Today I saw Jackie, starring Natalie Portman and Peter Sarsgaard.
Most Americans of Gen X age or older are acutely aware of the details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's assassination. Say "grassy noel" or "Jack Ruby" or "Zapruder" and they'll offer up their theory on who was truly responsible for his murder. What they won't recall is what a living nightmare it must have been for his widow, Jackie, who literally caught his head as he was shot on that fateful day in 1963. This film tells her story.
Natalie Portman plays widow Jackie and the Jackie in flashbacks from that week, as she recounts the horrors of losing her husband to a journalist set to write a profile about her. She reveals the raw, awful details of everything she experienced, telling him he can't print any of it, but clearly wanting someone to know how badly she suffered.
And really, the clever way the story is told gives the public a wake-up call on what it must feel like to have to face an "audience" in the aftermath of a personal tragedy. Worrying about how you'll appear or how your actions will be interpreted is never something anyone who is grieving should endure, but for politicians and celebrities alike, that's their reality. When you're being taught how to screenwrite, a popular lesson is "show, don't tell," but in this case, it's the telling that works.
Portman nails the former First Lady's intonation and unique accent, pursing her lips the same way Mrs. Kennedy often did. I wouldn't say she "disappeared" into her the way that Daniel Day-Lewis disappeared into Abraham Lincoln a few years back, but her performance was stellar and it will be no surprise when she's nominated for another Best Actress Oscar in a few weeks.
Peter Sarsgaard is also a pleasure to watch as the president's brother Bobby, by Jackie's side throughout the whole ordeal, showing his distaste for the incoming administration.
All-in-all a solid, enjoyable film, though the subject matter will remain a sad one for centuries to come.
~~~
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
La La Land
Today I saw La La Land, starring Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling.
I wish my expectations hadn't been so elevated going into this—I went thinking it would be the second coming of films; that the musical was "back." Instead I viewed a film that couldn't decide what it wanted to be and felt more like a series of scenes than a free-flowing story. I'll get to the music in a bit.
Mia (Stone) is a stereotypical aspiring actress in Hollywood. She works as a barista on the Warner Bros. lot and juggles the hours at the coffee shop with a series of dismal auditions. She meet-cutes Sebastian (Gosling) who is a passionate jazz pianist, stuck in the wrong era, longing for a time when the classics were what everyone wanted to hear.
Though their flirting is more like bickering in the beginning, these two definitely have chemistry working in their favor and they're all-of-a-sudden partners in life. To be clear, my dislike of this film has nothing to do with its leads; Stone and Gosling are very appealing and believable in their roles. It's just the rest that's the problem.
The music: With the exception of the lonely piano tune that first draws Mia to Seb in the first place, none of the songs struck a chord with me. There were no earth-shattering notes hit or incredible infusions of emotion to make me want to run out and buy the album. For a musical, that's not good.
The dancing: Though Stone and Gosling are both fine dancers, the choreography seemed like a mash-up of the most basic sequences from classic movies. Nothing terribly original.
The story: There were moments of sweetness in the romance, and humorous elements in their attempts to follow their individual dreams, but it felt like the big build up led only to a giant letdown.
I hated, hated, hated the ending.
Instead of resulting in the magic that could have redeemed some of the weaker elements, this went completely wrong, leaving me feeling cheated and longing to watch one of the films that served as inspiration for this tale.
~~~
I wish my expectations hadn't been so elevated going into this—I went thinking it would be the second coming of films; that the musical was "back." Instead I viewed a film that couldn't decide what it wanted to be and felt more like a series of scenes than a free-flowing story. I'll get to the music in a bit.
Mia (Stone) is a stereotypical aspiring actress in Hollywood. She works as a barista on the Warner Bros. lot and juggles the hours at the coffee shop with a series of dismal auditions. She meet-cutes Sebastian (Gosling) who is a passionate jazz pianist, stuck in the wrong era, longing for a time when the classics were what everyone wanted to hear.
Though their flirting is more like bickering in the beginning, these two definitely have chemistry working in their favor and they're all-of-a-sudden partners in life. To be clear, my dislike of this film has nothing to do with its leads; Stone and Gosling are very appealing and believable in their roles. It's just the rest that's the problem.
The music: With the exception of the lonely piano tune that first draws Mia to Seb in the first place, none of the songs struck a chord with me. There were no earth-shattering notes hit or incredible infusions of emotion to make me want to run out and buy the album. For a musical, that's not good.
The dancing: Though Stone and Gosling are both fine dancers, the choreography seemed like a mash-up of the most basic sequences from classic movies. Nothing terribly original.
The story: There were moments of sweetness in the romance, and humorous elements in their attempts to follow their individual dreams, but it felt like the big build up led only to a giant letdown.
I hated, hated, hated the ending.
Instead of resulting in the magic that could have redeemed some of the weaker elements, this went completely wrong, leaving me feeling cheated and longing to watch one of the films that served as inspiration for this tale.
~~~
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
A Monster Calls
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.
~~~
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.
~~~
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.
~~~
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Beware the Slenderman
Today I saw Beware the Slenderman, a documentary about the stabbing of Petyon "Bella" Leutner.
Two years ago this week, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier had a sleepover at Morgan's house with the victim. They woke up in the morning, had doughnuts and strawberries for breakfast, and asked Morgan's mother if they could go to the park. Without hesitation, she told them they could. Once there, they initiated a fake game of hide-and-seek (though Bella didn't want to play) and brutally stabbed her 19 times, missing a major artery by just a millimeter. They left her for dead, but she crawled her way to an area where a bicyclist discovered her and called for help. When questioned about why they did it, they both blamed a fictional boogie man named Slenderman.
Bella is alive today—physically recovered from her injuries, but continuing to battle the emotional scars left by the event. Morgan and Anissa are being held in separate locations (Morgan in a state hospital; Anissa in a juvenile jail) as they await word on a decision about their case.
This film explores what led each of the accused to commit such a heinous act, with frank, tragic conversations by both sets of parents. In Anissa's case, it's the classic problem of being bullied; not having a lot of friends; feeling an outcast. She wasn't inherently evil; just a 'follower' prone to frightening easily. In Morgan's case, she is mentally ill and the parents saw signs at a young age. Additionally, mental illness runs in their family, so they knew she had a genetic predisposition for it.
The story is both fascinating and disturbing—how seemingly normal kids with loving families can go so horribly wrong in the blink of an eye. Extensive footage is shown of each girl's interrogation with detectives and there's a shocking lack of remorse in both instances. Anissa asks how far she walked out of the woods because she was "never very athletic" and Morgan questions Bella's condition without so much as a tear. Not what you'd expect from two humans who committed a vicious act of brutality just hours earlier.
My main issue with the film is the lack of information and attention for the victim. Sure, we're all interested in understanding why such a crime happened, but I inadvertently found myself sympathizing with the parents and friends of the accused rather than thinking of Bella. Perhaps her family didn't choose to participate in the documentary (that would be perfectly understandable), but there were still ways the filmmakers could have represent her more prominently, even in the absence of interviews.
I also could have done less with the dramatic music in certain sequences. Really, the true story is awful enough to invoke horror.
~~~
Two years ago this week, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier had a sleepover at Morgan's house with the victim. They woke up in the morning, had doughnuts and strawberries for breakfast, and asked Morgan's mother if they could go to the park. Without hesitation, she told them they could. Once there, they initiated a fake game of hide-and-seek (though Bella didn't want to play) and brutally stabbed her 19 times, missing a major artery by just a millimeter. They left her for dead, but she crawled her way to an area where a bicyclist discovered her and called for help. When questioned about why they did it, they both blamed a fictional boogie man named Slenderman.
Bella is alive today—physically recovered from her injuries, but continuing to battle the emotional scars left by the event. Morgan and Anissa are being held in separate locations (Morgan in a state hospital; Anissa in a juvenile jail) as they await word on a decision about their case.
This film explores what led each of the accused to commit such a heinous act, with frank, tragic conversations by both sets of parents. In Anissa's case, it's the classic problem of being bullied; not having a lot of friends; feeling an outcast. She wasn't inherently evil; just a 'follower' prone to frightening easily. In Morgan's case, she is mentally ill and the parents saw signs at a young age. Additionally, mental illness runs in their family, so they knew she had a genetic predisposition for it.
The story is both fascinating and disturbing—how seemingly normal kids with loving families can go so horribly wrong in the blink of an eye. Extensive footage is shown of each girl's interrogation with detectives and there's a shocking lack of remorse in both instances. Anissa asks how far she walked out of the woods because she was "never very athletic" and Morgan questions Bella's condition without so much as a tear. Not what you'd expect from two humans who committed a vicious act of brutality just hours earlier.
My main issue with the film is the lack of information and attention for the victim. Sure, we're all interested in understanding why such a crime happened, but I inadvertently found myself sympathizing with the parents and friends of the accused rather than thinking of Bella. Perhaps her family didn't choose to participate in the documentary (that would be perfectly understandable), but there were still ways the filmmakers could have represent her more prominently, even in the absence of interviews.
I also could have done less with the dramatic music in certain sequences. Really, the true story is awful enough to invoke horror.
~~~
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Summertime
Today I saw Summertime, starring Izïa Higelin and Cécile de France.
Delphine (Higelin) is a farmer's daughter in rural France who decides to move to Paris for financial and social independence. Once there, she embraces the spirit of the city, joining a feminist group and falling in love with Carole (de France), a straight girl who is transfixed by her new friend.
Everything is blissful until Carole leaves her boyfriend to pursue Delphine just as Delphine has tragedy strike back home. Will family duty get in the way of true love or will the couple find happiness?
This film gets a lot right: the chemistry between the two leads; the authenticity of the era; the sensual nature of erotic attraction—and of course—hate for the unknown.
Unfortunately, the pace of the story is very uneven. It speeds up and slows down almost as the rhythms of their relationship ebb and flow, and that makes the film feel a lot longer than it actually is. Plus, the scenes come dangerously close to being formulaic.
It gets points for its timely women's issues (despite the fact the film is set in the '70s) and superb acting. I just wish it could have condensed it's slower sequences to keep its viewers minds from wandering.
~~~
Delphine (Higelin) is a farmer's daughter in rural France who decides to move to Paris for financial and social independence. Once there, she embraces the spirit of the city, joining a feminist group and falling in love with Carole (de France), a straight girl who is transfixed by her new friend.
Everything is blissful until Carole leaves her boyfriend to pursue Delphine just as Delphine has tragedy strike back home. Will family duty get in the way of true love or will the couple find happiness?
This film gets a lot right: the chemistry between the two leads; the authenticity of the era; the sensual nature of erotic attraction—and of course—hate for the unknown.
Unfortunately, the pace of the story is very uneven. It speeds up and slows down almost as the rhythms of their relationship ebb and flow, and that makes the film feel a lot longer than it actually is. Plus, the scenes come dangerously close to being formulaic.
It gets points for its timely women's issues (despite the fact the film is set in the '70s) and superb acting. I just wish it could have condensed it's slower sequences to keep its viewers minds from wandering.
~~~
Friday, May 06, 2016
Purple Rain
On Tuesday I saw Purple Rain, starring Prince and Appolonia Kotero.
This was my second theater viewing of this film. The first took place when I was 9 years old—it was my first "R" rated film and the only film my older sister ever snuck me into. I'm still grateful.
With Prince's passing, the 'celebration' of seeing it has dimmed, but my friend and I still made quite a night of it, complete with cans (yes, cans) of wine, tears and enthusiastic singing. I can also not confirm or deny that I shouted "Fuck you, Tipper Gore!" during "Darling Nikki." But I digress.
In this 1984 classic, Prince plays The Kid, a young man obsessed with making it big in the music industry. His rival, Morris Day (playing himself), and his band The Time give The Kid a lot of grief, but here it's done in such a comical way that the banter is fun to watch.
There's also a girl, of course. She is supernaturally beautiful as well as talented. Her name is Appolonia (Kotero) and she also has her sights set on performing.
There are motorcycle rides and steamy sex scenes and domestic violence and above all else, epic music performances. Sure, the dialogue is cheesy, but the story—based loosely on Prince's real life—is solid.
In fact, it's hard to find fault with anyone as engaging and magical as Prince was. It's even harder to refer to him in past tense.
~~~
This was my second theater viewing of this film. The first took place when I was 9 years old—it was my first "R" rated film and the only film my older sister ever snuck me into. I'm still grateful.
With Prince's passing, the 'celebration' of seeing it has dimmed, but my friend and I still made quite a night of it, complete with cans (yes, cans) of wine, tears and enthusiastic singing. I can also not confirm or deny that I shouted "Fuck you, Tipper Gore!" during "Darling Nikki." But I digress.
In this 1984 classic, Prince plays The Kid, a young man obsessed with making it big in the music industry. His rival, Morris Day (playing himself), and his band The Time give The Kid a lot of grief, but here it's done in such a comical way that the banter is fun to watch.
There's also a girl, of course. She is supernaturally beautiful as well as talented. Her name is Appolonia (Kotero) and she also has her sights set on performing.
There are motorcycle rides and steamy sex scenes and domestic violence and above all else, epic music performances. Sure, the dialogue is cheesy, but the story—based loosely on Prince's real life—is solid.
In fact, it's hard to find fault with anyone as engaging and magical as Prince was. It's even harder to refer to him in past tense.
~~~
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Midnight Special
On Monday I saw Midnight Special, starring Michael Shannon and Jaeden Lieberher.
Alton (Lieberher) isn't your everyday kid. He doesn't go to school. He lives on a cult ranch and provides accurate prophecies to his pastor. He also has an aversion to daylight.
When we meet him, he's on the run with his father (Shannon) and his father's childhood friend (Joel Edgerton) because the federal government is trying to take him into custody. At one stop he disables a satellite using just his eyes, causing the destruction of a gas station. This is apparently par for the course, as Dad doesn't seem so much surprised as angry. I couldn't help but think of Drew Barrymore's young Firestarter character when it all unfolded. Emotion = consequences. Just like normal life, but to a crazy degree.
As Alton searches for what the other dimension wants for him, the government remains in pursuit. Kirsten Dunst appears along the way to prove her worth as a nurturing mother. Adam Driver shows up as a borderline annoying cocky agent, way in over his head. He somewhat redeems himself eventually, but I could have done with less screen time from him.
In fact, I could have done with less screen time in general.
The main thing wrong with the film is it's pace: It doesn't really have one. There are moments of intense action and then moments of complete boredom. The fugitives encounter some people who have purpose and a few that don't. One incident that happens early in the film could make some dislike the dad. It was unnecessary—we get that he's loyal to the kid.
Also, Alton's eyes light up many times throughout the film, which had me cycling back in my brain to this '80s video by Bonnie Tyler. I couldn't help it. And if I'm that distracted during a movie in an otherwise peaceful theater, something's wrong.
Conceptually, I loved the idea of the film. A child with a gift that cannot be defined—even by those closest to him—is an interesting problem. The supernatural element only intensifies that challenge, which I enjoyed.
Unfortunately, the gratuitously lengthy journey getting there and the anti-climactic ending, which answered few questions, fell short.
~~~
Alton (Lieberher) isn't your everyday kid. He doesn't go to school. He lives on a cult ranch and provides accurate prophecies to his pastor. He also has an aversion to daylight.
When we meet him, he's on the run with his father (Shannon) and his father's childhood friend (Joel Edgerton) because the federal government is trying to take him into custody. At one stop he disables a satellite using just his eyes, causing the destruction of a gas station. This is apparently par for the course, as Dad doesn't seem so much surprised as angry. I couldn't help but think of Drew Barrymore's young Firestarter character when it all unfolded. Emotion = consequences. Just like normal life, but to a crazy degree.
As Alton searches for what the other dimension wants for him, the government remains in pursuit. Kirsten Dunst appears along the way to prove her worth as a nurturing mother. Adam Driver shows up as a borderline annoying cocky agent, way in over his head. He somewhat redeems himself eventually, but I could have done with less screen time from him.
In fact, I could have done with less screen time in general.
The main thing wrong with the film is it's pace: It doesn't really have one. There are moments of intense action and then moments of complete boredom. The fugitives encounter some people who have purpose and a few that don't. One incident that happens early in the film could make some dislike the dad. It was unnecessary—we get that he's loyal to the kid.
Also, Alton's eyes light up many times throughout the film, which had me cycling back in my brain to this '80s video by Bonnie Tyler. I couldn't help it. And if I'm that distracted during a movie in an otherwise peaceful theater, something's wrong.
Conceptually, I loved the idea of the film. A child with a gift that cannot be defined—even by those closest to him—is an interesting problem. The supernatural element only intensifies that challenge, which I enjoyed.
Unfortunately, the gratuitously lengthy journey getting there and the anti-climactic ending, which answered few questions, fell short.
~~~
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Hello, My Name is Doris
On Sunday I saw Hello My Name is Doris, starring Sally Field and Max Greenfield.
Having a workplace crush is fantastic—you plan your outfits carefully, worry about your makeup and get excited when circumstance forces you into their presence. And you flirt. Shamelessly.
That's the predicament Doris (Field) finds herself in when new hire John (Greenfield) arrives in her office. Though they're both unmarried, there's a slight problem: they're about 30 years apart (Doris is older).
John accepts Doris's awkward advances with grace, as he's somewhat oblivious to her intentions and they soon become genuine friends. No matter how absurd her methods, Doris does succeed in getting close to him and his contemporaries. And it gives her a new lease on life, having just lost her mother and currently battling a serious case of hoarding.
Field is alternately hilarious and heartbreaking as the star character—and "character" is a good term for her. Doris makes unintentional fashion statements with her individuality. Doris does her job and she does it well; but at this point it's just habit. Doris doesn't mind riding the ferry to work every day. It takes her back to the house she grew up in, which is where she still resides. She's someone I could see myself being friends with (or turning into) later in life.
Greenfield is undeniably charming as the aloof object of affection. His kindness and gentle nature make it easy to see why any woman would be smitten. The fact he doesn't realize it makes him all that more appealing.
So, when all of these factors come into play, however unconventional it may seem, you can't help but root for a Doris & John happy ending. Maybe it could work? They could probably have a few good years? There's nothing wrong with an age difference as long as the chemistry is there, right?
I won't spoil the ending for you, but I will say it was both difficult to watch and ultimately satisfying. The attachment you'll have to Doris by the end will make you hurt when she hurts and rejoice when things go her way.
Only a good movie could do that.
~~~
Having a workplace crush is fantastic—you plan your outfits carefully, worry about your makeup and get excited when circumstance forces you into their presence. And you flirt. Shamelessly.
That's the predicament Doris (Field) finds herself in when new hire John (Greenfield) arrives in her office. Though they're both unmarried, there's a slight problem: they're about 30 years apart (Doris is older).
John accepts Doris's awkward advances with grace, as he's somewhat oblivious to her intentions and they soon become genuine friends. No matter how absurd her methods, Doris does succeed in getting close to him and his contemporaries. And it gives her a new lease on life, having just lost her mother and currently battling a serious case of hoarding.
Field is alternately hilarious and heartbreaking as the star character—and "character" is a good term for her. Doris makes unintentional fashion statements with her individuality. Doris does her job and she does it well; but at this point it's just habit. Doris doesn't mind riding the ferry to work every day. It takes her back to the house she grew up in, which is where she still resides. She's someone I could see myself being friends with (or turning into) later in life.
Greenfield is undeniably charming as the aloof object of affection. His kindness and gentle nature make it easy to see why any woman would be smitten. The fact he doesn't realize it makes him all that more appealing.
So, when all of these factors come into play, however unconventional it may seem, you can't help but root for a Doris & John happy ending. Maybe it could work? They could probably have a few good years? There's nothing wrong with an age difference as long as the chemistry is there, right?
I won't spoil the ending for you, but I will say it was both difficult to watch and ultimately satisfying. The attachment you'll have to Doris by the end will make you hurt when she hurts and rejoice when things go her way.
Only a good movie could do that.
~~~
Saturday, March 12, 2016
10 Cloverfield Lane
This morning I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane, starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Goodman.
Michelle (Winstead) has decided to move on and sets out on the road with a bag of stuff that doesn't include her engagement ring. It's not clear where she's headed (except that she most likely won't be going back).
After a heart-stopping surprise event, she ends up in an underground bunker with Howard (Goodman), a doomsday conspiracy theorist who claims to be saving her from chemical warfare outside. But is he telling the truth? Or is he telling her what he believes to be true, but has little basis in reality?
Michelle soon learns she's not the only captive of Howard's, as Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) emerges from the next room. He's a decent guy, if not a bit simple, and soon becomes a strong ally for her.
What's great about this film is that just when you think it's going to get formulaic, the screenwriter turns everything upside down and changes your mind. Over and over again.
Michelle's quest to learn the truth gets her in trouble, but that doesn't slow her pursuit. She's always one step ahead of her captor, though he's bigger and stronger and perhaps psychotic. Not to get too feminist-y, but I found it incredibly refreshing that the girl was the smartest in the room. And she was the youngest of the bunch, too.
I can't tell you what transpires or who survives, but I can tell you that if you go to this movie, you'll be on the edge of your seat for the full 105 minutes. Enjoying the clever, well-acted, well-scripted thrill ride.
~~~
Michelle (Winstead) has decided to move on and sets out on the road with a bag of stuff that doesn't include her engagement ring. It's not clear where she's headed (except that she most likely won't be going back).
After a heart-stopping surprise event, she ends up in an underground bunker with Howard (Goodman), a doomsday conspiracy theorist who claims to be saving her from chemical warfare outside. But is he telling the truth? Or is he telling her what he believes to be true, but has little basis in reality?
Michelle soon learns she's not the only captive of Howard's, as Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) emerges from the next room. He's a decent guy, if not a bit simple, and soon becomes a strong ally for her.
What's great about this film is that just when you think it's going to get formulaic, the screenwriter turns everything upside down and changes your mind. Over and over again.
Michelle's quest to learn the truth gets her in trouble, but that doesn't slow her pursuit. She's always one step ahead of her captor, though he's bigger and stronger and perhaps psychotic. Not to get too feminist-y, but I found it incredibly refreshing that the girl was the smartest in the room. And she was the youngest of the bunch, too.
I can't tell you what transpires or who survives, but I can tell you that if you go to this movie, you'll be on the edge of your seat for the full 105 minutes. Enjoying the clever, well-acted, well-scripted thrill ride.
~~~
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Oscar Picks and Predictions: 2016
Here are my final picks for tonight's ceremony:
WRITING: ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Josh Singer & Tom McCarthy for SPOTLIGHT
My Pick: Josh Singer & Tom McCarthy for SPOTLIGHT
WRITING: ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Charles Randolph and Adam McCay for THE BIG SHORT
My Pick: Emma Donoghue for ROOM
VISUAL EFFECTS
Who Will Win: Andrew Jackson, Tom Wood, Dan Oliver and Andy Williams for MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
My Pick: Rich McBride, Matthew Shumway, Jason Smith and Cameron Waldbauer for THE REVENANT
SOUND MIXING
Who Will Win: Chris Jenkins, Gregg Rudloff and Ben Osmo for MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
My Pick: Andy Nelson, Gary Rydstrom and Drew Kunin for BRIDGE OF SPIES
SOUND EDITING
Who Will Win: Alan Robert Murray for SICARIO
My Pick: Oliver Tarney for THE MARTIAN
SHORT FILM: LIVE ACTION
Who Will Win: DAY ONE
My Pick: EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY
SHORT FILM: ANIMATED
Who Will Win: WE CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT COSMOS
My Pick: WORLD OF TOMORROW
PRODUCTION DESIGN
Who Will Win: Eve Stewart & Michael Standish for THE DANISH GIRL
My Pick: Eve Stewart & Michael Standish for THE DANISH GIRL
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)
Who Will Win: "Till it Happens to You" from THE HUNTING GROUND
My Pick: "Till it Happens to You" from THE HUNTING GROUND
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)
Who Will Win: Ennio Morricone for THE HATEFUL EIGHT
My Pick: Ennio Morricone for THE HATEFUL EIGHT
MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
Who Will Win: Lesley Vanderwalt, Elka Wardega and Damian Martin for MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
My Pick: Siân Grigg, Duncan Jarman and Robert Pandini for THE REVENANT
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Who Will Win: MUSTANG
My Pick: A WAR
FILM EDITING
Who Will Win: Tom McArdle for SPOTLIGHT
My Pick: Tom McArdle for SPOTLIGHT
DOCUMENTARY (SHORT SUBJECT)
Who Will Win: A GIRL IN THE RIVER: THE PRICE OF FORGIVENESS
My Pick: A GIRL IN THE RIVER: THE PRICE OF FORGIVENESS
DOCUMENTARY (FEATURE)
Who Will Win: AMY
My Pick: AMY
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)
Who Will Win: Ennio Morricone for THE HATEFUL EIGHT
My Pick: Ennio Morricone for THE HATEFUL EIGHT
DIRECTING
Who Will Win: Alejandro G. Iñarritu
My Pick: Lenny Abrahamson for ROOM
COSTUME DESIGN
Who Will Win: Sandy Powell for CAROL
My Pick: Paco Delgado for THE DANISH GIRL
CINEMATOGRAPHY
Who Will Win: Emmanuel Lubezki for THE REVENANT
My Pick: Emmanuel Lubezki for THE REVENANT
ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Who Will Win: INSIDE OUT
My Pick: INSIDE OUT
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Who Will Win: Kate Winslet for STEVE JOBS
My Pick: Kate Winslet for STEVE JOBS
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Who Will Win: Sylvester Stallone for CREED
My Pick: Mark Ruffalo for SPOTLIGHT
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Who Will Win: Brie Larson for ROOM
My Pick: Brie Larson for ROOM
ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Who Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio for THE REVENANT
My Pick: Leonardo DiCaprio for THE REVENANT
BEST PICTURE
Who Will Win: SPOTLIGHT
My Pick: ROOM
~~~
WRITING: ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Josh Singer & Tom McCarthy for SPOTLIGHT
My Pick: Josh Singer & Tom McCarthy for SPOTLIGHT
WRITING: ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Charles Randolph and Adam McCay for THE BIG SHORT
My Pick: Emma Donoghue for ROOM
VISUAL EFFECTS
Who Will Win: Andrew Jackson, Tom Wood, Dan Oliver and Andy Williams for MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
My Pick: Rich McBride, Matthew Shumway, Jason Smith and Cameron Waldbauer for THE REVENANT
SOUND MIXING
Who Will Win: Chris Jenkins, Gregg Rudloff and Ben Osmo for MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
My Pick: Andy Nelson, Gary Rydstrom and Drew Kunin for BRIDGE OF SPIES
SOUND EDITING
Who Will Win: Alan Robert Murray for SICARIO
My Pick: Oliver Tarney for THE MARTIAN
SHORT FILM: LIVE ACTION
Who Will Win: DAY ONE
My Pick: EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY
SHORT FILM: ANIMATED
Who Will Win: WE CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT COSMOS
My Pick: WORLD OF TOMORROW
PRODUCTION DESIGN
Who Will Win: Eve Stewart & Michael Standish for THE DANISH GIRL
My Pick: Eve Stewart & Michael Standish for THE DANISH GIRL
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)
Who Will Win: "Till it Happens to You" from THE HUNTING GROUND
My Pick: "Till it Happens to You" from THE HUNTING GROUND
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)
Who Will Win: Ennio Morricone for THE HATEFUL EIGHT
My Pick: Ennio Morricone for THE HATEFUL EIGHT
MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
Who Will Win: Lesley Vanderwalt, Elka Wardega and Damian Martin for MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
My Pick: Siân Grigg, Duncan Jarman and Robert Pandini for THE REVENANT
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Who Will Win: MUSTANG
My Pick: A WAR
FILM EDITING
Who Will Win: Tom McArdle for SPOTLIGHT
My Pick: Tom McArdle for SPOTLIGHT
DOCUMENTARY (SHORT SUBJECT)
Who Will Win: A GIRL IN THE RIVER: THE PRICE OF FORGIVENESS
My Pick: A GIRL IN THE RIVER: THE PRICE OF FORGIVENESS
DOCUMENTARY (FEATURE)
Who Will Win: AMY
My Pick: AMY
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)
Who Will Win: Ennio Morricone for THE HATEFUL EIGHT
My Pick: Ennio Morricone for THE HATEFUL EIGHT
DIRECTING
Who Will Win: Alejandro G. Iñarritu
My Pick: Lenny Abrahamson for ROOM
COSTUME DESIGN
Who Will Win: Sandy Powell for CAROL
My Pick: Paco Delgado for THE DANISH GIRL
CINEMATOGRAPHY
Who Will Win: Emmanuel Lubezki for THE REVENANT
My Pick: Emmanuel Lubezki for THE REVENANT
ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Who Will Win: INSIDE OUT
My Pick: INSIDE OUT
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Who Will Win: Kate Winslet for STEVE JOBS
My Pick: Kate Winslet for STEVE JOBS
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Who Will Win: Sylvester Stallone for CREED
My Pick: Mark Ruffalo for SPOTLIGHT
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Who Will Win: Brie Larson for ROOM
My Pick: Brie Larson for ROOM
ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Who Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio for THE REVENANT
My Pick: Leonardo DiCaprio for THE REVENANT
BEST PICTURE
Who Will Win: SPOTLIGHT
My Pick: ROOM
~~~
Saturday, February 20, 2016
The Witch
This morning I saw The Witch, starring Anya Taylor-Joy and Kate Dickie.
It's the early 1600s in New England and Thomasin (Taylor-Joy) is watching her baby brother while her mother tends to other household chores. As she's playing peek-a-boo with him, he disappears in what seems to be thin air (but what really is the creepy dark woods they live next to). An evil witch has snatched him up for her own purposes.
Predictably, Mom (Dickie) goes into hysterics and the family unit is altered considerably. Dad (Ralph Ineson) tries to keep things as normal as possible, but the baby's absence casts quite a shadow. The young twins are constantly babbling about speaking with "Black Phillip," who tells them their older sister is a witch. To get them to shut up already, Thomasin plays along and pretends she is one. She will later regret this action.
To tell you more would be to spoil... so I'll just say that I was underwhelmed by this film as a whole. It had great potential; a great setting with great actors and rich folklore. But for me, it missed the mark.
Though the abstract shadowy images are indeed a bit spooky, I never really felt scared throughout. We know what happened to the baby (and the others as the story progresses), but with the exception of a few gratuitous bloody scenes, there's nothing very 'horrifying' about the story.
Sure, it's clever that the main character's last name ends in "sin" and the mother longs for happier times in the past, in the place that really felt like home.
But crafty moments don't make for an overall good film. I actually shivered more at the trailer for The Conjuring 2. I'm hoping this spring after I see that one I'll be compelled to write a better review.
~~~
It's the early 1600s in New England and Thomasin (Taylor-Joy) is watching her baby brother while her mother tends to other household chores. As she's playing peek-a-boo with him, he disappears in what seems to be thin air (but what really is the creepy dark woods they live next to). An evil witch has snatched him up for her own purposes.
Predictably, Mom (Dickie) goes into hysterics and the family unit is altered considerably. Dad (Ralph Ineson) tries to keep things as normal as possible, but the baby's absence casts quite a shadow. The young twins are constantly babbling about speaking with "Black Phillip," who tells them their older sister is a witch. To get them to shut up already, Thomasin plays along and pretends she is one. She will later regret this action.
To tell you more would be to spoil... so I'll just say that I was underwhelmed by this film as a whole. It had great potential; a great setting with great actors and rich folklore. But for me, it missed the mark.
Though the abstract shadowy images are indeed a bit spooky, I never really felt scared throughout. We know what happened to the baby (and the others as the story progresses), but with the exception of a few gratuitous bloody scenes, there's nothing very 'horrifying' about the story.
Sure, it's clever that the main character's last name ends in "sin" and the mother longs for happier times in the past, in the place that really felt like home.
But crafty moments don't make for an overall good film. I actually shivered more at the trailer for The Conjuring 2. I'm hoping this spring after I see that one I'll be compelled to write a better review.
~~~
Sunday, February 14, 2016
45 Years
This morning I saw 45 Years, starring Charlotte Rampling and Tom Courtenay.
Kate (Rampling) has loved Geoff (Courtenay) all of her adult life. The pair have been married for nearly 45 years and are in the midst of planning a party to commemorate that. What's normal for many is customary for them too—each have their rituals like reading the paper and walking the dog, though they're often done apart.
When the body of Geoff's first love, Katya, is found on the mountain he long left her on after she fell during a hike, their long-dormant marital tension comes to a head. You see, Geoff didn't tell Kate about Katya. Didn't mention that they were on the verge of marriage before he met her; or that her death had traumatized him ever since.
When Katya's perfectly preserved 27-year-old body surfaces (she's been frozen in the snow until now), Geoff's pent-up sorrow for his lost love does as well. This, of course, raises questions about what else he's been keeping from his wife all of these years. If he can hold a secret that serious for that long, upon what has their entire relationship been based?
This is a film that shows, not tells. This is a film that communicates pain through the faces of its actors; not through dialog. This is a film that moves along at a quiet pace, as life does when something tragic lingers in the air.
It's not an enjoyable movie to endure, but Rampling's performance is certainly worth its Oscar nomination, and watching her work will leave you speechless.
It will also leave you questioning every relationship you've ever had.
~~~
Kate (Rampling) has loved Geoff (Courtenay) all of her adult life. The pair have been married for nearly 45 years and are in the midst of planning a party to commemorate that. What's normal for many is customary for them too—each have their rituals like reading the paper and walking the dog, though they're often done apart.
When the body of Geoff's first love, Katya, is found on the mountain he long left her on after she fell during a hike, their long-dormant marital tension comes to a head. You see, Geoff didn't tell Kate about Katya. Didn't mention that they were on the verge of marriage before he met her; or that her death had traumatized him ever since.
When Katya's perfectly preserved 27-year-old body surfaces (she's been frozen in the snow until now), Geoff's pent-up sorrow for his lost love does as well. This, of course, raises questions about what else he's been keeping from his wife all of these years. If he can hold a secret that serious for that long, upon what has their entire relationship been based?
This is a film that shows, not tells. This is a film that communicates pain through the faces of its actors; not through dialog. This is a film that moves along at a quiet pace, as life does when something tragic lingers in the air.
It's not an enjoyable movie to endure, but Rampling's performance is certainly worth its Oscar nomination, and watching her work will leave you speechless.
It will also leave you questioning every relationship you've ever had.
~~~
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Live Action Short Film Nominees (Oscars® 2016)
Last night I saw all five of the nominated films in the Live Action Short category. I'll present my reviews in the order they were shown.
AVE MARIA (Palestine, France and Germany)
Of all the things Orthodox Jewish settlers could crash into in the West Bank, a convent of Catholic nuns is unlikely. But that's what happens here when a family trip takes a turn (literally) into one. Problem is: the nuns have taken a vow of silence and due to the Sabbath, the family is unable to use the telephone to call for help. Through a series of comedic events, the two groups together find a surprising solution. The one is light and the story is cute; I just don't think I'd consider this Oscar caliber material.
SHOK (Kosovo and UK)
Amidst the Yugoslav wars two young boys form a deep friendship that is tested repeatedly by the pressures of the time. Instead of making choices about what games to play each night, they're faced with much more grim decisions—some even a matter of life and death. The film is about war, but above all else, about love. Though hard to watch because of the subject matter (these horrors took place not long ago, after all), it's expertly done with two lead actors that deliver on every note.
EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY (Germany and Austria)
A divorced couple shares custody of their young daughter. The father comes to pick the girl up for a routine weekend and the tension between the parents is evident. The father quickly takes his daughter shopping to spoil her with new toys, then makes a trip to the nearby bumper cars for additional fun. Things only go sideways when he tricks her into taking passport pictures at a nearby photo booth. The girl soon realizes they're not having a normal weekend and calls him out on it. Just how far (and how fast) this weekend goes off the rails is what makes this my pick for the Oscar. I don't think I breathed for the last 10 minutes. It was that good.
STUTTERER (UK and Ireland)
There have been six months of flirtatious Facebook bliss for a couple and now there's a chance for them to meet. The man has reservations because he suffers from a severe stuttering problem—so much that he's learned sign language to imply to strangers that he's simply deaf. As the day approaches, he at first hides, then practices his speech, hoping not to disappoint this love of his life. It's a sweet, sometimes funny story with a lot of heart.
DAY ONE (USA)
An Afghan-American interpreter is assigned to an Afghanistan tour of duty with the U.S. military, and on her first day the team is sent to investigate a report of bombs in a nearby residence. As the weapons are found and the man of the house is being arrested, his wife goes into labor—with complications. As the only woman present, the interpreter has to begin acting as a doctor to save the mother and baby.
This was the only of the five films where people actually got up and left the theater. It was incredibly intense and touched on several sensitive subject matters (religion, birth, war, death, etc.). But I stuck it out and was glad I did, if not only for the life-affirming ending, but the photo of the real interpreter, for which the film was based, that appears at the end.
~~~
AVE MARIA (Palestine, France and Germany)
Of all the things Orthodox Jewish settlers could crash into in the West Bank, a convent of Catholic nuns is unlikely. But that's what happens here when a family trip takes a turn (literally) into one. Problem is: the nuns have taken a vow of silence and due to the Sabbath, the family is unable to use the telephone to call for help. Through a series of comedic events, the two groups together find a surprising solution. The one is light and the story is cute; I just don't think I'd consider this Oscar caliber material.
SHOK (Kosovo and UK)
Amidst the Yugoslav wars two young boys form a deep friendship that is tested repeatedly by the pressures of the time. Instead of making choices about what games to play each night, they're faced with much more grim decisions—some even a matter of life and death. The film is about war, but above all else, about love. Though hard to watch because of the subject matter (these horrors took place not long ago, after all), it's expertly done with two lead actors that deliver on every note.
EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY (Germany and Austria)
A divorced couple shares custody of their young daughter. The father comes to pick the girl up for a routine weekend and the tension between the parents is evident. The father quickly takes his daughter shopping to spoil her with new toys, then makes a trip to the nearby bumper cars for additional fun. Things only go sideways when he tricks her into taking passport pictures at a nearby photo booth. The girl soon realizes they're not having a normal weekend and calls him out on it. Just how far (and how fast) this weekend goes off the rails is what makes this my pick for the Oscar. I don't think I breathed for the last 10 minutes. It was that good.
STUTTERER (UK and Ireland)
There have been six months of flirtatious Facebook bliss for a couple and now there's a chance for them to meet. The man has reservations because he suffers from a severe stuttering problem—so much that he's learned sign language to imply to strangers that he's simply deaf. As the day approaches, he at first hides, then practices his speech, hoping not to disappoint this love of his life. It's a sweet, sometimes funny story with a lot of heart.
DAY ONE (USA)
An Afghan-American interpreter is assigned to an Afghanistan tour of duty with the U.S. military, and on her first day the team is sent to investigate a report of bombs in a nearby residence. As the weapons are found and the man of the house is being arrested, his wife goes into labor—with complications. As the only woman present, the interpreter has to begin acting as a doctor to save the mother and baby.
This was the only of the five films where people actually got up and left the theater. It was incredibly intense and touched on several sensitive subject matters (religion, birth, war, death, etc.). But I stuck it out and was glad I did, if not only for the life-affirming ending, but the photo of the real interpreter, for which the film was based, that appears at the end.
~~~
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Documentary Short Film Nominees (Oscars® 2016)
Tonight I saw all five of the nominated films in the Documentary Short category. I'll present my reviews in the order they were shown.
BODY TEAM 12 (Liberia)
The 2014 Ebola outbreak in Liberia devastated the country, leaving nearly 5000 dead and over 10,000 infected. In the midst of the chaos, 29-year-old Garmai Sumo is the only female on a team tasked with safely removing bodies from infected locations. In this film, as we watch the horror unfold, she describes what it's like—the fears, the sadness and even the hope. Her commitment and compassion for her fellow people make this otherwise gloomy subject bearable.
A GIRL IN THE RIVER: THE PRICE OF FORGIVENESS (Pakistan)
In Pakistan, men sometimes beat or kill female relatives who they perceive to have 'disrespected' them. They call these 'honor killings,' as they are meant to restore honor to the family. One such attempted murder happened to 18-year-old Saba when she fell in love and her family told her the boy she wanted to marry wasn't rich enough. She defied them by gaining support from her future in-laws, who helped the couple elope. Her father and uncle then shot her in the face and threw her in the river to die. But ... she didn't die. She lived to tell the tale and tells it here, as she's in the midst of a legal struggle in her community. Her path toward forgiveness under pressure is hard to watch, especially considering that her attackers show no remorse, but it's so well done, I conclude that this is the strongest of the five films.
LAST DAY OF FREEDOM (USA)
A man has a younger brother. The younger brother gets hit by a car during adolescence and is never the same. With a middle school education, said brother enters the service. He goes to Vietnam. Bad things happen. He comes home, again a changed man. His PTSD gets really bad. He does a bad thing. His brother turns him in. He gets the death penalty. The brother is sick with guilt and tells his story here, but we only hear him as the entire short is animated. Though the animation is artistically brilliant, I didn't feel it was the right way to tell this story and it distracted me from the core of the emotion. Meh.
CHAU, BEYOND THE LINES (USA and Vietnam)
The effects of Agent Orange are still prevalent today, as evidenced in this documentary focusing on Chau, a disabled Vietnamese boy with a triumphant spirit. We're first introduced to him in the orphanage-like home he's living in, though he's still in touch with his family (and will go back to them briefly before setting out in the world on his own). The staff at the home, which primarily serves children affected by Agent Orange, don't recognize that Chau's a gifted artist with real potential; they discourage him from pursuing what they see as a futile dream. Thankfully, he ignores them and forges on, despite the fact he doesn't have a knee on one leg and his arms and hands are disproportionate to his body. If you're able to stop crying, this is a life-affirming gem of a film.
CLAUDE LANSMANN: SPECTRES OF THE SHOAH (USA)
In 1985, Director Claude Lansmann released a documentary that had consumed him for 12 years: Shoah. Remembered now as perhaps the most important Holocaust film ever made, the creation of it still haunts him this many years on. In this talking-head short—the most traditional documentary of the bunch—we hear from Lansmann directly as he shares stories of the horrors he drew out of various survivors. It's riveting and depressing and makes you respect the classic work all the more, even if his methods for making it weren't always noble.
~~~
BODY TEAM 12 (Liberia)
The 2014 Ebola outbreak in Liberia devastated the country, leaving nearly 5000 dead and over 10,000 infected. In the midst of the chaos, 29-year-old Garmai Sumo is the only female on a team tasked with safely removing bodies from infected locations. In this film, as we watch the horror unfold, she describes what it's like—the fears, the sadness and even the hope. Her commitment and compassion for her fellow people make this otherwise gloomy subject bearable.
A GIRL IN THE RIVER: THE PRICE OF FORGIVENESS (Pakistan)
In Pakistan, men sometimes beat or kill female relatives who they perceive to have 'disrespected' them. They call these 'honor killings,' as they are meant to restore honor to the family. One such attempted murder happened to 18-year-old Saba when she fell in love and her family told her the boy she wanted to marry wasn't rich enough. She defied them by gaining support from her future in-laws, who helped the couple elope. Her father and uncle then shot her in the face and threw her in the river to die. But ... she didn't die. She lived to tell the tale and tells it here, as she's in the midst of a legal struggle in her community. Her path toward forgiveness under pressure is hard to watch, especially considering that her attackers show no remorse, but it's so well done, I conclude that this is the strongest of the five films.
LAST DAY OF FREEDOM (USA)
A man has a younger brother. The younger brother gets hit by a car during adolescence and is never the same. With a middle school education, said brother enters the service. He goes to Vietnam. Bad things happen. He comes home, again a changed man. His PTSD gets really bad. He does a bad thing. His brother turns him in. He gets the death penalty. The brother is sick with guilt and tells his story here, but we only hear him as the entire short is animated. Though the animation is artistically brilliant, I didn't feel it was the right way to tell this story and it distracted me from the core of the emotion. Meh.
CHAU, BEYOND THE LINES (USA and Vietnam)
The effects of Agent Orange are still prevalent today, as evidenced in this documentary focusing on Chau, a disabled Vietnamese boy with a triumphant spirit. We're first introduced to him in the orphanage-like home he's living in, though he's still in touch with his family (and will go back to them briefly before setting out in the world on his own). The staff at the home, which primarily serves children affected by Agent Orange, don't recognize that Chau's a gifted artist with real potential; they discourage him from pursuing what they see as a futile dream. Thankfully, he ignores them and forges on, despite the fact he doesn't have a knee on one leg and his arms and hands are disproportionate to his body. If you're able to stop crying, this is a life-affirming gem of a film.
CLAUDE LANSMANN: SPECTRES OF THE SHOAH (USA)
In 1985, Director Claude Lansmann released a documentary that had consumed him for 12 years: Shoah. Remembered now as perhaps the most important Holocaust film ever made, the creation of it still haunts him this many years on. In this talking-head short—the most traditional documentary of the bunch—we hear from Lansmann directly as he shares stories of the horrors he drew out of various survivors. It's riveting and depressing and makes you respect the classic work all the more, even if his methods for making it weren't always noble.
~~~
Friday, January 08, 2016
My 2016 Golden Globe Picks
Here are my selection and predictions, in order of how they're listed on the official site:
Best Motion Picture Drama
What I want to win: I give this to ROOM. No film has stayed with me more than this can't-look-away nail biter about a kidnapped woman and her son held in captivity.
What will probably win: I think THE REVENANT, which is also deserving, but didn't hit me as emotionally hard as the other.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture Drama
Who I want to win: Brie Larson from ROOM. Earth-shatteringly good.
Who will probably win: Brie Larson from ROOM. She is getting universal praise, for good reason.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture Drama
Who I want to win: Without question, Leonardo DiCaprio for THE REVENANT. He's good in everything he's in, but in this role he got attacked by a bear and had very few lines.
Who will probably win: Leo has terrible luck during awards season, so I think Eddie Redmayne of THE DANISH GIRL will take this one. I liked him in the role, but still think Leo had a more difficult job.
Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy
What I want to win: TRAINWRECK. Amy Schumer. Need I say more?
What will probably win: I have a good feeling about TRAINWRECK and Amy's string of success this year.
Best Performance by an Actress - Musical or Comedy
Who I want to win: Amy Schumer, of course.
Who will probably win: Amy Schumer, of course.
Best Performance by an Actor - Musical or Comedy
Who I want to win: Christian Bale was creepy good in THE BIG SHORT, right down to actually wearing the guy's clothes. He gets my vote.
Who will probably win: I think more people saw THE MARTIAN, and Matt Damon will walk away with the Globe.
Best Motion Picture - Animated
What I want to win: No film had more heart this year than INSIDE OUT. I hope it takes the honor.
What will probably win: Pixar rules. INSIDE OUT it is!
Best Motion Picture - Foreign Language
Shamefully, I have seen none of the nominees, so I will remove myself from weighing in on this race.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture
Who I want to win: STEVE JOBS was held together by Kate Winslet. She deserves the trophy.
Who will probably win: Alicia Vikander of EX MACHINA has gotten a lot of press. I'm guessing if Kate loses, it will be to her.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture
Who I want to win: Mark Rylance was absolutely charming in BRIDGE OF SPIES. I'd like to see his acceptance speech.
Who will probably win: Paul Dano, though probably should have been considered a lead, made an excellent Brian Wilson in LOVE & MERCY. He could be the night's showstopper.
Best Director - Motion Picture
Who I want to win: I go with Alejandro G. Iñarritu for THE REVENANT. Shooting in the wilderness, in natural light, using very little CGI and not a lot of dialogue. The film is a cinematic treasure.
Who will probably win: Ridley Scott and his crowd-pleaser THE MARTIAN will most likely walk away with the prize.
Best Motion Picture Drama
What I want to win: I give this to ROOM. No film has stayed with me more than this can't-look-away nail biter about a kidnapped woman and her son held in captivity.
What will probably win: I think THE REVENANT, which is also deserving, but didn't hit me as emotionally hard as the other.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture Drama
Who I want to win: Brie Larson from ROOM. Earth-shatteringly good.
Who will probably win: Brie Larson from ROOM. She is getting universal praise, for good reason.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture Drama
Who I want to win: Without question, Leonardo DiCaprio for THE REVENANT. He's good in everything he's in, but in this role he got attacked by a bear and had very few lines.
Who will probably win: Leo has terrible luck during awards season, so I think Eddie Redmayne of THE DANISH GIRL will take this one. I liked him in the role, but still think Leo had a more difficult job.
Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy
What I want to win: TRAINWRECK. Amy Schumer. Need I say more?
What will probably win: I have a good feeling about TRAINWRECK and Amy's string of success this year.
Best Performance by an Actress - Musical or Comedy
Who I want to win: Amy Schumer, of course.
Who will probably win: Amy Schumer, of course.
Best Performance by an Actor - Musical or Comedy
Who I want to win: Christian Bale was creepy good in THE BIG SHORT, right down to actually wearing the guy's clothes. He gets my vote.
Who will probably win: I think more people saw THE MARTIAN, and Matt Damon will walk away with the Globe.
Best Motion Picture - Animated
What I want to win: No film had more heart this year than INSIDE OUT. I hope it takes the honor.
What will probably win: Pixar rules. INSIDE OUT it is!
Best Motion Picture - Foreign Language
Shamefully, I have seen none of the nominees, so I will remove myself from weighing in on this race.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture
Who I want to win: STEVE JOBS was held together by Kate Winslet. She deserves the trophy.
Who will probably win: Alicia Vikander of EX MACHINA has gotten a lot of press. I'm guessing if Kate loses, it will be to her.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture
Who I want to win: Mark Rylance was absolutely charming in BRIDGE OF SPIES. I'd like to see his acceptance speech.
Who will probably win: Paul Dano, though probably should have been considered a lead, made an excellent Brian Wilson in LOVE & MERCY. He could be the night's showstopper.
Best Director - Motion Picture
Who I want to win: I go with Alejandro G. Iñarritu for THE REVENANT. Shooting in the wilderness, in natural light, using very little CGI and not a lot of dialogue. The film is a cinematic treasure.
Who will probably win: Ridley Scott and his crowd-pleaser THE MARTIAN will most likely walk away with the prize.
Best Screenplay - Motion Picture
Who I want to win: Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer for SPOTLIGHT deserve the honor for their fast-paced, perfectly crafted script.
Who will probably win: Charles Randolph and Adam McKay had a lot of crackle in THE BIG SHORT. Audiences will remember the dialogue; especially because a lot of it was spoken directly to them in the "how this happened" vignettes featuring famous cameos.
Best Original Score - Motion Picture
Who I want to win: Alexandre Desplat painted a beautiful picture of both the era and the landscapes of the two major European cities featured in THE DANISH GIRL, while managing to convey the emotion of the leads. I loved it.
Who will probably win: Ennio Morricone is the rock star of the bunch, so I'm guessing his work for THE HATEFUL EIGHT will yield the Globe.
Best Original Song - Motion Picture
Who I want to win: When the subject of the movie is also the composer of the song in the movie, it's hard to argue with it. My vote goes to Brian Wilson for LOVE & MERCY.
Who will probably win: Everyone wants to see a Beach Boy on stage. I think Brian Wilson will indeed win for LOVE & MERCY.
Best Television Series - Drama
What I want to win: Funny story: I only started watching MR. ROBOT because when I lived in NY for a brief time last year for work, they filmed it on my Upper West Side apartment's street. It became a fast favorite and it gets my vote here.
What will probably win: I wasn't the only one who loved this show. I'm guessing MR. ROBOT will prove victorious.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Drama
Who I want to win: The intensity she exudes (in the contexts of both sex and violence) qualify Catriona Balfe of OUTLANDER to win, in my book.
Who will probably win: I think Viola Davis, who is the most buzzed-about leading lady, will take it for HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Drama
Who I want to win: Don Draper forever! John Hamm of MAD MEN, please.
Who will probably win: Since MAD MEN has ended and it's Hamm's last chance to win, I think my wish will come true.
Best Television Series - Music or Comedy
Who I want to win: An admittedly recent convert, I'm all about TRANSPARENT.
Who will probably win: I feel like I'm not the only one who loves TRANSPARENT.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Music or Comedy
Who I want to win: Jamie Lee Curtis kept SCREAM QUEENS alive on my DVR. She gets my vote.
Who will probably win: Julia Louis-Dreyfus in VEEP seems to have quite the winning streak (though I hate that show).
Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Music or Comedy
Who I want to win: Is it any surprise? I go for Jeffrey Tambor in TRANSPARENT.
Who will probably win: I think the HFP will agree with me and go with Jeffrey Tambor for his role as a trans parent in TRANSPARENT.
Best Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
What I want to win: My vote would go to the always-interesting AMERICAN CRIME.
What will probably win: The critics can't seem to get enough of FARGO, so I'll bet it beats out the rest.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
Who I want to win: Lady Gaga has been fantastic in AMERICAN HORROR STORY: HOTEL, so she gets my vote.
Who will probably win: Though I didn't see it, I hear Queen Latifah was transcendent in BESSIE. My guess is she'll be the one walking away with the win.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
Who I want to win: Idris Elba has made LUTHER iconic in his own right, so he's my pick.
Who will probably win: I think voters will award Patrick Wilson of FARGO with the Globe.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
Who I want to win: Maura Tierney was nothing short of brilliant this season on THE AFFAIR. She deserves the honor.
Who will probably win: I have a hunch about the always-wonderful Regina King of AMERICAN CRIME.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
Who I want to win: Alan Cumming for THE GOOD WIFE. Anything else is a conspiracy.
Who will probably win: I can't see anyone in their right mind disagreeing with me on this one. Alan Cumming, Sir Eli Gold, THE GOOD WIFE.
We'll find out on Sunday if I was right!
-Tassoula
Who I want to win: Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer for SPOTLIGHT deserve the honor for their fast-paced, perfectly crafted script.
Who will probably win: Charles Randolph and Adam McKay had a lot of crackle in THE BIG SHORT. Audiences will remember the dialogue; especially because a lot of it was spoken directly to them in the "how this happened" vignettes featuring famous cameos.
Best Original Score - Motion Picture
Who I want to win: Alexandre Desplat painted a beautiful picture of both the era and the landscapes of the two major European cities featured in THE DANISH GIRL, while managing to convey the emotion of the leads. I loved it.
Who will probably win: Ennio Morricone is the rock star of the bunch, so I'm guessing his work for THE HATEFUL EIGHT will yield the Globe.
Best Original Song - Motion Picture
Who I want to win: When the subject of the movie is also the composer of the song in the movie, it's hard to argue with it. My vote goes to Brian Wilson for LOVE & MERCY.
Who will probably win: Everyone wants to see a Beach Boy on stage. I think Brian Wilson will indeed win for LOVE & MERCY.
Best Television Series - Drama
What I want to win: Funny story: I only started watching MR. ROBOT because when I lived in NY for a brief time last year for work, they filmed it on my Upper West Side apartment's street. It became a fast favorite and it gets my vote here.
What will probably win: I wasn't the only one who loved this show. I'm guessing MR. ROBOT will prove victorious.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Drama
Who I want to win: The intensity she exudes (in the contexts of both sex and violence) qualify Catriona Balfe of OUTLANDER to win, in my book.
Who will probably win: I think Viola Davis, who is the most buzzed-about leading lady, will take it for HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Drama
Who I want to win: Don Draper forever! John Hamm of MAD MEN, please.
Who will probably win: Since MAD MEN has ended and it's Hamm's last chance to win, I think my wish will come true.
Best Television Series - Music or Comedy
Who I want to win: An admittedly recent convert, I'm all about TRANSPARENT.
Who will probably win: I feel like I'm not the only one who loves TRANSPARENT.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Music or Comedy
Who I want to win: Jamie Lee Curtis kept SCREAM QUEENS alive on my DVR. She gets my vote.
Who will probably win: Julia Louis-Dreyfus in VEEP seems to have quite the winning streak (though I hate that show).
Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Music or Comedy
Who I want to win: Is it any surprise? I go for Jeffrey Tambor in TRANSPARENT.
Who will probably win: I think the HFP will agree with me and go with Jeffrey Tambor for his role as a trans parent in TRANSPARENT.
Best Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
What I want to win: My vote would go to the always-interesting AMERICAN CRIME.
What will probably win: The critics can't seem to get enough of FARGO, so I'll bet it beats out the rest.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
Who I want to win: Lady Gaga has been fantastic in AMERICAN HORROR STORY: HOTEL, so she gets my vote.
Who will probably win: Though I didn't see it, I hear Queen Latifah was transcendent in BESSIE. My guess is she'll be the one walking away with the win.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
Who I want to win: Idris Elba has made LUTHER iconic in his own right, so he's my pick.
Who will probably win: I think voters will award Patrick Wilson of FARGO with the Globe.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
Who I want to win: Maura Tierney was nothing short of brilliant this season on THE AFFAIR. She deserves the honor.
Who will probably win: I have a hunch about the always-wonderful Regina King of AMERICAN CRIME.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television
Who I want to win: Alan Cumming for THE GOOD WIFE. Anything else is a conspiracy.
Who will probably win: I can't see anyone in their right mind disagreeing with me on this one. Alan Cumming, Sir Eli Gold, THE GOOD WIFE.
We'll find out on Sunday if I was right!
-Tassoula
Thursday, January 07, 2016
The Revenant
Tonight I saw The Revenant, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy.
Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) is a fur trapper in the early 1800s (and yes, this character is based on a real person and a real incident, though many of the characters are fictional). He's on an expedition along the Missouri River when he's mauled by a grizzly bear. He survives the violent attack, but can barely move. And winter is coming—so instead of the entire group putting themselves in further danger, they offer cash rewards to those willing to stay behind and either nurse him back to health or give him a proper burial when the day comes. Two men, plus the man's son, volunteer for the duty and the rest leave.
After days of no improvement, one of the men, John Fitzgerald (Hardy) gets anxious and wants to put Glass out of his misery. He's not ready to go and his son attempts to save him. Fitzgerald kills the son and convinces the other man to leave Glass for dead. He even takes his gun.
But Hugh doesn't die. His resolve for revenge against Fitzgerald fuels his will to live and the next 2+ hours are spent battling tribes, nature and his own rotting flesh. Just watching him shiver in the snow is enough to put an extra layer on in the theater. In fact, with the exception of the tender moments Hugh shares with his son, the ghost of his son's mother, the ghost of his son and a friend he makes along the way, there's not much about this film that's pleasant.
It's brilliant, though.
From the stunning cinematography to the horrific, so-real-it-makes-you-squirm bear scene to DiCaprio's almost mute performance that somehow exhibits more emotion than anything we've seen on film this year, it's a triumph.
Visceral, painful, frightening, satisfying, terrifying—all of those things. And if Leo doesn't win the Oscar this year, I will lose all faith in the Academy.
~~~
Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) is a fur trapper in the early 1800s (and yes, this character is based on a real person and a real incident, though many of the characters are fictional). He's on an expedition along the Missouri River when he's mauled by a grizzly bear. He survives the violent attack, but can barely move. And winter is coming—so instead of the entire group putting themselves in further danger, they offer cash rewards to those willing to stay behind and either nurse him back to health or give him a proper burial when the day comes. Two men, plus the man's son, volunteer for the duty and the rest leave.
After days of no improvement, one of the men, John Fitzgerald (Hardy) gets anxious and wants to put Glass out of his misery. He's not ready to go and his son attempts to save him. Fitzgerald kills the son and convinces the other man to leave Glass for dead. He even takes his gun.
But Hugh doesn't die. His resolve for revenge against Fitzgerald fuels his will to live and the next 2+ hours are spent battling tribes, nature and his own rotting flesh. Just watching him shiver in the snow is enough to put an extra layer on in the theater. In fact, with the exception of the tender moments Hugh shares with his son, the ghost of his son's mother, the ghost of his son and a friend he makes along the way, there's not much about this film that's pleasant.
It's brilliant, though.
From the stunning cinematography to the horrific, so-real-it-makes-you-squirm bear scene to DiCaprio's almost mute performance that somehow exhibits more emotion than anything we've seen on film this year, it's a triumph.
Visceral, painful, frightening, satisfying, terrifying—all of those things. And if Leo doesn't win the Oscar this year, I will lose all faith in the Academy.
~~~
Sunday, January 03, 2016
Carol
This morning I saw Carol, starring Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara.
There's a chronic ache one endures when love is unrequited. A pain detected by others only when looking deep into the afflicted's eyes. Carol (Blanchett), the subject of this film, feels this pain. She is on the verge of divorcing her husband Harge (Kyle Chandler) and is smitten with a young shop girl she met while searching for her daughter's Christmas gift.
As fate would have it, Carol accidentally left her gloves behind at the department store when purchasing said gift, so the shop girl, Therese (Mara) has them sent back to her. To show her gratitude for the gesture, she treats Therese to a fancy lunch and a new friendship is formed.
Meanwhile, Therese is somewhat confused about where she wants life to take her. She has a solid job at the store, but her passion is photography. She has a devoted boyfriend, but another friend likes her and also wants to be with her. Therese has little interest in either of them.
As Carol progresses with her separation, an ex-girlfriend, Abby (Sarah Paulson), helps her deal. But her association with Abby makes Harge believe she's going back to her—though she's not—so he begins proceedings to keep Carol from seeing their daughter. This drives Carol to quickly seek comfort in Therese's friendship and explore where it will go.
Did I mention it's the early 50s? And it's not okay to be an 'out' lesbian in the early 50s?
The whole film centers around this repression, despite the fact Carol seems very comfortable in who she is and makes no apologies for her feelings. It's one of those films where very little happens, yet everything does change.
If you're looking for a fast-paced love story, this is not the film for you, but if you have the cinema patience for quiet scenes, sexual frustration and longing looks, you may find yourself satisfied by its undercurrent.
Cate Blanchett is fantastic as always, as the cold, yet compassionate Carol. Mara didn't impress me as much with her deer-in-headlights glances and wooden dialog delivery, but Kyle Chandler playing against type as a jackass was fun to see.
I'm glad I checked this one off my list, even if it's not as flashy as competing films in this year's Oscar race.
~~~
There's a chronic ache one endures when love is unrequited. A pain detected by others only when looking deep into the afflicted's eyes. Carol (Blanchett), the subject of this film, feels this pain. She is on the verge of divorcing her husband Harge (Kyle Chandler) and is smitten with a young shop girl she met while searching for her daughter's Christmas gift.
As fate would have it, Carol accidentally left her gloves behind at the department store when purchasing said gift, so the shop girl, Therese (Mara) has them sent back to her. To show her gratitude for the gesture, she treats Therese to a fancy lunch and a new friendship is formed.
Meanwhile, Therese is somewhat confused about where she wants life to take her. She has a solid job at the store, but her passion is photography. She has a devoted boyfriend, but another friend likes her and also wants to be with her. Therese has little interest in either of them.
As Carol progresses with her separation, an ex-girlfriend, Abby (Sarah Paulson), helps her deal. But her association with Abby makes Harge believe she's going back to her—though she's not—so he begins proceedings to keep Carol from seeing their daughter. This drives Carol to quickly seek comfort in Therese's friendship and explore where it will go.
Did I mention it's the early 50s? And it's not okay to be an 'out' lesbian in the early 50s?
The whole film centers around this repression, despite the fact Carol seems very comfortable in who she is and makes no apologies for her feelings. It's one of those films where very little happens, yet everything does change.
If you're looking for a fast-paced love story, this is not the film for you, but if you have the cinema patience for quiet scenes, sexual frustration and longing looks, you may find yourself satisfied by its undercurrent.
Cate Blanchett is fantastic as always, as the cold, yet compassionate Carol. Mara didn't impress me as much with her deer-in-headlights glances and wooden dialog delivery, but Kyle Chandler playing against type as a jackass was fun to see.
I'm glad I checked this one off my list, even if it's not as flashy as competing films in this year's Oscar race.
~~~
Saturday, January 02, 2016
Joy
Last night I saw Joy, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Niro.
Joy Mangano (Lawrence) is an inventor, entrepreneur and multimillionaire—but it took a lot of work for her to get there.
As a single mom in the late 80s, Mangano was always thinking up ways to make life a little easier. One of those ideas led to her invention of the Miracle Mop; at the time, a revolutionary cleaning device that was self-wringing and machine washable. This film tells the story (loosely) of how she was able to sell her idea to the right entity despite a difficult dysfunctional family and no prior business experience.
Jennifer Lawrence (though a bit young to be playing Joy) dazzles as the headstrong woman who seems to solve all of her family's problems. She has a depressed mother living downstairs and a friendly ex-husband in the basement as she raises her two kids, juggles a crazy sister and works full time. But she manages to do it all as she invents what will become her breakthrough product.
De Niro plays her father Rudy just as you'd expect him to; forcefully, lovingly, borderline annoyingly. Of course, he's perfect. But unfortunately, the film isn't.
Each step taken, each word spoken, each concentrated look delivered is far too exaggerated. The camera whizzes around each scene like a drunk cocktail party guest while us audience members spend more time looking at Lawrence's hair than thinking about the developing plot.
Sure, there are brief "miracle" moments, like every time Bradley Cooper shows up as Joy's business contact. And the story itself (especially for women) is inspiring because the real-life woman went on to be an even greater success (and yes, the Miracle Mop is being re-released with a new spin TOMORROW, so she's obviously still entrepreneurial-minded).
But unlike the sincerity of director David O'Russell's other hits like Silver Linings Playbook, the heart was missing from Joy, leaving us bleached of emotion.
~~~
Joy Mangano (Lawrence) is an inventor, entrepreneur and multimillionaire—but it took a lot of work for her to get there.
As a single mom in the late 80s, Mangano was always thinking up ways to make life a little easier. One of those ideas led to her invention of the Miracle Mop; at the time, a revolutionary cleaning device that was self-wringing and machine washable. This film tells the story (loosely) of how she was able to sell her idea to the right entity despite a difficult dysfunctional family and no prior business experience.
Jennifer Lawrence (though a bit young to be playing Joy) dazzles as the headstrong woman who seems to solve all of her family's problems. She has a depressed mother living downstairs and a friendly ex-husband in the basement as she raises her two kids, juggles a crazy sister and works full time. But she manages to do it all as she invents what will become her breakthrough product.
De Niro plays her father Rudy just as you'd expect him to; forcefully, lovingly, borderline annoyingly. Of course, he's perfect. But unfortunately, the film isn't.
Each step taken, each word spoken, each concentrated look delivered is far too exaggerated. The camera whizzes around each scene like a drunk cocktail party guest while us audience members spend more time looking at Lawrence's hair than thinking about the developing plot.
Sure, there are brief "miracle" moments, like every time Bradley Cooper shows up as Joy's business contact. And the story itself (especially for women) is inspiring because the real-life woman went on to be an even greater success (and yes, the Miracle Mop is being re-released with a new spin TOMORROW, so she's obviously still entrepreneurial-minded).
But unlike the sincerity of director David O'Russell's other hits like Silver Linings Playbook, the heart was missing from Joy, leaving us bleached of emotion.
~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)