About a week ago, I went to watch American: The Bill Hicks Story, at the Phoenix. I am an enormous Bill Hicks fan. Obsessively so. I think I have all the bootlegged concerts on my computer, and a DVD of rariety camcorder shows as well as enough official CDs and DVDs that I have basically all his material available in one form or another (there's a lot of recorded stuff from 1990-91 which is repeated on several shows, which I ususally refer to as his Drugs and Drink and Cigarettes and Porn set). I also have about three books - two biographies and a book of transcripts and scripts and other writings. So that's the background I took into this documentary.
First of all, it's a beautiful film to look at. There's the usual audio history going on in the background, but what the directors have done is taken still photographs and created pseudo-animated sequences to support the narrative. It's odd at first, but very quickly you stop even noticing that the still faces aren't moving in their animated environment. Very clever.
Secondly, where has all this new footage come from? There are several camcorder recordings which must go back as far as the early 1980s that I have never seen before. If a DVD comes out, the producers had better put the whole sets on as extras. There's some bits (about his father) which I'd never heard before which were used to accompany the section on his early shows. I don't think they are quite as old as that (he looks a bit older than 16) but it's not far off. Some of these early clips also show later material in an earlier form - like the fantasy about the grotesque death of woman that broke his heart seeing him on the Tonight Show as she breathed her last.
The best thing about the film, however, is they way everything is brought back to the comedy. With enough reading, you'd already know about the drug stories and the depths of his alcohol abuse and his tragic early death from pancreatic cancer. While all of these are important parts of the story, no-one dwells on the more sensational details, but instead uses them in partnership with recordings to show how they motivated what he was doing on stage. There's clips to show him drinking excessively on stage, clips about his growing dislike of governments (including from Hicks and Kevin Booth's trip to Waco in 1993), clips contrasting his raptorous reception in the UK (the huge rock and roll entrance of the Revelations show at the Dominion theatre) adjacent to the small audiences ("staring blankly back at me like a dog that had been shown a card trick) of a backwater comedy club in the US South. I like this because it feels like the best use of the documentary medium, and gives fresh insight into a topic I (and many other fans) already know well. I mean, I can read and re-read an autobiography of his life but only in a film can I really see the effect on his work. Very much recommended, for disciples and neophytes alike.
Showing posts with label movie films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie films. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
It's actually a little difficult for me to write about Four Lions, which I watched last night at the Phoenix. It seems pointless to talk about how funny it was, given that the top half of the film poster consisted of about twelve different quotes of the single word "Funny" taken from various different newspapers and reviews. The jokes, by the way, are fantastic - in true Chris Morris style, they move between the dark and uncomfortable (Omar's Lion King allegory) through the intentionally provocative ("Jews invented spark plugs to control global traffic") to the absurd ("What we gonna blow up?" "Internet.") and the banal ("Is this a gesture?", says Barry, slowly running his car into a wall).
The other problem I've got is the urge to write things like "true Chris Morris style" (see above). Everyone knows his work will not so much push boundaries as it will repeatedly kick dirt at them until people can't tell where they once were. You go in with certain expectations. The last time I was left actually shocked to the point of breathlessness was during his Blue Jam series, when two parents discuss, in bored ambivalent tones, the disappearance of their child, the police finding the body and the inconvenience of having to deal with it ("Well, it sounds like he was buggered quite a lot and then strangled." "Oh. That's a bit much.") Yet, despite that bar, Four Lions managed to do it again. It is a film that is funny up to the point that it isn't, and when it isn't funny, it is stark and shocking.
I don't think the shocking is gratuituous, however, and that is where I generally draw the line. Without those moments (and don't read this next paragraph is you don't want to know about them in advance) the whole thing would be a farce. They'd be Sean Penn in the Assassination of Richard Nixon - clueless and deluded and impotent. With them, however, it becomes much more meaningful. It becomes clear that completing the bombings becomes the important thing, regardless of the actual damage done. They are no less ineffectual for being, in some way, successful.
The hardest thing about this film, but arguably the reason it is brilliant, are the moments where you are almost forced to sympathise with the bombers, especially Omar. He has a loving and devoted wife and child, yet the idea of his death is not a source of anguish and grief for them. I found Omar's coded goodbye to her at her job, perfunctory as it was with the police standing nearby, utterly awful to watch, as it should have been. There's no given justification for what he wants to do, and even his wife jokes that he as "more fun" when he was going to be a bomber. The absence of apparent motivation stops you thinking about them as heroes, however imperfect, and forces you to see them as the fools that they are.
There has been a lot of negative attention on the film, particularly coming from families of the victims of 7/7, given the close parallels. I think there is a difference between being offended and being upset. Such a person would of course be upset by the film - it's too close to a painful personal memory. That's not the same as the film being offensive. The only people that should be offended by this film are supporters of violent radical Islam, and I am completely OK with upsetting those particular sensibilities.
For a post that began with a concern that I might find it difficult to write about the film, I seem to have found enough to say. I should point out this post has taken several hours to write, in bits, because I'm still sorting out exactly what I think about it - another good thing. But I've picked over what I remember, and can't find anything disappointing, and clearly a lot that I thought was tremendous. Comments welcome, of course.
The other problem I've got is the urge to write things like "true Chris Morris style" (see above). Everyone knows his work will not so much push boundaries as it will repeatedly kick dirt at them until people can't tell where they once were. You go in with certain expectations. The last time I was left actually shocked to the point of breathlessness was during his Blue Jam series, when two parents discuss, in bored ambivalent tones, the disappearance of their child, the police finding the body and the inconvenience of having to deal with it ("Well, it sounds like he was buggered quite a lot and then strangled." "Oh. That's a bit much.") Yet, despite that bar, Four Lions managed to do it again. It is a film that is funny up to the point that it isn't, and when it isn't funny, it is stark and shocking.
I don't think the shocking is gratuituous, however, and that is where I generally draw the line. Without those moments (and don't read this next paragraph is you don't want to know about them in advance) the whole thing would be a farce. They'd be Sean Penn in the Assassination of Richard Nixon - clueless and deluded and impotent. With them, however, it becomes much more meaningful. It becomes clear that completing the bombings becomes the important thing, regardless of the actual damage done. They are no less ineffectual for being, in some way, successful.
The hardest thing about this film, but arguably the reason it is brilliant, are the moments where you are almost forced to sympathise with the bombers, especially Omar. He has a loving and devoted wife and child, yet the idea of his death is not a source of anguish and grief for them. I found Omar's coded goodbye to her at her job, perfunctory as it was with the police standing nearby, utterly awful to watch, as it should have been. There's no given justification for what he wants to do, and even his wife jokes that he as "more fun" when he was going to be a bomber. The absence of apparent motivation stops you thinking about them as heroes, however imperfect, and forces you to see them as the fools that they are.
There has been a lot of negative attention on the film, particularly coming from families of the victims of 7/7, given the close parallels. I think there is a difference between being offended and being upset. Such a person would of course be upset by the film - it's too close to a painful personal memory. That's not the same as the film being offensive. The only people that should be offended by this film are supporters of violent radical Islam, and I am completely OK with upsetting those particular sensibilities.
For a post that began with a concern that I might find it difficult to write about the film, I seem to have found enough to say. I should point out this post has taken several hours to write, in bits, because I'm still sorting out exactly what I think about it - another good thing. But I've picked over what I remember, and can't find anything disappointing, and clearly a lot that I thought was tremendous. Comments welcome, of course.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
We watched (500) Days of Summer, as heart-warming and delightful a film as I've seen since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The story skips between different days from the beginning to the end of a relationship between the two main characters, Tom Hanson and Summer Finn, with each day numbered at the start of the scene. This was a cool little device, especially as they played around with it. Two scenes, far apart in days but similar in setting, are used to give little insights into the characters, like Tom's different feelings about the same memory of summer lying in bed, or his move from prodigously writing love messages to angry condolence cards. The shorter scenes were nice touches, especially in the midst of Tom's depression. One scene sees him yelling on a bus, and asked to get off. Later, there are two consecutive days shown in quik succession where he ignores his alarm; then a third scene, amusingly labelled 1/2 a day later, watches him leave a shop, unshaven, in his dressing gown.
What I really liked about this story is that although its about a failed relationship, it's not about a huge drama which ruins these two peoples lives. Rather, it says, simply, that sometimes relationships don't work out. This is striking in a film, where we are almost preconditioned to expect these things to go one way or the other: either they work out their differences and go off into the sunset, or their lives fall apart. For all the surreal moments of humour, the story here feels very real. I really liked the split scene bit, where Tom's imagined reunion with Summer at a party and the actual disappointing outcome are shown side-by-side. It would have been easy to have have the imagined scene stray into overly romantic fantasy: instead, the differences start off minor (Tom imagines a dinner party, rather than a gathering on the balcony) and the gap builds from there in a much more natural way.
Time isn't just a device in this film, although the careful arrangements of the different scenes out of chronological order adds a great deal. The main message is that life comes in phases, in episodes, and things rarely work out as planned because something surprising is just around the corner, a point emphasised by the final punchline. Funny, smart and touching. Oh, and the music is really great as well. Lovely.
What I really liked about this story is that although its about a failed relationship, it's not about a huge drama which ruins these two peoples lives. Rather, it says, simply, that sometimes relationships don't work out. This is striking in a film, where we are almost preconditioned to expect these things to go one way or the other: either they work out their differences and go off into the sunset, or their lives fall apart. For all the surreal moments of humour, the story here feels very real. I really liked the split scene bit, where Tom's imagined reunion with Summer at a party and the actual disappointing outcome are shown side-by-side. It would have been easy to have have the imagined scene stray into overly romantic fantasy: instead, the differences start off minor (Tom imagines a dinner party, rather than a gathering on the balcony) and the gap builds from there in a much more natural way.
Time isn't just a device in this film, although the careful arrangements of the different scenes out of chronological order adds a great deal. The main message is that life comes in phases, in episodes, and things rarely work out as planned because something surprising is just around the corner, a point emphasised by the final punchline. Funny, smart and touching. Oh, and the music is really great as well. Lovely.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Due to numerous other time constraints, my film watching year hasn't really gone quite as planned. However, I've been watching at a steady rate of about one film every two weeks, and as soon as I'm back on top of work, I plan to motor through a lot more.
Films I have watched: 15
...of which are rewatchings: 2 (Da Vinci Code, The Prestige)
Films I have watched by the Coen Brothers (despite owning every single Coen Brother movie on DVD): 1
...of which were A Serious Man: 1
...of which were a comic masterpiece: 1
Films I have watched by Tarantino: 1
...in which Nazis were killed with reckless abandon: 1
...of which I loved: 1
Films starring George Clooney: 2
...of which seemed like less than the sum of the parts: 1 (The Men Who Stare At Goats)
...of which did not: 1 (Up In The Air)
New favourite films: 1 (Network)
Black comedies: 3
...of which seemed like they were written for me personally: 1 (Drop Dead Gorgeous)
Films that are good because of great solo performances: 3
...by a man: 2 (Up in the Air, The Assassination of Richard Nixon)
...by other (woman, etc.): 1 (The Reader)
We just watched Glorious 39, a British film set during the summer and autumn of 1939 which neither Cath nor I had ever heard of, but we picked up on a shopping trip earlier. It's about a wealthy family who are strongly linked to the government and a plot to make peace with Hitler rather than fight a war many believe unwinnable. I found this a really intriguing viewpoint on a period of British history generally associated with heroism and principle. The scenes about the suspension of habeas corpus and military detainment, and those about blackmail of opposing voices, focus on the uglier side of war, a theme extended in a more personal way by the mass putting down of household pets. The lead character, Anne Keyes, an adopted daughter of the family and actress, stumbles across recordings of the plot, which involves disposing of dissident voices within government, especially those who wanted to follow Churchill's much tougher line of anti-appeasment. Slowly, the plot reveals more and more people who are involved, who, perhaps predictably, are increasingly close to Anne, and her previously comfortable existence unravels.
The whole story is really engaging, with little details and twists added gradually, and the tension builds nicely. There are a number of scenes which seem slightly surreal, which added to the growing sense of unease as Anne becomes increasingly unsure about who to trust. That said, there were a few things which, at the end, were unsatisfactorily explained. Anne's escape, aided by her mother, is particularly confusing - her family, who want to keep her locked away to avoid her asking more questions, react warmly to her when they see her in the town. Cath say's its about public appearances, but it seemed strange to me. The presence of Walter, a boy whose older self tells the whole story in the present-day, provides a number of jarring moments as he appears, alone, unexpectedly - it emerges that he helped the family at times, but its not always clear why, neither does it become particularly clear who is involved in what parts of the plot.
That said, I suppose some confusion or unresolved issues in the story are needed - it's a conspiracy thriller, told by individuals not fully informed about the whole thing. Romola Garai was excellent portraying the mounting paranoia and terro of Anne, as was David Tennant's all to brief appearance as a outspoken MP and supporter of Churchill. I can't decide whether I liked Bill Nighy here - his character is so mellow, its hard to reconcile him with being a plotter doing unpleasant things for the good of his country. Then again, such jarring distinctions works in mirroring the doubt Anne increasingly feels with her familiar surroundings. Overall, a gripping and tense story, with minor fumblings.
Films I have watched: 15
...of which are rewatchings: 2 (Da Vinci Code, The Prestige)
Films I have watched by the Coen Brothers (despite owning every single Coen Brother movie on DVD): 1
...of which were A Serious Man: 1
...of which were a comic masterpiece: 1
Films I have watched by Tarantino: 1
...in which Nazis were killed with reckless abandon: 1
...of which I loved: 1
Films starring George Clooney: 2
...of which seemed like less than the sum of the parts: 1 (The Men Who Stare At Goats)
...of which did not: 1 (Up In The Air)
New favourite films: 1 (Network)
Black comedies: 3
...of which seemed like they were written for me personally: 1 (Drop Dead Gorgeous)
Films that are good because of great solo performances: 3
...by a man: 2 (Up in the Air, The Assassination of Richard Nixon)
...by other (woman, etc.): 1 (The Reader)
We just watched Glorious 39, a British film set during the summer and autumn of 1939 which neither Cath nor I had ever heard of, but we picked up on a shopping trip earlier. It's about a wealthy family who are strongly linked to the government and a plot to make peace with Hitler rather than fight a war many believe unwinnable. I found this a really intriguing viewpoint on a period of British history generally associated with heroism and principle. The scenes about the suspension of habeas corpus and military detainment, and those about blackmail of opposing voices, focus on the uglier side of war, a theme extended in a more personal way by the mass putting down of household pets. The lead character, Anne Keyes, an adopted daughter of the family and actress, stumbles across recordings of the plot, which involves disposing of dissident voices within government, especially those who wanted to follow Churchill's much tougher line of anti-appeasment. Slowly, the plot reveals more and more people who are involved, who, perhaps predictably, are increasingly close to Anne, and her previously comfortable existence unravels.
The whole story is really engaging, with little details and twists added gradually, and the tension builds nicely. There are a number of scenes which seem slightly surreal, which added to the growing sense of unease as Anne becomes increasingly unsure about who to trust. That said, there were a few things which, at the end, were unsatisfactorily explained. Anne's escape, aided by her mother, is particularly confusing - her family, who want to keep her locked away to avoid her asking more questions, react warmly to her when they see her in the town. Cath say's its about public appearances, but it seemed strange to me. The presence of Walter, a boy whose older self tells the whole story in the present-day, provides a number of jarring moments as he appears, alone, unexpectedly - it emerges that he helped the family at times, but its not always clear why, neither does it become particularly clear who is involved in what parts of the plot.
That said, I suppose some confusion or unresolved issues in the story are needed - it's a conspiracy thriller, told by individuals not fully informed about the whole thing. Romola Garai was excellent portraying the mounting paranoia and terro of Anne, as was David Tennant's all to brief appearance as a outspoken MP and supporter of Churchill. I can't decide whether I liked Bill Nighy here - his character is so mellow, its hard to reconcile him with being a plotter doing unpleasant things for the good of his country. Then again, such jarring distinctions works in mirroring the doubt Anne increasingly feels with her familiar surroundings. Overall, a gripping and tense story, with minor fumblings.
Friday, January 15, 2010
We went to watch Sherlock Holmes last Monday. Very entertaining, providing you leave your brain behind, which is a perfectly fine way to watch a film that doesn't take itself seriously. I liked the incarnation of Holmes - it makes sense to me that a guy who has such incredible deductive abilities is much more likely to be a little crazed than the placid detective from previous versions. I liked Jude Law's Watson too, his backstory justifying why a doctor was also such a man of action.
There's loads of touches in this movie that I liked. The slow motion scenes where Holmes plots his next move in fights, and the explosion scene were great, with the slo-mo actually serving a purpose, and allowing us to see all the details we would have missed. There's great moments of humour as well. To take just one, I was really amused by Holmes and Adler trying to dearm the weapon whilst Watson carried on fighting in the background before being launched across the room in a Family Guy-esque moment. I also loved how Holmes was a terrible locksmith, or more specifically, I loved how this was underplayed and never directly pointed out.
Because, for all those moments, Guy Ritchie is not a man who deals well in subtlty, and sometimes, it all gets a bit much. There's moment where adversity is piled on top of more adversity to the point where you struggle to really care about any one problem. It feels too long at the climax, which is a direct result of Ritchie's overblown style. The Watson-Holmes relationship used the obvious device of them talking like an old married couple, which, whilst funny, wasn't really done particularly artfully. By the end, I was even a little tired of Holmes' many quirks and abilities, which is annoying because he had the potential to reach unparalleled levels of awesome. Basically, at times, I wanted to grab this movie and say 'Stop it'.
Movies watched this year: 4
There's loads of touches in this movie that I liked. The slow motion scenes where Holmes plots his next move in fights, and the explosion scene were great, with the slo-mo actually serving a purpose, and allowing us to see all the details we would have missed. There's great moments of humour as well. To take just one, I was really amused by Holmes and Adler trying to dearm the weapon whilst Watson carried on fighting in the background before being launched across the room in a Family Guy-esque moment. I also loved how Holmes was a terrible locksmith, or more specifically, I loved how this was underplayed and never directly pointed out.
Because, for all those moments, Guy Ritchie is not a man who deals well in subtlty, and sometimes, it all gets a bit much. There's moment where adversity is piled on top of more adversity to the point where you struggle to really care about any one problem. It feels too long at the climax, which is a direct result of Ritchie's overblown style. The Watson-Holmes relationship used the obvious device of them talking like an old married couple, which, whilst funny, wasn't really done particularly artfully. By the end, I was even a little tired of Holmes' many quirks and abilities, which is annoying because he had the potential to reach unparalleled levels of awesome. Basically, at times, I wanted to grab this movie and say 'Stop it'.
Movies watched this year: 4
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
I can't remember watching many films where I've actually struggled to understand what's going on for a good half an hour. Not in the sense that I couldn't get the plot - there are plenty of films like that early on. But in the sense that I couldn't get a handle on the characters, the way they spoke and acted and thought. For those who haven't seen Brick, it's basically a film noir detective story meets high school teen drama, where the style, language and archetypes are from the former, and the characters and location are from the latter. Not having any knowledge of film noir or those sort of Philip Marlowe detective stories meant it took me a while to figure out what was going on. For example, when Brendon says of Emma "she's gone" to the Brain, the auto-pilot of my brain told me that he's hiding her death and the circumstances around it and any emotions he might be feeling, and it's only when I adjusted to the (what I know know is called) hardboiled style that I realised that's enough for one person to tell another someone's dead, murdered, and that's as much emotion as will be shown on the topic.
None of this is bad, mind. The end result is one of the most original feeling films I can remember seeing, all the more remarkable given how old the underlying story type is. I'm definitely OK with being mentally challenged by a film - it's not the filmmakers job to pander to the intelligence of the watcher, or his own limited frame of reference. I suspect a second watch would lead me to enjoy in a number of other ways lost by having to concentrate. On a first watch, however, it struck me as a satisfying balance of edgy gritiness and cool quirkiness. I really liked that this unusual world just existed, with its own internal logic, and that the film was not about the reason for that. The humour was wonderful - the scene where Brendon sits opposite The Pin in his mothers kitchen whilst his mother fixes him an apple juice with excruciating detail was very funny - and their lots of off-kilter moments like that. I also remember being aware of the music and liking it.
Movies watched in 2010: 3
None of this is bad, mind. The end result is one of the most original feeling films I can remember seeing, all the more remarkable given how old the underlying story type is. I'm definitely OK with being mentally challenged by a film - it's not the filmmakers job to pander to the intelligence of the watcher, or his own limited frame of reference. I suspect a second watch would lead me to enjoy in a number of other ways lost by having to concentrate. On a first watch, however, it struck me as a satisfying balance of edgy gritiness and cool quirkiness. I really liked that this unusual world just existed, with its own internal logic, and that the film was not about the reason for that. The humour was wonderful - the scene where Brendon sits opposite The Pin in his mothers kitchen whilst his mother fixes him an apple juice with excruciating detail was very funny - and their lots of off-kilter moments like that. I also remember being aware of the music and liking it.
Movies watched in 2010: 3
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Young Victoria was OK. It's quite a sweet love story, but not a deeply emotional one. I thought that largely was the result of trying to include too many historical or political aspects, often without really contributing to the story; or occassionally, where they did, the impact or connection to the personal stories was so tangential that it seemed rather forced. A film like The Queen showed that you pick just a one story from a complicated history, you care so much more about it and it's characters. Positive final comment: Emily Blunt is outrageously beautiful.
Movies watched in 2010: 2
...of which the reviews cheapened women actresses: 1
Movies watched in 2010: 2
...of which the reviews cheapened women actresses: 1
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Watched Pan's Labyrinth. Thought it was fantastic: the performances, story, the photography (beautiful yet utterly bleak). I liked the overlap between the harsh realities of the outpost and the fights with the Resistance, and the macabre fanatasy world of the labyrinth - the two worlds borders are blurred and look very similar, which furthers the idea that the fantasy world is the creation of Ofelia. It is horrific and violent in short bursts, often executed in such a way that seems both visually shocking yet massively real, like the bullet through the Captain's cheek, and the bloody in the eye above it, or the way the Captain crushes the poacher's son's face with a bottle in distinct phases. There's lots of pleasing little details which recur throughout, which start small yet grown in significance. The broken watch, for example, begins as a bit of backstory, but ends up telling us about how the Captain mistakenly sees himself relative to his more noble and heroic father. I'm sure there's a bunch of clever stuff about Fascism and the parallels with the orders of the faun, but I haven't thought it all out yet.
Movie films watched in 2010: 1
Movie films watched in 2010: 1
Friday, January 01, 2010
My new years resolution is to watch films. I'm so rubbish when it comes to watching films. There are so many I should have watched (by which I mean, ones everyone has seen apart from me). A pointless ambition? Maybe. But it should hopefully be an enjoyable one. And, I always thinks it helps intelligent comedy to have as many cultural touchpoints available as possible.
I aim to watch 100 this year. I'm starting tonight with Pan's Labyrinth.
I aim to watch 100 this year. I'm starting tonight with Pan's Labyrinth.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Well, I've spent most of my evening (aside from two and a half hours gloriously spent rewatching The Dark Knight) setting up a new website for Gelastic Band Productions, mine and Andy's production company. It's placeholder stuff for the time being while I get some graphic stuff done, but I thought I'd link it anyway. It's here.
Monday, July 21, 2008
On Saturday, we went to see Kung Fu Panda. I was massively disappointed with this movie. First of all, there was all the stealing from Fight Club. The dojo is basically a club for fighting in. Po is a everyman character who dreams of escaping his mundane noodle-making life. The panda and the leopard are the same person. I could go on.
Plus, there were some quite enormous plotholes. For starters Po is a PANDA, and his father is a GOOSE. And how is it possible to make somebody just explode using a fingerhold? I almost started to cry when he gave the explanation about how he learned it - he "worked it out"? Come on, that doesn't make any sense.
Also the moral messages were horrible. Maybe I don't want to be a kung-fu fighting panda, or a kung fu fighting mantis, or a kung fu fighting...whatever Shifu was supposed to be. Maybe I'm happy not knowing kung fu/happy not being an animal. And don't even start me on the overwhelming misogyny - women in this movie were reduced to being either tigers or vipers. I would avoid film at all costs, and would instead go and watch Wanted, a movie universally loved by all.
(Just so we are clear about this, I loved Kung Fu Panda. I also love being a dick.)
Plus, there were some quite enormous plotholes. For starters Po is a PANDA, and his father is a GOOSE. And how is it possible to make somebody just explode using a fingerhold? I almost started to cry when he gave the explanation about how he learned it - he "worked it out"? Come on, that doesn't make any sense.
Also the moral messages were horrible. Maybe I don't want to be a kung-fu fighting panda, or a kung fu fighting mantis, or a kung fu fighting...whatever Shifu was supposed to be. Maybe I'm happy not knowing kung fu/happy not being an animal. And don't even start me on the overwhelming misogyny - women in this movie were reduced to being either tigers or vipers. I would avoid film at all costs, and would instead go and watch Wanted, a movie universally loved by all.
(Just so we are clear about this, I loved Kung Fu Panda. I also love being a dick.)
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Went to watch Wanted. Slobber. With so much cool stuff in one movie, it's impossible not to love it. It is impossible. Don't even try. It's mainly about the special effects, of course, but I can honestly say I haven't had that much fun at a cinema since, I don't know, Kill Bill part one? Night Watch, maybe. Maybe. Only regret is I didn't go and watch it with the sort of people who appreciate such things and find it impossible not to love it. You know. Idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)