In the first fifteen minutes of the movie my criticisms and worries about the Water for Elephants adaptation were quickly answered. The movie was able to be quite good, while the novel was quite ordinary; if not mediocre. I wrote the following many months ago:
Water for Elephants suffered from its poor narrative structure. Much like The Notebook, a story which had a very effective love story in the past, the book jumps back and forth through time – from past to future. Now, if you’re going for nostalgia, that MIGHT be okay, but doing the jump so many times is poor writing. Most of all, it is annoying.
I got many E-mails saying I was a fool and couldn’t recognize great writing if my life depended on it. Regardless of the irony of stating WFE is great writing, I can now state that I was correct or at least the makers of the film would agree with me.
The director or writer immediately realized that jumping back and forth from past to present was counter productive in establishing an emotional investment in the characters, as well as served no purpose in the novel.
I’m not saying this to bash the book, but to celebrate the movie, which did what needed to be done.
Water for Elephants has a fantastic premise, an ivy-league boy, Jacob, loses his parents so he runs off with the circus. However, the story never really has a decent plot or decent ending.
Jacob’s family dies in a car crash so he leaves veterinary school before graduating and randomly jumps on a Benzini Brothers train. The circus show is struggling and needs someone like Jacob. Cool. He meets the owner August and quickly falls in love with August’s wife Marlena.
The scenes between Marlena and Jacob trying not to kiss will seem familiar and the movie quickly becomes boring. However, Christopher Waltz playing August instantly becomes the saving grace of the movie. August’s madness, balanced with his sensitive disposition to his wife, then further matched with Watlz’s performance, made the movie quite good.
The ending was overly sentimental. I didn’t quite get what the point was. Moreover, the scene where they first sleep together is an insult to true love that was apparent in the novel and now the movie. A weak writer considers such scenes a marker where they can scream, “Boom! Their in love” and lazily lean back in their chairs. Love does not equal sex. Something that more talented writers of movies, music, poems, and novels, have proven.
My conclusion is the movie is good, but like the book, instantly forgettable. Its saving grace is a masterful performance by Waltz, whose previous work in Inglorious Bastards was some of the best of that decade.
For once in my life I’m actually looking forward to a Superman movie. I don’t dislike Superman, I’ve just never been very interested in his character. I grew up in the age of the Ninja Turtles, X-men, and Spiderman. Superman was totally irrelevant. Maybe even a bit antiquated. I only saw the Superman movies when I was in my late teens. So they were dated, even corny. There was no nostalghia to be had.
I don’t like to blog about updates or possible casting or directing changes unless it pertains specifically to movies that interest me. Aronofsky’s recent departure from The Wolverine made me indifferent to such announcements until principal photography begins.
Shannon being cast as Zod is stroke of genius, because he’s so obviously not the first choice. These days I’m surprised they didn’t hire Ryan Reynolds or something.
Moreover, I’ve been singing Shannon’s genius since I saw Shotgun Stories in 2007. I commented it might be one of the better performances I’d seen in a long time. So fucking subtle and nuanced. This is just a short clip, but I think it works.
He was very good in Revolutionary Road, if the character was not a bit thematically contrived. He was even better in Son, Son What Have Ye Done and finally showed the world he was a force to be reckoned with as the guilt-ridden federal agent in Boardwalk Empire.
Shannon has a brooding intensity that makes all his characters fascinating and he does this effortlessly. I remember him commenting that when he’s relaxed he just seems to look angry. Its not that he looks angry, it looks like there is madness behind his eyes.
Lastly, after seeing Sucker Punch I’m terrified that Zach Snyder might have let his technique get the best of him. My hope is that producers will stay on top of him to make the movie less of slow motion shots set to music on Zach Snyder’s Ipod and more of what traditionally makes Synder great: His impeccable ability to make stuff look cool.
-Collin
By Collin, on April 18th, 2011
#37 We just watched this on Netflix streaming: You Only Live Twice
The Film: You Only Live Twice
I’m a huge fan of the Bond series, you may not be. My favorite of all time is Goldeneye, but that is only because it was the first time I’d ever seen a Bond movie and had my mind blown by how he could operate any vehicle, bang any women, and always seemed to be relaxed as he did it. I’ll probably end up dong a huge article on all the bonds, maybe like a top fifteen Bond movies or something, but I chose You only Live Twice because it is the most fun…I think. It is somewhere between the legendary Sean Connery movies and the ludicrous Roger Moore flicks.
Why to watch it: It might be the best Bond film….maybe.
Most people say the Goldfinger is the best of all the bond films. They may have a point, but still, I think You Only Live Twice is better. It is just so…silly and good. I’ve read a couple Bond novels and realize they were written to be pretty serious works. It contains all the classic moments: The opening sequence, flirting with Moneypenny, meeting with M, etc, but You Only Live Twice was the first venture into the sillier elements of Bond that would make the Moore films so enduring.
Pay attention to this: The Japanese marriage sequence.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why this huge sequence is in the movie. I’ve read somewhere, maybe Wikipedia, that the sequence was actually supposed to be longer, but just didn’t work. I’m still not sure whether or not the decision to include this sequence was a good one (probably not), but that sequence, along with it being Connery’s last good Bond movies, makes it the best in my opinion. The best part is when he kicks the shit out of that dude with a couch and the goes right for the bar and grabs a drink. That is who Bond is. The more I re-watch the classics I realize that Quantum of Solace might not be a Bond movie. I’m not sure…
-Collin
By Collin, on April 18th, 2011
Your Highness Movie Review
Podcastfilmreview
So this movie was pretty dumb but that was obviously the point. A lot of people have criticized its unevenness. Did it want to be a satire of 1980s fantasy movies or a love letter to those movies? It is hard to say…
I liked the movie a lot and found some of the comedic scenes almost genius. I’ve read a lot of places, but don’t quote me, that the script’s dialgoue was almost entirely improvised. It definitely feels that way.
Improv is where Danny Mcbride, the film’s star, shines. He plays the Danny Mcbride character, but that character will never get old.
The director, David Gordon Green, was America’s answer to the legitimate arthouse director. To see a really good drama with a similar cast check out All the Real Girls. You’ll laugh at the difference of style and execution.
That Gordon Green would go and make this movie goes to show that not all movies have to be sophisticated. I’m pretty sure that this flick was making a legitamate attempt to pay homage to movies like Willow, Labyrinth, Excalibur, maybe Time Bandits, The Conan flicks, and others. But then again maybe it wasn’t? I’m fairly confident I saw the little fairy guys from Willow in this movie, but maybe I was just looking to hard?
That’s kind of the point. I have no idea what the movie was trying to be, but it is probably better that way. The biggest problem is that a lot of the characters are just there. They don’t do anything. I’m sure this stems from the lack of scripting, but surely Green should have have foreseen this and knocked out important things for the characters to do.
The plot of the movie is the Mcbride’s character must prove his heroics to save his soon-to-be sister-in-law from an evil wizard. What specifically happens is unimportant but if you’ve ever seen one of those 80s flicks you’ll get the point. My only gripe with the movie is that the action scenes are way too fucking long. When nothing is at stake, action scenes need to be pithy and fun. These were not.
The movie stands between being very good and very bad. I’m pretty sure its good, but you might think differently. My only hope, now that Green has gone mainstream, is that his fellow North Carolinian filmmaker, Ramin Bahrani,will make a crazy journey to the mainstream as well. A man can dream.
Cary Fukunaga is here to stay ladies and gentleman. His feature film debut Sin Nombre was one of the best movies of that year. That isn’t overstating it either. That movie fucking rules!
Jane Eyre was just as good as his Nombre and I actually had the pleasure of having never seeing an adaptation of the novel and I haven’t read the book – so I was going in fresh.
For whatever reasons I liked the first Twilight movie a little. Jane Eyre had all the stuff that made that movie watchable, but did it really well. Whatever you call the genre, Gothic or whatever, Eyre took it to the extreme. It is a very stylistic interpretation that showed Fukunaga with complete command of his technique.
When I was watching it I couldn’t help but think that Fukunaga needs to make a horror movie. Like right now. The American horror genre needs a breath of fresh air and I think Fukunaga might have the tool-kit.
Eyre, at its core, is pretty much a princess story. Which was kind of disappointing to me. I was hoping for a Victor Hugo-type ending, but didn’t get it.
It follows Jane, played by Mia Wasikowska,who is treated like shit by her adopted parents when her folks die. She is sent to a boarding school where everyone is abusive and life is miserable. The look of the movie is so good. The whole film is just drab and dark. It looks like Beauty and the Beast in black and white.
Jane gets out of the school and is hired as governess on a huge estate run by this dude Rochester played by Mike Fassbender. Like Twilight, the whole movie focuses on the fringe of desire, need, and virtues.
What makes this story in another universe of better is that Jane’s convictions are fucking believable and agreeable. She is a strong, intelligent, and virtuous, character. I don’t know if the movie would pass the Bechdel test, but it is certainly a movie women should look to for a good female character.
The whole movie is rested on Wasikowska and Fassbender. They deliver – big time. They have such a talent for making lines that sound a little contrived kind of good. Jane needs to have that “Ingrid Bergman at the end of Casablanca” face and make it fucking hardcore. Fassbender needs to be pathetic so we don’t think he’s abusing Jane.
It was such a tough balancing act.
The scene where Rochester begs her to marry him is easily my favorite. There is such a powerful feeling that just makes you want to scream for them to get together. But people have their convictions.
Lastly, my one huge complaint was that the kissing scene wasn’t good enough. It didn’t seem like enough passion was being released. When Natalie Portman kisses Mila in Black Swan. That is how you fucking shoot a kissing scene. It seems like sonic boom is happening.
Recent Comments