Talking About Stuff, with Mike and Christiana

As my friend and I sat watching the end credits of Spielberg's latest, War of the Worlds, one word immediately came to mind: Intense. For a while, we were so shell-shocked that we lacked any other words to describe the film, so we just kept saying "intense" over and over again. After giving it some more thought, I've decided to add "amazing" to the mix.

Note that neither "intense" nor "amazing" mean perfect. The film has flaws. The characters aren't terribly deep. The first two-thirds are better than the last one. A hide-and -seek sequence goes on so long that it begins to defy plausibility. A few plot elements feel unnecessary.

Finally, the movie makes the interesting and original move of making the protagonist just an average Joe, rather than a top scientist or a soldier or a government official. This is good. It puts a fresh spin on the film and adds some tension by virtue of the fact that we don't really know what's going on beyond what we can see right in front of us. The downside, however, of this laudable storytelling move is that it lets the movie aliens get away with all sorts of things that don't really make any sense, and the justification is that "we don't understand" their motives. That's a little frustrating.

All of that said, if you're like me, you got goosebumps during the trailers and TV spots for this film. And you know what? As I sat there watching the trailers, I was not thinking: "Gosh, I bet the character interactions in that are going to be deep and nuanced!" Likewise, I was not thinking: "You know, I think the actions and motives of those aliens are all going to be coherent and plausible according to modern scientific theories."

No. What I was thinking was: "Holy S#!@, that movie looks kick-ass! Did you see that freakin' highway overpass flying through the air? That looks awesome!"

On that level, this movie delivers in spades. It's intense... and amazing.

Seriously, you may not actually be prepared for how scary this is. DO NOT take little kids to this movie! I'd say no younger than 10, and only if those ten-year-olds are pretty mature for their age.

The slow build at the beginning is... um... intense and amazing. Some of the big action sequences and effects? Intense and amazing.

Basically, the point is that you should see this movie on a big screen with kick-ass sound or you really might as well not bother. Spielberg is a freakin' genius at making films that are, well, intense and amazing.

Note: I'd advise against reading a lot of reviews for this before seeing it. Lets face it, your mind is already made up anyway, and it's just a matter of timing. And a lot of supposedly non-spoiler reviews are giving away things that I wish I hadn't known going in, so just head on out to the theater before you accidentally ruin a couple of the surprises for yourself.

.

If you're a regular reader here, then you definitely know that I'm a huge fan of Hayao Miyazaki. (If you're not, read this post.) So I've been really looking forward to his latest film:


Howl's Moving Castle.

As I read reviews of it, some of them suggested that, while the animation is glorious to behold, the story itself is a bit overcomplex and murky. So I went in a little wary, but I made the conscious decision to not have specific expectations and to just trust in the film that Miyazaki had prepared for me. (He's one of the few filmmakers who has earned that level of trust for me.)

What's it about? Well, Sophie is a young woman who, convinced that she's too ordinary to be interesting to anyone, mostly keeps to herself. She doesn't even worry about going out alone when rumors suggest that a heart-eating wizard named Howl is in the area, because, as she puts it: "He only does that to pretty girls."

So when she actually runs into him, and he's cute and kind and cool and saves her from some obnoxious soldiers, she's not sure what to think. Unfortunately, his attention inspires jealousy in a nasty character known as the Witch of the Waste, who takes revenge on Sophie by cursing her into the form of an old woman. So stuck in this elderly body, Sophie travels out to the waste, hoping to find someone who can restore her.

So now that I've seen it, I can indeed verify that the animation is glorious. The visual inventiveness, the sheer joy of motion, the character design, everything you see is a delight. (Note: This means you should see it on a big screen if at all possible!)

As for the story, frankly I think those reviews I mentioned above were either being over-critical or they, for whatever reason, just didn't understand what was happening. I'll concede that the story doesn't have the same level of... focus that most of Miyazaki's films have. With most of his films, as complicated as the stories may get, there is a definite objective that the characters are striving for. In this one, that's a little fuzzier. But just as something can be damned with faint praise, I want this film to be glorified with faint criticism.

I loved it. When it comes to comparing it against other films, I'm reminded of a good line from Kill Bill Volume 2. When asked about a Hattori Hanzo sword, Budd comments: "If you're gonna compare a Hanzo sword, you compare it to every other sword ever made... that wasn't made by Hattori Hanzo." In trying to compare it to other Miyazaki films, well, I'll have to see it again to see how it stands up to repeat viewings. But when it comes to comparing it to any other animated film, it stacks up pretty damn well.

Go see it.

P.S. As an interesting bit of synchronicity, I saw this the same day as Batman Begins which stars Christian Bale. He also provides the English-language voice of Howl.

.

Earlier in the morning before seeing this movie, I caught the second half of the old Michael Keaton / Jack Nicholson Batman film on TV. You know what? Hasn't aged very well. Just felt kind of cheesy.

(Side Note: For all those people who like to complain about CGI effects, claiming that they don't look "real", check out a movie like this, done pre-CGI and tell me that you think those effects look better than CGI would have.)

But forget about all that, how is the new Batman?

The answer?

Very, very good.

It's the best of all the Batman films by a very wide margin. Every single element is handled extremely well. The cast is excellent. The writing intelligent and interesting. The direction moody and effective. Extremely high marks all across the board.

Let me start with Christian Bale. Truth is, I didn't like American Psycho all that much. Just didn't really find anything to latch onto in that film. Not that that was Christian Bale's fault, but it was the only thing I really knew him from, so when I heard that he'd been cast as Batman, I wasn't really that excited.

Turns out he was an excellent choice. He can do some really great things with his "scary voice" when he's Batman. The look in his eyes during some intense scenes is pretty impressive. He pulls off the humor (what there is of it) really well, and he has good chemistry with all the other actors.

The rest of the cast is excellent as well. Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, and on and on. They're all great.

And the screenplay is really quite impressive in the way that it simultaneously refreshes the origin story we all know and shows us elements of it that we've never seen before. Christopher Nolan's direction really pulls everything together into a coherent effective story.

So I'll leave it at that then. I can't imagine anyone remotely interested in Batman not liking it. (Perhaps not suitable for little kids though. The Scarecrow in particular is pretty scary.)

.

I hadn't exactly been that excited about this film. The whole premise didn't necessarily sound that interesting, and given all the other high-profile movies coming out, I didn't think much of it.

Then I realized it was directed by Doug Liman, who I've really started to respect as a director. His past films include Swingers, Go, and the Bourne Identity. You've likely heard of the last one, but if you haven't seen Swingers or Go, I highly recommend each of them, Swingers as a fun dating comedy, and Go as a Gen-X cousin of Pulp Fiction.

So the director caught my interest, but basically the reason I made my way to the theater last night was simply that the advance reviews were all pretty positive, so I thought heck, it'll probably be fun.

And it most definitely is that. The movie doesn't have high ambitions; all it wants to be is an exciting popcorn Summer action flick, but on that score, it delivers exceptionally well.

It helps that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have the ability to pull off bad-ass and sexy as hell at the same time. It helps that petty bickering during a shootout is inherently funny. It helps that Doug Liman is pretty good at choreographing kick-ass action sequences. It helps that the dialogue is snappy and the characters interesting and well-developed.

...

Hmm, well, that's it, really. The movie delivers on every level. For a Summer Popcorn Action Flick, four stars. Easy.

.

I actually saw this movie last weekend, and it wasn't new then, but I wanted to go ahead and get a review up so that maybe I can play some small role in getting more people to see this wonderful film.

A few weeks back, I caught Shaolin Soccer on TV, and absolutely loved it. (Check out my review here) So I was really looking forward to seeing Stephen Chow's follow-up: Kung Fu Hustle. (Of course, I didn't actually end up seeing it right away, but that's beside the point.)

The point is that this movie is an awful lot of fun.

It begins with a city in turmoil. (Somewhere in China, I guess, though it doesn't much matter.) Viscous gangs control pretty much everything. Worst of them all is the dreaded axe gang. Tough, ruthless, the scourge of the city. The only way to be safe is to be so poor that you don't have anything they want.

For the residents of the local flea-bag tenement, (Actually named Pig Sty!), that's not a problem. One day, two men show up, claiming to be members of the axe gang and trying to extort whatever they can. Their performance is less than convincing, (they demand free haircuts,) but unfortunately, the incident ends up drawing the ire of the real axe gang. In order to save the innocents, three kung fu masters, who had been living humbly incognito, must reveal themselves.

The situation escalates, as the axe gang brings in assassins, and the whole thing just gets bigger and bigger.

But that's just the plot. The reason to see the movie is the pinball sounds when a super-duper kung-fu punch sends a dozen men flying into the air. The reason is the way one of the punks, (Stephen Chow), when trying to throw a knife at someone, ends up with not one, not two, but three blades stuck in his own arms. The reason is the way the loud, scary landlady, with her hair in curlers and a cigarette perpetually hanging off her lip, makes her point to the leader of the axe gang with a series of simple hand gestures.

Check out the trailer here to see what I mean.

The movie is gloriously silly, with special effects used very efficiently to exaggerate the kung-fu fighting to cartoon proportions. I don't know what else to say about it except watch the trailer. If you can watch that trailer without a grin on your face, then you should probably just assume that we do not share the same taste in movies.

.