No this isn't a review of the Man With No Name trilogy. In this particular review, I had the pleasure of watching the following three films: Slumdog Millionaire, Where The Wild Things Are and The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. All three films I was intrigued by but ultimately hesitant to watch because of different reasons. Having had them finally come around on the movie channels, I PVR'd them right away and with bated breath I dove in. So without further adieu:
Slumdog Millionaire:
My hesitation towards watching this flick stems from a guilty admission. My admission is this, quite often while I can appreciate social commentary films, I quite often find that I don't eagerly seek out such stories because I err on the side of wanting to be entertained over educated. For documentaries, or avant-garde films, and similar ilk features, I have to be in a certain mindset to dive into them. I have my minor in film and media studies which included more than enough films such as one where I had to watch water drip into a pot in a kitchen sink for an hour and a half, then write a 10 page paper on the meaning of it. So believe you me, that I have earned the right to be a little weary at pretentious 'art' films from time to time.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't presume Slumdog Millionaire to be a pretentious art film, but it was treading a fine line from the marketing I saw of trying to be more than it was. Every time some new "thing" results in cult-like waves of praise (i.e. Harry Potter, Iphone 4, Lost) I tend to avoid them like the plague because I don't enjoy being a lemming. That being said, I will eventually cautiously dip my toes in the preverbial water and try to give an honest go at drawing my own conclusions. This was the case with Slumdog Millionaire. It came out, and suddenly everyone was saying how fantastic and poignant the film was, which immediately puts my guard up. Is the film actually decent or is it "great" simply because its hip and cool to say it is, and everyone will think, "Oooh look how cultured I am, I watched Slumdog Millionaire." Not that there is anything wrong with that, but sometimes films are lauded as being great but are really absolute sheeite but everyone is afraid to say so.
So now that I have pre-empted the crap out of this review, what are the pros of Slumdog Millionaire that were in its favor for genuinely being a decent flick? Well Danny Boyle is a major plus. Even his films that miss the mark are often still leaps and bounds ahead of most Hollywood drivel that is being released on the masses. That and the hints in the ads that it was at it's core a love story. Those who know me (despite my wife's claims of me being a robot) know that I am hapless romantic. I am a proud sap, and can, more often than not, appreciate a solid love story. Princess Bride, French Kiss, Quigley Down Under, are all examples of fantastic stories with a love story at its heart. I know, I know, all previous credibility I had has just gone out the window.
Anyhow, so how was the bloody film already, you are no doubt asking? Well it was surprising good. It was far from perfect, there were parts of the story that felt unnecessary and kind of boring or confusing as to what it added to the story, but on a whole it sucked me in and I enjoyed it. It didn't at first though, it was a slow burn that gradually piqued my interest until about 3/4 of the way in I realized I was hooked. I needed to know how the story of Jamal and Latika ended up. So simple the words, "It's written." added such a wonderful sense of fantasy to the film, it took it from a mere story of woe, to an inspiring "please let the stars align!" hope.
The downside, well, Salim's story was never quite as weighty as it should of been. I don't know if it was story, acting, or combination of both, but I wanted Salim to be a much stronger character with much more gravitas to his actions which would have added more confliction to his actions and quest for personal gain. Instead it came across as one dimensional selfishness except in a couple of isolated instances.
As for social accuracy and validity of the portrayal of India? Well that's not for me as a born and raised westerner who is in no position to speak of things I know not about. I did like that rather than exploitative the portrayal of the slums was presented in more of a "matter of fact" style whereas it could have been the entire focus of the film. Instead the slums became as much a character and served to establish the characters personalities no different than if the setting had been about a couple of caucasian preppy kids attending a boarding school, or suburban hipster kids in Toronto. The setting of India was simultaneously fascinating, scary and rife with the notion of hope and prosperity on par with any Capra films portraying America in similar light.
Was it Hollywood-ized? Yeah no doubt. I have only watched a handful of Bollywood films, but enough to know that conventional story archs are not in the vein of Slumdog Millionaire. There has been some contention over this, and how it should have been more "Indian" and even so far as to chastize the film for the use of English. Again I have no real authority to comment, but my two cents are this, by taking such a direction, many more people were able to experience this film which is no doubt outside of many people's comfort zones. So was a greater travesty committed by using conventions that make it more relatable to a broader (albeit Western) audience or should it have strove to be more authentic (despite being helmed by a caucasian Brit)?
Final verdict: The film was far from the masterpiece it was heralded to be, but is it a decent romantic tale that takes a long time to hit it's stride? Yes. A surprise gem, in that I expected to be much more disappointed and less pleasantly surprised.
Add to the vault?: Doubtful. I won't soon forget the story of Jamal and Latika, but I fear on second viewing it risks to lose more of its charm by being scrutinized further.
Next up:
Where the Wild Things Are:
This was a film I was afraid to watch for a different reason. This is a film guilty of having a truly incredible trailer. Now it may be more affecting of males than females, again I can't comment on that, but for me it gave me chills from the emphasis on a child's imagination, the choice of music, and the fear of growing up. As a young lad, I spent the majority of my youth with my head in the clouds, the river valley wood's near my home was my playground where I waged countless battles, fought inumerable monsters and saved a million or so damsels in distress. Imagination is something I hold very dear to my heart and in this day and age I weep for children that have all their imagination handed to them electronically.
So I liked the film right? Nope. It was a severe let down. Again, like Slumdog, it was generally well received and people were all, "Wow, it's like I am reading the book on screen!" *insert facepalm here*
What did it do right? The costuming, the effects, the cast. All top notch and no qualms here. However...
What did it do wrong? Everything else. Now I am not a "Where the Wild Things are" purist. Heck, I can't quote a single line from the book, unlike Steph who was able to pick out direct lines from the book in the movie. So I am not invested in the source material, I do know that with the original story being like 40 pages long with only a few lines on each page, they obviously took some liberties. The story though is what was essentially wrong. I felt like visually I went on a journey to a far off island with strange creatures, but emotionally, intellectually there was no voyage. No one felt like they sincerely learned anything, all the characters were essentially the same as they were at the beginning (which is to say... annoying), and two hours later I was all but asleep. How could a story so rooted in the very essence of imagination fail to evoke any real sense of whimsy or escapism. Max and the Wild Things, did not learn greater things about themselves, there was no coming of age tale about a boy learning to deal with life's frustrations while clutching desperately to maintain the innocence of youth. There was solely an island full of socially defunct "patients" all in dire need of some psychological and possible pharmaceutical therapy, while possibly bi-polar Max gets to go back home and enjoy some cake.
Are we really left to believe that Carol won't get emo again in another day or two and eventually eat all of his fellow islanders? No? Tell that to Douglas who nearly frightened Steph with images of Titus Andronicus near the end.
But the creatures are supposed to be scary, we shouldn't dumb down real emotions and frustrations for youth: I concur entirely, but at the heart of any decent children's story is a parable, or some similar learning about self or the world around you. It can be frightening (i.e. Grimms' original stories) but you ultimately come away from such tales with deeper insight. Not so with this flick. Now some of you may argue that I just didn't get it. Fair enough but I encourage you to tell me how. I saw the images, the nuances and the subtlety that was displayed, but am I convinced that a story arc actually occurred? No.
Final Verdict: Read the book. If you have kids, read the book to the kids, and many more. Don't let movies try and tell the tales that books have done so well for so long. If you want to enjoy the effects, go ahead and rent it.
Add to the vault?: No, not likely. Once was more than enough.
Finally:
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Ah Terry Gilliam. Such an amazingly creative and inspirational guy who has the world's worst luck to make movies and tell stories. In what is largely only known as Heath Ledger's last role before his untimely demise at the hand of one of the Olsen twins, The Imaginarium is rife with the hassles and set backs of any of Gilliam's efforts. I was hesitant to watch this film because often studio intervention, or Gilliam's own eccentricities make decent ideas into poor executions.
I will admit I didn't know much about the flick except that it had something to do with a travelling "act" and that weird crazy stuff happens. Oh and Heath Ledger is played also by Colin Farrell, Johnny Depp and Jude Law. So I did not have any real expectations of the film, and again it sounded like it would be pretentious and bizarre for the sake of being bizarre.
Well I was pleasantly surprised. The film was again far from perfect and would have benefitted from some tweaking of the story, and ultimately Heath Ledger not dying, but it was definitely a very satisfying film on the whole. This was if anything, what I wanted Where the Wild Things Are to be. A parable, which at it's basest level, was a variation on god and the devil playing chess, with a healthy dose of Doctor Faustus thrown in for good measure. This was a film that truly explored the depths of imagination (yet I still wanted more) and illustrated the merit and wonder of the unknown, largely thought to be absent from today's technologically dependent society.
The film gets a passing grade for the first 2/3 of the story, with the third act unfortunately feeling rushed and forced. While the third act was not as impressive as the rest of the film, the message still gets across and I found myself content when pushing "delete" on the remote.
I feel I should add, that this film further illustrated how sad it was that Heath Ledger was taken too soon, as I remember seeing him first in "Ten things I hate about you" and watching his career progress to the superb performance as the Joker in The Dark Night. He was definitely just hitting his stride and had vast potential. Truly a shame.
I don't have much more to add about the film, the synopsis won't do it justice. The best way I think to watch it was, like me, to go in without any preconceived notions about what to expect and let Terry Gilliam spin his yarn, if you will. This was a film that felt like a bedtime story, and if you allow it, you will find your imagination flowing too.
Final Verdict: Very nice. Another hidden gem but not without its flaws.
Add to the vault?: As you may have noticed, my determination is whether a film stands multiple repeat viewings, or guilty rainy day pleasures, and the list despite what my wife may say otherwise, is actually quite short. I love films, but not all films are so fantastic to be kept on hand, always at an arm's length away so as to take me on a trip again and again like a golden memory. This film if it had a solid third act, could have made the list, but instead I will pass on owning it, but if I see it on TV again in 5 years time or so, I would definitely record it for another jaunt.
