two things, one less marvellous than the other, i think, although i'll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide which is which.
when i posted yesterday, i forgot to adjust the timestamp for the post, and it thus appears that i posted on sunday. i did not. i posted at lunch on monday, 20th march.
second, i went to go see aeon flux last night. dave posted about it on cafedave this morning/last night, indicating his distaste for the film. i agree in general, but have more specific reasons for what i liked and didn't like about the movie.
charlize theron did a pretty good job as aeon; it's a pretty physical role, and i noted she had a physiotherapist for the movie in the credits. alas, she didn't have the same hairdo (and that hairdo is a totally signature thing for aeon, especially given the cartoon episode where trevor goodchild clones her). kudos for an excellent sithandra, although i agreed with dave that the effect of having her feet replaced with hands may have used up their SPFX budget earlier than anticipated. marton csokas isn't really well-known enough to bring a presence to a role, and trevor goodchild wasn't written well enough, i thought, to bring the best of his character out.
we see WAY to much of trevor goodchild's intentions in this film, and the same with aeon. part of the attraction for me with the cartoon was that you never really know what aeon in particular wants. trevor wants control - we're just never really sure why. aeon takes NO side (listen to the cartoon opening credits!) and here she does. a bit sad, really.
peter chung admits that extending the 5-minute cartoons to a half-hour show was always difficult. i think the translation to the big screen has failed because they've tried to explain too much, rather than let the audience interact on their own terms. a shame really. more interaction on the audience's part would give a good reason for repeat viewings...