so, i'm not much of a TV watcher -- I haven't owned a TV in years, and people are always shocked when they find out that we don't have one at home. but we do have a projector and we do watch a lot of star trek reruns (various shows, all seasons), so i guess that makes me something of a TV watcher. but i'm even less of a movie watcher. i watch maybe a few movies every year. i think part of the reason is that i get so absorbed by anything i watch, and i have such a vivid visual memory and imagination, that anything i watch stays with me for days at a time -- the images, the feelings, everything. so i have to be careful about what i watch, because anything too sexual, violent, or horrifying can disturb me and literally give me nightmares. that considerably limits my options. which probably works out because i don't have all that much time anyway.
i have seen a few movies in the past few months, though, and i wanted to spend a few minutes talking about them, because they each got me thinking or had an effect on me in some way. so i thought we could discuss.
WARNING: i won't actually spoil any plots, but i'll allude to some things you may not want to know if you like to go into movies completely blind.
first, memento. we watched this movie at home on the projector a few months ago. interesting, but i don't think i would necessarily recommend it. i think part of the problem is that i had heard so much buzz about it already that i expected it to be great. so that's always hard to live up to. more importantly though, i think it was just difficult to understand. i already knew going into it that the guy had no short term memory and that the movie happened backwards. and i kept asking greg, who had seen it, questions about the plot -- which he would answer. and yet it was still incredibly hard for me to follow what was going on. i paid close attention and was still confused. at the end of the movie, i had to get on wikipedia and read the plot summary from beginning to end. i just think that's kind of ridiculous. i think i'm a fairly intelligent person, and like i say, i was actually paying attention. it shouldn't be that difficult to grasp what was going on. i mean, it's great for a movie to make you think, but at some point, you can be thinking too much and not enjoying the movie enough. i think that's what happened here. interesting idea for a film, not but of course, i've seen worse movies. so... one thumb sideways.
next, casino royale. we saw this one in the movie theater after one of my exams last semester. we were thinking it would be a fun, not too serious movie -- like every other james bond movie -- and that it would be a nice way to relax after my exam. wrong on both counts. of course, this movie had a different director and a different star than prior movies. but those factors have changed often throughout the life of the james bond movies, and they've still managed to keep the movies in the genre of fun, not too serious, glamourous action/casual hook-up flicks. something clearly changed here. this movie was very long and winding (to the point that it contained several climaxes and anti-climaxes), extremely gritty, overemotional, way too gratuitously and disgustingly violent, and just plain tragic. i could not believe i was watching a james bond movie. it left me feeling drained. rather than walking out of theater talking about the great car chase, i walked out of the theater tired and upset. (and might i note, there was actually no car chase at all). it was just not a good movie. i don't know what they thought they were doing here, but i don't think it worked at all. of course, i've seen worse movies. so, again... one thumb sideways.
finally, the illusionist. we watched this one at home on the projector too. now this, my friends, was a great flim. it was entertaining, thought-provoking, full of rounded, complex characters, and the plot drew me in. it was well-written and well-acted (not a surprise, considering how fabulous edward norton is). and the ending was fantastic. when the movie was over, i felt satisfied and happy.
...which is, i think, important for a lot of movies. i'm not even gonna touch documentaries here; that's an entirely different genre that i don't think is comparable. documentaries can definitely be sad, and often should be. but generally, i think movies should have happy endings -- one of the main draws of cinema is that it's an escape from reality. that doesn't mean that no one can die in the movie, or that every movie should end like some God-awful meg ryan romantic comedy; but it does mean i shouldn't walk out of there feeling depressed. a great example of this is the ending in mrs. doubtfire. it wasn't the perfect, storybook ending -- but it was a happy one. i think some movies can be OK without happy endings, but the ending still has to make sense, and the movie has to be very well done. and that's rare. so... as a general rule, if i want to be depressed, i can read the news. movies are supposed to take me away from that for about 2 hours. and the illusionist did that -- very well. highly recommended. one thumb way way up.
ok, thus end my movie reviews. discuss. :)
Posted by naseem at February 21, 2007 03:32 PMI haven't seen The Illusionist yet, but I did see the "other" magic movie: "The Prestige." Also a really excellent film. I really don't know how it will match up with The Illusionist--I'll have to see it. Good thing it's on our Blockbuster Online queue.
You know, I felt the same way about Memento. I really didn't think it was all that. Yeah, it was weird, but it was kind of slow and bizarre for what it was. At least Trinity was in it, right?
I like James Bond movies for their mindlessness. But you can always be certain of a few things: 1. someone will die in a horrible, gruesome way 2. the antagonist is mentally ill 3. a Bond Girl 4. Bond's lexicon will appear to be composed of all cliche phrases either aimed at seducing the girl, getting the bad guy (or girl), and escaping death narrowly. If something in this list is either not present or is skewed, then there's something wrong.
Posted by: Lacey at February 22, 2007 10:24 AMOh boy, here we go. You've just touched a nerve with my inner movie buff. Where to begin?
I don't watch TV either. I watched the first season of LOST, some of the second, then lost interest. Didn't watch it last night.
I don't have cable. The internet satisfies most of my desire for veg time at home.
I'm like you, Nas, movies stick with me and my vivid imagination extends their influence. In fact, I get so absorbed that I sometimes feel the emotions as if I were the characters. That is, if the movie is well made and suspends disbelief effortlessly. So I should be careful, but I'm not. The reason for that is that I'm not very selective: I see 90% of the movies that come to the theatre.
This is because I love movies. Whereas I can do without TV, and I haven't read a book for pleasure in years (much to my own chagrin), a movie provides for me the happy medium between the time commitment necessary for a book and the casual disposableness of television. The same applies to the depth of experience across the spectrum, how deeply each medium can touch you.
I'm one of those who stays through the end credits. As years go by, I've started to recognize names. For instance, my favorite negative cutter is Mo Henry, but there are so few out there (apparently) that I also appreciate the work of Gary Burritt, Teresa Repolo Mohammed, etc. See, for me it's about appreciating all the work that goes into a great film. Waiting through the end crawl is a small gesture of thanks to all the people and their varied talents that are necessary for a film to be great, and to be all the things that it can be to me and others. An escape, instructive, informational, entertaining, uplifting, draining, frightening, touching, sickening, disgusting, depressing...in short, everything that life can be.
Ok, let's see if I can shorten this before I write my own blog entry in your comments. I loved Memento. Adored it, in fact. Precisely because it's so hard to understand, and because, even if you read the plot summary, you still don't quite get it. It's art. It challenges me beyond my capacity. Causes me to grow. There is enjoyment in the confusion. And it's just so blasted different than any other film out there.
I love Casino Royale. It's my favorite Bond film ever made, and I love Bond films. For the record, there was a car chase (or two: the scene at the airport and the scene where he almost runs over the girl in the Aston Martin). I liked it for the reasons you didn't like it: it's real, it's gritty, it's believable, it's emotional, and it exposes Bond's flaws. It's the first film in which he's actually human. Loves, loses, makes mistakes. I related to him like I never have before.
I loved the Illusionist. (Finally, we agree!). It was satisfying for all the same reasons you list. And the reason I put up with the happy ending is because it was a surprise, it was well done, it was believable, it didn't gloss over insurmountable odds (like most happy endings do), and it added to the nature of the film. In short, it fit.
The reason I say "put up" with a happy ending is for the most part I can't stand them. Perhaps that's why I like art films so much. I like movies to portray life as it is. Sure, they're an escape from reality. They show me impossible things. They allow me to dream. They allow me for a short time to exist as someone else, to see through a different pair of eyes. Perhaps I'm still too submerged in the postmodernism of the 20th century. But I don't think that's it. I think that most happy endings are contrived and unbelievable. Discontinuous with the rest of the film. I like for main characters to die. That's real. Real people die. Pain exists. Life is suffering. I like to see that reflected in film.
But that's only my opinion. And a rushed one at that. I fully respect your point of view that movies should have happy endings. I simply disagree. :)
Posted by: george at February 22, 2007 11:56 AMTHere WAS another bond film where he loves, loses, makes mistakes, shows a confused sensitive side and slowly becomes the old Bond again because he has to: You Only Live Twice (Sean Connery, 1966) when his new bride is assasinated, although perhaps the book painted that human side more clearly (the only Ian Fleming novel I ever read, out of bored desperation, the summer I was 14).
Then there was Pierce Brosnan with Terri Hatcher in Tomorrow Never Dies - there was an allusion of actual love - but he did apparently run from committment the first time with her, and although he did avenge her murder, he was also doing his job, so....maybe that's not as good an example. Great motorcycle chase in that one. And smart, hot Chinese Bond girl. And Brosnan's pretty easy on the eyes, too (way more attractive than this new guy).
Haven't seen Casino Royale. Not tough enough to witness excessive violence at the moment. Maybe someday.
Ok, so I guess I have to see Memento finally just to decide if my 100 friends that loved it are right, or my 20 friends that didn't.
The Illusionist has been on my list since George texted me on his way out of the theatre that I MUST SEE IT (I haven't forgetten, babe!). Just when am I going to have time? Don't have a projector for my laptop, either. One of my tech savy brother-in-laws is just going to have to step up and make it happen, I guess. Next family reunion.
I miss the movies. I sit through the credits, too. And I can't see 2 movies back to back for the same reasons of lingering experience that you guys mentioned. No double features for me. BUt I love a good book and have just recently started reading for pleasure again - I am a voracious reader and feel an aspect of my personality is missing if I'm not reading actively. Nas is like that too, and has been since she started reading at around 4 years old. Next you should blog about your recent reads.
glad we all agree on the illusionist. :)
lacey my love, you're brilliant. i couldn't agree more on the bond observations. and that last one cracked me up. :) this just wasn't a bond movie at all. it was something else entirely, except the protagonist also happened to be a guy named james bond who worked for british intelligence. 1. way too many people died in way too many horribly, gruesome ways-- and way more violence and blood was shown than in any other bond movie i've seen. it just wasn't fun. 2. there wasn't just one mentally ill villain that was easy to hate--there was a web of confusing bad guys that still wasn't clear, even at the end. 3. the girl in the movie wasn't a "bond girl" at all (for many reasons, which you'll see if you watch the movie). 4. i could count the stupid cliches on one hand. in fact, i could count the number of lines bond spoke on one hand; he was no glossy, smooth-talking secret agent.
i'm glad you concur on memento. and i will have to see the prestige--i'm sure i'll like that one too. you see... we really are just cosmically connected. we need to see each other again before the rift in the universe expands. :)
george, you and i are good friends despite our artistic differences because we see eye to eye on the most important aspects of life, like the purpose of life. but movies are important too. :) i respect your views and your movie buff-ness and our differences of opinion.
however, i will say for the record that there was nothing in casino royale that can rightly be called a car chase. the airport scene was NOT a car chase--it was a bloody fight on a fuel truck featuring a painfully stereotypical arab-looking terrorist. nor was the 4.5 seconds when the girl got captured a car chase--it was just the short, bewildering set up for another horribly violent scene. neither of those was really a car chase, much less a james bond car chase. but whatev.
toos, i've never seen that one with sean connery, but i believe you about its "realness" (which i maintain is misplaced in any bond film). hopefully it wasn't as excessive, violent, and horrifying as it was in casino royale. and i think you're right about the allusions to real love in tomorrow never dies, but that one was still a classic bond film: it met all 4 of lacey's criteria. :)
anyway, i dunno where they're going with bond films from here. maybe this was supposed to be the dismal beginning of the bond story that explains why bond turns into a heartless, womanizing, glitzy killing machine later on. or maybe they're all gonna be dark and gross from here on out. guess we'll see...
If you want to see a good car chase, watch "Ronin." Best car chase ever.
Posted by: greg at February 27, 2007 09:30 AMBest car chase _ever_? That's a bold claim my friend. I submit for your honor's review:
The French Connection
Bullitt
Matrix: Reloaded
Gone in 60 Seconds (and the original)
The Bourne Identity (and Supremacy)
The Transporter
I suggest a car chase weekend. We come together at a central location (I offer my house, but at George's we could also get on the simulator and re-enact car chase scenese, so....Did I just invite the blogosphere to George's house? Whoops!) then see all these movies in 1 weekend (which means we'll all be living 7-8 different lives in our heads all mixed together because of our lingering experiences, but what the hell), just to vote on best car chase. It's so frivolous but so fun! Car chase weekend, anyone? We'll have 6 varieties of novelty popcorn for Lacey and every kind of pumpkin drink/ sweet imaginable. Wow, I'm in spring break mode. Sorry
Posted by: atoosa at March 2, 2007 02:21 AM