Tonight I saw A Monster Calls, starring Lewis MacDougall and Sigourney Weaver.
Time is on our side. Time heals all wounds. Time flies.
There are countless sayings about our only true measure of life; simply choose the circumstance to match the cliché.
In this film, time is in short supply as young, British Conor (MacDougall) has a mum (Felicity Jones) who is terminally ill. As if that isn't enough for a kid to deal with, he's also the target of the school bully and doesn't really get along with his Grandma (Weaver). Did I mention Dad has made a new life with a new family in America too? It's no surprise Conor suffers from terrible reoccurring nightmares.
As he attempts to cope with all of the turmoil in his life, he begins receiving visits—always at 12:07—from a tree monster (voiced by the magnificent Liam Neeson). The monster tells him a series of stories, empowering Conor to wreak havoc along the way, with the expectation Conor will tell him "his" story, or rather the entirety of his nightmares.
The adults do the right thing to try to help Conor: Grandma takes him home with her, Dad comes for a much-needed visit, Mum always tells him the truth (even if it's bad news). But that doesn't make his situation any less tragic.
No matter how old we are, dealing with loss/significant change is rough. Adjustments are painful even if they have a more pleasant existence on the other side. We may never truly learn to navigate the rough roads of life (or perhaps when we do, we die), but in the meantime we find ways to escape, distract and power through.
This film serves as a metaphor for those escapes, delivered through beautiful watercolor-inspired animation that's like no other I've ever seen. The tree monster is a bit scary for little ones (there were some toddlers crying/screaming in the theater when he lashed out with fire), but an appropriate match to the rage felt when one is in so much pain they can barely breathe.
The acting on all fronts is solid in the film and the grief very raw. Though stories of children losing their parents and bullies picking on the weakest of souls is nothing new, this story does find a new way of telling it with a somewhat magical "twist" ending.
Just don't forget your tissues. You'll need them.
~~~
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Saturday, December 17, 2016
Manchester By the Sea
This morning I saw Manchester By the Sea, starring Casey Affleck and Michelle Williams.
Lee (Affleck) is a divorced repairman who lives a quiet life alone until his brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) suddenly dies, leaving him guardianship of his only son, Patrick (Lucas Hedges). Because the two never discussed this arrangement, he must decide whether to relocate himself or his nephew to make it work.
We learn from flashbacks that Lee once had a family of his own, and in fact the first person he thinks to call when he learns of his brother's passing is his ex-wife. We also find out that he left his hometown because of an event that he caused many years prior, so being around the old neighborhood triggers bad memories.
Patrick is basically a good kid, but he's a teenager, so he selfishly doesn't want his school or his friends or his hobbies to change at all. He also wants to hold on to an expensive boat his dad owned.
Lee wrestles with the decisions he will soon have to make for both of them, and the film is basically his journey getting there.
First, let me say that all of the hype about Affleck's performance is justified. For being a character who's meant to appear numb in the majority of the scenes, he does a phenomenal job of convincing us that underneath that layer of numb lies tremendous pain. There is never a moment where we as audience members don't know how he feels, yet the people in his life likely have no clue.
The script is brilliant in that it absolutely nails the stages of grief; not by telling, but by showing.
From the denial in the first moments, when gathering logistical chores actually dulls the reality of the situation, to the rage of overreacting to little things—it's all there. I also like how the screenwriter elegantly planted "triggers" that would set the characters off emotionally, just like loss does in real life.
The pain here was raw, but the sentiment sincere and never overdone. I barely noticed the score (a good sign in a heavy drama) and imagined the characters existing long after the screen went dark on their small Massachusetts town.
I'll be baffled if this movie doesn't score several Oscar nods, and disappointed if it doesn't win at least some of them.
~~~
Lee (Affleck) is a divorced repairman who lives a quiet life alone until his brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) suddenly dies, leaving him guardianship of his only son, Patrick (Lucas Hedges). Because the two never discussed this arrangement, he must decide whether to relocate himself or his nephew to make it work.
We learn from flashbacks that Lee once had a family of his own, and in fact the first person he thinks to call when he learns of his brother's passing is his ex-wife. We also find out that he left his hometown because of an event that he caused many years prior, so being around the old neighborhood triggers bad memories.
Patrick is basically a good kid, but he's a teenager, so he selfishly doesn't want his school or his friends or his hobbies to change at all. He also wants to hold on to an expensive boat his dad owned.
Lee wrestles with the decisions he will soon have to make for both of them, and the film is basically his journey getting there.
First, let me say that all of the hype about Affleck's performance is justified. For being a character who's meant to appear numb in the majority of the scenes, he does a phenomenal job of convincing us that underneath that layer of numb lies tremendous pain. There is never a moment where we as audience members don't know how he feels, yet the people in his life likely have no clue.
The script is brilliant in that it absolutely nails the stages of grief; not by telling, but by showing.
From the denial in the first moments, when gathering logistical chores actually dulls the reality of the situation, to the rage of overreacting to little things—it's all there. I also like how the screenwriter elegantly planted "triggers" that would set the characters off emotionally, just like loss does in real life.
The pain here was raw, but the sentiment sincere and never overdone. I barely noticed the score (a good sign in a heavy drama) and imagined the characters existing long after the screen went dark on their small Massachusetts town.
I'll be baffled if this movie doesn't score several Oscar nods, and disappointed if it doesn't win at least some of them.
~~~
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Moonlight
Tonight I saw Moonlight, starring Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, and Trevante Rhode.
Chiron (played by all three actors mentioned above) is a kid living in the Florida projects. His father is absent and his mother is a crack addict. He is gay.
The kids at school mercilessly bully Chiron for his orientation, though he doesn't flaunt his sexuality or have boyfriends. After one particularly awful chase, he seeks refuge in a crack den where a kind older man finds him and takes him to his house in the suburbs. There he finds a sense of home with the man and his wife, though he later learns the man is one of his mother's drug dealers.
We follow Chiron at three stages of his life: youth, high school and adulthood. At each stage he's desperate to know how he's "supposed" to feel, confronted with the horror of simply being himself. At each stage his mother is a nightmare, alternating somewhere between remorseful and monster.
His self-esteem barely exists, but as he grows his rage becomes a powerful tool in combating the society that rejects him on so many levels. He doesn't make the best decisions, but how could he be expected to?
The film does a fantastic job of showing us how, here in America, there are still thousands, if not millions, of children who don't have a fighting chance. How in many communities there are divides of race and class that dictate one's place before they are old enough to speak. How in some places exposing your true self could cost you your life.
For such a heart-wrenching story, there were thankfully moments of relief: Chiron's kinship with Kevin (Jharrel Jerome), the tenderness shown by his 'adoptive' parents, the strength he finds within himself to somehow go on.
But I do think the film could have been shorter and less contrived; the pace was excruciatingly slow in certain scenes and the score a bit overbearing during a few of the most dramatic moments.
Still very much worth a watch, though. And sure to attract Oscar attention.
~~~
Chiron (played by all three actors mentioned above) is a kid living in the Florida projects. His father is absent and his mother is a crack addict. He is gay.
The kids at school mercilessly bully Chiron for his orientation, though he doesn't flaunt his sexuality or have boyfriends. After one particularly awful chase, he seeks refuge in a crack den where a kind older man finds him and takes him to his house in the suburbs. There he finds a sense of home with the man and his wife, though he later learns the man is one of his mother's drug dealers.
We follow Chiron at three stages of his life: youth, high school and adulthood. At each stage he's desperate to know how he's "supposed" to feel, confronted with the horror of simply being himself. At each stage his mother is a nightmare, alternating somewhere between remorseful and monster.
His self-esteem barely exists, but as he grows his rage becomes a powerful tool in combating the society that rejects him on so many levels. He doesn't make the best decisions, but how could he be expected to?
The film does a fantastic job of showing us how, here in America, there are still thousands, if not millions, of children who don't have a fighting chance. How in many communities there are divides of race and class that dictate one's place before they are old enough to speak. How in some places exposing your true self could cost you your life.
For such a heart-wrenching story, there were thankfully moments of relief: Chiron's kinship with Kevin (Jharrel Jerome), the tenderness shown by his 'adoptive' parents, the strength he finds within himself to somehow go on.
But I do think the film could have been shorter and less contrived; the pace was excruciatingly slow in certain scenes and the score a bit overbearing during a few of the most dramatic moments.
Still very much worth a watch, though. And sure to attract Oscar attention.
~~~
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Nocturnal Animals
This morning I saw Nocturnal Animals, starring Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal.
Susan (Adams) is an affluent member of the art world, living day-by-day in an unfulfilling marriage to her second husband, Hutton (Armie Hammer). One day, she receives a manuscript from Edward (Gyllenhaal), who she left nearly two decades prior. It wasn't a pleasant break-up.
Home alone with Hutton traveling, Susan becomes riveted by the story spun by her ex, as the characters mirror those in her former life—plus, he dedicated the work to her.
As an audience, we enter the mind of Susan and become engulfed in the plot as she does. And it's a brutal one.
The father in the story (mirroring Edward) is driving his wife (mirroring Susan) and daughter to west Texas late one night. When another car drives aggressively on the highway, Edward tries to lose it, but is unsuccessful. What starts as road rage soon becomes far more sinister and the story becomes one nail-biting scene after another.
Tom Ford's direction is seamless. We only catch our breath when Susan does, as she looks up from the pages to digest what her mind's eye just witnessed.
The scenes within the manuscript with Gyllenhaal and later Michael Shannon, who's the detective assigned to investigate the crime, are heartbreaking, exciting and sometimes even morbidly funny.
I found myself holding my breath, gripping the armrests and having to look away throughout. The tension-build was unimaginable and the payoff horrific, if somewhat predictable.
I can't imagine this will be ignored during awards season; it would be a travesty to deny such an extraordinary ensemble.
I'll be rooting for them every step of the way.
~~~
Susan (Adams) is an affluent member of the art world, living day-by-day in an unfulfilling marriage to her second husband, Hutton (Armie Hammer). One day, she receives a manuscript from Edward (Gyllenhaal), who she left nearly two decades prior. It wasn't a pleasant break-up.
Home alone with Hutton traveling, Susan becomes riveted by the story spun by her ex, as the characters mirror those in her former life—plus, he dedicated the work to her.
As an audience, we enter the mind of Susan and become engulfed in the plot as she does. And it's a brutal one.
The father in the story (mirroring Edward) is driving his wife (mirroring Susan) and daughter to west Texas late one night. When another car drives aggressively on the highway, Edward tries to lose it, but is unsuccessful. What starts as road rage soon becomes far more sinister and the story becomes one nail-biting scene after another.
Tom Ford's direction is seamless. We only catch our breath when Susan does, as she looks up from the pages to digest what her mind's eye just witnessed.
The scenes within the manuscript with Gyllenhaal and later Michael Shannon, who's the detective assigned to investigate the crime, are heartbreaking, exciting and sometimes even morbidly funny.
I found myself holding my breath, gripping the armrests and having to look away throughout. The tension-build was unimaginable and the payoff horrific, if somewhat predictable.
I can't imagine this will be ignored during awards season; it would be a travesty to deny such an extraordinary ensemble.
I'll be rooting for them every step of the way.
~~~
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
On Monday I saw the Harry Potter prequel Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them starring Eddie Redmayne and Katherine Waterston.
Newt (Redmayne) is a magizoologist, who goes to great pains to protect the wondrous beasts of the magical world. Set in the 1920s, the Hogwarts graduate travels to New York City and quickly loses track of many of the creatures he's set out to protect.
Through a comedy of errors, he connects with a muggle baker (Dan Fogel) who accidentally sees too much and must be (at least temporarily) brought along for the ride. The two encounter magical sisters, Tina (Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol), who are fond of the pair, though Tina's intention is to turn Newt in (she's an investigator in the magical congress).
Along the way they are confronted by evil in villains played by Samantha Morton, Colin Farrell and Johnny Depp, respectively. There's a lot of action, but not a whole lot of substance.
A few specific things bugged me:
Newt (Redmayne) is a magizoologist, who goes to great pains to protect the wondrous beasts of the magical world. Set in the 1920s, the Hogwarts graduate travels to New York City and quickly loses track of many of the creatures he's set out to protect.
Through a comedy of errors, he connects with a muggle baker (Dan Fogel) who accidentally sees too much and must be (at least temporarily) brought along for the ride. The two encounter magical sisters, Tina (Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol), who are fond of the pair, though Tina's intention is to turn Newt in (she's an investigator in the magical congress).
Along the way they are confronted by evil in villains played by Samantha Morton, Colin Farrell and Johnny Depp, respectively. There's a lot of action, but not a whole lot of substance.
A few specific things bugged me:
- At one point, Queenie flirts by saying that the baker "slays" her. Pretty sure the slang for that term has only been around for about a decade, if that.
- The set design for the New York of the 1920s is gorgeous. We barely see it.
- "Fantastic Beasts" is in the title, but they're only really the star in the very beginning and toward the end. I found the film overall to be creature-deficient.
Aside from that, the pace was way too slow, but that's probably because they're greedily squeezing five books out of one novella.
The performances are great, and the supernatural elements are well done But overall the film lacks the special... dare I say... magic... of the Potter series.
~~~
Monday, November 14, 2016
Doctor Strange
On Saturday, I saw Doctor Strange, starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Chiwetel Ejiofor.
Dr. Stephen Strange (Cumberbatch) is a gifted neurosurgeon with a knack for music trivia. He's sharp, sarcastic and more than a little bit arrogant. He has an on-again, off-again relationship with fellow doctor Christine (Rachel McAdams), who at the very least trusts his professional genius.
When Dr. Strange is in a terrible car accident (caused by distracted driving, of course), he suffers severe nerve damage to his hands—his most precious instruments—and grows desperate for a cure. A discussion with a physical therapist attending to him leads to a conversation with a "miracle" patient who was healed through alternative means. From this patient he learns of a healer in Kathmandu, so he catches the next flight to Nepal.
There, he meets Mordo (Ejiofor) and The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) who convince him to stop thinking scientifically about everything and embrace the powers of the mind.
Refusing to discard any chance of physical restoration, Strange dedicates himself to learning the spiritual arts of which they speak and finds himself in the midst of a supernatural fight between good and evil. He's a quick study, but he still doesn't seem to be learning the larger philosophical lessons that The Ancient One practically beats him over the head with each day.
The film does a great job of getting the audience invested in Strange. Even though he's not the nicest guy, it's hard not to admire his intelligence and perseverance in the face of a ruined career. Cumberbatch also expresses the pain, both mental and physical, so vividly that a part of you aches for a remedy right along with him.
Swinton is sufficiently creepy as the wise teacher, but considering the casting drama, it seems she was mostly chosen for her look. She works, don't get me wrong, but others could have pulled off the role too.
Ejiofor is a calming presence as the voice of reason, and every time we see him, a little sigh of relief escapes, and Mads Mikkelsen (has their ever been a better real name for a villain?) as Kaecilius does a sufficient job of bringing the anger.
My only issues with the film were the dizzying bendy scenes where mirrors cave in and cities crumble within themselves Inception-style. I was grateful to be at the back of the theater and to be at a non-3D showing, because I fear I could have gotten sick otherwise. It was too much, too often, once the action got going. Excessive and unnecessary.
Nonetheless, I very much enjoyed the film and the teaser for the sequel, which followed the credits.
~~~
Dr. Stephen Strange (Cumberbatch) is a gifted neurosurgeon with a knack for music trivia. He's sharp, sarcastic and more than a little bit arrogant. He has an on-again, off-again relationship with fellow doctor Christine (Rachel McAdams), who at the very least trusts his professional genius.
When Dr. Strange is in a terrible car accident (caused by distracted driving, of course), he suffers severe nerve damage to his hands—his most precious instruments—and grows desperate for a cure. A discussion with a physical therapist attending to him leads to a conversation with a "miracle" patient who was healed through alternative means. From this patient he learns of a healer in Kathmandu, so he catches the next flight to Nepal.
There, he meets Mordo (Ejiofor) and The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) who convince him to stop thinking scientifically about everything and embrace the powers of the mind.
Refusing to discard any chance of physical restoration, Strange dedicates himself to learning the spiritual arts of which they speak and finds himself in the midst of a supernatural fight between good and evil. He's a quick study, but he still doesn't seem to be learning the larger philosophical lessons that The Ancient One practically beats him over the head with each day.
The film does a great job of getting the audience invested in Strange. Even though he's not the nicest guy, it's hard not to admire his intelligence and perseverance in the face of a ruined career. Cumberbatch also expresses the pain, both mental and physical, so vividly that a part of you aches for a remedy right along with him.
Swinton is sufficiently creepy as the wise teacher, but considering the casting drama, it seems she was mostly chosen for her look. She works, don't get me wrong, but others could have pulled off the role too.
Ejiofor is a calming presence as the voice of reason, and every time we see him, a little sigh of relief escapes, and Mads Mikkelsen (has their ever been a better real name for a villain?) as Kaecilius does a sufficient job of bringing the anger.
My only issues with the film were the dizzying bendy scenes where mirrors cave in and cities crumble within themselves Inception-style. I was grateful to be at the back of the theater and to be at a non-3D showing, because I fear I could have gotten sick otherwise. It was too much, too often, once the action got going. Excessive and unnecessary.
Nonetheless, I very much enjoyed the film and the teaser for the sequel, which followed the credits.
~~~
Saturday, October 08, 2016
The Beatles: Eight Days a Week — The Touring Years
Tonight I saw The Beatles: Eight Days a Week—The Touring Years, directed by Ron Howard.
Though I've probably seen every Beatles documentary in existence, I'm happy to report there are elements of this one that still feel fresh.
Director Ron Howard uses footage from familiar flashbacks such as the band's appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show to illustrate their journey from 1963 to the time they quit touring in 1966, spliced in with talking head interviews (both from the era and present day). He captures the intensity and madness that was Beatlemania, but without dwelling on the drama.
At the heart of the phenomenon were four friends: John, Paul, George and Ringo. As Lennon once said, "We were just a band who made it very, very big—that's all." Big indeed. In the three years covered in the film, the band performed over 250 concerts, each one arguably growing in fan intensity.
Before it became suffocating (and downright dangerous after Lennon's famous "bigger than Jesus" remark), the thrill of touring—and the fame that came with it—was intoxicating for the group. They were young men who got to use their collective creative genius to conquer the world. With that came money, women, adoration and years of fun.
Considering how they all sued each other and fought publicly in their later years, we sometimes forget how close these boys were in the beginning. They were basically brothers, and thankfully by the time two of the four passed, they'd found their way back to one another.
At one point in the film, their musical gifts are compared to Mozart. Some may call that exposition apples to oranges, but a good case is made as to why it's a just parallel. Above all else, the contemplation reminds us that extraordinary talents like John, Paul, George and Ringo, only happen once in a lifetime.
~~~
Though I've probably seen every Beatles documentary in existence, I'm happy to report there are elements of this one that still feel fresh.
Director Ron Howard uses footage from familiar flashbacks such as the band's appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show to illustrate their journey from 1963 to the time they quit touring in 1966, spliced in with talking head interviews (both from the era and present day). He captures the intensity and madness that was Beatlemania, but without dwelling on the drama.
At the heart of the phenomenon were four friends: John, Paul, George and Ringo. As Lennon once said, "We were just a band who made it very, very big—that's all." Big indeed. In the three years covered in the film, the band performed over 250 concerts, each one arguably growing in fan intensity.
Before it became suffocating (and downright dangerous after Lennon's famous "bigger than Jesus" remark), the thrill of touring—and the fame that came with it—was intoxicating for the group. They were young men who got to use their collective creative genius to conquer the world. With that came money, women, adoration and years of fun.
Considering how they all sued each other and fought publicly in their later years, we sometimes forget how close these boys were in the beginning. They were basically brothers, and thankfully by the time two of the four passed, they'd found their way back to one another.
At one point in the film, their musical gifts are compared to Mozart. Some may call that exposition apples to oranges, but a good case is made as to why it's a just parallel. Above all else, the contemplation reminds us that extraordinary talents like John, Paul, George and Ringo, only happen once in a lifetime.
~~~
Friday, October 07, 2016
The Girl on the Train
Tonight I saw The Girl on the Train, starring Emily Blunt and Haley Bennett.
Rachel (Blunt) is a scorned woman, drowning her sorrows in drink following a divorce. Her ex-husband, Tom (Justin Theroux), has moved on and married his mistress. They live together in the house he and Rachel used to share. They have a baby daughter and seem the picture of happiness.
Megan (Bennett) nannies for Tom and his wife, and lives nearby. On the train Rachel takes each day to a job she lost over a year ago, she often watches Megan and her husband Scott on their porch.
One day, Megan goes missing and Rachel is one of the last people to see her. Because of her alcoholism, Rachel suffers blackouts and doesn't remember the events of that night.
Going any further with the plot will spoil many twists, so I'll leave the exploration at that. Though the film does stay true to the book it was based upon, it feels (painfully) slower.
Blunt is convincing as the tragic Rachel, who you alternately sympathize with and want to shake. Her portrait of alcoholism is faithful to sufferers of the disease, and her shock and horror as events unfold is believable. Unfortunately her wonderful acting skills, and the strong performances from the other leads and supporting characters, can't save the movie.
Instead of the page-turning crescendo of activity the book put us through, we're instead watching extended vignettes of Rachel and Megan in their various stages, acting out in whatever ways their characters act out.
Sure, it's powerful to see Rachel flashback to her marriage and let us see what brought her to such self-destruction, and Megan seductively sucking the fingers of one of her sexual partners is about as erotic as it gets for an R-rated movie. But what happened to all the suspense?
I'll just have to return to the pages of the novel to find it.
~~~
Rachel (Blunt) is a scorned woman, drowning her sorrows in drink following a divorce. Her ex-husband, Tom (Justin Theroux), has moved on and married his mistress. They live together in the house he and Rachel used to share. They have a baby daughter and seem the picture of happiness.
Megan (Bennett) nannies for Tom and his wife, and lives nearby. On the train Rachel takes each day to a job she lost over a year ago, she often watches Megan and her husband Scott on their porch.
One day, Megan goes missing and Rachel is one of the last people to see her. Because of her alcoholism, Rachel suffers blackouts and doesn't remember the events of that night.
Going any further with the plot will spoil many twists, so I'll leave the exploration at that. Though the film does stay true to the book it was based upon, it feels (painfully) slower.
Blunt is convincing as the tragic Rachel, who you alternately sympathize with and want to shake. Her portrait of alcoholism is faithful to sufferers of the disease, and her shock and horror as events unfold is believable. Unfortunately her wonderful acting skills, and the strong performances from the other leads and supporting characters, can't save the movie.
Instead of the page-turning crescendo of activity the book put us through, we're instead watching extended vignettes of Rachel and Megan in their various stages, acting out in whatever ways their characters act out.
Sure, it's powerful to see Rachel flashback to her marriage and let us see what brought her to such self-destruction, and Megan seductively sucking the fingers of one of her sexual partners is about as erotic as it gets for an R-rated movie. But what happened to all the suspense?
I'll just have to return to the pages of the novel to find it.
~~~
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Bridget Jones's Baby
Today I saw Bridget Jones's Baby, starring Renee Zellweger and Colin Firth.
For a movie based on a character based on a book that doesn't exist, this film hit it out of the ballpark.
Bridget Jones's Diary was the ultimate rom com, based on the best-selling book of the same name. Its sequel, Bridget Jones Edge of Reason followed with a not-quite-as-good-but-still-entertaining book and film. The third book we won't even go into, since many devotees found it to be a sacrilege. This film falls somewhere between those last two.
Our heroine, Bridget (Zellweger, who originated the role), is in her early 40s working as a television producer. She's still quirky, and lovable and disheveled. Also: she's still alone.
Her ex, Mark Darcy (Firth) has moved on and married, though that marriage is in trouble. She runs into him at a Christening for a mutual friend's baby and they fall accidentally into bed.
Jack (Patrick Dempsey) is an American motivational speaker that attends the same music festival as Bridget and her buddy. When Bridget gets hammered and ends up in the wrong yurt, he is there. And they accidentally fall into bed.
A few months later, Bridget learns that one of these interludes has made her pregnant, but because the encounters happened in the same span of time, she doesn't know which.
And here's our second act: Who's the daddy?
An entertaining romp ensues and we're not quite sure who she wants the father to be (though they make Dempsey just plastic enough to have us rooting for Darcy). Both men, instead of running away, enter into an almost "competition" to prove who would make the best papa, and the results are hilarious.
This movie is no Citizen Kane, but it is a comedy that stays faithful to beloved characters and provides pure enjoyment along the way.
~~~
For a movie based on a character based on a book that doesn't exist, this film hit it out of the ballpark.
Bridget Jones's Diary was the ultimate rom com, based on the best-selling book of the same name. Its sequel, Bridget Jones Edge of Reason followed with a not-quite-as-good-but-still-entertaining book and film. The third book we won't even go into, since many devotees found it to be a sacrilege. This film falls somewhere between those last two.
Our heroine, Bridget (Zellweger, who originated the role), is in her early 40s working as a television producer. She's still quirky, and lovable and disheveled. Also: she's still alone.
Her ex, Mark Darcy (Firth) has moved on and married, though that marriage is in trouble. She runs into him at a Christening for a mutual friend's baby and they fall accidentally into bed.
Jack (Patrick Dempsey) is an American motivational speaker that attends the same music festival as Bridget and her buddy. When Bridget gets hammered and ends up in the wrong yurt, he is there. And they accidentally fall into bed.
A few months later, Bridget learns that one of these interludes has made her pregnant, but because the encounters happened in the same span of time, she doesn't know which.
And here's our second act: Who's the daddy?
An entertaining romp ensues and we're not quite sure who she wants the father to be (though they make Dempsey just plastic enough to have us rooting for Darcy). Both men, instead of running away, enter into an almost "competition" to prove who would make the best papa, and the results are hilarious.
This movie is no Citizen Kane, but it is a comedy that stays faithful to beloved characters and provides pure enjoyment along the way.
~~~
Saturday, September 17, 2016
My 2016 Emmy Picks
Tomorrow's the big night—the 68th Annual Primetime Emmys. Here are my picks for who should win...
Best Drama Series
The Americans (about damn time)
Best Comedy Series
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (I also love Transparent, but I see it more as a drama)
Best Actor in a Drama Series
Live Schreiber - Ray Donovan (consistent and complex)
Best Actress in a Drama Series
Keri Russell - The Americans (like Orphan Black's Tatiana, Russell plays multiple characters each week)
Best Actor in a Comedy Series
Jeffrey Tambor - Transparent (sad and sweet at the same time)
Best Actress in a Comedy Series
Amy Schumer - Inside Amy Schumer (playing different characters each week and making people laugh is not easy)
Supporting Actor in a Drama Series
Ben Mendelsohn - Bloodline (his Danny infuriates and draws immense sympathies)
Best Supporting Actress in a Drama Series
Maura Tierney - The Affair (her pain becomes ours—even if we root for the other woman)
Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series
Tituss Burgess - Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (he makes me laugh out loud more than any of the other contenders)
Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
Allison Janney - Mom (I thought I'd never see her as anyone other than CJ... until I saw her in this)
Best Limited Series
The People v. O.J. Simpson (I was glued to every episode, even though I watched the real trial live when it happened)
Best Television Movie
Confirmation (again, I watched the real trial when it was on; this was no less gripping or infuriating)
Best Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie
Tom Hiddleston - The Night Manager (an underrated show, Hiddleston carried it as the lead)
Best Actress in a Limited Series or a TV Movie
Sarah Paulson - The People V. O.J. Simpson (she basically channeled Marcia Clark)
Best Supporting Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie
David Schwimmer - The People v. O.J. Simpson (Kardashian without being a cartoon)
Best Supporting Actress in a Limited Series or TV Movie
Kathy Bates - American Horror Story: Hotel (creepy in only a way she knows how to be)
Best Variety Talk Series
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (genius, brilliant, hilarious—EVERY WEEK)
Best Variety Sketch Series
Portlandia (biased because it's my home town)
Best Reality Competition Program
The Voice (constructive criticism and real talent in the spotlight)
Best Writing for a Drama Series
Robert & Michelle King — The Good Wife (I already miss this show so much)
Best Writing for a Comedy Series
Rob Delaney & Sharon Horgan — Catastrophe (everyone should be watching this; so genuine, so real)
~~~
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Sully
This morning I saw Sully, starring Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart.
Anyone who was around in January of 2009 will remember the "miracle on the Hudson." The day that a US Airways pilot safely landed a plane on the Hudson River after both engines failed following a bird strike. The pilot, Captain Chesley Sullenberger (Hanks), quickly became a national hero, as there was no loss of life in the incident.
What the public never knew was the extensive investigation after the landing, which came close to implying Sullenberger put lives at risk with his quick reaction to the emergency.
The film examines what it was like for both Sully and his co-pilot, Jeff Skiles (Eckhart), to navigate the post traumatic stress disorder from the accident as they were fighting to convince the NTSB they did the best thing possible for everyone on board.
Tom Hanks channels Sully in his portrayal; from the way he furrows his brows to the walk we all got used to seeing as the press fell in love with the real-life captain. He is thoughtful, soft-spoken, concerned and–yes, heroic. As usual, it's hard not to marvel at just how much Hanks can disappear into his characters, being one of the most familiar actors in the world. But he does, and although we know how the flight ends, the scenes where we see what it was like both for the flight crew and the passengers are harrowing.
This suspense is a credit to Director Clint Eastwood, who has a knack for building great tension (see: American Sniper, Play Misty for Me, etc.). Though much of the flight of which the film is focused is shown to us in flashbacks, it's no less frightening.
For over 90 minutes of watching something so forensic in exploration, it's a satisfying, thrilling ride, which will surely serve as a reminder of one of New York's best days for years to come.
~~~
Anyone who was around in January of 2009 will remember the "miracle on the Hudson." The day that a US Airways pilot safely landed a plane on the Hudson River after both engines failed following a bird strike. The pilot, Captain Chesley Sullenberger (Hanks), quickly became a national hero, as there was no loss of life in the incident.
What the public never knew was the extensive investigation after the landing, which came close to implying Sullenberger put lives at risk with his quick reaction to the emergency.
The film examines what it was like for both Sully and his co-pilot, Jeff Skiles (Eckhart), to navigate the post traumatic stress disorder from the accident as they were fighting to convince the NTSB they did the best thing possible for everyone on board.
Tom Hanks channels Sully in his portrayal; from the way he furrows his brows to the walk we all got used to seeing as the press fell in love with the real-life captain. He is thoughtful, soft-spoken, concerned and–yes, heroic. As usual, it's hard not to marvel at just how much Hanks can disappear into his characters, being one of the most familiar actors in the world. But he does, and although we know how the flight ends, the scenes where we see what it was like both for the flight crew and the passengers are harrowing.
This suspense is a credit to Director Clint Eastwood, who has a knack for building great tension (see: American Sniper, Play Misty for Me, etc.). Though much of the flight of which the film is focused is shown to us in flashbacks, it's no less frightening.
For over 90 minutes of watching something so forensic in exploration, it's a satisfying, thrilling ride, which will surely serve as a reminder of one of New York's best days for years to come.
~~~
Thursday, September 08, 2016
Southside With You
On Sunday I saw Southside with You, starring Tika Sumpter and Parker Sawyers.
The film tells the story of how Barack Obama (Sawyers) and Michelle Robinson (Sumpter) first fell in love ... long before they would become the President and First Lady of the United States.
We see their different lifestyles right off the bat: Barack is a chain smoker, has a habit of being late to things and drives a beat-up car with a hole in the floor. Michelle is the very definition of poised—treats her parents with great respect, dresses elegantly and carries herself in the classiest of ways.
Michelle and Barack met while working together, and Michelle was his superior. Therefore, she felt it would be inappropriate for them to be anything more than friendly colleagues. Barack saw no issues with the two of them dating and pursued her relentlessly. We all know that he prevailed in the end.
The charming thing about this movie is that both of the actors not only sound like their real-life characters, but capture the essence of their greatness that's made a country of citizens fall in love with them. There's a twinkle in Barack's eye and a spirit to Michelle that doesn't go unnoticed (and also reminds us why they make such a lovely couple).
This film is a pleasant walk through their beginnings (yes, most literally a walk) that is reminiscent of the great Before Sunrise.
I'm just so pleased that they got a happy ending, both in the film and in life.
~~~
The film tells the story of how Barack Obama (Sawyers) and Michelle Robinson (Sumpter) first fell in love ... long before they would become the President and First Lady of the United States.
We see their different lifestyles right off the bat: Barack is a chain smoker, has a habit of being late to things and drives a beat-up car with a hole in the floor. Michelle is the very definition of poised—treats her parents with great respect, dresses elegantly and carries herself in the classiest of ways.
Michelle and Barack met while working together, and Michelle was his superior. Therefore, she felt it would be inappropriate for them to be anything more than friendly colleagues. Barack saw no issues with the two of them dating and pursued her relentlessly. We all know that he prevailed in the end.
The charming thing about this movie is that both of the actors not only sound like their real-life characters, but capture the essence of their greatness that's made a country of citizens fall in love with them. There's a twinkle in Barack's eye and a spirit to Michelle that doesn't go unnoticed (and also reminds us why they make such a lovely couple).
This film is a pleasant walk through their beginnings (yes, most literally a walk) that is reminiscent of the great Before Sunrise.
I'm just so pleased that they got a happy ending, both in the film and in life.
~~~
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
The Light Between Oceans
Last night I saw The Light Between Oceans, starring Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander.
The year is 1923. Tom (Fassbender) and Isabel (Vikander) are a young couple in love, living a peaceful, isolated life in a lighthouse, where Tom is the sole caretaker. Devastated by recent losses, they're snapped out of their own grief when a dinghy washes up on the shore near their home. It contains a dead man and a very alive baby girl.
Though Tom's instinct is to log the discovery and immediately alert the authorities, Isabel thinks the "right" thing to do is to care for the baby as if she were their own and give the man a proper burial. So, that's what they do.
And they become the best parents the baby could ask for—doting on her endlessly; showering her with attention and love at every turn.
Life is undeniably good until they return to town to visit family and Tom discovers the woman who may be their new daughter's biological mother. He's immediately torn on what to do. Should he stay silent and continue his idyllic life, knowing this stranger is in unimaginable pain? Or should he do the "right thing" and confess to their crime, giving the child back to her rightful family, destroying every ounce of happiness that he and his family possess.
What should be a simple decision becomes a dreadful one, not only for the characters in this story, but for the audience having to choose sides. I fully admit: I was 100% on the fence.
Life's decisions aren't easy. And what the handbooks say (whether based on religion, ethics or society's moral code) may seem completely true on paper but totally backwards when coupled with the human experience.
Sometimes there aren't easy answers and sometimes unfavorable actions are truly motivated by purity or grief or love. It is possible.
Here, the pursuit of happiness wasn't even selfish; everyone involved cared most about the young girl. There were no bad people or villains in sight.
I can't share the decision that Tom made, for that would spoil the movie, but I can say that this film was so well-acted and real that everyone was left sobbing in their seats at the end.
All of us, crying together, about love.
~~~
The year is 1923. Tom (Fassbender) and Isabel (Vikander) are a young couple in love, living a peaceful, isolated life in a lighthouse, where Tom is the sole caretaker. Devastated by recent losses, they're snapped out of their own grief when a dinghy washes up on the shore near their home. It contains a dead man and a very alive baby girl.
Though Tom's instinct is to log the discovery and immediately alert the authorities, Isabel thinks the "right" thing to do is to care for the baby as if she were their own and give the man a proper burial. So, that's what they do.
And they become the best parents the baby could ask for—doting on her endlessly; showering her with attention and love at every turn.
Life is undeniably good until they return to town to visit family and Tom discovers the woman who may be their new daughter's biological mother. He's immediately torn on what to do. Should he stay silent and continue his idyllic life, knowing this stranger is in unimaginable pain? Or should he do the "right thing" and confess to their crime, giving the child back to her rightful family, destroying every ounce of happiness that he and his family possess.
What should be a simple decision becomes a dreadful one, not only for the characters in this story, but for the audience having to choose sides. I fully admit: I was 100% on the fence.
Life's decisions aren't easy. And what the handbooks say (whether based on religion, ethics or society's moral code) may seem completely true on paper but totally backwards when coupled with the human experience.
Sometimes there aren't easy answers and sometimes unfavorable actions are truly motivated by purity or grief or love. It is possible.
Here, the pursuit of happiness wasn't even selfish; everyone involved cared most about the young girl. There were no bad people or villains in sight.
I can't share the decision that Tom made, for that would spoil the movie, but I can say that this film was so well-acted and real that everyone was left sobbing in their seats at the end.
All of us, crying together, about love.
~~~
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Older Than Ireland
Tonight I saw the documentary Older Than Ireland, featuring a group of lively centenarians telling tales of life in the old country.
Some of them still smoke, one credits her longevity to the lack of vegetables in her diet—another claims he died when his wife passed. A colorful cast of characters indeed, and the one thing they all have in common? They were around before Ireland as we know it existed. One of them personally met Michael Collins; another watched the fires of Easter 1916 from a nearby tower; a different man (just a boy at the time) was an eye witness to Bloody Sunday in Croke Park.
They came from all walks of life with a range of careers and economic backgrounds, but all have lived to be at least 100 years old (the eldest of the bunch, who emigrated to America in the '20s, is 113).
The stories range from sweet to heartbreaking, but all are undoubtedly charming. They speak of religion, politics, family life and culture—some wistful for the days gone by; others proud of the social progress their country has made. The main takeaway: they're all continuing to live their lives, whether it be by playing cards, baking cakes or taking a bus to the market to buy their own groceries.
I think about the (much younger) lazy people I know and shake my head. If these folks, who lived through some of the most tumultuous times in modern history, can face the day with a smile and a purpose, what the hell is wrong with the rest of the world?
My only criticism of the film is that I don't feel they spent enough time on the "big" political topics, but perhaps additional footage will show up on a DVD version.
I can only hope so—I'd be glad to spend more time with this lovely bunch.
~~~
Friday, July 15, 2016
Ghostbusters
Today I saw Ghostbusters, starring Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig.
Years ago Erin (Wiig) and Abby (McCarthy) wrote a book together about the paranormal. Abby has continued her passion, working as a scientist alongside the eccentric Jillian (Kate McKinnon) while Erin shifted gears and pursued a career in education.
They're reunited when Erin gets a visit from a fan of the book, claiming a nearby mansion is haunted. She tracks Abby down, angry that she put their book on Amazon without asking, and they end up checking out the site with Jillian. Of course, it's legit haunted.
From there, we're taken on a predictable-yet-delightful ride through New York as the ladies form a real ghostbusting firm and set out to capture some spirits. Along the way they pick up Patty (Leslie Jones, who stole the show), a transit worker recently stirred by a ghost she witnessed on the subway tracks.
I'll admit: it was hard for me to watch this through anything but a defensive lens. Since the new cast was announced, certain types of men have been screaming about the travesty that is women remaking this beloved film. They didn't care that it was a re-make (though that would have been a valid concern because most re-makes suck). They only cared that the main roles were to be played by humans who possessed vaginas.
Well, chauvinistic pigs, you lose. Though it's of course not as magical as the original (how could it be?), this movie succeeds on many levels.
The special effects are far better thanks to technological advances that didn't exist in the '80s when the original was made. Though the story is recycled, it's told in a fresh new way that incorporates the essence of the old film beautifully (even the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man's cameo is clever); it's also really scary in certain sequences. And above all else: the women are hilarious.
I personally loved Leslie Jones the most. Her physical comedy is spot on and some of her expressions alone had me laughing out loud. That's not to say the others weren't great, because they were, but we've seen all of them enough to know their rhythms and strengths.
Also fun was the addition of Chris Hemsworth, who was objectified for his looks much like every woman who's ever played a secretary or assistant or flight attendant or waitress or librarian. I could go on, but I think you know where I'm going with that.
I also liked the winks to feminism via reverse psychology lines (jokes about girls being late, etc.)—it was just enough to stick it to the haters.
Overall, you'll have a good time at this film. Don't let a few vaginas—or dicks—get in the way of that.
~~~
Years ago Erin (Wiig) and Abby (McCarthy) wrote a book together about the paranormal. Abby has continued her passion, working as a scientist alongside the eccentric Jillian (Kate McKinnon) while Erin shifted gears and pursued a career in education.
They're reunited when Erin gets a visit from a fan of the book, claiming a nearby mansion is haunted. She tracks Abby down, angry that she put their book on Amazon without asking, and they end up checking out the site with Jillian. Of course, it's legit haunted.
From there, we're taken on a predictable-yet-delightful ride through New York as the ladies form a real ghostbusting firm and set out to capture some spirits. Along the way they pick up Patty (Leslie Jones, who stole the show), a transit worker recently stirred by a ghost she witnessed on the subway tracks.
I'll admit: it was hard for me to watch this through anything but a defensive lens. Since the new cast was announced, certain types of men have been screaming about the travesty that is women remaking this beloved film. They didn't care that it was a re-make (though that would have been a valid concern because most re-makes suck). They only cared that the main roles were to be played by humans who possessed vaginas.
Well, chauvinistic pigs, you lose. Though it's of course not as magical as the original (how could it be?), this movie succeeds on many levels.
The special effects are far better thanks to technological advances that didn't exist in the '80s when the original was made. Though the story is recycled, it's told in a fresh new way that incorporates the essence of the old film beautifully (even the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man's cameo is clever); it's also really scary in certain sequences. And above all else: the women are hilarious.
I personally loved Leslie Jones the most. Her physical comedy is spot on and some of her expressions alone had me laughing out loud. That's not to say the others weren't great, because they were, but we've seen all of them enough to know their rhythms and strengths.
Also fun was the addition of Chris Hemsworth, who was objectified for his looks much like every woman who's ever played a secretary or assistant or flight attendant or waitress or librarian. I could go on, but I think you know where I'm going with that.
I also liked the winks to feminism via reverse psychology lines (jokes about girls being late, etc.)—it was just enough to stick it to the haters.
Overall, you'll have a good time at this film. Don't let a few vaginas—or dicks—get in the way of that.
~~~
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Finding Dory
On July 4, I saw Finding Dory, starring Ellen DeGeneres and Ed O'Neill.
Dory (Degeneres) is a blue tang with a short term memory impairment. As a baby, her parents tried to train her to come home, but when she was young she got separated from them. She made friends along the way, but never got over the loss of her Mom and Dad.
As an adult, she sets out to find them using techniques she's learned and taking some friends with her—like Hank the Octopus (O'Neill)—to keep her focused.
Her voice, Ellen DeGeneres, hits all the right notes to trigger empathy and sympathy. You can't help but root for her as she navigates the wild waters she first explored with her friend Nemo (Hayden Rolence), who makes an appearance here as well. In fact, all of the voices are great from legend Diane Keaton (Dory's mom) to the 7-year-old Sloane Murray, who gives a precious performance as the young version of Dory.
It's frankly hard to find fault with anything that Pixar does and Finding Dory is no exception. Excellent animation? Check. Brilliant casting? Check. Screenplay that ignites tearful waterworks? Check. Charming jokes to keep us laughing as we cry? Check.
The film is thoroughly engaging and enjoyable—my only complaint would be that as a sequel, it took too long to come out after the original.
Let's hope we don't have to wait as long for the third.
~~~
Dory (Degeneres) is a blue tang with a short term memory impairment. As a baby, her parents tried to train her to come home, but when she was young she got separated from them. She made friends along the way, but never got over the loss of her Mom and Dad.
As an adult, she sets out to find them using techniques she's learned and taking some friends with her—like Hank the Octopus (O'Neill)—to keep her focused.
Her voice, Ellen DeGeneres, hits all the right notes to trigger empathy and sympathy. You can't help but root for her as she navigates the wild waters she first explored with her friend Nemo (Hayden Rolence), who makes an appearance here as well. In fact, all of the voices are great from legend Diane Keaton (Dory's mom) to the 7-year-old Sloane Murray, who gives a precious performance as the young version of Dory.
It's frankly hard to find fault with anything that Pixar does and Finding Dory is no exception. Excellent animation? Check. Brilliant casting? Check. Screenplay that ignites tearful waterworks? Check. Charming jokes to keep us laughing as we cry? Check.
The film is thoroughly engaging and enjoyable—my only complaint would be that as a sequel, it took too long to come out after the original.
Let's hope we don't have to wait as long for the third.
~~~
Saturday, June 25, 2016
The Lobster
On Tuesday I saw The Lobster, starring Colin Farrell and Rachel Weisz.
The world represented in the film looks much like ours except for one main thing: every adult who lives in the city is part of a couple. There are no exceptions to this rule and those seen wandering alone may be asked to show their "papers" to prove they have a spouse.
David (Farrell) is recently divorced and devastated by the breakup. He is immediately transported to an inn where he is expected to find a partner in 45 days. If he does not complete this task, he will be turned into the animal of his choice. He has decided on a lobster.
As he earnestly attempts to find a new mate, he witnesses the horrors of those who try to game the system. Punishments are delivered. People become animals. It's not pretty.
I can't go any further than that without spoiling the ending in major ways, so I'll start by saying Colin Farrell is fantastic. It's a very odd role for an Irish heartthrob to play, but one he owns beautifully. His tension (both social and sexual) is palpable and the longing you see in his eyes once he zeroes in on a possible object of affection is painful.
Rachel Weisz, who has significantly less screen time but just as important of a role is also solid as a "loner," who has left the inn and rebelled against the establishment. Her energy mixed with her restraint produces an impressive result that not every actor could achieve.
The movie is weird, and there are a lot of winks in the dialog that could be cheesy to some, but I actually enjoyed them.
If you've ever felt persecuted for being alone (or just simply being different), you may take great comfort in the satire of The Lobster. I know I did.
~~~
The world represented in the film looks much like ours except for one main thing: every adult who lives in the city is part of a couple. There are no exceptions to this rule and those seen wandering alone may be asked to show their "papers" to prove they have a spouse.
David (Farrell) is recently divorced and devastated by the breakup. He is immediately transported to an inn where he is expected to find a partner in 45 days. If he does not complete this task, he will be turned into the animal of his choice. He has decided on a lobster.
As he earnestly attempts to find a new mate, he witnesses the horrors of those who try to game the system. Punishments are delivered. People become animals. It's not pretty.
I can't go any further than that without spoiling the ending in major ways, so I'll start by saying Colin Farrell is fantastic. It's a very odd role for an Irish heartthrob to play, but one he owns beautifully. His tension (both social and sexual) is palpable and the longing you see in his eyes once he zeroes in on a possible object of affection is painful.
Rachel Weisz, who has significantly less screen time but just as important of a role is also solid as a "loner," who has left the inn and rebelled against the establishment. Her energy mixed with her restraint produces an impressive result that not every actor could achieve.
The movie is weird, and there are a lot of winks in the dialog that could be cheesy to some, but I actually enjoyed them.
If you've ever felt persecuted for being alone (or just simply being different), you may take great comfort in the satire of The Lobster. I know I did.
~~~
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
The Conjuring 2
Tonight I saw The Conjuring 2, starring Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson.
After experiencing the evil energy of the famous Amityville haunted house, paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren needed a break—the demonic presence that Lorraine sensed was just too disturbing. So they took one, until another high-profile case demanded their attention.
Reprising their roles from 2013's The Conjuring, Wilson and Farmiga feel so familiar as the real-life Warrens it's easy to buy the story they're selling.
From their cozy home in Connecticut, they travel to London to investigate the haunting of a house on Green Street in Enfield, occupied by a single mother and her four children. The second-oldest daughter, on the cusp of puberty, is the target of most of the paranormal activity.
After the police visit and watch a chair levitate and move across the room on its own, determining they can do nothing to help the family, the home becomes the focus of a media circus. Tabloid journalists descend upon the street to try to capture the happenings on film. Some they do; some they don't. And the debate rages on (to this day) as to whether or not this was a hoax.
In the midst of the chaos, the Warrens stopped by and spent time at the house, witnessing and documenting the alleged possession of young Janet (Madison Wolfe). Wolfe does a tremendous job of appearing both terrified and terrifying depending on who her body was representing, making this less a "gotcha" horror film and more of the psychologically troubling kind.
Speaking of psychologically troubling: the demon that Lorraine sees in her visions throughout the film looks like Marilyn Manson dressed as a nun for Halloween. More disturbing than cheesy, I still have to mention the reference, as I can't be alone in seeing this.
If you're looking for a movie that will scare you, this sequel will not disappoint you. I sat in the very back of the theater and watched folks (both male and female) jump out of their seats throughout. There's something much creepier about a story that could actually be true vs. something admittedly fictional.
So if you go—and I recommend strongly that you do—stay through the credits for a "real" surprise.
~~~
After experiencing the evil energy of the famous Amityville haunted house, paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren needed a break—the demonic presence that Lorraine sensed was just too disturbing. So they took one, until another high-profile case demanded their attention.
Reprising their roles from 2013's The Conjuring, Wilson and Farmiga feel so familiar as the real-life Warrens it's easy to buy the story they're selling.
From their cozy home in Connecticut, they travel to London to investigate the haunting of a house on Green Street in Enfield, occupied by a single mother and her four children. The second-oldest daughter, on the cusp of puberty, is the target of most of the paranormal activity.
After the police visit and watch a chair levitate and move across the room on its own, determining they can do nothing to help the family, the home becomes the focus of a media circus. Tabloid journalists descend upon the street to try to capture the happenings on film. Some they do; some they don't. And the debate rages on (to this day) as to whether or not this was a hoax.
In the midst of the chaos, the Warrens stopped by and spent time at the house, witnessing and documenting the alleged possession of young Janet (Madison Wolfe). Wolfe does a tremendous job of appearing both terrified and terrifying depending on who her body was representing, making this less a "gotcha" horror film and more of the psychologically troubling kind.
Speaking of psychologically troubling: the demon that Lorraine sees in her visions throughout the film looks like Marilyn Manson dressed as a nun for Halloween. More disturbing than cheesy, I still have to mention the reference, as I can't be alone in seeing this.
If you're looking for a movie that will scare you, this sequel will not disappoint you. I sat in the very back of the theater and watched folks (both male and female) jump out of their seats throughout. There's something much creepier about a story that could actually be true vs. something admittedly fictional.
So if you go—and I recommend strongly that you do—stay through the credits for a "real" surprise.
~~~
Saturday, June 11, 2016
I Am Belfast
Tonight I saw I Am Belfast, a documentary about the Irish city.
Conceptually, I was on board. An elderly woman narrates a historical travelogue about Belfast, personifying herself as the city as we see the visual representation of what she's referencing.
Cool, huh?
Well, yes and no.
Visually, I have zero complaints. Cinematographer Christopher Doyle of In the Mood fame does a marvelous job capturing the beauty and the horrors of this famous location. Whether it's a bombed-out street corner or a landscape of breathtaking proportions, Doyle puts us there, not as viewers, but as visitors.
The issues come with the scripting. Though I love the idea of the star of the film—Belfast itself—having a voice in human form, the commentary had a few too many winks to avoid being cheesy. The pace in the beginning was brutal too. With landscapes that calming, I was nearly tempted to doze off.
Because the film was more like poetry than prose, I expected more of a definite rhythm but instead got lengthy flashbacks and abbreviated stories. All of the humor sat near the end, when really the beginning needed it most.
I applaud the inventive approach, but feel the sentiment suffered as a result.
~~~
Conceptually, I was on board. An elderly woman narrates a historical travelogue about Belfast, personifying herself as the city as we see the visual representation of what she's referencing.
Cool, huh?
Well, yes and no.
Visually, I have zero complaints. Cinematographer Christopher Doyle of In the Mood fame does a marvelous job capturing the beauty and the horrors of this famous location. Whether it's a bombed-out street corner or a landscape of breathtaking proportions, Doyle puts us there, not as viewers, but as visitors.
The issues come with the scripting. Though I love the idea of the star of the film—Belfast itself—having a voice in human form, the commentary had a few too many winks to avoid being cheesy. The pace in the beginning was brutal too. With landscapes that calming, I was nearly tempted to doze off.
Because the film was more like poetry than prose, I expected more of a definite rhythm but instead got lengthy flashbacks and abbreviated stories. All of the humor sat near the end, when really the beginning needed it most.
I applaud the inventive approach, but feel the sentiment suffered as a result.
~~~
Big Sonia
Last week I saw Big Sonia, a work-in-progress documentary about a spirited Holocaust survivor.
Since it's not an officially "complete" cut of the film, my review will be preliminary bullet points:
Since it's not an officially "complete" cut of the film, my review will be preliminary bullet points:
- Sonia is definitely a worthy subject of her own documentary.
- The pieces about the Holocaust, though strong, feel discombobulated in places.
- It feels as though many sections of Sonia's life are under-represented, while too much time is devoted to her career.
- It would have been great to see her interacting more with her kids/grandkids instead of the majority of the interviews being separate.
- The brief animations are great.
- I want a sequel to see what happens next in Ms. Sonia's colorful life.
~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)