If you've spoken with me for more than five minutes, then you know that I think the fact that The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for Best Picture is a tragedy within both film and human history. Back when it happened, I assumed that all of the nominees weren't as good. But now I know for certain. Still, that's not what this blog entry is about. So I'll just point out my thoughts on the films that were nominated, I won't mention Batman again. I promise.
Know what the curious case of Bruce Wayne is? He's never been in a Best Picture nominee. Tragic, I know. However, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was put to film, and though he doesn't fulfill the requirements of a summer action movie archetype while simultaneously dealing with issues like the duality of man and the morality of how far one can and should go for the greater good, it's still a good movie. I actually felt a bit strange when finishing the tale about Brad Pitt living his life in reverse. The movie was really well done in a classical style. By that I mean that for some reason the style reminded me of a movie from the 50s (in a good way). It never really pulled me in and made me part of the story. There's no real deeper meaning to the film (at least not that I could ascertain) but it was certainly visually stunning and well-acted. I suppose the point of the film is that he comes to appreciate everything he has in life because he starts off in the worst physical shape of his life and becomes stronger. Or maybe there's no point to the film other than to entertain. I have no idea, but whichever way you look at it I feel like it was mostly nominated because it was classy and came out in December. It's a good movie, but it's not overly great.
Want to know what my favorite scene in The Dark Knight is? It's coincidentally the same as the director's: the interrogation scene. Well, Frost/Nixon isn't quite on that level, but it is really good though (as interrogations go). As it is based on a stage play (and real events, but mostly the stage play) the film is almost entirely fueled by acting. And Michael Sheen and Frank Langella really deliver as David Frost and Richard Nixon, respectively. On top of that, I liked the angle from which the film approached Nixon. Because something that I dislike within films is inaccuracy due to bias. Did Nixon do some pretty shady stuff? Sure, no one's arguing he wasn't. But that wasn't everything that he did when he was president. So the movie really gives the audience a chance to recognize with the man and see the Watergate situation from his perspective. It also gives him a chance to talk about the good things that he did before his paranoia took over. So I really liked that the film offered multiple views on the situation, to the point that you don't see it as Frost vs. Nixon (which is why I love that the movie has a slash in the title) but you instead see the similarities between the two men and how they come to respect each other. The acting is also fueled by an excellent script and tight, intense directing from Ron Howard. Out of the films that were actually nominated, this was easily my second favorite after the year's winner.
Know what has more calcium than Milk? Batman's bones. Nice segue, right? I thought so too, well I'm referring of course to Milk which is the biopic that follows the life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician to be elected in California. The story didn't particularly pull me in, because once you've seen one movie about overcoming oppressive societal issues, you've seen them all (from a film perspective anyway, not having lived through any of the events in the film it's tough to see it from any other viewpoint). What really impressed me was Sean Penn's performance. And that takes a lot for me to say because I think that Sean Penn is a whiny jerk, and I highly enjoyed seeing puppet Sean Penn being slaughtered in Team America. But, you've got to give him props for his performance in this movie, it really is quite good. The film itself has some strong moments, including a particularly well-framed death scene for Milk, but I feel like the performance was more deserving of praise than the film itself was. In order for a film to be nominated, everything has to click. And by that I mean: the acting, music choices (or lack thereof, in a case like No Country for Old Men), directing, dialogue, and everything should be as top notch as possible. I felt that Milk was a slightly above average film with a way above average performance. So I'm glad Sean Penn was recognized, but the other elements didn't quite live up to that standard.
Know who's the only dude driven enough to resist the wiles of Kate Winslet? Batman. (also Sam Mendes, apparently) Well, 15-year-old German kid isn't either of those people, as the first 45 minutes of The Reader prove. And prove. And prove some more. Ever seen porn with good acting? You have if you've seen this movie (or HBO). The first 45 minutes are solely based on this kid's infatuation with Kate Winslet, which is certainly understandable (especially if he's seen Titanic) but is it particularly necessary? The important aspect to the movie is supposed to be the fact that he reads to her and allows her to be open to an entire world of imagination and art that she previously had no exposure to. The fact that she allows him to carry on with her in exchange for reading her a book basically makes her a hooker. Then later on in the movie when the kid is in law school, we see her on trial for war crimes because she was also a Nazi. So she's a Nazi hooker. And we're supposed to feel sympathy for this woman because she can't read. If she was only a Nazi or only a hooker I probably could, the fact that she's both is pushing things a bit (and this coming from me, the guy who has shed tears for Benjamin Linus the mass murderer and Lex Luthor the criminal mastermind). I don't know whether it's the fact that they didn't portray her in such a way that we felt pity for her, or the fact that the end result of the movie was: "he taught a Nazi to read. Yay?" but either way, I wasn't sure what to think of the film. On one hand, certain aspects of it were well done. On another hand, it was pretty creepy. I should point out that Ralph Fiennes does a great job as the kid as an adult (don't feel like looking up the name) but I do have a hard time viewing him as a protagonist. See now, if the romance had involved the adult and Kate that would've made more sense. Voldemort and a Nazi? Adorable.
Know what's awesome? A playboy billionaire who fights crime. Know what's also awesome but not as much? A Slumdog Millionaire who needs to brush up on his Dumas. I really wanted to dislike this movie, because everyone told me to watch it when I was fuming about the Oscars. I really wanted to dislike it up until five seconds into watching it and then I loved it. Of the nominated films, I definitely agree that it was the best one. It's funny, touching, uplifting, all of these things without overdoing any of them. I would actually compare the movie to M. Night Shyamalan's last great outing: Signs. The point of Signs was that even bad things can happen for a greater good in the long run. It was a movie meant to inspire hope in the shadow of 9/11. Well, Slumdog is similar in that it shows how all of the moments of suffering that the boy endured in his life led to him being able to answer the questions to a game show he shouldn't have been able to win. First off, who doesn't love a story about someone who's been put down sticking it to the man? I know we've seen it a gazillion times, but there's something far more interesting about a character who's been marked from birth as inferior, or as a "rat" in this case (that's where my blog title comes from: characters' feelings in the movie. Not my being a racist. Please don't ACLU me). To make an obscure pop culture reference, in the original Metal Gear Solid video game, the twin with the superior genes (hard to explain, just roll with it) grew up thinking he was the inferior one. As such, he pushed himself to becoming an expert in all of the talents he didn't think he had. Had he grown up knowing he was superior, he probably would've been a bum (also an easier boss fight). So since the characters in the film have all been put down from birth as outcasts of high society, this creates a setup for poetic justice at its best. Because the experiences of oppression that the main character lived through were the very things that allowed him to overcome this oppression. From high society's point of view, it's the classic Greek tragedy situation where the person you put down rises up but only because you fought so hard to put him down. The film is creatively done, wonderfully directed, and as I said before, it makes all of its points without having to strap the audience down and explain its meaning. When a film's meaning is screamed too loudly, it becomes an agenda. And thus: annoying. I'm looking at you James Cameron.
Well, that's the roundup for 2008. As though my agenda hasn't been clear (I recognize my hypocrisy), The Dark Knight not being nominated is right up there with Hitchcock not winning anything and Jimmy Cagney not even being nominated for White Heat (that was when the Academy started going downhill, and that was years ago). But, Batman will live on in our hearts. And of the 5 films actually nominated, 2 were definitely deserving, 1 might've been, 1 had an excellent performance, and 1 had Kate Winslet. So that's more than I can say for other years I suppose. Next blog entry: oil, Michael Ceran offspring, and Keira Knightley. Sweet.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Oscar-Induced Resurgence: The Sequel (The Return of Death, in Space, Part 7. This Time It's Personal.)
It is time to begin part 2 of my epic 2-part rundown of the 2009 Oscars. Unfortunately for me, the setup is usually better than the delivery. Take Star Trek: TNG as an example. Season three finale: Picard gets captured by the Borg, becomes Borg, and Riker is forced to fire an ultimate weapon at the Borg cube and if it works Picard will be dead. The end of the season: "Mr. Worf, fire." That was awesome. Season 4 premiere: the weapon doesn't do anything and they rescue Picard and find some screwy sci-fi way to save him. Not nearly as cool.
Well now that I've lowered your expectations, it's time to talk about the toughest movie to watch: Precious. This is appropriate because a large reason for why I enjoyed the film was my low expectations. I thought it was going to be melodrama on top of more melodrama. But that's not what it was at all (and let me put a sidenote that I refuse to put the whole title of the movie, which includes the novel title, because that's just ridiculous). The film is more about the performances than anything else, and I must admit that Mo'nique did an incredible job as the abusive mother of Precious. You'd think that given her previous roles she wouldn't have been too good, but she was incredible. She makes you hate her for the whole movie and then in the last five minutes she humanizes the character and makes you feel sympathy for her. The movie itself is well-done and well-written but it's the performances that really stand out. It surprised me the most of any of the films, because I thought I wouldn't enjoy it at all. Let me point out: me saying I was wrong about this film illustrates that I do admit when I'm wrong. This further shows I'm not wrong very often, so there.
Another strange addition was A Serious Man, probably chosen for the list due to the fact that it's a Coen brothers movie. Which also points to how good the movie is, although it's certainly not for everybody. It's about as dark of a comedy as you can find, but it's also hilarious. It actually reminds me of my own life a bit too much. When I was watching the main character's wife divorcing him for no given reason and the debacle with his student (who bribes him for an A, he refuses the bribe, the student sneaks the money into his desk and then threatens legal action for accepting a bribe. So he blackmails him for giving in to blackmail, even though he didn't. That's awesome) I couldn't help but think of my dearly-departed fish tank, my unfortunately overlooked graduation speech, and my tire-smashed car. The film shows that the guy's family is just cursed, no two ways about it. But it also shows that given the circumstances, you can either laugh at it or let it bother you. So I say that if laughing is the only power over it you can have, go for it. With these themes in mind, it's not an award-worthy film but it's quite an enjoyable one.
People may scoff, but one of the best movies of the year was Up. Pixar is fricking amazing. Every time they have a trailer for a movie I say to myself, "meh, that doesn't look too interesting. But it's Pixar so I'll see it." And every single time they pretty much make me cry. I cried like three times during this movie. It's so touching and tragic and inspiring and all kinds of good things. All of these factors are heavily influenced by Michael Giacchino's excellent music score, for which he won an Oscar. And it's about time I say, I've been a fan since like 2001. I'm frankly tired of people treating animated or CG films as though they aren't real movies. A director has to put together shots the same way any other director would, voice-acting is just as challenging (and in some ways more challenging) as regular acting, and the script is most certainly put together in the same way. Go ahead and watch Toy Story and tell me it's not a fascinating tale about existence and identity. So I was glad to see some props given to an animated film, because it's long overdue.
The final film to discuss before getting to the actual winner is Up in the Air. The word that I'd say most describes the film is: cute. And I know that sounds kind of belittling, but that's what it is. It's well-written, well-acted, it makes you laugh, and it makes you cry. It does everything right, but it also does nothing differently. George Clooney plays a classy middle-aged man, Anna Kendrick is adorable, and Vera Farmiga is a tough chick. So no one really exerts themselves. All of that being said, I really enjoyed the movie but since it told a small-scale story and did it to perfection, the word in my mind when it finished was: cute. It did what it set out to do, no more and no less. So I give the filmmakers credit, but it's more of a Golden Globe type movie than an Oscar. It also reminded me quite a bit of Thank You For Smoking except that I thought Up in the Air wasn't quite as good (tough to top a movie that involves a father going to his son's classroom on career day and saying, "I lobby for cigarettes!").
And with that, we are brought to The Hurt Locker, which I felt was well-deserving of the award. Though my heart was with Tarantino, I knew that he was too out-there for the Academy to recognize. This movie was easily the second most deserving in my mind. First off, it was refreshing to see a war movie wherein the setting of the war didn't particularly matter. It takes place in Iraq, but it could've just as easily taken place during Vietnam, World War II, or even the frigging Wars of the Roses (except that no bombs were around to be defused back then). Because the crux of the movie wasn't the fighting or even the bomb defusing, the point was how war changes people forever. The main character grew so accustomed to war that he didn't feel secure anywhere else. This idea can be applied to many different settings: extreme sports people only feel alive when they're risking their lives. Many criminals only feel alive when they're breaking the rules. Truthfully, I feel more at rest when random nonsense happens to me and I complain about it. Because I've grown used to it. So the movie is really an in-depth study of human nature, against the backdrop of war. The directing is very atmospheric, the acting is solid, and the realism is untouched by any other war movie since Saving Private Ryan. And as a mitigating factor, Kathryn Bigelow is probably the most well-aged woman of all time. She's 58, but when I saw her I thought that she was a woman who was in her forties but looked good for her age. Not that this is relevant to anything. I'm just saying, she's pretty hot.
Well, that's my 2009 roundup of Best Picture nominees. There will be many many many more of these to come, if for no other reason than for my own purposes of being able to look back and remember what I thought of certain films. Because honestly, with all of the fiction swimming around in my mind it's tough to remember what made certain things good or bad. The next entry will be 2008: the year Batman was scorned. And though before I'd only suspected he'd been unfairly screwed, now that I've seen the five actual nominees I know it for a fact. So tune in next time, and no I won't make the obvious reference you're all expecting.
Well now that I've lowered your expectations, it's time to talk about the toughest movie to watch: Precious. This is appropriate because a large reason for why I enjoyed the film was my low expectations. I thought it was going to be melodrama on top of more melodrama. But that's not what it was at all (and let me put a sidenote that I refuse to put the whole title of the movie, which includes the novel title, because that's just ridiculous). The film is more about the performances than anything else, and I must admit that Mo'nique did an incredible job as the abusive mother of Precious. You'd think that given her previous roles she wouldn't have been too good, but she was incredible. She makes you hate her for the whole movie and then in the last five minutes she humanizes the character and makes you feel sympathy for her. The movie itself is well-done and well-written but it's the performances that really stand out. It surprised me the most of any of the films, because I thought I wouldn't enjoy it at all. Let me point out: me saying I was wrong about this film illustrates that I do admit when I'm wrong. This further shows I'm not wrong very often, so there.
Another strange addition was A Serious Man, probably chosen for the list due to the fact that it's a Coen brothers movie. Which also points to how good the movie is, although it's certainly not for everybody. It's about as dark of a comedy as you can find, but it's also hilarious. It actually reminds me of my own life a bit too much. When I was watching the main character's wife divorcing him for no given reason and the debacle with his student (who bribes him for an A, he refuses the bribe, the student sneaks the money into his desk and then threatens legal action for accepting a bribe. So he blackmails him for giving in to blackmail, even though he didn't. That's awesome) I couldn't help but think of my dearly-departed fish tank, my unfortunately overlooked graduation speech, and my tire-smashed car. The film shows that the guy's family is just cursed, no two ways about it. But it also shows that given the circumstances, you can either laugh at it or let it bother you. So I say that if laughing is the only power over it you can have, go for it. With these themes in mind, it's not an award-worthy film but it's quite an enjoyable one.
People may scoff, but one of the best movies of the year was Up. Pixar is fricking amazing. Every time they have a trailer for a movie I say to myself, "meh, that doesn't look too interesting. But it's Pixar so I'll see it." And every single time they pretty much make me cry. I cried like three times during this movie. It's so touching and tragic and inspiring and all kinds of good things. All of these factors are heavily influenced by Michael Giacchino's excellent music score, for which he won an Oscar. And it's about time I say, I've been a fan since like 2001. I'm frankly tired of people treating animated or CG films as though they aren't real movies. A director has to put together shots the same way any other director would, voice-acting is just as challenging (and in some ways more challenging) as regular acting, and the script is most certainly put together in the same way. Go ahead and watch Toy Story and tell me it's not a fascinating tale about existence and identity. So I was glad to see some props given to an animated film, because it's long overdue.
The final film to discuss before getting to the actual winner is Up in the Air. The word that I'd say most describes the film is: cute. And I know that sounds kind of belittling, but that's what it is. It's well-written, well-acted, it makes you laugh, and it makes you cry. It does everything right, but it also does nothing differently. George Clooney plays a classy middle-aged man, Anna Kendrick is adorable, and Vera Farmiga is a tough chick. So no one really exerts themselves. All of that being said, I really enjoyed the movie but since it told a small-scale story and did it to perfection, the word in my mind when it finished was: cute. It did what it set out to do, no more and no less. So I give the filmmakers credit, but it's more of a Golden Globe type movie than an Oscar. It also reminded me quite a bit of Thank You For Smoking except that I thought Up in the Air wasn't quite as good (tough to top a movie that involves a father going to his son's classroom on career day and saying, "I lobby for cigarettes!").
And with that, we are brought to The Hurt Locker, which I felt was well-deserving of the award. Though my heart was with Tarantino, I knew that he was too out-there for the Academy to recognize. This movie was easily the second most deserving in my mind. First off, it was refreshing to see a war movie wherein the setting of the war didn't particularly matter. It takes place in Iraq, but it could've just as easily taken place during Vietnam, World War II, or even the frigging Wars of the Roses (except that no bombs were around to be defused back then). Because the crux of the movie wasn't the fighting or even the bomb defusing, the point was how war changes people forever. The main character grew so accustomed to war that he didn't feel secure anywhere else. This idea can be applied to many different settings: extreme sports people only feel alive when they're risking their lives. Many criminals only feel alive when they're breaking the rules. Truthfully, I feel more at rest when random nonsense happens to me and I complain about it. Because I've grown used to it. So the movie is really an in-depth study of human nature, against the backdrop of war. The directing is very atmospheric, the acting is solid, and the realism is untouched by any other war movie since Saving Private Ryan. And as a mitigating factor, Kathryn Bigelow is probably the most well-aged woman of all time. She's 58, but when I saw her I thought that she was a woman who was in her forties but looked good for her age. Not that this is relevant to anything. I'm just saying, she's pretty hot.
Well, that's my 2009 roundup of Best Picture nominees. There will be many many many more of these to come, if for no other reason than for my own purposes of being able to look back and remember what I thought of certain films. Because honestly, with all of the fiction swimming around in my mind it's tough to remember what made certain things good or bad. The next entry will be 2008: the year Batman was scorned. And though before I'd only suspected he'd been unfairly screwed, now that I've seen the five actual nominees I know it for a fact. So tune in next time, and no I won't make the obvious reference you're all expecting.
The Oscar-Induced Resurgence
So it seems I've been gone from the blogosphere for a while now, mostly because I couldn't think of anything to complain about for seven paragraphs (at least anything that wasn't controversial in nature). Well, recently I've decided to watch every movie that's ever been nominated for Best Picture. I started with 2009, and I'm working my way backward. So this will be the longest of all the Oscar posts, maybe the longest of all of my posts, because there were 10 nominees! 10! And I watched all ten of them. The hard part will be condensing it to a paragraph on each because as my roommate and my parents can tell you: I could go on for hours.
I can think of no other way to list off the films than alphabetically, and then the winner. Which of course means that first up on the list is none other than Avatar. Well it's appropriate since I have the strongest opinions toward that movie. Let me begin by saying that I highly enjoyed it. It's visually incredible, the music is great, and it's broken new ground for films. But it's really more of a really long amusement park ride than a movie. The story has been done and redone many times over, it's a bit too heavy-handed with its message ("we killed our Earth-mother long ago! Long ago I tell you! Why? Why? The horror!"), and plus there's the real-life factor of: James Cameron is a jerk. He's a good director, but he's nowhere near as good as he thinks he is (no one is as good as he thinks he is). And plus, part of the reason it made so much money is the fact that each ticket costs a few dollars more for the 3D glasses. If you feel like doing some math to see how much it would've made without it (and I don't) then it made less than The Dark Knight. So James Cameron can bow to Chris Nolan, a real director. Which is good, because the fact that the highest-grossing movie of all time has an element called "unobtanium" in it is nauseating. Although as my good friend pointed out: it sounds better than "hard-to-getium" or "plot devicium". Bottom line: fun movie, but if it had won I would've been violently ill.
One of the stranger additions to the list is The Blind Side. I enjoyed the film in a typical uplifting sports movie way, but it wasn't particularly great. And Sandra Bullock did a good job, but Best Actress? Really? I think they gave it to her because she's popular and most of the other nominees had won already. So I can't exactly argue, I just thought it was a bit of an odd choice. There are certainly moments to cheer through the movie, and I will say that there are some more intense moments than you'd think at a few places (beating up some gang members, Sandra threatening to pull a gun on gang members, etc.) which made it a bit more interesting than most sports films. Still, I feel like a lot of other movies could've taken its place if they were looking for a popular one to nominate (Star Trek anyone?).
Something I was glad to see on the list was District 9. Its addition actually led me to think that maybe 10 nominees is a good idea. It's a way of saying: this has no shot at winning but we'd like to tip our hat anyway. The film actually deals with a lot of similar issues to those in Avatar, except it deals with them in a much more effective and low-key manner. Plus, some of the special effects look just as good (there's just not as much of it, obviously) and it was shot for 30 million or something. The movie very impressively depicts an allegory for apartheid (without shoving it in your face too much after the first 10 minutes of setup) while developing a great character and somehow fitting in some sci-fi action which is just plain awesome. The director, Neill Blomkamp, is certainly one to keep an eye on. The movie is too violent and nerdy to get anything from the Academy, but I'm glad it received the nomination because it was one of my favorites from last year.
Coming off of that positive note, we move on to easily my least favorite of the nominees: An Education. Now, let me point out that I was expecting to like it. It was written by Nick Hornby, who I'm a fan of, and the first half an hour or so is quirky, witty, and enjoyable. But since the whole movie is basically like Lolita (except that it doesn't know it's creepy) and it hinges on how much you feel for the lead character, I ended up intensely disliking it. Now, I can feel sympathy for anybody in a movie if it's done correctly. Darth Vader, scourge of the galaxy and killer of younglings, I feel for that guy. Davy Jones, collector of the dead and ruler of the kraken, I feel for that guy. But Carey Mulligan's character in this movie (major spoilers ahead, but I'm sparing you from watching the film): a girl stupid enough to shack up with a con man/thief who is twice her age, who then tosses her education out the window to marry him only to discover (gasp!) he's already married and she's made a complete fool of herself. I feel no sympathy for the girl and as such the movie cannot be enjoyed (not by me anyway). Because Darth did what he did for love, and Davy had his heart broken so he became cruel to survive in a cruel world, but this chick was nuts.
Oddly shoved in the middle of my rundown is my favorite movie from the whole bunch: Inglourious Basterds. As many know, I'm an avid Tarantino fan. And when I saw this I said, "this is easily his second best work after Pulp Fiction." When I watched it again I said, "this is easily his best work ever" (a sentiment echoed by Brad Pitt in the final line of dialogue). The film not only showcases Tarantino's outstanding dialogue, shot composition, and creativity, it also turns the genre on its head. Christoph Waltz's character, Hans Landa, is the sleazy Nazi who is so smart and eloquent that you almost like him more than the good guys (at least he won his award, that was easily one of the best villain performances of all time). And Brad Pitt's team is so brutal and ruthless, that they're the real Nazis of the piece. Hitler is portrayed as a small, defeated man who has gotten in over his head. Not to say that any of this points to actual historical fact, it's just interesting to see it portrayed so differently. And you still revel in the scene at the end when Hitler is riddled with bullets. People complained of the historical inaccuracy of the piece, to which I say: any historical film that has characters in it that didn't exist in real life, isn't historically accurate. So who cares? It's an outstanding piece of work, and I hope that someday Tarantino gets what he deserves instead of becoming the next Hitchcock (who strangely never won anything).
Everybody hanging in there? Well, in case you're not, I'm going to separate this into two parts so it'll be easily accessible for those of you with actual lives to pick it up again later. Or it'll make you feel better about yourself since you'd be avoiding a second post instead of only reading half of one posting, which is much more rude. You're welcome.
I can think of no other way to list off the films than alphabetically, and then the winner. Which of course means that first up on the list is none other than Avatar. Well it's appropriate since I have the strongest opinions toward that movie. Let me begin by saying that I highly enjoyed it. It's visually incredible, the music is great, and it's broken new ground for films. But it's really more of a really long amusement park ride than a movie. The story has been done and redone many times over, it's a bit too heavy-handed with its message ("we killed our Earth-mother long ago! Long ago I tell you! Why? Why? The horror!"), and plus there's the real-life factor of: James Cameron is a jerk. He's a good director, but he's nowhere near as good as he thinks he is (no one is as good as he thinks he is). And plus, part of the reason it made so much money is the fact that each ticket costs a few dollars more for the 3D glasses. If you feel like doing some math to see how much it would've made without it (and I don't) then it made less than The Dark Knight. So James Cameron can bow to Chris Nolan, a real director. Which is good, because the fact that the highest-grossing movie of all time has an element called "unobtanium" in it is nauseating. Although as my good friend pointed out: it sounds better than "hard-to-getium" or "plot devicium". Bottom line: fun movie, but if it had won I would've been violently ill.
One of the stranger additions to the list is The Blind Side. I enjoyed the film in a typical uplifting sports movie way, but it wasn't particularly great. And Sandra Bullock did a good job, but Best Actress? Really? I think they gave it to her because she's popular and most of the other nominees had won already. So I can't exactly argue, I just thought it was a bit of an odd choice. There are certainly moments to cheer through the movie, and I will say that there are some more intense moments than you'd think at a few places (beating up some gang members, Sandra threatening to pull a gun on gang members, etc.) which made it a bit more interesting than most sports films. Still, I feel like a lot of other movies could've taken its place if they were looking for a popular one to nominate (Star Trek anyone?).
Something I was glad to see on the list was District 9. Its addition actually led me to think that maybe 10 nominees is a good idea. It's a way of saying: this has no shot at winning but we'd like to tip our hat anyway. The film actually deals with a lot of similar issues to those in Avatar, except it deals with them in a much more effective and low-key manner. Plus, some of the special effects look just as good (there's just not as much of it, obviously) and it was shot for 30 million or something. The movie very impressively depicts an allegory for apartheid (without shoving it in your face too much after the first 10 minutes of setup) while developing a great character and somehow fitting in some sci-fi action which is just plain awesome. The director, Neill Blomkamp, is certainly one to keep an eye on. The movie is too violent and nerdy to get anything from the Academy, but I'm glad it received the nomination because it was one of my favorites from last year.
Coming off of that positive note, we move on to easily my least favorite of the nominees: An Education. Now, let me point out that I was expecting to like it. It was written by Nick Hornby, who I'm a fan of, and the first half an hour or so is quirky, witty, and enjoyable. But since the whole movie is basically like Lolita (except that it doesn't know it's creepy) and it hinges on how much you feel for the lead character, I ended up intensely disliking it. Now, I can feel sympathy for anybody in a movie if it's done correctly. Darth Vader, scourge of the galaxy and killer of younglings, I feel for that guy. Davy Jones, collector of the dead and ruler of the kraken, I feel for that guy. But Carey Mulligan's character in this movie (major spoilers ahead, but I'm sparing you from watching the film): a girl stupid enough to shack up with a con man/thief who is twice her age, who then tosses her education out the window to marry him only to discover (gasp!) he's already married and she's made a complete fool of herself. I feel no sympathy for the girl and as such the movie cannot be enjoyed (not by me anyway). Because Darth did what he did for love, and Davy had his heart broken so he became cruel to survive in a cruel world, but this chick was nuts.
Oddly shoved in the middle of my rundown is my favorite movie from the whole bunch: Inglourious Basterds. As many know, I'm an avid Tarantino fan. And when I saw this I said, "this is easily his second best work after Pulp Fiction." When I watched it again I said, "this is easily his best work ever" (a sentiment echoed by Brad Pitt in the final line of dialogue). The film not only showcases Tarantino's outstanding dialogue, shot composition, and creativity, it also turns the genre on its head. Christoph Waltz's character, Hans Landa, is the sleazy Nazi who is so smart and eloquent that you almost like him more than the good guys (at least he won his award, that was easily one of the best villain performances of all time). And Brad Pitt's team is so brutal and ruthless, that they're the real Nazis of the piece. Hitler is portrayed as a small, defeated man who has gotten in over his head. Not to say that any of this points to actual historical fact, it's just interesting to see it portrayed so differently. And you still revel in the scene at the end when Hitler is riddled with bullets. People complained of the historical inaccuracy of the piece, to which I say: any historical film that has characters in it that didn't exist in real life, isn't historically accurate. So who cares? It's an outstanding piece of work, and I hope that someday Tarantino gets what he deserves instead of becoming the next Hitchcock (who strangely never won anything).
Everybody hanging in there? Well, in case you're not, I'm going to separate this into two parts so it'll be easily accessible for those of you with actual lives to pick it up again later. Or it'll make you feel better about yourself since you'd be avoiding a second post instead of only reading half of one posting, which is much more rude. You're welcome.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Send in 3 Proofs of Purchase and Receive Your Very Own Emmy in 3-6 Weeks! (Caution: Sarcasm Even More Biting Than Usual)
I'm fed up with awards shows. As though it wasn't bad enough last week when Kanye (the most egotistical jerk on the face of this or any other planet) went after Taylor Swift (the nicest, sweetest human being to ever walk the Earth). Before I get to my main point, if I ever do, I'd like to point out that I have declared a moratorium on Kanye songs. I don't ever want to hear one again. If someone nearby is playing a Kanye song and they refuse to switch it off, I will react as though they are Kanye himself and I will lay them to waste. Sure, I'm scrawny and I probably couldn't beat Taylor Swift in a fight let alone her attacker. However, my superior intellect will allow me to go all Lex Luthor on any remaining Kanye fans (so, Kanye).
Somewhat related point: how is Beyonce's video containing three people dancing in front of a blank background the video of the year? I've seen more creative variety than that on Scooby Doo.
Anyway, that's just a frustration over a fake awards show that no one would've cared about if it didn't contain purity being attacked by pure evil (noun vs. oxymoron cage match). A real awards show, the Oscars, was also quite disappointing much earlier this year. Why? Because I hadn't heard of half of the nominated films and performances until they were nominated. And I'd like to point out that I spend half of my life reading about upcoming films on the internet (the other half watching said films). Anyone who knows me, has met me, or just seen my t-shirts as I walk across campus must know that I was PISSED when The Dark Knight didn't even get a nomination. So, for a while now I've been planning the perfect Batman film (as far as the Oscars are concerned, it would actually suck horribly and destroy 70 years of comic book history, but I really want that award).
The name of the film: 13atman (I wish I had come up with this, thanks to my good friend Brad who was equally as upset over the Oscars). The title invokes: it's like Batman, but not really. He's having an identity crisis. Is he a Bat? Or is he just another number in a sea of people, with not much separating him from 12atman and 14atman? That's actually pretty good, I'm awesome. But, the point is, Indie-lovers would read into the title so much that the pre-Oscar buzz portion of my revenge will be complete. The next step: instead of having Bruce Wayne's fortune come from his family estate, why not make him a poor kid in India who wins a million dollars by getting Mr. Mxyzptlk to say his name backwards? (gotta get some nerds interested too) Then, he can become a wonderful member of society, only to be shot at by a bigot who thinks that he and Robin are a little too dynamic of a duo (if you know what I mean. It pains me to even write the words, but if you want an award for Batman, this is what it takes). Throw Kate Winslet's nipples in there and you've got Oscar gold.
Wow, remember when my blog was fun for the whole family? I guess I'm looking to win an award and I'm taking a trick out of HBO's book to do it.
Think I'm crazy? Well, so do I. Sadly, some Indie filmmaker will probably read this after waking up from an acid trip and think it's brilliant. The facts are these: the winners are either chosen by a riveting game of Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock or the Academy just wants to force people to watch movies they'd never go to see by showering them with awards. The Emmys, it would seem, are no different. Although I did very much enjoy the hosting talent of Neil Patrick Harris (he's the man) and it was overall an entertaining show, I couldn't help but notice that the Emmys are starting to look more and more like the Oscars every year (not just in statuette color tone).
The show that has won these past two years is Mad Men. A show which is, in fact, one of about 7 shows I don't watch (there are two kinds of shows I don't watch: Grey's Anatomy and crap that reminds me of Grey's Anatomy). No matter how many people tell me to watch Mad Men, and how much I want to be interested in it, I'm not at all. If period pieces are so interesting then why doesn't Hallmark Channel have an Emmy monopoly? When I looked up the show on Wikipedia and checked under "themes" (for a real show like Lost, listings would be: life and death, moral gray area, destiny and fate, etc.) all I saw was: "Mad Men depicts parts of American society and culture of the early 1960s, highlighting cigarette smoking, drinking, sexism, adultery, homophobia, antisemitism, and racism as examples of how that era was (here's the kicker) so much different from the present."
Umm, yeah... because I had to look up half of those words on Urban Dictionary due to the fact that they don't exist anymore in our utopian society. So people on the show smoke, and this makes it the Emmy winner? (note for 13atman, make Batman a smoker) I'm sure there's more to the show than that, like love triangles and unexpected pregnancies in season finales (things which would be unheard of on any other show...if this was 1963. Maybe they're giving awards to the show as though it were released in the 60s too). And unless I'm mistaken (I just checked and as usual, I am not) there were only two shows from network television nominated for Dramatic Series. TWO! I love both shows and I'm glad they were nominated, but come on people. Comedy fared much better, although one of the nominees was Family Guy which tells me that the people in charge of nominations were either 12 years old or Seth McFarlane's relatives. Two of the cable nominations were Weeds and Entourage, two shows which I love dearly. However, neither the fourth season of the former nor the fifth season of the latter was deserving of a nomination. Great shows, not their best seasons. And I watch 39 shows that are currently running in some way, shape, or form so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
So I began to wonder, why doesn't an excellent show like Dollhouse ever get a nomination? Too weird, that's why. Forget that the writing manages to be more real and more clever than anything HBO has come up with since The Sopranos went off the air, while still managing to be a crazy awesome sci-fi show that nerds like me love. In fact, if we're looking for shows with the most artistry and creativity, it's rarely going to be a realistic one. And if it has to be, then why not give Dexter some love? It's on cable, and it's incredible (and Michael C. Hall freaking needs to win for that performance!). It gets nominated each year, sure. But that makes it hurt even more when it loses. The conclusion I've come to is similar to the Oscar conclusion. They give awards to shows that not as many people watch so that more people will pay the extra money to watch those shows. Or, the 12-year-old nominator hypothesis is correct and shows that get to say more naughty words are nominated, because swearing is cool. (note: in 13atman replace Biff! and Zing! with &*%#! and @*^$!)
But no, instead Glenn Close won yet another award, because she really needed one. She received it for playing a tough-as-nails lawyer who can take control of any situation just as well as any man (so, every other role she's ever played except this time it's a lawyer. She's basically going through all of the costumes Barbie's ever had on and making them more respectable). Not that I was familiar with any of the other performances, but I would've liked Elisabeth Moss to win (even though she was from Mad Men, my new nemesis) simply because her character on The West Wing was adorable (and yet also tough in many ways, so more diverse than any of Glenn Close's roles). And Jim Parsons, who masterfully plays the neurotic Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory (one of the funniest shows currently on TV, especially because of the nerd references) lost out to Alec Baldwin: a man who has gone largely unnoticed in the entertainment industry. A man who is not at all the Kanye West of Hollywood. A man who would never dream of winning money on Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and giving it to retired circus animals (true story, check the tapes). The whole thing just makes you nauseous (although I do enjoy his character on 30 Rock, but he basically plays a Bizarro version of himself).
There was a small glimmer of hope: Michael Emerson finally won for his portrayal of my #3 favorite villain of all time: Benjamin Linus. That made me happy, because he's deserved it for a very long time. Other than that, my question remains, when will the deserving pieces of fiction be the ones that win? When will Quentin Tarantino, easily one of the greatest directors of our time, receive the Oscar he so deserves? When will the Academy that likes to talk about giving awards to movies that inspire people, stop nominating movies that make people want to jump off a bridge? When will Emmys be given to writers who do more than put a cigarette in a character's mouth or drop the f-bomb? I'll tell you exactly when: when I accept the award for 13atman. My speech will dismantle the whole industry, cracking the mask to reveal the rot underneath. And if I can somehow draw a connection between the Academy, the Postal Service, and orthodontists, then I can destroy all of my enemies in one fell swoop.
But first, I'm going after Kanye.
Somewhat related point: how is Beyonce's video containing three people dancing in front of a blank background the video of the year? I've seen more creative variety than that on Scooby Doo.
Anyway, that's just a frustration over a fake awards show that no one would've cared about if it didn't contain purity being attacked by pure evil (noun vs. oxymoron cage match). A real awards show, the Oscars, was also quite disappointing much earlier this year. Why? Because I hadn't heard of half of the nominated films and performances until they were nominated. And I'd like to point out that I spend half of my life reading about upcoming films on the internet (the other half watching said films). Anyone who knows me, has met me, or just seen my t-shirts as I walk across campus must know that I was PISSED when The Dark Knight didn't even get a nomination. So, for a while now I've been planning the perfect Batman film (as far as the Oscars are concerned, it would actually suck horribly and destroy 70 years of comic book history, but I really want that award).
The name of the film: 13atman (I wish I had come up with this, thanks to my good friend Brad who was equally as upset over the Oscars). The title invokes: it's like Batman, but not really. He's having an identity crisis. Is he a Bat? Or is he just another number in a sea of people, with not much separating him from 12atman and 14atman? That's actually pretty good, I'm awesome. But, the point is, Indie-lovers would read into the title so much that the pre-Oscar buzz portion of my revenge will be complete. The next step: instead of having Bruce Wayne's fortune come from his family estate, why not make him a poor kid in India who wins a million dollars by getting Mr. Mxyzptlk to say his name backwards? (gotta get some nerds interested too) Then, he can become a wonderful member of society, only to be shot at by a bigot who thinks that he and Robin are a little too dynamic of a duo (if you know what I mean. It pains me to even write the words, but if you want an award for Batman, this is what it takes). Throw Kate Winslet's nipples in there and you've got Oscar gold.
Wow, remember when my blog was fun for the whole family? I guess I'm looking to win an award and I'm taking a trick out of HBO's book to do it.
Think I'm crazy? Well, so do I. Sadly, some Indie filmmaker will probably read this after waking up from an acid trip and think it's brilliant. The facts are these: the winners are either chosen by a riveting game of Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock or the Academy just wants to force people to watch movies they'd never go to see by showering them with awards. The Emmys, it would seem, are no different. Although I did very much enjoy the hosting talent of Neil Patrick Harris (he's the man) and it was overall an entertaining show, I couldn't help but notice that the Emmys are starting to look more and more like the Oscars every year (not just in statuette color tone).
The show that has won these past two years is Mad Men. A show which is, in fact, one of about 7 shows I don't watch (there are two kinds of shows I don't watch: Grey's Anatomy and crap that reminds me of Grey's Anatomy). No matter how many people tell me to watch Mad Men, and how much I want to be interested in it, I'm not at all. If period pieces are so interesting then why doesn't Hallmark Channel have an Emmy monopoly? When I looked up the show on Wikipedia and checked under "themes" (for a real show like Lost, listings would be: life and death, moral gray area, destiny and fate, etc.) all I saw was: "Mad Men depicts parts of American society and culture of the early 1960s, highlighting cigarette smoking, drinking, sexism, adultery, homophobia, antisemitism, and racism as examples of how that era was (here's the kicker) so much different from the present."
Umm, yeah... because I had to look up half of those words on Urban Dictionary due to the fact that they don't exist anymore in our utopian society. So people on the show smoke, and this makes it the Emmy winner? (note for 13atman, make Batman a smoker) I'm sure there's more to the show than that, like love triangles and unexpected pregnancies in season finales (things which would be unheard of on any other show...if this was 1963. Maybe they're giving awards to the show as though it were released in the 60s too). And unless I'm mistaken (I just checked and as usual, I am not) there were only two shows from network television nominated for Dramatic Series. TWO! I love both shows and I'm glad they were nominated, but come on people. Comedy fared much better, although one of the nominees was Family Guy which tells me that the people in charge of nominations were either 12 years old or Seth McFarlane's relatives. Two of the cable nominations were Weeds and Entourage, two shows which I love dearly. However, neither the fourth season of the former nor the fifth season of the latter was deserving of a nomination. Great shows, not their best seasons. And I watch 39 shows that are currently running in some way, shape, or form so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
So I began to wonder, why doesn't an excellent show like Dollhouse ever get a nomination? Too weird, that's why. Forget that the writing manages to be more real and more clever than anything HBO has come up with since The Sopranos went off the air, while still managing to be a crazy awesome sci-fi show that nerds like me love. In fact, if we're looking for shows with the most artistry and creativity, it's rarely going to be a realistic one. And if it has to be, then why not give Dexter some love? It's on cable, and it's incredible (and Michael C. Hall freaking needs to win for that performance!). It gets nominated each year, sure. But that makes it hurt even more when it loses. The conclusion I've come to is similar to the Oscar conclusion. They give awards to shows that not as many people watch so that more people will pay the extra money to watch those shows. Or, the 12-year-old nominator hypothesis is correct and shows that get to say more naughty words are nominated, because swearing is cool. (note: in 13atman replace Biff! and Zing! with &*%#! and @*^$!)
But no, instead Glenn Close won yet another award, because she really needed one. She received it for playing a tough-as-nails lawyer who can take control of any situation just as well as any man (so, every other role she's ever played except this time it's a lawyer. She's basically going through all of the costumes Barbie's ever had on and making them more respectable). Not that I was familiar with any of the other performances, but I would've liked Elisabeth Moss to win (even though she was from Mad Men, my new nemesis) simply because her character on The West Wing was adorable (and yet also tough in many ways, so more diverse than any of Glenn Close's roles). And Jim Parsons, who masterfully plays the neurotic Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory (one of the funniest shows currently on TV, especially because of the nerd references) lost out to Alec Baldwin: a man who has gone largely unnoticed in the entertainment industry. A man who is not at all the Kanye West of Hollywood. A man who would never dream of winning money on Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and giving it to retired circus animals (true story, check the tapes). The whole thing just makes you nauseous (although I do enjoy his character on 30 Rock, but he basically plays a Bizarro version of himself).
There was a small glimmer of hope: Michael Emerson finally won for his portrayal of my #3 favorite villain of all time: Benjamin Linus. That made me happy, because he's deserved it for a very long time. Other than that, my question remains, when will the deserving pieces of fiction be the ones that win? When will Quentin Tarantino, easily one of the greatest directors of our time, receive the Oscar he so deserves? When will the Academy that likes to talk about giving awards to movies that inspire people, stop nominating movies that make people want to jump off a bridge? When will Emmys be given to writers who do more than put a cigarette in a character's mouth or drop the f-bomb? I'll tell you exactly when: when I accept the award for 13atman. My speech will dismantle the whole industry, cracking the mask to reveal the rot underneath. And if I can somehow draw a connection between the Academy, the Postal Service, and orthodontists, then I can destroy all of my enemies in one fell swoop.
But first, I'm going after Kanye.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Cryogenically Frozen 80-Year-Olds Who Can Bench 500
Before I get into it, let me apologize (a rare occurrence, better take this in) for being gone for so long. I was on vacation, during which point I was at Busch Gardens for a bit. In addition to taking away a lot of wonderful things over the years, they've now added something awful. It's still the best theme park, in my opinion (and thus irrevocably true). However, they now have the "Forest of Fun," which is a section of the park devoted to Sesame Street (the air still lacks its former sweetness, in case you were wondering). The section is nice in that it's where all the little kids congregate, but it's also quite out of place. The whole park is set up to be like Europe. Each section is a different country. Now, maybe my European History is a little off, but I'm pretty sure that Elmo wasn't sticking his/her commie head into the picture when they were excavating the remains of Pompeii. Does that thing have to be everywhere? They replaced the Pirates 4-D show, starring Leslie Nielsen, with a 4-D Elmo show. 2 Ds of Elmo is plenty. Double that would be grounds for insanity. But I got a sweet Godfather painting at the park, so it's all good.
Or is it? The painting still hasn't arrived, and it was shipped by UPS, the only mail carrier I trust. (Interlude: the USPS stole my idea that they should have one flat rate for everything. Nice to know they read the blog/my mind, but would getting a royalty check be so much to ask? I got DHL out of the picture for them, and yet still they sent me season 2 of a show I just started watching before sending season 1. They think I'm kidding when I say I'll destroy their industry.) If UPS fails in bringing me my Godfather painting, which is actually cool enough to fill the empty space in my soul/apartment left by my fish tank, then there won't be any mail carriers left. Let's hope that doesn't happen, but we'll talk about that later. For now, I invite you to this special, deluxe-y edition of the blog (or at least it felt like it when I wrote it) that's extra rant-esque, probably even less coherent than usual, and that still manages to make more sense than the so-called "studies" that are so fond of "saying" things. So let's take a walk down memory lane.
And what lanes my memories more than Disney? Don't tell me that you don't feel a tingling sensation every time you hear "When You Wish Upon A Star," especially when it's the wonderful 15-second instrumental version that was the prelude to your childhood memories. It reminds us of a simpler time, those sunshine days when animals could sing, heroes weren't conflicted alcoholics, and Cookie Monster ate cookies. A time when we didn't say anything if we couldn't say anything nice (even me). And now they want to ruin those days for us too. They just couldn't let it go.
Recently there's been a lot of talk concerning Disney's possibly nefarious influence on children. Such as the naughty hidden message in Aladdin, which happens when you play it backwards, or play it at a certain frequency, or play it while intoxicated (one of those). My question is, who spends their time doing that? How bored do you have to be to say to yourself, "well, I've rewatched all the old episodes of Hawaii Five-O so now what? Well it's a few months before the next season of Magnum P.I. comes out, so I guess I'll watch all of the Disney movies at a high frequency and see if strange voices tell me to do bad things." There's plenty of other examples that I won't get into (hard as this may be to believe, I actually hold back a TON on my blog, just ask my roommates: two people who have heard the real internal workings of the greatest mind alive today and have curiously not had me taken away by the men in white coats) but suffice it to say that 99.9% of people won't notice these things unless it was revealed to them by people who have the uncanny ability to be that much of a jerk.
But it doesn't stop at the subliminal and the certain-angular, there's also plenty of talk concerning the overall themes of the films, artwork, etc. Because it wasn't enough to tell us that George Washington may or may not have cut down the cherry tree and that if Santa does exist, he's probably Canadian. They have to attack Disney too, because it's something that's not harming you until someone tells you it is, like global warming and engrams. Well, it was all revealed to us in Sociology 101. And now we know the truth: that Disney is an evil organization whose rise to power began with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, the first feature-length animated film (this was in 1937, about the time Hitler was starting to take over, coincidence? That's what they wanted you to believe). Its seemingly innocent plot must be seen for what it is: a movie about a floozie who lived with seven different men, taking advantage of their poor self-image that was due to small stature and cutesy nicknames. Then when the heroic (likely German) woman tried to poison this awful spinstress, while simultaneously being clever by symbolizing Snow's consumption of the forbidden fruit, the stupid WASP prince comes and saves her. Those pesky Allies huh?
Well, though the video we watched was obviously nowhere near this ridiculous, I bet (nay, I declare as truth) that there are plenty of people out there who see the movie that way. What the documentary did have was a bunch of little kids reading cue cards, trying to make us feel guilty for subjecting them to Disney movies. There were plenty of racial controversies that the documentary pointed out, but I won't get into those (although I will say that the documentary was a bit like a Michael Moore movie: it made a handful of interesting points, but threw so much ridiculous crap in there with it that the whole thing seems ridiculous). Then there are the hidden images that have since been taken off of the shelves which I also won't discuss (because it was probably just some intern or an executive in a mid-life crisis that sneaked them by the censors). However, what I will speak about is the large portion of the documentary that was devoted to the idea that the characters in the films aren't portrayed like real people.
(GASP), (startled pause), and if I may add, (stunned silence). You mean to tell me that characters that are painted and drawn and can only move when pieces of paper are flipped really quickly don't look exactly like real human beings? That perhaps they look more like human ideals, much like the personalities that inhabit said bodies? See, apparently (I wish I was making this up) when kids watch a cartoon movie, which is obviously fake because it's...umm...a cartoon, they think that real people look like the people in the cartoon. Because instead of thinking that all the real people that they know in real life look like real people, they're going to think that real people actually look like the girl who was a mermaid at the beginning of the movie. I know I've spent the past 21 years saying to myself as I walk through the store, where are all the real people? Of course, they only tended to point out certain faults with the films, vis-à-vis the women (not sure if that's how you use the phrase, but I'm feeling daring today). And this is further proof of the Caucasia Syndrome (side note: firefox doesn't recognize the word: "Caucasia." I'd find this insulting, but I see that it also doesn't recognize the word: "firefox"). See, the documentary points out that none of the Disney princesses look like real women (let me again stress, could it be the fact that they were created by pencils?) and this contributes to the societal problem that standards for women to be skinny are too high, the women are submissive, so on and so forth. Well that's all well and good, and I think they have a point with regards to society as a whole (although they take it a bit far, I'd be the first one to tell you, and I usually am, how many stupid people are out there. However, very few of them are so impressionable as to base their entire body image on Belle or Sleeping Beauty). But what no one on the documentary seemed to recognize is the fact that: how many old guys do you know that look like Poseidon? Here's a man who is clearly ancient(he's been around since the beginning of time within this context) and yet he has all of his hair, his arms look like a gorilla's, and his chest is the size of my ego.
I know what you're thinking: "but Domenic! He's a Greek god! He's supposed to look like that!" You would, of course, be quite correct. But if a kid is impressionable enough to think that cartoons are representations of real life, then it's a bit odd that a thought process would go through their minds along the lines of: "Well, Poseidon looks incredible for his age, which is atypical of most human males, could it be perhaps because he is of the line of Cronos? The human representation of his persona must ergo reflect his divine lineage, concordantly his pectorals remain in tact." And Greek gods aside, no guys look like the Disney princes anyway. They're all slender like me, except they also have muscles somehow. Because they all manage to carry the princess away with no trouble. And no, I'm not calling the princesses fat. I'm saying that even if they all weighed eighty pounds, there's no way the princes could carry them off with so much ease (especially after combating a dragon or another such creature). And of course, the princes are masculine enough to have the fighting skills to kill any opposition. They're also sensitive enough to sing "Once Upon a Dream" in a meadow, in perfect harmony. They have those perfect teeth, that perfect skin tone, and usually an awesome horse that may or may not speak. And they're rich. What guy can compete with that exactly?
So, let's reiterate what we've learned so far: Disney creates impossibly high standards for each gender. And yet somehow society trudges on and people still get married and have children (despite the fact that they have to "settle" for people who aren't quite as good as the "real" people from cartoons). Conclusion: people don't take the films quite that seriously. Could it be perhaps that they all view fiction for what it is? (a clue: the answer is fiction. Synonyms include: "Non-non-fiction" and "stories that include magic spells and stuff.") In fact, the only problem with society that I see as related to Disney movies is that no one seems to care about the men. We all grew up watching any number of characters we could never become. BUT: something everyone seems to forget is that we try to be like them when we can. They're positive role models. And not just the cartoon ones, all of them. Sure, we'd all be lucky to complete even one of Hercules' 12 tasks and I'm not sure how many people can evade the palace guards while singing "One Jump Ahead" and feeding poor kids. But I would argue that every time a guy finds a full wallet and returns it to its rightful owner, helps carry something for an injured or elderly person, or any number of everyday activities that are minor acts of heroism, somewhere in the back of their mind (consciously or otherwise) they're thinking: "this might be the closest I'll ever come to being Superman." So we shouldn't criticize cartoons for setting impossibly high standards for children, that's what they're supposed to do. If they get even some of it right, they'll be in good shape.
Instead, we have a whole generation of kids who are kind to the earth and recycle, but who are incredibly rude to people. We have a generation of boys who are trying to live out their heroic fantasies through video games, but are told that if they play them too much they'll end up shooting people. We have a generation of girls who have one camp of women telling them that they need to be pretty, and another camp telling them that doing so would be "submitting to the patriarchal society." In addition, if their heart's desire is to stay at home with the kids then they're being submissive, and if they're working then they're ignoring their kids and being bad mothers. And of course, if a guy feels like staying at home with the kids then he's labeled as either not masculine or a bum for not making money for his family. When did things get so freaking complicated? How about this: let people do what they feel like (I'd go on with this point, but I already did in my blog about male nurses). And if you're so concerned that Disney isn't portraying the image you want, then make your own frigging Disney movie with the personalities you feel are best. I'm sure they'll leap at the positive PR. Then the kids can pick which one they like better. Or better yet, how about accepting the fact that kids are a lot smarter than the morons making the documentaries. They know that it's fake, they recognize the "morality tales" aspect of the films, they sing along with the catchy tunes, and that's it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go fight a dragon on horseback and make out with a comatose princess.
Or is it? The painting still hasn't arrived, and it was shipped by UPS, the only mail carrier I trust. (Interlude: the USPS stole my idea that they should have one flat rate for everything. Nice to know they read the blog/my mind, but would getting a royalty check be so much to ask? I got DHL out of the picture for them, and yet still they sent me season 2 of a show I just started watching before sending season 1. They think I'm kidding when I say I'll destroy their industry.) If UPS fails in bringing me my Godfather painting, which is actually cool enough to fill the empty space in my soul/apartment left by my fish tank, then there won't be any mail carriers left. Let's hope that doesn't happen, but we'll talk about that later. For now, I invite you to this special, deluxe-y edition of the blog (or at least it felt like it when I wrote it) that's extra rant-esque, probably even less coherent than usual, and that still manages to make more sense than the so-called "studies" that are so fond of "saying" things. So let's take a walk down memory lane.
And what lanes my memories more than Disney? Don't tell me that you don't feel a tingling sensation every time you hear "When You Wish Upon A Star," especially when it's the wonderful 15-second instrumental version that was the prelude to your childhood memories. It reminds us of a simpler time, those sunshine days when animals could sing, heroes weren't conflicted alcoholics, and Cookie Monster ate cookies. A time when we didn't say anything if we couldn't say anything nice (even me). And now they want to ruin those days for us too. They just couldn't let it go.
Recently there's been a lot of talk concerning Disney's possibly nefarious influence on children. Such as the naughty hidden message in Aladdin, which happens when you play it backwards, or play it at a certain frequency, or play it while intoxicated (one of those). My question is, who spends their time doing that? How bored do you have to be to say to yourself, "well, I've rewatched all the old episodes of Hawaii Five-O so now what? Well it's a few months before the next season of Magnum P.I. comes out, so I guess I'll watch all of the Disney movies at a high frequency and see if strange voices tell me to do bad things." There's plenty of other examples that I won't get into (hard as this may be to believe, I actually hold back a TON on my blog, just ask my roommates: two people who have heard the real internal workings of the greatest mind alive today and have curiously not had me taken away by the men in white coats) but suffice it to say that 99.9% of people won't notice these things unless it was revealed to them by people who have the uncanny ability to be that much of a jerk.
But it doesn't stop at the subliminal and the certain-angular, there's also plenty of talk concerning the overall themes of the films, artwork, etc. Because it wasn't enough to tell us that George Washington may or may not have cut down the cherry tree and that if Santa does exist, he's probably Canadian. They have to attack Disney too, because it's something that's not harming you until someone tells you it is, like global warming and engrams. Well, it was all revealed to us in Sociology 101. And now we know the truth: that Disney is an evil organization whose rise to power began with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, the first feature-length animated film (this was in 1937, about the time Hitler was starting to take over, coincidence? That's what they wanted you to believe). Its seemingly innocent plot must be seen for what it is: a movie about a floozie who lived with seven different men, taking advantage of their poor self-image that was due to small stature and cutesy nicknames. Then when the heroic (likely German) woman tried to poison this awful spinstress, while simultaneously being clever by symbolizing Snow's consumption of the forbidden fruit, the stupid WASP prince comes and saves her. Those pesky Allies huh?
Well, though the video we watched was obviously nowhere near this ridiculous, I bet (nay, I declare as truth) that there are plenty of people out there who see the movie that way. What the documentary did have was a bunch of little kids reading cue cards, trying to make us feel guilty for subjecting them to Disney movies. There were plenty of racial controversies that the documentary pointed out, but I won't get into those (although I will say that the documentary was a bit like a Michael Moore movie: it made a handful of interesting points, but threw so much ridiculous crap in there with it that the whole thing seems ridiculous). Then there are the hidden images that have since been taken off of the shelves which I also won't discuss (because it was probably just some intern or an executive in a mid-life crisis that sneaked them by the censors). However, what I will speak about is the large portion of the documentary that was devoted to the idea that the characters in the films aren't portrayed like real people.
(GASP), (startled pause), and if I may add, (stunned silence). You mean to tell me that characters that are painted and drawn and can only move when pieces of paper are flipped really quickly don't look exactly like real human beings? That perhaps they look more like human ideals, much like the personalities that inhabit said bodies? See, apparently (I wish I was making this up) when kids watch a cartoon movie, which is obviously fake because it's...umm...a cartoon, they think that real people look like the people in the cartoon. Because instead of thinking that all the real people that they know in real life look like real people, they're going to think that real people actually look like the girl who was a mermaid at the beginning of the movie. I know I've spent the past 21 years saying to myself as I walk through the store, where are all the real people? Of course, they only tended to point out certain faults with the films, vis-à-vis the women (not sure if that's how you use the phrase, but I'm feeling daring today). And this is further proof of the Caucasia Syndrome (side note: firefox doesn't recognize the word: "Caucasia." I'd find this insulting, but I see that it also doesn't recognize the word: "firefox"). See, the documentary points out that none of the Disney princesses look like real women (let me again stress, could it be the fact that they were created by pencils?) and this contributes to the societal problem that standards for women to be skinny are too high, the women are submissive, so on and so forth. Well that's all well and good, and I think they have a point with regards to society as a whole (although they take it a bit far, I'd be the first one to tell you, and I usually am, how many stupid people are out there. However, very few of them are so impressionable as to base their entire body image on Belle or Sleeping Beauty). But what no one on the documentary seemed to recognize is the fact that: how many old guys do you know that look like Poseidon? Here's a man who is clearly ancient(he's been around since the beginning of time within this context) and yet he has all of his hair, his arms look like a gorilla's, and his chest is the size of my ego.
I know what you're thinking: "but Domenic! He's a Greek god! He's supposed to look like that!" You would, of course, be quite correct. But if a kid is impressionable enough to think that cartoons are representations of real life, then it's a bit odd that a thought process would go through their minds along the lines of: "Well, Poseidon looks incredible for his age, which is atypical of most human males, could it be perhaps because he is of the line of Cronos? The human representation of his persona must ergo reflect his divine lineage, concordantly his pectorals remain in tact." And Greek gods aside, no guys look like the Disney princes anyway. They're all slender like me, except they also have muscles somehow. Because they all manage to carry the princess away with no trouble. And no, I'm not calling the princesses fat. I'm saying that even if they all weighed eighty pounds, there's no way the princes could carry them off with so much ease (especially after combating a dragon or another such creature). And of course, the princes are masculine enough to have the fighting skills to kill any opposition. They're also sensitive enough to sing "Once Upon a Dream" in a meadow, in perfect harmony. They have those perfect teeth, that perfect skin tone, and usually an awesome horse that may or may not speak. And they're rich. What guy can compete with that exactly?
So, let's reiterate what we've learned so far: Disney creates impossibly high standards for each gender. And yet somehow society trudges on and people still get married and have children (despite the fact that they have to "settle" for people who aren't quite as good as the "real" people from cartoons). Conclusion: people don't take the films quite that seriously. Could it be perhaps that they all view fiction for what it is? (a clue: the answer is fiction. Synonyms include: "Non-non-fiction" and "stories that include magic spells and stuff.") In fact, the only problem with society that I see as related to Disney movies is that no one seems to care about the men. We all grew up watching any number of characters we could never become. BUT: something everyone seems to forget is that we try to be like them when we can. They're positive role models. And not just the cartoon ones, all of them. Sure, we'd all be lucky to complete even one of Hercules' 12 tasks and I'm not sure how many people can evade the palace guards while singing "One Jump Ahead" and feeding poor kids. But I would argue that every time a guy finds a full wallet and returns it to its rightful owner, helps carry something for an injured or elderly person, or any number of everyday activities that are minor acts of heroism, somewhere in the back of their mind (consciously or otherwise) they're thinking: "this might be the closest I'll ever come to being Superman." So we shouldn't criticize cartoons for setting impossibly high standards for children, that's what they're supposed to do. If they get even some of it right, they'll be in good shape.
Instead, we have a whole generation of kids who are kind to the earth and recycle, but who are incredibly rude to people. We have a generation of boys who are trying to live out their heroic fantasies through video games, but are told that if they play them too much they'll end up shooting people. We have a generation of girls who have one camp of women telling them that they need to be pretty, and another camp telling them that doing so would be "submitting to the patriarchal society." In addition, if their heart's desire is to stay at home with the kids then they're being submissive, and if they're working then they're ignoring their kids and being bad mothers. And of course, if a guy feels like staying at home with the kids then he's labeled as either not masculine or a bum for not making money for his family. When did things get so freaking complicated? How about this: let people do what they feel like (I'd go on with this point, but I already did in my blog about male nurses). And if you're so concerned that Disney isn't portraying the image you want, then make your own frigging Disney movie with the personalities you feel are best. I'm sure they'll leap at the positive PR. Then the kids can pick which one they like better. Or better yet, how about accepting the fact that kids are a lot smarter than the morons making the documentaries. They know that it's fake, they recognize the "morality tales" aspect of the films, they sing along with the catchy tunes, and that's it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go fight a dragon on horseback and make out with a comatose princess.
Friday, July 17, 2009
The Mere Mention of Christian Bale's Name Would Send George Clooney Back to the ER for a Few Seasons
And now at last, we reach the reason why for eight years Batman was thought to be gone from the movies forever. A movie that is perhaps so bad that we should be thankful. After all, they wouldn't have had to reboot the whole series by bringing us Christopher Nolan's modern masterpieces if this movie wasn't so incredibly awful. I'm talking, of course, about Batman & Robin. Whereas the rest of the early Batman movies had at least some shred of quality, this movie has none (apart from the five seconds where Mr. Freeze sheds a single tear and it freezes on his face, that was pretty good). I believe my high school English teacher said it best: "If you're four years old and you've never seen a movie before, Batman & Robin is pretty much the greatest movie ever." And with that, this is the epic finale of my unofficially titled trilogy: "Why the First Four Batman Movies Suck."
I'd like to rip on the plot of this movie, but unfortunately I can't. The reason being that I can't remember it. Because it was stupid. Really stupid. Something about Mr. Freeze wanting to freeze the whole city for reasons unknown. In addition, Batgirl joins the crew for reasons unknown. I've never been a big fan of Batgirl as a character. Because although the idea of a female Batman is certainly pretty hot (in the spirit of female Jack Bauer on the past season of 24) the character is quite superfluous. Whereas Robin is supposed to represent Batman's redemption, (because if Bruce can raise him without hatred and fear, maybe he'll end up differently than Batman did) Batgirl basically represents the fact that the comics writers wanted to bring in a female audience. And that Joel Schumacher wanted to put Alicia Silverstone in a tight-fitting Batgirl outfit, something I'm not entirely against. However, and this is sure to upset the ladies in my audience, she's not really in any kind of shape to be fighting crime. She's by no earthly means overweight, but the same goes for any number of people who aren't capable of jumping around rooftops and beating up bad guys. Not that Clooney (as much as I like him in basically every other movie he's in) looks like he could beat up anybody either. (But that's the whole point of my dismay isn't it?) And on top of not being in good enough shape to be Batgirl, she also somehow manages to save both Batman and Robin at the end of the movie. Yeah, because some schoolgirl fresh from the classroom has the skills to save the world's greatest gymnast/martial artist and his sidekick, all because she found a costume in a drawer.
Now then, let's focus on the villains in the movie (and I use that term loosely, especially in wake of my 5 favorite villains series, where the word was used to describe very in-depth and interesting characters). Poison Ivy is, without a doubt, a fairly minor villain. But she's moderately interesting in that she's an environmentalist gone crazy (before that was the cool thing to do) and that she's a temptress who is able to seduce any man she comes across (except Batman of course. Scratch that, except Batman when the story is done correctly of course). Because of this, she's supposed to be a woman who is literally so attractive that the thought process going through every guy's head should be: "I know that if I kiss her I will either die or become one of her minions, but I don't particularly care." And who do they cast to play this Helen of Troy-esque woman? Uma Thurman. And with creepy plastic eyebrows no less. Now, I think Uma is a great actress, and I don't think she's unattractive. But a woman so attractive that I'd sacrifice everything just to be around her? I think not. They probably realized this when filming and for this reason wrote in a perfume she wears that does the job for her. I can buy that I guess, but she really shouldn't need a perfume. I'm not sure who I would have cast as her back then, but today I'd say they should cast Annie Wersching (the aforementioned female Jack Bauer from this past season of 24, I watched the whole season over the weekend). And why is she teaming up with a man who wants to freeze the whole city? I'll have to check with my mom later to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that plants die when hit by a freeze-ray (or a similar, naturally-occurring phenomenon).
Which brings us to Mr. Freeze. He's another one of my favorite villains from the animated series. In fact, the first episode to feature him, "Heart of Ice," won an emmy. And rightfully so, because it's really freaking good. In 20 minutes it examines a tragic man who was trying to save his dying wife and ended up being condemned to a sub-zero environment. Michael Ansara's voice on the show is just perfect: powerful yet weary. He is frightening one moment and mournful the next. The episode not only set the standard for Batman, but in many ways, it set the standard for a whole decade of excellent animated television. And what do we get from this character who was so well-developed in a mere 20 minutes when he appears on the big screen?
"FREEEEEEEEEZE! CHILLLLLLLL OUT!"
Holy crap could they have screwed up the character any more? I'm a fan of Arnold's many action movies, much like any guy, but this was just terrible. At least they kept the storyline about his dying wife, but the delivery is just terrible. Mr. Freeze is supposed to be a character whose sorrow was so great over the loss of his wife that his physical body became as frigid as his emotional state. Which is even more interesting when considering that this is not so different from what made Batman who he is. But instead of exacting his vengeance on those who wronged him, he decides it would be just as fulfilling having ice-skating henchmen that help him rob banks as he exclaims stupid one-liners that exhaust Roget's "cold" section. The fact that the Adam West TV show was so hokey that it was cancelled in a time of hokey television should be some indication that crap like that doesn't fly with people. And once again, his villainous plan is moustache-twirling at its worst. It would've been right at home in one of Roger Moore's Bond films or perhaps, Spy Kids 4: Not Child's Play Anymore. We sadly will never see Freeze done correctly, as he's too unrealistic for the new Batman films (which I'm fine with, so maybe I'll make some of my own someday).
And now, let's rip on Clooney's Batman. Oh wait, not just yet, I forgot about Bane! Probably because he's in the movie for about 27 seconds. Bane is certainly without much of a personality or backstory in any medium he's been depicted in, but he's very formidable. In the comics, he broke Batman's back. A new Batman had to step in for a while, and there was some question as to whether the real Batman would ever be back to peak efficiency again. On the cartoon, Batman almost got himself squeezed into a piece of origami by Bane. The only way to stop him is to cut off his supply of the venom that gives him his extraordinary strength. And even though he is literally in the movie for under five minutes, (no hyperbole this time, or whatever the opposite of hyperbole is...hypobole?) that's all it takes for Joel Schumacher to screw him up. Robin and Batgirl are pinned up against the wall by Bane, and they give a wimpy kick and knock his venom off of his head. The end. Every other time we see Bane anywhere, it takes a well-placed batarang to cut that thing loose. On the cartoon, Batman had to freaking stab that thing in order to survive. But in Joel Schumacher's vision, a kick that is flirting with being a spasm is all it takes to defeat Batman's strongest foe. My rule for formidable villains is: if neither I nor my eight-year-old cousin could defeat him, he's probably formidable. Bane fails, on every level.
Right then, now let's talk about Clooney. He has basically the complete opposite of Kilmer's problem. He's Bruce Wayne all the time. As such, he does a pretty good job as Bruce Wayne (at least on face value, the character implications are wrong). But his Batman is just goofy to the point that I thought the actual villain in the movie was the Mad Hatter, who had given Batman some sort of mind-control device that made him think he was a Power Ranger. His motivation for being Batman seems to be comparable to mine, when I was four: he drives a cool car and has cool gadgets. So forget the fact that Batman is obsessed with the death of his parents, for Clooney he's just a rich playboy with a very expensive taste for adventure. In fact, in a behind-the-scenes interview Clooney said, "why would someone play Batman in a dark way? I mean, the guy is a multi-billionaire, he dates supermodels, and he drives an awesome car. Who would be sad about all of that?"
HE MISSED THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT!
Clooney's Batman apparently woke up one day in his teens and said, "you know, it really doesn't hurt so much anymore. I mean, mom and dad wouldn't let me stay up to watch Laugh-In and they made me eat brussel sprouts. I'm gonna go give Brooke Shields a call." So he plays the character like a thrill-seeking billionaire. As such, the fight scenes are ridiculously silly, with no sense of danger whatsoever. Clooney not only lacks intimidation, but deliberately tries to not be intimidating. Everything about his performance, the city, and the story is fake. It's stylized to the point of being a parody of itself. And once again, this was written by the man who brought us Constantine, a film where the cancer-ridden hero saves the day by killing himself and using the devil's ego against him, conning him into stopping the apocalypse. How is it even possible that the man who wrote that also wrote: "Hey Freeze, the heat is on!" If the rumors are true and Clooney will indeed be playing the Lone Ranger, I think that would be excellent as long as he does the exact opposite of what he did in this movie.
Well there you have it, though I would certainly love to go scene-by-scene with each Batman film, talking about what I love and what I intensely dislike, (only love for the new ones, mostly dislike for the old ones) that will have to wait for my book. But I think my point is across. The films went in a very interesting progression. Tim Burton's first got a lot of things right, but it also got a lot wrong (including all of the Prince songs). His second film actually made the villains too dark and barely had any scenes with Batman (it's also a bit long). Schumacher's first outing had some pretty good scenes with Batman reflecting on his past, and Robin is done some small bit of justice, but the villains are way too stupid. Then Schumacher's second try just tosses everything out the window. If you took Clooney's Bruce Wayne, Kilmer's Batman, Tim Burton's directing, and the screenwriter of the last two in Constantine mode, you'd have a pretty good Batman movie. But thankfully, in 2005 we no longer needed to fantasize about how to Frankenstein a good Batman film into existence, because they finally got it right. And who knows? Maybe the people behind Batman Begins wouldn't have been quite so motivated to make the movie they did without a lot of the mistakes that came beforehand. And truth be told, it's much more fun to talk about how bad something is than how great it is. So I suppose I should thank Mr. Schumacher, because he unintentionally brought me some good times through his really, really bad movie.
I'd like to rip on the plot of this movie, but unfortunately I can't. The reason being that I can't remember it. Because it was stupid. Really stupid. Something about Mr. Freeze wanting to freeze the whole city for reasons unknown. In addition, Batgirl joins the crew for reasons unknown. I've never been a big fan of Batgirl as a character. Because although the idea of a female Batman is certainly pretty hot (in the spirit of female Jack Bauer on the past season of 24) the character is quite superfluous. Whereas Robin is supposed to represent Batman's redemption, (because if Bruce can raise him without hatred and fear, maybe he'll end up differently than Batman did) Batgirl basically represents the fact that the comics writers wanted to bring in a female audience. And that Joel Schumacher wanted to put Alicia Silverstone in a tight-fitting Batgirl outfit, something I'm not entirely against. However, and this is sure to upset the ladies in my audience, she's not really in any kind of shape to be fighting crime. She's by no earthly means overweight, but the same goes for any number of people who aren't capable of jumping around rooftops and beating up bad guys. Not that Clooney (as much as I like him in basically every other movie he's in) looks like he could beat up anybody either. (But that's the whole point of my dismay isn't it?) And on top of not being in good enough shape to be Batgirl, she also somehow manages to save both Batman and Robin at the end of the movie. Yeah, because some schoolgirl fresh from the classroom has the skills to save the world's greatest gymnast/martial artist and his sidekick, all because she found a costume in a drawer.
Now then, let's focus on the villains in the movie (and I use that term loosely, especially in wake of my 5 favorite villains series, where the word was used to describe very in-depth and interesting characters). Poison Ivy is, without a doubt, a fairly minor villain. But she's moderately interesting in that she's an environmentalist gone crazy (before that was the cool thing to do) and that she's a temptress who is able to seduce any man she comes across (except Batman of course. Scratch that, except Batman when the story is done correctly of course). Because of this, she's supposed to be a woman who is literally so attractive that the thought process going through every guy's head should be: "I know that if I kiss her I will either die or become one of her minions, but I don't particularly care." And who do they cast to play this Helen of Troy-esque woman? Uma Thurman. And with creepy plastic eyebrows no less. Now, I think Uma is a great actress, and I don't think she's unattractive. But a woman so attractive that I'd sacrifice everything just to be around her? I think not. They probably realized this when filming and for this reason wrote in a perfume she wears that does the job for her. I can buy that I guess, but she really shouldn't need a perfume. I'm not sure who I would have cast as her back then, but today I'd say they should cast Annie Wersching (the aforementioned female Jack Bauer from this past season of 24, I watched the whole season over the weekend). And why is she teaming up with a man who wants to freeze the whole city? I'll have to check with my mom later to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that plants die when hit by a freeze-ray (or a similar, naturally-occurring phenomenon).
Which brings us to Mr. Freeze. He's another one of my favorite villains from the animated series. In fact, the first episode to feature him, "Heart of Ice," won an emmy. And rightfully so, because it's really freaking good. In 20 minutes it examines a tragic man who was trying to save his dying wife and ended up being condemned to a sub-zero environment. Michael Ansara's voice on the show is just perfect: powerful yet weary. He is frightening one moment and mournful the next. The episode not only set the standard for Batman, but in many ways, it set the standard for a whole decade of excellent animated television. And what do we get from this character who was so well-developed in a mere 20 minutes when he appears on the big screen?
"FREEEEEEEEEZE! CHILLLLLLLL OUT!"
Holy crap could they have screwed up the character any more? I'm a fan of Arnold's many action movies, much like any guy, but this was just terrible. At least they kept the storyline about his dying wife, but the delivery is just terrible. Mr. Freeze is supposed to be a character whose sorrow was so great over the loss of his wife that his physical body became as frigid as his emotional state. Which is even more interesting when considering that this is not so different from what made Batman who he is. But instead of exacting his vengeance on those who wronged him, he decides it would be just as fulfilling having ice-skating henchmen that help him rob banks as he exclaims stupid one-liners that exhaust Roget's "cold" section. The fact that the Adam West TV show was so hokey that it was cancelled in a time of hokey television should be some indication that crap like that doesn't fly with people. And once again, his villainous plan is moustache-twirling at its worst. It would've been right at home in one of Roger Moore's Bond films or perhaps, Spy Kids 4: Not Child's Play Anymore. We sadly will never see Freeze done correctly, as he's too unrealistic for the new Batman films (which I'm fine with, so maybe I'll make some of my own someday).
And now, let's rip on Clooney's Batman. Oh wait, not just yet, I forgot about Bane! Probably because he's in the movie for about 27 seconds. Bane is certainly without much of a personality or backstory in any medium he's been depicted in, but he's very formidable. In the comics, he broke Batman's back. A new Batman had to step in for a while, and there was some question as to whether the real Batman would ever be back to peak efficiency again. On the cartoon, Batman almost got himself squeezed into a piece of origami by Bane. The only way to stop him is to cut off his supply of the venom that gives him his extraordinary strength. And even though he is literally in the movie for under five minutes, (no hyperbole this time, or whatever the opposite of hyperbole is...hypobole?) that's all it takes for Joel Schumacher to screw him up. Robin and Batgirl are pinned up against the wall by Bane, and they give a wimpy kick and knock his venom off of his head. The end. Every other time we see Bane anywhere, it takes a well-placed batarang to cut that thing loose. On the cartoon, Batman had to freaking stab that thing in order to survive. But in Joel Schumacher's vision, a kick that is flirting with being a spasm is all it takes to defeat Batman's strongest foe. My rule for formidable villains is: if neither I nor my eight-year-old cousin could defeat him, he's probably formidable. Bane fails, on every level.
Right then, now let's talk about Clooney. He has basically the complete opposite of Kilmer's problem. He's Bruce Wayne all the time. As such, he does a pretty good job as Bruce Wayne (at least on face value, the character implications are wrong). But his Batman is just goofy to the point that I thought the actual villain in the movie was the Mad Hatter, who had given Batman some sort of mind-control device that made him think he was a Power Ranger. His motivation for being Batman seems to be comparable to mine, when I was four: he drives a cool car and has cool gadgets. So forget the fact that Batman is obsessed with the death of his parents, for Clooney he's just a rich playboy with a very expensive taste for adventure. In fact, in a behind-the-scenes interview Clooney said, "why would someone play Batman in a dark way? I mean, the guy is a multi-billionaire, he dates supermodels, and he drives an awesome car. Who would be sad about all of that?"
HE MISSED THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT!
Clooney's Batman apparently woke up one day in his teens and said, "you know, it really doesn't hurt so much anymore. I mean, mom and dad wouldn't let me stay up to watch Laugh-In and they made me eat brussel sprouts. I'm gonna go give Brooke Shields a call." So he plays the character like a thrill-seeking billionaire. As such, the fight scenes are ridiculously silly, with no sense of danger whatsoever. Clooney not only lacks intimidation, but deliberately tries to not be intimidating. Everything about his performance, the city, and the story is fake. It's stylized to the point of being a parody of itself. And once again, this was written by the man who brought us Constantine, a film where the cancer-ridden hero saves the day by killing himself and using the devil's ego against him, conning him into stopping the apocalypse. How is it even possible that the man who wrote that also wrote: "Hey Freeze, the heat is on!" If the rumors are true and Clooney will indeed be playing the Lone Ranger, I think that would be excellent as long as he does the exact opposite of what he did in this movie.
Well there you have it, though I would certainly love to go scene-by-scene with each Batman film, talking about what I love and what I intensely dislike, (only love for the new ones, mostly dislike for the old ones) that will have to wait for my book. But I think my point is across. The films went in a very interesting progression. Tim Burton's first got a lot of things right, but it also got a lot wrong (including all of the Prince songs). His second film actually made the villains too dark and barely had any scenes with Batman (it's also a bit long). Schumacher's first outing had some pretty good scenes with Batman reflecting on his past, and Robin is done some small bit of justice, but the villains are way too stupid. Then Schumacher's second try just tosses everything out the window. If you took Clooney's Bruce Wayne, Kilmer's Batman, Tim Burton's directing, and the screenwriter of the last two in Constantine mode, you'd have a pretty good Batman movie. But thankfully, in 2005 we no longer needed to fantasize about how to Frankenstein a good Batman film into existence, because they finally got it right. And who knows? Maybe the people behind Batman Begins wouldn't have been quite so motivated to make the movie they did without a lot of the mistakes that came beforehand. And truth be told, it's much more fun to talk about how bad something is than how great it is. So I suppose I should thank Mr. Schumacher, because he unintentionally brought me some good times through his really, really bad movie.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Val Kilmer Thinks He's Hot Stuff, But Christian Bale Has Two Top Guns And They're Attached To His Torso
Riddle me this: where do I even begin to insult Batman Forever? It fails on just about every level possible. Let's start off with a few positives: Robin is actually done fairly well and Chris O'Donnell did a pretty good job playing him. Michael Gough does a good job as Alfred, which is why he is the only actor that stars in all four of the original movies. Nicole Kidman is in it, and she's pretty attractive. The end. That's it. Now let's rip it apart! This is part two of my unofficially titled trilogy: "Why the First Four Batman Movies Suck."
Okay, let's deal with the giant mammarian chiroptera-shaped elephant in the room: bat-nipples. Even director Joel Schumacher has lowered his head in shame over the thought of these atrocities (and if he hasn't, he should). And they're slapped on verifiable Halloween costumes with enough fake abs to make even me appear to be capable of fighting crime. They're the physical representation of why the movie is bad: instead of Tim Burton's mistake, which was to capture the overall tone of the comics while tossing a lot of important things out the window, this movie (along with Batman & Robin) simply brings back the impossibly incorrect tone of the Adam West days and gives it a budget. The fight scenes are highly stylized and very silly, the film is rife with awful one-liners, and the city itself looks like an arcade game background on crack.
But I can forgive all of that, really. Because there are still the characters to deal with. Too bad they were butchered too. To begin with: The Riddler. I can't say as I'm a big Jim Carrey fan anyway (or a fan at all really) but at least when he's usually being annoying he's not annihilating one of my favorite villains in the process. Though some may perceive the character as a somewhat offbeat villain, and certainly silly given that the only exposure people have had to him was this performance, I always loved the character. If I turned evil, I would be The Riddler. Basically, he's a super genius who likes to flaunt his superiority so much that he leaves clues behind, both to enhance his narcissism by showing how smart he is and to see if anyone is worthy of deciphering his clues. He's not goofy. He's not imposing either. Basically he's a spindly geek who could never beat anyone in a fight, and usually doesn't even try because he lets his brain do the fighting for him (actually that sounds exactly like me, I should complete the transformation by wearing an all-green suit around). When Batman goes up against him, it's a battle of wits. He truly puts Batman's deductive reasoning and profiling skills to the test. And that incredible character, who is done so perfectly on the animated series, was turned into something even sillier than the Joker. He's a nutjob outfitted with neon lights who leaves clues that an eight-year-old could solve and yells "joygasm!" at one point. The sentence I'm currently writing was written twelve minutes after the previous one because I just fainted and hit my head. The character was reduced to a stereotypical "let's blow stuff up for the sole reason that I'm evil" mustache-twirling villain who just happens to wear a question mark.
Though I'm not like him in any way (at least hopefully not) Two-Face is another of my favorite villains, possibly my favorite Batman villain actually. Thank God they FINALLY did him justice in The Dark Knight with Aaron Eckhart's phenomenal, and largely under-appreciated, performance. The scene where he delivers what's probably my favorite line in the movie exemplifies everything they did correctly, and everything Forever got wrong: "In a cruel world, the only morality is chance." That line fully captures Two-Face's entire character flaw. Think about how distorted your mind would have to be to see no difference between killing someone and letting them live. He's a broken man, and he literally can't decide between holding onto the hero that he was, or the villain that he's become. So he flips a coin. That's powerful stuff, but Forever treats it like a gimmick. As much as I ordinarily love Tommy Lee Jones, and it was probably mostly the script's fault, his delivery is completely wrong. He flips the coin in a fashion that screams, "the script says I'm supposed to do this." In fact, at one point he keeps flipping until he gets the result he wants. That makes absolutely no sense, and it diminishes what has become one of the most well-known and interesting comic book villains of all time. And why pair him with The Riddler? This showcases the filmmaker's complete lack of understanding for the characters. The Riddler, narcissist that he is, would never work with anyone, let alone someone whose ability to make simple choices is determined by a coin. That's the complete opposite of The Riddler. They really made me feel as though they put all the villains who hadn't been done into a hat and pulled their names out. And much like the other costumes in the film, Two-Face's is way over-the-top. And whereas Christopher Nolan's description of how Two-Face should look for The Dark Knight was, "he should make people want to throw up if they saw him on the street" Joel Schumacher's was seemingly, "he should look like he just came from a kid's birthday party where they had face painting and he had to leave when the job was only half done because The Riddler needed him to wreak havoc on Gotham City."
All of that aside, the important question is, how was Batman? Well, truth be told, Val Kilmer's Batman is actually not too bad. His voice is appropriately gruff, and there are even one or two scenes related to Bruce's childhood that were probably remnants of a former, superior script. If they didn't give him lines and a plot that were so terrible, he actually would've been a pretty good Batman. But once again, the problem with Val (who I think is ordinarily a great actor, especially as Doc Holliday in Tombstone) is the same as Keaton in that Bruce Wayne is totally wrong. Whereas Keaton's Wayne was a misanthropic loner, Kilmer's takes it a step further. His Bruce Wayne voice is almost the same as his Batman voice. And at one point in the film he looks at an ink blot on the wall and says quite clearly in his Batman voice, "That looks like a bat." This is a step farther from the neon sign above Keaton's head, the one above Kilmer's head states:
NOT ONLY AM I OBVIOUSLY BATMAN, IF YOU CAN'T TELL THEN YOU'RE A MORON!
At least Keaton made an effort to hide his identity. Kilmer walks around in his expensive suit for the whole movie saying things such as:
"Man it's dark out tonight, just like my soul."
"My arm really hurts today, probably because I punched twelve drug dealers in the face last night."
"The death of my parents signified the death of Bruce Wayne, I became an expert at every fighting style and returned to Gotham City to don a cape as my alter ego, oh whoops, thought I was alone..."
As always, some slight hyperbole was involved with those quotes. BUT, he might as well be that obvious because if Jim Carrey can figure out you're Batman, so can the rest of the world. And whereas the action in the first two films was fairly well done, if not a bit cheesy simply because of the time period it was made during, the action in this film is incredibly campy. A big part of the Batman performance is how he handles himself during a fight. Christian Bale knocks people around tactically and quickly, crunching a lot of bones in the process. Kilmer (and once again, not entirely his fault) fights like he's in a stage play. Perhaps as though it's all happening live and he has to make sure not to actually hurt his fellow actors. They might as well have thrown in a few "biff" and "pows" because then it could've been an homage at least, instead of just plain stupid.
What's especially strange about this film is that there are a fair few good actors in it, the director has done some good work over the years, and the screenwriter also wrote Constantine, Cinderella Man, and has recently joined the writing staff of Fringe. So you'd think he would have come up with something good. Sadly, Batman Forever instead lives on as a movie with infinite potential that leaves the audience feeling like they've been doped by some of the Scarecrow's fear toxin. What's especially sad is that they made yet another Batman movie...and it's the worst of them all. Something so terrifyingly bad that it's taken years off of my life from stress. And I'll be discussing it in a future blog entry, same bat-URL, different bat-title.
Okay, let's deal with the giant mammarian chiroptera-shaped elephant in the room: bat-nipples. Even director Joel Schumacher has lowered his head in shame over the thought of these atrocities (and if he hasn't, he should). And they're slapped on verifiable Halloween costumes with enough fake abs to make even me appear to be capable of fighting crime. They're the physical representation of why the movie is bad: instead of Tim Burton's mistake, which was to capture the overall tone of the comics while tossing a lot of important things out the window, this movie (along with Batman & Robin) simply brings back the impossibly incorrect tone of the Adam West days and gives it a budget. The fight scenes are highly stylized and very silly, the film is rife with awful one-liners, and the city itself looks like an arcade game background on crack.
But I can forgive all of that, really. Because there are still the characters to deal with. Too bad they were butchered too. To begin with: The Riddler. I can't say as I'm a big Jim Carrey fan anyway (or a fan at all really) but at least when he's usually being annoying he's not annihilating one of my favorite villains in the process. Though some may perceive the character as a somewhat offbeat villain, and certainly silly given that the only exposure people have had to him was this performance, I always loved the character. If I turned evil, I would be The Riddler. Basically, he's a super genius who likes to flaunt his superiority so much that he leaves clues behind, both to enhance his narcissism by showing how smart he is and to see if anyone is worthy of deciphering his clues. He's not goofy. He's not imposing either. Basically he's a spindly geek who could never beat anyone in a fight, and usually doesn't even try because he lets his brain do the fighting for him (actually that sounds exactly like me, I should complete the transformation by wearing an all-green suit around). When Batman goes up against him, it's a battle of wits. He truly puts Batman's deductive reasoning and profiling skills to the test. And that incredible character, who is done so perfectly on the animated series, was turned into something even sillier than the Joker. He's a nutjob outfitted with neon lights who leaves clues that an eight-year-old could solve and yells "joygasm!" at one point. The sentence I'm currently writing was written twelve minutes after the previous one because I just fainted and hit my head. The character was reduced to a stereotypical "let's blow stuff up for the sole reason that I'm evil" mustache-twirling villain who just happens to wear a question mark.
Though I'm not like him in any way (at least hopefully not) Two-Face is another of my favorite villains, possibly my favorite Batman villain actually. Thank God they FINALLY did him justice in The Dark Knight with Aaron Eckhart's phenomenal, and largely under-appreciated, performance. The scene where he delivers what's probably my favorite line in the movie exemplifies everything they did correctly, and everything Forever got wrong: "In a cruel world, the only morality is chance." That line fully captures Two-Face's entire character flaw. Think about how distorted your mind would have to be to see no difference between killing someone and letting them live. He's a broken man, and he literally can't decide between holding onto the hero that he was, or the villain that he's become. So he flips a coin. That's powerful stuff, but Forever treats it like a gimmick. As much as I ordinarily love Tommy Lee Jones, and it was probably mostly the script's fault, his delivery is completely wrong. He flips the coin in a fashion that screams, "the script says I'm supposed to do this." In fact, at one point he keeps flipping until he gets the result he wants. That makes absolutely no sense, and it diminishes what has become one of the most well-known and interesting comic book villains of all time. And why pair him with The Riddler? This showcases the filmmaker's complete lack of understanding for the characters. The Riddler, narcissist that he is, would never work with anyone, let alone someone whose ability to make simple choices is determined by a coin. That's the complete opposite of The Riddler. They really made me feel as though they put all the villains who hadn't been done into a hat and pulled their names out. And much like the other costumes in the film, Two-Face's is way over-the-top. And whereas Christopher Nolan's description of how Two-Face should look for The Dark Knight was, "he should make people want to throw up if they saw him on the street" Joel Schumacher's was seemingly, "he should look like he just came from a kid's birthday party where they had face painting and he had to leave when the job was only half done because The Riddler needed him to wreak havoc on Gotham City."
All of that aside, the important question is, how was Batman? Well, truth be told, Val Kilmer's Batman is actually not too bad. His voice is appropriately gruff, and there are even one or two scenes related to Bruce's childhood that were probably remnants of a former, superior script. If they didn't give him lines and a plot that were so terrible, he actually would've been a pretty good Batman. But once again, the problem with Val (who I think is ordinarily a great actor, especially as Doc Holliday in Tombstone) is the same as Keaton in that Bruce Wayne is totally wrong. Whereas Keaton's Wayne was a misanthropic loner, Kilmer's takes it a step further. His Bruce Wayne voice is almost the same as his Batman voice. And at one point in the film he looks at an ink blot on the wall and says quite clearly in his Batman voice, "That looks like a bat." This is a step farther from the neon sign above Keaton's head, the one above Kilmer's head states:
NOT ONLY AM I OBVIOUSLY BATMAN, IF YOU CAN'T TELL THEN YOU'RE A MORON!
At least Keaton made an effort to hide his identity. Kilmer walks around in his expensive suit for the whole movie saying things such as:
"Man it's dark out tonight, just like my soul."
"My arm really hurts today, probably because I punched twelve drug dealers in the face last night."
"The death of my parents signified the death of Bruce Wayne, I became an expert at every fighting style and returned to Gotham City to don a cape as my alter ego, oh whoops, thought I was alone..."
As always, some slight hyperbole was involved with those quotes. BUT, he might as well be that obvious because if Jim Carrey can figure out you're Batman, so can the rest of the world. And whereas the action in the first two films was fairly well done, if not a bit cheesy simply because of the time period it was made during, the action in this film is incredibly campy. A big part of the Batman performance is how he handles himself during a fight. Christian Bale knocks people around tactically and quickly, crunching a lot of bones in the process. Kilmer (and once again, not entirely his fault) fights like he's in a stage play. Perhaps as though it's all happening live and he has to make sure not to actually hurt his fellow actors. They might as well have thrown in a few "biff" and "pows" because then it could've been an homage at least, instead of just plain stupid.
What's especially strange about this film is that there are a fair few good actors in it, the director has done some good work over the years, and the screenwriter also wrote Constantine, Cinderella Man, and has recently joined the writing staff of Fringe. So you'd think he would have come up with something good. Sadly, Batman Forever instead lives on as a movie with infinite potential that leaves the audience feeling like they've been doped by some of the Scarecrow's fear toxin. What's especially sad is that they made yet another Batman movie...and it's the worst of them all. Something so terrifyingly bad that it's taken years off of my life from stress. And I'll be discussing it in a future blog entry, same bat-URL, different bat-title.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)