In 2009 I saw 214 movies that were theatrically released in New York City. In addition, I also saw 39 films from 2008 and 35 films from previous years, for a grand total of 288 films.
Of the 214, I saw 25 films on DVD, 22 films at the IFC Center, 21 films at my neighborhood independent cinema (the Cobble Hill Cinemas - they should offer me a discount, ehem), 21 films at the Angelika, 20 films at Film Forum, 10 films at Cinema Village, 10 films on OnDemand, 14 films at the Landmark Sunshine, 14 at my local Regal multiplex (filthy, terrible place), 8 films at BAM, 6 films at the Brooklyn Heights Cinema (such a wonderful neighborhood art-house) and dozens more around New York and the country.
Four movies got no stars and 57 movies got three stars or better. I think it's not a terrible year when I can say emphatically that I like a quarter of the movies I watch.
I don't think I will ever see this many movies in one year again. It was a ton of fun for me, but the pace is ridiculous (four new films each week).
I hope to have a best of the year list out very soon. There are still a few movies that I'm waiting to see on DVD, but I should be able to have the list out in the next few weeks. I also hope to come up with a best of the decade list soon.
Thanks for reading!
31 Aralık 2009 Perşembe
My Sister's Keeper (Wednesday, December 30, 2009) (214)
My Sister's Keeper is based on a Jodi Picoult bestselling book. In it, Cameron Diaz and Jason Patric have a daughter who is diagnosed with leukemia when she is very young. They decide to have another daughter, Abigail Breslin, so they can genetically engineer her to be a blood-type match and be a blood and organ donor for her sister. At some point when the sick girl is a teenager, Breslin refuses to donate her kidney and sues her parents for the right to control her own body, even as a minor. We see how the sister's cancer has an effect on the whole family, not least of whom is Breslin who has become a human-tissue supply store.
I never read the book, but it seems that the movie and the book differ rather substantially, especially in the ending. I must say that knowing the end result of the movie, I can't say the changes were unwarranted. From what I understand, the book was a bit more elaborate and the ending was more dramatically neat and tidy (but I really shouldn't comment more considering I've only read about the book, but never read it directly).
The movie is as manipulative as you might expect. Director Nick Cassavetes forces us to feel bad for certain characters, angry toward some and cry for others, leaving very little room for our own individual emotional experience. He is very straightforward in giving the emotional framework for a scene, boiling it down to its base sentiments: happy, sad, scary, etc. He is hemmed in, though, by his lead actress, Diaz, who is so untalented at her craft that she can only give big emotions with little nuance.
I really don't think that Diaz is a good dramatic actor and think she should stick to comedies. She feels overdone in every important scene and comes off mostly as a bitch, rather than a concerned mother. In one scene, when the family decides to take the sick sister to the beach, Diaz falls flat as she fights Patric for control over the situation. Patric, on the other hand is really great (I think he's always great) as a loving father who is somewhat overwhelmed by the situation he's in, but understands the argument his younger daughter is making. Breslin is fine, but she's not given much to work with. Alec Baldwin, as Breslin's lawyer, is funny, but it seems like his character might have been cut too in the adaptation, as he seems somewhat incomplete.
I think I got more out of this movie than I expected I would. I expected it to be totally trite and fake emotional, but it was actually somewhat smart and touching. Cassavetes deals very nicely and respectfully with the sick sister who is clearly suffering, but maintains a lust for life. I could do without the trite slow-motion, weepy song, tear-jerking montage at the end - but I think that's requisite fare for a movie like this. Overall this movie is pretty banal, but not anything terrible.
Stars 2.5 of 4
I never read the book, but it seems that the movie and the book differ rather substantially, especially in the ending. I must say that knowing the end result of the movie, I can't say the changes were unwarranted. From what I understand, the book was a bit more elaborate and the ending was more dramatically neat and tidy (but I really shouldn't comment more considering I've only read about the book, but never read it directly).
The movie is as manipulative as you might expect. Director Nick Cassavetes forces us to feel bad for certain characters, angry toward some and cry for others, leaving very little room for our own individual emotional experience. He is very straightforward in giving the emotional framework for a scene, boiling it down to its base sentiments: happy, sad, scary, etc. He is hemmed in, though, by his lead actress, Diaz, who is so untalented at her craft that she can only give big emotions with little nuance.
I really don't think that Diaz is a good dramatic actor and think she should stick to comedies. She feels overdone in every important scene and comes off mostly as a bitch, rather than a concerned mother. In one scene, when the family decides to take the sick sister to the beach, Diaz falls flat as she fights Patric for control over the situation. Patric, on the other hand is really great (I think he's always great) as a loving father who is somewhat overwhelmed by the situation he's in, but understands the argument his younger daughter is making. Breslin is fine, but she's not given much to work with. Alec Baldwin, as Breslin's lawyer, is funny, but it seems like his character might have been cut too in the adaptation, as he seems somewhat incomplete.
I think I got more out of this movie than I expected I would. I expected it to be totally trite and fake emotional, but it was actually somewhat smart and touching. Cassavetes deals very nicely and respectfully with the sick sister who is clearly suffering, but maintains a lust for life. I could do without the trite slow-motion, weepy song, tear-jerking montage at the end - but I think that's requisite fare for a movie like this. Overall this movie is pretty banal, but not anything terrible.
Stars 2.5 of 4
30 Aralık 2009 Çarşamba
The White Ribbon (Wednesday, December 30, 2009) (213)
Michael Haneke has made a career out of interesting and shocking films that never shy away from raw violence and frank sexuality. His masterpiece, The Piano Teacher, deals with repressed sexuality, self-inflicted torture and abuse. Cache speaks to a much more specific post-colonial French guilt, but deals with it by showing that children have the potential to do terrible, dark things. Funny Games (both the Austrian and the American versions) shows how evil and terribleness are sport for disaffected youth who are otherwise bored in their dull lives. The White Ribbon uses themes from all of these earlier films to talk about not only the limits and effects of bad deeds in a community, but also the causes of those actions.
The title of The White Ribbon refers to a band that the preacher of a small Austrian village puts on his children's arms to remind them of their innocence and inherent goodness. Throughout a year just before World War I, the hamlet has several unexplained violent acts committed mostly by unknown actors on the townspeople, including a few acts against some of the kids. The film opens when the town doctor is thrown from his horse after the animal trips on a wire strung between two trees near his house. At another point, the rich village Baron's small son is kidnapped and beaten in the woods. Later a special needs boy is also kidnapped and beaten.
As this happens, the townspeople try to figure out what to make of it and why it is happening in their village. What we see is that just about every child is out of control, rebelling against the rigid strictures of their parents. The parents are bad people as well, as they bicker and fight, punish and threaten and rape and abuse one another as well as their kids.
The idea of the white ribbon is very interesting as it represents an old-fashioned out-of-touchness that the adult world has with the kids' world. It suggests that the children's world is not real but just a series of symbols and lessons. It ignores that they might have lost their innocence partly because of the horrible things they see in the grownups. The uptight protestant preacher is a hateful man who seems to relish disciplining his kids with a belt or stern lecture but almost never a loving sign. He doesn't realize that his lessons are not getting through to his kids and that all they get out of it is the hatred he seems to express toward them.
There is no question that Haneke is a master filmmaker from a technical point of view. Each shot is perfectly composed and perfectly executed. Cinematographer Christian Berger's beautiful black and white photography ass well as the monochromatic costumes by Moidele Bickel create a suffocating environment for all the action to take place in.
I think the script (also by Haneke) has a lot of problems with it. For one thing, it sets up an interesting mystery where we don't know who is committing many of the terrible acts we see, but leaves these questions floating in the air, almost not trying to solve them at all. Haneke points at one answer, but this is not taken seriously by the characters and the question is then left open. I get that this is a more nuanced, European style of filmmaking - to leave questions unanswered and leave the audience guessing - but here I think he just walks away from the mystery rather than engaging in any real debate. The film ends rather abruptly, creating less of an ending to the story, than a cut to the credits and an end to the film with no resolution. This is a bit too elliptical for my taste and I would have preferred a bit more examination of the story.
Considering how well sketched out some of the major adult characters are, such as the preacher and the doctor, the children in the village are rather nameless and faceless and lack any real identity. I don't think this adds to our understanding of things, as much as it's just sort of sloppy. They are a mindless mob who move from one place in the town to another, almost like a flock of birds. This is an interesting idea, but it falls apart when we are supposed to feel any sympathy for individual kids, such as the preacher's two oldest. I think if a few of the children had been better flushed out, the story would have felt much more intimate and emotional for me.
The story is narrated by the village school teacher, a nebbish who tries to discipline the kids while they are in his control, but realizes he is a small pawn in a bigger struggle in the village with terrible parents. This character, however, is basically unnecessary and the use of a voice over narrator looking back at this point in his life is ridiculous (I especially hate real-world narrators who are able to tell stories that happen between two people in intimate situations. How do they know what goes on behind closed doors?). That Haneke wastes time showing the teacher's crush on a young governess is just indulgent and pointless. I think a good 30 minutes could have been cut from the film to make it a more powerful story.
Many people have been interested by this film because it's a criticism of Austrians and Europeans who treated their kids so badly that their children subsequently grew up and allowed unprecedented atrocities go unquestioned in the Second World War. I think this is overly simplistic. I don't think it was just evildoing by adults that led Germans to become mute in the face of fascism. I think there is a level of mischief and badness in all people and when that is allowed out in children at an early age, bad things can follow. But I also think that there is a lot of good in people too and that there are not communities where every person is evil (as Haneke seems to suggest here). I appreciate his argument, but I disagree with it fundamentally.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
The title of The White Ribbon refers to a band that the preacher of a small Austrian village puts on his children's arms to remind them of their innocence and inherent goodness. Throughout a year just before World War I, the hamlet has several unexplained violent acts committed mostly by unknown actors on the townspeople, including a few acts against some of the kids. The film opens when the town doctor is thrown from his horse after the animal trips on a wire strung between two trees near his house. At another point, the rich village Baron's small son is kidnapped and beaten in the woods. Later a special needs boy is also kidnapped and beaten.
As this happens, the townspeople try to figure out what to make of it and why it is happening in their village. What we see is that just about every child is out of control, rebelling against the rigid strictures of their parents. The parents are bad people as well, as they bicker and fight, punish and threaten and rape and abuse one another as well as their kids.
The idea of the white ribbon is very interesting as it represents an old-fashioned out-of-touchness that the adult world has with the kids' world. It suggests that the children's world is not real but just a series of symbols and lessons. It ignores that they might have lost their innocence partly because of the horrible things they see in the grownups. The uptight protestant preacher is a hateful man who seems to relish disciplining his kids with a belt or stern lecture but almost never a loving sign. He doesn't realize that his lessons are not getting through to his kids and that all they get out of it is the hatred he seems to express toward them.
There is no question that Haneke is a master filmmaker from a technical point of view. Each shot is perfectly composed and perfectly executed. Cinematographer Christian Berger's beautiful black and white photography ass well as the monochromatic costumes by Moidele Bickel create a suffocating environment for all the action to take place in.
I think the script (also by Haneke) has a lot of problems with it. For one thing, it sets up an interesting mystery where we don't know who is committing many of the terrible acts we see, but leaves these questions floating in the air, almost not trying to solve them at all. Haneke points at one answer, but this is not taken seriously by the characters and the question is then left open. I get that this is a more nuanced, European style of filmmaking - to leave questions unanswered and leave the audience guessing - but here I think he just walks away from the mystery rather than engaging in any real debate. The film ends rather abruptly, creating less of an ending to the story, than a cut to the credits and an end to the film with no resolution. This is a bit too elliptical for my taste and I would have preferred a bit more examination of the story.
Considering how well sketched out some of the major adult characters are, such as the preacher and the doctor, the children in the village are rather nameless and faceless and lack any real identity. I don't think this adds to our understanding of things, as much as it's just sort of sloppy. They are a mindless mob who move from one place in the town to another, almost like a flock of birds. This is an interesting idea, but it falls apart when we are supposed to feel any sympathy for individual kids, such as the preacher's two oldest. I think if a few of the children had been better flushed out, the story would have felt much more intimate and emotional for me.
The story is narrated by the village school teacher, a nebbish who tries to discipline the kids while they are in his control, but realizes he is a small pawn in a bigger struggle in the village with terrible parents. This character, however, is basically unnecessary and the use of a voice over narrator looking back at this point in his life is ridiculous (I especially hate real-world narrators who are able to tell stories that happen between two people in intimate situations. How do they know what goes on behind closed doors?). That Haneke wastes time showing the teacher's crush on a young governess is just indulgent and pointless. I think a good 30 minutes could have been cut from the film to make it a more powerful story.
Many people have been interested by this film because it's a criticism of Austrians and Europeans who treated their kids so badly that their children subsequently grew up and allowed unprecedented atrocities go unquestioned in the Second World War. I think this is overly simplistic. I don't think it was just evildoing by adults that led Germans to become mute in the face of fascism. I think there is a level of mischief and badness in all people and when that is allowed out in children at an early age, bad things can follow. But I also think that there is a lot of good in people too and that there are not communities where every person is evil (as Haneke seems to suggest here). I appreciate his argument, but I disagree with it fundamentally.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
29 Aralık 2009 Salı
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (Tuesday, December 29, 2009) (212)
The biggest story with this film is that it is the movie that Heath Ledger was working on at the time of his death in 2008. Somewhere around a third or half of the film was already shot, so writer/director Terry Gilliam had to rethink the structure of the film to keep production going. What he came up with is actually a pretty convincing final product. Watching the film unaware that Ledger died, there is no clear evidence that the end result we see is anything other than what was originally planned.
In the story, Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is a mentalist and sideshow huckster who travels around in a time-worn wagon with a small troupe of freaks. He gets audience members to go through a magical mirror so he can control their imaginations and put them in a happy fantasy world. But everything is not as happy as it might seem when the entourage meets Tony (Heath Ledger) a mysterious man who seems to be on the run.
About a thousand years earlier the doctor made a deal with the Devil (a bald Tom Waits) to become immortal. Later he made another deal with him to be young again, but in exchange for this, he agreed to give the devil his daughter once she reached her 16th birthday. When the Devil comes to collect on the bet, Parnassus makes one last bet to see who can get five followers faster. Tony, in an effort to help the guru, exposes a checkered past of his own.
The worst thing about this story is that at it's core, it is a very simple idea - a man has to beat the Devil at a bet. But Gilliam doesn't stop at this basic idea and instead makes a very complicated, multi-layered story that is visually beautiful, as one would expect from him, but rather confusing. There seem to be too many characters with too many individual agendas totally separate from Parnassus' goals.
It seems as if Ledger had filmed all of his real-world scenes before passing away, so Gilliam cleverly has three actors play him when he goes inside the magical mirror. As a reflection of his deceitfulness (or three-facedness), Ledger becomes Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law as he steps into the imaginary mirror-world. I think this is an elegant way to deal with a difficult formal situation. It makes a lot more sense than just having an actor wear a mask to disguise himself (which is done a bit, but not very much). This not only works well for the story, but is also weird enough to fit into the rest of the film.
Of course because it is a movie by Gilliam, it is super weird and exotic looking. Much of the dream world looks like the previous Gilliam/Charles McKeown writing collaboration The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It is fun to watch, but is a bit annoying that we can't get some new aesthetic. It mostly feels like recycled outtakes from Baron Munchausen rather than something entirely fresh.
This is an OK movie, but it is not fantastic. I appreciate Gilliam's success at dealing with the difficulty of losing his lead actor well before filming had wrapped, but the problems with the movie are deeper than this. It feels like an inverted pyramid, precariously perching a heavy top on a small point. It doesn't ever topple over entirely, but comes very close several times.
Stars: 2 pf 4
In the story, Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is a mentalist and sideshow huckster who travels around in a time-worn wagon with a small troupe of freaks. He gets audience members to go through a magical mirror so he can control their imaginations and put them in a happy fantasy world. But everything is not as happy as it might seem when the entourage meets Tony (Heath Ledger) a mysterious man who seems to be on the run.
About a thousand years earlier the doctor made a deal with the Devil (a bald Tom Waits) to become immortal. Later he made another deal with him to be young again, but in exchange for this, he agreed to give the devil his daughter once she reached her 16th birthday. When the Devil comes to collect on the bet, Parnassus makes one last bet to see who can get five followers faster. Tony, in an effort to help the guru, exposes a checkered past of his own.
The worst thing about this story is that at it's core, it is a very simple idea - a man has to beat the Devil at a bet. But Gilliam doesn't stop at this basic idea and instead makes a very complicated, multi-layered story that is visually beautiful, as one would expect from him, but rather confusing. There seem to be too many characters with too many individual agendas totally separate from Parnassus' goals.
It seems as if Ledger had filmed all of his real-world scenes before passing away, so Gilliam cleverly has three actors play him when he goes inside the magical mirror. As a reflection of his deceitfulness (or three-facedness), Ledger becomes Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law as he steps into the imaginary mirror-world. I think this is an elegant way to deal with a difficult formal situation. It makes a lot more sense than just having an actor wear a mask to disguise himself (which is done a bit, but not very much). This not only works well for the story, but is also weird enough to fit into the rest of the film.
Of course because it is a movie by Gilliam, it is super weird and exotic looking. Much of the dream world looks like the previous Gilliam/Charles McKeown writing collaboration The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It is fun to watch, but is a bit annoying that we can't get some new aesthetic. It mostly feels like recycled outtakes from Baron Munchausen rather than something entirely fresh.
This is an OK movie, but it is not fantastic. I appreciate Gilliam's success at dealing with the difficulty of losing his lead actor well before filming had wrapped, but the problems with the movie are deeper than this. It feels like an inverted pyramid, precariously perching a heavy top on a small point. It doesn't ever topple over entirely, but comes very close several times.
Stars: 2 pf 4
28 Aralık 2009 Pazartesi
Nick's Un Caged Fury
BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL - NEW ORLEANS
(Dir. Werner Herzog, 2009)
So is this a remake? A re-imagining?
Is it connected to Abel Ferrara's 1992 corrupt cop cult classic in any way than the title? The answer is that it is, and it isn't. Both films concern a police detective summed up by the first film's tagline: "Gambler. Thief. Junkie. Killer. Cop."
Herzog claims that he never saw the '92 version, and that the title is a marketing ploy.
Whatever the Hell it is, this is for certain: It's a weird wild ride through the cracked psyche of, well, a very bad lieutenant and it's Nicholas Cage's best work in nearly a decade. Unlike Harvey Keitel's character in Ferrara's film, only credited as "The Lieutenant," Cage is given a name: Terrence McDonaugh.
He is also given a new location - post Katrina New Orleans. His first case after being promoted involves the brutal slaying of five Senegalese immigrants. He follows the leads sometimes with his partner Val Kilmer, but mostly alone abusing his power at every opportunity, shaking down almost everybody for drugs and seeing iguanas and alligators that aren't there in light fractured shots that are as disturbing as they are wickedly funny.
Take away the crazy Cage character and this would be a routine cop drama going from one witness to another on the trail of the killer, but this is completely about the crazy Cage character with the plot a hazy afterthought. You wouldn't expect or want a standard cop thriller from Herzog, but this doesn't exactly qualify as a genre deconstruction either - it's more like genre destruction.
There are no high speed chases or violent fist fights and when the story circles back on itself in the last reel it feels surreal - a satire of dream logic almost.
Though Kilmer barely registers in a walk through of a role there is a strong supporting cast aiding Cage. Eve Mendes (a former Cage costar in GHOST RIDER) is on hand as Cage's strung out hooker girlfriend, Brad Dourif puts in a sharp turn as a cranky bookie, and Jennifer Coolidge (Stiffler's Mom!) has an uncharacteristic part as Cage's father's (Tom Bower) partner. Also look for Michael Shannon, Fairuza Balk, and Xzibit as a drug kingpin aptly named "Big Fate" if you can actually take your eyes off Cage.
Cage's outrageously off kilter performance fills the screen with kinetic energy that wonderfully erases the horrible memories of such dreck as the NATIONAL TREASURE movies and the other crappy commercial fare that has plagued his career of late. It's a gutsy gripping piece of acting that made me giggle throughout. He takes hits from what he calls his "lucky crack pipe" and spouts such baffling bat-shit insane phrases as "I'll kill all of you. To the break of dawn. To the break of dawn, baby!"
Cage engages in the kind of sordid behavior that makes Harvey Keitel's take on the character look positively subdued.
BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL - NEW ORLEANS (a horrible title whatever its reasoning) is an intoxicating surprise, but I'm sure it'll rub many moviegoers wrong.
It makes no apologies and has no moralistic message so it really stands out in this otherwise saccharin season. It's an unruly and unhinged work by a master of obsessed cinema. It's an experience that will linger long after like a vivid nightmare and while that might not sound like a recommendation - believe me it is.
More later...
(Dir. Werner Herzog, 2009)
So is this a remake? A re-imagining?
Is it connected to Abel Ferrara's 1992 corrupt cop cult classic in any way than the title? The answer is that it is, and it isn't. Both films concern a police detective summed up by the first film's tagline: "Gambler. Thief. Junkie. Killer. Cop."
Herzog claims that he never saw the '92 version, and that the title is a marketing ploy.
Whatever the Hell it is, this is for certain: It's a weird wild ride through the cracked psyche of, well, a very bad lieutenant and it's Nicholas Cage's best work in nearly a decade. Unlike Harvey Keitel's character in Ferrara's film, only credited as "The Lieutenant," Cage is given a name: Terrence McDonaugh.
He is also given a new location - post Katrina New Orleans. His first case after being promoted involves the brutal slaying of five Senegalese immigrants. He follows the leads sometimes with his partner Val Kilmer, but mostly alone abusing his power at every opportunity, shaking down almost everybody for drugs and seeing iguanas and alligators that aren't there in light fractured shots that are as disturbing as they are wickedly funny.
Take away the crazy Cage character and this would be a routine cop drama going from one witness to another on the trail of the killer, but this is completely about the crazy Cage character with the plot a hazy afterthought. You wouldn't expect or want a standard cop thriller from Herzog, but this doesn't exactly qualify as a genre deconstruction either - it's more like genre destruction.
There are no high speed chases or violent fist fights and when the story circles back on itself in the last reel it feels surreal - a satire of dream logic almost.
Though Kilmer barely registers in a walk through of a role there is a strong supporting cast aiding Cage. Eve Mendes (a former Cage costar in GHOST RIDER) is on hand as Cage's strung out hooker girlfriend, Brad Dourif puts in a sharp turn as a cranky bookie, and Jennifer Coolidge (Stiffler's Mom!) has an uncharacteristic part as Cage's father's (Tom Bower) partner. Also look for Michael Shannon, Fairuza Balk, and Xzibit as a drug kingpin aptly named "Big Fate" if you can actually take your eyes off Cage.
Cage's outrageously off kilter performance fills the screen with kinetic energy that wonderfully erases the horrible memories of such dreck as the NATIONAL TREASURE movies and the other crappy commercial fare that has plagued his career of late. It's a gutsy gripping piece of acting that made me giggle throughout. He takes hits from what he calls his "lucky crack pipe" and spouts such baffling bat-shit insane phrases as "I'll kill all of you. To the break of dawn. To the break of dawn, baby!"
Cage engages in the kind of sordid behavior that makes Harvey Keitel's take on the character look positively subdued.
BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL - NEW ORLEANS (a horrible title whatever its reasoning) is an intoxicating surprise, but I'm sure it'll rub many moviegoers wrong.
It makes no apologies and has no moralistic message so it really stands out in this otherwise saccharin season. It's an unruly and unhinged work by a master of obsessed cinema. It's an experience that will linger long after like a vivid nightmare and while that might not sound like a recommendation - believe me it is.
More later...
It's Complicated (Monday, December 28, 2009) (211)
Recently an ad hoc committee of Hollywood executives and journalists met in a boardroom in the San Fernando Valley to name a filmmaker who would make movies for and about middle-aged women. Many people were nominated - Diane English, Penny Marshall and Nora Ephron all received a ton of votes, but they all lost to Nancy Meyers. She was named the writer director of films with women, for women, about women. Period.
What we get in It's Complicated is a totally easy movie that might speak to some sadness in the middle-aged American woman, but really is just silly and forgettable. In it, Meryl Streep (Omigod - it's Meryl Streep - I hope she gets another Golden Globe or Oscar - she's so wonderful!! gag) plays a woman who has been divorced for 10 years from her ex-husband, Alec Baldwin. They have three kids and their oldest daughter has a fiance, John Krasinski. When she starts to renovate her already-enormous Santa Barbara house, she meets Steve Martin, who is an architect. They two have some immediate chemistry. At the same time, Baldwin, upset in his own new marriage to a woman half his age, tries to re-seduce Streep all over again. She then has to choose between a return of her old husband or a chance at new gray-haired love.
The story itself is pretty banal. It is easy and doesn't really stretch too far - which it shouldn't for such a rom com. The writing is OK - not too dull but never especially funny. Most of the laugh-lines come from Baldwin who seems to be playing up his Jack Donaghy character from 30-Rock more than anything Meyers gives him (hey - it got him this gig, so why mess with it!).
Despite the requisite Golden Globe nomination for Streep (c'mon, Hollywood Foreign Press, you really think this is one of the best female comedic roles of the year?!), it is Martin who really deserves credit for his acting here. He is a fantastic, rather pathetic straight-man here with very little of his typical zaniness. He is one of the few people we can identify with and probably the most normal of everyone onscreen.
There are a lot of curious things about the story and the script. It makes no sense to me why it should be set in Santa Barbara and not Los Angeles. I'm sure there are some families who live there, but it makes no sense that Streep's oldest daughter and her fiance would move in down the street from mom. I don't think there are any single couples under 50 who live in Santa Barbara. The Streep/Baldwins (known in the film as Jane and Jack Adler) are among the richest and the whitest people on earth with their Porsches and their fancy coffee shops. Way to make the story relateable, Nance! (OK - this is petty of me - but I couldn't help feel the whole time that rich people like this deserve no sympathy. Set the movie in Los Angeles, at least).
I would imagine that Jack and Jane Adler would be Jewish (it's a hell of a Jewish-sounding name), but there is no sense they're religious at all (ok - fine) and they have three of the blondest, WASPyest kids in the world. Streep is looking to expand her kitchen so she can finally get her 'dream kitchen', but the kitchen that exists in her house seems gigantic already. In this case either find a location with a smaller kitchen to shoot in or scrap the line about wanting a bigger one. This only leads to me disliking Streep more than I already do. Finally, why is John Krasinski written in as the fiance and not the son? In what family is the fiance the most vocal of all the kids? Why wasn't he the son and the daughter his fiancee? Whatever - there are so many problems here.
I'm also sick of the fascination Hollywood has with white women who lunch and drink together? It's such a dumb cliche and was totally played out this year. Julie & Julia, The Blind Side and this all have totally interchangeable luncheon scenes where the protagonist is rational and her friends are either rude, out-of-touch, racist or just silly talking about sex. I guess I've never been a woman at a lunch, so I don't know what they're like - but these are all so tepid and predictable that I hope real women don't talk like this (what a terrible life that would be).
There is nothing entirely loathsome about this film. It comes to a nice, rational conclusion and ties up in a very adult way, if totally trite and neat. It is nice to see a story where a man is pursuing a woman who doesn't totally need him. It makes the woman less desperate and more sensible.
I think the fact that the film is getting attention as a *comedy for smart women* is dumb. It's a movie and it's about a woman, but there is no reason to think it says something that other films don't. I don't know why women who like movies shouldn't expect a smart drama or a smart comedy that doesn't try to pigeon-hole their lives into some sort of type... but then I guess Nancy Meyers gets to write the rules on what is acceptable film fare for women. We just have to sit back and watch.
Stars: 2 of 4
What we get in It's Complicated is a totally easy movie that might speak to some sadness in the middle-aged American woman, but really is just silly and forgettable. In it, Meryl Streep (Omigod - it's Meryl Streep - I hope she gets another Golden Globe or Oscar - she's so wonderful!! gag) plays a woman who has been divorced for 10 years from her ex-husband, Alec Baldwin. They have three kids and their oldest daughter has a fiance, John Krasinski. When she starts to renovate her already-enormous Santa Barbara house, she meets Steve Martin, who is an architect. They two have some immediate chemistry. At the same time, Baldwin, upset in his own new marriage to a woman half his age, tries to re-seduce Streep all over again. She then has to choose between a return of her old husband or a chance at new gray-haired love.
The story itself is pretty banal. It is easy and doesn't really stretch too far - which it shouldn't for such a rom com. The writing is OK - not too dull but never especially funny. Most of the laugh-lines come from Baldwin who seems to be playing up his Jack Donaghy character from 30-Rock more than anything Meyers gives him (hey - it got him this gig, so why mess with it!).
Despite the requisite Golden Globe nomination for Streep (c'mon, Hollywood Foreign Press, you really think this is one of the best female comedic roles of the year?!), it is Martin who really deserves credit for his acting here. He is a fantastic, rather pathetic straight-man here with very little of his typical zaniness. He is one of the few people we can identify with and probably the most normal of everyone onscreen.
There are a lot of curious things about the story and the script. It makes no sense to me why it should be set in Santa Barbara and not Los Angeles. I'm sure there are some families who live there, but it makes no sense that Streep's oldest daughter and her fiance would move in down the street from mom. I don't think there are any single couples under 50 who live in Santa Barbara. The Streep/Baldwins (known in the film as Jane and Jack Adler) are among the richest and the whitest people on earth with their Porsches and their fancy coffee shops. Way to make the story relateable, Nance! (OK - this is petty of me - but I couldn't help feel the whole time that rich people like this deserve no sympathy. Set the movie in Los Angeles, at least).
I would imagine that Jack and Jane Adler would be Jewish (it's a hell of a Jewish-sounding name), but there is no sense they're religious at all (ok - fine) and they have three of the blondest, WASPyest kids in the world. Streep is looking to expand her kitchen so she can finally get her 'dream kitchen', but the kitchen that exists in her house seems gigantic already. In this case either find a location with a smaller kitchen to shoot in or scrap the line about wanting a bigger one. This only leads to me disliking Streep more than I already do. Finally, why is John Krasinski written in as the fiance and not the son? In what family is the fiance the most vocal of all the kids? Why wasn't he the son and the daughter his fiancee? Whatever - there are so many problems here.
I'm also sick of the fascination Hollywood has with white women who lunch and drink together? It's such a dumb cliche and was totally played out this year. Julie & Julia, The Blind Side and this all have totally interchangeable luncheon scenes where the protagonist is rational and her friends are either rude, out-of-touch, racist or just silly talking about sex. I guess I've never been a woman at a lunch, so I don't know what they're like - but these are all so tepid and predictable that I hope real women don't talk like this (what a terrible life that would be).
There is nothing entirely loathsome about this film. It comes to a nice, rational conclusion and ties up in a very adult way, if totally trite and neat. It is nice to see a story where a man is pursuing a woman who doesn't totally need him. It makes the woman less desperate and more sensible.
I think the fact that the film is getting attention as a *comedy for smart women* is dumb. It's a movie and it's about a woman, but there is no reason to think it says something that other films don't. I don't know why women who like movies shouldn't expect a smart drama or a smart comedy that doesn't try to pigeon-hole their lives into some sort of type... but then I guess Nancy Meyers gets to write the rules on what is acceptable film fare for women. We just have to sit back and watch.
Stars: 2 of 4
27 Aralık 2009 Pazar
Yedi Kocalı Hürmüz Film İzle
7 KOCALI HÜRMÜZ
NURGÜL YEŞİLÇAY FİLMLERİ İZLE
NURGÜL YEŞİLÇAY FİLMLERİ İZLE
Movshare bölüm 1 izlemek için tıklayın
Movshare bölüm 2 izlemek için tıklayın
26 Aralık 2009 Cumartesi
High Concept Holmes
SHERLOCK HOLMES
(Dir. Guy Ritchie, 2009)
The recreation of the career of Robert Downey Jr. as a bankable action hero continues with this expensive explosive epic that re-casts Arthur Conan Doyle's classic character as, well, a bankable action hero.
It's a conceit that works grandly for considerable chunks of Guy Ritchie's period production, but an unfortunate feeling remains that such a literary icon as Sherlock Holmes shouldn't be shoehorned into James Bondian conventions or Indiana Jones-ish set-piece progressions.
The thinking behind this is understandable (or elementary) - who wants to see stiff sitting room scenes filled with exposition? Audiences want high octane action and that's what they're going to get here. Holmes was a martial arts master in Doyle's books and short stories so that's an element Ritchie and Downey Jr. run with. Through stylized breakdowns of his fighting strategies we get into Holmes' head blow by blow. However the attempts to get into his head clue by clue are less successful.
The movie begins with Holmes and trusty sidekick Watson (Jude Law) preventing a human sacrifice by the dark treacherous Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong). Though Blackwood is jailed and sentenced to death, he still inspires fear with threatening prophecies of terror that he'll orchestrate from beyond the grave.
Three days after he's hanged and pronounced dead by Watson, he appears to have torn through the walls of his tomb and is back among the living.
Holmes is, of course, back on his trail with distractions such as Rachel McAdams as the infamous Irene Adler and Watson's bromance blocking bride to be (Kelly Reilly) muddying up the waters. Muddy is apt for it's a muddled mess of a mystery - a fast paced muddle, but a muddle all the same.
For most moviegoers it won't matter as there is fun to be had with Downey Jr.'s almost contagious satisfied smirk of a performance. His accent is much the same as it was in CHAPLIN (that is - not very convincing but still adequate) and his jovial demeanor does much to carry the film through dark passages dealing with black magic and a perplexing plot to overthrow Parliament.
Law doesn't make much of an impression as he just seems to be along for the ride and his fiancée subplot could be dropped completely with no complaints. Strong's steely faced Blackwood is a worthy adversary, but his evil plans fail to fascinate making the murky mechanics of the third act bog down the proceedings.
Its ending obviously broadcasts that SHERLOCK HOLMES wants to be the first of a franchise, club sandwiched between IRONMAN efforts, primed for event movie seasons but I pray that it's a one off.
Downey Jr. is one of the most capable and interesting actors working today, but I fear his hipster appeal will make for major miscasting in future famous icon reboots: Robert Downey Jr. as Tarzan/The Shadow/Buck Rogers/etc. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but as much as I enjoyed particular parts of this film and would like to write it off as pure escapism, I couldn't quite escape the notion that it's a glorified waste.
More later...
The Empty Nest (Saturday, December 26, 2009) (210)
This is a short, simple Argentine film written and directed by Daniel Burman. In it playwright Leonardo sketches out the plot of a new play that is a fantasy of his own future life. He imagines ahead 10-or-so years when his three kids will be out of the house and he and his wife will be left alone. He sees that they might have affairs and might try to stick together. All of this is done within the safe confines of his 'full nest' - his warm home's living room.
It is a very sweet drama, one that is mostly focused on very nice story-telling. Burman does a great job giving a rather mundane story in a way that keeps us interested throughout. Lead actor Oscar Martinez does a wonderful job as a doting father, a loving husband and a reliable man to all of those in his life.
This is not a particularly deep or important film, but it is totally enjoyable and easy to watch. It fits in well with a new tradition in Argentine cinema of every-day stories told well and straightforwardly.
Stars: 3 of 4
It is a very sweet drama, one that is mostly focused on very nice story-telling. Burman does a great job giving a rather mundane story in a way that keeps us interested throughout. Lead actor Oscar Martinez does a wonderful job as a doting father, a loving husband and a reliable man to all of those in his life.
This is not a particularly deep or important film, but it is totally enjoyable and easy to watch. It fits in well with a new tradition in Argentine cinema of every-day stories told well and straightforwardly.
Stars: 3 of 4
25 Aralık 2009 Cuma
Sherlock Holmes (Friday, December 25, 2009) (209)
Robert Downey Jr. is just the latest in a long line of actors to tackle the complicated and wonderful character Sherlock Holmes. Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett and Peter Cushing, to name a few, all had their time with the role in the past. Downey is a interesting fit, of course, because he brings with him a lifetime of self-abuse and drug use. This is perhaps the darkest and most unhinged Holmes we've seen in awhile. Director Guy Ritchie shows Holmes as a prankster and childish man, kept in line by his trusted friend Dr. Watson, who is always on the straight and narrow.
The story here is not much of a mystery. Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) is killing people in London as part of a loose connection to secret society ritual ceremony. Holmes and Watson (Jude Law) have to catch the criminal before he can kill more people. All the while Blackwood's actions are being followed by Holmes' nemesis, Professor Moriarty and his hired go-between, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams).
The two best things about the film are Downey and Law. They both look fantastic in the wonderful costumes and have snappy, fresh dialogue. They play off one another very well, giving a clear sense of long-time friendship, trust and companionship. Their banter is funny and enjoyable and makes the rather dull story seem incidental and painless.
As is rather typical in a Ritchie movie, there is a lot of style and a rather busy, complicated mise-en-scene. The industry of Victorian London explodes off the screen. The wet, grayness of the city seeps into every corner of the picture and mixes with the greasy, cold metal of factories to give a wonderful idea of place.
Sadly, this is much more of an action movie than a mystery. We know and Holmes and Watson know basically from the first scene that Blackwood is the culprit of the murders, so the film turns into a chase, where they have to use their wits to avoid his traps and find him. This is not terrible, but it is far from a traditional Sherlock Holmes film. It seems rather incidental that it is Holmes and Watson - the film could just as easily be about any two other random Londoners. Considering the story it totally original and not based on any specific Arthur Conan Doyle book, it is strange they went this direction. Why not just write a fresh mystery if you don't want to use a classic?
In spite of all of this, the feeling of the film, the relationship between Holmes and Watson and the beautiful art direction make this a rather enjoyable film. I say this with a big caveat, though, that Blackwood is a pretty dumb character and his part of the film is very stupid and dry.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
The story here is not much of a mystery. Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) is killing people in London as part of a loose connection to secret society ritual ceremony. Holmes and Watson (Jude Law) have to catch the criminal before he can kill more people. All the while Blackwood's actions are being followed by Holmes' nemesis, Professor Moriarty and his hired go-between, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams).
The two best things about the film are Downey and Law. They both look fantastic in the wonderful costumes and have snappy, fresh dialogue. They play off one another very well, giving a clear sense of long-time friendship, trust and companionship. Their banter is funny and enjoyable and makes the rather dull story seem incidental and painless.
As is rather typical in a Ritchie movie, there is a lot of style and a rather busy, complicated mise-en-scene. The industry of Victorian London explodes off the screen. The wet, grayness of the city seeps into every corner of the picture and mixes with the greasy, cold metal of factories to give a wonderful idea of place.
Sadly, this is much more of an action movie than a mystery. We know and Holmes and Watson know basically from the first scene that Blackwood is the culprit of the murders, so the film turns into a chase, where they have to use their wits to avoid his traps and find him. This is not terrible, but it is far from a traditional Sherlock Holmes film. It seems rather incidental that it is Holmes and Watson - the film could just as easily be about any two other random Londoners. Considering the story it totally original and not based on any specific Arthur Conan Doyle book, it is strange they went this direction. Why not just write a fresh mystery if you don't want to use a classic?
In spite of all of this, the feeling of the film, the relationship between Holmes and Watson and the beautiful art direction make this a rather enjoyable film. I say this with a big caveat, though, that Blackwood is a pretty dumb character and his part of the film is very stupid and dry.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
The Headless Woman (Friday, December, 25, 2009) (208)
The Headless Woman is an Argentine film about a woman who gets into a small car accident when she hits a dog on a quiet country road. She seems to suffer a concussion and is a bit out of it for several days. Her family seems unaware of her situation, not even realizing that the incident has left her nearly mute and aloof. She tries to go back to the scene of the incident, thinking she hit more than just the dog, but is unable to find any more clues as to what happened to her.
Typical of many Argentine and South American films of recent years, class issues and what seems to be an upper-middle-class guilt pervades the story. Neither the woman nor any of her friends and family are lacking anything they want or need. They drive beautiful cars and live in posh houses with large, healthy families. The woman is faced with her high level when she goes to a town near the accident to ask for any clues about the crash. There she sees people living modestly without all the excess that she enjoys.
Clearly writer/director Lucrecia Martel is making a point that this woman can totally change and be barely verbal, but her life is structured in a way that few people around her are aware that anything is out of the ordinary. The woman lives in a place where despite the fact that she is a modern woman with hobbies and interests, few ask her opinion on things - or if they do, others will step in to answer for her. This detachment seems to be the center of the film and is the most interesting part of it.
Generally the film is too elliptical and rather frustrating. We do not know enough about the woman before her accident to know how she was then (was she not talkative then, so it's not a big change after the accident? Were her friends and family distant and did they never ask her any questions?). Nothing really comes together in the end. It feels like half a story, or just the beginning of one. I think this would have been an interesting opening to a larger story, but we never get more substance.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
Typical of many Argentine and South American films of recent years, class issues and what seems to be an upper-middle-class guilt pervades the story. Neither the woman nor any of her friends and family are lacking anything they want or need. They drive beautiful cars and live in posh houses with large, healthy families. The woman is faced with her high level when she goes to a town near the accident to ask for any clues about the crash. There she sees people living modestly without all the excess that she enjoys.
Clearly writer/director Lucrecia Martel is making a point that this woman can totally change and be barely verbal, but her life is structured in a way that few people around her are aware that anything is out of the ordinary. The woman lives in a place where despite the fact that she is a modern woman with hobbies and interests, few ask her opinion on things - or if they do, others will step in to answer for her. This detachment seems to be the center of the film and is the most interesting part of it.
Generally the film is too elliptical and rather frustrating. We do not know enough about the woman before her accident to know how she was then (was she not talkative then, so it's not a big change after the accident? Were her friends and family distant and did they never ask her any questions?). Nothing really comes together in the end. It feels like half a story, or just the beginning of one. I think this would have been an interesting opening to a larger story, but we never get more substance.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
24 Aralık 2009 Perşembe
UP IN THE AIR: The Film Babble Blog Review
UP IN THE AIR (Dir. Jason Reitman, 2009)
Clooney's frequent flyer lifestyle is threatened when his boss (a lightly bearded slightly jaded Jason Bateman) brings in a young consultant (Anna Kendrick) who has plans to replace the face-to-face meetings with video conferencing. Bateman sends Kendrick on the road with Clooney so she can be shown the ropes.
Clooney hopes this will show her the flaws in what he believes to be a flawed inhuman media method, but you just know that both will be taught essential life lessons by one another.
In a hotel bar meet-cute earlier, Clooney literally charms the pants off fellow frequent flyer Vera Farmiga. She nicely compliments his no-strings-attached philosophy and provides a counter balance to Kendrick's wet behind the ears romantic idealism.
After Kendrick's boyfriend back home dumps her by way of a text message, Clooney can't help but to make a wise-crack: "That's kind of like firing people over the internet." Farmiga offers, with much more sensitivity, some solid advice about how it won't feel like settling by the time somebody is right for her.
George Clooney's third film of the last quarter of 2009 has "the last movie star" (Time Magazine's words - not mine) in a much more recognizable role than his last 2 efforts. It's not just because he's not a mustached military man or an animated fox, it's that he has a more recognizable character arc: slick professional who believes he has all the answers glides through life until realizing that there's emptiness to it all which he desperately and clumsily tries to remedy.
This is also the character arc of director Jason Reitman's first film THANK YOU FOR SMOKING, which UP IN THE AIR closely resembles at times especially in its opening introductory montage. Clooney's voice-over narration, accompanying aerial shots of many American cities, tells us that he is a corporate downsizer.
Clooney flies all over the country to conduct formal sit-downs with employees to tell them that they are being laid off. He is very good at his job and prefers the 322 days of the year that he is on the road to the 43 that he is home in his sterile white walled rental unit of an apartment in Omaha.
Clooney flies all over the country to conduct formal sit-downs with employees to tell them that they are being laid off. He is very good at his job and prefers the 322 days of the year that he is on the road to the 43 that he is home in his sterile white walled rental unit of an apartment in Omaha.
Clooney's frequent flyer lifestyle is threatened when his boss (a lightly bearded slightly jaded Jason Bateman) brings in a young consultant (Anna Kendrick) who has plans to replace the face-to-face meetings with video conferencing. Bateman sends Kendrick on the road with Clooney so she can be shown the ropes.Clooney hopes this will show her the flaws in what he believes to be a flawed inhuman media method, but you just know that both will be taught essential life lessons by one another.
In a hotel bar meet-cute earlier, Clooney literally charms the pants off fellow frequent flyer Vera Farmiga. She nicely compliments his no-strings-attached philosophy and provides a counter balance to Kendrick's wet behind the ears romantic idealism.
After Kendrick's boyfriend back home dumps her by way of a text message, Clooney can't help but to make a wise-crack: "That's kind of like firing people over the internet." Farmiga offers, with much more sensitivity, some solid advice about how it won't feel like settling by the time somebody is right for her.
These relationship insights blend into the travelogue mosaic of cards being swiped, more aerial shots, and the many firings, yet we just know that they form the crucial crux at hand.
For example Clooney has the annoying task of taking along a cardboard cutout of his sister (Melanie Lynskey) with her fiancée (Danny McBride) to be photographed at famous landmarks for a wedding collage - this draws our attention to his ostensible freedom in contrast to his sibling's ostensible stability with neither coming out on top.
The first half of UP IN THE AIR is breezy and amusing, but the second half descends into mawkish sentimentality with soul searching acoustic balladry in the background broadcasting what we're supposed to be feeling. Clooney's charisma is so pleasantly palpable that he makes the film appear better than it is while we're watching it, yet its superficial effect evaporates once we leave the theater.
Still, most audiences are sure to find this film a likable lark. It's well made and has a shiny gloss to it that often outshines its predictability. It also benefits from not having a neatly tied up conclusion - sometimes it's best to leave some things right where the title says they should be.
For example Clooney has the annoying task of taking along a cardboard cutout of his sister (Melanie Lynskey) with her fiancée (Danny McBride) to be photographed at famous landmarks for a wedding collage - this draws our attention to his ostensible freedom in contrast to his sibling's ostensible stability with neither coming out on top.
The first half of UP IN THE AIR is breezy and amusing, but the second half descends into mawkish sentimentality with soul searching acoustic balladry in the background broadcasting what we're supposed to be feeling. Clooney's charisma is so pleasantly palpable that he makes the film appear better than it is while we're watching it, yet its superficial effect evaporates once we leave the theater.
Still, most audiences are sure to find this film a likable lark. It's well made and has a shiny gloss to it that often outshines its predictability. It also benefits from not having a neatly tied up conclusion - sometimes it's best to leave some things right where the title says they should be.
More later...
23 Aralık 2009 Çarşamba
Police, Adjective (Wednesday, December 23, 2009) (207)
It is now clear that we are in the midst of a remarkable period of Romanian neo-realist film. In recent years, there have been a few Romanian directors who have released several remarkable films, each with their own individual subject matter, but each with a fantastic style and aesthetic that is totally fresh and remarkable in cinema. In 2006, there was Cristi Puiu's tragic The Death of Mr. Lasarescu; in 2007, there was Corneliu Porumboiu's bittersweet 12:08 East of Bucharest; in 2008 there was Crisrian Mungiu's frightening and frank 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days; and 2009 brought us Porumboiu's exhaustive and amazing Police, Adjective.
I'm not sure if there is a specific movement here per se, or if there is some sort of parallel evolution of style, but all of these films deal with reality in their country in the same, slow and pensive way. Each director uses extremely long takes with static shots and a minimal amount of cutting. Scenes take 15 or 20 minutes to develop as a standard and there might only be three shots in that period.
In Police, Adjective, beat cop Cristi is assigned to tail a high school student who is smoking pot after class with two friends. It seems that the police brass think that this kid can lead them to some big drug supplier into their town. As he follows the boy for days upon days, he gets more and more frustrated with the silly case and questions its value to his superiors. It's a very simple story, but this is not really about the narrative as much as it is an examination of post-communist Romanian culture and the texture of life in the country.
Porumboiu does a magnificent job here putting us in the bleak environment. Each scene in this film runs at least 15 minutes long and they are each composed of static shots that go on well past a point where it is comfortable to watch. The discomfort is what is amazing about this picture. You want to look away, but you cant. There is no score and what seems to be natural, dull, yellow lighting. The mundane qualities of the of each scene is what is totally beautiful about this film. There is minimal talking throughout, leading to a cold, isolating feeling - and when there is dialogue it comes in giant bursts like thunder.
In one scene, Cristi gets home from work and enters his modest flat. His wife is in the sitting room and tells him that his dinner is in the kitchen. He goes to the kitchen, gets a bowl of soup and some bread and begins to eat. As he eats, we hear a Romanian pop song being played by his wife on the computer. He eats the bowl of soup and then goes into the sitting room and sits next to his wife. This all takes about 10 minutes and is all one uncut shot. He then begins a long dialogue with his wife about the meaning of the song, getting somewhat silly about the imagery and symbolism the lyrics evoke. There is a definite Becket, Waiting for Godot element to this sequence.
The film also deals with the bizarre Kafka-esque elements of the bureaucratic Romanian police force and legal system. After intensely following the schoolkid around, Cristi goes to his office to write his report. Rather than have him read the report or have a character discuss the contents, we see the handwritten page onscreen and read it ourselves. It is an exhaustive listing of what we have just seen, and underlines the stupidity of his assignment. Seeing the report directly is an absolutely elegant touch that fits in perfectly with the tone of the film and brings us in even more intimately than we already are.
We then get two separate characters commenting on a small, inane spelling mistake in the report. There is a sense that even being as careful and detailed as he can be with minutiae, Cristi can never combat the vulcanized bureaucracy that pervades his culture. These moments are rather funny in their craziness and hopelessness - but it is clear that it is depressing to live amidst it. This discomfort is beautifully shown onscreen with the never-ending beige-gray interiors and graffiti-covered walls of the exterior around town. Everything is sad and overused and falling apart in this world.
Dragos Bucur plays Cristi beautifully as a smart cop who wants to fight back against the impossible system he finds himself in, but knows there's not much he can do about it. He is dejected as he comes to terms with his 'object-ness'. As the title suggests, he becomes less of a noun and more of an adjective. He's not a policeman, but a modifier of another thing. A 'police story', a 'police man'.
This is a totally magnificent, difficult film. It is one of the most thought-provoking works of 2009 and certainly among the best films of the year.
Stars: 4 of 4
I'm not sure if there is a specific movement here per se, or if there is some sort of parallel evolution of style, but all of these films deal with reality in their country in the same, slow and pensive way. Each director uses extremely long takes with static shots and a minimal amount of cutting. Scenes take 15 or 20 minutes to develop as a standard and there might only be three shots in that period.
In Police, Adjective, beat cop Cristi is assigned to tail a high school student who is smoking pot after class with two friends. It seems that the police brass think that this kid can lead them to some big drug supplier into their town. As he follows the boy for days upon days, he gets more and more frustrated with the silly case and questions its value to his superiors. It's a very simple story, but this is not really about the narrative as much as it is an examination of post-communist Romanian culture and the texture of life in the country.
Porumboiu does a magnificent job here putting us in the bleak environment. Each scene in this film runs at least 15 minutes long and they are each composed of static shots that go on well past a point where it is comfortable to watch. The discomfort is what is amazing about this picture. You want to look away, but you cant. There is no score and what seems to be natural, dull, yellow lighting. The mundane qualities of the of each scene is what is totally beautiful about this film. There is minimal talking throughout, leading to a cold, isolating feeling - and when there is dialogue it comes in giant bursts like thunder.
In one scene, Cristi gets home from work and enters his modest flat. His wife is in the sitting room and tells him that his dinner is in the kitchen. He goes to the kitchen, gets a bowl of soup and some bread and begins to eat. As he eats, we hear a Romanian pop song being played by his wife on the computer. He eats the bowl of soup and then goes into the sitting room and sits next to his wife. This all takes about 10 minutes and is all one uncut shot. He then begins a long dialogue with his wife about the meaning of the song, getting somewhat silly about the imagery and symbolism the lyrics evoke. There is a definite Becket, Waiting for Godot element to this sequence.
The film also deals with the bizarre Kafka-esque elements of the bureaucratic Romanian police force and legal system. After intensely following the schoolkid around, Cristi goes to his office to write his report. Rather than have him read the report or have a character discuss the contents, we see the handwritten page onscreen and read it ourselves. It is an exhaustive listing of what we have just seen, and underlines the stupidity of his assignment. Seeing the report directly is an absolutely elegant touch that fits in perfectly with the tone of the film and brings us in even more intimately than we already are.
We then get two separate characters commenting on a small, inane spelling mistake in the report. There is a sense that even being as careful and detailed as he can be with minutiae, Cristi can never combat the vulcanized bureaucracy that pervades his culture. These moments are rather funny in their craziness and hopelessness - but it is clear that it is depressing to live amidst it. This discomfort is beautifully shown onscreen with the never-ending beige-gray interiors and graffiti-covered walls of the exterior around town. Everything is sad and overused and falling apart in this world.
Dragos Bucur plays Cristi beautifully as a smart cop who wants to fight back against the impossible system he finds himself in, but knows there's not much he can do about it. He is dejected as he comes to terms with his 'object-ness'. As the title suggests, he becomes less of a noun and more of an adjective. He's not a policeman, but a modifier of another thing. A 'police story', a 'police man'.
This is a totally magnificent, difficult film. It is one of the most thought-provoking works of 2009 and certainly among the best films of the year.
Stars: 4 of 4
22 Aralık 2009 Salı
Adoration (Tuesday, December 22, 2009) (206)
Adoration is a very interesting, complicated film by Egyptian/Canadian writer/director Atom Egoyan. In it, he tells the story of Simon, a teenager whose parents were killed in a car accident about 8 years earlier. His father was a Palestinian immigrant and his white mother was a professional violinist. During a class exercise in school, he writes a fictional story about how his father was a terrorist who tried to send his mother on a mission to bomb an airplane. When this story gets out to the kids classmates, and ultimately his whole community, it churns up a tremendous amount of turmoil.
There is a lot to digest and get through in this story. It is told in a very choppy format, where the entire chronology is only visible near the end of the film. Flashbacks and fantasy sequences are mixed in with the present to a degree that reality becomes unclear and fact becomes somewhat conditional on a number of variables.
At it's heart, the film is a story of forgiveness and a search for truth. Simon's family life, which seemed clear and solid while his parents were alive (when he was a young boy) is turned into a nightmare in his memory, with help from his divisive grandfather and the fiction he writes about his parents. The story is also about the way that we can forgive the dead for possible transgressions they might have committed - even after they are unable to defend themselves.
Throughout the film, the acting is fantastic. Devon Bostick, who plays Simon is very good and believable as a vulnerable, inquisitive and experience-hardened young man. Scott Speedman does a great job as Simon's protective and exhausted uncle who takes care of the boy after his parents die. Arsinee Khanjian is also wonderful as the boy's teacher who pushes him a bit too far and then feels guilty for her experiment.
This film, strangely, did not have much of a release in the U.S. (I think it played for only a few weeks in New York), but it is very good and very interesting. It is a thinking film - one that is not easy to end and know what to make of immediately. It is possibly a bit too intricate considering the size, but I think this adds to the mystery of the story. I like the questions the film brings up and appreciate the care that Egoyan gives to the unusual story.
Stars: 3 of 4
There is a lot to digest and get through in this story. It is told in a very choppy format, where the entire chronology is only visible near the end of the film. Flashbacks and fantasy sequences are mixed in with the present to a degree that reality becomes unclear and fact becomes somewhat conditional on a number of variables.
At it's heart, the film is a story of forgiveness and a search for truth. Simon's family life, which seemed clear and solid while his parents were alive (when he was a young boy) is turned into a nightmare in his memory, with help from his divisive grandfather and the fiction he writes about his parents. The story is also about the way that we can forgive the dead for possible transgressions they might have committed - even after they are unable to defend themselves.
Throughout the film, the acting is fantastic. Devon Bostick, who plays Simon is very good and believable as a vulnerable, inquisitive and experience-hardened young man. Scott Speedman does a great job as Simon's protective and exhausted uncle who takes care of the boy after his parents die. Arsinee Khanjian is also wonderful as the boy's teacher who pushes him a bit too far and then feels guilty for her experiment.
This film, strangely, did not have much of a release in the U.S. (I think it played for only a few weeks in New York), but it is very good and very interesting. It is a thinking film - one that is not easy to end and know what to make of immediately. It is possibly a bit too intricate considering the size, but I think this adds to the mystery of the story. I like the questions the film brings up and appreciate the care that Egoyan gives to the unusual story.
Stars: 3 of 4
Rudo y Cursi (Tuesday, December 22, 2009) (205)
Rudo y Cursi is a totally fresh and funny comedy from writer/director Carlos Cuaron, brother of Alfonso Cuaron and co-writer of Y Tu Mama Tambien. For this film, Cuaron teams up with the two actors who made Tu Mama so good, Gael Garcia Bernal and Diego Luna.
Here they play brothers in a poor Mexican town who play soccer on the weekends. One day, a scout for major league soccer teams visits their town and offers them the chance to play professionally. The brothers ultimately move to Mexico City and play for two different clubs, Luna as a goalie and Bernal as a forward. Both get wrapped up in off-field silliness (Bernal in a ridiculous Pop music singing career and Luna in gambling).
The two lead actors are fantastic. They are silly and work well with the rather gonzo nature of the story. They wear the ridiculous costumes well and are both totally believable as country bumpkin rubes lost in the big city with millions of dollars (tens of millions of pesos) at their fingertips. They work well together and it seems clear that the actors are friends off-screen and enjoy working next to each other. They really seam like competing brothers and that connection helps to push the story along well.
The writing is also hilarious and has a nice, easy, tight story. I smiled basically the whole time I watched the film and really like the simple device at the end, which could be a bit too neat, but worked well in this small movie. I give Cuaron all sorts of credit for writing something so fresh in a genre (sports, family comedy) that could be otherwise so overdone.
Stars: 3 of 4
Here they play brothers in a poor Mexican town who play soccer on the weekends. One day, a scout for major league soccer teams visits their town and offers them the chance to play professionally. The brothers ultimately move to Mexico City and play for two different clubs, Luna as a goalie and Bernal as a forward. Both get wrapped up in off-field silliness (Bernal in a ridiculous Pop music singing career and Luna in gambling).
The two lead actors are fantastic. They are silly and work well with the rather gonzo nature of the story. They wear the ridiculous costumes well and are both totally believable as country bumpkin rubes lost in the big city with millions of dollars (tens of millions of pesos) at their fingertips. They work well together and it seems clear that the actors are friends off-screen and enjoy working next to each other. They really seam like competing brothers and that connection helps to push the story along well.
The writing is also hilarious and has a nice, easy, tight story. I smiled basically the whole time I watched the film and really like the simple device at the end, which could be a bit too neat, but worked well in this small movie. I give Cuaron all sorts of credit for writing something so fresh in a genre (sports, family comedy) that could be otherwise so overdone.
Stars: 3 of 4
Ricky (Tuesday, December 22, 2009) (204)
Francois Ozon is one of France's most interesting contemporary directors. Some of his recent films, Under the Sand and Swimming Pool, are very well crafted, if not always totally successful. In Ricky, he takes his beautiful narrative style and joins it with fantasy elements. Unfortunately this hybrid does not work well, and leaves us getting two separate half movies with no good synthesis or complete story.
In the film, Katie is a single middle-class woman who works in a factory in the middle of France. One day, Paco, a Spanish manager visits the assembly line where she works and the two immediately have sex in the bathroom. Paco moves in to the small apartment where Katie and her young daughter live. They get married and she gives birth to a baby, Ricky. A few weeks after the baby is born, they find out that he has wings growing off his shoulder blades. The small family is set upon by tabloids making their lives miserable.
The basic middle-class drama part of the film is actually very good and compelling. Katie, played by Alexandra Lamy, is a sympathetic woman who is stuck in a rather rotten, dull life. The lack of options she has and the general malaise is written all over her face. Her affair with Paco comes off as an understandable diversion. Her young daughter's worry about Paco being flaky and untrustworthy is also well-founded and believable. There is a beauty in the brutal realism to these scenes - and is very reminiscent of the frank style of the Dardenne brothers.
The fantasy and flying-baby part of the film, however, is not only silly, but also seems totally separate and under-examined. It feels totally arbitrary that the baby has wings and, aside from the light commentary that the vulture-like press would ruin the family's privacy, there is no commentary on why this happens or why it means. It is so elliptical that it could be in a totally separate film. Does the boy grow wings because of some sin committed by his mother? Is it a commentary on our modern culture? Is he supposed to be an angel (because he doesn't seem like one and that thread is never really pulled)? None of these questions are raised, examined or answered.
This is a very small movie and not really worth the effort to watch. I wish it had continued on as an examination of middle-class ennui with out the fantasy storyline - but I guess that would have been a different film entirely. At least such a story might have been more interesting and complete.
Stars: 1.5 of 4 stars
In the film, Katie is a single middle-class woman who works in a factory in the middle of France. One day, Paco, a Spanish manager visits the assembly line where she works and the two immediately have sex in the bathroom. Paco moves in to the small apartment where Katie and her young daughter live. They get married and she gives birth to a baby, Ricky. A few weeks after the baby is born, they find out that he has wings growing off his shoulder blades. The small family is set upon by tabloids making their lives miserable.
The basic middle-class drama part of the film is actually very good and compelling. Katie, played by Alexandra Lamy, is a sympathetic woman who is stuck in a rather rotten, dull life. The lack of options she has and the general malaise is written all over her face. Her affair with Paco comes off as an understandable diversion. Her young daughter's worry about Paco being flaky and untrustworthy is also well-founded and believable. There is a beauty in the brutal realism to these scenes - and is very reminiscent of the frank style of the Dardenne brothers.
The fantasy and flying-baby part of the film, however, is not only silly, but also seems totally separate and under-examined. It feels totally arbitrary that the baby has wings and, aside from the light commentary that the vulture-like press would ruin the family's privacy, there is no commentary on why this happens or why it means. It is so elliptical that it could be in a totally separate film. Does the boy grow wings because of some sin committed by his mother? Is it a commentary on our modern culture? Is he supposed to be an angel (because he doesn't seem like one and that thread is never really pulled)? None of these questions are raised, examined or answered.
This is a very small movie and not really worth the effort to watch. I wish it had continued on as an examination of middle-class ennui with out the fantasy storyline - but I guess that would have been a different film entirely. At least such a story might have been more interesting and complete.
Stars: 1.5 of 4 stars
The Princess and the Frog (Tuesday, December 22, 2009) (203)
As a tribute to their classic 2D animation history, Disney made The Princess and the Frog, its first animated film to focus positively on primarily African-American characters (no comment on Song of the South here). The style is indeed reminiscent of classic Disney films, like Cinderella, Snow White and Beauty and the Beast, however this one lacks almost all of the charm and magic of those.
Tiana is a poor daughter of a New Orleans seamstress who dreams of opening a Cajun restaurant when she grows up. Her friend is Charlotte, the white daughter of the richest man in town (I'll clearly ignore the racial undertones here). Prince Naveen, a mysterious dark Europeanish royal, comes to town and meets with a voodoo witchdoctor who swindles him, turning him into a frog. Tiana meets the frog and is convinced that if she kisses him, he will become a prince again, but instead she is also turned into a frog - voodoo's a bitch, ain't it! The two frogs have to go into the woods to find another voodoo witchdoctor lady to turn them back to their human forms.
Typical of Disney animated features, the film has a bunch of music and songs in it (composed and written by Disney mainstay Randy Newman). Sadly none of these songs are memorable at all, even though there is a nice effort to include New Orleans styles of zydeco, jazz and blues. As I watched these songs, I think I mostly felt that they were a nice efforts, but just not as good as recent Disney fare (Under the Sea, Be Our Guest, Hakuna Matata).
Mostly, the story is pretty dull and stretched out way too far. Froggy Naveen and Froggy Tiana spend close to half the movie in the woods on the way to the good voodoo lady with almost nothing important happening. There is so much set-up to the story (Tiana's dream of a restaurant, Charlotte's greedy family, Naveen being swindled) that when the story finally kicks off, it's almost over.
There's another thing here, which is a bit more sensitive, which is the fact that it is the first major feature that Disney has done with primarily African-American characters. To me, it rides the delicate edge of being rather culturally insensitive too closely. That Tiana has to be the poor daughter of a domestic and that her best friend is rich and white might be historically accurate, but feels rather racist considering in a Disney fantasy world people of any color can be anything - why does the one black movie have to be so tied to historic Southern culture?
That the film takes place in New Orleans and features voodoo so prominently is also a bit too much, I think. Again, why can't black people live in a wonderful dream world of castles with good witches and bad witches? I think in an effort to combine political correctness with real-world based fantasy, Disney went a bit too far - or not far enough. I don't know why, after so much success with Brothers-Grimm-esque fairy tales Disney had to turn a story on its head and divert from the traditional Frog Prince story.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
Tiana is a poor daughter of a New Orleans seamstress who dreams of opening a Cajun restaurant when she grows up. Her friend is Charlotte, the white daughter of the richest man in town (I'll clearly ignore the racial undertones here). Prince Naveen, a mysterious dark Europeanish royal, comes to town and meets with a voodoo witchdoctor who swindles him, turning him into a frog. Tiana meets the frog and is convinced that if she kisses him, he will become a prince again, but instead she is also turned into a frog - voodoo's a bitch, ain't it! The two frogs have to go into the woods to find another voodoo witchdoctor lady to turn them back to their human forms.
Typical of Disney animated features, the film has a bunch of music and songs in it (composed and written by Disney mainstay Randy Newman). Sadly none of these songs are memorable at all, even though there is a nice effort to include New Orleans styles of zydeco, jazz and blues. As I watched these songs, I think I mostly felt that they were a nice efforts, but just not as good as recent Disney fare (Under the Sea, Be Our Guest, Hakuna Matata).
Mostly, the story is pretty dull and stretched out way too far. Froggy Naveen and Froggy Tiana spend close to half the movie in the woods on the way to the good voodoo lady with almost nothing important happening. There is so much set-up to the story (Tiana's dream of a restaurant, Charlotte's greedy family, Naveen being swindled) that when the story finally kicks off, it's almost over.
There's another thing here, which is a bit more sensitive, which is the fact that it is the first major feature that Disney has done with primarily African-American characters. To me, it rides the delicate edge of being rather culturally insensitive too closely. That Tiana has to be the poor daughter of a domestic and that her best friend is rich and white might be historically accurate, but feels rather racist considering in a Disney fantasy world people of any color can be anything - why does the one black movie have to be so tied to historic Southern culture?
That the film takes place in New Orleans and features voodoo so prominently is also a bit too much, I think. Again, why can't black people live in a wonderful dream world of castles with good witches and bad witches? I think in an effort to combine political correctness with real-world based fantasy, Disney went a bit too far - or not far enough. I don't know why, after so much success with Brothers-Grimm-esque fairy tales Disney had to turn a story on its head and divert from the traditional Frog Prince story.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
21 Aralık 2009 Pazartesi
Avatar- IMAX 3D (Monday, December 21, 2009) (202)
Avatar is the story of Lieutenant John Dunbar who moves to the Dakota Territory during the Civil War and becomes friends with the Native American tribe in the area. He ultimately marries the daughter of the tribe's chief and leads his tribe to a small victory in a battle against the American Army. Wait - that's not it... Oh, right - it's the story of Marlow, a sailor who is asked by his country to go up the Congo River to look into the actions of a crazy man named Kurtz. Wait - again, that's not it. Oh golly - oh right! It's the story of a hacker named Neo who goes into the Matrix, a reality below our own reality, and becomes *The One* for the people who live inside of it. They seem to be unable to take care of themselves, and despite talking like a surfer moron, he helps to liberate the people. Shoot - that's still not it.
OK - it is actually the story of how in the year 2154, there is a planet somewhere in the universe called Pandora where there is a special metal called 'unobtanium'. In order to mine it, a private contractor enlists the the U.S. Marines to secure the land from the thousands crazy alien animals that might come out to hurt the operation. Ex-marine Jake Sully is put into a scientific unit who is trying to help and learn from the giant blue humanoid people on this planet called the Na'vi. He is paralyzed from the waist down, but when he gets into a pod, he becomes an avatar - a Na'vi look-alike that can move in this world easier than a human can.
At some point he gets lost on a scientific mission and finds himself in the Na'vi world. He soon begins living with them and dating Neytiri, the daughter of the chief, who becomes his tutor for all things Na'vi. After some time, the mining operation wants to relocate, so it moves into the area where the Na'vi live. The natives, with the help of Jake, fight the humans in an effort to save their way of life.
This is one of the most over-hyped, over-reviewed worst movies of the year. There is basically nothing good about the film. The story is totally dumb and recycled, the writing is terrible with laughable dialogue. Lead actor Sam Worthington, as Jake, is a joke as an actor. The special effects of the film and the CGI settings of almost the whole thing are terrible - and the film looks worse than many other recent films (that were made for a much smaller budget).
It's been 12 years since writer/director James Cameron made Titanic - and I was under the impression that he had been working on this script for a long, long time. But what we get is a total rip-off of Dances with Wolves, Heart of Darkness and/or The Matrix. There is absolutely nothing new here plot-wise and nothing that is better than the originals it rips off. Every idea here is tired and every twist is predictable and visible from miles away. I mean, not to spoil the ending, but there is a Return of the Jedi-style Yub-Jub song and dance at the end.
Sam Worthington is terrible, clearly cast for his physical looks and muscle rather than his acting. He plays a dumb marine who doesn't know much when he arrives and doesn't grow all that much mentally throughout the story. Listening to him speak, it is hard not to laugh at how bad he is. (Also, curiously, in the second act, his looped-in voice over suddenly changes accents from American to Australian. Why this couldn't have been corrected is bizarre to me.)
Sigourney Weaver is much too overdone and comes off as too much of a bitch at the beginning of the film (she also asks for a cigarette in her first appearance... aren't we beyond that, James?). She seems basically unnecessary in the story as the scientific research she does seems to go out the window after the first sequence. Considering Jake had a better rapport with the Na'vi, it is unclear why she moves into their camp with him. (My favorite thing about her character is that in the avatar world, she wears a Stanford tank-top, as if the Na'vi would respect her more because of her top-level degree.)
At no point in the film did I think that I was in the world I was seeing onscreen - or that that world actually existed. It looks like a big animated world - not all that dissimilar from bad CGI one can find on many Saturday morning cartoons. The Na'vi look entirely animated - not even as good as Pixar toys or cars. This is a big problem as it was a constant cause of separation between the story and me. The Na'vi never felt like real things that I could sympathize with. They always looked to be animated, in a world filled with a few real-world things like humans and helicopters. I am told that this film cost several hundred million dollars to make - and that that money went into the technology and animation. But I don't see the results. To me it looks like any old CGI movie that could have been made 10 years ago. I don't get it.
On top of that, seeing it in 3D was frustrating because when you're wearing the glasses, you have to look exactly straight ahead or the picture will be out of focus. You cannot turn your head slightly and look out of the corner of your eye, for instance. In addition, you have to look at exactly what the filmmakers want you to look at. If they are focusing on something in the bottom right corner of the screen, but you are looking at the top center, what you are looking at is out of focus. I don't know why these faults are not getting more attention, but it was super frustrating for me. I think the 3D technology is not totally up to par yet. I also don't think it's worth the extra $3 to watch in 3D as I think the movie would have been just as good standard.
The most frustrating and insulting thing about the story is the tired suggestion that because they Na'vi are closer to the earth and more 'native' than we are, they are better. This is hackneyed and dumb. It's the old idea that Native Americans respect the land so they are better people or how Africans are more connected to the spiritual world. The Na'vi are all played by African-American actors, yet they seem rather Native American in their dress and ways. Of course, after telling us that more simple and spiritual is better, we then see the Na'vi using modern head-sets to communicated and machine guns to fire - because I guess human culture does have some good uses. Ugh.
This is really a total joke of a movie. Again - the ore they are trying to mind is called *unobtanium*. That's so beyond stupid it's insulting. This is a terrible script, it does not look half as good as it should and it absolutely 100% not fresh. What a waste!
Stars: .5 of 4
OK - it is actually the story of how in the year 2154, there is a planet somewhere in the universe called Pandora where there is a special metal called 'unobtanium'. In order to mine it, a private contractor enlists the the U.S. Marines to secure the land from the thousands crazy alien animals that might come out to hurt the operation. Ex-marine Jake Sully is put into a scientific unit who is trying to help and learn from the giant blue humanoid people on this planet called the Na'vi. He is paralyzed from the waist down, but when he gets into a pod, he becomes an avatar - a Na'vi look-alike that can move in this world easier than a human can.
At some point he gets lost on a scientific mission and finds himself in the Na'vi world. He soon begins living with them and dating Neytiri, the daughter of the chief, who becomes his tutor for all things Na'vi. After some time, the mining operation wants to relocate, so it moves into the area where the Na'vi live. The natives, with the help of Jake, fight the humans in an effort to save their way of life.
This is one of the most over-hyped, over-reviewed worst movies of the year. There is basically nothing good about the film. The story is totally dumb and recycled, the writing is terrible with laughable dialogue. Lead actor Sam Worthington, as Jake, is a joke as an actor. The special effects of the film and the CGI settings of almost the whole thing are terrible - and the film looks worse than many other recent films (that were made for a much smaller budget).
It's been 12 years since writer/director James Cameron made Titanic - and I was under the impression that he had been working on this script for a long, long time. But what we get is a total rip-off of Dances with Wolves, Heart of Darkness and/or The Matrix. There is absolutely nothing new here plot-wise and nothing that is better than the originals it rips off. Every idea here is tired and every twist is predictable and visible from miles away. I mean, not to spoil the ending, but there is a Return of the Jedi-style Yub-Jub song and dance at the end.
Sam Worthington is terrible, clearly cast for his physical looks and muscle rather than his acting. He plays a dumb marine who doesn't know much when he arrives and doesn't grow all that much mentally throughout the story. Listening to him speak, it is hard not to laugh at how bad he is. (Also, curiously, in the second act, his looped-in voice over suddenly changes accents from American to Australian. Why this couldn't have been corrected is bizarre to me.)
Sigourney Weaver is much too overdone and comes off as too much of a bitch at the beginning of the film (she also asks for a cigarette in her first appearance... aren't we beyond that, James?). She seems basically unnecessary in the story as the scientific research she does seems to go out the window after the first sequence. Considering Jake had a better rapport with the Na'vi, it is unclear why she moves into their camp with him. (My favorite thing about her character is that in the avatar world, she wears a Stanford tank-top, as if the Na'vi would respect her more because of her top-level degree.)
At no point in the film did I think that I was in the world I was seeing onscreen - or that that world actually existed. It looks like a big animated world - not all that dissimilar from bad CGI one can find on many Saturday morning cartoons. The Na'vi look entirely animated - not even as good as Pixar toys or cars. This is a big problem as it was a constant cause of separation between the story and me. The Na'vi never felt like real things that I could sympathize with. They always looked to be animated, in a world filled with a few real-world things like humans and helicopters. I am told that this film cost several hundred million dollars to make - and that that money went into the technology and animation. But I don't see the results. To me it looks like any old CGI movie that could have been made 10 years ago. I don't get it.
On top of that, seeing it in 3D was frustrating because when you're wearing the glasses, you have to look exactly straight ahead or the picture will be out of focus. You cannot turn your head slightly and look out of the corner of your eye, for instance. In addition, you have to look at exactly what the filmmakers want you to look at. If they are focusing on something in the bottom right corner of the screen, but you are looking at the top center, what you are looking at is out of focus. I don't know why these faults are not getting more attention, but it was super frustrating for me. I think the 3D technology is not totally up to par yet. I also don't think it's worth the extra $3 to watch in 3D as I think the movie would have been just as good standard.
The most frustrating and insulting thing about the story is the tired suggestion that because they Na'vi are closer to the earth and more 'native' than we are, they are better. This is hackneyed and dumb. It's the old idea that Native Americans respect the land so they are better people or how Africans are more connected to the spiritual world. The Na'vi are all played by African-American actors, yet they seem rather Native American in their dress and ways. Of course, after telling us that more simple and spiritual is better, we then see the Na'vi using modern head-sets to communicated and machine guns to fire - because I guess human culture does have some good uses. Ugh.
This is really a total joke of a movie. Again - the ore they are trying to mind is called *unobtanium*. That's so beyond stupid it's insulting. This is a terrible script, it does not look half as good as it should and it absolutely 100% not fresh. What a waste!
Stars: .5 of 4
Nine (Monday, December 21, 2009) (201)
Nine is a movie musical based on a Broadway musical based on Fellini's classic film 8 1/2. The story is pretty straightforward and pretty close to the original. Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a giant in the Italian film industry who is set to begin his latest film project (he's based on Guido Anselmi from the earlier film, who is in turn based on Fellini himself). As production is about to begin, Contini does not have a script and as he sets to write it, he looks back on his life as a boy, a man, a celebrity and a lover of women. As he reminisces, he looks back on the important women of his life. (Even though I always thought there were eight-and-a-half women in the Fellini film, here I can strangely only count seven women - so I guess the title means nothing actually).
Considering the scope and structure of the film, this is really a show for the performers - and the cast is pretty star-studded. Contini's wife is played by Marion Cotillard, the rising French star (look out Audrey Tautou!); his mistress is played by Penelope Cruz; his leading lady and artistic muse is Nicole Kidman; his most-trusted advisor and costume designer (really?!) is Judi Dench; his mother is Sophia Loren; some gypsy whore woman who taught him about sex is Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas; some American Vogue editor is Kate Hudson.
Generally the acting is pretty good. Day-Lewis is good as always (is he ever less than good?), but I don't think the role makes him stretch all that much. Each woman is in the film for a few scenes as almost none of them interact on screen at the same time. As a result, they mostly come on for a song and maybe a brief talking scene and then exit. Kidman basically doesn't come in until the film is almost over. Cotilard and Cruz are both pretty good with the limited parts they have. I think Cruz's role might be a bit more simple, as a scorned mistress, but she is generally good.
Kate Hudson and Fergie give easily the two worst performances of the film - and their two songs are both totally dumb. Fergie comes in as a homeless-looking whore who once upon a time introduced Contini to sex. Her not-very-showstopping song, Be Italian, suggests that in order to be a good Italian man, you have to screw a lot - and screw a lot of women. I am not all that into her voice and her casting seems more about getting a pop star onscreen than anything else. She looks like an evil witch an is sorta hard to watch.
Hudson is an actress I have never understood. I have never thought that she was ever all that good. She had a big role, I guess, in Almost Famous, but since then has not stretched too much, and has basically been blond and skinny (I don't think she's all that pretty). Here she's in way over her head and totally embarrasses herself with Day-Lewis (who, of course is seamless). Her character is *totally* unnecessary (she sings a song about how she likes Italian movies - who cares) and she looks rather fat (sorry - but she lost one of her two traits listed above).
As a musical, the biggest problem with this is that you never see a whole number run through all the way once. Every time the characters break into song, there is a cut to an almost-deserted sound stage (Contini's empty mind/memory, I guess) where they dance around the multi-layer set. As they are singing in some astral plane, there are then several cut-backs to the present, wherever Day-Lewis and his women are living in our world. This structure is very choppy, clearly, and frustrating when all we want is to hear the music. In the end, none of the songs are all that memorable or emotional, because we only get several-second snippets of them before they are cut away.
Director Rob Marshall has emerged in recent years as *the* director for film musicals, after scoring big with Chicago (which I found pretty dull). I do not like his style, which I think is generally too complicated and too full of stuff. He has his roots in Broadway and it shows in his movies where everything is very big and showy. The best thing about Nine is the skeleton of the story that comes from the original Fellini work. It is not terrible, but it is not great. It is fun enough, but just not exciting at all.
Stars: 2 of 4
Considering the scope and structure of the film, this is really a show for the performers - and the cast is pretty star-studded. Contini's wife is played by Marion Cotillard, the rising French star (look out Audrey Tautou!); his mistress is played by Penelope Cruz; his leading lady and artistic muse is Nicole Kidman; his most-trusted advisor and costume designer (really?!) is Judi Dench; his mother is Sophia Loren; some gypsy whore woman who taught him about sex is Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas; some American Vogue editor is Kate Hudson.
Generally the acting is pretty good. Day-Lewis is good as always (is he ever less than good?), but I don't think the role makes him stretch all that much. Each woman is in the film for a few scenes as almost none of them interact on screen at the same time. As a result, they mostly come on for a song and maybe a brief talking scene and then exit. Kidman basically doesn't come in until the film is almost over. Cotilard and Cruz are both pretty good with the limited parts they have. I think Cruz's role might be a bit more simple, as a scorned mistress, but she is generally good.
Kate Hudson and Fergie give easily the two worst performances of the film - and their two songs are both totally dumb. Fergie comes in as a homeless-looking whore who once upon a time introduced Contini to sex. Her not-very-showstopping song, Be Italian, suggests that in order to be a good Italian man, you have to screw a lot - and screw a lot of women. I am not all that into her voice and her casting seems more about getting a pop star onscreen than anything else. She looks like an evil witch an is sorta hard to watch.
Hudson is an actress I have never understood. I have never thought that she was ever all that good. She had a big role, I guess, in Almost Famous, but since then has not stretched too much, and has basically been blond and skinny (I don't think she's all that pretty). Here she's in way over her head and totally embarrasses herself with Day-Lewis (who, of course is seamless). Her character is *totally* unnecessary (she sings a song about how she likes Italian movies - who cares) and she looks rather fat (sorry - but she lost one of her two traits listed above).
As a musical, the biggest problem with this is that you never see a whole number run through all the way once. Every time the characters break into song, there is a cut to an almost-deserted sound stage (Contini's empty mind/memory, I guess) where they dance around the multi-layer set. As they are singing in some astral plane, there are then several cut-backs to the present, wherever Day-Lewis and his women are living in our world. This structure is very choppy, clearly, and frustrating when all we want is to hear the music. In the end, none of the songs are all that memorable or emotional, because we only get several-second snippets of them before they are cut away.
Director Rob Marshall has emerged in recent years as *the* director for film musicals, after scoring big with Chicago (which I found pretty dull). I do not like his style, which I think is generally too complicated and too full of stuff. He has his roots in Broadway and it shows in his movies where everything is very big and showy. The best thing about Nine is the skeleton of the story that comes from the original Fellini work. It is not terrible, but it is not great. It is fun enough, but just not exciting at all.
Stars: 2 of 4
2012 || free download dvd movies
2012 (2009) – R5 DVDRip
An epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors.
Links :
An epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors.
Links :
Code:
http://rapidshare.com/files/315593038/2012.R5_LaVherie.part01.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/315593220/2012.R5_LaVherie.part02.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/315600637/2012.R5_LaVherie.part03.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/315600453/2012.R5_LaVherie.part04.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/315609189/2012.R5_LaVherie.part05.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/315608917/2012.R5_LaVherie.part06.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/316495626/2012.R5_LaVherie.part07.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/315611241/2012.R5_LaVherie.part08.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/316496061/2012.R5_LaVherie.part09.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/316496846/2012.R5_LaVherie.part10.rar
Forget Me Not || free download dvd movies
It's graduation weekend, and Sandy Channing, the popular class president of her small-town high school, should be enjoying the time of her life. But when her friends start disappearing, Sandy discovers they have unwittingly awakened the vengeful spirit of a girl they wronged long ago. Fighting for her sanity, Sandy must unlock a dark secret from her own past before it's too late.
Forget Me Not (2009/II)
-http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1147684/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FK1YY2Z0
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=322LLH7P
new movies
Command Performance (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210801/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LLWHFTT4
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=CFSJB00Q
The Proposal (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1041829/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UMYPD433
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=2HPM9XTD
Tormented (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100053/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A2M75DD6
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=8TLH0H13
10,000 BC (2008) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443649/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9BQEZQVC
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=BNBT51KT
30 Days of Night (2007) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389722/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PNWAW7G3
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=VF10A2YT
All the Good Ones Are Married (2007) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065291/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Y9I8STS5
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=25H9N9RF
Ghost Rider (2007) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259324/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A2LEJ73O
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=KP5P9YNR
September Dawn (2006) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473700/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FNLIYXTR
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=YPIC9M3K
Red Dragon (2002) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289765/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KPIH81R9
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=632ZP1M1
Hannibal (2001) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212985/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LTY2Z8C5
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=56D2WDT2
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102926/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=D4Z5F1G6
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=5G249J7O
Training Day (2001) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139654/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5YPFM4FQ
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=WEVW07O4
Little Nicky (2000) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185431/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=163YUF56
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=VCNTLH3L
The Gift (2000) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219699/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1LI53JHL
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=2G7VX9M5
Back to the Future Part III (1990) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099088/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3E1EIT14
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=9UD4IUEJ
Back to the Future Part II (1989) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096874/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MXXIU4SW
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=87LN1X4F
Back to the Future (1985) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=W7HY7QVM
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=7U4ZVACU
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LLWHFTT4
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=CFSJB00Q
The Proposal (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1041829/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UMYPD433
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=2HPM9XTD
Tormented (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100053/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A2M75DD6
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=8TLH0H13
10,000 BC (2008) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443649/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9BQEZQVC
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=BNBT51KT
30 Days of Night (2007) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389722/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PNWAW7G3
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=VF10A2YT
All the Good Ones Are Married (2007) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065291/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Y9I8STS5
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=25H9N9RF
Ghost Rider (2007) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259324/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A2LEJ73O
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=KP5P9YNR
September Dawn (2006) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473700/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FNLIYXTR
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=YPIC9M3K
Red Dragon (2002) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289765/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KPIH81R9
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=632ZP1M1
Hannibal (2001) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212985/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LTY2Z8C5
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=56D2WDT2
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102926/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=D4Z5F1G6
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=5G249J7O
Training Day (2001) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139654/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5YPFM4FQ
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=WEVW07O4
Little Nicky (2000) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185431/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=163YUF56
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=VCNTLH3L
The Gift (2000) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219699/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1LI53JHL
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=2G7VX9M5
Back to the Future Part III (1990) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099088/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3E1EIT14
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=9UD4IUEJ
Back to the Future Part II (1989) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096874/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MXXIU4SW
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=87LN1X4F
Back to the Future (1985) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=W7HY7QVM
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=7U4ZVACU
new movies
(500) Days of Summer (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1022603/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=T3MEAG1N
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=T3MEAG1N
9 (2009/I) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472033/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BKBA6F8W
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=BKBA6F8W
Astro Boy (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375568/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=82O515XJ
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=82O515XJ
All About Steve (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0881891/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UYHLP623
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=UYHLP623
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1183251/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WM2UBLYU
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=WM2UBLYU
Bitch Slap (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1212974/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6NV1CQRX
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=6NV1CQRX
Bride Wars (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901476/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P9B2GQPX
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=P9B2GQPX
Hurricane Season (2009/I) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172998/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ASOB8HHC
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=ASOB8HHC
Old Dogs (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976238/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Q4HYU9TE
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=Q4HYU9TE
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=T3MEAG1N
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=T3MEAG1N
9 (2009/I) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472033/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BKBA6F8W
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=BKBA6F8W
Astro Boy (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375568/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=82O515XJ
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=82O515XJ
All About Steve (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0881891/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UYHLP623
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=UYHLP623
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1183251/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WM2UBLYU
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=WM2UBLYU
Bitch Slap (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1212974/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6NV1CQRX
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=6NV1CQRX
Bride Wars (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901476/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P9B2GQPX
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=P9B2GQPX
Hurricane Season (2009/I) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172998/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ASOB8HHC
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=ASOB8HHC
Old Dogs (2009) -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976238/
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Q4HYU9TE
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=Q4HYU9TE
Avatar || free download dvd movies
PlotOutline:
AWhen his brother is killed in battle, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully decides to take his place in a mission on the distant world of Pandora. There he learns of greedy corporate figurehead Parker Selfridge's intentions of driving off the native humanoid "Na'vi" in order to mine for the precious material scattered throughout their rich woodland. In exchange for the spinal surgery that will fix his legs, Jake gathers intel for the cooperating military unit spearheaded by gung-ho Colonel Quaritch, while simultaneously attempting to infiltrate the Na'vi people with the use of an "avatar" identity. While Jake begins to bond with the native tribe and quickly falls in love with the beautiful alien Neytiri, the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand - and fight back in an epic battle for the fate of Pandora.
Code:
http://rapidshare.com/files/324083694/backup2.ava.___tagaparis.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/324085732/backup2.ava.___tagaparis.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/324103935/backup2.ava.___tagaparis.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/324097056/backup2.ava.___tagaparis.part4.rar
A Swell Welles Period Piece
ME AND ORSON WELLES (Dir. Richard Linklater, 2009)
To be a young actor in the hustling bustling Big Apple of the 30's, cast by sheer chance as a player in an Orson Welles' Mercury Theater production is a dream many aspiring thespians have no doubt had, but is it believable that it would be a dream shared by "it" boy Zac Efron?
Sadly no, he's a blank slate of an actor who makes for a weak protagonist, but this period piece by cult director Richard Linklater is royally saved by Christian McKay's pitch perfect performance as the genius wunderkind Welles. It's a role he was seemingly born to play thanks to his uncanny likeness and delivery honed from over half a decade on stage in the one man show "Rosebud: The Lives Of Orson Welles".
As a wide eyed high school student, Efron is overjoyed to be cast in the small but crucial role of Lucious in Welles' controversial 1937 production of "Julius Caesar". It was controversial because Welles staged Shakespeare's play as contemporary commentary outfitting his performers in modern dress - specifically uniforms that resembled those of the Nazi party.
Efron is paired with a production assistant played by Claire Danes as a rehearsal partner and immediately falls for her. He also falls for the world of the theater; a world that Welles rules with a mighty swagger. McKay's Welles highjacks the film from Efron and breathes life into the predictable proceedings with every entrance. His powerful presence not only makes us forget Efron is in the room, it helps us forget he's in the movie.
When McKay isn't on screen the film suffers from the lack of chemistry between Danes and Efron and the simplistic nature of their relationship. It's funny (or more accurately damaging) that the excellent casting of McKay would be offset by the misguided miscasting of Efron. Luckily other members of the cast fare much better - James Tupper as a the wise witty Joseph Cotton, Eddie Marsan as the exasperated John Houseman, and Ben Chaplin as George Coulouris who has an effective scene dealing with stage fright right before going on as Marc Antony.
Linklater has one of the most intriquing and diverse filmographies of any working director out there. Since his brilliant breakthrough SLACKER (1991) his work has gone from indie (BEFORE SUNRISE) to mainstream (THE SCHOOL OF ROCK) and back again (BEFORE SUNSET) with mostly successful results.
Linklater's previous period piece effort, THE NEWTON BOYS, was one of his only major stumbles so it's wonderful to report ME AND ORSON WELLES is absolutely a superior and more assured work in the same arena.
The brisk pacing and solid structure show off Linklater's strengths as do the astute recreations of the original stage show - at times I wished the film would throw out the backstage bickering and just give us the play "Julius Caesar" in full.
Although my reaction to Efron and the presentation of the love triangle arc is decidedly mixed, this is still a worthwhile movie largely because of McKay. His Welles definitely deserves an Oscar nomination and that's quite a compliment considering that this is his first film.
A best-case scenario would be that HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fans that follow Efron will see it and they'll walk away under the spell of McKay. I know that's just wishful thinking, but it sure would be nice for all those teenyboppers to actually get a whiff of what real acting is all about.
Post note: Christian McKay appeared previously on this blog in a post entitled "A Birthday Tribute To Orson Welles With 10 Welles Wannabes" (May 5th, 2008). He would definitely rank much higher if I did the list today.
More later...
To be a young actor in the hustling bustling Big Apple of the 30's, cast by sheer chance as a player in an Orson Welles' Mercury Theater production is a dream many aspiring thespians have no doubt had, but is it believable that it would be a dream shared by "it" boy Zac Efron?Sadly no, he's a blank slate of an actor who makes for a weak protagonist, but this period piece by cult director Richard Linklater is royally saved by Christian McKay's pitch perfect performance as the genius wunderkind Welles. It's a role he was seemingly born to play thanks to his uncanny likeness and delivery honed from over half a decade on stage in the one man show "Rosebud: The Lives Of Orson Welles".
As a wide eyed high school student, Efron is overjoyed to be cast in the small but crucial role of Lucious in Welles' controversial 1937 production of "Julius Caesar". It was controversial because Welles staged Shakespeare's play as contemporary commentary outfitting his performers in modern dress - specifically uniforms that resembled those of the Nazi party.
Efron is paired with a production assistant played by Claire Danes as a rehearsal partner and immediately falls for her. He also falls for the world of the theater; a world that Welles rules with a mighty swagger. McKay's Welles highjacks the film from Efron and breathes life into the predictable proceedings with every entrance. His powerful presence not only makes us forget Efron is in the room, it helps us forget he's in the movie.
When McKay isn't on screen the film suffers from the lack of chemistry between Danes and Efron and the simplistic nature of their relationship. It's funny (or more accurately damaging) that the excellent casting of McKay would be offset by the misguided miscasting of Efron. Luckily other members of the cast fare much better - James Tupper as a the wise witty Joseph Cotton, Eddie Marsan as the exasperated John Houseman, and Ben Chaplin as George Coulouris who has an effective scene dealing with stage fright right before going on as Marc Antony.
Linklater has one of the most intriquing and diverse filmographies of any working director out there. Since his brilliant breakthrough SLACKER (1991) his work has gone from indie (BEFORE SUNRISE) to mainstream (THE SCHOOL OF ROCK) and back again (BEFORE SUNSET) with mostly successful results.
Linklater's previous period piece effort, THE NEWTON BOYS, was one of his only major stumbles so it's wonderful to report ME AND ORSON WELLES is absolutely a superior and more assured work in the same arena.
The brisk pacing and solid structure show off Linklater's strengths as do the astute recreations of the original stage show - at times I wished the film would throw out the backstage bickering and just give us the play "Julius Caesar" in full.
Although my reaction to Efron and the presentation of the love triangle arc is decidedly mixed, this is still a worthwhile movie largely because of McKay. His Welles definitely deserves an Oscar nomination and that's quite a compliment considering that this is his first film.
A best-case scenario would be that HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fans that follow Efron will see it and they'll walk away under the spell of McKay. I know that's just wishful thinking, but it sure would be nice for all those teenyboppers to actually get a whiff of what real acting is all about.
Post note: Christian McKay appeared previously on this blog in a post entitled "A Birthday Tribute To Orson Welles With 10 Welles Wannabes" (May 5th, 2008). He would definitely rank much higher if I did the list today.
More later...
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)