#10 Pride + Prejudice + Zombies

Oh, now I get how the other 99% feel.

I have a friend who is a member of the JASNA, The Jane Austen Society of North America. And she invited me to a sneak preview of the new film, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Its in wide release on Feb 5th, but we got to see it two weeks early.

Based on the constant stream of snickers, guffaws and belly laughs that went completely over my head, this film was clearly rife with references and inside jokes that made the JASNA folks giddy. Case in point: midway through the picture, Mr. Darcy is working out some frustrations, and dives, fully clothed, into a lake for a swim.

The Audience: Gales of laughter!

Me: "Hunh?"

So, it was later explained to me about the famous/infamous scene in the 1995 BBC Pride and Prejudice Mini-series with Colin Firth, who goes for a swim, and the shot is accurately reproduced. If you don't have this background, the scene makes no real story sense at all, except that "main character needs a swim".

And so it went for the entire film. Name dropping, visual references, excerpts of dialogue. Hilarious. Apparently.

As a zombie movie, it's average fare. Stereotypical characters, hackneyed, if not era-specific, dialogue. Inconsistent but convenient manifestations of zombie transformations. Blood, brains, death, exploding heads. Just what you expect.

The leads were endearing enough. Elizabeth Bennet was played by Lily James, who I only recognized from her role as Lady Rose in Downton Abbey, and she's good. Mr. Darcy is played by Sam Riley, who I am not familiar with, but whose voice was trying so hard to be a young but gruff John Hurt, it was distracting. And if I'd been more up on my Doctor Who, I would have reveled in Matt Smith playing Mr. Collins aka Parson Collins.

There ware some nice moments, which balanced out the film, so overall it was enjoyable. In a scene where the dashing hero offends the good lady with his words, and normally the lady would slap said man on the face, she delivers a solid middle front snap kick and knocks him over a table. Because she can, and she should. Bravo.

So, Now I get how the other 99% feel. When I sit in a movie that's made JUST for me, and I am tickled by the little inside jokes that most people will miss, but have a very specific meaning, that's the 1%. And I know that just about everyone else missed it completely, and I feel lucky to be in on the joke. This time, I was on the outside. But clearly, those who were on the inside had a whale of a time! 

Recommend? Sure, if you like Zombie movies, or just love Jane Austen.

#9 Predestination

I love time travel movies. OK, let me qualify that. I love GOOD travel movies. NO, I'll change that again. I love time travel movies, but I loathe BAD time travel movies.

Best time travel movie? No question: Back to the Future.
Good ones? BTTF 2 & 3, Star Trek IV, Terminator I and II, Primer, Star Trek First Contact, Looper, Groundhog Day,  Planet of the Apes,

Many others arrive in the middle of the pack. And bad ones: Let's just say there's a reason that Terminator Genisys is on the "Movies I wish I could un-see" list.

So there's this little sleeper of a movie out there called Predestination. I did happen across the trailer for it on iTunes trailer page many months ago, but I don't ever remember it coming to local theatres, and if it did, it was gone in a jiffy. Happily, FthisMovie's year end roundup reminded me about it, as well as recommended it. So when I had the cance last week, I watched it.

Based on a short story by Robert Heinlein, the movie explores the temporal adventures of our main character, whose name is complicated. (Not to pronounce. Just, complicated) We are introduced to him as a barkeeper, who hears the life story of a down-and-out bar patron, but clearly something's going on that we're not being told about.

And then time travel steps in to complicate things, resolve things, and move the plot along. I didn't know where the story was going at the outset, and a few of the plot points were telegraphed a little earlier than they could have been, but it is a neat story, and treats time travel with respect. And that's what makes it good. (Terminator Genisys does NOT treat time travel with respect, so it deserves the derision I feel for it).

I'm guessing it'll be out on Netflix soon enough, so catch it if you can.

Recommend: Yes

#8 The Revenant

Holy Shit.

So, when you're having a bad day, just consider the day that Hugh Glass had.

This film by  Alejandro G. Iñárritu is beautifully and cleverly made. I will not be at all surprised if he wins best director for this piece of work. His cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubizki, shot the whole film with natural light, and several interesting and intricate techniques, including his now familiar long takes (see Birdman, a cinematic technique also known as the plan-séquence) and tight tracking shots of characters.

Best picture territory? Not sure. I have only seen 4 of the 8 nominations so far. I'll make a prediction on that later in February.

The opening scene reminds me of  a 1820s version of the Omaha Beach scene from Saving Private Ryan. Relentless, bloody, visceral, which starts in the calm, take you all the way through the carnage and out the other side. And don't be surprised if you forget to breathe in the middle.

And in the spectrum of bear-attach scenes, this one is right up there. It was SO intense, so in-your-face, that it made me wonder about how it was made. Which is too bad, because I was watching to see how it was done, not watching the scene any more.

It's a long haul through the snowy back country, to get from the bear attack to the relative safety of the fort. And walking a long way in the cold has remarkable restorative effects on broken bones and slashed skin. Did it stretch believability? Just a bit.

Recommend? Yes, but be warned. 

#7 Selma

Another of the 2014 films that was really good. Set in 1964, the story has a special resonance with me, since this was the year I was born. These things happened in my life time.

I don't remember seeing Martin Luther King on TV; he was assassinated when I was very young. But I've seen replay of the footage that does exist. I would suggest that the portrayal was very good. The actor, and the man, gave impassioned speeches, Moving speeches, that work on the screen very effectively.

The events that took place in Selma, Alabama were terrible. Even watching the reenactment of them in this film wrenches my gut. I'm saddened and appalled that people were, and are, so intolerant of their fellow passengers on the planet.

Great performances by many actors I'm not familiar with. Oprah Winfrey plays a small role, but otherwise, the actors became those characters for me, and inhabited them well. Although Giovanni Ribisi was distracting as the Whitehouse advisor Lee White. I kept seeing the idiot company man from Avatar all the time.

Recommend? Yes

#6 Foxcatcher

In the run-up to last year's Academy Awards, several films were on the best picture nomination list that were not available for (legitimate) home screenings. So we didn't get to see them at our weekly community movie nights (Three cheers for co-housing)

Although Foxcatcher was not in the best picture nominees, it was in 5 other categories, and I had heard many good things about it.

What it is, IMHO, is a plodding, uninteresting drama about a wrestler, his brother, and a wanna-be wrestler millionaire who signs the cheques for the us Wrestling Team to get to Seoul in 1988. But John DuPont, is just pretending he's a coach and mentor, when he's nothing more than a sugar-daddy who's always gotten what he ever wanted because it could be bought.

It's dull, from the dialogue, to the wrestling, to the cinematography. Based on actual events and people, it's also supposed to be a "murder mystery". However, this story is a murder mysteries as firecracker is to a howitzer.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my simile of the day.

Recommend? No.

#5 Carol

This film has been in just about every "top 10" list for the 2015 calendar year, as well as on just about every list of  Oscar best-picture nomination predications. That alone set my expectation going into the cinema on Saturday night; I was ready for an excellent drama. I knew the basic story outline, since it was well laid out in the trailer for Carol.

Overall, I was underwhelmed.

I'm no expert of the social situation of  circa 1953 lesbianism, but perhaps I have some idea. And I get that it was deep in the social taboo, Perhaps it explains why the visible display of affection between the two women was... subtle.  But ultimately I would have expected more passion displayed between them, especially when the two were alone together, where those social implications could be safely ignored. In the end, there's little chemistry between the two. Maybe by design, or maybe my expectations were just no aligned correctly.

The film is lovely to look at. The cinematography is great, with some very deliberate choices made to enhance the feeling of the scenes,  Callbacks to techniques from an earlier age of movie making, included lovingly and appropriately. The color scheme was muted, and the light was always low, even in daylight scenes. Again, I expect this was deliberate, not just a dim bulb in the projector at the screening.

Rotten tomatoes currently scores Carol 94% fresh, so it would seem that I'm in the tiny minority of folks who didn't really like this film.

Recommend? Meh.

Musings A: To spoil or not to spoil?

Hamlet may have asked "To be, or not to be?", but this question is important, too.

I have been considering this since I started this blog (ok, just last week, but still).

On the Pro side, allowing spoilers means I can talk about any aspect of a movie in detail, say what did or didn't work for me, why, why not, etc.

However, on the Con side, I know that there may be people who visit this blog to get a sense of whether or not to see a certain film at all. And part of the fun is the revelation of certain plot points at just the right moment to maximize the impact of a scene, or a movie as a whole. The thorough enjoyment of the cinematic experience is why I go to the movies in the first place. And I don't want to take that away from anyone.

 I know there's always the implementation of spoiler text like this: You have to click on the word to reveal the spoiler
[Click here to Show Spoiler] [Hide]
This is the content of the spoiler

So for the time being, anyway, I'll stay spoiler free.

#4 Whiplash

Why do I love JK Simmons? Easy: J Jonah Jameson. Why ELSE do I love him? His portrayal of Terence Fletcher in Whiplash.

This is another in a long line of movies that I hear about, hear are good, but where the title seems to betray the goodness of the movie itself, and it gets set on the back burner for one reason or another. The reasons don't matter. But with the constant stream of movies being released our of Hollywood alone (which is a small fraction of  the entire gamut from which to choose) it doesn't take much to slip off the radar and not resurface. A last chance before they drop off into obscurity seems to be the  flurry of top-10 lists that crop up at this time of year, reflecting on the year that was, and anticipating the feeding frenzy that will be the Academy Awards at the end of February.

So now I'm catching up.

Whiplash is a simple, intense, personal story of a music teacher who cares so much about bringing out the best in his students that his means justify his ends. Everything else is just the journey. The story is a little formulaic, but fascinating, and driven completely by the wonderful energy of JK Simmons as that teacher. I actually wonder why this role was considered a "supporting role" (for which he won best actor in a supporting role at both the Golden Globes and the Oscars) instead of a lead. I have to lookup how that's defined. Perhaps because it's not really his story, but the story of a young drummer who enters a music conservatory to further his passion, and how he and Fletcher interact to move him towards his goal.

The music is Jazz, and although I'm wouldn't consider myself a Jazz fan, I did enjoy the music, and the emphasis on the drumming gives a new appreciation for the genre.

Just  a few other faces round out the cast, including the appearance of Paul Reiser as the drummer's father. This was perhaps the father Paul Riser would have turned into twenty years after "Mad About You" finished, although Helen Hunt was nowhere to be seen.

Recommend? Absolutely!

#3 Django Unchained

Because I have to be ready to take my own medicine, and because I was still coming off the high of The Hateful Eight, I re-watched Django Unchained for the first time since I saw it three years ago. I thought I remembered it, but really didn't.

It's still very enjoyable QT, but I found it interesting to look for the ideas that come from before, and that show up later. Bounty Hunting, Hanging, Revenge. Family. Coffee. Well worn territory for the storyteller. I'm thinking he's just reworking, honing, perfecting ideas he'd been rolling around with for years.

I will say that I still enjoyed this one on the re-watch. Jamie Foxx does a great job in his role. Up there with George Clooney, Denzel Washington, and Daniel Craig in the watchable-leading-man category.

It was with great joy I realized that the recent /advertisement I saw in the cinema recently featuring  the Clash of Clans game was clearly inspired by the tale of Broomhilda scene in Django Unchained. I laughed and laughed.  See it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0eVYdmmYJk,
And the movie clip for comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2tTBVSqPAE

 As for my own medicine, I said that if you can enjoy a double feature of Reservoir Dogs and Django Unchained, you'd like the Hateful Eight: I now watched them both recently, and yes, I've enjoyed the heck out of them. But that's no surprise.

#2 Kingsman: The Secret Service

Like many of the films I expect to be watching in the near future, this is one that was recommended by some of my favourite reviewers/critics over at my favourite movie podcast, FTHISMOVIE.NET. (Unabashed shout out to them.)

When I saw trailers for this one, my curiosity was only mildly peaked, and I never pursued it. I have a modest liking for Colin Firth, but he's not Sean Connery, and the previews for this movie had a sort of James Bondian thing going on. But it was, perhaps, on the bubble of sufficient interest, and when it hit Netflix recently, I thought it would make its way to my calendar soon enough.

It starts out well, and caught my interest quickly. I found it was one of those movies that you avoid for so long, and when you finally get around to seeing it, after just a few minutes, you're kicking yourself for not watching it sooner. (Die Hard was one of these... took me YEARS to finally watch it, but now it's one of my TOP favourite films. And it's the new traditional Christmas movie).

The premise, and the presentation had me invested early, and I was enjoying it very much. I had completely forgotten that Samuel L Jackson was playing the villain, and that made me all the more interested (having just come from the Hateful Eight a couple of days prior). but he plays a multi billionaire with a lithp. I mean, a lisp.  And I'm not sure why that was a necessary character feature for him. Stereotypically, such a speech impediment removes credibility from a character. So, what? To make him seem like a real person? To show that people with disabilities can become captains of industry? It just didn't work for me. I liked the idea of him doing that as Mr Glass in Unbreakable.

And part way through, the movie changes tone, somehow, and starts going over the top, unable to return. I think the scene in the church may have been that moment. Right through the final show down with this movie's equivalent of OddJob, who cannot land a blow on our hero in a protracted fight, while she managed to dispatch a more highly trained agent in an opening scene very quickly. I call "cheat".

But it was still enjoyable, but less so that I'd have liked. And I did learn something. Oxfords, not Brogues. Here's that, and nine other life lessons that can be gleaned from this movie. https://jackknavefool.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/oxfords-not-brogues-10-lessons-ive-learnt-from-kingsman-the-secret-service/

#1 The Hateful Eight

Quentin Tarantino's latest movie is the perfect way to start off the year.  This film was an amazing experience. That I can say with no hesitation. I'm still not sure if I love it or not.

The Hateful Eight is completely and totally Tarantino. On Steroids.  He give you lots more of what you love. And lots more of what you don't.

Early reviews use the adjectives long, talky, gory, violent. All true. But not necessarily bad. Could the filmmaker have made different choices and still succeeded? Absolutely. But he made THESE choices, and that's his movie.

It looks stunning. Shot in "Ultra-Panavision 70", a 65mm Eastman Kodak negative with a 2.76:1 aspect ratio, it's a wonderful feast for the eyes. The frame is full of information all the time. And despite gripes about using this format for so much interior shooting, it works great. Add to that the split focus techniques thrown in from time to time. (I still wonder if this technique is noticed by joe-q-public, or if it goes by without a thought - I always see it, and although it takes me out of the moment, it tells me instantly that the filmmaker made a deliberate choice to show me two planes of focus at once, and I feel like I have been served a special treat. As a digression... Apparently also called a split diopter shot, it's used frequently by Tarantino. I still remember the first time I noticed it: in 1979's Star Trek the Motion Picture, directed by Robert Wise. His cinematographer was Richard Kline, and boy does HE have a diverse body of work.)

I still found the image to be darker than I'd have liked, except for the exterior shots that were in full daylight. I blame the digital projection process, although I don't have any proof for that as of now. At least it wasn't in 3D.

The Eight mentioned in the title represent most (but not all) of the characters we spend the better part of three hours with. I'll leave it up to the viewer to determine exactly who those Hateful Eight are. But they're all pretty hateful. The performances are riveting. The characters are given much to say, and each gets a chance to speak his/her mind at one point or another, which allows for each to shine in their time.

Samuel L Jackson is wonderful as always, and I think Tarantino directs him better than anyone. Kurt Russel, as John "the Hangman" Ruth, plays the juiciest version of the paragons he's played in the past. I could go on, but I will say that of all the parts, I was least impressed with Michael Madsen, who struck me as still playing his character from the Kill Bill films, in demeanor, delivery, attitude, and engagement. Which is neither praise nor pan, just an observation.

The movie is violent as all hell, the blood runs freely. It certainly harbors adult themes. But it's pure QT.  I have thought on this one hard: if you could honestly say that you'd be happily willing to sit through, and enjoy, a double feature of Reservoir Dogs, and then Django Unchained, then I'd say you're plenty ready for this one. If you've got problems with them movies, then perhaps you should spend those three hours elsewhere. But I hope you see this, so we can talk about it.

Happy New Year

Go to the gym regularly, lose some weight, see the good in people before the bad.

All good new years resolutions. But what else? After a suggestion from my lovely wife, I'm starting a blog to discuss movies I've seen this year. And there are so many ways to see movies these days, this should not be insubstantial.

2015 was a pretty good year for cinema. As the predictions for Academy awards nominations start to swirl about,  it becomes more obvious that there's lots of good cinema about. It's possible that I was in a cinema seat more last year than in several previous, and it doesn't take much to remember how much fun going to the movies really is.



So I'll capture my thoughts in 2016 right here. Maybe deep, maybe surface. But I'll tell you what I think. There'll probably be spoilers. Probably. I want to also keep a list of movies I still have yet to see, so I'll see if I can keep that list here, too.

And then I'll know how many movies I actually watch in a year. So here we go...



Image courtesy of Idea go at FreeDigitalPhotos.net