"I perceive value, I confer value, I create value, I even create — or guarantee — existence. Hence, my compulsion to make “lists.” The things (Beethoven’s music, movies, business firms) won’t exist unless I signify my interest in them by at least noting down their names.” -Susan Sontag
I knew I wouldn't be able to keep up, so these will be quick mini-reviews:
The Whistleblower
Hm. This film is made well. And it is about an important subject (human trafficking in Bosnia after the war). Rachel Weisz continues to be one of my favorite actresses. And it is well directed, so it never becomes preachy or overly melodramatic. In fact, a long stretch of the film plays like a thriller, which works really well and keeps ratcheting up the tension.
All that said, it is about human trafficking. It's a hard subject to watch. I get the sense that it is like Precious. You have to be ready to go into a film knowing that it is very well done, but on a really depressing topic. If you have a day like that, this is well worth a watch.
3/5 Stars
Page One; A Year Inside the New York Times
This is pretty much a love letter to the Times. It isn't a particularly hard-hitting documentary, and given that it looks at the decline of newspapers in the rise of blogs and huffpo and whatnot, the topic could use something a little more informative. That being said, it is certainly entertaining and fun to watch. I can't imagine the material that must have come out of a year's worth of filming and the fact that it holds as a coherent narrative is seriously impressive.
3.5/5 Stars
Another Earth
This was brilliant. I completely loved it. I don't really know how best to describe it. It's about a woman, Rhoda, who on the eve of being accepted into MIT's astrophysics program, makes a horrible mistake. It is also the same evening that a second Earth is discovered. The film then follows Rhoda as she attempts to atone for what she has done and find a way forward in her life.
It's much more a character drama than a sci-fi label might suggest (Moon notwithstanding). Although the second Earth discovery does prompt a myriad of questions and possibilities. What if there is another me out there? Did they make the same choices? What would their life be like? The two leads, William Mapother and Brit Marling (co-writer, co-producer) give absolutely amazing performances. If anything, I wanted more time with the characters - they were just such complete, interesting portraits.
I can maybe sense that this is going to be this year's Hurt Locker/Winter's Bone (the brilliant small film that comes out in the midst of the blockbuster season). So save me the trouble of droning on and on about how amazing it is, and just go see it. (It comes out July 20th).
5/5 Stars
Circumstance
This was so good. (And, as a side note, it won the audience award at Sundance.) It's about two teenage girls in Iran who fall in love and try to survive adolescence in Iran. Much as I love Persepolis, I think this film gives a much clearer idea of what it would be like to grow up under such heavy restrictions. To have to do everything in secret, underground, to be scared of who to trust not to turn you in to the government - and to have such dire consequences when you most feel the need to rebel and experiment and act out. It's a beautiful love story, a wonderful portrait of a family trying its best to cope under difficult times, and a fully realized vision of Iranian youth culture. It has fantastic character development, it's funny, sexy and heartbreaking. Go see it.
4.5/5 Stars
My Joy
There's a reason I don't often delve into the great Russian authors. Great Russian art is a downer. This is a dark, absurdest series of vignettes that follows a truck driver as he goes down a cursed road. It keeps getting darker and weirder, and it certainly sticks to its convictions. Also - as an interesting side note - it was the only first feature film accepted at Cannes last year.
3/5 Stars
The Trip
An edited down version of a BBC miniseries. It's mostly Rob Brydon doing impressions for almost the entire running time, sometimes with Steve Coogan keeping up. It is intermittently hilarious. It is also filled with food porn. You should make reservations at a really great restaurant for afterward.
3.5/5 Stars
Submarine
Awww.. I'm glad this ended up being my last film. It's adorable. Very much in the Wes Anderson vibe, and it is quite cute. It's a coming of age set in Wales in the 80s and has Noah Taylor and Sally Hawkins, along with Paddy Considine, whom I did not know was in it as all. So - fantastic cast and very charming.
Hmm... that all comes off as precious. And it isn't, really. It's very deadpan. And it doesn't succumb to the cliche of wrapping everything up in a neat little uplifting bow. It's a lovely romance with lots of clever monologues, but the film also touches on heartbreak and depression. It's a pretty ambitious first film and the director carries it all off.
4/5 Stars
I ended up missing the Redemption of General Butt Naked and Incendies, as well as the two shorts programs I had planned on. I'm exhausted. Still, 15 films in 13 days ain't too bad... I do need to catch Incendies on DVD, though...
And on a final, final note, Burlesque has been playing in the background as I write this. There are so many things about this movie I don't understand. Are Cher and Kristen Bell supposed to be the same age? Why does Alan Cumming keep photobombing the proceedings? How much did Famous Amos pay for product placement? Why is Cher not given more than two emotions to play? Why can't the make up artists get Christina's eyeliner straight? Does she have a lazy eye? Did they really just start playing Mazzy Star? What decade is this in? Did the guy grow a beard in 24 hours? Does Kristen Bell really never go to rehab? Umm... is Christina Aguilera sampling Marilyn Manson? And could this plot be any more paint by the numbers? This should have been a whole lot campier and Chicago-esque. At least Stanley Tucci seems like he's having fun.
I'm sure I'll probably get behind on a lot of these, since the next two weeks will be pretty busy, but I'll try to at least post brief impressions of the films I see. [Ed update: oh, god. I'm already behind.]
Meek's Cutoff I ended up really enjoying this a lot. It's a very minimalist film, and probably not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it ends up being an incredibly realistic telling of what life on the Oregon Trail must have been like. It would have been hard, tedious, and scary. There would have been a looming threat of not making it, and having your survival dependent upon the abilities of your traveling companions.
The other really interesting thing is that the film was not shot in wide screen, which was so unusual. I thought it ended up mimicking how the women would have seen the landscape out of their bonnets, and it worked well to focus your attention on the characters.
4/5 Stars
Stake Land I LOVED this film. It is sort of The Road with a supernatural bent, or I've heard it described as a 'post-apocalyptic, vampire western.' And it is scary. Not because of the vampires, although those are good for a few good jump scares, but because of the picture it paints of how America would disintegrate in the wake of an apocalypse. It is horrifying because it feels true. As the protagonist explains, cults pop up everywhere and the religious right goes off the deep end (not that they have far to go, but I digress). It isn't the vampires you have to survive so much as the people. (The main religious cult actually ended up reminding me a bit of the cult that springs up in Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.) I think everyone likes to think that they'd be able to survive in a post-apocalyptic world, given that it is a popular genre. And while I think I might be able to feed myself and find shelter, the film taps into the primal fear that there isn't anything you'd be able to do against religious fundamentalism-crazy. Could any sense of goodness or culture survive when nutjobs drop vampires from helicopters to cleanse the world of sinners?
Anyways, the characters in the film are fabulous. It is mostly about a boy named Martin, who is taken under the wing of a vampire-killer, known only as Mister. Mister schools Martin in the finer arts of vampire killing and survival and along the way they meet up with other survivors. All of the character development is great. And there are some really fun killing vampire parts. But that sense of scary is definitely going to linger.
5/5 Stars
Le Quattro Volte
If Meek's Cutoff is somewhat of an art film which may not be for everyone, that goes double for Le Quattro Volte (quadruple?). I don't really want to describe it, because I think going in without knowing much adds to the experience. I will just say that there is almost no dialogue and, as the introduction at the film fest went, it "pushes the boundaries of what is possible cinematically." That said, I don't want the non-traditional plot to scare off potential viewers. There are moments that work as well as any Charlie Chaplin film (seriously - the whole theater was laughing). And it is incredibly well made. The only thing I will say about the subject matter is; Goats! Lots and lots of goats! (So, also a good film for those who enjoy Cute Overload.)
4/5 Stars
The Troll Hunter
This film has a really great premise, and is mostly executed well, but it really needed to be edited down more. 2 hours is a long time to be hunting Trolls. There are certainly a lot of clever touches, but I did get restless in parts. However, the found footage gimmick works well and the Troll CGI is great. It is worth checking out if you are so inclined.
3/5 Stars
The Future
I... am not sure I totally understood this film. But I liked it.
It is about a couple who will be picking up a stray cat from the vet in a month and adopting it. They realize that this means it will be their last true month of freedom and they decide to be open to the possibilities that affords while facing the uncertainties of... well, the future. However, a certain amount of magical realism creeps into the film which makes it feel much more original than your generic indie romance. And it features a talking cat.
I came into this film not knowing anything about Miranda July's performance background, and I haven't gotten around to watching her first film Me and You and Everyone We Know. She did a Q&A after the film and while those can sometimes just be awkward or not particularly informative, she was surprisingly charming and had a really unique perspective on film, since she is an artist who works primarily in other media.
Both she and Hamish Linklater (Groove!) give great performances and it certainly surprised me with the twists and turns the plot took.
4/5 Stars
Nostalgia for the Light This film falls victim to what my brother and I like to call "Metropolis syndrome," in that it decides to BEAT. YOU. OVER. THE. HEAD. WITH. ITS. MESSAGE. DO YOU GET IT YET?!?
And I did not like it as much as I like Metropolis.
The film is about the Atacama desert in Chile. It is one of the best places on earth to observe space because of the lack of humidity. It is also where there are pre-Colombian mummies, mining camps that became detention centers during Pinochet's reign and the remains of those killed during his dictatorship. (I thought of them throughout the film as los desaparecidos, but that term may have only been used in Argentina. I'm not sure.) The film is beautifully shot, especially the space porn bits, but it just goes on for a very long time over the same material again and again. The director connects the astronomers, looking at the light of the past, to the local women who go out looking for remains and, thus, live in the past. And he talks about how the calcium in bones formed in stars. And how the vastness of the desert these women are hunting in compares to the vastness of space. Again. Some more.
It's impossible not to be moved as some of the women talk about family members they lost. But when we came out of the theater, I misread the clock and thought the film had been 2.5 hours, which seemed about right. It had actually only been 1.5. And we had two people fall asleep during the screening. I think the topic matter would have been better served by a short film. However, the director is clearly passionate about the history of his country. I'd like to see his Battle of Chile, and see if it is any better.
2/5 Stars
Cave of Forgotten Dreams Oh god. This was the film I was most looking forward to in the festival. And it was everything I had hoped it would be. AND SO MUCH MORE!
First of all, Werner Herzog got unprecedented access to film inside the Chauvet cave in France, which has the world's oldest cave paintings. And they are stunning. Next, he realized that to properly appreciate the paintings, which make use of the topography of the cave walls, they needed to be filmed in 3-d. This is the first film I've seen that really necessitated the use of 3-d and it is wonderfully done. There are long stretches of the film that are just gazing at these paintings, beautifully filmed, while some wonderful choir compositions play. (A lot of the music was fabulous; some bits got a little too atonal, even for me, but a lot of the pieces were clearly written to play off of the acoustics in a cathedral, and accompanied the space inside a cave really well.) Also - just seeing the stalactites and stalagmites in 3-d is worth the price of admission on its own.
So all of that is awesome (in the original sense of that word) and completely makes it a 5 star film.
But then - THEN! - the fact that it is Werner Herzog means that you get his incredible musings on the nature of art and humanity. I giggled through long segments of the film. Plus, he gathers up several of the craziest French people he can find, which is just even more wonderful. And while some of the funny bits were clearly intentional, I also think he is just becoming more and more a parody of himself as he ages. It's no wonder he worked with Nicholas Cage on Bad Lieutenant. The postscript to the film might be one of the funniest things I've seen this year.
I just can't hear his voice now without thinking of this. Hello, my little friend.
5/5 Stars
And that's where I am so far. I stayed home sick today, so I missed the animated shorts program, which is really disappointing. Oh well. Hopefully they'll all make their way online at some point.
This was written pretty late at night. Or pretty early in the morning. I hope it makes sense.
Soooo.... I saw Sucker Punch.
I should preface this with the fact that I've been super excited for it for awhile. I was a huge fan of Watchmen and I really enjoyed 300. So I was thrilled when Zack Snyder decided to go all female ass-kicking for his next flick.
I saw the scathing reviews last week, interspersed with a few fan boy reviews that loved the action, so I tried to dial down my expectations. I figured it may not be great, like Watchmen, but it should be entertaining. It looks visually stunning. That's usually enough for me to enjoy a movie.
And then, throughout the last week, this entire, huge debate has sprung up around the film and whether it's portrayal of the heroines is empowering or objectifying. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that this is coming up now, not when the Sailor Moon-clad trailers first appeared. But I set these reviews aside until I could take a look and see for myself.
Now. I had already guessed that some of the disappointing reviews came from going into the film without giving the title a second thought. This was confirmed by the (not particularly well written) voice over in the first few minutes of the film.
So. If you haven't guessed what the film is getting at, and you want to go see it unspoiled - stop reading here.
I had guessed going in that the sucker punch is that Babydoll (the main girl) does not win her freedom, but gets lobotomized. I figured that she would go through all her fantasies and at the end we'd realize that she had been lobotomized early on and the whole thing had been a dream.
That isn't actually the way it eventually plays out, but I was close enough. And if there is anything that Cracked.com has taught us, it's that "it was all a dream" kinda sucks as a plot. Because there's no reason to be invested in the story (if you know it's a dream) or you're liable to be pissed off for getting involved for no reason (if you get sucker punched at the end).
Ok. So. Knowing that the fantasy sequences are going to be just that, without really advancing towards Babydoll saving herself and earning her freedom, did I enjoy the film?
Yes and no. Or, I enjoyed it in parts.
It's kind of a mess. And it is really frustrating because I feel that with just a few changes, it could have been awesome.
A quick synopsis of the film, for those who haven't seen it: Babydoll's mother dies, her step-father attacks her and her little sister, and as Babydoll tries to kill he step-father, her sister dies accidentally (it is a little unclear as to whether the step father had already killed the sister before Babydoll got there, or if the ricochet from Babydoll's bullet killed her). The step-father carts Babydoll off to an institution, where he bribes an orderly to forge the documents necessary for Babydoll's lobotomy in 5 days time.
At this point, the trauma becomes too much for Babydoll and she shifts into the first fantasy world, where the asylum becomes a brothel. She meets four of the other inmates; Blondie, Amber, Rocket - who becomes Babydoll's closest ally, and Rocket's sister Sweet Pea - the leader of the asylum girls who is reluctant to fight alongside Babydoll. In the brothel, the girls are required to dance for men. While she is dancing, Babydoll escapes to a series of fantasy worlds, where a wise man (Scott Glenn! Woot!) sets her on a quest that will earn Babydoll and the other girls their freedom from the brothel, and thus, their freedom from the asylum.
Let's start with the elephant in the room. I'd rather just go see a silly fun action flick for what it is, but seriously? The blogosphere has gone nuts over this shit. So - is it objectifying? Empowering? Demeaning? What? In looking at this issue, I think we'll also hit on the bits that were problematic in the film from a movie-making standpoint.
Now, coming out of the film, here were my initial impressions: I don't really care how stylized the action sequences were, they were pretty ass-kicking. Also, each of the fantasy sequences takes place while Babydoll is dancing. The audience never sees Babydoll dance, but it is described by one of the other girls as "all that gyrating and moaning." Honestly? It comes off as fairly masturbatory. So Babydoll is fantasizing about shooting nazi zombies or killing samurai robots whilst she is moaning and gyrating on stage. What I got from those juxtaposed sequences is that girls get off on the same fantasies boys do.
My biggest problem comes from what a passive narrator Babydoll is. As mentioned above, it made sense to me, since I figured she was either already lobotomized or about to be. But she barely has any lines in the film. It's hard to understand what keeps her going because we don't get much exposition from her character. Furthermore, we hardly get any background on the other girls. I have zero idea why Amber and Blondie were in a mental institution. It makes it hard to root for them as protagonists if you don't really know them as characters. I never felt particularly connected to Babydoll.
And since Babydoll doesn't talk much, I think that is where a lot of people see a lack of agency in her character. She isn't giving rousing battle speeches to the other girls or explaining to the audience the motivation for her fights. Therefore, it is easy to think that she is doing these things simply because Zack Snyder thought they would look cool rather than because she is a quiet character, going about fighting on her own inner strength. Particularly because she doesn't look strong. It's one thing to see Angelina Jolie in Salt and not be given a lot of explanation as to her motivations, because she radiates tough and inner strength. Babydoll looks like her name. I think the expectation going into the film was that she would look sweet, but curse and rage like a (typical action film) badass. Instead, she stays sweet and quiet and pretty unassuming, and then kills a lot of orcs. It's weird. It's certainly not a character we are used to seeing. And I think a lot of women crave more badass action stars to look up to, and were disappointed to see the main character of the film be sort of passive and quiet.
I think another reason why people were upset with the film is that they were surprised by the brothel world, which was only hinted at in the trailer. I had no idea that a most of the film would be set there and that hardly any scenes would be set in the real-life institution. It becomes a problem because the film doesn't clearly delineate what is fantasy and what is reality. In theory, only about 10 minutes of the film take place in reality. The shifts into the fantasy worlds are abrupt and never explained well. Or, really, at all. It's unfair, but of course there are going to be comparisons to Inception at this point, what with the jumping between fantasy layers. But while the rules of the fantasy layers were spelled out in Inception, they never are here, so the audience never really knows where they stand; or, rather, how much importance to attach to the actions occurring in the different worlds. My other large problem with the film was that these jumps between fantasy layers were often accompanied by strange tonal shifts and weird pacing. It made it difficult for the film to gain momentum and it took me out of the story a bit.
Per Cinematical; "rumor has it the 7 trips to the MPAA to get a PG-13 rating killed that clarity." Well, there's a big problem, right there. It might explain a lot about why I couldn't figure out how things were translating from brothel-world to real-world, or fantasy-world to brothel-world. (Did the other girls understand Babydoll's fantasies? Did she just imagine them or were they there, too?)
Now, getting back into the problems people had with the brothel world. There has been a lot of debate as to whether the girls are using their sexuality and objectification to their own strategic advantage, or whether they are simply playing into being exploited further. I feel like this hits on the entire debate in our culture over whether sex workers who choose sex work willingly are being degraded or empowered. That, though, is a long and lengthy other discussion that I'm not going to get into right now, but I'm pretty sure Violet Blue has written about it.
Staying on whether the Sucker Punch girls are objectified: Well, pretty much all action stars are. The $335 million Prince of Persia made was due in large part to people willing to shell out to stare at Jake Gyllenhaal's abs. Ditto the $456 million for 300 (to stick with stylized Zack Snyder films. (Is that repetitively redundant?))
I feel like there has been far more hue and cry over the girls' costumes in Sucker Punch than for other action heroines, which I find odd. Angelina Jolie certainly wasn't wearing a ton of clothing for Lara Croft. Ditto tons of Bond girls. I haven't seen Luc Besson's La Femme Nikita, but doesn't she run around in a slinky cocktail dress? It didn't bare much skin, but Trinity's matrix outfits were pretty fetishized. And I'm pretty certain Milla Jovovich tends to run around in sexy fighting outfits for most of her films.
Was Hit Girl's schoolgirl outfit okay because she didn't have tits? Do we prefer Ripley because she dresses like a man, therefore her strength is easily categorized? Is it the sense that the girls don't choose their outfits in the brothel world which makes it objectifying and derogatory? Do those same slinky outfits become empowering in the fantasy worlds since the girls choose those clothes for themselves? (Since it's on my mind, are the girls who dress up for Wondercon feeling less powerful for being in skintight, short or skimpy outfits? It also makes me think of derby girls. Their outfits might be revealing or fetishized, but they are certainly empowering for the women picking them out and wearing them (and no, they don't look like the costumes in Whip It, but you can't say there isn't some overlap with a Suicide Girls page there)).
Furthermore, while we're talking about women living within sexualized fantasies, there wasn't exactly a huge uproar over Black Swan, which also depicts a mentally unstable, fetishized woman wearing revealing outfits. (How many times can I use the word fetishized in one post? Let's find out!) Now, this was very possibly due to the fact that Black Swan is a better made film. But there are a lot of similarities. Nina is objectified by her choreographer, who also demeans her sexually, which is pretty similar to the Sucker Punch girls in the brothel.
In fact, there have been a lot of comparisons in attempt to rank just where Sucker Punch falls on the empowerment-objectification scale. "But this isn't sex workers fighting for their turf in 'Sin City.'"(Cinematical) I'm sorry, what? We're using Sin City as an example of empowered women? Because did you see Jessica Alba in that? [For the record, I enjoy many parts of Sin City, but Frank Miller is practically misogyny defined.]
I want to address one criticism in particular I find confusing (from Cinematical); "It's ridiculous to think that either girl would fantasize herself as a sexpot asskicker once imprisoned and forced into prostitution. We should not project any personal desires of being an all-out sexy tough girl on these characters,... both because it's a problematic desire for sex trade victims and because it makes no sense for the environment of the film."
What? First of all, it's clearly a fantasy film. This is not a historical depiction of the 1950s. And just because these girls didn't have Wonder Woman on tv doesn't mean that they couldn't fantasize being sexy ass-kickers. They're fantasizing about alternate planets and orcs and nazi zombies. I think sexy matrix ninja falls well within the scope of their imaginations. As for the desires of sex trade victims... I don't think this is a documentary about what women forced into prostitution think about while turning tricks. Or (as io9 puts it); "Action movies spring from the imaginations of enslaved, mentally unstable prostitutes." The fact is, the girls aren't dancing. They aren't actually prostitutes. They're in a mental institution. It just feels as degrading and imprisoning as sex work, which Babydoll imagines her incarceration to be.
Now, we can say that it is problematic that Zack Snyder decided to go with a brothel setting for most of the film rather than an institution because it looked prettier/sexier on film. (It certainly didn't help the clarity of the story.) Because Snyder spends the majority of the film using the brothel as the "real" world Babydoll returns to from her fantasies, I think a lot of reviewers became confused and reviewed it as if Babydoll actually were forced into prostitution.
But I think that denigrating the outfits the girls imagine themselves in their fantasy worlds is also problematic. It smacks of women who dismiss other women for having what they consider to be degrading sexual fantasies (usually any sort of fantasy that involves submission). The conceit of the story is this; Babydoll feels powerless and victimized. Her way of fighting back is to imagine herself as an epic heroine. If dressing herself, in her fantasy, in a schoolgirl outfit helps her feel empowered, who are we to knock it?
A final problem I have with some of the criticisms being lobbed at the film (and here in lies more spoilers). A lot of the critics have been saying that Babydoll doesn't actually do anything - she has exercises no authority over her own destiny since she is only fighting back in her imagination. As one reviewer so crudely put it; "the film's idea of treatment is telling rape victims in the moment to go to their happy place and all will be fine." But we learn in the end of the film that Babydoll was not merely fighting in her imagination. She was acting out in the institution; stealing objects, setting fires, stabbing orderlies and distracting guards. She absolutely was acting bravely and fighting for her freedom and that of the other girls.
Now, from a movie-making perspective, could the impact of Babydoll's actions have had more impact had we returned to the real-world asylum to see some of this playing out? Absolutely. C'est la vie.
A few other small notes on the film:
-The narration at the end of the film is terrible. Just completely god-awful.
-The soundtrack, however, is awesome. Really, completely fabulous.
-The visuals are great, but there is nothing particularly jaw-dropping or staggeringly new. (However, I do recommend checking out the short animations that accompany the film. They are a collaboration between Snyder and Ben Hibon, who was responsible for the Three Brothers animation in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1.)
-Overall, the action scenes are fun, but dragged a little. The pacing was a little strange at times. This hearkens back to my earlier critique of the strange tonal shifts and weird jumps into and out of the various fantasy levels. This may all be due to kowtowing to the MPAA board.
I get where Zack Snyder was trying to go with all this. If the narrative had been more coherent, and if the heroines had been given more characterization, maybe his vision could have been realized. (Or, I should say, maybe his story could have been realized. I'm pretty sure his visuals were realized.) He's still a pretty new feature film director. As one review pointed out, do you remember what Steven Spielberg's 4th film was? 1941. Euch.
In sum, the movie would have worked with a more defined protagonist, less time in the brothel/more time in the actual asylum, and more understandable shifts between the fantasy worlds. And cutting out at least half of the final voice over.
On the other hand, how often is it that you hear college girls leaving a movie discussing the definition of post-feminism; so... well done Zack Snyder?
Oh, blog. I have neglected you for far too long. Mea culpa. I forgot what it was like to be busy.
To be fair, I haven't exactly been living at the movies, either, seeing as art house flicks have been in short supply around here and the winter doldrums worse than usual. Not to mention the end of the Oscar race is always a little exhausting. Anyways, Jane Eyre doesn't open in SF till next week, ditto Sucker Punch, missed The Way Back, and I'm going to wait for DVD for Rango. I do want to see Uncle Boonmee, and All About Eve is at the Castro this week.
I did catch the animated shorts, and quite enjoyed both Madagascar: Carnet de Voyage and The Lost Thing. And a double feature of 42nd Street and the Gold Diggers of 1933, which ought to keep me satiated on Busby Berkeley for a while.
And I caught Kaboom, which I really enjoyed - it's well worth checking out. It's sort of a college-, coming-of-age, sci-fi romp. With a lot of sex. It's fun.
In terms of DVD releases, I caught The Proposition (fabulous and amazing), the Town (meh - it's no Gone Baby Gone and Rebecca Hall was surprisingly bad in it), State of Play (the BBC miniseries, not the remake; it is completely awesome - Bill Nighy is at his absolute best), Ravenous (silly and ridiculous), and Leaves of Grass (Ed Norton is good, but the script doesn't live up to his performance).
Also saw Season of the Witch. Drunk. It's bad. It's so very, very bad.
Mostly, though, I've finally gotten hooked on The Wire. I'm almost through Season 2, and I'm in real danger of becoming a shut-in until I finish it... Why are shows about drugs, like Breaking Bad, SO ADDICTIVE?! The first few episodes of Season 1 are a little uneven, but it really is one of the best shows around. Definitely see it if you haven't already. I may hold off a few days to finish Season 2, though. I really like the character Ziggy and I'm sensing that things are not going to go well for him...
Expectations can be a funny thing. See, I went into Blue Valentine expecting to fall in love with it. And that's a high bar to set.
I also went in knowing that it was the juxtaposition of two people falling in and out of love. I don't really know how else to talk about the reason I didn't fall in love with this movie than talking about how that isn't 100% true, so.... thar be spoilers ahead.
I think had it really been simply a story of how two people who fell so incredibly in love could, years later, fall completely out of love, that would have been really interesting and I might have loved it more. But the start of the story isn't the start of a beautiful, epic romance. She gets knocked up. With another man's kid. And Ryan Gosling decides to be the good guy and step in and marry her.
If that doesn't have flashing red lights all around it, going; 'this is completely and totally the wrong reason to marry someone,' I don't know what would. So it isn't, to me, much of a mystery about how these kids could end up on the brink of divorce. Of course it doesn't work. It's the logical conclusion to that story.
The thing is, lots of people do fall in and, later, out of love, and I think I wanted to see a story more about that. That was what I had expected going in.
Now, I will say that I think they both deserve acting kudos; both Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams give very vulnerable, nuanced performances.
The writing also felt really honest. Uncomfortably so. I think that's the other reason it's hard to love this film; watching people break apart is awful. They both make bad decisions. They both say the wrong thing. The relationship falling apart isn't really anyone's fault - it's just two people stuck in a cycle of being angry and hurt. And that's incredibly difficult to watch.
So; it's well done. I'm glad I saw it. It has some of my favorite end credits I've ever seen. The acting is great. Just... be kinder to each other, people.
Right - catching up on my oscar-bait now. It's hard to go into films like these in a vacuum. Eventually, a certain amount of buzz rubs off on you. Films can certainly defy expectations, but you usually have those expectations going in. In my case, I had been hearing that the King's Speech was a front-runner for best picture after TIFF, it had slipped greatly and experienced a bit of a backlash, and then good word of mouth as it was released was helping it to regain momentum (backlash against the backlash?). Two of my very trusted friends had both really loved the film. I am not a huge Colin Firth fan, but I had really loved him in A Single Man last year. Then I found out that a lot of the supporting parts are occupied by some of my favorite British actors. Plus, I like the Weinstein Company, who is putting it out. And finally, I was raised on a lot of BBC and Masterpiece theater, so I figured the genre was pretty up my alley.
So did I like it? Eh...
Here's the thing - the acting and the production design are very good. I really felt that the script was incredibly uneven.
In case you have been living under a rock, the plot follows the Duke of York, who becomes King George VI when his brother abdicates for Wallis Simpson, from a disastrous public speech at Wembley to his speech to the people on the eve of WWII. The basis of the film is the relationship between the Duke and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue, an unconventional Aussie who helps him overcome his stammer.
Colin Firth gives a really great performance. And he and Geoffrey Rush are pretty much assured acting nods, I think.
The problem for me came from the script. There were these moments of expository monologue-ing that just didn't do it for me. It actually made me think of Fritz Lang's Metropolis; here, let me BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH THE MESSAGE OF THE FILM. And it was annoying, because parts of the film were really well written. For example, the best scene in the film comes from the Duke opening up to his therapist after the death of his father. It's wonderfully acted, and subtly written. The audience gets a lot of the home dynamics in the royal family, and the emotional trauma that the prince went through.
Contrast that to Michael Gambon as King George V, berating his son while he practices a speech;
This devilish device will change everything if you won’t. In the past all a King had to do was look respectable in uniform and not fall off his horse. Now we must invade people’s homes and speak ingratiate ourselves with them. This family is reduced to those lowest, basest of all creatures...we’ve become...actors!...
When I’m dead that boy will ruin himself, this family, and this nation, within twelve months. Who’ll pick up the pieces? Sir Oswald Mosley - marching his black-shirt British Union of Fascists through the streets of London? Herr Hitler, intimidating half of Europe, Marshall Stalin the other half? Who’ll stand between us, the jackboots, and the proletarian abyss? You?
Really, is that why it is important for him to not stammer? Gee, I hadn't gotten that through him watching you deliver a radio address, as part of your functional duties. You mean a part of his stammer comes from you being an overbearing father? I had no idea. It's like Masterpiece Theater for dummies. And these swings in the quality of the writing I found very jarring.
Finally, it also annoyed me to no end that Edward, the Duke's older brother, was reduced to an over-simplified villain. Okay, I get that the film focused on George, and that the whole royal family blames Edward for forcing him into being king and very possibly shortening his life-span by a whole lot. So I get that he is going to be the villain in this telling. But my understanding of his relationship with Mrs. Simpson was that they were wildly devoted to one another and that he was actually very canny in his dealings with parliament. In the film, he's basically a hood-winked playboy, even if he is well acted by Guy Pearce. Anyways, the part seemed very reductionist and inaccurate. Plus, it turns out that Winston Churchill was best friends with him? Didn't get that at all...
Finally, the woman who played Wallis Simpson looked very familiar and I could not place her till I got home; it was Eve Best. Eve Best, who is one of the finest Shakespearean actresses alive, was reduced to swanning around in a cocktail dress and looking cougar-ish. That is a tragic misuse of her talents right there.
I guess overall I'd say the scenes between Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are very well done, training montages and all, and that most of the periphery is ill-handled and over-blown (if set in pretty scenery).
So a couple of nights ago I went to see Red Hill, which is an Australian Western. Or Horror by way of a Western. Or Revenge Thriller. Some combination thereof. I had liked the trailer, was intrigued to see Ryan Kwanten of True Blood fame in something from his country of origin, and the NYTimes rated it as a critic's pick.
The film revolves around Constable Shane Cooper (Kwanten), who has moved to a nowheres-ville small town (Red Hill) for his pregnant wife. His first day on the job, a convicted murderer breaks out of a nearby prison and heads straight to Red Hill, throwing Cooper headlong into a series of shootouts, fights, and intrigue.
The film pretty much hits every Western cliche and foreshadowed sign post on its way to the final showdown. But it does so with such gleeful abandon that it is difficult not to be charmed. I know I complained about heavy-handed foreshadowing and knowing the plot ahead of time in TRON, but in Red Hill, the pacing zips along and the movie remains fun, even if you already know how it is all going to play out. It doesn't break any new ground or reinvent the Western, but its a solid, fun genre flick, which sometimes is all you are looking for. The genre fits well into the Aussie outback, simply because so much of it is on the edge of unforgiving, untamed wilderness and so far from civilization.
On a final note, I went to see this at the Lumiere, which is one of 5 Landmark theaters in SF. Very cute and absolutely the friendliest staff I've ever encountered at a theater. It was, however, very cold and they were offering free tea and coffee, which I really should have taken them up on.
My internet has been pretty sketchy since getting home, so I'm blaming my lack of a Black Swan review on that. Suffice to say, I really loved it and I highly recommend it. 5/5 stars.
I'd also love to do a comprehensive round up of year-end lists, but we shall see if I get the chance.
So: onto TRON.
To preface my review, I need to say that I've never seen the original Tron. Perhaps those who have would enjoy the film more.
Overall, I'm glad I saw it on the big screen (we opted for IMAX 3-d), but the film had a lot of problems. Like, a LOT of problems. Here are my thoughts:
The good: -Unexpected Cillian Murphy is unexpected. -The score is fantastic. I really, really loved it and it was probably the best part of the film. Now, I don't know that I'd pick it over The Social Network, but.... maybe. -I adore Michael Sheen. His Ziggy Stardust was easily the most entertaining character of the entire film. He had more energy in his performance than everyone else combined. -I also really liked seeing James Frain, but possibly because every time he came on screen, I thought of this. -The 3-D was the best that I've seen. There was no weird after-image, no headache. It worked beautifully. -The production design. It's so shiny!
The bad: -The plot points weren't just foreshadowed, they were lit up in GIANT NEON SIGNS. -Seriously, the entire thing was SO predictable. I get that they were on the hook for $250 million, so I guess they decided to make the plot comprehensible to the lowest common denominator of American audiences in the hopes of making the money back. Too bad it ended up coming out after Inception. -Clu worked occasionally, since he was supposed to be a computer program. But next to real actors and depending on how good the animation was, he often didn't. And every flashback to young Kevin Flynn did not work.
The ugly: This is really two things, which both stem from one massive error; the techno babble and the second half of the film. The mistake is this: making this film a sequel.
Let me explain. I did not understand what the hell the characters were on about for most of the film. In fact, I really, REALLY would have rather seen this as a silent film. I think it would have worked better. Now, possibly this comes from my not having seen the original movie, but that describes a lot of the potential audience for this one, since the original TRON isn't accessible.
And since I didn't get a lot of the techno babble, the stakes never seemed very high to me. The early disc battle and light cycle races? Awesome. Predictable, sure, but visually cool and fun, and I got that Sam was playing to survive. Programs being reassembled into army programs to escape and slaughtering - I don't know nanotrons or something? I just don't care. Furthermore, I just didn't get the programs. We see them at a club at one point, but I don't really get what they go around doing. Why were some of them picked up early on? Why was one drinking in an alley? What is life on the grid like? We're given this whole world that then never gets explored, so how am I supposed to care about it?
Furthermore - Sam, who was seemingly our protagonist in the first half of the film, is given almost nothing to do after he leaves Castor's club. That was the point at which the film stopped working for me. The writers seem so excited to have had Jeff Bridges, that they focus on him, and the emotional empathy the audience had built up for Sam is sort of left hanging. He really needed to have a larger part towards the end. I don't know what Kevin was like in the first film, so I don't really care if he gets out of the grid or not. Or perhaps I didn't care since I knew EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN about an hour and a half before it finally did.
Really, I wish they had taken the idea of Tron - the cool visuals and whatnot - and made an original film. The script may have been less predictable, they wouldn't have been constrained by the logic of the first film, and we would have been given the opportunity to focus on Sam and Quorra. We could have explored the grid through Sam's eyes as he tries to get back to the portal or something. You could even let Kevin pop up in a cameo, just don't end up focusing the film on him. I'd rather go watch the Big Lebowski.
So - should you see it? It depends on your thoughts on Avatar. It's basically the same. Amazing to see visually, but the story sucks. The first hour is fun. And if the spectacle is worth $20 to you, go see it. Unlike the Spiderman musical, no one's going to get hurt.
2/5 stars.
Update: in talking it over with a friend, he reminded me of a couple of things. 1 - Tron's change to bad and back again was given serious short shrift. What happened with him exactly? and 2 - I really hoped Cillian's cameo was to set him up as a villain in a future sequel. A sequel with a more original and interesting plot.
I got a chance to see a preview screening of the Fighter last night. It's really good, and I bet it will land a best picture nod easily.
The film is based on the true story of Micky Ward (played by Mark Wahlberg), a boxer from Lowell, Mass. Micky's older brother, Dickie (Christian Bale), had once been a promising up-and-coming boxer, but he blew his chances, became addicted to crack and he is Micky's trainer. Their mother (Melissa Leo) manages Micky.
It quickly becomes apparent that although the family is now relying on Micky's talents as a boxer, they don't have his best interests at heart. He is sent into unfair fights simply to get paid (not win) and his chance at an actual boxing career is slipping away. Then he meets Charlene, a bartender and college drop out. Unlike Dickie, she puts Micky's career first and starts to help him distance himself from his family professionally (although one has to wonder if part of that dedication was due to what she might get out of it if Micky made it big). Only when Dickie's last-chance-scheme to stay on as Micky's trainer lands Dickie in prison and ends with a broken hand for Micky, is Micky finally able to break the cycle with his family and concentrate on his training and career.
I'm really not a boxing fan, but the film centers on the drama and conflict in the relationships and the few fights that are included are done well.
Christian Bale is brilliant. While he should have already been up for an Oscar for American Psycho and Rescue Dawn (at least), I'm sincerely hoping he gets nominated for this part. (Whether or not that will happen, since he refuses to campaign, remains to be seen.) But his portrayal of Dickie is remarkable and reconfirms Bale as one of the best, most chameleonic actors working today.
All of the other actors are very good - particularly Melissa Leo who, as Micky's mother, is incredibly frustrating and heartbreaking. The film was surprisingly funny in parts (well, perhaps not, considering it is directed by David O. Russell) and, as I saw it with an *unbelievably* boisterous Boston audience, they certainly responded overwhelmingly to those bits.
I also loved the soundtrack, although I know other reviews have critiqued it for being too modern.
It also seemed like several types of film or differing styles of cinematography were used for different scenes, particularly the matches, and I thought that worked well.
It's not my favorite film of the year. Although I thought Mark Wahlberg did a good job, Micky is a quiet and retiring hero for a film to focus on and the underdog sports achiever plot is predictable (if uplifting).
Really, Christian Bale steals the show as a harrowing portrait of a crack addict trying to do the right thing. I hope he gets all the recognition he deserves for it.
I hope to return to somewhat normal blogging over the next month. I know I'll definitely have thoughts on the oscar-bait releases and the awards race. We shall see how it goes.
I never got around to writing up Paprika (which I saw on the eve of my San Francisco trip). I know of no other way to describe this film than WTF. I basically came away with the impression of a mash-up of Miyazaki and Inception while dropping acid. I liked it. I think. And I'm not sure I could describe it.
And yes the parade was insane. BART broke all rider records, over 1 million people showed up, and it was the largest parade in city history.
Oh, and did the official shirt need to be all Ed Hardy-esque? What is that?
And in the interest of remembering that this blog is supposed to be devoted to movies, not baseball (quick! Cast the inevitable underdog movie! Reeve Carney as Lincecum! Kyle Gallner as Bumgarner! Chris Meloni as Brian Wilson!), I went to go see Never Let Me Go about a week ago. I mostly enjoyed it. Hmmm... enjoyed? Okay - I was mostly devastated by it. But in a good way.
The film is based on the novel by KazuoIshiguro. It is about three childhood friends at an isolated English boarding school for special children. While they navigate growing up and their relationships, it becomes rapidly apparent that being special children may not be a good thing, and the lives that they are destined to lead will not be easy.
Anyways, his background shines through in Never Let Me Go, which is visually beautiful and stunningly shot. The plot itself is a bit dystopian sci-fi by way of English country romance. The leads are fantastic. Carey Mulligan continues her streak of honest, searing portrayals, KieraKnightley is bracing and unglamorous, and Andrew Garfield continues his ascent as the best new actor out there. (Please don't derail on Spiderman. Please.)
However well done most of the film was, though, I had two problems with it. The first stems from a very abrupt second to third act shift. The first two sections of the film had been developing the love triangle between the friends. Then, with hardly any warning, all the characters fall away from each other. It is incredibly quick and definitely pulled me out of the story. I couldn't quite figure out what had just happened to them or why they had all left each other.
The other issue actually grew out of Andrew Garfield's performance. He is so committed to the character, Tommy, who has grown up in this completely socially isolated situation. It's an incredible physical performance. He walks awkwardly, but without any concern for how he is being perceived by the world at large. He's both gawky and at ease in his own skin. It totally works, given the strange upbringing Tommy had.
The problem comes from the two actresses. They both give great performances, too. Kiera makes her character, who could come off as one-note and wildly selfish, very empathetic and understandable. Carey Mulligan breaks your heart with her arc and the ways her character grows and matures. But aside from one scene in the middle of the film, when the three of them all order lunch awkwardly, being unused to the world at large, by the time the three reconnect, both women come off as self-assured and integrated into normal society. It's jarring next to Tommy, who still comes off as being part of the fringes.
However, the third section of the film is such a wrenching, gut punch of an emotional arc that film comes close to overcoming those flaws and becoming truly great. It's an amazing human drama.
Tim Lincecum will be pitching again on Thursday. I will not be watching any movies for a while.
(Please let Never Let Me Go continue for another week!)
And speaking of Andrew Garfield...
I went to see The Social Network. It is as good as everyone says. If you like Aaron Sorkin's signature dialogue (and I do), you'll enjoy this. To be honest, I don't really feel that I have much to elaborate on what reviews have come before. It's not really about Facebook. It's really about friendship, greed, rivalry, entrepreneurship, and how business is changing. The writing is good, the directing is good, the acting is good. I do hope that Andrew Garfield gets a supporting actor nod. I thought he was fabulous.
I've seen several movies lately that I thought could stand to trim 10-15 minutes, but not this one. It's pretty perfect. And I liked the narrative structure that intercut the lawsuits with the actions surrounding the founding of the site.
It was weird that the CGI on the Winklevoss twins was so perfect, while the cold breath scenes were so jarring. But that was the only complaint I could think of. Well, that and the fact that women hardly figure into the film at all, which I'm sure is not true to real life. (I think Zuckerberg has a long term girlfriend and I think his right hand person is a woman.)
I suppose I'm not really raving about this one, because I didn't fall in love with it the way I did with Winter's Bone (or Zodiac or Fight Club for David Fincher comparisons). And it isn't a 'fun' movie, so it's hard to get super excited about it. But it is incredibly well done and it's surprising that a film that is so much about hacking and writing code is entertaining and dramatic. The drama between the founders and owners takes up much of the film and I did want to know where Eduardo Saverin ended up (according to Wikipedia, he now owns a 5% share in Facebook, worth $1.3 billion).
I know. I'm woefully behind on my horror films. But I can't help it - the Giants are in the playoffs, so a lot of my tv time has been monopolized by baseball. I'll probably keep watching things through November.
Also - a quick note on Conviction. I thought the Boston Globe review brought up a good point (surprisingly; I don't think they have the world's best reviews). The bit was this; "Rockwell’s face conveys the emotional wear and tear of prison life, but his character’s struggle is the existential meat of the movie: How do inmates survive an unjust conviction?" While Rockwell really does do a great job in those brief scenes of demonstrating his character, the reviewer makes a great point. I think the movie would have been much better if we had seen more of Kenny's struggle alongside his sister's. But, hey, I'm a big Oz fan. I love prison drama.
ANYWAYS - the Brattle got a special preview screening of The Girl That Kicked the Hornet's Nest, so I went to that last night.
[On a quick note: reason #37 I love the Brattle? Ned was talking up some upcoming shows and mentioned that they would be showing Frederick Wiseman's new film, Boxing Gym, which is mercifully short, and a good chunk of the audience started laughing. How many places in the world will you be around people who get a Frederick Wiseman punchline?]
Back to the Hornet's Nest.
The good news is I liked it much better than the second film. I didn't like it as much as the first film, but overall I enjoyed it. My only quibbles would be that a little bit of the middle started to drag before the trial kicks in (which is surprising, considering how much material they were trying to cram in from the book). Also that a couple of my favorite characters from the book got minimal screen time. But that problem is definitely understandable, given the length of the source material. Oh, and they changed Erika's arc, which I thought made her a little bit shrill in the movie. I liked her so much in the book that I found that change a little disappointing, but it was a pretty minor part of the movie. And I definitely think that Erika needed to stick around Millennium for the plot of the film (in the book she leaves for a different position).
I was discussing the film at work today and I hadn't thought about this before, but I think one of the reasons I really enjoyed it was that it passes the Bechdel Test. I was thinking about how much I enjoyed the scenes between Lisbeth and Annika. And it struck me that I think part of that chemistry is that they are both really interesting, strong female characters interacting with each other, which I don't get to see very often.
I really liked Annika in this movie - I think she provides a really interesting counterpart to Lisbeth. They unfortunately left out one of my favorite cross-interrogations of hers from the book, though - when she tears down the psychiatrist's argument that Lisbeth's piercings and tattoos indicate a damaged psyche.
I don't remember if in the book Annika was pregnant? But she was in the film, and I really liked that, too. It was jarring at first. I can't think of the last time I saw a pregnant woman on film where the film wasn't about her pregnancy. But no - in this film, she was just going around, being a lawyer, and the fact that she was pregnant was never commented on. Just like in real life, but hardly ever like in the movies.
Oh and I loved the guy they got to play Anders Jonasson, Lisbeth's doctor. The actor they picked was younger than I had pictured from reading, but he was so spot on in the way in which he cares for Lisbeth.
Mikael and Lisbeth continue to be riveting to watch. Noomi Rapace is such an exceptionally gifted actress that she can hold the audience's attention so well while being mute and still.
Obviously, there is more in the books, and it will be interesting to see what David Fincher does with the material, but the Swedish films are well worth a watch. (Okay - the second one isn't, but it leads into the third...)
Yeah, yeah. I know. Not doing so well on that whole horror movie thing. But hey - I've got a long weekend coming up.
(and Never Let Me Go and the Social Network to see... Shhh.....)
Bunny and the Bull
I enjoyed this film. It's written and directed by the director of The Mighty Boosh. Actually, the movie feels a lot like A Very Special Episode of the The Mighty Boosh. It's surrealist and a little whimsical and centers on an unlikely friendship. And yes, both Vince (Noel Fielding) and Howard (Julian Barratt) pop up as crazy characters.
The story is about a shut-in, recollecting his jaunt across Europe with his best friend the year before. The shut-in, Stephen, is sensible and practical and had just gotten a PhD in order to ask out a girl at the start of the adventure. His best friend Bunny sleeps around, drinks, gambles compulsively and organizes crab races in Polish restaurants on a whim. On the way they meet a Spanish girl whom, of course, they both fall for.
The film uses a lot of animation and Wes Anderson-style design and eccentrics. Also, I got a lot of flashes of Withnail and I, what with the sensitive somewhat crazy person with the more outlandish crazy friend, only with less Life Upon the Wicked Stage and more graphic design. I liked the animation though, in part because the film is really visually interesting and partly because it works well with Stephen's psychosis and ruminations.
My only complaint was that it could have been a little shorter. It started to drag a little bit in the middle. Overall, though, it was enjoyable. I'd definitely recommend checking it out if you get the chance.
Okay, okay. Not really a horror or thriller. But it's been at my house for weeks and I needed to hurry up and see it (again) so that I could get something new. I had seen it before when I was a little girl, but only remembered bits and pieces of it. Mostly the bit at the end with the big fight.
The basic premise is that a little boy hooks up with a roving band of time traveling drawves and they pop through several historical time periods. All the while they are on the run from god (whom they stole the time travel map from) and end up facing off with evil incarnate.
That summary, along with the knowledge that it comes from Terry Gilliam, will give you a pretty good idea of whether you will enjoy it or not. It comes out of the same camp as Labyrinth - fantasy that works best for kids, but is entertaining enough for adults. While I enjoyed Time Bandits, I'm not sure it's as clever as Labyrinth, although Labyrinth may just hold more of a nostalgia factor for me.
Michael Palin (who co-wrote the film) and John Cleese pop up with cameos, and Ian Holm plays a Punch and Judy obsessed Napoleon. Sean Connery turns up as a Greek king, as well, in a segment which attempts to give some emotional grounding to the child star.
Speaking of whom, that child had no eyebrows. I spent the first half hour wondering if it was a young Matt Smith (it was not).
I'm glad I saw it again, if only to remember what happened in it, but I'm not sure I'd recommend spending time on it unless you have kids.
Animal Kingdom Hmmm.... I think I'm still mulling over this one. Animal Kingdom is an Australian crime thriller and it was one of the huge success stories to come out of the early festival circuit, along with Winter's Bone. Jacki Weaver, in particular, earned accolades as the matriarch of the criminal family. Moreover, one of my close friends, whose taste in films I trust absolutely, got a sneak peak in New York and called to rave about it a couple of weeks ago.
I just feel like I'm missing something. It's good. It's really good, but...
I don't know. Perhaps I went in with my expectations too high?
The film centers on a teenager who, after his mother's overdose, moves in with his criminal relatives. Their family is being pursued by the cops and are at the edge of falling apart. The film examines the escalating tensions between the cops and the family members and Josh, the teenager's, increasing involvement with the family business.
I think part of why I had a hard time connecting to the film is that I don't think I've ever seen a movie where the protagonist was such a blank slate. For the first two thirds of the film, Josh is mostly silent and completely, utterly passive. It's a weird thing to watch.
The direction is excellent, however. As the situations become more and more dire, the smallest interactions become fraught with tension. I was on the edge of my seat for a car pulling out of a driveway. It reminded me a lot of The Hurt Locker, where small scenes were relentlessly tense. The supporting cast is fabulous, as well, particularly Guy Pearce as a detective pursuing the family.
4/5 stars
The Runaways Man was this disappointing. The story of one of the first (the first?) all-female rock band, The Runaways, whose members included Joan Jett and Lita Ford. The film is based on the lead singer Cherie Curie's memoir, and the film focuses largely on Joan and Cherie.
The movie is filmed in a largely impressionistic way. This seems to be used to avoid the obvious 'small band makes it big, is pulled apart by drugs and success' cliches. However, it generally leaves the audience confused and the entire story is a mess. I thought at first that it might be a mess because the story was altered so as not to be too harsh on it's protagonists (Joan Jett was an executive producer). But the girls are shown taking drugs and having sex, so I'm not sure that making the events clearer would change the way they come off.
The largest problem with this style of filming is that really don't have any clue what the girls' motivations were. I guess Cherie Curie wanted to be Bowie? Joan wanted to play guitar? But I have no idea how they got into drugs. Why Cherie wanted to sleep with her tour manager. How bisexual Joan was and why Cherie wanted to sleep with her. How they dealt with the criticism that must have come from being girls in a male-dominated industry.
For example, the whole section of the girls achieving fame and success is shown through a few newspaper headlines cut in with some clip art in what looks to be a high school video project. There's nothing with the girls - their reactions, how touring changed, what the press had to say - nada. Likewise, as they start off, Joan seemed to be onto the fact that their manager was ripping them off, but then that storyline disappears completely. A lot of the film feels lazy like that and you never really get a sense as to what the girls are thinking at any given time.
It's too bad, because Kirsten Stewart and Dakota Fanning throw themselves into their roles and certainly seem up for anything. I wish they had been given more to work with. I also wish Alia Shawkat had been given a single line of dialogue. Talk about a waste of talent.
Overall, you get the impression of girls getting introduced to drugs and sex and liking both. It's not particularly empowering or interesting. Or rock and roll.
The one highlight is the tremendous Michael Shannon who plays Kim Fowley, their manager. He's fabulous.
2/5 stars, because - hey - at least you get some Joan Jett songs in there. And I love her:
The Circus Now here is a completely fabulous film. Charlie Chaplin, as the Little Tramp, manages to join the circus. I'm not a huge Charlie Chaplin fan - I was raised more on Buster Keaton - but this is probably the best Charlie Chaplin film I've seen so far. Granted, the fact that it is set in a circus probably biases me, but it sets up a lot of great physical humor. The whole thing is very clever and moves along a good clip. Well worth seeing.
5/5 stars
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Scott Pilgrim is slick and stylish, and endlessly winking. (It made me think a lot about the article on movies becoming self-referential and meta I posted a few days ago). While I'm not a gamer, I could tell a good deal of love was lavished on all the game details. It's clever, funny, and all of the supporting cast is good (Kieran Culkin stands out particularly as Scott's snarky roommate and I love Alison Pill as the drummer in Scott's band). We never get a lot of insight into the characters (for example why Ramona dated some of her exes, or what, exactly, Scott falls in love with after 2 dates with her), but it's fun enough that I didn't particularly care. I wouldn't say this a great Gen Y romance - as some have - there simply isn't enough there to the characters to care about them. But it's very easily a great Gen Y comedy.
Perhaps my only problem with the film was Michael Cera as Scott. He's fine, and it is better work a slightly wider range than he has been showing in most of his post-Arrested Development roles. However, I can't really get on board with him as a lead in a romance. There really isn't anything going on there. There are other geeky casting options who are more charismatic. Given someone more compelling/attractive, maybe I would have cared more about him and Ramona making it.
So - a mixup between banks has left me strapped for cash, right when a ton of good movies are out. Very. Annoyed. I'd like to see I Am Love (yes, still), Mesrine, Centurion (hello, Michael Fassbender), Scott Pilgrim, Farewell, and I absolutely HAVE to see Animal Kingdom. *sigh* My life is so hard.
"Takers is the kind of movie where tough guys walk away from an explosion, in slow-motion, without looking behind them. But don't worry! It is also the kind of movie where a man leaps sideways, in slow-motion, while firing two guns at the same time! And the kind of movie where that man is Hayden Christensen!"
"Christensen plays A.J., who is a street-wise Ivy Leaguer, which means he has tattoos AND a stupid hat."
"What's that you say? Paul Walker and Hayden Christensen in the same movie? That's like having a movie with a plank of wood in it, and then also, in that same movie, having an identical plank of wood!"
First up, I saw Inception again, this time in IMAX. Definitely worth seeing a second time (luckily, it held up much better than the Dark Knight), and while I'm not sure IMAX is necessary, it was great seeing the hallway fight writ large.
Metropolis I had a chance to see The Complete Metropolis at The Brattle last week. Metropolis hasn't been seen in its complete form since its premiere due to studio editing. The missing footage was assumed to be lost (much like the Magnificent Ambersons). But, in 2008, 25 minutes of the missing footage was found in Buenos Aires and has been cut in to the film that most people know. (There's a good article on the restoration here.)
Now, I had actually never seen Metropolis, so I can't say whether I would have noticed a much more coherent plot or tonal changes with the new footage. What is important to note is that there are still some scenes missing (the missing action is described on inter-title cards created from film notes). Furthermore, the new footage is a different aspect ratio and comes from a terrible print. The film is grainy and dirty and therefore you can easily tell when you are watching one of the 'new' scenes. While it is great to see the film in its near-entirety, these sections do pull you out of the action a bit and remind you that your are watching a restored piece of film history.
The grainy sections are especially easy to notice because so much of the rest of the film is beautifully shot and well preserved. Metropolis is known for its ambitious visuals and it doesn't disappoint. The lighting in certain scenes was especially stunning and certainly of a much higher quality than most of the films we see today.
Tonally, I found the film to be wildly variable. There are some scenes which are high melodrama and seem to be a holdover from stage acting. These scenes elicited a lot of snickering from the audience I was in. They were particularly jarring because they were juxtaposed with much more naturalistic, subtle acting which holds up well for modern tastes.
The only other piece which I don't feel held up well was the message of the film, which is repeated ad nauseum. I kept picturing the Animaniacs using a sledgehammer on the audience every time it was repeated. Okay, okay! We get it already!
I was surprised, based on my cultural knowledge of the film, that it wasn't more sci-fi. I had thought the film dealt with a city of androids and humans, when there is in fact just one android in the story. That wasn't disappointing, though, since Brigitte Helm throws herself into the role. (She really was the best part of the film, other than the cinematography).
Overall, it is well worth seeing and it (mostly) stands the test of time as a classic. Visually, it is stunning, wildly original and a work of art.
Three new ones for me - otherwise I've been introducing my roommates to some old faves.
The Thin Red Line God, I love Terrence Malick. I've written before about how much I love the New World, and this one is just as good.
It astounds me that the dialogue surrounding the '98 Oscars was Saving Private Ryan vs. Shakespeare in Love. It clearly should have been The Thin Red Line vs. Shakespeare in Love. The Thin Red Line is altogether a more immersing, human, and haunting look at a soldier's experience in war.
Malick has an unbelievable gift for vignettes and he uses this technique to highlight a variety of soldier's stories. He shows an incredible range of experience, despite only focusing on one squadron and one battle.
Also, much like in the New World, he displays his incredible eye for capturing natural settings. He gazes at the world around him and lets the audience see what he feels.
(On this note - there is a brief, but incredible shot, of a Papuanor Tawny Frogmouth, the best bird EVER. Well done, sir.)
Ahem. The acting is first rate all around, the battles are well shot and exhausting, and I found it more affecting than nearly any other war film I've seen.
5 out of 5 stars
Stardust
Awwwwww....
Seriously, it is not possible not to watch this film and not fall in love with it. I had been craving it for a bit, and wanted my roommate to see it as well. Unfortunately, I brought up the Princess Bride as a reference, because who doesn't love the Princess Bride? Her, it turns out.
Anyways, I luckily discovered that Mark Strong is one of her favorite actors, so I was able to convince her to see it that way. Of course, she fell in love with it, too.
Probably the easiest description of the film is that it is like the Princess Bride, but for those averse to that particular fairytale, here goes. Stardust is about a boy who journeys into a magical kingdom to retrieve a fallen star in order to win the hand of the girl he is in love with and the star turns out to be Claire Danes. Also there are witches. And gay pirates. And one of the best sword fights, EVER. And since I am a total sucker for any movie with swashbuckling in it, I love this film.
Stardust is a fairytale, a coming of age story, and one of the best romances I've seen. (One of the few romances I enjoy without a tragic ending, actually.) There is enough of a Grimm's fairytale vibe to keep it from becoming sugary-sweet. Anyways, check it out. I'm certain you'll fall in love with it, too.
Seriously fun. One of the best comic book adaptations around, it is ridiculous, and over the top, and AWESOME. James McAvoy makes a great protagonist, Angelina Jolie is at her action figure best as a nearly mute assassin, and it might be my favorite role ever for Morgan Freeman.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Caught this again as a part of the Brattle's "best of the oughts" series. Robert Downey Jr. mostly does an excellent job, but I had forgotten about his character's casual homophobia and slight misogynistic tendencies, which I found a little disturbing. Val Kilmer is really good, though, and while I've never been a big fan of his, I'm glad he got a meaty part like this.
Overall, it's a slick caper romp through LA, and diverting enough. I happen to like the 4th-wall-breaking narration, mostly because Robert Downey Jr. is charming, but I also know it doesn't work for everybody.
3 out of 5 stars
Salt Meh.
Okay - maybe it was a bad idea to watch this right so soon after Wanted, which is fantastical. Salt is much more reality based and very cool for that, but not quite as thrilling or fun. Obviously, I love Angelina Jolie, and I think she does a great job here. However, the plot is pretty obvious. Salt (Jolie) works for the CIA. One day, a Russian spy comes in to defect and names her as a Russian mole. She goes on the run to try to clear her name and protect her family (I have to insert here that her husband is an arachnologist. An arachnologist as a major character in a summer blockbuster. AWESOME.)
Much of the film then becomes great action sequences mixed up with the intrigue of trying to figure out Salt's loyalties. The problem here is that every twist of the plot is really obvious. You can see each one coming from two miles away. Now, I still enjoy watching Angie and she carries the film beautifully. There just wasn't the tension of trying to figure anything out.
Additionally, LievSchreiber is great. And I love the final fight scene, when Salt fights a man and they are both in white oxford shirts. I thought it was a nice nod to the fact that Salt was originally scripted to be a man.
3.5 out of 5 stars
28 Days Later I went to a midnight screening of this at the Coolidge. I had forgotten how much I love this movie. It's so clever, so well directed. The pacing is perfect. The shots of a deserted London are still haunting (and completely astounding - I still can't get over the fact that they managed to film that). The music is perfect. The actors are perfect.
For those who have no idea what the film is about, a coma survivor wakes up 28 days into viral outbreak which has devastated the UK and possibly the entire world. Basically, it's a zombie movie. The virus turns those infected into brain-dead killing machines, and a single bite is enough to infect others. But 28 Days Later was really clever. Instead of having the normal, shuffling type of zombies (seen here), in this film they move like "rabid, caffeinated jackals" [EW], which is terrifying.
But it isn't constant scares, or all jump scares of zombies coming out of nowhere. There are psychological scares and philosophizing and a lot of character development and all around it is just really well crafted. And that's why it is also on my top 100 films of the decade.
Also - I did not know this, but about a month after the film came out, they added an alternate ending after the credits. I don't like it as much as the actual ending, but just so you know...
5 out of 5 stars.
The Shadow in the North Oh my god. Where to begin? This was godawful. My roommate and I had watched The Ruby in the Smoke (the first Sally Lockheart mystery), and while it wasn't great (it seemed that they were jumping from plot point to plot point to wrap it all up in an hour and a half), it was at least entertaining enough that we decided to watch the sequel. The Shadow in the North, however, was baffling from the get-go. We were convinced that there had been a book in between the two that hadn't been filmed and that was why we were so lost, but we were wrong. This is the second book in the series - there is just a several year gap between the two stories and the movie doesn't do a very good job of trumpeting that fact.
Again, the plotting races along because the whole shebang has only an hour and a half to wrap up, which means that some characters are hardly given any time for developments, while others seem to be having vicious, bi-polar mood swings. Finally - and here there be spoilers - they kill off the main guy! Sally finally sleeps with the guys she's in love with - after spending the whole movie distancing herself from him and arguing with him, of course - and then he dies that same night! It was like a teen horror film came in to espouse the dangers of pre-marital sex. My roommate spent the next 15 minutes convinced it was all a dream, because clearly that hadn't just happened. Not to mention, Sally cries more over her dog's death than her fiance's!
Anyways, the whole thing is completely ridiculous, the plot is barely understandable, and a lot of actors I normally enjoy were completely wasted. It is unsurprising that the next 2 Sally Lockheart mysteries were never filmed.
