Being sentimental about 'North'

Elijah Wood is the outstanding, but neglected child in North. Photo courtesy of an Elijah Wood fan site.

When I was younger, my mom told me this great bedtime story. It was about a bunny whose mother made her a homemade backpack for her to bring to the first day of school. But when the bunny saw some other animal's backpack (they're all anthropomorphic animals, I guess), the two traded backpacks. And the bunny keeps trading backpacks and she's still unsatisfied. She goes to a wise, old anthropomorphic animal and he helps her to get her original backpack that her mom made for her back.

Okay, the story was better coming from my mom. And I was five, so I wasn't too difficult to impress.

Anyway, I've always loved that story because I love the fact that the bunny was able to get her original backpack back in the end. Regrets can be reversed. I wished the real world was like that.

So even though my mom told me bedtime stories (I think that is the only one she's ever told me) and I lived in the suburbs (could've been worse, right?), I eventually had this phase where I wanted different parents. Now, I understand that most children don't really want different parents; they just want their original parents to be different, like, you know, not as annoying and demanding. You know, the usual. But I was 10. I didn't know the difference. I just wanted my parents to be different--different attitudes, different personalities, different jobs, different people, if that's what it takes.

It's a selfish, horrible thought, but a thought indeed.

Which brings me to Rob Reiner's 1994 family film, North. A critical and financial failure, the film tells the story of a young boy, North (Elijah Wood) who wants to emancipate ("divorce") himself from his parents (Jason Alexander, Julia Louis-Dreyfus--OMG I KNOW GEORGE AND ELAINE) who just don't appreciate him like everyone else does. He's an excellent student, athlete, and actor--so why can't his parents just stop screaming at each other at the dinner table and pay some attention to him?

After North is emancipated, he goes on a worldwide, two-month search for new parents. He goes to Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, an Amish community, China, Africa, France, and New York. Let the ethnic stereotypes, celebrity cameos (Kathy Bates, Reba McEntire, Dan Aykroyd, John Ritter, Faith Ford, etc.), random Bruce Willis appearances (as some sort of mentor who dresses for the occasion), nervous laughter, and "what the f---"s run loose!

Back at home, his parents are comatose and are displayed at the Smithsonian. Children across America are threatening their parents: if the parents don't fulfill their wishes (one kid commands him mom to clean his room for him), they will, like North, emancipate themselves.

This revolution is led by North's journalist friend, Winchell (Matthew McCurley), who is like 10 or something and he's this expert stalker (it's his job!) who gives these Hitler-esque speeches on podiums across the nation. I wonder what his parents think about that? Anyway, Winchell works with North's lawyer (Jon Lovitz) so they can take over America. Or something like that.

When North begins to have second thoughts (I don't want to actually spoil anything), Winchell tries to murder North because North getting new parents is the key of Winchell's success. The kids are listening to Winchell, and in turn, their parents (who are being threatened) are listening to the kids. Winchell even hires a hitman. Yeah, that's right, KIDS STUFF. I DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYMORE.

And why is North named North? Because that's a really, really strange name.

It's probably cliched if I wrote about all the problems with this movie and how horrible it is. So I won't do that. Mainly because I don't hate this movie and I don't even think it's horrible? The reason I wanted to see this movie for the longest time was because of Roger Ebert's infamous review. I bought the VHS from Amazon for $3 plus shipping. But good thing I ended up liking it, right? Sorry, Roger Ebert!

Honestly, I would be lying if I said I didn't like it. I actually think it's a very funny, sweet, touching movie, minus the jokes about the dead fat kid, dying old people, ancient Chinese hairstyles, barren wombs, Jerry Lewis dominating French television, the Amish, and topless African women. There are also weird sex jokes and unnecessary shots of prostitutes? I DON'T KNOW. The ethnic jokes are often awful and awkward, yet pretty harmless. However, I totally understand why many people would find the jokes offensive.

But I connect with the movie's message, which is pretty much that you don't appreciate what you have until you lose it. And that message is very personal to me. I guess I'm just being sentimental, but who said criticism was objective?

The opening scene conveys a sense of wonder that I haven't seen in recent children's films. Elijah Wood is particularly wonderful as North; he's just so natural, authentic, and convincing. Matthew McCurley is entirely too convincing as the full-blown evil mastermind in a child's body, but he manages to be very funny. And this movie is basically non-stop entertainment; even when there's a terrible joke being uttered, there is still something going on in the movie (the terrible joke being uttered). It's never boring.

So I like North. I also like Batman and Robin and Gigli. Oops? JUST BEING HONEST.

A movie that makes me want to hang out with friends--a rare phenomenon

St. Elmo's Fire | dir. Joel Schumacher | rel. 1985

Once in a while, I see a movie that is so obviously flawed, yet so completely endearing and lovable. I withdraw from the film's universe with a big, goofy smile on my face.

St. Elmo's Fire is that movie.

In the same breath, I would also like to point out that I never cared for The Breakfast Club, a film released in the same year as St. Elmo's Fire that, like St. Elmo's Fire, also featured prominent members of the "brat pack," a group of up-and-coming actors from the eighties. I wrote a review for The Breakfast Club several month ago, with the hope of re-reviewing it after I re-watch it with my English class. (The Breakfast Club was used as the cinematic companion piece to The Catcher in the Rye.) Well, my English class certainly loved it.

The Breakfast Club and St. Elmo's Fire are very different, despite the fact that they are both prominent "brat pack" movies and share several actors. The former is about high school and the latter is about post-college life. Because of their general classification, they are often compared to each other. The Breakfast Club usually wins the comparison battle.

If you would like to convince me that The Breakfast Club is indeed the greatest high school movie ever made, please feel free. For the time being, I would like to convince you that St. Elmo's Fire is the greatest movie about dumb people ever made.

St. Elmo's Fire is about a group of recent college graduates from Georgetown University. They struggle to come to terms with adult obstacles. Since the writers of this film naturally wondered why these drastically different people would ever be friends, they gave the audience the excuse that the characters really don't remember who met who first and why the hell they are even friends. It is just a fact that we have to accept. Director Joel Schumacher establishes this sense of warmth and trust between the characters that makes their friendships strangely believable.

The seven friends meet at St. Elmo's Bar & Restaurant and discuss their difficult lives. They ponder the meaning of life while they curiously venture into the world that would become their lives.

Alec (Judd Nelson) and Leslie (Ally Sheedy) are the golden couple of the group. Although he is a Democrat, Alec finds a higher-paying job with a Republican senator. Alec hopes that marrying Leslie would finally terminate his unfaithfulness. Leslie doesn't know about Alec's unfaithfulness, but she is still hesitant towards the idea of marriage.

Alec's best friend, Kevin (Andrew McCarthy), is an aspiring journalist without a byline. He's sensitive, yet pessimistic about love. Kevin is secretly in love with Leslie, but holds back his knowledge about Alec's unfaithfulness.

Kevin is roommates with Kirby (Emilio Estevez), who is attending law school. But he's willing to quit law school to become a doctor to impress Dale (Andie MacDowell), an older woman who he has been smitten with since his freshmen year at Georgetown. Kirby forms an almost stalkerish attachment to Dale and surprisingly, Dale doesn't seem to be scared.

Jules (Demi Moore) is the party girl of the group. She has a drug problem and her monthly paychecks aren't enough to fuel her high maintenance lifestyle.

Billy (Rob Lowe) is the frat boy of the group. He has a wife and baby, but he can't keep a job to support them. He plays the saxophone well, but it is a talent he doesn't seriously pursue. He is often irresponsible and unfaithful to his wife.

But Wendy (Mare Winningham), the virgin of the group, has faith in Billy. Wendy comes from a well-to-do family who is eager to see quit her social services job and get married to a good husband. Unfortunately for her family, Wendy has a crush on Billy. In return, Billy has an almost creepy interest in Wendy's virginity.

How do these people know each other? Who cares?

None of these characters are very smart people. But the point is, most young people are not smart. They can cheat on their girlfriends, hoping that marriage would solve all their problems. They can change their political party affiliation to get a higher-paying job. They can fall in love with their best friend's girlfriend. They can be compulsive liars and have drug problems. They can even stalk the woman they claim to love. They can even infatuate over a guy who probably isn't worth it. Or have a weird obsessive interest over their friend's virginity.

What do I know about what people can do and feel?

I do know that St. Elmo's Fire is a wonderfully entertaining movie. It is not a movie that captures realistic situations, but it is a movie that captures realistic emotions. When Kirby finally gets his romantic moment with Dale, I feel for his triumph. Or when Kevin confesses his love to Leslie. Or even in the dramatic scene where Leslie confesses to Alec why she refuses to marry him. I feel for these characters, no matter how inane they are.

I wasn't alive in the eighties, but St. Elmo's Fire epitomized what I knew about the eighties: horrible fashion, obnoxious hair, cheesy music (and what was up with Lowe's dangling earring?). But it was a decade that defined youth as we know it. Although some may credit the fifties for inventing the teenager, MTV, John Hughes, and the brat pack revolutionized what it meant to be a teenager. St. Elmo's Fire explores the aftermath of youth. No one can be angsty forever, yet they just want to hang on.

Rating: 9/10

Divorces happen, get over it

Fireproof | dir. Alex Kentrick | rel. 2008 | 2.5/5

I try not to reveal details about my more personal life on this blog, but since the film that I'm about to discuss does touch upon a certain detail about my faith, the subject seems appropriate.

I'm a self-described on-again, off-again Christian. For the past few years, I've been a little more like Gandhi when it comes to Christianity; Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I've been going back to church in the past few months in hopes of well, improving my life one way or another, and honestly, I've never felt so isolated, lonely, and frustrated in my entire life. The people there are certainly nice, but they all go to the same schools, have the same interests, and I can't seem to connect to them on a more friendly, personal level. I don't know if it's because I'm such a hard shell to crack or I just hate hiking, camping, and attending dinner parties with people I don't feel completely comfortable with.

I think what I'm trying to say is that I've associated with Christians for my entire life. The ones who aren't crazy are generally nice people who just want everyone to be friends and love each other. The ones that are crazy think Bush is a great president just because Bush claims that he loves God. My own mom is a devoted, socially conservative Christian and I love her, despite our differences.

But ultra-conservative Christians can't seem to keep up with the modern world. Things change, and sometimes I wish The Bible is as open to interpretation as the United States Constitution. Many Christians don't think so, although what they believe is what they believe. They have the right to exercise their freedoms and no one has to force them to change their minds.

Although we can all appeal to them and beg them to reconsider--and we'll have to do that again and again. They're a tough crowd...

I'm not trying to tackle any of the star controversial issue (gay marriage, abortion) but something much simpler: divorce. Yes, divorce. I don't understand why divorce is so wrong in the grand scheme of things. There is actually a small snippet in the Book of Matthews that discusses how horrible divorce is and I simply don't understand. My parents were divorced when I was very young and I've always thought it was rather fitting. I guess it would've been nice if I were raised in a nice, happy family, but shit happens--not just in my life, but in stormy marriages that were just not meant to last.

This brings me to the church-funded movie, Fireproof, a piece of Christian propaganda opposing divorce. It's about a married couple played by Kirk Cameron (yes, the kid from Growing Pains) and Erin Bethea who just fight all the time about the most stupidest of things; the wife complains that the husband's always looking at dirty images on the Internet and saving up for a boat they don't need when they could be using the money for repainting the back door and the husband complains that the wife nags too much about everything.

So it obviously seems that this couple are headed for a divorce. The wife is the PR of a local hospital and she is even being wooed by a nice doctor--so why bother staying in an awful marriage to a constantly pissed off firefighter? But the husband's father comes to the save the day by putting the husband on a "love dare"--a project that will save the marriage. The project puts the husband on a 40-day (lol why couldn't they name Kirk Cameron's character Noah?) journey of tips on how to save the marriage. Tips include not saying negative things, doing nice things, planning a nice dinner, etc. for each of the forty days. After a magical talk with his father, the husband immediately converts to Christianity. It's nice how miracles work.

Having the husband as a dedicated firefighter allows the writers of this film to include some horrible analogies of the responsibilities of a firefighter and the responsibilities of a spouse. And they are all relentlessly cheesy and lame. Halfway through this movie, My Mom The Christian actually turned to me and said, "This movie is a lot like a Hallmark movie," a genre that we've often made fun of since our viewing of Loving Leah.

But what bothers me about my mom and the bulk of Christians (even more than the fact that they think God wanted Bush to be president) is that they think a movie is immediately 200% more awesome if God is somehow positively involved in the plot as the central moral compass. There are some great movies where God plays a positive role, such as The Ten Commandments and The King of Kings, but why must they flock the theaters to witness something as meritless and lame as Fireproof?

I mean, it's not like Fireproof was directed by God, anyway.

Fireproof offers nothing refreshing about "saving" a marriage. It's an amateur, yet admirable, piece of filmmaking. The "admirable" part comes from the fact that it was made with a relatively low budget--but that's about it. The script is a Hallmark rip-off and the acting is stiff and laughable. The comedic moments are well, amusing, to say the least, but there is one scene that I can't get out of my mind...

There is this scene where the husband (I can't even bother to IMDb their names, so I'll just call him Kirk Cameron) is surfing the net and checking out boats (his fave hobby) and this random ad with this girl pops up on screen with the words "Wanna See?" underneath. Since he's a fan of pornography, he has this amazing internal struggle. He walks away from the computer, opens his "love dare" book and it says that he has to resist temptations such as pornography. So Kirk Cameron has no idea what to do.

SO HE PULLS OUT THE POWER PLUGS. HE BRINGS THE ENTIRE COMPUTER SET OUTSIDE. HE PICKS UP HIS BASEBALL BAT (HIS GENERAL WEAPON OF CHOICE) AND STARTS DESTROYING HIS COMPUTER WITH HIS BASEBALL BAT. THE NEIGHBORS WATCH BECUASE HE'S TOTALLY BATSHIT.

As you can probably tell, I LOVE this scene. I couldn't stop laughing. It's probably THE funniest scene I've ever seen. I mean, he could've saved the computers to download Christian rock songs and sermons off the Internet but NO he chose to annihilate his entire computer!!!

Watch the entire moral dilemma unfold here:


I think I actually wrote everything preceding this video just because I wanted to build up to the climatic moment that IS THIS VIDEO. The entire scene is actually more hilarious (with the neighbors watching) but this video really builds up all the intensity that makes the scene awesomely...bad and amazing at the same time. Because it's unlikely I'll find anything funnier than this.

Anyway, I think I kind of love Fireproof the same way I kind of love the "Bet On It" scene in High School Musical 2. Fireproof reminds me of the videos I had to watch in my freshmen year health class. It's an uncomfortable film to sit through, has way too many random montages set to random Christian rock songs, and it doesn't enlighten its audience with anything new. The Kendricks Bros. (who also made two other Christian-centric movies) probably had their heart in the right place, but this film is so cliched-muddled, lame, unintentionally hilarious, and to top it off, a message that is so backwards, that no scene ever feels truly genuine.

Even as the end credits roll, I still believe that well, DIVORCES HAPPEN, GET OVER IT.

But this film is so funny...I just CAN'T GIVE IT A BAD RATING. So I'm just going to do some sort of a weird breakdown:

ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 9/10
EVERYTHING ELSE: 4/10

Okay, that brings my total down to a 6.5/10...pretty impressive (a 2.5 on the 5 star scale). Anyway, I kind of want to watch this movie for my next hypothetical slumber party. I would love to do a commentary throughout this movie because that's all I did last summer on AIM with my friend with the "Bet On It" Youtube video.

So anyway...why am I so lame again?

A Love Letter to a Polarizing Film

The Godfather: Part III, dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1990 (4.5/5)

I've always had a soft spot for The Godfather: Part III.

But it's often declared as one of the worst sequels ever. For a film that has cemented its name in the universe of cinematic crap, it was nominated for six Academy Awards back when it was released, including Best Picture. Gene Siskel placed it on his Top Ten of 1990 and Roger Ebert rewarded the film three-and-a-half stars. The general critical response at the time was mostly positive and the film currently holds a 66% "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. And it was moderately successful at the box office, grossing around $66 million in the U.S. alone.

Despite the initial warm welcoming, the film has always gotten a cold reception from its audience and it only gets colder as it ages.

Godfather purists--meaning fans of the first two films--have always been the most apparent critics of Part III. I realize that it's not a perfect film--the ending is insanely confusing (even after my three viewings), Sofia Coppola is mostly an incapable actress, the incestuous relationship is ridiculous, the whole son-wanting-to-be-an-opera-singer thing is forced, and the metaphorical dialogue is nearly laughable--but it's an admirable piece of work for a film that was purely intended to get director Francis Ford Coppola out of bankruptcy.

Part III pulls its audience back into the sepia-tinted world of the Corleone family, also known as the violent, inescapable purgatory of Don Michael Corleone's (Al Pacino) life. It's been nearly twenty years since we've seen the Michael in Part II, sitting alone outside his Tahoe home, and contemplating everything he had lost--his brother, his wife, and his dreams of a legitimate family business. Michael became his worst enemy--and still is.

Michael has since transformed himself into a respectable businessman and philanthropist. For the past twenty years, he has been pushing his family business towards legitimacy, fulfilling a promise he made to his ex-wife, Kay (Diane Keaton) before their marriage. Although Michael is an honored man, he's a lonely one too. In old age, he wants the comfort of family, but his opera-singing son, Anthony (Franc D'Ambrosio) wants nothing to do with the family business and Kay has moved on to a more secure, conventional marriage to a judge. All he really has left is his naively vulnerable daughter, Mary (Sofia Coppola), and all the greedy men who wants to make money off his crime empire.

Things shake up when Michael's bastard nephew, Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia) enters the picture. Vincent is as aggressive, intuitive, and trigger-crazy as his late father, Santino. Vincent is tired of working for the small-time, photogenic, showman gangster, Joey Zasa (Joe Mantegna), and wants to work for Michael. At first, Michael is hesitant, but he's getting old, sick, and sentimental--he gives in to Vincent and his little sister Connie's (Talia Shire) wishes, and generously offers Vincent the chance to be part of the Corleone family, where Vincent's true roots are.

Vincent's not shy to show what he's got: He wants to get rid of Joey Zasa and quickly wins the fragile, romantic heart of his cousin, Mary. Michael realizes that Vincent's violent and romantic escapades are dangerous, but he sees potential in this ambitious punk: Vincent has his father's headstrong, dedicated heart, and his grandfather's calculting negotiation skills of pragmatism and reason. Most of all, Michael sees a man he can trust with the future of the family business.

There is this subplot involving a real estate company that is partially run by the Vatican that the Corleone family is trying to gain control of. There is money to be made and all the other crime families want in. But all that seems to fade to the background. This is a film about a man who wants to redeem himself and hopes to God that it's not too late to be saved.

There is a powerful scene in the film where Michael confesses his sins to a priest. It's beautifully filmed in the garden and it's one of the most poignant scenes I've ever seen--and one of the most memorable scenes Pacino has ever filmed. Michael confesses that he's betrayed his wife, himself, and killed numerous men, including his own brother. He breaks down because he knows that even if God forgives him, he can never forgive himself.

Pacino is the foundation of the Godfather series. I don't think any of the films would ever be as effective if it weren't for him. I've never revered Marlon Brando's legendary performance as Don Vito Corleone. To me, The Godfather has always been about Pacino's Michael and that intense, alluring complexity that is so central to Pacino's performance. There has never been a cinematic villain that I have sympathized with more than Michael Corleone and I don't think there ever will be. Part II shows the rise of a calculating crime boss and Part III shows the heartbreaking downfall of a tainted dreamer; Pacino understands both sides immensely well.

Pacino also has fabulous chemistry with Keaton, who plays the love of Michael's life and the mother of his children, Kay. Kay knows several secrets about Michael's history and acts as the conscience he doesn't necessarily want, but knows he needs. She still cares about him, but after all these years of bullets and broken promises, it's hard for her to not feel some disdain for his mafia lifestyle. Pacino and Keaton's scenes together in Sicily are precious; they both acknowledge a life that they could once attain, but destiny turned out differently. It's subtley romantic, but ultimately heartbreaking. It's also two great actors at their finest.

But bad habits are hard to break: There is an excellent scene where Vincent shaves Michael and Michael tells Vincent to "sell his soul" to the enemy, Don Altobello (Eli Wallach), the Hyman Roth of Part III. The entire scene intercuts with Vincent trying to convince Don Altobello that he's changing sides. It's a scene filmed with some suspenseful creativity and shows with gentle, subtle touches that Michael can still run the business and as long as he's the head of the business, he's going to run it to the best of his abilities.

Part III is shot with glorious mastery by cinematographer Gordon Willis. Everything from the dark walls of the Corleone home to the sun-drenched country of Sicily is illustrated beautifully. The signature score by Nino Rota still soars with atmospheric wonder to this world that we've known so long and continuously return to.

The numerous murders at the end of the film are rather confusing and sometimes even slow, but they are ingeniously intercut with a live Italian opera, starring Michael's son, Anthony.

There seems to be a lot of controversy about Sofia Coppola's performance. The role originally went to Winona Ryder, who had to drop out because she was sick when production began. Ryder, being an established professional actress, would have been an appropriate choice for Mary. But I find it hard to blame Coppola for her lackluster performance because her father made the decision to put her on celluoid.

Coppola, however amateur her performance is, shockingly brings a certain indescribable vulnerability and warmth to her performance. There is a scene near the end of the film where Mary's heart is undeniably in shambles and she just stares on, with all the sadness and tears of a lost schoolgirl. At that point, it's difficult not to feel an iota of sympathy for her.

Consider this my love letter to Part III. The film is a quintessential crime epic and blockbuster of the nineties (along with GoodFellas, which was released in the same year), shot with mastery and skill, and told with heart, compassion, and emotional complexity. It's a rare film in a batch of mindless modern shoot-em-ups. There will never be another film series quite like The Godfather and I might as well cherish its delicately flawed--yet completely heartbreaking--finale.

"Love me - that's all I ask of you..."

The Phantom of the Opera | rel. 2004 | dir. Joel Schumacher

Director Joel Schumacher is no stranger to campy filmmaking. He did direct Batman & Robin, right?

Well, the film adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's famous stage musical, The Phantom of the Opera, despite of its glorious sets, delicious costumes, and beautiful melodies, is a fine example of how all elegance and beauty can also equate to pure camp.

I have never seen Webber's musical, although I do own the musical's soundtrack with all the songs performed by the original London cast. I worship the soundtrack and listen to it quite frequently in the car, much to my mom's dismay. The songs, although they have lyrics that resemble wedding vows or Hallmark cards, are passionate and haunting. Even though Webber knows how to make his songs soar, those melodies would be nothing without the extraordinary voice talents of Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, who played the Phantom and Christine Daae on stage, respectively.

Afters years in development, the film version of the musical, The Phantom of the Opera was finally released in 2004. I will boldly say that Schumacher certainly made one of the most aesthetically-pleasing films ever. Unfortunately, it is also shamelessly over-the-top.

The film begins in black-and-white in early twentieth century Paris. An once-magnificent opera house was burned several years ago and all the opera house's contents are being auctioned off. The Viscomte de Chagny (Patrick Wilson) and Madame Giry (Miranda Richardson), bids for a music box with a monkey on top of it, and acknoweldge each other with a spark of recognition in their eyes.

Soon enough, the chandelliers come up and the old opera house magically transforms back into new. This has to be one of the most wonderful ways to unfold a flashback scene ever.

It is late nineteenth-century Paris in a popular opera house. A young singer, Christine Daae (Emmy Rossum) has been trained well by the masked and mysterious Phantom (Gerard Butler). Christine naively believing that the Phantom was the "angel of music" her deceased father promised. The Phantom, a brilliant man who constantly haunts and threatens the opera house, is determined to replace the opera house's big star Carlotta (Minnie Driver) with his young, aspiring protege. The Phantom gets his wish, through scare tactics and clever menace.

After witnessing Christine on stage, Raoul, the Viscomte de Chagny, Christine's childhood friend, falls deeply in love with the young woman. Little does Raoul know, the Phantom has developed strong affections for the young woman as well.

The relationship escalates into a dangerous game of the forces between love and lust, passion and mischievousness. The problem is, the film never plays it that way. Schumacher chisels the film into a mindless buffet of commercialism and pretty images. The film fails to be emotionally compelling or thoroughly romantic, although there are several successful moments that eventually drowns in the film's own visual vanity. The "Point of No Return" scene is a fine example: Rossum and Butler are electrifying in the scene, but those silly dancers in the background are not.

The performances by the actors are not very good, considering that their roles require fantastical singing abilities and some emotional range. Rossum, although sometimes a skilled vocal performer, does not have the allure of Brightman's soaring soprano voice. When Rossum is not singing, she makes Christine seem like an unapologetically passive and bland female character. Should weak female characters that act purely as a damsel-in-distress even be allowed in the twenty-first century?

Wilson's Raoul is an unbelievable bore; he is neither charismatic or charming. No wonder Christine is so fascinated by the Phantom, despite the fact that he may be a sociopathic creep. The filmmakers made a huge mistake by casting Butler, who is obviously more dashing and handsome than Wilson. The Phantom is supposed to have a frightening demeanor, not sporting a perfectly-cut opal mask as some kind of--to quote Roger Ebert--fashion accessory. When the mask is removed, Butler still doesn't look too hideous. Plus, I don't think he can even sing that well; his rendition of "The Music of the Night" is terrible. I don't care if Butler's voice fulfills Webber's dreams of a rock-heavy Phantom--Crawford still has one of the most beautiful voices I've ever heard.

But what am I talking about? The flaws are what makes this movie entertaining. The supporting cast is fabulous with everyone giving reliable performances. Richardson and Driver are underused but serves their part in the story. Plus, Ciaran Hinds, Simon Callow, and Jennifer Ellison proves they are true show-stealers, even in their minimal roles.

Again, this movie is a wonder to behold. Some minor flaws are apparent in the somewhat sloppy and abrupt editing. I never liked fade-in scenes either, but they were done somewhat appropriately in this film. But fade-in still kind of sucks.

When I rate a film like The Phantom of the Opera, the score becomes entirely subjective. The film is a guilty pleasure, joining the ranks of films like Spider-Man 3, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, and even Schumacher's own Batman & Robin. At the end of the day, the thin storyline and mediocre acting in The Phantom of the Opera will not matter to anyone who genuinely enjoys Schumacher's interpretation of Webber's stage musical. They are just there for the gorgeous sets and beautiful songs because that is what seems to matter most. And I can't blame them.

Rating: 8/10

"I am Catwoman. Hear me roar."

Batman Returns | rel. 1992 | dir. Tim Burton

Isn't that poster one of the most effortlessly awesome creations ever? I sure think so!

Everyone I know just loves Tim Burton and I'm not too sure why. I once told someone that I did not like any of Burton's films, and the person immediately questioned if I ever watched a Burton film. The person probably believed that if I have indeed seen one of Burton's films, I would instantly know what a visual artist and fantastical director he really is. There is no question that Burton exhibits an interesting creative vision for each of his films, but he is a lesser fantasy storyteller when compared to the likes of Steven Spielberg or Robert Zemeckis. Burton never fails to bore me slightly when he presents one of his Gothic tales or morbid bursts of imagination. Strangely and unexpectedly, I was thoroughly entertained in my second viewing of Batman Returns.

The Dark Knight's first two blockbuster cinematic outings in 1989 and 1992 were both directed by Burton. I will say rather boldly and daringly that I believe those two movies are the worst Batman movies of the modern bunch. While the Joel Schumacher movies are a combination of an illegal drug and rainbow-colored lava lamps, they are far more entertaining than Burton's gloomy, dull, and lifeless illustration of Gotham City.

1989's Batman will always be a classic, not because it is a particularly wonderful film, but it is the Batman film that most people of my generation watched on television or on video. I've seen it several times on television over the years and admittedly enjoyed it, but after seeing it on DVD just last year, I formed a new opinion on the original Batman: I don't like it.

No matter how charismatic and colorful Jack Nicholson's Joker is, he is never frightening and simply just lives up to his name: he jokes around--that's it. Now that mostly everyone has seen Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight, Nicholson's Joker will be merely a figment of childhood memories. Considering The Joker is surely the star, I already forgotten about Batman/Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale. There is not one moment in the film that Batman/Bruce or Vicki are compelling or interesting at all. It is all about The Joker in Batman, and perhaps rightfully so.

Thankfully, Batman still remained more of a Batman film than a Burton film. But gee, was it boring to watch as a teenager.

Three years later after the glowing success of Batman, the WB gave Burton nearly free reign to fulfill his vision for the sequel, Batman Returns. With all the eccentric characters and chaotic skeletons on motorcycles, the film magnified all of Burton's sloppy fingerprints. The film continues on being more Burton than Batman and has absolutely no respect for the Batman mythos. But as someone who isn't crazy about those mythos, I don't exactly mind the origin stories of the two star villains in Batman Returns, but I don't exactly dig the stories either.

The film opens to the birth of a disfigured child around Christmastime (a strange time setting for a summer release, I must say). The child's parents react with horror and dump him Moses-style into a stream of Gotham and down he floats, into those murky sewers. Thirty-three years later, he becomes The Penguin (Danny DeVito) and mysteriously controls the Red Circus Gang to stir havoc and violence with a vengeance in Gotham City. Personally, I'd rather have the gentlemanly criminal mastermind originally depicted in the comics and later in the cartoons, but if this was the way Burton wanted it to work, I really don't mind. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

To detach the film farther away from the mythos, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a mousy secretary of some huge businessman by the name of Max Schreck (Christopher Walken). When Selina discovers a secret of Schreck's, she is pushed out of a window and left to die--until several stray cats come to the rescue and lick her back to life. So Selina comes back to life to her lonely apartment and at first, she appears to be somewhat of a zombie. Suddenly, she goes psychotic, starts spraying black paint all over her apartment, finds a rubber costume, sews it into a cool suit, and tries to avenge for her death with a sudden burst of confidence and ninja skills as Catwoman. Again, I would have preferred the dark-haired cat burgular from the comics and cartoons, but hey, this isn't too bad, right? No, I'm just lying to myself.

As far as I know, that Schreck guy Selina works for serves no purpose to the story at all other than the fact that he's a terrible, nasty businessman whose big secret is that he wants to suck all of Gotham's power source. If Burton and Co. found this idea interesting, they definitely got the wrong idea of what is interesting. And even if the idea just totally sucks--which it does--at least try to let it contribute to the story some way or another, but it never does. Casting a big name like Walken just shows how much filmmakers can waste great talents.

With Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck in the picture, they almost forgot about Batman. I mean, he is only the title character. The problem with the Burton films (and Schumacher films, to some extent) is that the villains always overshadowed Batman. Batman Returns is a fine example of that, but Batman definitely has a stronger presence this time around. In the original Batman film, the character had more screen time, but he was just "there" most of the time, mainly because of obvious obligations. I did not like Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne or Batman in the original, but he gave a great performance as Bruce Wayne in his second go-around.

Keaton's performance as Bruce Wayne is full of charisma and charm, ingredients that were absent from his performance in the first movie. The scene where Bruce meets Schreck's character and throws the files across the table to Schreck is excellently done and captured Bruce's careless playboy persona perfectly. Keaton's Bruce also has electrifying chemistry with Pfeiffer's Selina and the scene where they masquerade at Schreck's ball only to realize that they are really nemesis in the nighttime streets is a wonderfully executed scene. Batman Returns is probably the only Batman movie that delivers an interesting romance that doesn't feel like idiocy or studio obligations just hit the screen.

So Keaton nailed his performance as Bruce Wayne, but what about his Batman? The problem with his Batman is that the character acts as a catalyst for the villains. Keaton's Batman delivers his words with this collected calmness, but his Batman always seem very separated from the guy behind the mask. There is this detachment about Bruce and Batman. Keaton never seems to form a connection between the two personas, while Christian Bale successfully does in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Keaton's Batman is also far from heroic. Say all you want, but Batman is widely considered to be a superhero. I don't think Batman enjoying some S&M that apparent to the average eight-year-old, but superheroes just don't set people on fire or blow people up and then smile about it afterwards. Keaton is not at fault here, but the people behind this film certainly are. For a film that had merchandise geared towards children, this is disappointing. Recently, The Dark Knight has been criticized for its PG-13 rating and advertisement toward children, but at least the film has an non-killing machine for a hero at the center of it all.

As for the controversy back in its release in 1992, Batman Returns is actually more puke-inducing than nightmare-inducing. There are just several very nasty scenes in this film that adds nothing to the plot or the characters in any way. Penguin bites a guy's nose and in result, blood splatters everywhere. Catwoman grabs Penguin's bird from its birdcage and puts it in her mouth and appears to be enjoying the taste of it--until Penguin threatens to kill her pet cat. Another scene that I found particularly stupid and also kind of awkwardly sick was when Catwoman gives herself a bath by licking her arms and rubbing the saliva onto her head. Oh yeah, Penguin is also unbelievably horny and I'm pretty sure that's apparent to the average eight-year-old.

So about the plot...well, I'm not sure if there is one. Penguin kidnaps Schreck and wants Schreck to turn him into Gotham's hero. They set up this silly plan to get one of his circus people to take the mayor's kid into the sewers just so Penguin can save him. Penguin becomes a huge Gotham celebrity, albeit Bruce's suspisions, and Schreck wants to get Penguin to run for mayor, a plotline that is laughably stupid. Catwoman's plotline sort of forms on the sidelines as she blows up Schreck's mall as part of her revenge plan. Then Catwoman gets terribly pissed when Batman hits her so she asks Penguin to join forces with her so they can destroy Batman together. I noticed that teaming up to destroy Batman has become sort of a tradition since Batman Returns.

The flaw with Penguin and Catwoman teaming up is that they are both so completely aimless about destroying Batman. Honestly, they don't even make that much of an effort because there is just so much going on in the film that their goal in destroying Batman kind of gets pushed to the side. I would have enjoyed some kind of reasonable, coherent plan brewing between the two, but sadly, they don't work too well together. It would have been interesting to see some conflict between the two villains other than more references towards Penguin's repressed sexuality, but like I noted so many times before, I didn't exactly get everything I wanted from this film.

This film had so much potential but almost everything goes to waste. Style is constantly chosen over substance. But I enjoyed myself, or more than I did while watching Burton's Planet of the Apes, Mars Attack!, Edward Scissorhands, and Big Fish. I guess on the Burton scale, I like Batman Returns as much as I like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I can't deny the fact that I was entertained by what I saw on screen.

So a part of me thinks the film is complete junk. No die-hard Batman fan can possibly love (like--maybe) this movie, especially after how much the people behind this film screwed up the origin stories of the film's two main villains for the worse and created a killer Batman. But another part of me kind of likes it because it is pure entertainment. The origin stories are ridiculous and unnecessary, but they possess sort of this admirable originality. I like the relationship between Bruce/Batman and Selina/Catwoman. I like Michael Keaton as Bruce. Michael Gough always gives a reliable performance as Bruce's trusty butler, Alfred Pennysworth. Pfeffier and DeVito are surprisingly solid, considering the material they had to work with. Danny Elfman's score brings a certain liveliness to the film. The screenplay by Daniel Waters and Wesley Strick is full of stupid one-liners, but they are funny while they last.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I like the Batman Returns for what it is. This is Burton's insane vision and I am finally getting the hang of that man's explosively weird and somewhat campy fantasy landscape. Burton's second installment is far from the best Batman movie, but it is a good movie--if not a good Batman movie--or at least, better than its predecessor.

Rating: 7/10

We're all in this together, I guess...

High School Musical | rel. 2006 | dir. Kenny Ortega
High School Musical 2 | rel. 2007 | dir. Kenny Ortega

I was going to write this as two separate posts, but what's the point? High School Musical and High School Musical 2 are both rated 6.5/10 in the universe of moi, so there isn't going to be a tremendous difference of opinion anyway. I can easily extract my thoughts about the movies in one post.

I have a feeling that this is going to be an overlong rant that may or may not make any coherent sense. But that's okay. I have lots of meaningless drivel to say that relates to the two movies that I want to get out of my system.

High School Musical's existence entered my life through this girl I knew when I was in eighth grade. Back then, I lived in an abandoned cave right off the coast of a tiny island in Asia so I was pretty much in the dark when this movie first came out. (Simply put, I didn't have cable, thus, no Disney Channel.) At the time, I was a bit of a pretentious snob and would never have sat down to watch a movie that looked like a bunch of ridiculous teenagers prancing around the premises of their high school. Plus, I hated tween romances with a passion.

Tween romances are really just a twelve-year-old girl's fantasy and I guess it's nice for a twelve-year-old girl to see their fantasy on TV, replaced by amazingly aesthetically-pleasing people. That is sort of the point of the High School Musical franchise.

Now, I'm more willing to watch tween romances and accept them as they are. They are not made to be taken seriously or be considered masterpieces. I had to get that through my thick skull several times. Disney is making a lot of money off the franchise by creating a cast set of plastic dolls and printing the film's promo pics on a pillowcase. All the films are completed in a very short time-frame too, so I bet that saves tons of money. It's just pretty hard to take the films seriously even if I really, really try. But hey, not everything is art.

My interest in HSM peaked when I saw the new Disney Channel original movie, Camp Rock. It's supposedly a rip-off of HSM. In my opinion, it's not quite a rip-off, but it's not as guilty pleasure worthy or as entertaining as HSM. But that's a different post altogether...

For those unfamiliar with HSM's basic plot line (which I highly doubt is possible because I feel like I'm the last person on the planet to see the movies), a popular jock meets a brainy girl on vacation and they form a special connection as they sing karaoke together. Turns out, the brainy girl is the new girl at the guy's high school. They have to defeat all obstacles and step out of their comfort zones in order to obtain the lead roles for a school musical.

The entire concept of the film sounded predictable and kind of corny. But whatever. I needed to know what was at the core of all that hype. (Same reason why I want to read Twilight.)

I watched High School Musical almost right after I saw The Lizzie McGuire Movie. I was in good spirits after being charmed by my own childhood nostalgia. There was nothing in the world that could bring me down. And HSM did not bring me down at all. Not at all...

I was pleasantly surprised by the first song in the film, "A Start of Something New," sung by Zac Efron's Troy Bolton (Efron's voice was mixed with Drew Seeley's) and Vanessa Hudgens's Gabriella Montez. It's not a bad song, and in fact, it's truly poplicious in the way Disney songs usually are. (I have a soft spot for all the pop Disney has to offer--that ranges from Hilary Duff to the Jonas Brothers.) Sadly, the film makes no attempt to cover up the fact that all the songs were recorded in a studio and edited before they were inserted into the movie, but that's not a big deal. I don't nitpick too much when it comes to movies aimed at a certain age group, and that's why I gave The Lizzie McGuire Movie an 8/10. I mean, I highly doubt the kids who watch HSM cares if the songs were dubbed in or not. Honestly, I don't really care either.

But I couldn't stop laughing.

Is it just me, or was Zac Efron really exaggerating every muscle in his face in HSM whenever he started singing? He just looks so extremely weird whenever he started singing. When he sings "A Start of Something New," "Get'cha Head in the Game," and "Breaking Free," he looks as if was trying to stretch his facial muscles all the way, until they rip. I don't know if it was due to the fact that he was extremely nervous (I definitely would've been) or that was the way he was told to perform--I have no idea. But it made me laugh pretty hard: I had tears in my eyes and I couldn't really stand or sit.

Enough about how Efron caused my unintentional laughter...

I can't stand the romance between Troy and Gabriella. I mention chemistry or the lack thereof in my reviews very often when it comes to romantic films. A romance can't work if the two leading actors share absolutely no chemistry; it only works when the audience is convinced that the two characters are in love with each other.

Efron and Hudgens did not convince me. There are some sparks in the early karaoke scene, but I think it all went downhill from there. Apparently, they are dating each other in real-life. Whatever they may share off-screen, it doesn't show on celluloid at all. Unless it's some unnecessary publicity stunt by Disney...but who really knows?

I have the same complaints with Camp Rock as well. Demi Lovato and Joe Jonas have even less chemistry than Efron and Hudgens. But they are not "dating" in real-life, so I guess that is a good enough excuse.

HSM has a shining, bright spotlight on one of its young performers and her name is Ashley Tisdale. Tisdale, which many might have been familiar with from the Disney Channel's The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, chews up the scenery in HSM, through and through. Forget about Maddie Fitzpatrick, Tisdale will be best-remembered for Sharpay Evans, the drama queen of East High who isn't going to let two newcomers steal the musical scene away from her. Tisdale undoubtedly delivers the best performance, completely overshadowing her sidekick Lucas Grabeel, who plays her brother, Ryan and truthfully, everyone other main cast member as well. Tisdale just leaves everyone in the dust.

In addition to Tisdale playing Sharpay, Sharpay also get all the best songs in the film. "What I've Been Looking For," is sung in a very classy scene with tons of energy and fun oozed all over the screen; it is my favorite song in the movie. "Bop to the Top" is a catchy tune, sung with ambition and personality by Tisdale and Grabeel.

A performance such as Tisdale's pops like technicolor in a movie like this. You watch her and you think, "This girl's got a future in showbiz."

Even though it was probably made on the cheap and shot in a couple of weeks, HSM is not a poorly-made film. The choreography is fantastic, the songs are catchy, and the story is not terrible. The direction by Kenny Ortega is not too bad either. It's sort of like Grease made for the twenty-first century. (I'm probably the millionth person to point that out, even though I haven't seen that movie in like, forever.)

I wish I could give all the same compliments to the sequel, High School Musical 2.

I have no idea how to explain why I would rate HSM2 the same rating I gave HSM since HSM2 is one of those unnecessary sequels that Disney seems to make all the time now. (The previews on my HSM2 DVD had a trailer for the straight-to-video Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True. Yeah, I totally wanted to see that...)

HSM2 is just as entertaining as HSM, though. HSM2 is a hour-and-a-half soap. (Film soaps, I dig. TV soaps, I can't stand.) All that ridiculous drama is probably why I found so much pleasure while watching the film. It was sort of like watching Spider-Man 3, just, not really.

The plot for HSM2 is rather loose and flimsy. So Troy and Gabriella and the rest of the Wildcats get jobs at a country club owned by Sharpay and Ryan's family. Sharpay is pissed because only Troy was supposed to hired since he's still the guy she wants. Because of Sharpay's favoritism towards Troy, he gets special priviledges that detaches him from his friends. There is also a musical competition at the country club and Sharpay has her eye on the trophy, despite the rest of the Wildcats' determination to beat out the competition.

I would be lying if I said I was bored or uninterested at all.

Again, it's Tisdale who shines. James wrote an excellent blog entry about Tisdale's performance that includes all there needs to be said about Tisdale's portrayal of Sharpay. (The entry made me look forward to seeing HSM and HSM2.) Sharpay has a lot more screen time in the second film and she devours every second she has on-screen. She also has an even a more elaborate number in this film--and it's "Fabulous."

Tisdale has many scenes with Efron and I can't help but think what amazing chemistry they seem to have compared to the lackluster chemistry between Efron and Hudgens. There is the scene at the golfing course that made me sort of squee because of how cool the idea Troy x Sharpay is. I love that scene where Efron's Troy comments on his new shoes and says, "They're Italian." The "You Are the Music In Me" scene between Troy and Sharpay is incredible too because even when Troy is supposed to be hating Sharpay, Efron and Tisdale still have a lot of chemistry. But I guess that's the weird-minded shipper in me that simply distorts everything. Or maybe it was the fireworks. (I love this The Suite Life episode clip with Efron guest-starring and kissing Tisdale. It's epic, everyone.)

"Humuhumunukunukuapua'a" is totally hilarious and worth picking up the DVD for if you didn't get to see it when it first aired on the Disney Channel. (The clip is on Youtube, but I liked seeing it as part of the movie.) Oh, Sharpay! Tisdale never fails to impress me.

Although I felt rather guilty for laughing so hard at Efron's facial expressions in the first movie, I was looking forward for some more painfully funny moments in this movie as well. Well, it had several of those moments, but I did not laugh as much as I did during the first movie. That is mainly due to the fact that I found Efron kind of hot in this movie...but I'm not going to get too into that because that thought has been disturbing me to no end. He got taller, slimmer, a tan, and bluer eyes (in result of the tan or colored contacts?). And his real voice sounds strangely awesome.

Laugh all you want (because I did), but the "Bet On It" scene is already classic. The amount of parodies of that scene on Youtube is piling up.

Other than my love for Tisdale's performance as Sharpay, the Efron and Tisdale chemistry, and Efron's suddenly good looks, the rest of the movie is a dud. But thank goodness that the things I did like occupied about 75% of the film. Well, Efron's good looks occupied pretty much the entire movie, but it didn't really matter that much.

So the things that sucked, plus other random thoughts (this deserves a bullet list):

• Vanessa Hudgens. Gabriella doesn't do much in the film other than giggle and say stupid things so it's not entirely Hudgens's fault. But I can't stand Hudgens's one-note delivery of all her lines. I do think Hudgens is a good, if not great, singer. "Gotta Go My Own Way" is actually a pretty good song.
  
• I can't think of a more cringe-worthy scene in the movie than the "I Don't Dance" number. I know it is sort of a showcase for Grabeel, who is a good dancer, but I just think the entire scene feels kind of awkward and strange. I guess prancing around on the basketball court is a little better than prancing around on a baseball diamond? Perhaps.
• The whole Evans family golfing scene is pretty pointless. I understand that it is supposed to develop the interest Sharpay's father has for Troy, but it just comes off as kind of boring.
• The talking-to-singing transitions really bothered me in this film because they're ALL SO AWKWARD. I remember thinking, "WTF?" when Gabriella (Hudgens) started singing "Gotta Go My Own Way." The transition from speaking to singing in the "Work This Out" scene is also freaking weird.
  
• Speaking of awkward singing, this movie is not shy from making it seem oh-so-obvious that they ran the songs through some sound machine. But again, I don't think the kids will notice...yet.
• Troy basically says, "Screw my future, I love my friends more" near the end of the film. I don't think Disney exactly meant it that way but it just came out wrong. At that point in the film, Troy has been a total jerk to his friends because he has gotten a little too full of himself. But his friends are just so freaking annoying so I don't know...I mean, I feel like defending the message because I think I know what it was supposed to mean but...never mind. I don't get it either.
• So were Chad (Corbin Bleu) and Taylor (Monique Coleman) supposed to be an item? I don't remember any mention of it at all in this film...not that it would really add or subtract to the film, but just wonderin' you know?
• I don't understand Kelsi (Olesya Rulin). I like it when Sharpay gives those boring ballads a makeover. They always turn out more to be significantly more kickass.
  
• I kind of hated the last scene: "All For One" is not a very good song at all.

...but I still found myself liking the movie. HSM2 qualifies as a the quintessential guilty pleasure for me.

I can digest crap unlike anyone else I know. I'm one of those rare people who can look at you in the eye and tell you how much I honestly enjoyed Batman & Robin. I kinda-sorta like both HSM films, even though they are both considered "crap" by a lot of people over the age of twelve. Well, I think they are supposed to be fun and they are fun. There is absolutely no harm in that. Kids like them, Disney is making a fortune off them--everyone's happy. Don't ask me why, but I'm looking forward to High School Musical 3: Senior Year. (I think my post already speaks for itself, haha.)

But I'll always have a special place in my heart for Sharpay. Tisdale makes her gold.

---

I hope everyone living in the U.S. had a lovely Independence Day!