Ebert didn't like him because he's egoistic but I thought he was cool.
and Mike doesn't like ebert because he thinks he's egoistic but I think he's cool.
;)
My reviews are short these days haha.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The Thomas Crown Affair
The Thomas Crown Affair was released in 1968 and was the origin of that legendary song, The Windmills of Your Mind. A remake was done in 1999. I will be reviewing and comparing both of them. (For the best rendition of The Windmills Of Your Mind ever, you might want to check out Dusty Springfield..)
The original movie was about a man who was, perhaps, a bit too sold on his own mind.. for better and worse. He seemed to be completely bored with life, but could pull off amazing feats using the intellect alone, and he did -- just for kicks. For example, stealing several bags of cash from a bank without ever getting caught and without having to set foot inside a bank, and when he didn't even really need the money.
Thomas Crown and Vicki Anderson (somebody sent by the bank's insurers to help convict Tommy) have a jeopardous affair, a strange embrace between two twisted psyches that gives the term "sleeping with the enemy" new meaning. It is a "psychological" movie in the fullest sense. Much of the movie hangs on the subtlest nuances.
The characters in the first movie were in some way deeply human and conflicted despite their almost sociopathic extremities, so it wasn't entirely impossible to garner some level of affection for them. The ramped-up characters in the remake were more self-confident, more comfortable, smoother, more decisive in their absurdities -- a bit too self-confident, maybe: they were cold as ice and smooth as stone, almost invariably, and I found it impossible to find any kind of affection for either character, except in particular sparse moments in the film. They had no human vulnerability or warmth to them; there was no meaning to their interactions.
..But no, they weren't graceful enough to be boring. Their antics pulled at the resource of their own mental abstractions over their once-human egos, a language mutually understood by both of them even if, most of the time, they were merely both alone together. There are some sensually passionate scenes in the movie, but I wonder if that in itself is one of the lies that we're sold by the media: that such cold-hearted psycho-mavens can ever actually enjoy passion, that their connection lies just a kiss away..
Basically, for most of the movie its makers merely used the Thomas Crown affair story as a framework in which to proffer more of the same sensationalistic bone-chilling psycho-social foolery that, apparently, Americans are idolizing these days.
The original film was criticized for having a thin plot-line, but I didn't personally see it that way. The film is all about psychological nuance, so whenever there is dialog there is content. The glider scene with the debut of The Windmills of Your Mind was also so fulcral to the whole movie that I'm tempted to consider everything else in that movie, past and future, to be merely context-setting for that one consummate moment (now that's what separates a box-office hit from a cult classic..).
By contrast, the 1999 version didn't quite have the same charm, being just another Hollywood ego-sater (they didn't even have The Windmills of Your Mind sung for any scene, because they knew they couldn't live up to that), but I'll hand it to them: their story of the heist was much more enthralling and intricate and demonstrative of Thomas Crown's genius. However, the heist wasn't the only aspect of the story they changed.. they diametrically changed the ending from a sad one to a happy one, which was 90% of the movie's message in the original film, so it's basically not even The Thomas Crown Affair anymore. It's another lucrative Hollywood endeavor.
The first story was bittersweet and highlighted the weakness of the mind to immediately change its course, however much one might want it want to. The 1999 story included some of that, but it wasn't poignant in the same way, not being in the denouement of the film. The first film also showed Tommy Crown's amazing guile and altruism in allowing his potential companion to decline; the second film allowed him to use his skill to break her down and cajole her into trusting again -- with no possible sacrifice for him, and they both assumably lived happily ever after.. though on rather tenuous bases, if you ask me. Or if you ask his therapist -- who, interestingly enough, was played by the same woman who played his lover in the previous film, now 31 years the wiser. (Quote: "If you've found a female mirror image, and think you're going to form a rewarding relationship..")
Overall, I think the first incarnation of the film is a "cult classic" for a reason. The second film was just too cold, for the most part, to empathize with the characters, though the whole process where he established trust between them, once and for all, was very touching. Also, the original film was fraught with all the tensions and perils of being human; in the second, they were both übermenschen to everyone else and to its audience, knowing only secretly, somewhere deep down (or maybe only occasionally, for the script), that they had truly only lost their way home. Actually though, to be honest, only she knew this in the 1999 version. In the 1968 version, perhaps, in his own way, only he knew.
BTW, here's a Radiohead music video that these two movies reminded me of.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
There's not much to say about this movie, but well, it's been a while since I've updated my blog.
First of all, Mia Wasikowska was __absolutely__beautiful__ in this movie; oh, my God, *swoon*. The things they can do with makeup are amazing -- not to say that she's ugly in real life, just.. there were some -- okay, many -- moments in this movie where I just wanted to jump out of my skin to kiss her. And for reasons I don't completely understand, one scene with her, with her particular face and her hair, wearing this really shiny metal armor, was one of the most titillating things I've seen in my life. (I'm still waiting for the DVD to come out, so that I can capture images from that scene..)
The beginning part of the movie, that is, the part before Alice goes down the rabbit hole, was elegant.. not overwhelmingly fantastic, but just generally well-done, flawless. I get the impression that Burton conveyed precisely the context and set-up he wanted to without falter: a Victorian-age scenario in which a fundamentally free-spirited young woman is totally lost within the binds of a suffocatingly strict and overbearing family and society.
To be honest, I thought that Mia's performance lacked a little bit of..spunk. Not to the degree that it stands out as awkward or ineffective, but just enough that one might think to wonder where the beef is, so to speak, despite the acting being consistently..adequate and sufficient. This goes not only for the pretext part of the film, but also for Wonderland portion. For example, when she's supposed to show that she's brave, it's believable, and yet at the same time, you wouldn't have noticed she's brave by what she does if you didn't know that she's supposed to be..
But it's not really that bad, and hardly noticeable; I just thought it was odd for a $250,000,000 movie. And on the other hand, I've noticed that these oddly mild roles seem to make it much easier to balance odd and impossible forces in a film..
The Wonderland segment of the movie lacked nothing to be desired either. The scenery, I would say, was ideal...with one exception: the lighting. Sadly, the dreary, dismal lighting in Wonderland was the one aspect of this film that's uniquely Burtonian, yet also the one thing that somewhat dragged down the entire movie. It would have been so beautiful otherwise. (I say that because I really resonated with the scenery and *not* with the lighting.)
I have to admit, I didn't have high expectations for this movie. Although I was absolutely certain that I had to see it just to find out (because I LOVE Alice in Wonderland story, and because it has Johnny Depp), the only preview of this movie I ever had was a psychedelic image of Johnny Depp that seems frightfully similar to his role in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, which I have to say was an absolutely horrible movie (and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my absolute favorite movie as a child). I wouldn't have even watched it if I'd known. In fact, I don't think ever did finish watching it.
But Johnny Depp's character in this film was pretty satisfying.. basically, because I *adore* crazy people. I mean really batsh*t insane characters. And especially cool is that he's the kind of crazy person who's clever and really has his wits about him when he needs them. But that's not to say the mad hatter is not actually crazy; believe me: he is. This is demonstrated by one really sad, funny, and endearing part of the movie near the end: when Alice tells him that this is all just a dream of hers (because she firmly believes it's so), it implies that he'll cease to exist when she wakes up...and he *believes it*. You can tell this by purely by his facial expression.
I've heard one critic comment that the film has sacrificed much of the heart of Lewis Carrol's original Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and that's definitely true. In case you don't know, the story and dialogue were completely changed. The charm and cognitive stimulation of the original book are completely lost in this film; the only things left are the characters and this concept of a heroic belief in the impossible. [SPOILER] Basically, the whole movie crescendos into a moment or two in the end in which Alice defeats an evil dragon by believing "6 impossible things before breakfast," and has come to realize that Wonderland is actually real -- that it's not just another one of her scary dreams. That's it. That's the whole point of the movie. [/SPOILER] The absurdities and twists of logic that made Carrol's original story what it is are few, far between and superficial in this movie.
I was just somewhat disappointed by the vacuous direction (read: not *directing*) of this movie. It was basically $250,000,000 and an hour and 49 minutes dedicated to showcasing (per se) the concept of "believing in the impossible." But I say "somewhat" because the moral of the story isn't everything to me: I liked Depp's character, *LOVED* Mia Wasikowska's physical appearence, admired certain aspects of the directing (/casting/writing?) skill, and enjoyed the execution of scenery. Overall, I thought this movie was well-done and better than expected. (I was actually intrigued and surprised by the quality of what I surmised was the directing, and only later found out that it was by Tim Burton.)
Note: I watched this movie in 2-D, not 3-D. None of us really wanted to deal with those retarded red and green/blue and yellow/whatever glasses, and the IMAX's showing just didn't fit into our schedule..so YMMV.
First of all, Mia Wasikowska was __absolutely__beautiful__ in this movie; oh, my God, *swoon*. The things they can do with makeup are amazing -- not to say that she's ugly in real life, just.. there were some -- okay, many -- moments in this movie where I just wanted to jump out of my skin to kiss her. And for reasons I don't completely understand, one scene with her, with her particular face and her hair, wearing this really shiny metal armor, was one of the most titillating things I've seen in my life. (I'm still waiting for the DVD to come out, so that I can capture images from that scene..)
The beginning part of the movie, that is, the part before Alice goes down the rabbit hole, was elegant.. not overwhelmingly fantastic, but just generally well-done, flawless. I get the impression that Burton conveyed precisely the context and set-up he wanted to without falter: a Victorian-age scenario in which a fundamentally free-spirited young woman is totally lost within the binds of a suffocatingly strict and overbearing family and society.
To be honest, I thought that Mia's performance lacked a little bit of..spunk. Not to the degree that it stands out as awkward or ineffective, but just enough that one might think to wonder where the beef is, so to speak, despite the acting being consistently..adequate and sufficient. This goes not only for the pretext part of the film, but also for Wonderland portion. For example, when she's supposed to show that she's brave, it's believable, and yet at the same time, you wouldn't have noticed she's brave by what she does if you didn't know that she's supposed to be..
But it's not really that bad, and hardly noticeable; I just thought it was odd for a $250,000,000 movie. And on the other hand, I've noticed that these oddly mild roles seem to make it much easier to balance odd and impossible forces in a film..
The Wonderland segment of the movie lacked nothing to be desired either. The scenery, I would say, was ideal...with one exception: the lighting. Sadly, the dreary, dismal lighting in Wonderland was the one aspect of this film that's uniquely Burtonian, yet also the one thing that somewhat dragged down the entire movie. It would have been so beautiful otherwise. (I say that because I really resonated with the scenery and *not* with the lighting.)
I have to admit, I didn't have high expectations for this movie. Although I was absolutely certain that I had to see it just to find out (because I LOVE Alice in Wonderland story, and because it has Johnny Depp), the only preview of this movie I ever had was a psychedelic image of Johnny Depp that seems frightfully similar to his role in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, which I have to say was an absolutely horrible movie (and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my absolute favorite movie as a child). I wouldn't have even watched it if I'd known. In fact, I don't think ever did finish watching it.
But Johnny Depp's character in this film was pretty satisfying.. basically, because I *adore* crazy people. I mean really batsh*t insane characters. And especially cool is that he's the kind of crazy person who's clever and really has his wits about him when he needs them. But that's not to say the mad hatter is not actually crazy; believe me: he is. This is demonstrated by one really sad, funny, and endearing part of the movie near the end: when Alice tells him that this is all just a dream of hers (because she firmly believes it's so), it implies that he'll cease to exist when she wakes up...and he *believes it*. You can tell this by purely by his facial expression.
I've heard one critic comment that the film has sacrificed much of the heart of Lewis Carrol's original Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and that's definitely true. In case you don't know, the story and dialogue were completely changed. The charm and cognitive stimulation of the original book are completely lost in this film; the only things left are the characters and this concept of a heroic belief in the impossible. [SPOILER] Basically, the whole movie crescendos into a moment or two in the end in which Alice defeats an evil dragon by believing "6 impossible things before breakfast," and has come to realize that Wonderland is actually real -- that it's not just another one of her scary dreams. That's it. That's the whole point of the movie. [/SPOILER] The absurdities and twists of logic that made Carrol's original story what it is are few, far between and superficial in this movie.
I was just somewhat disappointed by the vacuous direction (read: not *directing*) of this movie. It was basically $250,000,000 and an hour and 49 minutes dedicated to showcasing (per se) the concept of "believing in the impossible." But I say "somewhat" because the moral of the story isn't everything to me: I liked Depp's character, *LOVED* Mia Wasikowska's physical appearence, admired certain aspects of the directing (/casting/writing?) skill, and enjoyed the execution of scenery. Overall, I thought this movie was well-done and better than expected. (I was actually intrigued and surprised by the quality of what I surmised was the directing, and only later found out that it was by Tim Burton.)
Note: I watched this movie in 2-D, not 3-D. None of us really wanted to deal with those retarded red and green/blue and yellow/whatever glasses, and the IMAX's showing just didn't fit into our schedule..so YMMV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
