0
Hoilday viewing time
29 December 2005
[indent]We watched four movies over the holidays - a record for TV viewing in a single weekend for us. In five days we watched perhaps 12 hours of TV. Truly a vegetative weekend! Of course, it doesn't compare with the average Canadian, who watches 22 or more hours of TV every week... but it was an extended downtime for interaction, activity, creativity and reading.
On our holiday viewing list this weekend: Help (The Beatles), two sci-fi flicks: The Island and Serenity, and an animated film, Madagascar.
Help is always fun to watch. It was more scripted and less spontaneous than the Beatles' first film, Hard Days' Night, but it's still zany. Very British, too - it goes over the top in so many scenes, but the acting and dialogue never let it become ugly. Amazing how well many of the gags still hold up.
The attempt to cast the Beatles as the British Elvis, shoehorning them from music into acting, ended with Help. Thank the gods. Elvis' career as a musician flickered and faded as he took the role of a B-flick star in some pretty sorry musicals. He went from rebel icon of a generation to a singing clown (only redeeming himself late in his career with his 1968 Comeback Special).
Fortunately for pop music, the Beatles never followed him down this lackluster path and continued on developing their musical career. Help remains an entertaining anomaly in their ongoing experiment with pop culture. The Beatles are cute, clean cut, and fab. The darker days, the growing genius and the eventula breakup were still to come. In Help, they're young, fresh and still cute. Not as innocent or vulnerable as in A Hard Day's Night, but not as world-weary and introspective as Let it Be, either.
Help is also one of those cultural milestones Susan and I shared; both of us watched it nine or ten times in the theatre when it was first released, back in 1965. It's worth watching every now and then to relive that lost youth. Its nostalgic association with my own past of course boosts the rating: 4 out of 5 stars. Take away the personal affection for the Beatles and the 60s, I'd have to lower that to 3, maybe 3.5.
Madagascar is an animated film in the same vein as Shrek, Ice Age and others including Chicken Run. Unlike the aforementioned films, Madagascar is more of a children's movie, with considerably less of the wit and banter either had, no sexual innuendo, a very thin plot, and generally less interesting to adults.
Animated films can be interesting in that they allow the characters to engage in exagerrated expressions and physically impossible activities (often towards sight gags), heightening the humour, emotions or tension. But it's the combination of improbable characters with sharp dialogue that makes films like Ice Age stand out and define them as adult-oriented. Madagascar is far more predictable.
Animated films are not necessarily for children. Many are designed for an adult audience. There's a confusion in the public mind that says any movie with animation, dinosaurs or baby pigs must be for children. But Shrek and Ice Age, Babe and Jurassic Park were really adult-oriented movies, with adult situations, adult issues, sometimes sexual innuendo and often violence. Kids don't usually get the point, nor do their clueless parents who equat a T-Rex with Barney. For example, the powerful moral story, the depiction of the evils of the factory farm, and the plea for animal rights in Babe was lost on people who took their kids out to see the funny little talking piggies.
In part that's because we have relegated our "fairy tales" to being mere children's stories, instead of treating them like legends and morality plays for all ages. So anything that looks vaguely magical, or has fantasic beings - like animated films - generally gets treated as something for children, rather than an alternate venue for expressing ideas and imagery for adults. Science fiction has eroded that way, too, in large part to George Lucas turning his adult-oriented Star Wars series into a watered-down series of films for children.
Madagascar, however, IS a children's movie. Adults may find it amusing in some scenes, but it's shallow and never rises to the wit of Ice Age. It manages silly, but never really witty. In fact, the portrayal of the lemurs borders on painfully overdone. The voice acting is merely acceptable at its best, mediocre most of the time. It gets 1.5 stars out of 5 in my rating. (Ice Age would get 4 out of 5).
The Island: take one part THX-1138, one part Logan's Run, one part Soylent Green, one part The Island of Dr. Moreau, a pinch of The Matrix (maybe just a dash of Frankenstein) and a large measure of special effects-action sequences and you too can bake your own movie. Hardly original, but rather entertaining if you lean towards watching non-stop destruction and explosions on a grand scale. I particularly enjoyed watching the SUVs and Hummers being blown up in dozens of inventive ways. I'd probably enjoy a film where nothing else happened but SUVs and Hummers were trashed.
Acting is minimal to fair. The opening 20 minutes or so are relatively and inactive, dull set-up scenes for the action that follows. The intellectual premise is a trifle thin, and the science is pale and poorly explained. But the movie is fun nonetheless because it's so action-dense in the latter half.
Fun doesn't equate with memorable. Despite a reasonably good cast - including , Scarlett Johannson and Ewan Macgregor in the leads, backed by Steve Buscemi, Sean Bean and Djimon Hounsou - the plot and the background don't stand intense scutiny. A lot of moral and social questions are raised but never resolved. There is a moment of redemption in the film through Djimon's change of heart, and it helps save the ending from being too trite.
I gave it 2.5 out of 5 stars.
Unbeknownst to us when we rented it, Serentity is a movie taken from a TV series, Firefly. Since we never watched Firefly, some of the background remained hidden until we watched the special features on the DVD. Despite this, the plot hung together reasonably well. We'll have to hunt down the TV series to see if it was any good.
Serenity is a straightforward sci-fi action film, with space battles in between rock-em-sock-em land action. The crew of the ship have the obligatory journey of escape, exploration and discovery, during which they have to take on the mysterious barbarians, the Reevers, and the nasty "empire" - a government akin to Orwell's Big Brother of the star Wars' empire. Pretty standard fare, here.
The Reevers (Reivers?) are a mysterious race of impossibly aggressive cannibals who kill and eat every living thing in their way. What is never explained is how this mindless lot of killers (apparently "argh" and "grrrr" comprise their entire vocabulary) manage to pilot interstellar space ships, operate high-tech weapons and keep from killing (and eating) one another on long space voyages... nor how they manage to live with their awful mutations and wounds without any social structure that provides even basic medical care... don't ask questions, just fire that laser cannon!
Nothing exceptional, not many new ideas, but again a fun film. Fair acting, reasonable sets, enough action and a fair cast. No SUVs get blown up, but we can't have everything (in this distant future, humans have obviously evolved beyond SUVs, but not, apparently, projectile weaponry). Another 2.5 out of 5.
I love sci fi because it removes the shackles that ground other films to human realities. It allows writers and directors to explore ideas and issues beyond the barriers. It can also be used to transform old idea and plots into new life (Outland, for example, put High Noon on a Jovian moon). But to rate higher numbers on my scale, sci fi has to give us something new, something different, something outside the current molds. And the science has to meld with the story in such a way as to be believable and probable, even though impossible by today's understanding.
Neither of these films break any new ground, but rather continue to tread well-established ideas and plotlines. They don't resolve moral, social or even personal issues, but they do have action and special effects galore. They're fun films, not serious intellectual forays; an evening's light entertainment.
[/indent]
On our holiday viewing list this weekend: Help (The Beatles), two sci-fi flicks: The Island and Serenity, and an animated film, Madagascar.
Help is always fun to watch. It was more scripted and less spontaneous than the Beatles' first film, Hard Days' Night, but it's still zany. Very British, too - it goes over the top in so many scenes, but the acting and dialogue never let it become ugly. Amazing how well many of the gags still hold up.
The attempt to cast the Beatles as the British Elvis, shoehorning them from music into acting, ended with Help. Thank the gods. Elvis' career as a musician flickered and faded as he took the role of a B-flick star in some pretty sorry musicals. He went from rebel icon of a generation to a singing clown (only redeeming himself late in his career with his 1968 Comeback Special).
Fortunately for pop music, the Beatles never followed him down this lackluster path and continued on developing their musical career. Help remains an entertaining anomaly in their ongoing experiment with pop culture. The Beatles are cute, clean cut, and fab. The darker days, the growing genius and the eventula breakup were still to come. In Help, they're young, fresh and still cute. Not as innocent or vulnerable as in A Hard Day's Night, but not as world-weary and introspective as Let it Be, either.
Help is also one of those cultural milestones Susan and I shared; both of us watched it nine or ten times in the theatre when it was first released, back in 1965. It's worth watching every now and then to relive that lost youth. Its nostalgic association with my own past of course boosts the rating: 4 out of 5 stars. Take away the personal affection for the Beatles and the 60s, I'd have to lower that to 3, maybe 3.5.
Madagascar is an animated film in the same vein as Shrek, Ice Age and others including Chicken Run. Unlike the aforementioned films, Madagascar is more of a children's movie, with considerably less of the wit and banter either had, no sexual innuendo, a very thin plot, and generally less interesting to adults.
Animated films can be interesting in that they allow the characters to engage in exagerrated expressions and physically impossible activities (often towards sight gags), heightening the humour, emotions or tension. But it's the combination of improbable characters with sharp dialogue that makes films like Ice Age stand out and define them as adult-oriented. Madagascar is far more predictable.
Animated films are not necessarily for children. Many are designed for an adult audience. There's a confusion in the public mind that says any movie with animation, dinosaurs or baby pigs must be for children. But Shrek and Ice Age, Babe and Jurassic Park were really adult-oriented movies, with adult situations, adult issues, sometimes sexual innuendo and often violence. Kids don't usually get the point, nor do their clueless parents who equat a T-Rex with Barney. For example, the powerful moral story, the depiction of the evils of the factory farm, and the plea for animal rights in Babe was lost on people who took their kids out to see the funny little talking piggies.
In part that's because we have relegated our "fairy tales" to being mere children's stories, instead of treating them like legends and morality plays for all ages. So anything that looks vaguely magical, or has fantasic beings - like animated films - generally gets treated as something for children, rather than an alternate venue for expressing ideas and imagery for adults. Science fiction has eroded that way, too, in large part to George Lucas turning his adult-oriented Star Wars series into a watered-down series of films for children.
Madagascar, however, IS a children's movie. Adults may find it amusing in some scenes, but it's shallow and never rises to the wit of Ice Age. It manages silly, but never really witty. In fact, the portrayal of the lemurs borders on painfully overdone. The voice acting is merely acceptable at its best, mediocre most of the time. It gets 1.5 stars out of 5 in my rating. (Ice Age would get 4 out of 5).
The Island: take one part THX-1138, one part Logan's Run, one part Soylent Green, one part The Island of Dr. Moreau, a pinch of The Matrix (maybe just a dash of Frankenstein) and a large measure of special effects-action sequences and you too can bake your own movie. Hardly original, but rather entertaining if you lean towards watching non-stop destruction and explosions on a grand scale. I particularly enjoyed watching the SUVs and Hummers being blown up in dozens of inventive ways. I'd probably enjoy a film where nothing else happened but SUVs and Hummers were trashed.
Acting is minimal to fair. The opening 20 minutes or so are relatively and inactive, dull set-up scenes for the action that follows. The intellectual premise is a trifle thin, and the science is pale and poorly explained. But the movie is fun nonetheless because it's so action-dense in the latter half.
Fun doesn't equate with memorable. Despite a reasonably good cast - including , Scarlett Johannson and Ewan Macgregor in the leads, backed by Steve Buscemi, Sean Bean and Djimon Hounsou - the plot and the background don't stand intense scutiny. A lot of moral and social questions are raised but never resolved. There is a moment of redemption in the film through Djimon's change of heart, and it helps save the ending from being too trite.
I gave it 2.5 out of 5 stars.
Unbeknownst to us when we rented it, Serentity is a movie taken from a TV series, Firefly. Since we never watched Firefly, some of the background remained hidden until we watched the special features on the DVD. Despite this, the plot hung together reasonably well. We'll have to hunt down the TV series to see if it was any good.
Serenity is a straightforward sci-fi action film, with space battles in between rock-em-sock-em land action. The crew of the ship have the obligatory journey of escape, exploration and discovery, during which they have to take on the mysterious barbarians, the Reevers, and the nasty "empire" - a government akin to Orwell's Big Brother of the star Wars' empire. Pretty standard fare, here.
The Reevers (Reivers?) are a mysterious race of impossibly aggressive cannibals who kill and eat every living thing in their way. What is never explained is how this mindless lot of killers (apparently "argh" and "grrrr" comprise their entire vocabulary) manage to pilot interstellar space ships, operate high-tech weapons and keep from killing (and eating) one another on long space voyages... nor how they manage to live with their awful mutations and wounds without any social structure that provides even basic medical care... don't ask questions, just fire that laser cannon!
Nothing exceptional, not many new ideas, but again a fun film. Fair acting, reasonable sets, enough action and a fair cast. No SUVs get blown up, but we can't have everything (in this distant future, humans have obviously evolved beyond SUVs, but not, apparently, projectile weaponry). Another 2.5 out of 5.
I love sci fi because it removes the shackles that ground other films to human realities. It allows writers and directors to explore ideas and issues beyond the barriers. It can also be used to transform old idea and plots into new life (Outland, for example, put High Noon on a Jovian moon). But to rate higher numbers on my scale, sci fi has to give us something new, something different, something outside the current molds. And the science has to meld with the story in such a way as to be believable and probable, even though impossible by today's understanding.
Neither of these films break any new ground, but rather continue to tread well-established ideas and plotlines. They don't resolve moral, social or even personal issues, but they do have action and special effects galore. They're fun films, not serious intellectual forays; an evening's light entertainment.
[/indent]
