Surrogates (2009)
Starring: Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, Ving Rhames
Directed by: Jonathan Mostow
Written by: Michael Ferris and John D Brancato, based on the graphic novel by Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele
Rated: PG-13
Rating: 2 (out of five)
A few years ago, Alex Proyas’s I, Robot (2004) came out. It deconstructed Isaac Asimov’s phenomenal “I, Robot” stories and turned into an action vehicle for Will Smith. I enjoyed the movie but it definitely wasn’t good science fiction. It was just good action. That’s about the best thing I can say for Surrogates.
I have not read the graphic novel so I cannot make any comparisons in that regard. There are some moments in the movie that are obviously painstakingly recreated from the frames of the novel. Those are unfortunately few and far between.
14 years from now we have the technology to create and control “surrogates.” These are lifelike androids that experience life for us while we remain back at home, lying in a pod that allows our minds to control the surrogates. The great part of surrogates is that you get to feel everything they feel and have none of the side effects. Sex has gone up, but STI’s have gone down. The aging process is almost non-existent in the real world. Surrogates don’t age, just their controllers do. But also virtually non-existent in the real world is human connection. There are reservations of humans — “meat bags” – where no surrogates are allowed to enter. These havens of humanity are run by The Prophet (Rhames) who aims to restore life to it’s natural roots.
We open with a murder. Someone on a motorcycle fires a pretty powerful weapon at two surrogates. It causes their surrogates to fry – which isn’t new, as bullets through electronic components can cause some serious damage – but it also causes their controllers to fry as well. The surrogate/controller who is killed is none other than the son of Dr. Cantor, the man who invented surrogates.
This sparks the first real homicide in years (surrogates kill other surrogates, people don’t kill people anymore). Lt. Greer (Willis) and his partner (Mitchell) are brought on to solve the case. Much is unique about it: why did the safety mechanisms fail and cause the controller to die when the surrogate was fried? What weapon is powerful enough to do that? Why would someone do such a thing? Is The Prophet involved? They then get wrapped up in a conspiracy that takes us through to the movie’s inevitable ending.
Mostow also directed Terminator 3. He hasn’t grown much as a director since then. (On a funny note, I see that his next project is a re-tell of the Swiss Family Robinson – interesting change of scenery from sci-fi). The movie is rather derivative as far as it’s production goes. The action isn’t bold, the explosions are only “big,” the suspense is barely there. This is true of a lot of movies that Hollywood churns out these days, and I can openly confess to liking a lot of them. I even liked Terminator 3! The real issue with this movie isn’t the production. It’s the story.
Again, I haven’t read the graphic novel, and don’t intend to at this point, but the story here is what is wrong with this movie. Re-read the paragraph above explaining the future society presented in this movie. The one thing this story does is a great job of tantalizing us with these little, realistic details of how surrogacy has affected future society and humanity as a whole. It only hints at it though, and only for the first few minutes as the credits roll. It blatantly ignores, and even sometimes purposely avoids, parallels to our current society’s addiction to gadgetry and the “zoning out” it causes. This movie is completely devoid of any social context whatsoever. And that is it’s problem.
I’m not looking for this to be a social critique of technological advances and their effects on humanity. I think it would have been a wrong choice to have done that. What I’m asking for is a sense of what’s happened and the realization that this has a profound effect on how the characters would have gone about daily life. Instead we get one single moment where Greer walks through the streets as a meat bag instead of a surrogate for the first time.
Look at District 9. It’s not meant to be a social commentary on Apartheid, it’s not meant delve into social injustices, but because the story was borne of those conditions, it’s effects are directly presented on-screen. I again think that it would have been the wrong choice for that film to have been a true social commentary, but at least it wasn’t afraid of the idea it projected. Another brilliant example is Blade Runner. The film doesn’t truly attempt to be a critique, but instead delivers us into a fully realized world that serves as it’s own critique, completely apart from what the filmmakers were filming.
A brief hint of what this movie could have been was provided by some early teaser posters. Take a look here and here to see what I mean.
Action. Check. Some pretty explosions and car crashes. Check. A real world to set the story in? Nope!
–
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwTJ7mCcFoY
Prof. Ishiguro and his “Geminoid” twin: http://www.irc.atr.jp/Geminoid/
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans (2009)
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Val Kilmer, Eva Mendes, Xzibit
Directed by: Werner Herzog
Written by: William M. Finklestein
Rated: R
Rating: 4.5 (out of five)
This review contains possible spoilers! The final paragraphs contain what may be considered spoilers. While I do not consider them spoilers, as I don’t think they actually spoil anything, some may take offense. Consider this fair warning.
It’s now been over 72 hours since I watched Werner Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans. There’s a reason this review is going up significantly later than my viewing. I didn’t know what to say. I’ve decided that is actually a good thing. Maybe even a great thing.
When I first saw the listings for a movie called “Bad Lieutenant 2” I couldn’t help but laugh. I’ve not seen the original Bad Lieutenant (1992) starring Harvey Keitel. Then I saw Herzog was directing and I was flabbergasted. Why would he remake something like that?
Turns out it’s not a remake nor is it a sequel. Herzog claims to have never seen the original, and the only reason the phrase “Bad Lieutenant” is in the title is that the producers felt it would boost the film’s profile.
Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant follows Terrence McDonagh (Cage), a veteran cop in New Orleans. The film is set in the aftermath of Katrina. In the opening scene, Terrence takes a leap into a flooded landing to save a criminal. For his heroism, he is promoted to Lieutenant and left with an irreparable back injury that causes him severe pain.
As Terrence’s pain worsens the Vicodin his doctor prescribed just isn’t enough. As a cop, he has access to the store rooms where the confiscated drugs are. Guess what happens?
Terrence begins a terrible slide into hardcore drug usage. His girlfriend, Frankie (Mendes), is a prostitute, and assists Terrence get his fix when he needs it. His father and step-mother are alcoholics, though his father is trying to go through AA again.
In one of the more uncomfortable scenes I’ve ever watched, Terrence follows a young man and his “date” out of a nightclub into a vacant parking lot. Flashing his red and blue lights, he explains to them that they “match a description” and to give him all their drugs. They do, and as the young man pleads with him to not report anything, Terrence begins to rape the woman. And he forces the young man to watch. And Herzog forces us to watch.
Then the hallucinations begin. Iguanas and alligators and breakdancing souls begin distracting Terrence as he tries to do his day job. Although it’s not clear if it’s really a “job” to Terrence any longer.
Throughout all this, tying all of it together, is a high profile murder case, taking Terrence deep into the underground drug scene in New Orleans. The murder story is a MacGuffin, something to keep the viewer interested in something that seems normal. This is the great irony of Bad Lieutenant: a horrible murder seems acceptable and commonplace next to Terrence.
In some ways this film seems almost like a retelling of Shakespeare’s Richard III. Terrence develops a hump and almost limps. He plows through obstacles with ruthless efficiency, setting up the pieces well ahead of time. His insanity and instability grows the further he digs himself.
Cage is absolutely phenomenal as the drug addled Terrence. His portrayal of addiction and violence (both against others and against one’s self) is frightening. There is not a single moment where you look at this sad figure of a cop and think “Hey, that’s Nicolas Cage!” One of the best performances of the year without a doubt.
This is not an easy movie to watch. It is hard, in your face, unrelenting, and uncompromising. Herzog has found a great partner with Cage. They have no qualms about getting dirty and taking you right down with them.
The first shot is of a water snake swimming along and a convict near drowning. It ends with Terrence slumped in front of a giant glass aquarium of swimming creatures with the convict he saved sitting beside him, the fish circling endlessly in their tanks. Did we just go through two-hours of personal hell only to begin again? Is this the beginning of the end? The beginning of another downfall after what was almost a successful return to normalcy? At one point Terrence asks “Do fish have dreams?”
Herzog isn’t afraid to leave us wondering. Are you?
—
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_iPKYe8gHI
Herzog on Bad Lieutenant, Singing Iguanas, and Prop Cocaine: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/09/director_werner_herzog_on_the.html
The Princess and the Frog (2009)
Voice talents of: Anika Noni Rose, Bruno Campos, Keith David
Directed by: Ron Clements and John Musker
Written by:Ron Clements, John Musker, and Rob Edwards
Rated: G
Rating: 3 (out of five)
I haven’t thought much of Disney Animation for a long while. I really had to think coming out of the theater about what movies they had released in the last decade. Disney’s partnership with Pixar has far outweighed Disney’s solo releases. Those that I could think of I didn’t particularly enjoy. Whether it’s just my imagination or not, but Disney Animation Studios has had a losing streak for while.
Pixar has proved recently that family-friendly entertainment need not be without a touch of darkness to it. Some of the best children’s story are themselves a little dark. I think that it was this element that Disney’s most recent animated adventures have lacked. (Granted, Lilo & Stitch had some darkness to it.)
The Princess and the Frog is a strong return to animation for Disney. And it brings with it a very effective and dark new villain.
We all know the original story of the “The Frog Princess.” Disney has changed things up by moving the familiar story to Prohibition-era New Orleans, and thereby introducing their first black Princess. Wait, a Princess in 1920’s New Orleans?
Tiana is our hard-working heroine. Her mother has worked as a talented seamstress to the rich upper crust of New Orleans for years, and her father worked incredibly long days to keep his family financially stable. He passed along his dream of owning a beautiful restaurant to his daughter, who has carried on his dream after his passing.
The upper crust childhood friend of Tiana’s, Charlotte, has been pining after a Prince since she could say the word. One day her dream seems like it’s about to come true. A Prince from Maldonia, Prince Naveen, is visiting New Orleans and will be staying with Charlotte and her family.
Enter the scheming voodoo Shadow Man, Dr. Facilier. Seeing an opportunity to swindle Charlotte’s family of their riches and take over the bustling port city, he begins working his magic by turning Naveen and, accidentally but also fortuitously, Tiana, into frogs.
Naveen and Tiana must then race to get themselves restored with the assistance of a great collection of supporting characters (Louis the trumpet playing Alligator, Ray the romantic firefly with his eye on the most beautiful firefly in the sky, and Mama Odie the ancient bayou-dwelling voodoo lady).
There isn’t an amazing new animation technique. There aren’t immense visual landscapes. There aren’t “ooh-aah” 3D effects. This is classic animation, reminding us of Disney’s legacy as the king of animation. This movie shows that someone at Disney still understands the art of hand-drawn animation, which most people in Hollywood dismissed years ago, and shows that it’s still as lovely as ever.
Unfortunately, it’s not quite as magical as those previous films. There’s something missing … it’s so close! The soundtrack was sadly a little lacking (especially considering who wrote it!). But I don’t think that’s the reason. I don’t think Disney has lost their magic, but perhaps they should focus on something like The Princess and the Frog instead of making temporary teen sensations. And yes, I’ll say it: maybe they were being overly cautious with the African-American characters, seeing as their last animated attempt is still notorious, 63-years later!
While this film proves that Disney hasn’t lost it, and that hand-drawn animation is still alive and kicking, it does fall short of being a true animated classic.
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCk7PNkoDw4
