Fighting: Hollywood has succeeded in making an interesting story about fighting! I guess actual fighting takes up very little screen time, but every scene involving actual fighting was interesting - why they were fighting was focused on over how, and you could always see the why behind the how. The scene with men marching in a line and getting slaughtered was interesting and made sense; likewise the trench warfare scene.
Rotten Tomatoes: Free State of Jones has 40% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a joke when The Conjuring 2 is "Certified Fresh." But the Rotten Tomatoes scoring is not the issue (i.e., their binary system of scoring) because Metacritic has it as 53%. It seems that a lot of critics are piling on (although is there really hate for the movie from critics, or just lukewarmitude? Because I haven't found any reviews that say it's terrible). Metacritic even has a bunch of user reviews of "0" without good reasons. I went to Reddit to see what the reaction was there, but they weren't on the hate train. A couple of people found it depressing in the last third and wished for something a little more ... formulaic? There were a couple of comments that the trailer promised an action movie but there was little action to be found. There were several complaints about pacing. However, by and large, people seemed bemused as to why it isn't getting better reviews. I'm used to comedies being underrated, but not movies like this.
So What's It About?: A Mississippian deserts his post as a Confederate nurse and takes a dead kinsman's body back home. No longer welcome back in the army (or interested in returning), he hides out in a swamp with a small band of runaway slaves. This is early in the war; events continue from there, with more people deserting, and with him continuing to be heroic in a populist way. Events continue through 1875, and there are flash-forwards to a related court case in the 1940s.
Is It Worth Seeing?: Yes! It was interesting to see this chapter of history that I'd never heard of. Someone on Reddit wrote that he's from a nearby county, and when people are going there they say they are going to the Free State of Jones.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Alice: Through the Looking Glass
Why did I want to see this? I went to see this (despite knowing it would be bad) for a combination of reasons. Through the Looking Glass was one of my favorite books as a child, and I was curious to see how they made it into a movie, even a big-budget franchise CGI-fest with little-to-no relationship to the source material. Also, I was attracted to it as a first-person female-led story.
Story Structure: It is a voyage story in which Alice journeys to fulfill a quest, and returns having learned something. As in the book, the voyage may have been a dream.
Character: The characterization was about a micron deep; well, occasionally two microns in scenes like the Mad Hatter's feelings for his family, the White Queen's regret over a childhood lie, etc. Alice was intrepid throughout, kind towards the Mad Hatter, rude towards her mother in one scene as the plot/theme demanded, and that's it. All of the major Underland characters were irritating.
Observation: Alice: Through the Looking Glass went forward because the first film was too successful not to have a sequel. Somebody (or a team) was tasked with creating a plot that would be palatable to wide audiences and play well overseas, and they came up with one that involved no fighting, unusual for a franchise film. I believe at one point the Queen of Hearts attempted to trap Alice in a cage, and Alice sticks a doctor with his own hypodermic to escape from an institution, but I don't remember shooting, punching, etc. What other franchise films lack fighting? Maybe Finding Dory will (fish don't have arms). Rather than fighting, Alice's quest involved learning from the past and returning with an altered attitude towards her mother and father. Unfortunately, since her character is so poorly fleshed out and the conflict between Alice and her mother so flimsily explained to begin with, the change (and the whole movie) has little emotional resonance.
Plot hole?: We know that Alice was muttering hysterically in an institution for the first half of her visit to Underland. But during the second half, where she was at home, what was her mental state? Awake? Asleep? Whichever one, she was apparently ready to captain a ship.
Is this worth seeing? No. There is no reason to see this film, as it is an empty experience. I didn't regret watching it, or have a terrible time, though I got a little bored, but I didn't gain anything. The couple in front of me thought it was a really good movie (as they said to each other) and the group behind me (a couple of whom were young teenagers) laughed and had a good time. Read the book!
Story Structure: It is a voyage story in which Alice journeys to fulfill a quest, and returns having learned something. As in the book, the voyage may have been a dream.
Character: The characterization was about a micron deep; well, occasionally two microns in scenes like the Mad Hatter's feelings for his family, the White Queen's regret over a childhood lie, etc. Alice was intrepid throughout, kind towards the Mad Hatter, rude towards her mother in one scene as the plot/theme demanded, and that's it. All of the major Underland characters were irritating.
Observation: Alice: Through the Looking Glass went forward because the first film was too successful not to have a sequel. Somebody (or a team) was tasked with creating a plot that would be palatable to wide audiences and play well overseas, and they came up with one that involved no fighting, unusual for a franchise film. I believe at one point the Queen of Hearts attempted to trap Alice in a cage, and Alice sticks a doctor with his own hypodermic to escape from an institution, but I don't remember shooting, punching, etc. What other franchise films lack fighting? Maybe Finding Dory will (fish don't have arms). Rather than fighting, Alice's quest involved learning from the past and returning with an altered attitude towards her mother and father. Unfortunately, since her character is so poorly fleshed out and the conflict between Alice and her mother so flimsily explained to begin with, the change (and the whole movie) has little emotional resonance.
Plot hole?: We know that Alice was muttering hysterically in an institution for the first half of her visit to Underland. But during the second half, where she was at home, what was her mental state? Awake? Asleep? Whichever one, she was apparently ready to captain a ship.
Is this worth seeing? No. There is no reason to see this film, as it is an empty experience. I didn't regret watching it, or have a terrible time, though I got a little bored, but I didn't gain anything. The couple in front of me thought it was a really good movie (as they said to each other) and the group behind me (a couple of whom were young teenagers) laughed and had a good time. Read the book!
The Neon Demon
Review: Immersive, visually interesting, and distinctive. I wondered near the end whether it was a good movie or whether it was just a bad movie I enjoyed (events towards the end are problematic in a number of ways).
Plot: The plot appears straightforward at first, but increasingly it appears that some events might be meant symbolically, as their literal meaning is too far-fetched.
Is Jesse the Neon Demon?: In his interview on the Filmspotting podcast, Nicolas Winding Refn stated that Jesse is the Neon Demon (and that he and Elle figured this out while filming). He mentions that, especially on a second viewing, one sees that Jesse is not as innocent as she seems. Maybe not - at times during the first half she seems innocent, but mostly, she just seems blank. That said, she never does anything bad. NWR seems to blame her for the "narcissism" that leads her to revel in her status as the most beautiful. He also states in the interview that when initially interviewing Elle Fanning for the role, he asked her whether she considered herself beautiful. My take on the interview was that Jesse was meant to have been the demon - meaning responsible for setting off some of the negative events of later in the film. Rationally, this is nonsense, since Jesse hasn't done anything (while the other girls have been awful all along).
Fairy Tale: I make it work through analyzing it as a fairy tale (and Nicolas Winding Refn referred to it as a fairy tale, or referenced fairy tale elements). As in a fairy tale, it's natural that Jesse is blank (i.e., that she is a super-flat character - that's how fairy tale characters are). She encounters three dark rivals, Ruby, Gigi and Sarah (a la, the ugly stepsisters). One of the functions of the dark rivals is to illustrate darker, more egoistic aspects of possible character that she needs to transcend in order to become a mature whole. In a traditional fairy tale, she might prove herself through some sort of kind deed. (For instance, often, a character helps a beggar or talking animal). Instead, she admits that she lives for the adoration (when she's asked what it's like having others' attention revolve around her like she's the sun, she says "It's the only thing.") Then she gets bitten. In another key scene, Dean (a light opposite sex figure) defends her as having worth as a human being aside from beauty, and she rebuffs him, showing her allegiance with the dark rivals - they are one and the same. She has become subsumed by them. It is like if Cinderella wasn't interested in the Prince but admitted to loving the attention and admiration she got at the ball, and then adopted the personalities of her sisters.
Other Comparisons: In terms of whether the darkness in Jesse's character developed or was there from the beginning, think of All About Eve. Unlike Eve, Jesse did not have to work or manipulate her way up, but was accepted as a star almost from the word 'go.' Could it be that Jesse just didn't have to hide her true character very long? Another comparison is to The Witch, a recent movie with ambiguity surrounding whether an even younger teenager is to blame for grisly events, and which even hints at whether she bears any blame for being aware of being attractive.
Worth Seeing? Yes!
Plot: The plot appears straightforward at first, but increasingly it appears that some events might be meant symbolically, as their literal meaning is too far-fetched.
Is Jesse the Neon Demon?: In his interview on the Filmspotting podcast, Nicolas Winding Refn stated that Jesse is the Neon Demon (and that he and Elle figured this out while filming). He mentions that, especially on a second viewing, one sees that Jesse is not as innocent as she seems. Maybe not - at times during the first half she seems innocent, but mostly, she just seems blank. That said, she never does anything bad. NWR seems to blame her for the "narcissism" that leads her to revel in her status as the most beautiful. He also states in the interview that when initially interviewing Elle Fanning for the role, he asked her whether she considered herself beautiful. My take on the interview was that Jesse was meant to have been the demon - meaning responsible for setting off some of the negative events of later in the film. Rationally, this is nonsense, since Jesse hasn't done anything (while the other girls have been awful all along).
Fairy Tale: I make it work through analyzing it as a fairy tale (and Nicolas Winding Refn referred to it as a fairy tale, or referenced fairy tale elements). As in a fairy tale, it's natural that Jesse is blank (i.e., that she is a super-flat character - that's how fairy tale characters are). She encounters three dark rivals, Ruby, Gigi and Sarah (a la, the ugly stepsisters). One of the functions of the dark rivals is to illustrate darker, more egoistic aspects of possible character that she needs to transcend in order to become a mature whole. In a traditional fairy tale, she might prove herself through some sort of kind deed. (For instance, often, a character helps a beggar or talking animal). Instead, she admits that she lives for the adoration (when she's asked what it's like having others' attention revolve around her like she's the sun, she says "It's the only thing.") Then she gets bitten. In another key scene, Dean (a light opposite sex figure) defends her as having worth as a human being aside from beauty, and she rebuffs him, showing her allegiance with the dark rivals - they are one and the same. She has become subsumed by them. It is like if Cinderella wasn't interested in the Prince but admitted to loving the attention and admiration she got at the ball, and then adopted the personalities of her sisters.
Other Comparisons: In terms of whether the darkness in Jesse's character developed or was there from the beginning, think of All About Eve. Unlike Eve, Jesse did not have to work or manipulate her way up, but was accepted as a star almost from the word 'go.' Could it be that Jesse just didn't have to hide her true character very long? Another comparison is to The Witch, a recent movie with ambiguity surrounding whether an even younger teenager is to blame for grisly events, and which even hints at whether she bears any blame for being aware of being attractive.
Worth Seeing? Yes!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)