“We’re in a tight spot!”

O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a movie I’ve been vaguely aware of ever since it came out, but which I’d never seen, for one reason or another. Mostly that I just kept forgetting about it, and even though I’ve enjoyed the work of the Coen Brothers in the past, there was just something about O Brother that kept me from…well, no, that’s not the way to put it. It just never seemed to jump up past my interest level that can be described as “Huh, maybe I should watch that sometime.” But I was at the library a week ago, saw the movie on the shelf, and thought, “Well, check it out and if I don’t watch it, fine.”

So I watched it, and I loved it. What a wonderfully fantastical movie. It’s really something to behold. It’s an epic fantasy story, with journeys and traps and villains and betrayals; it’s an epic fantasy story with implausible escapes and divine interventions and grim prophecies; it’s an epic fantasy story set in Depression-era Mississippi with no actual magic in it at all. Fantasy, with no magic. Or maybe it does have magic. There are events in the film that could be magical…or maybe they’re not. We don’t know.

O Brother is famously a recasting of The Odyssey, in the deep South. Three prisoners escape from a chain gang, led by Ulysses (!) Everett McGill, who tempts them with promises of a treasure that he hid before his prison sentence. The three men are, at first, literally inseparable; the only reason it’s these three men escaping is because Ulysses is chained to these two guys. So off they go, on their way to McGill’s home, hopefully in search of treasure, with a very scary and relentless law enforcement man (whose actual legal affiliation is never really explained) on their tails. The three men come across a blind man driving a manual railroad car who speaks prophetically; a one-eyed Bible salesman; three women in a river who seduce them with their song; and…well, I don’t want to spell it all out, since part of the movie’s charm is spotting all the parallels to The Odyssey.

One that stood out is the early scene in which the convicts come across a group of people, presumably Baptists, all slowly walking through the forest whilst singing, down to the river for their baptisms. The old pastor at our church actually used this scene a few times in services to illustrate the power of baptism, but seeing the movie, I wonder if the actual parallel isn’t so much to the power of the Holy Spirit but rather to the Lotus Eaters, who are lulled into apathy by the food they eat. But I digress.

I loved the dialogue in this film — there’s an enormous amount of craft in the script, with characters speaking in the kind of long, florid sentences that you just don’t hear much anymore in movies these days (if, in fact, you ever did). McGill, in particular, has a laconically verbose speaking style that’s just a joy to listen to. Early in the film when looking for someone to break the chains that are binding him to the other two men, he asks some hoboes: “Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin’?” Or, as when he asks his ex-wife why she’s been telling their daughters that he was hit by a train and she replies that it’s better that than “He’s a criminal and in prison”, “Uh, I take your point. But it does put me in a damn awkward position, vis-a-vis my progeny.”

The best thing about O Brother is its music, which is deeply steeped in the roots and folk music of the Deep South, including spirituals, jazz, and popular revival music that is the precursor to rock-and-roll. There’s a reason the O Brother soundtrack album sold extremely well back when it came out. I’ll need to get it myself.

Yeah, I’m late to the party, but O Brother, Where Art Thou? really pleased me on a lot of levels.

Share This Post

How about a version where they flood the theater with water?

James Cameron is working on a 3D version of Titanic, to be possibly released in 2012. This interests me, a little. I think that by then The Daughter just may be ready for that movie. She’s already expressed interest in it, and knowing her tastes as I do, I do think she’d eat it right up. And I personally would not at all mind seeing it again on the big screen, as I’ve never understood the backlash against the film.

But…I’m not that terribly interested in seeing 3D movies. At all. I’m fine with good old 2D; give me a well-shot movie with a good story, and my head will fill in all the extra Ds. I don’t need funky glasses, and I’m afraid I’ll end up with a headache anyway. I hope that if Titanic does come back to the big screen, there’s a concurrent 2D release of the original film, which is just fine for me.

(Oh wait…now that I think of it, there is one scene that might be kind of intriguing in 3D…and it has nothing to do with the ship sinking.)

Share This Post

Dinos! Whiskey! Sexy!

So a little while back we watched Jurassic Park with The Kid, a bit apprehensively as we thought she would find it a bit intense and scary. No dice; she just made fun of us for our worries! But she also insisted on watching the sequel, so I got it from the library and we watched it, after some warnings from me that while she might not find it scary either, she also might find it not as good. This because I distinctly recall my disappointment in The Lost World: Jurassic Park back when it came out, and I hadn’t seen it in its entirety since.

Well, having watched it again at long last, I conclude that it’s better than I remember it, but it’s still not all that good.

The Lost World opens with a family setting up lunch on the beach of a tropical island off which they’re moored their yacht. Their little girl wanders off and finds an adorable little reptile thing that acts all cute when she feeds it. This brings out its brethren. Lots and lots of them. Cue the screaming of the little girl, the running of her parents to her side, and the wailing of her mother when she sees what’s happening (offscreen). This is actually kind of intense, and I remember wondering, “Jeebus, did Spielberg actually open his movie by killing a kid?!” That would have been a dramatic departure from Spielberg’s previous efforts with children in his movies.

But no, the kid is later indicated to have been merely injured. That’s good. It turns out that while the original Jurassic Park island was pretty much destroyed (along with all the dinosaurs) in a hurricane, the island next door wasn’t — and that’s where they were doing the actual breeding, or something — all of this explanation stuff whips by really quickly and it’s not all that interesting anyway.

The only character from the first movie who really returns for any length of time is Jeff Goldblum’s Dr. Ian Malcolm, the quirky mathematician from the first movie who was forever telling people what a bad idea cloning dinosaurs is. Since he’s the only returning character, we have to spend some time meeting all of the new characters, some of whom we like and some of whom we don’t. Malcolm is dating a stunningly beautiful paleontologist (Julianne Moore), who just happens to already be on Jurassic Park II. He also has a techno-whiz friend (Richard Schiff, yay!) and a documentary filmmaker (Vince Vaughn) who seems to have ulterior motives. Oh, and he has a kid. Who is all pouty because she’s just been cut from the gymnastics team. And who is also pouty because Malcolm tries, but he’s never quite there for her. And who stows away on the boat to the island. Oy.

Of course, there are the industrialists who want to capitalize on dinosaurs to make money, only they’re a lot more bent on their dino-riffic get-rich-quick scheme this time out (meaning, they bring a lot of guns with them). Other than that, the movie involves a lot of the same tropes of the first one: humans trapped on an island with dinosaurs. This time the dinos get angrier (owing to people messing around with their young), and the set-pieces get more creative. I’ve got to give the movie credit: if seeing people suffer grisly demises at the hands of dinosaurs is your thing, The Lost World has a lot more going for it than Jurassic Park.

Of course, there are some mis-steps as well. I know whom I would place money on in the matchup of a velociraptor versus a teenage girl with some gymnastics skill, but apparently Steven Spielberg feels otherwise.

Watching the movie again, I was disappointed that it’s not really a story; rather, it’s a series of set-ups and pay-offs. Meet people; send them to island. Cut them off from the mainland; release the dinos. Escape dinos; run into more dinos. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the end, when it turns out that the entire movie is just one big set-up for the last giant set-piece, when the stupid dino-capitalists carry out their brilliant plan to bring a T-Rex to the mainland. And not the coast of Peru, either. Nope, their dino is coming to San Diego.

The first film had characters that it was easier to care about, which is part of what makes the second a bit harder to take. Ian Malcolm was the least developed of the characters in the first movie, and yet he has to carry the show this time out, so we have to spend time getting to know him and aside from his quirkiness and the fact that Jeff Goldblum is all kinds of nifty, he’s just not that interesting a guy. And what stood out horribly for me this time is that the movie totally wastes its most interesting new character.

Well into the movie, we meet a very intriguing guy. I don’t remember his name, but he’s a hunter played by Pete Postlethwaite. This guy is calm, cool, deeply smart, wickedly observant, and he’s itching to bag a T-Rex. He’s also mainly used as a villain and a counterpoint for the “more enlightened view” of nature that the film is trying to underline. We only meet him about a half hour into the film, and when we see him last, we still have a half hour of film to go. The way the movie creates this highly intriguing character and then treats him about as disposably as a character can be treated is the most disappointing thing about the movie.

I ended up imagining an entirely different Jurassic Park II. What if we don’t have any of the Ian Malcolm stuff, any of the dumbass-dino-exploiter stuff, and of it — what if instead we have this old hunter who is tired and bored and can’t find any more challenges? And what if we have this hunter hear whispers of an island somewhere? An island where some company was doing some genetic experimenting on animals, experimenting of an indeterminate sort, that resulted in the creation of the toughest big game on the planet? And what if our hunter takes a few friends to go see what’s up, and finds, beyond his wildest imaginings, that he’s hunting — and being hunted by — dinosaurs? That could have been a gripping movie, instead of a movie that gives gripping set-pieces alternating with dull exposition.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park is fun to watch. Great action, and I really did like the T-Rex-in-San Diego bit. But the movie is still a misfire. It’s a shame.

(Of course, I may just be a tad bitter toward the film because the T-Rex’s first meal in the movie is poor Richard Schiff. I don’t care if this was several years before he played Toby Ziegler on The West Wing; you don’t get to feed Richard Schiff to the T-Rex! Especially not when he’s gallantly risking death to save his friends!)

Share This Post

“We’re back! We’re bad! You’re black! I’m mad!”

So after watching Lethal Weapon a few weeks ago, it was natural to follow it up with…Lethal Weapon 2.

The second LW movie is one of the rare sequels that is of comparable quality to its predecessor. I don’t think it’s quite as good, but it’s awfully close. The story this time doesn’t make quite as much sense, and it’s quite a bit harder to follow, but it helps that the villains in this movie — South African diplomats, led by the ultra-smarmy Joss Ackland as Arjun Rudd, using their diplomatic immunity to run drugs and launder drug money — are some of the more gleefully malevolent villains I can remember.

To note that the movie opens in medias res is actually an understatement; I can’t think of a way for a movie to plop us in the middle of the action more than this one. After the opening title card fades, the first thing we see and hear is a close-up of Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) screaming “Ya-HOOOO!” in the middle of a high-speed chase through downtown LA. His partner, the more even-keeled Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover), is driving as they pursue some thieves, or drug runners, or something. Any explanation for why they’re in the middle of a chase is shouted quickly and it’s easy to miss it all entirely. I’ve seen this movie a lot of times, and I’ve never been entirely sure as to the set-up for the chase. The chase ends, though, and Riggs and Murtaugh discover South African coins filling the trunk of the car. They’re on to something, it seems.

This is one of those movies where several different plotlines seem to careen in and around one another, and we’re not sure as to what the connections are until the final act. As the whole South African thing percolates in the background, Riggs and Murtaugh are assigned to babysit an accountant who has been laundering drug money, skimming from the take, and agreed to turn state’s evidence against the drug dealers. This accountant turns out to be a high-strung guy named Leo Getz, who is played with some energy by Joe Pesci. Did I say “some” energy? It’s actually manic energy. Pesci’s character was extremely memorable; for years after this movie came out, the canonical impression people would do of Joe Pesci was to say, in Leo Getz’s standard way, “OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” And, of course, his signature bit of dialogue, in which he rants about fast food service: “They f*** you at the drive-thru!”

The creation of a third unique character to bounce off Riggs and Murtaugh is one of the movie’s wise steps; had they kept things focused on just the two cops, some of the dynamic might have started to become routine. In the course of the movie, Murtaugh doesn’t really develop a whole lot, but Riggs continues to grow and open up after stepping back from being suicidal in the first film. He even becomes attracted to a woman again, who happens to be the administrative assistant to the film’s villain.

The film’s third act becomes pretty intense, and in some ways, I’ve always felt it might be a little too intense. The villains decide to make a statement by slaughtering a whole bunch of Riggs and Murtaugh’s fellow cops, and attempting to kill Riggs and Murtaugh themselves (they escape, obviously). It begins with the villains murdering a whole bunch of cops, and the film takes a pretty dark turn thereafter, when one villain discloses some information to Riggs regarding his wife’s death. I remember this particular revelation being pretty surprising when I saw the movie, and I wondered then — and still wonder — if it was really necessary.

The action sequences in the film are all superb; it seems to me that Richard Donner has never really gotten his due as an action director. The humor this time out is broader, but most of it works. Murtaugh has one of my favorite lines of the “Goofy pun the hero makes after the bad guys are done with” variety: “They’ve been decaffeinated.” (This is a pun on the South African word kaffer, which is their equivalent of our own N-word for black people.) And it’s hard not to get a thrill from the scene where Riggs uses his pickup truck to destroy a house (a visual effect that was filmed for real using a full-size structure).

I recently read that Shane Black, one of the writers, wanted Riggs to die at the end of the movie, thinking that it was the logical end to his “arc”. I’m not sure why there is so often a tendency to think that characters need to die once their “arcs” are complete; Black’s thinking seems to be that we’ve already seen Riggs learn to live again, and once he’s open to possibly loving again, well, that’s when he’s fully back, so it’s time for him to die. I don’t get this, any more than I get the people who think (Harrison Ford among them) that Han Solo should have died in Return of the Jedi. Riggs dying would have made for a very downbeat finale to this movie.

Share This Post

Krull

Ah, the fine lure of 1980s cheese movies! I loved Krull when it came out, and saw the thing twice. It hit all of my sweet spots at the time. But then, I was 12, and I’ve grown a bit more sophisticated since then. My sweet spots at the time? A young Prince thrust into Kingship by the sudden onset of war; sword fights; aliens with ray guns; aged wizards come to nudge the young Prince toward destiny; a funky and mythical weapon; a really pretty Princess; the Prince’s motley collection of allies, most of whom are outlaws; perils like enormous spiders and quicksand-filled swamps and a monstrous villain who lives in an impregnable fortress of rock.

Yeah, those were all of my sweet spots when I was 12. And as it turns out, these are still a lot of sweet spots now that I’m 38! Which is probably why I still have a lot of fondness for Krull even though it’s more cheerfully goofy to me now than the serious bit of heroic fantasy I thought it was back then.

The plot of Krull is…well, from my list of “sweet spots” above, you can pretty much figure it out for yourself. There’s a planet called Krull, which is invaded by a force of soldiers called “Slayers” who wield ray guns and fly around the galaxy in a giant mountain-shaped fortress made of rock that lands on one world after another for conquering. This enormous spaceship lands on a planet, whereupon its hordes of ray-gun wielding soldiers in space armor ride out on horseback to take over. Yowza!

But the planet Krull isn’t to be taken so lightly. Two Kings decide to put their kingdoms together, by marrying their son and daughter. But on the eve of Prince Colwyn’s wedding, the Slayers attack and kill the two old Kings and kidnap Princess Lyssa! Oh noes! Colwyn wakes up the next morning, amidst the wreckage of battle, to find his father dead, his bride a prisoner, and a cranky old wizard (who is not named Obi Wan or Gandalf) binding his wounds and telling him to get up off his arse because he’s a King now and he needs to go fight the Slayers and their horrible leader who is known by the horrifyingly scary name “The Beast”.

And off they go. First they’re off to pick up a nifty weapon called a “Glaive”, which is basically a really ornate throwing star that seems to work by remote control or mental command or something like that. Then they need to find a powerful Seer, because they need to know where The Beast’s fortress is going to be (it changes location every morning). Along the way they meet some brigand-outlaw types and recruit them to their cause. And so on.

It’s all very typical, although I didn’t realize it when the movie came out. It’s full of British actors, which always helps lend an air of weight and believability to the most ludicrous plots. The film is full of beautiful shots of wonderful vistas (its director of photography, Peter Suschitsky, also shot The Empire Strikes Back), but a lot of it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The Glaive is touted as an amazing weapon, but by the time we get to see it in action, it’s actually a bit disappointing; poor Lysette Anthony as our beautiful Princess literally has nothing to do as she is a prisoner for ninety percent of the movie; some of the film’s events feel contrived, as if the screenwriter felt the need to pad out the running time and tick off some well-worn fantasy conventions along the way.

The most notable aspect of Krull now, nearly thirty years after it came out (holy crap!), is its score by James Horner. It’s typical young Horner: big and muscular, with lots of nods to various classical masters and to Jerry Goldsmith. Horner’s tendency toward self-referencing isn’t in much evidence at this point in his career, although there are places where the score sounds a lot like his most noted score to that point, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The score also has two of the best melodies of Horner’s entire career (the heroic “Main Theme” and the love theme).

Krull really needs to be seen through the prism of time, for what it is: an artifact of the 1980s. If this movie were to be released anew today, it would be laughed off the screen, with its occasionally murky visual effects and its earnest and irony-free script. Oh well. I still have a soft spot for it. The scene where Colwyn and friends ride the Firemares across a thousand leagues is still a thrilling bit, even with some wretched 1980s-style rear-projection, and Ken Marshall is, all things considered, a pretty good Prince Colwyn. I imagine that as Hollywood gets more and more focused on remaking old properties, a new version of Krull is probably inevitable at some point. I’m not sure how I’d feel about that.

For a taste of Krull, here’s a video of one of the best tracks from the score, “Riding the Firemares”. The main theme kicks in at about the :37 mark. Try to not have that tune in your head for days. I had that theme in my head for years, which is amazing considering that for many years, the score album to Krull was nearly impossible to find. I didn’t locate a copy myself until I was in, of all places, a Barnes&Noble in Cedar Rapids, IA in 1995, and that was a single-disc album with lousy sound that left off most of the score. The entire score has been re-released on a couple of film music labels since then (including La La Land Records, just in the last month or two).

ADDENDUM: Oh, what the heck. Here’s the actual scene of “Riding the Firemares”. The idea here is that Colwyn and company has learned where the Beast’s Fortress will be the next morning…but the location is a thousand leagues away, so the only way they can clear that distance in time is to try to capture, harness, and ride the Firemares. What are Firemares? They’re horses. Really, really fast horses. Horses so fast that when they really get going, well…here’s what happens.

For the main action, skip to the 4:30 mark. Excuse the cruddy video quality; this is the only clip I’ve found that has the entire scene. (The cyclops dude remains behind because his people are cursed to know the day they will die, and he knows this is his day, or something like that.)

Even with the bad rear-projection — oh, what George Lucas’s ILM could have done with this scene — it’s a terribly fun part of the movie.

Share This Post

“Somebody shoot this prick!”

During my college years, my mates and I would have “Movie Nights” on a pretty regular basis. Almost weekly, actually. This consisted generally of movies, pizza, and beer. Worse ways to spend a night, huh?

One of our common staples in our movie watching was the Lethal Weapon series. Now, at the time, there were only two Lethal Weapon flicks, although the third would come out at the end of our junior year. We loved these movies, and we could readily quote them as ably as we could Star Wars. And yet, once college was over, I pretty much let Lethal Weapon slide into memory a bit, only revisiting it briefly when Lethal Weapon 4 came out in the mid or late 90s. I remember that one being fun, but slightly forgettable. It’s been at least eight or nine years since the last time I watched any of them.

This wasn’t because I came to dislike them, I should note. They just faded from my memory. I moved on. Until, that is, I saw a set in a cheap DVD bin somewhere that included all four Lethal Weapons. For ten bucks, I had to buy it. This was about a year ago…and I forgot about the discs again. Until now. The other day I watched Lethal Weapon, the 1987 original. I expected it to feel like sliding into a comfortable article of clothing that I haven’t worn in a very long time, and it did feel like that. But I also found myself admiring it more than ever. Lethal Weapon is still a terribly well-made film, exciting and thrilling and full of wit and verve. It has aged extremely well.

First, though, a brief aside about Mel Gibson. His behavior seems to get more indefensible every time he shows up in the news, which is a damned shame. I once counted him among my favorite actors, and he was starting, in the mid-90s into the first years of the 2000s, to show signs that his career was progressing in an Eastwoodian fashion, from action-and-genre star to more serious actor and pretty good director. I still love Braveheart, and The Man Without a Face is a terribly underrated film, in my opinion. But apparently there’s been a very ugly underside to Gibson all these years, and the last five years or so, he’s found it impossible to keep that underside hidden as he was once able to do. It’s a damned shame, really. I think that Mel Gibson is a fantastically talented man…but apparently he’s a colossal SOB to such a degree that it’s hard to like his work as much as I once did.

What’s good about Lethal Weapon? Lots of things. It’s a buddy story, obviously, as well as a “redemption” story. Gibson’s Martin Riggs is suicidal after the death (in a car crash) of his beloved wife; Glover’s Roger Murtaugh is tired and weary as he approaches retirement. Both men are thrust together in an uneasy partnership as they become involved in a case involving the murder of the daughter of an old Army buddy of Murtaugh’s, a case that leads to bigger and bigger things until Riggs and Murtaugh find themselves up against a drug-running operation of ex-CIA spooks.

All of the typical “buddy” movie tropes are here — the uneasy, suspicious feelings between the two men at the outset; the clashes as their respective differences in how to do things rear their heads; the gradual opening of respect between the two as they get to know each other; the final act in which they depend on each other; the final scenes where their friendship is openly established. What makes this all special in Lethal Weapon is, in great part, the chemistry between our two leads; if ever any two actors were born to be in a movie together, Gibson and Glover are the guys. What makes it work even more, though, is that the film avoids easy epiphanies and Big Moments of Truth. Instead, we see the little moments that depict the lowering of defenses, the growing of understandings, and the fostering of friendship. The script is very well written, in this regard.

Consider the early scenes just after Riggs and Murtaugh have been paired up. Neither is thrilled about the situation, and Murtaugh keeps making digs at Riggs over his tendency to charge full-speed ahead into situations (“See? I shot him in the leg, which is why we can question him now. You cuff him, and I’ll stand over here, being happy.”) There’s a moment where Murtaugh admits that his birthday was the day before, and Riggs says, “Maybe I’ll get you a present. It’s the least I can do, after the warmth you’ve shown me today.” And while Murtaugh doesn’t really say anything to this, his facial expression relents. A bit.

There is a big confrontation scene which comes immediately on the heels of one of the film’s biggest laughs; going from a hilarious scene (in which Riggs has to talk down a jumper from a tall building) right into a tension-filled confrontation as Murtaugh tries to ascertain whether Riggs actually is suicidal is a master stroke in the film. In this scene, Riggs admits that he thinks about suicide every day — “Every. Single. Day.” — but the one thing that keeps him from pulling the trigger is the prospect of still being a cop. “Doing the job”.

Which is why it’s so great that when it comes time for one of the two men to realize that the case they’ve just wrapped up is actually anything but, it’s Riggs who makes the realization. This partnership and this case are reawakening his brain. And in the same way, working with Riggs is reawakening Murtaugh’s. It just works very well. I also like the depiction of Murtaugh’s normal family life, and the way that Riggs becomes welcome in that family very quickly.

Of course, the main attraction of an action flick is…the action, which is first-rate all the way through, even during the admittedly goofy final fight between Riggs and Gary Busey’s “Mr. Joshua”. The film is full of first-rate stunt work, and Richard Donner is always good at directing chaos and mayhem so it’s violent and kinetic and yet easy to follow. He even manages to make it plausible when Riggs takes off on foot after Mr. Joshua, who has just stolen a car.

Lethal Weapon is one of the best action films of the 80s. For my money, it’s every bit as good as Die Hard, which is commonly held as the action movie gold standard.

Share This Post

Something for Thursday

I’ve long had something of a love-hate relationship with Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of the Opera.

The show came out sometime in the late 1980s, and ten years would pass before I’d see it on stage myself. But for a time, the songs of Phantom were…how to put this…ubiquitous. That music was everywhere, and after a short while, I was Phantom‘d out.

Late in my senior year of high school, an amateur chorus in a neighboring town was looking for brass players for a concert they were doing…of Phantom songs. Then, at my summer music camp, we played an arrangement of Phantom‘s songs in the band, and then the very next year, in the chorus, we did a choral arrangement of the same Phantom songs. In college, my orchestra did yet another arrangement of Phantom songs.

Every year, my college had a music competition/festival thing in which high school students from all over Iowa and vicinity would come to play with college musicians and compete for scholarships. Those students vying for vocal scholarships would perform solos at the main concert. One year, no fewer than three young baritones did “The Music of the Night”.

And nearly every student at school had Phantom in their CD collections. Most had the single-disc “highlights” record, but the hard-cores had the “Complete show” double-CD edition. And you’d often hear those discs blasting out windows and open doors, during that pounding motif on the organ — you know the one — that practically demanded to be played at Max Volume.

For two to three years of my life, it was Phantom, Phantom, Phantom. I got sick of the whole damned thing without ever seeing it. (And I wasn’t disposed to dislike Andrew Lloyd Webber on principle, either — I’d seen Cats with my family and loved it.)

Phantom fever finally died off a bit, as all things do, and I pretty much forgot about it, until 1999, when Shea’s Buffalo Theater underwent some major refurbishment, the focus of which was expanding the stage so the theater could host the major touring productions of the day. This meant that Phantom of the Opera could finally play in Buffalo. Naturally, The Wife and I went. It was May 18, 1999; I remember that date because the next day we went to see Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace on its opening day. We’ve always referred to that as “Phantom Weekend” ever since.

Seeing the show was quite the production, and it was nice to at last hear all those songs I’d been sick of for years in their proper context, as well as others that I did not know so well. In 2004, a movie version came out, and as I recall, it was reviewed pretty harshly, and we didn’t see it — until last week, that is, when I saw the DVD at the library and thought, “Well, why not? How bad can it be?”

And it turned out, not very bad at all. In fact, I thought it a fine production overall, well-sung and well-acted. The voice of Gerard Butler, who played the Phantom himself, took a small bit of getting used to, but I thought he was generally excellent, and the film puts the gorgeous spectacle of the stage show front and center, with lots of sweeping camera shots through that magnificent Parisian opera house. (Although I did think that the Phantom’s lair, deep in the sewers and catacombs beneath the Opera, looked a bit too clean.) What was really cool, though, was the degree to which The Daughter loved the movie. She’s watched it a couple additional times since, asked me to track down the music for her MP3 player, and, when she thinks no one is listening, she’s been singing songs from the show. I find that awesome.

Anyway, as this is a Something for Thursday post, I need to put something musical here, to wrap up. I know that Michael Crawford is generally seen as the canonical Phantom, but I always found something slightly “off” about his voice, so I’ve never had the problem of comparing Phantoms to Crawford in my head. Colm Wilkinson’s voice is much more to my liking, and it’s his I’ll feature now. Here’s Colm Wilkinson, singing “The Music of the Night”.

Share This Post

If you have a problem and no one else can help….

I just saw, over at MeFi, within a thread devoted to the new The A-Team movie, a checklist of things you should expect in an A-Team story. Here’s the checklist:

A-Team checklist:

[_] Villagers menaced by goons
[_] Break Murdoch out of mental hospital
[_] I ain’t getting on no plane
[_] Milk
[_] Shooting at feet with Ruger Mini 14
[_] Goons lock A-Team in shed full of parts for a tank that fires cabbages
[_] That shot of the van doing a jump where the hubcap falls off
[_] I love it when a plan comes together

Of course, this list isn’t complete. Here’s the complete list:

A-Team checklist:

(Items added by me in italics)

[_] Villagers menaced by goons
[_] One villager goes to look for the A-Team. Makes contact via a really odd-looking person in downtown LA that turns out to be Hannibal in disguise.
[_] “Looks like someone needs to teach (insert name of head goon here) a lesson. Sir/Ma’am, you’ve just hired the A-Team!”

[_] Break Murdoch out of mental hospital
[_] I ain’t getting on no plane
[_] Murdock’s obsession of the week — maybe the sweat sock he is referring to as his pet rabbit
[_] I ain’t goin’ nowhere with this crazy fool

[_] Milk
[_] A-Team makes first visit to goons, kicks some arse. Except for Face, who always gets his arse kicked in the first act. A-Team’s arse-kicking involves lots of firing of automatic weapons into air, with nothing getting hit except cars.
[_] Some filler stuff as A-Team gets to know the people they’re helping a bit
[_] “Hannibal’s on the jazz.”
[_] OPTIONAL: Military police get a lead on the whereabouts of the A-Team
[_] Another encounter with the goons
[_] Goons figure out a way to get the upper hand

[_] Shooting at feet with Ruger Mini 14
[_] Goons lock A-Team in shed full of parts for a tank that fires cabbages or OPTIONAL: Just as goons make their big move against villagers, Military Police capture them and lock them someplace. Somehow the MPs never account for the fact that Murdock isn’t with Hannibal, Face and BA, allowing him to mount a rescue.
[_] Final fight or OPTIONAL escape from MPs
[_] That shot of the van doing a jump where the hubcap falls off
[_] I love it when a plan comes together
[_] Final freeze-frame of somebody grinning

There you have it. All the elements you need for an A-Team story. Just fill in some names and there you go!

Share This Post

Expeliarmus

Notes on a few movies we’ve watched lately:

:: The Daughter and I watched a sci-fi movie that uses huge amounts of CGI to create a stunningly alien world that is populated by peaceful beings who love to fly. A human spaceship arrives on this world to exploit it, even though its atmosphere is poisonous to humans. A union takes place, though, between one of the human soldiers and a native girl, who strive to prevent the wholesale raping of this lovely alien world.

No, it wasn’t Avatar. It was The Battle for Terra.

I saw ads for this movie during The Daughter’s Saturday morning teevee regimen a year or so ago and I thought it looked interesting; of course, I’m always a sucker for explodey spaceshippy goodness, and this looked to have some. I’ve also thought for a long time that as animation becomes more and more popular, we should see more and more SF movies that go to really alien places, since animation makes possible the depictions of alien environments that aren’t possible in any other way. The existence of The Battle for Terra was a welcome one.

Of course, the movie played in theaters in these parts for all of eight days or so, so we had to wait for the DVD. I’m glad we did. It’s a beautifully made movie, full of gorgeous visuals, and the characters are decently executed as well, even if the humans look a bit cartoonish. There’s not a whole lot of subtlety in the story, but if the idea of a less indulgent telling of the same basic story as Avatar appeals, give it a shot.

I looked up Roger Ebert’s review of the movie, and I have to agree that it would have been nice if an ending could have been made that didn’t involve yet another Big Climactic Battle As Time Runs Out, but even so, this was a good movie. I hope it paves the way for more animated SF that’s thoughtful, as opposed to, say, The Transformers.

The Battle for Terra is a good movie, but I think I like it more for the possibilities it demonstrates in animation than for its actual story.

:: Hayao Miyazaki’s Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is typical Hayao Miyazaki: fantastically wondrous, visually astonishing, interesting in its story that never goes where we think it’s going, and, just generally, a fine, fine film. I don’t have a whole lot to say about it directly. It’s a more childlike film, more on the level of My Naighbor Totoro than Princess Mononoke, but all of Miyazaki’s themes are there: nature and the folly of our trying to control it, youthful love, the bonds of friendship, and life by the sea. It’s not my favorite Miyazaki, but it’s Miyazaki.

:: We’ve finally caught up on the Harry Potter movies, with last year’s Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The trajectory of these movies is really pretty amazing — there’s not a bad film in the entire series, and while I wouldn’t exactly say they’re getting better and better (Prisoner of Azkaban is still the high-water mark in terms of quality), they’re hitting a very impressive level of quality each time out. With different directors, this is something amazing to me. Not even the James Bond films of the 1960s were this consistent.

Half-Blood Prince is a troublesome part of the Harry Potter story, because it is, in many ways, set-up for the final showdown in Deathly Hallows. It mainly serves to up the ante, put the pieces in the positions they need to be in, and put Harry and friends in the toughest possible spot. HBP brings us to that point in all the great stories where things are at their bleakest, and you wonder how the heroes can ever recover. And yet, for all that, the film is really very well made indeed. The three lead actors — Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint — continue to grow each time out, and the supporting players are their usual rock-solid selves. The best performance in HBP, though, probably comes from Tom Felton, who plays Draco Malfoy with just the right blend of malevolence and pathetic helplessness.

Oh, a small spoiler point — highlight to read: When the movie came out, some people complained that it omits the funeral for Albus Dumbledore. I didn’t miss that scene at all, because I thought the film handled the emotion of Dumbledore’s demise very well, and it wisely kept the focus on our main trio of heroes. I also thought the funeral scene in the book was strangely reminiscent of the final scene of Spiderman, which had Peter Parker, at a funeral, telling Mary Jane he couldn’t be with her because it was too dangerous. In the HBP, Harry Potter, at Dumbledore’s funeral, tells Ginny Weasley he can’t be with her because it’s too dangerous.

Loved the film, and can’t wait for the finale. Even if I know what happens.

Share This Post