Toy Story 1 & 2 3-D Double Feature: Review

Now, who the hell in their right mind, that isn't born in the 90's or has kids would not want to watch two of the greatest CG animated films on the big screen again. And only for RM18. Not for each. For both of them combined!

I'm not going to go into the plot talk of both films because we all already know what Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are about. And if you don't, I seriously recommend you hang yourself this instance. But I will talk about this one of a kind cinema going experience. For a limited time only, in build up for the release of Toy Story 3, cinemas are releasing Toy Story 1 and 2 as one movie in 3-D.

And being someone who has faithfully watched the two films several times over the past decade, I was really worried about wasting my money on this. But thankfully this was not the case for the Double Feature. Nothing was changed in the two films but they still remain compelling and vibrant as the day I first saw them in the cinema. But if you still need convincing to go spend 3 and a half hours in the cinema watching movies you already know by heart, read on.

This is the kind of feature you got to watch with a big crowd of people your age who have also grown up with the Toy Story series. I watched it with a half empty cinema but there were people cheering and going, "Oh yeah I remember that!" and "Ooooooooh!" all the way through. Seriously guys, the nostalgia in this is amazing and can only be realized when watching it with a big crowd.

But if you ain't the sentimental type, this is the first time the two Toy Story's are being shown in cinema digital format. “But I already own both of them on DVD!  Why should I pay RM18 to see what I already own!" Fuck you! A TV screen is nothing compared to watching these classics on the big screen. Even the age flaws I picked up from the film was a nostalgic treat for me. Going back to see the first Toy Story after 15 years from it's official release makes you realize how different animation was back then and now and how much the first one pioneered CG animated films today.

As for the 3D, the feature takes note from the 3D usage of How Train Your Dragon and uses it mostly as a tool to provide more depth of field to the movies instead of purposely going for the mindless, unnecessary “Hey!  It’s 3D cominattcha effect" like that piece of shit Clash of the Titans. Look out for the rocket scene in Toy Story and the road crossing scene in Toy Story 2, which were just pure awesomeness in 3D.

But the show does get tiring since it is really long and in 3D. Unlike in Avatar, I guess the old animation style and 3D in the Toy Story feature isn't as audience friendly I guess. The feature really does take a toll on your eyes. Oh and buy lotso food and bring in a sweater cause it was brutally cold in the cinema.

But if anything else, you should go for this to experience the original form of movie going format of having an intermission break. See a long long time ago, movies were hideously and dreadfully long, so there would always be an intermission break for the audience to chill. And I did hear there were some short Pixar films playing during the 15 minute intermission for the audience who stayed in the cinema, but I wouldn't know cause I left to make a PP.

 Seriously guys, you do not want to miss this unique experience. Now.. let's have a triple feature when Toy Story 3 comes out! Muahaha.

RATING: 9/10

Chloe

When Chloe opens with those shots of Amanda Seyfried as she ensues in her monologue of sorts, Atom Egoyan gives us the impression that what follows will be an exposé (of sorts) on this woman and her life. Chloe is not such a film, I can’t pretend that any apprehensions I have about the film derive from the opening, but in assessing why Chloe left me somewhat cold I couldn’t help but revert to the beginning which had me anticipating something completely different from what ensues. In fact, at the end the first thing I wondered was – How did the beginning enhance the film?

Despite its name, Chloe is the study of a marriage. Catherine and David, played credibly by Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson are a marriage couple. She’s getting old and worried about her age, he’s getting old and more flirtatious (but still chaste, we can assume). A provocative image on his phone when he misses a party leads Catherine to hire the eponymous Chloe to seduce her husband and report the results. It’s a fairly simple story, a pedestrian one even. This can only end one way for us to have a movie – he sleeps with her and tragedy ensues (I’m well aware of the deception in this statement). In this way Chloe depends on a twist that’s not really a twist, but my issue is not even with the twist. Egoyar crafts a film that’s beautifully shot, the writing is fair even though it’s unexceptional and it’s not so much that the denouement of it falls flat, but the viewer is left with the question – so what? This is, essentially, my issue with Chloe. I’ve never seen the original, and cannot comment on if Chloe is a misrepresentation of it. I remember chuckling to myself when I heard the name of the director, how could I take such a name seriously? It’s the same issue I have with Chloe. At face value it’s the study of a marriage that ultimately is saved, but with cracks in it (that final shot of Julianne). Nothing more, nothing less. But the story is one devoid of any individuality, and the very title (and that telling opening) has me rethinking it.

SPOILERS: Be warned!!!

The film opens as we watch Seyfried in moments of undress as she narrates over the film. It’s a poor opening, I think, in context at least. It’s significant that this is the only narration in the film, opening or otherwise. What’s more, Chloe is obviously not the main character of the film, so why begin with her in a state of pseudo-omniscient. Is the opening even chronologically related to the film? A crazy thought occurs to me, is Chloe even dead? Obviously she is; the maimed body alone is proof. But Chloe being alive is the only way that the film’s beginning makes sense. And since it’s obvious that she is dead Egoyan’s Chloe falls flat. Or if not, I was waiting for a moment of absolution when we’d realise that Liam’s David was just the consummate actor and did have an affair with Chloe. But alas, no such twist. It’s fine to look at and completely diverting but as I gain a little distance I also gain some perspective. It’s been a full week now and Chloe’s significance seems stark. Technically, it’s adequate but Egoyan seems to have no argument to put forward behind the pretty shots…or if he does, it completely eludes me.

        

C+

The Unsinkable Ship

The cultural significance of Titanic are colossal and difficult to miss. Its fourteen Oscar nominations and eleven wins are unsurpassed. Up until Avatar it was the cinema’s biggest money maker. It marked a deep reworking of technology in films. It reworked and essentially launched the careers of Oscar nominees at the time Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio to super stardom and it spawned a number of spoofs about jewels in the water. It subsequently became one of the most, if not the most reviled Best Picture winner that few were willing to express affinity for. Luckily, I’m not a proud person because I feel no sense of embarrassment in citing Titanic as on of my favourite films.

Titanic is not my favourite film, but I marvel at the sheer scope of the piece. The film spans over three hours and yet persons who’d bemoan the cumbersome nature of other excellent pieces (like The English Patient, Gosford Park even The Lord of the Rings) would be willing to take an uninterrupted gander at it. Call it what you will, but few films of such length can keep the audiences interested for so long. As a narrative Titanic is split, evenly more or less, into two parts – the romantic half (pre-iceberg) and the action half (post-iceberg). Of course, like any film with a split narrative there are moments where the two overlap, and both “parts” are mediated by the words of our narrator in question Gloria Stuart. If forced, I’d probably single out the first half as my favourite even though each has things going for it. It’s the in the first part where the ensemble nature of Titanic is most evident. I’ll admit, Cameron is no E. M. Forster with his writing but I’m always wary of his critics who seem to officious. I’m not sure if it’s his skill for the inane, or the actors skill for the camp but it all works gloriously – like Fisher’s bedroom confession to her daughter, “Do you want to see me working as a seamstress?”; or Winslet’s much-too-verbose Rose’s soliloquies of sorts “Look, I know what you must be thinking! Poor little rich girl. What does she know about misery?”. The words are not the beacon of the film, but there’s some sort of sadistic thrill as I watch hearing Billy Zane tear through lines like, “Yes, you are, and my wife. My wife in practice if not yet by law, so you will honor me. You will honor me the way a wife is required to honor a husband. Because I will not be made a fool, Rose."

The thing is, even though it’s the first half that sets Kate and Leo up as dramatic actors it’s the second half that solidifies their skill. Certainly, they’re nowhere near the top of their game but the work they do as the ship begins to sink should not be ignored. It’s the difficulty that countless actors today cannot overcome. Winslet and DiCaprio need to effectively act against the already overwhelming backdrop of the special effects and they emerge doing credibly good jobs. The sinking of the ship is a thoroughly amazing visual spectacle, and yet we rarely forget the ill-fated lovers, for each actor carves a true character against the almost impossible. For Winslet it’s the film’s most deliciously ridiculous moment – as Rose is lowered into the lifeboats only to subsequently jump off, Kate has no lines and it’s up to her to sell a plot device that’s borders on fanatical; and she does. It’s an indicator of the brilliant actress to come. For Leo it’s later, and shorter. The moments just before his “death” are poignant, even if in its deliberateness. “you're going to make babies and watch them grow and you're going to die an old lady, warm in your bed."

          

Of course, the crux of my argument for the film should lie in its consummate technicalities, but I won’t bother. The costumes, the art direction, the visual effects and even Horner’s score which manages to remain poignant despite the recitative nature. What makes a film good? I don’t know, but I do know I’m willing to sit down and look at Cameron’s film whenever it’s on. I know the narrative like the back of my hand, I can recite the “inane” lines as if I wrote them and when anyone is moved to lambast it for its faults I’m often moved to imitate Rose and Jack; when the infuriating footman tries to warn them about the folly of their ways the turn around to him in unison and say “Shut Up!”

       

Titanic appears at #23 on my list of favourites.

Open Thread

Sorry for the lack of Scene On A Sunday today, but I'm currently navigating without the use of a mouse and it's just too tedious doing all that mumbo-jumbo with a keyboard. I just recently Bright Star, I know it wasn't loved by all, but I'm loving it even more as time goes by...

              

What's on your mind? Seen any thing good lately

Defendor: Review

So okay. With the success of superhero parodies like Kick-Ass, I'd thought I'd go back a few months and review a movie I saw last year that was kind of in the same veins as Kick-Ass but a whole lot more grounded in reality. And the movie's called Defendor by the way.

Defendor is about Arthur Poppington played by Woody Harrelson i.e Twinkie Dude from Zombieland, who is this mentally unstable man but with a heart of gold who comes to believe that he is a superhero named Defendor. Every night, he patrols the streets of his city in search of his arch enemy, Captain Industry; whom he was told is the man behind his mother's death. And along the way, this retarded, sweet guy touches the lives of a young prostitute, his psychiatrist, a crime journalist and his boss.

On the surface, Defendor appears to be very much like the retarded awesomeness of Kick-Ass. And the film does have some really funny comedic moments courtesy of Woody Harrelson and his unconventional methods of vigilantism, be it torturing a bad guy with lime juice, having super hearing abilities through a plastic cone or using marbles for bullets; Defendor is more on the heart and child like innocence of Woody Harrelson's character.

And while I do stand by saying that Woody Harrelson's performance in The Messenger was his best performance to date, his acting in this movie isn't any short of brilliance. If I was to describe Defendor, I would say that he is Forrest Gump meets Batman. We have a superhero who has the mental capacity of a 7 year old, but with that comes a child simple sense of right and wrong. And that is where this character stands out in superhero context.

Woody blew my mind in this. At first I was looking at this character and going this guy's got issues. And I'm all like, "Dude... what the hell are you doing man?" But by the end of the film I was really moved by this character. Woody Harrelson captures the imagination and perspective on the world of a child who is simply honest in every action that he takes. If anything else, you got to watch this just for Woody Harrelson's character alone.

But there were some other great acting in this, one being Kat Dennings who serves as the window for the audience into the character Defendor. She starts out just like us being a little skeptical on this man's mental state but the character slowly grows on her and the audience as the movie progresses. I've always found Kat Dennings super annoying and whiny but it some how works for her character in this movie.

Plus she is just super sexy. Like a Dita von Teese kind you know.

Other honorable mentions, Elias Koteas who plays the bad guy of the film. This dude is so sleazy, bad ass and corrupt but he is so fun to watch because he knows he is all these things and is just having fun with it. For some really weird reason he reminded me of Claude Raines from Casablanca. Sandra Oh is good in this to, thought her character is kinda peppered out through the film only as a transitional segment between two scenes in the first two acts.

Very character driven film, honest and pure at it's heart and has loads of laugh out loud moments. Now, if only they made another film with Defendor meeting Hit Girl from Kick-Ass and all the bloody madness begins. Now that's a fucking movie!

RATING: 8/10

Conversation Piece

In the RKO dressing hairdressing department, during the spring of 1939. I eavesdropped, over a half a wall, on a 6 A. M., over-coffee conversation, involving Lucille Ball, Barbra Stanwyck, Ginger Rogers and several unidentifiable voices. Lucille and Ginger were making Stage Door with Kate at the time. Barbara Stanwyck was on The Mad Miss Manton.

There was general studio agreement that Katharine Hepburn was a dazzling actress and a star, but there was some question as to whether she was going to become box office.

The voices said:
“She’s gorgeous. How can she miss?
“Takes more than gorgeous, sugar.”
“Yeah? Like what?”
“Talent.”
“Luck.”
“Hits.”
“That’s it. Hits. Listen to her her.”
“So. She’s had hits.”
“Not lately.”
“What do you call ‘lately’?”
“What about Alice Adams?”
“Two years ago.”
“All right.”
“All right if she’d done nothing since, but she’s had strike-outs in the two years. Sylvia Scarlett.”
“Help!”
“Break of Hearts.”
“I liked it.”
“But Kokomo didn’t.”
“Mary of Scotland. Wasn’t that a hit?”
“No.”
“Yes.”
“No!”
“No.”
“A Woman Rebels.”
“She should’ve, before she said yes to that turkey.”
“Quality Street?”
“They say she picked that one herself. Well, whoever. The people didn’t want it.”
“She’s gonna score in this one, though. Boy, is she ever great.”
“Yeah, but we’re talking about star. The ones people come to see, no matter what. Gable, Tracy, Harlow, Bette. Like that.”
“Maybe Hepburn’s too special.”
“What do you mean?”
“Too, like – well, like high-toned. Not like us.”
“I’m high-toned you pisspot!”
The unmistakable voice cut-through voice of Lucille Ball took over.”

“Listen biddies, don’t you worry your pretty little heads – and I do mean little – about Miss Katie. She’ll make it just fine. She knows the combination to the safe. To everybody’s safe. Have you ever noticed something? How every time she gets into a new scene, no matter where, or on the stage, and she’s wearing a new outfit, every son-of-a-bitch on this lot, from every department, finds his way over there – or her way – to stand around and gawk? Why is that? Don’t ask me, but they sure all want to look at her, and see what she doe. I do it myself. And the grips from the other sets and cutters and messengers and readers. The all find their way and stand around taking her in like out-of-town visitors. I notice they don’t do it for any of the rest of us. Only for her. So why is that? Don’t ask me. But I claim anybody who can get a routine like that going for them, without trying even, has to become a big star, and, what’s more, stay a big star. She’s news, that’s all. Hot news. All the time.”

The instinctively sagacious Lucille, who wound up owing that very studio, had recognized (sic) it. Call it news, hot news, call it “it,” as Eleanor Glyn did for Clara Bow, or call it, as we do these days, charisma. Katharine Hepburn had it and has it.

Kanin, Garson. Tracy and Hepburn: An Intimate Memoir. New York: Viking Press Inc, 1971

Green Zone

Matt Damon has a knack for being unassuming. It’s a talent that has been put to good use in The Talented Mr. Ripley and Ocean’s Eleven. I’m never certain if Matt Damon, the actor, is just as unassuming or if he’s just that good of an actor. In Green Zone he plays Captain Miller, an American soldier intent on finding answers in Iraq circa 2003. Damon’s Captain is cool but not pushy. As he marches through the film I am aware that I’m watching Matt Damon, but I’m also willing to believe that I’m watching the actions of a real soldier. Paradoxical? Naturally. Maybe I started this review on the wrong foot, for Green Zone is a film that depends on factors that are not all Matt Damon.

I remember someone referring to Green Zone as a film from the “shaky cam” genre (a la The Hurt Locker or A Mighty Heart). The thing is, though, as accurate a definition as that would be, it marginalises the film. Green Zone, is not a film for the unfocused. Helgeland’s script is uninterested in spelling anything out to the audience and if you don’t know the story he doesn’t condescend to spoon feed it to you. It’s not that the narrative is particularly difficult to follow; but if you’re not willing to pay keen attention you could easily miss some important details. Then, there’s the fact that it all occurs amidst an overwhelmingly authentic sound design. If The Hurt Locker could have swept the sound categories (undeservedly, I might add) Green Zone should be a shoo-in for a nod, but of course that’s not likely.

Admittedly, the film is anchored by Damon’s performance, even though I’m well aware that the term anchored may be an overstatement. Damon’s performance is good, effective even. But Greengrass is not interested in turning this into the story of a David against the Goliath’s of the world (even if the poster suggests otherwise). Damon is obviously the lead of the film, but the supporting cast are important. Greg Kinnear avoids the stock characterisation his role could have implied, and in the process he creates a moderately impressive villain. Brendan Gleeson is similarly good and Eastern actor Khallid Abdalla lends the right amount of pathos to his conflicted character. I will admit, the purported presence of the lovely Amy Ryan was a major reason I was interested in seeing this film. As it turns out (I should have expected) her role is not big, but like her short turns in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead and Changeling she carves a realistic being with just a few scenes to her name.

The unfortunate reality is, though, owing to the almost journalistic nature of Green Zone it has a tendency to come as decidedly ephemeral. As well intentioned as it is, there is a certain lack of profundity that pervades. As good an effort as it is I don’t think I’d be moved to see it again. But I think it’s worthy of being seen at least once…provided you go with your brain. 

          

B