http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:49:23 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/04/194923.php DoddJust got back from a late afternoon showing of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Five word summary: Uneven but mostly satisfying nonetheless.One thing you'll notice as you proceed through the film is the high number of small but delicious details. I don't want to give away any plot points, so it will have to suffice to say that, in addition to lavishing attention on visual tricks, director Alfonso Cuaron has also taken the visual and thematic craftmanship of the series to a whole new level. Tiny details that foreshadow the plot abound, Prof. Lupin's worst fear - which you could easily miss if you don't already know the story - and the recurrent visual leitmotif of the belltower's clock being my favourites. This is evidence of some very fine moviemaking.All of which makes the rushed feel and lack of truly compelling acting that mars the first 2/3 of the film all the more disappointing. The movie ends very, very well but one feels that the director was in just a bit too much of a hurry to get to the climax. I suspect this feeling would be there even if one didn't know how many non-essential plot points had been elided over or dropped altogether. The result is that, while the movie is lush beyond expectation, when the climax arrives, one is not as invested in it as one should be. They can tell us several times how scared Harry is of Sirius or, later, how intent he is on killing him, but that's no substitute for showing us. The addition of even 15-20 minutes would not have made the film seem overlong but would have done wonders for securing the necessary emotional investment in the plot.The dramatic changes to the landscape of Hogworts take some getting used to. I have a notion as to why the choice was made to have the characters don their robes only for classes and meals - I don't agree with it, but I think it was done for justifiable technical reasons related to the criss-crossing that makes up the ending [SPOILER*] - but I'm less clear on why Hagrid's cabin is suddenly way off in the bottom of a valley by itself, instead of just across the grounds from a castle entrance. Especially jarring, though obviously unavoidable, is the simple fact that this movie just took too damned long to get made. The actors are too old for their roles by a very obvious couple of years of puberty. This is especially true of Ron and Draco (who is easily a foot taller than he was "a year ago," a far more dramatic change than the substitution of Michael Gambon for the late Richard Harris).All of which probably seems like I didn't particularly enjoy it. As it happens, I did. Unfortunately, I allowed my expectations of the new, more gifted director to get too high. The truth is, I enjoyed it rather a bit more, I'd say, than either of the first two - and found that it held more, not fewer, rewards for knowing the details than they (with their slavish insistence on including every detail of the book, regardless of whether they advanced the plot or not) did, as well. I just wasn't as satisfied as I think I could have been. Here's hoping there will be a director's cut on DVD in the not-too-distant future that will ameliorate the problem somewhat.My recommendation: Go see it, but keep this post's title in mind.Cross-posted from Ipse Dixit. * [SPOILER] - To wit, that it would be easier to use doubles during the second go-round in time if the characters are in distinctive street clothes (that would trick the eye into seeing the same person) rather than more-or-less identical robes (which would tend to highlight the differences between the actor and the double). Video16263@blogcritics.org Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:49:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/08/113839.php DoddI have just returned from seeing Van Helsing. I don't want to ruin it for you but the best part was the preview for The Chronicles of Riddick (which I now know opens 11 June - w00t!).The truth is, I can't quite decide if I liked it or not. Either I didn't view it in the right frame of mind, or it couldn't quite decide what it wanted to be. This happened to me the first time I saw director Steven Sommers' The Mummy. I was sitting in the theatre trying mightily to watch an adventure flick (like, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark) but what I was supposed to be watching was a comic adventure. Once I got my own mindset right, I actually came to really like The Mummy.As for Van Helsing, well, I'm not convinced that's the problem. The fact of the matter is, I have never seen a more lushly and extravagantly produced campy film. And campy it was. Sometimes. Which goes to the heart of the problem: If it had been campy the entire time, I could've settled into it as a comic fantasy and enjoyed it. But it didn't. It careened wildly from full-on, scenery-chewing camp to utter pathos to high adventure and back to the camp. Always back to the camp.It will take me a while to get over seeing Faramir as a foppish medieval "Q", I can tell you (David Wenham definitely showed his quality; he was so utterly different in every aspect that it took me until his fourth or fifth scene to figure out who he was). Hugo Jackman has been used better but he does fine. And a couple of hours of watching Kate Beckinsale run around in that inexplicable corset is not without its compensations. All in all, I was disappointed, but I'll give it this: While there are some plot holes large enough to swallow Castle Dracula, there's actually a pretty good story struggling to dig itself out from underneath in the schizophrenic direction. A tad bit too complicated (in the wrong sorts of ways), perhaps, but it's engaging and original. That said, it runs at least 15-20 minutes too long (more evidence of the director's lack of control, IM(NS)HO). My advice: If you feel you simply must see it, rent it.Crossposted from Ipse Dixit. Video15483@blogcritics.org Sat, 8 May 2004 11:38:39 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/29/143435.php DoddTOH & I went to see The Passion of the Christ last night. Neither one of us is a devout Christian, but we were both quite curious. I have some comments about both the film and the (pre-)reaction to it. I will attend to the latter first.I predicted to Mike before I saw the film yesterday that, despite all the outrage flying about from people who hadn't actually seen it,* the film would probably turn out to be neither more nor less "anti-Semitic" than Jesus Christ Superstar. Having seen the film, I can say that prediction was correct. Caiaphas is the bad guy and he's a Jew. More than a few other Jews come off badly, as well. But there's simply no avoiding that if one is going to tell this story.But more important in assessing whether the film is truly anti-Semitic is how Jews in general are treated. If Gibson had wanted to make an anti-Semitic film, the temple leaders who speak out against Caiaphas' railroading of Jesus - only to be thrown out of the council session - and the ordinary Jews who assist and show compassion for him as he works his way through the stations of the cross would not have been included or presented so sympathetically. But they are. TOH insists that the real concern is that any such portrayal of the death of Jesus leads inevitably to some people going off on a "they killed our Lord" rampage, but I have a difficult time taking such a concern seriously. Reading the Gospels will do that, too, if the person in question is so inclined. I can't see how the movie itself is to blame for it. The condescending twit assigned by the Curious-Urinal to review the film complains that Jesus' motivation for enduring all this pain and strife is largely absent: Gibson has said publicly that he deliberately went over the top with realistic violence in order to make audiences understand and appreciate Christ's sacrifice. But where, I wondered, is the back story that instills the movie audience with a sense of the awe that Jesus inspired in his followers? And where are the teachings and miracles of Jesus - the acts that caused the politically powerful Romans and some Jewish leaders, such as the high priest Caiaphas, to fear him? This strikes me as being rather like going to see The Godfather Part III and complaining that Vito Corleone wasn't in it. This film isn't about why; it's about what. That the audience knows that Jesus submitted to the pain and torture depicted because he believed he had to in order to absolve humanity of sin and form a New Covenant with God is presupposed. The occasional flashbacks that explicate Jesus' teachings serve to emphasize and underscore critical moments; they are not the film's message.Since I am not a devout Christian, the film was not targeted at me. But what I discovered in watching it is that one does not need to be in order to appreciate one crucial fact: Whether or not one believes that Jesus of Nazareth was God made manifest who died to free the world from sin, Jesus believed it. Witnessing what he endured as a result of his conviction that he was doing it for all of his fellow men is a potent experience. Even as Caiaphas is the clear villain of the film, Pontius Pilate and even Judas are treated with a moderately surprising amount of sympathy. One thing I especially liked was that the film gave a rational, understandable reason why Pilate went ahead and condemned Jesus even though he didn't want to. And one feels a decidedly modern pity for Judas. I didn't much care for the black-robed devil figure who follows Jesus through most of the film. Part of the problem is that he's an intermittent presence whose real purpose is never explored much less explained. That he would be at Gethsemene during Jesus' moment of doubt makes sense, but it is quite beyond me why, for instance, he taunts Mary with his presence during the carrying of the cross to Golgotha. As to whether or not anyone in particular should see this film, well, devout Christians obviously need no encouragement. OTOH, if you're squeamish, the answer is an unqualified "no." I'm not, yet I flinched and recoiled several times during the incredibly long scourging scene. The entire film is suffused with almost unremitting brutality. For everyone else, it comes down to taste. Despite my lack of a deep and abiding emotional connection to the story, I was moved by it. I'm usually pretty jaded about movies and cannot remember crying in one since I saw Old Yeller as a child, but I was welling up at the fourth station of the cross. Entertainment is not its purpose, though. One of the effects of Gibson's intentionally overdoing it is to instill in the audience a feeling that they, too, have suffered and endured. Bearing witness, as it were, in a climate-controlled movie theatre can only ever amount to an infinitessimal fraction of what Jesus endured, yet it serves to create a level of empathy a less brutal depiction never could. Approached from the perspective I mentioned above - as a disquisition on, and visceral experience of, one man's devotion to his fellows - I think anyone can take something valuable away from this film. But don't expect perfect historical realism. As Mike said, "It's not as good as the book." * Many of whom, I notice, are the same people who scoffed at Christians for pre-judging The Last Temptation of Christ without having actually seen it. I'm just sayin'.... Video13253@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:34:35 EST