Armchair Film Reviews
Oct. 2nd, 2005 04:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[Edited on Tuesday 10/4/05]
5pm on a Sunday. Three-day weekend almost over, but it was more or less relaxing. Good weekend for seeing films, beautiful, sunny, so no one in the theaters. Spent quite a bit of time outside as well, soaking up the rays, chatting with folks, getting stuff done, coming down from the assorted stresses of the week. Working a little on my novel. It's coming along nicely, I think, although slightly stuck word wise. Oh and I'm writing this from my spanking new red arm-chair. Always been a chair person, prefer them to couchs actually. Much more comfy.
(The getting of the spanking new arm-chair was a comedy of errors. First of all it took eight weeks for my baby to get to me. Then well, I got locked out of my apartment the moment it arrived and shat upon by a pigeon in that order, within about fifteen minutes of each other. One of the guys who hangs out in the deli next door, helped me break back into the apartment building, we broke a pane of glass that had already been broken and taped back together again by the previous tenant. Last summer I watched this guy get sliced in a knife fight in the street, so was a little wary of him. As result, when he asked that question all men ask women who are locked out of their apartments, or trying to move heavy furniture into them, 'where's your boyfriend', I responded somewhat truthfully, 'not here'. True enough. Don't have one, so not here. 'They're never here when you need them are they?' the guy responded. 'Nope,'quoth I. They aren't. Also very true. )
Saw several movies this weekend. Only cost me $14. Saw two for $7 each, and got one free. [I'm splitting two of the reviews into two posts now - Serenity in this one. History of Violence in a new one.]
The most thought provoking of the films and the one I'd recommend everyone see, well everyone above the age 18, is A History of Violence directed by David Croenberg and based on the graphic novel of the same name.
[cut and moved to new post]
I saw Serenity the day before. At 1pm, in a fairly empty movie theater. Few people I knew had ever heard of it. Mentioned it to several, work, outside of work, all without exception gave me blank looks. The only ones who had heard of it I'd met online.
Does the movie work for the non-fan of the series? I don't think so.
It reminds me in some respects of the Star Trek films - the moral conflict, the action sequences, the heavy exposition explaining the universe to the non-fan no doubt, and the ending with the characters coming to terms with what has happened. Very much the set up for a franchise, although by the same token a film that can stand on it's own. I have scanned a few online reviews of the film and I agree strongly with the review on the Wired site and the review on Slate.com. Both reviewers state that the film is entertaining, but that Whedon is in some ways more suited for serial television writing than film. That by no means is an insult. Television grants a writer more time to develop and evolve characters, does not require the tight plotting of a film nor has the time constraints. Whedon is very good at dialogue, character development, and the small reveals. Not so great at plotting and pulling all his threads together in a limited time span. Films are a bit like short stories - slices of life. TV dramas and miniseries are more like novels and serials. And I think that may explain why Firefly works better for me as a series than it did as movie. I enjoyed the movie, but felt unsatisified by it, sort of the same way you feel when you're hungry and have eaten a bag of really good buttered popcorn or cotton candy. It made me wish I'd gotten another season of the series. Having read Whedon's interviews, I get the odd feeling Whedon feels much the same way. And I don't blame him, I've written short stories and novels, only ever got the short story published - in a college literary mag. I perfer the novels. I prefer exploring the characters in depth. Short stories, especially in sci-fi, tend to be more interested in theme and to be honest, there ain't any new themes to explore - they've all been done, to death by now. Characters on the other hand, are another story.
Regarding what happened to some of the characters...ah, well, knew some insider info going into it...
Book and Wash's deaths disappointed me but did not surprise me. I'd read some time ago that they were having difficulties getting Alan Tudyke and Ron Glass for the film. Both actors were otherwise engaged and filming had to be done around their busy schedules. Also both actors had, under the wire, mentioned they weren't interested in doing more than one film. Unlike Nathan Fillon, Gina Torres, Jewel Staite, Morrena Baccarin, Summer Glau, and Scean Maher, Tudyke and Glass were veterans in the movie business and while they enjoyed the Firefly experience did not wish to be tied to it. This was hinted at in numerous industry interviews I'd read way back in 2004.
In fact at one point, I wasn't sure Book would even be in the film.
So when these two died, the first thing I thought was yep, Whedon killing off the actors he can't get for the sequel. Could have done a better job of killing them off, but Whedon likes to kill off characters off-screen or in a quick non-melodramatic way. If you blink you'll miss it. Same thing happened on Buffy and Angel.
I was a bit disappointed in how they handled Book and Wash, because I found these two characters fascinating and there were amongst the few that in the series had a true personality conflict with Mal - providing humor and interesting contrast.
Overall the movie was enjoyable. I did not find the reveal on the Reavers all that surprising. Actually the moment we saw Miranda (the planet), were told Reavers were between Serenity and it, and got River's flashes of the deaths that happened on the planet. I thought, okay, seen this before, the government did some sort of experiment on the planet, it went wonky, created the Reavers and killed everyone else. While the characters were trying to figure it out, I almost said aloud, uhm what about a drug or disease? Then of course the goal to let everyone know - a la Silkwood and that old Jack Lemmon/Jane Fonda/Michael Douglas movie about a nuclear reactor.
Also was a theme in Resident Evil.
I keep wondering why the theme - "don't meddle with human nature" and "big-government/order is bad, man should be left alone" keeps being repeated in sci-fi and why so many people love it so much? There's obviously something to it, or we wouldn't keep seeing it and people wouldn't be so wild about it.
What's also interesting is the repetition of the theme that human aggression is good in balance, that we should fight for what we love and desire. Even if it means killing people. Just don't go too far. The balance. I see this in so many of Whedon's stories - the idea of a balance between extreems, if you go too far one way, no one moves, people give up, become little more than mindless drones, go too far the other, and your mad and crazy.
River the symbol of the two extremes at war within her. The desire to sleep, the desire to fight. Hunting balance. See the same metaphors in Angel and Buffy, with Angel fighting, at times literally with Angelus. Spike vs. William, Buffy the normal girl vs. Buffy the slayer (represented in one season literally by Faith). Suave Xander/Geeky Xander. Glory/Ben. DarkWes/AccidentProneWEs. Or even the soul metaphor itself - the soul as a compass a means to find balance. Without a soul - the vampire is chaotic, a "reaver". Yet the military if it imposes a manmade soul causes robots, constraints.
That theme is an interesting one and apparent in so many dramas and art. The search for balance in a world obsessed with extreems.
I enjoyed Serenity, but don't feel the need to see it more than once. It was a good movie, not a great one. The TV series in many respects was far better.
It had its moments - the best ones were ones I'd already seen in the trailer. Mal seeing River take out every man in the bar being amongst them. Which begs another question, do trailers ruine movies or promote them or both? I also can't help but wonder if I would have loved the movie more if I loved Fillion more and the character he plays. I enjoy Fillion, but he doesn't blow me away. Baldwin and Glau had more presence I felt.
Hmmm...does this mean that I can hang up my fan hat officially now? I think so. Not that I ever really felt a part of the whole fandom thing, more an onlooker, writing essays, trying to connect with people - sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing.
The third film I saw was Corspe Bride, which was delightful. Enjoy Nightmare Before Xmas more. Not sure why. Henry Selik did not direct Corpse Bride, he only directed Nightmare, but I sincerely doubt that's the reason. The direction seemed smooth. No, it may have been the songs, the characters, the story itself. I liked Jack better than Victor. He resonated more somehow. But then as you well know, the Jack character is snarky and
a bit of a bad boy. Victor is disarmingly meek.
Of the three movies, Corpse was the most beautifully rendered - a visual banquet for the eyes. It also had the best trailers - Harry Potter and Chicken Little and Zathurtha, only feel a need to see Potter, but the other two trailers at least amused. Serenity and History of Violence forced me to endure 10 minutes of horrendous images from a horror movie I refuse to ever watch, called Saw II, which takes gratuitious images of sadistic torture and horror to a whole new level, making one wonder about the creators of these things. I think one of my problems with Serenity, was I realized half way through that like many sci-fi movies it was a horror movie. And I'm not a huge fan of horror. I appreciate it but it also grates. Plus I think I've overdosed with shows like Lost, Invasion, Threshold, Night Stalker, Supernatural, and BattleStar Galatica. So, Corpse Bride, which pokes fun at the things that scare us and horror and death was in a way a welcome relief, much like Dead Like Me has been lately. A movie that instead of pumping up my adrenaline, decreased it with laughter. This week I felt as if someone had pumped me full of adrenaline and my heart was outracing my feet, making me restless and antsy.
So it helped to have a few films, Corspe Bride and I Capture the Castle to bring it down a bit.
Didn't have a favorite character in the film but did enjoy it. Was a nice little romp.
I Capture the Castle was the last film, watched it last night on DVD. Nice female coming of age story during the 1930s. About a failed writer and his family. The story is told through the perspective of the youngest daughter, who falls for her sister's fiancee and deals with her father's struggle to write again after 12 years of nothing. Marc Blucas is in the film and does a decent job with very little. He still has very little screen charisma, yet oddly more than Henry Thomas of ET fame, so comes across better than expected in the few bits he appears in. Bill Nighy works well as the father. And I enjoyed the actress playing Cassandra. Haven't read the novel that it is based on, so cannot comment on how closely it follows the book.
Felt less lonely this weekend, alone and with Wales, than during the week surrounded by people. It's an odd thing, but there are moments I feel less lonely, alone, then I do with many people.
5pm on a Sunday. Three-day weekend almost over, but it was more or less relaxing. Good weekend for seeing films, beautiful, sunny, so no one in the theaters. Spent quite a bit of time outside as well, soaking up the rays, chatting with folks, getting stuff done, coming down from the assorted stresses of the week. Working a little on my novel. It's coming along nicely, I think, although slightly stuck word wise. Oh and I'm writing this from my spanking new red arm-chair. Always been a chair person, prefer them to couchs actually. Much more comfy.
(The getting of the spanking new arm-chair was a comedy of errors. First of all it took eight weeks for my baby to get to me. Then well, I got locked out of my apartment the moment it arrived and shat upon by a pigeon in that order, within about fifteen minutes of each other. One of the guys who hangs out in the deli next door, helped me break back into the apartment building, we broke a pane of glass that had already been broken and taped back together again by the previous tenant. Last summer I watched this guy get sliced in a knife fight in the street, so was a little wary of him. As result, when he asked that question all men ask women who are locked out of their apartments, or trying to move heavy furniture into them, 'where's your boyfriend', I responded somewhat truthfully, 'not here'. True enough. Don't have one, so not here. 'They're never here when you need them are they?' the guy responded. 'Nope,'quoth I. They aren't. Also very true. )
Saw several movies this weekend. Only cost me $14. Saw two for $7 each, and got one free. [I'm splitting two of the reviews into two posts now - Serenity in this one. History of Violence in a new one.]
The most thought provoking of the films and the one I'd recommend everyone see, well everyone above the age 18, is A History of Violence directed by David Croenberg and based on the graphic novel of the same name.
[cut and moved to new post]
I saw Serenity the day before. At 1pm, in a fairly empty movie theater. Few people I knew had ever heard of it. Mentioned it to several, work, outside of work, all without exception gave me blank looks. The only ones who had heard of it I'd met online.
Does the movie work for the non-fan of the series? I don't think so.
It reminds me in some respects of the Star Trek films - the moral conflict, the action sequences, the heavy exposition explaining the universe to the non-fan no doubt, and the ending with the characters coming to terms with what has happened. Very much the set up for a franchise, although by the same token a film that can stand on it's own. I have scanned a few online reviews of the film and I agree strongly with the review on the Wired site and the review on Slate.com. Both reviewers state that the film is entertaining, but that Whedon is in some ways more suited for serial television writing than film. That by no means is an insult. Television grants a writer more time to develop and evolve characters, does not require the tight plotting of a film nor has the time constraints. Whedon is very good at dialogue, character development, and the small reveals. Not so great at plotting and pulling all his threads together in a limited time span. Films are a bit like short stories - slices of life. TV dramas and miniseries are more like novels and serials. And I think that may explain why Firefly works better for me as a series than it did as movie. I enjoyed the movie, but felt unsatisified by it, sort of the same way you feel when you're hungry and have eaten a bag of really good buttered popcorn or cotton candy. It made me wish I'd gotten another season of the series. Having read Whedon's interviews, I get the odd feeling Whedon feels much the same way. And I don't blame him, I've written short stories and novels, only ever got the short story published - in a college literary mag. I perfer the novels. I prefer exploring the characters in depth. Short stories, especially in sci-fi, tend to be more interested in theme and to be honest, there ain't any new themes to explore - they've all been done, to death by now. Characters on the other hand, are another story.
Regarding what happened to some of the characters...ah, well, knew some insider info going into it...
Book and Wash's deaths disappointed me but did not surprise me. I'd read some time ago that they were having difficulties getting Alan Tudyke and Ron Glass for the film. Both actors were otherwise engaged and filming had to be done around their busy schedules. Also both actors had, under the wire, mentioned they weren't interested in doing more than one film. Unlike Nathan Fillon, Gina Torres, Jewel Staite, Morrena Baccarin, Summer Glau, and Scean Maher, Tudyke and Glass were veterans in the movie business and while they enjoyed the Firefly experience did not wish to be tied to it. This was hinted at in numerous industry interviews I'd read way back in 2004.
In fact at one point, I wasn't sure Book would even be in the film.
So when these two died, the first thing I thought was yep, Whedon killing off the actors he can't get for the sequel. Could have done a better job of killing them off, but Whedon likes to kill off characters off-screen or in a quick non-melodramatic way. If you blink you'll miss it. Same thing happened on Buffy and Angel.
I was a bit disappointed in how they handled Book and Wash, because I found these two characters fascinating and there were amongst the few that in the series had a true personality conflict with Mal - providing humor and interesting contrast.
Overall the movie was enjoyable. I did not find the reveal on the Reavers all that surprising. Actually the moment we saw Miranda (the planet), were told Reavers were between Serenity and it, and got River's flashes of the deaths that happened on the planet. I thought, okay, seen this before, the government did some sort of experiment on the planet, it went wonky, created the Reavers and killed everyone else. While the characters were trying to figure it out, I almost said aloud, uhm what about a drug or disease? Then of course the goal to let everyone know - a la Silkwood and that old Jack Lemmon/Jane Fonda/Michael Douglas movie about a nuclear reactor.
Also was a theme in Resident Evil.
I keep wondering why the theme - "don't meddle with human nature" and "big-government/order is bad, man should be left alone" keeps being repeated in sci-fi and why so many people love it so much? There's obviously something to it, or we wouldn't keep seeing it and people wouldn't be so wild about it.
What's also interesting is the repetition of the theme that human aggression is good in balance, that we should fight for what we love and desire. Even if it means killing people. Just don't go too far. The balance. I see this in so many of Whedon's stories - the idea of a balance between extreems, if you go too far one way, no one moves, people give up, become little more than mindless drones, go too far the other, and your mad and crazy.
River the symbol of the two extremes at war within her. The desire to sleep, the desire to fight. Hunting balance. See the same metaphors in Angel and Buffy, with Angel fighting, at times literally with Angelus. Spike vs. William, Buffy the normal girl vs. Buffy the slayer (represented in one season literally by Faith). Suave Xander/Geeky Xander. Glory/Ben. DarkWes/AccidentProneWEs. Or even the soul metaphor itself - the soul as a compass a means to find balance. Without a soul - the vampire is chaotic, a "reaver". Yet the military if it imposes a manmade soul causes robots, constraints.
That theme is an interesting one and apparent in so many dramas and art. The search for balance in a world obsessed with extreems.
I enjoyed Serenity, but don't feel the need to see it more than once. It was a good movie, not a great one. The TV series in many respects was far better.
It had its moments - the best ones were ones I'd already seen in the trailer. Mal seeing River take out every man in the bar being amongst them. Which begs another question, do trailers ruine movies or promote them or both? I also can't help but wonder if I would have loved the movie more if I loved Fillion more and the character he plays. I enjoy Fillion, but he doesn't blow me away. Baldwin and Glau had more presence I felt.
Hmmm...does this mean that I can hang up my fan hat officially now? I think so. Not that I ever really felt a part of the whole fandom thing, more an onlooker, writing essays, trying to connect with people - sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing.
The third film I saw was Corspe Bride, which was delightful. Enjoy Nightmare Before Xmas more. Not sure why. Henry Selik did not direct Corpse Bride, he only directed Nightmare, but I sincerely doubt that's the reason. The direction seemed smooth. No, it may have been the songs, the characters, the story itself. I liked Jack better than Victor. He resonated more somehow. But then as you well know, the Jack character is snarky and
a bit of a bad boy. Victor is disarmingly meek.
Of the three movies, Corpse was the most beautifully rendered - a visual banquet for the eyes. It also had the best trailers - Harry Potter and Chicken Little and Zathurtha, only feel a need to see Potter, but the other two trailers at least amused. Serenity and History of Violence forced me to endure 10 minutes of horrendous images from a horror movie I refuse to ever watch, called Saw II, which takes gratuitious images of sadistic torture and horror to a whole new level, making one wonder about the creators of these things. I think one of my problems with Serenity, was I realized half way through that like many sci-fi movies it was a horror movie. And I'm not a huge fan of horror. I appreciate it but it also grates. Plus I think I've overdosed with shows like Lost, Invasion, Threshold, Night Stalker, Supernatural, and BattleStar Galatica. So, Corpse Bride, which pokes fun at the things that scare us and horror and death was in a way a welcome relief, much like Dead Like Me has been lately. A movie that instead of pumping up my adrenaline, decreased it with laughter. This week I felt as if someone had pumped me full of adrenaline and my heart was outracing my feet, making me restless and antsy.
So it helped to have a few films, Corspe Bride and I Capture the Castle to bring it down a bit.
Didn't have a favorite character in the film but did enjoy it. Was a nice little romp.
I Capture the Castle was the last film, watched it last night on DVD. Nice female coming of age story during the 1930s. About a failed writer and his family. The story is told through the perspective of the youngest daughter, who falls for her sister's fiancee and deals with her father's struggle to write again after 12 years of nothing. Marc Blucas is in the film and does a decent job with very little. He still has very little screen charisma, yet oddly more than Henry Thomas of ET fame, so comes across better than expected in the few bits he appears in. Bill Nighy works well as the father. And I enjoyed the actress playing Cassandra. Haven't read the novel that it is based on, so cannot comment on how closely it follows the book.
Felt less lonely this weekend, alone and with Wales, than during the week surrounded by people. It's an odd thing, but there are moments I feel less lonely, alone, then I do with many people.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-03 10:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-03 10:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-03 10:03 am (UTC)