With their own brand of subtle, dry humor and their matter-of-fact sensibilities for violence, the Coen Brothers have, in my opinion, come closer to the throne of Alfred Hitchcock than any directors in recent memory with No Country For Old Men. This movie oozed suspense and dramatic tension, and I'm shocked to hear someone say that they were bored at any time while watching it.
I was the opposite. I was terrified. Slow and quiet scenes in the film made me uncomfortable. Impending moments of doom were as shocking as I expected them to be and the unexpected moments of chaos caused me to jump, cover my eyes, and even verbally respond while watching (which isn't something I tend to do).
And then there's Javier Bardem. Boy...for once the person winning all of the awards DESERVES it! I didn't sleep very well the night after I saw this. I'm haunted by him. A performance for the ages.
As for the rest of the film, it is a master class of filmmaking in two hours. Being the film nut that I am, I found the frame compositions and camera work to be as exciting as the story itself. And I love the fact that this movie can play to the common viewer as a standard thriller, when in fact it's so much more than that.
I saw it as a statement on the American desire to fix problems as fast as possible. How do you find two million dollars like that and expect to get away with keeping it? But at the same time, why wouldn't you take that chance?
Stellar acting, stellar direction, stellar everything. Oh, and that open-ended finish...the one that's not satisfying? One thought: SHOULD it be?
4.0 out of 4
Sunday, April 19, 2009
No End in Sight (2007)
I am not a fan of the Michael Moore-style, cheap shot, slanted documentary disguised as a benevolent humanitarian effort. That Moore would even suggest that one of his films is nonpartisan is laughable.
And so, by definition, it might be assumed that a film that is critical of the war in Iraq is a Bush-bashing film.
What I loved the most about No End in Sight is that filmmaker Charles Ferguson sidesteps the Bush-bashing and, in some ways, makes him guilty by association. Instead, he goes after the guys appointed by the Bush administration.
I think it is more fair to hold Bush to task for trusting the wrong advice or believing in the wrong people. I think it's fair to call him on his military inexperience and it's even fair to accuse him of avenging his father to some extent. But whereas most other anti-Iraq war coverage paints Bush out to be this power-hungry monster, No End in Sight has its sights set on a bigger prize.
This is, truly, a non-partisan documentary. It allows us glimpses of combat that the American public has been censored from seeing. It pinpoints exact moments where things got off course and doesn't waste time on how we got a war with Iraq over being attacked by Al Queda, though it doesn't let the administration off the hook for that, either (and it shouldn't).
Knowing full well that the people you'd really like to hear from wouldn't sit down for an interview, we instead get to hear from a number of players in the conflict who's faces most of us have never seen, from soldiers on the ground to top government officials assigned to running Iraq in the days after the take-over.
No End in Sight works because we don't feel manipulated. Campbell Scott's narration is somber but not cloying. And the footage doesn't seem to be edited for maximum impact. No shots of Bush playing golf and laughing (okay...maybe one clip of Rumsfeld laughing, but he deserves it). An eye-opening, non-partisan, and important look at what we're dealing with.
4.0 out of 4
And so, by definition, it might be assumed that a film that is critical of the war in Iraq is a Bush-bashing film.
What I loved the most about No End in Sight is that filmmaker Charles Ferguson sidesteps the Bush-bashing and, in some ways, makes him guilty by association. Instead, he goes after the guys appointed by the Bush administration.
I think it is more fair to hold Bush to task for trusting the wrong advice or believing in the wrong people. I think it's fair to call him on his military inexperience and it's even fair to accuse him of avenging his father to some extent. But whereas most other anti-Iraq war coverage paints Bush out to be this power-hungry monster, No End in Sight has its sights set on a bigger prize.
This is, truly, a non-partisan documentary. It allows us glimpses of combat that the American public has been censored from seeing. It pinpoints exact moments where things got off course and doesn't waste time on how we got a war with Iraq over being attacked by Al Queda, though it doesn't let the administration off the hook for that, either (and it shouldn't).
Knowing full well that the people you'd really like to hear from wouldn't sit down for an interview, we instead get to hear from a number of players in the conflict who's faces most of us have never seen, from soldiers on the ground to top government officials assigned to running Iraq in the days after the take-over.
No End in Sight works because we don't feel manipulated. Campbell Scott's narration is somber but not cloying. And the footage doesn't seem to be edited for maximum impact. No shots of Bush playing golf and laughing (okay...maybe one clip of Rumsfeld laughing, but he deserves it). An eye-opening, non-partisan, and important look at what we're dealing with.
4.0 out of 4
Into the Wild (2007)
Note: In retrospect, my review for this film starts out the same as my review for A Mighty Heart. I guess I repeat myself sometimes. Maybe I need to start a category of "movies based on great stories where the stories are greater than the movies"?
I can't decide if Into the Wild was a great movie or if it's just a great story. After taking some time to think about it, I lean toward the latter, but in saying this I don't wish to devalue the efforts of Sean Penn and his great cast. Who knew that a movie about a guy who wants to be alone would have so many fantastic performances?
From a filmmaking point of view, I found Into the Wild to reveal evidence that Penn has not found his style yet as a director. There were so many different styles of camera work thrown in the bag here...different pacings and even two or three storytelling tactics (words on the screen, shifting voiceovers, in-the-scene dialogue). It made me wonder if maybe Into the Wild was really tough to adapt. Maybe it was, in which case Penn did a good job but not a great one.
I admire, however, the nature cinematography, particularly the closeups and long shots. And I think Penn did amazing work as a director of actors!
While Catherine Keener is as good as always, I found Emile Hirsch to be absolutely riveting, Vince Vaughn to be strangely perfect for his role, and Hal Holbrook, for me, gave the most heartbreaking and touching performance of the year.
As for the message of Into the Wild, I love that Penn seems to leave that open to some interpretation. At first I was annoyed with this kid who thinks that he doens't need anyone else. He doesn't need money or people or permanence in any way. But as the film wears on you realize that every human that Chris (Hirsch) comes in contact with on his selfish adventure reinforces the same truth: we need each other. People need human interaction. We are an interdependent species.
I don't know if that's what Penn wanted me to get out of it, but the way this strongly registered for me at the end of this film made the movie feel passion-filled and inspiriational. Inconsisent filmmaking with a powerful tale to tell (even if it's the book's doing).
3.0 out of 4
I can't decide if Into the Wild was a great movie or if it's just a great story. After taking some time to think about it, I lean toward the latter, but in saying this I don't wish to devalue the efforts of Sean Penn and his great cast. Who knew that a movie about a guy who wants to be alone would have so many fantastic performances?
From a filmmaking point of view, I found Into the Wild to reveal evidence that Penn has not found his style yet as a director. There were so many different styles of camera work thrown in the bag here...different pacings and even two or three storytelling tactics (words on the screen, shifting voiceovers, in-the-scene dialogue). It made me wonder if maybe Into the Wild was really tough to adapt. Maybe it was, in which case Penn did a good job but not a great one.
I admire, however, the nature cinematography, particularly the closeups and long shots. And I think Penn did amazing work as a director of actors!
While Catherine Keener is as good as always, I found Emile Hirsch to be absolutely riveting, Vince Vaughn to be strangely perfect for his role, and Hal Holbrook, for me, gave the most heartbreaking and touching performance of the year.
As for the message of Into the Wild, I love that Penn seems to leave that open to some interpretation. At first I was annoyed with this kid who thinks that he doens't need anyone else. He doesn't need money or people or permanence in any way. But as the film wears on you realize that every human that Chris (Hirsch) comes in contact with on his selfish adventure reinforces the same truth: we need each other. People need human interaction. We are an interdependent species.
I don't know if that's what Penn wanted me to get out of it, but the way this strongly registered for me at the end of this film made the movie feel passion-filled and inspiriational. Inconsisent filmmaking with a powerful tale to tell (even if it's the book's doing).
3.0 out of 4
There Will Be Blood (2007)
First thing's first: This film is NOT the second coming of Citizen Kane as so many reviewers have stated. I can understand why people would be blindsided into thinking so. Not since Kane has a movie so deftly addressed the notion of a man's drive to measure success in life only by wealth and achieve it without much mercy by stepping over anyone in his path to get it.
There Will Be Blood is a cousin to Kane thematically, but that's where it ends. Kane was a brilliant film, where Blood is a ballsy effort but, in the end, a fantastic mess.
To call it "taut" is ridiculous because it is ungodly long...you feel every moment of time for each frame and unless you enjoy watching the process of drilling for oil in what seems like real time, it doesn't maintain its excitement.
And for as much as the film nods to Citizen Kane, it also has bits of films like Giant in it.
I read a review that said that the film is as if Terrence Malick had made Kane. That's on the right track, though I like both Malick and Kane far more than this.
Day Lewis is MAGNETIC and the reason why I couldn't turn away from the movie. And yet his performance this year is second for me to Depp's work in Sweeney Todd, where a theatrical performance feels like a better fit. Day Lewis is SO stagey here, shuffling between an imitation of John Huston and, dare I say, Sean Connery. There is no denying his physical control of the acting craft; he's among the best.
Paul Dano is also excellent in the film, and the musical score by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood was a highlight for me.
In the end, though, the problem with There Will Be Blood is a problem that relates back to Citizen Kane, and I credit Roger Ebert with catching it. There Will Be Blood has NO ROSEBUD!!! For those of you who aren't familiar with Kane, what I am saying here is that there is no redeeming quality in Day Lewis' Daniel Plainview. He is without remorse and there is no plot device that allows us to feel sorry for him, empathize with him, or want better for him.
Now that I'm done complaining, I will say that there was incredible camera work in this film, and a few scenes -- particularly one where Eli Sunday humiliates Plainview in front of his congregation -- were electric filmmaking.
The ending is crazy, but I didn't hate it as much as so many others did. They call it screwball and out of left field. I actually expected it. A monster like Plainview acting like a monster...how did you not see it coming?
In the end, I file this in my "brilliant mess" file along with movies like A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. It's a gutsy film by a film-loving and experimenting director that shifts between brilliance and mediocrity scene by scene. Good, but by no means great. And it ain't no Citizen Kane!
2.0 out of 4
There Will Be Blood is a cousin to Kane thematically, but that's where it ends. Kane was a brilliant film, where Blood is a ballsy effort but, in the end, a fantastic mess.
To call it "taut" is ridiculous because it is ungodly long...you feel every moment of time for each frame and unless you enjoy watching the process of drilling for oil in what seems like real time, it doesn't maintain its excitement.
And for as much as the film nods to Citizen Kane, it also has bits of films like Giant in it.
I read a review that said that the film is as if Terrence Malick had made Kane. That's on the right track, though I like both Malick and Kane far more than this.
Day Lewis is MAGNETIC and the reason why I couldn't turn away from the movie. And yet his performance this year is second for me to Depp's work in Sweeney Todd, where a theatrical performance feels like a better fit. Day Lewis is SO stagey here, shuffling between an imitation of John Huston and, dare I say, Sean Connery. There is no denying his physical control of the acting craft; he's among the best.
Paul Dano is also excellent in the film, and the musical score by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood was a highlight for me.
In the end, though, the problem with There Will Be Blood is a problem that relates back to Citizen Kane, and I credit Roger Ebert with catching it. There Will Be Blood has NO ROSEBUD!!! For those of you who aren't familiar with Kane, what I am saying here is that there is no redeeming quality in Day Lewis' Daniel Plainview. He is without remorse and there is no plot device that allows us to feel sorry for him, empathize with him, or want better for him.
Now that I'm done complaining, I will say that there was incredible camera work in this film, and a few scenes -- particularly one where Eli Sunday humiliates Plainview in front of his congregation -- were electric filmmaking.
The ending is crazy, but I didn't hate it as much as so many others did. They call it screwball and out of left field. I actually expected it. A monster like Plainview acting like a monster...how did you not see it coming?
In the end, I file this in my "brilliant mess" file along with movies like A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. It's a gutsy film by a film-loving and experimenting director that shifts between brilliance and mediocrity scene by scene. Good, but by no means great. And it ain't no Citizen Kane!
2.0 out of 4
Superbad (2007)
OVERRATED. Not sure how else to state it.
Was this movie funny? HELL YES. I laughed a ton. And in the tradition of the Apatow school of screenwriting, there was even a sweet message buried underneath the filth.
My main problem with Superbad is that I'm at the age now where I've discovered that ANYONE who is alowed to use explicit, perpetual profanity and make references to sex and body parts or fluids can make someone laugh. So I guess I'm just more impressed by movies that can make me laugh that don't resort to this common tactic.
Superbad doesn't even make an attempt at this, however, so you have to take it for what it is: a standard teen party movie that was done better most recently as Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.
My favorite character was McLovin, but I suspect I'm not the only one. That kid was hilarious. And I continue to enjoy Michael Cera. That Jonah Hill character was annoying, though, so my favorite scene with him was when the car backed into him.
FUNNY STUFF, but only because any movie that resorts to this kind of material is going to make people laugh.
2.5 out of 4
Was this movie funny? HELL YES. I laughed a ton. And in the tradition of the Apatow school of screenwriting, there was even a sweet message buried underneath the filth.
My main problem with Superbad is that I'm at the age now where I've discovered that ANYONE who is alowed to use explicit, perpetual profanity and make references to sex and body parts or fluids can make someone laugh. So I guess I'm just more impressed by movies that can make me laugh that don't resort to this common tactic.
Superbad doesn't even make an attempt at this, however, so you have to take it for what it is: a standard teen party movie that was done better most recently as Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.
My favorite character was McLovin, but I suspect I'm not the only one. That kid was hilarious. And I continue to enjoy Michael Cera. That Jonah Hill character was annoying, though, so my favorite scene with him was when the car backed into him.
FUNNY STUFF, but only because any movie that resorts to this kind of material is going to make people laugh.
2.5 out of 4
Eastern Promises (2007)
My appreciation for David Cronenberg continues to grow. I was floored by A History of Violence" and also impressed with Eastern Promises, though I think I still like the former better as a whole.
What's great about this film, though, is the fact that Cronenberg is able to pack it with so much depth in just over 90 minutes of running time. If there is a lost art in modern filmmaking, the coexistence of depth and brevity is it.
Part of what makes that happen is the way the film draws upon the viewers' knowledge of mafia films -- particularly The Godfather. Remind yourself of the workings of the Corleone family while watching this and all kinds of connections can be made.
But this is the Russian mob transplanted to London, and Viggo Mortensen steps in with a riveting and controlled performance. Probably one of the year's best from an actor, though perhaps too subtle to get award recognition.
And then there's "that scene." Roger Ebert mentioned in his review that the already-famous scene in which Mortensen's hit man fends for his life while completely nude in a bathhouse steamroom will be the standard to fight scenes as The French Connection is to car chases. I agree. Man...that is a scene. When you consider that we are at our most vulunerable when naked and in the shower (see Psycho), it makes that scene all the more powerful.
I suspect that the power of this film as a whole will continue to increase in my mind as I reflect on it. Engrossing!
3.5 out of 4
What's great about this film, though, is the fact that Cronenberg is able to pack it with so much depth in just over 90 minutes of running time. If there is a lost art in modern filmmaking, the coexistence of depth and brevity is it.
Part of what makes that happen is the way the film draws upon the viewers' knowledge of mafia films -- particularly The Godfather. Remind yourself of the workings of the Corleone family while watching this and all kinds of connections can be made.
But this is the Russian mob transplanted to London, and Viggo Mortensen steps in with a riveting and controlled performance. Probably one of the year's best from an actor, though perhaps too subtle to get award recognition.
And then there's "that scene." Roger Ebert mentioned in his review that the already-famous scene in which Mortensen's hit man fends for his life while completely nude in a bathhouse steamroom will be the standard to fight scenes as The French Connection is to car chases. I agree. Man...that is a scene. When you consider that we are at our most vulunerable when naked and in the shower (see Psycho), it makes that scene all the more powerful.
I suspect that the power of this film as a whole will continue to increase in my mind as I reflect on it. Engrossing!
3.5 out of 4
Enchanted (2007)
I am officially in love with Amy Adams. And don't bother telling my wife because she already knows. I fell in love with her a few years ago when I saw Junebug. Here, she radiates as the princess Giselle.
Adams is the best thing about Enchanted, a charmer of a Disney update with some other good things going for it, too. James Marsden, for instance, is making me secretly hopeful for a new Danny Kaye or Gene Kelly...some kind of modern version of the debonair guy with the great voice who excells at screen musicals. And Marsden is in the lead for that job right now, having knocked my socks off in Hairspray and now here.
Adams, it seems, is also worthy of the film musical throne, perhaps a 21st Century Julie Andrews. I think we need one of those.
As for the rest of the film, well, it's cute. As a long-time Disney fan who has been teased for my not-so-macho love of wonderful Disney songs and scores, I was treated once again here to the work of the great Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz. I actually wish there had been about two more songs.
I also wish that the film had taken it's "meta" status a little further. Sly little moments like when "Part of Your World" played as muzak in a law firm lobby while Adams stared intently at a fish tank were not plentiful enough. It was the job of Enchanted, I thought, to mock the conventions of the Disney animated musical while simultaneously recreating one in the real, live-action world. At a time when traditional animation has bowed to Shrek-crap and soulless digital cartoons, what a brilliant idea it was to one-up the animation world by bringing it to the real one and keeping the animated feel!
And yet, I wanted more...more songs, more in-jokes, more self-awareness and self-parody. If nothing else, however, I'm thankful for what I did get, and I'm even more thankful for Adams. I'm most thankful of all for a film that afforded me a wonderful holiday afternoon date with my almost six-year-old daughter, who loved every minute of this film.
3.0 out of 4
Adams is the best thing about Enchanted, a charmer of a Disney update with some other good things going for it, too. James Marsden, for instance, is making me secretly hopeful for a new Danny Kaye or Gene Kelly...some kind of modern version of the debonair guy with the great voice who excells at screen musicals. And Marsden is in the lead for that job right now, having knocked my socks off in Hairspray and now here.
Adams, it seems, is also worthy of the film musical throne, perhaps a 21st Century Julie Andrews. I think we need one of those.
As for the rest of the film, well, it's cute. As a long-time Disney fan who has been teased for my not-so-macho love of wonderful Disney songs and scores, I was treated once again here to the work of the great Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz. I actually wish there had been about two more songs.
I also wish that the film had taken it's "meta" status a little further. Sly little moments like when "Part of Your World" played as muzak in a law firm lobby while Adams stared intently at a fish tank were not plentiful enough. It was the job of Enchanted, I thought, to mock the conventions of the Disney animated musical while simultaneously recreating one in the real, live-action world. At a time when traditional animation has bowed to Shrek-crap and soulless digital cartoons, what a brilliant idea it was to one-up the animation world by bringing it to the real one and keeping the animated feel!
And yet, I wanted more...more songs, more in-jokes, more self-awareness and self-parody. If nothing else, however, I'm thankful for what I did get, and I'm even more thankful for Adams. I'm most thankful of all for a film that afforded me a wonderful holiday afternoon date with my almost six-year-old daughter, who loved every minute of this film.
3.0 out of 4
A Mighty Heart (2007)
I was engrossed in A Mighty Heart but, in the end, I can't decide if it was an excellent movie or just the rewinding of a compelling news story. I tend to lean more toward the latter.
This is not to leave director Michael Winterbottom without compliment, however. After all, were it not for his docu-drama shooting style and the exclusion of many scenes and conversations that the audience might have wanted to see, this film would not have felt so much like a real news story unfolding. But it did.
Mariane Pearl's decision to maintain a cool public persona makes it tough to sympathize with her because we are so used to seeing the spouses of a kidnapping victim writhing around in agony in films. In that way, Jolie is startling in a chameleon-like performance that is, perhaps, too subtle to be recognized for big awards this year, but worthy of praise.
Dan Futterman is hauntingly similar to the real Pearl physically, and so both of the lead actors continue to make us feel like we are watching CNN instead of a real film.
In the end, however, I'm not sure that this is an "amazing" movie just because the director made the obvious choice to have it look real.
It did take on a bit of a police procedural feel for me at times. That being said, it was compelling and sad, and stirred up all sorts of emotions in me, forcing me to question how I feel about the governement of Pakistan, which is even more at the center of the stage of world events than it was when this happened to Daniel Pearl.
2.5 out of 4
This is not to leave director Michael Winterbottom without compliment, however. After all, were it not for his docu-drama shooting style and the exclusion of many scenes and conversations that the audience might have wanted to see, this film would not have felt so much like a real news story unfolding. But it did.
Mariane Pearl's decision to maintain a cool public persona makes it tough to sympathize with her because we are so used to seeing the spouses of a kidnapping victim writhing around in agony in films. In that way, Jolie is startling in a chameleon-like performance that is, perhaps, too subtle to be recognized for big awards this year, but worthy of praise.
Dan Futterman is hauntingly similar to the real Pearl physically, and so both of the lead actors continue to make us feel like we are watching CNN instead of a real film.
In the end, however, I'm not sure that this is an "amazing" movie just because the director made the obvious choice to have it look real.
It did take on a bit of a police procedural feel for me at times. That being said, it was compelling and sad, and stirred up all sorts of emotions in me, forcing me to question how I feel about the governement of Pakistan, which is even more at the center of the stage of world events than it was when this happened to Daniel Pearl.
2.5 out of 4
Le Scaphandre et le Papillon (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) (2007)
(Somehow, I managed to erase my original review. This is a vain attempt at recollecting pieces of it.)
The first thing I thought about when watching this film was how cinematic the presentation was, with point-of-view camera work dominating director Julian Schnabel's presentation. But then again, how do you make it interesting for an audience when the main character of the film is a man who cannot move or speak?
You can film him in bed. But Schnabel does better. We see the world for a large portion of the film through the one good eye of Jean-Dominique Bauby, once the editor of Elle magazine and now a stroke victim who suffers from "locked-in syndrome." When a tenacious nurse teaches Bauby to communicate by running through letters of the alphabet in order of the frequency of their use while he blinks to confirm each letter, the audience movies from being frustrated by the tedious practice to being amazed by how far it is taken.
A movie about a guy blinking to spell a sentence gets old quickly, but Bauby decides, in his condition, to tell his story. He wants to write a memoir, and this moves his method of communication from monotony to miracle.
Filled with symbolic and poetic visual asides, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly reminded me at times of Johnny Got His Gun in concept. It is, ultimately, a film about the power of the human spirit without including any of the standard feel-good moments. As a matter of fact, it is a bleak film...a man cut down in the prime of life, his voice answering clearly for the audience to hear but nobody in the room can because only we are inside of his head and he can't actually speak.
I wouldn't call this an inspirational film, but it is most definitely a triumphant one. I hope that people will find the patience to get used to its striking presentational style and experience its rewards. It will, no doubt, go down as one of my favorite films of the year.
4.0 out of 4
The first thing I thought about when watching this film was how cinematic the presentation was, with point-of-view camera work dominating director Julian Schnabel's presentation. But then again, how do you make it interesting for an audience when the main character of the film is a man who cannot move or speak?
You can film him in bed. But Schnabel does better. We see the world for a large portion of the film through the one good eye of Jean-Dominique Bauby, once the editor of Elle magazine and now a stroke victim who suffers from "locked-in syndrome." When a tenacious nurse teaches Bauby to communicate by running through letters of the alphabet in order of the frequency of their use while he blinks to confirm each letter, the audience movies from being frustrated by the tedious practice to being amazed by how far it is taken.
A movie about a guy blinking to spell a sentence gets old quickly, but Bauby decides, in his condition, to tell his story. He wants to write a memoir, and this moves his method of communication from monotony to miracle.
Filled with symbolic and poetic visual asides, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly reminded me at times of Johnny Got His Gun in concept. It is, ultimately, a film about the power of the human spirit without including any of the standard feel-good moments. As a matter of fact, it is a bleak film...a man cut down in the prime of life, his voice answering clearly for the audience to hear but nobody in the room can because only we are inside of his head and he can't actually speak.
I wouldn't call this an inspirational film, but it is most definitely a triumphant one. I hope that people will find the patience to get used to its striking presentational style and experience its rewards. It will, no doubt, go down as one of my favorite films of the year.
4.0 out of 4
The Savages (2007)
The Savages is proof that when a film has great actors working at the peak of their games, you are going to be engaged no matter what.
This is not to say that there wasn't anything else about the film that was noteworthy, but I do believe that the performances by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney (one of my favorite actresses, period) are the best thing about this film.
I feel like I have seen so many movies in the past week about either the elderly or dying, from Away From Her to The Diving Bell and the Butterfly to this. The Savages is not as good as those other two films, but it has a different tone that makes this like comparing apples to oranges.
There are moments in the film when I laughed out loud, but I think the movie is unfairly billed as a comedy, even attracting a Golden Globe comedy nomination for Hoffman. Director/screenwriter Tamara Jenkins doesn't hold the film tightly together for long enough, so by the end it starts to drag a bit. But thanks to the performances and the relationships established, The Savages remains engrosing throughout.
3.0 out of 4
This is not to say that there wasn't anything else about the film that was noteworthy, but I do believe that the performances by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney (one of my favorite actresses, period) are the best thing about this film.
I feel like I have seen so many movies in the past week about either the elderly or dying, from Away From Her to The Diving Bell and the Butterfly to this. The Savages is not as good as those other two films, but it has a different tone that makes this like comparing apples to oranges.
There are moments in the film when I laughed out loud, but I think the movie is unfairly billed as a comedy, even attracting a Golden Globe comedy nomination for Hoffman. Director/screenwriter Tamara Jenkins doesn't hold the film tightly together for long enough, so by the end it starts to drag a bit. But thanks to the performances and the relationships established, The Savages remains engrosing throughout.
3.0 out of 4
Margot at the Wedding (2007)
I appreciate Noah Baumbach. I think he's very talented, and I really liked The Squid and the Whale. Baumbach's talent is dialogue that is SO real and direction that is so "un-film-y" that you just feel like you're spying on real people.
For Margot at the Wedding, this was the problem...I didn't care about these people AT ALL. I didn't like them. I wasn't interested in them. I didn't relate to them. And, at times, I was thoroughly annoyed by them.
A bitchy, self-absorbed writer and her androgynous, helpless son. Her passive sister and the sister's loser fiancee. Great group!
I can appreciate that this film aims for a Bergman-like feel, but you've got to give me something to keep me in it, and I don't feel like this movie did a good enough job. Short of its real dialogue and a strong performance by Jennifer Jason Leigh, there wasn't much here. Fortunately, the promise of The Squid and the Whale has me hoping that this film was just a minor set-back.
1.0 out of 4
For Margot at the Wedding, this was the problem...I didn't care about these people AT ALL. I didn't like them. I wasn't interested in them. I didn't relate to them. And, at times, I was thoroughly annoyed by them.
A bitchy, self-absorbed writer and her androgynous, helpless son. Her passive sister and the sister's loser fiancee. Great group!
I can appreciate that this film aims for a Bergman-like feel, but you've got to give me something to keep me in it, and I don't feel like this movie did a good enough job. Short of its real dialogue and a strong performance by Jennifer Jason Leigh, there wasn't much here. Fortunately, the promise of The Squid and the Whale has me hoping that this film was just a minor set-back.
1.0 out of 4
Knocked Up (2007)
I guess I'm going to lose my "member of the American public membership card" now, because I thought this movie was good, but not great.
Since it was created by the same crew as The 40 Year Old Virgin, I expected to laugh on that level and came nowhere near. I still have memories of my friends sitting on either side of me at that film checking to make sure I could still breathe.
Yeah, there are some great lines here in Knocked Up, but maybe I have matured to a point as a human being that I did not find Seth Rogan's character terribly amusing. The CIRCUMSTANCES were amusing, but not him.
I am also wondering if perhaps my enjoyment of the film as a comedy was stilted by how truthful I thought it was. For me, Paul Rudd's character was like a 30-something married guy PROPHET. I couldn't laugh because I could empathise so much with so much of what his character went through.
That being the case, I thought it was a really honest film and I appreciate it for that. But I guess my humor doesn't match up with the majority of the country's, because this was NOT a laugh a minute film for me. Makes me nervous now to watch Superbad, which was the other film of the year that received such buzz.
2.5 out of 4
Since it was created by the same crew as The 40 Year Old Virgin, I expected to laugh on that level and came nowhere near. I still have memories of my friends sitting on either side of me at that film checking to make sure I could still breathe.
Yeah, there are some great lines here in Knocked Up, but maybe I have matured to a point as a human being that I did not find Seth Rogan's character terribly amusing. The CIRCUMSTANCES were amusing, but not him.
I am also wondering if perhaps my enjoyment of the film as a comedy was stilted by how truthful I thought it was. For me, Paul Rudd's character was like a 30-something married guy PROPHET. I couldn't laugh because I could empathise so much with so much of what his character went through.
That being the case, I thought it was a really honest film and I appreciate it for that. But I guess my humor doesn't match up with the majority of the country's, because this was NOT a laugh a minute film for me. Makes me nervous now to watch Superbad, which was the other film of the year that received such buzz.
2.5 out of 4
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Um...okay. I still have nightmares about the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I find Gene Wilder's Wonka to be one of the creepiest characters on film. He scares me like the Grinch scares my daugther. So I didn't need a remake.
The new film is as twisted as you'd expect from Burton. For me, this new film is actually LESS creepy, even though it contains Burton's warped world view and a Johnny Depp performance that channels Michael Jackson.
Amusingly odd and brightly colorful, but not necessarily necessary.
2.5 out of 4
The new film is as twisted as you'd expect from Burton. For me, this new film is actually LESS creepy, even though it contains Burton's warped world view and a Johnny Depp performance that channels Michael Jackson.
Amusingly odd and brightly colorful, but not necessarily necessary.
2.5 out of 4
Juno (2007)
I'm a sucker for good writing.
For the first half hour or so of Juno, I was actually nervous that it was OVER-written...that every line was a clever zinger one right after the next and the film had no levels. But it does settle in, and the levels are rich once you find them.
The sometimes too quirky dialogue is given depth by memorable performances by Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Allison Janney and Jason Bateman, and the soul of the movie lies with Jennifer Garner, who surprised me.
While the critic in me wants to knock the film a bit more for things that weren't perfect, I have to remember that when it was all said and done, I can't remember an hour and a half of my movie-going existence that I enjoyed quite this much. I can't wait to see it again.
4.0 out of 4
For the first half hour or so of Juno, I was actually nervous that it was OVER-written...that every line was a clever zinger one right after the next and the film had no levels. But it does settle in, and the levels are rich once you find them.
The sometimes too quirky dialogue is given depth by memorable performances by Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Allison Janney and Jason Bateman, and the soul of the movie lies with Jennifer Garner, who surprised me.
While the critic in me wants to knock the film a bit more for things that weren't perfect, I have to remember that when it was all said and done, I can't remember an hour and a half of my movie-going existence that I enjoyed quite this much. I can't wait to see it again.
4.0 out of 4
Away From Her (2007)
Julie Christie is considered by insiders to be a front-runner for an Oscar for her portrayal here of a woman living with Alzheimer's Disease. The hype is justified. She breaks your heart by being so subtle that you don't feel like you're watching "acting." What surprises me, though, is that Gordon Pinsent isn't garnering the same buzz. For me, the film centered on his character, and his quietly tortured performance allows us to experience what it feels like to lose someone even as they are right there in front of you.
This movie was difficult to watch. It's quiet, bright, and shifts from one scene to another very softly. And if you know someone who's dealing with this disease or even a family member in a nursing home, this will be even harder to watch. But first-time director Sarah Polley assists her actors as they do amazing things here.
This wasn't a movie that felt like a "movie." It was a movie that felt like a fully-developed novel.
3.5 out of 4
This movie was difficult to watch. It's quiet, bright, and shifts from one scene to another very softly. And if you know someone who's dealing with this disease or even a family member in a nursing home, this will be even harder to watch. But first-time director Sarah Polley assists her actors as they do amazing things here.
This wasn't a movie that felt like a "movie." It was a movie that felt like a fully-developed novel.
3.5 out of 4
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
Yeah. I laughed. I think I was supposed to. As a matter of fact, I think this movie did everything it was supposed to. But I'm not sure it did more. It was just an over-long episode of the show. What else could they do with it? Was it funny? Absolutely! Would I watch it again? You bet...I bought it. Was it amazing film making? Um...no. My favorite line (right now): Homer -- "Praise Jebus!"
2.5 out of 4
2.5 out of 4
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
First, let's get the quibbles out of the way, for they are minor: Bonham Carter has a paper-thin singing voice. It's slightly more forgivable when you watch the film than it is when you just listen to the music, but fans of Sweeney Todd like myself probably imagine a more robustly-sung part. Also, the actor playing Anthony is too young and feminine looking. If you stood Anthony and Johanna next to each other, I'm not certain I'd be able to tell them apart! A more robust, manly sailor would have been better.
For me, everything else scores. Every number cut from the original musical is a justifiable omission here. Even the absence of "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd," the stage show's glue, is a sensible cut for the film, as Burton's visuals accomplish the exposition communicated by that song's multiple appearances throughout the musical. And while I could go on and on about how wonderfully dark and wickedly funny it all is, the best thing I can say about this film is that my greatest fear about it proved unfounded. I worried that in their attempt at gothic horror, Burton and his actors would lack the soft touch needed to communicate the sadness, tragedy and sympathy of the show. Thanks to Depp and Bonham Carter, though, they remain intact...wonderfully so.
When Sweeney finally corners Turpin (played just the way you would imagine Alan Rickman to play him), you root for this serial killer...you feel he is owed this moment. Is it a bloody film? Sure. But I was surprised at how much LESS bloody it was than I had prepared myself for. You'll see worse in other films, not to mention that the violence and blood here are stylized for artistic effect. I am so relieved that I was not let down by this film adaptation of one of my all-time favorite musicals!
4.0 out of 4
For me, everything else scores. Every number cut from the original musical is a justifiable omission here. Even the absence of "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd," the stage show's glue, is a sensible cut for the film, as Burton's visuals accomplish the exposition communicated by that song's multiple appearances throughout the musical. And while I could go on and on about how wonderfully dark and wickedly funny it all is, the best thing I can say about this film is that my greatest fear about it proved unfounded. I worried that in their attempt at gothic horror, Burton and his actors would lack the soft touch needed to communicate the sadness, tragedy and sympathy of the show. Thanks to Depp and Bonham Carter, though, they remain intact...wonderfully so.
When Sweeney finally corners Turpin (played just the way you would imagine Alan Rickman to play him), you root for this serial killer...you feel he is owed this moment. Is it a bloody film? Sure. But I was surprised at how much LESS bloody it was than I had prepared myself for. You'll see worse in other films, not to mention that the violence and blood here are stylized for artistic effect. I am so relieved that I was not let down by this film adaptation of one of my all-time favorite musicals!
4.0 out of 4
Zodiac (2007)
David Fincher continues to assert himself as a director to pay attention to with Zodiac, an elaborate and episodic film that requires a lot of patience. I will confess that I was genuinely freaked out by the murder sequences here. It's not that they were graphic; I've seen worse. It's the way they are filmed with clausterphobic tight shots and forboding anticipation...I was always waiting for the Zodiac killer to be right outside every shot, and I gasped audibly on more than a few occasions. While I found the movie to be a bit long and the action to be a little too static, Downey Jr. is as good as ever and the other actors hold up. I didn't even recognize Anthony Edwards! Well-directed, genuinely terrifying, and at the very least, incredibly interesting.
3.5 out of 4
3.5 out of 4
La Vie en Rose (2007)
Note: "La Vie en Rose" ended up winning Marion Cotillard the Oscar for Best Actress, as I correctly predicted that year. Here's what I said about the film. (As I was just starting to post reviews online, the earliest ones are short.)
First, the obvious: Marion Cotillard is deserving of the accolades coming her way. I would be STUNNED if she doesn't get an Oscar nomination. That said, I found parts of the film to be a bit too messy. Making a biopic a fresh enterprise is tough to do, and director Dahan's approach is to jumble time, flopping around from childhood to death like crazy. It's not so hard as to not be able to follow it, but it doesn't seem to make the film better, either. And for me, the real drawback of this concept is that it prevented me at times from seeing Edith Piaf as more than a shrew or a brat in arrested development. And that's not fair to Piaf. I enjoyed what I saw but for a movie that felt a bit long, I was left with many unanswered questions.
2.5 out of 4
First, the obvious: Marion Cotillard is deserving of the accolades coming her way. I would be STUNNED if she doesn't get an Oscar nomination. That said, I found parts of the film to be a bit too messy. Making a biopic a fresh enterprise is tough to do, and director Dahan's approach is to jumble time, flopping around from childhood to death like crazy. It's not so hard as to not be able to follow it, but it doesn't seem to make the film better, either. And for me, the real drawback of this concept is that it prevented me at times from seeing Edith Piaf as more than a shrew or a brat in arrested development. And that's not fair to Piaf. I enjoyed what I saw but for a movie that felt a bit long, I was left with many unanswered questions.
2.5 out of 4
Why should you listen to me and how will this work?
It seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry has a movie review blog on the Internet. I don't blame you for not being any more interested in reading what I have to say than anyone else. And I certainly don't blame you for reading someone famous instead of reading what I have to say.
Still, I'd like you to know where I'm coming from and how "On the Movie" will work.
I have been a movie addict my whole life. I'm not going to blather on with nostalgic stories here, but you can ask me some time why whenever I see a hockey game, it takes me back to seeing "Youngblood" in a marijuana-soaked, $2 movie theatre. Or how my memory of my sister standing on her chair and crying, "Goodbye, E.T.!" is as special to me as the time when I saw "Disclosure" in Times Square in college and watched a woman throw a stiletto heel at the screen, yelling "you lying bitch!" at a Demi Moore that could not hear her. I love movies.
In college, I covered film for the North Central Chronicle. I was consistent about it and made a bit of a name for myself doing it. I found myself attending press screenings of films with Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, and other Chicago-area critics. I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. It just didn't work out that way. When I did land a professional, regular paper job at the Naperville Sun, the closest I came to movie reviews was local theatre reviews. Now don't get me wrong. I love theatre. But I saw myself a movie critic. They didn't need one of those. Nobody did.
Nobody needs all of the critics we have today, either. You don't need me. But I need to write about movies. So whether you read or not, I will do that here.
I should qualify that I have been teaching film studies at Naperville Central High School since 2000. I took a number of undergrad and graduate courses in film and have studied the art form in addition to watching so many movies. I have obsessively followed Oscar season since before I took an interest in the Super Bowl. I know what I'm doing.
How films will be rated
When I started puting my film reviews on Facebook, I struggled with their five-star system. I am used to a four-star scale, having grown up reading reviews in newspapers. My first exposure to a five-star system was Rolling Stone, and on many occasions, I've attempted to define each star and half-star and even create a conversion chart for myself between the two scales. I feel no more confident about it now than I ever did.
Therefore, I will probably go with the tried and true four-star scale here. I figure that, in a basic sense, you add about a half-star to most four-star scale reviews anyway if you're using five. But who cares. You know what I'm doing. You'll figure it out.
Time to do what I'm here to do...review movies!
Still, I'd like you to know where I'm coming from and how "On the Movie" will work.
I have been a movie addict my whole life. I'm not going to blather on with nostalgic stories here, but you can ask me some time why whenever I see a hockey game, it takes me back to seeing "Youngblood" in a marijuana-soaked, $2 movie theatre. Or how my memory of my sister standing on her chair and crying, "Goodbye, E.T.!" is as special to me as the time when I saw "Disclosure" in Times Square in college and watched a woman throw a stiletto heel at the screen, yelling "you lying bitch!" at a Demi Moore that could not hear her. I love movies.
In college, I covered film for the North Central Chronicle. I was consistent about it and made a bit of a name for myself doing it. I found myself attending press screenings of films with Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, and other Chicago-area critics. I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. It just didn't work out that way. When I did land a professional, regular paper job at the Naperville Sun, the closest I came to movie reviews was local theatre reviews. Now don't get me wrong. I love theatre. But I saw myself a movie critic. They didn't need one of those. Nobody did.
Nobody needs all of the critics we have today, either. You don't need me. But I need to write about movies. So whether you read or not, I will do that here.
I should qualify that I have been teaching film studies at Naperville Central High School since 2000. I took a number of undergrad and graduate courses in film and have studied the art form in addition to watching so many movies. I have obsessively followed Oscar season since before I took an interest in the Super Bowl. I know what I'm doing.
How films will be rated
When I started puting my film reviews on Facebook, I struggled with their five-star system. I am used to a four-star scale, having grown up reading reviews in newspapers. My first exposure to a five-star system was Rolling Stone, and on many occasions, I've attempted to define each star and half-star and even create a conversion chart for myself between the two scales. I feel no more confident about it now than I ever did.
Therefore, I will probably go with the tried and true four-star scale here. I figure that, in a basic sense, you add about a half-star to most four-star scale reviews anyway if you're using five. But who cares. You know what I'm doing. You'll figure it out.
Time to do what I'm here to do...review movies!
Welcome to "...On the Movie"
God bless the Internet! When I walked out of college with a degree in Journalism, a few years of professional features and entertainment writing experience, and a dream to be the next Gene Siskel (Roger likes everything, I reasoned), I was told more than once that I wasn't qualified to be a movie critic. "You're only 22," they said. "How many movies could you have possibly seen?"
There is definitely ageism when it comes to revering film critics. I'm not going to lie...I'm not high on Ben Lyons yet. Daddy got that job for him, and I'm bitter. That was MY JOB! Too late now. Yes, it's true, though. I tend to revere film critics with a little more time under their belt. My favorite critics anywhere close to my age are the guys over at Filmspotting: Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson are young but they watch a good 150+ films a year and are as unironic about all of it as I am. They're fantastic and thorough.
I had been meaning to document my film-going experiences for years now and couldn't determine a convenient formum for doing it. That is, until I joined Facebook. There, I started to catalogue what I had been watching and enjoyed the feedback from friends and strangers who read the reviews that I tried to keep to witty snapshots. But that wasn't exactly what I had in mind.
So welcome to "...On the Movie." I'll tell you more about my credentials next time, and I'll begin this blog, I think, by transfering over some of my recent Facebook film reviews, just to bank some items here and get this place started! I can't wait to hear what YOU think about the movies I review. Stay tuned for more...coming soon!
There is definitely ageism when it comes to revering film critics. I'm not going to lie...I'm not high on Ben Lyons yet. Daddy got that job for him, and I'm bitter. That was MY JOB! Too late now. Yes, it's true, though. I tend to revere film critics with a little more time under their belt. My favorite critics anywhere close to my age are the guys over at Filmspotting: Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson are young but they watch a good 150+ films a year and are as unironic about all of it as I am. They're fantastic and thorough.
I had been meaning to document my film-going experiences for years now and couldn't determine a convenient formum for doing it. That is, until I joined Facebook. There, I started to catalogue what I had been watching and enjoyed the feedback from friends and strangers who read the reviews that I tried to keep to witty snapshots. But that wasn't exactly what I had in mind.
So welcome to "...On the Movie." I'll tell you more about my credentials next time, and I'll begin this blog, I think, by transfering over some of my recent Facebook film reviews, just to bank some items here and get this place started! I can't wait to hear what YOU think about the movies I review. Stay tuned for more...coming soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)