I spent a good amount of time over my break watching a bunch of movies, most of which aren’t new. Here’s the list: Religulous, The Dark Knight, The Simpsons Movie, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, The Future is Unwritten, and last night, Watchmen in IMAX.

The Good
If you like Bill Maher’s brand of humor then you’d like Religulous. It’s entirely one-sided and gives no credit to people who hold serious religious convictions, but even the devout might find a laugh or two. Maher raises a lot of questions that a lot of non-believers have and the answers the faithful give are found wanting to say the least. At least due to the editing…

The Dark Knight is a good enough movie but it doesn’t redefine the comic book genre; also, Heath Ledger was also quite good but not revelatory. Would he really have won the Oscar had he lived? I doubt it. Still, considering the turds of movies the last time Batman got a run out, you have to say that the ones with Bale aren’t even on the same chart. Even though it sounds like I’m complaining, I’m really not. I’d be more than happy if comic book movies continue to emulate Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, even if they’re not perfect.

Speaking of which, I don’t care what the nitpickers say, I thought Watchmen was pretty damn good. Zach Snyder was screwed either way since he’d either have fanboys barking at any change from the source material or snooty critics complaining he didn’t make it his own. Some of the acting is pretty bad but overall I thought the film worked and worked well—although I’m not completely sold on the ending, but I understand why they made the changes they did. The other thing is I wonder how much having read the comics impacts your enjoyment of the film. I went with two friends who hadn’t read it and I suspect I enjoyed it more than either, and if this was indeed the case, I suspect it’s because I was picking up on stuff that’s in the comic that is only hinted at on the screen.

Speaking of fanboys, at times I had difficulty watching The Future is Unwritten, a documentary on Joe Strummer. If I had to name my two biggest inspirations for being a writer, it would be Bob Dylan and Joe Strummer. Both were launched into superstardom quickly and almost against their own will; both could be domineering and difficult to work with; both went through long, frustrating periods where good music could not come; both ultimately believe in the power of music and artistic expression. The big difference is that I’m convinced that down at his core, Joe Strummer was a beautiful, compassionate human being struggling to come to terms with life and his place in it (I’ll leave what I think about Dylan for another time). What kills me about Strummer is his utter sincerity in everything he does, regardless of whether he knew what he was doing or knowing what he wanted, and that sincerity saturates this film. As someone whose cup of emotions runneth over often, I felt a certain kinship with Strummer and I still get very blue whenever it hits me that he’s made his last record.

The Mediocre
Lots of people told me to keep my expectations in check for The Simpsons Movie and I did, and even then I thought it was only okay. I was also told that it wasn’t anything more than a long episode and again, I have to agree, yet the two-part “Who Shot Mr. Burns?” was exponentially better than this movie. Not only is this movie like an episode, it’s only a so-so episode at that.

The Bad (Or Perhaps Too Avant-Garde For My Taste)
I know very little about film or Hollywood, and I know nothing of John Cassavettes besides the fact that Fugazi named an instrumental after him on the album In On the Kill Taker, the Hold Steady mention him in their song “Slapped Actress,” and he was a Hollywood maverick who helped launch indie movies. Anyway, a while back I read through his Wikipedia entry and clicked on some of his movies, including The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. I have long had a story in mind that plays with the same sort of plot and on a whim put it on Amy’s Netflix queue—very near the bottom. There was a Netflix SNAFU and they mailed her the movies at the bottom of her list (hence the reason I got the Simpsons, Strummer, and this one) but happily I was on break and got to watch them all, including this one.

Long ago, I remarked on this space how I’m more open to experimental novels nowadays mostly because of the volume I’m reading. It does get a bit boring if you read the beginning, middle, end of a linearly plotted novel time and time again, so anytime a novel makes you think about the act of reading or its inherent “bookishness” that can be a welcome relief, whereas for someone who might only read a dozen books a year, it could be construed as self-indulgent and stupid.

This relates to The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. It’s too long and too slow to be a conventional movie, and the Netflix DVD is actually the original longer and slower version rather than the edited one that hit the theaters. What interested me the most was the passage of time and the fill-in-the-blanks Cassavettes expects of the audience. For instance, the protag arrives at an illegal gambling den with much fanfare and with hardly a cut in the scene he’s complaining about not being able to be extended a line of credit. There are few cues to suggest that a lot of time has passed and he’s lost all the money he has and gone deep into debt, but what surprised me is how I didn’t need to see that part to follow the story. It’s an interesting way to put together a film, but not interesting enough to keep me engaged. I’m sure there’s all sorts of filmic coolness that I’m missing, but ultimately I feel like I probably haven’t seen enough traditionally executed movies in order to appreciate this deviation from the norm.

Current Mood: Back to Work |