Who doesn't love a good movie?
I think Petula Clark said it best:
"When you're alone
And life is making you lonely,
You can always go... to the movies.
[...]
You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares and go
To the movies, things'll be great when you're
At the movies, no finer place for sure,
The movies, everything's waiting for you"
Truth be told, she might not have sung those exact words, but with a couple of handy assumptions (like the ones I'll be making later on), one can infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Clark was in fact referring to the cinema.
Now, I've had the pleasure of seeing four particular movies over the past month. The four share a common theme: excellence. That is, the four movies up for discussion have all received 3.5 star ratings or better from me.
Before I begin, allow me to explain my rating system again. I have no problems admitting Roger Ebert has been my biggest influence when it comes to film critique. That is not to say that I seek to agree with him. Just that his critique style and philosophy is the one that I believe to be the most successful. (After all, why would we want The Dictator to be compared to Revolutionary Road?) So keep in mind that there is a sort of relativism in play here.
The four movies are The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Avengers, Star Trek, and Prometheus. Each one has with its own merits impressed me enough to warrant mention here. And while I will not be doing official reviews for each film, The Avengers and Star Trek will receive less attention here due to the consensus I believe exists regarding those two films.
I think the thing I enjoyed most about Star Trek (I never saw it in theatres) was the tone of the film. Star Trek over the years has come across as more earnest, heavyweight, and heavy-handed than unfamiliar viewers may expect. As a result, I think that's why the Star Trek film franchise has not had the staying power that accompanies Star Wars. Feel free to disagree; I'm less willing to hold onto this premise than the ones I'll throw out regarding the other movies up for discussion.
Anywho, the tone: not since Up has a movie made me cry within the first 15 minutes. What a wallop it packs! Here we are, thrust straight into the pivotal moment that defines both George & James T. Kirk. And without this moment, frankly, the film does not work. For the first (and definitely not the) last in this discussion we encounter my first big point: plot/story is characters in motion. I cringe when people talk about the plot of a film as if it's something separate from the characters. How does that work? Tell me what Jaws, Casablanca, or even The Dark Knight is about without referring to the characters. Do that well enough and I'll shut up about this point.
Ultimately, that's why Star Trek works so well for me. Every plot development stems from honest character actions/reactions. Don't get me wrong, this in-and-of-itself does not merit 4 stars. But it's a requirement. Hence, why The Avengers also deserves a shout-out.
Talk about a movie that puts its characters first. And what's truly remarkable is the balance Joss Whedon pulls off. Iron Man, or Robert Downey, Jr., can steal any scene he wants (and he does a few times), yet I never felt that he was our main man. The same can be said about Thor and the Incredible Hulk and their power. Given just how powerful these two heroes are, it almost eliminates all the stakes. I applaud Whedon for bringing in Thor much later and for the Hulk storyline. If he's just gonna go and smash everything in his way, so what? That's what we expect. But it doesn't make for compelling storytelling.
So, Star Trek and The Avengers deserve to take their place alongside the best of such films. Hats off to two of my generations great storytellers. (And, yes, I realize J. J. didn't write Star Trek.)
Final verdict?
Star Trek 3.5 stars
The Avengers 3 stars
I don't even know where to begin with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. For a movie with a 158 minute running time, I felt like I was just starting to get into it. In a very good way. A very deliberate film, there are no wasted moments. David Fincher was born to direct mysteries/thrillers.
If story starts and ends with characters, then actors play a vital role in the success of a film. If we accept that premise, then Dragon Tattoo is a huge success. Rooney Mara deserves all the credit in the world for this performance. I had previously thought that Michelle Williams in My Week with Marilyn was the only choice for the Best Actress Oscar, but Ms. Mara has made me realize that she is an actress to watch going forward. Every choice she makes never betrays the character. I also think that's why the film needs the violence and brutality it has.
At no point are any of the scenes gratuitous. Yes, they may be uncomfortable for some, but in no way should they be done without. In fact, without them, the character of Lisbeth Salander comes across as unrealistic and two-dimensional. If movies are in fact to invoke the senses, which is in turn vital to any visceral experience with watching a movie, then the audience is in the best place to understand the character, which means they are in the best place for understanding the story.
As I said before, David Fincher is born to direct these kinds of films. Every clue we the audience need is available (like in Se7en). He plays no cheap tricks, yet he doesn't offer up the clues easily. If ever there were a movie that required you to be an active audience member, this is it.
Don't even get me started with the technical aspects. The cinematography is beautiful and the editing... let's just say there's a reason it won the Oscar. Rarely have I been more confused, horrified, and moved by a movie, all the while loving every minute of it.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo 4 stars
(Thanks for bearing with me.)
The moment we've all been waiting for: my explanation for why Prometheus is more than just your average sci-fi movie. Or is it horror? I can't ever remember.
I should start off by saying that anyone reading my review of Prometheus should take into account a few things.
1) Whether or not a movie like this should be analyzed in a vacuum is not really a topic I will tackle head on.
2) My "review," though, will be from the perspective that the film should not be analyzed in a vacuum; therefore, any disagreements we may have may be at a most fundamental level.
3) The movie, viewed in such a vacuum, still holds up for me.
(I should also be forthright in my admission that Ridley Scott is one of the few directors that can do no wrong for me. Such as that is, bias will always be a natural part of my watching his films for the first time. I've since removed my Ridley-colored glasses the best I can.)
Ridley Scott has stated this movie is both a prequel and not a prequel to the Alien franchise he helmed back in 1979. I have no problems saying that I agree. I contend that while the Alien universe is the same universe we get in Prometheus, the story is less concerned with making a bridge to the 1979 movie. And rightfully so.
Otherwise, we're just getting treated to a paint-by-numbers deal, where the screenwriters hands are forced to lead us to only conclusion. I wouldn't think highly of that sort of movie, and while some hand tying is inherent since Prometheus takes place in the same universe, I am less likely to think of the movie as being a direct ancestor of the earlier franchise.
Ridley Scott has also stated that he intended this to be jumping-off point for his story. That's why I don't buy the "incoherence" argument against the film. To describe the film as incomplete or incoherent is an accusation against movie series. In the same way The Fellowship of the Ring, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back aren't criticized for not offering up a complete account of their characters/story/mythology, so shouldn't we do so of Prometheus. (Perhaps we demand more of our sci-fi. Or is it horror? I can't ever remember.)
And I realize two of those examples are not the first installment of their franchises. One might argue those films have their own self-contained narrative, but so did Prometheus. Some of the larger issue questions still burn, but why would we want all the answers now if we know there is more in store? What good does it do us if we discover Darth Vader is Luke's father at the end of the first movie? It's more confounding going forward, and offers little in the scope of that movie's story. Luke doesn't really confront Vader, so playing that card early might fall flat.
As for the "character development" argument, I might offer up the same argument, just tailoring it to how the story is not over. But then what about their story just for that movie? Shouldn't we get some insight into who this discovery team is? As for that, all I can say is: I got just what I needed for each character. In the same way most of these survival play out, there is an inherent (albeit insignificant) lack of character development. We get what we need from characters that endure. In fact, it almost gives us a sense what Shaw is going through: I've never met these people before in my life. Who are they? Can I trust them? What are they capable of? Much like with Dragon Tattoo, these choices put us (or maybe just me) in the best place to understand our characters/story.
The movie should get 4 stars just for the opening title sequence alone. As for what the Engineer scene immediately after it meant, I will go ahead and say it doesn't matter whether its Earth or not. The point is, these guys have able to create life and to be destroyed.
There were a few other arguments I wanted to tackle but forgot to write them down and lost them in all this typing.
Wait, I do remember one. How can an android be compatible with your sense of story? Let me start by saying that when films enable us to better understand their characters, that is not required to understanding the story. Sometimes, the story involves that element of mystery. Suspense and mystery should arise from characters' actions; we may not always understand why Person #1 killed Person #2 or why Event B followed from Event A. This almost sounds contradictory to what I was saying earlier, but there are always exceptions. Otherwise, we'd all have the formula for making good films.
Anyway, I realize an android like David might pose problems for my "plot is the characters" argument. Think of why he "infects" Dr. Holloway and what that brings about. It might seem inconsistent with his generally amiable behavior (do androids have behavior?) toward the humans. However, his ultimate programming was to investigate, and surely we can't expect him to have known the consequences of his action. And after realizing it, he was just following his programming to further investigate. (And if you reject that he didn't know what would happen, it is still very much consistent with his "inquisitiveness.") So, in fact, much of the mystery/suspense that arises throughout the movie arises from very character-based decisions. However, satisfaction with character development will vary from person to person, so this disagreement just falls in line with such an issue as ice cream flavor preference. I know that's not an exciting conclusion, and may seem like a cop-out, but I refuse to be swayed by the ideas that accompany universal or absolute truth regarding art.
Maybe I'm just rambling now. I really meant to tackle the four main arguments against the movie I've heard. So, I'll just go ahead and get to the point:
Prometheus 3.5 stars
Please feel free to comment. It's my every intention to elicit feedback with this. Otherwise, I've wasted two hours.
P.S. I really want to promote my new favorite TV show, Deadwood. It's already my 2nd favorite behind LOST, and I've only finished one season. The writing is sharp (dialogue is almost Shakespearian), the production values are high, and the acting is top-notch. If you are uncomfortable with HBO shows (particularly profanity), stay away. Otherwise, treat yourself to one of the best shows I have ever seen. (Shout-out to Brad Dourif, who deserved an Emmy for Season 1.)
Star Trek 3.5 stars
The Avengers 3 stars
I don't even know where to begin with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. For a movie with a 158 minute running time, I felt like I was just starting to get into it. In a very good way. A very deliberate film, there are no wasted moments. David Fincher was born to direct mysteries/thrillers.
If story starts and ends with characters, then actors play a vital role in the success of a film. If we accept that premise, then Dragon Tattoo is a huge success. Rooney Mara deserves all the credit in the world for this performance. I had previously thought that Michelle Williams in My Week with Marilyn was the only choice for the Best Actress Oscar, but Ms. Mara has made me realize that she is an actress to watch going forward. Every choice she makes never betrays the character. I also think that's why the film needs the violence and brutality it has.
At no point are any of the scenes gratuitous. Yes, they may be uncomfortable for some, but in no way should they be done without. In fact, without them, the character of Lisbeth Salander comes across as unrealistic and two-dimensional. If movies are in fact to invoke the senses, which is in turn vital to any visceral experience with watching a movie, then the audience is in the best place to understand the character, which means they are in the best place for understanding the story.
As I said before, David Fincher is born to direct these kinds of films. Every clue we the audience need is available (like in Se7en). He plays no cheap tricks, yet he doesn't offer up the clues easily. If ever there were a movie that required you to be an active audience member, this is it.
Don't even get me started with the technical aspects. The cinematography is beautiful and the editing... let's just say there's a reason it won the Oscar. Rarely have I been more confused, horrified, and moved by a movie, all the while loving every minute of it.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo 4 stars
(Thanks for bearing with me.)
The moment we've all been waiting for: my explanation for why Prometheus is more than just your average sci-fi movie. Or is it horror? I can't ever remember.
I should start off by saying that anyone reading my review of Prometheus should take into account a few things.
1) Whether or not a movie like this should be analyzed in a vacuum is not really a topic I will tackle head on.
2) My "review," though, will be from the perspective that the film should not be analyzed in a vacuum; therefore, any disagreements we may have may be at a most fundamental level.
3) The movie, viewed in such a vacuum, still holds up for me.
(I should also be forthright in my admission that Ridley Scott is one of the few directors that can do no wrong for me. Such as that is, bias will always be a natural part of my watching his films for the first time. I've since removed my Ridley-colored glasses the best I can.)
Ridley Scott has stated this movie is both a prequel and not a prequel to the Alien franchise he helmed back in 1979. I have no problems saying that I agree. I contend that while the Alien universe is the same universe we get in Prometheus, the story is less concerned with making a bridge to the 1979 movie. And rightfully so.
Otherwise, we're just getting treated to a paint-by-numbers deal, where the screenwriters hands are forced to lead us to only conclusion. I wouldn't think highly of that sort of movie, and while some hand tying is inherent since Prometheus takes place in the same universe, I am less likely to think of the movie as being a direct ancestor of the earlier franchise.
Ridley Scott has also stated that he intended this to be jumping-off point for his story. That's why I don't buy the "incoherence" argument against the film. To describe the film as incomplete or incoherent is an accusation against movie series. In the same way The Fellowship of the Ring, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back aren't criticized for not offering up a complete account of their characters/story/mythology, so shouldn't we do so of Prometheus. (Perhaps we demand more of our sci-fi. Or is it horror? I can't ever remember.)
And I realize two of those examples are not the first installment of their franchises. One might argue those films have their own self-contained narrative, but so did Prometheus. Some of the larger issue questions still burn, but why would we want all the answers now if we know there is more in store? What good does it do us if we discover Darth Vader is Luke's father at the end of the first movie? It's more confounding going forward, and offers little in the scope of that movie's story. Luke doesn't really confront Vader, so playing that card early might fall flat.
As for the "character development" argument, I might offer up the same argument, just tailoring it to how the story is not over. But then what about their story just for that movie? Shouldn't we get some insight into who this discovery team is? As for that, all I can say is: I got just what I needed for each character. In the same way most of these survival play out, there is an inherent (albeit insignificant) lack of character development. We get what we need from characters that endure. In fact, it almost gives us a sense what Shaw is going through: I've never met these people before in my life. Who are they? Can I trust them? What are they capable of? Much like with Dragon Tattoo, these choices put us (or maybe just me) in the best place to understand our characters/story.
The movie should get 4 stars just for the opening title sequence alone. As for what the Engineer scene immediately after it meant, I will go ahead and say it doesn't matter whether its Earth or not. The point is, these guys have able to create life and to be destroyed.
There were a few other arguments I wanted to tackle but forgot to write them down and lost them in all this typing.
Wait, I do remember one. How can an android be compatible with your sense of story? Let me start by saying that when films enable us to better understand their characters, that is not required to understanding the story. Sometimes, the story involves that element of mystery. Suspense and mystery should arise from characters' actions; we may not always understand why Person #1 killed Person #2 or why Event B followed from Event A. This almost sounds contradictory to what I was saying earlier, but there are always exceptions. Otherwise, we'd all have the formula for making good films.
Anyway, I realize an android like David might pose problems for my "plot is the characters" argument. Think of why he "infects" Dr. Holloway and what that brings about. It might seem inconsistent with his generally amiable behavior (do androids have behavior?) toward the humans. However, his ultimate programming was to investigate, and surely we can't expect him to have known the consequences of his action. And after realizing it, he was just following his programming to further investigate. (And if you reject that he didn't know what would happen, it is still very much consistent with his "inquisitiveness.") So, in fact, much of the mystery/suspense that arises throughout the movie arises from very character-based decisions. However, satisfaction with character development will vary from person to person, so this disagreement just falls in line with such an issue as ice cream flavor preference. I know that's not an exciting conclusion, and may seem like a cop-out, but I refuse to be swayed by the ideas that accompany universal or absolute truth regarding art.
Maybe I'm just rambling now. I really meant to tackle the four main arguments against the movie I've heard. So, I'll just go ahead and get to the point:
Prometheus 3.5 stars
Please feel free to comment. It's my every intention to elicit feedback with this. Otherwise, I've wasted two hours.
P.S. I really want to promote my new favorite TV show, Deadwood. It's already my 2nd favorite behind LOST, and I've only finished one season. The writing is sharp (dialogue is almost Shakespearian), the production values are high, and the acting is top-notch. If you are uncomfortable with HBO shows (particularly profanity), stay away. Otherwise, treat yourself to one of the best shows I have ever seen. (Shout-out to Brad Dourif, who deserved an Emmy for Season 1.)
