TV Review: Sex & the City

In preparation for the impending release of the money-spinning sequel to Sex and the City: The Movie, it seems an appropriate time to cast an eye over the series that spawned it. While firmly rooted in the sitcom genre, Sex and the City often delves into issues that aren’t representative of traditional comedy fodder. This is commendable, but the overriding problem with the show isn’t its subject matter, it is its appalling representation of modern day career women. I find the championing of SATC by Western feminists quite perverse; endless loveless sex, rowdy behavior and ambition that never really extends beyond the acquisition of the latest pair of Manolo Blahniks has influenced an entire generation of women; women who believe that the foursome in SATC actually represent liberalization for the female gender.

However, in an effort to not be known as a total buzzkill, it is worth noting what Sex and the City has going for it. Firstly, the four characters are carefully drawn and the reason for their success is that any girl can see certain traits in friends they have or people they know. Indeed, being able to relate to the characters is probably the primary concern for many viewers. Secondly, some of the more sexual complications make for very good comedy and the explicit nature of the dialogue helps to draw these issues to the viewer’s attention. Thirdly, there is a real poignant sense throughout the series that none of the foursome is really truly happy; this makes them more realistic and somewhat flawed and misguided by their own rampant materialism.

What is truly disturbing is that young women grow up now believing that the example shown to them in SATC is the way of the world and the normal way to act. A girl who spreads her legs with a different man every week is no shining light for gender equality. Sure, fans of SATC will argue that it is different because the woman holds all the power, but it isn’t; if the man gets sex when he wants it then he wins. The shunning and belittling of traditional values in favor of sexual promiscuity and consumerism hardly amounts to liberalization and progression for the female gender.

Despite the unhealthy empowerment derived by consumerism that unites the quartet of characters, their interaction is the principal reason for their popularity with viewers. There is a sense of chemistry and personality about each of them, no matter how contrived their individual traits may be. As entertainment not taken too seriously, Sex & the City certainly has its fanbase out there. But as satire and social commentary, much like the shallow designer-obsessed stars of the show, there isn’t much beneath the surface.

Movie Review: Kick-Ass (2010)

Perhaps I have missed the point, but Kickass represents a worrying trend of morally bankrupt teen movies that serve no real purpose other than to shock, offend and satisfy an unhealthy thirst for blood. I’m not squeamish and I’m certainly not aversed to violent films – The Godfather and Pulp Fiction are among my favorite films of all time – but there is an inconsistency about the material and the delivery in Kickass which is more than a little unsettling.

Having seen the trailer, it appeared as though the movie would have some potential; as a bit of a superhero buff, the idea of a geeky teenager becoming a superhero through sheer desire and heart seemed perfect for a journey of comedic splendor while exploring the mythology behind superheroes that fascinates those among us who love comic books. Graphic violence isn’t a problem when handled correctly; Sin City for example has a motif all of its own and the violence contained therein is somewhat detached from everyday life in a similar way to cartoon violence in an Itchy & Scratchy cartoon. Even violence in the aforementioned Tarantino classic Pulp Fiction involves morally compromised gangsters and is stylized in such a way that it fits with the material and doesn’t feature people ‘just like us’. In Kickass, the movie weaves between free-for-all slaughter and the dark sense that this is real life, making the movie contradictory at every turn with its intentions not entirely clear. More unsettling however, is the fact that all this sadism is being carried out by children.

In terms of the plot, Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is a nerdy high school student and comic book fan who one day decides to become a super-hero, even though he has no powers, training or meaningful reason to do so. Of course there is a girl he pines for named Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca) and the obligatory nerdy sidekick friends. After assuming the persona of Kickass and becoming a YouTube sensation overnight, Dave decides to continue with his superhero shtick. Then this innocent vigilante fantasy turns into a relentlessly violent revenge arc revolving around Damon Macready (Nicholas Cage) and his daughter Mindy (Chloe Grace Moretz). Mindy steals the show with her alter ego ‘Hit Girl’, and her use of profanity and her experience and skill with knives, guns and all manner of other weaponry is intended to shock. After all, she is only eleven years old. Are we really that easily amused that a child using the word ‘c***’ is all it takes to get a cheap laugh?

What is interesting about Hit Girl is the fact that the obsession with weaponry and violence has been directly influenced by her father, who gives her knives and nun chucks for her birthday rather than dolls. In samurai fashion, she disembowels and shoots her way to Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong) the mafia boss responsible for the death of her mother.

This is a film trying to be as tasteless as possible, which I suppose is ultimately the point I’ve not been identifying. There are sexual overtones throughout and there is even a cringeworthy scene in which Hit Girl is dressed in a Britney Spears-style school uniform that makes you wonder if you’ve stumbled upon an illegal website. Then to see said eleven year old girl beaten nearly to death by a mob boss would probably be a step too far even for Quentin Tarantino. Human life has no value in this film; you can see why kids and teens don’t understand the finality of death when they are exposed to supposedly harmless material like this. There is also no real satire to speak of, which is a major disappointment considering the wealth of material available and the fact that the premise of this film has been attempted before (Mystery Men). Despite all this the movie struggles to carve out an identity of its own.

The truth is that this isn’t really a film about ‘real people’ becoming superheroes, unless the ‘real people’ are the kind of cosseted teenagers you see in Hollywood movies who always get what they want in the end, no matter how reprehensible they actually seem to be. Even the protagonist here, the geeky Dave, gets the girl in unorthodox fashion and is not even the slightest bit concerned as he mows down several men with an avalanche of bullets. I get it. We’re not supposed to take it seriously. It is just a film for crying out loud; maybe I should get in line at the humor store as I’ve clearly missed a delivery. But here we have a film that could have explored ideas and could have followed a more original path. Instead, we have a film that prioritizes style over substance and any good intentions are sacrificed early on by the desire to gratify its audience with the ever-irresistible cheap thrill.

Movie Review: Up (2009)

We already know that Pixar is in a league of its own when it comes to computer animated movies. Dreamworks and others may make entertaining films but they lack the depth that seemingly only Pixar and Walt Disney can provide. Up is one of Pixar’s most striking examples of this and what results is a film of quiet beauty that manages to placate every strata of audience in equal measure.

What has become par for the course is Pixar raising the bar in animation and then raises it again. Wall-E was a fine example of a studio with the imagination and confidence to challenge conventional movies for kids; the opening half hour was something to behold. Up has a similar opening sequence in which we as an audience witness a miscarriage and the death of our protaganist’s wife. Their marriage and her life was clearly unfulfilled as they had wanted it to be and following a shocking blow to the head of a repossession agent (blood and all), the aged Carl Freidreksen (Christopher Plummer) decides to do the things his wife wanted to do, namely travel to Paradise Falls in South America. When his house is due to be repossessed, the now reclusive Carl decides to fit hundreds of balloons to his property for the purpose of adventurously making it airborne. What he hadn’t envisioned was that a young wilderness explorer by the name of Russel (Jordan Nagai) would be embarking on this trip with him too. What follows is a lot of fun that I won’t spoil by revealing here.

The issues presented in Up do not represent conventional fare for a young audience and an elderly protagonist is certainly far from ordinary in this genre. Pixar nevertheless handles the material with such sensitivity as to keep children safe at all times while taking them through dramas they may not have seen before. Pete Docter who directed this movie certainly had the experience having directed Monsters Inc, written Toy Story and co-written on Wall-E. Unsurprisingly with this track record, he has managed to produce here is a film that is humorous and touching at the same time.

What I will say is that 3D is an unnecessary afterthought in the case of Up. It is magical and probably even better in 2D as there is more emphasis on the bright colour palette showcased by Pixar. Disney’s Bolt had sequences that were made with 3D in mind with chases and objects heading towards the audience etc. This movie doesn’t feel made for 3D in the same way.

What is still truly amazing about Pixar is that they don’t ever feel the need to take the easy route. They don’t need to bombard their younger audience with chase after chase and mindless action just to keep their attention. Pixar does it differently and demonstrates an almost literary depth that simply can’t be matched by any other animation studio in the world right now.

GRADE: A

Movie Review: King Kong (2005)

King Kong (2005)

Quite a sizeable proportion of reviews knocking about are labelling this film as ‘flawless’. I can only assume that these people are unaware of the word’s meaning. Like when people say ‘I literally could eat a horse right now’, when clearly they mean figuratively. I have said time and time again, special effects do not necessarily make great movies. Kong weighs in at an unnecessary three hours and ten minutes, and most of the running time is wasted by Jackson’s incessant bombarding of the viewer with his CGI editing software. He has become inebriated with delusions of his own genius. Lord of the Rings it isn’t.

The plot is relatively simple. Ann (Naomi Watts) is recruited to a movie project being shot abroad, in Skull Island. She is recruited by Carl Denham (Jack Black) who is the director of this off-shore feature. Also coming along for the ride to Skull Island are Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler) and the rest of the crew. When they reach the island, they realise they have received more than they bargained for. After 67 minutes, we finally see Kong, and he develops a relationship of sorts with Ann throughout the film. I’d divulge more, but I would be ‘spoiling’.

Realism is not an expectation when you go to see a film like King Kong and nor should it be. But the movie should be subject to the rules put down by its own narrative framework and there are a number of very poorly thought out sequences. I have chosen my favourite five moments below.

5) The fact that Ann survives during the fight with the 4 T-rex’s and Kong. Not just the fact that she survives, but the fact that she does so while Kong is holding her the whole time.

4) The fact that Jimmy manages to shoot all the giant bugs off Jack without killing him, despite the fact that the gun he is using is a machine gun, and that he is not looking while he shoots.

3) The stupendously ridiculous brontosaurus chase scene. No-one even touches a dinosaur, despite the fact that it would be impossible not to.

2) The fact that the crew actually get Kong aboard their boat! They would never be able to move him. Also, just hours before they capture Kong, they were even throwing rations off the boat in a bid to reduce its weight. Of course a 200 tonne gorilla is no problem.

1) My favourite item of disgrace is the Central Park scene in New York. The pond is frozen, and Kong continually jumps and slides on the ice, but is doesn’t break for some unimaginable reason.

It isn’t all bad though. Kong himself is a marvel of CGI, I must admit. The facial expressions, the sound, he has never looked this real. The dinosaurs also look very good. But that is not enough. Most people have become desensitised to special effects and nothing is ever as impressive as say, Jurassic Park when it first came out.

The acting is worth noting too. Naomi Watts is very average as Ann; she only has one facial expression throughout the entire feature. I appreciate that she is working with something she cannot see, but she is a professional actress and she should be able to deliver a performance to reflect this. The rest of the cast are solid if completely unremarkable, although the script kills the film with its last line: the film-makers inexplicably get Jack Black to say ‘It was beauty that killed the beast’. Granted this is a line from the original but after a film like this and Jack Black’s character, you cannot have him attempt something poignant. I could almost smell the cheese on my way out.

There are needless unresolved sub-plots like the unresolved relationship between Jimmy and Hayes. No explanations. And it isn’t like there wasn’t enough time to wrap things up for crying out loud. There are scenes where Kong just smacks his belly and roars for five minutes. Whose idea was that?

Jackson just bombards the viewer with special effect after special effect, of course all at the expense of good old-fashioned story-telling. Meaningful dialogue is distributed sparingly, and the audience doesn’t get the chance to think for themselves. We must subscribe to the view that ‘Kong is lovely, we feel sorry for Kong.’ I don’t want to feel like a drone. The film forgets that Kong has thrown innocent men into cliffs and killed about fifteen people. This is a classic case of effects over narrative, and whether you like that or not is entirely down to your taste. Jackson is undoubtedly a talented director but in this feature he has perhaps let his love of the material cloud his judgement.

GRADE: C