Today I saw To Rome with Love, starring Jesse Eisenberg and Alec Baldwin.
This film was just what I needed.
Woody Allen directs and stars in this delightful dance around Rome. Using his signature themes of adultery and infatuation, he shows us four stories of life and love—all entertaining and pleasant to follow.
First, there's Jack (Eisenberg), an aspiring American architect living in Rome with his girlfriend, getting to know an architectural legend, John (Baldwin) whom he met on the street. John comes for coffee and then materializes magically (hilariously) for days thereafter to offer advice. Monica (Ellen Page) is the seductress that John is advising Jack against.
Leopoldo (Roberto Benigni) is an everyday business man until he wakes up famous for no reason. The paparazzi hound him, he enjoys the pleasures of popularity and exhibits behavior associated with those who gain fame too fast.
Antonio (Alessandro Tiberian) and Milly (Alessandra Mastronardi) are newlyweds who have come to the city to introduce Milly to Antonio's family. She feels frumpy and sets out to find a beauty salon and gets lost. By days' end, both sides of this happy couple will be sexually tempted by strangers.
Hillary (Allison Pill) falls in love and becomes engaged to Michaelangelo (Flavio Parenti) and wants her parents Jerry (Woody Allen) and Phyllis (Judy Davis) to meet him. When they arrive in Rome, they learn of Michaelangelo's father who is an undertaker with a gift for song. Jerry, a former music man, wants to jump start his career, but needs to come up with a creative way for him to overcome stage fright.
Each story is told with heart and humor, and every path leads to at least one character to root for.
This film isn't a masterpiece like Match Point or Midnight in Paris, but it is very satisfying.
I only wish Woody would continue this trend of basing his films in European cities.
I can only imagine what he'd do with Dublin.
~~~
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises
Tonight I saw The Dark Knight Rises, starring Christian Bale and Anne Hathaway.
It will be the topic of our August Cinebanter show, so tune in next month for our review.
Saturday, July 07, 2012
Magic Mike
Tonight I saw Magic Mike, starring Channing Tatum and Cody Horn.
Let's be real—none of us were going for the plot anyway.
Magic Mike is the stripper name of Mike (Tatum), who has a lot of 'career' irons in the fire. He's a construction worker, auto detailer and maker of high-concept furniture, but his bread and butter comes from stripping.
Adam (Alex Pettyfer) is a 19-year-old 'kid' who Mike meets on a construction job. Down on his luck, Adam needs work, so Mike recruits him to be a prop guy at the club...which soon leads to him also becoming a stripper. And a drug dealer. And a punk.
Amidst all the chaos is a budding romance between Mike and Adam's sister Brooke (Horn). Brooke is the physical opposite of all the ladies that frequent the club: low-maintenance, sans makeup, real breasts. He's immediately smitten, of course.
As Mike attempts (quite unsuccessfully) to keep Adam on the straight and narrow, Brooke acts as his judgmental conscience, all the while falling equally in love (or lust) with him.
If the characters weren't so devoid of intelligence, it would have borderline sweet.
But Mike thinks he can get an SBA loan with a stack of ones he collected from his underwear, and Adam thinks he can 'lose' a backpack full of ecstasy and not repay his debts to the drug lords.
Really?
Yeah, it's not so good.
But the werewolf from True Blood (Joe Manganiello) does do some dancing, and Channing is undeniably convincing as the 'lead' stripper, so there are moments of pleasure here and there (I was personally partial to the 'military' sequence).
And Matthew McConaughey? Well, he's almost too convincing as the slimy club owner.
All in all, for a stripper movie billed as the ingredients for a quintessential ladies' night, I could have done with much less talking and a lot more action.
~~~
Let's be real—none of us were going for the plot anyway.
Magic Mike is the stripper name of Mike (Tatum), who has a lot of 'career' irons in the fire. He's a construction worker, auto detailer and maker of high-concept furniture, but his bread and butter comes from stripping.
Adam (Alex Pettyfer) is a 19-year-old 'kid' who Mike meets on a construction job. Down on his luck, Adam needs work, so Mike recruits him to be a prop guy at the club...which soon leads to him also becoming a stripper. And a drug dealer. And a punk.
Amidst all the chaos is a budding romance between Mike and Adam's sister Brooke (Horn). Brooke is the physical opposite of all the ladies that frequent the club: low-maintenance, sans makeup, real breasts. He's immediately smitten, of course.
As Mike attempts (quite unsuccessfully) to keep Adam on the straight and narrow, Brooke acts as his judgmental conscience, all the while falling equally in love (or lust) with him.
If the characters weren't so devoid of intelligence, it would have borderline sweet.
But Mike thinks he can get an SBA loan with a stack of ones he collected from his underwear, and Adam thinks he can 'lose' a backpack full of ecstasy and not repay his debts to the drug lords.
Really?
Yeah, it's not so good.
But the werewolf from True Blood (Joe Manganiello) does do some dancing, and Channing is undeniably convincing as the 'lead' stripper, so there are moments of pleasure here and there (I was personally partial to the 'military' sequence).
And Matthew McConaughey? Well, he's almost too convincing as the slimy club owner.
All in all, for a stripper movie billed as the ingredients for a quintessential ladies' night, I could have done with much less talking and a lot more action.
~~~
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Ted
Today I saw Ted, starring Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis.
It will the be the topic of our July episode of Cinebanter, so tune in later this month for our review.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Moonrise Kingdom
Today I saw Moonrise Kingdom, starring Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward.
Orphan Sam (Gilman) and disenchanted Suzy (Hayward) are experiencing first love with each other. They met last year and have successfully run away with each other this summer. Him from scout camp; her from home (in a nearby lighthouse).
Because Sam is stellar camper, they have all they need to survive: a tent, weapons, food (plus the know-how to catch more) and a compass. In fact, by the time the adults in their lives realize they're missing, they're already enjoying an 'independent' life at their destination, full of dancing (they brought a record player, of course), reading and kissing.
Once the adults retrieve them, a new mission begins to reunite the pair.
All of this is very sweet, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy seeing Edward Norton (Scout Master Ward) dressed in camp clothes leading a pack of little guys, but the cardboard way in which Wes Anderson forces his actors to behave takes all of the life out of the love.
His trademark style is there: vintage clothes; dark eyeliner; fun music; bright colors; quick cut-a-ways to things that should make us chuckle. But what's also there is an underlying sense of gloom that doesn't have any place in a film about being young (and smitten).
All the while as you're rooting for the main two (who are admittedly adorable), you're nodding along sadly at how mature they are to know it probably can't last forever.
One would hope this loss of innocence would be preserved until a much later age and that the emotion they do feel could be allowed to shine, instead of hiding behind false dialog and cutesy one-liners delivered in monotone.
~~~
Orphan Sam (Gilman) and disenchanted Suzy (Hayward) are experiencing first love with each other. They met last year and have successfully run away with each other this summer. Him from scout camp; her from home (in a nearby lighthouse).
Because Sam is stellar camper, they have all they need to survive: a tent, weapons, food (plus the know-how to catch more) and a compass. In fact, by the time the adults in their lives realize they're missing, they're already enjoying an 'independent' life at their destination, full of dancing (they brought a record player, of course), reading and kissing.
Once the adults retrieve them, a new mission begins to reunite the pair.
All of this is very sweet, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy seeing Edward Norton (Scout Master Ward) dressed in camp clothes leading a pack of little guys, but the cardboard way in which Wes Anderson forces his actors to behave takes all of the life out of the love.
His trademark style is there: vintage clothes; dark eyeliner; fun music; bright colors; quick cut-a-ways to things that should make us chuckle. But what's also there is an underlying sense of gloom that doesn't have any place in a film about being young (and smitten).
All the while as you're rooting for the main two (who are admittedly adorable), you're nodding along sadly at how mature they are to know it probably can't last forever.
One would hope this loss of innocence would be preserved until a much later age and that the emotion they do feel could be allowed to shine, instead of hiding behind false dialog and cutesy one-liners delivered in monotone.
~~~
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Prometheus
Tonight I saw Prometheus, starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender.
It will be the topic of Cinebanter #113, so tune in the last week of June for our review.
It will be the topic of Cinebanter #113, so tune in the last week of June for our review.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Dark Shadows
Yesterday I saw Dark Shadows, starring Johnny Depp and Michelle Pfeiffer.
Barnabas Collins (Depp) is a vampire from the 1700s awakened in the 1970s by construction workers who disrupt his coffin. He's also one of the famous members of the Collins family who built the town in Maine where the story takes place.
Elizabeth (Pfeiffer) is the current matriarch of the household, tending to a bratty daughter, a careless brother and a disturbed nephew. They also have a drunken butler and a live-in shrink. Toss in a scorned former lover/witch who placed the vampire curse on Barnabas originally (yet still wants him) and the film is ready to roll.
But really, it doesn't.
Depp is predictably creepy-wonderful as the fish-out-of-water Barnabas, but they don't give him much to do. Aside from reading Love Story and being mesmerized by a lava lamp (mistaking the goo inside for blood), there aren't too many jokes of the era. In fact, the most entertaining scene is the sex between Barnabas and the witch. It's not remotely erotic, but it's action-packed and sort of funny.
Unfortunately, that's about as good as it gets all around. Burton's styling is good, but not nearly as spectacular as his previous films. All of the actors play their parts well; their dialog just doesn't do them justice.
I'm not old enough to remember the soap opera of the same name, but I had high hopes for this film and its players. The director to be counted on for visual brilliance; the cast permeated with actors I love.
Sadly, the whole production fell below my expectations.
~~~
Barnabas Collins (Depp) is a vampire from the 1700s awakened in the 1970s by construction workers who disrupt his coffin. He's also one of the famous members of the Collins family who built the town in Maine where the story takes place.
Elizabeth (Pfeiffer) is the current matriarch of the household, tending to a bratty daughter, a careless brother and a disturbed nephew. They also have a drunken butler and a live-in shrink. Toss in a scorned former lover/witch who placed the vampire curse on Barnabas originally (yet still wants him) and the film is ready to roll.
But really, it doesn't.
Depp is predictably creepy-wonderful as the fish-out-of-water Barnabas, but they don't give him much to do. Aside from reading Love Story and being mesmerized by a lava lamp (mistaking the goo inside for blood), there aren't too many jokes of the era. In fact, the most entertaining scene is the sex between Barnabas and the witch. It's not remotely erotic, but it's action-packed and sort of funny.
Unfortunately, that's about as good as it gets all around. Burton's styling is good, but not nearly as spectacular as his previous films. All of the actors play their parts well; their dialog just doesn't do them justice.
I'm not old enough to remember the soap opera of the same name, but I had high hopes for this film and its players. The director to be counted on for visual brilliance; the cast permeated with actors I love.
Sadly, the whole production fell below my expectations.
~~~
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Newlyweds
Today I saw Newlyweds, starring Edward Burns and Caitlin Fitzgerald.
Full disclosure: I follow Edward Burns on Twitter and was actively watching/participating in the collaborative Tweets he sent out while scripting and shooting this film.
That said, even if I new nothing of his process, I'd still have walked away from this movie with a smile on my face.
Buzzy (Burns) and Katie (Fitzgerald) are newlyweds. They've both been married before and are determined to get it right this time.
They are close to Katie's sister Marsha (Marsha Dietlein) and her husband Max (Max Baker). Marsha is annoying in an older-sister kind of way; Max is clearly tired of being married to Marsha. It happens, you know.
When Buzzy's younger sister Linda (Kerry Bishé) arrives unexpectedly to stay with the couple until she finds permanent housing, their wedded bliss comes to a screeching halt.
Linda, to put it simply, is a handful. An immature, irresponsible, ungrateful handful. But Buzzy defends her to Katie and vice versa, and soon finds himself embroiled in drama (something he thought he was leaving behind when he married Katie).
As they navigate this storm of external influences, some of the ideals they had about their marriage (as told to us in earlier scenes) begin to dissolve. We see first-hand how fragile relationships really are (not that we didn't know, but...) and how important it may be to define certain "agreements" when making a commitment as serious as marriage.
When you say that you'll tell each other everything, does that include things that you know will hurt your partner?
This is one of the questions the film asks of its characters and it seems like a good one to ask whomever you choose to spend your life with as well.
No union can be perfect, but serious damage can be done by family and friends—even those with good intentions. At the same time, no couple should have to isolate themselves from everyone to enjoy a healthy relationship.
Newlyweds is anchored by sharp dialog and well-developed characters who illustrate this point. Like Burns' other films, there isn't a lot of clutter to get in the way of telling a good old-fashioned story.
There's also an organic method in which the scenes are shot that allows us to feel as if we've just knocked on a friend's door after they've had a fight with their lover. We're there to observe and listen and react as they do in their most raw moments.
Isn't that what great filmmaking should make us feel?
~~~
Full disclosure: I follow Edward Burns on Twitter and was actively watching/participating in the collaborative Tweets he sent out while scripting and shooting this film.
That said, even if I new nothing of his process, I'd still have walked away from this movie with a smile on my face.
Buzzy (Burns) and Katie (Fitzgerald) are newlyweds. They've both been married before and are determined to get it right this time.
They are close to Katie's sister Marsha (Marsha Dietlein) and her husband Max (Max Baker). Marsha is annoying in an older-sister kind of way; Max is clearly tired of being married to Marsha. It happens, you know.
When Buzzy's younger sister Linda (Kerry Bishé) arrives unexpectedly to stay with the couple until she finds permanent housing, their wedded bliss comes to a screeching halt.
Linda, to put it simply, is a handful. An immature, irresponsible, ungrateful handful. But Buzzy defends her to Katie and vice versa, and soon finds himself embroiled in drama (something he thought he was leaving behind when he married Katie).
As they navigate this storm of external influences, some of the ideals they had about their marriage (as told to us in earlier scenes) begin to dissolve. We see first-hand how fragile relationships really are (not that we didn't know, but...) and how important it may be to define certain "agreements" when making a commitment as serious as marriage.
When you say that you'll tell each other everything, does that include things that you know will hurt your partner?
This is one of the questions the film asks of its characters and it seems like a good one to ask whomever you choose to spend your life with as well.
No union can be perfect, but serious damage can be done by family and friends—even those with good intentions. At the same time, no couple should have to isolate themselves from everyone to enjoy a healthy relationship.
Newlyweds is anchored by sharp dialog and well-developed characters who illustrate this point. Like Burns' other films, there isn't a lot of clutter to get in the way of telling a good old-fashioned story.
There's also an organic method in which the scenes are shot that allows us to feel as if we've just knocked on a friend's door after they've had a fight with their lover. We're there to observe and listen and react as they do in their most raw moments.
Isn't that what great filmmaking should make us feel?
~~~
Friday, May 04, 2012
The Avengers
Tonight I saw The Avengers, starring Robert Downey, Jr. and Mark Ruffalo.
It will be the topic of the May edition of Cinebanter, so tune in later this month for our review.
It will be the topic of the May edition of Cinebanter, so tune in later this month for our review.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
The Five-Year Engagement
Tonight I saw The Five-Year Engagement, starring Jason Segel and Emily Blunt.
Tom (Segel) and Violet (Blunt) seem to be the perfect couple: they make each other laugh, have undeniable chemistry, and make good use of a strong physical attraction. After just a year of dating, they become engaged and joyfully announce their upcoming nuptials.
Then Violet doesn't get accepted to the graduate program at Berkeley but does get accepted to a program in Michigan, so their plans change. They postpone the wedding and leave San Francisco so she can live her dream. Tom, as a result, has to leave his chef job at a big city restaurant and take a position as a sandwich maker in their new town.
Tom becomes miserable, Violet becomes consumed with her academia, and the years drag on without a wedding. This is pretty much the entire movie.
The two core characters are very realistic and well-written; the supporting characters (a token 'crazy' friend for Tom; an irresponsible sister for Violet) not so much.
What's enjoyable to watch are the scenes that truly mirror life: during one spat Tom says he wants to be alone yet when Violet starts to leave the room he tells her to come back to bed; parents of each manage to tell them they're idiots to put off the wedding; some of the most fun each of them has is at work with their respective peer groups.
While Segel and Blunt make a lovely couple, their struggles do remind us hopeless romantics that life will just never be that good. Partners, no matter how kind, will eventually disappoint us, and perhaps instead of looking for perfection we should realize that if we have anyone in our corner for any length of time that in itself is somewhat of an emotional victory.
After several uneven, silly sequences (don't get me started on the hunting bow), the movie does thankfully end in a satisfying, sweet way.
Kind of like a redemption usually reserved for an ex that wasn't so bad after all.
~~~
Tom (Segel) and Violet (Blunt) seem to be the perfect couple: they make each other laugh, have undeniable chemistry, and make good use of a strong physical attraction. After just a year of dating, they become engaged and joyfully announce their upcoming nuptials.
Then Violet doesn't get accepted to the graduate program at Berkeley but does get accepted to a program in Michigan, so their plans change. They postpone the wedding and leave San Francisco so she can live her dream. Tom, as a result, has to leave his chef job at a big city restaurant and take a position as a sandwich maker in their new town.
Tom becomes miserable, Violet becomes consumed with her academia, and the years drag on without a wedding. This is pretty much the entire movie.
The two core characters are very realistic and well-written; the supporting characters (a token 'crazy' friend for Tom; an irresponsible sister for Violet) not so much.
What's enjoyable to watch are the scenes that truly mirror life: during one spat Tom says he wants to be alone yet when Violet starts to leave the room he tells her to come back to bed; parents of each manage to tell them they're idiots to put off the wedding; some of the most fun each of them has is at work with their respective peer groups.
While Segel and Blunt make a lovely couple, their struggles do remind us hopeless romantics that life will just never be that good. Partners, no matter how kind, will eventually disappoint us, and perhaps instead of looking for perfection we should realize that if we have anyone in our corner for any length of time that in itself is somewhat of an emotional victory.
After several uneven, silly sequences (don't get me started on the hunting bow), the movie does thankfully end in a satisfying, sweet way.
Kind of like a redemption usually reserved for an ex that wasn't so bad after all.
~~~
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The Cabin in the Woods
Today I saw The Cabin in the Woods, starring Kristen Connolly and Fran Kranz.
The premise is simple: a group of college-age friends head out to the woods for a weekend getaway. Their destination is a cabin that belongs to the cousin of one of the friends.
As with most horror films, there are stereotypical characters drawn boldly, very early on.
Dana (Connolly) is the innocent one (though there's talk that she just ended an affair with her professor); Marty (Kranz) is the stoner; Kurt (Chris Hemsworth) is the jock; Jules (Anna Hutchison) is Kurt's girlfriend—complete with bleached blonde hair. Rounding out the group is the brain, cutely named for a famous literary character, Holden (Jesse Williams).
En route to the cabin, which can't be found on a GPS, they encounter a creepy man at a side-of-the-road store who is mean to them. Yes, all of this usual fodder is presented as a big wink to the viewers, in the same vein as the Scream movies. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Once the friends arrive at their destination, things start getting scary... and unfortunately, that's about all I can say about it without spoiling the whole thing.
What I can say: The supporting characters played by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford are a lot of fun, and I was delighted to see how much screen time was actually dedicated to them (it's a lot). The big-star cameo at the end is awesome too.
I also for the most part liked all of the main actors' performances (except for Marty, who seemed to be like an exaggerated Owen Wilson minus the charm). The writing overall is clever, if not an intentional mish-mash of about four other movies in the genre.
What I could have done without were the scenes where they're attempting to pay homage to about 20 different horror icons and you get the sense they're presented in chaos only to force repeat viewings (so you can say that you spotted them all). I'm sure I didn't see half of them, but I'm okay with that.
All in all it was an entertaining ride and I would recommend it to folks who can handle a little 'movie blood' and laugh at the end result.
The premise is simple: a group of college-age friends head out to the woods for a weekend getaway. Their destination is a cabin that belongs to the cousin of one of the friends.
As with most horror films, there are stereotypical characters drawn boldly, very early on.
Dana (Connolly) is the innocent one (though there's talk that she just ended an affair with her professor); Marty (Kranz) is the stoner; Kurt (Chris Hemsworth) is the jock; Jules (Anna Hutchison) is Kurt's girlfriend—complete with bleached blonde hair. Rounding out the group is the brain, cutely named for a famous literary character, Holden (Jesse Williams).
En route to the cabin, which can't be found on a GPS, they encounter a creepy man at a side-of-the-road store who is mean to them. Yes, all of this usual fodder is presented as a big wink to the viewers, in the same vein as the Scream movies. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Once the friends arrive at their destination, things start getting scary... and unfortunately, that's about all I can say about it without spoiling the whole thing.
What I can say: The supporting characters played by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford are a lot of fun, and I was delighted to see how much screen time was actually dedicated to them (it's a lot). The big-star cameo at the end is awesome too.
I also for the most part liked all of the main actors' performances (except for Marty, who seemed to be like an exaggerated Owen Wilson minus the charm). The writing overall is clever, if not an intentional mish-mash of about four other movies in the genre.
What I could have done without were the scenes where they're attempting to pay homage to about 20 different horror icons and you get the sense they're presented in chaos only to force repeat viewings (so you can say that you spotted them all). I'm sure I didn't see half of them, but I'm okay with that.
All in all it was an entertaining ride and I would recommend it to folks who can handle a little 'movie blood' and laugh at the end result.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Bully
This afternoon I saw the documentary Bully.
The movie has attracted the most attention so far for its fight against the "R" rating that the MPAA gave it for foul language. Its creators believe that banning middle and high school children (who would be able to go with a PG-13 rating) is defeating the purpose. After seeing it, I have to agree.
Following a handful of students in different Midwestern and Southern towns, we are shown case after case of kids who were picked on to the point of no return; either they committed suicide, snapped and retaliated in a violent way, or have become completely numb to the events of daily life. One victim, Alex, who barely acts like a victim and hides his abuse from his parents, tells his mother he's not sure if he feels anything anymore.
What has happened to our society?
What's more frustrating than the lack of anger from the victims and their parents (they all just seem endlessly sad instead of furious) is the political way the school administrators and teachers 'handle' the problem. Isn't denial the first sign of addiction? It's like these folks are addicted to incompetence.
Put simply, they do very little to protect the victims, and you can't help but wonder if the cameras weren't rolling if they'd do anything at all.
And that's another scary detail—even with the full knowledge that there were cameras rolling, many of the bullies continued to verbally and physically attack the outcasts. But really, why should they worry? There's traditionally no accountability until a victim shows up with a gun.
The film fails to show any probable solutions to bullying—perhaps this is its greatest flaw—and instead focuses on sympathizing with the victims.
What I'd really like to see is another film that profiles schools and community organizations that have mobilized to conquer this problem with favorable results. Something that the rest of the country could model themselves after and implement to ignite change.
God knows we need it.
~~~
The movie has attracted the most attention so far for its fight against the "R" rating that the MPAA gave it for foul language. Its creators believe that banning middle and high school children (who would be able to go with a PG-13 rating) is defeating the purpose. After seeing it, I have to agree.
Following a handful of students in different Midwestern and Southern towns, we are shown case after case of kids who were picked on to the point of no return; either they committed suicide, snapped and retaliated in a violent way, or have become completely numb to the events of daily life. One victim, Alex, who barely acts like a victim and hides his abuse from his parents, tells his mother he's not sure if he feels anything anymore.
What has happened to our society?
What's more frustrating than the lack of anger from the victims and their parents (they all just seem endlessly sad instead of furious) is the political way the school administrators and teachers 'handle' the problem. Isn't denial the first sign of addiction? It's like these folks are addicted to incompetence.
Put simply, they do very little to protect the victims, and you can't help but wonder if the cameras weren't rolling if they'd do anything at all.
And that's another scary detail—even with the full knowledge that there were cameras rolling, many of the bullies continued to verbally and physically attack the outcasts. But really, why should they worry? There's traditionally no accountability until a victim shows up with a gun.
The film fails to show any probable solutions to bullying—perhaps this is its greatest flaw—and instead focuses on sympathizing with the victims.
What I'd really like to see is another film that profiles schools and community organizations that have mobilized to conquer this problem with favorable results. Something that the rest of the country could model themselves after and implement to ignite change.
God knows we need it.
~~~
Saturday, April 07, 2012
Titanic
Today I saw Titanic in 3D, starring Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio.
The story tells of a fictional love between first-class Rose (Winslet) and poverty-stricken Jack (DiCaprio) who meet on the doomed real-life ship, the Titanic.
When I saw the film for the first time as a college student in 1997, and then repeatedly throughout 1998, I was drooling over DiCaprio and immersing myself in the history of the actual shipwreck. To me, every part of the movie was magical. The incredible detail of the sets and props; the uncanny resemblance between the actors and the real people they portrayed; the horror of the mammoth ship sinking. For a running time in excess of three hours, the pace went amazingly fast and not a moment was wasted on unnecessary scenes.
Today, as the 100th anniversary of the shipwreck nears, I found it just as effective.
Sure, it's fashionable to hate anything that is this successful—and even more so to trash 3D versions of older movies—but I could really care less about people with those 'opinions.' There is a reason Titanic is so successful, folks. And as for directors who know what they're doing when it comes to 3D, James Cameron is at the top of the list.
I liked seeing Leo and Kate dance a jig up-close; and loved seeing the ship practically jump into our laps as it drastically sunk, but I'm not saying the effects were overbearing. The 3D portion was done so masterfully, that for most of the movie, I forgot it was there. To me, the less trickery the better, so this was ideal.
It was also lovely to watch the young Leo and Kate shine in their leading roles, supported by the hilarious Kathy Bates and the sneering Billy Zane. It felt like going to a family reunion of sorts.
Though I agree with critics that don't think every movie should be re-purposed in 3D, as far as this one was concerned, it was a good call.
What a treat to have another excuse to see such a great production on the big screen.
~~~
The story tells of a fictional love between first-class Rose (Winslet) and poverty-stricken Jack (DiCaprio) who meet on the doomed real-life ship, the Titanic.
When I saw the film for the first time as a college student in 1997, and then repeatedly throughout 1998, I was drooling over DiCaprio and immersing myself in the history of the actual shipwreck. To me, every part of the movie was magical. The incredible detail of the sets and props; the uncanny resemblance between the actors and the real people they portrayed; the horror of the mammoth ship sinking. For a running time in excess of three hours, the pace went amazingly fast and not a moment was wasted on unnecessary scenes.
Today, as the 100th anniversary of the shipwreck nears, I found it just as effective.
Sure, it's fashionable to hate anything that is this successful—and even more so to trash 3D versions of older movies—but I could really care less about people with those 'opinions.' There is a reason Titanic is so successful, folks. And as for directors who know what they're doing when it comes to 3D, James Cameron is at the top of the list.
I liked seeing Leo and Kate dance a jig up-close; and loved seeing the ship practically jump into our laps as it drastically sunk, but I'm not saying the effects were overbearing. The 3D portion was done so masterfully, that for most of the movie, I forgot it was there. To me, the less trickery the better, so this was ideal.
It was also lovely to watch the young Leo and Kate shine in their leading roles, supported by the hilarious Kathy Bates and the sneering Billy Zane. It felt like going to a family reunion of sorts.
Though I agree with critics that don't think every movie should be re-purposed in 3D, as far as this one was concerned, it was a good call.
What a treat to have another excuse to see such a great production on the big screen.
~~~
Thursday, April 05, 2012
The Lady
Last night I saw The Lady, starring Michelle Yeoh and David Thewlis.
The film tells the true story of the life of Aung San Suu Kyi (Yeoh), the Nobel Laureate imprisoned in Burma for her efforts to bring democracy to the country. Her father, Aung San, founded the Burmese Army in 1947, earning the country independence from the British Empire. He was killed that same year by opposition forces, and this is where the film begins.
The story is paced quickly, advancing us to 1988 when Suu returned to Burma from her home in England where she lived a happy life with British husband Michael Aris and their two sons. She went home to care for her ailing mother and ended up leading the pro-democracy movement. One phrase repeatedly comes to mind when reflecting on Suu's life: truth is stranger than fiction.
The series of events that occurred once she declared her political intentions would leave her under house arrest for over two decades (with brief periods of "freedom" to move about within the country), separate her from her family and force her to miss saying goodbye to her beloved husband before he passed away from cancer. Watching this unfold is both heart-wrenching and inspiring; the amazing love and loyalty she and her husband felt for one another, despite being separated for many years is to be admired.
Their story is emphasized and told beautifully here--the two leads communicating with facial expressions how painful true love can be. The striking resemblance between Yeoh and the real Suu also help build authenticity in this elegant, organic looks at of one of the most important historical figures of our time.
As a U2 fan who first learned of Suu Kyi via U2's song "Walk On", which was written about her, I was also delighted to hear some of the band's music in the film, and one of their T-shirts appearing on Suu's young son.
I can't think how the film could have been better--it's riveting from start to finish.
I only hope there will be a sequel showing that her courage and peaceful resolve changed the way people are treated in Burma and around the world.
~~~
The film tells the true story of the life of Aung San Suu Kyi (Yeoh), the Nobel Laureate imprisoned in Burma for her efforts to bring democracy to the country. Her father, Aung San, founded the Burmese Army in 1947, earning the country independence from the British Empire. He was killed that same year by opposition forces, and this is where the film begins.
The story is paced quickly, advancing us to 1988 when Suu returned to Burma from her home in England where she lived a happy life with British husband Michael Aris and their two sons. She went home to care for her ailing mother and ended up leading the pro-democracy movement. One phrase repeatedly comes to mind when reflecting on Suu's life: truth is stranger than fiction.
The series of events that occurred once she declared her political intentions would leave her under house arrest for over two decades (with brief periods of "freedom" to move about within the country), separate her from her family and force her to miss saying goodbye to her beloved husband before he passed away from cancer. Watching this unfold is both heart-wrenching and inspiring; the amazing love and loyalty she and her husband felt for one another, despite being separated for many years is to be admired.
Their story is emphasized and told beautifully here--the two leads communicating with facial expressions how painful true love can be. The striking resemblance between Yeoh and the real Suu also help build authenticity in this elegant, organic looks at of one of the most important historical figures of our time.
As a U2 fan who first learned of Suu Kyi via U2's song "Walk On", which was written about her, I was also delighted to hear some of the band's music in the film, and one of their T-shirts appearing on Suu's young son.
I can't think how the film could have been better--it's riveting from start to finish.
I only hope there will be a sequel showing that her courage and peaceful resolve changed the way people are treated in Burma and around the world.
~~~
Back to the Future - Special Screening
On Saturday, I saw Back to the Future, starring Michael J. Fox and Lea Thompson.
Since I've reviewed the film before, I will simply say it was a mahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifgical night having Lea Thompson in attendance at this special SIFF screening.
~~~
Since I've reviewed the film before, I will simply say it was a mahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifgical night having Lea Thompson in attendance at this special SIFF screening.
~~~
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
A Nun Who Used to Kiss Elvis
Hard to believe, but it's true--at one time, sister Dolores Hart appeared alongside Elvis, and other notable stars, in Hollywood films. Today? She's a nun!
See her fascinating story in the new documentary short film God is the Bigger Elvis, which debuts on HBO this Thursday, April 5.
See her fascinating story in the new documentary short film God is the Bigger Elvis, which debuts on HBO this Thursday, April 5.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
The Hunger Games
On Thursday night I saw The Hunger Games, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson.
To catch up with the rest of society, I read the source material fast and feverishly (just last weekend) in advance of seeing the film. I'm very glad I did.
1) Because the book was better.
2) Because I may not have understood everything without the details explained in the novel.
For the few people who haven't read it or seen the movie, The Hunger Games explores a dystopian future on the site of the former North America, where 13 districts of people are governed by a Big Bad Capitol. In punishment for the uprising that killed the prior society, they must sacrifice 24 of their young during annual "hunger games" where the kids fight to the death—with only one surviving.
The story focuses on poverty-stricken Katniss (Lawrence) who has become an expert hunter to feed her family after her dad's passing in the coal mines. When her younger sister is chosen to be a fighter ('tribute') in the games, she unselfishly volunteers to go in her place. Her partner in the games, from the same district, is Peeta (Hutcherson) who's family runs the district bakery.
They are soon whisked into a whirlwind of 'training' for the games with their drunken host Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) and reserved stylist Cinna (Lenny Kravitz). Among their entourage, it's decided that the angle the two will portray to win over sponsors (and the watching public) is that of star-crossed lovers. Peeta is happier about this than Katniss, to say the least.
After a clever entrance, which featured the two fighters literally on fire, they are positioned as underdogs who may actually have a chance at winning, after all. They're both clever, and Katniss has mad skills with a bow and arrow.
Everything leading up to the games is very faithful to the book and well executed. Once the battles begin, the story begins to drag and a few of the details (the only district to 'riot' after a tributes' death is the predominantly black one - really??) stray.
It's still entertaining, but the shaky camera bits I could have done without, and the pure heart of the novel I would've liked to see a lot more.
Nonetheless, the characters were well-cast and the dialog was close enough to be satisfying.
~~~
To catch up with the rest of society, I read the source material fast and feverishly (just last weekend) in advance of seeing the film. I'm very glad I did.
1) Because the book was better.
2) Because I may not have understood everything without the details explained in the novel.
For the few people who haven't read it or seen the movie, The Hunger Games explores a dystopian future on the site of the former North America, where 13 districts of people are governed by a Big Bad Capitol. In punishment for the uprising that killed the prior society, they must sacrifice 24 of their young during annual "hunger games" where the kids fight to the death—with only one surviving.
The story focuses on poverty-stricken Katniss (Lawrence) who has become an expert hunter to feed her family after her dad's passing in the coal mines. When her younger sister is chosen to be a fighter ('tribute') in the games, she unselfishly volunteers to go in her place. Her partner in the games, from the same district, is Peeta (Hutcherson) who's family runs the district bakery.
They are soon whisked into a whirlwind of 'training' for the games with their drunken host Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) and reserved stylist Cinna (Lenny Kravitz). Among their entourage, it's decided that the angle the two will portray to win over sponsors (and the watching public) is that of star-crossed lovers. Peeta is happier about this than Katniss, to say the least.
After a clever entrance, which featured the two fighters literally on fire, they are positioned as underdogs who may actually have a chance at winning, after all. They're both clever, and Katniss has mad skills with a bow and arrow.
Everything leading up to the games is very faithful to the book and well executed. Once the battles begin, the story begins to drag and a few of the details (the only district to 'riot' after a tributes' death is the predominantly black one - really??) stray.
It's still entertaining, but the shaky camera bits I could have done without, and the pure heart of the novel I would've liked to see a lot more.
Nonetheless, the characters were well-cast and the dialog was close enough to be satisfying.
~~~
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Kid With a Bike
Last night I saw The Kid With a Bike, starring Thomas Doret and Cécile de France.
It will be the topic of our April Cinebanter episode, so stay tuned for that show.
It will be the topic of our April Cinebanter episode, so stay tuned for that show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)