9.

I've been psyched for this movie since the first trailer hit at the end of last year. I loved the look of it, and I love post-apocalyptic stories. I also loved the idea of "StitchPunk." The movie takes place in a future where machines and humans have gone to war and destroyed the planet. The machines are no longer functional, except for "The Beast," and the last human (a scientist) gives his life to create 9 little rag dolls that will help continue life on the planet. 9 (Elijah Wood) wakes up in this strange world and is found by the elderly 2 (Martin Landau). But when 2 is taken by The Beast, 9 is then found by the other remaining rag dolls, including friendly 5 (John C. Reilly); the leader, 1 (Christopher Plummer); the bodyguard, 8 (Fred Tatasciore); and the crazy one, 6 (Crispin Glover). They also eventually find (or are found by) 7 (Jennifer Connelly) and 3 and 4 (no voices). And after 9 accidentally awakens a machine while going on a rescue mission for 2, they must find a way to defeat it or be destroyed themselves.

This movie has so much going for it, but it also has one major flaw. Let's talk about the good first. The animation is gorgeous. From the character design to the atmosphere created by the scenery and locations, I absolutely adored the visuals of this movie. It also had a ton of great and imaginative action sequences. 7 was a total badass.

I also picked up on a lot of underlying themes of religion and a hint of religion versus science/alchemy. For instance, the sanctuary--as 1 sees it--is a church, but he rebels against the safe haven of the library full of books about science and whatnot. Of course, there's the more obvious of matchup of machines (soulless AKA science) versus souls (religious). And the movie seems to be about merging the two--not in a scientology kind of way, but more in a "let's work together" kind of way. Or maybe I'm just crazy and reading too much into it, but that's how I saw it all.

The major flaw of the movie, however, was its incredibly short running time. The movie is barely over an hour long without credits (all together, it's 79 minutes). This greatly hinders the movie's potential. I found its biggest problems stemmed from this, such as not taking enough time to develop the characters and know enough about them and their backstories. The most we really get is how 5 lost one of his eyes, which is shown just minutes after you meet him. Sure, you eventually gained sympathy for them (primarily 3, 4, 5, and 7). It was hard not to like the cute 3 and 4. 5 is made purely for sympathetic reasons, and 7 is just an awesome character. But it would have been so much better had they all had more backstory. They were each unique, yes, but beyond the masks and personality traits, there was (ironically) nothing more than an empty shell/doll.

Another issue brought on by the short time span was a lack of plot explanation. I understood what was going on throughout the movie, but then the ending came, and I was like "...huh? Did I miss something?" In an attempt not to spoil things, let me say this as vaguely as possible (though there are probably mild spoilers anyway). What was the whole purpose of the amulet? It seemed circular in logic to me. It was there to release taken souls, but souls wouldn't have been taken without its existence. I was waiting for some higher purpose that never came.

Overall, though, I was highly entertained. It had beautiful animation and great action. There were some fun characters, too, but I just wish there was more depth given to them. The movie desperately needed to be longer and more fleshed out. But otherwise, it was a fun flick. And I'm scoring it based on entertainment value rather than "what it could have been" (I guess that makes me a glass half full kinda guy?).

A Keanu 'Whoa'

North: So Ridiculous It Has To Be Seen.

So I saw this movie over the weekend and just had to comment on it. I missed the first 15 minutes, but don’t really think I missed anything important. The premise of the movie is thus: North is a young boy who, after feeling unwanted and unloved by his own parents, has it set up by court order to travel the world in order to find new parents who can appreciate him.

But every place North visits (Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, China, Amish country, etc.) is so over-the-top in its stereotyping that it’s ridiculous. Everyone in Texas is a horse-riding, ranch-owning, cowboy hat-wearing sharpshooter who likes big things. Everyone in Hawaii is a mainland-US-hating native. Alaska is more like Antarctica, and all houses are Igloos (I’ve been to Juneau in the summer, and I can say… it’s nothing like that). China is apparently still in the Ming Dynasty, and everyone is something like Buddhist Monks. You get the point. It’s just so ridiculous, but it’s so laughably bizarre, at the same time. And it doesn’t help that Bruce Willis magically appears as a different character in almost every place.

Now, speaking of Bruce Willis, I should discuss the cast. The cast of this movie is just about as insane as the movie itself. Every frame there’s like another big name (either for back then or now): Elijah Wood (North), Jason Alexander (North’s dad), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (North’s mom), Bruce Willis (numerous), Jon Lovitz (lawyer), Alan Arkin (Judge, the best character), Dan Aykroyd (Texan father), Reba McEntire (Texas mother), Keone Young (Hawaiian father… you’d know him if you saw him), Graham Green (Eskimo father), Kathy Bates (Eskimo mother), Abe Vigoda (Eskimo grandfather), Richard Belzer (A ferryman-type guy), Ben Stein (Curator), Robert Castanzo (hitman-type guy), John Ritter (final father)… and the one to put the cherry on top of this insane list… a 9-year-old Scarlett Johansson as John Ritter’s daughter in her first movie. A few of those actors are on the ‘That Guy!’ list, but there’s some other big names in there, as you see. Seriously, when I noticed the little girl was Scarlett in the very last frame you can see her face, I knew this movie had officially hit my list of things to talk about.

The acting was silly, like the rest of the movie, but I have to give a shout-out to two characters in the movie: Alan Arkin’s Judge and the Amish father. Arkin stole the movie, for me. Imagine this: Alan Arkin looking like Harvey Keitel doing a Robert DeNiro impression as he acts like a courtroom Judge. It was hilarious. And then the Amish father, for the brief scene he’s in the movie, has one of the best lines in the movie. It literally had me laughing out loud (mostly due to the delivery): “Greetings, North, I am thy new father and this good woman who art my wife, is thy new mother. And these are thy new brothers who art named Ezikeo, and these are thy new brothers who art named Art.”

To top the bizarreness of this movie off, there’s even a random song-and-dance number via Reba and Dan Aykroyd in Texas. There’s some hilariously random dialogue in this movie, as I just showed, but that doesn’t even scratch the surface. This movie can’t really be explained in its ridiculousness. It’s just something you have to witness on your own. If I tried to explain it or list other ridiculous things, I’d be giving a frame-by-frame of the whole movie. Let me put it this way: back in 1994, when the movie was released, Roger Ebert gave what is supposedly a famous review: "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."

So if it can bring about such a reaction from Mr. Ebert, it just has to be seen. If you like movies that are so-bad-they’re-good, you definitely need to check this one out. You’ll have a great time, I’m sure. Oh, and did I mention it’s directed by Mr. Rob Reiner? You know, of The Princess Bride and Spinal Tap fame? Yeah, I couldn’t believe it, either.

WTF

Bizarre Noir #4: Sin City.

Welcome to the fourth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-------------

Sin City.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantino (for one scene).

Why it's bizarre: The comic book look and multiple stories.

Sin City is more of an art form than a movie. With a huge cast, Sin City explodes with star power in three (and a half) different stories. The first snip starts with The Man (Josh Hartnett), an assassin-for-hire. After the short scene, it continues on to Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a cop that is trying to save young Nancy from Roark Jr. (Nick Stahl). Then we have the criminal Marv (Mickey Rourke). After Goldie (Jaime King) is murdered by silent assassin Kevin (Elijah Wood), Marv travels around town trying to figure out who killed Goldie and why. Then we have Dwight (Clive Owen), a criminal with a new face, who sets out to get revenge on lady friend Shellie’s (Brittney Murphy) ex-boyfriend, Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro). But he ends up in a tougher situation than originally planned. Then it goes back to Hartigan again, after getting out of jail. He goes to find grown Nancy (Jessica Alba), the only person who had kept him sane and alive through his years in prison. But, unfortunately, a Yellow Bastard (Nick Stahl) has his own secret agenda. And there’s a whole bunch of other people in the movie, too.

As far as noirs go, this movie has it all. It has the shadowy and unique camera shots (in more ways than one). It has the voice-over narration. It has all the mystery and murder and sexuality you could expect. The star-power really shines, as the movie is really well acted for what it is.

The most obvious comment for the movie is its visual style. It is very comic book, and very original for a movie (only to be redone for the later 300, though to a slightly lesser degree). It was stunning to watch the first time, and it’s still fun to watch now. There really isn’t much more to say about it than that.

The only downfall to the movie is that it’s choppy and incoherent. What I mean to say is that, with the exception of Josh Hartnett’s character and story, none of the stories intersect in any meaningful way. And I understand that each segment was based on a different comic, but they could have connected them all together somehow. They even had a good opportunity to change it all up a little bit, assuming that’s not how it was in the comics (I haven’t read them). But Marv’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the prostitutes. And Hartigan’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the Roarks. But they weren’t… so, really, it was kinda like the ‘Series of Unfortunate Events’ movie, where each segment was almost unrelated to the one before it, making it feel slightly disjointed.

But I did love how Josh Hartnett’s character came back into play at the very end. I thought that was brilliant and made up for some of the lack of connection otherwise. So overall, I though it was brilliant in what it attempted (and succeeded) to do. It has its flaws, sure, and it’s one of those movies you have to be in the right mood to watch… but when you’re in that mood, it’s a good one.

A Keanu 'Whoa'