Thank you!
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
DANCER IN THE DARK (2000)
DIRECTOR: Lars von Trier
STARRING: Björk, Catherine Deneuve, David Morse
This has been on my “to see” list for a while. I highly admire Björk and am mildly familiar with von Trier’s unique work (i.e. Dogville), so I had the mind to expect something unexpected, considering the two creative forces at work here. When I finally did sit down to watch it I experienced something troubling, beautiful, and moving — and if it is true that von Trier’s domineering directing approach is responsible for Björk refusing to ever act again, well, then he should be ashamed of himself.
Dancer in the Dark follows a Czechoslovakian woman named Selma (Björk) who has come to live in America with her young son, Gene. An avid fan of American musicals, Selma lives an internal life of song and dance, often drifting into daydreams involving musical numbers whenever she gets bored at her tedious job at a factory. Her sweet, but sometimes naïve, nature has gained her the friendships of those around her, including her coworker Kathy (Deneuve) and local policeman Bill (Morse), who has allowed her to live in a trailer on his property. However, Selma’s optimistic exterior hides a secret: she’s quickly going blind due to a genetic disease, and is desperately saving every penny she earns to pay for an operation which can spare her son from the same fate.
This was a difficult film to watch. Aesthetically it is not what any mainstream film viewer would be used to, as it’s mostly shot on a low-grade handheld camera with very little editing. I believe that is a technique that should only be reserved for certain films, and this happens to be one of them. In addition to the tough events occurring onscreen, the audience gets to experience it like they are sitting in the room with Selma — there isn’t much to keep us at a distance and so we can’t help but feel what she does.
What truly makes the film, however, is Björk. I’ve always appreciated her as a creative force, even if her music is sometimes inaccessible, and as Selma she truly proved herself in every way. Naturally her musical performances were wonderful, but it’s her moments of quiet, understated drama that truly pull you in. Her innate goodness and childlike sense of wonder was beautiful, as she refused to let the disappointing realities of life get to her. This was her movie.
In my opinion, Dancer in the Dark is a film about hope. It is sometimes bleak, sometimes devastatingly tragic, but even at the darkest moment of her life Selma still sings out her hope for something good. Although Mr. von Trier may have been going for the angle that America is an evil place for the innocent, I still choose to see it in a positive light, thanks to Björk’s magical performance.
FINAL GRADE: B+
Thursday, July 15, 2010
TEETH (2007)
DIRECTOR: Mitchell LichtensteinSTARRING: Jess Weixler, John Hensley
In spite of my feminist tendencies I bear no ill will toward the male sex. Most of the time I like them just fine. That being said, however, Teeth has got to be one of the most satisfying — albeit disgusting — pieces of filmmaking I’ve seen in recent memory. What that says about me, I don’t know, but we can overlook that for now.
Teeth tells the story of Dawn O’Keefe (Weixler), the embodiment of every parent’s dream: she’s sweet, pretty, and an advocate for her school’s abstinence group. But even as she proudly wears her promise ring, Dawn’s budding sexuality is beginning to overshadow everything she clings to — that is, a deep fear of her body and womanhood. To make matters worse, her waste-of-space stepbrother Brad (Hensley) is harboring a lifelong “love” for her, and every teenage boy (or man, for that matter) she comes into contact with seems to want a sweet little piece of her. It isn’t until she discovers a secret weapon between her legs that Dawn begins to understand that she may have the upper hand.
This is a film that probably pissed a lot of men off. I can just imagine guys sitting in the theatre, shrinking down in their seats and clinging to their junk as they witness the images on the screen. That aspect is what made this so good: guts. I haven’t seen many films that are so daring to go to that edge where people could only be disgusted, only be uncomfortable. We aren’t supposed to talk about female sexuality or vengeance, unless it’s in a familiar context. Teeth, however, hits them right where it hurts. You can guess where exactly.
In addition to its statement about violence against women, Teeth’s strength and genuineness (I guess you could say) lies in its understanding of where that violence stems from. There is a brilliant scene where Dawn sits through a sex ed class, first learning in detail about the penis from a diagram in her textbook; when she turns her page, however, there is a big sticker covering the vagina diagram and the teacher can’t even say the word. We are taught that women are scary, and fear can only breed violence and disrespect. The film, of course, takes it to the extreme by saying that yes, we are scary—imagine what we’re packing in there!
I applaud this film. Heavily. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you.
FINAL GRADE: A-
In spite of my feminist tendencies I bear no ill will toward the male sex. Most of the time I like them just fine. That being said, however, Teeth has got to be one of the most satisfying — albeit disgusting — pieces of filmmaking I’ve seen in recent memory. What that says about me, I don’t know, but we can overlook that for now.
Teeth tells the story of Dawn O’Keefe (Weixler), the embodiment of every parent’s dream: she’s sweet, pretty, and an advocate for her school’s abstinence group. But even as she proudly wears her promise ring, Dawn’s budding sexuality is beginning to overshadow everything she clings to — that is, a deep fear of her body and womanhood. To make matters worse, her waste-of-space stepbrother Brad (Hensley) is harboring a lifelong “love” for her, and every teenage boy (or man, for that matter) she comes into contact with seems to want a sweet little piece of her. It isn’t until she discovers a secret weapon between her legs that Dawn begins to understand that she may have the upper hand.
This is a film that probably pissed a lot of men off. I can just imagine guys sitting in the theatre, shrinking down in their seats and clinging to their junk as they witness the images on the screen. That aspect is what made this so good: guts. I haven’t seen many films that are so daring to go to that edge where people could only be disgusted, only be uncomfortable. We aren’t supposed to talk about female sexuality or vengeance, unless it’s in a familiar context. Teeth, however, hits them right where it hurts. You can guess where exactly.
In addition to its statement about violence against women, Teeth’s strength and genuineness (I guess you could say) lies in its understanding of where that violence stems from. There is a brilliant scene where Dawn sits through a sex ed class, first learning in detail about the penis from a diagram in her textbook; when she turns her page, however, there is a big sticker covering the vagina diagram and the teacher can’t even say the word. We are taught that women are scary, and fear can only breed violence and disrespect. The film, of course, takes it to the extreme by saying that yes, we are scary—imagine what we’re packing in there!
I applaud this film. Heavily. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you.
FINAL GRADE: A-
Thursday, July 1, 2010
THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE (2010)
DIRECTOR: David SladeSTARRING: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner
I’m going to admit something I’m not very proud of: when I first started reading the Twilight books, I ate them up. I loved ’em. Studying for my finals became a distant second to consuming them within a two-week period and I thought Rob Pattinson was a fox. Since then I’ve become a feminist and graduated with a degree in English and writing, so you can imagine how deep my shame runs. That being said, I’m well aware that liking these books is only okay as long as you don’t take them seriously, and I also want to point out the fact that I thought vampires were sexy way back in middle school when I discovered Anne Rice’s Lestat — does that give me any credibility at all?
Anyway, back to the movie.
Eclipse is the third installment of the series, following Bella (Stewart) and her intensely co-dependent relationship with stud vampire Edward (Pattinson). They’ve gone through a lot together — other vampires desperately wanting to eat her, Edward nearly committing suicide in Italy because of a little misunderstanding, and the like. Recently, however, what Bella is really having a hard time with is the fact that in spite of her all-consuming love for Edward, she also is in love with her werewolf friend Jacob (Lautner). To make matters worse, Edward and Jacob don’t get along, not only because they’re in competition but also because they are natural enemies. And, on top of everything, Victoria (a.k.a. hot evil redhead vamp) is still on Bella’s trail, determined to kill her as revenge against Edward. Needless to say, Edward and Jacob may have to get along for the safety of their delicate ladylove...
Let me be honest here. I know these movies are crap — anybody who actually believes otherwise is in denial. However, I have to commend Eclipse for being a considerably higher grade of crap than the first two. There aren’t nearly as many cringe-worthy moments, no music-video-esque slow motion montages, and the sexual tension and romance going on actually feels somewhat genuine. I would like to believe that Kristen Stewart has the potential to be a good actress (see my review for The Runaways) and it seems that as Bella she is gradually evolving past the obnoxious, stuttering mess that I can’t stand. Her character seems to be slowly sneaking towards having a spine. Of course, Rob Pattinson is still pretty and bland, sleepwalking through what could have been an interesting role, but I won’t hold that against him (but please, can’t he tweeze just a bit?).
I guess I have to say that I was actually a little bit impressed. Not impressed in that it was a good movie, but that it was a better one. It managed to improve in a lot of ways. Let’s just say I’m extremely curious to see how they pull off movie #4 — anyone who’s read it knows exactly what I’m talking about.
FINAL GRADE: C+
Thursday, June 10, 2010
SPLICE (2010)
DIRECTOR: Vincenzo NataliSTARRING: Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley, Delphine Chanéac
Anyone who’s seen the film Cube would probably understand why the prospect of seeing this film was exciting. Also directed by Vincenzo Natali, Cube struck me as a disturbing examination of how people react under extreme circumstances. I haven’t heard of the director since Splice came around, and since then I’ve been looking forward to seeing what he had up his sleeve. I am pleased to say that my expectations were met.
Splice follows two young scientists, Clive (Brody) and Elsa (Polley). The couple has recently found success and notoriety from their work with splicing the DNA of different species to create new species, hoping to find medical breakthroughs by studying their genetic makeup. Having already created Fred and Ginger, a pair of weird pig hybrids, they want to take the next scientific step by splicing human DNA — the reason, of course, being to find cures to cancer, Alzheimer’s, and so on. Their superiors, however, aren’t interested in taking the ethical risk, and instead want to focus on making a profit via Fred and Ginger. Being the insatiable scientists that they are, Elsa and Clive won’t take no for an answer, and they secretly begin their own experiment. The result is Dren (Chanéac), a beautiful and strange creature who ends up pushing her creators to more than one limit.
The story here isn’t necessarily original and, unfortunately, could have used some tightening — as could the script. There were a few moments where the characters stumbled upon a few clichéd lines, and Elsa’s traumatic back-story felt a little too contrived at times. But as far as gripes go, that is about all I’ve got.
The rest of the film really fulfilled what I’d hoped it would be. The trailer marketed it as a jump-out-of-your-seat thrill ride, but, thank God, it wasn’t. It was disturbing on an emotional level, which is quite hard for a film of this genre to pull off. The magic lies entirely in Dren: one of the most memorable characters I’ve seen in a long time whom turns out to be more human than the actual humans. She manages to bring up a lot issues that aren’t often addressed in science fiction films — parenting, ownership, control, sexuality, freedom, and, of course, ethics! Morality! Whether or not we have the right to play God and then patent it. Wonderful things to think about, though part of me wonders if audiences would rather just see the monster go haywire and try to kill everyone. So, in that regard, perhaps this isn’t for everyone. Keep in mind that it’s more of a cautionary/morality tale than a thriller.All in all, I was satisfied. Not blown out of my seat, not mesmerized, but an impact was definitely made. It may not be for everyone, but those who go with an open mind may find a worthwhile experience.
FINAL GRADE: B
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
FROM HELL (2001)
DIRECTORS: Albert Hughes, Allen HughesSTARRING: Johnny Depp, Heather Graham
Given my admiration of Johnny Depp and unhealthy fascination with serial killers, I figured this film would be a perfect fit for me. On paper, it appeared it would be. Unfortunately I ended up fast-forwarding through the most of the second half, just to get to the finale. That doesn’t exactly speak well for good filmmaking, now, does it?
From Hell tells the story of the events surrounding the murders of Jack the Ripper, taking place in the poverty-stricken Whitechapel district of London in the late 1800’s. Someone is out there butchering prostitutes in the most gruesome manner imaginable, and it’s up to Inspector Frederick Abberline (Depp) to solve the case. Not only is he heavily addicted to opium, but Abberline also has some clever skills to aid him in his investigation: he is clairvoyant, often receiving visions of the victims before they’re killed. As he continues to gather clues and put pieces together, he eventually seeks the assistance of Mary Kelly (Graham), a hooker who is part of the victims’ circle. Naturally, the two of them begin to develop a romance, even as it becomes clear that Mary is likely on the killer’s hit list.
I think my problem in watching this film was the fact that I was probably expecting an historical thriller — you know, factually based. That really was not the idea behind From Hell. Yes, the historical facts behind the Jack the Ripper case were certainly the foundation of the story, but not by any means essential. Even though the case itself is unsolved the filmmakers felt it necessary not to leave anything open-ended, fitting on a contrived ending and explanation to the mystery. The result was a surprisingly boring film — boring enough to fast forward through and not miss much.
As far as performances go, I’m beginning to realize that although Johnny Depp is a phenomenal actor when given the right roles, he isn’t very good at playing characters that are fairly straight. As Abberline, he sort of deadpans his way through his scene — not in a dry, humorous way, but just flat. Even his affection for Mary doesn’t have a lot of energy behind it. It almost seems that in order to make the character interesting he had to become a clairvoyant, a trait that made absolutely no significant impact on the story and, frankly, felt out of place. Heather Graham as Mary Kelly, on the other hand, didn’t do too horribly, but like Depp she didn’t really put much into her role. Most of the time I was just distracted by her horrifically-dyed red hair, the shade of which could never be natural on any human, and was therefore just one more piece that didn’t fit into the whole picture.
Needless to say I was disappointed. I didn’t expect anything fantastic but I did expect something watchable — which, honestly, this wasn’t. It just seemed lazy and poorly executed. Don’t waste your time.
FINAL GRADE: C
Saturday, May 29, 2010
R.I.P. Dennis Hopper (1936-2010)
Dennis Hopper died today of complications from prostate cancer. Definitely a bummer, but he was 74 so I think he had a good go of it. Hats off to you, Mr. Hopper. Rest in peace. Everyone go watch Blue Velvet or Easy Rider or Speed or other movies of his that I can't think of right now.Friday, May 28, 2010
SEX AND THE CITY 2 (2010)
DIRECTOR: Michael Patrick KingSTARRING: Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon
First and foremost let me say that I am a fan of the original show. I’ve enjoyed it in its entirety, so I have earned any shots that I take at this movie. I’ll admit that going into this I knew it would be bad, considering the mess the first one was, but I didn’t know how many shades of bad it would be. While it wasn’t quite as frustrating as the first one, this was just a little more pointless, a little more ridiculous, and — believe it or not — a lot more offensive.
In Sex and the City 2, two years have gone by since Carrie (Parker) married Big, the love of her life. She is already finding herself sinking into a sparkle-free marriage funk, lamenting over what she perceives as monotony. In Carrie-world, this spells doom. Meanwhile, Charlotte (Davis) is dealing with the stressful realities of raising two young daughters; Miranda (Nixon) is having trouble balancing her job and family life; and good ole’ Samantha (Cattrall) is battling off menopause. Clearly, the girls need a getaway. Where better to go than the “New” Middle East?
As you may have been able to guess by now, there is little to no plot to speak of here. This movie is essentially an excuse to relocate the girls to a “fabulous” new location and see what shenanigans they can get into. The miracle is the fact that they manage to stretch it out over a two and a half hour running time. Theoretically that should be comparable to spending a fun afternoon watching episodes of the show, but it’s much less tolerable. In the show, everything is quick, quick, quick — there are no shots of the girls walking down the sidewalk just to showcase their outfits, and the scenes are smart enough to follow a common thread. In the movie, on the other hand, the only priority is how many designer labels they can pack into two hours.
This brings me to another problem. What made the show so enjoyable was the fact that it was so easy to relate to the characters: “You’re such a Miranda!” “I do that sometimes, too!” Each of them is unique and, in a way, they each represent a different facet of modern femininity. The tragedy about the movies is that the characters have become completely glossed over. I can’t help but wonder (ooh, a Carrie-ism!) if the director thought that because they would be on a larger screen they had to become larger characters, therefore transforming them into cartoonish versions of themselves. Charlotte won’t stop shrieking with glee, Samantha has to crack a lame joke in every scene she’s in — even Big has become an annoying exaggeration of himself! Need I go on? I swear I wanted to throttle every one of them.
Now for my biggest gripe. I didn’t know it was possible to be genuinely offended by a movie like this, but as it turns out, it is. As the movie struggled to try to carry on the show’s original pseudo-feminist edge (which, I admit, was groundbreaking at the time), it seemed to forget that there is a world outside of NYC and, yes, America. And, the fact of the matter is, most of that outside world dislikes us. Watch this movie and you’ll see a pretty decent reason why. It astounds me that a film that should be so innocent could be so culturally disrespectful. I won’t go into any details so as not to spoil you viewers, but it involves Samantha in the middle of a crowd of Arab men — not to mention, the frequent mentions of the burqa, which was so unbelievably ethnocentric that eventually I just had to tune it out. (That doesn’t mean I’m pro-burqa, I’m just pro-sensitivity.) The underlying message they were going for, of course, was that all women are essentially the same — part of one big international sisterhood. That’s nice, but not when what comes across is that all women are the same as women here, even under those oppressive burqas.
I probably don’t need to outright say that this sucked. It did. If you’re a fan of the show you still might enjoy it, but not if you’re a recently converted feminist and an admirer of, you know, good films.
FINAL GRADE: C-
First and foremost let me say that I am a fan of the original show. I’ve enjoyed it in its entirety, so I have earned any shots that I take at this movie. I’ll admit that going into this I knew it would be bad, considering the mess the first one was, but I didn’t know how many shades of bad it would be. While it wasn’t quite as frustrating as the first one, this was just a little more pointless, a little more ridiculous, and — believe it or not — a lot more offensive.
In Sex and the City 2, two years have gone by since Carrie (Parker) married Big, the love of her life. She is already finding herself sinking into a sparkle-free marriage funk, lamenting over what she perceives as monotony. In Carrie-world, this spells doom. Meanwhile, Charlotte (Davis) is dealing with the stressful realities of raising two young daughters; Miranda (Nixon) is having trouble balancing her job and family life; and good ole’ Samantha (Cattrall) is battling off menopause. Clearly, the girls need a getaway. Where better to go than the “New” Middle East?
As you may have been able to guess by now, there is little to no plot to speak of here. This movie is essentially an excuse to relocate the girls to a “fabulous” new location and see what shenanigans they can get into. The miracle is the fact that they manage to stretch it out over a two and a half hour running time. Theoretically that should be comparable to spending a fun afternoon watching episodes of the show, but it’s much less tolerable. In the show, everything is quick, quick, quick — there are no shots of the girls walking down the sidewalk just to showcase their outfits, and the scenes are smart enough to follow a common thread. In the movie, on the other hand, the only priority is how many designer labels they can pack into two hours.
This brings me to another problem. What made the show so enjoyable was the fact that it was so easy to relate to the characters: “You’re such a Miranda!” “I do that sometimes, too!” Each of them is unique and, in a way, they each represent a different facet of modern femininity. The tragedy about the movies is that the characters have become completely glossed over. I can’t help but wonder (ooh, a Carrie-ism!) if the director thought that because they would be on a larger screen they had to become larger characters, therefore transforming them into cartoonish versions of themselves. Charlotte won’t stop shrieking with glee, Samantha has to crack a lame joke in every scene she’s in — even Big has become an annoying exaggeration of himself! Need I go on? I swear I wanted to throttle every one of them.
Now for my biggest gripe. I didn’t know it was possible to be genuinely offended by a movie like this, but as it turns out, it is. As the movie struggled to try to carry on the show’s original pseudo-feminist edge (which, I admit, was groundbreaking at the time), it seemed to forget that there is a world outside of NYC and, yes, America. And, the fact of the matter is, most of that outside world dislikes us. Watch this movie and you’ll see a pretty decent reason why. It astounds me that a film that should be so innocent could be so culturally disrespectful. I won’t go into any details so as not to spoil you viewers, but it involves Samantha in the middle of a crowd of Arab men — not to mention, the frequent mentions of the burqa, which was so unbelievably ethnocentric that eventually I just had to tune it out. (That doesn’t mean I’m pro-burqa, I’m just pro-sensitivity.) The underlying message they were going for, of course, was that all women are essentially the same — part of one big international sisterhood. That’s nice, but not when what comes across is that all women are the same as women here, even under those oppressive burqas.
I probably don’t need to outright say that this sucked. It did. If you’re a fan of the show you still might enjoy it, but not if you’re a recently converted feminist and an admirer of, you know, good films.
FINAL GRADE: C-
Monday, May 17, 2010
IRON MAN 2 (2010)
DIRECTOR: Jon FavreauSTARRING: Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke
This was one of those movies that I felt obligated to see. Even though I wasn’t wildly impressed with the first Iron Man it was entertaining enough, so I figured this would be a decent way to spend my Saturday night. Besides, I usually like RDJ and, frankly, I’m always up for a little Scarlett Johansson action. Between the two of them there isn’t much to complain about. The rest of the movie, however, left plenty to complain about.
Iron Man 2 picks up where the first one left off. Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) a.k.a. Iron Man is busy trying to clean up the mess of revealing to the world his superhero alter ego; the government wants to confiscate his Iron Man suit/weapon, and the substance keeping him alive is also slowly poisoning him. Meanwhile, he’s also got the rest of the world struggling to keep up with his incredible technological advances. Unbeknownst to him, however, Ivan Vanko (Rourke) a.k.a. Whiplash is off in Russia cooking up a suit/weapon of his own, harboring a festering wrath for Tony and planning to take him down. Clearly, Tony’s got a lot on his plate — can he pull it all together in time to save himself and the world?!
Forgive my blatant facetiousness there. I guess there was a lot about this movie that bothered me. Yes, RDJ was charming; yes, Scarlett Jo was as foxy as ever; and yes, there were plenty of fight scenes and explosions. So, you ask, how could I be disappointed? Maybe it’s because I fall into the small percentage of the film-watching population that is actually bored by explosions. I’m tired of the action movie clichés; I’m tired of the arrogant hero, the spineless love interest, the morality-free rival, the revenge-driven villain, the noble sidekick… I could go on and on. Haven’t we seen these caricatures enough? Do we really need another film that reinforces the idea that men are worthy of iron suits while women can’t even handle being a CEO for a week? (Sorry, I just converted to feminism.)
I don’t really have a lot more to say. Even though this was only a two-hour movie, which isn’t that bad, I was bored to death halfway through. And, honestly, I’d like to see a little more versatility in RDJ’s roles. We get that he’s witty and charming. What else has he got up his sleeve? Anyway, I think I’ll pass on Iron Man 3. I can get by without it.
FINAL GRADE: C
THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2009)
DIRECTOR: Niels Arden OplevSTARRING: Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace
So, apparently these books upon which this film and its sequels are based are the latest craze to hit the literary world. I haven’t had the time to pick them up myself, but after seeing this film they’ve been elevated to the top of my to-read list, in hopes of catching up by the time movie #2 (The Girl Who Played With Fire) gets released in the States. This is a Swedish film that strongly proves to me that Europeans know what the hell they’re doing when it comes to subtlety and intelligence. I’m curious to see how the American remake measures up...
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo begins by following a disgraced reporter named Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist). While waiting to serve a short prison sentence for trying to expose a corrupt politician, he is approached by Henrik Vanger, a wealthy old man who hires Blomkvist to solve the decades-old disappearance of his niece, Harriet. As Blomkvist begins to look into the mystery, he eventually joins forces with Lisbeth Salander (Rapace), a brilliant hacker and the girl mentioned in the title; she is perhaps more of a mystery herself than Harriet Vanger’s disappearance.
I’ll leave it at that, seeing as the plot and characters’ backgrounds get fairly complex. The interesting thing about this film is that before Americans got ahold of these books and marketed them here, this was originally titled Men Who Hate Women. While it’s certainly not a poetic title, it probably lends itself to the story’s purpose better than the new title. This is not about Blomkvist and his own work, or even his efforts to solve the case; it is about women. It’s about Lisbeth and the violence she has endured; or the horrors that Harriet may or may not have suffered; or, without revealing too much, about the victims Blomkvist and Lisbeth discover along the way. This is a film that, if you so choose to see it, should be looked at as more than just a murder mystery. It’s an example of something I’ve talked about before: the ability of a film to have an underlying statement without beating it into the audience’s head. Everything is there, but even without it, the film works. It’s a skillful accomplishment.
As far as technicalities go, everything one would hope would be in a European film is here. It knows when to be subtle and it certainly knows when to not shy away. I will say that this isn’t really for the delicate viewer; there is one scene in particular that even horrified me, and that’s difficult to pull off. What I most appreciated, however, was the casting of Lisbeth. Even though I haven’t read the book yet I knew she was perfect: androgynous, sexy without being sexualized, and chillingly calculating. Bravo, Ms. Rapace!
Bottom line: so good that I’m nervous about the remake. Even though David Fincher (of Se7en and Fight Club) is directing it, I’m worried that we Americans will miss the point entirely. I feel it’s too important a point to overlook. So… go see it!
FINAL GRADE: A-
So, apparently these books upon which this film and its sequels are based are the latest craze to hit the literary world. I haven’t had the time to pick them up myself, but after seeing this film they’ve been elevated to the top of my to-read list, in hopes of catching up by the time movie #2 (The Girl Who Played With Fire) gets released in the States. This is a Swedish film that strongly proves to me that Europeans know what the hell they’re doing when it comes to subtlety and intelligence. I’m curious to see how the American remake measures up...
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo begins by following a disgraced reporter named Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist). While waiting to serve a short prison sentence for trying to expose a corrupt politician, he is approached by Henrik Vanger, a wealthy old man who hires Blomkvist to solve the decades-old disappearance of his niece, Harriet. As Blomkvist begins to look into the mystery, he eventually joins forces with Lisbeth Salander (Rapace), a brilliant hacker and the girl mentioned in the title; she is perhaps more of a mystery herself than Harriet Vanger’s disappearance.
I’ll leave it at that, seeing as the plot and characters’ backgrounds get fairly complex. The interesting thing about this film is that before Americans got ahold of these books and marketed them here, this was originally titled Men Who Hate Women. While it’s certainly not a poetic title, it probably lends itself to the story’s purpose better than the new title. This is not about Blomkvist and his own work, or even his efforts to solve the case; it is about women. It’s about Lisbeth and the violence she has endured; or the horrors that Harriet may or may not have suffered; or, without revealing too much, about the victims Blomkvist and Lisbeth discover along the way. This is a film that, if you so choose to see it, should be looked at as more than just a murder mystery. It’s an example of something I’ve talked about before: the ability of a film to have an underlying statement without beating it into the audience’s head. Everything is there, but even without it, the film works. It’s a skillful accomplishment.
As far as technicalities go, everything one would hope would be in a European film is here. It knows when to be subtle and it certainly knows when to not shy away. I will say that this isn’t really for the delicate viewer; there is one scene in particular that even horrified me, and that’s difficult to pull off. What I most appreciated, however, was the casting of Lisbeth. Even though I haven’t read the book yet I knew she was perfect: androgynous, sexy without being sexualized, and chillingly calculating. Bravo, Ms. Rapace!
Bottom line: so good that I’m nervous about the remake. Even though David Fincher (of Se7en and Fight Club) is directing it, I’m worried that we Americans will miss the point entirely. I feel it’s too important a point to overlook. So… go see it!
FINAL GRADE: A-
Thursday, April 22, 2010
THE PROPOSITION (2005)
DIRECTOR: John HillcoatSTARRING: Guy Pearce, Ray Winstone
My deep love and admiration for Nick Cave (of Bad Seeds notoriety) brought me to the discovery of this film. Aside from being a brilliant musician Mr. Cave also has tried his hand at the writing of screenplays and film scores. The Proposition is the result of his efforts, and an impressive one at that.
The Proposition is a western set in the desolate outback of Australia, sometime during the 1880’s. The Burns brothers are at the centre of the story: Charlie (Pearce), Arthur, and the young Mikey, the three of whom are wanted for the murder of the Hopkins family, including the rape of the pregnant wife. The police soon catch up with Charlie and Mikey, but are left alive when police captain Stanley (Winstone) proposes Charlie a deal: kill his violent older brother (who was likely the brains behind the Hopkins’ attack) and he and Mikey can go free. Charlie reluctantly accepts and enters the desert in search of his brother, all the while trying to deal with the guilt and the consequences of the life and his brothers have led.
I’m no fan of westerns, but perhaps I was just never into the American cowboy mystique. The Proposition is entirely different and yet probably truer to the genre than anything I’ve seen: these men are violent creatures trying to survive in a time of hardship, and surviving the land alone is a tough enough feat. You can feel the sand, the sweat, the blood, and everything the Aussie outback is made of — Mr. Cave does nothing to romanticize the environment, nor does he shy away from the reality of it. In the world that the audience is presented, violence is an ugly thing, yet still innate and inescapable.
As far as performances go, each actor seems to portray their character to perfection: Guy Pearce, who you may recognize from Memento or LA Confidential, is very much at the centre as a man whose guilt and violent capabilities remains questionable. As Captain Stanley, Ray Winstone provides the film some compassion and humanity, trying to spare his delicate wife (played beautifully by Emily Watson) the harsh realities of life, claiming that he will “civilize this land.”
The bottom line: this was a brilliant film. As in my case, you don’t have to be a western fan to enjoy it, but if you are then you’ll certainly appreciate the grittiness and honesty Mr. Cave provides to the genre. Not necessarily for the weak-stomached, but worth the effort in the end.
FINAL GRADE: A-
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
THE RUNAWAYS (2010)
DIRECTOR: Floria SigismondiSTARRING: Dakota Fanning, Kristen Stewart
This was the sort of film that I assumed would be unremarkable except for the performances of its stars. Most music biopics follow generally the same plot, and this one was no exception. It did, however, prep Dakota Fanning for her transition into becoming grown-up actor, and prove that Kristen Stewart is capable of acting without stammering her lines and gnawing her lip off (as seen in Twilight). Who would have thought?
The Runaways begins in 1975, when fifteen-year-old Cherie Currie (Fanning) is working a dead-end job at the local Pup n’ Fries with her responsible twin sister, Marie. To escape having to deal with a narcissistic mother and an alcoholic father, Cherie begins her descent into rebellion by chopping off her hair and painting her face Bowie style. Meanwhile, Joan Jett (Stewart) is trying to make her dreams of rock n’ roll a reality by meeting with record producer Kim Fowley, an eccentric man who loves her idea for an all-girl rock band but feels there’s something missing — he wants a Brigitte Bardot type for the lead. Enter Cherie, and the ball gets rolling faster than the girls could have imagined.
What makes The Runaways a good film is that it really gives the audience a look into a different time, showing the 70’s for what it was. The costumes are dead-on and the soundtrack is brilliant (albeit mostly lifted from one of my favorite films, Velvet Goldmine). We are able to get the sense of these girls throwing themselves into this business without understanding the consequences. From the beginning they are practically set up to self-destruct; Fowley sees the girls as commodities, and he only recognizes them according to how they fit the bill: Cherie is the jailbait, Joan is the ass-kicker, and the wilder they get the better they will sell. Any sense of responsibility is thrown out the window in favor of a lifestyle none of them are ready for or can even handle.
The leads were fairly remarkable in capturing the truth of their roles, getting down their mannerisms and attitudes to a tee. All throughout the film I couldn’t help but feel awkward watching Dakota Fanning strut around in next to nothing and put herself out there — what happened to the cute little girl from I Am Sam? Still, there seemed to be no hesitation on her part, especially during scenes that were particularly inappropriate for a girl her age. As mentioned above, Kristen Stewart was Joan Jett, but a version of her that I didn’t expect: along with the hard-edged attitude was dedication and vulnerability. She seemed to be the heart and soul of the band, since she was the only one truly invested in the desire to make music and live rock n’ roll.
I was generally impressed with The Runaways, more than I expected to be. I knew it could either be very good or absolutely dismal, and I’m happy to say it was the former. Not necessarily a new or unique take on the musician biopic genre, but still a great effort from Floria Sigismondi, whose previous work mostly includes music videos (such as Marilyn Manson’s The Beautiful People). Unfortunately my viewing experience was disrupted by a woman who thought that everything was hysterically, laugh-out-loud funny when it wasn’t; but maybe you will get lucky and be able to appreciate it for what it is.
FINAL GRADE: B+
This was the sort of film that I assumed would be unremarkable except for the performances of its stars. Most music biopics follow generally the same plot, and this one was no exception. It did, however, prep Dakota Fanning for her transition into becoming grown-up actor, and prove that Kristen Stewart is capable of acting without stammering her lines and gnawing her lip off (as seen in Twilight). Who would have thought?
The Runaways begins in 1975, when fifteen-year-old Cherie Currie (Fanning) is working a dead-end job at the local Pup n’ Fries with her responsible twin sister, Marie. To escape having to deal with a narcissistic mother and an alcoholic father, Cherie begins her descent into rebellion by chopping off her hair and painting her face Bowie style. Meanwhile, Joan Jett (Stewart) is trying to make her dreams of rock n’ roll a reality by meeting with record producer Kim Fowley, an eccentric man who loves her idea for an all-girl rock band but feels there’s something missing — he wants a Brigitte Bardot type for the lead. Enter Cherie, and the ball gets rolling faster than the girls could have imagined.
What makes The Runaways a good film is that it really gives the audience a look into a different time, showing the 70’s for what it was. The costumes are dead-on and the soundtrack is brilliant (albeit mostly lifted from one of my favorite films, Velvet Goldmine). We are able to get the sense of these girls throwing themselves into this business without understanding the consequences. From the beginning they are practically set up to self-destruct; Fowley sees the girls as commodities, and he only recognizes them according to how they fit the bill: Cherie is the jailbait, Joan is the ass-kicker, and the wilder they get the better they will sell. Any sense of responsibility is thrown out the window in favor of a lifestyle none of them are ready for or can even handle.
The leads were fairly remarkable in capturing the truth of their roles, getting down their mannerisms and attitudes to a tee. All throughout the film I couldn’t help but feel awkward watching Dakota Fanning strut around in next to nothing and put herself out there — what happened to the cute little girl from I Am Sam? Still, there seemed to be no hesitation on her part, especially during scenes that were particularly inappropriate for a girl her age. As mentioned above, Kristen Stewart was Joan Jett, but a version of her that I didn’t expect: along with the hard-edged attitude was dedication and vulnerability. She seemed to be the heart and soul of the band, since she was the only one truly invested in the desire to make music and live rock n’ roll.
I was generally impressed with The Runaways, more than I expected to be. I knew it could either be very good or absolutely dismal, and I’m happy to say it was the former. Not necessarily a new or unique take on the musician biopic genre, but still a great effort from Floria Sigismondi, whose previous work mostly includes music videos (such as Marilyn Manson’s The Beautiful People). Unfortunately my viewing experience was disrupted by a woman who thought that everything was hysterically, laugh-out-loud funny when it wasn’t; but maybe you will get lucky and be able to appreciate it for what it is.
FINAL GRADE: B+
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
LAYER CAKE (2004)
DIRECTOR: Matthew VaughnSTARRING: Daniel Craig, Sienna Miller, Ben Whishaw
I’ll admit it: I was initially drawn to this film because Ben Whishaw has a small role in it. I know, I know — I’m a broken record. Upon looking further into it I discovered that it appeared to be a unique take on the British gangster genre (i.e. Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels). Although it isn’t typically a type of film that I’d be interested in, but I decided to dive in anyway.
Layer Cake is focused upon a nameless cocaine dealer (Craig) who informs the audience straightaway that he is “not a gangster but a businessman whose commodity happens to be cocaine.” He hates guns and cares nothing for the glory that drug lords often crave, choosing instead a life of low-profile professionalism. He’s made it big as a result and has decided to bow out into early retirement while he’s still on top. Unfortunately for XXXX (as he is named in the credits), getting out clean may not be an option, as he finds himself entangled in a mess of gangster conspiracies and violence — all of which is made increasingly complicated his attraction to Tammy (Miller), the girlfriend of his boss’s amateur nephew (Whishaw).
Like other films in its genre, Layer Cake has a huge cast and an elaborate story, often making it difficult to follow (especially due to the heaviness of the British accents). It’s fast-paced, violent, and, most importantly, intelligent. It never doubts its audience’s ability to keep up, even if it is a challenge. The characters avoid the blandness and clichés that often comes from these types of movies, giving the actors plenty to play with. Daniel Craig as XXXX was the biggest and most pleasant surprise to me, since I’d written him off as merely a sociopathic version of James Bond with a six pack; here, he breaks the mold, displaying vulnerability and humanity in the face of the brutal deeds he’s forced to commit. He becomes believable as a survivor, someone who isn’t cut out for the drug business but must play the game anyway.
The only troubling plot device was the use of Sienna Miller as Tammy. Aside from her physical appeal, I’ve enjoyed her work a number of times, particularly in Steve Buscemi’s film Interview. Here, however, she is only given perhaps three scenes to work with, and in spite of her screen presence it is difficult to believe that after meeting her once in a club XXXX is immediately willing to cross the drug lords he works for. It was a tricky pill to swallow, but still a sweet one.
On the other hand, I have to take a moment to mention Ben Whishaw — who, like Miller, was terribly underused but totally scene stealing and memorable. As Sidney, the naïve nephew of a drug lord, Whishaw actually gets to play a role unique to his career: a somewhat comedic one. Gone is the quiet, pensive young man; instead, he gets a character that is so dim and perhaps even pathetic that watching him sitting beside the brooding Daniel Craig can only be described as hilarious. Well done, my sweet Whishaw.
Layer Cake was a successful movie. I mean that it accomplished what it set out to accomplish and provided a fresh take on a genre that can sometimes be tiresome, guilty of playing up suavity and violence over subtlety. It was entertaining and gave me newfound appreciation of Daniel Craig and his blue, blue, blue eyes.
Here is a scene for you to enjoy, illustrating some of my points about Craig, Miller, and Whishaw:
FINAL GRADE: B+
I’ll admit it: I was initially drawn to this film because Ben Whishaw has a small role in it. I know, I know — I’m a broken record. Upon looking further into it I discovered that it appeared to be a unique take on the British gangster genre (i.e. Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels). Although it isn’t typically a type of film that I’d be interested in, but I decided to dive in anyway.
Layer Cake is focused upon a nameless cocaine dealer (Craig) who informs the audience straightaway that he is “not a gangster but a businessman whose commodity happens to be cocaine.” He hates guns and cares nothing for the glory that drug lords often crave, choosing instead a life of low-profile professionalism. He’s made it big as a result and has decided to bow out into early retirement while he’s still on top. Unfortunately for XXXX (as he is named in the credits), getting out clean may not be an option, as he finds himself entangled in a mess of gangster conspiracies and violence — all of which is made increasingly complicated his attraction to Tammy (Miller), the girlfriend of his boss’s amateur nephew (Whishaw).
Like other films in its genre, Layer Cake has a huge cast and an elaborate story, often making it difficult to follow (especially due to the heaviness of the British accents). It’s fast-paced, violent, and, most importantly, intelligent. It never doubts its audience’s ability to keep up, even if it is a challenge. The characters avoid the blandness and clichés that often comes from these types of movies, giving the actors plenty to play with. Daniel Craig as XXXX was the biggest and most pleasant surprise to me, since I’d written him off as merely a sociopathic version of James Bond with a six pack; here, he breaks the mold, displaying vulnerability and humanity in the face of the brutal deeds he’s forced to commit. He becomes believable as a survivor, someone who isn’t cut out for the drug business but must play the game anyway.
The only troubling plot device was the use of Sienna Miller as Tammy. Aside from her physical appeal, I’ve enjoyed her work a number of times, particularly in Steve Buscemi’s film Interview. Here, however, she is only given perhaps three scenes to work with, and in spite of her screen presence it is difficult to believe that after meeting her once in a club XXXX is immediately willing to cross the drug lords he works for. It was a tricky pill to swallow, but still a sweet one.
On the other hand, I have to take a moment to mention Ben Whishaw — who, like Miller, was terribly underused but totally scene stealing and memorable. As Sidney, the naïve nephew of a drug lord, Whishaw actually gets to play a role unique to his career: a somewhat comedic one. Gone is the quiet, pensive young man; instead, he gets a character that is so dim and perhaps even pathetic that watching him sitting beside the brooding Daniel Craig can only be described as hilarious. Well done, my sweet Whishaw.
Layer Cake was a successful movie. I mean that it accomplished what it set out to accomplish and provided a fresh take on a genre that can sometimes be tiresome, guilty of playing up suavity and violence over subtlety. It was entertaining and gave me newfound appreciation of Daniel Craig and his blue, blue, blue eyes.
Here is a scene for you to enjoy, illustrating some of my points about Craig, Miller, and Whishaw:
FINAL GRADE: B+
Monday, March 29, 2010
THE HURT LOCKER (2008)
DIRECTOR: Kathryn BigelowSTARRING: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
Considering this won Best Picture, among a million other things, at the Academy Awards, I figured it should be at the top of my list of films to see. I usually make a point of avoiding war movies but I decided to give this a shot anyway, just to be able to make a legitimate statement about whether or not I think it deserved its wins. I’m glad that I sat through it and I agree on some of its wins, though not on the more significant ones.
The Hurt Locker opens with the following quote: “The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” The setting is Iraq in 2004, centered upon three soldiers specialized in dismantling IED’s. When the unit’s leader is killed in an explosion, Sergeant William James (Renner) steps in to replace him. Despite claiming to have dismantled 800+ bombs in the past, James’ unorthodox methods immediately rub Sergeant Sanborn (Mackie) and Specialist Eldridge (Geraghty) the wrong way. Eventually, however, the men bond together through the trials of war as they each battle their own personal demons.
As mentioned above, I haven’t seen a lot of war movies so I don’t have much to compare this to. I believe, though, that a film should be able to stand on its own apart from its genre, so maybe my lack of comparisons is for the better. The Hurt Locker was in a lot of ways what I expected. It was tense, loud, and, like the lead character, pumped full of adrenaline. However, none of these things made the film particularly unique or special. There were some interesting explosion sequences that used slow motion fairly well, but nothing stunning or even creative as far as cinematography goes. Not worth a nomination, anyway.
As far as acting and character development goes, the acting isn’t anything to complain about. It’s fine, but that’s all. The characters, on the other hand, were a little flatter than I’d have liked and not entirely original. In the case of Sgt. James, we aren’t offered a lot in terms of range; early on, the audience is informed that he is “reckless” and therefore someone we should feel anxious about. He is a man who thrives off the rush of war and cannot seem to function without it, but any other aspects of his character were hard for me to buy. In spite of his high record of disarming bombs, this was hardly a man I could believe would be trusted to protect the lives of his team; he is solely invested in his own thrills, acting more like a macho cowboy hero than a trained soldier. Still, audiences are sure to love that invincible-man complex, and the film plays that up to the highest degree.
The bottom line of The Hurt Locker is that from the very beginning, when that quote is revealed on the screen, it declares that it is making a statement. It has a statement about war, about man’s reactions to how he experiences war, and the contrast between home life and the thrill of combat. It wanted to say so many things but didn’t bother to look beyond the exciting rush of the surface. All in all it wasn’t a bad film, nor was it necessarily a good film — it was just an unremarkable film, and, in my opinion, certainly not a Best Picture winner.
FINAL GRADE: B
Sunday, March 14, 2010
ALICE IN WONDERLAND (2010)
DIRECTOR: Tim BurtonSTARRING: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham-Carter
Having been a long-time fan of Tim Burton’s work, I was excited when I heard that he was doing his own version of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. It seemed like a natural fit, particularly with Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter at his side. What I got, however, was a disappointing, underwhelming piece of glitz, something that is unfortunately becoming more and more common in Burton’s work: sacrificing good story in favor of flash.
Alice in Wonderland is not exactly a retelling of Carroll’s story, but more of a continuation. It starts off when Alice (Wasikowska) is a nineteen-years-old girl, suffering from repeated dreams of falling down a rabbit hole and encountering strange characters. Upon escaping from an arranged engagement proposal from a dull suitor, Alice once again stumbles upon a rabbit hole and, of course, tumbles down it. Thus begins her adventures in Wonderland, where she meets the classic characters of Carroll’s original story, including the Mad Hatter (Depp). She is bombarded with questions of whether or not she is the “real” Alice, as everyone down there has apparently been waiting for her return so that she can save Wonderland from the tyrannical reign of the Red Queen (Bonham-Carter).
Visually, Burton gets high marks for this one. Everything looks brilliant and borderline psychedelic, like his films typically do. But that seems to be the only priority here: whether or not everything looks good. Story and acting fall to the wayside, as the plot is entirely contrived and bland. It’s almost as though the script was written by fifty different writers who each came up with a scene that they thought would look really cool, and then all those scenes were thrown together. There was no tension whatsoever, and the story’s resolution was practically stated during the first half hour of the film. For such a vivid and potentially creative film, the story was actually incredibly boring.
As far as acting goes, the only actor who highlighted the film was Helena Bonham-Carter as the Red Queen. She stole almost every scene she was in, providing some much-needed genuine comedy. Even Johnny Depp bored me — every quirk and nuance that he tried to bring to the Mad Hatter was essentially identical to his performance as Willy Wonka. I’m afraid that dear Johnny might be getting lazy, believing that if he simply wears bizarre makeup/costumes and acts like an eccentric person on drugs then audiences are guaranteed to think he is brilliant. Sorry, Johnny, but that’s not enough for me. And then there is Mia Wasikowska, a fairly pretty but stony-faced and flat actress, playing Alice. Aside from the fact that she looks lovely in her colorful costumes, she brings absolutely nothing to what could have been a charming role, practically sleepwalking through it. All I have to say is: unfortunate.
The bottom line is that Alice in Wonderland is a beautifully made bad film that’s going to make tons of money. It will be hailed as “brilliant” because of the creative visuals and another “quirky” performance on Depp’s part. But a wonder it is not.
FINAL GRADE: C+
Having been a long-time fan of Tim Burton’s work, I was excited when I heard that he was doing his own version of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. It seemed like a natural fit, particularly with Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter at his side. What I got, however, was a disappointing, underwhelming piece of glitz, something that is unfortunately becoming more and more common in Burton’s work: sacrificing good story in favor of flash.
Alice in Wonderland is not exactly a retelling of Carroll’s story, but more of a continuation. It starts off when Alice (Wasikowska) is a nineteen-years-old girl, suffering from repeated dreams of falling down a rabbit hole and encountering strange characters. Upon escaping from an arranged engagement proposal from a dull suitor, Alice once again stumbles upon a rabbit hole and, of course, tumbles down it. Thus begins her adventures in Wonderland, where she meets the classic characters of Carroll’s original story, including the Mad Hatter (Depp). She is bombarded with questions of whether or not she is the “real” Alice, as everyone down there has apparently been waiting for her return so that she can save Wonderland from the tyrannical reign of the Red Queen (Bonham-Carter).
Visually, Burton gets high marks for this one. Everything looks brilliant and borderline psychedelic, like his films typically do. But that seems to be the only priority here: whether or not everything looks good. Story and acting fall to the wayside, as the plot is entirely contrived and bland. It’s almost as though the script was written by fifty different writers who each came up with a scene that they thought would look really cool, and then all those scenes were thrown together. There was no tension whatsoever, and the story’s resolution was practically stated during the first half hour of the film. For such a vivid and potentially creative film, the story was actually incredibly boring.
As far as acting goes, the only actor who highlighted the film was Helena Bonham-Carter as the Red Queen. She stole almost every scene she was in, providing some much-needed genuine comedy. Even Johnny Depp bored me — every quirk and nuance that he tried to bring to the Mad Hatter was essentially identical to his performance as Willy Wonka. I’m afraid that dear Johnny might be getting lazy, believing that if he simply wears bizarre makeup/costumes and acts like an eccentric person on drugs then audiences are guaranteed to think he is brilliant. Sorry, Johnny, but that’s not enough for me. And then there is Mia Wasikowska, a fairly pretty but stony-faced and flat actress, playing Alice. Aside from the fact that she looks lovely in her colorful costumes, she brings absolutely nothing to what could have been a charming role, practically sleepwalking through it. All I have to say is: unfortunate.
The bottom line is that Alice in Wonderland is a beautifully made bad film that’s going to make tons of money. It will be hailed as “brilliant” because of the creative visuals and another “quirky” performance on Depp’s part. But a wonder it is not.
FINAL GRADE: C+
Thursday, March 11, 2010
AN EDUCATION (2009)
DIRECTOR: Lone ScherfigSTARRING: Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard
This film kicked off my systematic viewing of all the films I should have seen pre-Oscars but didn’t (next on the list: The Hurt Locker and A Serious Man). Since these are Oscar nominated/winning films it’s pretty natural to expect high quality, and that’s what I got with An Education; however, there was something missing. It’s the kind of film I really wanted to love but when I left the theatre I found myself feeling strangely dissatisfied.
An Education is the coming-of-age story of Jenny (Mulligan), a sixteen-year-old schoolgirl living in the suburbs of London in the early 1960’s. She’s an intelligent young woman with great potential, something that her overprotective parents have put all their hopes and dreams upon. Every day Jenny is reminded of the purpose of her life: to earn a place at Oxford to read English. Still, Jenny is uncertain if that’s the life she truly wants, and instead would rather listen to French records and fantasize about a life of fun and sophistication. This is exactly what she gets when thirty-something-year-old David (Sarsgaard) enters her life, a charming man who claims to be educated in “the university of life.” He whisks young Jenny off into a thrilling world of fancy restaurants, pre-Raphaelite art, and grand concerts, showing her the world she always dreamed of and freeing her from the profound boredom she has endured in her studies. However, as their relationship progresses Jenny begins to suspect that David is not the person he claims to be, even as she jeopardizes her entire future at Oxford.
Let me start with the pros. An Education has many positive qualities that I can understand give it such critical acclaim: the characters are generally well rounded, and the story is one that audiences can easily connect with. The film itself is beautifully shot, costumed, scripted, acted, and so on; there are no failures in the technical department. The questions presented are valuable ones, questions that even I, as a student, have had cross my mind. While the story is not a new one by any means, it had a somewhat unique approach to it and it took some risks concerning teen sexuality.
The problem, however, lies in the fact that the film’s message is almost pre-packaged. Even the title itself seems to declare exactly what the audience should take away from it; there is a message, a moral at the end, and no ambiguity about it. Whereas many similar films with small stories generally leave it up to the audience to take what they find, this one insists upon a single idea. Having a bottom line message is fine, but the film has to be able to back it up. In my opinion, An Education didn’t. It was pretty, it was skillful, but it was shallow, and frankly, it failed to follow up on the questions it dared to ask (particularly regarding David). Not to mention, the ending felt terribly rushed, even though the film was only an hour and 35 minutes long, giving it a whole half hour the filmmakers could have used to flesh out a more solid resolution.
As far as the acting goes, the cast was reasonably strong, although I didn’t necessarily care much for any of their characters. Even Carey Mulligan, who was nominated for Best Actress, failed to blow me away like I expected her to. She was very good, but — forgive me for repeating myself — not nearly as good as Abbie Cornish in Bright Star. Damn the Academy.
Overall, I thought this was overrated. As I said, I wanted to love it, but I didn’t quite care enough to. I hope that the rest of the other Oscar nominated films I’m going to watch will be better than this.
FINAL GRADE: B
Sunday, March 7, 2010
THE RULES OF ATTRACTION (2002)
DIRECTOR: Roger AvarySTARRING: James Van Der Beek, Shannyn Sossamon, Ian Somerhalder
I came across this on TV today, playing in its full, uncensored glory. It had been a while since I’d seen it and I had forgotten how much I loved it. It’s decadent, lewd, amoral, and wonderful. It’s funny how Bret Easton Ellis’ novels (this and American Psycho) translate so well to the screen, creating their own little soulless realities.
The Rules of Attraction is about a love triangle — well, a lust triangle. At the centre is Sean Bateman (Van Der Beek, doing his best to murder his “nice guy” Dawson persona), a cold, sexually maniacal, campus drug dealer who is receiving anonymous love notes in his mailbox. He thinks they’re from Lauren Hynde (Sossamon), who is trying to get over her hang-ups in order to lose her virginity to the perfect candidate. Then there is Paul Denton (Somerhalder), a pretty boy student who apparently used to date Lauren but has now switched teams and has his sights set on Sean. Over the course of the film the three hopeless lovers stumble their way over mistakes and misunderstandings, trying to discover if it is possible to love (or even know) someone in such a shallow and chemically-dependent atmosphere.
This film is completely superficial, but that superficiality is the point. None of the characters are particularly admirable and the audience probably won’t find themselves rooting for any of them. That isn’t what this film is about. The point is to be detached and distant and cold, as it takes place in a time when all of those things are at the peak of their value: the 80’s. Maybe the point is to reveal the connections between us, even when connection is not what we’re looking for. I don’t know. It’s hard to look for a deep, profound message in a film that intentionally avoids depth.
What makes the film so good (maybe I should say enjoyable) is that the characters are so decadent. I’m no Dawson’s Creek fan but James Van Der Beek stole the show here, throwing out all inhibitions and embracing his amoral Sean. Shannyn Sossamon and Ian Somerhalder are two of the most beautiful people I’ve ever seen but I won’t pretend that either of them are great actors, though they pull off their characters well — especially Somerhalder, who gets the dry and deadpan yet totally hopeful tone of Paul perfectly. Along with the three central characters the film boasts a magnificent slew of brief and memorable roles, such as Rupert, Sean’s crazed drug dealer, and Dick, Paul’s eccentric former partner-in-experimentation.
Aside from the performances, director Roger Avary makes a creative mark with this one. Apparently he was on board with helping Quentin Tarantino conceive of Pulp Fiction, and it shows. There isn’t a really straight narrative; some scenes are shown normally and then in reverse, backtracking to previous events that illuminate on things the audience has already seen. There’s a wonderful split-scene sequence between Sean and Lauren as they each head to class, finally coming together in a single shot. Excellent stuff.
All in all, this is a fun film: not something to necessarily be studied or admired, just to be enjoyed and quoted with your friends. Still, not really for those unwilling to abandon convention or optimism.
FINAL GRADE: B+
Saturday, March 6, 2010
MY BROTHER TOM (2001)
DIRECTOR: Dom Rotheroe
STARRING: Ben Whishaw, Jenna Harrison
I discovered this on my journey of adoring all things Ben Whishaw (see Bright Star below). It is one of those films, like many films that I watch, that most people would probably not like unless they worked hard at it. It isn’t a pleasant film but it’s a starkly honest one. It is meant to be appreciated, and I deeply did.
My Brother Tom tells the story of Jessica (Harrison) and Tom (Whishaw), two lonely teenagers who attend Catholic school together. After witnessing Tom being harassed by a group of bullies in the woods near their school, Jessica is gradually drawn into a friendship with Tom, in spite of his oddness — he has a penchant for spontaneously collapsing like a fallen tree, among other things. What begins as something almost sweet becomes much more profound following Jessica’s abuse at the hands of her teacher/neighbor, and she and Tom retreat into what they call the “Good Woods,” their escape from what they believe to be a world filled with nothing but bad things. It quickly becomes apparent that they understand each other in ways that no one else could, as they begin to see little distinction between one another.
The film is shot on a hand-held camera and has a pretty low production quality, giving it an unsettling voyeuristic sort of feel. There isn’t a lot of effort made to get perfect shots or moving montages, instead focusing on the interaction between the central actors. As Jessica and Tom, the two leads are remarkably fearless in their roles, letting go of any self-consciousness and simply throwing themselves, quite literally, into their characters’ relationship. There is a lot of nudity and borderline-animalistic behavior, with the two of them throwing each other around the Good Woods, screaming like crazed beasts, and butting heads, releasing as much of their humanity as they can.
This seems to be one of the underlying themes of My Brother Tom. While the focus is also on loyalty and a deep bond between two people, Jessica and Tom both hold intense anger for the “bad” world, as nearly every person in their lives have either abused or abandoned them. Even the Catholic priest at their school barely has the patience or compassion to listen when they come to him for help. The way I saw it, this is a film about the struggle to escape human pain. As Tom puts it, “It only hurts if you let it” — if only that were really true.
In the end, this was one of the most moving and disturbing films that I’ve seen in a while. It will stay with me for a long time. My hat once again goes off to the beautiful Ben Whishaw, who I’m convinced is the best young actor working today, as well as to Jenna Harrison, who I’d love to see more of. They matched each other perfectly. Bravo.
FINAL GRADE: A-
STARRING: Ben Whishaw, Jenna Harrison
I discovered this on my journey of adoring all things Ben Whishaw (see Bright Star below). It is one of those films, like many films that I watch, that most people would probably not like unless they worked hard at it. It isn’t a pleasant film but it’s a starkly honest one. It is meant to be appreciated, and I deeply did.
My Brother Tom tells the story of Jessica (Harrison) and Tom (Whishaw), two lonely teenagers who attend Catholic school together. After witnessing Tom being harassed by a group of bullies in the woods near their school, Jessica is gradually drawn into a friendship with Tom, in spite of his oddness — he has a penchant for spontaneously collapsing like a fallen tree, among other things. What begins as something almost sweet becomes much more profound following Jessica’s abuse at the hands of her teacher/neighbor, and she and Tom retreat into what they call the “Good Woods,” their escape from what they believe to be a world filled with nothing but bad things. It quickly becomes apparent that they understand each other in ways that no one else could, as they begin to see little distinction between one another.
The film is shot on a hand-held camera and has a pretty low production quality, giving it an unsettling voyeuristic sort of feel. There isn’t a lot of effort made to get perfect shots or moving montages, instead focusing on the interaction between the central actors. As Jessica and Tom, the two leads are remarkably fearless in their roles, letting go of any self-consciousness and simply throwing themselves, quite literally, into their characters’ relationship. There is a lot of nudity and borderline-animalistic behavior, with the two of them throwing each other around the Good Woods, screaming like crazed beasts, and butting heads, releasing as much of their humanity as they can.
This seems to be one of the underlying themes of My Brother Tom. While the focus is also on loyalty and a deep bond between two people, Jessica and Tom both hold intense anger for the “bad” world, as nearly every person in their lives have either abused or abandoned them. Even the Catholic priest at their school barely has the patience or compassion to listen when they come to him for help. The way I saw it, this is a film about the struggle to escape human pain. As Tom puts it, “It only hurts if you let it” — if only that were really true.
In the end, this was one of the most moving and disturbing films that I’ve seen in a while. It will stay with me for a long time. My hat once again goes off to the beautiful Ben Whishaw, who I’m convinced is the best young actor working today, as well as to Jenna Harrison, who I’d love to see more of. They matched each other perfectly. Bravo.
FINAL GRADE: A-
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Top 10 of 2009
10. (500) Days of Summer (dir. Marc Webb) — I’ll be honest: I love romance, but I hate romantic comedies. This film deserves credit for having a fresh take on a dead-horse genre.9. POLYTECHNIQUE (dir. Denis Villeneuve) — This was one of those films that I never want to see again but am completely grateful to have seen. Haunting, to say the least.
8. THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS (dir. Terry Gilliam) — Never know what to expect from Gilliam. It was odd seeing Heath Ledger’s final role, but frankly, he wasn’t what made the film for me—Tom Waits as the Devil did. Best casting choice ever.
7. ZOMBIELAND (dir. Ruben Fleischer) — Do I even need to explain why this was great? It just was. In my opinion, better than Shaun of the Dead.
6. BROKEN EMBRACES (dir. Pedro Almodóvar) — Almodóvar’s films always feel more like art pieces than just movies, like he’s articulating some kind of dream. That’s what this felt like. Beautiful, expertly crafted, and a bit surreal. Bravo.
5. THE WHITE RIBBON (dir. Michael Haneke) — I love Haneke, so I am thrilled that he’s getting so much praise for this. He deserves it. Out of all of his films that I’ve seen this one was probably the most mature, restrained, and meticulous. Strangely disturbing, like he does, but intriguing. I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t win Best Foreign Film at the Academy Awards.
4. AVATAR (dir. James Cameron) — I don’t understand why so many people hate Avatar on the basis of an unoriginal plot. Sure, it’s essentially another version of FernGully — so what? This is from the guy who did Titanic. You expect originality from him? Seeing this in 3D was the most fun I’d had in the theatre in ages, and you can’t deny that it’s pretty revolutionary.
3. DISTRICT 9 (dir. Neill Blomkamp) — Brilliant. Just brilliant. More of a full-body experience than anything else.
2. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (dir. Quentin Tarantino) — I know that Tarantino is all style over substance, but I don’t care. I love him anyway. Fun, unbridled creativity, and an incredible cast (notably Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz).
1. BRIGHT STAR (dir. Jane Campion) — I don’t think I need to explain much here, seeing as I already did. Bottom line: flawless film.
Worst 6 of 2009
Since I typically avoid seeing films that I think will be bad, I only have 6 rather than 10. These were mostly the ones that I had thought would be good but weren’t (with the exception of #1... I knew that would be bad).6. THE HANGOVER (dir. Todd Phillips) — I really wanted to enjoy this. Everyone kept talking about how good it was. Too bad it just wasn’t funny, even to my sister, who isn’t quite so cinematically snobbish as I am.
5. SURVEILLANCE (dir. Jennifer Lynch) — Since this was from the daughter of David Lynch I was hoping this would be good. It wasn’t. Frankly, it was boring and unoriginal.
4. TWO LOVERS (dir. James Gray) — This wanted to provide the audience with some profound statement about love... or something. In the end it was just hard to care when all the characters were so damn unlikeable.
3. BRÜNO (dir. Larry Charles) — This was the second biggest disappointment. I loved Borat, but this? This felt staged, unfunny, and was mainly out to gross out the audience as often as possible. I didn’t buy it.
2. PUBLIC ENEMIES (dir. Michael Mann) — This was probably the most disappointing film of the year. I was convinced that you couldn’t go wrong with Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in the same film, but apparently you can. It didn’t even feel finished to me and I found myself checking the time on my cell phone midway through. Terribly unfortunate.
1. KNOWING (dir. Alex Proyas) — Why do movies like this keep getting made? Why are they so successful? And why, oh why, does Nicolas Cage continue to get work?
BRIGHT STAR (2009)
DIRECTOR: Jane Campion
STARRING: Abbie Cornish, Ben Whishaw
There is so much I want to say about this film that it is difficult for me to organize my thoughts. Every once in a rare while a film comes along which impacts you in ways that most people, including yourself, do not particularly understand. That is what Bright Star is for me. After looking back on 2009 I have decided it is by far my favorite film of the year (look out for my future Top/Worst 10 of 2009 post). To be quite honest, though, it is a little hard for me to articulate why.
Bright Star tells the story of nineteenth century Romantic poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and his love affair with the girl next door, Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish). Fanny is a talented fashionista who designs and sews all her own outfits; she has no patience for poetry, which she deems “a strain.” Keats, on the other hand, is the epitome of genius unappreciated in his own time, struggling to get by and caring for his brother who is dying of tuberculosis. Despite a few tiffs at the budding moments of their relationship, they quickly fall in love, only to have their romance cut short by an inevitable reality.
What makes this film stand out from anything that American cinema is capable of producing is the fact that it is — no joke — perfect. Everything about it is perfect. Every shot is breathtaking, every costume is flawless, and the pacing forces you, the audience, to slow down and experience everything that Fanny and Keats experience. You feel every fluttering emotion that they do; when they hold their breath, so does the audience; when they feel heartbreak, you feel it with them.
Aside from all the aesthetic beauty that the film provides, what truly makes it great is the work of the actors. This film introduced me to my two current favorite actors, Ben Whishaw and Abbie Cornish, who are both so good at what they do that it’s easy to forget that they’re actors. I will forever be enraged by the fact that Cornish didn’t receive an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. It is an absolute travesty. I’ve never seen an actress portray such raw, soul-crushing anguish as she did, and I will forever respect her for it.
I could go on and on for a while, but hopefully you will go see it for yourself. I truly hope that you do.
FINAL GRADE: A+
STARRING: Abbie Cornish, Ben Whishaw
There is so much I want to say about this film that it is difficult for me to organize my thoughts. Every once in a rare while a film comes along which impacts you in ways that most people, including yourself, do not particularly understand. That is what Bright Star is for me. After looking back on 2009 I have decided it is by far my favorite film of the year (look out for my future Top/Worst 10 of 2009 post). To be quite honest, though, it is a little hard for me to articulate why.
Bright Star tells the story of nineteenth century Romantic poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and his love affair with the girl next door, Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish). Fanny is a talented fashionista who designs and sews all her own outfits; she has no patience for poetry, which she deems “a strain.” Keats, on the other hand, is the epitome of genius unappreciated in his own time, struggling to get by and caring for his brother who is dying of tuberculosis. Despite a few tiffs at the budding moments of their relationship, they quickly fall in love, only to have their romance cut short by an inevitable reality.
What makes this film stand out from anything that American cinema is capable of producing is the fact that it is — no joke — perfect. Everything about it is perfect. Every shot is breathtaking, every costume is flawless, and the pacing forces you, the audience, to slow down and experience everything that Fanny and Keats experience. You feel every fluttering emotion that they do; when they hold their breath, so does the audience; when they feel heartbreak, you feel it with them.
Aside from all the aesthetic beauty that the film provides, what truly makes it great is the work of the actors. This film introduced me to my two current favorite actors, Ben Whishaw and Abbie Cornish, who are both so good at what they do that it’s easy to forget that they’re actors. I will forever be enraged by the fact that Cornish didn’t receive an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. It is an absolute travesty. I’ve never seen an actress portray such raw, soul-crushing anguish as she did, and I will forever respect her for it.
I could go on and on for a while, but hopefully you will go see it for yourself. I truly hope that you do.
FINAL GRADE: A+
Monday, March 1, 2010
SOMERSAULT (2004)
DIRECTOR: Cate ShortlandSTARRING: Abbie Cornish, Sam Worthington
I had not heard of this film until I fell in love with Australian actress Abbie Cornish via her role in Jane Campion’s Bright Star. Upon doing my research on her I came across Somersault, an independent Australian darling that apparently won all sorts of awards at various prestigious film festivals. Naturally, I had to see it.
Ms. Cornish stars as Heidi, a precocious sixteen year old whose blossoming sexuality is beginning to rear its head. She runs away from home after she is caught kissing her mother’s boyfriend, traveling to the ski town of Jindabyne, and embarks on something of a journey of self-discovery, both sexual and emotional, becoming involved with a reserved local farmer named Joe (played by Sam Worthington of Avatar fame — bet you didn’t know he was an Aussie!). The film focuses on their hesitant relationship, following her desperation for love and his sexual uncertainty.
Somersault doesn’t have much of a story to speak of and depending on how one looks at it, this is both its strength and weakness. The film is essentially a showcase for Ms. Cornish’s talent, which, in my opinion, is nothing short of extraordinary. She plays Heidi as a full flesh-and-blood person, showing her intense vulnerability as well as her uninhibited, magnetic nature. She is achingly human, and Cornish doesn’t shy away from the heavier side of her character. Sam Worthington is also noteworthy; he is fully deserving of the attention he’s currently receiving in America. Anyone who doubts his talent on the basis of his success in Avatar should see his performance here, for he certainly holds his own as Joe.
The lack of story, however, may also turn off many audiences. As much as I loved Ms. Cornish’s performance I did have a hard time viewing the film in one sitting, and movie-watchers of today may feel that there just isn’t enough here to hold their attention. It certainly isn’t a film typical of American cinema. I recommend the film on the basis of its being an excellent character study, but don’t expect a traditional arching storyline.
FINAL GRADE: B+ (mostly for Abbie Cornish)
Friday, February 26, 2010
THE CRAZIES (2010)
DIRECTOR: Breck EisnerSTARRING: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell
I have a soft spot in my heart for horror. Not blood and guts, but horror — that beautiful buildup of dread. It’s tragic that the genre is as abused as it is, with cheap scares and the new trend of so-called “torture porn.” This is why I became giddy when I saw the trailer for The Crazies. I mean it. I was giddy like a prepubescent girl watching a Hannah Montana music video. It looked like something finally genuine. My experience with the film fulfilled my happy expectations, while simultaneously letting me down.
The Crazies is centered on the sheriff of a small Iowa town, David Dutten (played by Timothy Olyphant). When the locals start to act a bit homicidal, resulting in a remarkable number of deaths, Dutten turns out to be a refreshingly intelligent character and quickly figures out that something is wrong, suspecting that some kind of virus may be contaminating the water supply. As the virus causes the sanity of the town to rapidly collapse and the body count to skyrocket, Dutten and his pregnant doctor wife Judy (Radha Mitchell) and his deputy (Joe Anderson) try to get out of the town alive, all the while having to deal with both “the crazies” and the trigger-happy military, who have been ordered to exterminate all residents of the town in order to contain the epidemic.
Premise-wise, there isn’t much new here to the world of horror. These types of films have been done countless times before. However, what makes The Crazies unique and particularly chilling (at least to me) is how close to home it hits — literally. The tagline of the film is “Fear Thy Neighbor.” As someone who actually did grow up in a small Iowa town, I could put myself in that situation fairly easily: everyone knows everyone else. Imagining friendly, familiar faces that I would see every day suddenly turning vacant and vicious is a terrifying thought. That is what makes the film so effective. This concept is executed disturbingly well in an early scene in which a father becomes infected with the virus and his wife and child pay the price for it.
While the film had its strengths, it did have a few faults that I had hoped it could avoid. I expected too much. Personally, I enjoy horror films which allow the audience to act as a helpless voyeur, i.e. Kubrick’s The Shining; in a lot of recent mainstream horror simply doesn’t have the patience to do this and immediately reverts to the cheap trick of throwing jump scares at the audience whenever possible to secure their constant state of tension. This can be fun, but overall I find it exhausting. The Crazies was very guilty of this — lots of jumps accompanied by loud jarring music. Cut to me, hugging my knees to my chest and lowering my eyes to anticipate it and soften the blow. Not my idea of fun.
Overall, I was satisfied; not nearly as blown away as I would have liked, but good enough.
FINAL GRADE: B
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)