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.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)