Chasing Rabbits 101 .. (?)

As a final entry for the year, I was planning to write a post about "Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy ?". A sort of animated documentary directed by Michel Gondry, which covers a series of discussions with Noam Chomsky (check out Wikipedia if the name doesn't sound familiar). But somewhere at the half of it I got sleepy. Overall, it's an interesting amalgam of ideas, but too chaotic to follow carefully if your brain didn't have enough rest before. I have to admit though that the 2nd half was slightly more coherent. In particular, the string of short (more or less) philosophic sequences includes some notable opinions on the human learning process, and also one of the most rational or logical argumentation on the need for religion I've heard by now. But even so, this doesn't change my disappointment that what I've seen is pretty far from what I intended to have as "catchy final entry for 2013". Therefore ..

I'm doing something that I .. let's say discreetly avoided before. Which is to try catching up with a series of "off-topic" entries on my "native" .ro blog version, series that started somewhere in 2007 and continued at the "impressive" rate of one/year. Even so, I'm not in the proper mood now to search, translate, adapt, and so on and so forth, for all the posts. In short, it's about rabbits :) More exactly it started with an old saying, that I don't know where did originate, but in Romanian goes something like: "Who runs after two rabbits doesn't catch any of them." Well, let's just say that I totally, completely, and strongly disagree with that. And through those entries that I wrote during the years I tried (usually at very late hours when my mind gets in a sort of "lucid drunkenness" state of spirit) to develop various chase tactics, hunting grounds analysis, etc, that would prove "the theorem" wrong. Now ... I'm not considering my crazy random ramblings as an equivalent subject to a Noam Chomsky interview, but I'm really too lazy at the moment to get into details with the thing in the first paragraph. Actually I'm quite lazy for any long entry, so I'll try to wrap up my "rabbits" thing quickly ;) ...

Let's say that I strongly believe that there are ways, maybe very complicated, to somehow steer the running rabbits towards the same destination. Consequently, and ideally, at some point you'll chase "one" and not two. Or another way to look at it, you'll chase two (or more) rabbit-halves that complete each other. But, that's the simple version to state a potential solution which includes that "very complicated" part :) You can gradually add up to the equation lots of stuff. For instance there's the time to get them running on the same path. Time which might be so long that you can compare it with a pyramid construction. And pyramids are nice, but you know what's the final purpose of that building, don't you ? :) So .. although a beautiful achievement for posterity, the whole thing might get ironically grim in respect to you ;) And actually, constructing the pyramid = getting the rabbits on the common path, is unfortunately not exactly the same with finally catching them. So, how do you build a pyramid and catch the rabbits at the same time ? Well, typically you can find pyramids in the desert (especially this kind, since they're very often more a mirage .. a Fata Morgana, than an actual pyramid). Ergo, the hunting ground might be a desert. It might look easier to hunt rabbits in a desert, but it's actually not. No water, wind storms erasing tracks, you can get lost .. So what to do ? Well, the rabbits probably try instinctively anyway to run out of the desert (they also need water). So the desert must have an end. How to get there ? Let's think a bit out of the box. Shrink the desert surface. How ? Stop the global warming :D

Is that all ? Well, no :) Obviously it's not that easy to stop the global warming :P What's above is a summary of some of my ramblings written years ago (at least a couple that I had the patience to quickly re-read now), just to give an idea of "the topic". What's new this year ? Well, I got to the point where I'm thinking that I might after all need an introductory manual to "learn the basics" .. despite my previous five years "advanced expertise" accumulated on "hunting techniques". That's because I'm either getting old (and well .. the rabbits are forever young), or I have some major flaws in my "strategic planning" that keep the "hunter - rabbits" distance constant (not to destroy completely my morale now and say that's increasing). Well .. maybe there's the external factor = the fate. But to discuss about this, and how much of the "global warming" is caused by kismet would require another entry ;) So I'll stop for the moment with a question mark. I'm too tired now to try an answer to that (plus the doctor told me to stop drinking and I didn't chew enough poppy pretzels to get the opium concentration in blood sufficiently high to trigger an inspiration boost). I'm still not tired enough though to give up on the idea that the rabbits can be "modeled" somehow such that somewhere, sometime, to get an acceptable convergence and catch more than one.

I'll end this with a short film I remembered about which says more than many words ( it's a movie blog after all :) ) .. + a warm "Happy New Year !" and a wish for a .. let's say nicer 2014 than the (still) current year ;)



PS 1 : I've been gradually trying on my .ro blog version to switch my "chasing rabbits" annual entry to a "let me tell you a story" entry. Unsuccessful by now because I didn't have time to catch the story "rabbit", but I'm slowly progressing. And it's not the 1st time anyway, but I didn't write any since 2009 so it's been a while. Who knows, maybe next year ;)

PS 2 : For who's interested in the Chomsky talks from "Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy ?", that's the trailer. Enjoy!

Hogfather (2006)

Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know, that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom.

Somehow I've barely managed to finish watching "Hogfather", still in due time for a "season entry". Which I'm gonna try to make it short, short ;) since I don't think there's anybody in the mood for long reads these days :)

We're talking about a two-part mini-series based on Terry Pratchett's Discworld universe. A parallel world, relatively similar to Earth as inhabiting population, placed somewhere in space, on which life is mostly concentrated in the Ankh-Morpork metropolis, a sort of city-state bearing some scent of a Victorian London. We don't have Christmas on Discworld, but we have something very similar called Hogwatch, the equivalent of Santa being Hogfather, who leads a sleigh carried by wild hogs instead reindeer. During a certain eve of the event a problem rises. Somebody hires an assassin to murder the mythical Hogfather, contract which is accepted despite the apparent impossibility of locating the victim, who even in Discworld it's supposed to be an imaginary being. And like that we get into a story that involves also the Tooth Fairy or even Death (yup, the one with the scythe and a black cloak), who eventually has to take the job of delivering presents given the crisis situation. And by chance Death has a granddaughter, half-human, having the advantage to be present in both worlds, so also able to try solving the ongoing catastrophe which seems to have potential apocalyptic consequences. What are these and how they're dealt with, in the movie ;) ...

I haven't read anything by Terry Pratchett. As a reference, after watching the movie, if it's of some help I could say he's somewhere between Roald Dahl and Neil Gaiman, with a consistent extra-dose of dark humor. The story itself gets slightly chaotic, and maybe a bit hard to follow at some points (especially if you're struck by a cold and continuously sleepy). Not to say that, ironically, the "boredom" part in the start quote can be successfully applied on certain parts. Overall, the movie could be easily classified as a children Christmas tale. However, the dialogue sort of contradicts this frequently, and probably that's the best part in it. From funny references to the socioeconomic implications of giving presents compared to the expressed wishes, up to a philosophy on the impact of belief in fairy tales towards moral values (which despite the light-spoiler, I've chosen below instead of a trailer, that I couldn't find anyway), there's a wide range of "food for thought" in this movie. Clearly more than what you would expect from a kids story, which far from perfect, it's still probably the most interesting "Christmas production" I've seen by now ;) Happy holidays to everybody !

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

My expectations for the second part of "The Hobbit" were so low that I actually thought on and found an interesting alternative for this time of year (which I still hope it will get a blog entry), but I didn't manage to find the time to watch it. Therefore it seems I got stuck with Tolkien for this week's entry, and surprisingly for me it's not that bad in the end.

I still think that this is an apex of cinema industry cash-in opportunism which tries to squeeze three movies out of a book shorter than any of the volumes composing LotR. I have to admit though a significant improvement over the endless scenes of dwarfen-orcish kickboxing in the first part. I don't want to reveal much from the story in case it's not already known. The group of dwarfs+Bilbo+Gandalf continue their travel towards the Lonely Mountain, where they're supposed to face Smaug, the Dragon. Obviously, the path is still long, twisted and filled with dangers as it was up to the point where the first part left it. Following that, we keep getting some preposterous stunts, or cliche lines which are so "epic" that might cause you muscle strains due to eye-rolling. And still ... I think it's the first Peter Jackson movie since "Fellowship of the Ring" (= LotR 1) which .. how to put it shortly: doesn't drag. It's way less superficial than the previous part, and has fewer lengths than any of the last three movies set in the Tolkien universe. Probably the story helps a bit, because it gets on the closure path (a bit too much I would say = I'm afraid that the last part might get again overfilled with testing blacksmith products on the Middle-Earth inhabitants' skins). The script though is a good adaptation of the book (ignoring the cliche lines), sufficiently well done to give even more depth to a kids story than I remember it has in the original material. Unfortunately, for me at least, the directing brings down the production level ...

That's something that I noticed since quite a while on Peter Jackson, more precisely from "Return of the King" onward, confirmed in "King Kong", in the first part of "The Hobbit", etc. The parts in the script which have the max on the emotional impact are sort of handled no different from the rest, or, even worse, given excessive length. I don't know why. Probably considering that longer scenes make the feelings more intense .. Not true. The perfect example is the ending in LotR which lasts more than half an hour after the ring gets melted, enough that all the impression the movie built up on you until that point to suffer the same meltdown and vanishing faith. Well, sometimes he manages to get it right, and the current "Hobbit" is more or less the case. Ironically, probably because we don't have something of major impact in this part of the story. It's just a preparation for the ending, and it's decently built up in that sense. Only decently and not more than that since we still have enough exaggerations. It's been a long time since I've read "The Hobbit" and I needed a quick look on Wikipedia to remember some stuff. (light spoiler) For instance, in the book there's indeed an escape in barrels carried by a river. No problem with that, but I doubt we also have an elf there to try something close to Van Damme's Volvo split on two barrels, and simultaneously to shoot arrows into the orcish horde on the shore. And the examples can continue. However, some quite stupid perfect syncs, as in a start action sequence, let you know relatively early that you have to quickly adjust your tolerance standards.

As I said, the script (the same Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens as main authors) is ok though, with all the additions I was mocking not so long ago in a preview entry. Indeed, placing Legolas among the elfs in the story is quite unnecessary. Anyway, since he's coming as a composed elf package including also .. Tauriel (who I don't even know to be part of any Tolkien book), I won't complain anymore. And it's not because I prefer Evangeline Lilly to Liv Tyler (although .. :P), but it adds a sort of romance thread to the tale. No, I'm definitely not into love stories which I usually avoid. However, although the addition might look artificially to some, given the "complexity" of "The Hobbit" material, any extra decent subplot is actually helping. And even leaving apart what's extra, the original material is better treated than it was by now. Especially the character modelling in two cases(spoiler free): Thorin, the dwarf leader for whom we're given discrete signs of what's coming, and Bard, a human on which I can't tell much more but who's excellently introduced by the script through his friendly and then antagonistic relation with Thorin.

I don't want to get too long on the technical side which seems very good, as for the rest of the movies in the series. Especially the cinematography. I really liked for instance the traversing of Mirkwood (minor spoiler) despite my arachnophobia. We have a very nice alternation between cold filters on gray/blue with some very warm used for a sunset, alternation that implicitly connects to the "nuances" of the ongoing action.

I've been asking myself if I'm not overrating (again) the movie based on my low expectancy and the difference I encountered. But if I think again, I had the same low expectancy for the first part too, unfortunately confirmed, so I guess this time I'm relatively objective on it. I'll stubbornly stick to the opinion that "The Hobbit" can't get to the LotR level, but if the third part manages to be at least at the level of the current one, we have good chances for an excellent fantasy, and forget the first "Hobbit" as a sort of "Phantom Menace" accident (= worst Star Wars) in the Tolkienish world.

Rating: 4 out of 5

La Migliore Offerta (2013)

"Lambert are you married ?"
"Yes. Nearly 30 years."
"What's it like, living with a woman?"
"Like taking part in an auction. You never know if yours will be the best offer."

I've reached again Friday without any options available for a blog entry. Therefore, I decided to throw a look on the European Film Awards given last week, to see if I can find something interesting. Since the main winner, "La grande bellezza", seemed dangerous enough to completely bury my already lately awful mood, I picked another Italian production among the nominees - "La migliore offerta". Horrible error ... beautiful movie ...

I don't really know how to start this, at the current impossible hour, after a "sleep-cutting" movie ... and topping all with some dizziness (no, I didn't get my hands on any bottle yet, although I'm quite tempted). I'll try a more ... lighthearted approach, although it's not that easy = I don't know what follows. But let's try to be pragmatic for starters ... As the beginning quote suggests, the movie is a coproduction, the dialogue being in English. The main character in the story is Virgil Oldman, the owner and lead manager of a successful auction house, a guy that passed his youth, expert evaluator in paintings and antiques, quite lonely, eccentric, and with a consistent fortune gathered through the business he's leading. One day he's getting a request from a young woman, Claire Ibbetson, to evaluate the goods she inherited from her late parents, objects stacked somewhere in an old villa. Although reluctant, he finally accepts but .. ends up waiting in the rain for 40 minutes in front of a closed gate (don't worry, in movie minutes is a shorter time). The client calls again though, and after complicated excuses and tearful insistence she manages to get a second meeting appointment. Surprise again, the young lady is not present at the place .. again. However, the gate is opened by a guy employed to take care of the house, who's instructed to give details to our auctioneer. Point where mister Oldman discovers two things: 1) his client was not seen by anybody for years, apparently suffering of agoraphobia and 2) in the basement of the building are lying around some contraptions which are apparently pieces of an old, unique and expensive humanoid automaton.

That's enough. I shouldn't tell more from the subject. The movie is .. painfully predictable, where "painfully" doesn't refer to the fact of being predictable, but to what you don't want to happen and you know it will. As suggested between the lines by the opening quote, the story takes at some point a turn to a romance .. between a sort of weird guy who meets an apparently even weirder girl. I'm not really in the mood now (and I think I didn't have a proper mood for that in years, so it won't happen soon) to get into details about the potential complicated twists arising in such context, either in the movie (which anyway would generate a flood of spoilers) or situation-wise by itself. What can I do is to get back to the script. I doubt the writing has much purpose in not disclosing the ending. However, it manages to discreetly hide many many other aspects, which if discovered, considerably amplify the impact of the final part. I could start with the automaton construction, that progresses in parallel with the main character "deconstruction", and I could go down to minor stuff like the allegory in choosing the character names - Virgil + Oldman vs. Claire + Ibbetson. I might be rambling without any accuracy here, but give a thought on it after seeing the movie (before it doesn't tell you anything anyway), and if you only have the last name for which you still don't find an allegoric sense just google for "Peter Ibbetson".

Let me get a bit into the production part. Practically the movie has Giuseppe Tornatore written all over it in big letters. For me he's still the best Italian director at the moment, although I seldom see Italian movies. The script is also written by him, and I'll just add that, besides the recently watched "Prisoners" (on a total different niche though), it's probably one of the most intelligent I've seen in the last years (although it's not plothole free). About the actors .. well, good and bad - Geoffrey Rush makes a good role, but he seemed a bit too theatrical for me in some scenes. An interesting surprise was Sylvia Hoeks who initially seemed to be amateurishly inexpressive, but the story gradually explains a lot ... Technically, the cinematography (Fabio Zamarion) is probably the best I've seen this year in a non-action movie (by the way, talking about "Prisoners", what Roger Deakins did there is left behind by far, at least on framing and chromatic-wise, because on the visual space of expression the movies are not the same). The score, probably the best Morricone product since "Untouchables", follows a pretty calm theme, but it has also some vocal nuances which make it feel uneasy at some points (as a positive remark).

I'll get back to the opening quote ... It's just an out-of-context discussion with a secondary character in the movie, apparently unrelated to the main action. However, you can get some sense of it at some point after the credits end, if you take a minute to reflect on "the best offer". Maybe you don't know if it's the best, but what does it mean to be the best ? Is it too low, or too high ? Do you need the object after all, or not ? Do you know for sure if you bid for an original, or maybe for a fake ? Finally though .. "There's something authentic in every forgery." And how bitter it might be, maybe sometimes it's better if you managed to bid "the best offer" and won that small something ;) Just pay attention it's not getting too expensive, because it can ...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Winter-Spring 2013-2014 Movie Preview - Part 2

As usual, I don't have many options for the 2nd preview part. Mostly due to the lack of trailers at 3+ months before the release dates. Well, let's see what we can pick from the existing pool for the next Spring ...

In March we have a potential alternative to "Fast & Furious" (which anyway, in the light of recent events, has chances to stop at episode 7). However, to bring to the screen a game like "Need for Speed" is probably as "promising" as a "PacMan" movie. So I guess it would've been more interesting to look up for a automotive industry documentary instead of the trailer below ...
"Divergent" looks like a remix on "Hunger Games", despite people saying it isn't so. The only part that gives some hope is the director, Neil Burger, who's responsible for two pretty good movies, both including tiny elements of fantasy or SciFi: "The Illusionist" and "Limitless". But anyway, the story shown in the trailer seems to state quite clearly that this is not much more than "yet another teen SciFi romance" ...
Last week I managed somehow to (incredibly) escape superhero movies. This time we have a bunch of them. April starts with "Captain America 2". Considering how much I "like" the genre, I can say that the first part was actually quite ok. Although I think this was mostly caused by the action placement during WW2. So, I don't know what to say about the new episode. Well, one good thing - it has Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) in it :P
Probably the most solid part Schwarzenegger had since he returned to acting is in "Sabotage". The direction + the script belong to David Ayer ("Training Day", "Harsh Times", "Street Kings", "End of Watch"). I think it's not hard to anticipate that the movie will be a rough action thriller without many comic nuances (we'll see how well gets Arnie into the role in this context).
In May we return to the Marvel universe in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2". I'm too bored by the genre to add more comments (and no Black Widow here).
Tricky question: what's more annoying than a superhero movie ? Answer: a movie with many superheroes. No, we didn't get yet to "Avengers 2". For the moment we have the light version = the latest "X-Men" sequel ( still, no Black Widow here :( ).
At the end of May we have probably the most interesting title in this entry - "Maleficent" - or "Sleeping Beauty" told from the perspective of the wicked fairy. As a fantasy subject sounds very promising, but (it had to be something ...) I don't remember any successful directorial debut by somebody with a career in VFX (Robert Stromberg in this case). Maybe I'll be contradicted, although the trailer looks already a bit too focused on CGI ...
That's it for the preview round. Next week, back with a movie review ...