Michael Jackson died today. Say what you want his eccentricities (perhaps best said by Roger Ebert here), Michael was a great performer. He was called the King of Pop for a reason - he was the greatest pop singer of a musical era. What frustrates me is that it sounds that this time Michael was gearing up for a real comeback, complete with FIFTY performances in the London area. It would have been great to see what the King of Pop still had at age fifty.
Farrah Fawcett died today. Known forever as "the angel" in Charlie's Angels she inspired beautiful blonde bombshells the world over to try their luck in Hollywood. Its too bad that her storybook romance with Ryan O'Neil will not get the end they intended (O'Neil had said they were finally going to marry).
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Random funness
Back in the day when writing my column, The Buzz, was my favorite thing to do for my old e-zine, SaltyStix, I stockpiled a lot of interesting articles about movies for my "around the internet" section, or whatever I called it. I might even have written about a few of these, but that was so long ago, so, cleaning out the bookmarks.
* 25 Most Influential Directors of all Time - This was interesting albeit pretty predictable. But it's great if your Netflix queue is empty and you've forgotten about the classics for awhile.
* Best and Worst Musicians in Movies - This is kind of amusing in a pretty way but once again, is pretty predictable.
* New York Times Romantic Comedy Analysis - Surprising that the New York Times found page space to talk about rom-coms but this was going to be the locus for an article about rom-coms, breaking down their formulaic structure, etc.
* Top 20 Rom-Coms - This is another page I found doing some research for that article - the other links turned out to suck.
* 25 Most Watched Movies - This list is pretty close to mine which is why I liked it so much. Obviously it's heavy on recent movies.
* Worst Movie Remakes of All Time - This is worth some good laughs and might also help you fill your Netflix queue if you want to compare some of the originals vs their remakes.
* Criticizing the AFI - I've never been a fan of the AFI (I think Citizen Kane is overrated) and anytime someone has a laugh at their expense I laugh with them.
* Linsey Lohan's Marilyn Phase- Before Lindsay was into Samantha she was into Marilyn and these pictures aren't half bad.
* Comics Old School/New School - This came out amid the summer comic onslaught and provides a great fanboys perspective that gets lost amid the Hollywood.
* 20 Tips for Starting Your Own Movie Blog - Maybe if I would have followed this SaltyStix would be alive and kicking, but instead, here I am.
* Forbes Writes about the best Movie Blogs - This is pretty unfulfilling but there are brief snippets on Forbes' take on other themed blogs (beyond just movies).
* Become Indy! - I was Indiana Jones for last Halloween, and a damn good one. But if you want to take your costume to the next level, this site is a must.
* Best Graphic Novels of all Time - There are some interesting choices on here - especially ones that stray to the non-superhero variety. I still want to get my hands on Ghost World.
* Read Twilight for Free - This craze left people without books or with empty pocketbooks. This website provided a solution to both.
* Top 20 Rappers of All Time - I started listening to a lot of rap and this page provided a brief overview that helped me get my bearings.
* 25 Movies about Foreign Affairs/Diplomacy - This is a fun article if you think you are educated on foreign affairs and diplomacy and also like movies (like me of course).
* 25 Most Influential Directors of all Time - This was interesting albeit pretty predictable. But it's great if your Netflix queue is empty and you've forgotten about the classics for awhile.
* Best and Worst Musicians in Movies - This is kind of amusing in a pretty way but once again, is pretty predictable.
* New York Times Romantic Comedy Analysis - Surprising that the New York Times found page space to talk about rom-coms but this was going to be the locus for an article about rom-coms, breaking down their formulaic structure, etc.
* Top 20 Rom-Coms - This is another page I found doing some research for that article - the other links turned out to suck.
* 25 Most Watched Movies - This list is pretty close to mine which is why I liked it so much. Obviously it's heavy on recent movies.
* Worst Movie Remakes of All Time - This is worth some good laughs and might also help you fill your Netflix queue if you want to compare some of the originals vs their remakes.
* Criticizing the AFI - I've never been a fan of the AFI (I think Citizen Kane is overrated) and anytime someone has a laugh at their expense I laugh with them.
* Linsey Lohan's Marilyn Phase- Before Lindsay was into Samantha she was into Marilyn and these pictures aren't half bad.
* Comics Old School/New School - This came out amid the summer comic onslaught and provides a great fanboys perspective that gets lost amid the Hollywood.
* 20 Tips for Starting Your Own Movie Blog - Maybe if I would have followed this SaltyStix would be alive and kicking, but instead, here I am.
* Forbes Writes about the best Movie Blogs - This is pretty unfulfilling but there are brief snippets on Forbes' take on other themed blogs (beyond just movies).
* Become Indy! - I was Indiana Jones for last Halloween, and a damn good one. But if you want to take your costume to the next level, this site is a must.
* Best Graphic Novels of all Time - There are some interesting choices on here - especially ones that stray to the non-superhero variety. I still want to get my hands on Ghost World.
* Read Twilight for Free - This craze left people without books or with empty pocketbooks. This website provided a solution to both.
* Top 20 Rappers of All Time - I started listening to a lot of rap and this page provided a brief overview that helped me get my bearings.
* 25 Movies about Foreign Affairs/Diplomacy - This is a fun article if you think you are educated on foreign affairs and diplomacy and also like movies (like me of course).
Monday, May 11, 2009
MTV Madness
I have never been a fan of MTV or award shows really, so it should be no surprise that the combination of the two – MTV award shows would not be something I was a fan of. For some reason in particular, this year’s MTV Movie Award nominees have particularly angered me. One thing that stands out is Twilight’s SEVEN awards, sure the movie made a shitload of money and has a fanatic teen following, but the movie was a disappointment across the board – acting, writing, action and here it sits, but lets look at all the categories.
Best Movie
The Dark Knight
High School Musical 3: Senior Year
Iron Man
Slumdog Millionaire
Twilight
Three of these movies are really good, one is a disappointment, but one is a travesty. You realize they put The Dark Knight and High School Musical 3 in the same category, as near equals? I’m not going to say anymore. MY PICK: Slumdog Millionaire. WHO WILL WIN: The Dark Knight.
Best Male Performance
Christian Bale (The Dark Knight)
Vin Diesel (Fast & Furious)
Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man)
Zac Efron (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
Shia LaBeouf (Eagle Eye)
Bale and Downey were amazing (of course) but the rest of these hacks are definitely outclassed. Vin Diesel is struggling to get back into character, Efron is struggling to get out of character, and Shia LaBeouf doesn’t even have a character. As a point of clarification I meant that Eagle Eye sucked – A LOT. MY PICK: Robert Downey Jr. WHO WILL WIN: Christian Bale.
Best Female Performance
Anne Hathaway (Bride Wars)
Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Angelina Jolie (Wanted)
Kristen Stewart (Twilight)
Kate Winslet (The Reader)
The selection of these nominees is even more confusing than their male counterparts. Hathaway’s nod here is more of a slap in the face considering her performance in Rachel Getting Married while Henson’s performance was okay but seems well short of the “Best Performance” level. Jolie’s nomination reminds me of LaBeouf’s nom in Eagle Eye – both Wanted and Eagle Eye sucked – and did not have any performances that were even “adequate.” Winselt’s performance doesn’t need much comment here – she was great. Kristen Stewart was the one bright spot in a disappointing movie – but was it the best performance of the year? Was she better than Winslet? MY PICK: Kate Winslet. WHO WILL WIN: Kristen Stewart.
Breakthrough Performance – Male
Ben Barnes (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian)
Taylor Lautner (Twilight)
Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire)
Robert Pattinson (Twilight)
Bobb’e J. Thompson (Role Models)
This category is “better” only in the sense that there are two noms I like – Dev Patel, who did a great job and truly “broke out,” and Bobb’e J. Thompson, whose role in Role Models was not only hysterical but also probably opened a lot of doors for him. Two noms for Twilight is a little disappointing – I had to look up who Taylor Lautner’s character was (Jacob) and then scratch my head about his screen time. MY PICK: Dev Patel. WHO WILL WIN: Robert Pattinson.
Breakthrough Performance – Female
Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana: The Movie)
Kat Dennings (Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playllist)
Vanessa Hudgens (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire)
Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia!)
Ashley Tisdale (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
I think this category has the most competition. The High School Musical 3 noms confuse me because it would seem like the third time around these Disney-made actors do not have much “breaking out to do.” If you’re in the public consciousness enough to have sex tapes and racy photos, you probably don’t need “breakout performances.” Same goes for Miley Cyrus considering she has a show that already helped her “breajout”. That aside, I love the other nominees – I’ve been a big fan of Kat Dennings since Charlie Bartlett (so much so that I forgave her for The House Bunny). Frieda Pinto is obviously gorgeous and did a great job and Amanda Seyfried really did break out – showing she had talent beyond her Mean Girls-glazed eyes looked. MY PICK: Kat Dennings. WHO WILL WIN: Miley Cyrus.
Best Comedic Performance
Steve Carrell (Get Smart)
Jim Carrey (Yes Man)
Anna Faris (The House Bunny)
James Franco (Pineapple Express)
Amy Poehler (Baby Mama)
I think all of these actors are generally funny and generally pretty good actors but their performances came in movies that ranged from laughless (The House Bunny) to downright painful (Baby Mama). While Pineapple Express was entertaining, it was not all that funny. There was one that stood above the rest – Steve Carrell in Get Smart – a movie that exceeded expectations across the board. MY PICK: Steve Carrell. WHO WILL WIN: James Franco.
Best Villain
Luke Goss (Hellboy II: The Golden Army)
Dwayne Johnson (Get Smart)
Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Derek Mears (Friday the 13th)
Johnathon Schaech (Prom Night)
I don’t know a hell of a lot about most of these flicks because I never really had extra cash I wanted to burn by seeing Friday the 13th and Prom Night but I don’t think this matters because I would be shocked if Ledger lost. MY PICK: Heath Ledger. WHO WILL WIN: Heath Ledger.
Best Fight
Bride Wars
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Pineapple Express
Twilight
This category gives me the most problem because I have very little idea what people are going for here. If you like cat fights it’s kind of tough to beat Bride Wars but if you want true action scenes The Dark Knight and Hellboy II are going to stand above the rest. Pineapple Express’ scene was pretty funny and pretty good in a general sense, but not a hell of a lot that really stays with you. Twilight on the other hand showed that if the scene sucked in the book, it will suck even more in the movie. MY PICK: The Dark Knight. WHO WILL WIN: Twilight, maybe?
Best Kiss
High School Musical 3: Senior Year (Zac Efron/Vanessa Hudgens)
I Love You, Man (Paul Rudd/Thomas Lennon)
Milk (Sean Penn/James Franco)
Slumdog Millionaire (Dev Patel/Freida Pinto)
Twilight (Kristen Stewart/Robert Pattinson)
Milk stands out for it’s political statement, which gives it a slight edge over some teenie favorites like HSM3 and Twilight. Frankly the Twilight kiss wasn’t much to write home about – much like the rest. Slumdog Millionaire’s kiss was something special – it sent shivers down my spine and was the perfect climax to a great movie. MY PICK: Slumdog Millionaire (Dev Patel/Freida Pinto). WHO WILL WIN: Milk (Sean Penn/James Franco).
Best WTF Moment
Baby Mama (Peeing in the Sink)
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Naked Break-up)
Slumdog Millionaire (Jumping in the Poop Shed)
Tropic Thunder (Tasting the Decapitated Head)
Wanted (Curved Bullet Kill)
While this category seems the least “legit” to me it also seems the closest category. Peeing in the sink might be the best part of Baby Mama, the naked break-up defines FSM just as the curved bullet defines Wanted, the poop shed sets the course for Slumdog and the decapitated head makes you realize just how far over the line Tropic Thunder has gone. MY PICK: Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Naked Break-up). WHO WILL WIN: Baby Mama (Peeing in the Sink).
Best Song From a Movie
Hannah Montana: The Movie (Miley Cyrus’ The Climb)
Slumdog Millionaire (A.R. Rahman’s Jai Ho)
Twilight (Paramore’s Decode)
The Wrestler (Bruce Springsteen’s The Wrestler)
These choices cross lots of genres and lots of generations. I loved all of Slumdog’s music but Jai Ho was not the song that spoke to me, kind of like how I like Paramore a lot of times but not Decode. I don’t really want to talk about Miley but Springsteen’s The Wrestler blew me away. I don’t usually like the Boss, but this song was so perfect for the film. MY PICK: The Wrestler. WHO WILL WIN: The Climb.
To sum up: Twilight is overrated, each of the categories have one legit nominee, and the lesser qualified person will probably win.
Best Movie
The Dark Knight
High School Musical 3: Senior Year
Iron Man
Slumdog Millionaire
Twilight
Three of these movies are really good, one is a disappointment, but one is a travesty. You realize they put The Dark Knight and High School Musical 3 in the same category, as near equals? I’m not going to say anymore. MY PICK: Slumdog Millionaire. WHO WILL WIN: The Dark Knight.
Best Male Performance
Christian Bale (The Dark Knight)
Vin Diesel (Fast & Furious)
Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man)
Zac Efron (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
Shia LaBeouf (Eagle Eye)
Bale and Downey were amazing (of course) but the rest of these hacks are definitely outclassed. Vin Diesel is struggling to get back into character, Efron is struggling to get out of character, and Shia LaBeouf doesn’t even have a character. As a point of clarification I meant that Eagle Eye sucked – A LOT. MY PICK: Robert Downey Jr. WHO WILL WIN: Christian Bale.
Best Female Performance
Anne Hathaway (Bride Wars)
Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Angelina Jolie (Wanted)
Kristen Stewart (Twilight)
Kate Winslet (The Reader)
The selection of these nominees is even more confusing than their male counterparts. Hathaway’s nod here is more of a slap in the face considering her performance in Rachel Getting Married while Henson’s performance was okay but seems well short of the “Best Performance” level. Jolie’s nomination reminds me of LaBeouf’s nom in Eagle Eye – both Wanted and Eagle Eye sucked – and did not have any performances that were even “adequate.” Winselt’s performance doesn’t need much comment here – she was great. Kristen Stewart was the one bright spot in a disappointing movie – but was it the best performance of the year? Was she better than Winslet? MY PICK: Kate Winslet. WHO WILL WIN: Kristen Stewart.
Breakthrough Performance – Male
Ben Barnes (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian)
Taylor Lautner (Twilight)
Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire)
Robert Pattinson (Twilight)
Bobb’e J. Thompson (Role Models)
This category is “better” only in the sense that there are two noms I like – Dev Patel, who did a great job and truly “broke out,” and Bobb’e J. Thompson, whose role in Role Models was not only hysterical but also probably opened a lot of doors for him. Two noms for Twilight is a little disappointing – I had to look up who Taylor Lautner’s character was (Jacob) and then scratch my head about his screen time. MY PICK: Dev Patel. WHO WILL WIN: Robert Pattinson.
Breakthrough Performance – Female
Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana: The Movie)
Kat Dennings (Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playllist)
Vanessa Hudgens (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire)
Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia!)
Ashley Tisdale (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
I think this category has the most competition. The High School Musical 3 noms confuse me because it would seem like the third time around these Disney-made actors do not have much “breaking out to do.” If you’re in the public consciousness enough to have sex tapes and racy photos, you probably don’t need “breakout performances.” Same goes for Miley Cyrus considering she has a show that already helped her “breajout”. That aside, I love the other nominees – I’ve been a big fan of Kat Dennings since Charlie Bartlett (so much so that I forgave her for The House Bunny). Frieda Pinto is obviously gorgeous and did a great job and Amanda Seyfried really did break out – showing she had talent beyond her Mean Girls-glazed eyes looked. MY PICK: Kat Dennings. WHO WILL WIN: Miley Cyrus.
Best Comedic Performance
Steve Carrell (Get Smart)
Jim Carrey (Yes Man)
Anna Faris (The House Bunny)
James Franco (Pineapple Express)
Amy Poehler (Baby Mama)
I think all of these actors are generally funny and generally pretty good actors but their performances came in movies that ranged from laughless (The House Bunny) to downright painful (Baby Mama). While Pineapple Express was entertaining, it was not all that funny. There was one that stood above the rest – Steve Carrell in Get Smart – a movie that exceeded expectations across the board. MY PICK: Steve Carrell. WHO WILL WIN: James Franco.
Best Villain
Luke Goss (Hellboy II: The Golden Army)
Dwayne Johnson (Get Smart)
Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Derek Mears (Friday the 13th)
Johnathon Schaech (Prom Night)
I don’t know a hell of a lot about most of these flicks because I never really had extra cash I wanted to burn by seeing Friday the 13th and Prom Night but I don’t think this matters because I would be shocked if Ledger lost. MY PICK: Heath Ledger. WHO WILL WIN: Heath Ledger.
Best Fight
Bride Wars
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Pineapple Express
Twilight
This category gives me the most problem because I have very little idea what people are going for here. If you like cat fights it’s kind of tough to beat Bride Wars but if you want true action scenes The Dark Knight and Hellboy II are going to stand above the rest. Pineapple Express’ scene was pretty funny and pretty good in a general sense, but not a hell of a lot that really stays with you. Twilight on the other hand showed that if the scene sucked in the book, it will suck even more in the movie. MY PICK: The Dark Knight. WHO WILL WIN: Twilight, maybe?
Best Kiss
High School Musical 3: Senior Year (Zac Efron/Vanessa Hudgens)
I Love You, Man (Paul Rudd/Thomas Lennon)
Milk (Sean Penn/James Franco)
Slumdog Millionaire (Dev Patel/Freida Pinto)
Twilight (Kristen Stewart/Robert Pattinson)
Milk stands out for it’s political statement, which gives it a slight edge over some teenie favorites like HSM3 and Twilight. Frankly the Twilight kiss wasn’t much to write home about – much like the rest. Slumdog Millionaire’s kiss was something special – it sent shivers down my spine and was the perfect climax to a great movie. MY PICK: Slumdog Millionaire (Dev Patel/Freida Pinto). WHO WILL WIN: Milk (Sean Penn/James Franco).
Best WTF Moment
Baby Mama (Peeing in the Sink)
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Naked Break-up)
Slumdog Millionaire (Jumping in the Poop Shed)
Tropic Thunder (Tasting the Decapitated Head)
Wanted (Curved Bullet Kill)
While this category seems the least “legit” to me it also seems the closest category. Peeing in the sink might be the best part of Baby Mama, the naked break-up defines FSM just as the curved bullet defines Wanted, the poop shed sets the course for Slumdog and the decapitated head makes you realize just how far over the line Tropic Thunder has gone. MY PICK: Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Naked Break-up). WHO WILL WIN: Baby Mama (Peeing in the Sink).
Best Song From a Movie
Hannah Montana: The Movie (Miley Cyrus’ The Climb)
Slumdog Millionaire (A.R. Rahman’s Jai Ho)
Twilight (Paramore’s Decode)
The Wrestler (Bruce Springsteen’s The Wrestler)
These choices cross lots of genres and lots of generations. I loved all of Slumdog’s music but Jai Ho was not the song that spoke to me, kind of like how I like Paramore a lot of times but not Decode. I don’t really want to talk about Miley but Springsteen’s The Wrestler blew me away. I don’t usually like the Boss, but this song was so perfect for the film. MY PICK: The Wrestler. WHO WILL WIN: The Climb.
To sum up: Twilight is overrated, each of the categories have one legit nominee, and the lesser qualified person will probably win.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Disney Devils?
After watching the movie Mickey Mouse Monopoly and reading THIS, I got very interested in reading about Disney's not so subtle racism/sexism.
If you want to watch Mickey Mouse Monopoly, I attached the youtube links below.
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 1
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 2
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 3
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 4
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 5
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Pigging out
Penelope - Mark Palansky - 2006 - 5/10
This was a pretty entertaining flick that had a great concept with only an "okay" follow through. Most of the film left me pondering what it could have done, what it could have been, and also, how similar the concept was to Shrek.
Summary:
Christina Ricci plays Penelope, a kind girl who's great great grandfather's actions brought a curse on the family that in turn left Penelope with a pig's snout and a pig's ears. However, there is a way Penelope can break the curse - if she can get "one of her own kind" (presumed to be a blue blooded richman) to fall in love with her. Her overbearing mother (Cahterine O'Hara) has tried everything, finally bringing in a high profile matchmaker and installing one-way glass for Penelope to stay behind as her mother carefully guards the family's embarrassing secret. Then one man doesn't run away (James McAvoy), and in fact keeps coming back. Will he be the one?
Critique:
The acting is one of the best parts of this movie which would have been little more than passing amusement without great performances by Christina Ricci, Catherine O'Hara, James McAvoy, Richard E. Grant (her father). I'm a big McAvoy fan and he carefully steers his character away from the cliched reactions most actors would have succumbed to - especially his facial reactions which are especially scrutinized because of Ricci's face.
Peter Dinklage's amusing yet mysterious investigative reporter is also played well but the movie misses every opportunity to flesh out his character. Most of his actions have no depth behind them - why he does things has almost no answer. This is especially puzzling because his actions are the turning points of each act and his story provides most of the conflict for the film. At the end, you aren't sure whether you should pity him, empathize with him, or just shake your head at him.
Speaking of the film's "acts" the movie hurt itself with a surprisingly short act that failed to develop Penelope's first true romance which was really necessary to set up the whole drama of the rest of the movie. This in turn makes me question the revelations and growth of each of the important characters because they are supposedly because of their connection and inspiration by Penelope. The other implication is a way too long second act that makes the film sort to drag and is further plagued by unnecessary characters like Reese Witherspoon playing the rom-com friend without any of the good parts of the rom-com friend (like emotional explanation and establishing character goals).
I did like the few twists the movie through in - which surprised me because of the movie's generally weak script. I thought through most of the movie that the ending would leave me unsatisfied, but instead I loved the ending and it brought a smile to my face. It also made me think that the rest of the movie could have been better...
This was a pretty entertaining flick that had a great concept with only an "okay" follow through. Most of the film left me pondering what it could have done, what it could have been, and also, how similar the concept was to Shrek.
Summary:
Christina Ricci plays Penelope, a kind girl who's great great grandfather's actions brought a curse on the family that in turn left Penelope with a pig's snout and a pig's ears. However, there is a way Penelope can break the curse - if she can get "one of her own kind" (presumed to be a blue blooded richman) to fall in love with her. Her overbearing mother (Cahterine O'Hara) has tried everything, finally bringing in a high profile matchmaker and installing one-way glass for Penelope to stay behind as her mother carefully guards the family's embarrassing secret. Then one man doesn't run away (James McAvoy), and in fact keeps coming back. Will he be the one?Critique:
The acting is one of the best parts of this movie which would have been little more than passing amusement without great performances by Christina Ricci, Catherine O'Hara, James McAvoy, Richard E. Grant (her father). I'm a big McAvoy fan and he carefully steers his character away from the cliched reactions most actors would have succumbed to - especially his facial reactions which are especially scrutinized because of Ricci's face.
Peter Dinklage's amusing yet mysterious investigative reporter is also played well but the movie misses every opportunity to flesh out his character. Most of his actions have no depth behind them - why he does things has almost no answer. This is especially puzzling because his actions are the turning points of each act and his story provides most of the conflict for the film. At the end, you aren't sure whether you should pity him, empathize with him, or just shake your head at him.
Speaking of the film's "acts" the movie hurt itself with a surprisingly short act that failed to develop Penelope's first true romance which was really necessary to set up the whole drama of the rest of the movie. This in turn makes me question the revelations and growth of each of the important characters because they are supposedly because of their connection and inspiration by Penelope. The other implication is a way too long second act that makes the film sort to drag and is further plagued by unnecessary characters like Reese Witherspoon playing the rom-com friend without any of the good parts of the rom-com friend (like emotional explanation and establishing character goals).
I did like the few twists the movie through in - which surprised me because of the movie's generally weak script. I thought through most of the movie that the ending would leave me unsatisfied, but instead I loved the ending and it brought a smile to my face. It also made me think that the rest of the movie could have been better...
Sexually Charged
Sex and the City: The Movie - Michael Patrick King - 2008 - 8/10
There's nudity, graphic sex scenes, flatulence jokes and pubic jokes, and this isn't Beerfest or the next movie from the directors of Beerfest, but Sex and the City: The Movie. The movie struggles from a bout of identity confusion as it waffles between Vogue fashion show and humor even Adam Sandler wouldn't touch. But for the most part, it works, despite the movie's loss of the show's perfect balance between witty humor and dramatic sexcapades.
Summary:
The movie picks up four years later after the dramatic conclusion of season six with Carrie and Big about to live happily ever after in a new apartment, Samantha in LA managing the career of her boy-toy, and Charlotte living with her beautiful adopted little girl Lily. And then there's Miranda. I always hated her character and her character's plotline but Miranda's career is destroying her marriage and blah blah blah it just gets annoying from there. But happiness starts to unravel when Carrie's wedding plans begin to wear down the happiness she and Big share and Samantha grows tired of monogamy and that evil "R" word, relationship. Charlotte meanwhile enjoys total happiness while Miranda quickly descends into yes-I-can-be-more-annoying-than-you-even-thought-possible mode.
Critique:
The first half IS little more than a Vogue fashion show and it does it in a way that gratuitously genders the movie. Sure the show is for girls, I get it (cue comparisons to why Entourage is for guys) but the show was still funny and a bunch of guys watched it for the sex (for a kid who never had cable before to discover Sex and the City...). But the movie's fashion is thrust down your throats in pointless inefficient scenes that have the nerve to inform you of the exact designer names, sizes, and prices. Do you want your receipt?
The second act of the movie moves in a much better direction - a much more entertaining one - albeit at the cost of some respect for the show. While the humor on the show was usually based on the hilarity of awkward situations or the fact that one character could be so blunt, "Bye. Good Sex." But the movie struggles to reach that witty humor nexus and instead relies on cheap gags that would seem politically incorrect in most frat comedies. Apparently women find crapping your pants and disgusting pubic hair hilarious. And guys are the "pigs" who go crazy when they see boobs in National Lampoon direct-to-DVDs but Sex and the City can't wait to up the ante and throw in a little male frontal nudity.
By the end of the movie its become painfully obvious that all of the other characters and plotlines have received painfully short shrift due to Carrie's storyline hogging all the attention, aided by an unnecessary new character to the show's dynamic (played very well by Jennifer Hudson). Charlotte's absolute happiness is pretty much assumed from the get go and her character pretty much has ZERO conflict. Samantha's "conflict" seems a little petty and the resolution seems like a foregone conclusion. Miranda's conflict is probably the most realistic and I would have liked it if I would have sympathized (or empathized) with Miranda at all, but I just learned to hate her more.
But then in the car ride home with a die-hard Sex and the City fan awaiting my opinion of a movie she'd already seen several times I realized that the movie was actually pretty good. Sure there were things I would change to be more true to the show. But what they did change appealed to their core viewers - who rewarded them by buying tickets several times. Just accepting the movie for what it was did a hell of a lot for me to realize that for what it was, the movie was pretty good. In terms of the story that fans wanted to see, the story delivered. In terms of following the characters and trying hard to reach the same tempo of the show, the movie succeeded.
The acting was good, which was hard for me to admit because besides these two characters, I pretty much hate Sarah Jessica Parker and Chris Noth, but they did wonders. The rest of the characters had little screentime to really do more than they did in a 25-minute episode but the addition of Jennifer Hudson added a solid performance from a character who seemed genuine, and someone that most fans could relate to.
What really surprised me was (despite how predictable the ending became after a few scenes) was that the movie did not leave itself open to an obvious sequel. This surprised me because I thought the show would reach a midway point - resolution of the storylines so half of the girls were still out in the cold. But there wasn't and now there is a push for a sequel and even I don't have an easy answer for what direction it could/should go in.
There's nudity, graphic sex scenes, flatulence jokes and pubic jokes, and this isn't Beerfest or the next movie from the directors of Beerfest, but Sex and the City: The Movie. The movie struggles from a bout of identity confusion as it waffles between Vogue fashion show and humor even Adam Sandler wouldn't touch. But for the most part, it works, despite the movie's loss of the show's perfect balance between witty humor and dramatic sexcapades.
Summary:
The movie picks up four years later after the dramatic conclusion of season six with Carrie and Big about to live happily ever after in a new apartment, Samantha in LA managing the career of her boy-toy, and Charlotte living with her beautiful adopted little girl Lily. And then there's Miranda. I always hated her character and her character's plotline but Miranda's career is destroying her marriage and blah blah blah it just gets annoying from there. But happiness starts to unravel when Carrie's wedding plans begin to wear down the happiness she and Big share and Samantha grows tired of monogamy and that evil "R" word, relationship. Charlotte meanwhile enjoys total happiness while Miranda quickly descends into yes-I-can-be-more-annoying-than-you-even-thought-possible mode.Critique:
The first half IS little more than a Vogue fashion show and it does it in a way that gratuitously genders the movie. Sure the show is for girls, I get it (cue comparisons to why Entourage is for guys) but the show was still funny and a bunch of guys watched it for the sex (for a kid who never had cable before to discover Sex and the City...). But the movie's fashion is thrust down your throats in pointless inefficient scenes that have the nerve to inform you of the exact designer names, sizes, and prices. Do you want your receipt?
The second act of the movie moves in a much better direction - a much more entertaining one - albeit at the cost of some respect for the show. While the humor on the show was usually based on the hilarity of awkward situations or the fact that one character could be so blunt, "Bye. Good Sex." But the movie struggles to reach that witty humor nexus and instead relies on cheap gags that would seem politically incorrect in most frat comedies. Apparently women find crapping your pants and disgusting pubic hair hilarious. And guys are the "pigs" who go crazy when they see boobs in National Lampoon direct-to-DVDs but Sex and the City can't wait to up the ante and throw in a little male frontal nudity.
By the end of the movie its become painfully obvious that all of the other characters and plotlines have received painfully short shrift due to Carrie's storyline hogging all the attention, aided by an unnecessary new character to the show's dynamic (played very well by Jennifer Hudson). Charlotte's absolute happiness is pretty much assumed from the get go and her character pretty much has ZERO conflict. Samantha's "conflict" seems a little petty and the resolution seems like a foregone conclusion. Miranda's conflict is probably the most realistic and I would have liked it if I would have sympathized (or empathized) with Miranda at all, but I just learned to hate her more.
But then in the car ride home with a die-hard Sex and the City fan awaiting my opinion of a movie she'd already seen several times I realized that the movie was actually pretty good. Sure there were things I would change to be more true to the show. But what they did change appealed to their core viewers - who rewarded them by buying tickets several times. Just accepting the movie for what it was did a hell of a lot for me to realize that for what it was, the movie was pretty good. In terms of the story that fans wanted to see, the story delivered. In terms of following the characters and trying hard to reach the same tempo of the show, the movie succeeded.
The acting was good, which was hard for me to admit because besides these two characters, I pretty much hate Sarah Jessica Parker and Chris Noth, but they did wonders. The rest of the characters had little screentime to really do more than they did in a 25-minute episode but the addition of Jennifer Hudson added a solid performance from a character who seemed genuine, and someone that most fans could relate to.
What really surprised me was (despite how predictable the ending became after a few scenes) was that the movie did not leave itself open to an obvious sequel. This surprised me because I thought the show would reach a midway point - resolution of the storylines so half of the girls were still out in the cold. But there wasn't and now there is a push for a sequel and even I don't have an easy answer for what direction it could/should go in.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Too Many Dresses
27 Dresses - Anne Fletcher - 2006 - 4/10
It’s never good to start anything on the defensive, but I have to say I saw this movie on an airplane, so give me some slack.
Summary:
The summary goes like this: that old HILLARIOUS phrase “always a bridesmaid never a bride” applies to our main character Jane (Katherine Heigl)! No way. But she does have this guy she’s crazy about, her boss, George (Ed Burns). But he’s just fallen for her super hot, super slutty sister Tess (Talin Akerman). No way. But since Jane is such an expert wedding planner she agrees to plan her sister’s wedding to her dream guy. Oh my God. Along the way she meets this guy who is falling all over himself to ask her out (James Marsden) but she keeps refusing, only relenting when she needs to vent about her sad marriage woes. But then as he starts to make her laugh and integrate himself into her life it turns out that he’s really this super sexy wedding-beat reporter whose writing Jane loves! No way! (Stiffles yawn). Make your own conclusions, most of which probably do not require seeing the movie, or after this summary, any of the preview.
Critique:
I don’t even know where to begin. I feel like I’m being pulled in all directions. On one hand my mom really liked it so I know it’s a chic flick that I’m obviously biased against. On another hand I think, as a chic flick, the movie was good at what it was. BUT the chic flicks Achilles heal – unoriginality and cliché cluttering comes out in strong force here. We’ve got the “best friend,” “the perfect guy,” “the perfect sister” (I love how a woman like Heigl is supposed to be jealous of Akerman, I mean really, they’re both freaking knock outs) and everything else. Nromally I wouldn’t dwell on the clichés so much but it really sucks a lot out of the movie, especially when Marsden looks like he’s actually acting without his Cyclops goggles for a change and Heigl is ALMOST likeable. One other glaring thing that popped into my head is that bosses like George don’t have assistants like Katherine Heigl for years on end and not sleep with them. I mean, that’s why they hire them! And he hasn’t noticed her? Or realized she worships him? Come on. I hate movies that can’t respect the viewer because we’re “stupid” or “fickle” and need to be force fed this crap.
Oh well. This review has left me feeling widely unfulfilled and like I poored out a nonsensical rant but hey, its just another rom-com chic flick.
It’s never good to start anything on the defensive, but I have to say I saw this movie on an airplane, so give me some slack.
Summary:
The summary goes like this: that old HILLARIOUS phrase “always a bridesmaid never a bride” applies to our main character Jane (Katherine Heigl)! No way. But she does have this guy she’s crazy about, her boss, George (Ed Burns). But he’s just fallen for her super hot, super slutty sister Tess (Talin Akerman). No way. But since Jane is such an expert wedding planner she agrees to plan her sister’s wedding to her dream guy. Oh my God. Along the way she meets this guy who is falling all over himself to ask her out (James Marsden) but she keeps refusing, only relenting when she needs to vent about her sad marriage woes. But then as he starts to make her laugh and integrate himself into her life it turns out that he’s really this super sexy wedding-beat reporter whose writing Jane loves! No way! (Stiffles yawn). Make your own conclusions, most of which probably do not require seeing the movie, or after this summary, any of the preview.
Critique:
I don’t even know where to begin. I feel like I’m being pulled in all directions. On one hand my mom really liked it so I know it’s a chic flick that I’m obviously biased against. On another hand I think, as a chic flick, the movie was good at what it was. BUT the chic flicks Achilles heal – unoriginality and cliché cluttering comes out in strong force here. We’ve got the “best friend,” “the perfect guy,” “the perfect sister” (I love how a woman like Heigl is supposed to be jealous of Akerman, I mean really, they’re both freaking knock outs) and everything else. Nromally I wouldn’t dwell on the clichés so much but it really sucks a lot out of the movie, especially when Marsden looks like he’s actually acting without his Cyclops goggles for a change and Heigl is ALMOST likeable. One other glaring thing that popped into my head is that bosses like George don’t have assistants like Katherine Heigl for years on end and not sleep with them. I mean, that’s why they hire them! And he hasn’t noticed her? Or realized she worships him? Come on. I hate movies that can’t respect the viewer because we’re “stupid” or “fickle” and need to be force fed this crap.
Oh well. This review has left me feeling widely unfulfilled and like I poored out a nonsensical rant but hey, its just another rom-com chic flick.
Indiana Jones and the Disappointing Cracked Skull
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Steven Spielberg - 2008 - 4/10
I cant quite figure out if writing this review is really even close to worth it. I had enough Indiana Jones type hurdles of my own that stood in the way of me finally posting this: writing SaltyStix articles, studying for a test, general laziness…lots of things. But I decided that per Spielberg and Lucas’ dues ex machina of Indy, I had to find some unnatural power to finish the review.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the film was soo disappointing it was almost sad. I felt like crying. Sure I knew what Lucas does to sacred trilogies (defiles them) but I thought Spielberg’s directing and another writer would balance old George out. FALSE. Instead the movie is full of Lucas’ overindulgence – unnecessary special effects. While this movie just has monkeys to compare to Jar Jar, it still makes me wince – especially because the first movies did not seem to be cluttered with Lucas’ ILM crap. Jar Jar was annoying but by the end of the trilogy you saw the point of him – what was the need to swing from the vines? Or survive a nuclear blast?
Perhaps the movie was doomed from the start with the absence of Denholm Elliot (who unfortunately passed away in 1992) and Sean Connery (who stubbornly maintained he was ‘retired’). To fill the gaping hole of Elliot’s Dr. Marcus Brody the film inserts another character designed for comic relief: Ray Winstone. Winstone’s character is supposed to have this deep relationship with Indy which is supposed to yield deep humor as well as clever plot twists but fails in both because he is just too brand spanking new to the franchise. To make up for the comedy of Connery-Ford they try for Ford-LeBeuf and almost succeed but LeBeuf’s character is just so ridiculous.
The largest problem for me is more conceptual in that the movie moved away from the religious occult (the arch, pagan religions, and the grail) and into well, something else. Maybe they needed a new frontier and I understand that what they chose was based on 50’s era pulp-themed movies that they loved. I get that. It still sucked. The religious occult had a different feel to it as well as more history and more lore that gives an ephemeral feel. What we’re left with here seems forced and feels like you’re watching bad Sci-Fi reruns again. Chalk up that the “puzzles” and “clues” as well as the “answers” are dangerously close to modern pretenders like National Treasure and the like, and Indy quickly loses his mystique.
What helped saved the movie was Karen Allen’s character. I hope that isn’t really a spoiler because she IS in the movie. Once she hit the screen the Indy charm and humor seemed to replace the old-tired-act Harrison was sleepwalking through. Combined with the action in the last hour, the last half really shapes up to be pretty good. I will say that the story timeline liberties Spielberg and Lucas pulled a long time ago damaged the franchise here. Not many know that Temple of Doom was made as a prequel to Raiders which was then followed by Last Crusade. So events that happened in Raiders, say, socially, are not that far removed from Crystal Skull.
The best thing Spielberg and Lucas did was pay homage to the first part of the series with references to Raiders in the opening scene and good throwbacks to the value of Indy’s hat from nuclear explosions to chapels including some scenes that might have people thinking if “Mutt Williams” is going to take over the franchise.
I’ll close with the three things this movie needed to be really good – to give Last Crusade a run for it’s money. First, a younger Harrison Ford – which was quite possible if it hadn’t been for Lucas’ constant screen revisions and stubborn refusal to accept earlier story send ups – we’re talking a good seven to ten years here – Air Force One Harrison Ford instead of, well, Crystal Skull Harrison Ford. Second, the appearance of Sean Connery – which again, was possible if the film had been made earlier. It is curious that Connery’s part – supposedly a small cameo is SO small that Connery must have really thought the script was crap. Third, no CGI bullshit – this would probably have changed the whole opening scene and made the film a hell of a lot better. Maybe given us a classic intro where Indy is in the field looking for some treasure and bam! Cate Blanchett swoops in. But alas, no such luck.
I cant quite figure out if writing this review is really even close to worth it. I had enough Indiana Jones type hurdles of my own that stood in the way of me finally posting this: writing SaltyStix articles, studying for a test, general laziness…lots of things. But I decided that per Spielberg and Lucas’ dues ex machina of Indy, I had to find some unnatural power to finish the review.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the film was soo disappointing it was almost sad. I felt like crying. Sure I knew what Lucas does to sacred trilogies (defiles them) but I thought Spielberg’s directing and another writer would balance old George out. FALSE. Instead the movie is full of Lucas’ overindulgence – unnecessary special effects. While this movie just has monkeys to compare to Jar Jar, it still makes me wince – especially because the first movies did not seem to be cluttered with Lucas’ ILM crap. Jar Jar was annoying but by the end of the trilogy you saw the point of him – what was the need to swing from the vines? Or survive a nuclear blast?
Perhaps the movie was doomed from the start with the absence of Denholm Elliot (who unfortunately passed away in 1992) and Sean Connery (who stubbornly maintained he was ‘retired’). To fill the gaping hole of Elliot’s Dr. Marcus Brody the film inserts another character designed for comic relief: Ray Winstone. Winstone’s character is supposed to have this deep relationship with Indy which is supposed to yield deep humor as well as clever plot twists but fails in both because he is just too brand spanking new to the franchise. To make up for the comedy of Connery-Ford they try for Ford-LeBeuf and almost succeed but LeBeuf’s character is just so ridiculous.
The largest problem for me is more conceptual in that the movie moved away from the religious occult (the arch, pagan religions, and the grail) and into well, something else. Maybe they needed a new frontier and I understand that what they chose was based on 50’s era pulp-themed movies that they loved. I get that. It still sucked. The religious occult had a different feel to it as well as more history and more lore that gives an ephemeral feel. What we’re left with here seems forced and feels like you’re watching bad Sci-Fi reruns again. Chalk up that the “puzzles” and “clues” as well as the “answers” are dangerously close to modern pretenders like National Treasure and the like, and Indy quickly loses his mystique.
What helped saved the movie was Karen Allen’s character. I hope that isn’t really a spoiler because she IS in the movie. Once she hit the screen the Indy charm and humor seemed to replace the old-tired-act Harrison was sleepwalking through. Combined with the action in the last hour, the last half really shapes up to be pretty good. I will say that the story timeline liberties Spielberg and Lucas pulled a long time ago damaged the franchise here. Not many know that Temple of Doom was made as a prequel to Raiders which was then followed by Last Crusade. So events that happened in Raiders, say, socially, are not that far removed from Crystal Skull.
The best thing Spielberg and Lucas did was pay homage to the first part of the series with references to Raiders in the opening scene and good throwbacks to the value of Indy’s hat from nuclear explosions to chapels including some scenes that might have people thinking if “Mutt Williams” is going to take over the franchise.
I’ll close with the three things this movie needed to be really good – to give Last Crusade a run for it’s money. First, a younger Harrison Ford – which was quite possible if it hadn’t been for Lucas’ constant screen revisions and stubborn refusal to accept earlier story send ups – we’re talking a good seven to ten years here – Air Force One Harrison Ford instead of, well, Crystal Skull Harrison Ford. Second, the appearance of Sean Connery – which again, was possible if the film had been made earlier. It is curious that Connery’s part – supposedly a small cameo is SO small that Connery must have really thought the script was crap. Third, no CGI bullshit – this would probably have changed the whole opening scene and made the film a hell of a lot better. Maybe given us a classic intro where Indy is in the field looking for some treasure and bam! Cate Blanchett swoops in. But alas, no such luck.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The Kingdom...a crowning achievement
The Kingdom - Peter Berg - 2007 - 9/10
Summary:
A terrorist attack on U.S. citizens on Saudi Soil draws the personal attention of FBI Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) who cuts every corner to make sure his team (Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman) gets on the ground despite the massive physical and political obstacles. Their liaison who has been tasked as more of a baby sitter, Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) tries to everything he can to help Fleury's team because he wants the men who killed his guards. The movie shows the different cultures that are strikingly similar as the team seeks to uncover the group responsible for the largest murder in modern Saudi history.
Critique:
I'll be honest - I had low expectations for the movie. It started off with an efficient, audio and visual history of western involvement with Saudi Arabia using real footage and real audio from the different times as well as powerful quotes to convey a complex story in a few words. I thought the movie would be downhill from there, but I was wrong. The name "Peter Berg" flashed, reminding me that the creator of Friday Night Lights was at the helm. Actually that was just a shameless plug for my favorite TV show, and while Berg IS the director of the movie, the movie itself showed how great it was. I will take the time to praise Berg now though. His style from FNL shines through loud and clear - his attention to small story detail as well as close camerawork is evident - he even shows similar musical choices. The small story detail is a pleasant bonus because it brings life and personality to every part of the movie - the family scenes on both sides of search show the similarities - and differences between our two cultures. The political scenes are unbiased, yet show the political tiptoeing that is necessary in these issues.
The acting - all around - was very good. Which says a lot coming from me because I went into the movie thinking most of these actors (minus Chris Cooper) weren't very good. Jamie Foxx always annoyed me as his general personality does. Here he chose to act for once and played a good part. There were definitely scenes were the Jamie I hate was trying to rise to the surface, but this acting Jamie kept him down and played a good role. Jennifer Garner was good in her limited scenes causing me to consider that I might have given her a harder rap than she deserved considering I've started to notice how good she is in a couple movies. Chris Cooper was great as always in his few scenes - not much more to say on him that I haven't already said elsewhere. Jason Bateman was pretty good - clearly the weakest link of those four because he overacted in some parts. But it is what it is. The real scene stealer was Ashraf Barhom who was GREAT as Colonel Ghazi. I have a feeling that in longer cuts his family scenes were longer and more numerous but beggars can't be choosers. I'd like to say I look forward to seeing him in more movies, but that seems unlikely.
Generally I really enjoyed the movie. It was tense, fast paced, and different in the sense that it wasnt the guns-blazing movie I thought it would be. Berg's "blockbuster" was much more of just a solid movie that really took pains to show the culture clash as well as the American influence in Saudi politics and Saudi oil as well as the repercussions of those actions. When I thought about the intro while the movie was just starting I smiled at the fact that they had used their title sequence and a handful of minutes to do what Syriana did - except better and in a more entertaining way. That held true for the whole movie because the style was very similar to Gaghan fast-camera, multi point storytelling with the pleasing difference that there was a clear central story (and set of characters). That Gaghan chose a macro-issue (oil) in our relationship with the Middle East was brave but fatal. It accomplished less that what a microcosm could do. The Kingdom's smaller story that accessed the big issue in everyone's mind - terrorism killing westerners (yes, cliche, but unfortunately true) seemed to be a better route. And to think that The Kingdom did it in about twenty minutes less and in a much easier way only made me enjoy the movie more.
When my brain was churning about what I would rate The Kingdom I had almost decided on an "8" because I thought the movie was pretty much as good as it could be yet it didnt have the 9 and 10 level power that the classics do. Then two amazing scenes at the end made me realize that giving the movie less than a 9 would be ridiculous. Two scenes at the end - between Jamie Foxx and a Saudi boy and a parallel scene that involved Foxx and his team really brought the movie together. The positive similarities of our culture and the importance of US-Saudi cooperation as well as the negative similarities of how our cultures are so similar. That the movie made such a pointed argument about how violent both of our cultures are - and how true it was - really pushed the movie over the top.
Verdict:
Buy it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...Syriana
...Three Kings
Summary:
A terrorist attack on U.S. citizens on Saudi Soil draws the personal attention of FBI Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) who cuts every corner to make sure his team (Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman) gets on the ground despite the massive physical and political obstacles. Their liaison who has been tasked as more of a baby sitter, Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) tries to everything he can to help Fleury's team because he wants the men who killed his guards. The movie shows the different cultures that are strikingly similar as the team seeks to uncover the group responsible for the largest murder in modern Saudi history.Critique:
I'll be honest - I had low expectations for the movie. It started off with an efficient, audio and visual history of western involvement with Saudi Arabia using real footage and real audio from the different times as well as powerful quotes to convey a complex story in a few words. I thought the movie would be downhill from there, but I was wrong. The name "Peter Berg" flashed, reminding me that the creator of Friday Night Lights was at the helm. Actually that was just a shameless plug for my favorite TV show, and while Berg IS the director of the movie, the movie itself showed how great it was. I will take the time to praise Berg now though. His style from FNL shines through loud and clear - his attention to small story detail as well as close camerawork is evident - he even shows similar musical choices. The small story detail is a pleasant bonus because it brings life and personality to every part of the movie - the family scenes on both sides of search show the similarities - and differences between our two cultures. The political scenes are unbiased, yet show the political tiptoeing that is necessary in these issues.
The acting - all around - was very good. Which says a lot coming from me because I went into the movie thinking most of these actors (minus Chris Cooper) weren't very good. Jamie Foxx always annoyed me as his general personality does. Here he chose to act for once and played a good part. There were definitely scenes were the Jamie I hate was trying to rise to the surface, but this acting Jamie kept him down and played a good role. Jennifer Garner was good in her limited scenes causing me to consider that I might have given her a harder rap than she deserved considering I've started to notice how good she is in a couple movies. Chris Cooper was great as always in his few scenes - not much more to say on him that I haven't already said elsewhere. Jason Bateman was pretty good - clearly the weakest link of those four because he overacted in some parts. But it is what it is. The real scene stealer was Ashraf Barhom who was GREAT as Colonel Ghazi. I have a feeling that in longer cuts his family scenes were longer and more numerous but beggars can't be choosers. I'd like to say I look forward to seeing him in more movies, but that seems unlikely.
Generally I really enjoyed the movie. It was tense, fast paced, and different in the sense that it wasnt the guns-blazing movie I thought it would be. Berg's "blockbuster" was much more of just a solid movie that really took pains to show the culture clash as well as the American influence in Saudi politics and Saudi oil as well as the repercussions of those actions. When I thought about the intro while the movie was just starting I smiled at the fact that they had used their title sequence and a handful of minutes to do what Syriana did - except better and in a more entertaining way. That held true for the whole movie because the style was very similar to Gaghan fast-camera, multi point storytelling with the pleasing difference that there was a clear central story (and set of characters). That Gaghan chose a macro-issue (oil) in our relationship with the Middle East was brave but fatal. It accomplished less that what a microcosm could do. The Kingdom's smaller story that accessed the big issue in everyone's mind - terrorism killing westerners (yes, cliche, but unfortunately true) seemed to be a better route. And to think that The Kingdom did it in about twenty minutes less and in a much easier way only made me enjoy the movie more.
When my brain was churning about what I would rate The Kingdom I had almost decided on an "8" because I thought the movie was pretty much as good as it could be yet it didnt have the 9 and 10 level power that the classics do. Then two amazing scenes at the end made me realize that giving the movie less than a 9 would be ridiculous. Two scenes at the end - between Jamie Foxx and a Saudi boy and a parallel scene that involved Foxx and his team really brought the movie together. The positive similarities of our culture and the importance of US-Saudi cooperation as well as the negative similarities of how our cultures are so similar. That the movie made such a pointed argument about how violent both of our cultures are - and how true it was - really pushed the movie over the top.
Verdict:
Buy it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...Syriana
...Three Kings
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Uh...really? Quantum of Solace?
Quantum of Solace comes from the title of a short story in Flemming’s For Your Eyes Only. But it still seems to come from NOWHERE. What does it mean? Are they serious? I waited so long to write this in the hopes that it was a joke – a prank – anything but the truth. But finally reality has sunk in.
Daniel Craig says: "I was unsure at first. Bond is looking for his quantum of solace and that's what he wants, he wants his closure. Ian Fleming says that if you don't have a quantum of solace in your relationship then the relationship is over. It's that spark of niceness in a relationship that if you don't have you might as well give up. Bond doesn't have that because his girlfriend has been killed," [and therefore, Bond is] looking for revenge [...] to make himself happy with the world again. But the title also alludes to something else in the film."
Here is the summary every other website is copying and pasting:
Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M (JUDI DENCH) interrogate Mr White (JESPER CHRISTENSEN) who reveals the organisation which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined.
Forensic intelligence links an Mi6 traitor to a bank account in Haiti where a case of mistaken identity introduces Bond to the beautiful but feisty Camille (OLGA KURYLENKO), a woman who has her own vendetta. Camille leads Bond straight to Dominic Greene (MATHIEU AMALRIC), a ruthless business man and major force within the mysterious organisation.
On a mission that leads him to Austria, Italy and South America, Bond discovers that Greene, conspiring to take total control of one of the world’s most important natural resources, is forging a deal with the exiled General Medrano (JOAQUIN COSIO). Using his associates in the organisation, and manipulating his powerful contacts within the CIA and the British government, Greene promises to overthrow the existing regime in a Latin American country, giving the General control of the country in exchange for a seemingly barren piece of land.
In a minefield of treachery, murder and deceit, Bond allies with old friends in a battle to uncover the truth. As he gets closer to finding the man responsible for the betrayal of Vesper, 007 must keep one step ahead of the CIA, the terrorists and even M, to unravel Greene’s sinister plan and stop his organisation.
Related reading:
"Quantum What?" @ SaltyStix
"Everything changes but bond" @ The Guardian
"The Title is Meant to Confuse" @ This is North Scotland
Daniel Craig says: "I was unsure at first. Bond is looking for his quantum of solace and that's what he wants, he wants his closure. Ian Fleming says that if you don't have a quantum of solace in your relationship then the relationship is over. It's that spark of niceness in a relationship that if you don't have you might as well give up. Bond doesn't have that because his girlfriend has been killed," [and therefore, Bond is] looking for revenge [...] to make himself happy with the world again. But the title also alludes to something else in the film."
Here is the summary every other website is copying and pasting:
Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M (JUDI DENCH) interrogate Mr White (JESPER CHRISTENSEN) who reveals the organisation which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined.
Forensic intelligence links an Mi6 traitor to a bank account in Haiti where a case of mistaken identity introduces Bond to the beautiful but feisty Camille (OLGA KURYLENKO), a woman who has her own vendetta. Camille leads Bond straight to Dominic Greene (MATHIEU AMALRIC), a ruthless business man and major force within the mysterious organisation.
On a mission that leads him to Austria, Italy and South America, Bond discovers that Greene, conspiring to take total control of one of the world’s most important natural resources, is forging a deal with the exiled General Medrano (JOAQUIN COSIO). Using his associates in the organisation, and manipulating his powerful contacts within the CIA and the British government, Greene promises to overthrow the existing regime in a Latin American country, giving the General control of the country in exchange for a seemingly barren piece of land.
In a minefield of treachery, murder and deceit, Bond allies with old friends in a battle to uncover the truth. As he gets closer to finding the man responsible for the betrayal of Vesper, 007 must keep one step ahead of the CIA, the terrorists and even M, to unravel Greene’s sinister plan and stop his organisation.
Related reading:
"Quantum What?" @ SaltyStix
"Everything changes but bond" @ The Guardian
"The Title is Meant to Confuse" @ This is North Scotland
Friday, December 7, 2007
What the hell
I was really hoping to see Juno and Atonement sometime over winter break. BUT...none of those movies are showing anywhere near me.
So now I am totally bummed about it. Those movies looked amazing and will probably be dark horse Oscar candidates for best picture, while Juno will most likely win original screenplay. Then you chalk up all the other anticipatory factors: Michael Cera, Keira Knightley...
I am kind of surprised that Juno's release is SOO limited considering the trailer aired in front of some major movies, AND has seemingly had lots of promotion (for an indie), and it seems like it has some serious commercial upside as Cera is pretty big now after Superbad and Keira has emerged as a strong, commercial, leading actor. Instead, the movies that are showing in town: Awake, Dan in Real Life, Enchanted, The Golden Compass.In the surrounding area there are just a bunch of mediocre movies, or good movies I saw a month ago.
While I wrote about Enchanted on on my other blog, SaltyStix, I'm just not that motivated to see it anymore now that I really want to see Juno and Atonement. I do want to see The Golden Compass thought, and probably will, but it just isn't the same.
So now I am totally bummed about it. Those movies looked amazing and will probably be dark horse Oscar candidates for best picture, while Juno will most likely win original screenplay. Then you chalk up all the other anticipatory factors: Michael Cera, Keira Knightley...
I am kind of surprised that Juno's release is SOO limited considering the trailer aired in front of some major movies, AND has seemingly had lots of promotion (for an indie), and it seems like it has some serious commercial upside as Cera is pretty big now after Superbad and Keira has emerged as a strong, commercial, leading actor. Instead, the movies that are showing in town: Awake, Dan in Real Life, Enchanted, The Golden Compass.In the surrounding area there are just a bunch of mediocre movies, or good movies I saw a month ago.
While I wrote about Enchanted on on my other blog, SaltyStix, I'm just not that motivated to see it anymore now that I really want to see Juno and Atonement. I do want to see The Golden Compass thought, and probably will, but it just isn't the same.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Damon v Marky Mark
After leaving The Bourne Ultimatum a few days ago, someone said, “That was the same as Shooter.” Then it clicked – Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg are two sides of the same coin – their projects ALWAYS mirror each other (see right). Well, almost always. This is not the first time two rising Hollywood stars have churned out similar projects, but this time seemed to be TOO similar. But just like any other “product” one is better than the other, one is the established “name brand”, while the other is the latecomer, the “generic brand”. So I decided to run down through the films and see who the real McCoy was, and who the pretender was.
Continue reading this article at SaltyStix.
Continue reading this article at SaltyStix.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The Fountain...springing forth
The Fountain - Darren Aronofsky - 2006 - 9/10
Summary:
This summary likely won't do The Fountain justice, but here goes. The movie intersperses three stories which I ultimately decided (you could come to another conclusion) that one was reality, one was a dream, and one was a story. In the end, which was which is mildly debatable. So the first one follows Tommy (Hugh Jackman), a doctor looking for an experimental cure for tumors, in the hope he will find a cure for his wife, Izzy (Rachel Weisz). The second one follows a hairless Hugh Jackman piloting a nebulous orb incasing himself and a tree that he is steering torward a dying star. The third one follows a conquistador, again Jackman, who's unshakable loyalty to the Queen of Spain, again Weisz, sends him to the lands of the Mayas in search of the tree of life. Each story looks to take place 1000 years apart from each other, but all three stories share one thing - Weisz is Jackman's everything.
Critique:
This movie was really powerful. I'm new to Aronofsky's genius - I haven't seen Pi or Requiem (I know, I know, I'm working on it). Beyond calling the movie "powerful" its tough about where to go from there. It's Aronofsky's show through and through - he wrote the script, wrote the story, directed it, even had his girlfriend play the lead female role. I guess I can go from there. Rachel Weisz is GREAT. She shows real acting chops that really distances her from the drudge she had to dish out in The Mummy movies. She has the same sort of inner confident sadness with the outward optimism that we see in The Constant Gardener - playing a somewhat similar, less metaphysically charged role. Jackman is no slouch either - playing three roles that take us to the edge of each possible character - a high tempered, pigheaded doctor, a deeply calm buddhist?, and a loyal but solemn conquistador. Each role is given the same dedication and the same reality. Jackman's facial features are especially endearing as we can feel all of his sadness, all of his frustration. To top it all off Aronofsky makes the movie look very classy - everything is beautiful, and it's easy to understand why. A little imdb background revealed that Aronofsky shunned CGI for micro photography of chemical reactions in petri dishes. The result is something that is truly masterful art that makes a huge difference in creating an atmosphere that is leaps and bounds different than what we would have seen with CGI. So I was clearly blown away by the movie - but I will say - the movie probably needs to be watched a few times so you can really appreciate it (probably like Aronofsky's other movies I hear).
Verdict:
Buy it (multiple viewings).
If you liked this movie, see...
...Pi
...Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
...Solaris
Summary:
This summary likely won't do The Fountain justice, but here goes. The movie intersperses three stories which I ultimately decided (you could come to another conclusion) that one was reality, one was a dream, and one was a story. In the end, which was which is mildly debatable. So the first one follows Tommy (Hugh Jackman), a doctor looking for an experimental cure for tumors, in the hope he will find a cure for his wife, Izzy (Rachel Weisz). The second one follows a hairless Hugh Jackman piloting a nebulous orb incasing himself and a tree that he is steering torward a dying star. The third one follows a conquistador, again Jackman, who's unshakable loyalty to the Queen of Spain, again Weisz, sends him to the lands of the Mayas in search of the tree of life. Each story looks to take place 1000 years apart from each other, but all three stories share one thing - Weisz is Jackman's everything.
Critique:
This movie was really powerful. I'm new to Aronofsky's genius - I haven't seen Pi or Requiem (I know, I know, I'm working on it). Beyond calling the movie "powerful" its tough about where to go from there. It's Aronofsky's show through and through - he wrote the script, wrote the story, directed it, even had his girlfriend play the lead female role. I guess I can go from there. Rachel Weisz is GREAT. She shows real acting chops that really distances her from the drudge she had to dish out in The Mummy movies. She has the same sort of inner confident sadness with the outward optimism that we see in The Constant Gardener - playing a somewhat similar, less metaphysically charged role. Jackman is no slouch either - playing three roles that take us to the edge of each possible character - a high tempered, pigheaded doctor, a deeply calm buddhist?, and a loyal but solemn conquistador. Each role is given the same dedication and the same reality. Jackman's facial features are especially endearing as we can feel all of his sadness, all of his frustration. To top it all off Aronofsky makes the movie look very classy - everything is beautiful, and it's easy to understand why. A little imdb background revealed that Aronofsky shunned CGI for micro photography of chemical reactions in petri dishes. The result is something that is truly masterful art that makes a huge difference in creating an atmosphere that is leaps and bounds different than what we would have seen with CGI. So I was clearly blown away by the movie - but I will say - the movie probably needs to be watched a few times so you can really appreciate it (probably like Aronofsky's other movies I hear).
Verdict:
Buy it (multiple viewings).
If you liked this movie, see...
...Pi
...Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
...Solaris
Bourne Again
The Bourne Ultimatum picks up exactly where The Bourne Supremacy left off – with Bourne (Matt Damon) running from authorities in Russia. And he never stops running, throughout the whole movie. Thinking he is finally leaving it all behind, Bourne picks up the paper to read a column about himself and a possible CIA cover-up. When Bourne inquires into the story he uncovers a new operation beyond Treadstone – Blackbriar. Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) benches Pam Landy (Joan Allen) and takes over – ordering his agents to shoot to kill Bourne. Bourne gets the message early, and as his memory starts to return, he begins to uncover more and more that connects him, to Blackbriar.
Continue reading this article at SaltyStix.
Continue reading this article at SaltyStix.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Tristan + Isolde...atop the round table
Tristan + Isolde - Kevin Reynolds - 2006 - 9/10
Summary:
The story that many say influenced Arthurian lore begins in the early Dark Ages, shortly after the end of Pax Romana where a weak Britain is mired in war as several clans jockey for control. The "good" one the movie focuses on, is Marke (Rufus Sewell), who tries to unite the country and defeat the rampaging Irish army led by their ferocious general, Morholt (Graham Mullins).
On one of these raids Morholt destroys the British, taking many slaves, and killing the parents of Tristan (James Franco), a young boy who Marke saves, although he loses his hand in the process. Years pass and Tristan grows into a great fighter who finally meets Morholt in battle. Although Tristan kills Morholt, Morholt's sword delivers a powerful blow that posions Tristan. Believing he is dead, Tristan's friends and fellow soldiers launch his funeral boat into the tide. The ship washes up on the shores of Ireland, where it is discovered by Isolde (Sophia Myles) who cares for the wounded Tristan. Isolde tells Tristan another name instead of her own, fearing he will realize she is the princess of Ireland. The two slowly fall ddeeply in love, but Tristan is forced to flee when his boat washes ashore. King Donnchadh (David O'Hara) decides that he will hold a contest for the hand of his daughter, Isolde, for whoever can win her - in an attempt to create a false peace with the British tribes. Each tribal leader sends a champion in their stead, and Tristan begs to go, hoping to see his love, unbeknownst to him that his love is the woman he will be winning for Marke.
Critique:
I loved this movie. I'm a sucker for action movies with good love stories, but this movie is advertised as the greatest love story of all time - and then the movie crams in a bunch of really good action scenes. And Franco shows us how he learned to act between Spiderman and Spiderman 3 - by making real movies instead of slacking like Tobey. Sophia Myles is great too - playing her role perfectly as a woman who is torn by the passion she feels for Tristan and the respect she has for Marke. Just as Tristan is distraught by the choice he has to make - loving Isolde or fulfilling his duty to Marke. Rufus Sewell turns in a great performance as Marke, creating compassion for a face I associate with the evil Armand from A Knight's Tale. Woven into the love story is more than just good fight scenes - there is also a bunch of great history and folklore here that sets the movie apart from just another love story. Things are realistic too - from Tristan and Isolde's love to the fight scenes, to the characters - and I'm left with a big smile on my face at the end of the movie, despite the somewhat bittersweet ending.
Verdict:
See it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...King Arthur
...Troy
...Kingdom of Heaven
Summary:
The story that many say influenced Arthurian lore begins in the early Dark Ages, shortly after the end of Pax Romana where a weak Britain is mired in war as several clans jockey for control. The "good" one the movie focuses on, is Marke (Rufus Sewell), who tries to unite the country and defeat the rampaging Irish army led by their ferocious general, Morholt (Graham Mullins).
On one of these raids Morholt destroys the British, taking many slaves, and killing the parents of Tristan (James Franco), a young boy who Marke saves, although he loses his hand in the process. Years pass and Tristan grows into a great fighter who finally meets Morholt in battle. Although Tristan kills Morholt, Morholt's sword delivers a powerful blow that posions Tristan. Believing he is dead, Tristan's friends and fellow soldiers launch his funeral boat into the tide. The ship washes up on the shores of Ireland, where it is discovered by Isolde (Sophia Myles) who cares for the wounded Tristan. Isolde tells Tristan another name instead of her own, fearing he will realize she is the princess of Ireland. The two slowly fall ddeeply in love, but Tristan is forced to flee when his boat washes ashore. King Donnchadh (David O'Hara) decides that he will hold a contest for the hand of his daughter, Isolde, for whoever can win her - in an attempt to create a false peace with the British tribes. Each tribal leader sends a champion in their stead, and Tristan begs to go, hoping to see his love, unbeknownst to him that his love is the woman he will be winning for Marke.
Critique:
I loved this movie. I'm a sucker for action movies with good love stories, but this movie is advertised as the greatest love story of all time - and then the movie crams in a bunch of really good action scenes. And Franco shows us how he learned to act between Spiderman and Spiderman 3 - by making real movies instead of slacking like Tobey. Sophia Myles is great too - playing her role perfectly as a woman who is torn by the passion she feels for Tristan and the respect she has for Marke. Just as Tristan is distraught by the choice he has to make - loving Isolde or fulfilling his duty to Marke. Rufus Sewell turns in a great performance as Marke, creating compassion for a face I associate with the evil Armand from A Knight's Tale. Woven into the love story is more than just good fight scenes - there is also a bunch of great history and folklore here that sets the movie apart from just another love story. Things are realistic too - from Tristan and Isolde's love to the fight scenes, to the characters - and I'm left with a big smile on my face at the end of the movie, despite the somewhat bittersweet ending.
Verdict:
See it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...King Arthur
...Troy
...Kingdom of Heaven
Elephant...abandoning the ivory tower
Elephant - Gus Van Sant - 2003 - 8/10
Summary:
Elephant shows a normal day of high school from many different perspectives. We see students going in and out of class, the cafeteria, the gym, the library, the office, and more. The long shots and the unique camera angles combined with the "non actors" (what imdb refers to them as) gives the film a documentary feel. We see boyfriends and girlfriends, cliques, outcasts - everyone as they experience the day - often seeing the same shot from the eyes of those different characters. It keeps building and building, and you start to wonder what Van Sant has in store. Then you remember what you read on imdb - the movie is about a school shooting. And then you begin to fear what is coming.
Critique:
I thought this movie was really good. At the same time - it's really hard for me to write about the movie. Especially "summarizing" what happened. The movie was only eighty minutes and spends most of its time building characters and showing how ordinary they all. And then when they start dieing, you really care about these characters. I guess my biggest problem is that the shooters - the antagonists - get very little screen time. I won't be one of those people who want to know WHY they started shooting up the school - but I want to be one of those people who pushes for well developed characters all around. What else is there to say about a movie that tells the story of a school shooting? It was well done - excellently shot, and all of the characters are believable. The shooting itself is done right too - Van Sant recreates the fear students would have as two guys walk through the school shooting at anyone that moves. And Van Sant's showing multiple scenes over again from different viewpoints was really intense and lent a lot of depth to the movie.
Verdict:
If you can stomach it, sit down and watch it.
If you liked this movie, see...
...Brick
...Mean Creek
...Bowling for Columbine
Summary:
Elephant shows a normal day of high school from many different perspectives. We see students going in and out of class, the cafeteria, the gym, the library, the office, and more. The long shots and the unique camera angles combined with the "non actors" (what imdb refers to them as) gives the film a documentary feel. We see boyfriends and girlfriends, cliques, outcasts - everyone as they experience the day - often seeing the same shot from the eyes of those different characters. It keeps building and building, and you start to wonder what Van Sant has in store. Then you remember what you read on imdb - the movie is about a school shooting. And then you begin to fear what is coming.
Critique:
I thought this movie was really good. At the same time - it's really hard for me to write about the movie. Especially "summarizing" what happened. The movie was only eighty minutes and spends most of its time building characters and showing how ordinary they all. And then when they start dieing, you really care about these characters. I guess my biggest problem is that the shooters - the antagonists - get very little screen time. I won't be one of those people who want to know WHY they started shooting up the school - but I want to be one of those people who pushes for well developed characters all around. What else is there to say about a movie that tells the story of a school shooting? It was well done - excellently shot, and all of the characters are believable. The shooting itself is done right too - Van Sant recreates the fear students would have as two guys walk through the school shooting at anyone that moves. And Van Sant's showing multiple scenes over again from different viewpoints was really intense and lent a lot of depth to the movie.
Verdict:
If you can stomach it, sit down and watch it.
If you liked this movie, see...
...Brick
...Mean Creek
...Bowling for Columbine
The Dreamers...something to dream about
The Dreamers - Bernardo Bertolucci - 2003 - 9/10
Summary:
Matthew (Michael Pitt) is an American who finds himself in Paris in 1968. Despite the tumultous political landscape, Matthrew is absorbed in his studies and his intense love for the cinema. That is, until he meets Isabelle (Eva Green) at a rally and she insists he come with her and her brother Theo (Louis Garrel) to escape the Paris mob. Matthew goes with them and his life changes forever. Completely swept away and falling deeper into Isabelle, the siblings insist Matthew stay with them when their parents leave the country. The three become inseperable, sharing their love for movies and relishing their discussions on everything from movie directors to politics. But when Matthew starts looking through looking through closed doors, and Louis and Isabelle push Matthew's desire for Isabelle too far, Mathew has to deal with conflicts of love, jealousy, and friendship - then mix in some rebellious Frenchpeople and movie trivia and you have The Dreamers.
Critique:
I'd heard about this movie a long time ago when one of my friends blurted out that Eva Green had a nude scene in The Dreamers. And does she have a nude scene. In my defense - I watched the movie because it came highly recommended, not for the nudity - but once the nudity came, it was hard to think about much else. Once the movie crosses that threshold, it refuses to go back - when do they actually wear clothes? It took me a long time after watching the movie to realy appreciate how good this movie was - beyond its soft core nature featuring the Bond girl my friends would not stop raving about. One thing that stands out is how Betolucci integrates scenes from famous movies when the characters are talking about those scenes. Along with how the movie is shot, this splicing of classics gives the movie a surrealistic power that makes the movie memorable. Then you can talk about the powerful performances of the three actors. Michael Pitt is amazing as Mathew - his shattered innocence and clear cut principles of love, friendship, family and right and wrong are right on. Eva Green's confused carelessness - with her body and mond is equally great. Louis Garrel's Theo probably gets forgotten among American audiences who relate to Matthew, are attracted to Isabelle, and are repulsed by Theo - but that doesn't change the fact that Garrel is great. The movie is a deep look at not just leaving behind your innocence - but also an intense look at sexuality and the bonds of friendship. There isn't much else for me to rant about this movie - the only thing that prevented this movie from being a perfect ten is that the movie forgot to develop a linnear plot. But that's not really the movie's fault - it was a snapshot of life. And life, does not always have a straight path for us to follow.
Verdict:
Rent this one ASAP.
If you liked this movie, see...
...Y Tu Mama Tambien
...Last Tango in Paris
...The Motorcycle Diaries
Summary:
Matthew (Michael Pitt) is an American who finds himself in Paris in 1968. Despite the tumultous political landscape, Matthrew is absorbed in his studies and his intense love for the cinema. That is, until he meets Isabelle (Eva Green) at a rally and she insists he come with her and her brother Theo (Louis Garrel) to escape the Paris mob. Matthew goes with them and his life changes forever. Completely swept away and falling deeper into Isabelle, the siblings insist Matthew stay with them when their parents leave the country. The three become inseperable, sharing their love for movies and relishing their discussions on everything from movie directors to politics. But when Matthew starts looking through looking through closed doors, and Louis and Isabelle push Matthew's desire for Isabelle too far, Mathew has to deal with conflicts of love, jealousy, and friendship - then mix in some rebellious Frenchpeople and movie trivia and you have The Dreamers.
Critique:
I'd heard about this movie a long time ago when one of my friends blurted out that Eva Green had a nude scene in The Dreamers. And does she have a nude scene. In my defense - I watched the movie because it came highly recommended, not for the nudity - but once the nudity came, it was hard to think about much else. Once the movie crosses that threshold, it refuses to go back - when do they actually wear clothes? It took me a long time after watching the movie to realy appreciate how good this movie was - beyond its soft core nature featuring the Bond girl my friends would not stop raving about. One thing that stands out is how Betolucci integrates scenes from famous movies when the characters are talking about those scenes. Along with how the movie is shot, this splicing of classics gives the movie a surrealistic power that makes the movie memorable. Then you can talk about the powerful performances of the three actors. Michael Pitt is amazing as Mathew - his shattered innocence and clear cut principles of love, friendship, family and right and wrong are right on. Eva Green's confused carelessness - with her body and mond is equally great. Louis Garrel's Theo probably gets forgotten among American audiences who relate to Matthew, are attracted to Isabelle, and are repulsed by Theo - but that doesn't change the fact that Garrel is great. The movie is a deep look at not just leaving behind your innocence - but also an intense look at sexuality and the bonds of friendship. There isn't much else for me to rant about this movie - the only thing that prevented this movie from being a perfect ten is that the movie forgot to develop a linnear plot. But that's not really the movie's fault - it was a snapshot of life. And life, does not always have a straight path for us to follow.
Verdict:
Rent this one ASAP.
If you liked this movie, see...
...Y Tu Mama Tambien
...Last Tango in Paris
...The Motorcycle Diaries
Me And You And Everyone We Know...everything you could want
Me And You And Everyone We Know - Miranda July - 2005 - 9/10
Summary:
Richard Swersey (John Hawkes) is a shoe salesman who's life seems to be slipping away from him. His wife wants to separate and he struggles to raise his two boys (Miles Thompson and Brandon Ratcliff) while coping with the loss of the woman he thought was his soulmate. Into his life comes Christine Jesperson (Miranda July basically playing herself) an artist who decides she and Richard are meant to be together. Christine is outgoing and goes for what she wants, whether it is the publication of her work, or winning over Richard. Richard can't take Christine's forwardness and panics. Meanwhile, Richard's friend Andrew (Brad William Henke) tries to control his urges when two neighborhood teens (Natasha Slayton and Najarra Townswend) start aggressively flirting with him. When the girls aren't trying to get into Andrew's pants, they try to get into the pants of Richard's eldest son Peter (Miles Thompson). Not to be left behind in the sexual practice ground of their wild neighborhood, Richard's six year old son Robby (Brandon Ratcliff) engages in a quirky internet relationship with a perfect stranger.
Critique:
This whole movie is amazing - it looks good, feels good, and is frankly, really good.
Everything has the perfect tempo, and there is just enough indie movie and arthouse flavor with a small amount of romantic comedy to make the movie special. Each of the stories are so compelling - Richard's profound hurt at losing his soulmate, Christine's unrequitted love, and the kids using each other to learn their way in the world of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It's one of those movies where you can relate to ALL of the stories - each character is a protagonist in their own right. This unique aspect sets the movie apart and makes it one of the best movies I've seen this summer. July should be commended for working in her own sort of performance art and creating such a powerful story. I especially like how the two boys - in their childlike innocence chance upon drawing a picture, of which Peter explains to Robby that becomes the title of the movie - and somes up everything July wishes us to take away from the film. But for that, you have got to see the movie yourself.
Verdict:
See this movie NOW.
If you liked this movie, see...
...Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
...Broken Flowers
Summary:
Richard Swersey (John Hawkes) is a shoe salesman who's life seems to be slipping away from him. His wife wants to separate and he struggles to raise his two boys (Miles Thompson and Brandon Ratcliff) while coping with the loss of the woman he thought was his soulmate. Into his life comes Christine Jesperson (Miranda July basically playing herself) an artist who decides she and Richard are meant to be together. Christine is outgoing and goes for what she wants, whether it is the publication of her work, or winning over Richard. Richard can't take Christine's forwardness and panics. Meanwhile, Richard's friend Andrew (Brad William Henke) tries to control his urges when two neighborhood teens (Natasha Slayton and Najarra Townswend) start aggressively flirting with him. When the girls aren't trying to get into Andrew's pants, they try to get into the pants of Richard's eldest son Peter (Miles Thompson). Not to be left behind in the sexual practice ground of their wild neighborhood, Richard's six year old son Robby (Brandon Ratcliff) engages in a quirky internet relationship with a perfect stranger.
Critique:
This whole movie is amazing - it looks good, feels good, and is frankly, really good.
Everything has the perfect tempo, and there is just enough indie movie and arthouse flavor with a small amount of romantic comedy to make the movie special. Each of the stories are so compelling - Richard's profound hurt at losing his soulmate, Christine's unrequitted love, and the kids using each other to learn their way in the world of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It's one of those movies where you can relate to ALL of the stories - each character is a protagonist in their own right. This unique aspect sets the movie apart and makes it one of the best movies I've seen this summer. July should be commended for working in her own sort of performance art and creating such a powerful story. I especially like how the two boys - in their childlike innocence chance upon drawing a picture, of which Peter explains to Robby that becomes the title of the movie - and somes up everything July wishes us to take away from the film. But for that, you have got to see the movie yourself.Verdict:
See this movie NOW.
If you liked this movie, see...
...Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
...Broken Flowers
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Chuck and Larry...pretty hairy
We’ve all seen the preview, so we know that Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James) are two firefighters who get married so they can get couples benefits. Larry is paranoid about dieing because due to an insurance quirk, he can’t make his kids his beneficiaries. When Larry saves Chuck’s life and Chuck promises to do anything for him, Larry thinks that means getting hitched. Frankly, there isn’t much more to the movie.
Finish reading this article at SaltyStix.
Finish reading this article at SaltyStix.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Poor Previews
I went to the new movie theatre this weekend to see an over-hyped, disappointing movie (Ratatouille), which I’m not going to talk about. Instead I’m going to talk about the only thing worse than the movie – the previews. Previously, I wrote an article about how previews gave away too much of the movies, which dissuaded me from seeing them. This batch of previews dissuaded me from seeing the movie because they were so miserable.
Finish reading this article at SaltyStix.
Finish reading this article at SaltyStix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
