Revew:
“Capitalism: A Love Story” is the latest installment in Michael Moore’s ongoing populist critiques of America as it stands today. I’ll admit outright that I usually agree with the points that Moore is making in his films but I also must acknowledge I realize his films walk a fine line between documentary and propaganda.
In “Capitalism,” Moore goes after the hot topic of our nation’s Economy and its current downward inclinations. He explores how the drive to maximize profits is a universal trend in corporate America and how that maximization often comes at the expense of the American public.
There is no doubt that money causes people to do outlandish and selfish things, be it on personal or global scales. Moore goes into some disturbing case studies including a privatized juvenile correction facility where a judge would receive payments for every child he sent to the facility. This of course led to many high schoolers having months of their lives taken away and have their records forever tarnished, all for the sake of a judge’s monetary gain.
Moore also emphasizes the most recent financial crisis. In some humorous moments he tries to have experts explain the housing bubble and the precarious financial maneuverings that caused it. No one is successful with a succinct explanation.
I must admit, I agree with the message of this film but I think Moore bites off more than he can chew here. I think he ran into a similar problem with his “Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004). There’s so much to cover that the film inherently becomes a little jumbled and tangential. Its not that what he’s saying doesn’t make sense, its just that his case studies in capitalism are so disparate, its hard to take away anything more than “Greed = Bad.”
His more successful films like “Sicko” (2007) and “Bowling for Columbine” (2002) each pick up one hot issue (healthcare and gun control, respectively) and explore it in focused detail. “Capitalism” tries to do this too, but the problem here is that the issue of capitalism really serves as an umbrella for a vast stew of issues. “Capitalism” is good, but its no powerhouse for economic reform.
Rating:
On a scale of one to ‘Casablanca’ this film is a “Horton Hears a Who” (2008)
Rationalization:
I enjoyed it enough to say that I’d sit through this film again. I think it says a lot of informative, important things. But with most documentaries like this I look for a good thesis. That capitalism begets financial evils is not news to me. Some of the specific cases are astonishing, I’ll admit. But when Moore is pointing his fingers everywhere, I tend to just lose sight of why he’s pointing fingers at all.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Son (2002)
Review:
Jean Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne's film "The Son" resonates louder in my heart and percolates in my mind the more I reflect upon it. It is at once a film that is completely mundane and deeply spiritual. I can't help but wish more people would see it or have the patience to sit through it. "The Son" does not make any direct assertions about its characters or their motivations. It trusts its audience to understand the underlying complexity of its story and realize when expectations have been derailed.
"The Son" is like a parable - told with simplicity but conceived with great meaning. It is the story of Olivier (Olivier Gourmet), a carpenter who teaches at a vocational school for boys. Olivier is a sedate man. You can sense his deep longing and isolation. But it is clear Olivier is a master carpenter and teaches it well, caring deeply for the craft and for his students.
When Francis (Morgan Marinne), a troubled teenage youth recently released from a reformatory institution, is brought to Olivier to become an apprentice Olivier explains he already has too many apprentices. He suggests the boy be taken to the welding shop. Despite this rejection, it is clear from Olivier’s actions after his first meeting with Francis that he has a keen interest in the boy.
Later that day Olivier’s ex wife (Isabella Soupart) comes to tell Olivier she is getting remarried. Their relationship seems uncomplicated but restrained; mature but sad. We don’t ever really learn the specifics of their divorce, but we do learn the catalyst of their separation, which I will not comment upon in this review. Soon after learning of his wife’s new marriage, Olivier changes his mind and decides to take on Francis after all.
That is the setup for the film. More, I will not elucidate upon. I will leave it for you to discover what’s going on with Olivier. But I will say what I think this film is about. It’s about forgiveness - deep forgiveness. Most films treat forgiveness as a mechanism for closure when in reality it’s hardly ever that. Forgiveness is not a simple action with definite parameters; it is a long, illogical process, more often encapsulated by an unconscious decision than a dramatic reconciliation.
I loved “The Son” because it explores the full breadth of forgiveness. It’s the most complicated film about forgiveness I have seen since Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” (1988) and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Olivier being a carpenter wasn’t an accident.
Rating:
On a scale of one to ‘Casablanca’ this film is a “Hiroshima Mon Amour” (1959)
Rationalization:
To create simple art that maintains great depth is a feat few artists can achieve. Many great movies have a tendency towards verbose scripts and elaborate camera work. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact I would like if if there were more movies that have the voluptuous quality of some Woody Allen or Kubrick films, but sometimes a film like “The Son” just hits you so hard that you wonder why anything as elaborate as a crane shot or CGI are necessary at all in movies.
Jean Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne's film "The Son" resonates louder in my heart and percolates in my mind the more I reflect upon it. It is at once a film that is completely mundane and deeply spiritual. I can't help but wish more people would see it or have the patience to sit through it. "The Son" does not make any direct assertions about its characters or their motivations. It trusts its audience to understand the underlying complexity of its story and realize when expectations have been derailed.
"The Son" is like a parable - told with simplicity but conceived with great meaning. It is the story of Olivier (Olivier Gourmet), a carpenter who teaches at a vocational school for boys. Olivier is a sedate man. You can sense his deep longing and isolation. But it is clear Olivier is a master carpenter and teaches it well, caring deeply for the craft and for his students.
When Francis (Morgan Marinne), a troubled teenage youth recently released from a reformatory institution, is brought to Olivier to become an apprentice Olivier explains he already has too many apprentices. He suggests the boy be taken to the welding shop. Despite this rejection, it is clear from Olivier’s actions after his first meeting with Francis that he has a keen interest in the boy.
Later that day Olivier’s ex wife (Isabella Soupart) comes to tell Olivier she is getting remarried. Their relationship seems uncomplicated but restrained; mature but sad. We don’t ever really learn the specifics of their divorce, but we do learn the catalyst of their separation, which I will not comment upon in this review. Soon after learning of his wife’s new marriage, Olivier changes his mind and decides to take on Francis after all.
That is the setup for the film. More, I will not elucidate upon. I will leave it for you to discover what’s going on with Olivier. But I will say what I think this film is about. It’s about forgiveness - deep forgiveness. Most films treat forgiveness as a mechanism for closure when in reality it’s hardly ever that. Forgiveness is not a simple action with definite parameters; it is a long, illogical process, more often encapsulated by an unconscious decision than a dramatic reconciliation.
I loved “The Son” because it explores the full breadth of forgiveness. It’s the most complicated film about forgiveness I have seen since Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” (1988) and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Olivier being a carpenter wasn’t an accident.
Rating:
On a scale of one to ‘Casablanca’ this film is a “Hiroshima Mon Amour” (1959)
Rationalization:
To create simple art that maintains great depth is a feat few artists can achieve. Many great movies have a tendency towards verbose scripts and elaborate camera work. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact I would like if if there were more movies that have the voluptuous quality of some Woody Allen or Kubrick films, but sometimes a film like “The Son” just hits you so hard that you wonder why anything as elaborate as a crane shot or CGI are necessary at all in movies.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Date Night (2010)
At long last the television God’s have listened to the prayers of the viewership and given us what we demand: a team up of TV’s comedy extraordinaires Tina Fey and Steve Carell. Finally, Tina and Steve are not divided by their repective shows and commercial breaks. Finally, Liz Lemon can have repartee with Michael Scott. Finally, we can witness great talents building off each other rather than competing with one another. Finally. And the offering of the God’s is “Date Night,” a pretty damn funny screwball comedy.
Admittedly, “Date Night” is not a work of tremendous genius or a comedy that will forever change the course of the genre, but what it does, it does well – namely it makes us laugh. Tina Fey and Steve Carell play Phil and Claire Foster, a married couple who have settled into the tired routines of work, kids, and sleep. For Phil and Claire, the spark of spontaneity that ignites all romance has long since been put out – and they know it, and it scares them. In an attempt to recharge their old flame, they decide abandon their usual routines and head into New York City one night to try a hot new restaurant. When it becomes clear that they will not be seated without a reservation, Phil and Claire take the reservation of a no-show couple, the Tripplehorns.
After a bottle or two of wine, Phil and Claire are approached by two thuggish looking men and are asked to follow them out of the restaurant. Believing the Fosters are the Tripplehorns, the men demand Claire and Phil turn over a flash drive that they know nothing about. This case of mistaken identity sets off a series of actions and escapes that prove to be at once hilarious and fun. We meet the real Tripplehorns, a tough mob boss, and a former client of Claire’s, a security expert named Holbrooke (Mark Wahlberg) who never wears a shirt.
One of “Date Night’s” strengths is its employment of the secondary characters. Too often in comedies, a secondary character will overshadow the stars and usurp the significance of the main action. Here, the supporting actors like Wahlberg, Ray Liota, James Franco, and Mila Kunis are used in superb moderation. None of their characters stays longer than necessary and so they remain as funny as they can possibly be. Perhaps this is the strength of the screenplay by Josh Klausner or the wise comedic discretion of director Shawn Levy, but whatever it is, it works.
“Date Night” also has the funniest car chase I have seen since “The Blues Brothers” (1980).
And then there is Steve and Tina, who, as per usual, are remarkably funny. They know how to balance real emotions with madcap zaniness. It must be hard to do. We believe the Fosters could be real people, a real couple, and that is why the crazy action that follows them on their date night is so funny. I really hope Tina and Steve will be paired up again in a movie. They could be the next Hepburn and Tracey, albeit not lovers (or so we think)…
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “The Goonies” (1986)
Rationalization:
You gotta give props to a film that doesn’t stretch itself beyond what it is. “Date Night” is an action comedy that realizes how absurd its action is and yet watches with seriousness. There are no false gimmicks to try and make “Date Night” hipper than it is. We simply have great talents at work here that produce a light comedy that makes us laugh real good. I expected nothing more from “Date Night” than to laugh and feel I had not wasted my two hours. I was not disappointed.
Admittedly, “Date Night” is not a work of tremendous genius or a comedy that will forever change the course of the genre, but what it does, it does well – namely it makes us laugh. Tina Fey and Steve Carell play Phil and Claire Foster, a married couple who have settled into the tired routines of work, kids, and sleep. For Phil and Claire, the spark of spontaneity that ignites all romance has long since been put out – and they know it, and it scares them. In an attempt to recharge their old flame, they decide abandon their usual routines and head into New York City one night to try a hot new restaurant. When it becomes clear that they will not be seated without a reservation, Phil and Claire take the reservation of a no-show couple, the Tripplehorns.
After a bottle or two of wine, Phil and Claire are approached by two thuggish looking men and are asked to follow them out of the restaurant. Believing the Fosters are the Tripplehorns, the men demand Claire and Phil turn over a flash drive that they know nothing about. This case of mistaken identity sets off a series of actions and escapes that prove to be at once hilarious and fun. We meet the real Tripplehorns, a tough mob boss, and a former client of Claire’s, a security expert named Holbrooke (Mark Wahlberg) who never wears a shirt.
One of “Date Night’s” strengths is its employment of the secondary characters. Too often in comedies, a secondary character will overshadow the stars and usurp the significance of the main action. Here, the supporting actors like Wahlberg, Ray Liota, James Franco, and Mila Kunis are used in superb moderation. None of their characters stays longer than necessary and so they remain as funny as they can possibly be. Perhaps this is the strength of the screenplay by Josh Klausner or the wise comedic discretion of director Shawn Levy, but whatever it is, it works.
“Date Night” also has the funniest car chase I have seen since “The Blues Brothers” (1980).
And then there is Steve and Tina, who, as per usual, are remarkably funny. They know how to balance real emotions with madcap zaniness. It must be hard to do. We believe the Fosters could be real people, a real couple, and that is why the crazy action that follows them on their date night is so funny. I really hope Tina and Steve will be paired up again in a movie. They could be the next Hepburn and Tracey, albeit not lovers (or so we think)…
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “The Goonies” (1986)
Rationalization:
You gotta give props to a film that doesn’t stretch itself beyond what it is. “Date Night” is an action comedy that realizes how absurd its action is and yet watches with seriousness. There are no false gimmicks to try and make “Date Night” hipper than it is. We simply have great talents at work here that produce a light comedy that makes us laugh real good. I expected nothing more from “Date Night” than to laugh and feel I had not wasted my two hours. I was not disappointed.
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)
Review:
Wes Anderson’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is the director’s first foray into animation and what a fabulous success it is! I will maybe be the first and only one to ever admit such a thing but here I go: I think I liked it better than “Up” (2009). Yes, “Up” is a beautiful and very touching film, a masterpiece of computer animation and a palette of real emotions, but “Fantastic Mr. Fox” has that ‘je ne sais quoi’ that leaves my mind a-flutter after a viewing. Perhaps that ‘je ne sais quoi’ is simply a genuine charisma or maybe its a reassuring quirkiness. Perhaps it’s simply a well fleshed out story with believable anthropomorphic characters. I don’t know really. It just left me with a lot more to think about than most animated films. I loved this film. It is Wes Anderson’s best since “The Royal Tenenbaums” (2001).
Based on the children’s book by Roald Dahl “Fantastic Mr. Fox” spins the tale of Mr. Fox (George Clooney), a natural born chicken thief who is persuaded by his wife, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) to leave behind his life of crime. Several years later though, Mr. Fox is feeling that itch to burglarize again. In his new scheme he involves opossum Kylie (Wallace Wolodarsky) and his capable nephew Kristofferson (Eric Anderson). He plans to rob three mean farmers, Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. All the while he is keeping his reactivated life of crime a secret from his disapproving wife and his odd ball son Ash (Jason Schwartzman).
The basic story from Dahl’s beloved book is maintained in the film, but Anderson in his typical fashion of writing and filming, infuses a lot of humorous eccentricities and style into the story. For instance, Mr. Fox’s nephew Kristofferson (who is not in Dahl’s book) regularly meditates. In a moment where his cousin Ash insults him, Krisofferson withholds his anger and states, “I am going to go meditate for half an hour.” Most writers would have had Kristofferson blow up in an angry fit, or have him cry and run off; how rare, and how specific, to have a character with such faculty over his emotions (especially in a cartoon). Its moments like this that makes “Fantastic Mr. Fox” sparkle.
The animation is also superb and lends itself well to the story. It is stop motion animation - the best (i.e. most fitting) stop motion I have seen since “A Nightmare Before Christmas” (1994). The detail is effervescent. I love a scene in which one of the farmers, digging through the Fox’s layer finds a landscape painting by Mrs. Fox. He holds it up and regards it with such antipathy. If a real person found a landscape painting by a fox they’d be baffled and amazed.
And ultimately, I love the sense of melancholy that runs throughout the movie. It’s very grownup at heart. All of Wes Anderson’s movies are very funny but very melancholy. There’s great sadness behind a lot of his funniest characters. Here, Meryl Streep provides the true melancholia of the film. She is at a loss to change her husband’s ways and she knows it.
I like that this film does not shy away from adult humor. There are cigarettes, alcohol, knife fights, cussing, and serious questions of identity. I found myself very moved the film and wanting to buy it right away. That so rarely happens.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Roman Holiday” (1953)
Rationalization:
“Roman Holiday” (1953) is a film I have always respected for not giving us the easy, expected ending. Instead it gives us the right ending and so the rest of the story is rendered more significant. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is similar. I respect it for going way above and beyond what it could have been. Some other director or writer would have given us a straight rendition of Dahl’s story but Wes Anderson dares to take the right liberties with it. He breathes new and original life into his characters and so too breathes life into anyone who watches this film.
Wes Anderson’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is the director’s first foray into animation and what a fabulous success it is! I will maybe be the first and only one to ever admit such a thing but here I go: I think I liked it better than “Up” (2009). Yes, “Up” is a beautiful and very touching film, a masterpiece of computer animation and a palette of real emotions, but “Fantastic Mr. Fox” has that ‘je ne sais quoi’ that leaves my mind a-flutter after a viewing. Perhaps that ‘je ne sais quoi’ is simply a genuine charisma or maybe its a reassuring quirkiness. Perhaps it’s simply a well fleshed out story with believable anthropomorphic characters. I don’t know really. It just left me with a lot more to think about than most animated films. I loved this film. It is Wes Anderson’s best since “The Royal Tenenbaums” (2001).
Based on the children’s book by Roald Dahl “Fantastic Mr. Fox” spins the tale of Mr. Fox (George Clooney), a natural born chicken thief who is persuaded by his wife, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) to leave behind his life of crime. Several years later though, Mr. Fox is feeling that itch to burglarize again. In his new scheme he involves opossum Kylie (Wallace Wolodarsky) and his capable nephew Kristofferson (Eric Anderson). He plans to rob three mean farmers, Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. All the while he is keeping his reactivated life of crime a secret from his disapproving wife and his odd ball son Ash (Jason Schwartzman).
The basic story from Dahl’s beloved book is maintained in the film, but Anderson in his typical fashion of writing and filming, infuses a lot of humorous eccentricities and style into the story. For instance, Mr. Fox’s nephew Kristofferson (who is not in Dahl’s book) regularly meditates. In a moment where his cousin Ash insults him, Krisofferson withholds his anger and states, “I am going to go meditate for half an hour.” Most writers would have had Kristofferson blow up in an angry fit, or have him cry and run off; how rare, and how specific, to have a character with such faculty over his emotions (especially in a cartoon). Its moments like this that makes “Fantastic Mr. Fox” sparkle.
The animation is also superb and lends itself well to the story. It is stop motion animation - the best (i.e. most fitting) stop motion I have seen since “A Nightmare Before Christmas” (1994). The detail is effervescent. I love a scene in which one of the farmers, digging through the Fox’s layer finds a landscape painting by Mrs. Fox. He holds it up and regards it with such antipathy. If a real person found a landscape painting by a fox they’d be baffled and amazed.
And ultimately, I love the sense of melancholy that runs throughout the movie. It’s very grownup at heart. All of Wes Anderson’s movies are very funny but very melancholy. There’s great sadness behind a lot of his funniest characters. Here, Meryl Streep provides the true melancholia of the film. She is at a loss to change her husband’s ways and she knows it.
I like that this film does not shy away from adult humor. There are cigarettes, alcohol, knife fights, cussing, and serious questions of identity. I found myself very moved the film and wanting to buy it right away. That so rarely happens.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Roman Holiday” (1953)
Rationalization:
“Roman Holiday” (1953) is a film I have always respected for not giving us the easy, expected ending. Instead it gives us the right ending and so the rest of the story is rendered more significant. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is similar. I respect it for going way above and beyond what it could have been. Some other director or writer would have given us a straight rendition of Dahl’s story but Wes Anderson dares to take the right liberties with it. He breathes new and original life into his characters and so too breathes life into anyone who watches this film.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Hot Tub Time Machine (2010)
Review:
Like “Snakes on a Plane” (2006) and “Citizen Kane” (1941) before it, “Hot Tub Time Machine” delivers exactly what the title promises. It’s a zany comedy that tries to be no holds bar but doesn’t quite succeed on the level I wanted it to succeed. Yes, it’s actually pretty funny. I found myself laughing a good deal. But at the end of the day, it felt a little underdeveloped. Perhaps the best part of this movie is in fact the title. The second best part would probably be the fact that someone thought up the rediculous concept of a hot tub time machine. But really, when you think about it, why is a hot tub time machine more ridiculous than a DeLorean time machine? Actually, who am I kidding? It’s way more ridiculous.
So on to the story. Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Webber) and Lou (Rob Corddry) in the 1980s were best friends partying it up at the hottest ski lodge ever. In their adult lives they have drifted apart and become unhappy, unsuccessful bores. Adam is a down and out insurance salesman. Nick has given up his dreams of becoming a famous musician to work at a salon for dogs and Lou has become an alcoholic divorcee. One night during a drunken rock out in his garage, Lou accidentally gives himself carbon monoxide poisoning. Thinking this was a suicide attempt, his doctor’s recommend that Adam and Nick keep an eye on Lou. And so, Adam, Nick, and Lou, accompanied by Adam’s dorky nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) head back up to that ski lodge from their lost youth to bond and cheer each other up. When they arrive though they find that the lodge has not been kept up over the years. It is a musty old place with a one armed bellboy. Even the hot tub has a dead opossum in it.
But nevertheless, the four men decide to get plastered in the hot tub and as tends to happen when you get drunk in a hot tub, they get transported back in time. And so begins the age old foibles of time travel. They realize they cannot alter anything; They must break up with the same girls they broke up with in the past, they must get into the same fights, the same hook ups. But this of course turns out to be a hard roster to follow, especially since Adam, Nick, and Lou know how their lives turn out if they relive their past in the same way.
Some of the ensuing hilarity is purely excellent. I especially liked Nick’s inappropriate phone call to his nine-year old wife. But some of scenarios and jokes didn’t quite work for me. In a movie called “Hot Tub Time Machine” you should be going for broke. There should be nothing redemptive or reassuring about the situation. That’s why I like the movies “Caddyshack” (1980) and “Stripes” (1982) which are in a similar spirit as “Hot Tub” but never move to restore the lives of their characters.
In “Hot Tub,” which is a movie rife with cursing, drugs, sex, and delusions, I wish that they had stayed in the 80s longer than one night and that the friends coming to terms with each other element had been complete eradicated. I wish they would just have gotten into crazy trouble and confusion and left it at that. Also, Chevy Chase wasn’t very funny. Yet still, I laughed. If you see “Hot Tub Time Machine” be in a silly mood, and you shall not be let down.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “E La Nave Va” (1986)
Rationalization:
Not to say this movie isn’t good, but I feel that it doesn’t quite know what it is at times; whether it should try to bestow some meaning to the events its depicting or whether it should just be a ridiculous comedy. When I went in to see “Hot Tub Time Machine” I wanted pure irreverence. What I got was a tad deluded.
Like “Snakes on a Plane” (2006) and “Citizen Kane” (1941) before it, “Hot Tub Time Machine” delivers exactly what the title promises. It’s a zany comedy that tries to be no holds bar but doesn’t quite succeed on the level I wanted it to succeed. Yes, it’s actually pretty funny. I found myself laughing a good deal. But at the end of the day, it felt a little underdeveloped. Perhaps the best part of this movie is in fact the title. The second best part would probably be the fact that someone thought up the rediculous concept of a hot tub time machine. But really, when you think about it, why is a hot tub time machine more ridiculous than a DeLorean time machine? Actually, who am I kidding? It’s way more ridiculous.
So on to the story. Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Webber) and Lou (Rob Corddry) in the 1980s were best friends partying it up at the hottest ski lodge ever. In their adult lives they have drifted apart and become unhappy, unsuccessful bores. Adam is a down and out insurance salesman. Nick has given up his dreams of becoming a famous musician to work at a salon for dogs and Lou has become an alcoholic divorcee. One night during a drunken rock out in his garage, Lou accidentally gives himself carbon monoxide poisoning. Thinking this was a suicide attempt, his doctor’s recommend that Adam and Nick keep an eye on Lou. And so, Adam, Nick, and Lou, accompanied by Adam’s dorky nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) head back up to that ski lodge from their lost youth to bond and cheer each other up. When they arrive though they find that the lodge has not been kept up over the years. It is a musty old place with a one armed bellboy. Even the hot tub has a dead opossum in it.
But nevertheless, the four men decide to get plastered in the hot tub and as tends to happen when you get drunk in a hot tub, they get transported back in time. And so begins the age old foibles of time travel. They realize they cannot alter anything; They must break up with the same girls they broke up with in the past, they must get into the same fights, the same hook ups. But this of course turns out to be a hard roster to follow, especially since Adam, Nick, and Lou know how their lives turn out if they relive their past in the same way.
Some of the ensuing hilarity is purely excellent. I especially liked Nick’s inappropriate phone call to his nine-year old wife. But some of scenarios and jokes didn’t quite work for me. In a movie called “Hot Tub Time Machine” you should be going for broke. There should be nothing redemptive or reassuring about the situation. That’s why I like the movies “Caddyshack” (1980) and “Stripes” (1982) which are in a similar spirit as “Hot Tub” but never move to restore the lives of their characters.
In “Hot Tub,” which is a movie rife with cursing, drugs, sex, and delusions, I wish that they had stayed in the 80s longer than one night and that the friends coming to terms with each other element had been complete eradicated. I wish they would just have gotten into crazy trouble and confusion and left it at that. Also, Chevy Chase wasn’t very funny. Yet still, I laughed. If you see “Hot Tub Time Machine” be in a silly mood, and you shall not be let down.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “E La Nave Va” (1986)
Rationalization:
Not to say this movie isn’t good, but I feel that it doesn’t quite know what it is at times; whether it should try to bestow some meaning to the events its depicting or whether it should just be a ridiculous comedy. When I went in to see “Hot Tub Time Machine” I wanted pure irreverence. What I got was a tad deluded.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Grey Gardens (2009)
Review:
In “The Lion King” (1994) Zazu assures Mufasa that every family has an odd duck like Mufasa’s brother Scar. Zazu says “There’s one in every family sire. Two in mine actually. And they always manage to ruin special occasions.” Oh, how Zazu is right. My family has an odd duck. So does yours. And so did Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. And like Zazu, she had two.
Edith “Big Edie” Bouvier Beale and her daughter Edith “Little Edie” Bouvier Beale were the black sheep of the Bouvier family. Reclusive, hoarding, and unrelentingly odd, the two women became the subject of the lauded documentary “Grey Gardens” (1975). But many people felt the documentary did not explain these two women enough. They were from a well-to-do family. They were related to the first lady. They once had everything. How did they end up living in such squalor? And how did they become so damn strange?
“Grey Gardens” (2009) is an attempt to explain this odd mother-daughter relationship. Directed by Michael Sucsy, the film has two parallel plotlines. One story chronicles the development of the original documentary; how Albert Maysles (Arye Gross) and David Maysles (Justin Louis) came to the Beale’s dilapidated estate and asked if they could film how they lived. Little Edie (Drew Barrymore) agrees to let the young men film she and her mother, inspired by the inept belief this will launch her movie career.
The other story line chronicles the class descent of Little and Big Edie. Both women in their heyday were natural hostesses - a little peculiar, but generally good fun. In the 1940s they lived an extravagant lifestyle of parties and luxury at Grey Gardens, supported wholly by Big Edie’s lawyer husband Phelan Beale (Ken Howard). When Beale divorces Edie for her expensive and promiscuous lifestyle it is the beginning of the end for the mother and daughter. Big Edie, in a strange attempt to maintain her class status stays on at Grey Gardens, even though the small allowance she receives from Beale can hardly maintain the household.
Little Edie meanwhile moves to New York City where she attempts to jumpstart a career in show business. She engages in an affair with a married man and when her father finds out, Edie finds herself exiled to Grey Gardens with her mother. It should also be noted Edie has alopecia. Soon after she moves back to Grey Gardens her hair begins to fall out. Perhaps afraid to return to society with a bald head or afflicted with laziness or the loss of her status and dreams, Little Edie decides to stay on with her mother indefinitely at Grey Gardens.
And in time, it seems the two of them were all but forgotten by the rest of their family. Extreme isolation and utter disregard for housekeeping finally transformed Big and Little Edie into paragons of eccentrics.
Drew Barrymore is the undoubted star of the film. Her depiction of Little Edie embodies the real life Edie so well, at times it’s hard to recognize its really just Drew Barrymore. Jessica Lange also does a stellar job as usual, portraying Big Edie in middle and old age.
“Grey Gardens” has the intention of dispelling the mystery of the Beales and how they came to be as they are depicted in the documentary. In that regard, I think the film fails – as it must – because there’s no rational explanation for why these women ended up this way. How does anyone let their house get to a point where they willingly cohabitate with raccoons? I don’t know, but it happens. We will never know exactly why Little Edie stayed on with her mother for so long and how they lived that way. The Beale’s are bound to remain a mystery, as all eccentrics must.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a little less than “Sling Blade” (1986).
Rationalization:
I like that some people are beyond explanation. They seem to exist to point out that you are in no way as extreme as you thought. Sometimes that’s reassuring, other times its discouraging. I haven’t seen the documentary “Grey Gardens” but now I intend to. I imagine the documentary is more potent than this film because it’s the evidence that these were real people who actually lived in such a way. As it stands though, this is a somewhat illuminating film with great performances. Bravo Drew Barrymore. You’ve finally shaken off “E.T.”
In “The Lion King” (1994) Zazu assures Mufasa that every family has an odd duck like Mufasa’s brother Scar. Zazu says “There’s one in every family sire. Two in mine actually. And they always manage to ruin special occasions.” Oh, how Zazu is right. My family has an odd duck. So does yours. And so did Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. And like Zazu, she had two.
Edith “Big Edie” Bouvier Beale and her daughter Edith “Little Edie” Bouvier Beale were the black sheep of the Bouvier family. Reclusive, hoarding, and unrelentingly odd, the two women became the subject of the lauded documentary “Grey Gardens” (1975). But many people felt the documentary did not explain these two women enough. They were from a well-to-do family. They were related to the first lady. They once had everything. How did they end up living in such squalor? And how did they become so damn strange?
“Grey Gardens” (2009) is an attempt to explain this odd mother-daughter relationship. Directed by Michael Sucsy, the film has two parallel plotlines. One story chronicles the development of the original documentary; how Albert Maysles (Arye Gross) and David Maysles (Justin Louis) came to the Beale’s dilapidated estate and asked if they could film how they lived. Little Edie (Drew Barrymore) agrees to let the young men film she and her mother, inspired by the inept belief this will launch her movie career.
The other story line chronicles the class descent of Little and Big Edie. Both women in their heyday were natural hostesses - a little peculiar, but generally good fun. In the 1940s they lived an extravagant lifestyle of parties and luxury at Grey Gardens, supported wholly by Big Edie’s lawyer husband Phelan Beale (Ken Howard). When Beale divorces Edie for her expensive and promiscuous lifestyle it is the beginning of the end for the mother and daughter. Big Edie, in a strange attempt to maintain her class status stays on at Grey Gardens, even though the small allowance she receives from Beale can hardly maintain the household.
Little Edie meanwhile moves to New York City where she attempts to jumpstart a career in show business. She engages in an affair with a married man and when her father finds out, Edie finds herself exiled to Grey Gardens with her mother. It should also be noted Edie has alopecia. Soon after she moves back to Grey Gardens her hair begins to fall out. Perhaps afraid to return to society with a bald head or afflicted with laziness or the loss of her status and dreams, Little Edie decides to stay on with her mother indefinitely at Grey Gardens.
And in time, it seems the two of them were all but forgotten by the rest of their family. Extreme isolation and utter disregard for housekeeping finally transformed Big and Little Edie into paragons of eccentrics.
Drew Barrymore is the undoubted star of the film. Her depiction of Little Edie embodies the real life Edie so well, at times it’s hard to recognize its really just Drew Barrymore. Jessica Lange also does a stellar job as usual, portraying Big Edie in middle and old age.
“Grey Gardens” has the intention of dispelling the mystery of the Beales and how they came to be as they are depicted in the documentary. In that regard, I think the film fails – as it must – because there’s no rational explanation for why these women ended up this way. How does anyone let their house get to a point where they willingly cohabitate with raccoons? I don’t know, but it happens. We will never know exactly why Little Edie stayed on with her mother for so long and how they lived that way. The Beale’s are bound to remain a mystery, as all eccentrics must.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a little less than “Sling Blade” (1986).
Rationalization:
I like that some people are beyond explanation. They seem to exist to point out that you are in no way as extreme as you thought. Sometimes that’s reassuring, other times its discouraging. I haven’t seen the documentary “Grey Gardens” but now I intend to. I imagine the documentary is more potent than this film because it’s the evidence that these were real people who actually lived in such a way. As it stands though, this is a somewhat illuminating film with great performances. Bravo Drew Barrymore. You’ve finally shaken off “E.T.”
My Left Foot (1989)
Review:
The film that launched the career of Daniel Day Lewis, one of today’s greatest living actors, is a small movie with a very big performance at its core. “My Left Foot” is the biopic of Christy Brown, famed Irish painter and writer who was born with severe cerebral palsy. The only part of his body that Christy Brown had any control over was his left foot and with that left foot he painted haunting portraits and typed his life story. It is an impressive life story, made all the more impressive by how improbable it is.
Christy Brown was born in the slums of Dublin to a large, poor family. Instead of being sent away to a home or becoming a horrible burden to his family, Christy was integrated into his family’s life. In “My Left Foot” these scenes are depicted with much warmth and good humor. As a child Christy was carried up and down stairs by his parents, neighborhood children wheeled him around in a makeshift cart, and in his teenage years he even became an effective goalie for street soccer games.
In one excellent scene, the young Christy picks up a piece of chalk with his left foot and scribbles out the word ‘mother’ on the floor. His whole family is shocked to learn that Christy is an intelligent being, capable of learning and expression. Brenda Fricker plays Christy’s mother with the heartiness and warmth of a mother who loves unconditionally. Perhaps she is the only one who doesn’t seem surprised by Christy’s talents. She knew all along that Christy was more than just a crippled child.
In his later years, a compassionate doctor, Eileen Cole (Fiona Shaw), gives Christy speech therapy and physical therapy. Eileen is instrumental in arranging for Christy’s first art exhibit and his subsequent fame. She also instills in Christy a great love, one that she can’t quite return.
The most significant aspect of “My Left Foot” is Daniel Day Lewis’s performance as Christy. He is completely convincing as a man with cerebral palsy. The performance is in fact so consuming that little else in the film resonates with the same power. There are other great performances in this movie and wonderful little details, but they all seem to fade into the background. It is my theory that if you removed Day Lewis’s performance you’d see that this is a well balanced, even flowing, good film on the whole.
Day Lewis’s performance is so good it’s almost too good. It is the centerpiece of the film but it distracts from everything good that’s in its orbit.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” (2003).
Rationalization:
Just because the success of these films is predicated on the merits of one performance within the film. And also because if you look beyond those performances you can see a perfectly good movie that doesn’t get as much credit as that one performance in it. With “My Left Foot” I loved the performances of Brenda Fricker, Fiona Shaw, and Ray McAnally (as Christy’s father). These performances are part and parcel of Day Lewis’s great success. Sometimes one role in a movie can be like a black hole for everything else in the movie and its just not fair.
The film that launched the career of Daniel Day Lewis, one of today’s greatest living actors, is a small movie with a very big performance at its core. “My Left Foot” is the biopic of Christy Brown, famed Irish painter and writer who was born with severe cerebral palsy. The only part of his body that Christy Brown had any control over was his left foot and with that left foot he painted haunting portraits and typed his life story. It is an impressive life story, made all the more impressive by how improbable it is.
Christy Brown was born in the slums of Dublin to a large, poor family. Instead of being sent away to a home or becoming a horrible burden to his family, Christy was integrated into his family’s life. In “My Left Foot” these scenes are depicted with much warmth and good humor. As a child Christy was carried up and down stairs by his parents, neighborhood children wheeled him around in a makeshift cart, and in his teenage years he even became an effective goalie for street soccer games.
In one excellent scene, the young Christy picks up a piece of chalk with his left foot and scribbles out the word ‘mother’ on the floor. His whole family is shocked to learn that Christy is an intelligent being, capable of learning and expression. Brenda Fricker plays Christy’s mother with the heartiness and warmth of a mother who loves unconditionally. Perhaps she is the only one who doesn’t seem surprised by Christy’s talents. She knew all along that Christy was more than just a crippled child.
In his later years, a compassionate doctor, Eileen Cole (Fiona Shaw), gives Christy speech therapy and physical therapy. Eileen is instrumental in arranging for Christy’s first art exhibit and his subsequent fame. She also instills in Christy a great love, one that she can’t quite return.
The most significant aspect of “My Left Foot” is Daniel Day Lewis’s performance as Christy. He is completely convincing as a man with cerebral palsy. The performance is in fact so consuming that little else in the film resonates with the same power. There are other great performances in this movie and wonderful little details, but they all seem to fade into the background. It is my theory that if you removed Day Lewis’s performance you’d see that this is a well balanced, even flowing, good film on the whole.
Day Lewis’s performance is so good it’s almost too good. It is the centerpiece of the film but it distracts from everything good that’s in its orbit.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” (2003).
Rationalization:
Just because the success of these films is predicated on the merits of one performance within the film. And also because if you look beyond those performances you can see a perfectly good movie that doesn’t get as much credit as that one performance in it. With “My Left Foot” I loved the performances of Brenda Fricker, Fiona Shaw, and Ray McAnally (as Christy’s father). These performances are part and parcel of Day Lewis’s great success. Sometimes one role in a movie can be like a black hole for everything else in the movie and its just not fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)