I talk about movies some more

[trinityvixen]

I saw three movies in the theater this weekend, and they run the gamut between good, bad, and oh-my-God-this-is-for-real-awesome. They would be Source Code, Sucker Punch, and Unknown, respectively. All you need to know about Unknown is that it's a thriller about conspiracies surrounding an assassination, and Liam Neeson is in it. It's truly fun in the way only a Liam-Neeson-fights-everyone movie can be. moonlightalice has called for an entire series of these movies. I hope she gets her wish.

Sucker Punch is not a good movie. I may have a longer post on why that is, but for now, let me just say that it is decidedly not great. Not the worst or even the most abusively bad movie ever, but certainly not the best movie either. It would be a terrific series of music videos--and, indeed, I liked a lot of the music playing over the scenes, although, as ever, Zach Snyder's omnipresent musical guru, Tyler Bates, displays excellent, if predictable, taste, and lousy, lousy execution. For instance, he seems incapable of realizing that music in the background shouldn't build to a crescendo only to be dropped to a whisper when someone has to utter some potentially plot-enabling dialogue (for as much as such things existed in Sucker Punch that is). The music would go LOUD-soft-speaking-LOUD unnecessarily. Save it for a break when you can truly amp up your gothic remix of "White Rabbit," okay?

Source Code is good, although it was also frustrating. I liked it, but it doesn't quite work--not as well as Moon worked. It wasn't brave as it should have been. I liked the central sci-fi premise, and the suspension of disbelief was not an issue. No, revisiting someone's memories of a time should not allow you to change things or to experience things that they could not have known, seen things they never saw, etc. But you roll with it because that's what they need you accept, that's the price of entry, and it's not that high a bar to clear. What I realized this morning is not that the sci-fi aspects are overly complicated, it's that the movie hasn't got the courage to stick to their rules. moonlightalice expressed a lot of this when we saw it, but it wasn't until this morning that it really bugged me. Not sticking to the rules, moreover, raises a lot of questions--and a lot more sci-fi complications--that the movie doesn't answer and shouldn't have had to anyway.

Performance-wise, I was completely in love with Vera Farminga's character. Without being able to move her body, her face had to convey her internal struggle as she guided Jake Gyllenhaal's character through his paces. She was amazing and so utterly human. I think, to its credit, that is why Source Code works, where it does. It sketches out people instead of archetypes with its characters, with the exception of the more villainous folk. They were very cardboard/cookie-cutter, but as they existed only to flesh out the conflict--internal and external--in the protagonist characters, that was not an issue for me. And, like with Moon, what you know about Source Code already, from trailers and reviews, doesn't give away the film. You can know the basic premise and not know where the movie is necessarily going. It's not like a "twist" ending or anything, just that the set up takes you in (mostly) well-thought-out directions that are still somewhat surprising and always interesting and frequently touching. It's the rare movie these days that can tell you exactly what to expect and still be a surprise. Whatever its faults, Source Code does that much, and that is not a little thing.

After this weekend, I'm now only three movies behind where I should be with my movie-a-week resolution. I won't fall further behind for this week at least, since I've got movie-going plans set, but I need to start picking up the slack before I lose too much more time. Tsk tsk. I never thought it would be this hard to get my ass out to the movies just slightly more than I do already, yet here I am. I would have been better able to manage it if the Oscar Showcase wasn't stupidly split up this year. Alas!

Comments

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the other two, but I agree that Sucker Punch was not good. It could have been, too--it had a great visual sense (that got redundant at times), an interesting premise (that wasn't utilized well), and, well, hot chicks with swords and guns (who were also under-used). My big problem with it, though, was that it fell apart at the end, structure-wise, and that really we were seeing only a few of the scenes we needed a whole lot we didn't. But oh well.

[six-demon-bag.livejournal.com]

I'm only vaguely familiar with all three of these films by name. Unknown sounds the most appealing of the three from your description, but I'm very intrigued by the Sucker Punch soundtrack. Gonna have to check that out. I was going to go see Rango with some friends yesterday afternoon, but I fell asleep on the couch and didn't wake up until it was too late. Bummer, too, 'cause my friends say it's good stuff -- kind of an animated take on Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas from what they say.

[jlc.livejournal.com]

Would be interested in hearing more on Sucker Punch. I felt it was a superbly directed train wreck; essentially a collection of amazingly directed scenes held together by one of the worst scripts for a feature film in recent memory. However, the folks I saw it with seemed to genuinely enjoy it. So: salvageable popcorn flick, or just a mess?

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Oh, ask and you shall receive. I think I can put together the argument now, especially after seeing something directed well that actually had a story to go with this weekend.