4 stars I'm not one who necessarily triumphs populist cinema (which is a weakness I need to overcome as a cinefile), but Titanic is a great movie. At one point I might have been on the "it's not so great" bandwagon, but I was wrong. Titanic is a great film, and a real cinematic accomplishment. James Cameron rolled the dice on this $200 million dollar water romance, and he came up a winner. Big time. So let's do it. Let's do a critical analysis of the once biggest movie of all time, now beat by Cameron himself with Avatar. I hadn't watched the film in years and popped it in Sunday night.
What do people really think about when they bring up Titanic? Unfortunately, probably Celine Dion. I personally think about how many times people went to see it. I know most of us saw it in the theater at least twice, and some people I knew even reached double digits. It was one of those movies that everyone had to see, and it does seem like the entire world did in fact see it.
Watching it again, I think I understand why it connected with so many people. It took two of the basic food groups of movies and did it at a high skill level. Those two things are romance and spectacle. The romance first. Nora Ephron cheekily said that there are two traditions of romance on film. The Christian tradition and the Jewish tradition. In the Jewish tradition (like the film she wrote When Harry Met Sally...) the characters are the impediments to romance. Their own issues, their own insecurities, etc. In the Christian tradition, it's the world that is the impediment to romance, as in the case of Jack and Rose. The world Rose is from does not want them to be together. She's rich, he's poor. He's has no roots she's upper class. And of course the more everyone is against it, the more we are for it. It's very simple, it's just hard to execute in modern contemporary cinema without people dry heaving. But Cameron did it by setting it 1912, on this famous ship, and by stacking the deck. Rose's fiance Cal is a tremendous a--hole, her mother is controlling and selfish, and then she meets this guy who's an artist and unencumbered and is free to do whatever he wants with his life. You want this girl in a corset to run away with the penniless guy. We're so on their side.
The second thing he did was cast the best people for the lead roles. Dicaprio wasn't a star then, and I know I thought he was a bit of a pretty boy, but he was the right guy. He's completely charming the whole way through and gives such a winning performance. Has he done another romantic film since Titanic? The masterstroke though was Kate Winslet. She had done Sense and Sensibility and Heavenly Creatures and no one knew her in America. And instead of casting a young, thin cover girl, they got a world class actress from Britain. They would never cast someone like that today. I myself think she looks better now then she did then, but she's not the stunning girl that women admire/hate from afar. No, Kate Winslet is who they are. They are that girl who stares blankly at the dinner table not knowing why she is there. They are that girl whose mother nitpicks her every move and tells her what not to do. Winslet fought hard for the role and I think she's wonderful in the movie. Her best scene oddly enough is when Cal gives her the diamond. Look at her face as she looks into the mirror. There's so much going on inside, and we just know how awful it would be if she married this guy. Billy Zane deserves some credit too for going all out as the nightmare fiance. When he orders her dinner for her, what a tool. Lastly, the chemistry is very palpable between Dicaprio and Winslet. Their scenes are full of life and energy and I enjoy watching the two actors together. One problem I have though is that they constantly say each others' names throughout the entire movie. Jack! Jack! Rose! Rose! Someone did a count and she says "Jack" 80 times. Enough!
That all works very well, and then the last hour is all spectacle. They'll never make movies like this again. They'll never have 400 extras in period costumes running around on a ship. They'll just create them virtually. There were a lot of cutting edge special effects for the time, but so much of it was really done, with part of that huge boat on an angle as it sunk into the ocean. We all know it, but it must've been a tortuous shoot. One scene I kept thinking about is where Jack and Rose are caught at a gate and need to find a key on the floor to get through. The water is visibly rising fast in the scene. So what do they do. They roll, they shoot a take, the water rises in this giant set, then cut. Then they have to drain the set, dry the actors, reset and repaint whatever has been destroyed or ruined by the water, and then they do it all over again. Added to which the water can't be warm because it would start to steam, and I never noticed how thin Winslet's dress is. There's no room for a wet suit. Imagine waking up for work every day for months, knowing you're going to be in cold water all day. Forget it. The footage is still amazing. Oh man, when the boat breaks in half, my eyes still go wide. Unbelievable stuff. There's also that terribly disturbing shot when we pull back on thousands of people frantically splashing in the ocean water. It's that kind of unnerving desperate panic, and we know none of them are going to survive.
The genius thing Cameron did as a writer that many critics have mentioned is showing a computer simulation of the wreck early on in the movie. It's this little animatic showing the Titanic hitting the iceberg, then sinking, then breaking, then going under. That way he doesn't have to explain to us what is happening while it's happening. We know it already, we understand, and then it just becomes about human drama. It also becomes about massive shots like those gigantic propellers emerging out of the water. Think about how confusing it would've been if we didn't have that information. Some of the dialogue may not be great, but the structure of the script is so sound. Even the present day scenes with Bill Paxton, the movie wouldn't have worked without them. The first time we see Titanic in 1912 is 20 minutes into the movie. It just wouldn't be done today.
There are bad things of course. Why are all of the foreign characters annoying, including Jack's Italian friend and the Irish guy they meet up with. I wish they left out contemporary things like Rose giving that guy the finger and their spitting contest. The big moment where she says, "I'm flying", it's too much. Too much! Also I realized how outdated the score is. You never hear scores with recurring melodies anymore like E.T. or Indiana Jones. Maybe it's just been too many years of being bombarded in an elevator with "Neearrr, farrrr, wherEVER you are..." Along with Jerry Maguire, it was the last big unabashedly romantic film of the 90s. It satiated audiences and then they wanted no more. Well, at least until Twilight came along.
They've started to show the trailer for the upcoming 3-D release and I think it's going to do very well. We've forgot about the delays, the crazy budget, and all of the problems they had making the movie. We forget that Cameron's films before this were Terminator 2 and True Lies. We just think of Titanic, good or bad, as a landmark like the Wizard of Oz, The Godfather, and Star Wars. "My Heart Will Go On" is still irritating as ever, and maybe it's not cool to like Titanic, but a lot of the time "cool" gets in the way of enjoying cinema. When it comes out on Blu-ray, I know I'm buying it.
Tower Heist 3 stars Unlike many other people, I have no problem with Brett Ratner. There are many directors who are worse than him. Shawn Levy, Peter Berg, whoever directed She's Out of My League. The only movies of Ratner's that I've truly disliked are X-Men 3 and After the Sunset with Pierce Brosnan. Man, that movie was boring. I like the Rush Hours, I think Red Dragon is well done, I even like The Family Man with Nicolas Cage and Tea Leoni. The thing about all his movies is that they are comfortable places to be in. You always like the characters and enjoy spending time with them. Tower Heist isn't a great heist movie nor does it have big laughs, but it's nice spending time with these people.
Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller) is the building manager of The Tower in NYC, where a very wealthy Wall Street investor Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) lives in the Penthouse. It's an exclusive building to say the least, and it runs like a well oiled German machine with intense security and a staff a king would feel comfortable with. Unfortunately Arthur Shaw has been indicted for a Bernie Madoff like crime, which affects the employees of The Tower because they gave their pension funds to Shaw to invest in. Their money is gone and Ben Stiller, Casey Affleck, Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena, Gabourey Sibide, and Eddie Murphy plan to steal it back.
The concept is of the moment and enjoyable. Of course we want to stick it to some evil white Wall Street guy who has a pool on the top of a high-rise. Seriously, F him. We want the regular guys, who incidentally have no talent or experience with robberies, to win. Strangely, the movie isn't that funny. Even Eddie Murphy doesn't do or say many funny things. Sorry, but the phrase "seizure boy" doesn't make me giggle. I didn't laugh that much, but like I said, I liked these characters and enjoyed spending time with them. Ben Stiller in particular is a strong lead in this kind of comedy. The heist holds interest and I did want to see how they were going to pull it off. The FBI are involved with handling Shaw and Tea Leoni is the lead of that team. I don't really know what significance her character has, but I like Tea Leoni and her character and therefore liked seeing her in the scenes she was in.
I've started putting certain movies into a certain category now. Safe and completely undemanding. That's why so many people went to see the last Mission: Impossible. Not because it's good, but because it's safe and undemanding. It takes no effort from you. No emotional demands, not much thinking. I guess it's a matter of how enjoyable is it then when you finally do see it. I liked Tower Heist, despite its lazy title.
J.Edgar 2 stars The movie should've been called "Old Age Make-Up". Sorry but Clint is on a bad roll. Didn't like Hereafter, Invictus, Changeling. He's a director that's so dependent on a good script to make a good movie and J.Edgar isn't very good. Biopics have gotten very old for me and I don't care the least about J.Edgar Hoover. He was a megalomaniac of stupendous proportions. A man who believed in his own power above all else, despite proclamations of patriotism. The best portrayal of him is in Michael Mann's Public Enemies, where he is a supporting character. That's where he belongs. He did modernize and create the Federal Bureau of Investigation and that is an amazing thing. But I don't care about his relationship with his mother or to his partner Clyde Tolson. Hoover spent his lifetime ruining the lives of many people. As for the rest of the film, there are a whole lot of white men in wool suits. And I'm sorry but the make-up is not convincing. I don't buy Dicaprio as an old man.
The Sunset Limited (review from 2.17.11)3 stars Samuel L. Jackson, despite a recent run of bad movies, is still one of my favorite actors. I think he is one of the best we have, particularly when it comes to language. He has a verbal dexterity that is incredibly enjoyable and this is one of his best roles in a long time. He plays Black, a regular blue collar guy who one day saves Tommy Lee Jones' character the professor when the professor tries to throw himself in front of The Sunset Limited (a subway train in NYC). This has all happened before the movie has started. It really begins in Black's apartment, just the two of them, and the movie remains there for the next 90 minutes. It is a 2 person play, written by novelist Cormac McCarthy (No Country for Old Men, The Road) and from regular conversation, the men start talking more and more about why the professor did what he did. How did he come to a point where the only option was suicide? Black is an evangelical Christian and is trying to get through.
Their dialogue is wonderful. It's intelligent and metered, it is some very good writing. They might have vastly different educational backgrounds, but both characters are very smart, experienced and they like each other in a sort of anthropological way. That being said, I do have problems with one room movies. It probably would work better as a play, with the two actors right there in front of you as opposed to filmed with cameras. You couldn't get 2 better actors in these roles and Tommy Lee Jones has directed their performances well, but I think the movie is better to listen to than to watch. The main question I see is not how convicted are you of your beliefs but how well can you articulate them? The end though, Black's final few sentences, they hit home. I was taken aback by how moved I was. Now on DVD.
Velvet Goldmine 3 stars I watched Velvet Goldmine when it came out on DVD around '98 but I had no recollection of it. Watching it again 14 years later, it felt like time traveling back to 90s independent cinema. This kind of movie probably wouldn't get made today. It's a mid-budget period picture with no stars. Ewan McGregor and Christian Bale are famous now, but they weren't back then, and who would go see a movie about early 70s Glam Rock.
In 1984, a British newspaper reporter Arthur Stuart (Christian Bale) is tasked with finding out whatever happened glam rock star Brian Slade (Jonathan Rhys Meyers). Slade's career ended after a staged mock killing of him at a concert was received so poorly by his fans. And through Arthur's investigation, we plunge into the world of Glam Rock. Heavy make-up, blinding outfits, androgyny, bisexuality, and a lot of good music. Brian Slade is obviously based on David Bowie (whose persona was Ziggy Stardust at the time) and Ewan McGregor's character Curt Wild is based on Iggy Pop. The brilliant thing Todd Haynes did was to not use the real names of the real people. The characters and events are based on them, but they're not beholden to them. The drama is not handcuffed by the technicalities of history.
Todd Haynes wrote and directed Velvet Goldmine and as I wrote in my Mildred Pierce review, he is a fine director with wonderful visual taste. The movie is filled with striking shots and moments. One in particular I love is a sequence where Christian Bale's character Arthur brings a new record home. He gently takes it out of the bag, then its wrapping, and then we see a gorgeous pristine black LP come out of its cover for the first time. It's those moments that people so intimately remember from their childhoods. The movie is incredibly directed and that's what kept me into it. He also borrows a device from Citizen Kane. In that film, a reporter was investigating Kane's life and in that investigation we learn about what happened from the accounts of people who knew him. However, I fully admit that I don't like movies about rock stars. It's always the same. Great music, the people love him, and then the drugs and self-absorption and the brutality toward everyone around them. Why anyone would want to date, let alone marry a rock star is beyond me. It's not going to end well.
The performances, particularly from Jonathan Rhys Meyers are so strong. He apparently has not aged in 14 years because he looks the same today. But look at that photo of Ewan McGregor. He's probably too old now, but goodness he should've played Kurt Cobain. McGregor, despite my dislike of his character Curt Wild, is sensational in the film, doing all of his own singing. As well as all of his own full frontal nudity. Bale looks so young, so different from the characters he's been playing lately, and Toni Collette is just wonderful as Brian's wife Mandy. Like Liza Minelli, it was that era of certain women shamelessly glamming it up and speaking in terrible affected accents. Lady Gaga anyone?
However, I'd say watch Haynes later film I'm Not There, about Bob Dylan. It's much more ambitious, and it's a better movie as an exploration of a rock star. Sadly I didn't care about Brian Slade and his wigs and jumpsuits. The best parts of the movie for me take place 10 years later when we see everyone without their make-up and without their Halloween costumes. They're sober (both physically and mentally), they've moved on, but surprisingly almost all of them remember that time fondly. I'm all for personal expression and being different, but not as an affectation and not when it hurts so many people. Rock stars don't kill anybody, but they leave a lot of bodies in their wake.
Watched this Week The Good:Footloose (2011), Footloose (1984), Velvet Goldmine, Wayne's World 1&2, Inglourious Basterds, Swordfish, Stranger than Fiction The Bad: None The Ugly: None Didn't Get Past 20 Minutes: None Blu-Rays Bought: Life is Beautiful (La Vita E Bella), Stranger than Fiction, Revolutionary Road, Everything Must Go Trips to the Theater: None Actors of the Week: Julianne Hough, Miles Tenner, Mike Meyers Director of the Week: Roberto Benigni
Trailers/Clips of the Week: The Amazing Spider-Man. We want more Emma Stone, less Denis Leary.
The Bourne Legacy. Alright. A good trailer and Edward Norton. Now I'm interested.
Anonymous 2 starsShakespeare was an actor. That’s not disputed. Evidently he was also a stupid, vain drunk who was a minor player in a plot involving Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave) and Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. As the filmmakers of Anonymous would proclaim, Edward De Vere was the one who wrote all of Shakespeare’s plays as William Shakespeare was a son of an illiterate and no manuscripts were ever found that were actually in his handwriting. What the movie really wants to be is Shekar Kapur’s Elizabeth starring Cate Blanchett. Roland Emmerich has directed such brainless moneymakers like ID4, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow, and 2012. This is his attempt at a smaller drama, but it’s not in his wheelhouse and it’s not very good. There’s no one really here to root for, and the deck is so stacked against this boorish Shakespeare that we are supposed to immediately accept that he did not write his famous plays. I don’t believe it, but mostly because I don’t want to believe it. I don’t want his plays reduced to veiled political moves. I don’t want them to be underhanded statements pertaining to who will inherit the throne after Elizabeth dies. Rhys Ifans is powerful as Edward De Vere, but the director of Universal Soldier can’t do this kind of movie.
Dream House 1 starWhy on earth did Jim Sheridan the director of My Left Foot, In America, and Brothers make Dream House? It’s a psychological thriller, and it’s a waste of time. Daniel Craig is a happy husband to Rachel Weisz and a father of two. They all move into their dream house. However, he learns that a family was previously murdered in that house. Has the murderer come back? Is he stalking his family? Or is it all in his head? I’m just going to say it so if you really do want to see Dream House, don’t read on. Also don’t watch the trailer because it gives it away anyway.
Of course it’s in his head! How clever. A character creating an ideal reality in order to deal with his guilt? How terribly clever! The Sixth Sense, Shutter Island, and a lot of TV shows have the exact same idea. Jim Sheridan fought a lot with the production company Morgan Creek and tried to get his name taken off the film. The stars Rachel Weisz and Daniel Craig disliked the film so much that they refused to promote it. I wish I knew those things before I rented it.
Luck I was properly excited about Luck. Mostly because of David Milch who created NYPD Blue and also what I think is one of the best televisions shows of all time, Deadwood. He's a writer of exceptional depth and talent who pours his numerous life experiences into his scripts. He has owned horses and loves the race track and it makes a lot of sense that he would set this television show in the world of horse racing. Add to that Michael Mann who from what I see, his greatest contribution has been in casting. There are a lot of Mann regulars like Dennis Farina, John Ortiz, Ted Levine, Michael Gambon, and even Joan Allen. The star though is Dustin Hoffman who reminds me that he is one of the best actors in the world. He's hypnotically watchable as Chester "Ace" Bernstein who begins the series getting out of prison after a 3 year bid. He went down protecting a business partner, and his plan is in motion to do what they did to him. Dennis Farina is his driver, but obviously he's a little more than that, and their scenes are enormously enjoyable. It's that shorthand Milch dialogue that these guys deliver perfectly. Their scenes are acting gems.
I wish the whole thing was about these two guys, but it is a TV show and there are a lot of other characters at the track. A group of degenerate gamblers whose daily job is to bet on horses, there are the trainers, the jockeys, the agents, it's an interesting world. And Mann also has put his visual stamp on the races. They are intense and in your face. Scary really sometimes, with a lot of tension. I wish there were more female characters, but the series is only two episodes old.
It's cinema television, shot and directed at a high caliber. There are a lot of moments of silence and images, which I still think is rare in TV. Most TV shows is talk, talk, talk about hair fibers and blood trails and who the killer is. I look forward to the rest of the season and what Milch has planned.
Look at the size of that Walkman on Kevin Bacon's belt. I love the original Footloose. I'm not proclaiming it as any kind of high cinema, but I saw it in when I was a kid, in the 80s, and there are a handful of movies that scream out the 80s to me. Footloose is on that list along with Top Gun, Sixteen Candles, Rocky IV, and Back to the Future. Writer/director Craig Brewer (Hustle and Flow, Black Snake Moan) has almost literally remade the movie. It is beat for beat the same film, down to the red blazer Ren wears in the final scene. Since it's so similar, why not review both.
If you possibly don't know, Footloose is about a fictional small town named Bomont, where five high school seniors were killed in a car accident after a night of dancing and drinking. Because of this, the town passes a law that bans public dancing. Music is also pretty much banned. Ren MacCormack is from up north and moves to Bomont for his senior year. Kevin Bacon was from Chicago and moved with his mom. In the remake, Kenny Wormald moves from Boston to live with his uncle as his mom has passed away from leukemia. There's Ariel (Lori Singer/Julianne Hough) the preacher's daughter who certainly doesn't dress like one. She loves to dance and is in a very non-pure relationship with an older guy named Chuck. She has a best friend Rusty (Sarah Jessica Parker/Ziah Colon), and Ren becomes friends with Willard (Chris Penn/Miles Teller). I want to say right away that Willard is one of the best high school movie characters ever. That guy is hilarious and someone I want to hang out with. He's goofy and stupid and Southern loyal, all in a very charming way. It's a great character and both actors know they have a great character to play and they have a lot of fun with him.
I do give the edge to the 1984 Footloose because it's so of its time. The music, the freaking title of the movie, it's an 80s classic. Kevin Bacon's terrible haircut is an 80s classic. And there is more depth (if there is depth) to the first film. Maybe because the actors were better like John Lithgow and Chris Penn, and also probably a lot because it was the first film and the remake simply can't be original. I think the dance sequences are better too. There is technically a lot better dancing in 2011 version, but the original scenes are overall more fun. That kind of embracing the cheese 80s fun where Kenny Loggins is all over the soundtrack and a lot of white kids are dancing with their arms. Even the big sequence where Ren does his angry dance in the warehouse plays better because of the song they used by Moving Pictures. I also missed the awesome playing chicken with tractors sequence. Nothing beats Bonnie Tyler singing "I Need a Hero". That being said, the remake dance scenes are fun in their own right. Country line dancing must be so happy. It gets a big splashy set piece.
The young cast as a whole is very likeable. Kenny Wormald (who looks a lot like Garrett Hedlund from Tron: Legacy) is fine. I wish he didn't have a Boston accent, but he's convincing and good. Bacon was more fun and funny though and less of a guy with a chip on his shoulder. I haven't watched Dancing with the Stars so I don't know who Julianne Hough is, but from watching her in this version of Footloose, she's a star. She's incredibly beautiful, she dances her ass off, and her scenes with Ren are surprisingly romantic. I liked their relationship a lot. The smartest thing was to get a performer to do what they're best at (for Hough it's obviously dancing), and then they'll really shine on screen. She was the right choice for the role and she's the one thing in this movie that's better than the original. I think she's an aspiring country singer, but I hope she does more movies. Miles Teller and Ziah Colon are also very good as Willard and Rusty. Who doesn't love Ariel's best friend Rusty?
What still works is the basic story. One guy against a closed-minded small town. How can you not root for him? It's basically a teenager fighting for all teenagers, against the rules of our parents. That's why older people (like Ebert) don't get it, and it's why it still resonates. The remake sadly lacks the personality of Craig Brewer. I really liked his first two films and their personal boldness, but he doesn't do all that much here that is distinctively him. There's a lot more country music, there's some Southern hip hop, there are a lot more African American actors (a welcome thing), but in being so faithful to the original, I thought a lot about watching the original. The movie is still entertaining and worth watching, but I don't know if you can catch 80s magic 30 years later. Look at me writing the phrase, "80s magic". For whatever reason we forgive the 80s for all of its artistic sins. The movies and the music are just too fun. Now I gotta cut loose.
3 ½ stars One of the most exciting directors you probably don't know is Todd Haynes. He's only directed a few films. Far From Heaven and Safe (both with Julianne Moore), Velvet Goldmine with Ewan McGregor, and I'm Not There with Cate Blanchett. He's an incredibly talented guy with great taste.
Mildred Pierce takes place during the Depression in Los Angeles. Mildred (Kate Winslet) is married, has two daughters and as the story begins her marriage is breaking up. Partially due to her husband Bert (Brian O'Bryne) being out of work, partially because he's been unfaithful. She's been selling her own pies and cakes to make money but with Bert gone, she needs a real job. She eventually finds one as a waitress, but then she has an idea to possibly open her own place. She'll make it strictly a chicken place, with waffles on the side, and she'll sell her pies there too. Did Mildred Pierce invent chicken and waffles?
I have not watched a mini series in a long time. A story told over 4-5 episodes. The last time might've been The Stand back in high school, which I was hooked on over 4 nights. The great thing about Mildred Pierce is that it is more like a movie than a TV show. In TV shows there are tons of characters, but Mildred Pierce focuses on a handful, much like a movie would. But they don't have 2 hours, they have 5, and given that time so much can happen. Storylines can breathe and not be confined to one sitting. Mildred herself is impossible not to root for. When she's opening her first business (pretty crazy for a woman during that time), and then when she starts her first post-marital relationship with the famous Monty Beragaon (Guy Pearce), you just want her to succeed. I was dying to see her do well and find some happiness. Of course this is a Todd Haynes film and happiness costs.
Mildred's main problem and what becomes the real focus of the latter part of the mini series is her relationship with her eldest daughter Veda. Veda is a princess and a brat. If you look in the dictionary for the word brat, you'll find the definition of the word brat. Which is what she freaking is! She's not necessarily spoiled by Mildred, but she is a very entitled teenager who wants to be famous and live a glamorous life. And her affected speech is bloody nails on a chalk board. Mildred tries to teach her otherwise but admittedly her own behavior, particularly her sexual relationship with Monty, teaches other things to Veda. All the while Mildred's business is growing and things are looking up for her financially. This causes more problems with Veda. I've seen a few mother/daughter relationships in films and TV, but this is one of the hardest ones I've experienced. Again, given that their not confined to a movie, there isn't just one big dramatic knife stabbing argument, there are maybe 6 or 7. And more than horror movies or war epics, the most brutal cinema I witness always involves families. I've never fought in a war, I never will fight in a war, but I have fought with my parents and will fight with my parents. I wasn't alive during the Depression but the issues are too familiar. Expectations and smothering of parents, selfishness and ingratitude from kids. It's 80 years later and we're still doing it. 800 years from now we'll still be doing it.
Kate Winslet is remarkable as Mildred Pierce. She won the Emmy for the role. There's so much for her to do, she's in every scene, and this character goes through enough changes for three movies. She never misses a beat, she's always real, and I can't say enough about how talented she is. She's one of those actors who were just born to be one. There's an amazing scene when she and Bert officially decide to divorce. There's no screaming and yelling. They both sit there, very sad that it didn't work. They did love each other, they don't anymore, and they both feel a huge loss. Man I love that scene. Haynes has surrounded Winslet with a lot of good actors too like Melissa Leo, Evan Rachel Wood, Mare Winningham, James LeGros, and Hope Davis. Guy Pearce (who also won an Emmy) continues his career of disappearing into roles. L.A. Confidential, Memento, The Count of Monte Cristo, The King's Speech. Unbelievable. Evan Rachel Wood continues the very smart choice of a young actress taking good supporting roles with good directors (The Ides of March, The Conspirator). She's very talented and I admire her for being willing to play such a hateful character. Seriously, Veda is one little bitch monster, but Haynes won't allow us to completely judge her. We all have been that kid. We are ungrateful and pout when we don't get what we want and blame our parents for our unhappiness. The piece has layers and they're not easily filtered into good and bad.
The last thing I'll say is that I don't actually recommend that you watch this. It's strong and engaging material believe me, but it is brutal. There's a kind of piercing reality here that some of you will be scared of. Little Children is a phenomenal Kate Winslet film, but I understand that it may be too much to take. If you are interested, I'd say jump right in, despite its bad title. I know the book and the original 1945 film were titled Mildred Pierce, but who is named Mildred anymore? Petty argument aside, it's beautifully crafted and acted, and Todd Haynes always, always makes the material he chooses fascinating.
Watched this Week The Good:Mildred Pierce, Alice in Wonderland (2010), Twilight, Eclipse, The Wrestler, Crazy Heart The Bad: Anonymous, Dream House, New Moon, Drive The Ugly: None Didn't Get Past 20 Minutes: The Rum Diary Blu-Rays Bought: None Trips to the Theater: M:I Ghost Protocol Actors of the Week: Michael Sheen, Dustin Hoffman, Dennis Farina, Kate Winslet Writer of the Week:David Milch Director of the Week: Todd Haynes
Trailers/Clips of the Week: The Hunger Games. Superbowl spot.
2 stars Why does Tom Cruise run like an android programmed to run like a human?
Sorry, but despite very good critical reviews, Mission: Impossible IV didn't do it for me. I enjoyed a good amount of it, but around the hour mark I came to the realization that the movie is just an action machine. It's sometimes exciting and there are car chases and hand to hand fights and the stakes always have to go higher. But it's also lifeless and lacking emotion and feels more like a product Paramount Studios and Tom Cruise decided to put out last year. Mission: Impossible 4.0.
So what's happening with this model. Well, the Kremlin blows up, and in the aftermath IMF is blamed, all of its agents are disavowed, and Cruise, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton, and Jeremy Renner are the only ones left to find out what happened. There are a lot of gadgets, some clever espionage, and nuclear war may break out between Russia and America. One thing that no one has mentioned is that a terrorist trying to get the two Cold War countries to start a nuclear war with each other is the exact same plot of The Sum of All Fears. It was a good Jack Ryan movie with Affleck and it's the same deal here. Only instead of interesting, intelligent thriller material, we get a lot of well executed scenes of double crosses and switching objects, but ultimately it's empty. It's spy candy and that would be fine if the movie maintained a high level of fun but it doesn't.
The best sequence involves Cruise climbing and then repelling from the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai. It is an amazing, sweaty palm set piece. I hate heights and the scene is scary. Sadly it happens early on in the movie, and it happens because they need to get to server room, only they have to get to it from the outside. Why do they have to get to the server room? Because they have to do something that I guess is critical to their mission. They really have to get there so Cruise can be put in a situation that requires an action scene. See what I mean? It's too transparent. It's too obvious that none of this really matters. As much as things may go wrong, everything will turn out fine in the end. This is not a serious series like the Bourne movies where characters we are attached to may actually die. Mission: Impossible is about the next exotic location (with a text subtitle), the next boring punching and kicking match, and then some countdown clock they have to beat or else the world will end. There is a subplot involving Ethan Hunt's wife (remember their boring ass relationship from the third movie?) and it is such a jerkaround. I didn't care about them in the last movie, and I don't care about them now. Simon Pegg is fine but his jokes are hit or miss. Paula Patton has nothing to do in the movie. Any pretty actress could've played that part. And Michael Nyqvist from the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is completely wasted as the main villain. He's hardly a villain. He doesn't have one real scene. His evil plan is reduced to a news clip on a TV. Who made that choice?
What I was excited about going in was a couple of things. First was Brad Bird who previously directed The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and The Iron Giant. I was very curious about what this animation director would bring to a live action movie. Sadly the movie lacks real director personality. Anyone could've directed it. It feels like the second unit had more to do with it. The first two movies (De Palma and John Woo) have such style to them. The last two are generic spy movies. Also disappointing is Jeremy Renner. He's a great actor, but the "mysterious" agent he is playing turns out to be wishy washy. How come none of the IMF agents are tough, masculine men? They love to have unnecessary confessional moments where they reveal something painful about their past. Remember the last movie where Maggie Q talks about her childhood with Jonathan Rhys-Meyers? No? Well I don't either because it's a waste of time and bad TV writing. The screenwriters here were two writers who worked on Alias and they don't have anything new to bring. Lastly, it's so sad that Josh Holloway (Sawyer from Lost) has what amounts to a minor cameo in the movie. It was so good seeing him on a big screen and I hope he has a future in film.
No matter what I might write, you'll probably see it anyway. Mission: Impossible is a Happy Meal at McDonald's. It's uncomplicated, sometimes fun, and it expects nothing from you. I might write a post about this later, but Cruise and Pitt are the same age. This year Cruise made a fourth movie in a franchise that started when I was in high school. Pitt made The Tree of Life and Moneyball. Who's the one making better choices? And if they are going to go with Missions V, VI, and 700, please kill off Ethan Hunt. He's one dull spy. Reviews of the first three movies
Part of the Angry Video Game Nerd's review of the Back to the Future video games. This line has made me laugh hard all week.
"Oh and that f--king song. I am so so sick of hearing that. Next time I hear 'Ghost Riders in the Sky', I'm gonna think about goin' 100 miles per hour on a horse, jumping crates and getting shot at and s--t!"
2 stars Oh no, I'm going to have to finish this this series. Now and throughout the movie, I was smiling a lot, and not for good reasons. I was and am very aware that watching the fourth Twilight movie is embarrassing. But there I was in my living room watching Bella, Jacob, and Count Chocula continue their love triangle to the tune of $700 million worldwide.
The review is going to have spoilers, I can't get around it. The movie starts off immediately with the wedding. Weddings in movies are always boring and sadly vampire weddings aren't that different. There is an interesting flashback sequence with Edward killing men in the 30s, which he uses to help dissuade Bella's intentions of becoming a vampire, but we all know they're getting married. Seriously, even the reception is a snore. Lame speeches and awkward out of town vampire relatives.
Then there's the honeymoon in Brazil, and I imagine Twihards got everything they wanted. As much lingerie and simulated sex that a pg-13 rating will allow. Edward and Bella act as newlyweds do on a honeymoon. Although one thing that amused me was that they play a lot of chess on their trip. No honey I don't want to go to bed, let's play one more game. Checkmate! In your face Bella! Of course the big plot twist happens and human Bella discovers she's pregnant. With what, no one seems to be certain. Though they all have a strong idea that it will kill her. The teen wolves in Seattle find out and decide it should die, and Jacob crosses enemy lines and teams up with the Cullens to protect Bella and her interspecies baby.
So there's the story. I was hoping director Bill Condon (Kinsey, Dreamgirls) would have brought something more to the table but other than a freakish dream Bella has before her wedding, there doesn't seem to be all that much style to the direction. One thing I'm always annoyed by is how cheap the Twilight movies look. The production budget was $110 million. Where did it go? To speeding up Edward while he packs? Why doesn't the movie look better? Why aren't the effects better? Why aren't the posters better? Look at that thing. Why do we spend so much time in the monotony of the Cullen house? I think that family is dull as dishwater. They're too polite and bland. I was thinking there should be a lot more dramatic tension about Edward marrying this 18 year-old girl. Certain family members should be very against this, but everyone seems to be just fine with it. That should be a big deal and a source of conflict, but the family is too functional to be interesting.
What is still interesting is Jacob and Bella. Edward strangely takes a backseat during the second half of the movie. He's passive and allows Jacob to be the alpha. That's not a good screenwriting choice. The actors are fine, but the dialogue is not. It's too wordy and on the nose and where is the passion in any of these people? Where's the anger in Jacob? He just wants to be alone and cry. Boo hoo. I miss Bella's high school friends. Anna Kendrick has what amounts to a cameo. I like the actors who play Bella's parents but they're inconsequential to the story.
The movie seems to have no problem with being silly. "Last night was the best night of my existence". Goodness. I burst out laughing. It's too much! I like a good teen romance, but come on. I love pizza, but I've never thought of saying, "Last night I had the best slice of my existence". Also the shot of their broken bed after the first night, what is that supposed to make me feel? Am I supposed to be in awe of their sexual power? It just made me laugh. Also about midway in, the wolf pack gets together to have a pow wow about they're going to do about Bella. But they meet as wolves, not as people, and very unfortunately we start to hear them speak to one another. It's ridiculous! It's Dr. Doolittle. How do people not laugh, these furry wolves arguing in teen voices. No, grrrr, no!
I like the first movie the most, I hate New Moon, I marginally liked Eclipse, and this one is not very good. I still enjoyed watching it, but probably for the wrong reasons. Even now I find pleasure in thinking about how goofy this all is. I know they want to get new bands onto the soundtrack but some of the songs totally don't fit. The best part for me though was at the way end, during the credits. It's a tease for Part 2, and here comes the glorious Michael Sheen, the best actor in any of the movies, and it was really good to see him. I think if you were a vampire for centuries on end you would go a little mad and he's great at conveying at. No Dakota though. She'll probably show up in the finale.
No matter what I might write, Twilight gives people what they want. I could argue that tragic romances are more moving (Romeo & Juliet, Moulin Rouge, even Titantic) but I'm not going to convince anyone. I don't care about vampires and it seems so obvious that you should pick the flesh and blood guy so you don't have to lose your soul and you can continue to eat food for the rest of your life. There should be a scene about that. Not eating ever again? It's too high a price. Still, no one's going to switch over to Native American Jake. One more movie and it's done. Is that what the title refers to? The fifth one will come and go and we can emerge from the oppressive black cloud of Twilight? Then there will be a real freaking breaking dawn. Reviews of the first two Eclipse
Watched this Week The Good:A Better Life, Chasing Amy, Once, Moneyball, 50/50, Young Guns I-II, The Adjustment Bureau, Jersey Girl, Batman The Bad: Breaking Dawn Part 1, In Time, 300 The Ugly: None Didn't Get Past 20 Minutes: None Blu-Rays Bought: Annie Hall, Batman (1989)
Trips to the Theater: None Actors of the Week: Demian Bichir, Emilio Estevez, Jason Lee Director of the Week:Kevin Smith
Trailers/Clips of the Week: Jeff Who Lives at Home. Jason Segel, Ed Helms.
4 stars It's almost 25 years old, but this is the Batman I prefer. I prefer it. I'm not saying it's better than what Nolan is doing now, but this is the one I love. Also it has to do with nostalgia as it came out when I was in my teens and was the appropriate the target audience for it.
Tim Burton's Batman is iconic. The film is full of iconic moments. He lifts the guy up to his face and says, "I'm Batman". "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" The fantastic moment when the Batwing flies into the sky and pauses for a moment in front of the moon. I remember the audience gasping when that happened. Even the logo is iconic. That thing was everywhere for years after. I remember billboards with just the logo on it. No actors, no credits, just a bat encased in yellow.
Looking at it now with a critical eye, this is a director's movie. An auteur made this. This is Tim Burton's vision down to its Batfingernails. He and his design team created a whole other world. Nolan made a realistic, contemporary Batman in Chicago, Burton made his own personal Gotham City. The costume design for one thing. Remember that the only thing before this was the 60s TV show. Then out of nowhere they created this black body armor Bat suit that looked scary and amazing. I can't remember any movie before Batman that had a costume like that. It was aggressive and it made the casting of Michael Keaton make so much sense. Keaton is a guy who would have to put on a costume to intimidate his enemies. So that's what he does. It also helps that Burton (an underrated shooter) films the suit in (again) iconic ways. The close ups of the belt snapping shut and the cape spread out wide and the shot of Batman looking down at the floor and then slowly tilting up until the light catches his eyes. The movie is packed with those great moments. Production Designer Anton Furst won an Oscar for his work and it's remarkable. This is some other place that doesn't exist in our universe. It's some alternative 1989 with a 1940s flavor. It's beautiful stuff.
As for the performances, strangely enough Keaton struck me the most this time, particularly as Bruce Wayne. He seems like a man who has a very hard time living in the regular world. He's a lonely guy, uncomfortable in his own skin. He's much more comfortable in the Bat Cave or driving his sick Batmobile. I love that car btw. It's a beast. Of all the Bruce Waynes, his the one I'm most interested in. There's a lot going on inside even beyond his occasional confessional moments. And of course there's Nicholson. You can't compare him to Heath Ledger. The characters, despite having the same name, are very different. The Joker in the Dark Knight is a complete mystery. We don't know who he is or where he came from. He's this personification of anarchy. This Joker we see here is a gangster who becomes this insane man after he's dropped into a vat of chemical waste. We see the aftermaths of the surgery ("Mirror. Mirror!") and the psychotic differences between Jack Napier and The Joker. Jack Nicholson is great in the movie. When he first comes out of the shadows and says, "You can call me Joker", I still get chills. Then soon after he smears the blood on a newspaper and says, "Wait till they get a load of me." Awesome. There's a lot of fantastic dialogue that's delivered very well. Kim Basinger is lovely as Vicky Vale. She really is a lone bright spot in the dark world of Gotham city. Robert Wuhl is also good as the reporter Alexander Knox. I can't believe I remember all these names.
Still, the real star is Burton. He was 30 at the time. He had only done Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice before this. Then he created the most artistic summer blockbuster I've ever seen. I wrote about this in a previous post but for someone so eccentric and individual, Burton makes incredibly popular movies that make a lot of money. This was one of the biggest of its time and was a juggernaut on home video. I think I wore out my VHS copy all those years ago. It's also known as one of the best marketed movies ever. The songs by Prince, the toys, the merchandising. It was a good year for Warner Bros.
Maybe most of you are too into the current Batman to watch the old one. It is old, with pre-CGI special effects and some sets that look like models, but to me it's a classic. A triumph of design and creativity. It's the most stimulating of all of the Batman movies. I don't like the sequel, I sort of like Batman Forever, and I can't stand Batman & Robin. That last one is without doubt one of the worst movies of all time. This first one though, I can't tell you how much pleasure I had re-watching it on Blu-ray. The Danny Elfman score started with that infamous musical theme and I had a great time. As for Nolan's Batmans, it really does come down to preference. I didn't want to see him training to become Batman. I didn't want Batman going to Hong Kong to fight bad guys there. I don't want an invincible Batman who no one ever lays a hand on. I want Tim Burton's world. Believe me, I'm aware I'm in the minority, but this is my blog so shut up! Lastly, let me ask you a question. Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
4 stars It's been a lot of reviews lately, but I feel like writing them. Chasing Amy is Kevin Smith's best film. I only slightly prefer Clerks because of its originality, but watching the movie again tonight, it is his best film.
Holden McNeil (a pre-fame Ben Affleck) is a comic book artist, partnered with his best friend Banky (Jason Lee) who are currently very successful with their book "Bluntman and Chronic". It's based on Jay and Silent Bob and imagines them as superheroes. At a comic-con, Holden meets Alyssa (Joey Lauren Adams) who herself writes a comic book, sort of a John Hughes book about high school. He sparks to her immediately and they all meet up a few nights later at a club. However, it turns out to be a lesbian club as Alyssa is a lesbian.
I guess that's a high concept, a heterosexual guy trying to have a relationship with a homosexual woman but that's just for the trailer. That's the one liner that summarizes the movie but it doesn't. As a guy in high school, I remember how much I was affected by their relationship. He does fall for her, and despite her not wanting to, she does for him. She says it herself, "The way the world is, how seldom it is that you meet that one person who just gets you - it's so rare". Someone once asked me what movie character I feel most like and I think of Holden in Chasing Amy. I've never been in a relationship with a lesbian, but how he is as a writer, how he is with her, his personality, what he wants out of a relationship, they're all things I relate to. And I must've really felt strongly about that when I was 18 and first saw the movie. I remember thinking it was one of the best movies I had seen about being in a relationship.
Now, many years later, that part of the movie still works. I feel for these two people who get each other but have big issues in their way. And what I see now is what Kevin Smith says in his commentary of the film. The movie is about male insecurity. And it is. Particularly male sexual insecurity. Alyssa is a lesbian, but she's also had a lot of experience with a lot of people, both men and women. And when Holden discovers this he freaks out. He lashes out at her in anger and cannot seem to get passed her past. To her, it is her past, it was a long time ago. She's not that person anymore, and as much us men would like it to happen, we just don't have the right to ask someone to apologize to us for their past. But that's what he wants. He feels inadequate. He's insecure about his lack of sexual experience and instead of discussing it with her, he flips out and says she was used and how could she do that and he wants to hurt her because he's hurt. The thing is we want them to be together, very badly, so it makes this issue all the more painful.
Along with this, Holden's friendship with Banky is deteriorating. Banky is completely threatened by Alyssa. The best friend feeling threatened by the new girlfriend - it will continue to happen until the end of time. He won't accept that he's been pushed out, and as much as he's a real d--k during the movie, I felt for him. All these years of friendship and now things have changed.
Despite the casual and hard R vulgar humor (including a hilarious scene where two people argue about whether or not Archie was gay because he couldn't decide between Betty or Veronica), the movie has a lot to say about men and how they behave when they start to get serious with someone. The judgment and the double standards and making their girlfriends' lives miserable with questions and pestering and ugh. It's terribly insightful stuff, wrapped in a Kevin Smith comedy. Also the movie has some incredible dialogue, some of Smith's best, and I prefer the dirt cheap 16mm no money look to it. This came out right in the peak of the 90s independent movement. I think the same year Jennifer Aniston came out with a rom com named Picture Perfect. Who the hell remembers that one? Smith made this for $275,000 so he could cast who he wanted and make exactly the film he wanted. It saved his career after Mallrats tanked and it's one that I love taking off the shelf and watching every year.
I am sad that I haven't liked any of his films as much as Clerks and Chasing Amy. And now that he's doing one more film and retiring I honestly feel a little relieved. I've seen almost all of his latter films and I'm disappointed that most of them are broad comedies. That's my subjective opinion and he can make whatever he wants, but Chasing Amy was and is very special to me and you just want that director to make something special again. He hasn't in the same way. The movie was loosely based on his then relationship with lead actress Joey Lauren Adams and it goes to show how life gives us the best material. Affleck is also so strong in the movie that I'll forgive him for any of his bad ones because of Chasing Amy. It's foul mouthed and there is a copious amount of sex talk, but hopefully you can look passed that and see a great film. #10 on my Top 10 of the 90s.
Immortals 3 ½ stars Let me say again that I dislike this genre. The sword and sandal movies are mostly bland and bad. Clash of the Titans is a recent example. Man was that movie terrible. There’s always a lot of faux British speak, swords clang and clang, and the actors usually act like 1D characters who stepped out of a painting. I was also one of the few who did not like 300. I was not excited about Immortals even though the director is Tarsem Singh. He’s an incredible shooter, but I didn't fully like his two previous films The Cell and The Fall. However, from the opening image, I was completely taken aback and surprised. Immortals delivers. From what you would want from this kind of movie, from what you would expect, it delivers with strength. Putting a director like Tarsem into this ancient genre is exactly what movies should do. He isn’t expressing something abstractly like the nightmare imagery of The Cell. Instead he’s taking the traditions of this kind of film and doing something very different. I have to talk about the visuals first because they affected me so strongly. I admire movies for how they look, and sometimes I’m very stimulated and satisfied. But several times during this 90 minute film, my jaw dropped. That never happens. I don’t even like when people say that, but it happened. And I could try to describe what I saw, but the words wouldn’t do the images justice. You just have to see them, and they must be seen in High Def. This movie demands at least a Blu-ray screening. The design work is stunning, particularly the costume design by Eiko Ishioka, who did the dazzling costumes from Bram Stoker's Dracula all those years ago. I’m so glad they did not stick to some tried, tired, and true interpretation of “history”. No white togas in this movie. It’s about Greek gods, it doesn’t have to be historically accurate. I even noticed that the shields are ornately designed. It’s sumptuous and beautiful stuff.
What got to me the most are the fighting scenes. They are gorgeous and sometimes breathtaking. We’ve all seen hand to hand (not my favorite movie fighting style), but the editing and slow motion used as punctuation is unbelievable. The choreography seems fresh and new. How is that possible? I think by putting such a strong visualist behind the camera, Tarsem gave us something new. He doesn’t see action like most directors do, and that’s refreshing. And thankfully the movie is R, so when a spear goes through someone’s head, it really looks like a spear going through someone’s head. I enjoy a good kill and the movie is full of them. They are brutal and hearty and made me grunt with pleasure. Uhhhh!
Henry Cavill is the next Superman and he is great as Theseus, a peasant destined to lead the Olympians against King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke). Hyperion is determined to destroy Olympus and the gods and he hopes to accomplish this by finding the Epirus Bow, a magical weapon that lays waste to everything in its path. Along the way, Theseus meets an oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto) and through visions she helps lead the way. There are the Greek gods in the heavens, Zeus, Poseidon, Athena. And even though they are not supposed to, they occasionally intervene. When they intervene it’s pretty damn cool as they wipe out tons of bad guys with incredible CG force. You can imagine where the rest of the story goes, but I like that it’s simple so that the visuals can come to the foreground. Mickey Rourke is effective as the villain everyone wishes would get what’s coming to him, but I think they could’ve got a better actor. The character work is admittedly not too strong, but the movie is so great to look at. The visuals give the movie forward momentum. They seem to be propelling the story forward. I just wanted to see the next thing Tarsem had to show us.
One last thing. The final image of the film blew me away. It involves the Immortals in the heavens above and I was completely overwhelmed. I sat there stunned in my apartment for a minute or so. I should’ve seen this in a big movie theater. I did not want to see Tarsem’s next film Mirror Mirror with Julia Roberts, but now I think I have to.
In Time 2 stars New Zealander Andrew Niccol wrote and directed Gattaca in 1997. It's a brilliant film, one of the best of that decade. He followed that with the screenplay for The Truman Show, another great movie. However since then I haven't really embraced what he's done. S1mOne is a mess with Al Pacino playing a movie producer who digitally recreates his star actress when she leaves his film. The next was Lord of War, which has its moments of wit, but it doesn't work as a whole. His latest is In Time, Timberlake's first leading man role, and it does have its moments, but it doesn't work as a whole.
The idea is that time has replaced currency. Instead of earning and spending dollars, you earn time and spend time. Rent, coffee, a car. That is high concept enough to accept. It's difficult to grasp though in terms of the story. How much is a minute worth? What is a year? $50,000? It would be nice to have some sort of exchange rate here to understand what things really cost. The second thing Niccol adds and what really is unnecessary is the idea that people stop aging at 25. Everyone in the movie is young, and we have a lot of strange moments like when a very young woman is introduced as someone's grandmother. What is the point of this? It's a director choice to have everyone in the movie be 25, but it's not cool, it's confusing. Yes we're all trying to stay young, but it's barely commented on. Also, what happens is that your clock starts at 25. So if you haven't earned any extra time, you die at 25.
What would've helped would be to show a bit of Will Salas's (Timberlake) past. We ourselves need to time to digest this new world and a longer introduction would've helped a lot. There is a thorough sequence in Gattaca setting up that world of genetic engineering, but here it happens too fast. Will's mother is played by Olivia Wilde (who of course looks the same age even though she's 55) and she has some quick lines in the morning about having enough time for the rent and the bus and I don't understand. Also, in this "Time Zone", which is a ghetto, people live day to day. Meaning if you don't work that day, you die. Isn't this a little extreme? What terrible, stressful lives these people must be living. It's too much too swallow.
Eventually Will ends up getting a glimpse of the good life where he meets Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) who is a rich girl, daughter of a hugely wealthy father (Mad Men's Vincent Kartheiser who gives the best performance in the film) and by some circumstance he kidnaps her. They go on the run, they're attracted to each other, she gets to see how he lives, she starts to believe in his belief that the system needs to change. Republicans are going to hate this movie as at its core it's about the redistribution of wealth. The movie doesn't work. Will's plan to change everything is pretty unsophisticated. The two actors have very little chemistry together. Most of the time he grabs her hand and they run. This Bonnie and Clyde robbery spree they go on is not enjoyable nor does it make much sense, and Timberlake is sadly not that interesting as a lead. He's fine, but you could put anybody in that role. Seyfried needs to age a little, she still seems like a tween to me.
It's uneven. There are gangsters, time keepers (Cillian Murphy), boring references to Will's dead father, and some stupid form of fighting where two guys grab each other's forearms and whoever can twist harder wins the time. Boo. Also the design of the future isn't as complete nor as stimulating as it was in Gattaca. It still feels too much like present day LA despite the electric powered muscle cars. I think this may be a case of a writer/director whose best work was in the beginning of his career (Shyamalan). I know you will be tempted to rent it. Don't.
300 2 stars Leonidas is screaming, "Ahhhh! I'm chaffing from my leather underwear!"
20 Things I learned from 300 (mostly written when I first saw it in 2006) 1. Persian women have no problem with hunchbacks. 2. Spartan warriors have no need for food, water, or supplies. However they must have pockets in their capes to hold fresh apples. 3. They also have no need for horses or modes of transportation. Forget it. We’ll just walk. 4. Ancient Persians love gaudy jewelery. They especially love nose rings with chains. Must be hard when you have to sneeze. 5. The chrome mask business is booming. Never go into battle without a chrome mask. 6. If you’re the god-King of Persia, act crazily with your hands. Words are not enough. Swivel your arms constantly to distract your enemy. 7. Don’t bring your son to battle with you. And if you do, never call out his name in post-battle relief. He’s gonna die. 8. Like baseball is to America, ab crunches are the pastime of Sparta. Don’t worry, son. When you grow up, you’ll have a 6-pack just like your papa. 9. Oracles love to do strange underwater dances before they talk about the future. 10. Also, hot girls are really Oracles. Who knew? 11. Always talk to your husband in overly poetic dialogue. “Let your lips finish what your fingers have started.” Honey, I love it when you talk dirty. 12. Never offer your Queen body to your enemy. He won’t respect you in the morning. And he’ll reneg on the deal. 13. But if you do, make sure you do it in a public courtyard where everyone can see. 14. Never bring your enemy’s bribe money to the counsel chamber. Oops, is that Persian money I dropped? Excuse me. 15. When you give a speech to the Spartan army of 10,000, don’t worry. The guys in the back have no problem hearing you. 16. There’s no sun in Sparta. Forecast says cloudy. 17. Make sure your narrator has an annoying accent and a nasal condition. 18. No need for interesting characters. Just a lot of one-liner ping pong. “Then we’ll fight in the shade!” ZING! 19. There’s never enough slow-motion. Can we do the dialogue scenes in slow-mo? We’ll go close on their mouths. We can see the spit spew out of their mouths. Then we’ll do the credits in slow-mo. It’ll be awesome. If the movie ran at normal speed, it would be an hour shorter. 20. This is actually a strange remake of The Ten Commandments. King Leonidas replaces the Moses role (with similar beard) and Xerxes is the transvestite descendant of Pharoah. When Xerxes was in Egypt land, let my Spartans go.
4 stars Once is the best movie about music I've ever seen. I sent it to a friend recently, and hearing how much she liked it, I saw it myself again.
Once is about a busker (Glen Hansard) who sings and plays guitar in a Dublin shopping area. One night a young Czech woman (Marketa Irglova) comes by and listens to him. She sells various things in the shopping area during the day as well, but what she really does is play the piano. They go to a music shop during a lunch break and they sing one of his songs. It's "Falling Slowly", the song everyone should know, the song that won the Oscar, and they sing the entire song together. The movie may not have choreographed dancers, but this is a musical. The story is told through the songs. Just thinking about that scene brings up a lot of emotions. It's a beautiful sequence. They get to know each other more in those 4 minutes than if they had been talking for an hour.
Much of the movie is this. They do talk, and they do get to know one another. She lives with her mother and her daughter in a tiny apartment surrounded by other immigrants to Ireland in tiny apartments. He lives with his father and works in his vacuum repair shop at night. He has someone in London he loved. She is separated from her husband who is still in the Czech Republic. But for all of these conversations, and the dialogue is surprisingly good, it's the songs that matter.
"Say it to Me Now" opens the film. When he breaks into that chorus I remember sitting up very straight in my chair and taking notice. "Lies" is sung over montage of video footage of an ex-girlfriend. "If You Want Me" is sung in a long shot as the girl walks home carrying a Discman. A favorite is "When Your Mind's Made Up", which is the song they record in the studio. I think I've watched that performance over 50 times. I don't think I've seen a better depiction in a movie of a group of musicians coming together, singing a song, and we feel how much joy they feel just playing music. I mean that's special. The song is good, but they love playing music and that's what moves me. It doesn't hurt that Glen Hansard has a monster voice and he belts his songs out with passion. If you possibly don't know, the two are not actors, they're musicians, and they composed and performed all of the songs themselves. Irglova was a shocking 17 when she did the film. She seems as if she's lived so much life, I thought she was 10 years old than that. Director John Carney put this film together. It was his idea, he wrote it, and he decided to cast these two non-actors. He deserves a lot of credit.
I saw it in the theater in 2006 and proceeded to evangelize it to anyone who would listen to me. It's one of those movies you have to share with someone else. You want your friends to see it right away, right now. It was shot on camcorders you could buy in a store, and no one knows any of the people in the movie, but it is too powerful to ignore. He walks in the airport smiling, then we cut to her playing piano, she stops playing, and then she looks out her window. We don't know exactly what she's thinking about, but at the same time we do know. It's maybe a once in a lifetime film (no pun intended). I don't think it can be copied or repeated. I really love Once, and I think a lot of you do too.
Watched this Week The Good: Immortals, 50/50, Timecop, Bloodsport, Warrior, lots of AVGN The Bad: Pulling John, Nowhere to Run, Sudden Death The Ugly: None Didn't Get Past 20 Minutes: None Blu-Rays Bought: Timecop/Bloodsport Action Double Feature, The Angry Video Game Nerd Volumes 1-5
Trips to the Theater: None Actors of the Week: Anna Kendrick, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jean-Claude Van Damme Director of the Week:James Rolfe
4 stars I'm not one who necessarily triumphs populist cinema (which is a weakness I need to overcome as a cinefile), but Titanic is a great movie. At one point I might have been on the "it's not so great" bandwagon, but I was wrong. Titanic is a great film, and a real cinematic accomplishment. James Cameron rolled the dice on this $200 million dollar water romance, and he came up a winner. Big time. So let's do it. Let's do a critical analysis of the once biggest movie of all time, now beat by Cameron himself with Avatar. I hadn't watched the film in years and popped it in Sunday night.
That all works very well, and then the last hour is all spectacle. They'll never make movies like this again. They'll never have 400 extras in period costumes running around on a ship. They'll just create them virtually. There were a lot of cutting edge special effects for the time, but so much of it was really done, with part of that huge boat on an angle as it sunk into the ocean. We all know it, but it must've been a tortuous shoot. One scene I kept thinking about is where Jack and Rose are caught at a gate and need to find a key on the floor to get through. The water is visibly rising fast in the scene. So what do they do. They roll, they shoot a take, the water rises in this giant set, then cut. Then they have to drain the set, dry the actors, reset and repaint whatever has been destroyed or ruined by the water, and then they do it all over again. Added to which the water can't be warm because it would start to steam, and I never noticed how thin Winslet's dress is. There's no room for a wet suit. Imagine waking up for work every day for months, knowing you're going to be in cold water all day. Forget it. The footage is still amazing. Oh man, when the boat breaks in half, my eyes still go wide. Unbelievable stuff. There's also that terribly disturbing shot when we pull back on thousands of people frantically splashing in the ocean water. It's that kind of unnerving desperate panic, and we know none of them are going to survive.
