Review:
A part of me finds it hard to believe this story hasn’t already been made into a movie. Then again, I have a severely limited knowledge of the cult films and borderline pornography that might offer such a precursor to “Teeth” (2007). In any case, to undertake a story like “Teeth” and make it successful you must be audacious and willing to shock. Thankfully, director and writer Mitchell Lichtenstein is up to the challenge and thankfully too, he makes the wise decision to play for laughs.
“Teeth” tells the story of high school student Dawn O’Keefe (Jess Weixler) who has a deep dark secret in a deep dark place. Dawn is a good student very concerned with her chaste image. She speaks at purity rallies promoting abstinence to her peers and in her personal life she shies away from anything that might arouse her sexual appetites. She keeps boys at a distance and doesn’t want to see a movie that has heavy making out in it.
Looming over the tree line of Dawn’s town are two giant smokestacks belonging to a nuclear power plant. It is never mentioned outright but it is implied that the nearby nuclear power plant is having an adverse effect on the locals. Dawn’s mother has developed cancer and Dawn…
Well, Dawn has grown teeth on her vagina. Viscious teeth. Emasculating teeth. Thus, when a male friend tries to sexually assault Dawn he learns about Vagina Dentata the hard way.
Ah yes, the age-old myth Vagina Dentata at last making its way into popular American cinema. I’m happy for it. Finally we’ve come into an age where the vagina can be referenced outright and subsequently turned into the terrifying monster in a movie. But what I really liked about “Teeth” is twofold.
1) The material is presented straight-faced but you can sense the tongue in cheek. Subsequently you laugh at a lot of the horrific emasculations.
2) It exhibits a lot of the implications of the classic monster films. For instance, the society that creates the monster is perhaps worse than the monster itself (this is an idea employed in “Frankenstein” (1931) and “King Kong” (1933) and “E.T.” (1982).
And while “Teeth” is certainly no “Frankenstein,” “King Kong,” or “E.T.” it is good homage to B movies fun. Be warned though, if you think that modesty will compel the filmmakers to not show what you can’t imagine they’d show, they do show it. Get ready.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is approximately two “Air Force One”s better than “Bubba Ho Tep” (2002)
Rationalization:
“Bubba Ho Tep” was weird and OK but ultimately too much. “Teeth” relies on time-tested horror devices, an ancient premise, and moves along confidently and at times hilariously. Will it be remembered with as much reverence as “The Shining” (1980) or “The Descent” (2005)? No. But “Teeth” will go down as one of those camp oddities that future kids will find and watch and thereafter reminisce about how in the olden days movies were so tame and silly.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Toy Story (1995)
Review:
Still captivating after all these years, "Toy Story" continues to capture my imagination and impress my eyes. Even in the wake of such Pixar masterpieces as "Wall-E" and "Up," it must be said that "Toy Story" holds its own. The concept that your toys are alive is a thought that has passed through every child's mind, and thus through every adult's mind as well. Its an idea that resonates with our passion to uncover secret worlds, to believe there is more out there than meets the eye. There's something enchanting about the idea - and terrifying. "Toy Story" focuses mainly on the enchanting aspect, but like other good Pixar films, it also chooses to explore the darker side of the fantasy.
But what ingratiates "Toy Story" into our minds foremost is the distinct set of characters the film introduces us to. These are not simply computer generated images, they are fully formed personalities that we can like and understand. There's Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), the toy cowboy with a pull string that makes him talk. He has been Andy's favorite toy for who knows how long. He is the undisputed leader of all the toys. Andy's other toys include a wise cracking Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), a cowardly Dinosaur (Wallace Shawn) and an oddly suggestive Little Bo Peep (Annie Potte).
All is harmonious in the world of Andy's toys. That is, until Andy gets the new hot toy, the action figure Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). Suddenly Woody's place as Andy's favorite toy is severely threatened. Buzz Lightyear is a toy deluded into believing he really is the Buzz Lightyear. But in spite of his delusions, he is everything that Woody is not. He has buttons that let him speak, he's made from sleek, shimmering plastic, and he has the confidence to believe he can fly. Lo and behold, a power struggle begins between Woody and Buzz. This struggle inevitably leads them outside the safe parameters of Andy's room and the two of them become lost toys searching for home.
The odyssey Buzz and Woody go on is fabulous. Its weird and fun. Even Odysseus probably couldn't have spun such a yarn. Woody and Buzz find themselves in a vending machine populated by hilarious three eyed aliens, then they are taken in by the cruel toy torturer Sid and so on.
It is in Sid's house that a darker exploration of living toys comes into the film. We find Sid has created an army of terrifying toy mutations that both Woody and Buzz fear. The mutations are quite eerie and very imaginative creations. Toys can be creepy just as easily as they can be jovial. The Twilight Zone and countless other mannequin stories know this, and thankfully so does Pixar.
It is in Sid's house that Buzz has his existential crisis. Realizing that he is, in fact, a toy Buzz has that all too-human-moment when you realize you are less than you thought.
"Toy Story" is the first film to ever be entirely computer animated. Even by today's standards, it looks good. The characters move smoothly and realistically, carrying real weight in their step just as their faces carry real emotion in their expressions. This film is a miraculous achievement and will likely go down in history with other landmarks in animation like "Snow White" (1937), "Fantasia" (1940) and "Beauty and the Beast" (1992).
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Jurassic Park" (1993).
Rationalization:
The film is wonderful, magical, and inspiring, a real labor of love, but what is perhaps most important about "Toy Story" is the collective importance of the films it gave rise to. Pixar has consistently produced some of the most mind bogglingly great films of the past two decades. Pixar is synonymous with Disney's current credibility. Without Pixar, Disney's output of films over the past decade would be a sad display indeed (admittedly, I have not seen "The Princess and the Frog" (2009)). I am glad "Toy Story" is still in my life though, not quite eclipsed by the later Pixar films. We must remember: "Toy Story" set the high standard of quality for Pixar films, so we must be forever grateful to it.
Still captivating after all these years, "Toy Story" continues to capture my imagination and impress my eyes. Even in the wake of such Pixar masterpieces as "Wall-E" and "Up," it must be said that "Toy Story" holds its own. The concept that your toys are alive is a thought that has passed through every child's mind, and thus through every adult's mind as well. Its an idea that resonates with our passion to uncover secret worlds, to believe there is more out there than meets the eye. There's something enchanting about the idea - and terrifying. "Toy Story" focuses mainly on the enchanting aspect, but like other good Pixar films, it also chooses to explore the darker side of the fantasy.
But what ingratiates "Toy Story" into our minds foremost is the distinct set of characters the film introduces us to. These are not simply computer generated images, they are fully formed personalities that we can like and understand. There's Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), the toy cowboy with a pull string that makes him talk. He has been Andy's favorite toy for who knows how long. He is the undisputed leader of all the toys. Andy's other toys include a wise cracking Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), a cowardly Dinosaur (Wallace Shawn) and an oddly suggestive Little Bo Peep (Annie Potte).
All is harmonious in the world of Andy's toys. That is, until Andy gets the new hot toy, the action figure Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). Suddenly Woody's place as Andy's favorite toy is severely threatened. Buzz Lightyear is a toy deluded into believing he really is the Buzz Lightyear. But in spite of his delusions, he is everything that Woody is not. He has buttons that let him speak, he's made from sleek, shimmering plastic, and he has the confidence to believe he can fly. Lo and behold, a power struggle begins between Woody and Buzz. This struggle inevitably leads them outside the safe parameters of Andy's room and the two of them become lost toys searching for home.
The odyssey Buzz and Woody go on is fabulous. Its weird and fun. Even Odysseus probably couldn't have spun such a yarn. Woody and Buzz find themselves in a vending machine populated by hilarious three eyed aliens, then they are taken in by the cruel toy torturer Sid and so on.
It is in Sid's house that a darker exploration of living toys comes into the film. We find Sid has created an army of terrifying toy mutations that both Woody and Buzz fear. The mutations are quite eerie and very imaginative creations. Toys can be creepy just as easily as they can be jovial. The Twilight Zone and countless other mannequin stories know this, and thankfully so does Pixar.
It is in Sid's house that Buzz has his existential crisis. Realizing that he is, in fact, a toy Buzz has that all too-human-moment when you realize you are less than you thought.
"Toy Story" is the first film to ever be entirely computer animated. Even by today's standards, it looks good. The characters move smoothly and realistically, carrying real weight in their step just as their faces carry real emotion in their expressions. This film is a miraculous achievement and will likely go down in history with other landmarks in animation like "Snow White" (1937), "Fantasia" (1940) and "Beauty and the Beast" (1992).
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Jurassic Park" (1993).
Rationalization:
The film is wonderful, magical, and inspiring, a real labor of love, but what is perhaps most important about "Toy Story" is the collective importance of the films it gave rise to. Pixar has consistently produced some of the most mind bogglingly great films of the past two decades. Pixar is synonymous with Disney's current credibility. Without Pixar, Disney's output of films over the past decade would be a sad display indeed (admittedly, I have not seen "The Princess and the Frog" (2009)). I am glad "Toy Story" is still in my life though, not quite eclipsed by the later Pixar films. We must remember: "Toy Story" set the high standard of quality for Pixar films, so we must be forever grateful to it.
Gorp (1980)
Review:
What a terrible movie. Whoever made this film thinking, “Wow-gee-whiz, this material is comedic” should be brought behind a seedy abandoned warehouse, lectured on the tenants of what is and is not funny, and then promptly shot. After that, if there is a God and he be a righteous God, that person will be condemned to a ring of hell in which he will be tormented by the characters of this movie in the ways that they torment each other in the film.
I admit that I have a soft spot for summer camp movies. Many of the good ones (“Meatballs” (1979) “Wet Hot American Summer” (2001)) present summer camp with a weird, nostalgic zaniness that sometimes borders on anarchy. “Gorp” is also based on that formula, but stretches it to its unfortunate extreme. It is pure anarchy – and I do not mean that in a laudatory way.
There’s not really a story. A group of guys show up at a cabin in the woods. They are to be the waiters at a nearby Jewish summer camp. We meet Kavelli (Michael Lembeck) and Bergman (Philip Casnoff), the most inane and frustrating duo since the guys who starred in “Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla” (1952 and possibly the worst film ever made).
So, we follow Kavelli and Bergman and some of the other waiters around as they hit on the pretty counselors in training and pull pranks on one another. And let me here insert what makes me so upset about this movie. When I say they “hit on the pretty counselors in training” I mean they sneak into their cabins at night with nylon stockings over their heads, peak under the girl’s covers, get undressed…the fodder of rapists-to-be. And let me here note that when I write that they “pull pranks on one another” I mean that they pull a slew of tiring, monotonous, mean-spirited, scatological, meaningless, unfunny pranks on one another. No, actually, “pranks” is too kind of a word. What these boys do to each is sociopathic.
And don’t get me started on the scene where Kavelli and Bergman drug and try to rape the camp nurse. It’s somewhat hard to offend my sensibilities, but a scene like that being passed off as humor comes close. At least in the date rape scene in “Observe and Report” (2009) you could tell the filmmakers were aware that date rape is fundamentally wrong. Here, this movie wants us to conspire with Kavelli and Bergman by condoning and laughing at the action.
“Gorp” is a movie populated with irredeemable grotesques. It tries so very hard to capture the energy and irreverence of films like “Animal House” (1978) and “Meatballs” (1979) and fails greatly. It grasps only the madness of those films, not the method. The only edifying reason you should see this film is to say, “Oh, so that’s what Dennis Quaid/Fran Drescher looked like when they were younger.”
Oh yea, did I mention Dennis Quaid and Fran Drescher are in “Gorp?”
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a two.
Rationalization:
This film is not rated a one because of one scene and one scene only. A rabbi is giving an enthusiastic speech about the Ten Commandments. We then see that he’s giving this speech to a crowd of approximately three young campers. This scene made me think of what a good movie this might have been if given some more thought and development. It could have easily juxtaposed and intermingled the spiritual side of this camp with the blasphemous lives of the staff. That might have developed into something more than the atavistic romp through amorality that is “Gorp.”
What a terrible movie. Whoever made this film thinking, “Wow-gee-whiz, this material is comedic” should be brought behind a seedy abandoned warehouse, lectured on the tenants of what is and is not funny, and then promptly shot. After that, if there is a God and he be a righteous God, that person will be condemned to a ring of hell in which he will be tormented by the characters of this movie in the ways that they torment each other in the film.
I admit that I have a soft spot for summer camp movies. Many of the good ones (“Meatballs” (1979) “Wet Hot American Summer” (2001)) present summer camp with a weird, nostalgic zaniness that sometimes borders on anarchy. “Gorp” is also based on that formula, but stretches it to its unfortunate extreme. It is pure anarchy – and I do not mean that in a laudatory way.
There’s not really a story. A group of guys show up at a cabin in the woods. They are to be the waiters at a nearby Jewish summer camp. We meet Kavelli (Michael Lembeck) and Bergman (Philip Casnoff), the most inane and frustrating duo since the guys who starred in “Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla” (1952 and possibly the worst film ever made).
So, we follow Kavelli and Bergman and some of the other waiters around as they hit on the pretty counselors in training and pull pranks on one another. And let me here insert what makes me so upset about this movie. When I say they “hit on the pretty counselors in training” I mean they sneak into their cabins at night with nylon stockings over their heads, peak under the girl’s covers, get undressed…the fodder of rapists-to-be. And let me here note that when I write that they “pull pranks on one another” I mean that they pull a slew of tiring, monotonous, mean-spirited, scatological, meaningless, unfunny pranks on one another. No, actually, “pranks” is too kind of a word. What these boys do to each is sociopathic.
And don’t get me started on the scene where Kavelli and Bergman drug and try to rape the camp nurse. It’s somewhat hard to offend my sensibilities, but a scene like that being passed off as humor comes close. At least in the date rape scene in “Observe and Report” (2009) you could tell the filmmakers were aware that date rape is fundamentally wrong. Here, this movie wants us to conspire with Kavelli and Bergman by condoning and laughing at the action.
“Gorp” is a movie populated with irredeemable grotesques. It tries so very hard to capture the energy and irreverence of films like “Animal House” (1978) and “Meatballs” (1979) and fails greatly. It grasps only the madness of those films, not the method. The only edifying reason you should see this film is to say, “Oh, so that’s what Dennis Quaid/Fran Drescher looked like when they were younger.”
Oh yea, did I mention Dennis Quaid and Fran Drescher are in “Gorp?”
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a two.
Rationalization:
This film is not rated a one because of one scene and one scene only. A rabbi is giving an enthusiastic speech about the Ten Commandments. We then see that he’s giving this speech to a crowd of approximately three young campers. This scene made me think of what a good movie this might have been if given some more thought and development. It could have easily juxtaposed and intermingled the spiritual side of this camp with the blasphemous lives of the staff. That might have developed into something more than the atavistic romp through amorality that is “Gorp.”
Taking Woodstock (2009)
Review:
Ang Lee’s “Taking Woodstock” is a harmless and competent coming of age story. Its based on the true tale of a young man who convinced his rural community to host what would become the most renowned rock concert in history. Ang Lee’s take on Woodstock is nostalgic, sympathetic and fun but it misses out on the soul of
Eliot Tiber (Henry Goodman) is the son of a poor couple who own a run down motel in upstate New York. Eliot has always been a loyal son, willing to help out the family business in whatever ways he can, in spite of his mother’s incessant penny pinching. When Eliot’s parents can’t pay the mortgage on their motel, Eliot scrambles for a solution to their financial woes. That solution, of course, is Woodstock.
Eliot contacts the festival planner, Billy (Emile Hirsch) and they set about convincing local farmer Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy) to rent his farmland out for the festival. Eventually under the right financial impetus Max agrees to let them use his land, giving Woodstock a definite home. What follows is predictable but still fun to watch – a massive population of hippies descend upon a quiet rural community that had previously been inhabited by conservative Middle American types who were not too keen on the liberal ideals of the hippie movement.
The one outstanding performance of “Taking Woodstock” is Liev Schreiber as Vilma, a transvestite who is hired as security for the Tiber’s motel during the concert. Schreiber provides excellent comic timing while remaining straight faced and in his drag the entire film. If there was a moral axis upon which “Taking Woodstock” rotates, it is likely him. He becomes a much-needed friend and mentor to Eliot.
Ultimately, “Taking Woodstock” is not Ang Lee’s masterpiece. That would likely go to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) or “Brokeback Mountain” (2005). This film is lighter fare. We get some good laughs at the inadvertent drug mishaps and a police officer who, though looking forward to clubbing some hippies, finds himself taken in by the spirit of Woodstock. There are some beautifully made scenes too, like when Eliot, his father and Vilma peaceful regard a placid lake filled with naked people bathing. And then over the trees, they hear the sound of music – Woodstock has begun.
But I think “Taking Woodstock” outstays its welcome. It’s just a little too long. I got the gist at about the 90-minute mark and it went on for another half hour. Also, the music of Woodstock is largely absent. We sadly do not see or hear Hendrix or Joplin’s performances. In the film, the concert itself is depicted as a monolithic entity, a massive all knowing unity that defied every standard America had long held itself too. I suppose that’s a good way to depict Woodstock - in all its glory and haze - but really I missed the music.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Thomas Crown Affair” (1968).
Review:
It looks good and even feels good, but after a time this film feels like a run on sentence, beating you over the head with the changes its protagonist Eliot is obviously going through during the course of Woodstock. That’s not to say it’s not a good coming of age story. It is, and I liked it fundamentally. The last shot is also marvelous and so very, very appropriate. “Taking Woodstock” takes place mostly on the periphery of the concert itself. The last shot and a few other scenes made me wish for a movie that took place deep within the concert itself. What an angelic monster it must have been.
Ang Lee’s “Taking Woodstock” is a harmless and competent coming of age story. Its based on the true tale of a young man who convinced his rural community to host what would become the most renowned rock concert in history. Ang Lee’s take on Woodstock is nostalgic, sympathetic and fun but it misses out on the soul of
Eliot Tiber (Henry Goodman) is the son of a poor couple who own a run down motel in upstate New York. Eliot has always been a loyal son, willing to help out the family business in whatever ways he can, in spite of his mother’s incessant penny pinching. When Eliot’s parents can’t pay the mortgage on their motel, Eliot scrambles for a solution to their financial woes. That solution, of course, is Woodstock.
Eliot contacts the festival planner, Billy (Emile Hirsch) and they set about convincing local farmer Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy) to rent his farmland out for the festival. Eventually under the right financial impetus Max agrees to let them use his land, giving Woodstock a definite home. What follows is predictable but still fun to watch – a massive population of hippies descend upon a quiet rural community that had previously been inhabited by conservative Middle American types who were not too keen on the liberal ideals of the hippie movement.
The one outstanding performance of “Taking Woodstock” is Liev Schreiber as Vilma, a transvestite who is hired as security for the Tiber’s motel during the concert. Schreiber provides excellent comic timing while remaining straight faced and in his drag the entire film. If there was a moral axis upon which “Taking Woodstock” rotates, it is likely him. He becomes a much-needed friend and mentor to Eliot.
Ultimately, “Taking Woodstock” is not Ang Lee’s masterpiece. That would likely go to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) or “Brokeback Mountain” (2005). This film is lighter fare. We get some good laughs at the inadvertent drug mishaps and a police officer who, though looking forward to clubbing some hippies, finds himself taken in by the spirit of Woodstock. There are some beautifully made scenes too, like when Eliot, his father and Vilma peaceful regard a placid lake filled with naked people bathing. And then over the trees, they hear the sound of music – Woodstock has begun.
But I think “Taking Woodstock” outstays its welcome. It’s just a little too long. I got the gist at about the 90-minute mark and it went on for another half hour. Also, the music of Woodstock is largely absent. We sadly do not see or hear Hendrix or Joplin’s performances. In the film, the concert itself is depicted as a monolithic entity, a massive all knowing unity that defied every standard America had long held itself too. I suppose that’s a good way to depict Woodstock - in all its glory and haze - but really I missed the music.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Thomas Crown Affair” (1968).
Review:
It looks good and even feels good, but after a time this film feels like a run on sentence, beating you over the head with the changes its protagonist Eliot is obviously going through during the course of Woodstock. That’s not to say it’s not a good coming of age story. It is, and I liked it fundamentally. The last shot is also marvelous and so very, very appropriate. “Taking Woodstock” takes place mostly on the periphery of the concert itself. The last shot and a few other scenes made me wish for a movie that took place deep within the concert itself. What an angelic monster it must have been.
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie (2004)
Review:
I admire and respect the show “Spongebob Squarepants” because it harkens back to a time when cartoons were pure energy and silliness. The actions of those old cartoons needed no explanations because they defied any plausible elucidation – bugs bunny could pull that mallet out of nowhere simply because he can pull mallets out of nowhere. To understand and enjoy “Spongebob Squarepants,” you must approach it with the same logic. Spongebob is a sea sponge that looks like a kitchen sponge because that’s how it is. He lives in a pineapple under the sea because that’s where he lives. His pet snail meows because that’s the noise it makes.
If you can wrap your head around all that, accept its weirdness and laugh at its absurdity you are ready to enjoy Spongebob and you’ll likely enjoy “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.”
Set in the fictional aquatic settlement of “Bikini Bottom,” the film begins with Spongebob believing he will soon be promoted to manager of a local fast food chain, the Krusty Krab. When his neighbor Squidward receives the promotion instead of him, Spongebob is devastated. His boss Mr. Krabs tells him that he didn’t get the promotion because he’s just a kid. This leads Spongebob to go on a hilarious ice cream bender with his best friend, a starfish named Patrick.
Meanwhile, Plankton, the evil owner of a competing fast food restaurant, steals the crown of King Neptune, king of the sea, as part of a much larger evil scheme. When King Neptune realizes his crown has been stolen, he is furious. Lo and behold, Spongebob and Patrick set off on a mission to find the crown to prove that they’re more than just kids.
This is silly stuff but its good fun and I found myself laughing a lot, sometimes in spite of myself. There are also a plethora of famous names providing voices in this film including Scarlett Johansson, Alec Baldwin, and Jeffrey Tambor. David Hasselhoff has one of the biggest laughs in a cameo appearance that could serve as a shining example of why Spongebob is so weird but also why it works.
I do think the film suffers a little in comparison with its source material. The television show “Spongebob Squarepants” is comprised of 11 minute episodes, a time duration that suits aquatic pandemonium well. At 87 minutes running time “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie” sometimes struggles to keep up its frantic weirdness and defaults into recycled material. Ah, but if you’re going to have a Spongebob movie, this one’s pretty good.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a “The Great Muppet Caper” (1981)
Rationalization:
This is fun stuff but it is by no means the height of its franchise. I’m not sure material like “Spongebob Squarepants” can be transformed into feature length. It relies so heavily on its energy and whimsy, both of which are hard things to keep up in a full-length movie. But to be fair, many kids movies lack energy and whimsy and have no originality. “The
Spongebob Squarepants Movie” has a relative abundance of all those things and so should be cherished.
I admire and respect the show “Spongebob Squarepants” because it harkens back to a time when cartoons were pure energy and silliness. The actions of those old cartoons needed no explanations because they defied any plausible elucidation – bugs bunny could pull that mallet out of nowhere simply because he can pull mallets out of nowhere. To understand and enjoy “Spongebob Squarepants,” you must approach it with the same logic. Spongebob is a sea sponge that looks like a kitchen sponge because that’s how it is. He lives in a pineapple under the sea because that’s where he lives. His pet snail meows because that’s the noise it makes.
If you can wrap your head around all that, accept its weirdness and laugh at its absurdity you are ready to enjoy Spongebob and you’ll likely enjoy “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.”
Set in the fictional aquatic settlement of “Bikini Bottom,” the film begins with Spongebob believing he will soon be promoted to manager of a local fast food chain, the Krusty Krab. When his neighbor Squidward receives the promotion instead of him, Spongebob is devastated. His boss Mr. Krabs tells him that he didn’t get the promotion because he’s just a kid. This leads Spongebob to go on a hilarious ice cream bender with his best friend, a starfish named Patrick.
Meanwhile, Plankton, the evil owner of a competing fast food restaurant, steals the crown of King Neptune, king of the sea, as part of a much larger evil scheme. When King Neptune realizes his crown has been stolen, he is furious. Lo and behold, Spongebob and Patrick set off on a mission to find the crown to prove that they’re more than just kids.
This is silly stuff but its good fun and I found myself laughing a lot, sometimes in spite of myself. There are also a plethora of famous names providing voices in this film including Scarlett Johansson, Alec Baldwin, and Jeffrey Tambor. David Hasselhoff has one of the biggest laughs in a cameo appearance that could serve as a shining example of why Spongebob is so weird but also why it works.
I do think the film suffers a little in comparison with its source material. The television show “Spongebob Squarepants” is comprised of 11 minute episodes, a time duration that suits aquatic pandemonium well. At 87 minutes running time “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie” sometimes struggles to keep up its frantic weirdness and defaults into recycled material. Ah, but if you’re going to have a Spongebob movie, this one’s pretty good.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a “The Great Muppet Caper” (1981)
Rationalization:
This is fun stuff but it is by no means the height of its franchise. I’m not sure material like “Spongebob Squarepants” can be transformed into feature length. It relies so heavily on its energy and whimsy, both of which are hard things to keep up in a full-length movie. But to be fair, many kids movies lack energy and whimsy and have no originality. “The
Spongebob Squarepants Movie” has a relative abundance of all those things and so should be cherished.
Breaking Away (1979)
Review:
This is a great movie. And its great because it seems to have been made with joy and so evokes joy when watched. I left this movie feeling really good. Peter Yates’ “Breaking Away” is equal parts silly and heartfelt. It strikes such a fine balance between these two parts that there’s no wonder this film is so lauded. The AFI has voted it #8 on its list of most inspiring films of all time and again at #8 on its list of best sports movies.
Dennis Christopher plays Dave, a kid who’s passion has recently turned to Italian biking. He dreams of one day racing against the Italian bikers he reveres. Dave bikes around town, exclaiming Italian phrases and singing Italian arias. This new passion completely baffles his father (Paul Dooley) who is a hard-working, nothing-but-American sort of type. He cannot wrap his mind around how his son could be so taken with the Italians.
Dave belongs to a group of friends that include a former high school quarterback named Mike (Dennis Quaid), a short and defensive kid named Moocher (Jackie Earle Haley) and a tall, goofball name Cyril (Daniel Stern). The four of them comprise a group of high school graduates who have stayed in their hometown with no prospects for the future. But while their path is uncertain, the four friends are united by a resentment for the local college kids in the town.
The college kids call the locals “cutters,” referring to the community’s old trade of stone cutting. This relegation has a negative affect on the mindsets of these four boys. They know, just like the college kids know, that this town is a dead end for them. So they try to escape their fate and themselves by putting up facades. The most obvious is Dave’s Italian persona, which he uses to pick up a college girl in one of the film’s many subplots. But the others wear tough guy or funny man facades to hide their feelings of deep inadequacy. But look at me. I'm making this sound like a sad movie. It is anything but that. This is a joyous film, filled with fun, energy, and inspiration. Its also very inspirational.
The flow of the film is oriented around the four protagonists general loafing and the bike races that have become so central to Dave’s life. When he finds out the Italian bikers he idolizes are coming to town, he does everything in his power to ride alongside them. Not many movies have bike racing as their focus, perhaps because bike racing doesn't necessarily involve a lot of drama. But "Breaking Away" makes it riveting. The climactic race is one of the better sporting events I've ever seen depicted in a film.
For every three hundred coming of age stories there may be one that is truly great and honest. This is one of those films. "Breaking Away" is a masterpiece that is completely comfortable and conscious of its merits.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Ben Hur" (1959)
Rationalization:
Well, both movies are about racing...and finding yourself...But really I make the comparison because these are two films where you want to lift up your clenched fist and yell "Yeah!" at some parts. This is a movie that can make you believe in people's goodness and disregard their shortcomings. I wish more movies made me feel so warm.
This is a great movie. And its great because it seems to have been made with joy and so evokes joy when watched. I left this movie feeling really good. Peter Yates’ “Breaking Away” is equal parts silly and heartfelt. It strikes such a fine balance between these two parts that there’s no wonder this film is so lauded. The AFI has voted it #8 on its list of most inspiring films of all time and again at #8 on its list of best sports movies.
Dennis Christopher plays Dave, a kid who’s passion has recently turned to Italian biking. He dreams of one day racing against the Italian bikers he reveres. Dave bikes around town, exclaiming Italian phrases and singing Italian arias. This new passion completely baffles his father (Paul Dooley) who is a hard-working, nothing-but-American sort of type. He cannot wrap his mind around how his son could be so taken with the Italians.
Dave belongs to a group of friends that include a former high school quarterback named Mike (Dennis Quaid), a short and defensive kid named Moocher (Jackie Earle Haley) and a tall, goofball name Cyril (Daniel Stern). The four of them comprise a group of high school graduates who have stayed in their hometown with no prospects for the future. But while their path is uncertain, the four friends are united by a resentment for the local college kids in the town.
The college kids call the locals “cutters,” referring to the community’s old trade of stone cutting. This relegation has a negative affect on the mindsets of these four boys. They know, just like the college kids know, that this town is a dead end for them. So they try to escape their fate and themselves by putting up facades. The most obvious is Dave’s Italian persona, which he uses to pick up a college girl in one of the film’s many subplots. But the others wear tough guy or funny man facades to hide their feelings of deep inadequacy. But look at me. I'm making this sound like a sad movie. It is anything but that. This is a joyous film, filled with fun, energy, and inspiration. Its also very inspirational.
The flow of the film is oriented around the four protagonists general loafing and the bike races that have become so central to Dave’s life. When he finds out the Italian bikers he idolizes are coming to town, he does everything in his power to ride alongside them. Not many movies have bike racing as their focus, perhaps because bike racing doesn't necessarily involve a lot of drama. But "Breaking Away" makes it riveting. The climactic race is one of the better sporting events I've ever seen depicted in a film.
For every three hundred coming of age stories there may be one that is truly great and honest. This is one of those films. "Breaking Away" is a masterpiece that is completely comfortable and conscious of its merits.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Ben Hur" (1959)
Rationalization:
Well, both movies are about racing...and finding yourself...But really I make the comparison because these are two films where you want to lift up your clenched fist and yell "Yeah!" at some parts. This is a movie that can make you believe in people's goodness and disregard their shortcomings. I wish more movies made me feel so warm.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Cries and Whispers (1972)
Review:
“Cries and Whispers” is a painful elegy to death and life and the separations that make them both so terrifying. With this film, Ingmar Bergman continued to prove he was one of a select few film directors who dared look directly into the quagmire of faith and the universe’s indifference.
Set in an old manor at the turn of the 20th century, “Cries and Whispers” is a tale about four women joined together by a common tragedy. Three of the women are sisters. One is a caretaker. Agnes (Harriet Andersson), one of the sisters, is in the final stages of a terminal cancer. It is for her sake that her two sisters come to the manor. They want to take care of her in her last days.
Maria (Liv Ullmann) is the sensual sister. She will provoke Agne’s doctor to rekindle an old affair. Karin (Ingrid Thulin) is the rigid and cold sister, always standing at a distance, almost afraid to approach dying Agnes. Then there is Anna (Kari Sylwan), Agnes' longtime caretaker. She is a woman of faith who cares deeply for the human soul. We see her wake one morning and pray that her dead daughter resides in the salvation of the lord.
Agnes and her death is the centerpiece of “Cries and Whispers.” Ingmar Bergman does not sugarcoat death here. He shows it in all its grim detail, holding the camera on close-ups of Agnes’ agonizing screams and painful expressions. Her death is not an easy thing to watch. Helpless and remote, her sisters witness Agnes suffering but cannot bring themselves to be empathetic or helpful. Only Anna, with her childlike faith and compassion, can provide Agnes with the simple human contact she needs for comfort.
“Cries and Whispers” is a shocking, beautiful film. All four women at one point have a significant flashback that serves to slightly illuminate their current behavior, but ultimately much about them and their relationships is left a mystery. And churning in this mystery are ruminations of illicit sexual behavior, suicidal chaos, and the dread and inescapability of isolation.
Most movies have the distinct feeling of a prose narrative, wrought with detail and insight, conforming to the structure of rising action and denouement. But sometimes a movie will transcend the prosaic tendency and take on the depth and succinctness of poetry. “Cries and Whispers” is one such movie. It is a grand poem of life and death, faith and loss. Bergman, after all, was never one to explore small themes.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (1989).
Rationalization:
Both of these films have end monologues that serve as a sort of unexpected epilogue. And both of these films show you an array of actions that leave you a little baffled, but suddenly the epilogue is given and the whole meaning of the entire movie seems to shift from underneath your mind. With the end of “Cries and Whispers” you realize that this film is not as despairing as it seems. In fact, you could argue that the end affirms that all suffering and death is vindicated entirely by the gift of life.
“Cries and Whispers” is a painful elegy to death and life and the separations that make them both so terrifying. With this film, Ingmar Bergman continued to prove he was one of a select few film directors who dared look directly into the quagmire of faith and the universe’s indifference.
Set in an old manor at the turn of the 20th century, “Cries and Whispers” is a tale about four women joined together by a common tragedy. Three of the women are sisters. One is a caretaker. Agnes (Harriet Andersson), one of the sisters, is in the final stages of a terminal cancer. It is for her sake that her two sisters come to the manor. They want to take care of her in her last days.
Maria (Liv Ullmann) is the sensual sister. She will provoke Agne’s doctor to rekindle an old affair. Karin (Ingrid Thulin) is the rigid and cold sister, always standing at a distance, almost afraid to approach dying Agnes. Then there is Anna (Kari Sylwan), Agnes' longtime caretaker. She is a woman of faith who cares deeply for the human soul. We see her wake one morning and pray that her dead daughter resides in the salvation of the lord.
Agnes and her death is the centerpiece of “Cries and Whispers.” Ingmar Bergman does not sugarcoat death here. He shows it in all its grim detail, holding the camera on close-ups of Agnes’ agonizing screams and painful expressions. Her death is not an easy thing to watch. Helpless and remote, her sisters witness Agnes suffering but cannot bring themselves to be empathetic or helpful. Only Anna, with her childlike faith and compassion, can provide Agnes with the simple human contact she needs for comfort.
“Cries and Whispers” is a shocking, beautiful film. All four women at one point have a significant flashback that serves to slightly illuminate their current behavior, but ultimately much about them and their relationships is left a mystery. And churning in this mystery are ruminations of illicit sexual behavior, suicidal chaos, and the dread and inescapability of isolation.
Most movies have the distinct feeling of a prose narrative, wrought with detail and insight, conforming to the structure of rising action and denouement. But sometimes a movie will transcend the prosaic tendency and take on the depth and succinctness of poetry. “Cries and Whispers” is one such movie. It is a grand poem of life and death, faith and loss. Bergman, after all, was never one to explore small themes.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (1989).
Rationalization:
Both of these films have end monologues that serve as a sort of unexpected epilogue. And both of these films show you an array of actions that leave you a little baffled, but suddenly the epilogue is given and the whole meaning of the entire movie seems to shift from underneath your mind. With the end of “Cries and Whispers” you realize that this film is not as despairing as it seems. In fact, you could argue that the end affirms that all suffering and death is vindicated entirely by the gift of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)