‘Skyfall’-ing A Bit Flat

Author’s note: You have no idea how excited I am that I’m actually doing a timely movie review. Not only timely, but – for many of my readers – ahead-of-time. Now, getting on with the review…

Until Sunday, my chief memory – in fact, my only memory – of the many James Bond 007 movies was, at around age eight or nine, hearing a friend’s parents watching one of them downstairs while I was sleeping over at their house. This weekend, that all changed. Skyfall came out in the Czech Republic, and on Sunday I went with my flatmates and a mutual friend to see my first James Bond movie.

I expected it to be a bit cheesy and predictable, but wow. This really takes the cake. Pretty lady? Off with her clothes! Put the villain in a giant glass cage? I bet you can guess what happens next. (Loki did it first, and he did it better.)

M (Judi Dench) talks to the villain Silva (Javier Bardem), who is trapped in a giant glass cage. Team leader and guru giving a caged villain a lecture? Never seen that before…

The screenwriters couldn’t resist throwing in some obvious metaphors, as well. Y’know, sitting in a museum and talking about a painting of an old warship getting towed away. That couldn’t possibly be a metaphor for James Bond’s age, could it? Nope. Never. Of course not. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)

Agent Q (Ben Whishaw) and James Bond (Daniel Craig) talk very subtly – not- about the symbolism of old ships in museum paintings.

But the cast was wonderful. Javier Bardem is spectacular as Silva, the psychotic ex-agent who Bond has to out-wit. Ralph Fiennes gives a classically stoic performance as Gareth Mallory, a newcomer to the agency. M is, of course, the wonderful Judi Dench. And Naomi Watts does not get nearly enough screen time as the badass agent Eve. I had more than one issue with what the screenwriters did with her, but I don’t want to spoil the movie for those of you who haven’t seen it. Ben Whishaw is the perfect computer whiz as Q, an agent assigned to work with Bond on his new mission. And then there is Daniel Craig as Bond himself. Bardem, Whishaw, Dench, and Fiennes feel like the stars of the show, to be honest. But nonetheless, Craig held his own. At the very least, he leaves the audience with very little to complain about.

Eve (Naomi Watts) is a BAMF. Too bad we only get to see about five minutes of her on screen.

But what really steals the show are the score and the scenery. The epic scenic shots of Scotland are breathtaking. And the soundtrack – with the exception of a slight over-use of the theme – is spectacular. There were definitely moments when I found myself nodding my head and tapping my foot to the music.

A gorgeous landscape shot from the opening scene of ‘Skyfall.’

Skyfall was a fun movie to watch, but only so long as you go into the theater with low expectations. Just watch it for the cheesy, silly movie that it is, and enjoy yourself.

A ‘Brave’ Approach to Ordinary Relationships

Finally – time for a much-delayed review of my favorite movie from the summer: Pixar’s Brave. I don’t think I need to gush about the gorgeous graphics. You’ve probably heard a million times over that the red curls on heroine Merida’s head are quite a feat, and that the scenery is absolutely spectacular. And after all, what do you expect from Pixar?

But you’ve probably also heard people complaining about how the story is shallow and isn’t really as feminist as it claims to be. This is what irks me about many reviews of the movie.

What makes this movie so powerful is that it documents a very real relationship, just in a very fantastical setting. I was raised as a girl, and many scenes in Brave – which is most definitely about mother/daughter relationships – reminded me of my relationship with my own mother. The frequent arguments between Merida and her mother, Queen Elinor, made me feel as though the scriptwriters had been spying on my life when I was little. Even Merida’s relationship with her father, King Fergus – who clearly wanted to be the fun guy/”good cop” in the family, and didn’t always understand his wife’s desire for discipline – reminded me of my own childhood. The movie reminded me just how normal most of my childhood experiences were.

The wild-haired and wild-hearted Merida (voiced by Kelly Macdonald) faces off against her mother, Queen Elinor (voiced by Emma Thompson).

Merida, two of her mischievous triplet brothers, and her father, King Fergus (voiced by Billy Connolly), get up to shenanigans at dinner. (Much to the chagrin of Queen Elinor.)

It helps that both Merida and Elinor are far from perfect. Merida is perhaps a bit selfish, and can be willful and undisciplined to a fault, and Elinor can be extremely overbearing and far too obsessed with propriety. And both learn from their experiences, though I don’t want to give away too much of the story. And moments of the film even had my eyes tearing up. Mainly every time that Elinor showed that she would lay her life on the line for her daughter, no matter what. (I was, admittedly, having a pretty emotional week when I saw the movie, but still.)

Between the beautiful visuals and the touching story, Brave is a must-see for anybody who has a memorable relationship with their mother. Or with their daughter(s), for that matter.

‘Hunger Games’

Spring break is coming to a close and there is one thing I’ll miss almost as much as getting enough sleep (and more) every day: watching movies that I want to see, when I want to see them. This meant one movie and a handful of TV episodes. For the first time in what feels like ages, I went to see a movie in the theater with friends. And it was worth the train trip. The Hunger Games is packed with wonderful imagery and special effects and great actors.

The sheer visual contrast  in makeup and clothing between the lavish capitol and District 12, heroine Katniss Everdeen’s home, is enough to make your eyes bulge.

Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket (left), District 12’s escort from the capitol for the Hunger Games; and Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen (right), one of the tributes (contestants) from District 12.

I absolutely loved the costumes, if you can’t guess. And I was completely mesmerized by Head Gamemaker Seneca Crane’s beard:

I am glad that I wasn’t the only one to become fixated on Seneca Crane’s unspeakably awesome beard. I mean, that thing ought to have its own speaking role.

Okay, before I become incurably fascinated by that beard, the scenery and special effects. Absolutely gorgeous. The way that obstacles leap out of the ground or fly out of thin air at the tributes is incredibly spooky. Even without the special effects, the forests that Katniss roams, both before and during the Hunger Games, are beautiful in and of themselves.

And the actors are superb. Jennifer Lawrence is strong, motherly, independent, scared and vulnerable all at once as Katniss. Unfortunately, Josh Hutcherson isn’t given much to work with as Peeta Mellark, the second District 12 Tribute, though he does what he can with it. And Liam Hemsworth was definitely not given enough screen time as Katniss’s friend, Gale. (EDIT: For the record, I have been told by multiple people now that he gets a bigger role in the sequel, but I still roll my eyes whenever I recall that most of his screen time involved moody stares at a TV.) But, despite their relatively small roles, Seneca Crane (played by Wes Bentley) and District 11’s female tribute, Rue (played by Amanda Stenberg) really stole the show. Okay, Seneca’s beard may have had a role to play in that. But Bentley delivered a powerfully subtle performance as the head gamemaker. And Stenberg makes you want to just scoop her up and hug her.

Katniss (Lawrence) and Rue (Amandla Stenberg) are too cute for my brain to handle.

The plot detracts from all this, though. As moving as certain moments are, the story is fairly predictable. I could call who was going to die a good five to 10 minutes beforehand at least. And every other conversation in the first “act” of the movie provided some sort of blatant foreshadowing. (Katniss talking to her little sister about the selection of the district’s tributes, for example.)

Not to mention, the film does a fairly poor job of explaining various concepts. For example, I only knew Effie Trinket’s name because my friends who read the books were talking about her. Plus, I had to look her up online to fully understand her role in the Games.

And a few of the meant-to-be-touching moments ended up just feeling sappy. Let’s just say that when another audience member incredulously compared one scene to Twilight aloud, my friends and I burst out laughing.

But overall, Hunger Games is definitely worth seeing, if not entirely for the plot, then for the wonderful acting and beautiful visuals.

Some ‘Romeos’ Are Just Awkward Teens, But That’s a Good Thing

Mondays are “gay movie nights” on Sci-Fi Hall, and last week we watched Romeos. The movie broke the chief rule of gay movie night: it was all at once well-done, had a happy ending, and had everything to do with LGBTQ issues. (As opposed to previous movies, such as “Lesbian Vampires in Germany” – whose actual title is long forgotten – in which gay themes were only one tiny aspect.)

A poignant German film about a FTM (female-to-male) transsexual man, Romeos deals with issues that many LGBTQ films avoid or ignore. In the States at least, we have become accustomed to the idea drag queens, transsexual women, and cisgendered male transvestites. Priscilla Queen of the Desert is both a popular movie and a popular Broadway musical, both versions with touting star-studded casts. Meanwhile Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a play-turned-movie about a singer of questionable sex, has become a cult classic. And the popular comedian Eddie Izzard talks about his own adventures as a transvestite in stand-up shows such as “Dress to Kill.”

John Cameron Mitchell as Hedwig (top), Eddie Izzard (bottom), and the ladies of ‘Priscilla, Queen of the Desert’ (Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, and Terence Stamp).

But how often do we hear about transgender men? For many, the idea that somebody can be female-to-male transgender does not appear on their radar until late teenage years or adulthood, if at all. Our society has become incredibly accepting of tomboys and of women wearing what was once exclusively men’s attire and for that we deserve a pat on the back. But all the same, that means that trans men are not often noticeable in the same way that trans women are. So, unlike issues for trans women, lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities, issues for trans men are largely ignored. And that is a large part of what makes Romeos so special.

The movie not only sheds light on a largely ignored issue, but it deals with issues from the everyday awkwardness of going to the bathroom to coming out to friends who will not necessarily be accepting. It shows a trans person a more realistic, sympathetic light than previous popular films. (As wonderful and funny as a film like Hedwig and the Angry Inch is, it is a stretch to call the farcical film “realistic.”)

I have to admit that some aspects of the film are a bit cheezy – we could tell that the main character, Lukas, was going to fall for the ripped Italian man named Fabio as soon as the latter fellow traipsed into the scene. But for all the predictability, the film is both charming and effective.

Lukas (Rick Okon) and Fabio (Maximilian Befort) share an uncomfortable moment.

Romeos sucks the audience in with complex characters who are far too easy to get invested in, sometimes making it difficult not to shout at the screen. Rick Okon is endearing as self-conscious Lukas, ever-nervous that one of his new friends would discover that he has breasts. And Maximilian Befort portrays a well-rounded macho-but-gay Fabio very convincingly. But Liv Fries delivers a powerhouse performance as Lukas’s long-time friend, Ine, who has trouble coming to terms with the way Lukas has changed over time, especially with the use of testosterone. The character’s introduction is awkward, and Ine can be very insensitive, but Fries makes her a nonetheless sympathetic character.

For any awkward or predictable moments, Romeos is an enchanting, even groundbreaking film. Don’t pass it up!

‘Lost in Translation’

I just watched Sofia Coppola’s 2003 film, Lost in Translation, for one of my film classes. To be honest, a better title might be Lost in Boredom or Bored in Translation. The film may have won several awards, but it is seriously overrated. It has its brief funny moments – English/Japanese translators clearly not communicating what they need to and the like. However, the pervading sense of the film is, “Two middle- to upperclass Americans are bored with their lives and so they’re going to sit around and gripe about it together.

The story focuses on Bob Harris, a fictional celebrity actor played by Bill Murray, who is in Japan to shoot a commercial. He meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), a bored, just-out-of-college photographer’s wife. He rants about how he loves his children, but not only is never home, but also forgets their birthdays. She complains about how she doesn’t know what to do with her life – or a college degree in philosophy – but hangs around a bar all day and night instead of pursuing employment (or any sort of interests besides vodka). She complains about her husband’s lack of attention, but she never bothers to talk directly to him. He clearly is not happy with his wife’s small attempts to include him in her life, but does nothing besides give her passive answers when they talk on the phone. Well, okay, at one point he goes off on a complete non-sequitor about how he hates his life and he wants to eat Japanese food all the time instead of pasta. Surprise, surprise! That doesn’t do him any more good than his passivity. (What’s his wife supposed to do about it? Magically learn how to make sushi while trying to take care of two kids and dealing with the household chores that Bob doesn’t bother to help with?)

So Charlotte and Bob are two fairly unpleasant people. Not always a bad thing – there have been plenty of well-made stories that focus on unpleasant people. Take William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, for example. The title character quickly becomes a very nasty and greedy person and the play fleshes out what that selfishness does to him. But therein lies the key to making a successful story about nasty people.

1) The story has to be self-conscious about the overwhelming faultiness of its protagonists. Macbeth has never been a wholly sympathetic character. There are sympathetic aspects about him, but Shakespeare clearly didn’t write him to be the character the audience roots for in the end. But when you watch Lost in Translation, you get the sense that you’re expected to think, “Aww. Look at them. They were so miserable, but they’re making each other happy now that they’ve met.” No. They’re two bored upper middle class people who play chicken at having an affair.

2) A story needs to either  be very clear about the tone it’s trying to give off and meet those expectations or else be very open to audience interpretation. Lost in Translation suffers from a common problem in any genre of storytelling. The storyteller often has one foot headed north and the other headed south. Or else (s)he tries hard enough to push the tale in one direction to make the planned tone or meaning clear to the audience, but does not succeed in achieving these goals. Then we get a situation like this one, in which a viewer or reader sits there thinking, “Well, I suppose that’s cute. Maybe. But I’m really not feeling it.”

Somewhat ambiguous fictions are often much better than those that give off airs of having only one or two correct interpretations. Why? The less likely that the audience gets a nagging sense that they aren’t interacting with the story the way they are supposed to, the more likely it is that they will enjoy and appreciate the story.

3) The characters and the plot have to be active, not passive. In Macbeth, everybody is fighting over power. There is action! People are actively trying to change, influence, and get rid of each other. Even in a sappy romance – Love, Actually or Pride and Prejudice –  characters are actually learning from, changing for, and chasing after each other. But by the end of Lost in Translation, the only thing that has changed is that Bob is suddenly willing to kiss Charlotte. Neither of them has done anything to change their home life. Not even said a word about any plans to do so. And it’s pretty clear that neither of them is going to leave their spouse for their lover. And what would they have to learn from their interaction? The most interesting thing they did together was order some raw meat from a restaurant and then proceed to stare at it.

That is not to say that there weren’t a few good qualities to the movie. The cinematography was good enough, and there were even some absolutely gorgeous shots of monasteries. Unfortunately, beautiful Japanese scenery and buildings were only a tiny aspect of the film and appeared in only a handful of scenes. Really too bad, since focusing the movie on the wonderful footage instead of two bland, unpleasant characters would have made for an excellent film.

Bill Murray's expression in this poster pretty much sums up how I felt about the film.