Category: Movies

  • The Road review

    The Road movie posterYou know a movie’s not going to end well when a man shows his young son how to put a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger.

    But this is how things are in The Road. After an unspecified apocalypse, the sun doesn’t shine, crops and animals have died, and civilization has been replaced with thieves, killers, and cannibals. It’s a world where you make sure your gun has enough bullets left for you and the ones you love, because that’s surely one of the kinder fates available.

    The Road is one of the bleakest movies you’re likely to see. There’s a pervasive sense of dread that hangs over everything, the knowledge that something bad could happen at any time. Anyone the man and his son meet on the road could be dangerous, any building they enter may not have an exit. When there’s a moment of peace or contentedness, it feels like the setup for something horrible, the calm before the cannibals.

    But perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself. The Road isn’t an action-overloaded, everyone running about in slow-mo while the apocalypse explodes in glorious CGI. It’s an intimate, often tender portrait of the end of the world. There’s action and suspense, but it’s secondary to the relationship between the Man (Viggo Mortenson) and his son (13 year-old  Kodi Smit-McPhee). It’s a strong emotional core, giving the audience a reason to care as well as fuelling the already considerable suspense.

    After all, there’s nothing in the film more horrifying than the prospect of something happening to the boy. The boy is the only reason for hope, for love. He’s possibly the only thing keeping the man human – at times, the man’s paranoia and hardness threaten to overwhelm his humanity, but the boy brings him back.

    Mortenson is given the task of anchoring the film, a job that rests fairly well on his shoulders. He’s great at looking intense without being merely angry, at saying a lot without dialogue. There’s a softness under his tough exterior, a genuine love for the boy beneath his fierce desire to protect him. Smit-McPhee fits well, for the most part; with Mortenson doing most of the heavy emotional lifting, the boy’s role is often limited. One of his most important tasks is to merely be a child, albeit a child surrounded by death and destruction. It’s a nicely grounded performance, though there are some scenes towards the end where he can’t quite convey the emotionally gravity that is called for.

    The rest of the cast is enough to make most directors drool: Charlize Theron as the man’s wife, Robert Duvall as a fellow traveller, Gerret Dillahunt as a roving scavenger, Michael K. Williams as a man with a knife. They’re small roles, with only Theron needing to make a serious emotional impact, but all are performed almost perfectly. You’re never quite sure what to make of most of the characters: Anyone the man and his son meet on the road could be harmless, helpful, or horrible. All of the performances are kept fairly subtle, so we can only see them through the paranoid and protective eyes of the man.

    The main flaw of The Road is its episodic nature. The man and his son travel south, towards hopefully warmer climates. They encounter people, a place, or a thing. They deal with the situation, somehow, and then continue travelling until they encounter another set of people, places, and things. And repeat. They all work individually, but the pattern becomes repetitive towards the end of the film, with a general lack of forward momentum; most of the sequences could be rearranged without too much impact.

    The structure inherited from a novel may be the film’s weakness, but the language of Cormac McCarthy’s novel – often conveyed almost verbatim in Mortenson’s monologues – becomes one of the greatest strengths. It’s beautiful, haunting prose, sparse, full of desperation and hope. “The boy is my warrant,” the man says early on, “if he is not the word of god, then god never spoke,” and it will stay with you for the rest of the film. Literary prose can often sound stilted or unnatural when spoken aloud, but McCarthy’s text, delivered by Mortenson’s weary voice, is cinematic gold.

    My one major disappointment with the film may lie in the novel, too, though I haven’t yet read it so can’t be sure. (It’s sitting on my bedside table right now. Don’t hassle me.) The ending feels abrupt and sudden. There’s the emotional climax, and then things just wrap up a bit too quickly, as though the filmmakers suddenly ran out of time. (Though at 111 minutes, The Road isn’t particularly long.)

    The Road reminds me more than a little of Last Night, another movie about the end of the world that was less about the disaster than the people. Last Night was much lighter – everything short of The Pianist is lighter than The Road – but it held the similar view that it doesn’t matter if the world is ending if you don’t care about the people in it. The Road has more to say about the end of the world itself, and has ample thrills and scares, but its always guided by the characters, real people forced to survive in a nightmare. It’s a haunting, intense, and disturbing film, full of horrible people driven to do terrible things, but you can’t help leaving the film feeling a little hopeful, and moved by the love, devotion, and sacrifice on display.

  • Doctor Parnassus lives again!

    At long last, it appears The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is close to getting a theatrical release. It’ll probably get more publicity as Heath Ledger’s final performance, and the casting of Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell as his replacements, but jumps to the top of my must-see list – possibly behind Where The Wild Things Are – because it looks to be the first film in a long time to feature the full-on madness of Terry Gilliam.

    Tideland was interesting – and one of the weirdest, most uncomfortable films I’ve ever sene – but it’s actually been 10 years since Gilliam totally set himself loose, on the beautifully demented Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. Parnassus looks like a return to the good old days.

    There doesn’t appear to be a North American distributor yet, but I assume it will happen eventually.

  • 2010 Can’t Come Fast Enough

    I was a late convert to The Wire, but I’m hoping to get in on the ground floor for David Simon’s new series, Treme. The cast list alone looks fantastic – Wire‘s team supreme of Clarke Peters & Wendell Pierce, Melissa Leo, and Deadwood‘s Kim Dickens. Plot details are still fairly minimal – it’s about New Orleans, post-Katrina – but this article makes it sound damn intriguing.

  • The Greatest Movie Endings of All Time

    I have many deep thoughts. I have a blog. But I am sick and have neither time nor energy to produce something deeper. So: A list!
    (These are spoiler free, mostly.)

    • Manhattan: “You have to have a little faith in people.”
    • Magnolia: Aimee Mann’s Save Me and Melora Walters’ smile.
    • Fight Club: The world falls apart, and the Pixies provide the soundtrack.
    • Brazil: The real ending, obviously. Which is unreal. Sort of.
    • Casablanca: Duh.
    • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Just because.

    Yes, I enjoy ambiguity. So what?

  • Do you need another Watchmen review?

    In his defence, Zack Snyder really loves Watchmen. This film is a labour of love, a dedication to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, an immaculate recreation of a great book.

    Unfortunately, sometimes love is not enough. Or, perhaps more accurately in this case, love is too much. Zack Snyder adapting Watchmen to film is a lot like someone falling madly and devotedly in love with you on a first date: Barring some pretty exceptional circumstances, it’s just going to end up feeling creepy and awkward.

    Alan Moore once said that Watchmen was unfilmable. For the sake of argument, we can say that he’s cranky on general principle, but his opinion gains some credibility when Terry Gilliam agrees with him. One of the biggest problems – beside Watchmen being rooted in superhero tradition and the very form of sequential art – is that there’s so much going on. Many characters, many storylines, all criss-crossing one another and frequently jumping about chronologically. It’s a lot to fit in to one movie, requiring someone to decide what’s important and what isn’t.

    Snyder decided that almost all of it is important and had to be on the screen, which has the unfortunate effect of making none of it important. At 163 minutes, Watchmen is full of plot and happenings, barely taking any time to breathe or relax – and this is the short version, with an “Extended Edition” DVD expecting to take up most of a long weekend. It still feels harshly edited, with characters disappearing for long stretches – the Comedian is absent for most of the middle third, making Laurie’s revelation on Mars seem jarring. Snyder’s kept many of the cameos and callbacks of the book, but they lack meaning because the context has been stripped out; the film, like the book, ends on the New Frontiersmen office, but it’s the very first appearance of the extreme right-wing magazine and likely meaningless for anyone who hasn’t read the book.

    The reality is that something had to give for Watchmen to function as a film. Perhaps the Minutemen, perhaps Laurie’s relationship with the Comedian. Probably at least a few of the Nixon scenes, laden as they are with bad impersonations and excessive prosthetic noses. Snyder probably could have cut about 15 minutes off the running time by eliminating all the slow-motion action shots.

    Watchmen also runs into some of the problems Sin City had with excessive faithfulness: Dialogue and narration that works on the page doesn’t always work when spoken aloud. Rorschach’s journal doesn’t work nearly as well when heard, and Jackie Earle Haley’s growly Christian-Bale-Batman voice doesn’t help. And just on general principle, narration tends to be more intrusive in a film than on the page; comics tell a story through a series of moments, and occasionally require narration to fill in the gaps, while film is more immersive. “It was dark when the murderer returned” is entirely superfluous when it’s plain to see that it’s dark.

    Snyder’s occasional bouts of independence don’t add a whole lot to the film, either. The violence is cranked up about a dozen notches, and to little dramatic impact; if anything, showing Silk Spectre and Nite Owl to be just as vicious and violent as Rorschach erases the differences between the characters. The explicit sex scene adds nothing, in addition to being excruciatingly awkward and not the least bit erotic.

    Snyder often sets up battles between faithfulness and innovation. The costumes are generally upgraded from spandex to the more cinematic leather/body armour, which is a perfectly reasonable change. But when Ozymandias appears to be wearing body armour, catching a bullet doesn’t seem nearly as significant. The setup goes MIA as well, resulting in a scene that looks a lot like the book but holds little of the impact. In fact, much of the finale lacks the oomph it has in the book, perhaps because Snyder’s rushed through so much of the story to get here.

    This all sounds terribly negative, but I didn’t hate the film by any means. The set designs and costumes are excellent, and it certainly looks like Watchmen. The actors are generally good; not exceptional, but the rushed nature of the film leaves little time for nuance. The opening credits sequence, almost entirely of Snyder’s own creation, is a beautiful thing, though the emphasis on the Minutemen is lost shortly thereafter.

    Watchmen is rather frustrating, because at times it comes so close to really getting it, and you can tell Snyder really does want to make a great movie out of a great book. But his devotion to the source material hamstrings his effort: The book was innovative and experimental, and a successful adaptation – not mere translation – demands more than just a scene-for-scene recreation. It needed a director unafraid to put his own stamp on the material, someone who wasn’t afraid of cutting that scene or enraging a particular segment of fandom.

    It’s ultimately rather pointless. It’s not great, it’s not bad, it’s just there. It doesn’t stand up to book at all well, nor does it stand on its own with any strength. It’s interesting to watch, but perhaps not for two and a half hours. An ambitious failure would have been far more interesting than the safe and predictable homage Snyder produced.

  • Why Watchmen Worries Me

    I’m not opposed to adaptations on general principle. I’m not even one of those people who insists that a film remain absolutely faithful to its source material: High Fidelity is just as brilliant a movie as it is a book despite entirely Americanizing the setting and characters, and Sin City was a pretty bad movie largely because it attempted to copy the panel to the screen almost verbatim. A good adaptation requires compromise, but it also requires a faithfulness to the spirit of the source material.

    So I’m a pretty open-minded guy. But when it comes to Watchmen, I’m pretty skeptical.

    For one thing, there’s Zack Snyder. I enjoyed 300, but it wasn’t a particularly deep or complex movie. Most of the dialogue consisted of grunting and shouting, and about 90% of the visuals were directly translated from the book. The one element Snyder added to the screenplay – the reprehensible Queen Gorgo’s “fucking for my country” subplot – was nothing to write home about.

    I haven’t seen Dawn of the Dead, though I wouldn’t mind, but again – it’s a remake of a zombie movie, and not the sort of thing that qualifies one for the work of Alan Moore. For all this, I’m not sure why the trailers proclaim Snyder as a “visionary”, considering that his two big hits have been a remake and an adaptation.

    And Watchmen demands a lot. It demands a lot of the reader, and is not prone to giving things away or providing easy explanations. It is, as many readers discover, not about plot; many complain of nothing “happening”, of it moving slowly and (apparently) without real direction. The plot is almost beside the point: It’s about characters and setting and detail. (And, if you want to get into that sort of thing, superhero deconstruction) It’s true that many readers come away with “Rorschach is Badass” as the overriding theme of the book, but the considerably less sexy Black Freighter and the text pieces are every bit as essential.

    There’s also the matter of the trailer. Now, don’t get me wrong: I understand that the point of any movie trailer is to make the film as appealing as possible to the largest potential audience, and it’s not necessarily representative of the final product. I initially avoided Fight Club because the trailers made it look terribly generic, but when I finally gave in it became one of my favourite movies.

    But the Watchmen trailer just feels too shiny. Everything looks cool and exciting. Slow-motion shots proliferate to the extent that Malin Ackerman looks like she’s auditioning for the next Charlie’s Angels sequel. And people keep saying “Watchmen” as though it’s meaningful in terms of the characters’ relations with each other.

    Ackerman also gives this interview, in which she describes her character as “a strong, powerful woman who fights like a man and loves being who she is,” which halfway backs up my Charlie’s Angels reference. Laurie absolutely doesn’t love who she is, resenting her mother pushing her into the superhero business and feeling conflicted about her relationship with Dr. Manhattan. She’s much the same as Nite Owl: She probably does want to be a superhero on the whole, but isn’t guilt-free about it. Turning the Silk Spectre into a butt-kicking hot babe is exactly the sort of thing that threatens to turn Watchmen into just another generic superhero movie.

    Maybe it won’t be. Maybe Snyder really gets it, maybe he really has the talent to pull it all off. Maybe I’m wrong?

    Just to prove I’m not all gloom and doom, I’ve got to say that the Official Doctor Manhattan condoms are a brilliant bit of marketing. (Although a digitally enhanced penis is a whole troubling area I’m not even going to touch.) We can only hope the eventual Watchmen video game will be this good.

  • Hello Oscars…

    If you had to pick some ingredients for possibly the Greatest Movie Ever Made, you’d totally include Brett Ratner, right? But that alone wouldn’t be enough, would it? No, of course not. You’d want something really special, something to truly elevate Ratner’s work above that of also-rans like Kubrick and Kurosawa. Something so daring and innovative, no one else would dare touch it.

    For a truly great cinematic feat, you need Rob Liefeld’s fertile imagination and truly radical design concepts. And then you get Youngblood: The Movie.

    Expect the cast to include Matthew McConaughey, a man who many expect would look good wearing 18 pouches, and Chris Tucker playing his gun. And just as Robert Rodriguez and Zack Snyder took great pains to adapt the visual style of Frank Miller to the screen, so too will Ratner honour Liefeld’s groundbreaking work by only shooting actors from the shins up.

  • Even Alan Moore will want to play dress-up!

    Watchmen Hallowe’en costumes?


    Why someone would want to buy a full Rorschach costume is beyond me – it’s a trenchcoat and some striped pants! (Well, they’re striped in the book, anyway. These costume people clearly have no sense of artistic integrity.) And apparently Nite Owl and the Comedian are now extreme vigilante house painters.

    I would have infinitely more respect for this initiative if the Doctor Manhattan costume consisted of a large tube of blue body paint. Maybe a head razor.

    As the movie gets closer to release, my bad feeling grows and grows. This is exactly why Alan Moore turned into a crazy snake-worshipping hermit.

  • TIFF08: Starstruck in Synecdoche, New York

    I’m rarely interested in celebrities. I love the Film Festival for the obscure stuff, the foreign films that often only get a DVD release in North America, months, if not years, after they screen. It’s great when the filmmakers or cast show up after screening to answer questions – though some questions are better than others, and some people are better at answering them than others – but my admiration and respect is usually reserved for the work itself, as opposed to the person.

    But there are exceptions.

    Charlie Kaufman wrote Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and, one of my favourite movies ever made, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. There’s no one else who can write a movie like him.

    So I was ecstatic to get tickets to Synecdoche, New York, Kaufman’s directorial debut. And when Kaufman himself stepped onto the stage at the Elgin Winter Garden, I have to admit I was just slightly a little bit in awe of the man.

    (This despite him being very short. When Catherine Keener joined him on stage, she practically towered over him, admittedly thanks to some very serious heels. Phillip Seymour Hoffman also appeared, but didn’t seem particularly enthusiastic.)

    Reviewing Synecdoche is kind of tricky. My immediate reaction was “I want to see that again.” Which isn’t necessarily a great thing – while his previous films certainly benefit from repeated viewing, they were also easily accessible on at least some level.

    Synecdoche is an entirely more complicated work, though. It seems more personal, though perhaps just because it’s about a writer, and Kaufman probably had control over the film from the screenplay to the editing room; it’s hard to say, similarly difficult to evaluate whether that’s a good thing.

    So the plot, which is relatively easy to cover: Hoffman plays Caden, a local theatre director who’s facing middle age with an unimpressive career and a marriage (to Keener) that’s slowly swirling down the drain. Marriage counselling isn’t helping (“Everyone’s disappointing if you know them long enough”, Keener says at one point, and she asks the therapist if it’s wrong to fantasize about her husband dying), and Caden keeps coming up with new health problems.

    (Note: There are more jokes about poo in this movie than in all previous Kaufman scripts combined.)

    His wife finally leaves him – unofficially speaking – and his only consolation, besides a theatre employee with a crush on him (the lovely Samantha Morton), is a theatre grant that enables him to mount an ambitious project: Recreating life on a giant warehouse stage.

    So eventually we have our characters, and the actors playing them, and in some cases the actors playing them. Tom Noonan is an odd choice to play Phillip Seymour Hoffman, though Emily Watson makes a perfect Samantha Morton. Incidents from Caden’s life play and replay from different perspectives, the scope of Caden’s world and stage continually expanding.

    There’s also a subplot about Caden’s estranged daughter, and Jennifer Jason Leigh turns into a German lesbian halfway through the film. I’m not sure what that’s about, but as I said, I need to see it again.

    It’s a dense and layered film, full of odd characters and strange ideas – Morton’s character buys a house that’s on fire, and lives there for many years. When asked at the Q&A to explain the burning house, Kaufman politely answered “No.”

    My immediate reaction, besides wanting to see it again, was that Synecdoche doesn’t quite work – it feels overly indulgent, or ambitious, like Kaufman was taking on too much of a challenge for his first foray into directing.

    But it’s an unquestionably fascinating film; you can’t stop watching, wanting to know how Kaufman will bring it all together. And it’s full of great performances – Hoffman is his usual excellent self, Morton is superb, and quality actors keep showing up, giving themselves over to these odd roles and often covered in old-age prosthetics.

    And, well, it’s a Charlie Kaufman movie. You know you’re going to see something that’s at least interesting, and could turn out to be a masterpiece. I have to admit I was thrilled to be sitting there as this very unassuming and casual screenwriting star stood a few rows in front of me; I probably would have been pretty happy even if the movie had turned out to be terrible.

    Thankfully, I don’t think it did. Did I mention I need to see it again?