(If there is anyone who actually cares, I must admit there is a spoiler discussed in this review, be warned)
In a recent review by Roger Ebert, he talked about the "found" review. This was a user comment on Rotten Tomatoes that in his opinion was a beautiful summation of the film that said in better words than he the movie's merits and appeal. On Friday afternoon at 410 EST/ 310 CST I received an email from my father about the movie Rambo. The time line was such that the reality was he had seen the first showing on Friday afternoon. Now aside from the fact that my father has shamed me movie wise and the fact that he has the freedom to see any movie he wants at any time he so chooses (which causes me an endless amount of jealousy), he has also one upped me by presenting to me his review and he summed up what I would say in a long winded several paragraphs with a succinct few sentences.
"You have to see Rambo! Bad acting and plot but one hell of an action movie. Pure entertainment."
People I'm here today to tell you that this is the exactly right. And realistically I should leave it at that but I consider myself a writer and so of course I can't leave it at that but by the end of this review I think you will agree my dad nailed this one on the head. This is my fourth attempt to write a review of Rambo. My previous attempts included a grandly eloquent pseudo-intellectual analysis of the Rambo franchise and its significance to film. But each version was just not quite good enough and although I still desire to write that piece, it will have to wait for another day.
"Bad acting and plot": Rambo lives in seclusion in Southeast Asia. He runs a riverboat that ferries people and traps cobras to be used in local entertainment. One day a church group interested in bringing aid to suffering Burmese people comes asking to be ferried up river into Burma. Rambo doesn't want to do it but he is convinced by the only female among the group, Sarah. This is done with an atrociously acted scene with some of the most truly wretched dialog I've heard in some time.
Rambo: What you're trying to do is change what is.
Sarah: and what is?
And what is? Is that even English? Does that count as rhetorical flourish? Are my eyes bleeding? This conversation convinces Rambo to help but not because of the men but because of Sarah. Once the group is up river in Burma things inevitably go bad. And along comes the church pastor evoking as much as possible Col. Trautman (the sorely missed Richard Crenna). Apparently this pastor is willing to pay mercenaries to rescue like five people.
But never mind that stretch because it provides us with our second most painful and yet simplistically beautiful moment in the film. As Rambo takes the mercenaries up river, they converse and interact to their one dimensional character trait discontent. There is the young idealistic bad ass sniper. There is the tough, pessimistic former SAS who seems to want to start a fight with Rambo, there is a redneck and two token minorities. Each has dialog fittingly character appropriate.
"but one hell of an action movie. Pure entertainment.": The mercenaries march in to rescue the aid workers and then fight and run from the legion of Burmese soldiers. And these action sequences which although perhaps a bit too heavy on the gore are of course the bread and butter of a film like this. You either think action movies are just gun porn or you can occasionally let go and just let yourself be washed in the cathartic slaughter of evil by one bad ass soldier. You know which you are.
"You have to see Rambo!": Now this is one I whole heartedly agree with. Although perhaps not for the reason my dad intended. If you have seen First Blood then I think, nay I demand that you go see Rambo because its ending is just so perfectly fantastic. Let's take a brief look back to First Blood.
First Blood opened with John Rambo walking down a dirt road to a house. The opening track was called "Homecoming" but Rambo wasn't coming home, he was coming to meet an army buddy. This buddy has died and Rambo ends up continuing down the highway to the town around which the film takes place. Now I'm not going out on a limb here to note or mention the themes of First Blood include the reaction to Vietnam vets after they came home and army failures to reintegrate soldiers suffering from PTSD. The whole monologue at the end of the movie proves that.
We were left with a broken man unable to cope with what he has done and become. So its no surprise in Rambo to find him living in seclusion in the world he came to understand better than the world he left. Yet, Rambo's journey in Rambo is one of redemption. And when he stands on that hill overlooking the carnage at the end of the film knowing that he didn't something that was good, he and we know he is finally healed. It only took 26 years.
Sure its clumsy and yes it requires a lot of patience with the acting and the dialog but we get closure on Rambo. And I found it absurdly beautiful that the very last scene shows us Rambo on an American highway turning off onto a dirt road. The opening track of First Blood is playing but this time the dirt road is not that of a friend. This is the road that leads to his father's house. Rambo has finally truly come home. You might think it ludicrous but I wanted to cheer and I did clap my hands. Welcome home, Rambo. Be at peace.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Once
Know me even a little and you quickly find I'm averse to three things in movies (although there are always exceptions). Movie musicals and animation typically bore me and most voice over irritates me. But Once is pitched as a different kind of musical. Almost all its music is in a 100% believable and realistic context. And the songs are enjoyable because they are songs not esoteric expressions in song.
Once is the story of a street performer (Glen Hansard) and a woman (Marketa Irglova) he meets on day on the street. She's from the Czech Republic and the two form a bond. This is forged over love of music and matters of the heart. The two hang out and play and write together and eventually record together. All this is backdropped by their complicated lives. she is a young mother with an estranged husband back in the Czech Republic. He is fresh off a difficult breakup.
For the most part this combination of story and music has a decent amount of charm. Its quite fun to explore a non-sexual relationship between two people (although the overtones of attraction are there through most of the film). And the music is very good. Its delivery as part of the story is perhaps the most effective element. Only one scene seemed to scream of more traditional musical which I noted but let go.
The problem ultimately for me is that there isn't much for story or drama. The narrative meanders along, flirts with some possibilities before wrapping things up with a bit too much neatness. Motivation again is called into question. These nagging elements keep me from giving a full fledge approval of this film. But the music entertains and a few scenes such as a dinner party where guests sing were so familiar to me that I couldn't help but smile.
Once is the story of a street performer (Glen Hansard) and a woman (Marketa Irglova) he meets on day on the street. She's from the Czech Republic and the two form a bond. This is forged over love of music and matters of the heart. The two hang out and play and write together and eventually record together. All this is backdropped by their complicated lives. she is a young mother with an estranged husband back in the Czech Republic. He is fresh off a difficult breakup.
For the most part this combination of story and music has a decent amount of charm. Its quite fun to explore a non-sexual relationship between two people (although the overtones of attraction are there through most of the film). And the music is very good. Its delivery as part of the story is perhaps the most effective element. Only one scene seemed to scream of more traditional musical which I noted but let go.
The problem ultimately for me is that there isn't much for story or drama. The narrative meanders along, flirts with some possibilities before wrapping things up with a bit too much neatness. Motivation again is called into question. These nagging elements keep me from giving a full fledge approval of this film. But the music entertains and a few scenes such as a dinner party where guests sing were so familiar to me that I couldn't help but smile.
Little Children
There seems to be a constant fascination with filmmakers about the dark underbelly of middle class suburbia. Its a common theme running back to at least American Beauty (perhaps earlier but that is when I really started to notice it) and is still prevalent in Little Children. Now to be fair the latter is based on a book but regardless these attempts to look below the surface seem as superficial as the premise that suburbia is ideally perfect in the first place.
Tales of unhappy suburbanites having affairs and generally being less than perfect isn't all that interesting whether its being sensationalized as liberating on shows like "Desperate Housewives" or portrayed as gritty last resort inevitability as in this film. And watching this film made me think maybe those involved realized it and tried to spice it up with several gimmicks. Again to be fair at least one presumably is the result of the novel.
I admit I have not read Tom Perrotta's book and can not judge its quality. Nor should that be a factor, since even an adapted film should stand on its own. The story focuses on two parents providing care for their children. Sarah (Kate Winslett) is an educated academic feeling trapped in her homemaker role. Her husband is distant and she feels suffocated. Brad (Patrick Wilson) is equally unhappy in his role dealing with his successful wife and although he is his son's primary caregiver, the son still seems to prefer mom to him. Brad is nostalgic for his glory days of college football.
Of concern to both and the community at large is a recently paroled sex offender Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley) who has moved into the neighborhood. The film also follows him as he tries to cope with his predatory urges and is harassed by an ex-cop set on driving him from the neighborhood. The film is built on the premise that we even care about these stories. I think it fails. The story is a mess of unanswered questions and half forgotten plot lines. Sarah's husband is prominent for a while then disappears. Attempts to make Ronnie sympathetic are at best to mixed results. The motivations seem wholly lacking, contradictory or added after the fact.
There is no convincing reason why Sarah and Brad should cheat. She's nostalgic on account of past's promise. She was an academic and a feminist reduced to conversing about the "Prom King" with fellow parents. Brad is nostalgic for past glory. Whereas Sarah seems to ask "what might I have accomplished" Brad seems to say "look at what I was".
Nor does it feel convincing that Brad would cheat on his wife. She's supportive and trusting and merely desirous of his success. All this drive a wedge between the story and believability. Not that the actors don't give it there all. Winslett has frazzled housewife down. Her frustration at being delayed her one reprieve, a daily walk, is spot on. Haley does wonders with his character despite clear problems with his purpose.
But I'm saving most of my ire for a completely pointless omniscient narrator. Intruding on the film at uneven points, it acts as an almost anthropologist to suburbia. Explaining backgrounds and motivations unnecessary to the story. Most gratuitous was the narrator's play by play of a football game late in the film. It so reminded me of "Inside the NFL" recaps that I wondered if this was the sole reason the narrator was being used.
And why does a movie about the darker side of suburbia end so neatly? Grandly absurd revelations of character enlighten almost everyone. Redemption, wish fulfillment and reality checks fly so fast that I was irritated. In the final assessment this one seems like a massive failing of story made worse by gimmicky direction.
Tales of unhappy suburbanites having affairs and generally being less than perfect isn't all that interesting whether its being sensationalized as liberating on shows like "Desperate Housewives" or portrayed as gritty last resort inevitability as in this film. And watching this film made me think maybe those involved realized it and tried to spice it up with several gimmicks. Again to be fair at least one presumably is the result of the novel.
I admit I have not read Tom Perrotta's book and can not judge its quality. Nor should that be a factor, since even an adapted film should stand on its own. The story focuses on two parents providing care for their children. Sarah (Kate Winslett) is an educated academic feeling trapped in her homemaker role. Her husband is distant and she feels suffocated. Brad (Patrick Wilson) is equally unhappy in his role dealing with his successful wife and although he is his son's primary caregiver, the son still seems to prefer mom to him. Brad is nostalgic for his glory days of college football.
Of concern to both and the community at large is a recently paroled sex offender Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley) who has moved into the neighborhood. The film also follows him as he tries to cope with his predatory urges and is harassed by an ex-cop set on driving him from the neighborhood. The film is built on the premise that we even care about these stories. I think it fails. The story is a mess of unanswered questions and half forgotten plot lines. Sarah's husband is prominent for a while then disappears. Attempts to make Ronnie sympathetic are at best to mixed results. The motivations seem wholly lacking, contradictory or added after the fact.
There is no convincing reason why Sarah and Brad should cheat. She's nostalgic on account of past's promise. She was an academic and a feminist reduced to conversing about the "Prom King" with fellow parents. Brad is nostalgic for past glory. Whereas Sarah seems to ask "what might I have accomplished" Brad seems to say "look at what I was".
Nor does it feel convincing that Brad would cheat on his wife. She's supportive and trusting and merely desirous of his success. All this drive a wedge between the story and believability. Not that the actors don't give it there all. Winslett has frazzled housewife down. Her frustration at being delayed her one reprieve, a daily walk, is spot on. Haley does wonders with his character despite clear problems with his purpose.
But I'm saving most of my ire for a completely pointless omniscient narrator. Intruding on the film at uneven points, it acts as an almost anthropologist to suburbia. Explaining backgrounds and motivations unnecessary to the story. Most gratuitous was the narrator's play by play of a football game late in the film. It so reminded me of "Inside the NFL" recaps that I wondered if this was the sole reason the narrator was being used.
And why does a movie about the darker side of suburbia end so neatly? Grandly absurd revelations of character enlighten almost everyone. Redemption, wish fulfillment and reality checks fly so fast that I was irritated. In the final assessment this one seems like a massive failing of story made worse by gimmicky direction.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Michael Clayton
The titular protagonist of Michael Clayton is a self described janitor. Played by George Clooney, Clayton is calm and cool and not afraid to tell a desperate client exactly what his options are. As a fixer for a major law film he is probably one of their single most important assets although he isn't always treated as such.
But all this does not mean life is grand for Michael. He has a history of gambling addiction, a failed business and a loan shark demanding payment. He is balancing a problematic relationship with his brother and a strained relationship with his son with a job that always seems to come first.
Michael is called in to deal with the most recent headache for the film. One of its lead attorneys who is heading the defense of a lucrative class action law suit has been arrested for stripping naked during a deposition. Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has gone off his meds and is ranting about how evil his client is.
Michael is pressed by the need to do his job and the desire to help Arthur, his friend. Complicating this all is a law firm that can't afford to have the deal go bad and Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), a legal counsel for the accused company who has fears for her own job security. The ins and outs of the story's well constucted plot, I won't reveal because of course watching it develop is fascinating. Suffice to say it deals with the dirty underbelly of American business practice familiar to anyone who has read headlines about Enron and the like.
Clooney is methodical in every scene. Its never a stretch to believe a guy so on top of his game when it comes to his job could be living a life so completely in shambles. In an interesting parallel, Swinton too represents a character desperately trying to balance her own problems with the cool confidence her job demands. And finally Wilkinson who perhaps crazy from mental illness or from being fed up plays Arthur so firmly on the line between the two that its difficult to judge.
It is these detailed characters and the actors behind them that carries this story effectively. The direction is tight without any scenes that feel unnecessary. It does quite a good job of showing what a legal thriller can be without crossing the line into the absurd or conspiracy theorist mode of storytelling.
But all this does not mean life is grand for Michael. He has a history of gambling addiction, a failed business and a loan shark demanding payment. He is balancing a problematic relationship with his brother and a strained relationship with his son with a job that always seems to come first.
Michael is called in to deal with the most recent headache for the film. One of its lead attorneys who is heading the defense of a lucrative class action law suit has been arrested for stripping naked during a deposition. Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has gone off his meds and is ranting about how evil his client is.
Michael is pressed by the need to do his job and the desire to help Arthur, his friend. Complicating this all is a law firm that can't afford to have the deal go bad and Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), a legal counsel for the accused company who has fears for her own job security. The ins and outs of the story's well constucted plot, I won't reveal because of course watching it develop is fascinating. Suffice to say it deals with the dirty underbelly of American business practice familiar to anyone who has read headlines about Enron and the like.
Clooney is methodical in every scene. Its never a stretch to believe a guy so on top of his game when it comes to his job could be living a life so completely in shambles. In an interesting parallel, Swinton too represents a character desperately trying to balance her own problems with the cool confidence her job demands. And finally Wilkinson who perhaps crazy from mental illness or from being fed up plays Arthur so firmly on the line between the two that its difficult to judge.
It is these detailed characters and the actors behind them that carries this story effectively. The direction is tight without any scenes that feel unnecessary. It does quite a good job of showing what a legal thriller can be without crossing the line into the absurd or conspiracy theorist mode of storytelling.
Away From Her
Away From Her tells the story of Fiona (Julie Christie) who is succumbing to Alzheimer's. Grant (Gordon Pinsent) feeling unable to cope with caring for her and with her agreement sends her to a care center. The film focuses on Fiona's degeneration from the disease and Grant's attempts to cope with a wife he remembers but who doesn't remember him.
The story is based on a short story and written for the screen and directed by the actress Sarah Polley. The story is effective with well developed characters. It seems more true to a very real disease than say the overly sentimental The Notebook. Likewise Grant's and Fiona's love is not untainted or pure. It is this attention to story detail that makes for an engrossing film.
Grant has to view Fiona's transfer of affection through the lens of past indiscretion. He must balance her happiness and his pain. And painfully he must try to connect with the woman he loves without knowing at any given time if she will know who he is. Marian (Olympia Dukakis) as the wife of Fiona's new affection also plays an important role which requires Grant to make a significant decision in the name of his love of Fiona.
Polley's direction is fairly plain. It relies heavily on its story and its performers. Not that these are bad things to rely on. It stumbles a bit in its pacing at times. There is also some unnecessary re-sequencing that doesn't demonstrably improve the story by their placement. It almost feels done as a cheap trick to avoid a charge of too simple direction. A tighter edit and a more traditionally shot narrative would have been fine.
But the praise of this film truly belongs to its lead actors, Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent. Christie flows so effortlessly from fully aware to forgetting that its easy to believe her character is suffering from this condition. Crucial still to Christie's performance is Pinsent who must react to all that he sees. From the way in which he tries to counter Fiona's degeneration to the pain of watching her shower attention on another, Pinsent creates a memorable character.
The combination of elements make a good if not quite great film. The story is effective and is benefited by its cast. Most of the simple direction works although relying a bit too much on its story. Still its faults are more than compensated by its strengths and Polley's potential as writer and director is something to look forward to in the future.
The story is based on a short story and written for the screen and directed by the actress Sarah Polley. The story is effective with well developed characters. It seems more true to a very real disease than say the overly sentimental The Notebook. Likewise Grant's and Fiona's love is not untainted or pure. It is this attention to story detail that makes for an engrossing film.
Grant has to view Fiona's transfer of affection through the lens of past indiscretion. He must balance her happiness and his pain. And painfully he must try to connect with the woman he loves without knowing at any given time if she will know who he is. Marian (Olympia Dukakis) as the wife of Fiona's new affection also plays an important role which requires Grant to make a significant decision in the name of his love of Fiona.
Polley's direction is fairly plain. It relies heavily on its story and its performers. Not that these are bad things to rely on. It stumbles a bit in its pacing at times. There is also some unnecessary re-sequencing that doesn't demonstrably improve the story by their placement. It almost feels done as a cheap trick to avoid a charge of too simple direction. A tighter edit and a more traditionally shot narrative would have been fine.
But the praise of this film truly belongs to its lead actors, Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent. Christie flows so effortlessly from fully aware to forgetting that its easy to believe her character is suffering from this condition. Crucial still to Christie's performance is Pinsent who must react to all that he sees. From the way in which he tries to counter Fiona's degeneration to the pain of watching her shower attention on another, Pinsent creates a memorable character.
The combination of elements make a good if not quite great film. The story is effective and is benefited by its cast. Most of the simple direction works although relying a bit too much on its story. Still its faults are more than compensated by its strengths and Polley's potential as writer and director is something to look forward to in the future.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Orphanage
The Orphanage is a Spanish language horror film directed by Juan Antonio Bayona and has been produced by Guillermo del Toro. Laura () spent formative years at an orphanage which she returns to as an adult with her husband and child in hopes of opening a home for special needs children. Her son Simon has a very active imagination which includes several imaginary friends. It is thus largely taken for granted when Simon begins talking of a new friend. When Simon goes missing, Laura becomes more and more desperate to discover what has happened to her son.
It is on this plot line that one becomes immersed in a fairly effective and at times incredibly creepy ghost story. One whose main concern is atmosphere not the degree to which it can turn your stomach with blood and torture. In this respect it is a far more effective horror film than wastes of film like those of the Saw franchise or worse still the Hostel movies. It is quite evidence early on that this is not a mystery of whether there are or are not ghosts but rather will Laura be able to reclaim her son.
A great deal is built on scenes being shot so that your expectation of the fright builds and an intrusive but effective soundtrack manipulates you into a moment of tension that half the time winds up being anticlimactic. But nevertheless the next scene is pulling you in the same way. One particularly effective aspect is the "game" which the ghost plays with people, wherein it takes something of value and hides clues to its location in various places. Each clue bringing Laura tantalizingly closer to finding Simon.
It isn't a great ghost story though. Much of the early character building is a little weak character motivation for all but Laura seems a little strained. And worst of its sins is that when it isn't in full on tension building manipulation mode its trudging along far to slowly. There are a few cheap scare tactics which always seem obligatory in horror films but I find tedious. These are the comes out of nowhere jolts you stuff not the generally creepy scares you to the bone type.
As for the ultimate reveal of the ghosts and of Simon's disappearance I must say I was pleasantly impressed but was disappointed by what although ostensibly is a dark ending is actually tamed by a certain sentimental streak. But in this one the whole is greater than its parts and it works in a satisfying way overall. And as I've suggested above, its ten times better than these hacker/slasher horror films that are so popular right now.
It is on this plot line that one becomes immersed in a fairly effective and at times incredibly creepy ghost story. One whose main concern is atmosphere not the degree to which it can turn your stomach with blood and torture. In this respect it is a far more effective horror film than wastes of film like those of the Saw franchise or worse still the Hostel movies. It is quite evidence early on that this is not a mystery of whether there are or are not ghosts but rather will Laura be able to reclaim her son.
A great deal is built on scenes being shot so that your expectation of the fright builds and an intrusive but effective soundtrack manipulates you into a moment of tension that half the time winds up being anticlimactic. But nevertheless the next scene is pulling you in the same way. One particularly effective aspect is the "game" which the ghost plays with people, wherein it takes something of value and hides clues to its location in various places. Each clue bringing Laura tantalizingly closer to finding Simon.
It isn't a great ghost story though. Much of the early character building is a little weak character motivation for all but Laura seems a little strained. And worst of its sins is that when it isn't in full on tension building manipulation mode its trudging along far to slowly. There are a few cheap scare tactics which always seem obligatory in horror films but I find tedious. These are the comes out of nowhere jolts you stuff not the generally creepy scares you to the bone type.
As for the ultimate reveal of the ghosts and of Simon's disappearance I must say I was pleasantly impressed but was disappointed by what although ostensibly is a dark ending is actually tamed by a certain sentimental streak. But in this one the whole is greater than its parts and it works in a satisfying way overall. And as I've suggested above, its ten times better than these hacker/slasher horror films that are so popular right now.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
OSCARS!!
I've never failed to be disappointed every year while watching the Academy Awards. They are long, filled with mindless banter and often give awards to the wrong people in my opinion. But at the exact same time despite claims to the contrary I can't resist my excitement the day the nominees are announced or the day of the actual awards. And people, today is Oscar Nomination Day! (note: not actual holiday)
So what are the nominations you say? Can barely contain yourself from knowing who the venerable Academy selected for achievement in sound editing? Well you won't get that here because well frankly I couldn't tell good sound editing from great sound editing. But if you want to know who was nominated and don't want to bother going to another site, I'm happy to oblige and happy to comment on what I think as well. And of course the obligatory picking of the pony (so to speak) which I encourage you loyal reader to do as well. And we will see how well we do.
Supporting Actress:
Cate Blanchett - I’m Not There
Ruby Dee - American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan - Atonement
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
I didn't see Ms. Swinton's performance and frankly it doesn't matter because Amy Ryan blows the other nominees out of the water. Can't we agree the academy should just give her the Oscar now? But I'd like to give note to Saoirse Ronan as runner-up in my opinion. I'm rooting for Ms. Ryan
Supporting Actor:
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson’s War
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
I missed both Affleck's and Wilkinson's performances so I'm at a disadvantage on this one. Bardem and Hoffman were both phenomenal. But you know what, Holbrook had an emotional role that I responded to and helped catapult Into The Wild into one of my three favorite films of the year. I want him to win. I hope he wins. Go Hal Holbrook!
Directing:
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - Julian Schnabel
Juno - Jason Reitman
Michael Clayton - Tony Gilroy
No Country for Old Men Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
There Will Be Blood - Paul Thomas Anderson
Didn't see Michael Clayton in the interest of disclosure. Wasn't that impressed with the direction in Juno. PT Anderson's film sort of fell apart for me. And now I'm torn. No Country for Old Men is pretty close to flawless but Schnabel does some amazing things with style (I appreciated that on my second viewing of his film). Still flawless people. The Coens should win.
Actor:
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
This category could have had "Daniel Day-Lewis" - reading ingredients of a cereal box and I'd still think he deserved to win. But Mr. Jones was also memorable. Still Day-Lewis just overpowers the competition.
Actress:
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie - Away from Her
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney - The Savages
Ellen Page - Juno
Blanchett for Elizabeth? That makes no sense. Ellen Page? Don't get me wrong she was good but best performance good? And I missed La Vie en Rose and I have plans to see Away From Her later this week so maybe I should hold off on this one. Nah, that's not my style. Laura Linney was wonderful in The Savages. Laura Linney for the win.
We've arrived people, the big one, best picture:
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men. I need say no more.
So what are the nominations you say? Can barely contain yourself from knowing who the venerable Academy selected for achievement in sound editing? Well you won't get that here because well frankly I couldn't tell good sound editing from great sound editing. But if you want to know who was nominated and don't want to bother going to another site, I'm happy to oblige and happy to comment on what I think as well. And of course the obligatory picking of the pony (so to speak) which I encourage you loyal reader to do as well. And we will see how well we do.
Supporting Actress:
Cate Blanchett - I’m Not There
Ruby Dee - American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan - Atonement
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
I didn't see Ms. Swinton's performance and frankly it doesn't matter because Amy Ryan blows the other nominees out of the water. Can't we agree the academy should just give her the Oscar now? But I'd like to give note to Saoirse Ronan as runner-up in my opinion. I'm rooting for Ms. Ryan
Supporting Actor:
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson’s War
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
I missed both Affleck's and Wilkinson's performances so I'm at a disadvantage on this one. Bardem and Hoffman were both phenomenal. But you know what, Holbrook had an emotional role that I responded to and helped catapult Into The Wild into one of my three favorite films of the year. I want him to win. I hope he wins. Go Hal Holbrook!
Directing:
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - Julian Schnabel
Juno - Jason Reitman
Michael Clayton - Tony Gilroy
No Country for Old Men Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
There Will Be Blood - Paul Thomas Anderson
Didn't see Michael Clayton in the interest of disclosure. Wasn't that impressed with the direction in Juno. PT Anderson's film sort of fell apart for me. And now I'm torn. No Country for Old Men is pretty close to flawless but Schnabel does some amazing things with style (I appreciated that on my second viewing of his film). Still flawless people. The Coens should win.
Actor:
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
This category could have had "Daniel Day-Lewis" - reading ingredients of a cereal box and I'd still think he deserved to win. But Mr. Jones was also memorable. Still Day-Lewis just overpowers the competition.
Actress:
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie - Away from Her
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney - The Savages
Ellen Page - Juno
Blanchett for Elizabeth? That makes no sense. Ellen Page? Don't get me wrong she was good but best performance good? And I missed La Vie en Rose and I have plans to see Away From Her later this week so maybe I should hold off on this one. Nah, that's not my style. Laura Linney was wonderful in The Savages. Laura Linney for the win.
We've arrived people, the big one, best picture:
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men. I need say no more.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Cloverfield
On the eve of his move to Japan to start a new job, Rob is thrown a surprise party. At the request of his brother's girlfriend a video camera is present to record goodbyes. As it should happen this same night the party goers are witness to disaster. Something has begun to destroy downtown New York. We follow a group of survivors led by rob as they travel through the city in hopes of rescuing a trapped friend. All of this is faithfully recorded by the conscripted party camera man. There trials are documented by this camera which the film opens by claiming was recovered from an incident site formerly known as "Central Park".
This is about as much synopsis as one needs except to say one last thing. The entire movie is shot from the point of view of the camera wielding character. This means an entire film shot in pseudo-verite style. Those who get easily motion sick, beware, this is not the film for you. Even for those who aren't expect to have a headache by credit roll. Which is ultimately one of the problems of this film. Its built on a conceit (not even original since we previously witnessed the jerky camera in Blair Witch Project) which wears thin really quickly.
But beyond its very annoying style, the movie has more problems then that. Namely, the dumbest characters in an action film award goes to these geniuses. The cameraman Hud incessantly drones on with a diarrhea of the mouth. He narrates idiotically and keeps you up to date on the most inane of things and seems to reinforce a thousand times that this needs to be documented. Why? Why when your friends and loved ones are dying! would you feel the need to maintain the perspective of the non-interfering third party? At times he doesn't even put down the camera when he is selected to help drag wounded people from point A to point B.
Not that all my critical anger should be pointed at hapless Hud. The rational of the group willingly following idiotic Rob back into the thick of the monster attack all to save one person is lacking. And why is it that they are never halted by military or police except when its convenient for the purposes of moving the plot forward? There is a really embarrassing scene late in the film that offers up the key expositional plot points in the finale.
I choose to not waste another minute thinking or writing about this disaster of an attempt at reinvigorating the monster genre. I have to go take some aspirin for the headache that's arising just from thinking about this film.
This is about as much synopsis as one needs except to say one last thing. The entire movie is shot from the point of view of the camera wielding character. This means an entire film shot in pseudo-verite style. Those who get easily motion sick, beware, this is not the film for you. Even for those who aren't expect to have a headache by credit roll. Which is ultimately one of the problems of this film. Its built on a conceit (not even original since we previously witnessed the jerky camera in Blair Witch Project) which wears thin really quickly.
But beyond its very annoying style, the movie has more problems then that. Namely, the dumbest characters in an action film award goes to these geniuses. The cameraman Hud incessantly drones on with a diarrhea of the mouth. He narrates idiotically and keeps you up to date on the most inane of things and seems to reinforce a thousand times that this needs to be documented. Why? Why when your friends and loved ones are dying! would you feel the need to maintain the perspective of the non-interfering third party? At times he doesn't even put down the camera when he is selected to help drag wounded people from point A to point B.
Not that all my critical anger should be pointed at hapless Hud. The rational of the group willingly following idiotic Rob back into the thick of the monster attack all to save one person is lacking. And why is it that they are never halted by military or police except when its convenient for the purposes of moving the plot forward? There is a really embarrassing scene late in the film that offers up the key expositional plot points in the finale.
I choose to not waste another minute thinking or writing about this disaster of an attempt at reinvigorating the monster genre. I have to go take some aspirin for the headache that's arising just from thinking about this film.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The Savages
Leonard (Philip Bosco) is an irascible old man who lives with his girlfriend in Sun City, Arizona. He is also beginning to suffer from dementia and has a adversarial relationship with the caretaker whom his girlfriend's family hired to take care of her (notably not him). After the woman's death and the a prominent incident involving human feces, two siblings John (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Wendy (Laura Linney) must go to Arizona and figure out what to do with their aging father.
Wendy lives a fairly miserable life in New York City, aspiring to be a playwright she furtively uses work to type up grant applications. The manner in which she barely hides what she is and isn't doing from her manager is a genuinely funny and by all accounts from friends in the cubicle shackled soul devouring corporate machine just about 100% accurate for those artistically inclined. But personal life isn't much better for Wendy who lives in a drab apartment and clings to two things, her cat and her ficus tree. Wendy is also in an extra-marital affair. Wendy cries out for success as a playwright and it probably isn't going to far to say her only escape is probably writing.
John's life seems a bit more satisfying. He is a professor in Buffalo and is trying to complete a book on Bertolt Brecht. His long term girlfriend's visa has expired but he is too commitment phobic to ask her to marry him. I say seems because of course upon analysis it isn't that much better at all. John seems almost bored teaching in class and his house is a mass of piled up books and clutter.
Despite their lives and their geographic distance, the first time the two communicate in the movie, you fall into a warm familiarity. These two are brother and sister. Wendy more neurotic is freaking out while John more methodical is attempting to calm her down. They have a necessary if complicated relationship seemingly necessitated by parental apathy towards them as children. They bicker like real siblings, they interact with third parties like real siblings and they have affection for one another like real siblings.
And this fact lies at the heart of this film. One can't help but remain fascinated by an extraordinarily complex family relationship as John and Wendy deal not only with the trials of their own lives but also with the very real tragedy of a dying parent. How they deal with this notion of mortality, their mixed feelings towards their distant father and the difficulty of pushing on when it seems like everything is beyond hope are all treated with abundant tenderness.
The trio of Bosco, Hoffman and Linney all deserve praise for their roles. Hoffman is having a stellar year that also included amazing performances in Charlie Wilson's War and Before The Devil Knows You're Dead. And what is amazing about that feat is that each role is so utterly different. His CIA agent from Charlie Wilson's War is a foul-mouthed spy who doesn't buy into the politics of spying with a pessimistic view of the world. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead he plays another brother but this one more self-serving and manipulative towards his sibling.
And so it is refreshing in so many ways to see the level-headed almost lovable academic lump in this movie. More so because Linney shines so brightly because of and beside him. You develop such empathy for her character that although I personally found the tail end of the film a bit tacky, I nevertheless was exhilarated by her triumph. Bosco also adds to many of the scenes most notably one where he turns off his hearing aid to avoid the loud bickering of his two children.
By no means is this an easy film to watch at times. It has humor but often at the expense of the absurdity of dysfunction. It has melancholy moments as well. These all add to its incredibly strong narrative and well crafted characters.
Wendy lives a fairly miserable life in New York City, aspiring to be a playwright she furtively uses work to type up grant applications. The manner in which she barely hides what she is and isn't doing from her manager is a genuinely funny and by all accounts from friends in the cubicle shackled soul devouring corporate machine just about 100% accurate for those artistically inclined. But personal life isn't much better for Wendy who lives in a drab apartment and clings to two things, her cat and her ficus tree. Wendy is also in an extra-marital affair. Wendy cries out for success as a playwright and it probably isn't going to far to say her only escape is probably writing.
John's life seems a bit more satisfying. He is a professor in Buffalo and is trying to complete a book on Bertolt Brecht. His long term girlfriend's visa has expired but he is too commitment phobic to ask her to marry him. I say seems because of course upon analysis it isn't that much better at all. John seems almost bored teaching in class and his house is a mass of piled up books and clutter.
Despite their lives and their geographic distance, the first time the two communicate in the movie, you fall into a warm familiarity. These two are brother and sister. Wendy more neurotic is freaking out while John more methodical is attempting to calm her down. They have a necessary if complicated relationship seemingly necessitated by parental apathy towards them as children. They bicker like real siblings, they interact with third parties like real siblings and they have affection for one another like real siblings.
And this fact lies at the heart of this film. One can't help but remain fascinated by an extraordinarily complex family relationship as John and Wendy deal not only with the trials of their own lives but also with the very real tragedy of a dying parent. How they deal with this notion of mortality, their mixed feelings towards their distant father and the difficulty of pushing on when it seems like everything is beyond hope are all treated with abundant tenderness.
The trio of Bosco, Hoffman and Linney all deserve praise for their roles. Hoffman is having a stellar year that also included amazing performances in Charlie Wilson's War and Before The Devil Knows You're Dead. And what is amazing about that feat is that each role is so utterly different. His CIA agent from Charlie Wilson's War is a foul-mouthed spy who doesn't buy into the politics of spying with a pessimistic view of the world. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead he plays another brother but this one more self-serving and manipulative towards his sibling.
And so it is refreshing in so many ways to see the level-headed almost lovable academic lump in this movie. More so because Linney shines so brightly because of and beside him. You develop such empathy for her character that although I personally found the tail end of the film a bit tacky, I nevertheless was exhilarated by her triumph. Bosco also adds to many of the scenes most notably one where he turns off his hearing aid to avoid the loud bickering of his two children.
By no means is this an easy film to watch at times. It has humor but often at the expense of the absurdity of dysfunction. It has melancholy moments as well. These all add to its incredibly strong narrative and well crafted characters.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Whale Rider
Pai (Keisha Castle-Hughes) is born into tragedy. Her mother and twin brother die in childbirth. Her father rejecting his father's plans leaves New Zealand to be an artist. Pai is raised by her strict traditionalist grandfather and more reasonable grandmother. Although initially disappointed with Pai's birth, her grandfather does come to love her but in a way begrudgingly. When Koro's hopes for his son to take over as chief of his tribe are finally dashed, his disappointment regarding Pai resurfaces. Pai who loves her grandfather and feels she is destined in some way to be an aid to her tribe again and again attempts to show him she is capable of being a leader. Koro, is too much of a traditionalist to see what his granddaughter offers since she is just a girl. This all leads to a tragedy of nature. The solution to which provides the necessary moment of realization.
This story as it stands and reads is pretty basic. A disapproving father figure attempting to maintain his culture in the wake of modernity has to be enlightened that changes in custom do not have to be the end of culture but may help preserve it. Its partly an underdog story and certainly an inspirational one for young women. But the sign of a good film is one that can take a generic narrative and make it work on a new level or make you happy you saw it. And Whale Rider is able to do that. Both because it has a unique blend of a native culture and spiritualism and because its story is sold convincingly by its cast.
The first to note is the wonderful Keisha Castle-Hughes as Pai. She has an inspiring blend of youthful innocence and stolid determination. She's tough in certain ways but also watch her early and her slight unease when in the company of the boys her age (people she has been made to think are automatically better than her because they are male by her grandfather). But she knows she can do anything they can do and proves it again and again despite her grandfather's disapproval. Rawiri Paratene is also well cast as Koro. He blends his duel concerns of family and tribe in a way that to us may seem cruel but clearly has been instilled in him since childhood.
The two together have a great amount of screen chemistry. Pai has reverence and love for her grandfather. She knows deep down he loves her but clearly is pained by his inability to see her potential. Koro is torn between his care for his family and his obligation to his tribe. His hopes were so pinned to having a grandson that he is forever tainted by a certain spite towards his granddaughter. This struggle between them and the characterization of their relationship more than guides this film to its conclusion.
In the end you are likely to be quite pleased when the credits of this film roll. Its uplifting in the most satisfying of ways. It also has a few scenes that may have you tearing up and they never feel cheap or manipulative but like a reflection of what these characters would do. If the ending is a bit too tightly wrapped up, you quickly let it pass because you've just watched something that made you smile and sometimes a movie needs to do that.
This story as it stands and reads is pretty basic. A disapproving father figure attempting to maintain his culture in the wake of modernity has to be enlightened that changes in custom do not have to be the end of culture but may help preserve it. Its partly an underdog story and certainly an inspirational one for young women. But the sign of a good film is one that can take a generic narrative and make it work on a new level or make you happy you saw it. And Whale Rider is able to do that. Both because it has a unique blend of a native culture and spiritualism and because its story is sold convincingly by its cast.
The first to note is the wonderful Keisha Castle-Hughes as Pai. She has an inspiring blend of youthful innocence and stolid determination. She's tough in certain ways but also watch her early and her slight unease when in the company of the boys her age (people she has been made to think are automatically better than her because they are male by her grandfather). But she knows she can do anything they can do and proves it again and again despite her grandfather's disapproval. Rawiri Paratene is also well cast as Koro. He blends his duel concerns of family and tribe in a way that to us may seem cruel but clearly has been instilled in him since childhood.
The two together have a great amount of screen chemistry. Pai has reverence and love for her grandfather. She knows deep down he loves her but clearly is pained by his inability to see her potential. Koro is torn between his care for his family and his obligation to his tribe. His hopes were so pinned to having a grandson that he is forever tainted by a certain spite towards his granddaughter. This struggle between them and the characterization of their relationship more than guides this film to its conclusion.
In the end you are likely to be quite pleased when the credits of this film roll. Its uplifting in the most satisfying of ways. It also has a few scenes that may have you tearing up and they never feel cheap or manipulative but like a reflection of what these characters would do. If the ending is a bit too tightly wrapped up, you quickly let it pass because you've just watched something that made you smile and sometimes a movie needs to do that.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Scenes that Go home with you
After a series of inspired posts from the New York Times, Nick and I decided to take a cue from them and each write about a scene that was particularly memorable or meaningful from a film released in 2007. We have both written as passionately about said scenes as we know how and they are now available for viewing on Cinematic Arena. Nick's thoughts can be found here (Moment of Clarity). My own incoherent rambling can be found here (Fathers and Sons).
Monday, January 14, 2008
Cinematic Arena
Nick and I have viewed yet another film this time, the much acclaimed There Will Be Blood. Check out our thoughts at Cinematic Arena.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Bests of the Year
What kind of critic would I be if I didn't feel the need to shove down your throats my opinion on what was the best of the year in a variety of categories? Although I'm absolutely sick of the trope this year of "I'm only doing this list because its tradition" which basically every major (read: real) critic has said. I like best of lists. Mainly because they give me chance to agree or disagree (something I enjoy doing) and because they at times call attention to films I didn't see but soon become intrigued by. Without Ebert's 2006 list I wouldn't have ever heard of Man Push Cart, now ultimately I was disappointed by that one but it was still worth watching.
Plus after seeing 87 movies at the theater you can bet I want to let you know which ones are worth seeing. I'm willing to convince myself that anyone cares. Now I haven't seen everything out there but I saw a great deal (most crap) a decent amount of memorable ones did make my initial gander. Plus I plan to throw in a few random awards (I admit stolen completely from my friend Nick).
Movie absolutely ruined by its ending award: The Brave One
This film was a pretty good take on the vigilante. A sort of modern day Charles Bronsan flick but way higher quality and Jodie Foster has the skill to pull of a really complex character who after a brutal attack at first recoils at the outside world but eventually takes it upon herself to make the world a better place in her eyes. Sure it missteps a few times early on and I didn't find everything convincing but once this film got going I was engrossed. And then whammo, easily one of my top five favorite scenes of the year. Foster and Terrence Howard together in a diner. Howard plays a cop investigating the vigilante murders and befriends Foster along the way. And the diner scene just excels. As the two of them talk frankly about the vigilante without ever mentioning the 800 pound gorilla in the room. And the promise of that scene just begs, nay demands an incredible finale. And the film totally punks out! I was never so disenheartened by an ending in my movie going experience. I wanted to scream I was so angry.
Escapist fantasy award: Stardust
Objectively I can understand all the criticism of this film. I understand the "poor man's Princess Bride analogy. I know it isn't a great film. Objectively I know that. And objectively I just don't care. This movie charmed me. I was smiling from minute one until the end. This movie had me smiling when I was stressed out. Sometimes you just go to a film and you enjoy it despite what anyone says and this was that film for me this year. I saw it four times (the only other movie I saw four times this year is in a different league). Favorite moments: A fight sequence choreographed to "Galop Infernal" from the opera Orpheus in the Underworld (often called Can-Can) and a scene in which we first realize that Clair Danes' Ivaine loves Tristan and its all done with a glow (you don't see her face).
Female performances:
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone: I can't be so cavalier as to say it was the best performance of the year (there is too much I didn't see and too many great performances) but it was an amazingly powerful performance. Every scene she is in works and some of them set up the best parts of the film. Her tearful pleading to Casey Affleck to get her baby back leads to that amazing rollercoaster decision he makes. And her final acts leave us behind with a heartbreaking image. Certainly the best of the year in female performances that I saw (maybe the best overall performance, I'm too cautious to go out on a limb for it).
Kelly Macdonald - No Country For Old Men: When I saw Colin Farrell in Minority Report I had absolutely no clue he was Irish. When I saw Ms. MacDonald in this film I had absolutely no clue she was Scottish. In fact as far as this movie is concerned she is a West Texas trailer park wife and you believe it. She makes you believe it. And I'm tempted to say she has the single best scene in the whole movie. Her scene with Javier Bardem is flawless.
Katherine Keener - Into The Wild: A.O. Scott described a scene from this movie in a recent post and since I deeply admire him as a film critic and feel unequaled to the task I'll just link to his post for those who are interested (Into The Wild). It's the second most powerful scene in the whole movie behind Hal Holbrook and Emile Hirsch's hill top conversation (granted its just an opinion).
Male Performances:
Tommy Lee Jones - No Country For Old Men: I'm still bitter about Mr. Jones' Academy Award for The Fugitive but if ever he deserved one its for this year (he was also amazing in In the Valley of Elah and last year's Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. From his poignant reflections on the evils of the world to his description of a strange dream, Mr. Jones holds your attention and I can't help but watch him again and again and again.
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild: Its only a small part but Holbrook's character is McCandless' surrogate father in the same way that Katherine Keener's Jan is his surrogate mother. And his advice which comes from the experience of age is quite moving. Suffice to say I was crying a few times when Hal was on screen (although I fully admit I wiped those tears away quickly so my movie companion could not see them).
Frank Langella - Starting Out In The Evening: Langella pulls off his role in this film so well it reminded me of Peter O'Toole's performance in Venus from last year. Showing us with subtle performance that there is life and dignity in old age. He commands the space on screen even when he's acting opposite some fine actors in their own right.
Movies:
No Country For Old Men - Hands down the best film of the year (I refuse to accept a counter argument). Its picture perfect from moment one to the final shot. That it can elicit debate about who the protagonist really is or what the ultimately message is is all testament to how damn good it is. Its virtually complete lack of music, its tense moments of cat and mouse. Who knew a coin flip could have such emotional resonance? Who knew a quiet refusal could be the most daring and bold action of the movie? And finally who could have known that a unsure recitation of an almost random dream could so beautifully end a movie that I had nothing left to give if the film had continued on? I saw this film four times in theater and each time I was as emotionally invested as the first time. It didn't get old, talking about it now has me jonesing like a crack addict to see it again.
Gone Baby Gone - First time director Ben Affleck just knocks it out of the park. Sure it has a few missteps but its the kind of thing you might expect from a first time director. Here is another one that had me hooked from that first voice over (and I'm the guy who often rails against the use of voice over). Casey Affleck does wonders with his performance and is only outshone by Amy Ryan. And holy crap when it comes down to that final decision that his character has to make. Even when I absolutely knew what decision he had to make I was still on the edge of my seat wondering if they would have the stones to actually have him do it. And bam, it happens, I collapsed into my seat and thought I've got nothing left but then there is one final scene, that tears your heart right out of your chest and leaves you unable to move.
Into The Wild - Honestly I'm not sure I ever would have guessed that this would be in my top three after I saw it. I watched it. I knew it was good and I knew I liked it but I was critical of it on many points. But the more I think on it, the more I like it. It's the equivalent of a snowball rolling down hill. It just gets bigger and better in my mind as I reflect or discuss it with others. I only wish I could have seen it again in the theater. And since I've made special mention of both Mr. Holbrook and Ms. Keener, I want to reiterate how good they were (to say nothing of Emile Hirsch who was also amazing) and how I'm pretty sure neither Keener's best scene nor Holbrook's would have as much emotional resonance without the other. They just work so well on so many levels and are better for being in the same movie.
Plus after seeing 87 movies at the theater you can bet I want to let you know which ones are worth seeing. I'm willing to convince myself that anyone cares. Now I haven't seen everything out there but I saw a great deal (most crap) a decent amount of memorable ones did make my initial gander. Plus I plan to throw in a few random awards (I admit stolen completely from my friend Nick).
Movie absolutely ruined by its ending award: The Brave One
This film was a pretty good take on the vigilante. A sort of modern day Charles Bronsan flick but way higher quality and Jodie Foster has the skill to pull of a really complex character who after a brutal attack at first recoils at the outside world but eventually takes it upon herself to make the world a better place in her eyes. Sure it missteps a few times early on and I didn't find everything convincing but once this film got going I was engrossed. And then whammo, easily one of my top five favorite scenes of the year. Foster and Terrence Howard together in a diner. Howard plays a cop investigating the vigilante murders and befriends Foster along the way. And the diner scene just excels. As the two of them talk frankly about the vigilante without ever mentioning the 800 pound gorilla in the room. And the promise of that scene just begs, nay demands an incredible finale. And the film totally punks out! I was never so disenheartened by an ending in my movie going experience. I wanted to scream I was so angry.
Escapist fantasy award: Stardust
Objectively I can understand all the criticism of this film. I understand the "poor man's Princess Bride analogy. I know it isn't a great film. Objectively I know that. And objectively I just don't care. This movie charmed me. I was smiling from minute one until the end. This movie had me smiling when I was stressed out. Sometimes you just go to a film and you enjoy it despite what anyone says and this was that film for me this year. I saw it four times (the only other movie I saw four times this year is in a different league). Favorite moments: A fight sequence choreographed to "Galop Infernal" from the opera Orpheus in the Underworld (often called Can-Can) and a scene in which we first realize that Clair Danes' Ivaine loves Tristan and its all done with a glow (you don't see her face).
Female performances:
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone: I can't be so cavalier as to say it was the best performance of the year (there is too much I didn't see and too many great performances) but it was an amazingly powerful performance. Every scene she is in works and some of them set up the best parts of the film. Her tearful pleading to Casey Affleck to get her baby back leads to that amazing rollercoaster decision he makes. And her final acts leave us behind with a heartbreaking image. Certainly the best of the year in female performances that I saw (maybe the best overall performance, I'm too cautious to go out on a limb for it).
Kelly Macdonald - No Country For Old Men: When I saw Colin Farrell in Minority Report I had absolutely no clue he was Irish. When I saw Ms. MacDonald in this film I had absolutely no clue she was Scottish. In fact as far as this movie is concerned she is a West Texas trailer park wife and you believe it. She makes you believe it. And I'm tempted to say she has the single best scene in the whole movie. Her scene with Javier Bardem is flawless.
Katherine Keener - Into The Wild: A.O. Scott described a scene from this movie in a recent post and since I deeply admire him as a film critic and feel unequaled to the task I'll just link to his post for those who are interested (Into The Wild). It's the second most powerful scene in the whole movie behind Hal Holbrook and Emile Hirsch's hill top conversation (granted its just an opinion).
Male Performances:
Tommy Lee Jones - No Country For Old Men: I'm still bitter about Mr. Jones' Academy Award for The Fugitive but if ever he deserved one its for this year (he was also amazing in In the Valley of Elah and last year's Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. From his poignant reflections on the evils of the world to his description of a strange dream, Mr. Jones holds your attention and I can't help but watch him again and again and again.
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild: Its only a small part but Holbrook's character is McCandless' surrogate father in the same way that Katherine Keener's Jan is his surrogate mother. And his advice which comes from the experience of age is quite moving. Suffice to say I was crying a few times when Hal was on screen (although I fully admit I wiped those tears away quickly so my movie companion could not see them).
Frank Langella - Starting Out In The Evening: Langella pulls off his role in this film so well it reminded me of Peter O'Toole's performance in Venus from last year. Showing us with subtle performance that there is life and dignity in old age. He commands the space on screen even when he's acting opposite some fine actors in their own right.
Movies:
No Country For Old Men - Hands down the best film of the year (I refuse to accept a counter argument). Its picture perfect from moment one to the final shot. That it can elicit debate about who the protagonist really is or what the ultimately message is is all testament to how damn good it is. Its virtually complete lack of music, its tense moments of cat and mouse. Who knew a coin flip could have such emotional resonance? Who knew a quiet refusal could be the most daring and bold action of the movie? And finally who could have known that a unsure recitation of an almost random dream could so beautifully end a movie that I had nothing left to give if the film had continued on? I saw this film four times in theater and each time I was as emotionally invested as the first time. It didn't get old, talking about it now has me jonesing like a crack addict to see it again.
Gone Baby Gone - First time director Ben Affleck just knocks it out of the park. Sure it has a few missteps but its the kind of thing you might expect from a first time director. Here is another one that had me hooked from that first voice over (and I'm the guy who often rails against the use of voice over). Casey Affleck does wonders with his performance and is only outshone by Amy Ryan. And holy crap when it comes down to that final decision that his character has to make. Even when I absolutely knew what decision he had to make I was still on the edge of my seat wondering if they would have the stones to actually have him do it. And bam, it happens, I collapsed into my seat and thought I've got nothing left but then there is one final scene, that tears your heart right out of your chest and leaves you unable to move.
Into The Wild - Honestly I'm not sure I ever would have guessed that this would be in my top three after I saw it. I watched it. I knew it was good and I knew I liked it but I was critical of it on many points. But the more I think on it, the more I like it. It's the equivalent of a snowball rolling down hill. It just gets bigger and better in my mind as I reflect or discuss it with others. I only wish I could have seen it again in the theater. And since I've made special mention of both Mr. Holbrook and Ms. Keener, I want to reiterate how good they were (to say nothing of Emile Hirsch who was also amazing) and how I'm pretty sure neither Keener's best scene nor Holbrook's would have as much emotional resonance without the other. They just work so well on so many levels and are better for being in the same movie.
In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Uwe Boll may be the single worst director in film history. His films lack originality, are filled with bad dialog, bad acting and generally poor pacing and story telling. This is made more stark by his incessant whining that his films aren't successful because of a vast marketing conspiracy. I'm not kidding just read his own words (Uwe). Do you see how deluded this guy is? He is also incredibly fond of translating video games into movies. His amazingly incompetent resume includes House of the Dead, BloodRayne and now In the Name of the King.
You might be wondering why, if I have such clear disdain for him, why I would ever see a movie he directed. Well let's not forget the idiot part of my self-applied moniker. But truth be told its really a morbid fascination that I cannot resist. Despite the utterly irredemable nature of his films, he keeps going (who knows how he keeps getting money). He's an irresistable force that flies in the face of all traditional Hollywood wisdom. I think I watch out of genuine curiosity. How much worse can it get? What once major but now defunct Hollywood actor will he get to star in his next film?
Well this one offers a doozy of a list of b-movie relegated stars and once formerly glorious icons. I couldn't make up this cast: Ray Liotta, Burt Reynolds, Jason Statham, Matthew Lilard, John Rhys-Davies, Leelee Sobieski, Claire Forlani. Its really quite mind boggling. And sadly the one possibility that you could hope for is some real honest to goodness camp over acting to keep you entertained. But it fails to offer even that. Instead you can actually see the boredom on actors faces as they telephone in their lines. Nobody is having fun making this film.
I'm not even going to bother with a plot description. Its just a really crappy "Lord of the Rings" knock off anyway. But let me assure you the only time in the entire movie I was even mildly amused was when a group of ninjas showed up. Because all I could think was "who the hell thought ninjas was what this scene needed?" And in the end I know its my own fault that this film will indeliably be left in my conscience for years to come while much better movies that are deserving of memory will fall by the wayside.
You might be wondering why, if I have such clear disdain for him, why I would ever see a movie he directed. Well let's not forget the idiot part of my self-applied moniker. But truth be told its really a morbid fascination that I cannot resist. Despite the utterly irredemable nature of his films, he keeps going (who knows how he keeps getting money). He's an irresistable force that flies in the face of all traditional Hollywood wisdom. I think I watch out of genuine curiosity. How much worse can it get? What once major but now defunct Hollywood actor will he get to star in his next film?
Well this one offers a doozy of a list of b-movie relegated stars and once formerly glorious icons. I couldn't make up this cast: Ray Liotta, Burt Reynolds, Jason Statham, Matthew Lilard, John Rhys-Davies, Leelee Sobieski, Claire Forlani. Its really quite mind boggling. And sadly the one possibility that you could hope for is some real honest to goodness camp over acting to keep you entertained. But it fails to offer even that. Instead you can actually see the boredom on actors faces as they telephone in their lines. Nobody is having fun making this film.
I'm not even going to bother with a plot description. Its just a really crappy "Lord of the Rings" knock off anyway. But let me assure you the only time in the entire movie I was even mildly amused was when a group of ninjas showed up. Because all I could think was "who the hell thought ninjas was what this scene needed?" And in the end I know its my own fault that this film will indeliably be left in my conscience for years to come while much better movies that are deserving of memory will fall by the wayside.
Juno
Nothing is better than a light hearted comedy after an emotional, melancholy French film. I once watched Big Fish and 21 Grams back to back but made the mistake of watching Big Fish first. The result was I came out with a spring in my step from the first film before being utterly brought down by the grim message of 21 Grams. Lesson learned, watch the comedy second. Juno therefore became a quite pleasant follow-up to Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
Juno tells the story of Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page), a sarcastic, abrasive anti-high school establishment teenager who winds up after a sexual encounter with her best friend pregnant and unsure as to what to do. After a brief consideration of abortion she decides to have the baby and let a young couple adopt it. Along the way we meet several important people in Juno's life including her loving father (J.K. Simmons) and step-mother (Allison Janney), her best friends Leah (Olivia Thirlby) and Paulie Bleeker, the father of the baby (Michael Cera).
The yuppie adopting couple are played by Jennifer Garner and Jason Batemen and both reveal characters that are more complex and complicated than the first appear. All of these things and the general sincerity with which the movie deals with the subject matter is of course the point and the power of the film. And these are well developed characters. When you see Simmons as Juno's father utter sharp, sarcastic statements you know where Juno has picked up here wit from. There is a care and attention to detail of these characters that is genuinely enjoyable to watch.
Which serves the film well since at times its just a bit too tragically hip for its own good. The soundtrack is a bit too omnipresent and a final scene involving an acoustic guitar had me rolling my eyes. But despite that the charm is there and not to be forgotten. The film is actually funny. Perhaps its just my preference for stark sarcastic humor (I've been called sardonic at least once in my life) that made me laugh so much in the film. My hands down favorite scene involved Allison Janney telling off a ultrasound technician.
Ultimately I think it falls into a category of fun, charming and decent film but doesn't exactly wow me to a point of thinking its great film-making. It is also perhaps a bit too kids gloves with the discussion of teen pregnancy, abortion and the like. Still the experience is worth having and the sweetness of the comedy is never sweet to the point of nausea. I walked away smiling and thats pretty good.
Juno tells the story of Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page), a sarcastic, abrasive anti-high school establishment teenager who winds up after a sexual encounter with her best friend pregnant and unsure as to what to do. After a brief consideration of abortion she decides to have the baby and let a young couple adopt it. Along the way we meet several important people in Juno's life including her loving father (J.K. Simmons) and step-mother (Allison Janney), her best friends Leah (Olivia Thirlby) and Paulie Bleeker, the father of the baby (Michael Cera).
The yuppie adopting couple are played by Jennifer Garner and Jason Batemen and both reveal characters that are more complex and complicated than the first appear. All of these things and the general sincerity with which the movie deals with the subject matter is of course the point and the power of the film. And these are well developed characters. When you see Simmons as Juno's father utter sharp, sarcastic statements you know where Juno has picked up here wit from. There is a care and attention to detail of these characters that is genuinely enjoyable to watch.
Which serves the film well since at times its just a bit too tragically hip for its own good. The soundtrack is a bit too omnipresent and a final scene involving an acoustic guitar had me rolling my eyes. But despite that the charm is there and not to be forgotten. The film is actually funny. Perhaps its just my preference for stark sarcastic humor (I've been called sardonic at least once in my life) that made me laugh so much in the film. My hands down favorite scene involved Allison Janney telling off a ultrasound technician.
Ultimately I think it falls into a category of fun, charming and decent film but doesn't exactly wow me to a point of thinking its great film-making. It is also perhaps a bit too kids gloves with the discussion of teen pregnancy, abortion and the like. Still the experience is worth having and the sweetness of the comedy is never sweet to the point of nausea. I walked away smiling and thats pretty good.
Diving Bell And The Butterfly
After a night of emotionally draining films on New Year's Day, it was a tall order to keep up a streak of cinematic excellence in the films I planned to see the following day. This journey began with a more agreeable outdoor temperature and a train ride rather than a walk. It also involved a more commercial theater in a cleverly designed mall. Still as in the previous night, I wasn't going to pass up the opportunities that Chicago provided. And eagerness exuded from me as I sat on the "El" waiting for my stop that would lead me to my next cinematic treat.
Diving Bell And The Butterfly is based on the quite remarkable true story of Jean Dominique Bauby (Matthieu Almaric), a French editor of "Elle" who suffered a stroke which resulted in "locked in" syndrome. This is a rare condition in which the sufferer's mind is fully intact but they lose complete control of any motor skills. Bauby specifically could do little more than blink his left eye. Based on Bauby's memoir which was written by means of a Herculean effort of him blinking out ever letter of every word by means of a specially arranged alphabet, the story reflects on Bauby's life after his accident and the amazing power of the human imagination.
The Diving Bell of the title is how Bauby conceives of his new life trapped in his own body while the Butterfly represents his ability to escape via his imagination. The film has an incredible amount of artistic style. A large part of the film is represented through the lens of Bauby. The POV of Bauby through one eye and limited head motion is surprisingly powerful. One particular dreadful moment in which Bauby's right eye is sewn closed and he is unable to communicate is very emotional.
The movie tries to recreate the emotional power of the memoir (which I have read, shocking!). At times this does this very well and at times falls short of the power of words in the book. Notably the significance of his relationship with his wife and kids doesn't quite hold up as well in its representation on film. By contrast there are two quite brilliant scenes involving Bauby's father played by the ever brilliant but frequently misused Max von Sydow.
In point of fact those two scenes were my favorite part of the film. The earlier of the two scenes shows with surprising skill the memory of Bauby recalling the last time he saw his father. He shaves his ailing father in the morning as they talk. There is an amazing emotional tenderness to the scene that holds your attention and moved me. It reminded me of my own connections with my father (although we certainly wouldn't act the way they do, more likely we would be mocking each other). Still the essence of the bond is powerful and I responded to it.
This early scene makes the later scene a tour-de-force of emotion. Bauby's father arranges to call and converse with his now incapacitated son. Bauby unable to speak but able to hear must dictate his thoughts using the blinking code to a nurse who gives the response. Sydow realizing he will not be able to hear his son's voice is heartbroken. His own poor memory makes it difficult for him to remember what he wants to say between answers. I was in tears by the end of that scene. Heartbreaking and emotionally draining.
Sadly I cannot say that all the scenes were so powerful or memorable. Many I felt were much weaker. Equally the unique style of Bauby's POV also eventually got tedious and I was thankful anytime they went to flashback just to see more traditional filming. I also thought it could have been a bit more probing into Bauby as a person, especially dealing with his pre-stroke and post-stroke life. Something that seemed a bit more stark in the memoir and a bit more sanitized in the movie.
Still overall there were some powerful scenes and performances and a great deal of unique style which are generally worthy of praise, despite my overall disappointment with the film. And here's hoping Mr. Sydow is in more films like this in the coming years and less films like Rush Hour 3.
Diving Bell And The Butterfly is based on the quite remarkable true story of Jean Dominique Bauby (Matthieu Almaric), a French editor of "Elle" who suffered a stroke which resulted in "locked in" syndrome. This is a rare condition in which the sufferer's mind is fully intact but they lose complete control of any motor skills. Bauby specifically could do little more than blink his left eye. Based on Bauby's memoir which was written by means of a Herculean effort of him blinking out ever letter of every word by means of a specially arranged alphabet, the story reflects on Bauby's life after his accident and the amazing power of the human imagination.
The Diving Bell of the title is how Bauby conceives of his new life trapped in his own body while the Butterfly represents his ability to escape via his imagination. The film has an incredible amount of artistic style. A large part of the film is represented through the lens of Bauby. The POV of Bauby through one eye and limited head motion is surprisingly powerful. One particular dreadful moment in which Bauby's right eye is sewn closed and he is unable to communicate is very emotional.
The movie tries to recreate the emotional power of the memoir (which I have read, shocking!). At times this does this very well and at times falls short of the power of words in the book. Notably the significance of his relationship with his wife and kids doesn't quite hold up as well in its representation on film. By contrast there are two quite brilliant scenes involving Bauby's father played by the ever brilliant but frequently misused Max von Sydow.
In point of fact those two scenes were my favorite part of the film. The earlier of the two scenes shows with surprising skill the memory of Bauby recalling the last time he saw his father. He shaves his ailing father in the morning as they talk. There is an amazing emotional tenderness to the scene that holds your attention and moved me. It reminded me of my own connections with my father (although we certainly wouldn't act the way they do, more likely we would be mocking each other). Still the essence of the bond is powerful and I responded to it.
This early scene makes the later scene a tour-de-force of emotion. Bauby's father arranges to call and converse with his now incapacitated son. Bauby unable to speak but able to hear must dictate his thoughts using the blinking code to a nurse who gives the response. Sydow realizing he will not be able to hear his son's voice is heartbroken. His own poor memory makes it difficult for him to remember what he wants to say between answers. I was in tears by the end of that scene. Heartbreaking and emotionally draining.
Sadly I cannot say that all the scenes were so powerful or memorable. Many I felt were much weaker. Equally the unique style of Bauby's POV also eventually got tedious and I was thankful anytime they went to flashback just to see more traditional filming. I also thought it could have been a bit more probing into Bauby as a person, especially dealing with his pre-stroke and post-stroke life. Something that seemed a bit more stark in the memoir and a bit more sanitized in the movie.
Still overall there were some powerful scenes and performances and a great deal of unique style which are generally worthy of praise, despite my overall disappointment with the film. And here's hoping Mr. Sydow is in more films like this in the coming years and less films like Rush Hour 3.
Control
The second movie I saw on the aforementioned New Year's Day trip through the cold was in the same theater and was fully intended as part of my double feature. Control is based on the true story of Ian Curtis who was the lead singer of a band called "Joy Division". The story follows Curtis from his teenage years when he first met his wife up until his death by suicide at the age of 24. In that time he joined the band "Joy Division" and they had remarkable success that culminated in an intended American tour that was to set to kick off on the eve of his death.
From his early influence from glam rockers like David Bowie to his surprisingly innocent and sweet romance with his wife (played by Samantha Morton), we as the viewers get a strong view of Curtis. We see him both in private life such as when he works at a government welfare office helping people get jobs. (Much critical comment has been made about how this subverts our expectation as we think he is going to the welfare office for dole money.) We also see his stage persona as he sings the band's songs in decently conceptualized performance scenes.
As the band's success grow, we see the increasing pressure on Curtis and the strain on him and his family. These include an extra-marital affair and the ever growing concern of his wife. The film takes its time developing these themes and characters. What immense detail it pays to Curtis is unfortunately not applied to the other band members who are essentially stock background. Still the focus on Curtis is complex and interesting.
The other refreshing aspect is that the film doesn't really seek to give answers to Curtis' suicide but rather just shows us the increasing depression. Perhaps it was the pressure of increasing performance or his disintegrating family life but equally there may have been an underlying depression as early as childhood. The film touches on all these and never tips its hand by suggesting one is more prevalent or the right answer.
Sam Riley as Curtis and Samantha Morton as Debbie (Curtis' wife) are both well cast. Morton especially in the later scenes when she is both heart broken by his actions and torn by her still persevering love for him. Riley on stage almost comatose as he sings before slowly gesturing around like crazy in the later scenes is also convincing. And his ever increasing depression is sad and poignant throughout the film.
This is a refreshing biopic which doesn't follow the formula (Ray, Walk The Line) of overcoming drugs and finding true love and the like. Not to say that either of those was a bad movie. But the fact that the story of Control requires different techniques and ends with an unanswerable poignant tragedy makes it effective in a unique way.
From his early influence from glam rockers like David Bowie to his surprisingly innocent and sweet romance with his wife (played by Samantha Morton), we as the viewers get a strong view of Curtis. We see him both in private life such as when he works at a government welfare office helping people get jobs. (Much critical comment has been made about how this subverts our expectation as we think he is going to the welfare office for dole money.) We also see his stage persona as he sings the band's songs in decently conceptualized performance scenes.
As the band's success grow, we see the increasing pressure on Curtis and the strain on him and his family. These include an extra-marital affair and the ever growing concern of his wife. The film takes its time developing these themes and characters. What immense detail it pays to Curtis is unfortunately not applied to the other band members who are essentially stock background. Still the focus on Curtis is complex and interesting.
The other refreshing aspect is that the film doesn't really seek to give answers to Curtis' suicide but rather just shows us the increasing depression. Perhaps it was the pressure of increasing performance or his disintegrating family life but equally there may have been an underlying depression as early as childhood. The film touches on all these and never tips its hand by suggesting one is more prevalent or the right answer.
Sam Riley as Curtis and Samantha Morton as Debbie (Curtis' wife) are both well cast. Morton especially in the later scenes when she is both heart broken by his actions and torn by her still persevering love for him. Riley on stage almost comatose as he sings before slowly gesturing around like crazy in the later scenes is also convincing. And his ever increasing depression is sad and poignant throughout the film.
This is a refreshing biopic which doesn't follow the formula (Ray, Walk The Line) of overcoming drugs and finding true love and the like. Not to say that either of those was a bad movie. But the fact that the story of Control requires different techniques and ends with an unanswerable poignant tragedy makes it effective in a unique way.
Starting Out In The Evening
I didn't know what I would think of the movies I intended to see on New Year's Day as I trekked out of my friend's apartment and down several blocks in the deepening cold of a January Chicago evening. I just knew I was in Chicago, I was going to take advantage of its status as a real city and therefore its ability to get smaller release films and that I thought I'd picked films that wouldn't disappoint for my first film of 2008. Still walking in the blistering cold and walking home just after midnight in the sub-zero temperatures was still better than my idiotic walk through a snowstorm to see dead on arrival National Treasure: Book of Secrets.
Starting Out In The Evening is based on a novel by Brian Morton, which of course I haven't read so I can say nothing about its adaptation but I'm guessing based on the content of this film was really well done. Our protagonist is Leonard Schiller (Frank Langella) an aging writer who wrote four books in his career and in his declining years is attempting to finish one more book. He is a meticulous man who dresses in suit and tie even while typing at his typewriter. He attends literary readings, and other artistic endeavors and seems completely part of the intellectual circle.
Into his life comes Heather Wolfe (Lauren Ambrose) a graduate student who was greatly influenced by Schiller's work and is in the process of writing a thesis on his literary contributions. She wants to interview him about his works and life in an attempt to get a better feel for her own work and also is hopeful that her work can inspire a resurgence in the popularity of Schiller's work. Initially, Schiller is standoffish and resistant to the idea but slowly allows Heather into his life.
Of almost equal interest to the story is the relationship of Schiller's daughter Ariel (Lili Taylor) and her lover Casey (Adrian Lester). Schiller sees their relationship as unhealthy and wants his daughter to be with someone who will treat her right and not take advantage of her. Ariel desires her love over any sort of rational accounting of it. And so the film revolves around these three basic relationships: Leonard and Heather, Leonard and Ariel, and Ariel and Casey.
And all three are handled with amazing grace. There is not a moment I didn't buy into all of these relationships. Leonard and Ariel have the beautifully complex relationship of a father and daughter who had a more problematic relationship in earlier times but have now found a new more healthy one. Ariel with Casey is a welcome addition to the dynamic especially with Leonard not caring for Casey. And finally Heather as the young grad student coming into the life of old and feeling old Schiller is done with amazing deftness. There are hints of a May-December romance that never quite gets off the ground but that results in stronger story telling.
And yet beyond a very well formulated story there are two other rather admirable things about this film. The first is obviously the acting. Taylor and Ambrose are in top form as their respective characters with all their toughness and vulnerability. Adrian Lester is great as Casey (see if nothing else his scenes with Langella when Taylor is off screen and they subtly needle each other over their respective selfishness). But hands down the film belongs to Langella.
There is not a scene he does not play with absolute class and agility. He can be passionate and rational as when he discusses his disapproval of his daughter's actions or harmful as when he dismisses Heather quite powerfully by movie's end. He is at his most affecting when he is discussing his art of writing. The idea of where character or story come from. There are two instantly memorable scenes in which he forcefully shows his opinion and that nothing can alter it.
The first takes place at a party of academics where a discussion of the union of commercialism and academic writing that has occurred in many literary review magazines. After stating his rather firm opinion, an equally compelling counter argument is merely dismissed by Langella with a polite nod of the head and an excuse to go elsewhere. The second involves a scene with Ambrose in which she questions his originality and the influence of his personal life on his books. Langella's response (part of which can be viewed in the trailer) is powerful and compelling.
The second admirable thing is that this movie is intelligent and academic and it isn't afraid to be so. Many of the really memorable scenes are discussions about academic writing, reading, writing and intellectual pursuit. And it was incredibly refreshing and delightful to witness. And the viewpoints expressed are at times contradictory and yet never does the film choose one viewpoint over the other. It merely gives both sides and lets you think about it as well.
Ambrose's Heather is absolutely in love with Schiller's first two books but thought his later work weaker. But by film's end we get an opinion about Schiller's last book by Casey which offers up the opposite opinion. The later book is the truly brilliant one. It was genuinely great to see two different characters who are well developed offer different opinions and all you can do is think that totally makes sense based on what I've seen about both.
But the intelligence is not limited to literary pursuit or debate. There are several conversations between Schiller and Ariel and Ariel and Casey that discuss more routine aspects of life such as love and family and the importance of being yourself. And the opinions in these scenes are no less well articulated and intelligent and again with no judgment as to which is right or wrong.
And it is all three of these things (story, acting and intelligence) that make this movie resound with me. And here is hoping that this first movie that I saw of 2008 (although technically a 2007 release) is evidence for a great year at the movies.
Starting Out In The Evening is based on a novel by Brian Morton, which of course I haven't read so I can say nothing about its adaptation but I'm guessing based on the content of this film was really well done. Our protagonist is Leonard Schiller (Frank Langella) an aging writer who wrote four books in his career and in his declining years is attempting to finish one more book. He is a meticulous man who dresses in suit and tie even while typing at his typewriter. He attends literary readings, and other artistic endeavors and seems completely part of the intellectual circle.
Into his life comes Heather Wolfe (Lauren Ambrose) a graduate student who was greatly influenced by Schiller's work and is in the process of writing a thesis on his literary contributions. She wants to interview him about his works and life in an attempt to get a better feel for her own work and also is hopeful that her work can inspire a resurgence in the popularity of Schiller's work. Initially, Schiller is standoffish and resistant to the idea but slowly allows Heather into his life.
Of almost equal interest to the story is the relationship of Schiller's daughter Ariel (Lili Taylor) and her lover Casey (Adrian Lester). Schiller sees their relationship as unhealthy and wants his daughter to be with someone who will treat her right and not take advantage of her. Ariel desires her love over any sort of rational accounting of it. And so the film revolves around these three basic relationships: Leonard and Heather, Leonard and Ariel, and Ariel and Casey.
And all three are handled with amazing grace. There is not a moment I didn't buy into all of these relationships. Leonard and Ariel have the beautifully complex relationship of a father and daughter who had a more problematic relationship in earlier times but have now found a new more healthy one. Ariel with Casey is a welcome addition to the dynamic especially with Leonard not caring for Casey. And finally Heather as the young grad student coming into the life of old and feeling old Schiller is done with amazing deftness. There are hints of a May-December romance that never quite gets off the ground but that results in stronger story telling.
And yet beyond a very well formulated story there are two other rather admirable things about this film. The first is obviously the acting. Taylor and Ambrose are in top form as their respective characters with all their toughness and vulnerability. Adrian Lester is great as Casey (see if nothing else his scenes with Langella when Taylor is off screen and they subtly needle each other over their respective selfishness). But hands down the film belongs to Langella.
There is not a scene he does not play with absolute class and agility. He can be passionate and rational as when he discusses his disapproval of his daughter's actions or harmful as when he dismisses Heather quite powerfully by movie's end. He is at his most affecting when he is discussing his art of writing. The idea of where character or story come from. There are two instantly memorable scenes in which he forcefully shows his opinion and that nothing can alter it.
The first takes place at a party of academics where a discussion of the union of commercialism and academic writing that has occurred in many literary review magazines. After stating his rather firm opinion, an equally compelling counter argument is merely dismissed by Langella with a polite nod of the head and an excuse to go elsewhere. The second involves a scene with Ambrose in which she questions his originality and the influence of his personal life on his books. Langella's response (part of which can be viewed in the trailer) is powerful and compelling.
The second admirable thing is that this movie is intelligent and academic and it isn't afraid to be so. Many of the really memorable scenes are discussions about academic writing, reading, writing and intellectual pursuit. And it was incredibly refreshing and delightful to witness. And the viewpoints expressed are at times contradictory and yet never does the film choose one viewpoint over the other. It merely gives both sides and lets you think about it as well.
Ambrose's Heather is absolutely in love with Schiller's first two books but thought his later work weaker. But by film's end we get an opinion about Schiller's last book by Casey which offers up the opposite opinion. The later book is the truly brilliant one. It was genuinely great to see two different characters who are well developed offer different opinions and all you can do is think that totally makes sense based on what I've seen about both.
But the intelligence is not limited to literary pursuit or debate. There are several conversations between Schiller and Ariel and Ariel and Casey that discuss more routine aspects of life such as love and family and the importance of being yourself. And the opinions in these scenes are no less well articulated and intelligent and again with no judgment as to which is right or wrong.
And it is all three of these things (story, acting and intelligence) that make this movie resound with me. And here is hoping that this first movie that I saw of 2008 (although technically a 2007 release) is evidence for a great year at the movies.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Worst of 2007
To be fair since I see a whole lot of really wretched film in a year, I'm limiting this list to the five films that I actually had hopes would be good, so you won't see anything like Hostel II or Saw IV on this list. I feel confident I can make this list because although I haven't seen every movie of 2007 that I intended, I don't plan to see any that will be as bad as these.
Knocked Up - Everyone seems to love this movie except me. It had very few laughs and most of its humor was derived from the fact that every single character is unlikable and an asshole. It misses the subtle sweetness of 40 Year Old Virgin.
Spiderman 3 - Although I didn't find Spiderman 2 as great as many critics, it was still a decent superhero film. The third attempt by the same director was just plain bad. Boring villains and an inane evil Peter Parker subplot that gave us what may be the worst scene of the year. Tobey Maguire doing a dance and piano routine.
Halloween - I think Rob Zombie has an interesting approach to film making and despite what others think, I kind of enjoyed The Devil's Rejects. So the idea that he would tackle hit or miss director John Carpenter's big horror hit was intriguing. Could he provide some substance to the classic slasher film? The answer is no. Complete waste of time.
28 Weeks Later - 28 Days Later was one of the great horror films. It practically single handedly rejuvenated the zombie film genre (some are saddened by that, I am happy). A sequel you say? With special forces snipers? and another break out of zombies? where do I sign up? It gave me almost nothing good and a persistent apparently prescient zombie who could find his kids anywhere!! Let's hope there is no third film.
The Host - The critical praise for this movie is incomprehensible to me. This was such a pretentious film. The monster wasn't that scary or impressive. The 'message' of this movie was heavy handed and the ending was down right atrocious.
Knocked Up - Everyone seems to love this movie except me. It had very few laughs and most of its humor was derived from the fact that every single character is unlikable and an asshole. It misses the subtle sweetness of 40 Year Old Virgin.
Spiderman 3 - Although I didn't find Spiderman 2 as great as many critics, it was still a decent superhero film. The third attempt by the same director was just plain bad. Boring villains and an inane evil Peter Parker subplot that gave us what may be the worst scene of the year. Tobey Maguire doing a dance and piano routine.
Halloween - I think Rob Zombie has an interesting approach to film making and despite what others think, I kind of enjoyed The Devil's Rejects. So the idea that he would tackle hit or miss director John Carpenter's big horror hit was intriguing. Could he provide some substance to the classic slasher film? The answer is no. Complete waste of time.
28 Weeks Later - 28 Days Later was one of the great horror films. It practically single handedly rejuvenated the zombie film genre (some are saddened by that, I am happy). A sequel you say? With special forces snipers? and another break out of zombies? where do I sign up? It gave me almost nothing good and a persistent apparently prescient zombie who could find his kids anywhere!! Let's hope there is no third film.
The Host - The critical praise for this movie is incomprehensible to me. This was such a pretentious film. The monster wasn't that scary or impressive. The 'message' of this movie was heavy handed and the ending was down right atrocious.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Final Count
Another year has left us and it has left behind some memorable stinkers, some memorable instant classics and a whole lot of blah. I fell short of 100 films once again but I'm convinced that it is possible. So lets see if I can make this new year, the one where it happens. If you were wondering the final tally was 88 different films in a movie theater this year. But there are also the repeated viewings which would add 8 more viewings to the list (some might count those I choose not to). Although the goal may get increasingly difficult as I find it each year harder and harder to sit through the admitted swill just for the numbers game. Still I plan to start the new year off right by seeing some quality films tonight. Happy New Year and happy movie going.
The Kite Runner
Based on a book by Khaled Hosseini, The Kite Runner follows the life of Amir, a young Afghan who flees the country at the beginning of the Russian invasion in 1979. The story falls into two parts. The first shows Amir growing up as a young boy in Kabul in 1978. The second part shows Amir returning to the Mid East at the request of an old family friend. The first part focuses mainly on a unique game played by Afghan children which involves some form of kite fighting. Those who reclaim kites whose strings have been cut are the titular kite runners. It also deals with the friendship between Amir and his best friend Hassan.
There are some very beautiful shots of flying kites in the early part of the film. And the look of a pre-war/pre soviet Kabul is quite striking and beautiful. Amir witnesses a horrific act against his friend and their friendship becomes strained before being ended shortly before Amir and his father flee Afghanistan. As an adult Amir has become a writer and receives a phone call after his first book is published. A friend of his father requests his presence in Pakistan. Amir learns an important fact about his childhood that changes his outlook and seeks to find a way to atone for his actions as a child.
In general it makes for an interesting story. Although a bit is left unexplained regarding the kite fights which probably received more detailed treatment in the novel. The two young actors who play the young Amir and Hassan are very good playing two very different characters. One the son of a respected business man but with no fighting spirit as it were in his heart. The other the son of a discriminated against subclass who is utterly loyal to Amir and willing to fend off threats from him.
This relationship is so well established that it is quite painful to see it collapse. Amir's journey to make up for his early mistakes takes us into the heart of Taliban controlled Afghanistan prior to 9/11. There are horrendous depictions including the stoning of an adulterer and the contrast between the Kabul that Amir returns to and the Kabul he left 20 years earlier are striking.
In many ways I kept thinking of Atonement while watching this movie and when thinking about it afterwards. Both deal with acts of rape witnessed as children and responses that cause pain and tragedy for those involved. But this film worked better on that theme and didn't jump between several characters either. Amir's atonement may be a bit neater and in truer Hollywood fashion than Briony's in Atonement but it doesn't detract that much from the overall tone and interest of the story.
It isn't really a great film but it has some beautiful cinematography, a capable narrative and gives a picture into a culture and area of the world one rarely gets a glimpse of. I think its worth seeing for those reasons.
There are some very beautiful shots of flying kites in the early part of the film. And the look of a pre-war/pre soviet Kabul is quite striking and beautiful. Amir witnesses a horrific act against his friend and their friendship becomes strained before being ended shortly before Amir and his father flee Afghanistan. As an adult Amir has become a writer and receives a phone call after his first book is published. A friend of his father requests his presence in Pakistan. Amir learns an important fact about his childhood that changes his outlook and seeks to find a way to atone for his actions as a child.
In general it makes for an interesting story. Although a bit is left unexplained regarding the kite fights which probably received more detailed treatment in the novel. The two young actors who play the young Amir and Hassan are very good playing two very different characters. One the son of a respected business man but with no fighting spirit as it were in his heart. The other the son of a discriminated against subclass who is utterly loyal to Amir and willing to fend off threats from him.
This relationship is so well established that it is quite painful to see it collapse. Amir's journey to make up for his early mistakes takes us into the heart of Taliban controlled Afghanistan prior to 9/11. There are horrendous depictions including the stoning of an adulterer and the contrast between the Kabul that Amir returns to and the Kabul he left 20 years earlier are striking.
In many ways I kept thinking of Atonement while watching this movie and when thinking about it afterwards. Both deal with acts of rape witnessed as children and responses that cause pain and tragedy for those involved. But this film worked better on that theme and didn't jump between several characters either. Amir's atonement may be a bit neater and in truer Hollywood fashion than Briony's in Atonement but it doesn't detract that much from the overall tone and interest of the story.
It isn't really a great film but it has some beautiful cinematography, a capable narrative and gives a picture into a culture and area of the world one rarely gets a glimpse of. I think its worth seeing for those reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)