I see a lot of movies. More than most people I know. Every few weeks, I write in this space about all the movies I’ve seen, and whether or not I would recommend that you go see them also. Here is my rundown for the past few weeks:
Midnight in Paris: I have recommended that several people go see this film. It was nice, but I disagree with the people who have given it huge rave reviews. Woody Allen quit acting in his own movies a few years ago, and has resorted to using Woody Allen stand-ins in all of his films to date, and Owen Wilson doesn’t fit the mold very well. In my opinion, he is too attractive, and doesn’t come across as intelligent enough. However, the magic-realism interplay of the film was fantastic and the cameos are very enjoyable, but I had a hard time connecting with many of the characters. However, if you are looking for a film to see this weekend, this is the best thing playing at the multi-plex.
The Green Lantern: I love comic books. When comic book movies became a huge fad, I was thrilled. However, the genre has lost a lot of luster over the past few years, and this film showcases exactly what is wrong with comic book films in general. In essence, comic books are soap operas, which are totally dependent on putting well-developed characters into situations. Films, on the other hand, are a blank slate and require character development, plot, and resolution to be delivered in two hours. The Green Lanterns is the most soap-opera-esque of all comic books. This film isn’t good. It scraps the basis of the comic book, which ….es off Green Lantern fans, and the replaces the story with something terrible, which makes everyone else mad. There is a place for comic book films in the future, but they should be fan service, and try not to be cultural revolutions. Hopefully this film kills off the $10 million marketing campaigns for comic book films.
The Tree of Life: Terrence Malick is a genius. This film elevates how we talk about film. This film has drawn a lot of comparisons to poetry, but I disagree with that. This film is a wholly different medium of film than the narrative films which populate theaters. For what this film is–a non-linear narrative full of contemplation and imagery–it is fantastic. In my opinion, it is a homily on the book of Job, and it was very moving for me as a person of faith. The film’s most incredible aspect is its ability to move emotions using the elements of film, including jump cuts, voice-over, sound/music overplaying visuals, etc. The film is purely auteur, and all the problems of this film arise from that. Some elements are so dense and some visuals so obtuse that they are impenetrable–but these are common problems in auteur films, and are fairly minimized. These problems are much bigger in any Goddard or Fellini film, for example. Without a doubt, this is the best film of 2011 to date. In reality, it’s not close. I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t win Best Picture. In my opinion, I haven’t seen a better film since 2009.
Cars 2: This film has been reviewed poorly, and I went into this film thinking that it probably suffered from baring the Pixar brand. Expectations are very high for that studio, and I thought it would be “not good for Pixar, but still good.” I was dead wrong. Pixar films in the past have been able to move people emotionally based on their characters and their plots. There are several moments in every Pixar film where anyone–man or woman, child or adult–is either holding back tears or weeping openly. This film has none of those moments, and really doesn’t even try to develop them. Every bit of the film reeks as though it is cashing in on the Cars name–even the short film preceding the film, which was entitled (and I’m not kidding about this) Toy Story: Hawaiian Vacation. The first Cars, which was to date the worst Pixar film, is easily 10 times better that this film. There is no commentary or psychological evaluation in this film, and it lack any semblance of heart. It’s just not good, and it’s far below expectations for Pixar films.
Leave a Reply