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.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
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.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem
Signs you are in a monster apocalypse:
-Reformed bad boy suddenly returns to town
-Local sheriff appears to be borderline incompetent
-High school girl you had crush on suddenly loses interest in asshole boyfriend and gains interest in you
-Appearance of military/police character who provides both necessary exposition and weapons abilities.
Well let's face it this list could go on and on and AvP-R as it is known in adds and on the internet provides all this and more in the opening minutes. A blast of cliche character development served up as fast as the film can carry it. Not that you should care a lick about any character in this film. You know right now without reading anything I write whether you will see this film. And if you want to see it then you don't care about character or plot not that there is much of either in this movie.
The film picks up right where the last film (yes this is a sequel) left us. A Predator Alien hybrid has just come to life on a Predator ship and begins wrecking havoc which results in the ship crashing near a small Colorado town. Aliens escape and begin doing what Aliens do. A lone Predator apparently back on the home world observes all this and heads to Earth go clean up. One John Wayne-esque Predator coming to eliminate a hoard of Aliens.
If that last sentence doesn't put a smile on your face, then this is not the film for you. If it has you grinning in eager anticipation then why are you still reading, you should be headed to the theater, you won't be disappointed. Its quite an awful movie in almost any respect but it does provide unique fanboy type action sequences with Predators and Aliens killing in anyway you can think of. I'd do a checklist but Brad, the Wretched Genius (Wretched Genius) already beat me to the punch.
I laughed and smiled my way through this whole film and was never lacking in entertainment. But again you know if you'll like it or not and this review can only confirm for those who were interested but hesitant because of the wretchedness of the first Alien Vs. Predator film.
-Reformed bad boy suddenly returns to town
-Local sheriff appears to be borderline incompetent
-High school girl you had crush on suddenly loses interest in asshole boyfriend and gains interest in you
-Appearance of military/police character who provides both necessary exposition and weapons abilities.
Well let's face it this list could go on and on and AvP-R as it is known in adds and on the internet provides all this and more in the opening minutes. A blast of cliche character development served up as fast as the film can carry it. Not that you should care a lick about any character in this film. You know right now without reading anything I write whether you will see this film. And if you want to see it then you don't care about character or plot not that there is much of either in this movie.
The film picks up right where the last film (yes this is a sequel) left us. A Predator Alien hybrid has just come to life on a Predator ship and begins wrecking havoc which results in the ship crashing near a small Colorado town. Aliens escape and begin doing what Aliens do. A lone Predator apparently back on the home world observes all this and heads to Earth go clean up. One John Wayne-esque Predator coming to eliminate a hoard of Aliens.
If that last sentence doesn't put a smile on your face, then this is not the film for you. If it has you grinning in eager anticipation then why are you still reading, you should be headed to the theater, you won't be disappointed. Its quite an awful movie in almost any respect but it does provide unique fanboy type action sequences with Predators and Aliens killing in anyway you can think of. I'd do a checklist but Brad, the Wretched Genius (Wretched Genius) already beat me to the punch.
I laughed and smiled my way through this whole film and was never lacking in entertainment. But again you know if you'll like it or not and this review can only confirm for those who were interested but hesitant because of the wretchedness of the first Alien Vs. Predator film.
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
I've repeatedly commented on my distaste for the movie musical (and I suspect the musical as well though I've never seen one). So it does constantly amaze me every time I get it in my head to go see one. I'm almost always disappointed though on rare occasions when it goes for more unconventional approaches I find myself pleasantly surprised. But as a rule the idea of people breaking out into spontaneous song and dance is just a bit too much for me to handle without laughing inappropriately at its absurdity.
Sweeney Todd is based on a musical by Stephen Sondheim. Sondheim's story is not a very traditional one as it deals with mass murder and cannibalism. Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp) is newly arrived in London having been sent off to prison unjustly years before by a jealous judge (Alan Rickman) who coveted Todd's wife. Todd has only one desire: revenge. He concocts a plan with the aid of Mrs. Bennett (Helena Bonham Carter) that will benefit them both. Todd will be able to do his part to rid the world of the vermin, Bennet's business will boom because the quality of the "meat" in her pies will bring in the customers.
This is a bloody film. Oh my is this a bloody film. Now I found most of the blood to be comic in its absurdity (my poor mother for whom I feel bad for dragging along to the film didn't think it so fun). Still the blood and the plot are so deliciously absurd that I couldn't help but smile for most of the film. And oh yeah, there is some singing. But honestly I didn't really mind. I honestly got caught up in the story. Rickman, Depp and Carter are all delightful in their respective roles and Sacha Baron Cohen continues to impress with another great comic role as a rival barber.
Burton directs here and in its look it is classic Burton. Dark sets, dirty streets and a generally macabre world. This is the perfect look for this story. A dark dirty London that deserves everything it gets from its murderous duo of Todd and Bennett. The film begins and ends with Todd and his dark world and therefore we are left without a resolution to the innocents of the film and I think its fantastic for that.
Sweeney Todd is based on a musical by Stephen Sondheim. Sondheim's story is not a very traditional one as it deals with mass murder and cannibalism. Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp) is newly arrived in London having been sent off to prison unjustly years before by a jealous judge (Alan Rickman) who coveted Todd's wife. Todd has only one desire: revenge. He concocts a plan with the aid of Mrs. Bennett (Helena Bonham Carter) that will benefit them both. Todd will be able to do his part to rid the world of the vermin, Bennet's business will boom because the quality of the "meat" in her pies will bring in the customers.
This is a bloody film. Oh my is this a bloody film. Now I found most of the blood to be comic in its absurdity (my poor mother for whom I feel bad for dragging along to the film didn't think it so fun). Still the blood and the plot are so deliciously absurd that I couldn't help but smile for most of the film. And oh yeah, there is some singing. But honestly I didn't really mind. I honestly got caught up in the story. Rickman, Depp and Carter are all delightful in their respective roles and Sacha Baron Cohen continues to impress with another great comic role as a rival barber.
Burton directs here and in its look it is classic Burton. Dark sets, dirty streets and a generally macabre world. This is the perfect look for this story. A dark dirty London that deserves everything it gets from its murderous duo of Todd and Bennett. The film begins and ends with Todd and his dark world and therefore we are left without a resolution to the innocents of the film and I think its fantastic for that.
The Great Debaters
The Great Debaters tells the story of a debate team at an all black college in the 1930s that made history by defeating white debate teams in a time when the Jim Crow south was oppressive as ever. Denzel Washington directed and stars as Melvin Tolson the famous poet. Don't feel bad if you don't know him but feel free to make me feel bad if you do. My first experience with Tolson was recently a piece he wrote on Gone With The Wind. It was actually quite a thought provoking writing. Suffice to say that Tolson is quite a fascinating figure in his own right.
The film follows his time at Wiley College where he taught and managed a debate team of young men and women who showed the world that black men and women were equals to whites in a time when that was not the majority opinion. As a story that is worth telling there is no doubt. It is quite pleasant to see a film about education and the power of education to effect change. I was pleased to hear real literary reference from Ghandi to Henry David Thoreau. I was happy to see a movie that wasn't afraid to give a etymology of denigrate.
Unfortunately a good story and a seemingly deep love of learning is muddled by a cookie cutter standard underdog story. You could replace debate here with any sport you can think of and you'd pretty much have the same movie. And that is really a shame because the film could be so much better if it ditched the cliches and went for a more interesting narrative. Despite that there are some powerfully moving scenes of racism that are horrible to watch and necessary because of course even if these specific things didn't happen to these characters, they certainly happened to countless others.
Washington in his second outing as a director does a fine job with the direction but the story seems torn between wanting to be inspirational and socially relevant. Not to say that it can't be both but it deserves better than the cliche underdog treatment it gets.
The film follows his time at Wiley College where he taught and managed a debate team of young men and women who showed the world that black men and women were equals to whites in a time when that was not the majority opinion. As a story that is worth telling there is no doubt. It is quite pleasant to see a film about education and the power of education to effect change. I was pleased to hear real literary reference from Ghandi to Henry David Thoreau. I was happy to see a movie that wasn't afraid to give a etymology of denigrate.
Unfortunately a good story and a seemingly deep love of learning is muddled by a cookie cutter standard underdog story. You could replace debate here with any sport you can think of and you'd pretty much have the same movie. And that is really a shame because the film could be so much better if it ditched the cliches and went for a more interesting narrative. Despite that there are some powerfully moving scenes of racism that are horrible to watch and necessary because of course even if these specific things didn't happen to these characters, they certainly happened to countless others.
Washington in his second outing as a director does a fine job with the direction but the story seems torn between wanting to be inspirational and socially relevant. Not to say that it can't be both but it deserves better than the cliche underdog treatment it gets.
Charlie Wilson's War
Embarrassingly I don't know a whole lot about Russian involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s. More embarrassing still I could tell you major plot points of Rambo III better than I could tell you about the history of Afghanistan during the cold war. Actually when I think about it, in a weird way Rambo III was meant as a social statement. I never thought I'd write that. Still if you have to choose between the fictional and ludicrous Rambo III and the based on a true story Charlie Wilson's War, I think the latter is the smart move.
Charlie Wilson's War tells the story of Texas congressman Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), a man known for liking to have fun, and how he helped fund a secret war in Afghanistan by supplying money and weapons to the mujahideen. He is joined in this task by Texas socialite and activist Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and CIA Agent Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The film balances between the wild life that Wilson led and the slow awakening to fight for a cause.
Despite the ever present but never oppressive message that this film sends about the significance of this part of history on everything from the fall of the Soviet Union to the rise of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the story doesn't focus too much on it and we are better for it. It has just enough touchstones and hints of the future to remind you what happened in the ten years after the Soviet Union fell. But the heavy ramifications which may resound after you've left the theater are second to two things. First, the story is surprisingly good and interesting. Second, the story is pretty damn funny.
While on capitol hill, Wilson is schmoozing, drinking and ogling his staff of beautiful chesty secretarial staff (one of which he calls jail bait which made me laugh every time). While at social events, he is dropping sexual innuendos with Herring and drinking and schmoozing. While planning a secret funding of a war against the USSR, he is trading quips with Avrakotos and drinking and schmoozing. No doubt he's idolized but there is something kind of fun and refreshing about a politician who does all the wrong things in his personal life (booze, drugs, women) but does all the right things in his political life (does the right thing despite the red tape). He doesn't bend knee to focus groups and so on.
Hanks is just about pitch perfect as Wilson. Hanks has the charisma to pull off a role like this and enough talent to convince you he cares about his cause. Roberts is fun too in her role as the advocate socialite. But hands down this film belongs to Hoffman. His Gust is a wise ass, wise cracking no nonsense, no bullshit guy who is serious about what he does. From the opening when he tells off his boss (for the second time we learn), you can't help but smile at his brazen attitude. And when he flips off his idiot boss, you want to cheer (especially if you've ever had an idiot boss).
Hoffman claims every scene he is in and not even Hanks and Roberts can keep up (thought the try valiantly). In fact I want to see a follow up film that follows the career of Gust Avrakotos. I bet that would be damn entertaining. So although I had a number of reservations going into this film (not that reservations or downright no desire to see a film has ever stopped me) I was very pleasantly surprised by how fun and clever this one was. It isn't a perfect movie but it was worth my money.
Charlie Wilson's War tells the story of Texas congressman Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks), a man known for liking to have fun, and how he helped fund a secret war in Afghanistan by supplying money and weapons to the mujahideen. He is joined in this task by Texas socialite and activist Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and CIA Agent Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The film balances between the wild life that Wilson led and the slow awakening to fight for a cause.
Despite the ever present but never oppressive message that this film sends about the significance of this part of history on everything from the fall of the Soviet Union to the rise of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the story doesn't focus too much on it and we are better for it. It has just enough touchstones and hints of the future to remind you what happened in the ten years after the Soviet Union fell. But the heavy ramifications which may resound after you've left the theater are second to two things. First, the story is surprisingly good and interesting. Second, the story is pretty damn funny.
While on capitol hill, Wilson is schmoozing, drinking and ogling his staff of beautiful chesty secretarial staff (one of which he calls jail bait which made me laugh every time). While at social events, he is dropping sexual innuendos with Herring and drinking and schmoozing. While planning a secret funding of a war against the USSR, he is trading quips with Avrakotos and drinking and schmoozing. No doubt he's idolized but there is something kind of fun and refreshing about a politician who does all the wrong things in his personal life (booze, drugs, women) but does all the right things in his political life (does the right thing despite the red tape). He doesn't bend knee to focus groups and so on.
Hanks is just about pitch perfect as Wilson. Hanks has the charisma to pull off a role like this and enough talent to convince you he cares about his cause. Roberts is fun too in her role as the advocate socialite. But hands down this film belongs to Hoffman. His Gust is a wise ass, wise cracking no nonsense, no bullshit guy who is serious about what he does. From the opening when he tells off his boss (for the second time we learn), you can't help but smile at his brazen attitude. And when he flips off his idiot boss, you want to cheer (especially if you've ever had an idiot boss).
Hoffman claims every scene he is in and not even Hanks and Roberts can keep up (thought the try valiantly). In fact I want to see a follow up film that follows the career of Gust Avrakotos. I bet that would be damn entertaining. So although I had a number of reservations going into this film (not that reservations or downright no desire to see a film has ever stopped me) I was very pleasantly surprised by how fun and clever this one was. It isn't a perfect movie but it was worth my money.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Atonement
This has been quite a year for literary adaptations. No Country For Old Men, Love In The Time Of Cholera, There Will Be Blood, Starting Out In The Evening and others I'm sure I'm forgetting are all based on books. Atonement too is an adaptation of a novel. Of course I haven't read any of these books. A sad indictment of my life? Perhaps but to be fair I find myself reading a lot of non-fiction scholarship and barely found time in the studying and movie going to get through my annual reading of "Doctor Zhivago" by Boris Pasternak. And since I have never enjoyed one single adaptation of that my favorite book, maybe its better that I haven't read most of these books.
Atonement follows the lives of three key characters through the years surrounding World War 2. Robbie (James McAvoy) is a grounds keeper for the wealthy Tallis family of which two daughters, Cecilia (Keira Knightley and Briony (early on by Saoirse Ronan and later by Romala Garai). A case of misunderstanding by Briony leads to tragedy early in these three people's lives. As Briony ages and realizes her mistake she tries to make up for her sins. We follow Robbie as he spends time in France as a soldier attempting to escape to Dunkirk.
This film has a lot to speak for it. It is visually quite stunning. All the actors do a nice job with their roles. There is also a big reveal type ending that makes you rethink a bit of what you just saw. And yet despite all its technical achievement I just found myself not caring that much. There were just a few too many require leaps in narrative and I honestly kind of figured out what the reveal would probably be before the film reached that point because of course everyone including me has mentioned that there is one.
And although I said everyone does a nice job with their roles, no one does an amazing job (with one exception). Saoirse Ronan as young Briony with her bright eyed innocence and imagination are the most amazing part of the film to watch and made all the more interesting by the less interesting Romola Garai (less interesting but by no means uninteresting).
The one other thing that everyone has been talking about is a tracking shot of soldiers at Dunkirk. There are only two views on this shot that seem to let you know exactly what you will think of this film. If you watch the tracking shot and think "technically proficient but so what?" that pretty much sums up what you will probably think of the film. If you watch this shot and think wow this speaks to something (I don't know what I'm in the former group) then you probably like the film. Not that this fact helps you, because of course you have to see the movie to see the shot.
In the end although I think the Joe Wright has a lot of talent, this film just didn't end up working for me.
Atonement follows the lives of three key characters through the years surrounding World War 2. Robbie (James McAvoy) is a grounds keeper for the wealthy Tallis family of which two daughters, Cecilia (Keira Knightley and Briony (early on by Saoirse Ronan and later by Romala Garai). A case of misunderstanding by Briony leads to tragedy early in these three people's lives. As Briony ages and realizes her mistake she tries to make up for her sins. We follow Robbie as he spends time in France as a soldier attempting to escape to Dunkirk.
This film has a lot to speak for it. It is visually quite stunning. All the actors do a nice job with their roles. There is also a big reveal type ending that makes you rethink a bit of what you just saw. And yet despite all its technical achievement I just found myself not caring that much. There were just a few too many require leaps in narrative and I honestly kind of figured out what the reveal would probably be before the film reached that point because of course everyone including me has mentioned that there is one.
And although I said everyone does a nice job with their roles, no one does an amazing job (with one exception). Saoirse Ronan as young Briony with her bright eyed innocence and imagination are the most amazing part of the film to watch and made all the more interesting by the less interesting Romola Garai (less interesting but by no means uninteresting).
The one other thing that everyone has been talking about is a tracking shot of soldiers at Dunkirk. There are only two views on this shot that seem to let you know exactly what you will think of this film. If you watch the tracking shot and think "technically proficient but so what?" that pretty much sums up what you will probably think of the film. If you watch this shot and think wow this speaks to something (I don't know what I'm in the former group) then you probably like the film. Not that this fact helps you, because of course you have to see the movie to see the shot.
In the end although I think the Joe Wright has a lot of talent, this film just didn't end up working for me.
National Treasure: Book of Secrets
Most people don't even question when I see a movie like National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Familiar choruses of "why?" or "what were you thinking" have long fallen silent and have been replaced by quiet hanging of heads. The sad acceptance that I'm going to live up to my self applied epithet and see a lot of movies that you can pretty much guarantee aren't worth seeing once you see the trailer or at times hear the announcement of the film.
National Treasure was a disaster of an action film and sad to say a masterstroke of the Jerry Bruckheimer promotion/production machine. Why waste any time on plot or character development when you can just overload your audience with huge set pieces, absolutely ludicrous plot developments and general narrative chaos with horrible overacting? Why indeed. And yet there has been a sequel to that cinematic mess. But believe me, the fact that I saw the film, isn't even the saddest part of this story.
You see, I'm not in my normal haunt this holiday. I'm over a thousand miles away in my parent's house. I have no car and am currently in a town that has no real public transportation to speak of and a general layout that demands an automated vehicle of some sort. So imagine me essentially trapped in this house with literally nothing on tv to entertain me. So yeah I went out to a movie. Which meant I had to walk to the nearest theater to see it. It isn't a very long walk to be sure...but oh yeah it was during a snow storm. Yeah, I walked about half a mile through blowing winds, falling snow and freezing temperatures all so I could see a movie I was seeing out of shear boredom.
National Treasure: Book of Secrets is as ridiculous of a movie as you could expect from a sequel. We once again follow Ben Gates as he sets off on another treasure hunt that will lead us through major historical sites filling us in on trivial history that isn't even interesting enough for me to care if its actually true. Ben is joined by the whole gang from last time. The villain this time is an overacting Ed Harris.
Sad as all this is, I was most saddened by Helen Mirren apparently deciding to make a paycheck movie. Now I'm sure this film was made before Ms. Mirren won her Academy Award but there should be some escape clause in actor contracts that permit Academy Award members to prevent the release of embarrassing films or at least in this day of digital magic be removed digitally from the film. And watching the masterful actress utter ridiculous lines and crawl around in the dirt is just painful to watch. I'd also make comment for character actor Bruce Greenwood (fairing much better in I'm Not There).
So was this awful movie worth my snow filled journey? I think that's what we call a rhetorical question. Even as I set out that afternoon through the blowing snow, I knew I was doing something completely idiotic and that I would hate the movie. On the bright side, I've got a story that makes me look like an idiot and I'm on film closer to 100 in theater for the year. (This made 82, for the record).
National Treasure was a disaster of an action film and sad to say a masterstroke of the Jerry Bruckheimer promotion/production machine. Why waste any time on plot or character development when you can just overload your audience with huge set pieces, absolutely ludicrous plot developments and general narrative chaos with horrible overacting? Why indeed. And yet there has been a sequel to that cinematic mess. But believe me, the fact that I saw the film, isn't even the saddest part of this story.
You see, I'm not in my normal haunt this holiday. I'm over a thousand miles away in my parent's house. I have no car and am currently in a town that has no real public transportation to speak of and a general layout that demands an automated vehicle of some sort. So imagine me essentially trapped in this house with literally nothing on tv to entertain me. So yeah I went out to a movie. Which meant I had to walk to the nearest theater to see it. It isn't a very long walk to be sure...but oh yeah it was during a snow storm. Yeah, I walked about half a mile through blowing winds, falling snow and freezing temperatures all so I could see a movie I was seeing out of shear boredom.
National Treasure: Book of Secrets is as ridiculous of a movie as you could expect from a sequel. We once again follow Ben Gates as he sets off on another treasure hunt that will lead us through major historical sites filling us in on trivial history that isn't even interesting enough for me to care if its actually true. Ben is joined by the whole gang from last time. The villain this time is an overacting Ed Harris.
Sad as all this is, I was most saddened by Helen Mirren apparently deciding to make a paycheck movie. Now I'm sure this film was made before Ms. Mirren won her Academy Award but there should be some escape clause in actor contracts that permit Academy Award members to prevent the release of embarrassing films or at least in this day of digital magic be removed digitally from the film. And watching the masterful actress utter ridiculous lines and crawl around in the dirt is just painful to watch. I'd also make comment for character actor Bruce Greenwood (fairing much better in I'm Not There).
So was this awful movie worth my snow filled journey? I think that's what we call a rhetorical question. Even as I set out that afternoon through the blowing snow, I knew I was doing something completely idiotic and that I would hate the movie. On the bright side, I've got a story that makes me look like an idiot and I'm on film closer to 100 in theater for the year. (This made 82, for the record).
I'm Not There
I'm only passingly familiar with Bob Dylan. I know a decent amount of his music and very little about his life. And yet Todd Haynes' film I'm Not There still intrigued me. Of course the film isn't a biopic. Instead it is "inspired" by the many lives and personalities of Bob Dylan. So instead of one traditional and likely boring single narrative, we are witness to six unconnected stories/vignettes that treat aspects of Bob Dylan's personality.
There is a young kid (Marcus Carl Franklin) who calls himself "Woody Guthrie" and travels the rails singing old folk songs. There is Robbie Clark (Heath Ledger) an actor whose break out role was playing a Dylan type folk star. Ben Whishaw plays Arthur Rimbaud who is being interviewed. Cate Blanchett plays Jude Quinn a folk singer who angers his fans when he starts using an electric guitar. Richard Gere becomes Billy the Kid who faces Pat Garrett years after their supposed fateful encounter. Finally Christian Bale plays Jack Rollins a gifted folk singer who gives it up for the life of a pastor.
The stories are inter-cut occasionally leaving one story to follow for a while another one. This leaves a very fractured film that mostly works and even when it isn't totally working, still leaves you pretty impressed. First and foremost is that the film is quite beautiful to look at and the performances are all very good. There is of course the much talked about and award whispers for Blanchett as Jude Quinn. And none of this talk is without warrant.
But Blanchett is not the only one who shines in this bizarre little film. Heath Ledger's Robbie Clark has a particularly compelling story. I confess in the end that the film didn't fully keep my interest. I found the Billy the Kid story a bit flat and wasn't sure what was going on half the time Ben Whishaw was on screen. But in the end the performances and visuals hold enough of a movie together to keep you interested. And you have to appreciate the attempt to tell a biopic without the standard boring old cliches.
There is a young kid (Marcus Carl Franklin) who calls himself "Woody Guthrie" and travels the rails singing old folk songs. There is Robbie Clark (Heath Ledger) an actor whose break out role was playing a Dylan type folk star. Ben Whishaw plays Arthur Rimbaud who is being interviewed. Cate Blanchett plays Jude Quinn a folk singer who angers his fans when he starts using an electric guitar. Richard Gere becomes Billy the Kid who faces Pat Garrett years after their supposed fateful encounter. Finally Christian Bale plays Jack Rollins a gifted folk singer who gives it up for the life of a pastor.
The stories are inter-cut occasionally leaving one story to follow for a while another one. This leaves a very fractured film that mostly works and even when it isn't totally working, still leaves you pretty impressed. First and foremost is that the film is quite beautiful to look at and the performances are all very good. There is of course the much talked about and award whispers for Blanchett as Jude Quinn. And none of this talk is without warrant.
But Blanchett is not the only one who shines in this bizarre little film. Heath Ledger's Robbie Clark has a particularly compelling story. I confess in the end that the film didn't fully keep my interest. I found the Billy the Kid story a bit flat and wasn't sure what was going on half the time Ben Whishaw was on screen. But in the end the performances and visuals hold enough of a movie together to keep you interested. And you have to appreciate the attempt to tell a biopic without the standard boring old cliches.
Friday, December 14, 2007
I Am Legend
After an attempt to cure cancer backfires and kills off 90% of the Earth's population and turns all but 1% of the remaining into super strong/agile zombie like creatures, Robert Neville (Will Smith), a army scientist is left alone in New York City trying desperately to discover a cure. His only companion is his dog, Sam and a number of mannequins he has set up all over town. Neville spends his days foraging for food, keeping in shape, hunting, and experimenting in his lab for the cure. Night and dark places are off limits since the infected come out once the sun is down.
Based ever so loosely on a novella by Richard Matheson, I Am Legend starts off very well. We are shown a New York that has began to revert back to nature but still retains some of the clutter of human activity: abandoned cars, billboards and so forth. The film takes some time establishing the kind of routine that Neville has every day. It also takes its time establishing the relationship Neville has with his dog and to so extent his madness.
Once it has firmly shown you a world abandoned it begins to reveal that this is not entirely the case. This results in some very tense moments early on when we still aren't entirely sure what the infected are or why they are so dangerous. As the film escalates towards its finish, it loses quite a bit of what made it interesting. It quickly ramps up to a more traditional fight the monsters type film. There is one particularly powerful scene in the movie which I won't spoil but suffice to say not only does Smith play it perfectly but the camera work is just right as well.
By the third act the movie is getting increasingly cheap. It includes the introduction of two other humans who have survived although the movie is short on a satisfactory explanation as to how. There is also an inspirational Bob Marley speech that I could have done without as well as a salvation speech that falls kind of flat. Still the first half is well enough done that although in the end it isn't a completely satisfying movie, it definitely holds together despite the end.
Based ever so loosely on a novella by Richard Matheson, I Am Legend starts off very well. We are shown a New York that has began to revert back to nature but still retains some of the clutter of human activity: abandoned cars, billboards and so forth. The film takes some time establishing the kind of routine that Neville has every day. It also takes its time establishing the relationship Neville has with his dog and to so extent his madness.
Once it has firmly shown you a world abandoned it begins to reveal that this is not entirely the case. This results in some very tense moments early on when we still aren't entirely sure what the infected are or why they are so dangerous. As the film escalates towards its finish, it loses quite a bit of what made it interesting. It quickly ramps up to a more traditional fight the monsters type film. There is one particularly powerful scene in the movie which I won't spoil but suffice to say not only does Smith play it perfectly but the camera work is just right as well.
By the third act the movie is getting increasingly cheap. It includes the introduction of two other humans who have survived although the movie is short on a satisfactory explanation as to how. There is also an inspirational Bob Marley speech that I could have done without as well as a salvation speech that falls kind of flat. Still the first half is well enough done that although in the end it isn't a completely satisfying movie, it definitely holds together despite the end.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Alfonso Cuaron has most recently directed one of the great films of 2006 Children of Men. His skill in that movie was beyond a doubt as I can still vividly remember many of the truly great scenes in that movie. I had previously seen two other films by him. Neither exactly groundbreaking but I did enjoy both Great Expectations and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. In fact the latter is in my opinion the best in what has become quite a tedious series of films.
So with great interest I sat down to watch Y Tu Mama Tambien. The story centers around the friendship of Tenoch (Diego Luna) and Julio (Gael Garcia Bernal). As their girlfriends leave for a summer in Italy, the two are left with their boredom and their own devices in their summer before college. There boredom amounts to swimming, smoking pot, general bs-ing and equally mindless pursuits. By chance at a wedding they meet Luisa, who is married to Tenoch's cousin. They in their pathetic attempts to pick her up tell a story of a wonderful beach they are planning to go to. Luisa eventually takes them up on their offer and the three being a road trip to a beach that doesn't quite exist.
The story is quite engaging. Tenoch and Julio's friendship seems genuine and they feel like real characters. Luisa as the interloper works surprisingly well as a catalyst for the two friends. There are countless surprises revealed on the trip that tear apart and then reforge the friendship the two have. It is a interesting take on what is essentially a road trip movie. There is also a rather lot of at times gratuitous sex in the film but not so much that one is taken out of the film.
There is also a frequent interruption through voice over to fill in back story about various points of life either of characters or locations. It gets quite annoying and I found myself quite tired of it really quickly. Still the actors and their characters keep one engaged through most of the film.
So with great interest I sat down to watch Y Tu Mama Tambien. The story centers around the friendship of Tenoch (Diego Luna) and Julio (Gael Garcia Bernal). As their girlfriends leave for a summer in Italy, the two are left with their boredom and their own devices in their summer before college. There boredom amounts to swimming, smoking pot, general bs-ing and equally mindless pursuits. By chance at a wedding they meet Luisa, who is married to Tenoch's cousin. They in their pathetic attempts to pick her up tell a story of a wonderful beach they are planning to go to. Luisa eventually takes them up on their offer and the three being a road trip to a beach that doesn't quite exist.
The story is quite engaging. Tenoch and Julio's friendship seems genuine and they feel like real characters. Luisa as the interloper works surprisingly well as a catalyst for the two friends. There are countless surprises revealed on the trip that tear apart and then reforge the friendship the two have. It is a interesting take on what is essentially a road trip movie. There is also a rather lot of at times gratuitous sex in the film but not so much that one is taken out of the film.
There is also a frequent interruption through voice over to fill in back story about various points of life either of characters or locations. It gets quite annoying and I found myself quite tired of it really quickly. Still the actors and their characters keep one engaged through most of the film.
Man Push Cart
I confess I don't know much about the genre of Italian Neo-realism. I've seen only Vittorio de Sica's brilliant The Bicycle Thief. But when I recently read Ebert's much delayed but very enjoyable top ten of 2006: Ebert, I was intrigued by the inclusion of his number ten selection Man Push Cart. Ebert praised "as strong as or stronger than anything produced by Italian neorealism, and in the same spirit." Well I'll be honest my one experience with Neo-realism was the aforementioned Bicycle Thief so when Ebert was promising something better I immediately went to my dvd queue and added it as number one.
I like Ebert and generally I trust Ebert. I know just by reading a review whether I will agree with him or not. This time I was wrong. Not to say that Man Push Cart doesn't have a lot going for it. It certainly does. What it pulls off it pulls off amazingly and with heart. But when its not working its very painful to watch in the wrong way. What was so gripping in The Bicycle Thief was how the not so nice world of post war Italy unfolds for a poor man trying to get by. And the horror by which I realized despite my cinematic expectations that there would be no happy ending.
Man Push Cart is the story of a Pakistani immigrant named Ahmad. Ahmad wakes up every day in the early morning so that he can literally pull a portable bagel cart to a New York street corner and serve donuts and coffee. This is Ahmad's life. This is how he makes his living. Occasionally he sells bootleg porn on his walk home for a few extra bucks. Ahmad is trying to raise enough money to buy the cart he uses as well as get an apartment large enough that his son can come back to live with him. There are numerous repetitions of this routine which leave you with an overwhelming impression of the desperation and the sad life he leads.
Perhaps this wasn't thought enough or the filmmaker thought he had only half a movie (and maybe he did). So two very artificial subplots are introduced. Ahmad meets a wealthier Pakistani named Mohammad, who seemingly out of homeland solidarity helps out (but more often takes advantage) of his less well off friend. An equally dead on arrival story evolves from an encounter with Noemi. Noemi is a young woman who works at a news stand and the two have a mutual attraction and begin to hang out. Both as i say fall flat and are highly artificial.
Still praise should be given to this film when it is being more genuine. It is an extraordinary view into the lives that on a daily basis most people don't even think about. The former doctors and rock stars and professors and such who upon reaching the United States for whatever reason were considered no more qualified than to serve breakfast or mop the floor. Often times the camera is shown on real people completely unaware or caring about the man serving them their donut's story. When this was being portrayed I was riveted and interested.
A final very contrived event occurs at the end of the story (reminiscent of The Bicycle Thief) which causes Ahmad to run around for a while trying to instill in us a final sense of hopelessness but it fails because it feels contrived and like mimicry. Still the film did end on a final note of monotony of work that had me wishing the whole film could have been as memorable.
I like Ebert and generally I trust Ebert. I know just by reading a review whether I will agree with him or not. This time I was wrong. Not to say that Man Push Cart doesn't have a lot going for it. It certainly does. What it pulls off it pulls off amazingly and with heart. But when its not working its very painful to watch in the wrong way. What was so gripping in The Bicycle Thief was how the not so nice world of post war Italy unfolds for a poor man trying to get by. And the horror by which I realized despite my cinematic expectations that there would be no happy ending.
Man Push Cart is the story of a Pakistani immigrant named Ahmad. Ahmad wakes up every day in the early morning so that he can literally pull a portable bagel cart to a New York street corner and serve donuts and coffee. This is Ahmad's life. This is how he makes his living. Occasionally he sells bootleg porn on his walk home for a few extra bucks. Ahmad is trying to raise enough money to buy the cart he uses as well as get an apartment large enough that his son can come back to live with him. There are numerous repetitions of this routine which leave you with an overwhelming impression of the desperation and the sad life he leads.
Perhaps this wasn't thought enough or the filmmaker thought he had only half a movie (and maybe he did). So two very artificial subplots are introduced. Ahmad meets a wealthier Pakistani named Mohammad, who seemingly out of homeland solidarity helps out (but more often takes advantage) of his less well off friend. An equally dead on arrival story evolves from an encounter with Noemi. Noemi is a young woman who works at a news stand and the two have a mutual attraction and begin to hang out. Both as i say fall flat and are highly artificial.
Still praise should be given to this film when it is being more genuine. It is an extraordinary view into the lives that on a daily basis most people don't even think about. The former doctors and rock stars and professors and such who upon reaching the United States for whatever reason were considered no more qualified than to serve breakfast or mop the floor. Often times the camera is shown on real people completely unaware or caring about the man serving them their donut's story. When this was being portrayed I was riveted and interested.
A final very contrived event occurs at the end of the story (reminiscent of The Bicycle Thief) which causes Ahmad to run around for a while trying to instill in us a final sense of hopelessness but it fails because it feels contrived and like mimicry. Still the film did end on a final note of monotony of work that had me wishing the whole film could have been as memorable.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Latest From Cinematic Arena
Nick (Cinemaromantico) and I have reviewed The Golden Compass on Cinematic Arena.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
The Year So Far
I have for the past three years attempted to see one hundred movies in the theater. I got about 82/3 the first year. Roughly 86/7 last year. This year with more pressing concerns I'm currently resting on a paltry 79. Unless you count rewatching the film in theater (I choose not to) in which case the number jumps to 86. If you were curious to know what films I saw (or are bored and looking for an excuse to procrastinate), here we go with a short blurb on what I can remember about each. Since I don't currently have a record of when i actually watched them (Yes I have done that in the past; yes I do save my ticket stubs; yes I am a big loser) the following is based on when they were released in theaters this year.
1. Codename: Cleaner - no justifaction, I just like Lucy Liu. Horrible unfunny movie
2. Freedom Writers - apparently Ms. Swank figures she can just star in crap now that she has 2 oscars. Inspirational teaching story that is actually more insulting than anything else. (circumstantial evidence for Ms. Swank's new attitude "The Reaping" (which I did not see and the upcoming "P.S. I love you")
3. Happily N'Ever After - Early last year I saw "Hoodwinked" and was pleasantly surprised by its subversive take on a fairy tale via animation. I thought maybe this could be a repeat. This reminded me why I see very few animated films. Aweful.
4. Catch & Release - Jennifer Garner can be quite charming and I admit sadly every now and then I like to watch a Romantic comedy. This wasn't great but it had its moments with Olyphant and Garner and Kevin Smith had a fun role.
5. Smokin' Aces - The trailer made me think this might be a fun/stylized action film. The trailer lied to me.
6. Lives of Others - Very well done study of an East German secret policeman who becomes fascinated and engrossed in the life of a man he is observing. Won best foreign film at the Oscars for 2006.
7. Ghost Rider - Might be less painful to actually go to hell.
8. Reno 911!: Miami - Felt like an overlong episode of the show and therefore too long. But Paul Rudd's bit part made me laugh every single time. Not sure why.
9. Black Snake Moan - Well done movie, just not sure how much I actually liked it.
10. Zodiac - Fincher does an amazing job with this film, probably worth rewatching as the year winds up to see how it holds up against some of the fall masterpieces.
11. 300 - Looks absolutely beautiful. Plays flat.
12. The Host - This movie was so bad I had a pained look on my face the whole time and shared looks with my friend that amounted to "is anyone actually enjoying this?"
13. The Namesake - I cared very little for Kal Penn, but the relationship between Tabu's character and Irfan Kahn's character was so unbelievably romantic and powerful that I ended up loving the movie.
14. Pride - Standard inspirational sports film, nothing new or exciting.
15. Reign Over Me - Adequate story about a man who lost his family in the 9/11 attacks and a friend's attempt to help him. Sandler is decent. Felt a little cheap at times.
16. Shooter - serviceable action film (I saw it twice but in my defense the second time was on a date and it was the only movie she wanted to see)
17. Lookout - just rewatched this one and its still good. Joseph Gordon Levitt is great as a man who has trouble remembering after a car accident. Its turn into a sort of thriller about mid film works well and it has a satisfying conclusion.
18. Grindhouse - One you have to see in theater with a good audience. I had a lot of fun and so was everyone else in the theater. "Planet Terror" was better than "Death Proof" in my opinion.
19. Disturbia - Decently done update on "Rear Window" with a surprisingly good performance by Shia LaBeouf.
20. Pathfinder - I can't fathom why I saw this. Really, really bad though.
21. Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters - I enjoyed the first season of the show thought I'd give it a try. Better in a 10 minute dose, unfunny as a movie.
22. In The Land Of Women - Adam Brody I think has a certain charm that could make him a decent Romantic comedy lead. Sadly this was just crap.
23. Hot Fuzz - brilliant send up of action movies. Just brilliant.
24. Lucky You - again romantic comedy moment, plus poker. Turns out not as much fun as it might sound (or not sound)
25. Spiderman 3 - The Spiderman films just got worse with each consecutive one and this one is really really bad.
26. Waitress - Funny and charming, Keri Russell is a lot of fun to watch.
27. 28 Weeks Later - I love zombies, fast or slow (but I prefer slow) but this film which started off so well quickly degenerates into a ludicrous film.
28. Shrek The Third - Unfunny. Yet another reason I rarely watch animation.
29. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - I watched this film solely for the cameo by Keith Richards. Seriously.
30. Knocked Up - I felt everyone in this film was an obnoxious jerk and I barely laughed.
31. Hostel: Part II - As unnecessary as "Hostel", someone might think about getting Mr. Roth some help.
32. Ocean's Thirteen - No film can survive that much expository dialogue and that little interesting plot.
33. Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer - I think it was a slow day and a friend wanted to go see this. Horrible.
34. 1408 - Started out pretty good and I had high hopes but it eventually degenerated into a prototypical horror film. Ending is so stupid.
35. Evan Almighty - all kinds of unfunny as was "Bruce Almighty" now that I think about it.
36. Live Free or Die Hard - It had its moments but the villain was pathetic and many of the action sequences were just way too unbelievable. Worst of the four films so far.
37. Sicko - Interesting and enjoyable for about two thirds of the film before Moore is unable to contain himself and starts in with the grandstanding antics.
38. License To Wed - Mandy Moore is purty. That's my only defense.
39. Transformers - If not for my fond childhood recollections I would not have enjoyed one moment of this film. Most of it is very bad but my inner child still leaps for joy when a transformer transforms.
40. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - I'm really tired of the Harry Potter series.
41. Sunshine - Decent but not perfect Sci-Fi Thriller. Some great effects at the end and some decent performances.
42. Bourne Ultimatum - Fantastic action film, the Bourne series knows how to do action.
43. Hot Rod - I think something in the trailer made me decide to see this, not sure why and it was awful so I've blanked out most of my memories of this one.
44. Becoming Jane - Apparently Jane Austen was not creative at all but merely relating auto-biographical accounts of her life. Just plain stupid.
45. Rush Hour 3 - Sometimes idiotically I am a completionist and felt like I should see this. Bad. Poor Max von Sydow.
46. Stardust - This movie made me smile so much I saw it three additional times.
47. Super Bad - I found this one completely unfunny.
48. The Nanny Diaries - I set a goal to see all Scarlett Johannson films once, it was a bad idea but a goal's a goal. Not good.
49. War - Jet Li, Jason Statham both in a really stupid action film.
50. Halloween - Completely unnecessary remake.
51. 3:10 To Yuma - decent remake with good performances by Christian Bale and Rusell Crowe but I still felt like it was blah.
52. Shoot 'Em Up - One giant mess of a movie with way over the top acting and outright laughable scenes which may or may not have been intentional. Unsatisfying in the end.
53. The Brave One - I loved Jodie Foster in this film and in particular a scene she has with Terrence Howard in a diner. Sadly the ending just ruined it.
54. Across The Universe - not a big fan of musicals but Jim Sturgess's Jude was a great and interesting character and the Beatles songs are all fun to hear. Some of the corresponding scenes were really great, some a bit too much.
55. Eastern Promises - Dark little tale with a great performance by Viggo Mortensen.
56. In The Valley Of Elah - When its focusing on Tommy Lee Jones and the mystery, its really well done. When its focusing on hitting you over the head with its subtlety (or lack of it) regarding the Iraq war, its painful.
57. Good Luck Chuck - There must have been a reason I saw it other than Jessica Alba but I can't recall so I guess I have to go with that. Stupid film.
58. Resident Evil: Extinction - zombies, completionist in me. Incoherent mess and the action wasn't even that entertaining.
59. Into The Wild - really well done version of the book "Into the Wild" with memorable performances by Catherine Keener, Emile Hirsch and especially Hal Holbrook.
60. The Kingdom - CSI: Saudi Arabia and about as entertaining (meaning not so much). Somewhat fun final battle sequence but utterly preposterous.
61. The Darjeeling Limited - Wes Anderson needs to try something new. It had its moments but too few.
62. Elizabeth: The Golden Age - So unbelievably ridiculous. Not worth watching.
63. Gone Baby Gone - Loved this one. Went for a beer afterwards to enjoy while thinking about it. Loved the end. (Rewatched it in theaters with some friends a week or so later).
64. Saw IV - A really sad tradition that I have with a friend that we see all the Saw movies. Really bad.
65. Before The Devil Knows You're Dead - Some great performances from some great actors. I actually think i need to rewatch this before establishing my opinion of it.
66. American Gangster - Highly unimpressed with this movie and everyone in it.
67. No Country For Old Men - oh how I ranted about this one (saw it twice more). So fantastic.
68. Hitman - Wanted an action movie, got this festering pile of crap.
69. The Mist - Decently done for most of the movie although the in store dynamic was a bit much and the ending was totally cheap.
70. The Golden Compass - Boring.
The following were released officially in 2006 but I didn't see until 2007.
71. Children of Men - fantastic.
72. The Queen - Helen Mirren is amazing as Queen Elizabeth and the film does a deft job of dealing with the historical event.
73. The Painted Veil - strong performances by Ed Norton and Naomi Watts, story a bit weak.
74. Letters From Iwo Jima - interesting to see a war movie from the other side but not as impressive as the buzz would lead you to believe.
75. Pan's Labyrinth - amazing blend of fantasy and reality, probably should have won the foreign film oscar.
76. Venus - I loved Peter O'Toole in this. He was so amazing as an aging man trying to live as though he wasn't.
I also saw the following revivals:
77. Aliens - A great action sci-fi film
78. Day of the Dead - classic Romero, over the top? yes. But great.
79. Monster Squad - Ahh, truly it doesn't get better than this for kid themed 80s horror action.
1. Codename: Cleaner - no justifaction, I just like Lucy Liu. Horrible unfunny movie
2. Freedom Writers - apparently Ms. Swank figures she can just star in crap now that she has 2 oscars. Inspirational teaching story that is actually more insulting than anything else. (circumstantial evidence for Ms. Swank's new attitude "The Reaping" (which I did not see and the upcoming "P.S. I love you")
3. Happily N'Ever After - Early last year I saw "Hoodwinked" and was pleasantly surprised by its subversive take on a fairy tale via animation. I thought maybe this could be a repeat. This reminded me why I see very few animated films. Aweful.
4. Catch & Release - Jennifer Garner can be quite charming and I admit sadly every now and then I like to watch a Romantic comedy. This wasn't great but it had its moments with Olyphant and Garner and Kevin Smith had a fun role.
5. Smokin' Aces - The trailer made me think this might be a fun/stylized action film. The trailer lied to me.
6. Lives of Others - Very well done study of an East German secret policeman who becomes fascinated and engrossed in the life of a man he is observing. Won best foreign film at the Oscars for 2006.
7. Ghost Rider - Might be less painful to actually go to hell.
8. Reno 911!: Miami - Felt like an overlong episode of the show and therefore too long. But Paul Rudd's bit part made me laugh every single time. Not sure why.
9. Black Snake Moan - Well done movie, just not sure how much I actually liked it.
10. Zodiac - Fincher does an amazing job with this film, probably worth rewatching as the year winds up to see how it holds up against some of the fall masterpieces.
11. 300 - Looks absolutely beautiful. Plays flat.
12. The Host - This movie was so bad I had a pained look on my face the whole time and shared looks with my friend that amounted to "is anyone actually enjoying this?"
13. The Namesake - I cared very little for Kal Penn, but the relationship between Tabu's character and Irfan Kahn's character was so unbelievably romantic and powerful that I ended up loving the movie.
14. Pride - Standard inspirational sports film, nothing new or exciting.
15. Reign Over Me - Adequate story about a man who lost his family in the 9/11 attacks and a friend's attempt to help him. Sandler is decent. Felt a little cheap at times.
16. Shooter - serviceable action film (I saw it twice but in my defense the second time was on a date and it was the only movie she wanted to see)
17. Lookout - just rewatched this one and its still good. Joseph Gordon Levitt is great as a man who has trouble remembering after a car accident. Its turn into a sort of thriller about mid film works well and it has a satisfying conclusion.
18. Grindhouse - One you have to see in theater with a good audience. I had a lot of fun and so was everyone else in the theater. "Planet Terror" was better than "Death Proof" in my opinion.
19. Disturbia - Decently done update on "Rear Window" with a surprisingly good performance by Shia LaBeouf.
20. Pathfinder - I can't fathom why I saw this. Really, really bad though.
21. Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters - I enjoyed the first season of the show thought I'd give it a try. Better in a 10 minute dose, unfunny as a movie.
22. In The Land Of Women - Adam Brody I think has a certain charm that could make him a decent Romantic comedy lead. Sadly this was just crap.
23. Hot Fuzz - brilliant send up of action movies. Just brilliant.
24. Lucky You - again romantic comedy moment, plus poker. Turns out not as much fun as it might sound (or not sound)
25. Spiderman 3 - The Spiderman films just got worse with each consecutive one and this one is really really bad.
26. Waitress - Funny and charming, Keri Russell is a lot of fun to watch.
27. 28 Weeks Later - I love zombies, fast or slow (but I prefer slow) but this film which started off so well quickly degenerates into a ludicrous film.
28. Shrek The Third - Unfunny. Yet another reason I rarely watch animation.
29. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - I watched this film solely for the cameo by Keith Richards. Seriously.
30. Knocked Up - I felt everyone in this film was an obnoxious jerk and I barely laughed.
31. Hostel: Part II - As unnecessary as "Hostel", someone might think about getting Mr. Roth some help.
32. Ocean's Thirteen - No film can survive that much expository dialogue and that little interesting plot.
33. Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer - I think it was a slow day and a friend wanted to go see this. Horrible.
34. 1408 - Started out pretty good and I had high hopes but it eventually degenerated into a prototypical horror film. Ending is so stupid.
35. Evan Almighty - all kinds of unfunny as was "Bruce Almighty" now that I think about it.
36. Live Free or Die Hard - It had its moments but the villain was pathetic and many of the action sequences were just way too unbelievable. Worst of the four films so far.
37. Sicko - Interesting and enjoyable for about two thirds of the film before Moore is unable to contain himself and starts in with the grandstanding antics.
38. License To Wed - Mandy Moore is purty. That's my only defense.
39. Transformers - If not for my fond childhood recollections I would not have enjoyed one moment of this film. Most of it is very bad but my inner child still leaps for joy when a transformer transforms.
40. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - I'm really tired of the Harry Potter series.
41. Sunshine - Decent but not perfect Sci-Fi Thriller. Some great effects at the end and some decent performances.
42. Bourne Ultimatum - Fantastic action film, the Bourne series knows how to do action.
43. Hot Rod - I think something in the trailer made me decide to see this, not sure why and it was awful so I've blanked out most of my memories of this one.
44. Becoming Jane - Apparently Jane Austen was not creative at all but merely relating auto-biographical accounts of her life. Just plain stupid.
45. Rush Hour 3 - Sometimes idiotically I am a completionist and felt like I should see this. Bad. Poor Max von Sydow.
46. Stardust - This movie made me smile so much I saw it three additional times.
47. Super Bad - I found this one completely unfunny.
48. The Nanny Diaries - I set a goal to see all Scarlett Johannson films once, it was a bad idea but a goal's a goal. Not good.
49. War - Jet Li, Jason Statham both in a really stupid action film.
50. Halloween - Completely unnecessary remake.
51. 3:10 To Yuma - decent remake with good performances by Christian Bale and Rusell Crowe but I still felt like it was blah.
52. Shoot 'Em Up - One giant mess of a movie with way over the top acting and outright laughable scenes which may or may not have been intentional. Unsatisfying in the end.
53. The Brave One - I loved Jodie Foster in this film and in particular a scene she has with Terrence Howard in a diner. Sadly the ending just ruined it.
54. Across The Universe - not a big fan of musicals but Jim Sturgess's Jude was a great and interesting character and the Beatles songs are all fun to hear. Some of the corresponding scenes were really great, some a bit too much.
55. Eastern Promises - Dark little tale with a great performance by Viggo Mortensen.
56. In The Valley Of Elah - When its focusing on Tommy Lee Jones and the mystery, its really well done. When its focusing on hitting you over the head with its subtlety (or lack of it) regarding the Iraq war, its painful.
57. Good Luck Chuck - There must have been a reason I saw it other than Jessica Alba but I can't recall so I guess I have to go with that. Stupid film.
58. Resident Evil: Extinction - zombies, completionist in me. Incoherent mess and the action wasn't even that entertaining.
59. Into The Wild - really well done version of the book "Into the Wild" with memorable performances by Catherine Keener, Emile Hirsch and especially Hal Holbrook.
60. The Kingdom - CSI: Saudi Arabia and about as entertaining (meaning not so much). Somewhat fun final battle sequence but utterly preposterous.
61. The Darjeeling Limited - Wes Anderson needs to try something new. It had its moments but too few.
62. Elizabeth: The Golden Age - So unbelievably ridiculous. Not worth watching.
63. Gone Baby Gone - Loved this one. Went for a beer afterwards to enjoy while thinking about it. Loved the end. (Rewatched it in theaters with some friends a week or so later).
64. Saw IV - A really sad tradition that I have with a friend that we see all the Saw movies. Really bad.
65. Before The Devil Knows You're Dead - Some great performances from some great actors. I actually think i need to rewatch this before establishing my opinion of it.
66. American Gangster - Highly unimpressed with this movie and everyone in it.
67. No Country For Old Men - oh how I ranted about this one (saw it twice more). So fantastic.
68. Hitman - Wanted an action movie, got this festering pile of crap.
69. The Mist - Decently done for most of the movie although the in store dynamic was a bit much and the ending was totally cheap.
70. The Golden Compass - Boring.
The following were released officially in 2006 but I didn't see until 2007.
71. Children of Men - fantastic.
72. The Queen - Helen Mirren is amazing as Queen Elizabeth and the film does a deft job of dealing with the historical event.
73. The Painted Veil - strong performances by Ed Norton and Naomi Watts, story a bit weak.
74. Letters From Iwo Jima - interesting to see a war movie from the other side but not as impressive as the buzz would lead you to believe.
75. Pan's Labyrinth - amazing blend of fantasy and reality, probably should have won the foreign film oscar.
76. Venus - I loved Peter O'Toole in this. He was so amazing as an aging man trying to live as though he wasn't.
I also saw the following revivals:
77. Aliens - A great action sci-fi film
78. Day of the Dead - classic Romero, over the top? yes. But great.
79. Monster Squad - Ahh, truly it doesn't get better than this for kid themed 80s horror action.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
No Country For Old Men
What can I say about this movie that someone else hasn't already said and probably more eloquently than me? I saw this movie the day before Thanksgiving (and again on Thanksgiving) and only shear self restraint has limited me from seeing it again. So what can explain why a movie I loved so much has left me utterly without mediocre words to describe it? I did briefly right a half rate review that I had up for roughly one day before I removed it due to my own dissatisfaction with it. Why after three weeks have I been unable to commit to type something to say about this movie. Its not as if I haven't talked about it, extolled its brilliance and listened with apt eagerness to other viewers points of view. I know I loved this film. I know it falls into a list of "Great" cinematic viewing experiences.
I saw it on its wide release opening night, a Wednesday. It was at the Carolina Theater, a locally operated indie movie house with two real theaters and a third which is really a stage theater for concerts and plays but is used frequently for movie showings. The seats are a tad on the uncomfortable side. You can't really sink into them like you can a real good movie theater seat. The backs don't give much leeway. You can't prop your feat up on the backs of the seats in front of you (well I suppose you could but it would be unpleasant I think). To be fair, I like the Carolina and I like that they are indie and on occasion I have been allowed to see some old favorites reshown on the big screen, such as Monster Squad and Aliens. You can't imagine how great and happy I was to see Aliens on a full screen. And there other two theaters are much more suited to movie viewing.
And yet here I am still not talking about No Country For Old Men. Ultimately this is a cinematic experience. Yeah experience is about right. One you either need to see alone or with someone who respects enough not to start talking about the film the minute the screen goes black and the credits roll. Sit through those credits, all of them and just let what you saw wash over you. Then maybe a couple days later you talk about it. There are any number of avenues I could take when approaching a discussion of this movie from its use (or lack of use of music) to its cinematography to the minute details of character. I could rant about its beginning, its middle, its end (dear sweet maria, its end!). Although will be wholly inadequate I suspect especially since I will do my damnedest not to reveal anything that should not be revealed. Maybe its best in the end though to say "stop reading now, if you haven't seen it and only read on once you have"
I'm serious. Because try as I might, I fear something may slip out. So I'm going to blather on for one more paragraph before I start talking about the movie. I read a lot of the reviews after I saw this. Anthony Lane of the New Yorker was not as impressed in fact it was quite a brutal review at times. Ebert and A.O. Scott were both more positive. All interesting reviews and worth reading if you like numerous viewpoints. Rottentomatoes.com has a 96% fresh rating based on 160 reviews (impressive if you think statistics are meaningful.) Okay, enough stalling, I hope those appropriate have stopped reading for now.
"I was sheriff of this county when I was twenty-five. Hard to believe. Grandfather was a lawman. Father too. Me and him was sheriff at the same time, him in Plano and me here. I think he was pretty proud of that. I know I was.
Some of the old-time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lot of folks find that hard to believe.... You can't help but compare yourself against the old timers. Can't help but wonder how they would've operated these times...."
-- Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones)
This is how the film begins with a voice over from Jones as we see shots of the Texas countryside. Quite beautiful shots actually. I love good dialog but as a general rule I'm not so impressed with voice over. But this I buy and this I like. It speaks to character, it speaks to what the film is about. Jones' cadence and intonation are perfect with an sad nostalgia dropped in. The kind of scene that when the DVD comes out I will probably just pop it in the ol player and listen and watch this scene two or three times.
It has a resonance in me that some of the scenes in Thin Red Line have. There is another film I fully confess I am inadequate to the task of discussing. But one among many fantastic scenes in that film is one in which Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn) is talking to Pvt. Witt (Jim Caviezel) on a grassy hillside after the combat has concluded.
Welsh: I feel sorry for you kid. Witt: Yeah? Welsh: Yeah a little. This army's going to kill you. If you were smart, you'd take care of yourself, there's nothing you can do for anyone else. Just running into a burning house where nobody can be saved.
Welsh: What difference do you think you can make? One single man in all this madness. If you die its going to be for nothing. There's not some other world out there where everything's going to be okay. There's just this one, just this rock.
Now me just quoting can't show you the way its played, the pauses, the reaction shots of Witt. The reaction shots from Caviezel are just perfect. He doesn't share the view point but he listens respectfully. Penn's ticks are perfect from starring over the horizon to spitting out loose tobacco from his rolled cigarette. And the score that creeps in mid-scene is an instrumentalized version of an early Polynesian song. Soft at times barely audible yet so beautiful. To me its a perfect scene.
Apologies for the digression but the opening of No Country For Old Men equally ranks in my mind as a perfectly conceived scene. In a way ultimately this is Tom Bell's story even if much of the narrative revolves around Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin). Brolin is brilliant by the way. I love early on when he says "I'm fixin' to do something dumber than hell, but I'm going anyways." And does he do something dumber than hell? You bet he does but whereas in another film I might be critical here I buy it. I buy that his conscience started to weigh on him and so he does go do something stupid and he acknowledges that.
I'm coming back to Tom Bell, how could I not but it is unjust to have a discussion of this movie and not mention Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. Variously his character has been described as death walking, a monster and equally unsatisfying limiting descriptors. He's been compared to Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. Also a bit unsatisfying because I actually prefer Brian Cox's portrayl of Lecter in Manhunter to Hopkins' over the top performance in the more popular film.
Bardem is incredibly scary. He does everything so consciously. His intonations are so plain. The way he takes meticulous care of his boots, ensuring blood is not spilled on them. The way he casually murders or casually pardons. He is instantly memorable, immediate and makes you glad you have never come face to face with someone like him.
No really good movie can rely just on one or two performances and the supporting roles here are as memorable as the main characters. Kelly Macdonald, Barry Corbin and Woody Harrelson all have memorable rolls and scenes. Macdonald is amazing in her scene with Bardem. Just amazing. Corbin's scene at the end, like his scene with Jones in In The Valley of Elah is equally memorable as two old men discuss the hell that is the world and adds wonderful perspective and thought for Jones' character.
Which brings us back to Tom Bell. In a film that has so much and so many memorable performances, Jones's role just resonates with me most. I feel like I know this smart, wearied grandfatherly figure from scenes with his wife to the investigation of the botched drug deal. When he talks to Moss's wife and mid conversation gets caught up in verbal digression practically forgetting her, it was just so perfect.
And now I think I just need to end it. And I suspect it will be deeply unsatisfying. Its a bit odd because I love a good ending. I absolutely love a good ending. A good ending doesn't have to have resolution or anything. It just has to know this is it, this is how we end. The Long Good Friday has such an end. I have ranted extensively about it to friends and even on this site. Its another movie that I have been known to pop in the player and just watch that final 5 minutes with special emphasis for the last minute and a half. Easily one of the top ten, hell top five endings of all time.
So I am so delighted with the ending of No Country For Old Men. The more so because it involves Tom Bell. Tom newly retired sits at breakfast with his wife and mentions a dream he had.
"Both had my father. It's peculiar. I'm older now'n he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense he's the younger man. Anyway, first one I don't remember so well but it was about money and I think I lost it.
The second one, it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin through the mountains of a night, goin through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and snowin, hard ridin. Hard country. He rode past me and kept on goin. Never said nothin goin by. He just rode on past and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down, and when he rode past I seen he was carryin fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. About the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin on ahead and that he was fixin to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. Out there up ahead.
And then I woke up."
Bam. Black. Done. Yes. Yes. Yes. Opens with Bell sad, nostalgic, wearied and unsure and ends sad, nostalgic, wearied and unsure. I'm glad I had a few minutes in the dark as the credits rolled. I'm not sure I would have had the strength to get up with an end like that. Not right away. Made me want to go enjoy a beer and I did.
I saw it on its wide release opening night, a Wednesday. It was at the Carolina Theater, a locally operated indie movie house with two real theaters and a third which is really a stage theater for concerts and plays but is used frequently for movie showings. The seats are a tad on the uncomfortable side. You can't really sink into them like you can a real good movie theater seat. The backs don't give much leeway. You can't prop your feat up on the backs of the seats in front of you (well I suppose you could but it would be unpleasant I think). To be fair, I like the Carolina and I like that they are indie and on occasion I have been allowed to see some old favorites reshown on the big screen, such as Monster Squad and Aliens. You can't imagine how great and happy I was to see Aliens on a full screen. And there other two theaters are much more suited to movie viewing.
And yet here I am still not talking about No Country For Old Men. Ultimately this is a cinematic experience. Yeah experience is about right. One you either need to see alone or with someone who respects enough not to start talking about the film the minute the screen goes black and the credits roll. Sit through those credits, all of them and just let what you saw wash over you. Then maybe a couple days later you talk about it. There are any number of avenues I could take when approaching a discussion of this movie from its use (or lack of use of music) to its cinematography to the minute details of character. I could rant about its beginning, its middle, its end (dear sweet maria, its end!). Although will be wholly inadequate I suspect especially since I will do my damnedest not to reveal anything that should not be revealed. Maybe its best in the end though to say "stop reading now, if you haven't seen it and only read on once you have"
I'm serious. Because try as I might, I fear something may slip out. So I'm going to blather on for one more paragraph before I start talking about the movie. I read a lot of the reviews after I saw this. Anthony Lane of the New Yorker was not as impressed in fact it was quite a brutal review at times. Ebert and A.O. Scott were both more positive. All interesting reviews and worth reading if you like numerous viewpoints. Rottentomatoes.com has a 96% fresh rating based on 160 reviews (impressive if you think statistics are meaningful.) Okay, enough stalling, I hope those appropriate have stopped reading for now.
"I was sheriff of this county when I was twenty-five. Hard to believe. Grandfather was a lawman. Father too. Me and him was sheriff at the same time, him in Plano and me here. I think he was pretty proud of that. I know I was.
Some of the old-time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lot of folks find that hard to believe.... You can't help but compare yourself against the old timers. Can't help but wonder how they would've operated these times...."
-- Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones)
This is how the film begins with a voice over from Jones as we see shots of the Texas countryside. Quite beautiful shots actually. I love good dialog but as a general rule I'm not so impressed with voice over. But this I buy and this I like. It speaks to character, it speaks to what the film is about. Jones' cadence and intonation are perfect with an sad nostalgia dropped in. The kind of scene that when the DVD comes out I will probably just pop it in the ol player and listen and watch this scene two or three times.
It has a resonance in me that some of the scenes in Thin Red Line have. There is another film I fully confess I am inadequate to the task of discussing. But one among many fantastic scenes in that film is one in which Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn) is talking to Pvt. Witt (Jim Caviezel) on a grassy hillside after the combat has concluded.
Welsh: I feel sorry for you kid. Witt: Yeah? Welsh: Yeah a little. This army's going to kill you. If you were smart, you'd take care of yourself, there's nothing you can do for anyone else. Just running into a burning house where nobody can be saved.
Welsh: What difference do you think you can make? One single man in all this madness. If you die its going to be for nothing. There's not some other world out there where everything's going to be okay. There's just this one, just this rock.
Now me just quoting can't show you the way its played, the pauses, the reaction shots of Witt. The reaction shots from Caviezel are just perfect. He doesn't share the view point but he listens respectfully. Penn's ticks are perfect from starring over the horizon to spitting out loose tobacco from his rolled cigarette. And the score that creeps in mid-scene is an instrumentalized version of an early Polynesian song. Soft at times barely audible yet so beautiful. To me its a perfect scene.
Apologies for the digression but the opening of No Country For Old Men equally ranks in my mind as a perfectly conceived scene. In a way ultimately this is Tom Bell's story even if much of the narrative revolves around Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin). Brolin is brilliant by the way. I love early on when he says "I'm fixin' to do something dumber than hell, but I'm going anyways." And does he do something dumber than hell? You bet he does but whereas in another film I might be critical here I buy it. I buy that his conscience started to weigh on him and so he does go do something stupid and he acknowledges that.
I'm coming back to Tom Bell, how could I not but it is unjust to have a discussion of this movie and not mention Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. Variously his character has been described as death walking, a monster and equally unsatisfying limiting descriptors. He's been compared to Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. Also a bit unsatisfying because I actually prefer Brian Cox's portrayl of Lecter in Manhunter to Hopkins' over the top performance in the more popular film.
Bardem is incredibly scary. He does everything so consciously. His intonations are so plain. The way he takes meticulous care of his boots, ensuring blood is not spilled on them. The way he casually murders or casually pardons. He is instantly memorable, immediate and makes you glad you have never come face to face with someone like him.
No really good movie can rely just on one or two performances and the supporting roles here are as memorable as the main characters. Kelly Macdonald, Barry Corbin and Woody Harrelson all have memorable rolls and scenes. Macdonald is amazing in her scene with Bardem. Just amazing. Corbin's scene at the end, like his scene with Jones in In The Valley of Elah is equally memorable as two old men discuss the hell that is the world and adds wonderful perspective and thought for Jones' character.
Which brings us back to Tom Bell. In a film that has so much and so many memorable performances, Jones's role just resonates with me most. I feel like I know this smart, wearied grandfatherly figure from scenes with his wife to the investigation of the botched drug deal. When he talks to Moss's wife and mid conversation gets caught up in verbal digression practically forgetting her, it was just so perfect.
And now I think I just need to end it. And I suspect it will be deeply unsatisfying. Its a bit odd because I love a good ending. I absolutely love a good ending. A good ending doesn't have to have resolution or anything. It just has to know this is it, this is how we end. The Long Good Friday has such an end. I have ranted extensively about it to friends and even on this site. Its another movie that I have been known to pop in the player and just watch that final 5 minutes with special emphasis for the last minute and a half. Easily one of the top ten, hell top five endings of all time.
So I am so delighted with the ending of No Country For Old Men. The more so because it involves Tom Bell. Tom newly retired sits at breakfast with his wife and mentions a dream he had.
"Both had my father. It's peculiar. I'm older now'n he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense he's the younger man. Anyway, first one I don't remember so well but it was about money and I think I lost it.
The second one, it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin through the mountains of a night, goin through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and snowin, hard ridin. Hard country. He rode past me and kept on goin. Never said nothin goin by. He just rode on past and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down, and when he rode past I seen he was carryin fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. About the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin on ahead and that he was fixin to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. Out there up ahead.
And then I woke up."
Bam. Black. Done. Yes. Yes. Yes. Opens with Bell sad, nostalgic, wearied and unsure and ends sad, nostalgic, wearied and unsure. I'm glad I had a few minutes in the dark as the credits rolled. I'm not sure I would have had the strength to get up with an end like that. Not right away. Made me want to go enjoy a beer and I did.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Ivan's Childhood
I've been working my way through classic foreign films in the past month or so. I've now treaded a decent amount of ground with Ingmar Bergman and have flirted briefly with Italian neo-realism in The Bicycle Thief. So as I jump around the cinematic world I next decided it was time for Andrei Tarkovsky. I was previously aware of Tarkovsky because one of his films Solaris was remade not long ago by Steven Soderbergh, although I had never seen the original film.
Ivan's Childhood is the story of Ivan (Nikolai Burlyayev). A boy whose family was killed by German soldiers and who joined the Russian army as a scout. He is quite effective because he is a child and can sneak past the enemy lines. When the film opens Ivan has a particularly perilous journey back to the Russian lines. Ivan has a handful of army personnel who know of his scout work and who look out for and worry about him as surrogate parents. They want to send him to school but Ivan having seen horrors in war wants only to be of use against the Germans he hates so much.
The story also introduces a soldier Lt. Galtsev who learns of Ivan and his work and becomes as concerned for the boy as his handlers. The film goes back and forth between moments of stark reality in which Ivan lives and the brighter and surreal recreation of his dreams. As a story its actually quite effective. At times Ivan is so mature and adult and at times the kid in him shines through. A compelling testament to a boy who has lost his childhood to the horrors of war.
Ivan's dreams are so starkly colorful and full of grand images such as one in which the feeling of flight is achieved. The world at war is often overcast and dark with dead trees or burned out houses lining the terrain. Beyond its effective story especially with Ivan's performance, there are so many just beautiful shots.
In fact this is easily one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. So many images were instantly memorable such as a man straddling a ravine while holding a woman her legs dangling over the chasm as he kisses her. Its incredibly satisfying to watch these old classics and to see and understand how and why the influenced so many directors and did so much for film.
Ivan's Childhood is the story of Ivan (Nikolai Burlyayev). A boy whose family was killed by German soldiers and who joined the Russian army as a scout. He is quite effective because he is a child and can sneak past the enemy lines. When the film opens Ivan has a particularly perilous journey back to the Russian lines. Ivan has a handful of army personnel who know of his scout work and who look out for and worry about him as surrogate parents. They want to send him to school but Ivan having seen horrors in war wants only to be of use against the Germans he hates so much.
The story also introduces a soldier Lt. Galtsev who learns of Ivan and his work and becomes as concerned for the boy as his handlers. The film goes back and forth between moments of stark reality in which Ivan lives and the brighter and surreal recreation of his dreams. As a story its actually quite effective. At times Ivan is so mature and adult and at times the kid in him shines through. A compelling testament to a boy who has lost his childhood to the horrors of war.
Ivan's dreams are so starkly colorful and full of grand images such as one in which the feeling of flight is achieved. The world at war is often overcast and dark with dead trees or burned out houses lining the terrain. Beyond its effective story especially with Ivan's performance, there are so many just beautiful shots.
In fact this is easily one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. So many images were instantly memorable such as a man straddling a ravine while holding a woman her legs dangling over the chasm as he kisses her. Its incredibly satisfying to watch these old classics and to see and understand how and why the influenced so many directors and did so much for film.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Lady From Shanghai
"Maybe I'll live so long that I'll forget her. Maybe I'll die trying."
So says Orson Welles' Michael O'Hara at the end of The Lady From Shanghai. This after a movie with several twists, turns and double crosses and a brilliantly shot final in an amusement park fun house. I quote it here because its such a great line and it sums up O'Hara's character so well. But here I am rambling about the end when I should start at the beginning.
We first meet O'Hara as he walks through a park and sees the beautiful Elsa (played by the beautiful (and here blond) Rita Hayworth). A meeting that inspires him to inform us the movie watcher "that's how I found her and from that moment I did not use my head, except to think about her." The film plays out with O'Hara being hired as a deck hand on the yacht of Elsa's husband.
Various characters from Elsa to Arthur (Elsa's husband) to Arthur's business partner approach O'Hara and participate in various mind games and hints at plot dealings. O'Hara is by no means an idiot and sees through most of the manipulation but his soft spot for Elsa is also apparent. The plot unfolds effectively including a fairly ridiculous court room scene where Arthur questions himself on the stand (something I'd only seen done on cartoons and bad 80s sitcoms before).
Welles does a great job here with the exception of his crazy over the top Irish accent which is pretty laughable. Rita Hayworth is well suited to her role and looks gorgeous every moment she is on screen. Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders each plays a delightfully eccentric role.
Now let's return to the ending. A brilliant show down in a fun house hall of mirrors. With principal characters being reflected in multiple mirrors and a shoot out that is an amazing blend of shattered glass and confusion. And then the film ends where this review began on a brilliant end note as our protagonist walks away.
So says Orson Welles' Michael O'Hara at the end of The Lady From Shanghai. This after a movie with several twists, turns and double crosses and a brilliantly shot final in an amusement park fun house. I quote it here because its such a great line and it sums up O'Hara's character so well. But here I am rambling about the end when I should start at the beginning.
We first meet O'Hara as he walks through a park and sees the beautiful Elsa (played by the beautiful (and here blond) Rita Hayworth). A meeting that inspires him to inform us the movie watcher "that's how I found her and from that moment I did not use my head, except to think about her." The film plays out with O'Hara being hired as a deck hand on the yacht of Elsa's husband.
Various characters from Elsa to Arthur (Elsa's husband) to Arthur's business partner approach O'Hara and participate in various mind games and hints at plot dealings. O'Hara is by no means an idiot and sees through most of the manipulation but his soft spot for Elsa is also apparent. The plot unfolds effectively including a fairly ridiculous court room scene where Arthur questions himself on the stand (something I'd only seen done on cartoons and bad 80s sitcoms before).
Welles does a great job here with the exception of his crazy over the top Irish accent which is pretty laughable. Rita Hayworth is well suited to her role and looks gorgeous every moment she is on screen. Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders each plays a delightfully eccentric role.
Now let's return to the ending. A brilliant show down in a fun house hall of mirrors. With principal characters being reflected in multiple mirrors and a shoot out that is an amazing blend of shattered glass and confusion. And then the film ends where this review began on a brilliant end note as our protagonist walks away.
Friday, November 23, 2007
The Mist
The Mist gets going pretty quick. An initial plot device gets the main characters to the principal location and a impenetrable mist covers the whole scene. People come in bloodied ranting about things in the mist. The plot unfolds in various ways as the people are trapped in a grocery store terrified about what is out in the mist and falling to their own human irrationalism.
The first twenty minutes to half hour of this film are really effective. The mist rolls in and is thick and only an occasional scream punctuates the atmosphere. What has happened is unclear beyond a sole man saying there is something in the mist. The characters are generic to be sure but decently developed. The biggest disappointment might be actually seeing what is in the mist, a menagerie of various cgi creatures that in some ways dispel the tension.
There are a series of rather decently orchestrated action sequences that work pretty well. Sadly these moments are brought down by a rather trite storyline involving a crazed evangelical who slowly plays on the collective conscience of the trapped survivors. Marcia Gay Harden seems to be just playing through the paces in this role.
I have only one final thing to say and its going to be very cryptic because it deals with the ending. The original story had a more ambiguous but bleak ending. This film removes the ambiguity but tries to one up the bleakness. When it first happens I actually said holy crap, that scene alone makes it worth it but now several hours later I'm less sure. What happens next might actually make it cheap and symbolic.
Still what works in the film carries it passably across the finish line in my opinion. So if you like non-slasher horror films, you might give this one a chance.
The first twenty minutes to half hour of this film are really effective. The mist rolls in and is thick and only an occasional scream punctuates the atmosphere. What has happened is unclear beyond a sole man saying there is something in the mist. The characters are generic to be sure but decently developed. The biggest disappointment might be actually seeing what is in the mist, a menagerie of various cgi creatures that in some ways dispel the tension.
There are a series of rather decently orchestrated action sequences that work pretty well. Sadly these moments are brought down by a rather trite storyline involving a crazed evangelical who slowly plays on the collective conscience of the trapped survivors. Marcia Gay Harden seems to be just playing through the paces in this role.
I have only one final thing to say and its going to be very cryptic because it deals with the ending. The original story had a more ambiguous but bleak ending. This film removes the ambiguity but tries to one up the bleakness. When it first happens I actually said holy crap, that scene alone makes it worth it but now several hours later I'm less sure. What happens next might actually make it cheap and symbolic.
Still what works in the film carries it passably across the finish line in my opinion. So if you like non-slasher horror films, you might give this one a chance.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Station Agent
It doesn't take long in The Station Agent for us to be familiar with Finbar (Peter Dinklage) and his life. He's a dwarf who has a pleasant life working for his friend at a model train store. He's become used to the stares he receives simply for being a dwarf. When his friend dies and leaves him a plot of land in a small town, having nothing else he uproots and moves into an old train depot.
Soon he has been befriended by Joe (Bobby Cannavale), a man who is helping out his sick father and is a bit too lively for the small town. Although he can sense Finbar just wants to be left alone, its not in his nature to do so. The final major character of the film is Olivia (Patricia Clarkson), a woman who lost a child some time ago and is living alone mourning.
How these three come together as friends and yet in some ways maintain their loneliness is what makes this film. Each is suffering from his/her own problems and each is not quite like the other two and yet you quickly believe in their friendships and they are not complicated by cheap expediencies like romantic involvement. Standing at the forefront of fine performances is Dinklage who is just fantastic as Finbar. Once you realize and you realize it quickly that this film is not going to take advantage of his physical characteristics, you can slip into a comfortable recognition of a guy who has faced hardships and learned to deal with it in a particular way.
In the final accounting not much happens, they all still have their problems and to some degree their loneliness but they also have each other. And that is pretty optimistic.
Soon he has been befriended by Joe (Bobby Cannavale), a man who is helping out his sick father and is a bit too lively for the small town. Although he can sense Finbar just wants to be left alone, its not in his nature to do so. The final major character of the film is Olivia (Patricia Clarkson), a woman who lost a child some time ago and is living alone mourning.
How these three come together as friends and yet in some ways maintain their loneliness is what makes this film. Each is suffering from his/her own problems and each is not quite like the other two and yet you quickly believe in their friendships and they are not complicated by cheap expediencies like romantic involvement. Standing at the forefront of fine performances is Dinklage who is just fantastic as Finbar. Once you realize and you realize it quickly that this film is not going to take advantage of his physical characteristics, you can slip into a comfortable recognition of a guy who has faced hardships and learned to deal with it in a particular way.
In the final accounting not much happens, they all still have their problems and to some degree their loneliness but they also have each other. And that is pretty optimistic.
Hitman
I've often compared my addiction to seeing movies in the theater to a crack addiction. I can actually start to shake if I don't see a film. In the dearth of movies that has existed in the past few weeks I've been shaking pretty bad. Which is why this afternoon I decided I had to see a movie. I was hoping to see The Mist but the theater I went to didn't have a noon showing. So sadly with me jonesin for a film I went and saw Hitman.
Based on a video game (apparently) and starring Timothy Olyphant as the titular (anti) hero, Hitman follows Mr. Olyphant as he commits contract killings but is eventually set up by the very people who employ him. I don't know if that is the plot of the game as well but it sounds just cliched enough to be. Oh yeah Dougray Scott is in this film too. He plays an Interpol agent tracking Olyphant. That is why he is in the film. I have no idea WHY he is in the film. Olyphant takes pity on a stripper and helps her out and of course crazy hijinks ensue. Or something.
The action sequences were competently done and the camera stayed fairly steady so I could actually see what was going on, I'll give the film that. What I won't give it is anything else. Like why were the opening sequences of his youth training just clips from the show "Dark Angel"? No I'm serious. Did they actually say "instead of filming these scenes, let's just take them from some tv show"?
The actors are trying mighty hard to embue any thing resembling character depth to their characters. Poor Mr. Olyphant who isn't exactly an actor with a lot of range tries desperately to be this emotionally distant character who doesn't know how to interact with people especially women. Tries and fails. This thing barely qualifies as worthy of the true video game fans.
Based on a video game (apparently) and starring Timothy Olyphant as the titular (anti) hero, Hitman follows Mr. Olyphant as he commits contract killings but is eventually set up by the very people who employ him. I don't know if that is the plot of the game as well but it sounds just cliched enough to be. Oh yeah Dougray Scott is in this film too. He plays an Interpol agent tracking Olyphant. That is why he is in the film. I have no idea WHY he is in the film. Olyphant takes pity on a stripper and helps her out and of course crazy hijinks ensue. Or something.
The action sequences were competently done and the camera stayed fairly steady so I could actually see what was going on, I'll give the film that. What I won't give it is anything else. Like why were the opening sequences of his youth training just clips from the show "Dark Angel"? No I'm serious. Did they actually say "instead of filming these scenes, let's just take them from some tv show"?
The actors are trying mighty hard to embue any thing resembling character depth to their characters. Poor Mr. Olyphant who isn't exactly an actor with a lot of range tries desperately to be this emotionally distant character who doesn't know how to interact with people especially women. Tries and fails. This thing barely qualifies as worthy of the true video game fans.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Silence
I saw my first Ingmar Bergman film a little more than a month ago. I then proceeded to watch a lot more. I stuck to the drama rather than the comedy and mostly to stuff recommended to me. So granted I might have gotten a slice of the great and missed all the mediocre. But his films are filled with these great contrasts of faith and doubt and often a profound sadness with just the barest moments of redemptive hope that seems just about right. Still I guess no director can have a perfect track record.
The Silence is the third in Bergman's so called trilogy of faith. Through A Glass Darkly and Winter Light were both dark chamber pieces. The former ended on a tone of optimism: god is love. The latter ended on a tone of pessimism: a priest giving a sermon to an empty church. The Silence could also be said to be a chamber piece. It follows two sisters as they travel and stop at a hotel because one of them is sick.
Ester (Ingrid Thulin) is a translator and an intellectual who is slowly dying. Her sister, Anna (Gunnel Lindblom), is her more hedonistic sister. The two are clearly not close and the only thing that seems to keep them cordial is Anna's son. The film just follows each of them for periods of time as they interact in the hotel. There are a some other characters who show up such as a troupe of dwarfs and a hotel porter who can only communicate in charades due to a language barrier.
I basically think that was the plot. I confess this movie was hard to watch. Long, long scenes punctuated by no sound except the ambient sound of the room. Seriously one lasted almost 7 minutes with just the sound of a train. I was tired and tried to watch it several days ago and just fell asleep. Once I was fully awake several days later, I wish I had fallen asleep.
Bergman's characters are often symbolic but that works in a tale of religion or morality. In a film designed to not even talk about religion it honestly just comes off as pretentious and heavy handed. Not that the film isn't flooded with Bergman's characteristic good performances and at times amazing visuals but this time the story just bore me to no end. Bergman is more interesting when he is struggling with faith even if he is more miserable.
The Silence is the third in Bergman's so called trilogy of faith. Through A Glass Darkly and Winter Light were both dark chamber pieces. The former ended on a tone of optimism: god is love. The latter ended on a tone of pessimism: a priest giving a sermon to an empty church. The Silence could also be said to be a chamber piece. It follows two sisters as they travel and stop at a hotel because one of them is sick.
Ester (Ingrid Thulin) is a translator and an intellectual who is slowly dying. Her sister, Anna (Gunnel Lindblom), is her more hedonistic sister. The two are clearly not close and the only thing that seems to keep them cordial is Anna's son. The film just follows each of them for periods of time as they interact in the hotel. There are a some other characters who show up such as a troupe of dwarfs and a hotel porter who can only communicate in charades due to a language barrier.
I basically think that was the plot. I confess this movie was hard to watch. Long, long scenes punctuated by no sound except the ambient sound of the room. Seriously one lasted almost 7 minutes with just the sound of a train. I was tired and tried to watch it several days ago and just fell asleep. Once I was fully awake several days later, I wish I had fallen asleep.
Bergman's characters are often symbolic but that works in a tale of religion or morality. In a film designed to not even talk about religion it honestly just comes off as pretentious and heavy handed. Not that the film isn't flooded with Bergman's characteristic good performances and at times amazing visuals but this time the story just bore me to no end. Bergman is more interesting when he is struggling with faith even if he is more miserable.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Black Sheep
Camp horror films remind me of the 80s. You know the type, poorly plotted, mediocrely acted films about monsters running amuk with a hero having to arise to save the day? But just because the remind me of the 80s doesn't mean people have stopped making them. As a gimmick, Black Sheep actually sounds pretty fun. Genetic experiments on sheep in New Zealand have created ravenous aggressive sheep who kill without provocation. Those who don't die undergo a transformation into were-sheep who are equally ravenous.
Enter a potential hero with ovinophobia (or fear of sheep) and a militant animal rights activist love interest and you have a pretty bizarre premise for a movie. Sadly the premise doesn't really carry a whole film. This would work better as a short. Not that the filmmakers don't do wonders to make the sheep look about as evil as possible. And the special effects (especially the were-sheep) were done by Weta Workshop so of course they look good but it just can't escape the fact that most of the time this film is just tedious. Occasionally its punctuated by scenes so absurd that you can't help but laugh, however these are few and far between as it follows a fairly generic and formulaic plot to its inevitable conclusion.
It might be best to watch while multitasking. That way you will have something to do during the really boring scenes. I know at least ten minutes was spent looking up on the internet while the film played what fear of sheep would be scientifically. The film does mention it eventually though.
Enter a potential hero with ovinophobia (or fear of sheep) and a militant animal rights activist love interest and you have a pretty bizarre premise for a movie. Sadly the premise doesn't really carry a whole film. This would work better as a short. Not that the filmmakers don't do wonders to make the sheep look about as evil as possible. And the special effects (especially the were-sheep) were done by Weta Workshop so of course they look good but it just can't escape the fact that most of the time this film is just tedious. Occasionally its punctuated by scenes so absurd that you can't help but laugh, however these are few and far between as it follows a fairly generic and formulaic plot to its inevitable conclusion.
It might be best to watch while multitasking. That way you will have something to do during the really boring scenes. I know at least ten minutes was spent looking up on the internet while the film played what fear of sheep would be scientifically. The film does mention it eventually though.
Miller's Crossing
Miller's Crossing is a very artificial movie. The scenes are stagey, the dialog comes off as clearly dialog. It may seem like I'm criticizing this film but it is because it is artificial that I actually really like it. Showing a real love of 40s/50s gangster films, the Coens craft a genuinely entertaining story with memorable characters.
We find ourselves thrown in medias res into a prohibition town controlled by an Irish mob boss Leo (Albert Finney) who is beginning to see his power challenged by an Italian boss named Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito). Each has a right hand man: Leo's is Tom (Gabriel Byrne; Caspar's is the Dane (J.E. Freeman). Caspar wants permission to kill a man who is cheating him but Leo refuses and the complications of a decently realized if highly fictional world unfold.
Most of the machinations of the plot revolve around Tom as he is involved in various degrees with Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), Leo's gangster moll; Bernie (John Turturro), Verna's screw up brother and even Caspar and the Dane. Byrne sells his role as a smart, wise cracking adviser who even when he steps wrong with his boss still looks to help him out.
Finney as Leo is also fantastic. One can't help but be amazed at long dialog passages as Finney and Polito argue or Byrne offers advice. Perhaps Finney is at his finest in a scene mid movie where some hit men are sent to kill him. As "Danny Boy" plays, Finney's actions are a priceless moment. Freeman as the Dane is the perfect counter to Byrne's talkative Tom. He's no less smart than Tom but tends to keep quiet and he just might be my favorite character in the film.
I wouldn't say everything works in this film. I felt Marcia Gay Harden's performance a little weak and Turturro's performance is all over the map (all well done but internally inconsistent). Still Finney, Byrne and the like all carry the film strongly and the plot with its intricate complications keeps you leaning forward to what will happen next. And a quick mention for the score which had just the right amount of Irish influence and sentimentality to it to make you smile every time it creeps into the soundtrack, especially the title theme which reprises several times.
We find ourselves thrown in medias res into a prohibition town controlled by an Irish mob boss Leo (Albert Finney) who is beginning to see his power challenged by an Italian boss named Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito). Each has a right hand man: Leo's is Tom (Gabriel Byrne; Caspar's is the Dane (J.E. Freeman). Caspar wants permission to kill a man who is cheating him but Leo refuses and the complications of a decently realized if highly fictional world unfold.
Most of the machinations of the plot revolve around Tom as he is involved in various degrees with Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), Leo's gangster moll; Bernie (John Turturro), Verna's screw up brother and even Caspar and the Dane. Byrne sells his role as a smart, wise cracking adviser who even when he steps wrong with his boss still looks to help him out.
Finney as Leo is also fantastic. One can't help but be amazed at long dialog passages as Finney and Polito argue or Byrne offers advice. Perhaps Finney is at his finest in a scene mid movie where some hit men are sent to kill him. As "Danny Boy" plays, Finney's actions are a priceless moment. Freeman as the Dane is the perfect counter to Byrne's talkative Tom. He's no less smart than Tom but tends to keep quiet and he just might be my favorite character in the film.
I wouldn't say everything works in this film. I felt Marcia Gay Harden's performance a little weak and Turturro's performance is all over the map (all well done but internally inconsistent). Still Finney, Byrne and the like all carry the film strongly and the plot with its intricate complications keeps you leaning forward to what will happen next. And a quick mention for the score which had just the right amount of Irish influence and sentimentality to it to make you smile every time it creeps into the soundtrack, especially the title theme which reprises several times.
Annie Hall
Alvy' (Woody Allen) and Annie' (Diane Keaton) first encounter in Annie Hall pretty much sums up for me why it is such a great movie. As the two meet at the entrance of a gym where they have just played a doubles tennis match and they fumble around each other in their attraction. And Annie utters what AFI has claimed is the 55th greatest movie quote of all time: la-di da, la-di da. Its so endearing that I can't help but smile.
Now Allen has played the neurotic intellect New Yorker in countless movies but never so well as in this film. You see him with friends and lovers and you see him misstep and impress. You see him self destruct his own relationships at times. It feels so real as a study of a relationship. It has its more screwball elements such as Woody pulling a writer from behind a movie standee in order to ridicule an obnoxious guy in line at the movies or the thoughts of the characters shown in subtitle on the screen as Alvy and Annie bumble their way through a early conversation.
But all of that works in a sincere way. And of course its a movie that doesn't feel the need to cheat in a Hollywood ending sort of way. Its not by any means a negative ending but it feels like a real ending. Through in the savvy and witty dialog which Allen brings and you have a truly enjoyable and well done comedy.
Now Allen has played the neurotic intellect New Yorker in countless movies but never so well as in this film. You see him with friends and lovers and you see him misstep and impress. You see him self destruct his own relationships at times. It feels so real as a study of a relationship. It has its more screwball elements such as Woody pulling a writer from behind a movie standee in order to ridicule an obnoxious guy in line at the movies or the thoughts of the characters shown in subtitle on the screen as Alvy and Annie bumble their way through a early conversation.
But all of that works in a sincere way. And of course its a movie that doesn't feel the need to cheat in a Hollywood ending sort of way. Its not by any means a negative ending but it feels like a real ending. Through in the savvy and witty dialog which Allen brings and you have a truly enjoyable and well done comedy.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Cabin Boy
Nathanial: Tell me about the sea. What does it mean to you?
Captain Graybar: Basically, money. I come from six generations of seamen all with the same goal in life: catch fish, sell 'em, get drunk, and get laid.
Nathanial: I don't think Aristotle could have said it better.
I suspect there are two types of people in this world. Ones who recognize Cabin Boy as a terrible movie with no redeeming qualities and those who hear quotes like the above and thus find the movie great. I admit I laughed my ass off when I heard that line and I laugh my ass off every time I watch this movie. Sure the plots nonsensical and the actings dreadful but the one liners make me laugh and smile.
I'm now apparently going to attempt to convey the plot. Nathanial (Chris Eliot) plays a stuck up rich kid who upon graduating from boarding school is off to his life of being pampered, only to get on the wrong boat. The boat filled with wacky misfits soon finds itself sailing into Hell's Bucket the most crazy and dangerous part of the sea. Yeah it barely makes sense to me and I actually enjoy the movie.
Perhaps the greatest testament to this film (or perhaps the saddest) is that the one time I successfully committed a screenplay idea to paper (with the aid of my friend Daryl) I had in mind Cabin Boy every time I was writing. Which probably explains why that script is pretty nonsensical.
Captain Graybar: Basically, money. I come from six generations of seamen all with the same goal in life: catch fish, sell 'em, get drunk, and get laid.
Nathanial: I don't think Aristotle could have said it better.
I suspect there are two types of people in this world. Ones who recognize Cabin Boy as a terrible movie with no redeeming qualities and those who hear quotes like the above and thus find the movie great. I admit I laughed my ass off when I heard that line and I laugh my ass off every time I watch this movie. Sure the plots nonsensical and the actings dreadful but the one liners make me laugh and smile.
I'm now apparently going to attempt to convey the plot. Nathanial (Chris Eliot) plays a stuck up rich kid who upon graduating from boarding school is off to his life of being pampered, only to get on the wrong boat. The boat filled with wacky misfits soon finds itself sailing into Hell's Bucket the most crazy and dangerous part of the sea. Yeah it barely makes sense to me and I actually enjoy the movie.
Perhaps the greatest testament to this film (or perhaps the saddest) is that the one time I successfully committed a screenplay idea to paper (with the aid of my friend Daryl) I had in mind Cabin Boy every time I was writing. Which probably explains why that script is pretty nonsensical.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Hour of the Wolf
Hour of the Wolf is like a cluster bomb of confusing scenes, weird non sequiturs and general mayhem. And that is exactly the point. The film follows Johan (Max von Sydow) and his pregnant wife Alma (Liv Ullmann) who are living on a remote island. Which is about all the set up you get before the insanity starts.
I honestly don't know if the things haunting Johan and also his wife for she sees them as well are supposed to be ghosts or demons or whether they are supposed to be descent in to madness. At first I thought "this is crazy" which slowly transformed into "this is fantastic because its crazy."
Bergman does wonders again with black and white film and the way shadows move across surfaces and veil figures. Sydow is surprisingly low key but brilliant as the artist who is slowly going crazy. This film strikes me as the cinematic equivalent of going insane, here's hoping I never do.
I honestly don't know if the things haunting Johan and also his wife for she sees them as well are supposed to be ghosts or demons or whether they are supposed to be descent in to madness. At first I thought "this is crazy" which slowly transformed into "this is fantastic because its crazy."
Bergman does wonders again with black and white film and the way shadows move across surfaces and veil figures. Sydow is surprisingly low key but brilliant as the artist who is slowly going crazy. This film strikes me as the cinematic equivalent of going insane, here's hoping I never do.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Amelie
Jay Sherman (voiced by Jon Lovitz) was the star of a short lived but in my opinion great prime time cartoon "The Critic." In an early episode upon seeing a poster for a French film he sang the lines "I love French films, pretentious boring French films, I love French Films, two tickets s'il vous plaît!" I couldn't shake this line when watching Amelie.
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (who was on probation anyway for his Alien: Resurrection), Amelie follows the titular character as she attempts to improve the lives of those around her, through elaborately contrived schemes while also slowly learning to take risks for herself as well. The film is filled with quirky odd balls set in their own reality.
Visually there is some great stuff going on in this film and the charm of some of the characters is quite endearing. Audrey Tautou with her small frame and secretive smiles make you want to smile and go with her. Sadly there is an incessant narrator who shows up now and again to forward the film and I found an annoying obsession with not only the coincidences that bring people together but also with the random events that will never have any bearing on anything. All part of some grand ballet of life, I guess.
I also felt the film was telling me how I should live. Even that one isn't really alive unless one is taking risks and enjoying the simplicities of life. So heavy handed is this film that I don't even care whether there is any truth to it or not. So, unlike Jay Sherman, I do not like pretentious French films.
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (who was on probation anyway for his Alien: Resurrection), Amelie follows the titular character as she attempts to improve the lives of those around her, through elaborately contrived schemes while also slowly learning to take risks for herself as well. The film is filled with quirky odd balls set in their own reality.
Visually there is some great stuff going on in this film and the charm of some of the characters is quite endearing. Audrey Tautou with her small frame and secretive smiles make you want to smile and go with her. Sadly there is an incessant narrator who shows up now and again to forward the film and I found an annoying obsession with not only the coincidences that bring people together but also with the random events that will never have any bearing on anything. All part of some grand ballet of life, I guess.
I also felt the film was telling me how I should live. Even that one isn't really alive unless one is taking risks and enjoying the simplicities of life. So heavy handed is this film that I don't even care whether there is any truth to it or not. So, unlike Jay Sherman, I do not like pretentious French films.
American Gangster
In 1968 when his boss died, Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) took up his organization and began selling drugs making millions of dollars. He apparently did this by traveling to Southeast Asia and negotiating directly with the heroin suppliers. Lucas considers himself a business man and dresses in nice suits and talks about trademarks and holds meetings at diner tables like board meetings, offering up aphoristic advice like Chuck Schwab.
Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is a tough, honest cop from New Jersey (seemingly the only honest one) who is charged with a special drug task force. He soon enough has his sights set on Lucas as the most powerful drug lord in New York. Richie's life is in disorder, his ex is suing for custody so she can move to Las Vegas, his fellow cops hate him for his honesty and his child hood friends tend to have become gangsters. Lucas' life is wealthy and privileged beyond what he could imagine.
The story shifts back and forth between Lucas' meteoric rise to power and Richie's near on obsession with getting his man. Directed by Ridley Scott, the film oscillates back and forth between the two in a coherent manner. The trouble is all the skill of Scott, Washington and Crowe can't make this story interesting. I found Richie dull beyond caring and his occasional leaps of logic to progress the investigation are at times out of left field.
Washington fairs a bit better as Lucas, showing an angry brute under all that guise of the gentleman business man. Sadly the overbearing theme of him as a triumph of black enterprise (despite the fact that he is a criminal) is a bit much. But ignoring the blatant mythologizing of Lucas with only the occasional touchstone of reminding people that he is responsible for thousands of dead junkies and several murders not to mention essentially desecrating the corpses of American service men, there isn't much interesting in his story.
As far as gangster films go, it doesn't do anything new or treat in a unique way its subject matter. It seems happier mimicking the seventies classics like "Godfather" or "The French Connection." Reviewers have touted out the confrontation between Crowe and Washington near movie's end as a great cinematic moment often drawing comparisons to Pacino and DeNiro's chat over coffee in "Heat". But frankly I don't see it. In that scene both players new the score and were playing an almost verbal chess. In American Gangster, one side has the clear upper hand.
In fact the film really reaches its end about 25 minutes before it actually ends. Apparently a action packed drug raid was deemed necessary (it isn't). My friend Nick said it was the equivalent of being awake while napping which is pretty good. It takes a long time to get up to speed and once it gets there it almost immediately hits the brakes to slow down before coming to a rest.
Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is a tough, honest cop from New Jersey (seemingly the only honest one) who is charged with a special drug task force. He soon enough has his sights set on Lucas as the most powerful drug lord in New York. Richie's life is in disorder, his ex is suing for custody so she can move to Las Vegas, his fellow cops hate him for his honesty and his child hood friends tend to have become gangsters. Lucas' life is wealthy and privileged beyond what he could imagine.
The story shifts back and forth between Lucas' meteoric rise to power and Richie's near on obsession with getting his man. Directed by Ridley Scott, the film oscillates back and forth between the two in a coherent manner. The trouble is all the skill of Scott, Washington and Crowe can't make this story interesting. I found Richie dull beyond caring and his occasional leaps of logic to progress the investigation are at times out of left field.
Washington fairs a bit better as Lucas, showing an angry brute under all that guise of the gentleman business man. Sadly the overbearing theme of him as a triumph of black enterprise (despite the fact that he is a criminal) is a bit much. But ignoring the blatant mythologizing of Lucas with only the occasional touchstone of reminding people that he is responsible for thousands of dead junkies and several murders not to mention essentially desecrating the corpses of American service men, there isn't much interesting in his story.
As far as gangster films go, it doesn't do anything new or treat in a unique way its subject matter. It seems happier mimicking the seventies classics like "Godfather" or "The French Connection." Reviewers have touted out the confrontation between Crowe and Washington near movie's end as a great cinematic moment often drawing comparisons to Pacino and DeNiro's chat over coffee in "Heat". But frankly I don't see it. In that scene both players new the score and were playing an almost verbal chess. In American Gangster, one side has the clear upper hand.
In fact the film really reaches its end about 25 minutes before it actually ends. Apparently a action packed drug raid was deemed necessary (it isn't). My friend Nick said it was the equivalent of being awake while napping which is pretty good. It takes a long time to get up to speed and once it gets there it almost immediately hits the brakes to slow down before coming to a rest.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Darjeeling Limited
My friend recently summed up Mr. Wes Anderson in the following way:
"Man #1: I'm quirky.
Man #2: Yes, but I'm quirky and droll.
Man #1: That may be so, but I'm
quirky and only decorate in muted pastels. It helps show that I am not happy with my life, but am still getting by.
Man #2: I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree, which may not make us happy, but we'll at least leave with a slightly better understanding of each other, and that's almost as good.
Bill Murray: Hi. I'm here, too."
I'm tempted to just leave this review at that it pretty much sums up the general tone of "The Darjeeling Limited" but what kind of critic would I be if I just let a movie pass without letting everyone know what I thought of it? Not a very good one. Its an odd thing being a critic as you feel compelled to let people know what your two cents are even if no one actually asked for it. So here we go.
The film finds us in India, where three brothers have met on a train to reconnect as brothers. They all have their own quirks and life problems but they agree to travel together and do the activities that their oldest brother has set up. Of course with the three all in the same train car and having their own quirks they quickly run into problems which most brothers have. At times they travel off the train and visit spiritual sites in India and eventually are kicked off the train.
You know for a movie where a lot of stuff is happening, not a lot happens. At least not a lot that is interesting. Does the film look good? Yes. Is the soundtrack enjoyable? I thought so. Does even one of these brothers keep my interest as a character, let alone all three together? Not a bit. I think its better structured than Anderson's last film but it still never rises above being yet another quirky story from Wes Anderson.
He reminds me often of M. Night Shyamalan, a man who is clearly talented if only he would just get over himself and not feel the need to force his style on a story rather than just tell a story in an interesting way.
"Man #1: I'm quirky.
Man #2: Yes, but I'm quirky and droll.
Man #1: That may be so, but I'm
quirky and only decorate in muted pastels. It helps show that I am not happy with my life, but am still getting by.
Man #2: I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree, which may not make us happy, but we'll at least leave with a slightly better understanding of each other, and that's almost as good.
Bill Murray: Hi. I'm here, too."
I'm tempted to just leave this review at that it pretty much sums up the general tone of "The Darjeeling Limited" but what kind of critic would I be if I just let a movie pass without letting everyone know what I thought of it? Not a very good one. Its an odd thing being a critic as you feel compelled to let people know what your two cents are even if no one actually asked for it. So here we go.
The film finds us in India, where three brothers have met on a train to reconnect as brothers. They all have their own quirks and life problems but they agree to travel together and do the activities that their oldest brother has set up. Of course with the three all in the same train car and having their own quirks they quickly run into problems which most brothers have. At times they travel off the train and visit spiritual sites in India and eventually are kicked off the train.
You know for a movie where a lot of stuff is happening, not a lot happens. At least not a lot that is interesting. Does the film look good? Yes. Is the soundtrack enjoyable? I thought so. Does even one of these brothers keep my interest as a character, let alone all three together? Not a bit. I think its better structured than Anderson's last film but it still never rises above being yet another quirky story from Wes Anderson.
He reminds me often of M. Night Shyamalan, a man who is clearly talented if only he would just get over himself and not feel the need to force his style on a story rather than just tell a story in an interesting way.
Bicycle Thief
Vittorio De Sica's "The Bicycle Thief" is my first foray into Italian neo-realism but has the qualities I've always been partial to when it comes to movies. Movies where good doesn't triumph and circumstances rarely work out the way we all hope not because we should all view the world through pessimistic glasses but rather because this is the sad reality of the world. The human condition some call it.
In post war Italy, Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani) manages to get a job which requires he have a bicycle. He has recently hocked it for extra money but through some ingenious moves by his wife manages to get it out for his job. Things are looking up. Antonio has a promising job that pays well enough to support his family and things might just work out. Until a horrible day when a man steals his bicycle. The movie then follows Antonio and his little son as they try to track down the thief and the bike.
Given the premise of neo-realism you can guess how it ends and yet there were these moments of genuine hope that are created that had even I with all my jaded ideas about the world thinking that maybe everything would turn out okay. There are some wonderful scenes such as one where Antonio and his son eat and drink wine in a local eatery while a table full of a rich family dines nearby.
Maggiorani, an amateur when cast does a deft job of playing Antonio. De Sica fills the film with downtrodden streets and markets that are only briefly clashed with the rich upper half and then only intensifying the desperation of the characters. And Enzo Staiola as the son Bruno is so fascinating to watch as a little boy who can only half know of the real disaster they are trying to rectify and Antonio can only attempt to keep the veil of "everything will be alright" up as much as possible. Although this is not a film to watch if you are in a sad mood (unless you like watching depressing when you are depressed).
In post war Italy, Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani) manages to get a job which requires he have a bicycle. He has recently hocked it for extra money but through some ingenious moves by his wife manages to get it out for his job. Things are looking up. Antonio has a promising job that pays well enough to support his family and things might just work out. Until a horrible day when a man steals his bicycle. The movie then follows Antonio and his little son as they try to track down the thief and the bike.
Given the premise of neo-realism you can guess how it ends and yet there were these moments of genuine hope that are created that had even I with all my jaded ideas about the world thinking that maybe everything would turn out okay. There are some wonderful scenes such as one where Antonio and his son eat and drink wine in a local eatery while a table full of a rich family dines nearby.
Maggiorani, an amateur when cast does a deft job of playing Antonio. De Sica fills the film with downtrodden streets and markets that are only briefly clashed with the rich upper half and then only intensifying the desperation of the characters. And Enzo Staiola as the son Bruno is so fascinating to watch as a little boy who can only half know of the real disaster they are trying to rectify and Antonio can only attempt to keep the veil of "everything will be alright" up as much as possible. Although this is not a film to watch if you are in a sad mood (unless you like watching depressing when you are depressed).
Virgin Spring
If you check my blog on a regular basis, say four or five times a day, I first question why the hell you would waste that much time but second I would note that I already tried to write a review for "Virgin Spring" and took it down after less than 24 hours. You see although I have nothing but praise for this movie I couldn't talk about it without revealing plot points and I think a film this good is worth watching unbiased.
Briefly, set in the middle ages, it introduces us to Jore (Max von Sydow) and his family including a young daughter Karin. Karin is a spoiled girl who is ordered one day to bring candles to the church and on the way a horrible tragedy befalls her. What exactly happens to her you can guess and some summaries provide but I will say no more about the plot but the events that occur after the tragedy are just as compelling and powerful as those which lead up to it.
Bergman has the wide open spaces to shoot and show the beauty of nature as he did in "Seventh Seal" and there is lots of absolutely wonderous shots as the action takes place. As with his other movies, this one has questions of faith. Here both the interaction between paganism and christianity but also the ever present idea of a benevolent god in a cruel world. Beyond his beautifully shot films and intriguing stories, for me, Bergman works because he is always in this dialogue about faith that appeals to me as an intellectual and as a person raised in a faith without ever taking that leap.
When I watched "Seventh Seal" there were two moments that just floored me and "Virgin Spring" equally had two amazingly powerful scenes. Of course I'll tease you by not talking about them but rest assured you will know them when and if you see them. Max von Sydow again just holds you while he is on screen from stern master of household to indulgent father to man plagued by guilt of sin and tragedy.
Briefly, set in the middle ages, it introduces us to Jore (Max von Sydow) and his family including a young daughter Karin. Karin is a spoiled girl who is ordered one day to bring candles to the church and on the way a horrible tragedy befalls her. What exactly happens to her you can guess and some summaries provide but I will say no more about the plot but the events that occur after the tragedy are just as compelling and powerful as those which lead up to it.
Bergman has the wide open spaces to shoot and show the beauty of nature as he did in "Seventh Seal" and there is lots of absolutely wonderous shots as the action takes place. As with his other movies, this one has questions of faith. Here both the interaction between paganism and christianity but also the ever present idea of a benevolent god in a cruel world. Beyond his beautifully shot films and intriguing stories, for me, Bergman works because he is always in this dialogue about faith that appeals to me as an intellectual and as a person raised in a faith without ever taking that leap.
When I watched "Seventh Seal" there were two moments that just floored me and "Virgin Spring" equally had two amazingly powerful scenes. Of course I'll tease you by not talking about them but rest assured you will know them when and if you see them. Max von Sydow again just holds you while he is on screen from stern master of household to indulgent father to man plagued by guilt of sin and tragedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)