300-
- Watching the battle sequences in this film in all their brutal beauty, I noticed that I found something deep and familiar resonating within me as the Spartans skillfully slashed their way through the Persian armies. It is the same vicarious thrill I get when watching Hustle, the brilliant BBC series about con artists, and when I watch Jason Kidd make a no-look cross- court pass for an easy dunk by a teammate and when I see Ricky Jay perform sleight-of-hand. I thoroughly enjoy watching an expert perform their craft with all of the mastery and talent they have developed over the years. It doesn't matter much if I'm presented with an actual expert in a real life situation (as in my basketball and magic examples) or an artistic representation of fictional scene (as in this film). I find myself engrossed by any presentation of a clearly difficult act given the appearance of ease by a skilled individual. Sufficed to say, I loved the fight sequences. I was nearly hypnotized by the elegant movements and machine like precision with which the titular 300 Spartans and their opponents fought and killed each other. These were the highlights of the film when the director gave us the most inspired visuals and the most skilled pacing. It's when the movie leaves behind the battle that it starts to suffer.
- Hollywood directors must really, really, REALLY love Frank Miller's stuff. First Rich Rodriguez credited Miller as a co-director for the Sin City movie, because the film so closely followed the visual presentation laid out in the comic. Now Zack Snyder has decided to crib directly from the comics to the degree that I was recognizing individual panels as the film freeze framed on certain images. I would say this copy and paste film making made the film slightly weaker, but after seeing how shaky the camera work, pacing, and even plotting got once the movie started to go outside Miller's comic, I've decided Snyder probably made the best choice to stay tenaciously faithful to the source whenever possible.
- As a historian I should probably say something about the historical accuracy of a film depicting one of the great events of ancient Western history, the Battle of Thermopylae. I think the film makes an honest effort to present the people and events as well as they were recorded by some ancient historians (who of course romanticized certain elements and created some misleading impressions of the circumstances). At the same time I believe nothing really looked the way the film presents it. That is to say the film took the words from one version of history and painted the most outrageous picture it could based on them. So it has to be appreciated for making some effort to present some historical accuracy even if it cannot really be taken seriously as a historical work. Of course, it should go without saying that anyone who goes to this movie expecting a realistic presentation of the past is as naive as the person who watches Star Trek expecting a realistic presentation of the future.
Blades of Glory-
- While the movie was plenty entertaining and even has strong hints of re-watchability, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was still a few scenes away from being an all-time comedy classic. Then it dawned on me that there were probably a few scenes cut from the theatrical release that will be on the DVD, which might have made the difference between a pretty funny movie and a truly great comedy. This may be the dark side of the DVD Era, with so many extras and special features included for the booming home market, we might start seeing more films holding off on the version for cinemas to keep costs down -or just figuring they can always fix it on the two disk director's cut special edition. It steals some of the power from the art when the creators aren't putting their all into front-loading a truly great big screen motion picture. I may be a traditionalist hold out, but I still believe movies should be defined by what is projected in a movie theater not what you can rent at Blockbuster.
- One of the great mysteries of current American entertainment may be why Will Ferrell has not yet made a top level R-rated comedy. I don't know if Eddie Murphey, Bill Murray, or Chevy Chase would have made it to where they are today without reaching for that career defining R-rated romp (well maybe Chevy Chase would be where he is today). It would have been so easy to take Anchorman or Talladega Nights to that next level. I kept expecting them to just go that extra-step in this movie with Chazz Michael Michaels sex addiction and give us that raunchy scene that's a gut buster to watch the first time and a guilty pleasure to watch over and over again. It just baffles me how we haven't see Will Ferrell, who may be the most fearless actor in Hollywood, put in one top level movie aimed at adults. I really hope Slate has somebody looking into this, because I really feel I may go crazy(okay crazier) if I don't find an explanation for this bizarre situation.
Zodiac-
- I will admit that I am a huge David Fincher fan, and that I like many men of my generation was drawn in by his early work from the late 1990's. There was a stretch between my freshman and sophomore years at college when I may not have gone two weeks without watching some portion of either Se7en or Fight Club. These movies are on all the time and they absolutely deserve to be. My favorite part of Fincher's style is how he creates very dark and gritty worlds then finds space within those worlds for wild visual excess. In Zodiac though he plays it much closer to the vest. I think he may have been aiming at subtlety to contrast this story of a mysterious serial killer with what he did in Se7en, but much of it felt restrained to me. I don't like seeing artists hold back even if it is to try and improve some other aspect of their craft. I am hoping Fincher finds a place where he's comfortable tapping into those crazed corners of his minds, because watching those helps stir the crazed corners of my own mind.
- I have a theory that the quality of an actor can be measured by how easily they can be replaced. For instance if I tried taking Will Ferrell out of Blades of Glory and putting in any other male comedy actor working today, that movie takes about five steps backwards. If I replace Matthew McConaughey in just about any role he's ever played, the movie he was in gets better. I thought Zodiac was a nice demonstration of how usefull this rule can be. I think the movie would have been exactly as good if any other generic young leading man had played the cartoonist come sleuth of Jake Gyllenhaal. He didn't bring anything to the role you would miss if he left, but I don't think there was much room for improvement given the limits of the character. You'd only hurt the movie if you tried to replace Mark Ruffalo as the seasoned detective, because he brought out the soft touches and lighter moments of the character that I think any other actor would have rushed right over in their efforts to be gruff and cynical. Robert Downey Junior is absolutely dazzling as the drunken journalist assigned to the Zodiac killings and could not be replaced without catastrophic consequences. The best performance of the film though belongs to Anthony Edwards who turns Ruffalo's partner into a captivating character that I wish I had as a professional partner and friend. You may be able to replace him without ruining the movie, but you could never get another actor to add as much to the film as he did.
