The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada (2005) tells an interesting story of friendship. The film starts with the discovery of a dead body that happens to be the titular character. From there events unfold while occasionally filling in back story with flashbacks. In these flashbacks, that could have been more filled out, we learn how Pete Perkins (Tommy Lee Jones) met Melquiades (Julio Cedillo) and how they became friends. Meanwhile in the present time it becomes obvious that the sheriff isn't going to do anything although he knows who Melquiades' killer is.
Pete decides to take matters into his own hands and kidnaps the murderer Mike Norton(Barry Pepper). A unique journey begins at this point, as Pete feels required to keep a promise he made to bury Melquiades in Mexico in a place called Jiminez. This route rather than a traditional revenge motif was an interesting direction to go and also brought about the most bizarre of all motifs in a film like this, a sort of buddy travel movie for Pete and Mike.
The movie gets most interesting in the journey to Mexico and when it becomes clear that Pete only wants Mike to recognize what he has done and isn't going to kill him. There is also a bizarre moment when we find out that Melquiades wasn't completely honest with Pete. I'm not sure what its point was other than to provide a moment of doubt and hopelessness for Pete but it is effective and resolved in a very neat way.
There are problems with the movie but most are dismissable. There is a pointless subplot with a bored diner waitress and the wife of Norton, who inexplicably meets up with Melquiades at one point to no importance. The jumping back and forth from present to past at times was confusing because unless Melquiades himself was in the scene it was hard to determine if it was past or present. Still, the movie was very well done work for a big screen directorial debut for Tommy Lee Jones.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Capote
Capote (2005) was very well made. We get to follow Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) throughout his writing of his book "In Cold Blood." It is an interesting look into the mind of a very profound writer. It also leaves you with the distinct feeling that he was a complete and utter asshole. The most interesting scenes are the ones that Capote shares with one of the killers, who has mesmerized Capote with his gentleness.
The film doesn't paint a completely perfect image of the killer as innocent, which was not probably the goal of the writer and director but it makes the reveal of the events of the murder narrated by the killer a bit less shocking. A reveal like that would have been one hell of a show. I can still remember when Edward Norton uttered the lines "there never was an Aaron, counselor" at the end of Primal Fear (1996).
In the end, I wasn't entirely sure I knew who Capote was. There isn't a satisfying arc in the film. He's kind of an asshole, but he kind of cares. Maybe that is what the real Capote was like, but it was underwhelming. A final text scrawl tells us he died of alcoholism complicatiosn some twenty years after the book was published. I probably would have been more interested in how the events of this movie affected his later life.
The film doesn't paint a completely perfect image of the killer as innocent, which was not probably the goal of the writer and director but it makes the reveal of the events of the murder narrated by the killer a bit less shocking. A reveal like that would have been one hell of a show. I can still remember when Edward Norton uttered the lines "there never was an Aaron, counselor" at the end of Primal Fear (1996).
In the end, I wasn't entirely sure I knew who Capote was. There isn't a satisfying arc in the film. He's kind of an asshole, but he kind of cares. Maybe that is what the real Capote was like, but it was underwhelming. A final text scrawl tells us he died of alcoholism complicatiosn some twenty years after the book was published. I probably would have been more interested in how the events of this movie affected his later life.
Dumb Movie
I saw on a tv ad that Date Movie (2006) was by two of the six writers of Scary Movie (2000). I guess that should have warned me, but Scary Movie had its moments. If truth in advertising were required, the ad probably would have said "by the two writers of Scary Movie who are neither funny and actually wrote all the unfunny stuff in that film." This movie is not even funny for a second. I don't even want to waste my time thinking about it anymore. Worst movie of the year so far, and yes, I'm including Bloodrayne in my accounting.
Petronius Eat Your Heart Out
What can one say about Fellini's Satyricon (1969). It's crazy. Which I think is what one would expect from something that is "freely" adapted from Petronius' Satyrica (an ancient Latin work composed during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero). Having recently read the work, I think made it easier to follow, but one doesn't have to read it to enjoy it. The film is delightfully colorful and imaginative. One might get lost in the plot, but it isn't really about the plot so much as about a colorful, rich complex depiction of the world of the Satyricon. This movie has everything from a gladiatorial duel with a man dressed as a Minotaur to the eating of a man as his last will and testament. All the while being inundated with images that are fascinating to see.
Mean Creek
Mean Creek (2004) seems like its going to be a movie about bullies and it is to an extent. When a group of kids decide to play a prank on a bully they invite him to go on a boat ride down a creek. At first you begin to feel sorrow for this kid. You get a sense that his bullying is not intentionally hurtful, but that he is playing a role. You start to sympathize with him. But while he may not be as bad as he seems, there is still an underlying nastiness about him that makes him deplorable. You shift back and forth between wanting to like him and hating him.
When the climatic scene comes, I'm not sure anyone would say he deserved it, but one doesn't find oneself terribly sympathetic. The story pretty much degenerates from there. There are some semi interesting questions of whether retaliating against a bully is worth the effort, and some exploration of why a bully is, but nothing that satisfactorily answers the question. In the end I'm not sure what one is supposed to get out of Mean Creek. There are some decent performances by the young actors who make up the cast but the film misses its mark on the tragedy aspect.
When the climatic scene comes, I'm not sure anyone would say he deserved it, but one doesn't find oneself terribly sympathetic. The story pretty much degenerates from there. There are some semi interesting questions of whether retaliating against a bully is worth the effort, and some exploration of why a bully is, but nothing that satisfactorily answers the question. In the end I'm not sure what one is supposed to get out of Mean Creek. There are some decent performances by the young actors who make up the cast but the film misses its mark on the tragedy aspect.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Just Like Heaven
One of my many guilty pleasures is romantic comedies. They are frivolous and always end on the upbeat of love. No matter what happens you always know what will happen in the end. Two quirky lovable characters are going to be together. Its the kind of romance one imagines will last forever, although when you let reality creep in you realize probably won't last more than a couple of months. In particular since inevitably in every romantic comedy there is some misunderstanding that tears the two young lovers apart. And lets face it, if some insignificant misunderstanding can do it, I'm guessing more serious revelations will doom it.
But that is just my pessimism sneaking in. At movies end, you always have a happy end. So every once in a while, its relaxing to see a romantic comedy that will no doubt be mindless but enjoyable. That does not mean, however, that every romantic comedy is good. Some are downright horrific. Judging from the trailer, I figured that Just Like Heaven (2005) would be in this latter category. In truth the plot does take the "meet cute" to a whole new level of sappy stupidty.
It does have a saving grace in its two stars. Both Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo are extremely likeable actors. Whatever there camera presence is it translates to every character they play. So as always the two are fun to watch here. They maneuver their way through a fairly routine, if a bit otherworldly, plot. I'm pretty sure that "Ghost: The Romantic Comedy" didn't need to be made, but it seems that it was and Witherspoon and Ruffalo make it work as best they can.
But that is just my pessimism sneaking in. At movies end, you always have a happy end. So every once in a while, its relaxing to see a romantic comedy that will no doubt be mindless but enjoyable. That does not mean, however, that every romantic comedy is good. Some are downright horrific. Judging from the trailer, I figured that Just Like Heaven (2005) would be in this latter category. In truth the plot does take the "meet cute" to a whole new level of sappy stupidty.
It does have a saving grace in its two stars. Both Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo are extremely likeable actors. Whatever there camera presence is it translates to every character they play. So as always the two are fun to watch here. They maneuver their way through a fairly routine, if a bit otherworldly, plot. I'm pretty sure that "Ghost: The Romantic Comedy" didn't need to be made, but it seems that it was and Witherspoon and Ruffalo make it work as best they can.
In Her Shoes
I don't have sisters nor am I a woman. So from the start I'm at a disadvantage in understanding the premise of In Her Shoes (2005). Of course the title is a bit of a misnomer for me, since I'm not quite sure either character Rose (Toni Collette) or Maggie (Cameron Diaz) actually experienced what the other's life was like, which is what the title would suggest to me. Hence the old adage "walk a mile in his/her shoes". But maybe that isn't what this title is supposed to suggest.
It seems that Maggie's early actions are pretty reprehensible. I felt sure that she needed a world class smack upside the head. In fact the only sympathy one might have for Maggie is when you discover she has dyslexia, but even then she doesn't gain much ground. And the sleeping with the boyfriend of your sibling thing, seems like a big no, on so many levels, and she actually has the gall to wonder why her sister kicks her out?
All that being said, there were some particularly poignant reconciliations near the end of the film that were quite touching. Maggie getting her life on track is quite rewarding, particularly in the scenes in the hospital where she becomes a candystripper. Toni Collette also puts in an admirable performance as someone who is also trying to figure out her life, but it doesn't seem to get quite enough treatment. For the most part it was a pleasant movie but was clearly not aimed at me as its intended audience and therefore I probably didn't pick up on some of the more moving aspects of the film
It seems that Maggie's early actions are pretty reprehensible. I felt sure that she needed a world class smack upside the head. In fact the only sympathy one might have for Maggie is when you discover she has dyslexia, but even then she doesn't gain much ground. And the sleeping with the boyfriend of your sibling thing, seems like a big no, on so many levels, and she actually has the gall to wonder why her sister kicks her out?
All that being said, there were some particularly poignant reconciliations near the end of the film that were quite touching. Maggie getting her life on track is quite rewarding, particularly in the scenes in the hospital where she becomes a candystripper. Toni Collette also puts in an admirable performance as someone who is also trying to figure out her life, but it doesn't seem to get quite enough treatment. For the most part it was a pleasant movie but was clearly not aimed at me as its intended audience and therefore I probably didn't pick up on some of the more moving aspects of the film
Junebug
Junebug (2005) is pleasant. Amy Adams carries every scene she is in and lights up the screen. She is amazing to watch as the perky, pregnant Ashley. Otherwise it is a pretty conventional uninspiring story. A sophisticated outsider upsetting the balance of a conservative Southern family is not terribly interesting. There is a focus on Embeth Davidtz' Madeleine as the out of place character, who has to decide between work and family.
Only she doesn't. What boggled my mind, was what lesson did she learn? At an important moment for the film, she is off securing a deal with an artist. A point of contention for her and her husband George (Alessandro Nivola). In point of fact, George is much more interesting. He left North Carolina and fell in love and married the city woman Madeleine in a short time. He is the one, who places emphasis on his family, but at the same time seems to have strain with them. I wanted to know why the brothers are on the outs. Why he connects so well with Ashley. Why at the end of the film does he express relief that they are returning to Chicago.
Although the movie was pleasant enough, it bothered me that the central theme seems to have gotten lost and the ending was so unrewarding. There is definitely an interesting story to tell in this family unit, but I'm not convinced it was told in this film.
Only she doesn't. What boggled my mind, was what lesson did she learn? At an important moment for the film, she is off securing a deal with an artist. A point of contention for her and her husband George (Alessandro Nivola). In point of fact, George is much more interesting. He left North Carolina and fell in love and married the city woman Madeleine in a short time. He is the one, who places emphasis on his family, but at the same time seems to have strain with them. I wanted to know why the brothers are on the outs. Why he connects so well with Ashley. Why at the end of the film does he express relief that they are returning to Chicago.
Although the movie was pleasant enough, it bothered me that the central theme seems to have gotten lost and the ending was so unrewarding. There is definitely an interesting story to tell in this family unit, but I'm not convinced it was told in this film.
Chumbscrubber
What can one say about The Chumbscrubber (2005)? It is a bizarre film dependent on a premise of the suburbs are not perfect. There is a whole lot of not right in the head going on there. Every character in the film, is in some way or the other just not quite right or normal. Some characters are down right crazy or psychotic. Throw into the mix a suicide, a plot to obtain drugs and mayor who's had a strange epiphany and you have this film. Well, kind of.
It was interesting to view the different levels of sanity in each of the characters, but again it hangs on a premise that you have to actually believe to be truly interesting. The suburbs are in fact not perfect, I'm not sure anyone in their right mind actually believes that they are. This movie seems like it was made by a guy who lives in the city proper and looks at a suburb, almost disdainfully as a crazy place.
This film was about as infuriating to me as American Beauty (1999), another film that wanted to expose the suburbs. There seems to be such a disconnect between what reality really is when represented by these auteurs of film. Despite decent performers by all the actors, the young ones like Jamie Bell and Camilla Belle especially, this movie was unsatisfying and at times a little to oblique for me.
It was interesting to view the different levels of sanity in each of the characters, but again it hangs on a premise that you have to actually believe to be truly interesting. The suburbs are in fact not perfect, I'm not sure anyone in their right mind actually believes that they are. This movie seems like it was made by a guy who lives in the city proper and looks at a suburb, almost disdainfully as a crazy place.
This film was about as infuriating to me as American Beauty (1999), another film that wanted to expose the suburbs. There seems to be such a disconnect between what reality really is when represented by these auteurs of film. Despite decent performers by all the actors, the young ones like Jamie Bell and Camilla Belle especially, this movie was unsatisfying and at times a little to oblique for me.
Transamerica
Transamerica (2005) was not the movie I expected it to be. I'm not sure what I expected it to be, but certainly not the movie I saw. The title actually becomes a clever play on words, because not only is it about a person who lives a transgender lifestyle, but its also a road movie. Thus Trans (Latin for across) America. I presume this play was intentional.
It is a very interesting story of two people getting to know each other as they travel from New York to Los Angeles. In this respect its very conventional, but done very well. The catch is in that the travelers are parent and child, although the child doesn't know it and certainly doesn't know the parent's other secret. There is an inevitable discovery of the latter fact that brings some tension mid film, but is quickly overcome. The other secret comes to play in the climax of the film.
Both Felicity Huffman and Kevin Zegers play amazingly rich roles as the parent and child respectively. Huffman as the transgender pre-op who resists having a son but comes to accept it and Zegers as a confused youth, who is grasping at what he considers his last hope, an absent father. By film's end, both characters have changed quite a bit and one is deeply interested in their lives. The final scene, the first stage of a reconciliation between parent and child, is quite moving.
It is a very interesting story of two people getting to know each other as they travel from New York to Los Angeles. In this respect its very conventional, but done very well. The catch is in that the travelers are parent and child, although the child doesn't know it and certainly doesn't know the parent's other secret. There is an inevitable discovery of the latter fact that brings some tension mid film, but is quickly overcome. The other secret comes to play in the climax of the film.
Both Felicity Huffman and Kevin Zegers play amazingly rich roles as the parent and child respectively. Huffman as the transgender pre-op who resists having a son but comes to accept it and Zegers as a confused youth, who is grasping at what he considers his last hope, an absent father. By film's end, both characters have changed quite a bit and one is deeply interested in their lives. The final scene, the first stage of a reconciliation between parent and child, is quite moving.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Mrs. Henderson Presents
Mrs. Henderson Presents (2005) was mostly charming with strong (as usual) performances by both Bob Hoskins and Judi Dench. It was frivolous although it seems to attempt a message, particularly when World War 2 breaks out mid film, but I felt it was a weak one. I didn't laugh aloud very much, but enjoyed the banter between Dench and Hoskins. In the end it was a bit forgettable.
Where Was Tony Todd?
When it comes to the movies in the Final Destination franchise one expects three things:
1) A spectacular opening death sequence
2) Interesting ways of killing off the main characters
3) Tony Todd
What boggles my mind, is how the film makers could leave out the third and for me the most crucial aspect of these three necessities. Tony Todd does provide a voice for the film, but is absent as a character. Let's face it, it isn't as if Mr. Todd had better offers on the table. This leads me to think he realized what a total piece of crap this film would be and didn't even want his face associated with the third installment. A bold statement since he already stared in the second film, without any qualms.
Beyond my disgruntlement that Tony Todd was absent from the film, this movie was....awful. I actually found myself wondering why they even bothered with plot or dialogue. This movie might have actually improved if it had been a film with no dialogue. Either the writer wasn't trying or he is really just a horrible, horrible writer. He also directed and produced the movie, which makes me think its the latter option.
The deaths are completely obvious and ludicrous such that you actually get bored waiting for them to happen. I found myself laughing again and again at how absurdly elaborate death seemed to be getting. Death apparently has a lot of time on his hands, maybe he's afraid of a lawsuit. On top of all this, the characters know what happened to the characters from the first film and yet still think all they have to do is survive one death attempt and all will be well. What part about the fact that all the survivors of the plane flight are now dead, did they not understand? To the second film's credit, the characters at least tried to find away to cheat death. This movie is just a badly made rehash of the first film.
The quality of this movie would have gone exponentially up if Tony Todd had made even the briefest of appearances. I should finally note that to the best of my knowledge, this film also has the first nudity of the three. It was a gratuitous scene as nudity often is in horror films.
1) A spectacular opening death sequence
2) Interesting ways of killing off the main characters
3) Tony Todd
What boggles my mind, is how the film makers could leave out the third and for me the most crucial aspect of these three necessities. Tony Todd does provide a voice for the film, but is absent as a character. Let's face it, it isn't as if Mr. Todd had better offers on the table. This leads me to think he realized what a total piece of crap this film would be and didn't even want his face associated with the third installment. A bold statement since he already stared in the second film, without any qualms.
Beyond my disgruntlement that Tony Todd was absent from the film, this movie was....awful. I actually found myself wondering why they even bothered with plot or dialogue. This movie might have actually improved if it had been a film with no dialogue. Either the writer wasn't trying or he is really just a horrible, horrible writer. He also directed and produced the movie, which makes me think its the latter option.
The deaths are completely obvious and ludicrous such that you actually get bored waiting for them to happen. I found myself laughing again and again at how absurdly elaborate death seemed to be getting. Death apparently has a lot of time on his hands, maybe he's afraid of a lawsuit. On top of all this, the characters know what happened to the characters from the first film and yet still think all they have to do is survive one death attempt and all will be well. What part about the fact that all the survivors of the plane flight are now dead, did they not understand? To the second film's credit, the characters at least tried to find away to cheat death. This movie is just a badly made rehash of the first film.
The quality of this movie would have gone exponentially up if Tony Todd had made even the briefest of appearances. I should finally note that to the best of my knowledge, this film also has the first nudity of the three. It was a gratuitous scene as nudity often is in horror films.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Freaked
It can be hard to objectively review a film you have seen many times and liked. Freaked (1993) is to put it lightly a very bizarre movie. Fortunately, I like bizarre. Its plot exists as a setup of some bizarre jokes and bizarre freaks. It has fun performances from Randy Quaid to William Sadler. In fact it may have the best performance of Keanu Reeves ever. I can't recommend it for anyone, but if you enjoy bizarre humor, ala Cabin Boy (1994) or other such films, there may be something here for you.
Thumbsucker
Thumbsucker (2005) is a bizarre film about addiction. Actually, it is an fairly uplifting film about addiction. It might seem like an odd thing to say, but it was very well done and I smiled when the credits rolled. Lou Taylor Pucci as Justin Cobb was very good in a role that actually required quite a bit from him.
When the movie starts, Justin is a introverted young man, who sucks his thumb when put into tense situations he can't deal with. It is an addiction in many ways and no matter how much he wants to change, he can not. After a hypnotism makes him unable to suck his thumb, he is quickly introduced to Ritalin. Quickly Justin becomes some one else entirely. He is an attentive and gifted debater. He can convince almost anyone of anything. Justin finally thinks he is happy. He has changed who he is.
Eventually someone bests him in an argument. He gives up Ritalin because he doesn't like who he has changed into. The next addiction is marijuana and then sex. Each ending with its own realization that nothing he does to change himself will be satisfying. By the final scene when he wakes sucking his thumb again, one feels he has found himself. Sure he may be addicted to something, but everyone is, and his can't actually harm anyone.
The other really remarkable performance of note is Vincent D'Onofrio as Justin's father. A hulking former football player who doesn't understand his son. He can't talk to his son; he can't talk to his wife. He has a surprising revelation near the end of the movie that made me rethink his whole character. It was very well done. Vince Vaughn and Tilda Swinton acted well but they weren't as interesting.
I only had one lasting issue with the film. Justin lies to get into college and just goes. Although I rooted for Justin throughout his troubles, I found that point hard to get past. I expected him not to go to the college he cheated to get into, but he does. There was no karmic justice. In the end I had to let it go, because, when I thought about it, people lie every day and never deal with the consequences.
When the movie starts, Justin is a introverted young man, who sucks his thumb when put into tense situations he can't deal with. It is an addiction in many ways and no matter how much he wants to change, he can not. After a hypnotism makes him unable to suck his thumb, he is quickly introduced to Ritalin. Quickly Justin becomes some one else entirely. He is an attentive and gifted debater. He can convince almost anyone of anything. Justin finally thinks he is happy. He has changed who he is.
Eventually someone bests him in an argument. He gives up Ritalin because he doesn't like who he has changed into. The next addiction is marijuana and then sex. Each ending with its own realization that nothing he does to change himself will be satisfying. By the final scene when he wakes sucking his thumb again, one feels he has found himself. Sure he may be addicted to something, but everyone is, and his can't actually harm anyone.
The other really remarkable performance of note is Vincent D'Onofrio as Justin's father. A hulking former football player who doesn't understand his son. He can't talk to his son; he can't talk to his wife. He has a surprising revelation near the end of the movie that made me rethink his whole character. It was very well done. Vince Vaughn and Tilda Swinton acted well but they weren't as interesting.
I only had one lasting issue with the film. Justin lies to get into college and just goes. Although I rooted for Justin throughout his troubles, I found that point hard to get past. I expected him not to go to the college he cheated to get into, but he does. There was no karmic justice. In the end I had to let it go, because, when I thought about it, people lie every day and never deal with the consequences.
Monday, February 06, 2006
The Matador
Pierce Brosnan has played the suave, cool ladies man many times. He was of course James Bond, until they moved on to Daniel Craig. As that sort of stereotypical role, he was charming and handsome and did everything a character like that is supposed to do. The Matador (2005) allows Brosnan to play a sleazy, aging lothario assassin. He's out of shape, wears a greasy mustache and leers at women. Oh and did I mention fantastic. Its a role I've never seen him play and he plays it with gusto.
The film revolves around Julian (Brosnan) an aging hitman, who is coming to terms with his age. He meets Danny (Greg Kinnear) in Mexico and befriends him, revealing he is a hitman. The two part company and six months later, Julian shows up on Danny's doorstep. Julian has botched a few jobs in the intervening time and is now wanted dead. He enlists Danny's help since he freezes up when he is on a job alone.
In the end the movie isn't really interesting as a film about an aging assassin. It is interesting in the relationship between Danny and Julian and eventually Danny's wife, Bean (Hope Davis). They accept him so easily and with such comic effect. The movie was a bit weak on story and had a bit of a sappy ending, but it made me smile. It's the kind of movie one needs once in a while between all the serious Award-fare and the grossout comedies.
The film revolves around Julian (Brosnan) an aging hitman, who is coming to terms with his age. He meets Danny (Greg Kinnear) in Mexico and befriends him, revealing he is a hitman. The two part company and six months later, Julian shows up on Danny's doorstep. Julian has botched a few jobs in the intervening time and is now wanted dead. He enlists Danny's help since he freezes up when he is on a job alone.
In the end the movie isn't really interesting as a film about an aging assassin. It is interesting in the relationship between Danny and Julian and eventually Danny's wife, Bean (Hope Davis). They accept him so easily and with such comic effect. The movie was a bit weak on story and had a bit of a sappy ending, but it made me smile. It's the kind of movie one needs once in a while between all the serious Award-fare and the grossout comedies.
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Martin Scorsese is an American treasure. He finds away to tell interesting stories everytime he goes to the directors chair. Often he aims to high and misses in the overall picture, but there is always something about his movies that is worth seeing. No matter what I thought of one of his movies in the long run, I recommend it, just so people can see a master in his craft. I've never seen one movie he directed that failed utterly as a film. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974) is a prime example of this notion.
The movie meticulously follows the life of Alice as she attempts to carry on her life after the death of her husband. I do mean meticulously. While Alice and her son travel cross country, we see scenes of the two driving each other nuts in the car. I appreciated that at first, it seemed real, but it carried on and I tired of it quickly. They arrive at their first destination and Alice attempts to get a career as a singer going. She succeeds of sorts and also develops a romance with a young man played by Harvey Keitel. It quickly goes south, when Alice discovers his violent temper and complicated history. She runs from the singing to Tucson.
In Tucson, Alice must get a job at as a waitress. Soon another romance sparks up, now with Kris Kristoffersen. The romance is approached quite well with realistic conversations. The conflict that arises seemed a bit unnecessary, but worked out pretty well. Compared to other Scorsese work, this one falls a bit short and I found myself bored at times. The detail to which Scorsese applied himself in making this film is amazing and Ellen Burstyn was phenomenal. As I said, every Scorsese film is worth seeing once.
The movie meticulously follows the life of Alice as she attempts to carry on her life after the death of her husband. I do mean meticulously. While Alice and her son travel cross country, we see scenes of the two driving each other nuts in the car. I appreciated that at first, it seemed real, but it carried on and I tired of it quickly. They arrive at their first destination and Alice attempts to get a career as a singer going. She succeeds of sorts and also develops a romance with a young man played by Harvey Keitel. It quickly goes south, when Alice discovers his violent temper and complicated history. She runs from the singing to Tucson.
In Tucson, Alice must get a job at as a waitress. Soon another romance sparks up, now with Kris Kristoffersen. The romance is approached quite well with realistic conversations. The conflict that arises seemed a bit unnecessary, but worked out pretty well. Compared to other Scorsese work, this one falls a bit short and I found myself bored at times. The detail to which Scorsese applied himself in making this film is amazing and Ellen Burstyn was phenomenal. As I said, every Scorsese film is worth seeing once.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Looking for Comedy, Finding Me Laughing
Looking For Comedy In The Muslim World (1995) is funny. I wasn't expecting to laugh outloud as much as I did. From the absurd plot to all the insider jokes at Hollywood, it was genuinely funny. The film's premise is that a government taskforce has been set up to learn what makes Muslims laugh. The committee hires Albert Brooks, playing himself to go to India and Pakistan to find out what makes them laugh. The early scenes establish both that Albert Brooks isn't a very well known comic and that he was sort of a last resort for the committee.
Once in India, Brooks manages nicely to avoid mocking the culture but instead always mocking himself. At one point, he gives a comedy show, which get very few laughs but had me rolling in the isle. There is a weak subplot dealing with rising tensions between Pakistan and India all due to Brooks actions, which was tacky and ludicrous. There was also a surprising performance by Sheetal Sheth playing the assitant hired to help Brooks in writing his report. She does an amazing job playing the eager, young woman trying to understand American humor. It was nice to finally see a comedy that never reduced itself to bathroom or grossout humor for a laugh. The jokes weren't always high bar but the humor was very intelligent.
Once in India, Brooks manages nicely to avoid mocking the culture but instead always mocking himself. At one point, he gives a comedy show, which get very few laughs but had me rolling in the isle. There is a weak subplot dealing with rising tensions between Pakistan and India all due to Brooks actions, which was tacky and ludicrous. There was also a surprising performance by Sheetal Sheth playing the assitant hired to help Brooks in writing his report. She does an amazing job playing the eager, young woman trying to understand American humor. It was nice to finally see a comedy that never reduced itself to bathroom or grossout humor for a laugh. The jokes weren't always high bar but the humor was very intelligent.
Ballad Of Jack And Rose
The Ballad Of Jack And Rose (2005) is a very peculiar movie. It follows the characters of Jack, a dying, disillusioned idealist and his daughter Rose, who live together in an old commune on an island. The island is being developed by a developer which is of course angering Jack. Jack on a whim invites his lover to move to the commune with him. She brings her two sons and of course a culture clash of sorts begins. Rose has only known the laid back life of the commune, the newcomers only the modern life with all the amenities.
The movie isn't about culture clash though, so much as it is about Jack and Rose, hence the title. Rose has really known and loved one person: Jack. The incestuous overtones are there and disturbing and even Jack recognizes it. Thus his attempt to avoid the problem he realizes he created by bringing in another person. This movie lives and breathes on the performances of Jack and Rose. And it gets fantastic performances from both.
Jack is played by Daniel Day-Lewis and as always gives a wonderfully powerful and enjoyable performance. He is easily the finest actor in American cinema today. Camilla Belle plays Rose and she too does a wonderful job. The utter tragedy of the film comes not in Jack's death which is inevitable, but in Jack's realization of his life. The sins of his life have not been absolved and he does some pretty deplorable things even in his last leg of life. Jack has a key breakdown scene with what he presumes to be the resident evil Marty Rance (Beau Bridges).
It isn't a perfect movie by any means, but it was moving and well written. The ending felt a bit tacked on, but many people are uneasy with tragic endings. It is watchable if for no other reason than Daniel Day-Lewis. Who in my opinion could probably read the ingredients on a bag of potato chips and make it sound moving.
The movie isn't about culture clash though, so much as it is about Jack and Rose, hence the title. Rose has really known and loved one person: Jack. The incestuous overtones are there and disturbing and even Jack recognizes it. Thus his attempt to avoid the problem he realizes he created by bringing in another person. This movie lives and breathes on the performances of Jack and Rose. And it gets fantastic performances from both.
Jack is played by Daniel Day-Lewis and as always gives a wonderfully powerful and enjoyable performance. He is easily the finest actor in American cinema today. Camilla Belle plays Rose and she too does a wonderful job. The utter tragedy of the film comes not in Jack's death which is inevitable, but in Jack's realization of his life. The sins of his life have not been absolved and he does some pretty deplorable things even in his last leg of life. Jack has a key breakdown scene with what he presumes to be the resident evil Marty Rance (Beau Bridges).
It isn't a perfect movie by any means, but it was moving and well written. The ending felt a bit tacked on, but many people are uneasy with tragic endings. It is watchable if for no other reason than Daniel Day-Lewis. Who in my opinion could probably read the ingredients on a bag of potato chips and make it sound moving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)