How Not To Fly (about)

The Two Towers

What was most remarkable about "Fellowship of the Ring" was the character and theme consistency the movie shares with the book. The movie shortened or deleted many passages from the book, and provided a few scenes left to the imagination in the book. I don't imagine it much of a burden for most of the books' readers to swap their imagery for Tolkien's character with what was presented with the movie. And for those who haven't read the books, their themes that did survive still gave the movie its authenticity.

For those who haven't read the books, the "The Two Towers" will be more conventional in theme. I can only imagine this making the movie less authentic as an experience, and more like a video game, when compared to the first movie. However it would seem the critical reviews and box office earnings would belie that.

Having read the books, I noticed how "The Two Towers" deviated more than the first movie. Instead of Saruman manipulating Theóden through Wormtongue, the movie has Saruman out and out possessing him, and rather than banishing Wormtongue to exile, Aragorn holding Theóden back to stop him from executing him on the spot. Rather than having Faramir deduce that Frodo carried the ring of power and not repeating Boromir's mistake of trying to take it, the movie instead has him interrogating Gollum to learn the truth and taking Frodo to Osgiliath as a quickly resolved plot complication. These scenes have all been changed as political statements. What could have been two hours of smoldering build-up ending on the cliffhanger as depicted in the book is instead padded out to three hours of more conventional melodrama (minus the confrontation at the end I will have to wait another year to see).

This is not to say I disapprove of the movie. One clear improvement was in the portrayal of Gollum. Rather than agreeing to guide Frodo and Sam solely in order to keep his word, he deliberately dedicates himself to Frodo, heightening the betrayals between the characters. The Ent assault on Isengard, only mentioned in the book, was also gratifying to see dramatized.

Star Trek: Nemisis

It was hard for me to dislike 1999's "Phantom Menace." I imagine George Lucas's success peaking in 1983 with the release of "Return of the Jedi," him wondering if posterity will cast him as a Mozart or Salieri. Whatever you think of Phantom Menace, he rejected Salieri -- attempting to meld the swashbuckling adventure his Star Wars trilogy had become known for with a pure fairy tale narrative. If he had waited until seeing "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," he might have learned what he needed to blow the minds of contemporary audiences as he intended.

In contrast, "Nemesis" seems to wonder why everyone is down on Salieri. It dishes out spectacle, but it doesn't seem to give them the cohesive context to make them consistent as a story. Shinzon, a clone of Capt Picard developed for a Romulan plot to infiltrate the Federation, is condemned as a child to toxic mines after the infiltration is scrapped. Eventually gaining enough military support to overtake the Romulan Senate, he plans to annihilate all life on Earth in the wake of last year's September 11 attacks of the US. This forms a solid basis for the movie.

But for the protagonists, the movie doesn't play up any of the decisive drama made effective in the previous movies such as Picard going "Ahab" in trying to retake the Enterprise from the Borg in "First Contact," or the personal sacrifices Kirk must learn to accept as captain of the Enterprise in "Wrath of Khan." The drama of the antagonist is also not exploited fully. Shinzon only knows a lifetime of pain and struggle, and Picard offers him an opportunity to change. A theme of his inability to let go of his past is abandoned when he claims it's his past as Picard he seeks to destroy. Some yearning for identity as a clone is touched upon, but they missed an opportunity to show him demoralized by what he could have been by downplaying Picard's past and family history. This could then be turned into frustration at the prospect of living the rest of his life "living over his own grave," but the plot thread of his shortened lifespan eliminates that as a possibility. It settles on the motive of ego-gratification, performing an unprecedented act of destruction, but only by default.

"Nemesis" is a good movie, but it's also a movie that doesn't hide it's shortcomings.

Die Another Day

"Hey, that chemistry between James Bond and that kick-ass Chinese chick in 'Tomorrow Never Dies' sure was something wasn't it?"

"Yeah, too bad her career has been in Chinese action films, and can't carry a franchise for us here..."

"Hey, why don't we do the same thing with an American chick in a Bond film, like Halle Berry, and see how that plays for a spin-off?"

"Yeah, and while we're at it, let's make her boring as Hell, and cast Michael Madsen as her boss, so she doesn't build up the nerve to ask for a profit cut."

Comedian

Why did I see this movie? "Seinfeld" was a very funny show, and the trailer for the movie, with the announcer unable to find an appropriate description for the documentary, was hysterical. The movie is mostly comedy outtakes of Jerry Seinfeld on the road trying out all new material. In contrast was footage of a rising comedian so self-absorbed, during a bit about his incompatibility with women, he took offense at a woman in the audience asking him if he had considered he might be gay. There's some conversation with other recognizable comedians where we see about 15 minutes of insight into the lifestyle of what it takes to be a professional comedian. No rush to see this before it hits television.

Spirited Away

The arms on Chihiro's parents were drawn too short for their bodies, avian flight was animated way less naturalistically than bipedal movement, and with a wider release on DVD teenagers across America will giggle during the scene where Chihiro rides a phallic dragon. But other than that, I can't think of a movie better than "Spirited Away."

On moving to their new home, Chihiro and her parents are sidetracked to an abandoned amusement park. As a bathhouse of the spirit world materializes around them, Chihiro's parents mistakenly eat the indigenous food, finding themselves turned into pigs and putting Chihiro in the position to sign away her name to the witch that runs the bathhouse to stall for time to rescue them.

The basic theme consistent throughout the movie is the relationship between gratification, identity, and the soul. Chihiro's parents helped themselves to the forbidden food of the spirit world, unable to see beyond the hubris of their consumerism. A polluted river spirit was so in need of a bath, it was unrecognizable to those who reserve their courtesy for the most wealthy bathhouse guests. No Face, who bears the distress of also having no home, is unable to control his appetites and begins eating the bathhouse staff. Chihiro quickly learns to defer gratification to avoid becoming sidetracked. Leaving the bathhouse to beg the forgiveness of the witch's sister, Chihiro invites the destructive No Face to go with her -- without explicitly referring to "addiction" (a testament to the genius of the film) -- saying instead she believed the pleasures of the bathhouse drove him crazy.

I think it's disgraceful how little attention this film is getting. Some boor at the San Francisco Chronicle had the nerve to say the movie was unoriginal because the transformation of Chihiro's parents into swine was like the donkey transformation scene in "Pinocchio," then inconsistently complain the movie was difficult to comprehend. Why didn't I hear anyone (besides me) compare "Jurassic Park" to "Dawn of the Dead" with dinosaurs, a comparison more richly earned?

Bowling For Columbine

After he began receiving national attention for "Roger And Me," his documentary on the downsizing of employees loyal to GM in Flint MI and the economic decline that followed, my first exposure to Moore was seeing him profiled on the Phil Donahue show. The interview was either conducted in Flint, or they shipped Flint citizens to the taping, because what stood out to me was the anger -- at Moore -- of some of the abandoned GM workers Moore meant to represent because of his new-found success with his film. His reply that he devoted some of the earnings of the film to help out Flint citizens was not accepted with all that much good will.

This brings into question: if Moore is criticizing corrupt and powerful decision-makers and if his efforts are rewarded by increased corporate influence over government, as well as his own monetary gain, just what is Michael Moore doing? I greatly enjoyed "Roger And Me" as well as his outrageous "TV Nation" -- most memorable was Moore attending a conservative rally in Cobb County GA and pointing out that Newt Gingrich's home base received more federal money than any other US county (Moore was chased out with open fire-hoses) -- so I'm actually asking in the interest of the future of the investigative spectacle-making Moore leads in.

Although he doesn't drive the point home, Moore does indirectly address the foundation of his integrity in Bowling, his latest documentary investigation why the US, which is not unique in armed citizenry and a history of national violence and imperialism, is an industrialized nation that holds an obscene lead in gun deaths. In one of the few pleasant exchanges on camera, Moore confronts a producer of the show "Cops" on misrepresenting black crime as the most harmful crime enacted in the US. The "Cops" producer replies that when a corrupt executive is confronted with his misdeeds, his door isn't broken down and hardly any arrests are made. Despite their greed and irresponsibility, they are still treated with the utmost respect and he can't make television out of that.

This brings into contrast Moore's confrontation with NRA president Charlton Heston. Heston believes himself prepared for his interview, but Moore is still able to ambush him with an anecdote of a gun shooting so tragic that Heston feels compelled to leave in the middle of the interview taking place on his own estate. It's sensational -- and it isn't particularly moral. It's stripping the pretense of what is otherwise legal behavior from those who profit well from that pretense -- and lets them be damned instead by their own inconsistencies.

One Hour Photo

In "Dead Poets Society," Robin Williams told us to seize the day. In the movie "Awakenings," as Parkinson's disease was reclaiming him, Robert DeNiro told Robin Williams he had no excuse for squandering his life in quiet desperation. In "One Hour Photo..." well, damn, if only people would let Robin Williams have his insular life of quiet desperation -- but nooo.

As Sy Parrish, Sy the One Hour Photo Guy, Williams lives vicariously through the happiest damn family to ever expose a roll of film. His dedication to his photo development career does not protect him from losing his job at the photo development department of the local mega-mart. When he discovers the dad of his happy adopted family has betrayed his marriage, it's too much for Sy to endure. Sy relives the severe abuse his own father put him through and he takes it upon himself to show Happy Dad that he too has no excuse for squandering his life. The movie was ok I guess, but I wouldn't recommend paying more than matinee.

Simone

In short, "Simone" is Dr. Strangelove-funny, but if anything is more vicious in that the desolation is real and doesn't stay behind as you leave the theater.

The trailer, about how Al Pacino uses a computer-generated actress to create a media sensation, didn't really inspire me to catch this, especially on its opening weekend. But I noticed it was written and directed by Andrew Niccols, who made "Gattaca" and did the screenplay for "The Truman Show." I remember seeing "Gattaca" around the same time I saw "Good Will Hunting," and it seemed to me that the former had earned the attention that the latter movie wound up getting. In Hunting, the protagonist was asked how he was able to accomplish so much. His answer basically boiled down to that he's just some kind of mutant born that way. In contrast to this, the protagonist in Gattaca was able to learn how to outswim his genetically enhanced brother even though his own genes were unmodified. When asked how he was able to accomplish this, he replied that he never left anything for the swim back. For me, the dedication in character consistency allows the fable to ring more true than the otherwise more realistic and contemporary Hunting.

In "Simone," Pacino is able to make all of his career dreams come true. But the character is an egomaniac and can't stand being eclipsed by his creation. He tries to destroy it, but it's his daughter who learns how to put Simone to good use. The comments of the film I've seen discuss it as satire on fame, media, and idol-worship, but the movie also stands as commentary on branding, and on how our hope lies in how the individual uses branding and technology to assume authority in the marketplace of ideas without being abused by the shell of a human being Pacino plays (you know, like we see in real life).

Tadpole

Oscar has the attention of some of the girls in his class, but that doesn't make him happy. He confides to his friend Charlie that in their shallow teen world of private boarding school, Oscar's impossibly high standards can't be met. He speaks French fluently, quotes Voltaire, and argues Adam Smith -- which means Oscar compounds his teen shallowness with pretension. Yes, Oscar represents the very best of the young and the adult worlds.

Considering the absence of passion in middle-aged men, however, 40-year-old Diane, played by Bebe Neuwirth (purrr! please pardon my tongue hanging out onto the ground...) is vulnerable to Oscar's clumsy, drunken come-on, and his combination of shallowness and pretension somehow makes him something of a fantasy romantic figure among Diane's friends. But trying to keep their affair a secret makes Oscar neurotic, so not only does he become controlling -- giving Diane orders -- but she completely dismisses his concerns. Yet again, Oscar represents the very best of the young and the adult worlds.

Of course, Oscar's fixation on his step-mother is the drama the movie is pimped on, but who can bother to care?

Austin Powers: Goldmember

Here's typical dialogue from "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me":

[massaging Felicity]
Austin: How does that feel, baby?
Felicity Shagwell: Mmm, lower.
Austin: [deep voice] How does that feel, baby?

As for Goldmember, the movie had the killer action-movie opening that dissolved into the silly dance number, animated penis humor with Powers and Mini-me casting shadows on a doctor's screen, a young Austen-and-Dr. Evil-at-boarding-school flashback with actors who nailed the mannerisms -- the humor of the third movie just seemed the most relentless to me.

Road To Perdition

Perdition is another name for Hell. If you leaf through the Hell of The Divine Comedy, you will be reminded that giants reside outside of the ninth circle buried up to their waists. They have been interpreted as to represent the raw, naked emotion that causes so much destruction when manipulated by the treachery buried within the deepest level. It's in movies like "Road To Perdition" we hope to see such raw, naked emotion depicted to create the earthquakes of drama.

We find Tom Hanks compelling in Perdition as Michael Sullivan, a Prohibition-era enforcer for the suppliers of alcohol trying to raise his family and provide as much sober guidance to his children as he is able. He is betrayed, is no longer able to protect his family, and must take flight with his son.

The movie is an adaptation credited to an American comic book, but the parallels to the conflicts in the Japanese "Lone Wolf & Cub" are obvious: the Shogun's executioner must flee with his infant son as fugitives from the powers of order he once served. Like his Japanese inspiration, the protagonist of "Perdition" holds the highest reputation for his dedication, and, like the samurai code of Lone Wolf, that dedication is revealed to be misplaced. Of course, where Lone Wolf's criticism of the more romanticized samurai code takes place over its long and drawn out tragedy, criticizing organized crime is no challenge for the American movie.

What gives Perdition a life of its own over Lone Wolf also makes it distinctly American. Where the samurai code depicted in Lone Wolf is purer and more refined, the dedication Michael Sullivan embodies, though misplaced, is of a nurturing kind. This tragic story is able to understand and articulate caring as an American jingoist wishes he could. Of course, if the American jingoist was able to understand and articulate the thing he was starving for, well, he wouldn't be a jingoist caring about the wrong things, now would he?

Powerpuff Girls

I haven't seen much of the television cartoon, and I wasn't planning on seeing this, but the heat wave was turning my apartment into a sauna and I wanted to see what was inspiring such high ratings from reviewers. While the movie was a very entertaining half-hour of story and funny gags, padded out with back-beat rhythm and video game violence to an hour and a half (still a lot to ask for in a movie), the interesting challenge to the movie was presenting some of the conflicts young girls go through interacting with other children that can degrade their adult relationships when left unresolved.

First taking their place in the community as kindergarteners, the Powerpuff Girls destroy much of Townsville employing their powers in their first game of tag. They are then ostracized by the community, they are ridiculed in the press, and Professor Utonium is arrested. Jojo, the evil monkey transformed in the same accident that created the Powerpuff girls, promises them he can invent a machine so wonderful that the people of Townsville will forgive Professor Utonium and love them all.

After Jojo's ambition to conquor Townsville by force is revealed, he makes one final attempt to recruit the Powerpuff Girls to join him in dominating the people who rejected them. The Powerpuff Girls are simply too dedicated to the well-being of the citizens of Townsville. Hey, it happens.

But here's the part I'm not so sure about:

When the opportunity comes to sacrifice their powers, the Powerpuff Girls are fully ready to do so to please Professor Utonium and the people of Townsville. Of course, the Professor doesn't want them to sacrifice their powers, because he is looking out for their best interests. But the Powerpuff Girls don't actually change their minds until the Mayor gushes over them for saving the city from Jojo. When it comes time for a kid to decide if she's going to sacrifice her individuality, where does this leave her if no one gushes over her talent?

In this regard, I would like to have seen the Powerpuff Girls maybe take a page from Jojo's book, and, rather than decide to sacrifice their powers if it gratifies no one but themselves, spare the community that doesn't understand them of their company until they are ready to appreciate them. (Just taking sanctuary in what makes them strong individuals, rather than letting Townsville's rejection eat at them like it did Jojo.) But then, this is the 21^st Century, and we still don't teach little girls how to say No for themselves, now do we?

Men In Black II

The trailer was very good, and pretty much said it all.

The Emperor's New Clothes

Napoleon has a double shipped in to temporarily replace him as he escapes imprisonment. Unfortunately, if the double never reveals himself as an impostor, he has no means to reveal his true identity to the people of France and inspire them to further military victory. In the meantime, he aids a widow in financial straits and rallies a group of fruit vendors to assume a formidable position in the marketplace while scheming to reassume power.

A very well-made movie. It's faithful to the kind of dedication that politicians like George Bush assume credit for, but we only recognize from how we starve for it -- otherwise we wouldn't be suckers for credit card companies and cheap patriotism.

Minority Report

You are a key figure in implementing a system to predict murders and prevent them. For six years you keep a perfect record of preventing even a single murder, incarcerating people in a drugged slumber based on the murders they would have committed -- but didn't. Then you discover your method for predicting murders have been spawning multiple, incompatible predictions. The people you've incarcerated, maybe they would have committed those murders, but maybe they wouldn't have after all. What do you do? Do you expose the system to scrutiny, offering the accused their fair chance to challenge it and an opportunity to dismantle it? Or do you bury the truth to protect the status quo of a murder-free society? It's a movie, so you know integrity will prevail. But if you read the papers, you know society mostly rewards the latter choice. Spielberg's craftsmanship gives a timely subject an authentic feel.

Attack Of The Clones

You just paid nine dollars to see Yoda fight Count Dooku. And you know what? You liked it. George Lucas did the same thing thing with "Phantom Menace," and it pissed people off. You know why it pissed people off? Because nothing stops George Lucas. He's found an unbeatable scam. "The acting is too wooden? Too much exposition? Jar Jar sucks?" Dude, you can't walk past a computer monitor without seeing special effects shit like that. But the theater was packed at a 9 pm show on Sunday night. Why? Because all that ambitious crap you hate gives meaning to the fight at the end of "Phantom Menace" and Yoda vs Count Dooku, and that's why the treats he measures out in his movies will continue to sell the DVDs. And frankly, everyone complaining about it only makes it all the more intriguing. Do you really hate George Lucas, or do you just hate being the instrument on which he plays?

Spider-Man

The interesting innovation the movie makes in presenting Spider-Man is that the character doesn't change when he puts on the mask, but continues to behave like Peter Parker underneath it. All of the people he saves are rescued by this seemingly retarded super-hero. In the comic book, Spider-Man becomes a personality more like Ferris Bueller when in costume, and I would have thought a young Matthew Broderick more suitable for portraying that kind of character. But I thought the approach they took with Tobey Maguire was a great creative solution to bringing the character to film. If anything, I think the movie broadens the appeal of the character by making him stranger. Peter Parker is frustrated, but instead of taking it out on the elements at his school that aggravate him (relatively speaking) he takes it out on criminals as Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man -- guided by the distinction between courage and cowardice established by his Uncle Ben. And if the movie falls short of a happy ending? So the path of the courageous hero may lead, and maybe we can feel a little less anxious when we leave the theater and return to our humble lives.

Changing Lanes

Samuel Jackson and Ben Affleck cover a broad range of corruption in Changing Lanes. William Hurt's character sees well enough through the excuses Jackson constructs for his indulgent behavior. Ben Affleck plays a sleazy lawyer about to be busted for being a sleazy lawyer, due to careless haste at his traffic accident with Jackson. His conflict is then to choose between the difficult labor of patching up the problems created from following his sleazy ethics and the seemingly easier solution of becoming an even sleazier lawyer. The scenes of most interest in the movie are those demonstrating the seduction Affleck is exposed to by the corrupt elements around him. His wife immerses him in a sense of almost total belonging -- she can forgive his infidelity to her as long as he doesn't sacrifice the lifestyle of theirs which she paints so romantically. His father-in-law also makes excuses -- the funds they've seized were accumulated by dubious means in the first place and mostly arrive at their philanthropic destination anyway. As far as I know, the quality is rare for a movie seeking the audience this one does.

Panic Room

The interesting factor common to David Finch's previous movies is an element of seduction to corruption or to a sterile unliving. This element is included in Panic Room, but to a lesser degree because seduction isn't a challenge presented to the movie's main character, played by Jodie Foster. She holds off intruders within her home's panic room, but it's in Forest Whitaker's character, one of the antagonists trying to break in, where the internal conflict takes place. My understanding is that Foster was not the movie's first choice for her role, but that the movie had begun filming with Nicole Kidman, who was unable to finish. In effect, Foster was miscast, though she plays it as if she hadn't been. Any other miscast performer would probably have made the movie difficult to watch, which wasn't the case here.