And it's excellent. A lot has been said about how animation in America is just for kid's, while in other countries they use it to tell intelligent stories. Well, Pixar in general and Brad Bird ("The Incredible" and "The Iron Giant") in particular put the lie to that argument by making intelligent animated movies for children. The problem with American animation isn't that it's mostly for kids--it's that it's mostly dumb. And then they try to make up for it by throwing some dirty double-entendres in for the adults. Well, here's a novel idea--make an intelligent movie with a story that appeals to both kids and adults. "Ratatouille" has done that better than any American movie I've seen. Thank you so much.
As an aside (and a really inappropriate one, given that I didn't think it was that bad in this movie), can we call a moratorium on getting big name actors to do cartoon voices? There are tons of more talented voice actors who are much cheaper and do a better job. And didn't anyone go to "Ratatouille" because of Patton Oswalt? Really? An exception can be made for John Ratzenberger because he's Pixar's good luck charm (and by now, probably better known for that than for "Cheers") and for Peter O'toole because he was great as Anton Ego. Oh, and an exception for Mark Hammill (who wasn't in this movie) because he's a really well established voice actor now and is being hired for his genuine talent rather than for being Luke Skywalker.
Okay, I didn't actually say much about the movie other than it's excellent. Well, there are plenty of reviews out there for you to find. But there's one too few today. Rest in peace, Joel Siegel. I don't really read the critics much anymore, I'll click over to Rottentomatoes.com to get a sense of the overall consensus, maybe. But Joel Siegel, for what it was worth, was one of the good guys, and one of the guys I'd read or listen to just for his way with words, not even caring if he liked or hated the movie in question.
Actually, that reminds me of one thing I wanted to mention about "Ratatouille". As I said, Peter O'toole voices Anton Ego, the most famous and cruelest food critic. There's a monologue--all Peter O'toole--which is all about criticism and how it's easy to criticize and hard to actually create. It's basically telling any critic who would dream of writing a negative review of this movie, "Oh yeah, what the hell have you ever done that's so great?" Well, in Mr. Siegel's case, quite a lot.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Jason watches "Fido"--again
This zom-rom-com was the closing night feature at Indiefest this year. Click here and scroll ~2/3 of the way down for my review of it at the time. I'll generally still stand by my earlier review (with one correction--the corporation is ZomCon, not ZomCom), and I'll add that it holds up well to multiple viewings. In fact, signicantly more rested this time, I think I enjoyed it even more. I'll also add compliments to Tim Blake Nelson as pervy but heroic neighbor Mr. Theopolis and Henry Czerny as the villainous neighbor and ZomCon head of security.
And most importantly, my thanks to Dead Channels for getting me into this free sneak preview. "Fido" has been playing for a couple of weeks in NY and LA, and it comes to SF at the Lumiere starting July 6. Check it out!
And most importantly, my thanks to Dead Channels for getting me into this free sneak preview. "Fido" has been playing for a couple of weeks in NY and LA, and it comes to SF at the Lumiere starting July 6. Check it out!
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Jason watches "Talk To Me"
As a special sneak preview, courtesy of Indiefest and going.com. I didn't realize how much of an advance preview this was. This doesn't open until July 13th in limited release and then August 3rd in wide release (according to IMDb).
Anyway, let me just say, Don Cheadle is a fantastic actor, arguably the current best at bridging comedy and drama. And this movie is, if nothing else, a showcase for his talents in both. I'll admit I didn't know who Ralph "Petey" Greene--the ex-con turned DJ/TV star/DC community leader--was before I saw this movie, and now I'm curious as to how faithful it is to reality (in my defense, I was 10 when he died and have never lived in Washington, DC). I wouldn't be surprised if many of the scenes were fabrications, exaggerations, or composites of multiple events. I'd believe that his first day on WOL radio was full of nerves and he was fired on the spot, I'm not so ready to believe that after getting fired he (with the help of Dewey Hughes, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) snuck back in and locked himself in the studio until he was saved by the sheer volume of listener calls. I'm willing to believe that he was unfaithful and fought with his girlfriend and his fellow DJ's. I'm definitely willing to believe that he reported the news of MLK's death with a sense of outrage, sadness, grace, and intelligence that defused a tense situation and calmed the chaos on the streets of Washington. I'm not necessarily buying that those happened on the same day and the news of MLK's death broke up a fistfight between himself and another DJ--that just seems too convenient and theatrical.
But the historical accuracy is not actually that important to me. In this regard, I remember something Roger Ebert once wrote (and I paraphrase): "Movies aren't about literal truth, they're about emotional truth. If they were about literal truth, 'The Wizard of Oz' would be a story of a little girl who gets hit on the head and has a weird dream. But any child can tell you that's not what it's about".
In the same way, biopics tend to work best when they give you a feeling of what the subject character was all about, rather than just a litany of events in his life. And in this sense, "Talk to Me" does an admirable job (again, this is coming from someone who didn't know who Petey Greene was, so people who knew him might have differing opinions). I especially liked how it didn't just fawn over him, it showed him warts and all--throwing up from nerves (or alcohol), showing up drunk, committing career suicide on the "Tonight Show" (and destroying his friendship with Dewey Hughes in the process).
I suspect when it comes out, some reviewers will take it to task for not being more political. Yeah, it takes place in a turbulent time, and he was an outspoken guy. But the political messages--Civil Rights = good, killing Martin Luther King Jr. = bad, burning down the city in response = also bad--are kind of no-brainers. But I didn't really see that as the point of the movie. It's just the celebration of the life of a flawed man who did great things. Perhaps, if you want to see politics in there, there's a message about finding ways to give ex-cons a shot at legitimate careers. But really, it's about the man, his life, and his friends--especially his relationship with Dewey Hughes. Don Cheadle and Chiwetel Ejiofor work great together
Oh yeah, I also have to say that the period style and costumes were really well done. That's also a lot of fun of the movie. Alright, I've already written more than I generally do about movies that are/will be in general release, so I'm ending it there.
Anyway, let me just say, Don Cheadle is a fantastic actor, arguably the current best at bridging comedy and drama. And this movie is, if nothing else, a showcase for his talents in both. I'll admit I didn't know who Ralph "Petey" Greene--the ex-con turned DJ/TV star/DC community leader--was before I saw this movie, and now I'm curious as to how faithful it is to reality (in my defense, I was 10 when he died and have never lived in Washington, DC). I wouldn't be surprised if many of the scenes were fabrications, exaggerations, or composites of multiple events. I'd believe that his first day on WOL radio was full of nerves and he was fired on the spot, I'm not so ready to believe that after getting fired he (with the help of Dewey Hughes, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) snuck back in and locked himself in the studio until he was saved by the sheer volume of listener calls. I'm willing to believe that he was unfaithful and fought with his girlfriend and his fellow DJ's. I'm definitely willing to believe that he reported the news of MLK's death with a sense of outrage, sadness, grace, and intelligence that defused a tense situation and calmed the chaos on the streets of Washington. I'm not necessarily buying that those happened on the same day and the news of MLK's death broke up a fistfight between himself and another DJ--that just seems too convenient and theatrical.
But the historical accuracy is not actually that important to me. In this regard, I remember something Roger Ebert once wrote (and I paraphrase): "Movies aren't about literal truth, they're about emotional truth. If they were about literal truth, 'The Wizard of Oz' would be a story of a little girl who gets hit on the head and has a weird dream. But any child can tell you that's not what it's about".
In the same way, biopics tend to work best when they give you a feeling of what the subject character was all about, rather than just a litany of events in his life. And in this sense, "Talk to Me" does an admirable job (again, this is coming from someone who didn't know who Petey Greene was, so people who knew him might have differing opinions). I especially liked how it didn't just fawn over him, it showed him warts and all--throwing up from nerves (or alcohol), showing up drunk, committing career suicide on the "Tonight Show" (and destroying his friendship with Dewey Hughes in the process).
I suspect when it comes out, some reviewers will take it to task for not being more political. Yeah, it takes place in a turbulent time, and he was an outspoken guy. But the political messages--Civil Rights = good, killing Martin Luther King Jr. = bad, burning down the city in response = also bad--are kind of no-brainers. But I didn't really see that as the point of the movie. It's just the celebration of the life of a flawed man who did great things. Perhaps, if you want to see politics in there, there's a message about finding ways to give ex-cons a shot at legitimate careers. But really, it's about the man, his life, and his friends--especially his relationship with Dewey Hughes. Don Cheadle and Chiwetel Ejiofor work great together
Oh yeah, I also have to say that the period style and costumes were really well done. That's also a lot of fun of the movie. Alright, I've already written more than I generally do about movies that are/will be in general release, so I'm ending it there.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Jason watches "Evan Almighty"
And I really wanted it to be good. I like Steve Carell, and despite what you might think I have no objection to religion-themed movies or family friendly comedies, just as long as they're done well. But this one just...wasn't. I can't put my finger on it, but something seemed off. Even Jon Stewart's cameo as himself wasn't that funny. And Jon Stewart is brilliant, there's something off when Jon Stewart isn't even right playing himself. I don't mind that the resolution is fairly predictable, I think the problem is more that every joke is pushed a little too hard. It's one thing to have a theater marquee advertising "The 40 Year Old Virgin Mary", that's good for a chuckle. But leave it in the background for people to discover, don't zoom in on it until it fills the screen--that's just insulting the audience's intelligence.
That's it, I have nothing more to say.
That's it, I have nothing more to say.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Jason watches "1408"
It was a quiet, relaxing weekend. Just 1 movie, I must be getting tired. Have to rest up now, because the Jewish Film Festival starts in about a month, and Dead Channels starts right after that.
Anyway, on to the movie. It's mostly good, does a great job of creating atmosphere. Samuel L. Jackson in a short but vital role sets up the "haunted room" premise in a manner that acknowledges its predecessors and still convincingly sets it up as something bigger. John Cusack for much of the movie is a one man show and does a fine job as the skeptic tormented to the point of belief. It's not a gory movie, in fact the blood is just about the minimum required. The scares come from the atmosphere, and I'll give it kudos for getting a scare out of chocolates on the pillow. The scares mostly work. I wish they had done without the loud musical cues that shock more than what's on screen. That's just a personal pet peeve of mine--when I know they're just startling me with a loud noise that detracts from what's on the screen, even if what's on screen is genuinely scary. I also could've done without the ghosts projected as old movies. It's just odd and funny, not scary, although their existence sets up one of the best scares in the movie. And finally, the ending was a bit too foreshadowed.
But I don't want to sound like I didn't enjoy it. I can nitpick it, but ultimately I give it high marks for scaring with solid filmmaking technique. I heard a quote once (I forget where) that when you watch a Hitchcock movie, you're scared because you're in the hands of a master, but when you watch a really well-made sick horror flick, you're scared because you're in the hands of a madman (the "Hostel" or "Saw" movies come to mind, but I think the quote was originally referring to 70's slasher movies). Well, as much as I enjoy watching a madman's movie, it's nice to see a horror movie that at least aspires to mastery. Now I want to check out director Mikael Håfström's previous films, especially his 2004 best foreign Oscar nominee, "Evil".
Anyway, on to the movie. It's mostly good, does a great job of creating atmosphere. Samuel L. Jackson in a short but vital role sets up the "haunted room" premise in a manner that acknowledges its predecessors and still convincingly sets it up as something bigger. John Cusack for much of the movie is a one man show and does a fine job as the skeptic tormented to the point of belief. It's not a gory movie, in fact the blood is just about the minimum required. The scares come from the atmosphere, and I'll give it kudos for getting a scare out of chocolates on the pillow. The scares mostly work. I wish they had done without the loud musical cues that shock more than what's on screen. That's just a personal pet peeve of mine--when I know they're just startling me with a loud noise that detracts from what's on the screen, even if what's on screen is genuinely scary. I also could've done without the ghosts projected as old movies. It's just odd and funny, not scary, although their existence sets up one of the best scares in the movie. And finally, the ending was a bit too foreshadowed.
But I don't want to sound like I didn't enjoy it. I can nitpick it, but ultimately I give it high marks for scaring with solid filmmaking technique. I heard a quote once (I forget where) that when you watch a Hitchcock movie, you're scared because you're in the hands of a master, but when you watch a really well-made sick horror flick, you're scared because you're in the hands of a madman (the "Hostel" or "Saw" movies come to mind, but I think the quote was originally referring to 70's slasher movies). Well, as much as I enjoy watching a madman's movie, it's nice to see a horror movie that at least aspires to mastery. Now I want to check out director Mikael Håfström's previous films, especially his 2004 best foreign Oscar nominee, "Evil".
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Jason watches "Bug"
And I'm a bit conflicted. I liked it quite a lot, but I can understand how it got mixed reviews (and the critics who hated it really hated it).
First off, this is directed by William Friedkin of "The Exorcist". This guy takes his own sweet, methodical time telling a story. I can dig that, but a lot of people expect more than a lot of talking from a horror movie. In particular, they can't deal with a horror movie that has no monster.
For me, the key to this movie is you see what you want to see (and that's a line right out of the movie). On the surface, it's a simple descent-into-madness story (and one with terrific acting I might add). However, the descent into madness isn't that interesting without a reason behind it. Digging beneath the surface (as the characters do to find the bugs under their skin) to find that reason is what makes this movie alternately fun and frustrating--or even frustratingly fun. Just like the characters, when you dig you find hints, illusions, spectres that might or might exist, but most of all you find whatever you were looking for in the first place. There are many hints of themes that perhaps are there, perhaps go nowhere, and perhaps cancel out with other themes.
Personally, I liked how it was simultaneously about the fear of intimacy and the fear of loneliness, and the tension between the two. That kept me going for most of the movie. Agnes (Ashley Judd) lives alone locked up in a hotel room fearing her recently paroled ex-husband Jerry (Harry Connick, Jr., doing a great job cast against type). She hooks up Peter Evans (Michael Shannon, who played the role on stage), a shy quiet guy who "picks up on things". After they make love, he's convinced that bugs are biting him, and convinces Agnes of the same thing. And so the descent begins.
I also want to briefly mention the political interpretation. It could be read as a metaphor for the Iraq war--the absolute self-destructive search for an unseen/non-existent threat. I mention this for a couple of reasons. First, when I saw the trailers I picked up on that immediately, probably because I have this whole "modern horror is political" theory running. However, when I actually watched the movie I didn't pick up on that interpretation for nearly all of it. But near the end, Agnes has a line where she says, "We're winning the war", which snapped that interpretation into clear, albeit brief, focus. There's still a lot more going on, but I'm convinced if I rewatched it in the right frame of mind, I'd see it all as a political metaphor. I'd read more into the fact that Peter is a soldier, a veteran of the first gulf war who went crazy and then went AWOL. I just didn't pick up on that the first time, I was more interested in the intimacy vs. loneliness angle.
And I'm sure--although I didn't see them--that there are more interpretations. And of course, you can choose not to dig under the surface and just see a straightforward descent into madness with not much more to recommend it than great acting. But for me, the movie dared me to dig beneath the surface, I did, and I'm proud to say that I came out just about as sane as when I came in.
First off, this is directed by William Friedkin of "The Exorcist". This guy takes his own sweet, methodical time telling a story. I can dig that, but a lot of people expect more than a lot of talking from a horror movie. In particular, they can't deal with a horror movie that has no monster.
For me, the key to this movie is you see what you want to see (and that's a line right out of the movie). On the surface, it's a simple descent-into-madness story (and one with terrific acting I might add). However, the descent into madness isn't that interesting without a reason behind it. Digging beneath the surface (as the characters do to find the bugs under their skin) to find that reason is what makes this movie alternately fun and frustrating--or even frustratingly fun. Just like the characters, when you dig you find hints, illusions, spectres that might or might exist, but most of all you find whatever you were looking for in the first place. There are many hints of themes that perhaps are there, perhaps go nowhere, and perhaps cancel out with other themes.
Personally, I liked how it was simultaneously about the fear of intimacy and the fear of loneliness, and the tension between the two. That kept me going for most of the movie. Agnes (Ashley Judd) lives alone locked up in a hotel room fearing her recently paroled ex-husband Jerry (Harry Connick, Jr., doing a great job cast against type). She hooks up Peter Evans (Michael Shannon, who played the role on stage), a shy quiet guy who "picks up on things". After they make love, he's convinced that bugs are biting him, and convinces Agnes of the same thing. And so the descent begins.
I also want to briefly mention the political interpretation. It could be read as a metaphor for the Iraq war--the absolute self-destructive search for an unseen/non-existent threat. I mention this for a couple of reasons. First, when I saw the trailers I picked up on that immediately, probably because I have this whole "modern horror is political" theory running. However, when I actually watched the movie I didn't pick up on that interpretation for nearly all of it. But near the end, Agnes has a line where she says, "We're winning the war", which snapped that interpretation into clear, albeit brief, focus. There's still a lot more going on, but I'm convinced if I rewatched it in the right frame of mind, I'd see it all as a political metaphor. I'd read more into the fact that Peter is a soldier, a veteran of the first gulf war who went crazy and then went AWOL. I just didn't pick up on that the first time, I was more interested in the intimacy vs. loneliness angle.
And I'm sure--although I didn't see them--that there are more interpretations. And of course, you can choose not to dig under the surface and just see a straightforward descent into madness with not much more to recommend it than great acting. But for me, the movie dared me to dig beneath the surface, I did, and I'm proud to say that I came out just about as sane as when I came in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)