"Legacy" Schmegacy

Hello everyone,

             Before we start I have something I really need to say…..um…….

             It’s not you……it’s me.

             Anyway, after last month’s midnight premiere of Harry Potter I thought it would be months before I decided to brave the fatigue of 3 AM to see another midnight premiere. Alas, that all changed last week when I got invited to see Tron: Legacy at the Capitol Theatre. It was a sequel to the intriguingly impressive 1982 Tron, and it was in 3D.

              Now I hadn’t seen anything in 3D yet. I avoided Avatar simply because I didn’t want to waste twelve more dollars on Dances With Blue-Cat People and I haven’t been interested in seeing any of the other films that have come out in 3D. Also, I didn’t want to waste money on a lie.

It’s not 3D. Yes, children, I hate to ruin Christmas for you like mom and dad did when you were eight, but all of the films advertised off as “3D” are not Three Dimensional. I know I just brought you all down, so here’s something to cheer you up.

For the men: boobs

For the women: a sexy guy in a hot dog costume

3D is real life. If you’re standing directly in front of me, I can reach around your back and tap you on the opposing shoulder. This is because the world exists in length, width, and the third and probably most important dimension, depth. 3D films only give off the illusion of depth. Look at your computer screen. Now look at your dog(or the floor), now your leg, now the room you’re in, and now, the finale, look back at this review. Congratulations, you have just experienced 3D!

Dance party break! 

…..

…..

If films were actually done in 3D, I would be able to walk up to the movie screen and tap one of the characters in the film on the opposing shoulder. Next time you go to a 3D film, take your glasses off for a minute. I’ll bet you my life savings that the 2D screen hasn’t morphed into real life. Now put the glasses back on and try and tap Johnny Knoxville on the opposing shoulder. Does your hand go behind him? I have a feeling the answer is no.

“But review guy,” you say to your computer screen “It makes me feels like I’m really there.” Maybe, but you don’t need 3D glasses to elicit that feeling. You see, all of you have something called an imagination, which I believe you are supposed to use when watching works of art.

Right, now that I’ve bittered-up the holiday season for everyone, let’s move on to the actual film.

Tron: Legacy was a bold move for Disney. The original Tron was, for the most part, a flop. It did relatively well, but was shat on by critics and the public alike when it came out in ‘82. Over the years, a plethora of SF fans and gamers have developed a cult following of the film, heightening its value just enough to coax a sequel out of Hollywood. Rumors of a second film date all the way back to the 1990s, and the hype for Legacy this year has been extraordinary.

Hype that is, for the most part, overblown.

Legacy has a good, grounded story that could have made for a great film. Kevin Flynn(Jeff Bridges) has disappeared, leaving his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) distraught and depressed. When Flynn’s longtime friend Alan Bradley(Bruce Boxleitner) receives a mysterious page from Flynn’s abandoned office phone, he sends Sam to investigate. Sam accidently gets sucked into the digital world, where he is captured by Flynn’s digital-world alter-ego Clu. Sam then goes through a flurry of gladiator-like games, including a light cycle battle against Clu himself, before being rescued from certain death by a mysterious woman named Quorra(Olivia Wilde), who takes him to be reunited with his father. At this point, the plot goes on autopilot and becomes the stereotypical action-adventure film, ending in a climatic battle of good and evil that evil could have easily won if it had any sense.

Oh yeah, there’s also some sub-plot about people called ISOs and how they’re going to change all of humanity, though it’s never explained why or how and proved to be small beans in terms of plot contribution. 

The rest of the film, save for the production design which I’ll get to in a moment, falls flat on its face from beginning to end. The script evoked feelings of murderous rage, from the melodramatic, stereotypical action film lines, to the bastardization of Jeff Bridge’s character, who was one part Flynn, one part the Dude from Lebowski. Not that I hate the Dude or anything, but he’s the Dude…in fucking Tron. It made me cringe.

As we all know, no bad script can be complete without bad acting. Garret Hedlund’s Sam Flynn made Hayden Christenson’s Anakin Skywalker look good, which is quite a stunning achievement. Jeff Bridges Flynn has apparently found his zen, which makes him moderately interesting to watch at times. In addition, Bridges also plays Clu, complete with CGI to make him look thirty again. The CGI human features were pretty solid, though creepy at times. Olivia Wilde turns in a pair of beautiful eyes and a nice body but absolutely nothing else. The only decent acting to appear was by the very talented Michael Sheen, who plays the smiley gangster Zuse. Sheen’s brief, over-the-top shenanigans were a firework in a field of sparklers, and a thankful relief from the rest of the cast.

Legacy falls into the category of a “saved by a thread” kind of film, and it’s saving grace is the production design. The digital world that was crafted for the film in ’82 was more than good, and the sequel only builds on it. The original world was carved in grids and sharp edges, like circuitry. The newer, more modern, digital world comes in all shapes and sizes. Landscapes, vehicles, and the general environment are three times as flexible, and the color and tint of the art design is a treat for the senses.

            And that seems to be the goal nowadays, doesn't it? Treating the senses?

People are impressed with sub-par entertainment these days, and it bothers me. We have modern appliances and modern technology because someone, somewhere, at some point in time, put in the long hours and the energy to make them. We have memorable paintings, plays, and books that artists sometimes starved themselves to create. None of these people took shortcuts.

I miss the days before computer-generated images became the norm; when special effects were the obstacle rather than the feature; back when a plot problem had to be solved using intelligence and intuition rather than a computer.

It’s not real---a CGI image I mean. You can detail it until your blue in the face, but you can never fool the human eye, and you will especially never fool the trained human eye. It knows when something is real, and when something is not. There’s a reason why films from the twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties continue to fascinate modern audiences. They had spectacle to them. They used huge sets, thousands of bodies, models, extensive costumes(the guy who played the original Godzilla could only stay in the suit for 30 seconds before passing out). Hard, grueling work was put into every minute of every hour to make the final product shine in theatres. Part of the awe of those films is seeing what the minds, hands, and bodies of filmmakers could do when exerted, and the results were extraordinary.

Actors and directors had to fiddle with malfunctioning set pieces(Jaws was a bitch to make) and costume pieces. Make-up had to be used to alter features---you get the point, all right?

What I want to know is: when did “easy” start to mean “better”? When did doing things the hard way become not only outdated, but wrong? I may be overreacting to this; the answer may in fact be “money.” It more than likely is. When money is involved, the meaning of words and actions seem to magically change. Nevertheless, how does having a sizable amount of amazing special effects magically increase a films worth? Why is art that makes you feel good and comfortable worth more in general than art that depresses you?

That’s what I think social networking and information sharing has done: it’s devalued our humanity. Our thoughts and feelings go on to Facebook and are forgotten about. Why? You are human beings. Your depression has value, your pain has value, your suffering has value---as much value as happiness, comfort, satisfaction, etc. The negative feelings need to be welcomed and embraced as much as the positive ones; and not just when and where you’d like them to, but everywhere in everything. 

The friend that I went and saw Tron: Legacy with was a little kid when the first Tron came out. It’s one of his favorite movies of all time. He’s been waiting 28 years for Hollywood to bring it back to the screen. His reaction to Legacy: “It was what I expected it to be.” That, I think, is the most sickening criticism an artist can get. I would much rather have someone tell me my work was shit.

Yet this seems to be the standard nowadays, at least with movie and television franchises. They know that millions of fans will come out and pay for their film, so they don’t bother to make it be any better than it needs to be. Tron: Legacy falls into the same category as Avatar, Star Trek, The Last Airbender, the first six Harry Potter films, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy as films that could have been milestones had the people making them actually cared.

I guess I’m demanding too much. It was too much to ask for Lost to have more depth than a tabloid magazine, for Star Trek to be more than a generic film that anyone could have pulled out of their ass in twenty minutes, for Tron: Legacy to be more than expected. After all, people want to get what they want, and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of---  

You know what; nevermind. As I said earlier:

it’s not you, it’s me.

            Now go put on your franchise character T-shirt. It makes you look more like a geek.

            Ciao.

Harry Potter and the Mid-Night Brawl

Carpooling, friends and family, new cases of diabetes---ahhhh, yes, it’s midnight premiere season yet again; a most wonderful time of any year where people from all sorts of neighborhoods and boroughs get together in celebration of yet another addictive film franchise.

“I love film franchises! Woo!”

This time around, it is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I, starring nude-no-more Daniel Radcliffe, bear-child Rupert Grint, and fan-favorite Emma Watson, directed by (who amongst you is actually going to care?) David Yates. Nine and eight years ago, the first and second Harry Potter films graced the cinemas with their exposition-squeezed stories that informed audiences about the witch-and-wizard world they were being pulled into---and then abruptly ended and went to credits. Finally, as Prisoner of Azkaban lay on the cutting room floor, the director(again, who is actually going to care if I don’t name him?) finally said “fuck it” and began hacking branches off J.K. Rowling's story, leaving behind most of the original material to keep Potter fans engaged but changing just enough so that those same fans interrupted each subsequent film several times to remind the entire audience that “::gasp:: that’s not how they did it in the book!” Since then, the films have gotten a more stable plot line and have had a chance to focus on the characters: Emo-Dysfunctional Boy, Cutesy-Brave Guy, and the Girl-Who-Proves-That-Men-Come-From-Jupiter-And-Women-Come-From Venus.

I’m sure I’m going to get booed for this---

“Booooo!”

-but I wish the three main actors would learn to act something than their own characters’ archetypes. I like the three of them, I really do; Watson, Radcliffe, and Grint make a lovable trio and work well together on film, but they seem to ignore the fact that people change over time; especially vulnerable, susceptible teenagers. Other than looking more grown up, Potter, Granger, and Weasley have apparently not been affected by the events that have forever changed their lives. For starters, Watson has used the same “Hermione-in-agony” expression for almost every moment in the last five films, while Radcliffe has turned Harry more emo than Peter Parker in “Spider-Man 3”, and Grint is as adorable as a puppy, but his actual level of bravery is certainly questionable. After everything he’s been through and overcome, he still cowers in the face of a challenge almost immediately. I’m not saying that newer challenges shouldn’t test his bravery---I’m saying it doesn’t need to happen immediately, yet it does every time. It’s a trait I see in all three of them; they are frightened, they overcome their fear, bravely conquer newer challenges, and come out better and stronger intellectually and emotionally---and then go right back to where they started at the beginning of the next film*.

These characters are satisfactory. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson remind me of the main three from the book; but is that all? Is that all movie adaptations have to do to impress their audiences these days? As long as it follows the book and looks exactly like what we imagine, it’s fine? That’s it? Very few movies are "better" than the books that spawned them. Most of the ones that are considered “better” radically alter the book to fit a different vision, while still maintaining the core material from the original story; radically differ so much so that some fans don’t even consider the two to be related. Quite a catch-22 isn’t it: if the film doesn’t follow the book, fans get mad; if it does follow the book and cuts corners(God forbid they don’t show everything from all 400-600 pages), fans still get mad? Movies based off books have had more success(artistically anyway) when they are just that, based off the book, not tied to it. Why would one want the two to be the same? After all, each one of us sees these fantasy worlds differently, so no matter what, it’s almost never going to look the way we want it to on-screen. Plus, it’s not fair for the directors to have to conform to a story that’s already been written and imagined. Yes, they do get a chance to add their own style to the events from the book, but even then they don’t have too many options.

“Yeah philosophical, thought-provoking questions!”
“Will you please be quiet? We’re all trying to read this review too.”

That being said, there were stylistic choices that I thought Yates crafted superbly. The blacker tones and barren locations of this film informed the character’s struggle with the themes of isolation, loss, and entrapment. The dark heartbeat contrasts nicely with bright spots of comedy and dance(yes, dance) that relieve the tensed angst of the younglings’ mission to find four Horcruxes in the haystack of the entire world. Yates’s animated, Burton-esque telling of the Tale of the Three Brothers is a fantasy within a fantasy, giving this film as expressionist edge that I think is a bit too late in coming. Up to this point, the Potter films had been without animated, avant-garde art styles to turn them on their heads; having one suddenly be thrown into the mix in the next-to-last installment felt useless. Despite that fact, the segment was very beautiful and left me wanting more of it and wishing it had been used in previous films. Also, as I mentioned somewhat earlier, relatability has never been these films’ strong suit as the fans of the franchise have grown up and made all kinds of changes while our dear friends in the Harry Potter world are still getting into fights and leaving each other, apparently forgetting that that has never helped anything, ever.     

I’m not going to discuss how much of the book the film follows, simply because it can be summed up pretty easily: it doesn’t completely follow the book. What needs to be there is, all right? Hedwig still dies, Potter still kicks Umbridge’s toady ass, and Voldemort is still as ugly as---ah! aodjewiogfhretgiohrtgoihtrioygibrpfoatjpoaaf
Ght
Hyt
Ujhytkjuyl
Kiopoiijjh
Ilghh
 Ggg         gtgtr htyj yy6  jyt jk

“Stupefy! Nortono Insta Credito!”

Pardon the interruption there folks. As I was saying---and Vol—You-Know-Who---is still as ugly as the bastard child of Lucifer.

“Lame!”
“Shhhhh!”
“You ‘shhhhh!’”

 Earlier this week, in unconscious anticipation of soon realizing that it was coming out this week, I stumbled across an article in which Daniel Radcliffe had told reporters that Emma Watson"kisses like an animal". Radcliffe was referring to the scene in the film where Ron is being tempted into a fit of rage and jealousy by the Horcrux locket, which shows him an image of Harry and Ron's beloved Hermione sloppily making out. Now, most men my age would be looking forward to seeing Emma Watson make out with just about anyone(myself being in the minority that realizes that she’s about four years younger than me and that that means something), but what I was looking forward to seeing was what exactly Yates meant with his direction; according to Radcliffe, Yates told the actors that the first take was too soft, that they needed to be “more pagan and mad,” which is definitely a candidate in the running for Best Direction EVER!

“You---actor in the background, buttering your toast! More pagan and mad!”

“You---zombies! More pagan and mad!”

“You---Mel Gibson! More pag---act-actually, less pagan and mad for you; you already have enough of that. Thank you.”

Watson proceeded to heed Yates’s direction, and went at Radcliffe with “animal” lips, taking him almost completely by surprise. The scene itself turned out to be about as “pagan and mad” as an environmentalist’s Christmas party, though I’m sure the more perverted fans(of both genders) enjoyed watching Watson and Radcliffe make out naked(spoiler alert!)

“Yeah nakedness!”
“Shut the fuck up!!”
“Quit shushing me and read the review you fat fuck.”
“I’m going to get security.”

So, now to the question everyone has been wondering: if beer liked the taste of beer, would it drink itself? I don’t know.

Now to the relevant question everyone has been wondering: where does Part One end? All I will tell you is that ends with two contrasting scenes.

I would also like to tell you about the emotional impact of the end of the film. Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to watch the end of the film. During the last five minutes, an argument that had been stewing throughout the night between a heckler and a man-simply-trying-to-enjoy-the-film erupted when the man-simply-trying-to-enjoy-the-film recruited more like-minded fellows and, all uniting, proceeded to drag the heckler from his seat and yank him into the corridor, with much applause from the audience. However,---

“You---heckler guy at the Harry Potter midnight premiere! More pagan and mad!”

-the man soon returned, shirtless and ready to fight. He immediately charged into the aisles and started taking swings at the men who had kicked him out. Within five seconds, a police officer barged into the theatre and yanked the man, kicking and screaming, off his prey. Someone in the audience shouted “are you really going to do this over Harry Potter?” to which the macho, muscular, shirtless man responded “for Harry Potter? Yes!” He broke free and flew back into the aisles, causing many people---including a guy dressed in a hot dog costume, wearing a sign that said “Muggles are for wieners”---to stand up and hurry out of the way. A second officer then burst unto the scene and began wrestling the shirtless man to the ground( I later found out that the shirtless man was juiced up on Magic Multi-Spell Ale, known in the Muggle world as Four Loko).

And so, as the credits began to roll at 2:30 AM in the morning, all of the die-hard Harry Potter fans were left with a surge of adrenaline, absolutely no crying, and a story to tell for the next morning---all realizing this amidst a slew of shouts from the shirtless man as the officers continued to wrestle him to the ground in the aisles of the movie theater, forever proving that it takes a REAL man(and his whining, violent, and bitchy girlfriend) to enjoy Harry Potter at midnight with Four Loko.

“Yeah, wish I could see those cops kick that whiny asshole’s ass!”
“That’s it. Get out. Get the fuck out!”
“Hey, get your hands off of me. Don’t t---oh fuck, you’re gonna get it now.”

All in all, Deathly Hallows Part I is a film off the path of the other five; in a good way. Yates takes us all on a slow, more focused journey that allows us to truly immerse ourselves in the world we all love,---

“Will you guys stop, there’s only a few more lines l---hey, get off my lap!”
“Get out! Get out!”
“Get your fucking hands---I will kill you, you little son-of-a-bitch.”

---as well as focus intently on our main three in their final and most trying---

“Is it really worth this? For this stupid little review?”
“For this review of Harry Potter 7? On Facebook?!!! Yeah!!!!”

No. No, it really isn’t. Now you, put your fucking shirt back on, and you, next time around, pick a better time to act.

Ciao.

P.S. You---people who are going to comment on this review! More pagan and mad!

*Perhaps that is more Rowling’s fault than the actors. At the same time, though, lots of classic film and theatre characters have repetitious actions. That doesn’t mean the same choices need to made every time.