Words on Moonrise Kingdom

Ignore the fact that the last post I posted was over a year ago.  Let's talk about the cognitive dissonance in my head about the film I just saw, Moonrise Kingdom.

I really want to like this movie as much as it seems most people did but I can't help but notice that Wes Anderson, famed director of Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, and The Royal Tenenbaums has run out of tricks.

It almost seems like he's mastered his visual style too much.  He knows what he wants from every scene too much.  He knows what all of his movies are meant to look like before he even makes them.  There are no happy surprises in this movie.  There are no visually distinct revelations that make this movie any more pleasing to stare at than Rushmore, or Tenenbaums.  But then again, why should I expect more from this film than his others-- that is what I'm having trouble with.

I don't think I have a right to expect this movie to be better than his other films.  In fact, there is a big chance he'll never make a film better than Rushmore, but what does bother me is that now his work isn't as impressive.

Dear Wes,

We get it.  You love having really smart young people and really childish adults.  You sussed that out over a decade ago and then you took it one step further in The Royal Tenenbaums, a masterpiece.  You even had some fun with that idea in The Fantastic Mr. Fox.  It was cute and was a little different and since it looked so different it didn't look as much like the others.

You have our attention.  Let's take it one step further now.  Adults not ready to grow old.  Young children who want to be adults, nobody is happy, everyone knows what they want but they can't have it--at least not just yet.

Moonrise Kingdom was a beautiful experience and I enjoyed watching the film but next time, let's see something new because unlike your characters you don't have to be stuck in a rut with no way out other than regressing into your old self.  It's OK to grow up, and maybe next time, show us something new.

Love,
Biff Savage

In Defense of Waterworld

I think there is a lot to say about the 1995 Kevin Costner epic Waterworld. Most of the things that come to mind involve equating the typical viewing experience to watching a bloodhound take a shit, it's disgusting, but there's nothing more satisfying than watching it plop down and steam. I have to start off by saying that by no means is this a good film, it is however, a movie I absolutely love watching. Just think about the main aspects of this film. The hero has gills and wears ski boots. The villain inexplicably hates sails and leads a band of nicotine crazed goons called "smokers." And if you wanna get nerdy about it: the human race has managed to live through a major extinction event and long enough for not only sea life to drastically evolve but also for humans to adapt to the new Waterworld. This means that at a minimum this movie has to take place a thousand years after the polar icecaps melted and flooded the world. How can you not love the sheer ballsiness of filmmakers ready to make this movie.

Let's take a step back and look at who was involved in the making of this film. Director Kevin Reynolds has a good history with Kevin Costner, he also directed Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves which was considered by most to be a success if not critically then definitely financially. Although credited as director for Waterworld, Kevin Costner pretty much took over most of the production and had a hand in much of the direction of this film. At first glance that has to be a good thing right? Kevin Costner directed Dances with Wolves and that movie was bad ass. But there is one critical difference between both of those films and that lies in overall execution and script. While Dances with Wolves has an Oscar winning screenplay (Michael Blake, who also wrote the novel) Waterworld has a screenplay that is only really useful as scratchy, ass- bleeding toilet paper. The sad part for Kevin Costner though is that this film is the "jumping the shark" moment of his career-- literally-- there is a moment where he swims around in the water and jumps out into the air with his superhuman fish-man strength. Kevin Costner didn't jump the shark, he was the shark, if you can't find comedy and enjoyment in a movie that ridiculous then I feel bad for you.

But quality is not the actual point here. Of course, a movie should be high quality and a movie should be well made but does a lack of all these things make a film unwatchable? Waterworld's action sequences are still quite brilliant and there are many inherent sight gags re: ski boots, eating dirt, hitting women with oars. And let's not forget the wonderful Dennis Hopper who has a knack for making shit dialogue sound like pure gold. Oh and hey guess what? James Newton Howard did the music and he has eight Oscar nominations on his resume. Waterworld is probably a film that is the closest to being as bad as it is good and that is probably its major flaw. Of all the things about this movie that are great: action, music, sets, plot there are just as many things about it that are awful: writing, acting, directing, gills. This film is a true spectacle comparable to the Spiderman: Turn off the Dark Broadway show, there are big stunts crazy set pieces, loads of hype, but nothing else-- the only difference is that Spiderman will make A LOT of money.

I propose that after all these years we end the hatred of this film. Look at it for what it is: a spectacle and a landmark in the history of film where producers were starting to think that if a movie was big and epic then nothing else mattered. Which if you look at many of the summer films of the last few years is STILL something Hollywood is banking on see: Transformers, Clash of the Titans, and almost anything else that came out in fake "3-D." Waterworld may have lost more money than our government is losing every year paying for wars-- approx 343 bajillion dollars --but that does not mean it's not super fun, super ridiculous and totally worth watching if not just to see cyclops Dennis Hopper yelling at his "smokers" aka aquatic band of Mad Max rejects. If you're still not convinced at least respect Costner for the fact that after all these years he's still battling the smokers-- while filming Waterworld he began investing into research on a device that cleans up oil spills. Sounds like there was something good beyond the horizons of Waterworld.