The Fall

The Fall

See it. I urge you all.This is one of those rare visual jewels of a movie that boils down to simple story telling. Roy Walker A stunt double for the early flickers of 1915 befriends an Romanian immigrant girl stuck in the same hospital by luring her into an epic yarn. An epic yarn that oddly parallels his own heartbreak and loss of hope.

The cinematography is astounding.

Apparently the director of photography Colin Watkinson has been working on this gem for the last 10 years...gathering images, sketching and so forth. He is paired with director Tarsem Singh of the Cell. While the plot of his first flick may have wavered (and his choice of lead actress is questionable) you cannot deny that Singh creates astounding and memorable visuals.

This movie weaves in the plot and soul that the Cell lacked. And we see this epic yarn Roy Walker weaves as only a little girl can imagine it. Full of color, contrast and scenery on a truly grand scale. (mostly shot on location in this film covers Eygpt, Bali, the Czech Republic, South Africa, India...just to name a few of the 18+ countries...) And it uses natural lighting for much of the film...diffused sunlight in the hospital, the glare of the sun in the deserts. This is a film that will make you notice just how much studio lighting most other films utilize...

All in the mind of a little girl. Roy includes an Indian among his tale's group of bandits...a throwback to the Western he recently filmed. But in our little girl's mind we see the Indian of another color...dots not feathers...because her association with Indians is with India and her friend who gave her a toy elephant...despite Roy referencing a squaw and a tent. She instead sees a sari clad beauty and elaborately mosaicked doorway. Darwin carries around his beetles in a box largely reminiscent of the one our little listener always has on hand and gets his ideas from a monkey. The soldiers of the enemy don apparel that mirrors the bulky apron and head wear worn by X-ray technician...a leap not hard to make for a frightened child alone in a hospital. She sees the story the way the storytelling cannot even imagine, though at times you wonder if Roy can see past his own agenda and lack of hope.

One part, though visually interesting...a pain, drug and coma induced fantasy sequence...feels out of place with the rest of the film's imagery. Mostly as a result of the animation style which is not used anywhere else in the film. That, and the sequence looks lifted directly from an eerily similar nightmarish medical hallucination in Taymor's Frida...

The Fall...placed somewhere on the shelf near Mirrormask, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and the Princess Bride...this is not one to be missed...

Crystal Skulls

Indian Jones...oh the nostalgia. I love Harrison Ford. And I've yet to be disappointed by a performance by Cate Blanchette. And Spielberg...really he is the most powerful man in movie history so one comes to expect big things from him. But George Lucas? I think he's as far off his rocker as Indie's friend Oz in this movie.

It was completely over the top. And not in the special effects spectacular. No...the story itself was so far fetch from the main plot to the vine swinging details that I could not take the movie seriously. Had it been more overtly camping instead of clinging to the tongue in cheek seriousness of the previous movies, I may have swallowed it. Nope. It's comical how unbelievable the story is.

The movie strikes me as two things:

A masturbatory marathon for some of Hollywood's heaviest hitters.

And the revenge to the atheists and scientologists who had to endure the Judeo-Christian mysticism of the first two movies.

But know what? In matters of faith, the Ark and the Grail seem far more plausible than the climax of this tale.

Casanova meets Walk the Line

It's about time I post on these two movies as it has been while over a week since I've seen them. But that means all of you will be caught up on my viewing pleasure and can begin to look forward to the theater I am bound to see this semester. Starting with Lonesome West this Thursday, Pillowman sometime in February or March, and maybe should I happen to be in New York with an extra $40 in my pocket, Sweeney Todd.

On to Casanova. A sweet little period movie that spent more money on costumes than on scenery. I do not believe any of this film was actually shot outside of the studio. It's unfortunate that you could see the telltale signs of a green screen in the background of most shots. Beautiful costumes. Simple story. Could have gone deeper, but as this was Heath Ledger recovery from Brokeback mountain I don't suppose you could ask too much. About the meaning of love, or so it seems, with the woman Casanova pursues spurning him for his version of love. Happy endings all around. Funny bits. It amused Ellen more than it did me. I found I enjoy thinking a little more while I watch a movie. Or be blown away visually. As far as romantic period comedies go, Shakespeare in Love is a much better film.

Walk the Line, however, is another film worth viewing. Joaquin Phoenix did a phenomenal job, though I don't know if I would call it best actor worthy. Several awards seem to say the contrary. On the other hand, I may start enjoying Reese Witherspoon. I had forgotten June Carter was played by her until the name showed up on the credits. The film got to me right away. The set up of the film seems to attribute most of Cash's choices to the tragedy you see in his childhood right at the top of the movie. A good choice. Walk the Line is another film that makes good use of a prop. The tablesaw that he fiddles with before the show at Folsom Prison will haunt you later on.

Short and sweet reviews. Both films worth seeing. If I get around to it I may try to see Munich, New World and King Kong before they close. And don't forget to mark off May 26th. But don't bring any spare change to the theatre with you. Or an adamantium skeleton.

The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe

While the title may have been convent's shortened to Narnia, I will maintain that it is only the first of a series of seven that may be referred to as Narnia, and as such, should be referred to by its proper name.

I loved it. All of it. Even the nitpicky details that I will tear into later on did not distract from the sheer enjoyment of this film. It is a much better job than the earlier BBC versions (I wish I could say the same of Hitchhiker's Guide, some do, but I really did not like the new one). It was an excellent adaptation of the books, staying true while adapting it enough to be film worthy. I hope the next six (if they are still forthcoming) maintain the standard.

The beginning made me very nervous that what I was about to see was a butchering of the C. S. Lewis tales I adored as a child. Granted, the events that open the movie are mentioned in the book, we just never have the opportunity to witness them through Lewis' words. I began to worry maybe Disney had taken a few too many liberties.

And Disney did take a few liberties. But when you look back at the actual books, it makes sense. Most of the first book is a stressful though uneventful trek to the Stone Table to meet Aslan. A very slow crash sequence where no one actually catches up to anyone. Reading it was intense as a child. I doubt trying to convey the same sense of earnestness and danger in the movie without raising the stakes a little more would have succeeded in the same way. Likewise, the battles are a mere paragraph or two. Something needs to be done to fill in the gaps for the screen, and the film did quite well. It never travels far from the original feeling of the books and thankfully most of the dialogue seems lifted right from the pages.

I had heard some pre-viewing discussion on the amount of Christian symbolism included. The articles and reviews I had read led me to believe perhaps Disney had upped the allegory. Not so. The story is a fantasy tale of love, treachery, sacrifice and forgiveness. Of course there will be parallels, that it how the book was written. The movie did not overdo it. As I mentioned before, I truly felt that the they maintained the original feeling of the book.

The previews also made me wary of the CGI, particularly Aslan. Perhaps they just chose a poor clip to show in the preview, because I was not disappointed. As the credits rolled by at the end I found out why: WETA. One of my classmates said she was disappointed in the computer animation. I asked if she was distracted by the spliced creatures. No. Did the CGI images pull her out of the movie. No. Was it better than say, Dobby from only a few years earlier. Yes. Well I doubt she left the conversation ready to sing praises of the animation from the rooftops, I hoped I impressed upon her how far this new media has come in a very short time.

Really, my only complaint was the Witch's costume, and only her first one. I loved the fabric: thick, cool-colored and felted (nor cheap), mimicked in her hair as well. The line was interesting, but the "imposing" silhouette made by the shoulders made her look more ridiculous than intimidating. A medieval linebacker. I will admit the dress didn't bother me as much when her shoulders were uncovered and you could see her natural form with the costume projecting around her.

The designer made up for in at the battle with the chain mail dress and mane of hair. Yes, I do think the White Witch having her hair down covering her shoulders like a golden mane was a deliberate choice. Most choices are deliberate.

Memoirs of Geisha

A Beautiful movie, as true to the book as you can expect any movie to be, but why cast three obviously Chinese actresses in the lead roles! The performances from Li Gong, Michelle Yeoh and Ziyi Zhang were solid and moving at times, but I can't imagine that some people will not take offense to the casting choices. Granted, these three actors are better know in the West than many other Asian actors. It just seems a shame that they were unwilling or unable to full the roles with Japanese actors.The questionable dance piece

Only one other thing took me out of the film--Sayuri's debut performance at the Cherry Blossom Festival. Most of the movie maintains a very authentic period feeling (to the point that the girls were painstakingly tied into the yards of obi every day instead of building a more convenient and lighter substitute). The costumes and locales are breathtaking. The geisha's movements in the teahouses, both when performing or serving are graceful and stunning.

And then Sayuri comes onto the festival's stage an performs what I can only describe as a modern performance art piece, complete with falling snow, theatrical lighting (this scene is set in the 1930's mind you), and a tear away costume more akin to a strip show than Kabuki. I can't even bring myself to classify it as a dance. I was a little horrified. The book spends so much time describing how Sayuri devoted herself to dancing and how she tapped deeply she tapped into her emotions and experience to perform as she did that the scene seemed to be more of a mockery of her than a fabulous performance.

Still , the movie was well worth seeing. With that scene aside there are still 140 fabulous minutes to take in.

The Producers

Let's see if I can't remember my impressions of these movies well enough two weeks after viewing them to give a decent review:

The Producers was a mildly entertaining movie. It probably would have been more entertaining had I not been familiar with the original movie or the stage musical. Expecting to view a total flop, I actually left the theater having enjoyed the movie--low expectations going in have a tendency to do that.

It's biggest flaw--the piece did not adapt for a new media. As the original movie it was funny. A a musical is was limited by the conventions of the stage. In a movie of the musical I was expecting them to take full advantage of what film has to offer, namely subtle looks, camera angles, more locations and less restriction to physical time or place (meaning the time it takes to do a scene change or how quickly an actor can change clothes). Editing is one of the magic tools of the movies.

The acting was too large for the screen--but what do you really expect when the two original cast members from the stage show are reprising their rolls. I must admit, Will Farrell stole the show. I thoroughly enjoyed his performance.

I wish I could give some credit to the creativity or ingenuity, but everything that was up on that screen was taken directly from the stage show, from costumes down to the line readings and a lot of the choreography. You have a new form of media at your fingertips! Do something more original!

If you have a choice (and given Broadway's ticket prices at the moment, I'm not sure many of you do) see the stage musical. For those seeing the movie of the musical. Enjoy it for what it is, but don't expect too much.

Brokeback Mountian

I want you all to ignore the cute little gay man's review of Brokeback that Laura posted on her blog...well at least all of the review short of the last point he finally got around to making. I find it very sad that all of the gay gentlemen I've talked to about this movie cannot get over how hot the two leads are, or the kiss, etc, etc. Sometimes people are stuck in the preadolescent haze and never grow beyond that. And the comment that the story is the same regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the couple..another piece of trite. See the movie. You'll see what I mean.

It was so refreshing to see acting that involved a strong effort to maintain a reserved, unaffected facade. Not all emotion is meant to be sung from the rooftops. In that respect, I was much more impressed with Heath Ledger than Jake Gyllenhall. That and I cannot overlook the Donnie Dark look that persistently follows Mr. Gyllenhall around. It was some much more powerful (and believable) to see the characters refusing to crack and catching that quick quiet glimpse when the facade might shatter. Not just from Ennis (Heath), but also from his wife (played by Anne Hathaway) and daughter.

This is the perfect movie to show ho everyone is affected by one's person's actions and decisions. The film refuses to paint anything in a pretty idealized world except for th dreams that the characters aspire to. I'm pretty certain regardless of where you stand on gay rights debate, you will find someone in this film to relate to and you will be touched. I doubt the film will change your views on homosexual relations. I don't think its trying to. But it is there on the screen and some small part of you will have to acknowledge that fact. Some people may feel preached to during the two hours, but if you take it for what it is, a relationship (sexual or otherwise) between two men, or even as just a relationship in general, I hope something please to all. Probably one of the most fascinating things about this film is its universal appeal. You will be able to twist the story to fit any preconceived ideals you have upon entering the theater. You will find something to reaffirm your position on whatever issues you may support, whether that be as simple as all men are asses, once a cheater always a cheater, etc. to the deeper sexuality issues at hand. It neither supports nor denies any allegations, but lays bare the human heart.

As a film it is breathtaking, all concerns and issues aside. The only thing I found out of place was one short flashback. A few graphic moments are just graphic enough to make you uncomfortable (and I am not referring to sex) and get the point across. The costumes (particularly the facial hair) are perfect. And I've never seen that many jeans and western shirts in one shot and still managed to acknowledge that only after the fact. And the backdrop for the movie itself. I see why Andrew's been trying to get me out to Montana. The film gets five stars on for its use of a memory device and emotional recall alone.