Thursday, December 6, 2012

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow


Flying fortresses, robots, ray-guns, and dinosaurs are all showcased in the nostalgic Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Directed by Kerry Conran, his film features an ace pilot and his reporting love interest who investigate the mysterious disappearances of notable scientists. The film was created completely using green scene and features some amazing visuals, but overshadows the human element of the film.

It starts off in New York City, where Dr. Jorge Vargas (Julian Curry) seeks out the alliterative reporter, Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow). He tells her that he is being chased by a Dr. Totenkorf, who is kidnapping scientists. Before he can give her more information, the city is attacked by giant robots seeking the city's generators. A special pilot called Sky Captain (Jude Law) from the Flying Legion arrives to save the day and disarms a robot, but the horde leaves suddenly without anymore conflict.

Polly seeks out Sky Captain, also known as Joe, as they are ex-lovers. They quickly start bickering over their dysfunctional history involving a secret affair and a sabotaged plane. After they settle down, they come to the conclusion that the missing scientists and the robots are connected, and decide to work together. It becomes clear to the audience that Polly is one of those intrepid reporters that will have to be rescued in the end, so Joe is wary of having her around. Before they can gather any more real clues, the Flying Legion base is attacked by flying drones. The Flying Legion's top scientist, Dex (Giovanni Ribisi), is able to figure out where the drones came from, but gets kidnapped by the robots. He leaves Joe and Polly clues, which begins their adventure around the world.

As this was the first film to be completely filmed with a "digital backlot," I could tell that Conran wanted to movie to really stand out. The first scene, where the Hindenburg is docking at the Empire State Building, is breathtaking, and the visual POW doesn't let up throughout the whole movie. It has a cool vibe that is similar to German Expressionist films and film noir. The actors' faces always have a romantic glow to them, reminiscent of older films. Sky Captain is filled with allusions that will please sci-fi and movie geeks, which include the Fleischer Superman cartoons, The Shadow, The Wizard of Oz, and King Kong, along with designs from Norman Bel Geddes and Hugh Ferris. I'm a big fan of the 1920's, 30's, and 40's, so I enjoyed myself collecting the large gamut of references, and even if you don't know them, one can still enjoy the visual feast.

The story is a little more to be desired. It is very straight forward and simple. Clues lead to new locations, where goons always show up without real explanation, and friends intervene to save Joe and Polly. Joe and Polly easily fall into squabbling, and they easily fall out of it. It seems that Paltrow and Law could have had a better time with their characters, but I think that may be caused by a lack of good directing. I image it is hard to feel emotionally involved in a scene when there is nothing but a green around you, and the director is telling you what you see. There were times that when Paltrow and Law are running, and it looks completely insincere. This is most likely caused by the soundstage being smaller than the digitial locations. Close-ups of the actors are beautifully shot and altered, but with the long shots, there seems to be an obvious disconnect.

Sky Captain still has the capabilities to be a great movie. At times, I felt like I was six again and was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time with my mouth wide open. With the right direction, this could be a perfect adventure story. I wish the film industry would remake films with great ideas but require a little tweaking, instead of remaking films that were great to begin with. Sky Captain would be perfect for Spielberg, Jackson, Bird, or an older, more experienced Conran, but only if he gets his skills with the actors up there with his skills on the computer. Sky Captain is a must see for fans of pulp fiction and vintage sci-fi. It may have its flaws, but you can't say the filmmakers weren't trying.

Also, there is a notable cameo by Angelina Jolie as Commander Franky Cook, where she has an eye-patch, a goofy, British accent, and dialogue like "Alert the amphibious squadron!" If that sounds like something you'd want to see, rent this movie right now.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Basic Instinct

Basic Instinct was the erotic-thriller hit of 1992. Directed by the lover of guilty-pleasure movies, Paul Verhoeven, the film doesn't divert from his usual repertoire: shallow, pun-filled dialogue and hyper-sexual, hyper-violent scenes. The film is fun and held my attention, but I ended up thinking that this was one curious case that I could erase from my memory.

It stars Michael Douglas as L.A. Detective Nick Carran, who has a notorious trigger finger caused by cocaine and alcohol abuse. How he still on the police force is beyond me, but Nick is sent to investigate the murder of a rock-and-roll star that was killed by an ice pick while having sex. The police interrogates the last person to see the deceased musician, his girlfriend, the seductive Catherine Tramell, famously played by blond-bombshell Sharon Stone. Tramell is a psychologist and crime novelist who published a book about a rock-and-roll star who is murdered in bed with an ice pick.

That's when the movie takes us to the absurd, as if it wasn't already there. The police don't classify Tramell as the number one suspect because, as she puts it, "I'd have to be pretty stupid to write a book about killing and then kill him the way I described in my book. I'd be announcing myself as the killer. I'm not stupid." Ugh. So, the detectives ultimately decide that the killer is actually someone obsessed with Tramell. Nick is sent to investigate Tramell for clues, and she begins a game of cat and mouse. She declares that he is her new pet project because she's writing a book about a detective who falls in love with the wrong woman and ends up murdered (cue the dramatic music). So, of course, Nick falls for her while trying to treat her like a murder suspect, but his defenses crumble in her hands.

I won't give too much away about the plot, because this is a mystery film that does keep you guessing the whole time, as long as you haven't seen too many crime films. Writer Joe Eszterhas uses many of the genre's tropes and lays out the clues that are easy to find, if you know how to find them. The film is reminiscent of noir stories like Double Indemnity, but while those films featured grey versus gray conflicts of morality, Basic Instinct is a black versus blacker narrative. Nick is amoral cop who clearly cares only about himself and seems to have a death wish, which he gets to satisfy by canoodling with Tramell. She obviously has an unhealthy lifestyle and aspirations, whether she's the killer or not.

The message of the story is truly uninspiring, too. The film preaches that the best sex is violent sex. The sex between Nick and Tramell has an underlying sense of danger because of the possible ice pick that might impale him. Nick describes the sex as the "f*ck of the century," perpetuating a sexual ideal that I think is too evident in our society. There is even a scene featuring a date rape that results in no negative consequences to the rapist, and the raped ultimately shrugs off the incident.

Also, the film is highly homophobic. Tramell is bisexual and is in a lesbian relationship, which makes her girlfriend a suspect. And the fact that Tramell is in this relationship makes her more dangerous, and there is a lurking sense that the film is a conflict between straight men and lesbians. Nick has a discussion with Tramell's girlfriend that concludes with her feeling inadequate, and Nick is seen as the main lover for Tramell. There is another female character that is revealed to have had a lesbian affair in the past, and this past affair also puts her on the suspect list. While Nick and the other heterosexual men in the film aren't widely depicted as being noble citizens, the image of the dangerous, sexual lesbian is a recurring typecast in movie history. (I suggest viewing The Celluloid Closet for further discussion on the history of gay and lesbian representation in cinema.)

Not as socially dangerous as the themes of the film, but still hurtful, is the acting. I've never understood Michael Douglas' appeal, and the film made these feelings even worse. His face is so wooden and cold, but not in a cool, stoic fashion like Clint Eastwood, but more like there isn't much thinking going on behind those furrowed brows. His line reading during the more romantic scenes are truly dull. Stone puts all of her effort into it, and I can tell she is really having fun with her role. Tramell is calculating and manipulative while holding a smile on her face. She did the best she could with the character, which has become a culture icon, thanks to the humorous, vagina-exposing interrogation scene. Tramell is what I classify as scenic emotional character, meaning that the character only displays one emotion throughout the scene. She's sly, sad, surprised, happy, slutty, etc., but only one emotion at a time, which makes for flat characterization.

Basic Instinct does satisfy my presumptions about the film. I expected steamy suspense, but I didn't realized that it was going to be a camp-filled, bloody, sex romp. I should have known better, since this is from the same filmmaker of Showgirls and Starship Trooper, but Basic Instinct takes itself more serious than Verhoeven's other works, and that may be the film's greatest fault.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Cloud Atlas


Cloud Atlas is a film about epic love that transcends time and space, and this love motivates the future and creates webs toward freedom. Directed by siblings Lana and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer, the film presents six stories with little to no relationship. These stories are edited in a back and forth manner that may be frustrating for most audience members, but the film can a real treat for the daring viewer who doesn't mind doing some of the work.

The six stories all take place in various times and locations around the world. The first one takes place in the Pacific Ocean in 1849, in which Adam Ewing (Jim Sturgess) is heading back to California following a business trip and helps a stowaway slave (David Gyasi) find freedom. Then, in 1936's Great Britain, Robert Frobisher (Ben Whishaw) becomes an amanuensis to an aging composer (Jim Broadbent), but Frobisher's bisexuality and notorious past may get in the way of their professional relationship. Fast forward to San Francisco, 1973, where journalist Luisa Rey (Halle Berry) discovers a plot to cause a disaster regarding the city's new nuclear reactor, but further investigation may cost her life. Then, in present day England, book publisher Timothy Cavendish (also Jim Broadbent) gets tricked by his brother into staying in a prison-like nursing home. Further in the future, in Neo-Seoul, 2144, Sonmi-451 (Donna Bae) is a cloned waitress, who escapes her captors to become a revolutionary leader. The last story takes place in Hawaii, 106 years after "the Fall" of civilization, where primitive tribesman Zachry (Tom Hanks) helps technologically advanced Meronym (also Halle Berry) send a message to outer space.

It is clear that this is an eclectic and peculiar combination of narratives. The stories and genres they represent aren't overly inventive. The Luisa Rey story is a straight up journalistic thriller, and the Neo-Seoul scenes practically borrows the mise-en-scène from every futuristic sci-fi movie in the last 20 years. Cavendish's ordeal's is a light-hearted escape narrative reminiscent of films like The Great Escape (or more appropriately, Chicken Run). None of these films are genre redefining, but what makes them engaging are the thematic and dramatic connections that are interlaced in the stories.

It's at these moments that the film makes its most dramatic punches. There are some beautiful and poetic montages that link the stories together, and it's through these moments that make the film watchable. I found myself pretty quickly losing interest in making concrete connections and started watching the movie like I was reading a poem. I looked for repeating words and themes, and that may be the best way to approach a film this big.

Let me tell you, this is a big film. Not only is it a daunting 172 minutes, but the worlds created felt real and fully conceptualized. The city of Neo-Seoul is expansive, menacing, and futuristic, while the filmmakers' San Francisco looks straight out of the '70's, albeit an exaggerated version of it. Because each location and era is so distinct, the transitions weren't as jarring as I thought they would be. I had a good footing with every transition. The filmmakers had a rough task to make the film seem fundamentally coherent, and they were effective in doing so.

Because of the directorial collaboration, they were able to get a large, star-studded cast, and they got their use out of them. Each actor performs a different character in almost every story line, regardless of race or gender, with the help of make-up. It's pretty unnecessary, and at times, detracting . Hugo Weaving portrays a deadly assassin during the Luisa Rey story line, and then plays a brutal, female nurse in the modern day story. There are some really great performances that come out of the movie, particularly from Whishaw, Broadbent, and Bae. The film's most prominent stars are Halle Berry and Tom Hanks, as they show up in every story line. Berry does a good job with her performances, but Hanks is utterly annoying in the film. He works too hard with every role, creating distracting accents for each one.There was a particular moment in the film when Hanks' overacting and his awful make-up made the audience chuckle. The only time his acting made sense was during his main story line when he portrayed Zachry, but the problem with that story line is that everyone talks in a new slang and it's almost impossible to tell what anyone is saying.

I don't think I've seen an audience so divided in a film. I watched numerous couples leaving the theater within the first 45 minutes, while at times I heard people clap and cheer at various points. I found myself not once being bored with the film. The film works at a brisk pace, and when one story reaches its climax and begins to fall, it shifts to another story. All this shifting can drive a viewer crazy. I found myself getting frustrated because I was getting into one story, then I was being transported to another. Still, the film can be admired for its grand aspirations. While the Wachowski siblings and Tykwer are both remembered because of one film, they are noticeable for their risk taking, even if the results aren't always on the mark, like with Cloud Atlas. If you're a fan of The Tree of Life or The Fountain, then I think Cloud Atlas is something worth checking out (although, I feel like the end quality is more on par with the latter and not the former). If you're unfamiliar with either film, then I would just cautiously recommend the film. It is more than amazing when it hits the mark, but also crashes and burns more than it falls flat. Yet, I see Cloud Atlas as a film that will be widely studied and dissected in classrooms in the years to come.


Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Werckmeister Harmonies

Werckmeister Harmonies, directed by Béla Tarr and Ágnes Hranitsky, is a pallid drama set in the Hungarian plains. The directing duo presents to us a bitterly cold and dry village that is on edge due to the emergence of a grotesque and supernatural circus coming through town. We view this sense of dread through the eyes of the main character, János (Lars Randolph).

János is the town's paper deliverer and caretaker for the town's most acclaimed citizen, a music theorist. János is dewy-eyed and fascinated with how the world works and contains a spiritual wonderment. He keeps an astronomical poster by his bed, and in the first scene, he lectures the drunks at the bar about the rotation of the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun.

Every scene features János, and rarely does the camera linger far away from him. The audience gets a good sense of his curiosity when the citizens start ranting about a traveling circus that features a giant stuffed whale and the shadowy Prince, a demagogue who is rumored to possess magnetic powers that can rip trees out of the ground. The citizens take extra measures to safeguard their houses, but János is excited by all the commotion. 

Randolph holds the weight of the film well. This isn't a character piece, with the pictures and the emotions they create being the true main character of the film, but Randolph gets the message across with his subtle aura of wisdom, loneliness and reflection. János is built up so that if anyone could make sense of the current events, it would be him.

When the circus arrives, it enters in a ridged, pieced together metal box. János is the not only the first in line to see the rotting whale, but the only one in line. János acclaims that the whale is the event of the century, but no one in the village will listen to his glowing review, for they fear what will happen when the Prince shows up and gives a speech to the growing audience. Many men from different parts of the country have gathered around the box to listen to the Prince, and when he gives his rabble-rousing speech, everything will change. 

The increasing anxiety is created masterly by the directors' decision to compose the film with only 39 tracking shots. With the film being 145 minutes long, that is an incredibly small number of shots. To put it in perspective, film editor and sound designer Walter Murch stated that the standard movie contains an average of 5,000 cuts. The film's long and expertly choreographed shots allow the viewer to remain, unbroken, in the scene. The movement of the camera flows so smoothly that you don't notice that a there hasn't been a cut in the last five minutes. It's like watching a film without really blinking.

This realist approach to the film's sparse editing highlights the images that the Tarr, Hranitsky and cinematographer Patrick de Ranter have created. The air looks thin and frigid, like it will crack the skin of your hands. There is no warmth in the sunlight, and at nighttime, even the shadows have shadows. And when the chaos comes, you can feel the energy irrupt, but that, too, is cold. There is a sense that the town was in dire conditions even before the commotion with the circus.

The film takes its time to get to the action, and much of it takes place off-screen. Also, the ending may be a bit of a letdown for some, but Werchmeister Harmonies is a meditative, strange, and demanding look at how quickly widespread manipulation can sprout when the soil is right.



Monday, September 24, 2012

Opening Credits

"...they were shadows of the past that transported me to locations untouched by my fingers and mind."

"Having a critic praise you is like having a hangman say you've got a pretty neck."
-Eli Wallach

Movie promoters pepper their trailers with snippets from critics that praise the film. Every film seems to be the "best movie of the year" or the "funniest, saddest, scariest, most powerful thing I've seen," but does that really affect your choices in movies? Most likely, you're in the same boat as me and don't pay attention to the words that fly on the screen. So, why do we care what these "hot shots" have to say? What is the point of critics, period? Are they suppose to be our society's taste makers? I don't think so, because, if that was the case, I would be no better than Ratatouille's Anton Ego. As a critic, I see myself as someone who is a fan of the cinema, a student who knows a thing or two about movies, and someone trying to start a conversation about the phenomena that is film.

Movies have always resonated with me considerably since I was very young. I was a child that respected sleep and the bedtime, but I remember begging my parents to allow me to stay up past my bedtime so I could watch the Oscars, except in 1997, when Titanic was winning every award possible. Even at the ripe age of eleven, I asked myself, "what's the big deal?" The things I loved about the Oscars was that it was one grand night that people got together and conversed about their favorite movies they saw that year and reminisced about films from the past. The montages of past award winners were a favorite of mine. Movies from different eras and countries flashed on our tiny T.V. screen, and I said to myself, "I want to see all of those movies." Movies weren't just entertainment to me; they were shadows of the past that transported me to locations untouched by my fingers and mind.

I'm currently studying media and culture at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida after a couple of years of being uninspired. After high school, I was a nursing student in Nebraska. After learning that the medical field is a pursuit that requires 100% commitment, which I did not have, I found myself out of college and working at a bank. In my spare time, I would visit the Mary Riepma Ross Media Arts Center (aka, The Ross) in Lincoln, Nebraska with my good friend and fellow filmophile, Justin Senkbile. On Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the University of Lincoln film studies class would show films at the Ross for their students, but everyone was welcomed. It was the first time I saw movies at the theater that weren't blockbusters or new releases. I discovered Public Enemy (1931), Hold Your Man (1933), and The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), which was the film that rattled my bones and changed the way I viewed films all together. It was those nights that made me realize that I didn't just want to be a fan of movies, I wanted to be sucked into them.

So, I have a couple of years of film and media studies under my belt, and now I'm following my passion to do critical writing. That is the point of this blog; it is the new chapter for my written voice. I want your help, dear reader. I want to know if you're interested in what I have to say, even if our opinions match or not. Do you agree with me that Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer movies stink, or do you disagree; but either way, did you want to and continue to read the whole article? To be crass, opinions are like buttholes; everyone has one. I want my role as a critic to showcase ways that cinema works or doesn't work for me, with the films being my examples.  I'm trying to enter in the discourse of film, art, culture, and everything else that wraps around the cinema. That's all I care about. Are my opinions clear and my judgments justifiable? Let me know! Help me walk this tightrope that is critical writing, and I'll have a lot more fun.

-Jonas A. McCaffery