mekosh

I watched Crash again last night. I’d been meaning to see it since it came out and Annie and I rented it last Saturday. The film—as the title suggests—is about crashes: in one sense of the word, it is a movie about car crashes. In the opening scene, Don Cheadle’s character remarks that in Los Angeles (a city that boomed after the invention of the automobile) people lack the close physical proximity that citizens in the world’s other large cities take for granted. That in order to feel something beyond a world of steel and glass, people crash into each other.

More importantly, Crash is about human collisions: the internal crashes of anger and fear and love inside each of us, and the external conflicts of races and cultures. The film expertly weaves several different subplots that continually draw in characters from other story arcs. I loved the way the movie surprised me when individuals from different worlds within one city were confronted with the unexpected. My favorite parts of the movie focused on the Hispanic locksmith and the Iranian (I believe) shopkeeper. When those two worlds meet, it’s just gut-wrenching.

The treatment of racial tension in Crash has merited a lot of discussion; some seem to think the movie’s characters were unrealistically racist while others see the racism in the film as an unblinking look at the cruel way people treat those they fear, justified or not. What do I think? Sadly, I think the movie gets the ugly, racist undertones in America right. However, in the film, the characters are often more vocally racist than most people act in real life.

As a final note, Crash does a great job of providing reasons for actions and events in the movie. By the time the final credits roll, all the T’s are crossed in the plot, even if life doesn’t always work out neatly.

Annie, Veronica, and I went to see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire at the Senator Theater in Baltimore yesterday. The first thing that struck me—as well as most of the critics—about the newest Harry Potter is how much darker the subject matter is when compared to the earlier films. This Potter installment finally breaks free of the “kid’s movie” label. As Roger Ebert notes, “the film is more violent, less cute than the others, but the action is not the mindless destruction of a video game; it has purpose, shape and style.” Granted, but on a side note, sophisticated video games can have those traits too.

I had never been inside the Senator Theater on York Road before we went to see Goblet of Fire, but now I know that I’ve been missing out on something great. The inside of the historic theater looks spectacular, with lighting and an attention to detail that’s missing from a lot of more recent architecture. The most shocking part of the whole experience, however, was the live, on-stage announcement of the previews, upcoming events, and a little information about the theater for new visitors. I could hardly believe it when it happened.

Jason and I went to see Lord of War on Saturday night. It was better than I expected and both of us enjoyed the movie. The movie is a narrative told by Yuri Orlov (Nicholas Cage), a charming, intelligent, and witty gun runner who is a disgusting mess of a person. The film itself seems ambivalent towards Yuri; sometimes, it snuggles up to his humanity only to reveal just how morally repugnant true amorality can be.

From the opening title sequence over a smart short film about the life of a bullet to the sobering footnotes at the movie’s end, Lord of War is a black dramedy. The subject matter is dark and exciting, but laughing is the only way to keep from crying at the absurdity of the small arms trade and its disregard for human pain and suffering.

I’ve wanted to see this film for a few years; now that I have, Pulp Fiction ranks near the top of the Weirdest Movies I’ve Seen list. The movie begins with the entry for “pulp” from the American Heritage Dictionary New College Edition in white text on a black screen:

pulp n. 1. A soft, moist, shapeless mass of matter.
2. A magazine or book containing lurid subject matter and being characteristically printed on rough, unfinished paper.

These two definitions serve as a declaration, a warning, for what you are about to see. Pulp Fiction lulls the viewer into a type of interested trance; dozens of times during the movie, I kept wondering what the heck was going on, but I watched because I wanted to know. The movie seemed extremely (and very suddenly) violent, but most of the violence is off-screen. The plot and characters seem both derivative and highly unconventional… which seems impossible. Let me explain: although many parts of the story and players are ripped straight from other movies and genres, the whole they comprise is pure original. I see Pulp Fiction as a movie collage.

The DVD I bought was the Collector’s Edition—I highly recommend this slightly more expensive upgrade—which came with a ton of bonus features including an enhanced “trivia” mode. Similar to VH1’s Pop-Up Videos, short bits of background or related information was displayed on the bottom of the screen continuously throughout the movie. It would be great for those interested in learning about the inspiration behind different camera angles or scene layouts, but also those looking for information that an audio commentary wouldn’t necessarily convey.

I wasn’t sure what I thought of the movie the first time I watched it, but the film actually improves with repeat viewings. If you like witty and original movies and don’t mind violence or filthy language on the screen, buy Pulp Fiction (Collector’s Edition).

I’ve been a big fan of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams since I first read it a few years ago, so I was excited to see that they were making a new movie based on the book. My anticipation only increased when I saw the trailers for the movie were a bit quirky—like the books—and still appeared to be high quality products. In particular, I really enjoyed the trailer that was about the Guide‘s entry for “movie trailers.”

My brother, Jason, and I went to see the movie on Friday; the theater wasn’t very crowded, but it wasn’t deserted either. It was a good turnout for what—I have to admit—is a very strange and curious book. From the outset, I was nervous that the film would be much worse than I expected: the previews featured several hideous Disney films, one of which was in 3-D. Yeah.

However, the film turned out to be both entertaining and reasonably well-done. My biggest gripe with the film is that there was an obvious effort to develop a romantic tension and provide a clean ending without any of the frayed edges of the books. I admit that the task of taking the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the screen must have been a nightmare, given the intricacies, plot shifts, and narrative digressions of Adams’ stories. Like the book, the movie jumps from one locale to the next with nary a guidepost, but unlike the text, the film never fills in the connective tissues that allow the story to retain true coherence at the end.

Overall, I would highly recommend The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie to anyone who has read the books. Those readers will understand why things in the movie happen the way they do and appreciate much more of the subtle humor and nods to Adams’ earlier adaptations of his story.

Annie and I saw The Incredibles on Saturday. It really was as good as I expected and my expectations were sky-high for Pixar’s latest wonder.

One point that has been mentioned in other reviews is the sense that The Incredibles feels more like an action movie than an animated one; it’s true. With the brilliant animation, great plot, believable (yes!) characters, and superb voice-acting, it was easy to forget that the entire movie takes place in a digital world. The CG from beginning to end were nearly flawless; there was one point where I noticed a slight lag, but it was gone in a second.

Given all of this, I thought the movie was better than many of the “action” movies that are produced each year. The Incredibles was funny, smart, and exciting; in sum, a great film.