Today I saw The Favourite, starring Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz.
Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) is a mess—physically, mentally, politically. She has a close confidante/lover/advisor in Lady Sarah (Weisz) and utilizes her to truly run the country.
Along comes Sarah's cousin Abigail (Stone) to throw everything off course.
She enters the castle as one of the "help," but soon has her eyes set on a better title, knowing she'll need to get close to the Queen to do so. Lady Sarah is very threatened by Abigail and in turn lets her know it. Sarah underestimates Abigail's capacity for self-preservation and Sarah soon finds herself ill from a poisoned cup of tea.
Abigail gets closer and closer to the Queen and soon marries, rapidly regaining her "Lady" status. However, she maintains a sexual relationship with the Queen and remains by her side at all times. This infuriates Sarah, who does everything in her power to put things back the way they were.
This film can easily be described as a "romp" and that's not a bad thing. It's fun to watch these women get caught up in each other's drama and compete for the attention of a crazy, aging royal. All three leads are perfectly cast and leave you believing the nonsense. Funny thing? Much of the story is actually true, which only makes it more fun.
If you want a good, racy laugh delivered by fine actors in amazing costumes, this is the film for you.
~~~
Showing posts with label Rachel Weisz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel Weisz. Show all posts
Monday, December 24, 2018
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Disobedience
On Tuesday I saw Disobedience, starring Rachel Weisz and Rachel McAdams.
Ronit (Weisz) is the daughter of a beloved rabbi who returns home to England from America following his death. Esti (McAdams) is the girl she once fancied, who is now married to one of their (male) mutual friends and still lives in their hometown. Because they are from an Orthodox Jewish community, the former tryst between the two women is not spoken of and Ronit is treated more as an intruder than a grieving family member. Nonetheless, the couple make space in their home for Ronit as she navigates her past.
At first, the interactions between Ronit and Esti are tense, as if they aren’t willing to acknowledge their shared history, but as the film unfolds—at a pace that feels slow, yet authentic—we see there was so much more to their story than a physical attraction between kids.
Each glance, each longing stare across the room exhibits how much emotion still resides within each woman with regard to their love for the other. Finally, when they get time alone in a space where there are no judgmental eyes watching them, they are honest with themselves and each other about their resurfacing feelings. But their renewed understanding is not without consequences. How can they move forward when one lives a life that is free in another country and the other has embraced a life of conformity at home?
The answers to this come painfully and somewhat surprisingly as the last 30 minutes of the film take us one way and then drastically another.
Brilliant performances are certainly key here, but the superb writing for me is what takes it to another level. The complexities of love, tradition, culture and friendship all erupt in beautiful and tragic ways. I was left thinking about these characters long after I left the theater.
~~~
Saturday, June 25, 2016
The Lobster
On Tuesday I saw The Lobster, starring Colin Farrell and Rachel Weisz.
The world represented in the film looks much like ours except for one main thing: every adult who lives in the city is part of a couple. There are no exceptions to this rule and those seen wandering alone may be asked to show their "papers" to prove they have a spouse.
David (Farrell) is recently divorced and devastated by the breakup. He is immediately transported to an inn where he is expected to find a partner in 45 days. If he does not complete this task, he will be turned into the animal of his choice. He has decided on a lobster.
As he earnestly attempts to find a new mate, he witnesses the horrors of those who try to game the system. Punishments are delivered. People become animals. It's not pretty.
I can't go any further than that without spoiling the ending in major ways, so I'll start by saying Colin Farrell is fantastic. It's a very odd role for an Irish heartthrob to play, but one he owns beautifully. His tension (both social and sexual) is palpable and the longing you see in his eyes once he zeroes in on a possible object of affection is painful.
Rachel Weisz, who has significantly less screen time but just as important of a role is also solid as a "loner," who has left the inn and rebelled against the establishment. Her energy mixed with her restraint produces an impressive result that not every actor could achieve.
The movie is weird, and there are a lot of winks in the dialog that could be cheesy to some, but I actually enjoyed them.
If you've ever felt persecuted for being alone (or just simply being different), you may take great comfort in the satire of The Lobster. I know I did.
~~~
The world represented in the film looks much like ours except for one main thing: every adult who lives in the city is part of a couple. There are no exceptions to this rule and those seen wandering alone may be asked to show their "papers" to prove they have a spouse.
David (Farrell) is recently divorced and devastated by the breakup. He is immediately transported to an inn where he is expected to find a partner in 45 days. If he does not complete this task, he will be turned into the animal of his choice. He has decided on a lobster.
As he earnestly attempts to find a new mate, he witnesses the horrors of those who try to game the system. Punishments are delivered. People become animals. It's not pretty.
I can't go any further than that without spoiling the ending in major ways, so I'll start by saying Colin Farrell is fantastic. It's a very odd role for an Irish heartthrob to play, but one he owns beautifully. His tension (both social and sexual) is palpable and the longing you see in his eyes once he zeroes in on a possible object of affection is painful.
Rachel Weisz, who has significantly less screen time but just as important of a role is also solid as a "loner," who has left the inn and rebelled against the establishment. Her energy mixed with her restraint produces an impressive result that not every actor could achieve.
The movie is weird, and there are a lot of winks in the dialog that could be cheesy to some, but I actually enjoyed them.
If you've ever felt persecuted for being alone (or just simply being different), you may take great comfort in the satire of The Lobster. I know I did.
~~~
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.
~~~
Friday, August 17, 2012
The Bourne Legacy
Last night I saw The Bourne Legacy, starring Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz.
Aaron (Renner) is a spy on the run who is in need of his daily meds. He is part of an elite program of spies who are trained to do just about everything. Among his peers is the missing-in-action Jason Bourne (Matt Damon, who only appears in a photo in this installment of the series).
After a cold, difficult trek through the mountains, Aaron cleverly escapes the wolves who were chasing him, and the bosses who seek to destroy him (apparently everyone in the club must die since they're discontinuing that mission). In the process, he comes to the rescue of Dr. Shearing (Weisz), a lab genius for the group who escaped a mass murder shooting by one of her colleagues only to be turned into prey for her bosses (the same bosses who seek to eliminate Aaron). He is preserving her because she is the only doctor left who can lead him to more meds.
Turns out, the meds are in Manilla, so the obligatory chase scenes begin with their attempt to get there, of course with the government on their heels at each turn.
Everything here on out is very standard 'action' film content, with an especially ridiculous motorcycle ride near the end.
I'll admit I was entertained, and after the slow pace in the beginning, the speed of the story picked up considerably. What made this movie so disappointing was the lack of intelligence.
In the past Bourne films, the heart-stopping action sequences have been built and executed around clever, smart, complicated narratives.
Here, it's merely plot points A, B and C with very little chemistry between the players and over-the-top stunts.
I miss Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass.
~~~
Aaron (Renner) is a spy on the run who is in need of his daily meds. He is part of an elite program of spies who are trained to do just about everything. Among his peers is the missing-in-action Jason Bourne (Matt Damon, who only appears in a photo in this installment of the series).
After a cold, difficult trek through the mountains, Aaron cleverly escapes the wolves who were chasing him, and the bosses who seek to destroy him (apparently everyone in the club must die since they're discontinuing that mission). In the process, he comes to the rescue of Dr. Shearing (Weisz), a lab genius for the group who escaped a mass murder shooting by one of her colleagues only to be turned into prey for her bosses (the same bosses who seek to eliminate Aaron). He is preserving her because she is the only doctor left who can lead him to more meds.
Turns out, the meds are in Manilla, so the obligatory chase scenes begin with their attempt to get there, of course with the government on their heels at each turn.
Everything here on out is very standard 'action' film content, with an especially ridiculous motorcycle ride near the end.
I'll admit I was entertained, and after the slow pace in the beginning, the speed of the story picked up considerably. What made this movie so disappointing was the lack of intelligence.
In the past Bourne films, the heart-stopping action sequences have been built and executed around clever, smart, complicated narratives.
Here, it's merely plot points A, B and C with very little chemistry between the players and over-the-top stunts.
I miss Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass.
~~~
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Brothers Bloom
Last night I saw The Brothers Bloom, starring Rachel Weisz and Adrien Brody.
The brothers in the title are Bloom (Brody) and Stephen (Mark Ruffalo). They've made their livings as scheming con artists and now Bloom is ready to retire and "go straight." But Stephen, who is more addicted to the thrill of the lifestyle than perhaps the money, doesn't want to stop and convinces Bloom to embark on one last job. This assignment is where we meet Penelope (Weisz)—an eccentric rich girl who seems to have no friends or acquaintances.
Sounds fun, right? Well, it starts out that way...and even shows promise in the spirited introduction of our heroine (and her many quirks), but unfortunately fizzles after we see the same story played out over and over again. You think you're on to the con, but you're not—but wait you are! Repeat. And again.
It does get old.
There's also a minor love story between Penelope and Bloom that could've developed into something much more intense if given ample attention, but since it doesn't it's hard to care about whether or not they're really in love or whether or not they'll live happily ever after.
Ruffalo's Stephen is charming, but he's almost too charming and you'd think that a con man as successful as he would be less (overtly) slimy.
All in all, the film was a disappointing attempt from a promising filmmaker (Brick's Rian Johnson) and a great cast of characters.
```
The brothers in the title are Bloom (Brody) and Stephen (Mark Ruffalo). They've made their livings as scheming con artists and now Bloom is ready to retire and "go straight." But Stephen, who is more addicted to the thrill of the lifestyle than perhaps the money, doesn't want to stop and convinces Bloom to embark on one last job. This assignment is where we meet Penelope (Weisz)—an eccentric rich girl who seems to have no friends or acquaintances.
Sounds fun, right? Well, it starts out that way...and even shows promise in the spirited introduction of our heroine (and her many quirks), but unfortunately fizzles after we see the same story played out over and over again. You think you're on to the con, but you're not—but wait you are! Repeat. And again.
It does get old.
There's also a minor love story between Penelope and Bloom that could've developed into something much more intense if given ample attention, but since it doesn't it's hard to care about whether or not they're really in love or whether or not they'll live happily ever after.
Ruffalo's Stephen is charming, but he's almost too charming and you'd think that a con man as successful as he would be less (overtly) slimy.
All in all, the film was a disappointing attempt from a promising filmmaker (Brick's Rian Johnson) and a great cast of characters.
```
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)