Today I saw Knives Out, starring Ana de Armas and Daniel Craig.
Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is a wealthy novelist who is found dead of an apparent suicide. While his family swarms to line up for their inevitable inheritances, investigator Benoit Blanc (Craig) appears on scene with the cops to determine whether or not it was really a suicide.
All along, Marta (de Armas), Thrombey's nurse, has a painful secret she's desperately trying to keep under wraps, and the family's black sheep —who cleverly goes by 'Ransom'—(Chris Evans) is most certainly up to something, but we don't know what.
The film starts out as a straight whodunnit with all of the suspicious parties interviewed separately by law enforcement. After the presentation of a certain scenario, it's obvious what happened, so as an audience member you wonder why the reveal was done so early ... until you realize there is a twist. And then another. And then more after that.
All throughout, crackling dialog laced with hilarious listen-close-or-you'll-miss-them lines pepper the story with a strong dose of humor, making this modern mystery a lot of fun.
The only thing I could have done without was the vomiting. Future viewers: Tere's a lot of that, so be forewarned.
Otherwise, sit back and let the ride take you where it will—you won't be disappointed.
~~~
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Friday, October 18, 2019
Joker
Today I saw Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix and Robert De Niro.
Arthur (Phoenix) is a working-class clown who likes to make children laugh, cares tenderly for his elderly mother (Frances Conroy) and harbors an innocent crush on his attractive neighbor (Zazie Beetz). By all accounts, Arthur is a nice person just trying to life his life.
When he's attacked by some kids who steal the sign he's holding as part of his job, then beaten up by the same crowd when he attempts to retrieve it, it's easy to brim with sadness for him. Through a brief glimpse into one of his therapy sessions, we learn he's on a cocktail of drugs to aid in his mental health and that he dreams of being a stand-up comedian.
Arthur is also obsessed with a Johnny Carson-like talk show hosted by Murray Franklin (De Niro) and watches faithfully. He finally gets the chance to perform at a local comedy club and it doesn't go so well, but Franklin picks up clips from the disaster and uses them on his program, which leads to an invitation for Arthur to appear.
Meanwhile, a colleague gives Arthur a gun for protection, which he graciously accepts. You don't have to be a mathematician to realize that a mentally ill, constantly bullied man with a firearm is a bad idea ... but that's as far as I can go without spoiling.
I must say this, however: Joaquin Phoenix is nothing short of phenomenal in the role. Every expression, every ounce of pain Arthur experiences seeps from his pores onto the screen. When he aches, you ache for him, and when he rages; well—you sort of can't help but rage along with him.
It's truly an intense character study into the deterioration of the human spirit. Someone who could've had a shot at leading a decent life, but got kicked around too many times, and that coupled with other factors creates a monster, somewhat literally. The narrative got so intense I almost couldn't breathe, so I stepped into the lobby to take a moment. I can't remember the last time I film got to me in the same way.
Joker is tragic to claustrophobic proportions and more disturbing than it would be otherwise if our world wasn't presently so cruel.
Incredibly well done.
~~~
Arthur (Phoenix) is a working-class clown who likes to make children laugh, cares tenderly for his elderly mother (Frances Conroy) and harbors an innocent crush on his attractive neighbor (Zazie Beetz). By all accounts, Arthur is a nice person just trying to life his life.
When he's attacked by some kids who steal the sign he's holding as part of his job, then beaten up by the same crowd when he attempts to retrieve it, it's easy to brim with sadness for him. Through a brief glimpse into one of his therapy sessions, we learn he's on a cocktail of drugs to aid in his mental health and that he dreams of being a stand-up comedian.
Arthur is also obsessed with a Johnny Carson-like talk show hosted by Murray Franklin (De Niro) and watches faithfully. He finally gets the chance to perform at a local comedy club and it doesn't go so well, but Franklin picks up clips from the disaster and uses them on his program, which leads to an invitation for Arthur to appear.
Meanwhile, a colleague gives Arthur a gun for protection, which he graciously accepts. You don't have to be a mathematician to realize that a mentally ill, constantly bullied man with a firearm is a bad idea ... but that's as far as I can go without spoiling.
I must say this, however: Joaquin Phoenix is nothing short of phenomenal in the role. Every expression, every ounce of pain Arthur experiences seeps from his pores onto the screen. When he aches, you ache for him, and when he rages; well—you sort of can't help but rage along with him.
It's truly an intense character study into the deterioration of the human spirit. Someone who could've had a shot at leading a decent life, but got kicked around too many times, and that coupled with other factors creates a monster, somewhat literally. The narrative got so intense I almost couldn't breathe, so I stepped into the lobby to take a moment. I can't remember the last time I film got to me in the same way.
Joker is tragic to claustrophobic proportions and more disturbing than it would be otherwise if our world wasn't presently so cruel.
Incredibly well done.
~~~
Friday, December 15, 2017
Voyeur
Today I saw the documentary Voyeur.
In the late '60s, Gerald Foos bought a motel in Aurora, Colorado for the sole purpose of voyeurism. He built a platform in the attic and drilled a viewing panel underneath fake air vents so he could see his guests, but not be seen by them.
On this platform he spent endless days and nights witnessing random private behaviors, intimate sexual acts and once, even a murder. He doesn't express remorse or guilt over all of this because he saw himself at the time as a researcher, not unlike famed doctors Masters and Johnson (though their subjects always knew when they were watching).
Of course, his "research" wasn't always clinical, as he did confess to the sexual pleasure derived from witnessing it. But he did keep meticulous records of the guests and their actions (orgasms included).
In the early '80s, Foos wrote a letter to journalist Gay Talese, who had authored a saucy book, The Neighbor's Wife, about the fluid sex lives of Americans. Foos confessed his practices and offered the story to Talese because he felt it needed to be told. Talese kept the knowledge of this tricked-out motel confidential (even visiting and witnessing acts himself) and spent decades learning all about Foos and his obsessions.
A documentary crew got involved and chronicled the journey of Talese writing the book and regularly meeting with Foos, and that's the finished film we get here.
Though it sounds X-rated, this movie plays it safe with only brief nudity and references to sexual behaviors as part of the reenactments. Really, it's primarily talking head video of the journalist and his subject, the friends they become and the battles they get into as the years go on.
I was intrigued by the subject matter (and the fact Foos was never convicted of any crimes) but must admit after the story was told, I began to find all of the major players quite sad.
It's interesting enough not to walk away from, but not captivating enough to leave you wanting more.
~~~
In the late '60s, Gerald Foos bought a motel in Aurora, Colorado for the sole purpose of voyeurism. He built a platform in the attic and drilled a viewing panel underneath fake air vents so he could see his guests, but not be seen by them.
On this platform he spent endless days and nights witnessing random private behaviors, intimate sexual acts and once, even a murder. He doesn't express remorse or guilt over all of this because he saw himself at the time as a researcher, not unlike famed doctors Masters and Johnson (though their subjects always knew when they were watching).
Of course, his "research" wasn't always clinical, as he did confess to the sexual pleasure derived from witnessing it. But he did keep meticulous records of the guests and their actions (orgasms included).
In the early '80s, Foos wrote a letter to journalist Gay Talese, who had authored a saucy book, The Neighbor's Wife, about the fluid sex lives of Americans. Foos confessed his practices and offered the story to Talese because he felt it needed to be told. Talese kept the knowledge of this tricked-out motel confidential (even visiting and witnessing acts himself) and spent decades learning all about Foos and his obsessions.
A documentary crew got involved and chronicled the journey of Talese writing the book and regularly meeting with Foos, and that's the finished film we get here.
Though it sounds X-rated, this movie plays it safe with only brief nudity and references to sexual behaviors as part of the reenactments. Really, it's primarily talking head video of the journalist and his subject, the friends they become and the battles they get into as the years go on.
I was intrigued by the subject matter (and the fact Foos was never convicted of any crimes) but must admit after the story was told, I began to find all of the major players quite sad.
It's interesting enough not to walk away from, but not captivating enough to leave you wanting more.
~~~
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, February 15, 2015
American Sniper
Today I saw American Sniper, starring Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller.
Chris Kyle (Cooper) is a hard-working American cowboy who feels moved to fight for his country and enlists at age 30. He trains to become a Navy Seal and soon becomes a legend for his precise sniper skills in the desert.
His wife back home, Taya (Miller), is proud of the man he's become, but tired of playing single mother to their two children while he keeps returning to duty. Each time she speaks with him, she begs him to quit the service and come home.
The entire film, based on a true story, details Kyle's wrestle with his sense of responsibility to defend his country and his genuine love for his family. Much like we've seen in films like The Hurt Locker, when soldiers come home, they have an understandably tough time acclimating back to "real life." They've endured so many horrors in the field, there's perhaps a survivors' guilt for enjoying the basic things that Americans are free to experience. In Kyle's case, he also carried the burden of being "the best in the business" at his particular craft, so he felt no matter who was fighting in the war on our behalf, he would do a better job (and save more lives) if he was there.
Director Clint Eastwood does a predictably great job making us feel as if we're in the war with these Seals. Cooper holds his own with a convincing Texas drawl and pained look in his eye; Miller genuinely captures what so many military wives must endure on a daily basis.
Basically? It's a good, solid, sad, inspirational entertaining film.
I procrastinated seeing it because war is hard to watch, but I'm glad I went because now I'm aware of a real-life hero who I previously knew nothing about. I also understand the Oscar nominations and the box office success, both of which I believe are well deserved.
If you can stomach the violence, and don't mind shedding some tears, you shouldn't miss it.
~~~
Chris Kyle (Cooper) is a hard-working American cowboy who feels moved to fight for his country and enlists at age 30. He trains to become a Navy Seal and soon becomes a legend for his precise sniper skills in the desert.
His wife back home, Taya (Miller), is proud of the man he's become, but tired of playing single mother to their two children while he keeps returning to duty. Each time she speaks with him, she begs him to quit the service and come home.
The entire film, based on a true story, details Kyle's wrestle with his sense of responsibility to defend his country and his genuine love for his family. Much like we've seen in films like The Hurt Locker, when soldiers come home, they have an understandably tough time acclimating back to "real life." They've endured so many horrors in the field, there's perhaps a survivors' guilt for enjoying the basic things that Americans are free to experience. In Kyle's case, he also carried the burden of being "the best in the business" at his particular craft, so he felt no matter who was fighting in the war on our behalf, he would do a better job (and save more lives) if he was there.
Director Clint Eastwood does a predictably great job making us feel as if we're in the war with these Seals. Cooper holds his own with a convincing Texas drawl and pained look in his eye; Miller genuinely captures what so many military wives must endure on a daily basis.
Basically? It's a good, solid, sad, inspirational entertaining film.
I procrastinated seeing it because war is hard to watch, but I'm glad I went because now I'm aware of a real-life hero who I previously knew nothing about. I also understand the Oscar nominations and the box office success, both of which I believe are well deserved.
If you can stomach the violence, and don't mind shedding some tears, you shouldn't miss it.
~~~
Friday, October 03, 2014
Gone Girl
Tonight I saw Gone Girl, starring Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike.
Remember when Scott Peterson's attorney called him a 'cad' for having an affair with Amber Frey, but implied that didn't make him a murderer? That his wife Laci's disappearance wasn't necessarily connected just because of his bad behavior?
Well, Nick Dunne (Affleck) has found himself in a similar situation.
Without giving anything away about what his character is actually guilty of doing, Nick's wife Amy (Pike) has gone missing and his judgment has been admittedly poor as the small Missouri town where they reside rallies to search for her.
On his side are his hot-shot attorney Tanner (played to perfection by Tyler Perry) and his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon); both think he's a certain degree of idiot, but neither thinks him a murderer. Sure, his wife is/was an uppity, cold New Yorker with few—if any—friends to speak of, and he's an out-of-work writer, numbingly co-owning the town bar with his sister, but for all their typical married couple problems, he had no reason to kill her.
And that's about all I can tell you about the story.
Those who were fans of the book for which the film is based won't be disappointed in how the original author, the amazing Gillian Flynn, adapts it for the big screen. The characters gain even more dimension, and smaller players emerge stronger and more visible in the chaos.
I wasn't surprised I loved this film, but I was shocked at how long it was since it felt like it went so fast (it's actually well over 2 hours). I loved being on the edge of my seat, though I knew (generally) what was going to happen. I adored seeing the state where I went to college re-capture all of its small-town charm with endearing cops and annoying neighbors amongst the flood of do-gooders. I relished in the graphic scenes of sex and violence; none of which felt gratuitous.
I appreciated the way the men gasped more than the women did in my theater, and no matter how unlikeable the characters became, I still ended up rooting for them in some weird, warped, dark way.
The world needs more satisfying twisty thrillers like this one.
Remember when Scott Peterson's attorney called him a 'cad' for having an affair with Amber Frey, but implied that didn't make him a murderer? That his wife Laci's disappearance wasn't necessarily connected just because of his bad behavior?
Well, Nick Dunne (Affleck) has found himself in a similar situation.
Without giving anything away about what his character is actually guilty of doing, Nick's wife Amy (Pike) has gone missing and his judgment has been admittedly poor as the small Missouri town where they reside rallies to search for her.
On his side are his hot-shot attorney Tanner (played to perfection by Tyler Perry) and his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon); both think he's a certain degree of idiot, but neither thinks him a murderer. Sure, his wife is/was an uppity, cold New Yorker with few—if any—friends to speak of, and he's an out-of-work writer, numbingly co-owning the town bar with his sister, but for all their typical married couple problems, he had no reason to kill her.
And that's about all I can tell you about the story.
Those who were fans of the book for which the film is based won't be disappointed in how the original author, the amazing Gillian Flynn, adapts it for the big screen. The characters gain even more dimension, and smaller players emerge stronger and more visible in the chaos.
I wasn't surprised I loved this film, but I was shocked at how long it was since it felt like it went so fast (it's actually well over 2 hours). I loved being on the edge of my seat, though I knew (generally) what was going to happen. I adored seeing the state where I went to college re-capture all of its small-town charm with endearing cops and annoying neighbors amongst the flood of do-gooders. I relished in the graphic scenes of sex and violence; none of which felt gratuitous.
I appreciated the way the men gasped more than the women did in my theater, and no matter how unlikeable the characters became, I still ended up rooting for them in some weird, warped, dark way.
The world needs more satisfying twisty thrillers like this one.
Saturday, March 01, 2014
Labor Day
Today I saw Labor Day, starring Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin.
Adele (Winslet) is a single mother to Henry (Gattlin Griffith), and has such severe depression, she seldom leaves her home. Only when she has to tend to Henry's needs, does she depart.
Frank (Brolin) is an escaped convict who takes the two hostage and demands a safe haven as the manhunt for him begins. In their sleepy New Hampshire town, there are only so many places he could be (especially since he was injured during the escape), so one does wonder why there are no door-to-door searches.
That aside, I fully admit that I found this film completely satisfying.
Winslet recalls the pain she showed in Revolutionary Road, but plays it more understated this time. She's terrified of her intruder, but also drawn to what appears to be his kindness. Brolin is brooding, yet tender and Griffith is alternately horrified and curious. They all hit the right notes.
The longer Frank stays at the family home, the more useful he becomes. His handyman skills are put to use and for reasons we never learn, he's also an amazing cook/baker. As the film turns from suspense thriller to love story, we go with it. If someone as damaged as Adele really did receive a dangerous criminal in her home, who happened to be handsome and helpful, she may just fall for him. Hell, I would.
While other critics have nit-picked the obvious flaws (Frank is often outside; the townspeople are nosy but never discover him), the oversights didn't bother me here. I enjoyed spending time in this world; watching them drink Yuban coffee, bake peach pies and play vinyls on a record player while life just kept happening.
I'll be happy to watch this again.
Adele (Winslet) is a single mother to Henry (Gattlin Griffith), and has such severe depression, she seldom leaves her home. Only when she has to tend to Henry's needs, does she depart.
Frank (Brolin) is an escaped convict who takes the two hostage and demands a safe haven as the manhunt for him begins. In their sleepy New Hampshire town, there are only so many places he could be (especially since he was injured during the escape), so one does wonder why there are no door-to-door searches.
That aside, I fully admit that I found this film completely satisfying.
Winslet recalls the pain she showed in Revolutionary Road, but plays it more understated this time. She's terrified of her intruder, but also drawn to what appears to be his kindness. Brolin is brooding, yet tender and Griffith is alternately horrified and curious. They all hit the right notes.
The longer Frank stays at the family home, the more useful he becomes. His handyman skills are put to use and for reasons we never learn, he's also an amazing cook/baker. As the film turns from suspense thriller to love story, we go with it. If someone as damaged as Adele really did receive a dangerous criminal in her home, who happened to be handsome and helpful, she may just fall for him. Hell, I would.
While other critics have nit-picked the obvious flaws (Frank is often outside; the townspeople are nosy but never discover him), the oversights didn't bother me here. I enjoyed spending time in this world; watching them drink Yuban coffee, bake peach pies and play vinyls on a record player while life just kept happening.
I'll be happy to watch this again.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
West of Memphis
This afternoon I saw West of Memphis, a documentary about the West Memphis Three.
I've been obsessed with this story since I first saw Paradise Lost and its sequel a few years ago. For those not in-the-know, the case went something like this in 1993: Three boys dead; three other boys wrongly accused of their murders; (presumably) one killer still roaming free. Thanks, Arkansas.
With support from stars like Eddie Vedder and Johnny Depp, and the relentless persistence of Damien Nichols' (the only accused on death row) wife Lorri, the three were finally released in the summer of 2011.
I'll confess that I didn't know what an Alford Plea was until the three wrongly accused entered theirs to gain freedom. I cried tears of joy upon seeing footage of their release, and cried some more today as I watched this chapter play out.
What's new in this film? The compelling evidence against one of the stepfathers who was never even interviewed at the time of the murders.
Also new? Footage of the WM3 outside of prison walls, carrying on with their lives as they should have been allowed to in 1993.
I'm still digesting all that I saw (many of the graphic crime scene photos were almost too much for me to handle), but I can safely say that anyone interested in the case or curious about the holes of our justice system that can let something like this happen should watch it.
It's nothing short of riveting.
~~~
I've been obsessed with this story since I first saw Paradise Lost and its sequel a few years ago. For those not in-the-know, the case went something like this in 1993: Three boys dead; three other boys wrongly accused of their murders; (presumably) one killer still roaming free. Thanks, Arkansas.
With support from stars like Eddie Vedder and Johnny Depp, and the relentless persistence of Damien Nichols' (the only accused on death row) wife Lorri, the three were finally released in the summer of 2011.
I'll confess that I didn't know what an Alford Plea was until the three wrongly accused entered theirs to gain freedom. I cried tears of joy upon seeing footage of their release, and cried some more today as I watched this chapter play out.
What's new in this film? The compelling evidence against one of the stepfathers who was never even interviewed at the time of the murders.
Also new? Footage of the WM3 outside of prison walls, carrying on with their lives as they should have been allowed to in 1993.
I'm still digesting all that I saw (many of the graphic crime scene photos were almost too much for me to handle), but I can safely say that anyone interested in the case or curious about the holes of our justice system that can let something like this happen should watch it.
It's nothing short of riveting.
~~~
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Girl Who Played with Fire
Yesterday I saw The Girl Who Played with Fire, starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist.
Anyone who has read the novel this film was based on cannot help but compare the two, so I'll start by saying the filmmakers again did a good job of paring down the author's too-wordy text into simpler dialog, but I wish they hadn't changed certain details for the screen.
To explain them would be to spoil plot points for those who haven't yet seen the film, so I won't go into detail, but I will say that unless they payoff their changes in the third installment, I don't understand why they did it.
I also thought Lisbeth (Rapace) appeared less intelligent in this film, and that's something that could've easily been fixed by letting the camera linger on her smirks or having other characters reference her brilliance (as they do many times in the book).
My final complaint would be that Zala (Georgi Staykov) wasn't menacing enough for the monster that he is supposed to be. I was neither afraid nor repelled by his film version and felt that I should've been. Perhaps the director could've treated us to a few flashbacks with Liseth's mom?
On the good side: the casting again is superb. There isn't one person who doesn't fit the image of their literary likeness and act with conviction.
I also enjoyed the chemistry between Liseth and her girfriend Mimmi (Yasmine Garbi) and the tension between Blomkvist (Nyqvist) and Berger (Lena Andre).
In addition, as someone who is admittedly squeamish, I appreciated that the bloody scenes were not at all gratuitous and the violence true-to-life instead of ridiculous.
All in all, a satisfying middle to this thrilling trilogy.
~~~
Anyone who has read the novel this film was based on cannot help but compare the two, so I'll start by saying the filmmakers again did a good job of paring down the author's too-wordy text into simpler dialog, but I wish they hadn't changed certain details for the screen.
To explain them would be to spoil plot points for those who haven't yet seen the film, so I won't go into detail, but I will say that unless they payoff their changes in the third installment, I don't understand why they did it.
I also thought Lisbeth (Rapace) appeared less intelligent in this film, and that's something that could've easily been fixed by letting the camera linger on her smirks or having other characters reference her brilliance (as they do many times in the book).
My final complaint would be that Zala (Georgi Staykov) wasn't menacing enough for the monster that he is supposed to be. I was neither afraid nor repelled by his film version and felt that I should've been. Perhaps the director could've treated us to a few flashbacks with Liseth's mom?
On the good side: the casting again is superb. There isn't one person who doesn't fit the image of their literary likeness and act with conviction.
I also enjoyed the chemistry between Liseth and her girfriend Mimmi (Yasmine Garbi) and the tension between Blomkvist (Nyqvist) and Berger (Lena Andre).
In addition, as someone who is admittedly squeamish, I appreciated that the bloody scenes were not at all gratuitous and the violence true-to-life instead of ridiculous.
All in all, a satisfying middle to this thrilling trilogy.
~~~
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Today I saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, starring Michael Nyqvist and Noomi Rapace.
I'm always hesitant to see a film created from a book I enjoyed, but in this case it worked out for the best. The parts of the book I found cumbersome and verbose are eliminated, yet the story is undoubtedly fulfilled.
Mikael (Nyqvist) is a journalist who has just been convicted for committing libel against a powerful, wealthy man. Never mind that he was probably framed; he agrees to go quietly into prison once his sentence commences in six months.
Before he can begin serving that sentence, he is contacted by the people of billionaire Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube) to research the cold case murder of his niece Harriet who went missing 40 years ago. He is reluctant to take the offer, but the money is good, and coincidentally the missing woman babysat him in youth, so perhaps he feels remotely obligated.
Mikael doesn't get too far solving the mystery until he begins working alongside Lisbeth (Rapace), a twentysomething woman he caught hacking into his computer who has major social issues (and a menacing dragon tattoo).
Together they find the pieces of the never-forgotten puzzle and get close to one another as they discover them. On the side, Liseth overcomes some horrific personal violence (and no, if you can't handle brutal rape scenes, you shouldn't see this film) and fights demons from her own past.
The film succeeds in playing this all out in a realistic way. Nothing is over-stylized and the dialog is completely believable. We care about the characters enough to want to save them and root for any connections they can build with each other. That is both a testament to the strong adapted screenplay and the perfect casting of the two main leads. Really, how will any Americans measure up to them in a remake?
This was a very satisfying screen version of a book that could have been shorter. However, if you're going to devour both the film and the book, be sure to read the book first or you may not make it to the end.
~~~
I'm always hesitant to see a film created from a book I enjoyed, but in this case it worked out for the best. The parts of the book I found cumbersome and verbose are eliminated, yet the story is undoubtedly fulfilled.
Mikael (Nyqvist) is a journalist who has just been convicted for committing libel against a powerful, wealthy man. Never mind that he was probably framed; he agrees to go quietly into prison once his sentence commences in six months.
Before he can begin serving that sentence, he is contacted by the people of billionaire Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube) to research the cold case murder of his niece Harriet who went missing 40 years ago. He is reluctant to take the offer, but the money is good, and coincidentally the missing woman babysat him in youth, so perhaps he feels remotely obligated.
Mikael doesn't get too far solving the mystery until he begins working alongside Lisbeth (Rapace), a twentysomething woman he caught hacking into his computer who has major social issues (and a menacing dragon tattoo).
Together they find the pieces of the never-forgotten puzzle and get close to one another as they discover them. On the side, Liseth overcomes some horrific personal violence (and no, if you can't handle brutal rape scenes, you shouldn't see this film) and fights demons from her own past.
The film succeeds in playing this all out in a realistic way. Nothing is over-stylized and the dialog is completely believable. We care about the characters enough to want to save them and root for any connections they can build with each other. That is both a testament to the strong adapted screenplay and the perfect casting of the two main leads. Really, how will any Americans measure up to them in a remake?
This was a very satisfying screen version of a book that could have been shorter. However, if you're going to devour both the film and the book, be sure to read the book first or you may not make it to the end.
~~~
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Secret in Their Eyes
Today I saw The Secret in Their Eyes, starring Ricardo Darin and Soledad Villamil.
What do you get when you cross a murder mystery with unrequited love that's simmered for 25 years? A hell of a great movie.
When the film opens we see Benjamin (Darin) struggling at his writing desk, trying to purge the haunting remnants of a brutal rape and murder from his mind. We soon learn this was a real case that he worked on 25 years ago as an investigator, and he's never been able to shake it. So, he's making a book based on his memories of it.
Next, we meet the woman he's adored for all these years—Irene (Villamil), who worked with him on the case and is now an accomplished judge. She is acting as a casual editor/admirer, sharing in his violent trip down memory lane.
Before I give the impression that this is a "flashback" movie, let me be clear in saying that it doesn't feel like it. Though it takes place both in 1974 and 2000, the audience is never tossed between the two unexpectedly.
The crime itself is ghastly, and we see just enough of it to register horror and want justice for the victim. The suspects are clear in their innocence and guilt, which is one of the genius elements of the script: we already know whodunnit. Unlike most stories, what we crave to learn is how the characters arrived in their present—seemingly peaceful—situations.
There are also supporting characters who are far more compelling than the main two. Sandoval (Guillermo Francella) is Benjamin's drunken sidekick we root for; a grieving widow of the victim is so calm, we figure there must be more to his story.
Of course the romance between our writer and his former colleague is what drives the tension throughout the film. Like perfectly written star-crossed lovers, they're attraction is undeniable, but their circumstances common: one of the two feels that they can never be together, so both spend agonizing years wondering what would happen if they could.
The movie teaches us that denying what our heart desires can sometimes lead to a life of purgatory, and our eyes hold the secrets of our truth.
~~~
What do you get when you cross a murder mystery with unrequited love that's simmered for 25 years? A hell of a great movie.
When the film opens we see Benjamin (Darin) struggling at his writing desk, trying to purge the haunting remnants of a brutal rape and murder from his mind. We soon learn this was a real case that he worked on 25 years ago as an investigator, and he's never been able to shake it. So, he's making a book based on his memories of it.
Next, we meet the woman he's adored for all these years—Irene (Villamil), who worked with him on the case and is now an accomplished judge. She is acting as a casual editor/admirer, sharing in his violent trip down memory lane.
Before I give the impression that this is a "flashback" movie, let me be clear in saying that it doesn't feel like it. Though it takes place both in 1974 and 2000, the audience is never tossed between the two unexpectedly.
The crime itself is ghastly, and we see just enough of it to register horror and want justice for the victim. The suspects are clear in their innocence and guilt, which is one of the genius elements of the script: we already know whodunnit. Unlike most stories, what we crave to learn is how the characters arrived in their present—seemingly peaceful—situations.
There are also supporting characters who are far more compelling than the main two. Sandoval (Guillermo Francella) is Benjamin's drunken sidekick we root for; a grieving widow of the victim is so calm, we figure there must be more to his story.
Of course the romance between our writer and his former colleague is what drives the tension throughout the film. Like perfectly written star-crossed lovers, they're attraction is undeniable, but their circumstances common: one of the two feels that they can never be together, so both spend agonizing years wondering what would happen if they could.
The movie teaches us that denying what our heart desires can sometimes lead to a life of purgatory, and our eyes hold the secrets of our truth.
~~~
Sunday, May 25, 2008
An American Crime
Tonight I saw An American Crime, starring Catherine Keener and Ellen Page.
The story tells of the true 1965 torture and murder of Sylvia Likens (Page), a girl who was boarded, along with her sister, at the house of a crazy woman as her parents worked in a traveling carnival.
Keener expertly portrays the mother, Gertrude, who is equal parts righteous and restrained. You get the sense that in her warped head, she is doing the "right" thing by punishing a girl who supposedly talks trash about her daughter.
Of course Sylvia isn't really saying anything bad and the woman's daughter is the real whore of the house, but that doesn't stop Gertrude from beating, burning and humiliating her—and instructing others to play along.
The film is like a car accident: on one hand you can't stand to watch because it's morbid; on the other, you can't take your eyes off of it because it is so horrific.
The performances in this film are award-worthy and I hope both ladies get their due credit when all is said and done.
It can't have been an easy film to make.
```
The story tells of the true 1965 torture and murder of Sylvia Likens (Page), a girl who was boarded, along with her sister, at the house of a crazy woman as her parents worked in a traveling carnival.
Keener expertly portrays the mother, Gertrude, who is equal parts righteous and restrained. You get the sense that in her warped head, she is doing the "right" thing by punishing a girl who supposedly talks trash about her daughter.
Of course Sylvia isn't really saying anything bad and the woman's daughter is the real whore of the house, but that doesn't stop Gertrude from beating, burning and humiliating her—and instructing others to play along.
The film is like a car accident: on one hand you can't stand to watch because it's morbid; on the other, you can't take your eyes off of it because it is so horrific.
The performances in this film are award-worthy and I hope both ladies get their due credit when all is said and done.
It can't have been an easy film to make.
```
Sunday, July 29, 2007
A Mighty Heart
Today I saw A Mighty Heart, starring Angelina Jolie.
The story follows the tragic end of Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Pearl's life. It is told chronologically from the time he leaves his wife to go to that fateful interview, to the birth of their son Adam a few months after he was murdered.
Angelina, who plays Marianne, is magnificent as a strong-willed journalist who acts as an effective team leader in the search for her husband, despite the fact she's five months pregnant at the time of his kidnapping. Jolie not only captures Mrs. Pearl's mannerisms and speech patterns, she harnesses the essence of this amazing woman's spirit, portraying her as a calming presence in the midst of a personal and political disaster. It's a shame that many have not been able to overlook Angelina's fame when speaking about her in this role because she certainly could be nominated for another Oscar® as a result of it. She's that good.
Also wonderful is Irfan Khan (The Namesake) as the captain in charge of tracking down Danny's captors. His no-nonsense, yet compassionate aura never entered the annoying arena of personas that typically get exaggerated in stories like this. I guess what I'm saying is that his understated acting is a benefit to this role and ultimately to the film overall.
I also felt that the dramatic scenes that we knew were all coming, were treated with grace and not overdone as I somewhat expected.
It's a devastating story, but it's also heartwarming because we learn that law enforcement and the governments of the countries involved and the family and coworkers of Mr. Pearl all worked together in peace to try to bring him home safely.
And they came so close.
The story follows the tragic end of Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Pearl's life. It is told chronologically from the time he leaves his wife to go to that fateful interview, to the birth of their son Adam a few months after he was murdered.
Angelina, who plays Marianne, is magnificent as a strong-willed journalist who acts as an effective team leader in the search for her husband, despite the fact she's five months pregnant at the time of his kidnapping. Jolie not only captures Mrs. Pearl's mannerisms and speech patterns, she harnesses the essence of this amazing woman's spirit, portraying her as a calming presence in the midst of a personal and political disaster. It's a shame that many have not been able to overlook Angelina's fame when speaking about her in this role because she certainly could be nominated for another Oscar® as a result of it. She's that good.
Also wonderful is Irfan Khan (The Namesake) as the captain in charge of tracking down Danny's captors. His no-nonsense, yet compassionate aura never entered the annoying arena of personas that typically get exaggerated in stories like this. I guess what I'm saying is that his understated acting is a benefit to this role and ultimately to the film overall.
I also felt that the dramatic scenes that we knew were all coming, were treated with grace and not overdone as I somewhat expected.
It's a devastating story, but it's also heartwarming because we learn that law enforcement and the governments of the countries involved and the family and coworkers of Mr. Pearl all worked together in peace to try to bring him home safely.
And they came so close.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Jindabyne
Today I saw Jindabyne, starring Laura Linney and Gabriel Byrne.
This is one of those films that will probably linger in my head for a while, but I'm not completely sure why.
The story tells of an already dysfunctional marriage between Claire (Linney) and Stewart (Byrne) that is disrupted further by a discovery Stewart and his friends make on a fishing trip. They find the body of a murdered woman and don't report it until the end of their stay at the river. This brings shame from the townspeople and anger from their partners as the crime gets investigated.
As the tale is based on a short story by Raymond Carver, I can see why they left many things a mystery, but I'm not sure it worked in this context.
What we do know is that Claire is Stewart's second wife, she left her husband once, her mother-in-law is a meddling nightmare, and their best friends apparently lost their adult daughter. We also know who the killer is and how he preyed upon his victim.
What we don't know is why Claire left Stewart (though all signs point to post-partum depression), how exactly their friend's daughter passed, why the killer kills and why the Irish Stewart and the American Claire are living in Australia in the first place.
As the film progresses, you think you may get the answers to some of these questions, but you don't. I guess that's the biggest problem I had with this film—too many stones left unturned.
But to call it boring wouldn't be fair.
The performances are good, the pace is fine and the subject matter is interesting, if not exciting.
This is one of those films that will probably linger in my head for a while, but I'm not completely sure why.
The story tells of an already dysfunctional marriage between Claire (Linney) and Stewart (Byrne) that is disrupted further by a discovery Stewart and his friends make on a fishing trip. They find the body of a murdered woman and don't report it until the end of their stay at the river. This brings shame from the townspeople and anger from their partners as the crime gets investigated.
As the tale is based on a short story by Raymond Carver, I can see why they left many things a mystery, but I'm not sure it worked in this context.
What we do know is that Claire is Stewart's second wife, she left her husband once, her mother-in-law is a meddling nightmare, and their best friends apparently lost their adult daughter. We also know who the killer is and how he preyed upon his victim.
What we don't know is why Claire left Stewart (though all signs point to post-partum depression), how exactly their friend's daughter passed, why the killer kills and why the Irish Stewart and the American Claire are living in Australia in the first place.
As the film progresses, you think you may get the answers to some of these questions, but you don't. I guess that's the biggest problem I had with this film—too many stones left unturned.
But to call it boring wouldn't be fair.
The performances are good, the pace is fine and the subject matter is interesting, if not exciting.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
The Journalist and the Jihadi: The Murder of Daniel Pearl
Tonight I saw The Journalist and the Jihadi: The Murder of Daniel Pearl.
This news-report-like documentary traces the lives of slain journalist Daniel Pearl and the terrorist responsible for his death, Omar Sheikh. Narrator Christine Amanpour shows us their similar upbringings (privileged, strong sense of faith, loving family) and explain that as they aged, Daniel grew more 'global' in a sense, while Omar withdrew from modern British society and adapted fundamentalist beliefs.
I appreciate the background on the killer, but I almost wish he hadn't been given that much airtime.
The Pearl home movies remind us of how much fun Daniel must have been; the calm spirit of his widow and surviving family are a testament to the peace that he stood for. He was truly a man that didn't just believe in tolerance—he believed in acceptance, which makes the way that he was captured and died all the more tragic.
Daniel had an uncommon desire to learn and use that knowledge to bridge undeniable gaps between faiths and cultures. Viewers will get the sense that although cautious, he was almost naive in his trust of strangers. And unforuntately, that false sense of trust led to his kidnapping and untimely death.
It may sound cliché to say that the world lost a hero when Daniel Pearl was murdered, but I don't care. God knows what more he could have accomplished if he had lived.
This news-report-like documentary traces the lives of slain journalist Daniel Pearl and the terrorist responsible for his death, Omar Sheikh. Narrator Christine Amanpour shows us their similar upbringings (privileged, strong sense of faith, loving family) and explain that as they aged, Daniel grew more 'global' in a sense, while Omar withdrew from modern British society and adapted fundamentalist beliefs.
I appreciate the background on the killer, but I almost wish he hadn't been given that much airtime.
The Pearl home movies remind us of how much fun Daniel must have been; the calm spirit of his widow and surviving family are a testament to the peace that he stood for. He was truly a man that didn't just believe in tolerance—he believed in acceptance, which makes the way that he was captured and died all the more tragic.
Daniel had an uncommon desire to learn and use that knowledge to bridge undeniable gaps between faiths and cultures. Viewers will get the sense that although cautious, he was almost naive in his trust of strangers. And unforuntately, that false sense of trust led to his kidnapping and untimely death.
It may sound cliché to say that the world lost a hero when Daniel Pearl was murdered, but I don't care. God knows what more he could have accomplished if he had lived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)