Thursday, September 07, 2006
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Exclusive Review: Say Yes Quickly
Through the exclusive insider contacts I have as the Bad Movie Mogul (OK, OK - this guy I know) I have had a chance to see the movie Say Yes Quickly (2004, Directed by Gregg Hale, Screenplay by Gregg Hale and Rachel Davis). SYQ is a romantic drama with a bit more depth than you may be used to seeing on the screen. Say Yes Quickly opens with the aftermath of the funeral of Hannah's father. Hannah (played by Suli Holum) does not take his death well; soon she has limited her world to her bedroom where she focuses solely on writing a blog and a novel. And, of course, her online mentor, @lien. @lien is her 'mentor', a faceless, unseen guide that reviews her work via 3 2-hour interactive chat sessions every day. After a year of this self-imposed exile to her room and her writing, Hannah's novel is finished and she eagerly awaits @lien's feedback on her draft of the entire novel. As she trys to wheedle @lien's input, Hannah's roommate Dierdre (actress Megan Pearson) discovers that Hannah is to the point of using a bedpan so she won't need to spend a minute away from @lien's chat sessions. Weirded out, Dierdre brow beats Hannah into going out.
Hannah is vocally miserable at the party until she meets Henry (played by Brandon Bales). A little flighty, a little shady, and very off-beat, Henry draws Hannah out of her shell. Before long he and Hannah have entered into a relationship that is intense physically, even if Hannah still seems emotionally detached. @lien is not pleased that Hannah is not there for each and every chat session and continues to avoid giving Hannah any response on her work. As Hannah grows more frustrated with @lien her relationship with Henry continues to grow. Finally, after the ‘accidental’ break-in of a pharmacy and a minor run-in with the law, Henry announces that he’s leaving town. In a sudden decision, Hannah joins him and convinces him to go to San Francisco, where she thinks @lien lives. Oblivious to this, Henry sets out with Hannah for the Left Coast. Unbeknownst to Hannah and Henry, the mysterious @lien has also decided to leave his home, but he is searching for Hannah….
From the opening shot Say Yes Quickly was a wonderful surprise. While I respected Gregg Hale’s work as a producer (TV’s FreakyLinks and the amazing Blair Witch Project) SYQ shows that he is just as good as a director. Hale has a great eye for a shot and blocking a scene, giving SYQ a distinctive visual style without ‘getting in the way’ of the movie. The pacing is solid with the story progressing smoothly without any awkward exposition or long ‘character establishment’ scenes to slow things down. The editing was excellent with a natural flow to the visuals and transitions. The editing also kept the pace smooth and quick with the use of split screens; used sparingly and briefly, SYQ is one of two uses of split screens that I approve of (the other being in Hulk). My only real complaint is the final act; after the wonderful buildup of the characters and situation, the climax of the film felt a bit rushed. This is probably a combination of concerns over running time and interest and my personal desire simply to see and hear more about Henry and Hannah.
The lead actors were great throughout. Bales has an easy charm and confidence that really shone through, making the oddball Henry a likeable, endearing character. Holum had the tough job of showing Hannah transition from near-total emotional detachment through to emotional maturity and did a great job. The chemistry between Holum and Bales was great, although I am sure the intensity of some of the scenes left them exhausted by the end of production. My only real complaint in the acting department was with Megan Pearson, who plays Hannah’s roomie, Dierdre; she seemed a little forced.
Say Yes Quickly is, unfortunately, in limbo. A finished product, the producers cannot find a festival or distributor for it. Based upon some of the stuff I see coming out of festivals recently, I think people are missing the boat. SYQ is a well-crafted movie with realistic dialogue, three-dimensional characters, a coherent plot, and an interesting story. Of course, these things may explain why certain festivals won’t touch it.
Normally, my recommendation would be to go see this in theaters. However, since this isn’t possible right now my recommendation is to write me and I’ll try to get you a chance to see it.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Review: The Thing From Another World (1951)
The Thing From Another World (1951, Directed by Christian Nyby) starts quietly with a group of U.S. Army Air Force officersand enlisted led by Captain Hendry (in a career-defining performance by Kenneth Tobey) being sent back to a scientific research station that they are familiar with to investigate the report of a downed aircraft, an aircraft that shouldn’t be there. The captain and his men fly to the base, learning on the way that local magnetic navigation is being disrupted somehow.
Arriving at the remote station, they are warmly greeted by the scientists and staff. The lead scientist, Dr. Carrington (a great performance by Robert Cornthwaite) informs them of two astonishing things. First, the magnetic disruption they experienced would require 20 thousand tons of steel, and that while the crashing object looked like a meteorite, it changed course and speed – meaning it was a vessel of some kind. The scientists and crew quickly set out to the location of the craft via plane.
Arriving, they find that when the object crashed it was hot enough to melt into the ice before being frozen over with just a bit of tail fin sticking out. They also make three discoveries – the vessel is circular, radioactive, and made of an unknown metal. They immediately conclude it is an alien ship and plant thermite bombs to melt it out of the ice.
This is disastrous; the thermite destroys the ship in an explosion and fire. But, while searching again, they find another object in the ice – a vaguely humanoid figure that just might be an occupant thrown clear, or crawled clear, before the ship was frozen in. Using pickaxes, the figure, still within a block of ice, is returned to the base where Captain Hendry insists they await instructions from military headquarters before anything further is done. He sets guards over the block of ice and everyone settles in to wait for a storm that is blocking communications to end.
In the frigid storeroom the guard watching the frozen visitor throws a blanket over it to block the disturbing image. In his haste to return to his book he does not see that he has used an electric blanket, and his earmuffs prevent him from hearing the drip of melting ice….
The Thing From Another World is a landmark in cinema, and not just for horror and science fiction buffs. While the concepts of people trapped in a strange environment while facing an overwhelming threat was not new when it was made TTFAW did some great things with the concept that dragged it from concept and art films and into mainstream. More importantly, it has influenced generations of moviemakers who took its lessons to heart.
The film does a lot of things very well. The easy-going camaraderie of the military men is established immediately, as is the characterization of the captain as intelligent, charismatic, and certainly in charge. Howard Hawks produced this film and it has long been suspected that he was effectively the director in all but name. This is probably because of his involvement in the script and the fact that producers have more of an impact on the final ‘feel’ of a film than many suspect (despite the ‘auteur’ theory). I personally believe that Nyby was the ‘real’ director; he was just smart enough to shoot the script as it was written and keep his ‘personal vision’ out of the way. I think this mainly because there are some uses of camera and framing that aren’t ‘typical Hawks’. But then again, what the Hell do I know?
The use of language in this film is justly famous. The characters use slang, deadpan sarcasm, interrupt each other, talk over each other, make snide comments – in other words, they speak like real people. As a result, the characterizations seem deeper than they actually are; since the characters speak like people you know, there is a faster emotional identification with them. The female lead and Hendry’s love interest, Nikki (played by Margaret Sheridan) has some excellent lines and the conceit behind the way she and Hendry last encountered each other is very well played out.
Another element of the characterizations that works quite well are the limitations shown in each of them. When his crew chief makes suggestions about shoring up morale, Hendry simply agrees; his quick realization that it the chief is right and has a good idea is a nice touch. While Hendry is in charge, he doesn’t have all of the answers. The military men and the reporter aren’t alone in this – the scientists defer to their colleagues that are specialists in their fields. And there is dissent in various places that is treated seriously (more on that later) and when plans fail, everyone moves along, never giving up.
The use of the stark, empty artic terrain to demonstrate the isolation of the characters and their fragile status of being endangered just by where they are is amazingly effective. These scenes of endless snowfields stand in stark contrast with the small interiors of the base where most of the action occurs. My biggest quibble with John Carpenter’s remake, The Thing, is that he ‘cluttered up’ his Antarctic setting, making it more akin to the claustrophobic feel of Alien rather than the agoraphobic vibe of TTFAW’s establishing shots, eliminating this contrast.
Some critics have complained that the plot contrivance of the alien ship being blown up by thermite stretches belief. I remember this scene clearly from the first time I saw TTFAW (I was 8) and my assumption when I watch it now is the same as then – the ship crashed because it was damaged, the thermite hit ‘an exposed fuel line’ (or a close analog) and the heavily damaged ship finally went blooie. This would explain why the Thing was found frozen nearby – it had fled into almost-certain death in the ice to escape a ship it expected to explode at any moment.
Many critics also focus on the ‘military vs. science’ angle, pointing to TTFAW as the watershed that led to the increasing viewpoint of ‘science’ and ‘scientists’ as ‘bad’ compared to ‘action’ and ‘men of action’, which are ‘good’. And, of course, to the reversal of these positions in later decades. (For a great in-depth analysis of this, see the excellent review from And You Call Yourself A Scientist!, one of the best review sites around). While there are some valid points to these reviews, and despite my great respect for many who hold them, I find that I largely disagree. While TTFAW did contribute to the ‘anti-science’ mood in many later works, TTFAW itself has a very different outlook. While Dr. Carrington is portrayed as a quasi-villain, and at least a fool, I believe the point of the script was not to portray science or scientists negatively. Let me begin and extended lecture-
The scientists other than Dr. Carrington are portrayed as either opposed to Carrington or reluctant accomplices. For example, when Dr. Carrington demands that Hendry allow him to begin examining the Thing immediately without waiting for instructions, Dr. Chapman (played by John Dierkes) sides with Hendry while pointing out, reasonably, that they have no ideas of the complications that might be involved, such as new diseases they could not combat. And later, when Carrington realizes that the Thing will almost certainly return to the greenhouse and enlists others to aid him in watching for it without informing the military, Eduard Franz (who plays Dr. Stern) does an excellent job of conveying his character’s hesitation and fear. And Nikki’s betrayal of Carrington, by handing over his notes to Hendry, show that she clearly opposes his actions. The only characters who dismiss opposing opinions are Carrington and Hendry, a telling point. Hendry keeps urging caution, Carrington is impatient to move forward.
So the target isn’t scientists in and of themselves. And the Thing is only defeated by the application of science (in a wonderful scene where Hendry just stands by bemused as his men and the scientists rig up a trap) when everyone works together. I also think that the target isn’t science itself, either. No, Carrington stands alone from the military and the scientists. So what was it about Carrington that made him so very, very wrong? I think it was when he stopped acting like a scientist.
Despite being a Nobel award-winning scientist, Carrington repeatedly commits the cardinal sin of science – he assumes. When the ship is found and revealed to be extraterrestrial, he states that it is the product of ‘minds far in advance of our own’. This is an astonishing assumption to make. After all, this was set less than 50 years after humans flew the first airplane and within a few years of the first application of jet engines. For Carrington to think that it was anything but the result of years of research and application and to make assumptions about the mental faculties of the builders is a far stretch.
Carrington continues to assume a great deal about the Thing throughout the film. When it is surmised that it is, essentially, a plant analog that reproduces by budding seedpods, he announces the superiority of an intellect ‘not marred by emotion or sexual impulses’. This is very revealing, in my opinion, and not for the reasons Lyz thinks (more on that later, too). Most revealing, though, is Carrington’s outburst to the Thing after he has shut down the proposed method of killing it – he pleads with the creature to stop its rampage, to act as Carrington wants it to act because Carrington is certain it is ‘more intelligent, wiser than us’. All of this after Carrington knows for a fact that the Thing has killed two of his colleagues in order to consume their blood!
Before I tell you my conclusions about what the writer was using Carrington to warn about, a bit more about the creature. The Thing never speaks intelligibly and it never attempts to communicate in any way. It is described as asexual, emotionless, and, no matter how much it looks like a person, it isn’t even an animal. Strong, fierce, and capable of regenerating lost limbs because of its nature ‘bullets can’t stop it!’. Because it spreads ‘seeds’ it can reproduce rapidly – very rapidly. It is capable of growing an army that would expand exponentially if it reached a suitable place. Most frighteningly, is uses blood as nourishment, both for itself and for its ‘seedlings’. I think it is obvious that this inarticulate, emotionless killer capable of growing an army from fields drenched in blood is an allegory for communism and its spread, which seemed so relentless in 1951.
My conclusion is that Carrington isn’t despised as a scientist but as someone who is so impressed with his perception of the superiority of the ‘alien’ that he blinds himself to the inherent dangers involved. In other words, Carrington is a metaphor of the ‘fellow traveller’ or a ‘commie sympathizer’. As is pointed out on AYCYAS!, there are other hints about Carrington that may have been meant to illustrate him as a homosexual, or at least aloof form ‘real’ people – in short, a ‘commie pinko fag’.
Ultimately, however, Carrington is portrayed as misguided. He does not pay for his error with his life, but is only injured. And when communications are eventually re-established the reporter’s comments about Carrington in a news story are vague, yet positive – an action that obviously earns the approval of the others. In short, Carrington isn’t ‘cast out’, killed, or even scorned. He is seen as merely blinded by his own biases. This is a much kinder fate than scientists received in many of the follow-ons to TTFAW.
The Thing From Another World was a big hit at the Mogul household. For those of you who don’t know, there are four little Moguls, all budding film buffs. As anticipated, the classic ‘jump’ scene from TTFAW elicited 4 jumps and 2 squeaks, as well as a night with a 5-year old sharing my bed.
My analysis? This is a movie everyone should see at least once, and it should be in the library of any film buff.
Arriving at the remote station, they are warmly greeted by the scientists and staff. The lead scientist, Dr. Carrington (a great performance by Robert Cornthwaite) informs them of two astonishing things. First, the magnetic disruption they experienced would require 20 thousand tons of steel, and that while the crashing object looked like a meteorite, it changed course and speed – meaning it was a vessel of some kind. The scientists and crew quickly set out to the location of the craft via plane.
Arriving, they find that when the object crashed it was hot enough to melt into the ice before being frozen over with just a bit of tail fin sticking out. They also make three discoveries – the vessel is circular, radioactive, and made of an unknown metal. They immediately conclude it is an alien ship and plant thermite bombs to melt it out of the ice.
This is disastrous; the thermite destroys the ship in an explosion and fire. But, while searching again, they find another object in the ice – a vaguely humanoid figure that just might be an occupant thrown clear, or crawled clear, before the ship was frozen in. Using pickaxes, the figure, still within a block of ice, is returned to the base where Captain Hendry insists they await instructions from military headquarters before anything further is done. He sets guards over the block of ice and everyone settles in to wait for a storm that is blocking communications to end.
In the frigid storeroom the guard watching the frozen visitor throws a blanket over it to block the disturbing image. In his haste to return to his book he does not see that he has used an electric blanket, and his earmuffs prevent him from hearing the drip of melting ice….
The Thing From Another World is a landmark in cinema, and not just for horror and science fiction buffs. While the concepts of people trapped in a strange environment while facing an overwhelming threat was not new when it was made TTFAW did some great things with the concept that dragged it from concept and art films and into mainstream. More importantly, it has influenced generations of moviemakers who took its lessons to heart.
The film does a lot of things very well. The easy-going camaraderie of the military men is established immediately, as is the characterization of the captain as intelligent, charismatic, and certainly in charge. Howard Hawks produced this film and it has long been suspected that he was effectively the director in all but name. This is probably because of his involvement in the script and the fact that producers have more of an impact on the final ‘feel’ of a film than many suspect (despite the ‘auteur’ theory). I personally believe that Nyby was the ‘real’ director; he was just smart enough to shoot the script as it was written and keep his ‘personal vision’ out of the way. I think this mainly because there are some uses of camera and framing that aren’t ‘typical Hawks’. But then again, what the Hell do I know?
The use of language in this film is justly famous. The characters use slang, deadpan sarcasm, interrupt each other, talk over each other, make snide comments – in other words, they speak like real people. As a result, the characterizations seem deeper than they actually are; since the characters speak like people you know, there is a faster emotional identification with them. The female lead and Hendry’s love interest, Nikki (played by Margaret Sheridan) has some excellent lines and the conceit behind the way she and Hendry last encountered each other is very well played out.
Another element of the characterizations that works quite well are the limitations shown in each of them. When his crew chief makes suggestions about shoring up morale, Hendry simply agrees; his quick realization that it the chief is right and has a good idea is a nice touch. While Hendry is in charge, he doesn’t have all of the answers. The military men and the reporter aren’t alone in this – the scientists defer to their colleagues that are specialists in their fields. And there is dissent in various places that is treated seriously (more on that later) and when plans fail, everyone moves along, never giving up.
The use of the stark, empty artic terrain to demonstrate the isolation of the characters and their fragile status of being endangered just by where they are is amazingly effective. These scenes of endless snowfields stand in stark contrast with the small interiors of the base where most of the action occurs. My biggest quibble with John Carpenter’s remake, The Thing, is that he ‘cluttered up’ his Antarctic setting, making it more akin to the claustrophobic feel of Alien rather than the agoraphobic vibe of TTFAW’s establishing shots, eliminating this contrast.
Some critics have complained that the plot contrivance of the alien ship being blown up by thermite stretches belief. I remember this scene clearly from the first time I saw TTFAW (I was 8) and my assumption when I watch it now is the same as then – the ship crashed because it was damaged, the thermite hit ‘an exposed fuel line’ (or a close analog) and the heavily damaged ship finally went blooie. This would explain why the Thing was found frozen nearby – it had fled into almost-certain death in the ice to escape a ship it expected to explode at any moment.
Many critics also focus on the ‘military vs. science’ angle, pointing to TTFAW as the watershed that led to the increasing viewpoint of ‘science’ and ‘scientists’ as ‘bad’ compared to ‘action’ and ‘men of action’, which are ‘good’. And, of course, to the reversal of these positions in later decades. (For a great in-depth analysis of this, see the excellent review from And You Call Yourself A Scientist!, one of the best review sites around). While there are some valid points to these reviews, and despite my great respect for many who hold them, I find that I largely disagree. While TTFAW did contribute to the ‘anti-science’ mood in many later works, TTFAW itself has a very different outlook. While Dr. Carrington is portrayed as a quasi-villain, and at least a fool, I believe the point of the script was not to portray science or scientists negatively. Let me begin and extended lecture-
The scientists other than Dr. Carrington are portrayed as either opposed to Carrington or reluctant accomplices. For example, when Dr. Carrington demands that Hendry allow him to begin examining the Thing immediately without waiting for instructions, Dr. Chapman (played by John Dierkes) sides with Hendry while pointing out, reasonably, that they have no ideas of the complications that might be involved, such as new diseases they could not combat. And later, when Carrington realizes that the Thing will almost certainly return to the greenhouse and enlists others to aid him in watching for it without informing the military, Eduard Franz (who plays Dr. Stern) does an excellent job of conveying his character’s hesitation and fear. And Nikki’s betrayal of Carrington, by handing over his notes to Hendry, show that she clearly opposes his actions. The only characters who dismiss opposing opinions are Carrington and Hendry, a telling point. Hendry keeps urging caution, Carrington is impatient to move forward.
So the target isn’t scientists in and of themselves. And the Thing is only defeated by the application of science (in a wonderful scene where Hendry just stands by bemused as his men and the scientists rig up a trap) when everyone works together. I also think that the target isn’t science itself, either. No, Carrington stands alone from the military and the scientists. So what was it about Carrington that made him so very, very wrong? I think it was when he stopped acting like a scientist.
Despite being a Nobel award-winning scientist, Carrington repeatedly commits the cardinal sin of science – he assumes. When the ship is found and revealed to be extraterrestrial, he states that it is the product of ‘minds far in advance of our own’. This is an astonishing assumption to make. After all, this was set less than 50 years after humans flew the first airplane and within a few years of the first application of jet engines. For Carrington to think that it was anything but the result of years of research and application and to make assumptions about the mental faculties of the builders is a far stretch.
Carrington continues to assume a great deal about the Thing throughout the film. When it is surmised that it is, essentially, a plant analog that reproduces by budding seedpods, he announces the superiority of an intellect ‘not marred by emotion or sexual impulses’. This is very revealing, in my opinion, and not for the reasons Lyz thinks (more on that later, too). Most revealing, though, is Carrington’s outburst to the Thing after he has shut down the proposed method of killing it – he pleads with the creature to stop its rampage, to act as Carrington wants it to act because Carrington is certain it is ‘more intelligent, wiser than us’. All of this after Carrington knows for a fact that the Thing has killed two of his colleagues in order to consume their blood!
Before I tell you my conclusions about what the writer was using Carrington to warn about, a bit more about the creature. The Thing never speaks intelligibly and it never attempts to communicate in any way. It is described as asexual, emotionless, and, no matter how much it looks like a person, it isn’t even an animal. Strong, fierce, and capable of regenerating lost limbs because of its nature ‘bullets can’t stop it!’. Because it spreads ‘seeds’ it can reproduce rapidly – very rapidly. It is capable of growing an army that would expand exponentially if it reached a suitable place. Most frighteningly, is uses blood as nourishment, both for itself and for its ‘seedlings’. I think it is obvious that this inarticulate, emotionless killer capable of growing an army from fields drenched in blood is an allegory for communism and its spread, which seemed so relentless in 1951.
My conclusion is that Carrington isn’t despised as a scientist but as someone who is so impressed with his perception of the superiority of the ‘alien’ that he blinds himself to the inherent dangers involved. In other words, Carrington is a metaphor of the ‘fellow traveller’ or a ‘commie sympathizer’. As is pointed out on AYCYAS!, there are other hints about Carrington that may have been meant to illustrate him as a homosexual, or at least aloof form ‘real’ people – in short, a ‘commie pinko fag’.
Ultimately, however, Carrington is portrayed as misguided. He does not pay for his error with his life, but is only injured. And when communications are eventually re-established the reporter’s comments about Carrington in a news story are vague, yet positive – an action that obviously earns the approval of the others. In short, Carrington isn’t ‘cast out’, killed, or even scorned. He is seen as merely blinded by his own biases. This is a much kinder fate than scientists received in many of the follow-ons to TTFAW.
The Thing From Another World was a big hit at the Mogul household. For those of you who don’t know, there are four little Moguls, all budding film buffs. As anticipated, the classic ‘jump’ scene from TTFAW elicited 4 jumps and 2 squeaks, as well as a night with a 5-year old sharing my bed.
My analysis? This is a movie everyone should see at least once, and it should be in the library of any film buff.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
In Theatres Now: Review of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
I just returned from Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004, Directed and Written by Kerry Conran in his debut). All I can say is – go see it. It is not perfect, it won’t cure cancer, and I doubt that it will change the way Hollywood loves to create movies drained of innovation, but go see it anyway.
The film starts as the dirigible Hindenburg III is docking atop the Empire State Building. A scientist (Dr. Vargas, played by Julian Curry) aboard the airship sends a package to a Dr. Jennings before mysteriously vanishing. Dr. Jennings (Trevor Baxter) then meets with a reporter working hard to crack the case of the missing scientists, of whom Dr. Vargas is only the latest. The reporter, Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) soon learns that All of the missing scientists were part of a secret scientific group called Group Eleven that worked outside Berlin during World War I. All have vanished except for Dr. Jennings, so he know that he is next. As Polly tries to learn who is doing this, air raid sirens sound, sending people running for cover. Before he slips away, Dr. Jennings warns her of a man named Totenkopf.
Outside the sky is filled with odd looking aircraft. Aircraft which land and turn out to be giant robots seemingly bent upon destroying the power generators in the center of town. Unable to stop the 50-foot tall behemoths, the city sends out the call to Sky Captain….
Before I begin the review proper, let me explain a bit about my father. Dad was born in Chicago in 1923, the son of a baker. He grew up on a steady diet of comic books, radio, and movie serials with a thick layer of Edgar Rice Burroughs, H. Rider Haggard, and the pulps as a foundation. He enlisted in the army the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and spent what free time he had during the war reading Buck Rogers, Superman, and the great science fiction pulps. He used the G.I. Bill to become a doctor and settled into life as a family doctor in northern Indiana, eventually having 8 children.
And now a bit about me, too. Although one of the youngest children in my family, because of a combination of factors I spent the most time with Dad of all of us. I grew up reading the same things and have always loved John Carter, Alan Quartermain, Doc Savage, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, and all the rest of the two-fisted heroes that modern adventure heroes are based on.
As I result I know a lot of arcane trivia, like the fact that The Rocketeer was not based on Commando Cody from Radar Men from Mars but from Jeff King in the earlier serial King of the Rocket Men. I know, I know – who cares, right? The point is, I have an abiding love of the science fiction of the first three decades of the 20th century. So when I heard the buzz about Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow I was hopeful but afraid of being burned yet again.
You see, after Raiders of the Lost Ark a lot of people in Hollywood realized that there are enough people like me to make money so the ‘80’s were chock-full of poor attempts at 1930’s nostalgia. Most of these attempts thought that period costuming and a ‘retro-tech’ look were enough. But the difference is greater than that. You can’t put modern dialogue into a period movie and expect it to work. And, even more common and an even bigger failing, you can’t use current motivations. In the 1930’s the heroes were brighter and the villains were darker.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow does a top-notch job of capturing the combination of optimistic dreams of the future while living in a gritty present that lies at the heart of 1930’s sci-fi. I have often found fault with Gwyneth Paltrow in the past (I thought she was dreadful in Emma) she can also be quite good (she was excellent in The Royal Tenenbaums). In Sky Captain she was on the ‘quite good’ side as the female lead. And thank goodness they stayed away from making Polly “spunky”; as written and played she is a determined, ambitious, and oh-so-glib homage to Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday.
And Jude Law as the titular Joe ‘Sky Captain’ Sullivan also turns in a great performance. He had a great mix of humor, determination, and (around Polly) exasperation. His performance was spot-on for the period portrayed, as well, and he should consider doing something like it again. His acting here convinces me yet again that the entertainment media spend too much time focusing on Law’s good looks and not enough realizing that he is a far better actor than most believe (just see his multi-layered performance opposite Jennifer Jason Leigh in the overlooked Cronenberg thriller eXistenZ).
While the two don’t match the legendary performances of the 30’s hero/heroine pairings like Grant and Hepburn or Gable and Colbert (and who could every match Powell and Loy?), they have wonderful chemistry and seem to have enjoyed themselves while making the movie. The bantering required from the period was unforced and natural and drew a lot of laughter from the audience when I went, including three ‘whole theatre’ outbursts.
Although Joe and Polly were obviously the focus of the film, there were some great secondary characters, mainly Giovanni Ribisi as Dex, Joe’s friend and the man who makes Sky Captain’s art-deco-tech gear. And Angelina Jolie plays the commander of a British amphibious force: a small role, but she seems to have enjoyed it and added a bit of depth to a potentially dull part. There are several good character actors, especially Mr. Djalili, a favorite in the BMM household. And in a very interesting bit of stunt casting, there is a brief cameo by Sir Laurence Olivier, who ha been dead for a more than a few years. While this could have been tacky, it not only avoids sleaze it works within the context of the movie, as well.
Much has already been written about how this film was shot entirely on soundstages in front of blue screens with very minimal sets. All I can say is, it is done superbly. Even aware of how the movie was made I was usually completely oblivious. Tight and smooth, I only ‘lost my disbelief’ in the settings in one scene, a relatively minor one. Otherwise, the locations seemed entirely believable from snowy Manhattan to steamy jungles.
The story was minimalist, but this is entirely in keeping with the source material and the genre. Pulp heroes didn’t have complicated motivations; the complexities were left to the villains and the death traps. Sky Captain is not overburdened with plot, but then again, neither was Raiders of the Lost Ark. But the story is compelling, the pacing is tight, and the dialogue snaps along.
I recommend this movie to anyone (and you can take the kids), and I heartily recommend it to fans of the pulps, the serials, or the screwball comedies of the ‘30’s.
The film starts as the dirigible Hindenburg III is docking atop the Empire State Building. A scientist (Dr. Vargas, played by Julian Curry) aboard the airship sends a package to a Dr. Jennings before mysteriously vanishing. Dr. Jennings (Trevor Baxter) then meets with a reporter working hard to crack the case of the missing scientists, of whom Dr. Vargas is only the latest. The reporter, Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) soon learns that All of the missing scientists were part of a secret scientific group called Group Eleven that worked outside Berlin during World War I. All have vanished except for Dr. Jennings, so he know that he is next. As Polly tries to learn who is doing this, air raid sirens sound, sending people running for cover. Before he slips away, Dr. Jennings warns her of a man named Totenkopf.
Outside the sky is filled with odd looking aircraft. Aircraft which land and turn out to be giant robots seemingly bent upon destroying the power generators in the center of town. Unable to stop the 50-foot tall behemoths, the city sends out the call to Sky Captain….
Before I begin the review proper, let me explain a bit about my father. Dad was born in Chicago in 1923, the son of a baker. He grew up on a steady diet of comic books, radio, and movie serials with a thick layer of Edgar Rice Burroughs, H. Rider Haggard, and the pulps as a foundation. He enlisted in the army the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and spent what free time he had during the war reading Buck Rogers, Superman, and the great science fiction pulps. He used the G.I. Bill to become a doctor and settled into life as a family doctor in northern Indiana, eventually having 8 children.
And now a bit about me, too. Although one of the youngest children in my family, because of a combination of factors I spent the most time with Dad of all of us. I grew up reading the same things and have always loved John Carter, Alan Quartermain, Doc Savage, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, and all the rest of the two-fisted heroes that modern adventure heroes are based on.
As I result I know a lot of arcane trivia, like the fact that The Rocketeer was not based on Commando Cody from Radar Men from Mars but from Jeff King in the earlier serial King of the Rocket Men. I know, I know – who cares, right? The point is, I have an abiding love of the science fiction of the first three decades of the 20th century. So when I heard the buzz about Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow I was hopeful but afraid of being burned yet again.
You see, after Raiders of the Lost Ark a lot of people in Hollywood realized that there are enough people like me to make money so the ‘80’s were chock-full of poor attempts at 1930’s nostalgia. Most of these attempts thought that period costuming and a ‘retro-tech’ look were enough. But the difference is greater than that. You can’t put modern dialogue into a period movie and expect it to work. And, even more common and an even bigger failing, you can’t use current motivations. In the 1930’s the heroes were brighter and the villains were darker.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow does a top-notch job of capturing the combination of optimistic dreams of the future while living in a gritty present that lies at the heart of 1930’s sci-fi. I have often found fault with Gwyneth Paltrow in the past (I thought she was dreadful in Emma) she can also be quite good (she was excellent in The Royal Tenenbaums). In Sky Captain she was on the ‘quite good’ side as the female lead. And thank goodness they stayed away from making Polly “spunky”; as written and played she is a determined, ambitious, and oh-so-glib homage to Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday.
And Jude Law as the titular Joe ‘Sky Captain’ Sullivan also turns in a great performance. He had a great mix of humor, determination, and (around Polly) exasperation. His performance was spot-on for the period portrayed, as well, and he should consider doing something like it again. His acting here convinces me yet again that the entertainment media spend too much time focusing on Law’s good looks and not enough realizing that he is a far better actor than most believe (just see his multi-layered performance opposite Jennifer Jason Leigh in the overlooked Cronenberg thriller eXistenZ).
While the two don’t match the legendary performances of the 30’s hero/heroine pairings like Grant and Hepburn or Gable and Colbert (and who could every match Powell and Loy?), they have wonderful chemistry and seem to have enjoyed themselves while making the movie. The bantering required from the period was unforced and natural and drew a lot of laughter from the audience when I went, including three ‘whole theatre’ outbursts.
Although Joe and Polly were obviously the focus of the film, there were some great secondary characters, mainly Giovanni Ribisi as Dex, Joe’s friend and the man who makes Sky Captain’s art-deco-tech gear. And Angelina Jolie plays the commander of a British amphibious force: a small role, but she seems to have enjoyed it and added a bit of depth to a potentially dull part. There are several good character actors, especially Mr. Djalili, a favorite in the BMM household. And in a very interesting bit of stunt casting, there is a brief cameo by Sir Laurence Olivier, who ha been dead for a more than a few years. While this could have been tacky, it not only avoids sleaze it works within the context of the movie, as well.
Much has already been written about how this film was shot entirely on soundstages in front of blue screens with very minimal sets. All I can say is, it is done superbly. Even aware of how the movie was made I was usually completely oblivious. Tight and smooth, I only ‘lost my disbelief’ in the settings in one scene, a relatively minor one. Otherwise, the locations seemed entirely believable from snowy Manhattan to steamy jungles.
The story was minimalist, but this is entirely in keeping with the source material and the genre. Pulp heroes didn’t have complicated motivations; the complexities were left to the villains and the death traps. Sky Captain is not overburdened with plot, but then again, neither was Raiders of the Lost Ark. But the story is compelling, the pacing is tight, and the dialogue snaps along.
I recommend this movie to anyone (and you can take the kids), and I heartily recommend it to fans of the pulps, the serials, or the screwball comedies of the ‘30’s.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Review: What Women Want
We will begin the reviews at Bad Movie Mogul with a movie those who know me personally won’t expect. Today we are looking at the film What Women Want (2000, Director: Nancy Meyers, Written by Josh Goldsmith and Cathy Yuspa).
The movie opens with Gigi (Lauren Holly, looking distracted) explaining how her ex-husband Nick Marshall (Mel Gibson) is ‘a real man’s man’ in a voice-over narration detailing how Nick grew up the son of a single-mother Las Vegas showgirl, raised by scantily-clad women and coarse men. This is a very cute bit as we watch a young Nick cooed over by showgirls and taught how to count by a casino cashier. Unfortunately, it was damn near the highlight of the film.
We cut to Nick as an adult bachelor ad executive in Chicago. Through brief scenes with his maid and his entry into his workplace we learn that he is a successful ad executive expecting imminent promotion to creative director. We also learn that he is boorish, crass, sexist, and totally self-absorbed. He reports to his boss, Dan (played by Alan Alda) to learn that he is not going to be the next creative director. Instead, the company has hired a woman named Darcy (Helen Hunt) to focus on the $45 billion woman-focused advertising market. Nick has heard that Darcy is a ‘man-eater’, etc., and does not want to work for her, but goes about his business. Darcy is introduced, gives all the ad execs a box of products, and sends them on their way.
In a rather funny sequence, Nick goes home and tries the various products by personal use. Soon he has volumized hair, red fingernails, is wearing pantyhose, and has learned that waxing your legs sucks. Hard. He is surprised by his daughter (Ashley Johnson), who is staying with him while her mother re-marries, and his daughter’s boyfriend. After some confusion and meant-to-be-funny moments, Nick is alone in the bathroom again. And in the key point of the beginning receives a near-fatal electrical shock from a bathroom accident. After waking up, he soon realizes that he can hear what women are thinking, letting him know what women want….
I started with this movie because I think it is a good example of how a seemingly can’t miss idea can quickly become a Bad Movie. The premise of a chauvanist who gains the ability to hear what women think of him has a lot of prospects for comedy. Helen Hunt, seen here shortly after her roles in As Good as it Gets and Twister, was box-office gold, and Mel Gibson never fails to deliver. Yet, somehow, What Women Wants is ultimately a failure.
This is a wonderful role for Gibson. With his charm and warmth he is able to take the very one-dimensional character of Nick and actually make him sympathetic. With his portrayal of Nick you realize that Nick acts the way his does with a total absence of malice; he doesn’t dislike women, he just doesn’t realize the effect of his words and actions. When he does learn how women see him, he doesn’t like it and, eventually, tries to change. Without Mel I think this movie may have been unwatchable.
I was totally underwhelmed by Helen Hunt’s portrayal of Darcy. While Ms. Hunt is a fine (and Oscar-winning actress) this movie points out her main failing – a lack of range. Darcy is described many a time as a ‘man-eater’, a ‘bitch’, the ‘Darth Vader of advertising. As a high-powered executive in the hyper-competitive world of advertising, you would expect her to be an aggressive, take-charge professional. With her portrayal, however, Darcy never seems to rise above hopeful confusion. While much of this can be chalked up to poor writing (which we’ll discuss later), the fact of the matter is that Gibson suffered from the same flat characterization and acted his way into a fleshed-out character. Hunt suffers greatly in comparison.
On the other hand, a lot of talent was wasted in throwaway roles. Bette Midler, who has great comic potential, is seen very briefly as a therapist. I was instantly hopeful that we would see a series of vignettes of Nick and his therapist – nope. She’s seen once and vanishes. Marisa Tomei also appears as a lovelorn coffee-shop girl in a role that actually paints Nick as treating women badly after he knows how to treat them well.
And that brings us to the writing. Darcy is repeatedly referred to as ‘a man eater’, aggressive, etc. And, again, you would expect a successful ad exec of either sex to be a go-getter. Instead, Darcy is portrayed as fearful, hesitant, and tentative. Even when we ‘hear’ her tell herself to be assertive, she says and/or does nothing, making her aggressiveness and ‘informed attribute’*. When an underling (Nick) seems to be going strong with an ad campaign, she doesn’t do what a creative director would do (“run with it, send it to me for approval and input”), but just wanders around the edges fitfully, letting him take all the credit and refusing to actively participate. When Alda’s character announces he has fired her it seems fitting – she did nothing to assert herself or control the situation.
The character of Nick is also inconsistent. Totally self-absorbed at the beginning, he treats Tomei’s character shabbily after he tries to improve and after he knows that his actions will hurt her. And his method of ‘making it up to her’ is to pretend he is gay, rejecting all responsibility for what he has done.
The ending (I won’t say conclusion) is a total loss. Nick’s gradual transformation to a caring person does not include being just to Darcy until a sudden last-minute conversion – after he is already in love with her! Darcy gets her job back because Nick gets it back for her – she is totally passive. His reward is to be fired by Darcy for telling her the truth. Although he transformed her unspoken thoughts into slogans, did the work of creating the ads, etc., he is a cad for doing so and is punished for admitting it. But then Hunt’s character ‘saves’ him.
I guess my biggest problem about this movie is, interestingly, its portrayal of women. Darcy is totally passive. Even after firing Nick, she immediately calls him back to join her life. None of the other women ever confront Nick for his bad behavior. The character of Erin, a mousy girl contemplating suicide because she is ignored, never does anything. Nick breezes in, offers her a job (which gives her a reason to live) and she vanishes again. Nick’s daughter Alex (another female character with a masculine name) goes along with her boyfriend’s desires to have sex until the last minute. She does say no, but is devastated emotionally and needs rescuing by Nick. Rather than displaying the reconnection of Nick with his estranged child, it paints Alex as totally dependent upon men.
My next biggest problem is in its portrayal of men. When Nick learns what women wants be begins to act more like how the writers think women act. He no longer watches sports (or actively dislikes them), cries at TV shows, ‘hangs out’ with ‘the girls’, and otherwise also becomes passive. The clear message is that men are insensitive cads and the only way to be ‘good’ is to reject the masculine. Seemingly men can’t like sports, be strong-minded, and be decent to women at the same time. The writers constrain people to being jerks or wimps with no middle ground of maturity.
A wholly unsatisfying experience, despite some early humor.
*All special Movie Nomenclature courtesy of the High Priest of Jabootu
The movie opens with Gigi (Lauren Holly, looking distracted) explaining how her ex-husband Nick Marshall (Mel Gibson) is ‘a real man’s man’ in a voice-over narration detailing how Nick grew up the son of a single-mother Las Vegas showgirl, raised by scantily-clad women and coarse men. This is a very cute bit as we watch a young Nick cooed over by showgirls and taught how to count by a casino cashier. Unfortunately, it was damn near the highlight of the film.
We cut to Nick as an adult bachelor ad executive in Chicago. Through brief scenes with his maid and his entry into his workplace we learn that he is a successful ad executive expecting imminent promotion to creative director. We also learn that he is boorish, crass, sexist, and totally self-absorbed. He reports to his boss, Dan (played by Alan Alda) to learn that he is not going to be the next creative director. Instead, the company has hired a woman named Darcy (Helen Hunt) to focus on the $45 billion woman-focused advertising market. Nick has heard that Darcy is a ‘man-eater’, etc., and does not want to work for her, but goes about his business. Darcy is introduced, gives all the ad execs a box of products, and sends them on their way.
In a rather funny sequence, Nick goes home and tries the various products by personal use. Soon he has volumized hair, red fingernails, is wearing pantyhose, and has learned that waxing your legs sucks. Hard. He is surprised by his daughter (Ashley Johnson), who is staying with him while her mother re-marries, and his daughter’s boyfriend. After some confusion and meant-to-be-funny moments, Nick is alone in the bathroom again. And in the key point of the beginning receives a near-fatal electrical shock from a bathroom accident. After waking up, he soon realizes that he can hear what women are thinking, letting him know what women want….
I started with this movie because I think it is a good example of how a seemingly can’t miss idea can quickly become a Bad Movie. The premise of a chauvanist who gains the ability to hear what women think of him has a lot of prospects for comedy. Helen Hunt, seen here shortly after her roles in As Good as it Gets and Twister, was box-office gold, and Mel Gibson never fails to deliver. Yet, somehow, What Women Wants is ultimately a failure.
This is a wonderful role for Gibson. With his charm and warmth he is able to take the very one-dimensional character of Nick and actually make him sympathetic. With his portrayal of Nick you realize that Nick acts the way his does with a total absence of malice; he doesn’t dislike women, he just doesn’t realize the effect of his words and actions. When he does learn how women see him, he doesn’t like it and, eventually, tries to change. Without Mel I think this movie may have been unwatchable.
I was totally underwhelmed by Helen Hunt’s portrayal of Darcy. While Ms. Hunt is a fine (and Oscar-winning actress) this movie points out her main failing – a lack of range. Darcy is described many a time as a ‘man-eater’, a ‘bitch’, the ‘Darth Vader of advertising. As a high-powered executive in the hyper-competitive world of advertising, you would expect her to be an aggressive, take-charge professional. With her portrayal, however, Darcy never seems to rise above hopeful confusion. While much of this can be chalked up to poor writing (which we’ll discuss later), the fact of the matter is that Gibson suffered from the same flat characterization and acted his way into a fleshed-out character. Hunt suffers greatly in comparison.
On the other hand, a lot of talent was wasted in throwaway roles. Bette Midler, who has great comic potential, is seen very briefly as a therapist. I was instantly hopeful that we would see a series of vignettes of Nick and his therapist – nope. She’s seen once and vanishes. Marisa Tomei also appears as a lovelorn coffee-shop girl in a role that actually paints Nick as treating women badly after he knows how to treat them well.
And that brings us to the writing. Darcy is repeatedly referred to as ‘a man eater’, aggressive, etc. And, again, you would expect a successful ad exec of either sex to be a go-getter. Instead, Darcy is portrayed as fearful, hesitant, and tentative. Even when we ‘hear’ her tell herself to be assertive, she says and/or does nothing, making her aggressiveness and ‘informed attribute’*. When an underling (Nick) seems to be going strong with an ad campaign, she doesn’t do what a creative director would do (“run with it, send it to me for approval and input”), but just wanders around the edges fitfully, letting him take all the credit and refusing to actively participate. When Alda’s character announces he has fired her it seems fitting – she did nothing to assert herself or control the situation.
The character of Nick is also inconsistent. Totally self-absorbed at the beginning, he treats Tomei’s character shabbily after he tries to improve and after he knows that his actions will hurt her. And his method of ‘making it up to her’ is to pretend he is gay, rejecting all responsibility for what he has done.
The ending (I won’t say conclusion) is a total loss. Nick’s gradual transformation to a caring person does not include being just to Darcy until a sudden last-minute conversion – after he is already in love with her! Darcy gets her job back because Nick gets it back for her – she is totally passive. His reward is to be fired by Darcy for telling her the truth. Although he transformed her unspoken thoughts into slogans, did the work of creating the ads, etc., he is a cad for doing so and is punished for admitting it. But then Hunt’s character ‘saves’ him.
I guess my biggest problem about this movie is, interestingly, its portrayal of women. Darcy is totally passive. Even after firing Nick, she immediately calls him back to join her life. None of the other women ever confront Nick for his bad behavior. The character of Erin, a mousy girl contemplating suicide because she is ignored, never does anything. Nick breezes in, offers her a job (which gives her a reason to live) and she vanishes again. Nick’s daughter Alex (another female character with a masculine name) goes along with her boyfriend’s desires to have sex until the last minute. She does say no, but is devastated emotionally and needs rescuing by Nick. Rather than displaying the reconnection of Nick with his estranged child, it paints Alex as totally dependent upon men.
My next biggest problem is in its portrayal of men. When Nick learns what women wants be begins to act more like how the writers think women act. He no longer watches sports (or actively dislikes them), cries at TV shows, ‘hangs out’ with ‘the girls’, and otherwise also becomes passive. The clear message is that men are insensitive cads and the only way to be ‘good’ is to reject the masculine. Seemingly men can’t like sports, be strong-minded, and be decent to women at the same time. The writers constrain people to being jerks or wimps with no middle ground of maturity.
A wholly unsatisfying experience, despite some early humor.
*All special Movie Nomenclature courtesy of the High Priest of Jabootu
Why another movie review site?
I love movies. I love drama, comedy, action, horror, farce, slasher, indie, blockbuster; you name it. And I have a warm spot in my heart for films that mainstream critics call ‘bad’ – Friday the 13th, Brain Donors, Critters 4. On the other hand, I really, really dislike some films that are quite popular – Con Air, Titanic, and more.
I love movies because they are a virtually unique art form. The collaborative effort of perhaps thousands of professionals and amateurs who work together to make a public art form that is very personal for their audience. Unable to be made without a team effort, they nonetheless are undeniably strongly shaped by the individual actors, directors, composers, and others that make them.
Here at BMM I am going to review films, tell you what I like and what I don’t like, and explain the why of both. Why make another review site? Mainly because I like reviews almost as much as I like movies. I like to see how movies have touched others on intellectual and emotional levels. I learn new things about the movies I have already seen and can look for things I otherwise would have missed in movies I will watch later.
I hope I can give you insights into these movies and help you see new things in movies you are familiar with. I will at least try to warn you about movies you might want to give a miss and encourage you to see good movies you might otherwise not consider. And I encourage you to suggest movies to me for review; the more obscure, the better.
I love movies because they are a virtually unique art form. The collaborative effort of perhaps thousands of professionals and amateurs who work together to make a public art form that is very personal for their audience. Unable to be made without a team effort, they nonetheless are undeniably strongly shaped by the individual actors, directors, composers, and others that make them.
Here at BMM I am going to review films, tell you what I like and what I don’t like, and explain the why of both. Why make another review site? Mainly because I like reviews almost as much as I like movies. I like to see how movies have touched others on intellectual and emotional levels. I learn new things about the movies I have already seen and can look for things I otherwise would have missed in movies I will watch later.
I hope I can give you insights into these movies and help you see new things in movies you are familiar with. I will at least try to warn you about movies you might want to give a miss and encourage you to see good movies you might otherwise not consider. And I encourage you to suggest movies to me for review; the more obscure, the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)