Movie Review: Once (2007)

If anyone asked me what kind of music I preferred to listen to, I'd say, "acoustic." As far as genres go, "acoustic" is more of a technical style, rather than a musical style. I like it because it strips away all the musical crutches available to an artist -- post-production editing, mistake-covering electrical instrumentation, overwhelming rhythms -- and exposes the singer, instrumentalists and the song itself for what they are. It's pretty easy to tell when a song or singer is not that good once those elements are taken away. By the same token, it is very easy to tell when a song or singer is most excellent when unplugged.

Such is the case with Once, an independent Irish musical film shot and produced on what essentially was an independent budget. The actors had one appearance's worth of experience between them all. The aforementioned budgetary contraints also meant no fancy sets, no fancy costumes, no Hollywood pretties and next to no lighting. If ever there was an 'acoustic' film, this was it.

In this way, Once is either a love-it, or hate-it kind of movie. Some people watch movies to be blown away by boobs and bombs, or other shallow gimmicks designed to hook you in. Once is a film that requires a patient audience that can see beneath the surface and truly experience a story for what it is.

At its core, Once is like a Chekovian short story: a tale of broken people going through the motions of their lives until a chance encounter sets them on a new path for a brief period of time. The two leads are unnamed, down-and-out musicians who cross paths one day in the shopping district of Dublin, Ireland, where the Guy is busking on his worn-out guitar, trying to make some extra cash for a trip to London to win back the girl he writes songs about. The Girl is a poor Czech immigrant working a number of menial jobs to support her family. A broken vacuum cleaner brings them together and out of their shells. Fixing the vacuum cleaner at the father of the Guy's vacuum cleaner repair shop allows them to begin helping each other fix themselves.

The one element of this film with polish is, naturally, the music. Performed and written primarily by the two leads, Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, the songs themselves are reflective of the film's understated mise-en-scene. They are raw, plaintive, simple, and surprisingly good -- illustrative of the film as a whole. The guitar that Hansard plays also acts as a metaphor for the brokenness of the characters as well as the film's. Everyone and everything is sort of just hanging in there and hoping for the best.

Put together, Once is far better than the sum of its humble parts. The interweaving of the story and music is occasionally forced, but never beleaguering. The acting is not A-grade, but all the more honest for that. The occasionally improvised dialogue is often broken by the mannerisms and filler words of everyday conversation -- a big no-no in big-budget mainstream films, but perfect here. The story teases and hints but refuses to go the Hollywood route. The camera work borders on homevideo quality, imparting a sense of intimacy that steady filming and adequate lighting cannot achieve. Like a good friend, Once is a gem of a movie whose flaws only serve to make it all the more endearing.

*** 1/2 / 5

Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova performing the Academy Award winning song "Falling Slowly" on The Late Show with David Letterman.

If life were like this...

waaaaaaant

D-War: Dragon Wars

ancient dragons fighting each other in LA? how did i miss hearing about this movie completely?!

TRAILER

yes, i embedded the higher quality mp4 version; you need to add '&ap=%2526fmt%3D18' to the src url in the embed code, but only '&fmt=18' if you're going directly to the url.

this is the biggest blockbuster movie to come out of South Korea since My Sassy Girl. of course, it flopped this side of the Pacific, and flopped hard; it might have had something to do with the inane plot and the overuse of CGI. if that is the case, why do Michael Bay movies make money? can you answer me that?
perhaps it should have been a cartoon instead. looks like Darryl (Craig Robinson) from the Office is in it! here's a clip from the final showdown in the movie. i think i lost about 3500 brain cells just from watching it. make video game please.

EDIT:
i've gone and done you all a solid on this one: i watched the movie to spare you the tremendous suck. the acting was substandard and the writing seemed to have been written by a grade 10 student (i.e. Eragon level). the dialogue was worse than Star Wars: Attack of the Clones and nearly put this movie out of the B range and into a solid C (for crap). the sole redeeming quality of the movie was the action, the most noteworthy of which was the final battle between Good Dragon vs. Bad Dragon. yes, it was obvious and cliched to a fault, but it was well executed by whoever choreographed the CGI. see for yourself:

background: every 500 years, a heavenly power is incarnated into a girl who, at the age of twenty, must be presented to an imugi (proto-dragon) for it to ascend to full dragon status (and power). the girl has been assigned a protector who is to ensure she does not fall into the wrong hands, i.e. the Bad imugi. Throughout the entire movie, the Bad Imugi and his army of Lord of the Rings rejects has been tailing her, sowing mayhem and destruction about. to make a long story short, they catch up with her, strap her down to an altar for the Bad Imugi to eat and the Good Imugi finally shows up in the last 10 minutes of the movie, only to get OWNED but good. in this scene, incompetant-Protector and Girl are facing down Bad Imugi, who has just knocked out Good Imugi, now lying on the ground. i totally called the ending, down to the finish. i totally did not expect the KO to be so awesome though. you don't have to watch past 3:20. it is reminiscent of WarGreymon vs. Metal Seadramon (but i could only find it in Spanish).

Stardust

while life can sometimes be really, really good, it is, for the most part, mundane, trivial, routine and oh, so boring; this makes a person downright cynical.

once every ten years or so, a story comes along that lets you believe again in things like goodness, dream chasing and the magic of love.

Stardust is filled with legitimate adventure, suspense, romance, humor, pathos, and enough self-awareness to make it a worthy successor to The Princess Bride

- Daniel Carlson, Pajiba Critic

i haven't been this tickled and uplifted by a movie since Le Fabuleaux Destin d'Amelie Poulain (Stranger Than Fiction came close). it is, indeed, this decade's The Princess Bride, rife with fantasy, adventure, romance, suspense and just the right amount of self-awareness. the colours, the soundtrack, the acting are all spot on. even the plot twists you see coming are delightfully executed.

plainly put: gorgeous. i am smitten.

i will not write a review since the one linked in the title is more than sufficient (mild spoiler warning).

Paper Bumblebee

as seen on Engadget: here is a little something for the Transformer fans. even if you hated the Michael Bay movie, you've got to give this guy props for building a scale model of the new Bumblebee out of KFC buckets and custard cake cartons.

Movie Review: Wordplay (2006)

i finally got around to watching this documentary on Crossword puzzles (New York Times, specifically). Wordplay is a well-crafted and well executed piece of film making. i used to do crosswords on a daily basis every morning at school before/during my first lecture. i lost the habit toward the end of my third year as mornings got a little more sleepy and classes started later so i did not have first dibs on the newspapers. this film has reawakened that dormant desire to stretch my mind and wrack my vocabulary.

the film takes us behind the scenes of the NYT crossword puzzle making process. we see the inspiration and genius behind the boxes and the care and diligence put into editing the puzzles overall for consistency and coherence. we are introduced not only to hardcore crossword geeks (who time themselves religiously), but to celebrities or iconographic figures that also take time out of there day to sit down, strip out the Arts section and fold back the page to bare the daily Crossword.

from the brief biographies we are taken to the annual American Crossword Puzzle Tournament (ACPT) held at the Marriott Hotel in Stamford, CT (there used to be a Dunder-Mifflin branch in that city, but it was merged with the Scranton branch a few months ago), and we see how the players we were introduced to stack up to the competition. crossword players come in all stripes and walks of life, and gather together once a year to share the one slice of joy they all have in common.

like in all documentaries, the cinematography is nothing spectacular. the editing is clever, like a crossword clue in itself by segueing scenes by innocuous statements. the soundtrack is gentle and campy, much like the characters featured. special effects were used to good effect, giving viewers an over-the-shoulder view of a player's progress. the story is -- as it is with even the most banal of competitions -- dramatic.

the most notable moment was when Will Shortz, the Puzzle editor of the NYT described his favourite puzzle. he immediately recalled the genius puzzle written by Jeremiah Farrell for the American election day 1996. written before the election results were published, clue 39A 'predicted' who would win.

happy valentine's day later

ah, valentine's day... while it is probably the worst example of consumerism i know of this side of Christmas, it does allow me to post about Bridget Jones's Diary, which i watched for the second time ever in class last week. this valentine's day will be spent writing an in-class essay for my Courtship in Literature class. the irony is not lost on me.

Bridget Jones's Opening Credits

Serenity: The Opening

this is the opening credits scene from the movie Serenity. it might not seem like much at first glance, but it is a masterful work of exposition and cinematography. for those unfamiliar with Firefly, these 5 minutes establish the ensemble's backgrounds and personalities all on a single take (well, there is one cut, but it's quick and subtle).

TMNT

technology has given us many things, mostly for convenience or pushing boundaries.
now computers have been put to use in creating visual effects for movies, we have reached a renaissance of sorts, specifically in the genre of the superhero: Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Hellboy, The Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man 2, X-2, Batman Begins, X3: The Last Stand, Superman Returns and to a certain extent Harry Potter and the Incredibles.

i am looking very forward to 2007: specifically Spider-Man 3, Transformers: The Movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. one that may have slipped under the radar for you, though, is the new fully-CGI Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie. i would like to thank all the geeks and nerds from the late 70s and early 80s who have now proliferated the movie and gaming industry and have revived my favourite franchise.

so click the title link and watch the teaser trailer.

the designs hark back to the Golden Turtle age, before the full-body-costume live-action movies, before the crappy Fox cartoon. the Turtles are back to being leaner, ganglier teenaged turtles. and because of the flexibility granted by CGI techniques, they have now put the NINJA back in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. the trailer reminds me very much of those 'Urban Ninja' videos that had cropped up a few years ago.

Movie Review: X-Men 3: The Last Stand

Starring: Patrick Stewart, Sir Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Famke Janssen, Rebecca Romjin, Kelsey Grammer, Vinnie Jones, Shawn Ashmore, Anna Paquin, James Marsden and too many others.

Directed by: Brett Ratner (Rush Hours)

Story Outline: the development of a "cure" that suppresses mutations on the genetic level, based on the powers of a unique mutant, divides an already embattled mutant community into two camps: those that follow Xavier and fight for peaceful coexistance, and those that follow Magneto and his fight for mutant supremacy. chaos erupts when the government weaponizes the serum. hostilities reach fever pitch when Magneto rallies his forces to neutralize the source of the "cure" by whatever means necessary.

Plot:
all the materials were there for an epic. perhaps there was just too much material. the plot had a quick pace that bordered on recklessly fast, concluding after 104 minutes. as stated above, battle lines are drawn over how to interpret mutation: is it a disease? or is it evolution? is it a blessing? or is it a curse? not every mutant has a sexy power like telekinesis or ice powers.

Character:
execution of all these themes and character issues was spotty at best, but the plot had to go on. i guess they were really afraid of developing 10+ characters with the depth alloted to Spider-Man 2 (that bored some people). everyone with spoken lines had a personal take on the "cure", except for the most tertiary of characters (colossus and shadowcat). the general consensus is that there were just too many characters for the audience to attach to any single character. this installment of the x-men trilogy (perhaps the final one??) plays out like LOTR:RotK did. PLOT PLOT PLOT PLOT ACTION ALL OVER with cursory mention as to why said action must take place.

Visuals:
live action mutant powers were considered to be quite difficult to pull off without going compeltely green-screen. as it were, this movie does not rely as heavily on computer generated images as other blockbusters would have. even Colossus' metal form was a highly polished bodysuit. the Beast was all make up and fake hair. very awesome. the uninitiated did not even recognize that he was played by Kelsey Grammer. lots of helicopter pans of landscapes (alkali lake, downtown vancouver, etc).

Dialogue:
failure here. the dialogue succumbs to campy one-liners and platitudes. the Batman and Robin Syndrome. it was so cheesy.

Final Thoughts: so much potential, so much hype, so disappointing when all the good things are given up for flying fire cars instead. still, adequate, if the first two weren't so good.

* * * out of 5

The Da Vinci Code Movie

this friday, the da vinci code will be released in movie form, filling Dan Brown's pockets with more pocket change.

Brown's novel is a poorly written but lively and fascinating thriller that's well suited for adaptation. - David Etherington, movie reviewer

i, for one, am looking forward to watching this movie at Costco or Wal-Mart, despite my disdain for the book itself (contrary to popular belief, i have scruples). my main reason is given by Etherington's concluding statement in his pre-release review of the Da Vinci Code (click title). my other reason is the excellent ensemble that put this film together.

The DVC is directed by Ron Howard who's work i admire, insofar as a film amateur can admire the work of a director when he is barely capable of seeing what it is, exactly, that a director does. but i really liked A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man.

Tom Hanks plays the Harvard Professor Robert Langdon. this was a pretty good choice for, in my opinion. Hanks can give character depth to a character written flatter than my chest, i.e. Robert Langdon of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. oh, hey, how convenient!

---begin digression---
i just came up with a dynamite name for a band: "Sphincter Control". i hope it isn't taken yet.
---end digression---

Audrey Tautou was definitely the perfect choice for the alluring and conveniently talented French crytopgrapher Sophie Neveu. i've had a huge crush on her since i saw her in Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain, one of my favourite movies of all time with the freakiest movie poster i've ever seen.

Sir Ian McKellan plays the bad guy, Sir Leigh Teabing. he always plays the old bad guy! i.e. Richard III, Magneto. the exception is the Lord of the Rings. he plays the old good guy, Gandalf.

Movie Review: King Kong (2005)

Starring: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Andy Serkis
Directed by: Peter Jackson (LOTR)

the highly hyped and critically acclaimed remake of the 1933 quintessential monster movie delivers on almost all levels.

[mild spoiler alert - read accordingly]

Plot: having not seen the original, i can only compare it to the various spoofs and homages paid to the classic through cartoons and such references. King Kong is an epic story told in three acts. the most recent movie to follow this formula was Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World. act 1: backstory, narrative set-up. act 2: island fun. act 3: new york, new york. the less patient may complain of the length (3 hrs 7 min) and the various points of monotany (chugging boat gears) that perforate an otherwise action-packed film. The movie seeks to cover almost every genre known to film. set in mid-Depression 1933, the first act touches on the harsh times (after watching Cinderella Man all the Depression references were pretty easy to pick up), framing the desperation and climate of a populace in need of distraction. There are dashes of vaudeville schtick (i kept thinking of those vaudeville guys on Family Guy) and mild romance to provide that distraction, but they are inevitably brushed aside for the things that matter (i.e. dinosaurs). at the outer core lies the whole monster horror/thrill/suspense/action ride where you can turn your brain off for a few minutes and enjoy senseless adrenaline. at the heart of the movie is the relationship between beauty and beast: Ann Darrow (Watts) and Kong (Serkis). where the original played up a certain amount of sexual tension between Darrow (Fay Wray) and a rapacious Kong, Peter Jackson recreates a more touching relationship (not physical touching -- heartstring pulling touching). other (actual) critics have touched on this aspect, wondering why that part was 'tamed' and Peter Jackson deftly addresses it early in the movie when Jack Black's character Carl Denham is pleading his case before a panel of movie executives. one of them asks if his movie will have boobies (since people only watch movies with boobies), and Denham calls him an idiot.

Visuals: breath-taking. from glittering cityscapes to towering jungles, King Kong is definitely worth the price of admission. the cgi is improved in comparison to the LOTR movies. Kong himself is beautifully crafted, based on actual gorilla specifications and animated with life-like precision by Andy Serkis (Gollum/Smeagol) after he spent two months studying gorillas in Jane Goodall fashion. the cinematography is gorgeous throughout, but gets a bit melodramatic towards the end. but since it's 1933, that's probably an intentional tribute.

Dialogue: having not seen the original, i cannot exactly tell if they followed the same script in this remake. however, the intonations and diction was anachronistically 21st century. dialogue definitely took a back seat in this movie and i think i could have watched it deaf and still understood everything.

Soundtrack: epic, as characteristic of the only Peter Jackson films i've seen. the tracks were evocative and spot-on. there isn't much else to comment on as i wasn't really paying attention to it.

Characters:
Carl Denham - this character is Jack Black's first crack at a 'serious' protrayal and i thought he did an outstanding job of it. as a desperate movie producer in search of 'the big one' (film, that is) Denham coerces those closest to him into a dangerous expedition all for the perfect film. Black's best scene is his Super Saiyin moment. his true allegiances are shown in counterpoint to the supposed monster.
Jack Driscoll - Adrien Brody plays a sensitive screenplay writer and third-wheel to the Ann-Kong relationship. his acting is above average -- emotive and all that -- but his nose sort of steals each scene.
King Kong - gorillas are usually considered ugly in my books and only cool under certain contexts (such as smashing stuff). this latest incarnation of King Kong is easily the most life-like, not just because of technological advances. the mannerisms and physical acting spoke volumes of Kong's inner lonliness and his jealous protection of that connection to Ann.
Ann Darrow - Naomi Watt's performance has opened my eyes. first to her striking resemblance to fellow Australian Nichole Kidman; second to her screaming skill. she doesn't say much so most of the acting is done facially. Watts does a brilliant and beautiful job (considering a lot of her screentime is spent with the computer generated and not physically present Kong) and now i have a huge crush on her.

Overall: watch this movie, plain and simple. the only failing really is the dialogue, which is uninspired and boring (it ain't no gilmore girls -- closer to smallville in terms of melodrama).

* * * * 3/4

Movie Reviews: quick!

i watched a bunch of movies on my vacation...

Monster In-Law: i watched this on the flight to calgary, without the aid of pointless things like sound... it was pretty easy to follow and mildly enjoyable like all soundless romantic comedies. jlo, sans ben, has got to be worth something. 2/5

Kung Fu Hustle: having seen this one before, but having not reviewed it, i am doing so now. yay! stephen chow is always good for a laugh. interesting how he's now trying to get into the business of serious movie making (he stars, produces and directs) while still cracking out the toilet gags. kung fu hustle is stephen chow's homage to several influential genres from his childhood. from the traditional chinese kung fu mold, to the Matrix, to looney tunes. those unfamiliar with the way stephen chow casts will probably be surprised to see very familiar faces from shaolin soccer. many of the actors he works with reappear in at least 4 other movies of his. the lack of cecilia cheung is rather disappointing. she would have made a better mute lollipop girl, though it was obvious that he cast a look-a-like. sub-par stephen chow movie overall. not as good as shaolin soccer. and shaolin soccer was merely average. 2.5/5

Hide and Seek: i didn't watch the first 20 minutes because i thought i'd freak out from watching a scary movie. then i remembered that the last time i watched a scary movie was in '97. riveting and terribly twisted. dakota fanning is my new child actor superheroine. 3.5/5

Sin City: missed the first ten minutes on account of helping melissa with the dishes. caught on quite quickly. visually stunning in that slick artsy way (alexis bledel's eyes highlighted = good idea!). yay, jessica alba, naturally. dark humour was quite refreshing ("you forgot to flush"). quentin tarentino really likes the girls with swords; miho was hott - i could actually recognize his nerd styles: girls w/ swords, girls with guns, hallucinations of talking dead people, white blood, shadow scenes... 4.8/5 misses perfection because of the predictability of the characters... frank miller follows a pattern in his characterizations and it shows.

Kicking and Screaming: i watched this one on the flight back to toronto. don't you love noticing cheesy artistic elements either the director or the writers tried to incorporate into their family movies? the recurring number 13 for example. the plot was patently predictable; the ending was very sweet (very mushy sweet, and only partially cool sweet). i love italians, but meat comes first. will ferrellisms peeked through once in awhile, but not as over the top as anchorman; they still ellicited laughter. loved the lesbian asian orphan adoption and the superfluous coffee antics. 2.3/5

that's not periwinkle...

but the hair sure is fancy.
i think this will be the first harry potter movie (harry potter and the goblet of fire - my favourite book of the series) that i am looking forward to, even though i still haven't seen harry potter and the prisoner of azkaban. hopefully costco will play it. or maybe they'll rent it for a daycare movie day.

rory

i've never noticed before, having never really watched Gilmore Girls or Sin City, but Alexis Bledel has very, very pretty eyes. they're huge, electric blue and would be scary if they were on a robot. and she's extremely white, which leads me to believe that she might actually be a killer robot from Krikkit, but i digress. this is alexis seen at the premiere of her new movie, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, sporting an excellent haircut.

Movie Review: Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

plot: mmm... lacking. the evolution of anakin the young pod-racing pup to darth vader... blegh. what a waste of potential. george lucas is mildly incompetant at writing romance. the politics were childish, sort of like something out of the simpsons. palpatine's rise to power was just as contrived as anakin's descent into the dark side. at least that was consistent. small holes in continuity (especially leia in ROTJ, who comments that she remembered her mother being sad, but beautiful). the main villains of the piece were about as threatening as stormtroopers were to ewoks.

visuals: stunning in the 'i spent $120 billion dollars on these computer graphics' sort of way. i understand that the technology available now has far surpassed what lucas concocted for IV - VI, but the ships and technology that appeared in the prequels really detracted from the quality of the 'older' movies. obviously green screen was the only way to go with fictional planetscapes and celestial dogfights, but still... a bit overdone? maybe if lucas had spent more money on better actors... too many scene wipes. it was like me playing with the video mixer in the sanctuary for the first time.

acting: natalie portman was wasted ("hold me, anakin, just like you did by that lake on Naboo" "oh annie, you're breaking my heart!"). hayden was... uh... slighty better because he got the look, but once he tried to speak... fail! it was like watching attack of the clones, but with more sweaty hair. ewan mcgregor was a resounding meh. he looked like george lucas. jar jar was awesome. he looked shocked when palpatine announced his empire, he looked sad at padme's funeral and HE DIDN'T SPEAK AT ALL. yoda was hype. but i think he wasted all his energy on chopping up clones. mace windu was pretty uber, considering all the other jedi masters died like star trek security teams.

sound: john williams is THE MAN.

lightsaber duels: you know why people thought lightsabers were so cool back then? because it was cool and new and rarely used. now it's just overdone, like padme's hair.

rating: 2/5 if you didn't see Episode I and/or II.
5/5 if you saw Episode I and/or II.

excerpted from Catherine Mulroney's article, "Life inside the Star Wars galaxy", The Toronto Star, May 2, 2005

"While watching television coverage of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, I launched into a monologue on what this might mean for the Catholic Church.

I was interrupted mid-sentence, however, by a child who was compelled to remark upon how closely the new Pope resembled Emperor Palpatine."

while at Costco...

friday, i was watching their token display movie (spiderman 2 this week. harry potter 3 last week. emma watson > tobey maguire) in surround sound - i stand in front of a smaller crappy tv and face the better LCD screens.
in the first NYU scene, where Peter bumps into someone and gets his textbooks knocked over, i spied a very familiar textbook. it was the exact same quantum mechanics text that i used! however, griffiths' is much better (and cheaper).
i also noticed that Rosie Octavius was played by the same woman that played that detective from Jersey that guested on the latest CSI. i only recognized her by her nose.

what are you drawing?

Napoleon: a liger.
Deb: what's a liger?
Napoleon: it's pretty much my favourite animal. its like a lion and tiger mixed, bred for it's skills in magic.