Children of Men (2006)

Ok, I know what you're thinking. Grimmauld12 has been missing for almost half a year, and in the meantime the only thing you have been doing is staring at Johnny Depp in the previous post. As always, there's a logical explanation for my absence, and as always it includes an adventurous trek into the Amazon with lots of twists, turns, and even includes a cameo role played by Tor Johnson. But enough of my amazingly cool adventures, that's a story best saved for later. For now let's turn to the first film post of the New Year.

It is the year 2027, and life absolutely sucks. War rages on throughout the entire planet (as usual), terrorism and depression is at an all time high, and radio stations are playing "oldies" from the year 2003 (a horror that none can compare too). The worst of it is that Baby Diego, the youngest person on the planet, has just passed away. He was 18 years, 4 months, 20 days, 16 hours, and 8 minutes old. Diego, to the world of twenty years from now, is considered to be celebrity status. For you see, the future holds a deadly disease: the inability for women to conceive children. As a result, chaos and terror reign within the citizens of the human race, and many, if not all, countries fall to the might of the people. Britain is the only country left with a considerable amount of decency, though even that is shred to pieces. Many immigrants flock to the now "greatest country in the world" only to find themselves rounded up and herded into cages and ghettos. These Fugees (shortened version of the word refugee, which is short enough if you ask me) are treated horribly, and the government doesn't care at all. A group of revolutionaries decide to rise up and stop this treatment, a group so powerful it makes you shiver with its mere name: Fish.

This is where Theo (Clive Owen) comes in (quite forcibly too). Theo is kidnapped off the streets of London by his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore). Instead of being taken to marriage therapy, Julian and her associates at Fish introduce Theo to Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), a very important girl. For one, Kee has a wonderful sense of humor. But more importantly, Kee is the first pregnant woman in almost 20 years. Julian explains to Theo that Kee is to be dropped off with the Human Project, where the greatest minds are working together in order to save us all. Unfortunately Kee is a Fugee and the government won't accept her, baby or no baby (so Fish says). Unfortunately (again) Fish has a small schism, and hopes to use Kee as a bargaining chip to improve on Fugee respect. Unfortunately (again, again) Julian is killed, and it's up to Theo, Kee, and the rest of Fish to save the future. Unfortunately (again, again, again) Theo finds out that the death of Julian was caused by Fish in order to secure Kee for themselves. Unfortunately (again, again, again, blah, blah, blah) this means that both the government and Fish are after Theo and Kee, causing much destruction, chaos, and death in the film.

The film is directed by Alfonso Cuarón, famous for some of his other mature and violent films such as Y Tu Mamá También (2001) and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), and is based off the novel The Children of Men (note the addition of the word "The") by P.D. James. No, I did not read the book, nor did I travel into the future to check on the authenticity of the film, but nonetheless Cuarón displays a hauntingly real vision. For one, the technology is convincing(ish). There aren't any robots, hovercars, time machines, or retro 80 shops, but Theo's "old" car is as believable as the attitude and clothing of future UK (Theo wears a London 2012 Olympic sweatshirt). Sure the holographic computers are slightly far fetched, but anything is possible as long as it's believable.

Part of the reason the film was so believable is due to Cuarón's excellent filming skills. The majority of scenes in the film were filmed continuous with a hand held. This gives the effect that you are in the film, and that you are dodging explosions right next to Theo and Kee. This filming style enhances the film's cinematography dramatically, and further enhances the thrill of the film, along with the reality. What can be more thrilling than an apocalyptic future with you alongside the main characters?
Not only does the reality of the film enhance the thrill, but the believability of the plot enhances it too. As stated before, this future world of London is as believable as your own backyard (if you own one, that is). The viewer can't be fooled with a magical fairy that comes and sets everything right. As the story moves on, Theo learns that the Human Project, commonly thought as an urban legend, might not even exist. The Human Project was contacted from one person, who contacted another, who contacted another, who contacted another . . . So by the end of the film, the quest seems almost pointless as our heroes await salvation in a tiny boat. Of course a project as important as the Human Project would not be public knowledge in a world torn apart by war, leaving Children of Men (2006) a very scary, but believable, future.

In one of the most poignant scenes in the film, Theo is waiting for a contact to arrive in an abandoned school yard. Since there are no more children in the world, schools ultimately remain useless. While the camera is focused on Theo, a strange object lies within view. In the background lies a statue of a dinosaur, the once dominant creature of our planet that now remains extinct (well, except for on Isla Nublar). Alfonso Cuarón placed the scene here to remind the viewer that if the Theo doesn't succeed in reaching the Human Project, that humans will turn into dinosaurs. No, I don't mean we will literally turn into dinosaurs with big pointy teeth and brains the size of walnuts (a brain size that I'm sure many politicians already have), but humans will become extinct, just as the dinosaurs did.

Another important scene is just after the baby is born. Gun fights are brought into the Fugee camp that Theo and Kee are staying at, and Fish finds a way to sneak in and attempt to capture the baby. Of course, the baby cries due to all the noise, and silence falls upon everyone in the vicinity. The film's realism captures you so intensely, that the baby's screams remains as the most "beautiful thing" you ever heard.

Probably the best part of the film (in my opinion) was the character of Jasper (Michael Caine). Jasper is the only friend of Theo, and lives a secluded life deep in the woods (hidden so society won't find him). Living the life of a hippie, Jasper remains the opposite of Theo. That is, he is optimistic in attitude and hopeful for the future. If there was only one reason to see this film, Jasper would definitely be it.

The future is bleak. War, chaos, and no babies; it's no wonder Theo is always depressed. There is hope in Kee however, as she remains the only light in the dark. Through the director's ingenious filming skills, the film places you right in the chaos, giving you genuine feelings for the characters and events that take place. The cinematography and plot should be enough to persuade you to see the film, but if not that the character of Jasper alone is enough to make you cry (baby or not). The film's unique story wraps you into it that you will be hanging on to it 'till the very end.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Ahh, the Caribbean! Famous for its beautiful beaches, wonderful weather, and its amazing vacationing spots that many a tourist flock to every year. However, behind all that crystal clear water and sparklingly bright sand, there is a dark side to the Caribbean that few knew of; well, that is until Walt Disney came along. That's right, this 'ere post is about the vicious, deadly, drunk, and sometimes comical world of pirates as seen in the Pirates of the Caribbean rides at both Disneyland and Walt Disney World. (The better of the two is the latter, but nothing beats the original, except the Wiz)

Of course, since the ride was so successful and so well known, Walt Disney Pictures decided to make a movie spin-off based on the ride; ignoring fan protest of course. While the film Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) seemed to stray off the path that the Great Walt Disney set with the rides, it was a fun, enjoyable "ride" for the entire family none-the-less. Seeing this, and the many "deblumes" the first movie raked in, Walt Disney Pictures decided to make a sequel. In fact, they decided to make two sequels and film them back to back.

In the first sequel, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006), Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), captain of the Black Pearl, returns yet again for another "family ride" that everyone can enjoy (everyone except the Mimes of course, I asked them and they never told me their response). And, to everyone’s not surprise, Jack finds himself in debt and in trouble. It seems that in order to captain the Black Pearl, Jack made a deal with the devil of the ocean, Davey Jones himself. Not only is Jack in trouble, but the Almost Weds do too. Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) have found themselves arrested and face the gallows for assisting a pirate; Jack Sparrow.

To free themselves from this new predicament, the East India Trading Company forces Will to find Jack, and reclaim a "magical item" from Jack. However, Jack needs it to find the Dead Man's Chest, which is not only the title for the film, but is also the resting place for Davey Jones' still beating heart. Apparently, his love gave him so much pain, that he carved out his heart in order to live without his heartbrokenness. If Jack is to find the heart, he will be able to control not only Davey Jones (thus obviously ending his debt), but the entire ocean, seeing as Davey Jones has an arsenal of "Demons". If Will is able to get hold of the heart, he will be able to kill Davey Jones (he still needs a heart) and release his father, under command of the formidable demon, from the grip of a 100 year sentence. If Norrington (Jack Davenport), the "bad guy" from the first film claims the heart, he will be able to reclaim his life as a Commodore; respected, rich, and snotty.

Confusing, no? Seeing that they had two films to make, Disney decided to fill Dead Man's Chest will lots of confusing, pointless, funny, action filled, and weird side quests (not to mention the heart of Davey Jones). Although I found the film to be very entertaining, just like the ride, my one criticism had to do with the plot. (Let me get this off my chest before I have to carve it out and place it in a treasure chest) The adventurous, mysterious, and not corny-nous feeling of the film was caused by the simple fact that the "proper" non-pirate citizens did not believe in magic, witchcraft, curses, or even of Walt Disney's cryogenically frozen body (which is true, of course). The pirates, on the other hand, did. They would set sail to various islands in order to claim eternal life, or would chase superstitions around believing they would work. (Thus the famous line "You best start believing in ghost stories".) However, in this film, the "civilized folk" seem to "magically" know of all the hocus pocus in the world. Now, excluding Will and Elizabeth, the Governor, and some other minor characters, I believe it would be safe to assume that (even in today's age and world) a man of high importance in one of the world's top trading companies would believe in "ghost stories". Yes, the entire movie's plot spawns off the fact that the "wild goose chase" is brought by the evil Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), but it only makes the film more cheesy to think that, oh say, the President of the United States believes in witchcraft and would spend millons of our nation's money searching for the Fountain of Youth (I know it sounds ridiculous, but I bet it will happen any day now).

As if planning a rebuttal, Disney has added those wonderful clues in Dead Man's Chest to possibly answer my question and hint about the next film (affectionately named: Pirates of the Caribbean 3). Lord Beckett, it seems, has had numerous encounters with Jack Sparrow before, both leaving a mark on each other. Jack's trademark pirate "P" on his arm was left by Beckett. And Jack, well, it's not known what he did to Beckett. Perhaps Jack opened Beckett's eyes to the world of mysticism. Or maybe he just gave him a scar. Either way, Jack has influenced Beckett greatly, giving reason for his bitterness.

Another question that Disney decided to drop upon us, the unsuspecting audience, is Davey Jones' lover. Whoever this woman was, it must have been a great and powerful woman to give so much pain to the "devil" of the seas. And now in a completely unrelated topic, I introduce to you Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), a great and powerful woman who is a "witch doctor" of sorts (although calling her Dr. Dalma may upset her). She is the "magic advisor" in this film, and her knowledge of Davey Jones seems to be . . . well known. On top of that, both Tia Dalma and Davey Jones have the same shaped heart locket, which of course is surely coincidentally. And, for all you non-believers, as further proof of the identity of Tia Dalma I turn your attention to this music box. The theme music for both Davey Jones and Tia Dalma sound eerie, and erringly familiar. They both sound like the music emanating from the "love lockets" (that, may I remind you, both own). So, either Tia Dalma is the true love of Davey Jones, or she is really good at faking it.

But wait! There's more to this theory. In Tia Dalma's explanation, there is a part where the crew of the Black Pearl starts to debate with Tia Dalma. According to common folklore, Davey Jones lost his heart to the sea; not to a woman! Upon hearing this, Tia Dalma declares that it is the same thing. Now, I can be stretching this a bit, but there are rumors that in the third installment of the Pirates series, the "sea god" is to show up. Now, what I think is that the comparison between the woman lover and the ocean by Tia Dalma ("Same thing"), is true. I believe this to be a clue by Disney to show us that Tia Dalma is non other then the goddess of the sea. This would explain many things, such as where she gets most information, most of her items (like the "item" at the end of the film), and her power.

Not only are there clues in the film for the next sequel, but there are clues in this film that reveal secrets in this film! I'm not going to mention what it is (a surprise ending), but I will give you a "heads up". When the crew enters Tia's shack (the first time, with Jack the monkey) pay particular attention to the monkey (he's going to hang around a certain "something").

And now, enough with clues and let’s move on to themes and symbols. One of the reoccurring themes (in both this film and the previous one) is the idea of piracy, and how "common, civilized folk" refuse to lower themselves to that point. However, it seems the tables have turned in this film, seeing a reversal of morals in both Captain Jack Sparrow and Elizabeth Swann. Even in the beginning of the film, the Black Pearl, representing Jack in this film, seems to be . . . lighter, more friendly then the first film. Under Barbossa's command, it always had storm clouds around it, there were holes in the sheets, it looked very spooky, and there were zombies aboard (well, technically there still are some zombies). But, when Jack is in command, there is a brighter atmosphere, no clouds, and the sheets are patched up. The sheets are a strikingly obvious symbol of Jack's lighter future. Imagine: a giant sheet of black, representing evil, piracy, bad stuff, cholesterol, etc. Of course, having a torn up sheet is a bad idea (especially when sailing) so this sheet of evil is covered with small patches of white goody goodness. It seems the good in Jack can defeat the "evil pirate" in him. (Watch the end of the film, and see how good Jack can be)

Elizabeth, the daughter of the respectable Governor, should be a prime example of good for Jack. Wrong! She, it seems, is joining the dark side just as Jack is switching to the "not dark side". Her attitude is not that of a young lady, but more of a pirate. Stowing aboard other ships, drinking rum, putting guns to people's heads (and swords), threatening, tricking, thieving, running around naked (not shown on screen), among other things that pirates do. (Once again, watch the end of the film to see how "evil" Elizabeth can be) Elizabeth and Jack even confront each other at one point in the film and discuss how each other is going to "switch sides". Sounds like a lot of you are confused. Don't worry, it's a Disney film, there's bound to be a happy ending . . .

So, what will the open seas have in store for us? No one can ever know (except for Tia Dalma), but with careful watch and thinking, we can always guess. Clues are always there, whether intentional or not, for us to find and hypothesize. Not only are there clues, but, as always, there are symbols in film, symbols in the world, and symbols in life. So the next time you see a ship flying no colors, a man with a squid for a beard, or zombie pirate, remember that they could be good (The Endurance is not liable for any accidents or injuries relating to this statement), and remember that the force will be with you, always.

Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (and Don't Come Back!) (1980)

Charlie Brown is your typical everyday kid. He has trouble with the girls, his baseball team has a very consistent loosing streak, he cowers in fear of a kite-eating-tree, and his dog has a strange obsession of flying his red 'Sopwith Camel' dog house. Well, maybe he isn't your average kid, but the blockhead and his friends have been entertaining children and adults alike since 1950. Needless to say, the comic series has spawned much commercial interest, including four feature length films.

The last of the four films, Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (and Don't Come Back!) (1980), throws good ol' Chuck into yet another sticky situation that will require his intelligence, wit, and friends to get out of (we're doomed). This time, Charlie Brown (Arrin Skelley) and his classmates Linus van Pelt (Daniel Anderson), Peppermint Patty (Laura Planting), and Marcie (Casey Carlson) manage to become foreign exchange students to the town of Le Heron in France. Another surprise awaits Chuck at home: his very first letter. Except it's in French. Know-it-all Marcie translates the letter for Chuck, revealing that he has been invited to the Château Mal Voisin, or the Château of the Bad Neighbor [dramatic cord].

After a round of tennis at Wimbledon, the gang leaves England and arrives at France. Peppermint Patty and Marcie are dropped off (they're staying with a different host, because they go to a different school), and Chuck, Linus, Snoopy and Woodstock arrive at the Château of the Bad Neighbor [dramatic cord]. With no one to great them but locked doors, bad weather, and rumors of the ill tempered Baron (not to be confused with Snoopy's archenemy, the Bloody Red Baron), the gang is forced to camp outside. Mystery continues though, and it seems as if no one is safe. Who sent the letter, and why are they locked out of the Château? Who mysteriously gives them food and blankets under the cover of night? Why does the Baron hate foreigners? How come Charlie Brown is such a blockhead? Most importantly, why can't I have a normal dog like everybody else? Although the film was created to teach young children about countries overseas, Bon Voyage manages to brilliantly combine the educational lesson with the original story, resulting in a simple, yet great, family film.

The majority of the film, although a family film, is symbolic. For example, the town name Le Heron is the most obvious case, representing a heron (and as Marcie says, "That's a bird, a big bird Chuck"). However, as stated earlier, the film is intended to teach children about England and France, so all town names (including Le Heron) are real places. The heron usually is an omen for good luck and prosperity, something that the town could definitely use, but can also be warning of fire. Indeed, this foreboding does come true at the end of the film, and Charlie Brown must use his instincts to save Linus and the resident of the Château. Another aspect of the symbolism revolves around the Baron. The Baron has a very negative inclination towards everyone, especially foreigners. As this is a mystery, the dark atmosphere is kept up with the almost constant rain that pours over the Château. The Baron's negative feeling towards everyone seems to have materialized in the form of the bad weather, as proven towards the end of the film, with the elimination of the bad feeling and weather. Unfortunately, the heron's warning of fire is ignored, and the Château is tragically set on fire. Fire is symbolic of a cleansing, such as the mental cleansing of the Baron's attitude. Once the fire is over, the Baron apologizes for his behavior as a bad neighbor, and decides to turn over a new leaf.

Although the Baron is never really shown, along with most adults, the Peanut tradition is broken for the first time, and possibly only time, as an English speaking (and French speaking) adult is shown speaking. When Charles Schulz created Peanuts, he wanted to show it through the world of a child. Therefore, adults are never shown, and when speaking say the trademark "Wah wah wah". The new introduction of adults into the world of Peanuts could be a cultural view of adults across the sea. Adults here could be viewed as uncaring in their children's lives, while the 'foreign' counterparts are shown because they care. The Baron, someone who obviously doesn't take an active role in his daughter's life, is never shown. However, the caring grandparents who always allow a second cookie are shown in memories, such as photographs. (Charlie Brown's grandfather is shown, and we finally learn that his baldness is genetic)

When the inevitable fire occurs, both Charlie Brown and the Baron have similar reactions. They (quite literally) run around in circles, screaming for help. Charlie Brown, however, shows initiative and runs around in circles looking for help. In fact, all of the children show initiative, and the only reason the Château survives is because of the children. If it wasn't because of Charlie Brown's quick thinking (and running), the Château, and Linus would be forever gone.

The climax of the film, the Château ablaze, is one of the most beautifully put together scenes I have ever seen. The artwork, music, and lines are all magnificent and haunting, simple yet complex, and create an awe inspiring feeling to anyone who views it. This is very appropriate, for fire should create the same feeling, especially when the fire threatens someone's life. The most poignant part is when the Château is viewed from the house of Peppermint Patty and Marcie. Although seen from a distance, the flames are easily visible, and the thought of someone encased in that torturous situation is as intense as the heat.

The symbolism continues even as the film ends, while the credits role. The three countries featured in the film, America, England, and France, coincidentally share the same colors on the flag (red, white, and blue). While the credits role, the three colors mix and combine, showing a friendship and unity between the three countries. This is the main theme of the film after all, as shown by the Baron's 'friendly' attitude throughout the film.

When viewing the film, you should of course remember this is a family film intended to teach children about France and England. Many lines are repeated over and over again for the benefit of the small children minds watching it. Also, long drawn out scenes are common, as it is supposed to show the architecture of France, or even the technology of England. However, ignoring this if you choose (I learned many new things from the film), the film is very simple and beautiful, exciting blockheads of every age. The characters, places, and symbolism will stay with you for a while after the film, such as the Peanuts gang has done since 1950, including the adventures and lessons that everyone had at the Château of the Bad Neighbor [dramatic cord].

Secret Window (2004)

WARNING!

The following film review

contains: spoilers, puns,

and may contain nuts

This amazing film, directed by my favorite playwright David Koepp, is based upon the novella "Secret Window, Secret Garden" by Stephen King. This explains almost everything in a nutshell, as it is too difficult to review this film without giving away spoilers. A spoiler, for anyone who doesn't know, is a piece of information that gives away an important part of the plot (thereby spoiling the film for the viewer). If you haven't seen this film and want to be surprised, do not continue reading! If you haven't seen the film and don't want to be surprised, shame on you! However, it is up to you if you want to continue reading . . .

Secret Window (2004) is the story of Mort Rainey (Johnny Depp), an author who is presently going through a very nasty divorce. To complicate things, a man named John Shooter (John Turturro) comes to Mort's house and accuses him of plagiarizing his story, "Secret Window, Secret Garden" (sound familiar?). The worst part, according to Shooter, is that Mort butchered the ending of the story. When Mort completely denies this, and kicks Shooter off his property, Shooter comes back to butcher more then a story. . .

The now completely terrified Mort Rainey has fled to the sheriff, finding no help from him. Similar responses come from other people, and the little help he does receive "mysteriously" find screwdrivers flung into their heads. Eventually, Mort finds himself trapped, and confronts Shooter with an offer. If Mort can prove that the story is not plagiarized, by showing him the magazine it was published in (a few years before Shooter wrote the story), the Shooter must back off. However, Shooter seems to know every move that Mort makes, and tries to stop the magazine from ever coming . . .

Secret Window is an amazing thriller that will excite even the dullest viewer. Although it isn't necessarily a horror movie, it is certainly will screw around with your mind (Ha! Get it? Screw, like the screwdrivers in the head!). The reason? (Here's the spoiler, nut, and pun all rolled into one package) Mort Rainey is John Shooter. In order to save himself from the nasty effects of the divorce, Mort's conscience developed an alter-ego to battle his anger on his ex-wife (Shooter = Shoot her). Since Mort can't fulfill his desire to kill his ex-wife (and her new husband), Shooter does it for him. (Wow, it's my entire Psychology class in one film!) Not only is Shooter created, but Mort creates a good alter-ego that will advise Mort (every now and then) and tries to talk sense into him when frustrated (see the end of the film, it's amazing).

Of course, David Koepp decides not to revel this fact until the end of the film, but he does give minor hints here and there. Mort's alter-ego talks to Mort every now and then, giving him advice on what not to do. This, although not much of a hint, gives the audience the feeling that something is not right. Most importantly, David Koepp starts the film off by having the camera pan through a mirror. Yes, through a mirror. This symbolizes the fact that the story is now being told through the point of view of Mort. We see Shooter threatening Mort, because he seriously believes Shooter is threatening him. Once the audience figures out that Shooter and Mort are one and the same, the camera once again pans through the mirror, showing Mort donning the roll of Shooter.

The mirror motif continues in the film, most noticeably during one scene in which Mort becomes paranoid that Shooter is in his house (which also describes the entire film). Hearing some rustling in the bathroom, he picks up a baseball bat and charges into the bathroom, swinging at what he believes to be Shooter. Alas, it is not Shooter, but just a mirror reflection of himself. David Koepp was afraid that this scene would give away too much, as it seemed to make the final twist obvious. Mort does hit Shooter in the bathroom, for he goes and hits himself (the mirror).

The ending of the film is also highly symbolic, and was actually suggested by Johnny Depp. Mort, after 'fixing' the problem of his wife, is shown with a nice hair cut, clean shaven, and even braces. Mort literally decides to straighten his life out after Shooter shows up. This can be said for both his appearance and his personality. Although the entire town now seems to avoid him, (they all suspect him for the murders, but no one can prove it) Mort seems to be having a better life then before (which was how Shooter's version of Secret Window originally ended).

David Koepp really makes this film with the small, minute details that are placed within the overwhelming plot made by Steven King. For example, when "Shooter" starts screwing with Mort's life (once again, there's that screwdriver pun) he plunges a screwdriver through Chico, Mort's dog. While this is definitely shocking and depressing to all people (except the crazy ones like . . . Mort Rainey himself), it is even more sad if you look at the small details. Chico is blind. This is an incredibly small detail (I myself did not notice it until I watched the special features on the DVD), but can be seen through the swaying movements of Chico.

The most amazing thing about the film, however, is the way that it is filmed. David Koepp has done an excellent job in choosing the placement of characters, camera, and props to create a thrilling response from the audience. The best example is when Mort discovers a car in the middle of the woods. You, as a viewer, obviously know what's in it, but David Koepp refuses to show it to you directly. Johnny Depp's character blocks the view of the car, causing the audience to shift in their seat in order to peer around him (something that is impossible, but I admit to doing myself). The best, of course, is the discovery of the murder weapon. His own screwdriver. In order to remove suspicion, he removes the screwdriver itself from the head of a freshly dead corpse. We would know what this would look like, and inevitably be unafraid from it. David Koepp realizes this, so the scene is shot from the point of view of the screwdriver; Mort covers it with a paper towel (fingerprints), and all that is heard is "squish".

Secret Window is an amazing film. The wonderful way that director David Koepp displays Mort's duplicity will surprise the average viewer, and the way that it is filmed will even scare the pants off Dracula. An excellent film to watch when you have nothing better to do, or a film to watch when you have something better to do, Secret Window shows you how fragile a relationship can be, especially if you plunge a screwdriver through it.

Whale Rider (2002)

“In the old days, the land felt a great emptiness.
It was waiting, waiting to be filled up,
waiting for someone to love it, waiting for a leader.
And he came on the back of a whale, a man to lead anew people.
Our ancestor, Paikea.”

The opening lines of the New Zealand film, Whale Rider (2002) describe the true legend of Paikea, and the origin of the Maori people. According to legend, Paikea decided to leave his home at Hawaiki, and set out to sea. However, he started to struggle, and needed help. The help came in the form of whales, which carried him to an island (currently in North New Zealand), where his ancestors lead the people every generation. The film takes this legend, and elaborates a fictional story of modern day upon it. The story takes place on the same island, where the first born son of the oldest son becomes a leader to the people. However, the chain of tradition is broken, when the main character, Paikea (Keisha Castle-Hughes), is born. Paikea's twin brother and mother die together, and cause her father to go into a deep depression. Therefore, Paikea should be the new chief of the Maori. However, she is a girl.

The film continues years later, and Paikea is now a smart and lovely eleven year old girl. Although she shares a wonderful relationship with her grandparents, her grandfather, Koro (Rawiri Paratene), is still greatly disappointed in both her (for not being able to fulfill 'her' destiny to be the new chief), and her father (who is still depressed over the death of his wife, and refuses to go out with other Maori women). Paikea constantly tries to impress her grandfather, she even breaks the sacred law by learning how to use the Taiaha, the sacred fighting stick. The depressing events of rejection and sorrow continue throughout the film, until it reaches the climax of depression when Koro discovers a entire beach filled with many beached whales. Paikea, confused on what to do in her situation, asks her ancestors to send help, as they did for the original Paikea. The help comes in the form of whales, but this time the whales are the ones in trouble. The entire town comes to help the beached whales, and they must all learn to trust each other, especially Koro, in order to save the whales (their past) and themselves (their future).

A wonderful film filled with important, everyday themes, I found Whale Rider an enjoyable family film. Although it lacks some of the more common aspects of this category, such as anvils and talking rabbits, it does have a wonderful feel to the film, and even lacks the parental disapproved, violent villain that is typical in most films. More prominent though, is the cover theme that is taught through the film. It has the moral value of equivalence (a value that is much needed in today's world), as shown by Paikea's constant struggle to gain acceptance by Koro and her people. Even though it is quite obvious that Paikea is overqualified in almost every category, she is still not accepted by her grandfather.

The person in question, Koro, is possibly the most conflicted and confused characters I have ever seen on film. Torn between his family and his tradition, Koro tries to uphold the lifestyles of the Maori without endangering his family. Koro fails horribly. As far as I know (which isn't that much), Maori tradition does not state that a male is required to lead the people (at least that is the way the film portrays it). However, because of his stubbornness to change, Koro sets out to find a different leader, one who might become a 'prophet' and lead the Maori out of a depression. However, it is hard to find things that don't exist (like all my missing socks). Whale Rider and Koro teach that we often find what we are looking for in the most obvious, logical, and least expected places (like my sock in the laundry, for instance). Koro, upset at Paikea for her double X chromosomes, found the leader in her: the most obvious, logical, and unexpected place (for Koro at least). Once Koro (or anyone for that matter) gets over the 'unexpected' phase, the answer is left to be only obvious and logical. For the majority of the film, Koro is shown to be struggling with his life, confused over what to do. He then admits to the Maori ancestors that he is inexperienced, that "I am only a fledgling new to flight". It is only when the whales (helpers of the Maori ancestors) are in trouble does Koro gain the experience to look past the unexpected phase.

*As an interesting side note, actor Rawiri Paratene was asked by the director to stay in character for the entire shooting process. It must have been a shock to the cast when they realized he was a nice guy*

Whale Rider, unlike some other foreign films, does not have what I call a 'cultural barrier'. The film does not contain any aspects in it that might confuse another culture. The film excellently explains anything that an outsider might not understand (These explanations do not feel out of place either). The only cultural problem that an outsider might have with the film is the accent that all of the Maori people have in the film. However, this can easily be overcome early in the film. If you were to have some strange accent learning ability, fear not! An obviously literate person has created the invention of subtitles!

The New Zealand film, Whale Rider, is a wonderful family film. With themes such as acceptance and equality, director Niki Caro has created a beautiful atmosphere (just ask the Lord of the Rings staff, they practically live there), a wonderful cast of characters, and an amazing story that everyone should see. You, along with the characters of the film, will learn that is O.K. to accept people as equals, and that asking for help is not a weakness, but sometimes necessary to gain experience in life.

Le Pacte des Loups (2001)

And the French films continue! This film is an internationally renown masterpiece by director Christophe Gans, and has created many fans that spawn across the world. Although its popularity in the United States is not as great as it is in other countries, (nowhere near the same level of popularity) the film Le Pacte des Loups (2001), also known as The Brotherhood of the Wolf, has ensnared audiences around the world since its release.

It is 18th century France, more specifically 1765 in the province of Gévaudan, and terror is sweeping the land. A terrible 'beast' has emerged, and has already claimed numerous victims, all women and children, in the one year it has spent in the province. As the murders continue, the reputation of the beast exceeds the borders of the land, and eventually reaches Paris and the King. Enraged at this news, the King sends specialists to defeat this monster, Grégoire de Fronsac (Samuel Le Bihan). Along with his brother, Mani (Mark Dacascos), the two trackers arrive at Gévaudan, only to find chaos reining supreme.

After a nice relaxing fight with some cross dressers (since the beast only hunts women and children, hunters try to draw it out by dressing as women), the two trackers continue onward to meet Marquis d'Apcher (Hans Meyer), and the three become quick friends. Also to join the group is Marianne de Morangias (Émilie Dequenne), the 'incredibly hard to get' lover of Fronsac. Together, the group attempts to solve the mystery of the beast (although Marianne does not go on the hunts, for it is improper for a lady to do so), and tries to put an end to this 'evil' once and for all. However, there will be many obstacles on the way, such as rival hunters wanting to claim the bounty on the beast, Marianne's parents (who dislike Fronsac), and even the master who controls the beast.

Strangely enough, this 'fantasy' film is actually based on a true story. With the exception of Mani, all the main characters are real people, and the beast was a real beast that terrorized the people of Gévaudan. The director takes this knowledge and introduces all the characters as history says. When the film starts to stray away from history, and the capture of the beast is recorded by the king, in order to calm the terrified citizens of his country. Although no such beast was captured, this achieves Gan's goal as the history books stop recording the events of the time. By watching the film, it is entirely possible to believe that all this took place.

Once again, a director places the theme of looking into a film. This time, however, the theme is not "judge a book by its cover" or to 'look without your eyes', but that you should never believe what you see. When Fronsac arrives at Gévaudan, he entertains his hosts by presenting them with a fish he found in New France. The fish, as said by Indian legend, had jet black fur to keep it warm in the ice cold waters. Fronsac reveals that the fish is a farce, and that one should not always believe what you see. The moral of the story? Fronsac believes that the beast is all smoke and mirrors, even though countless witnesses have seen it. No wolf, as it has been described as, could grow to almost twice its size and mysteriously disappear at will. This theme is further exemplified when the beast is supposedly caught (when the film starts to stray away from history). Fronsac was approached with an order by the King, that he must create a fake beast. Although he is angry at doing so, he dare not oppose the King. Fronsac creates a believable beast that fools everyone in the King's court. If Fronsac was able to easily create a beast that fools everyone, couldn't anyone else do it?

Director Gans also creates a believable beast, and not some out of this world monster. Without giving away too much information, the beast is simply a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', although it is not a wolf, and the sheep's clothing is very deadly. If one was to listen and pay attention during the film, you could find various hints and clues given by the director to predict what the creature is. With this technique, the director not only challenges history with making a believable creature, but challenges the audience as well, by seeing if anyone can decode the theme in time to understand the creature is only 'smoke and mirrors'.

The character of Mani is one of the most awesomely created characters I have ever seen (he is evenly matched with the incredibly cool Magua from The Last of the Mohicans (1992)). While in New France, Fronsac was studying the fauna, war breaks out, and Fronsac is unexpectedly thrown into the mess of it. Since the new world was confusing (and it still is), an interpreter was needed to translate for the French. However, the war was cold and hard, as Mani is the last of his people (the French gave the Indians blankets infected with disease, killing them all). As a result, Mani retains much of his people's knowledge, which provides to be useful when hunting the beast. For example, Mani often goes to listen to the trees, which you can hear, 'only if you listen'. Although he doesn't eat the heart of the beast as Magua would, both characters are the last of their people, both are Mohawks (kind of), and both become allies to the French! Wow, isn't it a small world after all . . . Mani, being the only character that was not a real person, had to receive inspiration from somewhere. My opinion states that Magua would be the best inspiration for an Indian hero, since he has many wonderful qualities such as revenge, quietness, and awesomeness (of which, only one is a real word) that make him the best brother to Fronsac. My opinion also states that this film is awesome, and you should see it (in French of course, the English dub feels more 'foreign'.)

Mani, at one point in the film, entertains guests by revealing to them their totem; their animal guide that best represents their characteristics. When it is time for Mani to reveal the totem of Marquis d'Apcher, he reveals that it is none other then a snake. It is not because he controls the beast, but because that the Mohawks believed that snakes were wise. It is interesting that this is, because snakes in most of the world are considered 'evil' (such as the snake in the story of Adam and Eve). For Mani, I believe his totem is that of the wolf, because of the constant appearances of wolves in the film. They are constantly speaking to him (remember, one only needs to listen to hear), and Mani feels their pain when they are senselessly slaughtered because of fear that they are the beast. The totem motif becomes a fun theme to play with, and is sometimes shocking (one character even has the totem of a lion).

Towards the end of the film, the ambiguity of the story skyrockets, and causes the fate of many of the characters is left up to the audience. For instance, Marianne is brutally attacked, and left in critical condition. The Narrator admits that he does not know what happened to Fronsac and Marianne, but has suggestions of what they might of done if they lived the typical 'happily ever after' ending of a fairy tale. Fronsac is shown to be at Marianne's bedside for quite some time, and even administers Mani's 'miracle medicine' to Marianne. The Narrator is shown to be driven out of his castle, finally finishing his long tale of adventure, and most likely to his death. Although this is not shown, it can be assumed (there is no way for him to survive, believe me), as his character is a REAL PERSON. (Who died at this time, at this place.)

Le Pacte des Loups is an amazing film that is up to par with classic films such as M (1931). Its interesting blend of history, action, mystery, and the awesomely cool Mani create an amazing film that contains many themes that should be used everyday. The theme of looking is expanded upon (as seen in King Kong (2005) and Les Triplettes de Belleville (2003), I promise that this is the last one) as you should not always believe what you see. Things can be manipulated so that all you see is smoke and mirrors. Once you realize this, the smoke clears and it is easier to see the true answer. Whenever you feel like viewing a good film (or a bad one, but then a good one accidentally pops up), watch this one. With the beast, wonderfully dull 18th century humor, and Mani, Le Pacte des Loups is an awesome film that will eat your heart out (Mani won't but Magua and the beast will). Of course, you can never fit all of a film into one review, so perhaps this review may be deceiving you too. The only way to find out is to truly listen to the film. (Wow, was that corny)

Les Triplettes de Belleville (2003)

In an interesting follow-up to the previous post (King Kong (2005)), this film completely contradicts the main theme of 'look without your eyes' that is discussed in King Kong (2005). The French film, Les Triplettes de Belleville (2003) (also known as The Triplets of Belleville), contains no spoken words, except for the French television announcers or random phrases said by extremely minor characters (of which, there are no subtitles, so I have no idea what they are saying). Of course, this doesn't matter, for director Sylvain Chomet has animated this film in a way that every character can be characterized on their visual appearance. One of the most interesting aspects of Les Triplettes de Belleville is the unusual caricature that each person has. This technique becomes very important to the director through the film, because it helps the characters vocalize what they might say.

Young Champion has had a miserable life. After the death of his parents, he is sent to live with his Grandmother, Madame Souza. Although she tries her best to cheer up her grandson, with everything from a dog named Bruno to a Piano, Champion still remains depressed. One day, however, Madame Souza brings home a tricycle, and life begins to change. Years later, Champion has matured into the typical caricature of a cyclist: a person that resembles a racing horse. Cycling has now become a major part of this small family's life. Madame Souza is now the trainer of Champion, and does everything from maintain the diet of her grandson, to the literal fine tuning of the bicycle wheels. Champion, now an excellent cyclist, signs up for the Tour de France. However, the trouble begins when the French Mafia kidnaps him halfway through the race.

Madame Souza, determined to rescue her grandson, rents a paddle boat and follows him across the Atlantic Ocean (that's determination) to the city of Belleville. There, Souza meets up with the Triplets, a once famous singing group. The four become quick friends, and set out to try and rescue the kidnapped cyclists, using their keen minds, their great determination, and Bruno's nose. (Watch out French Mafia, you have four old ladies and a dog after you, and their armed with iron cooking pans)

As said earlier, the most interesting part of the film was how the director displayed the different people in the film. The mechanic, who is always sneaking in and out of small, tiny spaces, is depicted as a mouse. The grandmother has the stereotypical qualities that you would expect a grandmother to have (short, old, glasses, etc.). The cyclists are the most interesting of all, as they are depicted as racing horses, who look, sound, and even act like an animal (one cyclist is 'put out of his misery). Even caricatures of famous people, such as Charlie Chaplin and Jacques Anquetil appear in the film. Using these caricatures, the director conveys the qualities, emotion, and characteristics of each person without using any vocals to assist him. This, of course, gives the film a very 'cartoonish' feel to the film, because no one is shaped like a cereal box in real life. Another task that is fulfilled with this process is that the director can display his own views on society with the caricatures. For example, since all the city folk are displayed as really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really fat people, it is possible that the director was trying to imply that food commercialization is 'important' in large cities; hence the constant advertisement of food, and large proportions of food shown in the film (Although the director has stated that Belleville is a combination of many different cities, and is a fictional place that is not supposed to represent any city particularly, I believe that it represents America. When first entering Belleville, a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really fat statue of liberty is shown, the little language that is used quickly switches to English, everyone has the typical American attitude, and even the Flatiron Building is shown). Of course these caricatures are not limited to people, but are used on objects. The buildings and ships of the film are overly dramatized to almost dangerous proportions. Impossibly tall buildings that almost literally scrape the sky are built in Belleville, and ships that seem to be thinner then toothpicks are built (although it does make up in height what is lost in length). Since these proportions are obviously incorrect, this animated film once again seems to be targeting children with the 'cartoonish' feel it creates, or possibly that the animators had no idea what the correct proportions were.

In one of the most emotional scenes of the film, the grandmother is shown paddling across the Atlantic Ocean is a tremendous storm. Part of this emotion comes from the choice of music that Chomet decides to insert in the scene; Kyrie, the opening of Mozart's Mass in C minor. The song has a feel of determination to it, almost like a march. This gives the viewer a spark of hope, and creates happiness in knowing that there is an 80 year old grandmother paddling to save her grandson. However, at the same time, the colors of the ocean and the storm create a depressingly sad feel to the film, reminding the viewer that there is no hope that an 80 year old grandmother paddling to save her grandson will make it. This confusion that Chomet places in the scene also enhances the emotion, as the 80 year old grandmother paddling to save her grandson is tossed and turned until she has no idea where she is heading. (Needless to say that the 80 year old grandmother paddling to save her grandson is very energetic)

The way that the director Chomet shows the cities at different times is interesting too. France, shown as when Champion was young, is shown in bright, almost sepia toned colors. These colors give the feel of a home, and make this place almost desirable to live in (even though its proportions make it look like a toothpick). However, bright colors aren't always a signal for home, as shown in the Tour de France. The bright colors shown here display the feeling of a hot, dry desert that the cyclists have to go through. The sepia tone that is given in the opening scenes tell the audience that this is 'old', and that it happened a long time ago (as does the sepia tone in old photographs do). Years later, however, industrialization has built a train that literally stops in front of the house, along with streets, lamps, and houses to cover all the hills and pastures shown in Champion's childhood. Whenever here, it is always dark and raining, giving the viewer a depressed feeling similar to the feeling of the 80 year old grandmother paddling to save her grandson. The colors of the house are now darker, but seem a bit sharper. The feeling generated by this change of animation tells the viewer that this takes place now, instead of the flashbacks shown in the beginning of the film. Color shows up throughout the film, and takes a pivotal role in describing the atmosphere of the place.

The techniques described above, such as color, caricatures, and music, help characterize the characters without the use of the spoken word. It becomes the spoken word for the characters, enabling them to act out through the story without audible language. This demonstrates the theme of 'look with your eyes' that is presented in the film (the complete opposite of King Kong). It is important to look without your eyes, as you should never "judge a book by its cover", but is important, at the same time, to "judge a book by its cover". If you were walking down a dark ally late at night, and found a book that had a gun and a cover that was threatening, you would most likely judge that this book is a bad book. In situations like these (which I hope you never find yourself in), it is important to use your eyes, especially since it is so blatantly obvious (like in the film, where everyone has caricatures).

Although the film Les Triplettes de Belleville contains many 'cartoonish' elements to it, the film is far from a cartoon. Containing almost no spoken words, the characters find other ways to express themselves. Caricatures, colors, and even music help the director to show the audience what he wants. This also conveys the theme of 'look with your eyes'; that you should sometimes "judge a book by its cover". After sorting through all the humorous events in the film, and the horribly out of proportion objects, the film is still a heart warming tale about an 80 year old grandmother paddling to save her grandson.