![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mousmeNew icon!
I've been on a movie-watching kick lately. I went to see "V for Vendetta" last Thursday with F, whom I can't quite call a girlfriend yet, but it was definitely a date. F will not get mentioned too often in here, as she is a very private person and I don't think she'd like it very much if I broadcast a whole bunch of details about her over the internet. At least, not in a public post.
"V for Vendetta" was a visually gorgeous movie. I am increasingly becoming a fan of movies that are inspired or derived from graphic novels: the style appeals to me tremendously. Perhaps it's a result of my reading lots of bandes dessinées as a child: I like the comic book feel that the framing provides. Of course, it wasn't just the visuals that impressed me about the movie. For one, who knew that Natalie Portman could act? I suppose I'm doing her a disservice, since I only ever saw her in the appalling Star Wars prequels, but I was pleasantly surprised to discover that, given a good script and a good director, she puts on a very convincing performance indeed. For another, I must say that I didn't for a second recognize Hugo Weaving, although it made perfect sense once I saw the credits.
The movie is calculated to force an audience used to mindless entertainment to think for themselves. I don't think that anyone who is already accustomed to critical and independent thought will find anything terribly new in this movie. That being said, it is a very powerful film, and works very well along grand mythological lines. It is an acutely self-aware piece of filmmaking, but it never allows that to interfere with the storytelling aspect, which in my opinion is always a hazard of this kind of film. It is the universal story of one man standing up against oppression and succeeding at the cost of his own life, inspiring others to follow in his footsteps. It's about the survival of ideals, the good of the many outweighing that of the one, the vanquishing of oppression by the dignity and unconquerable nature of the human spirit. It's become a cliché, but this movie knows that it's a cliché, and uses that knowledge to advantage.
It's not a perfect movie by any means. There are places where the acting falters a bit, some holes in the plot, and bits and pieces of flashback which need work. Things don't always make sense, and while that's generally acceptable in real life, in a well-structured narrative that shouldn't happen. Stories must be internally coherent in order to be effective. However, the faults in the movie are minor enough that they get swept aside by the force of the movie's message, by the visceral impact of the visuals, and by the power of the main characters' personalities.
I have to admit I was especially pleased by how the "V" character was handled. Not only do we never learn his name, but we never actually find out who or what he is. I kept expecting and half-dreading the "reveal," when the mask would be pulled away to show the horror beneath. I was very gratified when the movie ended, and that hadn't happened. The idea was more important than the man, and the film stayed true to the message.
Otherwise, I haven't been to the cinema much lately. I think I mentioned seeing "Take the Lead," which was cute if uninspired and unrealistic. What I have been doing, though, is renting movies. I rented "The Shipping News," which I think I would have enjoyed more if at least one of the characters had been sympathetic to me. Seriously, it's rare that I won't be able to empathise with any character at all in a book or movie, but in this case none of the characters were likeable in the slightest. Bleh.
I finally got around to watching "The Silence of the Lambs," only about twelve years after it came out. :P I think the movie has suffered from the lapse of time. Not because it's not a good movie, but because now most of us are quite familiar with the stereotype of the brilliant and compelling sociopath, whereas audiences at the time the movie came out were not. Now the whole "I ate his liver with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti" is pretty clichéd, even though this is the movie that started the cliché. I had the same problem when I finally saw "The Godfather." It was difficult not to laugh when Marlon Brando started talking about favours and offers people couldn't refuse, and yet this was the film that started it all. So I ended up feeling a little dissatisfied with "The Silence of the Lambs" because I expected more from it: I wanted a deeper exploration of Lecter's relationship to Clarice, especially, why he becomes obsessed with her, why he wants to help her, why she becomes obsessed with him. I wanted motivation, dammit, and I got very little. I ought to read the book: I'm sure I'll find what I'm missing in there.
On a more light-hearted, silly note, I've also been renting action films. I rented "The Fantastic Four," and enjoyed it, without attempting in the slightest to make any kind of critical judgment. This isn't the kind of movie that stands up well to scrutiny, so I left well enough alone. It's too bad Jessica Alba couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag, because her role needed more than she could give it.
Twenty years later, I finally watched "The Terminator," and found that it doesn't do too badly after all this time. The clothes and hairstyles are painfully eighties, and some of the special effects are a little off by today's standards, but the story is compelling nonetheless. I'm currently watching "Terminator 2," but haven't finished it (I was really tired and fell asleep), and while the effects are better in this movie, I'm not sure I like the "bad guy" in this version. While I had no trouble believing the larger-than-life Terminator portrayed by Ah-nold, this new guy (whatever his name is), seems kind of ordinary. Evil, yes, but in a kind of secondary-minion way. Schwarzenegger's Terminator was a kind of mythological being, and looked every inch like it was unstoppable. This new guy doesn't really pull it off well at all. The story still works well, though, and so I'm going to finish it tonight and see what happens.
That's it for what I've been watching. I'm still following 24, but generally I've been a little too tired when I get home to post my thoughts about the show. Next week is the season finale, so I might do something then.
I've been on a movie-watching kick lately. I went to see "V for Vendetta" last Thursday with F, whom I can't quite call a girlfriend yet, but it was definitely a date. F will not get mentioned too often in here, as she is a very private person and I don't think she'd like it very much if I broadcast a whole bunch of details about her over the internet. At least, not in a public post.
"V for Vendetta" was a visually gorgeous movie. I am increasingly becoming a fan of movies that are inspired or derived from graphic novels: the style appeals to me tremendously. Perhaps it's a result of my reading lots of bandes dessinées as a child: I like the comic book feel that the framing provides. Of course, it wasn't just the visuals that impressed me about the movie. For one, who knew that Natalie Portman could act? I suppose I'm doing her a disservice, since I only ever saw her in the appalling Star Wars prequels, but I was pleasantly surprised to discover that, given a good script and a good director, she puts on a very convincing performance indeed. For another, I must say that I didn't for a second recognize Hugo Weaving, although it made perfect sense once I saw the credits.
The movie is calculated to force an audience used to mindless entertainment to think for themselves. I don't think that anyone who is already accustomed to critical and independent thought will find anything terribly new in this movie. That being said, it is a very powerful film, and works very well along grand mythological lines. It is an acutely self-aware piece of filmmaking, but it never allows that to interfere with the storytelling aspect, which in my opinion is always a hazard of this kind of film. It is the universal story of one man standing up against oppression and succeeding at the cost of his own life, inspiring others to follow in his footsteps. It's about the survival of ideals, the good of the many outweighing that of the one, the vanquishing of oppression by the dignity and unconquerable nature of the human spirit. It's become a cliché, but this movie knows that it's a cliché, and uses that knowledge to advantage.
It's not a perfect movie by any means. There are places where the acting falters a bit, some holes in the plot, and bits and pieces of flashback which need work. Things don't always make sense, and while that's generally acceptable in real life, in a well-structured narrative that shouldn't happen. Stories must be internally coherent in order to be effective. However, the faults in the movie are minor enough that they get swept aside by the force of the movie's message, by the visceral impact of the visuals, and by the power of the main characters' personalities.
I have to admit I was especially pleased by how the "V" character was handled. Not only do we never learn his name, but we never actually find out who or what he is. I kept expecting and half-dreading the "reveal," when the mask would be pulled away to show the horror beneath. I was very gratified when the movie ended, and that hadn't happened. The idea was more important than the man, and the film stayed true to the message.
Otherwise, I haven't been to the cinema much lately. I think I mentioned seeing "Take the Lead," which was cute if uninspired and unrealistic. What I have been doing, though, is renting movies. I rented "The Shipping News," which I think I would have enjoyed more if at least one of the characters had been sympathetic to me. Seriously, it's rare that I won't be able to empathise with any character at all in a book or movie, but in this case none of the characters were likeable in the slightest. Bleh.
I finally got around to watching "The Silence of the Lambs," only about twelve years after it came out. :P I think the movie has suffered from the lapse of time. Not because it's not a good movie, but because now most of us are quite familiar with the stereotype of the brilliant and compelling sociopath, whereas audiences at the time the movie came out were not. Now the whole "I ate his liver with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti" is pretty clichéd, even though this is the movie that started the cliché. I had the same problem when I finally saw "The Godfather." It was difficult not to laugh when Marlon Brando started talking about favours and offers people couldn't refuse, and yet this was the film that started it all. So I ended up feeling a little dissatisfied with "The Silence of the Lambs" because I expected more from it: I wanted a deeper exploration of Lecter's relationship to Clarice, especially, why he becomes obsessed with her, why he wants to help her, why she becomes obsessed with him. I wanted motivation, dammit, and I got very little. I ought to read the book: I'm sure I'll find what I'm missing in there.
On a more light-hearted, silly note, I've also been renting action films. I rented "The Fantastic Four," and enjoyed it, without attempting in the slightest to make any kind of critical judgment. This isn't the kind of movie that stands up well to scrutiny, so I left well enough alone. It's too bad Jessica Alba couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag, because her role needed more than she could give it.
Twenty years later, I finally watched "The Terminator," and found that it doesn't do too badly after all this time. The clothes and hairstyles are painfully eighties, and some of the special effects are a little off by today's standards, but the story is compelling nonetheless. I'm currently watching "Terminator 2," but haven't finished it (I was really tired and fell asleep), and while the effects are better in this movie, I'm not sure I like the "bad guy" in this version. While I had no trouble believing the larger-than-life Terminator portrayed by Ah-nold, this new guy (whatever his name is), seems kind of ordinary. Evil, yes, but in a kind of secondary-minion way. Schwarzenegger's Terminator was a kind of mythological being, and looked every inch like it was unstoppable. This new guy doesn't really pull it off well at all. The story still works well, though, and so I'm going to finish it tonight and see what happens.
That's it for what I've been watching. I'm still following 24, but generally I've been a little too tired when I get home to post my thoughts about the show. Next week is the season finale, so I might do something then.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 11:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 12:54 am (UTC)Terminator: I thought Terminator was much better than Terminator 2. Quite apart from the fact that Arnold makes a better villian, the plot was more focussed: it was all about the hunt, with just enough backstory to tell you why the hunt was important (and to hint that all the characters had other concerns which they had no time to think about right now because all their energy was going into evading Arnold - which, come to think of it, was one of the major ways it kept the tension up, and I didn't notice until just now). In T2, they had time for side plots, which made it looser.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 12:57 am (UTC)Having now finished T2, I agree with you: the plot in the second movie was too loose, and I don't like Arnold as the good guy quite as much as as a bad guy. Also, the kid isn't a very good actor, and Linda Hamilton needs to pontificate less.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 02:11 am (UTC)See, I found that Terminator didn't age so well, while I found T2 to be basically a remake of it. Yes, T2's plot was a lot more complex, but I rather enjoyed the whole time paradox/race to correct history thing.
The T-1000 I found to be all the more menacing because he is so easily underestimated. He just looks like a little guy, but he doesn't stop and he changes shape. He's got the head down evil blank look that comes across as real machinelike and creepy especially after talking all nice with some kids on the street. When he turns bits of himself into things and spiderclimbs on vehicles and things... that was awsome and creepy. While Arnie just clanked around a lot.
I liked the "surprise" that Arnold WASN'T the villain and get all excited when the two machines clash. I found in Terminator, Arnold was just sort of a metallic Jason Voorhees. And, I'm sorry, but Kyle was just... awful. I had no sympathy at all for that weiner.
I should point out here that I also enjoyed T3 "Rise of the Machines" because it took T2 and blew it WAY over the top. It combined the latest spfx megaaction and UBER explosions with some great self parody. The woman in that did a good imitation of the T1000 facial blank. It was just the ending of it that left me scratching my head and saying "hunh"?? But I didn't mind so much after all the neato robots and stuff.
Anyway. *shrug* I liked 'em.