Reviews
One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)
charming and still entertaining over 50 years later, but....
While I love the narrative flow, and the artwork of this classic Disney film, there is only middling character development, and the actions of all the human characters make no sense at all. The best scene of the movie is probably the background info of how the two human protagonists meet and fall in love by the machinations of pongo.
Cruella is memorable in appearance, but in truth her character does not fit the evil cultural icon we had made her into. Her most evil aspects are goth clothing and non-stop smoking. Does she steal souls, end the world, or abuse children? no, just a run of the mill low-life stealing puppies. The plot also makes no sense at all. Cruella is so poor that she is squatting in her own family ruins, drives a barely functional car, and employs the worst two thugs in history. God knows how she pays them. according to the story line, she wants to make a puppy fur coat, because...reasons? and she is poor, so she is breaking into people's houses after carefully casing the joints to make sure they aren't home, and apparently breaks into around 100 houses? (because no one actually has 15 Dalmatians. that is mental) what is the motivation for her thugs? why not, say, just break into 1 house, steal things of actual value such as jewelry and money, and just buy a real freaking fur coat. seems way easier. and what is the end game here? she will take all the puppies to...the puppy-murdering fur coat maker? why is no one concerned about that guy? what happens to the dead skinless puppies? I mean, there are 100 of them. Just drop them off at the horse glue factory? What the heck is happening in this movie? anyways, just joking, this is a classic film your children will love, because puppies.
Stone (2010)
Very little action, a lot of existential questions
I watched this movie last night and I'm still thinking about it. A lot of reviewers gave negative reviews of the storyline or conclusion. However, there is a lot about human nature in this movie, without much moral whitewashing. Also, I think this movie needs to be reviewed not in terms of what is shown on the screen, but what is going on in the characters' minds and the consequences of their decisions. Something like a book review. I always consider these questions first about the events portrayed in a film or book: Is the narrator lying? Are the story lines of the characters all from the same viewpoint? Did anything important occur which the narrator / story does not tell us? What will be the consequences after the end of the film?
First, I am really interested in the existential questions dealt with in this film. 1. Can a person ever repay a moral debt / make up for a crime? Notice that prison, a rigid environment of repetitious schedules, is much like the rigid, unfeeling marriage of Jack and Madylyn. Stone was put in prison for committing a crime, both for punishment, and because he is considered unfit for life in normal society. That is basically what prison is all about. Jack's rigid religious practice, loveless marriage, and uncaring job performance are a sort of self-imposed prison, probably created so that he and his wife can suppress the memory of his previous behavior (mostly we are not told about it), and to give some sort of structure to their meaningless relationship. A secondary question in this film is, how late is too late to even try to make a change?
2. Are people defined more by the day-to-day, minutia of their lives, by single important events, or by the relationships they form with other people? Can a single event define a man's life? In most dramatic movies, people are defined either by something that happens to them, or something that they do. While, in real life, actions have consequences that can be severe, and often people pay great costs for life-changing moments, this film explores the difference between things that are life-CHANGING and life-DEFINING. Jack fails. why? he is defined by his life. For Stone, it is largely irrelevant whether he is a con man or not. That is not what his character is about. He seems to have a real relationship with his wife, he knows her, and she knows him. also, he does not seem to be defined by the events of his life, but by his reactions to those events.
3. Examining the symbolism of Noise / religious ritual. In this movie, it is kind of hard to pin down the source / meaning of the overwhelming buzzing, head pounding, ears ringing, static that Jack, Stone, and Madylyn experience. It seems to me that this static is the internal conflict that a person feels when overwhelmed by the hopelessness of a situation, when the personal failures become the defining characteristic, and when you are somehow unable to see the essential truth of the situation. If you pay attention to the way the director handles Jack and Madylyn reading bible passages and the far right religious radio, it is presented as a similar type of background noise that blurs the true situation.
The religious "epiphany" that stone has should not really be taken so literally, that he "found god" or whatever. Instead, he removed the noise, and the anger, and was able to live with himself and the world. The story does not present him, after being released, as trying to commit any other crimes. He could see the truth of things--that he was not so different from others, that he was not a special case. This is a common misconception among alcoholics and career criminals, that they were treated unfairly, or at least differently than others, and that things are especially bad for them compared to others. Also they feel fated to be the way they are. Another case of a life being defined by the events and actions that occurred, rather than taking charge. For Jack, the deafening silence of the discordant crowd will not go away, it will only increase, until it destroys him, because he has not made that single connection with another human being, to relate himself to their circumstance.
Chasseurs de dragons (2008)
Great avatar world rip off, decent monsters, poor characters, zero story
I couldn't even make it through this film without using fast forward to speed things up. After just watching "Up" I was in the mood for more high quality animation with a great story and depth of character. That is not what "Dragon Hunters" is. The cinematic "scope" of the animated world is pretty and interesting, although meaningless. Looks like the producers of this movie saw avatar and either directly used some of the imagery or just ripped it off. I guess kids wouldn't care about the lack of any explanations about what's going on. In this movie, three luckless "friends" try to drum up some extra money hunting dragons, but end up being sent on an epic adventure across the "world" to kill the ultimate source of evil. The three dragon hunters are only mildly likable, being mostly one-dimensional. The little blue creature, as he doesn't really talk, is only good for sight gags, around three of them. The "leader" has no depth at all and might as well not exist. The large, samurai looking fellow is the only character in the movie who gets any back story at all, which revolves around a dragon destroying his village as a child, and why he took up knitting. (no, seriously) The movie tries to give a moral lesson about the value of friends and the meaning of honor and respectability, but mainly fails. There are only a few actual dragons, and the final ultimate world eater dragon is a huge disappointment. It's just a dinosaur skeleton with glowing eyes. The earlier dragons are more creative and interesting. Most of the movie is the characters journeying (no action or dialogue, just pretty rocks) through the contrived world, encountering a couple monsters every half hour or so. I hate journeying!!!! Conclusion: rent "How to train your dragon" instead, which is a good movie with an actual story.
City of Ember (2008)
Fallout3: The movie
As an avid video game fan, I was amazed that such a blatant ripoff of the recent video game "Fallout 3" could have gone unnoticed. There are so many similarities that it can't be coincidence.
It about a boy and his inventor/engineer father. His mother died. They live in an underground vault that has been sealed off for 200 years. There are mutant creatures, which coincidentally are almost the exact same creatures as in the game. In the movie:a flying-moth-thing, a giant beetle, and a giant star-nose mole. In the game: a fly-thing, giant ants and scorpions, and giant blind moles.
All the underground city is extremely similar to a combination between the first two cities of the Fallout3 game, vault101 and megaton. The food, the tunnels, the architecture, the clothing, The peoples behavior, and the whole overall "we are locked in a vault and there is nothing outside in the world" scenario. The plot at the beginning of the movie: you are old enough to go get your job assignment at the "assignment" ceremony. The beginning plot in the game: you are old enough to go take the test to get your job assignment. sound familiar? Movie: your father tried unsuccessfully to escape the vault in the past, and now he will help you escape. Game: your father gets fed up and escapes the vault, but leaves behind clues so that you can escape.
Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)
great after some wine, with friends
This movie is better than the first reviewer claims. The context of the movie is definitely social, but the humor is only superficially based on the character's real-life celebrity. True, the background music is interesting if you are a film buff. But, take my advice, watch this movies after a couple drinks, at a social gathering, to really enjoy it. The humor is better than in most full length feature comedies. I laughed loud and hard and had a lot of fun when I caught this at the university of Chicago's student movie theater.
the real interest in this film is the social awkwardness created when people meet under false pretense or forced circumstance, versus the natural comfort that is obvious between longtime friends who enjoy each others company.. The gestures and facial expressions by these great actors more than make up for the weaknesses of the film. The brother/sister pairs show boredom and typical familial nit-picking. Iggy and Tom waits are brilliant. buschemi is a little misplaced in the scene where he shows up. my 2 favorite scenes, that i feel show the real genius of jarmusch, are 1.) the moment when molina's gestures have revealed that he is not, as indicated in the first review, a sycophant, but simply an honest and interested human being who is higher up in the scheme of things than the pretentious jerk he tries to befriend; and 2.)the scene where the old guy falls asleep and the camera zooms in on him for a moment, revealing a great moment of humanity.