For what it is worth the HBO comedy Sex and the City was a decent show. It was a clever twist on chick flick type subject matter. It was equal parts fashion, sex and wit. Not that I understood a single moment of the fashion part. It created a nice world of four unique friends with distinct character traits. It can inspire viewers and fans to associate themselves with the character who most resembles them in everyday life. As fellow blogger Nick, Cinema Romantico recently posted (Sex and the City). I came to viewings of the show late as in syndicated on cable late. So it was pretty remarkably tamed (not much swearing, no nudity). Yet it still held a surprising amount of charm.
And while the series finale was a bit on the weak side of narrative effort, it still had a certain amount of charm to it. It was also relatively satisfying. So truth be told what possibly could a feature length movie do but ruin said ending? Still Hollywood works on profit motivation not artistic sentiments and no one was going to pass on a movie with a guaranteed fan base. But in my opinion the choices made for this movie betray most of the things that made the show interesting. The film rejoins the four women friends three (or four, I can't quite remember) years after the series ended.
Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is still happily dating Mr. Big (Chris Noth), Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is still happily married and has a beautiful adopted daughter, Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is still married to Steve and Samantha (Kim Cattral) is still with Smith. But since the show was more about the women than anything else we really need an arbitrary plot device to get them away from their men and into a more nostalgic environment. Wedding day jitters for Mr. Big (who is now John by the way and don't worry if you forgot because they will utter, show or in some other way slam his name in your face at least 75 times in the next two hours). It really feels as if they are trying to make up for the fact that the show went for so many years without ever revealing his name.
Truth be told the movie suffers from the first fatal flaw of any show that gets brought back via movie of recent. The incessant need to cram as many vestigial characters into the movie as possible so as not to upset any fan who never could get enough of extra number 2. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that early versions of the script had an Aidan cameo. Once we get the women away from the men in a fantastic "all men are clearly assholes" motif, we can get back to the core of what made the show entertaining. Alcoholism, mindless banter and scatological humor. Oh yeah that's right nothing more classy than a "don't drink the water down Mexico way lest you soil yourself joke".
Which was basically the moment I checked out of the movie that was already doing its best to try my patience with contrived plot points and over extended fashion sequences that I can't describe in any other way than fashion porn (much like gun porn in most action films). And as I sat thinking to myself well they went for a crap joke how much lower could it possible go? Oh dear reader, how terribly wrong could I have been.
You see for a show that was ostensibly about liberating of women who don't take the crap that men subject them to there is a whole lot of whining about the perfect man and their inability to find them. And even a fair amount of "well yeah he was a complete scumbag but come on take him back" mentality. But one could forgive all that for the fairy tale if one so chose. I'm not entirely sure I can forgive the use of the "Magical Negro". Yes this is a real term used by the likes of Spike Lee and appears in plenty of films even contemporary ones (Magical Negro). Take a look at the representative list and you can see I'm not the only one who thinks a certain character in Sex in the City is in fact said stereotype.
Its pretty crappy to see and speaks to quite a bit of the racism that still exists in society today and so I honestly didn't think I'd see such a character in a film based on series that was so modern. At first I wasn't noticing it that much when Louise (Jennifer Hudson) makes her appearance but as the plot continued the filled with knowledge beyond her years and with a keen understanding of love Louise helps the broken-hearted Carrie rediscover herself and love, I was suddenly hit with extreme uncomfortableness.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, the grimmer reality is probably that in the desperate hopes of remaining relevant they inserted a black character to stay relevant. But I can't help but see the Louise character as exactly that. I can't remember a single important black character from the tv show (but I haven't seen every episode) nor can I remember much hip hop on the soundtrack and yet suddenly almost every song in the movie seems to be such. Truth be told the movie could have benefited from a well rounded strong black female character sadly I don't think this was it.
And in the end since the plot went full circle and put every character virtually right back where they were in scene one, I wondered why I had just wasted two hours of my life just so they could go back to the status quo.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Return to Me
There are few movies in my collection that I can watch at almost any moment and be in the mood for it. I have a decent amount of classic films that at a given moment I might deem "too heavy" for my mood or other such dismissals. Of course there are those movies that were bought on promise of quality or on ill remembered quality of the cinema. And of course there is the disturbingly growing collection of "gag" movie that my friends have given me and since they are gifts I can't in good conscience throw away (you win this round Omega Code. Still one film that I can watch pretty regularly is Return to Me.
Directed by Bonnie Hunt, the story involved Bob Rueland (David Duchovny) as the owner of a construction business who is married to Elisabeth (Joely Richardson). A tragedy leaves Bob a widower, who lives to fulfill his wife's last wish while wallowing in his own pity. Until a night when he goes out with a friend and meets lively young waitress Grace (Minnie Driver) and again starts to fall in love. The catch being that Grace is now alive because she has Elisabeth's donated heart.
Now you can be of two basic opinions on that final fact. You might think its a dopey plot device that permits the classic third act split only to see our happy couple reunited in the final frames. To this I would say that's what happens in Romantic Comedies and at least this plot device is better than most. You might think its a nice hopelessly romantic notion of the nature of love and it being eternal. And regardless you either enjoy the well done Romantic Comedy or you don't.
And as one who enjoys said genre, this is one of my favorites. It not only establishes a really good relationship between Richardson and Duchovny in the first 20 minutes but then tears your heart right out after that. That it can establish a charming new relationship without tainting the old I find to be a great achievement. Throw in a cast of lovable supporting actors played by the likes of Robert Loggia and the late great Carrol O'Conner and you have a very fun, romantic at times tragic film.
Directed by Bonnie Hunt, the story involved Bob Rueland (David Duchovny) as the owner of a construction business who is married to Elisabeth (Joely Richardson). A tragedy leaves Bob a widower, who lives to fulfill his wife's last wish while wallowing in his own pity. Until a night when he goes out with a friend and meets lively young waitress Grace (Minnie Driver) and again starts to fall in love. The catch being that Grace is now alive because she has Elisabeth's donated heart.
Now you can be of two basic opinions on that final fact. You might think its a dopey plot device that permits the classic third act split only to see our happy couple reunited in the final frames. To this I would say that's what happens in Romantic Comedies and at least this plot device is better than most. You might think its a nice hopelessly romantic notion of the nature of love and it being eternal. And regardless you either enjoy the well done Romantic Comedy or you don't.
And as one who enjoys said genre, this is one of my favorites. It not only establishes a really good relationship between Richardson and Duchovny in the first 20 minutes but then tears your heart right out after that. That it can establish a charming new relationship without tainting the old I find to be a great achievement. Throw in a cast of lovable supporting actors played by the likes of Robert Loggia and the late great Carrol O'Conner and you have a very fun, romantic at times tragic film.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The 400 Blows
Francois Truffaut's The 400 Blows is the kind of film I wish I could have seen when it first came out. It has all those elements that I crave in a film today. It had a compelling story and protagonist (played by the excellent Jean-Pierre Leaud), it has amazing shots and narrative technique. I have gone to over 80 movies a year hoping to find films of this quality and more often I find them on my dvd player than in the cinema. Which makes me long for classics of today and to have a venue where I can see the classics of the past on the big screen. Sadly with rare exception my local indie theater prefers 70s and 80s cult classics to the critical classics of the 30s, 40s and 50s.
Antoine Doinell is a school boy in early adolescence who lives with his mother and step-father. They live in a small apartment and seem to be barely scraping by. Antoine is one of those kids who school ultimately is not for (but in modern times would be doped up with drugs and called an ADD child most likely). Branded a perpetual trouble maker by his parents and teachers, he falls comfortably into that role finding it easier to live up to the preconceived notion than to fight it.
The film follows Antoine as he skips school or occasionally commits petty crimes and deals with his difficult family life at home. As a result we get to see a fascinatingly shot world with scenes that are at times tragic and at other comedic and a largely flawless transition between the two. And although it moves forward with character progression and the tale becomes increasingly sad for in truth Antoine isn't really a bad kid, I was still delighted by everything.
And bravo to Truffaut for his final scene which ends on such a note of ambiguity that one craves to follow Antoine's story into a sequel rather than is usually forced on you by obvious set ups as in many an action movie over the past few years. But at the same time one can also satisfactorily never hear of Antoine again and that would have its own quiet grace to it as well.
It is definitely a film worth seeing. Beyond its occasionally groundbreaking cinematic additions or its well shot scenes, it is a genuinely entertaining story carried by some great performances.
Antoine Doinell is a school boy in early adolescence who lives with his mother and step-father. They live in a small apartment and seem to be barely scraping by. Antoine is one of those kids who school ultimately is not for (but in modern times would be doped up with drugs and called an ADD child most likely). Branded a perpetual trouble maker by his parents and teachers, he falls comfortably into that role finding it easier to live up to the preconceived notion than to fight it.
The film follows Antoine as he skips school or occasionally commits petty crimes and deals with his difficult family life at home. As a result we get to see a fascinatingly shot world with scenes that are at times tragic and at other comedic and a largely flawless transition between the two. And although it moves forward with character progression and the tale becomes increasingly sad for in truth Antoine isn't really a bad kid, I was still delighted by everything.
And bravo to Truffaut for his final scene which ends on such a note of ambiguity that one craves to follow Antoine's story into a sequel rather than is usually forced on you by obvious set ups as in many an action movie over the past few years. But at the same time one can also satisfactorily never hear of Antoine again and that would have its own quiet grace to it as well.
It is definitely a film worth seeing. Beyond its occasionally groundbreaking cinematic additions or its well shot scenes, it is a genuinely entertaining story carried by some great performances.
Get Smart
Get Smart benefits greatly from the fact that most of the audience watching it will at best only have a passing recollection of the tv show and that from Nick at Nite reruns. I myself can only remember a handful of details about the television show from the 60s. Still the goal was clearly not to do a spy spoof but rather an action film with jokes. The spy spoof in our day has already gotten a surprisingly good send up from Mike Meyers and his Austin Powers character.
The film introduces us to Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) who is goofy and awkward but surprisingly intelligent and despite gaffs also surprisingly adept at fighting and espionage. When US intelligence operation Control is infiltrated and many of its agents are wiped out, Max is promoted and teamed up with the beautiful Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway). The film trods on through its plot as the two discover and attempt to foil the convoluted plans of KAOS, the enemy counterpart to Control.
The film is largely carried by Carell's general likability. Alan Arkin and Dwayne Johnson have decent turns as supporting roles. Sadly the abilities of Terrence Stamp are woefully underused. The film isn't terribly but at the same time isn't funny either. There were mostly a few smiles from me and once or twice a burst of laughter. But for the most part I was just kind of thinking it could have been better.
The only genuinely funny moment for me was one near the end of the movie with a cameo by Patrick Warburton and really he was just playing a role he's done a thousand times before. In the end it just wasn't cutting enough in its spoofing which is what the original material was about and although you get a dependable performance from Carell, I wish everyone else was trying just a bit harder.
The film introduces us to Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) who is goofy and awkward but surprisingly intelligent and despite gaffs also surprisingly adept at fighting and espionage. When US intelligence operation Control is infiltrated and many of its agents are wiped out, Max is promoted and teamed up with the beautiful Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway). The film trods on through its plot as the two discover and attempt to foil the convoluted plans of KAOS, the enemy counterpart to Control.
The film is largely carried by Carell's general likability. Alan Arkin and Dwayne Johnson have decent turns as supporting roles. Sadly the abilities of Terrence Stamp are woefully underused. The film isn't terribly but at the same time isn't funny either. There were mostly a few smiles from me and once or twice a burst of laughter. But for the most part I was just kind of thinking it could have been better.
The only genuinely funny moment for me was one near the end of the movie with a cameo by Patrick Warburton and really he was just playing a role he's done a thousand times before. In the end it just wasn't cutting enough in its spoofing which is what the original material was about and although you get a dependable performance from Carell, I wish everyone else was trying just a bit harder.
The Happening
Behold the chilling and terrifying...wind? This was the moment and you know which one if you saw the movie where my mind finally just checked out of this boring movie. It doesn't matter how much blood letting you have done up to this point or how many times you have beaten your audience over the head with the unpredictable nature of...nature nor how much intentionally anxiety inducing music notes or how much you focus the camera on blowing blades of grass there is no terror in everyday wind. The Day After Tomorrow was a more scary eco-thriller than this (note to reader: said film was not scary, save that I actually paid to see it).
Our incredibly inane film begins in New York where some strange event induces often bloody suicides. These are more effective as shock factors than an real thrill or scare. Enter lowly high school science teacher Mark Wahlberg giving us all the exposition we need and with the ominous Einstein quote about bees and the survival of the human race. A quote which cannot actually be attributed to Einstein but none the less looks really neat as an innocuous background element. Wahlberg plays Elliot who when he learns of the event decides to join his friend in a trip to the country away from the cities where the "Happening" is seemingly taking place.
He is joined in this with a cast that is usually fairly solid (Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo) but uttering the dialogue they are given come off as flat one dimensional bores. The film veers away from any traditional notion of how people would react to unexplainable events for a more rational discourse which is about as exciting as it sounds. At key points we are informed in not very interesting exposition what is probably going on and yet at no point in this relatively short movie does it ever feel like I hadn't been in the theater for hours.
Beyond the abundance of wooden line readings there was an incessant repetition of the word "happening", driving me near mad with its recurrence. In the final act when the irrational humans show up its too little, too late. And in any event only seem to have been added because the director thought the whole the wind is scary motif might not be as effective as once thought. So rather than getting in satisfactory story we just get a few more punctuated unnecessary deaths.
To the film's credit, it was a thousand times less pretentious than Lady in the Water though still filled with enough to make you nauseous. The film also benefits from a complete lack of cameo of Mr. Shyamalan. Still those graces are hardly enough to counter the fact that Shyamalan is showing himself to be a mediocre film maker who got lucky a few times.
Our incredibly inane film begins in New York where some strange event induces often bloody suicides. These are more effective as shock factors than an real thrill or scare. Enter lowly high school science teacher Mark Wahlberg giving us all the exposition we need and with the ominous Einstein quote about bees and the survival of the human race. A quote which cannot actually be attributed to Einstein but none the less looks really neat as an innocuous background element. Wahlberg plays Elliot who when he learns of the event decides to join his friend in a trip to the country away from the cities where the "Happening" is seemingly taking place.
He is joined in this with a cast that is usually fairly solid (Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo) but uttering the dialogue they are given come off as flat one dimensional bores. The film veers away from any traditional notion of how people would react to unexplainable events for a more rational discourse which is about as exciting as it sounds. At key points we are informed in not very interesting exposition what is probably going on and yet at no point in this relatively short movie does it ever feel like I hadn't been in the theater for hours.
Beyond the abundance of wooden line readings there was an incessant repetition of the word "happening", driving me near mad with its recurrence. In the final act when the irrational humans show up its too little, too late. And in any event only seem to have been added because the director thought the whole the wind is scary motif might not be as effective as once thought. So rather than getting in satisfactory story we just get a few more punctuated unnecessary deaths.
To the film's credit, it was a thousand times less pretentious than Lady in the Water though still filled with enough to make you nauseous. The film also benefits from a complete lack of cameo of Mr. Shyamalan. Still those graces are hardly enough to counter the fact that Shyamalan is showing himself to be a mediocre film maker who got lucky a few times.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Incredible Hulk
I confess I'm one of a minority that actually liked Ang Lee's Hulk. At first I was disappointed by the lack of the words "Hulk Smash" and other key elements of the Hulk mythos. But on a reviewing I found myself quite engrossed in the film. Bana played the emotionally stunted Banner so well and Sam Eliot was born to be General Ross. Gravelly voiced and gruff it was just so much fun. So I was not that happy to hear about a reboot of the franchise with all new actors and director. Ed Norton may be as talented as Eric Bana, but Liv Tyler doesn't hold a candle to Jennifer Connolly.
Alas and with no surprise money interested Marvel more than my objections and now we have the latest from director Louis Letterier. He directed the amusing Transporter and the mind numbing disaster Transporter 2. Norton is now Bruce Banner hiding in Brazil. A short sequence has established a new origin for Hulk but the film has jumped right into the story. General Ross (William Hurt) is still trying to find Banner and he is employing a soldier named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to help him do it.
Appealing to some of the themes of the tv show, the plot follows Banner on the run occasionally being caught up and transforming into the Hulk. And certainly here the fan boys will squeal with joy at seeing Hulk do what they have always wanted him to do. We are subjected to purple pants, Hulk phrases and signature moves. We even get a Captain America of sorts. It was all pretty agonizing in my opinion. The film abandons all the interesting things that Lee was trying to do with his film for more action and a big bad rogue villain in the Abomination.
Lee's film was trying to do something and maybe it failed but this new film doesn't seem to be trying to do anything at all. Its just kind of ho hums its way through until a big action sequence. Not to mention I have serious problems believing the young looking Tyler as a molecular biologist. The mediocrity of the film is made the worse by unfortunate giving in to fan expectations. And I hate anything that sets up a sequel and you can see the sequel to this film coming a mile down the road.
Alas and with no surprise money interested Marvel more than my objections and now we have the latest from director Louis Letterier. He directed the amusing Transporter and the mind numbing disaster Transporter 2. Norton is now Bruce Banner hiding in Brazil. A short sequence has established a new origin for Hulk but the film has jumped right into the story. General Ross (William Hurt) is still trying to find Banner and he is employing a soldier named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to help him do it.
Appealing to some of the themes of the tv show, the plot follows Banner on the run occasionally being caught up and transforming into the Hulk. And certainly here the fan boys will squeal with joy at seeing Hulk do what they have always wanted him to do. We are subjected to purple pants, Hulk phrases and signature moves. We even get a Captain America of sorts. It was all pretty agonizing in my opinion. The film abandons all the interesting things that Lee was trying to do with his film for more action and a big bad rogue villain in the Abomination.
Lee's film was trying to do something and maybe it failed but this new film doesn't seem to be trying to do anything at all. Its just kind of ho hums its way through until a big action sequence. Not to mention I have serious problems believing the young looking Tyler as a molecular biologist. The mediocrity of the film is made the worse by unfortunate giving in to fan expectations. And I hate anything that sets up a sequel and you can see the sequel to this film coming a mile down the road.
Running Tally - Part 5
I've been out of the cinema loop for several weeks so I didn't get a chance to post a tally of things so far for the month of May. Summer has definitely begun and my film viewings reflect that. I saw seven films in 25 days and only one of them was sans action as a prominent feature. A short recap
Iron Man - Not a great movie but definitely an enjoyable one. Robert Downy, Jr. carries the film and a nice villain performance by Jeff Bridges.
Terminator - Thank you 90th year of United Artists. Yes while indie cinemas around the country were showing more "classic" fair, my local indie theater gave me James Cameron's excellent Robocalypse movie.
Redbelt - David Mamet really likes to explore some crazy topics and this one is no exception. Still although the plot lost me a bit the performances were decent.
Red Dawn - When it comes to films that are not very good but are so lodged into my childhood subconscious it doesn't get any better than Red Dawn. Again thank UA and my local indie theater for bringing back that has such nostalgia for me. Wolverines!
Some Like It Hot - They really knew how to make a comedy back in the day.
Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - Better made than the first Narnia film but somehow I cared even less (and there wasn't much care for the first one).
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Number four in the series reminds me yet again that they should have stopped after number one since it was a brilliant action movie.
And meaningless statistics are flying your way right now!
Films remaining: 58
Days Remaining (as of June 1): 214
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal:0.27
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.87
Iron Man - Not a great movie but definitely an enjoyable one. Robert Downy, Jr. carries the film and a nice villain performance by Jeff Bridges.
Terminator - Thank you 90th year of United Artists. Yes while indie cinemas around the country were showing more "classic" fair, my local indie theater gave me James Cameron's excellent Robocalypse movie.
Redbelt - David Mamet really likes to explore some crazy topics and this one is no exception. Still although the plot lost me a bit the performances were decent.
Red Dawn - When it comes to films that are not very good but are so lodged into my childhood subconscious it doesn't get any better than Red Dawn. Again thank UA and my local indie theater for bringing back that has such nostalgia for me. Wolverines!
Some Like It Hot - They really knew how to make a comedy back in the day.
Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - Better made than the first Narnia film but somehow I cared even less (and there wasn't much care for the first one).
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Number four in the series reminds me yet again that they should have stopped after number one since it was a brilliant action movie.
And meaningless statistics are flying your way right now!
Films remaining: 58
Days Remaining (as of June 1): 214
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal:0.27
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.87
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Running Tally - Part 4
Be you one who enjoys my reviews or one who hates them, you may have noticed a lack of posts of recent. This is mainly because I've been bogged down by work. Then and I suppose this is a testament to the films out there that when I do find some time to write I discover I've forgotten everything about the movie I saw except the barest register that I either liked or disliked it. But this does not mean I have stopped watching movies or abandoned my annually renewed goal.
April wasn't really productive for my movie watching until a spurt at the end. Still I managed to see movies I actually wanted to see as opposed to going to something merely to get the number.
April 1 - Stop Loss: Acted well enough, story was decent but not quite as reflective as I felt it could have been. Joseph Gordon Levitt was good in his small role but he's been more effective in films like "Brick".
April 12 - The Band's Visit: Charming enough as a film. Not great though.
April 19 - Forbidden Kingdom: Sometimes you just want to see some guy kick the crap out of one hundred other guys (and by you I mean me). Fun to see Jet Li play a goofier role. Might have been more interesting to have a role reversal where Li was the slap stick man and Jackie Chan was the straight man.
April 21 - Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten: Kind of a mess of organization. Focuses a lot on the music early on when one wants to know more about the man. The interview plot device gets really tedious after about fifteen minutes.
April 22 - Forgetting Sarah Marshall: There was quite a bit in this one that made me laugh which is good because I was worried that I had forgotten what funny was.
April 23 - Zombie Strippers: Parts of it shear brilliance, parts horribly horribly bad.
April 25 - The Year My Parents Went On Vacation - Thought it was one of those feel good movies, turns out that isn't quite right. Still it had a fair amount of charm and decent story.
April 29 - Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay: After seeing two fantastic Springsteen concerts, how does one avoid the inevitable let down of whatever you see next? Go see a movie you know is going to be bad and get the inevitable let down out of the way. Just a horrendous let down especially since the first film kind of surprised me.
And now meaningless statistics!
Films remaining: 65
Days Remaining (as of May 1): 245
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal:0.27
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.86
April wasn't really productive for my movie watching until a spurt at the end. Still I managed to see movies I actually wanted to see as opposed to going to something merely to get the number.
April 1 - Stop Loss: Acted well enough, story was decent but not quite as reflective as I felt it could have been. Joseph Gordon Levitt was good in his small role but he's been more effective in films like "Brick".
April 12 - The Band's Visit: Charming enough as a film. Not great though.
April 19 - Forbidden Kingdom: Sometimes you just want to see some guy kick the crap out of one hundred other guys (and by you I mean me). Fun to see Jet Li play a goofier role. Might have been more interesting to have a role reversal where Li was the slap stick man and Jackie Chan was the straight man.
April 21 - Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten: Kind of a mess of organization. Focuses a lot on the music early on when one wants to know more about the man. The interview plot device gets really tedious after about fifteen minutes.
April 22 - Forgetting Sarah Marshall: There was quite a bit in this one that made me laugh which is good because I was worried that I had forgotten what funny was.
April 23 - Zombie Strippers: Parts of it shear brilliance, parts horribly horribly bad.
April 25 - The Year My Parents Went On Vacation - Thought it was one of those feel good movies, turns out that isn't quite right. Still it had a fair amount of charm and decent story.
April 29 - Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay: After seeing two fantastic Springsteen concerts, how does one avoid the inevitable let down of whatever you see next? Go see a movie you know is going to be bad and get the inevitable let down out of the way. Just a horrendous let down especially since the first film kind of surprised me.
And now meaningless statistics!
Films remaining: 65
Days Remaining (as of May 1): 245
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal:0.27
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.86
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Zombie Strippers
I found out there was a movie called Zombie Strippers one day while looking at the local cinema offerings. I did a quick online search and discovered it starred Robert Englund (i.e. Freddy Krueger) and Jenna Jameson (one time queen of porn) and that was all I needed to decide this was a movie that I had to see if for no other reason than to say I had. But loving movies about zombies didn't hurt either. What I got was either shear genius or one of the worst pieces of crap I've ever seen. And I still can't decide which it is.
In George Bush's fourth term as president (apparently in this alt universe, there was a drastic altering to the constitution sometime between now and this November which allowed GW to get re-elected and then another amendment to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be his vice president) a company creates a virus that reanimates the dead apparently meant as a weapon of war. This virus causes women to gain super strength and retain the ability to talk as their flesh decays while men become mindless...well...zombies. A group of soldiers is brought in to wipe them out.
When a soldier who has been bitten escapes to a local strip club and bites a stripper then the plot really starts to unfold. Apparently zombie viruses make strippers way better at what they do. And apparently men prefer undead naked flesh over live nudes. Said zombie strippers (yes the movie does actually refer to them as that at least once) led by Jenna Jameson dance and then occasionally eat and convert a patron into a zombie. Eventually this will end with a zombie outbreak of course.
It must be said that Jameson looks kind of disturbing with her plastic face that actually improves slightly when she becomes a zombie. The acting is bad but I presume intentionally so. The plot as much as there is one moves forward in leaps after long periods of going nowhere. The opening bit gets us to zombie strippers. Then a long period of expected flesh baring followed by another leap forward in plot. So what in the world makes me think this film might be brilliant?
Well for one it has reduced the genre to its most basic elements and it gives plenty of that. Zombies? check. T and A? check. Gruesome zombie deaths? check. As for the comedy the most unintentionally funny (or intentionally?) thing is the dialog in which several character engage. There are numerous pseudo-intellectual rants quoting the likes of Nietzsche and Sartre. I myself probably laughed too much and too loudly near the end of the movie when two zombie strippers fight each other making rather disturbing but also humorous use of golf balls and billiards balls.
But I should say that despite having moments of truly inspired comedy there is also a lot of really wretched acting and trodding plot to deal with as well. Still in the end I was at least mildly happy that I had made the decision to see it.
In George Bush's fourth term as president (apparently in this alt universe, there was a drastic altering to the constitution sometime between now and this November which allowed GW to get re-elected and then another amendment to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be his vice president) a company creates a virus that reanimates the dead apparently meant as a weapon of war. This virus causes women to gain super strength and retain the ability to talk as their flesh decays while men become mindless...well...zombies. A group of soldiers is brought in to wipe them out.
When a soldier who has been bitten escapes to a local strip club and bites a stripper then the plot really starts to unfold. Apparently zombie viruses make strippers way better at what they do. And apparently men prefer undead naked flesh over live nudes. Said zombie strippers (yes the movie does actually refer to them as that at least once) led by Jenna Jameson dance and then occasionally eat and convert a patron into a zombie. Eventually this will end with a zombie outbreak of course.
It must be said that Jameson looks kind of disturbing with her plastic face that actually improves slightly when she becomes a zombie. The acting is bad but I presume intentionally so. The plot as much as there is one moves forward in leaps after long periods of going nowhere. The opening bit gets us to zombie strippers. Then a long period of expected flesh baring followed by another leap forward in plot. So what in the world makes me think this film might be brilliant?
Well for one it has reduced the genre to its most basic elements and it gives plenty of that. Zombies? check. T and A? check. Gruesome zombie deaths? check. As for the comedy the most unintentionally funny (or intentionally?) thing is the dialog in which several character engage. There are numerous pseudo-intellectual rants quoting the likes of Nietzsche and Sartre. I myself probably laughed too much and too loudly near the end of the movie when two zombie strippers fight each other making rather disturbing but also humorous use of golf balls and billiards balls.
But I should say that despite having moments of truly inspired comedy there is also a lot of really wretched acting and trodding plot to deal with as well. Still in the end I was at least mildly happy that I had made the decision to see it.
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Forbidden Kingdom
Jason (Michael Angarano) is a teenage kid obsessed with kung fu films and frequently visits Chinatown to buy bootleg kung fu films. Running afoul of the local teenage thug, Jason is forced to help them break into the store of an old man who knows Jason. After an obligatory set of circumstances occur, Jason ends up with an important looking staff and the mission of returning it to its master. A magically induced fall from a roof top allows our hero Jason to wake up in a mythical China called the Middle Kingdom.
Jason soon discovers that the staff he carries is much sought after and quickly finds himself in trouble. The drunken master Lu Yan (Jackie Chan) comes to his aid and tells the legendary story of the Monkey King and the Jade Warlord. Eventually Jason is joined in his quest to return the staff to the statue of the Monkey King by a vengeful woman called the Golden Sparrow (Crystal Liu Yi Fei) and a taciturn monk (Jet Li). The three train Jason in kung fu and battle scores of warriors on their quest.
Shakespeare it isn't. But honestly a martial arts film doesn't need to have a great story. It just needs a moderately coherent one. And it gets bonus points if said story isn't seemingly an elaborate analogy for the glory that is modern day China (Hero comes to mind. No, it doesn't need a great story, it just needs enough to keep you from wanting to open your veins while waiting for the next choreographed martial arts sequence. Thankfully The Forbidden Kingdom has just that.
Jet Li and Jackie Chan are both enjoyable to watch and both of their talents are made good use of here. Chan is more often associated with clever uses of props as if drunk or a fool while Li tends to represent a more graceful side. Both are a lot of fun to watch. And when the two themselves spar against one another, the result had me grinning. Jet Li's silent monk is typical of his no nonsense act that he has perfected in so many movies but he also gets to play the Monkey King and in that capacity he gets to play a more lively character that showed Li has a range far wider than I would have reckoned.
The plot kept me entertained enough. The fighting was all I really came to see and the director did something a lot of directors find hard to do. He kept the camera still. Its amazing what that can do for you. It allows you to actually see what you came to see, a bunch of guys (and gals) kicking the high holy crap out of each other. So if you are in for a complete piece of popcorn fluff where you can be highly entertained by martial arts and mildly entertained by a story then I say go see this one.
Jason soon discovers that the staff he carries is much sought after and quickly finds himself in trouble. The drunken master Lu Yan (Jackie Chan) comes to his aid and tells the legendary story of the Monkey King and the Jade Warlord. Eventually Jason is joined in his quest to return the staff to the statue of the Monkey King by a vengeful woman called the Golden Sparrow (Crystal Liu Yi Fei) and a taciturn monk (Jet Li). The three train Jason in kung fu and battle scores of warriors on their quest.
Shakespeare it isn't. But honestly a martial arts film doesn't need to have a great story. It just needs a moderately coherent one. And it gets bonus points if said story isn't seemingly an elaborate analogy for the glory that is modern day China (Hero comes to mind. No, it doesn't need a great story, it just needs enough to keep you from wanting to open your veins while waiting for the next choreographed martial arts sequence. Thankfully The Forbidden Kingdom has just that.
Jet Li and Jackie Chan are both enjoyable to watch and both of their talents are made good use of here. Chan is more often associated with clever uses of props as if drunk or a fool while Li tends to represent a more graceful side. Both are a lot of fun to watch. And when the two themselves spar against one another, the result had me grinning. Jet Li's silent monk is typical of his no nonsense act that he has perfected in so many movies but he also gets to play the Monkey King and in that capacity he gets to play a more lively character that showed Li has a range far wider than I would have reckoned.
The plot kept me entertained enough. The fighting was all I really came to see and the director did something a lot of directors find hard to do. He kept the camera still. Its amazing what that can do for you. It allows you to actually see what you came to see, a bunch of guys (and gals) kicking the high holy crap out of each other. So if you are in for a complete piece of popcorn fluff where you can be highly entertained by martial arts and mildly entertained by a story then I say go see this one.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Stop Loss
Kimberly Peirce's new film Stop Loss, her second full length feature, follows Brandon King (Ryan Phillipe), a soldier recently returned from Iraq, whose term of service is over. His most recent mission resulted in the death of several soldiers and friends and has left many of the men in his unit with post traumatic stress. Expecting to get on with his life, the day he is to be released from service he discovers he has been stop-lossed, a process by which a soldier's service is involuntarily extended. Brandon incensed by this goes AWOL and begins looking for a way to get out of his predicament.
Brandon is joined on his road trip by his friend and fellow soldier's fiance Michelle (Abbie Cornish). She aids him partly because her fiance Steve (Channing Tatum) could face the same procedure, partly because Steve has become extraordinarily despondent at times and she wants to understand what it was like in Iraq. A subplot involves Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who after having his best friend die in his arms has become increasingly distant and has started drinking heavily. His marriage is falling apart and he is in danger of being discharged for bad conduct despite considering the army his only real family.
The film is at times uneven and avoids what would seem like obvious avenues of character development. It admirably steers as much as possible away from grander philosophical arguments about the Iraq War and instead focuses on how what soldiers see affects them. The events of the opening are ever present in the minds of the various soldiers in this film. Still it seems like a waste of opportunity and talent not to have a more significant role for Ciaran Hinds as Brandon's father. Who appears to be a veteran of Vietnam (but maybe not) and therefore might have a very interesting opinion about the Iraq war.
A lot of Brandon's road trip doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. He feels obligated to personally tell the parents of one of his dead soldier's how he died. In addition despite being AWOL he visits a military hospital where another soldier is being treated. There is also a gratuitous fist fight between two friends (something that only seems to happen in movies) to resolve long standing issues each has with the other. But despite that it is a reasonably interesting take on how some soldiers might feel about the war.
Some of the strongest scenes go to Gordon-Levitt, who continually shows his ability to choose interesting roles. Playing the guitar in the opening scenes, he is jovial and enthusiastic which slowly becomes more and more morose as the film proceeds. Phillipe is adequate in the lead although his transitions from relative stability to hallucinations set off by stress are at times played unevenly.
Overall, the film feels a bit to dependent on its gimmick (the policy of stop loss) and on wrapping up the story in a neat little bow. Still it was entertaining enough and had some memorable moments.
Brandon is joined on his road trip by his friend and fellow soldier's fiance Michelle (Abbie Cornish). She aids him partly because her fiance Steve (Channing Tatum) could face the same procedure, partly because Steve has become extraordinarily despondent at times and she wants to understand what it was like in Iraq. A subplot involves Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who after having his best friend die in his arms has become increasingly distant and has started drinking heavily. His marriage is falling apart and he is in danger of being discharged for bad conduct despite considering the army his only real family.
The film is at times uneven and avoids what would seem like obvious avenues of character development. It admirably steers as much as possible away from grander philosophical arguments about the Iraq War and instead focuses on how what soldiers see affects them. The events of the opening are ever present in the minds of the various soldiers in this film. Still it seems like a waste of opportunity and talent not to have a more significant role for Ciaran Hinds as Brandon's father. Who appears to be a veteran of Vietnam (but maybe not) and therefore might have a very interesting opinion about the Iraq war.
A lot of Brandon's road trip doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. He feels obligated to personally tell the parents of one of his dead soldier's how he died. In addition despite being AWOL he visits a military hospital where another soldier is being treated. There is also a gratuitous fist fight between two friends (something that only seems to happen in movies) to resolve long standing issues each has with the other. But despite that it is a reasonably interesting take on how some soldiers might feel about the war.
Some of the strongest scenes go to Gordon-Levitt, who continually shows his ability to choose interesting roles. Playing the guitar in the opening scenes, he is jovial and enthusiastic which slowly becomes more and more morose as the film proceeds. Phillipe is adequate in the lead although his transitions from relative stability to hallucinations set off by stress are at times played unevenly.
Overall, the film feels a bit to dependent on its gimmick (the policy of stop loss) and on wrapping up the story in a neat little bow. Still it was entertaining enough and had some memorable moments.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Running Total - Part 3
March continued to be a problematic month for movies as I was mostly unable or unwilling to see the dreadful releases for the month. Still a few gems showed up here and there. I got the opportunity to rewatch the first film I saw in 2008 and in addition to not having to walk in Chicago's freezing January 1 weather after it was over, I concluded that it was still one of the great movies of last year. Plus I got to see two classics of cinema (arguably) thanks to local indie theater, the Carolina.
March 02 - Penelope: Should have been charming and sweet little romantic comedy with a wholesome message. Should have been. Wholesome message? Accept yourself for who you are and someone or something will magical whisk away any imperfections making you perfect.
March 04 - The Other Boleyn Girl: Soap Opera meets history? Had so much potential but played it way too safe.
March 08 - Highlander: Queen, Christopher Lambert and Clancy Brown are a combination that is exactly as good as it sounds.
March 08 - 10,000 BC: As Emerrich makes films I suspect he is getting crazier. Exhibit A is this disaster of a film.
March 11 - Princess Bride: Yeah, one of Rob Reiner's best.
March 14 - The Bank Job: Very enjoyable heist largely thanks to Jason Statham who finally makes a film not directed by Guy Ritchie where he isn't half bad.
March 14 - Doomsday: Surprisingly good popcorn fluff which may also be a satire of action films in general.
March 22 - 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days: Holy crap, heavy film, excellent but not for the light of heart.
And what you all came to see...er read...er I guess see...the meaningless statistics:
Films Remaining: 73
Days Remaining: 275
Average Number of films per day to achieve goal: 0.27
Average Number of films to see per week to achieve goal: 1.8
March 02 - Penelope: Should have been charming and sweet little romantic comedy with a wholesome message. Should have been. Wholesome message? Accept yourself for who you are and someone or something will magical whisk away any imperfections making you perfect.
March 04 - The Other Boleyn Girl: Soap Opera meets history? Had so much potential but played it way too safe.
March 08 - Highlander: Queen, Christopher Lambert and Clancy Brown are a combination that is exactly as good as it sounds.
March 08 - 10,000 BC: As Emerrich makes films I suspect he is getting crazier. Exhibit A is this disaster of a film.
March 11 - Princess Bride: Yeah, one of Rob Reiner's best.
March 14 - The Bank Job: Very enjoyable heist largely thanks to Jason Statham who finally makes a film not directed by Guy Ritchie where he isn't half bad.
March 14 - Doomsday: Surprisingly good popcorn fluff which may also be a satire of action films in general.
March 22 - 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days: Holy crap, heavy film, excellent but not for the light of heart.
And what you all came to see...er read...er I guess see...the meaningless statistics:
Films Remaining: 73
Days Remaining: 275
Average Number of films per day to achieve goal: 0.27
Average Number of films to see per week to achieve goal: 1.8
Day Watch
"It could have done with a bit more action and less mind numbing dialog."
-Me, March 2006 about Night Watch
I've discovered that becoming curious about what is hiding in the moving dumpster that is my car is not always a good thing. When I investigated the contents of my car the other day, I discovered Day Watch and I honestly don't remember when I obtained said movie. But I confess that two years ago, after I saw the first film, that I was mildly curious to see the sequel to see where the story would go. I can now tell you, reader, that I have no idea where the story went. Upon reading my review from two years ago I was struck by my own quote that the film could use more action and less exposition.
The fact that Day Watch seems to have done just that hurts my brain. And I now find myself wishing there had been a little bit more exposition just to help explain to my admittedly poor brain what the hell was going on. The film picks up at some time after the last film. Anton is still a member of the day watch and his son is apparently some very important powerful evil. There is some tension brewing between the two sides and something called the chalk of destiny and I confess I hadn't the slightest idea of what was going on.
All this narrative anarchy was intensified by stylistic effects shots such as a car driving along a building or a guy causing cars to explode on the street. Although many of these looked quite good they flew out of left field most of the time and so how they actually related to what was going on and what was being said was completely lost on me. If someone else watches this and can explain it to me I would be very appreciative. As it stands Day Watch is a very pretty, very confusing tale of good and evil. I guess.
-Me, March 2006 about Night Watch
I've discovered that becoming curious about what is hiding in the moving dumpster that is my car is not always a good thing. When I investigated the contents of my car the other day, I discovered Day Watch and I honestly don't remember when I obtained said movie. But I confess that two years ago, after I saw the first film, that I was mildly curious to see the sequel to see where the story would go. I can now tell you, reader, that I have no idea where the story went. Upon reading my review from two years ago I was struck by my own quote that the film could use more action and less exposition.
The fact that Day Watch seems to have done just that hurts my brain. And I now find myself wishing there had been a little bit more exposition just to help explain to my admittedly poor brain what the hell was going on. The film picks up at some time after the last film. Anton is still a member of the day watch and his son is apparently some very important powerful evil. There is some tension brewing between the two sides and something called the chalk of destiny and I confess I hadn't the slightest idea of what was going on.
All this narrative anarchy was intensified by stylistic effects shots such as a car driving along a building or a guy causing cars to explode on the street. Although many of these looked quite good they flew out of left field most of the time and so how they actually related to what was going on and what was being said was completely lost on me. If someone else watches this and can explain it to me I would be very appreciative. As it stands Day Watch is a very pretty, very confusing tale of good and evil. I guess.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
10,000 BC
When watching a Roland Emerich movie, you can pretty much expect massive action sequences mainly constructed of CGI, absurdly reductionist plots focused on a world that has only good and evil and no gray zone and generally a story that is couched in the highly implausible which soon moves into the out right ridiculous. If you don't believe that just think about one of his big hits. Independence Day had a pretty absurd plot, aliens come to Earth seeking to destroy us (update on War of the Worlds, no problem). Plot is entirely geared towards getting all key players to one location for epic cathartic payback (sure fine whatever). Good guys (us) defeat bad guys (aliens) through use of computer virus and Apple computers technology against technologically advanced aliens...wait....what?
Well I assure 10,000 BC is just as absurd. Thousands of years ago among a tribe of hunter/gatherers who rely on the Woolly Mammoth for food, a blue eyed girl comes which forebodes a coming time of crisis for the tribe. Years later a group of marauding raiders come to the tribe and kidnap many of the able bodied men and women (including the blue eyed girl). D'Leh who loves said girl sets out with a handful of warriors to rescue her. Along the way they cross thousands of miles and mountains, jungles and deserts. Along the way an army of wayward warriors join him and see in him a savior who will deliver them from the master of these marauders.
The army eventually arrives at a desert location where massive pyramids are being built for a group who are called gods and are hinted as being either from outer space or Atlantis (or both) (This from the man who gave us Stargate hmmm...). Of course an inevitable confrontation will result in a great final action sequence. So as I said the plot is fairly absurd but whatever that was a given right?
So when does it get down right ridiculous? Well for starters, why given there clearly seems to be an endless supply of available labor near the building of the pyramids, do the marauders go thousands of miles out of their way into the mountains to kidnap the hunter gatherers? And how is it that the bad guys have an astronomical sextant? I guess that is the aliens/Atlantis connection. Throw in the same multi-cultural lets all team up together love fest that was seen in Independence Day and you have the makings of a very boring movie. Independence Day 2 - the Prequel.
Well I assure 10,000 BC is just as absurd. Thousands of years ago among a tribe of hunter/gatherers who rely on the Woolly Mammoth for food, a blue eyed girl comes which forebodes a coming time of crisis for the tribe. Years later a group of marauding raiders come to the tribe and kidnap many of the able bodied men and women (including the blue eyed girl). D'Leh who loves said girl sets out with a handful of warriors to rescue her. Along the way they cross thousands of miles and mountains, jungles and deserts. Along the way an army of wayward warriors join him and see in him a savior who will deliver them from the master of these marauders.
The army eventually arrives at a desert location where massive pyramids are being built for a group who are called gods and are hinted as being either from outer space or Atlantis (or both) (This from the man who gave us Stargate hmmm...). Of course an inevitable confrontation will result in a great final action sequence. So as I said the plot is fairly absurd but whatever that was a given right?
So when does it get down right ridiculous? Well for starters, why given there clearly seems to be an endless supply of available labor near the building of the pyramids, do the marauders go thousands of miles out of their way into the mountains to kidnap the hunter gatherers? And how is it that the bad guys have an astronomical sextant? I guess that is the aliens/Atlantis connection. Throw in the same multi-cultural lets all team up together love fest that was seen in Independence Day and you have the makings of a very boring movie. Independence Day 2 - the Prequel.
Highlander
I can't speak to what Highlander was like to watch when it originally came out in 1986. I can only speak to what it was like watching as a young kid who enjoyed all things sword related. It was awesome. Immortal beings running around having elaborate sword fights. What could be better to a kid raised on fantasy novels and movies? And it is that remembered awesomeness that inspired me to see it on a theater screen at a recent release at my local indie cinema. And so the question would become. Is the movie still awesome? The answer is yes but for different reasons.
Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) is an immortal being, one of many who have lived through time and who participates in a game in which immortals battle each other claiming heads and gaining power. MacLeod has lived for four and a half centuries and now lives in New York. New York has become the location of a final battle between the very last of the immortals. Suspicion arises in the police that MacLeod is a serial killer. MacLeod negotiates dealing with the police, a curious forensics specialist with an expertise in metallurgy and the Kurgan (Clancy Brown) a psychopathic immortal with aims for MacLeod's head.
Sure it sounds a bit odd, perhaps a bit cheesy. And I will not deny that. So what in all the world could make me like this movie? Make me have a desire to sit here and praise it? Sure all the references are dated. The special effects look hokey. Yes the romance is forced and pretty much non existence. There are some questionable motivations for most of the characters and very big plot points seem complete ignored by movie end. Sounds pretty damning, right?
Well let's just see what this movie does have. All Queen Soundtrack. Now that might have some cringing in horror but come on. Once that opening credit sequence starts and Freddie Mercury kicks in with "Princes of the Universe" you pretty much either start nodding your head in approval of the campiness or no there is no or that is all you can do. You just smile and think o man this is going to be fun. Tie that in with the incredibly sappy "Who Wants To Live Forever" (He's immortal! He will live for ever!?) and you really can't go wrong.
What else you ask, unconvinced? Clancy "f*cking" Brown. I added the swear for emphasis because Clancy Brown is bad ass. He was Zim in Starship Troopers and basically played the devil on earth in "Carnivale". And he plays such a crazy over the top villain in this movie that you can't help but smile gleefully when he is on screen. He struts and chews scenery like nobody's business through out the movie. When he plays chicken on the New York streets? priceless. In the church? fantastically absurd.
Sean Connery as an immortal who trains MacLeod. He plays an Egyptian who serves the king of Spain but somehow manages to say everything in a Scottish accent. Go figure. Honestly people what more could you want from a cheesy enjoyable 80s film? It's not Oscar worthy but its definitely worth the viewing.
Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) is an immortal being, one of many who have lived through time and who participates in a game in which immortals battle each other claiming heads and gaining power. MacLeod has lived for four and a half centuries and now lives in New York. New York has become the location of a final battle between the very last of the immortals. Suspicion arises in the police that MacLeod is a serial killer. MacLeod negotiates dealing with the police, a curious forensics specialist with an expertise in metallurgy and the Kurgan (Clancy Brown) a psychopathic immortal with aims for MacLeod's head.
Sure it sounds a bit odd, perhaps a bit cheesy. And I will not deny that. So what in all the world could make me like this movie? Make me have a desire to sit here and praise it? Sure all the references are dated. The special effects look hokey. Yes the romance is forced and pretty much non existence. There are some questionable motivations for most of the characters and very big plot points seem complete ignored by movie end. Sounds pretty damning, right?
Well let's just see what this movie does have. All Queen Soundtrack. Now that might have some cringing in horror but come on. Once that opening credit sequence starts and Freddie Mercury kicks in with "Princes of the Universe" you pretty much either start nodding your head in approval of the campiness or no there is no or that is all you can do. You just smile and think o man this is going to be fun. Tie that in with the incredibly sappy "Who Wants To Live Forever" (He's immortal! He will live for ever!?) and you really can't go wrong.
What else you ask, unconvinced? Clancy "f*cking" Brown. I added the swear for emphasis because Clancy Brown is bad ass. He was Zim in Starship Troopers and basically played the devil on earth in "Carnivale". And he plays such a crazy over the top villain in this movie that you can't help but smile gleefully when he is on screen. He struts and chews scenery like nobody's business through out the movie. When he plays chicken on the New York streets? priceless. In the church? fantastically absurd.
Sean Connery as an immortal who trains MacLeod. He plays an Egyptian who serves the king of Spain but somehow manages to say everything in a Scottish accent. Go figure. Honestly people what more could you want from a cheesy enjoyable 80s film? It's not Oscar worthy but its definitely worth the viewing.
Doomsday
I confess I didn't immediately like Doomsday when I saw it in the theater. But the more I thought about it, the more I discussed it with my friend, the more it grew on me. Perhaps that isn't how one should approach a review of a movie but oh well. Overall with a film like this you expect mindless action fun and sure enough you get mindless action fun. If that is all you need hear then set forth to the theater and gobble up the popcorn like candy. For the sophisticated (read: snob) who can't be satisfied with "its just fun" I'll try to elaborate why it is a worthy ride.
The film has a rousing rave scene in which a group of dystopic attractive juvenile anthropophages roast alive a victim all while listening to the Fine Young Cannibals. Get it? If you don't find that perversely funny then I suppose this movie isn't for you. This film is full of homage and I'm not talking about subtle homage either. There are almost direct intertextuality with Escape From New York (hero Rhona Mitra wears an eyepatch at movie's open), Aliens (as soldiers gear up, a rough and tough commander utters a line with echoes of a line by Apone from Aliens) and Road Warrior (to which the final action sequence owes just about everything).
But the movie actually offers more than these direct parrots. As we see two types of dystopic society. The innevitable and recognizable post-civilization inner city gang which has decked itself out in punk paraphernalia, tatoos and mohawks is of course directly recalling some of the above mentioned films. But we also get a retro Medieval society based in an abandoned castle where the warriors wear suits of armor and make use of maces, spears and swords. And this too has a novelty. A post-apocalyptic society that has not degenerated into Warlord managed anarchy but into primitive old fashioned civilization maintained by noble lies about the outside world.
Tie this in with the malevolent government trying to control the masses and the quickly degenerating notion of keeping things real and one suspects that this is not just an exercise in popcorn fluff but actually a real satire of action films. The fact that it is done with incredible style is all the more to its credit. It plays with the tropes of action movie post-apocalyptic thrillers and never takes itself too seriously. And despite my initial reservations I myself had a certain pleased grin on my face in the final scene of the movie.
The film has a rousing rave scene in which a group of dystopic attractive juvenile anthropophages roast alive a victim all while listening to the Fine Young Cannibals. Get it? If you don't find that perversely funny then I suppose this movie isn't for you. This film is full of homage and I'm not talking about subtle homage either. There are almost direct intertextuality with Escape From New York (hero Rhona Mitra wears an eyepatch at movie's open), Aliens (as soldiers gear up, a rough and tough commander utters a line with echoes of a line by Apone from Aliens) and Road Warrior (to which the final action sequence owes just about everything).
But the movie actually offers more than these direct parrots. As we see two types of dystopic society. The innevitable and recognizable post-civilization inner city gang which has decked itself out in punk paraphernalia, tatoos and mohawks is of course directly recalling some of the above mentioned films. But we also get a retro Medieval society based in an abandoned castle where the warriors wear suits of armor and make use of maces, spears and swords. And this too has a novelty. A post-apocalyptic society that has not degenerated into Warlord managed anarchy but into primitive old fashioned civilization maintained by noble lies about the outside world.
Tie this in with the malevolent government trying to control the masses and the quickly degenerating notion of keeping things real and one suspects that this is not just an exercise in popcorn fluff but actually a real satire of action films. The fact that it is done with incredible style is all the more to its credit. It plays with the tropes of action movie post-apocalyptic thrillers and never takes itself too seriously. And despite my initial reservations I myself had a certain pleased grin on my face in the final scene of the movie.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
The Other Boleyn Girl
I know that when criticizing a movie one is supposed to judge the film on its merits and not complain about what it could of been. But when you make a bad film (and I do believe that most people in Hollywood know when they've made a bad film) you should acknowledge it and do what's right. If its bad, make it over the top bad. That way at least we foolish saps who shell out our $10 will at least have a smile from all the camp we're experiencing. And believe me, I see the potential that The Other Boleyn Girl could have had.
I mean let's pause and just think about the plot for a moment. King Henry (Eric Bana) the 8th's wife has just given birth to a stillborn baby and now Henry is likely to be in the market for a mistress to provide him a male heir. Dastardly wicked uncle to the Boleyn daughters decides that his nieces are prime for such a task. At first offering up single Anne (Natalie Portman) and eventually not so single Mary (Scarlett Johansen). This creates a back and forth and series of seductions other plot twists as the movie plays out. this film failed to deliver.
A movie about a guy prostituting out his own daughters as mistresses to the King of England and all the accompanying melodrama? How could that not be camp brilliance? All they had to do was acknowledge that as their goal and just go big. I mean really big. Have lots of scenes where Bana is just chewing scenery left and right. Have lots of really unambiguous innuendo flying from the seductresses. But do we get any of that? Just the barest of hints of what this film could have been.
Anne at one point utters a line about staying on a horse by using her thighs and other such blatant stuff. Sadly such lines and scenes are few and far between. And the sex (which no offense we should expect in a film about sex) is almost wholly absent save for a few scenes which are ended with the camera rolling up and away like some bad 50s film. This could have been a beautiful unofficial prologue to the Elizabeth movies (especially the most recent one with its over the top messiness).
What could be a better prologue to the story of the "virgin queen" than a campy sexpose on all the shenanigans that produced said queen? Sadly the film is desperately trying to play it safe. And what do we get for our efforts? The beautiful but untalented Johansen; the beautiful and underused Portman and not much else. And the uncle is so unambiguously sinister that I couldn't tell if he was acting that way on purpose or if he too was void of actual talent.
Sometimes campiness is okay, sometimes campiness is necessary. This film failed to deliver.
I mean let's pause and just think about the plot for a moment. King Henry (Eric Bana) the 8th's wife has just given birth to a stillborn baby and now Henry is likely to be in the market for a mistress to provide him a male heir. Dastardly wicked uncle to the Boleyn daughters decides that his nieces are prime for such a task. At first offering up single Anne (Natalie Portman) and eventually not so single Mary (Scarlett Johansen). This creates a back and forth and series of seductions other plot twists as the movie plays out. this film failed to deliver.
A movie about a guy prostituting out his own daughters as mistresses to the King of England and all the accompanying melodrama? How could that not be camp brilliance? All they had to do was acknowledge that as their goal and just go big. I mean really big. Have lots of scenes where Bana is just chewing scenery left and right. Have lots of really unambiguous innuendo flying from the seductresses. But do we get any of that? Just the barest of hints of what this film could have been.
Anne at one point utters a line about staying on a horse by using her thighs and other such blatant stuff. Sadly such lines and scenes are few and far between. And the sex (which no offense we should expect in a film about sex) is almost wholly absent save for a few scenes which are ended with the camera rolling up and away like some bad 50s film. This could have been a beautiful unofficial prologue to the Elizabeth movies (especially the most recent one with its over the top messiness).
What could be a better prologue to the story of the "virgin queen" than a campy sexpose on all the shenanigans that produced said queen? Sadly the film is desperately trying to play it safe. And what do we get for our efforts? The beautiful but untalented Johansen; the beautiful and underused Portman and not much else. And the uncle is so unambiguously sinister that I couldn't tell if he was acting that way on purpose or if he too was void of actual talent.
Sometimes campiness is okay, sometimes campiness is necessary. This film failed to deliver.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Penelope
If I've learned one thing from the new movie Penelope it is that if you have a physical flaw or some other type of flaw do not fret. You see by accepting yourself for who you are, you will magically have that flaw removed and you can then conduct your life as the beautiful person you actually are. If I've learned two things from the new movie, it is that Christina Ricci with a pig nose is still Christina Ricci and therefore still pretty damn cute.
Ricci plays the titular character Penelope. A girl who's family was curse to have a daughter with a pig face. (Why was it only a daughter who was curse?) Penelope is born and her parents decide to fake her death and keep her hidden away from the world. When she is older they concoct a scheme to find a rich blood blood who will marry her and remove the curse. In the course of this she meets Max (James McAvoy) and falls for him but it fails to work out in typical romantic comedy fashion.
At this point the film changes tactics and becomes a story of liberation for Penelope. She runs away from home and experiences the world for herself. she befriends a feisty bike currier (Reese Witherspoon) and reveals her face to the world. The world instead of horrified is infatuated with her. Eventually we will get an acceptance of her self and a magical fairy tale ending. Blah, blah, blah.
This is a fairy tale attempting to stay relevant in the modern world of film. Its been done better (I'll defend Ella Enchanted). Mainly it seems that it doesn't work because what is supposed to be uplifting about the film (personal acceptance) is treated so poorly. Penelope's parents are as bad as the rest of society when it comes to her. And her acceptance of herself is meaningless since it removes the trait she previously found unacceptable.
Plus it isn't entirely clear that there has been any real acceptance in the end. Max isn't asked to do anything really radical now is he? Excuse us, would you be so kind as to fall in love with Christina Ricci sans pig nose? There was some charm between McAvoy and Ricci in some of their early scenes but overall it like the whole movie is disappointing.
Ricci plays the titular character Penelope. A girl who's family was curse to have a daughter with a pig face. (Why was it only a daughter who was curse?) Penelope is born and her parents decide to fake her death and keep her hidden away from the world. When she is older they concoct a scheme to find a rich blood blood who will marry her and remove the curse. In the course of this she meets Max (James McAvoy) and falls for him but it fails to work out in typical romantic comedy fashion.
At this point the film changes tactics and becomes a story of liberation for Penelope. She runs away from home and experiences the world for herself. she befriends a feisty bike currier (Reese Witherspoon) and reveals her face to the world. The world instead of horrified is infatuated with her. Eventually we will get an acceptance of her self and a magical fairy tale ending. Blah, blah, blah.
This is a fairy tale attempting to stay relevant in the modern world of film. Its been done better (I'll defend Ella Enchanted). Mainly it seems that it doesn't work because what is supposed to be uplifting about the film (personal acceptance) is treated so poorly. Penelope's parents are as bad as the rest of society when it comes to her. And her acceptance of herself is meaningless since it removes the trait she previously found unacceptable.
Plus it isn't entirely clear that there has been any real acceptance in the end. Max isn't asked to do anything really radical now is he? Excuse us, would you be so kind as to fall in love with Christina Ricci sans pig nose? There was some charm between McAvoy and Ricci in some of their early scenes but overall it like the whole movie is disappointing.
Be Kind Rewind
The latest film from Michael Gondry Be Kind Rewind is in every way a fantasy film. Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover) owns an old video rental store in a rundown neighborhood in Passaic, New Jersey. Here he and his adopted(?) son Mike (Mos Def) rent VHS video tapes to a group of local peoples. The city wants to move Fletcher out and build a new development that will help revitalize the town. Adding his own brand to constant irritation is Jerry (Jack Black).
Fletcher goes on a spy mission to find out why his competitors are much better at running their stores than he is and leaves Mike in charge. A attempted sabotage mission leaves Jerry magnetized and he erases all the information on the video tapes. In order to appease regular customer and friend to Mr. Fletcher, Miss Falewicz (Mia Farrow), Jerry and Mike use an old video camera to film a 20 minute version of the original movie in hopes of fooling her.
The comic mismatch of do it yourself film-making makes an impression on a number of the local residents who begin requesting short remakes of classic films. Soon the store starts making a decent amount of money by filming short "sweded" films and renting them to the customers. All this is a hair brained scheme to save the store and building. Of course the remakes bring in a nasty lawyer who raises hell about copyright violation.
I say it is a fantasy because of course it exists in a quasi reality in which we could not only find a store that still rents video tapes but also that it would actually take a spy mission to figure out that other stores are more successful because they moved to DVDs. The film seems to want to appeal to those of the world who are genuine fans of movies and who as kids or adults at times have picked up a camera and "remade" their favorite scenes and movies.
In that regard some of the movie works. Especially when they are showing bits of the recast movies. Their low rent quality and limited use of actors and their recreation of the most memorable scenes of many classic movies creates a decent amount of humorous charm. But ultimately when not focusing on the actual film-making the story is weak and reliant mostly on the wacky antics of Jack Black (who annoys me more than he makes me laugh).
It feels a bit like a better movie about obsession with film is possible and so its attempts at trying are certainly acknowledged. Mos Def is passable as the likable Mike and is actually a decent actor (I remember him fondly from the little scene or appreciated 16 Blocks). Jack Black is as always Jack Black (that is to say a slightly less annoying Robin Williams, but only slightly). In the end the remakes are the real stars and apparently you can see them online without the movie which is probably the better way to go.
Fletcher goes on a spy mission to find out why his competitors are much better at running their stores than he is and leaves Mike in charge. A attempted sabotage mission leaves Jerry magnetized and he erases all the information on the video tapes. In order to appease regular customer and friend to Mr. Fletcher, Miss Falewicz (Mia Farrow), Jerry and Mike use an old video camera to film a 20 minute version of the original movie in hopes of fooling her.
The comic mismatch of do it yourself film-making makes an impression on a number of the local residents who begin requesting short remakes of classic films. Soon the store starts making a decent amount of money by filming short "sweded" films and renting them to the customers. All this is a hair brained scheme to save the store and building. Of course the remakes bring in a nasty lawyer who raises hell about copyright violation.
I say it is a fantasy because of course it exists in a quasi reality in which we could not only find a store that still rents video tapes but also that it would actually take a spy mission to figure out that other stores are more successful because they moved to DVDs. The film seems to want to appeal to those of the world who are genuine fans of movies and who as kids or adults at times have picked up a camera and "remade" their favorite scenes and movies.
In that regard some of the movie works. Especially when they are showing bits of the recast movies. Their low rent quality and limited use of actors and their recreation of the most memorable scenes of many classic movies creates a decent amount of humorous charm. But ultimately when not focusing on the actual film-making the story is weak and reliant mostly on the wacky antics of Jack Black (who annoys me more than he makes me laugh).
It feels a bit like a better movie about obsession with film is possible and so its attempts at trying are certainly acknowledged. Mos Def is passable as the likable Mike and is actually a decent actor (I remember him fondly from the little scene or appreciated 16 Blocks). Jack Black is as always Jack Black (that is to say a slightly less annoying Robin Williams, but only slightly). In the end the remakes are the real stars and apparently you can see them online without the movie which is probably the better way to go.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Definitely, Maybe
The latest from Cinematic Arena is up for your reading leisure. (Definitely, Maybe)
Saturday, March 01, 2008
RunningTally - Part 2
February was not a very good month for movie watching. The quality films I was picking up from last year were dried up and I was mainly left with the dumping ground films of the January and February release season. I did manage to re-watch a couple of gems "Diving Bell" "Control" and "Into the Wild" but overall it was a bit of a let down with an aggregate gain of seven. This was helped by my 6 day end run in which I watched one new movie each night in the last week.
February 16 - Diary of the Dead: Wow Mr. Romero, please just stop.
February 16 - Persepolis: Another quality film from last year and this animated no less. Definitely worth seeing.
February 24 - In Bruges: On Oscar day I saw the interesting but messy film from a new filmmaker that shows some potential but gets bogged down in all the genre shifts.
February 25 - Definitely, Maybe: A fairly nuanced take on the classic Rom Com set up but the little girl and some of the plot still irritated me a bit too much.
February 26 - Vantage Point:This film couldn't even live up to its own gimmick which was the only thing it had going for it.
February 27 - Charlie Bartlett: pretty much dead on arrival teen comedy ala Ferris Bueller.
February 28 - Be Kind Rewind: Not great but it had some charm, not sure how I ultimately feel about it, review forthcoming.
And once again the meaningless statistics!
Films remaining: 81
Days Remaining: 305
Average Number of Films to see per day to achieve goal: 0.27
Average Number of films to see per week to achieve goal: 1.8
February 16 - Diary of the Dead: Wow Mr. Romero, please just stop.
February 16 - Persepolis: Another quality film from last year and this animated no less. Definitely worth seeing.
February 24 - In Bruges: On Oscar day I saw the interesting but messy film from a new filmmaker that shows some potential but gets bogged down in all the genre shifts.
February 25 - Definitely, Maybe: A fairly nuanced take on the classic Rom Com set up but the little girl and some of the plot still irritated me a bit too much.
February 26 - Vantage Point:This film couldn't even live up to its own gimmick which was the only thing it had going for it.
February 27 - Charlie Bartlett: pretty much dead on arrival teen comedy ala Ferris Bueller.
February 28 - Be Kind Rewind: Not great but it had some charm, not sure how I ultimately feel about it, review forthcoming.
And once again the meaningless statistics!
Films remaining: 81
Days Remaining: 305
Average Number of Films to see per day to achieve goal: 0.27
Average Number of films to see per week to achieve goal: 1.8
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Charlie Bartlett
If one might criticize Juno for having dialog that is not reflective of the way teenagers speak, then Charlie Bartlett can be criticized for not having dialog that reflects how teenagers speak and in addition the people involved don't seem to know anything about how teenagers act, socialize or do anything else. The film doesn't seem to reflect any reality of high school at all. Now granted I haven't been in high school for a while but it has been less than a decade and I find it hard to believe that things have changed so much that I couldn't even recognize the general thematic elements.
Charlie (Anton Yelchin) has just been kicked out of private school and his mother (Hope Davis) has decided to send him to public school. There Charlie faces the problems of popularity, being beaten up by the school bully and his attraction to a girl in the school. And it doesn't treat one of these situations with anything resembling a reality. The school bully apparently just wants to be liked and pines after the popular cheerleader. The object of affection girl is edgy and goes her own way. Basically any high school movie cliche you can think of you get represented here.
And if all the movie wanted to be was an imaginary take on high schools along the lines of Ferris Bueller's Day Off or something I guess I could have respected it a little. Even Yelchin's deliver seems entirely beholden to Matthew Broderick. But this movie wants to tackle bigger issue such as teenage medication like Ritalin, suicide, alcoholism and right to privacy. And in the end it just feels like a slightly better budgeted after school special.
Beyond the smattering of boring teenage talent that inhabits this movie, there are two decent actors who have been caught up in the train wreck. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the father of one of the students and is the principal of the school who is an alcoholic (but never at school (apparently making it okay)) and who has apparently at one time or another brandished a gun with his young daughter in the room. Not only is the character uninteresting and played fairly blandly by Downey,Jr. the way it treats his problems so weakly and without conviction is really unsettling.
Hope Davis as Charlie's mom is slightly better off. She clearly seems to have some self medicating issues of her own (there were very few scenes she didn't have a glass of wine in hand). Still her laissez faire attitude to raising Charlie has left him confused but she delivers some spot on funny lines in the early scenes. So in general she is about the only bright spot in the entire film. And yet even she can't save the final act which is generally insulting and poorly plotted. In the end I can't even be sure what the message of this film was supposed to be (but I suspect there was supposed to be one).
Charlie (Anton Yelchin) has just been kicked out of private school and his mother (Hope Davis) has decided to send him to public school. There Charlie faces the problems of popularity, being beaten up by the school bully and his attraction to a girl in the school. And it doesn't treat one of these situations with anything resembling a reality. The school bully apparently just wants to be liked and pines after the popular cheerleader. The object of affection girl is edgy and goes her own way. Basically any high school movie cliche you can think of you get represented here.
And if all the movie wanted to be was an imaginary take on high schools along the lines of Ferris Bueller's Day Off or something I guess I could have respected it a little. Even Yelchin's deliver seems entirely beholden to Matthew Broderick. But this movie wants to tackle bigger issue such as teenage medication like Ritalin, suicide, alcoholism and right to privacy. And in the end it just feels like a slightly better budgeted after school special.
Beyond the smattering of boring teenage talent that inhabits this movie, there are two decent actors who have been caught up in the train wreck. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the father of one of the students and is the principal of the school who is an alcoholic (but never at school (apparently making it okay)) and who has apparently at one time or another brandished a gun with his young daughter in the room. Not only is the character uninteresting and played fairly blandly by Downey,Jr. the way it treats his problems so weakly and without conviction is really unsettling.
Hope Davis as Charlie's mom is slightly better off. She clearly seems to have some self medicating issues of her own (there were very few scenes she didn't have a glass of wine in hand). Still her laissez faire attitude to raising Charlie has left him confused but she delivers some spot on funny lines in the early scenes. So in general she is about the only bright spot in the entire film. And yet even she can't save the final act which is generally insulting and poorly plotted. In the end I can't even be sure what the message of this film was supposed to be (but I suspect there was supposed to be one).
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Vantage Point
In a plaza in Spain, the President (William Hurt) is about to give a speech to kick off a conference on anti-terrorism. Suddenly he is shot and a series of explosions rock the plaza. Witness to this event are several secret service men, a local Spanish police officer, an American tourist, an American news service and several of the terrorists involved. Thus the conceit and gimmick of the film is to repeatedly see the events each from their own unique "vantage point". Get it?
As a feat of production magic I'll give some credit to the person who coordinated the various intricacies of the story to tie each storyline together. But that's it, that's all I'm giving this horrible mess of boring. Pretty much from the first jump back to another point of view, I was annoyed. From the way they start every pov with a clock ticking away like the show "24", to the way each pov is ended by a rewind back to the arbitrary moment of 12:00, I was irritated and bored.
And don't think for a minute that there is anything beyond the gimmick. Because there really isn't. Just about every plot development you could imagine is telegraphed so blatantly that not one reveal in the entire movie is actually a surprise. Was this really the best they could do? What did the creators think lack of good story telling could be obscured by a cheap trick? Well actually that is probably exactly what they thought.
Apparently a handful of good actors had a desire to get a new car or build a new addition on the house. This is the usual reason as I understand it that actors of quality star in films that aren't fit to be used as bathroom tissue. And this film boasts not one but two! Academy award winning actors. For crying out loud, Mr. Hurt, you have four Academy Award nominations! And Mr. Whittaker, you were sherely brilliant as Idi Amin. Nothing of their talent shows up here.
And on the bad acting bandwagon, we've got Dennis Quaid and Jack Shepard...er Matthew Fox. Both are so wooden that its just embarrassing to watch. I don't even know what else to say. I was as tempted as I've ever been to walk out out of complete boredom but I was curious to see where this train wreck ended up? Remember how I said all it had was its gimmick? Well it doesn't even have that. A little over half way through the film, the gimmick collapses into a more traditional narrative.
How bad of an idea do you have when you can't even maintain the one thing that makes it novel? Not to mention that the finale requires such a intersection of coincidences and machinations of fate that it seems clear the writer just stopped caring. I shouldn't be so cavalier with these ad hominem attacks but I've seen bad movies and I've seen bad movies that aren't trying and this is clearly in the latter category.
As a feat of production magic I'll give some credit to the person who coordinated the various intricacies of the story to tie each storyline together. But that's it, that's all I'm giving this horrible mess of boring. Pretty much from the first jump back to another point of view, I was annoyed. From the way they start every pov with a clock ticking away like the show "24", to the way each pov is ended by a rewind back to the arbitrary moment of 12:00, I was irritated and bored.
And don't think for a minute that there is anything beyond the gimmick. Because there really isn't. Just about every plot development you could imagine is telegraphed so blatantly that not one reveal in the entire movie is actually a surprise. Was this really the best they could do? What did the creators think lack of good story telling could be obscured by a cheap trick? Well actually that is probably exactly what they thought.
Apparently a handful of good actors had a desire to get a new car or build a new addition on the house. This is the usual reason as I understand it that actors of quality star in films that aren't fit to be used as bathroom tissue. And this film boasts not one but two! Academy award winning actors. For crying out loud, Mr. Hurt, you have four Academy Award nominations! And Mr. Whittaker, you were sherely brilliant as Idi Amin. Nothing of their talent shows up here.
And on the bad acting bandwagon, we've got Dennis Quaid and Jack Shepard...er Matthew Fox. Both are so wooden that its just embarrassing to watch. I don't even know what else to say. I was as tempted as I've ever been to walk out out of complete boredom but I was curious to see where this train wreck ended up? Remember how I said all it had was its gimmick? Well it doesn't even have that. A little over half way through the film, the gimmick collapses into a more traditional narrative.
How bad of an idea do you have when you can't even maintain the one thing that makes it novel? Not to mention that the finale requires such a intersection of coincidences and machinations of fate that it seems clear the writer just stopped caring. I shouldn't be so cavalier with these ad hominem attacks but I've seen bad movies and I've seen bad movies that aren't trying and this is clearly in the latter category.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
In Bruges
After a botched hit, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) are ordered by their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes) to get out of London and go to the Belgian city of Bruges. Bruges is a idyllic town with much of its old medieval architecture still around. The duo are instructed to stay for two weeks and to act like tourists. Ray a Dublin born eternal urbanite takes this news bitterly. He complains and acts petulantly and is only interested when he sees that someone is filming a movie that stars in his words "a midget". Ken older and more wizened to the world finds a glorious tranquility in Bruges and its beauty while dealing like a disapproving father to Ray's behavior.
In Bruges is Martin McDonagh's feature debut. He is a celebrated Irish playwright who seems to have a way with dialog. The core of the film and its best scenes are those that occur between unhappy Ray and patient Ken. There banter is at times playful and humorous at others more harmful. Farrell and Gleeson have a generally good chemistry. Oddly enough or perhaps not the actually casting here adds another element. Farrell's face framed by his bushy eyebrows adds a strong level of believability to his poutiness. Gleeson's older grim features are perfect for his constant displays of delight.
Farrell's portrayal is quite striking. Its subdued and walks a delicate balance between his disdain for the city of Bruges and his own inner demons. He has a charming crassness as he attempts to woo a local woman by telling her he hates her city or when he can't control his thuggish behavior. Gleeson has a sort of gentleness to him that belies a ever present dangerousness. Even Ralph Fiennes is enjoyable with the exception of his horrendous accent which seems to be Fiennes best attempt at imitating Bob Hoskins as a gangster (from Long Good Friday perhaps).
But despite some fine dialog and some well acted scenes, the film isn't without serious problems. Tone for one. It jumps back and forth between a more traditional style fish out of water comedy and more serious discursives on the nature of sin and life. There's the gangster feel and the romance and all this degenerates into a action thriller chase by movie's end. The violence is harsh and bloody with lots of graphic bullet hole head wounds and the like. Most of these elements work in theory or even in the individual scenes but when thread together with other scenes it all gets to be a bit too much. Like its unsure what kind of movie it wants to be.
Pacing is a bit awkward as well and some of the plot elements are so obviously inserted that you know they will have bearing on the finale. All this adds up and overpowers the enjoyment one is getting out of the film. Its as if someone just needs to go to Martin and say calm down, its good but a bit much. Tone it down a little. Still as a first feature length film it has a lot to be admired and presuming he learns from some of his mistakes a future film will be much better. And as I said for me the relationship between Ray and Ken was worth the price of admission.
In Bruges is Martin McDonagh's feature debut. He is a celebrated Irish playwright who seems to have a way with dialog. The core of the film and its best scenes are those that occur between unhappy Ray and patient Ken. There banter is at times playful and humorous at others more harmful. Farrell and Gleeson have a generally good chemistry. Oddly enough or perhaps not the actually casting here adds another element. Farrell's face framed by his bushy eyebrows adds a strong level of believability to his poutiness. Gleeson's older grim features are perfect for his constant displays of delight.
Farrell's portrayal is quite striking. Its subdued and walks a delicate balance between his disdain for the city of Bruges and his own inner demons. He has a charming crassness as he attempts to woo a local woman by telling her he hates her city or when he can't control his thuggish behavior. Gleeson has a sort of gentleness to him that belies a ever present dangerousness. Even Ralph Fiennes is enjoyable with the exception of his horrendous accent which seems to be Fiennes best attempt at imitating Bob Hoskins as a gangster (from Long Good Friday perhaps).
But despite some fine dialog and some well acted scenes, the film isn't without serious problems. Tone for one. It jumps back and forth between a more traditional style fish out of water comedy and more serious discursives on the nature of sin and life. There's the gangster feel and the romance and all this degenerates into a action thriller chase by movie's end. The violence is harsh and bloody with lots of graphic bullet hole head wounds and the like. Most of these elements work in theory or even in the individual scenes but when thread together with other scenes it all gets to be a bit too much. Like its unsure what kind of movie it wants to be.
Pacing is a bit awkward as well and some of the plot elements are so obviously inserted that you know they will have bearing on the finale. All this adds up and overpowers the enjoyment one is getting out of the film. Its as if someone just needs to go to Martin and say calm down, its good but a bit much. Tone it down a little. Still as a first feature length film it has a lot to be admired and presuming he learns from some of his mistakes a future film will be much better. And as I said for me the relationship between Ray and Ken was worth the price of admission.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
It's a bit on the strange side that I managed to fit in one final film before the Oscar show last night, thus permitting me to say that I had seen all the best supporting actor nominations. It also allowed me to say I had seen all the cinematography nominees as well. I guess what is odd is not that I saw it but that it was so fresh in my mind that it seemed like a travesty of justice that "Assassination" didn't win the award for best cinematography. And I know I'm open to criticism because I saw this film literally right before the show but let me give you some more data. I saw "No Country For Old Men" four times in the theater. I saw "There Will Be Blood" and "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" each twice. I saw "Atonement" only once I admit. Not a one of these films wasn't visually beautiful.
But "Assassination" was the most consistently beautiful and perhaps the most beautifully shot film of anything I saw released in 2007. Hell of the films I saw last year the only one that might actually be more beautiful was Andrei Tarkovsky's "Ivan's Childhood". And I think testament to how well it was filmed is that I could gauge this not on the big screen or after multiple viewings (I tend to be a story/character detailed viewer) but on my television after just one viewing. Who would have thought, this shot needs a fish eye lens? I would submit to you the only exhibit you will need to judge this film is visually off the charts.
Jesse James (Brad Pitt) and his gang are fixing to rob the Blue Cut Train line. They've piled a barricade on the tracks and along comes the train. As it turns the bend in the dark night, its headlamp leaves merely a shadow of Jesse as he walks ahead of the train onto the barricade. The train brakes and we see a close up of the engine and then back to Jesse standing atop the barricade. The train stops on the spot billowing steam which rushes forth concealing Jesse and the whole screen. My words can do it no justice but I re-watched it two or three times just to marvel in how well it was done.
"Assassination" picks up in Jesse's life not in his heyday but rather near the end. We are introduced to the film with a gentle voiced narrator who utters factoids in an almost awestruck way. For in part this film is dealing with the establishment of mythos and cult of personality that surrounds Jesse James. I'm typically not one for voice over but this time it so contrasts with what we see that its hard to grip with at first. Is this about heroization? Or deheroization? Does our insight into Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) tell us anything interesting?
The story follows mainly Ford and his interaction with James in the final year of his life. Despite reservation by Jesse's brother Frank (Sam Shepard), Jesse takes Ford into his company. Ford is a bit on the obsessive side when it comes to what he knows and thinks he knows about Jesse. That this obsession will eventually lead to murder is not that big of a leap. Bob is frequently teased and mocked for his obsession by his brother, his friends and even by Jesse himself. The film itself falls into three parts of varying length. The opening establishes our characters and our story. The end is coda to Jesse as it follows Ford from his (in)famous job to the end of his life. The middle is a long discursive that I suspect tries the patience of many viewers.
But I would argue it is this middle that holds together what would otherwise be just a series of pretty shots and a fairly interesting narrative. It is Bob Ford's obsessive nature and his family life and everything else that is developed here. His understandable paranoia complicated by the already mythic level of the Jesse James Persona. At the same time we seem to see an increasing paranoia in Jesse either. One not so clearly understood. His behavior is erratic at times destructive. There are certainly some times when the myth seems to be reinforced by preternatural sense of wrong but this doesn't stop him from keeping association with the Ford brothers.
The coda which occurs after the titular act of the title deals with the public response to Ford's action. The notion of infamy arising instead of fame and the remorse of betrayal are laid out in a neat patter while our mythic narrator remains and comments on Ford's life. It de-constructs or perhaps constructs its own mythos about Ford. Not a coward but rather a bullied weak willed boy who found solace in the myth of Jesse which couldn't live up to the reality. Perhaps a traitor but the implication that he himself would be killed by Jesse was never absent.
Affleck's Ford is equal parts vulnerable and creepy. His eager introduction followed by almost unnoticed rejection is brilliant. Equally brilliant is his introduction to Frank James. Shepard's Frank plays off him brilliantly picking up on the unease and taking dislike to him right off. Pitt's more taciturn Pitt is quite aware of his mythos and seems party intrigued by Ford. A handful of recognizable faces round out a very well constructed cast including Sam Rockwell and Garret Dillahunt. But Affleck really shines here more so than his fine performance in "Gone Baby Gone".
Well acted and exceptionally well shot are pretty good as recommendations but what I found fascinating obviously was an incredibly intricate notion of legend and its pitfalls that I guess had the academic in my fascinated. Add in the way it riffs on the traditional Western plot lines in a fairly creative way (and westerns were staples of my cinematic adolescence) and this one quickly earns a spot in my top favorite films of last year.
But "Assassination" was the most consistently beautiful and perhaps the most beautifully shot film of anything I saw released in 2007. Hell of the films I saw last year the only one that might actually be more beautiful was Andrei Tarkovsky's "Ivan's Childhood". And I think testament to how well it was filmed is that I could gauge this not on the big screen or after multiple viewings (I tend to be a story/character detailed viewer) but on my television after just one viewing. Who would have thought, this shot needs a fish eye lens? I would submit to you the only exhibit you will need to judge this film is visually off the charts.
Jesse James (Brad Pitt) and his gang are fixing to rob the Blue Cut Train line. They've piled a barricade on the tracks and along comes the train. As it turns the bend in the dark night, its headlamp leaves merely a shadow of Jesse as he walks ahead of the train onto the barricade. The train brakes and we see a close up of the engine and then back to Jesse standing atop the barricade. The train stops on the spot billowing steam which rushes forth concealing Jesse and the whole screen. My words can do it no justice but I re-watched it two or three times just to marvel in how well it was done.
"Assassination" picks up in Jesse's life not in his heyday but rather near the end. We are introduced to the film with a gentle voiced narrator who utters factoids in an almost awestruck way. For in part this film is dealing with the establishment of mythos and cult of personality that surrounds Jesse James. I'm typically not one for voice over but this time it so contrasts with what we see that its hard to grip with at first. Is this about heroization? Or deheroization? Does our insight into Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) tell us anything interesting?
The story follows mainly Ford and his interaction with James in the final year of his life. Despite reservation by Jesse's brother Frank (Sam Shepard), Jesse takes Ford into his company. Ford is a bit on the obsessive side when it comes to what he knows and thinks he knows about Jesse. That this obsession will eventually lead to murder is not that big of a leap. Bob is frequently teased and mocked for his obsession by his brother, his friends and even by Jesse himself. The film itself falls into three parts of varying length. The opening establishes our characters and our story. The end is coda to Jesse as it follows Ford from his (in)famous job to the end of his life. The middle is a long discursive that I suspect tries the patience of many viewers.
But I would argue it is this middle that holds together what would otherwise be just a series of pretty shots and a fairly interesting narrative. It is Bob Ford's obsessive nature and his family life and everything else that is developed here. His understandable paranoia complicated by the already mythic level of the Jesse James Persona. At the same time we seem to see an increasing paranoia in Jesse either. One not so clearly understood. His behavior is erratic at times destructive. There are certainly some times when the myth seems to be reinforced by preternatural sense of wrong but this doesn't stop him from keeping association with the Ford brothers.
The coda which occurs after the titular act of the title deals with the public response to Ford's action. The notion of infamy arising instead of fame and the remorse of betrayal are laid out in a neat patter while our mythic narrator remains and comments on Ford's life. It de-constructs or perhaps constructs its own mythos about Ford. Not a coward but rather a bullied weak willed boy who found solace in the myth of Jesse which couldn't live up to the reality. Perhaps a traitor but the implication that he himself would be killed by Jesse was never absent.
Affleck's Ford is equal parts vulnerable and creepy. His eager introduction followed by almost unnoticed rejection is brilliant. Equally brilliant is his introduction to Frank James. Shepard's Frank plays off him brilliantly picking up on the unease and taking dislike to him right off. Pitt's more taciturn Pitt is quite aware of his mythos and seems party intrigued by Ford. A handful of recognizable faces round out a very well constructed cast including Sam Rockwell and Garret Dillahunt. But Affleck really shines here more so than his fine performance in "Gone Baby Gone".
Well acted and exceptionally well shot are pretty good as recommendations but what I found fascinating obviously was an incredibly intricate notion of legend and its pitfalls that I guess had the academic in my fascinated. Add in the way it riffs on the traditional Western plot lines in a fairly creative way (and westerns were staples of my cinematic adolescence) and this one quickly earns a spot in my top favorite films of last year.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Marty - Winner 1955
Marty is the story of a Marty (Ernest Borgnine) a butcher in New York City who lives with his mother and seems to be a perpetual bachelor. He's from a particularly recognizable Italian family cliche with multiple brothers and sisters. He gets hassled by the women who come for their cuts of meat about when he will get married. Marty is close to fed up with the idea of constantly seeking a wife. He's a husky guy without a glamorous job, who spends his Saturday nights hanging with his best friend doing little more than drinking beer and watching tv.
Convinced by his insistent mother and his friend, Marty goes to a dance hall to meet women. While there a particularly disgusting guy who happens to have been set up on a blind date with Clara (Betsy Blair) tries to ditch her. Marty observes all this and ends up approaching Clara. The two dance and hit it off and end up spending a long walk talking to each other. The film follows one night with them and shows how his friend and mother act negatively towards her and pressure Marty to not see her again.
This is an amazingly charming romance. The leads while not ugly (this is Hollywood after all) aren't the most dazzling beautiful stars of the era. Borgnine excels as the down on his luck loser who recognizes his lot in life and just wants some one to share it with. Blair is equally compelling as a teacher who has been unable to shake a constant labeling as a "dog". The two falling for each other and watching their awkward interactions is deeply satisfying. (Mayhaps I'm projecting, which is entirely possible but then that just means the film speaks to me more).
Actually I couldn't help but think through most of the film, in what world is Betsy Blair a dog? But whatever, narrative leap of faith I guess. Still I couldn't help but grin like a fool as Marty walked with Clara and kept talking, never letting up. When he realizes this he attempts to engage her and ends up once again talking without end. His nervousness was charming and his good naturedness was charming. And you can't help but cheer at his last minute realization of what an idiot he's being.
Convinced by his insistent mother and his friend, Marty goes to a dance hall to meet women. While there a particularly disgusting guy who happens to have been set up on a blind date with Clara (Betsy Blair) tries to ditch her. Marty observes all this and ends up approaching Clara. The two dance and hit it off and end up spending a long walk talking to each other. The film follows one night with them and shows how his friend and mother act negatively towards her and pressure Marty to not see her again.
This is an amazingly charming romance. The leads while not ugly (this is Hollywood after all) aren't the most dazzling beautiful stars of the era. Borgnine excels as the down on his luck loser who recognizes his lot in life and just wants some one to share it with. Blair is equally compelling as a teacher who has been unable to shake a constant labeling as a "dog". The two falling for each other and watching their awkward interactions is deeply satisfying. (Mayhaps I'm projecting, which is entirely possible but then that just means the film speaks to me more).
Actually I couldn't help but think through most of the film, in what world is Betsy Blair a dog? But whatever, narrative leap of faith I guess. Still I couldn't help but grin like a fool as Marty walked with Clara and kept talking, never letting up. When he realizes this he attempts to engage her and ends up once again talking without end. His nervousness was charming and his good naturedness was charming. And you can't help but cheer at his last minute realization of what an idiot he's being.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Persepolis
I've never been much for animated features. This may be because even when touting that they are for mass audiences ultimately the are still for kids. No amount of self aware pop culture referencing is enough to balance a mediocre narrative which is designed to get kids to laugh. Mainly I suspect this is the old curmudgeon in me who just refuses to accept animation as real movie making. The other extreme is the anime trend of hyper stylized adult stories which have also tended to inspire a yawn from me more than anything else. Perhaps I should have been looking for years at Europe where there seems to be genuine interest in telling both compelling narratives and doing interesting things with visual representation.
Persepolis an autobiographical account of the life of Marjane Satrapi based on her graphic novels, follows Marjane and her life from the Iranian revolution, through the Iran-Iraq war and her time spent in Europe as well as her return. Marjane grew up in a family of educated modern idealist thinkers who opposed the Shah and saw great potential in the revolution. Only to see that potential replaced by an even more dangerous regime of Islamic fundamentalism. We see Marjane caught up in the fervor of the revolution especially thanks to her uncle and her disillusionment when he is put to death. We see the danger of the constant bombings during the Iran-Iraq war and the increasingly oppressive government.
Eventually Marjane's parents send her to Europe to study in Austria to keep her safe. There she falls into a state of uncertainty about who she is and has a series of life defining events such as heartbreak and cultural uneasiness with nihilistic viewpoints. Unable to put up with this continued life, she returns to Iran and attempts to resume her life there. The story is an interesting one following a young idealistic girl through a difficult time in her country's history. It is well told and well acted. It is sincerely funny at times but also sad to the point of heartbreaking at others.
But beyond its narrative force, its also a highly visual film. Foregoing the trend of cgi rendered 3d modeling, the animation is more traditional. This works amazingly especially when showing scenes of stark contrast with silhouetted men and women. The black and white lends itself both to the idea of flashback reflection. In the end I found it to be quite a compelling story with quite a bit of interesting visuals. And the first animated film I've seen in some time that I truly enjoyed and didn't even really think of as being animated.
Persepolis an autobiographical account of the life of Marjane Satrapi based on her graphic novels, follows Marjane and her life from the Iranian revolution, through the Iran-Iraq war and her time spent in Europe as well as her return. Marjane grew up in a family of educated modern idealist thinkers who opposed the Shah and saw great potential in the revolution. Only to see that potential replaced by an even more dangerous regime of Islamic fundamentalism. We see Marjane caught up in the fervor of the revolution especially thanks to her uncle and her disillusionment when he is put to death. We see the danger of the constant bombings during the Iran-Iraq war and the increasingly oppressive government.
Eventually Marjane's parents send her to Europe to study in Austria to keep her safe. There she falls into a state of uncertainty about who she is and has a series of life defining events such as heartbreak and cultural uneasiness with nihilistic viewpoints. Unable to put up with this continued life, she returns to Iran and attempts to resume her life there. The story is an interesting one following a young idealistic girl through a difficult time in her country's history. It is well told and well acted. It is sincerely funny at times but also sad to the point of heartbreaking at others.
But beyond its narrative force, its also a highly visual film. Foregoing the trend of cgi rendered 3d modeling, the animation is more traditional. This works amazingly especially when showing scenes of stark contrast with silhouetted men and women. The black and white lends itself both to the idea of flashback reflection. In the end I found it to be quite a compelling story with quite a bit of interesting visuals. And the first animated film I've seen in some time that I truly enjoyed and didn't even really think of as being animated.
Diary of the Dead
George Romero has returned again with the fifth film in a franchise he pioneered starting with Night of the Living Dead. Romero has also returned to his indie roots. He moved away from the large scale budgets and Hollywood machine that helped him produce Land of the Dead and has instead financed it independently and cast unknowns in the leads. In addition the film becomes the second in less than a month to use the "document it as it happens" conception. Cloverfield had such a jerky camera that even I had a headache by the time the auditorium lights were raised and luckily Diary of the Dead is not nearly that erratic.
A group of student film makers is out in the woods filming a low budget horror film with their professor when they hear news that the dead have returned to life and are attacking the living. The group immediately leaves the woods and after a short detour to pick up one of the group's girlfriend, they are off in a Winnebago heading to said girlfriend's home to check on her parents. One of the group decides that this all needs to be documented and studiously takes on the task. They have run ins with zombies and various elements of decaying society as the zombie apocalypse runs rampant.
Much like the camera man in Cloverfield, the cameraman in this film feels the need to be totally objective something close to 99% of the time and refuses to help his friends even when his actions could have saved them. This like all Romero's zombie films of course has a message. Of course in his more successful attempts the message is more subtle (never completely subtle but definitely more subtle). Here the message about the advent of viral video, what isn't recorded never happened and online social phenomena is overbearing. Not just because its quite clear from the actions and the footage but also because the characters can't shut the hell up about it. They constantly have to discuss it.
The film acts as little more than a gimmick which is made the dumber by adding a second found camera and occasionally edited in security footage. The film gets quite boring quite fast. The story telling is lazy and the dialog is generally atrocious. There is nothing that saves this movie from terrible but there were two things a generally enjoyed. The first is a mute Amish man the group encounters who aids them which had me in fits of laughter (perhaps not Romero's intent). The second involves a zombie and a jar of sulfuric acid in what I now consider the coolest zombie death that I have ever seen (granted no one in the theater shared my opinion as I was cackling with glee and the rest were stoically watching the film).
So as much as I enjoyed Romero's early zombie films, I think he needs to retire gracefully and let the fan boys do the work. I think they will end up doing a better job.
A group of student film makers is out in the woods filming a low budget horror film with their professor when they hear news that the dead have returned to life and are attacking the living. The group immediately leaves the woods and after a short detour to pick up one of the group's girlfriend, they are off in a Winnebago heading to said girlfriend's home to check on her parents. One of the group decides that this all needs to be documented and studiously takes on the task. They have run ins with zombies and various elements of decaying society as the zombie apocalypse runs rampant.
Much like the camera man in Cloverfield, the cameraman in this film feels the need to be totally objective something close to 99% of the time and refuses to help his friends even when his actions could have saved them. This like all Romero's zombie films of course has a message. Of course in his more successful attempts the message is more subtle (never completely subtle but definitely more subtle). Here the message about the advent of viral video, what isn't recorded never happened and online social phenomena is overbearing. Not just because its quite clear from the actions and the footage but also because the characters can't shut the hell up about it. They constantly have to discuss it.
The film acts as little more than a gimmick which is made the dumber by adding a second found camera and occasionally edited in security footage. The film gets quite boring quite fast. The story telling is lazy and the dialog is generally atrocious. There is nothing that saves this movie from terrible but there were two things a generally enjoyed. The first is a mute Amish man the group encounters who aids them which had me in fits of laughter (perhaps not Romero's intent). The second involves a zombie and a jar of sulfuric acid in what I now consider the coolest zombie death that I have ever seen (granted no one in the theater shared my opinion as I was cackling with glee and the rest were stoically watching the film).
So as much as I enjoyed Romero's early zombie films, I think he needs to retire gracefully and let the fan boys do the work. I think they will end up doing a better job.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why Hal Holbrook Should Win The Oscar
I've already discoursed a little on why Hal Holbrook's performance in Into the Wild was one of the best of the year. I've even expressed in some small way my belief that I'm rooting for him to win. But I recently had an opportunity to re-watch Into the Wild and beyond saying this is a film you should see. And I don't even want you to take my word for it (well that is a lie, I want you fully to believe that this is a film worth seeing) but instead look at my friend Nick's post which is one of the most inspired pieces of writing I've read in some time(Into The Wild).
Hal Holbrook plays Ron Franz an old man who one day runs across young Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch). For inexplicable reasons (the novelty of a back packing youth? the vivacity in his eyes? something else?), Ron asks this young man where he is camping and when he doesn't recognize the name, he requests to be shown where it is in exchange for a lift. Ever eager McCandless takes him up on his offer. And the scene that unfolds isn't necessarily the most dramatic or powerful scenes in the movie. It doesn't even have the most emotional force of Holbrook's scenes.
The scene unfolds with comic elements as they drive past a nudist colony which has Ron gawking and peering over his shoulder. There is some general banter back and forth. But then a key exchange occurs. Ron asks McCandless if he has any family and McCandless careless responds "not anymore". And in one look and one line of dialog, Hal Holbrook conveys a lifetime's worth of sadness and experience which will later be spelled out but is so amazingly powerful that when I re-watched this seen all I could think was "that line, right there, he deserves to win for that line alone. If he were in no other scene in the entire movie, that line should win it for him."
Yes, Javier Bardem was phenomenal as a principled monster traversing a western landscape. Yes, Philip Seymour Hoffman was funny and serious in his role as a CIA operative who cared about what he was doing but was a bit too crass to play the politics game. Yes, the way Tom Wilkinson seemed to flawlessly flow from seemingly insane to 100% logical, pragmatic lawyer was amazing to watch. (I admit I have not seen Casey Affleck's performance but if its as good as his performance in Gone Baby Gone then I suspect its pretty damn good.
But none of that matters because not one of those roles sold me on a character in a single line and look. I've admitted in a very unmanly fashion that the scenes with Hal Holbrook (in particular the last one between Holbrook and Hirsch) had me tearing up. And this time around, the way Holbrook uttered that one line just floored me. I keep hearing it and envisioning it over in my head.
And on Oscar night even though everyone in this category is really good and deserving, if anyone but Holbrook gets called up, I'm going go be really unhappy. Sadly I expect I will be really unhappy on Oscar night.
Hal Holbrook plays Ron Franz an old man who one day runs across young Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch). For inexplicable reasons (the novelty of a back packing youth? the vivacity in his eyes? something else?), Ron asks this young man where he is camping and when he doesn't recognize the name, he requests to be shown where it is in exchange for a lift. Ever eager McCandless takes him up on his offer. And the scene that unfolds isn't necessarily the most dramatic or powerful scenes in the movie. It doesn't even have the most emotional force of Holbrook's scenes.
The scene unfolds with comic elements as they drive past a nudist colony which has Ron gawking and peering over his shoulder. There is some general banter back and forth. But then a key exchange occurs. Ron asks McCandless if he has any family and McCandless careless responds "not anymore". And in one look and one line of dialog, Hal Holbrook conveys a lifetime's worth of sadness and experience which will later be spelled out but is so amazingly powerful that when I re-watched this seen all I could think was "that line, right there, he deserves to win for that line alone. If he were in no other scene in the entire movie, that line should win it for him."
Yes, Javier Bardem was phenomenal as a principled monster traversing a western landscape. Yes, Philip Seymour Hoffman was funny and serious in his role as a CIA operative who cared about what he was doing but was a bit too crass to play the politics game. Yes, the way Tom Wilkinson seemed to flawlessly flow from seemingly insane to 100% logical, pragmatic lawyer was amazing to watch. (I admit I have not seen Casey Affleck's performance but if its as good as his performance in Gone Baby Gone then I suspect its pretty damn good.
But none of that matters because not one of those roles sold me on a character in a single line and look. I've admitted in a very unmanly fashion that the scenes with Hal Holbrook (in particular the last one between Holbrook and Hirsch) had me tearing up. And this time around, the way Holbrook uttered that one line just floored me. I keep hearing it and envisioning it over in my head.
And on Oscar night even though everyone in this category is really good and deserving, if anyone but Holbrook gets called up, I'm going go be really unhappy. Sadly I expect I will be really unhappy on Oscar night.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
It Happened One Night - Winner 1935
A.O. Scott recently wrote a excellent analysis of the Romantic Comedy for the New York Times which I encourage you to read because when it comes to analysis I'm always floored and envious of Mr. Scott's learning and insight(A Fine Romance, My Friend, This Is). In this piece, Scott mentioned the film It Happened One Night which by extraordinary coincidence reached the top of my Netflix queue a few days later.
Claudette Colbert plays Ellie, a daughter of a wealthy business man who has secretly married a wealthy New York playboy. Her father keeps her trapped on a boat until she escapes and begins to head north to be reunited with her husband. Along the way she meets Peter (Clark Gable) a down on his luck newspaper reporter. His initial attraction to her spitfire attitude is changed when he discovers who she is and knows he is sitting on a goldmine of a story. He aids her in her trip north in order to get exclusive rights to her stories.
They have a pretty typical introduction to each other (what we usually call today a "meet cute") and of course experience many misadventures along the way. In fact I was a little surprised by how this pretty much fell in line with what I would describe as a conventional romantic comedy. But beyond a conventional plot, the movie doesn't try to be anything more than it is. It relies on its actors to play the characters they have been given and they do this well. It has some nice snappy dialog between Gable and Colbert. There are a few songs keeping the mood light but most decently integrated into the film.
Its an overall generally charming film. The leads are great together in their charm. There are several charming scenes including the dividing of a motel room with a piece of string and a banquet and a great scene taking place near hay stacks on a farm. Its a competently directed charming film that won best picture which shows you how things have changed since I doubt any similar film could do as much in these days (although I suppose a Juno win (no matter how much it would sicken me) would prove me wrong). Still if I'm going for charm, this one falls short of The Thin Man which had the brilliant banter between William Powell and Myrna Loy.
Claudette Colbert plays Ellie, a daughter of a wealthy business man who has secretly married a wealthy New York playboy. Her father keeps her trapped on a boat until she escapes and begins to head north to be reunited with her husband. Along the way she meets Peter (Clark Gable) a down on his luck newspaper reporter. His initial attraction to her spitfire attitude is changed when he discovers who she is and knows he is sitting on a goldmine of a story. He aids her in her trip north in order to get exclusive rights to her stories.
They have a pretty typical introduction to each other (what we usually call today a "meet cute") and of course experience many misadventures along the way. In fact I was a little surprised by how this pretty much fell in line with what I would describe as a conventional romantic comedy. But beyond a conventional plot, the movie doesn't try to be anything more than it is. It relies on its actors to play the characters they have been given and they do this well. It has some nice snappy dialog between Gable and Colbert. There are a few songs keeping the mood light but most decently integrated into the film.
Its an overall generally charming film. The leads are great together in their charm. There are several charming scenes including the dividing of a motel room with a piece of string and a banquet and a great scene taking place near hay stacks on a farm. Its a competently directed charming film that won best picture which shows you how things have changed since I doubt any similar film could do as much in these days (although I suppose a Juno win (no matter how much it would sicken me) would prove me wrong). Still if I'm going for charm, this one falls short of The Thin Man which had the brilliant banter between William Powell and Myrna Loy.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Give props to the Brits
We cinephiles can get awfully worked up over the awards process. We pick our favorites and announce our top lists. We praise or complain about nominations (we howl or rejoice at award wins). Now maybe you all haven't been bizarrely transfixed by the vast array of awards being handed out from the SAGs to the Golden Globes to even the DGA awards not to mention all those critical review board honors. But I have, obsessively so.
I've kept almost daily tabs on the news flowing in and once I discovered it I even regularly check the "Hollywood Stock Exchange" (HSX). If you were unaware one thing econ people like to do is reduce everything to a stock market scenario. They do this with the election every four years and have surprising success, since the "market" absorbs all information such as award wins and industry buzz and filters it through thousands of people playing a game with a payout.
But even I as sadly obsessed as I am forgot about the British. Yeah, they too have an award show. And they are at times more willing to recognize films that would go unnoticed in our own Awards fervor. A best british film category? That's a nice way to honor a few more excellent films. So check out the noms (BAFTA) if you care as I expound on who i would choose if i were in Britain.
Best Picture:
AMERICAN GANGSTER
ATONEMENT
THE LIVES OF OTHERS
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
"Lives of Others" was quite excellent but it was winner for best foreign film at last year's American Academy Award. American Gangster (well no worse than choosing Juno)? Here to my lot is thrown in with No Country For Old Men.
Best British Film:
ATONEMENT
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
CONTROL
EASTERN PROMISES
THIS IS ENGLAND
I have no idea what gets you qualified for this category but the novelty of it makes me smile. I mean look at some of those movies. Bourne Ultimatum and Control and Eastern Promises? Still of this list, i have to go with Control it had an emotional resonance that really drives it.
Best Directory
ATONEMENT – Joe Wright
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM – Paul Greengrass
THE LIVES OF OTHERS – Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN – Joel Coen/Ethan Coen
THERE WILL BE BLOOD – Paul Thomas Anderson
Again I give kudos to the BAFTAs for recognizing that an action director can have some serious talent, let's hope the American Academy can one day see the light. Still the Coens were just too amazing.
Best Actor
GEORGE CLOONEY – Michael Clayton
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS – There Will Be Blood
JAMES McAVOY – Atonement
VIGGO MORTENSEN – Eastern Promises
ULRICH MÜHE – The Lives of Others
Nick (Cinemaromantico) would be pleased to see McAvoy nominated but let's be real, this is Day-Lewis's category, He owns it.
Best Actress
CATE BLANCHETT – Elizabeth: The Golden Age
JULIE CHRISTIE – Away From Her
MARION COTILLARD – La Vie en Rose
KEIRA KNIGHTLEY – Atonement
ELLEN PAGE – Juno
Nick, actually might be uber happy, Knightley gets nominated as well. But what the hell is up with Blanchett in Elizabeth? Seriously she wasn't that good in that one. I'll go with Julie Christie who was quite amazing.
Supporting Actor
JAVIER BARDEM – No Country for Old Men
PAUL DANO – There Will Be Blood
TOMMY LEE JONES – No Country for Old Men
PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN – Charlie Wilson’s War
TOM WILKINSON – Michael Clayton
I couldn't complain if anyone won in this category. Mr. Holbrook is missing (but he got the Oscar nod) so I'll role out with Mr. Hoffman.
Supporting Actress
CATE BLANCHETT – I’m Not There
KELLY MACDONALD – No Country for Old Men
SAMANTHA MORTON – Control
SAOIRSE RONAN – Atonement
TILDA SWINTON – Michael Clayton
Okay, yeah what the hell BAFTAs!? Where is Amy Ryan? I mean I appreciate the Kelly Macdonald nod and Samantha Morton (always fabulous) but seriously. Still all these performances were pretty damn good. Kelly Macdonald will have to act as my surrogate Amy Ryan on this one.
Well, that killed some time.
I've kept almost daily tabs on the news flowing in and once I discovered it I even regularly check the "Hollywood Stock Exchange" (HSX). If you were unaware one thing econ people like to do is reduce everything to a stock market scenario. They do this with the election every four years and have surprising success, since the "market" absorbs all information such as award wins and industry buzz and filters it through thousands of people playing a game with a payout.
But even I as sadly obsessed as I am forgot about the British. Yeah, they too have an award show. And they are at times more willing to recognize films that would go unnoticed in our own Awards fervor. A best british film category? That's a nice way to honor a few more excellent films. So check out the noms (BAFTA) if you care as I expound on who i would choose if i were in Britain.
Best Picture:
AMERICAN GANGSTER
ATONEMENT
THE LIVES OF OTHERS
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
"Lives of Others" was quite excellent but it was winner for best foreign film at last year's American Academy Award. American Gangster (well no worse than choosing Juno)? Here to my lot is thrown in with No Country For Old Men.
Best British Film:
ATONEMENT
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
CONTROL
EASTERN PROMISES
THIS IS ENGLAND
I have no idea what gets you qualified for this category but the novelty of it makes me smile. I mean look at some of those movies. Bourne Ultimatum and Control and Eastern Promises? Still of this list, i have to go with Control it had an emotional resonance that really drives it.
Best Directory
ATONEMENT – Joe Wright
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM – Paul Greengrass
THE LIVES OF OTHERS – Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN – Joel Coen/Ethan Coen
THERE WILL BE BLOOD – Paul Thomas Anderson
Again I give kudos to the BAFTAs for recognizing that an action director can have some serious talent, let's hope the American Academy can one day see the light. Still the Coens were just too amazing.
Best Actor
GEORGE CLOONEY – Michael Clayton
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS – There Will Be Blood
JAMES McAVOY – Atonement
VIGGO MORTENSEN – Eastern Promises
ULRICH MÜHE – The Lives of Others
Nick (Cinemaromantico) would be pleased to see McAvoy nominated but let's be real, this is Day-Lewis's category, He owns it.
Best Actress
CATE BLANCHETT – Elizabeth: The Golden Age
JULIE CHRISTIE – Away From Her
MARION COTILLARD – La Vie en Rose
KEIRA KNIGHTLEY – Atonement
ELLEN PAGE – Juno
Nick, actually might be uber happy, Knightley gets nominated as well. But what the hell is up with Blanchett in Elizabeth? Seriously she wasn't that good in that one. I'll go with Julie Christie who was quite amazing.
Supporting Actor
JAVIER BARDEM – No Country for Old Men
PAUL DANO – There Will Be Blood
TOMMY LEE JONES – No Country for Old Men
PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN – Charlie Wilson’s War
TOM WILKINSON – Michael Clayton
I couldn't complain if anyone won in this category. Mr. Holbrook is missing (but he got the Oscar nod) so I'll role out with Mr. Hoffman.
Supporting Actress
CATE BLANCHETT – I’m Not There
KELLY MACDONALD – No Country for Old Men
SAMANTHA MORTON – Control
SAOIRSE RONAN – Atonement
TILDA SWINTON – Michael Clayton
Okay, yeah what the hell BAFTAs!? Where is Amy Ryan? I mean I appreciate the Kelly Macdonald nod and Samantha Morton (always fabulous) but seriously. Still all these performances were pretty damn good. Kelly Macdonald will have to act as my surrogate Amy Ryan on this one.
Well, that killed some time.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Running Tally
I don't want to jinx it but January was a good month in terms of movies and in terms of a certain long dreamed but never realized goal of 100 films in one year. Thanks to a lucrative week in Chicago when I saw five films in as many days, I have caped out January with twelve movies (fourteen counting the two I watched twice). So let us recap quickly January
January 1 - Starting Out In The Evening: Incredibly good, incredibly smart film based around three well developed relationships. Frank Langella is fantastic in every scene.
January 1 - Control: Emotionally exhausted from Starting Out In The Evening I had little left to give for this one (which I watched immediately after the aforementioned film). Still it was a very well done biopic that I am eager to watch again.
January 2 - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: I was perhaps a bit unfair to how good this film was after my first viewing. But I've thought about it the most of all the films I saw this month and on my second viewing fully feel convinced that it is expert genius film making.
January 2 - Juno: Funny, pleasant and generally feel good. Very happy I saw it.
January 5 - There Will Be Blood: Despite extraordinary pain from sitting in the second row with my knees crushed against the seat in front of me and my neck at such an angle that I'm still feeling sore this movie had me captivated for about an hour and a half. The problem? Its two and half hours long. It starts to unravel as it comes to the end. Still in fairness to it and not so aglow with anticipation I gave it a second viewing and found it still had problems but was less problematic than I initially concluded.
January 12 - In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale: well just plain awful in all honesty but proudly I can say this is the only movie I went to see in January that was merely because I wanted to see something. Even the bad stuff I saw like Cloverfield, I actually wanted to see.
January 19 -The Savages: Great story with well acted, well written characters although its ending seems a bit too neatly wrapped up and Hollywoodized.
January 20 - Cloverfield: Gimmicky and kind of annoying and the camera work gave me a headache.
January 23 - The Orphanage: Decent horror film. Lots of good tension and almost know cheap shock scare moments. Disappointed with the ending but overall very satisfying.
January 24 - Away From Her: Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent are amazing as a couple dealing with alzheimer's. Very well done.
January 26 - Michael Clayton: Well acted, technically well done, tight interesting story and yet I still came out of it kind of thinking 'so what?' Still a good film that didn't move me is still better than a crappy film any day of the week.
January 28 - Rambo: Just a fun action film with an admitted dopey inevitable ending that still managed to charm me.
Bring it on February and let the countdown continue. Bring on meaningless statistics.
Films remaining: 88
Days remaining: 334
Average films per day to succeed: .26
Average films per week to succeed: 1.87
January 1 - Starting Out In The Evening: Incredibly good, incredibly smart film based around three well developed relationships. Frank Langella is fantastic in every scene.
January 1 - Control: Emotionally exhausted from Starting Out In The Evening I had little left to give for this one (which I watched immediately after the aforementioned film). Still it was a very well done biopic that I am eager to watch again.
January 2 - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: I was perhaps a bit unfair to how good this film was after my first viewing. But I've thought about it the most of all the films I saw this month and on my second viewing fully feel convinced that it is expert genius film making.
January 2 - Juno: Funny, pleasant and generally feel good. Very happy I saw it.
January 5 - There Will Be Blood: Despite extraordinary pain from sitting in the second row with my knees crushed against the seat in front of me and my neck at such an angle that I'm still feeling sore this movie had me captivated for about an hour and a half. The problem? Its two and half hours long. It starts to unravel as it comes to the end. Still in fairness to it and not so aglow with anticipation I gave it a second viewing and found it still had problems but was less problematic than I initially concluded.
January 12 - In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale: well just plain awful in all honesty but proudly I can say this is the only movie I went to see in January that was merely because I wanted to see something. Even the bad stuff I saw like Cloverfield, I actually wanted to see.
January 19 -The Savages: Great story with well acted, well written characters although its ending seems a bit too neatly wrapped up and Hollywoodized.
January 20 - Cloverfield: Gimmicky and kind of annoying and the camera work gave me a headache.
January 23 - The Orphanage: Decent horror film. Lots of good tension and almost know cheap shock scare moments. Disappointed with the ending but overall very satisfying.
January 24 - Away From Her: Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent are amazing as a couple dealing with alzheimer's. Very well done.
January 26 - Michael Clayton: Well acted, technically well done, tight interesting story and yet I still came out of it kind of thinking 'so what?' Still a good film that didn't move me is still better than a crappy film any day of the week.
January 28 - Rambo: Just a fun action film with an admitted dopey inevitable ending that still managed to charm me.
Bring it on February and let the countdown continue. Bring on meaningless statistics.
Films remaining: 88
Days remaining: 334
Average films per day to succeed: .26
Average films per week to succeed: 1.87
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Rambo
(If there is anyone who actually cares, I must admit there is a spoiler discussed in this review, be warned)
In a recent review by Roger Ebert, he talked about the "found" review. This was a user comment on Rotten Tomatoes that in his opinion was a beautiful summation of the film that said in better words than he the movie's merits and appeal. On Friday afternoon at 410 EST/ 310 CST I received an email from my father about the movie Rambo. The time line was such that the reality was he had seen the first showing on Friday afternoon. Now aside from the fact that my father has shamed me movie wise and the fact that he has the freedom to see any movie he wants at any time he so chooses (which causes me an endless amount of jealousy), he has also one upped me by presenting to me his review and he summed up what I would say in a long winded several paragraphs with a succinct few sentences.
"You have to see Rambo! Bad acting and plot but one hell of an action movie. Pure entertainment."
People I'm here today to tell you that this is the exactly right. And realistically I should leave it at that but I consider myself a writer and so of course I can't leave it at that but by the end of this review I think you will agree my dad nailed this one on the head. This is my fourth attempt to write a review of Rambo. My previous attempts included a grandly eloquent pseudo-intellectual analysis of the Rambo franchise and its significance to film. But each version was just not quite good enough and although I still desire to write that piece, it will have to wait for another day.
"Bad acting and plot": Rambo lives in seclusion in Southeast Asia. He runs a riverboat that ferries people and traps cobras to be used in local entertainment. One day a church group interested in bringing aid to suffering Burmese people comes asking to be ferried up river into Burma. Rambo doesn't want to do it but he is convinced by the only female among the group, Sarah. This is done with an atrociously acted scene with some of the most truly wretched dialog I've heard in some time.
Rambo: What you're trying to do is change what is.
Sarah: and what is?
And what is? Is that even English? Does that count as rhetorical flourish? Are my eyes bleeding? This conversation convinces Rambo to help but not because of the men but because of Sarah. Once the group is up river in Burma things inevitably go bad. And along comes the church pastor evoking as much as possible Col. Trautman (the sorely missed Richard Crenna). Apparently this pastor is willing to pay mercenaries to rescue like five people.
But never mind that stretch because it provides us with our second most painful and yet simplistically beautiful moment in the film. As Rambo takes the mercenaries up river, they converse and interact to their one dimensional character trait discontent. There is the young idealistic bad ass sniper. There is the tough, pessimistic former SAS who seems to want to start a fight with Rambo, there is a redneck and two token minorities. Each has dialog fittingly character appropriate.
"but one hell of an action movie. Pure entertainment.": The mercenaries march in to rescue the aid workers and then fight and run from the legion of Burmese soldiers. And these action sequences which although perhaps a bit too heavy on the gore are of course the bread and butter of a film like this. You either think action movies are just gun porn or you can occasionally let go and just let yourself be washed in the cathartic slaughter of evil by one bad ass soldier. You know which you are.
"You have to see Rambo!": Now this is one I whole heartedly agree with. Although perhaps not for the reason my dad intended. If you have seen First Blood then I think, nay I demand that you go see Rambo because its ending is just so perfectly fantastic. Let's take a brief look back to First Blood.
First Blood opened with John Rambo walking down a dirt road to a house. The opening track was called "Homecoming" but Rambo wasn't coming home, he was coming to meet an army buddy. This buddy has died and Rambo ends up continuing down the highway to the town around which the film takes place. Now I'm not going out on a limb here to note or mention the themes of First Blood include the reaction to Vietnam vets after they came home and army failures to reintegrate soldiers suffering from PTSD. The whole monologue at the end of the movie proves that.
We were left with a broken man unable to cope with what he has done and become. So its no surprise in Rambo to find him living in seclusion in the world he came to understand better than the world he left. Yet, Rambo's journey in Rambo is one of redemption. And when he stands on that hill overlooking the carnage at the end of the film knowing that he didn't something that was good, he and we know he is finally healed. It only took 26 years.
Sure its clumsy and yes it requires a lot of patience with the acting and the dialog but we get closure on Rambo. And I found it absurdly beautiful that the very last scene shows us Rambo on an American highway turning off onto a dirt road. The opening track of First Blood is playing but this time the dirt road is not that of a friend. This is the road that leads to his father's house. Rambo has finally truly come home. You might think it ludicrous but I wanted to cheer and I did clap my hands. Welcome home, Rambo. Be at peace.
In a recent review by Roger Ebert, he talked about the "found" review. This was a user comment on Rotten Tomatoes that in his opinion was a beautiful summation of the film that said in better words than he the movie's merits and appeal. On Friday afternoon at 410 EST/ 310 CST I received an email from my father about the movie Rambo. The time line was such that the reality was he had seen the first showing on Friday afternoon. Now aside from the fact that my father has shamed me movie wise and the fact that he has the freedom to see any movie he wants at any time he so chooses (which causes me an endless amount of jealousy), he has also one upped me by presenting to me his review and he summed up what I would say in a long winded several paragraphs with a succinct few sentences.
"You have to see Rambo! Bad acting and plot but one hell of an action movie. Pure entertainment."
People I'm here today to tell you that this is the exactly right. And realistically I should leave it at that but I consider myself a writer and so of course I can't leave it at that but by the end of this review I think you will agree my dad nailed this one on the head. This is my fourth attempt to write a review of Rambo. My previous attempts included a grandly eloquent pseudo-intellectual analysis of the Rambo franchise and its significance to film. But each version was just not quite good enough and although I still desire to write that piece, it will have to wait for another day.
"Bad acting and plot": Rambo lives in seclusion in Southeast Asia. He runs a riverboat that ferries people and traps cobras to be used in local entertainment. One day a church group interested in bringing aid to suffering Burmese people comes asking to be ferried up river into Burma. Rambo doesn't want to do it but he is convinced by the only female among the group, Sarah. This is done with an atrociously acted scene with some of the most truly wretched dialog I've heard in some time.
Rambo: What you're trying to do is change what is.
Sarah: and what is?
And what is? Is that even English? Does that count as rhetorical flourish? Are my eyes bleeding? This conversation convinces Rambo to help but not because of the men but because of Sarah. Once the group is up river in Burma things inevitably go bad. And along comes the church pastor evoking as much as possible Col. Trautman (the sorely missed Richard Crenna). Apparently this pastor is willing to pay mercenaries to rescue like five people.
But never mind that stretch because it provides us with our second most painful and yet simplistically beautiful moment in the film. As Rambo takes the mercenaries up river, they converse and interact to their one dimensional character trait discontent. There is the young idealistic bad ass sniper. There is the tough, pessimistic former SAS who seems to want to start a fight with Rambo, there is a redneck and two token minorities. Each has dialog fittingly character appropriate.
"but one hell of an action movie. Pure entertainment.": The mercenaries march in to rescue the aid workers and then fight and run from the legion of Burmese soldiers. And these action sequences which although perhaps a bit too heavy on the gore are of course the bread and butter of a film like this. You either think action movies are just gun porn or you can occasionally let go and just let yourself be washed in the cathartic slaughter of evil by one bad ass soldier. You know which you are.
"You have to see Rambo!": Now this is one I whole heartedly agree with. Although perhaps not for the reason my dad intended. If you have seen First Blood then I think, nay I demand that you go see Rambo because its ending is just so perfectly fantastic. Let's take a brief look back to First Blood.
First Blood opened with John Rambo walking down a dirt road to a house. The opening track was called "Homecoming" but Rambo wasn't coming home, he was coming to meet an army buddy. This buddy has died and Rambo ends up continuing down the highway to the town around which the film takes place. Now I'm not going out on a limb here to note or mention the themes of First Blood include the reaction to Vietnam vets after they came home and army failures to reintegrate soldiers suffering from PTSD. The whole monologue at the end of the movie proves that.
We were left with a broken man unable to cope with what he has done and become. So its no surprise in Rambo to find him living in seclusion in the world he came to understand better than the world he left. Yet, Rambo's journey in Rambo is one of redemption. And when he stands on that hill overlooking the carnage at the end of the film knowing that he didn't something that was good, he and we know he is finally healed. It only took 26 years.
Sure its clumsy and yes it requires a lot of patience with the acting and the dialog but we get closure on Rambo. And I found it absurdly beautiful that the very last scene shows us Rambo on an American highway turning off onto a dirt road. The opening track of First Blood is playing but this time the dirt road is not that of a friend. This is the road that leads to his father's house. Rambo has finally truly come home. You might think it ludicrous but I wanted to cheer and I did clap my hands. Welcome home, Rambo. Be at peace.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Once
Know me even a little and you quickly find I'm averse to three things in movies (although there are always exceptions). Movie musicals and animation typically bore me and most voice over irritates me. But Once is pitched as a different kind of musical. Almost all its music is in a 100% believable and realistic context. And the songs are enjoyable because they are songs not esoteric expressions in song.
Once is the story of a street performer (Glen Hansard) and a woman (Marketa Irglova) he meets on day on the street. She's from the Czech Republic and the two form a bond. This is forged over love of music and matters of the heart. The two hang out and play and write together and eventually record together. All this is backdropped by their complicated lives. she is a young mother with an estranged husband back in the Czech Republic. He is fresh off a difficult breakup.
For the most part this combination of story and music has a decent amount of charm. Its quite fun to explore a non-sexual relationship between two people (although the overtones of attraction are there through most of the film). And the music is very good. Its delivery as part of the story is perhaps the most effective element. Only one scene seemed to scream of more traditional musical which I noted but let go.
The problem ultimately for me is that there isn't much for story or drama. The narrative meanders along, flirts with some possibilities before wrapping things up with a bit too much neatness. Motivation again is called into question. These nagging elements keep me from giving a full fledge approval of this film. But the music entertains and a few scenes such as a dinner party where guests sing were so familiar to me that I couldn't help but smile.
Once is the story of a street performer (Glen Hansard) and a woman (Marketa Irglova) he meets on day on the street. She's from the Czech Republic and the two form a bond. This is forged over love of music and matters of the heart. The two hang out and play and write together and eventually record together. All this is backdropped by their complicated lives. she is a young mother with an estranged husband back in the Czech Republic. He is fresh off a difficult breakup.
For the most part this combination of story and music has a decent amount of charm. Its quite fun to explore a non-sexual relationship between two people (although the overtones of attraction are there through most of the film). And the music is very good. Its delivery as part of the story is perhaps the most effective element. Only one scene seemed to scream of more traditional musical which I noted but let go.
The problem ultimately for me is that there isn't much for story or drama. The narrative meanders along, flirts with some possibilities before wrapping things up with a bit too much neatness. Motivation again is called into question. These nagging elements keep me from giving a full fledge approval of this film. But the music entertains and a few scenes such as a dinner party where guests sing were so familiar to me that I couldn't help but smile.
Little Children
There seems to be a constant fascination with filmmakers about the dark underbelly of middle class suburbia. Its a common theme running back to at least American Beauty (perhaps earlier but that is when I really started to notice it) and is still prevalent in Little Children. Now to be fair the latter is based on a book but regardless these attempts to look below the surface seem as superficial as the premise that suburbia is ideally perfect in the first place.
Tales of unhappy suburbanites having affairs and generally being less than perfect isn't all that interesting whether its being sensationalized as liberating on shows like "Desperate Housewives" or portrayed as gritty last resort inevitability as in this film. And watching this film made me think maybe those involved realized it and tried to spice it up with several gimmicks. Again to be fair at least one presumably is the result of the novel.
I admit I have not read Tom Perrotta's book and can not judge its quality. Nor should that be a factor, since even an adapted film should stand on its own. The story focuses on two parents providing care for their children. Sarah (Kate Winslett) is an educated academic feeling trapped in her homemaker role. Her husband is distant and she feels suffocated. Brad (Patrick Wilson) is equally unhappy in his role dealing with his successful wife and although he is his son's primary caregiver, the son still seems to prefer mom to him. Brad is nostalgic for his glory days of college football.
Of concern to both and the community at large is a recently paroled sex offender Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley) who has moved into the neighborhood. The film also follows him as he tries to cope with his predatory urges and is harassed by an ex-cop set on driving him from the neighborhood. The film is built on the premise that we even care about these stories. I think it fails. The story is a mess of unanswered questions and half forgotten plot lines. Sarah's husband is prominent for a while then disappears. Attempts to make Ronnie sympathetic are at best to mixed results. The motivations seem wholly lacking, contradictory or added after the fact.
There is no convincing reason why Sarah and Brad should cheat. She's nostalgic on account of past's promise. She was an academic and a feminist reduced to conversing about the "Prom King" with fellow parents. Brad is nostalgic for past glory. Whereas Sarah seems to ask "what might I have accomplished" Brad seems to say "look at what I was".
Nor does it feel convincing that Brad would cheat on his wife. She's supportive and trusting and merely desirous of his success. All this drive a wedge between the story and believability. Not that the actors don't give it there all. Winslett has frazzled housewife down. Her frustration at being delayed her one reprieve, a daily walk, is spot on. Haley does wonders with his character despite clear problems with his purpose.
But I'm saving most of my ire for a completely pointless omniscient narrator. Intruding on the film at uneven points, it acts as an almost anthropologist to suburbia. Explaining backgrounds and motivations unnecessary to the story. Most gratuitous was the narrator's play by play of a football game late in the film. It so reminded me of "Inside the NFL" recaps that I wondered if this was the sole reason the narrator was being used.
And why does a movie about the darker side of suburbia end so neatly? Grandly absurd revelations of character enlighten almost everyone. Redemption, wish fulfillment and reality checks fly so fast that I was irritated. In the final assessment this one seems like a massive failing of story made worse by gimmicky direction.
Tales of unhappy suburbanites having affairs and generally being less than perfect isn't all that interesting whether its being sensationalized as liberating on shows like "Desperate Housewives" or portrayed as gritty last resort inevitability as in this film. And watching this film made me think maybe those involved realized it and tried to spice it up with several gimmicks. Again to be fair at least one presumably is the result of the novel.
I admit I have not read Tom Perrotta's book and can not judge its quality. Nor should that be a factor, since even an adapted film should stand on its own. The story focuses on two parents providing care for their children. Sarah (Kate Winslett) is an educated academic feeling trapped in her homemaker role. Her husband is distant and she feels suffocated. Brad (Patrick Wilson) is equally unhappy in his role dealing with his successful wife and although he is his son's primary caregiver, the son still seems to prefer mom to him. Brad is nostalgic for his glory days of college football.
Of concern to both and the community at large is a recently paroled sex offender Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley) who has moved into the neighborhood. The film also follows him as he tries to cope with his predatory urges and is harassed by an ex-cop set on driving him from the neighborhood. The film is built on the premise that we even care about these stories. I think it fails. The story is a mess of unanswered questions and half forgotten plot lines. Sarah's husband is prominent for a while then disappears. Attempts to make Ronnie sympathetic are at best to mixed results. The motivations seem wholly lacking, contradictory or added after the fact.
There is no convincing reason why Sarah and Brad should cheat. She's nostalgic on account of past's promise. She was an academic and a feminist reduced to conversing about the "Prom King" with fellow parents. Brad is nostalgic for past glory. Whereas Sarah seems to ask "what might I have accomplished" Brad seems to say "look at what I was".
Nor does it feel convincing that Brad would cheat on his wife. She's supportive and trusting and merely desirous of his success. All this drive a wedge between the story and believability. Not that the actors don't give it there all. Winslett has frazzled housewife down. Her frustration at being delayed her one reprieve, a daily walk, is spot on. Haley does wonders with his character despite clear problems with his purpose.
But I'm saving most of my ire for a completely pointless omniscient narrator. Intruding on the film at uneven points, it acts as an almost anthropologist to suburbia. Explaining backgrounds and motivations unnecessary to the story. Most gratuitous was the narrator's play by play of a football game late in the film. It so reminded me of "Inside the NFL" recaps that I wondered if this was the sole reason the narrator was being used.
And why does a movie about the darker side of suburbia end so neatly? Grandly absurd revelations of character enlighten almost everyone. Redemption, wish fulfillment and reality checks fly so fast that I was irritated. In the final assessment this one seems like a massive failing of story made worse by gimmicky direction.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Michael Clayton
The titular protagonist of Michael Clayton is a self described janitor. Played by George Clooney, Clayton is calm and cool and not afraid to tell a desperate client exactly what his options are. As a fixer for a major law film he is probably one of their single most important assets although he isn't always treated as such.
But all this does not mean life is grand for Michael. He has a history of gambling addiction, a failed business and a loan shark demanding payment. He is balancing a problematic relationship with his brother and a strained relationship with his son with a job that always seems to come first.
Michael is called in to deal with the most recent headache for the film. One of its lead attorneys who is heading the defense of a lucrative class action law suit has been arrested for stripping naked during a deposition. Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has gone off his meds and is ranting about how evil his client is.
Michael is pressed by the need to do his job and the desire to help Arthur, his friend. Complicating this all is a law firm that can't afford to have the deal go bad and Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), a legal counsel for the accused company who has fears for her own job security. The ins and outs of the story's well constucted plot, I won't reveal because of course watching it develop is fascinating. Suffice to say it deals with the dirty underbelly of American business practice familiar to anyone who has read headlines about Enron and the like.
Clooney is methodical in every scene. Its never a stretch to believe a guy so on top of his game when it comes to his job could be living a life so completely in shambles. In an interesting parallel, Swinton too represents a character desperately trying to balance her own problems with the cool confidence her job demands. And finally Wilkinson who perhaps crazy from mental illness or from being fed up plays Arthur so firmly on the line between the two that its difficult to judge.
It is these detailed characters and the actors behind them that carries this story effectively. The direction is tight without any scenes that feel unnecessary. It does quite a good job of showing what a legal thriller can be without crossing the line into the absurd or conspiracy theorist mode of storytelling.
But all this does not mean life is grand for Michael. He has a history of gambling addiction, a failed business and a loan shark demanding payment. He is balancing a problematic relationship with his brother and a strained relationship with his son with a job that always seems to come first.
Michael is called in to deal with the most recent headache for the film. One of its lead attorneys who is heading the defense of a lucrative class action law suit has been arrested for stripping naked during a deposition. Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has gone off his meds and is ranting about how evil his client is.
Michael is pressed by the need to do his job and the desire to help Arthur, his friend. Complicating this all is a law firm that can't afford to have the deal go bad and Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), a legal counsel for the accused company who has fears for her own job security. The ins and outs of the story's well constucted plot, I won't reveal because of course watching it develop is fascinating. Suffice to say it deals with the dirty underbelly of American business practice familiar to anyone who has read headlines about Enron and the like.
Clooney is methodical in every scene. Its never a stretch to believe a guy so on top of his game when it comes to his job could be living a life so completely in shambles. In an interesting parallel, Swinton too represents a character desperately trying to balance her own problems with the cool confidence her job demands. And finally Wilkinson who perhaps crazy from mental illness or from being fed up plays Arthur so firmly on the line between the two that its difficult to judge.
It is these detailed characters and the actors behind them that carries this story effectively. The direction is tight without any scenes that feel unnecessary. It does quite a good job of showing what a legal thriller can be without crossing the line into the absurd or conspiracy theorist mode of storytelling.
Away From Her
Away From Her tells the story of Fiona (Julie Christie) who is succumbing to Alzheimer's. Grant (Gordon Pinsent) feeling unable to cope with caring for her and with her agreement sends her to a care center. The film focuses on Fiona's degeneration from the disease and Grant's attempts to cope with a wife he remembers but who doesn't remember him.
The story is based on a short story and written for the screen and directed by the actress Sarah Polley. The story is effective with well developed characters. It seems more true to a very real disease than say the overly sentimental The Notebook. Likewise Grant's and Fiona's love is not untainted or pure. It is this attention to story detail that makes for an engrossing film.
Grant has to view Fiona's transfer of affection through the lens of past indiscretion. He must balance her happiness and his pain. And painfully he must try to connect with the woman he loves without knowing at any given time if she will know who he is. Marian (Olympia Dukakis) as the wife of Fiona's new affection also plays an important role which requires Grant to make a significant decision in the name of his love of Fiona.
Polley's direction is fairly plain. It relies heavily on its story and its performers. Not that these are bad things to rely on. It stumbles a bit in its pacing at times. There is also some unnecessary re-sequencing that doesn't demonstrably improve the story by their placement. It almost feels done as a cheap trick to avoid a charge of too simple direction. A tighter edit and a more traditionally shot narrative would have been fine.
But the praise of this film truly belongs to its lead actors, Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent. Christie flows so effortlessly from fully aware to forgetting that its easy to believe her character is suffering from this condition. Crucial still to Christie's performance is Pinsent who must react to all that he sees. From the way in which he tries to counter Fiona's degeneration to the pain of watching her shower attention on another, Pinsent creates a memorable character.
The combination of elements make a good if not quite great film. The story is effective and is benefited by its cast. Most of the simple direction works although relying a bit too much on its story. Still its faults are more than compensated by its strengths and Polley's potential as writer and director is something to look forward to in the future.
The story is based on a short story and written for the screen and directed by the actress Sarah Polley. The story is effective with well developed characters. It seems more true to a very real disease than say the overly sentimental The Notebook. Likewise Grant's and Fiona's love is not untainted or pure. It is this attention to story detail that makes for an engrossing film.
Grant has to view Fiona's transfer of affection through the lens of past indiscretion. He must balance her happiness and his pain. And painfully he must try to connect with the woman he loves without knowing at any given time if she will know who he is. Marian (Olympia Dukakis) as the wife of Fiona's new affection also plays an important role which requires Grant to make a significant decision in the name of his love of Fiona.
Polley's direction is fairly plain. It relies heavily on its story and its performers. Not that these are bad things to rely on. It stumbles a bit in its pacing at times. There is also some unnecessary re-sequencing that doesn't demonstrably improve the story by their placement. It almost feels done as a cheap trick to avoid a charge of too simple direction. A tighter edit and a more traditionally shot narrative would have been fine.
But the praise of this film truly belongs to its lead actors, Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent. Christie flows so effortlessly from fully aware to forgetting that its easy to believe her character is suffering from this condition. Crucial still to Christie's performance is Pinsent who must react to all that he sees. From the way in which he tries to counter Fiona's degeneration to the pain of watching her shower attention on another, Pinsent creates a memorable character.
The combination of elements make a good if not quite great film. The story is effective and is benefited by its cast. Most of the simple direction works although relying a bit too much on its story. Still its faults are more than compensated by its strengths and Polley's potential as writer and director is something to look forward to in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)