Shots in the dark

If nothing else, director Peter Hyams’ commentary track on End of Days seems to be proof that you can have a personally held and deeply thought-out philosophy of film-making, approach your film with intelligence and care, and still make a crappy film. What you still need is some skill, luck, and a philosophy that isn’t entirely…well, wrong:

Hyams splits his time between enthusiastically praising his cast and explaining why he shot his Satanic thriller by candlelight and suggestion: “All the light used in this film is light that is warmed, so that there is an amber and oak tone in every sequence of the movie.” But he isn’t just concerned with tone. “I’m someone who believes that if actors are using flashlights in a movie, they’re using flashlights for the same reason we use flashlights,” he says, “because they can’t see except what their flashlight is illuminating. So this scene was basically lit with flashlights…” Hyams has been criticized for this choice in the past. His response: “I don’t think a movie that’s mysterious can be too dark. I love shadows.”

….His biggest flaw is the forgivable mistake of confusing intention with effect. “When people are standing near a light, I think they should be lit,” he explains. “When people are not standing near a light, I think they should be dark, or darker.” The result is a dull visual sheen that, some striking images aside, renders each murky set instantly forgettable.

I’ve never actually seen the film — nor have any desire to — but Hyams seems pretty typical: confusing an enthusiasm for film-making (and maybe a pinch of technical skill) with an ability to make films.

That’s one way of putting it

David Rakoff on Brüno:

There is no larger cultural point to making someone flinch by giving them a chocolate truffle you’ve stuffed with anchovies.

Via Gerry Canavan.

I have to admit, I didn’t really love Borat all that much. Maybe it was partly the overblown hype, but while I guess I could appreciate the anything-for-a-laugh attitude and crazed commitment to character, I ultimately didn’t find it too funny. Then there came the questions of what was and wasn’t staged, who was lied to or portrayed nastily, and the whole thing just left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. I have no real desire to see Brüno, which sounds like much of the same.

Wednesday various

  • Sense And Sensibility and Sea Monsters, huh? I worry about diminishing returns, but I’ve heard pretty good things about Pride And Prejudice And Zombies, Quirk’s last book in this sort-of-series. (Seeing as how Pride and Prejudice is the only Jane Austen I’ve ever read, maybe I should also read Seth Grahame-Smith’s parody of it. Then again, I read Austen’s book, along with another for a test, in a single weekend, and I can’t say I remember a lot about it. Some people get married in the end, I think?) I just worry: can The Werewolves of Mansfield ParK or Emma: Vampire Hunter be far behind?
  • I fucking knew it! Cursing may be good for you. Clay Davis must be the healthiest man alive. [via]
  • Toxic Substance Allows Birds to “See” Magnetic Field:

    Cryptochrome is also present in the human eye, but our amount of superoxides is even lower.

    That’s because superoxides reduce longevity, so human evolution has put a premium on longer life spans instead of on better steering.

    In birds, however, evolution has favored a bit of cellular damage in return for the navigational benefits of magnetic vision, the researchers conclude.

    What this seems to suggest, possibly, is that if we increased the amount of superoxides in our system, we could “see” the magnetic field just like birds. Of course, given the trade-off in toxicity, I don’t think we’ll find anyone too eager to test this hypothesis. [via]

  • One should always be scared when George Lucas turns his eye towards “relationships and emotional landscapes.” [via]
  • And finally, I love these fake library ads. More pictures from the Johnson County Library here. [via]

Oh, the things that I’ve seen

I keep meaning to talk a little about the movies I’ve seen recently, except that “recently” keeps going back further to include more movies I haven’t yet talked about, except in passing on Twitter. So, anyway, here are some thoughts on the movies I’ve seen in the past couple of months, in the order I saw them.

Waydowntown — This was a little weirder than I expected…although, having never visited downtown Calgary before, I’m not sure I knew what to expect, given the film’s basic premise. (A bet on who can last the longest without going outside really couldn’t last as long in Manhattan.) Overall, though, I liked it. The movie is maybe not always as clever as it likes to think — Keith Phipps rightly calls it “slightly undernourished and padded” — and it feels just slightly dated, a product of the late ’90s, which is probably when I first saw the trailer — Phipps also says it resembles “an episode of Seinfeld taken to the big screen” — but it’s often very funny. (And I have it on pretty good authority that Calgary is not entirely a giant, hermetically sealed human ant farm, so that’s good.)

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie — Also not entirely what I expected, if only because there’s no character here — least of all Jean Brodie herself — who is entirely sympathetic, or entirely the villain, for that matter. There are a lot of great performances here, but Dame Maggie Smith is particularly good, winning an Oscar for her work.

Up — In the end, I’m not sure the 3D really added to anything other than my ticket price, but the film itself, like just about every Pixar film, was delightful.

The Fall — Visually astounding, to the point where I genuinely regret not having seen it on the big screen, though with a sweet and often engaging story as well. Roger Ebert praises it as “a mad folly, an extravagant visual orgy, a free-fall from reality into uncharted realms,” while Tasha Robinson calls it “the most glorious, wonderful mess put onscreen since Terry Gilliam’s Brazil.”

Speed Racer — Surprisingly entertaining for what is essentially a sugar rush captured on film. For all the frenetic, visually assaultive eye-candy on screen, there’s a pretty simple and easy-to-follow story at its madly pulsating heart. It won’t be to everyone’s taste, and it’s certainly not the sort of film I’d be quick to re-watch anytime soon, but I think if taken on its own terms it’s actually kind of remarkable.

The Great Train Robbery — There’s nothing quite as much fun as a heist movie done well. This doesn’t reinvent the wheel, but it’s very entertaining. Donald Sutherland’s accent may be questionable at times, but both he and Sean Connery have great fun with this.

The Shadow in the North — This was very disappointing, even more so than the first Sally Lockhart mystery — which, I’ll admit, I didn’t like too much to begin with. The flaws of the original felt much more exaggerated here and the strengths fewer in number. If there’s ever another — Philip Pullman wrote four books, apparently, though the momentum to film them all seems to have flagged — I think I’ll skip it.

Let the Right One In — An interesting take on the vampire genre, and possibly the creepiest love story I’ve ever seen. I’d rented this once before but received the poorly subtitled version. Thankfully, however, Netflix has the original theatrical version available in their Watch Instantly titles. As Keith Phipps notes, “the quieter moments are what make the movie heartwarming and unsettling.”

Pineapple Express — Not brilliant, but a funny stoner comedy nonetheless.

Thursday various