Thursday, August 16, 2012

Beasts of the Southern Wild


Beasts of the Southern Wild is a refreshing, thought provoking, and wholly original film. 

Hushpuppy is six.  She lives in a place called The Bathtub, which I took to be a postapocalyptic community somewhere in the bayous of Louisiana (Its true nature is revealed later in the film, but I’ll leave that for you to discover.).  She lives in a shack about fifty feet from the shack of her father, Wink, who is definitely an alcoholic and possibly insane.  The whole place is just one big storm away from disappearing under the brackish waters of the bayou, never to return.  Legend has it that the ice caps are melting and, when they do, giant beasts called aurochs will emerge from their long sleep and consume everything in their path.

This may not sound like the setup for a beautiful and moving picture.  Yet, there it is.  Beasts of the Southern Wild is shot beautifully, even when it’s shooting scenes of squalor and fear.  The Bathtub and its population have their own shoddy dignity, and Hushpuppy carries the resourcefulness and self-possession of backwoods royalty.  She’s only six years old, and she thinks and acts like a six-year-old, but she’s a leader.

The film itself unfolds in its own time, in its own way.  There is a three-act story here, but you have to look for it.  Beasts of the Southern Wild feels more like a chronicle of time, place, and person than a plot.  As I burrowed into The Bathtub and came to understand its denizens, I came to feel at home.  As events played out in reasonable succession, I came to care about Hushpuppy and the people around her.  As the film concluded, I was almost sorry it was over.  This doesn’t imply that Beasts of the Southern Wild is a feel-good movie or that it shrinks from despair.  It’s just that the film feels true, and worthwhile, and beautiful.  Time with Beasts of the Southern Wild is time well spent.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows


Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows amounts to 129 minutes of missing Steven Moffat, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Martin Freeman.  Where the BBC’s brilliant “Sherlock” series of telefilms offers puzzling plots, delightful verbal interplay, and a sly (and often ribald) sense of humor, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is mostly just loud.  Where “Sherlock” gives us Moriarty as a comic, twisted genius, Game of Shadows lazily offers us Moriarty as just another Bond villain.  Where “Sherlock”’s unique visual style amuses and intrigues us, Game of Shadows only makes us wonder exactly how much cocaine director Guy Ritchie blew through while shooting and editing this film.

Here’s the story: it’s about a year since the events of the first film, Sherlock HolmesHolmes and Watson reunite to bring the nefarious Professor Moriarty to justice after the villain tries to have Dr. & Mrs. Watson killed for no apparent reason.  Lots of stuff blows up.  Noomi Rapace appears because she was hot after The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Girl Who Played with Fire and it seems like a good career move.  More stuff blows up, there are some fistfights, and a bunch of people get shot, all in slow motion.  The Bond villain reveals his Bond villainesque plan, and his henchman reveals a disappointing lack of sterling silver dental work.  More ‘splosions and fights and shooting, and even more slo-mo.  We reflect that Robert Downey, Jr. doesn’t look remotely like an otter.  The film draws to an utterly unsurprising conclusion.  The End.  Next.

Hey, kudos to Guy Ritchie for (a) achieving his unique and singular vision, and (b) finding a studio to underwrite his coke habit.  But Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows just isn’t much fun.  It needs more wit.  It needs more style.  Aww, the heck with it: it needs Moffat, Cumberbatch, and Freeman.  They own the franchise now.