This morning I saw Hereditary, starring Toni Collette and Ann Dowd.
Annie (Collette) is a daughter, grieving the loss of her not-so-wonderful mother when her whole world seems to fall apart. Consumed with tragedy, she turns to a support group for those who have lost loved ones and meets Joan (Dowd), a kind woman who is experiencing a similar pain.
Annie hides this support group—and her friendship with Joan—from her family and tells them she's going to the movies instead. They're all processing their pain differently, but her husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) does his best to move on in the most normal way possible, hiding the desecration of her mother's grave from her and urging their son Peter (Alex Wolff) to arrange for college testing.
What seems like a normal American family trying to navigate the fog of grief the best way they know how soon turns into a paranormal dance with something dark that Annie has unknowingly invited into their home.
Once she realizes it could be dangerous, it could be too late and we watch as the rest of the film unfolds into a mix of gotcha scares, creepy shadow shots and (somewhat) unexpected outcomes.
Why should you see this film? Toni Collette is a force. She's indifferent, grief-stricken, furious, depressed, deflated, defeated and terrified .. then back again. It's not all written in her lines, but it's seen in her face, over and over. Her performance rises above the majority of horror performances simply because it's so multi-dimensional. She's a mom and a wife and a daughter and a friend and a freak ... all at the same time.
Is that all? Not necessarily. If you like trying to solve puzzles, you may enjoy the layers being peeled back here as the story progresses.
The ending, though? A bit conventional for a film that up until that point didn't subscribe to any horror templates.
~~~
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Thursday, January 04, 2018
The Disaster Artist
Today I saw The Disaster Artist, starring James and Dave Franco.
Tommy Wiseau (J. Franco) is an aspiring actor who can't seem to catch a break. Hollywood isn't interested in what he's selling ... and what he's selling happens to be words delivered in a mysterious, yet unplaceable accent, crazy over-acting and wild rants that he writes off as "human behaviors."
He meets another aspiring actor, Greg (D. Franco), who is entertained by Tommy's presence. Greg befriends Tommy and soon moves in with him, learning that he's also somehow independently wealthy.
When rejection just becomes too much for Tommy, he decides to fund, direct, produce and star in a movie himself. That movie is what will become the cult classic, The Room. This film chronicles the months it took to make the movie, which is so embarrassingly bad the crew and cast are sure no one will show up to see it.
Franco transforms into Tommy in every way possible—looks, intonation, expressions—it's astounding how far he truly disappears into him. Though Tommy is undoubtedly annoying (perhaps infuriating to those closest to him), it's hard to take your eyes off him, for the simple appeal of what he may do next.
Dave Franco is also great as the levelheaded friend Greg. He's a good kid who just wants to make it in the business all the while preserving the feelings of his nutty buddy. Because of James' stellar makeup, you can't see how much the Franco brothers truly resemble each other in real life.
Seth Rogen and Alison Brie are also supporting players as the script supervisor and girlfriend, respectively. Both suited to their parts, I was happy when each appeared on screen.
I guess what I'm really saying is that I'm not sure this movie needed to be made, but it's fun to watch nonetheless.
~~~
Tommy Wiseau (J. Franco) is an aspiring actor who can't seem to catch a break. Hollywood isn't interested in what he's selling ... and what he's selling happens to be words delivered in a mysterious, yet unplaceable accent, crazy over-acting and wild rants that he writes off as "human behaviors."
He meets another aspiring actor, Greg (D. Franco), who is entertained by Tommy's presence. Greg befriends Tommy and soon moves in with him, learning that he's also somehow independently wealthy.
When rejection just becomes too much for Tommy, he decides to fund, direct, produce and star in a movie himself. That movie is what will become the cult classic, The Room. This film chronicles the months it took to make the movie, which is so embarrassingly bad the crew and cast are sure no one will show up to see it.
Franco transforms into Tommy in every way possible—looks, intonation, expressions—it's astounding how far he truly disappears into him. Though Tommy is undoubtedly annoying (perhaps infuriating to those closest to him), it's hard to take your eyes off him, for the simple appeal of what he may do next.
Dave Franco is also great as the levelheaded friend Greg. He's a good kid who just wants to make it in the business all the while preserving the feelings of his nutty buddy. Because of James' stellar makeup, you can't see how much the Franco brothers truly resemble each other in real life.
Seth Rogen and Alison Brie are also supporting players as the script supervisor and girlfriend, respectively. Both suited to their parts, I was happy when each appeared on screen.
I guess what I'm really saying is that I'm not sure this movie needed to be made, but it's fun to watch nonetheless.
~~~
Friday, May 06, 2016
Purple Rain
On Tuesday I saw Purple Rain, starring Prince and Appolonia Kotero.
This was my second theater viewing of this film. The first took place when I was 9 years old—it was my first "R" rated film and the only film my older sister ever snuck me into. I'm still grateful.
With Prince's passing, the 'celebration' of seeing it has dimmed, but my friend and I still made quite a night of it, complete with cans (yes, cans) of wine, tears and enthusiastic singing. I can also not confirm or deny that I shouted "Fuck you, Tipper Gore!" during "Darling Nikki." But I digress.
In this 1984 classic, Prince plays The Kid, a young man obsessed with making it big in the music industry. His rival, Morris Day (playing himself), and his band The Time give The Kid a lot of grief, but here it's done in such a comical way that the banter is fun to watch.
There's also a girl, of course. She is supernaturally beautiful as well as talented. Her name is Appolonia (Kotero) and she also has her sights set on performing.
There are motorcycle rides and steamy sex scenes and domestic violence and above all else, epic music performances. Sure, the dialogue is cheesy, but the story—based loosely on Prince's real life—is solid.
In fact, it's hard to find fault with anyone as engaging and magical as Prince was. It's even harder to refer to him in past tense.
~~~
This was my second theater viewing of this film. The first took place when I was 9 years old—it was my first "R" rated film and the only film my older sister ever snuck me into. I'm still grateful.
With Prince's passing, the 'celebration' of seeing it has dimmed, but my friend and I still made quite a night of it, complete with cans (yes, cans) of wine, tears and enthusiastic singing. I can also not confirm or deny that I shouted "Fuck you, Tipper Gore!" during "Darling Nikki." But I digress.
In this 1984 classic, Prince plays The Kid, a young man obsessed with making it big in the music industry. His rival, Morris Day (playing himself), and his band The Time give The Kid a lot of grief, but here it's done in such a comical way that the banter is fun to watch.
There's also a girl, of course. She is supernaturally beautiful as well as talented. Her name is Appolonia (Kotero) and she also has her sights set on performing.
There are motorcycle rides and steamy sex scenes and domestic violence and above all else, epic music performances. Sure, the dialogue is cheesy, but the story—based loosely on Prince's real life—is solid.
In fact, it's hard to find fault with anyone as engaging and magical as Prince was. It's even harder to refer to him in past tense.
~~~
Labels:
1984,
2016,
Academy Award winner,
movie,
Prince,
Purple Rain,
review,
Tassoula
Saturday, December 19, 2015
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2
This morning I saw The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson.
I'm a big fan of The Hunger Games book series, and I loved the first two film adaptations, but the Mockingjay installments unfortunately leave a lot to be desired.
In this final curtain call, the boy who stole the heart of Katniss (Lawrence), Peeta (Hutcherson), has been brainwashed by the Big Bad Government and instead of wanting to live out his days with her, he wants to kill her. Of course, she still wants him and realizes that he doesn't have control of his mind.
He eventually comes back to the correct side of the war ... kinda. He has spontaneous, violent outbursts aimed at her from time to time, but for the most part behaves himself. They, along with their team of allies, set out to take back the world (and kill President Snow).
Donald Sutherland, as the hated leader, seems to be having a grand time in this one; less evil and more 'mad scientist' in spirit. It would be hard for anyone to think of him claiming victory when he's so jovial and Katniss is so serious.
So—what's wrong with the film?
#1 The pace. It's painfully slow for the first hour. I actually went and got a cup of coffee and when I came back they were still on the same scene.
#2 Wasted talent. Jennifer Lawrence is a gifted, sparkling superstar. She doesn't have much to do here except look sad. Look mad. Look tired.
#3 Anticlimactic action. Of course we know what's coming, but that's not what ruins it. The battle scenes just don't have the magic of the first two films. They're silly.
So—is there any reason to see it?
If you're a completist like me, it's your civic duty to sit through it. Also, it's Philip Seymour Hoffman's last film and just his mere presence—alive and breathing brilliance—is a gift.
~~~
I'm a big fan of The Hunger Games book series, and I loved the first two film adaptations, but the Mockingjay installments unfortunately leave a lot to be desired.
In this final curtain call, the boy who stole the heart of Katniss (Lawrence), Peeta (Hutcherson), has been brainwashed by the Big Bad Government and instead of wanting to live out his days with her, he wants to kill her. Of course, she still wants him and realizes that he doesn't have control of his mind.
He eventually comes back to the correct side of the war ... kinda. He has spontaneous, violent outbursts aimed at her from time to time, but for the most part behaves himself. They, along with their team of allies, set out to take back the world (and kill President Snow).
Donald Sutherland, as the hated leader, seems to be having a grand time in this one; less evil and more 'mad scientist' in spirit. It would be hard for anyone to think of him claiming victory when he's so jovial and Katniss is so serious.
So—what's wrong with the film?
#1 The pace. It's painfully slow for the first hour. I actually went and got a cup of coffee and when I came back they were still on the same scene.
#2 Wasted talent. Jennifer Lawrence is a gifted, sparkling superstar. She doesn't have much to do here except look sad. Look mad. Look tired.
#3 Anticlimactic action. Of course we know what's coming, but that's not what ruins it. The battle scenes just don't have the magic of the first two films. They're silly.
So—is there any reason to see it?
If you're a completist like me, it's your civic duty to sit through it. Also, it's Philip Seymour Hoffman's last film and just his mere presence—alive and breathing brilliance—is a gift.
~~~
Monday, November 24, 2014
John Wick
On Wednesday, I saw John Wick, starring Keanu Reeves and Willem Dafoe.
John (Reeves) is a man of few words. Then again, he doesn't need many. He left a legendary life of crime when he fell in love with his wife, but now she's passed on and he's alone. Oh, so alone.
Until ... a puppy arrives. A gift arranged by his late wife, this little guy (who is painfully cute, but devoid of a name) becomes the light of his life. We see the puppy navigating his new life in the mansion that years of bloodshed built, and we can't help but fall for him too.
Of course, it's all a ploy to get us so emotionally attached to the dog that we won't be able to bear it when he's horrifically killed. What's worse? It's by some painfully dumb bad guys who don't realize this man's best friend belongs to John Wick.
Uh-oh.
That's when things get interesting. They stole Wick's car and killed his dog. Now, he wants revenge.
After unloading an arsenal of weapons that look like something out of a Middle-East military bunker, he begins to make that happen.
With a lot of clever choreography and some token at-the-loud-and-flashy club scenes, his fury is unleashed. Keanu broods a lot.
And it's fun, if you're into that sort of thing.
~~~
John (Reeves) is a man of few words. Then again, he doesn't need many. He left a legendary life of crime when he fell in love with his wife, but now she's passed on and he's alone. Oh, so alone.
Until ... a puppy arrives. A gift arranged by his late wife, this little guy (who is painfully cute, but devoid of a name) becomes the light of his life. We see the puppy navigating his new life in the mansion that years of bloodshed built, and we can't help but fall for him too.
Of course, it's all a ploy to get us so emotionally attached to the dog that we won't be able to bear it when he's horrifically killed. What's worse? It's by some painfully dumb bad guys who don't realize this man's best friend belongs to John Wick.
Uh-oh.
That's when things get interesting. They stole Wick's car and killed his dog. Now, he wants revenge.
After unloading an arsenal of weapons that look like something out of a Middle-East military bunker, he begins to make that happen.
With a lot of clever choreography and some token at-the-loud-and-flashy club scenes, his fury is unleashed. Keanu broods a lot.
And it's fun, if you're into that sort of thing.
~~~
Friday, February 28, 2014
Non-Stop
Tonight I saw Non-Stop, starring Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore.
Bill Marks (Neeson) is a troubled U.S. Air Marshall, embarking on a flight from New York to London. Jen Summers (Moore), a stereotypical, chatty passenger on her phone, trades places with another man for the window seat next to Marks.
Things are business as usual until folks start relaxing to sleep through the flight. As the plane grows quiet, the chime of Bill's phone goes off as he begins receiving messages from a would-be hijacker. He/she says that one passenger will die every 20 minutes unless $150 million is wired to a specific account—which we soon learn is under the name "Bill Marks."
Soon, a passenger is dead and all aboard have to wonder if Marks himself is the hijacker.
From there, the familar-Taken-like-version of Liam Neeson emerges and the film becomes a full-on thriller.
Only Nancy the flight attendant (Michelle Dockery) and Jen trust in his innocence—but are they making the right choice by supporting him?
The script plays a fun game of ping-pong with the audience, allowing them to believe that several different people could potentially be the hijacker and it all leads to a nerve-wracking, if not predictable, ending.
The acting is solid, the effects are decent and the script refrains from too many "catchphrase" quotes.
If you just want to get lost in something entertaining for almost two hours, I think you'll like this film.
Bill Marks (Neeson) is a troubled U.S. Air Marshall, embarking on a flight from New York to London. Jen Summers (Moore), a stereotypical, chatty passenger on her phone, trades places with another man for the window seat next to Marks.
Things are business as usual until folks start relaxing to sleep through the flight. As the plane grows quiet, the chime of Bill's phone goes off as he begins receiving messages from a would-be hijacker. He/she says that one passenger will die every 20 minutes unless $150 million is wired to a specific account—which we soon learn is under the name "Bill Marks."
Soon, a passenger is dead and all aboard have to wonder if Marks himself is the hijacker.
From there, the familar-Taken-like-version of Liam Neeson emerges and the film becomes a full-on thriller.
Only Nancy the flight attendant (Michelle Dockery) and Jen trust in his innocence—but are they making the right choice by supporting him?
The script plays a fun game of ping-pong with the audience, allowing them to believe that several different people could potentially be the hijacker and it all leads to a nerve-wracking, if not predictable, ending.
The acting is solid, the effects are decent and the script refrains from too many "catchphrase" quotes.
If you just want to get lost in something entertaining for almost two hours, I think you'll like this film.
Labels:
2014,
airline,
film,
Flight,
Julianne Moore,
Liam Neeson,
Michelle Dockery,
movie,
Non-stop,
review,
suspense,
Tassoula,
thriller
Saturday, November 30, 2013
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Today I saw The Hunger Games: Catching Fire starring Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson.
The film begins where the book also started, as Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) are gearing up for their victory tour of the districts, as the winners of the most recent Hunger Games.
Spying on the wildly popular couple, the president (Donald Sutherland) calls their bluff and fears their love story act will not sustain, so therefore Katniss must be eliminated. His new gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (a perfectly cast Philip Seymour Hoffman) soon constructs a plot to bring the victors back into the games and seal her fate.
Though all of the excitement and horrors of the games is well executed, it's the performance that Lawrence gives that truly makes the film worth seeing. Every note of emotion is pitch perfect; every complexity captured in her eyes.
I also confess to eating up the love triangle between her, Peeta and Gale (Liam Hemsworth). As with any well done triangle, I change my mind every few minutes about who I want for Katniss. My brain says Peeta will do everything in his power to make her happy from now to eternity; my heart sees the way she looks at Gale.
Only one more year until the first installment of Mockingjay hits theaters, right?
~~~
The film begins where the book also started, as Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) are gearing up for their victory tour of the districts, as the winners of the most recent Hunger Games.
Spying on the wildly popular couple, the president (Donald Sutherland) calls their bluff and fears their love story act will not sustain, so therefore Katniss must be eliminated. His new gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (a perfectly cast Philip Seymour Hoffman) soon constructs a plot to bring the victors back into the games and seal her fate.
Though all of the excitement and horrors of the games is well executed, it's the performance that Lawrence gives that truly makes the film worth seeing. Every note of emotion is pitch perfect; every complexity captured in her eyes.
I also confess to eating up the love triangle between her, Peeta and Gale (Liam Hemsworth). As with any well done triangle, I change my mind every few minutes about who I want for Katniss. My brain says Peeta will do everything in his power to make her happy from now to eternity; my heart sees the way she looks at Gale.
Only one more year until the first installment of Mockingjay hits theaters, right?
~~~
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Airplane!
Tonight I saw Airplane! starring Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty.
Ted (Hays) is heartbroken because Elaine (Hagerty) is leaving him. She's a stewardess (that's what they called flight attendants in 1980) and he's a former soldier turned cab driver. Distraught at the thought of losing her, he spontaneously purchases a ticket on one of her flights and soon exhausts his fellow passengers retelling their love story.
Meanwhile, everyone on board (including the captain and co-pilot) who had fish for dinner is getting violently ill, and they need medical attention, fast. In a matter of minutes, when the crew passes out, they also need someone to land the plane. Ted is the only one on board qualified to do it.
If you've never seen this 80s classic, you may think all of the above sounds like an intense thriller, but really it's one of the most ridiculously wonderful, hilariously quotable films in existence.
Growing up watching this, I understood about 1/3 of the jokes; as an adult I realized how filthy it really is and that makes it 75 times more genius.
I can't begin to imagine how difficult it must have been to write this screenplay, but my hat is off to the clever trio who did.
33 years later the jokes are still funny, the characters still fresh and the ending still satisfying.
I'm so glad I finally got to experience it in the theater.
Ted (Hays) is heartbroken because Elaine (Hagerty) is leaving him. She's a stewardess (that's what they called flight attendants in 1980) and he's a former soldier turned cab driver. Distraught at the thought of losing her, he spontaneously purchases a ticket on one of her flights and soon exhausts his fellow passengers retelling their love story.
Meanwhile, everyone on board (including the captain and co-pilot) who had fish for dinner is getting violently ill, and they need medical attention, fast. In a matter of minutes, when the crew passes out, they also need someone to land the plane. Ted is the only one on board qualified to do it.
If you've never seen this 80s classic, you may think all of the above sounds like an intense thriller, but really it's one of the most ridiculously wonderful, hilariously quotable films in existence.
Growing up watching this, I understood about 1/3 of the jokes; as an adult I realized how filthy it really is and that makes it 75 times more genius.
I can't begin to imagine how difficult it must have been to write this screenplay, but my hat is off to the clever trio who did.
33 years later the jokes are still funny, the characters still fresh and the ending still satisfying.
I'm so glad I finally got to experience it in the theater.
Labels:
1980,
Airplane,
comedy,
film,
Julie Hagerty,
movie,
review,
Robert Hays,
Robert Stack,
Tassoula
Monday, August 26, 2013
Sharknado
On Saturday night, I saw Sharnado, starring Ian Ziering and Cassie Scerbo.
Fin (Ziering) runs a bar on the Santa Monica pier and surfs in his spare time. Nova (Scerbo) serves drinks at his bar and becomes nervous when he heads out to the waves during a horrific storm.
Soon, the storm—California's first hurricane—takes over the whole city and Fin must race to save his family.
His estranged wife April (Tara Reid) resists his help until a shark makes its way into her home (yes, you read that right). Then, it's off to save their son who is across town at flight school. With their high maintenance teenage daughter in tow, as well.
If this sounds absurd, that's because it is. And shamelessly so. In fact, it's so camp-tastic that the crowd we were with in the theater hollered throughout the entire film and it didn't even bother me. In fact, I found that it added to the festive atmosphere.
Of course, the most exciting part of the film comes when the tornadoes form and of course, they form with sharks inside of them. If I wasn't laughing so hard, I may have been slightly scared.
Even more hilarious is the way they combat the tornadoes, but I don't want to spoil anything, so I won't be specific. Just know that I was in hysterics at their scientific solution.
Really folks, it doesn't get any cheesier or any funnier than Sharknado. I can hardly wait for the sequel.
Fin (Ziering) runs a bar on the Santa Monica pier and surfs in his spare time. Nova (Scerbo) serves drinks at his bar and becomes nervous when he heads out to the waves during a horrific storm.
Soon, the storm—California's first hurricane—takes over the whole city and Fin must race to save his family.
His estranged wife April (Tara Reid) resists his help until a shark makes its way into her home (yes, you read that right). Then, it's off to save their son who is across town at flight school. With their high maintenance teenage daughter in tow, as well.
If this sounds absurd, that's because it is. And shamelessly so. In fact, it's so camp-tastic that the crowd we were with in the theater hollered throughout the entire film and it didn't even bother me. In fact, I found that it added to the festive atmosphere.
Of course, the most exciting part of the film comes when the tornadoes form and of course, they form with sharks inside of them. If I wasn't laughing so hard, I may have been slightly scared.
Even more hilarious is the way they combat the tornadoes, but I don't want to spoil anything, so I won't be specific. Just know that I was in hysterics at their scientific solution.
Really folks, it doesn't get any cheesier or any funnier than Sharknado. I can hardly wait for the sequel.
Labels:
2013,
camp,
Cassie Scerbo,
horror,
Ian Ziering,
movie,
review,
Sharknado,
Tara Reid,
Tassoula
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Jobs
Yesterday I saw Jobs, starring Ashton Kutcher and Dermot Mulroney.
Steve Jobs (Kutcher) reigns as the most celebrated innovator in modern technology. As the man behind the Apple computer empire, Jobs wasn't known for being nice, but he was often referred to as a genius.
The film begins in his college years, as he experimented with drugs at a college in Oregon famous for its hippie culture. We see the visionary he became start to blossom at this time.
As he builds Apple with a couple of buddies in his parents' garage, the spark of something "great" is evident.
Investor Mike Markkula (Mulroney) recognizes this spark and foots the bill for getting the company off the ground. Once it's up and running, Jobs begins acting like a tyrant and develops a reputation for driving his teams too hard.
As someone with a background in marketing, I can appreciate Jobs' misunderstood passion and the frustration he must have encountered in people who didn't care about more than getting a paycheck. I found some of the scenes almost physically painful to watch because situations like his play out all the time in our industry.
Anyway, Ashton captures Jobs incredibly well—from the explosive temper to the distinctive walk, he nails him. All of the supporting characters do just fine as well. In fact, I'm not quite sure why so many critics are spewing such hatred for this film. Perhaps a buried resentment for the real guy? Who knows.
The only thing about the movie that truly disappointed me was that with few exceptions, Jobs' family life was totally ignored (including everything regarding his adoption), and we only got as far as him taking back the company.
For a man who gave so much to this world (including the MacBook Pro upon which I am now typing), it seems like his entire life should have been covered.
But maybe that's what the rival Steve Jobs movie will deliver, with Aaron Sorkin's writing to boot.
~~~
Steve Jobs (Kutcher) reigns as the most celebrated innovator in modern technology. As the man behind the Apple computer empire, Jobs wasn't known for being nice, but he was often referred to as a genius.
The film begins in his college years, as he experimented with drugs at a college in Oregon famous for its hippie culture. We see the visionary he became start to blossom at this time.
As he builds Apple with a couple of buddies in his parents' garage, the spark of something "great" is evident.
Investor Mike Markkula (Mulroney) recognizes this spark and foots the bill for getting the company off the ground. Once it's up and running, Jobs begins acting like a tyrant and develops a reputation for driving his teams too hard.
As someone with a background in marketing, I can appreciate Jobs' misunderstood passion and the frustration he must have encountered in people who didn't care about more than getting a paycheck. I found some of the scenes almost physically painful to watch because situations like his play out all the time in our industry.
Anyway, Ashton captures Jobs incredibly well—from the explosive temper to the distinctive walk, he nails him. All of the supporting characters do just fine as well. In fact, I'm not quite sure why so many critics are spewing such hatred for this film. Perhaps a buried resentment for the real guy? Who knows.
The only thing about the movie that truly disappointed me was that with few exceptions, Jobs' family life was totally ignored (including everything regarding his adoption), and we only got as far as him taking back the company.
For a man who gave so much to this world (including the MacBook Pro upon which I am now typing), it seems like his entire life should have been covered.
But maybe that's what the rival Steve Jobs movie will deliver, with Aaron Sorkin's writing to boot.
~~~
Labels:
2013,
Apple,
Ashton Kutcher,
film,
Jobs,
movie,
review,
Steve Jobs,
Tassoula
Sunday, March 24, 2013
The Croods
Today I saw The Croods, starring the voices of Emma Stone and Nicholas Cage.
Grug (Cage) Crood is just like any other father—he loves his family, acts as the breadwinner and is fiercely protective of his children.
Eep (Stone) Crood is just like any other teenage daughter—she hates being cooped up, is curious about the unknown and enjoys the company of cute guys.
The unique thing about this bunch is that they're prehistoric. They're cave-people who don't know how to advance past their hunter-gatherer stages because they refuse to explore the unknown.
There's an old saying that goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and the same could be said for Daddy Crood's philosophy. He means well, but doesn't let his family outside the cave once the sun goes down because "new is bad."
Eep challenges that rule by sneaking out as often as she can, and one night encounters Guy (Ryan Reynolds), a boy her age with a pet Sloth named Belt (who functions as one too). Because of her rebellious actions, her family must follow her, and the places they go are frightening and wonderful all the same.
Basically, the feature is a parable about the importance of keeping an open mind and taking risks (just in case they're worth it). The story—like the main family—is simple, but that's okay because of the audience it's targeting.
I had the pleasure of seeing the film with a 6 year-old boy and a 3 year-old girl. Both were absolutely silent and engrossed as the action played out.
If they weren't bored, I can't imagine many of the adults were either (I know I wasn't), and at the end of the day, the storyline preaching was minimal. This is a character-driven jaunt, starring fun, familiar voices, set in a time our evolution often causes us to forget.
It will remind you not to be afraid of the new—and not to forget how far you've come, either.
Grug (Cage) Crood is just like any other father—he loves his family, acts as the breadwinner and is fiercely protective of his children.
Eep (Stone) Crood is just like any other teenage daughter—she hates being cooped up, is curious about the unknown and enjoys the company of cute guys.
The unique thing about this bunch is that they're prehistoric. They're cave-people who don't know how to advance past their hunter-gatherer stages because they refuse to explore the unknown.
There's an old saying that goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and the same could be said for Daddy Crood's philosophy. He means well, but doesn't let his family outside the cave once the sun goes down because "new is bad."
Eep challenges that rule by sneaking out as often as she can, and one night encounters Guy (Ryan Reynolds), a boy her age with a pet Sloth named Belt (who functions as one too). Because of her rebellious actions, her family must follow her, and the places they go are frightening and wonderful all the same.
Basically, the feature is a parable about the importance of keeping an open mind and taking risks (just in case they're worth it). The story—like the main family—is simple, but that's okay because of the audience it's targeting.
I had the pleasure of seeing the film with a 6 year-old boy and a 3 year-old girl. Both were absolutely silent and engrossed as the action played out.
If they weren't bored, I can't imagine many of the adults were either (I know I wasn't), and at the end of the day, the storyline preaching was minimal. This is a character-driven jaunt, starring fun, familiar voices, set in a time our evolution often causes us to forget.
It will remind you not to be afraid of the new—and not to forget how far you've come, either.
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.
~~~
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Les Misérables
Today I saw Les Misérables, starring Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe.
The famous musical is so well-known at this point, I don't feel the need to recount the plot, but I will say that this rendition, sung live by its actors, certainly communicates the sentiment.
Director Tom Hooper thankfully doesn't add flash where none is necessary. Much like its anticipated awards season rival, Lincoln, it feels more like a stage performance than a film at some points, but that's forgiven in the context of the narrative.
Hugh Jackman couldn't be better as Valjean, with his earnest glances and dignified actions; Russell Crowe is equally superb as the rough Javert, nailing every line and mannerism.
Where I cringed a bit was when Anne Hathaway over-acted her part as Fantine, and her beautiful singing was overshadowed by her exaggerated looks of torture and despair. She would have been much more powerful if she'd played it understated. But oh, well. Her screen time is minimal after the first act, and others pick up where she left off—Amanda Seyfried as her daughter Cosette, and the refreshing Helena Bonham Carter as Madame Thénardier were welcome sights, as was Eddie Redmayne, who played an impressive Marius.
The aerial shots and meticulous costumes also add a grandeur to the film, which will surely be remembered at the Oscars for its sets and design, if not for its actors.
Overall, this is a satisfying, if not perfect, re-make of a story more often told as a play.
~~~
The famous musical is so well-known at this point, I don't feel the need to recount the plot, but I will say that this rendition, sung live by its actors, certainly communicates the sentiment.
Director Tom Hooper thankfully doesn't add flash where none is necessary. Much like its anticipated awards season rival, Lincoln, it feels more like a stage performance than a film at some points, but that's forgiven in the context of the narrative.
Hugh Jackman couldn't be better as Valjean, with his earnest glances and dignified actions; Russell Crowe is equally superb as the rough Javert, nailing every line and mannerism.
Where I cringed a bit was when Anne Hathaway over-acted her part as Fantine, and her beautiful singing was overshadowed by her exaggerated looks of torture and despair. She would have been much more powerful if she'd played it understated. But oh, well. Her screen time is minimal after the first act, and others pick up where she left off—Amanda Seyfried as her daughter Cosette, and the refreshing Helena Bonham Carter as Madame Thénardier were welcome sights, as was Eddie Redmayne, who played an impressive Marius.
The aerial shots and meticulous costumes also add a grandeur to the film, which will surely be remembered at the Oscars for its sets and design, if not for its actors.
Overall, this is a satisfying, if not perfect, re-make of a story more often told as a play.
~~~
Labels:
2012,
drama,
film,
France,
Hugh Jackman,
Les Miserables,
movie,
musical,
review,
Russell Crowe,
Tassoula
Monday, December 24, 2012
This Is 40
Tonight I saw This Is 40, starring Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd.
Debbie (Mann) and Pete (Rudd) are turning 40. Pete doesn't seem to mind it's happening to him, but Debbie has real trouble with it.
She begins to reflect on their family life (Mann's wonderful real-life children play their two daughters) and hopes to make positive changes before they get too old to enjoy one another.
Of course the more any of us try to plan our lives, the worse they turn out.
Pete is a cupcake-eating, secret-keeping, unwilling-to-face-reality loser who seems to care more about his record label than his marriage. Debbie is a judgmental, neurotic, worry wart who spies on her daughter's Facebook page and texts. The two only seem happy together when they escape for a weekend away and get high off marijuana cookies at a resort.
Though they try to make a 'deal' that they'll be better about kicking bad habits, and being nice to one another, all bets go out the window when the financial problems worsen and they begin calling their parents out on why they both turned out the way that they did.
I'm never a fan of films that justify adults blaming their parents for all of the problems in their grown-up lives, but luckily this film limits that rant to just a few scenes, so I can forgive it. It also shines a light on the lead couples' children calling their bluffs, so the absurdity is not lost on the audience.
The true-to-life dynamics between the children and the parents were some of the best points of the movie, even when it wasn't funny.
But mostly, it was funny.
I realize from my first few paragraphs, this film sounds heavy, but despite some isolated moments, it's really not. It's actually quite funny. And grown up, if you don't mind all the fighting.
Though I've not yet reached the dreaded age of 40, and don't have children of my own, I can relate to the fears about aging, and the frightening possibility that I may turn into a version of my parents.
Thankfully, this group of characters keeps it light enough to be enjoyable instead of haunting.
~~~
Debbie (Mann) and Pete (Rudd) are turning 40. Pete doesn't seem to mind it's happening to him, but Debbie has real trouble with it.
She begins to reflect on their family life (Mann's wonderful real-life children play their two daughters) and hopes to make positive changes before they get too old to enjoy one another.
Of course the more any of us try to plan our lives, the worse they turn out.
Pete is a cupcake-eating, secret-keeping, unwilling-to-face-reality loser who seems to care more about his record label than his marriage. Debbie is a judgmental, neurotic, worry wart who spies on her daughter's Facebook page and texts. The two only seem happy together when they escape for a weekend away and get high off marijuana cookies at a resort.
Though they try to make a 'deal' that they'll be better about kicking bad habits, and being nice to one another, all bets go out the window when the financial problems worsen and they begin calling their parents out on why they both turned out the way that they did.
I'm never a fan of films that justify adults blaming their parents for all of the problems in their grown-up lives, but luckily this film limits that rant to just a few scenes, so I can forgive it. It also shines a light on the lead couples' children calling their bluffs, so the absurdity is not lost on the audience.
The true-to-life dynamics between the children and the parents were some of the best points of the movie, even when it wasn't funny.
But mostly, it was funny.
I realize from my first few paragraphs, this film sounds heavy, but despite some isolated moments, it's really not. It's actually quite funny. And grown up, if you don't mind all the fighting.
Though I've not yet reached the dreaded age of 40, and don't have children of my own, I can relate to the fears about aging, and the frightening possibility that I may turn into a version of my parents.
Thankfully, this group of characters keeps it light enough to be enjoyable instead of haunting.
Sunday, December 02, 2012
The Collection
Yesterday I saw The Collection, starring Josh Stewart and Emma Fitzpatrick.
Elena (Fitzpatrick) is a privileged twenty-something who decides on a whim to go with her friends to a popular 'nightclub.' Unfortunately, the club has been booby-trapped by a sadistic killer and few will make it out alive.
The story is a sequel to The Collector, which I'll confess to having never seen, but I doubt previous experience with the characters would have made this any less horrific.
Basically, the living demon responsible for all of the murders is big on torture and 'collects' things: body parts, the sanity of his victims, and a few living souls who will wished they were spared life once they realize what he has planned for them.
In films like this, that are primarily 'scary' because of slamming doors and bloody scenes, I find it hard to register actual fear, because the effects are so distracting.
I'm much more interested in why a human being would want to inflict such pain on others than seeing how they do it.
The acting here is just fine, considering the dialog they're given to work with is so weak. Stewart as an escaped prisoner of the killer who is forced to return to the scene of the crime (to rescue the rich girl) is brooding and hesitant (as one would be) and Fitzpatrick's Elena is determined and strong, despite the fact she's probably been pampered all of her life.
There are plenty of great horror flicks out there these days; this is definitely not one of them.
~~~
Elena (Fitzpatrick) is a privileged twenty-something who decides on a whim to go with her friends to a popular 'nightclub.' Unfortunately, the club has been booby-trapped by a sadistic killer and few will make it out alive.
The story is a sequel to The Collector, which I'll confess to having never seen, but I doubt previous experience with the characters would have made this any less horrific.
Basically, the living demon responsible for all of the murders is big on torture and 'collects' things: body parts, the sanity of his victims, and a few living souls who will wished they were spared life once they realize what he has planned for them.
In films like this, that are primarily 'scary' because of slamming doors and bloody scenes, I find it hard to register actual fear, because the effects are so distracting.
I'm much more interested in why a human being would want to inflict such pain on others than seeing how they do it.
The acting here is just fine, considering the dialog they're given to work with is so weak. Stewart as an escaped prisoner of the killer who is forced to return to the scene of the crime (to rescue the rich girl) is brooding and hesitant (as one would be) and Fitzpatrick's Elena is determined and strong, despite the fact she's probably been pampered all of her life.
There are plenty of great horror flicks out there these days; this is definitely not one of them.
~~~
Labels:
2012,
Emma Fitzpatrick,
film,
gore,
horror,
movie,
review,
Tassoula,
The Collection
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Argo
Last night I saw Argo, starring Ben Affleck and Bryan Cranston.
Tony Mendez (Affleck) is an 'exfiltration' specialist for the CIA, which means he specializes in removing people from dangerous situations. Jack O'Donnell (Cranston) enlists Mendez to formulate a way to get six American Embassy refugees, currently in hiding at the Canadian ambassador's residence, home safely from an Iranian disaster zone. The year is 1979.
Though unconventional, Mendez has an idea to coach the six into portraying themselves as a Canadian film crew to get them out of the country. The general consensus is that the proposal "is so crazy it just might work," so the seal of approval is granted by the CIA to move forward with the plan.
Sounds like a great idea for a screenplay doesn't it? The twist is that this story is true. Painfully accurate, as a matter of fact. The events in this film really did happen and were unknown to the world until President Clinton de-classified the operation in the 1990s.
One may assume that because we know the ending the movie's sense of suspense will suffer, but that's not the case. Affleck, who also directed the film, has created a thriller masterpiece here. He's given us a truth-is-stranger-than-fiction plot, duplicated the physical appearance of the actors to look eerily like their real counterparts and delivered a film full of heart, humor and humility.
Though I knew how the story ended going into it, there were moments where I was actually holding my breath watching it all play out. The casting, the acting, the pacing, the writing—all superb.
It will be hard for another film to surpass the greatness of this one for me this year. Get to the theater right away and take it all in. You won't be disappointed (and do remember to stay for the credits).
~~~
Tony Mendez (Affleck) is an 'exfiltration' specialist for the CIA, which means he specializes in removing people from dangerous situations. Jack O'Donnell (Cranston) enlists Mendez to formulate a way to get six American Embassy refugees, currently in hiding at the Canadian ambassador's residence, home safely from an Iranian disaster zone. The year is 1979.
Though unconventional, Mendez has an idea to coach the six into portraying themselves as a Canadian film crew to get them out of the country. The general consensus is that the proposal "is so crazy it just might work," so the seal of approval is granted by the CIA to move forward with the plan.
Sounds like a great idea for a screenplay doesn't it? The twist is that this story is true. Painfully accurate, as a matter of fact. The events in this film really did happen and were unknown to the world until President Clinton de-classified the operation in the 1990s.
One may assume that because we know the ending the movie's sense of suspense will suffer, but that's not the case. Affleck, who also directed the film, has created a thriller masterpiece here. He's given us a truth-is-stranger-than-fiction plot, duplicated the physical appearance of the actors to look eerily like their real counterparts and delivered a film full of heart, humor and humility.
Though I knew how the story ended going into it, there were moments where I was actually holding my breath watching it all play out. The casting, the acting, the pacing, the writing—all superb.
It will be hard for another film to surpass the greatness of this one for me this year. Get to the theater right away and take it all in. You won't be disappointed (and do remember to stay for the credits).
~~~
Friday, September 28, 2012
Finding Nemo 3D
Tonight I saw the Pixar classic, Finding Nemo, in 3D.
Though I've seen the film dozens of times, until this evening, I had never seen it in 3D. And oh, how beautiful it was!
Nemo (Alexander Gould), a young clown fish, is angry with his father on the first day of school and swims to a nearby boat. His father, Marlin (Albert Brooks), goes after him but doesn't make it in time and a scuba diver scoops Nemo up.
The young fish lands in an aquarium at a Sydney, Australia dental office; his father desperately sets out (despite his own fears about the ocean) to find him.
Marlin soon meets up with a female fish, Dory, who is voiced by a hilarious Ellen DeGeneres. She suffers from short-term memory challenges, but thankfully remembers the address on the scuba diver's goggles so they can try to get to Nemo.
Nemo meanwhile has made friends with his fellow aquarium fish, as they are busy planning their escape.
Will they reunite? Well, if you haven't seen it by now, you should get yourself to a theater.
As with every Pixar film, there are delightful tidbits for the adults to enjoy while the kids marvel at the visuals. This is all underlined with a healthy dose of heart, delivered sentimentally in just the right places.
I think after seeing the vibrant ocean life pop with new dimension, I love this film even more than I did before.
~~~
Though I've seen the film dozens of times, until this evening, I had never seen it in 3D. And oh, how beautiful it was!
Nemo (Alexander Gould), a young clown fish, is angry with his father on the first day of school and swims to a nearby boat. His father, Marlin (Albert Brooks), goes after him but doesn't make it in time and a scuba diver scoops Nemo up.
The young fish lands in an aquarium at a Sydney, Australia dental office; his father desperately sets out (despite his own fears about the ocean) to find him.
Marlin soon meets up with a female fish, Dory, who is voiced by a hilarious Ellen DeGeneres. She suffers from short-term memory challenges, but thankfully remembers the address on the scuba diver's goggles so they can try to get to Nemo.
Nemo meanwhile has made friends with his fellow aquarium fish, as they are busy planning their escape.
Will they reunite? Well, if you haven't seen it by now, you should get yourself to a theater.
As with every Pixar film, there are delightful tidbits for the adults to enjoy while the kids marvel at the visuals. This is all underlined with a healthy dose of heart, delivered sentimentally in just the right places.
I think after seeing the vibrant ocean life pop with new dimension, I love this film even more than I did before.
~~~
Labels:
2012,
animation,
film,
Finding Nemo,
Finding Nemo 3D,
movie,
ocean,
Pixar,
review,
Tassoula
Friday, August 10, 2012
The Queen of Versailles
Tonight I saw the documentary The Queen of Versailles, directed by Lauren Greenfield.
Jackie and David Siegel are the epitome of the 1%. At the beginning of this film, they're in the progress of constructing the largest single family home in America. Their lives are all about excess: they have eight kids; 15 housekeepers; five nannies; drivers and more. They're active political contributors (David claims credit for getting W. elected for his first term) and are literally modeling the house they're building after the Palace of Versailles in France.
David is a time-share mogul who keeps growing his empire; his wife Jackie is a former model/computer engineer who just might be a hoarder. Of really expensive things.
Their world comes crashing down when the economy collapses and David is forced to halt construction on the mansion as he lays off thousands of employees to save the business. Times are tough—as long as you define "tough" as "flying commercial" and switching from private to public school for the kids.
On paper, they don't seem like a family that the average person would feel sorry for, but through the course of the narrative, you almost can't help but like them. Really, who wants to root against the American dream?
After all, they are self-made millionaires who both came from modest upbringings and were smart enough to build this wealth themselves. They do appear to have married for love, and their children seem like decent, kind people.
Maybe they aren't so bad, but gee it's hard to watch Jackie shop her way through a ghastly place like Wal-Mart for dozens of toys the kids clearly don't need.
One of the most touching scenes shows the family opening presents on Christmas morning and David explaining why a plain Hershey bar is one of his most treasured gifts. At the end of the day, he seems to get what's important but can't stop himself from being a business man.
At that is the moral of the story: watch out for the greed, because it almost always gets you in the end.
This was an incredibly watchable, human look at everyday people who became extraordinary and then normal again. Greenfield stays away from sensationalizing the situation and captures the family instead as they are—lucky for her, they're fascinating.
~~~
Jackie and David Siegel are the epitome of the 1%. At the beginning of this film, they're in the progress of constructing the largest single family home in America. Their lives are all about excess: they have eight kids; 15 housekeepers; five nannies; drivers and more. They're active political contributors (David claims credit for getting W. elected for his first term) and are literally modeling the house they're building after the Palace of Versailles in France.
David is a time-share mogul who keeps growing his empire; his wife Jackie is a former model/computer engineer who just might be a hoarder. Of really expensive things.
Their world comes crashing down when the economy collapses and David is forced to halt construction on the mansion as he lays off thousands of employees to save the business. Times are tough—as long as you define "tough" as "flying commercial" and switching from private to public school for the kids.
On paper, they don't seem like a family that the average person would feel sorry for, but through the course of the narrative, you almost can't help but like them. Really, who wants to root against the American dream?
After all, they are self-made millionaires who both came from modest upbringings and were smart enough to build this wealth themselves. They do appear to have married for love, and their children seem like decent, kind people.
Maybe they aren't so bad, but gee it's hard to watch Jackie shop her way through a ghastly place like Wal-Mart for dozens of toys the kids clearly don't need.
One of the most touching scenes shows the family opening presents on Christmas morning and David explaining why a plain Hershey bar is one of his most treasured gifts. At the end of the day, he seems to get what's important but can't stop himself from being a business man.
At that is the moral of the story: watch out for the greed, because it almost always gets you in the end.
This was an incredibly watchable, human look at everyday people who became extraordinary and then normal again. Greenfield stays away from sensationalizing the situation and captures the family instead as they are—lucky for her, they're fascinating.
~~~
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Beauty and the Beast in 3D
Last night I saw the animated classic Beauty and the Beast in 3D.
I loved the film the first time I saw it, became addicted to its infectious soundtrack and even dressed as Belle for Halloween. Seldom does an animated film capture me so.
Belle is a village girl who loves books and her eccentric father, Maurice. Gaston is the macho man of the town who wants Belle to be his wife.
Maurice is a confused inventor who accidentally ends up in the castle of the Beast, a former prince under a nasty spell that can only be broken by finding true love.
The Beast, so bitter about his situation, takes Maurice as his prisoner until Belle finds him and offers herself in his place. The Beast allows the switch, hoping that Belle will learn to love him and break the spell.
His lively staff of servants (a teapot and her young son; a candlestick, etc.) hope for the best (they'd like to be turned back into humans too) and welcome Belle with open arms. In fact, one of the shining moments in the film is the song "Be Our Guest," where the kitchen comes to life with an impressive song and dance as they serve Belle her first dinner.
Anyhow, most know how the story turns out, but just in case there are any left who don't, I'll refrain from spoiling.
Just know that the magic and beauty of the original version of the film is only intensified by this 3D treatment, and the story remains charmingly timeless.
It's not hard to tell why it was a Best Picture Oscar nominee—as you're watching, you sometimes forget you're seeing animation.
It's that good.
~~~
I loved the film the first time I saw it, became addicted to its infectious soundtrack and even dressed as Belle for Halloween. Seldom does an animated film capture me so.
Belle is a village girl who loves books and her eccentric father, Maurice. Gaston is the macho man of the town who wants Belle to be his wife.
Maurice is a confused inventor who accidentally ends up in the castle of the Beast, a former prince under a nasty spell that can only be broken by finding true love.
The Beast, so bitter about his situation, takes Maurice as his prisoner until Belle finds him and offers herself in his place. The Beast allows the switch, hoping that Belle will learn to love him and break the spell.
His lively staff of servants (a teapot and her young son; a candlestick, etc.) hope for the best (they'd like to be turned back into humans too) and welcome Belle with open arms. In fact, one of the shining moments in the film is the song "Be Our Guest," where the kitchen comes to life with an impressive song and dance as they serve Belle her first dinner.
Anyhow, most know how the story turns out, but just in case there are any left who don't, I'll refrain from spoiling.
Just know that the magic and beauty of the original version of the film is only intensified by this 3D treatment, and the story remains charmingly timeless.
It's not hard to tell why it was a Best Picture Oscar nominee—as you're watching, you sometimes forget you're seeing animation.
It's that good.
~~~
Labels:
1991,
2012,
3D,
animation,
Beauty and the Beast,
love story,
movie,
Oscar nominee,
review,
Tassoula
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Tillman Story
Tonight I saw The Tillman Story, a documentary about the late Pat Tillman.
It's a story that's far too familiar: a good American man wants to serve his country so he enlists in the military, goes on a tour of duty and is killed in the line of fire.
Only Pat Tillman wasn't just any soldier—he was a former football star who gave up millions of dollars and the promise of doing something he loved for the rest of his life to fight for the US.
Sent to Iraq (alongside his younger brother, who enlisted at the same time), Private Tillman was killed on Earth Day in 2004 by members of his own troop. First, the military claimed Tillman was a hero in combat against the enemy. Then, when word got out that it was truly friendly fire that got him, they billed it as an "accident." But the men who served alongside Pat knew better, and eventually, they spoke.
Tillman's mother, Mary, simply wanted the truth she was entitled to, and that's what this film is about.
It's about a family's struggle for answers, a group of soldiers who were friends of Tillman and wanted the truth to come out, and a collective of high-level government officials who covered up the real story so they could turn the Tillman death into a public relations stunt in favor of the war.
Talking head interviews with Tillman's family and fellow soldiers are the bulk of the film, but the commentary is never dull. We see footage of formal hearings, scenes from his memorial service in San Jose, and video from the actual day he died, in the area where he perished.
The movie is at once frustrating and devastating, but there is validity in its existence if only to expose the corrupt powers-that-be to anyone left who may mistake them for honorable.
Refreshing as well is the approach Tillman's mother has, which indicates she doesn't want her son to be thought of as a hero any more than any other soldier who traded his life for his country.
Though the lack of closure in the matter may make you angry as you leave the theater, you'll be proud to know that true Americans like the Tillmans still exist.
~~~
It's a story that's far too familiar: a good American man wants to serve his country so he enlists in the military, goes on a tour of duty and is killed in the line of fire.
Only Pat Tillman wasn't just any soldier—he was a former football star who gave up millions of dollars and the promise of doing something he loved for the rest of his life to fight for the US.
Sent to Iraq (alongside his younger brother, who enlisted at the same time), Private Tillman was killed on Earth Day in 2004 by members of his own troop. First, the military claimed Tillman was a hero in combat against the enemy. Then, when word got out that it was truly friendly fire that got him, they billed it as an "accident." But the men who served alongside Pat knew better, and eventually, they spoke.
Tillman's mother, Mary, simply wanted the truth she was entitled to, and that's what this film is about.
It's about a family's struggle for answers, a group of soldiers who were friends of Tillman and wanted the truth to come out, and a collective of high-level government officials who covered up the real story so they could turn the Tillman death into a public relations stunt in favor of the war.
Talking head interviews with Tillman's family and fellow soldiers are the bulk of the film, but the commentary is never dull. We see footage of formal hearings, scenes from his memorial service in San Jose, and video from the actual day he died, in the area where he perished.
The movie is at once frustrating and devastating, but there is validity in its existence if only to expose the corrupt powers-that-be to anyone left who may mistake them for honorable.
Refreshing as well is the approach Tillman's mother has, which indicates she doesn't want her son to be thought of as a hero any more than any other soldier who traded his life for his country.
Though the lack of closure in the matter may make you angry as you leave the theater, you'll be proud to know that true Americans like the Tillmans still exist.
~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)