Summer Reading #3 - Les Miserables (1978)

The backlog continues.  It actually feels somewhat fitting thematically that the last entries into Summer Reading are rushed into early September. I mean, really, who hasn't had that happen with their summer reading at least once?

In hunting adaptations for this, I did want to try and find a good variety. Unfortunately, many of the standouts I found in this regard were miniseries. Now, nothing wrong with those- I've tagged a few for watching on my own anyway-but in trying to keep a schedule with these, now that things are in a rush, time dictated that I try and keep to the shorter versions. On the plus side, this did allow for this rather curious find - a 1978 made for TV movie based on the novel.

The story...OK, do I really need to review the story by this point? In terms of how this version fares in adapting that story, well...

About the best analogy I can think to make for how this film paces its events is akin to a funhouse mirror. Certain parts that were minor within the original story get considerably more focus here, such as Valjean's arrest and imprisonment at Toulon, a fairly short sequence in the book that nets a solid 20 minutes of this two hour version. By comparison, other parts feel almost alarmingly condensed, most damningly Fantine's narrative, which has much of its front-end chopped off and then revealed in a rather hasty information dump. This creative decision feels particularly problematic given this adaptation makes it a point to start with Hugo's famous prologue declaring "So long as there are people suffering in the world, stories such as this one will be necessary." It feels somewhat hypocritical to emphasize that quote while ultimately downplaying the one character who, more than anyone else in the narrative, is the ultimate poster child for suffering and the casual cruelty of people. Given how much of this movie tends to carry itself, it feels like this is because writer John Gay and director Glenn Jordan seem to want to place the emphasis on the storylines of Valjean and Javert (it's rather telling that many of the covers for this version prominently display Anthony Perkins in the latter role.) In fact, anyone who isn't Valjean or Javert can look forward to their story essentially being told with a fast forward button.

This is kind of a shame since, for the parts they do pay the focus to, the movie actually does a pretty solid job. It's not without its drawbacks (I do find it strange this version has Valjean actively break out of Toulon) but in all, it still manages to capture their respective plots mostly well. I say mostly because Javert's botched spy job is a VERY clumsy scene in this version. Otherwise, the film does their characters fair justice. Everyone else, however, is far less than lucky. Like I said above, much of Fantine's storyline is sacrificed, drastically reducing the impact of her tragedy. Her daughter is even less of a character, sadly. I'll grant Cosette is kind of a light character even in the original narrative, but in this version, she's almost nonexistent. The biggest casualties in this version, as it were, would be Marius and the ill-fated Friends of the ABC. For what's meant to be a major turning point in the story, they're only introduced within the last half-hour of the movie, and the barricade only arises in the last 20 minutes. Further, it occurs with almost no buildup whatsoever. We learn about it as it's happening care of young Gavroche, who this version makes into an almost literal plot device. From there, much of the barricade is further rushed through. And, in keeping with the film's matter-of-fact handling of his character, even Gavroche's death is rather abrupt.

Speaking of no buildup, they aren't standing on anything here.
This is as large as their barricade gets.

As heavily condensed as the film's script is, I do have to give the film credit for its casting. It is arguably the movie's strongest suit, and in many cases does make up for how the script has rendered several people to be non-characters. At the start, I will concede, I wasn't particularly sold on Richard Jordan as Valjean, but after the first 30 minutes or so, he grew on me. It's a bit strange to say he first really starts to fit the role around the time Valjean is slowly losing his humanity in prison, and becoming more and more of a dangerous thug. For how this film writes the character, Jordan does a decent job with giving the role the needed emotional weight - or at least as much as this telling allows it to carry. Likewise, Anthony Perkins, who I initially felt a bit uncertain about going into this movie, really surprised me as Javert. His turn is arguably one of the best performances in this version, playing the inspector with what starts as a clipped detachment that slowly turns into more of a dogged determination as the movie goes on. The supporting cast, it feels somewhat odd to comment on since, like I said, so many are ultimately marginalized by the script. There are still a few notable turns, such as Ian Holm as the innkeeper Thenardier, and John Gielgud as Marius's uncle, Gillenormand (I got my hopes up at seeing this version incorporate him, as he's a character that often tends to get omitted from adaptations.)  From there, the two other performances that really stand out for much are Angela Pleasance as Fantine and Christopher Guard as Marius. The two aren't bad, but again, they only can do just so much being demoted to extras.

On the plus side, being killed here WOULD free him from getting called back for more Psycho sequels.
...come on, I bit back a LOT of Norman Bates jokes during this review, let me have this one!

I actually feel somewhat bad coming down on the script on this version so hard since, to be honest, it's otherwise not a particularly bad movie. Jordan's direction is certainly capable of handling the material well, even with the focal problems. Further, he makes good use of the cast he has here. Because again, they certainly deliver on their performances. Even the overall production, for a made for TV budget, looks quite good. Some of the sets are, admittedly, a bit downsized (the barricade being the prime example,) but given the means the production had to work with, that's understandable. For what they had to work with, they still make the most of the money on hand. Also, Jordan's handling of certain scenes relying more on emotion than dialogue actually shows some good directorial skill (for the most part, there's a couple of iffy moments, though given how introspective parts of this novel are, it's a challenge to be expected.) Further adding to those emotional scenes, the score by Allyn Fergsuon, while nothing timeless, does serve the movie well. Really, the other components of this film have a lot of potential and do manage some good on their own terms.

Though on the plus side, that lower budget DOES make the sewers much easier to maneuver.

In all, I feel rather conflicted about this version. I want to be able to say more good for it, cause the things it handles well, it actually does a fairly solid job with. Unfortunately, the very heavy hand in adapting the script hurts the film in a lot of ways, both as an adaptation and with its own standalone ability. It's a case where one of the weakest pieces has the ill luck to be a central one. The rest of the components of the film do their best to make up for that failing, but they can only do so much.

"...and they said this was going to be a sad ending!"

Well, three down, one to go.

Keep an eye out for the last in a few days. As you can imagine, this one's gonna be a biggie.

"Well, my work here is done."
(...and this is actually how this version ends. Really. Well, not the line, but this shot.)

The World's End - This Time "I'm Getting Too Old For This" Is Part of the Plan

As the summer winds down, I find my 'to do' list for releases wrapping up pretty quick.  Sure, there's still a couple of stragglers (need to get around to You're Next and see if I can find a theater around here that would still have Fruitvale Station, but otherwise, just about done) but the season has just about clocked out for me. With that in mind, it seems strangely appropriate that the last 'must see' for me this season was Edgar Wright's final installment in the Three Flavors Cornetto trilogy The World's End.

This is a film I've been curious about since its first announcement, both as the awaited spiritual successor/conclusion to the series started with Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, and both for the statements made in interviews leading up to the film's genesis, of the film's creative team exploring the idea of getting older in a genre where the man-child archetype has become something of the norm.

The result, while a bit unusual and a little jarring at times, is still a largely satisfying finale that proves well worth the wait.

The film's story, in as spoiler-free a way as I can sum it up, is first introduced to us by protagonist Gary King (Simon Pegg,) a former high school bad boy who recounts, in flashback, what he considers to be the peak of his glory days - a fateful night when he and four of his friends took on the challenge of the Golden Mile: a 12 bar pub crawl. The night was eventful, intoxicating, and incomplete. In present day, Gary decides this is the time to go back and finish the fight - but he's not going alone: he wants his old friends (played by Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, and Eddie Marsan) to join him, whether they want to or not. So, the reluctantly reunited group returns to their old home town to partake of this last pub crawl. To their surprise, their old home town seems kind of strange. People don't recognize them, or don't seem to have aged. At first they brush this off as being on them: time has changed, they've changed, etc. As the night goes on, however, they find the town has changed as well - and is now a launching off point for an alien occupation of Earth.

...you know, nothing they can't handle after a few beers.

Like the first two installments in the TFC trilogy, this movie runs with the idea that its story can still stand on its own without necessarily needing the genre riffing. In a bit of a shift, the genre riffing is less pronounced in this film than it was in the prior two. There is definitely a play on alien invasion films - most notably Invasion of the Body Snatchers - prevalent in the movie. Yet at times it almost feels secondary to the character interaction between the group. That said, the characterization is arguably the strongest element of this movie. Both in terms of comedy and general writing, the movie works at its best with the interaction between the group of friends. As in the prior two movies, amid the various tweaks of various genre cliches, there was still a core message about the characters in focus: in SotD, it was getting your life in order and stepping up for those you really care about; in Hot Fuzz, it was trying to balance not being too rigid in life with not being too complacent in it either (Pegg and Frost starting out at the two extremes before each comes to more of a middle ground); here, as said above, it's the idea of reconciling your past. While Pegg is arguably the most pronounced case of this, we see examples of it in all of the members of the group to extents: Freeman's Oliver is at first hesitant to revisit his past, and at first is the most visibly annoyed with Gary over the whole thing; Considine's Steven has been trying for years to get over the girl who got away (Rosamund Pike) only to find out she's still there when they return; Marsan's Peter has an old wound reopened care of a former tormentor, a plot point that climaxes in a scene that's as gratifying as it is sadly unsettling thanks to how Marsan plays it; and finally Frost's Andy, who we learn parted ways with Gary over some rather dark events. Having Gary desperately try and revive the past causes each of these people to confront, and in their own ways, deal with that balance of who they were and who they are now. Some overcome it with more success than others. Unfortunately, I can't really explain further on this point without spoiling.

On the note of the core cast, I do have to make a particular shout-out for Pegg on this one. Of his three roles in the trilogy, and honestly, of his career in general, Gary King may be one of his best performances to date. This is somewhat surprising considering that Gary is arguably one of the most obnoxious and unlikable characters you could hope to meet - and he's like that by design. In many ways, Gary is the old established comedic trope of the man-child played completely straight, and Pegg doesn't try to soften the negative parts. This isn't to say he doesn't get some laughs - he certainly gets a fair number - but he also doesn't shy away from the fact that someone so attached to the past as Gary is WOULD come across as sad and somewhat conniving in a lot of ways. You can see why his friends both seem to dislike him, but still haven't got the heart to just drop out on him entirely. He's a jerk, but he's not without his sympathy - particularly in the third act, but again, I can't go into that one too much.

I couldn't have asked for a better screencap to sum him up than this.

Outside of the character interaction, the overall plot feels somewhat relegated to the background. It's not bad, but it doesn't really resonate quite the same way as the performances do. Though I do have to certainly hand Wright and Pegg some extra brownie points here for the number of clues and signs of a full circle plot the movie works in. Things like the pub names reflecting what's happening in the story, and the fact that the group's decision making process becomes increasingly worse, though their fighting improves, as they get more drunk are little touches that really speak to the thought that got put into the storyline on this one.

Of course, even with all that thought, the script does have a few problems - most notably with the alien plot. It makes for an compelling mystery at the start of the film, but when all the cards are on the table in the final act, it feels somewhat anticlimactic. The message behind them is certainly interesting (Wright has said in interviews the film's invaders are in part a message about the sort of branding that is spreading throughout England, here embodied in the uniform design of all the pubs,) but it feels like a thought that would be better used in another film entirely. Additionally, the third act suffers from a rather severe case of emotional whiplash. It's not necessarily a bad shift per se, and it makes for a well done surprise character shift to work with, but it also can potentially be problematic for some viewers to work with. Otherwise, the only other real grievance I can say on this is with regards to the film's epilogue. This, again, isn't bad in and of itself, it provides some nice closure on everyone, but it DOES also run a bit longer than it probably needs to.

In terms of direction, the film is very much up to par with the first two installments - containing many of the same sharp edits and camera work that made these films stand out in the first place. Likewise, this film handles its fights with a surprising level of energy and creativity for a comedy. A highlight in this being one brawl where Frost wields two barstools as weapons; words can't do it justice, you really need to see it to get why this one works. This energy and directorial vision are certainly welcome here, as they're a big part of what helps keep the movie trucking through the somewhat shaky third act. Paired with the sharp work by the cast and a well-employed soundtrack, everything else about the movie still manages to fire on all cylinders.

Even this screencap only starts to do it justice. It just works that well in motion.

All in all, it's not a bad note to send these films off on. It's not perfect, but even the downsides aren't particularly crippling ones, and when the films does things well, it does them VERY well. It didn't all hit me right away, but more and more I am actually still very satisfied with this as an end point for the films. It's actually a bit of a shame to see them off, but hopefully the team may still work again in the future - I know I'd look forward to it.

Well, with summer wrapping up, that means...yep, time to wrap up the last of the Summer Reading (two entries left to go on those, guys. You're not getting away that easy!)

Of course, other entries will be coming up alongside them as well. At this rate, will be caught up by the weekend!

Till then...

Backlog Week Entry 2: A Fistful of Fingers - No, It's Not a Caligula Joke

So with last night's announcement posted (and again, I can't stress the value of your input enough on that) we're back to the review backlog to be caught up this week.

This next entry was lined up to actually go with two Fridays back, to coincide with Edgar Wright wrapping up the last of his Three Flavors Cornetto trilogy, The World's End. That write-up will be here tomorrow. In the meantime, thanks to a mix of checking filmography and hunting around, I was able to track down Wright's feature directorial debut - the spaghetti western sendup A Fistful of Fingers - Okay TECHNICALLY it's a remake of his first version of the movie, which was done on a considerably lower budget (believe me, I've been trying to find that version as well.)

Told ya that was the actual name...

To anyone whose prior encounters with Wright's penchant for parody come from the above mentioned trilogy, I should warn you now. This is a different flavor of parody compared to those films. While there is still a healthy dose of genre-riffing abundant in Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and The World's End, they also still have a separate story that could, theoretically, exist without the riffing. By comparison, Edgar Wright is going all-in on the parody with this film.

As such, what story we have is even an extension of the send-up: we followed the gunman with no name (Graham Low, complete with the Eastwood style adornment) as he ambles into town seeking to take down the wanted criminal known only as The Squint (Oli van der Vijver.) What follows is a skewed playthrough of many of the tried and true western cliches, up to and including even spoofing on the genre's tendency to be less than PC in its handling of Native Americans, largely in the form of No-Name's companion, Running Sore (Martin Curtis.)

Yep...again, they go all in with this.

On paper, this really doesn't sound like much. Fortunately, Writer/director Wright has enough of a sense of humor to take the very basic premise and characters and still make for a good run with them. A run that actually is further added to by the fact this is very much in the spirit of a low budget student film (considering the original was one,) most notably with regards to how it chooses to handle horses, as pictured below. It actually becomes a sort of strength for the movie - rather than try and downplay its more low budget pieces, the film embraces them, making the way the actors handle them as much a part of the joke. Given the style of some of the spaghetti westerns, this is actually rather fitting.

Yeeeeeep...

The result, oddly enough, feels a bit less like Blazing Saddles, and a bit more like Matt Stone and Trey Parker's Cannibal! The Musical. It's a work that feels comfortable enough in its low-budget trappings to have fun with them without making them feel like it's being done arbitrarily to mock it.

Given that the design of this film is more based around the joke than the story, this does have something of a drawback in terms of its execution - some parts can be a bit hit or miss depending how you feel about the humor. For the most part, it's still fairly entertaining, but if you're looking for something beyond the light laugh, this isn't gonna get you particularly far.

In an example of one of the gags I have to admit I found particularly amusing - taking the old west saloon to such a full cliche that everyone in the bar acts as though they're animatronic dummies on a loop...but only when someone comes in, of course.

Still, there's something to be said for simplicity some times. This film does what it wants and for the most part, succeeds. The script takes some somewhat well-worn ground for parody and manages to mine some fresh laughs out of it where other films would likely have less luck. Also, given this was a very early attempt at a feature, some of the bumps are to be a bit expected. For a second-filming-of-a-first try, it still shows a good deal of the potential Wright would then go on to impress people with, both in television and film (for those who've enjoyed his films but not checked out his TV work, consider this a less than subtle plug to watch Spaced.)  It's actually fascinating, in an odd way, to get to seeing some of the earlier works from a director like this, while they're still finding their more solid footing. Wright walks a bit of an easier path here, but still shows he's got it in him to take on more challenges in the future, as he has then gone on to prove.

All in all, nothing must-see, but if you're a fan of the man's work, it's certainly a nice look at his early years if you have the interest. Even outside of that, hey, still fairly entertaining as a parody movie goes.

Now tomorrow we get to play time and tone whiplash by looking at Edgar Wright's latest, as promised above.

Till then...

IT'S THAT TIME AGAIN

OK, the speed run will continue, but first, it's time for a little bit of an announcement...and this one benefits from user feedback, so please do pay attention.

Yes, this announcement applies to everyone in the office.

Well guys, it's September. For those of you who've been around this place for over a year, or at least done some archive diving, you know what that means. That's right, we're coming up on this year's October run.

For those of you new to this, here's the deal: each October, The Third Row gets into the Halloween spirit by
picking 31 horror movies, a review a day (naturally kept on the shorter side for brevity) posted in the form of a weekly write-up every Friday of the month.

This year, I'm trying a bit of a different spin on the formula: in the past, it's been a general combination of whatever I came up with for the year and user contributed suggestions.  In order to balance, this unfortunately meant some user suggestions got left out.

In the interest of fairness, and to cast a wider net, here's the new attempted plan:
I'm currently sitting on a...shall we say rather bulked up list culled from various other lists as well as just titles that have been on my 'to do' list for Halloween suggestions.

Naturally, however, this isn't a perfect spread - in fact, user suggestions have actually helped me find some great entries these last two years, which is why I value the feedback on this event so much.

What does this new setup mean for you guys? Simply put - go nuts. Rain down suggestions on me. Doesn't matter if they've already been on the pending list, I'll gladly take 'em anyway. Don't be shy, give me as many titles as you can hit me with! These suggestions, as well as the current list, will all be dumped into the randomizer - out of this heaping helping of horror (...did this suddenly turn into an old Tales From the Crypt comic?) the first 31 titles chosen by the randomizer will be offered up for this year. Everything else, by default, is officially included in the running for subsequent years, ensuring as wide a net as possible is cast. So really, no reason to get discouraged if it doesn't make it in this year - it's already in the running regardless for the future.

So again, feel free to send in your suggestions by whatever means you so choose: post replies here, post on the Twitter feed (it's @guyinthe3rdrow for the record) or email at theguyinthe3rdrow@gmail.com

I can't make this clear enough - I want as many suggestions as you guys can find to hit me with. This is one of those times of year I really look forward to, in no small part for the variety it offers, and you guys are a big part of helping with that. Don't even worry if something you suggested might already be on the list - better to have it suggested and already be on here than to say nothing and have it stay off the radar entirely.

Hopefully we'll get a good list out of this year!

Also, fun as it would be to send you guys going through the old lists to generate extra hits, as a show of good faith, here's the 62 that have already been covered in previous years:

-The Tunnel
-Rosemary's Baby
-Phenomena/Creepers
-Eyes Without a Face
-Penny Dreadful
-The Omen
-Ringu
-I Spit On Your Grave
-Dementia 13
-The Other
-Night of the Living Dead (1968)
-The Wicker Man
-Lake Mungo
-Picnic at Hanging Rock
-Land of the Dead
-Werewolves on Wheels
-The Exorcist
-Kairo (Pulse)
-Hour of the Wolf
-House/Hausu
-The Others
-The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
-The Devil's Backbone
-Let's Scare Jessica to Death
-The Thing (1982)
-Cannibal Holocaust
-The Baby's Room
-Nosferatu the Vampyre
-Uzumaki
-Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens
-Don't Look Now
-Village of the Damned
-The Abominable Dr. Phibes
-Sleepaway Camp
-Inside
-In the Mouth of Madness
-Sauna
-Sisters
-I Drink Your Blood
-Trick 'R Treat
-The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
-Häxan
-Perfect Blue
-A Tale of Two Sisters
-The Evil Dead
-Burnt Offerings
-Marble Hornets
-Return of the Living Dead
-The Serpent and the Rainbow
-28 Days Later
-At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul
-Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
-Versus
-Phantasm
-The Beyond
-Carnival of Souls
-Jigoku
-The House of the Devil
-Freaks
-Jacob's Ladder
-Cabin in the Woods
-The Brood

As a general rule, the cut-off for suggestions is the 15th - simply so I have a decent buffer window to sort the list and hunt down this year's winners. So get 'em in early and get in a lot of 'em.

Will be keeping an eye out and looking forward to what you guys offer up!

Elysium - Matt Damon is THE LAST WHITE MAN ON EARTH

NOTE - Yes, I would like, once again, to apologize for some of the hold-up with entries lately.  There had been some technical issues to sort out with the computer.  

Some of them still are getting sorted out, but by and large, things are running again.

What does this mean for you, the readers - among other things, I'm gonna be running on fast-forward to get caught up here.  So be braced for entries in pretty rapid fire over the next week or so while we get up to speed. I promise, this will get back on track soon.

There's always a grain of salt that needs to be taken when a director's first film knocks it out of the park. On one hand, you want to believe this is just them getting warmed up and that they're gonna keep succeeding with each new creation, and as a result, the expectations tend to be very high - some would argue unreasonably so.

So when, after four years of staying low to off the radar, Neil Blomkamp finally made his follow up to the surpise hit (and one of my favorites of 2009) District 9, I found myself feeling this: the film could be really good, but it's also probably gonna get raked over the coals both by the critics and the audience.

Turns out I called it pretty well - despite building some solid hype, Elysium has opened to some rather mixed reception. With this in mind, I went in further reiterating my earlier assumptions - I expected a generally good movie, but also kept reminding myself not to expect another District 9, lest that film write a check Blomkamp couldn't cash.  All in all, I think I managed to do a good job with keeping them distanced, though I can't promise I won't invoke his earlier work at points, but we'll get to that when we get to that.

Continuing with the style that made him such a standout when he first hit theaters in 2009, Blomkamp again uses science fiction to explore contemporary issues.  In this case, rather than seeing Apartheid through an alien lens, he takes the reins of the 99% vs 1% class struggle, health care, and immigration.  The result is certainly ambitious, both in terms of technical aspects and message, but not without its slips and fumbles.

Taking place in the year 2154, the movie offers a scant amount of background - the Earth has become overpopulated, over-polluted, and riddled with disease.  In response to this, the Earth's wealthy elite have taken their toys and shuttled off to the orbiting space station Elysium - a glimmering paradise with advanced technology that allows its people to live free of disease or care.  Access to Elysium, of course, is heavily guarded, and those on Earth who seek to go there risk arrest and deportation, or die trying. Within this setting, we follow Max (Matt Damon,) a former car thief who's made reaching Elysium a goal since he was a child, and has tried to play by the rules to do so. Unfortunately, this plan goes awry when an accident at his job hits him with a deadly burst of radiation and 5 days to live. On borrowed time and sacked by an uncaring boss (William Fitchner, in a role that is rather comic in how aloof he plays it,) Max strikes up a deal with Spider (Wagner Moura,) a man who's made a crusade out of helping Earth's people make it to Elysium.

I'll say this much for the idea - the cold vacuum of space IS more daunting than your standard issue gated community.

Desperate, Max agrees to a dangerous plan - outfitted with a specialized Exo-Suit, he takes part in a plan to swipe codes to allow access to the station. Of course, in true film luck style, the data he swipes is actually more valuable than he realizes, being part of a plan arranged by Elysium's ruthless secretary of security, Delacourt (Jodie Foster.) Max now finds himself a man on the run, pursued for what's in his head, with multiple sides seeking what he holds, and inadvertently pulling his former flame (Alice Braga) and her child in along with him.

"What was that?  Did I, or did I not ask you to NEVER bring up the movie Stuck On You around me?"

The story of this film is something of a mixed bag the more I think about it. The premise certainly isn't bad, if a little bit well-worn (the idea of a stratified society where the wealthy live in splendor and the poor in squalor has been a staple of sci-fi cinema as far back as Fritz Lang's Metropolis.)  Granted, this is because it speaks timeless aspect of that issue.  Unfortunately, this film doesn't really have much new to say on the matter. That said, it makes good use of the old concept as a setting - though that's more a matter for cinematography than story in this case. Blomkamp's script certainly provides some interesting touches - such as the fact that much of Elysium's control on Earth is enforced through androids rather than an actual human presence - the only human agent we see of theirs on Earth is the dangerously insane Kruger (Sharlto Copley, easily the cast's MVP.) It's an odd balance the film has struck - the world it crafts has a lot of interesting details to it, but at the same time, the setting feels very underdeveloped - with questions of how this station project was approved and got off the ground largely left unaddressed. We're simply put in the middle of it and just told to ride with it.

Beyond the world crafted, the plot is rather straightforward.  Which, in some ways, is part of what hurts the film as a follow-up; Most notably in how this film crafts its conflict. Again, despite my best intention otherwise, this is one of those areas where I'm going to have to begrudgingly invoke D9. One of the reasons the film garnered as much praise as it did was the surprise over Blomkamp's even hand in depicting all sides in the conflict, especially compared to James Cameron's Avatar of the same year it came out.  While we were expected to feel sympathy for the prawns, and at points, even Wikus, the film never tried to paint either side as without faults, and even some of the human arguments could be, while not necessarily lauded, at least understood. It played in shades of grey and did so in a way that had been somewhat lacking in recent sci-fi films at that point (again, Avatar.) By comparison, the narrative in Elysium feels considerably more black and white and, at times, simplistic. This was, in all honesty, disappointing to see, especially after reading some of Blomkamp's interviews about the film. It's clear he has a strong message he wants to send here, and as a result, the delivery here is about as subtle as a hit-and-run. Which is the really sad part of this - I agree with the point he's trying to make, but I still can't say I feel he did a good job in how he makes it here.  His message paints it in a very oversimplified light, ignoring the fact the problem isn't as basic as it's made out to be here (which leads to a minor spoilers note about the ending that bugged me that I'll get into beyond the tagged cut.)

Like the story, the characterization within this film is simplified to the point of being problematic.  The cast make some efforts to make the most of what they have - in particular Foster, who, one quick line aside, is a very one-dimensional ruthless character - but the fact is, they can only do just so much with so little.  The actor who has the most success of making something out of nothing here is, oddly enough, Copley. His character is a straightforward psychopath - he could have easily been a simple thug, but Copley turns him into a mix of gleeful maniac and darkly cartoonish. He's good at his job and he LOVES doing it - which makes him both entertaining to watch at work, while at the same time, we wouldn't want to be in an enclosed space with him.  The only other person who really has much depth to his character, and again, this is largely more a result of the actor than the script would be Moura as Spider - the film at first making his actions seem more like a business before slowly revealing that he genuinely believes in helping as many people get to Elysium as possible. The cast is merely present. They're not bad, but you can only commend them for just so much under the circumstances.

"If THIS doesn't take first prize at this year's Halloween party, NOTHING WILL!"

The one area where this film actually excels is in its visuals. The twin worlds - the pristine Elysium and the barren Hell of Earth, are both brought to vivid life with a great amount of thought put into the various little pieces in them. Most notably in the automation - as both worlds have a strong mechanical presence keeping everything running from police work to factories and, in one amusing case, acting as a parole officer. It's something of an unusual contrast in a way - for as simplistic as the story is, the setting it's given has clearly had a great amount of thought put into it, and feels like a very lived in world as a result.

As much as I've gone into the faults of this film, it still feels strange to say, I didn't dislike the movie. It still makes for a visually rich science fiction film with some satisfying action sequences and some good performances. It's just unfortunate that, for a film that Blomkamp clearly wanted to have a significant statement attached to, its message feels ultimately simplistic, going for the emotional throat (in particular with one scene where I remain unclear on if Blomkamp fumbled at giving the film some heart, or if he was trying to lampshade such moments in other films - it could read either way) and painting not one, but two complicated issues in broad strokes that, to be honest, risk making the debates worse rather than better.

So it depends what you want out of it really - for a science fiction blockbuster, it's a good trip to take. If you're expecting the same sort of thought and exploration of issues that made so many people notice District 9, then you will likely walk away disappointed. This isn't to say D9 was a fluke, as some have claimed, but I do feel like, in the future, Blomkamp may want to reel in his ambition a bit more. At least in terms of theme, anyway. Visually, by all means, go nuts, but really, a tighter focus will help in the future.

...and making better use of the people you have to work with can't hurt either.
Seriously, this role could have been so much more.

That about wraps this one up.

Stalker - The 'Keep Out' Signs Are the Key to a Good Nature Hike

This is one of those films I realize I should have seen sooner than this, I will admit to that.  It's generally considered among the higher end of science fiction films, but it took me this long.  This is because prior to this, I'd learned Russian cinema, like Russian literature, is something of an acquired taste.  The stories can be very well done, but also VERY dense at points.  This is especially true for Tarkovsky, who marked my last attempt at Russian cinema (Oh Solaris, I WILL get back to you!)

Anyway, my interest in this got resparked by recommendations to reading the original novel Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky.  Despite my initial reservations from various encounters with Russian literature before, the concept had me intrigued.  So I decided to give it a shot and was surprised to find a recent retranslation of the book actually reads quite well (I'd recommend giving it a read if you get the chance, but that's only tangentially related to the film.) After being impressed with the story, I decided it was finally time to make another bid at trying to tackle Russian film.  Luckily, this film made for a VERY appropriate pick to get back into them.  It's definitely still a bit daunting  and not one I'd recommend for a casual watch, but it is also a very enthralling movie that can suck you in quite easily without having you realize it.

"You know what's funny?  Of all the things that have happened since we got here, this is probably the sanest so far."

The film's premise is roughly the same as the novel - some years ago, mankind had its first encounter with an alien presence.  No actual contact was made, but the area the aliens arrived in, codenamed "The Zone" was forever changed by their visit.  Like the original story, we never actually see any aliens within this film.  In a way, it's somewhat akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey - the aliens have a major effect on the plot, but are never actually seen.  Rather, we explore their effects on humans by other means.  In this case, the Zone, given its unknown and dangerous properties, has been roped off, and entrance is strictly prohibited.  Despite this, the appeal of the Zone's mysteries has lead to a rise in people known as 'Stalkers' (hence the film's title.)  Stalkers have made a business of being able to infiltrate and navigate the Zone, either sneaking people in or things out for a cost.  The big difference between the two stories, and one of the things that really surprised me in thinking about on this film - was in the matter of the focus.  In the Strugatskys' original novel, the work is more of a macrocosm - the story takes place over a period of years, where we see the effects of the technology (which the novel speculates may itself be little more than junk, albeit junk that would still be INCREDIBLY advanced for us) and how mankind has benefited from it, as well as how continual visits to the Zone shape the life of the protagonist, Red.  By comparison, Tarkovsky's version is more of a microcosm and somewhat insular in design.  The narrative loosely bases itself on the final arc of the novel - the protagonist, in this version simply credited as Stalker (Alexander Kaidanovsky) has taken up a job to go into the Zone with two other men: a cynical writier (Anatoly Solonitsyn) and a professor (Nikolai Grinko.)  Their destination therein is an area simply known as "The Room," a section of the Zone rumored to grant any person their deepest desire.

With a prize like this awaiting, it becomes very clear that this movie is taking a much more introspective approach to the ideas of the Zone.  In many ways, this is the film's strongest feature - taking a simple, but intriguing premise and using it as the basis for some very well thought out character study of the three protagonists.  It's particularly interesting that, despite never learning their actual names, only their job titles, the trip winds up revealing a great deal about all three of them.  This is particularly helped along by the performances of the three leads.  While the screenplay (also written by the Strugatskys) certainly does much for their characterization, it's the acting that really sells it.  In particular, Kaidanovsky and Solonitsyn play off of each other well in many scenes, the former a seasoned veteran of the Zone while the latter remains cynical and constantly challenging just how much the Stalker truly knows.  The conflict that emerges from these two as the film goes on becomes particularly pronounced at the climax, where the very different views the two have come to a head.  Likewise, as the film plays out, Grinko comes into his own as the Professor when his own intentions are made clear.  Over time, the mysterious territory of the Zone becomes less of an exploration to us than the people who dare to venture into it do.

OK, so they're not as slapstick as their American counterparts, I STILL say there's merit to the Russian Three Stooges.

This isn't to say that the Zone itself isn't worth the trip.  The cinematography in this film is arguably one of the biggest hooks that can suck you into it.  Cinematographer Aleksander Knyazhinsky does a phenomenal job of creating a stark difference in the two settings - first showing us the normal world our three explorers live in as a harsh, sepia-tinted world, with little that initially appears natural.  This actually also really works out well for the sequences when the three first sneak into the zone - the train station they sneak through to get into the Zone looks particularly unwelcoming, and cast in hard shadows.  When they enter into the Zone, the world is cast in color that, after the 'real world', feels alien in its own right.  Further, Tarkovsky's decision to film the movie at the site of two abandoned hydro power plants helps give the Zone a genuinely eerie feel - a world both abandoned, yet feeling perfectly natural in doing so.  I have to admit, it was the cinematography that became the biggest draw of the film for me on that first watch.  While I will concede the first section of the movie before they entered the Zone felt a bit slow to start, once they were inside, I was hooked.  By the time the first Act ended (the film is divded into two acts), I was surprised to realize the film had already been on for an hour.  That is the kind of draw that the film can have at points.  It's also somewhat unsettling to watch the scenes in the abandoned power plants nowadays and realize that this film actually predated the Chernobyl accident by a good seven years.  Given the legacy that event has instilled, it's hard NOT be reminded of it while watching this (a tie further solidified by the fact people have since made the connection themselves through gaming, and the fact many of the people who worked in the area afterward nicknamed themselves Stalkers.)  Again, not intentional, but the film does gain something of an eerie 'time has really changed how to view this' factor.

 

Sort of like The Wizard of Oz, if the land of Oz was an unpredictable playground of psychological nightmares where the laws of physics laugh in your face.

As something of a downside to the choice in locations it's somewhat unfortunate to learn that filming in these locations would later prove toxic, taking the lives of several of the people involved, including Tarkovsky himself.

Again, just have to say, it really is impressive to realize they didn't have to do much to some of these sets.  Slightly disturbing, and impressive.

In further adding to the atmosphere of the movie, the score by Eduard Artemyev works on that line where it doesn't particularly overpower the scenes, but blends well into them, giving them an extra touch of flavor.  Most notably with the film's haunting main theme.  It helps set the stage for events to come and is just a well done, eerie piece of music all on its own.

Like I said above, I'll warn that this film can be daunting at points.  It's very well done, but it's also very internalized, and as such, it doesn't lend itself well to a quick watch.  If you're looking for something that you can really get into, however, this could be worth taking the time for.  It's a bit of a strange ride, but worth taking if you're up for it.

Well, that made for a bit of an odd choice to end the week with.  For what it's worth, next week's film stands to be something a bit lighter.  In the meantime, will have another new release review lined up soon.

Room 237: Sometimes a Cigar Is Just a Cigar. Other Times, It's a Coded Message of Genocide

In starting this entry for the Third Row, I'm gonna take you all back in time for a moment.

Years ago, back when I was first learning the wonders and madness the internet provides, I stumbled across an interesting article.  It was an older piece, published in 1987, discussing Stanley Kubrick's 1980 film, The Shining.  This article posited the idea that the movie, loosely adapted from a Stephen King novel, was actually all a coded message about the extermination of the Native Americans in history.

Except for this one, apparently...

At the time, this was one of the most bizarre theories I had ever read on the internet (I know, there's stuff that blows this out of the water, but this was a more innocent time.)  After more digging, I was surprised to see that in fact, there were many other theories of people trying to find hidden meanings in Kubrick's movie, ranging from theories that Kubrick used the movie to discuss faking the moon landing to one person who had actually put together a theory based on recurring patterns within the film's timecode.

Suffice it to say, knowing the level of downright insane analysis this film has been subject to, I was already half sold when I saw the announcement of the documentary Room 237.  This was a film entirely about exploring the many elaborate readings people have subjected this movie to over the years.  Even though I thought most of the theories were completely insane, how could I pass up a chance to see them actually discussed?

I went in expecting crazy, and while I got the crazy, I was actually surprised at how the film managed to frame the crazy.

It's watching a film about people watching a film...
...sort of like MST3k with less comedy and more wild conspiracy theories.

Among other things, the movie doesn't really have a 'central host/narrator' figure unifying everything.  Rather, we start the film right off the bat with one of the theories, then flow into another, sometimes with some overlap and callback to earlier theories (several people, for example, discuss the borderline Lovecraftian architecture that emerges when you try and actually map out the Overlook Hotel.)  About the closest there is to any overlying statement of the film's content or purpose is in the film's title card explaining the purpose of the documentary.  Otherwise, each of the subjects is completely free to discuss their idea to as much of an extent as possible. Rather than feeling like a mess, it's assembled in such a way that all of the segments mesh well, even finding points in the arguments to segue between them - for one example, the first two examples within the film being starting by discussing the Native American genocide theory, then segueing into a theory about the film being about the Holocaust.

Another standout element about how the film is put together- and this is something I almost didn't realize right away- is the fact that there is almost no newly filmed footage in this movie.  With the exception of a few brief sequences and some representations of the Overlook as a map, almost every scene within this documentary is footage from other films.  Alongside The Shining, director Rodney Asher composes most of his film with footage from films ranging from many of Kubrick's own (such as Eyes Wide Shut and Barry Lyndon) to other films ranging from Schindler's List to Michael Crichton's lesser-known film Looker.  The trick is actually a pretty unique way of allowing the film to avoid the classic 'talking heads' style of presentation that can become a risk when you're making a movie where the upshot is several people discussing their theories.  The trick is further added to by the fact that, in many cases where theorists are discussing their past encounters with the movie, Ascher uses the footage of other films to represent the people in their pasts - we see this trick used right at the start when one man recounts seeing the film with his experience overlaid to Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut (the posters he stops to look at being instead doctored to be posters for The Shining.)  It's a small, but rather creative little touch.

Further fitting into the bizarre subject matter is the film's soundtrack.  The music for this movie is a rather curious mix of instrumental tracks, many variations on, or inspired by, The Shining itself.  The result is at times interesting and even a bit haunting.  I'm still looking at trying to track the soundtrack down, actually.

As far as the content of the movie itself, well, that's largely going to vary from viewer to viewer and how they feel about the various interpretations people have put on the film.  Some of them, while I question their validity, are admittedly interesting readings (some of the details people search for in the movie dancing the line between 'how did I not notice that?' and 'now you're just trying too hard.')  I will admit, there is one theory I think could have some validity in the film, albeit I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the extent the theorist takes it to (he posits the idea that the movie is a giant experiment by a rather bored Kubrick to see how much subliminal imagery he can get away with it.  I could certainly see Kubrick doing this manner of experiment out of boredom, though I'm not sure it'd be quite as spanning as is suggested here.)  In some ways, the documentary as a whole almost seems to say less about the movie itself, and more about the legacy the late Kubrick left behind him.  The big driving force behind many of these theories, after all, is the knowledge that Kubrick was a notorious perfectionist and a very particular man in his filmmaking.  This fact informs many of the theories - what would be seen as a continuity error by any other director, in Kubrick, is read as a deliberate action.  That, even 14 years after his death, people are still going this intensely into the man's work because of this reputation speaks volumes of the man and the impact he had on film.  Further, it also speaks to the devotion of the people who put these theories together.  These are people who have studied this film with all the intensity and attention to detail of Swiss watchmakers, finding even the most miniscule details in the background to support their theories.  It's an interest that dances the line between fascination and obsession, and if you're receptive to hearing them out, can make for an at times engrossing watch.

In this sequence, there is discussion of a rumored lost scene from early work prints in which Jack uses the impossible window in Mr. Ullman's office to shoot Kennedy.

The resulting film is a rather unique breed of documentary.  This is thanks to the director's idea, as he has previously described the project as being the cinematic equivalent to late night theory exchanges people sometimes have where everyone just goes back and forth exchanging bizarre points and arguing them.  In that light, he's accomplished exactly that with this movie.  It doesn't take a single prevailing side, nor suggest anyone is more right or wrong.  Rather, each person simply says their piece, presents their evidence, and leaves the viewers to decide for themselves whether or not the theories have any validity.  Personally, while I don't think this has necessarily reshaped my view of the film, it has made me a bit more aware of some of the odder elements of it, and in that regard, it does seem to inspire the idea of keeping a sharper eye out.  It's the kind of film that reminds just how fascinating the love of film can be, and how creative people can be.

Really, it's tough to tell if you're gonna like this one, as it varies from person to person.  Hopefully, this review may at least give you a bit more of a sense of what you're in for.  But if you're really not sure, might just have to take the proverbial plunge and see what you think.  It's a pretty unusual film that way.

With that, we're back to work on a weekend rate at the very least.

Summer Reading will continue next weekend along with the next general write-up, and may try to get a new release in before then, time permitting.

Till next time!