Robots in disguise. Misogyny, not so much.

I saw the new Transformers movie. Whether this was a good thing or not is kind of up in the air.

The good things about the movie: Lots of stuff blows up, Chicago gets pretty much destroyed. If you like to see giant robots destroying things - and you can tolerate Michael Bay's deeply chaotic style - it's not awful.

The bad things: Shia LeBeouf continues to be himself - an insipid, uninteresting whiny brat. The plot is completely incoherent - the bad guys want to...bring their planet to Earth, because...I don't even know. And then there's an entirely obnoxious subplot in which Shia LeBeouf's girlfriend exists and his parents want him to get married and blah blah blah. Which brings me to...

The ugly: Oh, Mr. Bay. Have you ever met a woman? Like, actually conversed with a real, live female?

There's this theoretical 'test' out there, the Bechdel test. What it amounts to is three questions: are there at least two female characters in a film? Do they talk to each other? About something other than men? It's not meant as an assessment of how anti-feminist/misogynistic/etc a work is, but more of something applied to track trends (a *huge* number of modern movies fail this test). For example: the new Transformers film passes. There are three female characters. Two of them talk to each other. They do not talk about men (well, they do, but they also have about ten seconds of dialogue on another topic).

Female Character A exists purely as sex appeal. She has precisely zero personality. We don't know what she likes or dislikes, we don't know anything about her history or how she ended up where she is, we don't know anything about her friends or family. The first time we see her in the movie? Literally a panty shot of her ass, barely covered, as she walks up the stairs and then goes and straddles her boyfriend in bed. Her further contributions to the plot include creating conflict by having another man interested in her, and being taken hostage and waiting helplessly for rescue.

Female Character B is a career woman in the intelligence community who comes across as a shrill harpy. She's a cold-hearted bitch. We can tell because she treats her assistant with absolute disdain, and walks into situations and attempts to take control when the (male) people who are already there are rapidly losing control and messing everything up. The first time we see her, she has her flunky carrying her multiple designer purses and an extra pair of shoes around for her.

Female Character C is the main characters mother, who makes reference to her son's being a loser and says he can't expect to get another girlfriend as hot as Female Character A unless he has a big penis.

97% of the movie is divided between the useful characters fighting the bad guys, and Shia LeBeouf whining about being unemployed while his super hot girlfriend has a job, which of course makes him feel emasculated. His girlfriend overtly says she loves having him around the house as a "boy toy"; the implication is that the fact that he's unemployed and she's not is (and should be) inherently bad. The issue isn't so much that he's unemployed and feels bad about it (understandable) but his girlfriend has a job and he doesn't (haha look at the looooser!).

The thing about movies like this is that it in and of itself isn't deeply problematic. Of course a Michael Bay movie is stupid and worthless in the moments when it's not about blowing stuff up*. The thing is it's indicative of the society that not only creates movies like this but embraces them - that not only sees nothing wrong with but downright enjoys a movie where our introduction to the first female character is literally a tracking shot of her ass as she goes up a flight of stairs. It's not a cause but a symptom of a huge problem with our culture - women are objects meant to be looked at, not people with meaningful lives.

*I also seriously question the way that Michael Bay thinks the military works, by the way.

Movie review: Red

When I first saw the preview for this a couple months ago, it made me giggle and really really want to see it, because it looked like everything an action movie should be: lots of stuff blowing up, lots of gunfights, some witty dialogue, and just a whole lot of fun.

Red totally lived up to that.

First, the really good that I knew would be good: Helen Mirren! Helen Mirren, in a white evening gown, with a really big gun! Morgan Freeman! Morgan Freeman as an old retired assassin!

Next, the surprisingly good: Bruce Willis as a bored retiree is, as it turns out, kind of awesome. He's aged pretty well, which I think is part of what made it work so well. The cinematography was actually really good - the film is (very loosely) based on a comic book, and the opening of the film captured that really well. The fight scenes were all pretty goofy but in a good way. John Malkovich was, I thought, incredible in his role as a crazy man. There was a relationship between a woman and a somewhat older man which was handled surprisingly well - it wasn't a Creepy Old Man, and it wasn't some old dude just banging a young blonde or anything.

The meh: The pacing is a bit off, I think - I'm not sure exactly how, but it could've been a bit better.

All together, there's not much to say about it but this: If you're looking for two hours of witty dialogue, fun gunfights, and an overall stupid plot carried by incredibly talented actors (actors of the caliber which action movies can't often get), go see Red. If you're looking for an engaging story or something that will make you think, go see something else (then, at some other time, see Red, because it's just so much *fun*).

Toy Story 3

I'll write more on this later, but: I just (finally!) saw Toy Story 3.

Standard disclaimers: I'm a giant Pixar nerd, and the Toy Story franchise got it's claws into me at a young age. That said...this film is tied for the title of "best movie of the year". It's Pixar doing what they do best. There are believable, whole characters. The story is fun and adventurous and never too intense. The characters are great. The animation, of course, is fantastic. Did I mention that there are great, emotionally-accessible characters? And at the end, you get an ending so happy that - well, I'd say you'd have to be a terrifying monster to not find a Pixar ending heartwarming, but they made a movie about terrifying monsters and it had a heartwarming ending, so there you go.

Anyway - I saw the original Toy Story when it first came out in 1995 and loved it, and this movie concluded the saga in the absolute best possible way. I imagine it would stand up perfectly well on it's own, but as the conclusion to a story that first started when I was nine, it was perfect.

(And yes, it goes on the list of "Pixar films which, rather embarrassingly, have caused me to weep like a baby", up there with, well, Up. And Finding Nemo. and Monsters, Inc. And Wall-E. And Ratatouille. And the other Toy Story movies. Curse your emotional manipulation, Pixar!)

Movie review: The Karate Kid (2010)

To begin with: I'm a shameless fan of the original film, so a remake already has tremendous shoes to try to fill. I'm biased and will freely admit it. The original is so perfect in it's cheesy 1980's glory. On the other hand: I'm a shameless Jackie Chan fan. I've become less a fan of his more modern (and horribly over-commercialized) work, but still - the man knows how to put together a fight scene.

The good:

*Jackie Chan did not disappoint. Again, he had tremendous shoes to fill here, and he stepped up to it. Is he Mr. Miyagi? No. Does he take the role, make it his own, and create something surprisingly good? Absolutely. This version of Mr. Miyagi being drunk and sad is surprisingly well-done. There's some emotional depth that I think Chan doesn't normally get to go into in his typical roles, but he certainly can do it.

*I won't spoil anything, but there's a whole sub-plot involving cars which is a surprisingly subdued and clever hommage to the original. We do see a car being waxed, but it's not just a shout-out, it's truly a new little story, which I was pleasantly surprised by.

*Some of the fight and training scenes are pretty decent; at least one of them was obviously highly influenced by Chan's style, if he didn't choreograph it himself. Some nice creative use of scenery, harsh enough to be interesting but clever enough to not be too scary for kids (or adults).

*Similarly, I was pleasantly surprised by how some of the kids pulled off their fight scenes.

The bad:

*C'mon, the kid's 12. You don't need a love interest.

*Jaden Smith...has potential as an actor. I'm sure, given who his father is (it may be an unpopular opinion, but Will Smith can give a decent performance), he can get all the coaching he needs. That said, he's young and I didn't for a second feel that he was talented enough to carry a film as a lead. A minor player? I think he'd be perfectly respectable. If he keeps at it, in five or ten years? Sure, seems possible. But I just didn't find him convincing for most of the movie.

*Beyond the fact that a story about preteens does not need a love interest, the whole girl subplot was just kind of...lame. It basically just spat out some stereotypes for us and gave us a montage of two kids running around Beijing. The whole story could've been cut and the film would've been better overall.

*I have no first-hand experience with Kung Fu, no with recreational martial arts in China, but, uh...a youth tournament attracts such a crowd that it fills up what looks like a very large gymnasium? Really? Hundreds of spectators, an MC, big flashy video screen displaying custom graphics? TKD matches at the Olympics barely attract crowds like that.

The ugly:

*Speaking of the tournament...okay. Again, I'm not terribly familiar with kung fu, and certainly not the sport aspect of it in China. But the tournament appeared very much to be a no-holds-barred type affair. With - well, okay, I'll be generous and just say one great big under-18 division. And they wear absolutely no protective gear. And one competitor repeatedly during one match needs to be physically dragged off his opponent after the referee calls for them to break, and he gets...a warning? And then later disqualified for injuring his opponent with an illegal move, when the score is tied, so the injured opponent...loses? And kicks to the head, knee and back are all legal? And did I mention the part where you have 12-year-olds fighting in a full-contact match with no protective gear? Reeaaally? Willing suspension of disbelief will maybe deal with the enormous crowd of devoted fans, but come on. This is some sort of youth TMA tournament, not an MMA cage match.

*Overall, I got the feeling that the creative team couldn't decide whether they wanted to be a new film which paid tribute to the original, or simply a remake.

*Pleaaaaaase stop conflating various martial arts. Karate is not kung fu. I'm not demanding any real accuracy about the actual style, but please please please make some teeny tiny little effort and get the name right.

Overall conclusion: It's a summer movie. Jaden Smith has potential, but isn't there yet. I kind of wish I'd waited and seen it on dollar day, rather than at the regular $3.50 price. Were it not for it's namesake, I think it would've been a total flop, but there's enough references in there to keep it from being a total flop. I've seen worse, but they could've done much better.

Ye olde bigge toppe

Growing up, one of my absolute favorite movies was Dumbo. It was one of the VHS cassettes I probably just about wore out (along with The Land Before Time, and an old recording of episodes of Winnie the Pooh). I was always totally freaked out by the pink elephant scene - which I'm pretty sure is justified because even as an adult my reaction is pretty much "Man, what the hell?"

Also as an adult - it's a great film. It's touching and the music is great and the animation! God, they don't make cartoons like they used to. And brief foray into LSD-induced nightmares aside, it strikes a great balance between silly fun and scary for the kids.

But.

So there's the obvious thing where all the crows sound stereotypically black and the uncomfortable part where the main crow? is named Jim Crow. So...yeah. But further? Early on there's that scene where the circus train pulls up and they're all setting up the tent, which is primarily set up by a bunch of "roustabouts", who are portrayed as decidedly dark figure lacking in any clear features, which is...well, okay it was made in 1941, and maybe it's a stylistic decision? It's during a rainstorm after all. And since it's a Disney movie they sing a fun little song. In which they describe themselves as happy-hearted roustabouts. Who never learned to read or write, who "slave until we're almost dead" (yeah), and don't know when they'll get paid, but it's fine because they'll just toss it away when it comes.

So...yeah. Great movie, but a little bit cringeworthy at points.

Alice in Wonderland

Saw Alice in Wonderland last night. Conclusion: meh. It wasn't bad. I fondly recall both the Disney cartoon version and the book from when I was a wee one, so trying to make my mental picture of it change is kind of questionable.

Visually, obviously, there's huge, huge potential. And it was nice and interesting to look at, but again: meh. I think The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus actually did more interesting things visually. The costuming was great, though, and I did like what they did with both the Red Queen and the Hatter.

I'm beginning to think that, unexpectedly, Johnny Depp playing a crazy person will never get old, because he's so good at it. Similarly, no one does evil crazy quite like Helena Bonham Carter. I'm a bit mixed about Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar - he has such a distinctive voice that I'm not sure he's well-suited to voice work at this point in his career.

The Chesire Cat was well done, I thought: Stephen Fry and the visual team did a good job of putting an original spin on him but also keeping his "I'm only doing this because it amuses me" attitude. I'm not sure where exactly the bloodhound came from but he was adorable and I wanted to rub his belly.

All together, I think it's most charitably seen as an homage to Carroll's works, not as a retelling of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (because it's not). I don't think it's a particularly bad movie - the pacing was okay, enough characters were interesting enough, it was pretty enough - but it's not particularly good, either.

The best thing about it, actually, was that it's showing both in 3D and 2D here. I can't see movies in 3D, so we went and saw it in 2D. When we walked in, there was a line crossing the entire lobby of people waiting to get into the 3D showing - it was close to sold out it not entirely - whereas the 2D theater was less than half-full and we walked right in. So that was nice; for once I was glad for my visual processing failures.

My thoughts on a very important issue

I finally gave in and watched (both!) trailers for the unholy remake of The Karate Kid that they're doing (seriously - Jackie Chan as Mr. Miyagi? That just...doesn't work for me).

I like the part where it's now set in China. I really like the part where one of the lines in the trailer for The KARATE Kid is "I will teach you kung fu."

Let's ignore the minor linguistic issues which make it fairly unlikely that a native of Beijing would say that (as opposed to "I'll teach you Wushu). And obviously, the actual 'martial arts' in the movie are going to be very silly. But presumably there was some advisor somewhere who knew something about martial arts. I wonder if this individual even bothered to point out that kung fu is not karate? Really. I promise. Ask either the Japanese or the Chinese - or any student of either art - and they will tell you. They are in fact two very distinct arts, each with a myriad of styles.

So...yeah.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

Brief, just-saw-it late night review: possibly a bit too ambitious, plot-wise. A bit muddled in the story. A bit sad, both story-wise and in the conspicuous absence in certain scenes of Heath Ledger. Makes up for most weaknesses in being visually breathtaking.

Worth paying to see it on the big screen. Probably worth a second viewing on DVD.

Thoughts upon watching Angels and Demons

Dan Brown is unbelievably stupid and did precisely no research about CERN, the LHC, antimatter, or anything like that.

It's playing in the background and they just announced that the explosion could be the equivalent of "five kilotons." Kilotons of what? Because five kilotons of puppies is a lot of puppies, but still preferable to five kilotons of .

Also I like that instead of, oh, calling in the police, immediately evacuating the area and searching it, they call in a professor of "symbology".

Also an academic gets access to the Vatican archives, rips a page out of an ancient manuscript (possibly by Galileo? I can't pay attention to this), and carries it with his bare hands? Did he fold it up and stick it in his pocket, too? I have, like, about fifteen minutes of archival training and that's making me twitch.

ETA: Seriously, GET YOUR OILY, GREASY, GROSS FINGERS OFF THAT 500 YEAR OLD DOCUMENT YOU HORRIBLE HEATHEN.

Attn: Netflix robots

Appropriate "more like this" suggestions for the movie Carrie: The Evil Dead, Fallen.

Debatable appropriate "more like this" suggestions for the movie Carrie: In The Bedroom.

Deeply inappropriate "more like this" suggestion for the movie Carrie: Bolt.

Vampires

Resolved: Let The Right One In is freaking amazing, and the second-best vampire film I've ever seen.

(Beaten only by Nosferatu, of course)

Pixar just keeps getting better and better

Today, in a moment of rain-induced impulse (I was on the bus already, might as well go across town), I took myself to see Up.

Now, I'm a sucker for well-made kids movies to begin with, and I adore Pixar. I think that Cars and A Bug's Life are cute and amusing, and also the only two movies to come from that studio which are not absolutely all-over wonderful. I have at least greatly enjoyed, if not absolutely loved, every film that Pixar has made, and with those two above exceptions, every Pixar movie has had at least a brief period as a favorite of the moment. With that said, I think Up is their finest work yet.

The beginning is, for a few moments, absolutely adorable, and then heartbreaking, as it walks you through a lifelong romance, right up to the end. Mr. Fredrickson is a wonderfuly flawed character who is completely and totally sympathetic; you automatically feel for him. The young intrepid Russell is adorable in his not-quite-adolescence; he took slightly longer to grow on me but you absolutely get there by the end. The other characters are absolutely spot-on, including and perhaps most so the dogs.

It goes without saying that the film is visually breathtaking. The nature scenes have just enough detail and just grab you in the right way. The cloud of balloons is also perfect. Pixar has done so well in avoiding trying to make their characters look real, so it's never creepy.

The story itself is pure Disney/Pixar: heartbreaking to just the right degree, able to unexpectedly summon both happy and sad tears but never too intense. At a few points I heard a mother sitting behind me needing to reassure her daughter (don't know the age) that whatever character was okay, so it's obviously a bit intense for some young kids, but none of the wee ones in the theater seemed totally overwhelmed. The end is poignant but again not too heavy, and overall the movie is remarkably sweet. The movie as a whole definitely works on different levels: I'm sure as an adult I got plenty more from it than the six year olds in the theater, and I'm sure that a parent or grandparent would get yet something more from it.

Overall, this is definitely Pixar's best movie yet, and that seems to be a popular opinion. It has something for all ages, and even if it didn't, it would still be worth watching just for the animation.

Deep, dark confession

The movie that arrived today is Wall-E, and if being totally in love with an ugly little CGI robot is wrong, then I do not ever, ever want to be right.

Ssshhhh, at work

I highly recommend going to see Dark Knight - I think it absolutely lived up to the hype. I've also been thinking a bit lately about the nature of evil, and I think the movie raises some questions. There are two categories of Bad Guys in the movie:
1. Bad Guys who do bad things for a clear personal purpose (revenge, money, perhaps even an idea of justice). In this category are the mobsters and most villians, generally speaking.
2. Bad Guys who do bad thigns just for the hell of it: in this case, the Joker.

More thoughts on this sometime when I'm A) not at work and B) not running on quite as few hours of sleep.

Not reading any spoilers not reading any spoilers....

I'm going to a midnight showing of Dark Knight tonight.  

Partly based on the absolutely gushing reviews I've read of it and partly based on my own geekiness, I cannot wait.  I haven't been this excited for a movie since 2003, when the first Matrix sequel was released. 

And if I'm disappointed like that again, I will weep tears of bitter, bitter sorrow.

Wall-E

How much do I love Pixar?

About as much as I love robots, and I love robots a LOT.

Pretty pretty

The library has acquired the four-disc set of BBC's Planet Earth series. I grabbed first two discs for my viewing pleasure over break, and have watched the first and second episodes.

All I have to say is holy crap. The filming is magnificent. The narration is fascinating. The scenery is jaw-droppingly, 'I want to crawl through the screen and be there' beautiful.

Thus, my unrequited crush on the BBC continues.

Oh dear

I'd forgotten how insanely sad the movie Dumbo is. Also, how downright creepy parts are.

And yes, I am watching Dumbo, and if you have a problem with that, I don't care. Hmph.