Let's Enjoy Japan!

Hello, movie fans,

I know, I know, you'd rather be reading a movie review, but in the meantime, I'd advise you to check out Japan Greetings, my own personal captain's log from the land of the rising sun. You know you wanna.

A slow down in reviews...

Readers: I am in Japan.

To be less brief, there will definitely be a slow down of reviews while I'm in a foreign land (11 months). Consider this a temporary hiatus, as soon as I'm back in the states (late July, 2006) I will be rushing to the theater once again! Until then, I'll post if and when I can, maybe taking a look at some some of my favorite films (fantastic or fantastically awful), and any movie I might actually get to see in a timely manner over here.

Keep reading,

The Reviewer

The Brothers Grimm

Will and Jacob Grimm (Matt Damon and Heath Ledger), are two brothers making a living as con men in the early 1800s in French-occupied Germany. The pair have become famous by faking ghosts, ghouls, and other frightening creatures, playing in the superstitious stories of the German villagers, then, for a steep fee, defeating said terrors. This until, (bum, bum, bum!) they are arrested by the French and sent on a mission where local girls are being abducted--perhaps by a truly enchanted foe?

Will Grimm is the obnoxious ladies man, pushing around his twitchy younger brother Jacob, a scholar who studies and records the local tales, and is not quite as skeptical as his brother. Ledger's performance was my favorite, awkward and adorable, with just the right amount of ticks. Alas, having had a tragic family incident involving a cow/bean trade, Will is loath to believe in any sort of magic story. The two meet with an outcast lady trapper, Angelika (Lena Headey), who knows that the trees in the woods are more than just trees. Prepare to see snippets of fairy tales (Little Riding Hood, Rapunzel, Snow White, etc.) thrown in, although it often seems just to be to remind us of the fairy tale theme--it often adds nothing to overall story.

This movie, directed by Terry Gilliam, has a sort of "Sleepy Hollow" vibe. It's funny. And it's scary. And actually, you can probably name a few more ways they're alike if you've seen both films. Not that this is a problem. But a very easy way to describe the film. (I'm afraid I vote for Sleepy Hollow if the two are in a contest.)

The visuals look pretty good, minus a few CGI bits that glare at you from the screen. As it often goes in movies set in past centuries in Europe, everything is very muddy and a lot of the non-starring characters have bad teeth. It's not as crazy weird looking as some Gilliam things, indeed, by some standards, it might seem flat-out mainstream. But when you do have men hanging over a cauldron by very long chains, their heads in glass boxes filled with snails, you have to admit it's still not quite mainstream, visually.

The film is actually flat-out goofy at times. You'd almost think at some points it was oriented toward a younger audience, until you see some gruesome capture of a child, or the disposal of an adorable kitten in a way that no adorable kitten should be disposed of. No, as little girls seem to take the brunt of the horror in this not-really-a-horror film, this is definitely not one for the kiddies. I wouldn't have minded a bit if a few of the scary "something grotesque pops onto the screen" moments were traded in for some more clever lines.

Bottom Line: Mainly good for a giggle and some fun, if you don't mind a bit of cruel/gross visuals.

Sin City: DVD Release

Sin City may be the most stylistic film I've ever seen. Quentin Tarantino, who is a "guest director" on this film, looks like a low-key realist next to Sin City.

How to explain it? Sin City is based on a comic book (which I am unfamiliar with), and strives to look like a comic book. It is shot largely in black and white, except for a few colors that show up in each scene--the red of a woman's lips, green in the eyes, or a blue car. The visuals are truly fascinating.

As much as the visuals may have been used to connect the film to comic books, I believe softening the violence could have also been a goal. In this aspect, I think the graphics don't fare so well. The movie is extremely violent, though it seems to be trying to funny a lot of the time. I found it a bit disconcerting to have such graphic violence mixed with humor in the context of some pretty disturbing events in the plot. I may be picky, but I'll warn you that the comic book style does not keep some of the gore--mutilations, decapitations, castrations--from seeing pretty grotesque, even a little nauseating.

But what is it about? The movie is comprised of a few very loosely interlocking stories taking place in Sin City, with a cast too numerous for me to list to you. As a general rule, the narrators are grizzled tough guys with their own code of honor. Here, I am bothered a bit. I know the stories come straight from the comics, but I can still be insulted by the plot, right? Where the men are tough vigilantes and psychotic villains, the women are all half-naked damsels in distress. Well, let me alter that. The women are all half-naked damsels in distress, with the exception of a pack of half-naked murderous prostitutes. I'm just saying.

I was a hard sell on this movie. The first fifteen minutes made me scoff, with the stiff comic book dialogue seeming to be recited as meaninglessly as Leonardo DiCaprio's lines in Romeo+Juliet. But it grew on me. I got used to the speech patterns and didn't pay as much attention to the stilted dialogue, and frankly, I can't get over how awesome this movie looks. If you can take the violence, I think you can appreciate that it's visually a masterpiece. The stories are still borderline campy, but dang it, I'm a sucker for an interesting-looking film.

Bottom Line: Fascinating watch, but not for the weak of stomach or lovers of realism.

The Island

Now, I'm still not entirely convinced The Island isn't a re-make of something I watched on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (was it called... Clonus? Spare Parts?), but I like the movie, nontheless. But then, it does have Ewan McGregor AND Steve Buscemi! And no. I'm not being sarcastic.

A false reality created for your benefit to hide from you, well, actual reality. I think it's actually a pretty nightmarish idea--and when I say that, I'll add that I actually did have that nightmare once. Lincoln Six-Echo, played by always-adorable McGregor, finds himself a clone in just such a situation. Living in a facility where clones are created, fully grown, in what appear to be very, very large breast implants, Lincoln's recurring nightmares eventually lead to him discovering that the outside world might not actually be contaminated, as he's been lead to believe. And uh-oh: his pretty friend, Jordan Two-Delta (Scarlett Johanssen) may not actually be heading for The Island--the world's last, uncontaminated paradise. Chase scenes ensue!

Although it's part Logan's Run, part... whatever that MST3K movie was, The Island is actually a very good movie, and didn't feel like a rehash to me. To live forever is the new American Dream (the movie takes place in 2019), and for the fabulously wealthy, buying a product (which they believe will be kept in a vegetative state) to provide spare parts could double a life-span! The problem for the cloning company, of course, is when a clone doesn't want to move to "The Island," and turn to have just as strong a will to live as their "real world" counterparts.

McGregor is great as a disgruntled clone (why exactly does everyone in the facility have to wear white?!), and Johanssen is at least better than that gosh-darn Jessica Alba from Fantastic Four (sorry, I bring it up because I have a bit of a hard time telling them apart). Buscemi is delightful, as usual, playing a sort of mechanic from the facility willing to regard Lincoln as more than just a product. The villains are slick, I suppose, although the men sent after the escaped clones do seem a little unbelievably well-equipped... but, naw, I'll let that slide and attribute it to the year being 2019. Anything can happen in The Future!

So... I like it. Acting's solid, effects are good (as in: not all that noticeable). I'm skeptical that vehicles flip/smash/crumble quite so easily, but, except for the shaky camera work, I think the chase scenes are good. You know, as chase scenes go. You can't claim it isn't action-packed, and at least this is one action movie that has thought behind the plot and characters, unlike a certain superhero movie I could name.

Bottom Line: Fast-paced, intelligent action movie with teeth.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Well. Well, well, well. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This is an odd one, I must say. I've had a day to think on it, and I'm still not entirely sure if I liked it or not. But I think I'm leaning toward a positive review. It might be easier if I hadn't had that infectious little "Willy Wonka" jingle running through my head non-stop all day ("Willy Wonka, Willy Wonka, the amazing chocolateer..."). But I digress.

Perhaps I should start by mentioning the original Willy Wonka movie. It terrified me as a child. You see, I thought the children were all being killed off. I will at least tell you that in this movie, I doubt your children will get that impression, altough thanks to special effects (yeah, "thanks"), the... situations the children visiting the factory undergo are a bit more dramatic. Although I've never watched the original movie all the way through (as I said, terrified), I still felt the bulk of the plot was a re-tread. I don't know what I expected, but I found myself a little bored at times. If your children haven't seen the original (or read the book, I suppose, which I haven't), they will likely feel more delighted. There is a different ending, and some different background plots, which at least add some new interest.

But does that mean I found the movie boring, overall? No, I think, a bit predictable, of course, but I'd say it's not a boring movie. It does have some funny moments, although I think I only laughed out loud once (I'm not a big laugher, though, so consider it a compliment that I did at all). If anything, there is at least quite a bit to look at, and some bizarre Oompa-Loompa song and dance numbers, which certainly are better, and substantially less creepy, than in the first movie.

Johnny Depp, as Wonka, reunites here with Freddie Highmore, who plays Charlie, and was also the charming little boy in Finding Neverland, also starring Depp. Freddie's role is once again charming. Depp's is not.

I must say, Depp certainly commits 100% to every character, and this is yet another unique performance. Never does Johnny Depp play himself. What I mean is, it is never "Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka." It's "Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka." Johnny Depp is Willy Wonka, though this is a high-voiced, poorly-coifed, man-child Willy Wonka, whom I would certainly never want to meet.

Is this a problem? Well, this Willy Wonka makes me squirm uncomfortably a bit. But he also seems to make the other characters (not the actors, but the characters) squirm a bit uncomfortably. So I suppose, since the story and cast work with Creepy Willy, rather than him seeing misplaced, it works for me. Would I have preferred a more fun, confident Willy, sans the bob haircut? Yes. But this is a film from Tim Burton, the man behind The Nightmare Before Christmas. So we couldn't expect this movie to be too cuddly, could we?

If anything, I expect the movie will garner a cult following of fans who like oddly-lit movies full of slightly off-looking people. I wouldn't take children too terribly young, just because some of the film is unsettling, but I don't think this movie is too creep-tacular to be unfit for mainstream audiences. Have a go, unless your children have been formerly traumatized by a Burton movie.

Bottom Line: This quirky, kinda-creepy "kids movie" will be fun, so long as you're braced for the bizarre.

Million Dollar Baby: DVD Release

Million Dollar Baby: You know it's a boxing movie, you know it won several Academy Awards, and you may be aware of controversial plot elements, which, while it was in theater release, caused some further controversy over whether some conservative talk show hosts were deliberately sabotaging the movie by revealing what is meant to be a surprise. I will not be commenting on this other than saying the following:

Movies are made to tell a story. What characters do in a film, shouldn't be interpretted by anyone as a call to action, but simply as fictional characters making choices. You can choose to feel these were right choices or wrong choices--it's your perogative. I will also note that I did have the movie's twist spoiled for me, and I think knowing what was going to happen made me view the movie more uneasily, and, had it not been spoiled, it would have been far more effecting. So... I don't give a crap about your politics, and please, if you don't already know what's going to happen, don't look for spoilers (it'll ruin it a little). Can I just review it now?

Hilary Swank plays Maggie, a dirt-poor woman from the sticks, who travels to the gym owned by boxing trainer, Frankie, played by Clint Eastwood (who also directs), hoping the gritty-voiced old-timer will make her a boxer. Morgan Freeman rounds off the cast as an injured former boxer who helps maintain the gym and acts as narrator.

I'll say up front that I was a little confused at first over when exactly this movie is supposed to take place. It became easily apparent soon into the movie that it takes place now (first clue: prominently displayed ad for The Apprentice on the side of a bus). It does seem to me, however, that many of the characters seem to have stepped out of a different time, several decades earlier. I think the movie gets over this, and I didn't really care by the end, but for the first third or so, the gritty realism clash with the slightly stereotyped characters. The characters are expanded, for the most part, though, which is a good thing.

One character I could have done completely without was "Danger," a dim-witted Southern stereotype who makes Gomer Pyle look like a reasonable portrayal. I don't think the humor or possible parallels this character was supposed to bring to movie worked the way they were intended to. He was simply grating a little insulting (you really expect me to buy this character?).

The acting is pretty good, if very low-key, although I still don't understand why Eastwood had to growl quite so much, or if Swank had to be quite so earnest (Maggie's 31, not 14, let's remember). I've heard lots of rave reviews of Freeman in this movie, but let me voice the small complaint that I had a bit of trouble understanding his mummbled narration at times.

Okay. Maybe you think I'm working my way up to a trash fest of this movie. I'm not. It's a good movie. It's original, it's... Well, it's original. It doesn't make you feel good, in my opinion. It's not something I ever want to watch again. But it does deserve some of the fuss it got, if only because it's in the midst of a movie landscape cluttered with American Pie's and, Lord help us, Fantastic Four's.

But... a little over-hyped, over-rated, how ever you want to put it. It's good... but not quite that good. Glad I rented it, never see myself wanting my own copy.

Special Features: "Born to Fight" is what I assume was a special prior to the movie being released. It includes actors from the movie discussing their characters and the plot, but doesn't really offer any fresh insights. It basically rehashes the observations I'm sure you were quick enough to make yourself when you watched the movie. "The Producers Round 15" is a bit more interesting. It contains interviews with the people--producers, and the like--discussing how Million Dollar Baby got made. Finally, "James Lipton Takes on THree" is a Post-Academy Awards interview with Swank, Freeman, and Eastwood. This is a bit ponderous, as the actors discuss different aspects of acting and the film, and the interviewer kisses a little too much butt. Nothing revolutionary or all that fun in the special features (I reviewed the 2-disc version of the movie).

Bottom Line: Rent it to see what all the fuss is about, but be aware there may have been a weeee bit too much fuss.