Talking About Stuff, with Mike and Christiana

The reason I got a late start on my Oscar-cast last night was because I had a friend over and we had a Miyazaki movie marathon with: The Castle of Cagliostro, Porco Rosso, and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind.

If you're not yet familiar with Hayao Miyazaki, then I think you're in for a treat. Some have called him the Japanese Disney, but I think a more apt moniker would be the Japanese Pixar. Everything I have seen from him, I have absolutely loved.

If anime brings to mind images of Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh, then you really owe it to yourself to have a look at some Miyazaki. Pokémon is cheap, mass-produced anime. A Miyazaki film is a work of art. Think of it like this: Pokémon is a cheeseburger at McDonalds, A Miyazaki film is a great steak. In theory, they both come from a cow, but the difference in taste and presentation is immense.

The three films listed above are some of his older work, and as such, some of the animation is a little less sophisticated than the more recent films, but the stories are just as magical.

The Castle of Cagliostro

This is the very first full-length film that Mr. Miyazaki directed. He had done some television work before this, but even with his very first film, he achieves tremendous success. It features an adventure of the famous Lupin III, a classic Japanese Manga character. If you already know who Lupin III is, then you probably already know about Miyazaki as well, so I'll write this review as a primer for the uninitiated.

Lupin is like James Bond's id. His playful, impulsive side, freed from all that stuffy, old-fashioned patriotism and thus allowed to use his considerable skills for things that are more fun, like stealing expensive things, hitting on beautiful women, and generally having a really good time.

In this film, he decides to seek out the origin of the famous "goat bills", counterfeit money that is supposedly 'better than the originals.' This particular adventure will lead to evil Counts, giant castles, a runaway bride, ancient conspiracies, lost treasures, booby traps, impersonations, ninjas and eating to the point of unconsciousness.

It's loads of fun, with some real drama but without ever really taking itself too seriously. I came to it new, without really knowing anything about Lupin or his friends and adversaries, and the movie introduced me to each of them brilliantly and I was never confused for a second. That said, my friend, who is a Lupin fan, informed me that the film is literally filled with in jokes and little bonuses for long-time fans.

One early scene captures a lot of the fun: Lupin and his long-time friend Jigen are pulled over on the side of the road, changing the tire of their tiny Eastern-European car. It's a serene picture, until they hear the sound of an approaching car. Soon, a car races by them at high speed, driven by a woman in a bridal gown. Only seconds later, another car zips by, in hot pursuit, driven by a number of armed thugs.

Without wasting a second, (and indeed, barely allowing Jigen time to get back into the car,) Lupin presses a hidden switch, opening a secret panel in the back of the car, revealing a souped up engine. They take off like a shot, going after the two cars.

"Which one are we helping?" asks Jigen.
"The girl," says Lupin with a maniacal grin.
"Hmph... Typical," grumps Jigen.

The Castle of Cagliostro is available on DVD.

Porco Rosso

This is probably the most mature and sophisticated of Miyazaki's films. I mean that thematically, not in terms of content. Porco Rosso tells the story of a seaplane WWI-style flying ace who was the sole survivor of a doomed military unit. Since then, he's had the feeling that he's meant to be alone, on the outside of life. This makes him wary of getting too close to people, even when it's what he really wants. Oh, and for reasons never made explicit, he was cursed by a magic spell to have the head of a pig, thus the title, which translates as "Red Pig".

It sounds bizarre, and, well, it is kinda. But Marco, aka, "Porco" is a gruff, but likeable loner, and you really root for him. Both that he is able to defeat his romantic and flying rival, Curtis, and that he is able to come out of his shell and finally court the woman he loves from afar. Along for the ride is Fio, a plucky teenage girl who happens to be a top-notch airplane engineer.

The story is sweet, bittersweet actually. When Fio asks for the story of how he became a pig, he doesn't quite comply, telling a different story instead, but a truly touching one with some wonderful visuals. Likewise, the film also has some really exciting arial dogfights; complex, but comprehensible in a way only animation is really capable of. The climactic fight is simultaneously tense and funny and the film is incredible. Bittersweet, but hopeful.

Porco Rosso is available on DVD.

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind

Nausicaä starts small. An old man in a strange outfit that includes a gas mask is exploring the ruins of a town that has been overgrown by odd, alien-looking spores. We learn that thousands of years ago, the human industrial civilization has collapsed, and "The Sea of Decay" has spread over much of the world, an entire alien ecosystem that produces clouds of toxic gas, rendering entire regions uninhabitable by humans.

Next, we meet a teenage girl, wearing a similar mask, collecting samples from a vast alien jungle populated by giant insects and bizarre plants. She's cautious, but not fearful, talking to the creatures she finds there as though they can understand her, and taking time to appreciate the alien beauty of the place.

She hears a gunshot in the distance and knows immediately that it means trouble. The insects don't tolerate human violence in their territory. She leaps onto a one-person jet-powered glider and soars off towards the noise. It's the man from the opening, and he's being pursued by an Ohmu, a tremendous alien insect thing the size of a five-story building.

The story grows from there, getting bigger and bigger until it encompasses a vast war featuring many human nations and armies of thousands. It's fantastic science fiction, with rich interesting aliens, cultures, technology, etc.

But it's also the story of a girl, Nausicaä, the princess of her valley. She instinctively knows that there has to be more to the insects and the spores. When soldiers invade, intent on burning away the Sea of Decay, she knows that it's a mistake. Every time it has been tried, the attempt failed, and the retribution from swarms of Ohmus was terrible and killed millions. That won't happen this time, they say, they have a secret weapon.

The film follows Nausicaä as she tries to protect her valley, to avert a war, to save all civilization from its own mistakes. She's a fantastic character. Tough, capable, brave, but without sacrificing femininity or emotion. One of the things that Miyazaki is incredibly good at is writing extremely strong female protagonists. Many of the other characters are really cool as well. The film is grand in scope without losing sight of character or detail. A scene near the climax with Nausicaä and a baby Ohmu is enormously powerful.

I wish I could write like this.

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is available on DVD.

And don't forget all the other wonderful Miyazaki films!
My Neighbor Totoro, also on DVD
Kiki's Delivery Service, also on DVD
Castle in the Sky, also on DVD
Princess Mononoke, also on DVD (this is the only one that might warrant a caution, it's different in a lot of ways, dealing with a lot of animal spirits. Still good, just unusual.)
and Spirited Away, last year's Oscar-winning Best Animated Feature, also on DVD

Pick up any of these and you won't be disappointed.

Troy was the last of the films on my Oscar marathon list, so perhaps by going ahead and putting the review up, I can achieve a sense of closure on that otherwise painful night. (In truth, the wounds are already scabbed over, so unless provoked, I won't be bringing them up again here.)

So anyway, Troy.

...

*shrug* Well, I liked it.

Of course, I've never read The Iliad, so I can't comment on its faithfulness as an adaptation, so that may have been the film's one saving grace. From what I understand, first and foremost amongst complaints about the film are its utter inadequacy at presenting a classic story of Greek myth.

*Sigh*

I'm still pondering it. Is it just that the movie is dramatically different from what I wanted it to be, or is it just really that bad?

The first half of I, Robot disappointed me in one aspect after another, to the point where I was just bored and disinterested by the whole thing. The second half of the movie had a few good elements, but by then, I was done caring.

It's Oscar Nominated for its visual effects, and at least on that score, it delivers. The various robot effects and everything are pretty much flawless, and they are definitely visually interesting, though Spiderman 2 still will and should win. There are also a few ideas later in the movie that I liked.

There, that's everything that was good.

Should I really list everything that I didn't like about it, or should I just tell you it's a slick, but ultimately boring and dumbed down action cliché and be done with it?

Well, thanks to the miracles of hypertext, I can do both. If you don't care about the list, just move on now.

I really wanted to like this movie. I remember when I first heard about it, I was really psyched. Isaac Asimov's collection of short stories, the original "I, Robot", was one of the very first science-fiction novels I ever read, and I really loved it. It had an interesting premise and applied it in a number of interesting ways and placed it all in a number of compelling plots with believable characters. A movie of it could have been so cool.

This movie basically takes the Three Laws of Robotics premise and a few character names. The rest, it apparently had no use for.

I like Will Smith as an actor, but I HATED the character he played in this movie. I know, lets make the main character of a Robot movie into a technology hating luddite with an irrational fear of robots! Yeah, that's exactly the sort of character that all the millions of sci-fi fans will identify with! Brilliant! Oh, oh! And lets make him turn out to be right! Yeah. Oh, and those three laws of robotics are too complicated and limiting, so lets introduce a robot not bound by them in the first twenty minutes of the movie! Oh, and lets include all sorts of nonsensical plot twists and have police and robots and civilians and cars and trucks and security systems behave in ways that make no sense at all but move the ridiculous plot forward! And while we're at it, lets throw in a bunch of tired cop-movie clichés too. And then, at last, lets take one of the central characters from the original novel and strip away everything that made her interesting so that she can be the cardboard damsel in distress for Will Smith to save. None of the jokes were funny. Will Smith's character name was stupid (Detective Spooner!?!) and his lame "reason" to hate robots was stupid. The whole movie was a boring, unoriginal, cliché-ridden piece of garbage. There were a few nice things, but they were like antiques in a junkyard. Some value, perhaps, but you have to wade through a lot of crap to get to them.

I think, that if I was not such a fan of the original novel, then I would have been just bored by this movie, instead of angered. But I am such a fan, and this movie made me angry.

Maybe it's a waste for me to devote such emotional energy to it. Maybe I should just dismiss it and move on, but the one reason I don't do that is because this movie has just made it infinitely harder for a GOOD I, Robot movie to ever get made. That pisses me off.

Like with Vera Drake, which I saw on the same day, this film wasn't quite what I expected.

For a movie about euthanasia, The Sea Inside is surprisingly funny.

That is to say, it has a fair amount of humor. It's far from a comedy. It is, after all, a movie about a quadriplegic petitioning the Spanish government to be allowed to commit assisted suicide. Javier Bardem plays Ramon Sampedro, a man of intelligence, wit, and a deep sadness. Ramon is completely paralyzed from the neck down, and has been for the last 28 years. He wants out, and no one can convince him otherwise.

Also, like with Vera Drake, the movie does not really take the side of the protagonist on this controversial subject. Instead, it simply tells his story. There are many scenes where he makes rational arguments and emotional pleas, trying to make his case. There are other scenes where his family members, friends, and a priest try to change his mind. Everyone in the movie has an emotional stake in what will eventually happen to him, and that makes for powerful drama.

In my review of Vera Drake, I said that film was more neutral and detached than balanced. This film is balanced, and far from detached. Whereas in Vera Drake, the actual issue of whether abortion should be legal or not is something for the characters to discuss, but not something the movie is otherwise concerned about. On the other hand, the topic of euthanasia is at the very heart of this film. The characters feel passionately about it, some on one side, some on the other. In the end, the film settles down onto the pro-euthanasia side, but the opposition has definitely been given the chance to speak.

The experience of watching this movie places us in the shoes of his friends and family. We feel terrible for him, that such a charming, intelligent, funny man has fallen into this condition. We are distraught that he wants to die. We want to tell him, no, there is so much that you still have to live for. You have loving friends and family all around you. You have your mind. Your voice. You are loved. You don't have to die. But we are frustrated and upset, just like his family, because none of our words can change his mind.

No doubt some find the whole subject depressing. I find it sad and complicated, but the very discussion brings to mind the most important things in life. Euthanasia is such a hard thing, because although suicide is wrong, and a tragedy, we also want to end suffering. Where do we draw the line? "Do Not Resuscitate" orders? Heroic measures? The case of Terry Schiavo comes to mind. It's a hard subject, but if one of the purposes of good cinema and good art is to raise hard subjects and attempt to make sense of them, then The Sea Inside is good cinema and good art. It's not entertaining exactly, but it is very powerful.

I saw this film as a double-feature with The Sea Inside, and as it happened, they made an interesting pairing, because neither film was quite what I expected.

What I knew about Vera Drake was that it was about a middle-aged woman who worked as underground abortionist in 1950's London. "Oh great," I thought, "another movie that will present me with contrived situations and weepy melodrama designed to make me say, 'Gosh, how barbaric it was back then when abortion was illegal. Thank God we don't live like that anymore.'" For the record, I concede that the issue of abortion is a complex one, but for me, it comes down to the fact that an abortion is killing a baby, and I think that's wrong. I went to see it because it was on the list (for Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay,) and so I hoped that at least it would be a well-made piece of propaganda.

The film itself isn't perfect, but it is far more complex and interesting portrayal than I had expected.
I began to call it balanced, but I think the better word would be detached, or neutral. The film tells the story of, surprise, Vera Drake, a tiny, friendly, jovial, almost hobbit-like middle-aged woman, living in London. She loves her family, cares for her ailing elderly mother, invites young bachelor's over for tea (and to meet her shy single daughter,) and oh yeah, occasionally, she "helps out" young girls, by helping them to induce miscarriages.

I don't put it that way to be flippant, but because that's how the movie presents it, almost as an after-thought. Just another errand that she runs after buying the groceries and making tea for her invalid mother. She doesn't accept money for it, she just does it because, as she sees it, they need her help and no one else will do it for them. Still, despite her friendly reassuring demeanor, she seems to find it hard to talk about. She talks how about how 'it will all pass away' and how 'it will all be over', never actually using the words: abortion, miscarriage, baby. She's got a whole little routine she goes through. Things she does, things she says. But when things don't follow the routine, the girl won't stop crying, or another person is there, somehow she loses her confidence and you see the hint of fear in her eyes.

As it turns out, something goes wrong. It's not all that surprising really. After all, there wouldn't be much of a movie if nothing else happened. And where things go from there is obvious and inevitable, but that doesn't remove the tension, or the drama as Vera and her family must deal with the situation. It's not an action-thriller, not even a suspense drama. It's more of a tragedy.

There are some, I'm sure, who will say that the tragedy is that someone who just wanted to help girls in trouble was prosecuted unjustly for it. I'm not in that category. Instead, the tragedy is a loving, kind woman who has unfortunately deceived herself into thinking that she's doing the right thing. But she isn't, and that deception has tragic consequences, not just for her, but for many others.

It's interesting, and sad, and deep. It's also a little slow in the second half when there are a few too many scenes where she's overcome with emotion and can't speak. Still, it's a very good film, and good, I imagine, for sparking debate.

Man, I wish I had seen this one in the theater. I thought about it at the time. I had heard good things about it. I wanted to see it. It just never made the top of the list. Oh well, can't see everything, I suppose. Anyway, some of the South American scenery in this movie is simply breathtaking, and to see it on a big screen must really have been something. It's pretty impressive even on a television, so let me just begin the review by telling you the scenery and landscapes are absolutely gorgeous.

What about the story, you ask? Ah, yes. The Motorcycle Diaries is based on the diary entries of one Ernesto Guevara, relating the story of a cross-continent motorcycle trip he took through South America with his friend Alberto. If the last name sounds vaguely familiar, it is because young Ernesto eventually became "Che" Guevara, the famous Cuban Revolutionary, the 'Comandante' who led a fierce rebellion through passion, bravery and force of will.

But all that happens later. This movie is about his motorcycle trip. It is not about Che the revolutionary, but about Ernesto, the young man who would later become a revolutionary. I've already said the landscapes were amazing, but the rest of the film is terrific as well.

Ernesto is played with a deep charisma and wonderful range by Gael García Bernal, who is also in Bad Education, the latest film by Pedro Almodóvar, another Spanish language filmmaker whom I really admire. I'm looking forward to seeing him in that, and I think he's really got a serious career ahead of him.

As played by Mr. Bernal, Ernesto is a charming, but serious young man from a well-off family. Only a semester away from finishing medical school. His friend Alberto is a biochemist. These are not members of the poverty-stricken under-class. They aren't riding across the continent because they need work or because they are fleeing persecution. They're going because they are young and restless and it sounds like fun.

Some of it is fun. Some of it is hard. Some of it is scary. But it's the people he meets that really start to work on young Ernesto. Farmers kicked off land that has been in their families for generations. A couple fleeing arrest because of their political party, traveling the long, lonely roads, looking for work. Mistreated outcasts in a leper colony. All of things begin to stir something deep in his heart, planting the seeds of the revolutionary to come.

It must be remembered, I think, that Che Guevara fought for communism, and while I disagree rather wholeheartedly that communism is the way to go, I can nonetheless feel sympathetic with the plight of the poverty-stricken. Ernesto feels a deep sense of injustice, as would anyone, (except perhaps the people benefiting from it,) and I think that pretty much all of us can identify with that and even feel passionate that something must be done. We may disagree with his conclusions, but not with his motives. For the most part, the movie is not advocating his position as much as showing the experiences that shaped the man.

The movie is captivating, well-photographed, touching, and thought-provoking. In short, excellent. Frankly, I was a little surprised to discover that it was only nominated for best screenplay and best original song. Certainly I liked it more than Million Dollar Baby, though I'm evidently in the minority on that score.

The Story of the Weeping Camel follows a rural Mongolian family through an episode of their lives. It should be said up front that there was a little fuzziness when it came to classifying this film as a documentary, because technically it is a scripted film. However, Roger Ebert points out the following:

The movie has been made in the same way that Robert Flaherty made such documentaries as "Nanook of the North," "Men of Aran" and "Louisiana Story." It uses real people in real places and essentially has them play themselves in a story inspired by their lives. That makes it a "narrative documentary," according to the filmmakers. A great many documentaries are closer to this model than their makers will admit; even "cinema verite" must pick and choose from the available footage and reflect a point of view.

In my opinion, the movie is nice, even charming, but it didn't really change my ideas or opinion on much of anything, whereas Super-Size Me and Tupac: Resurrection really got me thinking about their subjects.

Basically, the movie observes this family as they deal with their daily routines, and with a mother camel who has refused to nurse her new baby. The baby will die unless the mother allows it to nurse, so the family does everything they can to encourage it. Nothing works, so eventually the two oldest children, Dude and Ugna, must travel to the city to find a musician whose music, legend has it, can reunite the mother camel with her calf. (Brief side note, the older brother's name made for some interesting subtitles. "Dude, come here for a moment.") (Another brief side note, the youngest child, a two-year-old girl named Guntee, was extremely cute.)

I would also like to point out that, while the story is scripted, there is a lot of genuine stuff here. For example, the birth of the baby camel is undoubtedly real, or else we would have seen some serious special effects names in the end credits. Likewise, the landscapes, homes and buildings are all real. The story is only 'inspired by' real events, but it's sweet anyway. I think that kids with enough patience to sit through some quiet scenes would really enjoy this movie. It doesn't have anything objectionable in it, so parents have nothing to fear on that score. (Though it occurs to me that there is some brief child nudity as the mother gives her younger son a bath, but it's not sexual in the slightest.)

My friend Mike, in his review, objected to what he perceived as an agenda, suggesting that the movie's depiction of this family is shaded more towards increasing tourism than towards accuracy. He also points out that a few scenes with the child who wants a television seemed forced. I can see his point, though I'm not sure I agree. After all, the television subplot pays off at the end. I don't know about the accuracy, but I'm not sure how much I really care about that.

I liked it okay, though my attention wandered here and there. I thought it did a good job of showing me a culture I had never seen before. It had some sweet moments and some touching moments. Perhaps I'm damning it with faint praise, but what are you going to do? That's how I feel.

Having said that, it didn't do what I generally want from a documentary, namely, to tell me something I didn't know or to change my mind about something, or at least to provoke thought. I think Super-Size Me and Tupac: Resurrection were much better on that score, so given that, I don't think this should win. However, if you have any interest in the subject matter, you should give this film a look.

Before seeing Tupac: Resurrection, I had only a passing familiarity with Tupac Shakur. I knew who he was. I remember hearing about when he died. I knew he had something to do with the whole "West-coast/East-coast" thing, but that was about it.

Tupac: Resurrection is a documentary about him, largely narrated by the late rapper himself, through clips from various interviews, and making heavy use of personal photographs and videos. From a strictly visual perspective, the documentary is extremely slick and very well put together. Furthermore, it gave me a new level of insight into a complicated man who lived an interesting life. The filmmakers should definitely be proud of themselves for the film they've made.

Still, I've never been a fan of so-called 'gangsta-rap', though I respect it as a legitimate musical sub-genre. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but I've found that I can't really identify with the violence and anger in it. Still, despite that, I've often wondered about how it plays into the art-imitates-life-imitates-art dynamic.

In this documentary, Tupac compares his rap to the war footage of Vietnam, suggesting that he isn't creating the violence, only reporting on it to people who don't want to hear about those sorts of things. He felt that the war would have gone on longer if not for the war footage, and therefore, he hopes that gangsta rap music will begin to change the problems that can occur in the inner-city. Sounds good, to be sure, and it may even have some truth to it, but it's hard to deny that many of his songs (and not just his) seem to glorify the more violent and sometimes misogynistic elements of inner-city culture. Without wanting to dismiss his whole point, it occasionally came off (to me) as rationalization. He was successful with that type of music and it appealed to a lot of people. Further, he says in the film that he got writer's block whenever he tried to make his music a little more positive. Given all that, it's understandable that he wouldn't want to hear that his music may be bad for people, or at least for some people. As such, he defends it to the best of his ability, which is pretty good, but was not (to me) entirely convincing.

For example, he makes a strong case that use of the word "bitch" in rap songs is meant to apply to a specific type of woman, the type who sleeps around merely to get close to money or fame, and is not meant to apply to all women. Also, he tries to define 'thug' as in "Thug Life" not according to the dictionary definition, but rather as someone who has decided to be who they are, regardless of how society feels about it. Perhaps in that context, the terms are less problematic, but frankly, I'm reminded of Rush Limbaugh and his use of the term: "Feminazi." He has said that that term is only meant to apply to a very specific subset of feminists, but it is not always used consistently in that context, and it is completely understandable that that term might be offensive to all feminists and not just the ones he intends to target. I think that it is a similar situation. For every song where he urges respect and kindness toward women, there's a dozen that talk about 'bitches' and 'hoes'.

In the end, the documentary is well put-together, and I really appreciated the opportunity to gain new insight on a complex individual. I was not ultimately won over to the 'gangsta-rap' fandom, but I do have a renewed respect for it. Anyone who is already a fan would do well to check this documentary out. I doubt you'll be disappointed.

What a movie to see on Valentine's Day! A Very Long Engagement is a heart-felt romance, staged across the backdrop of World War I. This makes for a wonderfully dramatic story, but I must point out that the movie is not particularly suitable as a "date" movie. The war scenes, though not as sustained, are on pretty much the same level as Saving Private Ryan in terms of intensity. War sucks in general, but damn! The trench warfare that occurred in World War I is about as close to hell as I think any of us can imagine.

The movie begins with five soldiers, each accused of self-mutilation (shooting themselves in the hand in the hope that they will be sent home,) and sentenced to death. Some of them are guilty and some of them are not, but they are to be taken to the front lines and thrown over the top of the trench into "No Man's Land." One of these soldiers is Manech, the fiancé of our heroine, Matilde.

She's been told that he's dead, but her heart won't let her believe it. So she hopes, and she searches, trying her best to unravel the mystery of what happened to her fiancé. Maintaining that hope is hard work, because one trail after another keeps coming to the same horrible conclusion: Manech is dead.

But no! She can't let herself think that. If he was dead, she would know. She's sure of it. She plays little games with herself, "If the train goes into the tunnel before the count of seven, he's alive," and "If I reach the bend in the road before the car does, Manech will come home." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, something else entirely happens.

At first, she is told that the story is simple. He was thrown out of the trench and was killed by the Germans. Nothing more to it than that. But the deeper she looks, the more complex the story becomes, and in her searching, she comes across many other searchers, each of them just as desperate as she is.

I won't say any more about the plot, because the mystery is one of the things that make this movie so wonderful and powerful. Matilde is played by Audrey Tautou, who many of you will remember from the magical film Amelie. She is just as wonderful here, though where Amelie was shy and uncertain, Matilde is determined and resolute. Jean-Pierre Jenuet, the writer/director, is also the same, but the scope of this film is much wider, with far more characters and far more to say. (A little advice: If you see the film, pay attention to the character names early on, because there are a lot of them and it can get a little confusing if you don't remember them.)

Though the movie is more serious-minded than Amelie, it has loads of charm and humor as well, much of it supplied by Matilde's loving, but concerned parents. In particular, the father's friendly feud with the mailman and the mother's appreciation for something you wouldn't normally appreciate. There is plenty of intrigue as well, with secret assassins and coded letters. It's also quite touching throughout, but pay special notice of Jodie Foster's (yes, the Jodie Foster) role as a war widow with an unusual, but all too human, story to tell.

The movie is nominated for Best Art Direction and Best Cinematography and it really shines in these areas as well. The set designs absolutely gorgeous, the war scenes harrowing, and the homey scenes feeling like an old, but treasured, photograph. Matilde travels by picturesque trains, rides Manech's shoulders to the top of a scenic lighthouse, visits a huge military library archive. The color palette in the war scenes is dank and cold and scary. In Matilde's scenes, it is warm and cozy and inviting. The opening and closing credits, while similar in some respects, evoke completely different moods. The first is like looking for something with a flashlight, in the dark and in the rain. The last is like looking at something by candlelight, in the wee hours, when you know you should blow out the candle and go to sleep, but you keep looking anyway.

In summary, it's a truly wonderful film, and I heartily recommend it to anyone.

This one isn't on the Oscar list, nor are you going to be able to find it at your local Blockbuster. In fact, it has not been released anywhere in the US. You'll need to import it and get yourself a region-free player to play it.

So what is Battle Royale, and why isn't it available in the US? Contrary to some rumors, it is not technically banned in the US. It's just that no American distributors have made the deal with the Japanese production company to give it an American release. The reasons for that are complicated, but there is no question that the subject matter of the film plays a big part in that discussion.

Battle Royale is a Japanese film, based on a Japanese novel, about 9th graders forced to murder each other in a sadistic game of survival. Essentially, an entire school class of 40 ninth graders, plus two "transfer students", is drugged and kidnapped, sent to an island. They are each fitted with an explosive collar and a survival kit with food, water, a map, and a randomly selected weapon. They are to kill each other off until there is only one survivor left. That survivor may leave the island alive. If, after three days, there is more than one student still alive, they all die.

You can probably see now why some companies might be hesitant to distribute the film.

I had heard a lot about this film from various sources, but had never seen it simply because it's not easy to see in the US. Finally, I decided it was worth importing it in order to see it.

The first question that will come to mind for many is: "Dear God! Why on earth would anyone do that to a bunch of kids?" It's a fair question, but you shouldn't look for a satisfactory explanation in the movie itself. It has something to do with overpopulation and juvenile delinquency, but the movie is less interested in the "Why" of the situation than the "What" and the "What then?" The question the movie wants you to ask is not "How did such a system develop?" but rather, "What would you do?"

With 42 students to work with, we get the whole range of reactions, and the movie becomes two things simultaneously: a philosophical discussion of when violence is called for and when it is not, and then also a kick-ass action film. There is plenty of R-rated violence and gore, though the extreme reactions some have had is not related to the violence per se, but rather that it is perpetrated by and on 14 and 15-year-old kids.

So what was my take? Frankly, I think that there are a lot of people being over-sensitive on the subject, but the movie originally came out around the same time as the Columbine massacre, so I can't blame some for wanting to take things slow at that time. However, now that there's a little distance there, I don't see why this movie shouldn't at least be available here. The movie is an exciting action film, and it presents us with a really interesting situation, and interesting characters to follow through it. The movie isn't what I might call a masterpiece per se, but I certainly enjoyed it, and I would recommend it to anyone (those with weak stomachs excepted) who has the opportunity.

If you're like me, then you know full well that fast food is crap and that it's really bad for you, but you eat it anyway because it's cheap and convenient and it tastes pretty good most of the time.

A few years back, a number of people tried to sue McDonalds and other fast food restaurants for making them obese. At the time of that story, I remember thinking that it was a frivolous bogus lawsuit that had no business clogging up our courtrooms. After all, everyone knows fast food is bad for you, and nobody is ever forcing you to eat it, so where is the liability?

Most everyone has heard about this movie by now, but if you haven't here's the scoop. A documentary filmaker by the name of Morgan Spurlock wondered about that lawsuit too, so he decided to try an experiment. He wanted to know what would happen if a healthy, non-overweight individual with a normally healthy diet ate nothing but fast-food, breakfast, lunch, and dinner, for thirty days. This film, Super-Size Me, documents this experiment.

Does it ever! Yikes! At the beginning, he's laughing about it, joking, just like anyone would. Like I was. It's a funny idea. His doctors seem amused, but not overly concerned. They predict weight gain and a limited cholesterol rise, but nothing more serious than that, not in just thirty days. After all, at the beginning, he's extremely healthy. As crappy as fast food is, how much damage can it do in just thirty days?

As it happens, a lot. About two-thirds of the way through the movie, his doctors are no longer amused. His cholesterol is through the roof, his liver-functions severely impaired, his blood-pressure much higher, and one night he wakes up with chest pains. He remains determined to push through, but suddenly, it doesn't seem quite so funny.

Everyone should see this movie. Whether it's the sedentary person who eats McDonalds (or Burger King or Wendys or Taco Bell or KFC) every day, or the healthy active person who has never been through a drive-through. For the former, it will serve as a wake-up call. For the latter, it will give them a nice glow of vindication and smug self-satisfaction.

It's not just that the food is unhealthy, (and arguably, addictive,) but it's the way it is so pervasive in our culture. It's the way it appeals to kids. It's the path of least resistance. At least, until you're heading for the drive-through at your local ER. The movie makes all these points in an extraordinarily effective way and it's a fantastic documentary. On the DVD, make sure you check out the Bonus interview with Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation. He has many interesting tidbits, like the fact that your quarter-pounder hamburger patty actually contains beef from thousands of different cattle, all ground together with artificial flavorings and God only knows what else.

I know from personal experience how bad for you fast food can be. Last year, when I spent nearly a whole year traveling for work, I discovered that it was MUCH easier to just eat fast food all the time. In the hotels, I didn't have a kitchen, so my choices were pretty limited. And when you're sitting there in that Mickey-D's drive-through, how often are you really going to choose the grilled chicken sandwich with no mayo, instead of the double-quarter-pounder (with cheese, of course)? Skip the fries, and get bottled water instead of a soda? If you're like me, not very often.

I gained thirty pounds last year.

And yet, despite that, I've still continued to eat at those places. As much as I'm aware that I have just as much free will as anyone else, that example alone speaks to me about how easy our culture makes it to just eat fast food all the time. The restaurants are everywhere. The food is (relatively) cheap. It's fast. It's easy. You don't have to spend time preparing your meals or planning menus or shopping for groceries. You don't even have to get out of your car.

So what now? Am I convinced? Am I giving up fast food for good? The answer is yes, but only until next week when I change my mind and decide it isn't really such a big deal after all. However, in an attempt to lose some of the above-mentioned traveling weight, I am instituting a new health-and-fitness program for my life. It is not solely because of this movie, because I had been planning to do this for some time, but I do have to say that I'm doing it now because of the movie.

Well, because my movie marathon has been going pretty well, and because I successfully completed NaNoWriMo this year, I looked at those two attempts and decided that the key factor that linked the two was: spreadsheets. As such, I've created a spreadsheet for my targeted weight loss plan. I've set, what I think is a reasonable goal for myself, and I'm going to track my progress over time. My goal is to lose twenty pounds in 170 days. Since I started it yesterday, the end date is July 31st. I'm going to dramatically reduce (if not eliminate) my fast food consumption, exercise more, etc., all tracked by the spreadsheet.

I think that, if I can stay committed, then my goal will actually turn out to be pretty conservative, but better to start with an attainable goal and move on from there. So anyway, I'm putting this up on the blog in order to attain the pretense of accountability. It will be a lot harder for me to give in and buy a cheeseburger, or blow off exercising, when I know that millions... er, dozens... *ahem* when I know that some people will actually be checking up on my progress. *shrug* Oh well, we'll see if it works. In the meantime, go rent Super-Size Me and tell me if it makes you hungry.

Btw, speaking of my Movie Marathon, I'm now at 81.5%, though unfortunately, A Very Long Engagement left theaters before I got to see it. Bummer.

There are two levels on which I will discuss The Polar Express: An IMAX 3-D Experience.

The film as an IMAX 3-D Experience:

One word: Wow!

Slightly more words: To say that the film is visually stunning is an understatement. I had seen the IMAX 3-D Space Station movie in Las Vegas a few years back and was impressed then, but seeing the technique used so effectively on a mainstream scripted animated film is a whole other level of entertainment. Truly, I was astounded. I've always been annoyed when, in movies like Minority Report, a character will choose crappy 3D over quality 2D, and I have felt for a long time that movies will probably continue to be 2D for the foreseeable future, simply because it is a more effective medium for story-telling. Now, I'm not so sure, because the third dimension was used so effectively to supplement and enhance the visuals and story... well, frankly, it just impressed the heck out of me. Very, very cool.

The film as a story

Um, not so cool. It's not terrible, and in fact is somewhat entertaining, even though most of it is fluff. And let me state up front that the 'dead eyes' look that made me so wary of the film in the first place didn't bother me nearly as much in context as it did in the trailer. Still the movie ultimately struck me as a little creepy.

Here's the thing, if it were about Jesus and God instead of Santa Clause, they wouldn't have to change more than a few lines. There is religious symbolism and allegory all over the freakin' place. There's discussion about whether "seeing is believing". There's the idea that "Christmas Spirit" helps people to be better than their normal selves. There's even a Trinitarian nature of the boy's three guides:

(Santa: The Father. He loves all children, but judges if you are naughty or nice. You just want to go there and see him and you hope that you have been nice enough for him to reward you. The Conductor: The Son. He isn't Santa's son in the movie, but he's the way that you get to Santa. Without him and his train, getting to the North Pole is impossible. He's the guide. He is the one that tells you how it's going to be. He's got some criticisms, but buried beneath it all is his joy in taking children to Santa. The hobo ghost: The Holy Ghost. Seems to always be watching out for the boy, and saves his life when he nearly falls off the train, and again later he helps him find the brake when the train is out of control.)

And yet, despite all this apparent religious symbolism, the figure beneath those metaphorical flowing robes is not God. It's Santa. The movie is secular to a fault. The boy's ultimate reward for learning to believe is getting "The first Christmas present of the year." There's a bizarre song where the poor kid sings of how he has never had a happy Christmas. He sings: "I guess that Santa's busy / Cause he's never come around / I think of him / When Christmas Comes to Town" The supposedly comforting response is essentially ignoring his problems and telling him he should be happy anyway.

Here's some of the lyrics: The first and third verses here are from the lonely kid, and the second and fourth are the replies.

The best time of the year
When everyone comes home
With all this Christmas cheer
It's hard to be alone

Putting up the Christmas tree
With friends who come around
It's so much fun
When Christmas Comes to Town

Presents for the children
Wrapped in red and green
All the things I've heard about
But never really seen

No one will be sleeping on
The night of Christmas Eve
Hoping Santa's on his way

Then the scenes where the elves are waiting for Santa feel almost like a Nazi rally or something, where throngs of identically dressed elves crowd around a building in hushed awe. Then, after a creepy chanted version of "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" the door opens and the big guy comes out, not charming and jovial, but almost stern, and kind of intimidating.

The thing with this movie is that it dresses itself in all sorts of spirituality, but it's not clear where it's core really lies. . A particularly telling line appears near the end. The conductor tells the boy: "The thing about trains... It doesn't matter where they're going. What matters is deciding to get on."

You know what? I think it kind of matters where they're going.

P.S. On the Imdb message board for this movie, I found this thread about the "Top 5 Animated Movies Ever". The person with the opening post suggests that the best five animated movies EVER are:

1. The Polar Express
2. Ice Age
3. Shark Tale
4. 101 Dalmatians
5. Shrek 2

Am I the only one who finds that list somewhat alarming? Fortunately, many of the replies list many better choices.

Maria Full of Grace is the story of a young Columbian woman with troubles. She has just quit her job, where she had been working in a flower plantation, de-thorning roses for export to the US. The job sucked and her boss was a jerk. (It doesn't help that Maria has a bit of a rebellious streak.) Unfortunately, she doesn't have a lot of other options. People are coming from miles around looking for jobs like the one she just quit. Her paycheck had been supporting her mother, her single-parent sister and her niece. And uh-oh, she's pregnant.

So when a slightly shady young man asks if she's looking for work, she's ready to listen. He recruits her to be a drug mule, swallowing balloon-wrapped pellets of heroin, for smuggling into the US. She's wary, but the money seems too good to refuse, so she agrees. As might be expected, things do not go well.

The story makes a very strong argument that the way we are going about fighting the drug war may not be the right way to go. If the problems that drive the drug smuggling business are primarily economic and social, why are we fighting it with military and law-enforcement tactics? Still, all of this is really in the subtext and the main plot is not particularly political at all. Instead, it is about Maria, and what happens to her when she gets involved in the drug trade. The movie is compelling and powerful.

And the actress who plays Maria, Catalina Sandino Moreno, is a heck of a discovery. She only speaks Spanish in the film, (The movie is in Spanish with English subtitles, though it's an American production with an American director,) but I think she has a big future in Hollywood if she wants one. She's beautiful, smart, and a wonderful actress. She deserves her Oscar nom 100%, not bad for her first film.

This post collects links for all my movie reviews in one place. You may notice that I have placed a new link under my profile picture, linking to this post, which I will keep updated as I add new reviews. So, on to the list!

The Movies
28 Days Later
A Very Long Engagement
Akira
The Aviator
Bad Education
Battle Royale
Before Sunset
Being Julia
The Castle of Cagliostro
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
Closer
Finding Neverland
Ghost in the Shell
Grave of the Fireflies
Hotel Rwanda
House of Flying Daggers
The Hulk
The Incredibles
I, Robot
Kinsey
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Maria Full of Grace
Million Dollar Baby
The Motorcycle Diaries
Moulin Rouge
Moulin Rogue comparison to Chicago
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind
Phantom of the Opera
Pirates of the Caribbean
The Polar Express: An IMAX 3-D Experience
Porco Rosso
Punchdrunk Love
Ray
Robots
Sahara
The Sea Inside
Sideways
Signs
Sin City
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas
Spirited Away
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie
The Story of the Weeping Camel
Super-Size Me
Troy
Tupac: Resurrection
Terminator 3
UHF
Vera Drake

Before Sunrise was such a delightful film.

If you haven't seen it, it begins with a young man on a train. He's American, but he's been touring Europe, and now he's on his way to the airport to head home. His flight is in the morning, but he's out of money, so he plans to just spend the evening walking around Vienna. But he meets someone on the train. A French girl, also on vacation, and the two just click. He asks her to get off the train with him in Vienna, to spend the night walking around the city with him. She agrees.

Two people making an unexpected connection. Having one of those wonderful, fascinating, intriguing, life-changing, all-night conversations that happen maybe two or three times in your entire life. Magically captured on film. The only other movie that I had seen to do that is My Dinner with Andre, which, although it has perhaps a more interesting conversation (It's a fabulous film that everyone should see), it did not have the same level of romance and emotion to it.

As such, when I heard they were making a sequel, (or perhaps the better term is 'follow-up'), I was wary, because the original was such a fragile, magical creation. I was really concerned that a lesser follow-up might taint the beautifully ambiguous note that the original ended on.

I worried for no reason. Before Sunset is just as captivating as the original. Before Sunset picks up nine years after that magical night. Some of the issues are a little more complex, because these two young people are older now. They've moved on, or have they? There is more in their lives now. They've had more experiences since then, more relationships. It's all complicated now, but that connection is still there.

The movie is emotional, but not heavy-handed. The movie is funny, but not a comedy. The movie is romantic, but not sappy. The movie is complex, but not confusing. Basically, if you've seen the original, you should see this one.

If you haven't seen the original, you should see it. Then see this one.

This movie was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, which is a little odd because I don't know what it could possibly have been adapted from besides the original movie. However, I've never tried to understand how they determine these categories, because although it seems like it would be self-evident, it's apparently not. Anyway, I'm rooting for it to win.

On that note, I have reached 75% in my Oscar Movie Marathon!

Ray is already out on DVD, but I saw it Wednesday at a really neat theater where there are tables and you actually have a restaurant meal while you watch. Pretty cool actually. The food was a little hit-and-miss, but I had a nice glass of pinot noir (Yes, I ordered it because of Sideways) and I had a nice leisurely meal while I watched a movie on the big screen with good sound. Heck of a deal.

Onto the film itself, Ray is really quite fantastic. Now, I've loved Ray Charles since I first saw him. I was just a kid and I saw him in The Blues Brothers on TV. Not only was he a great singer and musician, but to my young sensibility, that was almost secondary to the simple fact that he was interesting! That he was blind. The funny, charming way he swayed back and forth while he sang. He was instantly memorable. As I grew older and my tastes in music grew more sophisticated, (not that they are particularly sophisticated now, only that they are relative to me at age 10,) I came to appreciate his music even more.

So I've thought he was a great musician and an interesting guy since I was little, but a great man does not a great biopic make. That said, this is a great biopic.

To begin with, let's talk Jaime Foxx. To be honest, I was really only vaguely aware of him before this Summer. Then he was in Collateral, and he was fantastic. That made me interested to see him in this, but I never quite got around to it. I'm so glad I have now. His portrayal of Ray Charles is spot on, nearly the whole way through and for HUGE chunks of the movie, I was really able to think of him just as Ray, and not as an actor. The singing is dubbed with the real Ray Charles, which occasionally produced a minor discontinuity for me, but I think that's probably better than having Jaime Foxx sing the songs imperfectly.

To tell the truth, I think he probably deserves to win the Best Actor statue, but since he's also nominated in the Best Supporting category for Collateral, his votes will probably be split, and he'll probably lose both, which is a shame, but still, he turned in two tremendous performances this year, and no one can take that away.

The movie itself is also very good. That's aided in some ways by the fact that the life of Ray Charles Robinson is practically tailor-made for a Hollywood biopic. Humble beginnings? Check. Early success despite adversity? Check. A period where success goes to his head and he starts to forget about the people around him? Check. Ultimate redemption and renewed success, both personally and professionally? Check. I don't want that to diminish the efforts of Taylor Hackford, the director and co-writer, because he does a very good job with this material.

There were a couple spots where I thought to myself that the movie was seeming kinda long, but those were few and far between. There's one dream sequence near the end that I thought was unnecessary and a little cheesy. But everything else is so wonderful (the music, the drama, the acting, the writing) that the movie gets my highest recommendation. I think my vote for best picture still goes to Sideways, based purely on how much I enjoyed it, and I still think The Aviator is going to win it, but I tell you, if Ray won, it wouldn't hurt my feelings in the slightest.

Question: How gorgeous is House of Flying Daggers?

Answer: Very.

If you have any means of seeing this film in the theater, make every effort to do so because it has some of the most visually striking cinematography I've seen in a long time. Deep, rich colors, interesting compositions, original images. Very, very cool. All of this will be considerably diminished on the small screen.

Which is not to say that the film wouldn't be worth seeing that way. It definitely is a must-see either way, but the theatrical presentation is by far the more desirable of the two.

The two movies that come to mind when discussing this movie are "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Hero." On the story level, I would say that "House of Flying Daggers" comes a very close second to "Crouching Tiger..." and is by far superior to "Hero." When it comes to visuals, "House of Flying Daggers" leaves them both in the dust.

It begins with a pair of soldiers/cops who hear rumors that there is a spy from the rebel group known as the titular "House of Flying Daggers" working in a local brothel. They decide to check out the rumors, and they are true. To get more specific is telling too much, as the plot is all about subterfuge and true love and fake love and true love again. It's a tragic love story with lots of martial arts and, you guessed it, flying daggers. It takes place in ornate entertainment pavilions, in gorgeous autumn leaves, in misty bamboo forests, in terrible blizzards.

Simply put, the movie is beautiful. See it any way you can.

P.S. I also saw a trailer for an upcoming Chinese import called: "Kung Fu Hustle" It appears to be a musical special-effects-laden comedy wire-fu martial arts movie, and it looks like lots of fun. Example: A tough guy hits someone so hard that they fly into the air, across the room and into the wall. Been done a million times right? Well how often is it accompanied by pinball noises? (I can think of one other time. 20 ChristianaBucks to anyone who guesses it!) You can see the trailer here.

P.P.S. Oh, and also, I've updated my Oscar Spreadsheet. I'm now at 67.4%