Blindness: Apparently we're all assholes

I almost didn't see this film. It's not getting very good reviews, and I started to feel like it was another in a long string of "great premise, bad execution" movies. But then I read one of the reviews and realized that it was exactly what I wanted to see. Criticism of the film came from Moriarty over at Ain't it Cool News. This excert pretty much sums up his feelings.

My first problem with the film, and perhaps the most insurmountable issue, is that this material is just plain hackneyed at this point. How many times can we see someone regurgitate the Stanford Prison Experiment in fictional form, this LORD OF THE FLIES microcosm that has been done and redone and redone and redone. Can we just accept it as a given that, under extreme duress, groups of people play out these same power dynamics again and again and again?

Moriarty - Ain't It Cool News

Well he's right. There's nothing really new here. But if you show me anything new in mainstream film in recent years, I'll buy you a drink. But this movie is worth seeing and I'll tell you why.

This movie makes you ask yourself which side you're on.

This movie starts with the "sane" world that we all know and love. Everyone out for themselves. Going about their business and trying to avoid everyone else. We get the typical "my marriage hs some issues" moments from the Julianne Moore/Mark Ruffalo union. We meet a few key players. Then people start going blind, and everything goes to shit.

The "sides" I'm talking about in this movie are the usual ones.

1. The uncaring government who hauls all the infected people off to quarantine and leaves them with inadequate food and supplies.
2. The apathetic and oblivious society at large (who are still unstricken) who allow friends and neighbors to disappear and never ask questions. And inside the quarantine we have the blind choosing sides as well.
3. Those who are trying to hold on to humanity and dignity.
4. And those who stave off despair by grabbing onto what little control their is. Control over other people.

If you're being cynical like the critics of this movie, you're saying "I know what happens here. There's nothing to keep me engaged". Well you've thrown your hat in with #2, and frankly, you're the real problem here. But I'll come back to that. Maybe you know what happens, but how can you not be engaged watching this? People are left without enough food, they don't have clean water or working toilets. They live in squalor and constant fear of the quarantine guards outside. They don't hear from their loved ones. There are children who's parents can't see them. And on top of all that, they can't see. They couldn't even distract themselves from it all for a few minutes by reading this stupid blog post.

Then we go inside the camp. No one can see except Julianne (There are no names in this movie by the way). That means what you think it means. No one is judged by their looks. Everyone is judged by what they say. Mark Ruffalo is a doctor (An opthamologist. The eye doctor was the center of the spreading contagion. A nice detail and obvious when you think about it). At first everyone likes to listen to him and they feel safe and comforted. For a while everyone is feeling pretty good about being in camp #3.

But then the #4 people start showing their true colors. Think about what you would do. You're blind. You can't just leave and fend for yourself. Everyone else is blind too. The playing field is effectively equalized. Oh and there's one more piece to the puzzle. People can't look at you. And almost as important, you can't see anyone look at you. This is the real twist on this story. The idea here is that the only reason most people stay within societal norms, is that they can't get away with doing bad things. People will see you. People will look at you with judgment. People will witness your deeds and testify to your villainy. But what if this wasn't true. What if there were no repurcussions either civil or moral? Think of that, and then put a gun in your hand.

That's the position that Gael Garcia Bernal is in. He's a lowlife. A common hood. But here he has all the power. It doesn't matter that he can't see either. He fires the gun once and says "I'll just keep firing straight until somebody gets hit." He could've been easily overpowered in any other situation. But no one can see. There's no group dynamic where everyone looks at each other and decides that it's worth the risk. They don't know what will happen. And more so, if they're the one to get shot, they won't even see it coming.

So all of a sudden the bad guys have won. Gael and his crew are in charge. They ration food. They take people's valuables. And finally, as things escalate, they rape women.

And finally there is a revolution. Finally one person realizes they have the power to change things. And when things are at their worst, good people pull together to affect change. Unfortunately their unorganized and literally blind to the facts. They're led by someone enlightened (get it?) But she doesn't know what to do. Even though she can see what's going on and wants to stop it. People die.

So I didn't mean for this to get me started on politics (honestly). But as I'm writing this, I realize that we're in danger of putting the bad guys in charge right now. I'm afraid of that happening. I hope there are enough of us who can still see.

Anyway, let's wrap up. So the rest of the movie plays out as you would expect (with about 20 minutes of extra movie thrown in just so you don't leave feeling so dirty). Eventually we leave the quarantine camp and see what's happening in the outside world. I'll spare you the details. Not because I'm worried about spoiling more of it, but because it's not that good compared to the intensity of the camp.

In terms of filmmaking, this movie is strictly mediocre. But it's worth seeing because it's message is more relevant than people realize. You need to know what side you're on. You can blow it off as implausable. And maybe a mass epidemic of sudden onset blindness is exactly that. But the reality of societal collapse may not be so far fetched. Some might say we're staring at the start of one right now. But those people are just paranoid right? And besides, you can take care of yourself and your people, and that's all that matters right?

Go see the movie. It's worth $10 and an evening of your time. And if it doesn't strike a chord with you, you should probably really consider why that is.

The Dark Knight

Wow.

We'll talk about it later. Just got see it. Now.

Hancock... What the Hell?

First of all. This will be the first of many spoiler posts. Basically I realized that I can't talk about movies the way I want without spoiling the plot. So I'll try to give my opinion on the movie early on, but at a certain point all bets are off. By the way, Hancock is terrible.

I was never really excited about seeing Hancock. I'm generally a fan of Will Smith's big budget summer movies. At first glance, this one seems no different. But then it falls victim to the problem that seems to be plaguing all Superhero movies these days. How to balance telling a story with giving people the action they want to see. This is actually a problem for the action movie genre as a whole in my opinion. I have a lot of thoughts on this so I'll put it in another post.

The point is that the makers of Hancock falls handily into the trap. It serves up mediocre action and not enough of it, while giving us a half-assed, half-acted story that leaves you confused and angry rather than satisfied.

I should admit that I went into this movie looking for something. I read this review of the movie from www.pajiba.com before going to see it. Phillip Stevens voices something here that turned on a lightbulb for me.

The first problem is Will Smith, an actor who has long ceased playing any character other than Will Smith

This struck me as one of those "duh" moments like when you realize that Samuel L. Jackson has no real talent except for being great at yelling angry obscenities at people. You knew all along, but you were kinda better off being ignorant. Will Smith is always entertaining to watch. His charm is undeniable, and I can say that with full confidence in my manhood. But the very reason he's always entertaining is that he's always just playing the same dude that was entertaining in the last movie. Consider this:

1. Independence Day - aggressive pilot Will Smith fighting aliens
2. Bad Boys - rash cop Will Smith fighting criminals
3. Men In Black - goofy secret agent Will Smith, aliens again
4. I, Robot - disgruntled cop Will Smith fighting killer robots
   
5. Hitch - ultra-smooth Will Smith teaching lame dudes how to be more like Will Smith
6. Hancock - disgruntled superhero Will Smith fighting criminals

His summer movies are like three part Madlibs. Pick some crazy scenario, some cool job and then pick a shade of mood for him to be in. Box office gold.

Anyway, the important thing to note here is what this does for my impression of the film. I can enjoy the Fresh Prince doing his thing, while completely separating that from how I receive the rest of the film. Basically, instead of Will Smith carrying the film, he runs on ahead while the film falls flat on it's face.

So let's talk about the two things that make this film terrible. The first and second half of the film illustrate these two points nicely. The first half is the payoff from the trailers. It delivers the "promise of the premise" (forgot where I heard that). We want to see a drunken asshole superhero go around and tear stuff up. And there's a fair amount of this. But not nearly enough for me. The whale throwing bit form the trailer was great, but it's one of only 3 major incidents in the film that are worth mentioning. And one of these incidents is marred by nasty-looking CG. It was one of the only scenes of the film that I felt was cartoonish. Unfortunately it was also supposed to be the coolest.

Honestly this probably won't be a problem for most people. There may plenty of mayhem to satisfy the average movie-goer. But that was really the only reason I was interested in the film. And considering that the film itself even mentions the "dozens of incidents caught on tape and posted on YouTube", I'm feeling a little slighted with only a handful.

The third act of the film is what earns it a solid thumbs down. Basically we've watched Hancock mature from a drunken asshole who screws up while trying to help people, to a sober asshole who does a pretty decent job of helping people. Hooray! Let's end it here. But wait, we haven't really been given any major conflict here. Everything happened just a little too right. Oh, plus it's only been an hour or so. And then the ride goes into a downward spiral, the bottom of which is wrapped in murky darkness.

So Hancock is basically a low budget superman. He's really strong, he can fly and he's pretty much invincible. But that last part presents a problem. How are we going to be scared for him? Where's his challenge? When do we get to root for him as he faces certain defeat. Superman has this same problem, along with the Hulk and a few of the other big names. They need some sort of contrived weakness to add any kind of tension to their story. Unlike the rest of the super-powered crew who get the tar beat out of them on a regular basis (think Spider-man, Batman and Iron Man). The big guys need some kind of chink in their invulnerable armor. Superman has Kryptonite. The Hulk has the fact that he can be caught with his proverbial pants down as mild-mannered science geek Bruce Banner. So obviously the filmmakers had to invent something for Hancock. Wow, did they screw this up.

Okay, enough beating around the bush, I'll lay it out for you. Charlize Theron plays Jason Bateman's wife Mary in the movie. In an unforeseen (and unimpressive) twist, she also has superpowers and is also married to Hancock. And it turns out that when they are close to each other, they lose their powers. Read that again. Wait, first look up the term deus ex machina then read it again. Wow, did they screw this up.

Let's skip the fact that summer action block busters do not need last minute plot twists. This is particularly true of Superhero movies. The only thing we should be surprised by is how exactly the hero is going to save the day. But hey, you gotta try new things right? I'll give them points for effort. Let this failed experiment be a lesson to the rest of you.

But what this does to the story is horrendous. Throughout the film, there has been some kind of tension between Mary and Hancock. We assume it's sexual tension because Charlize is hot and there's no other love interest in site for Hancock. This kind of baffles me though, because not only is she happily married, but her husband is a nice guy. Usually when a film asks us to be okay with adultery, it at least has the decency to make us despise the jerk who's being cuckolded. But Ray (Bateman) is a good guy who loves his wife. And more so, he actually cares about helping Hancock. Please Will, don't screw him over. I don't care how disgruntled you are. That's not you.

Boom! All of a sudden Hancock and Mary are flying around fighting each other and causing massive property damage. Why? Because they love each other and she doesn't want her husband to find out. Oh, you mean why is Hancock fighting? Um, I'm not real sure. He has no idea what's going on the entire time. Did I mention he has amnesia? Yeah, I was trying to spare you that little nugget of joy. He has no idea who he is, who she is or why she's so upset. Awesome.

How could this possibly be explained? It's not of course. Mary makes a half-hearted attempt by saying "We've always been drawn to each other. That's how it's always been." or some such nonsense. But that's it. They are "built" to be together. They're automatically in love, and when they're apart, they somehow develop bad ass superpowers.

Who built them? Where do the powers come from? Why do they go away when you're together? How are you drawn to each other?

Nope, that's all we get. Sorry.

And now that that nasty bit of back story is out of the way, some lame dude with a pistol can walk up and shoot Hancock. Pardon me in advance, but Fuck That. I'm pissing myself off talking about this movie so I'm gonna wrap up. But to bring things home, here's how our titular hero saves the day. He doesn't. He's getting his ass kicked by some guy who's name I didn't even catch. And Ray saves him. The normal guy is the real hero of this story. And that's just super.

Take your money and go see Iron Man again.

Franchise Restarts or "So Dr. Jones, you managed to survive"

My sense of anticipation for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the very definition of Cinematic Ambivalence.

What we're dealing with is the latest example of the one of Hollywood's newest trends. Namely, resurrecting an old blockbuster franchise to take advantage of the built-in audience.
Obviously this is a good from a business perspective. Filmmakers and studios are out to make money. People will generally pay money to get something similar to what they've liked in the past. I suspect that once the idea was conceived it was kind of a no-brainer, and in general, the strategy works.

But what does it do to the integrity of the franchise? The problem with the way Hollywood is approaching these "restarts" is that by definition they have to be safe bets. The idea is to spend less money up front so you guarantee a higher return. Sometimes this means not bothering to secure the original actors, directors or writers. And in my opinion, this is usually a good indication that your film is going to be sub par. We've already had to watch helplessly as they gave Batman nipples turned the Terminator into a dumb blond.

But occasionally the new team has a passion and vision for the franchise that produces a film that is worth seeing. Rocky Balboa turned out to be an interesting look at what happened to our favorite iron underdog in his later years. Casino Royale showed us what happens when 007 stops hiding behind gadgets and kicks ass. I actually have several issues with both these films, but they both have one redeeming trait: they didn't make me hate the fact that they exist.

And thankfully, neither does Indy 4.

* spoilers *

My initial reaction to news of this sequel was probably the same as everyone else's: "What? But Harrison Ford is like 60!" But after that, it only got worse. This film had a lot going for it. The main character played by the same actor, director and writers returning, a big enough budget. Unfortunately these things started to be counteracted by the injection of too much dumb. For instance:

• Shia LeBeouf as Indy's sidekick. He just helped ruin Transformers. Why add the burden of helping to ruin this as well?
• No Sean Connery. Can't really blame them for this one. They tried really hard to get him.
• Ridiculous set pieces. A geriatric Indy survives a nuclear explosion and being hurled miles away, only to get up and dust himself off without much more than an implicit "I'm getting too old for this."
• A script with plot points that are so cliched you'd think it was written in the 50's instead of being set there. I will never forgive them for going with the long lost son angle.

If you knew me at all, you'd be asking why I didn't hate this movie. Well, I probably would have, accept a good friend of mine put it into the right context before went to see the it. I was doing my customary bad-mouthing of the movie based on the above points and several others that made me sure I would hate it. He responded as he often does with a self-assured easiness that made me want to strangle him: "Nope. Dude, it's gonna be awesome." And what he said next gave me a whole new perspective. Put simply, people don't like the Indy movies because they're "good". People just like to watch Harrison Ford be Indiana Jones.

Well son of a bitch. He's right. If you take for granted the always more than acceptable direction of Stephen Spielberg, the Indy films are nothing special. What makes them classic is the titular character. I'm gonna take a stand and say Henry Jones Jr. is one of the best Hero characters ever created. He's pure entertainment, from the arrogant macho act to the gruff altruistic scholar to the self-conscious romantic. All of these things are firmly intact in the latest installment. Indy may be showing his age, but that doesn't shop him from doing the job and he still does it a hell of a lot better than you or I can.

All of this is minted by the final thing they did right with this movie. Indy is surrounded by supporting characters that allow him to do and say the things that make him awesome. I have a personal and irrational dislike of Shia Labeouf as an actor (although it may be waning. more on that later maybe). But the dynamic between his character Mutt (?!!) and Indy is cool. Marion returns as Indiana's one true love, and they waste no time dropping back into their routine of viciously hilarious sniping to hide the goofy grade-school infatuation. Although Cate Blanchett fails miserably as the villain, I even like the Ray Winstone character for how he plays against Indy.

If you're a movie snob like me and you're looking for a good movie, be prepared to be upset with this sequel (Swinging on tree vines? Seriously?) But if you're an Indiana Jones fan, you'll like it well enough. Hell, if you can get past some of the more serious flaws you might even think it's great. I would say they definitely got away with this one. The only problem now is that they're already planning on making another one. Me thinks they're pushing their luck.