Slate has an annual forum for a number of reviewers to duke out the best and worst of the past year. Even without Ebert’s participation, this should be a good discussion as always. Enjoy.
Monday, January 05, 2004
2003 Movie Review Saturday, December 27, 2003
Great Movie, better book.
I finally saw The Return of the King and many who know me are probably surprised I waited more than a week to do so. But this was a movie to share with my father, for he introduced me to The Lord of the Rings, and it has been a cherished and shared part of my childhood – and adulthood. I am happy to report that The Return of the King continued the excellence put forth by Jackson in his first two installments. But you don’t need me to tell you that, 97% of critics agree. Consequently, this is less a review and more a discussion of the interplay between book and movie and the continuing importance of the book. Bottom line, if you have not already, read the book.
Peter Jackson’s trilogy was nothing short of remarkable. The hurdles that Jackson faced were legion. First, the story is long, detailed, intricate, complex and rich. Second, the imagery Tolkien produced is enduring, challenging to recreate (and expensive) and often time consuming in movie terms. Despite being over 1300 pages, the book is tightly written and, if anything, too short (Tolkien’s own criticism). Many of the longer scenes in the movie do not take up many pages in the book because Tolkien could evoke amazing imagery in surprisingly few words. Third, the book has many loyal devotees who simply would not tolerate any major juggling of the story line. But, fourth, while those devotees would gladly watch a 25 hour epic mini-series rendition, for commercial success, the movies could not be much longer than three hours and it would have been tough to sell doing some number of movies other than three.
Consequently, I had more than a little trepidation when I heard that a big budget version of The Lord of the Rings was in production. On the one hand, I had dreamed of this since I was a kid – I remember discussing with friends how we would make a truly proper movie version after we grew up and became rich and powerful enough to do so. On the other hand, George Lucas’ atrocious Star Wars prequels (which cheapen and demean the original) demonstrated that things you dream for as a child can turn out to be nightmares. Also, I cannot think of a single instance where a great Sci/fi/Fantasy book was made into a great movie (Blade Runner came from a (not that great anyway) short story and 2001 was written first as a movie) other than The Wizard of Oz. But, needless to say, Jackson delivered and for that, he deserves all the praise in the world. Sure, there were things cut that I would have liked to have seen in the movie and alterations and additions that I found to be unnecessary and detrimental (most of which were in the Two Towers). But Tolkien’s world is too rich for there to be a single “correct” image of how to portray it in 10 hours of film. What was surprising was not that that my vision and Jackson’s did not mesh at all times, but the frequency with which they did. There were so many things that I thought Jackson got spot on that it would be pointless to try and name them. Quite simply, the movies were better than I ever realistically hoped that they would be.
Of the three movies, I found The Fellowship of the Ring to easily be the best. It enthralled me completely, which I never thought would be possible since I essentially knew everything (except for a few minor changes) that was going to happen and only did not know what would not happen (i.e., what story lines would be left out), but that does not build movie suspense. Even in my wildest dreams, I did not think the movies could be anything more, for me, than a well-done visualization of a story I know by heart and that is what The Two Towers and The Return of the King essentially were. Fellowship, however, sucked me in and entranced me; it often had me on the edge of my seat when I knew what was going to happen next. That is good movie making.
But despite all the praise I have Jackson’s movies, I am here to tell you the book is better. In fact, it is not even close. Tolkien was a true master and The Lord of the Rings deservingly belongs on the short list of great works of literature. As for why, C.S. Lewis said it better than I ever could:
"No imaginary world has been projected which is at once as multifarious and as true to its own inner laws … none so relevant to the actual human situation yet so free from allegory … Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart … good beyond hope."
Tolkien, literally, created his own mythology, a mythology as rich and intricate as Greek, Roman or Norse mythology (Tolkien even created languages) and I am unaware of anything written by one person that could even come close enough to be placed in the same category – Tolkien’s broader universe is quite unique (and thankfully never has been, and hopefully never will be, corrupted by spin-offs telling side, future and past tales). The Lord of the Rings is to Tolkien’s mythology what the Illiad and the Odyssey are to Greek mythology – except The Lord of the Rings is a better story.
The book is also magnificent in that, as Lewis says, it is, despite being placed in a mythological land of wizards, magic swords, walking trees and ancient kings, very relevant to the human condition, but remains free of allegory (something that cannot be said of Lewis’ own works, but I digress). Tolkien’s own thoughts on this point, set forth in a foreword, are relevant.
"The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them . . . . As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."
Some might say that a book that is simply a story, without a message or a political statement or a broader meaning should not be considered a seminal work of literature. I disagree. The Lord of the Rings is, in my opinion, simply the greatest story ever told. It is a story that is universal and enduring and it has evoked dreams and spurred imagination in many a child (and many an adult). The universal nature of the story is one of its greatest strengths and is something an allegorical story can never claim. And, it is a story for adults that can be appreciated and loved by children (The Hobbit is a children’s story that adults can appreciate) and that is no easy task.
The story in the book is also different than the one in the movies, despite Jackson’s admirable faithfulness. One thing that struck me while watching Return of the King is the way in which, not surprisingly, the action/fight/war scenes dominated the movie in many ways. This makes perfect sense and it is not a criticism as, indeed, these are the visual representations that we dreamed about someday seeing in movie form and the movies did them phenomenal justice. While there is an even greater emphasis in the book on magical swords and great leaders, the book is not as militaristic as the movies. This harkens back to what I said about Tolkien’s ability to create images in few words. The battle scenes are tightly described in the perfect balance that evokes amazing imagery without overloading on detail. But they are not overly long and you can just imagine how many other stories are contained in the three-volume novel and how much more there is to some of the stories shown or hinted at in the movies. Many brilliant stories are simply not in the movie – Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow, the Barrow Wights and the true “final” battle – and there is more to the stories of Eowyn, Faramir, Merry & Pippen, Sam and the orcs, and Saurman, to name but a few.
So, if you haven’t done so already, pick up the books, you’ll be glad you did. And if you are someone who has not seen the movies or read the books (and are amazingly still reading this, for I do not have Tolkien’s gift), read the books first and then rent the (extended edition) DVDs. And, if you have children down the road, or children not yet at an age to read or watch The Lord of the Rings, encourage them to read the book first. Or, better yet, read it to them.
Great Movie, better book.
I finally saw The Return of the King and many who know me are probably surprised I waited more than a week to do so. But this was a movie to share with my father, for he introduced me to The Lord of the Rings, and it has been a cherished and shared part of my childhood – and adulthood. I am happy to report that The Return of the King continued the excellence put forth by Jackson in his first two installments. But you don’t need me to tell you that, 97% of critics agree. Consequently, this is less a review and more a discussion of the interplay between book and movie and the continuing importance of the book. Bottom line, if you have not already, read the book.
Peter Jackson’s trilogy was nothing short of remarkable. The hurdles that Jackson faced were legion. First, the story is long, detailed, intricate, complex and rich. Second, the imagery Tolkien produced is enduring, challenging to recreate (and expensive) and often time consuming in movie terms. Despite being over 1300 pages, the book is tightly written and, if anything, too short (Tolkien’s own criticism). Many of the longer scenes in the movie do not take up many pages in the book because Tolkien could evoke amazing imagery in surprisingly few words. Third, the book has many loyal devotees who simply would not tolerate any major juggling of the story line. But, fourth, while those devotees would gladly watch a 25 hour epic mini-series rendition, for commercial success, the movies could not be much longer than three hours and it would have been tough to sell doing some number of movies other than three.
Consequently, I had more than a little trepidation when I heard that a big budget version of The Lord of the Rings was in production. On the one hand, I had dreamed of this since I was a kid – I remember discussing with friends how we would make a truly proper movie version after we grew up and became rich and powerful enough to do so. On the other hand, George Lucas’ atrocious Star Wars prequels (which cheapen and demean the original) demonstrated that things you dream for as a child can turn out to be nightmares. Also, I cannot think of a single instance where a great Sci/fi/Fantasy book was made into a great movie (Blade Runner came from a (not that great anyway) short story and 2001 was written first as a movie) other than The Wizard of Oz. But, needless to say, Jackson delivered and for that, he deserves all the praise in the world. Sure, there were things cut that I would have liked to have seen in the movie and alterations and additions that I found to be unnecessary and detrimental (most of which were in the Two Towers). But Tolkien’s world is too rich for there to be a single “correct” image of how to portray it in 10 hours of film. What was surprising was not that that my vision and Jackson’s did not mesh at all times, but the frequency with which they did. There were so many things that I thought Jackson got spot on that it would be pointless to try and name them. Quite simply, the movies were better than I ever realistically hoped that they would be.
Of the three movies, I found The Fellowship of the Ring to easily be the best. It enthralled me completely, which I never thought would be possible since I essentially knew everything (except for a few minor changes) that was going to happen and only did not know what would not happen (i.e., what story lines would be left out), but that does not build movie suspense. Even in my wildest dreams, I did not think the movies could be anything more, for me, than a well-done visualization of a story I know by heart and that is what The Two Towers and The Return of the King essentially were. Fellowship, however, sucked me in and entranced me; it often had me on the edge of my seat when I knew what was going to happen next. That is good movie making.
But despite all the praise I have Jackson’s movies, I am here to tell you the book is better. In fact, it is not even close. Tolkien was a true master and The Lord of the Rings deservingly belongs on the short list of great works of literature. As for why, C.S. Lewis said it better than I ever could:
"No imaginary world has been projected which is at once as multifarious and as true to its own inner laws … none so relevant to the actual human situation yet so free from allegory … Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart … good beyond hope."
Tolkien, literally, created his own mythology, a mythology as rich and intricate as Greek, Roman or Norse mythology (Tolkien even created languages) and I am unaware of anything written by one person that could even come close enough to be placed in the same category – Tolkien’s broader universe is quite unique (and thankfully never has been, and hopefully never will be, corrupted by spin-offs telling side, future and past tales). The Lord of the Rings is to Tolkien’s mythology what the Illiad and the Odyssey are to Greek mythology – except The Lord of the Rings is a better story.
The book is also magnificent in that, as Lewis says, it is, despite being placed in a mythological land of wizards, magic swords, walking trees and ancient kings, very relevant to the human condition, but remains free of allegory (something that cannot be said of Lewis’ own works, but I digress). Tolkien’s own thoughts on this point, set forth in a foreword, are relevant.
"The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them . . . . As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."
Some might say that a book that is simply a story, without a message or a political statement or a broader meaning should not be considered a seminal work of literature. I disagree. The Lord of the Rings is, in my opinion, simply the greatest story ever told. It is a story that is universal and enduring and it has evoked dreams and spurred imagination in many a child (and many an adult). The universal nature of the story is one of its greatest strengths and is something an allegorical story can never claim. And, it is a story for adults that can be appreciated and loved by children (The Hobbit is a children’s story that adults can appreciate) and that is no easy task.
The story in the book is also different than the one in the movies, despite Jackson’s admirable faithfulness. One thing that struck me while watching Return of the King is the way in which, not surprisingly, the action/fight/war scenes dominated the movie in many ways. This makes perfect sense and it is not a criticism as, indeed, these are the visual representations that we dreamed about someday seeing in movie form and the movies did them phenomenal justice. While there is an even greater emphasis in the book on magical swords and great leaders, the book is not as militaristic as the movies. This harkens back to what I said about Tolkien’s ability to create images in few words. The battle scenes are tightly described in the perfect balance that evokes amazing imagery without overloading on detail. But they are not overly long and you can just imagine how many other stories are contained in the three-volume novel and how much more there is to some of the stories shown or hinted at in the movies. Many brilliant stories are simply not in the movie – Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow, the Barrow Wights and the true “final” battle – and there is more to the stories of Eowyn, Faramir, Merry & Pippen, Sam and the orcs, and Saurman, to name but a few.
So, if you haven’t done so already, pick up the books, you’ll be glad you did. And if you are someone who has not seen the movies or read the books (and are amazingly still reading this, for I do not have Tolkien’s gift), read the books first and then rent the (extended edition) DVDs. And, if you have children down the road, or children not yet at an age to read or watch The Lord of the Rings, encourage them to read the book first. Or, better yet, read it to them.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
21 Grams (**½)
I saw 21 Grams this weekend, the new movie by Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. I give it a reserved recommendation—the acting is phenomenal, the movie is very well made and the story is told in a puzzle like fashion that both challenges and engages the viewer (at least initially). However, I found the story overly long, eventually a bit slow and thought it could have benefited from being tighter. If you can appreciate a movie solely for good acting and filmmaking, it is worth seeing.
Inarritu directed the 2000 movie Amores Perros, which is easily one of the most intense movies I have ever seen and is highly recommended. 21 Grams, despite a much stronger set of actors (no disrespect to the actors in Amores Perros, but it is hard to find a movie with a trio of actors like Naomi Watts, Benicio Del Toro and Sean Penn) and a bigger budget fails to match Inarritu’s first movie. However, the director’s skill and ability is again on display as the movie was beautifully shot and he produces a gritty realism in scene after scene, despite the many extreme occurrences in the movie (for a discussion of the storyline, jump here to the italicized last paragraph, which DOES CONTAIN spoilers).
Unquestionably, the movie’s strength is the performance of its three main actors. Watts might deserve Oscar consideration for her performance (an award she should have bagged for Mulholland Drive, in which she put forth what was the most impressive acting performance of that year by either sex, yet failed to even receive a nomination) and Del Toro and Penn put in characteristically strong performances—Penn probably having the least to work with of the three. While credit for the realism of the scenes must certainly be shared with Inarritu, Watts and Del Toro’s believable depiction of complex characters is impressive.
The movie is presented in a puzzle like fashion, constantly making temporal jumps forward and backwards in time. Early on in the film we see scenes with Watts, Del Toro and Penn interacting, but when we see scenes that comprise their individual stories, we are unclear when these scenes are occurring and how we can make sense of the scenes where two or all three of them interact. I found myself engaged early on in figuring out the puzzle as I pieced together the relationships between the characters and figured out the temporal order of the various scenes and story lines. However, somewhere around two-thirds of the way through the movie, I had solved the puzzle but for a few small pieces and I found that the movie started to drag some as I would watch scenes that I had already figured out must happen. Despite the complexity of the characters, the actual story is not overly complex (once the puzzle has been solved) and felt drawn out at a little over two hours. If 21 Grams had been tighter (or perhaps the puzzle harder to solve) my recommendation might change from a movie worth seeing if you appreciate fine acting and filmmaking, to a movie that should not be missed. I was reminded of Memento, but 21 Grams is not in the same league as that excellant movie.
WARNING! The italicized text below, while explaining the basic plot, reveals more of the movie than I would have wanted to know before seeing the movie, especially considering the movie’s puzzle like way of being told. I DO NOT recommend you read further, but I know that some people like to know a movie’s story before seeing it, so here goes. Del Toro plays an ex-con who can’t seem to catch a break, but also a man with minimal introspection and an inability to take control of his life. He “accidentally” runs over Watts’ husband, two daughters and her “perfect” life. Penn is dying because of a failing heart (and also has a failing/failed marriage) and I’ll give you one guess whose heart he gets. Penn’s search for his heart’s original owner’s family leads him to Watts and they become lovers. Ultimately, Watts decides that Del Toro must pay for his actions and that Penn must help her—in a scene that leads to perhaps the movie’s best line Watts tells Penn that “You’ve got my husband’s fucking heart. You’re in his fucking house, fucking his wife--you owe it to him!” Interestingly, we learn early on that Penn and Watts are lovers (well not Senor Ferrari, who was getting popcorn and was not told by his very pretty companion until after Watts and Penn’s sex romp well into the movie that the first scene of the movie (them in bed) was then repeated—and for you fans of Naomi Watts, no this scene does not match her scenes in Mulholland Drive (like anything ever will), but aren’t bad) and see glimpses of the “climactic” final interaction between the three. Thus, the spoiler effect of this paragraph is actually in some of the more basic elements of the story line, elements that normally would not be much of a spoiler, but here would diminish from the puzzle (and based on Senor Ferrari’s experience, once the puzzle is solved the movie becomes less interesting, but you were warned).
Read Less... 21 Grams (**½)
I saw 21 Grams this weekend, the new movie by Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. I give it a reserved recommendation—the acting is phenomenal, the movie is very well made and the story is told in a puzzle like fashion that both challenges and engages the viewer (at least initially). However, I found the story overly long, eventually a bit slow and thought it could have benefited from being tighter. If you can appreciate a movie solely for good acting and filmmaking, it is worth seeing.
Inarritu directed the 2000 movie Amores Perros, which is easily one of the most intense movies I have ever seen and is highly recommended. 21 Grams, despite a much stronger set of actors (no disrespect to the actors in Amores Perros, but it is hard to find a movie with a trio of actors like Naomi Watts, Benicio Del Toro and Sean Penn) and a bigger budget fails to match Inarritu’s first movie. However, the director’s skill and ability is again on display as the movie was beautifully shot and he produces a gritty realism in scene after scene, despite the many extreme occurrences in the movie (for a discussion of the storyline, jump here to the italicized last paragraph, which DOES CONTAIN spoilers).
Unquestionably, the movie’s strength is the performance of its three main actors. Watts might deserve Oscar consideration for her performance (an award she should have bagged for Mulholland Drive, in which she put forth what was the most impressive acting performance of that year by either sex, yet failed to even receive a nomination) and Del Toro and Penn put in characteristically strong performances—Penn probably having the least to work with of the three. While credit for the realism of the scenes must certainly be shared with Inarritu, Watts and Del Toro’s believable depiction of complex characters is impressive.
The movie is presented in a puzzle like fashion, constantly making temporal jumps forward and backwards in time. Early on in the film we see scenes with Watts, Del Toro and Penn interacting, but when we see scenes that comprise their individual stories, we are unclear when these scenes are occurring and how we can make sense of the scenes where two or all three of them interact. I found myself engaged early on in figuring out the puzzle as I pieced together the relationships between the characters and figured out the temporal order of the various scenes and story lines. However, somewhere around two-thirds of the way through the movie, I had solved the puzzle but for a few small pieces and I found that the movie started to drag some as I would watch scenes that I had already figured out must happen. Despite the complexity of the characters, the actual story is not overly complex (once the puzzle has been solved) and felt drawn out at a little over two hours. If 21 Grams had been tighter (or perhaps the puzzle harder to solve) my recommendation might change from a movie worth seeing if you appreciate fine acting and filmmaking, to a movie that should not be missed. I was reminded of Memento, but 21 Grams is not in the same league as that excellant movie.
WARNING! The italicized text below, while explaining the basic plot, reveals more of the movie than I would have wanted to know before seeing the movie, especially considering the movie’s puzzle like way of being told. I DO NOT recommend you read further, but I know that some people like to know a movie’s story before seeing it, so here goes. Del Toro plays an ex-con who can’t seem to catch a break, but also a man with minimal introspection and an inability to take control of his life. He “accidentally” runs over Watts’ husband, two daughters and her “perfect” life. Penn is dying because of a failing heart (and also has a failing/failed marriage) and I’ll give you one guess whose heart he gets. Penn’s search for his heart’s original owner’s family leads him to Watts and they become lovers. Ultimately, Watts decides that Del Toro must pay for his actions and that Penn must help her—in a scene that leads to perhaps the movie’s best line Watts tells Penn that “You’ve got my husband’s fucking heart. You’re in his fucking house, fucking his wife--you owe it to him!” Interestingly, we learn early on that Penn and Watts are lovers (well not Senor Ferrari, who was getting popcorn and was not told by his very pretty companion until after Watts and Penn’s sex romp well into the movie that the first scene of the movie (them in bed) was then repeated—and for you fans of Naomi Watts, no this scene does not match her scenes in Mulholland Drive (like anything ever will), but aren’t bad) and see glimpses of the “climactic” final interaction between the three. Thus, the spoiler effect of this paragraph is actually in some of the more basic elements of the story line, elements that normally would not be much of a spoiler, but here would diminish from the puzzle (and based on Senor Ferrari’s experience, once the puzzle is solved the movie becomes less interesting, but you were warned).
Read Less... Thursday, December 11, 2003
Dullstar Galactica (*)Since I don’t watch much T.V. these days (other than news and sports) I was looking forward to the Sci-Fi Channel’s Battlestar Galactica mini-series. Ugh! I would have had more fun watching the Dick Cheney comedy hour.
There are times when you are watching something and you think to yourself, “What were they thinking?” But usually you know what they were thinking and it was simply bad execution, bad acting, lack of creative effort (or talent) or all of the above. But then there are times when you stare dumbfounded at the screen, trying to imagine what could possibly have been going on in their minds when they created the utterly worthless garbage that you find yourself watching (and you find you can’t turn away from the train wreck). You find yourself not only realizing that someone is bound to be fired over this, but that you are hoping that they are and that they are never allowed to work again. Battlestar Galactica occupied the latter category.
Admittedly, my memories of the original Battlestar Galactica are fuzzy, but I remember swashbuckling space cowboys, shiny evil robots and 70’s style babes in skimpy and creative outfits. Not a recipe for refined drama, but certainly a recipe for a fun, exciting, remember your childhood fondly mini-series with 21st century special effects. Apparently, however, someone spilled coffee on the recipe.
There is no need to conduct an exegesis of the show; it was, quite simply, boring, bland and completely uninteresting. The characters were unappealing and tedious, the acting atrocious, the setting constantly gray, brown and black (as opposed to the explosion of colors in the original) and the story was impenetrable, slow (45 minutes into it nothing, and I mean nothing, had yet happened) and herky-jerky to boot. The entire four hour series (I didn’t really watch the second half, but had it on as background) should have been no more than a ½ hour intro before the story really started. The person who sat in some office and decided that this show should be a slow-paced (there’s an understatement), situational based, character driven drama (presumably the bad acting and uninteresting characters were not intentional) was probably the same person who decided to remake Godzilla, but to turn Godzilla into a giant iguana.
The Sci-Fi channel is clearly hoping to launch this into either a successful series or regularly occurring T.V. movies. I give Reverend Al a better chance to become President.
Dullstar Galactica (*)Since I don’t watch much T.V. these days (other than news and sports) I was looking forward to the Sci-Fi Channel’s Battlestar Galactica mini-series. Ugh! I would have had more fun watching the Dick Cheney comedy hour.
There are times when you are watching something and you think to yourself, “What were they thinking?” But usually you know what they were thinking and it was simply bad execution, bad acting, lack of creative effort (or talent) or all of the above. But then there are times when you stare dumbfounded at the screen, trying to imagine what could possibly have been going on in their minds when they created the utterly worthless garbage that you find yourself watching (and you find you can’t turn away from the train wreck). You find yourself not only realizing that someone is bound to be fired over this, but that you are hoping that they are and that they are never allowed to work again. Battlestar Galactica occupied the latter category.
Admittedly, my memories of the original Battlestar Galactica are fuzzy, but I remember swashbuckling space cowboys, shiny evil robots and 70’s style babes in skimpy and creative outfits. Not a recipe for refined drama, but certainly a recipe for a fun, exciting, remember your childhood fondly mini-series with 21st century special effects. Apparently, however, someone spilled coffee on the recipe.
There is no need to conduct an exegesis of the show; it was, quite simply, boring, bland and completely uninteresting. The characters were unappealing and tedious, the acting atrocious, the setting constantly gray, brown and black (as opposed to the explosion of colors in the original) and the story was impenetrable, slow (45 minutes into it nothing, and I mean nothing, had yet happened) and herky-jerky to boot. The entire four hour series (I didn’t really watch the second half, but had it on as background) should have been no more than a ½ hour intro before the story really started. The person who sat in some office and decided that this show should be a slow-paced (there’s an understatement), situational based, character driven drama (presumably the bad acting and uninteresting characters were not intentional) was probably the same person who decided to remake Godzilla, but to turn Godzilla into a giant iguana.
The Sci-Fi channel is clearly hoping to launch this into either a successful series or regularly occurring T.V. movies. I give Reverend Al a better chance to become President.
