Don't You Step Out of Line!

For a little over a year now, I've been waiting for the chance to read fiction. In April 2011 is when I began taking classes in earnest to fulfill the prerequisites for the PA programs I'm currently applying to - the demands of such classes left little time for recreational reading, even of my magazine subscription... so everything but school went on hold.

Now that school is out, however, I'm finally catching up on my magazines, and soon I'll get the chance to read my own little reward for myself - Cloud Atlas. The book was written by David Mitchell and has been universally praised for its structural ingenuity and literary prowess. And the concept is so unusual it's actually being adapted for the big screen by the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer.

Color me intrigued... but also annoyed.

I don't like being in on something that's a hot commodity. With a team like that, you know a lot of money is being spent and even more will be spent trying to bring audiences in. This is a rarity for me. Generally, I am on the outskirts of popular media - not avoiding it per se, but not seeking it out either. I avoided 30 Rock, Mad Men, and Breaking Bad for years before finally succumbing (and subsequently loving), and here I am actually on the forefront.

There's just something about populist material that makes me suspicious. Of what, exactly, I'm not sure, but suspicious... and more likely to be captious in my opinion. Here's hoping the book is great nevertheless, and I'm curious to see if this "unfilmmable" movie is any good.

Worlds Apart

Back from the dead! School is finally over for the semester, and I have a little time to write some things before the wedding. So without further ado - here we go!


The Avengers - 2.5/5
(dir. Joss Whedon)

After raking in a billion dollars after only a couple weeks, it's obvious The Avengers will be the model for superhero movies for the next few years. Don't be surprised to see a JLA (Justice League of America) movie rushed through the pipeline. Generally, Kate and I avoid these big tentpole films, eschewing them for higher quality fare, but at the same time there's something nice and comforting in the fact that people will still go to a movie theater and pay money (lots of money) if they really want to see a movie. So, a week late, we saw it.

Overall, our reaction was... "Meh." Both of us. That's rare. Generally, no matter what, at least one of us will feel strongly positive or strongly negative, but after this we both just kind of shrugged our shoulders. We agreed that it wasn't horrible, and overall the evening was fun (mostly because we actually got to spend some time together for the first time in months without fear of homework), but the movie itself never rises above the level of mediocre.

First of all, the villain just doesn't cut it. Personally, even back in Thor, I found Loki to be pretty lame. He's smarmy and arrogant and egotistical and domineering... but he's just not particularly menacing. Not once does he really feel like a threat to anyone - he's a politician, not a killer. Second, the action scenes largely don't work. And that's a problem, because there are lots of them. The film's action scenes are shot (as so many are these days, unfortunately) in that ultra-frenetic/way-too-close mode where you basically see blurs and flashes of movement, but you can't really get a sense of geography or timing. Things are happening, and they're happening quickly, but you can't exactly say what is happening, or who it is happening to. I understand why this is done (you don't want to chance your star-studded cast getting injured, so you have to hide your stunt doubles' faces by tightening up the composition or cutting just before the face is revealed), but it still makes the action scenes a strain on the eyes rather than a ballet of movement. Plus, even the scenes themselves are pretty dull. Virtually every character in this movie has superhuman strength. How do you hit someone who has superhuman strength? Really, really hard. That makes for some pretty dull choreography after a while. A couple (literally two) characters are more about speed and agility, but for the most part these characters are smashing into each other and throwing haymakers left and right. Last, and most important, the movie is too long. Way, way too long. At two hours and twenty minutes, Whedon is trying to make his fanboy fantasy more important than it is. A movie like The Dark Knight is also too long, but it's at least trying for pathos - it's trying for a deeper, richer experience... The Avengers is all popcorn all the way. It's fluff. And a big, vacuous summer movie should never be more than two hours. No need.

Again, however, let me reiterate: neither one of us hated the movie. It had some great comedic bits, and it is kind of fun to go through the larger-than-life experience of a big "summer movie." Also, this is the first film to actually make a case for a stand-alone Hulk film. After Ang Lee's ambitious but troubled financial failure, Hulk, and Louis Leterrier's atrocious do-over, The Incredible Hulk, it seemed the big green guy was doomed to subpar movies... This time around, though, played by Mark Ruffalo of all people, we actually get a sense of the dangerous line Bruce Banner straddles, and what it must be like to lose complete control and become a literally unstoppable monster. He saved the movie, in my opinion. Robert Downey Jr. was good, as was Chris Evans, in their respective roles, but frankly their takes on their characters are getting kind of tired. It was refreshing to see a new twist on the Hulk, and I actually wouldn't mind if Ruffalo got his own Hulk film. He also gets the biggest laugh of the picture, and that's saying something.


Haywire - 3/5
(dir. Steven Soderbergh)

Compared to The Avengers, polar opposites. They share some of the same weaknesses, but Haywire is also so much better. It may not show in the rating, but hopefully the review will elucidate things.

First of all, Haywire is what I call a "good, but" movie. For example, it's good, but.... I love the cinematography, for instance. It's refreshing to see some interesting cinematic decisions in an action film - ie, what will we do with the lighting, or the locations, or the film stock? It's obvious a lot of thought and care went into the look of the film, and I appreciate that. Also, I love the fight scenes. The film stars Gina Carano, an MMA fighter even I've heard of, so she must be pretty good. You have no idea how nice it is to watch an action film where the star can actually hurt people. Not just look like they can, like Arnold Schwarzenegger or something, but actually know the moves and the joint-locks and be able to pull them off convincingly. It really does make a difference. And on top of that, there's the cinematography of the fight scenes! Sick of the choppy/frenetic approach where you know stuff is happening, you just don't know what? Haywire is like a shot in the arm. Most of the fights occur in long shots, or at least fairly long takes... and you know what? They hurt. The very first fight in the movie actually looks painful. It is of course highly stylized and choreographed, but you get the sense that these people could really hurt each other, they're not just going through a maneuver. And Carano proves herself a fairly decent actress. She's not asked to do a lot outside her natural range of abilities, but she's convincing enough.

That's the good. The "but"? The film doesn't really make any sense. It's not really supposed to - this is a film about attitude, style, and atmosphere, more than plot and character - but after a while, you still want to make sense of what is happening and why. The script tries to address this at the end, but the motives are fairly lazy and superficial, and when they do finally come, it's too little too late. So that doesn't work for some people. You know those incredibly improbable concept movies like Mission: Impossible, where the characters have to stop every few pages to explain who's betraying who and what's happening, so the audience will have some investment in what's going on? Well, imagine that same labyrinthine plot, but without those handy explanations. That's Haywire, in a nutshell.

All in all, I'd give it a half-recommendation. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I could also understand completely how someone else would hate it. This is an action thriller, but it's an action thriller unlike any other. It's barely even a movie - it's more like some art-house/minimalist/jazz experiment. I can appreciate that, and I enjoyed it, but again - I could see lots of people hating it for those same reasons. I think it's more important to see simply for the unusual and interesting choices Soderbergh makes, but if you want something light and simple and fun, go elsewhere.