A Statement About the Critiques

Lady Liberty, in all of her "I know what's good for you, even when you don't" wisdom, has kindly (?) signed me up for an online movie critic internship.

"What does that mean?" you ask, confused.
"I have no idea," I reply, resigned.

But it looks like a cool thing. They send me assignments and I do them, and if they like me, really like me, something magical will happen.

So I'll start writing posts for that, and then transferring them here... So if you see a post with a repeat subject, or a really random exercise, that's why.

May the Force be with us.

A Statement About Valkyrie

OK, so this one time I was watching Quantum of Solace, and a preview of Valkyrie came on, reminding me that that movie existed, and that maybe I should talk about it.

I saw this film in London, and in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I was invited to see it with a friend.  Otherwise, I probably would not have been bothered about it one way or the other.  It seems to me that there is only one character that Tom Cruise plays, and he has only done it really well twice; once in A Few Good Men, and once in Jerry Maguire.  Valkyrie adds another character to his roster, but I am not entirely sure how hard it is to play A Determined Man Willing To Die For His Cause.  Fine, whatever.

Which, coincidentally, is exactly how I feel about this movie.  It was fine.  A fine script, fine casting, fine special effects, fine story.  Fine fine fine fine fine.

Here's the problem:  Movies about historical events are tricky.  Not only are you telling a story that people already know the ending to, but you run the risk of losing credibility if the portrayal is even slightly off.  Valkyrie is anything but "slightly off."  Hence the incredible pointlessness of the film.

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone say "Titanic?  What's the point?  The boat sinks, right?"  Yes, the boat sinks.  But the suspense and interest of the story comes from how it sinks, and which of the characters (who we have had a bit of a chance to get to know) survive.  Not all of them do, you know.  Anyway, Valkyrie suffers from the opposite problem.  It's about an assassination attempt on Hitler that you know doesn't work.  Not only that, but if you're even remotely familiar with the Holocaust, you know that there was no way those who planned the assassination would survive the night, much less the war.  So here we are watching a movie for which we already know the outcome, watching characters whom we know are going to die.  Great.

While doing press for the film, Eddie Izzard, one of the many, many recognizable actors in the background (in fact, one of the few who was not also in the background of Pirates of the Caribbean... talk about distracting), mentioned the fact that this was a good film to be made for the morale of the German people.  Now, instead of there being only films about those complicit with the Nazis, there is one that shines as a beacon proclaiming that not all Germans cooperated, and not all of them stood by while evil took over.  An excellent point.  Finally a film that highlights that there was a resistance, no matter how brutally it was squashed.

If only the story made for a better film.

And yes, we're pink now.  Get over it.

A Statement About Chuck

As loyal readers know, Alias is one of my favorite shows.  Duh.  And until JJ and Jennifer get together to make a movie (which would really only work if Jack Bristow came back from the dead... We miss you Jack!), we'll have to settle for the intrigue of Lost, the angst of Mad Men, and the characterizations of How I Met Your Mother to get us through the night.

There are those who would argue that Chuck is a worthy successor to our beloved spy series; they would say that the mythology is as dense, the mysterious organizations are as threatening, the supporting characters are as engaging.

And to an extent, they would be right.

I have been skeptical about Chuck from the beginning, and started watching after Mr. Ausiello declared it the best comedy on television (for the record, he is wrong).  Anyway, there are things to love about this show, the characters being  one of them.  Chuck himself, the lovable Nerd Herd team leader who has had all of the United States government intelligence downloaded into his head (before the super terminal itself was destroyed, rendering him the only source of archived US intelligence... just go with it, people!), is infinitely relateable for the post Office Space generation; after having been kicked out of Stanford (long story), he has spent the better part of his twenties languishing in the Best Buy-esque Buy More, trying to figure out what next to do with his life.  His best friend is Morgan, the extreme loser-geek for whom Buy More is probably the last stop, but whose sense of humor, loyalty and cluelessness render him one of the best sidekicks since Marshall Flinkman.  Add in Chuck's beautiful and supportive sister Ellie and her exclamation spouting fiance Captain Awesome, (not to mention the rest of the Buy More staff), and you've got more likeable characters than exist on any other show on TV.

So what is there to be skeptical about?  Well, accepted plot absurdities aside, something is just not gelling on this show.  The ironically weak link is the whole CIA, undercover, Chuck-in-mortal-danger... plot.  In order to excuse the insanely hot CIA agent who has to watch him at all times, the cover is, naturally, that the two are in a romantic relationship.  Which is complicated by their actual feelings for each other and her professionalism... blah blah blah.  Except that there is very little chemistry between Chuck and his handler, Sarah (no Syd and Vaughn "Oh, you have a girlfriend?" moments here, kids!).  This is made more painfully evident by the sparkling chemistry between the actors playing Chuck and his sister Ellie... which is distracting to say the least.

As an action-comedy, Chuck succeeds as neither.  The action is neither hardcore nor particularly convincing, and the only funny characters are given very little screen time in their Buy More locale.  The comedy is clever, but again, not overwhelming.

Chuck is worth watching, but not worth watching with any sort of devotion.  Come for the Alias references, stay for the bright spots between plot points.

A Statement About Watchmen

Ah, the comic-book hero.  So noble.  So resilient.  So indefatigably honorable.  

Ha.

There is much to be said about Watchmen, and as previously promised, we will discuss it today based on its merits as a film, trying as hard as we can not to delve into what we know about the graphic novel.

To start, it's a very long film.  Obviously that's something to be aware of as you go in, but two hours and forty minutes with a good fifteen minutes of previews at the front (Star Trek!  Transformers! Terminator!) means you're sitting in your seat for close to three hours, and that can be difficult when one accounts for things like large sodas.  

Logically it makes sense for the film to be that long-- a comic arriving in 12 installments over the course of a year would require a lot of time to tell the whole story in one sitting, especially if the story has as much depth and scope as Watchmen does.

OK, fine.  So we accept the length. We accept, even, the idea that because we have not read the graphic novel the finer nuances of the film (an admittedly obsessive adaptation) might be lost on us.  Fine fine fine.  Let's watch the damn thing, already.

Watchmen is a striking film.  Visually it is stunning, and I imagine those lucky enough to live near an IMAX had an even better experience with this.  It is most striking, though, is the message relayed, a message The Dark Knight hit upon, but that Watchmen spells out explicitly: sometimes doing a bad thing is necessary to save people.  As the line in the film goes "Sometimes you need to kill millions to save billions."  Or something like that.

In this political climate, that message gave me a vaguely sinking feeling.  Like, is George W. Bush sitting at home in Crawford going, "See!  Even the dudes in the comic book understand that I will be vindicated by history!"

From what I have read, Watchmen is a seminal work of literature, beloved for its subversion and controversial matter, for spitting in the face of traditional comic story-telling.  As a film, it is a fairly average representation of comic (film) story-telling with a story that is bigger than could possibly be told on a traditional cinematic setting.  And in this era of Hope and Yes We Can and movement away from the past eight years, I'm not sure the film has found it's appropriate moment for cultural impact.

A (Very Delayed) Statement About the Oscars

So, with the full acknowledgement that this is over a week late, let us now discuss our thoughts on the Oscars in bullet point form:

*Hugh Jackman was wonderful.  Was he daring?  No.  Was he original?  No.  Was he exciting?  Hells yes.  It was clear that Jackman was respected and admired by everyone in the room (how many people have gotten standing ovations for the opening number?  Seriously.), and, unlike our dear friend Jon Stewart, he managed to be funny without terrifying the masses with the idea of a politically off-color joke.  The tribute to musicals might have been choppy and over the top, but that is no fault of Jackman's (Hello, Baz Luhrmann.  Have you ever met a musical number you couldn't make even more cheesetastic?).  Overall, he gets an A++ for style, class, and charisma.  Would like to see some fresh blood in next year, but he'll always be welcomed back.

*Am supremely embarrassed by the lack of short film knowledge exhibited in my picks and fully welcome my forced retirement as a result.

*Shocked shocked shocked by Sean Penn (even though I did call him as a long shot), but really thought Mickey Rourke would take it.  In retrospect he does lack the class that the Academy looks for in its winners, and that actually may have set him back in the dead-heat with Penn for the Best Actor trophy.

*I have officially decided that anyone who says Heath Ledger only won because he is dead has no idea what they are talking about, and they have clearly not seen The Dark Knight.  I'll say this one more time, and one more time only:  He would have won anyway, and to suggest otherwise is just about the biggest insult I can think of.  Not because it's a lack of respect for the dead, but because it's a lack of respect for a truly standout performance.

*How much do we love Anne Hathaway?  SO MUCH.

*How much do we love the past winners presenting the new winner?  Eh.  It was a cool idea, but it took a lot of time, and when the ceremony is in re-vamp mode after having been diagnosed as too long for the past decade, this is not the way to ensure a shorter running time.

Well, I guess that does it for now.  Coming up soon: Chuck (Why we like it even if we still remain skeptical), Rachel Getting Married, Why there might be a Blog Blackout (it's great procrastination when I don't want to write my novel!), and, just for shiggles, I'll review Watchmen before I've read the novel.  You know, to give it a fair shot as a film of it's own accord.

*How excited are you?  SO EXCITED.