Last night I saw A Star Is Born, starring Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper.
Jackson (Cooper) is a star of the stage—unfortunately he's as good at drinking as he is at singing and playing guitar. Ally (Gaga) is an amateur with an amazing voice who performs as the only "real" girl at drag shows. Jackson stumbles into one of those shows one evening and experiences love at first sight.
Soon, Ally is piggybacking her talent onto his successful music career and getting noticed in her own right. All the while, Jackson keeps drinking, keeps drugging.
Even if you've seen any of the previous versions of this story, you'll be able to predict where it's headed. Her star shines bright, his addiction worsens, etc.
At the heart of it, it's a story about the endurance of love through tough times. Anyone who has suffered from addiction, or suffered because of someone else's addiction will be able to relate. Anyone who's been so deeply in love with another soul will relate. Anyone who has struggled to reach their dreams will relate.
With the two leads having insanely strong chemistry (not to mention brilliant singing voices), it will be terribly surprising if they aren't both Oscar-nominated for their performances. It just works on so many levels.
If you can stand blinking through your tears, go see it. You won't regret it.
~~~
Showing posts with label Oscar®. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscar®. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 09, 2018
Saturday, January 07, 2017
Lion
This morning I saw Lion, starring Sunny Pawar and Dev Patel.
As a young boy, Saroo (Pawar - young; Patel - present day) helps his mother carry rocks in the tiny village in India where they reside. Their family is living in poverty, but he and his brother Guddu (Abhishek Bharate) find work where they can get it. One night, Guddu sets out for a job and Saroo begs to tag along. After at first protesting, Guddu gives in and they set out by train for their journey.
Once they arrive, Guddu goes to look for the job site and the brothers become separated. Saroo falls asleep on a train and wakes up in an unfamiliar place: Calcutta. He's traveled over 1200 miles. There, he forages for food, escapes a gang that's rounding up street kids and finally lands in the care of authorities, who arrange for him to be adopted.
He wants to go home, but they don't understand the pronunciation of his town and he doesn't know his mother's name. His mother doesn't read or write, so she doesn't see the newspapers printing the reports of Saroo being found. Adoption is his best chance at resuming a normal life.
His adoptive parents, Sue (Nicole Kidman) and John (David Wenham), are a kind, financially comfortable Australian couple. They love him the instant he arrives and he loves them right back. Soon they adopt another Indian child and Saroo has a new brother, all the while missing his real family.
Sunny Pawar, who plays the young version of Saroo melted my heart instantly. His sweet little face, conveying every ounce of horror and pain he was enduring was almost too much to take, but incredibly well done. Is he too young to qualify for an Oscar nomination? I hope not.
Speaking of nominations, I think this is Kidman's best performance in years. Perhaps her own experience of being an adoptive mother helped her prepare for the role, or she just embraced the story so fully she aced it; whatever the reason, her time on-screen is amazing.
But I digress; this true story unfolds in the most tender of ways and to say that I got a little weepy toward the end would be a gross understatement. As Oprah would say, I went into "the ugly cry." And so did most of the folks around me.
What a beautiful film about a beautiful story.
~~~
As a young boy, Saroo (Pawar - young; Patel - present day) helps his mother carry rocks in the tiny village in India where they reside. Their family is living in poverty, but he and his brother Guddu (Abhishek Bharate) find work where they can get it. One night, Guddu sets out for a job and Saroo begs to tag along. After at first protesting, Guddu gives in and they set out by train for their journey.
Once they arrive, Guddu goes to look for the job site and the brothers become separated. Saroo falls asleep on a train and wakes up in an unfamiliar place: Calcutta. He's traveled over 1200 miles. There, he forages for food, escapes a gang that's rounding up street kids and finally lands in the care of authorities, who arrange for him to be adopted.
He wants to go home, but they don't understand the pronunciation of his town and he doesn't know his mother's name. His mother doesn't read or write, so she doesn't see the newspapers printing the reports of Saroo being found. Adoption is his best chance at resuming a normal life.
His adoptive parents, Sue (Nicole Kidman) and John (David Wenham), are a kind, financially comfortable Australian couple. They love him the instant he arrives and he loves them right back. Soon they adopt another Indian child and Saroo has a new brother, all the while missing his real family.
Sunny Pawar, who plays the young version of Saroo melted my heart instantly. His sweet little face, conveying every ounce of horror and pain he was enduring was almost too much to take, but incredibly well done. Is he too young to qualify for an Oscar nomination? I hope not.
Speaking of nominations, I think this is Kidman's best performance in years. Perhaps her own experience of being an adoptive mother helped her prepare for the role, or she just embraced the story so fully she aced it; whatever the reason, her time on-screen is amazing.
But I digress; this true story unfolds in the most tender of ways and to say that I got a little weepy toward the end would be a gross understatement. As Oprah would say, I went into "the ugly cry." And so did most of the folks around me.
What a beautiful film about a beautiful story.
~~~
Friday, January 06, 2017
Loving
Tonight I saw Loving, starring Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton.
It was the summer of 1958 when Richard Loving (Edgerton) married the love of his life, Mildred (Negga). They had the ceremony in Washington, D.C. because their home state of Virginia had banned interracial marriage, and they were two different races: Richard, white; Mildred, black.
Just five weeks after their happy nuptials, the couple were arrested in their own bedroom for violating the Racial Integrity Act. Their choice from the judge, after pleading guilty, was to either serve a year in prison or flee the state. So, they packed up and moved a few hours away to Washington.
But life wasn't the same in the city as it was in the country. They weren't near their families; their three children had no yard to play in. They lived there for nine years, before their fight made any progress. Mrs. Loving wrote a letter to Bobby Kennedy, who was the Attorney General at the time, and he referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union. Lawyers with the ACLU took the case, and the rest is history.
What's wonderful about this film is the authentic feel it brings to the memory of this true-life couple. They were good, decent, simple people who just fell in love and wanted to do right by their feelings. No matter what hostility they faced from the law or from racists in their town, their decision to stay together was never in question. They were the very definition of the perfect American family: Dad had a respectable blue-collar job, Mom was an excellent homemaker, the kids were smart and well-behaved.
What Jeff Nichols conveys so well in both his screenplay and his direction is the very absurdity of the situation. While real crimes are being committed and a nation is struggling to recover from a beloved president's assassination, small-minded folks are concerned about a squeaky-clean family simply living their lives. He builds tension when they are hunted and displays tenderness in their quiet moments, all the while making you feel like you're surviving along with them in the humid summer heat. It's absolutely superb.
The performances from the leads are brilliant and a nice cameo from Michael Shannon as a Life Magazine photographer is a welcome addition.
Please go see this film. Especially in our country's current political climate—it unfortunately couldn't be more timely.
~~~
It was the summer of 1958 when Richard Loving (Edgerton) married the love of his life, Mildred (Negga). They had the ceremony in Washington, D.C. because their home state of Virginia had banned interracial marriage, and they were two different races: Richard, white; Mildred, black.
Just five weeks after their happy nuptials, the couple were arrested in their own bedroom for violating the Racial Integrity Act. Their choice from the judge, after pleading guilty, was to either serve a year in prison or flee the state. So, they packed up and moved a few hours away to Washington.
But life wasn't the same in the city as it was in the country. They weren't near their families; their three children had no yard to play in. They lived there for nine years, before their fight made any progress. Mrs. Loving wrote a letter to Bobby Kennedy, who was the Attorney General at the time, and he referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union. Lawyers with the ACLU took the case, and the rest is history.
What's wonderful about this film is the authentic feel it brings to the memory of this true-life couple. They were good, decent, simple people who just fell in love and wanted to do right by their feelings. No matter what hostility they faced from the law or from racists in their town, their decision to stay together was never in question. They were the very definition of the perfect American family: Dad had a respectable blue-collar job, Mom was an excellent homemaker, the kids were smart and well-behaved.
What Jeff Nichols conveys so well in both his screenplay and his direction is the very absurdity of the situation. While real crimes are being committed and a nation is struggling to recover from a beloved president's assassination, small-minded folks are concerned about a squeaky-clean family simply living their lives. He builds tension when they are hunted and displays tenderness in their quiet moments, all the while making you feel like you're surviving along with them in the humid summer heat. It's absolutely superb.
The performances from the leads are brilliant and a nice cameo from Michael Shannon as a Life Magazine photographer is a welcome addition.
Please go see this film. Especially in our country's current political climate—it unfortunately couldn't be more timely.
~~~
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Live Action Short Film Nominees (Oscars® 2015)
Tonight I saw all five of the nominated films in the Live Action
Short category. I'll present my reviews in the order they were shown.
PARVANEH (Switzerland)
When Afghan refugee Pari (Nissa Kashani) attempts to send money home to her ailing father from Zurich, she realizes she can't because she's not of legal age for the wire transfer. A chance meeting with a local shows her that not everything in life is awful; sometimes you just need a friend. I found this story (and its actors) sweet, but I didn't feel it carried the emotional heft of the usual nominees.
BUTTER LAMP (France and China)
A photographer in a remote Tibetan Village makes lasting memories for townspeople and tourists with his inventive backdrops. Yep, that's basically it, and it's as exciting as it sounds. Short of a few charming instances, I was pretty bored throughout.
THE PHONE CALL (United Kingdom)
Most likely the one that the Academy will crown the winner, this is the most traditional of the nominees. A linear story of a sad man (Jim Broadbent) calling a crisis clinic to reach a sympathetic soul (Sally Hawkins). It's a tender conversation filled with expected tension that perhaps goes on too long (although in real life those moments admittedly feel like forever). Hawkins shines, but there's nothing new here to see.
AYA (Israel and France)
The film I'd vote for if I had a ballot, Aya, combines kidnapping and a case of mistaken identity with a happenstance road trip. Did I mention this is also a rom com? I fell for this film from the opening frame and it had me through to the very end. Well-drawn characters, unpredictable dialogue and enough action to make it feel like it was speeding by (though it was the lengthiest of the entries). I couldn't find fault with anything here, except that I wish it had been a full-length feature so I could spend more time with the characters.
BOOGALOO AND GRAHAM (Northern Ireland)
Two adorable children get baby chicks from their Dad as a gift and refuse to part with them when they grow into full chickens. Their pregnant mother is not amused, so they go to great lengths to protect their pets. This sweet scenario happens amidst the contrast of terrorism and violence that plagued Belfast in the late '70s. A tender look at the layer beneath the historic geographical unrest.
~~~
PARVANEH (Switzerland)
When Afghan refugee Pari (Nissa Kashani) attempts to send money home to her ailing father from Zurich, she realizes she can't because she's not of legal age for the wire transfer. A chance meeting with a local shows her that not everything in life is awful; sometimes you just need a friend. I found this story (and its actors) sweet, but I didn't feel it carried the emotional heft of the usual nominees.
BUTTER LAMP (France and China)
A photographer in a remote Tibetan Village makes lasting memories for townspeople and tourists with his inventive backdrops. Yep, that's basically it, and it's as exciting as it sounds. Short of a few charming instances, I was pretty bored throughout.
THE PHONE CALL (United Kingdom)
Most likely the one that the Academy will crown the winner, this is the most traditional of the nominees. A linear story of a sad man (Jim Broadbent) calling a crisis clinic to reach a sympathetic soul (Sally Hawkins). It's a tender conversation filled with expected tension that perhaps goes on too long (although in real life those moments admittedly feel like forever). Hawkins shines, but there's nothing new here to see.
AYA (Israel and France)
The film I'd vote for if I had a ballot, Aya, combines kidnapping and a case of mistaken identity with a happenstance road trip. Did I mention this is also a rom com? I fell for this film from the opening frame and it had me through to the very end. Well-drawn characters, unpredictable dialogue and enough action to make it feel like it was speeding by (though it was the lengthiest of the entries). I couldn't find fault with anything here, except that I wish it had been a full-length feature so I could spend more time with the characters.
BOOGALOO AND GRAHAM (Northern Ireland)
Two adorable children get baby chicks from their Dad as a gift and refuse to part with them when they grow into full chickens. Their pregnant mother is not amused, so they go to great lengths to protect their pets. This sweet scenario happens amidst the contrast of terrorism and violence that plagued Belfast in the late '70s. A tender look at the layer beneath the historic geographical unrest.
~~~
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Lincoln
On Friday I saw Lincoln, starring Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field.
The last few months of Abraham Lincoln's life are often overshadowed by stories of his famous assassination at Ford's Theatre. In Steven Spielberg's new film, the months leading up to that event take center stage.
Daniel Day-Lewis plays the popular president in the most historically accurate way possible: hunched over, soft-spoken and thoughtful. According to the scholars, Mr. Lincoln was all of those things.
What's so brilliant about this performance is that his humanity, and his elegant simplicity, shines through. Lincoln was a common man from humble beginnings, and his gift for knowing 'real' people is part of what made him a great politician.
The film shows the president's struggle to get the 13th Amendment passed as his son threatens to go off to war and his wife Mary (Field) forbids it, having already lost one son to the country. Field's performance as the 'crazy' First Lady is played less hysterically than one might expect, and that's what makes it work.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a convincing young Robert Todd Lincoln, and the rest of the supporting cast: David Strathairn, John Hawkes and Tommy Lee Jones, all work their magic as the movers and shakers of the time.
The usual Spielberg-ian grandeur is traded in this time for what mimics a quiet stage performance, and that makes sense since the screenwriter, Tony Kushner, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright.
If you're looking for a Civil War-era film with action, this isn't the movie for you; but if you want to see some of the most impressive acting of the year, coupled with a slice of history often forgotten, you need to see Lincoln.
~~~
The last few months of Abraham Lincoln's life are often overshadowed by stories of his famous assassination at Ford's Theatre. In Steven Spielberg's new film, the months leading up to that event take center stage.
Daniel Day-Lewis plays the popular president in the most historically accurate way possible: hunched over, soft-spoken and thoughtful. According to the scholars, Mr. Lincoln was all of those things.
What's so brilliant about this performance is that his humanity, and his elegant simplicity, shines through. Lincoln was a common man from humble beginnings, and his gift for knowing 'real' people is part of what made him a great politician.
The film shows the president's struggle to get the 13th Amendment passed as his son threatens to go off to war and his wife Mary (Field) forbids it, having already lost one son to the country. Field's performance as the 'crazy' First Lady is played less hysterically than one might expect, and that's what makes it work.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a convincing young Robert Todd Lincoln, and the rest of the supporting cast: David Strathairn, John Hawkes and Tommy Lee Jones, all work their magic as the movers and shakers of the time.
The usual Spielberg-ian grandeur is traded in this time for what mimics a quiet stage performance, and that makes sense since the screenwriter, Tony Kushner, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright.
If you're looking for a Civil War-era film with action, this isn't the movie for you; but if you want to see some of the most impressive acting of the year, coupled with a slice of history often forgotten, you need to see Lincoln.
~~~
Thursday, January 26, 2012
War Horse
Tonight I saw War Horse, starring Jeremy Irvine and Emily Watson.
It's been a long time since I've made it through an endurance test like this. I had a feeling it wouldn't be my cup of tea, and sadly, it wasn't.
Albert (Irvine) is the young son of a drunken farmer who promises his mother, Rose (Watson), that he will train and care for the horse his dad paid too much for at auction. The horse's name is Joey, and he's—of course—beautiful and smart.
By the time Albert and Joey bond, drunken papa has sold the horse to the Army. Though all signs point to the horse being lost/killed in WWI, Albert claims he will see him again. He's not kidding.
Calling them a series of unfortunate events would be a gross understatement. Let's just say, poor Joey goes through hell. In fact, the only scene that got me misty-eyed was the one where the horse tries to escape the human horrors of war only to get completely tangled in barbed wire. This prompts soldiers from both sides of the fight to take a time out from combat and help the poor animal break free. The bit was wonderful and reminded me of another film where soldiers pause in war to share one another's company peacefully during a holiday called Joyeux Noel. But I digress.
Joey gets passed off to several owners during his journey, and his journey (along with ours) is a long one.
The redeeming moments of the film have everything to do with the beautiful cinematography, the excellent score (seldom does Spielberg ever get that wrong) and the acting from the horse. Yes, the horse.
I'll admit to loving the closing shot—something that reminded me of Gone With the Wind, and was most likely intended to.
It's just a shame that the majestic, amber sunset didn't arrive before I got bored.
~~~
It's been a long time since I've made it through an endurance test like this. I had a feeling it wouldn't be my cup of tea, and sadly, it wasn't.
Albert (Irvine) is the young son of a drunken farmer who promises his mother, Rose (Watson), that he will train and care for the horse his dad paid too much for at auction. The horse's name is Joey, and he's—of course—beautiful and smart.
By the time Albert and Joey bond, drunken papa has sold the horse to the Army. Though all signs point to the horse being lost/killed in WWI, Albert claims he will see him again. He's not kidding.
Calling them a series of unfortunate events would be a gross understatement. Let's just say, poor Joey goes through hell. In fact, the only scene that got me misty-eyed was the one where the horse tries to escape the human horrors of war only to get completely tangled in barbed wire. This prompts soldiers from both sides of the fight to take a time out from combat and help the poor animal break free. The bit was wonderful and reminded me of another film where soldiers pause in war to share one another's company peacefully during a holiday called Joyeux Noel. But I digress.
Joey gets passed off to several owners during his journey, and his journey (along with ours) is a long one.
The redeeming moments of the film have everything to do with the beautiful cinematography, the excellent score (seldom does Spielberg ever get that wrong) and the acting from the horse. Yes, the horse.
I'll admit to loving the closing shot—something that reminded me of Gone With the Wind, and was most likely intended to.
It's just a shame that the majestic, amber sunset didn't arrive before I got bored.
~~~
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.
~~~
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Martha Marcy May Marlene
Today I saw Martha Marcy May Marlene starring Elizabeth Olsen and John Hawkes.
Finally, something Oscar-worthy in this dismal year of film.
Martha (Olsen) is a lost soul. Her father abandoned her family; her mother died. In light of these tragedies, she somehow finds her way to a commune, apparently craving a sense of place. At first, the hardworking family of people who make up the community seem nice, but we later learn that rape and violence are acceptable behaviors. The leader, Patrick (Hawkes), thinks it disloyal if members disagree.
We're not sure what pushes Martha over the edge, but our first introduction to her is when she is escaping the tribe. She calls her only sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson), for help.
Once in the safe confines of Lucy's summer lake house, Martha attempts to re-acclimate to regular society despite an impatient brother-in-law (Hugh Dancy) and no professional help.
We see the abuse and brainwashing she suffers through flashbacks, woven brilliantly into her present-day experiences. It's somewhat like experiencing PTSD once-removed, and the amazing Elizabeth Olsen does an Oscar-worthy job of conveying it.
Also great, but painful to watch, is John Hawkes as the menacing patriarch of the cult. He appears so gentle at first, it's believable that he could weave new recruits into his web of oppression.
What's clever about the film is that the community isn't blamed on any religious sect, and Martha's wandering spirit is sad, but not completely lost. Every moment of what transpires could happen. In fact, it probably has, many times over.
Though few will relate to brainwashing or communal living, everyone who sees this has certainly searched for belonging at some point in their life, whether it be in a relationship or a friendship or a career.
Watching this tortured soul navigate her way back into a life that she never had isn't easy, but it's so well done, you can't look away.
~~~
Finally, something Oscar-worthy in this dismal year of film.
Martha (Olsen) is a lost soul. Her father abandoned her family; her mother died. In light of these tragedies, she somehow finds her way to a commune, apparently craving a sense of place. At first, the hardworking family of people who make up the community seem nice, but we later learn that rape and violence are acceptable behaviors. The leader, Patrick (Hawkes), thinks it disloyal if members disagree.
We're not sure what pushes Martha over the edge, but our first introduction to her is when she is escaping the tribe. She calls her only sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson), for help.
Once in the safe confines of Lucy's summer lake house, Martha attempts to re-acclimate to regular society despite an impatient brother-in-law (Hugh Dancy) and no professional help.
We see the abuse and brainwashing she suffers through flashbacks, woven brilliantly into her present-day experiences. It's somewhat like experiencing PTSD once-removed, and the amazing Elizabeth Olsen does an Oscar-worthy job of conveying it.
Also great, but painful to watch, is John Hawkes as the menacing patriarch of the cult. He appears so gentle at first, it's believable that he could weave new recruits into his web of oppression.
What's clever about the film is that the community isn't blamed on any religious sect, and Martha's wandering spirit is sad, but not completely lost. Every moment of what transpires could happen. In fact, it probably has, many times over.
Though few will relate to brainwashing or communal living, everyone who sees this has certainly searched for belonging at some point in their life, whether it be in a relationship or a friendship or a career.
Watching this tortured soul navigate her way back into a life that she never had isn't easy, but it's so well done, you can't look away.
~~~
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Secret in Their Eyes
Today I saw The Secret in Their Eyes, starring Ricardo Darin and Soledad Villamil.
What do you get when you cross a murder mystery with unrequited love that's simmered for 25 years? A hell of a great movie.
When the film opens we see Benjamin (Darin) struggling at his writing desk, trying to purge the haunting remnants of a brutal rape and murder from his mind. We soon learn this was a real case that he worked on 25 years ago as an investigator, and he's never been able to shake it. So, he's making a book based on his memories of it.
Next, we meet the woman he's adored for all these years—Irene (Villamil), who worked with him on the case and is now an accomplished judge. She is acting as a casual editor/admirer, sharing in his violent trip down memory lane.
Before I give the impression that this is a "flashback" movie, let me be clear in saying that it doesn't feel like it. Though it takes place both in 1974 and 2000, the audience is never tossed between the two unexpectedly.
The crime itself is ghastly, and we see just enough of it to register horror and want justice for the victim. The suspects are clear in their innocence and guilt, which is one of the genius elements of the script: we already know whodunnit. Unlike most stories, what we crave to learn is how the characters arrived in their present—seemingly peaceful—situations.
There are also supporting characters who are far more compelling than the main two. Sandoval (Guillermo Francella) is Benjamin's drunken sidekick we root for; a grieving widow of the victim is so calm, we figure there must be more to his story.
Of course the romance between our writer and his former colleague is what drives the tension throughout the film. Like perfectly written star-crossed lovers, they're attraction is undeniable, but their circumstances common: one of the two feels that they can never be together, so both spend agonizing years wondering what would happen if they could.
The movie teaches us that denying what our heart desires can sometimes lead to a life of purgatory, and our eyes hold the secrets of our truth.
~~~
What do you get when you cross a murder mystery with unrequited love that's simmered for 25 years? A hell of a great movie.
When the film opens we see Benjamin (Darin) struggling at his writing desk, trying to purge the haunting remnants of a brutal rape and murder from his mind. We soon learn this was a real case that he worked on 25 years ago as an investigator, and he's never been able to shake it. So, he's making a book based on his memories of it.
Next, we meet the woman he's adored for all these years—Irene (Villamil), who worked with him on the case and is now an accomplished judge. She is acting as a casual editor/admirer, sharing in his violent trip down memory lane.
Before I give the impression that this is a "flashback" movie, let me be clear in saying that it doesn't feel like it. Though it takes place both in 1974 and 2000, the audience is never tossed between the two unexpectedly.
The crime itself is ghastly, and we see just enough of it to register horror and want justice for the victim. The suspects are clear in their innocence and guilt, which is one of the genius elements of the script: we already know whodunnit. Unlike most stories, what we crave to learn is how the characters arrived in their present—seemingly peaceful—situations.
There are also supporting characters who are far more compelling than the main two. Sandoval (Guillermo Francella) is Benjamin's drunken sidekick we root for; a grieving widow of the victim is so calm, we figure there must be more to his story.
Of course the romance between our writer and his former colleague is what drives the tension throughout the film. Like perfectly written star-crossed lovers, they're attraction is undeniable, but their circumstances common: one of the two feels that they can never be together, so both spend agonizing years wondering what would happen if they could.
The movie teaches us that denying what our heart desires can sometimes lead to a life of purgatory, and our eyes hold the secrets of our truth.
~~~
Monday, February 16, 2009
Live Action Short Film Nominees (Oscars® 2009)
Tonight I saw all five of the nominated films in the Live Action Short category. I'll present my reviews in the order they were shown.
AUF DER STRECKE
The lengthiest of the nominees, Switzerland and Germany's narrative about a mall security guard who is in love with a bookshop clerk, feels like it could go a number of ways.
First, you see him apprehending shoplifters and wonder if the whole short will be a series of these situations, then once you see him zeroing in on Sarah (the bookshop clerk) with the security camera, you think he may be stalking her.
In a sense, he is.
So much that he makes sure to ride the same subway home and inadvertently witnesses a tragedy connected to her because of it.
Will he reveal what he saw? Will it make any difference to her if he does?
A lot happens in the 30 minutes to allow you to ponder these possibilities...which is what makes it good.
The ending, however, could've been better.
NEW BOY
Ireland's dramedy based on a Roddy Doyle short story packs a lot of punch.
It tells us of Joseph's arrival in an Irish elementary school and the adjustments that come with such a shift.
Joseph, we learn through flashbacks, is from war-torn Africa and is still dealing with the horrors he experienced in his homeland.
Christian is the resident troublemaker who does everything in his power to make the new kid feel out of place.
True to form, there's a tattletale and a short-tempered teacher who round out the cast (and the story).
Will the new boy survive in his new surroundings?
Amazingly, 11 minutes is all you need to find out.
TOYLAND
This heart-wrenching, yet profound holocaust story from Germany is reminiscent of LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, as it is centered around adults making the horrors of war metaphorical (concentration camps are referred to as "Toyland") to protect their children.
The friendship of two boys is in jeopardy as one is Jewish and the other is not.
What transpires is a beautiful exploration of "what if" and perhaps the best ending I've seen to a movie in recent years.
THE PIG
In this Denmark film, an old man is having "butt surgery" and takes comfort in a whimsical painting of a pig that faces his hospital bed.
He appears to have no loved ones attending to him, and is told he may in fact have cancer (though what he is having the surgery for is less serious). The pig makes him smile and chuckle to himself—so much that he tells the nurse he likes it.
Unfortunately, when he wakes from surgery it is gone at the request of his Muslim roommate.
After that, as an audience member you're asked to determine the definition of tolerance—and then react to a twist at the end that could change your mind.
MANON ON THE ASPHALT
In this French film, a young woman (Manon) is happily riding her bike around the winding streets of her town when she is struck by a car.
After that, she narrates instructions, regrets and meaningful memories about her life as she "floats" near her body and witnesses the unfolding events (folks gathering in the street, medics arriving).
It's a brief exploration of what could happen to any of us at any time, and more so a painful reminder that we should be living every day to the fullest—reminding those we love how much we appreciate them.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
So which film would I pick to win the Oscar®? Really, I think they're all worthy, but if I had to narrow it to one it would have to be TOYLAND.
Please remember to tune into the Cinebanter Live Blog for the Spirit Awards this Saturday and of course, the Oscars® on Sunday.
AUF DER STRECKE
The lengthiest of the nominees, Switzerland and Germany's narrative about a mall security guard who is in love with a bookshop clerk, feels like it could go a number of ways.
First, you see him apprehending shoplifters and wonder if the whole short will be a series of these situations, then once you see him zeroing in on Sarah (the bookshop clerk) with the security camera, you think he may be stalking her.
In a sense, he is.
So much that he makes sure to ride the same subway home and inadvertently witnesses a tragedy connected to her because of it.
Will he reveal what he saw? Will it make any difference to her if he does?
A lot happens in the 30 minutes to allow you to ponder these possibilities...which is what makes it good.
The ending, however, could've been better.
NEW BOY
Ireland's dramedy based on a Roddy Doyle short story packs a lot of punch.
It tells us of Joseph's arrival in an Irish elementary school and the adjustments that come with such a shift.
Joseph, we learn through flashbacks, is from war-torn Africa and is still dealing with the horrors he experienced in his homeland.
Christian is the resident troublemaker who does everything in his power to make the new kid feel out of place.
True to form, there's a tattletale and a short-tempered teacher who round out the cast (and the story).
Will the new boy survive in his new surroundings?
Amazingly, 11 minutes is all you need to find out.
TOYLAND
This heart-wrenching, yet profound holocaust story from Germany is reminiscent of LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, as it is centered around adults making the horrors of war metaphorical (concentration camps are referred to as "Toyland") to protect their children.
The friendship of two boys is in jeopardy as one is Jewish and the other is not.
What transpires is a beautiful exploration of "what if" and perhaps the best ending I've seen to a movie in recent years.
THE PIG
In this Denmark film, an old man is having "butt surgery" and takes comfort in a whimsical painting of a pig that faces his hospital bed.
He appears to have no loved ones attending to him, and is told he may in fact have cancer (though what he is having the surgery for is less serious). The pig makes him smile and chuckle to himself—so much that he tells the nurse he likes it.
Unfortunately, when he wakes from surgery it is gone at the request of his Muslim roommate.
After that, as an audience member you're asked to determine the definition of tolerance—and then react to a twist at the end that could change your mind.
MANON ON THE ASPHALT
In this French film, a young woman (Manon) is happily riding her bike around the winding streets of her town when she is struck by a car.
After that, she narrates instructions, regrets and meaningful memories about her life as she "floats" near her body and witnesses the unfolding events (folks gathering in the street, medics arriving).
It's a brief exploration of what could happen to any of us at any time, and more so a painful reminder that we should be living every day to the fullest—reminding those we love how much we appreciate them.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
So which film would I pick to win the Oscar®? Really, I think they're all worthy, but if I had to narrow it to one it would have to be TOYLAND.
Please remember to tune into the Cinebanter Live Blog for the Spirit Awards this Saturday and of course, the Oscars® on Sunday.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Atonement
Today I saw Atonement, starring Keira Knightley and James McAvoy.
This film has all the hallmarks of a Best Picture candidate: attractive stars, solid acting, sweeping landscapes, love, war, betrayal and dueling sisters. But what it lacked, was the 'it' factor that takes the characters to another (necessary) level.
In the story we briefly see Cecilia (Knightley) fall in love/lust with Robbie (McAvoy). Their chemistry isn't electric enough for the audience to feel the jolt of their passion, but their intentions are explained in a letter intercepted by Cecilia's mischievous younger sister Briony (played by three different actresses, to demonstrate each age).
Briony, also a budding writer, uses the letter and a glimpse of consensual intercourse that she interrupts, as her basis for pinning a rape on Robbie, though she knows he's not guilty. It seems she was jealous of his affection for her sister and would've liked him for herself.
This selfish action costs Robbie his freedom and Cecilia years of misery as she pines for him. It also eats away at the older Briony, who wrestles with coming forward to right her catastrophic wrong.
In the middle, we see Robbie go to war and both sisters become nurses. This is the part of the film that nearly put me to sleep. Maybe I'm an unabashed romantic, but couldn't there have been some steamy scenes of them fantasizing about one another? Couldn't we witness more correspondence between the two, or at least see more of the agonizing ways they passed time during their separation?
I believed that the younger sister really did want to atone for her sins, but I wasn't entirely convinced that a soldier and a nurse, a great distance apart from each other, were going to stay so true to their hearts. And I certainly wanted to.
At the core of the story is a beautiful message: true love is worth waiting for no matter what the cost in time.
This ending leaves pessimists satisfied that the lies added up to ultimate heartbreak; the romantics will believe their characters passed in succession so they could find harmony on the other side.
A great love story this is not, but at least it leaves us pondering.
This film has all the hallmarks of a Best Picture candidate: attractive stars, solid acting, sweeping landscapes, love, war, betrayal and dueling sisters. But what it lacked, was the 'it' factor that takes the characters to another (necessary) level.
In the story we briefly see Cecilia (Knightley) fall in love/lust with Robbie (McAvoy). Their chemistry isn't electric enough for the audience to feel the jolt of their passion, but their intentions are explained in a letter intercepted by Cecilia's mischievous younger sister Briony (played by three different actresses, to demonstrate each age).
Briony, also a budding writer, uses the letter and a glimpse of consensual intercourse that she interrupts, as her basis for pinning a rape on Robbie, though she knows he's not guilty. It seems she was jealous of his affection for her sister and would've liked him for herself.
This selfish action costs Robbie his freedom and Cecilia years of misery as she pines for him. It also eats away at the older Briony, who wrestles with coming forward to right her catastrophic wrong.
In the middle, we see Robbie go to war and both sisters become nurses. This is the part of the film that nearly put me to sleep. Maybe I'm an unabashed romantic, but couldn't there have been some steamy scenes of them fantasizing about one another? Couldn't we witness more correspondence between the two, or at least see more of the agonizing ways they passed time during their separation?
I believed that the younger sister really did want to atone for her sins, but I wasn't entirely convinced that a soldier and a nurse, a great distance apart from each other, were going to stay so true to their hearts. And I certainly wanted to.
At the core of the story is a beautiful message: true love is worth waiting for no matter what the cost in time.
This ending leaves pessimists satisfied that the lies added up to ultimate heartbreak; the romantics will believe their characters passed in succession so they could find harmony on the other side.
A great love story this is not, but at least it leaves us pondering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)