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.
Showing posts with label Positive Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Positive Review. Show all posts
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Watchmen
I have never read the graphic novel Watchmen. I've read some stuff about it and a number of reviews of the film which criticized either the work, the film based on the work or both. I also don't think its in any way necessary to read the graphic novel in order to have any opinion on the film. I read a great number of reviews before I saw the film, almost all of them negative. I decided I had no desire to see it. Then a friend recommended I see it. Admittedly the reviews I usually read are written by elitist film viewers. Their analyses are usually well written and filled with reference and allusion to other film, literature and psychological insight. These are the reason I like to read them. They are almost scholarly. The problem can be is that sometimes they are unwilling to acknowledge that a film is either 1)enjoyable despite its flaws or 2) isn't actually bad.
Watchmen isn't actually bad. I admit I had problems with the pacing. The source material is long and clearly Snyder felt to even do it justice the film would have to be long. But at times I was in agony for the film to move forward and accomplish something. There is also at least one comically misplaced song and scene in the film. Its laughable and perhaps intentionally so but its also painful. I bring this up because the use of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" at the opening (as well as Bob Dylan's Times They Are A Changing") are so perfect for the scenes they are tied with.
Watchmen is set in 1985, but a different 1985 than we know. There have been two generations of super heroes, the Vietnam War was ended by such a super hero and eventually there was a ban on masked heroes. All of this brings up very interesting and salient points on the nature of vigilantism. There is also the very eminent threat of nuclear annihilation. All these themes and more are running through the story that follows the lives of several of these masked heroes. The story is either familiar to you or easily accessible via a synopsis so I'll refrain from summary.
Zack Snyder is skilled. Like 300 before this, there are many shots that are recreated from the graphic novel. It shows an amazing attention to detail and patience to get a shot exactly right. The fact that he can turn a complex work into a convincing and entertaining film (even with flaws) as well as balance a myriad of distinct characters is nothing short of praiseworthy. Perhaps a more innovative director would have strayed from the source material more and created a film that strove to be its own contribution but what we have received is not crap.
The opening fight sequence followed the the credit sequence are, as I already mentioned, wonderful combinations of imagery and music. In fact the first fight sequence in my opinion is the best one in the film. This is not to say that several other fight sequences weren't wonderfully choreographed. When these guys and gals are fighting I was riveted and at other times when they weren't fighting and the characters were being explored I was intrigued too. In particular, Dr. Manahattan (voiced and a few times actually acted (i.e. not CGI) by Billy Crudup.) who as an immortal superman has an intriguing story arc.
In the end its not only entertaining but I think an interesting film in the choices it makes. It may not be an excellent film but it definitely strives to be. It is by far and away a better film than 300 and takes more risks and shows more development than Dawn of the Dead, his debut and remake of the Romero classic. I'm curious and eager to see him work on something that isn't steeped in a pop culture tradition and virtual frame by frame story boards to see what he can do with it.
Watchmen isn't actually bad. I admit I had problems with the pacing. The source material is long and clearly Snyder felt to even do it justice the film would have to be long. But at times I was in agony for the film to move forward and accomplish something. There is also at least one comically misplaced song and scene in the film. Its laughable and perhaps intentionally so but its also painful. I bring this up because the use of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" at the opening (as well as Bob Dylan's Times They Are A Changing") are so perfect for the scenes they are tied with.
Watchmen is set in 1985, but a different 1985 than we know. There have been two generations of super heroes, the Vietnam War was ended by such a super hero and eventually there was a ban on masked heroes. All of this brings up very interesting and salient points on the nature of vigilantism. There is also the very eminent threat of nuclear annihilation. All these themes and more are running through the story that follows the lives of several of these masked heroes. The story is either familiar to you or easily accessible via a synopsis so I'll refrain from summary.
Zack Snyder is skilled. Like 300 before this, there are many shots that are recreated from the graphic novel. It shows an amazing attention to detail and patience to get a shot exactly right. The fact that he can turn a complex work into a convincing and entertaining film (even with flaws) as well as balance a myriad of distinct characters is nothing short of praiseworthy. Perhaps a more innovative director would have strayed from the source material more and created a film that strove to be its own contribution but what we have received is not crap.
The opening fight sequence followed the the credit sequence are, as I already mentioned, wonderful combinations of imagery and music. In fact the first fight sequence in my opinion is the best one in the film. This is not to say that several other fight sequences weren't wonderfully choreographed. When these guys and gals are fighting I was riveted and at other times when they weren't fighting and the characters were being explored I was intrigued too. In particular, Dr. Manahattan (voiced and a few times actually acted (i.e. not CGI) by Billy Crudup.) who as an immortal superman has an intriguing story arc.
In the end its not only entertaining but I think an interesting film in the choices it makes. It may not be an excellent film but it definitely strives to be. It is by far and away a better film than 300 and takes more risks and shows more development than Dawn of the Dead, his debut and remake of the Romero classic. I'm curious and eager to see him work on something that isn't steeped in a pop culture tradition and virtual frame by frame story boards to see what he can do with it.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
A Christmas Tale
Family drama is a tried and true formula for a movie. It goes as far back as ancient tragedy if not further. Sometimes its done terribly, sometimes its managed in a mediocre way and sometimes its done well. Rarely it goes done very well. If you wanted a recent example of terribly done I'd point to The Family Stone. Wretched in almost every respect and down right confusing and manipulative at many points. Last year's Rachel Getting Married I would lump in the mediocre category. It was loved by some but between the nausea inducing camera work and the heavy handed push of ideal liberal world, it really cuts its potential bite.
When it comes down to a dysfunctional family, from last year, its not Rachel's wedding and sister Kim who take the lead but the family of A Christmas Tale. Here we are introduced to a large family that ends up coming together at Christmas (including the estranged son) in part because the matriarch is dying. Thrown basically in medias res into the whole situation, it never becomes entirely clear what happened to cause the exile of Henri (Mathieu Amalric).
Its been too long since I saw the film to recall all the individual story lines and I'm not sure I could have recalled them all two months ago when I saw the film. Suffice to say that the story carries you on, as you watch a family of love and dysfunction. Key in my view is the performance Jean-Paul Roussillon as head of family Abel. A loving father and grandfather, even when faced with the sadness of his ailing wife, the disappointment that his family can't all get along or the sadness of a lost child that still hangs over the family, he commands the scenes he is in as an ever patient, pleasant man who wishes every Christmas and perhaps every day could be spent with his family.
The family feels ever so real in its actions and interactions. Even if you don't understand the rifts, you believe them. This is the film's strength. Its weakness is perhaps its frequent almost direct camera addresses and a bit too much flying back and forth between stories with the result that I at times got quite confused as to what was going on. Still the family drama is well crafted and grim dysfunction at such a festive time never seemed so fascinating.
When it comes down to a dysfunctional family, from last year, its not Rachel's wedding and sister Kim who take the lead but the family of A Christmas Tale. Here we are introduced to a large family that ends up coming together at Christmas (including the estranged son) in part because the matriarch is dying. Thrown basically in medias res into the whole situation, it never becomes entirely clear what happened to cause the exile of Henri (Mathieu Amalric).
Its been too long since I saw the film to recall all the individual story lines and I'm not sure I could have recalled them all two months ago when I saw the film. Suffice to say that the story carries you on, as you watch a family of love and dysfunction. Key in my view is the performance Jean-Paul Roussillon as head of family Abel. A loving father and grandfather, even when faced with the sadness of his ailing wife, the disappointment that his family can't all get along or the sadness of a lost child that still hangs over the family, he commands the scenes he is in as an ever patient, pleasant man who wishes every Christmas and perhaps every day could be spent with his family.
The family feels ever so real in its actions and interactions. Even if you don't understand the rifts, you believe them. This is the film's strength. Its weakness is perhaps its frequent almost direct camera addresses and a bit too much flying back and forth between stories with the result that I at times got quite confused as to what was going on. Still the family drama is well crafted and grim dysfunction at such a festive time never seemed so fascinating.
The Wrestler
Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Mickey Rourke) was once a hugely popular and successful wrestler. The Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair of his day. But time has moved on and its twenty years after the peak of Randy's success. Randy has trouble paying his bills, has a part time job, but still wrestles on the weekends. Each Friday in a community center or local gym, Randy relives the glory of twenty years ago. Randy has the fans and the roar of the crowd even a small one still keeps him going.
Randy is old and his body is starting to show it. He uses a hearing aid, has some heart trouble and lives alone. He spends his time in his trailer, working to make ends meet and going to the local strip club where he has a flirtatious stripper who is also getting on in age. Randy has a broken relationship with his daughter and not much to live by.
The story is not perhaps anything spectacular. We follow Randy about his life as he struggles to live and faces problems such as being locked out of his trailer for failure to pay rent. We see him in the glory of the wrestling ring and the not so glorious time behind a grocery store deli counter. We often see this from an established behind the back shot that reminds one of a documentary or perhaps a wrestler entering the arena. Its novel for a while and at times works really well. At others it took me out of the story.
What we ultimately are really talking about in this movie is Mr. Rourke. His body busted and bruised, he looks and plays the broken down man who still has dreams of better times bouncing around in his head. Rourke plays this with aplomb and never mind a critique that might suggest he is just playing a version of himself. There is little in the movie that can't be seen coming but as a character study it does a nice job.
Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood are supporting players as the stripper and estranged daughter respectively. Tomei shows a nice range (though she was better in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead). Wood has little to do and perhaps her talents are wasted. Some have even complained she should have been left out of the film entirely. I can't totally agree with this sentiment. My favorite single scene is one which involves Rourke and Wood as father and daughter. Having slowly begun the mending process of their relationship, the two dance around an abandoned room as if a waltz were playing.
Its a sentimental scene to be sure but since it seems quite inevitable that Randy will manage to mess up with his daughter again, it had a bittersweetness to it. All the possibilities of what might have been for this father and daughter if Randy could just get past his mistakes. Rourke sells the scene and the movie and although it wasn't a perfectly crafted film, you can bank on enjoying most of it thanks to Rourke.
Randy is old and his body is starting to show it. He uses a hearing aid, has some heart trouble and lives alone. He spends his time in his trailer, working to make ends meet and going to the local strip club where he has a flirtatious stripper who is also getting on in age. Randy has a broken relationship with his daughter and not much to live by.
The story is not perhaps anything spectacular. We follow Randy about his life as he struggles to live and faces problems such as being locked out of his trailer for failure to pay rent. We see him in the glory of the wrestling ring and the not so glorious time behind a grocery store deli counter. We often see this from an established behind the back shot that reminds one of a documentary or perhaps a wrestler entering the arena. Its novel for a while and at times works really well. At others it took me out of the story.
What we ultimately are really talking about in this movie is Mr. Rourke. His body busted and bruised, he looks and plays the broken down man who still has dreams of better times bouncing around in his head. Rourke plays this with aplomb and never mind a critique that might suggest he is just playing a version of himself. There is little in the movie that can't be seen coming but as a character study it does a nice job.
Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood are supporting players as the stripper and estranged daughter respectively. Tomei shows a nice range (though she was better in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead). Wood has little to do and perhaps her talents are wasted. Some have even complained she should have been left out of the film entirely. I can't totally agree with this sentiment. My favorite single scene is one which involves Rourke and Wood as father and daughter. Having slowly begun the mending process of their relationship, the two dance around an abandoned room as if a waltz were playing.
Its a sentimental scene to be sure but since it seems quite inevitable that Randy will manage to mess up with his daughter again, it had a bittersweetness to it. All the possibilities of what might have been for this father and daughter if Randy could just get past his mistakes. Rourke sells the scene and the movie and although it wasn't a perfectly crafted film, you can bank on enjoying most of it thanks to Rourke.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Doubt
Set in the early 60s, Doubt takes place at a Catholic school which has one black student. The parish priest is likable and friendly Father Flynn (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and the school principal is strict, harsh Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep). When a school teacher Sister James suspects something odd about Flynn's relationship with the young black boy, she goes to Aloysius with her suspicion. Convinced of his guilt Aloysius takes it upon herself to protect the boy and the school.
Directed by John Patrick Shanely based on his own play, the film never lets on whether Father Flynn is guilty of anything. It quickly becomes a tete a tete between Flynn and Aloysius over the alleged incident. Its your standard role actors love type of movie. Actors who are very good at what they do get to run the gamut of emotion sometimes all in one scene. And Streep and Hoffman are certainly two of the best at what they do.
It is a play to be sure and so feels rather stagy but that isn't always a bad thing. The film is at its best when it just relies on the performers to perform. It is at its worst whenever Shanely tries to ratchet up the mood with over the top dramatic music, ominous rain storms and general mood setting that just annoys. But overall it does what it sets out to accomplish. It leaves you questioning and impressed with the actors. It speaks volumes that four of the films actors were nominated for Academy Awards. It isn't a great movie but it certainly isn't a bad movie.
I could have done without all the tweaking of mood by the director and the final scene strikes an odd note I'm not sure I buy but the money is in the Hoffman and Streep scenes and one tense and emotional scene between Streep and Viola Davis as the mother of the black boy at the center of the controversy.
Directed by John Patrick Shanely based on his own play, the film never lets on whether Father Flynn is guilty of anything. It quickly becomes a tete a tete between Flynn and Aloysius over the alleged incident. Its your standard role actors love type of movie. Actors who are very good at what they do get to run the gamut of emotion sometimes all in one scene. And Streep and Hoffman are certainly two of the best at what they do.
It is a play to be sure and so feels rather stagy but that isn't always a bad thing. The film is at its best when it just relies on the performers to perform. It is at its worst whenever Shanely tries to ratchet up the mood with over the top dramatic music, ominous rain storms and general mood setting that just annoys. But overall it does what it sets out to accomplish. It leaves you questioning and impressed with the actors. It speaks volumes that four of the films actors were nominated for Academy Awards. It isn't a great movie but it certainly isn't a bad movie.
I could have done without all the tweaking of mood by the director and the final scene strikes an odd note I'm not sure I buy but the money is in the Hoffman and Streep scenes and one tense and emotional scene between Streep and Viola Davis as the mother of the black boy at the center of the controversy.
The Visitor
Walter (Richard Jenkins) is an economic professor at a school in Connecticut. He is a widower, who has been trying to learn the piano to help remember his wife. He lives a very lonely life consumed with staring out his window of his office and teaching a econ course. When a colleague he wrote a paper with cannot deliver it at a conference, he is forced to go in her stead. He arrives at his apartment in New York City which he has not been to in some time and discovers a couple living there. They are Tarek and Zainab. They are illegal immigrants who live in New York.
At first Walter is glad to see the back of them as they apologize for the misunderstanding. They had thought they were renting the place appropriately. But seeing them huddled on the street unsure of where to go, he invites them back in. Tarek virtually bubbling with good cheer and friendliness quickly begins to connect with Walter. Tarek teaches him to play the drum and they get along well. Zainab is far more wary of Walter. Then one day as Tarek and Walter are taking the subway, Tarek is accused of jumping the turnstile and is arrested.
Walter feels responsible and tries to get Tarek released. Because Zainab cannot go see Tarek, Walter visits him regularly. Eventually Tarek's mother shows up and the two bond in their concern for Tarek.
I've been accused of calling a sad movie, uplifting because some element which makes you feel good. This is a sad movie but I'll be damned if the final shot isn't a bit uplifting as well. There are three things that make this film work really well. And all three relate to Richard Jenkins. He rightfully deserves his nomination for this role. Nay, he deserves to win. I've seen the other nominees and they fall short. Jenkins is understated as the professor. Hiding a sadness for his deceased wife, a frustration for his job and a general unhappiness. And the moment he breaks from that disquiet feels exactly right.
Walter's relationship with Tarek is some of the best on screen chemistry I've seen in awhile. By the time Tarek is arrested it felt as if they had been long time friends and it was only an off hand comment by Zainab later that I realized the friendship formed in a matter of days. The Tarek/Walter scenes are at the heart of the film. Particularly the increasing pessimism of Tarek as he waits in the limbo of the detention center.
The other really subtle and fascinating relationship is that between Walter and Mouna, Tarek's mother. Their almost romance as they work to get Tarek free is quite charming. And Walter's revelation of unhappiness is played perfectly. Honestly I think I can say pretty reasonably that this is my second favorite film of 2008. And since 2008 was such a crap year in more ways than one, I'm glad I saw it in 2009 which is off to a great start.
At first Walter is glad to see the back of them as they apologize for the misunderstanding. They had thought they were renting the place appropriately. But seeing them huddled on the street unsure of where to go, he invites them back in. Tarek virtually bubbling with good cheer and friendliness quickly begins to connect with Walter. Tarek teaches him to play the drum and they get along well. Zainab is far more wary of Walter. Then one day as Tarek and Walter are taking the subway, Tarek is accused of jumping the turnstile and is arrested.
Walter feels responsible and tries to get Tarek released. Because Zainab cannot go see Tarek, Walter visits him regularly. Eventually Tarek's mother shows up and the two bond in their concern for Tarek.
I've been accused of calling a sad movie, uplifting because some element which makes you feel good. This is a sad movie but I'll be damned if the final shot isn't a bit uplifting as well. There are three things that make this film work really well. And all three relate to Richard Jenkins. He rightfully deserves his nomination for this role. Nay, he deserves to win. I've seen the other nominees and they fall short. Jenkins is understated as the professor. Hiding a sadness for his deceased wife, a frustration for his job and a general unhappiness. And the moment he breaks from that disquiet feels exactly right.
Walter's relationship with Tarek is some of the best on screen chemistry I've seen in awhile. By the time Tarek is arrested it felt as if they had been long time friends and it was only an off hand comment by Zainab later that I realized the friendship formed in a matter of days. The Tarek/Walter scenes are at the heart of the film. Particularly the increasing pessimism of Tarek as he waits in the limbo of the detention center.
The other really subtle and fascinating relationship is that between Walter and Mouna, Tarek's mother. Their almost romance as they work to get Tarek free is quite charming. And Walter's revelation of unhappiness is played perfectly. Honestly I think I can say pretty reasonably that this is my second favorite film of 2008. And since 2008 was such a crap year in more ways than one, I'm glad I saw it in 2009 which is off to a great start.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Before Sunrise
Can't they just say what they mean? Can you? Language, after all, is not just about points and meanings. It is a medium of communication, yes, but also of avoidance, misdirection, self-protection and plain confusion, all of which are among the themes of this movie, which captures a deep truth seldom acknowledged on screen or in books: people often talk because they have nothing to say.
-A.O. Scott
The venerable Mr. Scott said this in his review of Before Sunset which is just as good and profound as many of his reviews. I admit when I saw the same film I was not as enamored of it but I of course did not heed Mr. Scott's advice "it is probably best to resist the temptation to watch "Before Sunrise" again until after you have seen the sequel." But nevertheless the block quote above could just as easily apply to the characters introduced in the original film.
Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) meet seemingly by chance on a train from Budapest to Paris. They strike up a conversation as the train bustles along as a deadline nears. Jesse is getting off the train at Vienna. Throwing caution and regrets to the wind both decide to disembark the train at Vienna and spend the night getting to know each other before Jesse gets on a plane back to the US. A simple set up, a simple plot and one that works very well.
The key to the film is that these two characters talk. They don't just talk about their lives but their pasts. They tell stories of funny things their friends did. It all feels real, at times mundane at times ill advised. They argue at times, they come off a bit pretentious at others. They float through Vienna not caring what they must sound like to others and are engrossed in their own little world. Jesse is a bit of a pessimist when it comes to love, Celine a more hopeless romantic. But there is no denying that both are seeking it.
Jesse is thinking it does not exist but hoping it might? Celine knowing it exists but thinking it may never happen for her. There is something enigmatic about watching the two as they stroll past the sights of Vienna. Why did he say that? Why is she asking that? But through it all you believe these two could fall in love in one night. Yeah some of what they say is a bit annoying and I don't agree with it. But that makes them all the more real. They believe it or rather they think they do because they are twenty three.
Not to be too systematic here but there are those who enjoy a good romance, there are those who don't and there are those who are like Celine. Hopeless romantics, who know love exists in the world and hoping it happens to them. If it isn't abundantly obvious to anyone who knows me, has read this blog or is a brand new reader (hey thanks for joining us!) then you know I'm of the third category. And I'm willing to bet (not really bet mind you) that if you are like me you will really love this movie.
And I'm also willing to bet that if you loved this movie, you also have your own tale. A tale of a perfect night with a woman or a man consumed with conversation. And maybe its not as cinematic as this film or maybe its more cinematic (at least in your own head). And maybe you never saw that person again and think on what might have been. Or maybe you did see them and it didn't quite work out the way you wanted it too. But when you see Before Sunrise, I think you are going to think back to that night and smile.
And yes I'm sappy and not well versed, but I wouldn't have said this after my first viewing of the film. I hadn't had one of those nights yet. I still enjoyed the viewing but nothing made me appreciate this viewing more than my own experience. And as I watched Jesse and Celine talk the night away I thought about my own "night in Vienna" story (which was not in Vienna at all or even anywhere close to as beautiful as Vienna) and that made me smile as much as the film.
But I would disagree perhaps slightly with Mr. Scott whom I have quoted above. Maybe its not having nothing to say but fear of saying what one wants to say. Because frankly when I have been enamored of a woman, more often than not I drone on endlessly about everything because just coming out and admitting the adoration is far more terrifying than sounding like an idiot all night. And in all that mindless blather, the right man or woman will see through it and hopefully give you an amused smile.
The film may leave you a bit melancholic as may your memory but damned if it doesn't also renew my hope. Damned if I don't want to sit outside on a nice fall evening and drink a scotch and remember my good memory. And hope that one day another opportunity comes along and in that night of all consuming conversation perhaps I'll share a story about spending a night consumed in conversation and how grateful I am to be building another one.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Let the Right One In
To say that Let the Right One In is one of the best vampire movies I have ever seen probably doesn't distinguish it that much. I mean there isn't exactly a long list of incredibly well done vampire films out there. (I fully expect an objection from Brad on that). Still beyond Murnau's Nosferatu, I can't think of a vampire movie I really enjoyed. (And truthfully that film underwhelmed me since I had already read Bram Stoker's Dracula). But what makes it remarkable is not that it is a good vampire film but rather that it is a surprisingly deep, intimate, sad and yes charming love story.
Oskar is a lonely boy. He lives with his mother and faces pretty disturbing abuse from one of the school bullies. When we meet him he is pantomiming a revenge sequence. He sees a strange night arrival through his window. The next night as he plays alone he meets Eli. She immediately warns him off from being his friend. To be sure a strange warning. As we continue to follow what happens to Oskar, each night Eli returns and they begin to connect in a strange way. There really isn't much that isn't well done here.
The film doesn't play with the vampire rules formula as many films do. Vampires can not go out in sunlight for instance. There is no explanation of how Eli became a vampire or how exactly her helper/slave?/relative? came to the job he holds in the film. There isn't really any expository dialog because the reality is one doesn't find a lot of expository dialog in real life. But that just made the film more intriguing. The unanswered questions make the story more interesting.
As I said there is a sad loneliness in Oskar and an equally sad loneliness in Eli. And their romance is equal parts first young love and completely sincere largely non-sexualized love. All this to a rather abysmal backdrop of a snowcapped Swedish town. It isn't just a story of a sad little boy or the story of a sad little girl, or just the story of a vampire or even an innocent love story. Its all of these things quite beautifully mixed together. And frankly I was charmed by it.
This isn't to say the film doesn't know how to show some teeth (no pun intended) when it needs to. There is a fair amount of blood, death and spontaneous combustion. All done well. I would honestly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of vampires, profoundly beautiful love stories and introspective looks at the outcasts of life. If you are a fan of all three, well sir or madam, I think you just hit the jackpot.
Oskar is a lonely boy. He lives with his mother and faces pretty disturbing abuse from one of the school bullies. When we meet him he is pantomiming a revenge sequence. He sees a strange night arrival through his window. The next night as he plays alone he meets Eli. She immediately warns him off from being his friend. To be sure a strange warning. As we continue to follow what happens to Oskar, each night Eli returns and they begin to connect in a strange way. There really isn't much that isn't well done here.
The film doesn't play with the vampire rules formula as many films do. Vampires can not go out in sunlight for instance. There is no explanation of how Eli became a vampire or how exactly her helper/slave?/relative? came to the job he holds in the film. There isn't really any expository dialog because the reality is one doesn't find a lot of expository dialog in real life. But that just made the film more intriguing. The unanswered questions make the story more interesting.
As I said there is a sad loneliness in Oskar and an equally sad loneliness in Eli. And their romance is equal parts first young love and completely sincere largely non-sexualized love. All this to a rather abysmal backdrop of a snowcapped Swedish town. It isn't just a story of a sad little boy or the story of a sad little girl, or just the story of a vampire or even an innocent love story. Its all of these things quite beautifully mixed together. And frankly I was charmed by it.
This isn't to say the film doesn't know how to show some teeth (no pun intended) when it needs to. There is a fair amount of blood, death and spontaneous combustion. All done well. I would honestly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of vampires, profoundly beautiful love stories and introspective looks at the outcasts of life. If you are a fan of all three, well sir or madam, I think you just hit the jackpot.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
An Affair to Remember
Each year as a supposed "treat" to the countless supporters of a certain local indie theater, the show a couple of films for free. These classic films are supposed to satisfy our appetite for the great films of the past so that for another year it can subject me to the worst in Roger Corman or Lucio Fulci 80s Horror dreck. Suffice to say the whole treat angers me but I can't exactly refuse to go out of protest since I would then miss a cinematic classic. I'll just bitterly complain about the whole thing where they will never know about it. I hear that's how things get changed.
This year's treat was An Affair to Remember. The 1957 classic starring Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr. Despite a questionable set up (I mean the cheating not the romance on a boat) this film quickly charms you into submission. Grant and Kerr are wonderful on screen together and you start rooting for them quickly. She doesn't love the man she is with so why shouldn't she pursue love with this new guy? And he has been aimlessly wondering for years between women looking for the one who will finally cause him to fall in love.
The two agree to meet in six months if they still care about one another on top of the Empire State Building. As you might expect from a romantic comedy, something comes up that prevents our lovers from reuniting and much of the remainder of the film is concerned with following them as they try to live their lives. Suffice to say it would take a rather heartless person not to be moved by the final scene between Kerr and Grant. Spoiler alert: It has a happy ending.
You really come out of it with a smile on your face and Grant and Kerr are personable and have great screen chemistry. You really can't miss with this for a nice pleasant romance.
This year's treat was An Affair to Remember. The 1957 classic starring Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr. Despite a questionable set up (I mean the cheating not the romance on a boat) this film quickly charms you into submission. Grant and Kerr are wonderful on screen together and you start rooting for them quickly. She doesn't love the man she is with so why shouldn't she pursue love with this new guy? And he has been aimlessly wondering for years between women looking for the one who will finally cause him to fall in love.
The two agree to meet in six months if they still care about one another on top of the Empire State Building. As you might expect from a romantic comedy, something comes up that prevents our lovers from reuniting and much of the remainder of the film is concerned with following them as they try to live their lives. Suffice to say it would take a rather heartless person not to be moved by the final scene between Kerr and Grant. Spoiler alert: It has a happy ending.
You really come out of it with a smile on your face and Grant and Kerr are personable and have great screen chemistry. You really can't miss with this for a nice pleasant romance.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
JCVD
The shear number of Jean Claude Van Damme movies I saw in my formative years is in retrospect embarrassing. Not just that I watched them (some more than once) but that I can vividly recall details from them. I'm just as guilty of watching far too many Steven Segal movies. But in my defense when you're a kid, there really isn't much better than shooting guns and beating people up. Now that is/was entertainment. I think my tastes have become more refined in the interim. Although as one can see I occasionally just enjoy a mindless fun action film. So a strange curiosity rolled up on me when I heard of the film JCVD. And a handful of at least mildly positive reviews encouraged this curiosity.
JCVD is a fiction film about Jean Claude Van Damme. Aging, not getting as many choice roles anymore, struggling for custody of his daughter, Van Damme returns to his native Belgium and soon finds himself in a bank robbery and hostage crisis. I won't say much more than that regarding the plot because there are some spoilers if I do, not that the turns of this film are not fairly obvious from the beginning. Still a great deal of the film cuts back and forth between the present and recent past showing how he would up in a post office/bank.
It isn't a great film by any means. Even when its acknowledging Hollywood action movies it also tends to mimic them verbatim. If you watch the movie and are surprised by anything I'll be shocked. But what is for the most part enjoyable and interesting, is Van Damme's introspective portrayal of himself. Sure he may not seem like the most fascinating actor to get this treatment but in reality a B movie actor who never gained the superstardom he sought and except as a joke doesn't have much of a real fan following either, its quite interesting and I sort of enjoyed the ride.
JCVD is a fiction film about Jean Claude Van Damme. Aging, not getting as many choice roles anymore, struggling for custody of his daughter, Van Damme returns to his native Belgium and soon finds himself in a bank robbery and hostage crisis. I won't say much more than that regarding the plot because there are some spoilers if I do, not that the turns of this film are not fairly obvious from the beginning. Still a great deal of the film cuts back and forth between the present and recent past showing how he would up in a post office/bank.
It isn't a great film by any means. Even when its acknowledging Hollywood action movies it also tends to mimic them verbatim. If you watch the movie and are surprised by anything I'll be shocked. But what is for the most part enjoyable and interesting, is Van Damme's introspective portrayal of himself. Sure he may not seem like the most fascinating actor to get this treatment but in reality a B movie actor who never gained the superstardom he sought and except as a joke doesn't have much of a real fan following either, its quite interesting and I sort of enjoyed the ride.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Transporter 3
I really like Jason Statham as an actor. He had great performances in Guy Ritchie's first two films, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. I suspect he is a quite limited actor, however, and so I understand why he has preferred the action movie hero role as his predominant casting rubric. Truth be told he actually makes a pretty good action hero. He's largely taciturn but when he does speak he has that gruff, no nonsense voice. He can be a killer but emotes just enough that you know he's the good guy who deep down has the heart of gold. Even though he's been in a lot of terrible action films over the years, he always manages to be a redeeming quality.
The Transporter film series is admittedly pretty formulaic. Its whole raison d'etre is car chases, gun battles and martial arts. And the third installment just takes the tried and true formula and adds an admittedly shallow trick to it, so the adrenaline keeps flowing. Statham is Frank Martin, a former US special forces soldier and wheel man extraordinaire. He's forced into a job in which he must delivery a package to a specified location and if he goes more than 75 feet from the car, he blows up. This causes some outrageously absurd moments in the film but that's par for the course in action films any more.
It isn't a great action film but it delivers the goods in a satisfactory way. Yes, the acting and dialog are atrocious (save a certain exception, which I will mention later on). Yes the plot is overly convoluted and in fact the main villain even points this out at one point. But no one came to this film for good acting, dialog and intricately well thought out plots. We came to see a guy drive fast and take on hordes of the enemy in elaborate choreographed martial arts stunts. And you know what? The movie delivers.
The fight scenes are really fun to watch. Not the least of which is because I can actually follow what is happening. The director doesn't cut every .012 seconds during the action so that I have no idea what is happening. You can see the kicks, the punches, the elaborate and ludicrous use of Statham's wardrobe as weapons. Sure the chase sequences aren't great but the effective car chase sequence is a Holy Grail of action films and very hard to pull off or even to explain why the best ones are so effective. I also enjoy the 20 to 1 odds that Statham often faces. Yes, its over the top but its satisfying to watch.
I mentioned above that some of the acting and dialog wasn't completely awful. This is thanks to French actor Francois Berleand. He plays Inspector Tarconi a police investigator who is friend's with Martin despite the fact that one is criminal and one is police. He's been in every episode of this trilogy and has been memorable in each. He plays such a laid back bon vivant that I can't help but smile. A number of his conversations with Frank are amusing and give you the sense that these two are age old friends.
You know very well whether you are likely to enjoy Transporter 3 based on whether 1) in general you enjoy action films (even not so great ones) or 2) you enjoyed even remotely any of the previous two films. I for one was glad for the fun.
The Transporter film series is admittedly pretty formulaic. Its whole raison d'etre is car chases, gun battles and martial arts. And the third installment just takes the tried and true formula and adds an admittedly shallow trick to it, so the adrenaline keeps flowing. Statham is Frank Martin, a former US special forces soldier and wheel man extraordinaire. He's forced into a job in which he must delivery a package to a specified location and if he goes more than 75 feet from the car, he blows up. This causes some outrageously absurd moments in the film but that's par for the course in action films any more.
It isn't a great action film but it delivers the goods in a satisfactory way. Yes, the acting and dialog are atrocious (save a certain exception, which I will mention later on). Yes the plot is overly convoluted and in fact the main villain even points this out at one point. But no one came to this film for good acting, dialog and intricately well thought out plots. We came to see a guy drive fast and take on hordes of the enemy in elaborate choreographed martial arts stunts. And you know what? The movie delivers.
The fight scenes are really fun to watch. Not the least of which is because I can actually follow what is happening. The director doesn't cut every .012 seconds during the action so that I have no idea what is happening. You can see the kicks, the punches, the elaborate and ludicrous use of Statham's wardrobe as weapons. Sure the chase sequences aren't great but the effective car chase sequence is a Holy Grail of action films and very hard to pull off or even to explain why the best ones are so effective. I also enjoy the 20 to 1 odds that Statham often faces. Yes, its over the top but its satisfying to watch.
I mentioned above that some of the acting and dialog wasn't completely awful. This is thanks to French actor Francois Berleand. He plays Inspector Tarconi a police investigator who is friend's with Martin despite the fact that one is criminal and one is police. He's been in every episode of this trilogy and has been memorable in each. He plays such a laid back bon vivant that I can't help but smile. A number of his conversations with Frank are amusing and give you the sense that these two are age old friends.
You know very well whether you are likely to enjoy Transporter 3 based on whether 1) in general you enjoy action films (even not so great ones) or 2) you enjoyed even remotely any of the previous two films. I for one was glad for the fun.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Hallelujah!!
Charlie Kaufman, I'm pretty sure is getting more and more insane with each new work. And with each new work I am more and more impressed. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was very well written (even if I didn't think the film as a whole was great), Adaptation was one of the best pieces of evidence of what a good writer can do and now Synechdoche, New York which also marks the directorial debut of Mr. Kaufman. I cannot even begin to explain the plot. And perhaps it is best to do as fellow movie snob CinemaRomantico suggested and just say see it.
The difference here? I do absolutely think it is the best movie of the year. Sure that is a personal opinion. And not likely one to be shared. To be sure its semi-incoherent but I settled in half way through and smiled and hoped I would have a cinematic experience this year like I did several times last year. And now I can finally said I did. I'm seeing it again. No question. It will happen. And in my struggles of life, its like a bright message sent from above that the best movie I've seen this year falls almost a year to the day after I saw the best movie of 2007, No Country For Old Men.
I don't want to suggest that this film is anything like the Coen brothers masterpiece. I want to assure you it isn't like anything you've ever seen at all. I just know that I walked out with such a deep level of satisfaction that not one of life's problems that constantly assault us mattered for a few precious hours. This was movie 91 for the year and a small part of me wishes it had been number 100 just to end my going on 4 year dream with a bang. This is why I see movies. I'm lucky if I see one or two movies a year that make me feel this good.
Oh and you know what else? I swear this happened, I could't make this up. What should show up in my email inbox at virtually the precise moment the film ended? An email from a local cinema that has answered my request and the request of people like me to start hosting classic films on an ongoing basis. Durham being a bit underwhelming on the revival bandwagon unless you count bad 80s horror films. And now the endless possibilities of what I could see on the big screen lie before me! Do you understand the potential in all this?
I might literally die of happiness if I got to see Seventh Seal on the big screen. (to say the previous sentence is macabre given the subject matter of the film is like saying Titanic is about a sinking boat, but as it is my second favorite movie of all time, it must be said) It's freaking Christmas! people! See Synechdoche, New York, like CinemaRomantico, this is not a request, its a command. You'll probably hate it or call it pretentious, or say dude it was good but not that good. And I'll stare at you like you're some sort of alien. In fact, sorry to cut this rambling short, but I'm going back tonight. It has to be done.
The difference here? I do absolutely think it is the best movie of the year. Sure that is a personal opinion. And not likely one to be shared. To be sure its semi-incoherent but I settled in half way through and smiled and hoped I would have a cinematic experience this year like I did several times last year. And now I can finally said I did. I'm seeing it again. No question. It will happen. And in my struggles of life, its like a bright message sent from above that the best movie I've seen this year falls almost a year to the day after I saw the best movie of 2007, No Country For Old Men.
I don't want to suggest that this film is anything like the Coen brothers masterpiece. I want to assure you it isn't like anything you've ever seen at all. I just know that I walked out with such a deep level of satisfaction that not one of life's problems that constantly assault us mattered for a few precious hours. This was movie 91 for the year and a small part of me wishes it had been number 100 just to end my going on 4 year dream with a bang. This is why I see movies. I'm lucky if I see one or two movies a year that make me feel this good.
Oh and you know what else? I swear this happened, I could't make this up. What should show up in my email inbox at virtually the precise moment the film ended? An email from a local cinema that has answered my request and the request of people like me to start hosting classic films on an ongoing basis. Durham being a bit underwhelming on the revival bandwagon unless you count bad 80s horror films. And now the endless possibilities of what I could see on the big screen lie before me! Do you understand the potential in all this?
I might literally die of happiness if I got to see Seventh Seal on the big screen. (to say the previous sentence is macabre given the subject matter of the film is like saying Titanic is about a sinking boat, but as it is my second favorite movie of all time, it must be said) It's freaking Christmas! people! See Synechdoche, New York, like CinemaRomantico, this is not a request, its a command. You'll probably hate it or call it pretentious, or say dude it was good but not that good. And I'll stare at you like you're some sort of alien. In fact, sorry to cut this rambling short, but I'm going back tonight. It has to be done.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Zack and Miri Make A Porno
Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) have been friends for a long time. They now live from paycheck to paycheck together in a small apartment in Monroeville, PA. Financially irresponsible they have their power and water turned off on the same day. They have recently attended their ten year high school reunion and there met a gay porn star. This gives Zack the idea that they should make an amateur porn movie starring themselves and a cadre of local strippers and enthusiastic actors.
If ever there was a movie with multiple personality disorder it is this one. There is no doubt that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie because large segments of the film are raunchy. Swearing, sex and one bit of scatological joke that could have gone unseen by me. It also happens to have a rather sweet side to it. The sincere connection between Zack and Miri is in classic romantic comedy style and has classic rom-com plot development. Rogen is of course always a good choice for that lovable loser role and Banks despite her beauty pulls off a very cool, normal woman vibe (i.e. you could believe she would fall for a lovable loser like Zack).
Smith's previous attempt at sentimentality (Jersey Girl) fell to far into the sappy mode. I think Smith has missed his mark here again by relying a bit too much on his trade mark crudeness. Which isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film. Which I sort of did. The crude parts made me laugh on more than one occasion and the sweet romance was endearing. The problem was the two don't really fit together very well. And yes I do think there is a composition that works (e.g. 40 Year Old Virgin). Clearly there is some drive by Smith to find the perfect mix and he does seem to be getting closer and perhaps his next attempt will succeed (sadly he'll probably return to a Mallrats 2 in the interim).
If I seem indifferent or confused on the film, I think it wholly a result of the fact that the film falls short of the sum of its parts. There is also a small part starring the current Superman and fellow Iowa native Brandon Routh. He plays a former classmate of Zack and Miri who is now involved with Justin Long's gay pornstar. Basically these scenes involve Long being flamboyant and crude while Routh tries to keep from laughing. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the movie, I just felt like mentioning it. In the end it was okay.
If ever there was a movie with multiple personality disorder it is this one. There is no doubt that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie because large segments of the film are raunchy. Swearing, sex and one bit of scatological joke that could have gone unseen by me. It also happens to have a rather sweet side to it. The sincere connection between Zack and Miri is in classic romantic comedy style and has classic rom-com plot development. Rogen is of course always a good choice for that lovable loser role and Banks despite her beauty pulls off a very cool, normal woman vibe (i.e. you could believe she would fall for a lovable loser like Zack).
Smith's previous attempt at sentimentality (Jersey Girl) fell to far into the sappy mode. I think Smith has missed his mark here again by relying a bit too much on his trade mark crudeness. Which isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film. Which I sort of did. The crude parts made me laugh on more than one occasion and the sweet romance was endearing. The problem was the two don't really fit together very well. And yes I do think there is a composition that works (e.g. 40 Year Old Virgin). Clearly there is some drive by Smith to find the perfect mix and he does seem to be getting closer and perhaps his next attempt will succeed (sadly he'll probably return to a Mallrats 2 in the interim).
If I seem indifferent or confused on the film, I think it wholly a result of the fact that the film falls short of the sum of its parts. There is also a small part starring the current Superman and fellow Iowa native Brandon Routh. He plays a former classmate of Zack and Miri who is now involved with Justin Long's gay pornstar. Basically these scenes involve Long being flamboyant and crude while Routh tries to keep from laughing. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the movie, I just felt like mentioning it. In the end it was okay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)