« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »

V for Vendetta + Tristram Shandy

Surprisingly, I saw two films this weekend, both unplanned.
Tristram Shandy : A Cock and Bull Story was a last minute choice by my family while dining in Portsmouth , and V for Vendetta was kind of a tag-along thing ...

V FOR VENDETTA tells the story of England in chaos, set not too far in the future, where Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) suddenly comes in contact with the vengeful darkman known as V (Hugo Weaving). V takes his dark past out on the government which created him - seeking justice for those who suffer in the reign of their "big brother" figure leader (John Hurt). England now prides itself in surviving the global crises which has claimed the United States and other countries, keeping all their citizens under curfew, and having anyone opposed to their stance obliterated.
V takes his time to show Evey his world, just as soon as he sets the date for his ultimate vengeance upon Parliament. But in her struggle to adapt to a conscious mind of action and violence, V helps Evey understand the just cause for action against the government, and to fight her own personal demons which hinder her life. V does have to use violence as his means for justice, which is why the government leaders claim him as a terrorist, but his fatalistic tendencies are however in the best interest of the people and their future, no matter how self-driven they may be.

V is a figure of uprise for the people, just enough outside of the general realm to be successful. Evey's assistance for V is not without doubt from her own well-being and logical thought of execution.
V's justification in the end comes from his fight for the future of England, not just his own personal issues.

The script by the Wachowski Bros., adapted from the comic book created by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, is tight, smart, and awfully descriptive of all the elements for the story. The movie clocks in at almost two hours and fifteen minutes - there surely is a lot going on and it goes by at a fast, yet steady pace, and somehow I never felt like there was too much or too little (but that is practically impossible with these levels of story). And when it comes to critique of content, visuals, direction, even editing - I have really have no objections. Natalie Portman surely isn't British, but she did come through alright in her performance. However, the most memorable element for sure is Hugo Weaving as V - V is flat out an amazing character who whisks you away with his intellect, justification, and presence. Who is the man underneath the mask? In the end, there was nothing more I desired from V. V for Vendetta may be the best film of the year so far - not too much of a stretch to say that, considering what's out in theaters right now, but I suppose it may be in my year end top ten. I was thoroughly amazed by the execution and tightness of almost everything, and actually plan on seeing it again next week in the IMAX format. V may be for Vendetta - but P might as well stand for Perfect.

Still on the other side of the pond comes Michael Winterbottoms’ TRISTRAM SHANDY : A COCK AND BULL STORY - a different kind of film entirely, and with a much lighter storyline : Steve Coogan (as Steve Coogan) is in the process of starring in the movie “Tristram Shandy : a Cock and Bull Story” as the literary figure Tristram Shandy. The movie is not a documentary, but instead a realistic imagination of the process of adapting a story, which nobody wants to take into total consideration, into a motion picture. Issues with Coogan’s own personal life, actor relations, budget, content, and costume defects of sorts all come in play, as well as the unfortunate circumstances of trying to adapt the story.
Though not full of depth at all, this movie absolutely doesn’t need it - it’s not a mockumentary, but it may be mocking the kinds of literary period adaptations that usually are churned out starring british actors, not exactly of Coogan’s type, however. It’s an easy going romp of sorts, which never makes fun of itself, but rather likes to enjoy the time and process. When you see a movie which the actors obviously look like they’re having a wonderful time playing, you can’t help but enjoy it - and thankfully a movie like this can be made, geared towards an adult audience, and not be seen as immature. Tristram Shandy is absolutely hilarious and relevant to the viewer, either a fan of the story, or someone who just wants to enjoy themselves in the theater.

Posted by madamczyk at 06:18 PM | Comments (0)

Thoughts on "The Hills Have Eyes"

Ho hum. Window attack.

Why do we see HORROR movies? Is it because we like jumping everytime someone pokes around a corner, right when the music gets tense, even when we deep down know it's coming?
Probably. I was thinking this myself last weekend when I saw THE HILLS HAVE EYES at the local theater - yeah, I'm back in NH, spring break, and I got to go see it at the ol' Canad / Hoyts / newly Regal 5 screen plex. . ..

Aaron Stanford. REALLY good with a baseball bat.

Now, I've never seen the original "The Hills Have Eyes." I've tried to rent it at various places, but they didn't have it. So just like a majority of the people who saw it last weekend, I went in not knowing what was going to happen. But despite this, I did know what was going to happen. Family is on trip. Family gets stuck in the hills. Cannibals eat/kill family. Some members survive in the end.
Check . Check . Check . and Check .
And somehow, I was not disappointed. The movie has a level of sadistic gore/torture similar to the awful Marcus Nispel remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," crossed with the production values of Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects," which I really did like for it's witty script and solid yet unremarkable plot.

The script for THHE (let's just call it that from now on) isn't anything of depth. We barely get to know the characters before the blood is shed, but that's OKAY! Some of them die anyway, and we feel their loss through the other characters' emotions. But gosh - talk about icky prosthetics. Some of the creatures in THHE are slightly similar to others in film, but they're still quite disturbing.
The film is well directed by Alexandre Aja, who made another gore fest from last year, the complete mess/enjoyable french horror "High Tension," which obviously is why Producer Wes Craven chose Aja to remake his version of THHE.

Gritty cinematography, quick-shot editing, and the snappy soundtrack aren't exactly what made me like this movie, but it didn't hurt in the end. As far as the recent horror batch of crapola goes (think HOSTEL, anything PG-13 from the past year), THE HILLS HAVE EYES isn't too far out of their realm, but does break itself apart from the pack because of it's honest take of crappy, horrific situation.

Posted by madamczyk at 05:31 PM | Comments (1)

Oscar 2006 - TAINTED

I see bald men... Paul "Emotional Manipulator" Haggis

I was having a lovely evening at my roommates Oscar party in the 'burbs of Chicago.
Sipping champagne, enjoying speeches (with that AWFUL music in the background),
and thoroughly loving Jon Stewart's job as MC.
However, you know it, I know it - we ALL know that Crash didn't deserve Best Picture.
Brokeback Mountain has numerous Critics circle awards, BAFTA, the WGA, the DGA... gosh, everything under the sun - and somehow, it doesn't win.
CRASH did not deserve Best Picture by ANY means.
In fact, if 2005 hadn't been such a poor year for movies, it would have never been nominated.
The Oscar Telecast 2006 was amazing, and yet so disgustingly ruined by a single word.

SEE this movie? It's about black and white people in LA and is from the early 90s.
Directed by Lawrence Kasdan, and starring these groovy people seen above, let me make a bold statement about this movie :: IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS CRASH.
And not only is it exactly the same, it's better. Trust me.

And what about those cowboys? Hmm? WHAT ABOUT THEM!
Brokeback is a triumph in itself - and Crash is a big step backwards for humanity.
Ang Lee spoke in his Best Director speech about how the movie taught him and the crew about love -
that's right. Love. In my opinion, love is a more important subject than the constant hammering and guilt-trip ridden consequences of racism which Crash disappointingly subjects us all to.
With either Brokeback or Capote winning Best Picture, it would have showed that film is taking a step forward and that there's more acceptance of people being in love or just getting by, no matter what their sexuality.
If Good Night, and Good Luck or Munich would have won, there would not be this furor that there now is. In my opinion, our country needs something like Brokeback than it needs another Grand Canyon.

When I first saw Crash in May, I thought it was a good movie - yes, just that. A good movie.
But still a very preachy unnecessary movie about issues that, if we're still going over at this point in history, is sadly dated and irrelevant.

When I first saw Brokeback Mountain, I thought it was a very good movie - not perfect as said by many critics, but still an important movie about human beings dealing with their forbidden love from a taboo of their time. Ennis and Jack could never live together and love each other because of other people. Although you could see Brokeback Mountain is an art film and was only successful because of it, you're wrong. Brokeback Mountain has been met with acceptance because of its care for human emotions - and not cliched melodramatic elements that bring us back to their unaccepting place in time. Ang Lee absolutely deserved his Directing award, and must have been quite humble and gracious in seeing his movie, which had taken nearly every prize it was up for, lose, to the Paul Haggis feature (yuck... this man disgusts me). But Ang Lee takes chances. Brokeback Mountain absolutely took chances. And it rose from the flames of hate and ignorance to be a real film for the ages. Thankfully, the unimpressive and forgettable fire that is Crash should be snuffed out soon, for Brokeback will always be in my mind, and hopefully yours as well.

Posted by madamczyk at 10:05 PM | Comments (0)