- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
"Dramedies" can be tough to pull off. A dramedy is generally defined as a comedy which contains dramatic moments. Although, you can also say it's a comedy having moments of drama as well - depending on which genre the film leans towards more I suppose. The new movie Celeste and Jesse Forever may be a bit more on the dramatic side but manages to incorporate enough humor to qualify. With two actors who have specialized in comedic roles playing the leads here, there's a sufficient amount of laughs to go along with some surprisingly good acting. Rashida Jones, who also wrote the script, plays Celeste and Andy Samberg of Saturday Night Live fame plays Jesse. They play a married couple who have been best friends their whole life and still act that way. The thing is... they're going through a divorce. It baffles their own friends how they can still act like best buds yet can't make their marriage work. Celeste has been the successful one and has been waiting for Jesse to finish growing up. I don't believe we're ever given Jesse's reason for why he agrees with the divorce, but it's made apparent throughout the film that Celeste seems to think she's always right. What's interesting is that it doesn't seem like either of these issues really bothers the other person. For example, Celeste still lets Jesse live in her house while they're going through the divorce, and she doesn't seem to mind at all. It's obvious she still enjoys his company. It's just that she has this mindset that her future husband is supposed to have his life more together and have accomplished all of his goals by now. And while it's other people who point out Celeste's problem of thinking that she's always right, Jesse is fine with the way she is and never really disputes any of it. So it really seems like these two should stay together, and you feel that others are pulling for them as well. Yet they appear to be rather blind to what they have, or had. As they begin to date others, you wonder if they'll finally realize what they have or if they'll come to the conclusion that being best friends doesn't necessarily mean you're meant to be together romantically. It's an interesting dynamic which is given a very natural feel since Jones and Samberg are good friends in real life as well. Samberg shows he has some dramatic chops which is a welcome surprise considering he often plays the silliest characters out of anyone on SNL. Jones does the same, in addition to writing a great script which offers a bit of a different spin on the somewhat tired genre of romantic comedies. She adds a dramatic and heartfelt tone to the film but never lets things get boring. Hopefully, she'll continue to make more movies like this.
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’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.
Romantic comedies – it’s pretty hard to find a good one nowadays. It’s become possibly the most redundant and predictable of all the movie genres. There’s usually a guy and a girl who meet, then clash, but it all works out in the end. So it’s nice to see a film like Crazy, Stupid, Love which has a more detailed story and definitely stands out among its peers. The movie gets right to the point. Cal, played by Steve Carell in his strongest role to date, is having dinner with his wife of 25 years, Emily (Julianne Moore), who out of nowhere tells him that she wants a divorce. Not only that, but she was also having an affair with a co-worker. Cal is stunned. He begins to spend his days drinking away his sadness at a bar - where he’s also very vocal about his current situation. Meanwhile, we see a young, suave guy named Jacob picking up just about every woman he speaks to at the very same bar. Jacob is the ultimate player. He’s got all the right lines, and the looks to match. Women are drawn to him. Cal sees this and is bothered by Jacob’s actions, but more so by just how easy it all is for him. Jacob notices Cal too, but for all the wrong reasons. Pretty much everyone notices him whining about his problems throughout the bar. Jacob decides to do something about it. He decides to help him out. It could just be an effort to do a good deed, but it’s surely out of pity for what he sees as well. Cal, though reluctant at first, agrees to the offer. He becomes a student to Jacob in learning the fine art of the pick-up. Jacob not only schools him on the right things to say, but also makes plenty of changes with Cal. This includes physical changes such as hair and wardrobe but also a change in his own mentality. He teaches him to be confident, and to know that he’s better than how he views himself. Lines like “Be better than The Gap” make him feel comfortable in his upgraded wardrobe rather than feel as if he’s not good enough to sport a new look. Though this may sound a lot like the movie Hitch, this film balances the laughs with the drama. There’s much more emotion involved here. We get to see how Emily is coping with her decision to give up on the marriage, trying to figure out whether she did the right thing or not. And while Jacob helps Cal find his mojo again, he finally meets a girl who actually impresses him. Most girls are just sex to him, but he sees more than that in this new girl who rejected him at first but is now interested. So the movie doesn’t just focus on Cal; we get to see a little of what everybody’s going through. There’s even a great sub-plot involving Cal’s son, who at just 13 believes he’s already found his soulmate… his 17 year-old babysitter who’s also love struck with an older person. It does seem as if none of the characters are truly finding what they want, but it’s the searching and the trying that’s entertaining to watch. They’re all just on a quest to find happiness with the right person, even if some have a better approach than others. Ryan Gosling nails the role of the debonair Jacob, and Emma Stone is very believable as the girl who just might make him care about a woman after all. While there’s also decent supporting roles played by such name actors as Kevin Bacon and Marisa Tomei, it’s the boy who plays Cal’s son that really steals the show. His obsession with proclaiming his love for the older girl and not giving up on her is what inspires his father to do the same. Each character in the film rubs off on another one and creates an intriguing chain that brings them all together in the end. There’s even a twist or two along the way that you never see coming. It all makes for what I believe to be the best film of the year thus far.
Midnight In Paris quietly arrived in Sarasota today at the Burns Court Cinema , a small film venue that books mostly indies, art, and an occasional foreign film. This was very fortunate for me, as this film, directed and written by Woody Allen, wasn’t booked at either of Sarasota’s big film chain multiplexes. The hall in which I watched the film was indeed small – 10 rows of four seats on each side of a center aisle. Your basic 80-seater. As for Paris, I’ve been there three times. I’ve walked its streets like a true boulevardier. I’ve stretched a thimbleful of coffee into a few hours of people watching on the sidewalk cafe at the Deux Magots on the Left Bank, and I’ve even been aboard one of those glass enclosed tour boats ( Bateaux-mouches ) that slowly make their way up and down the Seine River for a romantic dinner cruise with my main squeeze at the time. In short, Paris, the city of lights, is a very romantic city, especially the Rue Cler neighborhood that I usually stay in. As Ernest Hemingway once said, I f you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast. While Woody’s Midnight In Paris might not qualify as a feast for either the palate or the senses, it is certainly worthy of being called a delight and delicious cinematic pastry. I wrote the above intro to this review before I actually saw the film. Little did I know the Woody would use the same Hemingway quote mere minutes into this film. Then again, I didn’t know that Hemingway himself would be a character portrayed by an actor in the film either. I’ve decided to give this review a secondary title and I’ll call it Woody’s Wish List. Since Woody has more years behind him than he does in front of him, it is altogether natural to look back toward’s one younger days. Or to wish for something that never happened. Our personal memories always to seem to have a glow to them that we didn’t quite see when we lived through those times. But even further back from our own lived in memories are the times we’ve only dreamt about or read about in a book. The film Midnight in Paris is Allen’s homage to a city he adores but doesn’t live in. For the movie going audience it a series of lovely postcards from Woody to us – all set in Paris and environs. The film even begins with about three or four minutes of these visual bon-bons. But it is also themed about living in the now as well as the wished for or desired period of time. The wonderful cast starts with Owen Wilson ( How Do You Know ) as the young writer, Gil Pender, who finds that Paris has much more to offer than he had either hoped for or imagined. He’s paired with the now blonde Rachel McAdams who was delightful in Morning Glory , and quite good here (granted it is a smaller role) as his fiancée Inez. Ostensibly, they’re here in Paris free-loading on her parents who flew in so her Dad could do some business. They take in the sights beginning with a voice over by Gil as Allen shows us the visual pleasures of Paris. Woody even finds a way to incorporate Monet’s Gardens in Giverny into the film (see the title card above). Along the way, Gil expresses his dream of moving to Paris to enjoy the cities pleasures, to finish his novel, to escape the grind of Hollywood, and to live the bohemian life that he’s read about and dreamed of. He’s really longing for the Paris of the 20′s which, in his view, represent the most idyllic and superb time to have lived. Inez calls it a fantasy and a waste of time. Gil and Inez will meet Paul and Carol while out dining. Paul is ‘pedantic’ to say the least, pretentious to take the middle road, and as Gil describes him – a pseudo-intellectual – who seems to know everything about everything to such a degree that he’s boring. Paul’s purpose is to provide Gil with an opportunity to distance self from the foursome making it an off-screen three-some, or even a two-some. After a wine tasting, Paul turns down an invitation to go dancing, instead he wanders off and gets lost. At this point, Allen introduces the whimsy, the fantasy, and the elements on which this film is based – that Paris at Midnight is magical. Without offering us any kind of explanation, we, as well as Gil, are transported back in time to the Paris of the 1920′s. We will meet all of the biggest names of the literary and art world of that era – the very names that Allen probably read about 50 years ago when he was in college. The magic is that these people take Gil in and make him a part of their world. To drop more of these names would constitute a spoiler of a sort, so I won’t name any of them other than the previously mentioned Ernest Hemingway. Gil at first is in a state of disbelief. he thinks he’s being conned. But eventually, the champagne, the smoky cafe, the intellectual talk, and the fact that he, Gil Pender, is somehow living in the time and place that he’s desired for so long. That’s your set up. Of course reality must rear it head, and Inez and her folks, Paul, a delicious guide from the Rodin Museum (played by Carla Bruni),and a saucy sales girl, Gabrielle, played by Lea Seydoux, from an antique shop all come into play. Owen Wilson’s Gil Pender has a delightful manner that will remind you of Woody Allen’s usual on-screen persona, only without the dour or the sour. Gil is really a good guy, he’s likeable, and Wilson does a great job in this role. Allen’s script is delightful. He is going to deliver a message, and it is not too subtle, which is unusual for him. But it isn’t hammered home. Instead you will feel seduced from reality to fantasy and back but without anyone thinking they been taken, or deceived, or fooled. So the film is about the magic of Paris and Allen’s love affair with that city. His story is told through Pender’s dream and you will feel the same awe, surprise, and delight that Pender does. Before closing, I must also mention Marion Cotillard, who as the Parisienne femme , is outstanding. She steals every scene she’s in. Yes, Allen has taken the magic of Paris, and the magic of film-making and has delivered his best film in years. Even the way the films ends – not with a couple walking off into a sunset holding hands – instead they walk off into a delicious Paris light summer rain. I liked this film very much and will have no problem, recommending it. For sure – I’ll be seeing it again.
RATING 5/10 BOTTOM LINE The film has a good message, but the execution is lost, meandering and weak, leaving “Charlie St. Cloud” in a netherworld where it loses its message in a sea of mediocre direction. THE GOOD Teen heart-throb Zac Efron plays the title character Charlie St. Cloud, a young man with a potentially bright future in sailing. When his younger brother Sam (Tahan) is killed in a tragic car accident with Charlie at the wheel, his life is turned upside down, and he puts everything on hold to stay with his brother, becoming curator for the cemetery in which Sam is buried. He forms a spiritual connection with Sam, which becomes all the more poignant when fellow sailor Tess (Crew) shows up in his cemetery, apparently injured. All of these moments lead Charlie to finally discover the meaning of his life. At its basic level, this film is about working out that life is meant to be lived, not be put on hold for someone or something else. A strong scene in the film involving Charlie and the paramedic that saved him highlight the tragedy of Charlie’s life, as he never moved forward after Sam’s death. Zac Efron does an amicable job as Charlie, providing the right amount of grimness and quirkiness to his performance to make him believable. The film tries to capture some moments about ‘life’, and in a few aspects, it does a reasonable job of this. THE BAD The overall execution of the concept of this film is weak. The plot navigates in a meandering and lost manner, never really connecting the dots appropriately. Charlie is something of an arrogant older brother, which doubly compounds his feelings of guilt of Sam’s death. But the film spends an inordinate amount of time at the cemetery where Charlie is talking to other people he knows who have died. When you first see this, you think Charlie is not all there mentally. But later, the film suggests that they are spirits he is in contact with, but by this time, the whole point is lost as the revelation comes too late. It also makes Charlie’s subsequent rescue of Tess that much more unbelievable. To think that she survived in freezing conditions for more than three days, and all Charlie had to do was use his body warmth to heat her up is bordering on ridiculous. It also trivialises their meeting at the end of the film when Tess realises that she has a much stronger connection to Charlie than she anticipated. In many ways, the structure of the script seems to be like that of a novel (probably lifted straight from the one this film is based on). That structure works for a novel, but it does not work for a film which needs a different structure. As a result, the film’s good message is totally lost in a weak and meandering plot that does not seem to go anywhere.
RATING 8/10 Bottom Line Smart, engaging, with a touching human story, “Source Code” is riveting sci-fi thriller, even though its ending perhaps goes a bit too far and is maybe too smart for its own good. The Good From the outset, Source Code throws you in to the shoes of Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) who appears on a train, but with people recognising him as Sean Fentress. Disorientated and confused, he spends the next eight minutes trying to figure out what is happening, and then the train explodes. Stevens wakes up in a capsule, and discovers he is part of a military experiment which allows him to transport in to the last eight minutes of the mind of a passenger on a doomed train that was subject to a terrorist attack that has already occurred. His mission is to find out who planted the bomb so the terrorist can be stopped in the future. It would be pointless to describe more as the story becomes somewhat more complicated as it goes along, with not everything appearing as it seems. Jake Gyllenhaal puts in one of the best performances of his career as the driven Stevens, who forms a bond with fellow passenger Christina (Michelle Monaghan), and Captain Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) whom he sees on a computer screen in his source code capsule and is his direct link to the real world. Despite all the tech jargon and high-brow concepts, the film has a very human core at its heart, as the stories of Stevens, Christina and Captain Goodwin all intertwine to uncover a very tragic, but then uplifting narrative. Much of this film feels like Groundhog Day in that Stevens is continually sent back in to the same eight-minute world of the train, but director Duncan Jones is extremely adept at keeping everything interest and fresh. What pushes everything along even further is the eventual discovery of Stevens situation, and whether or not he has the capacity to alter the events he is witnessing on the train. The film then delves in to concepts of parallel universes and dimensions, some of which is fascinating. “Source Code” is a smart and engaging thriller, a fantastic piece of science-fiction, and a film that does not lose sight of its touching human story. The Bad There is a point in the climax, and you will know when it happens, when the film should have ended. Given the amount of time spent discussing how the events on the train could not be changed, and the eventual revelation of Stevens predicament, it was only fitting that the film should end on the freeze frame where Stevens kisses Christina just before the bomb explodes. Given the inevitability of the train’s fate, and Stevens’ all-but-dead existence, there was something very poignant about that moment where the picture freezes on the couple. A few moments later however, the story starts up again, and despite it being very clever, and throwing a number of new intelligent layers on to the idea being presented, it just does not feel right. Yes, it gives Stevens a happy ending, and yes, it opens up your mind to alternate dimensions and whatever else, which is a perfectly plausible aspect to show, but it seemed more powerful that the film should have ended on that freeze frame. In the end, Stevens sends a message to Goodwin saying how ‘source code’ can do more than you ever imagined, a somewhat lame excuse to explain the ending.
The Room is a movie that was entirely funded by Tommy Wiseau, who also produced, wrote, directed and starred in it. It is a cult film considered by many to be the worst movie of all time, the Plan 9 from Outer Space of today. Many have called this movie so bad that it’s great and that claim is not unjust. Everything in this movie is terrible. From the writing to the poor production values. Let’s discuss the writing and we will start with the plot, of course: Johnny (Tommy Wiseau) is a banker who lives with Lisa (Juliette Danielle), his “future wife” (not once is the word “fiancé” ever uttered in this movie). However, little does Johnny know that she wants out of the relationship. Lisa’s mother - Claudette (Carolyn Minott) - however, keeps advising her daughter to stick with Johnny, since she believes he is good for her well-being. This, however, does not stop her from spreading false rumours behind his back, as well as having an affair with Johnny’s best friend, Mark (Greg Sestero). This is pretty much all you need to know about this movie. There are definitely a few B stories here and there but none of them are truly relevant to the plot of this movie. Hell, a lot of them, if not all, aren’t even fully developed nor do they seem finished anyway. One infamous example is Lisa’s mother telling her daughter that she has breast cancer and not once in this movie is it ever mentioned again. Not even Lisa has much of a reaction to this supposed bad news. Another noteworthy example are the introductions of characters without the audience being given a single peace insight about them throughout the entire film, making their on-screen appearance very baffling. The Room also seems to contain quite an underlying sense of narcissism. For example, Johnny - who I remind you is played by Tommy Wiseau, the creator of this movie - is “perfect” in every single way, since he doesn’t seem to have a single flaw at all. He is also loved and praised by every other character in the movie. Another example of the film’s narcissism is when Tommy Wiseau believes we want to have a peak at his naked body in the film’s over-long, unnecessary and awkwardly choreographed sex scenes. The Room ’s misogynistic undercurrent also shines throughout. Lisa seems to manipulate and cheat on Johnny for no particular reason other than the fact that he did not get his promotion at work and that she is probably bored of her relationship with him. This begs the question as to why she didn’t just leave him instead of feeling like she should manipulate him. Also, Lisa - like her mother - also believes that happiness comes from having a wealthy and successful husband. Wiseau’s misogyny also shows when Lisa’s friend, Michelle (Robyn Paris), doesn’t seem to do anything to stop Lisa’s manipulative actions. She doesn’t even say she is doing a bad thing. And where do we begin with the film’s production values? We have laughably out-of-sync dialogue; terrible green screening; poorly designed sets; endless and too many establishing shots, which seem to be there only to keep reminding the audience the movie is set in San Francisco; sloppy editing; cinematography that occasionally goes in and out of focus; and awkward directing and acting. In terms of performances, it is surprising that Tommy Wiseau - who plays the protagonist - could be the worst actor in the movie, since he has little to no charisma. One would think that the person who had the passion to create this movie would be good at playing any of the characters but, surprisingly, that is not the case. What is even more surprising is that Tommy Wiseau claims to be a "trained" actor. The film’s soundtrack is also too grandiose for the subject it deals with and is also played in too many scenes. With all these negatives one would think that I would call this film unwatchable but that is not entirely the case. The mentioned faults make this worthwhile for anyone who has an appreciation for movies that are under the “so-bad-it’s-good” category. If you want to have a good time with this this movie, watch it with a friend or more. However, if you want a better time, I would recommend you watch it at a cinema that does cult screenings of it. It is a lot of fun. I’ve been to two cult screenings and I still want to go again. People dress up as their favourite character, the audience gets to occasionally throw spoons at the screen, heckle at certain moments in the film (sometimes people say some of the funniest things), throw a football around etc.. If that does not sound like fun in a cinema, then what is?
There have been a plethora of films set in a circus. However most of them are from the mid 20th Century or earlier. Such stars as Martin & Lewis, the Marx Brothers , Charlie Chaplin , Burt Lancaster , Tony Curtis, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, and Elvis Presley all come to mind as having performed in a circus movie. For me, the best circus movie is still The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) which was a Cecil B. DeMille production. For me, that one captured every essence of the Big Show - from the peanuts to the sawdust, from the trapeze artists to the clowns; this was a film had every thing that are the staples of modern film - romance, mystery, suspense, thrills, and even sadness. The ony thing TGSOE lacked was the smell of the elephant shit. Well, they can add another brand new one to the list. This film is a top-of-the-list-wannabe, but it is not quite that worthy. Of course I am referring to Water for Elephants which opened April 22, 2011. The film is directed by Francis Lawrence and stars Reese Witherspoon , Robert Pattinson , Christopher Walz , and a marvelous elephant named Tia who performs as Rosie on screen. If you're ready to say that this looks and sounds like it will be a love triangle ala Titanic , set in the second rate or third rate Benzini Bros. Circus - you'd be right. But the film is so much more than that, and at the same time a bit less. Who's that woman that works with the horses? That ain't no woman. That's the boss's wife. She don't talk to nobody. And you don't talk to her. And so it begins. The triangle. The film actually begins with Hal Holbrook as the elderly Jacob reminiscing about his life in the circus. Robert Pattinson plays the younger version of the Jacob character. Jacob, as a young man, is a Cornell University student of veterinary medicine. He's called out of class and given some bad news. Soon after he's desolate, he'll become a drop-out, and he decides to hop a train out of town as hobos had been known to do. Turns out that this is the Benzini Bros. Circus train. He's hired by the circus, first as a roustabout, you know - to work with a shovel, then he's asked to help with the circus animals (given his background as a veterinary medicine student). With our protagonist onboard, we find out that circus life is not as idyllic as we thought it was. It is a nomadic existence with the Circus playing a never ending cycle of one-stands in town after town. The circus family was an ever-changing collection of misfits and freaks, dreamers and schemers, layabouts and roustabouts as well as hustlers and cheats. In short, the circus was always on the move. Put up the tent, take down the tent, and do it again in another town tomorrow. The film has lovingly recreated not only the circus milieu, but this circus with its traveling menagerie, is set in the Depression Era of the 1930's which also has been masterfully reproduced on screen for us. From the costumes to the street scenes which included the architecture of the time and the old fashioned poles with the telephone wires that were found in every small town - Main Street, USA, circa 1930's lives once more. This particular circus was a bit of a cut-rate circus to start with, and now was trying to weather yet another financial crisis. The circus boss and owner, August (played by the excellent Christopher Walz) found new and unusual (as well as horrifying) ways to cut payroll when he had to. He was also married to Reese Witherspoon's Marlena, the blonde centerpiece of both the film and the one-ring circus. When Augustus buys a new elephant, cue Rosie's entrance, the idea is for Marlena to abandon her horseback act and work with the elephant. Complications set in when Jacob is smitten by Marlena's looks and Rosie decides she likes Jacob better than August. However, August is nobody's fool. He notices things, and his suspicions are aroused. When he gets even more evidence, he's going to take it out on evereyone including the circus animals. Walz brings a powerful duality to the role. He is both charming, or he can be very cruel which meshes perfectly with the fact that he's insanely jealous. He has a viscious streak to him, that is terrifying. Instead of Jacob and Marlena as well as Rosie going their separate ways - August actually creates enough tension and fear so that they're actually drawn closer together. That's what we see. That's what the script calls for. Unfortunately, what we see relies on our imagination, because there's almost no chemistry at all between Pattinson's Jacob and Witherspoon's Marlena. This is a major stumbling block for viewers, as you just can't get past the fact that what you see doesn't match what you're asked to believe. Beyond that the story is a little old. We've learned from the trailer, that the Benzini Bros. circus had one of the worst disasters in the history of circuses. So we have to wait for that. We also see, as expected, that Rosie the elephant is going to be lovable, smart, endearing, and will steal every scene she's in if not the whole movie. The script also softens the circus life, takes the sexual heat that existed in Sara Gruen's best selling novel which was the source for this film, out of the film, and then further disappoints with some CGI effects that seem a tad cheap. While what you see in terms of locations, set designs, and art all do a terrific job of showing us a circus on screen, this film about a big top circus is certainly not the greatest show on earth.
/</gidiv id="_mcePaste" style="position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 0px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;"/>/gi BOTTOM LINE: Surprisingly entertaining with sincere performances by the cast, “Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day” is an old-fashioned Hollywood film that you do not normally see any more, despite its flare for being overly dramatic at times.
div id="_mcePaste" style="position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 0px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;" THE GOOD: One of the great things about this film is that it is the type of film that does not get made any more. Sporting an old-fashioned style and look, the film is a farce and a genuine drama, all at the same time. Frances McDormand lends a sincere gravitas to these proceedings as the tough, but down-on-her-luck nanny Guinevere Pettigrew, who out of a moment of desperation, unexpectedly finds herself as the social secretary for the flamboyant American singer/actress Delysia Lafosse (Amy Adams). What ensues is a trip through high society and Pettigrew’s attempts to keep Lafosse out of trouble, to hilarious, and sometimes touching results. Aside from the excellent production design and visuals, the film is held together by the genuine performances on display by the whole cast. They clearly look as if they are all having a good time, but also find those moments of drama and seriousness to make the whole exercise compelling. The film, of course, gravitates to a happy ending where all the characters end up with what they deserve, with the final sequence being low key and satisfying thanks largely to the performances of the actors in this scene, which could have so easily been pathetic and contrived. “Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day” is a fun way to spend a few hours.
div id="_mcePaste" style="position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 0px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;" THE BAD: As with old-style Hollywood films, some of what you see is over the top. That may have worked fifty years ago, but it does not really work in a modern film, despite how well it is integrated in to the narrative. Also, despite the best efforts of the filmmakers, they cannot always paper over the modest budget on display, but they do a decent job with what they have. span style="color: #0000ff;" RATING 7.5/10 BOTTOM LINE: Surprisingly entertaining with sincere performances by the cast, “Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day” is an old-fashioned Hollywood film that you do not normally see any more, despite its flare for being overly dramatic at times. /span THE GOOD: One of the great things about this film is that it is the type of film that does not get made any more. Sporting an old-fashioned style and look, the film is a farce and a genuine drama, all at the same time. Frances McDormand lends a sincere gravitas to these proceedings as the tough, but down-on-her-luck nanny Guinevere Pettigrew, who out of a moment of desperation, unexpectedly finds herself as the social secretary for the flamboyant American singer/actress Delysia Lafosse (Amy Adams). What ensues is a trip through high society and Pettigrew’s attempts to keep Lafosse out of trouble, to hilarious, and sometimes touching results. Aside from the excellent production design and visuals, the film is held together by the genuine performances on display by the whole cast. They clearly look as if they are all having a good time, but also find those moments of drama and seriousness to make the whole exercise compelling. The film, of course, gravitates to a happy ending where all the characters end up with what they deserve, with the final sequence being low key and satisfying thanks largely to the performances of the actors in this scene, which could have so easily been pathetic and contrived. “Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day” is a fun way to spend a few hours. THE BAD: As with old-style Hollywood films, some of what you see is over the top. That may have worked fifty years ago, but it does not really work in a modern film, despite how well it is integrated in to the narrative. Also, despite the best efforts of the filmmakers, they cannot always paper over the modest budget on display, but they do a decent job with what they have.
You’re living in the south of France, in Nimes. You are a married woman, you have two teen-aged children, and your husband is a successful doctor. You have a beautiful home, with modern furniture and original art works on the wall. The weather in this part of France is delightful, which is a good thing since you are no longer in the work force. What is all of this a recipe for? Boredom. So you have decided to resume, after 15 years, your career as a reflexologist also known as a physical therapist. Your husband and you have decided to redo the large tool shed/small barn into an office for you. A construction manager has been hired. Only one thing needs to be done before serious reconstruction can begin. This shed has to be emptied out. Years and years of storage of no longer needed stuff has accumulated to the degree that a truck and laborer is needed to cart it away. He comes and you help him. This is how Director Catherine Corsini and her collaborator on the screenplay, Gaelle Mace , begin the 2009 film Leaving , or Partir in French. Actually, that is Part 2 of the opening. The actual opening has the star, Kristin Scott Thomas , as Suzanne Vidal, awaken at the break of dawn. She gets down from bed, and leaves the screen. We next hear a gunshot. Who was shot, and by whom are unknown. Then we see the usual words leading to a flash back - Six Months Prior. I thought that KST was an English actress. Of course she is an English actress, but she is bilingual and speaks French like a native (at least to my untrained ears). In this role, at the onset of the film, she plays a dutiful housewife/homemaker. You get an impression that their life is at least going well. The husband, Samuel Vidal, played by Yvan Attal , is shown to be a bit of a pompous man, full of himself. Corsini doesn’t hit us over the head, or batter us into thinking that he is a bad man. The day laborer is called Ivan, and he’s played by Sergi Lopez , a Catalan speaking Spaniard who is also bilingual. Actually, he also speaks English, as I found out while watching the Japanese film, The Map of the Sounds of Tokyo , only the day before watching this one. Here he is cast as the Suzanne’s lover. I am not going to discuss how their affair began, nor will I give any spoilers about the shooting that opened the film. What I will discuss is that the central theme of this film is the power of passion. Suzanne seemingly has everything. But we come to find out that one - she is dissatisfied, and two - she has a voracious sexual appetite. So much so, that she’s willing to give up everything she has in order to take up a life with Ivan. This doesn’t make a lot of sense - he’s far from being any one’s image of an ideal man. In fact the deeper we get into the film, we begin to question Suzanne’s thinking. Because for her to leave hearth and home, husband and children, for this lover, seems so irrational. Now that her inner fires have been ignited by this Grand Passion, she suddenly reveals another deadly character trait for someone having an affair - she’s compulsively honest. She cannot lie. So she tells Samuel that she’s in love. Of course, he never expected to hear anything like this. He’s furious. He demands that she break it off immediately. She says she will. But she cannot. One night, the husband’s parents stop by for a dinner. They’re all gathered at the dining room table. The six of them - Suzanne and Samuel, the two children, and Samuel’s parents. Ivan calls - she wants to go to him. Samuel won’t let her leave. The altercation gets physical, no brutal. Finally he drags her upstairs and locks her in the bedroom. Her passion is so great, that she climbs out of the bedroom window and makes her escape to her lover. So that leaves us with the thought about this passionate affair. There are at least four or five scenes of lovemaking in this film. While not really that graphic, I mean there’s no mistaking what we are seeing, but there’s no complete frontal nudity. But you will see it as extremely passionate. Kristin Scott Thomas does a masterful job in her portrayal of a woman who is not only ready to give up everything, but actually does so. Watching her as she shows her feelings, not by dialogues with either Samuel or Ivan, but from her beautiful and expressive face, gives you a great film experience. This was a powerful and bravura performance. Too bad that the story itself isn’t able to bring us to a similar level of satisfaction. The film is beautiful visually except for the love scenes which convey ardor and passion, but in and of themselves are not especially attractive. While KST’s Suzanne is a not really a fully developed character, Samuel and Ivan are distinctly one dimensional.. They are the cuckolded husband and the woman’s lover period. Beyond that, there’s a distinct lack of realism to the story. In short, the script has all three of the leads doing things which make no sense. That doesn’t mean that the film is a failure. But it does mean that Leaving should have been a lot better.
RATING 8.5/10 BOTTOM LINE: Riveting and baffling all at the same time, as only David Lynch can be, “Mulholland Drive” is a surreal thrill ride that will grip you from start to finish, and leave you with more questions than answers. THE GOOD: A simple synopsis of this film would be pointless. It starts as a film about wannabe starlet Betty (Watts) who comes to Los Angeles looking to be an actress, and maybe a star. A mystery ensues when a mysterious woman named Rita (Harring) shows up in her Aunt’s house who has been in a car accident. That is a starting point to try and describe the story, but the rest of the film is a surreal, thrilling dream of disconnected sequences, characters and images that are totally engaging yet completely baffling, all at the same time. The film is best described as a series of dreams, most likely of Naomi Watts’ various characters. As in dreams, there are some connections between certain events, but the meaning behind them is a mystery, something which director David Lynch is famous for; he is hell bent on leaving any interpretation up to you. Each sequence of the film is elegantly shot and edited, with a disturbing musical score and haunting performances. Sequences vary from thrilling, to scary, to disturbing, to horrific, and some times even comedic, and not in any particular order. Naomi Watts is excellent as the central character in the film and is the rock upon which the narrative is based. Laura Elena Harring delivers a haunting and elegant performance as car accident victim Rita. And then there are other characters that pop in and out of the narrative, seemingly at random but somehow tie in to the plot at some level. Without a doubt, the ‘cowboy’ character is the most intriguing, particularly when he meets with director Adam Kesher (Theroux) in one of the most surreal scenes in the film. “Mulholland Drive” is an experience, full of emotion, thrills and questions. THE BAD: If you are the type of person who requires answers and straight-forward story-telling, this film is definitely not for you and will drive you crazy. Making sense of the intertwining yet disconnected sequences is a fool’s errand, despite there being smaller messages hidden underneath this elaborate tapestry of filmmaking. The only real issue is that there are sequences in this film that do not focus on Naomi Watts’ character which distract from her story. If these sequences were not in the film, it would have been more obvious that we were watching her dreams, but as it stands, the film can be very baffling.
A minimalist film from Eric Rohmer, La femme de l'aviateur , tells the story of François (Philippe Marlaud) and Anne (Marie Rivière) a couple that has very common problems. He works by night, she works all day, Anne wants to live alone and is very independant. She also recently ended an affair with an aviator. François is insecure and he wants to have a normal relationship with Anne. This simple but beautiful film by Rohmer sums Mies Van Der Rohe most infamous line: Less is more! With so few scenes the film has something particular about it. It's simple and beautiful as life itself. But beware it's a very talky film and the few scenes are only rythmed by the long dialogues. Eric Rohmer's films depicts intellectuals with common lives. His movies are for initiates and Woody Allen fans can have some interest in his films too. I would be surprised to see one day one of his films on the Top 250 of IMDb. But his fans are dedicated to his films. I must say that I am becoming one.
This costume drama/biopic about the poet Jim Keats is well executed and has great performances from the leads and a great directing. The naturally lit interiors and exteriors give a crude but beautiful images to this somptuous film. However, I may just get bored by costume dramas because I find them laborious and somewhat "impersonal". They mostly reflect what the paintings of the time looked like. Their execution is wonderful and it takes a lot of mastery to handle them at this level. But, their subject and matters are too classical for my tastes. As in paintings, I prefer contemporary Art and subject. My favorite painters are Dali, de Chirico, Magritte, Munch, the expressionists, Warhol, etc. My two favorite costume dramas are Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon and Eric Rohmer's Marquise of O . Birght Statr is a good film well made and exquisite to loof at but it won't take the third place of my top costume dramas which is held by Marie-Antoinette .
RATING 4/10 BOTTOM LINE: A film like this relies on performances, and unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the rest of the cast, Ryan Gosling sucks the life out of this supposedly touching story, which goes from one lifeless scene to another, culminating in an ending that pushes the bounds of fantasy, even for Hollywood. THE GOOD: The Notebook is based on the novel of the same name and tells the story of a romance and relationship between Allie (McAdams) and Noah (Gosling). As expected, it is full of ups and downs and dramas, but what makes this story different is that it is narrated by old versions of themselves played by James Garner and Gena Rowlands, with Noah narrating their story to Allie who has is now suffering from dementia and cannot remember him. It is on this last point that the film is potentially interesting in that you do not usually see this sort of scenario in a romantic fantasy like this. The film’s strongest scenes are played by Garner and Rowlands, particularly in those sequences where Allie remembers him for a brief time before forgetting him again, and seeing the anguish and heartache on Noah’s face, as played by the always good Garner. In this respect, the film is set up for something more special and unique, and in a few brief moments here and there, the film is noteworthy. THE BAD: Given the reputation this film has received, it came as a surprise to see how lifeless and flat the overall execution of it was. The weakest scenes, and the ones that comprise most of the film, relate to the young versions of Allie and Noah played by Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling. Poor McAdams; she does an amicable job trying to stir up some emotion, but she is constantly facing a deadpan and expressionless Gosling. Two examples come to mind of how his performance sucks the life out of this movie. The first is when he is breaking up with a current lover now that Allie is back in his life. The camera is on her as she gives this moving performance, and then when it cuts to him, he is totally blank. It comes off as a joke and kills the scene. The second example is when Noah’s best friend dies in his arms on the battlefield during World War II. The camera barely stays on Noah, as if director Nick Cassavetes knows not to go there because when he does, the same old expressionless face shows up. The sequence where Noah meets Allie and woos her is another example; he comes across like a needy, obsessed boy and it is extremely difficult to see why Allie would even agree to go out with him in the first place. Gosling is not entirely to blame here though. Cassavetes clearly mis-cast him, and this is no more prevalent than when you compare him with James Garner who is playing the older version of his character. From character, performance, and appearance, there is nothing to connect the two of them. During the first half of the movie, I actually thought Garner was representing someone else, but no, when it is plainly spelled out who he is, the result was nothing other than disappointment. Garner is a class actor and really grounds his character in an emotional reality that you can feel for. Gosling on the other hand does the exact opposite. And since this entire film rests on going on the journey with these characters, the film falls flat on its face. The icing on the cake of course is the utter fantasy that is the ending. If what had come before was stronger, the thought of them dying in each other’s arms in the retirement home may have been touching, but as it was not, the scene is particularly laughable and unbelievable.
» = New Post(s)