28 Years Later... (2025)

Zombies are scary in general. They are living reminders of death, they are death on its way to kill you, stalking you, hunting you. (Which is, of course, what death is doing.) 

28 Years Later... has some good scares, too. The film’s main intertext is Hamlet, I think (despite all the clips of Olivier’s Henry V throughout the film). Not that 28 Years Later... is a revenge tale or a search for a murdered father, but the central character here has a mother whom he loves, as well as a stepfather and a missing father. More important is the memento mori aspect that is so essential to Hamlet: the respect for the dead and the reminder always that we too must die. This devotion to Hamlet (and Hamlet's stoicism) explains, too, the wry stoic quality that is essential to the way 28 Years Later… works. 

The Danny Boyle flourishes in this movie really make it sing, I think. I liked the “Jimmy” puzzle and I am very curious about the WWI references. I’ll wait for the sequel.

Oscar Nominees 2016: Part 4 of 11

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Part 6. Part 7. Part 8. Part 9. Part 10. Part 11.

Sicario

3 Nominations

• Cinematography: Roger Deakins (Unbroken, Prisoners, Skyfall, True Grit, The Reader, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, No Country for Old Men, The Man Who Wasn't There, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Kundun, Fargo, The Shawshank Redemption)
• Original Score: Jóhann Jóhannsson (The Theory of Everything)
• Sound Editing

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Cast: Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro, Daniel Kaluuya, Jon Bernthal, Jeffrey Donovan, Victor Garber, Raoul Trujillo, Julia Cesar Cedillo, Bernardo Saracino, Maximiliano Hernandez, Lora Martinez-Cunningham, Edgar Arreola, Rio Alexander

I tried to stop hating this movie, but every time I think more about it I hate it more. It's exciting to watch, with many good performances, but what this message has to say about violence, about torture, about war, about international action, and about the violence perpetrated by our government is (to my mind) reprehensible. Still, I am glad that Jóhann Jóhannson got a nomination here. His score is interesting and creepy and metallic, and I am glad the Academy is recognizing scores like this. Roger Deakins' photography is gorgeous, as always; one day he will finally shoot a movie that people can really get behind and he can win an Oscar. This is thirteenth nomination. He's never won. But we might ask ourselves, as Judith Butler does in Frames of War, "As we watch a video or see an image, what kind of solicitation is at work? Are we being invited to take aim? Are we conscripted into the trajectory of the bullet or missile?" It is clear to me, as Butler says a little later, "that such visual and conceptual frames are ways of building and destroying populations as objects of knowledge and targets of war, and that such frames are the means through which social norms are relayed and made effective." Sicario celebrates violence, torture, and USAmerican exceptionalism far too much for me to have enjoyed watching it.

Will Win: N/A

Could Win: N/A

My Rating: #51 out of 62

Steve Jobs

2 Nominations

• Actor: Michael Fassbender (12 Years a Slave)
• Supporting Actress: Kate Winslet (The Reader, Little Children, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Iris, Titanic, Sense and Sensibility)

Director: Danny Boyle

Cast: Fassbender, Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, Michael Stuhlbarg, Katherine Waterston, Sarah Snook, Perla Haney-Jardine, Makenzie Moss

Steve Jobs! I never wrote about this movie; I kept meaning to, but I just never got around to it, I guess. The thing is I really liked it. I thought it worked very well in its own way, and I loved the performances – Fassbender and Winslet, but also Katherine Waterston and Michael Stuhlbarg. Jobs is a fascinating figure, and the movie peels him apart and demonstrates how personal life and career (for a creative type) are so intertwined. I am not sure I know why people disliked this movie as much as they did, but I will say that it's structure is really stagey. It is as though Steve Jobs was a stage play that somehow found its way to the big screen, but Aaron Sorkin didn't seem to bother to update it so that it would work for film. This is mitigated somewhat by Danny Boyle, but no one could make this screenplay less of a stage play. It's embedded in the structure itself. Each of the film's three acts takes place in basically the same location, and we begin each of the acts by jumping forward in time many years so that the audience spends the first couple of minutes of the act figuring out when we are and what has happened in the interim. And then we watch what happens with Jobs in the minutes leading up to a new product-launch. One of these happens at the end of each act. At one point in the film, Jobs complains that "It’s like 5 minutes before every launch everyone goes to a bar, gets drunk and tells me what they really think." This isn't so much a line that describes how Jobs is feeling as a line that describes how Sorkin's screenplay works. That's exactly what happens in the film. Still, in many ways this is an interesting history of the technological advancement of the last 30 years and some of the people who made that happen, and, as I said, I loved the acting.

Will Win: N/A

Could Win: Supporting Actress
My Rating: #20 out of 62

Inside Out

2 Nominations

• Original Screenplay: Pete Docter (Up, WALL·E, Toy Story), Ronnie del Carmen, Josh Cooley, & Meg LeFauve
• Animated Feature

Director: Pete Docter

Cast: Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Richard Kind, Kaitlyn Dias, Bill Hader, Lewis Black, Mindy Kaling, Diane Lane, Kyle MacLachlan, Paula Poundstone, Bobby Moynihan, Josh Cooley, John Ratzenberger, Rashida Jones

This is a really sweet children's movie, or, I guess, a movie for adolescents. It didn't really feel aimed at someone like me, so I have to say that I was sometimes bored in it. It was a little too cutesy and generic for me – the image above is a great example of the CandyLand way the film is designed. But everyone seemed to really like this movie, and I expect it to win the Oscar for Animated Feature. As much as filmmakers have tried to shift the perceptions of people toward animated film, most people still seem to see animated film as made for children (perhaps I include myself in "most people", as well). Inside Out strikes me as definitely not a film for adults, but adults have seemed to enjoy it, so I guess my initial impression is incorrect. I've linked above to where I have written a little about this, so I won't belabor the point, but I just never bought into the geography of the world inside the little girl's brain. It seemed at all times to be arbitrary, that is, the writers, at any given moment, would have been able to fix the problem – let the train leave just a little later and take Joy and Sadness back to central command, or whatever it is called, or let Joy and Sadness jump into the little memory chute that sends memories back up to HQ like Rob Lowe's shirt getting caught in that pneumatic tube in Tommy Boy. And a few times the writers did just adjust the rules of this brain-world whenever they wanted – the sequence where Bing Bong helps Joy escape the area of the little girl's brain where things are forgotten forever might pose a few questions for us such as: why can't the writers just make the wall of that place just a little lower? and: If that location means that things are forgotten forever, how is it that one is able to leave that place at all?
Will Win: Animated Feature

Could Win: N/A

My Rating: #38 out of 62

Ex Machina

2 Nominations

• Original Screenplay: Alex Garland
• Visual Effects

Director: Alex Garland

Cast: Oscar Isaac, Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Sonoya Mizuno, Corey Johnson

I was definitely into Ex Machina, and I wrote a meditation on what I see as the important depths of the film's amazing screenplay, that I recommend you read if you've seen the movie. I am really happy about these two nominations – I don't think it can win an Oscar in either category, but Alex Garland has written a couple of great screenplays in his career so far: 28 Days Later... and Sunshine, a personal favorite. He deserves this nomination and deserves to be more widely recognized for his work. Obviously Gleeson, Isaac, and Vikander are all having a great year, too, so that's excellent. If only there were an Oscar category for choreography: I want to nominate the dance sequence in Ex Machina for an Oscar (even if it would lose to Cinderella). In any case, if you haven't seen Ex Machina, you really must. It's an exciting, deep thriller.

Will Win: N/A

Could Win: N/A

My Rating: #24 out of 62

My Favorite Moment in Ex Machina

There were a couple of moments in Ex Machina that I loved. But my favorite moment in the movie was the sequence when Caleb, the young programmer who is visiting this isolated compound up in the mountains, starts to think that maybe he is a cyborg. This is all the more cool because the audience has already thought of this. I had been wondering this exact thing for the better part of thirty minutes, since seeing the oblique shot of the strange scars on Caleb's back as he shaved his face. By this point in Alex Garland's movie, Caleb has been so thoroughly tripped out by his boss Nathan (and by Nathan's creation Ava) that he has started to think that he might actually be a computer underneath the skin he has always thought was real.

Freak out over, Caleb is able to sleep. He presumably has confirmed that he is, finally, human, and not simply one of Nathan's creations. But, again, Nathan and Ex Machina know better. In a strange conversation about how desire might work, Nathan explicates a queer theory describing sexual desire itself as culturally contingent, explaining that Caleb "himself" – at one of the levels he considers most personal, human – has been programmed by media, by his parents, by his culture. It is a pretty great conversation, and one that makes it clear that Caleb is, no matter how "real" he thinks he is, actually a cyborg. It is too late for us not to be cyborgs. Who we (think we) are is so completely informed, molded, even dictated by the media we consume, even the media that we are consuming alone at our computer consoles. This is even more true for someone like Caleb, who spends his days at a computer, speaking in the computer's own language.
The internet, this ability to have information at our fingertips, this stream of every type of pornography imaginable, has permeated our very desires.

My second favorite sequence from the movie is Sonoya Mizuno and Oscar Isaac's incredible dance sequence. It's a surprising, odd section of the movie, mostly because it departs so fully from the visual world that Alex Garland has so-far created in the movie. The sequence is also totally chilling, because it becomes so clear in this sequence that Kyoko is a machine. Her dance moves copy Nathan's exactly. Or... well, doesn't this beg us to think about who Nathan is copying with his dance moves? I mean, it is clear that Kyoko can only copy the moves Nathan teaches her – they dance in unison – but Nathan's moves aren't original either, are they?

Ex Machina sort of devolves at its end – Garland has trouble dealing with the fallout of the situation and theoretical proposition he has set up for us – Sunshine (a much more successful movie, to my mind, at least on an emotional level) went similarly off the rails. It is as though the only possible response to the questions that Garland wishes to pose is violent action. For Garland, violence is what we find at the limits of subjectivity. Still, as with Sunshine, this violence is awesome to watch. The stabbings at the end of Ex Machina are one of the coolest things in the movie. That knife just goes in so easily, with an even beautiful simplicity. Violence, here, works to illustrate another limit of human subjectivity. The human body is subject to injury, to woundings, to violence, and human consciousness cannot (yet) live without the body that houses that consciousness. As Bussy asks in George Chapman's 1604 play Bussy D'Ambois:

Is my body then
But penetrable flesh? And must my mind
Follow my blood? Can my divine part add
No aid to th'earthly in extremity?

Bussy's question is rhetorical. The answer is an unequivocal yes, one that Chapman stages by having Bussy die onstage in front of our eyes. But in Ex Machina, we follow a different person out of the compound and back to the city. Her mind, perhaps, does not need to follow her blood.

I don't know. For me the film becomes confused here. I kept wondering about the body, particularly at the film's end. How is the body powered? Is Ava's body subject to the same time limit that human bodies are? How does she experience her stolen skin? How long will this body and its parts last? Isn't Ava just as human in this way, too? She cannot continue indefinitely, can she? And won't she – just as humanity itself, as Nathan reminds us – need to be replaced by a newer model who can experience things in even more varied ways?

Trance

Trance really is not that great.

But honestly that does not matter one bit.

Because the awesome thing about Trance is that it is so drunk on itself, so in love with its three hopelessly fascinating and attractive (and I mean that word in every sense possible) leads, so giddy with its own excesses and narrative folds, that it convinced me that it was excellent for almost every single minute of its running time.

The first twenty minutes of Trance are a heist movie – a complicated theft of a very expensive (£26,000,000) Goya. The perpetrators of the heist are James McAvoy (I love that guy) and the always-brilliant Vincent Cassel.

But, then, the painting is gone. And only James McAvoy knows where it is, except that he's forgotten and so what he needs to do is remember. Various tortures don't help McAvoy remember, so Cassel forces him to undergo hypnotherapy, which will tell us all where the painting is.

Not so fast. The hypnotherapist (Rosario Dawson, looking as gorgeous as ever) gets herself involved in the problem. She figures out instantly that this guy is lying to her and she immediately proceeds to insinuate herself into the gang, demanding an equal share of the profits and wrapping everyone around her finger.

Things get complicated from here. He can't remember. She needs to hypnotize everyone in the gang. She starts to manipulate their minds. She's implanting post-hypnotic suggestions. She starts having an affair with one of them. And where the hell is this painting? Did he even steal the damn thing?

For me the movie goes off the rails around the 40-minute mark. But only if I spend any time thinking about it – which I did not do until the movie ended. Instead I just reveled in the intriguing shots set up by Boyle and by Anthony Dod Mantle (his usual DP). All of the usual Boyle touches are there: the beautiful colors, a slight horror-film sensibility, a constant flirtation with genre specificity, a love affair with his stars.

As I say, the whole thing is enjoyable from start to finish. It doesn't really end up making a lot of sense, but I mostly left the theatre grateful that Danny Boyle still makes films like this. The director of Slumdog Millionaire (as he is billed on the poster) has already won the Best Director Academy Award, and he could easily have stopped spending time on genre pictures in order to make higher-paying, more "important" studio pictures, but here he is making a movie about hypnosis and mind-control. For this I am grateful.

My advice: don't think about it too much and just go see it anyway.

Avenging Angels

It has recently become an Oscar-season tradition for my friend Julie and I to get drunk and watch a bad movie together. Last year we watched the Shakespeare fantasy-action movie Anonymous, and more recently we watched the (actually good) fantasy film Snow White and the Huntsman.

Oddly enough, it was difficult for us to think of something awful to watch this year, both of us having already seen Ted, but Julie alighted on The Avengers and her instinct was spot on. It's a long film, so the dialogue does go on quite a bit. And we tend to ramble, as well. But I've put some images next to our chat in case you're feeling as though you want to skip to a more interesting section of the conversation.

Aaron: Yo yo yo!
Julie: Sup!
Aaron: Just pouring my beer. What are you drinking?
Julie: I am going to pop my corn and grab a drink........... RED BEER, 'course! you?
Aaron: This is a White IPA from Harpoon. Fancy stuff and so delicious.
Julie: But is it too fancy for a cheesy comicbook flick? At least the color of my drink is fitting.
Aaron: Well, I thought I'd begin with the good stuff and let it devolve. This movie is long.
Julie: Ugh, these Marvel previews.
Aaron: Oh my god, there are a million. Is Spiderman Turn Off the Dark being promoted?
Julie: Aaron, SPIDER-MAN is not a Marvel character.
Aaron: Oh hahaha. It isn't? [Julie is actually wrong about this.]
Julie: Neither is Superman or Batman. Clearly, Marvel has all the shitty characters no one cares about. Like The Hulk (poor Ang Lee). 
Aaron: Seriously. Poor Ang Lee. And that movie made money, so I don't know why everyone acts like it was a big failure. Also, remember when Sam Mendes directed a Bond movie and everyone loved it?
Julie: Yeah, what was that about?
Aaron: And remember when he directed a movie about abortion and the 1950s and no one loved it? Hahaha.
Julie: HAHAHA. Yes.
Aaron: Is this Transformers?
Julie: I hope it is... I love me those Transformers.
Aaron: I do too! Those are ridiculous.
Julie: Who doesn't? Such fun. Such good sound. But you know that Joss Whedon directed this, right?
Aaron: Oh did he? I get Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams confused.
Julie: P.S. Why are we watching this? I forget what it is nom'd for.
Aaron: Special Effects. Of the Visual variety.
Aaron: I love this actor. With the glasses. He makes me smile.
Julie: Oh, I thought you loved Sam Jackson. I mean, who doesn't? P.S. this character was written with him in mind! (Don't you love that I know these things now? I am a comic geek!)
Aaron: I love him. So this character is not from the comic books? He's just from the movies?
Julie: No, he's from the 'books. But the later ones. So they wrote him for Sam, basically. Which is obviously the best thing ever.
Aaron: It is! Also, could he have been more genius in Django Unchained?
Julie: He could have, and then perhaps he would've been nom'd.
Aaron: Julie!
Julie: No, I loved him! I'm saying the Academy sucks! Also, I have no idea what's going on... I haven't been listening.
Aaron: This thing – which is called a tesseract – is "misbehaving". It's a gateway to another world or planet or something. Maybe like in Thor? Jeremy Renner just said "It's a door right? Doors open from both sides."
Julie: Yes! Thor is going to show up. Chris Hemsworth. I am excited. This is his evil brother, by the way.
Aaron: Tom Hiddleston is the villain from Thor. I saw Thor.
Julie: Of course you did. *eyebrow raise*
Aaron: What? I thought it was a lot of gay fun. There was glitter and rainbows. And Tom Hiddleston is like a gay villain or something. I love a gay villain.
Julie: It makes me think of Adventures in Babysitting. I do hope you've seen that. It is a staple of our 80s youth.
Aaron: Don't fuck with the babysitter.
Julie: YES! Nobody leaves here without singin' the blues.
Aaron: I wasn't reading the Bible the whole time I was a child.
Julie: But I thought you didn't know what a TV was until you went to college?
Aaron: I watched TV beginning at age 11. Sam Jax just got shot!!
Julie: So much good TV happened before '92, Aaron. I am sad for you. SLJ will be fine. Motherfucker doesn't know how to die.
Aaron: And I am sorry that you missed Dark Shadows and Dallas.
Julie: Well, Dallas has been remade, so I shan't miss it.
Aaron: haha.
Julie: So far I think The Dark Knight Rises (or whatever it was titled) had better visuals than this. What was that blue mess?
Aaron: It did. I wonder why they snubbed The Dark Knight Rises.
Julie: They were mad that it otherwise sucked.
Aaron: Seems odd. They liked the last two so much. Oh that was a cool effect!
Julie: I missed it. I was thinking about Tom Hardy.
Aaron: Sam Jax just jumped from a crashing helicopter. Who is Laura Dern's younger lookalike supposed to be?

Julie: Cobie Smulders?
Aaron: You just said a name I do not recognize.
Julie: She is an agent. No one likes her, though she's super-competent (i.e. boring.)

Aaron: I see. You are a wealth of knowledge.
Julie: How I Met Your Mother. Neil Patrick Harris. I am a fountain.
Aaron: What does that have to do with How I Met Your Mother?
Julie: She's in it. And so is NPH.
Aaron: Oh. TV. You know I don't care about TV.
Julie: Ohh... Scar Jo. Two days ago I saw you as Maggie the Cat... and now you're basically CatWoman. How the mighty have fallen.
Aaron: Haha. She is playing Maggie the Cat? How is she?
Julie: Eh... ok. She's the best part of the show, which is pretty sad (for Rob Ashford). She is not a good redhead.
Aaron: Speaking of how the mighty have fallen.
Julie: Who?
Aaron: Rob Ashford.
Julie: Yes, he got really bad reviews for this show. My heart is sad for him. Oooh, that was a fun flip.
Aaron: That one too!
Julie: This guy she's talking to is not in the books
Aaron: That's the one I like!
Julie: He is written in here to represent the Everyman, i.e. he has no cool powers. Mark! The Hulk! Where's Ang?
Aaron: I didn't see the Hulk movie. But I think I saw all the other ones. Who directed the second Hulk?
Julie: There was a second Hulk?
Aaron: Oh yes. I think Edward Norton was in it.
Julie: Louis Leterrier or something. Never heard of him.
Aaron: Hm.
Julie: At least Ang came back from the Hulk. Eric Bana never did.
Aaron: Poor Eric Bana. What a hottie.
Julie: Right?
Aaron: He was great in that bad Judd Apatow movie. I still think he's good.
Julie: He was in an Apatow movie?
Aaron: Funny People.
Julie: Ohhh. Yeah, didn't see that mess.
Aaron: That was wise.
Julie: Mark is looking a little schlubby here. Remember when he was hot?  
Aaron: Mark Ruffalo was never hot. You are misremembering.
Julie: Hmm. Really? I saw him in person once. He looked pretty hot.
Aaron: I mean I think he's hot, but he has always looked a little worn. Remember he became famous in You Can Count on Me.
Julie: I never saw that either!
Aaron: Oh! It's so good!
Julie: Stop referencing things I don't know about. I want to feel smart.
Aaron: Hahaha. That was the 2000 Oscar season. What were you doing with your life?
Julie: What was I doing with my life? Freshman in college = mess.
Aaron: It's Captain America! Yay. Did you see that movie?
Julie: Hahaha, no. Absolutely not.
Aaron: It's really bad. Haha. Thor is way better.
Julie: I wish Green Lantern was in this. I love me some Ryan Reynolds.
Aaron: I missed that one. The effects looked so bad I didn't think I could stomach it.
Julie: Shit, he was a DC character. See? None of the Marvel characters is fun. Yeah, it was supposed to be pretty wretched. But Ryan!
Aaron: They are fun! Iron Man?
Julie: Blech. Overrated.
Aaron: Sam Jax just bet Captain America 10 bucks. And I laughed out loud.
Julie: Sam Jax always wins. And he should always wear an eyepatch.

Aaron: Gwyneth Paltrow is in this? How delightful.
Julie: Sarcasm? I hope?
Aaron: You don't like Gwyneth Paltrow?
Julie: Ew. She's the worst. Her ridiculous blog makes me want to kill myself.
Aaron: I love her. I think she's adorable. And I love her bangs. I am not following her blog. Does she, like, talk about her kids and shit?
Julie: She is all, like, pretentious about food and stuff that she has no authority to be pretentious about.
Aaron: You are mean.
Julie: People have regularly made fun of it, A-ron. I cannot believe you have not heard of this.
Aaron: I am sure she's not prententious She's lovely.
Julie: She's awful. Stop defending the bitch.
Aaron: Bitch? Julie!
Julie: Aaron! Everyone thinks so. Where have you been? P.S. I am out of beer. Are you keeping up?
Aaron: Well I like her. I am keeping up. I promise.
Julie: That's because you like bitches. Hence, our friendship.
Aaron: HAHA. Facts. We are 30 minutes in.
Julie: Oh my god, I'm going to be so drunk.

Aaron: Oh my god, this is homophobic.
Julie: What just happened?! I was getting beer!
Aaron: Well they have Phil saying things like "I watched you while you were sleeping" and then Captain America like raises his eyebrow like "are you a homo?"
Julie: Perhaps the actor is a homophobe.
Aaron: And then Phil is talking about how he redesigned Captain America's costume.
Julie: With nipples? Like the Batman suit?
Aaron: Dear lord I hope so.
Julie: Who is this Darth Vader wannabe?
Aaron: I don't know.
Julie: This looks like Tron. Which was decidedly not nominated for Visual Effects.
Aaron: Wasn't it? Tron did get some nominations, didn't it?
Julie: Only Sound Editing.
Aaron: Oh yeah! Haha. Poor Tron. It really was very bad. But I rather liked it. The art direction of this film is absurd. It looks like Transformers.
Julie: slash Tron!
Aaron: See! More homophobia. They're making Phil into a pseudo-gay character.
Julie: Am I homophobic for not catching any of the homophobia?
Aaron: No. Just not used to hearing it like I am, probably.
Julie: Now it looks like Battleship! Which was nominated for a bunch of Razzies, by the way. We should totes watch it.
Aaron: No thanks. There are a lot of good things I want to watch.
Julie: Oh, you're no fun.
Aaron: Lot of white people on this bridge. Hahaha. Sorry. I can only handle so many bad movies. And I watched The Man with the Iron Fists.
Julie: Why would you do that? (Without me?)
Aaron: Hahaha. To put the F-U in Kung Fu.
Julie: Oh dear.

Aaron: Mark Ruffalo is talking about science. Gamma rays, spectrometers, anti-protons.
Julie: He is basically Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day. Oh, I get it! This was Renner's warm-up for Hansel and Gretel!
Aaron: A horrible reference. May I never think of Jeff Goldblum.
Julie: Jurassic Park!
Aaron: Are we about to have some action, finally? It has been 40 minutes. That eye thing was cool.
Julie: I think these effects are pretty lame.
Aaron: They are. This won't win.
Julie: You're right: Snow White will.
Aaron: Haha. I wish! Life of Pi is going to win Visual Effects.
Julie: Probably. But Prometheus was really pretty – though it had absolutely nothing else going for it.
Aaron: Not much, no. But the effects were really cool in Prometheus.
Julie: Why does his gold suit go away? I'd wear it all the time.
Aaron: He was surrendering. But I'm with you. If you have a fabulous outfit, you wear it as often as possible.
Julie: Right? If nothing else, that's what we learned from the Evil Queen Charlize.
Aaron: She has many lessons to teach us.
Julie: So true. Like how to suck her albino brother's lifeblood/soul/something. 45 minutes in. I'm drunk.
Aaron: Oh I like this emotional brother scene. Thor was a big glittery business. You missed out. It was even directed by Kenneth Branagh.
Julie: I am not sure I did. Now I'm positive I didn't.
Aaron: Hahaha. I just laughed out loud again.
Julie: But why? Hahaha.
Aaron: "I'm listening." That was a good joke. SHAKESPEARE IN THE PARK?!??! Bahahaha.

Julie: Thor's hair is almost as good as our crimped friend's from Anonymous.
Aaron: I am just glad there is more action happening.
Julie: I am glad you are finding humor in this mess. I am not.
Aaron: This is, admittedly, a terrible film. But I have laughed three times. So all is not lost.
Julie: It's really bad, right? If nothing else, the visuals should be good, and they are not. This is most unfortunate.
Aaron: As usual in a Marvel film, too. These people have a million awesome technologies for killing each other and yet all they do is trade punches.
Julie: Ooooh he's flying.
Aaron: He jumped.
Julie: Fly-jumped. Whatever.
Aaron: Like Michael Jordan.
Julie: Hahaha! Just like.

Aaron: His hair really is fabulous. You're right. This movie is directed so weirdly.
Julie: Thank you. I'm trying to focus on the good.
Aaron: The styles differ so widely!
Julie: I think it's 'cause they don't know whose story it is. Right? Everyone's a star.
Aaron: Yeah. Which is weird, because it's Loki's story, right? And yet that's Tom Hiddleston. Not one of the stars.
Julie: No, he's the bad guy. It can't be the bad guy's story in a comicbook movie.
Aaron: I think the star is actually Chris Hemsworth's biceps.
Julie: Oh my god, his hair! offically my favorite thing. after sam's eyepatch.
Aaron: Samuel L. Jackson. He is so much fun.
Julie: Always. Though I'm afraid he's a bit crazypants. Then again, most actors are.
Aaron: Like in real life or just in this movie. I laughed at another joke.
Julie: In real life.
Aaron: "He's adopted." Good joke.
Julie: Also, his twitter is incoherent. Is it really him? I'm not sure, but I had to unfollow him.
Aaron: Are you watching The Avengers?
Julie: I am bored by this film.
Aaron: Yeah. So much talk!
Julie: Transformers was way more fun.
Aaron: Yeah, Transformers always had giant motherfucking set pieces. This has a lot of talk, a lot of morality, and Captain America's earnestness.
Julie: Yeah, so much earnestness. Blah.

Aaron: He's hot though, Chris Evans, don't you think? I loved him in Sunshine.
Julie: Also, why is the cinematography so muted? These colors are dull. I want my superheroes to be bright and fun.
Aaron: That's what I was saying when we were on that ship!
Julie: Sunshine... did we see that? I have a vague recollection of being in that student life cinema
Aaron: Yes! It was. I love that movie. Danny Boyle.
Julie: And Cillian Murphy! I don't remember it much, though.
Aaron: Samuel Jackson should be in this movie more.
Julie: Truth.
Aaron: He should be the lead.
Julie: Well, he kind of is, right? Because he's in charge of them all.
Aaron: Yeah, but the film isn't as interested in him as it is in the others.
Julie: That's because he's black. This film is racist! Also, he has the best name. Nick FURY.

Aaron: Truth. I don't think it's about racism. I think it's about not knowing how to direct a movie. This is directed like television ought to be directed.
Julie: Well, he is all about the TV. And he does it well.
Aaron: Switching between stories, not having a main character.
Julie: Perhaps we should just drink more.
Aaron: This is good TV, but movies don't work well like this. I am drinking. Tom Hiddleston is great.

Julie: Sam wearing a blue tooth?
Aaron: Black people love bluetooth.
Julie: hahahahaha
Aaron: My sister never takes hers off. THIS CINEMATOGRAPHY. This is fucking awful.
Julie: SO BAD. What the fuck is happening?
Aaron: They're fighting and I think that little sword thing like knows or something.
Julie: Why did we go upside down?
Aaron: Now we're seeing everything in closeup! It's like Les Mis! Are you hoping they sing, because I am.
Julie: Nothing is like Les Mis, A-ron. Nothing. Captain America really wants to burst into song.
Aaron: Nine is like Les Mis. (Mark Ruffalo is a great actor. For real.)
Julie: No, Nine had Daniel Day-Lewis. Les Mis had Russell Crowe.
Aaron: Those are equivalent.

Julie: I just want you to know that this cinematographer did We Need to Talk About Kevin.
Aaron:  What? That movie is shot in an interesting way!
Julie: And Anna Karenina.
Aaron: And Anna Karenina is shot gorgeously.
Julie: I'm just telling ya the facts.
Aaron: This is the director's fault, clearly.
Julie: Hahaha. I like to blame directors, too. Let's go with that. HULK! I wish Ang Lee was with us in this moment. He's good, that Ang. And so damn cute.

Aaron: Isn't he? I totally agree. Samuel L. Jackson is saving this film right now. These effects, Julie. They look so fake! Did you like Life of Pi?
Julie: I thought it was pretty.
Aaron: Oh this Hulk is what the Visual Effects nomination is for, I guess.
Julie: There was too much god going on in that film, though.
Aaron: Right?
Julie: Between that and Les Mis, I was godded out.
Aaron: And it is unrelated to the plot.
Julie: Precisely.
Aaron: The novel (as you know) has way more god. As does the 1935 film with Fredric March.
Julie: Like Jane Eyre! at least adaptations of that book always cut out the god crap. I don't know why novelists love the god so much.
Aaron: They were old.
Julie: Life of Pi is not old!
Aaron: Oh, Yann Martel isn't! Hahaha. If we can return to The Avengers for the moment. We have totally departed from the actual plot of the film. And now we're watching a set piece. So I guess that's something. I think there's another hour left.
Julie: Hahaha. What beer are you on?
Aaron: I am 2 IPAs in. High alcohol content. Going to open another one now.
Julie: I am also almost done with my second red beer. for some reason, this drink makes me drunk quickly. Perhaps because it tastes like fruit juice.
Aaron: Sensible.

Julie: This is so bad. Remember Hugo? That film was pretty.
Aaron: It was. But also boring.
Julie: True. But this film is boring and ugly. Killer combo.
Aaron: How did Thor get inside the cell that was supposed to be holding Loki?
Julie: He is magic. Magic hair.
Aaron: I love both of their hair.
Julie: I don't know. His bro's is quite greasy. Oh no! Everyman died!

Aaron: Phil. Phil-in-the-blank. Gay characters always die. These effects really are embarassing.
Julie: Oh, he didn't die after all. So this film isn't homophobic!
Aaron: Um. I think it still is.
Julie: And I think it's racist. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
Aaron: The two are hardly mutually exclusive. As you know.
Julie: Oh, he died. So you are right.
Aaron: Everyone is having a lot of feelings about this guy. We're learning plot information now.
Julie: Poorly crafted exposition.
Aaron: This should be an act three monologue, but there are 50 minutes left in the movie.
Julie: Who wrote this mess? Oh, Zak Penn who wrote every other terrible superhero movie. That explains things.
Aaron: What else did he write? Mark Ruffalo is naked now! Nice.
Julie: The Incredible Hulk. Elektra. X-Men.
Aaron: Oh. Bad shit.
Julie: Fantastic Four, too.
Aaron: Yikes.
Julie: Yeeeahhhh. COLOR!
Aaron: Why would they even hire him.
Julie: I wish the whole movie looked like this. Oh, it went away. What the fuck was that?
Aaron: That hypercolor was a welcome change.
Julie: That lasted 2 seconds. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Aaron: Seriously. I am drinking more. Jeremy Renner is looking good.

Julie: That is because of the alcohol. Although his hair is nicely gelled.
Aaron: Sometimes I like arms.
Julie: As in biceps?
Aaron: Yes. What was the other option? Arms and the Man? What am I, George Bernard Shaw?
Julie: Well it was such an odd comment, I thought it best to clarify.
Aaron: He just called Loki a diva. This movie is getting gaaaaayyyer. This white girl really is very boring. No wonder all the fanboys hate her.
Julie: Scar Jo is white. She is boring too.
Aaron: Yeah. She is.
Julie: "I have an army."
Aaron: "We have a Hulk"
Julie: "I have a Hulk." BAM. hahahahaha
Aaron: Bam? It's so boring.
Julie: I know. I was being sarcastic.
Aaron: These jokes. Performance Issues?
Julie: You like them, remember?
Aaron: Only, like, 1/3 of them.
Julie: That is still way more than is appropriate for a film of this caliber, A-ron.
Aaron: Well I am drinking. It leads one toward generosity.
Julie: And I'm clearly not drinking enough.
Aaron: Well no one is drinking enough to think these special effects are good. I think the war is starting to happen. And not a moment too soon. 100 minutes in.
Julie: There is only... THE WAR. Ahahahahahaha
Aaron: I mean, they look like they're standing in front of a green screen.
Julie: Right? The worst.
Aaron: They're gods from another planet. So they punch each other. They literally must have no access to technologies of any kind.

Julie: What the hell is that?
Aaron: Megatron?
Julie: It's kind of Transformers-like... I like it. Hahahahahahaha
Aaron: I love Chris Hemsworth's British accent.
Julie: Thor better not die!
Aaron: It really is like Shakespeare in the Park. He will not die. He has to go back to Natalie Portman.
Julie: Haha
Aaron: It really is shocking how few people of color are in this. You are so right about how racist it is.
Julie: Yes. Sondheim should've scored this.
Aaron: Bahahaha!
Julie: Are there any black comic book characters though?
Aaron: Plenty! Who did score this?
Julie: Alan Silvestri.
Aaron: Seriously? The Forrest Gump guy?
Julie: Forrest Gump. Blech. And Beowulf! AHAHAHA
Aaron: Where's your feather theme now, bitch?
Julie: And Lara Croft! He is good.
Aaron: He actually is.

Aaron: I just laughed out loud again. "So... this all seems... horrible."
Julie: Oh, Aaron. You and your jokes.
Aaron: Are we alone in thinking this is bad? I think people liked this movie.
Julie: I think they did too. I don't get it.

Aaron: I can't believe The Avengers got this nomination, actually. I liked John Carter's effects better.
Julie: We could probably name at least 5 films that had better effects.
Aaron: I think so too!
Julie: The Academy is ridiculous.
Aaron: As we know. This year is definitely the weirdest year ever, though. Since Driving Miss Daisy and Do the Right Thing, surely. Sam Jax just said "stupid ass decision". I love him.
Julie: Me too. 1990 was a weird year, you are correct.

Aaron: The weirdest year. But 2013 might be weirder.
Julie: I do not like this year. It is making me upset.
Aaron: Oh I am a fan. But, then, I like surprises. As long as I have surprises I'm happy.

Julie: Was Stellan Skarsgård always in this film?
Aaron: Hahaha. From, like, the first 2 minutes.
Julie: Whoa. I might as well have not watched any of this. I clearly am retaining nothing.
Aaron: Whenever I crash through glass somehow I manage not to bleed, as well.
Julie: Well, that makes sense.
Aaron: There are another 20 minutes in this flick.
Julie: Indeed. Totally necessary. There's Stellan again! How fun.
Aaron: I can't believe you have missed him this whole time. In act one, Loki converted him to his side like he did with Jeremy Renner.
Julie: Dude, it's the red beer. I blame the red beer. And this film's badness. Oh, whatever. I'd rather be watching him in Dragon Tattoo. Remember that one? Why am I so nostalgic for last year. What a horrible year.
Aaron: Haha. Stellan was not good in Dragon Tattoo. You need to release your love for last year. This year is better. Just weirder.
Julie: I LOVED lots of films this year, but they are all getting backlash now. So I am bitter.

Aaron: Actually I do think last year was better than this year. Well, I think there will be reverse backlash. I am predicting Zero Dark to take a bunch. ("Please tell me nobody kissed me". Gotta get in one more homophobic joke!)
Julie: A bunch? it was only nom'd for five.
Aaron: Well, I think it will take more than Life of Pi.
Julie: I think it will get actress, that is all.
Aaron: You are wrong.
Julie: I don't know, Pi has lots of technology that looks and sounds pretty.
Aaron: Well, I think Zero Dark comes back. Like Black Hawk Down.
Julie: Black Hawk only won 2.
Aaron: Black Hawk made a huge comeback. It was the talk of that year! What was that, 02?
Julie: Yes.
Aaron: I think Zero Dark makes a similar comeback. I could be wrong, obviously, but I think so.
Julie: That's not much of a comeback. It was a slap in the face not to nominate her. Even Ridley got a nom. Oh my god, it's over. What happened?
Aaron: Allegedly there is another 10 minutes in it, though. Must be a button at the end of the credits. There usually is with the Marvel movies.
Julie: Oh I am so excited. And I still have half a beer.
Aaron: So do I!
Julie: I feel we can remedy this.
Aaron: Oh my god so there will be a sequel.
Julie: That was stupid. Of course there will be a sequel. It's a comic book! There will be TEN sequels!

Aaron: Hahahaha. This song was not nominated.
Julie: I don't see why not. It is equally as good as the one from Ted.
Aaron: You exaggerate. The lyric of this song is "Like the sun we will live to rise again"
Julie: "Like the sun we will learn to rise... AGAAAAAAAINNNNNN." HAHA. These lyrics are the best They are definitely equal to those of the Les Mis song.
Aaron: Like the sun we will live to rise. / Like the sun we will live and die.
Julie: Like the sun we will live and die.
Aaron: ???
Julie: HAHAHA
Aaron: The sun dies?
Julie: It seems so.
Aaron: This movie sucked. But, Julie: Was it better than Les Mis?
Julie: Oh. I don't know, actually. They were both wretched. And at least this one had Sam Jax. So I think it was better.
Aaron: Like the sun we will live to rise again.
Julie: Again......
Aaron: Hahahahaha.
Julie: Well, I wish I could say this was a pleasure... but I'm not sure it was. Wait. There is more! Seriously, what the fuck was that?
Aaron: That was a bunch of white people having burgers.
Julie: I hate this film. Well, I finished my beer, so I suppose that really is the end.

Talking about Movies, Talking about More Than Movies

I was telling my best friend a couple of days ago that one of the great things about movies is that movies are about everything and so that while sometimes talk about movies leads to talk about aesthetics (The King's Speech is bad because it is shot idiotically and the plot is predictable / 127 Hours is just shot so beautifully) but – and this is more fun to my mind – it also often leads to discussions about the world, for what do we bring to moviewatching but ourselves, our own positions in the world and our opinions from (and about) those positions.

In a discussion with three of my wonderful students last Saturday night, the topic of viewing violence in movies came up. B wanted to know if I liked Inglourious Basterds (I told him yes), and then M shared that while watching IB she had a reaction similar to the reaction I had while reading Sarah Kane's Blasted.

To wit: Blasted is a play about torture. It works because as I read the play, I hate the man being tortured. I hate him. And as he is tortured I think yes, he deserves this. And the torture gets worse and still, yes, he deserves this. He has done so much worse. But there comes a point in the play, and this point varies from person to person, when the torture becomes excessive, when I think, okay, now you should stop. He doesn't deserve that particular violation. And as I read the play, the moment when I think this, when I wish to confer mercy on the main character, I also think Oh my god why didn't I stop earlier? The torture was wrong a long, long time ago.

It is this moment that M had as she watched Inglourious Basterds. The torture was too much. The Nazis, it occurred to her, did not deserve that much torture. M asked me what I thought about this, and the four of us sat thoughtfully for a moment. I replied that I did not know, but perhaps there is no repayment for Nazi violence. What is enough to revenge those murdered? Frequently I think that that there is not enough. That there has not been enough repayment. We forget atrocity too easily. Atrocity too easily becomes simply a way of speaking about things that are not atrocious, a frame of reference and nothing more. B agreed with me here. There has not been enough revenge for the horrors of Fascism in Germany. We all agreed that historically inaccurate end of Inglourious Basterds was perfect.

We spoke more about Tarantino after this. Revenge for the Holocaust is one thing, I posited; a perhaps never-able-to-be-repayed revenge. But it isn't the Holocaust that allows this unbridled impulse to revenge. It is, of course, Tarantino. I say this because — I don't know about you but — I felt the same way in Kill Bill. She kills and kills and keeps killing, and I swear to you I never once thought okay, perhaps you have killed enough. That is enough revenge. Don't kill that person. That person, right there, doesn't deserve to die. Tarantino somehow makes it all feel justifiable. E disagreed. B and I were wrong, he said. He did feel like the killing in Kill Bill was excessive.

There was more talk about ethics and viewing. I posed to them the possibility that violence can often be beautiful (certainly onstage). But even when it is not beautiful... Why is watching violence pleasurable? When does pleasure in others as they watch violence horrify us? How can violence horrify some and give pleasure to others? These are questions that need more discussion, more theory (some of it written by me, hopefully). But I have to tell you all, I have some fabulous undergraduate students. They question me about ethics and violence on a Saturday night and are questioning their own viewership, their own pleasure, their own responsibilities as consumers of culture. I was, as you can imagine, delighted.

2011's Nominees: Part 2 of 12

INCEPTION

8 Nominations:

  · Best Picture

  · Best Original Screenplay: Christopher Nolan (Memento)

  · Best Cinematography: Wally Pfister (Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight)

  · Best Art Direction: Doug Mowat, Larry Dias, Guy Hendrix Dyas

  · Best Original Score: Hans Zimmer (Rain Man, The Lion King, The Preacher's Wife, As Good as It Gets, The Prince of Egypt, The Thin Red Line, Gladiator, Sherlock Holmes)

  · Best Sound Mixing

  · Best Sound Editing

  · Best Visual Effects

Director: Nolan
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Tom Berenger, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Caine, Lukas Haas

 
The crowd favorite. That Nolan did not get a Best Director nomination is widely perceived as a snub, which it is. One of these days, Nolan is going to make a movie that the Academy really loves — Fincher should be his model, actually. But he will just have to settle instead for making tons of money. I actually found Inception kind of soulless. I mean, it's an exciting, complicated picture, but I found it difficult to emotionally drop in.
Will Win: Art Direction, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects
Might Also Win: Original Score, Original Screenplay, Cinematography
My Rating: #9 out of 40

THE FIGHTER

7 Nominations:

  · Best Picture

  · Best Director: David O. Russell

  · Best Original Screenplay: Keith Dorrington, Eric Johnson, Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy

  · Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale
  · Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo (Frozen River)

  · Best Supporting Actress: Amy Adams (Junebug, Doubt)

  · Best Editing: Pamela Martin

Director: Russell
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Bale, Leo, Adams, Jack McGee

 
Not sure why everyone loves this movie as much as they do; it struck me as more of a standard boxing picture. Anyway, this is an actor's movie and no one should forget that. As you look above at the nominations you see none for art direction, cinematography, or sound, though all were rather excellent for the film. My point is that those things were not why people loved this movie. They loved the film for its acting, and its three nominations (as many as The King's Speech!) are a testimony to that. Oh yeah, and it's going to win them, too.
Will Win: Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress (Leo)
Might Win: N/A
My Rating: #27 out of 41

127 HOURS

6 Nominations:

  · Best Picture

  · Best Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy (The Full Monty, Slumdog Millionaire) & Danny Boyle

  · Best Actor: James Franco

  · Best Editing: Jon Harris

  · Best Original Score: A.R. Rahman (Slumdog)

  · Best Original Song: Rahman (Slumdog x2), Dido, Rollo Armstrong

Director: Danny Boyle
Cast: Franco, Kate Mara, Amber Tamblyn, Treat Williams

 
I loved this film and I can't help thinking it got a bit snubbed when the nominations came out. It obviously deserves its editing nomination, sure, but where is the cinematography nod? sound editing? I guess I shouldn't complain too much, the Academy clearly liked the film: six nominations is nothing to sneeze at. And as much as I loved the movie, I am not expecting it to win anything on February 27th. Still, everyone should see this flick. It is Danny Boyle at his best.
Will Win: N/A
Might Win: Original Score, Original Song, Editing
My Rating: #5 out of 41

The Four Big Ones

A couple of quick thoughts about the big four mid-December releases. You may be thinking that you might want to see The Fighter or The King's Speech, but I'm here to try to convince you that your first two choices ought to be Black Swan and 127 Hours.

Black Swan is so far my favorite movie of the year. It's creepy and exciting and basically a thrill a minute. I also found it incredibly sexy and often very, very fun. The best thing about this picture—and I put a high premium on this as a movie-goer so you can take my excitement about Black Swan with a grain of salt if you like—is that I pretty much never knew what the hell was going to happen. I was never ahead of this movie. The acting is great, as well – I was particularly fond of Ms. Portman and Ms. Hershey – both of whom are basically batshit crazy in this film. Darren Aronofsky is the star here, though. Has this man ever made a bad movie? Seriously. He's awesome.

The next movie on your list should be Danny Boyle's 127 Hours. While not quite the Hitchcockian drama that Aronofsky's movie is, 127 Hours is a riveting character study of a truly fascinating guy. It's a Danny Boyle movie, so it's a film about flash and color and, well, general coolness. To be honest, though, Boyle himself is outshined in 127 by the film's actual star James Franco, who gives one of the great performances of the year. The camera is on him nonstop and his desperation, fear, and even his ingenuity, are displayed through tiny nuances, minimal action. A ham in real life (obviously) Franco focuses his energy in this brilliant star turn and only gives away a little at a time. The result is, frankly, devastating. Boyle's filmmaking takes over again as the film's focus by the end, but this is no Slumdog Millionaire. 127 Hours feels deep under all of that flashy exterior in a way that Boyle's big Best Picture-winning extravaganza never did.

The King's Speech is a good movie. And the thing of it is, I just kept thinking that thought while I was watching this picture. In other words, I never really emotionally dropped in to Tom Hooper's movie. This has to do with direction, of course, and with, I think, the subject matter. The King's Speech is, after all, about a king, and, well, I am not sure that a king's problems are really that momentous just because he's the king. Maybe it's just me. The King's Speech feels very invested in the notion of patriotism and national togetherness and big stuff like that. (This is also a rather sex-negative film, to my mind.) It was good, but, well... I had the feeling that Tom Hooper was trying too hard the whole time. The acting is good in this movie except for the bizarre caricature of Winston Churchill, which I found baffling, even in a comedy.

 The Fighter also has really, really good acting. Particularly from star Christian Bale and supporting-actress-of-the-decade Melissa Leo, both of whom give extraordinarily fierce performances, tearing into these roles and never criticizing the people they're playing. The film itself is a little uneven, however. First off, it's like no David O. Russell film I've ever seen. And, then, the center of the movie isn't really the center of the movie. The scenes that need to be in the film in order to make the main character the main character never materialize, and the emotional center of the film doesn't ever quite jell. Because of this, the end of the movie threw me for a bit of a loop. In a way, all of this is because The Fighter, as it turns out, is a boxing movie. It's not an unconventional boxing movie or a new twist on the boxing movie. It's a boxing movie: you know, like Cinderella Man or Rocky or Somebody up There Likes Me or The Champ. I was expecting something... else. So, perhaps if you go in with different expectations than I did, you will come out feeling a bit warmer toward Russell's new flick.

Two New Ones

If you care about movies, and you do, you know you do, you need to see District 9, the new film from South African director Neill Blomkamp.

It is, of course, important to remember that District 9 is kind of gross. In fact, it's actually pretty disgusting. I went with my roommates and both of them thought they would need to get up and leave the theatre at different parts of the film. District 9 is not for the weak-stomached.

But man is it good! Blomkamp's film follows a man who is working for a governmental coalition who is trying to move a group of aliens who have settled in a slum in Johannesburg. The movie begins by following this guy (who's kind of a loser) on his errands through the alien slum. Then, weird stuff starts to happen. I am not going to spoil this for any of you who haven't seen it, but for my money District 9 is the most intriguing, visually compelling, consistently inventive science fiction film since Danny Boyle's Sunshine.

Now, I have heard a lot of talk about how District 9 is a social commentary about (variably) racism, the third world, poverty, and government corruption. For me the film doesn't have much to say, really, about any of these topics. The aliens in District 9 are fundamentally (by which I mean essentially) different from the humans in the movie. They do not share DNA patterns. In this way, of course, the differences between aliens and humans cannot be likened to differences between humans of different races. I mean, white people are not biologically different from people of color. I guess for me District 9 doesn't need to be "about" anything. It is just a kick-ass film, filled with suspense and tension, interesting characters, loads of surprises, and an inventive plot.

I also saw the new Miyazaki film, Ponyo and was underwhelmed. Comparing Ponyo to Miyazaki's previous work is, I realize, setting the movie to a very high standard, but Ponyo just doesn't hold up. It is, of course, visually stunning, but the plot of the new film is basically Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid. It differs here and there, but not by much, and I just never really dropped into it.

Slumdog / Narnia

Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire is everything you've been hearing (I assume you've been hearing about it; even my father is talking about it and he's never heard of Danny Boyle and I'd wager never saw 28 Days Later...)

The movie follows a young slumdog, an extremely poor orphan named Jamal, who, along with his brother, has scraped out a life in the streets of Mumbai. Jamal, while he is very young, falls in love with a young girl named Latika, who is also a poor orphan. They are separated by an evil mob boss and by many other circumstances.

Slumdog Millionaire follows the story of Jamal as he is about to win 20 million rupees on the Hindi version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." The movie then flashes back to explain how it came to be that our boy Jamal knows the answers to all of these difficult questions.

The film is about fate and the convergence of circumstances. It's a fairy tale, of course, but is also about the universe and hope and working as hard as you can to get what you want. It's beautifully shot--in typical, gorgeous, Danny Boyle style--and edited at a fast pace. Slumdog Millionaire is sweeping, romantic, occasionally heartbreaking, and always fun. This is a must-see picture and seems to be getting enough good buzz that it will be getting an Oscar nomination (in the Juno/Little Miss Sunshine/Chocolat slot.)

I also made time for Andrew Adamson's Chronicles of Narnia sequel: Prince Caspian which I expected to like, but which left me a little cold. It's a weird little movie, actually: far too many protagonists for any coherence (at least The Lord of the Rings always had Frodo...); complicated and ill-explained exposition; weird narrative structure; anti-climactic ending. It's not a bad movie, really, but it doesn't really cohere very well. I imagine that the next one will be a little better: if I remember correctly, the plot is a little more linear and there are fewer focal characters.

More movies to come. I am in Los Angeles, now, and trying to see as many as I can

Four Movies, One of Which Pissed Me Off Incredibly

So after watching The Jazz Singer, I rented the Al Jolson biopic, unremarkably titled The Jolson Story. And after liking Anton Corbijn's Control so little, I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed The Jolson Story. As it happens, the plot of The Jolson Story (i.e. the story of Jolson's life) begins identically to The Jazz Singer. Jolson's father is a cantor at the Jewish synagogue and little Asa Yoelson runs away from his family to be a singer and changes his name to Al Jolson. In The Jolson Story, though, the parents are supportive after about five minutes of wrangling. Soon they are being used only as a device to tell us where Jolson is touring and how long it has been since he left home as a little boy to sing.

There is lots of blackface performance in this movie, as well (in 1946 no less!) but it feels less offensive since it is a historical story and Jolson, of course, performed in blackface in reality. But The Jolson Story also totally fudges with history, renaming Jolson's wife (for reasons I can't quite figure out). But the movie ends with Jolson and his wife getting divorced and for this I really liked the movie. It didn't go all the way to Jolson's death (he was still alive, anyway) for one, but I appreciate the filmmakers for having the guts to end a film with a kind of show-must-go-on attitude that treats Jolson's divorce without sentimentality.

I also watched Danny Boyle's zombie flick 28 Days Later..., which I thoroughly enjoyed. I know everyone else has already seen this movie, so I guess I don't need to talk about it, but I thought it was great, of course, and loved all the performers involved: Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris. I kind of wish Boyle had used Naomie Harris in Sunshine, a picture I loved, but which noticeably lacked black people in its vision of the future (unlike, say, Solaris, a movie which isn't nearly as good, but cast the brilliant Viola Davis in a great role).

Anyway, I totally dug this movie. I loved the zombies and how fast they ran. I loved that zombies were created by a virus and not magic or the devil. I loved the puking. And the screaming. And the way the movie is shot, of course. I have remarked before about Danny Boyle's intense visual style and it works extremely well here.

The extremely well-reviewed film from Romanian director Cristian Mungiu, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (4 Luni, 3 Săptămâni şi 2 Zile), which won the Palme d'Or last year finally came out on DVD this week. It never did come to Tallahassee's independent/foreign movie theatre, so I've had to wait until the film's DVD release to see it. I liked it a lot. It's the story of a woman who decides to help her friend get an abortion in Romania in 1987, behind the Iron Curtain, where such procedures were illegal. It's a riveting but simple film with a straightforward plot but plenty of twists and lots of drama. It is slightly indebted to Spielberg in its tactics for building suspense, but I liked it very much all the same. It is politically smart, emotionally powerful, and really drove home to me the importance of freedoms we probably should not take for granted in the west such as freedom of reproductive rights and the freedom to move around a city without constantly being asked to show identification. Definitely worth watching. It's nowhere near the emotional ride of, say, The Lives of Others, but it is a different kind of film, depending more on material circumstances than emotional connection for its dramatic effect.

And now for the film I hated: Michael Haneke's Funny Games. It is ostensibly a horror film, or at least a kind of scary movie akin to, say, What Lies Beneath. I have even heard comparisons to this month's The Strangers. But Haneke's movie is a political statement before it is anything. The film started by pissing me off. It begins with Tim Roth and his wife Naomi Watts playing various cds of classical music in their car as they go to their summer home. The wife asks the husband to guess what is playing on the cd player and he can't guess which piece by Händel she has chosen. These are people who are, obviously, far too snobby for their own good, the movie seems to say. As the film proceeds, the family is tortured and eventually murdered by two effete, obviously upper middle class young men who may or may not be gay (the audience I saw it with--college students--didn't seem to have any doubts). Haneke never directly shows us an act of violence committed against the family, though. The camera is always out of the room or focused on something else when someone is murdered or injured. We only see the results. This is, one supposes, a critique of the USAmerican obsession with violence in our media. I was bored. And then I was infuriated. Haneke taunts us with our own complicity in the violent acts occurring on screen. The killers goad us, talking to the camera as though we are conspirators. We are constantly reminded of our own viewership, our positons as scopophilic witnesses to this family's pain. This is hammered into us as we watch the killers taunt their victims. So much so that I yelled "fuck you" to the screen at one particularly ridiculous point in the movie.

Funny Games also seems to believe that this middle class family deserves to be destroyed. That they've earned this punishment simply by being rich, by feeling secure, by following bourgeois rules of decorum and politeness. They deserve to die because they have a cute little kid, because they teach him how to sail, because they enjoy golf, because they want to barbecue with friends. And this assumption goes unquestioned by Haneke. And call me irredeemably bourgeois, but I disagree. The middle class is not completely and totally without value. There is at least some modicum of value in, say, loving your kid and not wanting him to die or respecting your neighbors' privacy or being friendly to people you don't know all that well. Why are these things to be ridiculed? Why are the people who abide by these societal laws to be tortured and slaughtered? I'm supposed to enjoy this? The whole thing made me furious, and I seriously debated getting up and walking out of the theatre. Fuck this movie.