Yes, that's right. I just got back from a midnight show - it's 3 AM, and I'm sure I'll spend another hour awake writing this thing, because I feel compelled to gush about this movie, as much and as often as possible.
I feel so strongly about this picture that I will say this right out front: if this movie wasn't a "Batman" film, it would be a Best Picture nominee. It is simply the best American crime film since Heat. Unfortunately, I think the whole "Batman" thing may prevent people from taking this movie seriously. This is a serious work, with ruminations on good and evil, the organized chaos of society, and the nature of heroes, and why we need them.
More than anything, this is an epic crime film. I return to Heat once again, Michael Mann's masterpiece. This movie has an obvious debt to that picture, but breaks its own ground and finds its own voice. It has a crackling immediacy that gives everything enormous weight and importance, and visually, it looks more like a gritty crime film than anything else. Being rooted in such reality gives the film its power. It was a brave and wonderful choice, and one of the big reasons for the film's success.
Much has been made of Heath Ledger's performance, and I have to admit, it was the main reason I chose to see the film (along with the stellar reviews it has gotten). The verdict? It is simply breathtaking. It's everything you've heard it is, and so much more. He steals every scene he's in, and he's probably the best villain ever put on screen. As for his Oscar chances, well, if Anthony Hopkins can win an Oscar for The Silence of the Lambs, there's no reason why Ledger shouldn't win for this. Even Javier Bardem's win last year for No Country For Old Men pales in comparison to this performance. If he isn't nominated and doesn't win, it will be one of the biggest mistakes the Academy has ever made.
And while we're on the subject of awards, I must point out this fact: this is the best-directed film so far this year, and I doubt I'll see one that tops this. Christopher Nolan deserves at least a nomination for Best Director. Every single thing is done right. Not a false note. I have to admit, I've been disappointed with Nolan in the past. I loved Memento of course, but after 2002's Insomnia (a watered-down American remake of the original film) and 2006's The Prestige, I lost hope in Nolan. Even Batman Begins I wasn't satisfied with. I thought it had some problems at the script stage that were never solved. Well, he's back. All the promise that I saw in Memento has finally come to fruition, and it is a great thing.
The rest of the production is great, with the best editing I've seen all year. The film is long, and it feels long, but it feels right. It's a big story, and it deserves its running time. Like I mentioned before, Heath Ledger steals the show, but the masterful editing keeps all the narrative threads on an equal playing field. Sometimes, if someone is giving an amazing performance, all of their time off-screen is simply spent waiting for them to return. This is definitely not the case here. Ledger might be the main attraction, but there's plenty more here to see.
Well, I suppose I'll leave it at that. Put aside all expectations. This is one of the best films of the year. It's not perfect, but it's just about as close to perfect as a movie can be. This is a work of art, and it deserves to be seen. It drew me in more than any other movie so far this year, and it was an exhilarating experience.
There are some movies that restore your faith in the power of film, but this was more than that. It got me excited about the filmmaking process again, and made we want to go out and shoot more. I think I will. In the meantime, I'm considering going to Boston to see this in an IMAX theater. I've heard there's no better way to see it. And with a movie this good, I owe it to myself to try.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Charles H. Joffe
1929-2008
(Woody Allen's long-time manager and producing partner - he has produced all of Woody's 42 films)
1929-2008
(Woody Allen's long-time manager and producing partner - he has produced all of Woody's 42 films)
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
WALL-E
I hate throwing this word around, but there's no other way to say it: This is a masterpiece.
Forget that it's animated, and forget the fact that you may be one of the only adults in a theater filled with children. No matter which way you slice it, this is an amazing achievement.
I've been a fan of Pixar for awhile, but not a fanatic like some people are. While some people declare every movie they've done to be exceptional, the only two Pixar movies I truly love are Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. Those are the ones that truly felt original; like something magical was happening. It's my feeling that every other Pixar film has varied in terms of quality, and while some were very good (Finding Nemo) others I would have been vary happy had they never been made (The Incredibles, which starts off nicely only to turn into a bland action movie). This film, however, is different. This film is what happens when creative artists have money and power: they do what they want.
A hugely successful company now on its ninth film, Pixar is now free (more or less) from the do-or-die mentality of normal studios, where every film's opening weekend spells life or death for a company. Free from these constraints, they've come up with a film that's both hugely ambitious and surprisingly simple. A film where about 90% of its running time consists of no dialogue (a huge gamble for a modern animated feature), but whose central themes are the most basic of all human emotion: Love, life, and humanity. For a modern film in any genre, this would be considered unusual, but all the more so for a $180 million dollar animated feature.
I won't bore you with long, rambling thoughts about the film or its creation. I'll only tell you this: The best way to see this movie is to not view it as the new Pixar film, or even an animated film. View it on its own merits. A little movie called E.T. opened in 1982 and has always been seen, even by people who enjoy it, as a kids' film. I don't. I think it's one of the best films ever made, because of the pure emotion and unadulterated magic that radiates from it. It's because of that magic that it appeals to kids. It's a similar thing with this film. An open heart and an open mind are the only prerequisites needed to see this movie. Leave your cynicism at the door. Prepare to be dazzled, delighted, and moved by a simple, beautiful tale.
Forget that it's animated, and forget the fact that you may be one of the only adults in a theater filled with children. No matter which way you slice it, this is an amazing achievement.
I've been a fan of Pixar for awhile, but not a fanatic like some people are. While some people declare every movie they've done to be exceptional, the only two Pixar movies I truly love are Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. Those are the ones that truly felt original; like something magical was happening. It's my feeling that every other Pixar film has varied in terms of quality, and while some were very good (Finding Nemo) others I would have been vary happy had they never been made (The Incredibles, which starts off nicely only to turn into a bland action movie). This film, however, is different. This film is what happens when creative artists have money and power: they do what they want.
A hugely successful company now on its ninth film, Pixar is now free (more or less) from the do-or-die mentality of normal studios, where every film's opening weekend spells life or death for a company. Free from these constraints, they've come up with a film that's both hugely ambitious and surprisingly simple. A film where about 90% of its running time consists of no dialogue (a huge gamble for a modern animated feature), but whose central themes are the most basic of all human emotion: Love, life, and humanity. For a modern film in any genre, this would be considered unusual, but all the more so for a $180 million dollar animated feature.
I won't bore you with long, rambling thoughts about the film or its creation. I'll only tell you this: The best way to see this movie is to not view it as the new Pixar film, or even an animated film. View it on its own merits. A little movie called E.T. opened in 1982 and has always been seen, even by people who enjoy it, as a kids' film. I don't. I think it's one of the best films ever made, because of the pure emotion and unadulterated magic that radiates from it. It's because of that magic that it appeals to kids. It's a similar thing with this film. An open heart and an open mind are the only prerequisites needed to see this movie. Leave your cynicism at the door. Prepare to be dazzled, delighted, and moved by a simple, beautiful tale.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Time to play catch-up...
My opinions on Forgetting Sarah Marshall, The Hammer, Harold and Kumar 2, Iron Man, Indiana Jones 4, The Happening, The Ruins, and Definitely, Maybe.
So yeah, the whole idea behind this post is that I haven't written anything substantial on here in over 2 months, even though I've seen eight recent movies. So I'll play catch-up, and write briefly about each.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Personally, this was my biggest disappointment of the year so far. I was really looking forward to this, mostly because it was written by and stars Jason Segel, who played probably my favorite character on Freaks and Geeks, and who was so god-damned funny in Knocked Up.
This movie just doesn't work. I'm not sure what it is, but it never really clicks. The humor feels forced, and many of the jokes are just simply not funny, or drawn out way past the point of laughability. Example: The main character's dream is to write a Dracula musical...with puppets. Now, the idea itself is funny. If someone just mentions that in a conversation, I would laugh at that. Where the film fails is that it actually takes 5 or 6 minutes near the end to show him performing the show. Which, of course, is great if it's funny. Let's just say that the theater was filled with silence. There are many scenes in this same vein, where a halfway-funny joke is milked for all its worth, being referenced multiple times in the hope of a chuckle.
Surprisingly, where the film succeeds is with its dramatic scenes. It is, in all seriousness, one of the most honest depictions of a breakup - or the aftermath of it - that I've seen in a long time. Segel isn't afraid to show his character's angst and depression, and the film is better for it. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a boy-meets-girl story we've seen a thousand times. Although I absolutely love Jason Segel as an actor, his writing doesn't have the polish of Judd Apatow's (or even Seth Rogen's) and it shows.
The movie does have moments of near-brilliance, however. I will give it that. The opening scene works so well, you think you're in-store for a better movie: Segel, just coming out of the shower and in only a towel, finds his girlfriend in his apartment. She quickly breaks up with him, and in his surprise and horror over the situation, he accidentally drops his towel. The genius of the scene is that he's so wrapped up in what has just happened to him, he doesn't even notice or care, and he plays out the rest of the scene completely naked (which we see, by the way). The sequence even continues, with him sitting her down on the couch next to him - still completely nude - and begs her to stay with him. It has a darkly comic undertone to it, and it's wonderfully awkward. It's also a brilliant way to show his vulnerability in the situation, albeit in an exaggerated, comic way. If only the rest of the film could've had that fresh spark. The other characters are bland, and mostly uninteresting, save for Mila Kunis (from That 70's Show) who truly lights up the screen with her presence. It also manages the near-impossible task of making Paul Rudd (in a small role) completely unfunny.
I don't want to make it sound like it was terrible. It was an entertaining movie, and I'm glad I saw it. I guess I just expected more. On a related note, I'm really excited to see the upcoming Pineapple Express (with Seth Rogen and James Franco).
The Hammer
There's really not much to say about this one. It's an independently-produced comedy written by and starring Adam Carolla. It's really a simple boxing film, with a romantic subplot, and we've seen it numerous times before. The reason to see it, however, is Adam Carolla. He puts a spin on the material, and long-time fans of Adam on Loveline (and I'm one of them) will take a certain glee in seeing Adam's best rants and funniest rambling talk-show material translated to the screen. My verdict? A must-see for Adam Carolla fans, and worth a look for everyone else.
Harold and Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay
The first film was, in my opinion, a modern comedy classic. Filled with equal parts low-brow humor and social commentary, it was funny and subversive, and it's actually a miracle it was ever made in Hollywood. Part of its charm was the oh-so-simple storyline: Two stoners get the munchies, and they set out on a night-long quest to find the only White Castle restaurant in the area, and hilarity ensues. Granted, it could have been awful. But somehow, it works. The second film raises the stakes: Harold and Kumar are mistakenly thought to be terrorists during an airport security screening, and sent to Guantanamo Bay Prison.
I'm sorry, but I just didn't find this one funny. Sure, it has its moments (one joke, where Neil Patrick Harris tries to act normal around a cop while on acid, made me laugh harder than anything in either of the two movies), but overall, it just doesn't capture the charm of the original. I think the fault lies in the direction. The writers of the first movie return to both write and direct this one. It's their first try at directing, and it shows. Scenes run on too long, and unfunny things that would have been axed early on are very present here. It's more subversive - and, dare I say, more unbelievable - than the first. The guys actually meet a pot-smoking George W. Bush. It may be funny on paper, but here it just....yeah. I don't know what they were thinking.
It's not a terrible movie, and it does have laughs. Fans of the original may be disappointed, but it's worth seeing just to spend a little more time with these characters again.
Iron Man
I'm not a huge fan of superhero movies. Sure, I was when I was ten, but that part of me just isn't around anymore. These days, if I'm gonna watch such a film, my decision's based more on who's involved in the project rather than which superhero it is. Believe it or not, I had never heard of Iron Man before. Sure, I'd heard about him peripherally, mentioned elsewhere. But I had no idea who he was or what he was. I had no intention of seeing the movie, either. But then I heard it was directed by Jon Favreau (Swingers) and had Robert Downey, Jr. in the title role. Ok, now you can sign me up...
The first 45 minutes of the film are set-up, and you don't see him in the final suit until the 90 minute point. From my point of view, that's how it has to be. It stresses story over effects, and it won me over in the process. Iron Man was one of the best times I've had at the movies all year. Now I'm excited for The Dark Knight.
Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I grew up with the Indiana Jones movies, so this review is going to be very short. In summary: this movie is great. It's not high art, it's just a good time. There's enough references to the other films to bring you back into the Indy mood, and once you're there, and that classic theme starts playing, it's awesome. It's not perfect - much of the first half hour is pointless. But it has so much to offer, nothing could really ruin it (be prepared for one of the best car chase/action sequences of the past ten years). Somehow, for two hours, you feel like you're ten years old again... and it's a great feeling.
The Happening
Holy shit... where to start? This is one of the most laughable major studio releases of the past 20 years. It is amazing that this film was released in its current form, and even more amazing that it was released at all. It fails in every single thing it attempts to do, and fails in ways the director probably didn't even imagine. It fails as a horror story, a character study, and most of all, as a film. It is my early pick for worst film of the year.
I must start off by admitting I'm not a huge M. Night Shyamalan fan. The Sixth Sense was enjoyable, although I thought it was horribly overrated. My favorite film of his was Unbreakable. Without going into detail, I thought it was great. Everything else he's done, well... sucked. I hated Signs (although I seem to be in the minority on that one) and I never even saw Lady in the Water (despite the presence of the great Paul Giamatti). I was one of the few who saw some good in The Village, mostly because I actually liked the twist ending (even though the film itself is mostly a bore). Despite his track record, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The trailers looked sort of creepy. I liked the actors. How bad could it be?
The Happening is a complete and total failure in film direction. Why do I say this? Well, M. Night has surrounded himself with some of the best people in the business, and a group of great actors, and he's managed to fuck it up beyond belief. Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, and John Leguizamo are three of my favorite actors working today. They're good actors. They have talent. Although, if this movie was your only exposure to them, you wouldn't think so. Shyamalan has managed to get terrible performances out of great actors, which is the biggest sin of this film. Sure, the material is hokey and stupid and unintentionally funny, but good actors can elevate bad material. As someone who has studied film and directing for years, I can honestly say I have no idea how he managed to screw up as bad as he did. He must have been asleep at the wheel. The acting is terrible in this movie. It's like watching first-time actors in a low-budget horror movie. I was honestly in awe at what I was witnessing. Mark Wahlberg is especially bad in the film. If this had been his first movie, his acting career would be over. Fortunately, we know he can act. We've seen Boogie Nights and The Departed. So what happened? The only thing I can think of is non-communication between actor and director. George Lucas is famous for not speaking to his actors on set, and thus the acting in his movies is usually terrible. I know I'm going on and on about this, but I'm truly shocked. Even if you hate M. Night (and I do) you have to admit the acting is usually a bright spot in his pictures. It's almost as if he shot the footage with his eyes closed.
Anyway, enough of that. Stay, far, far, far away.
The Ruins
A little horror film from a director who is from, believe it or not, Topsham, Maine. Now, I've seen video and text interviews with the guy (Carter Smith) and he seems to be a total prick. But, I have to admit, his first film is a decent little movie. It succeeds in being creepy-crawly and uncomfortable, and it holds your attention for most of the duration. Not to mention, it has some great actors (Jonathan Tucker and Jena Malone). Not bad. Not bad at all.
Definitely, Maybe
Now this is a movie I didn't even consider seeing when it first came out. The marketing campaign gave it the appearance of being just another romantic comedy. It's not. It's worth your time.
Definitely, Maybe is a rare breed of movie. It has more in common with an indie movie than a big studio production. It has great writing and performances, and a careful, steady hand leading you along the way. When you look at who's behind it, it makes more sense. Writer/director Adam Brooks directed several independent movies, and subsequently got jobs writing big-budget romantic comedies (French Kiss, Wimbledon).
It's original, it's engaging (if maybe a little overlong), and it has some great dialogue. It's Hollywood-ized and a little cutesy, but it has a lot to offer. I've always liked Ryan Reynolds, and he's very good here (in his first dramatic role), and it doesn't hurt that he's given an amazing supporting cast.
I never thought I'd say it when I first decided to watch it, but this gets a big recommendation from me.
So, that's it. I guess I'll try to post more often. Although, during this time of year, I don't see a whole lot of movies, by choice (poor product). This week I'll be seeing WALL-E, which was something I wasn't interested in at all until it started getting amazing reviews. So I guess now I'll check it out. (By the way, has anyone noticed that the main robot in WALL-E looks a hell of a lot like Johnny 5 in Short Circuit?)
So yeah, the whole idea behind this post is that I haven't written anything substantial on here in over 2 months, even though I've seen eight recent movies. So I'll play catch-up, and write briefly about each.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Personally, this was my biggest disappointment of the year so far. I was really looking forward to this, mostly because it was written by and stars Jason Segel, who played probably my favorite character on Freaks and Geeks, and who was so god-damned funny in Knocked Up.
This movie just doesn't work. I'm not sure what it is, but it never really clicks. The humor feels forced, and many of the jokes are just simply not funny, or drawn out way past the point of laughability. Example: The main character's dream is to write a Dracula musical...with puppets. Now, the idea itself is funny. If someone just mentions that in a conversation, I would laugh at that. Where the film fails is that it actually takes 5 or 6 minutes near the end to show him performing the show. Which, of course, is great if it's funny. Let's just say that the theater was filled with silence. There are many scenes in this same vein, where a halfway-funny joke is milked for all its worth, being referenced multiple times in the hope of a chuckle.
Surprisingly, where the film succeeds is with its dramatic scenes. It is, in all seriousness, one of the most honest depictions of a breakup - or the aftermath of it - that I've seen in a long time. Segel isn't afraid to show his character's angst and depression, and the film is better for it. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a boy-meets-girl story we've seen a thousand times. Although I absolutely love Jason Segel as an actor, his writing doesn't have the polish of Judd Apatow's (or even Seth Rogen's) and it shows.
The movie does have moments of near-brilliance, however. I will give it that. The opening scene works so well, you think you're in-store for a better movie: Segel, just coming out of the shower and in only a towel, finds his girlfriend in his apartment. She quickly breaks up with him, and in his surprise and horror over the situation, he accidentally drops his towel. The genius of the scene is that he's so wrapped up in what has just happened to him, he doesn't even notice or care, and he plays out the rest of the scene completely naked (which we see, by the way). The sequence even continues, with him sitting her down on the couch next to him - still completely nude - and begs her to stay with him. It has a darkly comic undertone to it, and it's wonderfully awkward. It's also a brilliant way to show his vulnerability in the situation, albeit in an exaggerated, comic way. If only the rest of the film could've had that fresh spark. The other characters are bland, and mostly uninteresting, save for Mila Kunis (from That 70's Show) who truly lights up the screen with her presence. It also manages the near-impossible task of making Paul Rudd (in a small role) completely unfunny.
I don't want to make it sound like it was terrible. It was an entertaining movie, and I'm glad I saw it. I guess I just expected more. On a related note, I'm really excited to see the upcoming Pineapple Express (with Seth Rogen and James Franco).
The Hammer
There's really not much to say about this one. It's an independently-produced comedy written by and starring Adam Carolla. It's really a simple boxing film, with a romantic subplot, and we've seen it numerous times before. The reason to see it, however, is Adam Carolla. He puts a spin on the material, and long-time fans of Adam on Loveline (and I'm one of them) will take a certain glee in seeing Adam's best rants and funniest rambling talk-show material translated to the screen. My verdict? A must-see for Adam Carolla fans, and worth a look for everyone else.
Harold and Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay
The first film was, in my opinion, a modern comedy classic. Filled with equal parts low-brow humor and social commentary, it was funny and subversive, and it's actually a miracle it was ever made in Hollywood. Part of its charm was the oh-so-simple storyline: Two stoners get the munchies, and they set out on a night-long quest to find the only White Castle restaurant in the area, and hilarity ensues. Granted, it could have been awful. But somehow, it works. The second film raises the stakes: Harold and Kumar are mistakenly thought to be terrorists during an airport security screening, and sent to Guantanamo Bay Prison.
I'm sorry, but I just didn't find this one funny. Sure, it has its moments (one joke, where Neil Patrick Harris tries to act normal around a cop while on acid, made me laugh harder than anything in either of the two movies), but overall, it just doesn't capture the charm of the original. I think the fault lies in the direction. The writers of the first movie return to both write and direct this one. It's their first try at directing, and it shows. Scenes run on too long, and unfunny things that would have been axed early on are very present here. It's more subversive - and, dare I say, more unbelievable - than the first. The guys actually meet a pot-smoking George W. Bush. It may be funny on paper, but here it just....yeah. I don't know what they were thinking.
It's not a terrible movie, and it does have laughs. Fans of the original may be disappointed, but it's worth seeing just to spend a little more time with these characters again.
Iron Man
I'm not a huge fan of superhero movies. Sure, I was when I was ten, but that part of me just isn't around anymore. These days, if I'm gonna watch such a film, my decision's based more on who's involved in the project rather than which superhero it is. Believe it or not, I had never heard of Iron Man before. Sure, I'd heard about him peripherally, mentioned elsewhere. But I had no idea who he was or what he was. I had no intention of seeing the movie, either. But then I heard it was directed by Jon Favreau (Swingers) and had Robert Downey, Jr. in the title role. Ok, now you can sign me up...
The first 45 minutes of the film are set-up, and you don't see him in the final suit until the 90 minute point. From my point of view, that's how it has to be. It stresses story over effects, and it won me over in the process. Iron Man was one of the best times I've had at the movies all year. Now I'm excited for The Dark Knight.
Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I grew up with the Indiana Jones movies, so this review is going to be very short. In summary: this movie is great. It's not high art, it's just a good time. There's enough references to the other films to bring you back into the Indy mood, and once you're there, and that classic theme starts playing, it's awesome. It's not perfect - much of the first half hour is pointless. But it has so much to offer, nothing could really ruin it (be prepared for one of the best car chase/action sequences of the past ten years). Somehow, for two hours, you feel like you're ten years old again... and it's a great feeling.
The Happening
Holy shit... where to start? This is one of the most laughable major studio releases of the past 20 years. It is amazing that this film was released in its current form, and even more amazing that it was released at all. It fails in every single thing it attempts to do, and fails in ways the director probably didn't even imagine. It fails as a horror story, a character study, and most of all, as a film. It is my early pick for worst film of the year.
I must start off by admitting I'm not a huge M. Night Shyamalan fan. The Sixth Sense was enjoyable, although I thought it was horribly overrated. My favorite film of his was Unbreakable. Without going into detail, I thought it was great. Everything else he's done, well... sucked. I hated Signs (although I seem to be in the minority on that one) and I never even saw Lady in the Water (despite the presence of the great Paul Giamatti). I was one of the few who saw some good in The Village, mostly because I actually liked the twist ending (even though the film itself is mostly a bore). Despite his track record, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The trailers looked sort of creepy. I liked the actors. How bad could it be?
The Happening is a complete and total failure in film direction. Why do I say this? Well, M. Night has surrounded himself with some of the best people in the business, and a group of great actors, and he's managed to fuck it up beyond belief. Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, and John Leguizamo are three of my favorite actors working today. They're good actors. They have talent. Although, if this movie was your only exposure to them, you wouldn't think so. Shyamalan has managed to get terrible performances out of great actors, which is the biggest sin of this film. Sure, the material is hokey and stupid and unintentionally funny, but good actors can elevate bad material. As someone who has studied film and directing for years, I can honestly say I have no idea how he managed to screw up as bad as he did. He must have been asleep at the wheel. The acting is terrible in this movie. It's like watching first-time actors in a low-budget horror movie. I was honestly in awe at what I was witnessing. Mark Wahlberg is especially bad in the film. If this had been his first movie, his acting career would be over. Fortunately, we know he can act. We've seen Boogie Nights and The Departed. So what happened? The only thing I can think of is non-communication between actor and director. George Lucas is famous for not speaking to his actors on set, and thus the acting in his movies is usually terrible. I know I'm going on and on about this, but I'm truly shocked. Even if you hate M. Night (and I do) you have to admit the acting is usually a bright spot in his pictures. It's almost as if he shot the footage with his eyes closed.
Anyway, enough of that. Stay, far, far, far away.
The Ruins
A little horror film from a director who is from, believe it or not, Topsham, Maine. Now, I've seen video and text interviews with the guy (Carter Smith) and he seems to be a total prick. But, I have to admit, his first film is a decent little movie. It succeeds in being creepy-crawly and uncomfortable, and it holds your attention for most of the duration. Not to mention, it has some great actors (Jonathan Tucker and Jena Malone). Not bad. Not bad at all.
Definitely, Maybe
Now this is a movie I didn't even consider seeing when it first came out. The marketing campaign gave it the appearance of being just another romantic comedy. It's not. It's worth your time.
Definitely, Maybe is a rare breed of movie. It has more in common with an indie movie than a big studio production. It has great writing and performances, and a careful, steady hand leading you along the way. When you look at who's behind it, it makes more sense. Writer/director Adam Brooks directed several independent movies, and subsequently got jobs writing big-budget romantic comedies (French Kiss, Wimbledon).
It's original, it's engaging (if maybe a little overlong), and it has some great dialogue. It's Hollywood-ized and a little cutesy, but it has a lot to offer. I've always liked Ryan Reynolds, and he's very good here (in his first dramatic role), and it doesn't hurt that he's given an amazing supporting cast.
I never thought I'd say it when I first decided to watch it, but this gets a big recommendation from me.
So, that's it. I guess I'll try to post more often. Although, during this time of year, I don't see a whole lot of movies, by choice (poor product). This week I'll be seeing WALL-E, which was something I wasn't interested in at all until it started getting amazing reviews. So I guess now I'll check it out. (By the way, has anyone noticed that the main robot in WALL-E looks a hell of a lot like Johnny 5 in Short Circuit?)
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Oh my god... this sucks so bad....
George Carlin
1937-2008
A huge influence on me throughout my later life, and one of the key reasons I decided I was an atheist at 18. He was a master of the English language, and one of the most intelligent people I've ever heard. We'll miss ya, George.
George Carlin
1937-2008
A huge influence on me throughout my later life, and one of the key reasons I decided I was an atheist at 18. He was a master of the English language, and one of the most intelligent people I've ever heard. We'll miss ya, George.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Stop-Loss and The Beautiful Ordinary
Stop-Loss
Just a quick word about Stop-Loss, as I realized I had seen it two weeks ago and not yet written about it. It is the second film by Kimberly Peirce, coming almost 10 years after her debut, Boys Don't Cry. What took her so long? Regardless, Stop-Loss is probably the best film we've had about the Iraq war so far. It kind of fizzles out in the third act, but the rest of the picture is quite satisfying. My biggest qualm? It needed to be either a full half-hour longer, or a couple characters needed to be removed. The secondary characters are underwritten, and you can feel it. On the other hand, the cast is filled with the best actors of the last 10 years in independent film: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Channing Tatum, and my personal favorite - Victor Rasuk (Raising Victor Vargas). It's a shame such wonderful actors were given such little to do.
The Beautiful Ordinary
One of the hardest things to get right is the "high school movie". It's extremely easy to go way over the top and become the latest teen soap opera. On the other hand - and no less sinful -there's the temptation to pull punches and go, well... not far enough. The truly great high school movies are few and far between. American Graffiti, Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Dazed and Confused are the ones that really get it right (with honorable mention to Elephant). They may not encapsulate every facet of the teen experience, but more than anything, they get the "feeling" right. Perhaps that's why it's so hard to make a good film about this time in a person's life. It's more than anything else a somewhat indescribable feeling - melancholy with a little bit of youthful joy and heartbreak thrown in. And by the time you've grown up enough to put that feeling on film, it has most likely faded from memory. Probably the best depiction of high school ever put to celluloid wasn't even a movie at all, but a TV show - unlikely as it may sound. Freaks and Geeks had 18 hour-long episodes to shape its characters and refine its tone. And it stands as the pinnacle of high school on screen, because, for all intents and purposes, it had more time than any film could to build and define its characters.
What I'm getting at is that any film that tries to depict high school - especially with a two-hour running time - should focus on that "feeling" more than anything else. Because with the dozens of possible characters such a film could include, one has to face the fact you could never give each of them equal narrative justice.
And saying that, I now arrive at a film called The Beautiful Ordinary. It is the first film from Jess Manafort, and although it has its problems, it's the best high school film I've seen in quite some time. It's an independent production, and the film was dumped by its distributor after a limited release, and retitled "Remember the Daze". Yeah, I know... horrible. Don't be scared by the title. It's an obvious play off of the popularity of Dazed and Confused, and a ploy by the distributor to make some quick cash when it goes to video. I will keep referring to the movie by its original title, both because it was the director's intention, and because the new one is really fucking bad.
So anyway, back to the movie. This is a film of broad brush strokes, not fine details. It's a film that wants to create a portrait of people in a time and a place, and I applaud it for that. It's not a character study. It's a study of characters in an environment.
The picture has strong direction and acting. The cast reads like a who's-who of the best of this generation's independent film: Melonie Diaz (Raising Victor Vargas), John Robinson (Elephant), Chris Marquette and Leighton Meester are solid. But unknowns are where this movie really shines: Shahine Ezell and Lyndsy Fonseca make strong impressions; as does Brie Larson, a scene-stealer as an overbearing younger sister. But the real star here is the direction: sure-footed and confident, Jess Manafort is really going to go places. She shows real potential.
Well, enough of my rambling. Take a chance. Watch this movie when it comes out. Pick up the tacky-looking video box with the title of "Remember the Daze" - what really awaits you is a little lost gem of a film called The Beautiful Ordinary.
Just a quick word about Stop-Loss, as I realized I had seen it two weeks ago and not yet written about it. It is the second film by Kimberly Peirce, coming almost 10 years after her debut, Boys Don't Cry. What took her so long? Regardless, Stop-Loss is probably the best film we've had about the Iraq war so far. It kind of fizzles out in the third act, but the rest of the picture is quite satisfying. My biggest qualm? It needed to be either a full half-hour longer, or a couple characters needed to be removed. The secondary characters are underwritten, and you can feel it. On the other hand, the cast is filled with the best actors of the last 10 years in independent film: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Channing Tatum, and my personal favorite - Victor Rasuk (Raising Victor Vargas). It's a shame such wonderful actors were given such little to do.
The Beautiful Ordinary
One of the hardest things to get right is the "high school movie". It's extremely easy to go way over the top and become the latest teen soap opera. On the other hand - and no less sinful -there's the temptation to pull punches and go, well... not far enough. The truly great high school movies are few and far between. American Graffiti, Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Dazed and Confused are the ones that really get it right (with honorable mention to Elephant). They may not encapsulate every facet of the teen experience, but more than anything, they get the "feeling" right. Perhaps that's why it's so hard to make a good film about this time in a person's life. It's more than anything else a somewhat indescribable feeling - melancholy with a little bit of youthful joy and heartbreak thrown in. And by the time you've grown up enough to put that feeling on film, it has most likely faded from memory. Probably the best depiction of high school ever put to celluloid wasn't even a movie at all, but a TV show - unlikely as it may sound. Freaks and Geeks had 18 hour-long episodes to shape its characters and refine its tone. And it stands as the pinnacle of high school on screen, because, for all intents and purposes, it had more time than any film could to build and define its characters.
What I'm getting at is that any film that tries to depict high school - especially with a two-hour running time - should focus on that "feeling" more than anything else. Because with the dozens of possible characters such a film could include, one has to face the fact you could never give each of them equal narrative justice.
And saying that, I now arrive at a film called The Beautiful Ordinary. It is the first film from Jess Manafort, and although it has its problems, it's the best high school film I've seen in quite some time. It's an independent production, and the film was dumped by its distributor after a limited release, and retitled "Remember the Daze". Yeah, I know... horrible. Don't be scared by the title. It's an obvious play off of the popularity of Dazed and Confused, and a ploy by the distributor to make some quick cash when it goes to video. I will keep referring to the movie by its original title, both because it was the director's intention, and because the new one is really fucking bad.
So anyway, back to the movie. This is a film of broad brush strokes, not fine details. It's a film that wants to create a portrait of people in a time and a place, and I applaud it for that. It's not a character study. It's a study of characters in an environment.
The picture has strong direction and acting. The cast reads like a who's-who of the best of this generation's independent film: Melonie Diaz (Raising Victor Vargas), John Robinson (Elephant), Chris Marquette and Leighton Meester are solid. But unknowns are where this movie really shines: Shahine Ezell and Lyndsy Fonseca make strong impressions; as does Brie Larson, a scene-stealer as an overbearing younger sister. But the real star here is the direction: sure-footed and confident, Jess Manafort is really going to go places. She shows real potential.
Well, enough of my rambling. Take a chance. Watch this movie when it comes out. Pick up the tacky-looking video box with the title of "Remember the Daze" - what really awaits you is a little lost gem of a film called The Beautiful Ordinary.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Reservation Road
You can usually count on the critics to give you a good overview of a movie's merits. When you look at a consensus of reviews, you can usually determine, most of the time, whether a film is worth your time or not. In this case, however, the critical community was blatantly wrong. I don't know what happened, but somewhere along the way, this movie was blasted by almost every critic out there. And as a result of that, the studio dumped the film, and it only grossed $137,000. But I'll tell you the truth, right here and now: this movie is fucking good. It really is. What's more, it's actually one of the best movies of this past year. How's that for being incredibly, amazingly wrong?
Based on the novel of the same name, the story is this: A little boy is struck and killed by a car in a hit-and-run accident. The boy's father (Joaquin Phoenix) wants nothing more than to see the killer brought to justice. Meanwhile, the perpetrator (Mark Ruffalo) struggles with the issue of turning himself in, and deals with the fact that if he goes to prison, he might lose his own boy in the process.
Like I said, great fucking movie. This film is miles above Terry George's previous film, the Oscar-nominated Hotel Rwanda - which just shows you how much critics can band together for a common cause... or a common movie that they enjoy.
The performances are all wonderful, but special mention must be made of Mark Ruffalo. We were all introduced to him back in 2000 in the great You Can Count on Me, and he's continually turned in one great performance after another (particularly in Zodiac, one of my favorite movies from last year). Ruffalo's character is truly the glue that holds the whole thing together, and gives everything meaning. Without him, you'd simply have a revenge story, and that's why I can't understand the reviews that criticize the film for being nothing more than that. It has a lot more to offer.
I must make particular mention of the ending. While I won't spoil it for you, I must say that I was totally and completely satisfied with it. While there have been people who have drawn negative comparisons between this film and Mystic River (in terms of the "father out for revenge" angle) I must say that although I love that film, I found this ending to be somewhat more emotionally satisfying, and more true to what would happen in a real-life situation.
That's all I'm saying. Go see the movie. Enjoy it. Keep reading the movie reviews - just ignore the ones for this movie.
Based on the novel of the same name, the story is this: A little boy is struck and killed by a car in a hit-and-run accident. The boy's father (Joaquin Phoenix) wants nothing more than to see the killer brought to justice. Meanwhile, the perpetrator (Mark Ruffalo) struggles with the issue of turning himself in, and deals with the fact that if he goes to prison, he might lose his own boy in the process.
Like I said, great fucking movie. This film is miles above Terry George's previous film, the Oscar-nominated Hotel Rwanda - which just shows you how much critics can band together for a common cause... or a common movie that they enjoy.
The performances are all wonderful, but special mention must be made of Mark Ruffalo. We were all introduced to him back in 2000 in the great You Can Count on Me, and he's continually turned in one great performance after another (particularly in Zodiac, one of my favorite movies from last year). Ruffalo's character is truly the glue that holds the whole thing together, and gives everything meaning. Without him, you'd simply have a revenge story, and that's why I can't understand the reviews that criticize the film for being nothing more than that. It has a lot more to offer.
I must make particular mention of the ending. While I won't spoil it for you, I must say that I was totally and completely satisfied with it. While there have been people who have drawn negative comparisons between this film and Mystic River (in terms of the "father out for revenge" angle) I must say that although I love that film, I found this ending to be somewhat more emotionally satisfying, and more true to what would happen in a real-life situation.
That's all I'm saying. Go see the movie. Enjoy it. Keep reading the movie reviews - just ignore the ones for this movie.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Mist, revisited
I saw The Mist in the theater back in November, and now that it's on video (well, it will be soon), it seems like a good time to bring it back up again. It's really unlike almost anything out there: it's a smart horror movie. Highly recommended; don't miss it.
What follows is my original review (dated Nov. 26, 2007), with a video clip added in. Enjoy.
Film adaptations of Stephen King's work usually go one of two ways: you get great movies like The Shawshank Redemption or Stand By Me, or you get something like Maximum Overdrive. Thankfully, this film falls into the former category. While adaptations of King's non-horror work are usually solid (films like Shawshank, Stand By Me, and The Green Mile come to mind), his horror novels hardly ever translate well to screen. While the rare film like Carrie succeeds, usually these movies go down in flames. I've always thought that the reason these films never work is the failure to translate King's great characters to the screen. While the plot is full of spooky shit, the well-drawn characters are really what make King's horror novels rise above simple pulp.
Now we have The Mist, a film from Frank Darabont - the go-to guy for film adaptations of Stephen King's work. His previous films include both Shawshank and The Green Mile and the underrated The Majestic. In fact, you could even say he owes his directorial career to King, who started him off by giving him the rights to adapt his story "The Woman in the Room" into a short film. Who could blame him for continuing to come back to the well?
Darabont somehow understands Stephen King's work in a way most directors can't seem to grasp. Characters are front and center in his novels, and even this story - Darabont's first horror film - is more about character interactions than the monsters lurking outside. In fact, without giving too much away, the people trapped inside while all this is going down are in some ways more dangerous than the creatures attacking them. As people confront each other and conflict arises, it begins to look a lot safer outside with the man-eating monsters.
I was surprised to see this much bold content in a studio horror film. References to Iraq and George Bush and even religion are woven into the film. Sometimes it's clunky, but it's never unwelcome and always interesting. The fact that the main antagonist of the film becomes not the monsters but a religious fanatic who proclaims these events an act of God and that the only way to drive the creatures away is to start throwing people out the door as sacrifices... let's just say I'm surprised a major studio allowed that. Not just that, but the fact that the scared crowd becomes brainwashed and starts to believe her... obvious allegories to the dangers of religion and even to the unquestioning faith of Bush supporters... not what you'd expect to see from a rubber monster movie. Like I said, it doesn't always work, but when it does, it's great.
Darabont shot this film in a gritty, documentary style, with handheld camerawork and frequent quick-zooms. It could have been cheesy, but it really adds to that "you-are-there" mentality they were going for. They didn't have much money for this, so some of the CGI effects (especially an early monster appearance) look fake. But the caliber of the actors really do serve to obscure most of the technical shortcomings. A great cast, and I won't go over all of them, but you'll see some familiar faces from Shawshank, and Marcia Gay Harden is fucking scary in this... she won an Oscar for Pollock, but she's actually better in this.
It has some shortcomings, and not everyone's going to like a horror movie, but it hits far more than it misses, and it really is one of the best horror films of the last 10 years, hands down.
What follows is my original review (dated Nov. 26, 2007), with a video clip added in. Enjoy.
Film adaptations of Stephen King's work usually go one of two ways: you get great movies like The Shawshank Redemption or Stand By Me, or you get something like Maximum Overdrive. Thankfully, this film falls into the former category. While adaptations of King's non-horror work are usually solid (films like Shawshank, Stand By Me, and The Green Mile come to mind), his horror novels hardly ever translate well to screen. While the rare film like Carrie succeeds, usually these movies go down in flames. I've always thought that the reason these films never work is the failure to translate King's great characters to the screen. While the plot is full of spooky shit, the well-drawn characters are really what make King's horror novels rise above simple pulp.
Now we have The Mist, a film from Frank Darabont - the go-to guy for film adaptations of Stephen King's work. His previous films include both Shawshank and The Green Mile and the underrated The Majestic. In fact, you could even say he owes his directorial career to King, who started him off by giving him the rights to adapt his story "The Woman in the Room" into a short film. Who could blame him for continuing to come back to the well?
Darabont somehow understands Stephen King's work in a way most directors can't seem to grasp. Characters are front and center in his novels, and even this story - Darabont's first horror film - is more about character interactions than the monsters lurking outside. In fact, without giving too much away, the people trapped inside while all this is going down are in some ways more dangerous than the creatures attacking them. As people confront each other and conflict arises, it begins to look a lot safer outside with the man-eating monsters.
I was surprised to see this much bold content in a studio horror film. References to Iraq and George Bush and even religion are woven into the film. Sometimes it's clunky, but it's never unwelcome and always interesting. The fact that the main antagonist of the film becomes not the monsters but a religious fanatic who proclaims these events an act of God and that the only way to drive the creatures away is to start throwing people out the door as sacrifices... let's just say I'm surprised a major studio allowed that. Not just that, but the fact that the scared crowd becomes brainwashed and starts to believe her... obvious allegories to the dangers of religion and even to the unquestioning faith of Bush supporters... not what you'd expect to see from a rubber monster movie. Like I said, it doesn't always work, but when it does, it's great.
Darabont shot this film in a gritty, documentary style, with handheld camerawork and frequent quick-zooms. It could have been cheesy, but it really adds to that "you-are-there" mentality they were going for. They didn't have much money for this, so some of the CGI effects (especially an early monster appearance) look fake. But the caliber of the actors really do serve to obscure most of the technical shortcomings. A great cast, and I won't go over all of them, but you'll see some familiar faces from Shawshank, and Marcia Gay Harden is fucking scary in this... she won an Oscar for Pollock, but she's actually better in this.
It has some shortcomings, and not everyone's going to like a horror movie, but it hits far more than it misses, and it really is one of the best horror films of the last 10 years, hands down.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Monday, March 03, 2008
Clip of Ida in HD
(I have like 20 minutes of footage, but this is probably the only thing I'll upload due to the long waiting time it takes to deal with HD footage... for a 3 minute clip, it takes almost an hour to render, and then 3 hours to upload on a DSL connection. Anyways, enjoy).
(I have like 20 minutes of footage, but this is probably the only thing I'll upload due to the long waiting time it takes to deal with HD footage... for a 3 minute clip, it takes almost an hour to render, and then 3 hours to upload on a DSL connection. Anyways, enjoy).
The end of the line for New Line Cinema
Well, I'm sure you've all heard the news: Warner Brothers (which owns New Line, and has for some time) has decided to fold the company and produce all further New Line films through Warner Brothers, effectively ending the company.
Well, we can't say we didn't see this coming. After years of smaller releases, New Line hit pay dirt with the Lord of the Rings movies, and, like anyone else, they got greedy. They released many more smaller movies - which tanked - and then attempted to start another franchise with The Golden Compass - which also bombed. This is a similar situation to Miramax... the company that started out with small pictures like Clerks and US releases of foreign films eventually used their success to produce big-budget films like Gangs of New York. In the movie business, you can't stay little forever.
I guess the thing that sucks about this is that throughout its lifetime, New Line always stayed true to its independent roots. Even while having mainstream success, it produced films like The Player and Short Cuts, and it was the longtime studio home of John Waters, who made many of his films there. Hell, they even released Boogie Nights and Magnolia (and had the balls to give this young guy named Paul Thomas Anderson final cut on just his second picture).
I guess it has to do with their humble beginnings. They started out renting 16mm educational films to colleges for instruction, until they took a chance by financing a little movie called A Nightmare on Elm Street. It took them a while to get past those horror-movie roots, but eventually even this little studio had an art house sub-division, FineLine Features, which released films like Hoop Dreams and even the recent Elephant (a co-production with HBO Films). They were eventually bought by Time Warner, and like they say, the rest is history.
It'll be sad to see these guys go, but I have to say, it's still nice to see the New Line logo pop up before a film. Every time I see it before Boogie Nights, I think: These guys had the balls to finance a film from a second-time director, starring Marky Mark and by-then-forgotten Burt Reynolds, about the porn industry, and they gave the director final cut. You have to admit, they had guts. RIP New Line.
Well, we can't say we didn't see this coming. After years of smaller releases, New Line hit pay dirt with the Lord of the Rings movies, and, like anyone else, they got greedy. They released many more smaller movies - which tanked - and then attempted to start another franchise with The Golden Compass - which also bombed. This is a similar situation to Miramax... the company that started out with small pictures like Clerks and US releases of foreign films eventually used their success to produce big-budget films like Gangs of New York. In the movie business, you can't stay little forever.
I guess the thing that sucks about this is that throughout its lifetime, New Line always stayed true to its independent roots. Even while having mainstream success, it produced films like The Player and Short Cuts, and it was the longtime studio home of John Waters, who made many of his films there. Hell, they even released Boogie Nights and Magnolia (and had the balls to give this young guy named Paul Thomas Anderson final cut on just his second picture).
I guess it has to do with their humble beginnings. They started out renting 16mm educational films to colleges for instruction, until they took a chance by financing a little movie called A Nightmare on Elm Street. It took them a while to get past those horror-movie roots, but eventually even this little studio had an art house sub-division, FineLine Features, which released films like Hoop Dreams and even the recent Elephant (a co-production with HBO Films). They were eventually bought by Time Warner, and like they say, the rest is history.
It'll be sad to see these guys go, but I have to say, it's still nice to see the New Line logo pop up before a film. Every time I see it before Boogie Nights, I think: These guys had the balls to finance a film from a second-time director, starring Marky Mark and by-then-forgotten Burt Reynolds, about the porn industry, and they gave the director final cut. You have to admit, they had guts. RIP New Line.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Paranoid Park
The new film from Gus Van Sant is similar in form and execution to his last few pictures (Elephant, Last Days) but differs enough to make it stand on its own. I'm frankly still not sure what to make of it, but one thing's for sure: it's better than Last Days (which was a tedious bore) and not as good as Elephant (Van Sant's masterpiece). If you can live with the reality of that assessment, and can put up with a few flaws in the film itself, you'll find an interesting little movie with a couple moments of brilliance.
First we'll talk about the kind of movie this is. It's similar to the last few Van Sant movies, in that there's not much dialogue, the movie is short, he films in lots of single takes - with a very distinctive color palette, and he's not afraid to use stylized slow-motion. In a single word: ARTY. I happen to really love his style. There's simply nothing like it out there today. And for some reason, it seems to work the best when he's telling a story about teenagers. Van Sant may have stumbled upon the filmic equivalent of adolescence. (And a side note: Just think how versatile Van Sant is - seeing these movies, you would never think this is the same guy who made Good Will Hunting and Drugstore Cowboy... Great movies, but just completely different).
There are a couple of great sequences in this film: One of them harkens back to Elephant - a kid walks down the hallway at his school, and slowly, 24 frames-per-second is ramped down to 120 fps, and we're treated to beautiful, graceful slow motion. The thing that separates it from its predecessor? The inclusion of Elliott Smith's "The White Lady Loves You More". Great song, great shot, great moment.
The other is one of those "overcome with grief" shower scenes. The main character - overcome with grief, of course - gets in the shower and freaks out. This movie thankfully puts a new spin on that. First, it's all in slow motion, so the falling water looks beautiful. Second, all of the emotion is given through the sound mix. There's the music, mixed with crazy noises, mixed with other noises, with a layer of bird noises on top... It works. Somehow, it works.
The biggest flaw the film has is its use of unprofessional actors. Elephant seemed to do this better... I don't know if it was the choice of actors, or if the many bravura Steadicam shots served to mask the acting, but it's really noticeable here. Many single takes on a single actor here - some that go on for a minute or so, and we can see the gears turning in their heads as these young kids try to remember lines. It reminded me of the kind of performances I would get out of people in my movies in high school. It's strange and hard to explain. But in a weird way, it kind of works. It brings a realism to the picture that helps it in the long run.
There's hardly any plot and the little that is there is told out of order. Not a complaint from me but merely an observation. Regardless, the movie can drag at times. Like all his recent movies, it focuses on the little things, with little regard to the big picture. Sometimes, this turns out great (Elephant). Other times, it's maddeningly dull (Last Days). It's really hit-and-miss with this sort of experimental picture. If Van Sant can figure out how to combine his new style with a plot-centric screenplay, it will be amazing.
Regardless of what I liked or didn't like about Paranoid Park, the fact remains that I won't be getting it out of my head any time soon. And these days, that's a feat in itself.
First we'll talk about the kind of movie this is. It's similar to the last few Van Sant movies, in that there's not much dialogue, the movie is short, he films in lots of single takes - with a very distinctive color palette, and he's not afraid to use stylized slow-motion. In a single word: ARTY. I happen to really love his style. There's simply nothing like it out there today. And for some reason, it seems to work the best when he's telling a story about teenagers. Van Sant may have stumbled upon the filmic equivalent of adolescence. (And a side note: Just think how versatile Van Sant is - seeing these movies, you would never think this is the same guy who made Good Will Hunting and Drugstore Cowboy... Great movies, but just completely different).
There are a couple of great sequences in this film: One of them harkens back to Elephant - a kid walks down the hallway at his school, and slowly, 24 frames-per-second is ramped down to 120 fps, and we're treated to beautiful, graceful slow motion. The thing that separates it from its predecessor? The inclusion of Elliott Smith's "The White Lady Loves You More". Great song, great shot, great moment.
The other is one of those "overcome with grief" shower scenes. The main character - overcome with grief, of course - gets in the shower and freaks out. This movie thankfully puts a new spin on that. First, it's all in slow motion, so the falling water looks beautiful. Second, all of the emotion is given through the sound mix. There's the music, mixed with crazy noises, mixed with other noises, with a layer of bird noises on top... It works. Somehow, it works.
The biggest flaw the film has is its use of unprofessional actors. Elephant seemed to do this better... I don't know if it was the choice of actors, or if the many bravura Steadicam shots served to mask the acting, but it's really noticeable here. Many single takes on a single actor here - some that go on for a minute or so, and we can see the gears turning in their heads as these young kids try to remember lines. It reminded me of the kind of performances I would get out of people in my movies in high school. It's strange and hard to explain. But in a weird way, it kind of works. It brings a realism to the picture that helps it in the long run.
There's hardly any plot and the little that is there is told out of order. Not a complaint from me but merely an observation. Regardless, the movie can drag at times. Like all his recent movies, it focuses on the little things, with little regard to the big picture. Sometimes, this turns out great (Elephant). Other times, it's maddeningly dull (Last Days). It's really hit-and-miss with this sort of experimental picture. If Van Sant can figure out how to combine his new style with a plot-centric screenplay, it will be amazing.
Regardless of what I liked or didn't like about Paranoid Park, the fact remains that I won't be getting it out of my head any time soon. And these days, that's a feat in itself.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Well, no Oscar for Paul... again. Better luck next time, I suppose. It's great that Paul's longtime cinematographer Robert Elswitt got one, though.
(Did anyone else think that the Coens were pretty smug in accepting their awards? Damn, I mean, I like them, but they really came off as assholes. "Well, I guess I don't really have much to say after the last one".... Jesus.)
(Did anyone else think that the Coens were pretty smug in accepting their awards? Damn, I mean, I like them, but they really came off as assholes. "Well, I guess I don't really have much to say after the last one".... Jesus.)
Saturday, February 23, 2008
A (brief) word on the Oscars, and
my list of The Best Films of the Year
Well folks, it's that time of year again...
First off, it would be great to see There Will Be Blood win Best Picture, but it looks like No Country for Old Men is a lock in that category. It was sort of strange to see Juno nominated for so many things, but I liked the movie, so it was a welcome surprise. All in all, there were so many great movies this year that no matter who takes home the awards, they're basically deserved.
The nominations were pretty much what we expected to see, but there were a few surprises:
First off, it would be great to see There Will Be Blood win Best Picture, but it looks like No Country for Old Men is a lock in that category. It was sort of strange to see Juno nominated for so many things, but I liked the movie, so it was a welcome surprise. All in all, there were so many great movies this year that no matter who takes home the awards, they're basically deserved.
The nominations were pretty much what we expected to see, but there were a few surprises:
- NOTHING for Zodiac! Damn, that sucks. I was worried that the Academy would forget about it (it was released in March) and that's exactly what happened. So, since that's probably what I would've liked to see take Best Pic, I'll root for Blood instead.
- Lars and the Real Girl nominated for Best Screenplay! Wow, I was really surprised. I thought it would be a little too "out there" for the voters. That's awesome.
- Only ONE song nominated from Once? And THREE from Enchanted? WTF?
- Into the Wild's score being declared inelegible because it's "too song-based" - and then it doesn't get a song nomination. That's just stupid.
- Best Supporting Actor nomination for Casey Affleck! That's nice to see. He was excellent in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, so it's well deserved.
- Only ONE nomination for Gone Baby Gone (Supporting Actress)
- Ruby Dee nominated for Supporting Actress (American Gangster). This just came out of nowhere. This definitely reeks of trying to honor her for a lifetime of work, instead of the performance.
- A Best DIRECTOR nomination for Paul Thomas Anderson! Wow, I'm surprised. He usually only gets one for screenplay (which he also got a nod for).
- It's great to see Cate Blanchett nominated for I'm Not There, even if the movie didn't get anything else.
So, regardless of everything else, let's just hope PTA finally wins for something. This year he has two chances (director and screenplay). Fingers crossed...
-------------------------------------------------
The Best Films of the Year 2007 (in order):
This is a mostly-complete list... there's about 4 major films I have yet to see, but that's about it.- Zodiac
- Margot at the Wedding
- Once
- The Darjeeling Limited
- I'm Not There
- Lars and the Real Girl
- Juno
- The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
- There Will Be Blood
- Gone Baby Gone
- Wristcutters: A Love Story
- Cassandra's Dream
- Into the Wild
- Rescue Dawn
- Waitress
- Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
- Superbad
- 2 Days in Paris
- No Country for Old Men
- Knocked Up
- The TV Set
- Sicko
- My Best Friend
- I'm Reed Fish
- The Mist
- Eastern Promises
- In the Shadow of the Moon
- We Own the Night
- The Lookout
- The Bucket List
- 28 Weeks Later...
- Charlie Wilson's War
- Hot Fuzz
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Atonement
Probably one of the worst Best Picture nominees in recent history. At once both overbearing and underwritten, the film has some serious problems, not the least of which is the pacing. Now, I never read the book, but if the film is any indication, the novel must have a paper-thin plot, because the movie sure does. Now, this may be fine for a book, where things can be endlessly examined through the words and thoughts of the characters, and thus fleshing out the narrative. Unfortunately, the picture is a full two hours long, and it certainly feels like it. Hell, it feels closer to three. A full 20 minutes – maybe even a half hour – could have been removed from this picture with little-to-no detriment to the narrative. In fact – just for argument’s sake – this would have been a great subject for a 30 minute short, with narration (something that the film sorely lacks) helping to speed along the exposition that is so tediously laid out in the finished film. Things draaaaaaaaag on in this movie. The picture creeps ever so slowly along – apparently without any consideration of the audience – with no better example than a pointless six-minute Steadicam shot that occurs mid-way through the film. Instead of using this time to properly introduce us to some of the characters we will be spending the second half of the film with, the director uses this chance to show us a flashy camera move, which, while it is a great shot, gives us nothing in the way of character or plot.
Hey, listen… I like films that aren’t exactly plot driven, too. I’m a big fan of Terrence Malick. But this fuckin’ Joe Wright guy gives us nothing to latch on to. A film needs to be driven by something. People forget that Malick’s films, while usually without much plot, are driven along by narration. Without that, you just have a collection of images. There’s no narration here. And we can skip past the plot, which I’ve said before is not much of anything. So now we have the characters and the dialogue. Many great films have been made which really don’t have anything of consequence going on, but which are worth watching because of the characterization and dialogue. Sadly, neither shows up in this movie. After the first 20 minutes, there’s barely an important word spoken (and remember, there’s no narration) until the end. And don’t even get me started on the characters. The roles are either so underwritten that the cast can’t do much with them, or the characters themselves are so cold that there’s no way to identify with them. I really couldn’t care less about the romance in the movie, because we have no idea who these two people are. No character traits, distinguishing characteristics or even one little fucking monologue. Do they think we can read the character’s mind and see into their past? No, that’s why dialogue and exposition come into play. And how do they expect the romantic chemistry to work? Sexual tension is created by the clash of two different characters’ personalities. When neither character has a personality, it’s a little difficult.
I could go off on how pretentious the music is (the sound of a typewriter “click-clacking” is one of the main undercurrents and motifs of the musical score, even when there’s no typewriter in the sequence – I’m not kidding) and how pompous the editing is (Really? Two hours of this?) but I’ll save you from my bitching.
I know I just slammed this movie, but it actually is well-made. The camera-work is nice and precise, and the photography is beautiful. But the bad outweighs the good on this one, unfortunately. I wanted to review this before the Oscars, so if it happens to win, people wouldn’t think it was some sort of post-awards reaction to it beating something else. I can honestly say that I went into this movie with an open mind, and I came out of it wondering if all the awards groups saw the same movie as me, and if they could explain to me why the hell this mess is nominated for 7 Academy Awards.
Hey, listen… I like films that aren’t exactly plot driven, too. I’m a big fan of Terrence Malick. But this fuckin’ Joe Wright guy gives us nothing to latch on to. A film needs to be driven by something. People forget that Malick’s films, while usually without much plot, are driven along by narration. Without that, you just have a collection of images. There’s no narration here. And we can skip past the plot, which I’ve said before is not much of anything. So now we have the characters and the dialogue. Many great films have been made which really don’t have anything of consequence going on, but which are worth watching because of the characterization and dialogue. Sadly, neither shows up in this movie. After the first 20 minutes, there’s barely an important word spoken (and remember, there’s no narration) until the end. And don’t even get me started on the characters. The roles are either so underwritten that the cast can’t do much with them, or the characters themselves are so cold that there’s no way to identify with them. I really couldn’t care less about the romance in the movie, because we have no idea who these two people are. No character traits, distinguishing characteristics or even one little fucking monologue. Do they think we can read the character’s mind and see into their past? No, that’s why dialogue and exposition come into play. And how do they expect the romantic chemistry to work? Sexual tension is created by the clash of two different characters’ personalities. When neither character has a personality, it’s a little difficult.
I could go off on how pretentious the music is (the sound of a typewriter “click-clacking” is one of the main undercurrents and motifs of the musical score, even when there’s no typewriter in the sequence – I’m not kidding) and how pompous the editing is (Really? Two hours of this?) but I’ll save you from my bitching.
I know I just slammed this movie, but it actually is well-made. The camera-work is nice and precise, and the photography is beautiful. But the bad outweighs the good on this one, unfortunately. I wanted to review this before the Oscars, so if it happens to win, people wouldn’t think it was some sort of post-awards reaction to it beating something else. I can honestly say that I went into this movie with an open mind, and I came out of it wondering if all the awards groups saw the same movie as me, and if they could explain to me why the hell this mess is nominated for 7 Academy Awards.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Cassandra's Dream
Another year, another Woody Allen film. Fortunately for us, Woody seems to be getting better and better lately...
Wow, what a great movie. The story is this: Two brothers (Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell) with money trouble ask for help from their rich uncle (Tom Wilkinson). The uncle agrees, on one condition: the brothers must kill a man who plans to testify against him.
It's the most suspenseful thing Woody's ever done. He ratchets up the tension to almost unbearable levels, and then has the balls to pull the camera away and not show the actual killing. It truly is a great movie, certainly on par with Match Point, although this is a different sort of film, with characters that are perhaps a bit more...moral. It's a must-see, both for fans of Woody Allen and people who just want to see a good, classically-minded suspense picture.
If this movie was made by a new director who was making his first film, we'd be calling him the next Hitchcock. Because it's from Woody, it's merely a good film from an old master... because it's not Annie Hall. Well, not everything can be.
(And P.S. - this is proof that Colin Farrell can act. And Tom Wilkinson should have gotten a Supporting Actor nod for this instead of Michael Clayton - he's menacing in a way he's never been before. Well, enough of my rambling. Just go see it.)
Wow, what a great movie. The story is this: Two brothers (Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell) with money trouble ask for help from their rich uncle (Tom Wilkinson). The uncle agrees, on one condition: the brothers must kill a man who plans to testify against him.
It's the most suspenseful thing Woody's ever done. He ratchets up the tension to almost unbearable levels, and then has the balls to pull the camera away and not show the actual killing. It truly is a great movie, certainly on par with Match Point, although this is a different sort of film, with characters that are perhaps a bit more...moral. It's a must-see, both for fans of Woody Allen and people who just want to see a good, classically-minded suspense picture.
If this movie was made by a new director who was making his first film, we'd be calling him the next Hitchcock. Because it's from Woody, it's merely a good film from an old master... because it's not Annie Hall. Well, not everything can be.
(And P.S. - this is proof that Colin Farrell can act. And Tom Wilkinson should have gotten a Supporting Actor nod for this instead of Michael Clayton - he's menacing in a way he's never been before. Well, enough of my rambling. Just go see it.)
Monday, February 18, 2008
Charlie Bartlett and Delirious
Just a quick note:
Using another video site for the video (seen below)... dunno how long it will stay up and if/when it will be taken down. So see it while you can.
Charlie Bartlett
Not your average teen movie. Manages to avoid most of the traps of the genre, while also putting a new spin on the ones it can't avoid. It's great to see Robert Downey, Jr. in this, but the real surprise is Anton Yelchin (who's been in other stuff, but I've honestly never seen him before) - he's great. Great presence, great personality, great performance. All in all, pretty good little flick. Tries too hard sometimes to make a "statement" about the youth of today, but it's definitely worth a watch.
Delirious
The new film from Tom DiCillo (Living in Oblivion). A film about fame, jealousy, and most of all, friendship. Steve Buscemi and Michael Pitt star, and they're both incredibly good. In fact, it's one of Buscemi's best performances. The dialogue (one of DiCillo's strengths) is very good, and the movie eventually becomes both touching and insightful. The satire (making fun of "reality tv" - oh, so witty!) often falls flat, but it's a minor complaint since it doesn't take up much screen time. In the end, it's not perfect, but it's a worthy companion piece to DiCillo's Living in Oblivion. It would probably make a great double feature. Good movie - even great in parts - and I strongly recommend it.
Note: Video is NSFW - contains strong language.
Using another video site for the video (seen below)... dunno how long it will stay up and if/when it will be taken down. So see it while you can.
Charlie Bartlett
Not your average teen movie. Manages to avoid most of the traps of the genre, while also putting a new spin on the ones it can't avoid. It's great to see Robert Downey, Jr. in this, but the real surprise is Anton Yelchin (who's been in other stuff, but I've honestly never seen him before) - he's great. Great presence, great personality, great performance. All in all, pretty good little flick. Tries too hard sometimes to make a "statement" about the youth of today, but it's definitely worth a watch.
Delirious
The new film from Tom DiCillo (Living in Oblivion). A film about fame, jealousy, and most of all, friendship. Steve Buscemi and Michael Pitt star, and they're both incredibly good. In fact, it's one of Buscemi's best performances. The dialogue (one of DiCillo's strengths) is very good, and the movie eventually becomes both touching and insightful. The satire (making fun of "reality tv" - oh, so witty!) often falls flat, but it's a minor complaint since it doesn't take up much screen time. In the end, it's not perfect, but it's a worthy companion piece to DiCillo's Living in Oblivion. It would probably make a great double feature. Good movie - even great in parts - and I strongly recommend it.
Note: Video is NSFW - contains strong language.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Well, I came across this camera yesterday, and I've done a lot of research on it... and I've decided to buy it, within the next month or so.
It's the Canon HV20 HD camera...
And it takes beautiful video.
Just look at these two clips below (and keep in mind, these videos were taken with a STOCK camera - no 35mm lens adapters or anything).
"Rainy Day Cinematography"
"Waiting for a bus in a snowfall"
Amazing, right? The video quality rivals $3,000 cameras (and it costs less than a third of that). And lest you think these clips are just flukes, just type in "HV20" into the Vimeo search and see the dozens of great quality clips that pop up.
I. Am. Excited.
It's the Canon HV20 HD camera...
And it takes beautiful video.
Just look at these two clips below (and keep in mind, these videos were taken with a STOCK camera - no 35mm lens adapters or anything).
"Rainy Day Cinematography"
"Waiting for a bus in a snowfall"
Amazing, right? The video quality rivals $3,000 cameras (and it costs less than a third of that). And lest you think these clips are just flukes, just type in "HV20" into the Vimeo search and see the dozens of great quality clips that pop up.
I. Am. Excited.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Michael Clayton
Tony Gilroy's directorial debut is a solid legal thriller, but really is nothing special. Great performances by George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson, and good direction from Gilroy, but there's really no reason that this movie should have been nominated for 7 Oscars (including Best Picture and Director). A good film, but not must-see material.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Margot at the Wedding
Wow, what a great movie. The new film from Noah Baumbach (The Squid and the Whale) is almost breathtaking in its intimacy and immediacy. Channeling Éric Rohmer and John Cassavetes, Baumbach uses handheld camerawork and frequently cuts in the middle of lines, creating (like his previous film) the cinematic equivalent of a moving freight train. It's a wonder to behold. Very few times in cinema are you drawn into a film completely, leaving the outside world behind, with nothing else being of any consequence other than what's up on the screen. This is one of those films.
Performances are great all around, with particular mention going to Jack Black, who rides the fine line between funnyman and dramatic character. He never crosses that line. Every bit of funny dialogue comes naturally from his character, and never feels false. Black also has a dramatic breakdown near the end of the film. Yes, you heard me right: Jack Black cries during this film. And I don't know about you, but I bought it. It worked, for me. And that's all you can really ask for.
The dialogue is amazing ("When you were a baby, I wouldn't let anyone else hold you. I think that was a mistake.") and the characters are as well-drawn as anything seen on screen in a while. And it's funny as hell. You will laugh long and hard during certain parts of this movie, and then sit mouth agape at some brilliant dramatic moment on-screen. It's one of those movies.
This is a wonderful film, possibly my new vote for best of the year. It's largely been ignored, but this is just as good - maybe even better - than The Squid and the Whale. The only thing else to say is that I'm excited to see what Baumbach will do next.
Performances are great all around, with particular mention going to Jack Black, who rides the fine line between funnyman and dramatic character. He never crosses that line. Every bit of funny dialogue comes naturally from his character, and never feels false. Black also has a dramatic breakdown near the end of the film. Yes, you heard me right: Jack Black cries during this film. And I don't know about you, but I bought it. It worked, for me. And that's all you can really ask for.
The dialogue is amazing ("When you were a baby, I wouldn't let anyone else hold you. I think that was a mistake.") and the characters are as well-drawn as anything seen on screen in a while. And it's funny as hell. You will laugh long and hard during certain parts of this movie, and then sit mouth agape at some brilliant dramatic moment on-screen. It's one of those movies.
This is a wonderful film, possibly my new vote for best of the year. It's largely been ignored, but this is just as good - maybe even better - than The Squid and the Whale. The only thing else to say is that I'm excited to see what Baumbach will do next.
There Will Be Blood
Anyone who knows me knows that Paul Thomas Anderson is my favorite filmmaker. So, after five years of waiting, here is his new film. It is an amazing picture... until the last two minutes. The ending literally made me go "huh?" - it feels so out of place with the rest of the picture, but it seems like a minor complaint when the rest of the film is so brilliant. Between this and No Country for Old Men, it feels like this is The Year of Bad Endings. Perhaps I need to focus a little less on these things, but for me the ending is one of the most important parts of a film. It is supposed to send you out, into the night and away from the theater, with a confident conclusion that both sums up the film and leaves it open for thought by the audience. I don't know, maybe another viewing will put it all into focus a little more. Well, enough with the ending, lets get to what I like about the film, which is a lot.
The movie starts out without any dialogue, for the entire 10-15 minutes of the opening. It's brilliantly shot and edited, and it serves as a sort of prologue for the story. It's wonderfully hypnotic and really draws you into the film.
Daniel Day-Lewis is great, very frightening yet strangely sympathetic. Paul Dano is equally good.
But for someone who's been following Anderson's work since the beginning, it's amazing to see what the rest of Anderson's (technical) team have achieved here. Robert Elswit has been DP on all of Anderson's films, and here he has the balls to light everything terrifically dark - in some scenes almost to the point of not being able to discern the characters from the darkness. Anderson, a big fan of fluid camera movement in his films, still uses the steadicam for parts of the film, but quite a bit of the movie is filmed with static shots (with dolly moves to heighten emotion). It's not much of a departure, however - P.T.'s trademark precise camera movement is still highly evident.
As always for an Anderson picture, the dialogue is great. Dialogue has always been one of Anderson's strengths. It's memorable without being show-offy, he reveals character traits and exposition without being too obvious, and he knows just when to end a scene.
There are many memorable lines and a few great monologues, and some dark comedy creeps in here and there. It sometimes works and it sometimes doesn't, but it adds another layer to the film and keeps it interesting. The one big misstep is the darkly comic ending, which may have worked well in another film, but in this one it comes right after a big dramatic setpiece.... I don't know, it just seemed ill-timed and ill-executed to me.
Overall, it's a great movie - one of the finest of the year. It's funny to me that this movie is getting more accolades than Anderson's other movies. It's a good film, but it's no better than Boogie Nights or especially Magnolia. I think it's just that this is an easier film for the Academy to get their heads around: it's a period piece, and it's fairly straightforward. Regardless, it's a must-see, for fans of P.T. or anyone else.
The movie starts out without any dialogue, for the entire 10-15 minutes of the opening. It's brilliantly shot and edited, and it serves as a sort of prologue for the story. It's wonderfully hypnotic and really draws you into the film.
Daniel Day-Lewis is great, very frightening yet strangely sympathetic. Paul Dano is equally good.
But for someone who's been following Anderson's work since the beginning, it's amazing to see what the rest of Anderson's (technical) team have achieved here. Robert Elswit has been DP on all of Anderson's films, and here he has the balls to light everything terrifically dark - in some scenes almost to the point of not being able to discern the characters from the darkness. Anderson, a big fan of fluid camera movement in his films, still uses the steadicam for parts of the film, but quite a bit of the movie is filmed with static shots (with dolly moves to heighten emotion). It's not much of a departure, however - P.T.'s trademark precise camera movement is still highly evident.
As always for an Anderson picture, the dialogue is great. Dialogue has always been one of Anderson's strengths. It's memorable without being show-offy, he reveals character traits and exposition without being too obvious, and he knows just when to end a scene.
There are many memorable lines and a few great monologues, and some dark comedy creeps in here and there. It sometimes works and it sometimes doesn't, but it adds another layer to the film and keeps it interesting. The one big misstep is the darkly comic ending, which may have worked well in another film, but in this one it comes right after a big dramatic setpiece.... I don't know, it just seemed ill-timed and ill-executed to me.
Overall, it's a great movie - one of the finest of the year. It's funny to me that this movie is getting more accolades than Anderson's other movies. It's a good film, but it's no better than Boogie Nights or especially Magnolia. I think it's just that this is an easier film for the Academy to get their heads around: it's a period piece, and it's fairly straightforward. Regardless, it's a must-see, for fans of P.T. or anyone else.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Just got back from There Will Be Blood, was preparing to write about it, when I logged on to my homepage and HOLY FUCKING SHIT....
Heath Ledger
1979-2008
Insanity. That's all there is to say. It's so sad, and it's crazy. We were just beginning to see what he could do.
Heath Ledger
1979-2008
Insanity. That's all there is to say. It's so sad, and it's crazy. We were just beginning to see what he could do.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Great Debaters
A classic Hollywood "inspirational" picture - in the best sense of the word. It's a refreshing change of pace from the usual downbeat films this time of year, and if you put yourself in the right frame of mind, you'll find this movie quite enjoyable. It's Denzel Washington's second film as director, and he's quickly showing his abilities behind the camera. He directs with a confident, yet delicate hand, and gets great performances out of a group of unknown young actors. Yet another very solid film from the year 2007. Let me say this: I'd rather have a lot of good films in a year than one or two masterpieces and a bunch of duds.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Rocket Science
This is a film that received a very limited release (it never opened in more than 60 theaters) but deserved to be seen by a wider audience. Written and directed by Jeffrey Blitz (who gave us the wonderful, Oscar-nominated documentary Spellbound), it is his first narrative feature. Blitz seems to understand adolescence more than most people, and this film is further evidence of that. With a great soundtrack that includes songs by the Violent Femmes, and a wonderful performance by newcomer Reece Thompson, Rocket Science is a worthy film for anyone looking for an off-kilter view of high school. Winner of the Dramatic Directing Award at the Sundance Film Festival.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
As always, the "best of the year" list is coming, but unfortunately a few of the major films of the year haven't been released in my neck of the woods yet (There Will Be Blood chief among them). So yes, it is coming, and it's great... lots of good movies this year, and hopefully it will bring your attention to some great films you may have missed.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
A trio of reviews:
The Bucket List, Charlie Wilson's War, and Wristcutters: A Love Story
The Bucket List
Hollywood schmaltz is on full display here, but it's not nearly as bad as the critics say. Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman are wonderful as always, and while the script doesn't completely live up to the story's potential, it's clever and funny, and surprisingly affecting when it needs to be. Rob Reiner, a guy who I've felt sorry for lately (his last three movies have been duds - well deserved failures, however - and this one will probably be no different, albeit an undeserved one) does a more than competent job of directing this picture, and keeps the flow of the movie nice and brisk. That's a big thing to note here: usually with dramatic pictures such as this, the running time is at least two hours... well, not with this film. It runs a trim 90 minutes, and although this might come at the detriment of some character development (we hardly ever see Freeman's wife - although the actress who plays her isn't very good anyway), the speeches the characters have more than make up for it.
Sure, it's melodramatic. Sure, it's the kind of thing Hollywood shoves out into theaters every Oscar season. But it's not that bad. If you're in the mood for something more mainstream, you could do much worse than The Bucket List.
Charlie Wilson's War
A really solid film we have here, from the master filmmaker Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Closer). It manages to inject humor and wit into the subjects of wartime and government bureaucracy, not unlike Nichols' earlier film Primary Colors. This film has a similar feel to that picture, so if you enjoyed that one, you should be right at home here. Nichols' films have great acting, but true to most of his work, it's not the leads that stand out, it's the supporting performances. Philip Seymour Hoffman completely steals the show here, as the son of a soda-pop maker who somehow found himself in government. He's angry, he's quick to insult, and he's extremely likable. This is a Supporting Actor-worthy performance if I've ever seen one, although the chances of that are unlikely.
This film has gone mostly unnoticed at the end of this year. But a sharp script, great cast, and a veteran director all make this a must-see. It's not among the top of the "best of" list, but it's very good.
Wristcutters: A Love Story
I'm in love with this movie. It's darkly comic, it's romantic, it's a little silly, and it packs a surprising emotional punch. This is a true original, and it's evidence of - along with Lars and the Real Girl - the best year for independent film in a long time.
I will sum up the plot for you, and after that I shall lose the interest of about half of you. But stay with me, as this movie isn't what it would seem at first glance. The story is this: Zia (Patrick Fugit) is devastated over his break-up with his girlfriend, and commits suicide. After doing this, however, he wakes up to realize he's not in hell but in some strange in-between world where everyone lives their lives like normal, only everything is a little off-kilter, and no one has the ability to smile. He meets Eugene (Shea Whigham), and they quickly become friends, setting off on a road trip to find Zia's ex-girlfriend, upon hearing the news that she's also committed suicide. Along the way, they pick up a hitchhiker named Mikal (Shannyn Sossamon) who joins them on their journey.
As I said, it's a little strange, and the whole suicide thing may turn you off, but here's why I told you to stay with me: The film has little to do with suicide and death and everything to do with life. The film is really more about the bonding between friends and the narrative is mostly centered around a lightly-comic road trip. Everyone just so happens to be, well... dead. This is the reason for independent film, and the reason it is thriving at these end-of-the-year awards, while mainstream pictures are left out in the dust - it's about placing familiar storylines into a new and interesting framework. If this film was made as a conventional romance, it wouldn't be offering anything new. By pushing the envelope, the filmmakers have made something worthwhile. And it's all the more amazing because it succeeds.
It's good. That's all you need to know. Only a certain type of person will want to see a picture with this type of quirky sensibility, but if you're one of them, you're in store for a treat. And Tom Waits is in it!
Hollywood schmaltz is on full display here, but it's not nearly as bad as the critics say. Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman are wonderful as always, and while the script doesn't completely live up to the story's potential, it's clever and funny, and surprisingly affecting when it needs to be. Rob Reiner, a guy who I've felt sorry for lately (his last three movies have been duds - well deserved failures, however - and this one will probably be no different, albeit an undeserved one) does a more than competent job of directing this picture, and keeps the flow of the movie nice and brisk. That's a big thing to note here: usually with dramatic pictures such as this, the running time is at least two hours... well, not with this film. It runs a trim 90 minutes, and although this might come at the detriment of some character development (we hardly ever see Freeman's wife - although the actress who plays her isn't very good anyway), the speeches the characters have more than make up for it.
Sure, it's melodramatic. Sure, it's the kind of thing Hollywood shoves out into theaters every Oscar season. But it's not that bad. If you're in the mood for something more mainstream, you could do much worse than The Bucket List.
Charlie Wilson's War
A really solid film we have here, from the master filmmaker Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Closer). It manages to inject humor and wit into the subjects of wartime and government bureaucracy, not unlike Nichols' earlier film Primary Colors. This film has a similar feel to that picture, so if you enjoyed that one, you should be right at home here. Nichols' films have great acting, but true to most of his work, it's not the leads that stand out, it's the supporting performances. Philip Seymour Hoffman completely steals the show here, as the son of a soda-pop maker who somehow found himself in government. He's angry, he's quick to insult, and he's extremely likable. This is a Supporting Actor-worthy performance if I've ever seen one, although the chances of that are unlikely.
This film has gone mostly unnoticed at the end of this year. But a sharp script, great cast, and a veteran director all make this a must-see. It's not among the top of the "best of" list, but it's very good.
Wristcutters: A Love Story
I'm in love with this movie. It's darkly comic, it's romantic, it's a little silly, and it packs a surprising emotional punch. This is a true original, and it's evidence of - along with Lars and the Real Girl - the best year for independent film in a long time.
I will sum up the plot for you, and after that I shall lose the interest of about half of you. But stay with me, as this movie isn't what it would seem at first glance. The story is this: Zia (Patrick Fugit) is devastated over his break-up with his girlfriend, and commits suicide. After doing this, however, he wakes up to realize he's not in hell but in some strange in-between world where everyone lives their lives like normal, only everything is a little off-kilter, and no one has the ability to smile. He meets Eugene (Shea Whigham), and they quickly become friends, setting off on a road trip to find Zia's ex-girlfriend, upon hearing the news that she's also committed suicide. Along the way, they pick up a hitchhiker named Mikal (Shannyn Sossamon) who joins them on their journey.
As I said, it's a little strange, and the whole suicide thing may turn you off, but here's why I told you to stay with me: The film has little to do with suicide and death and everything to do with life. The film is really more about the bonding between friends and the narrative is mostly centered around a lightly-comic road trip. Everyone just so happens to be, well... dead. This is the reason for independent film, and the reason it is thriving at these end-of-the-year awards, while mainstream pictures are left out in the dust - it's about placing familiar storylines into a new and interesting framework. If this film was made as a conventional romance, it wouldn't be offering anything new. By pushing the envelope, the filmmakers have made something worthwhile. And it's all the more amazing because it succeeds.
It's good. That's all you need to know. Only a certain type of person will want to see a picture with this type of quirky sensibility, but if you're one of them, you're in store for a treat. And Tom Waits is in it!
Friday, December 28, 2007
PTA article on Slate
I've never been fond of Slate and its movie commentary... they usually have no idea what they're talking about. But today I found a great article about Paul Thomas Anderson on their website. It's a well-written piece, and it explains - in a concise and easily comprehensible way - why I love his films. Read it for yourself, and you just might understand why I'm obsessed with his work.
Click here to read the article
Click here to read the article
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Juno
This movie isn't quite the revelation that everyone's saying it is, but it's a very solid film. Ellen Page is wonderful - truly a breakout star. The supporting cast is pitch-perfect and everyone is well-cast in their roles. The screenplay is lightly comic without going overboard, and the dramatic moments work because they're earned. The biggest surprise for me was the direction of Jason Reitman (son of director Ivan Reitman) - it is quite simply the reason the film works. He conveys a sense of longing and quirky melancholy that might have been lost amongst the humor. This is his second feature, his first being 2006's Thank You for Smoking, a film I was less-than-impressed with. It was unfocused, with little-to-no narrative drive and a group of characters that weren't interesting enough to want to spend time with. Reitman wrote that screenplay. He didn't write this one. The screenwriter this time is Diablo Cody, and although her script relies a little too much on hip wordplay and self-consciously clever dialogue, this aspect of the film is diminished after the first half hour, and we settle into this nice little world she has created. The script's greatest accomplishment is it's structure: not a scene is wasted, and every sequence is there for a reason.
There's really nothing more to say... go see this film. If you're like me, the first half hour or so will be a little grating (it's like a screenwriter screaming in your face "Look at me! I'm here!"), but it's quickly over with and you'll discover a charming little story with a little something for everyone. (And I have to say, I LOVE the last shot of the film... I know, I know, it might not seem like much to some people, but it's simple, graceful, and - my favorite part - it goes on forever...)
There's really nothing more to say... go see this film. If you're like me, the first half hour or so will be a little grating (it's like a screenwriter screaming in your face "Look at me! I'm here!"), but it's quickly over with and you'll discover a charming little story with a little something for everyone. (And I have to say, I LOVE the last shot of the film... I know, I know, it might not seem like much to some people, but it's simple, graceful, and - my favorite part - it goes on forever...)
Friday, December 21, 2007
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Forget No Country for Old Men - this is the real great crime film of 2007. Don't get me wrong, No Country was good, but this film has it beat. It gives us an interesting plot and great characterization, not to mention a satisfying ending (you listening, Coen brothers?). Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is the latest film from Sidney Lumet (Dog Day Afternoon, Network), an old-timer who still knows how to tell a story, and to tell it well.
An interesting sidenote: the movie was filmed on HD video, but I couldn't even tell until I read an article which mentioned it. Apparently, Lumet will never shoot on film again, and predicts that everyone will abandon film within five years. Remember my little talk about Zodiac and how film is dead? Well, when veterans like Lumet and Altman (who shot his last few features on video) decide to give up film, that really says something.
Great movie, don't hesitate to see it.
An interesting sidenote: the movie was filmed on HD video, but I couldn't even tell until I read an article which mentioned it. Apparently, Lumet will never shoot on film again, and predicts that everyone will abandon film within five years. Remember my little talk about Zodiac and how film is dead? Well, when veterans like Lumet and Altman (who shot his last few features on video) decide to give up film, that really says something.
Great movie, don't hesitate to see it.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
I'm Not There
"That's when she knew it was over for good. The longest-running war in television history. The war that hung like a shadow over the same nine years as her marriage. So why was it suddenly so hard to breathe?..."
Holy shit. This movie is truly an original. Part experimental film, part documentary, and part biopic, the new film from Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven) is nothing less than perhaps the greatest biographical film of all time.
Biopics (an industry-coined term, short for "biographical picture") have become all the rage lately, especially ones about musicians. While most of them have been good (Ray, Walk the Line), there's no denying the fact that they all follow a similar structure and formula. Bob Dylan, always the innovator, wisely decided to wait until a script came along that broke the mold. This film, to which Dylan has given his stamp of approval (by allowing the use of his music) is the first non-documentary telling of his life.
No less than six actors play Dylan at different stages of his life (although none are actually given his name):
Holy shit. This movie is truly an original. Part experimental film, part documentary, and part biopic, the new film from Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven) is nothing less than perhaps the greatest biographical film of all time.
Biopics (an industry-coined term, short for "biographical picture") have become all the rage lately, especially ones about musicians. While most of them have been good (Ray, Walk the Line), there's no denying the fact that they all follow a similar structure and formula. Bob Dylan, always the innovator, wisely decided to wait until a script came along that broke the mold. This film, to which Dylan has given his stamp of approval (by allowing the use of his music) is the first non-documentary telling of his life.
No less than six actors play Dylan at different stages of his life (although none are actually given his name):
- Marcus Carl Franklin, a young black boy, plays Dylan's younger self. He calls himself "Woody Guthrie", an obvious allusion to the fact that Dylan not only worshipped Guthrie, but also (in his younger days) tried to emulate him in every way.
- Ben Whishaw (who has the smallest Dylan role) plays Arthur Rimbaud, a sort of narrator of our story, although, in true Dylan fashion, he is reluctant to explain himself beyond vague phrases and riddles.
- Christian Bale plays Jack Rollins, the character which represents Dylan's transition from simple folk singer to a recognized performer of "protest songs" (more specifically, the time period surrounding his album "The Times They Are a-Changin'"). This story in the film differs from the others in that it is told in a faux-documentary form, with fake interviews of actors playing characters based on real people (such as Julianne Moore, who plays a character based on Joan Baez). Bale's character also returns later on, as we view Dylan's brief Christian reform.
- Cate Blanchett plays Jude Quinn, based on the Don't Look Back-era Dylan. As such, this section is filmed in black and white, like that film. Blanchett, while female, probably gives the best performance as Dylan. It is just simply spot-on.
- Heath Ledger plays Robbie Clark, who represents Dylan during the time his marriage was falling apart (AKA, the Blood on the Tracks period). One of the best uses of Dylan's music in the film is during this section. "Visions of Johanna" plays over the sequence where his wife first realizes it's over. The whole sequence is great, but the best part of it is the beginning - the song fading in, the simultaneous push-ins, the 4 flash cuts, and Ledger's hushed voice-over. Perfect.
- And finally, Richard Gere plays Billy, an aged outlaw and the literal manifestation of Dylan's fascination with Billy the Kid.
I will begin to talk about the complicated narrative structure of the film, which often does not reference events directly, but relies on the audience's prior knowledge of Dylan to fill in the blanks. I must stress this point here: do not attempt to watch this film unless you've seen at least the two main Dylan documentaries, Don't Look Back and No Direction Home, and have read a brief history of his life (this is a good place to start). I say this because the film will make little-to-no sense for someone without a primer in Dylan 101.
Take the scene below, for instance. In this wonderful sequence, the Dylan character who calls himself "Woody Guthrie" goes to visit a dying music legend in the hospital. Only Dylan fans would know that this was based on a true event - Dylan visited his idol and musical inspiration Woody Guthrie as he lay dying in his hospital bed. It was a main turning point in his life, and it allowed him to put down the Guthrie persona and become his own being. Thus, after this scene, the black Dylan character disappears from the film.
Even more potentially confusing is the Gere character, who not only embodies the Billy the Kid persona Dylan took on while working on the film Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid and its soundtrack, but because the film makes liberal use of non-linear structure and cross-cutting, this section is actually a direct comment on the Heath Ledger storyline which is happening right alongside it. As his marriage is breaking up, and Dylan becomes more withdrawn, it's almost as if this Billy character is his fantasy - becoming someone who no one knows, living in a small, simple town and being content with himself. As the town is threatened with destruction, this is representative of Dylan waking up from his depression and finally moving on, as the character hitches a ride on a train (echoing the beginning) and rides away. This makes little sense as we're watching it, but as Billy's dog - his one true companion - struggles to catch up with the fleeing train and fails, Gere mutters "Goodbye, my lady", and we're suddenly aware that he's talking about his wife. We sense his character's loss, and therefore, also Dylan's. It's a brilliant way of portraying something not easily conveyed on screen.
The more I talk about this film, the more amazing I realize it is. It's a must-see for Dylan fans, and even for people who don't know about him - do a little Dylan research and then see this film. It won't be nominated for it, but it deserves the Best Screenplay Oscar. And I haven't even seen There Will Be Blood yet. That's how good it is.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Two of the best performances of the year, bright and persuasive direction from a relatively unknown filmmaker, and one of the best music scores of recent memory, all collide in this must-see film.
I will say, first and foremost, that this film is not for everybody. It runs nearly three hours, and it is a slow and meditative film. It takes patience and energy to view this film, and it's not something for a casual viewing. It was completed in 2005 and not released until now, so that should tell you just how unsure of this movie the studio was. Stylistically, the film is equal parts Terrence Malick and Ingmar Bergman, and its main priority is slowly building character and plot through narration and nuance. Truthfully, this thing could be a half hour shorter, and there were times I grew weary of the slow pacing, but by the end, I was eternally grateful for every second of screen time beforehand, as it helps build into a breathtaking, emotional finale.
This is director Andrew Dominik's second film, and he is truly one to watch. His only previous film was a little Australian picture from 2000 entitled Chopper. I have no idea how he was able to get the job of writing and directing this film, but I'm glad he did. His directing is simple and unobtrusive, and his camerawork is fluid and precise. Reminds me a lot of the work of Paul Thomas Anderson. He doesn't quite have the gift for writing that PTA does (scenes drag on too long, etc.), but his deft handling of the material more than makes up for it.
Both of the two leads in this film - Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck - are exceptional. Pitt is menacing and frightening but also likable and sympathetic, something that is required for his character. But the real shining star here is Casey Affleck. We had two films this year - Gone Baby Gone and now this - in which he was absolutely amazing. He's subtle, believable, and altogether brilliant. He's no longer just the "other Affleck" from Good Will Hunting... he's a damn good actor. It's a pretty tight Supporting Actor race at the Oscars this year, so I doubt he'll get a nomination, but he won Best Supporting Actor from the National Board of Review, and it's richly deserved.
The score is by Nick Cave (yes, that Nick Cave) and Warren Ellis, and it's haunting, evocative, and just right. The cinematography is beautiful, as the film was shot by Roger Deakins, the Coen Brothers' frequent DP. But the real gem here is the story. As the title tells you, it's the true story of the assassination of Jesse James by Robert Ford. That detail is given to you right in the title, right up front, and it's obvious that's what the film is about. But the film is really about the desire for fame and infamy, and the resulting consequences. That's all I'll say, but that's where the ending of the film takes you, and it's beautiful, touching, and perfect.
One of the best films of the year. Don't go into this expecting action, or even a western. If you're a fan of the Terrence Malick style of filmmaking, you'll be right at home.
I will say, first and foremost, that this film is not for everybody. It runs nearly three hours, and it is a slow and meditative film. It takes patience and energy to view this film, and it's not something for a casual viewing. It was completed in 2005 and not released until now, so that should tell you just how unsure of this movie the studio was. Stylistically, the film is equal parts Terrence Malick and Ingmar Bergman, and its main priority is slowly building character and plot through narration and nuance. Truthfully, this thing could be a half hour shorter, and there were times I grew weary of the slow pacing, but by the end, I was eternally grateful for every second of screen time beforehand, as it helps build into a breathtaking, emotional finale.
This is director Andrew Dominik's second film, and he is truly one to watch. His only previous film was a little Australian picture from 2000 entitled Chopper. I have no idea how he was able to get the job of writing and directing this film, but I'm glad he did. His directing is simple and unobtrusive, and his camerawork is fluid and precise. Reminds me a lot of the work of Paul Thomas Anderson. He doesn't quite have the gift for writing that PTA does (scenes drag on too long, etc.), but his deft handling of the material more than makes up for it.
Both of the two leads in this film - Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck - are exceptional. Pitt is menacing and frightening but also likable and sympathetic, something that is required for his character. But the real shining star here is Casey Affleck. We had two films this year - Gone Baby Gone and now this - in which he was absolutely amazing. He's subtle, believable, and altogether brilliant. He's no longer just the "other Affleck" from Good Will Hunting... he's a damn good actor. It's a pretty tight Supporting Actor race at the Oscars this year, so I doubt he'll get a nomination, but he won Best Supporting Actor from the National Board of Review, and it's richly deserved.
The score is by Nick Cave (yes, that Nick Cave) and Warren Ellis, and it's haunting, evocative, and just right. The cinematography is beautiful, as the film was shot by Roger Deakins, the Coen Brothers' frequent DP. But the real gem here is the story. As the title tells you, it's the true story of the assassination of Jesse James by Robert Ford. That detail is given to you right in the title, right up front, and it's obvious that's what the film is about. But the film is really about the desire for fame and infamy, and the resulting consequences. That's all I'll say, but that's where the ending of the film takes you, and it's beautiful, touching, and perfect.
One of the best films of the year. Don't go into this expecting action, or even a western. If you're a fan of the Terrence Malick style of filmmaking, you'll be right at home.
Monday, December 10, 2007
No Country for Old Men
The Coen Brothers' new movie, No Country for Old Men, is a rousing thrill-ride for much of its running time, but with an ending that, well... just simply sucks.
As I understand it, the film follows the novel quite closely, and the ending is the same as in the book. Well, this would have been a great chance to do some re-writing, because the ending comes out of nowhere, and not in a good way. People praise the ending of No Country as clever, as it is not only unexpected, but stylistically different from the rest of the film/novel. I simply see it as someone not knowing how to end their story. Without giving too much away, I will say that the last 10 minutes go in a completely different direction from the rest of the film, characters disappear, the momentum that has been growing throughout the film suddenly drops into nothingness, and we have been cheated as an audience.
You really have to see the film to understand what I'm saying here - and I don't want to give away any spoilers - but the story has some serious narrative problems, the ending chief among them. The film itself is great - one of the Coens' best - but that ending... it's just a sore spot with me. You can surprise your audience - even anger and upset them - but it has to come from somewhere meaningful, and it has to (for lack of a better word) jive with the rest of the film. If something feels like it doesn't belong in a film, chances are it shouldn't be there. I understand the attempt to do something different, but sometimes it's better to give what's expected than to fail your audience.
As I understand it, the film follows the novel quite closely, and the ending is the same as in the book. Well, this would have been a great chance to do some re-writing, because the ending comes out of nowhere, and not in a good way. People praise the ending of No Country as clever, as it is not only unexpected, but stylistically different from the rest of the film/novel. I simply see it as someone not knowing how to end their story. Without giving too much away, I will say that the last 10 minutes go in a completely different direction from the rest of the film, characters disappear, the momentum that has been growing throughout the film suddenly drops into nothingness, and we have been cheated as an audience.
You really have to see the film to understand what I'm saying here - and I don't want to give away any spoilers - but the story has some serious narrative problems, the ending chief among them. The film itself is great - one of the Coens' best - but that ending... it's just a sore spot with me. You can surprise your audience - even anger and upset them - but it has to come from somewhere meaningful, and it has to (for lack of a better word) jive with the rest of the film. If something feels like it doesn't belong in a film, chances are it shouldn't be there. I understand the attempt to do something different, but sometimes it's better to give what's expected than to fail your audience.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Mist
Film adaptations of Stephen King's work usually go one of two ways: you get great movies like The Shawshank Redemption or Stand By Me, or you get something like Maximum Overdrive. Thankfully, this film falls into the former category. While adaptations of King's non-horror work are usually solid (films like Shawshank, Stand By Me, and The Green Mile come to mind), his horror novels hardly ever translate well to screen. While the rare film like Carrie succeeds, usually these movies go down in flames. I've always thought that the reason these films never work is the failure to translate King's great characters to the screen. While the plot is full of spooky shit, the well-drawn characters are really what make King's horror novels rise above simple pulp.
Now we have The Mist, a film from Frank Darabont - the go-to guy for film adaptations of Stephen King's work. His previous films include both Shawshank and The Green Mile and the underrated The Majestic. In fact, you could even say he owes his directorial career to King, who started him off by giving him the rights to adapt his story "The Woman in the Room" into a short film. Who could blame him for continuing to come back to the well?
Darabont somehow understands Stephen King's work in a way most directors can't seem to grasp. Characters are front and center in his novels, and even this story - Darabont's first horror film - is more about character interactions than the monsters lurking outside. In fact, without giving too much away, the people trapped inside while all this is going down are in some ways more dangerous than the creatures attacking them. As people confront each other and conflict arises, it begins to look a lot safer outside with the man-eating monsters.
I was surprised to see this much bold content in a studio horror film. References to Iraq and George Bush and even religion are woven into the film. Sometimes it's clunky, but it's never unwelcome and always interesting. The fact that the main antagonist of the film becomes not the monsters but a religious fanatic who proclaims these events an act of God and that the only way to drive the creatures away is to start throwing people out the door as sacrifices... let's just say I'm surprised a major studio allowed that. Not just that, but the fact that the scared crowd becomes brainwashed and starts to believe her... obvious allegories to the dangers of religion and even to the unquestioning faith of Bush supporters... not what you'd expect to see from a rubber monster movie. Like I said, it doesn't always work, but when it does, it's great.
Darabont shot this film in a gritty, documentary style, with handheld camerawork and frequent quick-zooms. It could have been cheesy, but it really adds to that "you-are-there" mentality they were going for. They didn't have much money for this, so some of the CGI effects (especially an early monster appearance) look fake. But the caliber of the actors really do serve to obscure most of the technical shortcomings. A great cast, and I won't go over all of them, but you'll see some familiar faces from Shawshank, and Marcia Gay Harden is fucking scary in this... she won an Oscar for Pollock, but she's actually better in this.
It has some shortcomings, and not everyone's going to like a horror movie, but it hits far more than it misses, and it really is one of the best horror films of the last 10 years, hands down.
Now we have The Mist, a film from Frank Darabont - the go-to guy for film adaptations of Stephen King's work. His previous films include both Shawshank and The Green Mile and the underrated The Majestic. In fact, you could even say he owes his directorial career to King, who started him off by giving him the rights to adapt his story "The Woman in the Room" into a short film. Who could blame him for continuing to come back to the well?
Darabont somehow understands Stephen King's work in a way most directors can't seem to grasp. Characters are front and center in his novels, and even this story - Darabont's first horror film - is more about character interactions than the monsters lurking outside. In fact, without giving too much away, the people trapped inside while all this is going down are in some ways more dangerous than the creatures attacking them. As people confront each other and conflict arises, it begins to look a lot safer outside with the man-eating monsters.
I was surprised to see this much bold content in a studio horror film. References to Iraq and George Bush and even religion are woven into the film. Sometimes it's clunky, but it's never unwelcome and always interesting. The fact that the main antagonist of the film becomes not the monsters but a religious fanatic who proclaims these events an act of God and that the only way to drive the creatures away is to start throwing people out the door as sacrifices... let's just say I'm surprised a major studio allowed that. Not just that, but the fact that the scared crowd becomes brainwashed and starts to believe her... obvious allegories to the dangers of religion and even to the unquestioning faith of Bush supporters... not what you'd expect to see from a rubber monster movie. Like I said, it doesn't always work, but when it does, it's great.
Darabont shot this film in a gritty, documentary style, with handheld camerawork and frequent quick-zooms. It could have been cheesy, but it really adds to that "you-are-there" mentality they were going for. They didn't have much money for this, so some of the CGI effects (especially an early monster appearance) look fake. But the caliber of the actors really do serve to obscure most of the technical shortcomings. A great cast, and I won't go over all of them, but you'll see some familiar faces from Shawshank, and Marcia Gay Harden is fucking scary in this... she won an Oscar for Pollock, but she's actually better in this.
It has some shortcomings, and not everyone's going to like a horror movie, but it hits far more than it misses, and it really is one of the best horror films of the last 10 years, hands down.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Lars and the Real Girl
I remember thinking while watching this movie: this is what independent filmmaking is all about. A unique, passionate vision that a studio wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Independent filmmaking his become quite the narrowly defined genre over the past few years - even the term has taken on a different name. Independent has been compressed to indie, and the output has quickly become hip, coming-of-age teen films. In essence, something that the studios can easily market. When all the independent distributors went out of business or were bought out by the big guys, we were given a bunch of "arthouse" sub-labels (i.e. Focus Features, which is part of Universal) which were nothing more than studio pictures with smaller budgets.
This film hearkens back to the independent films of the 90's - something easily identifiable as independent and something the studios would never produce. Simply read the plotline: A young man, lonely and confused, becomes delusional and begins to pretend that a life-size female doll is actually alive and is his girlfriend. Now, put something like this in the wrong hands, and you have a gross-out comedy or a sketch on SNL. Handled deftly by newcomers Nancy Oliver and Craig Gillespie (writer and director, respectively) however, and you have a touching, layered film that examines loneliness, isolation and love, albeit with a quirky sensibility.
I kept coming back to Harold and Maude while watching this film. Another film with a plot that could be obvious for jokes (an 18-year-old has a relationship with an 80-year-old woman), it instead prefers to go deeper, and look at motivation and underlying issues. It skirts a fine line, and almost always stays on the right side of it.
Ryan Gosling, a recent Oscar-nominee for Half Nelson, could have easily cashed-in on his new found popularity with a string of romantic comedies, but here he takes on a particularly challenging role, and he's simply a revelation. Lars is warm and likable, and the movie simply can't work without him. The rest of the cast is uniformly wonderful. I was especially impressed with Paul Schneider (All the Real Girls). Because of its strange plot, the film will most likely be ignored come awards time, but if it was up to me, I'd give him a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. He's funny without being broad, and he gives his character substantial weight and sympathy, which makes his transformation from disappointed brother to a supportive backbone in Lars' life that much more touching.
This movie won't be for everyone, but people with an open mind and a hunger for something different will find one of the best films of the year.
This film hearkens back to the independent films of the 90's - something easily identifiable as independent and something the studios would never produce. Simply read the plotline: A young man, lonely and confused, becomes delusional and begins to pretend that a life-size female doll is actually alive and is his girlfriend. Now, put something like this in the wrong hands, and you have a gross-out comedy or a sketch on SNL. Handled deftly by newcomers Nancy Oliver and Craig Gillespie (writer and director, respectively) however, and you have a touching, layered film that examines loneliness, isolation and love, albeit with a quirky sensibility.
I kept coming back to Harold and Maude while watching this film. Another film with a plot that could be obvious for jokes (an 18-year-old has a relationship with an 80-year-old woman), it instead prefers to go deeper, and look at motivation and underlying issues. It skirts a fine line, and almost always stays on the right side of it.
Ryan Gosling, a recent Oscar-nominee for Half Nelson, could have easily cashed-in on his new found popularity with a string of romantic comedies, but here he takes on a particularly challenging role, and he's simply a revelation. Lars is warm and likable, and the movie simply can't work without him. The rest of the cast is uniformly wonderful. I was especially impressed with Paul Schneider (All the Real Girls). Because of its strange plot, the film will most likely be ignored come awards time, but if it was up to me, I'd give him a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. He's funny without being broad, and he gives his character substantial weight and sympathy, which makes his transformation from disappointed brother to a supportive backbone in Lars' life that much more touching.
This movie won't be for everyone, but people with an open mind and a hunger for something different will find one of the best films of the year.
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Great Movies
This is the result of a couple of nights of boredom. I actually think it turned out really well. The objective was to show the power of film through clips of some of the best movies of all time. I think the moving score behind it (Jerry Goldsmith's theme from Rudy) really helps. Check it out, and enjoy.
Click here to watch The Great Movies
Click here to watch The Great Movies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
