love

Author Topic: Bondo's Great Directors  (Read 70543 times)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2010, 11:28:07 PM »
Princess Mononoke (Hayao Miyazaki, 1997)

Netflix is a bit weird. Sure, Totoro was marked as long wait but Castle In The Sky, Kiki's and Porco Roso were all allegedly available yet were skipped in favor of Mononoke.

Mononoke takes Nausicaa's overt environmental message and man vs. nature story; combines it with Spirited Away's mystical nature and adds a bit of blood (by far Miyazaki's most adult film, what with its severed limbs and decapitations). Prior to Spirited Away, this was the film Miyazaki was associated with in my head (though I do think Spirited Away was the first I saw). I enjoyed it a fair bit the first time but a little less this time around.

I think the plot here is unnecessarily circuitous, making the 135 minute running length seem excessive. You start with a guy, Prince Ashitaka who is infected by a demon and going in search of a cure, where he discovers that outside his fairly untouched area there is a lot of warring among humans and between humans and the beasts that defend nature against the modernizing technologies that destroy it. In this way Mononoke seems to be taking on industrialization more than the pollution that was in focus for Nausicaa. Yet I guess, even with its length, it never really establishes a compelling narrative. Other than Ashitaka, I don't really understand the motivations of the human characters.

Lady Eboshi is the most notable secondary human character, head of Irontown. She runs what seems to be a matriarchal town where the iron-workers (all former prostitutes) seem to rank above the warriors (the men); I guess this means women can be as bad as men? That she is intruding on nature seems reasonable enough based on scarce resources, but she also apparently wants to take over the world...why? because apparently that is what humans do. There just aren't a lot of natural decisions on showcase here like there are in Nausicaa so it isn't as effective a commentary or story. This culminates in an ending that is just a bit too easy.

I've dwelled a bit much on the negatives because that is what stands out as different from my first impression. There are still a lot of neat aspects here. The kodama, little forest spirits are another special Miyazaki design. The relationship of Ashitaka and San is pretty strong. But overall this just isn't a special film for me.

Rating: 3/5

ferris

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10830
  • "Bravo Vincent....Bravo!"
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2010, 11:34:14 PM »
Princess Mononoke (Hayao Miyazaki, 1997)

Netflix is a bit weird. Sure, Totoro was marked as long wait but Castle In The Sky, Kiki's and Porco Roso were all allegedly available yet were skipped in favor of Mononoke.

Mononoke takes Nausicaa's overt environmental message and man vs. nature story; combines it with Spirited Away's mystical nature and adds a bit of blood (by far Miyazaki's most adult film, what with its severed limbs and decapitations). Prior to Spirited Away, this was the film Miyazaki was associated with in my head (though I do think Spirited Away was the first I saw). I enjoyed it a fair bit the first time but a little less this time around.

I think the plot here is unnecessarily circuitous, making the 135 minute running length seem excessive. You start with a guy, Prince Ashitaka who is infected by a demon and going in search of a cure, where he discovers that outside his fairly untouched area there is a lot of warring among humans and between humans and the beasts that defend nature against the modernizing technologies that destroy it. In this way Mononoke seems to be taking on industrialization more than the pollution that was in focus for Nausicaa. Yet I guess, even with its length, it never really establishes a compelling narrative. Other than Ashitaka, I don't really understand the motivations of the human characters.

Lady Eboshi is the most notable secondary human character, head of Irontown. She runs what seems to be a matriarchal town where the iron-workers (all former prostitutes) seem to rank above the warriors (the men); I guess this means women can be as bad as men? That she is intruding on nature seems reasonable enough based on scarce resources, but she also apparently wants to take over the world...why? because apparently that is what humans do. There just aren't a lot of natural decisions on showcase here like there are in Nausicaa so it isn't as effective a commentary or story. This culminates in an ending that is just a bit too easy.

I've dwelled a bit much on the negatives because that is what stands out as different from my first impression. There are still a lot of neat aspects here. The kodama, little forest spirits are another special Miyazaki design. The relationship of Ashitaka and San is pretty strong. But overall this just isn't a special film for me.

Rating: 3/5

I'm saving my comments for the Noke/Ferris 'Zaki marathon, but I think overall we're pretty close on this one.
"And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs" - Exodus 8:2 KJV
(switchboard)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2010, 11:41:19 PM »
I'm saving my comments for the Noke/Ferris 'Zaki marathon, but I think overall we're pretty close on this one.

Always nice to know I'm not crazy.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #53 on: April 23, 2010, 12:30:55 AM »
I couldn't quite put my finger on what makes me like Mononoke less than other Miyazaki, but you nailed my thoughts precisely.  We really do have similar tastes.

Bill Thompson

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17561
  • DOOM!!!!
    • Bill's Movie Emporium
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #54 on: April 23, 2010, 01:08:39 AM »
I couldn't quite put my finger on what makes me like Mononoke less than other Miyazaki, but you nailed my thoughts precisely.  We really do have similar tastes.

Obviously we don't as I disagree with every one of your complaints.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2010, 02:16:02 AM »
The Sixth Sense (M. Night Shyamalan, 1999)

While still firmly enmeshed in my Miyazaki leg of this marathon, I am starting on the M. Night leg as well, if only because I have access to the first four entries (not including his first two films, which sadly are not available on Netflix presently). Some questioned my inclusion of M. Night on a great directors marathon (some also questioned Fincher). He has made some off films lately and perhaps I should go as far as to say that he is a competent director but an abnormally creative one. It is this latter mark that earns him inclusion. He is making films unlike anyone else in the business. And while Fincher brings a higher level of technical proficiency to a fairly narrow genre class, M. Night, like Danny Boyle later in this marathon, works across the genres. Sixth Sense is horror, Unbreakable is comic book/superhero, Signs is alien/sci-fi, The Village is period/monster, Lady In The Water is fairy tale/fantasy and The Happening is a slice of 70s paranoia sci-fi. They may not all work but each is a fairly fresh look at a given genre. It will be interesting to see where The Last Airbender will fit in since it is arguably his least personal film yet.

Anyway, without further ado, here is The Sixth Sense. This review will have spoilers (well, the main spoiler) because it is important to the discussion and I don't want to put my whole paragraph in spoiler text. Also, it is such an established part of pop culture at this point that I think the statute of limitations on spoiling this film is gone.

I was 16 or so years old when I first watched The Sixth Sense and I remember distinctly the next couple days after watching it being very unsettled by the dark. The concept of the film, and the idea that ghosts are all around, unseen by most but unknowingly sensed, was strong and combined with the film's well established mood it lingered in a way that few horror films really succeed in. In rewatching it, I'm a bit surprised how few scares this film actually has to offer. There are only at most a half dozen real scary moments here, but you wouldn't realize that from how effective the film is. Even having seen it a number of times, I had paused prior to one of the first main scares to go get a bowl of cereal and was thinking to myself I need to be careful. Even so, the first scare came and I spilled a bit of my cereal. Sure, in this case it is one of those cliche score induced scares, but even those can be more or less effective based on how well the general tension has been built.

There are a few particular things I picked up this time. Cole is punished for a violent drawing at school and thus pushes his attempt to express what he is experiencing inside of himself. I don't think I recognized it at this time, but this is particularly interesting coming the same year as the Columbine massacre and the rise of zero-tolerance policies that would probably promote this sort of over-reaction. M. Night pretty much always makes Philadelphia the star of his films (I think every city needs a director to do this...Austin has Linklater, NYC has Allen and Scorsese, not sure Denver has anyone). In this case it is powerful given Philly's historical nature. Through the various snippets of ghost stories, we see some of history's brutality (public hangings, class based violence, etc) but we also get very mundane things. For all the stories that we get, the one that gets the most focus is Kyra (Mischa Barton...I love a reference made to this role in The OC), which comes to a very powerful emotional resolution.

Then we come to the famous twist. A common theme in my reviews will be fighting back against the "it is all about the twist" claim that has often been leveled against M. Night. This one is probably the most powerful and crafty. It is skillful the way that he makes the film consistent with Malcolm as both alive or as a ghost. I certainly am happy to have had my original experience unspoiled. But I certainly don't think it is a lesser experience with the knowledge, in fact, it is a better experience with the knowledge of what is happening (though because of the ability to re-watch, I'd certainly hope everyone gets a chance to see it both ways). Understanding that Malcolm is one of the cases and further that Cole seems to know it (I'm not sure about this interpretation, even yet) makes the conversations that much more meaningful.

The Sixth Sense isn't a flawless film; I don't think M. Night really makes them, but it is a special mix of creativity and delivering on promise that isn't common. And I think it is properly in my top 50 of all-time.

Rating: 5/5

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2010, 04:52:30 AM »
Unbreakable (M. Night Shyamalan, 2000)

Once I saw Unbreakable, it jumped ahead of The Sixth Sense as my favorite Shyamalan until I watched The Village, which briefly flirted with the honor itself. Since then these two have wavered back and forth. Unbreakable is a much more polished film. The cinematography is more beautiful and more imaginative. The plot does not have as many of the soft spots that I noticed in watching Sixth Sense. While the kid isn't as talented here, Samuel L. Jackson, in one of his best roles, balances out Bruce Willis even better than HJO.

In fact, as perhaps my favorite comic book/superhero movie ever (alongside Sin City), it is probably more purely entertaining than Sixth Sense. I do wonder about the "twist" here. Would leaving that out (a solid dramatic bit in its own right) leave ambiguity, or would it simply not even make us think about the possibility. I will say that one crutch in both cases is the montage, just in case you don't remember those things that might have hinted at the twist. They both more or less work.

Many are critical of how M. Night is a bit self-serving to the point where he doesn't have people to stop him from his worst impulses. That said, I still think his cameos are a fun bit. As a doctor in Sixth Sense and a drug dealer here, he puts himself in these minor roles where he cannot really derail the film. Obviously, this may change *cue suspenseful Signs music*

Anyway, I didn't really forget that Unbreakable was an 00s film, but for some reason it didn't stick in my head as one and I snubbed it in my BoD voting. It would have a very good shot at my best film and best supporting actor for Jackson, though I'm not sure either got much attention so it probably isn't relevant. Unbreakable does make my top 100 and ultimately is better than The Sixth Sense. There are just so many little moments here that stand out.

Rating: 5/5

zarodinu

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4538
  • What we've got here is failure to communicate
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2010, 07:15:01 AM »
I am really surprised you have such different takes on Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke.  I find the movies very similar in theme
 and everything else.
I’ve lied to men who wear belts. I’ve lied to men who wear suspenders. But I’d never be so stupid as to lie to a man who wears both a belt and suspenders.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2010, 07:51:32 AM »
Ugg, The Sixth Sense is soo lame. I don't see how people can love it, especially once the cat is out of the bag.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Revisiting Great Directors
« Reply #59 on: May 05, 2010, 10:56:49 AM »
I am really surprised you have such different takes on Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke.  I find the movies very similar in theme
 and everything else.

Similar in theme. Yes. Similar in quality. No.

Ugg, The Sixth Sense is soo lame. I don't see how people can love it, especially once the cat is out of the bag.

You know what, you are soo lame.  ;)