Tonight I saw Fifty Shades of Grey, starring Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson.
Those who were able to make it through the not-so-well-written book know the story: a handsome Seattle billionaire becomes enamored with a virginal college student and requests that she become his submissive. There is paperwork and playrooms, and all sorts of kinky toys.
At the heart of the "plot," Christian Grey (Dornan) and Anastasia Steele (Johnson) play an extended game of cat and mouse, each giving up parts of themselves in pursuit of the other, while deciding whether or not to stay the course.
The film stays pretty faithful to the book, which means there's really not a lot to it, but that is no fault of the actors, who do the absolute best with what they are given.
Dornan is like a young Colin Firth, endearing and doe-eyed; Johnson just sweet and innocent enough to be convincing. Their chemistry is strong and they sell the love/lust debacle as best as could be expected (though I could have done with less of Johnson's bony rib cage and more of Dornan in general).
But the dialog is ridiculous (again, faithful to the book) and the pace is painfully (no pun intended) slow. The only saving grace is that if you view it as pure camp, it's actually pretty fun.
Go into the film not planning to take one tiny moment seriously and you will laugh sincerely as you blush your way through the (not so) explicit sex scenes. Cheer every time you see a shot of Seattle (the local audience I saw it with did) and chuckle when the pillow talk is nonsense.
You'll have fun with it (and maybe even anticipate the sequel).
~~~
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Sunday, February 08, 2015
Two Days, One Night
Today I saw Two Days, One Night, starring Marion Cotillard.
Every one of us can name a time in our lives when we've been at the mercy of others—whether it be due to issues of health, finances or circumstance. The vulnerability that we feel in those moments is gripping.
Take that vulnerability and pile it on top of a woman who has just recovered from a terrible spell of depression and you have our main character here, Sandra (Cotillard). Her horrible boss has just asked each employee at her place of business if they would prefer to get a bonus or keep Sandra on the team. Financially, the business can't do both. Naturally, the majority choose the bonus, but after a confrontation with Sandra (and her supportive colleague), the boss agrees to have a 're-count' via secret ballot on Monday in case some felt pressured to vote against her.
With the eleventh-hour appeal granted, Sandra sets about (with the help of her husband) to visit each of her colleagues over the weekend and convince them to change their vote. This is a humbling feat, to say the least.
Sandra is the perfect hot mess; she wears bright-colored tops that contrast her unwashed hair and ashen face, only intensifying the pain she feels each time she has to 'beg' someone she works with for a second chance. She drinks water almost compulsively (choking down the pills that dull her feelings) and passively admits defeat when some say there's no way they will change their vote.
Marion Cotillard plays her straight, as the directing team of the Dardenne brothers always command. She's clearly the most beautiful person on screen, but you wouldn't know it from her demeanor. She just seems like someone who loves her family and tries harder than most to get out of bed each day.
The entire film is really a series of uncomfortable conversations, but as find ourselves shifting in our seats, we realized we're also glued to them—not even dreaming about getting up until we learn the outcome.
The gift the Dardenne brothers have for making us care about those down on their luck (see: The Kid with a Bike and L'Enfant for further reference) still burns bright.
~~~
Every one of us can name a time in our lives when we've been at the mercy of others—whether it be due to issues of health, finances or circumstance. The vulnerability that we feel in those moments is gripping.
Take that vulnerability and pile it on top of a woman who has just recovered from a terrible spell of depression and you have our main character here, Sandra (Cotillard). Her horrible boss has just asked each employee at her place of business if they would prefer to get a bonus or keep Sandra on the team. Financially, the business can't do both. Naturally, the majority choose the bonus, but after a confrontation with Sandra (and her supportive colleague), the boss agrees to have a 're-count' via secret ballot on Monday in case some felt pressured to vote against her.
With the eleventh-hour appeal granted, Sandra sets about (with the help of her husband) to visit each of her colleagues over the weekend and convince them to change their vote. This is a humbling feat, to say the least.
Sandra is the perfect hot mess; she wears bright-colored tops that contrast her unwashed hair and ashen face, only intensifying the pain she feels each time she has to 'beg' someone she works with for a second chance. She drinks water almost compulsively (choking down the pills that dull her feelings) and passively admits defeat when some say there's no way they will change their vote.
Marion Cotillard plays her straight, as the directing team of the Dardenne brothers always command. She's clearly the most beautiful person on screen, but you wouldn't know it from her demeanor. She just seems like someone who loves her family and tries harder than most to get out of bed each day.
The entire film is really a series of uncomfortable conversations, but as find ourselves shifting in our seats, we realized we're also glued to them—not even dreaming about getting up until we learn the outcome.
The gift the Dardenne brothers have for making us care about those down on their luck (see: The Kid with a Bike and L'Enfant for further reference) still burns bright.
~~~
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Still Alice
Tonight I saw Still Alice, starring Julianne Moore and Alec Baldwin.
Alice (Moore) is a linguistics professor who has just turned 50 when she realizes she's becoming very forgetful. To be on the safe side, she begins working with a neurologist, who slowly rules out strokes, a tumor, etc. leaving her with the diagnosis of early onset Alzheimer's Disease.
Alice takes the news as well as can be expected, but harbors horrible guilt over the fact she may have passed the same gene on to her children. Her husband John (Baldwin), is a pillar of support, never leaving her side, never making her feel a burden.
Things are more complicated with her youngest daughter, Lydia (Kristen Stewart), who she has always wished would do more with her life than pursue an acting career. They bicker and battle even after the diagnosis, though they clearly both love one another very much.
It's a solid movie about a horrible ailment with a very authentic fictional family demonstrating how hard it can be in every aspect of the patient's deterioration. Events like this are every person's worst nightmare, but somehow we keep watching films and reading books about them, perhaps to prepare ourselves in case it strikes someone we love.
The performance by Julianne Moore here is predictably phenomenal. She communicates the strength of her character well, while also showing the complexity of her vulnerability as her condition progresses. Baldwin is also great in what is perhaps his most understated dramatic role.
It's not an easy film to watch; nor enjoyable, but will serve as a catalyst for tears if you're in place where that sort of release would be welcome.
A piece of cinema that will be difficult to forget.
~~~
Alice (Moore) is a linguistics professor who has just turned 50 when she realizes she's becoming very forgetful. To be on the safe side, she begins working with a neurologist, who slowly rules out strokes, a tumor, etc. leaving her with the diagnosis of early onset Alzheimer's Disease.
Alice takes the news as well as can be expected, but harbors horrible guilt over the fact she may have passed the same gene on to her children. Her husband John (Baldwin), is a pillar of support, never leaving her side, never making her feel a burden.
Things are more complicated with her youngest daughter, Lydia (Kristen Stewart), who she has always wished would do more with her life than pursue an acting career. They bicker and battle even after the diagnosis, though they clearly both love one another very much.
It's a solid movie about a horrible ailment with a very authentic fictional family demonstrating how hard it can be in every aspect of the patient's deterioration. Events like this are every person's worst nightmare, but somehow we keep watching films and reading books about them, perhaps to prepare ourselves in case it strikes someone we love.
The performance by Julianne Moore here is predictably phenomenal. She communicates the strength of her character well, while also showing the complexity of her vulnerability as her condition progresses. Baldwin is also great in what is perhaps his most understated dramatic role.
It's not an easy film to watch; nor enjoyable, but will serve as a catalyst for tears if you're in place where that sort of release would be welcome.
A piece of cinema that will be difficult to forget.
~~~
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.
~~~
Cake
Today I saw Cake, starring Jennifer Aniston and Adriana Barraza.
Claire Bennett (Aniston) suffers from chronic pain. After a debilitating car accident, she becomes a different woman: bitter, angry, stiff and mean.
Silvana (Barraza) is the sympathetic housekeeper/caregiver who worked for her prior to the event. She does what she can to ease the suffering, and seems to be the only one around who hasn't given up on her (Claire's kind husband has since moved out).
Mrs. Bennett, as Silvana calls her, goes through all the motions of coping with her ailment: she attends a therapy group; shows up for swimming therapy and takes her medicine. Actually, she takes too much medicine, as evidenced by hiding pills behind paintings and forcing Silvana to take her to Mexico for additional prescriptions. Quite frankly, she's a mess. But she knows it and doesn't seem to care.
Her situation takes a different shape when her friend Nina (Anna Kendrick), commits suicide. Claire suddenly has something else to focus on, and that focus manifests into visits to the death site and time spent with Nina's surviving family. The question is: does she want to learn about it so she can build the courage to go through with it herself, or attempt to get better in spite of it?
The journey Claire takes isn't easy, and Aniston is so phenomenal in the role, you'll start to feel your muscles ache as you shift in your theater seat. Her communication of the pain—both physical and mental—is nearly tangible it's so real.
In fact, after seeing this, and remembering Aniston years ago in Friends With Money and The Good Girl, I wish she'd pursue more dramatic roles, preferably with scripts as great as this one.
So let's talk about the writing by Patrick Tobin: the dialogue is authentic, the scenarios believable and the plot's not even close to formulaic. The pace mirrors real life in that it speeds up sometimes and goes frustratingly slow at others. We're never sure where Claire is going, because she isn't either.
At heart, we're asked to examine how we react when confronted with the unthinkable and how that reaction determines how or if we'll recover from it.
Go see the film for Aniston's performance, and be reminded that most of us have it very easy.
~~~
Claire Bennett (Aniston) suffers from chronic pain. After a debilitating car accident, she becomes a different woman: bitter, angry, stiff and mean.
Silvana (Barraza) is the sympathetic housekeeper/caregiver who worked for her prior to the event. She does what she can to ease the suffering, and seems to be the only one around who hasn't given up on her (Claire's kind husband has since moved out).
Mrs. Bennett, as Silvana calls her, goes through all the motions of coping with her ailment: she attends a therapy group; shows up for swimming therapy and takes her medicine. Actually, she takes too much medicine, as evidenced by hiding pills behind paintings and forcing Silvana to take her to Mexico for additional prescriptions. Quite frankly, she's a mess. But she knows it and doesn't seem to care.
Her situation takes a different shape when her friend Nina (Anna Kendrick), commits suicide. Claire suddenly has something else to focus on, and that focus manifests into visits to the death site and time spent with Nina's surviving family. The question is: does she want to learn about it so she can build the courage to go through with it herself, or attempt to get better in spite of it?
The journey Claire takes isn't easy, and Aniston is so phenomenal in the role, you'll start to feel your muscles ache as you shift in your theater seat. Her communication of the pain—both physical and mental—is nearly tangible it's so real.
In fact, after seeing this, and remembering Aniston years ago in Friends With Money and The Good Girl, I wish she'd pursue more dramatic roles, preferably with scripts as great as this one.
So let's talk about the writing by Patrick Tobin: the dialogue is authentic, the scenarios believable and the plot's not even close to formulaic. The pace mirrors real life in that it speeds up sometimes and goes frustratingly slow at others. We're never sure where Claire is going, because she isn't either.
At heart, we're asked to examine how we react when confronted with the unthinkable and how that reaction determines how or if we'll recover from it.
Go see the film for Aniston's performance, and be reminded that most of us have it very easy.
~~~
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Citizenfour
Tonight I saw the documentary Citizenfour, created by Laura Poitras.
The film documents Edward Snowden's journey in leaking information about the National Security Agency (NSA) to the media, thus igniting a firestorm of controversy that rippled across the world.
I'll admit—when I first heard about Snowden's leaks, I had mixed emotions. Part of me thought he seemed like a brat who probably just wanted attention (and could have taken a more appropriate path to reveal what he knew); the other part of me silently hoped he was just an attention-seeker, because if he was revealing the truth, our country was in real trouble.
Over time, after reading up on the case against him and hearing about how extensive the surveillance was (is) on all of our American communications, I couldn't help but think he's a hero with a noble cause. After seeing this movie, which is admittedly biased in his favor, I still think his actions took courage.
What was most frightening was how quickly the authorities moved in on his girlfriend, the journalists investigating his claims, etc. Being a whistleblower is dangerous; loving a whistleblower or helping them blow said whistle is undeniably risky.
I appreciated the candor of Snowden in this film, and the way that Poitras virtually took herself out of the narrative unless she was reading their correspondence aloud.
Whatever side you're on as an American (or as a foreigner who may also be affected by such intrusions of privacy), this film is powerful enough to give you pause.
~~~
The film documents Edward Snowden's journey in leaking information about the National Security Agency (NSA) to the media, thus igniting a firestorm of controversy that rippled across the world.
I'll admit—when I first heard about Snowden's leaks, I had mixed emotions. Part of me thought he seemed like a brat who probably just wanted attention (and could have taken a more appropriate path to reveal what he knew); the other part of me silently hoped he was just an attention-seeker, because if he was revealing the truth, our country was in real trouble.
Over time, after reading up on the case against him and hearing about how extensive the surveillance was (is) on all of our American communications, I couldn't help but think he's a hero with a noble cause. After seeing this movie, which is admittedly biased in his favor, I still think his actions took courage.
What was most frightening was how quickly the authorities moved in on his girlfriend, the journalists investigating his claims, etc. Being a whistleblower is dangerous; loving a whistleblower or helping them blow said whistle is undeniably risky.
I appreciated the candor of Snowden in this film, and the way that Poitras virtually took herself out of the narrative unless she was reading their correspondence aloud.
Whatever side you're on as an American (or as a foreigner who may also be affected by such intrusions of privacy), this film is powerful enough to give you pause.
~~~
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Birdman
Tonight I saw Birdman, starring Michael Keaton and Edward Norton.
Riggan Thomson (Keaton) is a washed-up actor who played a famous superhero in decades past. People in his life (his daughter, his ex-wife) seem to care about him, though his narcissism makes his persona difficult for the audience to embrace.
When we meet him, he's thrown everything that he has into creating a Broadway play in hopes of staging a comeback/feeling important/remaining relevant. In this play are a sparring couple, Lesley (Naomi Watts) and Mike (Norton); both of whom have their issues too. Thomson's daughter, Sam (Emma Stone), fresh from rehab, acts as his reluctant assistant.
As they spiral toward opening night, the theater is in chaos, mostly due to its stars. Thomson and the voice he hears inside his head (strangely sounding just like an early '90s Batman) mixed with the nuttiness of method-actor-Mike, makes the shaky camera work here seem almost necessary.
But it really isn't. In fact, that technique only made the film seem as if it were desperate to remain as relevant as its star. As if the distraction of dizziness would make up for the substance that the story so sorely lacks.
I'm astounded by the praise this film is receiving. I don't take any issue with the performances (though I'd put Norton's ahead of Keaton's in any race), but a screenplay so all over the place shouldn't be mistaken for genius. The special effects and the pretentious speeches take any heart that could have been evident and throw it out the window ... onto a safe ledge, where everyone in this film seems to land.
The saving grace that kept me from throwing in the towel and just walking out was the chemistry between Stone and Norton. Although Stone is distractingly styled to look like an Edward Gorey character, eyes bugging for effect, there is an actual connection between her and Norton in the few scenes they share. Never mind the age difference, these two could be believed as a mismatched, dysfunctional pair that for some reason work.
Unfortunately that wasn't enough for me to jump on the bandwagon and hold this up to other Oscar nominees in the Best Picture category. It's just not that profound.
~~~
Riggan Thomson (Keaton) is a washed-up actor who played a famous superhero in decades past. People in his life (his daughter, his ex-wife) seem to care about him, though his narcissism makes his persona difficult for the audience to embrace.
When we meet him, he's thrown everything that he has into creating a Broadway play in hopes of staging a comeback/feeling important/remaining relevant. In this play are a sparring couple, Lesley (Naomi Watts) and Mike (Norton); both of whom have their issues too. Thomson's daughter, Sam (Emma Stone), fresh from rehab, acts as his reluctant assistant.
As they spiral toward opening night, the theater is in chaos, mostly due to its stars. Thomson and the voice he hears inside his head (strangely sounding just like an early '90s Batman) mixed with the nuttiness of method-actor-Mike, makes the shaky camera work here seem almost necessary.
But it really isn't. In fact, that technique only made the film seem as if it were desperate to remain as relevant as its star. As if the distraction of dizziness would make up for the substance that the story so sorely lacks.
I'm astounded by the praise this film is receiving. I don't take any issue with the performances (though I'd put Norton's ahead of Keaton's in any race), but a screenplay so all over the place shouldn't be mistaken for genius. The special effects and the pretentious speeches take any heart that could have been evident and throw it out the window ... onto a safe ledge, where everyone in this film seems to land.
The saving grace that kept me from throwing in the towel and just walking out was the chemistry between Stone and Norton. Although Stone is distractingly styled to look like an Edward Gorey character, eyes bugging for effect, there is an actual connection between her and Norton in the few scenes they share. Never mind the age difference, these two could be believed as a mismatched, dysfunctional pair that for some reason work.
Unfortunately that wasn't enough for me to jump on the bandwagon and hold this up to other Oscar nominees in the Best Picture category. It's just not that profound.
~~~
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Whiplash
Tonight I saw Whiplash, starring Miles Teller and J. K. Simmons.
Based loosely on writer/director Damien Chazelle's own experiences, the film chronicles the study of Andrew (Teller) under the direction of Fletcher (Simmons) at the country's most prestigious school of music.
Andrew is just 19, the youngest one in the studio program, when he begins his jazz drills under the tough instructor. And when I say 'tough', I don't mean 'difficult' or 'challenging,' I mean downright menacing with a touch of evil.
Fletcher's character is the kind of guy who will pretend as if he's interested in you to learn personal things about you, solely for the purpose of someday using them against you. He's also (apparently) homophobic judging from the theme of his many slurs—used to make the students 'better' musicians, of course.
Although he's stronger than many of his classmates, Andrew does have moments of weakness, which Fletcher preys upon every chance he gets. It's really 107 minutes of watching excruciating pain and discomfort. But that doesn't mean it's bad.
Perhaps I had a visceral reaction to it because I had a family member and a dance coach who behaved in very similar fashions, but the fact I did recoil tells me there was something there to feel.
The performances are first rate, and the Oscar nomination Simmons received may even be unfairly shadowing the brilliance of Teller, who wears every moment of his journey on his face. We always know what he's thinking, even when he's not vocalizing.
I also appreciated the camera angles on the instruments, and the director's gift of perspective. I always felt like I was in that band room or on that stage.
Forgiving the painfully formulaic aspects of the movie, and going in to appreciate it vs. enjoy it makes it a fully worthwhile watch.
~~~
Based loosely on writer/director Damien Chazelle's own experiences, the film chronicles the study of Andrew (Teller) under the direction of Fletcher (Simmons) at the country's most prestigious school of music.
Andrew is just 19, the youngest one in the studio program, when he begins his jazz drills under the tough instructor. And when I say 'tough', I don't mean 'difficult' or 'challenging,' I mean downright menacing with a touch of evil.
Fletcher's character is the kind of guy who will pretend as if he's interested in you to learn personal things about you, solely for the purpose of someday using them against you. He's also (apparently) homophobic judging from the theme of his many slurs—used to make the students 'better' musicians, of course.
Although he's stronger than many of his classmates, Andrew does have moments of weakness, which Fletcher preys upon every chance he gets. It's really 107 minutes of watching excruciating pain and discomfort. But that doesn't mean it's bad.
Perhaps I had a visceral reaction to it because I had a family member and a dance coach who behaved in very similar fashions, but the fact I did recoil tells me there was something there to feel.
The performances are first rate, and the Oscar nomination Simmons received may even be unfairly shadowing the brilliance of Teller, who wears every moment of his journey on his face. We always know what he's thinking, even when he's not vocalizing.
I also appreciated the camera angles on the instruments, and the director's gift of perspective. I always felt like I was in that band room or on that stage.
Forgiving the painfully formulaic aspects of the movie, and going in to appreciate it vs. enjoy it makes it a fully worthwhile watch.
~~~
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Mortdecai
Tonight I screened Mortdecai, starring Johnny Depp and Ewan McGregor.
Art dealer Charlie Mortdecai (Depp) is going broke and in danger of losing his luxurious estate. To keep wifey Johanna (Gwyneth Paltrow) happy, he agrees to work with rival Martland (McGregor) to try to help recover a prized painting.
Along the way, he's confronted by many others who are hungry for the artwork and faces grave danger each step of the way. Luckily, he has backup in his "man servant" (Paul Bettany) along with his endless wit.
Sound ridiculous? Well, it is ... but it's supposed to be. And if you can embrace the absurd and hang on for the ride (which takes you from London to Russia to America and back again), the charms of the leading men and the fast pace of the caper will delight you.
~~~
Art dealer Charlie Mortdecai (Depp) is going broke and in danger of losing his luxurious estate. To keep wifey Johanna (Gwyneth Paltrow) happy, he agrees to work with rival Martland (McGregor) to try to help recover a prized painting.
Along the way, he's confronted by many others who are hungry for the artwork and faces grave danger each step of the way. Luckily, he has backup in his "man servant" (Paul Bettany) along with his endless wit.
Sound ridiculous? Well, it is ... but it's supposed to be. And if you can embrace the absurd and hang on for the ride (which takes you from London to Russia to America and back again), the charms of the leading men and the fast pace of the caper will delight you.
~~~
Monday, January 12, 2015
Selma
Tonight I saw Selma, starring David Oyelowo and Carmen Ejogo.
The year is 1965 and a team of activists, led my Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are planning a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to fight for their right to vote. The Civil Rights movement is brimming with electricity and the South is having none of it.
In this film, we see Dr. King (Oyelowo) like we never have before: vulnerable, hesitant, guilty—even remorseful. He's still the hero we all recognize, but here, Director Ava DuVernay shows him for the human he was. Imperfect, troubled, brilliant and thoughtful. Oyelowo resembles him so much that each frame of the movie feels like one more step into a time machine. One that reminds us even the greatest of men have their flaws.
His wife Coretta (Ejogo) is also refreshingly real, taking her husband to task for his alleged infidelity, and expressing her (prophetic) fears about his certain death. She's quiet and stoic, but definitely no pushover.
And the film isn't just about the Kings; it's about so much more. It's about everyday people who fought for justice in a time of horrible racial tension. It's about overcoming ignorance. It's about coming to the end of one's collective tether. It's about righting decades of wrongs. It's about growing an America we can all be proud of, someday.
The film filled me with such rage, I only wish I'd been alive at the time to march alongside the group (I would be born 10 years later, unfortunately). Today's demonstrations, which are sadly still necessary, just don't seem to possess the same conviction these noble Americans had.
Our present day protesters don't have the organization, the discipline, the strength of spirit that those in the 60s worked so hard to perfect. Instead, the core good people that mobilize for change now are overshadowed by the directionless, needy idiots who only want to be sure their mug makes it to social media.
Everyone should see Selma. If not for the history lesson, than for the reminder that justice is worth the fight at any cost.
And we still have so far to go.
~~~
The year is 1965 and a team of activists, led my Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are planning a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to fight for their right to vote. The Civil Rights movement is brimming with electricity and the South is having none of it.
In this film, we see Dr. King (Oyelowo) like we never have before: vulnerable, hesitant, guilty—even remorseful. He's still the hero we all recognize, but here, Director Ava DuVernay shows him for the human he was. Imperfect, troubled, brilliant and thoughtful. Oyelowo resembles him so much that each frame of the movie feels like one more step into a time machine. One that reminds us even the greatest of men have their flaws.
His wife Coretta (Ejogo) is also refreshingly real, taking her husband to task for his alleged infidelity, and expressing her (prophetic) fears about his certain death. She's quiet and stoic, but definitely no pushover.
And the film isn't just about the Kings; it's about so much more. It's about everyday people who fought for justice in a time of horrible racial tension. It's about overcoming ignorance. It's about coming to the end of one's collective tether. It's about righting decades of wrongs. It's about growing an America we can all be proud of, someday.
The film filled me with such rage, I only wish I'd been alive at the time to march alongside the group (I would be born 10 years later, unfortunately). Today's demonstrations, which are sadly still necessary, just don't seem to possess the same conviction these noble Americans had.
Our present day protesters don't have the organization, the discipline, the strength of spirit that those in the 60s worked so hard to perfect. Instead, the core good people that mobilize for change now are overshadowed by the directionless, needy idiots who only want to be sure their mug makes it to social media.
Everyone should see Selma. If not for the history lesson, than for the reminder that justice is worth the fight at any cost.
And we still have so far to go.
~~~
Friday, January 09, 2015
Into the Woods
Tonight I saw Into the Woods, starring Emily Blunt and James Corden.
The famous Sondheim musical is translated to the big screen here under the direction of Chicago's Rob Marshall.
Along this journey of fractured fairy tales we meet Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) and [The Big Bad] Wolf (Johnny Depp), Jack and the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone) and his mother (Tracey Ullman), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), a baker (Corden) and his wife (Blunt), as well as an evil witch (Meryl Streep) along with a whole host of familiar supporting characters.
When we arrive, the witch has promised to remove the spell of infertility she cast upon the baker and his wife if they bring her four specific items: Little Red Riding Hood's cape; hair like a cornstalk; Cinderella's shoe and a white cow.
The couple desperately seeks to gather the items and while they search, we see the characters play out the narratives we all know from childhood.
At heart, this is a comedic slant on all of the most famous stories, brought to life by some of the most recognizable faces in show business.
Though Meryl Streep is getting all of the press, I was actually most taken with Emily Blunt's performance. Who knew she had such a gorgeous singing voice? When did she become just as great at comedy as she's always been at drama? Here, she absolutely shines.
James Corden makes a lovely complement to Blunt's sincere performance as well. You can't help but sympathize with his ridden-with-guilt face and root for him, despite his weaknesses.
The children are more precocious than cute, but perhaps that was intentional, and Tracey Ullman and Johnny Depp were sorely underused. Depp's howl at the moon was a nice touch, though.
Kids may squirm through the singing, and adults like me will be ready for it to end long before its finale, but there are worse ways you could spend your time.
~~~
The famous Sondheim musical is translated to the big screen here under the direction of Chicago's Rob Marshall.
Along this journey of fractured fairy tales we meet Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) and [The Big Bad] Wolf (Johnny Depp), Jack and the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone) and his mother (Tracey Ullman), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), a baker (Corden) and his wife (Blunt), as well as an evil witch (Meryl Streep) along with a whole host of familiar supporting characters.
When we arrive, the witch has promised to remove the spell of infertility she cast upon the baker and his wife if they bring her four specific items: Little Red Riding Hood's cape; hair like a cornstalk; Cinderella's shoe and a white cow.
The couple desperately seeks to gather the items and while they search, we see the characters play out the narratives we all know from childhood.
At heart, this is a comedic slant on all of the most famous stories, brought to life by some of the most recognizable faces in show business.
Though Meryl Streep is getting all of the press, I was actually most taken with Emily Blunt's performance. Who knew she had such a gorgeous singing voice? When did she become just as great at comedy as she's always been at drama? Here, she absolutely shines.
James Corden makes a lovely complement to Blunt's sincere performance as well. You can't help but sympathize with his ridden-with-guilt face and root for him, despite his weaknesses.
The children are more precocious than cute, but perhaps that was intentional, and Tracey Ullman and Johnny Depp were sorely underused. Depp's howl at the moon was a nice touch, though.
Kids may squirm through the singing, and adults like me will be ready for it to end long before its finale, but there are worse ways you could spend your time.
~~~
Thursday, January 08, 2015
The Imitation Game
Tonight I saw The Imitation Game, starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Matthew Goode.
Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) was a mathematician seeking a challenge during World War II. He found it when he scored a job with the British government and joined a team tasked with cracking a difficult German code.
Always perceived to be 'difficult', Turing had trouble getting along with his peers and preferred to work alone. When that wasn't an option for the top-secret, highly time-sensitive project he was assigned to, he became rivals with Hugh (Goode), a more attractive, sociable genius that really couldn't stand the sight of him.
As the months go on and the solution the government is looking for isn't found, they threaten to pull the plug on the whole operation, which is devastating to all who have worked so hard. To avoid any spoilers, I'll leave it at that.
Because this is based on a true story, much of the film is also about the personal life of Turing, which is just as tragic as his professional reign. He was conflicted in every way, and one may assume the finality of solving math problems was the only true coping mechanism that brought him comfort.
The film does a beautiful job of celebrating his genius and drawing sympathy for his inability to fit in during that era. The cast is fantastic and the actual WWII footage gives the setting a frighteningly authentic touch.
Cumberbatch is a lock for an Oscar nomination, and the film may be as well.
I'd be okay with both.
~~~
Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) was a mathematician seeking a challenge during World War II. He found it when he scored a job with the British government and joined a team tasked with cracking a difficult German code.
Always perceived to be 'difficult', Turing had trouble getting along with his peers and preferred to work alone. When that wasn't an option for the top-secret, highly time-sensitive project he was assigned to, he became rivals with Hugh (Goode), a more attractive, sociable genius that really couldn't stand the sight of him.
As the months go on and the solution the government is looking for isn't found, they threaten to pull the plug on the whole operation, which is devastating to all who have worked so hard. To avoid any spoilers, I'll leave it at that.
Because this is based on a true story, much of the film is also about the personal life of Turing, which is just as tragic as his professional reign. He was conflicted in every way, and one may assume the finality of solving math problems was the only true coping mechanism that brought him comfort.
The film does a beautiful job of celebrating his genius and drawing sympathy for his inability to fit in during that era. The cast is fantastic and the actual WWII footage gives the setting a frighteningly authentic touch.
Cumberbatch is a lock for an Oscar nomination, and the film may be as well.
I'd be okay with both.
~~~
Sunday, December 28, 2014
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1
Today I saw The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Julianne Moore.
I never thought the word "boredom" would ever go hand-in-hand with "Hunger Games" but unfortunately sitting through this movie proved it to be true.
In this installment, our heroine Katniss (Lawrence) agrees to become the fighting Mockingjay for President Coin (Moore) in a symbolic move for the survivors in Panem.
Never mind that she has severe PTSD from her previous exploits defending the good people, or that her partner/perhaps love-of-life Peeta still remains captive in the capitol. They figure, the more angry she is about the whole situation, the better a fighter she'll be.
Unfortunately, we barely get to the fighting by the time this film is over.
Spending time with Lawrence, Moore, Woody Harrelson and Philip Seymour Hoffman (R.I.P.) should never feel like a chore, but the endless dialog they pull out of these characters unfortunately commits that crime-against-audience.
I hurried through this book to make sure I'd finished it before seeing this, and now I wish I hadn't. Only the first fourth of the novel is truly represented here, which makes this a huge waste of about and a half.
Instead of all of the exploration, I wish they'd just have made one long film to close the franchise out.
Having to pay a full ticket price for so much chit-chat feels greedy.
~~~
I never thought the word "boredom" would ever go hand-in-hand with "Hunger Games" but unfortunately sitting through this movie proved it to be true.
In this installment, our heroine Katniss (Lawrence) agrees to become the fighting Mockingjay for President Coin (Moore) in a symbolic move for the survivors in Panem.
Never mind that she has severe PTSD from her previous exploits defending the good people, or that her partner/perhaps love-of-life Peeta still remains captive in the capitol. They figure, the more angry she is about the whole situation, the better a fighter she'll be.
Unfortunately, we barely get to the fighting by the time this film is over.
Spending time with Lawrence, Moore, Woody Harrelson and Philip Seymour Hoffman (R.I.P.) should never feel like a chore, but the endless dialog they pull out of these characters unfortunately commits that crime-against-audience.
I hurried through this book to make sure I'd finished it before seeing this, and now I wish I hadn't. Only the first fourth of the novel is truly represented here, which makes this a huge waste of about and a half.
Instead of all of the exploration, I wish they'd just have made one long film to close the franchise out.
Having to pay a full ticket price for so much chit-chat feels greedy.
~~~
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Big Eyes
Today I saw Big Eyes, starring Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz.
Margaret Keane (Adams) was a single mother in the 50s when she met her second husband Walter (Waltz). They shared a love for art and quickly made a home together in San Francisco celebrating their creativity.
Margaret's signature style of painting included somber children with large eyes, as she claimed eyes were a "window to the soul." Walter instead created city landscapes of his travels.
They both struggled to sell their works until Walter convinced a local nightclub owner to display them, and patrons begin clamoring for her portraits.
This doesn't sit well with the egotistical Walter, so he begins to pass the paintings off as his own, and when they become a cash cow practically overnight, his greed only gets worse. He forbids his wife to reveal their secret and commissions her talent as if she was a factory worker, churning out loaves of bread.
She resents him for this, but dutifully keeps her mouth shut and continues to produce her art.
The film shows this absurd, true-life journey in a kaleidoscope of gorgeous Tim Burton hues. Cars that pop, lipstick that traces every sigh and of course the myriad of paintings that haunt anyone who observes them.
Adams is a pillar of pent-up pain and Waltz is a charming son-of-a-bitch who you alternately love and hate—though he only deserves your pity.
Oscar-caliber performances for sure, set against a gorgeous, retro Viewmaster palette, make for a satisfying delight of a movie.
A work of art in itself.
~~~
Margaret Keane (Adams) was a single mother in the 50s when she met her second husband Walter (Waltz). They shared a love for art and quickly made a home together in San Francisco celebrating their creativity.
Margaret's signature style of painting included somber children with large eyes, as she claimed eyes were a "window to the soul." Walter instead created city landscapes of his travels.
They both struggled to sell their works until Walter convinced a local nightclub owner to display them, and patrons begin clamoring for her portraits.
This doesn't sit well with the egotistical Walter, so he begins to pass the paintings off as his own, and when they become a cash cow practically overnight, his greed only gets worse. He forbids his wife to reveal their secret and commissions her talent as if she was a factory worker, churning out loaves of bread.
She resents him for this, but dutifully keeps her mouth shut and continues to produce her art.
The film shows this absurd, true-life journey in a kaleidoscope of gorgeous Tim Burton hues. Cars that pop, lipstick that traces every sigh and of course the myriad of paintings that haunt anyone who observes them.
Adams is a pillar of pent-up pain and Waltz is a charming son-of-a-bitch who you alternately love and hate—though he only deserves your pity.
Oscar-caliber performances for sure, set against a gorgeous, retro Viewmaster palette, make for a satisfying delight of a movie.
A work of art in itself.
~~~
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Wild
Tonight I saw Wild, starring Reese Witherspoon and Laura Dern.
Everyone processes grief differently: some hide and retreat for the privacy; others weep every day until their tears run dry. Cheryl Strayed (Witherspoon) coped with the loss of her young mother (Dern) by having extramarital affairs and shooting heroin.
When those recreations weren't satisfying her anymore, she divorced her husband and hiked the Pacific Crest Trail from California to Oregon—completely alone. She wrote a book about her journey, which is what this film is based upon.
Of course, because she wasn't a nature enthusiast or even regular hiker, Strayed wasn't truly prepared for what was in store. She read guidebooks and bought fancy supplies at REI, but when she got to the trail, her bag was too heavy, she didn't know how to pitch a tent or use her stove properly and her shoes didn't fit. Admirably (or stupidly, depending on how you look at it), she pressed on.
She encountered everything from foxes to snakes along the trail, and with the exception of one pair of creepy men, several human beings who were nothing but kind. Watching this just may restore your confidence in humanity.
Witherspoon does a stellar job of making Strayed's pain seem authentic and her mistakes almost necessary. What judgmental folks who scoff at the path she took will overlook is that at the heart of everything, she was searching for an experience to expel the grief that she couldn't let go of in any normal scenario.
I've never lost a parent, but I have lost love in life and it took me years to recover from it because I wasn't able to completely lose myself in that grief and step outside myself to process it.
Strayed gave herself a great gift by completing her trip and she gave us a great gift by sharing that journey. More than a story of pain, it's a meditation on healing.
We could all learn a thing or two from her courage.
~~~
Everyone processes grief differently: some hide and retreat for the privacy; others weep every day until their tears run dry. Cheryl Strayed (Witherspoon) coped with the loss of her young mother (Dern) by having extramarital affairs and shooting heroin.
When those recreations weren't satisfying her anymore, she divorced her husband and hiked the Pacific Crest Trail from California to Oregon—completely alone. She wrote a book about her journey, which is what this film is based upon.
Of course, because she wasn't a nature enthusiast or even regular hiker, Strayed wasn't truly prepared for what was in store. She read guidebooks and bought fancy supplies at REI, but when she got to the trail, her bag was too heavy, she didn't know how to pitch a tent or use her stove properly and her shoes didn't fit. Admirably (or stupidly, depending on how you look at it), she pressed on.
She encountered everything from foxes to snakes along the trail, and with the exception of one pair of creepy men, several human beings who were nothing but kind. Watching this just may restore your confidence in humanity.
Witherspoon does a stellar job of making Strayed's pain seem authentic and her mistakes almost necessary. What judgmental folks who scoff at the path she took will overlook is that at the heart of everything, she was searching for an experience to expel the grief that she couldn't let go of in any normal scenario.
I've never lost a parent, but I have lost love in life and it took me years to recover from it because I wasn't able to completely lose myself in that grief and step outside myself to process it.
Strayed gave herself a great gift by completing her trip and she gave us a great gift by sharing that journey. More than a story of pain, it's a meditation on healing.
We could all learn a thing or two from her courage.
~~~
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.
~~~
Sunday, November 16, 2014
The Theory of Everything
Last night I saw The Theory of Everything, starring Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones.
Most people have heard of Stephen Hawking's famous book A Brief History of Time, but perhaps less know of his personal struggles with ALS.
Diagnosed at age 21, Hawking (Redmayne), refused to accept the death sentence delivered to him (two years) and decided to accelerate his study of scientific theories while he battled the unimaginable physical hurdle of his body failing him day after day.
Of course, as he is still living today, we know that he triumphed, but there were a lot of things that propelled him to success along the way; not least of which was his first wife Jane (Jones), who married him after she learned of his ailment, bore his three children and nursed him day-by-day as his condition got progressively worse.
This film (based on a book written by Jane), is just as much a story about her as it is the famous scientist.
Basically, we see their life beginning when they meet at college and ending just a few years ago, with a satisfying post script explaining their present day existences. Everything in between is like any other family: uplifting, gut-wrenching, confusing, amazing and joyous. It's life.
That's not to say that it's normal—of course marrying someone who is 'supposed' to die in two years is admirable, but hanging on for the long haul is the behavior of a saint, for sure.
Both lead actors master their parts here in an almost eerie authenticity. Jones wears the pain of her situation not in her words, but in her eyes, and a lesser actress may not have pulled it off quite so flawlessly. Redmayne was so chill-inducing accurate (and physically similar) that Hawking himself thought at one point he was watching old footage of his life. There can be no greater endorsement, right?
Although the story is scripted well, and there are no points of boredom for the audience to endure, the real reason to see this sure-to-be-Oscar-contending film is the performances.
Acting doesn't get any better than this.
~~~
Most people have heard of Stephen Hawking's famous book A Brief History of Time, but perhaps less know of his personal struggles with ALS.
Diagnosed at age 21, Hawking (Redmayne), refused to accept the death sentence delivered to him (two years) and decided to accelerate his study of scientific theories while he battled the unimaginable physical hurdle of his body failing him day after day.
Of course, as he is still living today, we know that he triumphed, but there were a lot of things that propelled him to success along the way; not least of which was his first wife Jane (Jones), who married him after she learned of his ailment, bore his three children and nursed him day-by-day as his condition got progressively worse.
This film (based on a book written by Jane), is just as much a story about her as it is the famous scientist.
Basically, we see their life beginning when they meet at college and ending just a few years ago, with a satisfying post script explaining their present day existences. Everything in between is like any other family: uplifting, gut-wrenching, confusing, amazing and joyous. It's life.
That's not to say that it's normal—of course marrying someone who is 'supposed' to die in two years is admirable, but hanging on for the long haul is the behavior of a saint, for sure.
Both lead actors master their parts here in an almost eerie authenticity. Jones wears the pain of her situation not in her words, but in her eyes, and a lesser actress may not have pulled it off quite so flawlessly. Redmayne was so chill-inducing accurate (and physically similar) that Hawking himself thought at one point he was watching old footage of his life. There can be no greater endorsement, right?
Although the story is scripted well, and there are no points of boredom for the audience to endure, the real reason to see this sure-to-be-Oscar-contending film is the performances.
Acting doesn't get any better than this.
~~~
Sunday, November 09, 2014
St. Vincent
Today I saw St. Vincent, starring Bill Murray and Melissa McCarthy.
Maggie (McCarthy) is a single mother enduring an ugly divorce, who is determined to provide a good life to her young son, Oliver (Jaeden Leiberher).
Vin (Murray) is the drunken next-door neighbor who they meet after their moving truck smashes into his tree, damaging his car and fence. Understandably, he's less than pleased.
Though they get off on the wrong foot, Vin soon becomes Oliver's babysitter by default and an odd, if not sweet, bond begins to form between the two after-school friends.
Though at first Vin seems like a very one-dimensional loser, we quickly learn there's more to him than meets the eye: He's unimaginably kind to the prostitute (played by Naomi Watts, sporting a Russian accent) he patronizes regularly; he makes sure his wife in the nursing home is treated with the best care possible and he treats his fluffy white cat, Felix, like royalty.
Children are typically good judges of character and Oliver is no exception. Though he deems Vin as "grouchy", there is something about him that he admits is redeeming.
The first half of the film is very much like About a Boy, with Vin playing hero to Oliver when he's bullied, etc., but then the second half takes a darker turn.
McCarthy's performance as a woman scorned is fantastic—it's actually nice to see her play it straight in this movie, instead of her usual comedic self. She's very raw and convincing as a woman trying to keep it together as her world is crumbling around her.
Murray is predictably phenomenal as well, playing both the dramatic and comedic parts with equal swagger. He's just a master, that's all.
And newcomer, Lieberher doesn't fall prey to the typical annoying kid acting traps. He is wise, but not mature and smart but not precocious. Delightful at any angle.
The only major flaw this film has is its formulaic script. Though there are a few small twists that you may not see coming, the end result is pretty obvious from the time the opening credits roll.
But sometimes, that's okay.
~~~
Maggie (McCarthy) is a single mother enduring an ugly divorce, who is determined to provide a good life to her young son, Oliver (Jaeden Leiberher).
Vin (Murray) is the drunken next-door neighbor who they meet after their moving truck smashes into his tree, damaging his car and fence. Understandably, he's less than pleased.
Though they get off on the wrong foot, Vin soon becomes Oliver's babysitter by default and an odd, if not sweet, bond begins to form between the two after-school friends.
Though at first Vin seems like a very one-dimensional loser, we quickly learn there's more to him than meets the eye: He's unimaginably kind to the prostitute (played by Naomi Watts, sporting a Russian accent) he patronizes regularly; he makes sure his wife in the nursing home is treated with the best care possible and he treats his fluffy white cat, Felix, like royalty.
Children are typically good judges of character and Oliver is no exception. Though he deems Vin as "grouchy", there is something about him that he admits is redeeming.
The first half of the film is very much like About a Boy, with Vin playing hero to Oliver when he's bullied, etc., but then the second half takes a darker turn.
McCarthy's performance as a woman scorned is fantastic—it's actually nice to see her play it straight in this movie, instead of her usual comedic self. She's very raw and convincing as a woman trying to keep it together as her world is crumbling around her.
Murray is predictably phenomenal as well, playing both the dramatic and comedic parts with equal swagger. He's just a master, that's all.
And newcomer, Lieberher doesn't fall prey to the typical annoying kid acting traps. He is wise, but not mature and smart but not precocious. Delightful at any angle.
The only major flaw this film has is its formulaic script. Though there are a few small twists that you may not see coming, the end result is pretty obvious from the time the opening credits roll.
But sometimes, that's okay.
~~~
Saturday, November 08, 2014
Interstellar
Tonight I saw Interstellar, starring Matthew McConaughey and Jessica Chastain.
Cooper (McConaughey) is a mid-western widower and father of two who is stuck farming corn after earth becomes nearly inhabitable. In a former life he was an engineer and astronaut, and he's never gotten over the fact that the technology died out before mankind could be saved.
Murphy (Chastain) is Cooper's daughter who is convinced that a ghost in her room is trying to communicate with her. He's certain she doesn't have a ghost, but can find no scientific explanation for the weird occurrences.
The whole family (which also includes a son and a grandpa) is tested when Cooper discovers a way to possibly remedy the predicament humans have gotten themselves into. Of course, this means he has to travel through a 'wormhole' in space to explore other planets that may provide favorable living conditions, and take years off his life, but hey—he's up for the challenge.
He has a few comrades on his trip; Dr. Bryant (Anne Hathaway) the only female. When they set out on the trip, you wonder if they'll even come close to accomplishing their mission since their pleasantries are so icy, but of course they thaw out. How could they not? They have three hours to do so.
Therein lies the problem: a movie that's already been done—whether you call it Moon or Gravity or 2001: A Space Odyssey—is what you see, plus the family back home waiting for dad to come home, plus the folks at the command center, plus a few surprises in the next galaxy, plus a few cameos that you're sure were put there just because the actors wanted cameos. And a lot of spinning.
I've never been so alternately nauseous and exhausted.
Of course the acting is top notch, but with a script that struggles and sequences in space that carry on far too long, it almost feels as if you're hanging out atop a roller coaster right before it's about to go off the edge and then you drop and take that long way back to the top. Several times.
There were some jumpy moments, some tense-filled scenes, no doubt. But not enough when woven together to create a seamless film.
~~~
Cooper (McConaughey) is a mid-western widower and father of two who is stuck farming corn after earth becomes nearly inhabitable. In a former life he was an engineer and astronaut, and he's never gotten over the fact that the technology died out before mankind could be saved.
Murphy (Chastain) is Cooper's daughter who is convinced that a ghost in her room is trying to communicate with her. He's certain she doesn't have a ghost, but can find no scientific explanation for the weird occurrences.
The whole family (which also includes a son and a grandpa) is tested when Cooper discovers a way to possibly remedy the predicament humans have gotten themselves into. Of course, this means he has to travel through a 'wormhole' in space to explore other planets that may provide favorable living conditions, and take years off his life, but hey—he's up for the challenge.
He has a few comrades on his trip; Dr. Bryant (Anne Hathaway) the only female. When they set out on the trip, you wonder if they'll even come close to accomplishing their mission since their pleasantries are so icy, but of course they thaw out. How could they not? They have three hours to do so.
Therein lies the problem: a movie that's already been done—whether you call it Moon or Gravity or 2001: A Space Odyssey—is what you see, plus the family back home waiting for dad to come home, plus the folks at the command center, plus a few surprises in the next galaxy, plus a few cameos that you're sure were put there just because the actors wanted cameos. And a lot of spinning.
I've never been so alternately nauseous and exhausted.
Of course the acting is top notch, but with a script that struggles and sequences in space that carry on far too long, it almost feels as if you're hanging out atop a roller coaster right before it's about to go off the edge and then you drop and take that long way back to the top. Several times.
There were some jumpy moments, some tense-filled scenes, no doubt. But not enough when woven together to create a seamless film.
~~~
Saturday, November 01, 2014
Before I Go to Sleep
Tonight I saw Before I Go to Sleep, starring Nicole Kidman and Colin Firth.
Chris Lucas (Kidman) wakes up every day remembering nothing about her life for the past 18 years. She's 40, but in her head, she's 22. During the day her husband (Colin Firth) tries to catch her up by placing post-it notes and photos around the house, reminding her of their life, but by the time she retains it all, it's time for bed.
Her amnesia is the result of a traumatic attack she suffered at the hands of a mystery man several years ago. He was never caught or punished due to her lack of recollection about the incident.
Attempting to help her is Dr. Nasch (Mark Strong), who has developed an experimental therapy that has Chris recording a diary on camera each night. He hopes that the ritual will gradually begin to bring things back for her, but decides to remove himself from her case when he becomes too close to her.
Her instincts tell her that there are people in her life who should not be trusted, but determining who causes her great peril.
Kidman is convincing as a confused, disturbed woman trying to piece together her history from conflicting stories and evidence; Firth is effortlessly handsome (as usual) and compassionate as he's forced to repeat the same retelling of his wife's life every day.
I'll have to admit I found this story very depressing until the unexpected twist took hold of the plot and turned it upside down. I didn't see it coming, though I suspect if I went back and watched it again, the clues would all be there staring me in the face.
What started as a quiet drama evolved into a nail-biting thriller with a an ending that gave the characters a well-deserved exploration.
One of the nicest surprises I've had at the cinema in a while.
~~~
Chris Lucas (Kidman) wakes up every day remembering nothing about her life for the past 18 years. She's 40, but in her head, she's 22. During the day her husband (Colin Firth) tries to catch her up by placing post-it notes and photos around the house, reminding her of their life, but by the time she retains it all, it's time for bed.
Her amnesia is the result of a traumatic attack she suffered at the hands of a mystery man several years ago. He was never caught or punished due to her lack of recollection about the incident.
Attempting to help her is Dr. Nasch (Mark Strong), who has developed an experimental therapy that has Chris recording a diary on camera each night. He hopes that the ritual will gradually begin to bring things back for her, but decides to remove himself from her case when he becomes too close to her.
Her instincts tell her that there are people in her life who should not be trusted, but determining who causes her great peril.
Kidman is convincing as a confused, disturbed woman trying to piece together her history from conflicting stories and evidence; Firth is effortlessly handsome (as usual) and compassionate as he's forced to repeat the same retelling of his wife's life every day.
I'll have to admit I found this story very depressing until the unexpected twist took hold of the plot and turned it upside down. I didn't see it coming, though I suspect if I went back and watched it again, the clues would all be there staring me in the face.
What started as a quiet drama evolved into a nail-biting thriller with a an ending that gave the characters a well-deserved exploration.
One of the nicest surprises I've had at the cinema in a while.
~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)