Aeon Flux

Posted on December 4, 2005 at 3:31 pm

Maybe it’s just that my expectations were so low because it was not screened for critics (meaning the studios did not think they would get even one good review), but “Aeon Flux” was not so bad. A little boring, yes, especially in the middle section, a little silly and pretentious, yes, we could have done with a little Serenity-style attitude (and especially some Serenity-style dialogue). But we’ve got repressive bad guys and rebel forces, guns, explosions, stunts, some very cool special effects, and Charlize Theron in a skin-tight black outfit low in the front and laced up down the back. There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours at the movies. So when it comes to atrocious Oscar-winners-turned-iconic-action-heroines movies go, Catwoman is still the clear winner.

Aoen (pronounced EE-on) Flux (Theron) lives in a small, walled-in community 400 years in the future. They are the only humans on earth following a devastating virus that wiped out 99 percent of the population. A doctor named Goodchild discovered a cure for the virus and his desendents still control the community. On its surface, it seems idyllic, but the Goodchild regime is oppresive. There are secrets, including the whereabouts of people who just disappear.

Flux says “I had a family once. I had a life. Now all I have is a mission.” Her family has been killed, and she has devoted herself to the rebel forces, which communicate via pills that sort of psychically transport them to a glowing white chamber where they appear before their leader (Frances McDormand with red hair that looks like she stuck her finger in a light socket).

Aeon and her hand-footed (yes, she has hands for feet) pal Sithandra (Sophie Okonedo of Hotel Rwanda and Dirty Pretty Things) are ordered to assassinate Goodchild. This involves infiltrating a compound surrounded by some lethal vegetation — something that looks like a melon crossed with a machine gun and some grass that takes the term “blades” very literally.

But when Aeon sees Goodchild, she hesitates. He seems to know her. She seems to know him. And he seems not to be the bad guy she thought.

It turns out that both Aeon and Goodchild have more to fear from their friends than their enemies. It also turns out that this perfect on the outside-fascist on the inside society has some secrets to reveal.

On the road to all of these discoveries are some showy stunts and action sequences involving swoopy summersaults and slo-mo running. This is one of those perfect on the outside-fascist on the inside societies where everything happens in huge, cavernous spaces for no particular reason except that it’s a cool setting. They don’t seem to have phones; when they aren’t communicating via telepathic pills, they use a sort of directory assistance that’s a computer voice accessed while standing in a huge empty room the size of a cathedral.

All of this sounds like fun to watch, and it is. But there are three significant problems that keep it from working. First, it never finds the right tone. It takes itself too seriously to be fun but does not have enough complexity to be meaningful. It needs wit and attitude badly. This takes us to problem number two: cardboard dialogue of the “Let’s be careful. You know what we’re up against” genre. It does no good to create a visually arresting scene (even with a very visually arresting leading lady) if you’re going to weigh it all down with talk like that. All of this means that there’s a long dull stretch through the middle — problem number three. It’s not a bad time-waster, especially for fans of the genre, and Theron’s lithe dancer’s body and hurt-but-determined expression and some well-staged stunts are quite watchable, but — trying to avoid a spoiler here, so stop reading if you want to be surprised — ultimately it suffers from the same lack of originality as its characters.

Parents should know that this movie has a great deal of comic book-style action violence including guns and explosions. Characters are shot, punched, stabbed, kicked, and impaled and some are injured and killed. There are some graphic injuries and a couple of gross moments. There is a non-explicit sexual encounter. A strength of the movie is its portrayal of diverse characters, including very strong women.

Families who see this movie should talk about the ethical concerns involved in the choices made by Goodchild and his brother. What do the names tell you about the characters?

Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy the Aeon Flux animated series as well as the Matrix series, and other dystopic future sagas from Soylent Green to Blade Runner.

Casanova

Posted on November 22, 2005 at 10:40 am

C+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for some sexual content
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	Action peril and violence
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	2005
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000EDWKXI

Mistake number one may be the title. There may be times in history when it is possible to have an appealing lead character whose primary interest in life is women, but this doesn’t seem to be it.

For centuries, people have been fascinated by Casanova, an 18th century adventurer who made and lost fortunes, escaped from prison, worked as a cleric and a spy, and whose legendary romances with hundreds of woman, as detailed in his autobiography, have made his name a label (both scornful and admiring) for generations of lotharios. His legend has inspired a number of films going back to a 1918 silent version, including portrayals by Donald Sutherland (in Il Casanova di Federico Fellini and by Richard Chamberlain in Casanova — and even impersonated by Bob Hope in Casanova’s Big Night).

In this film, Casanova’s womanizing is attributed to youthful high spirits and a supposedly endearing inability to turn down any woman who is enraptured by his charms — meaning any woman. Director Lasse Hallstrom recognizes that contemporary audiences will not have much patience with this, so he hedges his bets, making his Casanova (Heath Ledger) just a hopeless romantic ready to become completely faithful when he meets the right woman. Having abandoned the real-life Casanova’s most defining characteristic, Hallstrom and Ledger might have been better off creating a completely fictional character.

The fundamental disconnect in the personality of the movie’s hero runs straight into a collision with the movie’s tone. It tries to be a mildly post-modern version of a very traditional door-slamming farce, with a headache-inducing mish-mash of false identities and near-misses, all of which seem more of a distraction than an entertainment. Even the pleasures of on-location scenery in Venice are diminished by staging so artificial it might as well be a stage set.

Then there is mistake number two — an idea which must have seemed daring in a story conference — casting the ravishing Sienna Miller as Francesca Bruni, the spirited feminist heroine (so far, so good) but doing its best to make her look plain so we would appreciate how much Casanova loves her for her mind and spirit. Miller is still anything but ordinary, but for this kind of high-gloss romp, she there should have been no stinting on the glamour.

For the same reason, despite its subject matter, this might also have worked better as a PG-13. The sexual material in the film is not as explicit as many R-rated films, but given the choices of scenes, it is explicit enough to detract from the light-hearted and romantic tone the film is trying for.

There are moments, though, when it does achieve that light-hearted and romantic tone, and it rises like the hot-air balloon Casanova and Francesca take for a ride. Oliver Platt is sweetly silly as a clueless but open-hearted suitor, Jeremy Irons purples it up as a draconian Inquisitor, and Lena Olin contributes one of the movie’s most genuinely romantic moments as a woman who is surprised to find herself capable of being smitten. And it has swordfights and scenery and smooches. It isn’t a very good movie and it makes some fatally poor choices, but audiences in search of a cinematic bon bon may find its failures forgiveable.

Parents should know that this is the highly fictionalized story of one of the most notorious womanizers in history. While it is a light-hearted portrayal, the movie is about promescuity and what might in a less silly movie be called debauchery. The movie includes frequent sexual references and situations, some strong language, and drinking.

Families who see this movie should talk about why Casanova felt differently about Francesca than he did about the other women he had met.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the Oscar-winning Tom Jones and Shakespeare in Love.

Flightplan

Posted on September 19, 2005 at 8:13 pm

It’s always a bad sign in a thriller when the big reveal is greeted by hoots of derisive laughter, and that’s what happened at this movie. It’s an even worse sign when two-time Oscar winner Jodie Foster is out-acted by a child who is missing or unconscious for most of the movie, but that happened, too.

Just-widowed Kyle Pratt (Foster) is flying from Berlin to New York with her 6-year-old, Julia (Marlene Lawston), taking her husband’s casket home to be buried. They are exhausted and shaken, so they find some empty rows in the back of the plane and go to sleep. When Kyle wakes up, Julia is gone. As she searches the plane, getting more and more worried, the attitude of the flight attendants shifts from helpful to wary to hostile. It seems there is no evidence that Julia ever boarded the plane. A federal air marshall travelling undercover believes Kyle is delusional, and so does the captain. Kyle starts to wonder if they could be right.

Then it all veers into a level of preposterousness that would be too silly to go into even if it didn’t contain spoilers. There are some tense moments, but unlike the other recent airplane thriller, “Red Eye,” this one never creates a sense of claustrophobic containment. Kyle, an engineer who helped to design this aircraft, the largest ever, understands the blueprints well enough to know where to look, and as she keeps exploring new places, some of which appear positively cavernous, it dissipates the tension. So do the below-par one-note performances from Foster, Sarsgaard, and Sean Bean (as the pilot). This film may be called “Flightplan,” but it never takes flight and there is nothing that rises to the dignity of a plan of any kind. Discuss. But don’t bother with the movie.

Parents should know that this movie has intense peril and violence, including shooting, explosions, and references to murder, suicide, kidnapping, and molestation. There is some strong language, though less than average for a PG-13. A strength of the movie is its portrayal of a strong woman and the way it raises the issue of bigotry when some passengers assume that the Middle Eastern men on the airplane must be untrustworthy.

Families who see this movie should talk about how national security issues have affected the way people feel about air travel. They should also talk about the various arguments Kyle used and which ones were most persuasive.

Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy some of the far-better disappearing person classics, especially The Lady Vanishes (from which this film lifts one of its key clues), Bunny Lake is Missing, and So Long at the Fair, as well as Foster’s last Mother Courage performance in Panic Room all of which have vastly more satisfying conclusions than this one.

Related Tags:

“Gothika Rule” Action/Adventure Drama

War of the Worlds

Posted on June 26, 2005 at 1:50 pm

“Is it the terrorists?” a frightened child asks, because that is the scariest thing she knows. But what makes this thing scary is that it is something no one knows. It is beyond our knowledge, even beyond our imagination. Earth is under attack and no one knows by whom or what they want.

These are not the “let’s play musical notes together” aliens of Close Encounters of the Third Kind or the Reese’s Pieces-loving, bicycle-flying botanist alien from E.T.: The Extraterrestrial. There’s no “Take me to your leader,” or Klaatu Barada Niktu. These aliens don’t even want to keep humans on as slave labor as in Battlefield Earth. They don’t want us to understand or negotiate with them. It does not seem to be about power or plunder. They just want to destroy us. As one character says, “This is not a war any more than there’s a war between men and maggots. It’s an extermination.”

Steven Spielberg knows two things better than anyone else who ever made a movie, and both are in top form here. First is his extraordinarily evocative sense of family life, the way every detail of home and connection (even, maybe especially the most frayed of connections) tell the story and make us care about it. A ribbon, a mirror, a boot, a box of family photographs, a Beach Boys song –- the juxtaposition of the ordinary with the unthinkable sustains a “golly” factor that grabs our throats and our hearts at the same time.

The special effects in the movie are dazzling. Just when we thought that we were so accustomed to the limitless wonders of CGI that we could never be stunned in a theater again, Spielberg just plain knocks our socks off. My husband counted eight spontaneous “Oh my Gods” coming from me during the movie. It isn’t just that it all looks real, seamlessly integrating the effects. It’s that what looks so real is so “Oh my God.”

The images are fresh and imaginative and yet perfectly believable, mixing the normal with the inconceivable, from the vast alien machines to the buckling of the earth and the apocalyptic landscapes. The most vivid images are when we see the trappings of everyday life transformed. In one moment of complete insanity, the bells at a railroad crossing start to clang, and the striped barriers come down as though it is a perfectly ordinary day and the commuter train is about to arrive on schedule. Everyone stops and takes a breath and then the train comes in, filled with flames.

Spielberg’s other great trick is his mastery of scale, and again, that use of context brings the story literally home. At least half of the “Oh my Gods” were responses to wow-style reveals of new threats, new invasions.

And Spielberg makes invasion into a theme, from the very beginning, when with stunning economy he sets the stage for all that is to come.

Our hero-to-be, Ray (Tom Cruise) arrives home late. His ex-wife Mary Ann (Miranda Otto), pregnant by her new husband, is standing there with a hand on her hip. The new husband is handsome, a little sleek-looking in a black turtleneck, but clearly so nice you can’t even bring yourself to hate him, though Ray has clearly tried. Even though the ex-wife is late, she decides to carry their daughter’s suitcase into Ray’s house. Ray is very uncomfortable as she opens his all-but-empty refrigerator and peeks into his messy bedroom. He feels invaded. His children seem alien. And yet, in one of the most understated but meaningful moments in the movie, a shared joke between Ray and Mary Ann shows us a glimpse of Ray’s asperity and resolve.

But all of that is under the surface. When we meet him, Ray has long been used to disappointing people. It is not clear which is worse, the sullen animosity of his son Robbie (Ray wears a Yankees baseball cap; Robbie pulls out one with a Red Sox logo) or the patient lack of expectations from his daughter, Rachel (Dakota Fanning). But when it becomes clear that something very, very bad is happening, Ray will do anything to keep his family safe. This will be his story more than it is the story of the battles. The movie is at heart, well, heart.

And Cruise does heart well. He and Fanning anchor the film with outstanding performances of conviction and charisma. Rachel’s protection of her “space” and Ray’s efforts to care for her memory and spirit all echo the invasion theme. The story moves well from the large scale destruction of a city to a small-scale intrusion into a shattered basement retreat occupied by three people. Throughout, the focus is on Spielberg’s favorite subject, the family as fortress. The government barely exists, the army is dedicated and honorable but overmatched.

And, as Ray points out, the humans are almost as dangerous as the aliens. Ray is not the only one who will do anything to keep his family alive and the ochlochratic chaos means that nowhere is safe.

The story is affecting, the action scenes are thrilling, the issues are resonant. Yet it is not ultimately as satisfying as less skillful movies like Independence Day. It may be wiser and it may have more artistic validity, but summer explosion movies call out for a more complete resolution than the Wells book allows. A valid but subtle point is lost, not for lack of respectful presentation, but perhaps because ot it.

Spoilers alert: Parents should know that this is an extremely tense and intense movie, with constant peril and violence. Many characters are killed. Many are neatly vaporized, but there are scenes with dead bodies, a brutal off-camera murder, a death by impalement, guns, grenades, lasers, and other weapons, and some grisly images. Characters use brief strong language. There are tense confrontations between family members. Some viewers will find the behavior of the humans more disturbing than that of the aliens.

Someone once said that the aliens in movies tell us more about what we are thinking about than about any likely real-life extraterrestrials. The UFO movies of the cold war era were, under this analysis, a reflection of our fears about communism and the atomic bomb — with the 1956 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Day the Earth Stood Still as examples, contrasted with the more benign aliens of Spielberg’s other movies. What does this movie tell us about our current fears?

Families who see this movie should talk about how the story has changed since it was originally written by H.G. Wells more than 100 years ago. How was that era’s interest in the relatively recent scientific discoveries reflected in the book and how has the current version used modern concerns to connect to a contemporary audience? What do you think about the balance of the story between the action and the personal drama as Ray’s character has to become more responsible and
find a way to communicate with his children. How did both parts of the story help each other? In a situation like this, who do you help? Who do you accept help from?

Families who appreciate this film may enjoy listening to the legendary Orson Welles broadcast. This version of the book has the radio script as well. The text is also available online at Project Gutenberg. The new version has a small tribute to the George Pal movie. They will also enjoy Independence Day, one of the all-time best alien invasion movies, and they might get a kick out of Battlefield Earth, one of the worst, and Signs, one that has a bit of both.

Peter Pan

Posted on December 14, 2003 at 7:45 am

Oh, the cleverness of storyteller James M. Barrie, who gave us Peter Pan, Captain Hook, Tinkerbell, a St. Bernard nanny, Tiger Lily, and the crocodile that ticks because it swallowed a clock! And oh, the cleverness of P.J. Hogan, the director and co-screenwriter who has brought us this sumptuously beautiful re-telling of the classic story that maintains its timeless charm.

This is the story of Wendy Darling and her brothers Michael and John, who fly to Neverland with Peter Pan, the boy who would not grow up. Neverland has pirates, mermaids, and no baths, bedtimes, or schoolwork.

But there are no mothers, either, and without mothers, there are no stories. So Peter leaves Neverland at night to come listen to the stories that Wendy tells her brothers. One night, his shadow is caught in the window. When he comes back to get it, Wendy sews it back on, and Peter invites the Darling children to fly with him back to Neverland and tell stories to the Lost Boys. There Wendy and her brothers meet up with the Lost Boys, and battle Captain Hook (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter’s” Lucius Malfoy).

The production design is simply gorgeous. A storybook Victorian London is imagined with exquisite period detail. Even state-of-the-art special effects like flying and computer graphics are consistently conceived and gratifyingly believable. The jarring notes are Peter’s (unforgiveably) American accent and some anachronistic-sounding music. Swimming Pool’s Ludivine Sagnier does her best, but Tinkerbell is probably best portrayed as a spot of light. And some Pan lovers will object to a bit of gentle tweaking of the story. But it is not so much to be politically correct or bring it up to date as it is to remove any distractions from what in today’s view would be seen as sexism.

The story is about growing up, after all, and it is not a coincidence that Wendy flies away with Peter on what is supposed to be her last night sleeping in the nursery with her brothers before she must start to become a young lady. But even though, like her mother, Wendy has a kiss hiding in the corner of her mouth, she is not at all sure that she wants to become a young lady.

Part of the charm of the story is the way it looks at the terror and wonder of that bittersweet moment on the cusp of an adventure that can be scarier and more thrilling than a battle with pirates. Barrie thought that it was really Wendy’s story. Though Peter is the title character, it is Wendy who is the heroine because she makes a journey. When she kisses Peter to bring him back to life, both of them wake up.

When Wendy follows Peter to Neverland, he tells her she will never have to grow up but then he makes her into the mother of the Lost Boys. She assures him (and herself) that they are only playing, but she feels the pull of the adult world. She even tells Peter that Captain Hook is “a man of feeling” while he is just a boy. And feelings are taken very seriously in this story. Fairies like Tinkerbell can have only one feeling at a time. Peter cannot answer when Wendy asks him what his feelings are. And Hook has a deadly poison made up of “a mixture of malice, jealous, and disappointment.”

As Barrie requested in the notes for the play, one actor plays both Hook and Wendy’s father. But it is Hook and Peter who are truly linked. Wendy observes that Peter has no unhappy thoughts and Hook has no happy ones. Hook tells Peter, “You will die alone and unloved, just like me.”

All of this is there to give depth and resonance to an enchanting classic story which is lovingly, even tenderly told in a movie that will become a classic itself. Thrilling adventure, touching drama, and delightful comedy will give audiences of all ages all the happy thoughts and fairy dust it takes to fly.

Parents should know that the movie has a lot of fantasy violence, including swordfights, guns, and hitting below the belt. Pirates are killed. There is a brief graphic image of Captain Hook’s amputated arm as he puts on one of his hooks. We see boys’ bare behinds. There are a couple of sweet kisses and some subtle references to puberty. Characters drink and smoke and a pirate offers liquor and cigars to a child.

Families who see this movie should talk about why someone might not want to grow up. What do grown-ups do to keep the best part of childhood inside themselves? Is that what Barrie was doing in writing this story? There is a lot of talk about feelings in this movie. What does it mean to say that fairies can only feel one thing at a time? Why does Wendy tell Peter that she thinks Captain Hook is “a man of feeling?”

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy comparing it to other versions of the story, including the Disney animated musical (but parents should be aware that it includes material that is insensitive about girls and Indians by today’s standards) and the live-action musical, which is available on video starring Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby. But stay away from Steven Spielberg’s sour Hook, an unfortunate variation starring Robin Williams as a grown-up Peter who returns to confront Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook. For more about Peter Pan, try this site or this one.

Families might also enjoy other movies with similar themes, including Mary Poppins and Gigi.