Just saw Transformers and it was everything I expected: big and loud. Cars turned into robots. Things exploded. A good time was had by all.
One question though: What is this?
Update: Phil Plait, the best bad astronomer around, reviews the science of the movie. He too wants to know what’s up with this whole Cloverfield thing.
I don’t often agree with Christopher Hitchens. His midlife flight from Trotskyism has, in many ways, turned him into a cranky reactionary, siding with Neocons when occasion suits him and generally being contrarian for the sake of pissing people off. Which is fine, the world needs it’s contrarians and I don’t have to agree with a man entirely to recognize when he is making sense. Which is why I’m glad he put the gin bottle down long enough to write God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Firstly, you probably won’t discover too many new pieces of information here, though I did learn a few things about how the Koran was edited together that were new to me. But Hitchen’s offers a much needed complementary view to atheism in general and Atheist writing in particular. The unavoidable comparisons to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are made in just about every review of Hitchens’ book I’ve read and they probably will form a sort of unofficial atheist trilogy. Where Harris comes at the problem of faith and belief in god form the point of view of a philosopher and Dawkins tackles it from the perspective of a scientist, Hitchens offers us the much needed insight of a journalist and man of letters.
It’s this literary perspective that is most necessary to help encourage skepticism and disbelief to spread among the general public. Far too often, atheists are seen as cold, calculating rationalists, robot men who have amputated the limb of faith and are lacking in something vital, all in the pursuit of reason. Hitchens does a service in showing that disbelief is not the result of prolonged exposure to rare intellectual isotopes but the natural and organic process of simply living in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries. Atheism and skepticism has a long and glorious tradition, rooted in Enlightenment values of free thought, unrestrained inquiry and above all imagination. Some of the greatest writers and thinkers of the last three centuries have been men and women without faith. These are not freaks and outsiders, hammering away at the foundation of Western Civilization. They are they architects of our culture. Showing that the Bible is just shoddy literature, with very human (and often bloody) fingerprints all over it will go a long way towards undermining its authority as an unimpeachable resource, one to be eyed with the critics skeptic eye than the true believer’s blind faith.
People just don’t trust pirates. I suppose this is a given, in that they are, after all, pirates. They’ll cut your throat if it gives them the upper hand and rifle through your pockets before you’ve even hit the ground but still, they have an honor about them, and their resilience and tenacity, not to mention their resourcefulness, is never to be underestimated.
Which is all my way of saying that a lot of reviewers don’t know what they’re talking about when they say Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End isn’t as good as the previous films. In a lot of ways it’s better. complaints about the murkiness of the plot are unfounded– certainly, the details can get complicated but it’s only a challenge for those who can’t stomach a little moral ambiguity and don’t get that pirates will change allegiance at the drop of a hat, any hat, and sometimes just for fun.
I have to admit, I was suspicious going in to the theater. Having so recently been burned by Spider man 3 in all its god awfulness, I was hesitant, expecting that perhaps the filmmakers had decided to just cash in and coast on the popularity of the previous films. So I was presently surprised to discover a really fun and satisfying movie. No it’s no Godfather, obviously, but not every movie has to aspire to be the greatest ever. Some should, now and again, but an action adventure movie about Pirates isn’t that movie and to expect it to try and be something it is not is setting oneself up for disappointment (which, by the way is one of the themes of the pirates movies so there are still some greater themes to be had even if none named Corleone is involved). So, no, it wasn’t the Godfather. But even more importantly, it wasn’t the Godfather 3.
Some reviewers have criticised Orlando Bloom’s performance, saying that it was wooden and two dimensional which is plainly unfair. He has the burden of being the Good Guy who has to make tough decisions, which doesn’t exactly leave a lot of wiggle room for camping it up or soul searching. He’s our Errol Flynn, after all. But he does manage to breathe life and depth and genuine emotion into a character that could so easily be just a cardboard cutout. And his ultimate fate adds a few shades of gray to his character that go beyond the stereotypical hero anyway.
Johnny Depp as Captain Jack is, let’s face it, the real reason anyone is going to see this movie. Here is a character for the ages. Morally ambiguous, the rouge with a heart of gold– he’s everything we want Han Solo to be– a scoundrel who stays a scoundrel while also being a hero. And the scenes with him in Davey Jones Locker are just fantastic, a touch of Terry Gilliam that adds so much while seeming to do nothing but fart around. His affectations and antics should by the third movie, be getting on everyone’s nerves but instead, he’s such a lovable scoundrel that you can’t help but enjoy every moment.
Kiera Knightly, the other main reason to see the film, is solid. Elizabeth Swann has progressed so far from where she began in the first film that it’s hard to keep in mind that it’s the same actress and the same character. And it’s really a far more nuanced character than many people give her credit. here’s a pirate who wants to be a damsel but has to go save the boys from themselves. That she succeeds is only part of the tragedy of her character.
One of the most impressive elements of all three of the Pirate’s movies is the internal mythology. It’s built up gradually, with just enough revealed to show you a view of a larger world without the tedious exposition that usually drags down a fantasy film. We don’t need overly long prologues or opening crawl to set the scene. The film makers and the script writers are confident that the audience will be able to pick up the threads of the back story that are dropped in context of the story without needing more information. And when we do need that Little bit of exposition, we have Mr. Gibbs, the story teller, who lays out the legends in the time honored nautical tradition.
This nautical Tall Tale aspect is the key to the success of these stories as they pull in elements of world mythology that will seem familiar but still are changed enough to suit the unique world of the story. It’s perhaps this worldliness of the Pirate Mythology that is puzzling to some critics. We have a tendency to think of the Caribbean Pirates as American, but Pirate lore is world-spanning (as exemplified by the Nine brethren, who are all based on historical pirates from all parts of the world). This is a movie about the world and what stories we tell ourselves about freedom and ht elives we choose that make living in it bearable.
I was almost certain that Spider-Man 3 would be suck-proof. I was a chump.
Too many characters, all of them crying and some of the most unmotivated emotional turnarounds I’ve ever seen in a movie. It was Spider Man and his Schizoid Friends, Bi-Polar Boy and Insecure Girl.
Venom was completely unnecessary. He was on screen for maybe ten minutes and added nothing to the story. But then, that basically describes venom in the comics as well, so it should have been expected.
Gwen Stacy was completely underused as a character. She is supposed to have been Spider Man’s first great love. Instead, she’s the other woman for about five minutes, then disappears only to show up a Harry’s funeral because… she somehow knew Harry? Really? How? When?
Sandman was good. I wish there had simply been more for him to do, and there would have been, if they hadn’t decided to shoehorn Venom into the movie.
Also, half the time, Spider-Man is running around with his mask off. He wears a mask for a reason but I guess the Studio decided that seeing Toby Maguire being Emo was more important than story or continuity.
The movie would have been fine without Venom or Gwen Stacy. Focus on the Harry, Peter, MJ love triangle with the Sandman subplot (and maybe add in the Vulture, as played by Ben Kingsly as a flying criminal mastermind manipulating Sandman and also having a hand in the death of Peter’s uncle). Save Gwen Stacy as the sub plot for the next film, with Bruce Campbell as Mysterio. Number 5 can be about the wedding of MJ and Peter, as interrupted by the Lizard and Shocker. Save Venom for number 6 or better yet, number not at all.
But on the bright side, there really is no way Pirates of the Caribbean 3 will suck, right? Update: 5/28: yes, I was right. Much better!
This review is full of spoilers. Just so you know.
Mel Gibson heard tell their were people called Mayans who lived in South America once, before the Spanish arrived and saved them all from idolatry and their own barbarism. So, he made himself a movie, so we too would know all the bloody, cliched details.
Jaguar Paw, our Apocalypto-istic hero, is out huntin’ with pa and the boys, making lame jokes about his buddy, Smoke Frog, who can’t impregnate his wife. JP’s tribe is as obsessed with women having as many babies as those creepy Quiverfull Evangelicals. It’s kinda weird. Anyway, they meet another tribe of people who have been run out of their village and amazingly, can speak the same language. In fact, everyone in pre-Columbian South America speaks the same Mayan dialect, which translates neatly into idiomatic English subtitles. More wacky sexual hijacks ensue when they get back to the village. There’s a party, and we meet JP’s pregnant wife and young son (You can tell he’s our hero because he doesn’t shoot blanks). Oh, and we also meet Smoke Frog’s annoying mother-in-law. For future reference, Mr. Gibson (because I know you’re reading this), the annoying mother-in-law joke was old even then.
In the morning their village is raided and all the women and men are hauled off by scary dude with jawbones on his armor and his warriors. The kids are left behind. I’m sure they’ll be fine. Alone. In the jungle.
During the forced march across the jungle, we meet Little Oracle Annie, who has generic movie pestilence type B and delivers the obligatory prophetic message. JP and the gang arrive in Las Vegas, where they are press ganged into the Blue Man Group. JP narrowly avoids being sacrificed when the world’s fastest eclipse sneaks up on the Mayans. Who invented astronomy. These people devised one of the most intricate and accurate calendars and they’re all surprised by a solar eclipse. or maybe just by the fact that it happens in about a minute and a half.
The king of the dirty, filthy Mayans (who in real life, surprised the hell out of the Spanish by having a large, well organized, clean city) tells Jawbone to take JP and his boys out back and off them, since they don’t need any more heads to roll down steps (sorry guys, bowling league filled up fast this year). The worst game of Football ensues, during which JP escapes with only a minor arrow through the gut. So naturally, Jawbone and his dudes chase after.
The rest of the movie alternates between the standard hunters-become-the-hunted plot (complete with the totally debunked quicksand, angry panther that only our hero can outrun and a slide into home base) and scenes of JP’s wife and son in a hole in the ground where he hid them from the bad guys. Monkeys fall out of they sky and then it starts raining. Mrs. JP struggles not to drown and then gives birth underwater. Seriously, like a little baby rocket, he just launches from betwixt her loincloth. Because labor pains are apparently a Spanish invention. JP manages to kill everyone gruesomely and according to Prophecy Girl’s ramblings. Then the Spanish arrive.
It’s unfortunate that we don’t know all kinds of accurate and anthropologically sound things about the Mayans, or else this film would have really sucked. But at least in Gibsonland, we don’t, so he can just make shit up to stuff his silly Christian ideology into. Apocalypto wasn’t as bad a film as The Passion, because that is physically impossible. But hay, it’s really bloody, so I’m sure Christians will love it.
Most of the reviews for Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion go to great lengths to mention how intolerant the good doctor is towards religious intolerance. The assumption is that we shouldn’t take serious a forceful argument about such a delicate subject because as we all know, theologians are just hothouse flowers and what’s this Dawkins fellow got against your Grandma and her sweet Sunday school demeanor any how? Which is utter bullshit.
Dr. Dawkins makes a first rate argument against religious belief, especially the belief in God and does so simply by applying the same basic level of critical scrutiny that all good scientists apply to any proposition. And that really is what has so many of the Religious apologist reviewers all atwitter. Dawkins is applying logic and the scientific method to something that, historically, has been given a pass I this area. Belief in God has been granted such special status in our culture by rigging the system. You can’t question God’s existence because it relies on faith, and it relies on faith and faith alone because God’s Priests say it does. So buzz off, why don’t you. And don’t look at the man behind the curtain, the one with his pants around his ankles and an altar boys ass in the air.
We’ve reached the point in our society where clinging to irrational superstitions is no longer a quaint pass time for soccer moms and armchair theologians, but is actually quite dangerous and not just to people in New York sky scrapers or hunkered down in Mesopotamian bunkers. Religious intolerance and the violence it engenders has become a major problem on all levels of society. And trying to vaccinate holy madness by cutting it with new age spirituality and moderate belief doesn’t work. It just creates a Petri dish for fundamentalism to grow faster. So yes, Dawkins is intolerant of religion. As well as we all should be.
His arguments will not really be news for anyone well versed in the ins and outs of Atheist thought but they are compelling, thoughtfully argued and backed up by rigorous science and scrupulous evidence. And that is the really revolutionary aspect of this book. There is evidence for why religious belief is dangerous. And it is presented here in a manner that is cogent, persuasive and compelling.
Reading the God Delusion, I was struck by the thought that animals that do not evolve and adapt to their environment become extinct. It’s an elementary concept that forms the foundation of evolution: evolve or die. And since the religious leaders who have appointed themselves custodians of our culture don’t want us to evolve, it should tell you just what it is they want us all to do instead.
There I was, hip deep in Richard Dawkins’ new book, The God Delusion, making a mental checklist of all the great points I wanted to put into a review and then I found this review, which condenses all other reviews down to the simple and honest truth.
Of course I’ll have a more elaborate review once I’m finished reading. But the short, short review: It’s the best book I’ve ever read on Atheism and arguments against God. If more people read this book, this country, and the world would be in much better shape.
I’ve been reading a lot of comics lately (shut up! It’s part of my job!) and I have to say, my favorite comic out there right now is Nextwave. Following up in a close second is Neil Gaiman’s take on the Eternals. And while the Eternals has a much better story (for those who are interested in such anachronisms of the 20th century) it follows the Gaiman formula pretty closely.* Nextwave wins out though, even if there is no story to speek of. I’ll let Warren Ellis explain it:
“I took The Authority and I stripped out all the plots, logic, character and sanity. It’s an absolute distillation of the superhero genre. No plot lines, characters, emotions, nothing whatsoever. It’s people posing in the street for no good reason. It is people getting kicked, and then exploding. It is a pure comic book, and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. And afterwards, they will explode.”
Seriously, there’s no real story: Five C-list Marvel characters are recruited by an anti-terrorist organization that turns out to really be a front for terrorists. So they blow shit up. But, as is with most simplistic concepts, it’s all in the execution. And Nextwave is executed brilliantly. There are funny asides, like in the Family Guy; absurd reoccurring villains, like in Monty Python (or James Bond); and monsters, like in Godzilla. There’s absolutely nothing redeeming socially, morally or spiritually, which means it is almost perfect. If it only had some sex, it would be three bucks of Nirvana on a monthly basis.
________
* I mean no disrespect to Mr. Gaiman. He’s probably one of the best fantasy writers alive. But all of his stories follow the same basic formula: Normal, Boring Person is either chosen or accidentally stumbles out of his every day world into the mythic world that exists just below the mundane surface reality and is guided by a not altogether reliable native of the mythic world along a quest in order to set right a wrong/restore balance or do something mythic. As formulas go, it’s solid Joseph Campbell stuff and there are plenty of variations on the theme of self discovery. But it is a formula.
Elvira and I just got back form seeing X-Men 3. We both really enjoyed it. Sure, it’s not Shakespeare but going in you don’t expect life-altering cinema, just comic book fun and as such, it was very fulfilling. Characters die, Wolverine emotes, things explode, bridges move and as always, there are some fun little cameos for the comic book geeks (Stan Lee and Chris Claremont both looking startled as extras was great fun and there are loads of mutant cameos for the hardcore fans).
The story is straight forward on the usual themes of alienation, what it means to be human and the excesses of power in the wrong hands. But do yourself a favor and stay to the end of the credits. It’s worth t.
Some reviews seem to miss the point, grousing about how there’s not much characterization or the story is thin and by the numbers, or that it’s full of fanservice and that anyone coming in to this fresh will be lost. To that I say, so? If you go into a third part sequel expecting clarity, you’re in the wrong theater. MI3 is down the hall, no brains allowed.
PZ Myers of course completely disagrees, which is his prerogative. He makes some good points on the science of the film, namely, that it’s implausible but then, X-Men always did get a D in plausibility. But that’s not the point and never was. A scientifically plausible superhero story would be… pretty lame, actually. It’s Fantasy, with a Scientific gloss. Which I’ll take over the God Did It fantasy (as in, The Ten Commandments) any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
When I was a wee lad, I saw this strange Japanese film on TV. It was part of the Saturday Afternoon Matinee that has been a major influence on my creative aspirations over the years. But unlike the other Saturday Afternoon fair like Buck Rogers or the old Flash Gordon Serials, all I remembered for years about this movie was a haunting unreality, a sense of dread as these characters ran around, slowly turning into Mushroom People.*
Recently I decided to put this here Internet to the test and see if I could track down information about this movie, maybe even dig up an old VHS copy so that I could see if it really was as weird and fun as I remembered. Sure enough, Matango (US title: Attack of the Mushroom People) has an IMDB entry and was recently reissued on DVD.
The film was made in 1963 by Toho Company Ltd., the same studio that made Godzilla. In fact the director, Ishiro Honda, made his name directing many Kaiju, most notably, several of the subsequent Godzilla films.
But Matango is something altogether different. The Wikipedia entry mentions the odd parallels between Matango and Gilliagan’s island, with the seven castaways representing the seven deadly sins. Which is intriguing, though in tone and ambience, the film is much more in the vein of Lost, but with mushrooms.
The sense of dread and something intangibly odd is present from the beginning, and at several points, could run off into a typical monster movie direction (going into the haunted house, answering the evil telephone and stopping mid escape to have sex so the bloodthirsty maniac can catch up), but instead, this film subtly subverts all of those tropes. Though, I guess subverting them is the wrong idea; the movie predates most horror films and so most horror film cliches and so isn’t consciously subverting any of them. But we’ve come to expect lazy writing wearing it’s metaphors inside out in an attempt to appear post-modern or Ironic with a capitol I, and so we often expect there to be certain monster movie cause and effect scenes. Matango instead lets the character’s drive the story to the inevitable conclusion, skirting into the monster movie world, but staying close to the blurry edges so that it still overlaps the naturalistic world. This way, we manage to get most of the way through the film before the men in rubber suits show up. We see their silhouettes and brief glimpses of them but just enough to make the full out Mushroom mayhem at the end seem plausible rather than contrived. In this sense, it has a nice Lovecraftian turn to it, slowly pushing us int the fantasy world one twist at a time, so that when we realise we’re in a monster movie, it’s too late and we have had some moments of genuine suspense.
Of course, the movie isn’t perfect. Some of the editing is weird and jumpy. It’s hard at times to tell if this is a stylistic choice to heighten the sense of disorientation or just technical flaws (the infamous Toho Style) showing through. What is most striking though is the bleak tone. The characters overtly critique Japanese society and civilization as a whole, ultimately deciding that maybe we’d all be better off in the jungle eating mushrooms instead of living in the soporific splendor of Tokyo (or New York, or Los Angelas or Savannah…). This sort of nihilistic edge is hard to find in any film, let alone one made in 1963.
I give it 4 out of 5 stars for some MST3K worthy dialogue in the first act and the minor technical flaws. Maybe it should be rated a half star lower, but I’m biased, due to it being part of the creative influence from my childhood. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a fun, weird and utterly creepy movie.
_________
* These half remembered images of lugubrious mushroom people and the beshroomed forest in which they lived found their way in to my novella, The Machine of the World. Everything is inspiring.
