Ponyo (Gake no ue no Ponyo)

2008
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Plot: An animated adventure centered on a 5-year-old boy and his relationship with a goldfish princess who longs to become human.

It's Not OK to Eat Fish, Cuz They Have Adorable Feelings!
by C. True

Generally I don’t prefer to see movies with an audience, but I suppose it can be telling. And I was pretty sure anything by Miyazaki would be better on the big screen so I decided to spend the whopping $3 to see Ponyo in my local second-run pub-theater. After the movie I jumped up as soon as the credits starting rolling to make a speedy exit, and I was met with about 40 huge dopey grins staring back at the screen. And this was a theater of adults only. Did I mention that it was a sold out showing on a Tuesday? Ponyo is just a sickeningly adorable film, and I mean that as a compliment. In terms of Miyazaki’s work, Ponyo fits most closely in with My Neighbor Totoro. It is a story from a child’s perspectives and as such the plot really lacks a lot of complexity and conflict. In fact there isn’t much of a plot to Ponyo, but simplistic child-like wonder may be what Miyazaki does best. I was convinced and enthralled by the movie’s singular driving force: Ponyo loves Sosuke! Ponyo is a little fish daughter of a fruity ocean wizard, and when she runs (swims) away she meets a little boy named Sosuke who rescues her from a sticky situation in a jar. Ponyo’s heart is set, she must be with Sosuke and that means she must become a little girl. Ponyo the fish is adorable, Ponyo the little girl is adorable, and Ponyo’s love of everything new, and most of all Sosuke, is adorable. That’s all you really need to know story wise.

Visually here I was initially a little perplexed. The animation struck me as a little less slick than say Spirited Away, where every inch of the screen was filled with complex colors, patterns and textures. Drawing for drawing there just wasn’t that elaborate animation style. But while the animation itself may not be quite as luxurious as previous Studio Ghibli works, the imagination and use of imagery in this movie is breathtaking and unmatched in previous Miyazaki films. The waves of the ocean are transformed in beautiful ways, sometimes into leering ominous henchman come to steal Ponyo away, sometimes into beautiful fish of all different colors. Whereas something like Finding Nemo brings a realistic and beautiful underwater world to the screen, Ponyo really makes elaborate fantasy of the ocean in a way that is mesmerizing to watch.

So it is adorable and it looks really good. But if you don’t go for the Japanese Anime in general, I don’t think this will be a game-changer for you. And yes the style of Anime stories can be a little befuddling to western movie-goers as some aspects are clearly lost in translation. But really, watching Ponyo is as close to being back in the mindset of a 5 year old as I think possible, so needless to say it was definitely worth the $3.

The Last Starfighter

1984
Director: Nick Castle
Cast: Lance Guest, Catherine Mary Stewart and Robert Preston
Plot: A videogaming boy, seemingly doomed to stay at his trailer park home all his life, finds himself recruited as a gunner for an alien defense force.

Computer-Generated 80's Shenanigans! IN SPACE! and a Trailer Park
by C. True

Alex is a little over 18 and really wants to get out of the trailer park he lives in to do bigger things with his life. Personally I could imagine worse places to live, and certainly worse people. In Alex's trailer park community cats sleep in mailboxes, your hot girlfriend (who has spent a Weekend at Burnie's!) lives next door, everyone knows everyone else's name and when you're about to break the high score on an arcade game at the convenient market, literally the whole trailer park comes out to cheer you on. Its a tummy-warming movie-world that lets you know right from the beginning that nothing bad will happen, just shenanigans. And who shows up to spice up Alex's dull life!? THE MUSIC MAN! In fact this was Robert Preston's last movie appearance in which he plays Centauri, a cooky-oldman/alien come to take Alex to be a starfighter in the war against the evil intergalactic totalitarian Xur. One of my few gripes with this movie is that as far as alien evil-doers go, the evil Xur was not convincing. First he looks silly with a Papa Smurf vibe that just doesn't really inflict fear, worry or even mild anxiety. Second, Xur doesn't really have an intimidating sound to it. They can't all be called something as ominous as Darth Vader, but Xur sounds more like a suffix than a name. But anyway, Alex is a little whiny and scared at first about being a starfighter, goes back to earth (a totally unnecessary portion of the movie! who wouldn't want to be a starfighter?!) only to flip-flop and decide to go back. By that time all the other starfighters are dead leaving Alex to take on Xur and his armada single-handedly. There's a fair amount of Star Wars rip off in this portion of the movie, but its still entertaining. The special effects look pretty good especially considering...this was the first movie to have all computer-generated special effects! So you should see it for historical purposes if nothing else. Actually I think the combination of CGI effects and costumes/makeup for alien characters was a good combo. There's something wholesome and fun about cheesy looking martians like Alex's alien BFF, Grig. The Last Starfighter is exactly the kind of movie I'd watch 1) with a small child or 2) when I'm home sick and need light fluff to pass the day.

Julie vs. Julia: How to make boeuf bourguignon in your pants

"Hi I'm Julie. I suck. Here's some butter."


Good day. Mr. Money Bags here with my first post, an important public service announcement about a dangerous and stupid new film.
This is not a review so much as warning. Don't see "Julie and Julia". If you know someone who is about to view the film forcibly detain them as they will otherwise become dumb and you will stop liking them.
Seldom have I felt as trapped and angry as I did watching "Julie and Julia". But Mr. Money Bags, you say, you weren't tethered to your couch, you could have left the room, even turned off the TV, if you wanted to end the maddening goings on on screen. True, I respond, but the film is coy and it made me want to watch it. Allow me to explain:
The film is told in two parts, half shit half shinola.
On one hand we have Julie who is played by Amy Adams. Amy Adams has in my opinion has never given a really great performance. Even in "Doubt", a very satisfying movie, she plays a muted role, that doesn't demand much, and lets her get away with marginal acting. I think everyone knows her from a movie called "Enchanted" that I've never seen. She was in "Pumpkin" where I recall she played a sorority bitch and that suited her. I admit I dislike Amy Adams. I think she inherently mooches authority off of Nicole Kidman, because they look alike (not that Nicole Kidman's real great, but she makes wonderful film choices, which works for me.) Amy Adams like Zooey Deschanel and Ellen Page (and yes, Kristen Stewart) relates to the worst part of young-female America. A saddy post-feminism that rejects both traditional feminine roles of wife and mother as well as the pioneering spirit of empowered, ground breakers like Julia Childs. These women play 'alternative' female characters which means they've set the bar low for themselves and are all about their hobbies. Julie has a husband that works for Archeology Magazine. He's nice and I guess he supports her. Julie is out of work and has done nothing compared to her millionaire lady friends. They're all turning 30 and she feels all bummed out, so she starts up a little project to boost her ego. So that's the one hand. In one hand we have a boring actress doing boring non-things. She whines a lot while doing not much and I for one hated the experience. I work diligently to try and forget that insufferable gooey faced phonies like Julie exist in the world. On this hand? You've got shit on your hand.

On the other hand you have two of the most capable actors working today: Meryl Streep and Stanly Tucci. Meryl is Julia Child and she provides the audience with an impersonation that would make Kevin Spacy gag with angry vomit. Stanly Tucci as always is subtle and powerfully real. They live out a brief period of Julia's life while she sets about writing her Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Its a complicated time and while the story is compassionate and endearing, it's also a bit sloppy. Paul Child, Tucci, loses his post in Paris at the consulate against a back drop of McCarthyism, but this is vague and probably lost on most of the audience. There are side plots with Julia's sister, played by Jane Lynch, who I love and am so happy to see in this role even if she gets short changed. Still, the performances in this half are seamless and magnetic. On this hand? Shreds of a phenomenal biopic.
I have a weakness for biography and that's exactly where Nora Ephron gets me pinned. I have nothing positive to say about Nora Ephron. She doesn't want me to like her films. That's obvious. I did slightly enjoy "Bewitched", but in my consideration "Micheal" the movie where Vince Vega plays an angel is close to being the least enjoyable movie I've ever seen. I liked the biographical parts of "Juliie and Julia" and I wanted to see where things go with Meryl and Stanly, not because I care about Julia Child but because I was enjoying seeing them act. Every time we switch back to Julie, I'm vividly reminded of how far from powerful young women today like to think of themselves. We undulate from visions of empowered women breaking though as it were into man's-world to visions of a post-gendered world where woman cannot even define themselves in opposition to masculine categories, so they have to emulate the mythical protests of women a half century ago.
This is how the film traps you. You want to see Meryl Streep act the shit of Julia Child because its a powerful story of a woman doing things against some odds, overcoming the man's kitchen and fighting American anti-intellectualism. We want Julia to win and we know she does so its safe and pleasant. But then that quality is story is bundled next to Julie, who just has a sort of lame narcissistic hobby. Her story is weak and is about weakness. She is not fighting the odds. Her husband just sanctions the project to keep her occupied and it seems to make no difference what happens to her. What's most distressing is the seemingly clear reflections the film makes about its own nature. Julie is always commenting on how perfect Julia is and then we find out (to my sincere pleasure) that Julia knows about Julie and finds her disrespectful. Great! I'm glad. This part of the films serves as a proof that these two generations are so out of touch in terms of feminine values that neither appreciates what the other has done. But why even say that in this film? Even if its true it confuses the moral, which has to be a celebration of Julia Child in some sense. Why do we celebrate Julia Child with a story about a witless loser that copies her and whom Julia doesn't even like? I wanted Julie to be shamed and humiliated. I wanted her to see that her generation has practically eaten away the progress and momentum of her grandmother's generation.
Ultimately, the power and depth of the Julia half justifies sitting though the film. But in retrospect the shallow, imbecilic ramble of the Julie half makes it not worth starting, so don't.
In my version of the film Julie's husband leaves her for good. Then Julia sues Julie and bankrupts her. Julie then has to move home to her mother where she works as a waitress for a while and dates seedy guys with neck tattoos and pickup trucks. She marries again and becomes a home-maker and starts shooting out the babies. She cooks vile middle American casseroles and begins to grow an overwhelming antipathy for Julia and a deep, persistent regret about her boring wasted life. We watch Julie become an old woman whose done absolutely nothing novel with her life and hates herself.
So that's the deal. "Julie and Julia" is a trap for anyone who likes biopics and good acting. Is angering because it's films like this that bring down the quality of our women. Now, I'm no woman, and this movie wasn't really made for me, but I worry that people will see this film and be confused by it (because its poorly written and confusing) and that maybe some young women will like Julie. This can't happen, it might spark the end times, so I'm warning you.

Have a great Monday!
MR MONEY BAGS

Julie & Julia

2009
Director: Nora Ephron
Cast: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and Stanley Tucci
Plot: Julia Child's story of her start in the cooking profession is intertwined with blogger Julie Powell's 2002 challenge to cook all the recipes in Child's first book.

I Would Have Preferred Just Julia
by C. True

I always enjoyed watching Julia Child, she was so strangely charismatic and personable it seemed everyone got her humor and charms. And Julia Child had an amazing life that certainly has enough material for a great movie. Then you add on the fact that you got Meryl Streep to play Julia and you wonder why anyone let this movie go forward with this Julie character still in tow. Every time the story would switch from Julia to Julie I moaned a little inside. Julia Child was witty and strong-willed and entertaining, and she is played as such. I don’t know what this Julie was like in real life but she is written and portrayed as a real downer. Seriously, I wouldn’t even really want to be her friend, let alone can I relate at all to her husband. I didn’t empathize with him because if I’d gotten at all immersed in these characters I would have hoped for him to leave Julie to find someone nicer. Someone a little more emotionally stable. Julie is really your typical insecure movie-woman who is so self-obsessed with her own insecurities that she never does much more than complain. Why does this weak woman character persist in movies? Who is the audience that relates to her or finds her pitiful breakdowns entertaining? Personally, I don’t know any women this self-loathing and insane. Juxtapose this with Julia Child whose accomplishments are many. While we get the interesting history of how much effort and years of work it took to get Mastering the Art of French Cooking published, and how she continued to persevere, we see that Julie has a melt down at the slightest hint of conflict. And she’s writing a blog. I don’t think the comparison is fun, silly, or meaningful. When we find out later in the movie that Julia Child doesn’t like Julie’s blog it felt good, I wanted to hear more. What were Julia’s criticisms? Hearing them would have surely been more enjoyable than watching the last 15 minutes of this movie.

All of this aside, if you’ve seen commercials for this movie you know already that Meryl Streep captures Julia Child completely. Her portrayal made me think it would have been enormously fun just to know Julia Child and have a conversation about the weather. And of course that was always how it felt watching her cook. And the relationship between her and Mr. Child, played by Stanley Tucci, is sweet and endearing. They are a couple you’d love to have over for dinner, Julie and her boyfriend? Not so much.

Celebrity

1998
Director: Woody Allen
Cast: Kenneth Branaugh, Judy Davis, and Joe Mantegna

Plot: The fortunes of a husband and wife differ drastically after they divorce.

When You Don't Have Anything, There's Nothing to Lose!
by C. True

Celebrity follows two characters on opposing paths. Mr. Allen, as I’ll refer to him, starts out on top of the world being inexplicably seduced by a beautiful Hollywood starlet during an interview he’s conducting. Mrs Allen, his wife, starts out at a cheesy health spa where she’s trying to cope with the shock that Mr. Allen has decided to leave her. Both characters live in a delightfully disgusting world of actors, writers, models and just generally wealthy and spoiled people. Woody Allen probably has a good idea of what the bottom of the celebrity barrel looks like and about 99% of the characters in his movie do not have a single redeeming quality. While our main character Mr. Allen floats through this world he expects everything will go his way. He has ditched Mrs. Allen and is ready to really live his life, even write a successful screenplay or finally finish that 3^rd novel. Mrs. Allen on the other hand expects nothing to come her way; she thought she was happy with Mr. Allen and after that all came crashing down she has little hope left. It is in part these opposing views that lead to the opposing story arcs of our two main characters. The moral of Celebrity is that we can always be sure that our lives will always turn out in a completely different manner than we had expected. Mr. Allen expects it all yet he seems to blow everything that comes his way. A date with a highly orgasmic model ends poorly when he crashes his car and she screams about being linked to a drunk driver in the tabloids. The day he moves in with a beautiful supportive woman he has a chance encounter with a mystery lady he finds beguiling. He thinks this much younger girl has got to be the girl of his dreams and he only need reach out and grab her. So he ditches the women he’s just moved in with to be with a complete stranger, who of course turns out to be a selfish adulterous wench. Winona Ryder plays this character beautifully and she seems the most realistic of the ugly narcissists that inhabit this movie. While Mr. Allen plunges deeper and deeper into the abyss, Mrs. Allen expects catastrophe at every corner but seems to have things go her way. When she goes in for an embarrassing consultation with a plastic surgeon she by chance meets a nice man in television. When she has cold feet and leaves this nice man at the altar later in the movie, she goes an informative fortune teller who tells her she was a shmuck but it’s ok because the guy is great and he’ll forgive her. And he does. When Mr. and Mrs. Allen finally cross paths again at the end of the movie she is the host of popular television show and married to the producer who loves her, and Mr. Allen is by himself with no new accomplishments to speak of. And it feels great because Mr. Allen really is a total jerk and its entertaining to see him really get what’s coming to him. Of course this is nicely balanced with the more positive encounters involving Mrs. Allen.

Kenneth Branaugh really plays one of the most wonderful incarnations of the Woody Allen character, and he's so striking it almost doesn't feel like ridiculous male-wish-fulfillment when beautiful women are attracted to this winy neurotic man. You could not discuss this movie without mentioning the cameo by Leonardo Di Caprio because its simply great acting and highly enjoyable to watch.

The White Ribbon (Das weiße Band)

2009
Director: Michael Haneke
Cast: Ulrich Tukur, Susanne Lothar, and Mercedes Jadea Diaz

Plot: Strange events happen in a small village in the north of Germany during the years just before World War I, which seem to be ritual punishment. The abused and suppressed children of the villagers seem to be at the heart of this mystery.

Ominous German Children Dish Out the Punishment
by C. True

I cringe at the idea of movies being carried by children actors. When I like children in movies it is usually based on a great performance by one single child. In The White Ribbon Michael Haneke manages to masterfully direct a cast that is half children with some of the best and most important scenes carried by children that look to be about 5. Not only do the children act well, but Haneke has given them a difficult presence in the film which they capture entirely. They must be children, no precocious Dakota Fanning-esque performances. And yet they deliver characters with an unsettling level of dillusionment on the surface and bitter and cruel rage lurking underneath. And of course children can be unreservedly cruel, and maybe what's so creepy about this movie is that unlike playground bullying these children are pointedly aware of the consequences of their actions and have set out not to oppress an individual but to terrorize a town. Of course this is all just implied in a movie where most major events that propel the story happen off screen. That may sound pretentious or boring but it isn't. You can imagine if you lived in a small town and bizarre tragic "accidents" began occuring you could easily be shaken and intrigued without ever witnessing any of these events first hand. The one shown act of violence happens later in the film when the children are so consumed by hate that rageful impulses begin to be acted upon freely.

This direction of children really highlights Michael Haneke's ability to mold characters but he's really created a beautiful masterpiece that must have crushed all competition in receiving the Palme d'Or at Cannes this year. The movie is so stylistically complete there is a sense of transportation. The story is intriguing to point that I was eagerly anticipating every line of dialogue and no snack or bathroom break would have pulled me away if it meant missing a minute. And although it may sound exceedingly dark from the description above the movie is not overpowering (certainly not for Haneke) and there is even a sweet little romance for our narrator the school teacher. And its a noodle scratcher. Not everything is obvious, but you get the idea that in a film this precise every word in every piece of dialogue has its purpose. Makes you wonder what that Michael Haneke is up to, but then most of his movies do. He doesn't have anything else lined up yet but for me he is a must see director and I hope we can expect many more projects from him.

Poltergeist

1982
Director: Tobe Hooper
Cast: Jobeth Williams, Craig T. Nelson and Heather O'Rourke

Plot: A family's home is haunted by a host of ghosts.

We'll Never Know Why Putting a House on Someone's Grave Pisses Them Off So Much
by C. True

Gearing up for Halloween it was a pleasure to see Poltergeist on the big screen for the first time. However, before the movie I was a little worried about the audience at this particular theater. Other movies at this same second-run beer theater have been ruined by the guffawing slightly inebriated twenty-somethings. Sure St. Elmo's Fire had plenty to poke fun at, but I don't find Maverick's heartbreak over Gooses death especially cheesy and worthy of a laugh. I was pleasantly surprised though by how everyone really shut up, watched this movie, and got as scared as they did when they saw it as a kid.

So many great premises are at work here. We have a nexus of evil within the house which I always found very effective in giving me chills. One of my favorite scenes is a simple one (and according to imdb the first one shot) where Jobeth Williams hesitantly opens her children's bedroom door just to be screamed at by some supernatural entity and slam it shut again. Knowing the house is haunted is one thing, but knowing that the seat of the evil things happening is localized to one spot sets up some great scares. Another great theme is the surprisingly non-cheesy sentiment of a mother trying to save her child. And although it isn't a theme or premise, for my money there was never a scarier scene then when that kid starts getting swallowed by that tree. Who thinks trees are scary? I don't know but damn if that didn't give me nightmares for years.

The special effects really hold up well here as well. Most of them are pretty simple, I'm not even sure you'd call making a steak crawl across a countertop by rigging it with wires a special effect anymore. For instance the best special effect isn't even a real special effect. In a continuous shot where we see Jobeth Williams push all the chairs in at the kitchen table, then the camera pans with her as she goes back into the kitchen to get the cleaning supplies and then back to the dining area to see a shocking chair pyramid on top of the table. How was it achieved? As the camera pans away some guys come in with a preformed chair pyramid and put it on the table and grab the other chairs. It doesn't get much simpler than that and yet its one of the best surprises in the film. Not to get all preachy but there is something nice when it comes to effects about knowing what you're seeing is really happening, just not in the way you think it is.