Last night I saw Moneyball, starring Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill.
The story chronicles the rise of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane (Pitt) after he adapted the concept of choosing players based on statistical analysis of their abilities.
Beane was faced with a potential losing team in 2002 and a lack of budget to rectify the situation—he caught wind of an analyst, Peter Brand (Hill), who had a theory about recruiting talent based on mathematical equations and hired him. In real-life, “Peter” is really “Paul” and he went to Harvard, not Yale. But who really cares, right? A good story is a good story and this one happens to be well-told on the big screen.
Aside from the slow beginning, the film’s pace will keep you watching even if you could care less about baseball. The magic of Aaron Sorkin (who co-wrote the screenplay) is evidenced in the clever dialog; the bromance between Pitt and Hill adds a spark to the rest of the story, which is alternately nail-biting tense and satisfying.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman is great as the understated team manager Art Howe and Robin Wright makes a great cameo as Beane’s ex-wife, Sharon. All of the players are also well-cast, some truly resembling their real-life counterparts, and no one jumps out as unrealistic or cartoonish (except perhaps Sharon’s second husband, but his appearance is so brief it’s not too annoying).
There’s also a healthy balance of on-field (real life and reenacted) footage and locker room chatter. Really, there’s not much wrong with this film.
If you want a somewhat lighthearted, engaging two hours of entertainment, go see it.
~~~
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Drive
Today I saw Drive, starring Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan.
A Hollywood stunt driver (Gosling) strikes up a friendship with his neighbor, Irene (Mulligan), with whom he shares an immediate chemistry, but soon learns she is married. Her husband is in prison and will be home in the next few weeks.
In the meantime, the Driver acts as a caretaker for Irene and her young son, not pretending to deny the elephant in the room.
By day the Driver works on Hollywood sets and in a nearby garage; by night he drives getaway cars but somehow manages to keep his hands clean of the crimes ... until Irene's husband comes home.
Standard (Oscar Isaac) owes a debt to some folks from his prison days. He wants to lead a crime-free life, but fears what may happen to his family if he doesn't make good on the promise. He mentions his predicament to the Driver, who agrees to help him purely to keep Irene and her son safe.
When the robbery spirals out of control (featuring an electric cameo from Mad Men's Christina Hendricks), the Driver finds himself guilty of more than driving, and in the worst danger of his life.
Ryan Gosling plays the main character with a controlled chaos that's fastly becoming his trademark. You can see by the look in his eyes he'll do anything for this woman, yet he's a man of few words. Only the Johnny Depps and Leo Dicaprios of the world could've played this part as well.
A Hollywood stunt driver (Gosling) strikes up a friendship with his neighbor, Irene (Mulligan), with whom he shares an immediate chemistry, but soon learns she is married. Her husband is in prison and will be home in the next few weeks.
In the meantime, the Driver acts as a caretaker for Irene and her young son, not pretending to deny the elephant in the room.
By day the Driver works on Hollywood sets and in a nearby garage; by night he drives getaway cars but somehow manages to keep his hands clean of the crimes ... until Irene's husband comes home.
Standard (Oscar Isaac) owes a debt to some folks from his prison days. He wants to lead a crime-free life, but fears what may happen to his family if he doesn't make good on the promise. He mentions his predicament to the Driver, who agrees to help him purely to keep Irene and her son safe.
When the robbery spirals out of control (featuring an electric cameo from Mad Men's Christina Hendricks), the Driver finds himself guilty of more than driving, and in the worst danger of his life.
Ryan Gosling plays the main character with a controlled chaos that's fastly becoming his trademark. You can see by the look in his eyes he'll do anything for this woman, yet he's a man of few words. Only the Johnny Depps and Leo Dicaprios of the world could've played this part as well.
The directing is also phenomenal—a battle is acted out in shadows; flashes of light build tension after a crash and nothing is as scary as the glimpse we get of a bad guy through the bathroom blinds.
All of this is intensified by a perfect musical score. The sounds that accompany the actions add to instead of subtract from the action, and there's plenty of it.
I could've done without much of the blood and gore, but none of it was gratuitous. In fact, it was probably all the more shocking because it was completely believable.
Easily one of the best films of 2011.
~~
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Straw Dogs
This morning I saw Straw Dogs, starring James Marsden and Alexander Skarsgard.
It's a good thing I went into this film with low expectations.
Though I've never seen the 1971 original, I knew the premise and figured it wouldn't be a genius production. Boy was I right.
David (Marsden) needs a quiet place to finish his writing and Hollywood isn't cutting it. So he and his wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) head to her hometown in the south to stay at her parents' seemingly abandoned house.
Of course, time has stood still in this rural town and her apparent high school sweetheart Charlie (Skarsgard) still carries a torch for her. He is part of a 'construction' crew that her husband hires to replace a roof on the property. The other three bumpkins aren't good looking or 'smart' like Charlie, so he calls all the shots.
Amy isn't so smart either. She jogs barefoot and braless along this country path, then gets upset when the filthy men gawk at her. Even her husband sort of tells her she's asking for it.
The fish-out-of-water situations they put David in grow boring quite rapidly, but thankfully the sweaty, dirty shots of Charlie don't.
Really, that's all that kept me watching.
The couple gets tormented by her ex's posse yet they still stick around. James Woods is a nasty old drunk who targets a mentally challenged man, who we see get berated and beaten repeatedly. The whole town goes to church together because they're all the same religion in the Bible Belt. Need I say more?
All of the actors here are above this, which is why it's such a shame they were all in it.
It's perhaps the worst movie I've seen so far this year.
It's a good thing I went into this film with low expectations.
Though I've never seen the 1971 original, I knew the premise and figured it wouldn't be a genius production. Boy was I right.
David (Marsden) needs a quiet place to finish his writing and Hollywood isn't cutting it. So he and his wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) head to her hometown in the south to stay at her parents' seemingly abandoned house.
Of course, time has stood still in this rural town and her apparent high school sweetheart Charlie (Skarsgard) still carries a torch for her. He is part of a 'construction' crew that her husband hires to replace a roof on the property. The other three bumpkins aren't good looking or 'smart' like Charlie, so he calls all the shots.
Amy isn't so smart either. She jogs barefoot and braless along this country path, then gets upset when the filthy men gawk at her. Even her husband sort of tells her she's asking for it.
The fish-out-of-water situations they put David in grow boring quite rapidly, but thankfully the sweaty, dirty shots of Charlie don't.
Really, that's all that kept me watching.
The couple gets tormented by her ex's posse yet they still stick around. James Woods is a nasty old drunk who targets a mentally challenged man, who we see get berated and beaten repeatedly. The whole town goes to church together because they're all the same religion in the Bible Belt. Need I say more?
All of the actors here are above this, which is why it's such a shame they were all in it.
It's perhaps the worst movie I've seen so far this year.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The Whale
Last night I saw the documentary, The Whale, by Suzanne Chisolm and Michael Parfit.
In the spring of 2008, I screened a documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival that left me weeping and smiling all the same. It was called Saving Luna, and it captured the story of an orca from Washington's L-pod that became separated from his family and built a life in Canada, making friends with humans instead of returning home.
This film is a re-purposed version of that film, and delivers just as powerful a punch—reminding us to embrace nature and respect all of the treasures that our earth delivers.
My opinion hasn't changed since I wrote this review for Cinebanter, three years ago.
I encourage those of you in Seattle to get to The Whale before it leaves SIFF Cinema at the end of the week (and yes, I encourage you to take the kids). Those of you in other cities and countries should lobby for this beautiful film to come to your area. You won't be disappointed.
To view the trailer, click here.
In the spring of 2008, I screened a documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival that left me weeping and smiling all the same. It was called Saving Luna, and it captured the story of an orca from Washington's L-pod that became separated from his family and built a life in Canada, making friends with humans instead of returning home.
This film is a re-purposed version of that film, and delivers just as powerful a punch—reminding us to embrace nature and respect all of the treasures that our earth delivers.
My opinion hasn't changed since I wrote this review for Cinebanter, three years ago.
I encourage those of you in Seattle to get to The Whale before it leaves SIFF Cinema at the end of the week (and yes, I encourage you to take the kids). Those of you in other cities and countries should lobby for this beautiful film to come to your area. You won't be disappointed.
To view the trailer, click here.
Contagion
Yesterday I saw Contagion, starring Matt Damon and Kate Winslet.
It will be the topic of Cinebanter #107, so tune in later this month for our review.
It will be the topic of Cinebanter #107, so tune in later this month for our review.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
A Good Old Fashioned Orgy
This morning I saw A Good Old Fashioned Orgy, starring Jason Sudekis and Leslie Bibb.
Eric (Sudekis) has had the same group of friends since high school. They all fit the stereotypes of a movie-centered-around-a-group-of-friends. There's a mental health professional (who happens to be beautiful), a corporate nerd, a struggling musician, a loser that latches on to everyone else, etc. The women are hot; the men are average at best, but that doesn't stop the women from hanging out with them. They all gather for lavish theme parties at their favorite summer home, which belongs to Eric's dad.
Sounds like a good teenage/college premise right? Well, it would have been. Trouble is, these folks are pushing 40.
And that's where they lose me.
When Eric's dad makes a cameo (it is Don Johnson, after all) to announce he's selling off the summer home for no particular reason, Eric and his posse decide they must have the Best Party Ever to say goodbye to it. After a brief brainstorm, Eric decides that they should go full monty (pun intended) and throw an orgy. His suggestion is met by a less than enthusiastic response (who wants to bang their childhood friends in front of each other?) but one by one, the group gets used to the idea and starts doing 'research' to plan the evening.
On a side note, the only not-completely-ridiculous part of the plot involves Eric falling in love with his realtor, Kelly (Bibb). They have a real, authentic chemistry and their scenes together make me wish this had just been a standard rom-com about a guy and a realtor having a meet-cute and living happily ever after.
But I digress.
Of course some of the friends like some of the other friends (who don't know they like them) and other friends have insecurity issues, body image issues, etc. They all have to get past this to get it on (but I would be spoiling things if I told you whether or not they did).
I can't say I exactly had high expectations going into this, but with folks like Sudekis and fellow SNL alum Will Forte on the roster, I did expect to laugh a lot more.
The 80s did raunchy (and comedy) so much better.
~~~
Eric (Sudekis) has had the same group of friends since high school. They all fit the stereotypes of a movie-centered-around-a-group-of-friends. There's a mental health professional (who happens to be beautiful), a corporate nerd, a struggling musician, a loser that latches on to everyone else, etc. The women are hot; the men are average at best, but that doesn't stop the women from hanging out with them. They all gather for lavish theme parties at their favorite summer home, which belongs to Eric's dad.
Sounds like a good teenage/college premise right? Well, it would have been. Trouble is, these folks are pushing 40.
And that's where they lose me.
When Eric's dad makes a cameo (it is Don Johnson, after all) to announce he's selling off the summer home for no particular reason, Eric and his posse decide they must have the Best Party Ever to say goodbye to it. After a brief brainstorm, Eric decides that they should go full monty (pun intended) and throw an orgy. His suggestion is met by a less than enthusiastic response (who wants to bang their childhood friends in front of each other?) but one by one, the group gets used to the idea and starts doing 'research' to plan the evening.
On a side note, the only not-completely-ridiculous part of the plot involves Eric falling in love with his realtor, Kelly (Bibb). They have a real, authentic chemistry and their scenes together make me wish this had just been a standard rom-com about a guy and a realtor having a meet-cute and living happily ever after.
But I digress.
Of course some of the friends like some of the other friends (who don't know they like them) and other friends have insecurity issues, body image issues, etc. They all have to get past this to get it on (but I would be spoiling things if I told you whether or not they did).
I can't say I exactly had high expectations going into this, but with folks like Sudekis and fellow SNL alum Will Forte on the roster, I did expect to laugh a lot more.
The 80s did raunchy (and comedy) so much better.
~~~
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Beginners
Today I saw Beginners, starring Ewan McGregor and Christopher Plummer.
Oliver (McGregor) is pushing 40 when his father, Hal (Plummer), tells him that he's gay, and he's known he was gay since he was 13 despite his marriage to Oliver's mother, which lasted until her passing.
Instead of freaking out or distancing himself from his dad, Oliver embraces this new knowledge and accepts his father's new lifestyle, along with his much younger boyfriend.
Unfortunately, he also has to deal with the news that his father is ill—so the limited time they have together makes his questions rise to the surface probably faster than they would have otherwise.
Depressing? Uh-huh. Stories about loss usually are sad, and this one definitely qualifies despite its attempts at momentary lapses of light.
The film jumps around between present day, flashbacks, voiceover and dog subtitles. Yes, dog subtitles. And instead of finding the high maintenance Jack Russell "Arthur" adorable (like many surely did), I found him to be terribly annoying.
The quirky bits don't really have a place in this melancholy drama, which at the heart of the script is really only about loss. Loss of family, loss of love, loss of innocence.
And despite the actors' phenomenal performances, the slow pace and the tragic topics at every turn made this film a somewhat unpleasant experience to witness.
Just one of the story arcs would've been enough to keep me interested, and I wish the writer (who based this on his own life experience) had chosen to approach it that way instead.
~~~
Oliver (McGregor) is pushing 40 when his father, Hal (Plummer), tells him that he's gay, and he's known he was gay since he was 13 despite his marriage to Oliver's mother, which lasted until her passing.
Instead of freaking out or distancing himself from his dad, Oliver embraces this new knowledge and accepts his father's new lifestyle, along with his much younger boyfriend.
Unfortunately, he also has to deal with the news that his father is ill—so the limited time they have together makes his questions rise to the surface probably faster than they would have otherwise.
Depressing? Uh-huh. Stories about loss usually are sad, and this one definitely qualifies despite its attempts at momentary lapses of light.
The film jumps around between present day, flashbacks, voiceover and dog subtitles. Yes, dog subtitles. And instead of finding the high maintenance Jack Russell "Arthur" adorable (like many surely did), I found him to be terribly annoying.
The quirky bits don't really have a place in this melancholy drama, which at the heart of the script is really only about loss. Loss of family, loss of love, loss of innocence.
And despite the actors' phenomenal performances, the slow pace and the tragic topics at every turn made this film a somewhat unpleasant experience to witness.
Just one of the story arcs would've been enough to keep me interested, and I wish the writer (who based this on his own life experience) had chosen to approach it that way instead.
~~~
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The Help
This morning I saw The Help, starring Viola Davis and Emma Stone.
I'll confess, I haven't read the book, but what I saw today certainly impressed me.
It's the early 60s and Skeeter (Stone), a recent Ole Miss grad, returns to her hometown of Jackson, Mississippi to launch her career as a writer. Assigned to write responses for a cleaning column (something she knows nothing about) she turns to 'the help' for help. Her friend's maid Aibileen (Davis) graciously agrees to provide her with correct answers for the column, and once they begin talking, Skeeter realizes she could write a much more interesting story. Her idea is to interview Aibileen and other black maids in town to tell about their lives from their perspective.
After much persuasion, Aibileen begins sharing her history in secret meetings with Skeeter. The talks go well, but Skeeter's editor wants more material to make a complete book. Trouble is, the maids in town are so scared of losing their jobs—or worse, their lives—that they choose to remain silent.
A number of awful, racist things happen in Jackson. Town bitch Hilly, played marvelously by Bryce Dallas Howard, wants all the colored people to have their own toilets. Because she holds so much respect among the Junior League, the other white housewives blindly follow her lead and begin installing their own separate toilets.
Shortly thereafter, civil rights leader Medgar Evars is gunned down in his own front yard, and all of the maids band together to tell their stories. They've reached the end of their tether.
Octavia Spencer as Minny is especially entertaining, her stature and strength reminiscent of Mammy in Gone With the Wind, who is coincidentally referenced in the film. But all of the maids are convincing in their individual degrees of conviction, just as the white-people-who-don't-realize-their-racist also seem authentic.
The film is peppered with various notable supporting performances: Sissy Spacek, Allison Janney and Nelsan Ellis all seamlessly blend in to the landscape and add just enough spark to make us remember them. Also fabulous is Jessica Chastain as Jackson's token outcast, Celia.
Really, there are no bad performances in this film, and with the exception of the length (at least half an hour could've been shaved off), this is a very satisfying, if not somewhat sad, snapshot of life in the South not so long ago.
Oscar season, here we come.
I'll confess, I haven't read the book, but what I saw today certainly impressed me.
It's the early 60s and Skeeter (Stone), a recent Ole Miss grad, returns to her hometown of Jackson, Mississippi to launch her career as a writer. Assigned to write responses for a cleaning column (something she knows nothing about) she turns to 'the help' for help. Her friend's maid Aibileen (Davis) graciously agrees to provide her with correct answers for the column, and once they begin talking, Skeeter realizes she could write a much more interesting story. Her idea is to interview Aibileen and other black maids in town to tell about their lives from their perspective.
After much persuasion, Aibileen begins sharing her history in secret meetings with Skeeter. The talks go well, but Skeeter's editor wants more material to make a complete book. Trouble is, the maids in town are so scared of losing their jobs—or worse, their lives—that they choose to remain silent.
A number of awful, racist things happen in Jackson. Town bitch Hilly, played marvelously by Bryce Dallas Howard, wants all the colored people to have their own toilets. Because she holds so much respect among the Junior League, the other white housewives blindly follow her lead and begin installing their own separate toilets.
Shortly thereafter, civil rights leader Medgar Evars is gunned down in his own front yard, and all of the maids band together to tell their stories. They've reached the end of their tether.
Octavia Spencer as Minny is especially entertaining, her stature and strength reminiscent of Mammy in Gone With the Wind, who is coincidentally referenced in the film. But all of the maids are convincing in their individual degrees of conviction, just as the white-people-who-don't-realize-their-racist also seem authentic.
The film is peppered with various notable supporting performances: Sissy Spacek, Allison Janney and Nelsan Ellis all seamlessly blend in to the landscape and add just enough spark to make us remember them. Also fabulous is Jessica Chastain as Jackson's token outcast, Celia.
Really, there are no bad performances in this film, and with the exception of the length (at least half an hour could've been shaved off), this is a very satisfying, if not somewhat sad, snapshot of life in the South not so long ago.
Oscar season, here we come.
~~~
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Tonight I saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, starring Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson.
It is seldom that a film franchise provides a decent sequel, let alone a respectable eighth film in a series, but this one thankfully did.
Deathly Hallows, Part 2 picks up right where Part 1 left off with (me sobbing at) Dobby the House Elf's untimely demise.
Harry has a mission to find the final Horcrux, kill the snake and ultimately kill Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), who is more menacing and magically awful in this one than any of the previous films.
The pace is slow at first, but that's okay—we've missed these characters and it's nice to warm up to them again. In fact, the scene where Harry first sees his love, Ginny, was especially stomach-jump worthy. Then again, I'm a hopeless romantic so your results may vary.
Anyway—after they get the reunions (somewhat) out of the way, the film goes very Indiana Jones, and I don't mean that in a bad way. It's definitely the most physical of the eight and quite possibly the only one that will give me nightmares (specifically the fire with the faces in it and just about any Voldemort scene). But it's exciting—even when you know what happens next.
The main characters are pitch perfect, as usual, and the supporting (three cheers for Neville Longbottom!) are just as charming. Though I wasn't too young when the series started, I do feel like I've "grown up" with this bunch, and their familiarity is a comfort.
I won't reveal the ending, though if you're a breathing human being you probably know how it all turns out.
I'll just say that the finale was incredibly satisfying, I was never bored, and I'm so, so sad that it's over.
~~~
It is seldom that a film franchise provides a decent sequel, let alone a respectable eighth film in a series, but this one thankfully did.
Deathly Hallows, Part 2 picks up right where Part 1 left off with (me sobbing at) Dobby the House Elf's untimely demise.
Harry has a mission to find the final Horcrux, kill the snake and ultimately kill Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), who is more menacing and magically awful in this one than any of the previous films.
The pace is slow at first, but that's okay—we've missed these characters and it's nice to warm up to them again. In fact, the scene where Harry first sees his love, Ginny, was especially stomach-jump worthy. Then again, I'm a hopeless romantic so your results may vary.
Anyway—after they get the reunions (somewhat) out of the way, the film goes very Indiana Jones, and I don't mean that in a bad way. It's definitely the most physical of the eight and quite possibly the only one that will give me nightmares (specifically the fire with the faces in it and just about any Voldemort scene). But it's exciting—even when you know what happens next.
The main characters are pitch perfect, as usual, and the supporting (three cheers for Neville Longbottom!) are just as charming. Though I wasn't too young when the series started, I do feel like I've "grown up" with this bunch, and their familiarity is a comfort.
I won't reveal the ending, though if you're a breathing human being you probably know how it all turns out.
I'll just say that the finale was incredibly satisfying, I was never bored, and I'm so, so sad that it's over.
~~~
Monday, August 08, 2011
Crazy, Stupid, Love
Tonight I saw Crazy, Stupid, Love starring Steve Carell and Ryan Gosling.
Yes, it really is that good.
I'll admit I was skeptical of what some critics are practically calling the second coming of romantic comedies, but it really got me.
Cal (Carell) is a devastated dad who is blindsided by his wife's admission of an affair and her desire for a divorce. He drowns his sorrows in cranberry vodkas at a local club, which is obviously geared toward younger singles.
His moping catches the eye of womanizer Jacob (Gosling) who decides to adopt Cal as a pet project and give him a man-makeover. Soon they are picking up women in the same way, and loving-and-leaving them.
Emily (Julianne Moore), Cal's wife, is remorseful about her cheating, but still seeing the "other man" at work. Jessica, the babysitter, (Analeigh Tipton) has a crush on Cal. Cal's son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) has a crush on Jessica. Confused yet?
Really, it's much simpler than it sounds, and undeniably sweet.
Sure, Emily's done something bad and Cal's behavior in the aftermath isn't much better, but the difference between this and a million other rom-coms is that these characters are very likable. We actually kind of want them to reconcile, despite their mistakes, to keep their son's vision of true love alive.
Also a joy to watch is the slimy-yet-redeeming Ryan Gosling and the always-electric Emma Stone. Their chemistry is fantastic, though they're barely on screen more than 15 minutes together.
There's laughter throughout, a borderline-slapstick scene at the end (following a twist that most won't see coming) and a satisfying ending that's both believable and welcome.
Yeah, you should go see it. I might just see it again.
~~~
Yes, it really is that good.
I'll admit I was skeptical of what some critics are practically calling the second coming of romantic comedies, but it really got me.
Cal (Carell) is a devastated dad who is blindsided by his wife's admission of an affair and her desire for a divorce. He drowns his sorrows in cranberry vodkas at a local club, which is obviously geared toward younger singles.
His moping catches the eye of womanizer Jacob (Gosling) who decides to adopt Cal as a pet project and give him a man-makeover. Soon they are picking up women in the same way, and loving-and-leaving them.
Emily (Julianne Moore), Cal's wife, is remorseful about her cheating, but still seeing the "other man" at work. Jessica, the babysitter, (Analeigh Tipton) has a crush on Cal. Cal's son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) has a crush on Jessica. Confused yet?
Really, it's much simpler than it sounds, and undeniably sweet.
Sure, Emily's done something bad and Cal's behavior in the aftermath isn't much better, but the difference between this and a million other rom-coms is that these characters are very likable. We actually kind of want them to reconcile, despite their mistakes, to keep their son's vision of true love alive.
Also a joy to watch is the slimy-yet-redeeming Ryan Gosling and the always-electric Emma Stone. Their chemistry is fantastic, though they're barely on screen more than 15 minutes together.
There's laughter throughout, a borderline-slapstick scene at the end (following a twist that most won't see coming) and a satisfying ending that's both believable and welcome.
Yeah, you should go see it. I might just see it again.
~~~
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friends with Benefits
This morning I saw Friends with Benefits, starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis.
It's the age-old question: can two friends who are physically attracted to each other have a sex without developing feelings? The characters in this film bargain they can.
Jamie (Kunis) is the headhunter who convinces Dylan (Timberlake) to relocate to New York from L.A. for a great job with GQ. Since he knows no one in his new city, the two become buddies by default and are soon lounging around together on the couch watching movies.
Their attraction to one another is undeniable (and Timberlake and Kunis have enough chemistry to pull off the tension), but both were recently burned in previous relationships so they decide they want nothing from each other except sex.
And the filmmakers should be commended for their first sex scene—if couples would be as honest as these two are (telling one another EXACTLY what to do and how to do it) the world would probably be a happier place. Because they get all of the communication out of the way in their very technical debut encounter, they end up having a truly satisfying physical relationship, which almost achieves exactly what they wanted.
Until they decide to start dating other people.
The film then takes a very formulaic turn, throws in some family members (one with a sad ailment), a trip home and we all know where the rest of the story is headed.
But that's okay.
The clever writing, fun pop culture references (who doesn't fondly remember Kris Kross?) and generally lighthearted vibe make forgiving its flaws easy.
The two leads are a pleasure to watch and the story is something that should appeal to anyone who has thought "what if?" about one of their attractive friends.
~~~
It's the age-old question: can two friends who are physically attracted to each other have a sex without developing feelings? The characters in this film bargain they can.
Jamie (Kunis) is the headhunter who convinces Dylan (Timberlake) to relocate to New York from L.A. for a great job with GQ. Since he knows no one in his new city, the two become buddies by default and are soon lounging around together on the couch watching movies.
Their attraction to one another is undeniable (and Timberlake and Kunis have enough chemistry to pull off the tension), but both were recently burned in previous relationships so they decide they want nothing from each other except sex.
And the filmmakers should be commended for their first sex scene—if couples would be as honest as these two are (telling one another EXACTLY what to do and how to do it) the world would probably be a happier place. Because they get all of the communication out of the way in their very technical debut encounter, they end up having a truly satisfying physical relationship, which almost achieves exactly what they wanted.
Until they decide to start dating other people.
The film then takes a very formulaic turn, throws in some family members (one with a sad ailment), a trip home and we all know where the rest of the story is headed.
But that's okay.
The clever writing, fun pop culture references (who doesn't fondly remember Kris Kross?) and generally lighthearted vibe make forgiving its flaws easy.
The two leads are a pleasure to watch and the story is something that should appeal to anyone who has thought "what if?" about one of their attractive friends.
~~~
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Tabloid
Today I saw the documentary Tabloid, directed by Errol Morris.
It will be the topic of Cinebanter #106, so tune in next month for our review.
It will be the topic of Cinebanter #106, so tune in next month for our review.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
The Tree of Life
On Sunday, I saw The Tree of Life, starring Brad Pitt and Hunter McCracken.
This is a film to walk into without expectations, and I wish I'd had that luxury.
I'd heard that I would love it; I'd heard that I would hate it. I'd heard that I would know what it feels like to be a baby, then a young boy. I was told my faith would be challenged. None of that turned out to be remotely true.
I didn't love this movie, but I most certainly didn't hate it—there is too much magic present for that to happen. It stirred intense emotions within me, though while it was doing so I was lamenting the fact it was about an hour too long.
I was impressed by Brad Pitt and Hunter McCracken, who play father and son. I was annoyed by Jessica Chastain (Mom), who seemed always to be running or floating or crying on her sad little suburban street.
I was disappointed that Sean Penn's appearance was so brief, and wondered why the grown-up version of his character was even there.
I was amazed by the beauty of what I was witnessing on-screen: the stars forming; rivers with dinosaurs jumping about; a beautiful baby giggling and cooing; a gorgeous, old tree our symbol of life throughout.
There are a dozen different ways this film could be interpreted—some feasible, others reaching. So I'll just express how I experienced it and wonder if anyone else felt the same way...
I believe the entire movie was meant to show God's perspective.
I believe we were watching the story of one family because most of us could relate to that in the easiest way (and the director's childhood was apparently similar to that of the film's young hero).
I believe it was meant to be a conversation by humans asking God why life is filled with such pain.
I believe it was meant to show that God's plan is merely a cycle and we're all just in each part of it temporarily.
I believe it was meant to show that God sometimes experiences life with us, which is why we must hurt.
I believe it was meant to show that God sees the world in whatever way He chooses: through his own eyes, through those of a child, or via a guilt-ridden adult.
I believe God is meant to be represented as an entity or simply as another branch of nature.
I believe it is up to us to decide.
~~~
This is a film to walk into without expectations, and I wish I'd had that luxury.
I'd heard that I would love it; I'd heard that I would hate it. I'd heard that I would know what it feels like to be a baby, then a young boy. I was told my faith would be challenged. None of that turned out to be remotely true.
I didn't love this movie, but I most certainly didn't hate it—there is too much magic present for that to happen. It stirred intense emotions within me, though while it was doing so I was lamenting the fact it was about an hour too long.
I was impressed by Brad Pitt and Hunter McCracken, who play father and son. I was annoyed by Jessica Chastain (Mom), who seemed always to be running or floating or crying on her sad little suburban street.
I was disappointed that Sean Penn's appearance was so brief, and wondered why the grown-up version of his character was even there.
I was amazed by the beauty of what I was witnessing on-screen: the stars forming; rivers with dinosaurs jumping about; a beautiful baby giggling and cooing; a gorgeous, old tree our symbol of life throughout.
There are a dozen different ways this film could be interpreted—some feasible, others reaching. So I'll just express how I experienced it and wonder if anyone else felt the same way...
I believe the entire movie was meant to show God's perspective.
I believe we were watching the story of one family because most of us could relate to that in the easiest way (and the director's childhood was apparently similar to that of the film's young hero).
I believe it was meant to be a conversation by humans asking God why life is filled with such pain.
I believe it was meant to show that God's plan is merely a cycle and we're all just in each part of it temporarily.
I believe it was meant to show that God sometimes experiences life with us, which is why we must hurt.
I believe it was meant to show that God sees the world in whatever way He chooses: through his own eyes, through those of a child, or via a guilt-ridden adult.
I believe God is meant to be represented as an entity or simply as another branch of nature.
I believe it is up to us to decide.
~~~
Friday, July 01, 2011
Larry Crowne
Today I saw Larry Crowne, starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.
Larry (Hanks) is a content retail worker until his world comes crashing down during company layoffs. He's forced to give up his house, his car—his life as he knows it.
The reason given for him being chosen as someone to lay off is insufficient education, so he decides to go back to school to use up all of this new spare time. There, at the local community college, he takes a class from Mrs. Tainot (Roberts). She's a bitter, jaded, out-of-love-with-her-husband kind of woman who probably shouldn't be teaching anymore.
But of course, her hard-ass approach and wrap dresses make all of the students a captive audience, and soon the kid who was answering his cell phone in class is up giving presentations just like everyone else (even if he cheats by writing them on his hands).
Did I mention that Larry befriends another student in the class who convinces him to join her scooter gang? And that the scooter gang is comprised of people younger and more diverse than Larry?
Sound cliché? Well, it is, but I can't help but still love Hanks, who co-wrote this with My Big Fat Greek Wedding's Nia Vardalos.
He (as usual) is incredibly likable in this role, and a few cameos from his real-life wife, Rita Wilson, and Vardalos' real-life husband, Ian Gomez are also fun to watch.
But the chemistry between Roberts and Hanks isn't as electric as the script would imply. With the exception of one 'kiss' scene, which tells us of their physical attraction, these two characters appear to have no reason to even like one another.
Bryan Cranston, who plays Roberts' loser of a husband, has more sparks with her in his limited time on screen than she and Hanks do throughout the entire film.
For a formulaic, occasionally funny, PG-day-at-the-movies type of flick, Crowne isn't horrible, but it certainly doesn't live up to its stars' or writers' other works.
~~~
Larry (Hanks) is a content retail worker until his world comes crashing down during company layoffs. He's forced to give up his house, his car—his life as he knows it.
The reason given for him being chosen as someone to lay off is insufficient education, so he decides to go back to school to use up all of this new spare time. There, at the local community college, he takes a class from Mrs. Tainot (Roberts). She's a bitter, jaded, out-of-love-with-her-husband kind of woman who probably shouldn't be teaching anymore.
But of course, her hard-ass approach and wrap dresses make all of the students a captive audience, and soon the kid who was answering his cell phone in class is up giving presentations just like everyone else (even if he cheats by writing them on his hands).
Did I mention that Larry befriends another student in the class who convinces him to join her scooter gang? And that the scooter gang is comprised of people younger and more diverse than Larry?
Sound cliché? Well, it is, but I can't help but still love Hanks, who co-wrote this with My Big Fat Greek Wedding's Nia Vardalos.
He (as usual) is incredibly likable in this role, and a few cameos from his real-life wife, Rita Wilson, and Vardalos' real-life husband, Ian Gomez are also fun to watch.
But the chemistry between Roberts and Hanks isn't as electric as the script would imply. With the exception of one 'kiss' scene, which tells us of their physical attraction, these two characters appear to have no reason to even like one another.
Bryan Cranston, who plays Roberts' loser of a husband, has more sparks with her in his limited time on screen than she and Hanks do throughout the entire film.
For a formulaic, occasionally funny, PG-day-at-the-movies type of flick, Crowne isn't horrible, but it certainly doesn't live up to its stars' or writers' other works.
~~~
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Super 8
This morning I saw Super 8, starring Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning.
Joe (Courtney) is the son of the town deputy—an only child who lost his mother earlier in the year to a workplace accident. Alice (Fanning) is a girl from school who has a father who is always in trouble and a mother who has abandoned them. The two kids are, of course, destined to be together.
Their mutual friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) is making a film and they are both helping. As they become each other's certain first loves, they find themselves entangled in the aftermath of a local train crash, which has epic consequences.
You see, a creature of some sort (probably of the alien variety) has emerged from the crash and begun to wreak havoc on the entire town, apparently stealing dogs, people and copper. And let's just say each time "it" arrives, it "makes an entrance."
In the fashion of classic Spielberg hits like E.T. and The Goonies, the kids know more than the adults and are therefore tasked with saving the day.
Really, that was all fine with me.
Predictable as it was (and toward the end I was practically mouthing lines, though I'd never seen Super 8 before today), it was still incredibly enjoyable to watch a film set in the 70s that actually felt like the real 70s.
I loved seeing a dish on the table at one of the family's homes that was in my home as a kid, and I couldn't help but smile at the nod to the "new invention" of the Walkman.
I'm glad to see in our world of 3D, CGI, bigger-is-better film mentality that the studios are still willing to green light the occasional coming-of-age caper.
This one doesn't disappoint.
~~~
Joe (Courtney) is the son of the town deputy—an only child who lost his mother earlier in the year to a workplace accident. Alice (Fanning) is a girl from school who has a father who is always in trouble and a mother who has abandoned them. The two kids are, of course, destined to be together.
Their mutual friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) is making a film and they are both helping. As they become each other's certain first loves, they find themselves entangled in the aftermath of a local train crash, which has epic consequences.
You see, a creature of some sort (probably of the alien variety) has emerged from the crash and begun to wreak havoc on the entire town, apparently stealing dogs, people and copper. And let's just say each time "it" arrives, it "makes an entrance."
In the fashion of classic Spielberg hits like E.T. and The Goonies, the kids know more than the adults and are therefore tasked with saving the day.
Really, that was all fine with me.
Predictable as it was (and toward the end I was practically mouthing lines, though I'd never seen Super 8 before today), it was still incredibly enjoyable to watch a film set in the 70s that actually felt like the real 70s.
I loved seeing a dish on the table at one of the family's homes that was in my home as a kid, and I couldn't help but smile at the nod to the "new invention" of the Walkman.
I'm glad to see in our world of 3D, CGI, bigger-is-better film mentality that the studios are still willing to green light the occasional coming-of-age caper.
This one doesn't disappoint.
~~~
Revenge of the Electric Car
On June 8, I screened Revenge of the Electric Car.
To read my review, visit Cinebanter.com.
These Amazing Shadows
On May 30, I screened These Amazing Shadows.
To read my review, visit Cinebanter.com.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)