Director Thomas McCarthy is known for directing intensely personal films about lonely, isolated people and the situations that break through that isolation. His two other films as director (The Station Agent, The Visitor) are masterful films about finding human connection. Win Win is a fitting and wonderful addition to that legacy. It may not be the best of the three but that's fine. Taken as a whole, a resume with these three films would be something to be proud of.
Paul Giamatti is a low level lawyer and a wrestling coach in small town New Jersey. He has screwed over an elderly client, taking on the paid responsibility of guardianship but placing the client in a nursing home anyway. A slimy move but he is desperate for the fifteen hundred bucks a month to keep his family above water.
Enter Kyle, the client's grandson, on the run from his own bad family situation. Giamatti's character finds Kyle perched on his granddad's porch and ends up taking him home to stay with his family. How Kyle comes to be an accepted member of the family is the first half of the story. Kyle also happens to be top notch wrestler (ok that may be a smidge convenient but go with it). The team that Giamatti coaches is, well, let's just say they aren't a top notch team. Voila! The birth of the major subplot. Things get complicated when Kyle's real Mom, fresh out of rehab, shows up. Betrayals are exposed and things get bumpy. Some may say the ending is a bit predictable but I'm going with inevitable as my adjective of choice.
A word about the script and the acting: honest stories with honest dialogue make for honest moments in honest scenes. Giamatti is excellent. Bobby Cannivale is excellent, Jeffrey Tambor-excelent. And Amy Ryan-excellent. Ryan may even be awards consideration excellent. And the kid-they went with a kid named Alex Shaffer who could wrestle and hoped he could act. That is a dangerous move. They got lucky.
Young Alex is excellent. This is all probably directly attributable to the writing and direction of Thomas McCarthy. "Win Win" lives up to its billing. It's a winner.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Kaboom
Director Gregg Araki had been moving from a camp/cult status gay filmmaker to a rather interesting chronicler of the gay experience as told with offbeat flare and raw honesty. His film "Mysterious Skin" starring Joseph Gordon Levitt represented a giant leap forward in his approach to film and his storytelling skill. "Kaboom" is a giant step backward. This film takes us to college with a confused young man of ambivalent sexuality. He's having dreams of weird abductions and strange sex and mysterious men in masks. I went with it for a while. Then the story degenerates in to a psychotic nonsensical nightmare involving a lost relative, outer space and the end of the world. I was less concerned with the end of the world than I was with the end of the movie. It seems like this film was constructed by a half dozen frat boy film students on a tequila bender. It's that silly. There are very few talented gay filmmakers that have the kind of platform that Araki has. Squandering that opportunity is shameful. Araki should re-watch "Mysterious Skin", grow up and make better films about gay people and gay culture.
The Conspirator
Okay, so last year my writing partner and I wrote a historically-based script and got some producers interested in it. Don't sweat it--I haven't made a nickel yet. But those producers suggested I watch this film, "The Conspirator" directed by Robert Redford. History interests me. Movies interest me. Unfortunately, this film did not interest me. Mainly because it was uninteresting. And I know why. I'll get to that.
This film tells the story of the Lincoln assassination and the conspiracy that surrounded the murder and the attempted murder of other government officials by Confederate loyalists. Everybody knows the infamous John Wilkes Booth and the tragedy at Ford's Theater but there were others involved. One of these was Mary Serratt, who ran a boarding house where the conspirators did their conspiring. One of these conspirators was her young son. It was the government's contention that she knew what was going on and was thus part of the conspiracy. This film concerns itself with her story and that of her lawyer (James MacAvoy). It is the script's contention that the government had no real proof (or at best sketchy proof) and that she was railroaded on to the gallows. The script carefully constructs parallels between this injustice and situations that have been a part of our own recent history--Guantanamo Bay for example and the post 9/11 legislation that trampled on a bunch of civil rights. Remember, I told you Robert Redford directed it.
It makes for fascinating discussion and an interesting and relevant argument.
And that's the problem. This would have been a memorable history lecture back at USC or an interesting debate on Point/Counterpoint. Here the actors think and brood and debate and wring their hands. It makes for some crappy drama. The performances albeit by some outstanding actors (MacAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline, Evan Rachel Wood) are stiff and lifeless, more like a historical recreation on the History Channel than a flesh and blood feature. And the direction doesn't help. It's almost as stodgy as the script. Too bad. It's really a great story. A great story that needed Jeff and me to write it.
This film tells the story of the Lincoln assassination and the conspiracy that surrounded the murder and the attempted murder of other government officials by Confederate loyalists. Everybody knows the infamous John Wilkes Booth and the tragedy at Ford's Theater but there were others involved. One of these was Mary Serratt, who ran a boarding house where the conspirators did their conspiring. One of these conspirators was her young son. It was the government's contention that she knew what was going on and was thus part of the conspiracy. This film concerns itself with her story and that of her lawyer (James MacAvoy). It is the script's contention that the government had no real proof (or at best sketchy proof) and that she was railroaded on to the gallows. The script carefully constructs parallels between this injustice and situations that have been a part of our own recent history--Guantanamo Bay for example and the post 9/11 legislation that trampled on a bunch of civil rights. Remember, I told you Robert Redford directed it.
It makes for fascinating discussion and an interesting and relevant argument.
And that's the problem. This would have been a memorable history lecture back at USC or an interesting debate on Point/Counterpoint. Here the actors think and brood and debate and wring their hands. It makes for some crappy drama. The performances albeit by some outstanding actors (MacAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline, Evan Rachel Wood) are stiff and lifeless, more like a historical recreation on the History Channel than a flesh and blood feature. And the direction doesn't help. It's almost as stodgy as the script. Too bad. It's really a great story. A great story that needed Jeff and me to write it.
The Lincoln Lawyer
This film is not set in the mid 1800's and the afore mentioned Lincoln refers to a car not a President. Okay now that we have the genres straightened out I can tell you that this film is a court room/private eye/low-level lawyer-type pot boiler in the tradition of Elmore Leonard. Remember "Out of Sight? It's actually based on a novel by well-known mystery writer Michael Connelly, if you're a mystery fan.
The lawyer in question here is Matthew McConaughey who gets tangled up with a scheming serial rapist and murderer and can't seem to extricate himself. The mystery here isn't really a "whodunit" it's more of a "howdoweproveit" and the puzzle box of the plot is sufficiently complicated to keep us guessing. It holds your interest pretty well and the quality of the supporting cast is fun to watch (Marissa Tomei and William H. Macy aren't in this film nearly long enough).
The problem with this film may be personal. Matthew McConaughey is meant to carry this film and I am not a big fan of Matthew McConaughey. He's a lazy actor when it comes to character work and relies on a shit-eating grin and six pack abs to do the heavy lifting. Every film he does he seems to be doing for the money. Here's the good news: His real-life persona and his on-screen character have a lot of cross-over----in this instance.
"The Lincoln Lawyer" is a pretty good pot-boiler and that translates to a good time with a box of popcorn and a Netflix rental, especially if you're a fan of the genre. Too bad they didn't find a lead that could elevate the material. They might have really had something special.
The lawyer in question here is Matthew McConaughey who gets tangled up with a scheming serial rapist and murderer and can't seem to extricate himself. The mystery here isn't really a "whodunit" it's more of a "howdoweproveit" and the puzzle box of the plot is sufficiently complicated to keep us guessing. It holds your interest pretty well and the quality of the supporting cast is fun to watch (Marissa Tomei and William H. Macy aren't in this film nearly long enough).
The problem with this film may be personal. Matthew McConaughey is meant to carry this film and I am not a big fan of Matthew McConaughey. He's a lazy actor when it comes to character work and relies on a shit-eating grin and six pack abs to do the heavy lifting. Every film he does he seems to be doing for the money. Here's the good news: His real-life persona and his on-screen character have a lot of cross-over----in this instance.
"The Lincoln Lawyer" is a pretty good pot-boiler and that translates to a good time with a box of popcorn and a Netflix rental, especially if you're a fan of the genre. Too bad they didn't find a lead that could elevate the material. They might have really had something special.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Midnight In Paris
How can I talk about this film without spoiling a lot of wonderful surprises? I can't, so all I'm going to say about Woody Allen's latest film is that it's a romantic love letter to Paris of both past and present. That's all the plot I'm going to reveal. And that's okay. I'm hoping that it'll be enough to get you to see this wonderfully funny and sentimental film. Go Woody.
Now if you check back in this blog to last year and the year before, you might notice that I disliked Woody's last two films. Well, that may be an understatement. I lambasted both of them as cheap knock-offs of his own work; lecherous drivel and the redundant ravings of a horny old man. I TOLD ya I didn't like 'em. Well, I am happy to report that "Midnight in Paris" is none of that. What it is is fresh, joyous, original and delightful. I'm a happy movie goer. I'm a restored Woody Allen fan.
Paris is a character in this film the way New York was a character in Allen's "Manhattan" and just like any good character, Allen fleshes out Paris by capturing both the ambiance and the mythology of that beautiful city. There is everything that was missing from his last few films....charm, humor, insight and honesty (especially in the dialogue which isn't stilted or forced at all this time out). It is an original and you should see it with someone you love (or someone you like) and share the experience. It's that good. I'm so happy.
I know I said I wasn't going to spoil anything but there is a scene with Owen Wilson and three surrealists (they talk about a Rhino) that is classic Woody Allen. Worth twice the price of admission for that scene alone.
Now if you check back in this blog to last year and the year before, you might notice that I disliked Woody's last two films. Well, that may be an understatement. I lambasted both of them as cheap knock-offs of his own work; lecherous drivel and the redundant ravings of a horny old man. I TOLD ya I didn't like 'em. Well, I am happy to report that "Midnight in Paris" is none of that. What it is is fresh, joyous, original and delightful. I'm a happy movie goer. I'm a restored Woody Allen fan.
Paris is a character in this film the way New York was a character in Allen's "Manhattan" and just like any good character, Allen fleshes out Paris by capturing both the ambiance and the mythology of that beautiful city. There is everything that was missing from his last few films....charm, humor, insight and honesty (especially in the dialogue which isn't stilted or forced at all this time out). It is an original and you should see it with someone you love (or someone you like) and share the experience. It's that good. I'm so happy.
I know I said I wasn't going to spoil anything but there is a scene with Owen Wilson and three surrealists (they talk about a Rhino) that is classic Woody Allen. Worth twice the price of admission for that scene alone.
Monkey Business
"The Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is the origin story for a B-movie franchise. Pretty good idea. Get a top shelf actor and use the technology of the day to give a B-movie franchise an A-list face lift. Here's the problem--this origin story remains about as B-movie as you can get. Cheesy plots, cheesy dialogue and flat-lined performances are all over this film. Only the motion capture technology is an upgrade from the original.
It must have seemed like a good idea to cast a good actor like James Franco in the lead but his performance is as flat and uninteresting as his hosting work on the Oscar telecast and at times he seems just as out of place as he was as a host. In fact, this movie fails in all things human. The love story between Franco and Freida Pinto has less chemistry than a Performing Arts High School, John Lithgow's alzheimer's-afflicted Dad is cliched and predictable (a fault of the writing, not Lithgow) and the bad guys are tepid at best (Tom Felton from the Harry Potter franchise has seemingly found a niche as the go-to teenage creep). And it is a long haul suffering through the human elements of this thing before you get to the good stuff...ie. the monkeys.
And the monkeys are pretty darn good. They use motion capture (on that motion-capture specialist, Andy Serkis) to find real emotional intricacies in these apes. Too bad they didn't use it on Franco. Once the revolution kicks in, the movie finds its momentum and becomes a decent entertainment, in a B-movie sort of way. It will serve as a Saturday matinee escape. But really, if you are in a prequel and find yourself longing for the acting and entertainment value of the Charleton Heston-lead originals, aren't you kind of in a whole lot of trouble?
It must have seemed like a good idea to cast a good actor like James Franco in the lead but his performance is as flat and uninteresting as his hosting work on the Oscar telecast and at times he seems just as out of place as he was as a host. In fact, this movie fails in all things human. The love story between Franco and Freida Pinto has less chemistry than a Performing Arts High School, John Lithgow's alzheimer's-afflicted Dad is cliched and predictable (a fault of the writing, not Lithgow) and the bad guys are tepid at best (Tom Felton from the Harry Potter franchise has seemingly found a niche as the go-to teenage creep). And it is a long haul suffering through the human elements of this thing before you get to the good stuff...ie. the monkeys.
And the monkeys are pretty darn good. They use motion capture (on that motion-capture specialist, Andy Serkis) to find real emotional intricacies in these apes. Too bad they didn't use it on Franco. Once the revolution kicks in, the movie finds its momentum and becomes a decent entertainment, in a B-movie sort of way. It will serve as a Saturday matinee escape. But really, if you are in a prequel and find yourself longing for the acting and entertainment value of the Charleton Heston-lead originals, aren't you kind of in a whole lot of trouble?
Crazy, Stupid Love
I was very much looking forward to this film. Steve Carrell is the best comedic actor going and the cast was stellar- Ryan Gosling, Julianne Moore, Marissa Tomei and Emma Stone, heavy hitters all. No surprise then, the best thing about this film is the afore mentioned cast. They are by turns charming, honest, funny, sincere and totally likeable. The reason this is such an accomplishment is because the script to this film is by turns hokey, dishonest, predictable and altogether unoriginal. What a disappointment.
Steve Carrell and Julianne Moore are married with children. They've grown apart, and Carrell is blindsided at dinner one night to find that Moore has had an affair and wants a divorce. Carrell is deeply hurt and obliges. Now the meat of this story kicks in. The two must find away to live life without each other. Elaborate and convoluted hijinx involving a baby sitter, a womanizer, various love interests and Moore's lover ensue. All these elements converge in Carrell's backyard (or former backyard, as it were) for an obligatory scene so contrived that it would make a James Bond screenwriter blush. There are a whole lot of complicated romantic sub plots in this movie but none are more problematic than the one involving Carrell's 13 year old son and his babysitter. It is alternately goofy, creepy, and dishonest. No thirteen year old boy would behave this way....EVER. The plot line wraps up with a scene at the kids graduation where gushy platitudes are uttered rendering the entire thing almost unwatchable in a goofy, uncomfortable way. It hamstrings the movie.
There is, however, a revelation in "Crazy, Stupid Love" and that revelation is Ryan Gosling. I'm beginning to believe that he is a bit of an on-screen miracle worker. He takes a character that is written on the fringes of unlikeability and fleshes out a character with depth and complexity...mostly on his own. It's official. He can do anything. He's the best young actor going.
In totality, this film fails in more ways than it succeeds but its trump suit is in the casting, and there it has a strong hand. For many people I imagine, it will be enough. For me it was ultimately a major disappointment.
Steve Carrell and Julianne Moore are married with children. They've grown apart, and Carrell is blindsided at dinner one night to find that Moore has had an affair and wants a divorce. Carrell is deeply hurt and obliges. Now the meat of this story kicks in. The two must find away to live life without each other. Elaborate and convoluted hijinx involving a baby sitter, a womanizer, various love interests and Moore's lover ensue. All these elements converge in Carrell's backyard (or former backyard, as it were) for an obligatory scene so contrived that it would make a James Bond screenwriter blush. There are a whole lot of complicated romantic sub plots in this movie but none are more problematic than the one involving Carrell's 13 year old son and his babysitter. It is alternately goofy, creepy, and dishonest. No thirteen year old boy would behave this way....EVER. The plot line wraps up with a scene at the kids graduation where gushy platitudes are uttered rendering the entire thing almost unwatchable in a goofy, uncomfortable way. It hamstrings the movie.
There is, however, a revelation in "Crazy, Stupid Love" and that revelation is Ryan Gosling. I'm beginning to believe that he is a bit of an on-screen miracle worker. He takes a character that is written on the fringes of unlikeability and fleshes out a character with depth and complexity...mostly on his own. It's official. He can do anything. He's the best young actor going.
In totality, this film fails in more ways than it succeeds but its trump suit is in the casting, and there it has a strong hand. For many people I imagine, it will be enough. For me it was ultimately a major disappointment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)