then? Sci-fi b movies. The Indiana Jones franchise have always been fantasies of the movies from those era’s, Crystal Skull is no different.

Another point I do not agree on, is the movie not feeling like an Indiana Jones movie. As I said before, it’s more of Indiana Jones than perhaps ever before. The film is often filled with images of Indy reflecting on a car, or a wall, or through tapestry, always with his classic fedora on. It also includes legendary bullwhip moments, one of which will be remembered as a classic Indiana Jones moment where Indy tries swinging to a vehicle in which Irina Spalko (the villian of the movie) is driving in, but swings back crashing into the truck behind him and replied “damn, that was closer than I thought”, the two Russian soldiers next to him of course looking at him stupidly instead of taking the chance of knocking him out. Much of the reason I titled this entry (which a line as cheesy as to be expected from a franchise like this) is because Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is approached to the icon of the character rather. Indiana Jones has obviously become more of an iconic character over the years than he was before, in the film we see much of what we always thought and imagined the character having adventures of, even if in the original trilogy these aspects would only be for a single (and very memorable) scene. We see temples with cobwebs (the attention to detail in this film is amazing, I might add), it opens with a scene in the desert, there’s a scene towards the finale in which a room if filled with artifacts of almost every nation and empire of early history, a chase scene (the series has always been built around a massive chase scene closing the second act of the film’s) in the jungle, there are so many things about the film that feel as if Koepp was looking at the icon and legend of the character and series and presented this film. However, it’s not all a love note to the series, there are more than a few set pieces that have Indiana Jones written all over them even if we hadn’t ever seen similiar scenes before. Such as the prologue action sequence in the Area 51 warehouse (that we saw at the end of Raiders, but still, this is much larger expanded and despite a cameo from the ark, they’re not there for the ark), the scene has utterly perfect tension, all leading to a breakout moment where we hear John Williams’ classic score kick in and Indy takes off running as bullets fly after him, moments like this should give any fan of the series goosebumps. Another set piece is a cemetary scene where Indy and Mutt (played by Shia LaBeouf, an unofficial sidekick who we later learn to be more than just that, those who have seen the movie will know and those who haven’t probably guessed it anyway) go to Orellana’s “cradle” (or rather, his tomb) to fetch where they believe the crystal skull to be. Indiana Jones was always seen as a ‘graverobber’, and in this scene, we see him literally being just that. It’s a set piece that feels just like Indiana Jones, which truly baffles me when fans complain that it doesn’t feel like an Indy movie.

As stated before, this is much more of a sci-fi Indiana Jones film to reflect the 50’s than the original trilogy was, and rightfully so. It’s not a sci-fi film, it’s an Indiana Jones film with sci-fi elements. All very typical and corny stuff like aliens with enlarged heads and ufo’s, however it’s not soulless, it’s treated with the same respect that the series was treated with before. Spielberg, Lucas and Ford each love this series very dear, and Koepp though being a hit & miss screenwriter respects the franchise with this film. I don’t want to go into plot details that have either already been said or are irrelevant to the point of this entry, so I’ll keep things brief on that regard. This film has more in common with the original Raiders of the Lost Ark and Last Crusade than it has to do with Temple of Doom (contrary to popular opinion). The film strikes up a certain balance that the other two sequels lacked, a balance between characters/story, and story/action. Temple of Doom’s story basically revolved around it’s action set pieces (in fact, it’s action were basically pieces that were cut from Raiders, they just took those pieces and created a story around them), as far as action films go, it’s about as entertaining and awesome as you can get, but the characters are a weak point. Indy is as great as ever, but despite Short Round and Willie never being half as annoying as people criticized them for, they never contributed anything; they were just there, and perhaps added a little more fun, but there was no depth. Crusade was different, it’s story and set pieces revolved around the character’s and their troubles, even in the action sequences, character’s motivations and current crisis/situation was the heart of all of it. It sacrificed some of the ‘ooh aah’ suspense that Temple and Raiders had for more of human emotion, the suspense is the weight of one’s life being in danger, and for once in the series, you genuinely believed and felt that one was going to die. The stakes were raised by it’s human drama, as opposed of going the normal threequel route by adding more unbelievable action pieces and convoluted plot lines. Crystal Skull is certainly more in line with Crusade than it is Temple, but it does have the unbelievability and exaggerration of Temple. Where Crusade sacrificed alot of that for it’s character points and succeeded for that, it made that film more important and respected it by not repeating that. There’s no reason to have done the exact same in Skull, and Spielberg and co. didn’t. The characters are the strong point of the film just like Crusade, there’s much of the similiar humor, but it has the suspense that I loved about Raiders and Temple. Maybe the crystal skull mythology is a bunch of wishy washy, but it’s an interesting mythology regardless and is entertaining to watch unfold. At the end of the day, Indy could have stayed behind with Spalko, perhaps they might have spared him more than her and let him know what the human mind is capable of handling, but at the end of the day (and literally, perhaps this was intentional, it was the end of that day) he got the point. The inter-dimensional beings’ wealth was knowledge, it was never about the gold (that Mac presumedly died trying to collect), it was about their infinite knowledge of the universe and existence that was their wealth, but was it Indy’s? No. He had his woman back, he now had a son, and a old friend who had gained his sanity back. That’s all that ever mattered to Indy, and it is perfectly realized through it’s ending.

Other criticisms that have been said about the film, is it’s “cartoonish effects”, for the most part the CGI is pretty excellent with a few scenes here and there with a noticably ‘cartoonish’ look, yet if you pay attention to those sequences, there’s sort of a point to it. I mean look at it, we have random moments of prairie dogs at the end of over the top moments as a reminder of it’s dark stab at humor, a tarzan reference (self explanatory), giant man eating ants, and added detail of an ‘other worldly’ jungle that was purposefully added for that very reason and effectively accomplishes what it set it for. The rest of the CG in the film is just about the best they could have done, especially a sequence in which a ufo breaks apart an old temple and the landscape begins to circulate with the speed and movements of the ufo as it rises and disappears into “spaces between spaces” (which I believe was never supposed to make logical sense, c’mon, look at who said it, I doubt Indy understood it either), and the water of the lake/rivers breaks through. It’s a dramatic sequence with the expectedly perfect score by John Williams, with utterly impressive CGI. As well as a moment where Indy rolls out of a fridge after surviving a nuclear bomb and he climbs to the hill to look at the giant mushroom cloud (which I forgot to mention early on perfect moments of suspense in the movie, because of it’s absurdity and the anti-climax of Indy hiding in a fridge as the nuke begins to detonate).

Among the Raiders comparisons, mostly due to the two’s story structures that are strikingly similiar. For example, the prologue as with all the Indy films, it introducts us to Indy’s new rival/nemesis and sets the stage for what’s to come. In Raiders we see Belloq come and take Indy’s success, Indy had “poor choice in friends” (also with Mac in Skull’s opening scene), something similiar is reflected in Crystal Skull. Spalko does much of the same throughout the film, she uses Indy to get what she wants, after that, he can just go ahead and die. He of course comes of help later on (finding the skull, getting to akator – finding the ark, Belloq takes it), though not as intentional as presented in both film’s prologues. Though as mentioned before, Skull has more sci-fi elements, both films hint at something massive to come, and despite Spielberg’s statements prior to Skull’s release that there wouldn’t be aliens (a flat out lie), Skull didn’t cop out of it’s ending. The jungles that protected the lost city promised a other worldly and unnatural presence, and when the film reaches it’s climax, is goes truly apeshit. Not all that different from Raider’s climax, with ghosts, lightning, towers of fire, coming out of the ark. The temple ripping itself apart, the skeletons morphing into one being, Spalko’s demise calling back to the exploding and melting heads from Raiders. The script was very obviously written from a Raiders fan, less so than Darabont’s script (which is awful and references Raiders far too much, to the point of insult), obviously a fan’s dream of a sequel to Raiders but set in the sci-fi themed 50’s.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a perfect Indiana Jones movie. No, I didn’t say it’s a perfect movie, but it is a damn excellent one, and after so many years of struggling to find the right script, they settled on one that respected the legacy of the series and added a damn fine fourth film that promises a hopeful future for the series that was believed to have ended with Indy, his father, Marcus and Sallah riding off into the sunset. It has all of the elements a Indiana Jones movie should have, and more. It’s quality and classic blockbuster filmmaking and entertainment, it’s fun from beginning to end, has characters we’ve genuinely care for over the years and introduces new memorable characters as well, it’s a genuine quality film and an entertaining one, and one of the finest blockbusters of this decade. This was very much the Indiana Jones movie we had waited for, though it will shamefully take several viewings for people to see it for what it really is, if they will ever take their fan blinders off that prevent them from seeing it for what it is.

Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Director: David Yates

Release date: July 15, 2009

As so many of you know, I’ve been a Harry Potter fan for most of my teenage years. They bring back many of my happiest memories, but even now as I’ve grown older, even I have grown a more critical eye to the films. Despite absolutely adoring the first two when I was much younger, I find that while the first film serves as a fine introduction to the franchise, it’s overlong, filled with ridiculous and cheesy dialogue, and is sometimes quite dull. Where on the second, I don’t even bother rewatching it anymore, I can’t handle it. Now though, I knew it when I first watched it, and I know it still now, Prisoner of Azkaban is when the real Potter franchise began. That’s when the actors stepped up their game, the story took a much more interesting and entertaining direction that didn’t re-use the formula that even the second milked to death. It was the first true Potter film, beautiful to look at, for the most part well acted, and a tightly paced story. Unfortunately, after the success that was Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire took several steps back. It certainly had pretty good visual effects and I loved it’s atmosphere, but it was a popcorn flick, nothing more. But the thing about the book, is that it was so much more than that. It was complex, smart, and genuinely gripping from beginning to end. The film was a overdone mess, terrible editing and poor characterization didn’t help either. But it was on Order of the Phoenix that the studio found it’s director that would not only do that film, but direct this latest film Half-Blood Prince, and finish the series out with the two-part finale Deathly Hallows. And what a wise decision it was, while the editing was certainly flawed, and the film lacked an exciting visual style, Yates made up for it with spot on characterization and taking a flawed source material and improving it upon the book. And now going into Half-Blood Prince, with the exceptional looking cinematography by the excellent Bruno Delbonnel, Yates looked to up his visual style this time around, all that was left here was a tighter edit, and to keep up the excellent characterization and execution of the story that he had done with Order of the Phoenix.

Did he succeed? Absolutely he did. He didn’t just succeed, he took a book that was superior to the last source material he worked with, and even here improved it by creating a more consistent atmosphere and a story that doesn’t feel like the cliched ‘get to school, do this, do that, Voldemort sits brewing something, rush to climax, boom it ends’  plot structure that most of the films (aside from Azkaban) had. Instead Yates makes a standalone film, not as in it being a film that you can watch without the first five, but a film that stands apart from it’s novel as an excellent adaption, and most importantly, an excellent film. Yates easily understands these characters and the essence of the stories far more than the other directors did. And with a confident and swift hand, he takes the viewer through the story of this film with no sense of rushing somewhere, but never dragging or slowing down for a break.

The film contains many subplots that all intertwine together, if the film has been directed by someone else than Yates, it might have felt jarring the differences between the humor and the ever growing darkness of the story. But it doesn’t, the balance between every subplot, every different tone, feels effortless. Yates is a highly skilled director and knows what he’s doing here, while Phoenix might have suffered somewhat by him being an amateur making a big budget film for the first time, here he’s confident and it shows. The pace of the film flows just as good as it looks. Among the many subplots, we find out about some about Voldemort’s past, which includes a dark secret that few have known, and Dumbledore suspected and feared. This subplot takes us to a horrifying scene in which Harry and Dumbledore go to a cave looking for one of the magical objects that contain portions of Voldemort’s soul, the sequence plays out as something from a horror film and if you hadn’t questioned before, just how did this get a PG rating with this content?

Another subplot involves the teenage students going about their daily lives, struggling with love and heartbreak, while the film plays a humorous tone with some of this, it also treats it with respect and not immaturity. There are moments where you really feel for the characters that we’ve grown to know and love, and I believe as another reviewer put it, these stories aren’t about the magic the kids perform, but rather their personal and sometimes emotional journey’s. Prince captures this more than any of the other films in the franchise, so to the point that the film cuts some action out to rather focus on the characters, and when scenes are added to the film, they’re oftenly done to enhance the character development. As a sharp contrast, a shot that follows Hermione crying on Harry’s shoulder that follows up to a shot of Ron and Lavendar snogging, and as the camera pans up we see Draco standing alone (it looked like he was on the astronomy tower, I might add) sulking once more, as we know that whatever the Dark Lord has planned for him, it’s not very good. Which brings us to another subplot of the film, Draco and some mission Lord Voldemort had given him, and something that his caring mother feared he wouldn’t be able to carry out, in which she requests Snape’s assistance if he should fail.

The film is filled to the brim with plot, for the second longest film in the series (without credits), it feels the shortest as it’s always moving at a brisk pace, never too fast mind you, but certainly not slow. It’s a very plot and character heavy film, more so than the others, and it breaks the trend and formula we’ve come to expect from Harry Potter films. In the way that Prisoner of Azkaban was so different from the first two, it could be said in tone Half-Blood Prince is as well. It almost doesn’t feel like you’re watching a Harry Potter film, or rather, not the Harry Potter film we’ve all gotten used to. For those who might have liked those, it might throw them off a bit, but Half-Blood Prince is the Potter film that has come the closest to capturing the beauty and atmosphere of Rowling’s books. As much as it doesn’t feel like the Harry Potter we’ve gotten used to, it’s the perfect Potter film. Yates has taken this film and upped everything, this is the first film since Azkaban where I can honestly say that every single aspect is better than what came before it. It’s the most emotionally involving and captivating film of the series, that when the *big moments* come (those who have read the books, or have already seen the film know), the film hits all the right notes. A certain character’s death is handled exceptionally well, and the farewell to the great character is powerful and moving. And the betrayal of one’s character feels real, so that those who haven’t read the books, have no doubt that he is evil. Overall, Half-Blood Prince isn’t just the best film of the franchise yet (and I almost feel that it would be impossible to top), it’s an excellent film as a whole as well. The acting has never been better, the film looks visually stunning, the characters feel genuine and close to home as if we’ve always known them, the film takes us places emotionally that the others haven’t, and most importantly, Half-Blood Prince doesn’t try to be like any of the other films, it is it’s own unique film, and ‘unique’ might be the best word to describe it.

Semi-Review: Public Enemies

Director: Michael Mann

Release date: July 1/2009

It’s no secret I’m a Mann fanboy, I’ve loved most of his films that I’ve seen, and considering my love of several films in particular, I’m surprised and pleased to say this is his best since Heat (second best overall). While the latter has almost become a cliche amongst rave reviews and reactions, I think it’s true. In fact, I think when putting my fanboy love of Heat aside, from a pure filmmaking level and Mann’s direction, this is a little bit superior. I think it’s certainly top-tier Mann, along with The Insider. There’s a sense of energy that this film has, that while it’s certainly a rebirth of classic gangster cinema that there’s far too few of these days, it also doesn’t glamourize it. The battles while having a almost spiritual battle to them, are very realistic and not for those with easy stomach’s.

Besides it’s superb techinical qualities, the heart of the film is with Dillinger and Billie’s relationship, and Depp and Cotillard have such strong chemistry together that they take what could have otherwise come off as a hard to believe relationship, feel genuine and believable. You can feel the emotions these two people have for each other. I also like how it contrasts with the rest of the film; in that Public Enemies isn’t your normal film, it doesn’t feel like one when you’re watching it, it’s an experience. It’s as if you’re living it on screen, and if you as much look away, you’ll be surprised to find yourself sitting in a theater seat and not in the film. But how does their relationship contrast with that? Because the film is true to reality, for the most part, and their relationship feels like something out of the movies. He sees her for the first time, and they don’t develop a relationship like most people do, he went after her and didn’t stop, it was ‘love at first sight’, which is believed to only exist in movies. It’s interesting to see a film so true to reality have contrasts like this, and that’s because of the whole Dillinger persona, he was like something out of the movies, he saw everything like that (even more true at the theater when watching Manhattan Melodrama), he saw himself like that, and his relationship with Billie came across like that. I love that. It’s a fascinating contrast that unfortunately alot of people won’t pick up on.

Bale is terrific, actually. I thought he was good in both T4 and the Batman films, and painfully underrated, but I won’t deny when this man has given excellent performances in films like American Psycho, The Prestige and Rescue Dawn, I certainly was hoping for him to deliver another truly incredible performance that was out of his comfort zone. He does it again here, it’s a “return to form” for him, he’s back to taking challenging and interesting roles. As who grew up in South Carolina, I’m used to exaggerated southern accents in films, but Bale here nails it. It’s very natural, and his performance is much more subtle than what we’ve seen from him lately, which is easy to appreciate. Crudup though not in the film often, gives a truly entertaining performance. He’s a cold man, very cold and has no heart, and to see an actor who to me is one of the most magnetic and likable actors around at the moment take on a role like this, it’s quite frankly surprising and impressive. Much of the supporting cast is also very impressive, though it’s very much Dillinger’s movie and some famous characters are reduced to little more than cameo’s, they make the most of the time they have and each equally add to the film.

I think some mixed reaction to the film is certainly due to it’s use of digital cinematography, you might say “well that’s just one aspect of the film”, but Mann uses it as a storyteller. The use of digital reflects the film’s themes and pretty much tells the story, it’s interesting like that. I think once audiences come to be more welcoming to digital cinematography, the film might then be seen as the masterpiece that I feel it is. It’s a refreshing and interesting new style for films like this, which makes up for the rather lacking retread that American Gangster was. Now, you might say “besides the cinematography, the story has been done many times before”, yes it has. But Mann is much more true to the actual history than any of the others, which makes it unique, and he doesn’t cheat with the audience’s vulnerability or patience. The movie plays it straight forward, it doesn’t try to have a bunch of SUSPENSE in scenes where you know this is not where Dillinger will die, and when Dillinger does reach his fate, you know it’s coming just as he does. The scene of him walking down the sidewalk is just breathtaking, and while it doesn’t try to play with your emotions or make you cry, it punches you right in the gut when it happens. Sort of like in The Assassination of Jesse James, you didn’t cry when he was shot, it instead just punched you right in the gut and hit you like you didn’t expect it to. I think comparing Dillinger to a outlaw is a sensible one, before Dillinger dies as he reaches for his gun, it’s almost out of pure instinct, because this is it, and Dillinger pretty much knew it. There was no running this time, there was no hiding, there were going to be no shootouts and getaways, this was the end of the road. And despite knowing this was the end, he wasn’t going to go down without a fight, it’s just he wasn’t given that chance to. And that’s where it breaks movie trends, that’s the big point where reality meets fiction. As the scene comes to a close and we think the film is over, Mann proves what the heart of the picture was; Billie, and Dillinger’s love for her. It seems fitting that the man who heard Dillinger’s last words would tell her and only her what he said, and to end the movie that way. There’s something about his last words being the lyrics to the song they first danced to, it brings the movie together, and Marion’s acting her is perfection. She doesn’t overreaction, she doesn’t get overdramatic, she just sits there and cries, but in control of her body. It’s a touching, beautiful, and tragic ending to this excellent film.

I firmly believe where time and acceptance learned to see Bonnie and Clyde as a masterpiece, this film will one day, hopefully soon, go down as one of the all time great gangster films. As it rightfully is, I believe.