Movie #13: Kung Fu Panda (2008)

The Great Catch-up of 2008 continues, this time with another DreamWorks' latest entry in an attempt to usurp the stranglehold Pixar has over animated features: KUNG FU PANDA. Far more modest in its ambittions than WALL-E, the drive of KUNG FU PANDA is to simply entertain; what message there is (essentially, "the answer is within you" or something to that effect) isn't exactly earth-shattering, but that means KUNG FU PANDA is free to focus on making things fast and fun, which it manages to accomplish in spades.

Jack Black plays Po, a rather large and dumpy panda bear (which is how all panda are, but there's something about Black's performance that accentuates this rather "roundness") who dreams of being a kung fu warrior, a master of the various disciplines like his idols, the Furious Five, each technique mirrored in the animal who wields it. Alas, in reality Po is merely a waiter in his father's (a stork, which is never explained, thereby making it even funnier) noodle shop, destined or doomed to learn his father's secret ingredient for noodle soup and eventually manage the restaurant. Trouble's a-brewin' though - evil Tai-Lung (a white tiger) has escaped imprisonment, and the time has come to select the Dragon Warrior, the one who is destined to be the greatest martial artist in the Valley. Against all probability, PO is chosen, and it's up to Master Shifu (voiced by Dustin Hoffman with surprising depth) and the Furious Five to train and prepare Po for what's to come.

Brief aside: what the hell kind of animal was Dustin Hoffman?

The movie's pretty standard - no one like him at first, and tries to get him to quit. But Po's so likable and upbeat (this is Black's most winning performance since SCHOOL OF ROCK) that of course they eventually come around, and Shifu bonds with Po, and he learns that the power of the Dragon Warrior has always resided within himself. You can pretty much see where every beat in KUNG FU PANDA is going, but Hoffman and Black are so good in their roles that they carry the movie along with them. The animation isn't WALL-E quality, but it looks damn fine just the same, especially the drop-dead gorgeous 2-D animation that bookends the film. Slow-motion is also used to great comedic effect; I just finished Roger Ebert's book about Martin Scorsese, and he talks about how ground-breaking Scorsese's use of slow-motion has been to film. I wouldn't say the effect in PANDA is on the same level, but I do feel comfortable saying that whenever slow motion's applied in the movie, it made me laugh.

A few minor complaints - the Furious Five are really under-used. David Cross's Crane and Seth Rogan's Mantis get the most mileage. But it's a sin that Jackie Chan as the Monkey is barely utilized in the film. How do you have the guy who basically set the modern standard for martial arts comedy in your film and barely give him any moments?

Despite that, the fight scenes are very well done, and if you're looking for some flashy fun that doesn't require a lot of thinking, or you just want to remember how charming Jack Black can be, KUNG FU PANDA fits the bill.

Filling in the Blind Spots

We've all got 'em: those skeletons in the the cinephile's closet (and using the term cinephile makes me feel more than a little unsavory), those teeny little films we keep meaning to get to, but never do.

Things like GONE WITH THE WIND, which I didn't see until just a few years ago. You know, the obscure films.

I was thinking about that after reading Drew McWeeny's ruminations concerning the purpose of his blog over at Motion / Captured at HitFlix (for those not in the know, Drew was the great Moriarty over at Ain't It Cool News until he left for brighter waters). A couple of his thoughts seemed to dove-tail nicely into my own thoughts about how I want this blog to evolve. I mentioned in my first post that I had two over-arching goals:

1. Improve my overall writing with regards to film criticism.
2. Expand the breadth and scope of the films I see. I made a promise that for 2009 I would make every attempt to see as broad a range of films as possible, and try my damnedest to erase the enormous stockpile of DVDs I have lying around the house.

Embedded in the second item is catching up on those movies that seem to be required viewing for anyone who wants to claim to be a "cinephile" or even a "film buff" in like company. The problem is I've always been pretty resistant to people pushing stuff on me, especially when it comes with the tag of:

"You're not a real ________ unless you've seen ________."

(fill in your preferred term/film)

Time to "Man up" and admit it: There's a gaping hole in my film vocabulary that can't be completely explained away by things like scarcity or disinterest. I've been plugging those holes a few at a time, usually late at night so as to not cause a stir in the hen house that is my circle of friends/acquaintances I can discuss movies with. But in the interest of full disclosure I think I'll turn my education process into a monthly (to start) feature here at Celluloid Moon. Every month I'll take one movie and go into a little more detail than the general reviews that are posted, and talk about the film's impact both on the world of cinema and me personally.

Which, all things considered, is probably what every review should be like.

Looking back in January I think Jean-Luc Godard's BREATHLESS certainly fits the bill if not the overall format. I've already picked this month's choice, and I just wanted to add before you pass out at the fact that it's positively outrageous that I've never seen this, that if you have any suggestions or recommendations you'd like to see on this blog, whether it's a film to review or a discussion related however tangentially to film, let me know.

Okay. Enough procrastinating. This month's film: RAGING BULL

Re-Evaluating 2008

Before I officially started this blog, I was posting all of my film-related items over on Geek Monkey, my general purpose little corner of the Interwebs. I posted two articles near the end of the year: my (Almost) and (Actual) Top 10 Movies of 2008. Now, I realize I don't yet have the cultivation or experience of many of the online critics (you probably won't hear me bemoan the lack of MY WINNIPEG on lists, because I haven't seen it, and that's not even considered much of an obscure film), but I feel pretty happy about what I pick, and won't back down on liking something because the critical consensus is against it.

However, the past month I've been trying to catch up on all films I've missed (a substantial amount), and it looks like the Top 10 list is going to have to be revised. For the record, here are my lists as they stood back at the end of the year.

The (Almost) Top Ten (crossed off films have subsequently been watched)

1. THE WRESTLER
2. DOUBT SHOTGUN STORIES
3. THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
4. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN GRAN TORINO
5. JCVD
6. VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA
7. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
8. MAN ON WIRE ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD
9. SYNECDOCHE, NY
10. A CHRISTMAS TALE

I have BENJAMIN BUTTON, SLUMDOG, and VICKY CHRISTINA at the house queued up and ready to go, which means that more films will hopefully be scratched out and replaced before the Independent Spirit Awards and the Oscars rear their head at month's end.

I'll save my final list for when I've satisfied myself that I've seen everything I can to make a proper evaluation, but for the record, here's the list as it stood back in December (nothing reviewed on this site had been seen at the time of the list). Explanations are in the original post:

The (Actual) Top Ten (in alphabetical order excepting the top)

1. WALL-E and MILK (tie)
2. THE DARK KNIGHT
3. THE FALL
4. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL
5. FROST / NIXON
6. IN BRUGES
7. IRON MAN
8. THE SPIDERWICK CHRONICLES
9. THE VISITOR

I'm backlogged three movies right now (only one of which is nominated for anything), but hope to have at least a dozen more films up and ready to go by the time we hit the awards. I realize this may appear slightly incongruous coming shortly on the heels of my remarks concerning Oscar Ennui, but if the various lists and award shows are good for anything, they're certainly great chances to become more exposed to films and experiences I otherwise wouldn't.

Your Homework: Watch one film from anyone's Best Of List you normally wouldn't have seen. What did you think?

Movie #12: The Mindscape of Alan Moore (2003)

Is it better to know the mechanics of the trick, or to simply be enthralled by what's in front of you?

I asked myself that because the question of magic comes up quite a bit in THE MINDSCAPE OF ALAN MOORE, a quasi-documentary that touches upon Moore's early years and rise as one of the most respected and gifted creators in the field of comics, but largely concerns itself with his personal beliefs and ideas about the nature of magic, art, and writing. His milestones are touched upon, and we even get a few glimpses of his own filmic envisions of Watchmen, V For Vendetta, and even a brief glimpse of John Constantine from Hellblazer (he originated the character in Swamp Thing, although never actually wrote an issue of Hellblazer). But the vast majority of his work isn't mentioned at all (Tom Strong, Top Ten, Promethea) or, if it is (Lost Girls, From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), it's only in passing reference.

All in all it's a pretty poor documentary - Moore seems to have had a very large hand in the shaping of the film, and as a result it feels manipulative in a way that none of his comic work does. I hesitate to recommend this to even die-hard fans (of which I consider myself a member) because of the question I asked myself at the beginning of this review. I came away knowing a lot more about the man who crafted some of my favorite stories, but felt the poorer for it. Maybe this is an isolated instance, but I suddenly feel very glad that Moore has nothing to do with his filmic adaptations, and that he's as reclusive as he is. All the better to simply soak up the wonderful words and not pay heed to the bearded man behind them.

Movie #11: Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer (2008)

I love it when the title of a movie tells you all you need to know about it. So, the short version: it's about this guy Jack Brooks. He slays monsters. The end.

Okay. Let's move into the (slightly) longer version.

JACK BROOKS: MONSTER SLAYER wants to get at the heart of the mid 80s horror movies - specifically, EVIL DEAD 2. I don't think JACK BROOKS makes any bones about this - this is an old-fashioned practical effects monster movie, complete with bladders, hidden pockets of blood, and Robert Englund. It's also fairly well-acted, genuinely funny in parts, and sincere in what it wants to accomplish. There's none of the winking, self-indulgent "look at how cool we are" moments that plague other films' attempts (I'm looking at you, HATCHET and BEHIND THE MASK) to replicate the feel of those movies while trying to rise above it in a smug, self satisfied way.

The movie opens on a bunch of African natives being terrorized by a gigantic cyclops monster (yeah, already I'm into this movie). The survivors run to their village, where everyone generally panics and makes their way to a lone hut where, inside, we see a dread locked white guy calmly wrapping his scarred arm in preparation for battle.

But wait: how did this hero get here? The movie jumps back in time and shows us Jack as a child, out on a lovely camping trip with his parents when they're suddenly brutally murdered by a demon in the woods. No explanation: a crazy troll leaps out and kills both his parents. He runs away, and his shame and anger at not being to do anything to save his parents manifests itself in adulthood in sudden bursts of violence. Jack's trying, but life in a small town as a plumber and taking night courses with his obnoxious girlfriend isn't making things any easier for him. Fortunately for him, he'll have the chance to redeem himself when his college professor (Englund) accidentally digs up and ingests (yup, you read that right) the heart of a long buried demon, which transforms him into an enormous, tentacled monster capable of transforming his classmates into bloodthirsty devils.

A ton of credit goes to Trevor Matthews, who stars as Jack, had a hand in the writing, and also plays the troll. He makes the most of every scene, whether it's bashing the head of a devil in with a chemistry set or looking sheepish and unable to get a word in when his girlfriend berates him. And Robert Englund, so often relegated to bad cameos (he was the best thing about HATCHET, though) has the opportunity to have a blast with his role as the hapless professor and he makes full use of it, doling out the charm and the humor, getting the chance to perform a lot of physical comedy once he becomes "possessed" by the evil heart.

Director John Knautz does a lot with the little he's given (Africa looks suspiciously like Canada), making the most of an abandoned school for

much of the movie and shooting everything - monsters and drama alike - with an obvious fun. I wouldn't go out and say JACK BROOKS: MONSTER SLAYER is a classic by any stretch of the imagination, but it does what few films have been able to accomplish in recent years: emulate what was good about horror movies back in the day without having to stab it in the back at the same time. Definitely worth a look if you're in the mood for some laughs.