Cinema Connections

#021. The Mafia

benthereseenthat — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:01:12 +0000

Protagonists take many shapes and sizes. Some are the strong, silent type who know what to do and are good at what they do. Some are the archetypal hero, who stands for honor and justice. And then there are the anti-heroes. This last category would be the bad guy in any other film with one of the other protagonist types as the main character. After all, good must triumph over evil in the end, right? And yet, sometimes you just have to root for the lesser of two evils. The Mafia is just one of those anti-hero protagonists. In a police drama, the mob usually plays the antagonist, but if the movie is about the mob, the roles are reversed. While people usually want the police to win, there is a small piece of them that likes the idea of the mafia. If you can become powerful enough to do whatever you want, isn’t that in essence, freedom? Freedom from rules. Freedom to create the rules. Still, even though freedom may seem glamorous, it usually comes at a severe price. This week’s two films highlight the anti-hero of the mafia.

The Godfather
Year: 1972
Rating: R
Length: 175 minutes / 2.92 hours

While arguably the best mafia movie ever made, The Godfather is considered by many to be the best movie ever made, period. The story is timeless, the acting is superb and the violence is gritty and real. When most people think of what happens in the mafia, I am sure that they think of what happens in The Godfather. Turf wars, over-the-top messages, multiple murders . . . it’s got it all. What’s a little interesting is that about half-way through the film, the plot takes a bit of a turn and almost feels like a plot you’d find in a video game. Of course, the most interesting part of the film is watching the evolution of an archetypal hero into a classic anti-hero.

Michael Corleone (Al Pachino) has just returned home from war. Any normal soldier would welcome the homecoming compared to the violence of the battlefield. Unfortunately, Michael’s father, Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) is the head of a New York mafia family. Unfortunately, Don Vito is not well liked by the other mafia families because of his ideals. Unfortunately, even if Michael doesn’t want anything to do with the mafia, the other families will do what they can to get to Don Vito. Eventually, Michael has had enough. With his father no longer able to run things, he steps up and does what has to be done to maintain some semblance of order in a world full of crime.

Goodfellas
Year: 1990
Rating: R
Length: 146 minutes / 2.43 hours

A somewhat unfortunate side-effect of the mafia is the glamorous lifestyle that it seems to promote. Children in poverty look at these rich men in fancy suits and shiny cars and can only hope that someday they could do whatever they want to do. Once again, the promises of freedom, of no restrictions, of a life-long loyalty are highly enticing to those who have none of those things. But, once again, this life of glamour comes at a price. In order to get there legitimately, it could take your whole lifetime to arrive at the top. In order to get there quickly, it could cost you your soul. Choices have consequences, and sometimes those consequences aren’t apparent until it’s too late.

“As far back as I can remember, I wanted to be a gangster.” This opening narration by Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) just goes to show how children can idolize the mob. Of course, once you’re in, you’re in. When Henry teams up with Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro) and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci), he has his “in” to the world of the mafia. However, the trick with the mob is that you can’t just be “in” the mafia without wanting to climb the ladder a little bit. But since Henry is just happy to be a gangster, he soon finds himself pulled into more and more serious situations by his two partners in crime (literally). Another unfortunate side-effect of the mob is that once you are “in”, it’s hard to get out.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 offers you can’t refuse

#020. Francis Ford Coppola

benthereseenthat — Fri, 18 May 2012 06:01:48 +0000

There are some directors who have a few great movies that define their career, but don’t end up making enough films to carry that prestige any further. Francis Ford Coppola just happens to be one of those directors. The films he is most well known for were all created in the 1970′s, and that’s more or less where his influence stayed. Now, what I have just said might seem like it’s a bad thing, but it’s not. I think it’s actually better for a director to make a few quality movies than a lot of mediocre ones. And critics all around agree that he has created some high quality movies. Not only have three of his films made the American Film Institute’s list of top 100 films (in both iterations of the list), but these films were also nominated (2 of which won) for Best Picture. In fact, The Godfather: Part II is the only sequel to win an Oscar for Best Picture. This week’s two movies are timeless classics from Francis Ford Coppola.

Apocalypse Now!
Year: 1979
Rating: R
Length: 153 minutes / 2.55 hours

While Francis Ford Coppola has only won an Oscar for Best Director for The Godfather, Part II, he was nominated for the award three more times during his career. Two of those instances were for The Godfather and The Godfather, Part III. If you haven’t guessed already, the third instance was for Apocalypse Now! Resting in the top third of AFI’s top 100 lists, Apocalypse Now! is one of the few Francis Ford Coppola films that are well known outside of the Godfather trilogy. It’s no wonder that this film was nominated for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay, considering that the source material of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness was not actually set during the Vietnam War.

However, Apocalypse Now! does take place during the Vietnam War. Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) has become disillusioned by the war and has been given a mission that technically doesn’t exist. The reason for the intense secrecy is that the mission is to take out Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), who the Army believes to have gone crazy and who has been launching guerrilla attacks from Cambodia. Of course, to get to Colonel Kurtz, Captain Willard must head upstream on a river that will lead him to what could only be described as “the horror.” Along the way, Capt. Willard’s crew meets some interesting individuals, but also comes across a lot of resistance; an inherent danger of the jungle. Will Captain Willard survive long enough to see his mission through, or will the mission consume him?

The Godfather
Year: 1972
Rating: R
Length: 175 minutes / 2.92 hours

With the exception of Citizen Kane, many consider The Godfather to be the greatest movie ever made. In fact, when AFI re-made their top 100 list for a 10 year anniversary, this film moved up from #3 to #2: right behind the aforementioned Orson Welles masterpiece. The Godfather also won Best Picture for 1972, as well as Best Adapted Screenplay, the latter of which Francis Ford Coppola shared with Mario Puzo. With an iconic score and multitudes of famous scenes and quotes, there’s a good chance that if you haven’t seen The Godfather, you’ve at least seen it referenced somewhere.

The Godfather is perhaps the most quintessential mobster movie ever made. Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando, who won the Best Actor Oscar for this film), is the head of a New York mafia family. His youngest son, Michael (Al Pachino) comes back from the war and does not want anything to do with the business his father runs. As the times change, Vito’s ideals end up getting the rest of the mafia families to plan his demise. Once Vito has been compromised, Michael must step in to keep the family together. However, in order to control the family, Michael must eliminate some of his competitors and distance himself from the ones he loves.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 great Coppola gems

#019. River Boat Sailing

benthereseenthat — Fri, 11 May 2012 06:01:37 +0000

Something you just don’t see much of anymore is the small river steamer. Most river travel today is done with large barges for business, or motorboats for pleasure. Even the human-powered whitewater rafting is done mainly as an outdoor adventure. And yet, there are still areas of the world that rely on these modes of transportation, even if the journey may be dangerous or the integrity of the boat itself is brought into question. Sometimes the situation dictates that river travel must be taken. Perhaps the terrain is impassable by vehicles or is so densely packed with trees that landing a plane would be impossible. What if you need to get away quickly? What if you need to get in stealthily? This week’s two movies examine the hazards and adventures of traveling on the river.

The African Queen
Year: 1951
Rating: Not Rated
Length: 105 minutes / 1.75 hours

It seems that sometimes taking a small river steamer is the last resort. Especially when the ride could be more dangerous than the alternatives. Of course, when the alternatives disappear, all that’s left is the junker tub that can barely stay afloat. Some might argue that traveling on a river is relaxing and low stress. Well, that entirely depends on the river. While you don’t need to exert much effort to move forward, you certainly don’t have any control over your course. The battle comes with the struggle against nature as it hurtles you wherever it sees fit. Just remember, not all boats are designed to go down rapids.

In German-infested Africa during World War I, Rose Sayer (Katherine Hepburn) needs a way to get out. After her brother was killed by said Germans, the pious missionary only has one way to escape: a river boat by the name of “African Queen.” However, this boat is owned and piloted by the local drunk, Charlie Allnut (Humphrey Bogart). Her decision now is merely to choose the lesser of two evils. As the two conflicting personalities board the boat and head downstream, they must overcome sudden maintenance issues as well as the force of the river itself. And yet, how far do they need to travel to really escape the influence of the Germans? Is going out to sea going to allow them to really escape?

Apocalypse Now!
Year: 1979
Rating: R
Length: 153 minutes / 2.55 hours

While Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” was not set during the Vietnam War, it still gives a disturbing look into the psyche of man through a trip upstream on a river boat. The interesting difference between going upstream and downstream in a river boat is that when you’re going downstream, you have an understanding of what lies before you. Usually, civilization lives downstream, whereas chaos and the unknown lie at the origin of rivers. Where The African Queen ran from chaos, Apocalypse Now! runs full steam ahead toward it.

Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) has just been given a mission to take out rogue Green Beret, Colonel Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando). Of course, in order to get to Col. Kurtz, Capt. Willard needs to stealthily head upstream into Cambodia, instead of taking the “burn it all” stance of Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore (Robert Duvall). The trip to take down Col. Kurtz, who has set himself up as a tribal god over some of the locals, is fraught with the dangers of an untamed jungle, as well as the untamed human mind. Using the boat to penetrate the jungle is both a trip upstream and a descent into madness. Can Capt. Willard complete his mission without also succumbing to the very forces that caused Col. Kurtz to go mad in the first place?

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 river boat adventures

#018. Humphrey Bogart

benthereseenthat — Fri, 04 May 2012 06:01:06 +0000

If you were to ask someone who the most iconic actor of the 1940′s was, chances are they would tell you Humphrey Bogart. Even though he tended to play the same type of character, the character was always cool, suave, and knew what to do. Men wanted to be him, women wanted to be with him. With a cigarette in one hand and a stiff drink in the other, Bogey’s characters were nonchalant and tough. Most people know Humphrey Bogart from his role in Casablanca, where he spouted off line after line of memorable dialogue. Many would be interested to know that Casablanca was not the film that won him a Best Actor Oscar, even though he was nominated for the part. Another well known film he starred in was The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, which kept in line with the adventurous and daring series of characters he excelled at playing. These two films, along with this week’s two, were all placed on the American Film Institute’s list of Top 100 movies both times that the Institute made the list.

The Maltese Falcon
Year: 1941
Rating: PG
Length: 100 minutes / 1.67 hours

In The Maltese Falcon, Bogart plays the part of Sam Spade, one part of a two-man detective agency. As a detective, the collected Bogart really gets to shine as the best detectives must remain cool and calculating as well as cautious to make sure that they don’t get swayed one way or another, or (even worse) end up dead in the middle of a case. This film is classic noir and if Bogart didn’t set the standard with this role, he certainly set the bar pretty high. After all, he gets the classic last word as he muses over all the events that led to finding, “the stuff that dreams are made of.”

The film starts out with the two-man detective agency becoming the sole responsibility of Sam Spade. As he starts to figure out why his partner was murdered, suddenly a woman by the name of Brigid O’Shaughnessy (Mary Astor) appears, as well as an array of sketchy characters, the leading one being Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre). Soon, the item that ties all these people together is the Maltese Falcon, a rare and extremely valuable statuette that has gone missing. If Sam can find the statue, he can solve much of the mystery swirling around it. But, can he do it before anyone else gets killed? Can he do it before he himself gets killed?

The African Queen
Year: 1951
Rating: Not Rated
Length: 105 minutes / 1.75 hours

When I made my way through the American Film Institute’s top 100 list, I had never heard of The African Queen before. Of course, now that I’ve seen it, I wonder why it’s not as well known as the other Bogart films mentioned in the intro to this post. What some might find surprising is that Bogart won his Best Actor statuette for his role in this movie, and not for his role in Casablanca. While this is understandable, considering the appeal of Casablanca as a whole, The African Queen is certainly Humphrey Bogart’s best performance. But the director (John Huston) already knew that Humphrey was a great actor, otherwise he wouldn’t have cast him in The Maltese Falcon and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre years before.

In The African Queen, Bogart plays Charlie Allnut, an experienced river boat captain who is tasked by the stiff missionary, Rose Sayer (Katherine Hepburn) to get her away from the spot of her brother’s demise at the hands of WWI Germans. Of course, neither person is really comfortable with the arrangement, but since Allnut’s “African Queen” is the only mode of transportation, they’re stuck together for the time being. But that’s always the charm of these kinds of situations. Allnut learns to have some manners instead of drinking his sorrows away and Sayer learns to loosen up a bit from the cold tsundere that single missionary life requires. As they struggle to get the “African Queen” to the nearest lake, an opportunity arises to stick it to the Germans, which both passengers are amiable to.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 great Bogey performances

#017. Better Remakes

benthereseenthat — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:01:26 +0000

If there’s one thing that Hollywood likes to do, it’s re-make films that have been made before (sequels is a close second). Why go through the effort of making up something new, if you just have to re-package an already existing work? Unfortunately, this has led to a major decline in creativity in Hollywood over the last few decades. Many times, the films remade weren’t particularly noteworthy on their first iteration, but occasionally a classic is remade and whole graveyards start spinning. And yet, occasionally there are remakes that out-do the originals. Perhaps they held closer to the source material, or the technology of film had finally advanced to the point where it improved the story. One film that I would like to see be remade is Fahrenheit 451 (1966). I think that with today’s CGI, Ray Bradbury’s vision could be much better represented. But alas, not all films have a chance to be done again with the amount of improvements that this weeks’ two movies have had.

Ocean’s Eleven
Year: 2001
Rating: PG-13
Length: 116 minutes /1.93 hours

There’s no doubt that the 1960 film that featured the ever popular “Rat Pack” was an OK movie in it’s own right. Times were just a little simpler back then. After all, when you get a bunch of singers together in a movie, why wouldn’t they just go around singing? Despite the appeal of the actors, the plot of the film seemed somewhat lacking. Sure, they wanted to pull a heist against a casino, but it seemed more like something to do in their spare time, rather than a focused attack of vengeance. Plus, the security measures in 1960 were certainly not as impressive as they are today. In fact, it seems that all you would need to do to rob a casino in the ’60s would be to cut the power after a clever application of glow-in-the-dark paint, and even that latter part you probably don’t even need.

In the 2001 remake, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) has just gotten out of jail and he’s on a mission to steal from the one man who stole something invaluable from him: his wife, Tess Ocean (Julia Roberts). Of course, when Danny starts gathering people to get back at Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), he’s not looking to complete a four-part harmony like Frank Sinatra was in the original. He needs the right kinds of people to pull off numerous cons simultaneously to get into perhaps the most secure safe in Las Vegas. Instead of just needing someone to cut the power, the 2001 Danny Ocean needs demolition experts, contortionists, cyber-hackers and numerous other experts to get into Terry Benedict’s vault. Are they up to the challenge, or should they go back to 1960, when this whole thing was a lot easier?

The Maltese Falcon
Year: 1941
Rating: PG
Length: 100 minutes / 1.67 hours

Most people are surprised to find out that one of the most iconic movies of all time was itself a remake. What’s even more surprising is that the 1941 version was the third time that this plot (based on a 1930 novel of the same name) had hit the silver screen. The first version of The Maltese Falcon was made in 1931, and while being a sufficient movie, the acting is a little over the top and exaggerated. Continuity errors abound, and too much time is spent reading for a talkie. To top things off, Ricardo Cortez’s portrayal of Sam Spade is a bit too happy, and ends up being borderline goofy. Of course, the 1936 adaptation, Satan Met a Lady goes even further toward making the plot so farcical that one wonders why anyone should even care.

And yet, in 1941, The Maltese Falcon finally got the treatment it deserved. Not only was it nominated for Best Picture, but Best Screenplay as well; which just shows how excellent the plot could be in the right hands. In fact, the America’s Film Institute has ranked it as high as #23 on their list of Top 100 films. Mystery is an interesting motivator, and nothing is more mysterious than the Maltese Falcon, a statue that went missing and now every low-life and their brother wants to get their hands on the avian statuette. Murders and twists abound as Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) tries to piece everything together while also trying to make sure that the Maltese Falcon doesn’t get into the wrong hands. After all, it is the “stuff that dreams are made of.”

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 remakes that outdo their originals

#016. All-Star line-up

benthereseenthat — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:01:50 +0000

Oftentimes, people will go to see a movie merely based on who is in it. After all, almost every movie poster in existence highlights the lead actor or actress as a means to get people into the theater. Generally, these actors and actresses are highlighted because they are good at what they do, be it action, drama, or comedy. They are stars of their profession. So, it stands to reason that if one star can elicit a monetary response from moviegoers, a whole lot of stars could exponentially increase that amount. If one star makes a movie good, a lot of them would make it great! Of course, that’s not always the case, as the 2010 film, The Expendables, shows us that there needs to be cohesion between the stars in order to make a great film. This week’s two films highlight some all-star casts that work well together.

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Year: 1963
Rating: G
Length: 154 minutes / 2.57 hours

The cast list from It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World reads like a “who’s who” of comedy. Spencer Tracy, Milton Berle, Sid Caesar, Ethel Merman, Mickey Rooney, and Buddy Hackett just to name a few. That’s not even mentioning the plethora of other comedy legends that made cameo appearances throughout the film. Jack Benny, Stan Freberg, Buster Keaton, Don Knotts, Jerry Lewis, Carl Reiner, and even the Three Stooges had screen-time in this film. With so many funny people showing up, you just know that the antics of this movie must be absolutely hilarious.

What makes this film so fun, aside from the star-studded cast, is the frantic way that so many people travel in order to arrive first for a chance to find the buried treasure. But I’m getting ahead of myself. The movie starts with a car crash, where it is revealed that the driver was on his way to pick up his hidden treasure of $350,000. The four groups of people who were there to help immediately get the idea that they can strike it rich by finding the treasure. They just have to find it first, by any means possible. Driving, running, flying, boating, or any other method that can get them to the fabled “X” that marks the spot is utilized to fulfill these characters’ lust for money.

Ocean’s Eleven
Year: 2001
Rating: PG-13
Length: 116 minutes /1.93 hours

Where the stars in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World may have gone to Clown College, the “Rat Pack” in the original Ocean’s 11 certainly graduated from the Cool School. The group of singers more commonly referred to as “The Rat Pack” included Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford, and Joey Bishop. The challenge presented to the 2001 remake was to be able to re-create a group of actors that were popular, but made a dynamic team when put together. Of course, they could never replace the Rat Pack, but George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck, Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, Matt Damon and even Carl Reiner (mentioned above) seemed to do a pretty good job, considering.

In the 2001 film, George Clooney plays Danny Ocean, a recently released prisoner (much like the thief in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World) who is ready to settle the score with Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia). A clever con-man, Ocean gathers up some of his usual friends to start planning the biggest heist in Las Vegas history. 3 casinos store all their money in one super-secure vault, and it’s Danny’s goal to take all that money. Why? Because it all belongs to Mr. Benedict. Of course, he can’t do it alone. With his few friends, he gathers more, until there are eleven guys ready to perform an intricate plan to get through the various countermeasures and end up with more money than they’d ever know what to do with.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 great groups of actors

#015. Race!

benthereseenthat — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:01:35 +0000

One of the purest forms of storytelling is the race. There is a clear and defined goal in a race. The conflict easily comes from multiple parties wanting to reach that goal first. While the goal can be almost anything, from a literal finish line, to a buried treasure, to time itself, it always propels the protagonist to hurtle speedily toward that goal. In this society filled with instant gratification, everything happens so fast that it seems like we’re always racing toward something, even if it’s unimportant. I guess that’s just based on some psychological conditioning. Those who are faster, stronger, and smarter tend to win the race, but even those without the aforementioned qualities will do their best, hoping that they can rely on luck to bring them to the finish line. This week’s two movies center around races, and what it takes to reach that goal.

Speed Racer
Year: 2008
Rating: PG
Length: 135 minutes / 2.25 hours

It is blatantly obvious that this movie is about a race. Heck, the main character’s last name is “Racer”, which gives a sense of the family’s priorities in life. Of course, just traversing a course from start to finish would be boring, so to spice things up, the cars are all outfitted in such a way that would make James Bond drool. What’s even better is that there’s not just one race in this movie, but several. All exploring exotic settings and the racetracks that inhabit them. But the real question remains: what drives Speed Racer to race? The film starts with the explanation that he was born to go fast, but is there more to his motivation to win than merely a hereditary characteristic?

Speed Racer starts with the aforementioned explanation of the main character’s ambition and quickly moves to the goal of being the best and fastest driver in the world. But soon, the audience starts to wonder if this goal is to prove something. After turning down a sponsorship from a large corporation in order to stay loyal to the family racing team, it starts to look like he wants to show the quality of a home-grown support system. However, Speed’s older brother Rex died many years ago in a race. Is his desire to be the best racer something to avenge his brother? Is it to show that he can succeed where his brother once failed? Could it be both? As Speed races to the finish lines standing in his way, his opponents don’t make reaching his goal very easy. Despite crippling odds, can Speed Racer be the best driver ever?

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Year: 1963
Rating: G
Length: 154 minutes / 2.57 hours

“Greed . . . for lack of a better word . . . is good.” While these words from the 1987 film Wall Street refer to insider trading and the lack of scruples in stock brokering, they could be reapplied to this classic film by adding “for comedy!” It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is a must see for anyone who wants a good laugh and is one of the foundations of good comedic films. In fact, not only did The Simpsons heavily reference this movie in the season 5 episode, “Homer the Vigilante”, but it was remade in 2001 as Rat Race. Of course, with an all star cast of comedic legends, it’s no wonder why some consider it to be the funniest film of all time.

Even by today’s standards, $350,000 is a sizable amount of money that I’m certain people would gladly fight over. As it would just so happen, that exact amount of money is up for grabs to four different groups of people who try to help at a car accident. The accident was caused when a thief, freshly released from jail, hurriedly drives his car too fast and happens to drive off a cliff. This thief is trying to get to where his horde is stashed from before he was caught. As more and more people learn of the prize, the race becomes more and more ridiculous. What could have been a simple act of sharing spirals out of control as everyone tries to be the first to make it to the “X” that marks the spot.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 photo finishes

#014. Anime Stylings

benthereseenthat — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 06:01:46 +0000

Certain genres tend to stick toward a specific artistic style. The animation style that is most prevalent in Japan is more commonly known as anime. While this style is often times made fun of by those not familiar with it, it does hold to some pretty cliche themes. Weird hair colors, under and over-exaggerated motions, constant shouting, bad lip-syncs, epileptic backgrounds. All these things are usually associated with anime. And while it is true that these things still exist to a certain extent, the anime genre as a whole has gotten better over the years. I think that the one reason people don’t take anime seriously is that they don’t take animation seriously. Animation is usually thought of as childish and juvenile. And while anime occasionally does dabble in these things, it can be much more serious and thought-provoking than people give it credit for. This weeks’ two movies show that we may be starting to accept this artistic style as more than just a Saturday morning cartoon.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Year: 2010
Rating: PG-13
Length: 112 minutes / 1.87 hours

In terms of entertainment, Japan is mainly known for two things: video games and anime. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World references both. In fact, the source material for this movie was a six volume graphic novel series that was done in a similar style to that of Japanese manga. Manga is generally a black and white comic book format that is most commonly found in weekly publications like Weekly Shounen Jump or graphic novel volumes that have collected the weekly installments in a convenient book form. Even though the Scott Pilgrim series doesn’t hold to the Japanese convention of being read from right to left since it was never a translation from the eastern languages; never-the-less, the books do hold to much of the same manga style, which is then taken and converted into anime.

The anime style is readily apparent in this film for those who are familiar with it. In order to help the reader understand the action on the page, manga will usually turn to the help of sound effects. These are usually written around or near the action to give an idea of the sound that would be made. Most people would correlate this to the “Pow!” and “Sock!” of the campy 60′s Batman series. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World has these sound effects appear visually throughout. The battle sequences in this film also mimic those found in anime and include such cliche bits as glowing eyes, flying multi-combo attacks, and heavily choreographed swordplay. Those who are familiar with the anime style find it entertaining, but perhaps those who are not familiar may be given a glimpse into a much wider world of animation from the east.

Speed Racer
Year: 2008
Rating: PG
Length: 135 minutes / 2.25 hours

If you were to ask anyone, even those not familiar with anime, what the most well known 60′s anime is, they would undoubtedly tell you that it was Speed Racer. And while purists of the series would tell you that the movie adaptation is an abomination, there is still much of the anime’s style that was adopted for the film. In fact, the anime style of the original show has often been made fun of (most notably on Family Guy) because many corners were cut in the early years of weekly animation. And yet, the anime style was founded with shows like Speed Racer. This film was made by the Wachowski Brothers, who also are well known for the Matrix trilogy, which also had it’s fair share of anime influence.

The plot of the film follows Speed (Emile Hirsch), who was born to race. As he gains wins with his family-based crew, the big sponsors start to take notice. The biggest sponsor, Royalton Industries, is taken aback that Speed would reject their ludicrous offer and soon Speed finds out that the racing world wasn’t quite what he thought it was. Still haunted by the death of his brother Rex (Scott Porter), Speed decides to take a less legitimate route to obtain his dream of being the best racer in the world. Fortunately, the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox) lends his support to Speed as he tries to root out the unethical practices controlling the races behind the scenes. It all comes down to one last race: will Speed be able to win against the unscrupulous odds placed against him, or will he end up another casualty like his brother?

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 nods to anime roots

#013. Video Game plots

benthereseenthat — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:01:25 +0000

Despite what you might want to think, there are only so many plot structures out there. Romances usually have two people struggle until they finally end up together. Action movies have a lot of explosions and fighting until the good guy wins. Even the plots that rely on twists have to rely on a structure. Now, I will grant you that there are some that defy their structures, to varied amounts of success. However, it’s sometimes fun to watch a movie that has a familiar structure while you try and figure out how it will end in order to keep the continuity of the genre. This weeks two movies rely on the plot structure more commonly found in video games than in reality.

Kill Bill 1 & 2
Year: 2003/04
Rating: R
Length: 247 minutes / 4.12 hours (111 minutes & 136 minutes)

The Kill Bill movies rely heavily on an eastern influence. It becomes very obvious that the katanas, anime, ninjas, and martial arts come from a world very different from the one that most Americans can connect with. And yet, the Japanese influence on gaming has given us many pop culture references that are still known to this day. Case in point, when The Bride (Uma Thurman) receives her iconic sword at the beginning of Volume 1, I could just hear in the back of my head, “It’s dangerous to go alone. Take this!” And yet, the structure of the films fits so well to the plots of most video games. Most games will have a boss character, who controls many minions in an increasing level of difficulty. Occasionally you’d have to face off against one of the mini-bosses, who usually had some sort of connection to the final boss. Upon defeating the final boss, the protagonist has reached their goal, attaining whatever it was that they set out to do or get in the first place.

In Kill Bill, our “Player 1″ is known as “The Bride”. She was once a part of an assassination squad led by Bill (David Carradine). Bill is our final boss. When the assassins betrayed The Bride, she set out to take revenge on each of them. Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) are the first to be defeated, the latter of which made The Bride hack her way through an army of ninjas before finally allowing her to face off against her. Next up is Bill’s brother, Budd (Michael Madsen), followed by Bill’s new lover, Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah). Each subsequent boss battle brings The Bride closer to Bill’s inner circle. Finally, she arrives at the final boss and uses her secret technique to finish him off. The saga ends with The Bride driving away with her prize.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Year: 2010
Rating: PG-13
Length: 112 minutes / 1.87 hours

There is absolutely no doubt that this film takes its cues from classic video games. All the tropes are there. Combo attacks, coin rewards, extra lives, bonus levels. Even the announcer shouting “K.O!” A guy like myself, who grew up on console video games really enjoyed the little bits of style that were influenced by familiar games like Street Fighter, The Legend of Zelda, and Super Mario Bros. However, where this movie differs from film adaptations of these video games (like Street Fighter or Super Mario Bros.) is that it embraced its roots. I do realize that Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was not a video game, but that’s where I think it gained some of its charm. Instead of trying to be serious, it let loose and had a little fun.

The weird thing about Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is that it is unconventional while at the same time holding to many familiar video game conventions. If relationships were video games, this movie would be the magnum opus. The film starts with Scott (Michael Cera) dating a 17-year old, that is until he goes to a party and meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). He immediately falls for Ramona, but soon learns that in order to keep her, he must defeat her seven evil exes. Each successive fight becomes more challenging until suddenly, Ramona decides to go back to her most recent ex: the final boss, Gideon Graves (Jason Schwartzman). Does Scott have what it takes to get Ramona back? Will she want to come back? This is where convention is thrown out the window: if you defeat the final boss, you aren’t guaranteed to rescue the princess.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 final boss fights

#012. Two-part films

benthereseenthat — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 06:01:00 +0000

Attention spans aren’t what they used to be. Time was when you would go to a movie and it would be four hours long, including an overture and intermission. This trend has gone back almost to the beginning of cinema itself. In fact, the 1916 silent epic, Intolerance was a whopping 3 hours and 30 minutes long. I know people who can hardly sit through an hour of silent film, let alone 3 ½ times that amount. At any rate, the more modern trend is to release two movies which compose a larger narrative. While this is largely done in relation to literary adaptations, in order to include as much as possible, occasionally a filmmaker’s vision is much too large for a normal audience to sit through. This week’s movies are films that were broken into two parts, but should be watched together as a whole.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 1 & 2
Year: 2010/11
Rating: PG-13
Length: 276 minutes / 4.6 hours (146 minutes & 130 minutes)

It seems that these two movies kind of opened up the realm of “two-part” films as of late. Other literary works that have followed suit are the Twilight series conclusion, Breaking Dawn, and the prequel to the Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit. In fact, even though the books that made up the Lord of the Rings were all split into two parts each, the films themselves were not divided in the same way. This means that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows started this recent trend. If you think about splitting a movie into two parts in a marketing sense, it’s brilliant. All of these films are from huge franchises that already have made more money than should be possible. By breaking up the films into two parts, you automatically double the amount of money made on these adaptations. And people will pay for it, because they think that with two films, all the important parts of their favorite books can be covered, and the adaptation can be a faithful representation of the source material.

The great part about splitting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows into two parts is that the first part can provide a lot of the explanation and exposition of the plot so that by the time the audience would get to the second part, all that remains is the action and epic battles that the first part led up to. The Dark Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has finally taken control of the Ministry of Magic and with the death of Hogwarts’ headmaster, Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), little stands in Voldemort’s way to rule the world of magic. That is, not unless Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends have anything to say about it. As Voldemort gathers his forces to launch a final assault on Hogwarts, Harry sets out to destroy the Horcruxes, items that give Voldemort his immortality. During his search, he learns of the Deathly Hallows, the three most powerful magic items ever created. Unfortunately, Voldemort now possesses one of the Deathly Hallows, the Elder Wand (which is the link between the two movies), and it’s merely a race against time for Harry and his fellow classmates to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes, thereby giving them a slight chance for victory against Voldemort.

Kill Bill 1 & 2
Year: 2003/04
Rating: R
Length: 247 minutes / 4.12 hours (111 minutes & 136 minutes)

When Quentin Tarantino made Kill Bill, his original intention was that the four hour film would be shown in its entirety. When the general public heard that the running time was just over four hours, they balked. Even Lawrence of Arabia was just over three and a half hours, and even that was separated by an intermission. While I agree that watching both films in their entirety keeps the director’s original intent, four hours is a long time. However, I have known many people who have had marathons of their favorite film series, including Star Wars, Back to the Future, and the aforementioned Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings series. It stands to reason that two films watched back-to-back is much easier to sit through than three, six, or even eight films in a row.

As is the case with other two-part films, the first part of Kill Bill sets up the premise, while the second part brings the plot to conclusion. Even though the plot of Kill Bill is somewhat simple, the act of revenge can quickly get complicated. When the woman merely known as “The Bride” (Uma Thurman) awakes from a coma, she finds that her baby that she was carrying before going into the coma is now gone. Fortunately, she has no doubt in her mind who is to blame: her former boss, Bill (David Carradine). Bill led an assassination squad, of which The Bride was a part. The group’s betrayal and attempted murder of The Bride failed, and now she’s on a path of vengeance to get her baby back and to repay her former coworkers in kind. By the end of Volume 1, the only members left of the group are the two members closest to Bill, and the ringmaster himself. Does she have what it takes to finish the job? Volume 2 gives the exciting conclusion.

2 sum it up: 2 films cut into 2 parts each