blacksundae

or, Journey to the Center of Eden

JESUS CHRIST, IT’S A JESUS LIZARD! GET IN THE CAR!

According to Walden Media’s Wikipedia entry, they deny that they are an overtly Christian production company. They have had to make this denial as they are owned by Philip Anschutz (noted conservative Christian and funder of the Discovery Institute), not to mention they produced the film adaptation of your favorite Feline Christ narrative and mine, The Chronicles of Narnia.

I’m actually inclined to go along with them. As I look at their filmography, it’s all family oriented stuff, but very few of their films have overtly Christian themes. Some of their output has been absolutely atrocious, but only Narnia is clearly Christian propaganda.

At least I thought so. That brings us to Eric Brevig’s 3-D Brendan Frasier vehicle, Journey to the Center of the Earth. Wait a minute, I can hear you asking, How can an adaptation of a Jules Verne novel be seen as Christian propaganda? Well, that’s the thing: it’s not an adaptation.

The premise of this theme park ride film is that Verne’s account in Journey to the Center of the Earth is literally true. Frasier’s older brother was a geologist with some kookie ideas about lava tubes thousands of miles deep, who went off to Iceland to investigate his theories and vanished. Ten years later, Frasier comes across an old, dog-eared copy of his brother’s favorite book (guess) that’s cryptically annotated¹ in ways that suggest what he was up to.

Frasier, being the sort of grossly irresponsible adult that keeps these types of movies clipping along, scoots off to Iceland with his annoyingly-surly-cum-annoyingly-eager teenage nephew (the lava-tube-kook’s son, of course). Yadda, yadda, yadda… Strained comedy happens. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

In short time, they find out from the leggy, blonde, Icelandic love interest that their brother/father was a “Vernian:” someone who believes that Jules Verne’s account of the lost world at the center of the Earth is literally true. Whether Vernians extend this to his other works is never addressed, although I’m rooting for Mysterious Island.

Through a series of unlikely events (lightning, mine cars), Frasier, the kid & the hottie end up falling down a lava tube and landing in Verne’s weird subterranean world. “He was right!” Frasier says of his dearly departed brother, “People ridiculed him for what he believed but he was right!”

This is the point in this post when I get a bit nervous, wondering if I’m reading way too much into what is otherwise simple escapist fare. “Overthinking a plate of beans,” as they say at MetaFilter. OK… is this aspect of the story speaking directly to the Creationists in the audience?

This guy takes a clearly fictional and ridiculous story and interprets it as true, all evidence to the contrary, and is ridiculed by the scientific establishment. But, get this: it turns out he was right!

I could have left this alone as a plot device, but that line of dialogue quoted above just won’t let me. In context, it seems shoehorned in, and it seems specially designed to cater to the persecution complex that most conservative Christians share these days. Especially Creationists.

Once that one line planted the seed in my mind, something else started bothering me. Despite the movie’s assertion that Verne’s novel is complete non-fiction, the reality of the underground world differs from the novel in a key way. From Wikipedia:

The living organisms they meet reflects the geological time; just as the rock layers become older and older the deeper one gets, the animals get more and more ancient the closer the characters come to the center. From a scientific point of view, this story has not aged quite as well as other Verne stories, since most of his ideas about what the interior of the Earth contains have since been proven wrong. However, a redeeming point to the story is Verne’s own belief, told within the novel from the viewpoint of a character, that the inside of the Earth does indeed differ from that which the characters encounter. One of Verne’s main ideas with his stories was also to educate the readers, and by placing the different extinct creatures the characters meet in their correct geological era, he is able to show how the world looked like millions of years ago, stretching from the ice age to the dinosaurs.

This is an element of the story that is completely thrown out the window, in favor of a smattering of “prehistoric” creatures that pop in here and there, such as bioluminescent birds, predatory plants, and a giant carnosaur that appears to be twice as large as the biggest T. rex.² I find it surprising that this blatantly educational aspect of the story was thrown out, considering Walden’s emphasis on education. Wikipedia again, because I’m feeling lazy:

Walden Media is unique among film production companies in that it works with teachers, museums, and national organizations to develop supplemental educational programs and materials associated with its films and the original events and/or novels that inspire the films.

But you eliminate this one element, you also eliminate two Creationist pet peeves: discussion of an ancient earth and a narrative that also functions as metaphor. There’s no room for metaphor in this literal view of Verne.

Again, I realize that I may be reading way to much into this, but keep in mind that it kept me entertained when the movie did not. I had absolutely nothing else to think about! The movie is a chore to watch, in a way that has nothing to do with religion or politics. The writing is flat when it’s not sappy, the action scenes are dull and few in number³ and, as an advocate of digital filmmaking, I’m going to pretend this movie was never made. By that, I mean it displays all the staginess of a movie that was shot in a small green screen studio by someone who doesn’t know how to make that not matter. The characters always seem confined to small areas as their epic surroundings swirl around them. I didn’t see this in 3-D, mind you, but I doubt it would have helped too much. Poor Frasier… I usually enjoy him!

¹ Why bother with encoding your notes if you’re going to half-ass it? Frasier and the kid crack it during a plane ride.

² Seeing as how we never see any prey animals of any size, I have to wonder how this environment supports an alpha predator this big. /DORK

³ “The food here is terrible!” “I know! And such small portions!”

McCLANE
[in Austrian accent]
Come with me if you want to live.

MAC GUY
Dude, you’ve changed.

Live Free or Die Hard, 2007
Dir: Len Wiseman
[rating:2]

First off, a recap. Die Hard was Die Hard in a — well, it was Die Hard. That means it’s one of the greatest action films of all time. Die Hard II: Die Harder was Die Hard in an airport. Die Hard: With a Vengeance was Die Hard in a torrent of Sam Jackson’s obscenities.* Following that pattern, I suppose Live Free or Die Hard would have to be Die Hard in an alternate universe where both John McClane and computer hackers are capable of just about anything.

The “McClane” character here is nothing like the one in previous films, instead being an indestructible throwback to the 80s action heroes that the original film made look cartoonish. Instead of his usual world-weary humor, we have bitter one-liners that are sometimes just crude (or cruel).

We don’t fair much better with the bad guys. I’m fine with the unrealistic depiction of technology here (or maybe I’m just numb to it), but the use of omnipotent computer hackers as the heavies is just lazy writing. We knew the bad guys’ limitations in the previous installments and we knew McClane’s as well. Here, McClane is an unstoppable machine and the hackers have infinite power because everything’s online! This is not so — especially not of a decades-old elevator during a region-wide blackout. Even if this were accurate, the fact that that’s the central conceit of the story drains every last bit of suspense out of the proceedings. Technology is magical here. The hackers pull one impossible thing after another out of their hat, while John “Kevlar” McClane just pounds through henchman after henchman, wincing over his superficial wounds the entire way. Highlight the following line for a spoiler:

After a bunch of this stuff, McClane somehow (magically) stumbles upon the hackers’ hideout and pounds through them too. The end.

Maybe I’m being a bit harsh. The movie’s well shot and edited, the action scenes are fun and the stunt work is, for the most part, pleasingly practical. I probably would have enjoyed the hell out of this movie if it weren’t pretending to be a Die Hard film.

*”Zeus. As in father of Apollo? Mt. Olympus? Don’t fuck with me or I’ll shove a lightning bolt up your ass? Zeus! You got a problem with that?”

Transformers, 2007
Dir: Michael Bay
[rating:3.5]

I have one word for this film: “Wheeeee!”

I won’t go into too much detail. We know the “plot.” Giant robots that turn into vehicles. Explosions. Uh… I know I should think of a third item in order to comply with the rule of three, but… I know! Shia LaBeouf! He’s great in this. It’s been said many times before, but LaBeouf is going places.

Anyway, yeah… This movie is big and gloriously dumb. It’s an adaptation of a Saturday morning cartoon/line of toys, and it wears that pedigree on its sleeve. Underneath all of Bay’s trademark camera jiggle, hyperactive editing and patina of “grittiness,” this is the kind of movie where the lead bad guy wakes up from a 100,000 year sleep, immediately roars, “I… AM… MEGATRON!” and proceeds to destroy whatever the hell is within reach. Keep in mind that the name of the giant frozen robot had been firmly established by this point, so he identifies himself in such an overly dramatic fashion because… well, because that’s the sort of thing that overly-dramatic-giant-robot-bad-guys do when they wake up.

Transformers is an odd mix of thrill ride and camp. When a bad-ass Camaro screeches into frame, pops into the air and assembles into a kung fu posing ‘bot before it hits the ground, you “whoop” and pump your fist at how bad ass/ridiculous it is. Then it opens its chrome-plated mouth and you laugh at the cartoon dialogue.

I think this movie shows what Bay is capable of when he’s not being self-important (Pearl Harbor) sadistic (Bad Boys II) or sappy (Armageddon). It’s just giant robots doing what they do best.* It also seems that Spielberg’s involvement had a tempering effect on Bay’s oft incoherent visual style. This is good.

A final note on the visual effects: hells yeah. It’s very easy for animated robots to turn out like clusters of geometrical shapes. The animated characters here sport some great texture work and some genuine heft, the later of which is rare for large CG characters in movies. Other than an ill advised break dancing scene, the Transformers seem physically real. To see what I mean, check out this exclusive clip from the movie.

*Fucking shit up.

[rating:2]

Well, this was a lost opportunity. Hire a hotshot young director, throw in almost every creature from the series, plus some martial arts and digital effects to spice things up. Yeah… not so much.

Problem 1: That hotshot would be Ryuhei Kitamura, director of the zombies-vs-yakuza action flick, Versus, a film that manages to be both hyperactive and dull at the same time. Yeah. Pretty much the same thing here.

Problem 2: Martial arts? In a Godzilla movie? Eh… yeah. It could work. As a garnish. We come for the city-stomping, not people punching each other. Once you realize that you’ve gone twenty or so minutes without seeing a giant monster, and are stuck with a bunch of cybergoths flying through the air, bickering over who has spikier hair, you tend to get a bit impatient. Less wannabe-Matrix bullshit, more kaiju asskickery.

Problem 3: Having tons of creatures from past movies, some unseen for 30 years, sounds great in theory. But there are a lot of monsters in this movie, and the human-scale fisticuffs take up a big chunk of the running time, so most of the monsters kind of get shafted. Blink and you’ll miss them. If Kitamura could have trimmed some of the martial arts and given us a little more time with say, King Caesar, I would have been a much happier camper.

I’d give this only one star, but Final Wars does have some good qualities. Foremost among them is Ultimate Fighting Champion Don Frye. Think Jesse Ventura without the acting ability. Yeah, no bald statuettes for this guy, but he nonetheless rocks. He plays a rogue airship captain who can fight with a katana and is the only person in the movie who speaks English. He only speaks English. Everyone else speaks Japanese. I can only assume that, like Chuck Norris, Don “The Predator” Frye speaks the universal language of pain. Pain and one-liners. Gruff, world-weary one-liners.

Anyway, when Kitamura finally gets around to the kaiju throw-downs, he delivers the goods, and that’s really this movie’s saving grace. The suitmation is nicely enhanced by the CG, the explosions are massive, and the destruction is total. Actually, this was the first time I’ve seen Godzilla destroying a city and thought, “Wow! That would suck!” It really is pretty apocalyptic, as you can see in the picture above. Fun stuff.

One wonderful moment is when Godzilla goes up against Zilla (aka Fauxzilla or American Godzilla). That’s right: the mutated iguana from the 1998 Roland Emmerich version of Godzilla. I’m one of the few people on Earth who enjoyed that movie, but I still got a kick out of seeing Godzilla mopping the floor (or Sydney, to be precise) with the American impostor. The bad guy’s response? “I knew that tuna-eating monster was useless!”

Priceless.

In the end, Final Wars is only really worth seeing if you’re a Godzilla completest. Otherwise, watch Destroy All Monsters and see how it’s really done.

P.S. The thematic connection between Godzilla and The Bomb is well known, but as far as I know it’s always been subtextual. In this movie, a character says that Godzilla’s motivation for destroying cities is that he’s angry about The Bomb. Yeah… guys? Let’s not do that again. Thanks.

;or, Shannon Decides to Finally Start Writing Film Reviews

An old friend of mine once observed that the titles of the Harry Potter books, and hence the films as well, sound vaguely like rather baroque gay porn movies. The Chamber of Secrets. The Prisoner of Azkaban. The Order of the Phoenix. Yeah, I know. It’s a stretch, right? But it’s in your head now, isn’t it? You can’t escape it! I know I can’t.

So now we have the movie version of the book with (what seems to me) the most vaguely homoerotic title of all: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Why is this so suggestive? I have no idea. It just sounds naughty. Vaguely. That said, despite the flaming title, the new installment of the Harry Potter franchise is very overtly heterosexual.

The titular goblet is not a euphemism, but literal, and it really takes a back seat to the angst-filled romantic yearnings of the teen characters. Harry Potter has the hots for an Asian-Scottish girl. A couple of Arabic girls have the hots for Harry. HermioOhScrewItI’mNotSpellingHerGodDamnName has the hots for an older, beefy broom hockey-player from “The North.” Harry’s buddy Ron has the hots for a visiting French witch (and who can blame him, really?). Oh yeah, and Hagrid the giant is all ga-ga eyed over the 10-foot-tall French headmistress.

If this is starting to sound like an episode of 90210, I understand. But don’t worry: it doesn’t play like that. The movie actually captures quite nicely, and humorously, the anxieties of those first steps into romantic relationships. The fact that all this is going on during a wizard tournament involving fire-breathing dragons, hideous mermaids and a hedge maze that eats people, only adds to the humor.

The effects are great, the supporting cast is excellent (especially Brendan Gleeson as “Mad Eye” Moody), and it is, as has been hyped, somewhat darker than the preceding films. While its visual style is not as entertainingly gothic as the previous picture, and it has nothing that compares to the creepiness of the Reaper-looking things in that film, death becomes an issue for the first time. This is not strictly a children’s franchise any more. It doesn’t gloss over the harm that may come to the heroes, and the ending rather reminds me of that of The Empire Strikes Back. Potter generally comes out on top, but not without losses, and it is clearly a turning point in the series. Imagine Empire without the “I am your father,” but retaining Han Solo being taken prisoner. That’s not a strict correlation, but it gives you an idea of the tone.

Why this movie was rated PG-13, I’m not exactly sure. Perhaps it’s a gambit to keep a rapidly maturing audience interested, because there’s nothing in particular that stands out as meriting the rating. There were a few shots of a nasty looking cut on Potter’s arm, but I suspect they were included just to get the rating. There are some somewhat sexual lines, but they’re not anything that someone under 13 would catch. There’s no cursing to speak of, unless you’re British, in which case all the “bloody ‘ells” will have you blushing. Like I said, the PG-13 is just to keep the darn kids interested. “If Lucas could do it, why not us?”

Final verdict? If you’re a fan of the books, go see it now. I’m sure you’ll have a good time, unless you’re one of those annoying dweebs who get their panties in a bunch because the filmmakers left out some inconsequential subplot in order to whittle the 700+ page book into a two-hour movie. Yes, I heard people bitching when I left the theater. Get a life: they’re different mediums. If you’re not a fan of the books, but you’re interested in effects work, like I am, the movie is still worth a look on the big screen. The scene with the dragon is worth it, if nothing else. I don’t think the dragon ripping up shingles as he crawls across the roof of a tower would play quite as impressive on the small screen.

Otherwise, wait for video. It’s a fun flick, but nothing to write home about. The series does seem to be getting better as it goes along (especially since Chris Columbus is no longer at the helm), so I have high hopes for future installments.