The first thing to know about Pacific Rim is that it exactly what it looks like: a 21st century remake of an old Japanese monster movie. It is giant robots fighting giant monsters with all of the standard tropes that goes along with the genre. The acting is over the top, the characters are archetypal, the dialog is stilted, and the plot is predictable. If you grew up, as I did, watching Godzilla, Gamara, Monster X, and Mega Man, you know what to expect. If not, it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out.
That is not a criticism. In fact, it is high praise the del Toro can make a serious block buster out of a genre that has been nearly destroyed by the likes of Transformers, Cloverfield, and re-imaginings of Godzilla.
del Toro clearly understands and loves the genre. He is also a true artisan. Pacific Rim is beautiful, exciting, and engaging. The monsters and robots have a weight and scale that is rarely seen in movies today. It is not that the robots in Transformers and the monster from Cloverfield are not big, it is that they don't have any weight. In Pacific Rim, they feel big and solid. When they hit, you feel the amount of damage being done. They also have a realism about them that adds to the sense of awe. Each robot has characteristics that align it with its country of origin. They are not just generic robots. The monster also have an organic quality and vague similarity to living creatures makes them feel alive.
The characters are archetypes, but del Toro adds just enough depth to make them interesting. You actually care about their fates. His oriental wonder girl is more than just a sexual force to guide the lost hero back to the world. She has her own issues. The stock mad scientists are goofy comic relief, but they also serve a point in the story.
That the characters are engaging is a vital strength because the plot is entirely predictable. You know how things are going to end up, but you still get caught up. The tension points work because you care enough to not want bad things to happen. Enough bad things do happen that you believe just enough that the really bad things will happen.
I saw Pacific Rim in IMAX 3-d. The 3-d was cool in some parts, but in others it was actually a distraction. There were also some spots where the projection was blotchy. If I were going to see it again, I would see it in regular IMAX. The scale of IMAX is perfect for Pacific Rim. It is a big film and makes the most out the big screen.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Sunday, July 7, 2013
World War Z
I must admit upfront that I am a huge fan of the book. It is one of the most compelling social commentaries I've read. By combining documentary style with first person narration and zombies, Brooks crafted a master piece that is accessible to just about anyone who can read.
I am also a firm believer that a film based on a book cannot be judged through the lens of the book. Film and literature are different mediums and require different narrative techniques.
So, when I found out that World War Z the movie was nothing like the book, I wasn't too surprised. Many of the things that make the novel great would ruin a movie. Movies do best when they have a small cast and a relatively cohesive narrative arch; Brooks' novel doesn't have either. One could have taken the infantry man's story and pieced together a good story by dropping in bits from the other narratives as news flashes or other bits.
That, however, was not the path taken. The producers instead choose to create a new plot. All in all, it is not a terrible plot for a generic action movie that has some zombies. It hits all the right notes; sensitive, reluctant hero; big set pieces; creepy hallway zombie sequence; ambiguous ending.
The acting, what little that is required, is passable. I believe the Pitt character enough to be moderately concerned when he is in peril. I don't, however, care enough not to find the maudlin stuff about his family sort of annoying.
The effects are fabulous. I saw it in 3D and liked it. I'm not sure the 3D really added anything, but it didn't hurt. In fact the visual spectacle was perhaps the best thing about the movie. The scene where Israel is overrun is almost worth the price of admission. It is way better on the big screen than on the TV screen.
In the end, the World War Z is not a bad way to spend a hot summer night. It is well made, not overtly pandering, and a little scary at times. Just do not expect anything at all like the book. The movie is not a masterwork.
I am also a firm believer that a film based on a book cannot be judged through the lens of the book. Film and literature are different mediums and require different narrative techniques.
So, when I found out that World War Z the movie was nothing like the book, I wasn't too surprised. Many of the things that make the novel great would ruin a movie. Movies do best when they have a small cast and a relatively cohesive narrative arch; Brooks' novel doesn't have either. One could have taken the infantry man's story and pieced together a good story by dropping in bits from the other narratives as news flashes or other bits.
That, however, was not the path taken. The producers instead choose to create a new plot. All in all, it is not a terrible plot for a generic action movie that has some zombies. It hits all the right notes; sensitive, reluctant hero; big set pieces; creepy hallway zombie sequence; ambiguous ending.
The acting, what little that is required, is passable. I believe the Pitt character enough to be moderately concerned when he is in peril. I don't, however, care enough not to find the maudlin stuff about his family sort of annoying.
The effects are fabulous. I saw it in 3D and liked it. I'm not sure the 3D really added anything, but it didn't hurt. In fact the visual spectacle was perhaps the best thing about the movie. The scene where Israel is overrun is almost worth the price of admission. It is way better on the big screen than on the TV screen.
In the end, the World War Z is not a bad way to spend a hot summer night. It is well made, not overtly pandering, and a little scary at times. Just do not expect anything at all like the book. The movie is not a masterwork.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Paranorman
I'm a sucker for a good misfit movie and Paranorman did not disapoint. It ticks all of the right boxes. Misfit kid with specail ability, a well meaning but clueless family, the mistfit freind, the gaurdian spirit, the mission to save the world, and zombies are all there. More importantly, the movie is smart, funny, and doesn't skimp on the scary to spare the kids. Saving the world requires Norman to work through some pretty rough stuff given that the target audience for the film is 12.
The the subversive humor is what makes the movie work and keeps it from drowning in its message. The creeepy uncle is creepy but is done humorously. The zombies are also creepy in a funny way. The only truly scary character is the witch.
I highly recommend Paranorman.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Grizzly Man
One of the things I love about Werner Hertzog's documentaries, besides his voice, is the brutally unromantic lens through which he views life. In Hertzog's world there are no heroes, no villains, and no fools; there are just people. Nature is majestic, brutal, merciless, and mercurial.
Grizzly Man examines the life and death of Timothy Treadwell, a self proclaimed protector of the grizzly bears. Treadwell spent 13 summers living in close contact with the bears. Shortly before decamping from the last summer, Treadwell and a companion were eaten by one of the grizzlies. He was clearly insane in the nobel manner of fools.
In the hands of most documentarians, Treadwell would be portrayed as either a nobel fool, a hero, a lunatic, or a menace. In Hertzog's hands, though he is all of these and none of them. Hertzog doesn't allows both Treadwell's champions and Treadwell's detractors to have a voice. There is no comment on whether Treadwell's actions were beneficial or harmful to the bears. Hertzog's world view doesn't accept that the actions of a single man can have a bearing on the bears; they will be as they will be.
His focus is on examining Treadwell's soul. What made the man tick. Ultimately, Hertzog portrays Treadwell as a lost boy. He is a man who was never solidly grounded in the human world. The bears speak to him and over the course of his years with them, Treadwell crosses a line beyond which he can never really exist in the human world. Neither can he live in the bear's world.
The film uses much of Treadwell's own film. It is stunning footage. Interspersed with Treadwell's film are interviews in which Hertzog draws out his subjects. Some of the interviews are painfully raw.
Grizzly Man examines the life and death of Timothy Treadwell, a self proclaimed protector of the grizzly bears. Treadwell spent 13 summers living in close contact with the bears. Shortly before decamping from the last summer, Treadwell and a companion were eaten by one of the grizzlies. He was clearly insane in the nobel manner of fools.
In the hands of most documentarians, Treadwell would be portrayed as either a nobel fool, a hero, a lunatic, or a menace. In Hertzog's hands, though he is all of these and none of them. Hertzog doesn't allows both Treadwell's champions and Treadwell's detractors to have a voice. There is no comment on whether Treadwell's actions were beneficial or harmful to the bears. Hertzog's world view doesn't accept that the actions of a single man can have a bearing on the bears; they will be as they will be.
His focus is on examining Treadwell's soul. What made the man tick. Ultimately, Hertzog portrays Treadwell as a lost boy. He is a man who was never solidly grounded in the human world. The bears speak to him and over the course of his years with them, Treadwell crosses a line beyond which he can never really exist in the human world. Neither can he live in the bear's world.
The film uses much of Treadwell's own film. It is stunning footage. Interspersed with Treadwell's film are interviews in which Hertzog draws out his subjects. Some of the interviews are painfully raw.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Iron Man 3
The Marvel Movie Machine keeps churning out the hits. Marvel has definitely found the right formula for cranking out summer block busters that don't require a lobotomy to watch. The Machine doesn't produce anything Nolanesque, but what it does make is art when put up against most summer block busters by people like McG and the Transformers guy.
Iron Man 3 sticks to its strengths: solid performances. Downey, Jr. is a near perfect Tony Stark. He has the right blend of arrogance and vulnerability. Cheadle plays Rhodes with a nice balance of seriousness and humility. He is totally believable as War Hammer/Iron Patriot. Paltrow's Pepper Pots is strong and plays off Downey perfectly.
The strong cast takes a plot that borders on pedestrian and could easily of fallen off a cliff and creates a hit.
The first third of the movie is a little slow, but it rebuilds the bond you have with the characters. By the time, the action kicks off you want them to pull through. While there is never a real sense of threat, the audience is invested enough to root for the heroes.
The middle of the film is the strongest part of the film. The thing I liked most about it was that it was strong without relying on big set pieces, CGI, or any super powers. It stands almost entirely on the strength of the characters.
The last third of the film is the expected CGI fueled super clash. It is a loud visual spectacular. It does not disappoint, In fact because the majority of the movie is special effects lite, it feels even better.
Is this a film that makes you think? Does it ask big questions? Not really. There is an interesting question about how to deal with terrorism. There is also an interesting reflection of the question of what makes Stark and Rhodes heroes. Does the suit make the hero?
Iron Man 3 sticks to its strengths: solid performances. Downey, Jr. is a near perfect Tony Stark. He has the right blend of arrogance and vulnerability. Cheadle plays Rhodes with a nice balance of seriousness and humility. He is totally believable as War Hammer/Iron Patriot. Paltrow's Pepper Pots is strong and plays off Downey perfectly.
The strong cast takes a plot that borders on pedestrian and could easily of fallen off a cliff and creates a hit.
The first third of the movie is a little slow, but it rebuilds the bond you have with the characters. By the time, the action kicks off you want them to pull through. While there is never a real sense of threat, the audience is invested enough to root for the heroes.
The middle of the film is the strongest part of the film. The thing I liked most about it was that it was strong without relying on big set pieces, CGI, or any super powers. It stands almost entirely on the strength of the characters.
The last third of the film is the expected CGI fueled super clash. It is a loud visual spectacular. It does not disappoint, In fact because the majority of the movie is special effects lite, it feels even better.
Is this a film that makes you think? Does it ask big questions? Not really. There is an interesting question about how to deal with terrorism. There is also an interesting reflection of the question of what makes Stark and Rhodes heroes. Does the suit make the hero?
Thursday, May 23, 2013
I've got a Byline
Despite being a full time writer, it has been a long time since I've had my own byline. The latest issue of Adoptive Families has a story I wrote in it. The story is just a little, personal reflection on first meeting our little love bug.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
ReWire
I've been on the lookout for a good meditation app for awhile. I'd used one or two that were basically just dressed up timers and was looking for something more.
I stumbled upon an app called ReWire that was getting rave reviews. It was designed to help you meditate by providing feed back. The process is that you pick some music to listen to during meditation and the app will randomly pause the music. When the music pauses, you tap the screen. If you don't the phone vibrates. If you touch the phone when the music isn't paused, the phone vibrates. The theory is that by focusing on the music and noticing the absence, you build concentration and mindfulness. It is based on real teachings.
The app also has a game/tracking element. You get points for every session. You are awarded points based on duration and accuracy. If you want, you can also hook ReWire to Facebook and see how rank amongst other users.
Ultimately, the app didn't work for me. It does what it says on the tin and does it well. For me, the way it worked was the issue. I found it distracting to always be tapping the screen and the pauses in the music were grating. I also found that if you used music with any quiet sections or natural gaps, it was hard to decide when to tap the screen. I never bothered with the social aspect, so I cannot really comment on how that helps or hurts the app.
For me, the simple timer apps work the best. They ding at the beginning and at the end. The rest of the time, they get out of the way and let you do your practice. Less is best.
I stumbled upon an app called ReWire that was getting rave reviews. It was designed to help you meditate by providing feed back. The process is that you pick some music to listen to during meditation and the app will randomly pause the music. When the music pauses, you tap the screen. If you don't the phone vibrates. If you touch the phone when the music isn't paused, the phone vibrates. The theory is that by focusing on the music and noticing the absence, you build concentration and mindfulness. It is based on real teachings.
The app also has a game/tracking element. You get points for every session. You are awarded points based on duration and accuracy. If you want, you can also hook ReWire to Facebook and see how rank amongst other users.
Ultimately, the app didn't work for me. It does what it says on the tin and does it well. For me, the way it worked was the issue. I found it distracting to always be tapping the screen and the pauses in the music were grating. I also found that if you used music with any quiet sections or natural gaps, it was hard to decide when to tap the screen. I never bothered with the social aspect, so I cannot really comment on how that helps or hurts the app.
For me, the simple timer apps work the best. They ding at the beginning and at the end. The rest of the time, they get out of the way and let you do your practice. Less is best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)