Life of Pi

Here's a movie I'm not really sure what to make of.  It makes me want to read the book, and at the same time, not.  Ang Lee has said that it's a philosophical film, disguised as an adventure story, but to me it's a harrowing survival film dressed up as a religious polemic.  It's not a particularly satisfying polemic, it's not exactly  the Old Man and the Sea by Deepak Chopra.  Those who are religious may take offense at the suggestion that their beliefs are delusional, those who are not may be offended by the notion being presented that those delusions are preferable to reasoned and abject reality.  The message seems directed at people who value reason, but still find it to not be enough.  People like me I suppose. I find myself looking at this movie like the boy looking at the tiger, enjoying gazing into beautiful eyes, but hoping there is something more there than my reflection.   

The introduction is quite charming.  When reality hits it is intense.  The film is exceptionally well made, and a visual masterpiece.  I found it strange that such a bleak situation could be so colorful and lovely.  The film doesn't shy away from the themes of cruelty, loss, and death.  Its Synechdoche NY for kids.  I was moved by it, I'm just not sure where I was moved to.  I'm more than happy to accompany a persons search for God, but I get annoyed when my ability to reason is challenged, or reason itself is frowned upon.  The conclusion surprised me, I don't understand it's thesis, and the parts I do understand I reject.  And yet, I can't stop thinking about it.  I find I cannot deny a liking for a belief in the existence of a God.  If God must be represented as a good story, then I'm for it.  Ultimately, I'm happy I saw it, and a good story is good no matter what it may represent. 

Skyfall

 I viewed this film in Eugene at 2115 hours. I had originally planned on the 2030 showing but it was sold out. I knew at this point that this newest installment of the Bond franchise was if nothing else going to be popular. It was also no surprise that when we sat down the theatre around us filled quickly. To my left was a younger fellow who was flying solo. To my right my lovely wife. To her left was an older fellow with a young son chomping on his popcorn. I bring this up only to illustrate that there was a wide range of ages and types of people. I think this lends to the fact that for 50 years now Bond is still a popular and well-known brand.




Now the next question is was it any good. The short answer (for me anyway) is yes. I did have small issues with the film, but I think because it is Bond I forgave them pretty easy.



This is Daniel Craig's third Bond film. I must admit that I was highly skeptical about Craig playing Bond. I was and am a huge Sean Connery fan, while I grew up with mainly Pierce Brosnan as my Bond. After my viewing of "Casino Royale" I am a fan, and I may be pre-mature but he is shaping up (pun intended) to be my favorite. Now I know those are very large shoes to fill (again pun intended).



This film, for me, starts off at a blistering pace. We first see Bond entering a hotel room with several dead agents, and we find that a hard drive was stolen. Bond quickly has to make a choice that sets up the rest of film as to choices and calling into question loyalty. Loyalty of Country, fellow agents, and M.



We are then whisked away to a car chase scene, which quickly switches to a motorcycle chase scene, which then turns to a chase scene of sorts on the top and inside a freight train. At one point we see Bond make a leap of faith of sorts only to land and then adjust his cuff links and suit. I found myself smiling, and literally at the edge of my seat. I didn't even realize I was until the scene is over and Adele's Skyfall song accompanies the opening credits... I then had a chance to sit back and wait for the action to begin again. I think this feeling at least for me sums up what Bond is. He is a constant in a sea of change and turmoil. Bond is always Bond. He is unflappable, resilient, and will never give up. Without ruining the ending or the premise too much; we also see the vulnerability of Bond this time. I thought that an interesting touch.



Another interesting touch is the villain. I loved Javier Bardem as Mr. Silver. He was, as in true Bond villain fashion, one note. He was however layered and complex at the same time. Bardem brought a 'on purpose' humor that usually is lacking in Bond villains. I would also add that Mr. Silver is overtly homosexual. I liked that Bardem and Craig seemed to play off each other with this. Bond is the straightest of straightest, (Bond girls galore) while he seemed unfazed at Silver's (Bardem) advances, or thinly veiled ones. This is brought up, we as an audience and Bond as a character accept this and we move on. I liked this touch. We never get bogged down in this nor is it ignored.



I also liked the playing off the 'new' and the 'old' meeting head on. The 'new' trying to paint the 'old' as archaic, and out of touch. The 'old' trying to warn the 'new' that there are shadows and we still need people to fight those shadows. It was strangely relevant to today’s Progressive vs. establishment struggle. I also liked how the 'new' was slapped down and forced to admit that the 'old' is still relevant and still needed to do the jobs the 'new' will not or cannot stomach...



Okay my negatives... I can't stand the way Bond runs through this film. I know minor, but I had never noticed it before, in the first two Craig Bond's. He runs ALOT, and he runs very awkwardly. It stood out for me, and bugged me quite a bit.



I also found that this film was very predictable. I was never really questing what happens next. It didn't really ruin the film for me, but again I did notice it. Finally, some of the action scenes smacked of Michael Bay type editing and short cuts that render the action un-followable. Visually though absent a few of these scenes; it was brilliant.



So my usual film test is would I want to see it again. Would I buy it and watch it. The answer for me is yes. Action, visually stunning, geo-political themes relevant for today, and Bond, James Bond... What's not to love?

Cloud Atlas

After re-watching 2001 recently, my stepson complained it didn't make sense.  My husband decreed, if you read the book it makes more sense.  He went on to insist one must read the book in order to fully understand it.  I disagree, profoundly.  A logical explanation for the end would be meaningless to me, what matters is how the film made me feel.  Thoughts of Zarathustra's supermen, or an alien zoo are fascinating and a lot of fun, but they don't add much to journey I had just taken into space and aging, and rebirth.  There is a fun Ebert essay about non-realism in films, that I think only hits the surface.  http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/10/what_was_that_all_about.html  There is a quote I like from David Lynch somewhere in the comments, about how all interpretations are more or less correct. 

This brings me to Cloud Atlas, a film a viewing partner said was 'pretentious' and 'sappy.'  Of course the flip side might view it as 'ambitious' and 'emotional.'  You can read plot descriptions elsewhere, needless to say, the film contains six different narratives.  The effect is like watching a bunch of different movies.  Watching a regular movie seems like less of an experience after watching a movie like this.  Here is a very good essay about ways to decipher it, http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2012/10/a-taste-in-transcendence.html.  I especially like allusions to Howard Zinn, and agree it plays out much like a musical composition.  But, then, I don't really require an explanation.  The movie either works on you, or it doesn't.  I don't feel the need to solve a puzzle, Inception may very well make sense, but it didn't move me a whole lot.  This film moved me, and that's all that matters. I don't particularly care if it makes sense.  There are two themes running through the film, freedom and love.  Really, that's all I need.  That's all it takes to move me.  With those components, all the stories soar, and I can forgive any other flaw.  It can change this cruel and violent film into an uplifting experience.  The word 'transcendence' comes to mind.  Really, what more can a film do, except tap into a persons need to be connected to something greater than themselves? 

Samsara

Following in the tradition of the Koyanisqaatsi series, Ron Frick brings us Samsara, which balances Baraka out nicely.  The 'guided meditation' has been see as being overly guided, by some, but I found it could simply move through me and any political interpretation was mine to interpret.  Some may see an image of the devastation in the ninth ward, followed by the opulence of the Vatican as a comment about economic inequality, but that would be a connection the mind makes.  Is showing the manufacturing of a gun in itself a statement?  To me an entire film involving the trajectory of the gun's story and the violence it may cause would showcase that, but seeing the gun made was enough to tell us about humanity.  I don't like guns, and seeing families in different countries who feel the need to have them is enough to make me sad. 

This film is all images and sounds.  They are some of the most beautiful images put to film, and seeing them on a large screen is a special treat. We start with children dancing in Indonesia, their eyes simultaneously vacant and full of life.  We see Buddhist monks creating a sand mandala, which will serve as a symbol for the rest of the films as it holistically sets it scope on earth and humanity, as our mind connects it to the sand blowing over sand dunes.  The metaphor is not lost on us. 

I don't want to list all of the images we are greeted with, as the discovery is part of its process, I think.  But after images of nature and religious rituals we see a performance art piece by Olivier de Sagazan that seems out of place.  This film just kind of observes, to see a performance piece seems a little too modus operandi.  But what a sight.  Seeing a man mold clay on his face in such a manner is troubling, and I suppose it goes along with the films motif, and marks a transition where we begin to see images of life tout of balance.  What follows is humanity in all its glory and absurdity, the same brilliant sped up clusters of civilization we see in Baraka, the facial contortions of human robots, men working in sulphur mines, children picking through garbage heaps, the gruesomness of a meat processing plant, followed by consumers in a Costco.  At times the film lulls you into a trance, and at other times it jolts you awake.  Erotic dancers, and the exercises of prisoners are particularly exhilarating, with the music.  And faces, endless, endless faces.  We can stare deep into their eyes.

All of this really adds up to something, and trust me, I have only hinted at every image we see.  We must look inward to find meaning, but all the great questions are brought up by this film.  What is sacred?  What is natural?  What am I?  What are the results of my actions?  What is my place?  What is our place?  What ultimately matters?  Film is a visual medium, and pictures are worth countless words.  This is a film I recommend for everyone.  If there was only one film to encapsulate for future generations, this one would be a serious contender.  A film like this is like traveling to distant lands and discovering new things in our own world. I came out seeing things with new eyes, which is really the greatest achievement for any work of art. 

Argo

 I just wanted to say, I really enjoyed this film.  One of my friends from high school asked me if it fed into anti-Iranian sentiment, to which I replied I didn't think so, but here is another view:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2012/10/the-revolution-has-been-filmed.html

Paranorman

First let me say that it has been a long while since I have one: Been to the movies, and two: posted a review. With that said, lets shake the rust off our fingers and get this going. Shall we?

"Paranorman" is another stop-motion animation film from the same people who brought us "Corpse Bride", and "Coraline". It's directed by Chris Butler, and Sam Fell.

ParaNorman is (at it's heart) about a small town, and it's resident misunderstood, and bullied local boy Norman. Did I mention that Norman is able to speak with ghosts? Yeah, this is why he is so 'looked down upon'.

Norman's ability, gift, or curse if you will; causes both strife at school but also at home. At home not too unlike everywhere else he is viewed as the weird little brother. The weird son. Or just plain weird overall. The only ones who understand and seem to like him are the departed people he talks to.

When the world thinks you're 'weird' and you get picked on and bullied you should be able to find shelter at home. Sadly, no one seems to really understand or care. Norman's mother tries but seems to get lost in her attempts to understand him herself.

Norman is a lonely kid. This movie almost goes exactly the way "Coraline" does with this set up. I was was worried going in that it would be "Coraline II" As you may or may not remember I just couldn't get into "Coraline" as I never developed a liking for any of the characters.

Thankfully Paranorman departs here. I invested in the sad little kid who is misunderstood, lonely, and watches way too many scary movies byhimself. Well, almost by himself. His dead Grandmother watches with him. I too was the only child, lonely, misunderstood, and watched way too many moster/horror movies.

I also became invested in Neil the heavyset kid who identifies with Norman because he too is riddiculed at school for being "Fat".

Now as to the story. I also found a departure from "Coraline". I know I shouldn't be comparing these two films, but what can I do. "Coraline" is the only film in this Genre that I didn't like. It also contrasts for me so much that it seems the right thing to do.

This story when compared to "Coraline" for me was just a better story. The characters were well developed. They had human vulnrabilities, and they came together to combat (With the very bullies that bullied them) the larger theme of revenge, and bullying.

"Paranorman" is beautiful (Stop-motion animation) like the "Corpse Bride", and "Coraline". I also thought it clever and surprisingly scary (Not for little guys in my opinion). It deals with a morbid subject matter chalked full of morbid humor and also tips it's hat to the Horror genre.

It's basically the story of a Massachusetts town (Blithe Hollow) whose witch-hunting past catches up with it on its 300th anniversary.

The world feels lush, while dark, expansive yet closed in and small. The colors are rich and when the subject matter is dark helps to keep it light and funny. The rest of plot boils down to (Without spoilers) Norman and his reluctant, dare I say, friends; taking on ghosts, witches and, worst, of all, grown-ups, to save his town from a centuries-old curse.

The adults are the real villians in the story. Sure the main bully Alvin is, well a bully to both Norman and Neil. However he is too stupid and easily overcome by situation he is placed in (being more afraid than the so called 'weaklings' he picks on.

The end of this film is both stunning in it's visuals, as well as it's message. It's a two wrongs don't make a right, and being different is okay message. It's also done in a way that had me, dusty if you will.

"Paranorman" was a thrill ride, a laugh inspired dark comedy, and a do the right thing and treat everyone well film. I enjoyed it very much and would recomend it with both thumbs in the affirmative.

The Rum Diary

Warning: Spoilers

Every once in a while I see a movie that inspires me to find out more about a character, if biographical, or the original writer of the book version, if one exists. The Rum Diary indeed is a book by Hunter S. Thompson, someone whose name has been familiar as a legend for a long time, but who I never really knew anything about. The only thing I knew about him was that he wrote Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and used LSD. I had seen Fear and Loathing, love Johnny Depp, and so was intrigued with another Thompson/Depp combination.

There are many things I liked about this movie, but the main thing is that it is not so Hollywood-formula as many movies these days are. I think that must be because of the original story. It does have some of those elements, such as girl-with-wrong-guy-then-meets-right guy, but for the most part it is a darkly humorous story with some hints of bizarre in it.

Depp's character, Paul Kemp, is an unsuccessful writer who journeys to Puerto Rico for a bread-and-butter job at a failing newspaper. His drinking problem means that he is stumbling through life, both literally and figuratively, and waiting for luck and happenstance to get him by instead of being motivated. Nothing is inspiring him until he serendipitously gets mixed up with a group of rich developers who scam the residents and launder money to make their fortunes. Enter Sanderson, played by Aaron Eckhart (who seems to be typecast as the evil guy) and his Barbie-like fiance Chenault, the beautiful people living the high life at the expense of the native people of Puerto Rico. One of Sanderson's pet peaves is when the residents look in on HIS private beach and what he and his friends are doing. He's rich, he's an asshole, and arranges for Kemp to be indebted to him and become involved in one of his scams as a promotional writer. But Chenault has a conscious and is bored with her lily-white lifestyle. When she and Kemp meet it is instant sparks. And as Kemp is getting sucked deeper into the quagmire of Sanderson's plans, a blowout between Sanderson and the natives over Chenault's acting out her desire for a different life leads to the break up of their business deal.

Here's where the inspiration comes from. There are a couple of epiphanies in the story, Chenaults realization that she doesn't want the slimy good life, and Kemp's inspiration to write about the insidious rape of native peoples' land to get rich. Kemp states that “I’ve discovered the connection between starving children scavenging for food, and the shiny brass plates on the front doors of banks.” It's one of those lines where you say, “Ah, that must be from the original author.”

The movie is sprinkled with colorful supporting characters and lines. Moburg, brilliantly played by Giovanni Ribisi, is a drunk of the DT variety, and a roommate of Kemp's, who constantly makes scenes and has a bizarre taste for listening to Hitler speeches on LPs. He's the kind of character that you laugh at but inside feel pity and disgust for. And one of my favorite lines in the movie was stated by the Mayor during a casual conversation at a Sanders party for his business friends: 'A liberal is a Commie with a college education thinking Negro thoughts.' It was a reminder of a past time, reminiscent of Archie Bunker.

So, I would give this move two thumbs up. I decided to not look at any reviews before writing this because I didn't want to chance that they would influence my impression of the movie, one being that much of Kemp's character must be biographical of Thompson. I will have to find out how true that is. I am intrigued and have some reading to do. I think I'll start with The Rum Diary.