banzaibill Reviews

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

HORRIBLLLLLEE!!

[22 October 2003]

I heard as much as everyone else about the "ground breaking" use of computer animation, i knew it was a Japanese-American cooperation and that it had nothing to do with the games, and really tried to see it on it's own merits.

I expected at least the typical dumbed down, FX-laden space opera in the sense of the newer "Star Wars", "Stargate" or even "Battlefield Earth". After all, a CG animated space opera just couldn't be THAT bad. Well after i gazed through the first, uninspired 20 minutes of the film and came to the "council scene" revealing more of the plot, i just had to say it really is THAT BAD!!

First off, the animation. No other movies have yet been made with this "super-realistic" 3D animation style, and that's no wonder considering how this one turned out. Not that the animation isn't a great accomplishment, because there are quite a few moments that the animation really shines, although the character designs in general are plain and hackneyed, some of the enviroments and other visual touches are really amazing feats on their own. But the real fault is in how the characters were written-even the world's best live actors couldn't have saved this movie as a whole.

And as amazingly well-done and complex the graphics work is, it's hard not to wonder where the "Fantasy" is? With all the potential that the CG technology had, they put most of the work on recreating what looks exactly like poorly lit spaceship and city ruin sets of low-budget Sci-Fi like the Stargate series. The only really "fantastic" thing in the movie is the "alien" creatures, which are used too much, too repetively and gets plain boring to watch in the end. After the first attack scene, they just appear the same way again and again, morphing and blasting their undefinable flourescent gas.

Second, the plot. The whole movie is basically about a few members of a troop that end up saving the unrecognisable-as-Earth, plus a few faces in the Council, and that's all they have to interact with.

While every SF/space opera, no matter how epic and long-spanning in its dimensions, need a few strong and recurring characters to anchor the story, the lack of a definitive "Alien" or enemy character among the main cast reduces most of the dialogue to plain, casual discussion:

"We have to get rid of these invaders now! / Yes, i know and i think so too."

Add to this that the directors (whoever did the actual job for this movie-it's a wonder they didn't "Smithee" it out) have absolutely ZERO talent for visual narrative, leaving most of the scenes either bombardments of explosions, flourescent CGI beings morphing and being shot, OR the unlively characters glancing at each other and discussing their plans, soap opera style. Several times do we find characters plainly TELLING the reason behind things, aimed at the viewers, that could have been told in many more and better ways, by a more suitable director.

So let aside the computer graphics, let aside that it has nothing to do with Final Fantasy, viewed entirely on it's own merits... it's still a piece of crap.

Corto Maltese: Secret Court of the Arcanes (2002)

Pointless but beautiful

[2 October 2003]

Whoah.

This is a movie that promises a lot from the start: A collision of Russian, continental European and various Asian cultures, political intrigue, James Bond-style antics, religion, martial arts and romance. But in the end, it turns out as a story about... a train robbery. However, it's a wild ride that won't have you looking away from the screen for a second-unless you shy away at occasional violence and nudity...

It has to be one of the most visually interesting animated movies ever, not because of the quality and amount of work put in it, which is somewhat below the best Disney productions, but because of how it's used. From the stunning opening shots to the "fantastic-ized" outdoor enviroments, the varied and effectively (un)lit indoor scenes and the buildings, to the creatively directed character interactions, there's barely a few scenes at all that one could imagine being done with live actors at all!

This movie is true example of animation as an art form, not reducing itself to an imitation of the real life. No matter what you think about the character designs, which are somewhat stiff, all of them have significant, peculiar mannerisms that would be unthinkable to realize with actors. This attitude, both "retro" and reinventive, is exactly what is needed against the trend of "hyper-realistic" animation that has become prominent in recent years.

The other point of this movie is the MUSIC-an absolutely sparkling musical score that sets the perfect mood for each and every scene, except for a overly melodramatic build-up in the epilogue. It's one of the few movie soundtracks that i would try and find and listen to on it's own, because whenever it is heard it really stands out.

I recommend anyone interested in creative visuals as found in Japanese films (though certainly not Japanese animation!) to try and see this movie at least once, for the sake of the infinitely creative visual language. European animation is alive and well, certainly, just hope they find a better story for next one...

The Patriot (2000)

Blunt yet sophisticated

[28 September 2003]

Leaving accuracy and bias aside, there are two kinds of movies based on history. Some are good for entertainment and gives a basic explanation of why and how a event happened, leaving out and changing many details. Others are more sophisticated, trying to give us every detail and every angle on how it happened.

This is a "sophisticated" recreation. The direction is sophisticated. The choice of scenery for each dramatic moment is nothing but perfect, and there are plenty of beautiful stray visuals in between. The acting is sophisticated, understated yet clear and as sharply directed as the subject requires. And the buildings, weapons, uniforms and other costumes are recreated with consistency, leaving nothing off because of budget limitations.

And yet it's strikingly blunt.

It's blunt in it's storyline, relying on "generic basic archetypes" to tell us what happened to the typical soldiers of each side and group, the typical black ex-slave, the typical women, the children etc. It's blunt in it's narrative, using devices like slow-motion in the middle of battles, drawn-out "NOOOOO!!" pleads and sudden changes of music to beat us over the head with something important and tragic happening.

It's blunt in the point it makes, never showing anything to suggest why someone would not pick up the fight-even as Gibson's character himself expresses dislike for it early in the movie, noone could possibly avoid thinking it's just so we can see him change his stand soon. And, it's blunt in it's depiction of the English-American conflict.

"Why do people believe they can justify death?", Gibson's character says nearing the final battle, asking why the English army does what they are doing to the American people. Nothing in the movie gives any explanation to that either. The viewer comes out completely ignorant about the roots of the conflict, why it became violent or even what exactly the rebels were fighting for.

We know nothing about the British Empire or what exactly they want to kill all those innocent people for. The only message one really gets, is that it's okay to go one-against-40 with a troop of highly trained soldiers using nothing but a rifle and a steak knife, if you've seen a mean-eyed officer kill your son in front of the rest of your family. So as a political message, the movie comes off as almost completely impotent - there is nothing in real life, in the current world that this movie can be said to openly take a stand against.

Also, a sudden angle change about two-thirds through with a long, pointless and emotionless wedding scene and low-brow "humour" does further to enchance the pointlessness of this movie.

Yet the visual imprint of the movie is strong and sophisticated, just because of the brilliant images and scenery. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys artful photography as well as excellent battle recreations, but don't expect too much of the plot.

Moon 44 (1990)

60% Fortress, 30% Battlefield Earth, 10% Spaceballs

[6/10 · 31 July 2003]

That about sums it up. Lots of cliches, low budget not-really-action-scenes, and typical not-real-ending solution ala the Fortress movies. What surprised me though, was finding out that it was made in 1990. That kind of makes it more impressive technically, as i thought it was a recent movie when i saw it, but still nothing memorable.

8 ½ Women (1999)

Pure cinematic BLUFF!

[3 December 2002]

When i saw this movie i had read and heard a bit about Peter Greenaway and his movies, that he was often compared to David Lynch and Fellini, he used "strong and controversial themes" and that he also worked with visual arts. So i was really interested when i finally got to see one of his movies on TV, which was this one.

The movie opens with Greenaway's textual description of the scenes overlaid on top of several nicely shot but meaningless outdoor images, as pictures within pictures. While this got my attention up for about 20 seconds, as soon as the movie starts it is obviously just a gimmick-about as phooney as the reverse scrolling text in George Lucas "THX 1138".

Then the movie starts. For the first few minutes i got interested, then depressed. Then i had to smile, and for the rest of the movie there was just one thing running through my head: how to best phrase "Peter Greenaway is a pure cinematic BLUFF MAKER!"

8½ Women deals with the subjects of sexuality, the human body, death, prostitution and the relation to parents. These are topics that writers and directors have been centering on from the birth of cinema, yet Greenaway likes to think that he's the only one who dares to take it upon himself. He compares himself to Fellini, who this film is at least partly a tribute to.

But in reality, Greenaway's strategy is the exact opposite of Fellini's, in each and every way. Fellini's movies deal with seemingly absurd situations and characters, but displays them in such a natural way that nobody even considers seeing them as "strange" or deviative. He makes us feel the events from the inside.

Greenaway shows scenes which could have been perfectly natural and mundane, but he does everything he can to make us see them as absurd. The lighting, settings, style of dialogue and general isolation of the characters (no distracting "background elements" to make us feel like we're still in the real world) isn't there to convey any hidden truths or messages. It's all about confusing the audience!

He might claim to be revealing mysteries of existence, showing aspects of humanity never shown before, but what he really doing is using "the magic of cinema" to make us believe that things are stranger than they really are! If successful, viewers of his movies feel like they have truly been revealed something important, but they can never gain any real knowledge from them because THEY DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING!

Also, Fellini didn't like to show many explicit images of "sex, violence and such" because he felt that he could get his points across better by reflective events and commentary. While Greenaway throws all sorts of meaningless imagery at the screen, images and events which doesn't even have any point at all!

I've also heard Greenaway compared to David Lynch. Which is somewhat relevant since they both obviously do settle to create "bizarre and disturbing" images. However Lynch is a much more commercially successful director, which can be attributed to him never hesitating to include more mundane and "normal life" sets in his movies.

Lynch's movies take place in the "real world" (without any creative isolation) and he STILL makes them feel "weird". This in my opinion just shows that Lynch is an infinitely much better director than Greenaway, who i could never imagine starting to work on something like "Twin Peaks".

Greenaway's constant use of nudity is nothing but an iconoclastic joke. It's a way of showing self awareness, cause he knows The Emperor Has No Clothes.

Coogan's Bluff (1968)

Interesting and underrated.

[9/10 · 3 December 2002]

"Coogan's Bluff" has gotten mostly negative reviews. I understand that most of them expected to see a western, and focused too much on the crime/chase aspect of it, however there's more beneath the surface.

It is perhaps one of the few movies of its time to show the "dark side" of the 60's hippie/drug scene. The idea of Coogan being gradually attracted by the very worst parts of inner-city subculture, and it finally turning out destructive to both his mission and his newfound "friends" is pure genius, and couldn't be done better.

Clint Eastwood's understated acting is not my thing, but it makes sense for this particular role-he's in a different culture than where he's raised, he obviously has little to say but gets the point across.

One more fact. When i first saw the movie, i thought that it was made as a ripoff of "Midnight Cowboy", which it resembles in many ways-especially in the general structure and mood of the film, but later i realized that it was put out one year earlier! So i guess you can see it as preceding MC, which is a good movie too of course.

Special Report: Journey to Mars (1996 TV Movie)

It's good.

[8/10 · 27 September 2002]

I saw this movie while surfing through the channels looking for something to run in the background, but ended up totally absorbed by it. There are cheap TV effects and some really bad acting, but it's a very well told story and probably more realistic than any other movie about space exploration. Catch it when it runs...

The Benny Hill Show (1969–1989)

A solid pillarstone of comedy

[30 June 2002]

I've laughed and enjoyed the Benny Hill shows ever since i was very young, and still do. Benny Hill is one of the comedians who are really able to be funny, without contrived situations and one-liners. And he manages to throw in some more serious acting too. There is a certain feeling of quality, of true artistry to every moment of the show which most of his followers lack. Many of the jokes are seen as off-color today and would probably never be aired if the show was new, a sign that things are changing in the other direction. Catch it now before it is forever buried and condemned by the politically correct!

Taz-Mania (1991–1995)

Why hasn't more people seen this show?

[10/10 · 26 June 2002]

Considering how famous Taz as a character is as part of all the Looney Tunes franchise, it's surprising how relatively unknown the show has become. To me, it's one of the greatest if not the greatest animated series ever.

All episodes are fast-paced and entertaining, blending usually inventinve slapstick, parody and satire with slick, intelligent dialogue (except for the always brief-spoken Taz), sometimes going full out into sheer"wackyness" but there's always a plot behind it. In fact a lot of it is deeper and more meaningful than it might seem at first!

The writers managed to keep the show open-ended and unpredictable, and it could probably have gone on much longer than it did. There was a few sharkjumping moments (the eating contest, the third "Road to Taz-Mania" episode and Wendal trying to be like Taz) but the rest is worth seeing for yourself. And beware! There's a bit of Taz in all of us...