The Odyssey (5/5 Stars)

There is a primal quality to this most ancient of tales. It speaks to a deep seated fear of the ancient traveler, that these things you have, your wife, your family, your property, your place in the community, can be taken away by usurpers behind your back as soon as you are far enough away to be unable to defend them. What makes men respect the possessions of a man called to war across the sea, where fate and/or chance can delay or prevent his return. Well, there is this most well known and oft-told story of a hero of the Trojan War, one Odysseus, King of Ithaca, who was lost for almost ten years after the Fall of Troy (gone from home home twenty years in total), but did indeed come back, stronger than ever, and with vengeance for all those who sought to take advantage of his absence.

The Odyssey is a long convoluted tale with a lot of different set pieces. I believe it would be exceedingly difficult to parse this ancient material, honor those elements that are famous, and keep a core through-line. Christopher Nolan’s masterful adaptation not only does this, but adds material that enhances and develops his themes, making the movie version of the story, in important ways, superior to the original text. This movie is not only easier to follow, it means more, because it knows better what the story is about than the original text (or it is at least clearer what Nolan wants the story to mean).

Everyone knows the various encounters that disrupt Odysseus’s return home, the island of the cyclops, the sirens, Charbydis and Scylla. In many tellings, these well-known set pieces overwhelm the scenes at home because, in Ithaca, there is no action, just subtle political intrigue. The strength of this movie comes from Nolan’s focus on first establishing the Ithaca subplot, developing it in an important and dramatic scene in the center of the movie (in the Land of the Dead), and then paying those scenes off in the climatic ending.

How Nolan does this is entirely his addition to the story. He adds two characters not in the original text. In the beginning they are teenage boys, subject to the Ithaca draft for the Trojan War. One, Antinious, draws the short straw, but since he is the only son of his family, Odysseus (Matt Damon) allows another boy, Sinon, to take his place. Antinious promises to Sinon to take care of his family while he is gone.

At the end of the Trojan War, Antinious (Robert Pattinson), we learn, has broken his vow to Sinon and not taken care of his family. Indeed, we find him squatting with a bunch of other suitors in the home of Odysseus, putting pressure on his wife Penelope (Anne Hathaway) to choose another husband. The situation is fraught with danger. Penelope intuits, I think correctly, that any man she chooses to be her husband would eventually see her son (Tom Holland) as a political threat and kill him. And she can’t just crown her son the king, because, not being of age, he again, would be a target for assassination. The best thing she can do is what she does here, proclaim her confidence in her lost husband’s survival and stall for time. Realistically, she can only do this until her son comes of age. Then her son will have to claim the throne and all hell will break loose.

Sinon (Elliot Page) dies at the beginning of the movie (i.e. the end of the Trojan War), but comes back onto the screen at the midway point in the Land of the Dead to warn Odysseus of the dangers at home. He speaks of Antinious' pledge to support his father and how, when he showed up in the Land of the Dead, his father was the first to greet him. Sinon provides Odysseus a token that Antinious will recognize as the promises he didn’t keep. This exchange is paid off handsomely in the final scenes. Again, there is nothing in the book that provides the character arcs of these two added figures. In the text, Odysseus doesn’t know any of the suitors by name. Nolan added Sinon and Antinious and they do much to hold together the frame of the movie while Odysseus goes on his many journeys between the flagposts.

It is also a testament to Nolan that he puts much effort into strengthening the weaker segments of the journey, as opposed to omitting them entirely or gliding over them, so that all scenes have their merit (a good idea in a 3-hour movie). A particularly good example is Odysseus' encounter with the land of the giant cannibals. The text is unsatisfying. Odysseus loses the majority of his men, and all of his ships but one, in the space of a few pages against a foe with no special characteristics. In the movie, these beings have been transformed into truly terrifying armor-plated giants that have mystifying control over the forest they dwell in. They look so cool, that this usually forgotten part of the story is being used for the movie poster. The scene is also a good example of Nolan’s use of practical effects as opposed to digital trickery. (It involves casting 7 foot tall actors as the giants, and using a 4 ft 11 inch stunt double for Matt Damon. An old Hollywood trick)

The world of 1000 B.C. was an unforgiving place, and within that unforgiving place was an even more unforgiving element, sea travel. One could see a person off on a sea voyage and not only have no idea if they would ever come back, but really have no idea of what actually befell them when or where. Once the boat passed the horizon literally anything could have happened to them. On the open sea/ocean, there are no witnesses. It is no surprise that in Shakespeare there is a consistent trope of shipwrecks and miraculous survivals. Since there was no way to tell if someone died in a shipwreck, there always existed some hope that they could come back someday. This primal hope of the return is as deep-seated as the fear of the traveller mentioned above.

The solution to this anxiety is to instill in society a “Golden Rule” culture, which extends hospitality to strangers. In turn, those strangers are to respect the house and possessions of those extending the hospitality. In The Odyssey, this is known as “Zeus’s Law” and it is mentioned frequently in the movie. Nolan adds one more thing that the writers of the Odyssey could not have possibly known. The story was born in a period of darkness, between the collapse of the Golden Age of Egypt and the Near East (of which Troy was a principal city) around 1100 B.C. and the revitalization of Ancient Greece, circa 600 B.C. One of the cited causes of this first dark age were invasions by “Sea Peoples”. (This phrase comes from contemporaneous Egyptian Heiroglyphs). Nolan makes a connection that the original Trojan Horse is a violation of Zeus’ law since it takes advantage of hospitality, and also makes a connection that the sack of Troy is an invasion by “Sea Peoples”. This is not ahistorical per se (the Mycenaeans did invade by ship) but it would certainly be a surprise to the Mycenaeans to be described as such. Nor would anyone in Ancient Greece conclude that the Trojan Horse was a harbinger and/or the cause of the dark times to come. Instead, they celebrated Odysseus’ cunning. Again, this is an addition by Nolan, but it is not unwelcome. Really the most satisfying element in this movie is Nolan’s ability to meld modern morals onto this ancient tale and still keep and earn its climatic ending, that most primal of cautionary tales. I bet this tale lasts another 1000 years.

Mad Max: Fury Road (5/5 Stars)

The main criticism that well regarded movie critics have thrown at blockbusters from time immemorial is their lowest common denominator nature. As products intended for the masses the big corporate studios (only people who can afford to make big blockbuster movies) dumbed down and sanitized the product in an effort to have it appeal to the broadest audience possible. In recent years there has been a welcome shift away from that mission plan. The causes are not completely known (although for my money I would give much credit to the silent digital revolution in movies which makes them a lot cheaper to make) but the effects can be perhaps perfectly exemplified in the movie “Mad Max: Fury Road,” a great blockbuster that is definitively not for everybody. It is what I will call (and I am coining a phrase here, (Watch Out!) a “niche blockbuster.” Its appearance was foreshadowed by the delightfully kooky yet still rather tame blockbuster  “Guardians of the Galaxy” last year, but here it has fully come of age in the grotesque apocalyptic vision of Mad Max land. To say that “Mad Max: Fury Road,” is merely a reboot of the cult B-movies of the 1980s does not do it justice. This is a new type of movie and one that should give hope to all those that care about movies. We are going through a rather intense revolution in how media is consumed right now and the local movie theater will not be spared from change as well. If George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are to be believed (and why not they should know something) we may very well be on the verge of only having very expensive blockbusters in movie theaters and everything else being delegated to the ever expanding cinema realm of one’s living room. The pessimists then have predicted a future where one’s local cineplex no longer shows anything interesting, strange, or weird, (i.e. original), but that does not seem to be happening at least not entirely. As the biggest blockbusters get ever bigger the lesser blockbusters are becoming more targeted in their subject matter, tone, and intended audience. It is of great surprise and relief and wonder that Mad Max: Fury Road has retained the look and feel of the original movies. This shows great gumption in the studio heads that bankrolled the big budget because the original movies were cult movies for a reason. They were unapologetically focused on car chases in the unforgiving desert wasteland between inarticulate anti-heroes and the grotesque caricatures of really bad really ugly men. This is essentially the same in “Mad Max: Fury Road,” the main exception being a desire to expand the audience beyond the average teenage male gearhead and allow women in on the fun. But women are allowed in only on Mad Max terms of course; the main female character Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron channeling her inner badass) has only one arm. Why? Well times are tough in the future and if women want to be part of the gang they have to be tough too. I think this movie may have broken the record for gun-toting biker grannies.

It will not take too long to summarize the plot of the movie. Mad Max (Tom Hardy) is taken prisoner by Immortan Joe, a terrifying slavemaster. As Mad Max is hanging down from the ceiling with his blood being drained out of him into a War Boy named Nux (Nicholas Hoult), news comes that Immortan Joe’s five harem sex slaves have been emancipated by one of his great warriors, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron). Immortan Joe sets off after her with the help of his evil allies in Gas Town and the Bullet Farm (The two main economies of what is left of the world). There are also wild bandits. You can tell these guys apart because of their distinctive cars. They chase Imperator and then chase her some more. In between all of this Mad Max frees himself and teams up with Furiosa. That’s the movie essentially. Given that the original movies were no more complex this is exactly how complex the reboot should be if it were being faithful to the original material. The point has never been the screenplay. It is what is on the screen. 

And boy what is on the screen. First it should be mentioned that the world in “Mad Max” is a fully realized apocalyptic fever dream. Much like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ it would be entirely acceptable if the movie got Oscar Nominations for Makeup, Costumes, and Production Design. I cannot imagine those three things being any better in this movie. If I were to sum up the tone of the movie I would single out one of the main bad guy’s cars. Stationed on top of this large eighteen-wheeler is an electric guitarist backed by ginormous speakers, clad entirely in red leather and suspended in midair by multiple bungee chords. When he hits the climax of a particularly intense solo the guitar doubles as a flamethrower, which spews flames out of the top. A Whole Lotta Love right there in the production design.

The performances are exactly what they should be. Tom Hardy seems to get it. He speaks as little as possible and only in gruff monosyllabic mutters. The bad guys seem to come entirely from the World Wresting Federation. Imperator Furiosa is steely and resolved and totally resourceful. And then there is Nicholas Hoult’s Nux who is completely insane. The War Body army is a group of Albino Berserkers entirely convinced that death in battle is but the beginning of a paradise in Valhalla. They throw themselves in and around the cars in these battles with an extraordinary lack of self-preservation. Hoult’s performance is perhaps the best and most original performance in the movie. Thankfully, he sticks around much longer than one thinks possible and his presence is never less than interesting. I looked him up and was astonished that he is the kid from that Hugh Grant movie “About a Boy.” Incredible what he has grown up to be capable of. What is perhaps most important is that between all the great car chases we have still scenes that do not weigh down the story with melodrama or pretentiousness. There is an emotional core here that works even though it is not required to work all that hard.

The fights and car chases are essentially theatrical wrestling matches. There is no way in hell that cars can continue to function in any of these situations (particularly with all the desert dust going around) and no way in hell that men can take the kind of beatings they do here without any type of blood or bruises. But the action is well done. The physics are within the realm of the suspension of disbelief. And the viewer is never all that confused as to where and what everybody is doing. There is no Oscar nomination for Stunt Direction but when you see a movie that does it so well like this one does you can really grasp the injustice of such an omission. Next year I will certainly include such a category in my own Oscar picks. This movie would make a great video game by the way.

I think one more note can be said about this movie’s feminism. I’ve seen enough movies now to not be all that surprised by the prospect of a woman toting a gun or engaging in something else that is traditionally masculine. There is a tendency though for movies to really pat themselves on the back for their progressive views. That is getting a bit tiring. I think from now on just give the girls their guns and spare me the speeches about how daring the movie is being. It was daring when Ridley Scott and James Cameron did it in the 1980s. I was born in 1986 and don’t really remember a time when the movies weren’t feminist. Hell, Titanic came out when I was eleven and it took me at least a decade to actually see what old movies James Cameron was giving his pro-woman finger to (cough ‘Gone With the Wind’ cough cough). I’m not saying that ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ is all that speechifying. It isn’t. But when you’ve got an army of gun-toting grannies in a major motion blockbuster franchise that is, if anything, defined by its testosterone, I think we can start giving the special treatment a rest. I’m not so impressed by the dog walking on its hind legs or even walking on its hind legs well anymore. 

Prometheus (5/5 Stars)

A worthy addition to the franchise

It is the year 2089 and a couple of archaeologists excavate a cave in Scotland. They find a cave painting of a large humanoid pointing at what looks like five stars. The same mural had been found in the ancient murals of the Egyptians, Sumerians, Mayans, and Babylonians as well. These civilizations had little to no contact with each other. What’s more, the five stars can actually be found in the nighttime sky. One of these stars is very similar to Earth’s sun and orbiting it is a large gas planet with a moon very similar to Earth. Is it a message? A warning? An invitation for man to meet its makers? Five years later, the Weyland Corporation sponsors a spaceship named Prometheus and its crew of engineers and scientists to make an investigatory trip to that far off galaxy. They find almost exactly what they are looking for: an ancient pyramid with the long forgotten carvings of a humanoid species of alien. But they also find a not very well intentioned something else living inside. Then people start dying.

The look and the feel of the movie should be instantly recognizable for those familiar with the “Alien” franchise. The font for the title is the same, the style of futurisitic technology and set design is the same, and the director, Ridley Scott, was actually the director of the first “Alien” movie (but none of the others. This was way back in 1979). The plot (humans investigate, find hostile aliens, people start dying, the corporate agents act amorally, and more people die) is fundamentally the same as the first several movies, but differs in all the correct ways. There are new thrills, new themes, and new developments in what happens to who and when. I'm being vague on purpose. This is one of those movies where the less I say about the plot, the better experience the reader will have when they see it. So let me just say that the movie is similar enough to the original movies that they make sense being in this franchise but different enough that you will still actually be shocked when you should be. Or in other words, you can enjoy this movie without having seen any of the others and having seen the other movies won’t diminish the experience of this one. This is a quality (the ability to expand on the themes and look of previous movies without violating basic copyright laws) that marks all great sequels and prequels and what makes “Prometheus” a worthy addition to the “Alien” franchise.

No actors from previous installments of the franchise are present in “Prometheus,” but that does not stop this movie from having one of the best ensemble casts in any movie this year. None of these actors are A-List, but to the cinephile in the audience, it is a hugely heavyweight collection of intelligent badassery. First off, playing the ship’s captain is Idris Elba (aka “Stringer Bell” from “The Wire.”) This guy must be a good 6’4” composed entirely of muscle yet still would not look the least out of place in glasses reading a book on quantum mechanics. Not an easy thing to do. Then there is the corporate overseer played by Charlize Theron (aka the “Monster”), who has recently accomplished the feat of being in her late thirties and more stunningly beautiful than she has ever been. Charlize certainly doesn’t need help being tall, but that doesn’t stop her character from wearing five-inch power high-heels, a touch that along with an icy glare gives her screen presence an effect similar to, well, I can’t think of any other woman but Sigourney Weaver. Next is the new golden-boy of serious cinema, Michael Fassbender, who you may be most familiar as the young “Magneto” in the latest X-Men movie. Fassbender has a face and build that makes him perfect for playing a super intelligent and amoral android.  There’s a great scene when he watches his favorite movie, “Lawrence of Arabia,” and the resemblance is uncanny. He has the same intense gaze of a young Peter O’Toole.

Finally there is Noomi Rapace (aka the original and actually Swedish “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) playing the archeaologist. She is noticeably softer than Lizbeth Salandar but the events she goes through are just as traumatic if not more so. I always hesitate to say an actor/actress is brave because you know in the end, it is all just pretending. But for a select few I will pull out that adjective. Christian Bale is one and also Noomi Rapace. It is hard to judge a science fiction performance come Oscar time because the great ones generally require actions in situations that have never been done before (in contrast a performance in a movie adapted from Shakespeare is perhaps the easiest to judge) but as you reflect on this movie, ask yourself this question about that particular scene you must know I am talking about: Who else could have done it better, or better yet, who else could have even done it? (And don’t say Rooney Mara unless you want to piss me off.) For the fourth time in as many movies as I have seen her in, I believe Noomi Rapace deserves an Oscar Nomination. Perhaps the best compliment I can give this movie however has to do with the fact that Sigourney Weaver is not missed. That’s huge because Weaver is arguably the best female action heroine to ever grace the movie screen. But here I am saying it: Rapace and Theron, more than make up for the absence. There is some serious intelligent badass female empowerment going on here. Ridley Scott never seems to disappoint in that area. 

The main flaw in this movie is that it asks several big questions like: Where do we come from? Who are our makers? What do they think of how we turned out? and then does not answer any of them. This does not bother me that much though because these questions really do not have any decent answers and when a movie tries to provide these answers it is always unsatisfactory anyways (see 6th season of “Lost,” the “Matrix” sequels). There is a moment in this movie when the maker has the opportunity to say something and instead just starts being violent. What could it have said? I have no idea. It could have been cool if he had said the correct thing whatever that is. He does not say anything and that is a shame, but I’m not about to fault the writers for not knowing what the meaning of life is. Asking the questions is good enough for me. 

In the Valley of Elah 09/28/07

This will probably be the first of many movies I see about the Iraq war. and that's pretty significant because the war is still going on. They waited five years after Vietnam ended before they made The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now. The first movies about WWII that didn't include bullshit John Wayne viewpoints happened decades afterward. But here we are with 'The Valley of Elah' a movie about returning veterans from Iraq that has been released in the midst of the war itself. Is this a good thing or bad thing? I don't know. Probably a good thing. It keeps people aware of what's going on right now, it'll maybe even keep them interested.
But there will proabably be better movies than this that will talk about the same issue and be about the same things. There was something about this film that simply put, was boring. It simply expected to much from me. Let me put it this way, a soldier goes missing and dies. But why should I feel sympathy, I know nothing about this kid. I've never met him and not until the last ten minutes do I even see him or hear him talk in any coherent way. I don't feel sympathy for the guy, and I have a hard time of relating to the mother and father when they lose him. I feel for them on a universal level. They've lost their son. But I don't feel for them personally, and when there are these long slow scenes when people cry I feel disconnected and removed. I'm bored.
The good part of the movie is that it somewhat works as a detective story and Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron provide solid work as they try to solve the case. Theron in paticular is fantastic, I wish the movie would have been more about her. We get a glimpse into her life and I wish I had seen more of it. There is a paticularly good scene when Tommy Lee Jones tells her son a bedtime story about the fight between David and Goliath in the Valley of Elah. It's fantastic hearing the old grizzled man talk about bravery to a seven year old. Good times. Still I can't quite recommend the movie. It's just too emotionally demanding for a subject (the boy) that is so curiously absent.