On the BAFTAs: congrats to Lost in Translation for garnering much warranted praise! And a sad "I'm sorry" to Big Fish for being overlooked. And a big fat eye roll to the obvious laurels that went to LOTR. Nothing against the excellent series, mind. But (and this is from a base and non-critical standpoint) I'm getting sick of hearing about 'em. Sorry, but I'm actually looking forward to a world without new Tolkien-based movies...at least until they roll out The Hobbit.

The Triplets of Belleville (2003)

It took this film a while to come to The Triad, and it’s easy to understand why. It’s not conventional theatre fare: a feature length animation geared more toward adults than children. Canadian, no less. There’s little dialogue spoken, and much of it is in French—not subtitled; it’s not regarded as crucial enough to the plot to be so. And the plot, while not as fanciful as that of most “cartoons,” is farfetched to say the least.

With that said, this is one of the finest animated films I’ve seen, and certainly one of the best films I’ve seen within the past year. The style is at once retrospective and cutting edge; if some of the effects weren’t so spectacular (heat shimmering on pavement, an almost three-dimensional ocean), this film could be mistaken for a much older one. And I mean that in the best sense—its tongue-in-cheek whimsical style isn’t seen often enough in current and (dare I say it) American movies.

The characters are beautifully done, visually and otherwise. Many are made into purposeful stereotypes with comic results; the square shouldered identical Mafia men are my favorites. And the tendency of animated films to trivialize many of their characters' problems for comedy’s sake isn’t present here. It’s possible and simple to relate to the circumstances of each.

It isn’t perfect. Although it clocks in at only 82 minutes, the storyline drags in places. The dog Bruno spends a little too much time barking at trains, for instance. And I would like to have seen the world of Belleville explored a little more fully. The creative team must have gone above and beyond to develop this fantastic, intriguing city, and could have used it to greater potential.

I’d like to remind everyone that this film is an Oscar contender, and give it my full support. Granted I haven’t seen the much lauded Finding Nemo, so I can’t honestly say how this film measures up. But the critics are predicting a close one. I’d love to see this one win. It’d be great to hear people mumbling, “The Triplets of what???” before heading out to see it on the big screen.


Hollywood Ending (2002)

[Disclaimer: this is more of an overall Woody Allen analysis than a specific review. But I have important things to say anyway, so do read on.]

I’d waited a while to see this one, largely due to the lackluster Curse of the Jade Scorpion that Woody Allen turned out before it. But upon seeing the superior Anything Else and having my faith restored, I gave this one a shot.

It’s not bad. It’s fine. The casting’s fine. The direction, fine. It’s entertaining and well paced. There’s excellent use of lighting and scenery.

But is isn’t one of his best, which brings up a point. Let’s look at Allen’s last five feature written and directed films: Anything Else, this one, Jade Scorpion, Small Time Crooks, and Sweet and Lowdown. With the exception of the first, each one looks at human interaction within the context of a particular event or theme. This film utilizes a gag: let’s have a film director try to work blind. Jade Scorpion—neo (or pseudo) noir comedy is the milieu. Small Time Crooks, acquisition of wealth. Sweet and Lowdown is a mockumentary.

And out of these, Anything Else is far and away my favorite. Because its focus is strictly on relationships; the rest of the plot is secondary. There’s no running theme and no specific event that sets a tone. It seems to me that an uncanny understanding of male-female interaction is really Allen’s strength, and his films work best (for me) when that’s the real point.

I’m not saying that Woody Allen is a one trick pony, far from it. The man’s a cinematic god, no question about it. But think of his most critically well regarded films. Annie Hall. Hannah and Her Sisters. Manhattan. All can be viewed primarily as commentary on interpersonal relationships. The others are good. They’re just not necessarily as good.

But I digress, and how. Hollywood Ending is a good flick. It’s just not one of the great and celebrated “Woody Allen movies.” It’s straightforward comedy that a lot of people can appreciate. Nothing less…and nothing more.
- posted by Jeremy @ 4:23 AM

 
Bubba Ho-Tep (2004)

“Ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home.”
--Elvis to “Jack Kennedy” in Bubba Ho-Tep

The plot epitomizes shlock. Elvis isn’t dead; he’s in a rest home after switching identities with one of his impersonators some years ago. JFK is dead, but another home resident thinks that he isn’t—and that he’s the dead president himself. Together they must join forces to defeat an angry Egyptian pharaoh-spirit they call Bubba Ho-Tep, who is terrorizing Shady Rest by stealing the souls of its elderly…by sucking them out through their arseholes, no less.

It should be hilarious.

It’s not, really.

It has its moments. I got the giggles several times throughout the film, although they were at least in part due to my asking myself, “Am I really seeing this? Did they really make this movie?”

And Bubba Ho-Tep does at least work on that level: its own absurdity. Its shortcoming is that the plot description is funnier than the plot itself, which is just too thin to make ninety-odd (very odd) minutes more than a little entertaining.

I give it props for some really spiffy cinematography. A film that sells itself as pure farce could easily have skimped on artistry, but it doesn’t. It’s consistently an attractive thing to watch.

And I can’t pick at the performances. Even supporting roles are fleshed out well.

The most pleasant surprise, however, was that the characters’ personal plights were interesting in ways other than in their dealings with the spirit world. Defeating Bubba Ho-Tep is more than just an exercise in protecting their fellow geriatric buddies, it’s an act of self-redemption for both Elvis and Jack. And I was down with that; I bought it.

I guess I was just expecting a bit…more. There’s a very slow buildup to the anticlimactic climax. And I would have liked to see a bit more factual information about the story behind the mummy, which is only hinted at in one sequence. As diligent as the two gentlemen are about research, it would have been a sensible and (most importantly) interesting addition.

Should you see it? Yeah, sure. It’s not a waste of time. But wait for video.
- posted by Jeremy @ 1:42 AM

 
Laurel Canyon (2002)

Several years ago, I had a conversation with a friend regarding morality. She contested that there exist certain "gray areas" in which a person can function healthily disregarding conventional morals and standards for behavior. At the time, I thought that was simply a justification for "fast living" (if you will), a cop out and excuse for putting one's own pleasure above the feelings of other people.

Needless to say, now I know better. I've traveled within some of those gray areas myself, and they're nice places to be. Here's what I'm getting at: have you ever found yourself in a situation involving taboos--sex, drugs, maybe even violence--and been shocked at your own actions? Pleasantly shocked, even, at how far you would go?

Then you'll get Laurel Canyon, and you may well enjoy it. The idea of an upstanding, almost anal young couple (played here by Christian Bale and Kate Beckinsale) being corrupted by an immoral environment (here the world of Bale's mother, Francis McDormand; her boyfriend, Alessandro Nivola, and their circle) goes at least as far back as the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

This film, however, is unique in that it leaves the viewer guessing as to just where the chips will fall, and whether the protagonists will continue to plunge into temptation or adopt more conservative ways of life. All the while taking into consideration the basic humanity inherent within them, the ego that continuously struggles with the id.

How fitting that Christian Bale's character is a budding psychiatrist!

Although the plot is predictable to a point, certainly. Beckinsale's character is waaaay too straight laced not to fall in with McDormand's decadent crowd. And as soon as Bale sees the face of the woman at the traffic signal (Natascha McElhone), we know that they will tryst.

But these are petty details that don't affect the film's overall message. I admit, I was worried for a bit. Just before the film's conclusion I mentally yelled "STOOOOOOPPPPP! It's perfect to end right HERE!" And it did. I love it when that happens. It would have been tempting (and far too conventional for a film of this nature) to sew things up neatly. Because of this ambiguity, Laurel Canyon manages not to make value judgements. Neither debauchery nor conventionalism is endorsed. Instead, one gets the feeling that both should learn to co-exist, and to exist in moderation.

(Note to gay guys/straight girls: if you don't recognize Alessandro Nivola as one undeniably sexy bitch in this film, you'd better not tell me. I'll think you must be dead. Then I'll freak out about talking to a dead person and cut you off cold. Although talking to corpses is slightly less absurd than not drooling puddles over Alessandro.)
- posted by Jeremy @ 6:39 AM