Japanese Monster Movies

(Movie glutton's note: One of the dangers of being a movie glutton is watching movies at a faster rate than I am able to blog about them.  I only posted once in December, and have only posted 3 in January so far.  From now on, when appropriate, I will be posting some of these in groups of loosely related movies.)



A loving father playing with his son.

 One of my favorite movie-going memories is lining up around the theater, waiting for what must have been hours with my dad and brother, to see the latest Godzilla movies.  These cheesy Japanese imports with terrible special effects surely were bad back then.  Even though my 7-year-old brain loved them, surely my dad hated them.  After watching Son of Godzilla, I gained a new appreciation for what dads tolerate for their sons.

I don't remember if Son of Godzilla was one that we saw in that Corpus Christi theater.  This 1967 release was 8th in the series that started with Godzilla in 1954.  I have to believe it was a low point in the series.  Baby Godzilla's midget in a rubber suit is worse than Godzilla's man in a rubber suit.  Godzilla's training sessions with his son are wonderful, if low, comedy (especially if you're 7).  The scientists living on this remote island get caught in the battle between Godzilla and the giant spider, but manage to escape the mysterious island. 


You don't want a hug from the Strangling Monster.

One of the great things about the Japanese monster movies is their self-referential mocking comedy.  Big Man Japan, a mockumentary about a man who grows to giant size when called on to fight monsters, mixes a little bit of monster action with reality-show-type interview with the big man.  He's past middle age, not too thrilled about his lot in life, and does not get much respect from the community.  To maintain his career, his agent sells ad to wear on his body; she is more concerned with ad placement than fighting monsters.  The monsters themselves are stranger than what I remember seeing on any monster movies.  Unfortunately, they take a minor role.  I would have enjoyed more monsters, less interview.  The ending seemed tacked on and a bit out of character with the rest of the movie.  Nevertheless, it's still a funny movie.



The third Japanese movie isn't really a monster movie; in fact, it's not a Japanese movie--it's Korean--but it fits well with these others.  Save the Green Planet has the silly title going for it--you know this isn't going to be an art film classic.  Well, maybe it is.  This was surprisingly dark and had some heavy social themes, not of which is revealed by the silly picture on the DVD cover.  Byeong-gu is an everyman who believes aliens are plotting to attack the Earth.  He kidnaps a prominent businessman whom he believes is an alien.  Byeong-gu tortures him and thwarts his escape attempts, revealing his insanity.  As more was revealed about Byeong-gu, I almost began to feel sorry for him.  But the more he tortured the businessman, my sympathy declined.  Sure, the businessman is a bad guy, and was directly or indirectly responsible for some bad stuff, but no one deserves that kind of insane treatment.

I have to admit, half-way through this movie, I was thinking it was a waste of time.  I kept watching, simply because I rarely turn off a bad movie.  By the end, it had totally redeemed itself with a satisfying, if bizarre, climax and a surprise ending that made me want to watch it again.  Save the Green Planet was strange and sometimes disturbing, but the dark comedy, the social commentary on labor disputes, corporate greed, and medical research, and the unpredictable pacing makes this one worth watching.

Bottom lines:
Son of Godzilla, 1 star, but only if you're a Godzilla fan.
Big Man Japan, 2 1/2 stars
Save the Green Planet, 3 stars

Frozen

This movie seems absurd on its face, setting up an impossible scenario with a ridiculous premise--so I thought!  Three college kids have gone to ski and try to get in one last run before the ski area shuts down.  Through a series of mishaps, they are stranded on a chair lift on a deserted ski mountain.  Of course the ski area only opens on weekends, so the trio faces the possibility of being stranded there all week.  Then a storm comes in.  Desperate to get out of there, one of the kids jumps, hoping to walk to get help.  He breaks both legs.  Soon comes along a hungry pack of wolves. . . .

I watched this movie a few weeks ago, before the ski season had begun.  Then I started noticing these headlines:

• "200 skiers stranded on Mountain High chair lift" (California)
• "Stranded Skiers Rescued from Alpine Valley Chair Lift" (Ohio)
• "Boyce Park Lift Open After Ropes Used to Rescue Stranded Skiers" (Pennsylvania)
• "Skier Dangles 25 ft from the Ground as Six are Injured and 200 Stranded When Chair Lift Derails at Maine's Highest Resort"

There are all in the first few weeks of this winter's ski season!  And there are more. . . .

So Frozen might be a bit over the top.  In all the cases above, skiers were rescued; there was never a chance that someone would be stranded overnight or without help from the ski area itself (and I suspect the ski areas in question bent over backwards to compensate the stranded and injured skiers).  But is it really that much of a stretch to think that someone might get stranded overnight, after everyone goes home?

Frozen is a low-budget, high-intensity thriller.  Given the frequency of ski lift incidents indicated by the above headlines, the premise of Frozen is all too real.  Like Open Water, the 2003 movie that depicted scuba divers who were left behind by their boat, Frozen takes what should be a fun situation and turns it into a nightmare.  The viewer thinks, "That could happen to me!" and wonders what in the world he would do to survive. 

Bottom line, 2 1/2 stars

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Here's a movie with some pretty good actors, remaking an old movie from the 1950s, twisting and twisting the plot until you get a crick in your neck, and definitely requiring you to suspend disbelief completely.  The popularity of shows like CSI have upped the bar for realism and accuracy in crime movies and TV shows.  Beyond a Reasonable Doubt has one foot in that ethos and one foot in the 1950s. While not a complete waste of time, it makes me wonder if I should have, instead, picked up the original, which was directed by the great director Fritz Lang.

Michael Douglas is a creepy, power hungry DA.

The concept is intriguing: a young reporter suspects that the popular, successful DA plants evidence to bolster his record.  He develops a scheme by which he'll frame himself for a murder, allow the conviction to proceed, then have his co-conspirator reveal the evidence that he is innocent and that the conviction is proceeding on false evidence, planted by the DA.  Just when it looks like the plan is going to work, the reporter's friend is killed in a car accident.  In the meantime, the reporter has to convince his girlfriend, who works for the DA, of his innocence, and bring her into the plan after the fact.

If it all sounds confusing and unlikely, you're right.  The twists at the end only add to the groan factor.  "Yeah, right,"  I thought.  The whole thing was just too unbelievable.  The final product was sort of entertaining, though.

Bottom line: 1 1/2 stars.

Extraordinary Measures

At my Reading Glutton blog, I have written about John Crowley's book, Chasing Miracles: The Crowley Family Journey of Strength, Hope, and Joy, and Geeta Anand's account of the Crowley family's journey in The Cure: How a Father Raised $100 Million--and Bucked the Medical Establishment--in a Quest to Save His Children.  Besides having really long titles, these books tell the remarkable story of John Crowley's role, as a biotech executive, spearheading the development of a drug to treat Pompe syndrome.  I'm sure a cure or treatment would have eventually been developed, but Crowley made it happen much sooner than it ever would have, if ever.

Brendan Fraser plays Crowley, even though he's about a foot and half taller than the real Crowley.  Harrison Ford plays Dr. Robert Stonehill, the cranky, but very committed medical researcher who joins up with Crowley.

This story captures the hearts of anyone who hears it.  Geeta Anand brought it to many people's attention with her Wall Street Journal articles, which formed the basis of her book, and various media appearances spread the family's fame.  It was inevitable that their story would be made into a movie.  Extraordinary Miracles captures much of the essence of the Crowley's story, but, of course, abbreviates it and alters it in the dramatization.  A Notre Dame Law School graduate with a Harvard MBA, Crowley had the wits, the will, and the connections to carve out a lucrative place for himself in American business.  He used all of that to focus on the highest priority of his life: finding a cure for the disease that was killing his children.  (And, incidentally, became a multi-millionaire in the process!)

Give the complexity of the disease, of the business deals, and of the people affected, both in the family and in the research and business community, the story had to be greatly simplified for the movie, but they also sanitized it a bit.  Great family though they are, the movie made them seem even more happy, cheerful, and optimistic than is likely.  Not a big deal, but it robs the Crowleys of their humanity, giving Extraordinay Measures a Lifetime Channel movie of the week fairy tale feel, cheapening a great story.  And this is a minor quibble, but why did they move the research facility from Oklahoma to Nebraska?  Did OU refuse to cooperate?  Did the state of Nebraska bribe them to do so?

Quibbles aside, Extraordinary Measures brings the Crowley's story to a much wider audience than the books or WSJ articles could.  More than that, it brings attention to the importance of research for rare diseases.  The drug companies may not deem it cost-effective to research cures for diseases that affect a very small number of patients.  The Crowleys remind us that we don't have to sit around and wait for a cure; even an ordinary guy like John Crowley with no medical background can make something extraordinary happen.

Bottom line, 3 stars.

Edge of Darkness

Thomas Craven has been pushed to the Edge of Darkness.  A dedicated Boston homicide detective, Craven, played by Mel Gibson, in his first lead since Signs in 2002, lives for little besides his daughter, who comes home for a visit.  Shortly after she arrives, she is gunned down on his doorstep.  Investigators assume Craven had been targeted by someone he had investigated, but Craven begins to wonder if in fact his daughter was the intended target after all.  As he digs into her past, he learns of her activism against a large corporation.  He suspects that they know something about her death, and ends up in a web of deceit involving his own department, corrupt politicians, and evil businessmen. 

This is a perfect Mel Gibson role: the grieving widower, the honest cop, the beacon of integrity, the passionate pursuer of justice in an unjust world.  Any parent can relate to his deeply felt grief over the loss of his daughter.  He finds a compassionate ear in an unlikely place: the mysterious British operative who is his hunter, informant, foe.  It's not giving anything away to say that ulitmately justice is done in a satisfying (though tragic) way.

I don't mind badmouting corrupt politicians; they're all corrupt, some more than others.  Ours is a sick political system rife with perverse incentives.  But I do get tired of the businessman as the enemy.  Granted, there are evil, corrupt businessmen; every walk of life is manned by fallen people who do bad things.  But rarely are business people portrayed as heros, as people who contribute to society by employing people, investing in their communities, and enriching people's lives.  Hollywood loves the evil businessman.  Edge of Darkness is an enjoyable movie but it feeds into the destructive anti-corporate, anti-business mentality.

Bottom line, 2 1/2 stars.

The Joneses

It's hard to come up with a memorable premise for a movie, even harder to make a great movie with a memorable premise.  The Joneses is a pretty good movie with a great premise, not great enough to make a great movie, but great enough that this is an enjoyable film.

The Jones seem to have everything: charming, handsome husband, beautiful, stylish wife, good-looking, smart kids.  They move into an upscale suburban neighborhood, making friends, getting into the best social circles.  They are the kind of people who draw others to themselves, and they always have the coolest, newest stuff.  Where they get their money isn't all that clear, but the way they live, and all the stuff they have, shows that they're definitely well-to-do.

Everybody wants what she has.

What the neighbors don't know is that the Joneses are part of a stealth marketing campaign.  Mrs. Jones wears a new pair of shoes, and all the ladies in the neighborhood want them.  Mr. Jones plays with a new kind of golf club, and everyone at the country club wants one.  The son has the hottest new gaming system, and his buddies want one, too.  The Joneses get all their stuff from their employer, who does real life product placement.  Even though the effect is overly farcical--I mean, are people really that easily swayed by what their friends have?--the point is well-made.  We are at the mercy of marketers and corporations, much more than we realize.  One has to make a deliberate effort not to be influence by the marketing that surrounds us every day. 

I have to wonder how much of this stealth marketing or real life product placement goes on.  I know of some examples, especially among teens and college kids, where products are provided free to some in hopes that they will influence others to buy.  But the scale of the placements in The Joneses seems unrealistic: they are too small a factor given too much credit for influencing sales.  I know it's a movie, but that goofiness detracted from the overall message of the movie.  Still, it's a fun flick, not a classic, but it will make you think next time some trend goes viral--What's really driving that product's popularity?

Bottom line, 2 1/2 stars.

Food, Inc. and We Feed the World

Both of these movies will make you think a little more about what you buy and what you eat.  That may or may not be a good thing.  Both of these movies take on the food industry, taking on factory farming and modern food production.  Food, Inc., and American production, is more alarmist and overstated, in typical American fashion, than We Feed the World, which is German.  The latter, more substantive and fair than Food, Inc., has more a documentary feel in its pacing and tone.  Both make me want to go to the farmers' market and quit eating meat.

A huge amount of the world's food production, like this warehouse full of bread, is thrown away every year.

The message of these films is simple: modern food production sacrifices quality for quantity, industrializes natural processes, and removes us from our agricultural roots.  Both have eye-opening scenes from the poutltry industry.  With major fast-food restaurants using such a huge portion of the meat raised in the U.S., and with a very small number of companies, poultry farmers are beholden to the requirements of the fast-food industry.  Thus, even if you never eat fast food, your conusumption is determined, in part, by the fast-food industry.

Take chickens.  Large restaurant chain chicken buyers want chicken breasts of a specific size.  So chicken farmers breed chickens with large breasts and overall uniform size, and which grow quickly.  Their quick growth and disproportional body parts are so extreme that some can't even walk.  They are not so much beautiful members of the animal kingdom as factory produced commodities.  The eggs are hatched in large incubators, taken in boxes to the huge, crowded barns, where they are packed for their shortened lives to grow in absurdly cramped conditions. If they fall ill (which many do; infection spreads quickly in these conditions), they are shoveled up and carried away.  When they're full-grown, it's off to the slaughterhouse.  The footage from the chicken and beef slaughterhouses are incredible in their extreme automation (made possible my the uniform animal size) and disgusting in their, well, disgustingness.

Despite the horror shows these films feature, I think they overlook the practical, human side of the food industry.  Thomas Malthus and his followers predicted that we would not be able to feed the world, given population trends.  He didn't anticipate advances in agricultural technology, which has enabled the growth of food production worldwide to far exceed the needs of our population.  Like the producers of these films, I would prefer food grown naturally, animals raised and slaughtered humanely, and produce naturally ripened and eaten fresh.  But given our needs, that pastoral vision is impractical.  In order to feed a growing population, certain efficiencies have to be sought.  The division of labor and specilization have enabled us to reach a point where, unfortunately, a sizable percentage of food produced worldwide goes to waste.  Can we be more efficient in our distribution and more and improve prodution value?  Yes, always.  But I, for one, am thankful for the ever-increasing capacities of the food industry.

Bottom line, 2 stars a piece.