Since the last two movies I reviewed for this blog (Fullmetal Jacket and The Shawshank Redemption) were rather lengthy dramas, I wanted my next movie to be something fluffy, light, but still culturally important. I couldn't find Top Gun though, so I decided to try and conquer another movie featuring a male actor who has become a bit of a joke in his own right. I am of course talking about the 1999 action film, The Matrix, starring America's #1 best actor, Keanau Reeves.
How it's possible I made it through this movie's hype and the greater hype of its two lesser sequels is beyond me. At least with the first three movies I reviewed, I could claim age as a factor in my ignorance. I had long stayed away from a sit down viewing of the Matrix because I had seen a five minute clip of it, and gotten a basic synopsis from a friend, and basically gathered the fact that it was some kind of post-apocalyptic cyber-future Christ allegory (that one never seems to get old). OR a special effects and stuntman extravaganza. When I finally got around to seeing this movie the other day, I had to stop myself from complaining about its high cheese factor every five minutes. I was reminded repeatedly that for its time (this movie is 7 years old already... "woah") the special effects and CGI are pretty advanced. To that I say, well so was the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast, and that was 15 years ago.
However, this movie is here for a reason.. There are many people who shamefully admit that they do think The Matrix is a good movie. This is not attributed in any way to Reeve's acting, although it is quite good. He plays the role of normal joe thrust haphazardly into the role of Savior quite confusedly. As it should be. What makes this movie good is how it has become such a part of the cultural landscape. Matrix references are still made today, whether it's a parody of the Alice in Wonderland-like "take the red pill or the blue pill", or a reference to the slo-motion flying through air kung-fu moves. I get a sense that while people don't automatically see these things and think "Oh, that was from The Matrix", they get a sense that it is some form of reference. Someday, when our generation has impressionable young children, who are seeing this movie for the first time, they will be turning to us and saying "oh is THAT where X-joke came from?" It's not great, but its something I suppose.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that The Matrix, for all of its cheese, is a generally well-made blockbuster-type movie which is something of a "New Classic". Go Keanau! I love you.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Monday, May 08, 2006
Fullmetal Jacket
Several Fridays ago (it took me waaay too long to actually finish this review), I watched Fullmetal Jacket, and then visited a friend’s room where they were watching Jarhead. I concluded that the latter movie could not have existed without the target audience’s inferred knowledge of the first. Unlike Caddyshack, this movie's humor was dark, and unlike Shawshank, this movie has no uplifting ending, and stays dark the whole way through. The story chronicles the experiences of Private Joker (Matthew Modine, who has been around but done nothing significant since), as he goes through boot camp and is then stationed in Vietnam. The movie is not really about Private Joker though, but he is the vehicle through which we must attempt to place real people amid the inhumanity of war.
Having watched both this movie and Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut in the same weekend, I was particularly aware of the role and treatment of women as sex objects in both films. Is Kubrick putting this subject matter in his films to make a point against the treatment of women in this sense, or simply because he's a misogynist? In Fullmetal, women are presented in an undignified sexual way from the get-go from "Mary Jane Rottencrotch" and the infamous Vietnamese prostitute who promises to "love you long time". Kubrick subverts this set up at the end of the movie, showing that the Vietnamese women are just as deadly as the men, which suggests Kubrick is not a woman-hater (I don't suppose I really thought he was, but it is interesting how he chooses to use the objectification and sexualization of women as a theme in Eyes Wide Shut as well).
I thought the movie was interesting, perhaps a bit too long, but definitely a movie you could sit through several times. As this movie came out in 1987, I think it's safe to say it wasn't the first film to examine the life of soldiers in the grit of battle. The film falls into the set of military commentary that does not make perfect heroes out of soldiers, and rather highlights their human fallibility and fragility. The generally laid-back and jocular attitudes of the young men, even once they are out of the base, is both alarming in the sense that they take their current situation so lightly, and understandable because if they took everything seriously they'd have a total meltdown. I think that Fullmetal Jacket follows suit with many movies (and other artistic works) that do not set out to criticize a specific war, but the ironies and pointlessness qualities of war in general.
Sorry it took so long to get this review up - I'm also trying to figure out what my next movie should be!
Several Fridays ago (it took me waaay too long to actually finish this review), I watched Fullmetal Jacket, and then visited a friend’s room where they were watching Jarhead. I concluded that the latter movie could not have existed without the target audience’s inferred knowledge of the first. Unlike Caddyshack, this movie's humor was dark, and unlike Shawshank, this movie has no uplifting ending, and stays dark the whole way through. The story chronicles the experiences of Private Joker (Matthew Modine, who has been around but done nothing significant since), as he goes through boot camp and is then stationed in Vietnam. The movie is not really about Private Joker though, but he is the vehicle through which we must attempt to place real people amid the inhumanity of war.
Having watched both this movie and Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut in the same weekend, I was particularly aware of the role and treatment of women as sex objects in both films. Is Kubrick putting this subject matter in his films to make a point against the treatment of women in this sense, or simply because he's a misogynist? In Fullmetal, women are presented in an undignified sexual way from the get-go from "Mary Jane Rottencrotch" and the infamous Vietnamese prostitute who promises to "love you long time". Kubrick subverts this set up at the end of the movie, showing that the Vietnamese women are just as deadly as the men, which suggests Kubrick is not a woman-hater (I don't suppose I really thought he was, but it is interesting how he chooses to use the objectification and sexualization of women as a theme in Eyes Wide Shut as well).
I thought the movie was interesting, perhaps a bit too long, but definitely a movie you could sit through several times. As this movie came out in 1987, I think it's safe to say it wasn't the first film to examine the life of soldiers in the grit of battle. The film falls into the set of military commentary that does not make perfect heroes out of soldiers, and rather highlights their human fallibility and fragility. The generally laid-back and jocular attitudes of the young men, even once they are out of the base, is both alarming in the sense that they take their current situation so lightly, and understandable because if they took everything seriously they'd have a total meltdown. I think that Fullmetal Jacket follows suit with many movies (and other artistic works) that do not set out to criticize a specific war, but the ironies and pointlessness qualities of war in general.
Sorry it took so long to get this review up - I'm also trying to figure out what my next movie should be!
Sunday, April 16, 2006
“The Shawshank Redemption”
Three people, upon hearing my project synopsis, told me I needed to see this movie. I wish, when I told them I was going to go watch the DVD in the library one night, they had told me that it was a two and a half hour movie. The thing was, it didn’t feel long, and despite the fact that it was getting very late and I was very tired, I could not stop watching it. This is an excellent example of a captivating drama, and it immediately gave me several ideas of what I’d like to write about in my review.
Rather than focusing on the acting and direction of the film, I’d like to talk a little bit about the theme. In one of my other classes (English 270) we recently read a short story by Rebecca Harding Davis called “Life in the Iron Mills” . I bring this story up because it asks the question “Who gets to live the American Dream?” in relation to the repression of immigrants on the economic ladder. I feel that Shawshank asks us a very similar question, with convicts replacing the roles of immigrants. To me, this is where the seemingly universal appeal of the movie inherently lies.
We all want to believe that if we are innocent, justice will be served to us. In the case of Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins, who apparently has been in many things that I HAVE seen, although I wouldn't be able to pick him out of a crowd), he takes his life sentence for a crime he knows he did not commit with a sense of resigned dignity. We have only the narration presented by Red (Morgan Freeman, in a performance that gave me flashbacks to my Million Dollar Baby review), and therefore no insight to what Andy is actually thinking, or what motivates him. Once he finds happiness in his occupation of librarian at the jail, and as the viewer watches him accomplish more and more for the prison, we feel our hope elevated alongside Andy’s. This sequence of events caters to the belief that defines the “American Dream” – through hard work and dedication, anyone can elevate themselves to greatness. However, for Andy this is not true – the road of hope is road-blocked. Corrupt wardens aside, he is, after all, still a prisoner with a life sentence. Andy once more becomes acutely aware of his position after he is given a glimmer of a chance to prove his innocence and it is snatched away.
The movie could have ended there, and I feel like it still would have been a worthwhile film (this is a point on which I am sure everyone will disagree with me). The film would have then made the viewer stop and think about the systems of injustice that are in place for both the wrongly convicted, and the hard workers who are relentlessly prevented from getting ahead.
Of course, who needs a movie to tell us that life sucks? I feel that the enjoyable, inspiring, and uplifting ending is mostly a by-product of screenwriter Stephen King’s personal quirky style. It is reminiscent of what we will later see from him in The Green Mile - a little unbelievable, and miraculous, and a completely different change of tone from the downtrodden ins and outs of convict life.
Next, I will either be watching Full Metal Jacket (which is a nice tie-in since we're going to be watching Eyes Wide Shut for class), or Top Gun.
Rather than focusing on the acting and direction of the film, I’d like to talk a little bit about the theme. In one of my other classes (English 270) we recently read a short story by Rebecca Harding Davis called “Life in the Iron Mills” . I bring this story up because it asks the question “Who gets to live the American Dream?” in relation to the repression of immigrants on the economic ladder. I feel that Shawshank asks us a very similar question, with convicts replacing the roles of immigrants. To me, this is where the seemingly universal appeal of the movie inherently lies.
We all want to believe that if we are innocent, justice will be served to us. In the case of Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins, who apparently has been in many things that I HAVE seen, although I wouldn't be able to pick him out of a crowd), he takes his life sentence for a crime he knows he did not commit with a sense of resigned dignity. We have only the narration presented by Red (Morgan Freeman, in a performance that gave me flashbacks to my Million Dollar Baby review), and therefore no insight to what Andy is actually thinking, or what motivates him. Once he finds happiness in his occupation of librarian at the jail, and as the viewer watches him accomplish more and more for the prison, we feel our hope elevated alongside Andy’s. This sequence of events caters to the belief that defines the “American Dream” – through hard work and dedication, anyone can elevate themselves to greatness. However, for Andy this is not true – the road of hope is road-blocked. Corrupt wardens aside, he is, after all, still a prisoner with a life sentence. Andy once more becomes acutely aware of his position after he is given a glimmer of a chance to prove his innocence and it is snatched away.
The movie could have ended there, and I feel like it still would have been a worthwhile film (this is a point on which I am sure everyone will disagree with me). The film would have then made the viewer stop and think about the systems of injustice that are in place for both the wrongly convicted, and the hard workers who are relentlessly prevented from getting ahead.
Of course, who needs a movie to tell us that life sucks? I feel that the enjoyable, inspiring, and uplifting ending is mostly a by-product of screenwriter Stephen King’s personal quirky style. It is reminiscent of what we will later see from him in The Green Mile - a little unbelievable, and miraculous, and a completely different change of tone from the downtrodden ins and outs of convict life.
Next, I will either be watching Full Metal Jacket (which is a nice tie-in since we're going to be watching Eyes Wide Shut for class), or Top Gun.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
“Caddyshack: Giggles, Gophers, Girls, and... Caddies?”
When the movie Caddyshack came out in 1980, I was nowhere near being born yet. And still, as I grew up, it was understood amongst my peers to be a “totally awesome movie, yo.” I knew the song, I knew the gopher, and I knew Bill Murray wore a stupid hat. But what I had no idea about until this past Saturday was what this movie was actually about, or what made it a “classic” comedy.
I think my friend put it best, “it’s a movie about caddies, and then Chevy Chase and Bill Murray came in and took it over.” This theory is clearly supported by the appearance of the movie’s four big-name stars on the DVD cover (Chevy Chase, Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight, and Bill Murray), none of whom are actual caddies in the film. I found myself asking if this was a good or bad thing. The story opens up by introducing our young protagonist Danny, who is plagued by typical teenage problems that we don’t really care about. What we care about is how Ty Webb (Chevy Chase) appears to us as the calm and collected guy who’s got it all figured out, and how Carl (Bill Murray) is hilariously hunting a poor representation of a groundhog (I was told that this obvious cheapness was intended as a source of ironic humor, but it just annoyed me the entire time). Even at the time, the clothing worn by Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) was as loud and obnoxious to the audience as he is to Judge Smails (Ted Knight), the quintessential jerk boss.
So what have we gained from Caddyshack? It’s a fairly simple comedy, with a very basic plot that is eclipsed by all the very clever repartee from the cast, which seems to keep the ball not only rolling but also bouncing along at a lively pace. The movie also has its requisite doses of female temptresses who are there merely as full-frontal eye candy. A pregnancy scare late in the movie attempts to draw the viewer back to the hardships of “main character” Danny, but it is done so crudely and off handedly that nobody really cares (where did that Irish girl come from anyway?). A fight between two “rival” caddies seems to climax in the first 20 minutes, and the competition for the scholarship the Judge is giving away resolves itself with seemingly no conflict whatsoever.
I only laughed out loud maybe once or twice, and an hour and a half was a bit longer than I wanted to be invested in the characters I wasn’t invested in, but overall, I enjoyed watching Caddyshack. The culminating scene with the golf tournament was probably the most entertaining part, ending in an exciting, explosive climax. Anyone who has ever had a part-time job can nod appreciatively at the shared experience of dealing with weirdos on a constant basis. This is a great movie to have on in the background on those low-key, stay-in and hang out nights
I think my friend put it best, “it’s a movie about caddies, and then Chevy Chase and Bill Murray came in and took it over.” This theory is clearly supported by the appearance of the movie’s four big-name stars on the DVD cover (Chevy Chase, Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight, and Bill Murray), none of whom are actual caddies in the film. I found myself asking if this was a good or bad thing. The story opens up by introducing our young protagonist Danny, who is plagued by typical teenage problems that we don’t really care about. What we care about is how Ty Webb (Chevy Chase) appears to us as the calm and collected guy who’s got it all figured out, and how Carl (Bill Murray) is hilariously hunting a poor representation of a groundhog (I was told that this obvious cheapness was intended as a source of ironic humor, but it just annoyed me the entire time). Even at the time, the clothing worn by Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) was as loud and obnoxious to the audience as he is to Judge Smails (Ted Knight), the quintessential jerk boss.
So what have we gained from Caddyshack? It’s a fairly simple comedy, with a very basic plot that is eclipsed by all the very clever repartee from the cast, which seems to keep the ball not only rolling but also bouncing along at a lively pace. The movie also has its requisite doses of female temptresses who are there merely as full-frontal eye candy. A pregnancy scare late in the movie attempts to draw the viewer back to the hardships of “main character” Danny, but it is done so crudely and off handedly that nobody really cares (where did that Irish girl come from anyway?). A fight between two “rival” caddies seems to climax in the first 20 minutes, and the competition for the scholarship the Judge is giving away resolves itself with seemingly no conflict whatsoever.
I only laughed out loud maybe once or twice, and an hour and a half was a bit longer than I wanted to be invested in the characters I wasn’t invested in, but overall, I enjoyed watching Caddyshack. The culminating scene with the golf tournament was probably the most entertaining part, ending in an exciting, explosive climax. Anyone who has ever had a part-time job can nod appreciatively at the shared experience of dealing with weirdos on a constant basis. This is a great movie to have on in the background on those low-key, stay-in and hang out nights
Starting with a cultural deficit
So I often feel a bit behind the game when my friends start to talk about movies.
"Oh man, do you remember that scene in that movie?"
"No... I never saw it."
::blank stare::
"How is that possible? It's like, the greatest movie of all time!"
The purpose of this project is to explore why people think these movie are so great, to watch them myself, and then see if I agree. There are many instances where knowledge of certain films is taken for granted in other places of pop culture. here's always that whole dimension of "in-jokes" you're missing f you have no familiarity with these things. Lots of times, I have seen movies I should have seen years ago, and finally understod a joke that my friends made, or a gag on a cartoon show(cartoons, even the most basic ones, like Spongebob, LOVE using these kind of movie and cultural references). It's basically the pop culture equivalent of reading all the classic literature in school so you can understand allusions and techniques used in modern works at a deeper level.
I have gotten a few suggestions for movies that I should see already, but if you can think of a universally well-known movie that i may not have seen, throw me a line and I'll try to get it in. Eventually I think I'll post a list. Feel free to post comments and critiques of your own as well - I'd love to carry the discussion of movies on at a more interactive level. Yay internet.
"Oh man, do you remember that scene in that movie?"
"No... I never saw it."
::blank stare::
"How is that possible? It's like, the greatest movie of all time!"
The purpose of this project is to explore why people think these movie are so great, to watch them myself, and then see if I agree. There are many instances where knowledge of certain films is taken for granted in other places of pop culture. here's always that whole dimension of "in-jokes" you're missing f you have no familiarity with these things. Lots of times, I have seen movies I should have seen years ago, and finally understod a joke that my friends made, or a gag on a cartoon show(cartoons, even the most basic ones, like Spongebob, LOVE using these kind of movie and cultural references). It's basically the pop culture equivalent of reading all the classic literature in school so you can understand allusions and techniques used in modern works at a deeper level.
I have gotten a few suggestions for movies that I should see already, but if you can think of a universally well-known movie that i may not have seen, throw me a line and I'll try to get it in. Eventually I think I'll post a list. Feel free to post comments and critiques of your own as well - I'd love to carry the discussion of movies on at a more interactive level. Yay internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)