Vic & Walter Thiessen - On Movies...

2009-07-02T06:52:00.006-04:00

Music Within

2009-07-02T06:52:00.005-04:00

Okay, people are starting to wonder if I ever watch movies anymore. The sad answer is - not enough. And it's summer. Not to be too negative, but part of the reason is that on a couple of occasions when we had the opportunity to go to a theatre, I couldn't find anything playing that I wanted to see.

It's also easier to reflect on a movie that was either great or lousy, and the dvd's I've been watching have usually been neither. So here are a few thoughts on one of those in-between kind of movies. Music Within is an interesting movie and the viewers and reviewers seem to have been relatively kind to it. It's a true story about a man, Richard Pimental, deafened by the war who becomes an important advocate of disability rights. It's a good story worth knowing.

For the most part, however, the movie doesn't do anything to be more than ok. The one exception is the relationship between Richard and a man with CP he becomes friends with at college, which is a highlight. Otherwise it oversimplifies the story and falls into some predictable traps. One of those is focusing on a couple of jerky reactions to disabled individuals - both undoubtedly true stories - but they hardly seem to be representative reactions even in those days. The scene in the restaurant is one example, but if you're listening closely you realise later that they had eaten in this restaurant on many occasions in the past, apparently without incident. This is misleading for a true story in a way that I do not grant license for effect. Another complaint is that when you watch the special features and listen to the real Richard Pimental tell his story (which is worth doing), you see that he is way funnier than in the movie. Why not use that?

So I'll give it *** just to signify that it's worth watching, but it was something of a disappointment.

Katyn

2009-06-29T07:51:00.002-04:00

I’m on a roll, having seen my third excellent film in a row in a year which had previously not been very inspiring (and I’ve said enough about the summer blockbusters).

Katyn tells the true story of the massacre of Polish military officers during WWII. The story is told in original ways and from various viewpoints but is nonetheless what I would call a great old-fashioned epic with brilliant acting and amazing cinematography. The director is Andrzej Wajda, whose father died in the massacre, which makes it all the more amazing that this powerful drama is not at all sentimental. Wajda is one of the most influential filmmakers in Poland and yet I have never seen anything he made. Obviously that was a mistake. At the age of 83, he is still capable of making what may be my favourite film of the year thus far. Note: While not having seen Wajda’s films, I have seen the results of some of his influence, having seen all of Kieslowski’s films (Kieslowski is one of my favourite European directors).

At its heart, Katyn is about truth-telling, about exposing one piece of the true history of a nation which suffered so much in the last century and whose people were constantly forced to bury the truth, or to re-remember the truth in an Orwellian sense. For me, such truth-telling is, like humanization, one of the most important roles film can play in our time. When it is done with the almost flawless craft of Katyn, we have filmmaking at its finest. And when the nation involved is one which is part of my ancestral history both in terms of location and blood (ancestors named Sawatzky), it is particularly meaningful. **** My mug is held up high.

Looking for Eric

2009-06-19T12:49:00.001-04:00

Ken Loach is one of UK’s best filmmakers and once again he has made a gem. In a summer full of thoughtless action and comedy flicks, it’s so nice to have something intelligent and beautifully acted to watch. By turns sad and funny, dark and genuinely heart-warming, Looking for Eric is a very different kind of film that suggests there may be something redeeming about being a British football fan (even a Manchester United fan). It’s the story of one man’s difficult journey out of years of depression and it is full of quiet wisdom. North Americans may not get a chance to see this, but if you can, don’t miss it. This will almost certainly make my top ten films of the year. **** My mug is way up for the second film in a row.

Anything For Her

2009-06-08T06:48:00.008-04:00

While the masses are chowing down on Hollywood junk food like Terminator Salvation, Night at the Museum 2 and Angels & Demons, the really good films are being made here in Europe and being watched by only a few – those who prefer great acting, tight direction, intelligent thought-provoking screenplays, and real atmosphere to brainless action and silly humour.

Let the Right One In (made in Sweden; photo on right), which I saw last week, had all of the good qualities mentioned above. But it is an incredibly dark (in every way) horror film about 12-year old kids. I’m not a big fan of horror or films about kids, so this will not rank among my favourites of the year, but there is no question that this is a brilliant film and far better than what’s coming out of Hollywood.

Anything For Her, directed by Fred Cavayé, also has all of the good qualities listed above. It’s a French thriller unlike any thriller I have ever seen (what a huge compliment right there). What do you do if you’re an ordinary school teacher whose wife has been sentenced to twenty years in prison for a murder she did not commit and you have exhausted all avenues of appeal and are left taking care of the two-year-old son and worrying about a suicidal wife. I can almost see myself doing exactly what Julien (played magnificently by Vincent Lindon) does, contemplating sacrificing everything that we mean by a decent settled life in order to save his wife. This film works best as a drama rather than a thriller and has my favourite dramatic scene of the year in it, but the thriller part works for me as well (though it’s really quite implausible and there is one very violent scene). With a series of coincidences constantly helping or hindering him, it plays out like some kind of war in heaven and the tension is non-stop, with some great suspense near the end. Unlike the many other implausible films I have seen this year, I generally felt that it was the protagonist, not the film, that was being stupid.

Anything For Her is a fairly short film and yet only feels rushed near the end (when it’s supposed to feel rushed). It has time to give us a real sense of Julien’s desperation as well as the family dynamics which play a key underlying role in the film. It’s an example of what thrillers and films in general can be if they are not aimed primarily at fifteen-year-old boys.

Anything For Her is so far my favourite film made in 2009. Finally, finally a film that did not disappoint me (as almost everything else I have seen this year has done). **** My mug is up.

Angels & Demons

2009-05-23T10:35:00.003-04:00

Okay, I was obviously too hard on Star Trek. After watching Angels & Demons and another summer blockbuster I am not yet allowed to name, and hearing about Terminator Salvation, it could very well be that Star Trek is by far the best action film this season will offer, in which case I should have spent a little more time singing its praises instead of primarily expressing my disappointments. Sorry, J.J.

It won’t take long to sing the praises of Angels & Demons (sorry, Ron). The score was better than the one in Da Vinci Code (though Hans Zimmer used the same basic themes), the setting and cinematography as strong as in Da Vinci Code and the acting as mediocre as in Da Vinci Code (though Armin Mueller-Stahl was as great as ever in a supporting role). But the story, the all-important story, was a snooze-fest (I’m so glad I didn’t waste my time reading the book, which I’m sure must have been even worse than Dan Brown’s poorly written though at least occasionally fascinating Da Vinci Code). I found the Illuminati church-chase an interminable bore. And the surprise ending was one of the most predictable (and telegraphed) in the history of film. Unlike the critics, I actually rather liked The Da Vinci Code, but Angels & Demons ranks among the worst films I’ve seen in the past year.

What about its “message”, namely that science and religion (or faith) can coexist? Yeah, okay, but a nice obvious message conveyed in a very simplistic way doesn’t do much for me either. I prefer the crazy religious ideas of The Da Vinci Code, which are at least a little thought-provoking.

NEVERTHELESS, Angels & Demons did have one redeeming factor: it had a few marvellous quotes (I’m not sure whether or not this is a sarcastic statement). To begin with, in the “truer words were never spoken” category, we have the killer telling our hero: “Be careful – these are men of God”. If only he had been listening to himself talk! Then, in the “if only it were true” category, we have Ewan McGregor (who should try another musical) saying the Catholic Church is “a simple brotherhood who want nothing more than to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control.” And finally we have the best line in the film, which is also in the first category above, with the added “if only people believed it”. The line goes something like: “Religion is flawed. Because men are flawed – all of them!” Amen!

Angels & Demons proves that this is also true of filmmakers, actors and writers. This film is, unfortunately, one of many this season which will prove my point below about mindless action. I’m not planning to waste my time on most of them, so I should be careful not to call Angels & Demons one of the worst. But I really can’t give this film more than **+. My mug is down.

Moon

2009-05-16T06:47:00.001-04:00

Who would have thought that just a few days after asking for a quiet intelligent science fiction film, I would actually get to see one. Moon is a low-budget indie film (rare enough for science fiction) starring Sam Rockwell as a man working alone on the moon for three years, overseeing a largely automatic mining operation. Strange things start to happen and Sam begins to suspect that his robot/computer sidekick (voiced by Kevin Spacey) knows more than he’s telling.

Moon reminds me of Solaris and 2001 and Silent Running but the story is unlike any of those. The story does remind me of another sci-fi film, but I can’t mention it without giving away a major surprise element in the plot. Moon is a very quiet film, with only one actor on the screen for most of it, but there is a consistent level of suspense, a thought-provoking story, a strong sci-fi feel and, thankfully, a good acting job by the one actor, Sam Rockwell.

Still, Moon is not perfect. The one-man show doesn’t always work and the plot is neither as tight nor as intelligent as it could be. But for a low-budget film from a first-time director (Duncan Jones), this is an excellent effort and, for me, just as entertaining as Star Trek, which probably cost hundreds of times more. ***+

Star Trek

2009-05-12T07:31:00.003-04:00

I first fell in love with Kirk, Spock and Bones back in 1966 (What’s that? No, of course I’m not that old! I was watching from my crib.); I was among the earliest generation of Trekkies. The original Star Trek series filled me with a sense of wonder and with optimism about the future of humanity. It engaged both my mind and my heart on a regular basis. Despite the laughable sets and special effects (no doubt very innovative for their time), Star Trek felt like sci-fi – like I really was in a future world where interplanetary travel was commonplace. It regularly sent tingles up and down my spine. And despite the hokey acting and plots, the characters quickly became like family to me. Star Trek (The Original Series) remains one of my all-time favourite TV shows.

When Kirk, Spock and McKoy were translated to the big screen back in 1979, I was slightly disappointed by the way the more polished sets and special effects actually diminished some of the sci-fi feel (though the first, and least popular, film was the best in this regard), but I very much enjoyed those first four Star Trek films. Then things started to go downhill.

I would love to report that the new Star Trek film by J.J. Abrams (writer/director of Alias and LOST) is a return to form, especially since it has been getting such great reviews. But sadly that is not the case.

Yes, the filmmakers have done a great job of casting lookalikes of all the Star Trek regulars and of making them completely believable as the younger versions of the original characters. The interaction between these characters is certainly the highlight of the film, though I would have wished for more of Bones (maybe in the sequels). When the film focused on the characters and the often humorous dialogue between them, it had my complete attention (I particularly enjoyed the scenes with Leonard Nimoy). Unfortunately, the film was not dominated by characters or dialogue but by action. This was clearly a Star Trek made for the 21st century – all action and great special effects for those with short attention spans and very little substance. Just as I prefer quiet, intelligent thrillers, I prefer quiet intelligent science fiction films. This was not one of them. The action, violence and overwhelming soundtrack (sound effects and score) so dominated the film that I found little room for wonder and rarely felt that I was watching a real sci-fi film. And there was almost nothing to engage my mind; instead of interesting philosophical ideas, all we were given was the usual Spock/Kirk engagement on emotions versus logic. This was an interesting part of the plot but hardly anything new.

I won’t comment much on the time travel/alternate reality plot. This clever if illogical device allows the filmmakers to disregard the Star Trek timeline and do their own thing with our beloved characters. I don’t mind if this allows for some creative new storytelling. But that’s not what we get here.

I mentioned that the original series filled me with optimism about the future of humanity. This film does not do that. Instead of convincing me that humanity has basically set aside the need for wars and violence (and yes, I know the original series was often very ambiguous and hypocritical in this regard), it left me with the feeling that not much had changed during the intervening centuries – it’s still all about who has the biggest weapons or at least the most clever use of weapons. This is a dark film about what still seems to be a dark time. The careless and insulting way that the demise of the Romulans is depicted (almost as a joke between Kirk and Spock at the film’s darkest minute) shows how little the filmmakers have thought about their message in this regard.

Star Trek, the 2009 film, is an engaging bit of pop entertainment by one of the big pop entertainers of our time, J.J. Abrams. Does Abrams, who clearly has his fingers on the pulse of the masses, represent the direction of entertainment in the 21st century? His LOST TV series is the most popular TV show of the century. I watch LOST. I enjoy LOST. The intriguing plot and well-made flashbacks give hope that this series is intelligent and humanizing and worth watching, but far too often I get the feeling that the show makers are just manipulating the audience and do not have a clear idea of where they are going. It’s not about making us think or care but about making us come back week after week. And, like Star Trek, it relies far too much on violence as a necessary part of what constitutes entertainment. I, for one, am not entertained by violence or by action, but by the engagement of my mind and my heart. The offerings at the multiplexes this summer fill me with despair. Is mindless action and toilet humour really what we want our children to grow up with? Let’s demand more from those who make our films and TV shows (Aaron Sorkin, how are you at sci-fi?).

I give Star Trek an objective rating of ***+ because I think that is what the film deserves as a piece of fun entertainment but a subjective rating of *** because of my disappointment. My mug is up but the stuff inside, while spicy, lacks any real flavour.

State of Play

2009-05-08T13:00:00.001-04:00

Do I love subtle sophisticated intelligent political thrillers involving a well-played protagonist trying to fight the system and expose the truth? You know I do. And if you add a decent level of characterization, an intriguing script in which Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, Duplicity) was involved in the writing, the sure direction of Kevin Macdonald (Last King of Scotland), a wonderful gritty film-nourish atmosphere, an excellent score, and some great acting by most (Ben Affleck should stick to writing/directing) of the cast (including Russell Crowe, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren, Jeff Daniels and Robin Wright Penn), you surely must have a winner.

Yes, indeed, State of Play had all the makings for being one of the best films of the year. The failure of the ending to deliver the goods therefore comes as a very bitter disappointment. The ending is so important to me (and, I assume, to most people) and if it doesn’t work, the whole movie can die. Maybe it’s because there were three writers and Gilroy should have done it by himself. Or maybe he was the one responsible and everyone thought he would know best. Whatever, the ending did not satisfy me at all and I am tempted to demote the film to an average three stars.

But I loved the atmosphere, I loved the controlled use of action, I loved the suspense and I loved the interaction between Crowe, McAdams and Mirren so much that I must give State of Play ***+ for effort and set my anger aside. My mug is up but there are some bitter dregs near the bottom.

A Day at the Movies

2009-04-08T18:08:00.004-04:00

It’s been a long time since I got to watch a double-header and I was not disappointed, enjoying both films more than the average critic.

Knowing
Sure, the plot is rather preposterous, a combination of a bizarre disaster flick and horror/science fiction. It can’t help but remind one of M. Night Shyamalan films, which is not always a good thing (though I also enjoy his films more than the average critic). And the acting is not very impressive, though the critics are too hard on poor Nicolas Cage (I’ve seen much worse). But you have to keep in mind that my top priority is neither the plot nor the acting – it is the WOW factor, something that was desperately lacking in the films of 2008. Both the recent The International and Knowing, neither of which are that good in other ways, get high marks for the WOW factor and that makes them very much worth watching in my book, especially on the big screen.

The other thing that made Knowing so intriguing for me was the theme of randomness versus determinism. This theme is introduced and then largely evaded, but it is still fascinating to consider. The ending, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and appreciated on many levels, begs more questions than it answers, but WOW endings are all too rare and therefore precious to me. Then of course there is the religious element (specifically referring to Ezekiel’s vision), also interesting to consider and making this a very discussable film. Finally, the cinematography was, for me, perfect throughout, and the music, while occasionally over the top, also worked well for me.

Alex Proyas, the director of Knowing, made one of my all-time favourite films ten years ago (Dark City). Knowing contains some similar themes, though it is inferior in almost every way. Still, the fact that critics panned this film while I quite enjoyed it (leaving believability at the door) shows that Proyas has an ability to connect with me and I will look forward to what he does next (maybe he should stick to having a single writer next time).

I will take the risk of losing some credibility and give Knowing ***+.

Duplicity

As I have said before, I am a fan of calm, intelligent, sophisticated thrillers, so I also very much enjoyed Duplicity. While not quite up to the level of Tony Gilroy’s last outing, Michael Clayton, which was one of my favourite films of 2007, Duplicity nevertheless flowed very nicely, with beautiful locations and cinematography. It featured some good acting by Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Paul Giamatti and Carrie Preston (in a small scene-stealing role) and it managed to thwart all my efforts to anticipate the ending (it felt like a bit of a cheat, but fooling me is the important thing). ***+

All in all, a very good day at the movies. More reviews coming this week.

Henry Poole is Here

2009-02-17T17:06:00.004-04:00

This is a movie that I saw too late to add to my top ten list. It definitely would have been on it. It's the style of quirky comedy drama that I'm always on the lookout for, and in this case I think it's an effective parable on the risks of faith and hope.

Some, no doubt, will not like the positivity of the movie (but they are probably taking it overly literally), while others might find the consistent undertone of sadness and isolation difficult. The fact that both of these are possible is part of why I love it. They make a brilliant decision of not providing much information at all on the characters (an odd reference on imdb to a backstory that is not at all referred to in the movie makes one wonder if there were some late deleted scenes, but they are not included on the dvd). This minimalist style enhances its parabolic feel. You could almost imagine a Jesus-like teacher telling the story..."There was a man lost in hopeless sadness...." We don't need to know all the reasons for his sadness - we all know plenty enough to know it happens to people.

The acting, the tone, the composition, the pacing - these all work very well for me. Somehow I didn't find the comic moments and the depth of sadness were at all at odds with each other. The only place I felt needed tweaking were the last five minutes. It felt like some of the skillful nuancing was lost. But a wonderful movie - **** and a full mug up from me.

Frost/Nixon

2009-01-29T17:00:00.002-04:00

Ron Howard’s film is excellent, with an amazing performance by Frank Langella as Richard Nixon, a beautifully-written screenplay, fine camera work and an incredible ability to turn a television interview, with a known outcome, into a work of nail-biting suspense. The last 45 minutes are marvellous.

Still, the film is not perfect. For me, using “live” interviews of various lesser characters to make the film feel like a documentary was unnecessary and distracted from the rest of the film (which is not filmed like a documentary). A great effort, worthy of a solid ***+ and a mug full of the good stuff.

I was worried that Frost/Nixon might have made it into my top ten of 2008 if I had been able to see it a week earlier, and I was right to be worried. But at least it would not have broken into my top seven.

Vic's Top Ten Films of 2008

2009-01-21T07:51:00.007-04:00

It was another good year for films, though not outstanding. In particular, it was a good year for animated films. There are two animated films in my top ten of 2008 and they don’t even include WALL-E (sorry Walter and Gareth). WALL-E is a great film and I thoroughly enjoyed it – it’s probably my eleventh favourite film of the year – but it was just a little too lightweight (and had just a little too much Disney redemptive violence) to make my top ten. If I hadn’t been forced to include two 2007 films which were released in the UK in 2008, then maybe WALL-E would be number nine. Of course, there are major 2008 films (e.g. Frost/Nixon and Revolutionary Road) which still haven’t been released in the UK, so this is a problem that comes up every year.

I do want to mention one other film that should be in my top ten films of 2008. I left it off of my list because it was never officially released in the UK (or even in the U.S.). It’s a French-Canadian film, originally released in 2007, called Days of Darkness (Canada’s English title). This is the latest film by Denys Arcand, my favourite Canadian director, who has made classics like Jesus of Montreal and The Barbarian Invasions. I loved this film (it was the “wow” film of the year for me), which takes place in Montreal in some very near future. It’s hilarious, thought-provoking and perceptive, with a great lead performance by Jean-Marc Leblanc. What a shame that so few have had the opportunity to see it (though I already own the DVD, so the opportunity is out there).

Most of my top ten films have been reviewed on this blog, with my full-length review of my favourite film of 2008 just below the list.

Anyway, here are my top ten films of 2008, counting down:

10. My Winnipeg
This only made my top ten because I grew up in Winnipeg at exactly the same time that Guy Maddin grew up in Winnipeg, so the film connected at a deep level, even though it wasn’t generally my kind of film. It is, however, a gorgeous, surreal, insightful and funny docu-fantasia that I am eager to watch again.

9. Persepolis
With the attempted demonization of Iran in 2008, what could be timelier than a film which humanises Iranians and tells us about the country they live in. Based on her graphic novels, this black and white animated film from Marjane Satrapi is a moving and beautifully-told story of a fascinating young life.

8. In the Valley of Elah
My favourite thriller of the year, this is a subtle, quiet and intelligent film with an outstanding performance by Tommy Lee Jones and superb understated performances by Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon.

7. Happy-Go-Lucky
Mike Leigh does it again with this wonderful life-affirming film which provides us with an inspiring role model who makes us ask how our attitudes and actions affect the lives of those around us.

6. Milk
Fuelled by Sean Penn’s terrific performance as Harvey Milk, a gay activist in 1970s San Francisco, Milk is an incredibly well-made and inspiring political drama based on real-life events.

5. Waltz With Bashir
Another timely, brilliant animated film based on real-life events, Ari Folman’s Waltz With Bashir is about an Israeli soldier in the Lebanon War of 1983 and combines deep psychological insights with a strong anti-war message. This horrific but humanising story is gorgeous to watch.

4. Doubt
With brilliant performances, magnificent scenes and the most intelligent thought-provoking screenplay of the year, this film by John Patrick Shanley probes deeply into questions about doubt, progress and human nature.

3. The Visitor
Profoundly moving without being sentimental, this incredibly subtle film by Tom McCarthy is the most humanising film of the year, and it looks gorgeous.

2. The Edge of Heaven
Fatih Akin’s film about people learning to see things differently by encountering those “on the other side” (the original German title) features marvellous natural performances and beautiful cinematography.

1. U23D
This passionate plea for the world’s religions to lead the way in making the world a more just and peaceful place is the most inspiring and hopeful film of the year and, just for good measure, it throws in some of the best rock songs ever written. Arguably the best concert, and concert film, of all time.

U23D Review
Back in the mid-eighties, someone told me about a unique Christian rock band from Dublin with a passion for peace and justice. This sounded distinctly promising to me and from my first exposure to the albums War and The Unforgettable Fire (followed by the magnificent The Joshua Tree), I have been a huge fan of U2.

Arguably the greatest rock band of all time, U2 has maintained its passion for peace and justice and some of its Christian roots and is sharing these with a new generation of fans. This is clearly evidenced in U23D, a filmed version of U2’s 2006 Latin American concert tour released earlier this year.

U23D is, as its title states, a 3D film, requiring 3D glasses and a digital cinema, and, from a technological standpoint, the film is brilliant. The filmmakers have done a marvellous job of editing the concert footage into what seems like just one concert and of making each member of the band (Bono, The Edge, Adam Clayton, Larry Mullen Jr.) stand out in his own special way. More importantly, you are frequently placed in the audience in such a way that you feel you are there, in Buenos Aires, bouncing up and down in the midst of the undulating crowd. This would be a great film experience even if you were not watching one of the best concerts ever given, but you are doing exactly that.

The concert opens with “Vertigo”, a song about temptation and about God (“I can feel your love … teaching me how to kneel”), and closes with “Yahweh”, a prayer for each of us and for the cities we live in. Between these recent songs, which show the ongoing influence of U2’s Christian/spiritual roots, we have a collection of U2’s very best songs conveying a passionate plea to the world’s religions, the world’s nations, and the world’s people to work together for peace and social justice - to make the world a better place.

My favourite parts of the film are the close-ups of the youngish crowd, in stadiums in Mexico City, Santiago, Sao Paolo, and Buenos Aires, passionately singing along. You can see in their faces, in the tears streaming from their eyes, that they not only adore U2, they also have broken hearts which desperately long for the peace and justice which U2 is crying for. This is all the more poignant when one considers how these Latin American countries have suffered in the past forty years, with countless millions driven into poverty by what Naomi Klein, in her new bestseller, The Shock Doctrine, calls corporatism, a form of capitalism very popular today that always results in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Personally, I can imagine few more inspiring and hopeful things in the world than seeing young people literally crying for a better world and being encouraged to expose and challenge the Domination System which is standing in the way.

With a global reach which includes at least a billion people, U2 has the taken up the challenge of inspiring generations to struggle for a better world where human life is properly valued. U23D is a marvellous, moving and life-affirming film.

The Wrestler

2009-01-20T09:14:00.001-04:00

The Wrestler does not start in a way that’s likely to impress me, with grainy hand-held camera work and wrestling (I don’t hate wrestling as much as Who Wants to be a Millionaire or highwire walking, but it’s close). But then the grainy cinematography became the perfect way to show the real and ordinary and depressed life of this troubled and desperately-lonely man in the midst of a real and ordinary lower class environment full of real and ordinary people. That worked very well for me indeed, especially with Mickey Rourke’s magnificent performance (his performance in Sin City was one of my favourite of a few years ago). And no one watching a Darren Aronofsky film is likely to think they are going to see a feel-good film, so the relentless misery of The Wrestler is hardly surprising. Still, my enjoyment of the film stops at a deep appreciation of such a real-life honest story. A solid ***+, but it won’t make my top ten of 2008, which is coming tomorrow.

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-01-18T18:29:00.002-04:00

What am I missing? EVERYONE loves Slumdog Millionaire. The critics love it (my favourite critic, Roger Ebert, called it a masterpiece). Walter loves it. The masses love it. So why didn’t I love it? Could it be because I hate Who Wants to be a Millionaire even more than highwire walking? Quite possibly, since that game show is a core plot element throughout and my hatred for the show had to interfere with my objectivity.

I certainly agree that Slumdog Millionaire is a brilliantly-made film. The cinematography is outstanding, the acting is very good, the direction and editing are almost flawless and I loved the Mumbai setting and the insight it gives us into lives of people in India. It also has moments of great humour, enough for most comedies these days, even though this is most certainly not a comedy. And perhaps that is where the film loses me. One critic wrote that this is the “feel-good film of the year”. I was appalled by this. I didn’t feel good at all. I found it to be a very dark film and far more violent than I ever would have guessed it would be. I like to be surprised by a film (which is why I go in knowing absolutely nothing) but most of the surprises in Slumdog Millionaire left me cold.

Too many little parts of the story just didn’t work for me. For example, this is a film about serendipity, or the “mystical flow” as I call it, and that alone might have suggested this would be one of my favourite films of the year, but this plot element involved that incredibly stupid game show and so I could not appreciate it at all.

My review is harsh because this film has been so popular and won the Golden Globe. I just don’t think it’s that good. Nevertheless, I do think it deserves ***+, though it will not make my top ten of 2008.

My mug is up but the stuff inside is a tad too bitter for me.

Waltz With Bashir

2009-01-17T10:42:00.001-04:00

Could any film be more timely? Waltz With Bashir is a brilliant animated film in the tradition of Richard Linklater’s Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly, both of which rank in my favourite films of all time. This film is about an Israeli soldier in the Lebanon War of 1983 and combines deep psychological insights with a strong anti-war message (how could I not love it). Specifically, this film tells the story of an Israeli soldier trying to remember his participation in a horrific massacre of Palestinians in 1983. It does not go into the political issues, which is possibly wise in that it was made with Israeli government support and will probably get a much more sympathetic viewing in Israel as a result, but it is this wishy-washy ending (politically) which kept Waltz With Bashir out of my top three films of the year.

But I still loved it. The animation is absolutely perfect for this kind of film and gorgeous to watch, even as it concerns such a horrific story. What happens at the very end of the film is also spot-on. The psychological journey on which we are led by Israeli filmmaker Ari Folman is likewise spot-on. This is a film that wowed me and kept me absolutely glued to the screen throughout.

For those of us who have been appalled at the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and who see this oppression as one of the key factors in world violence in the past forty years, it is important to be put into the shoes of an Israeli soldier from time to time. This is humanisation at its best, and although the film doesn’t show much of the Palestinian people who are the victims of the massacre, it nevertheless tries to humanise them as well. By concentrating on the psychological tragedy and humanisation, the film becomes clearly anti-war. It also (like The Reader) asks about the guilt of those who allow genocide to happen, whether it be the Germans in World War II or the Israelis in the 20th century. Bringing the Nazis into this kind of film was a bold move indeed, for it invites thought/comparison about how the Jews who suffered so much oppression at the hand of the Nazis could now inflict so much suffering on the Palestinians. If the film had gone just a little farther in its consideration of this, it might have said more to the current situation in Gaza, but it is still unbelievably timely (though it hasn’t had much impact on the Israeli government as far as I can tell). I still give Waltz With Bashir **** and it may still make my top five of 2008.

My mug is way up

Three Recent Viewings

2009-01-13T15:20:00.004-04:00

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Long, slow, gorgeous, mesmerizing. By the end of this David Fincher film, I had completely forgotten where I was, so either the film had drawn me in so completely or it had put me to sleep. Let’s be generous and go with the former. It was an absorbing old-fashioned epic that makes you believe the unbelievable. I particularly enjoyed the first half of the film, when Button is still an older man, and the fantastic period detail throughout. The cinematography is outstanding. Brad Pitt does a fine job as Button, and Cate Blanchett is always good. But the film was just too long for me (i.e. the story just didn’t have enough strong content to sustain it for that long). There is a discussion to be had here about the meaning of life from a B.B. point of view, but it needs to be done in person. Maybe it would help if I watched it backwards? ***+

Vicky Christina Barcelona

Strange little film by Woody Allen somehow got the critics loving him again, but I, who am a huge Allen fan, did not think it was one of his best, though I certainly enjoyed it. The acting is very good, the cinematography is gorgeous, the setting is one I like, and I particularly enjoyed the constant voice-overs. But the plot didn’t really work for me. I think the story could have been much tighter (I couldn’t always tell if it was trying to be silly or just being silly) and the dialogue could have been more intelligent (for an Allen film). It won the Golden Globe for best comedy and I am happy for Woody, but I thought Happy-Go-Lucky and In Bruges were better films. ***

Man on Wire

This critical favourite was certainly a brilliantly-made and inspiring documentary, but my phobia for heights prevents me from giving it an objective viewing. While I respect the film and all who were involved with it and I respect highwire walking as a metaphor (the last lines of the film were great), I simply have no respect for the actual act of highwire walking (or mountain/rock climbing, or most death-defying activities). Because of that, I simply could not enjoy the subject matter of this film in a way that most people (including my friend Gareth, who ranked this as his favourite film of 2008) apparently could. I give it ***+ because it was such a lovely and brilliant film, but it will not make my top ten.

Top Ten for 2008 - "The Year of Vindication"

2009-01-10T17:25:00.006-04:00

I thought I'd beat you to a top ten list, Vic. If I don't do it soon, it will keep changing because there are several key films for the year that I haven't seen yet. But that's life in St. Stephen, and that's why a few of these should probably have been on last year's list. So here goes:

10. The Bank Job. This was a surprise for me. I don't remember it all that well anymore, but I seem to recall that it was entertaining and intelligent - had all the kind of ingredients that one would want in a heist movie, which is pretty good for one based on a true story.

9. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. One of the leftovers from last year. What really impressed me about this one was not the realistic and grim appraisal of abortion in Eastern Europe, but the fact that the friend was the protagonist. It was a good, if minimalist, story about the friend's battle within herself to help someone who was both desperate and frustratingly, continually irresponsible (not an uncommon combination for someone who often needs the help of a responsible, caring friend).

8. The Dark Knight. As I've said earlier, not perfect, but a very solid follow-up to Batman Begins. Plenty enough has been said about this.

7. Happy-Go-Lucky. Very unique kind of movie based on a very unique kind of character (Poppy). Thought-provoking and impressive right to the end. I appreciated how I would almost get annoyed with Poppy, but then that feeling would get sidelined by some solid respect for her.

6. The Band's Visit. It helped my impression of this movie that I saw it soon after watching Offside, which I found a little difficult to make it through. I loved the tone of this movie and the way it was acted and directed - the timing of many scenes worked perfectly for me.

5. No.1 Ladies Detective Agency. I expected something more made-for-TV out of this film, but for some reason watching this just made me very happy. I've always found reading McCall Smith reminded me a little of listening to Bach - something about the ordered contentment of Precious' thinking, I guess. The movie did the same with the significant added bonus of beautiful cinematography and amazing music.

4. Welcome to the Sticks. Not since The Castle have I appreciated the warm-hearted depiction of the backwards life this much. This one caught me totally off guard on a plane trip and it reminded me a little of newcomers warming up to life in St. Stephen. I suspect this is why I am ranking it higher than it probably deserves based on its quality alone.

3. Slumdog Millionaire. Just saw this last night and I felt it was deserving of the critical attention it has been getting. Great story, strong themes, strong visuals, life-affirming - the only problem was that there were a few too many music video-like moments where I suspect you have to be under 30 to follow what is going on.

2. The Visitor. Now we're approaching the reason for this being called the Year of Vindication. It has long been a pet peeve of mine that movies do a great disservice to the name of Walter. As a name that was apparently outlawed for new children a few years after I was born, moviemakers seemed to think it was fair game to use this name for such purposes as the boring guy who loses the girl or the overweight security guard who is duped. In The Visitor, it's true that Walter starts off in somewhat typical Walter fashion, but he is such an excellently portrayed character that I want to play djembe like him. Beautiful film.

1. Wall-E. And continuing on the theme of vindication (I was often called Wally in high school), here is a name that seemed almost too easy to make fun of that is given to the most wonderful little droid around. Lots, again, has been said, but probably the best film of the year.

My honourable mentions for the year include: Lions for Lambs, War, Inc., Chaos Theory, Iron Man and The Valley of Elah.

Australia

2009-01-06T00:59:00.003-04:00

Most critics panned Australia. I can sort of understand why, but anyone who has seen Baz Luhrmann’s films should know what they are walking into. If you don’t like Luhrmann, don’t watch his films. If you like his films, Australia will not disappoint you.

Australia is a quirky old-fashioned epic, the kind they used to make before 1970. After half an hour or so, Gone With the Wind will come to mind and not long after that I thought of The Wizard of Oz (appropriate for an Australian film). Seconds after thinking this, The Wizard of Oz became a central part of the plot. That’s when Luhrmann had me.

Sure, the film is entirely predictable. Sure the CGI is obvious. Sure the music and some of the acting are way over the top, giving us the kind of over-sentimentalized melodrama that could be quickly condemned if this were not a Baz Luhrmann film. But it is a Luhrmann film and you have to believe that this is exactly the kind of film he was trying to make, something that would have been treated very differently in 1939, or even 1959.

Besides the Oz theme, a highlight for me was the way the Aboriginal people of Australia (the best actors in the film, especially Brandon Walters as Nulla) featured so prominently in the film. This could have been used to even greater effect, and the ending could have been much more imaginative (if it had been, I might have given Australia four stars), but there were so many gorgeous memorable scenes that I could overlook the plot’s failings. The grand romance between Nicole Kidmann and Hugh Jackmann doesn't always work (Kidmann is not at her best here), but it works well enough to overlook the problems here as well. I enjoy watching the great epics of the 30’s and 50’s and I thought Australia was grand entertainment of a kind we rarely see anymore.

I give Australia ***+. My mug is up.

Iron Man

2009-01-05T13:24:00.002-04:00

Part way through Iron Man (this spring’s biggest hit), Obadiah Stane reminds Tony Stark that Stark Industries built its innovative energy device, called the “Arc Reactor”, to “appease the hippies” (i.e. it is an instrument of peace designed by a company which specializes in designing and manufacturing the world’s most advanced and deadly weapons). The fact that the Arc Reactor itself becomes an instrument of death in Iron Man is therefore “pretty ironic, man”. But even more ironic is how the filmmakers fill their film with irony and yet don’t seem to realize it themselves.

Iron Man, directed by Jon Favreau, is full of clever writing and wry humour, with many wonderful lines superbly delivered by its two central actors, Robert Downey Jr. (who plays Tony Stark to perfection) and Jeff Bridges (great as the “baddie”, Obadiah Stane). Some examples will show how these lines challenge us to think critically about the weapons industry.

Before his “conversion” experience in a cave in Afghanistan, Tony Stark is naively casual about his role as a weapons designer, saying things like: “My old man had a philosophy: Peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy,” to which a journalist responds, " A lot of people would call that war-profiteering.” Stark’s answer: “I guarantee you the day weapons are no longer needed to keep the peace, I'll start making bricks and beams for baby hospitals.”

This is good stuff, and it continues when Stark returns from captivity in Afghanistan as a new man: “I saw young Americans killed by the very weapons I created to defend them and protect them. And I saw that I had become part of a system that is comfortable with zero-accountability… so, effective immediately, I am shutting down our weapons program”. Wow! And when Stane reacts to this news with comments like: “Your father, he helped give us the atomic bomb. Now what kind of world would it be today if he was as selfish as you?” we can surely be forgiven for thinking that we are watching a film that is using irony to condemn the American weapons industry and the whole military-industrial complex. Unfortunately, such thinking would be premature.

For no sooner has Stark stated that he is shutting down his weapons program when he begins work on Iron Man, the ultimate weapon. Again, there are hints to suggest the film’s writers see the irony here. When Stark’s assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), sees the “iron” suit, she challenges Stark, saying: “I thought you said you were done making weapons”. He responds: “This is a flight stabilizer. It's completely harmless.” A funny scene follows, showing how untrue this statement is, but the fact remains that the Iron Man suit is full of weapons, as recognized by Stane later in the film, when he tells Stark: “Isn’t it ironic that you who wanted to destroy weapons have built the world’s deadliest weapon?” Indeed, it is very ironic. And all the lines quoted above suggest the writers are aware of the irony. But to say the film itself sustains little of this irony would be an understatement.

Quoting my daughter: “On the surface, Iron Man seems to be the tale of a man who discovers the error of his ways, repents and starts on a journey of redemption.” But Stark’s journey is short-circuited by inconsistent writing (I understand there were two sets of writers), which prevents him from seeing the irony of his own deadly use of weapons. The audience, likewise, is expected to applaud Stark’s use of redemptive violence. And a film that begins by challenging the weapons industry is left suggesting that weapons are okay in the right hands; the problem only arises when you sell them to the wrong people (guns don’t kill people; people kill people). Not only will Iron Man not cause anyone at the Pentagon to lose sleep, by the end we are wondering whether Iron Man will soon be working for the Pentagon.

Contrast this film with the brilliant The Iron Giant (animated film from 1999). The costume, powers and weaponry of the “iron man” are almost identical, but The Iron Giant really does challenge the military-industrial complex (along with the myth of redemptive violence), and it does so consistently. If only Iron Man, which is otherwise a well-made, well-acted, funny and enjoyable superhero film, hadn’t allowed the final irony to be that the most ironic film of the year was not ironic enough.

Because I enjoyed the film and especially the lines quoted above and the acting of Downey, Jr. and Bridges, I gave this film a very lukewarm ***+, but I was probably feeling too generous. My mug is up, but the stuff inside could taste a whole lot better.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

2009-01-04T22:35:00.002-04:00

This was one of my 2008 reviews, first published elsewhere.

Prince Caspian, Disney’s second film in the Chronicles of Narnia series, was one of the biggest hits of 2008, which means you’ve probably seen it already (if such films interest you). And if you have read some of my other reviews, you already know why Prince Caspian was such a huge disappointment for me, though it wasn’t all bad.

Actually, I think Prince Caspian is a better film than its predecessor (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe), if measured by the usual standards of filmmaking achievement. I particularly enjoyed the darker somber atmosphere (though this contrasts markedly with the children’s book on which it is based) and the gorgeous cinematography. The score was appropriately grand and the acting was adequate, though by no means outstanding. The direction by Andrew Adamson was tighter the second time around and the film had its entertaining and funny moments (especially those involving Reepicheep, the mouse).

But the film also has many flaws. The plot was much too thin for an adventure film (perhaps that’s because it was turned into a standard medieval battle film), the character development was minimal (and rather boring) and the last half-hour capped the story in a way that is surely making C.S. Lewis (the author of the book) want to cry out from heaven in protest.

The story, such as it is, concerns the return of the four Pevensie children (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) to Narnia, where they discover that 1300 years have passed since their previous visit. During their absence, the Narnians have been all but wiped out by a race of humans called Telmarines, and Aslan (the lion who represents Jesus in Narnia) has not been heard from. Thus begins the grand battle to retake Narnia for the Narnians, led by the Pevensies and Prince Caspian, a Telmarine who is sympathetic to Narnians and whose uncle wants to kill him.

Early in the film, Prince Caspian tells his new Narnian friends that they need soldiers and weapons. Like the world in which certain contemporary politicians live, Narnia is apparently not a place where diplomacy is an option. It’s an evil vs. good, us vs. them world and the only option is to use violence to wipe the dehumanised enemy off the face of the earth.

The film is absurdly inconsistent in its attitude toward war and violence. Scenes in which Edmund describes the war and killing as abominable and Caspian tells his uncle he (Caspian) is not a killer like him are followed by a scene in which Edmund and the prince charge gleefully into battle, shouting “For Aslan!” as they begin slaughtering the enemy. The film is also inconsistent in its vain attempt to avoid black and white depictions of the Telmarines (who look dangerously like Arabs). The shades of grey are evident but make no sense whatsoever.

But the most disturbing thing about Prince Caspian is that it will be seen as a good Christian family film because it is the work of a Christian author. I am a huge fan of C.S. Lewis and the Narnia books, which I read to my children before they were ten. Prince Caspian is a light-hearted book in which Reepicheep hurts no one, the final battle lasts just a few short pages, and Aslan brings the battle to an end without violence. In contrast, in Prince Caspian (the movie), Reepicheep kills many with his two-inch sword, the final battle is long and climactic, and Aslan calls upon the forces of nature to help wipe out the enemy to end the battle. This ending completely undermines the only spiritual plot development, in which Lucy argues with her brothers about putting their faith in Aslan and her brothers ignore her and put their faith in their heroic military might. In the end, the brothers need Aslan to save them but there is no sense that Aslan disapproves of their lack of faith or their use of violence.

While Lewis was certainly not a pacifist (indeed, some of his early writings seem to glorify war), I cannot but believe he would be horrified to see how Disney has created a war movie out of his children’s book. And, aside from Lucy’s struggle with her and her brothers’ faith, I saw nothing I would call Christian in Prince Caspian. But I saw much which I would call the opposite of Christian, like the message that the peaceable kingdom is only achieved through war.

Yes, I am, of course, talking about redemptive violence again. I wish we lived in a world that wasn’t so blind to the way violence permeates global politics and where the majority of Christians didn’t so easily accept the necessity of that violence. Then I would believe those who say that children are not negatively influenced by the redemptive violence in children’s films. Until I live in such a world, I will continue to say: If we want future generations to live in a violent world, where war is the norm, where people are dehumanised and there can be no diplomacy, where might makes right, where killing and death is preferable to surrender and compromise, then by all means let’s keep feeding our children on redemptive violence. If that’s not the kind of world we want, then I believe that we must be willing to expose and challenge what others do not see, as Jesus did.

In the meantime, if your children have not yet seen Prince Caspian, don’t let them go alone (i.e. you’ll want to talk with them about it afterwards).

I gave Prince Caspian **+. My mug is draining fast.

The Reader

2009-01-03T20:32:00.001-04:00

Kate Winslet gives an excellent performance (though not as good as Streep in Doubt) in this story about a German boy/man (boy played by David Kross, older man by Ralph Fiennes) and his relationship to a mysterious woman with a dark past. Directed by Stephen Daldry , The Reader is an engaging film with a very European (specifically German) feel to it. For me, that’s a good thing. Aside from Winslet, Fiennes, and Lena Olin (who all speak English with a German accent), the actors are Germans speaking English. Kross and Bruno Ganz (in a supporting role as the law professor) are the stand-outs. The acting and German atmosphere were the highlights for me. Unfortunately, the screenplay doesn’t quite measure up. In particular, the pacing is too slow and doesn’t take advantage of the story’s more dramatic moments.

Nevertheless, the story does venture into some fascinating moral issues, especially with regard to scapegoating and the question of how wide the blame for the Holocaust might be extended. Ultimately, the film may even be asking how wide the blame for the Iraq invasion, etc. may be extended (though it is hard to blame the millions who protested). There is much here to think about and talk about and many questions to consider, but the film doesn’t give us quite enough to work with (at least not as much as I would have liked). The Reader could have been a great film, but it falls a little short. Still, I give it a solid ***+ for effort. My mug is up once again (I’m going to have to watch some duds so I can empty it).

Doubt

2009-01-02T15:07:00.003-04:00

Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman give us two of the year’s best performances in this brilliant intelligent drama. Based on a play by John Patrick Shanley (who also wrote and directed the film), Doubt takes place in a New York Catholic school in 1964, where Sister Aloysius (Streep) is the stern and greatly-feared principal (the "dragon"). Aloysius is full of certainty and desperate to protect the ways of the past. Father Flynn (Hoffman) is the voice of progress, who wants to lighten things up a bit. Aloysius is suspicious of Flynn from the start and circumstances lead her to the conclusion that he is a child molester. But Sister James (played well by Amy Adams) has her doubts. The boy in question is the school’s only African-American and so the film also deals with racial issues. One of the film’s most powerful scenes (and there are many) is between the boy’s mother (Viola Davis) and Aloysius.

In the end, the film leaves us with many doubts, as it intends to do. But there is no doubt that this is a film worth watching more than once. Besides the Oscar-worthy performances from the lead actors, who give us one memorable scene after another, we have the always thought-provoking dialogue, the eerie atmosphere (the wind is a major character in the film) and a perfectly-realised setting. This is a film that provides hours of discussion-material (and you all know how much I like talking about films) on themes like change/progress versus conservative values, inflexibility versus openness and, of course, doubt versus certainty. With its endlessly fascinating dialogue, Doubt moved so quickly that its end completely surprised me (I thought it was barely half-over).

Doubt is not perfect. Some of the scenes, especially involving Sister James, seem unnecessary or misplaced and I hesitated at first to give it four stars because I so desperately wanted to know more about each of the main characters. We come into their lives in the midst of a story and hear almost nothing of what went before. In a play/film like this, it is perhaps expecting too much to provide the kind of history I was looking for and certainly the dialogue and acting give us well-developed characters even without the history. So I have decided to give the film **** after all, with my mug held high, and this is no doubt going to be another of my top ten films of 2008 (I may even be inspired to write a theological review).

WALL-E (Vic's Review)

2008-12-27T13:10:00.007-04:00

As you may know, I also write reviews for periodicals and websites, which generally do not appear on this blog. Over the next week, I intend to post the reviews I have written in the past year (and maybe older ones, if there is a demand). These reviews were not written for the blog, but are the original (pre-edited) versions of what appeared elsewhere.

The animated science fiction film WALL-E (one of the year’s biggest hits, directed by Andrew Stanton) opens with a tremendously evocative scene of a strip mall on 28th-century earth. It’s a polluted wasteland covered with trash, but we can still see all the ads for Buy N Large, the Wal-Mart-like chain of superstores that must have taken over the planet (or at least the U.S.) in the 21st century, offering every conceivable item and service, including the space ships which were used to evacuate the earth when the toxicity levels rendered the planet uninhabitable.

The ship was only supposed to be gone for five years while Buy N Large cleaned up the planet, but the clean-up proved too difficult. 700 years later, the cruise ship is still sailing through space and the only “life” on earth is WALL-E, a small clean-up robot who creates skyscrapers with his squares of compacted garbage.

With almost no dialogue, the first half-hour of this gorgeous intelligent film shows us how WALL-E’s daily routine (which includes watching old musicals) is disturbed by the arrival of a female robot. This is followed by a delightful romance and a journey to the space ship Axiom.

On the Axiom, people have been taking an endless cruise, with every need met and every super-sized food and beverage available for purchase and consumption. As a result, people have become so large they can no longer even stand. “Buy more, eat more and be happy” say the ads on the Axiom. It’s an obvious exposé of our 21st century consumerist lifestyle, a lifestyle that will make the earth’s inhabitants fat and lazy and eventually destroy the planet.

When WALL-E arrives on the Axiom, he disturbs the routine of its passengers, waking them up from their dreamlike stupor. “I didn’t know we had a pool” says a woman, seeing her surroundings with open eyes for the first time. But my favourite line comes from the captain, who, after “waking up”, tells the autopilot (patterned after HAL, the malfunctioning computer of 2001: A Space Odyssey): “I don’t want to survive, I want to live!” To me, the message is clear: Those of us living as slaves to 21st century consumerism are in a dreamlike state of survival; we have forgotten how to live.

Besides opening the eyes of the blind, WALL-E brings good news to the poor and oppressed, hangs out with those who have been marginalized by our corporate culture (after freeing them from captivity) and sacrifices his life to save humanity before being raised from the dead. Sound familiar? Like WALL-E, Jesus’ mission was to open our eyes to what is happening in the world around us and free us from enslavement to the Domination System which has created a world headed toward self-destruction. 2000 years after Jesus, his message and mission are as vital as ever. It’s up to those of us who want to follow Jesus in the 21st century to be like WALL-E, waking people up from their consumerist nightmare, protecting the environment and, of course, watching lots of old musicals.

That this film was made by Disney, one of the world’s great consumer-promoting corporations (which has no doubt sold millions of WALL-E robots to children), is astonishing. It is either a sign of hope or of the crassest cynicism.

Not that WALL-E is perfect. I hope those of you who have read my reviews of other children’s films will have picked up on the seemingly inevitable redemptive violence in the film. In particular, I was disturbed by the way the little red-topped robot “villain” was thrown off the captain’s bridge to fall to his “death” on the floor below, just like countless Disney villains before him. This time, because it’s a robot, children even get to see the body crash and die. But WALL-E and Eve are also robots. They, and many other robots, have been wonderfully humanized while the villains have been dehumanized so that we don’t care if they are destroyed. But what exactly are children to make of the way the security/police robots are destroyed by WALL-E’s new friends?

Still, the messages in WALL-E are so overwhelmingly positive and radical (for Disney), the film so beautiful and delightful (with grand sci-fi visions and scenes) and the allusions to 2001 (e.g. Also Sprach Zarathustra and The Blue Danube) so timely, that I am willing to overlook a few flawed minutes and give WALL-E my blessing as a marvellous film for all ages to watch again and again (but don’t forget to take the opportunity to talk to your kids about it; and pastors: there’s a whole 20-minute sermon in WALL-E).

When I walked out of the theatre after watching WALL-E, I found myself staring at a strip mall identical to the one in the film’s opening scene. Shivers ran up my spine. I could already see the barren wasteland, the empty world of “buy more, more and more”; all that ugly concrete surrounded by polluting SUVs reminding me that I am living in a nightmare and it’s time to wake up.

Quantum of Solace

2008-12-27T01:09:00.001-04:00

A sequel to one of the best Bond films ever (Casino Royale), Quantum of Solace had a lot to live up to. That it failed to do so comes as no surprise, which is why I don’t understand all the critics who panned this Bond outing for not only not living up to its predecessor, but for not being a stereotypical Bond film. Sure, I agree that Quantum of Solace takes itself too seriously and is missing some of the old Bond “fun” (Q, the countless one-liners, etc.). But it’s also missing some of the bad traits of previous Bond films (like horrible acting) and must be viewed as part of the ongoing attempt to bring Bond into the 21st century (which is probably why they brought in Marc Forster (Monster’s Ball, The Kite Runner) to direct).

Daniel Craig continues to make an excellent, if rather icy, Bond, and while Quantum does not give him a lot of dialogue, it nevertheless allows him to develop his character and makes him a more psychologically complex Bond than his predecessors. The other actors are also very good, with a strong female lead (Olga Kurylenko), Judi Dench as M, Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis and Mathieu Amalric as the villain. The locations are a highlight (stereotypically Bond!) and allow the film to venture into social commentary in a way that Bond films rarely do. There is a repeated emphasis on the plight of the poor in Latin America, attacks against certain powerful governments (the British foreign secretary says: “Right and wrong play no part; it’s all about necessity”) and comments related to the environment. And while there is, as usual, far too much violence, there is a consistent attempt (not always successful) to take the violence seriously.

Of course, you all know how much I dislike Bourne-like action, so its presence in Quantum is a major problem for me. Still, there are enough quiet and dramatic moments to partly offset this. The plot is rather thin, but that’s hardly unusual for Bond.

So, yes, Quantum of Solace is a flawed film in many ways. While Casino Royale ranked among my favourite Bond films, Quantum will rank somewhere in the middle. But that means I thought it was a very solid Bond outing, deserving *** and a mug still held in an upright position.