Hayao Miyazaki

Now the reasons for this are many (Disney and now Pixar’s film dominance,  American’s hesistance to watch anime, etc.), but Miyazaki’s creativity, design, and storytelling are unmatched and hopefully the attention being received by Ponyo will help make him and his films a little more well-known.

Okay, so now that you know who Hayao Miyazaki is and what he means to animated films not just in Asia but around the world, let us dive into the review of Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea (simply known as Ponyo).  As I said before, Miyazaki consistently draws comparisons to his unofficial American counterpart, Walt Disney, and in Ponyo,  Miyazaki seems to rip a page from Disney’s storybook and turn it into a film that is visually and creatively all his own.    The film focuses on a goldfish who befriends a young boy and, after being cared for and loved by the boy, wants to become human, much to the chagrin of her underwater Sorcerer father.  Now re-read that plot again.  Remind you of a past Disney film?  One with a certain crab with a certain Jamaican accent?  Yes, Ponyo is in essence a sort of Miyazaki version of The Little Mermaid.  However, in Miyazaki’s version, there are no singing crabs and fish, no evil sea-witch, and definitely no priest’s who might or might not have a boner (look it up on Google).  Rather, in his anime version, Miyazaki creates his own uniquely stunning version of the ocean, filled with sea life that seem to have come out of a dream.  The storyline, while loosely based of The Little Mermiad, is also uniquely its own.  It follows the journey of a inquisitive little goldfish named Ponyo who escapes from her Sorcerer fathers submarine-like vessel (which moves not by motor but by the movement of four ancient, dinosaur-like fins) and ventures outside her enchanted world to explore what’s beyond her fathers underwater boat.  After a sludge and trash filled encounter with the net of a fishing boat, Ponyo finds herself in the hands of Sosuke, an equally curious five-year old boy.  It is Sosuke that actually gives Ponyo her name, we find out later her father calls her Brunhilde, and immediately the two becomes good friends, with Sosuke carrying Ponyo in a little green bucket to school and to the local nursing home where his mother works.  Soon, Sosuke finds Ponyo is much more than a normal goldfish.  She can talk and even heal wounds.  However, there adventurous friendship is short lived as Ponyo’s creepy, wild-haired father finds his disobedient daughter and quickly drags her back to her home where she promptly sprouts chicken-like arms and legs in an attempt to become human.  He upbraids her for leaving her magical abode and warns of the evils of humans, who are wicked and careless and only cause destruction and death.  Despite her father’s warning and pleas, Ponyo has seen the world outside her underwater home and she becomes determined to return to Sosuke, the boy she loves, no matter what the consequences.

Ponyo and her sisters

That’s the rough plot without giving too much away.  However, it’s impossible to do the film justice just by retelling the storyline.  While the film’s plot is as endearing as any Disney film, its the visual aspect of the film that is the most memorable.  Miyazaki is famous for his creative and beautiful interpretations and his version of the sea and the sea life that live in it are nothing short of breath-taking.  More impressive than his underwater landscapes are perhaps his animated version of waves which in one case he gives eyes and voices as if each waves is a separate, individual entity.  In another scene in which Ponyo is causing a typhoon as she attempts to return to Sosuske, the immense tidal waves of the typhoon are transformed into giant koi, rising and falling as the waves of the giant storm flow towards Sosuke’s homeland.  Overall, the film is visually stunning, as all of Miyazaki’s films are, and is made even more impressive considering the animation in the movie is all hand-drawn.  No detail is spared in drawing the elaborate schools of jellyfish or the frightening real prehistoric fish, all of which add to the films overall feel.  For some, the anime style in which the film is done may seem foreign and even a bit strange, and to be honest it is.  In my opinion, though, I think taking people out of their, nice Disney encased comfort zones and into a style not commonly seen only adds to the wonder and beauty of the film.

Now most of the themes in Ponyo, for those who are familiar with Miyazaki’s works, are not new.  Once again, the film features a strong female figure in Sosuke’s mother and is also absent of a true villian (the closest thing is Ponyo’s father Fujimoto, who is nothing more than an overly protective dad).  The film also focuses heavily on the relationship between humans, technology, and nature and the environmental destruction being caused.  Many scenes of the film show the water near the harbor where Sosuke lives polluted and cluttered with sludge and trash.  Much as Ponyo’s father warns her of the destructive power of man, Miyazaki too warns children and adults alike of the dangerous path our world is leading.  On a more elementary level though, the film is a classic tale of friendship and love, of determination and kindness, that children of any age will be able to understand and appreciate.  Of course, like any children’s movies there are aspects of the plot that push the boundaries of believability but as long as you go in understanding its a fairytale you will not be disappointed.

Ponyo and her father, Fujimoto

Overall, the film is great.  It is not Miyazaki’s best but considering his best, this film is without a doubt a triumph.  I saw the Japanese version with English subtitles but I am eagerly looking forward to watching the movie again dubbed as Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, and Liam Neeson are among the voices cast for the English version of the film.  The accolades for Ponyo have been many and after watching the movie it was clear why.  Ponyo is a visually stunning fairytale that while please audiences of all ages.  Hopefully now, Ponyo and Hayao Miyazaki will get the true respect they deserve.

3 out of 4

Ben

Director: Nora Ephron

Writers: Nora Ephron, Julie Powell (book “Julie & Julia”), Julia Child and Alex Prud’homme (book “My Life in France”)

Cast: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Chris Messina, Stanley Tucci

If it’s hard to sympathize with selfishness, it’s impossible to sympathize with Julie Powell.  The always affable Amy Adams plays Julie who’s half of the duo comprising Nora Ephron’s Julie & Julia.  The unarguably less interesting half has to do with Julie, an abused call-taker for an insurance company who can’t seem to find her vision.  In response she undertakes the promise of the touchstone cookbook, Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking.  While blogging about her experience Julie cooks her way through 524 recipes in 365 days.  To do what?  Find what?  I don’t know, maybe just to accomplish something. 

National treasure Meryl Streep embodies the contagiously giddy Julia Child; a 6′2” American woman, planted in Paris, bored of Bridge, who wants nothing more than to become a great chef.  Streep’s turn as Child could be compared to Sean Penn’s in 2008’s “Milk” in relation to the level of craft.  The difference is she may not win and it’s the screenplay’s fault.  While her half of the film is certainly more energetic, it’s in a way just as bland.  We know that Julia’s book was published so the story can’t be about that and yet it is.  It doesn’t accentuate the small parts of her life; or even the more interesting.  Had the movie been about her journey to break into a profession and a world dominated by men I would have been hooked and yet it wasn’t.  The film allows everything to be carried by such a broad stroke that there’s nothing to see that we couldn’t read on Wikipedia.    

The husbands of the two ladies, one played by Chris Messina, the other Stanley Tucci, are both saints in their own right.  Each is impossibly taken by their wives singular vision.  Tucci never truly breaks his angelic mold he really only exists to say “good job”, “well done”, and to eat.  Messina virtually the same, except a few times he does break and storm out of the apartment but he always comes back with a forgiving glance and an empty stomach.  

For a movie about a master chef it knows surprisingly little about food.  No one ever says anything intelligent about food besides “that was good” and “mmmmmmm”.  It’s only there as a tangible mission.  Julia Child was in love with the art of cooking.  The beauty of craft behind what makes food so delicious.  The movie never captures that craft, that art, we only get what’s on the table and not the story behind it.  

In the end the movie fails.  Simply because Julie Powell’s half of the film is boring, pretentious, and selfish.  Whether the actual Julie was like this or not, the character Julie cares only for herself.  She believes her husband’s world revolves around her mission to cook her way through Child’s book.  She subjects him to meltdown after meltdown and as great as food is, it can’t say everything.  

To put it mildly, Julia Child was a woman who barged her way into a man’s profession, became a master chef despite her setbacks, taught “servantless” Americans how to cook, became a TV superstar, and wrote the culinary bible.  Julie Powell read her book.

2 1/2 stars out of 4

Tyler

Bandslam: Starring Disney teen phenom Vanessa Hudgens, Bandslam tells the story of a teenage girl who wants to win the battle of bands to beat her ex-boyfriend.  I’m sure the teenage girls will flood the theaters for this one, but there’s way to much coming out this weekend to get caught in that theater for 2 hours.  DONT SEE IT! 

District 9: In a time when aliens are refugees in South Africa’s Disctrict 9, the world’s nations have to figure out what to do with them before the aliens learn how to do something with us. I have been excited for District 9 since the first trailer and I can’t wait to see it tonight.  With no big name actors and a director with only one movie to his name, the story is what hopes to carry this Sci-Fi movie. SEE IT!

The Time Traveler’s Wife: Another summer chick flick, but at least we haven’t seen this story before.  It is an interesting concept but seems very difficult to pull off in theaters.  Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana are good actors and somehow Brad Pitt signed on as a producer, but I don’t see this being anything more than a love story to make girls cry.  DONT SEE IT!

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard: I am torn on whether or not to see this movie.  After a year of watching the first 6 seasons of Entourage I am practically addicted to Jeremy Piven’s character, Ari Gold.  I am sure there are signs of Ari Gold in Piven’s character for this comedy, Don Ready; however, the trailers do not attract me and the reviews have been sub par.  If Piven brings the humor that he does in Entourage then I know that I don’t want to miss this movie, but in a summer with such great comedies eventually our luck has to run out.  RENT IT!

Ponyo:  For anyone with kids, or for anyone who loves Pixar this is a must see.  Directed by the Japanese animation legend, Hayao Miyazaki, Ponyo tells the story of a 5 year old boy’s relationship with a goldfish who wants to become human.  Since I am not the most famous movie critic in the world and do not get to see movies weeks in advance I will quote Roger Ebert.  This poetic, visually breathtaking work by the greatest of all animators has such deep charm that adults and children will both be touched.” SEE IT!

Earth Days: A documentary about the history of our environmental abuse through the eyes of nine Americans.  Although this is probably very educational and well done, it does not excite me.  I’d rather read articles on the internet when I want to learn how we are destroying the environment.  DONT SEE IT!

Grace:  Today is the first time I’ve heard of this movie and there’s a reason for that; it sounds absolutely ridiculous and disgusting.  I suspense/horror that features the birth of a baby who died inside the womb and then comes back to life.  Please, please, please DONT WASTE YOUR TIME!

It Might Get Loud:  This is a documentary that I am interested in.  It Might Get Loud tells the history of electric guitar from the point of view and experiences of Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page, U2’s The Edge, and White Stripes’ Jack White.  Since these are often hard to find in theaters I would RENT IT!

Spread:  Ashton Kutcher plays a sex god? It’s true, and simply is the story of this movie.  Nikki (Ashton Kutcher) uses his sexual prowess to live it up with the richest women in the city.  Sounds fun and all, but I can’t imagine where it is going to go.  DONT SEE IT!

Taxidermia:  Produced in Hungary, Taxedermia tells the tory of a grandfather, a father, and a son whose life’s are intertwined.  The grandfather and father’s lives may seem strange but the son takes the cake.  He wants to create the most perfect work of art of all time by stuffing his own body.  Weird?  Yeah, that’s what I thought.  I could be completely misinterpreting this movie, but I just can’t imagine watching it.  DONT SEE IT!

I’ve been gone for a week on a mission trip with my church so I haven’t been able to post and I’m a little behind on the news.  But the first news I’ve come across makes me so happy.  

As soon as I heard that Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz would be hosting At the Movies I had my worries.  The first thing I thought was why don’t they just let A.O. Scott (New York Times Critic) and Michael Phillips (Chicago Tribune), both regular contributors to the show while Ebert was recovering, go at it and continue the show.  And thankfully that is exactly what they decided to do, if only they hadn’t wasted a year in between.  Don’t get me wrong I’ve grown to love the Ben’s.  They just aren’t great movie critics, at least it doesn’t come off that way on the show.  

Starting September 7th Scott and Phillips, two of the best critics writing, will continue the landmark show Siskel and Ebert started 26 years ago.  The question won’t be the quality of the show anymore but the production.  Scott writes for the New York Times and Phillips for the Chicago Tribune both live in their respect cities; so the show must set up screenings for each in both cities and then fly them both out to film the show.  Hopefully that won’t be a problem.  And right now I’m optimistic.  I can’t wait to hear them discuss some great, and not so great, films.  

Tyler

Depressing?  Although the lady sitting next to me was crying hysterically at one point, it wasn’t, and that’s what made it so great.  I had no idea that (500) Days of Summer was going to be a comedy but I was extremely pleased that it was.  Not many non-musicals can get away with having a music video to Hall & Oates without looking silly; however, the great directing by Marc Webb, writing by Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber, and acting by Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Tom) and Zooey Deschanel (Summer) allowed the movie to get away with that and much more.

Let me start by saying Zooey Deschanel and her character, Summer, were excellent.  However, I think all of you that read Tyler’s review, and a hundred other posts on her, have had enough.  Instead, I will focus on what really made the movie for me, Joseph Gordon Levitt as Tom, and the excellent screenwriting that took this rather depressing idea and turned it into a hilarious, but realistic and extremely emotional comedy.

After seeing (500) Days of Summer you would never assume that the highlight of Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character was Angels in the Outfield. Gordon-Levitt was incredible in this movie.  His ability to take his character, Tom, from exuberance to complete depression amazed me.  He was funny, serious, captivating, relatable, and honest.  Without Tom the movie would have lost it its (allow me to make up a word) connectability.  In my opinion, Summer was the character that kept made this movie interesting and different, but Tom was the character that allowed this movie to progress and seem real.  It can be whether or not Summer changed throughout the movie, but their can be no argument about Tom.  The character changed and Joseph Gordon Levitt changed right along with him.

The second key to (500) Days of Summer was that it never lost its place as a comedy.  This can be attributed to the excellent screenwriting by Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber.  From one liners to a Hall & Oates music video this movie had all sorts of comic relief that fit perfectly into the deep relationship between Summer and Tom.  The comedy made the highs that much higher and the lows that much lower.  What’s even better about the comedy is that it wasn’t overdone.  When the movie needed to build intensity or develop a relationship it was able to do so without leaving the audience missing the comedy.

Overall, (500) Days of Summer is one of my favorite movie so far this year.  It was funny, emotional, real, innovative, and perfectly structured.  Most of all, I am glad that I was introduced to Joseph Gordon Levitt.  Hopefully, we will be seeing him in some major roles in the next few years.

8.5/10

Kevin

So for my first ever Wild Clementines review, I will be taking a look at the new horror film The Collector. I can’t say that I’m not a little disappointed, but the two most recent movies I’ve seen are this and The Proposal (wow I’ve picked some good ones lately!). As a brief introduction my name is Kory Rotter, long time reader and commenter on the site, but first time poster. I am a rather fond acquaintance of Mr. Joel Dobbs, Master Kevin Boisclair Esquire, and Benjamin Schwartz III, and it’s an honor to finally join the Wild Clementines crew along with my wonderful damsel, Sara Hayward. She too shall be making her very first submission to the website either this evening or the next. Also, I don’t really talk in such a strange way.

So now that that excessively awkward introduction is over, onto the movie!

Let’s first start out with my expectations. From what I saw of the trailer, I was hoping for a “Saw-esque” type of movie: thrilling, twisty, and of course, gruesome. I knew from the start that the movie wasn’t going to require too much brain activity, but I was hoping that I would be exercising my brain just enough to maybe follow a few twists, or at the very least a moderately interesting storyline. Well, to state it simply, it was like Saw, except that it didn’t have a story..whoops.

The plot was simple, and clearly an afterthought. You can almost imagine the creators of this movie having a conversation:

MR. WRITER (nervously approaching Mr. Director)

So here’s the thing Mr. Director, I tried to write a screenplay, but it sucks, and doesn’t make any sense!

MR. DIRECTOR (reassuring Mr. Writer)

That’s okay Mr. Writer! We’ll just fill in the plot holes with grotesque traps and torture! How does that sound Mr. Producer?

MR. PRODUCER (jubilant)

Yay! That sounds like horror movie gold!

Sadly, Mr. Producer is correct in identifying the kind of movies that pass as horror films these days. Ever since the mainstream appeal of incredibly graphic horror films like Saw, The Hills Have Eyes, and Hostel, writers have continued to lower their standards of what an acceptable storyline is. The Collector is a prime example of a movie made solely off a catchy premise that is never elaborated on, but is simply used as a backdrop for the horrible gore that is sure to ensue. In the case of The Collector, the catchy premise was a psycho who tortures and collects people (wow, did I really even need to stay past the opening title?). I could really go on for hours about this topic, but I’ll just keep it short in saying that I want to see more movies like The Orphanage (not The Orphan), and Let The Right One In. Hm..interesting trend going on there anyone?

As far as the acting in the movie, I was pretty neutral. Could have been worse, but it also could have been a lot better. I feel that a lot of the acting that takes place in horror films needs to be right off the cuff because of the fast paced and wild nature of the scenes. To their credit, the cast seemed to be giving a shot at being natural and improvisational, but the fact that I even noticed they were trying indicates to me that they need more work. However, it’s still better than cheesy, scripted one-liners that leave you short of breath from laughter.

Now that I’ve decreased the already slim chances you would have paid money to see this movie in theaters, I’ll tell you some things I liked about the movie. It was moderately thrilling. The director clearly did his homework in suspense 101, and some of the scenes were actually almost artistic, offering overhead views of suspenseful chase scenes between rooms in the house. Another thing I enjoyed was the gore. I’m not much of a “blood and guts” junkie, but any movie that can make me squirm in my chair, or make Sara squeeze my arm until it falls off (got it reattached no worries), has done its job in that category. One last thing I thought the movie did well was create a real feeling of good vs. evil. I truly wanted the main characters to beat the psycho. I find that a lot of times with these kinds of movies that the main characters are so annoying that I’m hoping they’ll die by the end of the movie.

To summarize The Collector, it was a pretty poorly put together horror film; lots of gore, but no substance. I was disappointed to find that there was no real twist in the film, and the storyline that I hoped would make me think a little bit, actually hurt my brain because it made such little sense. It’s simplicity was its downfall because there were plot holes abound, and if there is one thing I can’t stand it’s a movie that leaves me with burning questions like “Wait what happened to that person?” Or, “Why didn’t the main character just do x, y, or z to easily kill the psycho?” Or my favorite, just simply“Why?..” Because the movie offered such little information about the killer and why he did what he did, I couldn’t take a real interest in what was going on in the movie. It was mostly just a series of brutal tortures and booby traps that only really succeeded in keeping me on the edge of my seat making my stomach slightly queasy. Where Saw was able to float above the sea of terrible horror movies these days, The Collector sunk like a ton of bricks. See this movie if you feel like making remarks like “ow!” “ew!” or “grossss.” But don’t see this movie if you feel like making remarks like “Wow that was a good movie that had a compelling plot, great acting, and was worth paying money to see!”

423/1000

-Kory

Leonardo DiCaprio is one of my favorite actors of all time, and is also one of the most talented of all time.  He emerses him self in any character he plays and is able to adapt to any role given to him.  I personally can’t wait to see what he does, not only this year in Scorcese’s Shutter Island, but throughout the next few years in all of his parts.  Hopefully, he will soon get the credit he deserved.  His great friend Kate Winslett finally received it this year; now it’s Leo’s turn.

Click here for Leonardo Dicaprio’s IMDB profile!

Check out the trailer.

Kevin

This isn’t the only Disney Pixar news that I’m excited about.  According to cinemablend.com, the sequel to my favorite Pixar movie, Monsters Inc., is very close to confirmation.  Disney purchased the domain name Monsters2.com, a sign that the movie is likely to happen.

Kevin