"Blood Simple", Joel and Ethan Coen's cinematic debut, gave audiences and critics a start with their expert film prowess when it came to the repercussions of violence gone wrong. It was not until their second movie, "Raising Arizona", that everyone was able to see that these were not simply two great craftsmen, but rather two visionaries. It is one of the more Coen's-y of their works, but unlike some of the others this one's extreme characters and absurdist plot meld into something like comic genius.
This is a story of an incomplete family. H.I. and Ed (Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter) are a paroled gas station robber and a local police officer, respectively, who are now married and seeking to complete what Ed, short for Edwina, calls their "family unit". The live in any small town in Arizona, a place full of yes ma'am's, no sir's and okay then's; a place full of bad clothes, bad hair, bad food and a gun behind every supermarket counter; a place where a Walmart would probably clean up nicely. And not unlike this place in the middle of the desert, Ed is barren.
The maternal instinct is too strong to be quelled by biology or an unhelpful adoption agency. H.I. and Ed take it upon themselves to help out Nathan Arizona (Trey Wilson), whose large warehouse of unpainted furniture and bathroom fixtures has made him rich, and whose recent quintuplets have left him with his hands full. Our robber and our officer snatch a baby--probably Nathan Jr., but nobody is very sure--leading to a manhunt where the prize is $25,000.
The story is ridiculous, the characters preposterous and the dialogue hyper-exaggerated. Through all of this bloatedness emerges a superb example of art house screwball. I may just now have coined that term, and the Coen Bros. might have invented it. Most of the story is zany and zippy with hilarious performances by the two leads and a whole host of wonderful supporting characters from actors including Frances McDormand, Sam McMurray, John Goodman and William Forsythe.
A funny film like this might have gone relatively unnoticed had it not also have been for the current of elevated, almost spiritual scenes featuring a monstrous man on motorbike running throughout. Seeming to spring out of a nightmare, this wild-haired, cigar-smoking bringer of death with a slightly delicate voice trumpets in all of the wrath of woman's scorn incarnate.
In much the same way that John Goodman's character in "Barton Fink" would instigate lots of intense discussion about the meaning of the film, this man with his sawed-off shotguns and his Woody Woodpecker tattoo does the same thing here. At first I viewed him as the retribution of Mrs. Arizona for her stolen child. Later, he became nothing short of the devil. Finally, upon seeing the tattoo which H.I. shares, he became the past, present and future of the criminal should he abandon his family. The man kills rabbits, lizards, flowers and all of the small, delicate things that make a desert a bit less harsh and this man closes in on H.I. and Ed. He is all of the insecurities of parenthood and the temptation of a life left behind but not forgotten.
The film is special because it recognizes the idiotic way that people move through day to day life. It is a major precursor to some of the better work that Joel and Ethan would do later on, but still remains one of the greatest comedies of the last few decades. Their brand is not made to be blockbuster and what I respect about them is that they never try to please anything but their own vision. Sometimes those visions go astray, but thankfully they don't here.
3.5/4
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
London River (2009)
Sometimes the importance of a terrible event clouds our sympathy for those involved. I suppose it's easier to say "We express our sympathies to those affected", but when all these people are simply faces on a television set we can do nothing more than lump them together as a collective body. "London River" attempts to break that way of thinking with regards to the 2005 suicide bombings that took place throughout the public transport system which killed dozens and wounded hundreds.
Our protagonists are two parents on a search to find their missing children whom they fear could have been hurt in the terrorist attacks. The two people have never met, know nothing about each other and under normal circumstances never would meet. Their lives become intertwined through a bout of national grief and possible tragedy and offers us a stark, if not completely novel or nuanced, image of humanism conquering fear.
Brenda Blethyn plays Elisabeth, a gruff, devout Protestant and a farmer in Guernsey. Knowing her university-age daughter is in London, seeing the attacks on the telly causes her to panic and when she receives no reply on the phone from her daughter, Elisabeth packs up to go find her. She arrives at her daughter's apartment in the middle of what I could only describe as the Middle Eastern District. It probably has a better, more politically correct name, but I'm ignorant so we'll leave it as that.
The film rings of similar 9/11 themes that cropped up everywhere in the US following their own attacks. Guernsey does not strike me as the kind of place that has many Muslims just as England generally has no religion to speak of. This oddity, a member of an old and dying parish, is thrown suddenly in amongst people that she fears and misunderstands. Blethyn's performance is hard and powerful, timid and confused. There is not much more for her to do than worry, speculate and mistrust, but she is able to pull out the tiny fragments of a heavily burdened woman to create a rich and damaged character.
If Blethyn is the performance, Sotiqui Kouyate is the presence. He is the second parent, Ousmane, a frail, old African immigrant working as a conservationist in France. He left his family for Paris 15 years prior and hasn't seen his son since the boy was six. However, upon hearing of the attacks the boy's mother requested that Ousmane find him and bring him home. Happenstance, or possibly more, brings him to the same neighborhood as Elisabeth and as much as the two try to fight it their paths eventually intertwine.
Blethyn does all of the "acting" and she is wonderful at it, but Kouyate is wonderful at simply being. He doesn't raise his voice, he never moves more than necessary, he never once performs, but the moment when he finally sees a photograph of his adult son the look in his eyes, though it barely changes, eclipses the sun. Every blink, every breath, every measured step speaks volumes of Ousmane's life and the trials he has faced. These two characters played by two very different actors with styles even more varying is the centerpiece of this film.
The rest of the story is rather straightforward. The two must meet, but because of the travesty and because Ousmane is Muslim their is hostility. In the end, however, there must be peace and we know this. It would be cruel and ignorant to make a movie where intolerance triumphs, but that simple truth also makes the film somewhat irrelevant. Is it necessary to have another film about "love thy neighbor", especially if we learn nothing more about the events at hand?
Despite the film's worn out messages, it is our two leads and their immense gifts that makes this film interesting. I've said enough about it and won't say more, but Kouyate's eyes and Blethyn's eyebrows say everything about this movie that I can't.
2.5/4
Our protagonists are two parents on a search to find their missing children whom they fear could have been hurt in the terrorist attacks. The two people have never met, know nothing about each other and under normal circumstances never would meet. Their lives become intertwined through a bout of national grief and possible tragedy and offers us a stark, if not completely novel or nuanced, image of humanism conquering fear.
Brenda Blethyn plays Elisabeth, a gruff, devout Protestant and a farmer in Guernsey. Knowing her university-age daughter is in London, seeing the attacks on the telly causes her to panic and when she receives no reply on the phone from her daughter, Elisabeth packs up to go find her. She arrives at her daughter's apartment in the middle of what I could only describe as the Middle Eastern District. It probably has a better, more politically correct name, but I'm ignorant so we'll leave it as that.
The film rings of similar 9/11 themes that cropped up everywhere in the US following their own attacks. Guernsey does not strike me as the kind of place that has many Muslims just as England generally has no religion to speak of. This oddity, a member of an old and dying parish, is thrown suddenly in amongst people that she fears and misunderstands. Blethyn's performance is hard and powerful, timid and confused. There is not much more for her to do than worry, speculate and mistrust, but she is able to pull out the tiny fragments of a heavily burdened woman to create a rich and damaged character.
If Blethyn is the performance, Sotiqui Kouyate is the presence. He is the second parent, Ousmane, a frail, old African immigrant working as a conservationist in France. He left his family for Paris 15 years prior and hasn't seen his son since the boy was six. However, upon hearing of the attacks the boy's mother requested that Ousmane find him and bring him home. Happenstance, or possibly more, brings him to the same neighborhood as Elisabeth and as much as the two try to fight it their paths eventually intertwine.
Blethyn does all of the "acting" and she is wonderful at it, but Kouyate is wonderful at simply being. He doesn't raise his voice, he never moves more than necessary, he never once performs, but the moment when he finally sees a photograph of his adult son the look in his eyes, though it barely changes, eclipses the sun. Every blink, every breath, every measured step speaks volumes of Ousmane's life and the trials he has faced. These two characters played by two very different actors with styles even more varying is the centerpiece of this film.
The rest of the story is rather straightforward. The two must meet, but because of the travesty and because Ousmane is Muslim their is hostility. In the end, however, there must be peace and we know this. It would be cruel and ignorant to make a movie where intolerance triumphs, but that simple truth also makes the film somewhat irrelevant. Is it necessary to have another film about "love thy neighbor", especially if we learn nothing more about the events at hand?
Despite the film's worn out messages, it is our two leads and their immense gifts that makes this film interesting. I've said enough about it and won't say more, but Kouyate's eyes and Blethyn's eyebrows say everything about this movie that I can't.
2.5/4
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
As I sat in the theatre last night with the lights dimming, I could not help but look around at faceless audience members and feel a twinge of fear. In light of the mass shooting in Colorado I felt uneasy surrounding myself with people excited to see the conclusion of a trilogy that exalts the villains as much as it does the hero. Heath Ledger's Joker character spawned a small movement of young men glorifying a nameless psychopath who believed anarchy was the purest form of human nature --the killer even called himself "The Joker". Not long after hearing about the massacre I spoke about an article I read a few months ago about gangs of young boys who modeled themselves after Alex and his droogs, committing petty crimes after seeing "A Clockwork Orange" when it first premiered which I drew a connection to. It is both awe-inspiring and deeply frightening that the minds of artists have the ability to incite social trends and even violence, and that power is one of the reasons I love the cinema. Christopher Nolan's final chapter to the best superhero saga ever may not be perfect, but his ability to inspire--for good or ill--is something to be revered.
It has been eight years since the death of Harvey Dent, the city is at peace, and Batman and Bruce Wayne have disappeared. Dent is a hero for his work at eradicating crime and the mob bosses no longer own the city. In the sewers, however, a movement is growing. The gap between the haves and the have-nots is widening and an unsettling tremor is rising from the depths. A masked man has emerged in a fashion not unlike the Joker, and he is bringing Gotham's reckoning. The time for Bruce to don his cape may at last have come again.
The first hour of the film is a muddy mess of names, places and ideas, with no clear objectives being established and no sense of direction emerging. We meet our villain and our anti-hero, Bane and Selina Kyle, a.k.a Catwoman, both of whom prepare for and encourage the storm, as Selina puts it, where the masses will rise and tear down the rich and powerful to restore order. What purpose they have more than simply their revolutionary spirit is hidden and we simply spend the first third of the film piecing together clues, keeping track of characters and watching the internal conflict of Bruce Wayne vs. Batman which threatens to tear apart a dear friendship.
When we have our clues and a path is revealed, a film that hiccuped along suddenly becomes a majestic, sprawling epic that ferociously captures all of the hatred and anxiety of our current world. Bane is a monolith of a man. Born in darkness with a metal mask over his mouth, his strength, speed and oddly hypnotic voice inspires terror with a look or the gentle touch of his fingers. Speaking in near poetry with ideals that could have been penned by Hugo or Dickens, Bane towers over his minions in both stature and presence, leading the revolution to topple the greatest city in the world. Wealth and decadence are attacked in equal measure and in one fell swoop he holds the city in the palm of his enormous hand. How he does this I won't reveal, but if want a clue I would suggest watching "Spiderman 2".
There is an enormous amount more to the plot, but it is unnecessary to discuss. A physical and spiritual reawakening must be undergone by Bruce before he can destroy what appears to be an unstoppable force. This force is the 99% gone insane and the implications of this are stunning.
Nolan is one of the most intelligent filmmakers currently working and this film takes nothing for granted. One of the smartest things that he has done is assemble an outstanding cast, more than capable of presenting the spectacularly grand ideas to their audience. Joining the ever-good Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman is Tom Hardy as Bane, Anne Hathaway as the master jewel thief Catwoman, Marion Cotillard as a wealthy philanthropist and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as an upstart police officer. This is masterclass acting from all actors with surprising moments from everyone. The most important thing is that all of them understand Nolan's point of view and don't fight against him; the symbiotic relationship between performers and director makes for a complete vision.
What is possibly even more outstanding is the technical aspects of the film. The movie's predecessors surely gave the indication that nothing would go amiss in this final part and we weren't wrong in guessing that. Oscar-worthy cinematography, sets, music and FX compliment and enhance the moods navigated throughout the script. Although some of the action sequences are not exactly novel, they are impeccably choreographed with some very interesting touches thrown in.
As I've said, the first hour is a bit of a struggle to get through, but the last half, especially the last 30 minutes, are perfect in every way. There is a moment of chaos when all of the escaped convicts let loose on the city brawl with 1200 officers released from a subterranean prison which for a moment made me angry. Hand to hand combat seems like something of a letdown of a film of this magnitude, but there is a quality to how it is done that made me forgive it. The film comes full circle to "Batman Begins" and has a brilliantly hidden twist towards the end. I should have recognized it, but only somebody with a good knowledge of Batman or somebody not completely invested in the story would have been able to see it coming. The final five minutes of the film give such a perfect sendoff to Batman that I could not imagine how it could be improved.
"The Dark Knight Rises" is a blockbuster in every sense of the word. We look to Nolan to deliver something that is new and inventive, that doesn't talk down to its audience but doesn't assume that it can't handle the material thrown at them. He succeeds. Batman is the most realistic of all superheros in that he has no powers and--excepting the fact that he is an incredibly smart billionaire--he could be anyone. This series, more than any other Batman or superhero film in general, delves into the man behind the mask and has created something timeless, ambitious and wonderfully executed. Batman is a person to me now, not simply a caped crusader. Especially on the backdrop of this last film I can justify the existence of this man. Nolan has taken something outlandish which in the past has been looked at cartoonishly, and has wiped the smirk off of Batman's face. He may not have topped his own masterpiece, but he has set the bar so high, not only for superhero films but crime films in general, that I expect it will be a very long time before something bests his Dark Knight.
3.5/4
It has been eight years since the death of Harvey Dent, the city is at peace, and Batman and Bruce Wayne have disappeared. Dent is a hero for his work at eradicating crime and the mob bosses no longer own the city. In the sewers, however, a movement is growing. The gap between the haves and the have-nots is widening and an unsettling tremor is rising from the depths. A masked man has emerged in a fashion not unlike the Joker, and he is bringing Gotham's reckoning. The time for Bruce to don his cape may at last have come again.
The first hour of the film is a muddy mess of names, places and ideas, with no clear objectives being established and no sense of direction emerging. We meet our villain and our anti-hero, Bane and Selina Kyle, a.k.a Catwoman, both of whom prepare for and encourage the storm, as Selina puts it, where the masses will rise and tear down the rich and powerful to restore order. What purpose they have more than simply their revolutionary spirit is hidden and we simply spend the first third of the film piecing together clues, keeping track of characters and watching the internal conflict of Bruce Wayne vs. Batman which threatens to tear apart a dear friendship.
When we have our clues and a path is revealed, a film that hiccuped along suddenly becomes a majestic, sprawling epic that ferociously captures all of the hatred and anxiety of our current world. Bane is a monolith of a man. Born in darkness with a metal mask over his mouth, his strength, speed and oddly hypnotic voice inspires terror with a look or the gentle touch of his fingers. Speaking in near poetry with ideals that could have been penned by Hugo or Dickens, Bane towers over his minions in both stature and presence, leading the revolution to topple the greatest city in the world. Wealth and decadence are attacked in equal measure and in one fell swoop he holds the city in the palm of his enormous hand. How he does this I won't reveal, but if want a clue I would suggest watching "Spiderman 2".
There is an enormous amount more to the plot, but it is unnecessary to discuss. A physical and spiritual reawakening must be undergone by Bruce before he can destroy what appears to be an unstoppable force. This force is the 99% gone insane and the implications of this are stunning.
Nolan is one of the most intelligent filmmakers currently working and this film takes nothing for granted. One of the smartest things that he has done is assemble an outstanding cast, more than capable of presenting the spectacularly grand ideas to their audience. Joining the ever-good Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman is Tom Hardy as Bane, Anne Hathaway as the master jewel thief Catwoman, Marion Cotillard as a wealthy philanthropist and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as an upstart police officer. This is masterclass acting from all actors with surprising moments from everyone. The most important thing is that all of them understand Nolan's point of view and don't fight against him; the symbiotic relationship between performers and director makes for a complete vision.
What is possibly even more outstanding is the technical aspects of the film. The movie's predecessors surely gave the indication that nothing would go amiss in this final part and we weren't wrong in guessing that. Oscar-worthy cinematography, sets, music and FX compliment and enhance the moods navigated throughout the script. Although some of the action sequences are not exactly novel, they are impeccably choreographed with some very interesting touches thrown in.
As I've said, the first hour is a bit of a struggle to get through, but the last half, especially the last 30 minutes, are perfect in every way. There is a moment of chaos when all of the escaped convicts let loose on the city brawl with 1200 officers released from a subterranean prison which for a moment made me angry. Hand to hand combat seems like something of a letdown of a film of this magnitude, but there is a quality to how it is done that made me forgive it. The film comes full circle to "Batman Begins" and has a brilliantly hidden twist towards the end. I should have recognized it, but only somebody with a good knowledge of Batman or somebody not completely invested in the story would have been able to see it coming. The final five minutes of the film give such a perfect sendoff to Batman that I could not imagine how it could be improved.
"The Dark Knight Rises" is a blockbuster in every sense of the word. We look to Nolan to deliver something that is new and inventive, that doesn't talk down to its audience but doesn't assume that it can't handle the material thrown at them. He succeeds. Batman is the most realistic of all superheros in that he has no powers and--excepting the fact that he is an incredibly smart billionaire--he could be anyone. This series, more than any other Batman or superhero film in general, delves into the man behind the mask and has created something timeless, ambitious and wonderfully executed. Batman is a person to me now, not simply a caped crusader. Especially on the backdrop of this last film I can justify the existence of this man. Nolan has taken something outlandish which in the past has been looked at cartoonishly, and has wiped the smirk off of Batman's face. He may not have topped his own masterpiece, but he has set the bar so high, not only for superhero films but crime films in general, that I expect it will be a very long time before something bests his Dark Knight.
3.5/4
Friday, July 20, 2012
Good Will Hunting (1997)
There was a Matt Damon and a Ben Affleck before "Good Will Hunting," but I'd bet you would have been hard pressed to place faces to the names. This film was a revelation which brought about two of the most sought after male actors of the late 90's and 2000's with massive performances and an incredibly sharp script. The film isn't perfect, but there are enough moments of near perfection throughout that it gained immediate attention. Its lasting power is a testament to that display of talent.
Gus Van Sant directs the two writers. Matt Damon plays Will, a young man from the south of Boston who works as a janitor only to hide the fact that he is the next Einstein or Newton. Affleck plays Chuckie, his good natured best mate who would take a bullet for Will should he ask it. The genius janitor works at MIT and is finally noticed by Professor Lambeau after Will solves a proof that the group of mathematicians took two years to achieve.
The greatness of this young man is too large to go squandered though that is exactly what Will wants. After getting thrown in jail, Lambeau is able to get him released under the conditions that he meet once a week and work out complex math with the professor, and that he go see a therapist. The shrinks all fail until he is finally brought to the attention of a gentle but deceptively smart community college teacher named Sean (Robin Williams).
Once the plot is established the entire arc of the story becomes apparent. Will's past prevents him from allowing anyone into his life and it is up to a breakthrough on Sean's part in order to steer him in a proper direction. In the meantime, Will does nothing but push away those who try to get close to him or help him. There is a beautiful romance that forms between him and a university student named Skylar (Minnie Driver), and it ends in much the same way that everything else does for him.
I said the film isn't perfect and it is precisely because one can predict the entire outcome of the film at the different intervals in which it will happen that the film is flawed. The structure is entirely routine, but I suppose that shouldn't be so unexpected coming from two first-time writers. However, what makes this film so good is the level of creativity that went into the individual scenes. There is so much richness and complexity interspersed throughout that it almost entirely wipes clear any predictability in the quiet moments.
Will is a person who uses his brilliance in order to shield himself from the presence of others who might try to get too close to him. His friends are uneducated, boyish, drinkers, what I would call "lads" were they English--"bros" I suppose would be better. When he is with them his talk is of girls, drink and the guineas they dislike. Get Will offended and he will tear you down with his knowledge far vaster than a normal person's. The best scenes of this movie are those when he throws down the gauntlets and reveals that intensity of a man whose superiority is a well-disguised blessing and far more a curse.
The only truly interesting moments come when he talks with Sean and Skylar. There is an organic chemistry that Damon has with both characters that feels fresh and inspired. When there is Will and Sean it is like watching a dance or a duel. It is a battle of rapiers; on one side we have the brain and the other the heart. When he is with Skylar it is simply a conflict of the self: survival vs. love. Although Skylar is a wonderful character played exquisitely by Driver, the scenes she is in are never ever about her. She is simply there to make Will's decisions all the more painful to watch.
The ending is a disappointment, but there is enough good stuff just before that it washed over and covers up the pointlessness of what finishes. At the credits one doesn't really think of the pieces missing, but rather remains focused on all of those special moments that make it stand out. There is so much charisma in those characters and a screenplay that crackles with newness that it does equal out to a very enjoyable viewing experience.
3/4
Gus Van Sant directs the two writers. Matt Damon plays Will, a young man from the south of Boston who works as a janitor only to hide the fact that he is the next Einstein or Newton. Affleck plays Chuckie, his good natured best mate who would take a bullet for Will should he ask it. The genius janitor works at MIT and is finally noticed by Professor Lambeau after Will solves a proof that the group of mathematicians took two years to achieve.
The greatness of this young man is too large to go squandered though that is exactly what Will wants. After getting thrown in jail, Lambeau is able to get him released under the conditions that he meet once a week and work out complex math with the professor, and that he go see a therapist. The shrinks all fail until he is finally brought to the attention of a gentle but deceptively smart community college teacher named Sean (Robin Williams).
Once the plot is established the entire arc of the story becomes apparent. Will's past prevents him from allowing anyone into his life and it is up to a breakthrough on Sean's part in order to steer him in a proper direction. In the meantime, Will does nothing but push away those who try to get close to him or help him. There is a beautiful romance that forms between him and a university student named Skylar (Minnie Driver), and it ends in much the same way that everything else does for him.
I said the film isn't perfect and it is precisely because one can predict the entire outcome of the film at the different intervals in which it will happen that the film is flawed. The structure is entirely routine, but I suppose that shouldn't be so unexpected coming from two first-time writers. However, what makes this film so good is the level of creativity that went into the individual scenes. There is so much richness and complexity interspersed throughout that it almost entirely wipes clear any predictability in the quiet moments.
Will is a person who uses his brilliance in order to shield himself from the presence of others who might try to get too close to him. His friends are uneducated, boyish, drinkers, what I would call "lads" were they English--"bros" I suppose would be better. When he is with them his talk is of girls, drink and the guineas they dislike. Get Will offended and he will tear you down with his knowledge far vaster than a normal person's. The best scenes of this movie are those when he throws down the gauntlets and reveals that intensity of a man whose superiority is a well-disguised blessing and far more a curse.
The only truly interesting moments come when he talks with Sean and Skylar. There is an organic chemistry that Damon has with both characters that feels fresh and inspired. When there is Will and Sean it is like watching a dance or a duel. It is a battle of rapiers; on one side we have the brain and the other the heart. When he is with Skylar it is simply a conflict of the self: survival vs. love. Although Skylar is a wonderful character played exquisitely by Driver, the scenes she is in are never ever about her. She is simply there to make Will's decisions all the more painful to watch.
The ending is a disappointment, but there is enough good stuff just before that it washed over and covers up the pointlessness of what finishes. At the credits one doesn't really think of the pieces missing, but rather remains focused on all of those special moments that make it stand out. There is so much charisma in those characters and a screenplay that crackles with newness that it does equal out to a very enjoyable viewing experience.
3/4
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Your Sister's Sister (2011)
Following the death of his brother, Jack (Mark Duplass) goes on what will be his emotional intervention and the request of his best friend Iris (Emily Blunt). He's in a bad state and we know this; the eulogy for his brother becomes a cringe-worthy moment when he turns his grief to anger in a room full of people. Iris is ever-forgiving and sends him to her family's cabin deep in the woods of Washington.
Coincidentally, Jack runs into Iris's sister Hannah (Rosemary DeWitt), and after some initial confusion over some wandering eyes at the lodge the two share a night of tequila, relationship secrets and eventually sex. It's important to know that Iris is a lesbian who has recently walked out of seven year relationship.
That night that the two of them spend together is so cleverly directed that it doesn't feel forced at all. I am a very big fan of DeWitt, and her navigation through the complex emotions released by the alcohol to the point where she is interested in having sex with a man does nothing but reinforce my admiration of her overlooked talents. I suppose it does help that Duplass is a wizard at being charismatic in that stupid teenager type of way. In "Safety Not Guaranteed," a film that premiered at the Sundance this year, he does something similar. I am not completely familiar with this actor, but from these two I gather that this is his niche.
It's awkward sex (how could it not be when you have a lesbian and man-child?) and something that hopefully everyone can forget about. It might be that easy if Iris didn't show up the next morning creating a web of deceit as Hannah and especially Jack try to sweep the incident under the rug. What makes things more complicated is that Iris is in love with Jack which the others don't know about but the audience obviously does.
Things seem to be heading in a typical love triangle type setup. It has all of the makings of sleeper hit rom-com, but don't be fooled. There is far more going on here than it lets on, and there is a twist towards the end that isn't so much disguised as it is completely concealed. I'm sure I could not have been the only one in the theatre who didn't see it coming and I'm very glad for it. The depth of the characters increased tenfold in a space of about four minutes and took the film down a much more complicated route.
What really separates this from other films of its kind is a superbly crafted script which balances very natural comedy with multi-layered, touching characters. These are executed by fine actors giving three wonderful performances. It is quite a gamble to put so much faith in three people who fill almost the entirety of the movie, but director Lynn Shelton has chosen solid vehicles for her vision and her risk paid off. There is a particularly beautiful scene where the two sisters wind up in bed together talking about Jack. DeWitt's eyes speak volumes when she learns that Iris loves him. It's a stunning bit of understated acting from the both of them.
Many will be turned off by the ending. I know I was. It is a bit ambiguous, but I reconciled this by saying to myself that if we place faith in the classic definition of a "comedy" then we must know how the characters have their stories resolved. There is one major question which is impossible to know and that would be a movie in itself, but as far as the relationships are concerned in the short run everything should go according to formula. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it makes me feel happier having a resolution in my mind.
3.5/4
Coincidentally, Jack runs into Iris's sister Hannah (Rosemary DeWitt), and after some initial confusion over some wandering eyes at the lodge the two share a night of tequila, relationship secrets and eventually sex. It's important to know that Iris is a lesbian who has recently walked out of seven year relationship.
That night that the two of them spend together is so cleverly directed that it doesn't feel forced at all. I am a very big fan of DeWitt, and her navigation through the complex emotions released by the alcohol to the point where she is interested in having sex with a man does nothing but reinforce my admiration of her overlooked talents. I suppose it does help that Duplass is a wizard at being charismatic in that stupid teenager type of way. In "Safety Not Guaranteed," a film that premiered at the Sundance this year, he does something similar. I am not completely familiar with this actor, but from these two I gather that this is his niche.
It's awkward sex (how could it not be when you have a lesbian and man-child?) and something that hopefully everyone can forget about. It might be that easy if Iris didn't show up the next morning creating a web of deceit as Hannah and especially Jack try to sweep the incident under the rug. What makes things more complicated is that Iris is in love with Jack which the others don't know about but the audience obviously does.
Things seem to be heading in a typical love triangle type setup. It has all of the makings of sleeper hit rom-com, but don't be fooled. There is far more going on here than it lets on, and there is a twist towards the end that isn't so much disguised as it is completely concealed. I'm sure I could not have been the only one in the theatre who didn't see it coming and I'm very glad for it. The depth of the characters increased tenfold in a space of about four minutes and took the film down a much more complicated route.
What really separates this from other films of its kind is a superbly crafted script which balances very natural comedy with multi-layered, touching characters. These are executed by fine actors giving three wonderful performances. It is quite a gamble to put so much faith in three people who fill almost the entirety of the movie, but director Lynn Shelton has chosen solid vehicles for her vision and her risk paid off. There is a particularly beautiful scene where the two sisters wind up in bed together talking about Jack. DeWitt's eyes speak volumes when she learns that Iris loves him. It's a stunning bit of understated acting from the both of them.
Many will be turned off by the ending. I know I was. It is a bit ambiguous, but I reconciled this by saying to myself that if we place faith in the classic definition of a "comedy" then we must know how the characters have their stories resolved. There is one major question which is impossible to know and that would be a movie in itself, but as far as the relationships are concerned in the short run everything should go according to formula. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it makes me feel happier having a resolution in my mind.
3.5/4
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Summer Hours (2008)
Set in a pastoral hideaway in the lush countryside of France, three siblings must decide what to do with the house and art collection of their deceased mother. Though business and new families have led them astray, the house is the last testament to their childhoods and their lineage.
A film like this is troubling for me as I am both a historian and someone who tries to avoid romanticism. The latter seems like something unavoidable that we all face, but it seems to me to be silly and garish. This is a movie about the romantic way in which we view the past but through art, which makes it tricky for me personally to navigate.
Opening on a birthday party we meet Helene (Edith Scob), whose 75th marks a turning point in her life, finally seeing the inevitability that she is approaching death. She still seemed spry to me, but her faithful housekeeper Eloise (Isabelle Sadoyan) tells Helene's son, Frederic (Charles Berling), that his mother is depressed, tired and forgetful. With her husband and especially her uncle dead, and with her family seeing her so infrequently, her will to live seems to wane.
In a jarring jump the film now resumes at her death. There are very touching moments from all three siblings in their acceptance of the passing, but the film is not at all about grief. Rather, it is about the ways in which we remember; do we sacrifice material gains for the sake of sentimentality? We are taken through Helene's house on several occasions and shown her collection of priceless, and very rare pieces. Writer/director Olivier Assayas is quite clever in this respect, doing his best not to talk down to the audience and instead showing us the collection as the mother's will is gone through step by step.
There is life, vitality, memory in the house. Those treasures tells stories and are far more than ornamentation. This is how Frederic sees things. It is how he thinks of his family--it is the nerve center of their bloodline. His brother Jeremie (Jeremie Renier) and his sister Adrienne (Juliette Binoche) see things quite differently. Economics, business, modernity have scattered the family to the winds. The two no longer feel attached to the house or to France. They vote to sell the estate.
The film could easily have turned, at this point, into a battle of wills and a family crumbling. Instead, the sales go through and it simply watches as the memories of a family are removed, piece by piece. In the end it becomes more prudent for them to pay to keep Jeremie selling Puma shoes in China and help fund Adrienne's wedding, then it does to serve as that focal point of the family. Without Helene there is no common bond.
A very beautiful line is spoken towards the end of the film at the Musee d'Orsay, where much of the art has gone to. Frederic is regarding a vase which the family believed was of no value and thought to be quite ugly. He says that in order for this glass to mean anything it needs to hold flowers and be seen in natural light, otherwise it is disenchanted. I think that's true. Museums are odd places where some of the most breathtaking works are displayed in rooms with white walls, white floors and harsh lighting to protect the colors. Everything is sterile. The building itself may be beautiful, but inside it feels cold and lifeless. The color of history is sucked out of the canvass leaving nothing but dust. Can we see the story that that painting or that cabinet or that vase wants to give when we try to capture it on our phone or our camera? Do museums fulfill their intended purposes?
I said that the film was complicated for me as I am inspired by the past. There is a way to preserve it without sucking history dry, but is it possible to do so without romanticism taking hold and preventing us from moving forward? That is my struggle and I am not sure that the ending gives a proper answer. This film is delicate like a Degas and respectful like a Renoir. It is not especially good entertainment and there is no extreme conflict. However, it has made me think, and one can ask no more from a film like this.
3/4
A film like this is troubling for me as I am both a historian and someone who tries to avoid romanticism. The latter seems like something unavoidable that we all face, but it seems to me to be silly and garish. This is a movie about the romantic way in which we view the past but through art, which makes it tricky for me personally to navigate.
Opening on a birthday party we meet Helene (Edith Scob), whose 75th marks a turning point in her life, finally seeing the inevitability that she is approaching death. She still seemed spry to me, but her faithful housekeeper Eloise (Isabelle Sadoyan) tells Helene's son, Frederic (Charles Berling), that his mother is depressed, tired and forgetful. With her husband and especially her uncle dead, and with her family seeing her so infrequently, her will to live seems to wane.
In a jarring jump the film now resumes at her death. There are very touching moments from all three siblings in their acceptance of the passing, but the film is not at all about grief. Rather, it is about the ways in which we remember; do we sacrifice material gains for the sake of sentimentality? We are taken through Helene's house on several occasions and shown her collection of priceless, and very rare pieces. Writer/director Olivier Assayas is quite clever in this respect, doing his best not to talk down to the audience and instead showing us the collection as the mother's will is gone through step by step.
There is life, vitality, memory in the house. Those treasures tells stories and are far more than ornamentation. This is how Frederic sees things. It is how he thinks of his family--it is the nerve center of their bloodline. His brother Jeremie (Jeremie Renier) and his sister Adrienne (Juliette Binoche) see things quite differently. Economics, business, modernity have scattered the family to the winds. The two no longer feel attached to the house or to France. They vote to sell the estate.
The film could easily have turned, at this point, into a battle of wills and a family crumbling. Instead, the sales go through and it simply watches as the memories of a family are removed, piece by piece. In the end it becomes more prudent for them to pay to keep Jeremie selling Puma shoes in China and help fund Adrienne's wedding, then it does to serve as that focal point of the family. Without Helene there is no common bond.
A very beautiful line is spoken towards the end of the film at the Musee d'Orsay, where much of the art has gone to. Frederic is regarding a vase which the family believed was of no value and thought to be quite ugly. He says that in order for this glass to mean anything it needs to hold flowers and be seen in natural light, otherwise it is disenchanted. I think that's true. Museums are odd places where some of the most breathtaking works are displayed in rooms with white walls, white floors and harsh lighting to protect the colors. Everything is sterile. The building itself may be beautiful, but inside it feels cold and lifeless. The color of history is sucked out of the canvass leaving nothing but dust. Can we see the story that that painting or that cabinet or that vase wants to give when we try to capture it on our phone or our camera? Do museums fulfill their intended purposes?
I said that the film was complicated for me as I am inspired by the past. There is a way to preserve it without sucking history dry, but is it possible to do so without romanticism taking hold and preventing us from moving forward? That is my struggle and I am not sure that the ending gives a proper answer. This film is delicate like a Degas and respectful like a Renoir. It is not especially good entertainment and there is no extreme conflict. However, it has made me think, and one can ask no more from a film like this.
3/4
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Muppet Treasure Island (1996)
The Muppets have been around for decades and I am not completely convinced that they should have been. One could read a review I posted quite recently about another of their films and say that I am contradicting myself, but that is a new product, this is an older one. Frankly, this film would not merit another movie in 2011 if I was a producer. It isn't a contradiction simply because I am not saying that I dislike the Muppets, rather this film does not live up to their comedic potential.
There is something inherently endearing about a cast of singing puppets which I love. What is not to like about a French pig, a wisecracking bear and a frog with golf balls for eyes? The voice actors are great and natural comedic talent they possess should make every venture a winner. I think they lose themselves, however, when those comedic powers are stifled by the triteness of children's comedy. I recently watched clips of the Muppets when Jim Henson was doing test shots in an outdoors location. The puppeteers for Ms. Piggy, Kermit and Fozzie were in the shots simply improvising and it was hilarious. It wasn't adult or lewd, but it was smart and spontaneous and very honestly enjoyable. They were not second guessing their greatness for the purpose of pleasing the parents of very young children and therefore they were excellent.
What is not excellent is adapting a well known novel and using a human as the main character. Based off of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic seafaring adventure, the Muppets slap on hats, hooks, beards and eye patches as they sail the seas in search of treasure. Instead of having one of the cuter Muppets play the principal character, Jim Hawkins, they instead hire some uninteresting eunuch named Kevin Bishop. Although the story should be about him inheriting a treasure map from an old drunk in the inn he works at, the audience is only interested in him as the main character with his role of bringing the more interesting puppets into the plot.
Unfortunately, the Muppet Studios have often made the mistake of putting the Great Gonzo and Rizzo in as the narrators, which they do in sense here. The two aren't narrators per se, but they do follow Jim in his adventures as close companions. The result of this is that there are many times when two of the least funny Muppets accompany the least interesting person making for some very boring dead moments.
Thank goodness for a great supporting cast of humans and the introduction of the main Muppets--though they come far too late into the story. Cameos from Billy Connolly and Jennifer Saunders make for amusing moments and a funny, if slightly miscast Tim Curry as Long John Silver, help in keeping the plot moving.
Of course we really don't care about of them; they are only fillers and props used to make "Treasure Island" the novel work as a children's film. What we really want is to see Animal playing the drums, Swedish Chef cooking talking vegetables and Ms. Piggy karate chopping Kermit. They happen, but we have to slug through the story first. Also fortunately for us, there are clever and catchy pirate jigs to distract us and help reach that hour and a half mark.
Oh! The story...they go on a treasure hunt. They are successful. The good guys win despite a mutiny led by a cook. Kermit makes for a really bad captain.
2/4
There is something inherently endearing about a cast of singing puppets which I love. What is not to like about a French pig, a wisecracking bear and a frog with golf balls for eyes? The voice actors are great and natural comedic talent they possess should make every venture a winner. I think they lose themselves, however, when those comedic powers are stifled by the triteness of children's comedy. I recently watched clips of the Muppets when Jim Henson was doing test shots in an outdoors location. The puppeteers for Ms. Piggy, Kermit and Fozzie were in the shots simply improvising and it was hilarious. It wasn't adult or lewd, but it was smart and spontaneous and very honestly enjoyable. They were not second guessing their greatness for the purpose of pleasing the parents of very young children and therefore they were excellent.
What is not excellent is adapting a well known novel and using a human as the main character. Based off of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic seafaring adventure, the Muppets slap on hats, hooks, beards and eye patches as they sail the seas in search of treasure. Instead of having one of the cuter Muppets play the principal character, Jim Hawkins, they instead hire some uninteresting eunuch named Kevin Bishop. Although the story should be about him inheriting a treasure map from an old drunk in the inn he works at, the audience is only interested in him as the main character with his role of bringing the more interesting puppets into the plot.
Unfortunately, the Muppet Studios have often made the mistake of putting the Great Gonzo and Rizzo in as the narrators, which they do in sense here. The two aren't narrators per se, but they do follow Jim in his adventures as close companions. The result of this is that there are many times when two of the least funny Muppets accompany the least interesting person making for some very boring dead moments.
Thank goodness for a great supporting cast of humans and the introduction of the main Muppets--though they come far too late into the story. Cameos from Billy Connolly and Jennifer Saunders make for amusing moments and a funny, if slightly miscast Tim Curry as Long John Silver, help in keeping the plot moving.
Of course we really don't care about of them; they are only fillers and props used to make "Treasure Island" the novel work as a children's film. What we really want is to see Animal playing the drums, Swedish Chef cooking talking vegetables and Ms. Piggy karate chopping Kermit. They happen, but we have to slug through the story first. Also fortunately for us, there are clever and catchy pirate jigs to distract us and help reach that hour and a half mark.
Oh! The story...they go on a treasure hunt. They are successful. The good guys win despite a mutiny led by a cook. Kermit makes for a really bad captain.
2/4
Friday, July 13, 2012
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
There are films which we know for their exceptional quality, others we know for being revolutionary. Disney's "Snow White" is one of those rare masterpieces which is both. It's now 75 years old and I must admit that I remembered it being much more dated than it actually is. It's simple, delicate and beautiful for those reasons. There are plenty of other films that the studio has done since that surpass it in technical quality and richness of stories and characters (who actually cares about Snow White herself?), but this film has a timeless magic that I don't believe has been surpassed.
We all hopefully know the story. It is adapted from tale by the Brothers Grimm about a evil and jealous queen who sends a huntsman to kill her stepdaughter turned slave, Snow White, after learning from her magic mirror that the girl has surpassed her in beauty. Fleeing into the enchanted forest, Snow White is taken in by a group of seven dwarfs who guard her from the wrath of the Queen. Their efforts prove to be in vain, eventually leaving the power of love's first kiss to combat her black magic.
Besides being a lovely little film with a fantastic set of characters, this was the first full length animated feature in color and for that reason it represents a milestone in cinematic history. I can't say that I know the mechanics of how a cartoon is made, but from the very little bit that I've read it does seem to me that this was a painstaking labor of love. Walt Disney's personal touches are interspersed and it has the quality that comes from him having done so.
Sometimes complexity can be brushed aside when we think about the importance of the film. This was not anything new in terms of story or characters. "Pinocchio" would end up being a far better example of that and is probably a "better" film than "Snow White". However, when something is created that has not been done before and, in this case, ushered an entire era of quality film making, special attention needs to be given.
That is not to say that it is special only because of its length. The animation is something spectacular and another innovation of the cinema. Study the scene where Snow White runs into the forest. The cels used by the animators were increased in size for the film so they could incorporate all of the details that Disney wanted. The very landscape comes to life which it had never done before. The world in which Snow White inhabits is not simply a stagnate backdrop, it seems to breathe.
When I watched it I felt a very odd sensation. It seemed to be more than simple nostalgia that comes from watching any old film from my childhood. It was more than a simple memory. Rather, it felt like all of the happy moments of my youth could be seen and relived in just over an hour. My love for the movie did not come simply from that charming quality and funny dwarfs; there is some hidden magic to that forest, that cottage, the smile of Prince Charming that made me laugh for the sake of laughing, smile for the sake of smiling. It was an utterly pure contentment, clean of any worries and struggles of real life. That in itself is what I love about cinema. It is those moments when the outside world is washed away leaving nothing but a complete involvement in the story at hand. The theater is an escape and "Snow White" is one of the supreme examples of this escapism.
4/4
We all hopefully know the story. It is adapted from tale by the Brothers Grimm about a evil and jealous queen who sends a huntsman to kill her stepdaughter turned slave, Snow White, after learning from her magic mirror that the girl has surpassed her in beauty. Fleeing into the enchanted forest, Snow White is taken in by a group of seven dwarfs who guard her from the wrath of the Queen. Their efforts prove to be in vain, eventually leaving the power of love's first kiss to combat her black magic.
Besides being a lovely little film with a fantastic set of characters, this was the first full length animated feature in color and for that reason it represents a milestone in cinematic history. I can't say that I know the mechanics of how a cartoon is made, but from the very little bit that I've read it does seem to me that this was a painstaking labor of love. Walt Disney's personal touches are interspersed and it has the quality that comes from him having done so.
Sometimes complexity can be brushed aside when we think about the importance of the film. This was not anything new in terms of story or characters. "Pinocchio" would end up being a far better example of that and is probably a "better" film than "Snow White". However, when something is created that has not been done before and, in this case, ushered an entire era of quality film making, special attention needs to be given.
That is not to say that it is special only because of its length. The animation is something spectacular and another innovation of the cinema. Study the scene where Snow White runs into the forest. The cels used by the animators were increased in size for the film so they could incorporate all of the details that Disney wanted. The very landscape comes to life which it had never done before. The world in which Snow White inhabits is not simply a stagnate backdrop, it seems to breathe.
When I watched it I felt a very odd sensation. It seemed to be more than simple nostalgia that comes from watching any old film from my childhood. It was more than a simple memory. Rather, it felt like all of the happy moments of my youth could be seen and relived in just over an hour. My love for the movie did not come simply from that charming quality and funny dwarfs; there is some hidden magic to that forest, that cottage, the smile of Prince Charming that made me laugh for the sake of laughing, smile for the sake of smiling. It was an utterly pure contentment, clean of any worries and struggles of real life. That in itself is what I love about cinema. It is those moments when the outside world is washed away leaving nothing but a complete involvement in the story at hand. The theater is an escape and "Snow White" is one of the supreme examples of this escapism.
4/4
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Life of Brian (1979)
The final sequence of Monty Python's "Life of Brian" shows dozens of men on crucifixes atop a hill. Brian hangs in the center, forlorn at his impending doom. All of a sudden, on the cross next to him, a man begins to sing and whistle "Always look on the bright side of life." The other convicts begin to chime in, bobbing their heads as they go, while dead zealots tap their feet to the tune. They sing "Life's a piece of shit/ When you look at it/ Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true/ You'll see it's all a joke". When I think of Monty Python these lyrics encapsulate what I think their message has always been; they are ultimately cynical and nihilistic who combat the pointlessness of life with humor and take no prisoners. This is their testament and giant middle finger to all those in the world who take themselves and their lives too seriously. More power to them for that.
When it comes down to it I suppose "Brian" is a Biblical film. Jesus makes an appearance, as does Pontius Pilate and Judith, but I don't think there has ever been a film as blasphemous with a complete disregard for the teachings of the Bible or the feelings of those who follow it. When it came out there was an enormous backlash from religious groups, and it was even banned in Ireland and Norway--not that the Pythons minded, I'm sure. When you think about comedy, however, if something is ridiculous then it should be slandered; comedy is all or nothing. Some may find it tasteless, but as long as you remember "Life's a piece of shit" then why not take the piss out of it?
Born in the manger next door to Jesus is Brian whose mother, a Jew named Mandy, raised him without his knowledge that his father was actually a Roman. As he grows up he comes to hate the Romans and joins a terrorist organization out to take down the empire. There are screwball mishaps galore, eventually leading people to believing that he is the Messiah ("I say you are Lord. And I should know, I've followed a few," shouts one person). Brian does his best to dispel the belief that he is the son of God and show people that they need not follow anyone, but in the end he's tried as a heretic.
The film is ridiculous. That goes without saying. But for all of its ridiculousness and idiocy it's oddly poignant. I'm not sure if that would be the type of word that the Pythons would like used to describe their film--crude, oddball, riotous, confusing are probably better--but what makes a good comedy is not simply that it is funny, but that it resonates and that there is truth in what is being preyed upon. Anybody can make a fart joke, after all, but not everyone can make a send-up of the Virgin Mary who says "There's no Messiah in here. There's a mess all right, but no Messiah. Now go away!"
That isn't poignancy though, that's just clever writing, and there is very clever writing in it. What is so well thought out is the buffoonery that comes along with idolatry. This group of prolifically funny men have structured a film about the pointlessness of prophecy and the slack-jawed way in which people buy into it, but have done it so smartly that it does not seem as though they themselves are preaching. That there is damn fine film making. I suppose, though, that if you set up a group which trashes everything in equal measure your messages can be accepted without being heavy handed.
This is possibly the single greatest comedy ever. Comedy is subjective, of course, but here is a group of masterclass comedians in top form tackling the best reviewed book of all time. What's more, it's constantly funny throughout. Monty Python hits and misses usually, but not here. By the end my sides hurt from laughing and upon reflection I can still laugh. There is a difference between a one-liner and saying something truly funny. These men know how to do the latter and this film is essentially an hour and a half of nothing but. So when you feel like life is shit, take out "Life of Brian" and hopefully things will be put into better perspective. After all, you could have taken a vow of silence for 18 years only to break it when somebody steps on your foot and tells others to eat you juniper berries...
4/4
When it comes down to it I suppose "Brian" is a Biblical film. Jesus makes an appearance, as does Pontius Pilate and Judith, but I don't think there has ever been a film as blasphemous with a complete disregard for the teachings of the Bible or the feelings of those who follow it. When it came out there was an enormous backlash from religious groups, and it was even banned in Ireland and Norway--not that the Pythons minded, I'm sure. When you think about comedy, however, if something is ridiculous then it should be slandered; comedy is all or nothing. Some may find it tasteless, but as long as you remember "Life's a piece of shit" then why not take the piss out of it?
Born in the manger next door to Jesus is Brian whose mother, a Jew named Mandy, raised him without his knowledge that his father was actually a Roman. As he grows up he comes to hate the Romans and joins a terrorist organization out to take down the empire. There are screwball mishaps galore, eventually leading people to believing that he is the Messiah ("I say you are Lord. And I should know, I've followed a few," shouts one person). Brian does his best to dispel the belief that he is the son of God and show people that they need not follow anyone, but in the end he's tried as a heretic.
The film is ridiculous. That goes without saying. But for all of its ridiculousness and idiocy it's oddly poignant. I'm not sure if that would be the type of word that the Pythons would like used to describe their film--crude, oddball, riotous, confusing are probably better--but what makes a good comedy is not simply that it is funny, but that it resonates and that there is truth in what is being preyed upon. Anybody can make a fart joke, after all, but not everyone can make a send-up of the Virgin Mary who says "There's no Messiah in here. There's a mess all right, but no Messiah. Now go away!"
That isn't poignancy though, that's just clever writing, and there is very clever writing in it. What is so well thought out is the buffoonery that comes along with idolatry. This group of prolifically funny men have structured a film about the pointlessness of prophecy and the slack-jawed way in which people buy into it, but have done it so smartly that it does not seem as though they themselves are preaching. That there is damn fine film making. I suppose, though, that if you set up a group which trashes everything in equal measure your messages can be accepted without being heavy handed.
This is possibly the single greatest comedy ever. Comedy is subjective, of course, but here is a group of masterclass comedians in top form tackling the best reviewed book of all time. What's more, it's constantly funny throughout. Monty Python hits and misses usually, but not here. By the end my sides hurt from laughing and upon reflection I can still laugh. There is a difference between a one-liner and saying something truly funny. These men know how to do the latter and this film is essentially an hour and a half of nothing but. So when you feel like life is shit, take out "Life of Brian" and hopefully things will be put into better perspective. After all, you could have taken a vow of silence for 18 years only to break it when somebody steps on your foot and tells others to eat you juniper berries...
4/4
Monday, July 9, 2012
In the Electric Mist (2009)
Bayous are frightening places which seem to hold dark secrets of spiritual pasts. Beyond the alligators and water moccasins there are ghosts which lie and wait for the moment when their histories must be told again. Perhaps they are evil, or perhaps they are simply ancient and dreadful in their eternal waters for no other reason than the idea that they have seen more than man.
If they are not evil they at least birth evil deeds and that is our story. Tommy Lee Jones plays Dave, a local sheriff somewhere in the swaps of Louisiana. Dave has been investigating the murder of a young prostitute, his findings leading him deep into the pit of corruption and small town crime. As he continues his work he finds connections to a lynched black man, dead some 40 years, two other murders, the mob and bad cops. Dave is a strong man and well liked, but there is more to this broken world than immediately visible, the likes of which might just destroy him.
Jones is an obvious choice for the rough yet likable local law enforcer--I half expect that he brought his own guns to the filming--and here he gives a performance of someone who is confident in his abilities simply because the film is nothing of a stretch. I missed at first actually how good a job he does due to the truth that he is structured to play such a role. Dave is kind, a family man with wrinkles around his eyes which reveal deep thought more than wisdom. Dave isn't wise, otherwise he would know not to get himself mixed up in what he does, but he is a very moral man with ethics that go astray from the norm though never veer from themselves.
He goes up against the untouchable crime boss, Baby Feet (a slimy John Goodman), whom Dave suspects of having killed the hooker Cherry Leblanc. Someone like Baby Feet is not to be trifled with, but Dave's warped sense of heroics make him a formidable force.
It is dark with many twists that bring the plot to starts and stops. Characters float in and out like specters, sometimes shedding light on the mystery, but more often folding another layer of gray cloth onto an already shrouded tale. Ghosts become actuality when he begins to see Confederate soldiers who guide him on a path to what he considers righteousness. Their appearance is confusing and never fully resolved. We are left with little more than some quote about a war never fully being over. How the Civil War and prostitution are connected is beyond me, but it gives a sense of spiritual gravity to the story and also provides an interesting twist.
The setting provides a reason for ghosts and the ghosts provide a reason for this film. Had the script not had them this would be nothing more than a made for TV movie or an overlong episode of any cop drama, and it would be little better than either. It does feature two terrific leads, but it is bogged down by a whole host of poorly acted supporting characters, a lackluster story and too many loose ends. If I don't care about who lives or dies and if there is no real sense of resolution then what is the point?
In the end this film is nothing more than a wisp of a poltergeist's shroud: it is hazy, rather formless and easily lost in a breeze.
2/4
If they are not evil they at least birth evil deeds and that is our story. Tommy Lee Jones plays Dave, a local sheriff somewhere in the swaps of Louisiana. Dave has been investigating the murder of a young prostitute, his findings leading him deep into the pit of corruption and small town crime. As he continues his work he finds connections to a lynched black man, dead some 40 years, two other murders, the mob and bad cops. Dave is a strong man and well liked, but there is more to this broken world than immediately visible, the likes of which might just destroy him.
Jones is an obvious choice for the rough yet likable local law enforcer--I half expect that he brought his own guns to the filming--and here he gives a performance of someone who is confident in his abilities simply because the film is nothing of a stretch. I missed at first actually how good a job he does due to the truth that he is structured to play such a role. Dave is kind, a family man with wrinkles around his eyes which reveal deep thought more than wisdom. Dave isn't wise, otherwise he would know not to get himself mixed up in what he does, but he is a very moral man with ethics that go astray from the norm though never veer from themselves.
He goes up against the untouchable crime boss, Baby Feet (a slimy John Goodman), whom Dave suspects of having killed the hooker Cherry Leblanc. Someone like Baby Feet is not to be trifled with, but Dave's warped sense of heroics make him a formidable force.
It is dark with many twists that bring the plot to starts and stops. Characters float in and out like specters, sometimes shedding light on the mystery, but more often folding another layer of gray cloth onto an already shrouded tale. Ghosts become actuality when he begins to see Confederate soldiers who guide him on a path to what he considers righteousness. Their appearance is confusing and never fully resolved. We are left with little more than some quote about a war never fully being over. How the Civil War and prostitution are connected is beyond me, but it gives a sense of spiritual gravity to the story and also provides an interesting twist.
The setting provides a reason for ghosts and the ghosts provide a reason for this film. Had the script not had them this would be nothing more than a made for TV movie or an overlong episode of any cop drama, and it would be little better than either. It does feature two terrific leads, but it is bogged down by a whole host of poorly acted supporting characters, a lackluster story and too many loose ends. If I don't care about who lives or dies and if there is no real sense of resolution then what is the point?
In the end this film is nothing more than a wisp of a poltergeist's shroud: it is hazy, rather formless and easily lost in a breeze.
2/4
Friday, July 6, 2012
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
An opening sequence zooms in on the cathedral of Notre Dame, glowering over the rustic houses of 19th century Paris while a chorus sings Latin to glorious heights. At its steps a gypsy puppeteer narrates the prologue of our story where a man riding a black steed murders a woman in cold blood on the steps of the church for being a gypsy. He takes her goods and finds it is nothing more than a baby, hideously misshapen. A snowy well provides him an answer to this biological mistake, but at the last moment a priest saves the child. The rider fears for his soul and agrees to raise the child as his own. There has never been a darker or more powerful scene in Disney's history and this opening certainly reveals that the film will be a departure to deeper and uglier paths.
Disney's Second Golden Age heralded in great loves like "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King", all of which stem in one way or another from darker source material made accessible for children. Never, though, has the studio decided to take on something as dark, sexual or with such blatant religious themes as "Hunchback". Victor Hugo's novel of the deformed bell ringer of Paris's most beloved church is brought to malevolently vivid life in one of the most underrated films of this prolific age.
Raised in a bell tower under the guardianship of one of the most hideous of all cartoon villains, Archdeacon Claude Frollo, the monstrous-looking Quasimodo has lived his life in solitude. A lack of companionship has led him to hallucinating friendships with three gargoyles, but this isolation has not made him bitter. Always told he was an abomination by his "savior", Quasimodo both fears and is strangely attracted to the outside world, until rule breaking and a devastating scene of humiliation and cruelty brings him into contact with the beautiful gypsy girl, Esmeralda.
Esmeralda slights Frollo, who also heads the Palace the Justice, as a neglectful and corrupt individual who dismisses those who need him most. Angered by her insolence as well as conflicted by lust and God over this gypsy, Frollo heads a campaign to eradicate the girl and her people. Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Frollo's Captain of the Guard, Phoebus, must combat his tyranny.
As a child this was one of my favorite animated films, though I did not recognize any of the significant themes that paint a dark and sinister portrait of Paris. I was, however, drawn to this figure of Frollo, a symbol of power, draped in black with a quest to make his city beautiful. Now I watch him singing into a pit of fire while the flames dance a seductive dance as he feels the sting of impure thoughts. Hugo's God and Frollo's God are two different entities and this image of a man who has so wrongfully misinterpreted the word of God that he would try to eradicate an entire people because of his lust is stirring and unsettling.
There is something profoundly troubling about this film and it is simply because the happiness of the film is forced. There is comedy, but it fits so unpleasantly that it comes as something of a distraction from what otherwise is a distressing tale of an outsider not finding his place in the world, a love affair that was never meant to be, and intolerance, corruption, and the ability of men to see fault everywhere but within themselves. Phoebus and the gargoyles, who provide the comic relief, are a necessity for Disney who always give a colorful supporting cast of characters, but it is something like placing a bow around the neck of a tiger and expecting it now to be friendly. What this film deals with is extraordinarily upsetting with grand images, thunderous music and flawed characters with many more layers than could be explored in 90 minutes.
This was certainly a gamble for Disney as there are no talking animals and all of the musical numbers seem to end in tragedy, but the rewards of it are abundant. It is obvious that this is something not meant for children--a hulking, deformed man with a good heart who does not get what he wants in the end is certainly different than most other cartoons--but its messages about friendship in the face of adversity is something worth seeing.
Yes, the film is dramatically uneven, but that goes with the territory. However, it has stunning animation, beautiful music and is intellectually far more stimulating that 98% of movies that come out ever. I attribute this to Hugo's narrative and the incredibly detailed way that he creates characters, but it is a wonderful thing that Disney decided not to do something easy and instead create a wonderful masterpiece with a core of light in indelible blackness.
4/4
Disney's Second Golden Age heralded in great loves like "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King", all of which stem in one way or another from darker source material made accessible for children. Never, though, has the studio decided to take on something as dark, sexual or with such blatant religious themes as "Hunchback". Victor Hugo's novel of the deformed bell ringer of Paris's most beloved church is brought to malevolently vivid life in one of the most underrated films of this prolific age.
Raised in a bell tower under the guardianship of one of the most hideous of all cartoon villains, Archdeacon Claude Frollo, the monstrous-looking Quasimodo has lived his life in solitude. A lack of companionship has led him to hallucinating friendships with three gargoyles, but this isolation has not made him bitter. Always told he was an abomination by his "savior", Quasimodo both fears and is strangely attracted to the outside world, until rule breaking and a devastating scene of humiliation and cruelty brings him into contact with the beautiful gypsy girl, Esmeralda.
Esmeralda slights Frollo, who also heads the Palace the Justice, as a neglectful and corrupt individual who dismisses those who need him most. Angered by her insolence as well as conflicted by lust and God over this gypsy, Frollo heads a campaign to eradicate the girl and her people. Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Frollo's Captain of the Guard, Phoebus, must combat his tyranny.
As a child this was one of my favorite animated films, though I did not recognize any of the significant themes that paint a dark and sinister portrait of Paris. I was, however, drawn to this figure of Frollo, a symbol of power, draped in black with a quest to make his city beautiful. Now I watch him singing into a pit of fire while the flames dance a seductive dance as he feels the sting of impure thoughts. Hugo's God and Frollo's God are two different entities and this image of a man who has so wrongfully misinterpreted the word of God that he would try to eradicate an entire people because of his lust is stirring and unsettling.
There is something profoundly troubling about this film and it is simply because the happiness of the film is forced. There is comedy, but it fits so unpleasantly that it comes as something of a distraction from what otherwise is a distressing tale of an outsider not finding his place in the world, a love affair that was never meant to be, and intolerance, corruption, and the ability of men to see fault everywhere but within themselves. Phoebus and the gargoyles, who provide the comic relief, are a necessity for Disney who always give a colorful supporting cast of characters, but it is something like placing a bow around the neck of a tiger and expecting it now to be friendly. What this film deals with is extraordinarily upsetting with grand images, thunderous music and flawed characters with many more layers than could be explored in 90 minutes.
This was certainly a gamble for Disney as there are no talking animals and all of the musical numbers seem to end in tragedy, but the rewards of it are abundant. It is obvious that this is something not meant for children--a hulking, deformed man with a good heart who does not get what he wants in the end is certainly different than most other cartoons--but its messages about friendship in the face of adversity is something worth seeing.
Yes, the film is dramatically uneven, but that goes with the territory. However, it has stunning animation, beautiful music and is intellectually far more stimulating that 98% of movies that come out ever. I attribute this to Hugo's narrative and the incredibly detailed way that he creates characters, but it is a wonderful thing that Disney decided not to do something easy and instead create a wonderful masterpiece with a core of light in indelible blackness.
4/4
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
The Boys are Back (2009)
In a film about a grieving family and what it means to love and rebuild through pain, it seems strange to me that the direction it takes is recklessness and irresponsibility. Clive Owen plays a young man named Joe, who is the father of two boys and is a recent widower. As many of these films go he is a man who is devoted to his work as a sports writer and must now contend with being both mother and father when he has never had to be either.
Set in the deserts of Australia, he at first only takes care of his younger boy, Artie, who possibly has to navigate through the most difficult acting of the lot. The boy is probably no older than eight, but the sorrow of losing his mother is difficult and skillfully tackled. The two of them, who have never been close, must now learn to live with each other and only each other in order to forge some sort of family unit. Think of "Kramer vs. Kramer" and the first scene in which Dustin Hoffman tries to prepare french toast for his son. This film takes on something of a similar approach, but instead of the father figure trying to accept his new responsibilities he instead creates what he calls his "hog heaven".
I would be surprised at nothing less, but then I have deep-seeded prejudices towards Aussies. Presumably though, this sort of behavior is not customary for these...people. After their initial troubled period, Joe begins to take on more of the characteristics of his boy. He pouts, is easily insulted and is lazy. We feel for him though as he is presented as a good guy, and Owen's performance is likable as usual. However, if he is now supposed to the father do we accept the almost dangerous way that he raises his child?
This first third of the film is almost scarily melodramatic and predictable, with its somber music, picture perfect montages, and the hint of new romance (though his wife has only been dead for a couple of months). The performances are good, but did not seem like they would be enough to contend with the unbreakable formula.
Fortunately for them and us a third character is presented. This is Harry, a young teenager and Joe's eldest son from his first wife. He has been at school in England and has come to Australia for the first time in order to see his father and meet his half brother. Of course he is sullen and distant initially--he has just been thrown into a family which he never sees and a household that has no rules. Harry is played by George MacKay who I think gives the most believable performance of them all. But then he does not have to worry about dealing with grief as it wasn't his mother who died. What he does reveal, and quite expertly, is abandonment and the pain that comes with parent's separation.
Together the three work very well and feel as if they actually were a family. Many issues are glossed over to pave the way for the unavoidable happy ending. Conflicts are thrown in to keep us interested, but the all-too-familiar story comes barreling down upon us without any means of escaping it. Knowing this, I must say that I was not too displeased when it did hit me simply because I had found that the characters resonated with me.
It takes a while for the script to warm up, but then how can they expect us to care about a relationship gone when the mother dies within minutes of the film starting? It is only when less emphasis is placed on the mother and more about the restructuring of the family that I was finally able to relax and enjoy the story. Alexander Payne new how to avoid a lot of these obstacles in last year's "The Descendants", but director Scott Hicks was a little more blunt with his story telling.
When the film finally settles and the childish nonsense dissipates we are left with a rather touching story of man doing his best. There is love, but fear needs to be overcome first. So if you can slug through the first 25 minutes--and I applaud your fortitude if you can--you might find that the last third is something of a rewarding experience.
2.5/4
Set in the deserts of Australia, he at first only takes care of his younger boy, Artie, who possibly has to navigate through the most difficult acting of the lot. The boy is probably no older than eight, but the sorrow of losing his mother is difficult and skillfully tackled. The two of them, who have never been close, must now learn to live with each other and only each other in order to forge some sort of family unit. Think of "Kramer vs. Kramer" and the first scene in which Dustin Hoffman tries to prepare french toast for his son. This film takes on something of a similar approach, but instead of the father figure trying to accept his new responsibilities he instead creates what he calls his "hog heaven".
I would be surprised at nothing less, but then I have deep-seeded prejudices towards Aussies. Presumably though, this sort of behavior is not customary for these...people. After their initial troubled period, Joe begins to take on more of the characteristics of his boy. He pouts, is easily insulted and is lazy. We feel for him though as he is presented as a good guy, and Owen's performance is likable as usual. However, if he is now supposed to the father do we accept the almost dangerous way that he raises his child?
This first third of the film is almost scarily melodramatic and predictable, with its somber music, picture perfect montages, and the hint of new romance (though his wife has only been dead for a couple of months). The performances are good, but did not seem like they would be enough to contend with the unbreakable formula.
Fortunately for them and us a third character is presented. This is Harry, a young teenager and Joe's eldest son from his first wife. He has been at school in England and has come to Australia for the first time in order to see his father and meet his half brother. Of course he is sullen and distant initially--he has just been thrown into a family which he never sees and a household that has no rules. Harry is played by George MacKay who I think gives the most believable performance of them all. But then he does not have to worry about dealing with grief as it wasn't his mother who died. What he does reveal, and quite expertly, is abandonment and the pain that comes with parent's separation.
Together the three work very well and feel as if they actually were a family. Many issues are glossed over to pave the way for the unavoidable happy ending. Conflicts are thrown in to keep us interested, but the all-too-familiar story comes barreling down upon us without any means of escaping it. Knowing this, I must say that I was not too displeased when it did hit me simply because I had found that the characters resonated with me.
It takes a while for the script to warm up, but then how can they expect us to care about a relationship gone when the mother dies within minutes of the film starting? It is only when less emphasis is placed on the mother and more about the restructuring of the family that I was finally able to relax and enjoy the story. Alexander Payne new how to avoid a lot of these obstacles in last year's "The Descendants", but director Scott Hicks was a little more blunt with his story telling.
When the film finally settles and the childish nonsense dissipates we are left with a rather touching story of man doing his best. There is love, but fear needs to be overcome first. So if you can slug through the first 25 minutes--and I applaud your fortitude if you can--you might find that the last third is something of a rewarding experience.
2.5/4
Sunday, July 1, 2012
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie (2004)
A small disclaimer before you continue reading: I am an enormous Spongebob fan; a plush Spongebob is sitting next to me, in fact. Therefore I advise you to read this with a hint of skepticism, though I shall do my best to remain fair in this review.
Lots of people give me a hard time for watching Spongebob as it's a "children's" show and tell me I need to develop interests for my own age. This film is reassuring to me as it promotes being yourself and, more topically, it promotes the joys of being youthful. Is it so terrible to enjoy a simple pleasure about friendship, hard work and enjoying your life? I don't think so, and I also think that if people took the time to watch more things like Spongebob instead of schlock like "Transformers" and "Twilight" we may very well have a world with a bit more optimism.
But about the film...
It's a big day for Spongebob. Mr. Krabs is opening the Krusty Krab 2 next door to the original and is in need of a manager for the establishment. Well, of course the obvious choice for the job would be Spongebob, right? After all, he has won employee of the month 374 times consecutively. Alas, the job goes to Squidward with Mr. Krabs telling our favorite sponge he couldn't manage the restaurant as he is only a kid. Thus begins a running theme of maturity vs. spirit.
Plankton, as usual, is attempting to steal the Krabby Patty Secret Formula, now turning to the infallible "Plan Z" which involves framing Krabs for the theft of King Neptune's crown. Spongebob is tasked with retrieving the crown in six days before Neptune executes his boss. He and Patrick embark on a dangerous quest to Shell City, the forbidden city. On the way they blow bubbles, fight a cyclops, eat sundaes, evade a killer named Dennis and ride on the poop deck of David Hasselhoff. That's a pretty big adventure for a kid, but of course we know Spongebob can do it.
As a film it does feel a bit thin. The show works so well with 11 minute plots with that delicious humor inspired by "Ren and Stimpy". As a feature length film, however, there does not seem much that could be done except an adventure film with a series of obstacles, in which case they can continue that episodic structure to which it is accustomed to.
It is funny, and is far more polished than the show (which some including myself might argue is not necessarily a good thing, but in order to save time the artists probably had to do that) which is good for audiences of all ages. The plot is accessible enough for children of course, but a lot of the humor is whip-smart and definitely geared towards mom and dad. After all, I'm sure a 7 year old is not going to recognize the Twisted Sister scene towards the end, nor will they catch all of the clever one-liners.
There is a second film coming out in 2014, or so I've heard, and I am excited to see it. This film is not great and will not make any new fans, but there is enough there that I think I merits a sequel. After all, isn't it enough to have a bit of a guilty pleasure every eight years or so? I think so and say with gumption that I am a Goofy Goober, yeah!
2.5/4
Lots of people give me a hard time for watching Spongebob as it's a "children's" show and tell me I need to develop interests for my own age. This film is reassuring to me as it promotes being yourself and, more topically, it promotes the joys of being youthful. Is it so terrible to enjoy a simple pleasure about friendship, hard work and enjoying your life? I don't think so, and I also think that if people took the time to watch more things like Spongebob instead of schlock like "Transformers" and "Twilight" we may very well have a world with a bit more optimism.
But about the film...
It's a big day for Spongebob. Mr. Krabs is opening the Krusty Krab 2 next door to the original and is in need of a manager for the establishment. Well, of course the obvious choice for the job would be Spongebob, right? After all, he has won employee of the month 374 times consecutively. Alas, the job goes to Squidward with Mr. Krabs telling our favorite sponge he couldn't manage the restaurant as he is only a kid. Thus begins a running theme of maturity vs. spirit.
Plankton, as usual, is attempting to steal the Krabby Patty Secret Formula, now turning to the infallible "Plan Z" which involves framing Krabs for the theft of King Neptune's crown. Spongebob is tasked with retrieving the crown in six days before Neptune executes his boss. He and Patrick embark on a dangerous quest to Shell City, the forbidden city. On the way they blow bubbles, fight a cyclops, eat sundaes, evade a killer named Dennis and ride on the poop deck of David Hasselhoff. That's a pretty big adventure for a kid, but of course we know Spongebob can do it.
As a film it does feel a bit thin. The show works so well with 11 minute plots with that delicious humor inspired by "Ren and Stimpy". As a feature length film, however, there does not seem much that could be done except an adventure film with a series of obstacles, in which case they can continue that episodic structure to which it is accustomed to.
It is funny, and is far more polished than the show (which some including myself might argue is not necessarily a good thing, but in order to save time the artists probably had to do that) which is good for audiences of all ages. The plot is accessible enough for children of course, but a lot of the humor is whip-smart and definitely geared towards mom and dad. After all, I'm sure a 7 year old is not going to recognize the Twisted Sister scene towards the end, nor will they catch all of the clever one-liners.
There is a second film coming out in 2014, or so I've heard, and I am excited to see it. This film is not great and will not make any new fans, but there is enough there that I think I merits a sequel. After all, isn't it enough to have a bit of a guilty pleasure every eight years or so? I think so and say with gumption that I am a Goofy Goober, yeah!
2.5/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)