- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
She's the girl you hated in high school - and she's back. The local people get the word that she's back, and so, when they talk about her, they call her the Ex-Prom Queen with the additional qualifier of 'Bitch'. Yeah, she's returned to her hometown and she wants her old flame back. Only he's a HMWAK - otherwise known as Happily Married with a Kid. Sounds like trouble has arrived in Mercury, Minnesota. The film is called Young Adult . It stars the Oscar winning Charlize Theron , and was directed by Jason Reitman and written by Diablo Cody . These two were paired up as Director and Writer in the 2007 film - Juno. Charlize has the role of Mavis Gary, a ghostwriter of romance fiction for teen girls or should I say YA's, which if you connect this to the title of the film, you get Young Adults. While she's kind of successful in that field, she hasn't quite reached an income level that could mean she could shop on Rodeo Drive, or have an apartment on Central Park West in New York. Instead, Mavis lives in a modest Minneapolis apartment with 'Modest' being an overstatement. However to Mavis, this was a far better situation than if she was stuck back in the old hometown The thing about Mavis is that she can't see beyond her own image. Beauty worked for her in high school. She was the prom queen, she dated the school's football hero, and in her mind - the sea was required to part if she showed up on its shore. So Mavis was the kind of woman who steamrolled through life - she either overwhelmed you because she was just sooo important, or she never saw you, like you weren't important, or attractive enough to even be noticed, considered, or thought about. What a gal. So Charlize takes this role of this kind of a self-centered woman. She thought she was a woman born to run, as in run through life always having everything her way. Only for the rest of us - she was a woman that was born to hated. So there's your set up. Usually in this kind of a situation - the bitch goddess gets taken down a peg, gets humiliated, or is knocked off her pedestal by the local folks, who put aside their sense of being threatened, and rev up their inner nobility - and a lesson is learned, the b/g gets the message, and everyone lives happily ever after. That's usually the case - but it doesn't work out that way this time. Mavis is never going to get the message. She'll remain an unrepetentily savage. Not so much that she becomes a cartoon queen of cruelty. No Charlize, Reitman, and Cody have imbued her with a myopic sense of self. She can't see beyond her own aura - the one she imagines, and the one that is like an invisible force field. This field keeps people away, and keeps 'goodness', if any exists within Mavis, locked up inside her. The object of Mavis's lust is Buddy Slade played by Patrick Wilson . He's a nice guy, and he loves his wife. But he is somewhat vulnerable when Mavis begins her assault on the beachhead of his marriage. But he quickly marshals his common sense, so he rebuffs, refuses, and reacts in the negative. Watch for his expressions as he gradually gets the message that the message he's sending to Mavis is the message that she's not getting at all. Patton Oswalt is on hand as the local good guy. He was damaged a long time ago - in fact he was beaten up by town toughs back when he was in high school because they thought he was gay. He wasn't - but he's been badly disabled from that attack. He had the locker next to Mavis back in high school. Does she remember him - not at first - but then she recalls that incident and remembers him as The Hate-Crime Guy. So Mavis is on one end of the spectrum - she's the Prom Queen both then and to this day - she's still the prom queen. She got all the attention she could handle. Patton's Matt is on the other end of the spectrum - 180 degrees opposite. He was the geek, the nerd, and he was never noticed. Buddy is the middle. The film has entertainment value despite the fact that the lead is despicable. Kudos to Charlize for taking this role. The film's tagline says - Everyone gets old. Not everyone grows up. So much so, that you are actively rooting against Mavis. Tough work for an actress. But the way Charlize handles this role - she's definitely worth seeing again.
The Muppets is the first movie to feature the once popular Jim Henson creations in 12 years. It’s quickly apparent that the movie’s main focus is to win back the popularity they had decades ago and try to re-establish their place in modern culture. Jason Segel has been a life-long devotee of the muppets and always aspired to make a movie for them. Well his dream has come to fruition. He wrote the movie and cast himself as the lead human character. He plays a guy named Gary who just happens to have a muppet as a brother. The brother’s name is Walter. Since Walter grows up around nothing but human beings, he’s absolutely mesmerized when he discovers The Muppet Show on television. Of course he identifies with them and becomes obsessed with everything muppet. Unfortunately, this buildup of a plot causes the viewer to go about 20 minutes before the well-known muppet characters are even on screen, and they’re the reason we’ve come to see this movie isn’t it? It’s like watching The Simpsons and not actually seeing any of the Simpson family until the end of the episode. We finally see the muppets when Gary plans a trip to Los Angeles with his girlfriend and invites Walter so he can see the Muppet Theater (which they discover is in ruins due to lack of interest in recent years). When they arrive, Walter overhears an oil tycoon who is buying the theatre and plans to tear down Muppet Studios altogether so he can drill for oil. So Gary and Walter find Kermit and the gang to warn them of the bad news. After getting them all together, the movie concludes with the typical “we gotta put on a big show to save ourselves from being out of business!” ending. Wait a minute, isn’t that kind of like the ending to The Muppets Take Manhattan? That was a much better movie by the way. What’s worse is that it feels like barely any screen time is given to the individual muppets. It feels like we barely hear from Fozzie, Gonzo, or even Miss Piggy through most of the movie. That’s because the film focuses more on Walter and the relationship between Gary and his girlfriend. There’s really nothing fun or interesting about Walter either. He has no unique or muppet-like qualities about him (I suppose since he was raised by regular people). And when he’s given the spotlight as the final act for the big show, what does he do… he whistles. The big finale is that he shows off his whistling skills. Pretty lame. There’s also a running joke about Animal being put in a mental institution due to his addiction to drumming. That’s kind of funny but when he gets his big chance to finally play drums at the end, he plays them to the very slow “Rainbow Connection” from the original muppet movie. That’s not exactly a song to rock out to. Again, pretty lame. In fact, that’s the biggest problem with the movie. It’s so concerned with revitalizing the muppets and making them relative again, but it does the exact opposite by having them do the same old song and dance they’ve done before. With the big show, they could have modernized things a little so that a new generation could learn to love them. Even when they decide to kidnap celebrities to appear in their show, you think they’re going to get all these cameos from cool actors. But they only find one actor who already appeared earlier in the film! And cameos by the likes of Alan Arkin and Judd Hirsch aren’t exactly going to win over today’s youth. Completely unnecessary scenes like seeing 60 year-old Chris Cooper rapping just seem plain weird as well. The film may please some older viewers who grew up with the characters, but it doesn’t accomplish its goal of invigorating the franchise or connecting with today’s youth. Luckily, the movie does have some smart, witty jokes throughout the film. A lot of them are kind of done with a subliminal wink to the audience. But once again, these are jokes that will resonate with adults and not children. People won’t be talking much about the muppets in a year from now. And that’s too bad, because they used to be pretty fun to watch.
The movie Hugo has been marketed as some sort of fantasy film for the whole family. But I can’t see how any kid could be truly entertained by this film. Boring is the word that comes to mind when I think of it, and I’m an adult; imagine how bored a young child would be trying to get through such a long dragged out movie which takes place in a train station. It’s about a child whose father has passed away and now his drunk uncle who keeps the clocks running in a train station has taken custody of him. The uncle is always passed out and never there for him so the kid just runs around the station all day changing clocks and trying to steal food. He gets caught stealing by an old man who works at one of the stores in the station. That old man then takes something from him and eventually makes him work at the store in order to get it back. The boy becomes friends with the man’s goddaughter and eventually learns some secret things about him, all while trying to avoid the train station inspector who knows that he’s a thief. Sacha Baron Cohen, who’s known to most people for playing the characters Borat and Bruno, as the inspector is the only slightly interesting person in the movie. That still doesn’t make the movie any less dull though. I’m getting pretty bored just describing it. Anyway, the film then becomes this sermon on the wonders of filmmaking and how movies began in the first place. Most people have already seen early film footage and have a pretty basic idea of how they were made, so it’s no big revelation to see. Even to those who may not have any idea of what early filmmaking was like, it may still come off rather bland and unexciting to watch. It’s rather strange how a movie about a child trying to survive in a train station without his father morphs into a history of filmmaking. I imagine any kid who was looking forward to seeing a fantasy adventure (as the commercials seem to imply) is going to be pretty bummed out to watch film reels from the early 1900’s. As someone who loves movies and reviews them, I sure was. It didn’t help matters that it’s yet another movie shot in 3D, especially since there aren’t too many scenes where things are jumping out at you or that would need the technology anyway. There wasn’t much to be enhanced. It’s not like watching Avatar where you’re discovering a whole new world. You’re just watching the ongoings inside an old train station. Most critics seem to like this movie and I believe it’s only because it’s made by Martin Scorsese who is considered one of the greatest directors of all time. So I think they feel obliged to find reasons to appreciate the film or hail it as something original. But it’s really just a plain old boring movie like many others. Scorsese should stick to the gangster movies he’s best known for. Leave the kids alone.
I always wanted to go Hawaii but somehow never managed to do so. Until today. While the truth is that I didn't actually board a plane, cross the skies of the USA, and then fly about halfway across the Pacific Ocean; instead I went to see the new George Clooney film called The Descendants which is set in Hawaii. Just to set the record straight, this wasn't the Hawaii that you always see in the travel videos, or the brochures, or the travel magazines. Well it was - but just not in the way you expected. You see The Descendants isn't about vacationing in Paradise, or about an idyllic life. Rather it is about living in 'Paradise', or as Clooney's character Matt King says at the end of his introductory voice-over in the film: "Paradise? Paradise can go fuck itself." Clooney's Matt King is a practicing attorney in Ohau - where there are traffic jams on the highway, crime, dirt, cloudy days with torrential rains, and life with all of its issues, problems, and confounding situations with all the warts showing - just like we see all around us here in mainland USA. Matt King has been dealt some rather difficult issues - his wife has just been horrifically injured in a boating accident and lies comatose in the hospital, he has to care for his two daughters, aged 10 and 17, and he hasn't a clue on how to go about that, and finally he is the sole trustee for a trust that owns 25.000 prime acres in Kauai, and his family wants to sell it. He's still on the fence about that. A son of the King family, many generations back, married a woman that you might call the descendant of Hawaiian royalty, namely King Kamehameha . She was something like a grand niece. Long story - short version, The King family through a trust, now owns the rights to this huge parcel of undeveloped and pristine land. After the boating accident, King's youngest daughter Scotti played by Amara Miller begins acting out in school. Clearly she's lost and hasn't any way to know how to deal with grief. Her father decides to go and get the eldest daughter, Alexandra, portrayed by Shailene Woodley out of the expensive private boarding school where she is, so she might help out home with Scotti. Only Alexandra is going through her own issues which including drinking, partying, and recently, she has a huge argument with her mother. So when all are finally under the same roof, and Matt sits down Alexandra and lays it out for her that's going to have to grow up, set aside her differences with Mom, and help get Scotti back on track - where upon Alexandra drops the bombshell on Matt. "You don't have a clue do you? Mom was cheating on you. That's what we were fighting about." You sit in the audience and you watch the emotions make their way across Clooney's face. Anger, disbelief, frustration, anger, desperation - he's shocked speechless and there are no easy answers. This is atop the already known problems of Mom's coma, the fact the he hasn't really any experience at parenting, and the decision that must be made about the land. So, we hitch up our wagons to Matt and we're going to spend the rest of the film with him as he seeks his answers. He's going to have make a journey towards beginning the rest of his life with these huge obstacles that have suddenly landed not only before him, but also on him, as well as inside of him. Well George Clooney is more than up to the task. This is a Clooney we've not seen before. He's not going to be able to wisecrack, or draw a weapon, or outsmart someone. He won't be able to draw weapons or man-power from a personal arsenal. As Matt King, these are his problems and his alone. I didn't expect that my first visit to Hawaii would produce tears. But it did. Yet this film cannot be just pigeon-holed as a tear jerker. It is much more than that. No one is going to label this film gloom and doom. In fact, we won't cry until we see young Scotti begin to tear up after her Mom has passed. But short of tears we do experience the high and lows of family life. Our heart goes out to Matt King as we know that his struggles have been played out in homes maybe less grand than the one they live in, or in homes more grand - they're the quintessentials of life - no matter where or how you live. All of us will go through these same things. That's the beauty of this film. Directed by Alexander Payne and written by Payne and Nat Faxon and Jim Rash , the film manages to bring you into a situation of sadness that will only get worse as the film proceeds. Yet Payne and Clooney, as well as the supporting roles of the kids and other family members, (watch for former leading man Robert Forster as King's Father-in-law) bring us to a place where there is light at the end of the tunnel. Not a happy ending in the usual sense - but that King and his kids, have to move on, and the decisions have to be made, and for those of us who watch the fim - we have to move on as well. You leave the theater not with an exalted feeling of closure, or even wow, we got through it. Instead you feel grateful for having had the opportunity to peer into the home of a successful attorney, whose wife cheated on him. Into a family where the Mother has just suffered calamitous injury, and there you had a chance to see how the children of this family had to struggle to cope. But they and you will emerge. Life goes on. Yes, all is not well in paradise. Then again it never was.
Well I'm back in the good old USA - so what could be more American than to take in the Clint Eastwood directed bio-film about J. Edgar Hoover . Unsurprisingly the film is entitled J. Edgar . Eastwood's skills in directing a film are, as usual, evident. But despite the fine script by Dustin Lance Black , and a superb performance by Leonardo DiCaprio , I was less than thrilled with the film. I think that the film is physically dark, depressing, and dull. The chiaroscuro effects are stylish but when you add in the somberness of the subject, you might come away saying that the film lacks light as well as lightness. Granted - Hoover is no easy subject. As the long time Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hoover dominated the American political scene from the mid 1920's until his death in 1972 while still on the job. He was feared, and detested but he was good at what he did. This is not to say that he was honest, or played fair, or kept to a strict and righteous code of ethics that people could call equitable. In fact, Hoover was tyrannical, and a bit of monster. He molded the F.B.I. into a spiffy and polished unit at the cost of individuality. A man with a mustache is summarily fired because of his facial hair, and homosexuals were not found in the institutional corridors. J. Edgar himself was a power-seeking man who was also an enigma. He dealt in secrets - those that he could uncover about criminals, radicals, and communists which could lead to their prosecution and incarceration. deportation, or their outright demise. He dealt in secrets that he could use to mold the country into what he thought it should be. We watch as Hoover basically blackmailed his boss United States Attorney General Robert Kennedy by threatening to expose the President JFK's affair with an East German woman. Before that he had dirt on Eleanor Roosevelt. Hoover also tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into turning down the Nobel Peace Prize. He got the radical Emma Goldman deported even though she was married to a US citizen. He took credit for arrests of criminals that he never took part in. He abused his agents by making sure that every one of the FBI agents were kept away from the national spotlight even if their careers merited it. Finally there was Hoover's biggest secrets that were at the center of his personal life. Eastwood meets these head on then seems to back away. Hoover basically hired Clyde Tolson based on his looks - and the two were inseparable for most of their adult lives. We never see anything more than some hand holding and Eastwood and Black basically leave it to the viewers to read between the visual lines, or to make assumptions that are strongly hinted at but never confirmed beyond Hoover naming Tolson as his Number Two man at the top of the FBI food chain and Hoover's entire estate was left to Tolson. So whatever their personal reality was, Eastwood and company did not choose to add it , in further or greater depth, into the film. Hoover was petty, mean spirited, ambitious, power-hungry, a bit of a Momma's boy, and his tactics often went outside of the law making him someone who would break the law to arrest law breakers. Eastwood and Black have delivered J. Edgar with a familiar format of an older man dictating his memoirs to a series of writers with the ensuing flash blacks. We begin in 1919 with the bombing of the home of the Attorney General of the time, and end with Hoover's death alone on the floor of his art museum like bedroom. Before the news is even released to the news media, we see paranoid President Richard Nixon marshalling his henchman and saying - "Seal off his office, seal off his home. Find those files. I want those fucking confidential files." The format has us going back and forth from the older Hoover, to the younger and driven Hoover with Leonardo DiCaprio nailing both roles. Kudos must be given to the makeup artists who did an absolutely astonishing job with DiCaprio's Hoover. But somehow they did a lousy job with Armie Hammer as an older Clyde Tolson. Naomi Watts is along for the full ride as J. Edgar's personal secretary, Helen Gandy . She doesn't have much of role - I mean how to do you portray 'loyalty' as an actress? Judi Dench portrays J. Edgar's mother and she was as domineering as his Mom as he was as the FBI Director. She wasn't a monster though she appears to be the most major motivating factor in Hoover becoming the monster that he was. My overall impression was that the film was dull - you knew the players Nixon, RFK, MLK and you knew their outcomes. Eastwood did peel back the curtains to reveal visually the Hoover that we had only read about - but the film was inert. It lacked actions, highlights, and even DiCaprio couldn't make Hoover, the man, appealing. But then again, they weren't trying to make him appealing. What DiCaprio, Eastwood, and Black did achieve was to show us that the institution called J. Edgar Hoover did in fact have humanity - however flawed it was - he was still a person. But he was a person who passed from our lives nearly 40 years ago. In one sense he is still relevant, as a historical figure who made a huge impact. But from the other side of that same perspective - today's seniors 65+ years of age and older, will have an interest in this film because they lived through a part of Hoover's life with great awareness of him, if not exact knowledge. Younger folks may come in with an opinion that says: So what or who cares? Others will see the film because it was directed by Clint Eastwood whose career in films is even longer than Hoover's was in the FBI. Eastwood's name on the marquee or the film poster will guarantee to draw in plenty of paying customers. But because of the distance in years to Hoover's heyday if we can call it that, to the end of 2011 is a substantial amount of time. Clint, how about Mickey Mantle next ? Amazon.com has a list of the 10 Best Biography Movies - Shindler's List, Lawrence of Arabia, Gandhi, Amadeus, Raging Bull, Patton, Bonnie & Clyde, Goodfellas, Capote, and Malcolm X and this film isn't going to crack into that list replacing any of those films . While many critics are applauding this film with very good to excellent reviews - I'm not going there. This one wasn't even as good as Eastwood's Invictus , and in my view, J. Edgar will go down as a decent technical achievement but as a film that will leave audiences unmoved.
Now that I'm back home from Hong Kong and Yangshuo in Gungxi Province, Mainland China, I've repopulated my Netflix queue, and Elite Squad arrived today. Released in 2007, b Elite Squad /b , or as it was called in Brazil, b Tropa de Elite /b , is about the Rio slums or favelas, and an elite squad of police called BOPE, whose mission is not so much law enforcement as it is the eradication of the drug lords that rule the favelas. br br br br This is not a film for the sensitive or the faint hearted. From the extreme fire-fights in the streets of the favelas, to the brutal interrogation methods employed by the BOPE officers, to the downright excessive boot camp training of the BOPE candidates in which it is a good year if three out the 25 make the cut - the intensity level of this film starts at strong, and soon goes through the roof with hardly any down time at all. br br The main character is Captain Nascimento played by b Wagner Moura /b . He's married, with a kid on the way, and he is one mean-ass cop. He's doing his best and his wife wants him out of BOPE and into a less demanding and less dangerous line of work. Unfortunately, his line of work is more dangerous than almost any other because by the time BOPE is called in - things have already spun out of control. br br He's got two guys who are already cops but they're trying to get into BOPE. Neto is played by b Caio Junqueiro /b , has been assigned to supervise the motor pool after a disastrous night on the streets when his quick trigger finger got another cop or two killed by the drug crew. Only the motor pool is out of funds. One car is cannibalized so another might run, and headquarters hasn't any money for him. So he has to steal a payoff to get some cash to fix the cars. You won't believe who the money that he intercepts is intended for. br br Matias played by b Andre Ramiro /b is a cop and is also trying to become a lawyer. He joins a group of students in a favela, and his girl friend Maria ( b Fernanda Machado /b )is living in the same neighborhood as one of the most brutal of the drug lords, Baiano played by b Fabio Lago /b . He hasn't told her that he is also a cop. Once the secret is out - people will start dying - and in ways almost too brutal to describe. br br Both Neto and Matias make the cut for entrance into BOPE. So there's your set up. Three cops and a drug lord and his minions of street retailers of drugs, look-outs, and the gunmen that back them up. Directed by b Jose Padilha /b , the film is dense, claustrophobic, as well as noisy. There's a lot of action at night, and the dialogues overlap, plus there is a grainy effect at night. Those things along with the jittery hand-held cameras that are utilized during the raids and ensuing fire-fights make the film a bit of work for the viewer. br br But the payoff comes in the tension, the pressure, and the excitement. While some of the police were corrupt and in the pockets of Baiano and his ilk, and the residents of the favelas were living in an area where desperation and danger lurked around every corner created there by poverty, the murderous drug business, and the firefights with the BOPE. Director Padilha has left the beauty of the Copacabana and Ipanema beaches out of the film. We will see Sugar Loaf Mountain only so very briefly, and we don't see Christ the Redeemer standing tall above Rio from his perch atop Corcovado at all. The film isn't about Rio's highlights - instead it about the places where visitors are unlikely, or rather shouldn't go to. br br There was a bit of controversy about this film. Many people felt that the BOPE tactics were as criminal as the activities of those who were their targets. Others said that the film sort of made those BOPE officers heroic while Nascimento was just as good at killing as Baiano and that was hardly heroic. You'll have to see the film yourself in order to decide what is the right answer to that question. br
It seems so hard for sequels to ever match the quality of the original movie that spawned them. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle was the rare low-brow silly comedy that was actually hysterical. Yet the third film in the franchise, A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas , is far from that. It’s trying something a little different by going with a holiday theme this time around. But that doesn’t do much to add to the humor. John Cho and Kal Penn once again play Harold and Kumar. The film takes place six years after the last one and the former best buddies are now estranged from one another. Harold, always the conservative one, is married and living a good normal life. Kumar is still living in the same apartment they used to live in together, still smoking pot daily, and still not really doing anything with his life. But when a mysterious package arrives, Kumar notices that it’s addressed to Harold and decides to go bring it to him. Kumar is busy trying to impress his intimidating father-in-law (Danny Trejo) who just brought a special Christmas tree to the house which has special meaning to his family. As usual, it’s Kumar who’s always getting the guys into trouble, and when he brings the package over to Harold, it’s not long before he’s burned the special tree down. That sets up the premise for the rest of the film: they’re simply running around town trying to find a replacement for the tree. Just as they tried desperately to find a White Castle in the first film, they run into all kinds of crazy people and situations while on their mission. Once again, it’s Neil Patrick Harris who gets the most laughs. His mere 10 minutes or so in the movie is funnier than just about anything else. You may chuckle here and there at other parts, but won’t be laughing as much as you probably did during the first film. Searching for a Christmas tree is not exactly a clever storyline, but then again neither is searching for a White Castle establishment. Yet it was much more satisfying to see the guys fulfill their insatiable craving for the munchies than it is to see them find a tree. Plus, we never learn who sent the mysterious package or why it was even sent in the first place. It’s simply a lame device to bring the two characters together again. Adding the 3D aspect is kind of different for a comedy, and we get to see strange things coming towards our eyes such as marijuana smoke, but it’s just not satisfying. Fans of the series might be interested to follow the ongoing journey of these two guys; anyone else just won’t get it.
Tarsem Singh’s name doesn’t necessarily strike recognition among most audiences, but his use of aesthetics in all of his films is quite distinguishable, whether it’s the nightmarish subjective world of a serial killer in The Cell or the beautiful landscapes of a constantly changing fantasy story in The Fall . And truthfully there is nothing different about his visual tapestry in his latest film Immortals , which showcases his signature framing and blocking, unique sense of costuming, and his definite eye for beautifully designed sequences. But that is where the praise for Immortals ends as the splendor of the imagery begins to fail at distracting us from the fairly basic plot and narrowly defined characters. There seems to be a drastic disconnect from the complexly handled attention to detail in the visuals from the script’s feigning substance of character that is both hollow and monotonous. The plot is, of course, strained for originality much like all other big budget films these days. However, what is most damaging is the rather loose, even alien, interpretation of Greek mythology merely taking the Athenian hero Theseus and muddling his origin, his mythos, and taking drastic liberties with the Greek characters surrounding him. This isn’t to say that everything is poorly interpreted considering the rather inventive costumes, sets, and exaggerated violence seem incredibly inspired from a director that has a truly unique vision. But unfortunately it isn’t enough to keep you distracted from the laughable dialogue (that is to be expected though), the slow pacing and droning in between high octane graphic violence, and the overall lack of coherent Greek mythological concepts that ultimately make the film undeniably generic. What’s really unfortunate though is that you are seeing the remarkable scene construction of a visionary caught in the confines of amateur night. Sometimes true artists and the Hollywood formula don’t mix. The film Immortals is following the latest trend trying to lift the Swords & Sandals genre from obscurity with the likes of the graphically bloated 300 , the abysmal remake of Clash of the Titans , and a rather unsubstantial television series entitled “Spartacus.” And despite taking some liberties with the core Greek mythology making for an unoriginal plot that has zero characters of any true substance, Immortals compares surprisingly well with the strangely admired plot-less 300 in its use of violence, its stunning visuals that actually use sets and locations, and an unquestionable intensity. The choreographed violence, either digital or real, meshes well with the chosen sets that are usually never brought to life via a computer. Instead the varying outdoor locations are incredibly vibrant and the in-door sets are impressively designed. Mix this with the colorful costumes, fantastic use of blocking and depth of field, and a camera use that is as graceful as it is diverse and you have a film that is spectacular for a viewing experience. But as the plot sluggishly drones on, introducing characters upon characters whom you don’t necessarily care for and who become increasingly simplistic as the movie continues, the visuals just become a couple of nice, in-tact paintings in a lackluster, unattractive home. Those venturing to the theaters looking for a movie that contains brutal and graphically poignant violence in a plot that doesn’t strive to make you bother using your brain then you will feel truly welcome in this home. But those looking for an intelligent adaptation of Greek concepts of free will, fate, or the Gods vs. man or dynamic, epic characters that grab your interest and inspire you as they do the people on the screen (think Gladiator or Braveheart ) then you will be truly unsatisfied with the starved and basic plotline that becomes the antithesis of Tarsem’s visual substance. What seems to be apparent is that Tarsem has a difficult time focusing on giving a plot the intricate details or due diligence that he utilizes with his visual planning. This was one of the biggest weaknesses in his debut feature The Cell and only slightly so in his second feature The Fall , though that explored an intriguing use of constantly changing plot based on mood and perception. The film Immortals as a blockbuster big budget action feature is incredibly typical of its breed, which includes strained dialogue, an uninventive and predictable plotline, and a lack of an intelligent conceptual arc. Some audiences seek out this substandard, immediately satisfying genre because of their devotion to thrills fed to them in loud and CGI plagued action sequences. Others want to be connected with who they are following and make sense of the fantasy world around them, either in relevant concept or sympathetic dedication. But truth is told when it’s said you could do a lot worse than Immortals when it comes to lackluster action filled films. Tarsem’s unique style of design and use of camera is simply unchallenged in this venue and makes Immortals artistically pleasing in vision despite a lack of complimentary elements in story or character that diminishes the film’s overall delivery. Perhaps Tarsem’s talents could be useful in other ways, maybe as a cinematographer or art director, instead of helming project’s that seem to have a disconnect with plot and relevance. But that might be a presumptuous conclusion for he might not have had a choice in the bland script he was given. There is no doubting his abilities to deliver truly unique visuals that are designed to complement every bit of detail, but there is a seed of doubt in his ability to follow a story in a way that makes sense or has characters that have substance rather than being like puppets moving for no purpose other than their master’s intentions.
Filmmaking as an art, or how it is with any form of art, can be surprisingly divisive when confronted with the unusual, the unconventional, and the extreme. But sometimes the sole motivation of some filmmakers, and all artists, is to put art as a form of personal expression to the sidelines in order to be replaced by radical and alienating imagery as well as cynical and gritty themes for their sake alone. One such artist (a loose term, yet appropriate at times) is the Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier whose works have sought to push comfort boundaries intentionally, from the graphic sexually violent imagery in Antichrist and The Element of Crime to the stretching of protagonist mental or physical states such as in Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark . With a Von Trier film there is always an expectation that the film in question will challenge any reserved sensibilities that you might possess, which is at once a compliment to Von Trier as a unique filmmaker but is also a detriment to grabbing audiences in sharing your vision when the film is equally alienating in presentation, theme, and style. Von Trier’s latest piece entitled Melancholia is contemplation on the apocalypse focusing on two sisters, in two parts, facing impending doom in drastically different and telling ways. The style throughout Melancholia is reminiscent of the Dogma 95 era or the experimental independent era started by John Cassavetes where clarity of image or clean technical achievements is replaced with a flatter tone and cinema vérité camera movement. This is, of course, juxtaposed with an enticingly beautiful opening where a series of mesmerizing yet odd images flash before the screen to a resounding score. It’s such a displaced segment that you long for the beginnings lack of dialogue and focus of stunning visuals the more you get delve in to the unsympathetic and disparagingly alienating character focused plot that is Melancholia . To give Von Trier the benefit of the doubt that he is an artist of personal expression, it seems he has chosen to focus on the destruction of earth in Melancholia to reveal his own pessimistic view of the human race. “The Earth is evil,” states Kirstin Dunst with a tonally complimentary delivery of the film’s heavy and emotionless style. There is no reflection on a potential meaning of life, but rather the nihilistic approach that alone we are and alone we stand. This wouldn’t necessarily be an unapproachable or estranging topic if it wasn’t handled in such an exasperatingly languid pacing. The film, while robust with an extreme pessimistic concept, dwindles as the uninteresting and bland characters fill the screen with meaningless interaction after meaningless interaction. It can be argued that Von Trier has purposely made his film so inaccessible and truly uninteresting in its presentation of characters to drill home his point that if the world happened to end it would just end all the trivial relationships and nothingness that we experience in our lives. He uses this film to denounce tradition and mock the fear of death as though they are irrational inconveniences to experiencing a true form of purely rational apathy. But that flies in the face of actual human experience making Melancholia a truly alien experience, never convincing an audience that its cynicism is admirable or even relevant. This is the idea of taking extreme positions for the sake of extreme positions, something Von Trier practices constantly as evidenced in his personal interactions with the media. There are moments of visual brilliance that are unfortunately overshadowed by the languorous pace and the completely negative script that includes a plethora of contemptuous characters. If Kirsten Dunst’s (who unfortunately is no Emily Watson or Nicole Kidman) presentation of the character Justine is the tonal expression of the film than we can truly say that even though she might bring home the film‘s theme of loneliness and apathy to light, it isn’t necessarily a position we’re invited to share or even could recognize as a convincing narrative. Compliments are always bestowed upon Von Trier and his pretentious followers who swear he can do no wrong. This attitude is stemmed from being awestruck by someone who defies film conventions from the technical to the emotional for its sake alone. It seems Von Trier has an increasingly condescending attitude towards those who can’t see or understand his contempt for the boundaries or those who feel he should at least try and speak with his audience, rather than speak to his audience. Not all of his films are emotionless arduous journeys but Melancholia must certainly be described as that. This is a film for dedicated Von Trier fans or those who view something slightly different as a form of genius when it’s rather just a form of playing the devil’s advocate to positions that most people don’t take. His uniqueness should be complimented and there are true moments of inspiration, especially his opening montage of surreal and subjective apocalyptic imagery. But Melancholia as an inviting film or one that possesses the ability to drive home a particular theme falls short through its flat tone, stone-like acting, and languid pacing. While there is no hope that Von Trier will ever adopt the regular conventions of storytelling there is hope that he could return to experimenting with a tighter film length ( Europa ), a more inviting and sympathetic protagonist ( Breaking the Waves ), and a unique presentation rather than the tired and slow cinema vérité style (sets of Dogville , style of Elements of Crime ).
Adapting any material for the big screen can be a tricky process but it’s especially so when considering the minimalist settings and character oriented tales on the stage. There is a preconceived idea on how the story should play out with play adaptations because of the familiarity with the story and the performances of the original cast. And with a popular play such as Yasmina Reza’s “God of Carnage,” popular both here in the US and in France where it originated, that standard of expectation is equally daunting even if you have an accomplished director such as Roman Polanski behind it. Carnage , as the film version of the play is titled, is Polanski’s first comedy of sorts since his 1967 film The Fearless Vampire Killers and truth be told it drastically shows. The casting isn’t ideal, the comedy delivery is slightly stunted, and his handling of the static and limited environment isn’t what you would expect from a well-known director. It certainly lacks in presentation skills compared to the mastery of Sidney Lumet in how he dealt with minimalist settings ( Dog Day Afternoon, 12 Angry Men ). The film explores two couples meeting to discuss a fight between their sons at a playground and becomes a comedy of revelation, which exposes the annoying quirks, prejudiced assumptions, and diminishing facades of the parties involved. The play and film have a similarity to the themes of Luis Bunuel’s The Exterminating Angel where high class sensibilities devolve into the animalistic meaning the elimination of civility and politeness, which makes sense since they are both originally from French authors. Carnage , while not as good as its stage predecessor, has enough interesting dialogue and performances that will keep an audience relatively satisfied. However, throughout the process you realize that Polanski’s abilities are strained, the actors on the screen are not as good as their stage counterparts, and the film reveals too much to an audience that is meant to be purely objective observers. A fatal flaw in a film presentation of the play “God of Carnage” is the opening credits where we witness, at a distance, the quarrel between the children on the playground that ignites the parental encounter that is the entire film. Actually seeing the act of violence doesn’t add anything to the core of the film and with enough contemplation can be seen as a detriment to our objective experience. Witnessing anything slants our view and it didn’t have to be in the film. But that is a criticism that is only part of the presentation as a whole. Polanski’s directing style can be sweeping, it can be elegant, and it can be succinct when he wants it to be. However, throughout Carnage it seems he had a difficult time handling a very tight environment, which utilizes a lot of close ups and different shot exchanges but never tries to express the emotion in the scene with the position of his camera. The beginning of the film should be uncomfortably awkward in its politeness and transitions into loose and bitter honesty near the end, though the camera use remains consistent. But the point of this story really revolves around the strengths of the performances because Carnage is an acting piece for comedic and overly dramatic delivery giving the actors in the project a lot of range and expression that needs a bit of restraint. While the four leads work very well and definitely appear to have fun with their roles, there is no denying that even though they have unquestionable talent the film would have benefited more with the original Broadway actors. John C. Reilly works best in his role as the arbitrating and overly polite host to the visiting couple but his transition from civil mediator to an explosively apathetic father doesn’t have the same level of change as it would have been with James Gandolfini (Broadway original), who happens to have the best reserved rage in the business. Where comedy is concerned delivery is important and it doesn’t seem Christoph Waltz has the chops as much as he did in Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds . His comedic abilities become more evident as the film goes on but his demeanor comes off as just plain nasty than it does pompous and indifferent, such as Jeff Daniels in the original play. The two female leads, Jodie Foster and Kate Winslet, have a unique chance to go unhinged and it is relatively successful though at times Foster seems a bit out of place. Acting aside the material in the play is incredibly strong and having the original playwright Yasmina Reza be part of writing the screenplay was a solid choice and it keeps the film interesting if not as strong as it should be. A director more willing to experiment with a play that is essentially one long scene could have planned it out such as Hitchcock did for his play adaptation of Rope , which would have been essentially been one shot if he didn’t have to switch film stock. Polanski isn’t as accomplished a director as bourgeois crowds like to claim since he hasn’t made a classic or memorable film since Chinatown , but he what he can be credited for is not messing things up. Carnage as a Polanski film is one of those above average pieces in his arsenal of work probably due to his vast choices for shots and framing that make an intriguing visual experience and his handling of the actors, which makes it a sporadically humorous one. Perhaps holding the film up to the stage play expecting something identical is justifiably overcritical, but why did they make the decision of not using the original actors from the stage (Hope Davis, Marcia Gay Harden, Jeff Daniels, and James Gandolfini). Was this a creative decision? Was it an obligation through contract? Did the other actors not want to work with Polanski due to his sordid past? Whatever the reason might be there is an indisputable truth that transitioning a play to the screen requires a delicate approach and foresight for presentation and in regards to this play it needed a director with a better sense of risk and creativity beyond Polanski’s average abilities.
Every so often, when you reluctantly head into cinemas to take a gander at the dismal choices Hollywood has mass produced for your not-so-viewing pleasure, you sometimes find a true gem that captures your senses and engrosses you in a new world. French director Michel Hazanavicius, known for his James Bond spoofs OSS:117 , has delivered a true achievement in cinematic storytelling that is at once classic and elegant in delivery and modern in its freshness and parody. It is called The Artist and it is simply an inspired experiment in bringing the silent film back from the dead in a way that is classier than Mel Brook’s Silent Movie but just as delightfully amusing. At the center of the film is the masterful French actor Jean Dujardin who looks like William Powell, is as charming as Errol Flynn, and dances like James Cagney. Without his true embodiment of the silent era, including every movement and facial expression, The Artist wouldn’t have been as stunning. But Dujardin isn’t alone in bringing this unique piece of film to life. There is a brilliant score that aids the crisp cinematography, which often mimics the silent era’s composition traits. But Hazanavicius and his cinematographer Guillame Schiffman take great lengths in bringing a renewed and splendid vision to telling their silent film. It’s filled with classic cinema homage ( Sunset Blvd. , Citizen Kane , and The Thin Man come to mind) and exudes the style of the silent era in every aspect from editing (montage, close ups, transposed images), acting (exaggerated movements, facial hints), and image (black & white, slanted composition, manipulative lighting). If Hazanavicius hadn’t proved himself a student of the cinema before he has given us a magical and truly charming love letter to classic cinema that shows that black & white/silent era films have just as much charisma, story, and emotion, if not more so, as any modern day film. The Artist is appropriately set in the mid to late twenties and uses the transition from silent era films to talkies as its story backdrop. Dujardin plays George Valentin who is a charismatic and popular silent movie star who loves the limelight but loves the work he does even more. When he’s introduced to the future of movies with the introduction of sound his world is turned upside down, which is magnificently shown through an elegant and brilliantly executed dream sequence where everything has sound except his own voice. As his stardom begins to fade, an actress who he helped get her start, Peppy Miller (a tactful and charming Berenice Bejo), begins to flourish as a talkie star. Though she might feel an obligation to owe him a favor for the start of her career, it is really out of a growing love that she begins to try and help Valentin through his troubled times, including the loss of all his money in the Stock Market crash. The acting from all of the actors, whether they are French, English, or American, aid the film in its silence giving the proper personality needed to hook audiences with an entertaining and emotionally connected experience. Perhaps, though, it is the beautiful score that drives every scene from the romantic and heart wrenching to the humorous and fun. It’s a brilliant balancing act dealing with darker themes, such as pride comes before the fall or even the possibility of suicide in the face of losing all meaning, and the lighter touches, including a fantastic part for a Jack Russell Terrier named Uggie who steals the show half the time. Compliments can be given to every technical element in the film, especially with the graceful camera work and silent style oriented editing. The film becomes irresistible as it sweeps you off your feet with a foresight for delivery that is at once experimental and yet also unmistakably conventional, which basically shows us that film can manipulate the expectations of particular genres in a unique and welcoming way. So in a way, The Artist is truly a rare cinema experience and not simply because it is a silent film, but rather it is due to its practically perfect use of cinema’s tools to tell a story that is moving and memorable. Doubters who will dismiss seeing the artist because it happens to be a silent movie will be losing the chance to witness something extraordinary. People forget that silent movies and early talkies during the Great Depression were essential escapes for audiences nationwide that were intended to remove all worries and enjoy a captivating experience. The Artist can essentially be described with that one word: captivating. Through all of the actors’ abilities and the film’s technical achievements, the film engrosses you in mind, body, and soul. Hazanavicius gives you a truly entertaining experience where there is plenty of humor to compliment his wonderful script that not only understands the film era he is capturing but also gives us characters that are sympathetic, dynamic, and worthy of our time and attention. The Artist , while using editing, cinematography, and particular acting to embody a particular time and style, transcends the limitations of simply being a silent film and becomes what we all head for the movies to see, which is a stunning and awe-inspiring cinema experience. The final scene has a momentary use of sound that will show you that sound doesn’t necessarily add to the clarity of the project and sometimes it can be just noise. The Artist isn’t even close to having any noise for it is truly an elegant and classy film that will have you leaving the movie with a smile.
Paranormal Activity 3 follows in the footsteps of its two predecessors. At least it’s not a completely different film like some sequels are. Even with entirely new characters, it still ties to the story of part 1 and 2 by being a prequel. We now get to see each of the lead female characters from the first two movies as children, thanks to older video footage of when they were young. If you’ve been following the franchise you know that the two girls are sisters. The formula these movies use remains the same – we watch video footage from the family’s tapes that they used to record the ongoings inside the house once they begin to suspect some paranormal activity. They have been very effective so far and this type of horror movie comes off feeling much more realistic than say watching a movie with Freddy Krueger or some monsters. There are reports of paranormal activity in real life all the time, and watching a film that resembles watching an actual home videotape makes everything seem more genuine. This is why The Blair Witch Project was a hit back when it came out. But whereas you don’t actually see anything in that film, you do get to see scary things happen here. It’s still low-budget but you can tell the filmmakers at least spent a little bit of money on some special effects. Paranormal Activity 3 is certainly the scariest in the series so far. So if you’re into these movies as many people seem to be, it’s definitely worth seeing. The movie broke box office records when it came out, so it shows that people are certainly fascinated by this style of filmmaking. The added bonus of installing a camera on an oscillating fan this time around just adds to the suspense. We watch something creepy going on in one room just as the camera starts to pan its view towards another room. Sometimes we catch something happening just as it’s cutting away. That was a brilliant idea. Of course this kind of film may not be so interesting once you’ve seen it and already know what happens, but it’s pretty thrilling the first time you watch.
50/50 is based on the true story of the writer of the film. It’s about finding out you have cancer and how to deal with it – not exactly the most appealing story to the average person. The movie was originally going to be called “I’m with Cancer” but it was decided that the word cancer is too much of a turn-off to moviegoers. It’s a bit of a dramedy, meaning it’s both a comedy and a drama. Luckily, the film finds a good balance between the two. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, a guy with a nice house, good job, and pretty girlfriend. But his life comes crashing down on him when he finds out that he has a rare form of cancer. He looks it up and apparently there’s a 50/50 chance of beating it. He’s not too happy with the outlook but his friend makes sure to point out to him that those are pretty good odds if it were for a casino game. That friend is played by Seth Rogen. He says things like this throughout the film as a way to support his good friend. They may not be the smartest or most accurate statements, but he just wants to make his buddy feel better and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. While he’s a brash, outspoken type of guy that Rogen usually plays, he seems to be more of a help than Adam’s own live-in girlfriend and overbearing mother. This is familiar territory for Rogen who played a very similar role in the movie Funny People just two years ago. That movie, too, was about a man who finds out he has a terminal health condition, and Rogen played the supportive friend. However, that movie was very drawn-out and felt like it was trying to fit too much into it. 50/50 is the complete opposite. It clocks in at a pretty short hour and forty minutes, and kind of leaves you wanting more. There’s good acting all around, including Anna Kendrick who plays Adam’s young therapist whom he develops a strong connection with. And the movie has a very realistic, heartfelt feel to it. But when it really seems to get going and starts to pull you in, it just kind of stops. It’s nice to see a film though where a decent person in a bad situation has a good support system around him and tends to find it in unlikely places.
It’s so refreshing to see that really good movies can still be made once in a while. The Philadelphia Film Festival began this past week and chose a great movie to open with: Like Crazy . It won the Grand Jury Prize for best film at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival, and deservedly so. It stars Anton Yelchin, one of those names you may not know but whose face you’ve probably seen before. He plays Jacob. The other star of the film is Felicity Jones, who won’t have as recognizable of a face as she has mainly made movies only in England. She plays Anna. Jacob and Anna meet early in the film while attending the same college. There’s an immediate attraction and they instantly hit it off. It’s not long before we see how madly in love they fall for each other. It’s the kind of love that most people only see in movies and never get to experience for themselves. In fact, they seem so in love and happy together at such an early stage of the film that you wonder where the movie is going from there. Well of course nothing’s ever as perfect as it seems, and a big hurdle comes along that stands in their way of complete happiness. Anna is not an American citizen after all. She was attending college in the U.S. but still lives in England. So when she overstays her visa, she finds herself banned from the country. Why did she overstay her welcome? She did it to be with Jacob, of course. When someone is truly in love, they will often do anything they can to be with that person; but they sometimes forget about the consequences of those actions. At this point, the two lovebirds must decide on whether to maintain the new long distance relationship. It’s not just any long distance relationship of course, it’s an overseas relationship. That’s a situation which is pretty tough for just about any couple to pull off. So the movie then shifts its tone to one of compromise and struggle. How much can one person sacrifice for the other? Can they somehow lift the ban, or will Jacob have to move to England thus leaving his current job in the U.S.? Is it all even worth it after it’s all said and done? Many questions arise, not to mention the possibility of finding new love in their own respectable countries with someone else. It’s a great film dealing with human emotions and how far we will go for another person. The two actors pour their hearts out on screen and it can be mesmerizing at times. Like Crazy opens nationwide on October 28. It’s an independent film though so it will surely be shown in limited release, but find it if you can.
Yes, Real Steel is a movie about boxing robots. It takes place in the future, and anything is possible in the future, so why not fighting robots? There isn’t anything super original about the premise of the film. It’s another boxing movie, just one that doesn’t use humans as the fighters as most movies would. So obviously it requires some good special effects to pull it off. And the special effects are very good here. People have gotten to see big robots square off in the Transformers films already, so they had to do something different here. Putting them in a boxing ring does make them come off more strategic and tactical. And in this case, the robots don’t have a mind of their own. They’re being controlled by humans. Hugh Jackman plays Charlie Kenton, a former professional boxer himself, who now operates boxing robots. So he is the brains behind each movement that his machine makes in the ring. This is important so that the movie gets you invested in the human characters which is a lot easier than simply just rooting for giant pieces of steel. In fact, this is exactly what makes the movie work. Charlie starts off as a no-good has-been boxer who will do just about anything he can for money. He’s never really been in his son’s life either. So when certain circumstances cause Charlie to take care of his son for the summer, things slowly begin to change. It’s the reacquainting and eventual bonding with his son that carries the film. The boxing robots are their mutual interest that brings them together. Whoever chose the look of the robots did a good job here. They picked exactly the right-looking robot to play the big underdog that Charlie and his son train, called Atom. There’s something in its (robot) eyes that almost seems to convey emotion. It’s as if the robot itself bonds with the son too throughout the training. And you really do root for Atom when it takes on the more massive and superior looking robots in the ring. Really the film has a “Rocky”-like quality to it, with the whole underdog theme and all. And the end of the film will actually have some people getting teary-eyed. For me though, the ending is a bit overdone and cheesy. It seems like it’s trying harder than ever to get you to cry or stand up and cheer, and also like it’s ripping the pages right out of other boxing movie scripts – like Rocky and others. But it’s a fun ride to at least see how they get there. It’s rock’em sock’em robots for the future and winds up being fairly entertaining.
» = New Post(s)