Zatôichi… aka The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi is a new vision of Akira Kurasowa’s feudal-Japan, samurai films with a little of Chicago or Moulin Rouge thrown into the mixture. Zatôichi is the story of an older swordsman who arrives in a small Japanese village overrun by opposing Samurai gangs fighting for control of the village at the same time that a pair of geisha girls comes to the town seeking revenge for the death of their family.
Zatoichi emerges as a big change from Kitano’s other works in that there is a departure from what is normally a very strong sense of reality in his films like Brother or Fireworks. This altered reality is most strongly seen in the use of digitally generated blood during the fight scenes but also carries through to a dance sequence at the end of the film. Zatoichi also marks a change in filmmaking for Kitano with the use of shorter, quicker shots instead of the longer, precisely framed moments that his previous films capture. Kitano places more concentration on the action of the fight sequences, drawing forth a real sense of physical destruction.
Although the blood and violence in the film is extreme and surreal, it is not unreal or what one might see in many of today’s Hong Kong action films with wire-work depicting supernatural abilities. The action sequences are almost hyper-real and gives the film an interesting point of view, almost from within the fighting itself, many times from the back or over the shoulder of the center character.
All of these aspects of the film allow for a folktale portrayal of the main characters with a minimal character history being told through flashbacks, giving the characters a dimension of mythical proportion without portraying them in a godlike vision.
I have seen several films directed by Takeshi Kitano and would even consider myself a fan of his work but I was very surprised to find out that he had done a period piece and even more surprised to see the final product. I would not say that this is one of my favorite Kitano films but virtually anything he does is a strong departure from the mainstream movie making that can be seen everywhere. In the case of Zatoichi, this film is even a strong leap in filmmaking and experimentation for Kitano.
After watching this DVD, I was inspired to do a little research on the title and found that there have been several films and even a series made about the main character, The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi. Based on Kitano’s version, I would be more than willing to give these others a shot.
As for the DVD, the visual and sound quality is up to par but the supplemental material, interviews and documentary are pretty much accolades and information that many already know about Kitano, a man who has become a legendary figure in Japan and a great filmmaker.
Despite their sunkissed faces and earnest performances, screen hottie Kirsten Dunst (Spiderman) and the blue-eyed, handsome Paul Bettany (A Beautfiul Mind) can’t make Wimbledon more than a run-of-the-mill, sugary romantic comedy.
Admittedly, I’m not a die-hard tennis enthusiast. But somehow, even though I read that the film is from the same makers who brought us Bridget Jones’ Diary and Notting Hill, I went in thinking it might be somewhat more dramatic, especially given the caliber of the two main actors’ previous works. But the film doesn’t delve into the tennis player’s psyche, except on a superficial level. In the end, it is ultimately predictable.
Kirsten Dunst and Paul Bettany in ‘Wimbledon’
The premise has universal appeal. Peter Colt (Bettany) seems to be past his prime, ready to throw in the towel with his tennis career regardless of how his performance at Wimbledon goes. Formerly ranked the 11th best tennis player in the world, Colt has slipped down a long way to 119th and is now a wild card. After accepting a position as a tennis director at an old fogies club, Colt faces a life crisis.
Dunst is rising tennis star Lizzie Bradbury, who Colt first sees lathering up in a suite he is mistakenly sent to at The Dorchester. While they look great together and their chemistry is natural, it’s not passionate enough to deem a true love match. A firecracker on the court, Lizzie from the get-go insists that their fling be completely casual, no strings attached, so as not to disturb her game. Her protective dad/manager, played by Sam Neill, keeps an eye on her like a hawk. Colt agrees to the arrangement, but of course, he becomes increasingly enamored of her.
Contrary to some sports pre-game protocols, their trysts prove beneficial — at least for Colt, who is now giving Britain a shot at being represented at Wimbledon. Surprising himself, Colt continues to win, beating his cute German friend Dieter and numerous other competitors, while Lizzie’s game gets, well, sloppy. Despite Lizzie switching hotels and telling Colt to cool it, he can’t — he’s lovesick, climbing up hotel facades to court his tennis queen.
Kirsten Dunst finishes her shower in ‘Wimbledon’
There are cameos of tennis greats John McEnroe and Chris Evert as expert commentators at Wimbledon, along with Jon Favreau as a former agent that pops up like a gopher on a golf course when he sees Colt’s on a winning streak. Of course, he’s also Bradbury’s agent, so he lets Colt in on Lizzie’s whereabouts.
I think if we had been given a chance to see more of Colt’s career, how he was in his ‘hungrier days’ as an up and coming pro, the film might have been more interesting. Special features on the DVD include “Wimbledon — A Look Inside” that’s interview snippets with the stars, “Welcome To The Club,” that explores tennis culture, “Coach A Rising Star,” that discusses the stars’ preparations for their roles (and the wonderful world of CGI), plus a feature commentary with Paul Bettany and director Richard Longcraine.
Pluto with Mickey Mouse in ‘Walt Disney Treasures: The Complete Pluto’
The evolution of Pluto differs from the other famous Disney icons, in that the character didn’t change in appearance too much, and he’s the only character that doesn’t speak.
To be honest, I was never a big fan of the Pluto cartoons. The strange part of watching this collection, unlike the Mickey Mouse one I reviewed earlier this week, was that I had actually seen many of these cartoons. I started from the beginning, watching “Chain Gang”, which is considered Pluto’s first appearance, even though it’s not really him. Since Disney approaches these characters as if they were real people, it’s been generally accepted that Pluto made his first appearance in that short as two different bloodhounds. It wasn’t until a few shorts later in “Moose Hunt” — which is on the Mickey in Black & White: Vol. 2 DVD set — that Pluto actually got his name, and only then does he begin to fill the role he is famous for — as Mickey’s loyal sidekick.
What I never really liked about Pluto were the stories. They were all pretty much the same, where Pluto would either cause chaos chasing after something, or he would get into some kind of pseudo confrontation with a kitty or other cute and fuzzy creature. Sure, it’s funny in small doses, but otherwise gets old a bit quick.
As a result, while I did enjoy some of the shorts here, such as “Pluto’s Playmate” and “Lend a Paw” (the Academy Award-winning short), what really affected me was the behind the scenes features. First there’s “Pluto 101”, that features Disney animator Andreas Deja, who not only discusses Pluto and his genesis, but also shows by example how to draw the character. This exploration was fascinating, especially since I’ve gotten into an animation kick lately.
“The Life and Times of Pluto” is also a fun exploration of the character, charting his first appearances and what set the dog apart from the rest of Disney’s collection.
Again, through the use of Leonard Maltin, Disney has carefully made a point about some of the questionable elements to some of these shorts. Like Mickey in Black & White, Vol. 2, the shorts that feature characters or story points that could be offensive are found in the “From the Vault” section. The Pluto cartoons generally don’t contain as much ethnic stereotyping that was found in other shorts featuring Mickey, so I’m not sure it was terribly important so make such a statement on this set, but I suppose it’s good to have it there.
Honestly, these features caused me to rethink my view of the pooch. I went back to watch a few of the shorts again, and sort of understood what led him to become so popular. I still think some of the stories he’s featured in aren’t that great, but as a character he does represent an important creation and deserves a place in animation history.
Finding Neverland is a rare film that beautifully if not flawlessly tows the line between genuine heart and saccharine sentimentality. Pitch perfect acting and writing throughout the film elevate it to an extraordinary level, well beyond where it could have easily fallen at the hands of lesser talents. A film like this, one that deals with real people, their lives and deaths, is so often portrayed with such overly manipulated drama such that the audience is beaten down with every emotion as if we had the intelligence of a brain dead otter. See Patch Adamsfor reference. Finding Neverland avoids those bio-pic landmines with panache and ease, and is in singular company as the second best movie of 2004.
At its core, Finding Neverland is the pseudo-biographical account of J.M Barrie, and his journey into the imagination that ultimately led him to write Peter Pan. We meet Barrie, performed exquisitely by Johnny Depp, in the real world of London as a playwright who needs a hit, and as a husband who might need for some marriage counseling. Soon, on a jaunt to break his writer’s block, he is introduced to the Davies kids and their loving but ill widowed mother, Sylvia, played consummately by the radiant Kate Winslet.
From left to right: Freddie Highmore, Joe Prospero, Johnny Depp, Nick Roud, Kate Winslet and Luke Spill star in ‘Finding Neverland’
With the aid of the children’s inherent grand imaginations, Barrie’s spirit breathes life into the Davies’ world. This essence most noticeably pervades into Peter Davies, the child who doesn’t trust adults, and is in due course the direct inspiration for Pan. Barrie’s introduction into the Davies’ family proves to be instrumental in saving the imagination (and therefore lives) of Barrie and Sylvia. As he spends time with the family, Barrie pieces together the story and characters for Peter Pan. Some of these moments and realizations are truly inspired, albeit a bit set up. In the end, imagination is replaced by love as the saving grace of humanity. As a sentence like that, it looks horribly maudlin, but believe that in the film it is done with such subtlety it is undeniably beautiful.
For a film that is so deeply rooted in the significance of the imagination, it is amazing how brilliantly it pulls of the very sober and very real emotions of human life. Barrie’s professional and personal lives are complicated; neither his marriage nor his writing are going well. Sylvia Davies, as a widower, single mother of three, and seriously ill woman is in a constant internal struggle; she has a house and family to attend to in good spirits, and as such cannot afford the luxury of melancholy nor illness. The time Barrie and Sylvia spend together is a genuine respite for both characters. Another entire facet to the reality Finding Neverland brings is that of the writer’s journey. Rarely if ever has there been a portrayal of a writer’s creative struggle and path so rich and accurate. How many of us have read something and uttered, “How in the world did he come up with this?” Not that this answers that question with any sense of accuracy, but it does pose possibilities that are fantastic. On some level, it restores faith to writers everywhere that inspiration is as close as you’ll allow it to be.
Without overtly pulling strings, Finding Neverland pulls off the near impossible. It is a fine story on which to hang fantastic writing and even more brilliant acting. For a film that could so easily have become sappy hokum, Finding Neverland finds itself in a rarified stratum as one of the best films of the year.
**AWARDS NOTE**
As much as I respected and enjoyed Finding Neverland, it was released in the same year as another film, which, in almost every category, steals its sunshine. I would give Finding Neverland the award for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Winslet). She is getting two statues at my ceremony. Sadly, Johnny Depp, who turns in a brilliant performance, will find that this is not his year at the real Hollywood awards, nor here in these.
Chris Evans (Not Another Teen Movie) plays a reluctant hero who altruistically does everything he can to save a woman and her son from kidnappers after he receives her call for help on his cell phone — the only number she could get through to on a broken landline.
We open with Jessica Martin (Kim Basinger), a resourceful wife and mother from Brentwood — an upscale Los Angeles suburb — being abducted by a crew of bad guys led by Ethan Greer (Jason Statham), who is ambiguously linked to her husband. She’s blindly taken to an off-beat location, threatened, and locked in an attic with nothing but a smashed telephone. Certain the kidnappers have targeted the wrong family — Jessica knows her husband would never be involved in anything illegal — she manages to rebuild the phone well enough to make a call, but only to one number (remember when I mentioned gaping holes in logic? You almost need a bridge.)
William H. Macy helps Chris Evans in ‘Cellular’
Enter Ryan (Chris Evans), a hunky affable surfer-type hung up on regaining the respect of his ex-girlfriend Chloe (Jessica Biel) who finds him shallow and self-centered. Determined to prove his worth, he offers to help Chloe in her charitable efforts by passing out flyers, and is in the process of doing so when he receives Jessica’s call explaining she’s been abducted and asking him to go to the police.
Initially, Ryan thinks the call is a hoax, but quickly changes his mind when he overhears Greer threaten Jessica’s life, the catalyst that sets off a series of action-packed near-misses with the bad guys, whisking us around Los Angeles from Brentwood to LAX to the Santa Monica Pier.
As a stickler for plausibility, I found myself somewhat annoyed with the flagrant disregard for anything grounded in, say, reality… but even so… the heart-pounding car chases, hilarious (albeit ridiculously stereotyped) “peripheral” characters, and Ryan’s likable personality hooked me immediately. I found myself not only going with the flow, but enjoying it immensely.
Chris Evans shines as the all-American hero, rivaled only by William H. Macy’s performance as “Mooney,” an idiosyncratic cop desperately trying to leave behind “cophood” so he can open a day spa with his wife.
The action scenes, coupled with multiple ticking clocks, keep the audience on the edge of their seats, wanting Ryan to succeed as he deals with every possible obstacle—from the aggravating shortcomings of cell phones, to rush hour traffic, to obnoxious, underpaid store clerks.
So if you’re looking for a way to beat the winter blues, throw on your board shorts, invite some hotties (via text message, of course), and pop in Cellular. As long as you don’t question too much, you’ll be thoroughly entertained.
Mickey mourns a robot in a short on ‘Walt Disney Treasures: Mickey Mouse in Black & White, Vol. 2’
Although I received this DVD set several weeks ago, I’m only now getting the review posted because I wanted to take my time in watching it. There are a good amount of short cartoons on this pair of DVDs, and it wasn’t easy getting through them all in a short period of time. Especially with the holidays.
Why did I want to make sure I watched them all? Because I really wanted to experience each of these classic cartoons before giving my thoughts on it. To be honest, some of them were a little difficult to sit through, and there is a certain level of racism apparent in a few. But I didn’t want to simply dismiss the earlier work, nor did I want to unfairly judge the characterizations of certain characters throughout.
This collection, dubbed “volume two,” features more of the Mickey Mouse shorts from 1928 to 1935. The animation is rudimentary, and for the most part plot is pretty nonexistent in the earlier ones. It isn’t until around 1933 when the shorts become a little more complex. There is some pretty obvious racial commentary here, much of it uncomplimentary. I think children today would probably have a difficult time sitting through many of the musical shorts, which are largely goofy and have little point to them.
With that said, what is fascinating about watching these shorts is how they reflect the time in which they were made, and how animation has grown and developed in the 70-plus years since.
My above comments are a bit dismissive, and if I left my thoughts on this DVD set there, it would be patently unfair. First and foremost, you need to have some understanding of the audience at the time. Film was still a relatively new and exciting medium, and animation was a rare art form. Disney successfully made animation successful, but at the time they were the only ones to really do so. Sure, there were other companies doing their own thing, but nothing that even came close to matching Disney in its cultural impact.
The stories in the earlier shorts are fairly simple, assuming the short bothers to really tell one. Many of them are just musical numbers with a lot of outlandish animation. All the characters move like their made of rubber, and the complexity of the animation is generally as simple as the story or characters themselves. “The Barnyard Concert” is a good example, which is largely just a musical in nature and representative of many of the shorts.
Another repeated theme in several of the Mickey Mouse shorts is the “rescue Minnie” concept, which gets played out several times, such as with “The Cactus Kid” and “Mickey in Arabia.”
There are some subtle changes to the Mickey Mouse character over the progression of these years. In “The Barn Dance”, Mickey’s eyes have the notches in them, his arms and legs are thin and long. But by the time we reach the early 30s, he has begun to look more like the character we know now, if still a little less refined.
But as the shorts get further into the 1930s, other differences begin to appear. The animation becomes much better, and the stories begin to show levels of complexity that was previously rare. One example would be “The Wayward Canary”, which is generally musical but has something of a plot that gives hints to the direction the Mickey Mouse cartoons are destined to take, especially the Pluto shorts.
There are three shorts that really serve as prime examples for how much these cartoons improve, starting with “The Mechanical Man”. It features more conventional plot elements than is found in many of the earlier works, and tells a story that is more advanced. The artwork of the mechanical man also, at least in my opinion, shows a significant move forward in complexity and style.
Another example was “Mickey’s Steam Roller”, which isn’t very complex, but is again more of a conventional story than the older films. The animation is also clearly far more refined.
“Mickey’s Good Deed” is another of my favorites. With a story that is more about the characters than a contrived scenario, it’s actually a heartwarming tale that probably signifies best what made Mickey Mouse such a iconic character. It’s also funny how the short so effectively serves as an homage to Charlie Chaplin.
One of the main issues with these older cartoons is the racial stereotypes that are so clearly put on display. Many of the barnyard shorts are indicative of clichéd images of blacks during that time. Other ethnic groups, such as Arabs and Asians, aren’t shown with much respect either. Some of the most questionable shorts are set aside in “From the Vault”, and it was good to see that the folks at Disney weren’t afraid to address this issue.
As the DVD points out, these cartoons were made in a time where certain attitudes towards non-whites were more publicly accepted. While it is fair to examine the racial tones of these shorts, whether or not you want to judge them for it is another issue. For example, “Mikey’s Mellerdrammer” would probably be considered the most offensive, as it makes fun of the famous novel, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”
But not all of them have racial issues that make them questionable. In one, “The Moose Hunt”, Mickey is a gun-toting rifleman out to kill him a moose. During the hunt, he shoots what he thinks is a deer, only to discover that it is Pluto. While his loyal dog doesn’t die, the tone of the short is a tad dark, and I would be surprised if something like it would be made today.
Along with the shorts, these two DVDs include a few other interesting features. One of them is a look at the Mickey Mouse cartoon strips that appears in newspapers during this time period. “Mickey Mania: Collecting Mickey Merchandise” is also another notable feature, which serves as a tour of some of the rarest items of Mickey memorabilia from the golden day of Disney. “Mickey’s Portrait Artist: John Hench” explores the man who painted two of Mickey Mouse’s portraits, and helped define the logic that Mickey and his friends were real people, not just cartoon characters.
Overall, I found this collection of shorts to be an education of sorts. A peek into the past, not only of animation, but of the country in general. Disney has done a top-notch job with these Disney Treasures collections, and I look forward to seeing more.
Deeply nuanced performances breathe reality into the film’s somewhat tried plot devices, and ultimately overshadow a director’s visible manipulation and a studio’s heavy handed marketing to deliver an intensely satisfying film.
I missed the release of Mystic River in theaters last year, primarily as a direct result of the pretentious marketing, which seemed to be aimed solely at the Academy and the Foreign Press Association, rather than the majority of the viewing public. The campaign worked, landing the film with accolades and Oscars. That alone solidified my predisposition to dislike the film, or more over write it off completely. I don’t like being told by the first stream of advertisements that roll out of a studio how well their film was reviewed. It would be like throwing an ad out there that proclaimed, “The number 1 movie in America is…” two weeks before it’s released. Let my peers and I have a chance at it before being throttled with Oscar buzz. It just bothers me. Ray is this year’s Mystic River for me. I’m just annoyed that the collective have decided for me that Jamie Foxx’s performance is “dynamite.”
That said, I knew from my time in the studios and corridors here in Hollywood that I was being dismissive of “probably Eastwood’s best work since Unforgiven.” After a few weeks in release, most of my peers had seen and liked Mystic River. It became part of the collective conscious, and an almost embarrassment to not have seen it. So I nodded in those halls and on those sets, and said the requisite, “Yeah, Sean Penn was incredible…I can’t believe the performance he pulled from Laura Linney…”
Time passed and the film was overtaken by the incessant Onslaught of the New. Only yesterday I was walking through a major video store chain when I saw the film for sale as a Previously Viewed DVD for $5. It seemed so long ago that I first even thought of the film with the ridiculously unimaginative and ineffectual title. So, I bought it, and watched it free of the prejudice and distaste I had from a full year prior:
Mystic River is primarily the story of three men who have collectively experienced a trauma in their childhood. Technically, just one, Davie (Tim Robbins), actually experienced the ordeal. Sean and Jimmy (Kevin Bacon and Sean Penn) witnessed a piece of it, and often reflect how their lives might be different had that moment in their past been different. This incident in their collective past proves to be the tie that binds old friends. As adults, Sean is a cop, Jimmy owns the corner store, and Davie is still apparently coping with his damaged psyche. Jimmy has a family of his own, including a 19 year old daughter who goes off and gets herself shot and ultimately beaten to death. Of course, Sean is on the case and, why not, Davie is a lead suspect. The film from here follows Sean and Jimmy as they try in their own ways to track down the killer, as well as Davie who is fighting his own demons and remains a suspect. There are a few plot twists along the way, as you’d expect, and an ending that is certainly rewarding.
Sean Penn delivers in ‘Mystic River’
The acting was without question quite brilliant, and indeed award-worthy. The best compliment one can give for the performances of Sean Penn and Tim Robbins specifically is that you forget completely their personal politics and therefore personal reasons to dislike them. Personal politics can tint a performance, and conscious of it or not, we’re all victims to the same judgments. Sean Penn was real in his portrayal of the ex-con/patriarch who loses his daughter. He buried himself in the role, and you can see in his eyes that his grief, anger, and angst are real. Kevin Bacon and Tom Robbins also handed in some of the best performances of their luminous careers, and that is saying something. Along with the cast, Brian Helgeland’s ear for dialogue truly deserves accolades for shifting a relatively formulaic mystery into a thoroughly nuanced drama.
The flaws in Mystic River lay squarely at the feet of Clint Eastwood. The three easiest fish to shoot in this barrel are the score, the camera work, and the editing. The score, which he composed, never seems to fit right. Mike Figgis comes to mind as one of the only great directors who can accurately score his own film. It is too often the case that this score feels like it was written for a different film. The shot selection came across as plain and obvious, without many touches of flair from a well-planned move, rack or angle. It felt at times almost as if Eastwood and his DP decided intentionally to use the camera sparingly to drive the tone. As if he saw the strength of his performances, and thought they would overshadow the rudimentary camera direction. He would be wrong in this case, as it was palpable how little the camera played into any given scene. Not that all films should need to always have interesting lenses, camera angles and moves — this is not Fight Club after all — but in this case the mystery inherent in the plot was subdued due to lackluster camera work. The same can be said about the editing, which was paced well, but perhaps too obvious for it’s own good. The red herring in the picture, which is the film’s primary plot device, is fundamentally obvious based on the cutting. That’s not to say you won’t be surprised by at least one of the twists, but the main plot device is flatly obvious. None of this even touches the rampant overuse of the slow cross-dissolve, the broadsword of the overly manipulative director.
Mystic River is not a classic, by any means, but upon viewing it was easy to see the reasons so many people, critics and associations really liked the film. They were all right. It was clearly (with the luxury of hindsight) one of the best films of last year, due unmistakably to the performances of Penn, Bacon, Robbins and Linney. Sure, there was plenty wrong with the film, which is why I believe it won’t stand up to the aforementioned Onslaught of the New. It certainly won’t become a classic like Lord of the Rings or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. While it may not have that longevity, it will always boast some of the best acting caught on film in the early 2000s, and even if it will be forgotten, at least it will forever have a page in any Oscar almanac.
Blanchard Ryan (left) and Daniel Travis struggle to keep their heads above water in ‘Open Water’
Writer/director Chris Kentis makes a splash with his second film, a low-budge thriller about a couple left stranded in shark-infested waters when their diveboat inadvertently heads back to shore without them.
Released on DVD December 28th, this digitally-shot feature, acquired by Lion’s Gate at last year’s Sundance, tells the story of Susan (Blanchard Ryan) and Daniel (Daniel Travis), an everyday couple desperately trying to pull themselves away from the pace and pressures of their stressful lives, and take a Caribbean vacation. Little goes as planned however, and the nightmare culminates when they surface from their dive to find that their boat is nowhere in sight.
At this point, experienced and inexperienced divers (like myself) ask how something like this is even possible — dive boat operators count their divers more often than teachers count pre-schoolers on a field trip — and Susan asks exactly that, hard-pressed to believe they could have actually been left behind. It does happen though. “More often than you think,” Daniel tells her as he relates stories he’s read in dive magazines. And in reality, he’s right. The film itself is based on the true story of Tom and Eileen Lonergan — two divers who were never found after a boat accidentally left them stranded in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef in 1998.
The heat is scorching. You’re blinded by the sun’s reflection on the water. Bobbing at the surface induces nausea. You’re dehydrated, hungry, and exhausted. And there are sharks — oh yeah, did I mention the sharks? So what would you do? Start swimming? Or stay where you and hope you don’t drift further away?
Sharks are everywhere in ‘Open Water’
After some arguing, Daniel and Susan agree to conserve energy and stay put. Surely the dive master has realized they’re missing, right? But as time passes, the hope of being found wanes, and Susan and David run the gamut of emotions. They falter between fits of irrationality and fear to moments of hope; from needing each other, to needing to blame each other. They lose control and gain it back. They scream. They whisper. They keep silent. In superbly written dialogue, they do exactly what each of us would do in the same situation — they try to control the uncontrollable.
From the moment Susan pulls off her mask and says, “Daniel… where’s the boat?” there’s not a second of reprieve for the audience. For the next hour, we are as helpless as they are — our hearts pound and adrenaline rushes as we hope and pray that the boat comes back.
Just when you think you’re blood pressure has peaked, night falls and the screen goes black. Pitch black. Black as the night in the middle of the ocean. Your auditory senses become keen. You listen, hearing only what they hear… the sounds of a tropical storm rolling in, the splashing of tails and dorsal fins, the pounding of your own heart… and it’s not over yet.
Almost 30 years after Spielberg scared movie-goers away from the beaches, Kentis gives us reason to think twice about donning a wetsuit and descending into the ocean’s depths. If you were scared to dive before, you now have justification. If you’re like me and thought something like this could never happen, you may stay a little closer to that anchor line on your next dive. Unless, of course, you like experiencing that twinge of fear, that hint of uneasiness, that uncomfortable vastness of open water…
Julie Andrews stars in the iconic role of ‘Mary Poppins’
I think it’s probably arguable that Mary Poppins was Disney’s crowing live action achievement in film. This wildly popular film has undoubtedly been seen by generations of children and adults, and has become an indelible part of American pop culture.
With the 40th Anniversary Edition, this classic musical gets a well deserved spit and polish, remastered to sharp images and vibrant colors.
I actually hadn’t watched Mary Poppins in quite some time, and it was fun to sit with my son and view the musical. Although still a little young, he loves music, and actually danced around during some of the performances in the film. Julie Andrews’ soft and beautiful voice is still endures and Dick Van Dyke is just as hilarious as always.
For those who have lived under a rock for most of their childhood and did not at least hear of or see Mary Poppins at some point or another, here’s the lowdown:
Mary Poppins, played by Andrews, is a nanny who literally flies to the rescue of a pair of children and their workaholic single dad. With humor and magic, she leads the children on a series of adventures while teaching their father that there are things more important than his job.
Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke mix it up with animated penguins in ‘Mary Poppins’
The music is easily the most recognizable element of the film, from “A Spoonful of Sugar” to “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” My personal favorite has always been “Chim Chim Cher-ee”, but that’s just me.
Honestly, I don’t really like musicals. The coordinated dancing and often silly musical numbers just never sit right for me. There were always only a handful of musical films that I actually enjoyed, including White Christmas and The Music Man, but I think it’s impossible to dislike Mary Poppins. Filled with sweet innocence, whimsy and fun, do dislike Poppins is like not liking a sunny day.
Well, maybe that’s a little much, but you get the idea.
The movie is accompanied with some of the best features Disney has included on a live action DVD. The biggest highlight is the short film, “The Cat That Looked At A King”, taken from one of P.L. Travers’ original books. It’s an adorable piece of animation, where Julie Andrews kind of reprises her role as Mary Poppins, but it’s never directly stated that is who she is playing. And the two children in this short look eerily like the two from the original film.
What I liked the most about the behind the scenes featurettes were how they detailed the development of the music. One feature, “Musical Reunion with Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke and Richard Sherman”, offers some funny stories about how some of the songs were created. All three provide tales, and Dick Van Dyke’s attempt to recreate one of his dance steps from the film leads to the funniest moment of the feature.
Another documentary, hosted by Richard Sherman, who co-wrote all the music with his brother, Robert, takes viewers through all the major musical numbers and how they were filmed, as well as how the songs evolved. What surprised me most about this feature was how so many of the unused songs — and there were more than 20 of them — were eventually recycled into other movies, such as The Jungle Book and Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
Disney hit a zenith with Mary Poppins that it has chased after ever since. I don’t know if they will be able to replicate the magic and heart expressed in this classic family musical, but I’m glad to have this DVD to share with my son.
Recently I went on a couple of dates with a beautiful blonde who may or may not have been out of my league. We got along well, I made her laugh, and I thoroughly enjoyed the making out (and the potential for more). But abruptly, after the second date, my phone calls went unreturned. Now, I’m not one to bear ill will at such an early stage, so the experience left me with nothing to say but a declarative “Huh”. I enjoyed the time that we had, but I ended up feeling like there was something that I missed.
Which is the exact feeling I got after watching Wes Anderson’s most recent film, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. A quirky, character-driven film with a similar narrative arc to Anderson’s previous The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic is an engaging, imaginative comedy that — strangely — leaves the viewer unsatisfied. It is, in short, an enjoyable date that doesn’t call you back.
Bill Murray is the title character in ‘The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou’
Bill Murray stars as the title character, a flawed, self-centered Cousteau past his prime out for one last voyage to avenge his partner, eaten alive by a never-before-documented Jaguar Shark. Along for the adventure are Owen Wilson as a commercial pilot from Kentucky who might be Zissou’s son, Cate Blanchett as a pregnant reporter fancied by most of the crew, Willem Dafoe as the German second mate, Anjelica Huston as Zissou’s estranged wife, Jeff Goldblum as a far more successful and better-funded marine adventurer, and an offbeat crew consisting of interns from the University of North Alaska, a Bowie-loving Portuguese sailor, and a “stooge” from the financier bankrolling the adventure. Team Zissou encounter – and overcome – pirates, financial snags, mutiny, and romantic entanglements en route to a successful aquatic documentary and Captain Zissou’s acceptance of leadership and responsibility.
As with all Anderson films, the characters are intriguing, the dialogue is beautiful in its reality, and the performances are noteworthy and nuanced. Dafoe, too often used as a sneering bad guy, steals scenes as Klaus, an angsty Teutonophone craving Zissou’s attention. Blanchett captures all the elements of expectant mother, dutiful reporter, rejected lover, and hopeless romantic, and my opinion that she greatly outshines her romantic interest Wilson is probably colored by my unfair weariness of seeing Owen Wilson in Wes Anderson films. Murray shines, too; he has the market cornered for characters combining world-weary whimsy and egomania.
However, perhaps it is the Murray whimsy, or maybe it’s the intentionally cheesy (but charming) computer-generated fish, but Anderson fails to articulate the gravity of a pirate attack, gunshot wounds, and even death. It is here that The Life Aquatic fails: despite being consistently funny, despite Anderson’s gift for the subtleties of human interaction, and despite the gorgeous climax in a crowded submersible, the “action” that the film ultimately hinges on feels out of place and not at all dangerous. Anderson cinephiles may counter that the underlying message is that real drama lies within human contact and not gun battles, but it’s just a fanciful excuse for an enjoyable film that leaves the viewer saying “Huh”.
