So I saw Van Helsing last night, Stephen Sommers’ new monster flick; a veritable beast-fest, in which an amnesiac monster hunter, Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is deployed by a special order of the Catholic Church to find and destroy Dracula, in Transylvania, and rescue the beautiful Anna Valerius’ (Kate Beckinsale) family from literal damnation. So far, one might think, so good. Or not.

In Transylvania, he fights a werewolf, rescues Frankenstein’s monster, punches Vampiric Oompa-Loompas in the face and comes toe-to-toe with Dracula and his three ‘brides’, as well as a near-infinite number of highly explosive vampire-babies. All accompanied by his very own version of Sancho Panza, the comical Carl, played by David Wenham (last seen being ever-so-slightly more manly as Farramir in the Lord of the Rings movies).

The film is hysterical. It can’t be judged by any objective aesthetic criteria; as a movie it is flawed; the plot is slightly convoluted, it has deus ex machina written all over it, characterisation is shallow and the resolution couldn’t be more cheesey if it was an excessively ripe gorgonzola with a best before date sometime in the last century. The one-liners are terrible (and therefore excellent).

As a pastiche, though, its brilliant. Reviews have slated it for demeaning the monster flick oeuvre (please!), and for its poor characterisation. But if you go in expecting silly, full-on entertaining hero-slaying-monster type action, and don’t suffer from any kind of cinematic lactose intolerance, you will be entertained.

Warning, though: if you are serious about your monster movies, don’t go. You’ll be upset at apparent flaws in logic, the comic lovability of Frankenstein’s monster, the cute yet explosive creatures, the terrible, but wonderful dialogue, and the Valerius family in the sky. Still, I had fun, and wanted to write something in defense of the film when everyone I went to see the film with came out saying it was “terrible, but I enjoyed it.” I think its more than just comically entertaining; I think they went for exactly what they got; a B-movie for the 21st Century, and a damn sight more entertaining than Mars Attacks (admittedly made in the 90s).

Oh – it has a soundtrack by the awesome Alan Silvestri (of minor fame from the Back to the Future soundtrack), which I also liked. And there was another deeply weird trailer – Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law and Angelina Jolie in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, a 1940s SciFi flick (oh yes). Can’t wait, now.

I tried writing a little more about Eternal Sunshine this morning and found myself really struggling. There’s something about Charlie Kaufman scripts that seem to really have me empathising to a degree that makes successful articulation of my emotional and intellectual response very, very difficult; the same was true for Adaptation, which was generally thought of to be an inferior film, and even, to a lesser extent, Being John Malkovich, which was excellent but slightly sillier.

Here’s what it was about, I think, in as much of a nutshell as I can get: it was a story about true love, but the film was really about second chances. It was about learning from our mistakes and how we can’t if we forget, about accepting certain realities about who we are and our own limitations, and ultimately, it seemed to me that Mr Kaufman believes that love will find a way.

It’s not a naive sentiment; the film explores the issues of true love in the context of the complications of real human interaction, dark edges and all. In fact, most of the film is dark edges; but casting those shadows, I think, is an uber-metaphorical ultra-poncey sunshine of optimism.

It’s really, really good. And I do love Kirsten Dunst, and Kate Winslet both. Wonderful. And Jim Carrey gets whole new respect from me; I’m not one of those who harbours an irrational dislike for the rubber-faced comedy actor: in fact, seeing him in The Truman Show and The Majestic demonstrated the breadth of his range. This movie really shows him at his best.

Complete aside: I also saw the trailer for the new Coen brothers film, which looks like it could be entertaining, especially if you like Tom Hanks.

Even if it hadn’t been Kirsten Dunst (for whom my love is REAL, I tell you) reciting these lines, they’d still have been beautiful. What a film. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

More tomorrow.

“How happy is the blameless Vestal’s lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each pray’r accepted, and each wish resign’d. ”
                           — Alexander Pope

[Listening to: my own thoughts (6:42)]

…other than the fact that her name’s ludicrously hard to spell?

Everything.

But its because of Secretary, the 2002 movie by little-known director Steven Shainberg, that I’m saying this.

Finally seen yet another in my list of movies-to-be-seen (I will watch Donnie Darko v. soon!), and deeply enjoyed it. Here’s what you get: recently discharged from a mental institution, from a family imposed stay following their near-fatal discovery of her more self-damaging tendencies, Lee Holloway (Maggie-dear) looks for a way to put meaning into her life, and begins to find it in the routine tedium of an administrative job. “It’s boring, very boring. You’re over qualified, really,” says Mr Gray (James Spader), clearly selling the job well. “I like boring,” is Lee’s simple reply, and on they go. What follows is an absolutely bizarre courtship, complicated by Lee’s semi-autistic fiancee (also the victim of a nervous breakdown), and the progression of Mr Gray’s relationship with Lee Holloway from curt boss and fragile employee to (literal) sadist and (literal, but empowered) masochist.

And then they fall in love.

I don’t know how this holds up in terms of authenticity, but the film does what I require from film: it tells a story well, with believeable (albeit improbable) characters and a strong narrative drive, with superb acting on all parts, even the more minor characters. Jeremy Davies, who plays Peter, Lee’s fiancee, provides the same delightfully quirky semi-autistic performance he gave in Solaris, Steve Soderbergh’s remake of the 1972 movie of the same name. Maggie and James are both solid, too.

Highly recommended (though probably not for younger audiences).

I finally watched The Passion of the Christ. No moral outrage, oddly enough: I see what the fuss was about, and am glad to have seen the film for that reason, but on calm reflection found nothing morally objectionable about the film. I do, on the other hand, have some slight artistic outrage at the limited aesthetic values of the film.

What were Mel’s motivations? He claims to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit – of course I think that’s less than likely. It seemed more likely that Mel was making a personal effort to stir up Christianity as a whole; which I don’t find laudable, but certainly don’t think should be beyond his rights (although I don’t doubt that Mel believes that the Holy Spirit directed the film…).

The film, though, isn’t one with a good story: which is tragic, given that most of the stories about Jesus, whether you’re a Christian or not, are fascinating. The story of the big JC’s final hours is diminished by emphasizing the brutal torture rather than making an attempt at cohesive, coherent narrative flow. The torture/flashback sequences get, for want of a better word, somewhat tortured after about 30 minutes, and I found it remarkably difficult to empathize with Jesus’ reticence; which was just irritating.

I think most of the cries of “anti-semite” were overstated. It is true that Pilate’s role in Jesus’ torture and crucifixion is played down; but, in fact, the performance of Pilate was superb, and it was an interesting perspective, if one without massive historical evidence. But the Jews were hardly made out to be vicious psychopaths – only Caiaphas, really, and his motivation would be clear to anyone with any inkling of the story. Mob psychology is clearly the order of the day.

In short, furore aside, you’d be better off watching the 1973 Jesus Christ Superstar. It has a better grasp of the themes of Jesus’ life, the tragedy of Jesus’ death and a coherent flow from one to the other, not to mention some very funky tunes. The Passion seems more like a manic snuff film than anything else; but I guess, if that’s your thing, then go for it.

Finished watching it now. Very good. Very touching, very beautiful, very well animated, a good story well told. And the frog is brilliant, if incidental. Particularly good also are the very cute rat/baby and little vulture/bird

Go, watch it now.