February 3-16 Recap

Two weeks worth of movies and books! Not a whole lot here (it was a slow two weeks for movies, and a slow two weeks for getting to blog) but I wanted to make sure and keep things going. These may be short entries, but they'll get the job done.

Films

Kon-Tiki

Director: Joachim Roenning & Espen Sandberg
Genre: Adventure
Source: Norway (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: A-

I remember reading a book about the voyage of the Kon-Tiki in 4th or 5th grade (though I asked my students and they didn't have a clue what I was talking about, so maybe it's not in the curriculum anymore). The story is pretty incredible, and the movie shows the adventure's perils pretty effectively, in part by making Thor Heyerdahl such an unwavering optimist even in the face of so much absurd opposition. At times he comes off as naive, at times blindly faithful, and at times just dumb, and of course that's all of what the movie is trying to convince us of--that he seemed naive only because we couldn't see the truth like he did.

It's definitely a bit of hero worship, but it's a pretty fun bit of hero worship and a pretty amazing story. (And it makes me feel as though I'm pretty much completely wasting my time on the couch when I could be, you know, floating a raft across the Pacific or something.

Pretty good stuff.

Dead Man Down

Director: Niels Arden Oplev
Genre: Action
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B

It took me two tries to get into this film, but the second time I started it it really clicked for me. Colin Farrell is pretty effective as the "stoic-action-figure-with-emotion-bubbling-just-below-the-surface" and I'm excited to see Noomi Rapace getting more roles in the US (though she's far too beautiful--even with the fake scars--for the local children's taunts that she is a monster to seem likely), plus there's a nice little supporting cast here that includes Dominic Cooper and Terrance Howard. So there's a lot going for the film, and though sometimes it gets way too caught up in its own supposed gravitas, it's still a pretty effective little action thriller. 

I'm glad I gave it a second chance, even if the revenge action movie is usually done better in other countries. There's still something to like here.

The Paperboy

Director: Lee Daniels
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: R

Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: F

Oh man, why did I bother finishing this? I'll admit by the end I was mostly browsing my iPad while I watched, but I still left it going.

I should have known early on. There were plenty of clues: Zac Efron hanging out in his tighty-whities. John Cusack doing a Southern accent. Nicole Kidman's weirdly sexual and obsessive character. None of it was adding up to much, and by the time time the film was over it was lost in its own eye-rolling sweat-soaked world.

So dumb. So pointless. I guess everyone was just really excited to work with Lee Daniels after Precious came out, so they missed out on using better judgment.

I Give It a Year

Director: Dan Mazer
Genre: Romantic Comedy
Source: UK (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B-

A fine but not great adult romantic comedy that isn't quite sure what it wants to be (risque? satire? standard business?) but has a few fine scenes along the way. It's easy to see this as pretty petty and a mostly negative take on marriage and commitment (the usually great Minnie Driver is stuck with a harpy for a character), but I think what it's really trying to go for is the idea that you have to find the right person to commit to, which is actually pretty old school, it just puts the "finding the right person" cliche plot as happening after the marriage rather than before.

Most of it I did enjoy, but I just do not get the love for Anna Farris. Why is she such a popular actress for these kinds of films? She's not really much of an actress, she's not particularly attractive, she doesn't even seem very likable and charismatic. So why does she keep getting these second tier rom-com leads? 

Anyway, I think I prefer UK rom-coms to US. They're as contrived and silly as their American counterparts, but at least the British accents give everything a little sheen of a more depth.

The Guilt Trip

Director: Anne Fletcher
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: C+

Who knew that Seth Rogan and Barbara Streisand are actually a kind of solid comic duo? I mean, they aren't Rogen/Franco or anything like that, but they actually played off each other pretty well for the most part. I mean, better than I expected. There aren't big laughs here, for the most part, but there were some chuckles. 

If anything, I'm surprised that they gave so much of the screen time to Streisand. Her character is supposed to be a little annoying, and at times she succeeds a bit too well.

Still, it wasn't all bad. There are worse ways to spend time at the gym.

The Croods

Director: Kirk De Micco & Chris Sanders
Genre: Animated
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B

I'd heard from several people that this was a surprisingly strong animated film, and though I really wasn't expecting much, I have to admit that I was pretty entertained throughout. The character models took a little while to get used to (I'm not sure I ever really got to like them) but there's a sense of fun and some smart bits of writing to it overall.

Nicholas Cage: genius or madman? When he's not on screen mugging for the camera, he's pretty respectable, and he develops a strong rapport with both Ryan Reynolds and Emma Stone, and the dynamic of teenage desire for change, fatherly protectiveness actually works pretty well in the changing world from caveman to whatever comes after cavemen. The film also has a lot of fun with wild character designs for the animals that inhabit this world. It further removes the film from "reality," but in fun and creative ways.

It's not the kind of animated film I will go back to again, but it was more energetic and engaging than I expected going in.

Burke and Hare

Director: John Landis
Genre: Comedy
Source: UK (2010)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: C

It's not that Burke and Hare is bad, because it's not. But given the talent involved--Simon Pegg, Andy Serkis, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Curry, Isla Fisher, and directed by 80s genius John Landis--it just should have been a better. These are really highly talented actors and directors, so why did they end up with a film that doesn't leave me with much more than a smirk?

It's possible that the film doesn't go far enough. The comedy isn't sure whether it wants to be black, or satiric, or slapstick, and so it just sort of wades a middle ground through all of them--and as a result neuters all of them as well.

It had a few chuckles, but I'd much rather see Simon Pegg go back to working more with Nick Frost and Edgar Wright. There are bits to like here, but it's not much of a whole.

Robocop

Director: Jose Padilha
Genre: Action
Source: USA (2014)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Georgia Theater Company
Grade: B

I have no great allegiance to or strong feeling about the 1987 Paul Verhoeven film, though I know for some it's a beloved, gory, satiric, and classic 80s action adventure. I'm fairly sure I've seen the film, but with no nostalgia about it and not that much excitement for the satiric aspects of the original, I had no great expectations going in to this remake.

I was pleasantly surprised! There was not a lot of joy to the movie (Joel Kinnaman is not an actor who comes to mind when using that word), and the attempts at satire with Samuel L. Jackson really fell flat to me (he's become one of those actors who can't do much besides play his persona, it seems), but there was a lot to like here. Yes the film may be PG-13 and surprisingly bloodless in its portrayal of some pretty heinous acts, but it also uses its limited gore pretty effectively. When Dr. Norton removes Alex Murphy's uniform and let's him see how much of himself is left, it truly is pretty horrifying (short answer: there's not much left).

And the film has a supporting cast that can carry some weight when the film gets into some of the moral questions. Gary Oldman is pretty great as Dr. Norton, who's ethical boundaries get blurry the more he realizes what he can do--a kind of modern day Frankenstein with a little more guilt--and I'm always excited to see Michael Keaton in a movie. The family bonds may be a little two-dimensional, but they're also passable as emotional weighting for the film.

Really, I was surprisingly pleased. Sure the questions about technology and surveillance and all that kind of stuff are kind of clumsily handed, but there are still things to sink your teeth into. Not bad for a February popcorn movie.

Books

The Sociopath Next Door (by Martha Stout)

Things I learned from Martha Stout's book: 

• Apparently 1 in 25 people in the US is a sociopath
• Sociopaths have no conscience and thus care nothing for the connections and bonds that guide most of our actions
• Most sociopaths aren't big criminal masterminds, they're just people who seek to "defeat" other people in a variety of ways, since winning becomes their main focus in life
• Books written with an intensely 9/11 focused lens can seem somewhat dated even a decade later

It wasn't terrible, but even at just 250 easy-to-read pages I found it a little bit tiresome. I'm more interested now in reading Jon Ronson's The Psychopath Test now, but Stout's story-telling here just seemed a little . . . trite . . . and repetitive at times to make this feel like much of an expose or compelling read. 

It didn't really do much for me. 

Grade: C-

January 27-February 2 Recap

Films

American Psycho
Director: Mary Harron
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2000)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: C

As I try to clear a backlog of films that includes literally hundreds if not thousands of movies, I try to strike a balance between movies that are important, movies that I've heard a lot about, and movies that look like fun. This film fits pretty well in the second category, but I found it a pretty unpleasant watch (despite Christian Bale's expansive performance and inherent charisma) and not as important or meaningful as I had expected.

OK, perhaps vanity and our ego camouflage that those who are slaves to capitalism are all monsters, and the film externalizes that by giving us a real monster in Patrick Bateman, and maybe that would be a harsh indictment of Wall Street in the early 2000s, but after the economic meltdown of the last decade and the willingness of bankers and stock brokers and CEOs to cannibalize the country as a whole, Bateman seems a lot less shocking. Yes there is some vicious glee in the way Bale plays up the narcissism and ridiculousness of the protagonist, but the dark comedy was not really enough for me to feel like I was enjoying the rest of what the film was asking me to sit through. Maybe I'm a prude, or maybe it's just a one-joke analogy that wore out its welcome pretty quickly.

Lone Survivor
Director: Peter Berg
Genre: Action
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Georgia Theater Company
Grade: C+

Is there such a thing as patriotism porn?

This is a well made action movie that does all it can (and is often successful) at pulling at your heart and asking you to be shocked and awed by the sacrifices American soldiers make. At the same time it's (despite some ham-fisted attempts to be otherwise) very xenophobic at best and racist at worse, with a deification of military culture that makes me uncomfortable.

I have family who serves in the military, I have family who died in the military. But soldier worship doesn't sit well with me. And for as visceral and bone-crunching some of those scenes are in depicting the hell of war, Berg can't resist a few Michael Bay-esque glorious slow-motion scenes that blur the line between telling an incredible story and turning tragedy into entertainment in ways I don't like. 

I can see why the film is a big hit with my Southern high school students, but I can't fully embrace it.

I, Frankenstein
Director: Stuart Beattie
Genre: Action
Source: USA (2014)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Georgia Theater Company
Grade: D

Sometimes you've had a long week and when given the choice between the Oscar nominated film about AIDS in the 80s and the stupid supernatural action movie that had some sort of connection (you thought) to the Underworld movies--which are dumb but fun in a popcorny way--you decide that you can't handle something heavy right now and so the movie with demons or some sort of weird flying human morphing things wins out.

And then, a few minutes in, you realize that surely, SURELY there would be more joy in the movie about AIDS in the 80s. And that, oh yeah, a big part of why you liked the Underworld movies was Kate Beckinsale in skintight latex, which is just magnitudes more enjoyable to watch than Aaron Eckhart in a hoodie. And that it turns out Bill Nighy really can't save every movie he's in, even if he's fun when he's on screen.

This movie was bad, is what I'm trying to say. Whose idea was it to give the stone gargoyles colored eyes? Bad.

Bad bad bad.

Man of Tai Chi
Director: Keanu Reeves
Genre: Action
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B-

You know it's a bad movie week when the best movie I've seen is a somewhat-flat-Keanu-Reeves-directed-Street-Fighter-(the-video-game) riff that takes itself entirely too seriously, features Keanu Reeves hungrily chewing scenery in his chiseled maw, and has characters about as deep as a piece of paper. 

It's silly, it's cheesy, it's over the top, and it all plays out almost exactly like you would expect, but here's the other thing: it's kind of fun! Pretty good fight choreography is what the film is all about, and while this may not be breaking any new ground in that regard, it's still eminently watchable.

Keanu's not the next John Woo, but at least he's having fun with the material. I won't run to the next thing he directs, but I won't run away from it either. I could see him carving out a little niche for himself with smaller films like this, and I wouldn't be sad about that. More power to him.

(Though, as the movie teaches, it's not about power, it's about control. So more control to him?)

Books

Under the Feet of Jesus (by Helena Maria Viramontes)
Ethereal and dreamlike, Under the Feet of Jesus slides its story across your face like gossamer--a swish of love here, a whisper of coming-of-age there, a murmur of tragedy and broken dreams, a flutter of hope. Viramontes is not particularly interested in driving forward a story; she's interested in capturing a mood, a feeling, a piece of life that often slips by the rest of the world as they look the other way. She writes with empathy, she writes with heartbreak, but most of all she writes with beauty.

At its heart the novel is about thirteen-year-old Estrella, the daughter of migrant workers, as she discovers love, delves into her own strength, and starts to work out her identity. But beyond that it is a haunting a lyrical evocation of a life in the borderlands. In one passage Viramontes explores Estrella's experiences at school, with teachers who care little for the migrant families who will be moving through, and so don't teach her the tools she needs, she craves, and so further alienate Estrella and those like her from being able to thrive in this society. This passage is matched later as Estrella translates for her family at a health clinic where they have no money to pay for the services and so Estrella looks for other tools at her disposal. It's a powerful (but fleeting) look at life in a limbo world. 

On the other hand, it's so short, it's really more of a novella than a novel, and at times it is not even that. I love the dreamlike lyricism of Viramontes' writing, but at times I wish she'd be willing to give a few more nods towards thing like structure and narrative drive. It's beautiful and haunting, but at times it feels perilously incomplete as well.

Grade: B-

Sacre Bleu: A Comedy d'Art (by Christopher Moore)
I've been hoping for a while to find a Christopher Moore book that I loved as much as Lamb, and Sacre Bleu comes solidly into second place. Moore aims his typical sense of the absurd at the Impressionist painters gathered in Paris in the late nineteenth century, and the book works in some levels as a fascinating primer on art (if you can sift past all the Moore-ish silliness to find the kernals of reality), topped off by the inclusion of lovely color reproductions of many of the paintings discussed in the text. In addition, Moore does a nice job playing with the insanity and insatiability of some of the artists of the time, from Henri Toulouse-Lautrec to Renoir to Monet to Van Gogh to Pisarro. They are all here, united in a madcap fashion that only Moore could come up with, but as with his best work, the absurdity (donkey in a hat) is matched with a zest for life and an enthusiasm that is just plain fun to read.

I'll admit, I had no clue where he was going with the plot of the story (the ambiguous woman, the Colorman, the donkey with a hat) for a long time, and when he finally revealed what was happening it was a bit of a "Oh, duh" moment, but he had me hooked so early with his characters and his charm that I didn't really care.

It's the kind of book that makes me sad when it's over because I'm enjoying both the world and the author's voice so much. Moore's not for everyone--he has the sense of humor of a well-read thirteen-year-old at times, especially when dealing with a bunch of lustful artists and their penchant for painting nudes--but if he hits your wheelhouse there's not much that's more fun to read.

I can't wait to see what he does next!

Grade: A-