It seems like every couple of movies, Steven Soderbergh is trying something innovative and cutting edge. Several years ago it was Bubble, which was a mess of real people in acting roles and a plot that was barely present. So enter The Girlfriend Experience. A follow up of sorts. just replace non actors with porn actress. Plot? No we'll stick with the whole no plot thing.
The movie stars porn actress Sasha Gray as a high class prostitute. We ramble around with her as she visits clients, talks to a journalist and her boyfriend. This all inter cut with scenes of her boyfriend going on a trip to Vegas and other random scenes that confused me. I can't even begin to understand what the point is. But Soderbergh seems really committed to finding a way to get a movie to work with non traditional actors. Its like Cinema Verite without anything to make you interested.
I recently saw Sasha Gray interviewed and she listed her five favorite movies. What the hell? Jean Luc Goddard? And Escape from New York? She actually seems sort of interesting. But coming as no shock to anyone ever, she can't act. At all. In fact its rather painful. Especially in her scenes where she is waxing intellectual with her clients.
Oddly enough at one point in voice over we hear a "review" of Gray's prostitute by a vindictive "pimp" which is about spot on as to the believability of Ms. Gray as a high class prostitute. My only hope is that when Soderbergh makes this train wrecks it gets whatever it is out of his system. And then he gives us something like Out of Sight.
Showing posts with label Negative Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Negative Review. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
A Little Trip To Heaven
After four months of sitting on my desk unwatched, I finally opened up a netflix dvd that I had decided I should see. And as I stared at the disc in front of me I had but one question. What the hell is this? Why did I want to see this? Did I put this on my list back in my Julia Stiles fascination days? Did I want to see what else Jeremy Renner had done after seeing The Hurt Locker? Do I worship the awesomeness that is Peter Coyote? Maybe it was Forest Whitaker? I can not think of one conceivable reason why I put this film on my list. But apparently at some point I thought it was a good idea right? So how bad could it be?
Help me out Netflix movie description?
Oh god. It sounds awful. But that's just a description. How bad could it be? Mr. Whitaker has some sort of british? accent. I have the question mark there because I'm not exactly sure where he's supposed to be from. At one point he is vaguely referred to as being from north. Its pretty much all kinds of awful. And then there is Jeremy Renner. He was surprisingly good in The Hurt Locker. But then again he was also really bad in 28 Weeks Later and SWAT. And painful in this. Ms. Stiles, although I love you, this was not your best role.
And this movie doesn't really have anything going for it. The plot is particularly nonsensical. There is some small suggestion in the end and in some half done deleted scene that Whitaker goes to heaven. There are in fact several references to heaven that seemed strangely out of place. Whatever the directer was going for, it got lost somewhere between his vision and the screen. Next time I think I'll just send it back if I'm not sure why I put the movie on my queue.
Help me out Netflix movie description?
When a claim is sought on the million-dollar life insurance policy of notorious con artist Kelvin Anderson, crack investigator Holt is assigned to uncover the truth in Baltasar Kormakur's crime noir. Holt (Forest Whitaker) suspects deceit from the get-go, and he stealthily tries to uncover the truth from Kelvin's sister Isold (Julia Stiles) and her erratic husband, Fred (Jeremy Renner). Peter Coyote co-stars.
Oh god. It sounds awful. But that's just a description. How bad could it be? Mr. Whitaker has some sort of british? accent. I have the question mark there because I'm not exactly sure where he's supposed to be from. At one point he is vaguely referred to as being from north. Its pretty much all kinds of awful. And then there is Jeremy Renner. He was surprisingly good in The Hurt Locker. But then again he was also really bad in 28 Weeks Later and SWAT. And painful in this. Ms. Stiles, although I love you, this was not your best role.
And this movie doesn't really have anything going for it. The plot is particularly nonsensical. There is some small suggestion in the end and in some half done deleted scene that Whitaker goes to heaven. There are in fact several references to heaven that seemed strangely out of place. Whatever the directer was going for, it got lost somewhere between his vision and the screen. Next time I think I'll just send it back if I'm not sure why I put the movie on my queue.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Mistake 1: going to see Transformers 2
Mistake 2: going to the the midnight show
Mistake 3: thinking that I have the energy or patience to sit through 2 and half hours of drivel at midnight.
Do you know that old cliche that when it comes to action movies, the sequel just ramps up whatever made the first film successful by 10 and hopes the profits will multiply by 100? Was there a big action sequence in the first film that was really popular? Okay, then let us add 43.2 big action sequences. Was there a mildly humorous (or annoying or both) character, well if people occasionally laughed at the antics of that character, imagine the hilarity that will ensue if we add 5 more such characters. And was their an aesthetically pleasing bombshell damsel? Okay lets add another one.
Michael Bay has pretty much give us every single one of those cliches in the sequel. The man who once almost gave me an aneurysm when he criticized a would be film maker for making a film that felt like retread has provided exactly what you would expect him to provide. There are an uncountable number of over the top action sequences, there are four or five "humorous" characters adding comic relief and a fair amount of backhanded racism. And of course we get more of lithe Megan Fox but also another scantily clad young woman.
The fan boy in me and the one, who grew up playing with plastic transformers and watching the 30 minute commercial that was the cartoon series, admittedly had one moment of pure glee when Optimus Prime took on three Decepticons at once. I couldn't resist smiling. But the rest of the time was painful, long and exhausting. You can be pretty much of two types when it comes to this movie, you want to see it and nothing I say will change your mind or you have no desire to see it and nothing I can say can change your mind.
The plot isn't worth repeating even if I pretended I was paying attention or that I understood it. But what struck me as odd and I don't care whether this was intentional or not, is the blatant conservative rhetoric of the film. Much like 300 was so easy to read as a neo-conservative statement of freedom and democracy, the new Transformers movie smacks you in the face with the Dick Cheney rhetoric that America is less safe thanks to Barack Obama.
Since the first film, the transformers have been allied with humans fighting terrorist acts by the decepticons. Then enter a new president (specifically referenced twice as being Barack Obama). This new president as represented by his sniveling, bureaucratic liaison to the military suggests that it is the tools of fighting the terrorists that may be causing more terrorism. Suggesting that Obama's foreign policy is simply if we stop antagonizing the enemy and get rid of our best way of defending against them then the whole thing will work out peacefully.
It was insulting to say nothing else. And I'm sure more than one person will say I'm reading to much into it but what reason does the film have to make reference to the president as being Barack Obama? Its a fantasy world where giant sentient robots exist, can't it have a fantasy president? The fact that the asshole suit who wants to get rid of the Autobots represents the president seems to me pretty clear. Why does a mindless action film have to not so subtly suggest a real president is ineffectual? I don't care for it.
Mistake 2: going to the the midnight show
Mistake 3: thinking that I have the energy or patience to sit through 2 and half hours of drivel at midnight.
Do you know that old cliche that when it comes to action movies, the sequel just ramps up whatever made the first film successful by 10 and hopes the profits will multiply by 100? Was there a big action sequence in the first film that was really popular? Okay, then let us add 43.2 big action sequences. Was there a mildly humorous (or annoying or both) character, well if people occasionally laughed at the antics of that character, imagine the hilarity that will ensue if we add 5 more such characters. And was their an aesthetically pleasing bombshell damsel? Okay lets add another one.
Michael Bay has pretty much give us every single one of those cliches in the sequel. The man who once almost gave me an aneurysm when he criticized a would be film maker for making a film that felt like retread has provided exactly what you would expect him to provide. There are an uncountable number of over the top action sequences, there are four or five "humorous" characters adding comic relief and a fair amount of backhanded racism. And of course we get more of lithe Megan Fox but also another scantily clad young woman.
The fan boy in me and the one, who grew up playing with plastic transformers and watching the 30 minute commercial that was the cartoon series, admittedly had one moment of pure glee when Optimus Prime took on three Decepticons at once. I couldn't resist smiling. But the rest of the time was painful, long and exhausting. You can be pretty much of two types when it comes to this movie, you want to see it and nothing I say will change your mind or you have no desire to see it and nothing I can say can change your mind.
The plot isn't worth repeating even if I pretended I was paying attention or that I understood it. But what struck me as odd and I don't care whether this was intentional or not, is the blatant conservative rhetoric of the film. Much like 300 was so easy to read as a neo-conservative statement of freedom and democracy, the new Transformers movie smacks you in the face with the Dick Cheney rhetoric that America is less safe thanks to Barack Obama.
Since the first film, the transformers have been allied with humans fighting terrorist acts by the decepticons. Then enter a new president (specifically referenced twice as being Barack Obama). This new president as represented by his sniveling, bureaucratic liaison to the military suggests that it is the tools of fighting the terrorists that may be causing more terrorism. Suggesting that Obama's foreign policy is simply if we stop antagonizing the enemy and get rid of our best way of defending against them then the whole thing will work out peacefully.
It was insulting to say nothing else. And I'm sure more than one person will say I'm reading to much into it but what reason does the film have to make reference to the president as being Barack Obama? Its a fantasy world where giant sentient robots exist, can't it have a fantasy president? The fact that the asshole suit who wants to get rid of the Autobots represents the president seems to me pretty clear. Why does a mindless action film have to not so subtly suggest a real president is ineffectual? I don't care for it.
Year One
Obviously there is something wrong with me. Because the only comedic (and I use the term broadly) actor I hate more than Will Farrell is Jack Black. He's basically anti-comedy most of the time. Basically just loud and offensive. But as foolishly amazed as I was that I went to Land of the Lost I was a bit more perplexed as to why I had gone to see Year One. I'd like to say I was tricked by esteemed critic Manhola Darghis of the New York Times. But that would just be lying to myself. Although she did indeed give the film a critic's pick recommendation, I still knew in my heart that any Jack Black movie was not for me.
The film taking place in a fantasy reality where biblical stories mix with cavemen and Romans is an absurd road trip for the film's leads Jack Black and Michael Cera. Black as his usual load, boisterous, obnoxious self. Cera as his usual quiet, snarky, wimpy self. At times Cera's charm is put to good use and works well but here it is an annoying and ineffectual foil to Black. Cameos by David Cross and Hank Azaria are not nearly as humorous as advertised. Its general theme of poking fun of religious dogma is tame and the topic has been eviscerated by better comedic genius than this group. Notably, Monty Python's Life of Brian, which in retrospect I wish I had just stayed home and watched, is a far better satire of religion and the ancient world.
The film taking place in a fantasy reality where biblical stories mix with cavemen and Romans is an absurd road trip for the film's leads Jack Black and Michael Cera. Black as his usual load, boisterous, obnoxious self. Cera as his usual quiet, snarky, wimpy self. At times Cera's charm is put to good use and works well but here it is an annoying and ineffectual foil to Black. Cameos by David Cross and Hank Azaria are not nearly as humorous as advertised. Its general theme of poking fun of religious dogma is tame and the topic has been eviscerated by better comedic genius than this group. Notably, Monty Python's Life of Brian, which in retrospect I wish I had just stayed home and watched, is a far better satire of religion and the ancient world.
Land of the Lost
Well I really have no one to blame but myself. (Note to Reader: this will pretty much be the theme for several of upcoming reviews) Give a man nothing to do and he is likely to do something really stupid. In my case, ennui made me go see Land of the Lost. I can't really explain why since I find Will Ferrell unfunny and that he has overstayed his welcome as a comedic actor. Perhaps it was the presence of Danny McBride, who stole the show in the recent Pineapple Express. Or perhaps it was memories of his better films such as Anchor Man or Talladega Nights. Whatever the reason, it was a bad decision.
Ferrell plays a discredited scientist who believes that portals to parallel Earths exist. Soon enough a contrived plot allows for our hero, his plucky grad student helper, Anna Friel and the aforementioned Danny McBride as a redneck survival nut are transported to a world of dinosaurs and strange lizard creatures. Friel quickly alters her wardrobe to show off her legs and a series of rather unfunny encounters occur. These include but are not limited to a T-Rex that takes offense to being called stupid and a hallucinatory binge by McBride and Ferrell. When it isn't simply being unfunny, its usually being downright painful.
Ferrell plays a discredited scientist who believes that portals to parallel Earths exist. Soon enough a contrived plot allows for our hero, his plucky grad student helper, Anna Friel and the aforementioned Danny McBride as a redneck survival nut are transported to a world of dinosaurs and strange lizard creatures. Friel quickly alters her wardrobe to show off her legs and a series of rather unfunny encounters occur. These include but are not limited to a T-Rex that takes offense to being called stupid and a hallucinatory binge by McBride and Ferrell. When it isn't simply being unfunny, its usually being downright painful.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Soloist
The Soloist is the latest film from director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice and Atonement). It is based on the true story of a homeless mentally-ill man in LA who once studied at Julliard and is an accomplished musician. He is discovered by an LA Times columnist who tells his story and befriends him. The musician is played by Jamie Foxx while Robert Downey,Jr. portrays the columnist.
The plot revolves around Downey, Jr attempting to help Foxx and coming to terms with the fact that he does not necessarily know what is best for the homeless man. Its a highly sentimental film and attempts to manipulate its audience over deeply problematic issues of mental health, poverty and so forth. I'm afraid Mr. Wright's movement to telling more and more highly moralized tales has left a certain amount of distaste in my mouth and I sadly state that although his skill at establishing shots and directing is still well done, he gets lost in his overbearing message.
I was genuinely pleased with his first venture, the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (note: not the BBC one). I thought it was well cast and acted and I even went out and purchased Jane Austen's novel because I enjoyed the story so much. And I have to say that it a pretty good recommendation in my book. Atonement didn't enthrall me so much although it maintained its high quality of direction and story telling. The second half was far less entertaining than the first and the "spectacular" one take camera shot mid film felt like the amazing technical feat that it was, not like something that worked for the film.
I'm not entirely sure that the story is a cinematic one and his attempts to set the backdrop as occurring during the Katrina hurricane made it even more unfortunate. It isn't clear to me what the intent there was but it seems like the story of one homeless man finding a friend and charity in the wake of millions being displaced from their homes and thousands being trapped in the Super Dome do to massive government incompetence is rather trite. Mr. Wright please get back to telling stories and save the preachiness for others.
The plot revolves around Downey, Jr attempting to help Foxx and coming to terms with the fact that he does not necessarily know what is best for the homeless man. Its a highly sentimental film and attempts to manipulate its audience over deeply problematic issues of mental health, poverty and so forth. I'm afraid Mr. Wright's movement to telling more and more highly moralized tales has left a certain amount of distaste in my mouth and I sadly state that although his skill at establishing shots and directing is still well done, he gets lost in his overbearing message.
I was genuinely pleased with his first venture, the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (note: not the BBC one). I thought it was well cast and acted and I even went out and purchased Jane Austen's novel because I enjoyed the story so much. And I have to say that it a pretty good recommendation in my book. Atonement didn't enthrall me so much although it maintained its high quality of direction and story telling. The second half was far less entertaining than the first and the "spectacular" one take camera shot mid film felt like the amazing technical feat that it was, not like something that worked for the film.
I'm not entirely sure that the story is a cinematic one and his attempts to set the backdrop as occurring during the Katrina hurricane made it even more unfortunate. It isn't clear to me what the intent there was but it seems like the story of one homeless man finding a friend and charity in the wake of millions being displaced from their homes and thousands being trapped in the Super Dome do to massive government incompetence is rather trite. Mr. Wright please get back to telling stories and save the preachiness for others.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Wendy and Lucy
Editor's note: To all my fans (ahh who am I kidding) to all my friends who feel semi-obligated to check and my family who feels fully obligated to check and to all those random people who came upon this site by chance and quickly hit the back button as they searched for something of real value, I apologize for not updating this site more frequently. I have not never fear ceased to view movies (although I have watched far fewer this year as I am no longer trying to achieve an inane goal).
Kelly Reichardt's film Wendy and Lucy is a small affair following for a brief time Wendy, a 20 something adrift from the world. She is heading to Alaska so she says. She is accompanied by her beautiful dog Lucy. Wendy has traveled from somewhere in the Midwest (Indiana? I can't recall). She has about $500 dollars left to make it and then tragedy strikes.
Wendy wakes up one day to find her car will not start. A kindly security guard guides her to a repair shop that never seems to be open and a grocery store where she can get some food. Wendy shoplifts a can of dog food for Lucy and is arrested. By the time she is released, Lucy has disappeared. The rest of the film has Wendy trying to find Lucy and get her car repaired.
Michelle Williams is well cast here as Wendy. She's quiet and withdrawn and has her best connection with Lucy. She's decent in this role and the character doesn't call for big outrages. She takes it all quietly in stride more defeated by the world than outraged by it. Despite Williams doing what she can with the character, the film is a bit flat.
My own personal problem with the film which I admit might be unfair, is how stupid Wendy is. She has $500 and a dog she tied up out front of a grocery store. Why the hell is she shoplifting a can of dog food? What do you think will happen to a dog, if its left for 5 hours while you get arrested? Is the character really that stupid or is this really that pathetic of a plot device?
The two ancillary characters of note are the security guard who offers his knowledge and phone to Wendy to help her out and the repair shop owner played by Will Patton. And might I add a complete waste of Will Patton's character actor talent. Why did they even bother casting Patton? Anyone would have done just as well. Was there some bigger scene with him that got cut out? He's literally little more than an extra.
The big problem is that you never get any real sense of what Wendy is running from. Why does she think the solution is Alaska? These things don't necessarily need to be stated outright but at the very least the character needs to convey something of these things. Else why the hell do we care what happens to her?
Frankly I was more concerned with the dog than Wendy. Probably not a good sign for your movie.
Kelly Reichardt's film Wendy and Lucy is a small affair following for a brief time Wendy, a 20 something adrift from the world. She is heading to Alaska so she says. She is accompanied by her beautiful dog Lucy. Wendy has traveled from somewhere in the Midwest (Indiana? I can't recall). She has about $500 dollars left to make it and then tragedy strikes.
Wendy wakes up one day to find her car will not start. A kindly security guard guides her to a repair shop that never seems to be open and a grocery store where she can get some food. Wendy shoplifts a can of dog food for Lucy and is arrested. By the time she is released, Lucy has disappeared. The rest of the film has Wendy trying to find Lucy and get her car repaired.
Michelle Williams is well cast here as Wendy. She's quiet and withdrawn and has her best connection with Lucy. She's decent in this role and the character doesn't call for big outrages. She takes it all quietly in stride more defeated by the world than outraged by it. Despite Williams doing what she can with the character, the film is a bit flat.
My own personal problem with the film which I admit might be unfair, is how stupid Wendy is. She has $500 and a dog she tied up out front of a grocery store. Why the hell is she shoplifting a can of dog food? What do you think will happen to a dog, if its left for 5 hours while you get arrested? Is the character really that stupid or is this really that pathetic of a plot device?
The two ancillary characters of note are the security guard who offers his knowledge and phone to Wendy to help her out and the repair shop owner played by Will Patton. And might I add a complete waste of Will Patton's character actor talent. Why did they even bother casting Patton? Anyone would have done just as well. Was there some bigger scene with him that got cut out? He's literally little more than an extra.
The big problem is that you never get any real sense of what Wendy is running from. Why does she think the solution is Alaska? These things don't necessarily need to be stated outright but at the very least the character needs to convey something of these things. Else why the hell do we care what happens to her?
Frankly I was more concerned with the dog than Wendy. Probably not a good sign for your movie.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Last Chance Harvey
A few days before I saw Last Chance Harvey with fellow movie snob CinemaRomantico, we joked that in fact the film only pretended to be a romantic comedy but was in fact an action film along Die Hard lines. Harvey would be an ex CIA operative who has to rescue his daughter when terrorists attack her wedding. Can't you just see the preview? "For former CIA agent Harvey Shine, there's ONE LAST CHANCE to save the day" all spoken by one of those husky deep voiced movie trailer guys. Wouldn't that have been something? There was not however any untruth in the advertising of this one.
Harvey (Dustin Hoffman) is an old, divorced jingle writer who is heading to his daughter's wedding in London. He gets fired, his daughter wants her step dad to give her away and Harvey is and feels alone. In an airport bar he strikes up a conversation with equally lonely Kate Walker(Emma Thompson). She has a close relationship with her mother and apparently no ability to get in a relationship. The two being conversing and walking a la Before Sunrise. Except that we don't hear much of the conversation and what we do is not interesting or very convincing.
As a concept, Before Sunrise worked. We just follow two people having a conversation and we believe they could fall in love. Everyday we have conversations. Sometimes at a bar or a party we meet and talk to someone we connect with and sometimes it turns into love. So why mess with that basic formula? The conversation. This and last year's offender Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist figured we'd buy into the romance with montages and wackiness when we'd be more convinced by a conversation. But frankly, directors or writers seem to think a montage with laughter is more convincing. It isn't.
But despite that I was unimpressed with Thompson and Hoffman's chemistry. Not sure if it was the twenty year age difference or what but the idea of the two was very boring. And then they decided to introduce an arbitrary plot device (one they could have established early on but never did). Because true to formula you can't have a happy ending without an arbitrary break up leading up to it. I wish I'd gotten the action film.
Harvey (Dustin Hoffman) is an old, divorced jingle writer who is heading to his daughter's wedding in London. He gets fired, his daughter wants her step dad to give her away and Harvey is and feels alone. In an airport bar he strikes up a conversation with equally lonely Kate Walker(Emma Thompson). She has a close relationship with her mother and apparently no ability to get in a relationship. The two being conversing and walking a la Before Sunrise. Except that we don't hear much of the conversation and what we do is not interesting or very convincing.
As a concept, Before Sunrise worked. We just follow two people having a conversation and we believe they could fall in love. Everyday we have conversations. Sometimes at a bar or a party we meet and talk to someone we connect with and sometimes it turns into love. So why mess with that basic formula? The conversation. This and last year's offender Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist figured we'd buy into the romance with montages and wackiness when we'd be more convinced by a conversation. But frankly, directors or writers seem to think a montage with laughter is more convincing. It isn't.
But despite that I was unimpressed with Thompson and Hoffman's chemistry. Not sure if it was the twenty year age difference or what but the idea of the two was very boring. And then they decided to introduce an arbitrary plot device (one they could have established early on but never did). Because true to formula you can't have a happy ending without an arbitrary break up leading up to it. I wish I'd gotten the action film.
Gran Torino
An aging Korean War vet named Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), whose wife has recently died, lives in an increasingly run down and low income neighborhood. The people he knew have moved out and a community of Hmong have moved in. Walt is old, grizzled, disappointed in his children and harboring a whole lot of racist resentment towards his neighbors. He spends many of his days drinking canned PBR and openly complaining about the state of the neighborhood. The quiet neighbor boy is pressured to join the local gang and his initiation is to steal Walt's prized 1972 Gran Torino. After this fails, the family insists the boy make amends by working for Walt. As Walt interacts with the boy and his sister, the more he connects with them and his prejudice falls away.
Clint Eastwood is pretty damn smart. A strategy he employed last year almost got him another Oscar nomination this year. Last year Eastwood released the early and generally panned Flags of Our Fathers before winning praise for Letters from Iwo Jima later in the year. This year he got Golden Globe nominations and praise for this film his second film after the maligned Changeling. The problem is "Letters" wasn't actually that good. And Gran Torino is good but not great. So pay attention would be award winning filmmakers: release two films, the second being marginally better than the first and you might find yourself nominated.
Admittedly it isn't a terrible film. It has moments and as a friend said to me, only Eastwood could have made this film. This is true, there is so much manipulation of Eastwood's own iconic tough guy image that you buy into Walt. for the most part. See I had two major problems with the film. The first might seem trivial but was actually what took me out of the film entirely. See Walt is a tough old son of a bitch Korean War vet who doesn't like change. He swills PBR daily and scowls a lot.
So why, oh why, I ask is there a scene with Walt in a bubble bath? I'm sorry. Nope. Walt Kowalski is not the bubble bath type. I find it impossible to believe even if the film claimed it was left over from his wife and he did it to be reminded. (The film did not offer that explanation, it offered no explanation.) So when we see Walt in the tub with bubbles covering him (no doubt to obscure any possible nudity) I just called shenanigans and the movie lost me completely.
More significant is the messiah complex Mr. Eastwood has in this film. And the end is just silly to watch on account of this. In its defense the film is fairly charming as Walt comes around to having affection for the brother and sister next door but overall its more manipulative than impressive. I admire Eastwood for tweaking his own mythology as Brad Pitt did last year in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. But "Gran Torino" the song at the end during the credits is quite nice and its an experience to hear Clint sing a verse.
Clint Eastwood is pretty damn smart. A strategy he employed last year almost got him another Oscar nomination this year. Last year Eastwood released the early and generally panned Flags of Our Fathers before winning praise for Letters from Iwo Jima later in the year. This year he got Golden Globe nominations and praise for this film his second film after the maligned Changeling. The problem is "Letters" wasn't actually that good. And Gran Torino is good but not great. So pay attention would be award winning filmmakers: release two films, the second being marginally better than the first and you might find yourself nominated.
Admittedly it isn't a terrible film. It has moments and as a friend said to me, only Eastwood could have made this film. This is true, there is so much manipulation of Eastwood's own iconic tough guy image that you buy into Walt. for the most part. See I had two major problems with the film. The first might seem trivial but was actually what took me out of the film entirely. See Walt is a tough old son of a bitch Korean War vet who doesn't like change. He swills PBR daily and scowls a lot.
So why, oh why, I ask is there a scene with Walt in a bubble bath? I'm sorry. Nope. Walt Kowalski is not the bubble bath type. I find it impossible to believe even if the film claimed it was left over from his wife and he did it to be reminded. (The film did not offer that explanation, it offered no explanation.) So when we see Walt in the tub with bubbles covering him (no doubt to obscure any possible nudity) I just called shenanigans and the movie lost me completely.
More significant is the messiah complex Mr. Eastwood has in this film. And the end is just silly to watch on account of this. In its defense the film is fairly charming as Walt comes around to having affection for the brother and sister next door but overall its more manipulative than impressive. I admire Eastwood for tweaking his own mythology as Brad Pitt did last year in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. But "Gran Torino" the song at the end during the credits is quite nice and its an experience to hear Clint sing a verse.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Quantum of Solace
Picking up shortly after the end of Casino Royale, we find James Bond (Daniel Craig) being chased by some bad guys. He eventually eludes them and brings a man in for questioning about a mysterious group called Quantum. A seemingly omnipresent international cabal with its hands in everything. Bond is a man on a mission to uncover this secret group which was partly responsible for the death of Vesper (Eva Green) from the last film. Bond is quickly in the thick of it all and has M (Judi Dench) thinking he is driven by revenge rather than duty. Quickly we are introduced to our villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) and another player Camille (Olga Kurylenko).
Don't worry if that didn't make much sense as the plot is the least of the problems of this film. I've read a number of "readings" of James Bond recently. Some advocating a return to the more campy cool, non brooding fight conglomerate enemies of the Spectra variety. Others approving of the new direction of a brooding Bond who fights more relevant 20th century problems. I'm not sure I care who is right and I enjoyed reasonably well Casino Royale but the creative juices behind this film don't seem to know which way to go either. Yes, Bond is brooding but he's fighting a multinational cabal of baddies known as Quantum whose goals aim more towards making lots of money rather than world domination.
The cutesiness of not having signature lines uttered continues in this film right down to an agonizing bit of dialog where a bartender describes all the contents of the martini that Bond is drinking but never says martini. Why? Who thought that was clever? Of course I felt a bit of queasiness in my stomach when I saw Paul Haggis' name flash on the screen with a writing credit. He's not exactly known for his subtlety from what I have seen and the script is no exception. But no one comes to a Bond movie for writing right? Probably a fair point but I'm not asking for it to win a screenwriting award, just not to be heavy handed and not bore me to the point of wishing I had just stayed home and stared at the wall for 2 hours.
Then there is Marc Forster and his seemingly lack of knowing what to do in an action sequence. The only thing that was boring me more than most of the narrative was most of the action sequences. Their rushed, lack tension and generally stirred no emotion beyond "meh" in me. They were also largely filled with what was either really poorly done green screening or even more poorly done actually stunts. Forster should probably stick to the films that don't require action sequences.
Daniel Craig is good with what he has (read: not much) and certainly has an intensity that is nice. Mathieu Amalric (who starred in one of my favorite movies of last year, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) does what he can with the regrettably one dimensional role he's been given as representative Bond villain. Then there is the beauty Olga Kurylenko who in every film I have seen her in has been treated by the men as some sort of mediocre woman judging by the complete lack of passion they have for her.
To be sure I was a supporter, avidly, of the new Bond (if you're curious here is my review short and sweet.) But upon reflection and given the direction this film took, I really miss the old Bond. We've got Jason Bourne for no non-sense no emotion spy action. Do we really want Bond as the British Bourne? If they keep going this way that is all he will be. And since the Bourne movies do Bourne better than the Bond movies, why would I continue to watch Daniel Craig? I'm not saying per se we should go back to the cold war era Bond but put a little bit more fun back in the film. Oh and give the directing reins to someone who at least knows his or her way around an action sequence.
P.S. if you're going to have a beautiful woman like Olga Kurylenko in your movie at least have Bond sleep with her. What's the world coming to?
Don't worry if that didn't make much sense as the plot is the least of the problems of this film. I've read a number of "readings" of James Bond recently. Some advocating a return to the more campy cool, non brooding fight conglomerate enemies of the Spectra variety. Others approving of the new direction of a brooding Bond who fights more relevant 20th century problems. I'm not sure I care who is right and I enjoyed reasonably well Casino Royale but the creative juices behind this film don't seem to know which way to go either. Yes, Bond is brooding but he's fighting a multinational cabal of baddies known as Quantum whose goals aim more towards making lots of money rather than world domination.
The cutesiness of not having signature lines uttered continues in this film right down to an agonizing bit of dialog where a bartender describes all the contents of the martini that Bond is drinking but never says martini. Why? Who thought that was clever? Of course I felt a bit of queasiness in my stomach when I saw Paul Haggis' name flash on the screen with a writing credit. He's not exactly known for his subtlety from what I have seen and the script is no exception. But no one comes to a Bond movie for writing right? Probably a fair point but I'm not asking for it to win a screenwriting award, just not to be heavy handed and not bore me to the point of wishing I had just stayed home and stared at the wall for 2 hours.
Then there is Marc Forster and his seemingly lack of knowing what to do in an action sequence. The only thing that was boring me more than most of the narrative was most of the action sequences. Their rushed, lack tension and generally stirred no emotion beyond "meh" in me. They were also largely filled with what was either really poorly done green screening or even more poorly done actually stunts. Forster should probably stick to the films that don't require action sequences.
Daniel Craig is good with what he has (read: not much) and certainly has an intensity that is nice. Mathieu Amalric (who starred in one of my favorite movies of last year, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) does what he can with the regrettably one dimensional role he's been given as representative Bond villain. Then there is the beauty Olga Kurylenko who in every film I have seen her in has been treated by the men as some sort of mediocre woman judging by the complete lack of passion they have for her.
To be sure I was a supporter, avidly, of the new Bond (if you're curious here is my review short and sweet.) But upon reflection and given the direction this film took, I really miss the old Bond. We've got Jason Bourne for no non-sense no emotion spy action. Do we really want Bond as the British Bourne? If they keep going this way that is all he will be. And since the Bourne movies do Bourne better than the Bond movies, why would I continue to watch Daniel Craig? I'm not saying per se we should go back to the cold war era Bond but put a little bit more fun back in the film. Oh and give the directing reins to someone who at least knows his or her way around an action sequence.
P.S. if you're going to have a beautiful woman like Olga Kurylenko in your movie at least have Bond sleep with her. What's the world coming to?
Monday, November 10, 2008
What Just Happened
Ben (Robert DeNiro) is one of Hollywood's 30 most powerful producers (so he tells us personally) and the movie starts with him at a test screening of a new film by a British director called "Fiercely". The audience does not react well to the film and the ending has a shocking thing that disturbs most of the audience. This causes huge problems for tough minded studio head Lou (Catherine Keener). Ben must juggle the director, Lou as well as another project starring Bruce Willis. Willis has showed up on set with a shaggy beard and 30 pounds of extra weight. This is a problem for the studio. In addition to his work woes, Ben is dealing with two ex-wives and children as well as other aspects of his personal life.
If the goal of this film is to dismiss the glorious mythos of Hollywood, then it succeeds. Ben and his problems throughout the movie are as mundane and boring as it gets. As he drives from one place to another constantly with a blue tooth headphone in his ear, talking quickly and smoothing over problems. The life of a Hollywood producer couldn't possibly be more monotonous and boring. Even when he's having obscenities hurled at him by an actor the level of excitement never really rises. Which is kind of odd because you would expect it too.
I can't be entirely sure that the goal is to dismiss the mythos of Hollywood. It may in fact be that this movie is so poorly constructed that it just makes you bored. As we get this insider look (which has been better done via parody) we also get a glimpse of Ben's private life. And I say glimpse because its always quick and not very well fleshed out. Again perhaps because his life is consumed with his job but there is an entire sub sub plot with one of his daughter's that makes less than zero sense and has no satisfactory conclusion.
DeNiro is blissfully underplayed. No over the top bad ass here. In fact he's about as weak kneed and spineless as you might expect of a Hollywood producer. Not to demean producers but life has to suck pretty bad when you are basically being manhandled on a daily basis by studio heads and prima donna actors. The only one in the movie who shows any emotion is Bruce Willis playing himself and even his outbursts seem stilted and unconvincing.
The film is boring and low key and honestly upon consideration I'm amazed I sat through the entire thing. Which is really to bad because DeNiro and director Barry Levinson gave quite an entertaining film in Wag the Dog eleven years ago.
If the goal of this film is to dismiss the glorious mythos of Hollywood, then it succeeds. Ben and his problems throughout the movie are as mundane and boring as it gets. As he drives from one place to another constantly with a blue tooth headphone in his ear, talking quickly and smoothing over problems. The life of a Hollywood producer couldn't possibly be more monotonous and boring. Even when he's having obscenities hurled at him by an actor the level of excitement never really rises. Which is kind of odd because you would expect it too.
I can't be entirely sure that the goal is to dismiss the mythos of Hollywood. It may in fact be that this movie is so poorly constructed that it just makes you bored. As we get this insider look (which has been better done via parody) we also get a glimpse of Ben's private life. And I say glimpse because its always quick and not very well fleshed out. Again perhaps because his life is consumed with his job but there is an entire sub sub plot with one of his daughter's that makes less than zero sense and has no satisfactory conclusion.
DeNiro is blissfully underplayed. No over the top bad ass here. In fact he's about as weak kneed and spineless as you might expect of a Hollywood producer. Not to demean producers but life has to suck pretty bad when you are basically being manhandled on a daily basis by studio heads and prima donna actors. The only one in the movie who shows any emotion is Bruce Willis playing himself and even his outbursts seem stilted and unconvincing.
The film is boring and low key and honestly upon consideration I'm amazed I sat through the entire thing. Which is really to bad because DeNiro and director Barry Levinson gave quite an entertaining film in Wag the Dog eleven years ago.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist
As per Cinema Romantico's request, I'll try to elucidate my hatred of the recent film Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. This may prove difficult since it has been some time since I saw it, I found 90% of the film painful beyond reckoning, and as a result I went to another movie that night just to wash the memory from my mind (it was only partially successful). Despite the titular heroes sharing the names of two great bantering movie icons (Nick (William Powell) and Nora (Myrna Loy) of The Thin Man) quick witted and interesting characters they are not.
Plot synopsis vaguely: Nick has been dumped by Tris (Alexis Dziena) and hasn't gotten over her and leaves her mixed CDs. Typically Nora gets these after digging them from the trash and really likes his taste. Coincidence causes the two of them to wind up at a night club together and various other coincidences cause them to spend the night roaming New York City trying to find some band that performs live shows in clandestine locations. In typical rom com style they disagree and agree and show interest in one another and then not and then blah blah blah. Who the hell cares.
Issue 1: The infinite play list is filled with songs and bands that I only assume are hip and hopping right now among today's youth but its all just noise to me and rather wretched noise for the most part. Despite all evidence to the contrary I am not an 80 year old man (well maybe in spirit). Maybe someone else will enjoy the music.
Issue 2: Why at any moment am I to believe these two are interested in each other? Beyond liking the same music (which they barely establish) and a few far too short moments where the two characters actually converse with one another, I never found one thing that helped explain what they saw in each other. And clearly the filmmakers were aiming from some spiritual connection motif not just lust. So what the hell gives?
Issue 3: It wasn't the Thin Man (or even had dialog that would make the Thin Man proud). At the production stage someone should have insisted on character name change. Oh you know what movie it also isn't? Although its certainly aiming to be in some ways? Before Sunrise. Yeah See in that film we got long conversations between the two characters and low and behold we had a reason to believe they would spend a night talking and arrange to meet at some future point. If they had cut out half the crappy music and drunk girl subplot and had actual genuine moments of conversation between Nick and Nora, this film might have actually had some redeemable quality.
Now lets end on a happier note:
Reporter: Say listen, is he working on a case?
Nora Charles: Yes, he is.
Reporter: What case?
Nora Charles: A case of scotch. Pitch in and help him.
Plot synopsis vaguely: Nick has been dumped by Tris (Alexis Dziena) and hasn't gotten over her and leaves her mixed CDs. Typically Nora gets these after digging them from the trash and really likes his taste. Coincidence causes the two of them to wind up at a night club together and various other coincidences cause them to spend the night roaming New York City trying to find some band that performs live shows in clandestine locations. In typical rom com style they disagree and agree and show interest in one another and then not and then blah blah blah. Who the hell cares.
Issue 1: The infinite play list is filled with songs and bands that I only assume are hip and hopping right now among today's youth but its all just noise to me and rather wretched noise for the most part. Despite all evidence to the contrary I am not an 80 year old man (well maybe in spirit). Maybe someone else will enjoy the music.
Issue 2: Why at any moment am I to believe these two are interested in each other? Beyond liking the same music (which they barely establish) and a few far too short moments where the two characters actually converse with one another, I never found one thing that helped explain what they saw in each other. And clearly the filmmakers were aiming from some spiritual connection motif not just lust. So what the hell gives?
Issue 3: It wasn't the Thin Man (or even had dialog that would make the Thin Man proud). At the production stage someone should have insisted on character name change. Oh you know what movie it also isn't? Although its certainly aiming to be in some ways? Before Sunrise. Yeah See in that film we got long conversations between the two characters and low and behold we had a reason to believe they would spend a night talking and arrange to meet at some future point. If they had cut out half the crappy music and drunk girl subplot and had actual genuine moments of conversation between Nick and Nora, this film might have actually had some redeemable quality.
Now lets end on a happier note:
Reporter: Say listen, is he working on a case?
Nora Charles: Yes, he is.
Reporter: What case?
Nora Charles: A case of scotch. Pitch in and help him.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Rachel Getting Married
If, as my friend and fellow blogger CinemaRomantico says, Rachel Getting Married is the best film of the year then that is a really sad statement of films this year. It's not a bad film, it just isn't a great film or even a really good film. Its basically an okay film that gets elevated above its mediocrity by the lackluster year we've had and some strong performances.
The film takes place over a weekend as Rachel (Rosemarie Dewitt) is getting married. Her sister Kym (Anne Hathaway) is released from rehab for the occasion and all the issues of her life are coming with her. The fact that the whole wedding weekend is seemingly one giant love fest of multiculturalism save for occasional flare ups by Kym exposing the family drama is just a little too saccharine sweet for me. Tie that in with the wobbly hand held camera that films most of the action and I was queasy for a considerable part of the film.
For the love of all that is just set the camera down! I don't care if the point is to give a documentary feel or to make you feel as if you are in the house (I doubt the latter since last I checked my vision didn't rock softly like a boat in choppy water when I participate in activities (unless I've been drinking)). The film is at its most annoying when overwhelming me with happy, happy speech or music number in the rehearsal dinner or the actual wedding. I'd have been so much happier if the film had been 20 minutes shorter and had just cut out a lot of these scenes of love (but I admit I'm cynical).
It is at its most compelling when it is exposing that in fact the family isn't so cutesy and straight-laced. Rachel and Kym's father tends to prioritize Kym. Their mother is distant and lacking affection. The family fights are really intriguing. Still even as they are compelling they also never rise above what we've seen before from this kind of film. Add in all the nauseating rocking camera and the paradisaical nature of the wedding and its all just too much for me.
I admit my cynicism may be influencing me here and it has fine elements (and Anne Hathaway could be nominated for her performance and I wouldn't gripe) but it just wasn't great.
The film takes place over a weekend as Rachel (Rosemarie Dewitt) is getting married. Her sister Kym (Anne Hathaway) is released from rehab for the occasion and all the issues of her life are coming with her. The fact that the whole wedding weekend is seemingly one giant love fest of multiculturalism save for occasional flare ups by Kym exposing the family drama is just a little too saccharine sweet for me. Tie that in with the wobbly hand held camera that films most of the action and I was queasy for a considerable part of the film.
For the love of all that is just set the camera down! I don't care if the point is to give a documentary feel or to make you feel as if you are in the house (I doubt the latter since last I checked my vision didn't rock softly like a boat in choppy water when I participate in activities (unless I've been drinking)). The film is at its most annoying when overwhelming me with happy, happy speech or music number in the rehearsal dinner or the actual wedding. I'd have been so much happier if the film had been 20 minutes shorter and had just cut out a lot of these scenes of love (but I admit I'm cynical).
It is at its most compelling when it is exposing that in fact the family isn't so cutesy and straight-laced. Rachel and Kym's father tends to prioritize Kym. Their mother is distant and lacking affection. The family fights are really intriguing. Still even as they are compelling they also never rise above what we've seen before from this kind of film. Add in all the nauseating rocking camera and the paradisaical nature of the wedding and its all just too much for me.
I admit my cynicism may be influencing me here and it has fine elements (and Anne Hathaway could be nominated for her performance and I wouldn't gripe) but it just wasn't great.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Transsiberian
Brad Anderson directed a surprisingly good horror film a couple of years back called Session 9, a film I thank Wretched Genius for recommending. Its a real shame because Transsiberian is not a surprisingly good thriller. Its a bland, uninteresting work with little going for it other than its setting and it circles down to absurdity very quickly.
Roy (Woody Harrelson) and Jessie (Emily Mortimer) are Christian missionaries who have just finished work in China and are taking the train across Siberia to Moscow before taking a plane back to the States. They meet and befriend another couple Abby (Kate Mara) and Carlos (Eduardo Noriega). Soon it is realized that Carlos and Abby might be drug smugglers and things become interesting when Ben Kingsley's Russian detective appears on the train.
Problem one is up front right away. Not one of the actors (some of them fairly reliable) seems appropriately cast. Kingsley has a bizarre accent and seems out of place. Mortimer's Jessie doesn't act at all like a reformed bad girl for most of the movie. Only Harrelson comes even close to pulling off his limited dimension character and he still misses.
Second is the increasingly stupid plot which relies on thinly veiled attempts to trick the audience for no real reason. And then on occasion random chance that prevents characters from discovering important evidence. All this rounding out to a out right silly ending that made me glad someone else paid for my ticket to the theater.
Roy (Woody Harrelson) and Jessie (Emily Mortimer) are Christian missionaries who have just finished work in China and are taking the train across Siberia to Moscow before taking a plane back to the States. They meet and befriend another couple Abby (Kate Mara) and Carlos (Eduardo Noriega). Soon it is realized that Carlos and Abby might be drug smugglers and things become interesting when Ben Kingsley's Russian detective appears on the train.
Problem one is up front right away. Not one of the actors (some of them fairly reliable) seems appropriately cast. Kingsley has a bizarre accent and seems out of place. Mortimer's Jessie doesn't act at all like a reformed bad girl for most of the movie. Only Harrelson comes even close to pulling off his limited dimension character and he still misses.
Second is the increasingly stupid plot which relies on thinly veiled attempts to trick the audience for no real reason. And then on occasion random chance that prevents characters from discovering important evidence. All this rounding out to a out right silly ending that made me glad someone else paid for my ticket to the theater.
Clando
Clando starts in Cameroon. Serious economic problems in the country have led many to find work by being non authorized taxi drivers called "Clandos". Anatole the main character starts as a clando but is soon asked to go to Germany by a wealthy man to find his son. Anatole goes to Germany where he gets involved with an activist white woman and locates the wealthy man's son.
If my description is foggy and confusing its partly because it has been almost a month since I saw it and am only now writing about it. It is partly because the narrative of the film is such a mess that I found it almost entirely impossible to follow. It jumps back and forth in time and into dream sequences (I think they are dream sequences) so often that only the most dedicated even bothers to try to keep up.
IT offers some interesting looks into Cameroonian culture but these are infrequent and much of the film takes place in Germany rather than Cameroon. It asks broadly but offers no satisfying answers to questions of how to protest government: by violence or otherwise. This confusion of how to act seems to transfer to the confusion of the film making and narrative.
If my description is foggy and confusing its partly because it has been almost a month since I saw it and am only now writing about it. It is partly because the narrative of the film is such a mess that I found it almost entirely impossible to follow. It jumps back and forth in time and into dream sequences (I think they are dream sequences) so often that only the most dedicated even bothers to try to keep up.
IT offers some interesting looks into Cameroonian culture but these are infrequent and much of the film takes place in Germany rather than Cameroon. It asks broadly but offers no satisfying answers to questions of how to protest government: by violence or otherwise. This confusion of how to act seems to transfer to the confusion of the film making and narrative.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Broken Blossoms
Apparently Broken Blossoms was a response to his critics about racism. Its story is one in which an Asian man falls in love with a young white woman. She has an abusive father and after a rough night she winds up under the Asian's care. I found the story uninteresting, the blatant attempt to show he wasn't prejudiced makes it obvious that he really was and it lacks the grandeur of his earlier works. Everyone from the girl to her father and the oriental are the most thinly veiled stereotypes that are not interesting.
Redacted
Redacted certainly tries very hard. Based loosely on a real life tragedy in Iraq involving US soldiers who raped a young Iraqi woman and killed her family. Brian De Palma is right filled with outrage. He and we should be disturbed by such actions. We should wonder why such things happen. It is not per se that these soldiers are evil but in tense and hostile situations the psychological effects of war can be massive. And every time I hear about something that should outrage us, I wonder what the army was doing to try to prevent it. Not that I think there are any clear cut answers. And at the very least the film does make you think and does make you question.
Its format is like a cobbled together documentary. Consisting of "found" footage of a French documentary team, a soldier's video journal and various security cameras from bases and check points, we get the fictional narrative of a military unit responsible for a check point. We see what I guess is pretty close to accurate the procedure of a checkpoint and the frustration of soldiers who lose friends to IEDs and attacks. We see the pressure and the attempts to work off the stress.
The trouble is that it doesn't feel like a documentary, it feels forced and contrived. A gimmick. The acting is a little questionable and the primary evil doers don't really get anything resembling fully fleshed out characters. This is not an attempt to understand all sides nor does that need to be the intent but I think it does a disservice to solving problems to paint people as demons. Perhaps that is the historian in me. Near movie's end we get the briefest and oddest confession of one of the culprits about his brother that seems almost out of place.
The film ends with real photos of tragedy in Iraq that are disturbing and unsettling and clearly that is the point. But I ultimately feel a director as talented as De Palma could have shown us he was angry in a much better film.
Its format is like a cobbled together documentary. Consisting of "found" footage of a French documentary team, a soldier's video journal and various security cameras from bases and check points, we get the fictional narrative of a military unit responsible for a check point. We see what I guess is pretty close to accurate the procedure of a checkpoint and the frustration of soldiers who lose friends to IEDs and attacks. We see the pressure and the attempts to work off the stress.
The trouble is that it doesn't feel like a documentary, it feels forced and contrived. A gimmick. The acting is a little questionable and the primary evil doers don't really get anything resembling fully fleshed out characters. This is not an attempt to understand all sides nor does that need to be the intent but I think it does a disservice to solving problems to paint people as demons. Perhaps that is the historian in me. Near movie's end we get the briefest and oddest confession of one of the culprits about his brother that seems almost out of place.
The film ends with real photos of tragedy in Iraq that are disturbing and unsettling and clearly that is the point. But I ultimately feel a director as talented as De Palma could have shown us he was angry in a much better film.
Babylon A.D.
To the base of adoring fans who have waited breathlessly for my review of Babylon A.D. I deeply apologize. Yeah right, as if anyone who is reading this can really barely contain themselves because a self proclaimed idiot hasn't yet expressed his opinion on a end of summer action film. Plot synopsis? Is there even a point? To sum up: dystopian future, weird psychic lady and Vin Diesel. There is something about religion and science but its so boring I find it hard to even care.
This movie is truly and regrettably awful. Vin Diesel has made a career of sorts playing these tough action heroes some he pulls off moderately well (though I still like him best (and it may be the only movie I liked him in) in Pitch Black). Here he is bland and uninteresting and the camera is moving around so much it really doesn't matter what he does, since you will never see it. Let's all agree to a new rule for movies, if your fight sequence has 10583 cuts in a 45 seconds of film then you need to step back and just give us a few damn seconds of sustained shots.
As the film moves it gets increasingly ludicrous and questionable, has an odd cameo by Lambert Wilson (memorable from Matrix Reloaded (one of the few things that was memorable from that movie) but not memorable here. Then rap it up in a nonsensical way and basically forget or show that all that came before is to no purpose. Thanks Babylon A.D. for reminding me why I am ever a bitter person when it comes to movies.
This movie is truly and regrettably awful. Vin Diesel has made a career of sorts playing these tough action heroes some he pulls off moderately well (though I still like him best (and it may be the only movie I liked him in) in Pitch Black). Here he is bland and uninteresting and the camera is moving around so much it really doesn't matter what he does, since you will never see it. Let's all agree to a new rule for movies, if your fight sequence has 10583 cuts in a 45 seconds of film then you need to step back and just give us a few damn seconds of sustained shots.
As the film moves it gets increasingly ludicrous and questionable, has an odd cameo by Lambert Wilson (memorable from Matrix Reloaded (one of the few things that was memorable from that movie) but not memorable here. Then rap it up in a nonsensical way and basically forget or show that all that came before is to no purpose. Thanks Babylon A.D. for reminding me why I am ever a bitter person when it comes to movies.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Elegy
Ben Kingsley plays David Kepesh an aging professor who is facing the reality of old age. He has been for much of his life a perpetual bachelor seducing young women at his university and trying to act younger than he is. He has a good friend played by Dennis Hopper and friend with benefits that he sees every couple of months played by Patricia Clarkson. As the film begins he becomes interested in new student Consuela (Penelope Cruz). The film follows their relationship and Kepesh's struggle with his sense of getting older.
There seem to be a great deal of films dealing with aging professors coming out of recent. Some are better than others and although I should not try to judge a movie based on another I can't help but think the themes here have been done much better. Part of it may be that I don't care about Kepesh as a character. He isn't compelling. His problems are not universal and he's largely immature. And since I don't care what happens to him what is the point of caring about the movie?
There is present a sense of old age and growing old but its shallow and rarely at the front and center. There is nothing to suggest any real issue of age. He is not ailing in health. His mind is sound. Its merely his own perception that he is not the young seducer that he once was. I prefer Peter O'Toole's lecherous old man in Venus to Kingsley's Kepesh in terms of insight into old age and performance. And as far as aging intellectuals and problems that are real last year's Starting Out in the Evening is a better investment of your time.
There seem to be a great deal of films dealing with aging professors coming out of recent. Some are better than others and although I should not try to judge a movie based on another I can't help but think the themes here have been done much better. Part of it may be that I don't care about Kepesh as a character. He isn't compelling. His problems are not universal and he's largely immature. And since I don't care what happens to him what is the point of caring about the movie?
There is present a sense of old age and growing old but its shallow and rarely at the front and center. There is nothing to suggest any real issue of age. He is not ailing in health. His mind is sound. Its merely his own perception that he is not the young seducer that he once was. I prefer Peter O'Toole's lecherous old man in Venus to Kingsley's Kepesh in terms of insight into old age and performance. And as far as aging intellectuals and problems that are real last year's Starting Out in the Evening is a better investment of your time.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Andrei Rublev
Nine months ago I discovered the wonderful world of Andrei Tarkovsky. I found his first feature film Ivan's Childhood so starkly beautiful that I proclaimed it one of the most beautiful film I had ever seen. (http://movieidiot.blogspot.com/2007/11/ivans-childhood.html). And I can still recall what I found to be the most beautiful shot in the film vividly. But not only was the film so wonderful to view for its cinematography but it also had a dark and wonderful story of a boy of lost innocence in war. Unfortunately Tarkovsky's second film Andrei Rublev was far more difficult for me to get through. It was long and I only got about half way through before giving up and returning it. And so now nine months later I re-rented it and attempted round two.
The titular character was an icon painter in 15th century Russia and the story follows him as he goes through his life. But at times he is not the central character but rather an observer and practically invisible for sections of the film. It is an impressive manipulation of narrative. Admittedly I found the story less interesting than his first but one must respect that same attention to detail. The fact that he really wants to push the boundaries of what story telling can do. Tarkovsky is a film maker like we don't really see anymore. One who is constantly pushing at the edges shwoing what can be done with images, symbolism, narrative.
The fact that the titular character disappears at times reveals that the real protagonist is Russia itself. From the grandeur of painting cathedrals to the horror of Tartar hoards destroying and pillaging a town one cannot help but be intrigued. And the film concludes with a long narrative about a boy who is set on making a bell despite knowing nothing about how to do so. The climax of that sequence is poignant and amazing. I admit that this one didn't enthrall me that much but I could never deny that I was watching a genius work and that in all likelihood I was missing something. But enduring it is worth the effort.
The titular character was an icon painter in 15th century Russia and the story follows him as he goes through his life. But at times he is not the central character but rather an observer and practically invisible for sections of the film. It is an impressive manipulation of narrative. Admittedly I found the story less interesting than his first but one must respect that same attention to detail. The fact that he really wants to push the boundaries of what story telling can do. Tarkovsky is a film maker like we don't really see anymore. One who is constantly pushing at the edges shwoing what can be done with images, symbolism, narrative.
The fact that the titular character disappears at times reveals that the real protagonist is Russia itself. From the grandeur of painting cathedrals to the horror of Tartar hoards destroying and pillaging a town one cannot help but be intrigued. And the film concludes with a long narrative about a boy who is set on making a bell despite knowing nothing about how to do so. The climax of that sequence is poignant and amazing. I admit that this one didn't enthrall me that much but I could never deny that I was watching a genius work and that in all likelihood I was missing something. But enduring it is worth the effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)