Sunshine

(This was also from November 11 of 2008, although I rewatched "Sunshine" yet again the other night, so it's on my mind -- new comments are in brackets).

I watched most of "Sunshine" again last night. It's an almost-great SF movie that unfortunately falls far short near the end. It's unfortunate, because they set up this great stuff, and then blow it. Now, as is sometimes the case with movies like that, I make "sense" of it by spoofing it a little. What follows contains spoilers, so if you're intent on seeing the movie, don't read it!

[I read in the wiki entry that director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland took a year to write the script, and went through 35 drafts!!! Given how the story lurches badly in the third reel, I wonder what they were thinking in the overall process -- I think they could have salvaged the movie, but were clearly locked in around a particular arc that derailed what could've been a masterpiece]

I think what really happens aboard Icarus II is that Cassie goes insane, and kills off the rest of the crew, projecting this in the personage of Pinbacker. She seems to be the nicest person aboard the ship, certainly the softest, which is why nobody would suspect her. Thinking of it this way, the movie makes more narrative sense, rather than having Pinbacker as this hack-and-slash villain who miraculously survived all that time aboard Icarus I, only to pounce on the astronauts on Icarus II. And it being an "inside job" would account for all of the various breaches of security and protocol that afflict the crew -- that, and perhaps a collective psychosis resulting from their long voyage toward the Sun. The flakiness of psych officer Searle, for example, evident at the outset, busy nearly blinding himself, kind of tripping out, and Captain Kaneda, who's not much better [he is incredibly passive for a spaceship captain]. The crew can basically be split between sane and insane crew -- with Mace, Corazon, and Capa being the sane members, and Kaneda, Searle, Cassie, and Trey being the insane ones. Harvey is mostly a coward, so I guess he caucuses with the insane ones, under the circumstances. Cassie for awhile talks Capa into things, before he eventually gets his wits about him and completes the mission. The key is why is Cassie so intent on stopping the mission? She's easily the most wishy-washy member of the crew, but perhaps that's because she's so keen on maintaining this mask of sanity.

Anyway, that outcome makes it a more satisfying movie than the whole bogeyman-in-space outcome of a straight read of the story gives you. Of course, the film's production people don't really give one the above; there's not enough slack in the story to really run with that interpretation -- everything is what it appears to be. It's just that if they had done the above, the movie would've been more compelling than it ended up being. Plus, it's amusing to think of it like that, since Cassie is so clearly supposed to be the most sensitive of the astronauts, given her constant careworn looks on her face throughout it [a Rose Byrne trademark].

I did the same thing with "Forrest Gump," among other movies -- like you can believe Gump led this uniquely ultra Baby Boomer life, or you can believe he's just deeply delusional and builds this fantasy world out of what he sees on television. I like the latter interpretation, as it mocks the generational fellatio the filmmakers perform on the Baby Boomers, versus it being this case of this dullard leading a superhero's kind of life.

[Other options include having the Icarus II crew actually interacting with Pinbacker -- making him another character, instead of simply a monster out to kill the crew of the sister ship. One could also eliminate Pinbacker entirely and run with the ghost ship in space and the Icarus II crew quietly going insane. The character of Harvey is completely wasted, too -- it's clear that nobody on the crew likes him, and he's not keen to be there (having family at home, it's understandable where his heart and head is) -- but that gets wasted, along with everything (and everyone) else. There are serious flaws in the movie -- bad decisions made at key points that lead to an inevitably bad outcome, and the writers basically just throw the characters into a blender and hit "puree" and that's that. "Alien" was clearly some of the source material for this movie, but "Sunshine" lacks the good writing of that, so one ends up with a movie that has a good enough concept, great set design, a good cast, and half of a good story that is completely squandered by the end, as the writers force the conclusion they want to reach.]

The Last Winter and The Strangers

(this was from November of last year, from another blog)

I watched "The Last Winter" and "The Strangers" over the weekend, part of my usual Halloween frightfesting. Although the former was well-reviewed, I felt there were some big-time problems with the actual writing of the story; it could've benefited from a few more revisions of the screenplay, I think. My sense was that the writers were happy to indulge Ron Perlman in it, and as such, his character got away with a lot more than he should have, to the detriment of the overall narrative. Also, the "hero" in the story would've been better off as an early victim, as he doesn't quite do his part in the story. Further, the story arcs a certain way that doesn't do half the cast justice in it. There were some good eerie moments in it, but overall, I think the work didn't fully use all of its resources.

I was much more impressed with (and scared by) "The Strangers" -- which was a far simpler story than "The Last Winter," but while it might've been only four cylinders, it was running smoothly on all four of them, and made excellent use of terror and dread in the story to build into a real nightmare of a story. The primary weaknesses were the "true story" lead-in to it -- that wasn't necessary, was distracting (esp. since the "true story" basically alludes to the Manson family murders, as well as a creepy personal experience of the director).



It filled me with dread, made me so grateful I no longer owned a home in the country, for sure. I'm used to dealing with city weirdness, but it's a different brand of weirdness to country creepiness.

Food: The Gemini Bistro

I ate at the Gemini Bistro, and really enjoyed it. It's on Lincoln Avenue, and has a lot of dark wood and old-school kind of elegance and ambiance. Everybody's impeccably-attired and the service was tip-top. It classifies itself as an "American bistro" -- which to me means a bistro with fast service, for which I'm grateful, not being one who likes to wait.

I had the Prix Fixe menu (served from 5 to 6:30 p.m.), which is three courses for $31 ($49 if you want wine with each course). I opted for the lobster bisque, short-rib ravioli, and German chocolate cake.

The bisque was really tasty, with very tender lobster chunks in it, great color and seasoning. I could have probably had that bisque the whole evening, just with some bread (the bread is served in shiny metal cones with attached butter caddies). Great flavor. I savored it.

The short-rib ravioli was tasty, qualified as a "medium" plate serving (Gemini does small, medium, and large plate servings, depending on the menu item), and while it was maybe a half-dozen round raviolis nicely seasoned and accompanied with shards of aged parmesan, it was enough, I found, to fill me up. The taste was good -- rich and hearty, but also very delicate.

The dessert was beautifully plated -- a three-layer German chocolate cake, a square of reasonable size (in Chicago terms -- everything here is served in bistro portions), and a pretty little dollop of hazelnut ice cream atop a hazelnut fruit spread (I asked the waiter about that, and he told me what it was, but I forgot the fruit that was representing, there), and a sprig of mint. The cake was tasty, if not mind-blowing, but the ice cream was a nice treat, served very cold and it kind of upstaged the cake a bit.

The bar is a nice, long, broad thing, and they do full meal service there, too. I had the best Old-Fashioned I'd ever had in Chicago there -- their "Velvety Old-Fashioned" which was a blend of Maker's Mark, Cointreau, and Bitters, with the requisite mulled cherry and orange wedge garnish. It was fantastic. I often use the Old-Fashioned as my benchmark beverage for a bar, to test their mettle -- not because it's a complicated cocktail, but because it's such a simple one. And I am pleased to say that they nailed it -- strong and flavorful, I had two of them, and had a little trouble putting my jacket on when it was time to leave, and my head was spinning for about an hour after leaving. That is one good cocktail!

I had no complaints about the food or the service -- both were very good. I don't have any complaints at all, really. The Gemini is a nice place -- very Chicago, in its mix of elegance coupled with a lack of pretension. The only discordant notes (and they're minor, truly) were the music -- when I came in, Cream was playing, which just doesn't fit with the decor and overall ambiance of the place. Not that one wants the trademark Smooth Jazz(tm) or whatever, but it just didn't fit with the beauty of the place -- the music changed later, but it still wasn't quite right. Also, the television in the top corner above the bar seemed out of place. Sure, I get it -- a bar with a television -- who doesn't have that? But at the same time, the place seems too sharp for such a common contrivance. Maybe its absence would be felt, but something about the Gemini Bistro, to me, makes it seem a classier place than that.

But those are very minor complaints. I enjoyed the food, loved the cocktail, savored the ambiance, and appreciated the setting. All in all, I'd say it's well worth your time, if you're in the area. A great place for brunch, lunch, and most definitely a place to take a date.

Four out of five stars: * * * *

http://www.geminibistrochicago.com/

How To Train Your Dragon

I took the boys to see "How To Train Your Dragon" (or whatever it's called). It was cute. The boys seemed to enjoy it. As ever, CGI graphics just get better and better -- rich details like the pebbled hides of the dragons just come to life. It was rated PG, and I think that was, perhaps, justified -- there's nothing scary in it or anything, but there are lots of explosions, fires, the dragons, and what-not. The protagonist ("Hiccup") strikes me as a very Gen X protagonist -- just something in his manner feels that way to me, which is kind of funny to see in a kids movie -- like they know that Gen Xers are parents, now, so they craft a kiddy protagonist that kind of plays to things we can relate to (sort of like how so many of the older kiddy movies had gratuitous Elvis references -- something for the Boomers to wink and nod to) -- but it's funny, because Hiccup is sarcastic and facetious, and so I think any Xer parent taking their kid to it'll be like "Yeah, I'd probably say the same thing."

The aerial scenes are lovely, quite breath-taking on the big screen -- the heavenly clouds, the lovely countrysides, the swooping dragons. All of that. Good stuff. You really felt the propulsive motion of those sequences.

I think the Vikings portrayed in it must be from the Orkney Islands, because they have Scots accents (I know, right? Vikings with Scottish accents? I consoled myself with thinking they were somewhere near the Orkneys). Unless, somehow, Scots accents are seen as inherently barbaric. Not sure, not sure.

But I think the movie had a nice balance of character development and certainly a curiously pacifistic message that jumps out at you in this time of our country fighting two wars abroad (remember them?) -- and one moment that particularly makes you think of today's new reality for survivors of wars.

I won't reveal any plot points or surprises. I'd not say the movie was up there with "Up" or "Wall-E" necessarily, but it was a good effort, and it certainly kept my attention.

One (big) complaint: Enough with the 3-D movies already -- we know you're doing it just to rack up box office receipts, you bastards. Not EVERY movie need be 3-D. It set me back $33 to see this movie -- and that was at a matinee.

Band: Mission of Burma

Mission of Burma rocked Double Door last night. They did a great job. Probably the best small-venue show I've seen (or at least tied with Buzzcocks, who I also saw at Double Door). They brought it and played amazingly well. Definitely no sense of phoning it in, like with Dinosaur Jr last year (at the Vic). I'm actually sore from all the jumping around I did.

The audience was of mixed aged, since M.O.B.'s early fan base is comfortably middle-aged, now. Lots of indie music geeks (*koff*) and their coolio nerd-girlfriends. But M.O.B. really brought it and had the room thumping. They did two encores, including "Red" (one of my all-time faves of theirs), and finishing with "That's When I Reach for My Revolver" (which Moby covered many years ago).

Red (circa 1983)

Money well-spent. Very glad I caught the show. It was pretty amazing, all the activity out in Wicker Park, at the main intersection -- since the gentrification of that area, it's become quite the dating mecca -- Meatmarket Central! All the gals in their Saturday Night duds, all the tool guys trying to look sharp. It makes me want to bring a camera down there and capture it sometime -- the volume of humanity on the prowl is too amusing.

Flicks

I got the "Justice League" movie (direct-to-DVD) and was pleasantly surprised by it -- much of the Bruce Timm-directed production team was involved with it, despite the different animators, and the result was very solid. My boys LOVE the movie, and I've watched it a couple of times, think it was fun, well-done. Not treading new ground, storywise, but it was marvelously well-executed and fun. A lot of in-jokes for comic book fanboys and -girls, but it was a compelling work, and I look forward to seeing what else Bruce Timm and company turn out. They have making good animated superhero stuff down pat!

"Push," an ostensibly SF paranormal thriller (involving superhumans) had some arresting images and at least a theoretically usable premise, but it didn't fully cohere the way it needed to -- the whole didn't equal the sum of its parts, and one of the characters (played inertly by Camilla Belle, who appears to have taken the Katie Holmes School of Acting to heart) is a big drag on the overall story. It could have been a good thriller, but I think it got out from under the creators of it, and didn't fully deliver. I think my favorite sequences involved the Screamers/Bleeders, who had a sonic scream attack...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwaiD8ZVYOU

Although the precognitive Watchers were also interesting. Surprisingly, Dakota Fanning did a good job in her role as one of the Watchers (although she was distractingly hunchy -- is that just her being "in character" or does she always have such rotten posture?) She's kind of a pint-sized Kate Hudson, and her relationship with lead character "Nick" (played by Chris Evans) was more convincing that the cobbled-together love interest Evans was supposed to have with Camilla Belle's wooden character (who reminded me of Selma Blair's "Why Is She In This Movie?" role in HELLBOY).

"Coraline" is the latest Neil Gaiman triumph -- and I say that as a bad thing -- I'm not a fan of Neil Gaiman's work. He's just too British for me, too affected, too something. Some people love his work, his dark fairyland, gothic-infused mentality -- the same folks who worship Tim Burton worship Neil Gaiman as their Tolstoy. But it doesn't quite ring true for me -- his work doesn't reach me, and I can't exactly say why. Something about his writing style, his sensibility, something. The technical achievement of the movie outweighs the larger themes of it, in my view -- a movie that's fun to watch but which doesn't particularly deliver the goods. I just kind of watched it, enjoyed it after a fashion (despite the constant, cloying British eccentricity routinely demonstrated by the supposedly American characters in it).

House of the Devil

I watched "The House of the Devil" the other night, and liked it well enough. An indie horror flick, very self-consciously crafted to appear to have been shot in, say, the mid-80s, with the simplest of touches -- characters' hairstyles, the mom jeans, the rotary dial telephones, the big Walkman -- and it looks very much like it could've been a movie of that time.

It delivered some good atmosphere and some startling moments, although I felt that too much time was spent creating the mood and when things get out of hand, they get out of hand almost too quickly for it to really work properly, in terms of pacing, like going from too little to too much all at once.

Also, the meta-factoid at the beginning basically throws any proper suspense out the window -- not having context for what was happening might've made it work better on the face of things.

As an exercise in cinematic style (e.g., simulating an 80s horror movie), they definitely hit all the marks properly. As a horror movie itself, I don't know if it'll qualify as a classic of the genre.

I don't know if this was deliberate on the part of the director or not, but there's a lot of eating in the movie -- it kind of draws attention to itself, like business for the characters to do. It becomes a little distracting, all the nibbling that goes on. Maybe they wanted the characters to have more to do than just, say, smoke (which some of them do, too). Not sure. But it was a little distracting for me.

Also, the overall conceit of the story was less than I'd hoped for, and the payoff didn't quite deliver for me. Like they ended at both a good and a bad point, saying more by showing less, but also kind of copping out (just because of the rushed elements of horror in it making the payoff feel perhaps a bit contrived).

Greta Gerwig (one of my indie film crushes, right up there with Parker Posey) is in it, in a small role as the protagonist's friend.