Taken

Don’t read this until you’ve seen “Taken” – that way you can form your own opinions and not be tainted by my screwed up analysis.  I am not going to give you a synopsis of Taken – that’s not a review, that’s a retelling.  Still there?  That didn’t scare you off?  Okay that said then, keep in mind that in the past three months I’ve only seen children’s animated films, I cannot stand gory violence and will not go see action films with gratuitous killing or frankly any sort of horror – imaginary or real.  In general I feel those kind of films cheapen life and make death and killing a game – hence the state of our world.  BUT all that said …. I really enjoyed Taken.  Go figure?  One of my companions pronounced the film “preposterous” but enjoyable and it certainly was.  I think that is one of the reasons I liked the film.  The action is not based on reality – but then what action film is based on reality.   The majority of us go to the movies to escape reality for a while. 

Really I think I enjoyed Taken because it is a well-crafted film.  It goes from point A to point B and moves on without a lot of frou-frou.  The editing and cinematography is clean and tight. It doesn’t spin its wheels or give us a lot of wisecracks or overwrought emotional explanations.  We don’t get presented with anyone else’s problems – only his.  Much like the lead character, the film has a job to do and sets about methodically doing it.  I will admit the beginning of the movie is a tad slow – this is where we connect with the lead and decide that we are going to be on his side through the story.  The story speaks to us through him - the father archetype, the protector.  

The protagonist is the man that all fathers believe or wish they could be – the man who will stop at nothing to protect his child from harm.   Except in this case of course, he has an arsenal of resources and special skills learned on the job as a “preventor” as I believe he calls himself at one point.  The same job that caused his alienation from his daughter now serves to bring her back to him.  Like I said, this film will resonate with dads everywhere. 

I found myself rooting for this man – yes, me –  the bleeding heart , anti-violence, anti-torture liberal.   Liam Neeson’s character was purposeful.  He had one goal and one goal only – to save his daughter and nothing stopped him from that goal.  He didn’t stop to think, he just did.  And yes, his cause was righteous and I was there with him until the scene where he is “interrogating” one of the men who took his daughter.  And he makes a statement about the U.S. outsourcing this kind of  “interrogation” to countries who did not have steady electrical systems, and how France’s power grid was dependable, etc.  It walloped me in the face all of a sudden – I was rooting for Dick Cheney – well, okay that is not a wholly accurate statement.  This man had a very clear cut, personal reason for torture and he had morals of sorts.  But it didn’t make his actions any more correct.  He goes on to shoot an innocent woman (not lethally but still, jeez, she was serving him dinner for cripes sake!) to get the information he needs to save his daughter.  He wipes out bunches of bad guys…… and yet at the end of the film I was still kind of connected to the character.  Not to get all Jungian on you (whoever you are who reads this) but I think it is because Neeson’s character is the pure representation of the Hero/Protector that we stay with him.   He is only that – a father and a spy – he stays true to those two traits.  At some level I think, we realize that he is a representation of a father’s love, of a hero on a quest, and not an actual depiction of a real man with grey areas and doubts.  We know nothing else of him or his character other than what is necessary to move the action forward.

Mind you, I’m not saying this is a great film.  But it is a good film.

Enough with the lists already….

Since I promised a “best of” movies I’ve seen outside of a movie theater in 2008, I’ll do it, but only half-heartedly.  I’m tired of the categorizing of things and experiences from best to worst that runs rampant at the beginning of each new year.  I keep hearing that the beginning of the new year is a time for reflection and setting goals – shouldn’t that be done all the time and shouldn’t it be done at a time when its natural for you personally rather than en masse at a set moment?  Okay, so I’m a little tired and cranky… what else is new… here goes:

If push comes to shove, I’d have to say the best movie I saw on DVD or TV in the past 12 months would be…. drum roll…. uhm, …… uh…. I got nothing.  To me “best of” means something that immediately comes to mind, that so towered above all others that it stands out immediately.  I saw a lot of films and movies at home this year but right now – zilch, nadita de nada, nothing that I would call the “best.”  

If I had to pick the one thing I saw this year that opened up new avenues of awareness and thought, that introduced me to new concepts and new music to boot, it would have to be the PBS screening on Nova of the BBC made documentary “Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives.”  After seeing that, I went out of my way to find people to talk to about what I had seen, to explore the concepts, to read further about the Everetts, senior and junior, and their life’s work.    When a piece of film has that kind of an impact, perhaps it qualifies as “best.”  Here is what I wrote about the film in my previous entry if you are interested:

http://amoonshadow.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/reality-hangs-by-a-thread/

As for art and books, I saw and read some wonderful examples of each but I won’t demean them by classifying them as worst or best.   Alright, I grow weary of contradicting myself and all this self-righteous indignation at a question I posed for myself in the first place — I’m taking my cranky self away from the computer and off to do something constructive – like watching the Twilight Zone marathon on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Best Film of 2008?

Because its all about ME, this is actually the best film that I saw in a movie theater in 2008.  The problem with this is, I really made some bad choices this year in the few films that I actually went out to see.  I don’t go to the movies as much as I used to partially because its expensive, but mostly because I’m lazy.  It has to be an extravaganza or some sort of “event” or something that I believe will be worth schlepping into a large room full of strangers that will bring me out to the movies and that, my friends (ah, I just had a little McCain flash back – shudder), is a recipe for some bad movie choices.  Of the films I did see this year, there was actually a lot of high to mid-level mediocrity. 

Ironman - For its genre, it was a pretty good movie.  I think this was due mostly to Robert Downey, Jr.’s charisma and acting abilities.  There was just much too much smashing things around and explosions for my tastes.  The movie appealed to me because of its sense of humor and the “look” of the costumes, sets, lighting, etc.  I put it on par with the first Spiderman movie.

Indiana Jones and the whatever it was he was looking for this time – I liked the movie for what it was - a throwback, a nice way to while a way an afternoon with old friends but best film of the year, good god, no.

X-files- Urgh.  A disappointment, just a bad script in my opinion.  I like the fact that it was a stand-alone and not a myth arc movie but it was just a mediocre script.  There were much better written episodes to the series itself.  (And yet, if they make another X-files movie, I will most likely be in line with my money in my hand hoping this time they get it right – I don’t learn). 

Sex and the City- Feh, most certainly not even close to the best film of the year.  Not a terrible movie, but not a good one either.

Bottle Shock -I SO wanted to love this movie and I was SO disappointed.  Alan Rickman was my reason for seeing the film and he was, as usual, wonderful.  But the plot, the cinematography, the editing, the pacing of this film reminded me of a TV movie of the week from the 70’s – I half expected them to show the ABC logo and go to commercial at some point.

Which leaves me with three contenders (I told you I don’t see a lot of first-run movies):

Appaloosa, Kung Fu Panda and Wall-e – now mind you I see movies with my young nephew so I see a good amount of children’s movies.  Oh, who am I kidding, I go see children’s movies even when I don’t have a child to drag to the movie theaters.  My earliest childhood ambition was to be an animator for Disney (and a U.N. translater). 

Appaloosa - This was a good film.  Sturdy, well written, well acted, well filmed.  I might have trimmed it down just a tad if I was the director/editor but other than that I enjoyed the film – the themes and characters came across as fresh and faceted, i.e., not just a one-dimensional western.  But I don’t know if it rises to best of 2008 level.

Wall-e – This was thoroughly enjoyable, an extremely well made film.  The animation was excellent.  The design of the characters, the backgrounds – fantastic.  The story was aimed really at older kids and adults but there was enough to keep the little ones entertained.  BUT I found this movie rather long in parts – something happens to animators and to all artists really, they fall in love with their own work and lose sight of the big picture.  There were several places were an editor needed to come in and cut back on the scenes that were there simply to say “look what I can do” – they didn’t add to the story and while beautiful, made the film drag a bit in my opinion.  This occurred in the second half of the film, when we go out into space.   But again, this is a minor criticism. 

Kung Fu Panda- Okay, maybe its because I went in with such low expectations - I was mainly there because my nephew wanted to see this one – but I was truly entertained by this film.  As an animated piece it was beautiful.  It conveyed location via references to Chinese art style while keeping it Western enough for its audience.  The characters were well fleshed out.  The design, look and story moved fast enough to keep all age ranges entertained and while there was a lot of predictablity in the script, there was enough happening visually to make up for it.  I am not a big Jack Black fan but I think he has found his niche – he makes an excellent animated character.

So, I guess what I’m saying is that if there was a best film of 2008, I certainly didn’t see it.  I’m going to resolve with the incoming year to go to the movies more often and see a wider variety of films – in the theater. 

 I see movies at home on DVD and perhaps, I’ll post the best movie on DVD I saw this year next time I post and maybe art pieces and books.  Bet you can’t wait! (I know at this point, after 900 some odd words, I’m typing this for myself – I don’t think anyone actually reads all the way down to the dregs).

Peter Kastner’s Misleading Obituary

I posted the video of “The Ugliest Girl in Town” on Thursday, September 18th having no idea that Peter Kastner (the star of that show) had died that day of a heart attack.  I thank Linda who left a comment on the post for letting me know.  Why I posted, I don’t know other than the song was rolling around in my head.  Kind of  spooky, huh?  I was not a fan of Peter Kastner other than I thought he was cute in the show and he brought a smile to my face.  My condolences go to his family who on top of dealing with their grief had to spend their time refuting an obit that was clearly done with a biased point of view and very little research.  I am reposting Mrs. Kastner’s comments on the story below.  Unfortunately, the obituary has been copied and disbursed throughout the internet as gospel without Mrs. Kastner’s comments.

Peter’s widow responds Part 1

As the late Peter Kastner’s widow (who was not contacted by Martin Knelman nor John nor Jamie Kastner, the sole sources cited in the article), I am disappointed by the tenor and content of Martin Knelman’s obituary. Peter and I were married for 34 years. The Peter I knew was not to be found in Knelman’s piece. First, some minor innaccuracies: he wasn’t driving when he died, he had pulled over to the side of the road. He was not in downtown Toronto. He never came close to landing the lead in The Graduate, but was just one of a number of actors who read for the part. I am offended at having him portrayed as Norma Desmond a comparison–with a reclusive, delusional actress — that is unfair to Peter and unfair to his memory. Nothing addresses the fine qualities of Peter which would not paint him in such a negative and deluded light. His identity was not wrapped up in being an actor.

Peter’s widow responds, Part 2

After he left acting he became a high school English teacher. He became a maker of quirky and interesting videos on a wide range of subjects. He mentored many teenagers, helped raise his step-daughter and was the constant delight of his grandchildren. Not only is the article inaccurate on a factual basis, it is also a gross misrepresentation of Peter’s life after he left acting. The Peter I knew was actively engaged in the world, through his video work, his songwriting, his political activism and his many friendships. It would have been nice if Knelman had mentioned his first wife Wendy Miller, who also mourns him. The incomplete view presented by Knelman fails to capture the sweetness and soul of the good man who died in his parked car on September 18th, 2008.

Camus

I think it was Camus who said something about the best way to die being at a time when one was happy. There was nothing sad about Peter’s “end of life” He was deeply engaged with the world, making wonderful music, starting on an exciting new project, and looking forward to a trip to new York to celebrate his grandsons’ birthdays. This grim obit says nothing about who he was. He was happy, we are the sadder for losing him.

Posted by jenny kastner at 11:18 AM Monday, September 22 2008

If you want to read the obit she is referring to just google Peter Kastner – you are bound to get a version of the one the Toronto paper ran.

What next – a remake of Citizen Kane starring Will Ferrell?

Sacrilege! I just saw a preview for the remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still.”  I know I should reserve judgment until I  see the film but I’ve already formed an unfavorable opinion.  As far as I can tell, the original concept of The Day the Earth Stood Still (I’m going to abbreviate it to TDTESS just cause that’s a lot to keep typing and I’m lazy) has been bastardized.  The original movie was about peace, nonviolence and creating change without violence.  In the preview I saw, Keanu Reeves hurt more people than Michael Rennie did in all of the original TDTESS.  There was destruction when the saucer landed, destruction around Keanu, destruction of buildings, fire walls, trucks disintegrating, people scrambling, collapsing, etc.  Why are they calling it The Day the Earth Stood Still – it should have been called The Day We Used As Many Special Effects as We Could Get Our Hands On to Make As Much Money as We Could.  The point of the original was a quiet threat, a show of force that was awe-inspiring but hurt now one – the potential for destruction was there but it was restrained and Earth ultimately had to make the choice (I’m trying to be vague just in case there is someone who has not seen the movie in which case please see the original first).  And why choose Keanu Reeves to play the lead?  Peter Weller would have been such a better choice – he has that quietness with intelligence that is necessary for the role (not that I’m saying Mr. Reeves is not intelligent but he can come across as rather vacant-looking).  I shudder to think what they’ve done to Gort!  I know, I know – I’m jumping to conclusions without having seen the film but I’m not sure I’m going to be able to bring myself to see the film.  Poor Robert Wise must be spinning wherever he may be.

Simplemente Carrie – A Sex and the City Rant

HERE BE SPOILERS:  Please scroll down to my post from a few days back about the Indiana Jones movie.  What I said there applies here.  If you haven’t seen the movie and want to remain virginal, read no further.  

Let me preface this by saying that I never saw the series as it was originally broadcast in all its supposed bawdiness.  I watched the series when it went into syndication and I could tell there were things being censored out for us simple and innocent non-HBO types.  If the movie is any indication of what was cut, the censors weren’t cutting the sexy scenes, they were just trying to shorten up the darn thing.  This movie is way too long and has the plot (and the pacing) of a Spanish soap opera.  I swear I think I heard the theme music to “Simplemente Maria” when Carrie is beating Big with her wedding bouquet.  I mean, come on, Big can’t get out of the car until he looks at Carrie’s face?  I know this is sacrilege to die-hard SATC fans, but I never liked Big.  I think Carrie should have stuck with Aidan – now that was a great guy and much cuter too.  I know its all in the eye of the beholder but, come on, John Corbett is adorable – Northern Exposure, My Big Fat Greek Wedding….. I’ve even forgiven him for taking to singing country music.. …. where was I?  Oh yeah, Sex and the City.  Also it struck me as the height of stupidity to blame Miranda for “scaring” Big the night before the wedding with her anti-marriage comment.  Carrie seems to think that this explains Big’s behavior – its all Miranda’s fault.  These don’t seem to be the same strong women that I enjoyed watching on T.V.   Perhaps the premise, the characters, and the story are only good in small chunks.  After two and half hours (at least that’s what it felt like)  and a lot of eye-rolling (from me at the sappiness of it all) I was just disappointed.  Its not a horrible movie – certainly its not as bad as say “The Mothman Prophecies” (I don’t care what the IMDB says that was just a bad movie).   It just felt contrived and actually a little dated.  With the state of the economy and the price of gas, the glitzy, designer name dropping, expensive shoe buying, jet-setting nature of the characters seemed a thing of the past. I know its only been 4 or 5 years since the show ended but a lot has changed.  Frankly, I was more worried about Samantha’s carbon footprint than with whether she could remain faithful to Smith.  The acting is, well, let’s just say that  I’d be extremely surprised if any one is nominated for anything come movie award season.  Simply put, its long and has no zazazu.

Indiana Jones and the, … the … what is it again?

Let me preface this by saying, if you haven’t seen the movie – don’t read the post.  I am an absolute fanatic about knowing as little as possible about the plot to a movie before I go see it.  I despise movie reviews that tell you the story in minute detail down to the last nuance of an actor’s performance.  Those are not reviews, those are re-tellings.  With that in mind, this is not a review.  Be forewarned that I may go into details of plot points from the movie (or I may not – I never know where I’ll end up when I start writing).

The complete title of the new Indiana Jones movie keeps eluding me.  Its not as catchy as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom or Raiders of the Lost Ark.  I think they should have gone with “Indiana Jones and the Saucermen from Mars” myself.  That title would have been an instant reminder that this is supposed to be a throw back to the old serial cliffhangers of the past and meant to be totally ridiculous.  And mind you, it is totally ridiculous but it is also entertaining, funny, exciting and completely worth the price of admission.  

Granted I am slightly prejudiced — Harrison and I had a little thing going when we were both younger — of course, Harrison never knew about it.  I was like many women my age in love with Hans Solo and Prof. Jones.  But that infatuation faded as the years went by… many, many years went by.  I will admit to a bit of shock upon seeing Mr. Ford back in the fedora up on the huge screen.  He has aged (I, of course, am as dewey fresh as I was 20 years ago).  But it was just an initial shock and it quickly changed into that warm feeling you get from seeing an old friend.  He has developed a Spencer Tracy-esque kind of quality and if not careful, one could easily find one’s self falling for him all over again….

But I digress, the movie is fun, fast paced and ultimately satisfying.  As much as I wanted to dislike Shia LaBeouf, I couldn’t.  He does an outstanding job carrying the arrogance of youth and still making the character understandable and ultimately loveable.  AND HERE IS A SPOILER WARNING – DON’T BLAME ME IF YOU READ ANY FURTHER AND ARE SPOILED:  It was evident from the beginning that he was Indie’s son.  It wasn’t completely telegraphed by Spielberg but neither was it hidden.  So that when Karen Allen appears and spills the beans, it isn’t quite a “Luke I am your father” type moment – but then really I don’t think its meant to be.  Ms. Allen by the way looks amazing and the chemistry between herself and Ford is still there.  Their relationship was completely right and believable and heart-warming.  I think it struck a chord in me and perhaps other woman may age – the fantasy of that great guy that got away re-appearing and everything just falling into place….

But I digress again.  The plot is silly but fun.  Ms. Blanchett is not as truly evil as previous Indie villains have been and her Russian accent slips away every so often but her performance is cartoony and entertaining altho’ I wish she had gone a little more over the top (a la Frau Farbissina from Austin Powers) but, who am I to tell Cate Blanchett and Steven Spielberg about movie acting.

All in all, escapist fun and well worth seeing.