"Society can't exist without the family."
"We're not against that."
"Can two men reproduce?"
"No... but God knows, we keep trying!"
Wonderful, wonderful movie, and one of the best biographical films ever made.
Yes, this is a film about Harvey Milk, the first gay man elected to public office. And yes, he was assassinated in 1978. So, of course, there's lots of drama, trials and tribulations and what-have-you. But this film doesn't wallow in sadness and despair. It's celebratory and joyful, in the best kind of way. This is a playful, funny, and immensely entertaining picture.
Openly-gay filmmaker Gus Van Sant (Elephant, Good Will Hunting) had tried for years to get this film made, ever since he started his career in the 80's. The project was a labor of love for Van Sant, who had endured several failed attempts at making the film since 1992, when he first bought the rights. It was long considered a risky project, even with a comparatively low budget of $15 million dollars. Only when 2005's Brokeback Mountain was successful, was this film greenlighted. It's the film that - for lack of a better word - he was "born" to make.
That passion is evident in every frame of this film. Van Sant - who recently went the much more experimental route with Gerry, Elephant, Last Days, and Paranoid Park, is no less innovative here, relying heavily on archive footage to create a sense of time and place with his low $15 million budget. One sequence in particular is shot in the reflection of a metal whistle lying on the ground (it'll make sense when you see it). Brilliant stuff.
First-time feature screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (writer/producer of HBO's Big Love) did his own three years of personal research for the project, and it shows. The film has some of the most well-drawn characters of the year. And thankfully, Black doesn't fall victim to the frequent first-time writer syndrome of telling his story in some crazy narrative fashion. Everything is pretty straight-forward. Black knows he has enough going for his story and doesn't feel the need to try and "pump it up" one bit. It's refreshing.
And last but not least, I must point out the acting. It goes without saying that Sean Penn and Josh Brolin are great, and both were Oscar-nominated for their work. But everyone in the movie is amazingly well-cast and pitch-perfect. (I've long thought that the Academy needs a "casting" award. Good casting is really 3/4 of what makes a film anyways. The closest thing to this award is the Screen Actors' Guild "Ensemble Cast" award, but why give another award to the actors? Casting directors - the unsung heroes of the film business. But I digress...) Special mention should be made of James Franco in a small but pivotal role, and Emile Hirsch - who in my opinion completely steals the show.
Well, anyway... Great movie. Check it out (if you can find it in theaters... Focus Features really screwed the pooch on this one).
Friday, January 30, 2009
Final Bill Hicks performance to finally be broadcast tonight
Hey, I'm going to chime in again in a few hours with my review of Gus Van Sant's Milk, but I just wanted to give people a quick heads-up:
Tonight (Friday Jan. 30) at 11:35 PM eastern time on CBS, David Letterman will broadcast Bill Hicks' final performance, taped for the Letterman show in 1993, but never broadcast. Hicks's mother will also apparently be a guest. Hicks died from cancer six months after it was shot.
For those of you that don't know, Bill Hicks was one of the greatest stand-ups of all time. Some truly dark stuff - especially in his later career - but absolutely brilliant just the same. Just a heads-up to you guys.
Tonight (Friday Jan. 30) at 11:35 PM eastern time on CBS, David Letterman will broadcast Bill Hicks' final performance, taped for the Letterman show in 1993, but never broadcast. Hicks's mother will also apparently be a guest. Hicks died from cancer six months after it was shot.
For those of you that don't know, Bill Hicks was one of the greatest stand-ups of all time. Some truly dark stuff - especially in his later career - but absolutely brilliant just the same. Just a heads-up to you guys.
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Wrestler
Wow. Brilliant, brilliant filmmaking.
Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream) has accomplished something magnificent here. Lacking the polish, resources, and budget of Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, Aronofsky has created something completely different from a similar underdog-sort of story. While Boyle goes the flashy route with camera moves and dozens of cuts per-minute, Aronofsky favors long, lingering takes and a somewhat reserved handheld camera. Now, of course, this is a huge change of course for the way Aronofsky usually does things. Requiem was frantic and methodical, mimicking the lives of the drug-addled characters. This is a completely different kind of film. You know what that shows? Maturity as a director and storyteller. It's hard to find a voice as a filmmaker, but it's even more difficult to change that voice to suit the needs of a particular project. The Wrestler feels grungy, dirty, and thrown together... and it's perfect.
Aronofsky made the choice to shoot in Super-16mm with this film, and it was a great choice. The harsh film grain and hard shadows give it a documentary-like feel and heightened intensity. Also worth mentioning is the fact that not only is this a Super 16 film, but a Super 16 film presented in a Scope aspect ratio of 2.35:1. Film fans will probably know what this means, but for those that don't, basically it means you're blowing up an already grainy picture to a very wide theater screen. Film grain and imperfections are heightened and more visible. A bold and wonderful artistic choice by Aronofsky - perfectly fitting for the story he's presenting.
Now, there's all sorts of stories going around about this production. People say that Mickey Rourke believed so much in the project, that he didn't accept an acting fee. Neither did Bruce Springsteen for the closing song he contributed. Aronofsky apparently was given the chance to make the picture with Nicolas Cage for a budget of approximately $25 million. He turned it down to make the film with Rourke - for only $6 million, and a short 35-day shooting schedule. Like the story we so often hear with independent film, the many limitations on the production have combined to produce something magical. Everything is down-and-dirty, in the moment, and feels about as real as cinema can get.
I guess that's about all I can - and probably should - say. Rourke is simply amazing. If it seems like a simple case of stunt casting, don't worry... It's an iconic performance that in my opinion ranks right along side DeNiro in Raging Bull... A study of an imperfect man, perfectly realized on screen.
Do not miss this. Benjamin Button was an amazing major-studio picture. This film is equally as amazing - it was just made under much tougher circumstances. Whether that makes it more or less worthy is a matter of opinion. All that really matters is if it's worth your time - and it certainly is.
Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream) has accomplished something magnificent here. Lacking the polish, resources, and budget of Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, Aronofsky has created something completely different from a similar underdog-sort of story. While Boyle goes the flashy route with camera moves and dozens of cuts per-minute, Aronofsky favors long, lingering takes and a somewhat reserved handheld camera. Now, of course, this is a huge change of course for the way Aronofsky usually does things. Requiem was frantic and methodical, mimicking the lives of the drug-addled characters. This is a completely different kind of film. You know what that shows? Maturity as a director and storyteller. It's hard to find a voice as a filmmaker, but it's even more difficult to change that voice to suit the needs of a particular project. The Wrestler feels grungy, dirty, and thrown together... and it's perfect.
Aronofsky made the choice to shoot in Super-16mm with this film, and it was a great choice. The harsh film grain and hard shadows give it a documentary-like feel and heightened intensity. Also worth mentioning is the fact that not only is this a Super 16 film, but a Super 16 film presented in a Scope aspect ratio of 2.35:1. Film fans will probably know what this means, but for those that don't, basically it means you're blowing up an already grainy picture to a very wide theater screen. Film grain and imperfections are heightened and more visible. A bold and wonderful artistic choice by Aronofsky - perfectly fitting for the story he's presenting.
Now, there's all sorts of stories going around about this production. People say that Mickey Rourke believed so much in the project, that he didn't accept an acting fee. Neither did Bruce Springsteen for the closing song he contributed. Aronofsky apparently was given the chance to make the picture with Nicolas Cage for a budget of approximately $25 million. He turned it down to make the film with Rourke - for only $6 million, and a short 35-day shooting schedule. Like the story we so often hear with independent film, the many limitations on the production have combined to produce something magical. Everything is down-and-dirty, in the moment, and feels about as real as cinema can get.
I guess that's about all I can - and probably should - say. Rourke is simply amazing. If it seems like a simple case of stunt casting, don't worry... It's an iconic performance that in my opinion ranks right along side DeNiro in Raging Bull... A study of an imperfect man, perfectly realized on screen.
Do not miss this. Benjamin Button was an amazing major-studio picture. This film is equally as amazing - it was just made under much tougher circumstances. Whether that makes it more or less worthy is a matter of opinion. All that really matters is if it's worth your time - and it certainly is.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Slumdog Millionaire
This is one of the best-reviewed movies of the year, and the odds-on favorite to win Best Picture after its several wins at the Globes on Sunday. Is it as good as everyone's saying? Well, yes and no.
There's a lot to like about this movie. Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting) direction is as strong and assured as anything I've seen this year. Relative unknown Dev Patel gives an amazing leading performance. The editing is masterful. The picture is wonderfully photographed by the always inventive Boyle and his DP Anthony Dod Mantle (in no less than five formats - 16mm, 35mm, analog and digital video, and still photography). The movie is always watchable, mostly entertaining, and sometimes enthralling. So what's my beef with it, then?
Listen, guys... I love Danny Boyle. Trainspotting's one of the best movies of the 90's. I like almost everything he's done. But you have to admit, he's really a style-over-substance sort of filmmaker. And this screenplay doesn't really help matters. I mean, we have a GREAT framework for a story here. The whole gameshow thing, discovering how he knows each of the answers through his life experiences... all good stuff. But mostly everything else in the story... I don't know, man. I've just seen it all before. Nearly half the picture involves a love story/long-lost girl situation... and I'm really sorry to say... I just didn't care. I didn't give a shit. I'm not sure what it was. I was usually totally into the rest of the picture, but whenever that storyline picked up again, I just tuned out. Like I said, I've seen it all before, but what really matters - I've seen it done better. Perhaps most people will come out of this movie feeling a different way. But I've seen City of God (dangerous childhood in impoverished area) and Cinema Paradiso (adult looking back on long-lost love) and this felt like a stylized melding of those two stories.
I know that by now this seems like an attack of some sort, but it's really not. This is a very solid movie. Easily one of the best of the year, and I really did enjoy about 80% of it. It's both exhilarating and beautiful, with some wonderful sequences (a scene set to "Paper Planes" by M.I.A. is particularly good). It just never hit home for me in the way that it seems to for most people. It gets a solid recommendation from me, even though I only have lukewarm feelings about it right now. Although I do want to see it again... perhaps that means something.
There's a lot to like about this movie. Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting) direction is as strong and assured as anything I've seen this year. Relative unknown Dev Patel gives an amazing leading performance. The editing is masterful. The picture is wonderfully photographed by the always inventive Boyle and his DP Anthony Dod Mantle (in no less than five formats - 16mm, 35mm, analog and digital video, and still photography). The movie is always watchable, mostly entertaining, and sometimes enthralling. So what's my beef with it, then?
Listen, guys... I love Danny Boyle. Trainspotting's one of the best movies of the 90's. I like almost everything he's done. But you have to admit, he's really a style-over-substance sort of filmmaker. And this screenplay doesn't really help matters. I mean, we have a GREAT framework for a story here. The whole gameshow thing, discovering how he knows each of the answers through his life experiences... all good stuff. But mostly everything else in the story... I don't know, man. I've just seen it all before. Nearly half the picture involves a love story/long-lost girl situation... and I'm really sorry to say... I just didn't care. I didn't give a shit. I'm not sure what it was. I was usually totally into the rest of the picture, but whenever that storyline picked up again, I just tuned out. Like I said, I've seen it all before, but what really matters - I've seen it done better. Perhaps most people will come out of this movie feeling a different way. But I've seen City of God (dangerous childhood in impoverished area) and Cinema Paradiso (adult looking back on long-lost love) and this felt like a stylized melding of those two stories.
I know that by now this seems like an attack of some sort, but it's really not. This is a very solid movie. Easily one of the best of the year, and I really did enjoy about 80% of it. It's both exhilarating and beautiful, with some wonderful sequences (a scene set to "Paper Planes" by M.I.A. is particularly good). It just never hit home for me in the way that it seems to for most people. It gets a solid recommendation from me, even though I only have lukewarm feelings about it right now. Although I do want to see it again... perhaps that means something.
Friday, January 02, 2009
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
A masterpiece. No two ways about it.
Not only one of the best movies of the year, but one of the best films I've ever seen. People know that I rarely go to such lengths in praising a film, but this one crept inside me, shook me up, and left me with a feeling I've rarely had: total satisfaction.
Rarely is a movie both grandly ambitious and heartbreakingly intimate, but that's the case with this picture. It succeeds at everything it does, everything it tries, and everything it thinks about doing.
Just about as good as you can get. Nearly perfect.
Not only one of the best movies of the year, but one of the best films I've ever seen. People know that I rarely go to such lengths in praising a film, but this one crept inside me, shook me up, and left me with a feeling I've rarely had: total satisfaction.
Rarely is a movie both grandly ambitious and heartbreakingly intimate, but that's the case with this picture. It succeeds at everything it does, everything it tries, and everything it thinks about doing.
Just about as good as you can get. Nearly perfect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
