Blue Jasmine is this year's offering from illustrious and profuse director Woody Allen and it's one of his best in the past five years, in my opinion, second only to Midnight in Paris. For those of you who didn't love that film, however, this will more likely fit the bill. Where that film was fantastical and charming, this one is real and personal.
Cate Blanchett's performance is the perfect blend of big and subtly pointed as the film centers around her nervous breakdown. She gets excellent support from Alec Baldwin, as her smooth, crooked husband and Sally Hawkins, as her hard-working, but unconfident sister. Andrew Dice Clay, Bobby Cannavale, and Louis C.K. also have delightful supporting roles (although there's been some backlash on Dice Clay and Cannavale playing San Francisco natives while retaining their distinct New York dialects).
The other brilliant part of this movie is the way Allen integrates the music into the storytelling, especially "Blue Moon." The song itself is mentioned several times, but Allen manages to so deftly use the music itself and the lyrics to play an integral part in the narrative. It's truly magical that after so many films, he can still leave me marveling at his skill.
If you're into the whole "Oscar race," like I am, make sure Blue Jasmine is on your list of films to see this year. It's a gem.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Giant (1956)
Those of you who are, like me, a bit obsessive about film, have surely seen (or at least been told you should see) the 1956 film Giant, based on the classic American novel by Edna Ferber and starring Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, and James Dean. Sitting down to watch this film, like sitting down to watch Gone with the Wind, is no easy undertaking. Giant is 3 hours and 20 minutes, as my father says, "of just movie time." I finally dedicated the necessary time to watching this "giant" movie (I make no apology for that pun) a week ago. I was underwhelmed, which I'm fairly certain is never the aim of any 3+ hour movie.
I'll start with the good things. James Dean is utterly magnificent as Jett Rink, a poor cowboy just trying to make his way under the shadow of the incredibly wealthy Benedict family. That this was his last role before his untimely death makes his performance all the more heartbreaking as his life slowly spins out of control. The story of Jett Rink is the classic example of "be careful what you wish for because you just might get it." In fact, he's far and away the most fascinating character in the film and comparatively, we barely see him. He pops up every now and again to act as a sort of catalyst to the action of the film, which leads me to one of the biggest problems I have with Giant.
The story of Jett Rink is pushed to the side in favor of an extended chronicle of the marriage of Leslie and Jordan "Bick" Benedict (Taylor and Hudson). The film spends ages showing their domestic life over more than twenty-five years and quite frankly, most of it is downright dull. They represent the stereotypical North vs South mentality, which at certain moments, creates interesting tension, but for the most part, there's no point in watching them throw parties or fight over what their four year old son's career will be, while somewhere off-screen, an actual epic saga of the pitfalls of the American dream is taking place with Jett Rink at the center.
Also, there's no real central theme to the film. As I mentioned before, there are some interesting moments of turmoil between the two main characters, such as Leslie's fiery rant against the sexism of her husband and his pals and the two ending scenes in which Bick confronts his own racism and endeavors to correct it. Unfortunately, these are few and far between. If I had made this movie, Jett Rink would've been the main character and Leslie & Jordan would've been the supporting characters (they're still important to his story, especially Leslie). This way I could do away with massive portions of basically filler material that take the audience through time without really offering much to the story.
Giant is ultimately a story about Texas, which I suppose accounts somewhat for its length and attempt at a vast, epic tone, yet it falls short of even being convincing as a chronicle of the Lone Star State. In the end, my advice to you is this: if you still feel the need to spend almost 3.5 hours of your life watching this film (and if you love James Dean, it's almost worth it), I suggest also watching Baz Luhrmann's Australia (although not in one sitting) to see what a true love letter to a time and place looks like.
I'll start with the good things. James Dean is utterly magnificent as Jett Rink, a poor cowboy just trying to make his way under the shadow of the incredibly wealthy Benedict family. That this was his last role before his untimely death makes his performance all the more heartbreaking as his life slowly spins out of control. The story of Jett Rink is the classic example of "be careful what you wish for because you just might get it." In fact, he's far and away the most fascinating character in the film and comparatively, we barely see him. He pops up every now and again to act as a sort of catalyst to the action of the film, which leads me to one of the biggest problems I have with Giant.
The story of Jett Rink is pushed to the side in favor of an extended chronicle of the marriage of Leslie and Jordan "Bick" Benedict (Taylor and Hudson). The film spends ages showing their domestic life over more than twenty-five years and quite frankly, most of it is downright dull. They represent the stereotypical North vs South mentality, which at certain moments, creates interesting tension, but for the most part, there's no point in watching them throw parties or fight over what their four year old son's career will be, while somewhere off-screen, an actual epic saga of the pitfalls of the American dream is taking place with Jett Rink at the center.
Also, there's no real central theme to the film. As I mentioned before, there are some interesting moments of turmoil between the two main characters, such as Leslie's fiery rant against the sexism of her husband and his pals and the two ending scenes in which Bick confronts his own racism and endeavors to correct it. Unfortunately, these are few and far between. If I had made this movie, Jett Rink would've been the main character and Leslie & Jordan would've been the supporting characters (they're still important to his story, especially Leslie). This way I could do away with massive portions of basically filler material that take the audience through time without really offering much to the story.
Giant is ultimately a story about Texas, which I suppose accounts somewhat for its length and attempt at a vast, epic tone, yet it falls short of even being convincing as a chronicle of the Lone Star State. In the end, my advice to you is this: if you still feel the need to spend almost 3.5 hours of your life watching this film (and if you love James Dean, it's almost worth it), I suggest also watching Baz Luhrmann's Australia (although not in one sitting) to see what a true love letter to a time and place looks like.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Man of Steel
WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE MAN OF STEEL. DO NOT PROCEED PAST THIS POINT IF YOU ARE TRYING TO AVOID SPOILERS. WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM.
Ok, readers, it's time to talk Superman. I've had a lot of mixed emotions about Man of Steel since it was announced a few years back. First, I was worried about making a new Superman movie so soon after the debacle that was Superman Returns. Then, I was skeptical about casting Henry Cavill, a Brit, as an American icon. See, DC Comics (and Superman fans), really, really needed this movie to be great. Marvel is flourishing in the film industry with Spider-man, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and Avengers movies, plus the SHIELD tv series. DC, on the other hand, has been struggling to reach that level for years. And I'll be honest, I've been a DC fan for as long as I can remember. In fact, Superman has always been my favorite. Yet, they just haven't been able to quite get a Superman movie right since the Christopher Reeve era and on top of all the other DC disappointments over the last 20 years or so, we loyal fans needed a win. Unfortunately, we'll have to keep waiting.
The most disappointing thing about Man of Steel is that it's great until it isn't. The attention to detail is obvious in everything from costumes to VFX to casting and it's all good. Very good, actually. Until the end. (HERE COME THOSE SPOILERS I MENTIONED) Near the end of the film is Superman's epic battle with the infamous General Zod and at its conclusion, Superman kills him. Now, I can justify a lot in the name of poetic license and creative freedom and all that. Honestly. But there are some things that are just outside the suspension of belief and that is one of them. Like I said, I've been a Superman fan for as long as I can remember and Superman doesn't kill anyone, ever, to the point that sometimes you wish he would. I spent countless hours yelling at him for it on Smallville. But the point is, he never does. Because as human as he is, he's also not. He's better. Superman is humanity's inspiration. He pushes us to be better than our base instincts. He has issues, but he's not dark, brooding Bruce Wayne. He's Kansas farm-bred, Clark Kent, the mild-mannered reporter. He's a little corny and that's ok. He leads by example.
I don't know how this incredibly important plot point managed to get the go ahead from EVERYONE to make it to the screen, but it is not ok. Is it too much to ask for a good Superman movie? How will the announced Justice League movie fare after this disaster? As Craig Ferguson is fond of saying, I look forward to your letters.
Ok, readers, it's time to talk Superman. I've had a lot of mixed emotions about Man of Steel since it was announced a few years back. First, I was worried about making a new Superman movie so soon after the debacle that was Superman Returns. Then, I was skeptical about casting Henry Cavill, a Brit, as an American icon. See, DC Comics (and Superman fans), really, really needed this movie to be great. Marvel is flourishing in the film industry with Spider-man, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and Avengers movies, plus the SHIELD tv series. DC, on the other hand, has been struggling to reach that level for years. And I'll be honest, I've been a DC fan for as long as I can remember. In fact, Superman has always been my favorite. Yet, they just haven't been able to quite get a Superman movie right since the Christopher Reeve era and on top of all the other DC disappointments over the last 20 years or so, we loyal fans needed a win. Unfortunately, we'll have to keep waiting.
The most disappointing thing about Man of Steel is that it's great until it isn't. The attention to detail is obvious in everything from costumes to VFX to casting and it's all good. Very good, actually. Until the end. (HERE COME THOSE SPOILERS I MENTIONED) Near the end of the film is Superman's epic battle with the infamous General Zod and at its conclusion, Superman kills him. Now, I can justify a lot in the name of poetic license and creative freedom and all that. Honestly. But there are some things that are just outside the suspension of belief and that is one of them. Like I said, I've been a Superman fan for as long as I can remember and Superman doesn't kill anyone, ever, to the point that sometimes you wish he would. I spent countless hours yelling at him for it on Smallville. But the point is, he never does. Because as human as he is, he's also not. He's better. Superman is humanity's inspiration. He pushes us to be better than our base instincts. He has issues, but he's not dark, brooding Bruce Wayne. He's Kansas farm-bred, Clark Kent, the mild-mannered reporter. He's a little corny and that's ok. He leads by example.
I don't know how this incredibly important plot point managed to get the go ahead from EVERYONE to make it to the screen, but it is not ok. Is it too much to ask for a good Superman movie? How will the announced Justice League movie fare after this disaster? As Craig Ferguson is fond of saying, I look forward to your letters.
World War Z
After some small excitement at the movie theater yesterday (smoke sensors went off. false alarm. we blamed the zombies.), I saw the incredibly expensive to make summer blockbuster World War Z. I'm not a zombie fanatic, like some, but I have nothing particularly against them either, and I was intrigued to see this Max Brooks (son of the legendary Mel Brooks) novel turned into a film. Plus, there was a lot of speculation on what exactly this movie would look like after all that time and money. So for me, this one was not to be missed and I have to say, I rather enjoyed it.
It's a fun, suspenseful summer thriller. It doesn't look overproduced, so kudos to the VFX artists and engineers (and the makeup artists) on that one. And, full disclosure, how bad could two hours of watching Brad Pitt run around really be? The answer: not bad at all.
It's more of a tense nail-biter than a gore fest (The zombies are the fast, semi-intelligent kind, rather than the slow, brain-eating kind.), so I found it entertaining. Director Marc Forster's pacing is spot-on, too. The movie doesn't go on too long or spend too much time on exposition, making it perfect for some light summer afternoon fun. Action fans will be familiar with Forster's work on Quantum of Solace (and if you liked that film and World War Z, I highly recommend his lesser known movie Stay. very, very good.).
So if you like Brad Pitt and you don't mind zombies, go see World War Z. It's the best summer action movie I've seen so far.
[PS Fun Fact: look for Matthew Fox in a no-name bit part.]
It's a fun, suspenseful summer thriller. It doesn't look overproduced, so kudos to the VFX artists and engineers (and the makeup artists) on that one. And, full disclosure, how bad could two hours of watching Brad Pitt run around really be? The answer: not bad at all.
It's more of a tense nail-biter than a gore fest (The zombies are the fast, semi-intelligent kind, rather than the slow, brain-eating kind.), so I found it entertaining. Director Marc Forster's pacing is spot-on, too. The movie doesn't go on too long or spend too much time on exposition, making it perfect for some light summer afternoon fun. Action fans will be familiar with Forster's work on Quantum of Solace (and if you liked that film and World War Z, I highly recommend his lesser known movie Stay. very, very good.).
So if you like Brad Pitt and you don't mind zombies, go see World War Z. It's the best summer action movie I've seen so far.
[PS Fun Fact: look for Matthew Fox in a no-name bit part.]
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
The Great Gatsby
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is one of those novels that everyone is told to read, usually for school, meaning spending hours dissecting every line for symbolism, so it can be easy to forget (or entirely miss) why the book is such a classic. It's the story of ambition, love, mystery, but more than that, of a time and a place, capturing in so few words, the true essence of a mere moment so poetically. There's no one better to capture that essence than the master of grand spectacle himself, director Baz Luhrmann.
This film is uptempo and opulent, every shot meticulously framed, like an Impressionist painting. Everything glimmers, from wardrobe to set decoration, evoking that very American form of optimism. I could go on and on, but the point is that, without doubt, the film is a visual masterpiece.
The acting, too, is splendid. Carey Mulligan is dewy and careworn all at once, all fluttering curtains and flowing curves, like spring with a hint of frost. In other words, utterly ravishing in the most heartbreaking way. I found Tobey Maguire (except for one brief instant of Spider-man 3 flashback) to be charmingly naive as Nick Carraway. Then there's Leonardo DiCaprio. Admittedly, he is possibly my favorite actor of our generation, and not just because of those piercing blue eyes, but I have it on good authority that it's not just me. He is truly magnificent as Jay Gatsby. He is the heart and soul, the epitome of the American dream, the perfect irresistible imagination with an unending sense of hope. As the kids say, he is just everything. Enough of my gushing, though.
Surprisingly, I did not find the use of hip-hop music to be entirely off-putting. At times, I thought it worked quite well. The one moment that seems to have bothered everyone I've talked to is the car pumping some Jay-Z that Nick & Gatsby pass on the bridge into Manhattan. Luhrmann justifies it by pointing out that hip-hop is something like the jazz of our time, but that doesn't make rap-loving flappers any less jarring.
The other departure from the novel, the decision to have Nick tell the story to a psychiatrist, is a choice I go back and forth on. I can see justifications for and against it. I don't hate it, but I don't love it either. It's the one niggling detail that is keeping me from pronouncing this as the movie of the year. As late-night host and comedian Craig Ferguson is fond of saying, I look forward to your letters.
This film is uptempo and opulent, every shot meticulously framed, like an Impressionist painting. Everything glimmers, from wardrobe to set decoration, evoking that very American form of optimism. I could go on and on, but the point is that, without doubt, the film is a visual masterpiece.
The acting, too, is splendid. Carey Mulligan is dewy and careworn all at once, all fluttering curtains and flowing curves, like spring with a hint of frost. In other words, utterly ravishing in the most heartbreaking way. I found Tobey Maguire (except for one brief instant of Spider-man 3 flashback) to be charmingly naive as Nick Carraway. Then there's Leonardo DiCaprio. Admittedly, he is possibly my favorite actor of our generation, and not just because of those piercing blue eyes, but I have it on good authority that it's not just me. He is truly magnificent as Jay Gatsby. He is the heart and soul, the epitome of the American dream, the perfect irresistible imagination with an unending sense of hope. As the kids say, he is just everything. Enough of my gushing, though.
Surprisingly, I did not find the use of hip-hop music to be entirely off-putting. At times, I thought it worked quite well. The one moment that seems to have bothered everyone I've talked to is the car pumping some Jay-Z that Nick & Gatsby pass on the bridge into Manhattan. Luhrmann justifies it by pointing out that hip-hop is something like the jazz of our time, but that doesn't make rap-loving flappers any less jarring.
The other departure from the novel, the decision to have Nick tell the story to a psychiatrist, is a choice I go back and forth on. I can see justifications for and against it. I don't hate it, but I don't love it either. It's the one niggling detail that is keeping me from pronouncing this as the movie of the year. As late-night host and comedian Craig Ferguson is fond of saying, I look forward to your letters.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Iron Man 3
First thing you need to know about Iron Man 3 is that it is infinitely superior to Iron Man 2, in every way. In fact, Iron Man 3 is just downright entertaining, from the beginning voice-over to the tag after the end credits. Tony Stark has come a long way since we first saw him giving drunken speeches in Las Vegas and Robert Downey, Jr. inhabits the character in such a comfortable way that brings home Stark's emotional intensity in this film. Pepper Potts, too, is fiercer than she's ever been (& Gwyneth Paltrow, who's just been named People Magazine's World's Most Beautiful Woman, may have done something no one else has yet been able to--inspire me to work out). Don Cheadle is back as Colonel Rhodes for his second Iron Man installment, and while I always enjoy his work, he just doesn't bring quite the same dry sarcasm to the role as Terrence Howard did in the first movie.
As for the new faces to the franchise, Ben Kingsley, Guy Pearce, and Rebecca Hall all play their parts magnificently. Kingsley especially is given the opportunity to really shine as anti-American terrorist The Mandarin. (If you're unfamiliar with Rebecca Hall, who doesn't get nearly enough screen time as Dr. Maya Hansen, go to your local video store and rent The Town. You're welcome.) I was also pleased that Jarvis, Stark's magnificent computer system voiced by Paul Bettany (who is marvelous), had a much bigger role in this film than in the previous two. Stark also meets a young boy in small town Tennessee who has no southern accent, but is still adorably precocious and steals almost every scene he shares with Downey, which is quite a feat.
The only glitch, if you'll pardon that joke, in the story is the overly complex and yet glaringly simplified baddies that Aldrich Killian (what a name!) creates. They come to be through a highly advanced neuro/biochemical science experiment, that thankfully they don't spend too much time explaining (I understood enough to know it wouldn't end well), but the side effects of this technology don't seem to make much sense and they're borderline bizarre (fire-breathing? really?). Maybe I don't get it because I've never read a comic book, but I preferred the straightforward greed of Obadiah in the first one. These Extremis patients do cause some exciting explosions, though, so perhaps we're not meant to look beyond that.
All things considered, Iron Man 3 is an excellent summer blockbuster and a good way to kick off the trifecta of films scheduled for release in the first three weeks of May (Iron Man 3, The Great Gatsby, & Star Trek: Into Darkness). Next up for Marvel fans is Thor: The Dark World, which hits theaters this November.
As for the new faces to the franchise, Ben Kingsley, Guy Pearce, and Rebecca Hall all play their parts magnificently. Kingsley especially is given the opportunity to really shine as anti-American terrorist The Mandarin. (If you're unfamiliar with Rebecca Hall, who doesn't get nearly enough screen time as Dr. Maya Hansen, go to your local video store and rent The Town. You're welcome.) I was also pleased that Jarvis, Stark's magnificent computer system voiced by Paul Bettany (who is marvelous), had a much bigger role in this film than in the previous two. Stark also meets a young boy in small town Tennessee who has no southern accent, but is still adorably precocious and steals almost every scene he shares with Downey, which is quite a feat.
The only glitch, if you'll pardon that joke, in the story is the overly complex and yet glaringly simplified baddies that Aldrich Killian (what a name!) creates. They come to be through a highly advanced neuro/biochemical science experiment, that thankfully they don't spend too much time explaining (I understood enough to know it wouldn't end well), but the side effects of this technology don't seem to make much sense and they're borderline bizarre (fire-breathing? really?). Maybe I don't get it because I've never read a comic book, but I preferred the straightforward greed of Obadiah in the first one. These Extremis patients do cause some exciting explosions, though, so perhaps we're not meant to look beyond that.
All things considered, Iron Man 3 is an excellent summer blockbuster and a good way to kick off the trifecta of films scheduled for release in the first three weeks of May (Iron Man 3, The Great Gatsby, & Star Trek: Into Darkness). Next up for Marvel fans is Thor: The Dark World, which hits theaters this November.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Fish Tank (2009)
Since it's a slow period for new releases (between Oscar season & summer blockbusters), I thought I'd share my thoughts on a movie from a few years ago, that is new to me. Fish Tank, written and directed by Andrea Arnold, was released in 2009 in the UK and in limited theaters in the US in early 2010. The film follows 15 year old Mia and her life with her mom and younger sister on an Essex estate following her expulsion from school. Her mother seems to view Mia as a lost cause, but as the film unfolds, we see that Mia's tough exterior is masking a deep well of emotional pain and trauma. She's a young girl searching desperately for someone to care about her. She appears to find that person in her mother's new boyfriend Connor, masterfully played by Michael Fassbender (before he was on the world's radar), but even he eventually betrays her trust (in 2 shocking ways, one I saw coming and another more surprising). If this movie didn't have a hopeful ending, it might be one of the most depressing pieces of cinema ever made, but thankfully it does.
The striking realism of this film makes it difficult to watch at times, but it's also part of why I think this film is so important. It's a fictional snapshot that reveals so many harsh truths. It's a study in gray areas. It's beautiful, but it hurts. I wish there were more films like this one being made.
Here's the link to the IMDb page, in case you're interested: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232776/
The striking realism of this film makes it difficult to watch at times, but it's also part of why I think this film is so important. It's a fictional snapshot that reveals so many harsh truths. It's a study in gray areas. It's beautiful, but it hurts. I wish there were more films like this one being made.
Here's the link to the IMDb page, in case you're interested: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232776/
Friday, April 5, 2013
In Honor of a Legend
No review today, just a link to the best article I've read in honor of Roger Ebert, movie criticism, & movies in general.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/04/04/roger-ebert-redefined-movie-criticism/
Roger Ebert (06/18/1942-04/04/2013)
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/04/04/roger-ebert-redefined-movie-criticism/
Roger Ebert (06/18/1942-04/04/2013)
Monday, March 18, 2013
Jack the Giant Slayer/Oz the Great and Powerful
Honestly, there's not much to say about Jack the Giant Slayer. It's your basic fairytale/adventure family movie. There's a princess who wants to have more freedom and thinks she can take care of herself. (spoiler alert: she can't.) There's a young, humble farmboy who dreams of a more exciting life. And there are big, ugly giants who want to eat them. It's a fairly entertaining film, mostly because the cast really goes above and beyond with mediocre material. Nicholas Hoult is charming and unassuming as Jack and Ian McShane has a great deal of fun as the well-meaning King Brahmwell, but the real star of this movie, in my opinion, is the perfectly coiffed Ewan McGregor as Elmont, the leader of the king's guard. How the princess could resist falling for him is beyond me (and several Tumblr users I've discovered).
On the other hand, Oz the Great and Powerful is highly entertaining and perfect for almost the entire family (the flying monkeys have definitely gotten scarier, so kids under 7 should probably stay home). Predictable? Of course, it's a prequel, but still amusing and sweet. There are a lot of people out there who dislike James Franco, for whatever reason, but I quite enjoyed his scampish Oz, especially when teamed with his sidekick(s) Frank/Finley, masterfully played by the adorable and hilarious Zach Braff, who had me laughing out loud in almost every scene. Sam Raimi and his screenwriters, Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire, stay faithful to the spirit of the 1939 film throughout, which makes it all the more enjoyable for those of us who've seen that movie over and over again. The costume design is magnificent and the art direction, especially when we first enter the land of Oz, is utterly magical. I thought the film was heartfelt, without taking itself too seriously, and I recommend it for a fun night at the cinema.
On the other hand, Oz the Great and Powerful is highly entertaining and perfect for almost the entire family (the flying monkeys have definitely gotten scarier, so kids under 7 should probably stay home). Predictable? Of course, it's a prequel, but still amusing and sweet. There are a lot of people out there who dislike James Franco, for whatever reason, but I quite enjoyed his scampish Oz, especially when teamed with his sidekick(s) Frank/Finley, masterfully played by the adorable and hilarious Zach Braff, who had me laughing out loud in almost every scene. Sam Raimi and his screenwriters, Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire, stay faithful to the spirit of the 1939 film throughout, which makes it all the more enjoyable for those of us who've seen that movie over and over again. The costume design is magnificent and the art direction, especially when we first enter the land of Oz, is utterly magical. I thought the film was heartfelt, without taking itself too seriously, and I recommend it for a fun night at the cinema.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Impossible
The Impossible is the story of the utterly devastating tsunami of December 2004. It focuses on Henry and Maria and their three boys Lucas, Simon, and Thomas. All five are magnificently acted and their performances carry this film. When the tsunami hits, the family is separated and their urgency to find one another and uncertainty in the others's fates drives the movie and is its true heart. I found the most heart-wrenching moment of the film to be Henry's (the brilliant Ewan McGregor) call to his father-in-law. For the first time we see Henry completely lost, almost hopeless, sobbing into the phone, his words nearly unrecognizable. Then, he composes himself and vows that he'll never stop looking for his wife and son.
The film, of course, examines the destruction of the tsunami and the effect of that disaster on those directly involved. It also shows the dichotomy that kind of chaos can create--some people are focused solely on their own survival, while others are moved to help those around, even when they cannot help themselves. This manifests in the survivors around the family, but also within the family itself. "Even if it's the last thing we do," Maria tells Lucas as she insists they help a stranded boy, despite the fact that she's been seriously injured.
All the buzz about this film has been focused on Naomi Watts's performance as the matriarch of this family. (She's nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award.) Watts completely takes on the role and goes from the kind, wise, Conrad-reading mother we see at the beginning to the impossibly strong, selfless woman who spends the entire second half of the movie lying in a hospital bed, yet still able to convey the depth of her spirit in only her face. Welcome back, Naomi.
The film, of course, examines the destruction of the tsunami and the effect of that disaster on those directly involved. It also shows the dichotomy that kind of chaos can create--some people are focused solely on their own survival, while others are moved to help those around, even when they cannot help themselves. This manifests in the survivors around the family, but also within the family itself. "Even if it's the last thing we do," Maria tells Lucas as she insists they help a stranded boy, despite the fact that she's been seriously injured.
All the buzz about this film has been focused on Naomi Watts's performance as the matriarch of this family. (She's nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award.) Watts completely takes on the role and goes from the kind, wise, Conrad-reading mother we see at the beginning to the impossibly strong, selfless woman who spends the entire second half of the movie lying in a hospital bed, yet still able to convey the depth of her spirit in only her face. Welcome back, Naomi.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Silver Linings Playbook
Silver Linings Playbook was one of my most anticipated movies of 2012. Naturally, I had to wait two months after its nationwide release date for it to make it to West Virginia, but thankfully it was worth the wait. It is definitely the funniest movie of the year and possibly the sweetest. It would be easy to categorize Silver Linings Playbook as a quirky love story with a happy ending, but it's so much more than that. The film, adapted and directed by David O. Russell, is also a thought-provoking look at family, relationships, and mental illness.
The protagonist, Pat, expertly played by Bradley Cooper (proving he deserves to be known for more than the various incarnations of The Hangover), is a man striving to achieve his silver lining. Over the course of the film, the many forces he is struggling against are gradually revealed. In fact, I think this was one of the strongest elements of the film. It almost starts in the middle of the story and piece by piece the beginning is unfolded to the audience--not just Pat's, but Tiffany's as well.
Tiffany is a magnificent character and Jennifer Lawrence is brilliant in the role. She has a tough as nails exterior masking an incredibly vulnerable woman who is desperately trying to make sense of her life. In Pat, she finds a kindred, messed up, human soul and thus begins their unique story, which is an absolute pleasure to watch.
Favorite moments include Pat's rant against Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms at 4am and all of Chris Tucker's scenes (so nice to see him bounce back from Rush Hour 3 so well). Less than perfect moments: I wish Julia Stiles had gotten a bit more screen time. Her character's marriage could've been explored a little deeper, but the film is very focused on the central couple. On that note, I'm not sure Jacki Weaver deserved her nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Not that her performance wasn't lovely and heartfelt, because it certainly is, but her character doesn't have much of an arc. She and De Niro play Pat's parents and they have roughly the same amount of screen time, but Pat Sr. has so much more depth. Understanding him is crucial to understanding Pat. De Niro, by the way, is beautiful in the role (he was apparently very moved by the script). There is also a moment of direction at the climax of the film that took me out of the realism of the film, which unfortunately lessened its effect for me. However, all in all, this is definitely a movie I look forward to owning.
The protagonist, Pat, expertly played by Bradley Cooper (proving he deserves to be known for more than the various incarnations of The Hangover), is a man striving to achieve his silver lining. Over the course of the film, the many forces he is struggling against are gradually revealed. In fact, I think this was one of the strongest elements of the film. It almost starts in the middle of the story and piece by piece the beginning is unfolded to the audience--not just Pat's, but Tiffany's as well.
Tiffany is a magnificent character and Jennifer Lawrence is brilliant in the role. She has a tough as nails exterior masking an incredibly vulnerable woman who is desperately trying to make sense of her life. In Pat, she finds a kindred, messed up, human soul and thus begins their unique story, which is an absolute pleasure to watch.
Favorite moments include Pat's rant against Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms at 4am and all of Chris Tucker's scenes (so nice to see him bounce back from Rush Hour 3 so well). Less than perfect moments: I wish Julia Stiles had gotten a bit more screen time. Her character's marriage could've been explored a little deeper, but the film is very focused on the central couple. On that note, I'm not sure Jacki Weaver deserved her nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Not that her performance wasn't lovely and heartfelt, because it certainly is, but her character doesn't have much of an arc. She and De Niro play Pat's parents and they have roughly the same amount of screen time, but Pat Sr. has so much more depth. Understanding him is crucial to understanding Pat. De Niro, by the way, is beautiful in the role (he was apparently very moved by the script). There is also a moment of direction at the climax of the film that took me out of the realism of the film, which unfortunately lessened its effect for me. However, all in all, this is definitely a movie I look forward to owning.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Zero Dark Thirty
Everyone is entitled to their own politics and opinions, but Zero Dark Thirty isn't a propaganda film either way. It is not a movie about torture or the war on terror or any president. This is a film about one woman who dedicates herself completely for years on end to a single goal: locating Osama bin Laden (UBL). Zero Dark Thirty follows Maya, brilliantly played by Jessica Chastain, from her arrival in Pakistan throughout her dogged manhunt to its familiar conclusion and more importantly, it examines the cost. Maya is tough, persistent, brilliant, honest, and fearless. She has no romantic partners, no family; she makes a friend only to lose her to a suicide bomber. The pivotal moment in the film isn't the death of UBL. It's Maya's response to the Director of the C.I.A. when he asks her what else she's done for the agency. "Nothing. I've done nothing else." For almost a decade, she's done nothing else. The emotional and physical stamina of this woman is incredible. The whole film leads up to the final image, not of celebration, but of grief.
Chastain is a star. If you didn't already know this from her breakout year in 2011 or her Golden Globe win this past weekend, allow me to assure you. She is the real deal. There are several strong supporting actors in this film as well, including Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt (doing serious work!) as SEALs and Jason Clarke and Jennifer Ehle as fellow Agents. Kathryn Bigelow's direction is excellent, balancing the tense and violent with the calm and, at times, beautiful. I think she was robbed of an Oscar nomination. In fact, Zero Dark Thirty might get my vote for Best Picture (whether or not The Academy agrees is another story). This is a film that really sticks with you, for days after you've left the theater. Inevitably, this will be a film that continues to divide audiences, but if you like strong female characters, contemporary story lines, and thought-provoking direction, I think this is the best film you'll see for a while.
Chastain is a star. If you didn't already know this from her breakout year in 2011 or her Golden Globe win this past weekend, allow me to assure you. She is the real deal. There are several strong supporting actors in this film as well, including Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt (doing serious work!) as SEALs and Jason Clarke and Jennifer Ehle as fellow Agents. Kathryn Bigelow's direction is excellent, balancing the tense and violent with the calm and, at times, beautiful. I think she was robbed of an Oscar nomination. In fact, Zero Dark Thirty might get my vote for Best Picture (whether or not The Academy agrees is another story). This is a film that really sticks with you, for days after you've left the theater. Inevitably, this will be a film that continues to divide audiences, but if you like strong female characters, contemporary story lines, and thought-provoking direction, I think this is the best film you'll see for a while.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Django Unchained
If we're going to talk about a Quentin Tarantino flick, I might as well say upfront, I'm not a fan of his work. I didn't like Pulp Fiction; the ratio of violence to plot in that movie is horribly lopsided. So, going into the theater, here's what I expected from Django Unchained: a lot of people would get shot, there would be blood everywhere, Samuel L. Jackson would drop a few of his trademark curses, and Leonardo DiCaprio would die magnificently. I got all of that. I also laughed. That I did not expect. There's a scene in which a KKK-like mob have some trouble with their hoods (bags with cut-out eye holes) that actually reminded me a bit of Blazing Saddles. In fact, several moments in the first hour or so of the movie have that feeling--it's a Western that pokes fun at Westerns--like when Django gets to pick out his own clothes for the first time and dresses himself in a bright blue outfit from the previous century or when he uses a snowman for target practice.
Then, the film takes a striking turn as the hero begins in earnest his quest to rescue his wife, who's been sold to the sadistic plantation owner, Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). The second half of the film is tense and the violence takes on a calculated viciousness. Leo steals the show here. Candie is unpredictable in his moods and draws complete attention, even when he shares the screen with Jackson. DiCaprio's been nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role and in a less densely packed awards season he might win it, but I look for Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln) to take it.
Also, nominated for a Golden Globe in the same category is Christoph Waltz, whose performance as Django's bounty hunter mentor Dr. King Schultz is zany and subtle in the perfect combination. Waltz is to Tarantino as Depp is to Burton. In other words, Waltz and Tarantino are the perfect actor/director team. They speak the same language, so to speak.
You may be surprised by my use of the words "subtle" and "Tarantino" in the same paragraph. I certainly was, but the best moments of this film were subtle and suspenseful. Particularly Jamie Foxx, who could've played Django just as a vengeful former slave in a country on the brink of war, but there is a lot more going on behind his eyes that is beautifully expressed in every perfectly framed shot. This is especially important since Django is more of the strong, silent type, like the D in his name. (Although, when he does talk, Foxx delivers his zingers with depth.)
This film was full of surprises, including several surprise appearances by everyone from Tom Wopat to Jonah Hill. Those two were lovely in their roles, but I did spend a good minute wondering what Amber Tamblyn was doing looking out a window, and then never saw her again.
All in all, I enjoyed this film. It is quite long and could've used a little more editing and if you don't enjoy walls literally dripping with blood, this isn't the film for you. It is, however, a legitimately interesting film. If there's a message, I'm not sure what exactly it is (as one never is with Tarantino), but I think there are some thought-provoking moments. It will be interesting to see if this movie, like the original Django, spawns a wealth of sequels/knockoffs. If so, I'd like to coin the term for the genre now (and I hope I'm the first to do so): Hip-Hop Western.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)