Creed

I really don’t like boxing movies – except for Rocky, Rocky IV, Rocky Balboa, Raging Bull, The Fighter, Cinderella Man, Million Dollar Baby, The Hurricane, and now Creed.  I must admit that I haven’t seen Ali or Daniel Day Lewis’ The Boxer, so they might be on the list too.  Maybe I do like boxing movies after all.

Creed focuses on the same thing other boxing movies do, pretty much everything except boxing.  Sylvester Stallone understands this better than anyone, which is probably why he’s been so successful with the Rocky franchise, and explains how he can be at the center of a boxing film without lifting a finger.  I mean this with all sincerity – my least favorite part of a boxing movie is the climax, when the coach has to re-open the hero’s eyes so that he/she can keep on fighting.  I prefer the part when Rocky gets to use unconventional training techniques to convey a meaningful life lesson.  I know that you’re probably having a difficult time taking me seriously right now, but it’s the truth.

I don’t have anything to say about Creed that would be much different from any other of the boxing movies on my list.  I should equate boxing movies with comfort food – well comfort food that has a black eye, a split lip, and eats raw eggs.  Let me ask you this though; could a movie where Sylvester Stallone gets to say “Yo Adrian” possibly be bad?

The Hateful Eight

Rob and I went up to Denver to watch The Hateful Eight this past weekend.  It would be convenient to say that I must be outgrowing Quentin Tarantino, but that’s not the truth.  I recently re-watched Pulp Fiction  and found its editing, cinematography, and writing to be just as impressive today as they were twenty years ago. 

I suggest that Tarantino hasn’t improved as he’s gotten older; “If you mean it turns to vinegar, it does. If you mean it gets better with age, it don't”.  Instead of maturing as a writer/director, Tarantino has become increasingly obsessed with graphic (albeit cartoonish) violence.  I really don’t understand why, perhaps it is his response to accusations of being a maker of violent films.  As the great film critic Roger Ebert so astutely pointed out, Pulp Fiction is an effective movie thanks to dialogue which is so disarming that the moments of violence have greater impact.

The Hateful Eight starts out with about one hour of a Quentin Tarantino movie that I want to watch, then quickly and completely deteriorated into a bloodbath – and I’m not using literary flourishes.  The first hour of the film centers around two post-Civil War bounty hunters played by Samuel L. Jackson and Kurt Russell travelling together in a stagecoach along with a prisoner played by Jennifer Jason Leigh.  Russell brings an amalgamation of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday to his character, while Jackson reprises his role as Jules from Pulp Fiction.  So far, so good; we get to hear bounty hunters talking about everyday things – all very Tarantinoesque.  As a blizzard overtakes the travelers they must take shelter at a lodge, where the remaining characters are introduced.  For a time this change of scenery seems promising; unfortunately people start poisoning, stabbing, shooting, and hanging each other; clever dialogue and interesting characters are replaced by violence and blood.

If it weren’t for the existence of Django, I might have understood this drastic departure for Tarantino; this time it just seems like pointless excess.  I can forgive Tarantino for recycling some of his own ideas and themes, but his new-found obsession with blood splatter is annoying at best.  As I’ve contemplated the film, I remain impressed by the cinematography and setting (it was filmed here in Colorado), I really enjoyed the first hour, but overall I was disappointed…  Quentin Tarantino can do so much better than this.

Quentin Tarantino achieved a level of greatness when he allowed his characters to be redeemable; Butch and Jules perform selfless acts in Pulp Fiction… I just ran out of examples.  On the other hand is The Hateful Eight; no one deserves to walk out of that lodge alive, and maybe I shouldn’t have expected to enjoy the experience either.

Star Wars Episode Seven: The Force Awakens - Full Review (spoilers included)

It is a great accomplishment that J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan have introduced three new characters that outshine their Original Trilogy counterparts.  Star Wars: The Force Awakens is about the next generation of heroes to occupy the Star Wars universe.  I must admit that for me this was unexpected; I had so much anticipation for Luke, Leia, and Han Solo that I wasn't expecting much from their kids...

I have been affected by the death of Han Solo in a strange way.  As I write that, I recognize that Han Solo is a fictional character, yet unlike so many historical figures of supposed importance, I actually grew up watching and admiring Han Solo.  I may always have consciously grasped that he was merely an actor playing a part, but the impression on a young mind is made with permanency.  The death of Han Solo took place in The Force Awakens for two two reasons:  First, the obvious one, is that Ben Solo's path towards the Dark Side is solidified by the act of murdering his own father.  The second purpose is that the void left in Han Solo's death is filled by Rey; somehow Abrams and Kasdan have created the ultimate Star Wars character - the spirit of Han Solo and the Jedi daughter of Luke Skywalker.

While ultimately it was Abrams and Kasdan who envisioned a bold transition from one generation to the next, much credit must be given to the actors and craftsmen who made the three new main characters come to life.  Daisy Riley as Rey, John Boyega as Finn, and the people over at Industrial Light and Magic who brought BB-8 to life made The Force Awakens an incredibly entertaining movie.

If you don't like Star Wars, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you, because the amount of imagination, ingenuity, and sense of wonder on display is simply extraordinary.

P.S.  I like how Abrams snuck some light saber specific lens flares into the main duel... nice.

Miller's Crossing

In a world that can seem quite overwhelming at times, it’s nice to discover a film that brings me back to what I love about movies.  Life is filled with concerns; finding a job, raising children, money, abortion clinics, ISIS, The Twilight Zone episode in which Donald Trump is leading in the polls…  Then you top it all off by watching the second season of True Detective, and the foundations of society are shaken, how can so much talent and potential be wasted?  Thankfully the Coen brothers made a little movie called Miller’s Crossing.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to suggest that one film can solve all the problems listed above, but it sure does make me feel better.  Somehow, Miller’s Crossing had eluded me for the past 25 years.  It’s understandable that I didn’t see it back in 1990 since I was only 12 at the time.  I saw The Hudsucker Proxy back in high school, and have been a Coen brothers fan ever since.  The Big Lebowski, Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and Raising Arizona show a diversity and range in filmmaking that epitomize what is great about American movies.  Then to top it all off, the brothers made a great film, No Country for Old Men, a film of depth and purpose that achieves what few other films have: a perfect ending. 

So I watched Miller’s Crossing yesterday and it reminded me that America is a great place.  It is a land of opportunity, a place that rewards hard work and recognizes true talent.  Sure, it’s also a place where chauvinistic slime balls can run for president, but that’s beside the point.  Miller’s Crossing is unlike any gangster movie that came before, and I can’t imagine another like it.  Here is a film that is rich with characters, filled with sharp dialogue, and unblinking in its depiction of gangster violence.  For those reasons it should be compared to White Heat, The Untouchables, and The Godfather.  Yet, it stands apart because at its heart Miller’s Crossing is simply about the internal struggles of a single man.  It is encouraging to see a man who traverses life with unwavering conviction; he faces challenges and partakes of pleasure with equal measure.  Now sure he’s a gangster, so his “moral code” is self-defined; what I admire is the fullness of his commitment.  As I examine the concerns in my life, I wish that I had such commitment to my beliefs.  Or maybe I just wish that I could be a gangster.  Come to think of it, I believe that my brother Jon already said these same things about The Godfather.  And going back even further, I think Mark Twain may have touched upon these ideas…  What do they say about great minds?  

Inside Out

Inside Out is an expertly crafted movie, one that really tugs at your heartstrings; but I didn’t really like it.  The director Pete Docter also directed Monsters, Inc which is one of my favorite Pixar films.  Many comparisons could be made between these two movies, but Inside Out lacks one key element that made Monster, Inc so wonderful; joy.  Now sure, Inside Out features a character named Joy who is supposed to represent joy, but ultimately she’s conceited and irritating.  Likewise, Sadness comes across as indifferent and slothful more than sad. 

That being said, Docter and his team of animators did an excellent job conveying the intricacies of young girl’s psyche.  Visual representation of the mind and scenes in the outside world are cleverly edited together very effectively.   Technically and artistically the film may be perfect, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an enjoyable experience.  Monsters, Inc also exemplified creativity and skill, but most importantly it was entertaining.  The characters were funny, likable, and sympathetic.  I am fully aware that this review reveals a double standard that I exercise; I would never have criticized Schindler’s List for not being entertaining.  Perhaps I am being critical because I believe that this film has been misrepresented; it lacks the joy which each proceeding Pixar film has contained.

Jurassic World

Jurassic World comes up short in so many ways, but wins us over with real dinosaurs.  To a jaded 37 year old who first saw real dinosaurs 22 years ago it is nearly impossible to recreate the experience of Jurassic Park, but the new movie is represents a worthy effort.  Let’s start with Jurassic World’s shortcomings, then I will focus on what it got right. 

I wrote the previous paragraph a few weeks ago, obviously I was in a relatively upbeat mood.  The truth is this; Jurassic World is a microcosm of the world in which we all live.  This film is a cynical commentary on the gratuitous idiocy that pervades our country today.  Is there anyone who would really go to a place called Jurassic World after having seen the events of Jurassic Park?  Let me suggest that millions of people would line-up to buy tickets, it would be bigger than Disneyland, the Olympics, and an Ariana Grande concert put together.  The people in Jurassic World sure are dumb enough to go there, whether for work or vacation, does it really matter? 

Here’s how the movie is a microcosm of the world today: everyone is an idiot, and the ones who aren’t idiots have made idiotic choices and are surrounded by idiots.  The guy who by all rights should be the smartest person in the movie crashes his helicopter into an aviary filled with pterodactyls.  The next smartest person in the movie creates a super-predator using an amalgamation of the deadliest animals ever, all based on a memo (from the guy who kamikazed the pterodactyl enclosure).   Would I go too far by comparing our country’s leaders to those of Jurassic World?  Might you start to see the same lemming qualities exist in the general population as were on display in the movie? 

Let’s overlook 50+ years of human rights violations because their cigars are nice.  Let’s just bomb them to hell via remote control, because human life is cheap as long as it doesn’t affect polling numbers.  As I think of more examples, Coptic Christians, unborn children, race relations… I start to realize that the comparison starts to fall apart.  Our leader isn’t some arrogant idiot who wants to fly his own helicopter, rather he is unabashedly evil.  What does that say about us?  How accountable are we for the actions of the “smarter” men? 

We are the people of Jurassic World; happy-go-lucky, excited about “coupon day”, checking our cell phones while T-Rex chomps on the goat.  Bad stuff is going on all around us, some of it caused directly by our action/inaction.  But there’s enough good stuff to keep us happy, the TSA is keeping the bad guys out, so why worry?  Ever since they stopped my grandparents from carrying nail clippers on commercial flights the world has been a wonderful place.

This review wasn’t meant to solve any of the world’s problems and I realize that it hasn’t.  Jurassic World isn’t a huge success because it’s a scathing criticism of our country; it’s a huge success because it’s good clean fun.

Chappie, Furious 7, Avengers 2, and Mad Max

The four films I am reviewing today each rely heavily on special effects; two of them tell stories that require specific effects, one is a strange heartfelt tribute surrounded by illogical excess, and the last is simply a jumbled mess of ones and zeros colliding onscreen.

Let’s start with The Avengers 2, a movie that does little to establish its purpose for existence.  It tries to include a moral lesson; ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’, but no one seems to learn the lesson.  Towards the end of the movie Captain America gives Tony Stark a stern lecture about his failed attempt to single-handedly try to protect the world… Moments later the Captain is right back at Iron Man’s side, apparently doing it Tony Stark’s way is the ‘lesser of two evils’.  A better film would focus on the contradictions, acknowledging the impossibility of a flawed man’s ability to balance power with goodness.  Unfortunately The Avengers 2 was not this film, rather it was a mess of special effect – beautiful special effects, but a mess nonetheless.  I know that I’ve used this Jurassic Park reference before, but the special effects wizards on The Avengers 2 were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. 

Furious 7 was an interesting tribute to Paul Walker.  This movie was just as convoluted and unnecessary as parts 2, 4, 5, and 6 in the series have been, but then some of my favorite films of all time are convoluted and unnecessary (see Star Wars, Casino Royale, and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off).  I wish that sequels could all follow in The Godfather Part II’s footsteps – logical continuations of captivating stories.  Alas, that is not the world we live in.  Furious 7 is just what would be expected for a seventh installment of a franchise, with a heartwarming farewell to a character that we liked a long time ago, but had gotten lost in the crowd .

Chappie is the third Neill Blomkamp film that I’ve seen, and it suggests that his best is yet to come.  I say this because I really liked his approach to District 9, but thought that he took somewhat of a step back in Elysium.  With Chappie he corrected the errors of Elysium, and refocused his attention on story and character.  Special effects are extremely important in the stories that Blomkamp is telling, yet he seems to understand which should be the focus and which should be in the supporting role.  I also liked that Blomkamp focused on characters that are so unique; it seems to be a greater challenge to convince an audience to care for such odd people, but it’s so much more interesting.  Hopefully Blomkamp is able to keep his priorities in order and retain his style as he delves into the Alien universe.

Mad Max: Fury Road is a wonderful spectacle of cinematography.  The art design, stunt work, and the linear storytelling all combine to deliver an entertaining experience.  Hopefully, this simple, to-the-point review is the best way to convey how I felt about this film.

Whiplash

While Whiplash isn't the most recent of this year's Best Picture nominees to be seen by me, I decided to save it for my final review of the eight films being considered.  Rarely does a film deliver so completely on the promise it makes.  What I mean is this; the first two acts of a film deserve a final act that brings the purpose of the film home.  That doesn't necessarily mean a happy ending, or tying-up all loose ends; rather it means that there is a perfect ending to every film.  I would suggest that only one in a thousand films ever get close, and Whiplash has definitely accomplished this better than any other film this past year.  There were a few times throughout the film when I wondered "where is this going?"  Even ten minutes before the movie ended I could see that there were many possible outcomes, but never would have envisioned the one that played out.  Yet I don't want to leave the impression that a great ending makes up for a bad movie; it will never be so.  No Country for Old Men, The Godfather, and The Village; these are all great films that captivate you from start to finish, they pull you in and then end precisely where they should.  Whiplash is about a young man obsessed with being a great drummer.  Not only does he dream of this, he has talent and the work ethic to pursue his dream.  There is one man who may be the catalyst to his dream or may be the insurmountable obstacle.  The man is played by J.K. Simmons as a jazz band conductor who verbally and emotionally abuses his students.  Other reviewers have described his character as a monster, and I tend to agree.  That confronting a monster could be necessary to achieving one's dreams is an interesting subtext to this film. 

The two films that I would ever want to see again that were nominated for best picture this year are The Grand Budapest Hotel and Whiplash, with Whiplash being the best film of the bunch.  The worst film was far and away American Sniper, which is too bad because it really could have been a powerful film, and with its popularity Clint Eastwood really missed an opportunity.  Alright, well back to homework, hopefully I'll get to review movies more regularly in the coming year.

Birdman

Rob and I took a gamble yesterday afternoon, braving the wintry conditions to see Birdman, hoping to beat the blizzard.  Rob remembers the storm of '97 when he got stuck at work for days in a row (he wasn't happy).  I tried to console him, pointing out that getting stuck at a movie theater would be awesome; they'd have to feed us, let us see all the movies, and probably give us cool stuff too – I was almost hoping to get snowed-in.  To make a long story short, we saw Birdman, and made it home safely, just ahead of the snow… too bad.

Michael Keaton was excellent in Birdman, as was everyone else; Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton et al.  Going into the film I was not aware that it would flow together as one extended shot; obviously an elaborate trick in the editing room, yet still quite impressive.  That aside, it was a remarkable, singular experience that was entertaining in the moment, but fails to leave any reason to recommend it.  Keaton plays a washed-up version of himself, whose main claim to fame was a role as Birdman, an obvious allusion to Keaton's role as Batman.  Keaton's character has financed, adapted, is directing and is starring in a Broadway play, in the hopes of validating a life which otherwise is defined by the shallowest commercialism of Hollywood.  The film should be a satire, pointing out the emptiness of acting regardless of stage of silver screen.  While elements of that film exist, it never quite goes far enough, being content in the story it tells instead of acknowledging the lessons that could be learned.  I hope that the filmmakers understand the irony that they have made a shallow movie about a man who is looking to escape the shallowness of movies.

Selma

I must admit that certain things I had heard kept Selma off my list of desired viewing.  That I liked the film should remind me that other people quite often have poor taste, and low expectations are more easily exceeded (I think that's a paraphrase of Homer Simpson).  There are three elements to Selma which I believe contribute to it being a successful film; scope, casting, and heart.  By focusing on one chapter in Martin Luther King Jr.'s life, the events in Selma Alabama, the film captures King's contribution to mankind without trying to be a biography.  David Oyelowo as Martin Luther King Jr. was spot-on, delivering speeches with measured charisma and portraying King as a man who struggled with his burden in the private moments with his wife and close friends.  Never did King seem to give into his struggles; rather he was encouraged by those who God placed in positions of advisors.  I liked that he was bold and a strong leader, yet humble enough to submit when wisdom came from various sources.  The heart of the film is a genuine honoring of King's commitment to stand up for those who cannot stand for themselves.  Even though there were plenty of opportunities for King to derail, he stayed true to his beliefs, and I think that the film followed his example.

The Imitation Game

I usually try to avoid movie trailers because they too often negate the necessity of actually watching the movie (and I like watching movies).  Sometimes the trailer is actually superior to the film, as with American Sniper and any of the Iron Man movies.  I mention this because I had seen the trailer for The Imitation Game, which essentially is a summary of the entire film.  Sure the trailer doesn't emphasize how being different, specifically being a homosexual, gave the main character an advantage; the ability to solve a problem that saved many lives and helped the Allies win World War II.  The performances are sound, Benedict Cumberbatch plays Alan Turing (the father of computers) as a socially awkward genius, quite similar to his Sherlock Holmes role, but with a bit more humanity.  The supporting characters aren't really very interesting, but contribute what is necessary to the film.  The stand-out element of the film comes in the form of flashbacks, as we see a young man who befriended Turing in his boarding school days.  The kindness and encouragement that Turing received from this older student had an important impact on the man he becomes.  Unfortunately the depth and thoughtfulness that is depicted in these flashbacks doesn't carry over into the rest of the movie.  If you've seen the trailer, there is no need to go an further.

The Theory of Everything

Jess, Ashley, Jude and I watched The Theory of Everything this past week.  It's nice to be able to sit down with family and watch a good movie, one that inspires interest in characters and questions about the specific events portrayed within.  I had preconceived notions about this film, knowing something of the story already and assuming that it would be very favorable towards its main character.  The film is about Stephen Hawking, the gifted physicist who has long suffered from motor neurone disease.  Hawking has been a leader in modern Cosmology, hypothesizing "that the universe has no edge or boundary in imaginary time. This would imply that the way the universe began was completely determined by the laws of science" (hawking.org.uk). The Theory of Everything is about three different struggles that go on simultaneously in Hawking's life; his illness, his scientific research, and his relationship with his wife.  It is tragic that he can never triumph in any of these struggles without it negatively affecting the others.  When he finally finds someone who can help him overcome his physical limitations, he abandons his wife for her.  I am simplifying the film of course; it is quite thoughtful in its portrayal of Hawking, and the people in his life who care for him.  I was surprised by his wife's commitment to her belief in God, even when her husband seemed intent on disproving God's existence, she didn't seem concerned.  What is interesting is that work done by Hawking and his counterparts in the scientific community is quite often amazing; only their preconceptions keep them from the truth.  Towards the end of the film Hawking is giving a lecture, and encourages the audience by telling them that even though they are insignificant little specs in an immense universe, there's something very special about each person.  In one of the next movies I review, Selma, one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s friends reminds him that if God cares about the birds "Are you not of more value than they?" (Matthew 6:26).  Isn't it interesting that Stephen Hawking intellectually came to the same conclusion, unfortunately he just doesn't believe it.

Boyhood

Jess and I watched Boyhood about a week ago, and while it wasn't a great film, it definitely is a memorable one.  As you probably know, Richard Linklater filmed Boyhood over a twelve year span, which means that the same actors actually age twelve years over the course of this 2 ½ hour film.  This alone makes the film memorable; even with the best special effects artists it is impossible for makeup to portray the passage of time as convincingly as the actual passage of time.  This twelve year experiment is not entirely successful; partly because it is distracting, and partly because it lacks continuity.  The exception to this analysis is Ethan Hawke's performance; he plays the father to Mason (the boy referenced in the title).  Instead of being distracted by physical aging, we see the consistency that exists in his relationship to Mason over the twelve years.    Perhaps what this film most clearly demonstrates is that experiments and gimmicks are unnecessary in filmmaking – a good story, good dialogue, and a great actor is all you need.  

The Grand Budapest Hotel

This will be the first of seven brief reviews that I will post today; with these seven reviews I will have covered each of the films nominated for best picture from the past year.  In my final review I will reveal which film is my choice to win tonight.

I saw The Grand Budapest Hotel almost a year ago, and I must have been too busy to write a review at the time.  It's somewhat surprising to me that this film is nominated for best picture, but as you will discover in my other reviews of the nominees The Grand Budapest Hotel deserves this recognition more than a few others.  I've enjoyed each of Wes Anderson's films, I think that he made one great Oscar-worthy film, but this isn't it.  But maybe that is the wrong way to look at it…  This film shouldn't be compared against prior work, but on to other films also nominated this year.  Here is a film that is funny, has a vivid color palette (which matches the film's atmosphere), entertaining, and quirky.  That it doesn't have substance keeps it from being one of Anderson's best, but maybe just being entertaining will be enough to give Anderson the win this year.  Anderson does an excellent job of presenting characters that are interesting and unique.  While the backdrop changes between each of his films, he always zeros-in on the most fascinating people.  The Grand Budapest Hotel has a pulse, it is alive.  This is one of two movies nominated this year that I'd ever want to watch again, and that definitely is more important to me than who wins the title of Best Picture.

American Sniper

Clint Eastwood's American Sniper is an odd blend of themes and genres that have been covered before, but this specific combination left me feeling unsettled.  There are elements of an action movie here which draw a stark contrast to the thoughtful character study.  In his earlier film Gran Torino, Eastwood found the right balance, keeping a tight focus on the protagonist's perspective.  With the current film, we the audience are outside observers, never quite understanding what is motivating the characters onscreen.  Bradley Cooper plays Chris Kyle, a Navy sniper who is credited as being the most deadly sniper in American history.  The film follows Kyle as he struggled through an aimless early adulthood, a period which was abruptly interrupted when an attack against America prompted him to join the military.  By the time September 11^th arrives and American troops are called upon to take the fight abroad, Kyle has become an expert Seal sniper.  These introductory chapters are rather simplistic in explaining Kyle's motivation.  A sense of patriotism is paired with the philosophy that there are three kinds of people; sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. 

Kyle's fellow Seals and Marines are portrayed without much depth, their behavior and dialogue is reminiscent of action movies – without the humorous banter of a 90s Schwarzenegger movie.  Kyle is portrayed by Cooper as focused and brooding; I specifically used the word brooding even though I believe that the intent was to convey introspection.  He snaps back at those who celebrate kills on the battlefield, and is uncomfortable with gratitude he receives for his service.  While the Kyle character claims that his motivation is saving American lives and fighting evil, it is never adequately explained how it was possible for him to take so many lives and keep his sanity.  Perhaps it was just me, but there seemed to be an elephant in the room with every return trip to Iraq; was Kyle's sense of duty the only reason he kept killing?  I am reminded of a film that was not hesitant to address this question; Patton acknowledged that war defined the man, not only would Patton have not fulfilled his purpose without war, he also loved it.  I left American Sniper unsettled because I didn't know the answer to that one question.  Perhaps Eastwood intended for me to feel this way, knowing that a successful film should be thought-provoking.

Beyond the unanswered question, Eastwood's direction, focus, and editing choices seemed to be lacking.  Scenes that should have been gut-wrenchingly powerful, specifically ones that included violence directed at women and children were poorly executed.  At a moment that should have established Kyle's righteous anger towards a brutal Iraqi leader, the focus instead is on his rivalry with an enemy sniper.  Other films such as the 2008 Rambo, and Tears of the Sun exposed audiences to horrific atrocities, scenes that were difficult to watch.  Those moments were meant to both provide motivation for characters in the respective films, but more importantly remind us of the evil in the real world that must be fought.  Clint Eastwood is unsuccessful at portraying violence in this film with that deeper purpose, even though that seems to be his intent.  This film is far from perfect in its execution, yet the discussions it will prompt and the depiction of a true American hero (flaws and all) make this an important film.

Life Itself

Life Itself was a disappointment for two reasons; it didn't focus on the best attributes of its subject, and it revealed a hopeless emptiness which was quite depressing.  This film is a documentary based on Roger Ebert's autobiography, filmed primarily in Ebert's hospital room as he neared death.  Having not read the autobiography, I can only assume that it is more insightful and optimistic than this film.  The shroud of death and Ebert's painful struggle with cancer overshadow other aspects of his life; instead of focusing on what made Ebert great, this film documents his final days.  That would be alright if the final chapter in Ebert's time on earth was inspirational or poignant.  As Ebert struggled to communicate verbally, and eventually lost his ability to speak, he poured all his energy into blogging.  Ebert kept on reviewing an extraordinary number of films up to the end of his life, viewing the films at home and posting reviews online.  His website, RogerEbert.com was updated during this time to contain all the reviews he had ever written (he began officially on 1967).  While his film reviews will be his lasting legacy, little attention was given to explaining what makes them so important.  Steve James, the director operates under premise that Ebert was a great film reviewer and focuses primarily on his daily routines and the impressions of his friends and associates.  Instead of being a documentary, Life Itself works more as an obituary.  In the end the emptiness of Ebert's life is clearly apparent; James tries his best to spin the final scenes as peaceful and beautiful, yet they deliver tragic hopelessness.  A summary of this film would simply be; well-known Chicago film critic dies after long struggle with cancer.

As someone who loves reading Roger Ebert's film criticism and grew up enjoying Siskel and Ebert's "At the Movies" television program, Life Itself was a letdown.  Unfortunately I realize that the man behind the curtain is bound to be a disappointment.  Perhaps I should praise Life Itself for being an honest representation of the man Roger Ebert.  Still it makes me sad.

Hoop Dreams

I've wanted to watch Hoop Dreams for about twenty years, and yesterday I finally did.  In those twenty years I have seen quite a few movies, including Speed 2 and a live-action version of Alvin and the Chipmunks.  Why do I waste my time with such garbage when films like Hoop Dreams remain unwatched?  There's no good answer to that question, so let me simply discuss a great film and pretend that those other ones never existed.

Film can be a powerful medium, whether the images have been manipulated to illicit a specific reaction, or as in the case of Hoop Dreams is used as a window into an otherwise unseen world.  High school basketball is the backdrop of this film, but it is really about choices, attitudes, family, and consequences… life.  There was a point early in the film that prompted my suspicion; "are the filmmakers only showing one side of the story?"   As the film unfolds naturally, chronologically, my doubts were dispelled.  The film doesn't show contrasting points of view as one might expect in a political debate, instead it becomes clear that life isn't always that clear cut.  The film follows two boys from Chicago, William and Arthur, each playing on a competing high school basketball teams.  William's coach seems more interested in winning basketball games than in building the character of his players.  I got this impression from the things William said about him and from his own words during onscreen interviews.  Yet he is a basketball coach, tasked with generating revenue for the school.  Also, he does instill strong values and has high expectations of his players.  While I ended up not liking him, I believe that I came to that conclusion myself.  A great documentary has something you need to see – it shouldn't tell you what to think, if it shows you something true then it doesn't have to.

I finally got around to watching Hoop Dreams because it was considered to be "the great American documentary" by Roger Ebert.  Another film I have been looking forward to is Life Itself, a documentary about Ebert by the filmmaker of Hoop Dreams.  It just seemed natural to watch the one before the other.  I will let you know what I think about the more recent film soon (hopefully it'll take less than twenty years).

The Hobbit Part 3

My experience watching The Hobbit Part 3 was reminiscent of cross country races I formerly participated in.  Having been to one, I knew what to expect – an arduous journey that is only truly satisfying when it is finally over.  Cross country was character building and established friendships during an important chapter in my life.  The Hobbit trilogy has given my family a shared annual event, something to look forward to and enjoy together.  Yet neither the cross country or the Hobbit movies provide anything but agony and despair – merely they were the conduits which linked me to something good.

Alright, I recognize that "agony and despair" is a slight overstatement.  I remember good things about cross county; running through the woods, passing a few people, (those are the only two I can think of right now).  Similarly, the Hobbit trilogy provided a few bright moments; Bilbo and Gollum in the cave was pretty cool, Bilbo and Smaug in the cave was pretty cool, and hearing a familiar exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf from a different point of view in the third film was also pretty cool.  But really, 8 ½ + hours of video for 10 minutes of enjoyment, that seems unreasonable to me.

It's not Peter Jackson's fault that the Hobbit trilogy is so bad, it's our fault.  The Lord of the Rings was written, filmed, and edited with a sense of desperation that had previously made Star Wars great.  With a limited budget, limited resources, writers and actors who are passionate about the material, and one's own money and reputation on the line, films like The Fellowship of the Ring and A New Hope are possible.  Unfortunately, in both George Lucas' and Peter Jackson's cases, without the previously mentioned limitations, when left to their own devices, the results are disastrous.  Our consumption of the Lord of the Rings trilogy emboldened Jackson to morph into someone who would feel comfortable releasing the Hobbit movies.  Had we only known what we know now, perhaps things would be different.  Think of the artists who toil an entire lifetime, never achieving fame or fortune, yet their works are "discovered" years later to much acclaim.  Wouldn't it have been better to pretend that we didn't like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, forcing Jackson to struggle against all odds to get The Hobbit made?  Then perhaps, just maybe, it would be a much better film.

Before I close, I realize that this may be one of the worst movie reviews ever written; I haven't even discussed the movie itself.  The movie begins at a moment that assumes a recent viewing of the previous Hobbit entry.  In a better series that assumption might be appropriate (i.e. The Two Towers), but here it's simply confusing.  The characters in this film are so bland and indistinguishable (other than Bilbo) that they could be compared to extras in Schwarzenegger films from the 80s…  The AK-47 wielding enemies in Commando were never meant to evoke our sympathy; they existed only as M60-fodder.  Unfortunately everyone in the Hobbit movies feels like that.  Even the central characters Gandalf and Bilbo, who are protected by chronology, all too often get lost in the mess.  And the movie is a mess, not as bad as the last one, but that isn't saying much.  Battles within battles, so much fighting and enemies coming from every direction, without any substantive narrative.  Maybe it's just me, but good guys fighting bad guys does not make for a good storyline.  At least in Commando Schwarzenegger is on a mission to rescue his daughter.  The Hobbit movies offer no such motivation.  Unless I am mistaken, everyone is fighting over a really big pile of gold -- is no one concerned about inflation in Middle Earth?  That much coin injected into their economy will devalue everything.

Like a grueling cross country race, I am glad that the Hobbit trilogy is over.