The Family Stone attempts to be a ensemble piece that is both melancholy and romantic and comedic all in one film. It pretty much fails on all levels. It aims for melancholy in the fact that a family member is dying. Of all the possible ways to make a holiday movie depressing, this to me seems the most generic and cliche.
Unfortunately the romantic comedy aspect isn't any better. From a premise of comically mismatched people getting together and the importance of finding "true" love, the film reaches its dramatic climax with such an absurd premise that I abandoned any interest in the film. Of course all the actors do wonders with the roles they have been given, but the roles they have been given are fairly one dimensional. The problems of the people are mostly petty and much dramatic conflict is drawn out of the uptight Meredith (Sarah Jessica Parker) and the absurdly bohemian family Stone.
Only one moment in the entire film actually intrigued me. In a series of montages, we view one of the daughters, Susannah (quite pregnant, and already having one child)talking on the phone with her husband who has apparently relayed the information that he won't be coming to Christmas until late. She accepts this and continues watching a late night movie Meet Me In St. Louis (1944). As the montage of different characters goes on, we see everyone in different states of depression, but only Susannah seemed interesting.
I wanted to know why she looked so sad. Why was her husband delayed? Was their marriage in trouble? The family Stone which is clearly obsessed with finding the right person for the right child surely would have weighed and measured Susannah's husband before the married. How could they make such a miscalculation? Of course in the end, the husband shows up and everything is actually fine. A cheap cop out for what could have been a powerful subplot.
In the end it was this scene that made me dislike the movie even more. So much could have been mined here for effect. Myth of Fingerprints (1997) is a great example of a holiday movie that is darkly tragic. But god forbid a Christmas movie not be cheerful. Wouldn't want to bring anyone down. The death of the sick character is only strongly alluded to. I had lost interest in the family fairly quickly and no amount of sweetness or slapstick could keep me entertained once that happened.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
It was beauty killed the beast
So ended the original King Kong (1933) a film that according to Peter Jackson inspired him to become a film maker. After the wild success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson decided to remake the film that inspired him. And in the end, his love for the original can not save his own version.
King Kong works in the broadest strokes. Unfortunately it already worked in the broadest strokes. The action sequences of the original were no less striking and amazing than the ones in Jackson's film, even if they were cruder and not digitally created. The major departure for Jackson, is to make the relationship of Kong and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) more reciprocal. A nice attempt which I found fell short of impressing. Her use of acrobatics to impress his alpha male expressionism was cheesy and had me groaning.
In fact there was enough hints at Kong's savagery to make me not care what happened to him. Yes he is mesmerized by Ann, but what about the countless previous "sacrifices" who were torn from limb to limb. Not to mention all the New York women he mistakes for Ann and subsequently throws away when he recognizes his error. He is brutal, savage and in no way do I care if Ann feels anything for him. Ann and Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) do have a slightly more realistic attraction to each other than in the original, but even it felt artificial.
Most of the acting in the film felt wooden and uninspired. From the opening moments when they were establishing Naomi Watts' character, I just didn't buy into any of it. I had my reservations from the trailer about Jack Black in this movie and I feel those reservations were warranted as I could not stand his character. Admittedly his character is supposed to be sleazy, but it was Jack Black that I couldn't stand, not the character.
Equally I don't feel the concept works in 2005. When the original was made, there was still an exoticism and mystery to the world that could be exploited for the audience. I can recognize this of the film, but the remake although still set in thirties, can not capture that same spirit. At times destruction, particularly of New York City, even in an escapist film such as this, reminded me too much of recent events. When these things are combined with an uninteresting titular character and equally uninteresting protagonists, one gets bored quickly and at three hours plus that is the death blow for a film of such a length.
King Kong works in the broadest strokes. Unfortunately it already worked in the broadest strokes. The action sequences of the original were no less striking and amazing than the ones in Jackson's film, even if they were cruder and not digitally created. The major departure for Jackson, is to make the relationship of Kong and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) more reciprocal. A nice attempt which I found fell short of impressing. Her use of acrobatics to impress his alpha male expressionism was cheesy and had me groaning.
In fact there was enough hints at Kong's savagery to make me not care what happened to him. Yes he is mesmerized by Ann, but what about the countless previous "sacrifices" who were torn from limb to limb. Not to mention all the New York women he mistakes for Ann and subsequently throws away when he recognizes his error. He is brutal, savage and in no way do I care if Ann feels anything for him. Ann and Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) do have a slightly more realistic attraction to each other than in the original, but even it felt artificial.
Most of the acting in the film felt wooden and uninspired. From the opening moments when they were establishing Naomi Watts' character, I just didn't buy into any of it. I had my reservations from the trailer about Jack Black in this movie and I feel those reservations were warranted as I could not stand his character. Admittedly his character is supposed to be sleazy, but it was Jack Black that I couldn't stand, not the character.
Equally I don't feel the concept works in 2005. When the original was made, there was still an exoticism and mystery to the world that could be exploited for the audience. I can recognize this of the film, but the remake although still set in thirties, can not capture that same spirit. At times destruction, particularly of New York City, even in an escapist film such as this, reminded me too much of recent events. When these things are combined with an uninteresting titular character and equally uninteresting protagonists, one gets bored quickly and at three hours plus that is the death blow for a film of such a length.
Hazy Shade of Winter
A number of people were shocked to learn I had never read The Chronicles of Narnia when I was a child. I can't recall what I was reading, but it was probably Stephen King. At this point, knowing all about the alleged allegory (try saying that five times fast) I can't bother with the books. Luckily I have Hollywood for such things. They'll make a movie out of anything as long as they think they can sell the tickets for it. So I am now able to experience The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe on the big screen and no doubt countless sequels are on the way in the future.
Unfortunately, the movie just isn't very interesting. I've heard it debated whether C.S. Lewis intended for his books to be allegorical for Christianity or meant something else, but it seems clear that the director of the film fell firmly in the allegory category. Its blatant and unavoidable, which makes it quite dull. The White Witch (Tilda Swinton) was not particularly menacing and I found Swinton's performance in Constantine (2005) more intriguing than her performance in this movie. There are epic battles, but after seeing such things in the Lord of the Rings movies they fall short.
The creatures of the film were manufactured well. Liam Neeson's Aslan was real enough, but neither performance nor imagery rose above and beyond. Nor did I feel the threat all that menacing. I have read that Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, who were friends, had a bit of a rivalry about their respective works. Tolkien seems to have had the better books and thanks to Peter Jackson, he also has the better movies.
Unfortunately, the movie just isn't very interesting. I've heard it debated whether C.S. Lewis intended for his books to be allegorical for Christianity or meant something else, but it seems clear that the director of the film fell firmly in the allegory category. Its blatant and unavoidable, which makes it quite dull. The White Witch (Tilda Swinton) was not particularly menacing and I found Swinton's performance in Constantine (2005) more intriguing than her performance in this movie. There are epic battles, but after seeing such things in the Lord of the Rings movies they fall short.
The creatures of the film were manufactured well. Liam Neeson's Aslan was real enough, but neither performance nor imagery rose above and beyond. Nor did I feel the threat all that menacing. I have read that Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, who were friends, had a bit of a rivalry about their respective works. Tolkien seems to have had the better books and thanks to Peter Jackson, he also has the better movies.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
The Incrediblly Scary World of Oil
Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.
-Ghandi
The new film Syriana is a frustrating film. It seems deliberately so. It is frustrating in that if even half the things suggested in the film are true (and I wouldn't doubt that they aren't), then the US is neck deep in so much sludge that not even prudent and pragmatic policy can pull us out. Written by Stephen Gaghan the scribe of Traffic (2000) and also with him in the director's chair. It follows a very similar formula to Traffic as we follow multiple characters on all sides of an issue.
In fact the film is a little too fractured. I don't think that the film becomes confusing as it switches back and forth between the plot lines but it takes us away from each character at times and in the end one gets no satisfactory character arc. This is made all the more frustrating by little bits of side story including a man's alcoholic father and the son of a CIA operative. I found myself more interested in what those scenes alluded to than some parts of the story. Those elements aside the point of a film like this is a message. And with Gaghan it seems to be a controversial one.
In Traffic, he tackled the US drug policy and all its aspects from the top to the bottom. In Syriana, the oil business gets the same treatment. In so far as it is just a retread of Traffic replacing drugs with oil, it isn't very satisfying. On one side is that it is hardly even handed, because how can you make your point if you actually show the positive arguments of your opposition.
All we are allowed to see are the greedy businessmen, the power hungry political leaders and the terrorists created by policy. A rant by Tim Blake Nelson's character Daniel Dalton sums up Gaghan's feelings about what the government is doing. The character quotes Milton Friedman, not suprising since Friedman also advocated legalizing drugs, which Gaghan seems to favor as well.
Syriana was well performed although at times stylistically frustrating. Its message is certainly confronational and thought provoking and for that reason is worth seeing. It isn't perfectly constructed and in terms of story I can't say it was very good, but it stayed on its message which seems to have been the only point it really wants to make
-Ghandi
The new film Syriana is a frustrating film. It seems deliberately so. It is frustrating in that if even half the things suggested in the film are true (and I wouldn't doubt that they aren't), then the US is neck deep in so much sludge that not even prudent and pragmatic policy can pull us out. Written by Stephen Gaghan the scribe of Traffic (2000) and also with him in the director's chair. It follows a very similar formula to Traffic as we follow multiple characters on all sides of an issue.
In fact the film is a little too fractured. I don't think that the film becomes confusing as it switches back and forth between the plot lines but it takes us away from each character at times and in the end one gets no satisfactory character arc. This is made all the more frustrating by little bits of side story including a man's alcoholic father and the son of a CIA operative. I found myself more interested in what those scenes alluded to than some parts of the story. Those elements aside the point of a film like this is a message. And with Gaghan it seems to be a controversial one.
In Traffic, he tackled the US drug policy and all its aspects from the top to the bottom. In Syriana, the oil business gets the same treatment. In so far as it is just a retread of Traffic replacing drugs with oil, it isn't very satisfying. On one side is that it is hardly even handed, because how can you make your point if you actually show the positive arguments of your opposition.
All we are allowed to see are the greedy businessmen, the power hungry political leaders and the terrorists created by policy. A rant by Tim Blake Nelson's character Daniel Dalton sums up Gaghan's feelings about what the government is doing. The character quotes Milton Friedman, not suprising since Friedman also advocated legalizing drugs, which Gaghan seems to favor as well.
Syriana was well performed although at times stylistically frustrating. Its message is certainly confronational and thought provoking and for that reason is worth seeing. It isn't perfectly constructed and in terms of story I can't say it was very good, but it stayed on its message which seems to have been the only point it really wants to make
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Acid Re-Flux
In theory, watching the preview of Aeon Flux should be enough to keep you far, far away from the auditorium where it is playing, but living in a city with delusions that it is grander than it actually is one quickly discovers that sometimes there are no other options. This past weekend had only one major release and most of the limited release films haven't made their way here yet if ever. So, I went to this movie assuming it would be not so good. True to Hollywood form, the filmmakers were actually able to fail to meet my meager expectations.
From the opening frames one is treated to both an irritating expositional voice over and images of a rather bland, boring city. Regardless of whether the city of the future is a utopia or a distopia, clever film makers are able to design something worth looking at. Here it just looks like any city but with some funky fashions thrown in to let you know it's the future. In case you were spacing out during the expositional voice over, which I confess I may have done.
We meet our titular hero and see her do badass things and complete here mission and afterwards she learns her sister was killed because of it. Or was she? Because in the end I found myself a bit confused. Regardless, as any good hero she seethes and plots revenge. What follows for the movie is fairly standard action stuff with romantic subplots and revelations about the "bad" guy and the real bad guy. It was delightful to see Johnny Lee Miller who gnashes his teeth and plots as all really generic bad guys do.
Other actors of higher quality suffer here. Pete Postlethwaite so brilliant as Kobayashi in The Usual Suspects (1995) and as Guiseppe Conlon in In the Name of the Father (1993) is here completely wasted. Even Charlize Theron fresh off her Oscar win for Monster (2003) is retched in this film.
This film in the end falls on a convention of cloning. What's a sci-fi film without some good natured cloning? It seems to want to delve the murky waters of genetic memory, but doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Don't worry though, messy philosophic questions won't interupt our expected character arcs. Will the former friend who is now ordered to kill Aeon go through with it? Will the "bad" guy and the hero become romantically involved?
If you don't know the answer to these questions, I still recommend you stay far, far away from Aeon Flux. In the end the film felt much like an acid reflux incident. Painful and reminding you why you don't ingest crude like that on a regular basis.
From the opening frames one is treated to both an irritating expositional voice over and images of a rather bland, boring city. Regardless of whether the city of the future is a utopia or a distopia, clever film makers are able to design something worth looking at. Here it just looks like any city but with some funky fashions thrown in to let you know it's the future. In case you were spacing out during the expositional voice over, which I confess I may have done.
We meet our titular hero and see her do badass things and complete here mission and afterwards she learns her sister was killed because of it. Or was she? Because in the end I found myself a bit confused. Regardless, as any good hero she seethes and plots revenge. What follows for the movie is fairly standard action stuff with romantic subplots and revelations about the "bad" guy and the real bad guy. It was delightful to see Johnny Lee Miller who gnashes his teeth and plots as all really generic bad guys do.
Other actors of higher quality suffer here. Pete Postlethwaite so brilliant as Kobayashi in The Usual Suspects (1995) and as Guiseppe Conlon in In the Name of the Father (1993) is here completely wasted. Even Charlize Theron fresh off her Oscar win for Monster (2003) is retched in this film.
This film in the end falls on a convention of cloning. What's a sci-fi film without some good natured cloning? It seems to want to delve the murky waters of genetic memory, but doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Don't worry though, messy philosophic questions won't interupt our expected character arcs. Will the former friend who is now ordered to kill Aeon go through with it? Will the "bad" guy and the hero become romantically involved?
If you don't know the answer to these questions, I still recommend you stay far, far away from Aeon Flux. In the end the film felt much like an acid reflux incident. Painful and reminding you why you don't ingest crude like that on a regular basis.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
There's a reason they call them Classics
I recently saw the newest version of Pride and Prejudice. Based on Jane Austen's novel and according to IMDB at least the 10th adaption of some form to be made. I have never read the novel or any Jane Austen in fact (I know forshame on me) and in truth went with very doubtful belief that I would enjoy the film. But it was something to do to fill one evening of my life. It was a well chosen film. I enjoyed it more than anything else I saw in the last month.
It was even more enjoyable by contrast to Shopgirl (2005) which I had seen the night before with such disappointment. Pride and Prejudice had my favorite character type of all as the lead role: The witty intelligent beautiful obstinate woman. Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightley) plays this role well. And of course I fell completely in love with her. I was rooting for her from almost her first words and she has a fantastic verbal contest with Mr. Darcy.
That she will, of course, fall in love with Darcy despite his stubbornness is foreseeable and that there will be some sort of misunderstanding and/or obstacle to their romance is a given. But the manor in which the actors approach this plot is done with aplomb. Darcy (Matthew MacFayden) is of course a fantastic match for Elizabeth (setting myself aside for obvious reasons) and the advancement to the inevitable conclusion is delightful.
The film is at times comic and serious. The are moments of joy and anger. There is a father's love for his daughter and putting that love above convention. In fact the whole movie is filled with all the classic (or cliched) themes you might be searching for and all done very well. I smiled for most of the movie and I've put the book on my list of things to read. That a movie inspired me to read the book might be shameful but I don't care.
It was even more enjoyable by contrast to Shopgirl (2005) which I had seen the night before with such disappointment. Pride and Prejudice had my favorite character type of all as the lead role: The witty intelligent beautiful obstinate woman. Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightley) plays this role well. And of course I fell completely in love with her. I was rooting for her from almost her first words and she has a fantastic verbal contest with Mr. Darcy.
That she will, of course, fall in love with Darcy despite his stubbornness is foreseeable and that there will be some sort of misunderstanding and/or obstacle to their romance is a given. But the manor in which the actors approach this plot is done with aplomb. Darcy (Matthew MacFayden) is of course a fantastic match for Elizabeth (setting myself aside for obvious reasons) and the advancement to the inevitable conclusion is delightful.
The film is at times comic and serious. The are moments of joy and anger. There is a father's love for his daughter and putting that love above convention. In fact the whole movie is filled with all the classic (or cliched) themes you might be searching for and all done very well. I smiled for most of the movie and I've put the book on my list of things to read. That a movie inspired me to read the book might be shameful but I don't care.
Shopgirl
Shopgirl is an adapting of Steve Martin's novella of the same title. I have not read it and can not say to what degree the movie remained faithful. Nor in truth do I really care if it was faithful. A movie should be judged on its own merits, not the book from which it was adapted. And based on judgment of the movie, I found Shopgirl to be disappointing.
The movie centers around the life of Mirabelle (Claire Danes) who is sort of lost in the hubbub of LA life, working at a Saks department store and just getting by. Suddenly two men come into her life. One an impoverished, artistic loser named Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) and the other is a rich, sophisticated older gentleman named Ray Porter (Steve Martin). Mirabelle is quickly swept off her feet by Ray's sophistication and Jeremy takes off on a quest that eventually makes him a better man.
Mirabelle who suffers from depression and certainly has dreams of success in her art wants to believe that Ray will love her. This inspite of the fact that he tells her that he is not looking for a long term relationship. There is an odd scene after Ray states this feeling, in which he with his shrink attempts to convince, seemingly, himself that he made this fact clear to Mirabelle, while Mirabelle sits with friends deluding herself into the idea that the relationship might have a future.
It is from this delusion that tragedy will strike and I found myself unable to sympathize with Mirabelle. Not because I found her rationale unconvincing (no doubt there are women and men who rationalize what they have heard until it is what they wanted to hear) but because it was her choice to rationalize it and therefore her fault when it goes wrong. Eventually the relationship does turn sour, but Jeremy re emerges now a man worthy of Mirabelle and Mirabelle more able to recognize that he is worthy and so we have resolution seemingly.
Except that there is one final scene with Ray, in which I felt that the implication was Mirabelle had settled. Which is in and of itself maddening. Like when you see someone you think highly of make the worst decisions when it comes to relationships, the fact that Mirabelle still loves Ray Porter, when he is clearly an unhealthy match is distressing.
In addition to being dissatisfied with the story, I also found certain elements annoying. The most obvious being Steve Martin's voice overs which I found grating and irritating. But the scene that angered me most was one in which Mirabelle is back home to visit her parents. Mirabelle catches sight of her mother in one of those candid moments that seem only to occur in movies. Where the light hits a person just right and the espied person oblivious to observation shows a sadness or dissatisfaction with life. This scene allows our character to realize they don't want to wind up like one's mother or father. These scenes rarely if ever actually have a dialogue to determine whether the sadness is real or perceived. Is it impossible that one might have caught someone in a moment of weariness?
This "realization" propels Mirabelle forward and all I could think was, did she actually talk to her mom and see if she was really unhappy? Because other than that one scene, I couldn't determine if she was, the mother seemed content. Regardless of my dissatisfaction with the film, it was certainly well shot and acted. As a dissatisfying film it was still better than a lot of movies I have seen this year.
The movie centers around the life of Mirabelle (Claire Danes) who is sort of lost in the hubbub of LA life, working at a Saks department store and just getting by. Suddenly two men come into her life. One an impoverished, artistic loser named Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) and the other is a rich, sophisticated older gentleman named Ray Porter (Steve Martin). Mirabelle is quickly swept off her feet by Ray's sophistication and Jeremy takes off on a quest that eventually makes him a better man.
Mirabelle who suffers from depression and certainly has dreams of success in her art wants to believe that Ray will love her. This inspite of the fact that he tells her that he is not looking for a long term relationship. There is an odd scene after Ray states this feeling, in which he with his shrink attempts to convince, seemingly, himself that he made this fact clear to Mirabelle, while Mirabelle sits with friends deluding herself into the idea that the relationship might have a future.
It is from this delusion that tragedy will strike and I found myself unable to sympathize with Mirabelle. Not because I found her rationale unconvincing (no doubt there are women and men who rationalize what they have heard until it is what they wanted to hear) but because it was her choice to rationalize it and therefore her fault when it goes wrong. Eventually the relationship does turn sour, but Jeremy re emerges now a man worthy of Mirabelle and Mirabelle more able to recognize that he is worthy and so we have resolution seemingly.
Except that there is one final scene with Ray, in which I felt that the implication was Mirabelle had settled. Which is in and of itself maddening. Like when you see someone you think highly of make the worst decisions when it comes to relationships, the fact that Mirabelle still loves Ray Porter, when he is clearly an unhealthy match is distressing.
In addition to being dissatisfied with the story, I also found certain elements annoying. The most obvious being Steve Martin's voice overs which I found grating and irritating. But the scene that angered me most was one in which Mirabelle is back home to visit her parents. Mirabelle catches sight of her mother in one of those candid moments that seem only to occur in movies. Where the light hits a person just right and the espied person oblivious to observation shows a sadness or dissatisfaction with life. This scene allows our character to realize they don't want to wind up like one's mother or father. These scenes rarely if ever actually have a dialogue to determine whether the sadness is real or perceived. Is it impossible that one might have caught someone in a moment of weariness?
This "realization" propels Mirabelle forward and all I could think was, did she actually talk to her mom and see if she was really unhappy? Because other than that one scene, I couldn't determine if she was, the mother seemed content. Regardless of my dissatisfaction with the film, it was certainly well shot and acted. As a dissatisfying film it was still better than a lot of movies I have seen this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)