Weekly Watch

     Welcome to a new weekly segment, Weekly Watch! As requested by one of my good friends, I'll use this space to post a weekly update on all the films I've seen over the week, giving a little information about the film, such as a summary, who's in it, where you can see it for yourself, and all that fun stuff. He asked for ratings to be included, but I'm really not one to assign an arbitrary number or an amount of stars to a movie. It feels superficial to me, so I'll simply give my opinion on the movie in question. I'll start by listing the movies I watched on Sunday, and move to Monday, then Tuesday.. You get the picture. Also, due to the sheer number of films I watch per week (which often is 10+), I have decided that I will only write about movies that are completely new to me.

     I'll do my best to throw one of these posts up every weekend (gotta be reliable, you know). And of course, feel free to give your thoughts and comments below! So let's begin!

----------

JANUARY 8-14

A Trip to the Moon (1902)

Directed by Georges Melies 

     

     The world's very first science-fiction film! A scientist (played by the director, the famous Georges Melies) convinces a group of fellow astronomers to go to the moon. Upon arriving, they discover that the rocky surface holds a secret. Watching it today is certainly an interesting experience. Although obviously primitive, A Trip to the Moon contains special effects that were mind-blowing at the time, and many of them led to innovations and revolutions in the science of editing. However, as interesting and educational the film is, watching it nowadays could be considered a chore for some people. It wasn't for me, but I can see how many would be turned off by its turn-of-the-century styles. Thankfully, its short 14 minute running time make it easy to sit through and appreciate. For interested parties, the film can be found online (Youtube, for example). 

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

     A young woman makes friends with a nice old lady while on a train. After she wakes up from a nap, she discovers that the old lady has up and disappeared. Making matters weirder is the fact that no one on the train even acknowledges that the woman even existed! Hitchcock weaves a tale of mystery and romance interspersed with bits of truly humorous comedy, and the leads (Margaret Lockwood and Michael Redgrave) deliver wonderful performances, making The Lady Vanishes a very enjoyable watch. At times romantic, suspenseful, and even action-packed, this one is highly recommended! [Available on Netflix Instant, as well as BD/DVD]

Another Earth (2011)

Directed by Mike Cahill

     We go from 30s era Hitchcock to more modern fare. Rhoda is a smart young woman who's got a bright future. After being accepted into a prestigious college, she celebrates at a party and gets hammered. While driving home, she does something unforgivable. Another Earth is a story of forgiveness (and even forgiving yourself), searching for redemption, and the nature of love. The titular second Earth that looms in the sky is a constant reminder of the choices you make in life, because maybe there's another you up there, and have they made the same mistakes you did? The doppelganger theme is present throughout the whole thing, and the movie packs one hell of an ending. Brit Marling, who co-wrote the film, turns in an incredible performance as Rhoda, and she has good chemistry with the distraught widower John, played by William Mapother. For those intrigued by the sci-fi angle of the picture, be warned that it's merely used as a springboard for the narrative. Thankfully, the narrative works very well. [Available on BD/DVD]

Face/Off (1997)

Directed by John Woo

     John Travolta and Nic Cage play both heroes and villains, trading places in this action-packed thrill ride. Explosions, car chases, firefights, Nic Cage being crazy, and John Woo's signature doves in slow motion make this a fun little movie. Come for the set pieces, stay for the joy that is seeing Travolta play a bad guy and Cage being Cage. Not much else can be said about this one. [Available on BD/DVD]

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

Directed by Brad Furman

     A typical run-of-the-mill courtroom movie, staring Matthew McConaughey. Since I love courtroom movies and can tolerate McConaughey, this movie seems like it was made for me. Matt plays a defense attorney, who has no problem with getting a guilty person  off the hook as long as he gets paid. But when he takes on the case of a rich kid with a controlling mother, he starts to have a change of heart. This is the second time McConaughey has portrayed a lawyer (the first in A Time to Kill, which I'm going to watch in a few days), and he seems to fit the role perfectly. The Lincoln Lawyer does nothing to differentiate itself from other courtroom dramas, and even the titular Lincoln town car adds nothing to the overall story. But it's perfectly serviceable, ad McConaughey is fun to watch, so it's a decent way to spend two hours. [Available on BD/DVD]

The Game (1997)

Directed by David Fincher

     What do you get a man who can get anything? Michael Douglas plays a very successful business man who is detached from everything. He finds no meaning in anything, and is possibly depressed. On his birthday, he goes to dinner with his brother (played by Sean Penn), who has gotten him an invitation to Consumer Recreational Services, a company that creates personalized "games" for their clients. Once the game begins, reality begins to spin out of control and nothing is as it seems. This film keeps you guessing until the very end, and throws multiple mind-blowing twists at you throughout its 129 minute running time. That time seems to fly by, thanks largely to the excellent pacing. This movie is dripping with tension and atmosphere, and Douglas and Penn deliver decent performances. You could do worse than The Game. [Available on Netflix Instant and BD/DVD]

Battle Royale (2000)

Directed by Kinji Fukasaku

     Here's the setup: For some reason, the Japanese government decide that these darn kids need to get off their lawn. Or something. So they enact a law that says that every year, one randomly selected class of high school kids will be transported to an island against their will to fight to the death. Forty-two go in, one comes out. It's a concept that sounds remarkably similar to The Hunger Games, a book series that I recently finished. I'm looking forward to the upcoming movie adaption, so I checked out Battle Royale out of simple curiosity. This is a decision I regret. It's a fine film in its own right, no doubt. I just couldn't handle seeing all those innocent kids (some more innocent than others for sure) meeting such gruesome, graphic ends. That's all I really have to say about it. This is a well-loved film, and most people I've spoke to about it didn't have the same emotional reaction to the violence as I did, so YMMV. [Available on DVD]

North By Northwest (1959)

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock 

PICK OF THE WEEK

     A simple case of mistaken identity sends a man careening on a 2,000 mile journey across the country fleeing for his survival. Cary Grant plays an ad agent who is mistaken for a spy and, through a series of unfortunate events, gets on the top of the nation's most wanted list. On his trip that spans from the United Nations building in NYC to the top of Mount Rushmore, Grant must deal with malicious gangsters, the police, the government, a double-crossing female agent, and even a crop-dusting plane hellbent on running him down.   Hitchcock's famous mastery of everything that is cinema is fully present here. Combined with the stellar performances from Cary Grant, who is incredibly charming and likable, and Eva Marie Saint as Eve Kendall, this makes North By Northwest a must-see film, for cinephiles and casual movie-goers alike. [Available on BD/DVD]

----------

     So that's it for the first installment of Weekly Watch. Thoughts? Comments? Think my opinions suck? Let me know in the comments section! See you next week fellow movie lovers!

     It's been quite a long time since Trick of Light Reviews has been updated. For a while there, I always meant to write up a new review for the films I had seen, but slowly I stopped thinking about it, and soon it was a thought that didn't occur to me anymore. It's not so much that I didn't want to write reviews that got me to stop; no, it was more that I well and truly have next to no idea of what I'm talking about, at least when it comes to cinema.

     I feel like I know more about film than the average moviegoer. I at least have that. But my knowledge really only boils down to actors and directors. I'm ignorant when it comes to film theory, or narrative structure, or any of the real nitty-gritty that makes a film. I almost feel like when I watch a film, I look to other people to tell me if it was good or bad, and then I take those opinions and spout them as my own. I do not want to do this.

     My only other basis as to whether a film was good or bad is my own personal taste - "Did I like this movie?" or perhaps "How did this movie make me feel?". If the answers to those questions are positive, then it was a "good" movie, and negative answers make it a "bad" one. I'm not saying these purely subjective, personal feelings and opinions don't have weight to them. They're certainly not meaningless. If they were, there would be no joy in watching films at all, and we as cinephiles would have to find something else to spend our lives doing. But these emotional responses seem to just scratch the surface of a film. I want to know how the film made me feel the way that it did. I want to know why the director made this decision or that decision or did things this certain way. I want to be able to look at films like Citizen Kane and understand why they're held as the most highly regarded works of all time and why Transformers is garbage summer fluff. I want to have a deeper understanding and knowledge of cinema.

     I have no aspirations of being a filmmaker. I merely want to learn about what film is all about. The obvious answer would be to seek out a film studies or film theory course, but that isn't an option right now. I'd love to be able to take a course like that, and perhaps I will in the future. For right now I think I'm going to seek out some books on the subject and see what I can learn. I guess that's a logical place to start.

     There's an endless world of movies out there. I just want to be equipped with the proper tools to explore it.

Shaken, Not Stirred - A 007 Double Feature

Casino Royale

This movie was certainly a long time coming. The film rights for Ian Fleming’s first 007 novel, Casino Royale, had been tied up for nearly fifty years due to complicated legal finagling, and as a result, a true adaption had never been made. Thankfully, the legal mess has been all sorted out, and in 2006 we were given the Bond film fans had wanted since the beginning of the franchise.

Casino Royale was a huge change of pace for the series. The film gave us a new actor in Daniel Craig, who plays a younger, inexperienced, egotistical, emotional Bond.  It eschews the standard 007 fare of fancy high tech gadgetry, outlandish villains, and outrageous stunts and goes with a much more realistic approach. The gadgets that are there and grounded in real-life, the bad guy isn’t merely a caricature of a cartoonish mustache-twirling villain, and the stunts are a bit less silly this time around. That isn’t to say that the stunts aren’t still incredible or are in short supply, however. The movie opens with an extraordinary foot chase through an active construction site that involves Bond and a bomb-making parkour expert jumping from crane to crane at 200 feet in the air. The action is high-intensity and extremely well done, and it’s lavishly sprinkled into the film at exactly the right moments. But as good as the action is (and it really is oh so good), the scenes that feature it are easily surpassed by the rest of the movie. Casino Royale does an excellent job of ratcheting up the tension and keeping there, especially during the poker game that comprises most of the film’s second act. And even that says nothing of the well-developed romance between Bond and Vesper. Casino Royale is a masterpiece; a glorious example of how to do a spy movie the right way. Every piece, from the acting to the action to the script (which is simply phenomenal), fits together to form a wonderful whole.  It is a resounding success in every sense of the word.

I won’t pretend to be an expert on 007, but Casino Royale is by far the best Bond film I’ve seen, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t the best film in the franchise to date. It is so well-done that to top it would be an amazing feat indeed. No doubt they tried to. And that leads me into…

Quantum of Solace

The 2008 sequel to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, picks up almost immediately after the ending of the former. As far as I know, it is the only direct sequel to a previous film in the entire James Bond franchise. With a new director at the helm, but featuring the same writer and cast as the first movie, QoS was poised to be an even bigger hit than its predecessor.

First of all, however, there are a few things you need to know about this movie: Because it is a direct sequel, Casino Royale is absolutely 100% required viewing before going into this one. The plot between the two films is dense and complicated, and requires your full attention to refrain from giving up all hope and just watching the pretty explosions. And that would be a shame, because the story really is quite good. Secondly, Quantum of Solace is a much darker film than Casino Royale, and Casino was already a bit depressing. QoS is the violent, bloody, inevitable outcome of CR. James Bond is out for revenge, and it doesn’t matter who or what gets in his way.

Because of 007’s renegade behavior, and the fact that everyone who comes in contact with him ends up dead, M (played again by the wonderful Judi Dench) puts out an order to track Bond down and bring him in at any cost. This makes for a few very interesting scenarios of cat and mouse, as well as some great interactions between Bond and M. Dynamics like this, along with other character relations, are what make QoS interesting, as the basic plot is a bit on the weak side. Which is a shame, because the overarching arc between both movies really is quite good. Make no mistake though, Qauntum is an action movie through and through.

Director Marc Forster wastes no time jumping right into the action with a fantastic car chase as soon as the lights go down. This is followed by a foot chase a few minutes later. In fact, Forster seems to really, really like chases, as Quantum of Solace features not one, not two, but four chase scenes of one type or another. The movie is like a 100 minute game of tag. I kid, but no seriously there are a lot of chases. There is a lot of action in general, but sadly, Forster opted to go with a more Bourne style of action, featuring lots and lots of shaky cam and tons of lightning-fast quick cuts, making it nearly impossible to tell what’s going on in certain scenes (the aforementioned foot chase is the biggest offender here). When the action works, it works, in the heart-racing, adrenaline-fueled, fist-pumping “HELL YEAH!” kind of way. But when it doesn’t work, it’s riddled with shaky-cam, poor editing and occasionally poor, incredibly obvious CG work (most of the stunts in both movies were done practically, so seeing the CG stunts is a bit jarring and takes you out of the moment). Thankfully, the good times outweigh the bad, making QoS a solid thrill ride front start to finish.

It’s often said that revenge is best served cold. However, Quantum of Solace is like the yummy, sugary dessert to Casino Royale’s meaty main course, and is best viewed immediately after the first movie. Both are great films, and even if you’re only a casual 007 fan like myself, they are well worth your time. I’m already dreaming about the next Bond movie, which should hit in November of next year. Indeed, “James Bond will return.” And you can bet I’ll be there day one.

I Love You Phillip Morris

“This really happened. It really did.”

            The disclaimer flashes on the screen seconds before the opening of the movie. I ponder it for a second, and then shrug it off. So I guess it’s a true story then? I’ve gone into this film nearly blind, knowing nothing save for the fact that Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor play homosexual lovers. Little did I know that I was in for one of the most incredible, hilarious, tender, romantic, and genuine films I’ve seen in quite a while.

            Steven Russell (played by Jim Carrey, in one of his most interesting roles since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) is a con artist. He is also gay. While serving his first term in jail, he meets Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor) and immediately falls in love. The problem is, Phillip is transferred to another jail the next day. Their relationship blossoms through a series of smuggled love letters until Steven is able to con his way into getting transferred to Phillip’s jail. After finding a way out of prison, Steven impersonates a lawyer and gets Phillip out too, and the two start their life together. From that point on, it’s a tale of love, lies, and lots and lots of prison breaks, including one particular escape that must simply be seen to be believed. The most incredible part of this fantastic story is that the whole thing is entirely true. It actually happened.

            In telling Steven Russell’s story, the film performs a balancing act between being playfully humorous and surprisingly dark and serious. Its tone is light-hearted, and most scenes are truly funny, but occasionally you’ll see the dark side that is brought out into the open by Steven’s falsehoods and lies. Steven is a troubled man, ultimately realizing that he truly has nothing to hold onto but Phillip. It is both for and because of Phillip Morris that Steven does all the things that he does.

It is a very complex relationship, and it wouldn’t have worked were it not for the strength of the actors involved. Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor play their roles incredibly well and they deliver a pair of superb performances. For being two heterosexuals, the two develop an incredible chemistry during the course of the movie. Their relationship feels real. An impressive feat, no doubt.

The entire film is an impressive feat. Directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa manage to make the extraordinary romp of a plot and the truly convincing love story mesh into an incredible whole. I Love You Phillip Morris is a resounding success. As long as you’re able to handle the sight of two men kissing, this underrated film can’t be missed.

You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...

Ang Lee’s Hulk

            Disappointment. A complete failure. Just plain bad. These were the thoughts everyone had when they first saw Ang Lee’s Hulk in 2003. They went in expecting two hours of HULKSMASH, but what they got was a slow and deliberate character study of a cursed man. Sure, there was some action, but you had to slog through almost an hour and half of not action to get to it, an unforgiveable sin the eyes of the general public and critics alike. The reception was so poor that just five years later, the Hulk franchise was rebooted with The Incredible Hulk, an action packed re-do that righted all of Mr. Lee’s “wrongs.” But was it really that bad?

           Most superhero movies follow a well-established path – the hero gains their powers, learns to use them, and eventually has a climatic final battle with their arch-enemy for all the marbles. Hulk eschews that almost entirely. In fact, Hulk can barely be called a superhero movie at all, for the protagonist is anything but a superhero. Bruce Banner is a man struggling to contain a monster inside of him. Superheroes save other people, while Banner is merely trying to save himself - running from the military who wants to destroy him and/or use his body for research; running from his demented father who doomed him from the very moment he was born; running from the monstrous version of himself that he can’t even begin to control.

            Control is one thing Banner certainly doesn’t have. The movie may be slow and methodical during the first half, but right around the halfway point it opens up the throttle and becomes a fast-paced action extravaganza. Whenever Banner loses what little control he has, he transforms into the titular green giant and proceeds to destroy anything and everything in sight in an impressive showing of unstoppable power. For a movie that is almost eight years old, the CGI in Hulk really stands up to the test of time (unlike other movies from that era). The Hulk looks fantastic, and all the action is well-shot. Say what you will about the rest of the movie, but the special effects, the cinematography, and the overall visual style is simply top-notch.

            Of course, the movie isn’t perfect by any means. For starters, one simply has to mention the “comic book” style of editing Ang Lee opted for. He tried to ape the paneled nature of comics and insert that into the film. The result is a lot of transitions that feel better suited to a really bad ninth grade Power Point presentation. They are simply awful, and do not fit this film’s tone at all. Secondly, the acting must be brought to attention: specifically, how terribly mediocre it is, even crossing into straight-up bad territory with some characters. Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly deliver merely acceptable performances as the leads. Sam Elliot is, sadly, just not that good here, and neither is Josh Lucas. Thankfully, Nick Nolte as David Banner elevates things just a bit by not being awful.

            Hulk does have its flaws, no doubt about that. The ridiculous editing, the bad acting, the dialogue that’s hit-or-miss. And yes, sometimes it does feel like the movie drags along a little too slowly. But if you actually see it for what it is, rather than the mindless summer blockbuster most wanted it to be, I think you’ll find a worthwhile film that truly does not disappoint. Ang Lee’s Hulk truly deserves a second look.

The Incredible Hulk

            Ang Lee’s effort failed. His brooding epic was reviled by just about everybody, and still to this day people look back on it with disdain. However, the studio couldn’t let a franchise like this just die, so they went and made a new one. 2008’s The Incredible Hulk features a metric ton of HULKSMASH, and obviously that’s what the people wanted. But is it really “new and improved”?

            This series reboot is almost a sequel, except it would rather pretend the first film didn’t exist. The Hulk’s origin story is shown in the opening credits, and then it’s off to Brazil to meet up with Bruce Banner. Banner’s been hiding out from the US government, and in the meantime has been trying to find a cure for his “condition.” Through an unfortunate series of events, the military finds him, and from then on it’s a game of cat and mouse between Banner and General Ross, who wishes to dissect the poor guy. The plot is really only there to get us to the HULKSMASH, funneling everything to a climatic showdown with The Abomination. The action, which I’ll get to in a moment, is all well and good, but sadly the plot is practically not there. It ends exactly where it began, having changed exactly nothing. It is barebones storytelling, which is disappointing. The people wanted less brooding Banner and more raging Hulk, and that’s certainly what they got.

            Since the plot is thin and disappointing, you really can just turn off your brain and wait for Ed Norton to Hulk Out. The action is plentiful and visceral, with plenty of cars, statues, forklifts, shipping containers, and other various objects being tossed around like beach balls. Everything and anything in the Hulk’s way gets smashed, beaten, ripped, torn, tossed, thrown, and used as a bludgeon. At one point a police car is picked up, torn in half, and used a boxing gloves. People aren’t immune to the rage, either. At one point a man stands up to the Hulk only to get kicked in the face and sent rocketing through a tree. It’s fantastic stuff. The final battle between the Hulk and the Abomination really has to be seen. I didn’t ever want it to end. The action is just awesome, simple as that. But it wouldn’t be anywhere without the wonderful effects work.

            The Incredible Hulk boasts great stunt work and marvelous CGI. Using a precursor to Avatar’s facial expression motion capture, Edward Norton’s facial movements are transposed onto the Hulk, giving the green monster a humanlike feel. This combined with his more “realistic” design compared to Ang Lee’s Hulk, makes for a much more believable character. The sound is also top-notch. Every boom and every impact rattles the walls, and even the Hulk’s thunderous breathing roars out of the subwoofer. If you want to show off your fancy new surround sound system, the film is certainly a good example of bass. I certainly enjoyed watching the movie with my system cranked, that’s for sure.

            On the acting front, this reboot fares a fair bit better than its predecessor. Edward Norton is undeniably a better Banner than Eric Bana, and that’s probably because the Oscar nominee is simply a much better actor. It’s a shame the plot is as thin as it is, because Norton really gave it his all here. Liv Tyler is arguably better than Jennifer Connelly as Betty, and the rest of the cast follows suit. The 2008 film clearly trumps the 2003 effort when it comes to acting.

            So, which movie is better? Hulk is clearly more thoughtful, had a much better plot, and was a much more daring take on the series, but is trumped in nearly every other way by the new film. Acting, action, effects, the lack of the terrible comic book editing, as well as simply being more entertaining. Both movies clearly have their strengths, as well as their own faults, but I think whenever I’m in the mood for some HULKSMASH, I’ll reach for The Incredible Hulk nine times out of ten. Ang Lee’s movie is a commendable effort, but the action-packed do-over is just more watchable. If you’re a fan of the Hulk, then get both, but for the casual everyday movie watcher, The Incredible Hulk is the way to go.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

             If you took this movie and removed the entire plot, all of the dialogue, and most of the scenes, it might be ok. That might be a little dramatic, but in all honesty, Legend of the Guardians works better as a screensaver than an actual film. Zack Snyder’s crazy owl flick is the prime example of how visuals alone, even breathtakingly gorgeous ones, cannot carry a movie.

            The story follows a young owl, Soren (voiced by Jim Sturgess) and his brother Kludd. The two are kidnapped and recruited into an evil owl army, “The Pure Ones.” Soren escapes and along with a rag tag bunch of friends goes in search of The Guardians of legend, while Kludd stays behind and is brainwashed by the Nazis I mean The Pure Ones. If the plot did not center around owls, the story still wouldn’t be anything special, but at least it wouldn’t be completely ridiculous. My disbelief can only be suspended so high, and when two armies of owls armed with sharpened metal claws and highly decorated armor clash in Snyder’s patented super slow-mo, or even worse, when said owl armies are divided up into classes, such as scout, navigator, and blacksmith, there is going to be some facepalming. A lot of facepalming. The story tries so very hard to be serious fantasy, but the only thing it succeeds at is in failing spectacularly.

            If the plot was the ugly, ruined half of Harvey Dent’s face, the technical stuff would be the good half. For every wrong the story commits, there is a right in the ways of sound, visuals, and voice acting. Bar none, this movie has the best CGI animation I have ever seen. Some of the scenes are simply astounding in how beautiful they are. It is truly a sight to behold. Coupled with a very strong cast of voice actors that includes the aforementioned Jim Sturgess along with the likes of Hugo Weaving, Geoffrey Rush, and Helen Mirren, the technical part of this film is incredible. Almost perfect.

            Such marvelous work cannot come cheap, and it puzzles me greatly why anyone would spend all the time, effort, and money to produce such an awesome framework for a script that is bloody awful. The horrendous plot and the laughable dialogue sadly mar a masterful work of art. I have a hard time recommending this movie, but if you’ve got a brand new home theater set-up and you’re looking for a movie to show it off, you could do worse than Legend of the Guardians. Just try and not expect too much out of it aside from the pretty colors. 

Quick Hits Review: Slumdog Millionaire

A young man, an orphan who grew up in the slums of Mumbai, makes it onto the Indian version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” and against all odds, reaches the final question. After the show breaks for the night, Jamal is arrested and tortured under suspicion that he has been cheating. While being interrogated, he tells his life story; he talks about being a little kid in the slums, losing his mother to religious violence, escaping from a child slavery ring, and meeting the love of his life. Every answer to every question is expertly weaved into the story, giving you nice “ohh, that’s how he knew that!” moments. The plot is well-told, well-acted, and engaging. The movie delivers a roller coaster of emotions, from fear and sadness to love and triumph, and it does it with style.

             

            Speaking of style, the Best Picture winner of 2008 oozes with it. Everything has a Danny Boyle feel to it. Say what you will about Boyle, but he does two things very well: he can make many different kinds of movies, and he does them all with his own trademark style. From the visual effects to the soundtrack to the very way the film is edited, this is a Danny Boyle film through and through. If you’re a Danny Boyle fan, Slumdog Millionaire cannot be missed. If for nothing else, watch it for the silly dance number in the train station during the credits.