Andalus

UP: After the first ten or so minutes, which is a wet, sloppy drop-kick to the heart, what is this movie about? By the time I got cleaned up and blew my nose twice and was able to see clearly again they were already in South America somewhere with some sort of giant bird and some bulldogs and a giant waterfall and other stuff that isn't in South America. So your childhood hero is a dick, and you fail at your quest, but you find a new quest out of that quest and go home realizing that you didn't need to take the quest except that it made you realize you didn't need to take the quest except you get a dirigible out of it so maybe you'll be able to go on new quests to find out you didn't need to go on them. Also there's a fat Asian kid.

The annoying kid is surprisingly well-rounded (pun!) once you get used to him, and talks more like a real annoying kid than a Disney annoying kid. There's moments when he's mumbling about the father that the movie really doesn't want to talk about where you get glimpses of the brilliant sadness-explosion of the first few minutes, but more often he's comic relief and the recurring damsel-in-distress/massive-liability.

Is the movie as a whole a giant waste of time? Yes, after that first bit it consistently wastes its impetus like the helium leaking out of a million colorful balloons. So, is the movie a metaphor for its hero's failed quest? Maybe, but you don't get a dirigible out of it. And all I really want is a dirigible.

where the wild things are
loved it. cried.

my qualms with the voice acting will have to be answered by a second viewing.




the hurt locker
Fantastically realistic (or realistic-seeming, who knows if it's even remotely actually-realistic). So much so that little bits that didn't seem realistic stood out more, even a single canned sound effect was enough to jar me out of it for a second. Also unconvincing, that tendency for any squad in any action movie to be immediately qualified for any operation, no matter if more experienced troops are probably waiting by (Miami Vice-itis). The glimmerings of a plot thankfully they petered out, as if to say: here's the sort of movie you're expecting to see, but this isn't that movie.

There are no superior officers to be found, there are no consequences beyond the physical damage to the squad (almost entirely from themselves and each other), and there is no enemy -- everyone is treated equally as an enemy, allies, friendlies, squadmates. And it's an interesting consequence of a bomb squad that there really is no enemy: there's only it, and you, and what you do or do not do to it. It has no will or plan or purpose.

So war is a bomb, and the bomb is a drug, and the soldiers are addicts and they either see it and quit or they keep at it. The only way to view James is as an addict, and as an addict he serves a necessary purpose in the war, a purpose that the movie clearly admires. But this purpose is not a moral one, he doesn't save lives or make things safe for his countrymen -- the more he cares the worse he is at his job. He can't actually make a difference. His purpose is as inexplicable as the bomb's.

Avatar is the triumph of a gamer, an ultimate gamer's fantasy where the gameworld becomes more important than real life. Hurt Locker is nearly identical in that regard, they're about addicts who give into their addiction. And for all its brutality, Hurt Locker still glorifies the addiction. But that's the question, isn't it? Is James really being "All he can be"? Or has war made him less than he could have been? All we really know is that when he's in the suit he's all that he is.

Interesting that we've been talking about how '00s movies are specifically amoral, their exemplary heroes aren't anti-heroes (who do wrong things for the right reasons), they're the opposite: they have the wrong reasons and whether their actions are good or not is entirely up to chance or circumstance. This is another one that fits the trend.

We'll see if it continues with Bad Lieutenant.