Your Movie Monkey

June 7, 2010

Enjoyable-ish: Iron Man 2

Filed under: Uncategorized — Movie Monkey @ 7:44 pm

Overall Rating: B
Filmmaking/Artistic: B
Storytelling: B− (ranging all the way down to C whenever Mickey Rourke comes in)
MPAA Rating: PG-13

The pitch

Splice and dice the first one and blow stuff up, and watch the cash come rolling in.

Overview

Seriously.  Just the best bits of the first one, with a new bad guy (and a confusing storyline, but who cares?)  Best part, no lie, is Robert Downey, Jr. Gwynneth Paltrow talking over each other.

Review

Really, folks, not much to say.  Somehow the Iron Man has toxic blood schenomechofascitalipronashism, or something, that can easily be summed up with a number from 0% (healthy) to 100% (dead).  The number keeps rising, so Iron Man is moody, but not as moody as the new villain played by Mickey Rourke–a kind of poor man’s iron man with a ripped shirt and these electric whips weapons that look like something Lady Gaga dancers might also be slinging around.

Mickey Rourke is all mad because of something about Russia and stolen plans and father issues and the excesses of capitalism and caves and the unfairness of it all, but it doesn’t matter.  It’s fun to watch Iron Man fly, and racecars rollover and blow up, and Iron Man and Pepper Pots bicker, and Jon Favreau have a few lines.  It’s been about a month since Your Movie Monkey saw this, and he seems to remember something about a kick butt female agent as well, but it’s quite possible that was another movie.

Not as good as the first one, but if you like the first one, you’ll definitely like this.  And it’s appropriateness for kids is about the same as the first one.

March 6, 2010

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world: Alice In Wonderland (2010)

Filed under: In the theater,Movie review — Movie Monkey @ 7:59 pm

Overall Rating: B+
Filmmaking/Artistic: A
Storytelling: B−
MPAA Rating: PG (Some violence… Might be to scary/intense for children under 10)

The pitch

Let’s do the whole Charlie and The Chocolate Factory bit again with Alice in Wonderland.  Wouldn’t Johnny Depp be cool as the Mad Hatter?

Overview

A re-telling of an already surreal story, Alice In Wonderland is visually amazing, and the story moves along, although it does drag in places.  If you’re a Tim Burton / Johnny Depp / Helen Bonham Carter fan, you’ll like it a lot.  If you aren’t, this won’t be the movie where you change your mind.

Review

There’s really not much to say.  In this version of the story, Alice is 19, and is offered marriage to the son of her late father’s business partner.  We see in the flashbacks that the her dad was the kind of Hollywood dad that always dies before the movie starts, because he’s just too cool to survive.  (Like in Ever After.)  He’s wealthy and brilliant, and she is the love of his life and the heir to his good qualities.  And oh yes, he comforts her about her nightmares regarding a place with a blue caterpillar and tea-drinking rabbits.

Present time, dad has died, dad’s business partner has bough the business, and now wants his fop of a son to marry her.  Aa a party where everyone but Alice knows that her engagement is the point.  He proposes with everyone watching (although in this tale you can tell that the party guests, or at least their personality types, will re-appear in Wonderland a la The Wizard of Oz) , but Alice needs a moment to think, because this-is-what-everyone-wants-for-me-n0t-what-I-want rules the day.  So she sees and chases the white rabbit, falls down a whole and the familiar story starts.

Everyone in Underland keeps asking if she is the Alice, and she says no, but the other characters keep proving non-answers.  She runs into the standard characters, the red queen, the white queen, the mad hatter, etc., and the story is nice if predictable.

There’s no real reason to discuss the story any further.  The scenery and movie making is wonderful, and very Tim Burton, right down to the Danny Elfman music.  Helena Bonham Carter rocks as the evil red queen with a Barbara-Walters-esque speech impediment.  Johnny Depp, one of Your Movie Monkey’s favorites, is good but perhaps a bit over the top as the Mad Hatter.  (OK, it’s hard to explain how an unbelievably over-the-top character can be over-acted, but it does seem so.)  Relative newcomer Mia Wasikowska shines as Alice, not overly feminist and yet not willing to live with the status quo.  And the other character actors are also fantastic.

The story does drag in places, and although Your Movie Monkey is a huge Tim Burton fan, the one area where he falls down a bit is in the mixing of CGI and live action.  It just doesn’t seem seamless.  In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the opening scene in the chocolate factory with the chocolate river just looked like a movie set.  Here, it’s not quite as obvious, but there are times when the integration fails a bit.

If you are not a particular fan of Tim Burton, this one won’t make you change your mind.  But if you like it at all, it is an entertaining 2 hours of great effects and great acting.

The movie has some head lopping and threatened head lopping, and may be a bit scary for young kids.

February 14, 2010

Not technically plagiarisim: Percy Jackson / The Lightning Thief

Filed under: In the theater,Kids,Movie review — Movie Monkey @ 2:54 pm

Overall Rating: C+
Filmmaking/Artistic: B+
Storytelling: C−
MPAA Rating: PG (Mild language, indirect discussion of adult relationships)

The pitch

OK, how can we milk the Harry Potter machine some more?  I know… make Harry look like Zac Efron, make that pasty redhead into a streetwise African American kid, and have the smart girl like better looking… and a ninja!  And add  Greek mythology!  There’s no copyright on those monsters!

Overview

As a fan of the Harry Potter series, Your Movie Monkey found this to be really, really close.  The filmmaking is good, but the story feels a little familiar.  The movie style feels a little like the Hercules or Xena tv shows, but without the humorous self-awareness.  Still, kids will undoubtedly like it, and although it’s not great for adults, it’s not Space Chimps, either.

Review

Hmmm.  So, there’s this kid who finds out that he really belongs to a secret group people with special powers, which explains some of the strange happenings up until now in his life.  Up until now he’s been a loser in his life, but he finds out that he’s a hero in the new world.  He goes to a school for other kids with these special powers, and there learns from a very wise teacher.  He meets two other kids who will become his best friends and travel companions, a world-wise guy and a very smart girl.  He goes on a series of adventures to find magical objects that will allow him to fulfill a quest, which appears to be his destiny.  He has a famous father well known in this secret world.  Some of the kids at the school are on the side of good, and some evil.  Oh yes, and the kid can fly using a traditional fairytale instrument of flight.  Feel familiar, anyone?

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief is based on a children’s book of the same name.   Your Movie Monkey’s older daughter Drama has read the book (and, in fact, most of the car trip back from the theater was spent discussing how the movie was not like the book, Dad).  Percy is played by Zac Efron look-alike Logan Lerman, who pulls off the role very well. 

The movie doesn’t begin with Percy, however, and instead starts off at the top of a skyscraper at 123 Backstory Lane, Zeus (uber-pasty uber-villain Sean Bean) tells Poseidon (Kevin McKidd)  that his lightning bolt’s been stolen (given Mr. Bean’s age, Your Commissioner was concerned that somehow Viagra was having a product placement).  We learn that Greek gods cannot steal each other’s powers, but their children can, and Zeus believes that Percy has stolen it.  Zeus threatens all out war if the lightning bolt is not returned by midnight in two weeks. 

Percy, meanwhile,  is a high school student with a strange form of dyslexia, where English words rearrange themselves into ancient Greek (and vice versa).  The only thing unusual about him is that he can sit underwater for periods of 7 minutes or more and feel refreshed.  Percy’s best buddy is Grover, a kid with crutches.  On a field trip, a substitute teacher calls Percy aside and, in an isolate room, turns into a monster and demands the lightning bolt.  Percy says basically “what?” but then Grove and his other teacher (a wheelchair-bound Pierce Brosnan) come in and kind of yell mythically at the creature who flies out the window.

Turns out, Grover is a satyr and Pierce Brosnan is a centaur, and Percy is the son of Poseidon.  They take Percy to a camp (although his mom is catpured by a minotaur along the way), where Percy will learn how to be a rockin’ demi-god.  Percy and Grover meet up with Annabeth, the butt-kicking ninja daughter of Athena.

The kids then set out on an adventure to get back Percy’s mom from Hades, and along the way meet all kinds of obstacles, including Uma Thurman’s wonderful Medusa, and some other famous characters from myths.

The movie feels a bit as if Hercules or Xena would feel if they didn’t laugh at themselves.  It has a serious tone, (except for Brandon T. Jackson as Grover, doing his best Chris Tucker impersonation… cracking streetwise, slightly effiminate, yet liking the ladies).   Chris Columbus, who directed the first two installments of the Harry Potter series, does a fine job implementing the story, but the material seems far inferior to Potter.  This seems like his skill… implementation. 

Both Lerman and Alexandra Daddario as Annabeth do great jobs as these characters.  It’s also good to see Catherine Keener in a kind of bread-and-butter role as Percy’s mom.  But overall, the story feels so familiar that there’s nothing really fresh and new.  Oh yes, and by the time we finally see the stolen lightning bolt, it has a kind of eco-friendly quality that doesn’t really fit with the story (like a smallish flourescent bulb). 

Overall, it’s probably worth taking the kids.  There are a few references to adult relationships (in Greek mythology, the gods often “hooked up”, as the movie says, with mortals.)  There is a little bit of mild swearing.  And there is definite violence, per the myths.  The scariness factor may make it inappropriate for kids under 10.  Also, Percy’s mom has a kind of lout of a husband, who isn’t positive, but still the family interaction isn’t great.  Still, it’s better than many, and the effects are quite good.

An undead romp: Zombieland

Filed under: Movie review,On video — Movie Monkey @ 1:23 pm

Overall Rating: B+
Filmmaking/Artistic: B+
Storytelling: A−
MPAA Rating: R (Zombie violence, Some language)

The pitch

What if we did Shaun of the Deadwith Woody Harrleson as the “funny guy”, and added a Napoleon Dynamite loser to it?

Overview

A well-done zombie comedy, with enough anti-zombie violence for the action fans and plenty of loser comedy.  The very funny script even makes the 90 minutes of Woody Harrleson shtick acceptable.

Review

Your Movie Monkey heard from multiple sources that this was great, and it did not disappoint.  The world has been taken over by zombies, and there are very few survivors left.  The movie focuses on one Napoleon Dynamite type loser, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), who is trying to get to his family (in Columbus, Ohio… everyone is known by the town they’re from in this film).  He explains to us how he survives, basically he has a set of rules he lives his life by.  (Example: Rule #1, Cardio.  You’ve got to be able to outrun the Zombies.)

We get to know Columbus throughout this movie, as he becomes more alive in his quest to survive than he ever was before the invasion.  Columbus hooks up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), who basically just loves shooting zombies.  Tallahassee has suffered a big loss, and basically doesn’t care about anything else.

It’s the script that’s really funny… constant reminders of the rules.  Nothing much actually happens in the film, but the adventures along the way are worth it.  Your Movie Monkey’s hesitancy was the idea of watching Woody Harrleson for an entire movie.  (He’s funny in small doses, but 90 minutes?)  But the writing is so good, that it’s even worth it.  A lot of fun and laughs, and not too deep, Zombieland is definitely worth a rental, if you like the genre. 

Your Movie Monkey, who can’t deal with horror films or with gangster films very well, found this one easy enough because the zombies are so clearly not real, it’s a complete fantasy.  Some may find it too violent, but those who would probably don’t need this review to help decide.

It’s rated R for some language and for violence.  Definitely not for young kids.

September 18, 2009

Office Space in a Factory: Extract

Filed under: In the theater — Movie Monkey @ 7:00 pm

Overall Rating: C
Filmmaking/Artistic: B−
Storytelling: C
MPAA Rating: R (Some language, some drug use, some adult themes)

The pitch

What if we tried to re-do Office Space with an assembly line, and added this like hot chick who was like an ultra discounted Julia Roberts from Duplicity or a modestly discounted Theresa Russell from Black Widow?

Overview

A movie that’s a kind of dramedy about work likfe that isn’t terriby successful at either at comedy or drama, but does have a few good moments and some great character actors.  If you loved Office Space, you’ll like this.  If you liked Office Space, you’ll find this ok.  If you’re not a fan of Mike Judge, you might want to invest (the $9 and the 2 hours) in something else. 

Review

Your Movie Monkey enjoyed Office Space, but not quite to the extent most of his friends did.  The parts his friends found hilarious, he found amusing.  He also found it a bit loud (the soundtrack was extremely jarring).  His favorite part was Mike Judge’s brief scene as the manager of a Bennigan’s-esque restaurant, scolding Jennifer Aniston for not wearing enough “flair”.   The Monkey was also of fan of Beavis-N-Butthead in his grad school days (his roommate was an ultra-fan, who may have actually quoted BNB on job interviews), and later King of the Hill and, although not quite as whole-heartedly, The Goode Family

With this background, and with a half day vacation and permission from Beaudelaire to watch a movie, The Monkey headed out to Extract, having heard from both friends and critics, “not as good as Office Space, but ok”.

These reviews were spot on.  Jason Bateman plays a guy in his late 30′s who owns an extract factory with a lworkine (although it really, really looks like a movie set version of a factory) full of crazy characters.  Although the stereotypes were present, Judge doesn’t really hit you over the head with them.  Through a once in a million accident, a worker loses one of his, um, family jewels, and the other may be in trouble as well.  So Bateman is under the pressure of a potential lawsuit from this kind of not-quite-there-but-nice co-worker.

Bateman (the characters names aren’t terribly memorable) is also having marital troubles, and neighbor troubles, in that his nerdy and annyoing next door neighbor won’t take no for an answer regarding Bateman’s attendance at a Rotary Club dinner.  (The neighbor is played brilliantly by David Koechner, who keeps coming over and insisting on payment for the tickets.)

It seems almost a shame to describe any more of the plot, because it just sounds terrible.  Bateman’s marital troubles go from bad to worse in a kind of Simple Plantype way, and a gorgeous female grifter ends up employed at the factory and causing lots of trouble.

All the character actors do a wonderful job.  Ben Affleck far exceeds Your Movie Monkey’s expectations as Batemans stoner new-age bartender and confidant, Dustin Milligan as a young moronic gigilo is able to pull off stupid-good-looking-guy in a way that doesn’t beat you over the head, JK Simmons is JK Simmons, and others are great.

But somehow, you never really want to see more, but you also don’t want to leave.  The marital matters are played well, and are kind of sad, but then the movie’s supposed to be a subtle comedy, but it’s kind of a bummer.

All of this has come during a two week period when many of Your Movie Monkey’s friends are seeing their marriages either take serious turns for the worse or dissolve completely.  Because of this, Your Movie Monkey found some of the feelings portrayed by Bateman and his on screen wife to be believable and real, although of course placed in an over the top, Mike Judge setting.

If you’re a fan of Mike Judge, you should probably see it.  The movie definitely isn’t for kids, as there is prostitution and drug use and infidelity and other topics that aren’t appropriate.  Judge himself makes a fun cameo appearance, which is great.  But whether it was Your Movie Monkey’s mood after all these marital issues happening in real life with his friends, or just the movie itself, it didn’t really seem to have the oomph of some of Judge’s other work.

September 13, 2009

What makes us human: Defiance

Filed under: On video — Movie Monkey @ 2:10 pm

Overall Rating: B−
Filmmaking/Artistic: B−
Storytelling: C+
MPAA Rating: R (Realistic depiction of Nazi crimes and resistance countermeasures)

The pitch

As this film portrays the true story of Belarussian Jews who resisted the evil of the Nazis (and in some cases their own countrymen), Your Movie Monkey does not believe a humorous “pitch” is appropriate.

Mini-review

Although Your Movie Monkey is not enough of a history buff to confirm the accuracy of the claim, this movie retells the story of Belarussian Jews who resisted the orders of the invading Germans to go to their deaths. 

Led by 4 brothers, these Jews hid out in the woods beginning with the 1941 invasion, and lasting for about 3 years.  While in some cities the number of Jews was dropped from the thousands to 50 in a few short weeks, these descendants of these 1200 survivors now number in the thousands or tens of thousands.

The two eldest of the brothers, who experience or learn of the murders of their parents, wives, and children, are played by Daniel Craig (the oldest who leads the band) and Liev Schreiber (the second oldest who ends up joining the Red Army in resistance), and both do a decent job.  Schreiber’s character, Zus Bielinski, is a militant intent on revenge, while Craig’s character, Tuvya, believes that refusal to stoop to the level of the Germans is what makes them human.

The two philosophies clash often throughout the film.  As an example, the brothers decide that they will only take food from farmers “who can afford the loss”, and they take milk from a farmer who claims that if he doesn’t make his quota, the Germans will kill him and his family.  They take the milk (and Zus takes the farmer’s coat as well), but Zus believes they should kill the farmer who is a witness.  Tuvya lets him live, only to have him lead the Germans to their camp.

These moral dilemmas are highlighted in the conversations between a rabbi and an intellectual who become friends and enjoy good natured argument.  Further, the people who live with Tuvya and Tuvya himself are presented with a real dilemma when they capture a blond-haired, blue-eyed German solider, who is clearly terrified.  They find valuable information on this German who screams “Bitte, ich habe eine Frau und kleine Kinder! (Please, I have a wife and small children!”)  While Tuvya willingly turns his back, the Jews scream in return “And my brother’s name was Max!  And my mother’s name was Anna!”, and cannot resist, and beat him to death.

As a film, it seemed a little  bit plodding.  Your Movie Monkey found himself hitting fast forward on several occasions.  Plus, the characters speak a combination of their native tongue and accented English.  Your Movie Monkey finds this construct distracting… if there is to be a switch to English, just switch to unaccented English.  (It’s the Kevin Costner Theorem.)

But even with these slow pieces, it feels like an honor to watch the resolve of these people who were faced with unmitigated evil, and who choose to take everyone along with them (including the elderly and the sick), so that no one would be left behind.

Too clever by half: Julie and Julia

Filed under: In the theater — Movie Monkey @ 1:44 pm

Overall Rating: A−
Filmmaking/Artistic: A
Storytelling: B+
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (Rare coarse language, some “sensuality”)

The pitch

Imagine that old Saturday Night Live sketch where Julia Child gushes blood all over the chicken, but no blood and we’ll get Meryl Streep to do Julia’s accent.  Oh yeah, and we’ll get Nora Ephron to write it and we’ll add a modern heroine straight out of a Lifetime movie to get the chicks to come, but we’ll keep Meg Ryan out so their husbands can tolerate it.

Overview

A very life affirming movie about Julia Child, with a very Hollywood version of a modern woman thrown in.  It’s a nice look a couple who clearly loved each other and loved life, and who changed the face of cooking in America.

Full review

Julie & Julia is a movie in 3 parts.  One part is the story of Julia Child in Paris (and then later in Cambridge, MA) as she first discovers that culinary experience and goes on to write the seminal book Mastering the Art of French Cooking.  The second part is the modern hook, a young, whiny New Yorker named Julie Powell who is depressend in her job and her new Queens, NY apartment, and decides to cook through Mastering (all 500+ recipes) in one year, and blog about it.  (This is in 2002, when blogs were first beginning.)  And the third part is the food–beautifully shot French food cooked by both Julie and Julia.

The Julia part is as heartwarming as any story presented on film.  Julia and her husband Paul, who works for the foreign service in Pairs, are completely in love, and enjoy every minute they spend together.  Julia is a tall, quirky, and very self-assured as she conquers many obstacles.  She enrolls in a very male-dominated cooking school, where the female director (or head administrator) clearly hates her, and tells her many times that she has no discernible talent for cooking.  Julia rises above all this, and ends up by chance meeting Simone (Simca) Beck at a party, who happens to be writing a French cookbook for English audiences.  This becomes a labor of love for Julia, whose unflappable spirit prevails, and even though many audience members know the ending (clearly, she’s going to get the book published and eventually become a household name in the US), it’s still wonderful to watch.

The food is also a star.  From Julia’s first bite of an unbelievably butter fish in Paris, to Julie’s gorgeous creations from her tiny Queens kitchen, the sumptuous creations are definitely a co-star.  Your Movie Monkey has read that all the food was real, cooked on stage.  However they accomplished it, it’s a great treat… some have even called it food porn.

The third part of the movie is less entertaining and slightly less watchable.  The modern Julie comes across as, well, modern but certainly quite whiny.  Her husband seems a complete cartoon.. you know the type — dark, handsome, of a somewhat slight build so as to be non-threatening.  He lives to support his somewhat snotty bride in her quest, and the one time he does blow up briefly at her for being so self-absorbed, he comes back after a day and esssentially realizes that he was wrong in not putting his entire life on hold in support of her project and moods. 

Interestingly, Your Movie Monkey’s wife Beaudelaire, who read the book before seeing the movie, claimed that the movie actually made Julie far nicer than she appeared in reading the book.  Beaudelaire claimed that, while she quite enjoyed the idea of cooking through Julia’s book in a year, she found Julie Powell’s writing so coarse that it was a difficult read.   In fact, one of Your Movie Monkey’s co-workers told him that she refused to see the movie after reading the book.  For more info regarding this, follow the links in the blog entry by Maki Koitoh.

Despite the kind of potato-skin-with-extra-colby-jack appetizer of the story of Julie, the entree of Julia in Paris makes this movie an enjoyable.  Meryl Streep is absolutely dead on with her imitation of Julia Child, and Stanley Tucci  gives a subtle performance as her husband Paul.  Amy Adams as Julie and Chris Messina as her husband Eric provide good performances given the material they had to work with.

September 7, 2009

Tarantino does WWII: Inglourious Basterds

Filed under: In the theater,Movie review — Movie Monkey @ 9:38 pm

Overall Rating: B+
Filmmaking/Artistic: A−
Storytelling: B
MPAA Rating: R (Extreme violence)

The pitch

You know how Tom Cruise stunk up the place in Valkyrie trying to do history?  Well, what if we changedhistory and made a group of renegade Jewish-American soldiers who scalped the Germans (you know, like in Dances with Wolves or Nurse Betty) into submission?  And what if the lead were a Southerner, just to make fun of Cruise’s accents?  Someone like Brad Pitt doing an accent?  Hey, can we get Brad Pitt?

Overview

A brutally violent Jewish revenge fantasty set in World War II, Inglourious Basterds sets up a “what if” scenario, and plays it out with Quentin Tarantino flair.  What if we could have knocked off Hitler, Goebbels, and all the Nazi big wigs while they were watching Cinema Paradiso?  A master of dramatic tension, Tarantino delivers a film that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats, in a story that is of course improbable, but engaging.

Full review

Your Movie Monkey was one of those rare audience members who liked, but didn’t love, Pulp Fiction.  The dialogue was of course fantastic, and the chronological sequencing fascinating, but the mix of violence and comedy just didn’t sit completely right.  Perhaps some of the issue was the moral mixing of gangsters and thieves as heroes, but The Monkey just couldn’t find it at all comic when an innocent young man in the back of a car was accidentally shot, and the movie turned to the clean up of the “mess”, even though the following scenes were intended as comedic.

Inglourious Basterds on the other hand provides a fictional setting where the motivation for the violence is the horror inflicted on the Jews (and others) by the Nazis.  The opening scene of the film involves a German colonel, Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), investigating a French dairy farmer suspected of hiding Jews.  Landa’s slow, methodical, non-threatening examination of the farmer, with his calm, almost happy demeanor, creates dramatic tension in a way almost difficult to describe. 

As with Pulp Fiction, the stage has been set with this interchange, and Landa’s actions will be reflected later in the film.  In the meantime, in another chapter of the movie (literally), we learn that Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt, doing a decent Kentucky Fried Accent) has established a Jewish-American guerrilla squad of soldiers (the Basterds) whose job is to each obtain 100 Nazi scalps (again, literally).   Those Nazis who are captured and are released (no prisoners are taken) have swastikas carved into their foreheads, so the world will always know what they did, even when they remove their uniform.

The rest of the plot is fairly complicated, although it involves a chance to take out Hitler through the power of the movies. 

Through it all, the Tarantino formula of long discussions building to an intense, violent climax is successfully implemented.  If you like the formula, you’ll probably love this movie.  If you are squeamish at all, stay at home.

Christoph Waltz is brilliant as Col Landa, and clearly the show acting wise, although Brad Pitt also does a decent job in his role.  The strangest bit of casting (stunt casting?) was Mike Meyers as a British army officer.  His makeup was such that he wasn’t instantly recognizable, but Your Movie Monkey kept thinking, “why is he talking like that?”  And then… “0h, that’s what they did with Mike Meyers.”

Your Movie Monkey did find the movie revolved around a kind of theme… “What we shoulda done back then to the Nazis”.  The actions of the Basterds and others whose intentions are to thwart the Nazi regime are definitely presented as heroic.  Even Raines carves up one Nazi’s forehead after making a deal for his release, and when the guy insists “but we had a deal–you’ll be thrown out of the army”, Raines says something like, “No, I’ll just get yelled at, and I’ve been yelled at before”, the message is that this retribution… this torture. .. is “what’s right”.   Is it?  If this is right, then what about  the interrogation methods we are now discussing as a nation (of which waterboarding seems to be the worst, clearly far less than carving swastikas into a forehead) for our military services?

It has long seemed to the Movie Monkey that the message of Hollywood is mixed.  Popular film depicts acts of physical retribution as positive, and yet the same folks that make these movies fight hard against any form of “rough” interrogation in a prospective way in a real life situation where some have threatened death to Americans.  The Monkey isn’t sure what he thinks about the whole issue (mixed feelings, of course, and he wishes we lived in a world where the discussion wasn’t even necessary), but he is sure that our popular culture and our political discourse reflect nearly opposite opinions.

August 22, 2009

Fly Me to Joburg: District 9

Filed under: Uncategorized — Movie Monkey @ 3:18 pm

Overall Rating: A−
Filmmaking/Artistic: A+
Storytelling: B
MPAA Rating: R

The pitch

Imagine that The Fly had an alien friend to guide his transformation (like the alien in Enemy Mine), and could turn into a Transformer to protect his buddies from an evil corporation, and that it was all set in South Africa for that “socially conscious” thing.  And imagine Peter Jackson lent us his name.

Overview

Although Peter Jackson’s name is attached, it’s really an unknown director shooting a very interesting mix of mockumentary and sci/fi action with moral undertones that hit close to home, especially since the film is set in Johannesberg.  Brilliantly acted, at times moving, the film occasionally seems like bits and pieces of other movies (so not quite as groundbreaking as reviews would have you belive), but overall it’s well worth seeing.  Way too violent for those who are squeamish, and definitely not appropriate for those under 14.

Review notes

A departure from typical summer fare, District 9 is an interesting take on familiar themes.  A giant spaceship began to hover over Johannesburg 20 years ago, and after a period of inaction, officials cut into it and found these aliens who were malnourished.  The aliens, who are called “prawns” due to their crustacean appearnce, were herded off into a ghetto called District 9.  But over the course of time (as would be expected with a million aliens in a ghetto) tensions rose, and the movie really begins, in mockumentary style, with the resettling of the prawns to a new (and far worse) area called District 10.

The resettlment is under the control of MNU, the archetypical evil corporation.  The main character, Wikus Van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley), is selected by his company to be in charge of the resettlement.  The prawns have “rights” (in name only), and must agree to the resettlement, but it’s a farce, because MNU can kill them if they refuse to give their permission.

During the resettling procedure, which is broadcast round the world on through CNN-esque organizations, Wikus is “infected” with an alien substance, and begins to transform into a prawn.  At which point, MNU’s nefarious schemes become quite clear, and poor Wikus becomes the target of lies as he tries to escape from MNU.

Along the way, Wikus is befriended by a fairly smart prawn named “Christopher”, who has goals of his own.

The action part of the movie unfolds along fairly standard, but still interesting lines.  But the theme of the movie that makes it so interesting is that Wikus’s evolution in thinking about the prawns.   In the beginning, as he finds an “unauthorized” prawn eggs, he laughs as they are set on fire, describing with amusement to the camera how these little ones “pop like popcorn” while being destroyed.  But he becomes more sympathetic when he himself becomes victim to the same treatment he was dishing out.

The movie is more complicated than the review indicates, but it’s well worth watching.  The obvious Apartheid metaphor is well done, always in the background but never so overpowering as to seem stilted.  The theme of the movie is universal: the inhumanity and depravity humans have inflicted on each other, once one group decides that another group is somehow “less than human”.  True, in the movie, the prawns are non-human.  But they are sentient, intelligent, and clearly have come from a place with better technology than on earth.

It’s also interesting how the space ship hovers above the city constantly throughout the movie.  It’s like the problem of racisim… it’s always there, even if you try to shove it in a corner.

Copley, who apparently is new to acting, does a brilliant job as Wikus.  He carries the entire movie, and is incredibly believable. 

Your Movie Monkey did have a few quibbles.  First, in Hollywood Code, there is no greater evil than the corporation.  In this film, the corporation was willing to remove a man’s heart (live) for their own profit motive.  It seems universally true.  About half the crimes on Law and Order, at least when The Monkey was watching it, were driven by coroporate greed.  (And drug companies… their CEOs are always ridiculously portrayed as being willing to sacrifice innocent lives to make money.  Ridiculous!)  Even the ridiculous movie Bulworth, which has Warren Beatty pantsing around to run for political office, even doing things like rap, has an evil corporation kill him because his ideas were becoming too popular.   District 9 is no exception to the “corporations are evil” bandwagon.  It’s just, at this point, a very hackneyed theme.

Second, Wikus’s transformation into a prawn was very, very reminiscent of The Fly.  Losing fingernails, losing teeth, etc., it all felt a little familiar. 

But overall, despite a somewhat slow first half, the movie is fantastic.  It is violent, and the treatment of the prawns is very disturbing, but the theme is universal, and the action is well worth the monkey’s few complaints.

Change You Can Believe In

Filed under: Uncategorized — Movie Monkey @ 2:34 pm

Your Movie Monkey has felt a little guilty of late that he hasn’t been terribly faithful to this blog. (But then again, as the only person in American who didn’t like “Up”, he felt he might get threatened.)

Part of his issue is that he has discovered that, unless the movie is really bad like “Twilight”, he doesn’t enjoy doing the plot recaps. So now he will just talk about whatever he wants, in some cases doing full reviews, and in some cases just babbling on.

He also plans to add a new section called “The Pitch” to each review, which is an amusing hypothetical look at how the movie might have been pitched to the folks with money who can make it happen.

Thanks for your patience, and hope you enjoy the new style. And hope that The Monkey actually does it now.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress