Wow! This is a fabulous movie - enjoyable, beautiful, intelligent and fun; but never too arch or clever to alienate an audience. The explosions, the deaths, the stretches of cartoon but still fatal violence means that little kidlets are out. However, for everyone else this is a funny, intelligent and beautifully presented movie.
The movie starts with a reel of mock interviews with some leading superheroes - Mr Incredible (who is, basically, incredible - super strong, superfast, kind, etc etc), Elastigirl (who is very "flexible"), Frozone (the power of ice with any available water) - about what they do, how they feel about what they do. But due to the interference of Mr Incredible's biggest fan, the superheroes all have to put their glory days behind them and melt back into normal life - and it seems this exposes the one fault in them all.
We see how everyday life suppresses them - by stopping them from using their superpowers, the beaurocracy and tedium is cutting away at an essential part of who they are. Mr Incredible (now Bob Parr) and his wife of 15 years, Elastigirl (now Helen Parr) find that marriage, and raising children (who themselves have superpowers they are not allowed to use), is not even remotely easy for people who could once save the world over and over again. There's a great deal of comedy to be milked from these, and as much pathos - the squabbling between husband and wife is familiar, and the kids bicker as siblings will; it's just that they can occasionally break out unusual methods of dealing or coping with difficulties.
The adventure part of the story kicks in when Bob is offered a job that promises to return the invincible greatness he once exercised, but it is all shrouded in secrecy, and anyone familiar with the trope of cartoons knows this cannot be a good thing. The script is great - it plays with the conventions of comic books and cartoons, either parodying them or updating them without resorting to mean-spirited mocking. There's a bit where Frozone (now Lucius Best) recounts an old victory where the villian cannot help but start "monologuing" about his inevitable victory on the cusp of destroying the superhero - thus giving the hero plenty of time to escape. Now, who hasn't laughed at moments like this in other movies? However, in a clever self-reference, when Mr Incredible is later trapped by the big bad of the movie, Syndrome interrupts himself mid-monologue and calls it out with a laugh.
A lot of thought has gone into the design of the film. The superpowers are not random, but correspond to the character and what they would like to be, what is hidden in them (for example, the teenage daughter is very self-conscious and thus has the power to become invisible; when she has gained confidence in her ability to use her superpower for good, she gains self-confidence in her "normal" life). The baby has indeterminate powers, as anonymous as any other baby, and basically, when its powers do manifest it's a great surprise that had the theatre laughing in an equal mixture of shock, amusement, and delight.
The animation is gorgeous. The colours are bright and bold yet elegant - which is another fun reference from a great side character, the costume designer Edna Mode - acceptably real while maintaining that cartoon feel. The action is played at a furious pace, but isn't tedious - part of the fun is seeing how their superpowers get them out of each situation - and the set design is just...wow. The science-fiction feel of Syndrome's island hideaway, the minimalist yet technologically eye-popping mansion that Edna lives in, the bland split-level the Barrs find themselves living in the heartland of suburbia - there's such attention to detail and character that builds a wonderful film to watch.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Monday, July 26, 2004
King Arthur (2004; d. Antoine Fuqua)
King Arthur is not a good movie. It is confused about its messages, poorly paced such that it drags on without a true climax while tacking on an ending with jarring tone, and the characterisation is all over the place. While Clive Owen has great screen presence, and has a calmness and authority that makes him convincing as the fair and commanding Arthur, Lancelot (Ioan Gruffud) has little to do but look pretty, make angry eyes at everything, and joke about sleeping with everyone elses' wives/girlfriends. However, we see absolutely no hint of this sexy, lightheartedness in the whole movie, and the lack of spark between Guinevere and Arthur, or even Guinevere and Lancelot, is keenly felt - there's not even the establishment of a triangle betwen Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot beyond one scene of ambiguous glances and half-nakedness. As for the other 5 knights - Bors (Ray Winstone), Dagonet (Ray Stevenson), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), Gawain (Joel Edgerton) and Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen) - their characterisation and subplots are laid on a bit thick, at times it was like being hit over the head with giant anvils of cliche - but the camraderie amongst them rings truest of the relationships, such that strangely enough, there's more chemistry between Arthur (Clive Owen) and his knights - pick two, any two.
And the story...if you're wondering why so far I haven't mentioned "chivalry" or "magic" or "Morgan Le Fay" or "Excalibur" or "that freaky hand waving the sword out of the lake", that's because they really really didn't go with the legend in writing this story. In fact, at times I had trouble remembering what the original myth was, it was so divorced from that story. Instead, they've thrown in their version of 'reality' - that Arthur is a loyal servant of Rome (and her religion, which they dub as Christianity and proceed to abuse throughout the entire movie), the son of a Roman and a British wife who is leading a fierce band of Sarmatian soldiers in Britain of the Dark Ages. His knights are waiting out the 15 years of their term, and do not love Rome as Arthur does, nor do they follow his religion - but they are completely loyal to him. So when Arthur is forced to lead them on a mission for Rome, starting on the last night of their freedom, they are bitter and weary for home, but they follow him anyway.
The middle of the film drags as they take their sweet time introducing the intersecting groups of this journey in rather broad strokes. We are shown bad Romans (also random "Christians") who are unjust and tricky, and Saxons who are horrible murderers and pillagers, while the Woads and Arthur's knights (the pagans) are shown to be noble and kind to their own, so therefore Arthur realises true freedom by choosing to be with them, to fight with them against the Saxons, to sleep with Guinever - oh wait, that doesn't actually have beating beyond resolving the sexual tension.
The theme - from what I gathered of the simplistic plot, and the messy discussions and arguments that Arthur has with Lancelot, Guinevere, Merlin, etc etc - is that a man's freedom is his choice to belong to a group of people as he is led by his heart and his true moral beliefs, not by the bonds of law or by race. This is so unsubtly pushed at times, and yet flounders by not being supported well by story or by character development or even interesting movie scenes. And with such simplistic, childish boundaries drawn between good and evil, the denoument - small battles leading to an unlikely evisceration of the giant Saxon army by 7 knights and a bunch of Woads led by Merlin and a S&M barbie Guinevere - is violent in a increasingly numbing way that only goes to show how little difference there is between the four groups. They are all fighters, they are all capable of viciousness - it's just that we're supposed believe that the "good" guys are doing it for the right reasons (being just by their own measure, for the love of their land) while the "bad" guys are doing it for no discernible reason or because they're really mean and want to pillage. Right.
All said, I was engrossed enough during the running of the film, and I didn't feel like I'd wasted my money completely. I still prefer the mystical, incestuous, tragic story of the original legend to this, but it's got some interesting interpretation of that. And did I mention that it's a beautiful film? There's some breathtaking scenery, and some genuinely tense and captivating scenes (all of which can be represented in the section on ice, with the endless purity of snow, and the power of the battle in the freeze).
And the story...if you're wondering why so far I haven't mentioned "chivalry" or "magic" or "Morgan Le Fay" or "Excalibur" or "that freaky hand waving the sword out of the lake", that's because they really really didn't go with the legend in writing this story. In fact, at times I had trouble remembering what the original myth was, it was so divorced from that story. Instead, they've thrown in their version of 'reality' - that Arthur is a loyal servant of Rome (and her religion, which they dub as Christianity and proceed to abuse throughout the entire movie), the son of a Roman and a British wife who is leading a fierce band of Sarmatian soldiers in Britain of the Dark Ages. His knights are waiting out the 15 years of their term, and do not love Rome as Arthur does, nor do they follow his religion - but they are completely loyal to him. So when Arthur is forced to lead them on a mission for Rome, starting on the last night of their freedom, they are bitter and weary for home, but they follow him anyway.
The middle of the film drags as they take their sweet time introducing the intersecting groups of this journey in rather broad strokes. We are shown bad Romans (also random "Christians") who are unjust and tricky, and Saxons who are horrible murderers and pillagers, while the Woads and Arthur's knights (the pagans) are shown to be noble and kind to their own, so therefore Arthur realises true freedom by choosing to be with them, to fight with them against the Saxons, to sleep with Guinever - oh wait, that doesn't actually have beating beyond resolving the sexual tension.
The theme - from what I gathered of the simplistic plot, and the messy discussions and arguments that Arthur has with Lancelot, Guinevere, Merlin, etc etc - is that a man's freedom is his choice to belong to a group of people as he is led by his heart and his true moral beliefs, not by the bonds of law or by race. This is so unsubtly pushed at times, and yet flounders by not being supported well by story or by character development or even interesting movie scenes. And with such simplistic, childish boundaries drawn between good and evil, the denoument - small battles leading to an unlikely evisceration of the giant Saxon army by 7 knights and a bunch of Woads led by Merlin and a S&M barbie Guinevere - is violent in a increasingly numbing way that only goes to show how little difference there is between the four groups. They are all fighters, they are all capable of viciousness - it's just that we're supposed believe that the "good" guys are doing it for the right reasons (being just by their own measure, for the love of their land) while the "bad" guys are doing it for no discernible reason or because they're really mean and want to pillage. Right.
All said, I was engrossed enough during the running of the film, and I didn't feel like I'd wasted my money completely. I still prefer the mystical, incestuous, tragic story of the original legend to this, but it's got some interesting interpretation of that. And did I mention that it's a beautiful film? There's some breathtaking scenery, and some genuinely tense and captivating scenes (all of which can be represented in the section on ice, with the endless purity of snow, and the power of the battle in the freeze).
Monday, May 10, 2004
Reasonable Optimism: Australian Federal Election 2004
In our disenchantment about the two major parties of our political system, we have become a nation of people who do not even trust their politicians. We see them as fallible, forced choices of government who spend more time enjoying the luxuries of position and the associated perks rather than working for the voters who put them there.
In our disillusionment with the Labor and Liberal parties, we can no longer see a difference, between them and how they would run the country. The current voting public is no longer made up of old stalwarts who back one party for life, but of people burdened with the stress of modern life who are happy to swing between one election and the next, following whatever party promises to be most beneficial for them at this current point in time.
This has lead to an orgy of spending on election promises in the current campaign for the Australian federal election. Now, if we're rich enough to fund all these initiatives, why wasn't this money spent on improving services previously? This is the question the current governing party has to answer for: they have been in power for 8 1/2 years, enough time to have provided this service and built that infrastructure a long time ago.
As a voting public, by agreeing to support whichever party throws up the latest best idea in our own interests, and not opposing any of their more objectionable practices, we support their right to have short-term goals; whatever wins the election, right? But in the process we forfeit opportunities for long-term policies that will benefit Australian as a country over time. Yes, it is idealistic to expect politicians to provide services and security beyond their foreseeable term. But the flipside is a pessimism lapses into cynical apathy if unchecked, allowing a political party to ignore the 'right' thing to do for actions that serve best to get them re-elected by a disenchanted, disengaged voting public. It's a vicious cycle that we shouldn't be proud of, as public good is pushed to the side in favour of personal and economic gain.
As the Liberals see it, the reasons Australians should re-elect them for a third term are their concerted efforts to increase national security, and continued financial prosperity.
The first is contentious: we are asked to believe that if Australia had not supported the US the terrorists would have won, and then Saddam Hussein, and any other unproven Al-Quaeda allies, would have wreaked more terror, and thus going to war in Iraq increased our national security. However, the reasons we went to war are still debatable; and considering the political climate and relative safety of Iraq and Afghanistan still, not completely justifiable.
The second, economic prosperity, appeals directly the greed of the nation. We like to comfortable, and we like to believe that we can choose to remain so. It is, however, not a rational decision to allow one party to claim that they can ensure another three to four years of continued wealth, for the market fluctuations rely as much on the trading practices and governmental decisions of other countries and other governments.
Labor's main selling points are domestic, rather than international, which is understandable considering leader Mark Latham's comments about George W. Bush. It also allows for some degree of differentiation between the parties, for once - and in quite a few areas, Latham has taken risks to oppose the Liberal point-of-view, which identifies him as dangerous but also gives him an edge.
Labor promises to concentrate on education, social welfare, and health. This is a safe grab for votes as most people of voting age are worried about one if not all of these issues. The focus on healthcare is particularly astute considering Australia as an aging population. Also, complaints about hospital space and care, aged care, Medicare and so on have been on in the increase in recent years without satisfactory address from any level of government.
Can a Labor government actually fulfil all these new initiatives promised? Probably not, even with the certainly generous amount of money that seems to be in Treasury coffers, because their policies cover a broad range of interests and not all the people and organisations involved will co-operate; for example, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has already dug in its heels over the Medicare Gold scheme. However, these are plans of certain optimism that have at least considered the contemporary issues facing voters.
I am not writing to sway people to vote for one party over another, but to convince people to actually think about who they're voting for, and why, and to what impact. I vote in support for the idea of democracy - government by the people for the people - and for our right to choose and our freedom to do so.
Our generation has been raised to be so cynical about everything, and to react rather than reflect. But our cynicism breeds an attitude that makes us think we are helpless about the choices that matter, makes us relinquish our right to think and choose, and diminishes the effective voice we have. So on Saturday, please don't turn off your minds and even your hearts (an emotive vote can still be a good one) just because the current trend amongst people our age is to be disaffected.
Be a reasoned optimist, at the very least.
edited 26 Nov 2009
In our disillusionment with the Labor and Liberal parties, we can no longer see a difference, between them and how they would run the country. The current voting public is no longer made up of old stalwarts who back one party for life, but of people burdened with the stress of modern life who are happy to swing between one election and the next, following whatever party promises to be most beneficial for them at this current point in time.
This has lead to an orgy of spending on election promises in the current campaign for the Australian federal election. Now, if we're rich enough to fund all these initiatives, why wasn't this money spent on improving services previously? This is the question the current governing party has to answer for: they have been in power for 8 1/2 years, enough time to have provided this service and built that infrastructure a long time ago.
As a voting public, by agreeing to support whichever party throws up the latest best idea in our own interests, and not opposing any of their more objectionable practices, we support their right to have short-term goals; whatever wins the election, right? But in the process we forfeit opportunities for long-term policies that will benefit Australian as a country over time. Yes, it is idealistic to expect politicians to provide services and security beyond their foreseeable term. But the flipside is a pessimism lapses into cynical apathy if unchecked, allowing a political party to ignore the 'right' thing to do for actions that serve best to get them re-elected by a disenchanted, disengaged voting public. It's a vicious cycle that we shouldn't be proud of, as public good is pushed to the side in favour of personal and economic gain.
As the Liberals see it, the reasons Australians should re-elect them for a third term are their concerted efforts to increase national security, and continued financial prosperity.
The first is contentious: we are asked to believe that if Australia had not supported the US the terrorists would have won, and then Saddam Hussein, and any other unproven Al-Quaeda allies, would have wreaked more terror, and thus going to war in Iraq increased our national security. However, the reasons we went to war are still debatable; and considering the political climate and relative safety of Iraq and Afghanistan still, not completely justifiable.
The second, economic prosperity, appeals directly the greed of the nation. We like to comfortable, and we like to believe that we can choose to remain so. It is, however, not a rational decision to allow one party to claim that they can ensure another three to four years of continued wealth, for the market fluctuations rely as much on the trading practices and governmental decisions of other countries and other governments.
Labor's main selling points are domestic, rather than international, which is understandable considering leader Mark Latham's comments about George W. Bush. It also allows for some degree of differentiation between the parties, for once - and in quite a few areas, Latham has taken risks to oppose the Liberal point-of-view, which identifies him as dangerous but also gives him an edge.
Labor promises to concentrate on education, social welfare, and health. This is a safe grab for votes as most people of voting age are worried about one if not all of these issues. The focus on healthcare is particularly astute considering Australia as an aging population. Also, complaints about hospital space and care, aged care, Medicare and so on have been on in the increase in recent years without satisfactory address from any level of government.
Can a Labor government actually fulfil all these new initiatives promised? Probably not, even with the certainly generous amount of money that seems to be in Treasury coffers, because their policies cover a broad range of interests and not all the people and organisations involved will co-operate; for example, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has already dug in its heels over the Medicare Gold scheme. However, these are plans of certain optimism that have at least considered the contemporary issues facing voters.
I am not writing to sway people to vote for one party over another, but to convince people to actually think about who they're voting for, and why, and to what impact. I vote in support for the idea of democracy - government by the people for the people - and for our right to choose and our freedom to do so.
Our generation has been raised to be so cynical about everything, and to react rather than reflect. But our cynicism breeds an attitude that makes us think we are helpless about the choices that matter, makes us relinquish our right to think and choose, and diminishes the effective voice we have. So on Saturday, please don't turn off your minds and even your hearts (an emotive vote can still be a good one) just because the current trend amongst people our age is to be disaffected.
Be a reasoned optimist, at the very least.
edited 26 Nov 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)