Tag Archive | "World"

Review: ‘Living in the Material World’ / *** ((UNRATED))


‘Got up went to Twickenham rehearsed until lunchtime — left the Beatles — went home, and in the evening did King of Fuh at Trident studio, had chips later.” So George wrote in his diary on Jan. 10, 1969. He returned a few weeks later, and then the band broke up for good after January. 1970.

George Harrison always seemed to me the unhappiest of the Beatles. Of course such an opinion is worthless. The Beatles are a screen upon which we project our own ideas, and George seemed the least willing to be projected upon. To be a member of that group, to have a hand in creating the pop music of our time most likely to be heard in later centuries, was to run the risk of losing yourself. George (we call them all by their first names) was the most defiantly individual.

In Martin Scorsese‘s documentary “George Harrison: Living in the Material World,” Harrison’s journey is traced as a search for himself in the tumult of incoming distractions. It is clear, as Paul Theroux points out in a recent article, that in Harrison’s life Scorsese saw much of his own reflected. They began as lonely, alienated children. They found escape and joy in music and film. They focused their lives on those arts. They resisted the possibility of being entirely consumed.

This is a long film, for which the expansiveness of cable television is appropriate. With “Material World,” which will debut over two nights on HBO, at 208 minutes, Scorsese has accomplished the best documentary that is probably possible. With George’s faithful second wife, Olivia, as his co-producer, he has assembled all the archival material, all the photos, all the film and video, transient and lasting.
With his own prestige, and because they loved George, Scorsese has been able to call on those who knew Harrison in all weathers: his son Dhani, Ringo and Paul, Yoko Ono, Eric Idle and Terry Gilliam, Eric Clapton, Jackie Stewart and many others.

“In my beginning is my end,” T.S. Eliot wrote. For George Harrison, raised in the working class in postwar Liverpool, one of those beginnings must have been his father’s vegetable garden. Victory Gardens, they were called during and after the war, and my own father had one, too. All through his life, as money and fame came to him, he found seeking houses with gardens.

English country houses are known for their gardens, but many of their owners never got their hands dirty. George was obsessed by the physical act of gardening, working with his land every day that he could. When you garden, you imagine its effect for those who will see your garden — for future generations and strangers. It is a gift you give to the land and to others, and it shows love of beauty in a pure form.

George’s professional life was caught up in a maelstrom almost from the day he first auditioned for John and Paul, playing “Raunchy” for them on the top deck of a bus. Scorsese’s film deals fully with the rise of the Beatles, when pop stardom was transformed into a great deal more, because it quickly became obvious that the Beatles were extraordinary.

Paul and John were the composers of most of the great Beatles hits. George wrote hundreds of songs, but somehow they kept being squeezed out of albums and not included on show lists. There is an invaluable scene here showing him in an argument with Paul. His songs were not valued as he thought it should be, and after he struck out on his own, we heard much more of his work.

Searching for inner quiet in the chaos of stardom, he found himself drawn to Eastern religion, and was instrumental in bringing the Beatles under the influence of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. He joined the Hare Krishna tradition and was a vegetarian from 1968 until he died.

George believed that a great purpose of life was to prepare oneself for death. With chanting and meditation, he turned inward. His serenity received a severe challenge when he and his wife were attacked by an invader in his home, and he was stabbed as they fought off the mentally disturbed man.
Thoughts of the murder of John Lennon must have struck him with great force. In 1997, he was diagnosed with throat cancer, which later spread to his lungs and his brain. He died in 2001.

All of this, and a great deal more, is covered in this respectful film. This is a more objective, less personal documentary than Scorsese usually makes. Considering its length, there isn’t much concert footage, and it focuses on archival interviews with George, news footage, and an impressive selection of talking heads.

Those who knew George loved and respected him. His use of LSD and other drugs is discussed, but he seems to have been seeking truth, not a high, and soon enough he was drug free and found his highs in spiritual practices. He left his music. Even now, there is something a little hidden and private about him. I suspect if we want to sense his presense, we should visit his gardens.



Posted in Movie ReviewsComments (0)

Trailer: Spy Kids: All the Time in the World (Theatrical Trailer)


Spy Kids: All the Time in the World PosterJessica Alba, Joel McHale, Jeremy Piven Trailer: Spy Kids: All the Time in the World (Theatrical Trailer)

Posted in Movie TrailersComments (0)

Review: In a Better World / **1/2 (R)


A book by a Cambridge University scholar suggests that a lack of empathy is at the root of all cruelty. People are not intrinsically evil, argues Simon Baron-Cohen, but some lack the ability to identify with what others are feeling: “People who lack empathy see others as mere objects.”

Although I doubt Susanne Bier knew of this book when she made “In a Better World,” it plays like a demonstration of the same insight. In parallel stories set in Denmark and Africa, it considers characters who act with cruelty and those who deliberately seek to act with empathy, and poses some moral choices for those who fall somewhere on the middle of the spectrum.

“In a Better World,” which won this year’s Academy Award for best foreign film, centers on two boys and their fathers. Elias (Markus Rygaard) and Christian (William Johnk Nielsen) meet at the school where Christian has just transferred. Elias is a cute kid with braces, and when he’s picked on by the school bully, Christian defends him in a sudden and bloody way. “Nobody will pick on me again,” he explains.

Now pull back a step to their fathers. Elias’ dad is Anton (Mikael Persbrandt), who commutes between Denmark and an unnamed African country where he operates a free medical clinic. To his care come victims of all sorts, including women savagely sliced by the powerful local Big Man (Evans Muthini). Christian’s dad is Claus (Ulrich Thomsen), whose wife has died of cancer and left Christian resenting his father.

Anton is often in Africa, and Claus is often in London. The two boys bond. One day when Anton is home, he and Elias see a foul-tempered local man named Lars (Kim Bodnia) pushing around people who innocently offended him. Anton steps in, and Lars slaps him. Thinking this over, Anton decides to set an example to his son, and takes him to Lars’ auto shop for what is intended as a nonviolent confrontation. Lars is incapable of such a thing.

Christian, very inward, very intense, earlier defended Elias against the schoolyard bully and now devises a plan for them to gain revenge against Lars. Meanwhile, back in Africa, Anton’s clinic receives an emergency patient: Big Man, with an ugly, festering leg wound.

No more about the plot. What Susanne Bier does is cut between all of these stories to contrast the kinds of people who are instinctively cruel and those who are instinctively kind. The outcomes of the parallel stories are unpredictable although they follow a certain logic.

I admired Bier’s “Things We Lost in the Fire” and her Danish and American versions of “Brothers,” but here her method is too foregrounded. The African events in particular don’t fit organically into the rest of the film, playing more like a contrived contrast. The story of the boys works well (they’re both good actors), and their fathers are well-drawn and seen with sympathy. There’s also an estranged mother who is drawn into the unhappiness.

There are two strong stories here, in Africa and Denmark. Either could have made a film. Intercut in this way, they seem too much like self-conscious parables. No doubt the film’s noble intentions appealed to the academy voters, but this seems to me the weakest of this year’s five nominees. What does the title suggest? That in a better world there would not be such cruelty? True, no doubt.



Posted in Movie ReviewsComments (0)

Trailer: Peep World Theatrical Trailer


Peep World PosterMichael C. Hall, Ben Schwartz, Rainn Wilson, Sarah Silverman Trailer: Peep World Theatrical Trailer

Posted in Movie TrailersComments (0)

Review: Movie Answer Man: Ebert vs. Scott Pilgrim vs. the world?


Q. Why haven’t you reviewed “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World?” While it certainly underperformed at the Box Office, given your (embarrassingly) tumultuous relationship with Video Games, it would seem like fertile ground for a nuanced and controlled critique of video game culture and its effects on other forms of media. (Christian Russo)

A. Video games rank low on the list of tumultuous relationships I feel embarrassed about, but I’ve been amazed how often I’ve been asked your question. I took a month’s leave to work on my memoirs, and alas didn’t see “Scott Pilgrim.” I still sleep of nights.



Posted in Movie ReviewsComments (0)

News: Monday Night Poll: Where Did ‘Scott Pilgrim vs. the World’ Go Wrong?


Filed under: New Releases, Box Office, Polls

scott pilgrim vs the world movie image 10 600x320 1 News: Monday Night Poll: Where Did Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Go Wrong?

After the splendid buzz and largely positive reviews comes the hand-wringing: Why wasn’t Scott Pilgrim vs. the World a huge box-office hit? It opened fifth this weekend, after The Expendables, Eat Pray Love, The Other Guys, and Inception — two fellow newcomers with lousy reviews, and two movies that a lot of people had already seen. The commentators who were recently applauding the American public for being smart and making Inception #1 three weeks in a row have now returned to their default “moviegoers are idiots” position.

Scott Pilgrim‘s .6 million isn’t abysmal, but it’s in stark contrast to the enthusiasm that the film’s admirers have for it. People are tweeting about having seen it two or three times already; apparently that’s not enough to compensate for the people who aren’t seeing it at all. You can usually count on glowing reviews, months of hype, and an eager fanbase — even a small one — to produce an opening weekend better than this. People are comparing it to Kick-Ass, but that film had a million debut.

So why didn’t Scott Pilgrim do better? Could it be that Michael Cera has finally worn out his welcome as the awkward young man he’s been playing ever since we met him? The movie is based on a series of graphic novels; perhaps moviegoers thought it was only for the comic-book crowd?

Or maybe the film’s concept wasn’t explained very well. Looking at the trailers, it’s hard to tell what kind of movie it is. Superhero? Comic book? Young romance? Teen comedy? It’s actually all of those (and more), but that’s hard to convey in a 30-second spot. Movies like The Expendables and Eat Pray Love, on the other hand, are pretty easily defined, and have hugely recognizable stars to boot. (In the case of Expendables, a large cast of famous people is all it has.)

Let us know why you think Scott Pilgrim didn’t conquer the box office. Feel free to elaborate in the comments. Then feel free to go watch Scott Pilgrim.

Why did ‘Scott Pilgrim’ do poorly at the box office?

Posted in Movie NewsComments (0)

Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World


Filed under: Action, Comedy, Universal, Theatrical Reviews, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Games and Game Movies

pilgrimpic2 Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

I’m neither hip nor cool. If you rounded my age up you’d hit 40 and if you asked me if I’d read the Scott Pilgrim novels I’d have said “Scott what now?” I have no interest in what’s hot or cool or popular at Hot Topic these days, I’m absolutely clueless about current pop music, and I couldn’t care less what’s “trending” on twitter at the moment. In other words, I’m old. The maniacal new romantic comedy Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is not exactly “geared” to my “demographic,” and aside from the fact that I like the director and several cast members, I had no real rooting interest in the project one way or another.

Then I watched the film, and what I saw was one of the purest, sweetest, funniest, and most dead-on accurate portrayals of “young male in love” syndrome that I’ve ever seen in a cinema. One need not be a hip youngster or a seasoned film critic to see what’s going on beneath the surface of this powerfully entertaining movie — but it certainly helps to approach this strange little experiment with an open mind and a youthful heart. Anyone who dismisses this film as youth-pandering video game ephemera simply isn’t looking closely enough.

Directed with a stunning amount of wit and energy by Edgar Wright (he also brought you Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz), Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is about an average young Torontonian who falls madly in love with a wide-eyed but slightly melancholy girl named Ramona Flowers — but poor Scott has to withstand so much more than just building up the courage to ask for a date. As it turns out, Ramona actually kinda digs Scott, but let’s just say this lovely young gal comes with a lot of old-school romantic baggage.

As in: she’s got seven “evil exes” that Scott must defeat before he and Ramona are able to move forward with their delicate love affair. Plus he also has to contend with a pair of excitable ex-girlfriends, a group of intermittently supportive pals, and a whole bunch of emotional barbed wire to climb through. On paper, it sounds like a pretty standard rom-com — aside from the seven evil exes that Scott has to fight using martial arts, video game power-ups and rock music, I mean.

If ever there were a movie that will appeal to full grown adults who are still intent on retaining some true “childishness,”Scott Pilgrim is it. On the surface it’s all video game references and witty quips and movie geek in-jokes — but (barely) hidden beneath the flick’s addictively colorful exterior is a surprisingly insightful analysis of what happens to a young guy when he’s in love. On the screen we get to enjoy seeing Scott Pilgrim do battle with ex-boyfriends both handsome and threatening, but that’s not really what we’re watching at all. The canny screenplay (adapted from the book series by Bryan Lee O’Malley) makes it exceedingly clear that we’re watching actually one sweet kid do battle against … insecurity, uncertainty, and the paralyzing fear of being rejected by a beloved female for someone “cooler.”

Sure, the movie happens to mine this subtext early (and fairly often), but Wright and company take a gleefully enthusiastic approach to the material; the subtext complements the surface fun remarkably well and, better yet, vice versa. Taking smart material and then packaging it in such a strange movie is a big risk, and it may end up hurting Scott Pilgrim vs. The World at the box office, but I’d be willing to wager an arcade full of quarters that this flick will enjoy quite a healthy shelf life among the young / young-at-heart who’d like to see a romantic movie that delivers such personal, poignant ideas with an endearingly cockeyed grin. And lots of crazy fighting.

Now that I think about it, I may in fact be the perfect age to fall for a movie like this one. I’m old enough to know what heartache feels like, and I’ve sure as hell been in Scott Pilgrim’s shoes a few times, but I’m also still young enough to appreciate this film’s frenetic pace, constant video game references, and amusingly ass-kicking action bits. Mr. Wright’s odd little adaptation manages to be sweet, smart, slick and silly all at the same time, and speaking as only one old man: I think this flick is a welcome breath of fresh air in a sub-genre (the, ugh, romantic comedy) that could use a hundred similar breaths of fresh air.

And ladies, keep this in mind: as insane as Scott Pilgrim vs. The World gets (and boy does it get crazy), the film is still a powerfully accurate portrayal of what goes on inside the brain of a smitten and jealous young man. Trust me, it is.

Posted in Movie ReviewsComments (0)

SDCC Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World


Filed under: Action, Romance, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, New Releases, Universal, Theatrical Reviews, Fandom, New in Theaters, Comic/Superhero/Geek, ComicCon

sco1 SDCC Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

As this summer season has repeatedly proven, some movies produce odd, unexpected, and often deeply polarizing reviews. But while it’s certainly the onus of any critic to protect his or her integrity and defend that reaction, there are some of these movies whose reviews I’d argue are really just kind of wrong, while others, no matter how extreme or opposite, are probably all equally right. And Scott Pilgrim vs. The World decidedly falls into the latter category.

Although the film is a glorious celebration of video games, a sweet little twentysomething romance, and at its most intimate, a subtle and smart coming of age story, Edgar Wright’s adaptation of the beloved graphic novel series of the same name is going to generate as many pans as it does praise, primarily because some viewers may feel it cuts out a deeper emotional connection in the service of rendering some of the most razor-sharp pop-cultural specificity in recent memory. But even though I can’t help but pre-emptively understand if some of my colleagues argue that it’s too generationally narrow or even attention-deficient to leave a lasting impression, I really, really liked Scott Pilgrim, and think that it’s one of the most technically astounding and yet personally resonant movies of the year.

Share

Michael Cera plays Scott Pilgrim, a dubiously-employed 22-year-old who entertains rock star fantasies as the bassist of The Sex Bob-omb and entertains a fun if frivolous relationship with an underage girl named Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). After a dream mysteriously introduces Scott to Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), he devotes every moment of his waking life to meeting her for real, and manages to begin a furtive romance with her even though he can barely bring himself to break it off with Knives. But after a series of Ramona’s exes pay the lovesick bassist a visit promising to kill him unless he leaves her alone, Scott is forced to fight for the woman he loves, and just maybe learn a little something about himself in the process.

As far as deadpan hipster comedies are concerned, Scott Pilgrim is the Godfather of the genre – a massive, sprawling epic that builds and builds while offering just enough ironic asides to make fully sure that no one involved is taking themselves too seriously. And indeed, Michael Cera has played a variation of this character before – several of them, in fact – and he sometimes fails to provide the resilience and indefatigable determination (instead contributing his trademarked Charlie Brown-style feckless optimism) that Scott needs to see his romance with Ramona through to the end.

But what’s most surprising is how the movie sneaks up on you, and how it seems to know that these are its shortcomings, particularly at the beginning of the story. That I was initially bored by his dating life with Knives feels intentional in the context of the film’s ending, and that he is sort of infuriatingly inactive becomes an integral part not only of the character but his eventual journey, both physical and emotional, as he navigates adversaries and obstacles of both varieties.

sco3 SDCC Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Cinematically, director Edgar Wright continues to grow by leaps and bounds with each film, and here his mastery of technique pioneered by others finally and firmly becomes its own style. Although he uses filmmaking forebear Sam Raimi’s director of photography, Bill Pope, their work together resembles the source material from which they borrowed inspiration – including video games, action movies, and of course, comic books – rather than The Evil Dead or any other movie, for that matter. The action sequences are exhilarating, inventive, and best of all, based directly in the characters that are clashing with one another, and Wright juggles the physical, emotional and the cinematic elements of these scenes effortlessly.

That said, Wright’s breakneck editing and pacing makes Michael Bay look positively pastoral by comparison, and it’s probably here where Scott Pilgrim may suffer from many of its most passionate criticisms. I was certainly never lost in the filmmaking flourishes, even when Wright would cut breezily through several locations over the course of a single conversation, or chop up the action into bits so fine they looked almost like the ones and zeroes that provided the animators with their raw materials. But this is resolutely a film for a generation of moviegoers that is acclimated to music video-era storytelling, one less interested in formalism (much less classicism) than the sum total of a scene’s emotional weight or energy, and it may turn off folks who want something that’s subtler, more reflective, or even just a little slower.

It’s because of Wright’s virtuoso control of this technique that he may be the best young filmmaker of his generation; while he can deconstruct and reinvent action conventions in the blink of an eye, he also pays close attention to each scene’s payoff, and foregoes flourishes that are purely visual or visceral. The problem is, of course, that he’s so style-heavy as a director that his work seems completely unrestrained, but that style is employed so judiciously that it never feels self-indulgent or unwarranted. And even more surprisingly, he uses it as both a realization of and disguise for the core of the story, so that when Scott comes to his final realization it plays like a genuine epiphany, and forces the audience to reflect upon the film as not only attempting but executing something more substantive than a cinematic video game where the stakes begin and end with the affection of his dream girl.

sco2 SDCC Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Again, however, this film isn’t going to be for everybody, and no matter what their reasons may be on paper, it won’t just come down to them being “out of touch.” Evidenced by this adaptation, the Scott Pilgrim comic book is itself a sweet-spot of wish-fulfillment, real insight and pure fun, and the convergence of those elements in this way for a generation who responds to the source material is something that isn’t going to connect with everyone. It doesn’t need to, and in some ways, it probably shouldn’t.

In which case, generational markers are often as important as they are overlooked, and not unlike a Blade Runner or Bonnie and Clyde, this seems destined to be a film whose impact is measured in years rather than weekends to come, and with more analysis than a casual, convenient dismissal, or even an immediate, balls-out proclamation of its greatness. (In the meantime, it seems destined to spawn imitators and launch filmmaking careers left and right, not to mention provide a theme or point of would-be inspiration for plenty of real-life romances.) But even without an immediate connection to its light speed sensibility or the pop culture benchmarks it both celebrates and satirizes, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is an ambitious, one-of-a-kind, fully-realized, smart, sensitive and satisfying work of cinema – and one so confident in its execution that being hated by some is scarcely more than another battle en route to really being loved.

Posted in Movie ReviewsComments (0)