Today I saw Vertigo, starring Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak.
I feel incredibly privileged that my first viewing of this (today) was on the big screen—70 mm no less, as part of the Seattle Cinerama's special series.
What a stunning film! From the opening scene that leaves its main character hanging over tall buildings to the sloped streets of San Francisco, this has to be one of the most beautifully shot films ever made.
The story begins with Scottie (Stewart) fretting over his case of vertigo with Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes), an artist who is clearly in love with him. But he isn't in love with her—at least not anymore—he's interested instead in the "ghost" of Madeline (Novak) a woman he (for lack of a better term) stalks and eventually rescues from the cold San Francisco Bay.
The plot thickens as Scottie finds himself immersed in a murder he's soon accused of, but nothing seems to bother him as much as his broken heart and longing for Madeline.
There is sympathy due not only for Scottie's genuine lost love, but also for his desperation. And Scottie is not the only one to be sad for—all of the women in the film deserve a bit of pity for their trouble, whether it be pining for a man in love with someone else, or being a pawn in an elaborate illegal and immoral scheme.
The way Hitchcock shoots Scottie's pursuit of these women makes the viewer feel as if they are the voyeur—peeking behind a sacred curtain of action the rest of the world is not privy to.
The colors come through almost magically; a calming mix of greens and blues, punctuated only by the leading lady's red lipstick. The lighting, of course: genius.
There is an especially amazing scene toward the end, where Scottie's woman is emerging from the bathroom to greet him looking a certain way. She opens the door and we see what looks like a thick San Francisco fog clouding her silhouette moving toward his reacting face. The viewer sees her as he sees her—mystical and majestic—until her presence comes into full light.
This is a film to be savored on a giant screen, in the dark, with a full audience reacting to its every hue.
I'm so glad that's how I experienced it.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
New in Town
Today I saw New in Town, starring Renée Zellweger and Harry Connick Jr.
In every fish-out-of-water comedy there is a level of formulaic predictability, but in this film, that formula shoots right off the charts.
Lucy (Zellweger) is a single Miami executive sent to small-town Minnesota to assess the productivity of a plant making snack bars. Ted (Connick Jr.) is a widowed, single father who happens to be the union representative at said plant.
Can you guess what happens from there? I sure could—and I was unfortunately right on every count.
There are the obligatory "Oh my gosh, it's cold in the Midwest" and "look at the simple locals drinking beer at the nearby tavern" scenes, and just for good measure there are also ladies scrapbooking (instead of the usual quilting). Plus, everyone but the two leads have an annoying, exaggerated Minnesota accent, probably to remind us: they're in Minnesota!
Lucy is clearly more educated than anyone in the town (and the only one who dresses in the current decade); Ted is the obvious workers' hero who all of the women swoon for (yes, Connick remains sexy despite the blue-collar-beard and tired flannel).
Their meet-cute comes in the form of a dinner party hosted by Lucy's "executive assistant" Blanche (Siobhan Fallon), and results in Lucy and Ted immediately hating each other through Blatant Sexual Tension.
Lucy soon becomes a damsel in distress, Ted comes to her rescue and the plot continues from there (or doesn't, if you've seen any formulaic romantic comedies in the past 25 years).
The shame of it is that Zellweger and Connick are great actors and actually have a refreshing chemistry together. They sort of "fit" in a way, and that connection could have been put to such good use in a movie with a better screenplay.
One scene that showed potential has the two on Ted's couch after his teenage daughter leaves for a dance and the characters talk to one another as real people would. It's a romantic scene with both leads exhibiting more depth than they do anywhere else in the movie.
Sadly, it was the only one of its kind.
```
In every fish-out-of-water comedy there is a level of formulaic predictability, but in this film, that formula shoots right off the charts.
Lucy (Zellweger) is a single Miami executive sent to small-town Minnesota to assess the productivity of a plant making snack bars. Ted (Connick Jr.) is a widowed, single father who happens to be the union representative at said plant.
Can you guess what happens from there? I sure could—and I was unfortunately right on every count.
There are the obligatory "Oh my gosh, it's cold in the Midwest" and "look at the simple locals drinking beer at the nearby tavern" scenes, and just for good measure there are also ladies scrapbooking (instead of the usual quilting). Plus, everyone but the two leads have an annoying, exaggerated Minnesota accent, probably to remind us: they're in Minnesota!
Lucy is clearly more educated than anyone in the town (and the only one who dresses in the current decade); Ted is the obvious workers' hero who all of the women swoon for (yes, Connick remains sexy despite the blue-collar-beard and tired flannel).
Their meet-cute comes in the form of a dinner party hosted by Lucy's "executive assistant" Blanche (Siobhan Fallon), and results in Lucy and Ted immediately hating each other through Blatant Sexual Tension.
Lucy soon becomes a damsel in distress, Ted comes to her rescue and the plot continues from there (or doesn't, if you've seen any formulaic romantic comedies in the past 25 years).
The shame of it is that Zellweger and Connick are great actors and actually have a refreshing chemistry together. They sort of "fit" in a way, and that connection could have been put to such good use in a movie with a better screenplay.
One scene that showed potential has the two on Ted's couch after his teenage daughter leaves for a dance and the characters talk to one another as real people would. It's a romantic scene with both leads exhibiting more depth than they do anywhere else in the movie.
Sadly, it was the only one of its kind.
```
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Wrestler
Tonight I saw The Wrestler, starring Mickey Rourke and Marisa Tomei.
It was the topic of Cinebanter #66, which is available here.
It was the topic of Cinebanter #66, which is available here.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Gran Torino
Tonight I saw Gran Torino, starring Clint Eastwood and Bee Vang.
Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) is an old curmudgeon who fought in the Korean War and apparently never got over it--the agony of combat or the racism. The film begins after he's lost his beloved wife Dorothy and her priest (Christopher Carley) attempts to solicit a confession from him (per the dearly departed's wishes). That fails miserably, as do his repeated attempts, because Kowalski is an unhappy, non-religious man.
He dislikes his son and daughter-in-law's suggestions to move him to a retirement home, he dislikes the appearance and behavior of his teenage granddaughter, and most of all he dislikes the Asians who to him have taken over his tidy Midwestern neighborhood.
His Hmong next door neighbors have two teenage children: the outspoken, spunky Sue (Ahney Her) and the timid Thao (Vang). Thao is constantly harassed by a cousin who happens to be the ringleader of a gang, and is forced into attempting to steal Walt's classic Gran Torino one night. He doesn't succeed, but Walt still comes to his rescue days later when the gang is having somewhat of a riot on his lawn (hence, the already-famous "get off my lawn" line).
The neighborhood, so grateful for his heroism, begins showering him with gifts of gratitude, which he refuses or promptly carries to the garbage. He only softens when Sue charms him and invites him to a barbecue at a time when he's too drunk to refuse. Soon he gains a new appreciation for their food and their company, and even begins to take the former car thief under his wing.
The film is a lot sweeter than I expected it to be, and most of it moves along as a comedy with very inappropriate (yet admittedly funny) racial slurs. The characters address many issues: the effects of war, racism, gang violence, cultural traditions/repressions and poverty.
There are no "slow" moments, though Eastwood does pretty much growl through the first 45 minutes. If it were anyone but him it wouldn't work, but he pulls it off and still shines, playing his real age.
The performances by Vang and Her are also great and I have high hopes we'll be seeing more of them in the years to come.
I wouldn't claim the film as an Oscar hopeful, but I would recommend it as a satisfying piece of entertainment, based on real social dilemmas.
Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) is an old curmudgeon who fought in the Korean War and apparently never got over it--the agony of combat or the racism. The film begins after he's lost his beloved wife Dorothy and her priest (Christopher Carley) attempts to solicit a confession from him (per the dearly departed's wishes). That fails miserably, as do his repeated attempts, because Kowalski is an unhappy, non-religious man.
He dislikes his son and daughter-in-law's suggestions to move him to a retirement home, he dislikes the appearance and behavior of his teenage granddaughter, and most of all he dislikes the Asians who to him have taken over his tidy Midwestern neighborhood.
His Hmong next door neighbors have two teenage children: the outspoken, spunky Sue (Ahney Her) and the timid Thao (Vang). Thao is constantly harassed by a cousin who happens to be the ringleader of a gang, and is forced into attempting to steal Walt's classic Gran Torino one night. He doesn't succeed, but Walt still comes to his rescue days later when the gang is having somewhat of a riot on his lawn (hence, the already-famous "get off my lawn" line).
The neighborhood, so grateful for his heroism, begins showering him with gifts of gratitude, which he refuses or promptly carries to the garbage. He only softens when Sue charms him and invites him to a barbecue at a time when he's too drunk to refuse. Soon he gains a new appreciation for their food and their company, and even begins to take the former car thief under his wing.
The film is a lot sweeter than I expected it to be, and most of it moves along as a comedy with very inappropriate (yet admittedly funny) racial slurs. The characters address many issues: the effects of war, racism, gang violence, cultural traditions/repressions and poverty.
There are no "slow" moments, though Eastwood does pretty much growl through the first 45 minutes. If it were anyone but him it wouldn't work, but he pulls it off and still shines, playing his real age.
The performances by Vang and Her are also great and I have high hopes we'll be seeing more of them in the years to come.
I wouldn't claim the film as an Oscar hopeful, but I would recommend it as a satisfying piece of entertainment, based on real social dilemmas.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Revolutionary Road
Tonight I saw Revolutionary Road, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet.
It was the topic of Cinebanter #66, which is available here.
It was the topic of Cinebanter #66, which is available here.
Monday, January 05, 2009
The Reader
Tonight I saw The Reader, starring Kate Winslet and David Kross.
Based on the bestselling book by Bernard Schlink, the story begins in Germany when Michael (Kross) falls ill on the way home from high school and is found by Hanna (Winslet), an older woman who works on the local trains. She cleans him up and helps him to his home—a random act of kindness not soon forgotten by the boy, who returns three months later when he recovers to offer her flowers in gratitude.
One thing leads to another and the two become passionate lovers. However, it's not just an affair based on sex; it's a meaningful relationship filled with endless lovemaking that's precluded by the young man reading to his partner. Hence, the title.
Before I go any further, I'm in agreement that seeing a film where a woman in her mid-thirties teaches a teenage boy how to make love may seem embarrassing, but let me reassure you that the scenes between Winslet and Kross are incredibly tender, yet sensual, and do the original book every justice (note: I read it years ago and loved it, so I was prepared to be let down by the film). In fact, watching them act so convincingly makes you want to grab a lover and re-invent foreplay with a couple of classic novels. But I digress...
The lovers part before the boy becomes a man and he doesn't encounter Hanna again until he is a law student several years later, sitting in on a Nazi crime trial in which she is a defendant. It seems she was once an Auschwitz prison guard.
From there, the film is a collection of spoilers so I will tell the story no further, but I have to say that if this isn't the year Winslet takes home the Oscar, for this role, there is a conspiracy brewing in the Academy.
She is beyond phenomenal as a tough, yet tender woman following suit in life, making bad decisions she knows are wrong in her heart but is not wise enough to correct. The amount of acting Winslet does in her expressions would allow one to turn off the sound and still feel the gravity of the emotion in the film. I've liked her in every role I've seen her in, but I don't know that she's ever been this good.
Also wonderful is the young David Kross (so young in reality, they had to wait for his 18th birthday to shoot his graphic sex scenes with Winslet), who shows the right balance of innocence and pain as their lives unfold.
Finally, I never thought I'd envision the man who played the most convincingly horrific Nazi 14 years ago, turn the tides and be just as authentic as a citizen shocked by the brutality of the Holocaust. Bravo, Mr. Fiennes.
I can't think of many ways this story could've been told better—and that's why for me it ranks as one of the best films of 2008.
Based on the bestselling book by Bernard Schlink, the story begins in Germany when Michael (Kross) falls ill on the way home from high school and is found by Hanna (Winslet), an older woman who works on the local trains. She cleans him up and helps him to his home—a random act of kindness not soon forgotten by the boy, who returns three months later when he recovers to offer her flowers in gratitude.
One thing leads to another and the two become passionate lovers. However, it's not just an affair based on sex; it's a meaningful relationship filled with endless lovemaking that's precluded by the young man reading to his partner. Hence, the title.
Before I go any further, I'm in agreement that seeing a film where a woman in her mid-thirties teaches a teenage boy how to make love may seem embarrassing, but let me reassure you that the scenes between Winslet and Kross are incredibly tender, yet sensual, and do the original book every justice (note: I read it years ago and loved it, so I was prepared to be let down by the film). In fact, watching them act so convincingly makes you want to grab a lover and re-invent foreplay with a couple of classic novels. But I digress...
The lovers part before the boy becomes a man and he doesn't encounter Hanna again until he is a law student several years later, sitting in on a Nazi crime trial in which she is a defendant. It seems she was once an Auschwitz prison guard.
From there, the film is a collection of spoilers so I will tell the story no further, but I have to say that if this isn't the year Winslet takes home the Oscar, for this role, there is a conspiracy brewing in the Academy.
She is beyond phenomenal as a tough, yet tender woman following suit in life, making bad decisions she knows are wrong in her heart but is not wise enough to correct. The amount of acting Winslet does in her expressions would allow one to turn off the sound and still feel the gravity of the emotion in the film. I've liked her in every role I've seen her in, but I don't know that she's ever been this good.
Also wonderful is the young David Kross (so young in reality, they had to wait for his 18th birthday to shoot his graphic sex scenes with Winslet), who shows the right balance of innocence and pain as their lives unfold.
Finally, I never thought I'd envision the man who played the most convincingly horrific Nazi 14 years ago, turn the tides and be just as authentic as a citizen shocked by the brutality of the Holocaust. Bravo, Mr. Fiennes.
I can't think of many ways this story could've been told better—and that's why for me it ranks as one of the best films of 2008.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Frost/Nixon
Today I saw Frost/Nixon, starring Michael Sheen and Frank Langella.
It's easy to see why this film is generating so much Oscar® buzz.
The story rewinds history to focus on the landmark interviews of Richard Nixon (Langella) following his resignation conducted by British talk show host David Frost (Sheen). We see more of Frost's side of the journey than we do Nixon's, but that makes the exchanges all the more compelling.
Adding spice to the story like a well-crafted meal are the excellent cast of supporting characters: Kevin Bacon as Nixon's adviser Jack Brennan, and on the Frost production team Matthew Macfadyen as John Birt, Sam Rockwell as James Reston, Jr. and Oliver Platt as Bob Zelnick. All do a magnificent job of conveying the tension surrounding both of their players' participation.
The weeks leading up to the interview are similar to what one would picture as training for a boxer preparing for a fight. There's discussion of tactics (moves) and some obvious hitting below the belt once the two are in the ring.
The dialogue is smart, funny and—even if not verbatim to the actual events—entertaining. The sense of empathy you're made feel for the former fallen President is shocking, but not unwelcome. In rooting for Frost (as the script so desperately asks you to), you can't help but respect the authenticity of Nixon's convictions.
All in all it was a brilliant, blood-pumping spotlight into an intersection of politics and entertainment that may never be repeated. And in this sea of tear-jerking films that are showing this season, that's pretty satisfying.
It's easy to see why this film is generating so much Oscar® buzz.
The story rewinds history to focus on the landmark interviews of Richard Nixon (Langella) following his resignation conducted by British talk show host David Frost (Sheen). We see more of Frost's side of the journey than we do Nixon's, but that makes the exchanges all the more compelling.
Adding spice to the story like a well-crafted meal are the excellent cast of supporting characters: Kevin Bacon as Nixon's adviser Jack Brennan, and on the Frost production team Matthew Macfadyen as John Birt, Sam Rockwell as James Reston, Jr. and Oliver Platt as Bob Zelnick. All do a magnificent job of conveying the tension surrounding both of their players' participation.
The weeks leading up to the interview are similar to what one would picture as training for a boxer preparing for a fight. There's discussion of tactics (moves) and some obvious hitting below the belt once the two are in the ring.
The dialogue is smart, funny and—even if not verbatim to the actual events—entertaining. The sense of empathy you're made feel for the former fallen President is shocking, but not unwelcome. In rooting for Frost (as the script so desperately asks you to), you can't help but respect the authenticity of Nixon's convictions.
All in all it was a brilliant, blood-pumping spotlight into an intersection of politics and entertainment that may never be repeated. And in this sea of tear-jerking films that are showing this season, that's pretty satisfying.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Slumdog Millionaire
Today I saw Slumdog Millionaire, starring Dev Patel and Irrfan Khan.
I have mixed emotions about this story, perhaps because I went in expecting too much or maybe because its distinction is earning it an exorbitant amount of praise.
The setting is an Indian ghetto so horrific it's hard to watch. Our main character Jamal (Patel) has just made it to a record high on the game show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" and been arrested under suspicion of cheating. His interrogator, played by the always-great Irrfan Khan, repeatedly orders his policeman to torture Jamal until he finally realizes those tactics aren't doing any good, and decides to listen to what his captor insists is the truth.
This leads to the audience getting a virtual flashback into Jamal's entire childhood, which includes unspeakable suffering and eventually a forced separation from his brother and would-be girlfriend. Explaining why he's telling all of these life stories would somewhat spoil the film, but I can say that the screenwriter ties everything up in a very clever way.
There is also an unmistakable authenticity to the film because Director Danny Boyle risked his life (and that of his cast and crew) to shoot on location in the incredibly dangerous slums of Mumbai. There is no question that this helps the viewer sympathize with the characters and grasp their desperation.
Unfortunately, for me the weak link was the star—Dev Patel. We toggle between him sitting on the set of the game show and sitting in the police inspector's office, reacting to the questions he's being asked in both circumstances. Despite the vast contrast of these inquiries, his expression is the same: a confused "What's my name?" sort of stare that doesn't really suit either situation.
This lack of varied expressions made it even harder for me to believe Latika (Freida Pinto), one of the most breathtakingly beautiful women on the planet, would remain hopelessly in love with him throughout all of their trials and tribulations.
And speaking of Latika, I would've liked the love story to have more time to grow, even if it needed to be at the end.
All in all, it's an original story that moves very quickly toward a somewhat predictable ending that was diluted by its main actor.
Worth seeing? Sure. Best Picture candidate? I don't think so.
I have mixed emotions about this story, perhaps because I went in expecting too much or maybe because its distinction is earning it an exorbitant amount of praise.
The setting is an Indian ghetto so horrific it's hard to watch. Our main character Jamal (Patel) has just made it to a record high on the game show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" and been arrested under suspicion of cheating. His interrogator, played by the always-great Irrfan Khan, repeatedly orders his policeman to torture Jamal until he finally realizes those tactics aren't doing any good, and decides to listen to what his captor insists is the truth.
This leads to the audience getting a virtual flashback into Jamal's entire childhood, which includes unspeakable suffering and eventually a forced separation from his brother and would-be girlfriend. Explaining why he's telling all of these life stories would somewhat spoil the film, but I can say that the screenwriter ties everything up in a very clever way.
There is also an unmistakable authenticity to the film because Director Danny Boyle risked his life (and that of his cast and crew) to shoot on location in the incredibly dangerous slums of Mumbai. There is no question that this helps the viewer sympathize with the characters and grasp their desperation.
Unfortunately, for me the weak link was the star—Dev Patel. We toggle between him sitting on the set of the game show and sitting in the police inspector's office, reacting to the questions he's being asked in both circumstances. Despite the vast contrast of these inquiries, his expression is the same: a confused "What's my name?" sort of stare that doesn't really suit either situation.
This lack of varied expressions made it even harder for me to believe Latika (Freida Pinto), one of the most breathtakingly beautiful women on the planet, would remain hopelessly in love with him throughout all of their trials and tribulations.
And speaking of Latika, I would've liked the love story to have more time to grow, even if it needed to be at the end.
All in all, it's an original story that moves very quickly toward a somewhat predictable ending that was diluted by its main actor.
Worth seeing? Sure. Best Picture candidate? I don't think so.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Today I saw Vicky Cristina Barcelona, starring Javier Bardem and Scarlett Johansson.
The writer and director of this film, Woody Allen, is to me the Prince (as in Artist-formerly-known-as) of the film industry: he has a writing style all his own, he's quirky, he's short, he's neurotic and he cranks out more material than the vast majority of his contemporaries. The material-cranking is a good thing for those who are entertained by everything he does; not so much for true film connoisseurs. But the law of probability does work in his favor from time to time, and this movie is no exception.
Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Johansson) are American friends who spend a summer in Barcelona. Early in the trip they meet Juan Antonio (Bardem), a Bohemian artist who has eyes for both of them. Though Cristina is the one clearly suited for him, the soon-to-marry Vicky becomes conflicted by her feelings for him as well. And that's all before Juan's ex-wife Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz), who is prone to attempting murder and suicide, returns to her former home.
There are so many minor twists and turns that take place, it would be spoiling the film to reveal them, but I will say that in the true spirit of Woody Allen, there is plenty of sex, love, passion, confusion, indifference and unsatisfaction among the characters.
The movie moves at a pleasantly quick place, breezing through Spain as if on a cruise of the country, and the performances are excellent by all. Bardem is especially charming with his refreshing comedic deliverance during scenes with Cruz.
All in all, this dialogue-driven ride is just a story about a few friends and lovers, but it's certainly a fun tale to witness.
The writer and director of this film, Woody Allen, is to me the Prince (as in Artist-formerly-known-as) of the film industry: he has a writing style all his own, he's quirky, he's short, he's neurotic and he cranks out more material than the vast majority of his contemporaries. The material-cranking is a good thing for those who are entertained by everything he does; not so much for true film connoisseurs. But the law of probability does work in his favor from time to time, and this movie is no exception.
Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Johansson) are American friends who spend a summer in Barcelona. Early in the trip they meet Juan Antonio (Bardem), a Bohemian artist who has eyes for both of them. Though Cristina is the one clearly suited for him, the soon-to-marry Vicky becomes conflicted by her feelings for him as well. And that's all before Juan's ex-wife Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz), who is prone to attempting murder and suicide, returns to her former home.
There are so many minor twists and turns that take place, it would be spoiling the film to reveal them, but I will say that in the true spirit of Woody Allen, there is plenty of sex, love, passion, confusion, indifference and unsatisfaction among the characters.
The movie moves at a pleasantly quick place, breezing through Spain as if on a cruise of the country, and the performances are excellent by all. Bardem is especially charming with his refreshing comedic deliverance during scenes with Cruz.
All in all, this dialogue-driven ride is just a story about a few friends and lovers, but it's certainly a fun tale to witness.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
This morning I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett.
It will be the topic of Cinebanter #65, so tune in on January 12 for our review.
It will be the topic of Cinebanter #65, so tune in on January 12 for our review.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Doubt
Yesterday I saw Doubt, starring Meryl Streep and Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
It's a drama (with a hint of comedy) about a Catholic school in the Bronx, in 1964. Sister Aloysius (Streep) is the stereotypical "mean nun" who administers wicked punishments to the children and is quick to judge her colleagues. Father Flynn (Hoffman) is a kind, warm-spirited priest who pays special attention to Donald (Joseph Foster), who is the first black student admitted to the school.
After witnessing a few normal situations at the school (kids misbehaving in class, nuns breaking bread together in silence, etc.), the writer wastes no time in letting us know that suspicion looms over Father Flynn regarding his relationship with Donald.
Amy Adams, in a role tailor made for her expertise in playing innocence, is Sister James, a naive teacher who notices a behavioral change in Donald after he returns from a private visit with the father. She soon tells Sister Aloysius, who is immediately anxious to expose and expunge the certainly guilty priest.
From there the movie places its title into your reactions as an audience member. Is this miserable woman just making life difficult for a man because he is a man? Is this kind-hearted priest who has a natural rapport with his congregation and students capable of such unspeakable harm? Is Sister James too inexperienced to correctly read the signs of abuse in one of her students?
All of the doubts they weave into your mind will have you taking sides with yourself, or perhaps the person sitting next to you. But they won't definitely answer the questions, which is what makes the film good.
What also makes the film good are the performances. It's not shocking that Streep's accent is dead-on 60s New Yorker, and it's no surprise that Hoffman can be equally endearing and creepy, but the unexpected thrill is seeing the two battle it out on screen as if they were performing live theater. It's hard to take your eyes off of them.
Also great are supporting players Amy Adams as the sugar-sweet Sister James, and Viola Davis as the pained mother of young Donald. Both infuse their characters with mannerisms, expressions and speech patterns that perfectly illustrate their plight.
What makes the film bad is the ending. It betrays one of the characters they've crafted so brilliantly and makes no sense in the context of the resolution.
Shame it had to end that way.
```
It's a drama (with a hint of comedy) about a Catholic school in the Bronx, in 1964. Sister Aloysius (Streep) is the stereotypical "mean nun" who administers wicked punishments to the children and is quick to judge her colleagues. Father Flynn (Hoffman) is a kind, warm-spirited priest who pays special attention to Donald (Joseph Foster), who is the first black student admitted to the school.
After witnessing a few normal situations at the school (kids misbehaving in class, nuns breaking bread together in silence, etc.), the writer wastes no time in letting us know that suspicion looms over Father Flynn regarding his relationship with Donald.
Amy Adams, in a role tailor made for her expertise in playing innocence, is Sister James, a naive teacher who notices a behavioral change in Donald after he returns from a private visit with the father. She soon tells Sister Aloysius, who is immediately anxious to expose and expunge the certainly guilty priest.
From there the movie places its title into your reactions as an audience member. Is this miserable woman just making life difficult for a man because he is a man? Is this kind-hearted priest who has a natural rapport with his congregation and students capable of such unspeakable harm? Is Sister James too inexperienced to correctly read the signs of abuse in one of her students?
All of the doubts they weave into your mind will have you taking sides with yourself, or perhaps the person sitting next to you. But they won't definitely answer the questions, which is what makes the film good.
What also makes the film good are the performances. It's not shocking that Streep's accent is dead-on 60s New Yorker, and it's no surprise that Hoffman can be equally endearing and creepy, but the unexpected thrill is seeing the two battle it out on screen as if they were performing live theater. It's hard to take your eyes off of them.
Also great are supporting players Amy Adams as the sugar-sweet Sister James, and Viola Davis as the pained mother of young Donald. Both infuse their characters with mannerisms, expressions and speech patterns that perfectly illustrate their plight.
What makes the film bad is the ending. It betrays one of the characters they've crafted so brilliantly and makes no sense in the context of the resolution.
Shame it had to end that way.
```
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Seven Pounds
Today I saw Seven Pounds, starring Will Smith and Rosario Dawson.
Why didn't someone tell me to take a box of Kleenex?
The story begins as Smith's character (though I won't mention his name in the film here; you'll understand why when you see it) is screaming at a blind meat salesman—a stranger, played by Woody Harrelson, for no apparent reason. His home is lavish, his clothing is expensive and he seems to "have it all."
Next, we watch him criticize a man who is somehow in charge of a nursing home and then fight with a childhood friend (played by Barry Pepper, who I'd like to have seen more of).
The first sign of 'nice guy' exhibited by our main character comes when he tracks down Emily (Dawson) who is suffering from congenital heart failure. He poses as an IRS agent and after meeting with her (and instantly liking her), promises to freeze all of the collections on her overdue taxes.
The big question: why is he doing all of this?
We learn in (somewhat predictable) flashbacks why, and the how is revealed much later in the film (impatient folks like me will think too much later).
The main themes I took away from this story were guilt, compassion and redemption.
Though you'll cheer Will's character along in his finer moments, one must realize they're all being contrived based upon a whole lot of judgment.
But that's not to say it wasn't good.
Smith and Dawson make a wonderful match, sparking with chemistry throughout (the makeup team should also be heralded for making Dawson so sick-looking—it exhausted me just watching her), and the supporting players in Pepper, Harrelson, etc. are also perfect in their unfortunately tiny roles.
The final act draws everything together nicely and leaves you wondering if it takes a monumental mistake to provoke such altruism. Or can we even call it that, if redemption is the ultimate goal?
Why didn't someone tell me to take a box of Kleenex?
The story begins as Smith's character (though I won't mention his name in the film here; you'll understand why when you see it) is screaming at a blind meat salesman—a stranger, played by Woody Harrelson, for no apparent reason. His home is lavish, his clothing is expensive and he seems to "have it all."
Next, we watch him criticize a man who is somehow in charge of a nursing home and then fight with a childhood friend (played by Barry Pepper, who I'd like to have seen more of).
The first sign of 'nice guy' exhibited by our main character comes when he tracks down Emily (Dawson) who is suffering from congenital heart failure. He poses as an IRS agent and after meeting with her (and instantly liking her), promises to freeze all of the collections on her overdue taxes.
The big question: why is he doing all of this?
We learn in (somewhat predictable) flashbacks why, and the how is revealed much later in the film (impatient folks like me will think too much later).
The main themes I took away from this story were guilt, compassion and redemption.
Though you'll cheer Will's character along in his finer moments, one must realize they're all being contrived based upon a whole lot of judgment.
But that's not to say it wasn't good.
Smith and Dawson make a wonderful match, sparking with chemistry throughout (the makeup team should also be heralded for making Dawson so sick-looking—it exhausted me just watching her), and the supporting players in Pepper, Harrelson, etc. are also perfect in their unfortunately tiny roles.
The final act draws everything together nicely and leaves you wondering if it takes a monumental mistake to provoke such altruism. Or can we even call it that, if redemption is the ultimate goal?
Sunday, December 07, 2008
The Duchess
Today I saw The Duchess, starring Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes.
Note: this review does contain spoilers.
Based on British history, the film tells the story of the former 18th century Duchess of Devonshire, Georgiana (Knightley), who is coincidentally an ancestor to our modern-day Princess Diana of Wales.
Unfortunately, their blood was not the only thing these two women had in common.
They both had spunky, outspoken personalities; they both married young into the British Monarchy with every sincerity and hope for a loving union; and they both were cheated on, controlled, lied to and forced to remain in situations that made them miserable—the only difference is that Diana eventually got out.
The Duchess is a well-done exploration of Georgiana's sad life from the time she was married until the time of her eventual complacency to the husband (Fiennes) who was never good to her.
An excitable teenager when first joined together, Georgiana's biggest problems were that her husband didn't "talk" to her and intercourse was mere sex; not the lovemaking she craved.
After two daughters and two stillborn sons, the Duke was growing impatient waiting for an heir and had taken a lover in Georgiana's best (and only) friend Bess (Hayley Atwell). Although "G" (as they called her), had looked away at the Duke's countless other affairs, this one pained her greatly and she expressed her anger at the betrayal, only to be met with indifference on his part. After taking G by force, the Duke finally got his wish and produced a male heir.
The mistress, genuinely caring for her former friend, arranged for the real object of G's affection, politician Charles Grey (Dominic Cooper), to reunite with her—and reunite they did. They also produced a child, daughter Eliza, which the Duke forced the Duchess to surrender to Grey's family.
Throughout this film, the performances are delivered expertly by all actors, not least of whom is Knightley herself—this is a role that feels as if it was tailor made for her, and after watching her, it's hard to picture anyone else pulling it off quite as well. Fiennes, as always is brilliant and Atwell as the conflicted Lady Elizabeth, is pitch perfect, commanding both sympathy and rage at her actions.
The real problems are plenty and scandalous, but at the end of it all, the Duke and the Duchess faced something that millions of people throughout time have faced: a loveless marriage. As the mother of the Duchess says at the beginning of the film, true love is identified instantly—it's a feeling you get that you can't escape.
The sad thing is that when you deny this magic, and gamble your own fate by doing what society (or merely your partner) feels is "right," you're most certainly going to lose. And lose Georgiana did.
It almost makes you feel guilty enjoying the film so much.
Note: this review does contain spoilers.
Based on British history, the film tells the story of the former 18th century Duchess of Devonshire, Georgiana (Knightley), who is coincidentally an ancestor to our modern-day Princess Diana of Wales.
Unfortunately, their blood was not the only thing these two women had in common.
They both had spunky, outspoken personalities; they both married young into the British Monarchy with every sincerity and hope for a loving union; and they both were cheated on, controlled, lied to and forced to remain in situations that made them miserable—the only difference is that Diana eventually got out.
The Duchess is a well-done exploration of Georgiana's sad life from the time she was married until the time of her eventual complacency to the husband (Fiennes) who was never good to her.
An excitable teenager when first joined together, Georgiana's biggest problems were that her husband didn't "talk" to her and intercourse was mere sex; not the lovemaking she craved.
After two daughters and two stillborn sons, the Duke was growing impatient waiting for an heir and had taken a lover in Georgiana's best (and only) friend Bess (Hayley Atwell). Although "G" (as they called her), had looked away at the Duke's countless other affairs, this one pained her greatly and she expressed her anger at the betrayal, only to be met with indifference on his part. After taking G by force, the Duke finally got his wish and produced a male heir.
The mistress, genuinely caring for her former friend, arranged for the real object of G's affection, politician Charles Grey (Dominic Cooper), to reunite with her—and reunite they did. They also produced a child, daughter Eliza, which the Duke forced the Duchess to surrender to Grey's family.
Throughout this film, the performances are delivered expertly by all actors, not least of whom is Knightley herself—this is a role that feels as if it was tailor made for her, and after watching her, it's hard to picture anyone else pulling it off quite as well. Fiennes, as always is brilliant and Atwell as the conflicted Lady Elizabeth, is pitch perfect, commanding both sympathy and rage at her actions.
The real problems are plenty and scandalous, but at the end of it all, the Duke and the Duchess faced something that millions of people throughout time have faced: a loveless marriage. As the mother of the Duchess says at the beginning of the film, true love is identified instantly—it's a feeling you get that you can't escape.
The sad thing is that when you deny this magic, and gamble your own fate by doing what society (or merely your partner) feels is "right," you're most certainly going to lose. And lose Georgiana did.
It almost makes you feel guilty enjoying the film so much.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Australia
Yesterday I saw Australia, starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman.
Baz Luhrman brings pre-World War II Australia to life by telling the story of Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman), a British widow who has to relocate to the continent to save her husband's business and property after he is murdered. After many doses of typical movie-romance banter, she enlists the help of Drover (Jackman), a morally sound cattle rancher, who successfully assists her while consequently falling in love with her.
They also unofficially adopt Nullah (Brandon Walters), an aboriginal boy, who often appears to be the most resourceful and clever member of this dysfunctional, yet loyal, family.
To call the film a romance isn't really being honest—sure there are elements of it surrounding the main characters. And yes, Kidman and the ever-appealing Jackman have a respectable chemistry opposite one another. But the basis of the story is not merely their love; in fact, that part feels like more of a side dish in a meal that's more Western/war than anything else.
Because Director Baz Luhrman is in charge, that's all okay, though.
His stunning landscapes make for such a beautifully lit narrative, somehow even the hellish fires of war come out looking magical.
He also commands an almost supernaturally good performance from his youngest star, Walters, who brings so much character to Nullah, he steals the show.
Australia has all the elements of a traditional epic: deaths, rivalries, lovers torn apart, orphans, war and aristocracy, and each delivers in a satisfying, if not overwhelming way.
Many of the scenes and outcomes are predictable, but nonetheless well executed. Overall, it's an entertaining and attention-keeping film.
The biggest criticism I have is in the work's length—at nearly three hours long, I couldn't help but make mental notes along the way of portions that should have been cut.
But I'll forgive an artist as great as Luhrman for seeing his vision through to the end. Despite its flaws, the movie is still a suspense-filled visual marvel, and for that reason alone, audiences should see it on the big screen.
Baz Luhrman brings pre-World War II Australia to life by telling the story of Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman), a British widow who has to relocate to the continent to save her husband's business and property after he is murdered. After many doses of typical movie-romance banter, she enlists the help of Drover (Jackman), a morally sound cattle rancher, who successfully assists her while consequently falling in love with her.
They also unofficially adopt Nullah (Brandon Walters), an aboriginal boy, who often appears to be the most resourceful and clever member of this dysfunctional, yet loyal, family.
To call the film a romance isn't really being honest—sure there are elements of it surrounding the main characters. And yes, Kidman and the ever-appealing Jackman have a respectable chemistry opposite one another. But the basis of the story is not merely their love; in fact, that part feels like more of a side dish in a meal that's more Western/war than anything else.
Because Director Baz Luhrman is in charge, that's all okay, though.
His stunning landscapes make for such a beautifully lit narrative, somehow even the hellish fires of war come out looking magical.
He also commands an almost supernaturally good performance from his youngest star, Walters, who brings so much character to Nullah, he steals the show.
Australia has all the elements of a traditional epic: deaths, rivalries, lovers torn apart, orphans, war and aristocracy, and each delivers in a satisfying, if not overwhelming way.
Many of the scenes and outcomes are predictable, but nonetheless well executed. Overall, it's an entertaining and attention-keeping film.
The biggest criticism I have is in the work's length—at nearly three hours long, I couldn't help but make mental notes along the way of portions that should have been cut.
But I'll forgive an artist as great as Luhrman for seeing his vision through to the end. Despite its flaws, the movie is still a suspense-filled visual marvel, and for that reason alone, audiences should see it on the big screen.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Happy-Go-Lucky
Tonight I saw Happy-Go-Lucky, starring Sally Hawkins and Eddie Marsan.
I hate it when critics oversell a film.
Going into this one, I was excited about the prospect of being uplifted by a refreshing character that always saw the glass as half full. Instead I was met with an incredibly annoying leading lady and a string of scenes that don't really mesh, but are forcibly woven together like an unfinished quilt.
Poppy (Hawkins) is an elementary schoolteacher that makes it her life's mission to cheer other people up. Or, she's just goofy. It's hard to tell in the piece-y scenes that have her alternately bouncing on trampolines, falling in love, flamenco dancing and attempting to help a troubled student. Each bit could have merit if it were allowed the chance to develop, but none of them really do.
None, except for the series of bits about her taking driving lessons. Yes—she's supposed to be a thirtysomething in a big city in England, yet she doesn't know how to drive. Suspending that disbelief, she hires a company to teach her how and gets assigned the Worst Driver on Planet Earth (Marsan). Not only is he surly to her, he's dangerous on the road and many of their scenes are borderline disturbing (and if they're not disturbing, they're excruciatingly irritating).
Is the film 100% bad? No. There are delightful (and more realistic scenes) with Poppy's sister, roommate and other friends that make you feel that you're watching a Cyndi Lauper video (in a good way), and the love story near the end is actually somewhat sweet.
I just found it hard to root for someone I wouldn't be able to be in the same room with if she were real.
I hate it when critics oversell a film.
Going into this one, I was excited about the prospect of being uplifted by a refreshing character that always saw the glass as half full. Instead I was met with an incredibly annoying leading lady and a string of scenes that don't really mesh, but are forcibly woven together like an unfinished quilt.
Poppy (Hawkins) is an elementary schoolteacher that makes it her life's mission to cheer other people up. Or, she's just goofy. It's hard to tell in the piece-y scenes that have her alternately bouncing on trampolines, falling in love, flamenco dancing and attempting to help a troubled student. Each bit could have merit if it were allowed the chance to develop, but none of them really do.
None, except for the series of bits about her taking driving lessons. Yes—she's supposed to be a thirtysomething in a big city in England, yet she doesn't know how to drive. Suspending that disbelief, she hires a company to teach her how and gets assigned the Worst Driver on Planet Earth (Marsan). Not only is he surly to her, he's dangerous on the road and many of their scenes are borderline disturbing (and if they're not disturbing, they're excruciatingly irritating).
Is the film 100% bad? No. There are delightful (and more realistic scenes) with Poppy's sister, roommate and other friends that make you feel that you're watching a Cyndi Lauper video (in a good way), and the love story near the end is actually somewhat sweet.
I just found it hard to root for someone I wouldn't be able to be in the same room with if she were real.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Changeling
Today I saw Changeling, starring Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich.
It was the topic of Cinebanter #63, which is available here.
It was the topic of Cinebanter #63, which is available here.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Battle in Seattle
Today I saw Battle in Seattle, starring Woody Harrelson and Martin Henderson.
As someone who lived through the event this movie is about, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have bias going into it.
So I'm just going to divide this review into the "good" and the "bad" and call it a night:
The Good
• The documentary-like way in which the film is shot gives it an organic, authentic feel, as does the real news footage of President Clinton, Pine Street, etc.
• The acting is good by Harrelson and Charlize Theron (who plays his wife).
• The writer (Stuart Townsend, who also directed) did a good job of not "taking sides" in the narrative and displaying the fiasco for what it was—a situation that got out of hand mainly due to a third party that refused to respect the agreements that were in place.
• The person they found to play our Governor was both physically and verbally a lot like the real guy.
The Bad
• They changed the mayor's name, age and appearance (the real mayor was an older, heavy set gentleman named Paul; in the film it's Richard Greico playing someone named Jim). Why change something that is easily Google-able? They couldn't find someone that looked like the real guy? I find that hard to believe.
• The situation they put Charlize's character in is a bit ludicrous. The riots were completely out of control, and innocent people did get caught in the crossfire. But the "action" they had the cop take was too over-the-top to be believable.
• They didn't explain enough about what the WTO was trying to accomplish.
• They included shots of buildings in Seattle that didn't exist in 1999 (Qwest Field, etc.)
All in all, it's nice someone (an Irishman, no less) felt this stain in our city's past worthy of a film; I just don't see why the accuracy was so hard to achieve. Interviewing anyone who lived through it, a real story could've emerged that was more interesting than the two forced stories that made up this film.
And I'd say that even if I didn't live here.
As someone who lived through the event this movie is about, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have bias going into it.
So I'm just going to divide this review into the "good" and the "bad" and call it a night:
The Good
• The documentary-like way in which the film is shot gives it an organic, authentic feel, as does the real news footage of President Clinton, Pine Street, etc.
• The acting is good by Harrelson and Charlize Theron (who plays his wife).
• The writer (Stuart Townsend, who also directed) did a good job of not "taking sides" in the narrative and displaying the fiasco for what it was—a situation that got out of hand mainly due to a third party that refused to respect the agreements that were in place.
• The person they found to play our Governor was both physically and verbally a lot like the real guy.
The Bad
• They changed the mayor's name, age and appearance (the real mayor was an older, heavy set gentleman named Paul; in the film it's Richard Greico playing someone named Jim). Why change something that is easily Google-able? They couldn't find someone that looked like the real guy? I find that hard to believe.
• The situation they put Charlize's character in is a bit ludicrous. The riots were completely out of control, and innocent people did get caught in the crossfire. But the "action" they had the cop take was too over-the-top to be believable.
• They didn't explain enough about what the WTO was trying to accomplish.
• They included shots of buildings in Seattle that didn't exist in 1999 (Qwest Field, etc.)
All in all, it's nice someone (an Irishman, no less) felt this stain in our city's past worthy of a film; I just don't see why the accuracy was so hard to achieve. Interviewing anyone who lived through it, a real story could've emerged that was more interesting than the two forced stories that made up this film.
And I'd say that even if I didn't live here.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Ask and you shall receive...
I enjoy chatting with many of you via e-mail about films and television shows, and I've found that I get a lot of the same questions asked over and over again, so I thought I'd answer them here, in one blog entry, and then if folks ask again, I can simply send them the link.
Here goes:
1) What are the podcasts that you participate in called?
Cinebanter (my movie review podcast with Michael Cummins of San Jose), @U2 (the U2-fan podcast produced by a site that I write for) and formerly the U2 Chatcast (created by a friend, Dan Eliot, who manages U2Source.com). They are all available on iTunes (and there is a Cinebanter link in the sidebar of this blog).
2) Do you write any other blogs?
Yes. In addition to this, I have a MySpace blog (also linked from the sidebar here) and as a staff writer, I contribute to the @U2 blog from time to time.
3) What is your day job?
I am a Public Relations/Marketing Manager for a gifted elementary school in Washington State. Before that I was a fashion advertising writer for 8 years.
4) Where are you from?
Originally, Portland, Oregon, but I've lived in several places (Columbia, MO, Mesa, AZ, etc.)
5) Did you go to college?
Yes. I hold a Bachelor's degree with distinction in English from Columbia College in Missouri.
6) Are you married?
No.
7) Do you have children?
No.
8) What is your favorite movie of all time?
This is a tough one. Sentimentally, I'd vote for Back to the Future or Before Sunrise, but on merit probably Gone With the Wind.
9) What is your favorite TV show of all time?
Family Ties
10) Do you like any bands besides U2?
Yes. The Beatles are actually my favorite band. U2 is my favorite "living" band. I also love Joe Jackson, Duran Duran, Cheap Trick and Billy Joel, in addition to scores of others.
11) If you went to the store to buy a DVD, what would it be?
My Amazon Film Wishlist is in the sidebar. See for yourself.
Here goes:
1) What are the podcasts that you participate in called?
Cinebanter (my movie review podcast with Michael Cummins of San Jose), @U2 (the U2-fan podcast produced by a site that I write for) and formerly the U2 Chatcast (created by a friend, Dan Eliot, who manages U2Source.com). They are all available on iTunes (and there is a Cinebanter link in the sidebar of this blog).
2) Do you write any other blogs?
Yes. In addition to this, I have a MySpace blog (also linked from the sidebar here) and as a staff writer, I contribute to the @U2 blog from time to time.
3) What is your day job?
I am a Public Relations/Marketing Manager for a gifted elementary school in Washington State. Before that I was a fashion advertising writer for 8 years.
4) Where are you from?
Originally, Portland, Oregon, but I've lived in several places (Columbia, MO, Mesa, AZ, etc.)
5) Did you go to college?
Yes. I hold a Bachelor's degree with distinction in English from Columbia College in Missouri.
6) Are you married?
No.
7) Do you have children?
No.
8) What is your favorite movie of all time?
This is a tough one. Sentimentally, I'd vote for Back to the Future or Before Sunrise, but on merit probably Gone With the Wind.
9) What is your favorite TV show of all time?
Family Ties
10) Do you like any bands besides U2?
Yes. The Beatles are actually my favorite band. U2 is my favorite "living" band. I also love Joe Jackson, Duran Duran, Cheap Trick and Billy Joel, in addition to scores of others.
11) If you went to the store to buy a DVD, what would it be?
My Amazon Film Wishlist is in the sidebar. See for yourself.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Rachel Getting Married
Tonight I saw Rachel Getting Married, starring Anne Hathaway and Rosemarie DeWitt.
It was the topic of Cinebanter #62, which is available here.
It was the topic of Cinebanter #62, which is available here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)