3 ½ stars I enjoy Morgan Spurlock. There's something about him. I could do without the handlebar mustache but he's a likable guy. Super Size Me is a fantastic documentary, and I realize I've come to enjoy the "lighter" docs. Documentaries don't always have to be serious or significant. Why can't they be fun too?
POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is obviously about product placement and advertising. Maybe the first movie to have a brand above the title. Spurlock takes a fun look at how much brand advertising has saturated our lives and his concept is pretty brilliant.
The documentary about advertising will be funded by advertising. As he pitches the movie to different product companies, there is this great knowing that this isn't just about filming interviews. The behind the scenes and the movie itself are the same thing. The making of the movie is the movie. It's a strange and cool experience. POM turns out to be the big sponsor and they have certain considerations including Spurlock filming a commercial for them. We see them pitch the idea, and then later in the movie we see that commercial in the movie. It's got this cyclical nature to it that's a lot of fun.
And what any documentary should do is enlighten and this one does. We go to Sao Paulo, Brazil where there government law has been passed to have no outdoor advertising. It's a bizarre thing to see. The city has no billboards, no posters, no ads on taxis, nothing. My favorite trip is to this company that does neuro marketing. Basically they put you in a MRI and show you movie trailers and commercials. Then they examine what reactions your brain had during any of those clips. One in particular causes Spurlock to really want a Coke, at least according to the activity in his brain. I'm not sure how scientific it all is but it's alarming to see what lengths companies will go to get good reaction. I hope my future trailers aren't shown to someone while they're strapped down in a hospital gown.
Spurlock also gets interesting interviews from people about product placement. A blockbuster movie must have a drink tie-in, a fast food tie-in, a car tie-in. Iron Man 2 was apparently the biggest product placement movie that year and it not only brought its budget down, but sometimes these things are forced on them or someone may take all of their picture cars away. One depressing thing was his trip to a local school district where they need advertising since budgets have been so cut. School buses are starting to have ads, and apparently there is this thing called Channel One where there are TVs in classrooms mostly showing educational material, but then there of course is TV spots for Neutrogena and The Prince of Persia. The schools don't even get money for this, they just get a free small TV.
All the while during these interviews, Morgan is drinking POM Wonderful, he places a stick of Ban Deoderant on the table while he talks to Quentin Tarantino, he only flies Jet Blue, and he drives a Mini Cooper everywhere. I do like the two door trunk on the hatchback. It's all very amusing and I realized how many things I own have the brand label right on it. From Adidas mesh shorts to my Chrome messenger bag. No one wants an Apple laptop without that big apple emblem on it. And I think I'm going to try a POM Wonderful this weekend. It is made of 100% pomegranate juice. The other brands don't compare!
It ultimately isn't that significant a movie as it is mostly showing us these things without much commentary, but I was glad to see them. At 82 minutes it's a brisk, fun documentary. Those are three words I never thought I'd put next to each other.
3 ½ stars 9 minutes in, the movie really starts. We’ve seen the kid versions of Keira and Orblando, but then the real guy shows up.
Captain Jack Sparrow has become such a part of pop culture that we forget how weird he actually looks. I mean, there’s a medium sized bone to the right of his face that’s never commented on. Not to mention his half drunk, fey strut that does not let up during the length of the film. Disney executives must’ve been freaking out when they saw the first dailies. Actors take risks sometimes, but this is ridiculous. If you wrote down a list of all the eccentricities Johnny Depp decided to add to Captain Jack, I think even I would’ve said no. It’s too much, it’s too distracting, it’s too bizarre. But somehow, some way, it all miraculously works.
Let’s not forget that Pirates of the Caribbean is a ride at Disneyland. And I don’t recall any films previously that were based on theme park rides. Although Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride certainly sounds like a movie. There was a whole lot of cynicism before the movie came out. Pirate movies always failed, movies set on water were known to go dangerously over budget, and the three films Johnny Depp did right before this were From Hell, Blow, and Chocolat. Have you seen any of those?
But he did it. He made the movie something to see. There was so much buzz about his performance after that first weekend that I remember going to see it on a Monday night. Depp's performance exceeded expectations. It’s so genuinely creative, one of the best and most memorable characters in recent memory, and what makes this one the best of the Pirates movies is that Jack is at his best. He spends parts 2 and 4 being a coward and in part 3 he is a little lost among the traffic jam of characters. But this first one, with that entrance, his boat slowly sinking until he steps onto the dock, it’s the best. His sword fight with Will Turner is also very good, very clever, and it shows exactly what the movie is. It could’ve been about the young hero blacksmith who wants to marry a noble girl, but thankfully and mercifully it’s not. How boring would that movie have been? One thing about these kind of movies, we want the guy/girl to be good at what he/she does. No one wants to see a movie about the world’s second greatest gunslinger. We want to see the best, and Captain Jack is “the best pirate I’ve ever seen". He can fight, he can sail, he can cheat. "Pirate!".
The movie is 20 minutes too long, the skeleton pirates are ok (I like Davy Jones' creature crew better), the romance is ok, the story is a bit convoluted, it doesn't have the amazing wooden wheel sequence in Dead Man's Chest, it doesn't have enormous maelstrom battle in At World's End, but it's still the most fun. You just want to see how Jack deals with any situation that comes in front of him. Even when he invokes parley, he doesn’t simply say it. He mumbles, he gets the other guy to say it, “that’s the one!”, and he makes some suspect statement that it was created by the French.
Depp is helped a lot by cinematographer Dariusz Wolski who lights this film beautifully. This is a gorgeous production. Cinematographers matter. Look at how generic and uninteresting those Narnia movies look. Here there is great use of dark lighting and filters which I admit I almost always enjoy. In my mind Gore Verbinski still needs to prove himself as a premiere director (didn’t like The Weather Man or The Ring), but he is a smart and talented guy who knows how to keep pace and hold interest. It’s the funniest of the movies and that’s so important because even now, pirates aren’t cool. It’s not cool to go, “Arrrr!”. I doubt I would even want to go on the ride. But wit makes any film better. Also no one mentions Jack Davenport who plays Commodore Norrington, the officer who wishes to marry Elizabeth Swann. Jack needs a stiff military man bounce off of and Davenport is great. I really did miss him in #4.
I can understand why Johnny Depp continues to want to play this character despite the long hours and the grueling schedule. Jack Sparrow is a total original, and he can’t be copied since everyone knows Captain Jack. And it's not like anyone else is making pirate movies. The greatest feat I think is that he did it all in a Disney film. He got the Oscar nomination that year, he lost to Sean Penn in Mystic River, but that performance and that character is really the one that will never be forgotten. It will be one of those movies along with Star Wars and Jurassic Park that you’ll have to show your kids. A ludicrously long title, a very fun movie.
Watched this Week
The Good: Everything Must Go (review), X-Men: First Class (review), Payback, Planet of the Apes (1968), Redbelt, Rounders, No Subtitles Necessary: Laszlo and Vilmos, Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate, Boardwalk Empire Season 1
The Bad:Water for Elephants, Pirates 4, Mars Needs Moms, Payback: Director's Cut, Out for Justice (but still sometimes fun) The Ugly: None Blu-Rays Bought: Rounders, Braveheart, Redbelt Trips to the Theater: None Actors of the Week: Charlton Heston, Will Ferrell, Michael Stuhlbarg Directors of the Week:Dan Rush, Brian Helgeland
Trailers/Clips of the Week: Carnage. Based on the play God of Carnage that won the Tony. This does not look or feel like a Polanski film. John C. Reilly's "Wow" is a LOL.
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. Didn't like the first one, hated the directors' last movie Gamer, but this is a good trailer.
1 ½ starsYawn. Big fat yawn. I didn't really want a fourth Pirates movie. I don't know if I wanted the last two. The first Pirates of the Caribbean was a nice surprise 8 years ago in the summer of 2003. The only other pirate movie I had seen before that was the terrible Cutthroat Island with Geena Davis. Then Johnny Depp shows up with a wholly original character that instantly became iconic. The red bandana, the gold teeth, the dreads, and lots and lots of eyeliner. The first movie is very funny, and despite too much sword clanging, it was really a good time. I like watching that one again, and I did like the last one At World's End with the Black Pearl sailing over sand dunes and that amazing final battle in the rain. But all I see with this one is Disney executives counting money. Mostly foreign money as this thing is just gigantic overseas.
On Stranger Tides is about The Fountain of Youth. Jack Sparrow wants to get there, Barbossa wants to get there, Spain wants to get there, the new villain Blackbeard (Deadwood's Ian McShane) wants to get there, and new love interest Angelica (a still sexy Penelope Cruz) wants to get there too. She is actually a nice touch in that Jack Sparrow has had no love interests in the entirety of the series I believe. She is the best thing in the movie, he and Penelope have good chemistry, and I wish there was more of a genuine love story. Speaking of that, I'm not sure if I miss Keira and Orlando. Well, definitely not Orlando Bland.
But what about this fountain? What about it. Seriously, who cares. This is bad screenwriting. We may understand why multiple characters want to get there, but we don't care in the least. I know I didn't. It seemed so small in comparison to previous journeys. The 3rd movie had that amazing trip to the land of the dead where ships sail through what looked like an ocean of stars. Here we get irritating mermaids, annoying zombie men who serve Blackbeard, and Blackbeard himself who is terribly underwhelming. McShane is a great actor, but this is not a great role.
You would think with a fourth movie you'd try for new things. I think they decided to scale back. Instead of Davy Jones and his cool tentacle face, we get a lot of boring sword fights and way too many scenes where everything stops so the characters can stand around and tell us the next steps of the plot. Where's the adventure? Where's the wit and charm? Also, they apparently decided to scale back the humor because this is not a funny movie. There were a lot of good small characters before, now we get a dull as freak clergyman and a mermaid with an accent so cumbersome we want her to stop talking. Btw, why would a mermaid speak English? Why would she have an accent? All she does is live underwater and drown men. It makes no sense! None of the action sequences are memorable, none of Jack Sparrow's lines are memorable. What a forgettable disappointment.
I will say that in terms of the history of pirate films, I don't believe they could look much better than these films. Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski (Sweeney Todd, The Crow) is one of the best, the production design is always good, and the costume design is always stylish. This is a handsome looking series, but I see no point to this movie. I mean, if you really love Pirates of the Caribbean, I guess you're just happy they made another one. And evidently they are going to make more so you'll be 5x as happy. As for me, I think I'm done. I'm done with the sails and the swords and the silly hats. Please, please don't reboot this one. The titles are just too long.
Water for Elephants 2 stars I had no intention of watching Water for Elephants, but it was available so why not. Most of my reluctance comes from the unappealing title. I don't think film adaptations should necessarily have to keep the original title of the books they are based on. Especially a title as unromantic as Water for Elephants. Also they should've changed the main character's distracting first name. It's Jacob. Pattinson is in a giant movie series where his main rival is named Jacob. Change it!
Jacob Jankowski (Pattinson) is about to graduate Cornell and become a veterinarian when his parents suddenly die in an auto accident. Despondent, he sets off walking and stumbles upon a circus. It's the Great Depression and he'll take whatever work he can get. Christoph Waltz from I.Basterds plays the owner August, and Reese is the star Marlena. Guess what happens.
This is a tried and true story of young forbidden love. More specifically it is very close to Moulin Rouge in that a penniless guy and the star beauty fall in love while a cruel older man stands in there way. Unfortunately, I'm not interested in circuses, I'm not remotely as in love with the elephant Rosie as everyone in the movie seems to be, and there is one huge unavoidable problem - Reese and Robert have no chemistry. NONE. Isn't there supposed to be some sort of heat between the two romantic leads? There is nothing going on. All I saw was an older sister and a younger brother. Gross.
Reese is sadly miscast. Someone European, someone more exotic would've been better. She's a good actress, but I've never really thought of her as sexy or mysterious. Same deal with Renee Zellweger or Sandra Bullock. So she just seems too mature for Jacob, not all that alluring, and I didn't care whether or not they would be together. Pattinson is fine, if a bit too nice and stiff in the role. I did enjoy things early on as the classic story of a young man entering a new adult world is always a little bit appealing, but when it's time to show passion he's surprisingly limp. Waltz is good, the character is uneven, and none of the other supporting cast stands out in the least. Francis Lawrence is usually a good visual director (I am Legend, Constantine) but there's nothing special in the cinematography. All I noticed were an inordinate amount of shots of the backs of people's heads. And not to give too much away, but I always think in these big sweeping romances, tragedy is the better way to go. Sad endings make you feel more. Romeo and Juliet, Moulin Rouge, even Titanic. Ho hum, the movie isn't big, sweeping or romantic. And Robert's hands seem way too close to Reese's ass in that poster.
The Conspirator 2 ½ stars Robert Redford has a lot to say about personal civil liberties and our government. I did not like his last film Lions for Lambs and that too spoke about government, personal responsibility, and how bad things are right now. This latest film The Conspirator is about the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln and the trial of the multiple men and one woman who is charged with his murder.
It is the first assassination in U.S. history and the country is in shock. The Secretary of War (Kevin Kline) believes that swift merciless justice will calm the nation and the conspirators are given a military trial, not a civil trial as guaranteed in the Constitution. The men are guilty, but the question mark is Mary Surrat (Robin Wright). She owned the boarding house John Wilkes Booth and his friends spent a lot of time in, and her own son is part of the conspiracy.
The issue then becomes about how we treat people in such a crisis. She is not treated the least bit fairly. She is an older woman forced into solitary and chained to the floor, and the entire trial seems to be a showy exercise to get them convicted as soon as possible. Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) is forced to be her defense lawyer and it was obvious from the beginning that he would at first be biased and prejudiced and then he would ultimately see how she is being treated and his heart would turn. It is also too obvious that Redford is much more concerned with the political arguments rather than the characters involved. Mary Surrat will not give up her son, although he is clearly guilty, but that emotional storyline is smothered under many arguments about legal and Constitutional rights. I happen to agree with the movie's themes, but I didn't care about the people. I do believe it is the means that matter not the ends that matter, but ultimately I don't really care about Mary Surrat or Frederick Aiken.
The time period is well put together, but sorry I will never be interested in it. The Civil War era seems like a brutal time where women's fashion and hairstyles are terrible and white men are free to be as ignorant and closed minded as they want to be. I think of how hot it must've been in all that wool and facial hair. I'm not sure I'm even interested in Spielberg's Lincoln biopic with Daniel Day-Lewis. It's not completely successful but still a mostly engaging movie. Redford directed two genuinely great films: Ordinary People (still in my Top 5) and Quiz Show. Hopefully he has another one in him, but this isn't it.
A Knight's Tale3 ½ stars I've grown to genuinely love Brian Helgeland's A Knight's Tale. Back in 2001 I was so against it. The idea of 70s rock songs in 14th century Medieval times was too much to take. All Heath had done previously was 10 Things I Hate About You (still unseen by me) and there were a lot of not so great posters, trailers, and TV Spots.
In the last 10 years I have watched it a lot on DVD and always, always have a great time. First and foremost, it is the only movie about jousting I can think of. Someone tell me if I'm wrong. And the jousting is so crazy cinematic. When those lances break into bits on a suit of armor it is awesome. Filmed mostly by Second Unit Director Allen Graf, they are spectacular and they themselves could've been enough for me.
But what the writer/director Brian Helgeland does is create a hilarious group to support Heath's hero William. Mark Addy (recently of Game of Thrones) as Roland, Alan Tudyk as Wat, and particularly Paul Bettany (before he became relatively famous and married Jennifer Connelly) as Jeffrey Chaucer. It's a fun group with a lot of energy and wit. Particularly Bettany who plays Chaucer as a wonderful writer. Honestly I think it's one of the best portrayals of a writer in movies. It makes me proud to be one. Although Chaucer in this film is a gambling addict and occasionally literally loses the shirt of his back. Also Scottish actress Laura Fraser is good as a female blacksmith that travels around with the crew.
The movie is about 20 minutes too long and I could've done without the blind father subplot, but it's too much fun otherwise. Shannyn Sossamon's supermodel outfits are too much fun otherwise. The opening shot involves two servants carrying a huge lance toward a knight on his horse, all the while the crowd pounding their hands to We Will Rock You. If you don't like that first scene, don't bother with the rest of the movie. My favorite sequence though is one in a sword fight arena where William hammers his opponents to Taking Care of Business by Bachman Turner Overdrive. I edited that clip and have been watching it on my iPod during cardio sessions for days now. Go rent it, you'll have a great time. If you don't like it, don't tell me because I will like you less.
2 stars A friend of mine didn't know there was an original Planet of the Apes. Yes there is! It came out in 1968, it starred Charlton Heston, and he was an astronaut who crash landed on a planet ruled by apes. The Tim Burton one starring Mark Wahlberg was a remake. This movie is a prequel and despite its current popularity, I don't think it's a very good one.
James Franco plays Will Rodman, a neuroscientist trying to discover the cure for Alzheimer's. He has created a new drug that he has been testing on one particular ape. That ape has shown significant growth in intelligence but she unfortunately dies. When she does, Will decides to take her baby chimp home and he and his father (who himself has Alzheimer's) decide to name him Caesar. Caesar has in fact inherited the intelligence of his mother and is learning at an alarming rate. And so we head toward the planet of the apes.
In prequels we know what has already happened, and now the prequel is made to show how things got to where they were. Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader, etc. The problem for me is that a planet full of apes is inherently more interesting than how Caesar the ape became intelligent and began his rebellion on Earth. It is engaging to see Caesar learn how to use tools and how to problem solve, but what investment do I have in this ape? He's been treated poorly by humans (and most of the humans in this movie are giant a--holes) and we have sympathy for him, but what is the real point here? Are we supposed to actually root for the apes to take over the world? Are we supposed to believe that we have caused them enough pain and suffering that they deserve to take over? It's an inherent flaw in the movie that made me enjoy it less and less as it went on. In the Heston one, we are on his side. He is being treated cruelly by this society of apes and we want him set free. We want him to escape. You know why? Because he's human! Sorry but I have to side with my species. As Caesar and his rebellion grew, I wanted them to be stopped. I wanted S.W.A.T. teams to kill them so they don't come over to my house and rip my face off.
What it could've been and probably should've been is a tragedy. There is a small aspect in the story of Will playing God, but this is lost midway. It should be a tragedy about humans trying to fix what shouldn't be tampered with but that's not here. Will's more invested in stopping Caesar because of his friendship with him not because he's trying to correct the horrible mistakes he has made. In the first film there is that infamous ending alluding to the fact that humanity destroyed themselves and somehow a new civilization of apes was born. This "rise" seems more like an accident. An oops as opposed to anything significantly tragic.
Also if you don't know, the movie is about apes. All of the humans are secondary characters and they are dull. Franco spends a lot of time explaining the drug, and explaining Caesar's progress, but it's just a lot of exposition. Even his relationship with Freida Pinto is so brief and put way in the background. It's great to see her in an American movie but she doesn't have anything to do other than look very attractive. I'd say over 50% of the movie contains scenes completely made up of apes. The movie is about them, but again, I'm not really that invested in them. I don't want them to overthrow San Francisco. I don't want them to run me out of my home and shut down the Golden Gate bridge when I'm trying to get to work. I want humans to live and it wasn't as fun watching us lose.
Strangely enough, the movie is still entertaining, and even though I didn't really enjoy it, I was never bored. There is seamless CGI, Andy Serkis (who also played Gollum) is quite amazing as Caesar. He isn't a digital creation by some animators in front of a monitor. This is an actor's creation. There are also some great shots of packs of apes terrorizing San Francisco that are pretty cool.
Still, I'd rather watch the Heston one. I'd rather watch Tim Burton's with that incredible make-up and Tim Roth and Helena Bonham Carter. A civilization of talking apes is very interesting. Lab apes learning to work as a team isn't. I also feel bad for Tom Felton (Draco from Harry Potter) who again plays a bully we all want to see die. I'm honestly not certain why any of the actors chose to do this movie. It's not about them in the least. The summer's ending and there isn't much left. Even so, this ain't worth a trip to the theater. And what a terrible, clunky title. In the paraphrased words of the man who played Moses, "You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!"
Watched this Week
The Good: Game of Thrones Season 1, more In Treatment, A Knight's Tale
The Bad:Meet Monica Velour, The Avengers (1998), Twister
The Ugly: None Didn't get past 20 minutes: None Trips to the Theater: Rise of the Planet of the Apes Actors of the Week: Peter Dinklage, Emilia Clarke, Sean Bean Directors of the Week:The directors of Game of Thrones
Trailers/Clips of the Week: Pearl Jam Twenty. Directed by Cameron Crowe.
I don’t really care for the fantasy genre. Other than Lord of the Rings, there have been so many bad movies. I remember watching Labyrinth as a kid in class (the teacher thought we would enjoy it) and I was so unbelievably bored. I also don’t really care for the knights and armor genre either. During the big run after LOTR there were so many. Troy, Kingdom of Heaven, King Arthur, Alexander. They take themselves so seriously and the dialogue is often unpalatable. There’s a reason why no one really reads the King James Bible anymore. So considering this, I wasn’t all that excited about Game of Thrones. The books are apparently best sellers, HBO was spending a fortune on the series, but I didn’t care. Last Monday night, not having anything to watch, I decided to try the first episode, expecting I would shut it off midway. That did not happen.
Game of Thrones takes place in a fictional world. This isn’t Britain or even ancient Europe, it’s Westeros which consists of seven kingdoms. Seven kingdoms, one awesome iron throne made up of melted down swords. King Robert (Mark Addy) of course cannot be in all seven kingdoms at once, so there are appointed Hands that govern those cities. The northern kingdom is Winterfell, and it is ruled by the Stark family, particularly its head Ned Stark (LOTR’s Sean Bean). This is the main family of Game of Thrones. Also in this non-Earth world, the rules of reality aren’t necessarily the same. Seasons are not fixed time periods. It has been years of Summer and as Ned says, “Winter is coming”. Bad times are coming. There are supernatural beings beyond the great Northern Wall, the wealthy Lannisters (with their annoying blonde hair) have secretly murdered the Hand of the capital city, the Queen who is a Lannister is plotting to get her son on the throne, and across the sea a group of 100,000 warrior savages called the Dothraki threaten the kingdom as well. This is the great thing about television. You’re not restricted to 2 hours so there is time to set up all of these people, all of these great characters, and because it’s HBO, it’s serialized. This isn’t CSI or Law and Order where one episode has nothing to do with the other. The story unfolds episode after episode.
Why does it all work so well? Why was I so affected by it? I asked myself a lot while I was watching. I don’t even like sword fighting! But the show somehow gives us the best of the genre. We want strong, noble men with honor. The series is full of them, almost all of them complex and distinctive. For example, Ned has a bastard son John Snow. He has lived with the Starks all of his life, but he’s never been fully part of them. Because of this he decides to go to the Northern Wall and swears a life oath to protect it. Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa of the upcoming Conan remake) is the king of the warrior Dothraki and he is a terribly fascinating leader despite his character barely saying anything. They don’t elect leaders, they fight and whoever is alive wins. The winner is Khal, and he is the ultimate Alpha male. He could take on King Kong.
We also want great characters, and my favorites are by far Tyrion Lannister and Daenerys Targaryen. Tyrion is a Lannister, so he is wealthy and rich and protected. But he is also a dwarf. One imagines that little people don’t survive very long in such a harsh environment, but Tyrion has massive intelligence and wit and he’s certainly given the best words to say. He’s a modern man in a brutal world. Peter Dinklage starred in The Station Agent and he is phenomenal in the role. He’s gotta win the Emmy.
Danenerys Targaryen was part of a royal family that was all but wiped out by the current one. She and her brother are the only ones left, and hoping to regain power, her brother forces her to marry Khal Drogo. Drogo gets a beautiful white wife, her brother thinks he gets an army. She does not want to marry him, she does not want to live among savages, and she begins as every bit a girlish princess. However, she changes so wonderfully over the course of the season. She discovers her power, her leadership, and her strength over her brother. I never heard of British actress Emilia Clarke, but she is amazing. Not to mention she has to be naked in so many of her scenes which can’t be easy in a cast full of men.
We also want absolutely gorgeous visuals, and I was more than once taken totally aback by the landscapes and the production design. Astounding stuff. And I don’t even like nature! And I don’t care about bridges and castles! It is a complete world we enter into, aided sometimes by CGI, but mostly credited to Ireland and Malta and designer Gemma Jackson. This isn’t a cheap show, it’s feature film television at a very high bar. Costume design, weapon design, even the number of extras, it’s all top rate.
More than anything though, it is the story by George R.R. Martin. It is the complex plot machinations between different families, different loyalties, and so many compelling characters. I don’t want to give anything away because so much of the pleasure comes from the unexpected. However, there is one scene I want to talk about though. In episode 4, Ned's wife Catelyn (Michelle Fairley) confronts a man she believes attempted to murder her son. She calls out the men in the pub, greeting them individually. She reminds them of their loyalty to her father and his honor to them and their masters. Her speech is rousing.
"This man came into my house, as a guest, and there conspired to murder my son, a boy of ten. In the name of King Robert and the good lords you serve, I call upon you to seize him, and help me return him to Winterfell, to await the King's justice."
All of them draw their swords and point them at this man. I was so pumped I leapt up from my couch. Yeah! Screenwriter David Benioff (25th Hour, Brothers) created the show with his writing partner D.B. Weiss and they have crafted a magnificent first season. A warning though that this is very R-rated. One expects a certain amount of violence (there are some unforgiving beheadings), but there is also a lot of strong sexuality. It doesn’t shy away from that in the least and some of you readers may be blushing already. Thankfully the show is incredibly popular so there will be more. One season covers one book, seven books in all. But argh, now we have to wait until next Spring.
4 starsThe Count of Monte Cristo is one terribly enjoyable red-blooded swashbuckler. Every time I see it I have fun completely from beginning to end. I'm fairly certain Alexandre Dumas’ novel (which I have not read) isn't as action oriented as the movie is but I don't care. This genre is by its nature old fashioned. The movie is a throwback, and I think one of the best of its kind.
Edmond Dantes (Jim Caviezel) is an officer on a French trading ship and by chance ends up on the island of Elba as his Captain is in need of medical attention. Elba is of course where Napoleon was in exile and he asks Edmond to deliver a letter in Marseilles. Edmond’s best friend Count Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce) witnesses this, and growing jealous of Edmond’s happiness, he leaks this information. Edmond is sent to the local magistrate Villefort on charges of treason. And although he is initially forgiving of Edmond’s obvious innocence, when Villefort hears the name of the recipient of the letter, he arrests Edmond, puts him in chains, and sends him without trial to the Chateau d’If. Despite the cheery name, it is a prison carved into an island of rock.
Edmond suffers awful punishment there. Alone for years on end in a stone room with one bowl of soup a day and nothing else. It is as inhumane a beating as I can imagine. However, through wonderful circumstance (that I will not reveal) he meets a fellow prisoner, the Priest, played by the late, great Richard Harris (the first Dumbledore to the youngins). They plan to escape and so they dig. They dig not for months, but for years, and during this time Edmond learns much from the Priest. He learns how to read and write, about economics, philosophy, and later hand to hand combat and swordplay. The Priest has a secret though, he has a map to a treasure. And with that, Edmond can put his plan of revenge into action.
Why is this movie so much better than similar attempts? For one, it is not a stiff costume piece. The movie is alive and brimming with energy. It has a great sense of adventure. The sword fights aren’t pretty, they are often brutal, and the pace moves forward so swiftly. I also think the dialogue is quite good from screenwriter Jay Wolpert. It has a lot of wit, a favorite line being, “Now you're thinking just now "Why me, O God?". The answer is, God has nothing to do with it. In fact, God is never in France this time of year.” The less serious take on the material allows for such pithy lines, but what really works and most certainly so is the story crafted by Dumas. The beats, the betrayals, the turn of events, it's all so engaging. We are completely with Edmond the entire way and want what he wants and we feel what he feels. We also get to have some fun with revenge. A moment just after someone is offered a pistol for a gentleman's suicide is bloody satisfying.
A lot of credit must go to director Kevin Reynolds whose biggest films were Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Waterworld. I think he’s a talented director despite his last film being Tristan & Isolde with James Franco. Btw, it’s hilarious to see in interviews that he is born and bred Texan with a thick accent. The Count of Monte Cristo is crafted with excitement and wit. Set pieces and even action beats are clever and distinctive. You start to remember how bad action usually is when you actually see some that is well put together. All of this adventure added to such a compelling story and how can you not see it? It probably isn’t as deep or resonant as the Dumas novel, but that’s ok. It’s an old fashioned adventure in the best way. On Blu-ray Sept 13th and I may buy it.
(Lionsgate is starting to release Miramax movies on Blu-ray! Pulp and Jackie Brown coming in October)
Watched this Week
The Good: Jane Eyre, Win Win, The Conspirator, The Count of Monte Cristo, lots of In Treatment The Bad:None
The Ugly: None Didn't get past 20 minutes: The Beaver (Sorry Mel and Jodie), Prom (despite Aimee Teegarden from FNL) Blu-rays Bought: Swingers Trips to the Theater: None
Actors of the Week: Mia Wasikowska, Amy Ryan, Jim Caviezel Director of the Week:Cary Fukunaga
Trailers/Clips of the Week: Boardwalk Empire Season 2. Oh man, can't wait.
Win Win 3 starsI genuinely loved writer-director Tom McCarthy’s first two films The Station Agent and The Visitor. Both were on my top 10 lists their respective years. He himself is actually an actor and probably considers that his first profession (Syriana, 2012), but I think he’s one of the best actor/directors I know of. Win Win isn’t quite up there with those first two films though, but it’s still pretty good.
Mike Flaherty (Paul Giamatti) is an attorney mostly for elderly clients and his practice is struggling. He also coaches a local high school wrestling team and they are worse than struggling. Running out of money and out of ideas, he decides one day to be the guardian of one of his clients as the guardian receives a $1500/month commission for “taking care” of this man Leo. Mike doesn’t really have the time to take care of Leo so he puts him in a nearby nursing home despite the fact that Leo wants to live at home. All is going fine when Leo’s grandson Kyle shows up one day wanting to live with his grandfather. Kyle is from Ohio, his mother is a drug addict, and having no other choice, Mike lets Kyle stay in his own home.
This does feel a little bit like the setup for a sentimental TV show. Kid with troubled family finds a new life with a new family. However because it’s Tom McCarthy and because he has such a great ear for dialogue and such a subtle touch with character, it doesn’t play on those levels. Kyle isn’t nasty or rebellious. He’s a polite low key kid who just happens to look like some skater brat. He starts to really enjoy spending time with Mike’s normal family which includes his wife Jackie (the always good Amy Ryan) and his two daughters, the older one Abby possibly being one of the cutest kids in cinema history. Where's daddy? He's running. From what? Take that annoying boy from Jerry Maguire. Kyle even starts to wrestle for Mike’s team, and it turns out he is a star wrestler.
It is inevitable that his mother will show up, it is inevitable that Mike will have to reveal the truth to Kyle regarding his grandfather, but despite those predictable aspects Win Win has such a good heart that I’m not bothered by them. Helping out a lot is Tom McCarthy alum Bobby Cannavale as Mike’s high school friend who was also in The Station Agent as the Cuban guy who owned that coffee truck. This actor is one of those guys you can’t not love. He has so much energy, he’s so funny, and he’s so loyal to Mike. He’s an actor I wish more people knew. And let’s not forget about Giamatti who despite sometimes looking like the human version of Ziggy, he disappears into the role and so many roles. He’s really a great actor. It’s not a must rent as it’s not as deep or complete as his first two films, but it’s solid. And there's a great end credits track by The National, "Think You Can Wait".
Carrie Fisher: Wishful Drinking 3 ½ stars Everyone my age will always think of Carrie Fisher as the iconic Princess Leia. How could we not with those cinnamon buns on the side of her head? But what she should be known for is great writing as she has wrote several novels, several screenplays, and her one woman show that she did for about 3 years between 2006-2009. HBO filmed one of her Broadway performances and I had the good pleasure of catching it one night in a hotel room as there was nothing else to do at midnight in St. Louis when your friend has a curfew.
It’s a great show, half of it chronicling her insane celebrity family. As she puts it, her father singer Eddie Fisher was Brad Pitt, her mother actress Debbie Reynolds was Jennifer Aniston, and Elizabeth Taylor who her father left her mother for was Angelina Jolie. It was huge news at the time and Fisher hilariously takes us through the divorce the many subsequent marriages and children and dysfunctionality. The Lohans have nothing on this family. The second half is a lot about Star Wars and it’s also very funny. From Lucas’ declaration that she couldn’t wear a bra since there is no underwear in space, to her breaking down the greatest things her likeness has been merchandised into. This includes an action figure, a shampoo, a Mr. Potato Head line, and a Pez Dispenser(which she is most proud of). It’s all incredibly witty and sharp. She may be 54, a little overweight and a recovery drug addict, but she has a sense of humor about it. As she says, “If my life wasn’t funny, it would just be true, and that is unacceptable.” It’s a great show, just released on DVD.
Jane Eyre 3 ½ stars Despite countless film and television adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, I admit I have not seen any of them. I also have no hesitation expressing my distaste for period costume films. They seem much more interested in ornate production design and restrictive clothing than in character and real drama. Also there seems to be a reverential obedience to unwritten rules about how they should look and feel. It may have very well been very stuffy and proper in traditional 1800s England, but it's so cliche on film. It's not as if every contemporary film needs to be wild and crazy just because it can be.
Thankfully and mercifully Jane Eyre is of a different stock. Director Cary Fukunaga's last film was Sin Nombre, a gritty film about a Honduran family trying to reach the U.S. through Mexico. This doesn't seem anything like that film, but there is a sense of wanting to be different than the usual BBC fair. Jane Eyre is played by the wonderful Australian actress Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland). Jane is an orphan, hated by her aunt, forced to go to a cruel charity school, and is hired as a governess (a proper nanny) under the employment of Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). He has a French daughter from a previous unhappy relationship and for the first time in her life, Jane feels a bit at ease in this vast estate.
What this version of Jane Eyre isn't is a film about the unfairness of the times or the harshness of this repressed world. We don't observe Jane from afar, pitying her horrible circumstances or her "tale of woe". From the very first moment of the film we are with her, feeling what she feels, taking in her life as she experiences it. This is not so much her story as it is her feelings about her own story. She has taken in so much emotional abuse in her short 19 year-old lifetime. So when something good or something that relieves her suffering happens, we feel as good and relieved as she does. We are also as cautious as she is, skeptical that gifts and generosity may soon be taken away. In that way, it is a romance that is measured and a bit cynical and those things are welcome in this genre. Jane is also an individual. She doesn't want someone to save her, she wants to be of her own. She's a realist and is aware that the culture she inhabits will not allow her total freedom, but she finds ways to satisfy her individuality when she can. She's an outsider, a bit of a rebel, and I really liked that. She isn't the heroine of this movie just because she is likable and pretty. If this was a modern day interpretation it would've starred Ellen Page (who strangely enough was first cast in the role before dropping out of the film). However, I feel Wasikowska is pretty perfect. She seems of the time period, and so much of the performance is quiet and reserved. We feel there is so much she is thinking about, so much she is holding back. There is a distant quality to the performance as well that seems very appropriate. Her disappointment has caused her to step back from anyone, and that may protect her, but it is also breeding sadness. Mia has a lot of help from the supporting cast which includes Judi Dench, Imogen Poots (Solitary Man), Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot), Sally Hawkins (Happy Go Lucky), and the great Michael Fassbender. It's still her film though. With this and her performance in season 1 of In Treatment, I think she is going to be someone to look out for.
The films is quite beautiful. Well, my kind of beautiful. A muted desaturated palette almost always appeals to me, and its lack of chrome polish and sun shiny days fit well with Jane. She doesn't seem like someone who necessarily enjoys bright summer afternoons. It's also helped by a lovely score by Dario Marianelli (Atonement). I was also very pleased that despite a handsome love interest, Jane and the film don't lose sight of who she is. And she is someone I would love to have known and been friends with.
The trailer is a bit misleading. Believe me it's not that much of a Gothic mystery.
Watched this Week The Good: Annie Hall, Scoop, Match Point, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Mighty Aphrodite, Manhattan Murder Mystery, Deconstructing Harry, Star Trek The Bad:Something Borrowed, Toast, Ang Lee's Hulk (3rd try and I still find it boring) The Ugly: None Did not get past 20 minutes: Your Highness Trips to the Theater: None Actors of the Week: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Chris Pine Director of the Week:JJ Abrams Quote I've been saying all week: "...and they, will personally, escort Adolf Hitler, to the gates of hell."
Trailers/Clips of the Week: Twixt. Francis Coppola's latest. Man Val Kilmer gained weight.
Something Borrowed 2 starsIt’s not as bad as I expected. Scratch that, it’s not as bad as I hoped. I wanted to hate Something Borrowed and write a scathing review, but it’s only bad. Not very bad.
Writing this plot recap is going to be a slog. Rachel White (Ginnifer Goodwin) is a lawyer who has been in love with Dex (Colin Egglesfield) for a minor very long time. She has never said anything to him about it, she never intends to, which makes sense since Dex is engaged her best friend Darcy (Kate Hudson). Drunk one evening Rachel blurts out to Dex that she did have a crush on him in law school. He never knew, he's very surprised, and he kisses her. They sleep together, and let the hijinks ensue.
This all happens very early on so most if not all of the movie entails will Rachel tell Darcy or not. If Match Point is filled with selfish a--holes, Something Borrowed is filled with cowards. The problem with the movie is that since everyone is too scared to say or declare anything, the majority of the scenes involve hiding things from Darcy or Rachel's friend Ethan (a very good John Krasinski) in scene after scene telling her to do or say anything. What effect does this have in this "romantic" "comedy"? Sorry but quotes were needed around both those words. For one thing, it kills the romance. Darcy is a unbelievably annoying princess so we don't necessarily feel bad, but we don't really feel that good about Rachel and Dex being together. Btw, what is so special about either of these characters? Rachel is a nice girl okay, but she's also a total wimpy pushover and nobody likes that. Dex is a soap opera character. He's handsome, and shiny, and he has no personality. This isn't a match made in movie heaven. Part of rom coms involve you know, actually wanting the two people to be together.
The only bright spot is Krasinski and I liked a lot of his friendship with Rachel. I've said it before, but friendships between guys and girls are pretty rare in movies. It was nice that they could talk about real things and not worry about being attractive to the other person, or trying to impress, or anything you do when you like someone. They can just be real people and the best scenes in the movie involve them. Sadly their friendship is handled poorly at the end with an obvious twist that sours this good element of the film. I should also say that Kate Hudson is actually quite good in the role. The character is a grating, annoying woman (and most likely an alcoholic), but she's right on the money in her performance. Maybe I'm just a man, but I can't understand why Rachel was friends with her. Why? What does she get out of this relationship?
By the end, patience was running out and so was interest. We're all waiting for Darcy to find out that her best friend has slept with her fiance so any delay gains in irritation momentum. It's not a horrible movie, just the usual rom com failure. Sorry to all the boyfriends/husbands are forced to watch this.
Scoop 3 ½ stars I love Scoop. I love that title. It’s one of Woody Allen’s lightest films but I find it so enjoyable. Sondra Pransky (Scarlett) is a journalism student on vacation in London and she attends a magic performance with a friend. They go see the great Splendini aka Sidney Waterman (Woody Allen). She volunteers to take part in a trick, he puts her in what he calls the de-materializer, which is basically a vanishing box. But what happens is someone materializes in there with her. The man is Joe Strombel (Ian McShane) a recently deceased journalist who tells her that he has the story of the century. He believes a rich socialite named Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman) is the Tarot Card Killer, a serial killer currently strangling women in London.
Being the journalist she is, she can’t help but investigate. And what I guess could be a serious murder mystery really is a fun, comedic murder mystery. Have there been many of these? She drags Sidney along with her and the movie really becomes about this duo of Sidney and Sondra trying to figure out if Peter is in fact a murderer. Woody and Scarlett have genuine chemistry together. They seem so comfortable, so at ease with one another. They are also very funny but it’s Allen that has the best lines. My favorite being this exchange:
Sondra: So do you swim? Sidney: Of course I don't swim. You have to ask? Sondra: What? They say it's the best form of exercise. Sidney: Yes, but when I go into the water… my glasses, you know, float off my head into the pool.
Also…
Sidney: The man is a liar and a murderer. And I say that with all due respect.
It’s a great movie to listen to and the movie is chocked full of hilarious one-liners. London seems warm and welcoming, but it’s Woody and Scarlett. They’re a great combo. I also love Woody Allen as an actor. He’s never not interesting and he does have that great face with the big black glasses. And his comic timing is perfect. I was so glad to hear that he’s going to have a part in his next film The Bop Decameron (another great title). Scoop!
Waterworld 3 stars I've always thought Waterworld was underrated. It was huge news at the time, the first $200 million dollar movie ever, and I was only a senior in high school. It was also the end of Kevin Costner's hot streak that started with The Untouchables, gained speed with Robin Hood, and peaked at Dances with Wolves. Then he had his last hit with The Bodyguard which despite its huge popularity at the time is nearly all but forgotten today. This was his big one back in '97, and with all the bad press there was no way it was going to be a critical success.
Despite some flaws I think it's a lot of fun. I think the concept is great. The polar ice caps have melted and the world is in a deluge. Everything is on water. There aren't really cities, but there are little camps and villages here and there. Drinking water is a precious commodity and everyone is fending for themselves. There is that famous scene when a man pees into a bottle, puts it in a filtration unit, and then drinks it again. Costner plays the Mariner, a drifter sailing around salvaging what he can from the ocean. His boat is pretty impressive and one would imagine it took years to put it together from whatever parts he could have. I think it's a strong performance, and I find myself interested in this loner guy. He also is a bit of a freak as he has gained gills and a bit of webbing on his toes. But it allows him to dive deep underwater and he can get what most people dream of - dirt.
The villains in the movie are the Smokers, a group of ragtag pirates who travel in an oil tanker (another good concept). They have jet skis and guns and they do enjoy a good smoke. Dennis Hopper is their leader and I also think he's pretty great as the main baddie The Deacon. Hopper as a villain was very in demand in the mid 90s after Speed. His take on it is just right. Not too serious, very witty. The Smokers want to find the myth that is dry land and they believe the map to that place is tattooed on the back of a little girl. And so the blow up any place where she may be.
I still think it's not a bad story. I think it's pretty interesting. But what is really amazing is all of the crazy ass stunt work in the movie. It's exciting and scary and very cool. The stunt coordinators and stunt men should be very proud of their work. It's almost all real for real so when these guys crash, something really blew up out there. I doubt the movie has much CGI at all. The movie was shot completely out in the ocean and that's primarily why it cost so much. But because of that, there are just amazing shots. When the Smokers first attack, there are incredible images of them circling the town and using ramps to jump into the middle of it using water skis. Even when they're just chasing Costner, I kept thinking how ridiculously difficult it all must of been. When you do Take 2 you gotta turn everything around on the water and that ain't easy. How do you get your whole crew out there? How would you feed them? They were probably out on the ocean for months trying to put together these action scenes. Kevin Reynolds directed Robin Hood with Costner but he also directed the very good version of The Count of Monte Cristo with Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce. When he's on, he's on and despite his battles with Costner set, I think the money is on the screen.
There are inklings that there was a better longer cut, but I think this is fine. There are so many clever moments and interesting gadgets and I forgot how inventive it all was. I appreciate it mostly because there is no other movie that looks like it. What other movie is 99% set on the water? And aesthetically they made the right choices from the color palette, to costumes, to production design. Whenever I see it I'm always impressed by how it looks.
Well, you probably won't rent it, but if it's on cable, why not check it out. The action's so great and the set design is often astounding. That's sometimes enough for me. On a side note, a friend of mine went to Universal Studios and went to the Waterworld Stunt Show. We weren't expecting much, actually we were expecting it to be bad, but it was awesome. At least there's one definitive good thing to come out of the movie.
4 stars Watching it again, I realized this time around that at their core, all of the characters in Match Point are supremely selfish. They are some of the most selfish people you will ever meet on screen. Every character wants what they want, they give very little consideration to what consequences those desires may have, and in Woody Allen's perspective, you're not necessarily going to get punished for them.
Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is a recently retired tennis pro. He's Irish, he's just moved to London to teach tennis, he's poor, and he wants to better himself. There are a few quiet opening scenes with him moving into his small new flat, reading Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, eating alone in a restaurant. These seem like introductory filler, but they really set up that this guy has nothing going on in his life. Anything could happen, but he himself is aware that he is starting from zero. By chance he tutors Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode) and they become friends. Tom is part of a wealthy family and Chris meets the parents, Tom's sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer) and particularly Tom's American girlfriend Nola (Scarlett Johansson). He begins to enter their lives as Chloe is incredibly taken with him. He himself is obviously incredibly taken with Nola.
Chloe is the first one to show her selfishness. She wants Chris and she wants him badly. She even gets her papa to give him a job he isn't qualified for (she wants her bf to have money and makes fun of Chris for not ordering Caviar at a restaurant). They eventually marry and she says within the first minutes of marriage that she wants him to give her a baby. "I want three children, and I want them while I'm young". My condolences to any man who marries a woman who could possibly be so bold in her selfishness.
Chris obliges her in most things as he admits to a friend that he has become terribly comfortable in this new life of money. He's willing to make sacrifices to stay in this new class, but what he really wants is to sleep with Nola. The parents disapprove of her, of her being American, of her being an actress, and Chris takes advantage of her hurt feelings and they start an affair.
That's about all I want to give away because the movie is so much about what happens. It is so much about the choices these characters make to get what they want. Despite the posh locations and the beautiful people and a gorgeous look at London, I think it's Woody Allen's most cynical film. It's brutal in its view of love. These are attractive people, but they are bad. What happens when your own desires trump morality? What happens when you can in fact live with terrible things you have done? We'd all like to think that we're above such pettiness and cruelty, but we all have things in our lives that are non-negotiable. We have to have them, be it a certain kind of home, certain kind of clothes, certain kind of whatever. What if someone was threatening to take that all away? What would you do?
The movie is also much concerned with Allen's view of luck. Chris says it himself in the movie, "People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It's scary to think so much is out of one's control". And I agree that so much of life is completely out of our control. Much more than we think it is. Then again I believe in God and Woody Allen certainly doesn't. It's an interesting idea though, and it's handled so wonderfully in the film. Inconsequential actions become very consequential later on in the film. And some have no consequences. Chris later says, "There are moments in a match when the ball hits the top of the net, and for a split second, it can either go forward or fall back. With a little luck, it goes forward, and you win. Or maybe it doesn't, and you lose." So many scenes are hinged on this idea.
It's not an air tight plot but it's damn close. I don't really think of the performances when I think of the movie, I think of the screenplay. I think of the masterful order of events that need to happen at exact moments or the cake falls. There is a great deal of suspense, but it doesn't involve murder and guns. It mostly involves guilt and conscience. It's a thriller where the tension comes from the emotional inner workings of the characters and how far they will go.
Woody Allen did shock us all in 2005 when he came out with this one. It's such a strange entry in his filmography. A movie entirely set out of New York in modern day London, no one in the movie seems neurotic, no one in the movie is funny. I don't think there's one funny person in the entire film. And yet it holds such compelling interest. It's like a great novel that you start to read again and despite knowing what happens you get sucked in all the same. It's such an adult film, about adults, about where our lines move as we get older. Can we hold on to the same standards we had in our idealistic youth? Even if the ball falls back on our side and we lose? Let's hope so.
3 ½ stars I enjoy Morgan Spurlock. There's something about him. I could do without the handlebar mustache but he's a likable guy. Super Size Me is a fantastic documentary, and I realize I've come to enjoy the "lighter" docs. Documentaries don't always have to be serious or significant. Why can't they be fun too?
