Last night I saw I Feel Pretty, starring Amy Schumer and Michelle Williams.
Renee Bennett (Schumer) is an average-weight woman who is obsessed with beauty and works in the online division of a high-end cosmetics company. All she wants is to be pretty, and an accident at her nearby SoulCycle soon has her believing she's as glamorous as she desires.
This new-found confidence, though her outward appearance hasn't changed, works positively to advance her love life, career and general well-being. By believing in her beauty, and projecting that aura, others pick up on her vibes and want to be a part of it.
It's such a simple concept, but something so many people struggle with that perhaps more movies like this are needed to serve as blatant reminders.
I won't be shy about saying I loved the film ... for all its good humor, for the message it sends and for the endearing actors. Though Williams plays a cartoonish character with a silly voice who could easily be cold in a Devil Wears Prada sort of way, the writers refrained from making her evil, which I appreciated. Not everyone who is conventionally beautiful (or rich, or powerful) is automatically a bad person, and I'm glad they emphasized that point through her (and her on-screen family, who all seemed like decent folks).
Really, it's a great exploration of throwing all sorts of stereotypes out the window; not just the frumpy single girl who lays on her couch drinking wine watching old movies.
Go see it. And take your daughters.
~~~
Showing posts with label Michelle Williams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michelle Williams. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2018
Thursday, December 28, 2017
All the Money in the World
Yesterday I saw All the Money in the World, starring Christopher Plummer and Michelle Williams.
The film is based on the true story of Paul Getty's kidnapping in 1973. Getty (Charlie Plummer) was of course the grandson of JP Getty (Christopher Plummer), the billionaire oil tycoon.
Gail Getty (Michelle Williams) receives a call one day that her son Paul has been abducted and the kidnappers are demanding a ransom of $17 million. Though she's not in contact with her drug-addicted ex-husband, she does appeal to his wealthy father for the money, which he flatly refuses, suspecting Paul staged the kidnapping himself to extort cash from him.
As the weeks go on, it's evident the abduction is real, but Getty still can't be convinced and getting tired of waiting, the captors sell him to another group of criminals who aren't as nice (the first group let him listen to the radio, fed him relatively well, etc.)—everything escalates and a violent action is taken to prove they're serious.
It's only then that the victim's grandfather considers the situation 'real' and decides to help ... with conditions.
The film is heart-pounding suspenseful, even if you know the outcome. To say the acting is good would be an understatement, especially considering that this film was "in the can" so to speak when Kevin Spacey's controversy emerged and director Ridley Scott decided to replace him with Christopher Plummer.
How they seamlessly re-shot all of the senior Getty's scenes and edited them into the final print in time for their original release date is baffling to me, but they did. And they did it well.
No one would ever know that Plummer came in on the fly or that any of the scenes were filmed out of sync with the rest. It's flawless and the story is so strong, you forget about the "replacement" about 5 minutes in.
I loved this movie because it's a good movie, but I recommend it with twice as much emphasis because of the circumstance.
~~~
The film is based on the true story of Paul Getty's kidnapping in 1973. Getty (Charlie Plummer) was of course the grandson of JP Getty (Christopher Plummer), the billionaire oil tycoon.
Gail Getty (Michelle Williams) receives a call one day that her son Paul has been abducted and the kidnappers are demanding a ransom of $17 million. Though she's not in contact with her drug-addicted ex-husband, she does appeal to his wealthy father for the money, which he flatly refuses, suspecting Paul staged the kidnapping himself to extort cash from him.
As the weeks go on, it's evident the abduction is real, but Getty still can't be convinced and getting tired of waiting, the captors sell him to another group of criminals who aren't as nice (the first group let him listen to the radio, fed him relatively well, etc.)—everything escalates and a violent action is taken to prove they're serious.
It's only then that the victim's grandfather considers the situation 'real' and decides to help ... with conditions.
The film is heart-pounding suspenseful, even if you know the outcome. To say the acting is good would be an understatement, especially considering that this film was "in the can" so to speak when Kevin Spacey's controversy emerged and director Ridley Scott decided to replace him with Christopher Plummer.
How they seamlessly re-shot all of the senior Getty's scenes and edited them into the final print in time for their original release date is baffling to me, but they did. And they did it well.
No one would ever know that Plummer came in on the fly or that any of the scenes were filmed out of sync with the rest. It's flawless and the story is so strong, you forget about the "replacement" about 5 minutes in.
I loved this movie because it's a good movie, but I recommend it with twice as much emphasis because of the circumstance.
~~~
Saturday, December 17, 2016
Manchester By the Sea
This morning I saw Manchester By the Sea, starring Casey Affleck and Michelle Williams.
Lee (Affleck) is a divorced repairman who lives a quiet life alone until his brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) suddenly dies, leaving him guardianship of his only son, Patrick (Lucas Hedges). Because the two never discussed this arrangement, he must decide whether to relocate himself or his nephew to make it work.
We learn from flashbacks that Lee once had a family of his own, and in fact the first person he thinks to call when he learns of his brother's passing is his ex-wife. We also find out that he left his hometown because of an event that he caused many years prior, so being around the old neighborhood triggers bad memories.
Patrick is basically a good kid, but he's a teenager, so he selfishly doesn't want his school or his friends or his hobbies to change at all. He also wants to hold on to an expensive boat his dad owned.
Lee wrestles with the decisions he will soon have to make for both of them, and the film is basically his journey getting there.
First, let me say that all of the hype about Affleck's performance is justified. For being a character who's meant to appear numb in the majority of the scenes, he does a phenomenal job of convincing us that underneath that layer of numb lies tremendous pain. There is never a moment where we as audience members don't know how he feels, yet the people in his life likely have no clue.
The script is brilliant in that it absolutely nails the stages of grief; not by telling, but by showing.
From the denial in the first moments, when gathering logistical chores actually dulls the reality of the situation, to the rage of overreacting to little things—it's all there. I also like how the screenwriter elegantly planted "triggers" that would set the characters off emotionally, just like loss does in real life.
The pain here was raw, but the sentiment sincere and never overdone. I barely noticed the score (a good sign in a heavy drama) and imagined the characters existing long after the screen went dark on their small Massachusetts town.
I'll be baffled if this movie doesn't score several Oscar nods, and disappointed if it doesn't win at least some of them.
~~~
Lee (Affleck) is a divorced repairman who lives a quiet life alone until his brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) suddenly dies, leaving him guardianship of his only son, Patrick (Lucas Hedges). Because the two never discussed this arrangement, he must decide whether to relocate himself or his nephew to make it work.
We learn from flashbacks that Lee once had a family of his own, and in fact the first person he thinks to call when he learns of his brother's passing is his ex-wife. We also find out that he left his hometown because of an event that he caused many years prior, so being around the old neighborhood triggers bad memories.
Patrick is basically a good kid, but he's a teenager, so he selfishly doesn't want his school or his friends or his hobbies to change at all. He also wants to hold on to an expensive boat his dad owned.
Lee wrestles with the decisions he will soon have to make for both of them, and the film is basically his journey getting there.
First, let me say that all of the hype about Affleck's performance is justified. For being a character who's meant to appear numb in the majority of the scenes, he does a phenomenal job of convincing us that underneath that layer of numb lies tremendous pain. There is never a moment where we as audience members don't know how he feels, yet the people in his life likely have no clue.
The script is brilliant in that it absolutely nails the stages of grief; not by telling, but by showing.
From the denial in the first moments, when gathering logistical chores actually dulls the reality of the situation, to the rage of overreacting to little things—it's all there. I also like how the screenwriter elegantly planted "triggers" that would set the characters off emotionally, just like loss does in real life.
The pain here was raw, but the sentiment sincere and never overdone. I barely noticed the score (a good sign in a heavy drama) and imagined the characters existing long after the screen went dark on their small Massachusetts town.
I'll be baffled if this movie doesn't score several Oscar nods, and disappointed if it doesn't win at least some of them.
~~~
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Oz the Great and Powerful
Last night I saw Oz the Great and Powerful, starring James Franco and Michelle Williams.
The story serves as a prequel to the legendary Wizard of Oz; both are based on the classic children's books by L. Frank Baum.
Oscar Diggs (Franco) is a common con man in turn-of-the-century Kansas. We see moments of compassion/conscience hit him (a young girl asking for the power to walk again, etc.), but they're only moments. He's clearly someone who has survived on his looks and clever charms, and shows no signs of stopping.
When a tornado (of course) lifts him up and out of his circus life, and catapults him into the perimeters of the Emerald City, things begin to feel familiar—in a good way.
He first encounters Theodora (Mila Kunis) and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), along with Finley the monkey (Zach Braff), who becomes his personal assistant. There is the usual talk of wicked witches and a horrible sequence where an entire village has been wiped out by their evil. It is at this time he helps China Girl (a creepy, large-eyed CGI porcelain figure) to walk again by gluing her legs back together. He will pretend to be The Wizard of Oz to gain all of the riches of Emerald City.
But it's not until he encounters Glinda (Williams), the luminescent good witch, that things actually begin to happen.
Not to say the lead up to this moment isn't entertaining (because it is), but for what is assumed to be a kids' movie, it does run a bit long.
Anyway, the battle between good and evil ramps up, as does the chemistry between Oz and Glinda, and the culmination is a satisfying sequence of events featuring classic elements of the beloved 1939 film (which sort of make you want to run home and watch that one again).
I enjoyed Oz a great deal more than I thought I would. It stays faithful both to the original source text and the more famous film in the same series. And it does so using the appeals of James Franco and Michelle Williams, who are always a pleasure to watch.
~~~
The story serves as a prequel to the legendary Wizard of Oz; both are based on the classic children's books by L. Frank Baum.
Oscar Diggs (Franco) is a common con man in turn-of-the-century Kansas. We see moments of compassion/conscience hit him (a young girl asking for the power to walk again, etc.), but they're only moments. He's clearly someone who has survived on his looks and clever charms, and shows no signs of stopping.
When a tornado (of course) lifts him up and out of his circus life, and catapults him into the perimeters of the Emerald City, things begin to feel familiar—in a good way.
He first encounters Theodora (Mila Kunis) and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), along with Finley the monkey (Zach Braff), who becomes his personal assistant. There is the usual talk of wicked witches and a horrible sequence where an entire village has been wiped out by their evil. It is at this time he helps China Girl (a creepy, large-eyed CGI porcelain figure) to walk again by gluing her legs back together. He will pretend to be The Wizard of Oz to gain all of the riches of Emerald City.
But it's not until he encounters Glinda (Williams), the luminescent good witch, that things actually begin to happen.
Not to say the lead up to this moment isn't entertaining (because it is), but for what is assumed to be a kids' movie, it does run a bit long.
Anyway, the battle between good and evil ramps up, as does the chemistry between Oz and Glinda, and the culmination is a satisfying sequence of events featuring classic elements of the beloved 1939 film (which sort of make you want to run home and watch that one again).
I enjoyed Oz a great deal more than I thought I would. It stays faithful both to the original source text and the more famous film in the same series. And it does so using the appeals of James Franco and Michelle Williams, who are always a pleasure to watch.
~~~
Sunday, November 27, 2011
My Week with Marylin
Today I saw My Week with Marylin, starring Michelle Williams and Eddie Redmayne.
Colin Clark (Redmayne) is a starstruck twentysomething who will do anything to work in the movie business. Sir Lawrence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) is beginning production on a new film starring Marylin Monroe (Williams). Colin is in the right place at the right time and scores himself a job as a 3rd director, which (as is repeated ad nauseum in the film) is basically an errand runner.
We are shown the fanfare when Marylin arrives in England as a newlywed (in her third marriage). We are shown how she is babysat around the clock by various handlers with various purposes. We see immediately that Marylin is a very unhappy, high maintenance woman.
But that doesn't stop Colin from developing a debilitating crush on her like many of the men of his time.
Colin's low-on-the-totem-pole role and polite nature make him attractive to the Hollywood starlet, and she soon begins requesting his presence at the home where she's staying for the duration of the film shoot.
If she wants to talk, he talks to her; if she wants to be held, he holds her. All the while we can see she is about to chew him up and spit him out.
But it's hard to hate a woman so desperate to be loved, no matter how much of a pain in the ass she turns out to be. Colin doesn't seem to resent her for using him, so why should we?
The film does a good job of conveying her circumstances, and Williams nails her mannerisms and speaking rhythms. Redmayne is a believable lost-puppy-in-love and all of the supporting cast does fine too. But for a movie so predictable, the story doesn't move very fast.
Also annoying is the padding they have on Williams to create the illusion of Monroe's curves. Williams is anything but voluptuous, and anytime they have her moving seductively, it looks like a teenager who has padded her bra acting out in front of a mirror. Williams face is too thin to be convincingly attached to the allegedly curvy body, and the nude scenes don't come close to showing a 140 lb. woman (that was the real Marylin's last reported weight).
All in all, this true tale plays out for what it is: one man's favorite story to tell, though he doesn't come out looking particularly smart or better for it.
~~~
Colin Clark (Redmayne) is a starstruck twentysomething who will do anything to work in the movie business. Sir Lawrence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) is beginning production on a new film starring Marylin Monroe (Williams). Colin is in the right place at the right time and scores himself a job as a 3rd director, which (as is repeated ad nauseum in the film) is basically an errand runner.
We are shown the fanfare when Marylin arrives in England as a newlywed (in her third marriage). We are shown how she is babysat around the clock by various handlers with various purposes. We see immediately that Marylin is a very unhappy, high maintenance woman.
But that doesn't stop Colin from developing a debilitating crush on her like many of the men of his time.
Colin's low-on-the-totem-pole role and polite nature make him attractive to the Hollywood starlet, and she soon begins requesting his presence at the home where she's staying for the duration of the film shoot.
If she wants to talk, he talks to her; if she wants to be held, he holds her. All the while we can see she is about to chew him up and spit him out.
But it's hard to hate a woman so desperate to be loved, no matter how much of a pain in the ass she turns out to be. Colin doesn't seem to resent her for using him, so why should we?
The film does a good job of conveying her circumstances, and Williams nails her mannerisms and speaking rhythms. Redmayne is a believable lost-puppy-in-love and all of the supporting cast does fine too. But for a movie so predictable, the story doesn't move very fast.
Also annoying is the padding they have on Williams to create the illusion of Monroe's curves. Williams is anything but voluptuous, and anytime they have her moving seductively, it looks like a teenager who has padded her bra acting out in front of a mirror. Williams face is too thin to be convincingly attached to the allegedly curvy body, and the nude scenes don't come close to showing a 140 lb. woman (that was the real Marylin's last reported weight).
All in all, this true tale plays out for what it is: one man's favorite story to tell, though he doesn't come out looking particularly smart or better for it.
~~~
Friday, February 19, 2010
Shutter Island
This morning I saw Shutter Island, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Kingsley.
The year is 1954 and Federal Marshall Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) is sent to investigate a disappearance at a mental hospital off the shores of Boston called Shutter Island. He is accompanied by his nonchalant partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) who strangely calls him "Boss" though they've only just met.
The backdrop of a messy storm sets the mood for their arrival, as the seasick Daniels accepts aspirin from hospital staff to combat his queasy feelings. Soon he's feeling up to interrogation and requests interviews with all personnel on duty the night of the missing patient's disappearance. He is met with resistance (and even sarcasm) from many as he asks basic questions to solve the mystery.
One of the most passive aggressive road blocks on his journey is Dr. Cawley (Kingsley), a powerful psychiatrist who seems to be hiding something.
When Teddy and Chuck can't get to the answers they're looking for, they decide to leave the island the following morning, but the violent weather stops them, so they continue exploring the institution on their own, against the wishes of the staff.
Throughout their search, Teddy is haunted by visions of his deceased wife Dolores (Michelle Williams) and reveals he has ties to the institution due to her murder. He also seems to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, having flashbacks from assisting in the liberation of Nazi-occupied Germany.
The entire film is Teddy's journey to find the truth in whatever context the film is referring to during that specific beat. It's at times all over the place and alternately solid and linear.
Scorsese creates a fantastic creepy mood from the opening credits and sustains that quiet unrest right up until the end. The images (especially of Nazi Germany) are sometimes horrific; other times just bloody (though I'll have to admit a scene full of squeaking rats takes the cake for most-likely-to-cause-nightmares).
The characters are all crafted well--each has something unique to hide, yet it's hard to know who to trust.
Leonardo DiCaprio, who is in nearly every frame of the film, plays every emotion with sincerity; from the angry and arrogant Federal Marshall to the fragile, grieving widow. The expression in his face carries us from scene to scene, guiding our reactions and filling us with whatever feelings he's meant to experience.
The ending provides a hot conversation topic for anyone who likes to challenge such resolution, and provides a satisfactory conclusion for those who prefer closure.
Really, Shutter Island is the very definition of a successful psychological thriller. It will keep you guessing hours after you leave the theater...that is, if you want to keep guessing.
The year is 1954 and Federal Marshall Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) is sent to investigate a disappearance at a mental hospital off the shores of Boston called Shutter Island. He is accompanied by his nonchalant partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) who strangely calls him "Boss" though they've only just met.
The backdrop of a messy storm sets the mood for their arrival, as the seasick Daniels accepts aspirin from hospital staff to combat his queasy feelings. Soon he's feeling up to interrogation and requests interviews with all personnel on duty the night of the missing patient's disappearance. He is met with resistance (and even sarcasm) from many as he asks basic questions to solve the mystery.
One of the most passive aggressive road blocks on his journey is Dr. Cawley (Kingsley), a powerful psychiatrist who seems to be hiding something.
When Teddy and Chuck can't get to the answers they're looking for, they decide to leave the island the following morning, but the violent weather stops them, so they continue exploring the institution on their own, against the wishes of the staff.
Throughout their search, Teddy is haunted by visions of his deceased wife Dolores (Michelle Williams) and reveals he has ties to the institution due to her murder. He also seems to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, having flashbacks from assisting in the liberation of Nazi-occupied Germany.
The entire film is Teddy's journey to find the truth in whatever context the film is referring to during that specific beat. It's at times all over the place and alternately solid and linear.
Scorsese creates a fantastic creepy mood from the opening credits and sustains that quiet unrest right up until the end. The images (especially of Nazi Germany) are sometimes horrific; other times just bloody (though I'll have to admit a scene full of squeaking rats takes the cake for most-likely-to-cause-nightmares).
The characters are all crafted well--each has something unique to hide, yet it's hard to know who to trust.
Leonardo DiCaprio, who is in nearly every frame of the film, plays every emotion with sincerity; from the angry and arrogant Federal Marshall to the fragile, grieving widow. The expression in his face carries us from scene to scene, guiding our reactions and filling us with whatever feelings he's meant to experience.
The ending provides a hot conversation topic for anyone who likes to challenge such resolution, and provides a satisfactory conclusion for those who prefer closure.
Really, Shutter Island is the very definition of a successful psychological thriller. It will keep you guessing hours after you leave the theater...that is, if you want to keep guessing.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Wendy and Lucy
Tonight I saw Wendy and Lucy, starring Michelle Williams and Lucy.
Have you ever been in a situation where one bad thing happened and then another followed, and another, until you felt as if the whole universe was against you?
This is how you'll feel watching events unfold in the life of Wendy (Williams), a young girl from Indiana who is headed to Alaska to work in a Ketchikan cannery.
We first see her playing with her dog Lucy (Lucy) in the woods and learn she is in Oregon. After she wakes up to a security guard telling her she's not allowed to sleep on Walgreen's property, she realizes her car won't start. And thus begins her own personal spiral to hell.
With one bad choice, her world soon spins out of control and we're held emotionally hostage wanting so badly for it to all turn out okay for her. Why do we care? This is what makes the movie good: we have very few clues as to what put Wendy in this situation, yet her almost numb responses to each event make us unimaginably sympathetic. She seems like a decent person who is just down on her luck—and haven't we all been down on our luck at one point in our lives or another?
The film moves at a slow, quiet pace, but is never boring. The few supporting characters that emerge (the security guard, the mechanic, etc.) feel as though they're real people who we may actually encounter when we have car trouble ourselves; the dog is undeniably sweet.
And Michelle Williams amazing performance makes this very human story work.
See this movie—you'll painfully cringe at her misfortune while joyfully tearing up at the sight of the kindness she experiences.
Have you ever been in a situation where one bad thing happened and then another followed, and another, until you felt as if the whole universe was against you?
This is how you'll feel watching events unfold in the life of Wendy (Williams), a young girl from Indiana who is headed to Alaska to work in a Ketchikan cannery.
We first see her playing with her dog Lucy (Lucy) in the woods and learn she is in Oregon. After she wakes up to a security guard telling her she's not allowed to sleep on Walgreen's property, she realizes her car won't start. And thus begins her own personal spiral to hell.
With one bad choice, her world soon spins out of control and we're held emotionally hostage wanting so badly for it to all turn out okay for her. Why do we care? This is what makes the movie good: we have very few clues as to what put Wendy in this situation, yet her almost numb responses to each event make us unimaginably sympathetic. She seems like a decent person who is just down on her luck—and haven't we all been down on our luck at one point in our lives or another?
The film moves at a slow, quiet pace, but is never boring. The few supporting characters that emerge (the security guard, the mechanic, etc.) feel as though they're real people who we may actually encounter when we have car trouble ourselves; the dog is undeniably sweet.
And Michelle Williams amazing performance makes this very human story work.
See this movie—you'll painfully cringe at her misfortune while joyfully tearing up at the sight of the kindness she experiences.
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)