I’ve never seen a movie ahead of it’s official release date so never had an opportunity to write a release-day review. And I’m not going to now, because I don’t really enjoy writing reviews unless I really hated a movie. Which is not the case for Michael Clayton. It was an excellent movie, with great acting, a refreshingly creative opening and lots of moments that make you want to pump your fist and clap. Point being, a fucking good time at the movies. Ebert and the Times agree. So instead of a proper review I will offer you this: If you’re looking for Hollywood supplied entertainment this weekend you should check out Michael Clayton. It’s damn good.
About MorrisonFilm
Hello, my name is Shawn. This is where I put things. This site has been active since 2002. A lot has changed since then but basically I'm still writing ridiculous articles about ridiculous things. You can also look at my Flickr photostream which is a lot of fun if you aren't blind.
This site uses Simplelog, a simple Ruby on Rails weblog application. I explain why I use it in this entry. This site is hosted by Dreamhost.
I've made 4 short films that are currently available online. I also host a semi-regular comedic podcast with Garrett Murray that has a 5 star rating on iTunes!
Results (escape to close):
Ugh. Just noticed they adapted Charlie Baxter’s excellent and under-read Feast of Love into a movie. My excitement quickly evaporated as I watched the trailer. They apparently turned it onto a sentimental chick flick, no offense to chicks. Hopefully that’s just trailer voodoo. Either way, read the book, I think the odds are high that you’ll enjoy it more than the movie.
Plus you’ll be able to feel smug and superior while rolling your eyes and saying things like “God, the book was so much better.”
On more than one occasion I have said, “I love Quentin Tarantino so much, I’d watch him take a crap on film for 2 hours and love every moment of it.” Well, last night I saw him do just that. And let me tell you, I didn’t enjoy every moment of it.
Yes, one way to make your car chase seem better is by padding it with the most atrocious, long, pointless dialog ever recored outside of a college campus, but then the car chase really has to be fucking great, not just SO-SO.
Planet Terror was fucking amazing though.
1 Comment
Have you ever returned a Netflix movie and forgotten to manage your queue? You automatically end up with the next movie in your queue but it’s not necessarily the exact one you were in the mood for. The cool thing is that if for some reason you absolutely positively must have that movie tomorrow, or else, you can e-mail Netflix and they’ll give you a bonus movie. You’ll still get the movie you didn’t want but you’ll also get your next queued movie. You won’t get a new movie after that until you no longer possess more movies than your account allows.
This just happened to me but I’m going to accept the movie I’ve gotten which is Chinatown. This movie is on my list of shame. That being “Best Movie of All Time” caliber films that I’ve never seen. The kind of movies I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve never seen. The kind of movies that inspire the “OMFG! You’ve never seen that movie! OMFG!” reactions. I got yelled at in film school for never having seen The Godfather trilogy. I’ve since remedied that one but a few big ones remain.
Here’s the top 5 on my list of shame:
- Apocalypse Now
- Dr. Strangelove
- Chinatown
- The Seven Samurai
- 8 1/2
I’m probably missing a ton but these 5 are a good goal. Sometimes I tell people I’m saving Apocalypse Now because I like knowing that at any moment I can freshly experience one of the best movies of all time. Sort of like how John Irving is saving Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend for his deathbed (Which is where they got the idea for Desmond on LOST). But truth be told, that’s not really why I haven’t watched it. To be honest, that movie feels daunting to me. It feels heavy. Like I can’t just watch it I have to watch it. It’s exactly like the passage I quoted last week about not feeling guilty about reading the classics of literature. But films are only a 2 hour investment. There’s really no excuse. Except that sometimes that two hours is three hours and sometimes that 3 hours feels heavy. Yeah, fuck all this movie guilt. It’s too much.
I’ll start with Chinatown.
Kottke posted this list of essential films that supposedly one must have seen in order to be “somewhat ‘movie-literate.’ ” I find that attitude kinda snobby since there is a great difference between what most 20-year-olds have seen vs. what most 50-year-olds have seen. That said, this list looks pretty solid. Everything on the list that I haven’t seen is definitely on my “I’m embarassed to admit I’ve never seen” list. I’ve highlighted the one’s I’ve seen:
If we accept the premise behind this list, then my result of 34 out of 102 is extremely appalling. Though in baseball it’d be a great batting average…
2001: A Space Odyssey
The 400 Blows
8 1/2
Aguirre, the Wrath of God
Alien
All About Eve
Annie Hall
Apocalypse Now
Bambi
The Battleship Potemkin
The Best Years of Our Lives
The Big Red One
The Bicycle Thief
The Big Sleep
Blade Runner
Blowup
Blue Velvet
Bonnie and Clyde
Breathless
Bringing Up Baby
Carrie
Casablanca
Un Chien Andalou
Children of Paradise / Les Enfants du Paradis
Chinatown
Citizen Kane
A Clockwork Orange
The Crying Game
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Days of Heaven
Dirty Harry
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
Do the Right Thing
La Dolce Vita
Double Indemnity
Dr. Strangelove
Duck Soup
E.T. – The Extra-Terrestrial
Easy Rider
The Empire Strikes Back
The Exorcist
Fargo
Fight Club
Frankenstein
The General
The Godfather, The Godfather, Part II
Gone With the Wind
GoodFellas
The Graduate
Halloween
A Hard Day’s Night
Intolerance
It’s a Gift
It’s a Wonderful Life
Jaws
The Lady Eve
Lawrence of Arabia
M
Mad Max 2 / The Road Warrior
The Maltese Falcon
The Manchurian Candidate
Metropolis
Modern Times
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Nashville
The Night of the Hunter
Night of the Living Dead
North by Northwest
Nosferatu
On the Waterfront
Once Upon a Time in the West
Out of the Past
Persona
Pink Flamingos
Psycho
Pulp Fiction
Rashomon
Rear Window
Rebel Without a Cause
Red River
Repulsion
The Rules of the Game
Scarface
The Scarlet Empress
Schindler’s List
The Searchers
The Seven Samurai
Singin’ in the Rain
Some Like It Hot
A Star Is Born
A Streetcar Named Desire
Sunset Boulevard
Taxi Driver
The Third Man
Tokyo Story
Touch of Evil
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Trouble in Paradise
Vertigo
West Side Story
The Wild Bunch
The Wizard of Oz
( Italicized movies are ones I’ve seen parts of – in school probably)
Garrett and I recently finished a new short and submitted it to the Amazon.com/Tribeca short film competition. For more on our movie The Egregious Meatball and where you can see it, please read Garrett’s post.
Amazon is off to a shaky start with the competition and there are some issues that I’d like to document. Amazon is not communicating well with the contestants of this short film competition which has caused me to feel very uneasy about this whole thing. I’m sure I’m not alone and the sad thing is that one or two short e-mails from them would have cleared everything up.
The most striking thing about Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle is how fiercely likable the two stars are. Especially Kal Penn who plays Kumar. In fact I think the movie is successful purely because of these two actors. Take any other actors (Ashton Kutcher and Seann William Scott, say) and play the parts low brow, slacker and stupid and you have an awful movie. But do what Harold and Kumar did and play the leads likable, slacker and smart and you have yourself a very funny, very entertaining movie.
Alan Ball must have felt similarly about Kal Penn ‘cause he’s cast him as Claire’s Boyfriend in the upcoming season of Six Feet Under. Oh, and he’s also going to be in the new Superman. Wow.
Jim Jarmusch’s Coffee and Cigarettes is a fun change of pace from your typical night out at the movies. The film contains 11 entirely separate vignettes united only by the premise of drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes. (There are some themes and premises that are repeated though rather than connect the segments this gives the impression of exploration, like multiple theatre directors working from the same script.)
I’m the kind of person who would naturally be drawn to a movie called “Coffee and Cigarettes,” being an enjoyer of drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes, though I suspect that this is not a requirement. It definitely doesn’t hurt.
Ebert’s review mentioned that some of the segments were made a long time ago as short films. IMDb confirms this. The opening segment with Steven Wright and Roberto Benigni was made in 1986. The segment with Steve Buscemi was released as a short in 1989. The meeting of Tom Waits and Iggy Pop happened in 1993. This is shocking since the film doesn’t feel old. The segments from the 80s blend perfectly with the segments presumably filmed more recently. Though I have a feeling that if the Steve Buscemi piece had been filmed now that he would have been playing himself rather than a waiter with a Tennessee accent. Though it is interesting to realize that he played this waiter before both Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. So this is no nod to his famous tip speech. So the only thing dated about the piece is what Ebert points out, ”…when [Jarmusch] started the project, you could still smoke in a coffee shop.”
Most of the actors play themselves. When Alfred Molina meets Steve Coogan, Molina plays Molina and Coogan plays Coogan. Though of course this is done in the same vain as John Malkovich playing John Horatio Malkovich.
One wonders how much of the conversations are scripted. My theory is that Jarmusch brought an outline to each piece and let the actors work it out until they had found something special. Jarring overhead shots of the table, showing the coffee cups and cigarette packs are clearly used to buffer clips that wouldn’t cut together well. Though this legitimately becomes a style, so maybe not.
It’s amazing that Jarmusch was able to assemble so many famous and fascinating people in one movie, though perhaps this is why it was made from 1986-2003.
Side-note: The segment where Cate Blanchett plays herself as well as her own cousin finally offers some clues as to how Cate Blanchett can look stunningly beautiful in some movies and entirely unappealing in others.
I really wanted to come out of the theatre pshawing all the complainers but, in the end, I couldn’t help but join the majority. I did not like The Matrix: Revolutions. At all. I was extremely disappointed from start to finish. Which utterly, completely surprised me. I didn’t think I could possibly dislike it. I figured, at worst, I would leave with a few concerns but an overall sense of satisfaction. Instead I felt exactly like being let down by a friend.
“Oh come on, dude!”
Which isn’t to say it was a bad movie. If one could somehow separate it from the other two, which is very shaky ground indeed, it was a solidly constructed film. But it was an outright poor ending to this trilogy. It didn’t answer any of my questions, didn’t leave me with an ounce of satisfaction and did not pay off on any of the promises that had been made.
Perhaps I was a victim of my own expectations. I did not enter the theatre with the same over-excited fervor that I did with Reloaded. But perhaps I had my own version of how things would go down. I wanted to see Neo kick some nasty ass, which is what we were set up for in the previous films. Perhaps it is the more mature, philosophical route that “kicking extreme ass” is not what saves humanity, but for Christ’s sake, it was exactly what made the first two films work. Had the conclusion not relied on confusing computer generated symbolic imagery, I might have gone for it.
What of the promise of this exchange from Reloaded:
Neo: If I were you, I would hope that we don’t meet again.
The Architect: We won’t.
And the Architect was right?! They never met again! What?! Neo was supposed to wipe the floor with his ass! Or at least meet again and prove him wrong! What would be more interesting than the Architect realizing he was wrong? “Technically” did they “meet” again? “Technically” did the Architect realize he was wrong? Maybe, I guess… blah, muddy muddled, compromise, boring.
I think the major fulcrum between liking it and disliking it was the Zion battle. If you enjoyed that hour of the film, you liked the movie. Me, I hated it. It was radically pointless and therefore boring. We knew the fate of humanity did not lie with Mufasta or whatever the hell his name was and his giant machine guns. So what was the point in watching him try? The first two films all but told us flat out that the fate of humanity was in Neo’s hands. Why abandon that character for a full bloody pointless hour of overcharged special effects? Was I impressed by the effects? Sure! They were brilliant! But I didn’t give a shit. I knew it was all wasted effort.
Furthermore, why were the most interesting characters developed in Reloaded given no more than 10 minutes total screen time? That being The Merovingian, Persephone and The Architect. Why spend all that time developing these cool characters for absolutely nothing? I have to believe that there was a tremendous amount of script cut out for the sake of time.
The bottom line is that this movie is clearly exactly what the W’s wanted. It’s so radically wrong that it could not possibly have been a mistake. They gave me exactly what they intended.
I just wish I knew why.
Movie recommendations for movies I have not seen
Kill Bill: Volume I
If you’re going to lay down $10, this is your movie. Ultra-violent kung-fu Tarantino extravaganza. Witness one of today’s best filmmakers wield 100% creative control. But I’m horribly biased. If I go on I’d wax the paint right off of Tarantino’s car. Just go see it.
Ebert’s Review (*)Tomatometer (76%)
Intolerable Cruelty*
If you don’t like Tarantino, this is your movie right here. The Coen brothers never let me down. They fascinate and surprise me perhaps more than anyone working today. I leave all of their films feeling like I’ve just discovered a secret gem. Also of note, Clooney’s first comic role in quite a while. This one looks like a bit of a departure for the Coen brothers but then again, don’t we say that about all of their movies? For the savvy moviegoer who isn’t into Tarantino blood baths.
Ebert’s Review (½)Tomatometer (70%)
Mystic River
This weekend has something for everyone. I’m definitely going to try to see Mystic River, though I fear it might wait for rental. Eastwood’s patient, careful storytelling always produces solid movies.
Ebert’s Review (**)Tomatometer (81%)
House Of The Dead
What horribly misguided Hollywood poll resulted in this movie? “Well, people love Zombies, and Matrix-style fighting, and guns, and Ja Rule themed action sequences, and beautiful 28 year old teenagers, so…” Skip this direct-to-video grade disaster even if you’re into zombies.
(not pre-screened to critics because the studio knows it stinks)
Good Boy
Dogs from space. Who talk. I guess at least they tried to come up with a reason for the dogs’ speaking English. No. Wait. Hmm. Exactly. I hated dog movies when I was a kid, I hate them now, and I think they blow. All of them. For all you six year olds who read this site, I suggest seeing Kill Bill instead. No dogs there.
Ebert’s Review (*)Tomatometer (50%)
I’d be a terrible critic. I’ve written before about how I can’t articulate why a movie is good. Certainly I have no trouble with explaining precisely how one failed. Because see, to me, when a movie works, there is nothing to say. The film said everything it was supposed to and left me speechless. To explain why it was good would defeat the point of having just watched a movie for two hours. That’s me. And perhaps that’s why I love reading Ebert so much.
Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation was a beautiful, sweet, haunting poem that has infected me. You know those dreams that give you a fever? You wake with this dream attached to you, weighing every move, making your chest burn, all day. You can’t shake it and you don’t want to. That’s what it’s like.
Lost In Translation was the best movie I have seen all year, at the very least. I really can’t say any more than that.
If you’ve read anything here over the last oh six months or so, you might get the impression that I am cynical and hateful and that no movie is good enough for me. Not the case. I tend to like many more movies than I hate. Problem is, I find it difficult to talk about how I like a movie. It ends up turning into a syrupy pointless love letter. (And occasionally not much unlike that old Chris Farley SNL skit “D-d-d-do you remember, that part, when…”). Maybe my positive word vocabulary is just poor. I’ll work on that. But the point here is this: I saw a good movie last night. It is called 28 Days Later… by the fine Danny Boyle (Shallow Grave, Train-spotting). You’ve probably heard of it. And you should go see it. Why? Because it is good.
Here goes: It accomplishes two important things that I enjoy about good movies. First, it finds a really nice, naturalistic tone. The perfect tone for any fantasy/sci-fi. M. Night Shyamalan and James Cameron are particularly good at this. If I don’t believe I’m in a real world and you spring far-out sci-fi shit on me, it’s all over. This movie hit it right on.
Second, it ran with a concept for two acts and then pushed it further. It realized there is only so much you can do with “running from zombies” and so made the movie about something else at the end. Spike Jonze is particularly good at this. There’s nothing worse than a concept sputtering out of steam. This movie hit it right on.
It was refreshing to finally watch a film where the director clearly cared about his characters after a summer filled with inept pointless eye-porn.
The sky is blue. The Earth is round. And Michael Bay fucking blows. Some things must simply be accepted. Yet still I gave Bad Boys II a chance. I walked in hopeful. Though in the end there is a certain satisfaction in knowing I am right.
It is clear that Michael Bay has no fucking clue how to make a movie. There isn’t even a hint that he has a basic grasp on the elements of successful storytelling. And it’s funny ‘cause if you’ve ever read an interview with the man, it sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. He says the words ‘character’ and ‘story’ and occasionally ‘emotion.’ But his films are methamphetamine orgies of expendable action. You could nearly feel Michael Bay’s hard-on throughout the movie. “OH GOD THAT’S A GOOD SHOT,” he exclaims almost audibly on the soundtrack. Shplunk.
But, as I said, this is all obvious. And so I have a theory about Michael Bay. He might just be what the world needs. He might just push us towards a new renaissance. A new explosion of integrity and fine art. It takes films like Armageddon and Bad Boys II to push a culture to the limit. How far are you really prepared to go? You want fast? You want shitty? You want sex? You want hollow? You want loud? Well Michael Bay delivers the fastest, shittiest, sexiest, loudest most shallow torrent of vomit there is. And he keeps pushing it.
And the idea is that he pushes it so far and hard that it all falls right off the edge of the planet. And suddenly, after Bad Boysageddon 8 the audience will crave the most radical, extreme thing they can find: patience, a little craft, and some good taste.
And it will happen. And it will be glorious. And I truly can’t wait.
So the rumors (the kind of rumors that never come true) finally came true. Kill Bill, Quentin Tarantino’s 4th film will be released in two parts. The first installment will be released October 10th of this year. The second will follow within the year, â?¡ la the Matrix. This is exciting. From the NY Times article:
“Miramax is the house Quentin Tarantino built,” Mr. Weinstein said. And because of this director’s stature he was granted “carte blanche,” Mr. Weinstein added.
To be able to witness one of today’s greatest filmmakers wield full creative control is nearly too fantastic to imagine. It’s so fascinating to see this kind of decision come from a man that can be so ruthless. They understand that Tarantino was responsible for everything they have, and so, “Here are the keys, have fun.”
But it’s not just that. It’s not just some orgy of money and power. Tarantino still makes cheap, lean, mean independent films. Most directors would have fallen off the planet after making Jackie Brown (and then taking a three year vacation). Critically acclaimed but not a smash hit by any means. It’s because stars still take pay cuts to work for Tarantino. Jackie Brown did so-so at the box office but it only cost $12 million. It made that back many many times over. It’s Tarantino’s adherence to the principals that got him to where he is that really makes his career free and functional.
What’s the point? Harvey Weinstein hasn’t forgotten what got him to where he is. Tarantino hasn’t forgotten what got him to where he is. And there’s something beautiful about that. On top of getting two new Tarantino films in one year. It’s all just pretty cool.
Terminator 3 was like a weird dream. Perhaps the dream one might have had in 1991 after having seen T2 on the big screen, eating some questionable Mexican food and hitting the sack. It smacks of the dream a friend tells you. The one where she finds it fascinating and you can’t stop silently asking “Why?”
“And then I went to the cafeteria, but it was a church, not the cafeteria… and you were there, but you were eating with Stalin, who was eating Rice Krispies, but the same stale Rice Krispies that the normal caf has, but by the time I sat down, it wasn’t Stalin, it was my Dad and he was eating beats…”
And so on and boring so forth. Something like:
“Yeah, Arnold was in there… but he looked puffy… and he still wore black leather but at one point he was wearing glasses with rhinestones… and there was an evil Terminator yeah… but it was a She-Terminator… and Arnold told her to ‘Talk to the hand.’ at one point, I swear…”
And not unlike that weird dream, you can’t help but think about it, and tell your friends about it, but at the same time it was weird and useless, so why are you telling anyone about it?
Which is my question for the filmmakers. Why this? Why this story? Why this way? Why?
It was as if Pauly Shore and Steven Spielberg directed the film together:
Producer: “Steven, nice to have you here, Paul, sorry—Pauly, nice to see you. OK, listen guys. Here’s what I want. You’re both going to direct T3. But not like Wachowski style, I want you to each direct every other scene. Oh and Spielly, so you don’t make Pauly look too too bad, I want you to constantly be injecting Crystal Meth into your spine. Now how’s that? Feedback? Oh, one last thing, Paul Verhoeven will direct all the icky parts.”
‘Cause I mean, there really was some good stuff in there. The opening five minutes were fantastic. The last five minutes were fantastic. Claire Danes was fantastic. (She demonstrated what I believe is the finest reaction-to-absurdity acting I have ever seen in an action film). But the Terminator sucked, the She-Terminator sucked, it was outright goofy at several points, the picture looked like candy and I couldn’t care less about the characters. They had us crying at the end of Terminator 2. How did they go from that to making Arnold some demented, malfunctioning version of Teddy Ruxpin?
And my god, more shit was trashed in that movie than any other I’ve seen. At one point I actually clenched my fists and shouted inside my head “Stop breaking things!”
And if Arnold supposedly possessed no memories from the last T-101, how come he remembered that people keep their keys tucked in the visor? I mean: bawah??
Now I must admit, all that said, T3 would have had quite a tough time impressing me. Seeing T2 was an event responsible for me choosing filmmaking/storytelling as a career. It was monumental to my childhood. But come on…
You could have done so much fucking better!
[UPDATE: Since writing this entry I now own a DVX100A and used it to shoot the films you see to your right. Take a look and don’t hesitate to drop me a line if you’ve got any questions (e-mail link in footer)]
Today at work we were prepping for tomorrow’s video shoot. The gear was already there and other people were hired to lift the heavy things. My job? Learn the new camera. Months of drooling and speculative imagining culminated today when I finally got my hands on a Panasonic AG-DVX100. Don’t be scared, I’ll make this as un-techy as I can muster.
I’m really pretty pissed. I wanted Old School to be really really good. Specifically, I wanted it to be really really funny. And it wasn’t. It really let me down. A few observations.
Will Ferrell is a funny funny man. He is able to infuse comedy into every slight gesture, whether he is the focus or in the background. That being the case, just because Will Ferrell is in this movie does not make this a funny movie. Because he was funny in it. I did laugh. But I also always laughed at him in the middle of the dullest SNL skits.
Just because you are savvy enough to parody another film also does not make it funny. For instance, the reference in Old School to The Graduate. I’d be willing to bet this reference was added in the editing room. “Hey, that looks like the shot from The Graduate. Someone fetch the Simon & Garfunkel!”
Yeah, I laughed. Vince Vaughn was good, Luke Wilson was good, Will Ferrell is always funny, but it left me cold. It felt like a bunch of easy laughs tossed together. This is not the formula for a good comedy.
You will respond: “Dude, it’s just a stupid comedy, you can’t expect much.” Why shouldn’t I? Why can’t I expect a movie like Old School to deliver? I am not a snob about movies like this. Zoolander was fucking hilarious. Old School? As Simon would say on American Idol, “So what?”
A tad late on this one but I was holding out until I saw Adaptation. Slightly less meaningful than a movie critic making a list, since I didn’t see 90% of the movies that came out last year. I get to be picky. But I think I chose well.
1. Adaptation
2. Panic Room
3. Minority Report
4. Signs
5. Punch-Drunk Love
6. The Bourne Identity
7. One Hour Photo
8. The Good Girl
9. Changing Lanes
10. Insomnia
Tied for 11th place: Solaris, Far From Heaven, Catch Me If You Can, Spider-man.
It was really a great year for movies. Other years I’d really have to have tapped my fingers on the keyboard for hours to scrounge up 10, let alone hem and haw about which ones to leave off the list. I’m sorta surprised that I put Adaptation on top. Right out of the theatre I didn’t feel that way at all, but it really grew on me with each day that passed. I was going to list a bunch of top ten lists, but I realized I only read Roger Ebert, so I’ll only link to his.
Also, here’s a pretty decent article about Adaptation (aside from the poor attempt at parodying Adaptation – much less successful than mine…).
“It was about 1 AM Saturday night (which even though that’s technically Sunday morning is still Saturday night to me) and I sat down to write a blog entry about Adaptation. I was going to write a normal entry. I started:
Adaptation was fantastic, start to finish. Several friends of mine complained about the ending, I’m assuming because it turned into a thriller. Which of course was the point, which of course my friends knew, but somehow they still didn’t like it. For me the ending was pitch perfect, never veering into irony yet still getting its point across. Anyone who really hates the film is simply joyless.
Then I stopped typing. It was dry, like all my other movie review entries. How ‘bout be creative? Why not write an entry about writing the entry for Adaptation? That would be fucking genius. I mean fresh, bold, all of it. I mean, it’s so fucking clever. Right? Or is it so fucking clever that I’ve become a pretentious prick? Letting that idea simmer, I continued to type:
The first half of the movie was an indulgent joy-fest for someone like me who fancies themselves a screenwriter (or a wannabe writer what have you). It’s that kind of spot-on introspection that makes you squirm cause you didn’t come up with it yourself but you couldn’t.
No. No I think I can pull this off. I think I can write an entry about writing a review of Adaptation and come off just fine. All I’d have to do is reference the possible pretentiousness of it and I’m scott free right? No, no, no, I hate that. I’ve never found that to be any excuse. It’s such Kevin Smith self deprecating-so-you-can’t-touch-me bullshit.
All I want to do is watch a documentary on the making of Adaptation, witnessing every moment of the creation. But another side of me doesn’t really care what the truth is, cause the film itself is just so fascinating. It’s like
I can do it. I think I can. Fuck it I will. The key is to not become ironic. The film did it. I can do it. Right? Oh I don’t know, I can barely write. I mean, what, one fucking screenplay I’ve written? And some obscure rant-fest of a blog? Have I earned this? Oh whatever. No. No I won’t. It’s so obvious isn’t it? It’s trite. I think. I’ll alienate some readers. They’ll think I’m masturbating and delete me from their bookmarks. But then again those people probably didn’t like Adaptation. I should still have standards! But how will I ever become the next Jason Kottke if I alienate my readers with quasi-risky entries? I mean that’s what I want right? To be a prominent blog? I must be doing something wrong.
The big challenge for directors fresh off smash hits is the sophomore film. It’s now been done so many times and so well (Jackie Brown, Punch Drunk Love, etc.). But Jonze and Kaufman really went somewhere new. Make the followup about themselves. It’s risky and it’ll get a lot of criticism but the film really solidifies their talent for pure filmmaking.
Hmm.
Roger Ebert’s review and Susan Orlean’s website.“
Solaris joins Punch-Drunk Love, Panic Room and Changing Lanes as 2002 movies that defy Hollywood convention, yet came from Hollywood. A trend I hope continues, but I think 2002 was a unique year for movies. So many great ones, so many great directors. Spielberg, P.T. Anderson, David Fincher, Steven Soderbergh and George Lucas (well…) all put out new movies this year. Scorcese is coming soon and Spielberg has another one this year. How much better does it get?
Solaris is a quiet, patient, visual movie. The editing and visual style are reminiscent of his fantastic Out of Sight. Individual sequences are presented non-linearly which is remarkable in its ability to create the feeling of a memory.
When astronauts visit the planet Solaris they are greeted with a “visitor” after the first night’s sleep. The visitor is typically a loved one whom the individual misses or wants something from. This visitor is not a ghost or a halucination–she is very much real, just not human. They are beings created by and entirely limited by the memory of the astronaut. They know nothing more than the creator and are thus not full human beings. They are only the people we thought the real people were. Roger Ebert said in his review, “The deep irony here is that all of our relationships in the real world are exactly like that, even without the benefit of Solaris. We do not know the actual other person. What we know is the sum of everything we think we know about them.” This really made the film click for me.
SPOILER WARNING
It’s facinating that one of the astronauts, Snow, was visited by a version of himself. A visitor that was more complete than the others. A living representation of what Snow thought of himself. In the movie we never meet the original of this visitor because he is dead from the start, but it would have been facinating to see both alive–how do they differ? I guess that’s another movie. Another astronaut’s visitor we never see, but this astronaut seems the most terrified of them all. Who was her visitor? If I missed some clues, please let me know.
SPOILER END
George Clooney is subtle and powerful and I continue to be a big fan of his work. See this film if you love filmmaking. If you’re looking for sci-fi, you’ll be disappointed and if you’re looking for a love story, you’ll be disappointed. This is a film about ideas. As Ellie said “That was a movie for the sake of making a movie” which is always the best kind of movie.
Overheard conversation before the movie:
“This is supposed to be a remake of Ghost, you know, with Patrick Swayze.”
“Oh really?”
“Yes, a modern version of Ghost. The modern Patrick Swayze.”
(Last line repeated for clarity)
“The modern Patrick Swayze.”
It was good.
First, I have to recommend the books. These stories are novels not movies (unfortunately). But it’s fun to see someone give it a try. I think it could be done. Not by Chris Columbus. Though this time around he does a decent job. I really didn’t like his Sorcerer’s Stone. The effects were muddy and the whole thing was too bright and child friendly. The Chamber of Secrets finally gets it right with the tone and mood. Part of the reason the books are so great is that they are not dumbed down or censored for children. They are good novels that happen to be accessible to children. (Anyone who knows me has heard me harp on this point one too many times. It’s just frustrating knowing how good the books are and seeing how unwilling so many people are to pick them up.)
The Chamber of Secrets isn’t afraid to get dark and scary. And the effects are vastly improved, even bordering on seamless. But one can’t help but get the feeling that the movie is constantly struggling to keep up with the book. It felt very random and patched together, as if they had filmed every word of the book, then edited it down to 2.5 hours.
From what I hear, Columbus isn’t directing the third one, which is fantastic. He’s trying real hard, but can’t quite get it. Alfonso Cuaron is supposed to do it. I haven’t seen Y tu mama tambien, but it’s a much edgier and mature credential than Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. Harry Potter needs a director with a sense for the darker themes. It needs lots of style, lots of edge, lots of dwelling in the shadows. The humor and warmth will emerge just fine.
Of course, I’ll never be happy, because what I really want is to direct these films myself. Naturally, I could do it perfectly. 76 letters to Warner Brothers should have made them realize this.