January 20, 2008

sunshine

file under: movies

after a tragicomic series of mishaps, elaine and i finally managed to see Sunshine, the latest effort by director Danny Boyle (Millions, Trainspotting, 28 Days Later). i was a huge fan of both Trainspotting and 28 Days Later, and so have been very eager to experience Boyle's take on the sci-fi genre.

and so, after all our trials and tribulations with seeing this film, was the wait worth it?

...

yes. mostly.

the film is a visual spectacle, with gorgeous cinematography and composition, eye-popping space visuals worthy of the best NASA CG animations, and some nuanced, compelling performances. it's just a feast to watch, and for the first hour plus, we were all riveted in our seats. cillian murphy turns in another fantastic performance, and the cast that supports are equally top-notch. the writing is where things go south with this film, sadly, even with the experienced hands of Alex Garland at the helm.

the film is clearly intended to be thinking-person's sci-fi, with ruminations on god, sun as giver and taker of life, death, and basic human frailty. the sun becomes a metaphor for god, and the film does a pretty good job of exploring this territory. at the same time, on a more literal level, it does a great job of exploring some of the real challenges (both physical and mental) associated with long-term space travel. pacing, acting, script – they all work in lock-step for the first hour of the film, gradually building a sense of foreboding and tension.

sadly, somewhere near the last half hour, the film pretty much jumps the shark, as things descend into a space-based horror flick a la Event Horizon (which i hated with a vibrant, mouth-frothing passion).

why did Boyle and Garland take this route, is my big question? to make it more palatable to an action-oriented crowd? clearly, that didn't work, since the film only grossed about $3.5MM (much of which i attribute to horrendous marketing). more intellectual fare like Soderbergh's Solaris was less well-received critically speaking, yet still managed to make $15MM at the box office.

so, i wound up with mixed feelings about the film. i loved many aspects of it, and will watch it again, but hated the facile and ham-fisted way they chose to end it. danny and alex: i expected more from you.

Posted by docrpm on 01.20.08 at 4:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 17, 2007

walk the line

file under: movies
tags: review

i didn't know much about Johnny Cash before seeing Walk the Line. i was familiar with some of his more famous songs (e.g., Ring of Fire), and had heard a great interview Cash did with terry gross on fresh air a few years before he died. oh yeah, and that he covered a nine inch nails song on his last album. that was about all i knew. pretty sad, given his status and importance as a country singer and music icon of the 20th century. i wanted to see the film to fill in the gaps, and it did a great job.

in a nutshell, i'd say the man in black walked a line, and spent a fair amount of time on the wrong side of it, consumed by addiction and self-destructive behavior. it makes for an interesting story, given the historical import and the impact the characters had on music, and the film told it well. joaquin phoenix and reese witherspoon both turned in fantastic performances, and created a believable depiction of a complex drama between two talented performers. the story wasn't totally unexpected, and the film didn't break any moviemaking ground, but it was very entertaining and completely evoked the time period in which it was set. definitely recommended if you have any interest in the man or his music.

Posted by docrpm on 06.17.07 at 1:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 3, 2006

the motorcycle diaries

file under: movies
tags: review

i think i've said it before, but it bears repeating that my knowledge of history is a bit spotty. weak. you might even say terrible. for some reason, i just checked out in history classes, which when combined with a bad memory for such things, leads to the sad state of affairs i find myself in. as a result, when a movie like the motorcycle diaries comes along, i find myself lacking the historical pillow on which to rest my head.

let's ignore history for the moment and talk about a movie.

...

the motorcycle diaries is a really, really good movie. it's a buddy flick, a story of intellectual awakening, a travel saga, a touching look at inequity and injustice. on top of all this, the cinematography is stunning, the scenery spectacular, the images arresting. it is well acted, with two compelling male leads in career-defining performances. it is a magnificent, funny, enagaging spectacle as they journey through argentina, peru and chile using "the mighty one" (an old Norton motorcycle that pees oil) as their trusty steed.

taken on its own merits, as a film, it is amazing. and then there is the little problem of history.

the film is about the early life of ernesto guevara de la serna (aka Che Guevara), the Latin American revolutionary leader and icon. the film paints a very sympathetic portrait of a man some consider a terrorist and unrepentant murderer. others see him as a symbol of the fight against injustice, of the struggle in the third world against not only injustice, but also American hegemony and meddling.

so is the film unjustified hagiography, or a look at an interesting and important man through one possible lens?

if you read Paul Berman's review of the film, you'll lean more towards the former perspective. read the comments attached to his review, and you might start to think otherwise. after reading these, along with the extensive wikipedia entry, i came to the conclusion that Che Guevara was a complex man, one whose status and importance as an icon probably don't match his actual deeds and accomplishments (although my historical ignorance prevents me from making a better assessment). his seems an impossible picture to paint, a revolutionary mona lisa that looks different from every angle.

ultimately, i would say that we as viewers need to decide whether the film is a movie, or a lesson in history, or both. many will be able to enjoy the movie, regardless of the politics or the historical accuracy of the potrayal; others won't be able to get past a wide-eyed, sensitive, thoughtful Che.

i would say, see it and judge for yourself...it's a great movie worth 2 hours of your life, independent of its politics or potentially misplaced sympathies.

Posted by docrpm on 09.03.06 at 10:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 28, 2006

the corpse bride

file under: movies
tags: review

the corpse bride is tim burton's latest foray into the world of stop-motion animation, and it's a fantastic foray, indeed.

tim burton is one of my heroes. in an adult world, he manages to remind us of what it's like to have fun, to have a childlike sense of wonder while retaining one's adult capacity to laugh at the absurdity of it all. on top of that, he makes beautiful and funny films, capsules that takes you away for two hours, only to return a happier person (despite subject matter that might seem grim).

there are no perfect characters in a tim burton world. they all have weaknesses writ rather large, and we get to either snigger knowingly or identify with them. he always pulls out the characters you love to hate; in the corpse bride, it's the officious housewife with a 4-foot-tall beehive hairdoo, the soulless husband in her grasp, the preacher mired in a world of endless rules and rituals. he paints each and every one of them in a way that magnifies their absurdity, while still retaining a twinge of believability. his heroes and heroines are flawed, insecure, and yet admirable and strong in their own ways. i can't speak for others, but i've always felt i could see pieces of my imperfect self in his characters.

aside from great storytelling, the corpse bride is visually stunning, with animation that never ceases to amaze. plus, it's got lots of musical numbers with corpses. how could it go wrong? watch it and judge for yourself.

Posted by docrpm on 08.28.06 at 9:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 26, 2006

underworld : evolution

file under: movies

it's interesting to watch a movie (like underworld evolution) that most everyone else thought sucked, and yet somehow you enjoyed. it makes you wonder, not necessarily about the intrinsic quality of the film, but about perception and enjoyment.

i'm not going to waste the bytes to review it. you can check out the synopsis somewhere else (google or find your own trusted source). in fact, i'm not even going to say why i liked it, because most people would probably either disagree or deride me for it.

i will just ask, how can some people enjoy a movie that others hate with a passion? how is it that people whom we trust can recommend films, and yet they fall flat for us? i have many movie-going friends whose judgment i trust for the most part, and yet sometimes, they find foam-inspiring films that make me yawn. and vice-versa, of course – sometimes, the films that i really enjoy, for one reason or another, put other people to sleep or make them want to throw things.

film (or movies) are an impossible combination of things. they are a simulacrum, and yet they can transcend simulation into the space of fantasy. they combine the visual and the auditory with storytelling and performance. they take ideas and smash them together like a celluloid collider, hoping that some new particle is created. sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. it seems to depend on the viewer.

so the next time someone recommends a movie to you, and you watch it and think it's terrible, think twice before you discount their next recommendation. when it comes to movies, you never know...

Posted by docrpm on 08.26.06 at 12:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 21, 2006

solaris

file under: movies

i finally got around to seeing steven soderbergh's remake of solaris this weekend. i must admit to enough reservations to fill a hotel, but after recommendations from trusted cinematic advisors, i decided to take the plunge.

the original solaris, directed by andrei tarkovsky, is considered a true (cult) classic, not just within the science fiction genre, but in general. it's profound, beautiful, frustrating, very long, and ultimately completely mysterious. in other words, it's a great russian film.

so how does soderbergh's version compare? or does it?

[spoiler alert]

...

both cinematic versions of solaris are based on the book of the same name by stanislaw lem. each chronicles the journey of kris kelvin to the mysterious planet Solaris, where things appear to be going wrong on an observational space station in orbit. in each case, Kelvin encounters a physical manifestation of his dead wife, apparently generated by the planet. the others on the station have their own personal demons, each tailored to their psyche and their past.

i believe the difference between the two films lies in the approach the filmmaker takes to the philosophical and emotional conundrums posed by Lem in the novel. soderbergh treats it more as a love story, a story of regret and loss (at least for Kelvin) and of how some people reconcile past and present. in my opinion, tarkovsky took a more philosophical approach, focusing less on the emotional presence of Kris, and more on broader issues of memory, identity, and psychological stability in the face of the unimaginable.

or not. i could be totally wrong. neither film is entirely transparent in its purpose, which is a major part of the appeal (at least for me).

one major distinction between the two films is a matter of polish and cinematography. tarkovsky's version was made in 1972 with minimal special effects and fairly low-budget production values. soderbergh's version has the sheen of modernity, and while it's a nice sheen that adds to the believability of the set pieces, it does nothing to advance the story. tarkovsky managed to create the same depth without the polish. his cinematography was more impressionistic, and the tone of the film changed dramatically due to shifts in film stock and color over its course. soderbergh's film had none of this, and as a result felt a bit more cohesive as an experience.

i liked both films, although i can't say which i liked better. it's odd to say that two films based on the same book shouldn't be compared, and yet that's precisely what i'm going to say. the die-hard sci-fi and film fan should see both and draw their own conclusions. :-)

Posted by docrpm on 08.21.06 at 8:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 19, 2006

snakes on a plane

file under: movies

elaine and i saw snakes on a plane last friday with a big group of friends and extended acquaintances. under normal circumstances, i might try to write a review, but given that the new york times alread did it for me, i'll save myself the trouble.

i will say that it was a crazy movie-going experience. i haven't seen a crowd as rowdy and excited since the last star wars film. this crowd was probably worse, actually, since there seemed to be a few people in the audience who'd just had their first beer. there were rubber snakes, stuffed snakes, snakeskin outfits, paper airplanes with snakes (ha), costumes, people pumping their fists in the air at snakes sinking their fangs wherever possible, screams, shouts, endless laughter. it was total mayhem. people are going absolutely nuts over this movie. there's already a participation script, and its only been out for a few days.

so why the feeding frenzy?

i think snakes on a plane is a celluloid pressure-release valve. it's a way of escaping from the news (grim and grimmer) and of laughing at some post-9/11 fears that people just keep pouring gasoline on. you know how it's gonna end before it even starts, and maybe that's part of the appeal. it's big, loud, silly, and a whole lot of fun. in an unpredictable world, its relative predictability, combined with snakes on crack, is a welcome diversion. any movie that can bring smiles that big and make you forget about the world for 2 hours is worth $10.

sequel anyone? (snakes on a train, snakes on a bus, snakes on a ship, snakes in outer space, snakes snakes snakes....SSSSsssss).

Posted by docrpm on 08.19.06 at 11:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 7, 2006

march of the penguins

file under: movies

life is a precious thing. we all struggle to preserve it, whether or not we realize this truth. march of the penguins, a french documentary, illustrates the point that no matter how hard you think your life is, the emperor penguins have it much, much harder.

when i was a kid, i consumed anything and everything related to nature: jacques cousteau, national geographic, audobon society books, camping and hiking around southern california. i've always been a sucker for anything related to the natural world, so it stands to reason that i should fall for nature documentaries.

this one is different.

...

it tells a story that is, for all intents and purposes, unbelievable. in a nutshell, emperor penguins survive and breed under the harshest conditions on the planet, for months on end, under constant threat of death by starvation and exposure. over the course of thousands of years, they have perfectly adapted to their environment, and can live despite their inhospitable surroundings.

they don't fight each other to survive (with rare exceptions). indeed, the inhospitability of their surroundings forces them to create a "heat collective" to stay warm. mothers and fathers have to swap childcare roles repeatedly, all the while under threat of death to their offspring by freezing. they are the apotheosis of Darwinian adaptation.

this isn't a new story. we're constantly faced with examples from the animal kingdom of creatures who prove themselves capable of feats well outside our comfort zone. and yet there seems to be something different about these penguins. maybe it's the otherwordliness of their surroundings; maybe it's the way they take weeks to pick a mate, despite desperate circumstances; maybe it's the way the couples show love for each other (however transitory). maybe it's the fact that they waddle across Antarctica for miles on miles with tiny footsteps, all just to get food for their chicks (one each, at most).

the thing i found the most amazing was their single-mindedness. almost everything the penguins did was explcitly geared towards reproduction: their uncanny sense of direction, their ability to stave off hunger and withstand cold, their sense for seasonal and environmental changes. everything they did and were capable of, just to do their best to make sure their young survived.

watching these penguins made me realize the trade we've made: bigger brains and a more diversified set of abilities, at the expense of an ability to survive the harshness of the unadulterated natural world. basically, we've traded brains for everyday fortitude. we can meet challenges, to be sure, but take the average human and drop them in the forest 100 miles from civilization, and they'll be dead before anyone can find them.

we can learn a lot from animals, now and a hundred (or a thousand) years from now. they can remind us of our humble animal beginnings, of our need to bond in order to survive. they can remind us that we aren't necessarily as strong as we think...

Posted by docrpm on 07.07.06 at 11:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

hero

file under: movies

i was skeptical about zhang yimou's film hero. i'm not entirely sure why. maybe it was because i thought that, after several other films that looked to be of this ilk, another director was trying to capitalize on the "kung-fu art film" phenomenon in America (e.g., Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon).

ok, maybe he was, but he did a brilliant job of it (despite his less-than-stellar follow-up house of flying daggers, a visually stunning tale that hewed just a bit too close to its dragon-born antecedent).

hero is not just visually stunning; it's also a powerful historical tale fueled by romance, deception, and betrayal. the performances are amazing, the action choreography is excellent, the cinematrography is superior...i'm stumbling over myself to find more superlatives.

Posted by docrpm on 07.07.06 at 11:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 2, 2006

nightwatch

file under: movies

imagine dostoevsky huddled with the brothers quay in a dark, back-alley moscow bar. angelo badalamenti plays on the jukebox as they discuss the matrix and blade, and the never-ending human fascination with tales of good vs. evil, with immortality and the mystical. they decide to make a movie to explore these themes, something wholly russian, yet not constrained to being wholly original. their conversation is gradually drowned in stolichnaya, and their temporary fascination in a movie wanes as they drift off into other philosophical territories. as they move on, so do the two huddled forms at the table next to them, heading out the door and to their desks... Timur Bekmambetov and Laeta Kalogridis won't let those ideas go to waste.

...

nightwatch (nochnoi dozor) is the first of a trilogy of russian sci-fi/horror/fantasy films focusing on the struggle between the Others, supernatural beings who walk among us. some Others choose the light, other Others choose the dark; they have been balanced in a delicate truce for centuries, the officers of the Nightwatch being the only thing that keeps the peace. that's all about to change.

but you'll have to wait for the secnod installment of the trilogy to find out. the first is all foreplay.

as is often the case with films of this ilk, my friend andrew has beaten me to the punch and reviewed it first. he's pretty much hit the nail on the head, from my viewpoint, but i will add a few points:

• it's a gorgeous film, full of visual candy to distract you from the occasionally facile plotting and gaping plot holes. i'd go so far as to say it's not just candy, either. despite clear references to the wachowski brothers and the brothers quay, there's something different going on here in terms of visual effects. maybe it's just a russian film sensibility, but things felt different to me.
• something went wrong with the writing. two different plot lines wander through the film, and just when you think they're going to intersect...they don't. one dies, giving it's life to the other, which will apparently continue in the rest of the trilogy. the one plot line, which engulfed fully half the film, ended so abruptly that people in the theater laughed when it did (sigh).
• the film is subtitled, but in a way that i've not seen done before. they actually tried to be creative with how the subtitles are rendered, using a mixture of time, space, color, and typography to keep things interesting.
• elaine gave it a 5/10. others have not been so kind. it seems people are either willing to forgive its cinematographic trespasses, or they're not.
• so much territory was left unexplored. as i watched, i felt like i was rooting for the team that's doomed to lose, despite its talent. mostly paper-thin characters, vaguely-hinted-at connections never explored, action that never was, clichee clichee clichee...i'm hoping the second installment of the trilogy picks up where this one left off.
• more Gloom! more shape-shifting! more action! more Vampire social networking web sites!

i've got my fingers crossed for the second installment (Dnevnoy dozor). they're off to a pretty good start with this one. let's just pray they don't bring back the vortex of crows.

Posted by docrpm on 04.02.06 at 10:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 19, 2006

battlestar galactica

file under: movies

elaine and i just finished watching the first season of SciFi channel's battlestar galactica (BSG). in a nutshell, if crack could be distributed digitally, it would feel something like galactica on DVD, the only difference being that there's a maddeningly limited supply of the latter.

...

i don't remember the last time i was so enthralled and impressed by a TV show (in general, not just sci-fi TV). Deadwood comes pretty close in terms of uniform excellence and consistent, thoughtful entertainment, but i'd still give galactica the edge. when i think about the sci-fi genre in particular, BSG is head-and-shoulders above both its progenitor and the series to which it is compared (e.g., myriad star trek incarnations, farscape, babylon 5). i thought the somewhat gritty ST:Enterprise series was pretty good; galactica manages to make it look mediocre.

i resisted watching the series for a long time, not only because i don't have cable, but because i just couldn't handle the disappointment of another crappy sci-fi TV show. the premature death of ST:Enterprise signalled to me a need for a re-examination of the genre; it had become stale and formulaic in every way (ham-fisted writing, bad overacting, thin and clicheed characterization, derivative and unimaginative plotting, special effects cut from the same cloth). how could a reincarnated sci-fi show from the 70s possibly be a new hope?

i think andrew has already summed it up quite nicely in his review of battlestar galactica. i concur completely, as i do with the amazon.com synopsis.

a few more things i like:

• space cinematography: all space battles are rendered in a cinema verité style, something i've not seen done in the genre. it adds energy and uniqueness to the special effects, and seems like it even heightens dramatic tension. a refreshing, creative twist that i never get tired of watching, since it allows for a lot more variation, as opposed to the straightforward ships-flying-shooting-colored-lightning approach.


• sound effects: great sound design, in general. an example is the ship-to-ship communications, which are somewhat distorted and garbled in a believable way. this is the low-tech, high-tech future (see below).


• music: i find myself playing the theme song, and other musical elements from the show, over and over in my head. much better than either the orchestral approach of the old star trek series, or the new boltonesque attempt on Enterprise. in fact, i think this is only the second series whose soundtrack i've considered buying (the first being the X-files).


• low-tech: the (only) battleship in the fleet, along with its fighters, possess intentionally antiquated computer systems and technology, given that their enemy of the past was cut from this cloth, and thus able to infiltrate, corrupt and defeat these systems. again, this seems an original twist to me, and probably helps them with their production costs, since they can use found items from our time period.


• twists and turns: the show is not too predictable, which is refreshing when they're trying to keep up a long story arc. episodic series like star trek had it a bit easier, since they could do one-offs that were only tangentially related to the broader story arc. without episodic digressions, BSG still manages to surprise, constantly (and not too gratuitously, in this viewer's opinion).

and just to be vaguely even-handed:

• suspension of disbelief: willingness to go along is central to any sci-fi series. when it comes to imagining things so far out of our realm (FTL travel, for example), it's pretty easy to buy it. it's when you start veering closer to the physics of today that things get shaky. one example: in one episode, a single nuclear warhead is placed inside a massive Cylon base station; you can guess the result – boom, destroyed instantly. in contrast, when ship-to-ship nuclear warheads hit galactica, it's damaged, but not too badly. one other example was the way the cylons just gave up an attack after the launch station was destroyed, despite outnumbering their foe by almost 10-to-1. this smacked of robotic defeatism and just seemed totally unrealistic; they did it that way because they needed a nice, tidy ending. but these gaffes are few and far between. i hope they continue to be as we watch the second season.


• conflict: one strength of the show is the complex relationships between many of its primary characters. sometimes, however, it seems the writers of the show are reaching to create and enhance the level of conflict between people. who knows? maybe it would really be like this after beig cooped up on a ship for a long time. sometimes, though, i just feel like saying, "hey...can't you guys all just get along?"

my hat is off to the creators of battlestar galactica and to its excellent ensemble cast. as one other reviewer put it, this is frackin' good TV.

Posted by docrpm on 02.19.06 at 6:50 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 20, 2005

primer

file under: movies

what if it actually worked?

i'm not sure. one thing i can say, though, is that primer is a gem of a movie, albeit one refined on planet claire. it's an amazing piece of filmmaking, both because it was made for about $7000 and because it is so simultaneously involving and baffling. it also won a boatload of awards and acclaim for the mathematician–turned–filmmaker who created it.

i don't know that i understood it in its entirety. i don't even know if i understood it in its partiality. i'll need to watch it a few more times before i can make more intelligible comments. however, i definitely enjoyed it, maybe precisely because i didn't understand it.

this is the kind of film that inspires the geek in me to sit down and start drawing diagrams involving timelines and decision trees. not only did it tweak my noodle, it was beautiful to watch. i don't know how shane carruth did it. well, in an interview i read, it seems he did it by shooting on Super–16, transferring to DV, editing on his PC, and not paying any of the cast (yet).

anything more i could say at this moment would constitute a spoiler, and not one that goes far beyond plot synopsis. after i watch it again, i'll write more. in the meantime, if you feel like an in–depth analysis, check out my buddy chooky's review.

Posted by docrpm on 07.20.05 at 9:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

January 26, 2005

good, bad, ugly

file under: movies

i have a weakness for the old spaghetti westerns by sergio leone. as luck would have it, so does Target. last time elaine and i visited the big red bullseye, they had a bunch of spaghetti DVDs on sale for $9 a shot. who could resist? i bought everything on the shelf.

...

elaine had never seen any of the spaghetti westerns, so i decided the good, the bad, and the ugly (GBU) would be a good place to start. with the ultra–extended–edition DVD, it also turns out to be a very long place to start (161 minutes, to be precise).

it was great to see the film again after so many years — it remains a classic. elaine loved it, too. the first thing out of her mouth was, " damn...tarantino ripped this guy off!" indeed. it's a hard act to follow: sergio leone in the director's chair, eastwood, lee van cleef, and eli wallach shooting it out, and all of it set to a score by ennio morricone.

as i watched GBU this time, a few things jumped out at me:

• the cinematography — for lack of a better word, wow. the composition of each scene has been handled with care and grace, and it shows.
• there are no good guys; they're all mean, nihilistic, solipsistic, money–grubbing bastards — the world is their oyster. some of them, though, are more mean than others. Blondie (as Tuco calls him) is the perfect anti-hero. he's a bad guy that seems like he might have a good guy hiding inside (but you're not totally sure). on the other hand, the real bad guy (lee van cleef) is just the quintessential rotten apple.
• GBU is really, really violent. torture, hangings, mass murder, war, gratuitous drinking...it's all part of the spectacle.
• some parts of the movie draaaaaaag. the scene at the bridge with the drunk general? leone got a little self-indulgent there (you could fall asleep for 15 minutes and miss nothing). one suspects that he really just wanted to blow up that bridge, so he created all of this blood–soaked window–dressing around it to feel justified when the TNT finally makes its appearance. either that, or he just wanted to exploit his first big budget as much as possible.
• eastwood is good. very good. so are wallach and van cleef. i'm not sure the film would have had the same appeal without them.

what is it about the spaghettis, and westerns in general, that still captivate people?

there is an undying fascination the american west during this time period; western movies are just one way this time of expansion and chaos has been documented...the "wild west," complete with shootouts and vigilantes, actually spanned very little time — no more than 40 years (from 1860–1900), with the truly violent period probably spanning a lot less (1875–1885). by comparison, the roman empire was in power for 500 years. the egyptians? about 3000 years. sure, we've made a few movies about romans and pharaohs, but nowhere near the number of westerns that have been cranked out by Hollywood.

the wikipedia has an interesting discussion of the way americans (and others) romanticize the wild west. in a nutshell, they (it?) suggest there might be a few things behind this attraction, two of which are:

1. people like the simplicity of the wild west (clothes on your back, gun, horse (optional) vs. everything and everybody); things today are too complicated — it's hard to be reductionist about modern society in the same way.
2. american pop culture prefers a culture of honor to a culture of law, and the wild west was more the former than the latter (not sure if i agree with this, but it's an interesting idea).

at some point, client eastwood said,"As far as I'm concerned, Americans don't have any original art except Western movies and jazz." if you're willing to buy his idea, then it's ironic that one of the best examples of the american western was made by an italian and filmed in italy.

Posted by docrpm on 01.26.05 at 2:07 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

September 19, 2004

sky captain and the world of tomorrow

file under: movies

there's just one thing i want to say about sky captain and the world of tomorrow: wow. it's been a long time since i left the theater grinning from ear to ear, breathless from an exciting journey to another world.

my friend andrew said everything else. :-)

Posted by docrpm on 09.19.04 at 11:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 22, 2004

winged migration

file under: movies

if there is a modern antithesis to alfred hitchcock's the birds, it is winged migration, the french documentary about (you guessed it) migratory birds.

after languishing in a netflix envelope for a few weeks (months?), elaine and i finally got around to watching it. we had heard so many good things, and as avid baraka fans, we were both looking forward to a nature film.

so did it live up to our expectations?

...

yes and no.

first and foremost, it is a visual feast - the photgraphy and cinematography are simply amazing. just as wolfgang petersen's das boot really made you feel the fetid claustrophobia of a German U-boat, winged migration makes you feel the joy and silent wonder of flight. we sat there with our mouths open for the bulk of the movie; "how did they do that?"; "what the heck are those birds doing?".

the questions just kept coming as the images of various birds danced across the screen. i felt like a 4-year-old again: why? why? why? it filled me with awe and wonder and respect for these creatures that spend their lives in endless cycles of flight around the world.

a nature film that inspires wonder has probably done its job. in fact, winged migration inspired so much wonder that i finished my popcorn feeling unfulfilled; i needed a documentary cold shower, as it were - all of the visuals, none of the verbs.

an extremely minimalist voice-over narration jumps in every 10 minutes or so, with some tidbits about how far this species or that flies every year (arctic terns won at 12,000 miles a year...man, my wings get tired just thinking about it). other than that, your wonder is left to sit and spin by itself. no cool party factoids about avian biology, migration patterns, or weird mating rituals to be found here. it's just enough narration to impress upon the viewer the mysterious, instinctive world of birds, and also perhaps the cyclic nature of things.

maybe that's not such a bad thing...and maybe that's what they intended. sometimes, unanswered questions add fuel to the fire of mystery.

so how did they do that?
warning...SPOILERS.

the best thing about seeing this DVD is the extra features, specifically the featurette about the making of the film. it's nearly an hour long, and goes iinto great detail about everything they did to capture these amazing images. clearly, they knew people would be interested.

so how did they do it? special lenses? CG animation? mind control?

bzzzt.

how about this:

• breed all of the species of birds they were interested in
• raise them from chicks
• get them to imprint on biologists (i.e., so that the birds thought the biologists were their parents)
• train them to fly on command
• devise all sorts of crazy flying-filming contraptions to capture the birds once they got them in the air
• spend four years flying around the world staging shots of birds in flight in various native habitats to simulate the process of migration

i sh*t you not.

i can just see the pitch for this movie. " ok...yeah. so we're gonna hatch all of these birds and make them think we're their parents...we'll have these little horns and yellow jackets, and they'll follow us around and we can film them. it'll be amazing! trust me!"

that's exactly what they did. incredible. humane? not really sure about that. they treated the birds with tremendous care and love; of that there's no question. but isn't it a bit manipulative and self-serving? we just kept wondering, what happened to the birds after the film? did they just let them go and hope everything turned out ok?

siskel and ebert summary
1.5 thumbs up, despite some narrative and possibly ethical flaws...check it out and try not to catch flies while your mouth's open.

Posted by docrpm on 04.22.04 at 5:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 10, 2002

the conversation

file under: movies , thoughts about things

i just watched 'The Conversation,' an intriguing movie that explores issues surrounding personal privacy, responsibility, and social isolation. it's funny, but it was produced in the 70s, yet all of these themes have resonance today.

why do we value privacy? it seems like an obvious question, but after watching this film, and thinking about it a bit, the answer is anything but obvious to me. do we want privacy to conceal things that we consider embarrassing? or perhaps to conceal crimes, however minor? what about retaining a sense of individuality within mass culture, having a sense that there are certain things that belong to us as individuals, and no one else? the last seems the most promising alternative, although the others could come into play, given the right circumstances.

privacy. individuality. socially imposed morality. anonymity. somehow these issues seem tied together in a gordian knot.

it reminds me of a book that a friend loaned to me (last year, i think): 'how to be invisible' (in the societal and economical, not physical, senses). a hundred years ago, being invisible would have been easy: leave town, don't tell anyone, and try to lay low. now our fingerprints are everywhere. the digital age has given us many freedoms, a world of information at our fingertips. it has also made us visible...credit card traces, information stored in unknown databases, a wealth of statistics available to many bidders. and what about all those vidcaps of you standing at the teller machine or walking through the airport or doing XYZ? sureveillance is everywhere (i'm not being paranoid - just look for the cameras, and you'll see more than you might like...).

is this bad or good? in the liberal information age, freedom of information is often considered good. information wants to be free. but what about freedom of your information? there is a curious double standard we set up here regarding information that is considered relevant to the public (and therefore consumable), and information that is private, sacrosanct, visible only to us and those we consider trustworthy.

i dunno. maybe having a PO box wouldn't hurt after all...

Posted by docrpm on 07.10.02 at 2:49 AM | Comments (2)

July 1, 2002

waking life

file under: movies , thoughts about things

i think i just experienced a buffer overflow in my brain.

'waking life,' by Richard Linklater, was my entertainment for the evening, and unfortunately it has reduced me to incoherence. as the dvd spun, the images and thoughts and ideas kept cramming themselves into my head, like laundry into a hamper, and now i'm full.

people in Linklater films always seem so witty and energized and filled with curiosity and wonder. even the insane spew venom in an articulate way. their narratives and fantastic philosophies seem to unfold in real time like some renaissance tapestry, thrown off the loom as fast as a cheap t-shirt. no stuttering or hemming or hawing - not even an 'um' to break the existentialist train of thought. people are insightful or crazy or hysterical, all at the speed of sound. it's not always perfect, and occasionally borders on mental masturbation, but it's still a fun ride.

but it's all just a simulacrum (a dream, maybe?)...in the real deal, we don't really get to rehearse. it all just happens.

just think how different life would be if we could say, "Cut! ok...i didn't sound really coherent there. let me try again, and this time i'm gonna do it like some crazy french philosopher who's had one too many espressos. ok...ready...Rrrrroll it!"

Posted by docrpm on 07.01.02 at 11:20 PM | Comments (0)