2017 Blindspot Pick #7: In Your Eyes (2014)

Tags

Drama, Fantasy, Romance

Loneliness can be your lot
And leave you empty and distraught,
Even when alone you’re not
In daily life’s ordeal.
For life seems like an afterthought
When no one else knows how you feel.

But then the loneliness can fade,
No longer stressed, no more afraid,
When love more real cuts through charade,
And lonely souls are paired.
For newer joys are worth the trade
When feelings, thoughts, and love are shared.
_____________________

MPAA rating: Not Rated (could have been PG-13, but more R due to periodic profanity and some sensuality)

I chose In Your Eyes as one of my Blindspots because of the positive reviews I’d seen from some of my fellow bloggers, and my interest was further piqued by comparisons to last year’s anime hit Your Name. Whereas Your Name involves two strangers actually switching bodies, In Your Eyes features a telepathic (or more accurately, empathic) link between two random people on opposite sides of the country. Based on a decades-in-the-making screenplay by Joss Whedon and directed by Brin Hill, this supernatural romance certainly has its odd parts but incorporates a lot of what I love about the genre.

The two leads are played by Cloverfield’s Michael Stahl-David and Ruby Sparks’ Zoe Kazan, the former as a New Mexico parolee named Dylan and the latter as a New Hampshire trophy wife named Rebecca. Little do they know that they have shared a mental link since childhood, when one’s sledding accident somehow affected them both, but suddenly, it becomes strong enough to allow them to converse with each other and see what the other is seeing. I was a bit annoyed at first that there was no explanation or trigger to the sudden strengthening of their bond, aside from “Why not?” But then I recalled that Your Name didn’t have a very clear reason either, so it’s perhaps best to just roll with it since these cosmic movie connections are hard to clarify in reality.

Despite being separated for most of the film, Kazan and Stahl-David have engaging chemistry to spare. Their long-distance conversations feel natural to us since it’s as if they’re talking on the phone, but to everyone else, it looks like they’re talking to themselves or suffering bizarre outbursts that elicit worry and sideways glances from those nearby. (My VC actually thought it was stupid that they kept talking to each other out loud with no thought to how crazy they looked to others.) As with Taki and Mitsuha in Your Name, they learn a lot about each other, from past stresses to present foibles, through the rare opportunity of vicariously witnessing the other’s life. I especially liked how one tends to comment on what’s happening to the other, a voice in the head they have to try to ignore, like the hologram Al from Quantum Leap.

Also worth noting are the direction and cinematography, which infuse many scenes with a luminous quality that enhances the enchantment of their unusual bond. The contrasting settings also heighten the distance between them, from Dylan’s orange desert to Rebecca’s blue-tinged snowscapes. The editing does well in visualizing their shared feelings, culminating in a bizarre but sensual bedroom scene. (Is there even a word for that? Long-distance intimacy?)

As much as I enjoyed both the romance and fantasy aspects, I must admit I didn’t love In Your Eyes quite as much as I’d hoped. It isn’t just the lack of explanation or the oddness of the very concept. The climax builds to a satisfying final scene, but all the events leading up to it are left open-ended, making me think there will be lots of unaddressed bumps on the road to a happy ending. Plus, as good as In Your Eyes is, I think Your Name did a similar story better, just as it did with The Lake House. Even so, In Your Eyes deserves a lot more attention than the few bloggers who have tried to promote it. For any fan of unorthodox romance or extramundane relationships, it’s definitely worth your time.

Best line: (Rebecca, realizing who she’s talking to the first time) “Wait, you’re real. You’re a real person!”   (Dylan) “Oh, that’s the sweetest thing anybody’s said to me all day.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
497 Followers and Counting

 

Sense and Sensibility (1995)

Tags

Drama, Romance

Sense is essential for keeping one grounded,
But too much can leave one a bit too well-rounded.
Sensibility’s fancies are quick to believe,
But too much can leave one a bit too naïve.
A good balanced blending of both can perchance
Improve one’s approach to both life and romance.
___________________

MPAA rating: PG

This is another review that could be considered a VC pick, since my VC has been expecting a review of Sense and Sensibility for a while, but this is also a personal resolve for me to finally review this movie before I forget about it. Yes, I’ve seen Sense and Sensibility twice before and could have reviewed it sooner if the details of its plot weren’t so quick to vacate my brain. It’s a shame really that I find it so forgettable because it truly is an excellent adaptation of Jane Austen’s first novel, thanks to the elegant but accessible Oscar-winning screenplay by Emma Thompson, who also stars as Elinor Dashwood.

Elinor and her sister Marianne (fresh-faced Kate Winslet), along with their mother and younger sister, are brought low from wealth to relative poverty when their father’s inheritance all goes to their unsympathetic half-brother. While they make a home in the cottage of some annoyingly garrulous distant relatives, the Dashwood sisters face the hopes and crushing disappointments of 18^th-century romance while employing their contrasting approaches to love, namely Elinor’s sense (realism) or Marianne’s sensibility (romanticism).

The entire production has the authenticity of a classic, from the sophisticated costumes to the rolling English countrysides to Ang Lee’s spare but graceful direction (his first English-language feature). Likewise, all the players fill their roles gracefully, especially Thompson and Winslet, who were both nominated for acting Oscars. Alan Rickman also outdoes himself as the thoroughly sympathetic Colonel Brandon, shedding his Hans Gruber-ness with the ease of a seasoned actor. Even Hugh Laurie makes a nice if brief impression as a grumpy husband whose irritability is a humorous contrast to the exuberance of his wife (Imelda Staunton). The only one who seems out of his element is Hugh Grant as Elinor’s semi-beloved Edward Ferrars. While the character is meant to be a bit wooden and “sedate,” Grant captures that stiffness so well that he seems a little too awkward at times.

Despite this and even with a potentially ungainly number of characters to keep up with, Sense and Sensibility’s characters are what I most remembered, whereas what actually happens to them, while alternately sad, sweet, or surprisingly funny at the time, just doesn’t make much of an impression once the credits are done. I’m not sure why either, since I easily recognize it as a well-acted incarnation of Jane Austen sensibilities. True, Austen’s stories have never been among my favorites in style or substance, but a good movie is a good movie. Even if it doesn’t live long in the memory for me personally, Sense and Sensibility is still an admirable rendition of this Austen classic.

Best line: (Colonel Brandon, of Marianne) “She is wholly unspoilt.”
(Elinor) “Rather too unspoilt, in my view. The sooner she becomes acquainted with the ways of the world, the better.”
(Colonel Brandon) “I knew a lady very like your sister, the same impulsive sweetness of temper, who was forced into, as you put it, a better acquaintance with the world. The result was only ruination and despair. Do not desire it, Miss Dashwood.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
491 Followers and Counting

VC Pick: Funny Lady (1975)

Tags

Biopic, Comedy, Drama, Romance

It’s easy being funny
When you’re wallowing in money
With your sweet and faithful honey
Waiting lovingly at hand,
But when assets aren’t as runny
And the outlook’s less than sunny,
Not as much is fun or funny,
As the jokers understand.

Though life enjoys unveiling
Every foible, flaw, and failing,
Making efforts unavailing,
One’s good humor perseveres,
So while waiting, maybe wailing,
For a way to smoother sailing,
It’s important and unfailing
To keep laughing through the tears.
____________________

MPAA rating: PG (PG-13 is better due to language)

When I first saw Barbra Streisand’s Oscar-winning performance in Funny Girl, I wasn’t aware she had reprised the role of Fanny Brice in Funny Lady seven years later. It took my VC to suggest seeing this less prestigious follow-up, and honestly it proves that Hollywood’s fondness for unnecessary and unsatisfying sequels is nothing new.

Following the sad conclusion of Funny Girl, where Brice’s marriage to Nicky Arnstein (Omar Sharif) broke up amid financial tension and scandal, Funny Lady sees Brice solid in her stardom but struggling for work like everyone else due to the Great Depression. Enter James Caan as smooth-talking songwriter and showman Billy Rose, whose ego dwarfs Fanny’s diva mentality to the point that he advertises her as part of his new show without even asking her first. Annoyed but somehow charmed, she agrees, and their working relationship gradually turns to romance.

I can’t say that Streisand and Caan aren’t good in their roles, but they had hardly any chemistry, in sharp contrast to Sharif’s allure in the first film. Fanny’s songful suggestion that her second relationship is better thus feels hollow when their bond seems founded on the fact that they can simply yell at each other without either taking it personally.

I suppose Funny Girl’s tragic romance had more impact because it was preventable, torn apart by Nicky’s pride opposite Fanny’s success; here, Billy Rose’s huckster personality seemed inevitably fated for marital friction and infidelity, and it’s no surprise when things fall apart again. Worsening matters is Fanny’s confrontation with her first husband (Sharif returns), where she confesses to starry-eyed naiveté in the face of his selfishness. It may be true, but it’s not empowering as she intends it to be; instead, it’s sad that all of her romances were doomed from the start, robbing her of even the memory of a happy love life.

Aside from Streisand’s intermittent comedic skits, what makes Funny Lady watchable is the musical numbers, though there are far fewer show-stopping numbers than the first film, and none are as memorable as “People” or “Don’t Rain on My Parade.” In fact, it’s ironic that the best number goes not to Streisand, but to Ben Vereen as one of Fanny’s vaudeville cohorts, an exuberant rendition of “Clap Hands! Here Comes Charley!” that made me wish the rest of Vereen’s performance hadn’t been cut out before release. I’m actually rather surprised the film earned five Oscar nominations, including Cinematography, Score, and Original Song. If you enjoyed Funny Girl or are a fan of Streisand or Caan, Funny Lady may be worth your time, but don’t expect a feel-good classic.

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
482 Followers and Counting

 

Good News (1947)

Tags

Classics, Comedy, Musical, Romance

I’ve good news and bad news for those still alone,
Who pine for somebody to love as their own.
The good news is that there is someone for you,
Who’s hoping there’s someone for them to love too.
They’re out there, out somewhere, far off or close by;
You’re made for each other, as tales testify.

The bad news is that things may get in the way,
Like not recognizing true romance at play.
In not waiting long enough, you might pick wrong,
And they may do likewise, not where they belong.
Beware the missed moments and chances you shirk;
Your own asininity may be at work.

So keep an eye out for that promised soul mate,
And you may have good news to soon celebrate.
___________________

MPAA rating: Approved (an easy G)

After enjoying the compilation of classic MGM musical numbers in That’s Entertainment! and its Part II, I had to satisfy my curiosity over at least one of the featured films that caught my eye. The educational setting and youthful dance scenes of Good News made me think of it as a forerunner to High School Musical, and indeed that’s what it is. Just as Grease predated High School Musical, Good News anticipated Grease, and its romantic entanglements backed by buoyant musicality are still entertaining all these decades later.

While those later films were set in high school, though, Good News takes place at Tait College, the kind of carefree movie college where studies take a backseat to parties and football games. Peter Lawford plays the ever-confident athlete Tommy, while June Allyson fills the role of the mousy school librarian Connie, both of whom discover each other when Lawford’s smitten hotshot tries to impress the gold-digging it-girl, played by Patricia Marshall. The wholesome interactions between romance-seeking students brought to mind the original Archie comics, even incorporating a jealous bully named Beef (as opposed to Moose) who makes up part of an adjacent love triangle.

The story may remind you of many imitators since, but Good News is good clean fun, though I understand it’s a remake of a racier Pre-Code version from 1930. The best part is clearly the musical scenes, many of which feel like lesser-known classics, like “The Best Things in Life Are Free” or “Lucky in Love,” which benefits from the smooth voice of Mel Tormé.  Between the lyrical cleverness (“The French Lesson”) and the exuberant dancing (“Pass That Peace Pipe,” which was nominated for a Best Song Oscar), Good News has tuneful talent and charm to spare.

Best line: (Tommy, when chided on speaking French) “Guess I can’t help it, Poochy. Language comes easy to me. I’ve only been in class five days, and already I speak like a native. I don’t know of what country, but, uh, like a native.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
480 Followers and Counting

 

About Time (2013)

Tags

Comedy, Drama, Fantasy, Romance

(Today’s final NaPoWriMo prompt of the month was for a poem about something that happens over and over. Following the theme of this time-travel charmer, I applied that to the hypothetical potential of living life repeatedly.)

 

Days and weeks and months repeat,
The same in name but each one new,
But wouldn’t it be quite the treat
To start them over and redo?

When in the mood for favorite foods,
Just think back to your grandest meal,
And when your second course concludes,
You’re free for thirds whene’er you feel.

When life becomes mundane or glum,
Just jump back to your fondest thrill,
A theme park ride or concert’s thrum
Or Wordsworth-worthy daffodil.

And how sought-after to rewind
To change regrets to words unsaid,
Slips untripped and frauds declined,
And dominoes unplummeted!

The twists and weaves of life one-way
Are seldom smooth to navigate,
But wouldn’t life, upon replay,
Have less distress to complicate?
___________________

MPAA rating: R (except for 5 F-words, there’s little reason this couldn’t be PG-13)

Rachel McAdams must have a thing for time travelers. Only four years after playing the titular Time Traveler’s Wife opposite Eric Bana, she again fell in love with a man possessing inherent time-traveling abilities, this time Domhnall Gleeson, in 2013’s About Time. Whereas the first film was bittersweet drama, About Time takes its subject in a lighter rom-com direction; for instance, the time-jumping ability that was random and uncontrollable in The Time Traveler’s Wife is little more than a super-powered perk in About Time, an inherited trait for only the men in the Lake family.

When Tim Lake (Gleeson) is called into his father’s study on his twenty-first birthday to be told a family secret, I can think of many worse revelations than being told you can now travel back along your own lifetime. Being rather awkward, one of Tim’s first thoughts is to win himself a girlfriend with his newfound ability, and after a less than successful attempt with the lovely Margot Robbie, he moves to London and seeks out his soul mate. All of this is done with a delightful comedic touch that makes Tim and his eccentric family feel real and lovable, and when Mary (McAdams) comes on the scene via a winsomely literal “blind date,” it’s clear from the first moments that love is inevitable…as long as time travel doesn’t get in the way.

I can’t remember the last time I was so thoroughly charmed by a movie. Well, maybe I do; it was probably La La Land, which is a more prestigious film all around, but both of them left me smiling and touched in a way most modern films don’t anymore. The repartee and chemistry between Tim and Mary put them up there with my favorite screen couples, even apart from the time travel aspect, which often adds some comedic wish fulfillment, undoing those little gaffes we all want to live over. In addition to Gleeson and McAdams, Bill Nighy delivers both warmth and pathos as Tim’s more experienced father, and his fellow Pirates of the Caribbean bad guy, Tom Hollander (almost unrecognizable with a beard), is likably sardonic as Tim’s first London friend.

As much as I loved it, I won’t claim that About Time is without flaws, such as a poorly explained revision that Tim performs when one of his time-altering good intentions goes awry. Likewise, I’ve heard a common complaint that the film doesn’t follow its own time travel rules and pays less attention than others of its genre to continuity and the butterfly effect. Yet, even these issues that would normally annoy me (like in The Lake House) couldn’t detract from a highly enjoyable romance or its bittersweet denouement. It’s a smartly written and delightful story worth going back in time to watch all over again.

Best line: (Tim) “There’s a song by Baz Luhrmann called ‘Sunscreen.’ He says worrying about the future is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. The real troubles in your life will always be things that never crossed your worried mind.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
477 Followers and Counting

 

Starter for 10 (2006)

Tags

Comedy, Drama, Romance

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was to employ Skeltonic verse, or short lines with rapid-fire, tumbling rhymes, which are always fun.)

 

A know-it-all
With quick recall
Will stand tall
Next to egos small
Because he knows
The stuff that goes
Toward beating those
On trivia shows,
Like sporting pros
And ratios,
Obscure logos
Of studios,
And poems and prose
And names of clothes
And things that few
Would say they knew
Unless they too
Enjoyed a clue
Or fact review
Like me and you;
At least I do.
__________

MPAA rating: PG-13

Every now and then, there’s a movie that just appeals to your interests specifically, and Starter for 10 appealed to mine. I had heard this British film starring James McAvoy had something to do with trivia, in this case the University Challenge TV show of the 1980s, and within the first few minutes, I felt this was a film for me, thanks to my personal love for shows like Jeopardy! Now I just had to hope the rest didn’t ruin it, and despite some inconsistencies along the way, it was an enjoyable little film all the way through.

Many people have fond memories of those ‘80s films full of stars before they were famous, you know, Stand By Me, The Outsiders, Taps, Red Dawn, and the like. But it makes sense that other generations would have the same kind of films, and Starter for 10 is one for the 21^st century, even if it’s set in the 1980s. As McAvoy’s trivia-crazed freshman Brian goes off to college for the first time, I was surprised at how many actors I recognized. His two mates at home are Dominic Cooper and James Corden, while his two potential love interests at college are Alice Eve and Rebecca Hall, not to mention Benedict Cumberbatch as the uptight captain of the University Challenge team, again playing someone who believes himself to be the smartest person in the room. I was actually chuckling at their very presence together after seeing them all in the franchise films that have since earned them greater recognition (Eve and Cumberbatch in Star Trek into Darkness, Cooper and Hall and Cumberbatch in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Cumberbatch and Mark Gatiss in Sherlock). I never expected to see a fight between Howard Stark and Doctor Strange, much less for Stark to win while Professor X watches in horror. It’s like a huge retroactive crossover! Or not.

Aside from the pleasure of seeing these young stars in their early roles, there are a lot of worthwhile themes here, ranging from infatuation and responsibility to academic honesty and learning from personal mistakes. Brian’s experience at college felt very realistic, both for good and ill, such as how he suddenly absorbs all manner of liberal causes and how the drama of college itself can often get in the way of one’s education.  The humor can be hit-and-miss at times (one “meet-the-parents” scene was very awkward), but it made me laugh more than most comedies these days, further helped by a strong ‘80s soundtrack, most of which I’d never heard before. (I’m not too familiar with The Cure; sorry, Britain!)

I suppose I especially identified with Brian himself, and along with Shizuku from Whisper of the Heart, he’s probably the movie character in which I most see myself. He’s committed to being as clever as he can, learning things like literature, history, and why people like jazz. (Just watch La La Land for that answer.) He finds more excitement in the mental stimulation of a trivia challenge than a pointless drinking party, and through his interactions with his mother, friends, and girlfriends, he’s still trying to figure himself out and overcome his mistakes. McAvoy is a great fit for him, even if he desperately needs a haircut, and the rest of the cast help give potentially shallow characters more depth than expected and match the early talent that would eventually make many of them household names. Similar to 2015’s Paper Towns, Starter for 10 has its imperfections and clumsy moments, but it’s a charming film that I connected with and which left me smiling by the end.

Best line: (Brian’s mom) “The people who really care about you don’t mind if you make mistakes. It’s what you do next that matters.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy

 

2017 S.G. Liput
477 Followers and Counting

 

Chocolat (2000)

Tags

Comedy, Drama, Romance

 

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was to focus on the sense of taste, so I had to go with one of the greatest foods known to man.)

 

Dear Chocolate, Chocolate, friend of mine,
How sweetly do you intertwine
With fruit or nuts, desire or fear,
A comfort in my worries drear,
A flavorful apotheosis
Of the highest form of sweet!

From pickiness when I was young,
I never spurned you from my tongue.
At holidays made consummate
And in between, dear Chocolate,
Your need’s my daily diagnosis,
My closest friend that I can eat.
_____________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

By all accounts, Chocolat is a film I should love. I am an admitted chocolate addict, and I love lighthearted romances with its kind of charm, especially when they have the added emotional depth this one retains. Yet for all its strengths and five Oscar nominations, I was more annoyed than charmed by Chocolat.

The story centers on a wandering chocolatier named Vianne (Juliette Binoche) and her young daughter, who move to a quiet and staunchly religious French village to open a chocolate shop. The problem is that they do so just as Lent begins, and Vianne’s atheist disregard for this traditional season of self-denial inevitably draws the ire of the town’s mayor Reynaud (Alfred Molina). Yet nothing can halt the power of chocolate, and Vianne’s natural charisma slowly wins over many of the town’s residents, as well as a member of a visiting gypsy band (Johnny Depp).

There’s much to enjoy about Chocolat, not least its whimsical tone and Rachel Portman score, and the full appeal of a mostly excellent cast. Binoche is infectious with her passion for chocolate and catering to others’ unacknowledged needs, while Depp displays a sweet and romantic allure he doesn’t usually get to show off in his weirder roles. Best of all is Oscar-nominated Judi Dench as Vianne’s landlady and first chocolate convert, whose cynicism and desire to reconnect with her grandson make this among her best roles and certainly worthier of an Oscar than her short appearance in Shakespeare in Love. Chocolate itself is also very much a star, and Vianne’s creations should make any chocoholic’s mouth water, which is why it placed #7 on my Candy in Movies list.

Yet all these positives only make the film’s religious vilification more frustrating. Perhaps it’s because I do fast for Lent every year, but I couldn’t root for Vianne’s campaign to make the townspeople yield to their temptations. I was hoping instead her business could survive until Lent was over, but no, Lent and fasting are seen as obstacles to be overcome, repression to be vanquished. The film’s characters, writers, and probably Joanne Harris, on whose novel the film is based, clearly misunderstand sin and the meaning of Lent, that personal abstinence is meant to bring its adherents closer to God by their sacrifice. There should be no conflict here if Vianne had not come during Lent, but instead, the people of the village seem to view any and all pleasure as a sin, whether it’s during Lent or not. Their indulgent awakening would have been more heartening if Lent and the Church weren’t scapegoats to spoil everyone’s fun. Molina’s Reynaud is the embodiment of the town’s religious stricture, even if he does have a rare humanizing moment or two. The turning point of his own surrender to “temptation” is a wholly ridiculous scene that most reminded me of a SpongeBob SquarePants episode called “Just One Bite,” where Squidward yields to his craving for Krabby Patties, a scene which (now that I think about it) was probably inspired by Chocolat. Yet what’s funny in a cartoon just felt strange and absurd in a film like this.

Chocolat would have been better as simply a Mary Poppins-ish tale of Vianne helping the town, such as how she inspires an abused wife to escape from actual oppression, but its antagonism was misplaced. Every time I started enjoying Chocolat, it kept reminding me that “chocolate good, religious oppression bad,” and while I wholeheartedly embrace the former point, the latter kept spoiling it for me. The fine acting and passion for one of the best foods ever invented are clearly key to Chocolat‘s appeal, but it could have been so much better if religion and tradition weren’t depicted as such finger-wagging killjoys.

Best line: (the village priest, giving a sermon) “I’d rather talk about [our Lord’s] humanity. I mean, you know, how He lived His life, here on Earth. His kindness, His tolerance… Listen, here’s what I think. I think that we can’t go around measuring our goodness by what we don’t do. By what we deny ourselves, what we resist, and who we exclude. I think… we’ve got to measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create… and who we include.”

 

Rank: Dishonorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
475 Followers and Counting

 

In Time (2011)

Tags

Action, Drama, Romance, Sci-fi, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was to explore a small, defined space, so I chose the inescapable meaning of the inside of a clock.)

 

Consider the crevices closed in a clock,
Where gears in their constant cacophony grind,
So sealed in their space,
Yet they turn the clock’s face,
As all the world runs, lest it be left behind
While the gears click the future away.

A tiny black hole occupies every clock,
To suck in the seconds and minutes and years.
Mankind put it there
In that pocket of air
And lives with the ticking of time in his ears,
While the gears we encased
And the fears of life’s waste
Even now click the future away.
_________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

Oh, I do love science fiction! I love how it creates worlds that take social or technological change to a futuristic extreme that would be very unlikely to happen but is still fascinating to think about. I love how it makes absurd what-if scenarios believable and relatable. And lastly, I love the fact that I seem predisposed to like it, even if critics were not so kind. A prime example of all these points is In Time, a dystopian thriller about a world where time has become currency and everyone above twenty-five years old has stopped aging but also has a clock on their arm counting down their remaining lifetime.

Proving again that he’s not just a singer, Justin Timberlake plays Will Salas, a worker in the poorest “time zone” called Dayton, who may eke by with less than 24 hours on his clock each day but has a natural inclination toward helping others. (Like The Hunger Games, there are twelve zones or districts, with 12 being the poorest.) When a chance encounter with a rich 105-year-old from New Greenwich leaves Will with over a century on his arm, Will sets out for both some enrichment and revenge, later joined by a wealthy magnate’s rebellious daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried).

The film is conceptually cool from the start, literalizing throwaway phrases like “living paycheck to paycheck,” “don’t waste my time,” and of course “time is money,” but the idea is also well executed, such as the visual oddity of everyone looking twenty-five, even mothers and grandmothers. The ever-present arm clocks are always counting down, lending an urgency to quite a few last-second close calls, and time-stealing gangsters and Cillian Murphy as a Javert-like devoted policeman keep the plot unpredictable, even as it leans from straight sci-fi to a sort of heist film. Will and Sylvia also remain sympathetic in their Bonnie-and-Clyde style stick-ups by becoming time-reclaiming Robin Hoods against the none-too-subtle big bad elites.

I can’t speak to the alleged copyright infringement on a certain Harlan Ellison story or the supposed similarities with director/writer Andrew Niccol’s past work Gattaca (which I’ve yet to see), but In Time is yet another sci-fi film that I seem to have enjoyed far more than its Rotten Tomatoes score of 36% would indicate. One touchstone I can point to is 2009’s Surrogates, another critical failure with a brilliant premise about a massive social evolution that is left in doubt by the end. Neither film is perfect, but both were disparaged by critics for reasons that I simply don’t understand. It can be easily read as a rebellion dream against the one-percenters, but with ideas aplenty, good performances, and some memorably thrilling scenes, In Time is an underrated sci-fi that may one day get the notice it deserves as a cult classic.

Best line: (rich man Philippe Weis) “In the end, nothing will change, because everyone wants to live forever. They all think they have a chance at immortality, even though all the evidence is against it. They all think they will be the exception. But the truth is: For a few to be immortal, many must die.”   (Will) “No one should be immortal, if even one person has to die.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
474 Followers and Counting

 

Passengers (2016)

Tags

Drama, Romance, Sci-fi, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was for a double elevenie, a pair of five-line, eleven-word poems with a particular form.)

 

Loneliness
Becomes bearable
When in pairs.
There’s no need for
Crowds.

Togetherness
Becomes suspect
When trust dissolves.
Love’s no place for
Doubts.
___________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

I must be more forgiving than most when it comes to science fiction (or more critical, considering I hate 2001), but Passengers seems to have gotten an unfair amount of criticism, even if the complaints aren’t necessarily wrong. It’s simply a case where one flaw is considered by many to ruin the film as a whole, when there are really far more positives than negatives.

While hurtling through space on a 120-year journey to a distant colony, Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) is awakened from hibernation by a malfunction and is understandably distraught when he learns that there are 90 years ahead of him. After a year of loneliness with only an android bartender (Michael Sheen), his nightmare becomes an Adam-and-Eve dream come true when Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence) is also awakened to keep him company. The pairing of Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence was a main selling point for the film, and their chemistry doesn’t disappoint, pooling the natural appeal that both actors have earned from their past roles. Also laudable are the futuristic set design and magnificent space-faring effects, which may bring to mind Interstellar or Gravity but are no less impressive. Add in an Oscar-nominated score from Thomas Newman (who still has never won, for some reason), and there’s an eye-popping sci-fi romance worth enjoying.

But wait…there’s something wrong here, and I suppose I should issue a SPOILER WARNING to discuss it further. It’s surprising that Aurora never suspects this on her own, but Jim in his desperation woke her from stasis himself! It doesn’t matter how conflicted he was about it or how understandable his hopelessness was; to her mind and to many a viewer’s, what he did was tantamount to murder, condemning Aurora to an unfulfilled life, which she’s not quick to forgive.

My VC went so far as to not understand why Aurora stayed so angry, thinking that a life alone with Chris Pratt wouldn’t be so bad, right? As for me, I don’t deny the gravity of Jim’s crime, but I didn’t have a problem with how it was resolved. He’s punished and shunned for what he did, but did anyone think that two lonely people could stay mad for ninety years? The eventual forgiveness seems inevitable, but I’m sorry that some found that to be manipulative on the filmmakers’ part. The reconciliation would have surely been more gradual and painful if things had stayed as they were after Aurora discovered the truth, but the way things play out stresses just how much the two need each other, reigniting the romance that had thankfully already been established before the reveal.

I understand and even somewhat share the objections I’ve heard from others about the potentially creepy implications of Jim’s actions, but they don’t ruin the film for me. I actually took more issue with the rather prosaic and unproductive way it ends than with anything that came before. As a fan of science fiction and of Pratt and Lawrence, I found this combination of the three to be an engaging genre romance, flaws and all.

Best line: (Aurora) “You can’t get so hung up on where you’d rather be, that you forget to make the most of where you are.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
473 Followers and Counting

 

Blast from the Past (1999)

Tags

Comedy, Romance

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was for a poem featuring neologisms, or made-up words, many of which I tried inventing for whimsical effect.)

 

The heretoformer days of yore
Were full of quagdaries,
Of warnage, gorenage, carnivornage,
One or all of these,
And outsurvivors just assumed
They’d die from some disease.

They had no Twitterbook or texts
Or cell addictophones,
Or paramiscellania
Composed of silicones,
And no one knew of superstuds
Or Indiana Jones.

But if, from previosity,
By tempochronic means,
One telebeamed to present day
With us and all our screens,
They’d probably scramaddle back
To centuries with teens!
_________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

At the height of Brendan Fraser’s golly-gee persona fostered by the likes of George of the Jungle and Dudley Do-Right, he put that image to good use in the thoroughly amusing Blast from the Past. When overly paranoid genius Dr. Calvin Webber (Christopher Walken) builds a super-stocked bunker at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a freak accident makes him and his wife (Sissy Spacek) believe that nuclear war has broken out, and they wait through the fallout for, oh, about 35 years. Of course, life goes on above them, and when they venture out into the depraved new world, their 35-year-old homeschooled son Adam (Brendan Fraser) gets to see the world for the first time.

Granted, it’s a silly concept and treats themes like cabin fever and social change with a decidedly blithe mood, but if you can accept the overlooked-for-decades bunker idea, the comedy never becomes too absurd or unbelievable. Perhaps the best aspect of this fish-out-of-water generational satire is that it doesn’t portray the Webbers and their early ‘60s values as backwards or outdated (like Pleasantville, for example), not even their Christian faith and righteous indignation toward profanity. Instead, most of the humor comes from the contrast between their wholesome naiveté and the big, bad modern world of 1999, like when Calvin’s first encounter with a street walker makes him think the earth is overrun by mutants.

Fraser plays Adam with happy-go-lucky gusto, finding a much-desired girlfriend in Alicia Silverstone’s cynical Eve. The film’s respect toward nostalgia for the good-old days is plain in Eve’s gradual transition from thinking Adam’s crazy to admiring his sense of chivalry and innocence. As a whole, the film entertains by finding the humor in how things change over the years without mocking the past or present too harshly. I was also thunderstruck by the sudden appearance of a very young Nathan Fillion, three years before Firefly, making me wish for a less under-played showdown between Mal Reynolds and Rick O’Connell. While a sheltered boy locked in a room for years has dramatic potential (as in Room), Blast from the Past makes the situation consistently funny; it’s a refreshing and clever trifle of a comedy, one that made me miss the good-old days of Brendan Fraser’s heyday.

Best line: (Eve’s friend Troy, of Adam) “You know, I asked him about that. He said, good manners are just a way of showing other people we have respect for them. See, I didn’t know that. I thought it was just a way of acting all superior. Oh, and you know what else he told me?”
(Eve) “What?”
(Troy) “He thinks I’m a gentleman and you’re a lady.”
(Eve) “Well, consider the source! I don’t even know what a lady is.”
(Troy) “I know, I mean I thought a “gentleman” was somebody that owned horses. But it turns out, his short and simple definition of a lady or a gentleman is someone who always tries to make sure the people around him or her are as comfortable as possible.”
(Eve) “Where do you think he got all that information?”
(Troy) “From the oddest place: his parents. I mean, I don’t think I got that memo from mine.”

 

Rank:  List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
471 Followers and Counting