Well, 2010, the year of cinema sadness continues. "Blue Valentine" is a good film that will make you want to belt down bourbon and listen to Billie Holiday. If that sounds appealing to you, then this film that deconstructs a failing relationship, is just what the doctor ordered, Really. It's a very good film. Sigh.
"Blue Valentine" cuts back and forth in time to look at a young couple played with ferocious honesty by Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling. In their older parental phase, we see them at the end of a downward spiral, trying last ditch efforts to keep their failing marriage afloat, a youthful version of George and Martha from "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe", except here it's the male character (Gosling) that verbalizes the marital frustration. He badgers Williams verbally, almost to the point of abuse, because he knows that any real communication will eventually lead to the inevitable. Williams, by far the more intelligent of the two, broods in silence, with any attempt at honest communication rebuffed.
But the poignancy of the piece comes in flashback, as we see the birth of their love affair, two likable people suited to each other, falling in love. A scene where Gosling sings "You Only Hurt the One You Love" to an impromptu tap dance by Williams is heartbreaking in its sweetness, mainly because you know where it's leading.
Honest is the best word to describe this film, and if you have ever had a love affair that became something else, you may well recognize parts of your own story in theirs. It's the strength of the film.
This film is NC-17 because the sex looks like real people having the kind of sex that real people have. That's fine. It's a film meant for adults. It just points out that the ratings board is a bunch of misguided juveniles who probably should get laid more.
Addendum: The MPAA relented and gave the film an R rating. Still, the MPAA is rapidly becoming archaic, useless.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Biutiful
This is not exactly an uplifting year in the cinema. I don't know, but it seems to me there were a lot of unhappy directors making sad, sad films this year. Many of them were good films but cripes, wasn't anyone happy about having a job in the industry during the Great Recession? Of all the down trodden directors making down beat stories this year the prize has to go to Alejandro Inarritu for his elegy on death and the act of dying, "Biutiful". That's right, you heard me. Elegy on death and the act of dying.
I don't want to give anything away but when Javier Bardem's character gets terminally ill in the beginning of this film, it's the happiest thing that happens for two hours. Have I scared you off? Don't let me.
This is a very good film that has at it's center an extraordinary performance by Bardem as a Spaniard eeking out a living in the slums of Barcelona. His downward spiral and eventual death is a fascinating look at the limits of human endurance in the face of tragic circumstances. Inarritu, who directed the excellent "Babel" a few years ago, dedicates the film to the memory of his father, and the work feels personal and heartfelt in a deep-down achy way. And Javier Bardem is just outstanding, with an outside shot at an Oscar nomination. But really you have to be in the mood for subtitles and misery. Maybe you can plan a double feature and follow it up with something from say.... Pixar, perhaps.
I don't want to give anything away but when Javier Bardem's character gets terminally ill in the beginning of this film, it's the happiest thing that happens for two hours. Have I scared you off? Don't let me.
This is a very good film that has at it's center an extraordinary performance by Bardem as a Spaniard eeking out a living in the slums of Barcelona. His downward spiral and eventual death is a fascinating look at the limits of human endurance in the face of tragic circumstances. Inarritu, who directed the excellent "Babel" a few years ago, dedicates the film to the memory of his father, and the work feels personal and heartfelt in a deep-down achy way. And Javier Bardem is just outstanding, with an outside shot at an Oscar nomination. But really you have to be in the mood for subtitles and misery. Maybe you can plan a double feature and follow it up with something from say.... Pixar, perhaps.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Another Year
This is a slice of life character study by director Mike Leigh but you might actually get more enjoyment if you stare at a slice of pizza for two hours. I think they call it "Another Year" because you start watching it in one year and it feels like another year before the damn thing is over. As you can tell, I am not fond of this film.
But I will stipulate that there are many critics and even a movie friend (John) who's taste I respect who found a lot to like about this film. They're wrong, but I stipulate to the disagreement as a matter of taste.
There is a nice working class couple in England. They have a grown son, friends at work, old school chums, some relatives that they don't see often. They talk, garden, have get-togethers, garden some more, and chat about some stuff that happens to them all in the course of two hours. OH MY GOD! I was ready to wash down a handful of valium with a bottle of scotch by the end of this voyeuristic snoozefest.
Mike Leigh is a respected director, the actors are fine, including Jim Broadbent, Ruth Sheen and Leslie Manville, who is being considered for an Oscar (not by me, baby).
Read a review by one of the snooty critics who like this movie and decide for yourself. But I'm telling you, The Emperor is naked and he's boring and irrelevent.
But I will stipulate that there are many critics and even a movie friend (John) who's taste I respect who found a lot to like about this film. They're wrong, but I stipulate to the disagreement as a matter of taste.
There is a nice working class couple in England. They have a grown son, friends at work, old school chums, some relatives that they don't see often. They talk, garden, have get-togethers, garden some more, and chat about some stuff that happens to them all in the course of two hours. OH MY GOD! I was ready to wash down a handful of valium with a bottle of scotch by the end of this voyeuristic snoozefest.
Mike Leigh is a respected director, the actors are fine, including Jim Broadbent, Ruth Sheen and Leslie Manville, who is being considered for an Oscar (not by me, baby).
Read a review by one of the snooty critics who like this movie and decide for yourself. But I'm telling you, The Emperor is naked and he's boring and irrelevent.
Made In Dagenham
Alrighty, let's get caught up on a few films that may or may not get some nominations when the Oscars pick and choose.
You might not have heard a lot about "Made in Dagenham" yet. It only opened in limited release in November and hasn't garnered much attention. But this is one of those smaller films that when you see it next year on HBO or put it on your Netflix queue you might find a good watch.
Sally Hawkins is one of 187 women working as skilled labor in a Ford assembly plant in Dagenham, England in the late 1960's. They're unionized but when they are downgraded to unskilled labor even their Union has trouble working up enough anger to support them. Except for Bob Hoskins, their local rep who champions a strike and recruits Sally Hawkins to lead the way. Soon the issues become larger and basically we see the birth of the "equal pay for equal work" movement that not only swept through Europe but eventually worked its way to the States, much to the chagrin of Ford and other large corporations. Basically this is "Norma Rae" with a working class British accent but the story is compelling, the characters interesting and Sally Hawkins gives another outstanding performance that sits right on the edge of major awards recognition. If she doesn't get the nomination, it will be her second "almost". That would be a shame. Find this film if you can.
You might not have heard a lot about "Made in Dagenham" yet. It only opened in limited release in November and hasn't garnered much attention. But this is one of those smaller films that when you see it next year on HBO or put it on your Netflix queue you might find a good watch.
Sally Hawkins is one of 187 women working as skilled labor in a Ford assembly plant in Dagenham, England in the late 1960's. They're unionized but when they are downgraded to unskilled labor even their Union has trouble working up enough anger to support them. Except for Bob Hoskins, their local rep who champions a strike and recruits Sally Hawkins to lead the way. Soon the issues become larger and basically we see the birth of the "equal pay for equal work" movement that not only swept through Europe but eventually worked its way to the States, much to the chagrin of Ford and other large corporations. Basically this is "Norma Rae" with a working class British accent but the story is compelling, the characters interesting and Sally Hawkins gives another outstanding performance that sits right on the edge of major awards recognition. If she doesn't get the nomination, it will be her second "almost". That would be a shame. Find this film if you can.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The King's Speech
Say you want to make a great film that will be around come Oscar season. Where do you find your story? Sports movies? Maybe. You've got "The Blind Side", and boxing movies are always good. Musicals? Ahhh...hit or miss. Maybe a good comedy or Western? Well, maybe not. Actually the answer is easy. Head straight for the British Royal Family.
It's practically a yearly event, these glimpses into royal life. Sometimes three or four pop up. This year's entry into the field deserves the pomp and ceremony it received in the run-up to the season.
"The King's Speech" looks at The Royal Family circa 1933. George V is King. His son David (soon to be Edward VI and then an ex-King) is a playboy with bad taste in women.
But it's his younger son, Bertie, that we're most concerned with here. He's the Duke of York and should be destined to live out his royal life as the man who wouldn't be King. All this is fine with him since being King means lots of public speaking which he hates. Why? Because he has a b-b-b-bad stuttering problem. A microphone is the enemy. Daddy the King is a bully (Which might be the root of the problem). King George's answer to the stammer is "Get over it". Not helpful.
Enter Lionel Logue as played by Geoffrey Rush, a rather unconventional speech pathologist. He has some ideas that are, well, unorthodox especially for a Prince.
The Duke of York, played by Colin Firth with a shaky arrogance, and spurred on by his rock solid royal wife (Helena Bonham Carter) engages Logue and the fireworks begin. It would be fun to watch a great actor in a great role, but to watch these two great actors spar with each other is a delight and amazement for any one lucky enough to buy a ticket. Firth's desperation and Rush's jocular insistence at familiarity provides the best cinematic moments of the year. They are a wonder to see. And Helena Bonham Carter, who most recently showed us her loony side in the Potter franchise and her husband's (Tim Burton) off-beat work, reminds us that she has kick-ass classical training as the Queen Mother. When it becomes clear that older brother would rather get laid than be King, the stakes get raised and things really heat up. (Part of the fun here is that the King and his American lover are not portrayed with any of that "romance of the century" crap. It's more like the royal party boy and the slut)
Seldom do films fire on all cylinders but this one does, the look of the film is dazzling, the acting impeccable, the story a delight. Films like this take home gold statues in bunches. This one just might. Only two films have a shot at the big prize, "The King's Speech" and "The Social Network". Man, that is one tough call.
It's practically a yearly event, these glimpses into royal life. Sometimes three or four pop up. This year's entry into the field deserves the pomp and ceremony it received in the run-up to the season.
"The King's Speech" looks at The Royal Family circa 1933. George V is King. His son David (soon to be Edward VI and then an ex-King) is a playboy with bad taste in women.
But it's his younger son, Bertie, that we're most concerned with here. He's the Duke of York and should be destined to live out his royal life as the man who wouldn't be King. All this is fine with him since being King means lots of public speaking which he hates. Why? Because he has a b-b-b-bad stuttering problem. A microphone is the enemy. Daddy the King is a bully (Which might be the root of the problem). King George's answer to the stammer is "Get over it". Not helpful.
Enter Lionel Logue as played by Geoffrey Rush, a rather unconventional speech pathologist. He has some ideas that are, well, unorthodox especially for a Prince.
The Duke of York, played by Colin Firth with a shaky arrogance, and spurred on by his rock solid royal wife (Helena Bonham Carter) engages Logue and the fireworks begin. It would be fun to watch a great actor in a great role, but to watch these two great actors spar with each other is a delight and amazement for any one lucky enough to buy a ticket. Firth's desperation and Rush's jocular insistence at familiarity provides the best cinematic moments of the year. They are a wonder to see. And Helena Bonham Carter, who most recently showed us her loony side in the Potter franchise and her husband's (Tim Burton) off-beat work, reminds us that she has kick-ass classical training as the Queen Mother. When it becomes clear that older brother would rather get laid than be King, the stakes get raised and things really heat up. (Part of the fun here is that the King and his American lover are not portrayed with any of that "romance of the century" crap. It's more like the royal party boy and the slut)
Seldom do films fire on all cylinders but this one does, the look of the film is dazzling, the acting impeccable, the story a delight. Films like this take home gold statues in bunches. This one just might. Only two films have a shot at the big prize, "The King's Speech" and "The Social Network". Man, that is one tough call.
Monday, December 20, 2010
True Grit
An open meadow in the rocky region of the west; Four outlaws on horseback face off across the field against one oversize hulking rider named Rooster Cogburn.
The outlaw leader says "What do you want Marshall?"
"I aim to kill ya today."
"That's big talk for a one eyed fat man."
Cogburn's good eye widens an he shouts "Fill yo hand you sunovabitch!"
They ride toward each other, guns blazing.
If the above description is not your idea of a good time at the movies do not see the Coen Brothers latest adaptation of the western classic "True Grit". I loved every frame but at least four women and one gay man have told me how much they HATED this film. It must be a cultural thing. They don't get it. I do.
Only the Coen Brothers would have the bravado to attempt this kind of a remake. The original, adapted from a novel by Charles Portis, was iconic, winning John Wayne his only Oscar. He really deserved it, playing Rooster Cogburn as a parody of the western character that he invented. But that version was tongue-in-cheek, more comedy than cowboy.
This version is truly grittier, more influenced by the novel. A young girl wants to hunt down her father's killer. She's only 14 but she talks like she's 34. She manages to bully the giant Rooster Cogburn into seeking justice on her behalf and against better judgment she insists on going along. The role is played by an amazing young actress named Hailee Steinfeld (the original cast a much older actress) who all but steals the movie. Really, she's a blast to watch.
Jeff Bridges plays Cogburn as an aging mountain of backwoods justice, barely able to keep his deteriorating body involved in the hunt. Along with a Texas Ranger who happens to be after the same man (Matt Damon), this trio rides for justice, payback and a cash reward.
The Coen Brothers use a heightened, stylized dialogue that works because the rest of the film is a reminder of just how tough life really was in the West. You can smell the sweat and horse manure in almost every frame. "True Grit" isn't just a title, it's a feel. The grit is tangible. Bridges is destined to follow up an Oscar win with at least a nomination, although his tendency toward mumbling (ala Brando) may cost him a repeat win. And Steinfeld is an Oscar-worthy revelation.
OK, the Coen Brothers aren't for everyone and Westerns aren't for everyone but if you're a fan of either the artists or the genre, you're in for a hell of a ride.
The outlaw leader says "What do you want Marshall?"
"I aim to kill ya today."
"That's big talk for a one eyed fat man."
Cogburn's good eye widens an he shouts "Fill yo hand you sunovabitch!"
They ride toward each other, guns blazing.
If the above description is not your idea of a good time at the movies do not see the Coen Brothers latest adaptation of the western classic "True Grit". I loved every frame but at least four women and one gay man have told me how much they HATED this film. It must be a cultural thing. They don't get it. I do.
Only the Coen Brothers would have the bravado to attempt this kind of a remake. The original, adapted from a novel by Charles Portis, was iconic, winning John Wayne his only Oscar. He really deserved it, playing Rooster Cogburn as a parody of the western character that he invented. But that version was tongue-in-cheek, more comedy than cowboy.
This version is truly grittier, more influenced by the novel. A young girl wants to hunt down her father's killer. She's only 14 but she talks like she's 34. She manages to bully the giant Rooster Cogburn into seeking justice on her behalf and against better judgment she insists on going along. The role is played by an amazing young actress named Hailee Steinfeld (the original cast a much older actress) who all but steals the movie. Really, she's a blast to watch.
Jeff Bridges plays Cogburn as an aging mountain of backwoods justice, barely able to keep his deteriorating body involved in the hunt. Along with a Texas Ranger who happens to be after the same man (Matt Damon), this trio rides for justice, payback and a cash reward.
The Coen Brothers use a heightened, stylized dialogue that works because the rest of the film is a reminder of just how tough life really was in the West. You can smell the sweat and horse manure in almost every frame. "True Grit" isn't just a title, it's a feel. The grit is tangible. Bridges is destined to follow up an Oscar win with at least a nomination, although his tendency toward mumbling (ala Brando) may cost him a repeat win. And Steinfeld is an Oscar-worthy revelation.
OK, the Coen Brothers aren't for everyone and Westerns aren't for everyone but if you're a fan of either the artists or the genre, you're in for a hell of a ride.
The Fighter
Boxing movies are a genre that sticks pretty close to convention. You know more or less what you're going to get goin' in. Mark Wahlberg's passion project, "The Fighter" is no exception. Wahlberg wanted to do this film partly because the real life boxing brothers came from the same streets that Wahlberg punked around on in his youth. In this case, the Ward brothers, Dickie and Mickey, are from Lowell, Mass., a suburb of Boston, which Wahlberg called home. These are pretty mean streets, a working class neighborhood at best, and Wahlberg knows them well. It gives this film the same kind of authenticity that the years other Boston-based drama (Affleck's "The Town") had. The streets of Boston are the new streets of New York.
Mickie Ward is the younger brother of a local legend. Dickie Ward's claim to fame is that he knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard (a dubious claim, it was more of a slip). Now Mickey is getting some attention in the boxing world as a welter weight. But as long as his tough-as-nails Mom is his manager and Dickie is his trainer, Mickey is going nowhere. His Mom still treats Dickie like a fair-haired hero and is all but blind to Dickie's crack addiction and the downward spiral that it's caused. These are the obstacles to Mickie's rise and the central conflict. How will Mickey reconcile his family and his ambition? The answer comes in a series of boxing sequences. They don't exactly stretch the genre, but they don't give it a black eye either.
Wahlberg's performance is middle of the road which is actually where it should be. He's the guy stuck in the middle, squarely between his screwed up family and his dream. Wahlberg doesn't have the emotional range for...oh say, The Lovely Bones, but here he's in his comfort zone. It's a role that demands physicality rather than emotionality and Wahlberg fills the bill. But the supporting characters, well that's another story. They have range in spades. Christian Bale is just this side of brilliant as the talented crackhead brother, full of manic kinetic energy, rage and charm. And Melissa Leo's messed-up Mom is a wonder to watch as she undermines Mickey's opportunities and falls victim to Dickie's manipulations. Amy Adams sheds the sweet and innocent tag for a turn as Mickey's salt and vinegar love interest.
Maybe my favorite thing in the movie is how the Ward sisters (all seven of them) are handled. They always appear together, a solid wall of blond bitchiness, without an effort at separate characterization. It's as if the witches from Macbeth (plus four) had grown up in Southie.
This is straight forward filmmaking, well paced and easy to watch. No new ground is broken, though. Still should be a slew of Oscar nominations coming out of this one.
Mickie Ward is the younger brother of a local legend. Dickie Ward's claim to fame is that he knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard (a dubious claim, it was more of a slip). Now Mickey is getting some attention in the boxing world as a welter weight. But as long as his tough-as-nails Mom is his manager and Dickie is his trainer, Mickey is going nowhere. His Mom still treats Dickie like a fair-haired hero and is all but blind to Dickie's crack addiction and the downward spiral that it's caused. These are the obstacles to Mickie's rise and the central conflict. How will Mickey reconcile his family and his ambition? The answer comes in a series of boxing sequences. They don't exactly stretch the genre, but they don't give it a black eye either.
Wahlberg's performance is middle of the road which is actually where it should be. He's the guy stuck in the middle, squarely between his screwed up family and his dream. Wahlberg doesn't have the emotional range for...oh say, The Lovely Bones, but here he's in his comfort zone. It's a role that demands physicality rather than emotionality and Wahlberg fills the bill. But the supporting characters, well that's another story. They have range in spades. Christian Bale is just this side of brilliant as the talented crackhead brother, full of manic kinetic energy, rage and charm. And Melissa Leo's messed-up Mom is a wonder to watch as she undermines Mickey's opportunities and falls victim to Dickie's manipulations. Amy Adams sheds the sweet and innocent tag for a turn as Mickey's salt and vinegar love interest.
Maybe my favorite thing in the movie is how the Ward sisters (all seven of them) are handled. They always appear together, a solid wall of blond bitchiness, without an effort at separate characterization. It's as if the witches from Macbeth (plus four) had grown up in Southie.
This is straight forward filmmaking, well paced and easy to watch. No new ground is broken, though. Still should be a slew of Oscar nominations coming out of this one.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Let Me In
You won't hear me speak very highly of the horror genre or Vampire movies in this blog very often. The genre has become ugly with gore or sex-crazed soap opera (Twilight, True Blood). But last year there was a film from Sweden that really transcended the current confines of the genre. It was called "Let the Right One In" and it got a lot of attention from critic's groups, many of whom awarded it with "Best Foreign Film" honors. It was a master stroke to set the film in the icy landscape of urban Sweden, besides which those Swedes are some pasty-pallored mo-fo's---perfect for Vampire movies. But the real strength of the movie wasn't about spewing blood or chewing on necks. It was about loneliness and isolation and alienation-the underpinnings of all good horror.
So when they decided to do an American version of this great vampire flick, my stomach sunk. The horror.
Turns out that my trepidation was misplaced. The American version, "Let Me In", stays true to the original in some very important ways. It's not as good as the Swedish version, but it ain't bad. Here's why:
At the heart of both the original and this version is the relationship between a lonely adolescent boy and a really lonely adolescent vampire. When the boy asks the young female vampire how old she is, she answers "I'm twelve. But I've been twelve for a very long time". How these two children from different worlds come to live in a creepy symbiosis, feeding off each others emotional and physical needs is what gives this story such a unique slant.
The American version does however come up short in some key ways. The boys relationship to his divorcing parents is given short shrift and curiously some of the grisliest visions from the original are softened or ignored. This version instead focuses on the young boy's adolescent voyeurism and his mother's religious obsession. Sex and God-- America's favorite pass-times. It makes the American revival a lesser film by far. So rent "Let the Right One In" unless you're one of those that has no patience for subtitles. If that's the case, you'll still find a lot to like about "Let Me In".
So when they decided to do an American version of this great vampire flick, my stomach sunk. The horror.
Turns out that my trepidation was misplaced. The American version, "Let Me In", stays true to the original in some very important ways. It's not as good as the Swedish version, but it ain't bad. Here's why:
At the heart of both the original and this version is the relationship between a lonely adolescent boy and a really lonely adolescent vampire. When the boy asks the young female vampire how old she is, she answers "I'm twelve. But I've been twelve for a very long time". How these two children from different worlds come to live in a creepy symbiosis, feeding off each others emotional and physical needs is what gives this story such a unique slant.
The American version does however come up short in some key ways. The boys relationship to his divorcing parents is given short shrift and curiously some of the grisliest visions from the original are softened or ignored. This version instead focuses on the young boy's adolescent voyeurism and his mother's religious obsession. Sex and God-- America's favorite pass-times. It makes the American revival a lesser film by far. So rent "Let the Right One In" unless you're one of those that has no patience for subtitles. If that's the case, you'll still find a lot to like about "Let Me In".
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Stone
Stone is a psychological thriller without the thrill. That's sad because the script attracted talent like Robert DeNiro and Ed Norton. The premise sounds promising. A parole officer working in a prison meets an inmate who will not only say anything to get out but will do anything, including recruiting his wife to seduce the old guy. And when the old guy (that's DeNiro) gets a look at the wife (a sexy Milla Jovovich) well, why not? Who cares if he goes to jail, or screws up his pending retirement, or loses his family, or pisses off a psychopath? The behavior in this film by every single character just doesn't make sense. If anyone in this movie made one logical or honest choice at any point the movie would have been over a half hour in. That would have been a mercy.
The phrase of the day for "Stone" is heavy-handed. Ed Norton (a great actor) is over-the-top and annoying right from the get-go. DeNiro (beyond a great actor) ladles on the guilt-ridden angst with a trowel, and the incessant drone of conservative religious radio in almost every non-prison scene is as irritating as listening to that crap in real life. By the time "Stone" comes to its unsatisfying conclusion, I wanted to beat my head in with....well, a stone. Wasting talent like this should be a parole violation.
The phrase of the day for "Stone" is heavy-handed. Ed Norton (a great actor) is over-the-top and annoying right from the get-go. DeNiro (beyond a great actor) ladles on the guilt-ridden angst with a trowel, and the incessant drone of conservative religious radio in almost every non-prison scene is as irritating as listening to that crap in real life. By the time "Stone" comes to its unsatisfying conclusion, I wanted to beat my head in with....well, a stone. Wasting talent like this should be a parole violation.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Conviction
The unjustly convicted prisoner has been the basis for a ton of Hollywood dramas. Generally the stories provide ready-made conflict and plenty of pathos. It is, however, a sub-genre that is a bit familiar, bordering on completely overdone. These stories need something to set them apart, a fresh angle. I thought that "Conviction" had a stand-out premise. Turns out the recipe for this true story isn't that unique and the film is as familiar as a TV Dinner.
We start out pretty well. Hillary Swank and her brother (Sam Rockwell) have a tight bond forged by a less-than-picturesque upbringing in a small Massachusetts town. He's not an angel but a local murder is pinned on him with flimsy evidence. With no cash for a decent lawyer, he gets life without parole. No lawyer, no justice. Solution? Become a lawyer, which is exactly what Hillary Swank's character does. Impressive considering the first step is for her to get a GED.
Well, the good start ends up being squandered, as scene after standard scene unfolds to an inevitable conclusion. It's all really....ummm...okay in a predictable sort of way. Director Tony Goldwyn does a competent job and Swank is good, as is Minnie Driver in a supporting role. Fine. Good. Competent. Blah. The script fixates on Swank's negatives, her losses and obsession. Her triumphs are given short shrift. How the hell did she get through law school anyway? This film is a dish with no spice---with one notable exception.
Sam Rockwell provides a rapid pulse to an otherwise cadaver of a movie with a brave, almost arrogant portrayal of the unjustly convicted. Rockwell is always really good but here he's even better as he navigates the roller coaster of a justice system determined to take him for a ride. He's terrific and I suspect that you may hear his name announced in one of those nomination ceremonies. It's possible anyway. But for the rest of the movie...sigh....shrug.
We start out pretty well. Hillary Swank and her brother (Sam Rockwell) have a tight bond forged by a less-than-picturesque upbringing in a small Massachusetts town. He's not an angel but a local murder is pinned on him with flimsy evidence. With no cash for a decent lawyer, he gets life without parole. No lawyer, no justice. Solution? Become a lawyer, which is exactly what Hillary Swank's character does. Impressive considering the first step is for her to get a GED.
Well, the good start ends up being squandered, as scene after standard scene unfolds to an inevitable conclusion. It's all really....ummm...okay in a predictable sort of way. Director Tony Goldwyn does a competent job and Swank is good, as is Minnie Driver in a supporting role. Fine. Good. Competent. Blah. The script fixates on Swank's negatives, her losses and obsession. Her triumphs are given short shrift. How the hell did she get through law school anyway? This film is a dish with no spice---with one notable exception.
Sam Rockwell provides a rapid pulse to an otherwise cadaver of a movie with a brave, almost arrogant portrayal of the unjustly convicted. Rockwell is always really good but here he's even better as he navigates the roller coaster of a justice system determined to take him for a ride. He's terrific and I suspect that you may hear his name announced in one of those nomination ceremonies. It's possible anyway. But for the rest of the movie...sigh....shrug.
The Town
Beginning writers always get the same advice: "Write what you know". Ben Affleck must have listened to his writing teachers. Affleck returns to the Boston neighborhoods that served him well in his directing debut, "Gone, Baby Gone". This time it's for the story of a quartet of skilled bank robbers led by Affleck and Jeremy Renner who have to stay a step ahead of the FBI on the mean streets of Boston in "The Town". The complication in this Beantown story? A girl. And not just any girl. This girl is a former victim of the crew who may or may not be the key to their downfall. As played by Rebecca Hall (who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite ingenues)the victimized bank manager begins a relationship with Affleck and as every good bank robber should know, the mix of love and criminal enterprise seldom ends well (footnote: Bonnie and Clyde).
The strength of this entry into the crime genre category lies in the authenticity of its character, its dialogue and its setting. Affleck knows Boston streets and Boston people. Yeah, "authentic" is a good word for this film.
My major objection is the choice to rob Fenway Park. Really? Steal two million dollars from the Red Sox? That's enough cash for a utility infielder or a decent reliever (which Lord knows they need). Affleck of all people should know better.
The strength of this entry into the crime genre category lies in the authenticity of its character, its dialogue and its setting. Affleck knows Boston streets and Boston people. Yeah, "authentic" is a good word for this film.
My major objection is the choice to rob Fenway Park. Really? Steal two million dollars from the Red Sox? That's enough cash for a utility infielder or a decent reliever (which Lord knows they need). Affleck of all people should know better.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
127 Hours
There aren't very many Man vs. Nature movies that make a big splash around awards time. "Into The Wild" comes to mind and, uh........hmmmm, not many at all. Well, here's one for ya--"127 Hours". The man in this case is a gung-ho outdoorsman played by James Franco. The Nature part of the equation comes in the form of a big-ass rock. A big-ass rock that pins said man's arm in a fissure somewhere out in the Nevadan desert. After 127 hours, the man in the aforementioned Man vs. Nature conflict must literally remove himself from the situation, well... manually. How he does this makes for great cinematic storytelling, gut-wrenching and compelling to watch. Compelling to watch? Yes. Easy to watch? No. And the fact that it's based on a true story doesn't make it any easier.
Director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire) uses a tautly paced, kinetic style to tell this story in a breezy 93 minutes. An intense 93 minutes. James Franco gives his best performance to date as a daring, charming but somewhat self-absorbed adventurer who gets himself into trouble. How he gets himself out makes for some of the best cinema this year-if you've got the stomach for it. Man vs. Nature films will be well represented on the awards circuit this year.
Director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire) uses a tautly paced, kinetic style to tell this story in a breezy 93 minutes. An intense 93 minutes. James Franco gives his best performance to date as a daring, charming but somewhat self-absorbed adventurer who gets himself into trouble. How he gets himself out makes for some of the best cinema this year-if you've got the stomach for it. Man vs. Nature films will be well represented on the awards circuit this year.
Black Swan
In films like "Requiem for a Dream" and "The Wrestler", Director Darren Aronofsky puts a magnifying glass on the dark side of human nature. He isn't interested so much in what makes us noble as what keeps us from nobility and how we strive to rise above our dark selves. You don't really think about that kind of duality in the graceful world of ballet but it turns out that those skinny ballerina's are a pretty cutthroat crew. Who knew that toe shoes could kick that kind of ass?
Natalie Portman lives up to the demands of a difficult and internalized role as Nina Sayers, an up and coming dance world star who has been cast as the Swan Queen in "Swan Lake". It can make her career if it doesn't destroy her first.
Using "Swan Lake" as the vehicle that frames his movie is a brilliant maneuver by Aronofsky because as it turns out The Swan Queen dances as two different characters-the virginal White Swan and the shadier Black Swan, a seducer with a dark spirit. Pretty convenient metaphor, huh? And Aranofsky gets the most out of it.
Nina has the White Swan covered but as she is pushed to delve into the psyche of the Black Swan her own demons emerge and threaten to destroy her both physically and emotionally. Aronofsky sets up a rival, Lily (Mila Kunis)as a catalyst to the destruction, but watch carefully. Kunis' character never actually does anything overtly evil or underhanded. It's only in the eyes of the increasingly paranoid Portman that evil is perceived. Who is out to get whom?
Sound complicated? Actually it is. This is a film-goers film, not really for the casual movie fan. It's more Dostoevsky than Stephen King, that's for sure. But it's a film you'll want to talk about, to delve in to. But be warned, it doesn't have the likable central character that "The Wrestler" had. Natalie Portman's performance, though difficult to watch, is a masterwork of psycho-sexual drama. Good film.
Natalie Portman lives up to the demands of a difficult and internalized role as Nina Sayers, an up and coming dance world star who has been cast as the Swan Queen in "Swan Lake". It can make her career if it doesn't destroy her first.
Using "Swan Lake" as the vehicle that frames his movie is a brilliant maneuver by Aronofsky because as it turns out The Swan Queen dances as two different characters-the virginal White Swan and the shadier Black Swan, a seducer with a dark spirit. Pretty convenient metaphor, huh? And Aranofsky gets the most out of it.
Nina has the White Swan covered but as she is pushed to delve into the psyche of the Black Swan her own demons emerge and threaten to destroy her both physically and emotionally. Aronofsky sets up a rival, Lily (Mila Kunis)as a catalyst to the destruction, but watch carefully. Kunis' character never actually does anything overtly evil or underhanded. It's only in the eyes of the increasingly paranoid Portman that evil is perceived. Who is out to get whom?
Sound complicated? Actually it is. This is a film-goers film, not really for the casual movie fan. It's more Dostoevsky than Stephen King, that's for sure. But it's a film you'll want to talk about, to delve in to. But be warned, it doesn't have the likable central character that "The Wrestler" had. Natalie Portman's performance, though difficult to watch, is a masterwork of psycho-sexual drama. Good film.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Somewhere
If the doctor will no longer write you a prescription for Ambien, by all means buy a DVD copy of Sofia Coppola's new film "Somewhere". I guarantee you, you'll sleep like a baby. This pointless character study (I think it's a character study because it's really not anything else) follows a mega-star actor (Stephen Dorff) through his pointless life doing pointless things. The point? Well, I guess it's that being rich isn't all it's cracked up to be. Boo hoo. Trouble is that he's a nice guy, eats well, lives in a hotel, gets laid a lot, has a daughter who is pretty cool, and is generally pampered. He just can't "find himself". Again, boo-freakin'-hoo. All of which would be fine if it was presented with anything resembling story-telling skill. There is no dramatic tension anywhere near this film. Nothing happens in the beginning of the movie, very little in the middle and even less in the end.
Sofia Coppola has a famous father and an Oscar. The former is an accident of birth, the latter a travesty. The criteria for being a director should be that you have something important to say with moving pictures not, "My Daddy directed 'The Godfather'". Sofia Coppola is grossly over-rated and her latest film sucks.
Sofia Coppola has a famous father and an Oscar. The former is an accident of birth, the latter a travesty. The criteria for being a director should be that you have something important to say with moving pictures not, "My Daddy directed 'The Godfather'". Sofia Coppola is grossly over-rated and her latest film sucks.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
When I want to see a movie in a theater I usually have to see it late at night, after the witching hour. How appropriate for the latest installment of the Harry Potter franchise. Of course, that puts me smack in the middle of the midnight madness with all those teen-age wizarding geeks. Last night there were a whole mess of drunken, obnoxious and aggressively silly teens surrounding me with their texting madness. I wanted to commit Harry Pottricide. These were kids caught between their childhood Potter-fan mania and their I'm-too-cool-for-Hogwarts young adulthood. To be honest, most of them were just having a great time, unapologetically happy, dressed in their red and gold Griffindor scarves with penciled in lightening-bolt scars. Hey, who am I to talk? I made my college choice (USC) based mostly on an obsession with "Star Wars".
Last night, my favorite moment was spotting an average looking sixteen year old boy in a green tee-shirt. When he turned his back I saw a piece of notebook paper with the word "Muggle" duct taped to his back. The sign was misspelled and written sloppily with a sharpie. Ahh, a young man caught between two worlds.
As for the movie, it has nothing to do with children or children's literature. These are adults fighting an adult war in an action thriller full of adult themes. It banks on the fact that the fan base has grown up just as Hermione, Ron and Harry have grown. Harry and Ron sport a hefty five o'clock shadow. In fact the entire film has a shadowy tone and temperament. Just as in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings", childish things are left behind and the allegorical threat to the world as we know it hangs in the balance.
Harry, Ron and Hermione set out on their own to destroy the remaining horcruxes that stand in the way of Voldemort's destruction. A horcrux is a kind of receptacle for the soul and Voldemort has hidden parts of himself in them so that he might be immortal. The destruction of the Horcruxes is the only way to insure the destruction of Voldemort. Sound complicated? Not if you've read the book or followed the movies. But if you haven't, don't bother with this film. It isn't for the uninitiated. And that's the way it should be. The end of this story is for the people who have bothered to read or watch the beginning and middle of this story. If you haven't boarded the Hogwarts' Express by now why should we waste time explaining it to you. The Deathly Hallows is for the hard core fan, and there are plenty of those. Like Frodo to Mount Doom, we are heading for a dark place where death is possible and redemption is not a guarantee. It's a great ride and I'm glad I paid my dues along the way so I get to go on it. But again, it ain't for the kiddies.
If there is any problem with these books or films, it's that J.K. Rowling's strength isn't to be found in plot development. In every new book, she has relied on introducing some kind of McGuffin, an object to be sought and found by the main characters that really isn't that important to the overall arc of the story. So every new book has a Sorcerer's stone, or Goblet, or prophecy orb, or horcrux that everybody is hot to find. Once they have it, it turns out not to be so vital but it's really about the chase. The most famous cinematic McGuffin is the Maltese Falcon. In Harry Potter they can really be distracting. They have to be explained and that always stops the forward progress of the story. Here, the Deathly Hallows turns out to be a series of three objects that we have never heard of before. They seem so important to Voldemort and thusly to Harry that you would think that someone might have mentioned them in say, Book Three. Forget it. They're really just a McGuffin. Plot isn't really the strong suit of this story. But character is.
And so I should say something about the three young people who we've come to know as Ron, Hermione and Harry (Radcliffe, Watson, Grint). Perhaps the most interesting thing about watching these characters over the years is the way the actors that play them have developed into really fine performers. They have learned their craft on the job. This film actually belongs to Rupert Grint, whose character Ron Weasley showcases his learned ability to display the nuances and struggles of friendship. He's really terrific in the role. And all three look like they've acted together for a decade---because they have. It serves the franchise well. I hope they go on to outstanding careers.
Part One is the set-up for the final battle, the lines are drawn and we are reminded who the soldiers will be, and what side they fight for. But this film is not all set up. It carries its own dramatic tension. But it also carries the promise of an epic battle to come. I can't wait. I'm hooked. I've got my notebook paper, sharpie and duct tape all set. And come next July, I'll be taping a sign to the back of my shirt that reads "Proud Muggle". See you then, my new-found, opening-night, wizarding brethren. See you then.
Last night, my favorite moment was spotting an average looking sixteen year old boy in a green tee-shirt. When he turned his back I saw a piece of notebook paper with the word "Muggle" duct taped to his back. The sign was misspelled and written sloppily with a sharpie. Ahh, a young man caught between two worlds.
As for the movie, it has nothing to do with children or children's literature. These are adults fighting an adult war in an action thriller full of adult themes. It banks on the fact that the fan base has grown up just as Hermione, Ron and Harry have grown. Harry and Ron sport a hefty five o'clock shadow. In fact the entire film has a shadowy tone and temperament. Just as in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings", childish things are left behind and the allegorical threat to the world as we know it hangs in the balance.
Harry, Ron and Hermione set out on their own to destroy the remaining horcruxes that stand in the way of Voldemort's destruction. A horcrux is a kind of receptacle for the soul and Voldemort has hidden parts of himself in them so that he might be immortal. The destruction of the Horcruxes is the only way to insure the destruction of Voldemort. Sound complicated? Not if you've read the book or followed the movies. But if you haven't, don't bother with this film. It isn't for the uninitiated. And that's the way it should be. The end of this story is for the people who have bothered to read or watch the beginning and middle of this story. If you haven't boarded the Hogwarts' Express by now why should we waste time explaining it to you. The Deathly Hallows is for the hard core fan, and there are plenty of those. Like Frodo to Mount Doom, we are heading for a dark place where death is possible and redemption is not a guarantee. It's a great ride and I'm glad I paid my dues along the way so I get to go on it. But again, it ain't for the kiddies.
If there is any problem with these books or films, it's that J.K. Rowling's strength isn't to be found in plot development. In every new book, she has relied on introducing some kind of McGuffin, an object to be sought and found by the main characters that really isn't that important to the overall arc of the story. So every new book has a Sorcerer's stone, or Goblet, or prophecy orb, or horcrux that everybody is hot to find. Once they have it, it turns out not to be so vital but it's really about the chase. The most famous cinematic McGuffin is the Maltese Falcon. In Harry Potter they can really be distracting. They have to be explained and that always stops the forward progress of the story. Here, the Deathly Hallows turns out to be a series of three objects that we have never heard of before. They seem so important to Voldemort and thusly to Harry that you would think that someone might have mentioned them in say, Book Three. Forget it. They're really just a McGuffin. Plot isn't really the strong suit of this story. But character is.
And so I should say something about the three young people who we've come to know as Ron, Hermione and Harry (Radcliffe, Watson, Grint). Perhaps the most interesting thing about watching these characters over the years is the way the actors that play them have developed into really fine performers. They have learned their craft on the job. This film actually belongs to Rupert Grint, whose character Ron Weasley showcases his learned ability to display the nuances and struggles of friendship. He's really terrific in the role. And all three look like they've acted together for a decade---because they have. It serves the franchise well. I hope they go on to outstanding careers.
Part One is the set-up for the final battle, the lines are drawn and we are reminded who the soldiers will be, and what side they fight for. But this film is not all set up. It carries its own dramatic tension. But it also carries the promise of an epic battle to come. I can't wait. I'm hooked. I've got my notebook paper, sharpie and duct tape all set. And come next July, I'll be taping a sign to the back of my shirt that reads "Proud Muggle". See you then, my new-found, opening-night, wizarding brethren. See you then.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Animal Kingdom
Back in the day, Australian cinema had a pretty robust reputation for great independent art films, thanks mostly to Peter Weir. His early work, like "Picnic at Hanging Rock", "The Last Wave" and "Gallipoli" (great films all) were down under outgrowths of the seventies independent movement here in the states. Since then, you really don't hear much about groundbreaking Aussie cinema.
There is a lot of hype about a new Australian genre piece called "Animal Kingdom". There's a big awards campaign afoot and thus I got a chance to catch it.
The film opens with a young man sitting on a couch next to his dead Mum (heroin OD), watching the Aussie version of Deal or No Deal. This odd opening kicks off a bizarre crime drama, gritty and violent and sometimes illogical. The young man goes to stay with his criminally incestuous Grandmother and her four sociopath sons, his uncles. These are the people who we are asked to root for. The cops are on the corrupt side and everybody (and I mean everybody) is paranoid. By the time it's all over, lots of family members have died. Those that are left share a nice hug. Family is family after all. This film is alternately gripping and silly but if you like the crime genre, it's a pretty fun ride. Australian character actress Jacki Weaver (the matriarch of the crime family) is being pushed for a Supporting Actress Oscar. She's good, but not that good. I've seen three or four supporting performances that are far better and the awards season hasn't even gone into high gear.
There is a lot of hype about a new Australian genre piece called "Animal Kingdom". There's a big awards campaign afoot and thus I got a chance to catch it.
The film opens with a young man sitting on a couch next to his dead Mum (heroin OD), watching the Aussie version of Deal or No Deal. This odd opening kicks off a bizarre crime drama, gritty and violent and sometimes illogical. The young man goes to stay with his criminally incestuous Grandmother and her four sociopath sons, his uncles. These are the people who we are asked to root for. The cops are on the corrupt side and everybody (and I mean everybody) is paranoid. By the time it's all over, lots of family members have died. Those that are left share a nice hug. Family is family after all. This film is alternately gripping and silly but if you like the crime genre, it's a pretty fun ride. Australian character actress Jacki Weaver (the matriarch of the crime family) is being pushed for a Supporting Actress Oscar. She's good, but not that good. I've seen three or four supporting performances that are far better and the awards season hasn't even gone into high gear.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Please Give
After seeing Woody Allen's latest rehash of the genre, I wasn't sure if I was ready to tackle another Urban Indie talk piece but Nicole Holfcener's "Please Give" is a slight but honest and engaging look at modern city-dwelling women who try to reconcile their inner empaths with the coldness of city life.
Catherine Keener and Oliver Platt make a tidy living buying dead people's household furnishings and reselling them at a profit. Keener is riddled with guilt about, well, just about everything and the fact the she and Platt have purchased the apartment of the old lady next door and are waiting for her to keel over just makes her life unbearable. Keener compensates by giving money to homeless people and playing the sensitive soul to everyone except her own family. The old lady has to two granddaughters (played beautifully by Rebecca Hall and Amanda Peete)and when these two families co-mingle they just seem to point up each others shortcomings like high contrast dye.
This is a short and gentle ride, more of a merry-go-round than a roller coaster. It all seems very honest, a journey punctuated by commas rather than exclamation points. The extraordinary ensemble makes the whole thing work. Nobody's life gets decimated and in the end you're kind of glad it all works out, just like real life usually does.
Catherine Keener and Oliver Platt make a tidy living buying dead people's household furnishings and reselling them at a profit. Keener is riddled with guilt about, well, just about everything and the fact the she and Platt have purchased the apartment of the old lady next door and are waiting for her to keel over just makes her life unbearable. Keener compensates by giving money to homeless people and playing the sensitive soul to everyone except her own family. The old lady has to two granddaughters (played beautifully by Rebecca Hall and Amanda Peete)and when these two families co-mingle they just seem to point up each others shortcomings like high contrast dye.
This is a short and gentle ride, more of a merry-go-round than a roller coaster. It all seems very honest, a journey punctuated by commas rather than exclamation points. The extraordinary ensemble makes the whole thing work. Nobody's life gets decimated and in the end you're kind of glad it all works out, just like real life usually does.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger
Clint Eastwood may be getting better with age but Woody Allen sure as hell isn't. He has no dramatic questions left in him except "Why can't I get laid anymore?" Allen has made the same movie over and over again for the last dozen years or so and except for "Vicky Christina Barcellona" and "Match Point" he has not even tried to make the stale themes seem fresh. He simply makes the same bad soap opera again and again. I thought he hit a low point with last year's catastrophe with Larry David but it seems he had even further to sink. The new low water mark is called "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger". Not sure if it's a drama or a comedy because this film is not at all funny nor is it particularly dramatic. It's just lazy filmmaking.
So, this is an ensemble piece about a bunch of people who aren't happy with the romantic life they are living including an old, viagra-popping man who leaves his wife for a young gold digger, and the old man's daughter and her husband who want to hump other people and blah, blah, blah. It's just a rehash of Woody's sexual obsessions. Been there, done that, was bored by it years ago. Not only that but in Allen's aging isolation from reality he has lost his ability to write dialogue that an actual human being would say. The most amusing thing in the film is watching good actors trying to make the dialogue work. Add to that a plot that is riddled with gaps in logic and a lack of any insight into the whole mess and what you get is passionless and meaningless morality play that isn't worth the price of admission.
Woody Allen should stop making movies unless he has something to say. He's destroying his own legacy.
So, this is an ensemble piece about a bunch of people who aren't happy with the romantic life they are living including an old, viagra-popping man who leaves his wife for a young gold digger, and the old man's daughter and her husband who want to hump other people and blah, blah, blah. It's just a rehash of Woody's sexual obsessions. Been there, done that, was bored by it years ago. Not only that but in Allen's aging isolation from reality he has lost his ability to write dialogue that an actual human being would say. The most amusing thing in the film is watching good actors trying to make the dialogue work. Add to that a plot that is riddled with gaps in logic and a lack of any insight into the whole mess and what you get is passionless and meaningless morality play that isn't worth the price of admission.
Woody Allen should stop making movies unless he has something to say. He's destroying his own legacy.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Guest Blogger for "Catfish"
Since we're talking about films sparked by the relatively new phenomenon of social networking (See blog for "The Social Network" directly below), here's a post about the other computer generated story that has a buzz hummin'. It's called "Catfish" and it made a splash at Sundance. I couldn't get to it but my buddy John did. Here's his post:
It's appropriate that Catfish has been released just weeks before The Social Network since it's a documentary about how Facebook has changed the nature of relationships and how we interact with each other. Catfish revolves around Nev Shulman, an artist who starts a correspondence with Abby, an 8 year-old girl who, after seeing one of his photographs in the paper, paints a portrait of it and sends it to him. Abby is very talented and continues to send Nev her paintings. This leads to Facebook friendships with Abby, her family, and their extended family. Nev's focus soon shifts to Abby's sister, Megan and their relationship starts to deepen even though they have never met. Over time, events transpire which begin to turn Nev's fascination to suspicion, so he decides to surprise Megan with a visit. We see all of this as documented by Nev's brother.
This is where it becomes difficult to discuss any more of the film without revealing the direction it takes. Instead I want to talk about marketing and expectations. Catfish caused a stir at this year's Sundance where a "you won't believe the ending" buzz began. The premise of this film doesn't sound all that compelling; add the fact that it's a documentary and you can see how this film would be a challenge to market. But Catfish had a great hook and a trailer which makes it look like a thriller. But now for the expectations. Is this movie overselling itself? I found myself watching this film like an M Night Shyamalan movie, anticipating and trying to figure out what the twist is going to be. At that point I found myself being pulled out of the film. In the case of Night's movies that's not such a big deal since his movies are no longer good or twist worthy, but I digress. Night may now need an attention-grabbing marketing campaign to get people to see his movies, but this type of marketing can be a double-edged sword. What if the film in question is actually good but rather than deliver a "wow" twist it gives you something more thought provoking and emotional? Is the audience going to be let down? The film had a $21,000 per screen average in it's first week, a very strong showing. Hopefully now word of mouth will generate interest in the film and not the marketing campaign.------John DeFelice
It's appropriate that Catfish has been released just weeks before The Social Network since it's a documentary about how Facebook has changed the nature of relationships and how we interact with each other. Catfish revolves around Nev Shulman, an artist who starts a correspondence with Abby, an 8 year-old girl who, after seeing one of his photographs in the paper, paints a portrait of it and sends it to him. Abby is very talented and continues to send Nev her paintings. This leads to Facebook friendships with Abby, her family, and their extended family. Nev's focus soon shifts to Abby's sister, Megan and their relationship starts to deepen even though they have never met. Over time, events transpire which begin to turn Nev's fascination to suspicion, so he decides to surprise Megan with a visit. We see all of this as documented by Nev's brother.
This is where it becomes difficult to discuss any more of the film without revealing the direction it takes. Instead I want to talk about marketing and expectations. Catfish caused a stir at this year's Sundance where a "you won't believe the ending" buzz began. The premise of this film doesn't sound all that compelling; add the fact that it's a documentary and you can see how this film would be a challenge to market. But Catfish had a great hook and a trailer which makes it look like a thriller. But now for the expectations. Is this movie overselling itself? I found myself watching this film like an M Night Shyamalan movie, anticipating and trying to figure out what the twist is going to be. At that point I found myself being pulled out of the film. In the case of Night's movies that's not such a big deal since his movies are no longer good or twist worthy, but I digress. Night may now need an attention-grabbing marketing campaign to get people to see his movies, but this type of marketing can be a double-edged sword. What if the film in question is actually good but rather than deliver a "wow" twist it gives you something more thought provoking and emotional? Is the audience going to be let down? The film had a $21,000 per screen average in it's first week, a very strong showing. Hopefully now word of mouth will generate interest in the film and not the marketing campaign.------John DeFelice
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The Social Network
What a nerd won't do to get laid. And be accepted. And seek revenge. Mark Zuckerberg is worth 25 BILLION Dollars and he has yet to hit 30. He created (depending on who you talk to) a website so in tune with the internet zeitgeist that even I use it on a regular basis. That's saying something. That site of course is Facebook. Originally THE Facebook. And it all started at Harvard, where every undergrad wants two things-to make more money than God could ever spend and to get a little nookie. Mark Zuckerberg has reached both those goals (I'm speculating on the second one). "The Social Network" is the story of how it happened.
Now to tell a story about how a website came into existence, with all its algorithms and lines of computer code and nerdy characters, requires mad skills. Enter David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin. They are to cinematic storytelling what Mark Zuckerberg is to great website ideas. Fincher has films like "Seven" and "Fight Club" on his resume (forget the interminable Benjamin Button-everyone is allowed a turkey). And Sorkin, well, all he did was write the best written TV show of all time, "The West Wing". These two, especially Sorkin, do not disappoint.
Sorkin's script is complex and nuanced. It bounces back and forth in time between depositions given in two separate lawsuits and the events at Harvard in 2003-2004 where Zuckerberg, as a beer -swilling Sophomore, wrote the code for an idea that would make him rich beyond his wildest dreams. Doesn't sound very dramatic? Like I said-mad skills. It is compelling and fascinating. Never has a computer geek been so Shakespearian in scope, so Machiavellian in temperament and so interesting to watch.
Everyone is good in this film including Justin Timberlake as the smarmy founder of Napster and Andrew Garfield as Facebook's co-founder (and as it turns out, the fifth Beatle) but this film belongs to Jesse Eisenberg, whose nuanced performance is a high-wire act between likable genius and obsessed asshole. He deserves all the award attention he's gonna get.
"The Social Network" is a fascinating treatise on what drives us to greatness and who deserves success. And who doesn't. It makes you wonder just how the real Mark Zuckerberg will live his life, now that everyone has gotten a taste of the pie. Of course, the multi-billion dollar slice still belongs to him. Not bad for a beer-swilling Sophomore.
Now to tell a story about how a website came into existence, with all its algorithms and lines of computer code and nerdy characters, requires mad skills. Enter David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin. They are to cinematic storytelling what Mark Zuckerberg is to great website ideas. Fincher has films like "Seven" and "Fight Club" on his resume (forget the interminable Benjamin Button-everyone is allowed a turkey). And Sorkin, well, all he did was write the best written TV show of all time, "The West Wing". These two, especially Sorkin, do not disappoint.
Sorkin's script is complex and nuanced. It bounces back and forth in time between depositions given in two separate lawsuits and the events at Harvard in 2003-2004 where Zuckerberg, as a beer -swilling Sophomore, wrote the code for an idea that would make him rich beyond his wildest dreams. Doesn't sound very dramatic? Like I said-mad skills. It is compelling and fascinating. Never has a computer geek been so Shakespearian in scope, so Machiavellian in temperament and so interesting to watch.
Everyone is good in this film including Justin Timberlake as the smarmy founder of Napster and Andrew Garfield as Facebook's co-founder (and as it turns out, the fifth Beatle) but this film belongs to Jesse Eisenberg, whose nuanced performance is a high-wire act between likable genius and obsessed asshole. He deserves all the award attention he's gonna get.
"The Social Network" is a fascinating treatise on what drives us to greatness and who deserves success. And who doesn't. It makes you wonder just how the real Mark Zuckerberg will live his life, now that everyone has gotten a taste of the pie. Of course, the multi-billion dollar slice still belongs to him. Not bad for a beer-swilling Sophomore.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Get Low
Robert Duvall is an actor who is as familiar to us as a worn flannel shirt. We know how good he can be. Sometimes we mistake familiarity of style with repetition. It's true we've seen Duvall play characters with similar demeanor as Felix Bush in "Get Low", but the greatness of an actor of Duvall's caliber is in his ability to surprise us. Duvall, as Felix Bush, surprises us frequently. It's a feast for the senses to watch him work.
There are other reasons to see "Get Low", including a terrific ensemble and a good script. Sissy Spacek gives an honest and low key performance and a young actor named Lucas Black is remarkably good. That brings us to Bill Murray. Murray is fine in this film, funny and biting and off-beat. Here's my problem with him; he seems oddly cast, almost shoe-horned into the role. There is even a reference that his character is transplanted from Chicago to the deep south. I can't help but wonder if that wasn't a writing fix for Murray's lack of southern sensibility (and southern accent). No matter. It doesn't spoil the proceedings.
"Get Low" is a simple story of a man who needs to confess his sins and his secret before he leaves this earth. It has the feel of a real indie feature despite the star power, as if the title serves as a double entendre for the budget. But Duvall's closing monologue at his own funeral is well worth the price of admission. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get lots of awards consideration. He actually deserves it.
There are other reasons to see "Get Low", including a terrific ensemble and a good script. Sissy Spacek gives an honest and low key performance and a young actor named Lucas Black is remarkably good. That brings us to Bill Murray. Murray is fine in this film, funny and biting and off-beat. Here's my problem with him; he seems oddly cast, almost shoe-horned into the role. There is even a reference that his character is transplanted from Chicago to the deep south. I can't help but wonder if that wasn't a writing fix for Murray's lack of southern sensibility (and southern accent). No matter. It doesn't spoil the proceedings.
"Get Low" is a simple story of a man who needs to confess his sins and his secret before he leaves this earth. It has the feel of a real indie feature despite the star power, as if the title serves as a double entendre for the budget. But Duvall's closing monologue at his own funeral is well worth the price of admission. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get lots of awards consideration. He actually deserves it.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
On The Demise of "At The Movies"
"Wherever and however we choose to experience them, the movies challenge and delight us and for many of us a lively, passionate debate about movies is one of the great pleasures in life. For those of us lucky enough to have those conversations for a living, this show has meant more than we can properly express." ---Michael Phillips, Film Critic for "At The Movies"
With that statement, 35 years of "At the Movies" came to a close and my heart broke. It may just be my favorite television show of forever. I bought my first clunky, giant VCR so I could record it. I saw literally hundreds of films, many of which I would never have even heard of were it not for the show, based on the recommendation of one or both of the critics. I learned how to articulate what I liked about a film, or disliked, based on the conversations (or arguments) of the hosts, especially Gene and Roger and Michael and Tony. It provided me with the equivalent of a Masters Degree in film studies. Really. 35 years of listening to experts in their field discuss film theory. I should have a sheepskin. I have entire friendships based on a give and take about movies. We could go at it for hours (you know who you are, Kev, Cary, John, Kathy). "At The Movies" gave me a foundation of critical thought that shaped my ability to recognize good storytelling in my own work and in others. I think we have lost something wonderful and important to the ravages of the blogosphere. Hmmmm... I think that's called irony. 'At The Movies" taught me that.
With that statement, 35 years of "At the Movies" came to a close and my heart broke. It may just be my favorite television show of forever. I bought my first clunky, giant VCR so I could record it. I saw literally hundreds of films, many of which I would never have even heard of were it not for the show, based on the recommendation of one or both of the critics. I learned how to articulate what I liked about a film, or disliked, based on the conversations (or arguments) of the hosts, especially Gene and Roger and Michael and Tony. It provided me with the equivalent of a Masters Degree in film studies. Really. 35 years of listening to experts in their field discuss film theory. I should have a sheepskin. I have entire friendships based on a give and take about movies. We could go at it for hours (you know who you are, Kev, Cary, John, Kathy). "At The Movies" gave me a foundation of critical thought that shaped my ability to recognize good storytelling in my own work and in others. I think we have lost something wonderful and important to the ravages of the blogosphere. Hmmmm... I think that's called irony. 'At The Movies" taught me that.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Winter's Bone
The Independent Film movement has morphed into something very different in the last 15 or 20 years. It is no longer a movement of backyard shoots on shoestring budgets. At least not very often. "Independent" projects are more like "The Kids Are Alright" (see previous blog entry) Smaller budgets yes, but not shoestring. An independent film these days is likely to have a big name or three (Benning, Moore and Ruffalo) and have a studio seal of approval. It's more about an actor finding more challenging material and studios trolling for awards. They're still good movies, grittier subject matter, fine acting and writing. But it ain't like it used to be.
But sometimes there's a throw back, and "Winter's Bone" is a throw back. It's also my favorite film of the year so far. You won't recognize the names or the faces. That's a good thing. It will allow you to immerse yourself in the world, a world you've never been to before. A world that exists within the borders of this country but that you need to be born to in order to know it. In that way, there is a spiritual kinship with films like "Frozen River". It may be even better, and that's saying something.
The place is the Ozark mountains of Missouri. It's dirt poor but there are rules. Neighbors help neighbors but you don't ask for it. You don't trust the law and you keep your mouth shut. Squirrel isn't a pest, it's a meal, and kin is kin-can't change that. That's the world of Ree Dolly, 17, taking care of two young siblings and a Mom who's had a psychotic break. Her father's been arrested again on drug charges and is facing years in jail. He's put up the house as bond and now he's missing. If he jumps bail, the house is gone and they're out "in the fields like dogs". So now Ree's got to find him and that ain't gonna be easy.
That search reveals a world that has been utterly unseen to an audience; a world filled with tough moral choices and low behavior, and a people who can't afford to do the right thing but do it anyway. It's a society where the woman do the heavy lifting and stick together when they can, even in the face of abuse. There's little to make these people happy except maybe their music. It's an amazing story, in an amazing world and it's one of the best films of the year. Told honestly and simply-no tricks, it became the Sundance Film Festival audience favorite. Easy to see why. It's what independent filmmaking should be. And a young woman named Jennifer Lawrence gives a performance that is stunning. If the world was fair this would be an easy award nominee. Easy. I can only hope. Directed brilliantly by Debra Granik, you should seek this movie out, in the theaters or soon probably on pay-per-view. You won't be disappointed.
But sometimes there's a throw back, and "Winter's Bone" is a throw back. It's also my favorite film of the year so far. You won't recognize the names or the faces. That's a good thing. It will allow you to immerse yourself in the world, a world you've never been to before. A world that exists within the borders of this country but that you need to be born to in order to know it. In that way, there is a spiritual kinship with films like "Frozen River". It may be even better, and that's saying something.
The place is the Ozark mountains of Missouri. It's dirt poor but there are rules. Neighbors help neighbors but you don't ask for it. You don't trust the law and you keep your mouth shut. Squirrel isn't a pest, it's a meal, and kin is kin-can't change that. That's the world of Ree Dolly, 17, taking care of two young siblings and a Mom who's had a psychotic break. Her father's been arrested again on drug charges and is facing years in jail. He's put up the house as bond and now he's missing. If he jumps bail, the house is gone and they're out "in the fields like dogs". So now Ree's got to find him and that ain't gonna be easy.
That search reveals a world that has been utterly unseen to an audience; a world filled with tough moral choices and low behavior, and a people who can't afford to do the right thing but do it anyway. It's a society where the woman do the heavy lifting and stick together when they can, even in the face of abuse. There's little to make these people happy except maybe their music. It's an amazing story, in an amazing world and it's one of the best films of the year. Told honestly and simply-no tricks, it became the Sundance Film Festival audience favorite. Easy to see why. It's what independent filmmaking should be. And a young woman named Jennifer Lawrence gives a performance that is stunning. If the world was fair this would be an easy award nominee. Easy. I can only hope. Directed brilliantly by Debra Granik, you should seek this movie out, in the theaters or soon probably on pay-per-view. You won't be disappointed.
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Kids Are Alright
It's easy to forget just how good an actress Annette Bening really is. After all, she doesn't work much these days. In "The Kids Are Alright" she serves notice that she's an acting force to be reckoned with. And she's not the only one. The entire cast is pitch perfect in Lisa Cholodenko's American family drama, "The Kids Are Alright".
Bening is a long-married lesbian doctor who has built a loving family and life by very traditional (except for the lesbian part) means. There's a home, a college age daughter, a teenage son and a house-bound, loving, earth mother wife played exquisitely by Julianne Moore. And of course, there's all the trouble and tension associated with any American family at this stage in their development. Then the kids decide to contact the man who donated the sperm to make this nuclear family possible and we are off to the races. Mark Ruffalo as the biological dad, Mia Wasikowska as the college-bound daughter and Josh Hutcherson as Laser the teen son all feel, well, honest, and that is the real strength of this film.
And for all that honesty you can credit writer/director Lisa Cholodenko. Her other feature work, "High Art" and "Laurel Canyon" pointed to the potential. "The Kids Are Alright" is potential fulfilled. Really, it's a rich and moving film watching experience. Nice work all around.
If I were a betting man I'd be heading to Vegas to plunk down some cash on this film getting a SAG Ensemble nomination and maybe even a whole bunch of Oscar love.
Bening is a long-married lesbian doctor who has built a loving family and life by very traditional (except for the lesbian part) means. There's a home, a college age daughter, a teenage son and a house-bound, loving, earth mother wife played exquisitely by Julianne Moore. And of course, there's all the trouble and tension associated with any American family at this stage in their development. Then the kids decide to contact the man who donated the sperm to make this nuclear family possible and we are off to the races. Mark Ruffalo as the biological dad, Mia Wasikowska as the college-bound daughter and Josh Hutcherson as Laser the teen son all feel, well, honest, and that is the real strength of this film.
And for all that honesty you can credit writer/director Lisa Cholodenko. Her other feature work, "High Art" and "Laurel Canyon" pointed to the potential. "The Kids Are Alright" is potential fulfilled. Really, it's a rich and moving film watching experience. Nice work all around.
If I were a betting man I'd be heading to Vegas to plunk down some cash on this film getting a SAG Ensemble nomination and maybe even a whole bunch of Oscar love.
The Stuff Dreams Are Made Of- Inception
I suspect a lot of people will see "Inception" and if you plan to be one of them, make sure you bring your brain that day. You need to be engaged with this movie through the whole two and a half hour experience. But don't worry, it's worth it.
This film challenges both the filmmaker and the audience. It takes a lot of explanation and you'd do well to pay attention to the details. It involves a group of secret-stealers who ply their trade by breaking into the dream state of their target. They invade dreams to either retrieve a secret or implant an idea. The harder the task, the deeper into the dreamer's psyche they need to invade. And if they have to place an idea in someone's head (very difficult) they need to invade at least three levels down into your dream structure. And to complicate matters, time reads differently at each level. At level one, the dream raiders have a time frame of two hours while level two invaders have a time scale of two days. Level three expands so that the time table seems like two weeks. I told ya. Bring your brain. And anytime someone sits down to explain something, PAY ATTENTION! There is a logic to it.
And that may ultimately be the problem. In order for an audience to follow this film, director Christopher Nolan has imposed order on a process that is inherently orderless and illogical. While the physical world of the dream shape-shifts and morphs into amazing worlds, the characters and circumstances of the dream remain very neat and logical. It allows for the action to move forward but it isn't very dreamlike. You know how it goes in your own dreams. Maybe your playing poker in your dorm room when all of a sudden your Mom and your first grade teacher show up with bagel bites and AK-47's. This movie is more concerned with the physical environment being dreamlike than the randomness of plot and character effecting the the dream.
Have I confused you? I know. This stuff is hard to explain. Let's just say that "Inception" is a cool shoot-em-up chase movie with melting walls and crumbling sets.
Is it impressive? Absolutely. Is it a masterpiece? I don't think so. Is it worth the price of admission? Easily, and more. Christopher Nolan is my hero just based on storytelling chutzpah. Dust off your thinking cap and go see "Inception".
This film challenges both the filmmaker and the audience. It takes a lot of explanation and you'd do well to pay attention to the details. It involves a group of secret-stealers who ply their trade by breaking into the dream state of their target. They invade dreams to either retrieve a secret or implant an idea. The harder the task, the deeper into the dreamer's psyche they need to invade. And if they have to place an idea in someone's head (very difficult) they need to invade at least three levels down into your dream structure. And to complicate matters, time reads differently at each level. At level one, the dream raiders have a time frame of two hours while level two invaders have a time scale of two days. Level three expands so that the time table seems like two weeks. I told ya. Bring your brain. And anytime someone sits down to explain something, PAY ATTENTION! There is a logic to it.
And that may ultimately be the problem. In order for an audience to follow this film, director Christopher Nolan has imposed order on a process that is inherently orderless and illogical. While the physical world of the dream shape-shifts and morphs into amazing worlds, the characters and circumstances of the dream remain very neat and logical. It allows for the action to move forward but it isn't very dreamlike. You know how it goes in your own dreams. Maybe your playing poker in your dorm room when all of a sudden your Mom and your first grade teacher show up with bagel bites and AK-47's. This movie is more concerned with the physical environment being dreamlike than the randomness of plot and character effecting the the dream.
Have I confused you? I know. This stuff is hard to explain. Let's just say that "Inception" is a cool shoot-em-up chase movie with melting walls and crumbling sets.
Is it impressive? Absolutely. Is it a masterpiece? I don't think so. Is it worth the price of admission? Easily, and more. Christopher Nolan is my hero just based on storytelling chutzpah. Dust off your thinking cap and go see "Inception".
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Catching Up On Early 2010
This has been a weak summer for blockbusters. Nothing even remotely memorable that wasn't drawn by the folks at Pixar. The Tom Cruise vehicle crashed and burned. The Last Airbender suffocated at the box office. Come on "Inception"! It may be the last hope for the summer. So I caught up on a couple of films from earlier in the year that you can catch on pay-per-view.
HOT TUB TIME MACHINE
Three in a row. Three white-male-angst comedies that I should be deriding for immature narcissism, rampant misogyny and unfunny toilet humor and here I am extolling their virtues. First "The Hangover", then "Get Him to the Greek" and now "Hot Tub Time Machine". What is the world coming to.
"Hot Tub Time Machine" is the lesser of these three comedies. It's more aggressively angry, less nimble in it's execution and not as smart but it has some key factors going for it. It's characters aren't completely implausible, it's funny and sweet, and it's is chocked full of 1980's nostalgia. Now I'm a child of the 70's but I did go to college in the 80's so it's just a short leap for me.
Part of the problem with these films (apart from the three mentioned above) is that actors are allowed to range far off the reservation when it comes to character choice and behavior. You know who you are, Will Farrell. In the three films mentioned, the characters may be loopy and eccentric but they are grounded in reality. Well, somewhat.
HTTM may have a premise that is lunatic (after all, it's a Hot Tub AND a Time Machine) but it doesn't dwell on it. In fact it doesn't dwell much on the logic of time travel at all. The convolutions of time travel have driven great Sci-fi authors batty. It concentrates on themes more easily handled like mid-life crisis, friendship and second chances. Craig Robinson and John Cusack are terrific and there's a rendition of "Jesse's Girl" that'll split your side stitches. Oh and the running gag with Crispin Glover and a prosthetic arm is brilliant. Now if that doesn't get you to the video store for "Hot Tub Time Machine", nothing will.
SHUTTER ISLAND
Right from the very beginning of "Shutter Island" you are aware that you are being manipulated. There is a feeling that you aren't watching the truth. The dialogue is awkward the characters just a little too on the nose. And that sense of foreboding isn't a sense at all. It more like being hit with a sledge hammer. So when that much talked about third act twist finally arrives, there's no surprise. You know something is coming, it's just a matter of which lie will become the truth. And as it turns out the twist isn't even all that twisty.
This film needed the subtlety of "The Sixth Sense" to make the payoff work. What we got is a heavy handed knock off of "The Island of Dr. Moreau". Martin Scorcese has never been a particularly subtle director. "Goodfellas" or "Raging Bull" or "Taxi Driver" aren't exactly exercises in the art of foreshadowing. This whole film feels like a long, stilted set up for a punch line you've heard before. And just a warning. If you listen to the heavy handed score long enough and loud enough, you yourself will end up an inmate on "Shutter Island".
HOT TUB TIME MACHINE
Three in a row. Three white-male-angst comedies that I should be deriding for immature narcissism, rampant misogyny and unfunny toilet humor and here I am extolling their virtues. First "The Hangover", then "Get Him to the Greek" and now "Hot Tub Time Machine". What is the world coming to.
"Hot Tub Time Machine" is the lesser of these three comedies. It's more aggressively angry, less nimble in it's execution and not as smart but it has some key factors going for it. It's characters aren't completely implausible, it's funny and sweet, and it's is chocked full of 1980's nostalgia. Now I'm a child of the 70's but I did go to college in the 80's so it's just a short leap for me.
Part of the problem with these films (apart from the three mentioned above) is that actors are allowed to range far off the reservation when it comes to character choice and behavior. You know who you are, Will Farrell. In the three films mentioned, the characters may be loopy and eccentric but they are grounded in reality. Well, somewhat.
HTTM may have a premise that is lunatic (after all, it's a Hot Tub AND a Time Machine) but it doesn't dwell on it. In fact it doesn't dwell much on the logic of time travel at all. The convolutions of time travel have driven great Sci-fi authors batty. It concentrates on themes more easily handled like mid-life crisis, friendship and second chances. Craig Robinson and John Cusack are terrific and there's a rendition of "Jesse's Girl" that'll split your side stitches. Oh and the running gag with Crispin Glover and a prosthetic arm is brilliant. Now if that doesn't get you to the video store for "Hot Tub Time Machine", nothing will.
SHUTTER ISLAND
Right from the very beginning of "Shutter Island" you are aware that you are being manipulated. There is a feeling that you aren't watching the truth. The dialogue is awkward the characters just a little too on the nose. And that sense of foreboding isn't a sense at all. It more like being hit with a sledge hammer. So when that much talked about third act twist finally arrives, there's no surprise. You know something is coming, it's just a matter of which lie will become the truth. And as it turns out the twist isn't even all that twisty.
This film needed the subtlety of "The Sixth Sense" to make the payoff work. What we got is a heavy handed knock off of "The Island of Dr. Moreau". Martin Scorcese has never been a particularly subtle director. "Goodfellas" or "Raging Bull" or "Taxi Driver" aren't exactly exercises in the art of foreshadowing. This whole film feels like a long, stilted set up for a punch line you've heard before. And just a warning. If you listen to the heavy handed score long enough and loud enough, you yourself will end up an inmate on "Shutter Island".
Friday, June 18, 2010
Toy Story 3
When film historians write the history of cinema in the first part of the 21st Century, Pixar Studios will have its own chapter. When they're writing text books about the the art of film animation, Disney will hold a hallowed position as the first great animation studio but they will speak of Pixar as the best. It's amazing. Pixar's consistency, the freshness and verve of their storytelling and animation, their ability to speak to audiences of different generations is unmatched anywhere in the cinematic universe. They are just that good. The only disappointment is that they release just one film a year.
"Toy Story 3" starts with a huge action sequence meant to show those old familiar toys we love (Buzz, Woody, Jesse and the gang) in the prime of their purpose. They are being played with in the fullness of Andy's imagination, in this case a train robbery and subsequent chase. This is a toy's raison d'etre. Unfortunately the reality is that Andy has gotten older and is about to leave for college. The toys haven't really seen this kind of playful action in quite a while. With Andy gone, the central question of the third installment is "Where will the toys end up?". The trash? The attic? Or someplace even more sinister? Change is hard and frightening and loss is never easy. This kind of thematic treatment even in a film meant for adults is difficult to realize. In a story meant for audiences of all ages, it's a high flying act worthy of the Wallendas. The people at Pixar pull off another popular entertainment that respects the heart, the head and even the soul. They really are master storytellers.
Perhaps the only thing wrong with the release of "Toy Story 3" is that we don't get a Pixar original. It is after all a sequel. No rat as a master chef or love lorn robot or balloon powered house. Forget it. If all sequels where as good as this, there wouldn't be a stigma attached to the word. See it. Take the kids. If you don't have any, borrow the neighbor's kids. Or do what I did. See it at midnight without the kiddies but with a theater full of adults who stand and cheer at the end as if they were kids once again.
Oh, and one more thing. If you see it in a theater you'll also get to see the most clever, original and absolutely delightful short film you'll ever lay eyes on called "Day and Night". I won't even describe it here perchance to ruin the impact of your imagination at work. You'll just have to see for yourself.
"Toy Story 3" starts with a huge action sequence meant to show those old familiar toys we love (Buzz, Woody, Jesse and the gang) in the prime of their purpose. They are being played with in the fullness of Andy's imagination, in this case a train robbery and subsequent chase. This is a toy's raison d'etre. Unfortunately the reality is that Andy has gotten older and is about to leave for college. The toys haven't really seen this kind of playful action in quite a while. With Andy gone, the central question of the third installment is "Where will the toys end up?". The trash? The attic? Or someplace even more sinister? Change is hard and frightening and loss is never easy. This kind of thematic treatment even in a film meant for adults is difficult to realize. In a story meant for audiences of all ages, it's a high flying act worthy of the Wallendas. The people at Pixar pull off another popular entertainment that respects the heart, the head and even the soul. They really are master storytellers.
Perhaps the only thing wrong with the release of "Toy Story 3" is that we don't get a Pixar original. It is after all a sequel. No rat as a master chef or love lorn robot or balloon powered house. Forget it. If all sequels where as good as this, there wouldn't be a stigma attached to the word. See it. Take the kids. If you don't have any, borrow the neighbor's kids. Or do what I did. See it at midnight without the kiddies but with a theater full of adults who stand and cheer at the end as if they were kids once again.
Oh, and one more thing. If you see it in a theater you'll also get to see the most clever, original and absolutely delightful short film you'll ever lay eyes on called "Day and Night". I won't even describe it here perchance to ruin the impact of your imagination at work. You'll just have to see for yourself.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The Karate Kid
Jaden Smith is no Ralph Macchio. Jackie Chan is no Pat Morita. This is a big part of the problem with the new version of the eighties classic "The Karate Kid". That isn't really that much of a knock on Smith and Chan. Movies that become classics do so for a reason and the first version owed a lot to its casting. Macchio was perfect in the role, played with a delicate balance of innocence and anger. Morita simply played the hell out of the role of a lifetime. Result? Icon status and an Oscar nomination. In my opinion, it really should have been an Oscar win. So Smith and Chan have a lot to live up to. And they both do okay, but just okay. Jaden Smith is talented and he physically dives into the role with feet flying. But he's like... twelve years old. He's a kid and he can't bring the kind of acting chops that Macchio had in his early twenties. That may seem like an unfair comparison, but that's what you get when you remake a classic. He's good. I won't go further.
Chan, on the other hand, has a different problem to contend with. When they rewrote this version, someone forgot to mention how funny the original character, Mr. Miyagi, was written. Chan has charm and charisma, but he doesn't have the one-liners. In the original, when Macchio needs a competition uniform, Mr. Myagi steals one. When Macchio asks where he got it, Mr. Miyagi deadpans "Buddha provides". Chan is stuck with the big emotional scenes that were handled so beautifully by Morita, but none of the humor. Chan, like Smith, doesn't quite have the chops.
The other huge problem is that every chance this film gets, it tries to milk emotion and melodrama from the script---mercilessly. Even the classic final battle seems forced and dishonest. The original, directed by John Avildson, handled that stuff masterfully. Remember, he's the guy who directed "Rocky". The gap in directorial skill level is obvious.
Here's what this film does have. China. The whole darn country. And boy does it use it. This film unveils a sense of everyday life in China that is rarely if ever captured in a non-Chinese film (even though the Chinese film office co-produced). You get a feel for how the modern Chinese actually live. At least the city-dwellers.
When Chan and Smith go to a mountain-top martial arts sanctuary, the visuals are just stunning. Breath-taking. And worth the price of admission. Combine the exotic local with really well done training sequences and you've almost got a movie. Unfortunately, there's the overlong opening, a silly juvenile love interest sub-plot and a corny and cliched ending. Too bad this two hour and twenty minute film wasn't forty minutes shorter. It's not, which means you may want to put it on your Netflix queue.
Chan, on the other hand, has a different problem to contend with. When they rewrote this version, someone forgot to mention how funny the original character, Mr. Miyagi, was written. Chan has charm and charisma, but he doesn't have the one-liners. In the original, when Macchio needs a competition uniform, Mr. Myagi steals one. When Macchio asks where he got it, Mr. Miyagi deadpans "Buddha provides". Chan is stuck with the big emotional scenes that were handled so beautifully by Morita, but none of the humor. Chan, like Smith, doesn't quite have the chops.
The other huge problem is that every chance this film gets, it tries to milk emotion and melodrama from the script---mercilessly. Even the classic final battle seems forced and dishonest. The original, directed by John Avildson, handled that stuff masterfully. Remember, he's the guy who directed "Rocky". The gap in directorial skill level is obvious.
Here's what this film does have. China. The whole darn country. And boy does it use it. This film unveils a sense of everyday life in China that is rarely if ever captured in a non-Chinese film (even though the Chinese film office co-produced). You get a feel for how the modern Chinese actually live. At least the city-dwellers.
When Chan and Smith go to a mountain-top martial arts sanctuary, the visuals are just stunning. Breath-taking. And worth the price of admission. Combine the exotic local with really well done training sequences and you've almost got a movie. Unfortunately, there's the overlong opening, a silly juvenile love interest sub-plot and a corny and cliched ending. Too bad this two hour and twenty minute film wasn't forty minutes shorter. It's not, which means you may want to put it on your Netflix queue.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Get Him To The Greek
The Seven signs of the Apocalypse are upon us. They are wearing sweaters in Hell. Frogs are raining from the sky. OK get ready for this. You may never see this in print again. Ever. Sean Combs and Russell Brand are excellent in the very funny and sometimes poignant "Get Him To The Greek". (AHHHHH! The Frogs!!)
I can't stand Russell Brand. I can't stand the type of performer he is. All hype and flash and no substance. I wouldn't cast Sean "Puffy" Combs to play third dog catcher from the left. Last night the Apocalypse came.
It is still a mystery why I even went to this movie. Late night show, hoping for a laugh. I had low expectations. What a pleasant surprise. The dialogue between Hill and Brand was snappy and grounded by the realty of the characters. Hill struggles to get his footing at first but as soon as Brand's Aldous Snow enters the scene he relaxes into it. Eventually they end up as a raunchy version of Abbott and Costello, only this time the fat guy is the straight man. They play off each other perfectly. But here's the twist. By the end of the film, it feels almost like a character study of an aging and irrelevant rock star. Brand softens the gimmicky stuff in favor of some honest emotion. I'm not sure why, but it works. And just like in the best Abbott and Costello movies, no one lets the plot get in the way. Storyline-wise, everything you need to know is in the title.
Don't get me wrong. It ain't perfect. The women's roles are underwritten and that's being generous. If you're looking for it, you won't have any trouble finding a streak of serious misogyny. And there's a scene in which Hill, Brand and Elizabeth Moss attempt a threesome that has to be one of the most uncomfortable things I have ever seen on film. And I mean like watching "91/2 Weeks" with your grandmother uncomfortable. Should have been cut. This movie is also unapologetically raunchy in terms of language, sexual situations and overall demeanor. Believe the R rating. But it has its sweet side too. Best of all it's genuinely hysterical.
So if ya like it rough and funny with a splash of heart, buy a ticket to the Greek.
I can't stand Russell Brand. I can't stand the type of performer he is. All hype and flash and no substance. I wouldn't cast Sean "Puffy" Combs to play third dog catcher from the left. Last night the Apocalypse came.
It is still a mystery why I even went to this movie. Late night show, hoping for a laugh. I had low expectations. What a pleasant surprise. The dialogue between Hill and Brand was snappy and grounded by the realty of the characters. Hill struggles to get his footing at first but as soon as Brand's Aldous Snow enters the scene he relaxes into it. Eventually they end up as a raunchy version of Abbott and Costello, only this time the fat guy is the straight man. They play off each other perfectly. But here's the twist. By the end of the film, it feels almost like a character study of an aging and irrelevant rock star. Brand softens the gimmicky stuff in favor of some honest emotion. I'm not sure why, but it works. And just like in the best Abbott and Costello movies, no one lets the plot get in the way. Storyline-wise, everything you need to know is in the title.
Don't get me wrong. It ain't perfect. The women's roles are underwritten and that's being generous. If you're looking for it, you won't have any trouble finding a streak of serious misogyny. And there's a scene in which Hill, Brand and Elizabeth Moss attempt a threesome that has to be one of the most uncomfortable things I have ever seen on film. And I mean like watching "91/2 Weeks" with your grandmother uncomfortable. Should have been cut. This movie is also unapologetically raunchy in terms of language, sexual situations and overall demeanor. Believe the R rating. But it has its sweet side too. Best of all it's genuinely hysterical.
So if ya like it rough and funny with a splash of heart, buy a ticket to the Greek.
Friday, June 4, 2010
So Far
Here's a list of the films that I've blogged about so far in 2010. Some are from the tail end of 2009. Go back and check them out.
The Book of Eli
Funny People
Valentine's Day
Public Enemies
Fish Tank
Creation
How To Train Your Dragon
Green Zone
Greenburg
Taking Woodstock
Date Night
The Ghost Writer
Sherlock Holmes
City Island
Iron Man 2
Robin Hood
Edge of Darkness
The Prince of Persia
Shrek Forever After
Kick Ass (Guest Blogger)
Sex And The City 2 (Guest Blogger)
Oscar Contenders 2010 1 (Upcoming films)
Oscar Contenders 2010 2 (Upcoming Films)
The Book of Eli
Funny People
Valentine's Day
Public Enemies
Fish Tank
Creation
How To Train Your Dragon
Green Zone
Greenburg
Taking Woodstock
Date Night
The Ghost Writer
Sherlock Holmes
City Island
Iron Man 2
Robin Hood
Edge of Darkness
The Prince of Persia
Shrek Forever After
Kick Ass (Guest Blogger)
Sex And The City 2 (Guest Blogger)
Oscar Contenders 2010 1 (Upcoming films)
Oscar Contenders 2010 2 (Upcoming Films)
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Guest Blogger-Sex And The City 2
If ever I needed a guest blogger for a film it's this one. I wouldn't know Jimmy Chu from a Charleston Chew. But I knew the perfect guest writer. Linnea Dakin is a friend, screenwriter and big fan of the series. She speaks with an authority I do not possess.Take it away Linnea....
(Full disclosure- I loved the TV series)
I loved this movie. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it’s damn good in my opinion.
Underneath the clothes and handbags this is a great story about 4 women. One is struggling with a committed relationship, once all the “newness” wears off. (i.e., the honeymoon is over) One is dealing with being a mom of 2 young children, and the guilt of not always liking being a mom (and mind you, it took her years to get the children). One is dealing with a crappy job and balancing that with being a mom. (and her trying not to feel guilty because she likes working!) And one is dealing with how her body is betraying her as she gets older (menopause). And as an athletic woman who at 38 is finding my body is changing no matter how well I take care of it, I empathize with that!
There are some who are upset by the Middle East story line. They think this movie is too frivolous to deal with such a heavy issue. But I wonder if they have stopped to consider that more people watched the midnight showing on the first night than have probably watched all of the numerous documentaries on the subject of women's rights in the Middle East... Remember, only the court jester could tell the king the truth without fearing his head cut off. Sometimes laughter is the best way to tell someone “tough news."
And visually seeing the contrast of women from the U.S. versus the Middle East was very impacting, in my opinion. If just one person starts googling and reading up on this subject, isn’t that a good thing?
I loved the obstacle that Samantha was given, her very essence and nature – literally breaks the law in Dubai. Forcing her to embrace who she is and continue to accept herself, menopause and all. (Even if “everyone else” doesn’t always like it) I think it was kind of brilliant to put the women in this situation, that is, the Middle East. I did NOT get it from the trailers, but seeing it played out - it made perfect sense.
I've heard a few people were bored by the gay wedding that opened the film. And it was definitely over the top. But that was the whole point. And if they were listening, there were second meanings in the characters' lines right and left. Just because two men are getting married, doesn't mean the complexity of marriage goes away. Heterosexual people struggle with the same issues...
I actually think this movie may be a little better written than the last one. Kudos to all involved. Well, okay, Ms. Patricia Field, the costume designer, may have gone a little crazy. Ms. Field, may I respectfully remind you that when I’m busy trying to figure out when they had time to change outfits, much less how the characters are not hurting themselves from their clothes, it’s a little distracting. I’ll give you creative freedom on what they wear, no matter how nutty your stuff may be, but at least can you give me the logic of when they leave the hotel and then come back they are still in the same outfit? Please? Thank you. Peace out. ---Linnea Dakin
(Full disclosure- I loved the TV series)
I loved this movie. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it’s damn good in my opinion.
Underneath the clothes and handbags this is a great story about 4 women. One is struggling with a committed relationship, once all the “newness” wears off. (i.e., the honeymoon is over) One is dealing with being a mom of 2 young children, and the guilt of not always liking being a mom (and mind you, it took her years to get the children). One is dealing with a crappy job and balancing that with being a mom. (and her trying not to feel guilty because she likes working!) And one is dealing with how her body is betraying her as she gets older (menopause). And as an athletic woman who at 38 is finding my body is changing no matter how well I take care of it, I empathize with that!
There are some who are upset by the Middle East story line. They think this movie is too frivolous to deal with such a heavy issue. But I wonder if they have stopped to consider that more people watched the midnight showing on the first night than have probably watched all of the numerous documentaries on the subject of women's rights in the Middle East... Remember, only the court jester could tell the king the truth without fearing his head cut off. Sometimes laughter is the best way to tell someone “tough news."
And visually seeing the contrast of women from the U.S. versus the Middle East was very impacting, in my opinion. If just one person starts googling and reading up on this subject, isn’t that a good thing?
I loved the obstacle that Samantha was given, her very essence and nature – literally breaks the law in Dubai. Forcing her to embrace who she is and continue to accept herself, menopause and all. (Even if “everyone else” doesn’t always like it) I think it was kind of brilliant to put the women in this situation, that is, the Middle East. I did NOT get it from the trailers, but seeing it played out - it made perfect sense.
I've heard a few people were bored by the gay wedding that opened the film. And it was definitely over the top. But that was the whole point. And if they were listening, there were second meanings in the characters' lines right and left. Just because two men are getting married, doesn't mean the complexity of marriage goes away. Heterosexual people struggle with the same issues...
I actually think this movie may be a little better written than the last one. Kudos to all involved. Well, okay, Ms. Patricia Field, the costume designer, may have gone a little crazy. Ms. Field, may I respectfully remind you that when I’m busy trying to figure out when they had time to change outfits, much less how the characters are not hurting themselves from their clothes, it’s a little distracting. I’ll give you creative freedom on what they wear, no matter how nutty your stuff may be, but at least can you give me the logic of when they leave the hotel and then come back they are still in the same outfit? Please? Thank you. Peace out. ---Linnea Dakin
Monday, May 31, 2010
Edge of Darkness
If you have access to On Demand and are interested in the corporate thriller genre, here's one you might like to catch up on from earlier this year. Mel Gibson is a police detective and grieving Dad out for revenge in "Edge of Darkness". It fits into the recent spate of Boston crime dramas that have been making a splash since Hollywood discovered Dennis LeHane, although in this case the source material comes from a TV series.
This film has a good pedigree. Written by William Monahan, who won an Oscar for "The Departed" and directed by Martin Campbell, who was at the helm of the best Bond film in a while, "Casino Royal", this is a pretty satisfying genre piece. Mel Gibson puts on his angry revenge face and is convincing enough, but Ray Winstone as a rogue operative and Danny Huston as a corporate war-monger are excellent. Winstone steals scenes.
If you're looking for a good, twisty, blame-it-on-a-secret-government-agency thriller and don't mind a little revenge-style violence, this one is worth the extra charge on your cable bill. Oh, and forgive the Boston accents.
This film has a good pedigree. Written by William Monahan, who won an Oscar for "The Departed" and directed by Martin Campbell, who was at the helm of the best Bond film in a while, "Casino Royal", this is a pretty satisfying genre piece. Mel Gibson puts on his angry revenge face and is convincing enough, but Ray Winstone as a rogue operative and Danny Huston as a corporate war-monger are excellent. Winstone steals scenes.
If you're looking for a good, twisty, blame-it-on-a-secret-government-agency thriller and don't mind a little revenge-style violence, this one is worth the extra charge on your cable bill. Oh, and forgive the Boston accents.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Persian Popcorn
I had low expectations for "The Prince of Persia". After all it's Bruckheimer. You know what you're going to get with Bruckheimer. Plus this hasn't been the best summer season so far. "Iron Man 2" was a minor disappointment. "Robin Hood" was a major disappointment. But this is the time for popcorn-chompers so if there's some fun action and it isn't completely silly you're ahead of the game. "The Prince of Persia", I'm happy to say, may not be ahead of the curve but at least it breaks even.
Jake Gyllenhaal takes a stab at the action hero thing and comports himself admirably. Listen, if Toby McGuire can be an action hero, who's to judge. There is a dagger that turns back time and life as we know it is at stake...blah, blah, blah. Plot is peripheral in films based on video games. The strength of this summer movie is in the characters. The director is Mike Newell, a veteran of both small indie films and even a Harry Potter (#4). He allows his characters to talk to each other, to actually relate to each other. They can be sexy and angry and even funny. The smartest thing he did is cast Alfred Molina as a conniving, ostrich-racing con artist. The setting for this extravaganza is the desert and the production design takes advantage of the exotic, if somewhat comic-booky locals. All of that is pretty fun stuff.
Here's the problem. Bruckheimer lives off silly action sequences like a vampire lives off AB negative. Seventeen flips off a rooftop and nobody breaks a bone, except maybe the editors who may have broken their wrists from all that rapid-fire cutting. It's silly and degrades what might have been a good summer flick. It's simple. Bruckheimer thinks he makes great action movies but in fact he ruins them. It's sad.
Still Mike Newell does what he can before the video game geeks take over the editing room. He saves it just enough to call it even. The summer season may be in intensive care, but with "The Prince of Persia", it still has a pulse.
Jake Gyllenhaal takes a stab at the action hero thing and comports himself admirably. Listen, if Toby McGuire can be an action hero, who's to judge. There is a dagger that turns back time and life as we know it is at stake...blah, blah, blah. Plot is peripheral in films based on video games. The strength of this summer movie is in the characters. The director is Mike Newell, a veteran of both small indie films and even a Harry Potter (#4). He allows his characters to talk to each other, to actually relate to each other. They can be sexy and angry and even funny. The smartest thing he did is cast Alfred Molina as a conniving, ostrich-racing con artist. The setting for this extravaganza is the desert and the production design takes advantage of the exotic, if somewhat comic-booky locals. All of that is pretty fun stuff.
Here's the problem. Bruckheimer lives off silly action sequences like a vampire lives off AB negative. Seventeen flips off a rooftop and nobody breaks a bone, except maybe the editors who may have broken their wrists from all that rapid-fire cutting. It's silly and degrades what might have been a good summer flick. It's simple. Bruckheimer thinks he makes great action movies but in fact he ruins them. It's sad.
Still Mike Newell does what he can before the video game geeks take over the editing room. He saves it just enough to call it even. The summer season may be in intensive care, but with "The Prince of Persia", it still has a pulse.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Shrek-The Big Green Money Machine
The Shrek franchise has made a mint based on the ability to sneak slightly more adult jokes past an unsuspecting underage audience. Some good-natured toilet humor for the kids, some innuendo for the adults and funny likable characters for everybody. Cha-ching. If the critics quibbled, it was because Shrek had become increasingly dependent on the inside pop culture reference, riffing on cultural icons by transferring them into a big, green, ogre-populated setting. Starbucks in Far, Far, Away land and so forth. Cute but easy. The Fourth installment of the Shrek series has paid attention to the critical sniping. It really avoids the easy pop culture joke. Instead it takes it's cue from a cinematic icon. It is a knock off of "It's a Wonderful Life" with a big green Ogre cast in the Jimmy Stewart role.
Shrek makes a pact with the bad guy, a wheeler-dealer named Rumpelstiltskin who trades Shrek a day from his childhood for a day in which he can roar like an ogre instead of being a hen-pecked hubby and dad. Thank goodness there's an out clause or his old life might be gone forever. Shrek gets to see a world without him in it and of course it isn't pretty.
It's fun enough and the characters carry the day in a familiar sort of way but just like the Capra classic, this is a pretty dark and angry world, maybe even a little inappropriate for the very young or over-sensitive so be careful Moms and Dads. It's dark and really not as funny as the rest of the franchise but redemption comes and it all works out. The kids will find that this last installment in the series makes it to the finish line just in time for a good time to be had by all. Good thing, because this whole Shrek thing seems to be ending just as it runs out of steam.
Shrek makes a pact with the bad guy, a wheeler-dealer named Rumpelstiltskin who trades Shrek a day from his childhood for a day in which he can roar like an ogre instead of being a hen-pecked hubby and dad. Thank goodness there's an out clause or his old life might be gone forever. Shrek gets to see a world without him in it and of course it isn't pretty.
It's fun enough and the characters carry the day in a familiar sort of way but just like the Capra classic, this is a pretty dark and angry world, maybe even a little inappropriate for the very young or over-sensitive so be careful Moms and Dads. It's dark and really not as funny as the rest of the franchise but redemption comes and it all works out. The kids will find that this last installment in the series makes it to the finish line just in time for a good time to be had by all. Good thing, because this whole Shrek thing seems to be ending just as it runs out of steam.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Guest Blogger Kicks Ass
I won't see "Kick Ass". I choose not to give this production my money. I dislike Nicholas Cage as an actor intensely. I don't believe it's ok to allow a film character who is 11 years old to perform acts of ultra-violence on others and to have acts of violence done to her. I don't believe that you should hold up as a superhero an eleven year old girl who uses language like the c-word with abandon. And as I have said before in this blog, I am not a comic book geek. But I will not blog about this because it is unfair to criticize a film I haven't seen. Others in my blogosphere have seen this film and liked it. So today I have invited a guest blogger to talk about this film. So John DeFelice, take it away......
Kick Ass
Did you ever wonder what kind of movie John Hughes and Quentin Tarantino would make if they ever collaborated? Well Kick Ass is that movie. The question is do people want to see this kind of schizophrenic movie? During the first half I wasn’t sure what kind of movie director Mathew Vaughn wanted to make. There’s the story Dave, the likable kid who hangs out with his geek friends. Dave, a comic book fan, wonders why there are no real life super heros and then decides he’s the man for the job. He's busy fighting crime and trying to get the girl of his dreams to notice him. Then there’s the in your face violence which includes a man exploding in a giant microwave and finally there’s Nicolas Cage doing a variation of Batman. And not the Dark Knight Batman but the Batman of the campy 60’s series. All of these different elements make the first half feel a little unfocused and disjointed. I thought Vaughn had a similar problem with Stardust, a movie with so many different styles I was never able to buy into the world he was trying to create. But I did end up believing the world of Kick Ass.
At a certain point, the movie becomes more focused and all the elements that preceded it suddenly gel together in a rather exciting second half. The script does have moments of wit but the true credit goes to the cast. Love him or hate him, Nicolas Cage knows how to make a role uniquely his own, Aaron Johnson perfectly captures the sweet, gawky kid searching for his inner hero and Christopher Mintz-Plasse who just as he did in Superbad and Role Models has the ability make the loner/geek kid believable. And then there’s Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl. Yes, there are lots of people who do not want to see a 13 year old variation of The Bride in Kill Bill. I admit in the beginning it was a bit jarring to hear the language, including the C word, coming out of her mouth or to see her standing there as her father teaches her how to take a bullet but by the movies end it was the character, not the actress I was seeing. Does that justify having a character like this? This will be an ongoing debate but this won’t be the last we’ll see of characters like this. Think back to 13 year old Jodie Foster playing a prostitute in Taxi Driver. For better or worse, the arts will continue to push the envelope. Controversy aside, Moretz is a true find. Some people may remember her from "(500) Days of Summer", where she was also a stand out as Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s little sister. With a role in the upcoming remake of "Let the Right One In", I think we are going to be seeing much more of Moretz.
This movie is not going to be for everyone. I have never read the comic that it was based on but if it has a similar style I credit the filmmakers for sticking to their creative guns. This movie could have easily been toned down in hopes of attracting more of a mainstream audience but if they chose to stay true to the source material I applauded that. With a sequel in the works the question is will they stay the course or will Hit Girl be downgraded to a PG-13? ----John DeFelice
Kick Ass
Did you ever wonder what kind of movie John Hughes and Quentin Tarantino would make if they ever collaborated? Well Kick Ass is that movie. The question is do people want to see this kind of schizophrenic movie? During the first half I wasn’t sure what kind of movie director Mathew Vaughn wanted to make. There’s the story Dave, the likable kid who hangs out with his geek friends. Dave, a comic book fan, wonders why there are no real life super heros and then decides he’s the man for the job. He's busy fighting crime and trying to get the girl of his dreams to notice him. Then there’s the in your face violence which includes a man exploding in a giant microwave and finally there’s Nicolas Cage doing a variation of Batman. And not the Dark Knight Batman but the Batman of the campy 60’s series. All of these different elements make the first half feel a little unfocused and disjointed. I thought Vaughn had a similar problem with Stardust, a movie with so many different styles I was never able to buy into the world he was trying to create. But I did end up believing the world of Kick Ass.
At a certain point, the movie becomes more focused and all the elements that preceded it suddenly gel together in a rather exciting second half. The script does have moments of wit but the true credit goes to the cast. Love him or hate him, Nicolas Cage knows how to make a role uniquely his own, Aaron Johnson perfectly captures the sweet, gawky kid searching for his inner hero and Christopher Mintz-Plasse who just as he did in Superbad and Role Models has the ability make the loner/geek kid believable. And then there’s Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl. Yes, there are lots of people who do not want to see a 13 year old variation of The Bride in Kill Bill. I admit in the beginning it was a bit jarring to hear the language, including the C word, coming out of her mouth or to see her standing there as her father teaches her how to take a bullet but by the movies end it was the character, not the actress I was seeing. Does that justify having a character like this? This will be an ongoing debate but this won’t be the last we’ll see of characters like this. Think back to 13 year old Jodie Foster playing a prostitute in Taxi Driver. For better or worse, the arts will continue to push the envelope. Controversy aside, Moretz is a true find. Some people may remember her from "(500) Days of Summer", where she was also a stand out as Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s little sister. With a role in the upcoming remake of "Let the Right One In", I think we are going to be seeing much more of Moretz.
This movie is not going to be for everyone. I have never read the comic that it was based on but if it has a similar style I credit the filmmakers for sticking to their creative guns. This movie could have easily been toned down in hopes of attracting more of a mainstream audience but if they chose to stay true to the source material I applauded that. With a sequel in the works the question is will they stay the course or will Hit Girl be downgraded to a PG-13? ----John DeFelice
Robin Hood
Tell me that Ridley Scott is teaming up with Russell Crowe for a historical epic and I'm excited. Throw in the fact that it's their take on a classic legend like Robin Hood and I'm surfin' the internet for early tickets especially considering that the last time someone donned the hood in the wood it was Kevin Costner who defiled the legend almost beyond recognition. Crowe and a bow has to be better. Well, it is better but only marginally. This Robin Hood is a prequel, Robin before he took up residence in Sherwood Forest. We first meet him and a few of his merry band on the way back from the Crusades with Richard the Lionheart. The King promptly storms a French castle and is killed. Already we know that this Robin Hood isn't traditional. King Richard won't be showing up at the last minute to save Robin from an evil sheriff. We don't know exactly where this story is going. Unfortunately, this could also be said for the filmmakers. This Robin Hood meanders, both literally and narratively around the English countryside. It makes the film a murky tale, not even fully explaining Robin's past to any satisfaction, which a prequel really should be able to achieve. The journey is interesting at times but aimless. So what do you do when a wayward story needs an ending? If your Ridley Scott that's easy. Battle scene. Scott knows his way around battle scenes and this one on the beach in Northern England is no exception. Real bloody fun.
Crowe's approach to Robin Hood is decidedly low key. That's me being nice to Russell. Some other blogger might call the performance flat, or unimaginative, or even dull. Certainly this take on the character doesn't take advantage of Crowe's considerable ability to get under a character's skin. His Robin is all glowering warrior, no playfulness with his woman or his merry men. It's hard to see why anyone would follow this guy. He strong but fairly unlikeable as a man, more of a mercenary than a leader. It's like the film powers-that-be chose the middle road for everyone involved, even the extraordinary Cate Blanchett, who is solid but unremarkable. Look at who they cast as Friar Tuck. They put on their collective casting thinking caps and came up with Mark Addy (the chubby guy from "The Full Monty") Man, that's inside-the-box thinking. It all hamstrings this film's creativity.
But it's still a historical epic, and I LUV historical epics. True, Robin Hood is not a historical character but you still get to place him in historical surroundings. There's slimy King John, the Magna Carta, medieval battle techniques and political turmoil-13th century edition. All of these elements are present and all of them are underused. This is a historical epic that isn't all that concerned with history. There's even some details that I might take issue with. When the French come ashore at an English beachhead, they use landing craft that look remarkably like wooden versions of the D-Day landing craft from "Saving Private Ryan", you know, the ones that drop the front grid for a quick beach exit. Really? In the early 12 hundreds? Maybe they had them. Maybe the design of a landing craft never changed in 740 years. I'd research it, but this film doesn't really inspire me to do that. And that's a good way to sum up. "Robin Hood" isn't a bad ride, but it doesn't inspire me.
Crowe's approach to Robin Hood is decidedly low key. That's me being nice to Russell. Some other blogger might call the performance flat, or unimaginative, or even dull. Certainly this take on the character doesn't take advantage of Crowe's considerable ability to get under a character's skin. His Robin is all glowering warrior, no playfulness with his woman or his merry men. It's hard to see why anyone would follow this guy. He strong but fairly unlikeable as a man, more of a mercenary than a leader. It's like the film powers-that-be chose the middle road for everyone involved, even the extraordinary Cate Blanchett, who is solid but unremarkable. Look at who they cast as Friar Tuck. They put on their collective casting thinking caps and came up with Mark Addy (the chubby guy from "The Full Monty") Man, that's inside-the-box thinking. It all hamstrings this film's creativity.
But it's still a historical epic, and I LUV historical epics. True, Robin Hood is not a historical character but you still get to place him in historical surroundings. There's slimy King John, the Magna Carta, medieval battle techniques and political turmoil-13th century edition. All of these elements are present and all of them are underused. This is a historical epic that isn't all that concerned with history. There's even some details that I might take issue with. When the French come ashore at an English beachhead, they use landing craft that look remarkably like wooden versions of the D-Day landing craft from "Saving Private Ryan", you know, the ones that drop the front grid for a quick beach exit. Really? In the early 12 hundreds? Maybe they had them. Maybe the design of a landing craft never changed in 740 years. I'd research it, but this film doesn't really inspire me to do that. And that's a good way to sum up. "Robin Hood" isn't a bad ride, but it doesn't inspire me.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
City Island
City Island is an isolated section of The Bronx that looks more like a Cape Cod fishing village than a New York City suburb. If you seek it out you'll probably be impressed by its rough edged charm and quaint feel or at least as close to quaint as New York City can get. So I guess it's got a lot in common with the small ensemble indie film of the same name. "City Island" is a diamond in the rough.
This film came out early in the year to a mixed bag of reviews, but it seemed to have legs. When I saw that it was still in the art houses some six or seven weeks after release, I knew audiences must be spreading the word, giving the film life long after the critics had placed it on life support. With independent film, I usually trust audiences at least as much as the arts and letters guys. Here the audiences are right.
Andy Garcia and Julianna Marguiles head an oddball New York family who make an art out of keeping secrets from each other. There's a college age daughter who is hitting the stripper pole harder than the books, a teen-age son who spends his time on sexy web sites watching oversize women "cook" in the kitchen and Garcia, who plays the prison guard patriarch who finds a son that no one knows about in the lock-up for grand theft auto. Dad is also attending regular "poker games" that make his wife more than a little suspicious. Turns out he's attending acting classes in the City taught by Alan Arkin. And they all smoke. The family expends a lot of effort keeping all these secrets from each other which means this film is a little plot heavy and relies on a fair amount of coincidence to keep all of it afloat. Yeah it's a stretch but by the time it all comes together you have pretty much bought in to the fun.
Every year it seems that the independent film circuit provides us with gems like "City Island". If you can't find it in art house near you, wait for pay-per-view, but see it and enjoy the ensemble as they take you to a part of New York City you've probably never been before.
This film came out early in the year to a mixed bag of reviews, but it seemed to have legs. When I saw that it was still in the art houses some six or seven weeks after release, I knew audiences must be spreading the word, giving the film life long after the critics had placed it on life support. With independent film, I usually trust audiences at least as much as the arts and letters guys. Here the audiences are right.
Andy Garcia and Julianna Marguiles head an oddball New York family who make an art out of keeping secrets from each other. There's a college age daughter who is hitting the stripper pole harder than the books, a teen-age son who spends his time on sexy web sites watching oversize women "cook" in the kitchen and Garcia, who plays the prison guard patriarch who finds a son that no one knows about in the lock-up for grand theft auto. Dad is also attending regular "poker games" that make his wife more than a little suspicious. Turns out he's attending acting classes in the City taught by Alan Arkin. And they all smoke. The family expends a lot of effort keeping all these secrets from each other which means this film is a little plot heavy and relies on a fair amount of coincidence to keep all of it afloat. Yeah it's a stretch but by the time it all comes together you have pretty much bought in to the fun.
Every year it seems that the independent film circuit provides us with gems like "City Island". If you can't find it in art house near you, wait for pay-per-view, but see it and enjoy the ensemble as they take you to a part of New York City you've probably never been before.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Iron Man 2
Ah, the summer film season begins. Computer generated fun is in the air. 'Tis the season to blow stuff up. Robert Downey Jr. has stashed his Golden Globe for "Sherlock Holmes" (a travesty that will rank with the Pia Zadora win for sheer lunacy) and he's gone back to work, this time donning the iron suit that brought him and director Jon Favreau to hero status for comic book geeks all over the world.
I am not a comic book geek. I am a geek, just not a comic book geek. But I did love the quirkiness of the first Iron Man. The breezy improv-ed dialogue, the plausible storyline, the engaging characters. It was the best blockbuster of 2-ought-8 by far.
And I liked this one too. It's just that the dialogue seems more forced, the story less plausible, and somehow these same characters aren't nearly as engaging. Go figure.
Iron Man 2 is a more standard entry in the genre of summer blockbuster than the first, but for a standard blockbuster it's got a lot to offer. Downey Jr. and Paltrow have their rapid fire Tracy/Hepburn exchanges. But here, a little forced. There's a good bad guy with cool electricity whips for hands (really, Mickey Rourke doesn't need 'em, he's plenty scary on his own). And as for story, well, this Iron Man doesn't overly concern itself with plot, ya know, just like most action blockbusters. It's not as good as the first but get butter on the popcorn and munch away happily for two hours like I did.
One thing this film does have. Scarlett Johanson's leather-wrapped rump gets a lot of well deserved screen time (teenage boys of all ages, rejoice!) Generally, I'm not the kind of guy who thinks that a great butt can save a movie, but this is really quite spectacular. It must be worth at least an extra 18 mil over the life of the run.
Oh and geeky fanboys, y'all should stay for the credits. I mentioned that I am not a comic book geek, but I run in their circles, and I have been schooled this weekend. Schooled in Norse mythology to be precise. Stick it out through the 37,000 people who made IM 2 and you might find a little present from Thor. Let the 2011 Summer games begin!
I am not a comic book geek. I am a geek, just not a comic book geek. But I did love the quirkiness of the first Iron Man. The breezy improv-ed dialogue, the plausible storyline, the engaging characters. It was the best blockbuster of 2-ought-8 by far.
And I liked this one too. It's just that the dialogue seems more forced, the story less plausible, and somehow these same characters aren't nearly as engaging. Go figure.
Iron Man 2 is a more standard entry in the genre of summer blockbuster than the first, but for a standard blockbuster it's got a lot to offer. Downey Jr. and Paltrow have their rapid fire Tracy/Hepburn exchanges. But here, a little forced. There's a good bad guy with cool electricity whips for hands (really, Mickey Rourke doesn't need 'em, he's plenty scary on his own). And as for story, well, this Iron Man doesn't overly concern itself with plot, ya know, just like most action blockbusters. It's not as good as the first but get butter on the popcorn and munch away happily for two hours like I did.
One thing this film does have. Scarlett Johanson's leather-wrapped rump gets a lot of well deserved screen time (teenage boys of all ages, rejoice!) Generally, I'm not the kind of guy who thinks that a great butt can save a movie, but this is really quite spectacular. It must be worth at least an extra 18 mil over the life of the run.
Oh and geeky fanboys, y'all should stay for the credits. I mentioned that I am not a comic book geek, but I run in their circles, and I have been schooled this weekend. Schooled in Norse mythology to be precise. Stick it out through the 37,000 people who made IM 2 and you might find a little present from Thor. Let the 2011 Summer games begin!
Sherlock Holmes
It is beyond me how a film can be so complex and convoluted and still manage to be so vapid at the same time. This film disrespects the cherished characters of both Holmes and Watson, turning them into a pair of Victorian ninjas in a bad Hong Kong karate movie knock off. Arthur Conan Doyle is spinning in his grave like a Vegas slot machine. Don't waste your time. That's all the petulant sarcasm I can muster for this piece o' crap.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
2 Hours of Peace and Music-"Taking Woodstock"
Last year, the film I was most looking forward to was Ang Lee's "Taking Woodstock". Two reasons: It was Ang Lee and it was Woodstock. The movie opened....and was gone. What, huh? Where did.....? I mean gone. Since I was getting movies in the mail at a clip, I sort of forgot about it. There was no awards buzz. The one review I saw was noncommittal. Oh well, I'll catch it later. This is later.
My original excitement it seems was only half right. This WAS master director Ang Lee at work here but this movie is really not about Woodstock. It lurks on the periphery of Woodstock. It's steeped in the event, but it never takes you to the concert. Near the concert, yes. Now this is probably the experience that most of the 500,000 people had there. The young people who descended on the up state New York Farm of Max Yasgur were lucky to just get in the vicinity. My own sister Ellen has talked about trying to go and only getting as far as the jammed NY thruway (I think..., I don't really know the details of that story. I'll have to ask her). But this film, like so many concert-goers, never actually gets there. Not even the great music from the concert is showcased. Occasionally you can hear it in the distance like a far off flame that provides no heat. It's frustrating at times. Wait! That's Country Joe! Turn the camera. Turn the camera! Eventually, this film's dogged determination not to focus on the concert is it's undoing. But it doesn't come undone completely because what it does focus on is pretty terrific stuff. OK, that's what the film isn't, now let's take a look at what it is.
Based on a novel by Elliot Tiber, Demetri Martin plays Elliot Teichberg, a young interior designer and painter from New York City who has left the rat race to help his off kilter Jewish parents run a dilapidated motel in upstate New York. The place is a pit and foreclosure looms when Elliot contacts the producers of a music festival searching for a home. Walkill, New York has pulled the promoter's permit to avoid an influx of hippies.
Elliot hooks them up with local dairy farmer Max Yasgur and history's die is cast. Three weeks later the counter culture floodgates open and 500,000 young people show up with lots of brown acid and hormones and the greatest love fest of the 20th Century begins.
Ang Lee has made a choice here. This film is not about Woodstock, but is rather a coming of age story set against the backdrop of a generational coming of age story. The concert is irrelevant, or perhaps better stated, it is the window dressing. Elliot is bound to his parents by both love and tradition and these are not easy parents to be bound to. He's also gay and still having trouble with making that leap of faith out of the closet. Through his eyes we see a historic event unfold, I mean the edges of that event. In fact, Elliot is at least partly responsible for that event. He issued the permit. No permit, no party. Lee weaves a character tapestry that takes you inside the spirit of the concert but remains at a distance from the both the music and the details that made history. It's like telling the innkeeper's story in Bethlehem when all the real action is happening in the manger. There are parts of this movie that weren't worth watching when contrasted with Hendrix playing the national anthem or Joplin belting the blues or CSN playing for the very first time as a group. AHHHHH SHOW ME RICHIE HAVENS!
Ok I'm done. That's the movie that wasn't. The movie that is, is at times wonderful. Elliot's story is sweet and funny and swept up in history. The characters that inhabit "Taking Woodstock" are just wild enough to be believable. Stand outs are Imelda Stauton as the fear-driven Jewish mom who is just too mean to be described as quirky. Liev Schriber is an ex-marine transvestite with serious masculinity that can't be hidden beneath a dress, and a young actor I don't know much about named Jonathan Groff, who hits just the right notes as hippie promoter Michael Lang. He gives the character a shrewd gentleness that seems to represent the best of the counter culture generation (Groff is a Tony nominee for Spring Awakening). Eugene Levy as Max Yasgur is perfectly cast. It's the best performance I've seen him give. But at the center of this film is a terrific performance by Demetri Martin. Of course it doesn't hurt to have Ang Lee guiding your way, but Martin shows a depth of character that bodes well for his acting future if he so chooses (he's a pretty popular cult comedian).
Lee captures the absolute pinnacle of the generation that believed in peace and love without cynicism, who believed they could change the world. They did change the world and that's to their credit. It just couldn't last. There is a great shot as Elliot walks toward the stage after the concert ends. Yasgur's farm is ravaged, almost apocalyptic. The place that just hours before had been the "center of the universe" looks like a war zone. The moment is gone, never to be seen again. But for three days, it was beautiful, man.
I loved this movie, maybe as much for its flaws as it strengths. Lee stuck to his guns. He didn't make a concert movie. If he had, this might have been a great film.
As it is, I'll have to settle for the sweet, far out, coming of age tale that it is.
OK, man. Groovy.
My original excitement it seems was only half right. This WAS master director Ang Lee at work here but this movie is really not about Woodstock. It lurks on the periphery of Woodstock. It's steeped in the event, but it never takes you to the concert. Near the concert, yes. Now this is probably the experience that most of the 500,000 people had there. The young people who descended on the up state New York Farm of Max Yasgur were lucky to just get in the vicinity. My own sister Ellen has talked about trying to go and only getting as far as the jammed NY thruway (I think..., I don't really know the details of that story. I'll have to ask her). But this film, like so many concert-goers, never actually gets there. Not even the great music from the concert is showcased. Occasionally you can hear it in the distance like a far off flame that provides no heat. It's frustrating at times. Wait! That's Country Joe! Turn the camera. Turn the camera! Eventually, this film's dogged determination not to focus on the concert is it's undoing. But it doesn't come undone completely because what it does focus on is pretty terrific stuff. OK, that's what the film isn't, now let's take a look at what it is.
Based on a novel by Elliot Tiber, Demetri Martin plays Elliot Teichberg, a young interior designer and painter from New York City who has left the rat race to help his off kilter Jewish parents run a dilapidated motel in upstate New York. The place is a pit and foreclosure looms when Elliot contacts the producers of a music festival searching for a home. Walkill, New York has pulled the promoter's permit to avoid an influx of hippies.
Elliot hooks them up with local dairy farmer Max Yasgur and history's die is cast. Three weeks later the counter culture floodgates open and 500,000 young people show up with lots of brown acid and hormones and the greatest love fest of the 20th Century begins.
Ang Lee has made a choice here. This film is not about Woodstock, but is rather a coming of age story set against the backdrop of a generational coming of age story. The concert is irrelevant, or perhaps better stated, it is the window dressing. Elliot is bound to his parents by both love and tradition and these are not easy parents to be bound to. He's also gay and still having trouble with making that leap of faith out of the closet. Through his eyes we see a historic event unfold, I mean the edges of that event. In fact, Elliot is at least partly responsible for that event. He issued the permit. No permit, no party. Lee weaves a character tapestry that takes you inside the spirit of the concert but remains at a distance from the both the music and the details that made history. It's like telling the innkeeper's story in Bethlehem when all the real action is happening in the manger. There are parts of this movie that weren't worth watching when contrasted with Hendrix playing the national anthem or Joplin belting the blues or CSN playing for the very first time as a group. AHHHHH SHOW ME RICHIE HAVENS!
Ok I'm done. That's the movie that wasn't. The movie that is, is at times wonderful. Elliot's story is sweet and funny and swept up in history. The characters that inhabit "Taking Woodstock" are just wild enough to be believable. Stand outs are Imelda Stauton as the fear-driven Jewish mom who is just too mean to be described as quirky. Liev Schriber is an ex-marine transvestite with serious masculinity that can't be hidden beneath a dress, and a young actor I don't know much about named Jonathan Groff, who hits just the right notes as hippie promoter Michael Lang. He gives the character a shrewd gentleness that seems to represent the best of the counter culture generation (Groff is a Tony nominee for Spring Awakening). Eugene Levy as Max Yasgur is perfectly cast. It's the best performance I've seen him give. But at the center of this film is a terrific performance by Demetri Martin. Of course it doesn't hurt to have Ang Lee guiding your way, but Martin shows a depth of character that bodes well for his acting future if he so chooses (he's a pretty popular cult comedian).
Lee captures the absolute pinnacle of the generation that believed in peace and love without cynicism, who believed they could change the world. They did change the world and that's to their credit. It just couldn't last. There is a great shot as Elliot walks toward the stage after the concert ends. Yasgur's farm is ravaged, almost apocalyptic. The place that just hours before had been the "center of the universe" looks like a war zone. The moment is gone, never to be seen again. But for three days, it was beautiful, man.
I loved this movie, maybe as much for its flaws as it strengths. Lee stuck to his guns. He didn't make a concert movie. If he had, this might have been a great film.
As it is, I'll have to settle for the sweet, far out, coming of age tale that it is.
OK, man. Groovy.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Date Night
The title of this film would normally keep me at arms length. "Date Night" sounds like a bad rom-com staring one of those horrid thirty-something ingenues named Aniston-Lopes-Heigel etc. Yep, the title is a bad start. TINA FEY AND STEVE CARELL. Alright we're getting warmer. There are so few genuinely funny people in film today that it saddens me, but here, here we have two of them....together. Two! OK, ya got me. I packed myself up at midnight and went to the cineplex. No pressure Tina and Steve, but this better be good.
Ding, ding, ding! They come through with flying colors. Both of them are hilarious. Neither one overshadows the other. And here's the best part. They both play honest, reality-based characters who connect with each other and explore real issues about marriage in a no-shtick zone. Well, minimal shtick zone. This is a funny, sweet and even insightful comedy that keeps moving forward at a fast clip. The plot is a little heavy handed and if this movie is flawed it's in the implausibility of a few of the plot driven scenes. Doesn't matter. It's all about them. Tina Fey and Steve Carell deliver the goods in a big way. If you like your comedy with a dose of sincerity, a thimbleful of intelligence, and maybe even a little something to say, you'll love this. Think "The Out-of-Towners" for the new millennium. If bathroom humor and gross-out gags are more your style, skip it and grow up a little. Read a book maybe.
Oh, and as a side note, we finally found something Mark Wahlberg does really well---stand there and look pretty without a shirt.
Ding, ding, ding! They come through with flying colors. Both of them are hilarious. Neither one overshadows the other. And here's the best part. They both play honest, reality-based characters who connect with each other and explore real issues about marriage in a no-shtick zone. Well, minimal shtick zone. This is a funny, sweet and even insightful comedy that keeps moving forward at a fast clip. The plot is a little heavy handed and if this movie is flawed it's in the implausibility of a few of the plot driven scenes. Doesn't matter. It's all about them. Tina Fey and Steve Carell deliver the goods in a big way. If you like your comedy with a dose of sincerity, a thimbleful of intelligence, and maybe even a little something to say, you'll love this. Think "The Out-of-Towners" for the new millennium. If bathroom humor and gross-out gags are more your style, skip it and grow up a little. Read a book maybe.
Oh, and as a side note, we finally found something Mark Wahlberg does really well---stand there and look pretty without a shirt.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Politics and Paranoia-The Ghost Writer
"The Ghost Writer" is reminiscent of those stark '70s political thrillers that were spawned by the corruption and mistrust of the Nixon administration, films like "The Parallax View", "Three Days of the Condor" or Coppola's "The Conversation". Roman Polanski's "The Ghost Writer", a taut, bleak thriller, finds it's paranoid inspiration from the evil-doings of the latest Bush administration. Fictionalized, of course, sort of. Just like in the seventies, you have to buy in to the premise that the government (in this case the American government) is capable of anything to protect it's own interests. Nixon and W. made this premise plausible. Of course Polanski might also have drawn his inspiration from the fact that he was a fugitive from justice for decades and was constantly chased by some form of American government that was out to get him (not so much paranoia as fact). Let's go with the first one just because it makes me happier to think of George Bush as a bad guy.
The ex Prime Minister of England is writing his memoirs and needs a new ghost writer. The last one turned up dead. There's something fishy about this particular death (literally, since he washed up on a New England beach like a halibut). Now the Prime Minister is being accused of war crimes and of being a stooge of the U.S. Government. Did I mention that the politics of this film is somewhat left of the ACLU? Pierce Brosnan, playing Tony Blair, oh, I mean a darkly handsome liberal ex Prime Minister, plays a mysterious cat and mouse game with the new ghost writer (Ewan MacGregor) who just wants his money and a release from the monastic seaside sanctuary where the Prime Minister, his wife and various aides are holed up while protesters scream for his head outside the gate. Paranoia ensues and intrigue abounds.
Ewan MacGregor (whose choice of material isn't always the sharpest) Pierce Brosnan and Kim Cattrall are all excellent as is the supporting cast. Even Jim Belushi, who is an awful actor, is decent here. Polanski returns to the taut, suspenseful story telling that made "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby" such masterworks. "The Ghost Writer" isn't up to that level, but it is a good political thriller, perfect for watching on a rainy night with a bottle of wine, right around election time.
The ex Prime Minister of England is writing his memoirs and needs a new ghost writer. The last one turned up dead. There's something fishy about this particular death (literally, since he washed up on a New England beach like a halibut). Now the Prime Minister is being accused of war crimes and of being a stooge of the U.S. Government. Did I mention that the politics of this film is somewhat left of the ACLU? Pierce Brosnan, playing Tony Blair, oh, I mean a darkly handsome liberal ex Prime Minister, plays a mysterious cat and mouse game with the new ghost writer (Ewan MacGregor) who just wants his money and a release from the monastic seaside sanctuary where the Prime Minister, his wife and various aides are holed up while protesters scream for his head outside the gate. Paranoia ensues and intrigue abounds.
Ewan MacGregor (whose choice of material isn't always the sharpest) Pierce Brosnan and Kim Cattrall are all excellent as is the supporting cast. Even Jim Belushi, who is an awful actor, is decent here. Polanski returns to the taut, suspenseful story telling that made "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby" such masterworks. "The Ghost Writer" isn't up to that level, but it is a good political thriller, perfect for watching on a rainy night with a bottle of wine, right around election time.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Of Flying Dragons
I am a sucker for dragons. Have been since Smaug blocked Bilbo's way to a vast treasure in "The Hobbit". My obsession was cemented by Anne McCaffrey's "Dragonriders of Pern" series. This is a good time for us Dragon lovers. Dragons soared to new heights amongst the floating mountains of Pandora in "Avatar". So I waited with excitement and a bit of trepidation for Dreamworks animated contribution to Dragon lore,"How to Train Your Dragon". Good news. Dragons still rule.
A teenage boy lives in a seaside Scandinavian village that gets snow nine months a year and hail the other three. It's also terrorized by flying, fire-breathing dragons.
Now this is a Viking village with bulky bearded nordic types all over the place, that is except for young Hiccup. He looks like an average American teenage boy. As voiced by Jay Baruchel he's smart, funny, clumsy and misunderstood. He's just not very Viking-like. And he desperately wants the approval of his father. He wounds, then finds then befriends a shadowy dragon and realizes that the village is going about this Dragon thing all wrong. Don't fight 'em, fly 'em. Okay, that's the a plot, blah, blah, blah.
Here's the good stuff. This movie is in 3-D and the flying sequences (and there are many) are fantastic. Good story, nice characters and FANTASTIC 3-D flying equals a great time at the movies. Don't send the kids to this one, take them. Just make sure you see it in 3-D. Don't make the same mistake I did with "Avatar". 3-D may be the current fad but it's a lot of fun.
Okay, a couple of quibbles. Turns out that Vikings speak with thick Scottish brogues. There are probably a lot of Swedes who are up in arms about this. Not only that but apparently Swedish/Scottish/Viking teenagers all talk like they're from a Midwestern American suburb. No brogue for the kids. Weird. The other quibble is that again, we have an animated film with a barely-mentioned dead Mom. Man, animators really must have mother issues.
3-D may be just a fad or a diabolical excuse to raise ticket prices (3-D ticket price, $17.00) But it's a darn fun way to watch a movie. I should have seen "Avatar" that way. I'm mad at myself for not doing it. Don't make the same mistake with "How to Train Your Dragon".
A teenage boy lives in a seaside Scandinavian village that gets snow nine months a year and hail the other three. It's also terrorized by flying, fire-breathing dragons.
Now this is a Viking village with bulky bearded nordic types all over the place, that is except for young Hiccup. He looks like an average American teenage boy. As voiced by Jay Baruchel he's smart, funny, clumsy and misunderstood. He's just not very Viking-like. And he desperately wants the approval of his father. He wounds, then finds then befriends a shadowy dragon and realizes that the village is going about this Dragon thing all wrong. Don't fight 'em, fly 'em. Okay, that's the a plot, blah, blah, blah.
Here's the good stuff. This movie is in 3-D and the flying sequences (and there are many) are fantastic. Good story, nice characters and FANTASTIC 3-D flying equals a great time at the movies. Don't send the kids to this one, take them. Just make sure you see it in 3-D. Don't make the same mistake I did with "Avatar". 3-D may be the current fad but it's a lot of fun.
Okay, a couple of quibbles. Turns out that Vikings speak with thick Scottish brogues. There are probably a lot of Swedes who are up in arms about this. Not only that but apparently Swedish/Scottish/Viking teenagers all talk like they're from a Midwestern American suburb. No brogue for the kids. Weird. The other quibble is that again, we have an animated film with a barely-mentioned dead Mom. Man, animators really must have mother issues.
3-D may be just a fad or a diabolical excuse to raise ticket prices (3-D ticket price, $17.00) But it's a darn fun way to watch a movie. I should have seen "Avatar" that way. I'm mad at myself for not doing it. Don't make the same mistake with "How to Train Your Dragon".
Greenberg
It's been a very green spring in the multi-plex this year. Paul Greengrass brought you "Green Zone" and now Ben Stiller plays a displaced misanthrope in the hills of Los Angeles named "Greenberg". We also have "The Green Hornet" and everyones favorite green ogre Shrek due in theaters this year. The world is going green.
Writer/director Noah Baumbach is well versed in the eccentricities of people who are too smart for their own good. In "The Squid and the Whale" he took on the stuffed shirts of academia to both poignant and hilarious effect (and lots of Oscar nominations). In "Greenberg", Baumbach comes to Los Angeles to explore a city that's a boneyard of broken dreams. Chief amongst the interred is Roger Greenberg the angry and angst-ridden musician-turned-carpenter who comes to L.A. to house-sit for his well-off brother. It'll be good for him, since he's just out of mental institution and in a fragile state.
Ben Stiller plays Greenberg with a take no prisoners resolve. He hates being with people. He hates being alone. He constantly, purposely, sabotages his own happiness. He is self absorbed in a way that only really smart people can be self absorbed.
To their credit, Stiller and Baumbach illuminate Greenberg without the shtick that Stiller might have naturally gravitated toward. It's a really good performance but the character is a jackass, no getting around it. It bothers me when a protagonist is such an asshole that you just can't sympathize. It keeps me from engaging with the story. But that's me.
Now there is a character in this film that you can engage with. She's the brother's personal assistant, currently meandering through life and love in a way that would be slutty if it wasn't so sweet. She becomes Greenberg's love interest. As played by Greta Gerwig (another terrific performance) Florence is a lost soul with just enough talent to be a second rate singer and enough smarts to know how much talent she has. But holding onto the dream is everything. Her character is honestly written and beautifully played. Florence I have no trouble rooting for.
In the end, I think Baumbach wants us to believe that redemption is possible for Greenberg, through a real relationship with Florence. I doubt the premise. I know guys like that. Run, Florence, run!
Greenberg is a frank, insightful and often brutal character study, almost as flawed as it's title character.
A quick note for Los Angelenos, it's a great tour of the city. Ahhh, I remember my days drinking bad margaritas at Lucy's El Adobe.
Writer/director Noah Baumbach is well versed in the eccentricities of people who are too smart for their own good. In "The Squid and the Whale" he took on the stuffed shirts of academia to both poignant and hilarious effect (and lots of Oscar nominations). In "Greenberg", Baumbach comes to Los Angeles to explore a city that's a boneyard of broken dreams. Chief amongst the interred is Roger Greenberg the angry and angst-ridden musician-turned-carpenter who comes to L.A. to house-sit for his well-off brother. It'll be good for him, since he's just out of mental institution and in a fragile state.
Ben Stiller plays Greenberg with a take no prisoners resolve. He hates being with people. He hates being alone. He constantly, purposely, sabotages his own happiness. He is self absorbed in a way that only really smart people can be self absorbed.
To their credit, Stiller and Baumbach illuminate Greenberg without the shtick that Stiller might have naturally gravitated toward. It's a really good performance but the character is a jackass, no getting around it. It bothers me when a protagonist is such an asshole that you just can't sympathize. It keeps me from engaging with the story. But that's me.
Now there is a character in this film that you can engage with. She's the brother's personal assistant, currently meandering through life and love in a way that would be slutty if it wasn't so sweet. She becomes Greenberg's love interest. As played by Greta Gerwig (another terrific performance) Florence is a lost soul with just enough talent to be a second rate singer and enough smarts to know how much talent she has. But holding onto the dream is everything. Her character is honestly written and beautifully played. Florence I have no trouble rooting for.
In the end, I think Baumbach wants us to believe that redemption is possible for Greenberg, through a real relationship with Florence. I doubt the premise. I know guys like that. Run, Florence, run!
Greenberg is a frank, insightful and often brutal character study, almost as flawed as it's title character.
A quick note for Los Angelenos, it's a great tour of the city. Ahhh, I remember my days drinking bad margaritas at Lucy's El Adobe.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
More Up and Coming Films
Well, that last post was fun. Lots of response about what's in store for the NEXT awards season. So here are a few more appetizers:
THE SOCIAL NETWORK- Directed by David Fincher (Seven, Benjamin Button) from a script by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) This is the story of the founders of Facebook. Maybe I'll find out how my FB page got hacked.
LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS- Edward Zwick (Glory, The Last Samurai) directs a story set in the cutthroat world of pharmaceutical salesman engaged in the pedaling of the little blue pill that makes old men happy. Stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway.
THE RUM DIARY- Based on a novel by Hunter S. Thompson, Johnny Depp is a journalist at a crossroads at a small Caribbean newspaper. Also, Aaron Eckhart and Giovanni Ribisi.
WINTER'S BONE- This was the Jury Prize winner at Sundance this year. Great buzz. Set in the Ozark Mountains, a girl puts herself and her family in danger when she tries to track down her drug-dealing father. No big names in the cast.
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT- I thought THE WHO were involved here but I guess not. Two kids conceived by artificial insemination bring their birth father into their lives. Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland), Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore star.
THE BEAVER- Jodi Foster directs and stars in "The Beaver", (insert your own joke here). Mel Gibson treats a hand puppet of a beaver like it was a living creature. Bet your inserted joke wasn't nearly as weird as the truth.
ALL GOOD THINGS- Based on a real unsolved murder case in New York, with a love interest subplot. Ryan Gosling, Kirsten Dunst and Jeffrey Dean Morgan star.
THE SOCIAL NETWORK- Directed by David Fincher (Seven, Benjamin Button) from a script by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) This is the story of the founders of Facebook. Maybe I'll find out how my FB page got hacked.
LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS- Edward Zwick (Glory, The Last Samurai) directs a story set in the cutthroat world of pharmaceutical salesman engaged in the pedaling of the little blue pill that makes old men happy. Stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway.
THE RUM DIARY- Based on a novel by Hunter S. Thompson, Johnny Depp is a journalist at a crossroads at a small Caribbean newspaper. Also, Aaron Eckhart and Giovanni Ribisi.
WINTER'S BONE- This was the Jury Prize winner at Sundance this year. Great buzz. Set in the Ozark Mountains, a girl puts herself and her family in danger when she tries to track down her drug-dealing father. No big names in the cast.
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT- I thought THE WHO were involved here but I guess not. Two kids conceived by artificial insemination bring their birth father into their lives. Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland), Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore star.
THE BEAVER- Jodi Foster directs and stars in "The Beaver", (insert your own joke here). Mel Gibson treats a hand puppet of a beaver like it was a living creature. Bet your inserted joke wasn't nearly as weird as the truth.
ALL GOOD THINGS- Based on a real unsolved murder case in New York, with a love interest subplot. Ryan Gosling, Kirsten Dunst and Jeffrey Dean Morgan star.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Oscar 2011- A Very Preliminary Look
I thought it might be fun to see what the buzz is for NEXT YEAR'S Oscar race. It really doesn't mean much since these might just as well be the worst of next year as easily as the best, but it's always fun to see just beyond the horizon.
LET ME IN- I'll start with this one since this is either my most anticipated upcoming release or my most dreaded. "Let Me In" is based on the great Norwegian Vampire movie, "Let the Right One In" discovered on this side of the pond by my buddy Charlie. Well, kinda. This is such a fresh and interesting take on the overdone Vampire genre that it will be almost impossible for an American remake not to screw it up. Ah well, hope springs eternal. Kodi Smit-McPhee from "The Road" stars.
INCEPTION- Here ya go Christopher Nolan fans. The director of "Momento" and "The Dark Knight" teams with Leonardo DiCaprio for a story about technology and dream invasion. It's an Imax thing. Can you hear that? It's the sound of money flowing.
HEREAFTER- Normally I'd be more excited about a Clint Eastwood movie but I saw "Invictus". This is a supernatural thriller about three people, interconnected by their recent association with death. Not the usual Eastwood turf, so maybe. Matt Damon and Bryce Dallas Howard star.
THE FIGHTER- Director David O. Russel hasn't done a film since "I Heart Huckabees". Based on a true story of 1980's boxer "Irish" Mickey Ward and his trainer/brother on the dark road to success. Stars Mark Wahlberg (who can't be worse than he was in The Lovely Bones), Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Melissa Leo.
BLUE VALENTINE- Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams star in a relationship movie that skips around the timeline of their love. Early festival buzz is that they are both terrific.
BLACK SWAN- Darren Aronofsky's last effort was "The Wrestler". His next takes place (where else?) in the world of Ballet. Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis are in their competition leg warmers as rivals on point in "Black Swan".
THE AMERICAN- It was just a matter of time before George Clooney played an assassin. Clooney's a hit man who wants to give up the game and finds himself in Italy on his last assignment in "The American".
GET LOW- Great notices at Toronto film festival for both Robert Duvall and Bill Murray. Duvall is a hermit in Tennessee who plans his own funeral celebration in "Get Low". It did get a delayed release date which usually indicates trouble. Still, Toronto said thumbs up.
TOY STORY III- Pixar. 'Nuff said.
LET ME IN- I'll start with this one since this is either my most anticipated upcoming release or my most dreaded. "Let Me In" is based on the great Norwegian Vampire movie, "Let the Right One In" discovered on this side of the pond by my buddy Charlie. Well, kinda. This is such a fresh and interesting take on the overdone Vampire genre that it will be almost impossible for an American remake not to screw it up. Ah well, hope springs eternal. Kodi Smit-McPhee from "The Road" stars.
INCEPTION- Here ya go Christopher Nolan fans. The director of "Momento" and "The Dark Knight" teams with Leonardo DiCaprio for a story about technology and dream invasion. It's an Imax thing. Can you hear that? It's the sound of money flowing.
HEREAFTER- Normally I'd be more excited about a Clint Eastwood movie but I saw "Invictus". This is a supernatural thriller about three people, interconnected by their recent association with death. Not the usual Eastwood turf, so maybe. Matt Damon and Bryce Dallas Howard star.
THE FIGHTER- Director David O. Russel hasn't done a film since "I Heart Huckabees". Based on a true story of 1980's boxer "Irish" Mickey Ward and his trainer/brother on the dark road to success. Stars Mark Wahlberg (who can't be worse than he was in The Lovely Bones), Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Melissa Leo.
BLUE VALENTINE- Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams star in a relationship movie that skips around the timeline of their love. Early festival buzz is that they are both terrific.
BLACK SWAN- Darren Aronofsky's last effort was "The Wrestler". His next takes place (where else?) in the world of Ballet. Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis are in their competition leg warmers as rivals on point in "Black Swan".
THE AMERICAN- It was just a matter of time before George Clooney played an assassin. Clooney's a hit man who wants to give up the game and finds himself in Italy on his last assignment in "The American".
GET LOW- Great notices at Toronto film festival for both Robert Duvall and Bill Murray. Duvall is a hermit in Tennessee who plans his own funeral celebration in "Get Low". It did get a delayed release date which usually indicates trouble. Still, Toronto said thumbs up.
TOY STORY III- Pixar. 'Nuff said.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Green Zone
The climactic chase in "Green Zone" takes place in an urban maze of buildings, rooftops and alleyways. It involves Matt Damon (let's call him America 1), some American soldiers with a different agenda from Damon (America 2), an Iraqi General and his Republican Gaurds (Iraq 1) and an Iraqi translator with a different agenda (Iraq 2). That's four separate human elements in a massive chase through an urban landscape (rooms, hallways, alleys, rooftops). Oh, and I almost forgot the helicopters. Yet there is not one solitary second where it isn't crystal clear who is chasing whom, where they are and what their relationship to the other chasers or chasees is. That's big time skill. That's Paul Greengrass. He is a master of action underpinned by clarity and logic. It shouldn't be surprising. His recent credits include United 93 (a masterwork) and the last two Bourne films.
As an action thrill ride this film ranks right up there with his last three. But this film has another element that Greengrass had to deal with. Here he tackles the politics of the Iraq War. In "United 93" he scrupulously avoided it. The Bourne films existed in their own world where politics was personal and the agendas weren't plucked from the headlines. Here it deals with the reality of America's choice to go to war. It has to chose sides. Now for most Americans, I think, the folly of manufacturing reasons to go to war is apparent. The issue is decided. And the few pro-Bush hangers-on are too busy organizing Tea Parties to go to the movies. But that's just where the trouble lurks. The politics of this film are very black and white. The complexity of the deftly handled action sequences aren't matched by an equally complicated political story. No complexity, no conflict. No conflict, no drama.
Still very few of the Iraq stories we have seen to date (actually none that I can think of) have even touched on the politics. They favor the personal stories of soldiers over the left or the right. We got some good films that way (witness "The Hurt Locker") But now that the debate is started, I say bring it on. The neo-cons be damned.
As an action film "Green Zone" is a ten, as a political thriller maybe a six or a seven. That averages out to about an 8, 81/2. That's worth the price of admission.
As an action thrill ride this film ranks right up there with his last three. But this film has another element that Greengrass had to deal with. Here he tackles the politics of the Iraq War. In "United 93" he scrupulously avoided it. The Bourne films existed in their own world where politics was personal and the agendas weren't plucked from the headlines. Here it deals with the reality of America's choice to go to war. It has to chose sides. Now for most Americans, I think, the folly of manufacturing reasons to go to war is apparent. The issue is decided. And the few pro-Bush hangers-on are too busy organizing Tea Parties to go to the movies. But that's just where the trouble lurks. The politics of this film are very black and white. The complexity of the deftly handled action sequences aren't matched by an equally complicated political story. No complexity, no conflict. No conflict, no drama.
Still very few of the Iraq stories we have seen to date (actually none that I can think of) have even touched on the politics. They favor the personal stories of soldiers over the left or the right. We got some good films that way (witness "The Hurt Locker") But now that the debate is started, I say bring it on. The neo-cons be damned.
As an action film "Green Zone" is a ten, as a political thriller maybe a six or a seven. That averages out to about an 8, 81/2. That's worth the price of admission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)