This morning I saw Gloria Bell, starring Julianne Moore and John Turturro.
Gloria (Moore) is a fifty-something divorcée working in a standard job, living her best life in the after-hours, dancing the night away at Los Angeles clubs. It's at one of these clubs that she meets Arnold (Turturro), a more recently divorced father of two with a demanding ex-wife and two grown children who are just as needy.
At first, they find bliss in each other's arms, then Gloria grows tired of the hold Arnold's family has over him and from there they begin a frustrating pattern of wanting to be together, but often abandoning plans (sometimes in the middle of said plans). All the while Gloria is navigating a disturbingly loud neighbor, a hairless cat that keeps sneaking into her apartment and her own grown children, who have issues too.
The film seemed to repeatedly remind us that in life, "It's always something."
Moore is fantastic as this independent woman, prone to sing-a-longs and demanding more from the world. Her face never betrays her intentions and her intentions are often bold. That's not to say she doesn't have moments of weakness—one of the best scenes in the film happens when she's most vulnerable and her mother, played by the always-amazing Holland Taylor, comes to pick up the pieces. In those moments of quiet, we really saw the essence of the woman.
That said, the film sometimes meandered too much for my attention span and scenes lingered longer than they needed to for sufficient effect.
Still, you could do worse than spending a few hours with these characters.
~~~
Showing posts with label Julianne Moore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julianne Moore. Show all posts
Saturday, April 06, 2019
Saturday, December 19, 2015
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2
This morning I saw The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson.
I'm a big fan of The Hunger Games book series, and I loved the first two film adaptations, but the Mockingjay installments unfortunately leave a lot to be desired.
In this final curtain call, the boy who stole the heart of Katniss (Lawrence), Peeta (Hutcherson), has been brainwashed by the Big Bad Government and instead of wanting to live out his days with her, he wants to kill her. Of course, she still wants him and realizes that he doesn't have control of his mind.
He eventually comes back to the correct side of the war ... kinda. He has spontaneous, violent outbursts aimed at her from time to time, but for the most part behaves himself. They, along with their team of allies, set out to take back the world (and kill President Snow).
Donald Sutherland, as the hated leader, seems to be having a grand time in this one; less evil and more 'mad scientist' in spirit. It would be hard for anyone to think of him claiming victory when he's so jovial and Katniss is so serious.
So—what's wrong with the film?
#1 The pace. It's painfully slow for the first hour. I actually went and got a cup of coffee and when I came back they were still on the same scene.
#2 Wasted talent. Jennifer Lawrence is a gifted, sparkling superstar. She doesn't have much to do here except look sad. Look mad. Look tired.
#3 Anticlimactic action. Of course we know what's coming, but that's not what ruins it. The battle scenes just don't have the magic of the first two films. They're silly.
So—is there any reason to see it?
If you're a completist like me, it's your civic duty to sit through it. Also, it's Philip Seymour Hoffman's last film and just his mere presence—alive and breathing brilliance—is a gift.
~~~
I'm a big fan of The Hunger Games book series, and I loved the first two film adaptations, but the Mockingjay installments unfortunately leave a lot to be desired.
In this final curtain call, the boy who stole the heart of Katniss (Lawrence), Peeta (Hutcherson), has been brainwashed by the Big Bad Government and instead of wanting to live out his days with her, he wants to kill her. Of course, she still wants him and realizes that he doesn't have control of his mind.
He eventually comes back to the correct side of the war ... kinda. He has spontaneous, violent outbursts aimed at her from time to time, but for the most part behaves himself. They, along with their team of allies, set out to take back the world (and kill President Snow).
Donald Sutherland, as the hated leader, seems to be having a grand time in this one; less evil and more 'mad scientist' in spirit. It would be hard for anyone to think of him claiming victory when he's so jovial and Katniss is so serious.
So—what's wrong with the film?
#1 The pace. It's painfully slow for the first hour. I actually went and got a cup of coffee and when I came back they were still on the same scene.
#2 Wasted talent. Jennifer Lawrence is a gifted, sparkling superstar. She doesn't have much to do here except look sad. Look mad. Look tired.
#3 Anticlimactic action. Of course we know what's coming, but that's not what ruins it. The battle scenes just don't have the magic of the first two films. They're silly.
So—is there any reason to see it?
If you're a completist like me, it's your civic duty to sit through it. Also, it's Philip Seymour Hoffman's last film and just his mere presence—alive and breathing brilliance—is a gift.
~~~
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Still Alice
Tonight I saw Still Alice, starring Julianne Moore and Alec Baldwin.
Alice (Moore) is a linguistics professor who has just turned 50 when she realizes she's becoming very forgetful. To be on the safe side, she begins working with a neurologist, who slowly rules out strokes, a tumor, etc. leaving her with the diagnosis of early onset Alzheimer's Disease.
Alice takes the news as well as can be expected, but harbors horrible guilt over the fact she may have passed the same gene on to her children. Her husband John (Baldwin), is a pillar of support, never leaving her side, never making her feel a burden.
Things are more complicated with her youngest daughter, Lydia (Kristen Stewart), who she has always wished would do more with her life than pursue an acting career. They bicker and battle even after the diagnosis, though they clearly both love one another very much.
It's a solid movie about a horrible ailment with a very authentic fictional family demonstrating how hard it can be in every aspect of the patient's deterioration. Events like this are every person's worst nightmare, but somehow we keep watching films and reading books about them, perhaps to prepare ourselves in case it strikes someone we love.
The performance by Julianne Moore here is predictably phenomenal. She communicates the strength of her character well, while also showing the complexity of her vulnerability as her condition progresses. Baldwin is also great in what is perhaps his most understated dramatic role.
It's not an easy film to watch; nor enjoyable, but will serve as a catalyst for tears if you're in place where that sort of release would be welcome.
A piece of cinema that will be difficult to forget.
~~~
Alice (Moore) is a linguistics professor who has just turned 50 when she realizes she's becoming very forgetful. To be on the safe side, she begins working with a neurologist, who slowly rules out strokes, a tumor, etc. leaving her with the diagnosis of early onset Alzheimer's Disease.
Alice takes the news as well as can be expected, but harbors horrible guilt over the fact she may have passed the same gene on to her children. Her husband John (Baldwin), is a pillar of support, never leaving her side, never making her feel a burden.
Things are more complicated with her youngest daughter, Lydia (Kristen Stewart), who she has always wished would do more with her life than pursue an acting career. They bicker and battle even after the diagnosis, though they clearly both love one another very much.
It's a solid movie about a horrible ailment with a very authentic fictional family demonstrating how hard it can be in every aspect of the patient's deterioration. Events like this are every person's worst nightmare, but somehow we keep watching films and reading books about them, perhaps to prepare ourselves in case it strikes someone we love.
The performance by Julianne Moore here is predictably phenomenal. She communicates the strength of her character well, while also showing the complexity of her vulnerability as her condition progresses. Baldwin is also great in what is perhaps his most understated dramatic role.
It's not an easy film to watch; nor enjoyable, but will serve as a catalyst for tears if you're in place where that sort of release would be welcome.
A piece of cinema that will be difficult to forget.
~~~
Friday, February 28, 2014
Non-Stop
Tonight I saw Non-Stop, starring Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore.
Bill Marks (Neeson) is a troubled U.S. Air Marshall, embarking on a flight from New York to London. Jen Summers (Moore), a stereotypical, chatty passenger on her phone, trades places with another man for the window seat next to Marks.
Things are business as usual until folks start relaxing to sleep through the flight. As the plane grows quiet, the chime of Bill's phone goes off as he begins receiving messages from a would-be hijacker. He/she says that one passenger will die every 20 minutes unless $150 million is wired to a specific account—which we soon learn is under the name "Bill Marks."
Soon, a passenger is dead and all aboard have to wonder if Marks himself is the hijacker.
From there, the familar-Taken-like-version of Liam Neeson emerges and the film becomes a full-on thriller.
Only Nancy the flight attendant (Michelle Dockery) and Jen trust in his innocence—but are they making the right choice by supporting him?
The script plays a fun game of ping-pong with the audience, allowing them to believe that several different people could potentially be the hijacker and it all leads to a nerve-wracking, if not predictable, ending.
The acting is solid, the effects are decent and the script refrains from too many "catchphrase" quotes.
If you just want to get lost in something entertaining for almost two hours, I think you'll like this film.
Bill Marks (Neeson) is a troubled U.S. Air Marshall, embarking on a flight from New York to London. Jen Summers (Moore), a stereotypical, chatty passenger on her phone, trades places with another man for the window seat next to Marks.
Things are business as usual until folks start relaxing to sleep through the flight. As the plane grows quiet, the chime of Bill's phone goes off as he begins receiving messages from a would-be hijacker. He/she says that one passenger will die every 20 minutes unless $150 million is wired to a specific account—which we soon learn is under the name "Bill Marks."
Soon, a passenger is dead and all aboard have to wonder if Marks himself is the hijacker.
From there, the familar-Taken-like-version of Liam Neeson emerges and the film becomes a full-on thriller.
Only Nancy the flight attendant (Michelle Dockery) and Jen trust in his innocence—but are they making the right choice by supporting him?
The script plays a fun game of ping-pong with the audience, allowing them to believe that several different people could potentially be the hijacker and it all leads to a nerve-wracking, if not predictable, ending.
The acting is solid, the effects are decent and the script refrains from too many "catchphrase" quotes.
If you just want to get lost in something entertaining for almost two hours, I think you'll like this film.
Saturday, October 05, 2013
Don Jon
Today I saw Don Jon, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Scarlett Johansson.
Jon (Gordon-Levitt) is an east-coast bartender who likes his family, his church, his ladies and his porn. Barbara (Johansson) is a sexy girl who knows exactly what she wants in a man. When the two meet, sparks fly and Jon respects her in a way he doesn't respect other women.
They wait over a month to sleep together—a true testament to how much Jon likes Barbara—and he promises to quit watching porn at her request.
By all accounts, she makes him a better man: she has him enroll in night school to hopefully advance his career, she teaches him the virtue of patience, he remains faithful to her.
However, his porn addiction doesn't go away; he merely hides it.
The desire to watch porn consumes him so much that he watches on his cell phone as he's driving, attending class, etc. and absolves himself of the guilt by admitting his problem each week during confession.
It's not until a classmate, Esther (Julianne Moore), befriends him that he realizes his addiction to porn stems from his inability to truly connect to his partner. And there are reasons that come clear as to why that connection isn't happening.
In the midst of a lot (and I do mean a lot) of boobs and thrusts, this film reveals a sweet, honest message about a character who's slimy enough to be annoying, but decent enough to be endearing.
All of the actors are first-rate and cast to perfection. An absolute pleasure to watch.
If the topic of sex doesn't offend you, you'll enjoy spending 90 minutes in this true-to-life world.
~~~
Jon (Gordon-Levitt) is an east-coast bartender who likes his family, his church, his ladies and his porn. Barbara (Johansson) is a sexy girl who knows exactly what she wants in a man. When the two meet, sparks fly and Jon respects her in a way he doesn't respect other women.
They wait over a month to sleep together—a true testament to how much Jon likes Barbara—and he promises to quit watching porn at her request.
By all accounts, she makes him a better man: she has him enroll in night school to hopefully advance his career, she teaches him the virtue of patience, he remains faithful to her.
However, his porn addiction doesn't go away; he merely hides it.
The desire to watch porn consumes him so much that he watches on his cell phone as he's driving, attending class, etc. and absolves himself of the guilt by admitting his problem each week during confession.
It's not until a classmate, Esther (Julianne Moore), befriends him that he realizes his addiction to porn stems from his inability to truly connect to his partner. And there are reasons that come clear as to why that connection isn't happening.
In the midst of a lot (and I do mean a lot) of boobs and thrusts, this film reveals a sweet, honest message about a character who's slimy enough to be annoying, but decent enough to be endearing.
All of the actors are first-rate and cast to perfection. An absolute pleasure to watch.
If the topic of sex doesn't offend you, you'll enjoy spending 90 minutes in this true-to-life world.
~~~
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Book Review: THE REENACTMENTS
This morning I finished reading The Reenactments, a memoir by Nick Flynn.
There are memories from our lives that we're desperate to re-live every day; then there are those we'd love to bury forever.
Flynn's memoir bravely chronicles the latter, as he recounts the filming of Being Flynn, a movie based on his earlier memoir Another Bullshit Night in Suck City.
His life was not ordinary: raised by a single mother in a Massachusetts beach town, his taxi-driving, alcoholic father was not around to see him grow up. Once he had grown up, his mother had committed suicide and his father was without a permanent address.
A lost soul in many ways, Flynn ended up with an addiction problem of his own, and was reunited with his father only when he began working in the shelter where his father sometimes slept.
He struggled with the loss of his mother as he tried to navigate his way through his 20s and maintained a complicated relationship with his dad; all the while becoming the brilliant writer that he is today.
This book shares in great detail what he felt like when each part of his existence was played out for the big screen, with Robert De Niro in the role of his father; Julianne Moore acting as his mother and Paul Dano representing him.
What's magical in the way he tells it is how capable he is of communicating surreality.
One can only imagine what it must feel like to watch real people behaving the way that people within your reality once behaved, right down to specific conversations—let alone the most traumatic stages of said life. Flynn somehow captures that, with his unique style of writing that reads more like short bits of poetry than prose, yet remains completely accessible.
Though much of it is painful to read, my hope for the writer is that by putting those words to paper, some therapeutic healing occurred that will allow him to move past those memories.
Flynn's courage in this raw retelling is nothing short of admirable.
~~~
There are memories from our lives that we're desperate to re-live every day; then there are those we'd love to bury forever.
Flynn's memoir bravely chronicles the latter, as he recounts the filming of Being Flynn, a movie based on his earlier memoir Another Bullshit Night in Suck City.
His life was not ordinary: raised by a single mother in a Massachusetts beach town, his taxi-driving, alcoholic father was not around to see him grow up. Once he had grown up, his mother had committed suicide and his father was without a permanent address.
A lost soul in many ways, Flynn ended up with an addiction problem of his own, and was reunited with his father only when he began working in the shelter where his father sometimes slept.
He struggled with the loss of his mother as he tried to navigate his way through his 20s and maintained a complicated relationship with his dad; all the while becoming the brilliant writer that he is today.
This book shares in great detail what he felt like when each part of his existence was played out for the big screen, with Robert De Niro in the role of his father; Julianne Moore acting as his mother and Paul Dano representing him.
What's magical in the way he tells it is how capable he is of communicating surreality.
One can only imagine what it must feel like to watch real people behaving the way that people within your reality once behaved, right down to specific conversations—let alone the most traumatic stages of said life. Flynn somehow captures that, with his unique style of writing that reads more like short bits of poetry than prose, yet remains completely accessible.
Though much of it is painful to read, my hope for the writer is that by putting those words to paper, some therapeutic healing occurred that will allow him to move past those memories.
Flynn's courage in this raw retelling is nothing short of admirable.
~~~
Monday, August 08, 2011
Crazy, Stupid, Love
Tonight I saw Crazy, Stupid, Love starring Steve Carell and Ryan Gosling.
Yes, it really is that good.
I'll admit I was skeptical of what some critics are practically calling the second coming of romantic comedies, but it really got me.
Cal (Carell) is a devastated dad who is blindsided by his wife's admission of an affair and her desire for a divorce. He drowns his sorrows in cranberry vodkas at a local club, which is obviously geared toward younger singles.
His moping catches the eye of womanizer Jacob (Gosling) who decides to adopt Cal as a pet project and give him a man-makeover. Soon they are picking up women in the same way, and loving-and-leaving them.
Emily (Julianne Moore), Cal's wife, is remorseful about her cheating, but still seeing the "other man" at work. Jessica, the babysitter, (Analeigh Tipton) has a crush on Cal. Cal's son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) has a crush on Jessica. Confused yet?
Really, it's much simpler than it sounds, and undeniably sweet.
Sure, Emily's done something bad and Cal's behavior in the aftermath isn't much better, but the difference between this and a million other rom-coms is that these characters are very likable. We actually kind of want them to reconcile, despite their mistakes, to keep their son's vision of true love alive.
Also a joy to watch is the slimy-yet-redeeming Ryan Gosling and the always-electric Emma Stone. Their chemistry is fantastic, though they're barely on screen more than 15 minutes together.
There's laughter throughout, a borderline-slapstick scene at the end (following a twist that most won't see coming) and a satisfying ending that's both believable and welcome.
Yeah, you should go see it. I might just see it again.
~~~
Yes, it really is that good.
I'll admit I was skeptical of what some critics are practically calling the second coming of romantic comedies, but it really got me.
Cal (Carell) is a devastated dad who is blindsided by his wife's admission of an affair and her desire for a divorce. He drowns his sorrows in cranberry vodkas at a local club, which is obviously geared toward younger singles.
His moping catches the eye of womanizer Jacob (Gosling) who decides to adopt Cal as a pet project and give him a man-makeover. Soon they are picking up women in the same way, and loving-and-leaving them.
Emily (Julianne Moore), Cal's wife, is remorseful about her cheating, but still seeing the "other man" at work. Jessica, the babysitter, (Analeigh Tipton) has a crush on Cal. Cal's son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) has a crush on Jessica. Confused yet?
Really, it's much simpler than it sounds, and undeniably sweet.
Sure, Emily's done something bad and Cal's behavior in the aftermath isn't much better, but the difference between this and a million other rom-coms is that these characters are very likable. We actually kind of want them to reconcile, despite their mistakes, to keep their son's vision of true love alive.
Also a joy to watch is the slimy-yet-redeeming Ryan Gosling and the always-electric Emma Stone. Their chemistry is fantastic, though they're barely on screen more than 15 minutes together.
There's laughter throughout, a borderline-slapstick scene at the end (following a twist that most won't see coming) and a satisfying ending that's both believable and welcome.
Yeah, you should go see it. I might just see it again.
~~~
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Kids Are All Right
Today I saw The Kids Are All Right, starring Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo.
Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Moore) are modern family mamas. They're married lesbians living the dream in California with two nearly grown children; one boy, one girl. One from each of their wombs, produced by the same anonymous sperm donor father.
Joni (Mia Wasikowska) has turned 18 and is preparing to leave for college at the end of summer. Her brother, Laser (Josh Hutcherson) is pressuring her to inquire about their biological father because he is not yet of age, but dying of curiosity about his identity.
Finally persuaded, Joni contacts Paul (Ruffalo) and the three arrange to meet. The encounter goes well, and soon Paul has become a positive part of their lives, much to the dismay of their mother Nic, the most controlling (yet also responsible) of the family. Soon both children are spending quality time with him and Jules is designing his backyard (she's a landscape architect that just started her own business).
From here, things go awry as they do in many families: there is jealousy, betrayal, conversations no one ever wants to have—the family, once seemingly harmonious—is falling apart.
Nic, who is the instigator of much of the drama, is played almost too neurotic by Annette Bening. Of course there are people with her issues everywhere in life, but without anything redeeming to credit her with (aside from her obvious love of the family), it's hard to be on her side. In contrast, Mark Ruffalo's Paul is written to be so accepting and universally cool that I wanted to jump through the screen and start my own family with him. And really, he's not my type.
The real prize for acting, and remaining believable throughout the film goes to Julianne Moore. Her Jules is conflicted and honest and wounded and needy and likable all at once. She's one of those characters you can't help but forgive (and would probably do so in life if she existed), and I can't credit just the writing for that achievement. Moore's ability to morph into an entirely different spirit each time she graces the screen is in full form here.
Both children also do fine, though I would've liked more character development for Laser, and overall I would've favored an ending that didn't frustrate me.
I guess not everything about an enjoyably watchable movie can be satisfying.
~~~
Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Moore) are modern family mamas. They're married lesbians living the dream in California with two nearly grown children; one boy, one girl. One from each of their wombs, produced by the same anonymous sperm donor father.
Joni (Mia Wasikowska) has turned 18 and is preparing to leave for college at the end of summer. Her brother, Laser (Josh Hutcherson) is pressuring her to inquire about their biological father because he is not yet of age, but dying of curiosity about his identity.
Finally persuaded, Joni contacts Paul (Ruffalo) and the three arrange to meet. The encounter goes well, and soon Paul has become a positive part of their lives, much to the dismay of their mother Nic, the most controlling (yet also responsible) of the family. Soon both children are spending quality time with him and Jules is designing his backyard (she's a landscape architect that just started her own business).
From here, things go awry as they do in many families: there is jealousy, betrayal, conversations no one ever wants to have—the family, once seemingly harmonious—is falling apart.
Nic, who is the instigator of much of the drama, is played almost too neurotic by Annette Bening. Of course there are people with her issues everywhere in life, but without anything redeeming to credit her with (aside from her obvious love of the family), it's hard to be on her side. In contrast, Mark Ruffalo's Paul is written to be so accepting and universally cool that I wanted to jump through the screen and start my own family with him. And really, he's not my type.
The real prize for acting, and remaining believable throughout the film goes to Julianne Moore. Her Jules is conflicted and honest and wounded and needy and likable all at once. She's one of those characters you can't help but forgive (and would probably do so in life if she existed), and I can't credit just the writing for that achievement. Moore's ability to morph into an entirely different spirit each time she graces the screen is in full form here.
Both children also do fine, though I would've liked more character development for Laser, and overall I would've favored an ending that didn't frustrate me.
I guess not everything about an enjoyably watchable movie can be satisfying.
~~~
Saturday, December 26, 2009
A Single Man
This afternoon I saw A Single Man, starring Colin Firth and Julianne Moore.
George (Firth) is a British gay English professor teaching at California's Stanford University. It's the early 60s and he's arrived at a time in his life where he no longer finds it worth living. For eight years he's mourned the loss of his lover Jim (Matthew Goode) whom we meet in flashbacks.
It seems the only people who care for George are his friend Charley (Moore), who has spent their friendship wishing he was straight; and Kenny (Nicholas Hoult), a nosy student who seems genuinely concerned about him. And attracted to him.
We follow George through memories of happier times and through the rituals that one endures when they're preparing to end their life: getting the affairs in order, writing goodbye letters, saying nice things to those around them perhaps to show the compassion they felt they were never given.
He spends one last night with Charley, and then sparked by a warm memory, decides to have a drink at the local bar where he met Jim. Following close behind him is Kenny, who he decides to spend the evening with.
Before I go any further, I have to state that all of these scenes play out in quiet, muted tones until something in the character ignites and the color on the screen pops to illustrate it. This could be annoying if not done well, but Director Tom Ford, fashion phenom, happens to know color. It's a technique that not all could use, but he uses it well.
Also to note is the absolute perfect casting Ford found in Colin Firth. Just as convincingly as he usually plays a handsome heterosexual suitor, here he is most certainly a gay college professor with an appetite for only men. It may just be the role of his career.
Not to be understated is the pitch-perfect performance by Julianne Moore and the mature turn of roles for About a Boy's Nicholas Hoult. He's still a fantastic actor, but now instead of being awkward and pudgy, he's handsome, chiseled and...nude. After getting past the same mannerisms he had as a child, it's not hard to see him as a completely grown-up (hot) young man.
This field trip of pain isn't exactly the most pleasant thing to watch, but it's also not as dark as it could have been. Sometimes it's a comfort to see a film where humans just simply act human.
George (Firth) is a British gay English professor teaching at California's Stanford University. It's the early 60s and he's arrived at a time in his life where he no longer finds it worth living. For eight years he's mourned the loss of his lover Jim (Matthew Goode) whom we meet in flashbacks.
It seems the only people who care for George are his friend Charley (Moore), who has spent their friendship wishing he was straight; and Kenny (Nicholas Hoult), a nosy student who seems genuinely concerned about him. And attracted to him.
We follow George through memories of happier times and through the rituals that one endures when they're preparing to end their life: getting the affairs in order, writing goodbye letters, saying nice things to those around them perhaps to show the compassion they felt they were never given.
He spends one last night with Charley, and then sparked by a warm memory, decides to have a drink at the local bar where he met Jim. Following close behind him is Kenny, who he decides to spend the evening with.
Before I go any further, I have to state that all of these scenes play out in quiet, muted tones until something in the character ignites and the color on the screen pops to illustrate it. This could be annoying if not done well, but Director Tom Ford, fashion phenom, happens to know color. It's a technique that not all could use, but he uses it well.
Also to note is the absolute perfect casting Ford found in Colin Firth. Just as convincingly as he usually plays a handsome heterosexual suitor, here he is most certainly a gay college professor with an appetite for only men. It may just be the role of his career.
Not to be understated is the pitch-perfect performance by Julianne Moore and the mature turn of roles for About a Boy's Nicholas Hoult. He's still a fantastic actor, but now instead of being awkward and pudgy, he's handsome, chiseled and...nude. After getting past the same mannerisms he had as a child, it's not hard to see him as a completely grown-up (hot) young man.
This field trip of pain isn't exactly the most pleasant thing to watch, but it's also not as dark as it could have been. Sometimes it's a comfort to see a film where humans just simply act human.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
I'm Not There
This morning I saw I'm Not There, starring Cate Blanchett and Heath Ledger.
It's an avant garde approach to Bob Dylan's life, told through a series of sequences that feature a number of different actors portraying the folk legend. Really, it's over two hours of hits and misses.
The hits come in the performances, first and foremost. Blanchett is clearly the standout, brilliantly adapting the mannerisms, sound and look of the star while placing her own charismatic stamp on the story. The more we see from her, the more we can't help but wish the entire movie was only her. She could've easily pulled off all of the complexities the filmmakers were trying to convey. Particularly hilarious is a scene of her frolicking with "The Beatles."
Also great is the late Heath Ledger. He plays Dylan with a combination of sexiness and swagger that goes way beyond the charm of the real man. While vastly different from Dylan in both physique and spirit, Ledger manages to convince us in his first few moments on screen, just "which" Bob we're watching.
In addition to the major players, there are also a sprinkling of supporting characters that infuse great amounts of life into the narrative. Namely, Julianne Moore and Michelle Williams.
The beauty of the way the film is shot also contributes to its successes—the Dylans, etc. move freely between grainy black-and-white 'footage' and gorgeous, full-color frames. At no point does this become distracting or confusing, in fact, it actually helps move the story along.
And that's where the misses come in. As someone who is not much of a Dylan fan, I went into the film hoping to learn more about why he rose to fame (and stayed there). Unfortunately, this doesn't tell me much. I already knew he was a philosopher, a liar, a poet, a rebel, etc. but what I didn't know was why?
Although elements of his character are exhibited by the various actors (some miscast, by the way: Christian Bale), the movie seems so caught up in its artsyness that it can't quite connect to its purpose.
And the more I think about it, maybe that's why I'm not much of a Dylan fan.
It's an avant garde approach to Bob Dylan's life, told through a series of sequences that feature a number of different actors portraying the folk legend. Really, it's over two hours of hits and misses.
The hits come in the performances, first and foremost. Blanchett is clearly the standout, brilliantly adapting the mannerisms, sound and look of the star while placing her own charismatic stamp on the story. The more we see from her, the more we can't help but wish the entire movie was only her. She could've easily pulled off all of the complexities the filmmakers were trying to convey. Particularly hilarious is a scene of her frolicking with "The Beatles."
Also great is the late Heath Ledger. He plays Dylan with a combination of sexiness and swagger that goes way beyond the charm of the real man. While vastly different from Dylan in both physique and spirit, Ledger manages to convince us in his first few moments on screen, just "which" Bob we're watching.
In addition to the major players, there are also a sprinkling of supporting characters that infuse great amounts of life into the narrative. Namely, Julianne Moore and Michelle Williams.
The beauty of the way the film is shot also contributes to its successes—the Dylans, etc. move freely between grainy black-and-white 'footage' and gorgeous, full-color frames. At no point does this become distracting or confusing, in fact, it actually helps move the story along.
And that's where the misses come in. As someone who is not much of a Dylan fan, I went into the film hoping to learn more about why he rose to fame (and stayed there). Unfortunately, this doesn't tell me much. I already knew he was a philosopher, a liar, a poet, a rebel, etc. but what I didn't know was why?
Although elements of his character are exhibited by the various actors (some miscast, by the way: Christian Bale), the movie seems so caught up in its artsyness that it can't quite connect to its purpose.
And the more I think about it, maybe that's why I'm not much of a Dylan fan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)