Archive for November, 2004
180 – Festival Express
Posted by frothy in Festival Express on November 19, 2004
In July 1970, approximately two weeks before I was born, a monumental rock and roll experience took place. Its importance in the grand scheme of history has been lost somewhat during the ensuing years, but ultimately it was an experience that was bigger than Woodstock, bigger than Monterey, bigger than (thank God) Altamont.
Promoter Ken Walker rented a Canadian National train to travel across Canada, filled with musical acts (including The Grateful Dead, Janis Joplin, The Band, The Flying Burrito Brothers, Sha Na Na, Buddy Guy, and more) and a lot of booze. The train was to stop in five cities: Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, and Winnipeg. At each stop, the bands would perform a concert. In theory, this sounds like a pretty nifty idea, But theory ran recklessly and headlong into reality, which subsequently beat the living crap out of it.
In Toronto – the first stop – thousands of pissy “fans” protested the concert, claiming that the music belonged to the people. The show almost didn’t go on, and as a direct result of the protestors the promoters of the shows lost a lot of money. In Calgary, the city’s mayor actually confronted Walker with the same idea – and met with the promoter’s fists.
This documentary, which was only recently released, offers a brief glimpse at life on at train. Very brief, as a matter of fact. The entire show is less than 90 minutes long, and a lot of the footage is composed of recent interviews. A few songs are shown in their entirety, however, such as “Don’t Ease Me In” by the Dead, “Cry Baby” by Joplin, “The Weight” by The Band, and “Lazy Day” by The Flying Burrito Brothers.
It’s really fascinating to see some of these acts in what one for everyone involved a real once-in-a-lifetime experience. We get to sit in on impromptu jam sessions – and bull sessions – on the train and see the performances off the train. We see the rock stars as they are in real life, without the bells and whistles of a full-blown concert. We see a very young Bob Weir (of the Grateful Dead) complaining about the behavior of the “free music” fans; we see Janis Joplin, toasted out of her gourd, singing and carousing like there’s no tomorrow.
Interestingly enough, two of the finest performances of the show are by The Band, which does “Slipping and Sliding” and the legendary Dylan tune “I Shall Be Released.” The photography is pretty much what you’d expect from a cinema verite’ film; atmosphere so vivid you do feel like you’re riding the rails along with everyone else.
Festival Express is a wonderful hidden treat, a real microcosm of the times. How much it appeals to you may depend strongly on how much you like any of the acts.
Festival Express: ***1/2
(Subtract a full star if you’re not a fan of the music.)
179 – The Incredibles
Posted by frothy in Incredibles on November 19, 2004
A superhero family, under duress from multiple lawsuits brought by otherwise-well-meaning citizens of the city they protect, goes into deep hiding, a Federal Witness Protection program for those with superpowers.
But the patriarch of the family, Mr. Incredible, chafes under his now-mundane existence, complete with a job as a health-insurance claims manager. Poor Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson)! He pines so badly for the good ol’ days that he and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) secretly listen to police communications via a scanner, then rescue people and stop bad guys.
On the other hand, Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) is very happy with her new suburban life as Helen Parr. She and Bob (nee’ Incredible!) have three kids: Dashiell (who can run really really fast), Violet (who can turn invisible and create force fields), and baby Jack Jack, who appears to have no powers – yet. She’s content, Elastigirl is, although she doesn’t like it when the family has to move – again – because Bob got fired from another job, usually owing to the use of his superduper powers.
So one day when Bob gets a message from a supersecret organization that wants him to thwart an evil robot that can learn from its own mistakes… well, Bob sees no reason to mention it to Helen. Or that he was just fired from his crappy job. Nope, he decides that the company is sending him out of town for a “conference.” Will Mr. Incredible indeed save the day? Or will Elastigirl (and crew) have to save his sorry butt for him?
This Pixar film was a little uneven for my tastes. The first half of the movie dragged noticeably; this half didn’t seem very well paced at all. In fact, I even committed the cardinal sin of checking my watch a few times – that’s how dull it was. But during the second half, things really picked up. The action was much more ubiquitous, with some of the most eye-popping scenes in animation. Scenes that made one forget that the movie was animated, which is basically the point of the Pixar animators.
But because of the slow first half, this movie didn’t charm me as much as previous Pixar films had effortlessly done. In fact, the difference between the two halves of the movie is so stark it almost seems as if two directors were responsible for the movie.
There are also a few emotionally strong scenes that your youngest kidlets might not be too fond of, aside from the cartoon violence. There is a scene in which Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl argue loudly, a scene that might hit a little close to home for some children. And because animation is looking more and more realistic, it may be more difficult for kids to see this as a cartoon rather than a live-action movie, to a certain degree, so even scenes of typical cartoon-superhero violence might be a little intense. As it is, this is Pixar’s first PG-rated movie, so be warned.
The Incredibles: **1/2
178 – Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Posted by frothy in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind on November 9, 2004
Try to wrap your brain around this one. Suppose you could have certain memories wiped from your brain completely? Would you even notice? In theory, the movie says, you wouldn’t; in theory, you’d get on with your life as if nothing had ever happened. Ah, but that’s theory, and we all happen to live in Theory’s sister village of Reality. And most of the time, Reality gets her way.
Joel (Jim Carrey) is a dull sort of guy. He’s just broken up with a longtime live-in love. He’s kind of mopey, kind of aimless, the sort to whom perhaps three-quarters of single thirtysomething males can relate. In short, he’s a bit of a loser. He can’t even look women in the eye, and in one insightful bit of narration wonders why he falls in love with every woman he meets. But then he meets Clementine (Kate Winslet), who’s really like no other woman Joel’s ever seen. Heck, she’s not like many women, period. Clementine clearly dances to her own drummer.
But Joel and Clementine have their share of problems. He’s mousy and reserved, she’s wild and alcoholic. Sure, opposites attract – they also get into screaming matches. Or not, in Joel’s case. At any rate, after Joel visits Clementine at work and she doesn’t recognize him (!), he stumbles onto an stunning fact: Clementine has willingly had all memories of Joel erased from her mind.
Whoa, hold me. This alone is enough to give me an aneursym. After mulling it over, Joel decides to do the same. Hey, she did it first, so it’s ok – right? So he undergoes the procedure. But did it work completely? If so, why does he recognize Clementine sometimes, others not? Why does he relive some of the memories? Is this live, or is this Memorex?
The problem is that while Joel is undergoing the process, he decides he doesn’t want to forget Clementine – not now, not ever – so he begins to hide her away in parts of his mind where the good doctor and his crew cannot reach. That’s all well and good, but now those memories are altered as well, and Joel must outrace his memory erasers in order to preserve his sanity and his love for Clementine.
Kudos all around for the cast. Jim Carrey can indeed act, in case some of you weren’t sure. He was fantastic in The Truman Show, and he’s fantastic here. You see none of the typical Carrey gawking and mugging, and you see all the tenderness and fears of a scared young man. Winslet is pretty good as Clementine, vascillating between cute vixen to unstable alkie pretty seamlessly. A good supporting cast (Tom Wilkinson, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood) helps tremendously.
Eternal Sunshine was cowritten by one Charlie Kaufman, who’s famed for writing unique films, such as Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. Sure, there are flaws here and there, but the writing is so crisp and sincere and flows so easily that it’s very tough to condemn any aspect of it.
If I have any real complaint about the movie, it’s that it was perhaps a little too long. At one hour 48 minutes, it’s not a marathon, but some parts near the end did seem to drag a big. This is perhaps owing to a rather pertinent sublot involving Dunst’s and Wilkinson’s characters, but it’s a diversion well met.
Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind: ***1/2
177 – Shrek 2
I know what you’re expecting me to say. “If you liked Shrek …” And it’s so true. Fans of the first will be ga-ga over the second. The gang at Dreamworks was smart enough not to monkey around with a winning formula, so you have all the wit and charm of Shrek (Mike Myers), Fiona (Cameron Diaz), Donkey (Eddie Murphy), and all the fantastic fairy-tale creatures.
At the beginning of 2, Shrek and Fiona have been invited by Fiona’s parents (John Cleese and Julie Andrews) to the family castle. Imagine their surprise when the honeymooning ogres show up! Seems the king and queen haven’t heard that a) Fiona’s an ogre and b) that her husband is one, too. Naturally, this doesn’t sit particularly well with the king, and soon he’s hired a hit man – Puss in Boots, no less, voiced by Antonio Banderas – to bump off his new son in law. Meanwhile, a Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders) offers help to Fiona. And quickly, the main question of the film – conveniently, it was the main question of the first film – is whether love conquers all. Oh, perhaps it’s a bit more complex than that – perhaps it’s whether Fiona would love Shrek, no matter what he looked like. Come to think of it, that was the theme of the first one as well.
Shrek and Fiona journey to the land of Far, Far Away, where the stuffy king and the queen mum live. Far, Far Away is a clear knockoff of Hollywood itself (complete with the sign on the mountain), and the journey includes a pass through what looks like Beverly Hills. The attention to detail is marvelous, as always.
As with 1, 2 drops all sorts of Disney references, most resulting in full-out belly laughter. I was in stitches, although perhaps – just perhaps – some of the humor will zoom over your tiny tot’s tiny head.
Shrek 2 is a beautifully done movie, perhaps even more entertaining than the original. Sure, at the end you know your emotions have been manipulated somewhat, but in the end you really don’t care. Outstanding voice performances, flawless animation, and a crisp, moderately adult (but not mature, definitely not mature) script reign supreme.
Shrek 2: ***1/2
176 – Fahrenheit 9/11
Posted by frothy in Fahrenheit 9/11 on November 5, 2004
It is perhaps a little late to watch this movie, as its stated purpose was to educate Americans in time for the presidential election. But even without the backdrop of the election, this is a supremely relevant, powerful movie.
Director Michael Moore, noted for his documentary Roger and Me and later his short-lived television series TV Nation, begins with a simple premise: that President George W. Bush’s first term, particularly since the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, has been deeply flawed. Moore examines the handling of terrorism in the months prior to September 11, the president’s reaction to the attacks, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq overall. Moore leaves very few stones unturned in his thorough dissertation of U.S. foreign policy of the past few years.
It really doesn’t matter if you the viewer agree with Moore; his aim is to make you feel something, whether it’s disgust toward the administration or disdain toward the film and its creator. If you’re a staunch Republican who supports the president no matter what, you almost certainly won’t be swayed by this movie; you’re far more likely to view it as leftist propaganda. If you’re an opponent of the president and his policies, this movie will only reinforce your viewpoint. So, in that sense, it is definitely propaganda – clearly so.
Moore’s MO is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. And boy, are there plenty of both in this movie. He interviews soldiers in Iraq; some are elated to be there and treat gunning down Iraqis like a video game, and others are openly dissatisfied for not being allowed to return stateside, even though their tours of duty have expired. Moore interviews the mother of a soldier stationed in Iraq; in the beginning of the movie, she’s gung-ho for the war, proud that her children are overseas (she even says she thinks she’s the proudest around, as if it were a contest). By the end of the movie, she’s a grieving mother of a soldier killed in battle. Her scenes are searing in their emotion. She reads a letter from him, the last one he wrote; she’d received it a week or so before he died.
Among Moore’s other tactics is badgering various members of Congress, asking them if they would mind enlisting their children. (Turns out only one member of Congress has a child serving in Iraq.) None will do so, which isn’t surprising. Moore also examines the connection between the Bush family and the bin Laden family, especially pre-9/11, the strength of the relationship between the Saudi Arabian government (well, ruling family) and the Bush family, and the relationship between the Saudis and the United States economy.
It’s important to recognize this movie for what it is; it’s dangerous to assume that it’s a straightforward documentary. It’s an unabashed look at what historians may someday call one of the worst presidencies in American history. For now, though, it’s just the first half.
Fahrenheit 9/11: ****
175 – Dawn of the Dead
Posted by frothy in Dawn of the Dead on November 3, 2004
Pardon my impertinence, but aren’t zombie movies supposed to be scary? Or are they supposed to be funny? After watching this remake of George A. Romero’s 1978 thriller (itself a sequel to 1968′s Night of the Living Dead), I’m all confused.
To sum up, some kinda plague thingy breaks out, turning nearly everyone into jibbering idiots. After a while, it’s hard to tell which ones are zombies and which ones have simply been watching too much election coverage. All heck breaks loose. Loved ones are killing each other. Little kids, too. Everyone’s gone all higgledy-piggledy.
A hardy bunch of survivors makes its way to the most American of inventions, the shopping mall. They have all they need – food, shelter, TVs, XBoxes, and a zillion zombies patrolling outside the mall, desperate to get in and feast on the nice, fresh meat.
Lemme stop for a minute here and wonder out loud. (Note: This is a rhetorical question.) Why do zombies need fresh meat? Why can’t they just feast on each other, or even themselves? Would they even notice if they bit their own hand off, for example? (Okay, that was three rhetoricals.)
So our intrepid gang barricades itself inside the mall. But they soon want to get out. They’re holding out hope that somewhere out there, there’s someone who’s not quite dead yet. You know, somewhere where the zombies haven’t quite taken over. Like Canada, or something. But we the viewers know better, don’t we? This is as good as it gets, staying in a mall all the time. If it were me, I don’t know if I’d ever leave.
But oh, those nutty survivors. They’re communicating with the crazy cat a building or so over via sandwich board, playing chess long distance and the like. We see all kinds of fun and exciting activities, all set to a peppy song, whose name and beat I have conveniently forgotten for all eternity.
So they want to get out. Their plan is to commandeer two of the mall’s shuttle buses, fortify the crap out of them, and off they go. Well, bad things happen. The end.
This movie failed for me because at no point was I scared. I didn’t jump out of my seat, or even shudder. Sure, there’s gore, but it’s pretty mundane. If you’ve seen one head explode, you’ve seen ‘em all. (Oddly enough, when someone shoots a zombie in the head late in the movie, Ving Rhames is inexplicably impressed.) Movies like this need to have a strong sense of reality; the viewer must be able to imagine that this is happening Right Now, outside his or her own door. And this movie utterly failed to do so for me, which made it take on a surreal and ultimately comic sheen.
The acting’s no prize, either. I know these guys had little interesting or unique to say, but I felt little sympathy for them regardless – and that’s the actor’s job. Convey to me how awful your situation is. I wasn’t openly rooting for the zombies, but sometimes I felt like it.
One final nitpick – the ending credits sequence contains footage of What Happens Next. It’s very, very jarring; credits are shown on a red background, then there’s a quick cut to video, then back to the credits, on and on and on. Distracting and pointless.
Dawn of the Dead: **
-
You are currently browsing the archives for November, 2004
People Had This to Say