Movie Review: A SERIOUS MAN

Possibly the darkest, bleakest, most hopeless movie I have ever seen (and if you know me, then you know that my tastes run to the harsher side of cinema, so that is saying something). I am trying to find a way to view this movie as something other than a scathing critique of Judiasm, but I'm not having any luck so far. Any thoughts on this one?

Movie Review: THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS

I usually wait for movies to come to The Crest so I can see them for three bucks, but last night I spent the extra seven dollars to see this movie in a newer theater with a bigger screen (I went to the Loews Alderwood 16; very nice). I am a big fan of Terry Gilliam (I have all of his films except one), and this film looked like a return to form after the egregious misstep of TIDELAND (that's the one).

So, was this the triumphant return of Terry Gilliam? Well, yes and no.

First of all, let's talk about the good: This is a wonderfully imaginative movie, with some of the most mesmerizing visuals I have ever seen. Gilliam has created a remarkable world behind Dr. Parnassus's magic mirror, a dreamworld that feels like a real dream. The imagery is lush and bizarre, wondrous and free-form. I would buy this movie just for the universe contained in the Imgainarium; it's that compelling.

The cast is excellent--a band of relative unknowns, anchored by the legendary Christopher Plummer. Andrew Garfield is outstanding, Lily Cole's weird beauty is magnetic, and Christopher Plummer is, or course, magnificent. The only weak link is Verne Troyer, who cannot act. I know the guys from TIME BANDITS are all pretty old by now, but surely Gilliam could have found a little person with some actual talent.

Heath Ledger was good, as were Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrel. I wasn't sure how this trick was going to work, knowing that it was precipitated by Heath Ledger's death, but it was perfectly in keeping with the tone of the film, and would have been a nice touch even if Heath had survived the entire shoot.

And now for the bad: For starters, someone needs to take all of Terry Gilliam's wide-angle lenses away from him. He has made a career out of shooting distorted, unsettling images with ultra wide-angle lenses (usually in the interest of the story), but now it just feels like he's settled into a comfortable laziness with his visual style, and in this particular film it is a disservice to the story. Most of his other movies are dystopic fantasies and mind-bending nightmares, and the jarring visual style has gone hand-in-hand with the subject matter. But PARNASSUS is not a dystopia, nor is it a nightmare; for all its flights of fancy it is actually a fairly straightforward story, and it deserved a more straightforward visual treatment (at least on the reality side of the magic mirror). Many times during the film I shook my head at the camera placement and thought to myself, "Terry, grow up."

Not only way the camerawork troublesome, but the editing left much to be desired. Actually, it kind of stank. The first 40 minutes were so poorly structured, and the editing so choppy, that I debated even staying for the rest of the film. There are ways to tell a story so that it builds interest, suspense, and dramatic tension, and there are ways to tell a story so that it is muddled and plodding. Gilliam chose the second method for PARNASSUS. In addition, the script was frequently mediocre, and some of the London scenes were directed in such a farcical style (and not in a good way) that I again found myself thinking, "Terry, grow up."

And of course this review would not be complete if I did not discuss the performance of Tom Waits (my favorite guy) as Mr. Nick, otherwise know as The Devil. This was both the best--and most frustrating--part of the movie. It was the best part because Tom Waits was absolutely AMAZING as The Devil, and it was the most frustrating part because thanks to the camerawork, editing, and writing, we barely get to see him.(And when I say "him" I don't just mean Tom Waits, I mean the character.) First of all, Gilliam gives him one of the worst screen introductions I have ever seen--ever--and the flashback where Parnassus and Mr. Nick strike their original bargain is way too short, and comes much too late in the movie.

Then, he shoots so much of Mr. Nick's scenes in tight close-ups that we only get glimpses of the languid, crooked physicality that Tom Waits created for the character (oh, but what glimpses!) It's not so much that his screen time was inadequate, it's more that the shots they used were inadequate. Gilliam used short, quick cuts when he should have used long, unbroken takes to let the character build up some visual momentum.

Frankly, the biggest problem with the movie is that it wants to be about the Devil and Dr. Parnassus, but they shifted the focus too much on Heath Ledger's character, which made it easy to brush Mr. Nick to the sidelines (a real shame, trust me). Now, people who know me and know how much I love Tom Waits' music might be inclined to say I am biased about his role, but I honestly think that someone who has never even heard of Tom Waits would be mesmerized by his performance. My greatest hope is that the DVD will have about an hour of deleted scenes, and that Mr. Nick will be in all of them.

All in all, DOCTOR PARNASSUS was a bittersweet experience. I will say that despite all of the problems I have mentioned, I will probably see this again when it comes to The Crest. If nothing else, I can revel in the Devil and step through the magic mirror one more time.

Don't Worry, I'm Still Here

Just wanted to let my readers (all four of you) know that I will be posting again soon. Coming down from the holidays and working more than usual has put a damper on my blogging, not to mention I am a little bored with reviews at the moment. I am toying with a few ideas for my blog, so don't lose faith--I shall return.

Movie Review: ZOMBIELAND

I caught this one for 3 bucks at The Crest, and while it's by no means a great movie, it was pretty damn fun. The writing was good, the zombie stuff was gory and hilarious, and there were a few serious moments that were completely genuine and moving. Although I enjoyed all of the principal actors, the best part of the movie--hands down--was Woody Harrelson. Watching him slaughter zombies with a grin on his face and a smart-ass comment on his lips was an absolute delight, and it made me wish for a sequel just so I could see more of him. ZOMBIELAND isn't on the same level as SHAUN OF THE DEAD, but I'm glad I got out of the house to see it. Definitely worth a rental.

Book and Movie Review: CHOKE

The opening sentence of the book says it all: "If you're going to read this, don't bother." It's intended as an ironic comment by the narrator, but it holds fairly true for the book itself. With its' themes of isolation, alienation, self-indulgence, self-delusion, self-destruction, gleeful anarchy, and mental illness, CHOKE feels very much like a sequel to FIGHT CLUB, except that this time the narrator has an actual human being wreaking havoc in his life (his mother), and not just a demented alter-ego. So much of this novel is rehashing the same arguments put forth in FIGHT CLUB (the crushing sterility of consumer culture; the emptiness of our safe, sanitized world; the failure of God and all subsequent Godheads; rebirth and re-creation through destruction; etc.) that I wondered why I liked this book so much back when it was first released.

I will say that although I didn't care for this particular book, I thoroughly enjoy Palahniuk's writing style. He often employs short sentences, sentence fragments, and aphoristic musings in his work, not to mention the fact that he is funny as hell. For example, describing a certain type of mental patient that resides on the same floor as the narrator's mother:

"A squirrel is someone who chews her food and then forgets what to do next. They forget how to swallow. Instead, she spits each chewed mouthful in her dress pocket. Or in her handbag. This is less cute than it sounds."

In all fairness, there were many parts of the book that I enjoyed (just now as I was searching for that last quote I kept stopping and re-reading bits that I remembered) but even as I think about the strength of the individual moments, what left a lasting impression is the whole, and that impression was less than stellar. Who knows, maybe you will feel differently.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, for a movie based on a book about a sex addict, they sure went out of their way to cut the balls off this story.

Every truly dark and unpleasant element of the novel is either absent from the film or sweetened up to make it more palatable, the flat black humor has been leavened with sight gags and "funny" music, and the character portrayals are soft and bland. (Although Sam Rockwell had the right look and attitude for the main role, he is about ten years too old, and the rest of the cast was so misplaced that I was left scratching my head.) I gave up on the movie after 45 minutes; life's too short.

Book Review: NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

I had heard from several people that if you've seen the movie you have pretty much read the book, and this proved to be fairly true. (I actually credit the Coen Brothers for chopping the dialogue down to the bare minimum, because there were conversations in the book that felt overlong.) Since I saw the movie three times in the theatre and several times on DVD I wasn't able to fully experience the novel on its' own terms, but I'm still glad that I read it.

P.S. I should also note that despite the absence of a post-apocalyptic wasteland, this book is ten times as bleak as THE ROAD. That book, for all its grim imaginings, is about hope in the face of hopelessness. This novel, as the last paragraph makes clear, is about the absence of not only hope, but any order or sense to the universe at all. Harsh.

Book Review: SUMMERLAND

"The greatest stories contain every story."

I can't remember who said that (or if I just made it up) but it is certainly true of SUMMERLAND. Take everything you love about THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA and LORD OF THE RINGS, mix in a dollop of THE TALISMAN, throw in a bit of THE GOONIES, add a splash of FIELD OF DREAMS, and you've got yourself an exuberant adventure story that will make you feel--and wish--that you were twelve years old again.

I was enchanted by this book within the first half of the opening chapter, and there isn't even anything that exciting in those first few pages. I have come to expect outstanding writing from Michael Chabon (and this book is no exception) but what stands out to me here is that although children are this target audience, he doesn't dumb down the language or paint everything in broad, cheesy strokes to make it simple. Instead, he does what I wish more people would do, which is to trust that kids are smart and can follow a complex story, and will rise to the occasion if he gives them a challenging word here and there (unlike, say, the author of a certain series of books about a boy wizard, who couldn't write her way out of a wet high school newspaper). Chabon borrows elements from numerous sources to craft an epic tale of good and evil, weaving these patchwork pieces into a literary quilt that maintains its uniqueness. SUMMERLAND is storytelling at its' best, and I have no doubt that I will be re-reading it the near future.