posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
revdorothyl at 04:42pm on 05/08/2003 under movie reviews
revdorothyl at 04:42pm on 05/08/2003 under movie reviewsFor anyone who might be interested, reprints of my reviews of the films "Pirates of the Caribbean," "Sinbad," "Whale Rider," "The Hulk," "Hollywood Homicide," "Down with Love," and "Bruce Almighty" can be found here.
REVIEWS OF PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN AND SINBAD -- written July 18, 2003
Yesterday I saw "Pirates of the Caribbean" -- possibly the most thoroughly enjoyable 2 1/2 hour movie I've seen (at least in the past dozen years or so). I followed that with 83 minutes of "Sinbad," which, in contrast, seemed a bit too long and too mechanical. If anything, I'd have expected the animated film "Sinbad" to be the creative and engaging film, and "Pirates" (based, after all, on a mechanized theme park ride) to be the soul-less, mechanical film, but by and large I'm delighted with the surprise.
"Pirates" reminded me most strongly of Burt Lancaster's very acrobatic and often tongue-in-cheek swashbuckler, "The Crimson Pirate" -- except that the heroine "Elizabeth Swann" (Keira Knightley, who played Jules in "Bend It Like Beckham") got to act a lot more like Maureen O'Hara's swashbuckling, weapon-wielding heroines, updated for the 21st century.
The tongue-in-cheek-ness was certainly evident in "Pirates," as was the acrobatics (and even the invention of the "submersible" as seen in "Crimson Pirate," after a fashion). But I must concur with the majority of critics in citing Johnny Depp's "Captain Jack Sparrow" as a one-of-a-kind character who deservedly dominates the film whenever he's on screen, as the most charmingly off-the-map outrageous rogue.
I loved it.
Orlando Bloom is suitably noble and impetuous as the junior hero, "Will Turner," whose black-and-white view of the world has to be expanded and amended by close association with Jack Sparrow, and he's not at all hard on the eyes or slow of wit, but his is the rather more thankless role of straight man, more often than not. Geoffrey Rush and some of the "damned" pirates (as opposed to the "bloody pirates" who work for Captain Jack) are actually pretty well-developed characters, as far as evil-undead-horrors-with-occasional-moments-of-comic-relief go. You don't exactly "feel their pain" (heck, even THEY don't actually feel their pain, so it's hard to empathize), but you know who's who and what's what and have an interest in seeing what happens to them.
Whenever things start to get too schmaltzy or predictable, Captain Jack shows up in time to save the day from anything ordinary, so I have no hesitation in highly recommending this as good fun.
As for some of the critics' complaints (I caught the end of Ebert & Roeper recently, when they reviewed "Pirates") that the film goes on too long and that all the later battles against the undead, unkillable pirates of the "Black Pearl" make no sense or hold no suspense -- I disagree emphatically. Those who KNOW and BELIEVE that the "Black Pearl" pirates are un-killable by the latter half of the film try to run away whenever that option is open to them, and only do battle with the undead when the pirates are coming at them with cutlasses or cannons (when fighting a hopeless battle still seems preferable to just submitting to slaughter). And it was pretty clear that the majority of the "good guys" engaged in the final battle did NOT believe the ghost stories they'd been told, and so were acting in what seemed to them a sensible fashion. Furthermore, I was HIGHLY entertained, from first to last, so I don't know how anyone could say "Pirates" is "too long".
My response to the animated "Sinbad," on the other hand, can be summed up (on the positive side) as "look at the pretty pictures and colors," and (on the negative side) as "tell it to someone who cares" (or possibly, "SHOW, don't TELL!").
Maybe they were trying to do something similar to the Japanese anime films (I think I heard something along those lines somewhere), but the best anime give you a chance to CARE about the main characters and their suffering, etc., by getting to know them and see inside their lives before you have to go through too many frenetic battles with them. This film is pretty to look at, frame by frame, but the very talented voices/actors can't make you care about characters whose faces seem lacking in expression and who insist on EXPLAINING to you what they feel and why, rather than letting you figure it out from a complex and fully-realized story/script.
There were some very funny one-liners (Sinbad telling his very large, bare-chested friend, in light of the sudden cold snap, "put a shirt on, before you put somebody's eye out" stands out in my memory), but it all felt pretty mechanical, even so.
And can we talk about the mythology angle? How come the name "Sinbad" (along with the giant snow-bird who's presumably a variation on the Roc) is the ONLY nod to Arabian folklore or mythology, while everything else seems like a stripped-down, budget rip-off of Greek mythology (Eris, the goddess of discord; Tartarus; the sirens; a hero named Proteus; the kingdom of Syracuse, etc.)?
Oh, and how come the only really powerful female character in the film is an evil goddess? And where are all the other gods and goddesses? After all, even in the Harryhausen versions of Greek mythology, not to mention the ILIAD, etc., if one god or goddess is against you, some other god or goddess is generally more or less on your side. But no, the only deity we meet here is one very minor goddess (okay, her golden apple manipulation did set in motion the train of events leading to the Trojan War, but still . . .), and her monster minions. The only supernatural "force for good" is the ill-defined, inanimate, impersonal "book of peace" (whatever the heck that is) -- perhaps a fit metaphor for the whole movie, which perhaps wants to be a "good thing", but really just lays there, looking bright and pretty but saying nothing.
I enjoy the mix-master, multi-cultural approach to mythology as practiced by Hayao Miyazaki (bits and pieces from all over the world fitted together in a lovely mosaic), but this film didn't bother to be that creative, or to make a case for WHY this or that particular mythological piece was being used. I'm not sorry I saw it, if only for the sake of the eye-candy at times, but I'd never see it again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEW OF "WHALE RIDER" -- written July 7, 2003
I'm going to have to make this review brief, because I don't want to risk saying too much and spoiling it for others. DO see this movie whenever you get the chance -- you will LOVE it, and you will want to talk about it with others afterwards. This is a great film for anyone who's ever been told that they're inadequate or defective in some way, not what their family or their people want or need, and who's managed to keep on keeping on, anyway.
I went to see "Whale Rider" on Sunday afternoon with a fellow graduate student near my own age who's also a clergywoman with much experience of parish ministry in the Midwest, and we were both profoundly moved AND entertained by "Whale Rider." The little bit that I'd heard about this film on NPR had piqued my curiosity, but I had no idea how much this movie would resonate with the experience of a couple of women in the field of religion.
The movie opens with the birth of a baby girl whose twin brother and mother both die trying to bring her brother into the world to join her. Her mother's last word seems to be the name, "Paikea," which her father -- the eldest son of the chief of a Maori tribe -- insists on giving to his daughter, over his father's strong objections. It turns out that Paikea's grandfather had been CERTAIN that his new grandson would be a great chief, the great leader and even prophet whom his people need to restore their sense of purpose and identity. Apart from insisting that his daughter be named Paikea, her father seems content to leave Paikea for her grandparents to deal with and walks away from all his father's demands and expectations that day. Lest we fear too much for the future welfare of a baby girl whose grandfather doesn't want to acknowledge her existence, we quickly learn that grandma is very much her own strong and feisty person and adamantly in Paikea's corner, and her young uncle -- her father's little brother -- is a caring soul.
Next thing we know, Paikea seems to be a skinny ten-year-old girl happily draped across her grandfather's lap as he brings her home from school on his bicycle. Having gotten over his wish that she'd never been born some time ago, her grandfather seems to be the center of Paikea's world, and he genuinely cares for her. But though Paikea carries the name (we learn) of the great ancestor who, according to legend, came to New Zealand from Hawaiki riding on the back of a whale after his canoe had sunk, her grandfather cannot (or cannot allow himself to) see her as the answer to his prayers. On one of his rare visits home from Europe, Paikea's father tries to explain to her what her grandfather has been looking for, and why -- in her grandfather's eyes -- her being a girl is such a problem.
Even when her grandfather, having given up hoping that his eldest son would either come home and lead or else marry another Maori woman and produce the required grandson, attempts to harden his heart towards Paikea and focus on training all the young boys of the tribe in the sacred chants and warrior ways (hoping that one of them will prove to be a worthy leader), Paikea quietly and hopefully persists in trying to make her grandfather proud of her.
Supported by her grandmother and by her uncle (who finds new purpose for his life in training her in the martial art he once excelled at), she keeps demonstrating her above-average talent and aptitude for everything required from a chief, even though the last thing she wants is to make her grandfather angry or bring disaster upon her people through violating what her grandfather holds to be sacred taboos.
Paikea has a calling, whether she wants it or not, and whether anyone else wants her to or not, and she can't NOT answer it.
Though there was more than enough adolescent emotional pain and family stress and grief along the way to send sympathetic tears rolling down my cheeks at times, the ending of this film held a sense of down-to-earth joy and purpose in being that had everyone in the PACKED theater leaving with big smiles and feelings of charity towards their fellow human beings.
See this flick -- you'll never regret it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWS OF "THE HULK" AND "HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE"--written June 30, 2003
Just a few quick words about Ang Lee's "The Hulk," which I saw with a group of friends a week ago Sunday afternoon, and then "Hollywood Homicide," which I'm glad I decided to see for myself on Thursday afternoon, after I'd watched "Down with Love" for the second time (by the way, "Down with Love" holds up pretty well to repeated viewing -- too bad it seems to have left town, now, when a lot of the people whom I know would have enjoyed it had not yet seen it, but I'm sure it'll do well on DVD).
"THE HULK"
First off, let me say that I was favorably surprised by "The Hulk," considering that the Hulk was never one of my favorite comic book characters (I watched the T.V. series in the late 70's/early 80's because I liked Bill Bixby as David "I'm-too-insecure-about-my-heterosexuality-to-use-the-name-'Bruce'" Banner, and because Lou Ferrigno made the big green guy so HUMAN and endearing, but I NEVER liked the fact that Banner had to be subjected to outrageous injstice and abuse or get his butt thoroughly kicked at least twice in each episode, in order for the Hulk to get his screen-time).
The only major down-side for me in viewing this film was that I was never able to feel as much empathy as I'd have liked for the Hulk himself in this movie version, but I know the CGI guys did their best, and maybe it's not their fault that their ultra-high-tech computer-generated Hulk often bore an uncomfortable resemblance to the much-lower-tech stop-motion animation monsters of Ray Harryhausen back in the 1950's. Maybe there's no way--short of using a REAL human actor--to make something that many stories high and that over-muscled and green seem human. (Come to think of it, with "Golem", at least, the "Lord of the Rings" CGI artists had the advantage of a creature with over-sized eyes and mouth and an expressive voice to help make him seem more sympathetic, while none of those facial or vocal qualities were available to the creators of this incarnation of the Hulk. As Japanese animators have long known, it's much easier to put "soul" into an animated character if you give it REALLY big eyes, and a big mouth as often as needed.)
So much for the negative stuff.
Here's the positive:
This movie made me THINK, and I liked it. As in "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman" (where the cooking and consumption of food conveyed a wealth of character insight) or "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (where the oh-so-chaste touching of hands between Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh conveyed more passion and heat and LOVE and intimacy than most sex scenes), I would argue that the silences in this film speak volumes and the long stretches of reflective character scenes between the bursts of action convey the real drama and excitement.
More than the idea that Bruce Banner had been genetically manipulated by his obsessed scientist father (to explain why that radiation overdose DIDN'T kill him, but instead produced such atypical results), this film gets at WHY the adult Bruce is capable of such explosive rage -- the severe emotional trauma and repressed memories of his early childhood.
As a side-note, the other member of our movie-going party (besides me) who liked the film and didn't think it was too long or too serious, etc., assured me that the child-abuse issues between Bruce and his father in this film WERE from the comic books, but according to the fascinating study of comic book heroes aired on the History Channel last week, the issue of child abuse was only written into the Hulk's story many years after its creation, when superhero comics were finally daring to touch upon controversial and difficult social problems like racism, drug addiction, and domestic violence.
Some of our group argued afterwards that Jennifer Connolly, as Bruce's love-interest Betty Ross, was too wooden and unemotional (raising the question why on earth she would have broken up with Bruce for being too emotionally distant, when they seemed so perfect for each other in that respect). But her performance didn't strike me as flat or unfeeling at the time, and afterwards it occurred to me that, with a father as emotionally distant and unavailable as General Ross, young Betty would almost HAVE to have developed a cool, logical facade--the only way her father would be willing to deal with her at all would be on the level of cold logic and practicality, and any emotional displays would have been strongly discouraged.
Given the dynamic with her father, it's no wonder to me that Betty was originally attracted to the brilliant and impassive Bruce, and no wonder that her sense of self-preservation eventually led her to break up with him.
Rather than General Ross being the chief villain (as he seemed to be in the animated "Hulk" series from a few years ago, now re-running on the ABC Family Channel on weekends), whatever acts of perfidy the General commits in this film are dwarfed by the utter selfishness and ruthlessness of Bruce's dad, David. Talk about a parent who thinks his child exists only as an extension of himself and to serve his own ambition and ego -- Nick Nolte's David Banner is the poster-child for mess-you-up dads! And I thought the film nicely conveyed the idea that PART, at least, of the reason why General Ross was so set on punishing Bruce as an extension of his father's crimes was Ross's desire to project his own glaring shortcomings as a father onto David (a far worse example of fatherhood), and to destroy his own guilt by destroying David.
Final word: don't go to see this expecting mindless fun and excitement, but if you're in the mood for something a little meatier and more meditative and artful (the recurrence of twisted wood is something to watch for, as a metaphor for strength and the endurance of love in the harshest environments), this is well worth your money.
"HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE"
I put off seeing this so long because I heard the reviews were uniformly terrible (I didn't actually read or hear any reviews of this film myself), but I found it quirky and interesting and fun, and definitely one of the better examples of Harrison Ford's acting ability in recent years. Unlike the lamentable "Six Days, Seven Nights," in this movie I never once thought, "Oh this is Harrison Ford saying these lines and pretending to be this scruffy character." Instead, I just became interested in seeing what this attractively scruffy and imperfect but gifted dectective, Joe Gavilan, was going to do or say to get himself and his partner through all of this.
In tone, this film reminded me a bit of "Lethal Weapon" (without the really dark tones of Riggs' suicidal leanings) or "Lethal Weapon 2."
Go, enjoy the characters, the slightly askew view of police movie conventions (like commandeering a passing car to chase down a murderer), and the hot grown-up love-making between Gavilan and his special psychic friend Ruby.
It's violent at times, but mostly it's just fun in a gritty, trying-to-make-it-through-the-day-and-not-sink-too-low kind of way. Also, see if you can identify the little touches, like the different musical themes Gavilan and his young stud partner have on their cell-phones.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWS OF "DOWN WITH LOVE" AND "BRUCE ALMIGHTY" -- written June 12, 2003
I finally got to see "Down With Love" this afternoon, and it was so good I wasn't even tempted to try to sneak into a second movie afterwards (who wants popcorn, when you're already full of chocolate souffle?) -- for those of you who know how cheap I am, you'll understand what a solid recommendation this is!
"Down With Love" seems at first like an incredibly well-done tongue-in-cheek revisiting of the Doris Day/Rock Hudson romantic comedies of the early 60's (the references to "Pillow Talk", especially, are impossible to miss, including a far more suggestive version of the split-screen phone conversation bath-tub "footsies" scenes). Ewan McGregor is, of course, the Rock Hudson character -- the incredibly-successful-in-his-career-without-half-trying-and-totally-irresistible-to-women man-about-town, substituting his cute accent and mongoose-like speed and maneuverability for Rock's towering physical presence. Renee Zellwiger is, naturally, the Doris Day character . . . it seems. David Hyde Pierce plays the Tony Randall role as Rock's neurotic boss, except that he's funnier and far sexier than Tony ever was, in my opinion, and Randall himself is bumped to playing the old curmudgeon character in this film. The "gal-pal/confidante" is the beautiful book editor who takes Zellwiger's character under her wing, while quickly high-lighting the incredible inequities between men and women in the 60's workplace which give this film its underlying dash of biting social critique.
All goes hilariously according to the established Doris/Rock formula, as a 21st-century-caricature of roles and relationships which were self-consciously somewhat caricatured even in the 60's, I suspect, until perhaps 3/4 of the movie is done. Then . . . THE TWIST! Several of them, in fact (think William Holden's pastiche of movie-plotting in "Paris When It Sizzles").
Suddenly, you realize that what always bothered you about those old, charmingly-clean-by-today's-standards-but-slightly-risque-in-their-day sex comedies was that, no matter how much independence and intelligence the woman might show and no matter how well she brought the swinging bachelor to heel, you knew that the movie's happy ending was intended to reinforce the social order (marriage, monogamy, and motherhood, having utterly defeated the challenge to that order posed by both the promiscuous bachelor and the smart career girl).
Doris could be strong for as long as she liked, but in the end, she presumably found happiness and contentment as just "the little woman" cuddling up to Rock Hudson or James Garner or Peter Graves (I just saw "The Ballad of Josie" again on AMC on Sunday, in case you couldn't place the Peter Graves reference) and settling down to tranquil domesticity as a home-loving wife.
Well, in THIS film, that's NOT how it goes, and I and all the other women in the theater who'd been laughing uproariously during the whole film had our pleasure-factor kicked up several notches more by the unexpected (by me, at least) mutation of the genre. Be sure to stay for the closing credits, since Ewan and Renee sing and dance to "Here's to Love" in a way that just provides the perfect whipped cream and cherry for this lovely sundae of a film.
Oh, and Jeri Ryan in a 'supporting bimbo' role gets to do some of the broad comedy that she only got to do on "Star Trek: Voyager" when Seven of Nine was temporarily possessed by the Doctor.
As for "Bruce Almighty," some folks in church on June 1 spoke well of it, and I'd been intrigued by the news reports of people across the country actually calling the phone number mentioned in the film in apparently sincere (and somewhat desperate) attempts to talk to God. So, I took in an early matinee last Thursday (one which happened to finish as the last matinee of "X 2: X-men United" at the Green Hills theater was starting, which meant that I got to see something I REALLY enjoyed -- "X2" -- after seeing a film that I only sort of enjoyed and sort of appreciated).
To be fair, I much prefer Jim Carrey when he's NOT over the top (really liked him in "The Truman Show" and "The Majestic", for instance, but only liked "Liar, Liar" and could barely tolerate "Ace Ventura"), and this is definitely one of his BROAD comedies, with lots of facial mugging and extreme emotions.
But I laughed often during this film, and on a purely intellectual basis I could appreciate the fact that there was a kernel of substance at the heart of all this froth. Yes, I had much more fun watching "Groundhog Day," which also dealt with the idea of a character with little to redeem him at the start being given as MANY chances as it took to get him to choose to become a decent human being. But this film put a little more theological substance into it, and who could NOT appreciate the gentle humor, integrity, and kindness of the deity as played by Morgan Freeman? Plus, you get a nice, simple, non-denominational, you-already-knew-this-but-here's-a-reminder message at the end.
The biggest impact for me was realizing how INFINITE God's grace and patience and love must be, for going to such ridiculous lengths to give this unlovable JERK (the Jim Carrey character for the first 3/4 of the movie) the chance to discover for himself what a selfish so-and-so he'd been and start trying to do at least one selfless, decent, loving thing.
However, I'd have liked a little more attention to the consequences of Carrey's incredibly selfish uses of omnipotence early on (call me a Calvinist, or just a sourpuss, but I'd like a little more attention to God's justice, as well as God's tolerance and love for one initially unlovable individual). But maybe that's just me.
I have to say that a repeated viewing of "X2" gave me more theological food for thought than "Bruce Almighty", but "Bruce" was nicely undemanding -- like a light sorbet to refresh the palate for more interesting and complicated foods yet to be served.
REVIEWS OF PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN AND SINBAD -- written July 18, 2003
Yesterday I saw "Pirates of the Caribbean" -- possibly the most thoroughly enjoyable 2 1/2 hour movie I've seen (at least in the past dozen years or so). I followed that with 83 minutes of "Sinbad," which, in contrast, seemed a bit too long and too mechanical. If anything, I'd have expected the animated film "Sinbad" to be the creative and engaging film, and "Pirates" (based, after all, on a mechanized theme park ride) to be the soul-less, mechanical film, but by and large I'm delighted with the surprise.
"Pirates" reminded me most strongly of Burt Lancaster's very acrobatic and often tongue-in-cheek swashbuckler, "The Crimson Pirate" -- except that the heroine "Elizabeth Swann" (Keira Knightley, who played Jules in "Bend It Like Beckham") got to act a lot more like Maureen O'Hara's swashbuckling, weapon-wielding heroines, updated for the 21st century.
The tongue-in-cheek-ness was certainly evident in "Pirates," as was the acrobatics (and even the invention of the "submersible" as seen in "Crimson Pirate," after a fashion). But I must concur with the majority of critics in citing Johnny Depp's "Captain Jack Sparrow" as a one-of-a-kind character who deservedly dominates the film whenever he's on screen, as the most charmingly off-the-map outrageous rogue.
I loved it.
Orlando Bloom is suitably noble and impetuous as the junior hero, "Will Turner," whose black-and-white view of the world has to be expanded and amended by close association with Jack Sparrow, and he's not at all hard on the eyes or slow of wit, but his is the rather more thankless role of straight man, more often than not. Geoffrey Rush and some of the "damned" pirates (as opposed to the "bloody pirates" who work for Captain Jack) are actually pretty well-developed characters, as far as evil-undead-horrors-with-occasional-moments-of-comic-relief go. You don't exactly "feel their pain" (heck, even THEY don't actually feel their pain, so it's hard to empathize), but you know who's who and what's what and have an interest in seeing what happens to them.
Whenever things start to get too schmaltzy or predictable, Captain Jack shows up in time to save the day from anything ordinary, so I have no hesitation in highly recommending this as good fun.
As for some of the critics' complaints (I caught the end of Ebert & Roeper recently, when they reviewed "Pirates") that the film goes on too long and that all the later battles against the undead, unkillable pirates of the "Black Pearl" make no sense or hold no suspense -- I disagree emphatically. Those who KNOW and BELIEVE that the "Black Pearl" pirates are un-killable by the latter half of the film try to run away whenever that option is open to them, and only do battle with the undead when the pirates are coming at them with cutlasses or cannons (when fighting a hopeless battle still seems preferable to just submitting to slaughter). And it was pretty clear that the majority of the "good guys" engaged in the final battle did NOT believe the ghost stories they'd been told, and so were acting in what seemed to them a sensible fashion. Furthermore, I was HIGHLY entertained, from first to last, so I don't know how anyone could say "Pirates" is "too long".
My response to the animated "Sinbad," on the other hand, can be summed up (on the positive side) as "look at the pretty pictures and colors," and (on the negative side) as "tell it to someone who cares" (or possibly, "SHOW, don't TELL!").
Maybe they were trying to do something similar to the Japanese anime films (I think I heard something along those lines somewhere), but the best anime give you a chance to CARE about the main characters and their suffering, etc., by getting to know them and see inside their lives before you have to go through too many frenetic battles with them. This film is pretty to look at, frame by frame, but the very talented voices/actors can't make you care about characters whose faces seem lacking in expression and who insist on EXPLAINING to you what they feel and why, rather than letting you figure it out from a complex and fully-realized story/script.
There were some very funny one-liners (Sinbad telling his very large, bare-chested friend, in light of the sudden cold snap, "put a shirt on, before you put somebody's eye out" stands out in my memory), but it all felt pretty mechanical, even so.
And can we talk about the mythology angle? How come the name "Sinbad" (along with the giant snow-bird who's presumably a variation on the Roc) is the ONLY nod to Arabian folklore or mythology, while everything else seems like a stripped-down, budget rip-off of Greek mythology (Eris, the goddess of discord; Tartarus; the sirens; a hero named Proteus; the kingdom of Syracuse, etc.)?
Oh, and how come the only really powerful female character in the film is an evil goddess? And where are all the other gods and goddesses? After all, even in the Harryhausen versions of Greek mythology, not to mention the ILIAD, etc., if one god or goddess is against you, some other god or goddess is generally more or less on your side. But no, the only deity we meet here is one very minor goddess (okay, her golden apple manipulation did set in motion the train of events leading to the Trojan War, but still . . .), and her monster minions. The only supernatural "force for good" is the ill-defined, inanimate, impersonal "book of peace" (whatever the heck that is) -- perhaps a fit metaphor for the whole movie, which perhaps wants to be a "good thing", but really just lays there, looking bright and pretty but saying nothing.
I enjoy the mix-master, multi-cultural approach to mythology as practiced by Hayao Miyazaki (bits and pieces from all over the world fitted together in a lovely mosaic), but this film didn't bother to be that creative, or to make a case for WHY this or that particular mythological piece was being used. I'm not sorry I saw it, if only for the sake of the eye-candy at times, but I'd never see it again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEW OF "WHALE RIDER" -- written July 7, 2003
I'm going to have to make this review brief, because I don't want to risk saying too much and spoiling it for others. DO see this movie whenever you get the chance -- you will LOVE it, and you will want to talk about it with others afterwards. This is a great film for anyone who's ever been told that they're inadequate or defective in some way, not what their family or their people want or need, and who's managed to keep on keeping on, anyway.
I went to see "Whale Rider" on Sunday afternoon with a fellow graduate student near my own age who's also a clergywoman with much experience of parish ministry in the Midwest, and we were both profoundly moved AND entertained by "Whale Rider." The little bit that I'd heard about this film on NPR had piqued my curiosity, but I had no idea how much this movie would resonate with the experience of a couple of women in the field of religion.
The movie opens with the birth of a baby girl whose twin brother and mother both die trying to bring her brother into the world to join her. Her mother's last word seems to be the name, "Paikea," which her father -- the eldest son of the chief of a Maori tribe -- insists on giving to his daughter, over his father's strong objections. It turns out that Paikea's grandfather had been CERTAIN that his new grandson would be a great chief, the great leader and even prophet whom his people need to restore their sense of purpose and identity. Apart from insisting that his daughter be named Paikea, her father seems content to leave Paikea for her grandparents to deal with and walks away from all his father's demands and expectations that day. Lest we fear too much for the future welfare of a baby girl whose grandfather doesn't want to acknowledge her existence, we quickly learn that grandma is very much her own strong and feisty person and adamantly in Paikea's corner, and her young uncle -- her father's little brother -- is a caring soul.
Next thing we know, Paikea seems to be a skinny ten-year-old girl happily draped across her grandfather's lap as he brings her home from school on his bicycle. Having gotten over his wish that she'd never been born some time ago, her grandfather seems to be the center of Paikea's world, and he genuinely cares for her. But though Paikea carries the name (we learn) of the great ancestor who, according to legend, came to New Zealand from Hawaiki riding on the back of a whale after his canoe had sunk, her grandfather cannot (or cannot allow himself to) see her as the answer to his prayers. On one of his rare visits home from Europe, Paikea's father tries to explain to her what her grandfather has been looking for, and why -- in her grandfather's eyes -- her being a girl is such a problem.
Even when her grandfather, having given up hoping that his eldest son would either come home and lead or else marry another Maori woman and produce the required grandson, attempts to harden his heart towards Paikea and focus on training all the young boys of the tribe in the sacred chants and warrior ways (hoping that one of them will prove to be a worthy leader), Paikea quietly and hopefully persists in trying to make her grandfather proud of her.
Supported by her grandmother and by her uncle (who finds new purpose for his life in training her in the martial art he once excelled at), she keeps demonstrating her above-average talent and aptitude for everything required from a chief, even though the last thing she wants is to make her grandfather angry or bring disaster upon her people through violating what her grandfather holds to be sacred taboos.
Paikea has a calling, whether she wants it or not, and whether anyone else wants her to or not, and she can't NOT answer it.
Though there was more than enough adolescent emotional pain and family stress and grief along the way to send sympathetic tears rolling down my cheeks at times, the ending of this film held a sense of down-to-earth joy and purpose in being that had everyone in the PACKED theater leaving with big smiles and feelings of charity towards their fellow human beings.
See this flick -- you'll never regret it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWS OF "THE HULK" AND "HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE"--written June 30, 2003
Just a few quick words about Ang Lee's "The Hulk," which I saw with a group of friends a week ago Sunday afternoon, and then "Hollywood Homicide," which I'm glad I decided to see for myself on Thursday afternoon, after I'd watched "Down with Love" for the second time (by the way, "Down with Love" holds up pretty well to repeated viewing -- too bad it seems to have left town, now, when a lot of the people whom I know would have enjoyed it had not yet seen it, but I'm sure it'll do well on DVD).
"THE HULK"
First off, let me say that I was favorably surprised by "The Hulk," considering that the Hulk was never one of my favorite comic book characters (I watched the T.V. series in the late 70's/early 80's because I liked Bill Bixby as David "I'm-too-insecure-about-my-heterosexuality-to-use-the-name-'Bruce'" Banner, and because Lou Ferrigno made the big green guy so HUMAN and endearing, but I NEVER liked the fact that Banner had to be subjected to outrageous injstice and abuse or get his butt thoroughly kicked at least twice in each episode, in order for the Hulk to get his screen-time).
The only major down-side for me in viewing this film was that I was never able to feel as much empathy as I'd have liked for the Hulk himself in this movie version, but I know the CGI guys did their best, and maybe it's not their fault that their ultra-high-tech computer-generated Hulk often bore an uncomfortable resemblance to the much-lower-tech stop-motion animation monsters of Ray Harryhausen back in the 1950's. Maybe there's no way--short of using a REAL human actor--to make something that many stories high and that over-muscled and green seem human. (Come to think of it, with "Golem", at least, the "Lord of the Rings" CGI artists had the advantage of a creature with over-sized eyes and mouth and an expressive voice to help make him seem more sympathetic, while none of those facial or vocal qualities were available to the creators of this incarnation of the Hulk. As Japanese animators have long known, it's much easier to put "soul" into an animated character if you give it REALLY big eyes, and a big mouth as often as needed.)
So much for the negative stuff.
Here's the positive:
This movie made me THINK, and I liked it. As in "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman" (where the cooking and consumption of food conveyed a wealth of character insight) or "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (where the oh-so-chaste touching of hands between Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh conveyed more passion and heat and LOVE and intimacy than most sex scenes), I would argue that the silences in this film speak volumes and the long stretches of reflective character scenes between the bursts of action convey the real drama and excitement.
More than the idea that Bruce Banner had been genetically manipulated by his obsessed scientist father (to explain why that radiation overdose DIDN'T kill him, but instead produced such atypical results), this film gets at WHY the adult Bruce is capable of such explosive rage -- the severe emotional trauma and repressed memories of his early childhood.
As a side-note, the other member of our movie-going party (besides me) who liked the film and didn't think it was too long or too serious, etc., assured me that the child-abuse issues between Bruce and his father in this film WERE from the comic books, but according to the fascinating study of comic book heroes aired on the History Channel last week, the issue of child abuse was only written into the Hulk's story many years after its creation, when superhero comics were finally daring to touch upon controversial and difficult social problems like racism, drug addiction, and domestic violence.
Some of our group argued afterwards that Jennifer Connolly, as Bruce's love-interest Betty Ross, was too wooden and unemotional (raising the question why on earth she would have broken up with Bruce for being too emotionally distant, when they seemed so perfect for each other in that respect). But her performance didn't strike me as flat or unfeeling at the time, and afterwards it occurred to me that, with a father as emotionally distant and unavailable as General Ross, young Betty would almost HAVE to have developed a cool, logical facade--the only way her father would be willing to deal with her at all would be on the level of cold logic and practicality, and any emotional displays would have been strongly discouraged.
Given the dynamic with her father, it's no wonder to me that Betty was originally attracted to the brilliant and impassive Bruce, and no wonder that her sense of self-preservation eventually led her to break up with him.
Rather than General Ross being the chief villain (as he seemed to be in the animated "Hulk" series from a few years ago, now re-running on the ABC Family Channel on weekends), whatever acts of perfidy the General commits in this film are dwarfed by the utter selfishness and ruthlessness of Bruce's dad, David. Talk about a parent who thinks his child exists only as an extension of himself and to serve his own ambition and ego -- Nick Nolte's David Banner is the poster-child for mess-you-up dads! And I thought the film nicely conveyed the idea that PART, at least, of the reason why General Ross was so set on punishing Bruce as an extension of his father's crimes was Ross's desire to project his own glaring shortcomings as a father onto David (a far worse example of fatherhood), and to destroy his own guilt by destroying David.
Final word: don't go to see this expecting mindless fun and excitement, but if you're in the mood for something a little meatier and more meditative and artful (the recurrence of twisted wood is something to watch for, as a metaphor for strength and the endurance of love in the harshest environments), this is well worth your money.
"HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE"
I put off seeing this so long because I heard the reviews were uniformly terrible (I didn't actually read or hear any reviews of this film myself), but I found it quirky and interesting and fun, and definitely one of the better examples of Harrison Ford's acting ability in recent years. Unlike the lamentable "Six Days, Seven Nights," in this movie I never once thought, "Oh this is Harrison Ford saying these lines and pretending to be this scruffy character." Instead, I just became interested in seeing what this attractively scruffy and imperfect but gifted dectective, Joe Gavilan, was going to do or say to get himself and his partner through all of this.
In tone, this film reminded me a bit of "Lethal Weapon" (without the really dark tones of Riggs' suicidal leanings) or "Lethal Weapon 2."
Go, enjoy the characters, the slightly askew view of police movie conventions (like commandeering a passing car to chase down a murderer), and the hot grown-up love-making between Gavilan and his special psychic friend Ruby.
It's violent at times, but mostly it's just fun in a gritty, trying-to-make-it-through-the-day-and-not-sink-too-low kind of way. Also, see if you can identify the little touches, like the different musical themes Gavilan and his young stud partner have on their cell-phones.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWS OF "DOWN WITH LOVE" AND "BRUCE ALMIGHTY" -- written June 12, 2003
I finally got to see "Down With Love" this afternoon, and it was so good I wasn't even tempted to try to sneak into a second movie afterwards (who wants popcorn, when you're already full of chocolate souffle?) -- for those of you who know how cheap I am, you'll understand what a solid recommendation this is!
"Down With Love" seems at first like an incredibly well-done tongue-in-cheek revisiting of the Doris Day/Rock Hudson romantic comedies of the early 60's (the references to "Pillow Talk", especially, are impossible to miss, including a far more suggestive version of the split-screen phone conversation bath-tub "footsies" scenes). Ewan McGregor is, of course, the Rock Hudson character -- the incredibly-successful-in-his-career-without-half-trying-and-totally-irresistible-to-women man-about-town, substituting his cute accent and mongoose-like speed and maneuverability for Rock's towering physical presence. Renee Zellwiger is, naturally, the Doris Day character . . . it seems. David Hyde Pierce plays the Tony Randall role as Rock's neurotic boss, except that he's funnier and far sexier than Tony ever was, in my opinion, and Randall himself is bumped to playing the old curmudgeon character in this film. The "gal-pal/confidante" is the beautiful book editor who takes Zellwiger's character under her wing, while quickly high-lighting the incredible inequities between men and women in the 60's workplace which give this film its underlying dash of biting social critique.
All goes hilariously according to the established Doris/Rock formula, as a 21st-century-caricature of roles and relationships which were self-consciously somewhat caricatured even in the 60's, I suspect, until perhaps 3/4 of the movie is done. Then . . . THE TWIST! Several of them, in fact (think William Holden's pastiche of movie-plotting in "Paris When It Sizzles").
Suddenly, you realize that what always bothered you about those old, charmingly-clean-by-today's-standards-but-slightly-risque-in-their-day sex comedies was that, no matter how much independence and intelligence the woman might show and no matter how well she brought the swinging bachelor to heel, you knew that the movie's happy ending was intended to reinforce the social order (marriage, monogamy, and motherhood, having utterly defeated the challenge to that order posed by both the promiscuous bachelor and the smart career girl).
Doris could be strong for as long as she liked, but in the end, she presumably found happiness and contentment as just "the little woman" cuddling up to Rock Hudson or James Garner or Peter Graves (I just saw "The Ballad of Josie" again on AMC on Sunday, in case you couldn't place the Peter Graves reference) and settling down to tranquil domesticity as a home-loving wife.
Well, in THIS film, that's NOT how it goes, and I and all the other women in the theater who'd been laughing uproariously during the whole film had our pleasure-factor kicked up several notches more by the unexpected (by me, at least) mutation of the genre. Be sure to stay for the closing credits, since Ewan and Renee sing and dance to "Here's to Love" in a way that just provides the perfect whipped cream and cherry for this lovely sundae of a film.
Oh, and Jeri Ryan in a 'supporting bimbo' role gets to do some of the broad comedy that she only got to do on "Star Trek: Voyager" when Seven of Nine was temporarily possessed by the Doctor.
As for "Bruce Almighty," some folks in church on June 1 spoke well of it, and I'd been intrigued by the news reports of people across the country actually calling the phone number mentioned in the film in apparently sincere (and somewhat desperate) attempts to talk to God. So, I took in an early matinee last Thursday (one which happened to finish as the last matinee of "X 2: X-men United" at the Green Hills theater was starting, which meant that I got to see something I REALLY enjoyed -- "X2" -- after seeing a film that I only sort of enjoyed and sort of appreciated).
To be fair, I much prefer Jim Carrey when he's NOT over the top (really liked him in "The Truman Show" and "The Majestic", for instance, but only liked "Liar, Liar" and could barely tolerate "Ace Ventura"), and this is definitely one of his BROAD comedies, with lots of facial mugging and extreme emotions.
But I laughed often during this film, and on a purely intellectual basis I could appreciate the fact that there was a kernel of substance at the heart of all this froth. Yes, I had much more fun watching "Groundhog Day," which also dealt with the idea of a character with little to redeem him at the start being given as MANY chances as it took to get him to choose to become a decent human being. But this film put a little more theological substance into it, and who could NOT appreciate the gentle humor, integrity, and kindness of the deity as played by Morgan Freeman? Plus, you get a nice, simple, non-denominational, you-already-knew-this-but-here's-a-reminder message at the end.
The biggest impact for me was realizing how INFINITE God's grace and patience and love must be, for going to such ridiculous lengths to give this unlovable JERK (the Jim Carrey character for the first 3/4 of the movie) the chance to discover for himself what a selfish so-and-so he'd been and start trying to do at least one selfless, decent, loving thing.
However, I'd have liked a little more attention to the consequences of Carrey's incredibly selfish uses of omnipotence early on (call me a Calvinist, or just a sourpuss, but I'd like a little more attention to God's justice, as well as God's tolerance and love for one initially unlovable individual). But maybe that's just me.
I have to say that a repeated viewing of "X2" gave me more theological food for thought than "Bruce Almighty", but "Bruce" was nicely undemanding -- like a light sorbet to refresh the palate for more interesting and complicated foods yet to be served.