The Lives of Others review

Based on a recommendation of a friend of mine, I went to see The Lives of Others at one of the local art theaters. It was every bit as good as she'd led me to believe.

It's set in East Germany, shortly before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when the Stasi, the German secret police, kept taps on everyone of interest and made sure that anyone who got too interesting became markedly less so. The main character is a Stasi agent who begins monitoring a prominent author. That author is above reproach, believing in socialism and East Germany, and writing his plays in support of that system. The Stasi agent is suspicious of him for that very reason. One of his superiors decides to indulge the agent's suspicions, in order to curry favor with his superior, who covets the author's actress girlfriend. Clear so far? Hang on... there are potential spoilers in the next paragraph, so you may want to skip to the following one.

As the agent's spying on the author progresses, he comes to admire him, then to cover for him, and finally to extricate him from a major sting. The author's blacklisted friend had committed suicide, leading to the author's publishing a piece in Der Spiegel - a very risky undertaking, even under a pseudonym.

This movie is fabulously suspenseful. The abuse of near-total power by the Stasi elite, shown in contrast with the idealism of its agent, is striking. The lies that the artists and authors tell one another and themselves, trying to stay in the good graces of the authorities while still producing something worthwhile, is similarly intriguing.

The movie is in German with subtitles. I managed to catch quite a bit of the German, which is a bit surprising, since I haven't studied it in twenty years or so. I went with a friend of mine who didn't quite catch all the intrigue; I'm not sure I caught it all myself. I highly recommend catching this movie. It ran about two and a half hours, but it really flies by, even without any Hollywood-style action.

Reign Over Me review

Who'd've thought Adam Sandler could play a (semi-) serious role? He gets plenty of opportunity to goof around in Reign Over Me, but that's only part of his job here. He manages to come across as a damaged, deranged person who is slightly dangerous, without going overboard (well, too far, at least). Don Cheadle has a tougher role, I think, playing the normal guy with some issues of his own. It seems like it'd be harder to achieve the drama without the thump-over-the-head dramatic situation that Sandler's character finds himself in, but Cheadle does a great job, as he always seems to do. His scenes interacting with his stalker patient are either shocking or hilarious, depending on how sick your sense of humor is. His portrayal of his relationship with his wife, played by the exquisite Jada Pinkett Smith, is beyond believable, capturing a marriage in trouble that doesn't quite know why.

Children of Men review

Children of Men was a depressing movie. Some reviews I read compared it to Blade Runner, but while they both deal with anti-utopias, Children of Men isn't quite so futuristic, so it's much more recognizable and immediately believable. It's shot in that flat color I associate with war movies and dark TV series - appropriately so. Clive Owen continues to show versatility. Julianne Moore is compelling and stunning, as always. Michael Caine, though, is the best part of the movie, playing something of an aging hippie, a bit crushed by the terrible reality of the world, but still fighting to make things better.

I'm wondering now whether I found Children of Men more disturbing than, say, Blade Runner, because it's very easy to see something like what it describes happening, or if I was just more inclined to enjoy Blade Runner as a science fiction adventure with some interesting ideas behind it - more of an intellectual exercise, without any real consequence.

Depressing or not, this is a good movie, well worth watching carefully and thinking about more carefully. I'm thinking it's worth renting for a second viewing, but I doubt I'll do it. It's just a little too disturbing to watch again.

Dream Girls review

Ok, this is why I should post these reviews right after I see the movie, instead of waiting and putting them all in at once. I remember the movie, and it was good, but I can't remember half the things I wanted to write about it.

Eddie Murphy was great. Maybe he wasn't Oscar great, though. He's definitely out of the stand-up comic / wiseguy cop routine, and he did a great job with it.

The music was fabulous. We saw it at Brewvies, and they have an ok sound system, I guess, but I feel like it'd've been more fun in a bigger theater with a really booming system. As it was, the music was powerful and compelling. Beyonce is, well, Beyonce, and Jennifer Hudson was amazing. I don't know how much of the music they actually did - if any, it's impressive. It was nice seeing Sharon Leal of Boston Public again.

Jamie Foxx got to play a fairly scummy character, and he was very believable. That's a good thing, you dope - it's acting, y'know. ;)

Dresden Files end of season

I'm a sci-fi geek, or at least I was when I was a kid, so when I finally got the Sci-fi Channel with my cable package, I had a field day checking out their shows. One of the shows that has been a pleasant surprise is The Dresden Files, which just aired its last episode of the season. It's very fun, and Valerie Cruz is simply hot as Lt. Murphy (Cuban playing Irish - ok, it's all about acting). It's got a bit of the Buffy feel to it, with magic and such interacting with our (mundane - but not so much) world, but with less of the demons and vampires running rampant (though the vamps do show up). It gets a little dark, but not too bad. I'm hoping Sci-Fi renews it next season.

300 in IMax

Watching 300 in IMax is kind of like being one of the photographers down on the field during a football game. You get some great shots, but you're likely to take a few shots, as well, running the risk of getting clobbered in the process. Ok, that's stretching it a bit, but you get the idea: Lots of blood and gore (it is, after all, about the battle of Thermopylae at which the 300 Spartans were eventually slaughtered), compelling scenes, an interesting set of story lines, and (did I mention?) lots of blood and gore make for a powerful experience, even without IMax.

Having looked through Frank Miller's graphic novel after watching the movie, I have say that I'm more impressed with the movie. Miller's drawing style is powerful and intriguing, but it's rough, in keeping with some of the subject matter. That's all well and good, but my personal preference for comics is a more polished illustration style. That's not always the case - Miller's Sin City has a very clean look, all black and white, stark and crisp. Even my favorite comic book artist, Jack Kirby, had his share of drawings where the precision of the illustration took a back seat to conveying the action or meaning of a given panel.

There were a number of scenes in the movie that were particularly striking: The discussion between Leonidas and Xerxes, where Xerxes walks down his immense, moving throne and on the backs of his bearers; the debate in the council of elders, where the (very hot) queen runs through the traitor; the confrontation between the young Leonidas and the wolf. Really, really good stuff.

By the way, this movie is not for kids. Please don't do what some of the folks in our audience did and bring in pre-teens. It's just not appropriate for them, whether the movie is based on a comic book or not. This isn't Disney, and I'm happy for that.

Day of the Triffids

Some time back, I went to the Salt Lake public library to watch Day of the Triffids, a sci-fi classic, and take in a lecture afterward on carnivorous plants. Like many of the movies in this lecture series, it's a bit campy. Like some movies of its era, it doesn't quite get the whole "how to build suspense" concept, though it does try. The special effects are fine for the period, and the set-up dealing with a meteor shower blinding most of humanity helps explain the whole "How do slowly-shambling plants catch anyone?" problem.

While the movie was amusing, the lecture following was fascinating. There are apparently a number of varieties of carnivorous plants, each with its own method of trapping and consuming prey. The biggest difference, as I believe the lecturer explained it, between real science and "reel science" (as the lecture series puts it) is that plants, even carnivorous ones, do not move themselves around in pursuit of dinner. Their M.O. tends to be more of the "Hey, check out this [fill in the blank]! It's tasty... just come on in." variety, followed by the inevitable springing of the trap.

Here in Utah, the conditions are not good for carnivorous plants. The lecturer keeps several in his greenhouse, feeding them whatever insects come around. He said he hadn't thought of using boxelder bugs before, but it sounded like he was going to. I have plenty to spare if he runs out.

If you have any interest in science or science fiction, this movie and lecture series is highly recommended. It's free, it's fun, and you'll likely manage to learn something in the process. The link here to the library events has the next one in the series, which I unfortunately will not be able to attend.