Archive for the ‘Film’ Category
Movie review: “X-Men: First Class”
It’s a funny thing about “X-Men: First Class,” the latest film based on the Marvel Comics team of superheroes — large chunks of it aren’t much better than the deservedly derided previous two films in the series, “X-Men 3: The Last Stand” and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” And yet the overall movie is a far superior work than those two critical duds.
There’s two things, I think, that elevate “First Class” into the realm (though not quite to the level) of “X2,” one of the best superhero movies made.
Charles Xavier (left, played by James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) play chess in "X-Men: First Class."
One is the excellent pair of lead performances from James McAvoy (Charles Xavier/Professor X) and Michael Fassbender (Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto). Much how the fantastic performances from Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen as the same two characters elevated every scene they were in in the original X-Men trilogy, McAvoy and Fassbender nail the central conflict in the X-Men mythos: for a marginalized group, is it better to pursue peaceful coexistence or violent separation? More specifically (given the origins of the X-Men comics in the Civil Rights era as a metaphor for race), it’s the battle between Martin Luther King and Malcolm X — with more explosions and spandex. McAvoy as the idealistic, slightly naive young Charles is the perfect foil for the movie’s engine, Fassbender’s cynical, revenge-obsessed Erik.
Great films I need to see
Growing up, it’d be hard to describe me as a cinephile. I went to the movies regularly — but not frequently, and rarely to see films targeted at adult audiences (as opposed to kids or the mass-market, wide-release movies). Similarly, at home we’d watch movies on TV or VHS (and later DVD) periodically, but not with any regularity. Books, and then computer games, interested me more.
As I got into the later years of high school and then into college, I started making more of an effort to see “art” movies, limited release dramas and foreign films, but again it was something I just sort of did as I went along, rather than something I pursued with any sort of passion.
As a result, when I think back on the movies I’ve seen, there’s all sorts of holes. I’m not talking merely about movies I haven’t seen, but great movies, classics — movies that, by dint of my not seeing them, I’m missing out on a significant part of the cultural zeitgeist. (Though, as you’ll see below, I’m not talking exclusively about the mass, popular cultural zeitgeist.) So I spent some time combing through “best movies of all time” lists to come up with the ones that I feel I should see. I’ve seen 28 of the 100 films on the American Film Institute’s Top 100 Films in 100 Years. I certainly don’t feel under any obligation to see all of them. But I do feel that some of them — and other great films that didn’t make that list — should definitely get crossed off my list in the months and years to come.
Mr. Smith Goes West
The conceit of the 1962 movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” is the collision between two very different people: a tough, gunslinging rancher and an urbane, peaceful lawyer, thrown together in a frontier town where both men’s talents will be needed to free the townsfolk of their oppressors.
Because those two protagonists are portrayed by John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, in their first film appearance together, the movie — which I watched on a lark last night, in the mood for a Western — ends up being something more profound. These are two actors so confident, so recognizable — even for someone like me, who’s only seen a few of each of their films — that each one seems to stride around carrying their own movie with them.
An amazing year at the movies
No, not 2010, or the upcoming year. Both seem, at the present time, to be pedestrian.
I’m talking about 2006, sparked by my re-watch last night of “Children of Men,” a film released that year.
For those (most of you, judging by the anemic box office returns for Alfonso Cuarón’s film) who haven’t seen the movie, it’s a science fiction movie set in the new future in a world where humanity has mysteriously lost the ability to reproduce some 18 years ago. This destruction of humanity’s future has caused a breakdown of society, with Britain surviving only by turning itself into a police state.
Thematically, the movie explores hope and the future, rejecting both those (like Fortress Britain’s rulers) who cling relentlessly to the past and those (like the rebel-terrorist Fishers) who dream only of the “uprising” and bloody overthrow of their enemies. Instead the movie’s heroes are those who hold to their morals and principles and retain hope in the future.
Fear and loathing in the land of the spirits
No, this isn’t about Hunter S. Thompson. It’s about the movie I watched last night between the Super Bowl and bed, Hiyao Miyazaki’s “Spirited Away.”
This 2001 Japanese animated movie tells the story of Chihiro, a young Japanese girl who travels into the world of the spirits (or local gods, in the Japanese original) and has to find her way out again while saving her parents, trapped there with her.
The movie’s superficial appeal comes from its plot — redolent of “Alice in Wonderland” and heavily drawing on Campbellian archetypes — and its striking visuals, portraying a fantastic world of spirits, dragons and witches. But what elevates “Spirited Away” above simply very good into superb are the complex themes Miyazaki has woven into his fairy tale.
After all, even thoroughly pedestrian movies have morals and themes. But “Spirited Away” is interwoven with many high-level messages, making it a film you can watch not just to be entertained but also to provoke thought and analysis.
Nasty, brutish and undead
This post is a perfect example of the kind of thing that absolutely fascinates me. Many other people, I have slowly discovered, couldn’t care a whit about things like the political subtext of genre zombie movies. These people confuse me, which is not a good attitude to have about the vast majority of people I will interact with on a daily basis.
I’m addressing, at the moment, an essay by a Williams College professor named Christian Thorne, called “The Running of the Dead.” Right at the top, I know I’m going to like the essay:
The first thing a person is going to need to know about Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later, from 2002, is that it’s one big trick. That’s one good reason to like the movie, in fact–that it is punking you. I don’t think I can explain the movie’s trick right away; we need to do the groundwork first, but it is the point to keep in mind: 28 Days Later is a bit of the thimblerig. Don’t let your eye off the ball.
The second thing to know is that of all the zombie movies, 28 Days Later is the one most steeped in political philosophy.
“Alice” underwhelms
How can something so fanciful fall so flat?
“Alice in Wonderland,” directed by master-of-the-macabre Tim Burton from Lewis Carroll’s twin tales of Victorian whimsy, isn’t so much a disaster as a disappointment. It’s a film of visual splendor and memorable performances that amounts to much less than the sum of its parts.
Top 10 movies of the decade
As 2009 comes to an end, I thought I’d take some time and come up with a list of my favorite films from 2000 to 2009. My methodology is particularly sloppy — I combed through Wikipedia’s list of films this decade and copied down all the ones that stood out, then divided them into halves, quarters, and finally ranked them. I’m sure I’ve forgotten some I intended to include. But here’s my list with comments:
20. “Once” (2007). A charming musical with good songs that resists the temptation for a happy ending.
