Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
10/13/2010
7/22/2010
5 Psychologically Dark (or Horrifying) Moments in Toy Story 3
The following is both a review and treatise on a current release movie. It features extensive plot spoilers. You were warned.
During the last 15 years, the Toy Story franchise has had 3 successful movies along with a slew of re-marketing of old toy concepts. Everything from Etch-a-Sketch to Slinky Dogs has made a comeback, even if they were in the form pictured in the movies. The movies feature big name acting talent, huge budgets, and state of the art animation and production. Even the writing has been widely praised for appealing to both the children they are marketed to and the adults who paid for the tickets and will have to take the little bastards home at the end of 103 minutes, stuffed with popcorn, soda, and nachos.
While the third movie has been praised extensively for its engrossing, emotional storyline and superlative character animation, depicting flawless emotional response, it also featured an increasingly dark probing of psychological fears not seen in the previous films. Indeed, it's not very common at all for films targeted at children to get so deep that adults in the audience might be wondering, "Holy shit, really?!"
There were five particular moments from the film which struck a nerve in our psyche, bringing up every phobia-inducing moment, from the sexually charged adolescence to the final acceptance of a terrible, painful death.
Early in the movie, we learn that Andy (the human character owning all the toys) has now aged to the hormonally inebriated age of 17 and is getting ready to venture off to college. Thanks to the montage of flashback scenes shown via his mother's home movies (his father hasn't been around in a long time, apparently, which explains some of Andy's later issues "letting go" of Woody), backed by Randy Newman's phlegm throated warbling, we see Andy's tween years, playing happily with all his toys and no friends or other children save for his pesky younger sister (given that the sister, Molly, showed up in the second movie following a fatherless first movie indicates Mom likes to still get down, but couldn't seal the deal and get the new dad to stay). In the present, the toys are acting on a plot using cellphones they stole from the humans to attract Andy's attention back to the toybox. Which brings us to this image of Woody, his face welling up in both joy and sorrow at hearing Andy's voice on the phone after presumably so long.
[caption id="attachment_716" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="A mixture of longing and loathing?"]
[/caption]
Not only do we have this heartstring plucking scene of Woody's emotional mask slipping away for a second and his yearning to once again be "played with" by his owner revealed, we are also faced with some troubling questions about the toys' lives up to now. This is Andy's room and he has obviously not gotten rid of things as he aged. His toybox still sits in the same place, for crying out loud, and there is the addition of a laptop computer on his desk. The toys were present....and WITNESS TO....some of the most private, exploratory moments a teenage boy, alone in his room with a computer has during the onset of puberty. What did the toys do? Did they try to avoid each other's gaze, pretending to be in "toy mode" and not really paying attention? Did they wonder what Andy might be doing to himself, possibly partially clothed, with possible confusing images on his computer screen? It's one thing to experience finding out what makes the toy work which will control you the rest of your life. It's quite another to imagine there were witnesses to the whole experience, in the form of your cherished playthings.
Through a series of mishaps, misunderstandings, and misogyny (NONE of this would have happened if his stupid sister hadn't distracted Andy and his stupid mom had stopped to look UP at the partially closed attic door), the toys find themselves being donated to a local daycare center. There, they are greeted warmly by the other toys, particular the leader, a stuffed purple lion-type toy called Lots O' Huggin' Bear (seriously, he looks like an attempt at a lion). He eventually brings the hero toys to their side of the daycare center, introducing us to one of his hench--..., er, associate toys, a giant baby doll, named Big Baby. This is not psychologically jarring, however, just fucking terrifying nonetheless. Woody parts ways with the other toys, his co-dependency issues of "being there" for a 17 year old college-bound Andy not letting him just move on. Buzz and the remaining toys get into position for the small children at the day care to come back in from recess, when Buzz starts to notice something in the room:
[caption id="attachment_717" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="Terror, thy name is Child"]
[/caption]
The native toys have all hidden themselves or are in the act of hiding, and basically doing the equivalent of the kid from Ransom pissing down his leg when hears Gary Sinise's voice. Whatever is coming is equivalent to whatever has happened to take these toys into a pants-shittingly terrified catatonic state. The next scenes show why, as Buzz and the crew are thrown, snotted on, painted, beaten, and disassembled in something resembling a Gitmo torturer's childhood training. After the kids leave, the toys are somewhat "sore", but we are lead to believe the other toys have endured this daily, maybe even for years and years. Holy shit, did I mention Gitmo? Forget that, this is Saddam's rape rooms we are talking about here. So emotionally and mentally broken that they hide beneath furniture and tremble, doing the toy-equivalent of shivering in puddles of fear-piss, the trauma is stupefying. Even if they were rescued, no therapy, no medication could ease their suffering by the looks of raw, stark terror on their toy faces.
Woody, in the meantime, has been relocated to Bonnie's house, a vaguely Latina child resembling a shy Dora the Explorer who has every bit as an active imagination as the pre-teen Andy once had in Woody's fond pre-self-abuse-witnessing memories. Turns out another toy associated with Lotso's crew is also there, a morose and somewhat creepy looking clown doll named Chuckles, who stares out a moonlit window missing only the bottle of gin a G-rated movie couldn't allow. From him we get Lotso's backstory, how he, Big Baby, and Chuckles all once belonged to a child named Daisy. Through a unfortunate mistake and inattentive parenting, the three favorite toys get left at a rest stop after Daisy falls asleep, her mother and father content only to pick up the recyclables, the child, but not her fucking toys. Lotso's determination to return home brings the toys, at last, to Daisy's house. There, Lotso discovers he has been replaced by a new version of him, another Lots O' Huggin' Bear (still looks like a lion). He lies and tells the other toys they have been replaced too. At this point, he becomes unrelentingly evil.
Back in the present, the daycare has now turned into the third season of Lost, with some toys imprisoned and tortured, some working for the Others, er, Lotso's crew, and some simply shacking up in the dreamhouse (Barbie is a whore and Ken is a closeted homosexual, as is hinted throughout the movie. No, seriously, all the characters continually cast sidelong glances at each other whenever Ken's "girl's toy" side comes out). Big Baby is revealed to be the smoke-monster, basically, and acts as the muscle of the entire operation, ruthlessly casting toys into the "box" for overnight stays in sand and cat poop.Woody finally manages to return to begin plotting an escape. The toys quickly begin acting on the plan, with it appearing to work, right up to this point.
[caption id="attachment_718" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back"]
[/caption]
They stumble upon Big Baby, sitting alone in a swing, a scene reminiscent of Chuckles' earlier flashbacks to happier times with Daisy. The monster-doll is staring up toward the moon with those dead eyes, one broken and half lidded, the other wide, round, and full of a kind of loss and lack of conscience only to be found in two foot tall sentient infant simulacrums. What is it thinking? Does it have clear memories of those earlier times? Is it planning how it will next dismember an out of line plush toy? Is that longing in those plastic orb eyes or merely the empty gaze in the space of time between horrific acts of violence? Whatever it is, it strikes to the very soul and makes one wonder if it's the abyss we are seeing or what happens after staring into the abyss too long. All we know for sure is that it's a murder-doll and our heroes are accessory-shitting scared of it. (Side note: It looks like the animators paid some homage to another series of movies here, when one of the squeezy alien toys makes a chirp and alerts Big Baby, we see the terrifying thing waddle toward our heroes, the camera pulling back to an overhead shot of the Baby looking over a ledge very much like the Wraith peering over the log looking for Frodo. Or I could just be reading too much into their penchant for paying homages.)
Woody and crew eventually manage to reach their goal, standing on the edge of the trash dumpster they will use as an escape vehicle only to be confronted once again by Lotso and his cronies. The two sides stand across the open maw of the dumpster. Lotso offers another chance for the toys to return to the daycare and take the brutal torture of the younger children so Lotso and his chosen ones can remain with the older kids. Woody and the gang naturally refuse, but this time Woody brings up Lotso's past with Daisy. He eventually proves his knowledge by tossing Big Baby's nametag across the gap, something Lotso had once ripped from the Baby's neck upon discovering he had been replaced. Lotso loses his shit and starts monologuing his frustration, letting it all out in a stream of invective of his lot in life. Meanwhile, Big Baby only realizes that its "mama" (said in an eery baby doll voice when looking down at the nametag) never really replaced it at all (though in all likelihood, if Daisy's parents lazily replaced one cherished toy with an identical model, they replaced all of them). In yet another homage-appearing scenes, Big Baby interrupts Lotso's angry speech (read: lightening bolt torture of the hero) with a surprise over-the-head lift and proceeds to throw Lotso into the stinky depths of the garbage dumpster (read: Death Start open tunnel....seriously, am I the only one who caught the reference?).
[caption id="attachment_724" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="The only thing missing is Lotso doing Force x-rays of Big Baby"]
[/caption]
Now free to get back home, the toys once again find themselves caught, this time by chance as one of them gets stuck in the lid of the dumpster. They all wind up in the dumpster and a terrifying ride to the dump. Managing to stay together and also rescue a trapped Lotso (he's good now), they dodge a perplexing gauntlet of trash-shredding machinery. Eventually they wind up on a conveyor belt full of trash shreds only to discover the belt dumps them into an incinerator! They scramble to wade through the quicksand like chips of trash, trying to outrun the conveyor backwards. Lotso notices an emergency stop switch atop a ladder, but can't quite make it, calling on Buzz and Woody to (once again) save him. He climbs the ladder, reaches toward the switch and....fuck (oh, nevermind, he's still soulless and evil).
This is where things reach a traumatically scarring plateau. The toys are scrambling to avoid this new danger, now beautifully animated as a kind of Dante's inferno of plastic toy melting hellfire. They struggle in the shifting morass of trash, some of them slipping, others barely able to hang on as the whole room is seemingly angled towards this ultimate doom in the center of the room. The music is swelling, the sheer desperation evident on each toy's face. Finally, Jesse (the girl cowboy doll) wails to Buzz "what do we do?!?"
Buzz appears to almost have a plan on the tip of his tongue, but then stops. His face sort of relaxes, but also like it's about to cry. He reaches out to take Jesse's hand, his eyes communicating to her this is it. This is the moment they will die. Jesse reaches over to comfort a clearly hysterical Bullseye (cowboy horse), one by one the toys all relax, find each other's hand with expressions of resignation, clearly too tired to fight any further, exhausted both mentally and physically, not to mention being emotionally drained by the horrors they have witnessed. Buzz finally reaches out to Woody, his long time friend. This is it.
[caption id="attachment_719" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="And now, the end is near, and so I face, the final curtain...."]
[/caption]
Holy. Fucking. Shit. Seriously? It was one of the most heart wrenching moments in animated filmmaking I have personally ever witnessed (apart from when Scar the lion convinces Simba that he killed his father, while his father's likely-still twitching body is right there). A deeply horrific situation, imminent actual death is involved, and characters who are battle worn and weary, standing bravely next to each other's side to the last, now accepting their fate, perhaps even welcoming it. These are not things I can imagine most children being able to identify with let alone comprehend. Or, at least, I hope most children cannot. This scene was both so utterly terrifying for our heroes of a decade and half to face and completely searing to any psychological balance possible following the emotional roller coaster of the film that it's a wonder parents were able to drive their kids home without first holding everyone in a tear-filled family group hug, possibly involving several families at once.
This explains the movie's ending, which is appropriately long enough to allow for everyone to dry their eyes, maybe hold a loved one close, perhaps even make a mental note to no longer take for granted the small moments of life and to live each day as it's your last. We find Andy finally leaving for college, only to take his toys (yes, they fucking made it, the movie isn't Shakespeare, after all) to Bonnie's house, where we discover that Andy was obviously involved in the drama club at school (explains his lack of friends) and that Dora, I mean Bonnie is destined for the same fate as she parts ways with Andy surrounded by her trove of new toys. She waves Woody's arm goodbye to Andy, who catches his breath, almost tearing up, before getting into his car to travel to school and his first actual sexual experience involving other humans.
During the last 15 years, the Toy Story franchise has had 3 successful movies along with a slew of re-marketing of old toy concepts. Everything from Etch-a-Sketch to Slinky Dogs has made a comeback, even if they were in the form pictured in the movies. The movies feature big name acting talent, huge budgets, and state of the art animation and production. Even the writing has been widely praised for appealing to both the children they are marketed to and the adults who paid for the tickets and will have to take the little bastards home at the end of 103 minutes, stuffed with popcorn, soda, and nachos.
While the third movie has been praised extensively for its engrossing, emotional storyline and superlative character animation, depicting flawless emotional response, it also featured an increasingly dark probing of psychological fears not seen in the previous films. Indeed, it's not very common at all for films targeted at children to get so deep that adults in the audience might be wondering, "Holy shit, really?!"
There were five particular moments from the film which struck a nerve in our psyche, bringing up every phobia-inducing moment, from the sexually charged adolescence to the final acceptance of a terrible, painful death.
Woody's Longing OR "What the toys saw..."
Early in the movie, we learn that Andy (the human character owning all the toys) has now aged to the hormonally inebriated age of 17 and is getting ready to venture off to college. Thanks to the montage of flashback scenes shown via his mother's home movies (his father hasn't been around in a long time, apparently, which explains some of Andy's later issues "letting go" of Woody), backed by Randy Newman's phlegm throated warbling, we see Andy's tween years, playing happily with all his toys and no friends or other children save for his pesky younger sister (given that the sister, Molly, showed up in the second movie following a fatherless first movie indicates Mom likes to still get down, but couldn't seal the deal and get the new dad to stay). In the present, the toys are acting on a plot using cellphones they stole from the humans to attract Andy's attention back to the toybox. Which brings us to this image of Woody, his face welling up in both joy and sorrow at hearing Andy's voice on the phone after presumably so long.
[caption id="attachment_716" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="A mixture of longing and loathing?"]
[/caption]Not only do we have this heartstring plucking scene of Woody's emotional mask slipping away for a second and his yearning to once again be "played with" by his owner revealed, we are also faced with some troubling questions about the toys' lives up to now. This is Andy's room and he has obviously not gotten rid of things as he aged. His toybox still sits in the same place, for crying out loud, and there is the addition of a laptop computer on his desk. The toys were present....and WITNESS TO....some of the most private, exploratory moments a teenage boy, alone in his room with a computer has during the onset of puberty. What did the toys do? Did they try to avoid each other's gaze, pretending to be in "toy mode" and not really paying attention? Did they wonder what Andy might be doing to himself, possibly partially clothed, with possible confusing images on his computer screen? It's one thing to experience finding out what makes the toy work which will control you the rest of your life. It's quite another to imagine there were witnesses to the whole experience, in the form of your cherished playthings.
They called it "play time"
Through a series of mishaps, misunderstandings, and misogyny (NONE of this would have happened if his stupid sister hadn't distracted Andy and his stupid mom had stopped to look UP at the partially closed attic door), the toys find themselves being donated to a local daycare center. There, they are greeted warmly by the other toys, particular the leader, a stuffed purple lion-type toy called Lots O' Huggin' Bear (seriously, he looks like an attempt at a lion). He eventually brings the hero toys to their side of the daycare center, introducing us to one of his hench--..., er, associate toys, a giant baby doll, named Big Baby. This is not psychologically jarring, however, just fucking terrifying nonetheless. Woody parts ways with the other toys, his co-dependency issues of "being there" for a 17 year old college-bound Andy not letting him just move on. Buzz and the remaining toys get into position for the small children at the day care to come back in from recess, when Buzz starts to notice something in the room:
[caption id="attachment_717" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="Terror, thy name is Child"]
[/caption]The native toys have all hidden themselves or are in the act of hiding, and basically doing the equivalent of the kid from Ransom pissing down his leg when hears Gary Sinise's voice. Whatever is coming is equivalent to whatever has happened to take these toys into a pants-shittingly terrified catatonic state. The next scenes show why, as Buzz and the crew are thrown, snotted on, painted, beaten, and disassembled in something resembling a Gitmo torturer's childhood training. After the kids leave, the toys are somewhat "sore", but we are lead to believe the other toys have endured this daily, maybe even for years and years. Holy shit, did I mention Gitmo? Forget that, this is Saddam's rape rooms we are talking about here. So emotionally and mentally broken that they hide beneath furniture and tremble, doing the toy-equivalent of shivering in puddles of fear-piss, the trauma is stupefying. Even if they were rescued, no therapy, no medication could ease their suffering by the looks of raw, stark terror on their toy faces.
Woody, in the meantime, has been relocated to Bonnie's house, a vaguely Latina child resembling a shy Dora the Explorer who has every bit as an active imagination as the pre-teen Andy once had in Woody's fond pre-self-abuse-witnessing memories. Turns out another toy associated with Lotso's crew is also there, a morose and somewhat creepy looking clown doll named Chuckles, who stares out a moonlit window missing only the bottle of gin a G-rated movie couldn't allow. From him we get Lotso's backstory, how he, Big Baby, and Chuckles all once belonged to a child named Daisy. Through a unfortunate mistake and inattentive parenting, the three favorite toys get left at a rest stop after Daisy falls asleep, her mother and father content only to pick up the recyclables, the child, but not her fucking toys. Lotso's determination to return home brings the toys, at last, to Daisy's house. There, Lotso discovers he has been replaced by a new version of him, another Lots O' Huggin' Bear (still looks like a lion). He lies and tells the other toys they have been replaced too. At this point, he becomes unrelentingly evil.
The Monster's Contemplation
Back in the present, the daycare has now turned into the third season of Lost, with some toys imprisoned and tortured, some working for the Others, er, Lotso's crew, and some simply shacking up in the dreamhouse (Barbie is a whore and Ken is a closeted homosexual, as is hinted throughout the movie. No, seriously, all the characters continually cast sidelong glances at each other whenever Ken's "girl's toy" side comes out). Big Baby is revealed to be the smoke-monster, basically, and acts as the muscle of the entire operation, ruthlessly casting toys into the "box" for overnight stays in sand and cat poop.Woody finally manages to return to begin plotting an escape. The toys quickly begin acting on the plan, with it appearing to work, right up to this point.
[caption id="attachment_718" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back"]
[/caption]They stumble upon Big Baby, sitting alone in a swing, a scene reminiscent of Chuckles' earlier flashbacks to happier times with Daisy. The monster-doll is staring up toward the moon with those dead eyes, one broken and half lidded, the other wide, round, and full of a kind of loss and lack of conscience only to be found in two foot tall sentient infant simulacrums. What is it thinking? Does it have clear memories of those earlier times? Is it planning how it will next dismember an out of line plush toy? Is that longing in those plastic orb eyes or merely the empty gaze in the space of time between horrific acts of violence? Whatever it is, it strikes to the very soul and makes one wonder if it's the abyss we are seeing or what happens after staring into the abyss too long. All we know for sure is that it's a murder-doll and our heroes are accessory-shitting scared of it. (Side note: It looks like the animators paid some homage to another series of movies here, when one of the squeezy alien toys makes a chirp and alerts Big Baby, we see the terrifying thing waddle toward our heroes, the camera pulling back to an overhead shot of the Baby looking over a ledge very much like the Wraith peering over the log looking for Frodo. Or I could just be reading too much into their penchant for paying homages.)
Big Baby Pulls a Vader
Woody and crew eventually manage to reach their goal, standing on the edge of the trash dumpster they will use as an escape vehicle only to be confronted once again by Lotso and his cronies. The two sides stand across the open maw of the dumpster. Lotso offers another chance for the toys to return to the daycare and take the brutal torture of the younger children so Lotso and his chosen ones can remain with the older kids. Woody and the gang naturally refuse, but this time Woody brings up Lotso's past with Daisy. He eventually proves his knowledge by tossing Big Baby's nametag across the gap, something Lotso had once ripped from the Baby's neck upon discovering he had been replaced. Lotso loses his shit and starts monologuing his frustration, letting it all out in a stream of invective of his lot in life. Meanwhile, Big Baby only realizes that its "mama" (said in an eery baby doll voice when looking down at the nametag) never really replaced it at all (though in all likelihood, if Daisy's parents lazily replaced one cherished toy with an identical model, they replaced all of them). In yet another homage-appearing scenes, Big Baby interrupts Lotso's angry speech (read: lightening bolt torture of the hero) with a surprise over-the-head lift and proceeds to throw Lotso into the stinky depths of the garbage dumpster (read: Death Start open tunnel....seriously, am I the only one who caught the reference?).
[caption id="attachment_724" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="The only thing missing is Lotso doing Force x-rays of Big Baby"]
[/caption]Now free to get back home, the toys once again find themselves caught, this time by chance as one of them gets stuck in the lid of the dumpster. They all wind up in the dumpster and a terrifying ride to the dump. Managing to stay together and also rescue a trapped Lotso (he's good now), they dodge a perplexing gauntlet of trash-shredding machinery. Eventually they wind up on a conveyor belt full of trash shreds only to discover the belt dumps them into an incinerator! They scramble to wade through the quicksand like chips of trash, trying to outrun the conveyor backwards. Lotso notices an emergency stop switch atop a ladder, but can't quite make it, calling on Buzz and Woody to (once again) save him. He climbs the ladder, reaches toward the switch and....fuck (oh, nevermind, he's still soulless and evil).
The End
This is where things reach a traumatically scarring plateau. The toys are scrambling to avoid this new danger, now beautifully animated as a kind of Dante's inferno of plastic toy melting hellfire. They struggle in the shifting morass of trash, some of them slipping, others barely able to hang on as the whole room is seemingly angled towards this ultimate doom in the center of the room. The music is swelling, the sheer desperation evident on each toy's face. Finally, Jesse (the girl cowboy doll) wails to Buzz "what do we do?!?"
Buzz appears to almost have a plan on the tip of his tongue, but then stops. His face sort of relaxes, but also like it's about to cry. He reaches out to take Jesse's hand, his eyes communicating to her this is it. This is the moment they will die. Jesse reaches over to comfort a clearly hysterical Bullseye (cowboy horse), one by one the toys all relax, find each other's hand with expressions of resignation, clearly too tired to fight any further, exhausted both mentally and physically, not to mention being emotionally drained by the horrors they have witnessed. Buzz finally reaches out to Woody, his long time friend. This is it.
[caption id="attachment_719" align="aligncenter" width="614" caption="And now, the end is near, and so I face, the final curtain...."]
[/caption]Holy. Fucking. Shit. Seriously? It was one of the most heart wrenching moments in animated filmmaking I have personally ever witnessed (apart from when Scar the lion convinces Simba that he killed his father, while his father's likely-still twitching body is right there). A deeply horrific situation, imminent actual death is involved, and characters who are battle worn and weary, standing bravely next to each other's side to the last, now accepting their fate, perhaps even welcoming it. These are not things I can imagine most children being able to identify with let alone comprehend. Or, at least, I hope most children cannot. This scene was both so utterly terrifying for our heroes of a decade and half to face and completely searing to any psychological balance possible following the emotional roller coaster of the film that it's a wonder parents were able to drive their kids home without first holding everyone in a tear-filled family group hug, possibly involving several families at once.
This explains the movie's ending, which is appropriately long enough to allow for everyone to dry their eyes, maybe hold a loved one close, perhaps even make a mental note to no longer take for granted the small moments of life and to live each day as it's your last. We find Andy finally leaving for college, only to take his toys (yes, they fucking made it, the movie isn't Shakespeare, after all) to Bonnie's house, where we discover that Andy was obviously involved in the drama club at school (explains his lack of friends) and that Dora, I mean Bonnie is destined for the same fate as she parts ways with Andy surrounded by her trove of new toys. She waves Woody's arm goodbye to Andy, who catches his breath, almost tearing up, before getting into his car to travel to school and his first actual sexual experience involving other humans.
6/20/2010
Belated Movie Review: The Book of Eli
As with all my reviews, there will be spoilers. You were warned.
The most succinct way to sum up "The Book of Eli" is "The Road II: With a Vengeance". Basically it took the same concept as "The Road", gave the wanderer a more specific purpose, made him much more of a badass, and gave us a more specific enemy than "everyone".
The same concepts are present in both movies:
1. Humankind has suffered a terrible tragedy, hinted in both movies as being a nuclear war.
2. The landscape is blighted, nothing grows, the food chain is destroyed, and humans are living like scavengers.
3. Artifacts we now take for granted are precious treasures in this blighted future.
4. If you aren't strong or resourceful, other humans will kill and eat you.
Hell, they even look the same, in terms of filmography:
The primary difference is the plot device. In "The Road", the dad simply wants to protect his kid long enough to see him to some supposed better land. He dies just as the kid encounters the family he never had. In "The Book of Eli", Denzel Washington is transporting a similar burden, except this time it's the memorized copy of the King James Bible, which Gary Oldman desperately wants as a method of controlling people and building his empire.
The "Book of Eli" is weak in that respect. It places far too much importance and wanton bloodshed on obtaining the last known copy of the Christian Bible, implausible given the Gideons. And if he wanted the Bible only to use its words as a method of bringing people under his control, why not just make it up himself and write it down, a la Joseph Smith? Make it sound reasonably similar, call yourself a prophet, and start from scratch. Why go to the trouble of basically starting a mini-war with a guy who you think is carrying a copy?
Basically, "The Book of Eli" ends as kind of a self-righteous Christian entry into the apocalyptic genre of movies and story telling. It's the religious version of Mad Max, if Max is a Christian trying to protect a copy of the Bible.
In this respect, the movie is very much a betrayal from its trailer. In the trailer we see Gary Oldman's villain character consumed with catching the Denzel Washington character's book because the book "is a weapon". Oh? What kind of weapon? Launch codes for the remaining nukes? Directions to the remaining military bases? Some kind of supernatural book of spells? Alas, no. The "weapon" is simply the desire for control of a blighted people who would as soon eat you as to read a book.
Like "The Road", it was a good journey, but unlike it, a disappointing destination.
The most succinct way to sum up "The Book of Eli" is "The Road II: With a Vengeance". Basically it took the same concept as "The Road", gave the wanderer a more specific purpose, made him much more of a badass, and gave us a more specific enemy than "everyone".
The same concepts are present in both movies:
1. Humankind has suffered a terrible tragedy, hinted in both movies as being a nuclear war.
2. The landscape is blighted, nothing grows, the food chain is destroyed, and humans are living like scavengers.
3. Artifacts we now take for granted are precious treasures in this blighted future.
4. If you aren't strong or resourceful, other humans will kill and eat you.
Hell, they even look the same, in terms of filmography:
The primary difference is the plot device. In "The Road", the dad simply wants to protect his kid long enough to see him to some supposed better land. He dies just as the kid encounters the family he never had. In "The Book of Eli", Denzel Washington is transporting a similar burden, except this time it's the memorized copy of the King James Bible, which Gary Oldman desperately wants as a method of controlling people and building his empire.
The "Book of Eli" is weak in that respect. It places far too much importance and wanton bloodshed on obtaining the last known copy of the Christian Bible, implausible given the Gideons. And if he wanted the Bible only to use its words as a method of bringing people under his control, why not just make it up himself and write it down, a la Joseph Smith? Make it sound reasonably similar, call yourself a prophet, and start from scratch. Why go to the trouble of basically starting a mini-war with a guy who you think is carrying a copy?
Basically, "The Book of Eli" ends as kind of a self-righteous Christian entry into the apocalyptic genre of movies and story telling. It's the religious version of Mad Max, if Max is a Christian trying to protect a copy of the Bible.
In this respect, the movie is very much a betrayal from its trailer. In the trailer we see Gary Oldman's villain character consumed with catching the Denzel Washington character's book because the book "is a weapon". Oh? What kind of weapon? Launch codes for the remaining nukes? Directions to the remaining military bases? Some kind of supernatural book of spells? Alas, no. The "weapon" is simply the desire for control of a blighted people who would as soon eat you as to read a book.
Like "The Road", it was a good journey, but unlike it, a disappointing destination.
4/25/2010
Movie Review: Ink
[caption id="attachment_578" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Allel and Jacob"]
[/caption]
From Wikipedia:
To read the full plot this movie, visit the Wiki link above and read the details. The story was touching, uplifting, and yes, it brought tears to my eyes. That said, the most remarkable aspect of this movie was not the plot, although inventive and original. The film itself is exquisite to watch. I can only describe the cinematography as dream-like. It was watching someone's dreams...and nightmares...depicted in as orderly a fashion as the film medium can convey. Everything from the lighting and effects, to the actors themselves, it was gorgeous to behold. At times, I felt moved just by what felt like an unguarded peek into someone's psyche, their private imaginings. It was unlike any other movie I have ever viewed and was almost an entirely new way of storytelling.
[caption id="attachment_577" align="alignleft" width="206" caption=""Ink""]
[/caption]
The movie was released last year after the filmmakers were rebuffed by every studio they approached. This, in itself, is telling of what the movie industry has become. I can well imagine the out of touch, anachronistic studio executives scratching their heads at a film which doesn't always tell the story in the order you expect, nor which focuses excessively on the violence. The filmmakers then released the film themselves to various festivals and eventually to the mass market via DVD and BluRay. The movie was also heavily pirated online, which the filmmakers actually appreciated as it positioned the film before a much larger audience, which in turn possibly fueled growth in disc sales. The attention was deserved, as were the financial rewards these filmmakers enjoyed. It is a mark of an artisan to so desire others to see the product of his labors.
The nonsequential, sometimes disjointed scenes settled down by the third act to weave together disparate elements from the previous acts. It was allegorical even as it was haunting on a human level in considering ourselves and those around us. Two worlds exist, one oblivious to other yet protected by it.
And a father atoning for his sins with the forgiveness imparted by his daughter's hand on his brow.
The film is available on Netflix (subscription) and Hulu (free), in addition to DVD and BluRay from the filmmaker's website. The trailer is below. I give the movie my highest marks and recommendation.
[/caption]From Wikipedia:
Ink is a 2009 American fantasy film, written and directed by Jamin Winans, starring Chris Kelly, Quinn Hunchar and Jessica Duffy. It was produced by Winans's own independent production company, Double Edge Films, with Kiowa K. Winans, and shot by cinematographer Jeff Pointer in locations around Denver. The film premiered at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival on January 23, 2009[2], and has screened in Denver, the Cancun Film Festival (where it won the Best International Feature award[3]), Rams Head Onstage in Annapolis and in a number of independent movie houses in cities around the US.
To read the full plot this movie, visit the Wiki link above and read the details. The story was touching, uplifting, and yes, it brought tears to my eyes. That said, the most remarkable aspect of this movie was not the plot, although inventive and original. The film itself is exquisite to watch. I can only describe the cinematography as dream-like. It was watching someone's dreams...and nightmares...depicted in as orderly a fashion as the film medium can convey. Everything from the lighting and effects, to the actors themselves, it was gorgeous to behold. At times, I felt moved just by what felt like an unguarded peek into someone's psyche, their private imaginings. It was unlike any other movie I have ever viewed and was almost an entirely new way of storytelling.
[caption id="attachment_577" align="alignleft" width="206" caption=""Ink""]
[/caption]The movie was released last year after the filmmakers were rebuffed by every studio they approached. This, in itself, is telling of what the movie industry has become. I can well imagine the out of touch, anachronistic studio executives scratching their heads at a film which doesn't always tell the story in the order you expect, nor which focuses excessively on the violence. The filmmakers then released the film themselves to various festivals and eventually to the mass market via DVD and BluRay. The movie was also heavily pirated online, which the filmmakers actually appreciated as it positioned the film before a much larger audience, which in turn possibly fueled growth in disc sales. The attention was deserved, as were the financial rewards these filmmakers enjoyed. It is a mark of an artisan to so desire others to see the product of his labors.
The nonsequential, sometimes disjointed scenes settled down by the third act to weave together disparate elements from the previous acts. It was allegorical even as it was haunting on a human level in considering ourselves and those around us. Two worlds exist, one oblivious to other yet protected by it.
And a father atoning for his sins with the forgiveness imparted by his daughter's hand on his brow.
The film is available on Netflix (subscription) and Hulu (free), in addition to DVD and BluRay from the filmmaker's website. The trailer is below. I give the movie my highest marks and recommendation.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5I1SavGyA
1/10/2010
Belated Movie Reviews: Cloud With a Chance of Meatballs
This review possibly contains spoilers of the plot. You were warned.
This movie was a treat (sure, pun intended) from start to finish, both visually and from a plot standpoint, complete with enough quirks to separate it from the rest of the summer buffet (umm, yeah, another pun). If it wasn’t for one, glaring problem, it would have received five stars from me.
Okay, let’s Oreo cookie this thing (gods, I can’t stop). The movie was incredibly animated. The visuals alone were stellar, especially from a technical standpoint of animating the various physics of different food consistencies and textures. The characters, however, bounce between reacting to the environment in a quasi-realistic way all the way to tried and true cartoon favorites of shoveling food into their mouths as if they were reptiles with unhinged jaws. This more or less works fine, once you get used to the universe the film makers have created, though it’s a bit jarring when the first foods begin to fall.
The plot centers around a budding mad scientist and his quest for glory, greatness, yet tinged with some major daddy issues. The main character invents a machine which is accidentally launched into the atmosphere, where it takes up geostationary orbit in the clouds (yeah, cartoon physics again). The machine’s purpose is to convert water into whatever food one desires, from fully formed cheeseburger to perfectly cooked steaks, and even ice cream programmed to fall in perfect scoops.
The usual hijinks ensure, especially with the conveniently built-in ticking timebomb scenario of how the machine can become overworked and thus produce “over mutated” foods (as in gargantuan, heavy, and falling from the sky at presumably terminal velocity). This isn’t the problem of the film, however.
Granted, I acknowledge it’s a work of fiction, intended to entertain both young and old. Along with that are the usual liberties taken with reality and physics in order to move the story along, no matter how outlandish or absurd. Yet, the one thing which bothered me, apart from all of that, was that at no time, did any character ever mention the invention as a possible aid to world hunger.
Yes, yes, yes, it’s possibly a very picky point on my part, to the degree of being overly sensitive to moral and social issues, yet it’s nonetheless very glaring that no one even tossed the idea out there. There were plots to make the machine put the failing and formerly sardine-industry based town back on the map, and even sub-plots involving a mayor with an obvious eating disorder, gluttonous town folk, and all undercut by the main character’s need for his dad’s pat on the head. Yet, the only nod to the third world was in the surprising, if heavy-handed character introduction of Stan, the cameraman from Guatemala who also happens to be a doctor, stunt pilot, and comedian, apparently living in the US in order to “have a better life”.
In fact, one of the movie’s ultimate antagonists winds up being a pile of gigantic leftovers which breaks the damn they were carefully hidden behind, threatening the townsfolk.
This may in itself be the message the film makers were trying to send in portraying the characters as not giving a second thought to those who could benefit the most while cheerfully tossing away leftovers with the none too subtle “if it’s out of sight, it’s out of mind” throwaway line. Yet, it’s subtlety likely lost on people sitting in a theater who just paid $10 for a popcorn and soda worthy only about $3 at a grocery store.
Still, the movie’s acting was top notch, with the father character (voiced by James Caan) one of my favorites. His reunion and confession of love for his son was as poignant was it was humorously introduced. No doubt there are already sequel talks in the works or some kind of series. The movies themes may be too out reach for younger kids, but with no overt violence (though there is plenty implied to watchful adults) and lots of gorgeous colors, animation, and action, the young ones will be riveted.
Cloud With a Chance of Meatballs: ★★★★☆
This movie was a treat (sure, pun intended) from start to finish, both visually and from a plot standpoint, complete with enough quirks to separate it from the rest of the summer buffet (umm, yeah, another pun). If it wasn’t for one, glaring problem, it would have received five stars from me.
Okay, let’s Oreo cookie this thing (gods, I can’t stop). The movie was incredibly animated. The visuals alone were stellar, especially from a technical standpoint of animating the various physics of different food consistencies and textures. The characters, however, bounce between reacting to the environment in a quasi-realistic way all the way to tried and true cartoon favorites of shoveling food into their mouths as if they were reptiles with unhinged jaws. This more or less works fine, once you get used to the universe the film makers have created, though it’s a bit jarring when the first foods begin to fall.
The plot centers around a budding mad scientist and his quest for glory, greatness, yet tinged with some major daddy issues. The main character invents a machine which is accidentally launched into the atmosphere, where it takes up geostationary orbit in the clouds (yeah, cartoon physics again). The machine’s purpose is to convert water into whatever food one desires, from fully formed cheeseburger to perfectly cooked steaks, and even ice cream programmed to fall in perfect scoops.
The usual hijinks ensure, especially with the conveniently built-in ticking timebomb scenario of how the machine can become overworked and thus produce “over mutated” foods (as in gargantuan, heavy, and falling from the sky at presumably terminal velocity). This isn’t the problem of the film, however.
Granted, I acknowledge it’s a work of fiction, intended to entertain both young and old. Along with that are the usual liberties taken with reality and physics in order to move the story along, no matter how outlandish or absurd. Yet, the one thing which bothered me, apart from all of that, was that at no time, did any character ever mention the invention as a possible aid to world hunger.
Yes, yes, yes, it’s possibly a very picky point on my part, to the degree of being overly sensitive to moral and social issues, yet it’s nonetheless very glaring that no one even tossed the idea out there. There were plots to make the machine put the failing and formerly sardine-industry based town back on the map, and even sub-plots involving a mayor with an obvious eating disorder, gluttonous town folk, and all undercut by the main character’s need for his dad’s pat on the head. Yet, the only nod to the third world was in the surprising, if heavy-handed character introduction of Stan, the cameraman from Guatemala who also happens to be a doctor, stunt pilot, and comedian, apparently living in the US in order to “have a better life”.
In fact, one of the movie’s ultimate antagonists winds up being a pile of gigantic leftovers which breaks the damn they were carefully hidden behind, threatening the townsfolk.
This may in itself be the message the film makers were trying to send in portraying the characters as not giving a second thought to those who could benefit the most while cheerfully tossing away leftovers with the none too subtle “if it’s out of sight, it’s out of mind” throwaway line. Yet, it’s subtlety likely lost on people sitting in a theater who just paid $10 for a popcorn and soda worthy only about $3 at a grocery store.
Still, the movie’s acting was top notch, with the father character (voiced by James Caan) one of my favorites. His reunion and confession of love for his son was as poignant was it was humorously introduced. No doubt there are already sequel talks in the works or some kind of series. The movies themes may be too out reach for younger kids, but with no overt violence (though there is plenty implied to watchful adults) and lots of gorgeous colors, animation, and action, the young ones will be riveted.
Cloud With a Chance of Meatballs: ★★★★☆
12/08/2005
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fear
by Brian Ragle
As published in Skeptic magazine
[caption id="attachment_513" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="all movie stills copyright © 2005 Warner Bros., All Rights Reserved"]
[/caption]
THE HARRY POTTER SENSATION CONTINUES its march into cultural history with the latest of the now six volume series shattering sales records previously broken by earlier Potter books. That success is equally reflected in the four movies based on the story, the latest of which is premiered in the United States in mid November, 2005. Though read by children and adults alike, the Harry Potter books have been variously upheld for bringing a renewed interest in reading among young people while at the same time heavily criticized for elements of the occult which feature prominently in the saga of the boy wizard.
The criticism is renewed with the release of each of book or movie in the series and has even come from top Catholic officials, such as Pope Benedict XVI who, when he was still known as Cardinal Ratzinger, called the Harry Potter books a subtle seduction into witchcraft for young souls. The public reaction among even mainstream Christianity has been likened to the book burnings of Nazi Germany or the purging of Communist sympathizers by Senator Joseph McCarthy.
That comparison is not lost on Reverend Bryan Small, a priest at the St. Catherine of Siena parish in Kennesaw, Georgia. Holding a degree in psychology and a bookshelf of controversial books, such as Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons, Rev. Small sees the larger issue surrounding Harry Potter to be one of parenting.
“I am 31 years old. I have traveled abroad and I have read extensively,” Small said, “I can tell the difference between reality and fantasy. A child is less likely to be able to do that and so that’s where the parents come in.”
Small has already encountered one vocal parent at the K-6 school that annexes his church. Upon discovering a copy of Harry Potter & the Sorcerer’s Stone in the school library, she complained heavily to every member of the staff. Small said he sympathizes with her concerns but sees no real difference between the Harry Potter sensation and other notable works of fantasy from the likes of J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. The Lord of the Rings series of movies have already generated billions of dollars from worldwide sales of the books and films, and there are heavy expectations for Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia series, set to open in December with the first volume, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
However, noted Christian author Richard Abanes draws a distinction between the writings of Tolkien and Lewis and that of J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter sagas. “Harry Potter contains elements of real magic, unlike the more fantasy-based powers employed in Lord of the Rings or Narnia,” Abanes explained. In fact, Abanes claims it is this difference that makes the Potter stories much more likely to induce impressionable children into seeking additional information about witchcraft and the world of the occult.
That is perfectly fine with teenage witch Kathryn Elliott, a self-described “non-denominational Wiccan.” She welcomes the inclusion of mystical elements and witchcraft in Harry Potter as a positive portrayal of a belief largely condemned as evil by clergy and pop culture alike. Yet, she shakes her head at the alleged reality of the magic used in Potter. According to her, real spells and divinations take long periods of preparation and meditation and even then do not always work as intended. She tells of a time when a spell backfired on her, producing a dark spirit that haunted her home for several days, until she found another spell to banish it. These spells did not come from a fantasy book such as Harry Potter, nor did she find them in an arcane set of texts. “I found them on the Internet,” she said.
Reverend Small thinks that Kathryn most likely did call up an evil spirit, though notes that her use of the Internet to discover how to cast a spell as another example of where parents should have been more actively involved in what the children under their care are viewing online. When pressed for further thoughts on the invisible world of spirits being accessed by witches through magical spells, Small became more cautious in assigning labels. While the official church doctrine still includes procedures for the exorcism of evil demons, he said it is used rarely, if at all, outside of underdeveloped nations.
Both Christian clergy and Wiccan witches share the belief that spirits and magic are real phenomenon. The parent of a young Harry Potter fan must contend with a deluge of new reports of criticisms of the book for its witchcraft, even as witches endorse it for the positive examples of good magic. Priests like Reverend Small, however, would move the debate from the world of magic and into the realm of good parenting. His final opinion is that there is no more harm in Hogwarts School than there is in the land of Narnia or the kingdom of Gondor. Harry Potter presents an opportunity for parents and children to share in the story and open a dialogue on the larger story elements of good versus evil.
“The essence of Harry Potter, as I read it, is that love leaves a mark,” Small concluded, referring to the lighting bolt scar that the main character bears as a symbol of his mother’s love. “This is a story of ultimate love and the eternal struggle such power has against that of destruction.” Small calls former Cardinal Ratzinger’s highly publicized remarks “the opinion of just one guy.” However, Small acknowledges that “one guy” is now the spiritual leader of millions and his opinion will factor heavily in both the reaction to the newest movie, Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire, and in future installments of the series.
Skeptics can only sit back and watch the tug-of-war for these “young souls” rage on between the forces of Christianity and what Reverend Small calls “the other side.” Meanwhile, our task is to remain solidly on “this side” of the divide when it comes to reality, even while we willing suspend disbelief while we enjoy the fantasy of Hogwarts, Narnia, and Gondor, no less than that of Star Wars and Star Trek.
As published in Skeptic magazine
[caption id="attachment_513" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="all movie stills copyright © 2005 Warner Bros., All Rights Reserved"]
[/caption]THE HARRY POTTER SENSATION CONTINUES its march into cultural history with the latest of the now six volume series shattering sales records previously broken by earlier Potter books. That success is equally reflected in the four movies based on the story, the latest of which is premiered in the United States in mid November, 2005. Though read by children and adults alike, the Harry Potter books have been variously upheld for bringing a renewed interest in reading among young people while at the same time heavily criticized for elements of the occult which feature prominently in the saga of the boy wizard.
The criticism is renewed with the release of each of book or movie in the series and has even come from top Catholic officials, such as Pope Benedict XVI who, when he was still known as Cardinal Ratzinger, called the Harry Potter books a subtle seduction into witchcraft for young souls. The public reaction among even mainstream Christianity has been likened to the book burnings of Nazi Germany or the purging of Communist sympathizers by Senator Joseph McCarthy.
That comparison is not lost on Reverend Bryan Small, a priest at the St. Catherine of Siena parish in Kennesaw, Georgia. Holding a degree in psychology and a bookshelf of controversial books, such as Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons, Rev. Small sees the larger issue surrounding Harry Potter to be one of parenting.
“I am 31 years old. I have traveled abroad and I have read extensively,” Small said, “I can tell the difference between reality and fantasy. A child is less likely to be able to do that and so that’s where the parents come in.”
Small has already encountered one vocal parent at the K-6 school that annexes his church. Upon discovering a copy of Harry Potter & the Sorcerer’s Stone in the school library, she complained heavily to every member of the staff. Small said he sympathizes with her concerns but sees no real difference between the Harry Potter sensation and other notable works of fantasy from the likes of J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. The Lord of the Rings series of movies have already generated billions of dollars from worldwide sales of the books and films, and there are heavy expectations for Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia series, set to open in December with the first volume, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
However, noted Christian author Richard Abanes draws a distinction between the writings of Tolkien and Lewis and that of J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter sagas. “Harry Potter contains elements of real magic, unlike the more fantasy-based powers employed in Lord of the Rings or Narnia,” Abanes explained. In fact, Abanes claims it is this difference that makes the Potter stories much more likely to induce impressionable children into seeking additional information about witchcraft and the world of the occult.
That is perfectly fine with teenage witch Kathryn Elliott, a self-described “non-denominational Wiccan.” She welcomes the inclusion of mystical elements and witchcraft in Harry Potter as a positive portrayal of a belief largely condemned as evil by clergy and pop culture alike. Yet, she shakes her head at the alleged reality of the magic used in Potter. According to her, real spells and divinations take long periods of preparation and meditation and even then do not always work as intended. She tells of a time when a spell backfired on her, producing a dark spirit that haunted her home for several days, until she found another spell to banish it. These spells did not come from a fantasy book such as Harry Potter, nor did she find them in an arcane set of texts. “I found them on the Internet,” she said.
Reverend Small thinks that Kathryn most likely did call up an evil spirit, though notes that her use of the Internet to discover how to cast a spell as another example of where parents should have been more actively involved in what the children under their care are viewing online. When pressed for further thoughts on the invisible world of spirits being accessed by witches through magical spells, Small became more cautious in assigning labels. While the official church doctrine still includes procedures for the exorcism of evil demons, he said it is used rarely, if at all, outside of underdeveloped nations.
Both Christian clergy and Wiccan witches share the belief that spirits and magic are real phenomenon. The parent of a young Harry Potter fan must contend with a deluge of new reports of criticisms of the book for its witchcraft, even as witches endorse it for the positive examples of good magic. Priests like Reverend Small, however, would move the debate from the world of magic and into the realm of good parenting. His final opinion is that there is no more harm in Hogwarts School than there is in the land of Narnia or the kingdom of Gondor. Harry Potter presents an opportunity for parents and children to share in the story and open a dialogue on the larger story elements of good versus evil.
“The essence of Harry Potter, as I read it, is that love leaves a mark,” Small concluded, referring to the lighting bolt scar that the main character bears as a symbol of his mother’s love. “This is a story of ultimate love and the eternal struggle such power has against that of destruction.” Small calls former Cardinal Ratzinger’s highly publicized remarks “the opinion of just one guy.” However, Small acknowledges that “one guy” is now the spiritual leader of millions and his opinion will factor heavily in both the reaction to the newest movie, Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire, and in future installments of the series.
Skeptics can only sit back and watch the tug-of-war for these “young souls” rage on between the forces of Christianity and what Reverend Small calls “the other side.” Meanwhile, our task is to remain solidly on “this side” of the divide when it comes to reality, even while we willing suspend disbelief while we enjoy the fantasy of Hogwarts, Narnia, and Gondor, no less than that of Star Wars and Star Trek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
