Movies!
To kick off my vacation, I saw a couple of movies tonight, and here's what I thought.
V for Vendetta
Rated R
The story was that of an imaginative revolutionary, determined to wake up the sheepish masses that had allowed the UK to become a totalitiarian regime. Laced with patriotic sentiment, classical references to Shakespere and the like, a strong dose of philosophy, a healthy dash of intrigue, and some interesting action sequences, the movie delivers a well-rounded experience. Although the enigmatic main character V wears a mask, that becomes more of a smokescreen, or a symbolic reference rather than the object of mystery it first seems to be, very reminiscent of M. Night Shyamalan's work.
Although it involved an Australian (Hugo Weaving) and an American (Natalie Portman) playing the roles of British citizens it was very believable. (I suspect that if I were actually British I might feel differently about that:) Hugo was particularly impressive in his flawless delivery of very complex and lengthy lines, some of which were on par with the Architecht's elaborate oration to Neo in The Matrix: Reloaded.
I expect there will be a lot of comparisons made between President Bush and the evil "Vice Chancellor" who rules Brittian with an iron fist and intolerance. I don't hazard to guess if this is intentional or isn't, but comparisons are inevitable. The evil "Vice Chancellor" came to power through corrupt financial ties, clandestine malevolent scheming, and exploitation of Christian-like religious beliefs. (I say Christian-like because it is a gross misrepresntation of Christianity, and is obviously written from the position of someone will no personal understanding of the subject.) His minions frequently engage in what we (citizens of free countries) would regard as flagrant privacy violations, unauthorized and unwarranted search and seizure, and sinister propaganda campaigns. These are all things that President Bush has been accused of very recently by extremist liberals.
Another thing that I thought was in particularly poor taste was the unfortunate emphasis on homosexuality as an intended object of sympathy. Evidently the Wachowski Brothers could not come up with a better "class" to be targeted for oppression and racisism-like discrimination. The intention was clearly to describe the evils that go hand in hand with totalitarianism - the freedoms that are denied people, and the fear that people live in. And having homosexuality on that list makes sense, but comprising the list entirely of homosexuality seems like blatant activism. Further it is displayed in a way that attempts to tell the audience what to think rather than showing the facts and allowing the audience to come to a conclusion. And to top it all off, it gives them a great excuse to show lesbians kissing numerous times (evidently flashbacks of this kiss were necessary to drive the point home). If homosexuality is normal and wholesome, then it just is, and they don't need me or anyone else to think so to make it true. The fact that I have to be beaten over the head with this every time I turn around steals any verisimilitude that argument had any hope of having.
In conclusion, this movie would have been great if only the writers' personal politics hadn't destroyed the integrity of the underlying story of patriotism and sacrifice. It's one thing to have strong political and philosophical views, quite another to tell someone else they should share them.
Ultraviolet
Rated PG-13
This movie was entertaining, but it has a fatal flaw: there is no appropriate target audience. The plot, the script and the acting were overly simplistic for anyone over the age of about 8, but the partial nudity, language, and violence keeps it from being appropriate for anyone not in their teens. Adults will find it too cartoon-like to get much out of, and children shouldn't be allowed to watch it.
Milla Jovovich (Violet) was evidently trying to avoid too closely matching her performances in the Resident Evil movies, but lacks the flexibility of a more seasoned actress. Many of her lines seemed forced, and a lot of her physical actions were Power-Ranger-ishly cheesy. It was largely hit and miss, though, as she also delivered some lines with pristine conviction.
The cinematography appeared to make no attempt to hide the CG being used, probably as a device to achieve the surreal look and feel of a comic (which the story is evidenlty based on). This, coupled with extreme perspective shifts, and blurring effects created an atmosphere that was remarkably similar to Tron. I found it a little distracting at first, but became accustomed to it about half way through the movie.
The plot seemed to be little more than a device for stringing together a dozen or so fun action sequences, replete with clever special effects and 80's style one-liners. The story could easily be summed up in a couple of sentences, and although there are surprises, they aren't really all that surprising.
To sum up, this is definitely a renter, but even then isn't really all that great unless you're a fan of the comic, or of Milla.
V for Vendetta
Rated R
The story was that of an imaginative revolutionary, determined to wake up the sheepish masses that had allowed the UK to become a totalitiarian regime. Laced with patriotic sentiment, classical references to Shakespere and the like, a strong dose of philosophy, a healthy dash of intrigue, and some interesting action sequences, the movie delivers a well-rounded experience. Although the enigmatic main character V wears a mask, that becomes more of a smokescreen, or a symbolic reference rather than the object of mystery it first seems to be, very reminiscent of M. Night Shyamalan's work.
Although it involved an Australian (Hugo Weaving) and an American (Natalie Portman) playing the roles of British citizens it was very believable. (I suspect that if I were actually British I might feel differently about that:) Hugo was particularly impressive in his flawless delivery of very complex and lengthy lines, some of which were on par with the Architecht's elaborate oration to Neo in The Matrix: Reloaded.
I expect there will be a lot of comparisons made between President Bush and the evil "Vice Chancellor" who rules Brittian with an iron fist and intolerance. I don't hazard to guess if this is intentional or isn't, but comparisons are inevitable. The evil "Vice Chancellor" came to power through corrupt financial ties, clandestine malevolent scheming, and exploitation of Christian-like religious beliefs. (I say Christian-like because it is a gross misrepresntation of Christianity, and is obviously written from the position of someone will no personal understanding of the subject.) His minions frequently engage in what we (citizens of free countries) would regard as flagrant privacy violations, unauthorized and unwarranted search and seizure, and sinister propaganda campaigns. These are all things that President Bush has been accused of very recently by extremist liberals.
Another thing that I thought was in particularly poor taste was the unfortunate emphasis on homosexuality as an intended object of sympathy. Evidently the Wachowski Brothers could not come up with a better "class" to be targeted for oppression and racisism-like discrimination. The intention was clearly to describe the evils that go hand in hand with totalitarianism - the freedoms that are denied people, and the fear that people live in. And having homosexuality on that list makes sense, but comprising the list entirely of homosexuality seems like blatant activism. Further it is displayed in a way that attempts to tell the audience what to think rather than showing the facts and allowing the audience to come to a conclusion. And to top it all off, it gives them a great excuse to show lesbians kissing numerous times (evidently flashbacks of this kiss were necessary to drive the point home). If homosexuality is normal and wholesome, then it just is, and they don't need me or anyone else to think so to make it true. The fact that I have to be beaten over the head with this every time I turn around steals any verisimilitude that argument had any hope of having.
In conclusion, this movie would have been great if only the writers' personal politics hadn't destroyed the integrity of the underlying story of patriotism and sacrifice. It's one thing to have strong political and philosophical views, quite another to tell someone else they should share them.
Ultraviolet
Rated PG-13
This movie was entertaining, but it has a fatal flaw: there is no appropriate target audience. The plot, the script and the acting were overly simplistic for anyone over the age of about 8, but the partial nudity, language, and violence keeps it from being appropriate for anyone not in their teens. Adults will find it too cartoon-like to get much out of, and children shouldn't be allowed to watch it.
Milla Jovovich (Violet) was evidently trying to avoid too closely matching her performances in the Resident Evil movies, but lacks the flexibility of a more seasoned actress. Many of her lines seemed forced, and a lot of her physical actions were Power-Ranger-ishly cheesy. It was largely hit and miss, though, as she also delivered some lines with pristine conviction.
The cinematography appeared to make no attempt to hide the CG being used, probably as a device to achieve the surreal look and feel of a comic (which the story is evidenlty based on). This, coupled with extreme perspective shifts, and blurring effects created an atmosphere that was remarkably similar to Tron. I found it a little distracting at first, but became accustomed to it about half way through the movie.
The plot seemed to be little more than a device for stringing together a dozen or so fun action sequences, replete with clever special effects and 80's style one-liners. The story could easily be summed up in a couple of sentences, and although there are surprises, they aren't really all that surprising.
To sum up, this is definitely a renter, but even then isn't really all that great unless you're a fan of the comic, or of Milla.
Comments
Post a Comment