On February 24th, Alice Herz-Sommer died. She was 110 years old and the oldest known Holocaust survivor. She was also an accomplished musician, who was still playing music daily at 109 years of age. She outlived her husband, her friends, and even her own beloved son and she endured and survived one of the most horrific acts of genocide this world has ever seen. I was introduced to Alice like many cineastes by the documentary The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life. Her story is extraordinary and her attitude to life is even more so. The film details her life from youth through the Holocaust and beyond.
I saw this film at a local showing of the Academy Award Short Documentary Nominees a few weeks ago and it has been rolling around in my mind for most of that time. It is by no means a complicated documentary in terms of style. A nameless narrator shares the details of key portions of Alice’s life, while we are shown archival photos documenting those events. These narrative moments are intercut with interview sessions with Alice in her apartment. Here the questions are silent and we are just allowed to hear Alice talk about her life and life in general.
And while to be sure the events of Alice’s life are remarkable and her tale would be worth being shared on that merit alone, what truly drew me in was the personality of Alice. She is good humored. She wants and ensures music is in her life. She has looked evil in the face and survived but rather than becoming jaded or distant, she maintains a surprising (to me) exuberance. This can be witnessed by her continued commitment to music, her frequent visitations by fellow Holocaust survivors and friends and even in her very voice and manner.
I can be very jaded. In fact my gut initial reaction upon seeing Alice’s story was fairly misanthropic. I thought, damn we as human beings suck. I mean really and truly we are terrible. Sure this incredibly enduring woman survived and maintained her joie de vivre, but that speaks both to how terrible we are and how resilient she is. But I started to think about the subtitle of this file: Music saved My Life. This is true for Alice because her status as a talented musician resulted in her being sent to a concentration camp that the Nazis used for propaganda. She would have to perform music and look happy and the Nazis could film this and show the world that the Jews were being treated just fine.
But music didn’t just save Alice’s life. Truth be told music can save anyone’s life. That may sound trite or silly. I’ve had dark moments where I put on some music and let it all go. And we all escape from the daily horribleness that is modern life by escaping to music, or film, or art in general. And to me, art might be the one redeeming factor of humanity. I mean we do suck. We are truly terrible collectively.
We murder, we steal, we lie, we abuse, we wage war. Yet we create, not always collectively but we share those creations collectively. Music saved Alice’s life both literally and metaphorically. Music can save your life or my life. Art endures. If every day we see in the paper (or in our online internet feed, you get my point) all the horrible things we are capable of, then every day we should escape that by exposing ourselves to art. Listen to music, enjoy a film, attend an art museum. That is what I ultimately take away from Alice’s life and the film. That makes it worth watching. That it reminds me that in the end there are elements of humanity that are worth our investment in life. To me that makes The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life art and that makes it worth viewing.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Black Swan
As I watched Black Swan, one thing became increasingly evident to me. Director Darren Aronofsky seems obsessed with, well, obsession and the insanity that seems inherent in any obsession. Every film he has made has had its main character or character obsessed with their goal. Be it s number that may be the name of God or the secret to life or re-attainment of former glory, his characters are pursuing their goals sometimes to the point of insanity. So I'm not surprised that his latest effort returns to that reoccurring theme.
At times this theme is darker than others and for my money it probably won't ever get darker or better than Requiem for a Dream. A film which I saw once and only once not because I didn't think it was good or because I thought I didn't need to see it again but rather because I'm not sure I could see it again. It's overwhelming. Black Swan aims at that sort of discord but comes up short. But that isn't to say it isn't an amazing movie. It's mind bogglingly good.
First it is obsessed with detail. From the aches and scars of standing on your toes to the rigor of breaking in the ballet shoes. The slight creepiness of Nina's bedroom and overbearing mother. The cattiness of the ballet dancers. It may not be reality of dance but it feels like a reality. One lived in and agonized over. And when perfection obsessed Nina is confronted with not being perfect, she starts to crack. So meticulous is the attention to obsession that whether the antagonist Lily is actually doing anything of malice is beside the point. The very entrance of an oddity into the presumed perfect world may be the catalyst for Nina.
If its been a while since you've seen a good actor masterfully play a complete break with reality, then look no further. Natalie Portman who can be hit or miss, hits as Nina. If not for Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, I'd be tempted to consider Portman the best of the year. And as the obsession and insanity crescendo, Aronofksy keeps moving forward and really stunned me with some quite visually breathtaking scenes.
Maybe the obsession as subject is personal for Aronofsky or maybe I'm over reading him but frankly if it means that every several years we get a movie like this or Requiem for a Dream, then I hope he keeps up the obsession. And I'll be in line to give him another chance to disturb me and thrill my movie going sensibility at the same time.
At times this theme is darker than others and for my money it probably won't ever get darker or better than Requiem for a Dream. A film which I saw once and only once not because I didn't think it was good or because I thought I didn't need to see it again but rather because I'm not sure I could see it again. It's overwhelming. Black Swan aims at that sort of discord but comes up short. But that isn't to say it isn't an amazing movie. It's mind bogglingly good.
First it is obsessed with detail. From the aches and scars of standing on your toes to the rigor of breaking in the ballet shoes. The slight creepiness of Nina's bedroom and overbearing mother. The cattiness of the ballet dancers. It may not be reality of dance but it feels like a reality. One lived in and agonized over. And when perfection obsessed Nina is confronted with not being perfect, she starts to crack. So meticulous is the attention to obsession that whether the antagonist Lily is actually doing anything of malice is beside the point. The very entrance of an oddity into the presumed perfect world may be the catalyst for Nina.
If its been a while since you've seen a good actor masterfully play a complete break with reality, then look no further. Natalie Portman who can be hit or miss, hits as Nina. If not for Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, I'd be tempted to consider Portman the best of the year. And as the obsession and insanity crescendo, Aronofksy keeps moving forward and really stunned me with some quite visually breathtaking scenes.
Maybe the obsession as subject is personal for Aronofsky or maybe I'm over reading him but frankly if it means that every several years we get a movie like this or Requiem for a Dream, then I hope he keeps up the obsession. And I'll be in line to give him another chance to disturb me and thrill my movie going sensibility at the same time.
True Grit
I grew up on Westerns. Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, those were the actors I saw in my youth. My parents would watch all those films and they were some of my earliest movie experiences. Which is why I have soft spot for them and am very picky when I see a new western or a remake. I didn't care all that much for the recent "3:10 To Yuma" And so I was little uneasy when I heard belatedly that the Coens next film was a remake of True Grit. Sure, sure all the assurances that this was more faithful to the book but so what? If someone wanted to remake Everbody Comes to Rick's but make it more faithful, would you be okay with that? I know I wouldn't.
But its the Coens, you say, well I'm not as enamored with the Coens as some. Yes they are talented but frankly the best film they ever made was No County For Old Men and that was almost anti-Coen in its approach. The Duke WAS Rooster Cogburn. Sure, he didn't really play Rooster so much as embody every last element of the John Wayne mythos at that point but still, even now I think Rooster Cogburn equals John Wayne. So warily I entered the theater to watch this new True Grit. And frankly I'm glad I did.
I don't by any means think its a perfect film. More than once I just wished a few scenes had been shortened here or there. And after the climax of the film, the last ten minutes or so just felt sort of unnecessary (even if they were in the book). But it was a sold and enjoyable film. Solid acting from everyone. Although I'm not sure why Barry Pepper hasn't been getting more love. He was great in his small role. I would only put it in my top ten of the year by virtue of the fact that well I didn't see 10 good movies in 2010. But well made yes.
Of course Jeff Bridges is great with his own Rooster (but as I said The Duke will always be Rooster to me). Matt Damon is good as the well meaning but slightly dim-witted LeBeouf. But really the entire show is stolen by Hailee Steinfeld. Her Mattie Ross is tough, smart and sharp tongued. She manages humorous, stern, clever, compassionate and scared without pause. She is hard to ignore the entire time she is on screen. And the whole movie rests on her shoulders. It might be the best performance all year but I concede that I have few to compare it to. Still whether you are sceptical going in or a whole hearted Coen fan, Steinfeld alone is worth the price of admission.
But its the Coens, you say, well I'm not as enamored with the Coens as some. Yes they are talented but frankly the best film they ever made was No County For Old Men and that was almost anti-Coen in its approach. The Duke WAS Rooster Cogburn. Sure, he didn't really play Rooster so much as embody every last element of the John Wayne mythos at that point but still, even now I think Rooster Cogburn equals John Wayne. So warily I entered the theater to watch this new True Grit. And frankly I'm glad I did.
I don't by any means think its a perfect film. More than once I just wished a few scenes had been shortened here or there. And after the climax of the film, the last ten minutes or so just felt sort of unnecessary (even if they were in the book). But it was a sold and enjoyable film. Solid acting from everyone. Although I'm not sure why Barry Pepper hasn't been getting more love. He was great in his small role. I would only put it in my top ten of the year by virtue of the fact that well I didn't see 10 good movies in 2010. But well made yes.
Of course Jeff Bridges is great with his own Rooster (but as I said The Duke will always be Rooster to me). Matt Damon is good as the well meaning but slightly dim-witted LeBeouf. But really the entire show is stolen by Hailee Steinfeld. Her Mattie Ross is tough, smart and sharp tongued. She manages humorous, stern, clever, compassionate and scared without pause. She is hard to ignore the entire time she is on screen. And the whole movie rests on her shoulders. It might be the best performance all year but I concede that I have few to compare it to. Still whether you are sceptical going in or a whole hearted Coen fan, Steinfeld alone is worth the price of admission.
The King's Speech
The death of Princess Diana in the 1990s was an event I can remember. I remember all the news reports and the silence of the royal family. So when I saw The Queen back in early 2007, I remember thinking to myself that it was the first movie I could recall were the events being portrayed were ones I more or less witnessed. I bring this up because as I was exiting The King's Speech, an old couple was in front of me and as we went, the elderly man said he remembered a lot of the historical events portrayed in the film. And how odd it was that he said that since The Queen of course was about Queen Elizabeth and the current film was about her father King George VI.
I did not need that brief conversation to decide the movie was good but it certainly was a nice affirmation that the film felt real. Seemingly having a pedestrian or even boring premise, as my father put it "once I found out it was about a speech therapist, I said pass", the truth is it is much more than about a speech therapist. OR perhaps its that to paraphrase Roger Ebert, it is how it is about being a movie about a speech therapist. It was somewhat into the movie when I remembered that King George VI took on the crown when his older brother King Edward VIII denounced his crown for love. And some might say well now there is a story. A man destined to be king gives it up to be with the woman he loves.
And I suppose you wouldn't be wrong, but there was something quite extraordinary about George overcoming speech problems and being a source of comfort for the English people during the hard days of World War II. Frankly I only know a handful of things about speech therapy but I did laugh early in the movie when the court doctor is suggesting the strategy that Demosthenes used to cure his impediment. At least as Plutarch claimed it. The first time I read that in Plutarch I was sceptical but apparently not 1930s doctors. But as I said it really isn't a movie about speech therapy. I could list off a slew of things that I interpret the movie to be about but the basic thing that it is is good.
The story is engaging and the principal actors are wholly enjoyable to watch. Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce have memorable roles as King George V and Edward VIII respectfully. Gambon as particularly stern with George VI but who apparently saw in him the best of his sons. Pearce plays Edward as quite selfish, a quite nice opposite take on the notion of him following his heart. Following his heart yes but abandoning his duty. This is actually one of the more interesting dynamics of the film. Helena Bonham Carter is perhaps the most subtle in her role as George VI's wife.
Of course the show belongs to Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue and Colin Firth as George VI. Firth shows a strength and sensitivity that is quite appealing making a larger than life Royal Figure human and at times tragic. Rush is lively and having fun but never so over the top that you don't believe the relationship the two develop. As the whole movie seems to hang on Rush and Firth's relationship, it is well that the two have great screen chemistry.
By the time the rousing finale roles around I was smiling and happy that I had chosen this film to watch. Great story backed by great actors are a difficult combo to upset. It doesn't hurt that it put a smile on my face as well.
I did not need that brief conversation to decide the movie was good but it certainly was a nice affirmation that the film felt real. Seemingly having a pedestrian or even boring premise, as my father put it "once I found out it was about a speech therapist, I said pass", the truth is it is much more than about a speech therapist. OR perhaps its that to paraphrase Roger Ebert, it is how it is about being a movie about a speech therapist. It was somewhat into the movie when I remembered that King George VI took on the crown when his older brother King Edward VIII denounced his crown for love. And some might say well now there is a story. A man destined to be king gives it up to be with the woman he loves.
And I suppose you wouldn't be wrong, but there was something quite extraordinary about George overcoming speech problems and being a source of comfort for the English people during the hard days of World War II. Frankly I only know a handful of things about speech therapy but I did laugh early in the movie when the court doctor is suggesting the strategy that Demosthenes used to cure his impediment. At least as Plutarch claimed it. The first time I read that in Plutarch I was sceptical but apparently not 1930s doctors. But as I said it really isn't a movie about speech therapy. I could list off a slew of things that I interpret the movie to be about but the basic thing that it is is good.
The story is engaging and the principal actors are wholly enjoyable to watch. Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce have memorable roles as King George V and Edward VIII respectfully. Gambon as particularly stern with George VI but who apparently saw in him the best of his sons. Pearce plays Edward as quite selfish, a quite nice opposite take on the notion of him following his heart. Following his heart yes but abandoning his duty. This is actually one of the more interesting dynamics of the film. Helena Bonham Carter is perhaps the most subtle in her role as George VI's wife.
Of course the show belongs to Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue and Colin Firth as George VI. Firth shows a strength and sensitivity that is quite appealing making a larger than life Royal Figure human and at times tragic. Rush is lively and having fun but never so over the top that you don't believe the relationship the two develop. As the whole movie seems to hang on Rush and Firth's relationship, it is well that the two have great screen chemistry.
By the time the rousing finale roles around I was smiling and happy that I had chosen this film to watch. Great story backed by great actors are a difficult combo to upset. It doesn't hurt that it put a smile on my face as well.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Movie Idiot pretends to be Trailer Guy and Fails
Drive Angry - Holy hell. Pun intended. When a friend first told me about this preview I sort of laughed and cringed at the absurdity of the whole thing. Then I actually watched it. If you can get past the first voice over and not want to immediately see this film then something is wrong with you. No its not good, its just so bad it will have to be good right? There is something oddly right and fitting about William Fichtner playing Death (or the Accountant as he's called), kind of like when i first heard that Peter Stromare was cast as Satan in Constantine. Oh and Amber Heard is pleasant to look at:
Real Steel - Who? Why? How? Does someone suggest Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots: The Movie? And then it actually gets made? And why o why could it not have been me? Its actually quite an awful preview with Hugh Jackman mugging for the camera when he isn't chewing scenery like he hasn't eaten in weeks.
Fast Five - What could one add to the flashy overdrive action franchise that is the Fast and the Furious movies? How about Dwayne Johnson. Because beyond bringing together just about every major character from the whole series that is all this movie seems to be doing. But again, Jordanna Brewster is also very nice to look at:
Kill the Irishman - In a film that will no doubt play well with my brother, the much hyped Irish-Italian feud gets another big screen showing. Playing the role of the titular hero/anti-hero is Ray "Punisher #3" Stevenson. The trailer doesn't really do anything exciting. In fact it seems to hit every cliche note I would expect in a Irish Mob vs. Italian Mob movie.
Real Steel - Who? Why? How? Does someone suggest Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots: The Movie? And then it actually gets made? And why o why could it not have been me? Its actually quite an awful preview with Hugh Jackman mugging for the camera when he isn't chewing scenery like he hasn't eaten in weeks.
Fast Five - What could one add to the flashy overdrive action franchise that is the Fast and the Furious movies? How about Dwayne Johnson. Because beyond bringing together just about every major character from the whole series that is all this movie seems to be doing. But again, Jordanna Brewster is also very nice to look at:
Kill the Irishman - In a film that will no doubt play well with my brother, the much hyped Irish-Italian feud gets another big screen showing. Playing the role of the titular hero/anti-hero is Ray "Punisher #3" Stevenson. The trailer doesn't really do anything exciting. In fact it seems to hit every cliche note I would expect in a Irish Mob vs. Italian Mob movie.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The Girlfriend Experience
It seems like every couple of movies, Steven Soderbergh is trying something innovative and cutting edge. Several years ago it was Bubble, which was a mess of real people in acting roles and a plot that was barely present. So enter The Girlfriend Experience. A follow up of sorts. just replace non actors with porn actress. Plot? No we'll stick with the whole no plot thing.
The movie stars porn actress Sasha Gray as a high class prostitute. We ramble around with her as she visits clients, talks to a journalist and her boyfriend. This all inter cut with scenes of her boyfriend going on a trip to Vegas and other random scenes that confused me. I can't even begin to understand what the point is. But Soderbergh seems really committed to finding a way to get a movie to work with non traditional actors. Its like Cinema Verite without anything to make you interested.
I recently saw Sasha Gray interviewed and she listed her five favorite movies. What the hell? Jean Luc Goddard? And Escape from New York? She actually seems sort of interesting. But coming as no shock to anyone ever, she can't act. At all. In fact its rather painful. Especially in her scenes where she is waxing intellectual with her clients.
Oddly enough at one point in voice over we hear a "review" of Gray's prostitute by a vindictive "pimp" which is about spot on as to the believability of Ms. Gray as a high class prostitute. My only hope is that when Soderbergh makes this train wrecks it gets whatever it is out of his system. And then he gives us something like Out of Sight.
The movie stars porn actress Sasha Gray as a high class prostitute. We ramble around with her as she visits clients, talks to a journalist and her boyfriend. This all inter cut with scenes of her boyfriend going on a trip to Vegas and other random scenes that confused me. I can't even begin to understand what the point is. But Soderbergh seems really committed to finding a way to get a movie to work with non traditional actors. Its like Cinema Verite without anything to make you interested.
I recently saw Sasha Gray interviewed and she listed her five favorite movies. What the hell? Jean Luc Goddard? And Escape from New York? She actually seems sort of interesting. But coming as no shock to anyone ever, she can't act. At all. In fact its rather painful. Especially in her scenes where she is waxing intellectual with her clients.
Oddly enough at one point in voice over we hear a "review" of Gray's prostitute by a vindictive "pimp" which is about spot on as to the believability of Ms. Gray as a high class prostitute. My only hope is that when Soderbergh makes this train wrecks it gets whatever it is out of his system. And then he gives us something like Out of Sight.
A Little Trip To Heaven
After four months of sitting on my desk unwatched, I finally opened up a netflix dvd that I had decided I should see. And as I stared at the disc in front of me I had but one question. What the hell is this? Why did I want to see this? Did I put this on my list back in my Julia Stiles fascination days? Did I want to see what else Jeremy Renner had done after seeing The Hurt Locker? Do I worship the awesomeness that is Peter Coyote? Maybe it was Forest Whitaker? I can not think of one conceivable reason why I put this film on my list. But apparently at some point I thought it was a good idea right? So how bad could it be?
Help me out Netflix movie description?
Oh god. It sounds awful. But that's just a description. How bad could it be? Mr. Whitaker has some sort of british? accent. I have the question mark there because I'm not exactly sure where he's supposed to be from. At one point he is vaguely referred to as being from north. Its pretty much all kinds of awful. And then there is Jeremy Renner. He was surprisingly good in The Hurt Locker. But then again he was also really bad in 28 Weeks Later and SWAT. And painful in this. Ms. Stiles, although I love you, this was not your best role.
And this movie doesn't really have anything going for it. The plot is particularly nonsensical. There is some small suggestion in the end and in some half done deleted scene that Whitaker goes to heaven. There are in fact several references to heaven that seemed strangely out of place. Whatever the directer was going for, it got lost somewhere between his vision and the screen. Next time I think I'll just send it back if I'm not sure why I put the movie on my queue.
Help me out Netflix movie description?
When a claim is sought on the million-dollar life insurance policy of notorious con artist Kelvin Anderson, crack investigator Holt is assigned to uncover the truth in Baltasar Kormakur's crime noir. Holt (Forest Whitaker) suspects deceit from the get-go, and he stealthily tries to uncover the truth from Kelvin's sister Isold (Julia Stiles) and her erratic husband, Fred (Jeremy Renner). Peter Coyote co-stars.
Oh god. It sounds awful. But that's just a description. How bad could it be? Mr. Whitaker has some sort of british? accent. I have the question mark there because I'm not exactly sure where he's supposed to be from. At one point he is vaguely referred to as being from north. Its pretty much all kinds of awful. And then there is Jeremy Renner. He was surprisingly good in The Hurt Locker. But then again he was also really bad in 28 Weeks Later and SWAT. And painful in this. Ms. Stiles, although I love you, this was not your best role.
And this movie doesn't really have anything going for it. The plot is particularly nonsensical. There is some small suggestion in the end and in some half done deleted scene that Whitaker goes to heaven. There are in fact several references to heaven that seemed strangely out of place. Whatever the directer was going for, it got lost somewhere between his vision and the screen. Next time I think I'll just send it back if I'm not sure why I put the movie on my queue.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
CinemaRomantico demands, I deliver, I can't have someone that influential mad at me
Per the request of CinemaRomantico
1.) What was your first movie-going experience? I couldn't possibly tell you, but I can vividly remember seeing The Dead Pool in theaters. My parents even let me sit in the front row and an usher asked where my parents were, and when I pointed at them several rows back, he shrugged and walked away (makes me remember my theater days). Why my parents would take me to a movie like Dirty Harry at age 7 is not entirely clear but I don't think it hurt me too much. Best/worst line: "He's hanging around back there" - Dirty Harry having killed the villain with a harpoon gun.
2.) How many DVDs do you own? A little over two hundred but I am in the process of downsizing to about half that. I own 3 Blu-Ray Discs.
3.) What is your guilty pleasure movie? Bring It On, The scene with Sparky Pulaski is cinematic genius.
4.) You have compiled a list of your top 100 movies. Which movies didn’t make the cut? I could never make a top 100 list because I could never decide on movies 2-100. Movies which are often listed in such lists because they represent innovation (but in my opinion are not very interesting movies e.g. Voyage to the Moon or Birth of a Nation) would probably get left off.
5.) Which movie(s) do you compulsively watch over and over again? Thin Red Line, its my favorite movie and each new viewing is rewarded with something new.
6.) Classic(s) you’re embarrassed to admit you haven’t seen yet? Quite a bit of the foreign classics.
7.) What movie posters hang on your wall? Well none currently but usually Thin Red Line, the first poster which still listed John Travolta on it before his name was removed for fear that people would go to it instead of Civil Action which was released at the same time.
1.) What was your first movie-going experience? I couldn't possibly tell you, but I can vividly remember seeing The Dead Pool in theaters. My parents even let me sit in the front row and an usher asked where my parents were, and when I pointed at them several rows back, he shrugged and walked away (makes me remember my theater days). Why my parents would take me to a movie like Dirty Harry at age 7 is not entirely clear but I don't think it hurt me too much. Best/worst line: "He's hanging around back there" - Dirty Harry having killed the villain with a harpoon gun.
2.) How many DVDs do you own? A little over two hundred but I am in the process of downsizing to about half that. I own 3 Blu-Ray Discs.
3.) What is your guilty pleasure movie? Bring It On, The scene with Sparky Pulaski is cinematic genius.
4.) You have compiled a list of your top 100 movies. Which movies didn’t make the cut? I could never make a top 100 list because I could never decide on movies 2-100. Movies which are often listed in such lists because they represent innovation (but in my opinion are not very interesting movies e.g. Voyage to the Moon or Birth of a Nation) would probably get left off.
5.) Which movie(s) do you compulsively watch over and over again? Thin Red Line, its my favorite movie and each new viewing is rewarded with something new.
6.) Classic(s) you’re embarrassed to admit you haven’t seen yet? Quite a bit of the foreign classics.
7.) What movie posters hang on your wall? Well none currently but usually Thin Red Line, the first poster which still listed John Travolta on it before his name was removed for fear that people would go to it instead of Civil Action which was released at the same time.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Summer Movies I Want to See
Or rather perhaps I should say, summmer movies I will see whether I truly desire to or not. Without adieu.
Iron Man 2 - Well because Iron Man was really fun. And although as is inevitable with superhero sequels, it will be bad. It will take everything that was great in the first and up the ante by 1000. But it will have great effects and at least one or two good action sequences. Everyone needs a little popcorn action in their summer.
Robin Hood - when this movie was title Nottingham and was to be the story of Robin Hood from the Sheriff's perspective, it was the movie I wanted to see this summer. Now, frankly, its still Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe but I suspect that is going to make it Gladiator 2: The Middle Ages. Which will have some really excited and me really sad.
A-Team - like a bad car crash I can't look away from the destruction of my youth.
Inception - Nolan, DiCaprio and even Mr. Gordon-Levitt. and it seems like Nolan is getting back to the material that made him, weird stuff. and away from highly overrated Batman films.
Predators - Its predators, i have to.
Scott Pilgrim Versus the World - Michael Cera plays a role, one role, perfectly, and as long as you use it right, it works. This seems like its going to work. Also Mary Elizabeth Winstead whom my friend thinks should be the star of the next Die Hard film. And that on its face is close to genius.
Sadly none of these films has me terribly excited.
Iron Man 2 - Well because Iron Man was really fun. And although as is inevitable with superhero sequels, it will be bad. It will take everything that was great in the first and up the ante by 1000. But it will have great effects and at least one or two good action sequences. Everyone needs a little popcorn action in their summer.
Robin Hood - when this movie was title Nottingham and was to be the story of Robin Hood from the Sheriff's perspective, it was the movie I wanted to see this summer. Now, frankly, its still Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe but I suspect that is going to make it Gladiator 2: The Middle Ages. Which will have some really excited and me really sad.
A-Team - like a bad car crash I can't look away from the destruction of my youth.
Inception - Nolan, DiCaprio and even Mr. Gordon-Levitt. and it seems like Nolan is getting back to the material that made him, weird stuff. and away from highly overrated Batman films.
Predators - Its predators, i have to.
Scott Pilgrim Versus the World - Michael Cera plays a role, one role, perfectly, and as long as you use it right, it works. This seems like its going to work. Also Mary Elizabeth Winstead whom my friend thinks should be the star of the next Die Hard film. And that on its face is close to genius.
Sadly none of these films has me terribly excited.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Academy Awards...I haven't a clue
Wow, talk about a change. In 2008 I saw 100 films in the theater over the course of one year. In 2009, I'd be surprised if it topped thirty. Its now four days into March and mere days away from the Academy Awards. I have seen four of the Best Picture nominees, and only two of the nominated acting performances. Oh and I've seen exactly zero movies in the theater this year. Now this is in part because I've been pretty poor, in part because well have you seen the films being released? Now my lack of blogging and lack of writing reviews I am sure was a thrill to everyone out there. But I figured I should say something before the Academy Awards.
I'm not sure what I should say. I can't exactly pick my horses as I have seen almost none of the movies. But the only thing I find about as fascinating as movies is predictive markets. Which have all but chosen every major award.
Best Director? Overwhelmingly the market thinks this is Bigelow's. Sure, why not. It was a decent enough film and it is a pretty glaring oversight that no woman has ever won a best director award.
Supporting Actor/Actress: These have Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique. I saw Mr. Waltz's performance and its one of the great things in Inglorious Basterds, hell one of the only good things in that movie which I didn't care for so much. Mo'Nique won the Golden Globe so sure sounds reasonable. I didn't see any of the supporting actress roles.
Best Actor/Actress: Bridges blows the market competition out of the water. The movie idiot abides. Sandra Bullock is leading by a healthy margin but not with the close to 90% margin that the previously mentioned nominees are. Meryl Streep by virtue of the fact that she is Meryl Streep has about the remaining third of the market. Upset? Wait is it an upset when Meryl Streep wins?
Best Picture: Again a strong lead for Hurt Locker but not total. Avatar has about a third of the market. Now this is the one category wherein since its basically a horse race between Avatar and Hurt Locker, I can actually have an opinion. And unfortunately I'm torn. See I saw Hurt Locker after all the hype and frankly was underwhelmed. Not because it wasn't a decent movie but because well compared to some of the great movies I have seen in my life, well it seriously falls short. Avatar has its flaws sure but I enjoyed it quite a bit and there does seem to be a fair amount of hatred out there for it (which frankly I don't understand).
But then again the thought of James Cameron getting on stage and douching it up in an acceptance speech makes me shudder. Go Hurt Locker!
I'm not sure what I should say. I can't exactly pick my horses as I have seen almost none of the movies. But the only thing I find about as fascinating as movies is predictive markets. Which have all but chosen every major award.
Best Director? Overwhelmingly the market thinks this is Bigelow's. Sure, why not. It was a decent enough film and it is a pretty glaring oversight that no woman has ever won a best director award.
Supporting Actor/Actress: These have Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique. I saw Mr. Waltz's performance and its one of the great things in Inglorious Basterds, hell one of the only good things in that movie which I didn't care for so much. Mo'Nique won the Golden Globe so sure sounds reasonable. I didn't see any of the supporting actress roles.
Best Actor/Actress: Bridges blows the market competition out of the water. The movie idiot abides. Sandra Bullock is leading by a healthy margin but not with the close to 90% margin that the previously mentioned nominees are. Meryl Streep by virtue of the fact that she is Meryl Streep has about the remaining third of the market. Upset? Wait is it an upset when Meryl Streep wins?
Best Picture: Again a strong lead for Hurt Locker but not total. Avatar has about a third of the market. Now this is the one category wherein since its basically a horse race between Avatar and Hurt Locker, I can actually have an opinion. And unfortunately I'm torn. See I saw Hurt Locker after all the hype and frankly was underwhelmed. Not because it wasn't a decent movie but because well compared to some of the great movies I have seen in my life, well it seriously falls short. Avatar has its flaws sure but I enjoyed it quite a bit and there does seem to be a fair amount of hatred out there for it (which frankly I don't understand).
But then again the thought of James Cameron getting on stage and douching it up in an acceptance speech makes me shudder. Go Hurt Locker!
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Zombieland
Following a time honored strategy of insuring that no one is actually reading your reviews before continuing, I feel sufficiently confident that no one is still reading. And with that in mind I finally get around to writing another review. Here we go!
1) I own and love the first three Romero films about zombies.
2) I have on multiple occasions discussed strategies for surviving a zombocalypse with friends.
Thus I feel well qualified to tell you if Zombieland is any good. And I assure you non-existent reader that it is...kind of. In medias res, we meet Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) a young man who having survived the initial outbreak has devised a series of rules to live by. These include cardio, the double tap and wearing seat belts. These rules appear on screen more than once in an attempt to enhance a joke. Columbus quickly meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) a man who might be a bit crazy and truly enjoys killing zombies.
The two travel together and soon run into a sister duo Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). After some initial hesitation on both sides all four end up traveling to LA, where Wichita has promised to take Little Rock to an amusement park. The plot is of course a bit gimmicky, the land is a bit scarce on zombies it seems and there are more than a few failed attempts at humor. But there are basically two types of zombie films: those with a message (which seem to be mainly restricted to Romero's attempts) and those that intend to show lots of zombies getting killed in many different ways.
This film is obviously in the latter category. Whatever message it might have about enjoying the little things is mainly for laughs as Tallahassee seeks out a much desired Twinkie. So the question then becomes does the film at least deliver in a satisfying way? Well enough I suppose. There aren't any particularly exciting and new ways of killing zombies but there are certainly some highly entertaining moments with Woody Harrelson.
Truth be told I'd have rated this a mediocre just slight failure of a zombie film except for one saving grace. Bill Murray. I'll say no more save that I was laughing quite a bit when Bill Murray was in the film. So in the end it had its moments but not nearly enough to rescue it from a pan except for the saving light of Mr. Murray. I'd also give praise for Woody Harrelson who is the only character who seems to be actually having fun of the four main characters.
1) I own and love the first three Romero films about zombies.
2) I have on multiple occasions discussed strategies for surviving a zombocalypse with friends.
Thus I feel well qualified to tell you if Zombieland is any good. And I assure you non-existent reader that it is...kind of. In medias res, we meet Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) a young man who having survived the initial outbreak has devised a series of rules to live by. These include cardio, the double tap and wearing seat belts. These rules appear on screen more than once in an attempt to enhance a joke. Columbus quickly meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) a man who might be a bit crazy and truly enjoys killing zombies.
The two travel together and soon run into a sister duo Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). After some initial hesitation on both sides all four end up traveling to LA, where Wichita has promised to take Little Rock to an amusement park. The plot is of course a bit gimmicky, the land is a bit scarce on zombies it seems and there are more than a few failed attempts at humor. But there are basically two types of zombie films: those with a message (which seem to be mainly restricted to Romero's attempts) and those that intend to show lots of zombies getting killed in many different ways.
This film is obviously in the latter category. Whatever message it might have about enjoying the little things is mainly for laughs as Tallahassee seeks out a much desired Twinkie. So the question then becomes does the film at least deliver in a satisfying way? Well enough I suppose. There aren't any particularly exciting and new ways of killing zombies but there are certainly some highly entertaining moments with Woody Harrelson.
Truth be told I'd have rated this a mediocre just slight failure of a zombie film except for one saving grace. Bill Murray. I'll say no more save that I was laughing quite a bit when Bill Murray was in the film. So in the end it had its moments but not nearly enough to rescue it from a pan except for the saving light of Mr. Murray. I'd also give praise for Woody Harrelson who is the only character who seems to be actually having fun of the four main characters.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Mistake 1: going to see Transformers 2
Mistake 2: going to the the midnight show
Mistake 3: thinking that I have the energy or patience to sit through 2 and half hours of drivel at midnight.
Do you know that old cliche that when it comes to action movies, the sequel just ramps up whatever made the first film successful by 10 and hopes the profits will multiply by 100? Was there a big action sequence in the first film that was really popular? Okay, then let us add 43.2 big action sequences. Was there a mildly humorous (or annoying or both) character, well if people occasionally laughed at the antics of that character, imagine the hilarity that will ensue if we add 5 more such characters. And was their an aesthetically pleasing bombshell damsel? Okay lets add another one.
Michael Bay has pretty much give us every single one of those cliches in the sequel. The man who once almost gave me an aneurysm when he criticized a would be film maker for making a film that felt like retread has provided exactly what you would expect him to provide. There are an uncountable number of over the top action sequences, there are four or five "humorous" characters adding comic relief and a fair amount of backhanded racism. And of course we get more of lithe Megan Fox but also another scantily clad young woman.
The fan boy in me and the one, who grew up playing with plastic transformers and watching the 30 minute commercial that was the cartoon series, admittedly had one moment of pure glee when Optimus Prime took on three Decepticons at once. I couldn't resist smiling. But the rest of the time was painful, long and exhausting. You can be pretty much of two types when it comes to this movie, you want to see it and nothing I say will change your mind or you have no desire to see it and nothing I can say can change your mind.
The plot isn't worth repeating even if I pretended I was paying attention or that I understood it. But what struck me as odd and I don't care whether this was intentional or not, is the blatant conservative rhetoric of the film. Much like 300 was so easy to read as a neo-conservative statement of freedom and democracy, the new Transformers movie smacks you in the face with the Dick Cheney rhetoric that America is less safe thanks to Barack Obama.
Since the first film, the transformers have been allied with humans fighting terrorist acts by the decepticons. Then enter a new president (specifically referenced twice as being Barack Obama). This new president as represented by his sniveling, bureaucratic liaison to the military suggests that it is the tools of fighting the terrorists that may be causing more terrorism. Suggesting that Obama's foreign policy is simply if we stop antagonizing the enemy and get rid of our best way of defending against them then the whole thing will work out peacefully.
It was insulting to say nothing else. And I'm sure more than one person will say I'm reading to much into it but what reason does the film have to make reference to the president as being Barack Obama? Its a fantasy world where giant sentient robots exist, can't it have a fantasy president? The fact that the asshole suit who wants to get rid of the Autobots represents the president seems to me pretty clear. Why does a mindless action film have to not so subtly suggest a real president is ineffectual? I don't care for it.
Mistake 2: going to the the midnight show
Mistake 3: thinking that I have the energy or patience to sit through 2 and half hours of drivel at midnight.
Do you know that old cliche that when it comes to action movies, the sequel just ramps up whatever made the first film successful by 10 and hopes the profits will multiply by 100? Was there a big action sequence in the first film that was really popular? Okay, then let us add 43.2 big action sequences. Was there a mildly humorous (or annoying or both) character, well if people occasionally laughed at the antics of that character, imagine the hilarity that will ensue if we add 5 more such characters. And was their an aesthetically pleasing bombshell damsel? Okay lets add another one.
Michael Bay has pretty much give us every single one of those cliches in the sequel. The man who once almost gave me an aneurysm when he criticized a would be film maker for making a film that felt like retread has provided exactly what you would expect him to provide. There are an uncountable number of over the top action sequences, there are four or five "humorous" characters adding comic relief and a fair amount of backhanded racism. And of course we get more of lithe Megan Fox but also another scantily clad young woman.
The fan boy in me and the one, who grew up playing with plastic transformers and watching the 30 minute commercial that was the cartoon series, admittedly had one moment of pure glee when Optimus Prime took on three Decepticons at once. I couldn't resist smiling. But the rest of the time was painful, long and exhausting. You can be pretty much of two types when it comes to this movie, you want to see it and nothing I say will change your mind or you have no desire to see it and nothing I can say can change your mind.
The plot isn't worth repeating even if I pretended I was paying attention or that I understood it. But what struck me as odd and I don't care whether this was intentional or not, is the blatant conservative rhetoric of the film. Much like 300 was so easy to read as a neo-conservative statement of freedom and democracy, the new Transformers movie smacks you in the face with the Dick Cheney rhetoric that America is less safe thanks to Barack Obama.
Since the first film, the transformers have been allied with humans fighting terrorist acts by the decepticons. Then enter a new president (specifically referenced twice as being Barack Obama). This new president as represented by his sniveling, bureaucratic liaison to the military suggests that it is the tools of fighting the terrorists that may be causing more terrorism. Suggesting that Obama's foreign policy is simply if we stop antagonizing the enemy and get rid of our best way of defending against them then the whole thing will work out peacefully.
It was insulting to say nothing else. And I'm sure more than one person will say I'm reading to much into it but what reason does the film have to make reference to the president as being Barack Obama? Its a fantasy world where giant sentient robots exist, can't it have a fantasy president? The fact that the asshole suit who wants to get rid of the Autobots represents the president seems to me pretty clear. Why does a mindless action film have to not so subtly suggest a real president is ineffectual? I don't care for it.
Goodbye, Solo
Have you ever noticed that although I probably come off as a crabby old man who hates everything he sees, that I actually have more positive reviews than negative ones? Something to think about...or not. Its a bit of a falsified statistic since it includes reviews of movies that I watched at home or own which in general lends towards movies I actually want to see. I can't say for sure why when I go to the cinema I see so many movies I don't want to see. In the end morbid curiosity gets the better of me and I ascribe to a theory that any movie even one that boils my blood in anger is still worth seeing.
But I also suspect that because I endure so many terrible movies that when I hit on one that really makes me smile, I enjoy it that much more because of all the crap that came before it. Ramin Bahrani's film Man Push Cart was more or less an attempt by a modern filmmaker to make a Neo-realist picture. My review was largely positive but I balked at a couple of the contrived subplots.
Bahrani's new film Goodbye, Solo shows me an evolving filmmaker who is cutting out some of his bad habits (some are still there) and yet maintains his deep compassion for characters who are liminal to the larger society. Man Push Cart's Ahmad was a weary, hard working Pakistani, who provided breakfast each day for big movers and shakers of the New York business world trying hard to reach his own American Dream.
Solo(Souleymane Sy Savane), Bahrani's new protagonist is a likable, chatty taxi cab driver originally from Senegal who now resides in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Solo like Ahmad has dreams of a better life this time as a Flight Attendant but it isn't so much the story of greater ambition that moves the story but the simple day to day of a well developed character performing a largely thankless task as so many in the United States today. When an elderly man, William (Red West) makes a request to be driven in several weeks to a semi obscure mountain destination and agrees to pay handsomely for it, Solo is intrigued.
Solo becomes increasingly intrigued by William and befriends him and tries to discover the mystery of the bitter old man. It is in these scenes (the heart and soul of the film) which won me over early on and kept me happy for the entire film. William isn't entirely heartless and opens up partially but nothing turns him from his mysterious goal. West has one of those fantastic faces that reveals and yet conceals a thousand interesting stories. He manages those looks and intonations of certain phrases that suggest a life more profound and sad than you can imagine, much the way Hal Holbrook managed to convey so much in one line of dialogue in Into the Wild.
The story goes along its course and never fully reveals the mysteries of William's life, merely hinting at some of the points and only alluding to why William wants to go to the mountain vista (albeit alludes strongly). And then the film ends. Solo might have a bit of renewed desire to accomplish his dreams but we certainly don't see success and the profound experience of someone who may have changed your life but then disappeared from it its fairly moving. There is a humanity to Solo and a humane treatment of his character by Bahrani that alone makes the film worth watching. Savane pulls off a fully formed likable character whom you believe would befriend a perfect stranger quickly and would genuinely care about what happens to him.
This is the first movie released in 2009 that I truly enjoyed through and through and has me hopeful for the upcoming fall releases and hopes that more gems of this sort are in the wings.
But I also suspect that because I endure so many terrible movies that when I hit on one that really makes me smile, I enjoy it that much more because of all the crap that came before it. Ramin Bahrani's film Man Push Cart was more or less an attempt by a modern filmmaker to make a Neo-realist picture. My review was largely positive but I balked at a couple of the contrived subplots.
Bahrani's new film Goodbye, Solo shows me an evolving filmmaker who is cutting out some of his bad habits (some are still there) and yet maintains his deep compassion for characters who are liminal to the larger society. Man Push Cart's Ahmad was a weary, hard working Pakistani, who provided breakfast each day for big movers and shakers of the New York business world trying hard to reach his own American Dream.
Solo(Souleymane Sy Savane), Bahrani's new protagonist is a likable, chatty taxi cab driver originally from Senegal who now resides in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Solo like Ahmad has dreams of a better life this time as a Flight Attendant but it isn't so much the story of greater ambition that moves the story but the simple day to day of a well developed character performing a largely thankless task as so many in the United States today. When an elderly man, William (Red West) makes a request to be driven in several weeks to a semi obscure mountain destination and agrees to pay handsomely for it, Solo is intrigued.
Solo becomes increasingly intrigued by William and befriends him and tries to discover the mystery of the bitter old man. It is in these scenes (the heart and soul of the film) which won me over early on and kept me happy for the entire film. William isn't entirely heartless and opens up partially but nothing turns him from his mysterious goal. West has one of those fantastic faces that reveals and yet conceals a thousand interesting stories. He manages those looks and intonations of certain phrases that suggest a life more profound and sad than you can imagine, much the way Hal Holbrook managed to convey so much in one line of dialogue in Into the Wild.
The story goes along its course and never fully reveals the mysteries of William's life, merely hinting at some of the points and only alluding to why William wants to go to the mountain vista (albeit alludes strongly). And then the film ends. Solo might have a bit of renewed desire to accomplish his dreams but we certainly don't see success and the profound experience of someone who may have changed your life but then disappeared from it its fairly moving. There is a humanity to Solo and a humane treatment of his character by Bahrani that alone makes the film worth watching. Savane pulls off a fully formed likable character whom you believe would befriend a perfect stranger quickly and would genuinely care about what happens to him.
This is the first movie released in 2009 that I truly enjoyed through and through and has me hopeful for the upcoming fall releases and hopes that more gems of this sort are in the wings.
Year One
Obviously there is something wrong with me. Because the only comedic (and I use the term broadly) actor I hate more than Will Farrell is Jack Black. He's basically anti-comedy most of the time. Basically just loud and offensive. But as foolishly amazed as I was that I went to Land of the Lost I was a bit more perplexed as to why I had gone to see Year One. I'd like to say I was tricked by esteemed critic Manhola Darghis of the New York Times. But that would just be lying to myself. Although she did indeed give the film a critic's pick recommendation, I still knew in my heart that any Jack Black movie was not for me.
The film taking place in a fantasy reality where biblical stories mix with cavemen and Romans is an absurd road trip for the film's leads Jack Black and Michael Cera. Black as his usual load, boisterous, obnoxious self. Cera as his usual quiet, snarky, wimpy self. At times Cera's charm is put to good use and works well but here it is an annoying and ineffectual foil to Black. Cameos by David Cross and Hank Azaria are not nearly as humorous as advertised. Its general theme of poking fun of religious dogma is tame and the topic has been eviscerated by better comedic genius than this group. Notably, Monty Python's Life of Brian, which in retrospect I wish I had just stayed home and watched, is a far better satire of religion and the ancient world.
The film taking place in a fantasy reality where biblical stories mix with cavemen and Romans is an absurd road trip for the film's leads Jack Black and Michael Cera. Black as his usual load, boisterous, obnoxious self. Cera as his usual quiet, snarky, wimpy self. At times Cera's charm is put to good use and works well but here it is an annoying and ineffectual foil to Black. Cameos by David Cross and Hank Azaria are not nearly as humorous as advertised. Its general theme of poking fun of religious dogma is tame and the topic has been eviscerated by better comedic genius than this group. Notably, Monty Python's Life of Brian, which in retrospect I wish I had just stayed home and watched, is a far better satire of religion and the ancient world.
Land of the Lost
Well I really have no one to blame but myself. (Note to Reader: this will pretty much be the theme for several of upcoming reviews) Give a man nothing to do and he is likely to do something really stupid. In my case, ennui made me go see Land of the Lost. I can't really explain why since I find Will Ferrell unfunny and that he has overstayed his welcome as a comedic actor. Perhaps it was the presence of Danny McBride, who stole the show in the recent Pineapple Express. Or perhaps it was memories of his better films such as Anchor Man or Talladega Nights. Whatever the reason, it was a bad decision.
Ferrell plays a discredited scientist who believes that portals to parallel Earths exist. Soon enough a contrived plot allows for our hero, his plucky grad student helper, Anna Friel and the aforementioned Danny McBride as a redneck survival nut are transported to a world of dinosaurs and strange lizard creatures. Friel quickly alters her wardrobe to show off her legs and a series of rather unfunny encounters occur. These include but are not limited to a T-Rex that takes offense to being called stupid and a hallucinatory binge by McBride and Ferrell. When it isn't simply being unfunny, its usually being downright painful.
Ferrell plays a discredited scientist who believes that portals to parallel Earths exist. Soon enough a contrived plot allows for our hero, his plucky grad student helper, Anna Friel and the aforementioned Danny McBride as a redneck survival nut are transported to a world of dinosaurs and strange lizard creatures. Friel quickly alters her wardrobe to show off her legs and a series of rather unfunny encounters occur. These include but are not limited to a T-Rex that takes offense to being called stupid and a hallucinatory binge by McBride and Ferrell. When it isn't simply being unfunny, its usually being downright painful.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Taking of Pelham 123
Dear Mr. Tony Scott,
You are actually a pretty decent film maker. I've pretty much enjoyed every movie you have made in some fashion. Hell I think I like more of your movies than I do of your brother Ridley's but he, sir, made Alien while you made Days of Thunder so unfortunately for you, he's still ahead. But that is neither here nor there. What pray gods, is your obsession with time stamps? Seriously I'm fairly sure this is the third or fourth movie I have seen where you stamp up on the screen some numbers to let us know how much time is left until a specific situation.
Guess what? It is completely unnecessary. Especially when your main villain is so crazy that he frequently SAYS how long the good guys have. We don't need a time stamp just like we don't need an establishing shot of say the Eiffel Tower and a text on screen confirming Paris. You see how the establishing shot already gives us that kind of information? Its superfluous. And it really annoys me personally. Oh, really? There are 42 minutes left before the deadline? Right because John Travolta just said there were 42 minutes left before the deadline. Thanks for confirming what a character already said. Has it gotten to the point that you the film maker think that we are all so ADD that we don't even listen to the characters? And if it has, does flashing the time stamp do anything? We are probably so ADD we aren't reading it.
Point 2 (sorry dear reader, this will only take a moment): Mr. Scott, I'd like to propose a little quiz. Not hard, I assure you. What makes a thriller interesting? a) compelling well developed characters verbally sparring while the secrets of the film are slowly revealed or b) lots of fast moving cars, car crashes and explosions? or c) some strange unfathomable combination of the two? If I had to guess on this film, I'd say you think its c). And when one of your characters acknowledges that the scene in question is silly only makes the scene more absurd, it doesn't justify it.
Sincerely,
Movie Idiot.
Dear Reader,
I apologize for the above, its just I had to get those things off my chest. And at this point you are probably thinking that I hated Taking of Pelham 123 and truthfully, you would be wrong. I actually enjoyed it. Aside from the annoying time stamping and the completely gratuitous action sequence, I actually really enjoyed it. Let me attempt to give a satisfactory explanation as to why.
On an afternoon in New York, a group of men hijack a subway train and get in contact with a central rail control operator. They tell him they want ten million dollars in one hour or they start killing hostages. They gang is led by Ryder (John Travolta). He's tattooed and a little crazy. Its over the top but it works. The rail control operator is Denzel Washington. Preternaturally cool even in a hostage negotiation, I'm thinking if I were a hostage taker I would never want Denzel on the other side of the line. It just wouldn't be fair.
When the film is focused on these two and their conversations, I must say its quite engrossing. And was unfortunately occasionally mucked up by inter-cut unnecessary action sequences involving the money payout and a police escort. Ahhh, sorry, it still bugs me. Both are interestingly developed, Ryder maybe a bit less so but Travolta's unrestrained performance make up for it.
Ancillary characters make for interesting completion of the cast. John Turturro as a police negotiator adds a nice element to the conversations as he tries to aid Denzel on the radio. And James Gandolfini as a Michael Bloomberg-esque mayor of New York is a pleasant part of the mix.
Even the inevitable showdown between Travolta and Washington is for the most part decently done. No silly fight scene or overdrawn chase sequence. Quite a bit of the film plays out exactly as the characters predict and both sides of the affair clearly come off as smart. Not a perfect movie even if you subtracted the irritating things I mentioned above but an enjoyable one through and through thanks to a decent story and well acted interaction between Travolta and Washington.
You are actually a pretty decent film maker. I've pretty much enjoyed every movie you have made in some fashion. Hell I think I like more of your movies than I do of your brother Ridley's but he, sir, made Alien while you made Days of Thunder so unfortunately for you, he's still ahead. But that is neither here nor there. What pray gods, is your obsession with time stamps? Seriously I'm fairly sure this is the third or fourth movie I have seen where you stamp up on the screen some numbers to let us know how much time is left until a specific situation.
Guess what? It is completely unnecessary. Especially when your main villain is so crazy that he frequently SAYS how long the good guys have. We don't need a time stamp just like we don't need an establishing shot of say the Eiffel Tower and a text on screen confirming Paris. You see how the establishing shot already gives us that kind of information? Its superfluous. And it really annoys me personally. Oh, really? There are 42 minutes left before the deadline? Right because John Travolta just said there were 42 minutes left before the deadline. Thanks for confirming what a character already said. Has it gotten to the point that you the film maker think that we are all so ADD that we don't even listen to the characters? And if it has, does flashing the time stamp do anything? We are probably so ADD we aren't reading it.
Point 2 (sorry dear reader, this will only take a moment): Mr. Scott, I'd like to propose a little quiz. Not hard, I assure you. What makes a thriller interesting? a) compelling well developed characters verbally sparring while the secrets of the film are slowly revealed or b) lots of fast moving cars, car crashes and explosions? or c) some strange unfathomable combination of the two? If I had to guess on this film, I'd say you think its c). And when one of your characters acknowledges that the scene in question is silly only makes the scene more absurd, it doesn't justify it.
Sincerely,
Movie Idiot.
Dear Reader,
I apologize for the above, its just I had to get those things off my chest. And at this point you are probably thinking that I hated Taking of Pelham 123 and truthfully, you would be wrong. I actually enjoyed it. Aside from the annoying time stamping and the completely gratuitous action sequence, I actually really enjoyed it. Let me attempt to give a satisfactory explanation as to why.
On an afternoon in New York, a group of men hijack a subway train and get in contact with a central rail control operator. They tell him they want ten million dollars in one hour or they start killing hostages. They gang is led by Ryder (John Travolta). He's tattooed and a little crazy. Its over the top but it works. The rail control operator is Denzel Washington. Preternaturally cool even in a hostage negotiation, I'm thinking if I were a hostage taker I would never want Denzel on the other side of the line. It just wouldn't be fair.
When the film is focused on these two and their conversations, I must say its quite engrossing. And was unfortunately occasionally mucked up by inter-cut unnecessary action sequences involving the money payout and a police escort. Ahhh, sorry, it still bugs me. Both are interestingly developed, Ryder maybe a bit less so but Travolta's unrestrained performance make up for it.
Ancillary characters make for interesting completion of the cast. John Turturro as a police negotiator adds a nice element to the conversations as he tries to aid Denzel on the radio. And James Gandolfini as a Michael Bloomberg-esque mayor of New York is a pleasant part of the mix.
Even the inevitable showdown between Travolta and Washington is for the most part decently done. No silly fight scene or overdrawn chase sequence. Quite a bit of the film plays out exactly as the characters predict and both sides of the affair clearly come off as smart. Not a perfect movie even if you subtracted the irritating things I mentioned above but an enjoyable one through and through thanks to a decent story and well acted interaction between Travolta and Washington.
The Hangover
Four guys go to Las Vegas for a bachelor party, a few days before said Bachelor's wedding. Three guys wake up the next day hungover, clueless as to how the night went and unable to locate their friend. Queue the insane antics as the three strangely different guys trying to discover what happened to their friend and what happened on their night.
I know I laughed several times during the movie. I know as I left the cinema I overheard a guy on his phone tell a friend he had seen the film three times now because it was so damn funny. I know that even though its only been three days, I've forgotten everything but the broad outline of the film. I know that like a hangover in a few more days I won't remember it at all.
I know for some reason I have the song "Tom Sawyer" from Rush stuck in my head and I'm positive it never played in the movie. I don't know what that is about but its probably not a good sign for the movie. I feel confident you could point to any single person on Earth and I could immediately tell you if they would like, love, dislike or hate this movie. If you pointed at me I think I'd say has no opinion one way or the other.
I know I laughed several times during the movie. I know as I left the cinema I overheard a guy on his phone tell a friend he had seen the film three times now because it was so damn funny. I know that even though its only been three days, I've forgotten everything but the broad outline of the film. I know that like a hangover in a few more days I won't remember it at all.
I know for some reason I have the song "Tom Sawyer" from Rush stuck in my head and I'm positive it never played in the movie. I don't know what that is about but its probably not a good sign for the movie. I feel confident you could point to any single person on Earth and I could immediately tell you if they would like, love, dislike or hate this movie. If you pointed at me I think I'd say has no opinion one way or the other.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Terminator: Salvation
So the year is 2018 and humanity has been routed by SkyNet and its plethora of machines. A resistance exists led by a group of secretive guys in a submarine. John Conner (Christian Bale) is commander of one of the resistance cells. Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) is a young man enduring a tough existence hiding from terminators in LA. And then there is Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington). Marcus was on death row back in 2003 and wakes up in 2018 not knowing what is going on.
So what happens? About the silliest things you can imagine. A giant Transformer reminiscent robot, numerous action sequences, a tough yet tender woman resistance fighter (Moon Bloodgood). As a fan of the Terminator series in the past, for many a year I have wondered and yearned for a tale of the future war wherein humans fight an unending flow of machines. I'm not exactly sure what the mess that single monikered McG gave us but it doesn't suffice.
I was going along for the ride for the most part, trying to keep repressed the parts of my mind that wanted to shout at the inconsistency of the plot or the fact that it didn't even try to match up with the existing films. And then came your standard expository scene where the bad guys explain there plan. And I said, "seriously? doesn't that require them to rely on a whole lot of coincidence?"
I implore you don't be like me and make the mistake of seeing this movie. As a general rule, if the words McG are attached, run away. run away. You'll thank me.
So what happens? About the silliest things you can imagine. A giant Transformer reminiscent robot, numerous action sequences, a tough yet tender woman resistance fighter (Moon Bloodgood). As a fan of the Terminator series in the past, for many a year I have wondered and yearned for a tale of the future war wherein humans fight an unending flow of machines. I'm not exactly sure what the mess that single monikered McG gave us but it doesn't suffice.
I was going along for the ride for the most part, trying to keep repressed the parts of my mind that wanted to shout at the inconsistency of the plot or the fact that it didn't even try to match up with the existing films. And then came your standard expository scene where the bad guys explain there plan. And I said, "seriously? doesn't that require them to rely on a whole lot of coincidence?"
I implore you don't be like me and make the mistake of seeing this movie. As a general rule, if the words McG are attached, run away. run away. You'll thank me.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Soloist
The Soloist is the latest film from director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice and Atonement). It is based on the true story of a homeless mentally-ill man in LA who once studied at Julliard and is an accomplished musician. He is discovered by an LA Times columnist who tells his story and befriends him. The musician is played by Jamie Foxx while Robert Downey,Jr. portrays the columnist.
The plot revolves around Downey, Jr attempting to help Foxx and coming to terms with the fact that he does not necessarily know what is best for the homeless man. Its a highly sentimental film and attempts to manipulate its audience over deeply problematic issues of mental health, poverty and so forth. I'm afraid Mr. Wright's movement to telling more and more highly moralized tales has left a certain amount of distaste in my mouth and I sadly state that although his skill at establishing shots and directing is still well done, he gets lost in his overbearing message.
I was genuinely pleased with his first venture, the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (note: not the BBC one). I thought it was well cast and acted and I even went out and purchased Jane Austen's novel because I enjoyed the story so much. And I have to say that it a pretty good recommendation in my book. Atonement didn't enthrall me so much although it maintained its high quality of direction and story telling. The second half was far less entertaining than the first and the "spectacular" one take camera shot mid film felt like the amazing technical feat that it was, not like something that worked for the film.
I'm not entirely sure that the story is a cinematic one and his attempts to set the backdrop as occurring during the Katrina hurricane made it even more unfortunate. It isn't clear to me what the intent there was but it seems like the story of one homeless man finding a friend and charity in the wake of millions being displaced from their homes and thousands being trapped in the Super Dome do to massive government incompetence is rather trite. Mr. Wright please get back to telling stories and save the preachiness for others.
The plot revolves around Downey, Jr attempting to help Foxx and coming to terms with the fact that he does not necessarily know what is best for the homeless man. Its a highly sentimental film and attempts to manipulate its audience over deeply problematic issues of mental health, poverty and so forth. I'm afraid Mr. Wright's movement to telling more and more highly moralized tales has left a certain amount of distaste in my mouth and I sadly state that although his skill at establishing shots and directing is still well done, he gets lost in his overbearing message.
I was genuinely pleased with his first venture, the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (note: not the BBC one). I thought it was well cast and acted and I even went out and purchased Jane Austen's novel because I enjoyed the story so much. And I have to say that it a pretty good recommendation in my book. Atonement didn't enthrall me so much although it maintained its high quality of direction and story telling. The second half was far less entertaining than the first and the "spectacular" one take camera shot mid film felt like the amazing technical feat that it was, not like something that worked for the film.
I'm not entirely sure that the story is a cinematic one and his attempts to set the backdrop as occurring during the Katrina hurricane made it even more unfortunate. It isn't clear to me what the intent there was but it seems like the story of one homeless man finding a friend and charity in the wake of millions being displaced from their homes and thousands being trapped in the Super Dome do to massive government incompetence is rather trite. Mr. Wright please get back to telling stories and save the preachiness for others.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Star Trek
The blockbuster movie summer season is upon us and requests (I assume insincere) have been made that my annoying voice be heard. I haven't seen a whole lot of movies so far this year (a mere 20 or so) and most of them have been lacking in what I would call quality. But there is nothing like a summer packed with GI Joe and Transformers 2. Both of these will be released this summer and both, based on the viewing of their trailers, which were appended to my recent trip to Star Trek, seem to sufficiently rape any fond memory of my childhood. Not that either of these shows was in reality any good but I was willing to leave them in the past as a pleasant memory.
Actually, this is a surprisingly good opening for a review of the new film by J.J. Abrhams. Star Trek, if for some odd reason you the reader didn't know, was originally a television show. Basically the one nugget of shiny silver (gold goes to far) that Gene Roddenberry ever hit upon. Seriously go watch an episode of Andromeda (also a Roddenberry idea) and then ask yourself: Nietschians? really? The show, that is, Star Trek, spawned a series of movies and four reincarnations on television.
The original show of course stared the lovably laughable esteemed Mr. William Shatner. Overacting to a fault and sleeping with aliens left and right. The original set of movies were entertaining most of the time and occasionally absolutely absurd (read: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). Fellow blogger CinemaRomantico even gave weekly quotes from Star Trek IV one summer to celebrate the blockbuster season. Frankly, I miss that.
But I've ranted for three paragraphs now and said nothing about the new film. Perhaps that is because ultimately I wish Star Trek too had remained in my past. Sure there isn't anything technically wrong with the new film. Its competently directed, the action sequences on the whole work. Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban but then again who is? It is mostly well acted by Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Karl Urban (Bones) and so on. There is of course the very unfortunate John Cho as Sulu and living up to my fears, Simon Pegg doesn't work as Scotty.
It has a successful explanation for rebooting the franchise that doesn't require them to forget the old stories (well I guess in a way they do). There is time travel (which I despise as a movie concept) and one exceptionally noticeable failure to acknowledge the laws of physics which I can't get past. But other than quibbles I can't say I hated the film and in some moments enjoyed it. So why, other than being another year of blockbuster blase am I so lukewarm to the film as a whole?
Kirk is born, some time travel occurs, Kirk grows up, Spock grows up, both are troubled, both end up at Star Fleet. Crisis, Enterprise, yawn, explosions, logic, yawn, film concludes. I'm having trouble recalling the film and I saw it 6 days ago. Yes it accomplishes what it sets out to do and does it entertainingly and for most of you that will be enough, but frankly I was hoping for more (or maybe less, if you follow).
I should probably count my blessings because this may be the one brief respite of decent summer fluff in an avalanche of the likes of Wolverine, GI Joe and Transformers. And in conclusion: the greatest Transformer review of them all.
Actually, this is a surprisingly good opening for a review of the new film by J.J. Abrhams. Star Trek, if for some odd reason you the reader didn't know, was originally a television show. Basically the one nugget of shiny silver (gold goes to far) that Gene Roddenberry ever hit upon. Seriously go watch an episode of Andromeda (also a Roddenberry idea) and then ask yourself: Nietschians? really? The show, that is, Star Trek, spawned a series of movies and four reincarnations on television.
The original show of course stared the lovably laughable esteemed Mr. William Shatner. Overacting to a fault and sleeping with aliens left and right. The original set of movies were entertaining most of the time and occasionally absolutely absurd (read: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). Fellow blogger CinemaRomantico even gave weekly quotes from Star Trek IV one summer to celebrate the blockbuster season. Frankly, I miss that.
But I've ranted for three paragraphs now and said nothing about the new film. Perhaps that is because ultimately I wish Star Trek too had remained in my past. Sure there isn't anything technically wrong with the new film. Its competently directed, the action sequences on the whole work. Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban but then again who is? It is mostly well acted by Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Karl Urban (Bones) and so on. There is of course the very unfortunate John Cho as Sulu and living up to my fears, Simon Pegg doesn't work as Scotty.
It has a successful explanation for rebooting the franchise that doesn't require them to forget the old stories (well I guess in a way they do). There is time travel (which I despise as a movie concept) and one exceptionally noticeable failure to acknowledge the laws of physics which I can't get past. But other than quibbles I can't say I hated the film and in some moments enjoyed it. So why, other than being another year of blockbuster blase am I so lukewarm to the film as a whole?
Kirk is born, some time travel occurs, Kirk grows up, Spock grows up, both are troubled, both end up at Star Fleet. Crisis, Enterprise, yawn, explosions, logic, yawn, film concludes. I'm having trouble recalling the film and I saw it 6 days ago. Yes it accomplishes what it sets out to do and does it entertainingly and for most of you that will be enough, but frankly I was hoping for more (or maybe less, if you follow).
I should probably count my blessings because this may be the one brief respite of decent summer fluff in an avalanche of the likes of Wolverine, GI Joe and Transformers. And in conclusion: the greatest Transformer review of them all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)