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.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)