Unbreakable (2000)

Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Format: DVD
Disk Features: (coming soon)
Starring: Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Robin Wright Penn, Spencer Treat Clark

”This morning was the first morning that I can remember that I didn’t open my eyes and feel…sadness” ~ David Dunn

There was a time, back in high school, when I was a comic book junkie. I spent all of the money I earned working at Domino’s Pizza at the comic store in the mall. My love affair with comics and manga went on for years and I still wander into a shop every now and then. So, I’m always interested when a movie comes out that was either based on a comic book or draws a heavy influence from them. Unbreakable, while not derived directly from the pages of any Marvel or DC title, is about comic books and the heroes and villains that inhabit their pages.

David Dunn (Willis) can’t remember ever having been sick, broken a bone, or taken a day off due to illness. After he survives a catastrophic train wreck, unharmed, he finds a note on the windshield of his truck. The mysterious note leads him to the proprietor of a comic art gallery, Elijah Price (Jackson). Quite the opposite of Mr. Dunn, Mr. Price has suffered so many injuries due to his fragile bones that the children at school dubbed him “Mr. Glass.” In a very calm and matter of fact manner, Price explains to Dunn and his son that he feels comics have their roots in history. The way legends have been passed down through illustration in cultures all over the world, comic books may very well be a dramatic rendition of ancient truths. In a nutshell, Elijah Price thinks Mr. Dunn may very well be a superhero. As might be expected, Dunn thinks Price is a crackpot and ushers his son out of the building. But, due to the rather persistent insinuations of Elijah, Dunn starts to come around to the idea.

The camera work of Shyamalan in Unbreakable is clever and creative. In one of the earliest scenes, the conversation between Dunn and a young woman on the train is shot entirely from the perspective of a little girl, looking between the seats at them. Another scene is shot at a blank television screen, reflecting the characters. There are several scenes in the movie with unusual angles such as these and I hadn’t noticed the same technique in the director’s other films. During flashback scenes, he uses a monochrome lens; showing all but the main focus of the shot in dulled tones. While not completely original (Schindler's List uses it too), it’s still an effective method.

One of the things I notice most about Samuel L. Jackson’s acting is his talent with dialogue, most notably illustrated in Pulp Fiction. He delivers lines clearly, calmly and with just the right tone. The better directors seem to know how to utilize this skill when they give him the script. Unbreakable is no exception. Although Price is explaining a somewhat outlandish theory, it comes out sounding completely logical. Bruce Willis has worked with Shyamalan before, in The Sixth Sense. I think the two men work well together. I much rather enjoy seeing Willis in departures from the testosterone overload films like Die Hard. The actor who plays Dunn’s son, Spencer Treat Clark, does a really fantastic job. Even before he learns that his father may be the stuff of legend, it’s clear that he views the elder Dunn as a hero. In the last scene of the movie, he communicates the emotions of his character better than most child actors could. One of the characters I couldn’t help but feel for was Elijah’s mother, Charlayne Woodard. She’s a terribly strong woman and a great maternal figure.

While I have always been partial to Shyamalan’s films, Unbreakable has always seemed underappreciated to me. His take on the superhero genre is refreshing. Somehow, the whole movie is infused with a sort of eeriness. The first scene of the movie gives me chills each time I see it and sets a great tone for the rest of the story. Underlying the hero/villain story is the relationship between Dunn and his wife (Penn). There’s a sadness between them that makes the hero a bit more human. Shyamalan does a wonderful job of making the whole fantastic tale feel very real.

Overall Rating: 4
Hottie Rating: 3 (Willis is a loveable hero)

Alternate Viewing: Lady In The Water
Official Site: none found
IMDB Site
Pop Matters review *spoilers*

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

The Fountain (2006)

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Format: DVD
DVD Features: trailer, featurette
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn
Trailer

I have a cousin, close in age and remote in distance, whose life parallels my own in many ways. His, like mine, has been laden with a series of unhappy events (I call them Little Tragedies) and thus, he is always recommending tragic dramas for me to watch. Last time, it was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That one cut right to the heart. This time, it was The Fountain and I watched it with my grandmother and uncle. Neither of them seemed to grasp what the movie was about, and they expressed a sense of confusion at the conclusion. This cousin of mine is a writer, and thinks deeply on many levels, so I knew the movie was meaningful to him. I think I got a bit more from it than my companions did, but it is a highly interpretive film.

The “fountain” in the title refers to The Fountain of Youth in various senses. There are three storylines in the movie that parallel each other and each has to do with the search for immortality. In the primary storyline, Hugh Jackman plays Dr. Tom Creo. Creo is a medical researcher who is trying frantically to find a cure for the brain tumor that’s killing his wife. However, he’s spending so much of his time in this desperate quest that he’s missing out on the few precious moments he has left with her. She, however, has taken a more courageous view of her situation and prefers to consider death as the beginning of something new.

Creo’s wife, Izzi (Rachel Weisz), is in the process of writing a story, and this is where the second aspect of the movie comes into play. Jackman, this time, is a conquistador who is sent by his Spanish queen (also Weisz) on a quest for The Tree of Life. She hands him a ring and promises that when he’s returned successful, the two of them will join and the crown will be safe. He is relentless in his search for the Tree, to the point that his accompanying troops begin to believe that he’s gone mad.

In yet a third thread of The Fountain, Jackman plays a man traveling through space in an enclosed bubble of atmosphere. The only other traveler in the bubble is a large tree, from which he receives sustinence and companionship. His goal is to bring the tree to a nebula which will preserve the ailing tree’s life.

Aside from common theme and actors, the three tales are linked by two other elements. One is The Tree. It is The Fountain of Youth that the conquistador searches for. It is the man in the bubble’s only concern. It is also an ingredient that Dr. Creo uses in his experiments. The other associated object is a ring. In the main storyline, the doctor loses his wedding ring when he is washing up for surgery. It is also an object of promise from the Spanish queen. And in the bubble, the man has tattooed himself with rings signifying the years he and the tree have shared together. Eventually, some of these ingredients cross over from one stream of the story to another and the three become more entwined.

I cannot say enough good things about either Hugh Jackman’s or Rachel Weisz in this movie. Both of them make you care so much about their characters that it’s almost impossible not to become emotionally invested in what’s happening to them. Izzi is practically an angel and is so enlightened in her perspective but remains very human at the same time. Weisz as the Spanish queen is almost ethereal and likewise angelic. It’s hard not to sympathize with Creo, because it’s apparent that his every effort is expended on his wife’s behalf and that his love for her is very powerful. While there are a few supporting roles, none of them seem of any consequence compared to Creo and his wife.

As I mentioned earlier in this review, The Fountain has many different layers and I think that it can be interpreted in several ways. It can either be terribly depressing or gently uplifting, depending on your perspective. The overall message can be one of despair, or one of encouragement. However, there is a difference in the way I interpreted this film and the comments I’ve read online about it. Generally, people seem to view the three storylines as past, present and future. Contrary to that, I believe that the three stories indicate the same message and longing for discovery, but rather than being a difference in time, they are a difference in the way that Dr. Creo chooses to consider the battle between himself and his wife’s illness.

The main story is what happens in actuality. The story involving the queen and her soldier is a tale that Izzi had written in order to express to her husband how she perceives his quest for a cure. Finally, the man in the bubble is the doctor’s personal insight into his relationship with his wife and his urgent desire to hold on to her. I hesitate to delve further into my explaination for fear of spoiling the film, but that is the basic concept of the film as I saw it.

It seems that The Fountain has some really nice CGI. But, in fact, the director wanted to stay away from computer graphics. Instead, he used microphotography to create many of the effects. The lighting in the film is effective in giving the entire story a sort of fantasy quality. However, some scenes were shot so dimly that it was very difficult to follow the action. That is probably my only criticism of the entire film.

Because there are so many layers of meaning to The Fountain, it really depends on one’s interpretation of the film as to whether or not that person will find it enjoyable. The Fountain is definitely not a funny, happy-go-lucky movie. Neither is it for the kids. Don’t look to the film for high action or witty dialogue and don’t expect a clear resolution. I think that it will appeal to fans of Aronofsky’s other work, but may turn off much of the mainstream movie going audience. While the two main characters are played by popular stars, the movie strays sufficiently off the beaten path to resist appeal to a wide selection of Jackman and Weisz fans. Personally, I found it engaging, asthetically appealing, tragic and deeply meaningful. However, it’s not a movie I would watch all the time because it is so heavy on the heart and mind.

As a final note, I would like to mention that The Fountain does depict animal testing (specifically on monkeys) which is something that I neither endorse or condone. So, as a warning to fellow animal rights crusaders, some scenes may be difficult for sensitive viewers.

Overall Rating: 4 ½
Hottie Rating: 4 (Jackman with his shirt off)

Alternate viewing: Pi
Official site
IMDB site
Cinepinion review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Director: David Yates
Format: Theater
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Imelda Staunton, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson
Trailer

I have to admit it; I was late jumping on the Harry Potter bandwagon. I only just began reading the novels in June, but I’m halfway through The Prisoner of Azkaban already. I’m addicted. I even bought a bag of Bertie Bott’s Every-flavor beans. So far, my only disappointment is that the film adaptations to that point are so close to the novels. So, having seen a majority of the Potter movies, there haven’t been any surprises in the books. That’s quite a turn from my usual book-to-movie experience. Having not caught up to the most recent movie: Order of the Phoenix, I don’t know if the adaptation of that particular novel is up to par. However, I have heard rumor that the thicker the books get, the looser the adaptations.

Once again, Harry’s mortal enemy, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), seems to be on the rise to power. Cornelius Fudge and The Ministry of Magic are in a state of paranoid denial and launch a smear campaign in The Daily Prophet aimed at Harry and Hogwarts. The only people who seem to realize the truth about the Dark Lord’s return are a group of faithful witches and wizards called The Order of the Phoenix. Fearing that The Order is creating rumors in order to overthrow the Ministry, Fudge removes Dumbledore and Hagrid from the school and appoints the new teacher for Defense Against the Dark Arts, Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) as headmaster. Her enthusiastic attitude and cheerful tone of voice do little to veil the sinister creature beneath. Umbridge is obviously a fan of the “old school” methods of punishment. The students at Hogwarts are trying to do their best to cope with the stringent new rules, while Harry struggles with his own inner demons (and pubescent angst).

Daniel Radcliffe has played the character of Harry Potter throughout the entire series. In fact, one aspect I love about the films is that all of the original actors have stuck with their roles. But, contrary to some other reviews I’ve read, I don’t think that Radcliffe has developed much as an actor. Sure, he’s obviously grown quite a bit at a physical level, but Radcliffe seems to have relied on the same five facial expressions all along. I was a little more forgiving when he was still a kid. On the contrary, Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley and Emma Watson, who plays Hermione Granger have both grown nicely into their characters. Grint plays Ron exactly as I would have imagined him from the novels and he and Watson have only gotten more convincing.

The obviously more seasoned actors are a bit more consistent with their performances. My favorite characters in the series have always been Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and Sirius Black (Gary Oldman). I love the way Rickman portrays the villain who is always really on the good side. He conveys his distain for Potter and his crew with just the perfect roll of the eyes and heavy sarcasm. I have to whine a bit that Black’s character isn’t around much in Order. There’s a new character in this movie; Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch) and I was hoping that she would be a new love interest for Harry. I love the innocently creepy addition to the cast. However, Harry sticks with Cho Chang (Katie Leung). I hope to see Luna developed more in the next stage of the story. Nymphadora Tonks (Natalia Tena) is in the movie briefly as well. But, there are so many characters in The Order of the Phoenix, that many of the seemingly more interesting ones are only barely touched upon. I would have liked to have seen more character development with Helena Bonham Carter’s character, Bellatrix Lestrange.

Of course, The Order is filled with dazzling special effects, from ghostly dementors to a fierce lightning battle. But, this installment is a bit darker and more sinister than the others. It’s unsettling to see Hogwarts such a gloomy place. Most of the scenes are heavy with dark blue, black and steely hues that add a cold unpleasantness to the entire film. Of course, that must have been the idea. Despite the title of the film, the storyline doesn't do much more than touch on what the Order is about and how it was founded.

If you haven’t seen the other Potter movies, or read the books, you will be completely lost with Order. So, I definitely do not recommend this movie for anyone who isn’t already invested in the series. But for those of us who’ve been following the story, Order of the Phoenix is a very dark and menacing installment comparatively. It also seems as if it’s straining to fit too much into too short a timeline. I’d only recommend it as a reference to the next movie. I think most Potter fans will see it anyway, but it’s not one of my favorite Potter films.

Overall Rating: 3
Hottie Rating: 2 (is it okay to think Potter's hot now?)

Alternate viewing: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Official site
IMDB site
FilmJerk review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***