"Come find me when you wake up!"
- Rita Vrataski
Warning: Spoilers abound.
At first glance (and even in its trailers), Edge of Tomorrow seemed to be standard sci-fi fare - marines embedded into powered exoskeletons battling a hostile alien force known as the Mimics in a D-Day-like climactic battle.
William Cage is a former civilian who took up a job as an Army spokesman. Circumstances forced him to participate in the film's central battle, Operation Downfall, in an attempt to retake Europe in a battle reminiscent of World War Two's Invasion of Normandy. He refuses and tries to bribe his superior, leading to him being incapacitated and waking up some time later en route to the said battle.
Unsurprisingly, he is brutally killed after realising that the battle was for naught twenty minutes into the film but not before he kills one of the rarer strains of the creatures (called an Alpha).
He then wakes up, en route to the same battle.
Time travel is a difficult topic to encapsulate in a medium such as films, and very few manage to do it (such as Looper). This is mainly because past films had to deal with the consequences of causality - especially since characters in such stories did not have the privilege of immortality bestowed upon them.
Edge of Tomorrow tries to subvert two birds in one stone - time travel in their universe only worked backwards and it was triggered by death and (perhaps most importantly) was only controlled by one entity at a time.
Essentially, the enemy was led by an a brain-like creature dubbed the Omega, which had the ability to 'reset' time and learn from the tactics of the human forces, essentially allowing them to prepare for the invasion from past experience without it having ever taken place.
The fact that the power can be stolen was a product of extremely lucky circumstances. Alpha Mimics were one-in-three-million and were highly resilient in addition to their already formidable combat abilities. To have a career soldier, Rita, kill an Alpha is one thing but to have Cage kill another while essentially being served as cannon fodder must have been highly improbable. Needless to say, the Mimics try to get the power back in the one way that it could be done throughout the film - by exsanguination of the current holder of the ability.
As such movies tend to go, there are a couple of plot holes which got me thinking and I've been trying to reconcile them in my mind (as I tend to do).
Firstly, how were they able to pass on their ability to a non-mimic host? I'm guessing that the creatures are carbon-based which would have allow them to easily infect humans from their blood. This is lightly implied in the bar in London where war veterans ponder on the purpose of the Mimic's invasion of earth and settle on the theory that they sought to gather resources that are needed by Earth-like organisms.
Secondly, the ability isn't so much as time travel but instead was some sort of time anchor. Rita was lauded for her distinction (as the Angel of Verdun) of having killed hundreds of mimics at the Battle of Verdun - which was later revealed to have been due to the fact that she has fought that particular battle hundreds of times a the previous holder of the reset ability. Her last attempt resulted in an overwhelming victory for the UDF at the cost of losing the ability due to a blood transfusion due to injuries. This sets the premise that people are anchored to a very specific time period once they are imbued with the Alpha's blood, albeit we don't exactly know how such anchors are chosen.
Lastly, the cause for the resets to trigger doesn't exactly make sense from a narrative viewpoint at first glance. The Omega could have easily performed it immediately after Cage blew it up but was unable to which meant that, like humans, it may not have had complete control over its powers as well.
Another possible explanation (and one that makes a lot more viable) is that the reset actually occurs much later in the 'present' timeline. This makes sense when we take into consideration the fact that the Omega doesn't perform a reset immediately after an Alpha is killed even if it is telepathically aware of such - which may very well also explain why it wasn't able to reset the timeline after Cage was mortally wounded before killing the Omega.
This, of course, begs the question:
How lucky was William Cage to have been in the right place at the right time not once but twice?
The odds are approaching nil - and I guess that's why it's called a piece of science fiction. For the record, it's a really good one at that.
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Overthinking - Indie Game: The Movie
"My whole career has been me, trying to find new ways to communicate with
people, because I desperately want to communicate with people, but I
don't want the messy interaction of having to make friends and talk to
people, because I probably don't like them."
- Edmund McMillen
I've had the pleasure of watching Indie Game: The Movie recently. It's a documentary that gives viewers an inside look on how indie games are made. What's interesting about the film was that it gave less attention to the technical aspects of the industry, but instead focused on showing the less visible aspects of development - the visions, struggles and personalities of the people behind the game. It focused on three massively popular games (namely Braid, Super Meat Boy and Fez) and how making games that the creators invested a great deal of personal effort into made it different from the games churned out by game studio giants and their mainstream titles.
I think it's painful to watch, and that's because it hit a little too close to home.
I think that this documentary should not only be watched by those in the gaming industry nor just by gamers themselves, but also anyone who has ever had (or still has) an interest in creating their own content, in whatever form it may be.
Seeing the sacrifices, heartbreak, depression and that finality of releasing their creation to the world is something that should remind us that the people behind the flashy things we take for granted are human just like us - and that their struggle to express and encapsulate their dreams into a tangible form for the rest world to enjoy is nothing short of superhuman.
I think each game's story had something to point out in the personal lives of each viewer - and in turn made it resonate on a personal level. Super Meat Boy's development story made me question what I've done to retain or even realize the far-cried dreams I've had when I was younger. Fez's story was a reflection of refusing to compromise one's vision for the expectations of others even in the face of ridicule and lack of confidence. Lastly, Braid's story was that of hope - that there is always someting of value to find if one keeps looking for it long enough.
Overall, it's a very interesting film. It's one of those things that should have no business in making one reflect on the personal workings of their own lives, but it gets the job done by invoking eerily relatable aspects of our personal lives.
- Edmund McMillen
I've had the pleasure of watching Indie Game: The Movie recently. It's a documentary that gives viewers an inside look on how indie games are made. What's interesting about the film was that it gave less attention to the technical aspects of the industry, but instead focused on showing the less visible aspects of development - the visions, struggles and personalities of the people behind the game. It focused on three massively popular games (namely Braid, Super Meat Boy and Fez) and how making games that the creators invested a great deal of personal effort into made it different from the games churned out by game studio giants and their mainstream titles.
I think it's painful to watch, and that's because it hit a little too close to home.
I think that this documentary should not only be watched by those in the gaming industry nor just by gamers themselves, but also anyone who has ever had (or still has) an interest in creating their own content, in whatever form it may be.
Seeing the sacrifices, heartbreak, depression and that finality of releasing their creation to the world is something that should remind us that the people behind the flashy things we take for granted are human just like us - and that their struggle to express and encapsulate their dreams into a tangible form for the rest world to enjoy is nothing short of superhuman.
I think each game's story had something to point out in the personal lives of each viewer - and in turn made it resonate on a personal level. Super Meat Boy's development story made me question what I've done to retain or even realize the far-cried dreams I've had when I was younger. Fez's story was a reflection of refusing to compromise one's vision for the expectations of others even in the face of ridicule and lack of confidence. Lastly, Braid's story was that of hope - that there is always someting of value to find if one keeps looking for it long enough.
Overall, it's a very interesting film. It's one of those things that should have no business in making one reflect on the personal workings of their own lives, but it gets the job done by invoking eerily relatable aspects of our personal lives.
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
On the Aftermath of the Metro Manila Film Festival 2013
One of the reasons I like January is the fact that we get to watch the foreign films that were put on hold during the holiday season (like 47 Ronin). That isn't to say that the Metro Manila Film Festival has nothing to offer for its patrons - it's just that the amount of butthurt over this year's entries is nothing short of hilarious. I won't get in the way of deconstructing what went wrong during the past couple of weeks, especially since Zig Marasigan of Rappler has already written something about that. I also don't have to enumerate what could have been done better since Lourd de Veyra has written an entry in his Spot.ph blog about it - and has gone under a lot of fire for his opinions.
I don't understand the reactions that both people have received over their opinions - even if both pieces seem to have been written in a manner that could not have been any more educated. I enjoyed reading the comments that the articles have received - which mostly prove what this Facebook page had to say:
"Yes, there is no right or wrong opinion, but there are stupid opinions."
It's harsh, but it couldn't be any more true. This phrase has been proven correct countless times during the past year.
But I digress.
What I find hard to accept is the fact that a lot of the comments of people who are against the article revolve around apathy towards the cause of Philippine cinema and in extension, art itself. One comment in particular stood out to me:
Hindi mo pwedeng ipag-kumpara ang 3 idiots sa Filipino Movies dahil unang una galing sila sa magkaibang bansa KAYA TUMAHIMIK KA NA LANG!
This comment pretty much shows three troubling aspects of how many Filipinos act as consumers.
First, it shows a lack of trust in the abilities of our fellowmen. It's sad that a lot of our countrymen add the word 'lang' when it comes to comparing our products against that of other countries. This mindset reinforces the notion that Filipinos cannot do any better than their foreign counterparts - something that is dangerously misleading and is inherently destructive for our country's future. It's sad that a lot of us tend to look as far back as the days of Lino Brocka to say that those are the last good days of Philippine cinema when there are a lot of excellent films that have been released in the past few years (such as On the Job, Ang Babae sa Septic Tank and Manila Kingpin).
Second, it shows that many Filipinos tend to have a misplaced sense of national pride. More often than not, many of us mistake national pride for attention (good or otherwise). A lot of us were raised to recognize approval as a sense of accomplishment - and it has always been during low points in various aspects of our history such as these where this idea has been proven wrong time and time again. Many Filipinos tend to be terrible at receiving criticism (as that comment shows), whether it is personal or directed to someone they deem respectable.
Lastly, I think that deeming such "films" as acceptable shows a lack of mental acuity on our part. This pwede na yan mentality has proven to be our undoing many times in the past. People who say walang basagan ng trip or huwag mo panoorin kung hindi mo gusto or ayaw namin ng masyadong malalim kasi gusto lang namin tumawa seem to forget that we, as citizens of this country (or as human beings for that matter), should have the mentality to seek self-improvement in whatever areas we can. We are ultimately responsible for being able to distinguish between what is a blatant cash grab and what is something that would uplift the human condition (as is the purpose of all art). The excuse that one is too lazy to think is unacceptable and opens people to further exploitation.
After all, if we do not reject what is terrible then how would they know when to serve us the good stuff?
I don't understand the reactions that both people have received over their opinions - even if both pieces seem to have been written in a manner that could not have been any more educated. I enjoyed reading the comments that the articles have received - which mostly prove what this Facebook page had to say:
"Yes, there is no right or wrong opinion, but there are stupid opinions."
It's harsh, but it couldn't be any more true. This phrase has been proven correct countless times during the past year.
But I digress.
What I find hard to accept is the fact that a lot of the comments of people who are against the article revolve around apathy towards the cause of Philippine cinema and in extension, art itself. One comment in particular stood out to me:
Hindi mo pwedeng ipag-kumpara ang 3 idiots sa Filipino Movies dahil unang una galing sila sa magkaibang bansa KAYA TUMAHIMIK KA NA LANG!
This comment pretty much shows three troubling aspects of how many Filipinos act as consumers.
First, it shows a lack of trust in the abilities of our fellowmen. It's sad that a lot of our countrymen add the word 'lang' when it comes to comparing our products against that of other countries. This mindset reinforces the notion that Filipinos cannot do any better than their foreign counterparts - something that is dangerously misleading and is inherently destructive for our country's future. It's sad that a lot of us tend to look as far back as the days of Lino Brocka to say that those are the last good days of Philippine cinema when there are a lot of excellent films that have been released in the past few years (such as On the Job, Ang Babae sa Septic Tank and Manila Kingpin).
Second, it shows that many Filipinos tend to have a misplaced sense of national pride. More often than not, many of us mistake national pride for attention (good or otherwise). A lot of us were raised to recognize approval as a sense of accomplishment - and it has always been during low points in various aspects of our history such as these where this idea has been proven wrong time and time again. Many Filipinos tend to be terrible at receiving criticism (as that comment shows), whether it is personal or directed to someone they deem respectable.
Lastly, I think that deeming such "films" as acceptable shows a lack of mental acuity on our part. This pwede na yan mentality has proven to be our undoing many times in the past. People who say walang basagan ng trip or huwag mo panoorin kung hindi mo gusto or ayaw namin ng masyadong malalim kasi gusto lang namin tumawa seem to forget that we, as citizens of this country (or as human beings for that matter), should have the mentality to seek self-improvement in whatever areas we can. We are ultimately responsible for being able to distinguish between what is a blatant cash grab and what is something that would uplift the human condition (as is the purpose of all art). The excuse that one is too lazy to think is unacceptable and opens people to further exploitation.
After all, if we do not reject what is terrible then how would they know when to serve us the good stuff?
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Ender's Game
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well
enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him."
- Andrew "Ender" Wiggin, Ender's Game
Ender's Game is a science fiction film based on the novel of the same name by Orson Scott Card. Set in the far future, it tells the story of humanity fifty years after a brutal interstellar war with an alien race called the Formics, bug-like creatures capable of spaceflight and advanced electric-based warfare. After a narrow victory by a hero named Mazer Rackham, humanity struggles to rebuild and prepare itself for the return of their sworn enemies. Children are enlisted in battle school, where their talents are honed for the upcoming war.
Personally, I'm still quite unsure on how to rate the film. Obviously, I like the material and all its premises - where the Earth leadership use the innate adaptability of youth against a similarly unpredictable enemy without regard for its consequences. On the other hand, a lot of the backstory from the book was merely hinted at in the film - the machinations set forth by his sociopathic brother, the influential essays by both of Ender's siblings that led to a shift in Earth's leadership and the direct results of Ender's actions that would eventually lead to the legend of The Xenocide. The ending felt dry as well, and I could not decide whether it seemed a little rushed or if they had a hard time trying to add a persona to the Formics after two hours of being portrayed as a species hellbent on instinctive conquest.
It's one of those cases where the book provides too much material to squeeze into two hours' worth of footage. I understand that a whole lot of the plot is driven by dialogue, but a lot of the finer details have been skipped to the point where we are left to wonder about the motivations of some of the characters after they leave the screen. Ender's Game falls in that strange space occupied by novel adaptations like Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers and Zack Snyder's Watchmen.
It could have been more, but I can't say I didn't like what I got.
- Andrew "Ender" Wiggin, Ender's Game
Ender's Game is a science fiction film based on the novel of the same name by Orson Scott Card. Set in the far future, it tells the story of humanity fifty years after a brutal interstellar war with an alien race called the Formics, bug-like creatures capable of spaceflight and advanced electric-based warfare. After a narrow victory by a hero named Mazer Rackham, humanity struggles to rebuild and prepare itself for the return of their sworn enemies. Children are enlisted in battle school, where their talents are honed for the upcoming war.
Personally, I'm still quite unsure on how to rate the film. Obviously, I like the material and all its premises - where the Earth leadership use the innate adaptability of youth against a similarly unpredictable enemy without regard for its consequences. On the other hand, a lot of the backstory from the book was merely hinted at in the film - the machinations set forth by his sociopathic brother, the influential essays by both of Ender's siblings that led to a shift in Earth's leadership and the direct results of Ender's actions that would eventually lead to the legend of The Xenocide. The ending felt dry as well, and I could not decide whether it seemed a little rushed or if they had a hard time trying to add a persona to the Formics after two hours of being portrayed as a species hellbent on instinctive conquest.
It's one of those cases where the book provides too much material to squeeze into two hours' worth of footage. I understand that a whole lot of the plot is driven by dialogue, but a lot of the finer details have been skipped to the point where we are left to wonder about the motivations of some of the characters after they leave the screen. Ender's Game falls in that strange space occupied by novel adaptations like Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers and Zack Snyder's Watchmen.
It could have been more, but I can't say I didn't like what I got.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Overthinking - Pacific Rim
"Today, at the edge of our hope, at the end of our time, we've chosen to not only to believe in ourselves but in each other. Today, there’s not a man nor woman in here that shall stand alone. Not today. Today we face the monsters that are at our door and bring the fight to them! Today, we are cancelling the apocalypse!"
- Stacker Pentecost, Pacific Rim
They did cancel something alright, and no, I'm not talking about the Lovecraft film that del Toro can't sell to the studios.
In a nutshell, I think Pacific Rim is an awesome movie - especially since it conveniently ties up with two of my other favorite fictional universes (even if it's just my overactive imagination running the show again).
Spoilers ahead. You've been warned.
The start of the film shows the first monster, (dubbed kaiju from this point forward) taking humanity unaware and rampaging throughout the US for about a week before finally getting taken down by contemporary military technology. Codenamed Trespasser, I can't help to think that this was essentially the plot of Cloverfield - and this is highly reinforced by the scenes of ruined cities that showed a striking similarity with good old Clover's path of destruction. It's interesting to note that with the way that they filmed Cloverfield - found footage-style - they didn't really give clear shots of the creature. They did enough to leave an impression though, down to the multiple appendages that Clover had and the fact that it had parasites (although Clover's parasites were a lot more dangerous than the lice that the kaiju had). The kicker? Trespasser was killed with a nuke, just like Clover.
The film's conclusion showed the heroes setting off Gipsy Danger's nuclear reactor to detonate it on the other side of the breach. The audience is shown a quick look of the kaiju's masters and for some reason, they look like the Collectors. The alien homeworld's backdrop resemble the Collector homeworld - a decrepit space station orbiting a black hole. It is implied that they have the technology to construct the kaiju en masse, mimicking the Collector's efforts in constructing the Human-Reaper from their machinery. The Reaper fog horn was a nice touch (although the sound effect is so common nowadays).
So they didn't just cancel the apocalypse, they canceled Mass Effect 2 as well.
In unrelated news, why would Wizkids do this? They should have released something to the scale of Cthulhu. I would have totally bought that.
- Stacker Pentecost, Pacific Rim
They did cancel something alright, and no, I'm not talking about the Lovecraft film that del Toro can't sell to the studios.
In a nutshell, I think Pacific Rim is an awesome movie - especially since it conveniently ties up with two of my other favorite fictional universes (even if it's just my overactive imagination running the show again).
Spoilers ahead. You've been warned.
The start of the film shows the first monster, (dubbed kaiju from this point forward) taking humanity unaware and rampaging throughout the US for about a week before finally getting taken down by contemporary military technology. Codenamed Trespasser, I can't help to think that this was essentially the plot of Cloverfield - and this is highly reinforced by the scenes of ruined cities that showed a striking similarity with good old Clover's path of destruction. It's interesting to note that with the way that they filmed Cloverfield - found footage-style - they didn't really give clear shots of the creature. They did enough to leave an impression though, down to the multiple appendages that Clover had and the fact that it had parasites (although Clover's parasites were a lot more dangerous than the lice that the kaiju had). The kicker? Trespasser was killed with a nuke, just like Clover.
The film's conclusion showed the heroes setting off Gipsy Danger's nuclear reactor to detonate it on the other side of the breach. The audience is shown a quick look of the kaiju's masters and for some reason, they look like the Collectors. The alien homeworld's backdrop resemble the Collector homeworld - a decrepit space station orbiting a black hole. It is implied that they have the technology to construct the kaiju en masse, mimicking the Collector's efforts in constructing the Human-Reaper from their machinery. The Reaper fog horn was a nice touch (although the sound effect is so common nowadays).
So they didn't just cancel the apocalypse, they canceled Mass Effect 2 as well.
In unrelated news, why would Wizkids do this? They should have released something to the scale of Cthulhu. I would have totally bought that.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The Undead, the Infected and Everyone Else
"It's just not something you ever expect to have to say on air: removing the head or destroying the brain. Extraordinary."
- Jeremy Thompson, Shaun of the Dead
It's official: gone are the days of Romero's slow, plodding undead.
Tom Savini's remake of Night of the Living Dead was the first zombie film I ever watched, and it has been my yardstick for films of the genre ever since. There was something engaging about it despite its simplicity (and age at the time I watched it). Perhaps Barbara, the film's protagonist, says it best at the film's conclusion:
"They're us. We're them and they're us."
Debra, from another one of Romero's films (and my second favorite) - Diary of the Dead, expounds on the notion seventeen years later:
"Are we worth saving? You tell me."
I've always thought that the best zombie (and I use the term very loosely) media are social commentaries and should give the viewer something to ponder on about humanity once the horror fades away. Then again, all good stories have that.
Anyway, these days people have gotten smarter. It's no longer believable for a shambling corpse to catch up to a perfectly healthy (or even slightly unfit) person, much less someone who has the benefit of plot armor in a film or video game or book. I guess it all began with 28 Days Later, whose Infected distinguished themselves from the rest of the genre by being portrayed as fast, violent and relentless - something that matched the extreme virulence of the films' Rage virus. It was a huge hit and the concept of the more agile Infected (as opposed to the zombie) quickly spread across all forms of media from video games (like Dead Island and The Last of Us) to comics (The Walking Dead) to films (such as the sequel 28 Weeks Later).
The film adaptation for World War Z veers away from Max Brook's book in the same manner - probably to appeal more to the modern audience. The virus was nothing like Solanum as described from his works but appeared to be a more potent version of Rage. It's interesting to note that they concluded the film by using deus ex machina (which I won't spoil) rather than the Redeker Plan or the Road to New York.
And I still want my Battle of Yonkers. I can't believe they took that out.
- Jeremy Thompson, Shaun of the Dead
It's official: gone are the days of Romero's slow, plodding undead.
Tom Savini's remake of Night of the Living Dead was the first zombie film I ever watched, and it has been my yardstick for films of the genre ever since. There was something engaging about it despite its simplicity (and age at the time I watched it). Perhaps Barbara, the film's protagonist, says it best at the film's conclusion:
"They're us. We're them and they're us."
Debra, from another one of Romero's films (and my second favorite) - Diary of the Dead, expounds on the notion seventeen years later:
"Are we worth saving? You tell me."
I've always thought that the best zombie (and I use the term very loosely) media are social commentaries and should give the viewer something to ponder on about humanity once the horror fades away. Then again, all good stories have that.
Anyway, these days people have gotten smarter. It's no longer believable for a shambling corpse to catch up to a perfectly healthy (or even slightly unfit) person, much less someone who has the benefit of plot armor in a film or video game or book. I guess it all began with 28 Days Later, whose Infected distinguished themselves from the rest of the genre by being portrayed as fast, violent and relentless - something that matched the extreme virulence of the films' Rage virus. It was a huge hit and the concept of the more agile Infected (as opposed to the zombie) quickly spread across all forms of media from video games (like Dead Island and The Last of Us) to comics (The Walking Dead) to films (such as the sequel 28 Weeks Later).
The film adaptation for World War Z veers away from Max Brook's book in the same manner - probably to appeal more to the modern audience. The virus was nothing like Solanum as described from his works but appeared to be a more potent version of Rage. It's interesting to note that they concluded the film by using deus ex machina (which I won't spoil) rather than the Redeker Plan or the Road to New York.
And I still want my Battle of Yonkers. I can't believe they took that out.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Into Darkness, Memes and Other Things
"At great cost, yes."
- Spock Prime
Be warned, spoilers abound.
So we caught Star Trek: Into Darkness last weekend. I'm not exactly what someone would call a Trekkie, nor can I speak Klingon, but Star Trek has been around for so long that anyone who's been running all over the Internet is bound to have seen something connected to the franchise.
I want to get the one single annoyance out of the way first - JJ Abram's signature lens flares. There are lens flares everywhere, even indoors, in low light conditions. It isn't too bothersome in itself, but the fact that using it in a lot of scenes full of dialogue makes the scenes a bit too artificial, especially when the audience is supposed to concentrate on what the characters have to say. As Simon Pegg so eloquently said it, it's understandable that Abrams may have wanted the pseudo-documentary feel of raw, unedited footage - which quite frankly doesn't work very well in a science fiction film set in the far future. Figure that out.
Anyway, if one was familiar with the infamous Khan scream (from the Wrath of Khan movie) meme, you're in for a treat. Abram's Star Trek series is a reboot set in somewhat the same continuity (hence the existence of Leonard Nimoy's Spock Prime) and how they paid homage to that scene is quite funny - even if the scene wasn't supposed to be funny.
Speaking of Khan, I liked how cold the character was portrayed and it reminded me of how Alan Rickman portrayed Snape in the Harry Potter films - even if he wasn't exactly of the same origin as the original Khan.
Perhaps one last thing I wanted to point out was that the original Kirk, played by William Shatner, was written to be a womanizer of sorts. It was often joked that he slept with all manner of aliens, especially the infamous green alien woman - referring to the Orion slave girl - hence, the scene where he wakes up with those cat people, among others. And yes, all these one can learn if they've been on the Internet for long enough.
Jeez, I'm old.
- Spock Prime
Be warned, spoilers abound.
So we caught Star Trek: Into Darkness last weekend. I'm not exactly what someone would call a Trekkie, nor can I speak Klingon, but Star Trek has been around for so long that anyone who's been running all over the Internet is bound to have seen something connected to the franchise.
I want to get the one single annoyance out of the way first - JJ Abram's signature lens flares. There are lens flares everywhere, even indoors, in low light conditions. It isn't too bothersome in itself, but the fact that using it in a lot of scenes full of dialogue makes the scenes a bit too artificial, especially when the audience is supposed to concentrate on what the characters have to say. As Simon Pegg so eloquently said it, it's understandable that Abrams may have wanted the pseudo-documentary feel of raw, unedited footage - which quite frankly doesn't work very well in a science fiction film set in the far future. Figure that out.
Anyway, if one was familiar with the infamous Khan scream (from the Wrath of Khan movie) meme, you're in for a treat. Abram's Star Trek series is a reboot set in somewhat the same continuity (hence the existence of Leonard Nimoy's Spock Prime) and how they paid homage to that scene is quite funny - even if the scene wasn't supposed to be funny.
Speaking of Khan, I liked how cold the character was portrayed and it reminded me of how Alan Rickman portrayed Snape in the Harry Potter films - even if he wasn't exactly of the same origin as the original Khan.
Perhaps one last thing I wanted to point out was that the original Kirk, played by William Shatner, was written to be a womanizer of sorts. It was often joked that he slept with all manner of aliens, especially the infamous green alien woman - referring to the Orion slave girl - hence, the scene where he wakes up with those cat people, among others. And yes, all these one can learn if they've been on the Internet for long enough.
Jeez, I'm old.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Overthinking : Stark
"Gods, aliens, other dimensions, I'm just a man in a can."
- Tony Stark
Stark would have been a better title than Iron Man 3.
Personally, I think Iron Man 3 was Marvel's answer to DC's The Dark Knight Rises. A lot of the themes were paralleled and this thought kept running through my head while watching the film. Both movies focused on the people behind the alter egos, which was an interesting deconstruction of the genre - even more so when one realizes that unlike their peers, both aren't metahumans (or in layman's terms, superheroes). This was more prevalent in Iron Man, where Tony wasn't wearing a suit for majority of the film.
While it seems to have borrowed very heavily from the Extremis arc, I can't help but recall Demon in a Bottle while watching the film. Tony had to deal with his personal demons just as much as his enemies, although the humor kept it from being too serious. It's quite ironic that Disney wouldn't let them create an adaptation of Demon in a Bottle due to it's themes (even if alcoholism is a huge part of Tony Stark's character) but there was a ridiculous kill count for a superhero movie. This was probably the first time I saw a superhero kill people with extreme prejudice, which was quite odd.
Speaking of enemies, I liked the concept of the Mandarin, even if they totally threw away the character's story from the comics. It offered a rather radical way of looking at V's famous line in V for Vendetta:
"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof."
The idea of attaching charismatic figureheads to a cause is always an interesting theme - and is easily reflected in the real world. Ben Kingsley was hilarious in his role while his character's apathy to what his persona represents (amidst his comfortable lifestyle) is something to think about.
Sadly, Iron Man 3 seems to be the last in the series. The post-credits scene sort of alludes to this since there wasn't anything pointing to a next film (in any Marvel franchise), even if a second Avengers movie is due in a couple of years.
I'm sort of rooting for something similar to Civil War (where Iron Man and Captain America are major characters) or Secret Invasion so we'll see how that turns out.
- Tony Stark
Stark would have been a better title than Iron Man 3.
Personally, I think Iron Man 3 was Marvel's answer to DC's The Dark Knight Rises. A lot of the themes were paralleled and this thought kept running through my head while watching the film. Both movies focused on the people behind the alter egos, which was an interesting deconstruction of the genre - even more so when one realizes that unlike their peers, both aren't metahumans (or in layman's terms, superheroes). This was more prevalent in Iron Man, where Tony wasn't wearing a suit for majority of the film.
While it seems to have borrowed very heavily from the Extremis arc, I can't help but recall Demon in a Bottle while watching the film. Tony had to deal with his personal demons just as much as his enemies, although the humor kept it from being too serious. It's quite ironic that Disney wouldn't let them create an adaptation of Demon in a Bottle due to it's themes (even if alcoholism is a huge part of Tony Stark's character) but there was a ridiculous kill count for a superhero movie. This was probably the first time I saw a superhero kill people with extreme prejudice, which was quite odd.
Speaking of enemies, I liked the concept of the Mandarin, even if they totally threw away the character's story from the comics. It offered a rather radical way of looking at V's famous line in V for Vendetta:
"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof."
The idea of attaching charismatic figureheads to a cause is always an interesting theme - and is easily reflected in the real world. Ben Kingsley was hilarious in his role while his character's apathy to what his persona represents (amidst his comfortable lifestyle) is something to think about.
Sadly, Iron Man 3 seems to be the last in the series. The post-credits scene sort of alludes to this since there wasn't anything pointing to a next film (in any Marvel franchise), even if a second Avengers movie is due in a couple of years.
I'm sort of rooting for something similar to Civil War (where Iron Man and Captain America are major characters) or Secret Invasion so we'll see how that turns out.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Miyazaki - Howl's Moving Castle
"A heart's a heavy burden."
- Sophie, Howl's Moving Castle
So I've started running through my film backlogs and chose to watch Hayao Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle earlier.
In a nutshell, the film is set in a world where magic and steam technology coexist side by side. Sophie, the movie's main protagonist, due to some strange circumstances, finds herself transformed by a curse cast by a certain Witch of the Wastes into a ninety year-old lady. Her journey to break the curse leads her the the titular character's castle - which was essentially a huge mobile steampunk contraption powered by a friendly fire demon called Calcifer and guarded by his apprentice (whose name I couldn't quite recall). On their journey, they get caught in between a conflict between two kingdoms where Howl, along with other wizards and witches, are called upon to serve their countries in the war.
I don't know why, but his style often makes me draw parallels to some video games I've played in the past - in this case it reminded me so much of the anachronistic world of Chrono Trigger (whose distinctive art was drawn by someone I'm quite fond of - Akira Toriyama of Dragon Quest and Dragon Ball fame).
The film's art style is reminiscent of those old NES era role-playing games. It's funny that I muttered Magitek during the first time the castle appeared, since it reminded me so much of the emperor's troops in Final Fantasy 6 - to the point of me expecting some sort of Kefka-esque character to show up.
Nonetheless, it was a very entertaining film. I'm looking forward to watching Miyazaki's other films in the coming days.
- Sophie, Howl's Moving Castle
So I've started running through my film backlogs and chose to watch Hayao Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle earlier.
In a nutshell, the film is set in a world where magic and steam technology coexist side by side. Sophie, the movie's main protagonist, due to some strange circumstances, finds herself transformed by a curse cast by a certain Witch of the Wastes into a ninety year-old lady. Her journey to break the curse leads her the the titular character's castle - which was essentially a huge mobile steampunk contraption powered by a friendly fire demon called Calcifer and guarded by his apprentice (whose name I couldn't quite recall). On their journey, they get caught in between a conflict between two kingdoms where Howl, along with other wizards and witches, are called upon to serve their countries in the war.
I don't know why, but his style often makes me draw parallels to some video games I've played in the past - in this case it reminded me so much of the anachronistic world of Chrono Trigger (whose distinctive art was drawn by someone I'm quite fond of - Akira Toriyama of Dragon Quest and Dragon Ball fame).
The film's art style is reminiscent of those old NES era role-playing games. It's funny that I muttered Magitek during the first time the castle appeared, since it reminded me so much of the emperor's troops in Final Fantasy 6 - to the point of me expecting some sort of Kefka-esque character to show up.
Nonetheless, it was a very entertaining film. I'm looking forward to watching Miyazaki's other films in the coming days.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Smokes, Mirrors and Music Boxes
- Oz
So we got to watch Oz the Great and Powerful last week. Initially, I had my doubts about this film, up until I saw that Sam Raimi was directing it. It's interesting that he had retained similar camerawork since Evil Dead came out three decades ago - and Oz isn't an exception.
I may also have been a bit distracted because I saw Bruce Campbell's name in the opening credits - knowing his and Raimi's working history. I was silently hoping he'd play a bigger role instead of a cameo (and it's pretty hard to realize who he played unless you were consciously looking for him), but we'll take what we can get. It's nice to know that the two are still on good terms and it gives me hope that the Evil Dead remake will kick ass.
Sorry for the rambling.
Anyway, Oz acts as a prequel to The Wizard of Oz, set twenty years prior. It sort of serves as the origin story for the titular wizard - from how he ended up in the Emerald City as well as how things were set up for Dorothy's adventure.
It's pretty cool that they started the movie in the same manner as The Wizard of Oz, where the real world is portrayed in black-and-white and the movie only switches to color once Oz is transported to Oz. For some reason, the Kansas part of the film felt like something one would see in an abandoned film reel in Bioshock's Rapture.
Obviously, the film is heavy in CGI, but in a good way. It didn't feel intrusive to the story's flow and I think it would have been a treat to watch in 3D. It would have been awesome if they constructed those insane set pieces like in the old days.
I'm not sure about the critics, but I'd definitely recommend giving Oz the Great and Powerful a go. Maybe I'm just (obviously) a Raimi fan, but whatever.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Où & Quand?
- Hipolito
So unlike video games and books, I'd be hardpressed to make a top X list for films (although The Princess Bride would probably be at the top of said non-existing list, but I digress).
Amelie (or Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain for purists) is one of those films that remind me that there's a whole bunch of stuff out there that I haven't seen yet. I'm guessing that quirky would be the best term to describe this (not so) hidden gem.
The film tells the story of the titular character, Amelie Poulain, a lady who comes from a peculiar upbringing, courtesy of her eccentric parents - although she grows up having a charmingly active imagination (reminiscent of those internal monologues that people tend to have every so often) as well as an unusual outlook in life. After a few unlikely events, she resolves to devote her time trying to improve the lives of the people around her, often with little concern for her own. That is, until she comes across one Nino Quincampoix, with whom she ends up falling for after a playful chase through the streets of Paris.
Given the fact that the last couple of French films I've seen were District 13 (that parkour film) and La Horde (because zombies are the best), this was a nice change of pace.
It's pretty hard to describe, but somehow Amelie succeeds in keeping its viewer engaged with the plights of each character (who are also eccentric in their own rights) and how Amelie touches their lives. The romantic elements were actually fun to watch - as they were really entertaining without being excessively saccharine.
I think Amelie works really well in terms of being a feel-good movie without really trying to be one, which adds to its appeal. It's definitely a must-watch - although it should be noted that the entire film is in French, so make sure those subs work.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Sometimes There Are No Villains
"We've just got some incredible news and I'm having trouble putting it into context but here it is. The two men fighting for the championship tonight for the five million dollar prize for the middleweight championship of the world are brothers."
- Bryan Callen, Warrior
Let's be honest here, most people watch mixed martial arts events because they want to see someone get knocked the fuck out. On one hand, it's a throwback to the gladiators who fought in ancient Rome and it's hard to ask if, as Russel Crowe said in Gladiator, we're not entertained. On the other, it's one thing to see crazy moves from kung-fu movies being thrown and finishing people in real life - such is the appeal of people like Anderson Silva and Lyoto Machida.
Anyway, how does one tell a story about conflict without a villain?
Warrior is the story of two brothers (and their father), all estranged towards each other, who due to different circumstances in life decide to enter a mixed martial arts tournament to achieve their respective personal goals.
Tommy Riordan, the younger of the two, is an army deserter who decides to enter the tournament to support the widow of his comrade-at-arms. Despite his deep resentment towards his father, he asks to be trained by the old man to attain his goals - on the condition that they do not try to mend their relationship and would act strictly as a coach and student. Initially a relative unknown, Tommy quickly rises as a dark horse due to internet publicity and the media exposing his true origins to the general public.
Brendan Conlon, on the other hand, is a retired fighter turned physics teacher. Facing his home's foreclosure, he reluctantly returns to his old career despite his wife's protests after being suspended from his teaching duties due to his participation in the sport. Brendan was touted as a washed-up fighter whose best days were behind him, but he proves his critics wrong throughout the film by his sheer heart and determination to win.
I've always had the impression that movies involving sports tend to be boring (unless they're extremely bastardized and sensationalized) but I was amazed at how Warrior managed to hold its own in terms of an emotionally engaging storyline while showing elements that the sport of MMA is known for. The film portrays the fighters as people who do what they have to do not because they like it, but because it is the only choice they have left.
All in all, Warrior turned out to be surprisingly smart for a film about MMA. The film successfully tells its story of human relationship and redemption even through the violence in the cage and the bright lights of its arenas.
- Bryan Callen, Warrior
Let's be honest here, most people watch mixed martial arts events because they want to see someone get knocked the fuck out. On one hand, it's a throwback to the gladiators who fought in ancient Rome and it's hard to ask if, as Russel Crowe said in Gladiator, we're not entertained. On the other, it's one thing to see crazy moves from kung-fu movies being thrown and finishing people in real life - such is the appeal of people like Anderson Silva and Lyoto Machida.
Anyway, how does one tell a story about conflict without a villain?
Warrior is the story of two brothers (and their father), all estranged towards each other, who due to different circumstances in life decide to enter a mixed martial arts tournament to achieve their respective personal goals.
Tommy Riordan, the younger of the two, is an army deserter who decides to enter the tournament to support the widow of his comrade-at-arms. Despite his deep resentment towards his father, he asks to be trained by the old man to attain his goals - on the condition that they do not try to mend their relationship and would act strictly as a coach and student. Initially a relative unknown, Tommy quickly rises as a dark horse due to internet publicity and the media exposing his true origins to the general public.
Brendan Conlon, on the other hand, is a retired fighter turned physics teacher. Facing his home's foreclosure, he reluctantly returns to his old career despite his wife's protests after being suspended from his teaching duties due to his participation in the sport. Brendan was touted as a washed-up fighter whose best days were behind him, but he proves his critics wrong throughout the film by his sheer heart and determination to win.
I've always had the impression that movies involving sports tend to be boring (unless they're extremely bastardized and sensationalized) but I was amazed at how Warrior managed to hold its own in terms of an emotionally engaging storyline while showing elements that the sport of MMA is known for. The film portrays the fighters as people who do what they have to do not because they like it, but because it is the only choice they have left.
All in all, Warrior turned out to be surprisingly smart for a film about MMA. The film successfully tells its story of human relationship and redemption even through the violence in the cage and the bright lights of its arenas.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Overthinking : The Life of Pi
So some folks strongly recommended seeing the Life of Pi, and it got me curious since essentially everyone who watched it managed to turn their pseudo-reviews into moments of self-reflection for some reason. I haven't read the book but I kept seeing folks choosing between the endings (which I tried really hard to keep unspoiled until I saw it).
Anyway, something crossed my mind before seeing the film - so I scribbled it down just in case. Gut feel, as they say.
One ending would probably appeal to faith, and the other would appeal to reason.
Two hours later, I was staring at the same note - dumbfounded.
I guess it's an allegory to human nature with regards to trying to understand our place in the universe. People can choose to believe in the fantastic (and in some cases the absurd), or one can choose to stick to what is rational and empirical.
On Mixing and Matching
Pi's views on religion are interesting - he saw greater meaning in mixing and matching what he felt were the better aspects of different religions rather than blindly sticking to one. While I don't necessarily fully agree with him, I've always felt that one of the true purposes of religion was for a person to find some semblance of meaning where none can be seen - or understood. As sapient beings, people tend to fear the chaos and emptiness they see when they look at how vast the universe is (compared to how alone and powerless humanity is in the grand scheme of things) so they tend to run to whatever keeps them sane at night - the idea of a higher being that provides a sense of providence, or that of reason that attempts to mold chaos into something comprehensible albeit less magical. Those who don't, sadly, turn primal or something.
On the Endings
As much as I'd like to say something referencing Occam's Razor, it's impossible. Maybe neither choice is wrong. Asking someone to choose between the stories is mostly a rhetorical question. Ultimately, both stories had no bearing on answering the question of what sank the ship. Both stories had parallels and both stories were subjected to a single storyteller's subjective interpretation. Pi could have been telling the truth for one, both or none of the stories - the integrity of his word was, for the most part, unchallenged.
Like practically what everyone said - choose the first, believe the second. We would likely choose whatever is most convenient for us to swallow. In the end, it's the same story.
And In As Much as I Hate Writing About Faith
A few months ago, I went with a college friend to a classmate's birthday and we had a bit of time to talk thanks to the city's traffic. At some point, our conversation managed to drift to personal philosophies in life (because we're boss) and I found out that the friend went atheistic in the span of a few years. This surprised me, because I was under the impression that the person was one of those unshakeable types (and from where I studied, religion - not faith, sadly - was serious business). I never bothered to ask what swayed his opinion, since I'd hate to be the one who digs up buried memories - as I've regrettably done a few times before.
Personally, I have nothing against any belief system as long as it respects individual freedoms.
There's just something unsettling about believing in a higher power out of fear, or doing what is right out of expectation of a reward (spiritual or otherwise). There is nothing more self-serving than pushing human ideals in the guise of veneration. There is nothing more backwater than the thought of stifling human potential because of the misled reservations of a select few - especially if said few have no stake in it.
And there is nothing more fucked up than being taught to be afraid of whatever is supposed to grant people their salvation.
After all, I've always had the notion that people should always have a journey of discovering their place in the world first (whether they resort to faith, reason or both is inconsequential), then using that sense of value to uplift everything else (as long as it is reasonable).
So yeah, I can't be a saint.
Anyway, something crossed my mind before seeing the film - so I scribbled it down just in case. Gut feel, as they say.
One ending would probably appeal to faith, and the other would appeal to reason.
Two hours later, I was staring at the same note - dumbfounded.
I guess it's an allegory to human nature with regards to trying to understand our place in the universe. People can choose to believe in the fantastic (and in some cases the absurd), or one can choose to stick to what is rational and empirical.
On Mixing and Matching
Pi's views on religion are interesting - he saw greater meaning in mixing and matching what he felt were the better aspects of different religions rather than blindly sticking to one. While I don't necessarily fully agree with him, I've always felt that one of the true purposes of religion was for a person to find some semblance of meaning where none can be seen - or understood. As sapient beings, people tend to fear the chaos and emptiness they see when they look at how vast the universe is (compared to how alone and powerless humanity is in the grand scheme of things) so they tend to run to whatever keeps them sane at night - the idea of a higher being that provides a sense of providence, or that of reason that attempts to mold chaos into something comprehensible albeit less magical. Those who don't, sadly, turn primal or something.
On the Endings
As much as I'd like to say something referencing Occam's Razor, it's impossible. Maybe neither choice is wrong. Asking someone to choose between the stories is mostly a rhetorical question. Ultimately, both stories had no bearing on answering the question of what sank the ship. Both stories had parallels and both stories were subjected to a single storyteller's subjective interpretation. Pi could have been telling the truth for one, both or none of the stories - the integrity of his word was, for the most part, unchallenged.
Like practically what everyone said - choose the first, believe the second. We would likely choose whatever is most convenient for us to swallow. In the end, it's the same story.
And In As Much as I Hate Writing About Faith
A few months ago, I went with a college friend to a classmate's birthday and we had a bit of time to talk thanks to the city's traffic. At some point, our conversation managed to drift to personal philosophies in life (because we're boss) and I found out that the friend went atheistic in the span of a few years. This surprised me, because I was under the impression that the person was one of those unshakeable types (and from where I studied, religion - not faith, sadly - was serious business). I never bothered to ask what swayed his opinion, since I'd hate to be the one who digs up buried memories - as I've regrettably done a few times before.
Personally, I have nothing against any belief system as long as it respects individual freedoms.
There's just something unsettling about believing in a higher power out of fear, or doing what is right out of expectation of a reward (spiritual or otherwise). There is nothing more self-serving than pushing human ideals in the guise of veneration. There is nothing more backwater than the thought of stifling human potential because of the misled reservations of a select few - especially if said few have no stake in it.
And there is nothing more fucked up than being taught to be afraid of whatever is supposed to grant people their salvation.
After all, I've always had the notion that people should always have a journey of discovering their place in the world first (whether they resort to faith, reason or both is inconsequential), then using that sense of value to uplift everything else (as long as it is reasonable).
So yeah, I can't be a saint.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
We Were Promised Robots
- Miss Lucy
So someone recommended Never Let Me Go to me a few months back and I only got around to watching it very recently - blame the holiday season for that.
The film makes its premise clear from the very onset - that the main characters are not exactly viewed as people but as resources and that they have to come into terms with the fact that they're essentially living on borrowed time.
The film is set in an alternate Britain where medical science has found a breakthrough in terms of extending human lifespan and overall health - by creating clones who will serve as donors to their respective clients.
I guess what makes this movie different is that the characters are fully aware of their eventual fate and that they don't fight the notion (unlike The Island, for instance). Instead, they accept their nature and try to make the most of their time before their completion - that is, making their final donation.
Apart from the initially disturbing premise, one cannot help but root for the characters even if the film shows how their condition worsens as the story progresses. There were points where I was hoping that they'd run away in some sort of you-and-me-against-the-world struggle, but that never happens.
Instead, Never Let Me Go reminded me of Tuesdays With Morrie, given the parallels on how their characters deal with the acceptance of one's death as inevitable and a part of reality.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Rurouni
 |
| Kaoru sketch, because Megumi had weird eyebrows. |
Anyhow, I found it funny that I felt a bit old as I watched the film. I guess it felt that Rurouni Kenshin was tailor-made for a certain audience - specifically the generation who enjoyed it in animated form more than a decade ago.
At first, I was puzzled (and a bit shocked, to be honest) that there were more adults who were excited (read: extra jumpy) about it than there were young folks. Actually, I don't think I know anyone below twenty who actually watched it - their loss though.
I guess it just goes to show how quickly time flies and how rapidly each generation's tastes tend to change - and how people in general hold more nostalgic childhood memories than they tend to show to the big scary world of adulthood (and to their children, where applicable).
What if, in a perfect world, Pacific Rim was instead an adaptation of one of the mecha series that the martial law babies enjoyed? Wouldn't it be funny to see forty-somethings getting really giddy about it?
After all, at some point we become Rurouni whose time has passed.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Zombie Dramas, Songs and Comics?
Exit Humanity is not your run-of-the-mill zombie film. I was surprised that it turned out to be more of a drama than a horror film set shortly after the US Civil War - with the undead added into the conflict.
The film is based on the fictional memoirs of Edward Young, a soldier who has to deal with the horrors of a post-apocalyptic America ten years after the war - losing his family shortly afterwards due to a mysterious disease that reanimates the dead.
He decides to go on a journey to find answers to the terrible plague that has swept across the land and ultimately, to find answers to the doubts he has for himself.
Exit Humanity captured what The Walking Dead (the TV series, not the comics - those are still awesome) failed to do - human conflict set against a world with inhuman foes.
This is an album from the English band The Kooks, which I first found when I was running along the dark side of YouTube.
The album has fourteen tracks, and most are incredibly catchy - not a surprising quality from British bands.
Lastly, see the work of Tongari entitled 25 Lives. I don't think I've seen anything this simple and awesome since Arnold Arre's After Eden.
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
Fate Be Changed
"There comes a day when I don't have to be a Princess. No rules, no expectations. A day where anything can happen. A day where I can change my fate."
- Merida
So I saw Pixar's Brave last Monday. It's a take on the rebellious princess trope, which is a welcome change from all the previous Disney princesses who can't seem to do their own legwork (except Mulan, I think).
In a nutshell Brave tells the story of Merida, a tomboyish princess from medieval Scotland. Her parents decide to get her betrothed to the firstborn prince of one of three competing clans. Merida strongly opposes the idea, and decides to find a way to change her mother's mind by any means possible. When a magical spell she got from a witch goes awry, Merida has to seek a way to fix the things that have gone horribly wrong.
Brave explores the themes of breaking age-old traditions, seeking one's own fate and learning from the mistakes of the past. The movie employs a lot of fairy tale tropes and was definitely made for a younger audience, seeing that the film had a lot of those signature Pixar comic relief moments. I enjoyed the film's Celtic setting, especially with most of the characters speaking with Scottish accents.
It wasn't as thought provoking for more mature audiences as Wall-E was, but the movie gets its message across. Then again, I guess I was just looking for the next Coraline so my opinion doesn't count.
I was actually more interested in La Luna, the animated short that was shown before the actual film. It's a story about three generations of folks (a grandpa, a father and his son) whose task was to clean the full moon of its stars to continue the cycle. Even if the characters were spewing gibberish, La Luna doesn't need words to convey a sense of poetry and vision from the creators' part.
All in all, Brave isn't really a film-of-the-year contender, but it gets its job done and is worth watching.
- Merida
So I saw Pixar's Brave last Monday. It's a take on the rebellious princess trope, which is a welcome change from all the previous Disney princesses who can't seem to do their own legwork (except Mulan, I think).
In a nutshell Brave tells the story of Merida, a tomboyish princess from medieval Scotland. Her parents decide to get her betrothed to the firstborn prince of one of three competing clans. Merida strongly opposes the idea, and decides to find a way to change her mother's mind by any means possible. When a magical spell she got from a witch goes awry, Merida has to seek a way to fix the things that have gone horribly wrong.
Brave explores the themes of breaking age-old traditions, seeking one's own fate and learning from the mistakes of the past. The movie employs a lot of fairy tale tropes and was definitely made for a younger audience, seeing that the film had a lot of those signature Pixar comic relief moments. I enjoyed the film's Celtic setting, especially with most of the characters speaking with Scottish accents.
It wasn't as thought provoking for more mature audiences as Wall-E was, but the movie gets its message across. Then again, I guess I was just looking for the next Coraline so my opinion doesn't count.
I was actually more interested in La Luna, the animated short that was shown before the actual film. It's a story about three generations of folks (a grandpa, a father and his son) whose task was to clean the full moon of its stars to continue the cycle. Even if the characters were spewing gibberish, La Luna doesn't need words to convey a sense of poetry and vision from the creators' part.
All in all, Brave isn't really a film-of-the-year contender, but it gets its job done and is worth watching.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The Hero They Deserve
"Death by exile!"
- Doctor Jonathan Crane
So, in terms of film, what defines a classic?
In my opinion, classics are films that set a bar for a particular genre. They are films from which future ones would be based upon and would somehow retain their relevance for future audiences.
This is especially noteworthy for films that are adaptations, especially those with multiple interpretations of the source material. Comparisons between these are inevitable, yet some stand out over the rest. Notable examples would (again, in my opinion) include Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, Robert Wise's The Day the Earth Stood Still, Andrew Leman's The Call of Cthulhu and Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy would probably be the gold standard for Batman films from this point forward. His last entry, The Dark Knight Rises, concludes the story in satisfying fashion, introducing new threats as well as retaining the series' sense of continuity.
The story is set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, where we are introduced to a Gotham City in relative peace due to the Dent Act and a battered recluse in Bruce Wayne, still suffering the injuries from his previous encounters. It chronicles Batman's reluctant return from retirement to save a hostile city from Bane (a League of Shadows exile), and another mysterious figure (who we should have seen coming, given the first film's events).
What's most interesting is that Nolan's Bane was depicted as a brute with the mind of a genius, and is made more prominent by the contrast between his physical build and his manner of speech. This is a refreshing change of pace from Joker's agent of chaos persona and Scarecrow's mad scientist vibe (who returns for an awesome cameo).
Nolan also introduces Selina Kyle (and is never referred to as Catwoman in the film), a cat burglar whose aid Batman enlists and John Blake, an orphaned police officer turned detective turned overall badass. Fans of the comics would appreciate the not-so-subtle nods to some of Batman's most memorable moments such as the backbreaker from Knightfall and distant references to the Lazarus Pits (which vastly differs from the comics).
Overall, it's an extremely entertaining film that showcases Nolan's depiction of Batman as the Dark Knight, far removed from previous incarnations such as Adam West's campy detective and the tragedy that is Val Kilmer's Batnipples. It's a testament to what could be done when people actually go through careful research into the source material and proof that comics-based movies can retain the plausibility and humanity of its characters.
- Doctor Jonathan Crane
So, in terms of film, what defines a classic?
In my opinion, classics are films that set a bar for a particular genre. They are films from which future ones would be based upon and would somehow retain their relevance for future audiences.
This is especially noteworthy for films that are adaptations, especially those with multiple interpretations of the source material. Comparisons between these are inevitable, yet some stand out over the rest. Notable examples would (again, in my opinion) include Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, Robert Wise's The Day the Earth Stood Still, Andrew Leman's The Call of Cthulhu and Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy would probably be the gold standard for Batman films from this point forward. His last entry, The Dark Knight Rises, concludes the story in satisfying fashion, introducing new threats as well as retaining the series' sense of continuity.
The story is set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, where we are introduced to a Gotham City in relative peace due to the Dent Act and a battered recluse in Bruce Wayne, still suffering the injuries from his previous encounters. It chronicles Batman's reluctant return from retirement to save a hostile city from Bane (a League of Shadows exile), and another mysterious figure (who we should have seen coming, given the first film's events).
What's most interesting is that Nolan's Bane was depicted as a brute with the mind of a genius, and is made more prominent by the contrast between his physical build and his manner of speech. This is a refreshing change of pace from Joker's agent of chaos persona and Scarecrow's mad scientist vibe (who returns for an awesome cameo).
Nolan also introduces Selina Kyle (and is never referred to as Catwoman in the film), a cat burglar whose aid Batman enlists and John Blake, an orphaned police officer turned detective turned overall badass. Fans of the comics would appreciate the not-so-subtle nods to some of Batman's most memorable moments such as the backbreaker from Knightfall and distant references to the Lazarus Pits (which vastly differs from the comics).
Overall, it's an extremely entertaining film that showcases Nolan's depiction of Batman as the Dark Knight, far removed from previous incarnations such as Adam West's campy detective and the tragedy that is Val Kilmer's Batnipples. It's a testament to what could be done when people actually go through careful research into the source material and proof that comics-based movies can retain the plausibility and humanity of its characters.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Lost in Woods You've Never Been In
- Jay, prior to Entry 60
So I'm well aware that I've been yammering about Marble Hornets, Slenderman and the Operator these past few months.
As a horror nut, I'm hard-pressed to find material that puts a new spin on the genre. Mainstream media often offers us the same old tired tropes such as vampires, werewolves or zombies and we're subjected to the same old stories with a few cosmetic changes thrown in for good measure.
Enter Marble Hornets, an alternate reality game (ARG) featuring the creators' own spin on one of the horrors that the Internet has spawned: the Slenderman.
Marble Hornets is a web series with videos shot in similar fashion to 'found footage' films such as the Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Diary of the Dead and Cloverfield. These videos are mainly uploaded to a dedicated YouTube channel on varying intervals. It narrates the story of a group of people and their encounters with a mysterious entity dubbed the Operator, the in-universe name for Slenderman.
What makes Marble Hornets different is that it has an interesting take on exploiting our fear of the unknown. Perhaps the most unnerving thing about the Operator is that it is mostly a passive antagonist, where most of the time the creators make it appear that at the time of filming they are not aware of its presence and only 'discover' it upon editing and uploading the videos. It could often be seen lurking in the background and is only visible for a few seconds before the camera unknowingly pans away. During the rare times that the uploader is actually aware of the Operator's presence, be prepared for pure nightmare fuel.
As an ARG, the uploader actually plays the role as if it was real life and his updates are backed by an in-character Twitter account. He communicates with followers there, and sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between who's just a fan and who's actually involved with the series.
Marble Hornets also features characters that serve as supplements to the series. They actively interact with the main characters either by providing cryptic clues, observing from afar and physically engaging with them. Whether they are friendly or not is still under speculation.
Overall, Marble Hornets exhibits the collective power of the Internet as a storytelling medium and shows its unique take on horror. It somehow provides an immersive experience by combining different avenues for content delivery, amateur but extremely effective storytelling and the imagination of the Internet crowd.
If you want to experience sleepless nights, be sure to check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)