Review:
I like comedies like this. They don’t rely on big budgets or snide, lowbrow humor. They get by on wit alone. “The Invention of Lying” (2009) is about just what the title says its about. It takes place in a universe where lying simply does not exist. Everybody says what is exactly on their minds all the time. For instance, when Mark Bellison (Ricky Gervais) picks up Anna (Jennifer Garner) for a first date, she promptly tells Mark that he’s short, unattractive, and she’s not looking forward to this date.
This is a universe peopled with trusting citizens. Skepticism does not exist. Nor does naïveté, because in a world where no one lies, there is nothing to be naïve about. If you are fat and dumb you are called fat and dumb by whoever is thinking about you.
And so we follow Mark Bellison throughout his sad daily routine. He is fired from his job as a screen writer for a movie company that produces feature length films of people reciting history, because fiction is a lie of course. His secretary (Tina Fey) admits she has loathed every day she works for him. He visits his mother at a nursing home, otherwise known as “A Sad Place Where Homeless Old People Come to Die.” And finally his landlord evicts him.
When Mark goes to the bank to take out the last $300 in his account sparks fly in his brain. He lies to the bank teller saying he actually has $800 in his account. She gives him the money and Mark wakes up to the power of his new discovery. He has invented lying.
In one hilarious scene, Mark tests out his new powers on his barfly friend and a bartender, claiming he invented the bicycle and a slew of other outrageous assertions. The bartender and barfly believe his every word.
The most interesting aspect of this movie is its implications for religion. When Mark’s mother is dying at the “Sad place…” she confides to her son that she fears the nothingness of death. Now, capable of lying Mark tells his mother that when she dies she will be in a good place with her own mansion and everyone she ever loved. In effect, Mark creates the notion of heaven. A doctor and nurse overhear this description and believing him, they spread the word of Mark’s revelation and soon he becomes an international prophet. This whole premise is hysterical and actually somewhat subversive.
But eventually the film changes gears and becomes more of a rudimentary romantic comedy with Mark trying to win the heart of Anna without having to manipulate her with lies. She, of course, doesn’t want Mark because he wouldn’t be a good genetic fit for her children. Anna prefers the handsome and narcissistic Brad Kessler (Rob Lowe). While this story line is still funny, I preferred the religion plot more and wish they had followed it deeper.
“The Invention of Lying” is getting at something though it doesn’t state it explicitly. Instead of an analysis of the negative or positive effects of lying, it is really a study of the various layers of truth embedded in all things. Admittedly, I didn’t like the romantic story, but I did appreciate Anna’s realization that truth cuts deeper than superficial, initial reactions. Anna never discovers what lying is, but she does find that truth is not immutable. The truth changes as we change.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Oh, God!" (1977).
Rationalization:
This film is more like a comedic episode of the Twilight Zone than a typical comedy. I always find it impressive when a film digs deeper than it has to, no matter how slight that extra digging may be. "The Invention of Lying" is well done, enjoyable, and funny. By the end of the film you know why there are so many notable cameo parts for so many big name actors. Everyone wants to help a comedy like this. Ricky Gervais has proved his staying power as actor, writer, director in England and now he seems to be working on America. To him, I say 'Godspeed.'
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Knowing (2009)
Review:
If I had to make a thematic comparison, I would say Andrew Proyas’ ‘Knowing’ is the action film equivalent of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (1968). Though it is no masterpiece like ‘2001’, ‘Knowing’ suggests the same thing ‘2001’ did – that determinism and coincidence, intelligent design and natural selection - the great differing viewpoints on the nature of our existence - may not be at odds after all; they may be counterparts to a greater whole.
Nicholas Cage plays John Koestler, an MIT professor who has recently lost his wife. He lives in a beautiful but shabby home in Lexington, Massachusetts with his ten year old son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). At Caleb’s school there is a ceremony where a time capsule is opened. Fifty years earlier a classroom of students was asked to draw pictures of how they pictured the future and to place their pictures in this time capsule. Lucinda, (Lara Robinson), a seemingly disturbed child in the class does not draw the future. Instead she lists a seemingly chaotic sequence of numbers. Now, fifty years later, John Koestler gets a hold of this list through his son and begins to see an alarming pattern emerge from the numbers.
In some respects, ‘Knowing’ is similar to popular contemporary mysteries like, say, ‘The Da Vinci Code.’ The main course of the film follows Koestler as he scampers throughout the east coast trying to find clues to what’s going on and reassuring himself that the list of numbers means what he thinks it means. Along the way Koestler encounters Diane Wayland (Rose Byrne), the daughter of the numbers-writer Lucinda, and Diane’s daughter Abby (Lara Robinson again). They embark on a mission to find the missing clues for discovering the secret of the numbers. All the while they are being pursued by mysterious, pale men called ‘the whisper people’ by Caleb and Abby.
Like in Andrew Proyas’ previous films ‘Dark City’ (1998) and "I, Robot” (2004) there is both visual and philosophical food for thought at work here. The central question of ‘Knowing’ is clearly stated at the beginning of the film by Cage’s character when he asks his students in a lecture whether they think the universe is inherently deterministic or a series of random events. As we know, determinism suggests a higher intelligence controls existence while randomness implicates a meaningless sequence of accidents led to our existence.
I’ve always thought determinism excluding randomness and vice versa is a limited way to think about the nature of things. We have such a frustrating inclination to seek out mutually exclusive answers. For me, ‘Knowing’ suggests that the universe is in fact deterministic on a grand scale but that determinism is fueled by smaller, random occurrences, if that makes any sense.
The end is already written but it is only reached through the decisions of individuals trying to avoid that very end.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Big Fish” (2003).
Rationalization:
To express my honest opinion about this film, I’d say I thought the ideas it evokes are more intriguing than the film itself. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Most films do not attempt to evoke cosmic ideas at all. Most films only evoke the idea that love is good. ‘Knowing’ is a thought provoking film that banks on time honored sleuth plot devices. Some of the disaster sequences are exquisite though, especially the plane crash and the final disaster. I would even go so far as to say that the final ten minutes of the movie is what elevates ‘Knowing’ above most mystery-thrillers. The last ten minutes are visionary. They made me think back to “2001: A Space Odyssey.” And yet, when I think about “2001: A Space Odyssey” I must admit that ‘Knowing’ pales in comparison.
If I had to make a thematic comparison, I would say Andrew Proyas’ ‘Knowing’ is the action film equivalent of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (1968). Though it is no masterpiece like ‘2001’, ‘Knowing’ suggests the same thing ‘2001’ did – that determinism and coincidence, intelligent design and natural selection - the great differing viewpoints on the nature of our existence - may not be at odds after all; they may be counterparts to a greater whole.
Nicholas Cage plays John Koestler, an MIT professor who has recently lost his wife. He lives in a beautiful but shabby home in Lexington, Massachusetts with his ten year old son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). At Caleb’s school there is a ceremony where a time capsule is opened. Fifty years earlier a classroom of students was asked to draw pictures of how they pictured the future and to place their pictures in this time capsule. Lucinda, (Lara Robinson), a seemingly disturbed child in the class does not draw the future. Instead she lists a seemingly chaotic sequence of numbers. Now, fifty years later, John Koestler gets a hold of this list through his son and begins to see an alarming pattern emerge from the numbers.
In some respects, ‘Knowing’ is similar to popular contemporary mysteries like, say, ‘The Da Vinci Code.’ The main course of the film follows Koestler as he scampers throughout the east coast trying to find clues to what’s going on and reassuring himself that the list of numbers means what he thinks it means. Along the way Koestler encounters Diane Wayland (Rose Byrne), the daughter of the numbers-writer Lucinda, and Diane’s daughter Abby (Lara Robinson again). They embark on a mission to find the missing clues for discovering the secret of the numbers. All the while they are being pursued by mysterious, pale men called ‘the whisper people’ by Caleb and Abby.
Like in Andrew Proyas’ previous films ‘Dark City’ (1998) and "I, Robot” (2004) there is both visual and philosophical food for thought at work here. The central question of ‘Knowing’ is clearly stated at the beginning of the film by Cage’s character when he asks his students in a lecture whether they think the universe is inherently deterministic or a series of random events. As we know, determinism suggests a higher intelligence controls existence while randomness implicates a meaningless sequence of accidents led to our existence.
I’ve always thought determinism excluding randomness and vice versa is a limited way to think about the nature of things. We have such a frustrating inclination to seek out mutually exclusive answers. For me, ‘Knowing’ suggests that the universe is in fact deterministic on a grand scale but that determinism is fueled by smaller, random occurrences, if that makes any sense.
The end is already written but it is only reached through the decisions of individuals trying to avoid that very end.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Big Fish” (2003).
Rationalization:
To express my honest opinion about this film, I’d say I thought the ideas it evokes are more intriguing than the film itself. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Most films do not attempt to evoke cosmic ideas at all. Most films only evoke the idea that love is good. ‘Knowing’ is a thought provoking film that banks on time honored sleuth plot devices. Some of the disaster sequences are exquisite though, especially the plane crash and the final disaster. I would even go so far as to say that the final ten minutes of the movie is what elevates ‘Knowing’ above most mystery-thrillers. The last ten minutes are visionary. They made me think back to “2001: A Space Odyssey.” And yet, when I think about “2001: A Space Odyssey” I must admit that ‘Knowing’ pales in comparison.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
*Batteries Not Included (1987)
Aliens are not often benevolent creatures in the movies. They tend to want earth or earthlings for food or some other devious end. But sometimes you meet nice aliens at the movies, like E.T. or the guys from “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and it’s refreshing. “*Batteries Not Included” may have the most munificent extra-terrestrials since the alien that didn’t blow us up in “The Day the Earth Stood Still” (1951). They are robotic saucers from outer space, about the size of a hub cap. It is unclear whether they are biological or mechanical or both. They can be fixed by toaster parts but they can also give birth. Strange little fellows.
The story is set almost entirely in a condemned apartment building where various residents have resisted the buy-outs from an evil real estate developer. Though their homes are invaded and vandalized by hired street thugs, the long-time tenants of the building refuse to leave. These tenants include Frank Riley (Hume Cronyn), an old man whose whole life has been wrapped up in this building. He raised his family in this building and he owns a small diner on the first floor that has been his livelihood. His wife Faye (Jessica Tandy) is fading mentally, appearing to have a mish-mash of Alzheimer’s and post traumatic stress disorder. Another tenant is Mason Baylor, a struggling artist who thinks the building has historical value. He brings a city examiner to assess whether the building is worth preserving and she promptly tells him it’s in such a despicable condition she can’t help him.
Enter the little guys. The saucers show up exactly when the tenant’s situation looks to be most hopeless. They arrive at night and start lurking about the apartment building, plugging into electric sockets and fixing small things. Soon the tenants begin to notice that someone (or something) is doing renovation work on their building. They fix unfixable things like broken glass and tarnished wood. When it comes to pass that the tenants find out about these creatures, they understand that the saucers are here for their benefit and soon they become mutual allies.
What’s so fun about “*Batteries Not Included” is seeing how these strange saucer robots actually become like real neighbors to the tenants. They help out at Frank’s diner and aid in scaring away the neighborhood thugs. We get to see the saucers start a family and deal with tragedy and witness how their neighbors help them through. Essentially, the saucers become characters just as real as the tenants. And they’re always fixing, fixing, fixing.
This is a good family film. At times it’s a little scary and speaks to some dark truths (there is a robot miscarriage, which is weird, but touchingly sad). Ultimately though, it is a movie about the importance of community and about being a good neighbor, the sort of message that should be in a family film. Also, I should note, the last shot of the film is bittersweet and wonderful.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Secret of NIMH” (1982)
When it comes to family entertainment I think its very important to have films that enlighten children not only to the wonders of existence, but also to the more fearful and sad side of things. Its also equally important to create stories that are complicated and engaging enough to keep the attention of adults. I suppose what I’m getting at is that a lot of family entertainments merely anesthetize everyone who watches them. It’s good to seek out some good intentioned films like “*Batteries Not Included.” Yes, its no masterpiece, but who cares?
The story is set almost entirely in a condemned apartment building where various residents have resisted the buy-outs from an evil real estate developer. Though their homes are invaded and vandalized by hired street thugs, the long-time tenants of the building refuse to leave. These tenants include Frank Riley (Hume Cronyn), an old man whose whole life has been wrapped up in this building. He raised his family in this building and he owns a small diner on the first floor that has been his livelihood. His wife Faye (Jessica Tandy) is fading mentally, appearing to have a mish-mash of Alzheimer’s and post traumatic stress disorder. Another tenant is Mason Baylor, a struggling artist who thinks the building has historical value. He brings a city examiner to assess whether the building is worth preserving and she promptly tells him it’s in such a despicable condition she can’t help him.
Enter the little guys. The saucers show up exactly when the tenant’s situation looks to be most hopeless. They arrive at night and start lurking about the apartment building, plugging into electric sockets and fixing small things. Soon the tenants begin to notice that someone (or something) is doing renovation work on their building. They fix unfixable things like broken glass and tarnished wood. When it comes to pass that the tenants find out about these creatures, they understand that the saucers are here for their benefit and soon they become mutual allies.
What’s so fun about “*Batteries Not Included” is seeing how these strange saucer robots actually become like real neighbors to the tenants. They help out at Frank’s diner and aid in scaring away the neighborhood thugs. We get to see the saucers start a family and deal with tragedy and witness how their neighbors help them through. Essentially, the saucers become characters just as real as the tenants. And they’re always fixing, fixing, fixing.
This is a good family film. At times it’s a little scary and speaks to some dark truths (there is a robot miscarriage, which is weird, but touchingly sad). Ultimately though, it is a movie about the importance of community and about being a good neighbor, the sort of message that should be in a family film. Also, I should note, the last shot of the film is bittersweet and wonderful.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Secret of NIMH” (1982)
When it comes to family entertainment I think its very important to have films that enlighten children not only to the wonders of existence, but also to the more fearful and sad side of things. Its also equally important to create stories that are complicated and engaging enough to keep the attention of adults. I suppose what I’m getting at is that a lot of family entertainments merely anesthetize everyone who watches them. It’s good to seek out some good intentioned films like “*Batteries Not Included.” Yes, its no masterpiece, but who cares?
Avatar (2009)
Review:
Say what you will about its similarities to ‘Pocahontas’ or ‘Fern Gully’ or ‘The Smurfs,’ James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ is a film experience like no other. If it does not win every category for special effects at this year’s Oscars I will hang up my hat and sail for strange new lands with better awards for films because I will know the Academy has no bearings on reality.
‘Avatar’ is James Cameron’s first film since his 1997 megahit ‘Titanic.’ In some respects, ‘Avatar’ is a return home for James Cameron. He is at home in the science fiction genre having delivered us such gems as “Terminator” (1984) “Aliens” (1986) “The Abyss” (1989) and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991). But while those films depicted grizzly and bleak predictions for humanity, ‘Avatar’ invests itself in the concept of natural beauty and the necessity to save it.
We never go to earth in ‘Avatar’ but we meet many earthlings – all Americans – and we are informed that earth has been stripped barren of its natural resources. Subsequently, a giant military operation has been set up on Pandora, a distant planet lush with forests and seas and floating mountains. The military and earth’s corporations seek to obtain a resource conveniently called unobtanium (want to guess if the humans succeed in getting it?). Pandora is rich in the element. Unfortunately, a great source of unobtanium is located right under a giant tree where the peaceful indigenous people of Pandora, the Na’vi, live.
The Na’vi are nine foot tall, blue humanoids with tails and yellow eyes. They commune with the nature of Pandora and generally live like composites of every indigenous people you could see in a movie. The invading humans have found that the best way to learn and communicate with the Na’vi is by using avatars - genetically engineered Na’vi clones that are controlled by the mind of American soldiers from a remote location. The hero of ‘Avatar’ is Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who’s asked to become an avatar after his twin brother, who initially was to be the avatar, dies.
The film begins with Jake Sully arriving on Pandora. He meets the lead scientists in the Avatar program, Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). She’s a tough talking smoker scientist but she is one of the good guys, promoting the preservation of Pandora and the Na’vi culture. Jake also meets Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), a military man who has eyes only for his missions. As you can probably guess, he’s the bad guy.
Jake Sully is put into his Avatar and immediately thrilled to be able to walk and have the prowess of a Na’vi. On his first mission though he becomes separated from the group and finds himself at the mercy of Pandora’s not-too-hospitable woodland critters. He is saved by a beautiful Na’vi princess named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Soon Jake is integrated into Na’vi culture, practicing their many rituals and learning their language. He falls in love with Neytiri and after some love making decides the Na’vi way of life is not so bad.
Now, of course, the conflict is that Jake loves the Na’vi but he’s in the service of a military that wants to destroy them and steal their unobtanium. Who will Jake side with - the war-like, profiteering humans or the peace loving blue people? Well, if you can’t figure it out, I’ll let it surprise you.
The special effects in ‘Avatar’ are why you should see this film. I have read that there are internet forums where people claim they feel depressed or even suicidal after seeing ‘Avatar’ because compared to Pandora, our world is a bit too dreary for them. At first I scoffed at this thought. I thought it was testament to how many people are living in a mindset a bit removed from reality. Now after seeing ‘Avatar’ I understand. The forests of Pandora are so wrought with detail you find yourself believing in it. The fantastical imagery are objectively absurd, but when rushed into the moments of their revelation, you become swept up in them. Particularly stunning are the floating mountain ranges, a geographical feature that’s pure fantasy and yet might make sense in a region of reduced gravity.
“Avatar’s” storyline is secondary to its effects. You can tell where James Cameron’s interests were not primarily concerned with a new story. The narrative arc of an outsider becoming an insider and then fighting against the outsiders has been done many times before and it’s been done better too. I found the characters to be underdeveloped and hard to sympathize with while the themes were overly developed to the point of hyperbole; anti-imperialism and preserving nature, while noble themes, are so in your face throughout the film, there is only one way to interpret ‘Avatar.’
Usually a paragraph like the one preceding this would merit a bad review from me, but the visual effects of ‘Avatar’ are so stunning I can’t help but give it a positive review. If you want pure escapism, and I mean pure, ‘Avatar’ is delicious and wonderful and that 160 minutes flies by,
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Un Chien Andalou” (1929)
Rationalization:
The vision will stick with me far longer than the story. In my mind, the story is secondary to the real story which is the fact that human innovation could produce such astonishing dreamscapes so comprehensively. James Cameron has always been a pioneer in the realm of special effects and this time he outdoes himself. Midway through ‘Avatar’ I believed in the Na’vi so thoroughly they were like real actors, occupying actual space. After Jar-Jar Binks and Golem, I was convinced that no CGI generated characters could ever supplement actual actors or puppets…but James Cameron has now made me believe.
Say what you will about its similarities to ‘Pocahontas’ or ‘Fern Gully’ or ‘The Smurfs,’ James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ is a film experience like no other. If it does not win every category for special effects at this year’s Oscars I will hang up my hat and sail for strange new lands with better awards for films because I will know the Academy has no bearings on reality.
‘Avatar’ is James Cameron’s first film since his 1997 megahit ‘Titanic.’ In some respects, ‘Avatar’ is a return home for James Cameron. He is at home in the science fiction genre having delivered us such gems as “Terminator” (1984) “Aliens” (1986) “The Abyss” (1989) and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991). But while those films depicted grizzly and bleak predictions for humanity, ‘Avatar’ invests itself in the concept of natural beauty and the necessity to save it.
We never go to earth in ‘Avatar’ but we meet many earthlings – all Americans – and we are informed that earth has been stripped barren of its natural resources. Subsequently, a giant military operation has been set up on Pandora, a distant planet lush with forests and seas and floating mountains. The military and earth’s corporations seek to obtain a resource conveniently called unobtanium (want to guess if the humans succeed in getting it?). Pandora is rich in the element. Unfortunately, a great source of unobtanium is located right under a giant tree where the peaceful indigenous people of Pandora, the Na’vi, live.
The Na’vi are nine foot tall, blue humanoids with tails and yellow eyes. They commune with the nature of Pandora and generally live like composites of every indigenous people you could see in a movie. The invading humans have found that the best way to learn and communicate with the Na’vi is by using avatars - genetically engineered Na’vi clones that are controlled by the mind of American soldiers from a remote location. The hero of ‘Avatar’ is Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who’s asked to become an avatar after his twin brother, who initially was to be the avatar, dies.
The film begins with Jake Sully arriving on Pandora. He meets the lead scientists in the Avatar program, Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). She’s a tough talking smoker scientist but she is one of the good guys, promoting the preservation of Pandora and the Na’vi culture. Jake also meets Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), a military man who has eyes only for his missions. As you can probably guess, he’s the bad guy.
Jake Sully is put into his Avatar and immediately thrilled to be able to walk and have the prowess of a Na’vi. On his first mission though he becomes separated from the group and finds himself at the mercy of Pandora’s not-too-hospitable woodland critters. He is saved by a beautiful Na’vi princess named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Soon Jake is integrated into Na’vi culture, practicing their many rituals and learning their language. He falls in love with Neytiri and after some love making decides the Na’vi way of life is not so bad.
Now, of course, the conflict is that Jake loves the Na’vi but he’s in the service of a military that wants to destroy them and steal their unobtanium. Who will Jake side with - the war-like, profiteering humans or the peace loving blue people? Well, if you can’t figure it out, I’ll let it surprise you.
The special effects in ‘Avatar’ are why you should see this film. I have read that there are internet forums where people claim they feel depressed or even suicidal after seeing ‘Avatar’ because compared to Pandora, our world is a bit too dreary for them. At first I scoffed at this thought. I thought it was testament to how many people are living in a mindset a bit removed from reality. Now after seeing ‘Avatar’ I understand. The forests of Pandora are so wrought with detail you find yourself believing in it. The fantastical imagery are objectively absurd, but when rushed into the moments of their revelation, you become swept up in them. Particularly stunning are the floating mountain ranges, a geographical feature that’s pure fantasy and yet might make sense in a region of reduced gravity.
“Avatar’s” storyline is secondary to its effects. You can tell where James Cameron’s interests were not primarily concerned with a new story. The narrative arc of an outsider becoming an insider and then fighting against the outsiders has been done many times before and it’s been done better too. I found the characters to be underdeveloped and hard to sympathize with while the themes were overly developed to the point of hyperbole; anti-imperialism and preserving nature, while noble themes, are so in your face throughout the film, there is only one way to interpret ‘Avatar.’
Usually a paragraph like the one preceding this would merit a bad review from me, but the visual effects of ‘Avatar’ are so stunning I can’t help but give it a positive review. If you want pure escapism, and I mean pure, ‘Avatar’ is delicious and wonderful and that 160 minutes flies by,
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Un Chien Andalou” (1929)
Rationalization:
The vision will stick with me far longer than the story. In my mind, the story is secondary to the real story which is the fact that human innovation could produce such astonishing dreamscapes so comprehensively. James Cameron has always been a pioneer in the realm of special effects and this time he outdoes himself. Midway through ‘Avatar’ I believed in the Na’vi so thoroughly they were like real actors, occupying actual space. After Jar-Jar Binks and Golem, I was convinced that no CGI generated characters could ever supplement actual actors or puppets…but James Cameron has now made me believe.
Yes, See NC-17! (Essay)
Now I ask you this simple question: if you had to choose between giving up PG-13 movies and NC-17 (or no MPAA rating) films, what would you choose? My first inclination would be to keep PG-13 movies because there are so many of them and I wouldn’t want to miss out on that many movies. But then, when I think more deeply about it, I realize that PG-13 movies are not the end of the line when it comes to quality films. Far from it. In fact, more often than not, PG-13 movies are the drudgery of the Hollywood system.
PG-13 movies, on the whole, are more marketing than substance. They are designed to give parents the assurance that their kids will not be seeing anything too bad while still giving those kids a taste of the violent, deviant, and sexual worlds that lay beyond in the oft forbidden kingdom of R rated and NC-17 films.
Sometimes when I watch a PG-13 film I feel like I’m drinking Kool-Aid that doesn’t have the right proportion of sugar to water. I’ll drink it, but I’m not happy about it and in the end I often would have just preferred the water. Most modern PG-13 movies give me the distinct impression that this film is a compromised vision. I’m thinking of “Alien vs. Predator” (2004) and countless horror remakes here. In a perfect world where money didn’t matter and parents weren’t as possessive, these films might be able to transcend their enforced mediocrity.
I’m not trying to suggest that in order for a film to be good it must have explicit violence and sex. Not so. But if they are going to have those elements, a film should commit to its subject matter and not water it down so the mysteries of sex or the consequences of violence remain elusive to the young viewers who may actually learn something from the story.
As you may have inferred, I think the right answer is to choose to keep NC-17 movies in your life. Admittedly, I have seen far more PG-13 movies than NC-17 movies, but if we look at the ratios, I would say I have seen more terrible than good PG-13 movies and more good than terrible NC-17 movies.
When I see a film that has an NC-17 rating I immediately have some respect for the film because it tells me it was not made for money. Many theaters across the United States will not show an NC-17 films in their theaters. They are admittedly bad for business. But they’re bad for business not because they’re morally reprehensible or bad films; they’re bad for business because popular consensus says NC-17 is more explicit than R and that must mean porn or exploitation.
While it’s true that the violence and sex is more explicit in NC-17 films, it is also a means to an end. It is not usually gratuitous. These are films that are built to horrify, seduce, and shock you but they are also designed to make you think. If a film polarizes its audience, I believe it has done a good job. Such is the case with Lars Von Trier’s “Anti-Christ” (2009). Some critics have hated it, others have loved it. There seems to be no middle ground. But “Anti-Christ” has done something that very few films actually do – it has inspired intriguing discussion about its merits, flaws, philosophy, and purpose. How many PG-13 films do that?
A good way to measure a work of art’s greatness is to look at the discourse surrounding it, be it from critics, articles, or friends. I have not seen “Avatar” yet, but all the discourse I’ve heard is that the special effects are incredible. I’ve heard nothing about the film being very thought provoking or moving. To say something that means something in a film you need to be audacious and confident. You need to be unflinching with your gaze and never compromise. You can’t rely on the merit of your special effects. Special effects are great, but a great film they do not make.
Give me NC-17 films before PG-13 films any day! I want to be challenged. We should all strive to be challenged with what we watch, at least some of the time. If we are not challenging ourselves, we do not grow. That is my belief. We must always be looking to expand our horizons and perceptions. This is why foreign films are important to see, it is why animated films are important to see, it is why cult films are important to see, and it is why NC-17 films are important to see.
When I consider the NC-17 films I have seen and reviewed recently I must admit they are the films that have been branded in my mind. They opened up new ideas about what can be done and said in a movie. “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover” is one of the single most shocking films I have ever seen, and yet, also one of the most beautiful. Ferrara’s “Bad Lieutenant” scared the living daylights out of me but was ultimately a true and feeling consideration of redemption’s scope. I actually would go so far to say that I think Jesus would have liked the movie “Bad Lieutenant.”
I even remember the very first NC-17 film I ever saw. It was Bertolucci’s “The Dreamers” (2003). The movie made me uncomfortable the first time I saw it. I had never seen sex like this in a film before. It was startling, erotic, and disturbing all at once. Upon reflection I was happy I had seen it. So many films don’t make me feel anything at all. If a film can make me uncomfortable, it’s at least working on some level. From there, I went on to seek out Bertolucci’s “Last Tango in Paris” (1972) which was rated X at the time of its release but now has been relegated to an R (I consider an X-rating to be the former equivalent to our NC-17) “Last Tango” is a movie that blew my mind. The raw sexuality was just as potent as in “The Dreamers.”
If “Last Tango” does not contain Marlon Brando’s best performance, it certainly has the single best scene in his filmography. And to think, one of the 20th century’s greatest actors has one of his best roles in an X-rated movie! You could say the same thing about Dustin Hoffman in “Midnight Cowboy” (1968).
I suppose what I’m trying to say, in the end, is that NC-17 movies are substantial, important films. They are powerhouses of cinema but are often marginalized and forgotten due to their rating. If you were to give up PG-13 movies, on the whole, you wouldn’t be missing too much. If you gave up on or never chose to watch an NC-17, you are missing a feast.
Just to be fair, here’s a list of great PG-13 movies:
Jurassic Park (1993)
Juno (2007)
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1986)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Minority Report (2002)
There are a lot of Steven Spielberg movies on this list. What can I say? The man makes good movies.
PG-13 movies, on the whole, are more marketing than substance. They are designed to give parents the assurance that their kids will not be seeing anything too bad while still giving those kids a taste of the violent, deviant, and sexual worlds that lay beyond in the oft forbidden kingdom of R rated and NC-17 films.
Sometimes when I watch a PG-13 film I feel like I’m drinking Kool-Aid that doesn’t have the right proportion of sugar to water. I’ll drink it, but I’m not happy about it and in the end I often would have just preferred the water. Most modern PG-13 movies give me the distinct impression that this film is a compromised vision. I’m thinking of “Alien vs. Predator” (2004) and countless horror remakes here. In a perfect world where money didn’t matter and parents weren’t as possessive, these films might be able to transcend their enforced mediocrity.
I’m not trying to suggest that in order for a film to be good it must have explicit violence and sex. Not so. But if they are going to have those elements, a film should commit to its subject matter and not water it down so the mysteries of sex or the consequences of violence remain elusive to the young viewers who may actually learn something from the story.
As you may have inferred, I think the right answer is to choose to keep NC-17 movies in your life. Admittedly, I have seen far more PG-13 movies than NC-17 movies, but if we look at the ratios, I would say I have seen more terrible than good PG-13 movies and more good than terrible NC-17 movies.
When I see a film that has an NC-17 rating I immediately have some respect for the film because it tells me it was not made for money. Many theaters across the United States will not show an NC-17 films in their theaters. They are admittedly bad for business. But they’re bad for business not because they’re morally reprehensible or bad films; they’re bad for business because popular consensus says NC-17 is more explicit than R and that must mean porn or exploitation.
While it’s true that the violence and sex is more explicit in NC-17 films, it is also a means to an end. It is not usually gratuitous. These are films that are built to horrify, seduce, and shock you but they are also designed to make you think. If a film polarizes its audience, I believe it has done a good job. Such is the case with Lars Von Trier’s “Anti-Christ” (2009). Some critics have hated it, others have loved it. There seems to be no middle ground. But “Anti-Christ” has done something that very few films actually do – it has inspired intriguing discussion about its merits, flaws, philosophy, and purpose. How many PG-13 films do that?
A good way to measure a work of art’s greatness is to look at the discourse surrounding it, be it from critics, articles, or friends. I have not seen “Avatar” yet, but all the discourse I’ve heard is that the special effects are incredible. I’ve heard nothing about the film being very thought provoking or moving. To say something that means something in a film you need to be audacious and confident. You need to be unflinching with your gaze and never compromise. You can’t rely on the merit of your special effects. Special effects are great, but a great film they do not make.
Give me NC-17 films before PG-13 films any day! I want to be challenged. We should all strive to be challenged with what we watch, at least some of the time. If we are not challenging ourselves, we do not grow. That is my belief. We must always be looking to expand our horizons and perceptions. This is why foreign films are important to see, it is why animated films are important to see, it is why cult films are important to see, and it is why NC-17 films are important to see.
When I consider the NC-17 films I have seen and reviewed recently I must admit they are the films that have been branded in my mind. They opened up new ideas about what can be done and said in a movie. “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover” is one of the single most shocking films I have ever seen, and yet, also one of the most beautiful. Ferrara’s “Bad Lieutenant” scared the living daylights out of me but was ultimately a true and feeling consideration of redemption’s scope. I actually would go so far to say that I think Jesus would have liked the movie “Bad Lieutenant.”
I even remember the very first NC-17 film I ever saw. It was Bertolucci’s “The Dreamers” (2003). The movie made me uncomfortable the first time I saw it. I had never seen sex like this in a film before. It was startling, erotic, and disturbing all at once. Upon reflection I was happy I had seen it. So many films don’t make me feel anything at all. If a film can make me uncomfortable, it’s at least working on some level. From there, I went on to seek out Bertolucci’s “Last Tango in Paris” (1972) which was rated X at the time of its release but now has been relegated to an R (I consider an X-rating to be the former equivalent to our NC-17) “Last Tango” is a movie that blew my mind. The raw sexuality was just as potent as in “The Dreamers.”
If “Last Tango” does not contain Marlon Brando’s best performance, it certainly has the single best scene in his filmography. And to think, one of the 20th century’s greatest actors has one of his best roles in an X-rated movie! You could say the same thing about Dustin Hoffman in “Midnight Cowboy” (1968).
I suppose what I’m trying to say, in the end, is that NC-17 movies are substantial, important films. They are powerhouses of cinema but are often marginalized and forgotten due to their rating. If you were to give up PG-13 movies, on the whole, you wouldn’t be missing too much. If you gave up on or never chose to watch an NC-17, you are missing a feast.
Just to be fair, here’s a list of great PG-13 movies:
Jurassic Park (1993)
Juno (2007)
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1986)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Minority Report (2002)
There are a lot of Steven Spielberg movies on this list. What can I say? The man makes good movies.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
La Dolce Vita (1960)
Review:
The centerpiece of Federico Fellini’s masterpiece “La Dolce Vita” is a segment surrounding faith. We are introduced to Steiner (Alain Cuny), the friend of the film’s star Marcello (Marcello Mastoianni), in a church. Steiner plays on the church organ, explaining the priests let him play it so long as it’s nothing offensive. He then plays Bach’s Toccata & Fuge in D Minor, one of the most ominous pieces of music ever written.
Soon thereafter, Fellini takes Marcello into the countryside outside of Rome where two children have purportedly seen the Virgin Mary in a vision. Crowds of people have come to see the children and the place where they saw the holy mother. It is a small field with a single tree and the place has become a media circus. Reporters are everywhere. People have brought their sick and wounded. Cameramen circle like vultures. The crowd is illuminated by giant lights. When the children arrive it begins to rain. The boy and girl whisper to each other and then shout that they see the Virgin Mary “Over there” and then “Over there.” They run from place to place with the raucous crowd behind them. It is clear the children have made up this vision. Then it is announced that one of the invalids has died, perhaps trampled by the crowd or drowned in the rain. The farcical display of blind faith leads to innocent deaths. This is not the last innocent death in “La Dolce Vita.”
Fellini then returns to Steiner - calm, reserved Steiner - a man who likes to tape record the sound of thunder. Marcello is invited to his apartment where Steiner is throwing a party with poets, folk singers, journalists, and explorers in attendance. We meet Steiner’s beautiful wife and young children. We learn that Steiner is a writer of great reputation. This is everything that Marcello wants. This is his vision of the sweet life.
But in juxtaposing the scenes with Steiner and the scenes with the child prophets, Fellini suggests that any notion of “the sweet life” is based on false faith. Later we will find that Steiner’s elegant life was nothing more than a terrible façade, a false vision. There is no such thing as the sweet life. This is the hard lesson Marcello will learn through the course of the film.
“La Dolce Vita” is a hard film to explain. It does not have the typical story arc of a Hollywood picture. The film is episodic but to explain each episode would be futile, because Fellini films are not so much about a story as about the evocation of feelings and ideas. Plot summaries simply will not suffice for Fellini’s masterpieces.
Alas, I’ll grant a vague overview: we follow Marcello, a gossip columnist, through his adventures and foibles in Rome. He meets movie stars and royalty, he attends strange, raunchy parties, he fights with his girlfriend, makes love to his mistress and he longs to become better than he is.
But whenever I think of “La Dolce Vita” and whenever I watch it (I’ve seen it four times now) I cannot get Steiner out of my head. Steiner haunts me because what he says and what he does seem so realistic, so plausible. The message then, in terms of Marcello’s development, is that you shouldn’t want to be who you want to be - you should have no faith in an ideal. But what then do you have left to hope for? What can you have faith in? These are scary questions and the ending of “La Dolce Vita” is one of my favorite endings to any movie because it doesn’t have the answers.
From time immemorial, in the realm of narratives, most stories end with a death or a coupling. “La Dolce Vita” ends with neither and we are left to wonder.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Schindler’s List” (1993)
Rationalization:
In some ways, Schindler and Marcello end their respective films in the same state of mind. Schindler’s insistence that he could have done more echoes Marcello’s despair at the end of “La Dolce Vita.” Both men are overwhelmed with grief and both men literally stumble. It is a scary truth that when we look at ourselves in the mirror we weigh our shortcomings rather than measure our accomplishments. Not even men like Schindler are exempt from this. Marcello is by no means a great man, but his tragedy is that he knows he could have been better. The same goes for all of us. ‘The Everyman’ is maybe the scariest thing movies have to offer us.
The centerpiece of Federico Fellini’s masterpiece “La Dolce Vita” is a segment surrounding faith. We are introduced to Steiner (Alain Cuny), the friend of the film’s star Marcello (Marcello Mastoianni), in a church. Steiner plays on the church organ, explaining the priests let him play it so long as it’s nothing offensive. He then plays Bach’s Toccata & Fuge in D Minor, one of the most ominous pieces of music ever written.
Soon thereafter, Fellini takes Marcello into the countryside outside of Rome where two children have purportedly seen the Virgin Mary in a vision. Crowds of people have come to see the children and the place where they saw the holy mother. It is a small field with a single tree and the place has become a media circus. Reporters are everywhere. People have brought their sick and wounded. Cameramen circle like vultures. The crowd is illuminated by giant lights. When the children arrive it begins to rain. The boy and girl whisper to each other and then shout that they see the Virgin Mary “Over there” and then “Over there.” They run from place to place with the raucous crowd behind them. It is clear the children have made up this vision. Then it is announced that one of the invalids has died, perhaps trampled by the crowd or drowned in the rain. The farcical display of blind faith leads to innocent deaths. This is not the last innocent death in “La Dolce Vita.”
Fellini then returns to Steiner - calm, reserved Steiner - a man who likes to tape record the sound of thunder. Marcello is invited to his apartment where Steiner is throwing a party with poets, folk singers, journalists, and explorers in attendance. We meet Steiner’s beautiful wife and young children. We learn that Steiner is a writer of great reputation. This is everything that Marcello wants. This is his vision of the sweet life.
But in juxtaposing the scenes with Steiner and the scenes with the child prophets, Fellini suggests that any notion of “the sweet life” is based on false faith. Later we will find that Steiner’s elegant life was nothing more than a terrible façade, a false vision. There is no such thing as the sweet life. This is the hard lesson Marcello will learn through the course of the film.
“La Dolce Vita” is a hard film to explain. It does not have the typical story arc of a Hollywood picture. The film is episodic but to explain each episode would be futile, because Fellini films are not so much about a story as about the evocation of feelings and ideas. Plot summaries simply will not suffice for Fellini’s masterpieces.
Alas, I’ll grant a vague overview: we follow Marcello, a gossip columnist, through his adventures and foibles in Rome. He meets movie stars and royalty, he attends strange, raunchy parties, he fights with his girlfriend, makes love to his mistress and he longs to become better than he is.
But whenever I think of “La Dolce Vita” and whenever I watch it (I’ve seen it four times now) I cannot get Steiner out of my head. Steiner haunts me because what he says and what he does seem so realistic, so plausible. The message then, in terms of Marcello’s development, is that you shouldn’t want to be who you want to be - you should have no faith in an ideal. But what then do you have left to hope for? What can you have faith in? These are scary questions and the ending of “La Dolce Vita” is one of my favorite endings to any movie because it doesn’t have the answers.
From time immemorial, in the realm of narratives, most stories end with a death or a coupling. “La Dolce Vita” ends with neither and we are left to wonder.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Schindler’s List” (1993)
Rationalization:
In some ways, Schindler and Marcello end their respective films in the same state of mind. Schindler’s insistence that he could have done more echoes Marcello’s despair at the end of “La Dolce Vita.” Both men are overwhelmed with grief and both men literally stumble. It is a scary truth that when we look at ourselves in the mirror we weigh our shortcomings rather than measure our accomplishments. Not even men like Schindler are exempt from this. Marcello is by no means a great man, but his tragedy is that he knows he could have been better. The same goes for all of us. ‘The Everyman’ is maybe the scariest thing movies have to offer us.
Umberto D. (1952)
Review:
It’s hard to look at Vittorio De Sica’s film “Umberto D.” without wanting to compare it to De Sica’s most famous film “The Bicycle Thieves” (1948). In some respects, the films are very similar. They are both prime examples of Italian Neo-Realism and both involve a man on a simple quest with a small companion at his side. But “Bicycle Thieves” is perhaps the better-known film because it speaks to something more elemental – our need to survive. “Umberto D.” is more akin to Kurosawa’s “Ikiru” (1952) or Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946) in that it chronicles a man’s quest to find something worth living for.
Umberto (Carlo Battisti) is a retired, old man who lives in a run down boarding house. His corrupt landlady rents out his room during the day to young fornicators and she continually threatens to kick Umberto out on the street if he doesn’t pay his rent. Umberto lives a lonely existence. He has no family or real friends to speak of. His only companionship comes from the landlady’s maid, Maria (Maria-Pia Casilio) and of course Flick, his trusty dog.
Throughout the film, Umberto pleads with acquaintances and strangers to buy his watch or to lend him money. He is nearly destitute. His government pension is not enough for him to live on. As Umberto walks through the city, he is forever accompanied by Flick.
In one heart wrenching scene, Umberto grapples with the notion of becoming a beggar. He practices putting his hand out for alms and finds he cannot do it. In the end, he resorts to using Flick, who holds Umberto’s hat in his mouth while Umberto hides behind a pillar. Many have described this most famous sequence as Chaplin-esque and I would be hard pressed to disagree. It possesses that certain bittersweet comedy that Chaplin was so good at making.
Another great sequence comes when Flick runs away and Umberto must go to the city’s pound to find him. In this sequence we see and understand the conflict in having a loved pet in poverty. Perhaps the saddest line in the film comes from an extra at the pound. He simply says “But 450 Lire…”
The best part of “Umberto D.” comes at the end, when Umberto has reached his pinnacle of desperation. I will not describe what happens, but suffice it to say, I felt myself going through a vast array of emotions in a relatively short span of time. Only animals in movies can really do that to me.
Ultimately, De Sica’s “Bicycle Thieves” is a better film than “Umberto D.” but “Umberto D.” gives it a run for its money. “Bicycle Thieves,” I think, strikes at the human soul. “Umberto D.” strikes at the heart.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Life is Beautiful” (1998).
Rationalization:
If you don’t like to have your emotions tugged all over the place, this film may not be for you. But if you’re ready to just sit back and stretch your laughing places and crying places, “Umberto D.” may be a good choice for you. This is a film that stares into the canyon of despair and then turns around to find something better to look at. If you have two wits about you, you’ll be able to guess where the climactic scene is going, but who cares? When it’s done this well your emotions will take over and you’ll be happy you made the time to see this movie.
It’s hard to look at Vittorio De Sica’s film “Umberto D.” without wanting to compare it to De Sica’s most famous film “The Bicycle Thieves” (1948). In some respects, the films are very similar. They are both prime examples of Italian Neo-Realism and both involve a man on a simple quest with a small companion at his side. But “Bicycle Thieves” is perhaps the better-known film because it speaks to something more elemental – our need to survive. “Umberto D.” is more akin to Kurosawa’s “Ikiru” (1952) or Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946) in that it chronicles a man’s quest to find something worth living for.
Umberto (Carlo Battisti) is a retired, old man who lives in a run down boarding house. His corrupt landlady rents out his room during the day to young fornicators and she continually threatens to kick Umberto out on the street if he doesn’t pay his rent. Umberto lives a lonely existence. He has no family or real friends to speak of. His only companionship comes from the landlady’s maid, Maria (Maria-Pia Casilio) and of course Flick, his trusty dog.
Throughout the film, Umberto pleads with acquaintances and strangers to buy his watch or to lend him money. He is nearly destitute. His government pension is not enough for him to live on. As Umberto walks through the city, he is forever accompanied by Flick.
In one heart wrenching scene, Umberto grapples with the notion of becoming a beggar. He practices putting his hand out for alms and finds he cannot do it. In the end, he resorts to using Flick, who holds Umberto’s hat in his mouth while Umberto hides behind a pillar. Many have described this most famous sequence as Chaplin-esque and I would be hard pressed to disagree. It possesses that certain bittersweet comedy that Chaplin was so good at making.
Another great sequence comes when Flick runs away and Umberto must go to the city’s pound to find him. In this sequence we see and understand the conflict in having a loved pet in poverty. Perhaps the saddest line in the film comes from an extra at the pound. He simply says “But 450 Lire…”
The best part of “Umberto D.” comes at the end, when Umberto has reached his pinnacle of desperation. I will not describe what happens, but suffice it to say, I felt myself going through a vast array of emotions in a relatively short span of time. Only animals in movies can really do that to me.
Ultimately, De Sica’s “Bicycle Thieves” is a better film than “Umberto D.” but “Umberto D.” gives it a run for its money. “Bicycle Thieves,” I think, strikes at the human soul. “Umberto D.” strikes at the heart.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Life is Beautiful” (1998).
Rationalization:
If you don’t like to have your emotions tugged all over the place, this film may not be for you. But if you’re ready to just sit back and stretch your laughing places and crying places, “Umberto D.” may be a good choice for you. This is a film that stares into the canyon of despair and then turns around to find something better to look at. If you have two wits about you, you’ll be able to guess where the climactic scene is going, but who cares? When it’s done this well your emotions will take over and you’ll be happy you made the time to see this movie.
Almost Famous (2000)
Review:
For me, the seminal scene of “Almost Famous” comes when Lester Bangs (played by Philip Seymore Hoffman) expounds on how rock and roll has become an industry predicated on making as much money as possible. While he’s giving this speech to the young reporter William Miller, the camera cuts to Penny Lane (Kate Hudson) dancing alone on stage in an empty auditorium. She is a spectral vision of the fading idea that rock and roll could be the best of what we can become, a refuge from the soul crushing squalor of everyday life.
“Almost Famous” is a coming of age story but it is also a long overdue, fond farewell to the rock and roll of old. The story is based on writer-director Camerson Crowe’s real life experiences as a 15-year old reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine. William Miller is Crowe’s counterpart in the film. He is a boy who, along with his sister Anita (Zooey Deschanel) has grown up under the rigid eye of his protective mother Elaine (Frances McDormand). When Anita decides she’s had enough of her mom, she decides to run away form home and become a flight stewardess. To young William, she imparts her record collection and forever instills in him a love and awe for rock and roll.
William is an outcast at school. He is two year younger than his fellow classmates and on route to graduate at the age of 15. To make up for a lack of friends, he writes rock reviews for underground publications. Taking note of his work, rock critic Lester Bangs hires William to cover a black Sabbath concert. While attending the concert he meets Penny Lane, a groupie (or ‘Band-Aid’) for the opening band Stillwater. William befriends Stillwater’s lead guitarist Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup) and soon he is on the road with them, writing a cover story for Rolling Stone Magazine, who’s editors are unaware that William is 15.
The majority of the film takes place on the road at the various concerts and parties along the way. William has to balance his reporting responsibilities with the new experiences he seems to be meeting around ever turn. Some of the great laughs in the film come when William must talk on the phone with his mother, who is terribly concerned for his well being under the supervision of rock stars. Frances McDormand doesn’t have too much screen time in this film, but her comedic presence is felt and felt powerfully.
Billy Crudup is also excellent as the guitarist Russell, whose musical ability is superior to his band mates and causing some tension in their musical outfit. “Almost Famous” is almost as much his story as William’s.
But more so than a coming of age story, this film is a heartfelt glance into rock and roll’s transformative power and then what eventually transformed rock and roll. In Cameron Crowe’s authorial eye, rock and roll was once about being young and alive and it changed into a corporate monster where people became the commodities and women were traded for beer.
But these are the dark undercurrents…
”Almost Famous” is a genuinely funny and touching film, fit for everyone and anyone who’s ever lit a candle and listened to ‘Tommy’ to see what their future holds.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind” (1984).
Rationalization:
This film is so good. If you’re like me, the first time you see it, you can just get caught up in the magic and whirlwind of the myth its showing you. Then upon second viewing, you can sense something darker but that just makes the film all the better. I almost wouldn't change a thing. I realize, I haven’t even commented on the music yet. The soundtrack is great. I’m an old man insofar as I think rock and roll’s absolute hey-day began in the early 60s and ended in the early 70s. Every album William’s sister gives to him at the beginning of the film is a rock and roll masterwork. If they’re not already, they should all be on your ipod right now. And “Tiny Dancer” – is there a more fitting song to cheer you up? I don’t think so.
For me, the seminal scene of “Almost Famous” comes when Lester Bangs (played by Philip Seymore Hoffman) expounds on how rock and roll has become an industry predicated on making as much money as possible. While he’s giving this speech to the young reporter William Miller, the camera cuts to Penny Lane (Kate Hudson) dancing alone on stage in an empty auditorium. She is a spectral vision of the fading idea that rock and roll could be the best of what we can become, a refuge from the soul crushing squalor of everyday life.
“Almost Famous” is a coming of age story but it is also a long overdue, fond farewell to the rock and roll of old. The story is based on writer-director Camerson Crowe’s real life experiences as a 15-year old reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine. William Miller is Crowe’s counterpart in the film. He is a boy who, along with his sister Anita (Zooey Deschanel) has grown up under the rigid eye of his protective mother Elaine (Frances McDormand). When Anita decides she’s had enough of her mom, she decides to run away form home and become a flight stewardess. To young William, she imparts her record collection and forever instills in him a love and awe for rock and roll.
William is an outcast at school. He is two year younger than his fellow classmates and on route to graduate at the age of 15. To make up for a lack of friends, he writes rock reviews for underground publications. Taking note of his work, rock critic Lester Bangs hires William to cover a black Sabbath concert. While attending the concert he meets Penny Lane, a groupie (or ‘Band-Aid’) for the opening band Stillwater. William befriends Stillwater’s lead guitarist Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup) and soon he is on the road with them, writing a cover story for Rolling Stone Magazine, who’s editors are unaware that William is 15.
The majority of the film takes place on the road at the various concerts and parties along the way. William has to balance his reporting responsibilities with the new experiences he seems to be meeting around ever turn. Some of the great laughs in the film come when William must talk on the phone with his mother, who is terribly concerned for his well being under the supervision of rock stars. Frances McDormand doesn’t have too much screen time in this film, but her comedic presence is felt and felt powerfully.
Billy Crudup is also excellent as the guitarist Russell, whose musical ability is superior to his band mates and causing some tension in their musical outfit. “Almost Famous” is almost as much his story as William’s.
But more so than a coming of age story, this film is a heartfelt glance into rock and roll’s transformative power and then what eventually transformed rock and roll. In Cameron Crowe’s authorial eye, rock and roll was once about being young and alive and it changed into a corporate monster where people became the commodities and women were traded for beer.
But these are the dark undercurrents…
”Almost Famous” is a genuinely funny and touching film, fit for everyone and anyone who’s ever lit a candle and listened to ‘Tommy’ to see what their future holds.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind” (1984).
Rationalization:
This film is so good. If you’re like me, the first time you see it, you can just get caught up in the magic and whirlwind of the myth its showing you. Then upon second viewing, you can sense something darker but that just makes the film all the better. I almost wouldn't change a thing. I realize, I haven’t even commented on the music yet. The soundtrack is great. I’m an old man insofar as I think rock and roll’s absolute hey-day began in the early 60s and ended in the early 70s. Every album William’s sister gives to him at the beginning of the film is a rock and roll masterwork. If they’re not already, they should all be on your ipod right now. And “Tiny Dancer” – is there a more fitting song to cheer you up? I don’t think so.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Orphan (2009)
Orphan (2009)
On a sleepless night, I found myself drawn to the TV for company. On the table sat my brother’s copy of ‘Orphan’ which he had just gotten for Christmas. I looked down at the DVD and knew it was about to be watched. I am a horror film lover and I will contend that there is no better time to watch a horror movie than at around 1am, alone, in the dark. And so I sat down with Jaume Collet-Serra’s “Orphan.”
The set up has been done before, many times – “The Omen” (1976), “Child’s Play 2,” (1990) “The Good Son” (1993), to name a few antecedents – a struggling family decides the best thing for it would be to adopt a child with a troubled past. Lo and behold, the child not only has a troubled past but turns out to be just plain trouble.
There can be no doubt: “Orphan” is a dark film. Thankfully, it is not overly clustered with action and horror like so many contemporary counterparts. Instead it lets the horror rise and rise until the final, genuinely creepy climax. Of course there are the typical fake outs to juice up the audience for the real scares - a woman opens a mirrored medicine cabinet. When she closes it, someone is standing behind her (gasp!). And then there’s Esther, the creepy orphan of the title who holds the real horror of the film in the palm of her hand.
As you can likely infer from what I’ve already written, the plot doesn’t need too much elaboration. Vera Farmiga plays Kate Coleman, a recovered alcoholic who has recently suffered a miscarriage. Kate and her husband John (Peter Sarsgaard) decide it would be best to adopt a child. Now, I’m pretty young and have no children, but it seems to me that adopting a child in the wake of a miscarriage might be predicated on faulty logic – a hasty cure for the mourning heart.
Well, despite my reservations, Kate and John adopt Esther, a young orphan from Russia. Esther is an instant hit with the family, befriending Kate’s younger and partially deaf daughter Max and her older son Daniel. Esther even seems to have an Oedipal (or Electrapal…Electric?) love for her father. Cute enough.
But as can be imagined, things start to go awry. A girl has a conspicuous fall from a playground. A car’s emergency break is mysteriously released. A nun is found bludgeoned to death…
Kate is the only one who can fit these pieces together. She is the only one who sees the common thread between all these tragic incidents is Esther. But no one believes her of course, because how could a child do such a thing?
Children in the movies are much like dogs. They can be cute and funny as easily as they can be vicious and creepy. Esther, played by newcomer Isabelle Fuhrman, is a powerhouse of a creeper. She delivers on scary material that would be tough for any child actor to make believable. At 3am when the film ended, I couldn’t help but wonder how they made this film with such strict child-actor laws in place. This movie actually creeped me out.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Others” (2001)
Rationalization:
In these, the waning days of M. Night Shymalan, it is very hard to come across a twist ending where you don’t feel used and didn’t see it coming from eight miles away. Nowadays we often come into a horror movie expecting there will be a game changing twist tagged on at the very end. In a case like Shymalan’s “The Village” (2004), which I loved for the first half, the twist made me want to puke and then write a heated letter to someone who would listen. But with a movie like “The Others,” and now “Orphan,” the twist is organic, makes sense, and adds a brand new dimension of scariness to the rest of the film. At the end of “The Village” I felt like I needed to take a sponge bath to scrub off Shymalan’s twist and egomania. Not so at the end of “Orphan.”
(Also, if you’re watching this on DVD and can check out the alternative ending, do so. The part of me that despises closure loved the alternative ending)
On a sleepless night, I found myself drawn to the TV for company. On the table sat my brother’s copy of ‘Orphan’ which he had just gotten for Christmas. I looked down at the DVD and knew it was about to be watched. I am a horror film lover and I will contend that there is no better time to watch a horror movie than at around 1am, alone, in the dark. And so I sat down with Jaume Collet-Serra’s “Orphan.”
The set up has been done before, many times – “The Omen” (1976), “Child’s Play 2,” (1990) “The Good Son” (1993), to name a few antecedents – a struggling family decides the best thing for it would be to adopt a child with a troubled past. Lo and behold, the child not only has a troubled past but turns out to be just plain trouble.
There can be no doubt: “Orphan” is a dark film. Thankfully, it is not overly clustered with action and horror like so many contemporary counterparts. Instead it lets the horror rise and rise until the final, genuinely creepy climax. Of course there are the typical fake outs to juice up the audience for the real scares - a woman opens a mirrored medicine cabinet. When she closes it, someone is standing behind her (gasp!). And then there’s Esther, the creepy orphan of the title who holds the real horror of the film in the palm of her hand.
As you can likely infer from what I’ve already written, the plot doesn’t need too much elaboration. Vera Farmiga plays Kate Coleman, a recovered alcoholic who has recently suffered a miscarriage. Kate and her husband John (Peter Sarsgaard) decide it would be best to adopt a child. Now, I’m pretty young and have no children, but it seems to me that adopting a child in the wake of a miscarriage might be predicated on faulty logic – a hasty cure for the mourning heart.
Well, despite my reservations, Kate and John adopt Esther, a young orphan from Russia. Esther is an instant hit with the family, befriending Kate’s younger and partially deaf daughter Max and her older son Daniel. Esther even seems to have an Oedipal (or Electrapal…Electric?) love for her father. Cute enough.
But as can be imagined, things start to go awry. A girl has a conspicuous fall from a playground. A car’s emergency break is mysteriously released. A nun is found bludgeoned to death…
Kate is the only one who can fit these pieces together. She is the only one who sees the common thread between all these tragic incidents is Esther. But no one believes her of course, because how could a child do such a thing?
Children in the movies are much like dogs. They can be cute and funny as easily as they can be vicious and creepy. Esther, played by newcomer Isabelle Fuhrman, is a powerhouse of a creeper. She delivers on scary material that would be tough for any child actor to make believable. At 3am when the film ended, I couldn’t help but wonder how they made this film with such strict child-actor laws in place. This movie actually creeped me out.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Others” (2001)
Rationalization:
In these, the waning days of M. Night Shymalan, it is very hard to come across a twist ending where you don’t feel used and didn’t see it coming from eight miles away. Nowadays we often come into a horror movie expecting there will be a game changing twist tagged on at the very end. In a case like Shymalan’s “The Village” (2004), which I loved for the first half, the twist made me want to puke and then write a heated letter to someone who would listen. But with a movie like “The Others,” and now “Orphan,” the twist is organic, makes sense, and adds a brand new dimension of scariness to the rest of the film. At the end of “The Village” I felt like I needed to take a sponge bath to scrub off Shymalan’s twist and egomania. Not so at the end of “Orphan.”
(Also, if you’re watching this on DVD and can check out the alternative ending, do so. The part of me that despises closure loved the alternative ending)
Aguirre: The Wrath of God (1973)
Review:
Werner Herzog’s “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” is what “Waiting for Godot” would be, if that play were an epic. And what a minimalist epic this film is. The story is simple and evokes a terrifying message: what we seek, we will not find and where we seek shall inevitably lead to our demise. It’s a grim forecast but when seen through the eyes of Werner Herzog there is a certain awe that eventually transcends the dread.
In the late 16th century, an expedition of Spanish Conquistadors sets out into the wilderness of Peru and Brazil to discover the fabled city of gold, El Dorado. The doomed mission is led by Gonzalo Pizarro. When the army encounters innumerable complications from traversing the jungle, Pizarro decides to send 40 of his men down the Amazon River on raft to further explore for the golden city’s whereabouts.
This rafting expedition is led by Don Pedro de Ursua (Ruy Guerra) with Don Lope de Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) as second in command. Though he does not say much at first, the malignant stare of Aguirre informs the audience that there is something not right with this man. Perhaps the jungle has pushed him too far or maybe he’s purely a megalomaniac, but really, this speculation is irrelevant Part of the effect of “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” is the utter lack of explanation for everything. Herzog does not waste our time by trying to explain away the motivations of Aguirre or the terrors of the Amazon.
After some disastrous days on the river, Ursua decides he will turn the mission around and the remaining soldiers will march back to Pizarro. But Aguirre, unable to accept defeat when El Dorado may be at hand, quickly devises a haphazard mutiny and overthrows Ursua. Not sure he has the men’s loyalty, Aguirre puts Don Fernando de Guzman in charge. He’s a bumbling and gluttonous conquistador, not long for this movie.
From this point on the story begins a rapid descent into madness. Life on the raft becomes a mock-imitation of civilized life. As they proceed further down river, lurking natives shoot arrows from the banks, sickness envelopes the crew, and Aguirre keeps insisting on pressing forward.
“Aguirre: The Wrath of God” is maybe two steps away from becoming a farce. There is something utterly absurd about seeing hundreds of men trek through impenetrable wilderness with metal helmets and armor. One of the great symbols in the film is the conquistador cannon, which they bring on the raft. This cannon is heavy and predisposed to rust when exposed to water and yet the conquistadors never once think of abandoning it. When surrounded by the immensity of the jungle the cannon is a last consolation, an absurd reminder of the power of the Spanish army. It allows the doomed soldiers to believe they still wield some power, even in this hostile terrain. But no cannon or horse or slave or man would save this crew.
We know Aguirre’s expedition is doomed from the start because we know there is no El Dorado. And yet, is this not a grand (albeit bleak) metaphor for human existence? The search for the unknowable and finding only nature’s wrath?
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “The Birds” (1963).
Rationalization:
Nature needs no explanation for its crimes. In a Herzog film nature is as indifferent as God in a Bergman film; it is omnipresent and silent and consuming. The only ones who dare defy the jungle are the mad crusaders like Aguirre who attempt to rival nature with their brutality. Klaus Kinski deserves praise for his portrayal of Aguirre. There is not a moment of stereotypical Hollywood madness in his performance. He broods instead of rants and only his eyes become portals into the depths of his insanity. I’d go so far as to say his madness, while quite noticeable, is generally understated. And how could it not be when in the face of the Amazon? “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” is a beautiful film that will haunt you a hundred times over before it inspires you to explore the Amazon.
Werner Herzog’s “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” is what “Waiting for Godot” would be, if that play were an epic. And what a minimalist epic this film is. The story is simple and evokes a terrifying message: what we seek, we will not find and where we seek shall inevitably lead to our demise. It’s a grim forecast but when seen through the eyes of Werner Herzog there is a certain awe that eventually transcends the dread.
In the late 16th century, an expedition of Spanish Conquistadors sets out into the wilderness of Peru and Brazil to discover the fabled city of gold, El Dorado. The doomed mission is led by Gonzalo Pizarro. When the army encounters innumerable complications from traversing the jungle, Pizarro decides to send 40 of his men down the Amazon River on raft to further explore for the golden city’s whereabouts.
This rafting expedition is led by Don Pedro de Ursua (Ruy Guerra) with Don Lope de Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) as second in command. Though he does not say much at first, the malignant stare of Aguirre informs the audience that there is something not right with this man. Perhaps the jungle has pushed him too far or maybe he’s purely a megalomaniac, but really, this speculation is irrelevant Part of the effect of “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” is the utter lack of explanation for everything. Herzog does not waste our time by trying to explain away the motivations of Aguirre or the terrors of the Amazon.
After some disastrous days on the river, Ursua decides he will turn the mission around and the remaining soldiers will march back to Pizarro. But Aguirre, unable to accept defeat when El Dorado may be at hand, quickly devises a haphazard mutiny and overthrows Ursua. Not sure he has the men’s loyalty, Aguirre puts Don Fernando de Guzman in charge. He’s a bumbling and gluttonous conquistador, not long for this movie.
From this point on the story begins a rapid descent into madness. Life on the raft becomes a mock-imitation of civilized life. As they proceed further down river, lurking natives shoot arrows from the banks, sickness envelopes the crew, and Aguirre keeps insisting on pressing forward.
“Aguirre: The Wrath of God” is maybe two steps away from becoming a farce. There is something utterly absurd about seeing hundreds of men trek through impenetrable wilderness with metal helmets and armor. One of the great symbols in the film is the conquistador cannon, which they bring on the raft. This cannon is heavy and predisposed to rust when exposed to water and yet the conquistadors never once think of abandoning it. When surrounded by the immensity of the jungle the cannon is a last consolation, an absurd reminder of the power of the Spanish army. It allows the doomed soldiers to believe they still wield some power, even in this hostile terrain. But no cannon or horse or slave or man would save this crew.
We know Aguirre’s expedition is doomed from the start because we know there is no El Dorado. And yet, is this not a grand (albeit bleak) metaphor for human existence? The search for the unknowable and finding only nature’s wrath?
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “The Birds” (1963).
Rationalization:
Nature needs no explanation for its crimes. In a Herzog film nature is as indifferent as God in a Bergman film; it is omnipresent and silent and consuming. The only ones who dare defy the jungle are the mad crusaders like Aguirre who attempt to rival nature with their brutality. Klaus Kinski deserves praise for his portrayal of Aguirre. There is not a moment of stereotypical Hollywood madness in his performance. He broods instead of rants and only his eyes become portals into the depths of his insanity. I’d go so far as to say his madness, while quite noticeable, is generally understated. And how could it not be when in the face of the Amazon? “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” is a beautiful film that will haunt you a hundred times over before it inspires you to explore the Amazon.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Alien (1979)
Upon seeing "Alien" for maybe the eighth time in my life, the silence of the film really struck me. For years the only images I associated with this film included the chest popping, teeth gnashing perfect creature that is the alien. But now, I think perhaps there is a second, even scarier villain than the alien and that is the absolute solitude of space. The tag line for Ridley Scott's "Alien" is famously "In space no one can hear you scream." Now, this is a tantalizing tag line because it promises you that there will be screaming in this movie and from that you can insinuate there will be scary things going on. At the risk of looking too deeply into a tag line, consider its implications.
"In space, no one can hear you scream."
The scream, of course, is an intuitive noise (with evolutionary incentive) that announces your imperiled genes to the world. The point of screaming is to effectively survive a situation - If you scream while struggling to swim, it is more likely a lifeguard will come save you. Now in space though, no one can hear you scream. There is no help coming. No life guard. Indeed, the barren magnitude of space is no playground for evolution.
And so with the dominance of silence throughout the first third of the film, Ridley Scott creates settings that are not only claustrophobic but also foreboding in their indifference. There is nothing in 'Alien' that is helpful to Ripley or the other humans. In immutable space, a perfect creature remains perfect and a human being remains mortal and fragile. It is a recipe for disaster.
The premise of the film is simple. A gigantic spaceship transporting an unspecified mineral to earth responds to an SOS call from a distant planet. While investigating the distress signal, one of the crew members Kane (John Hurt) is assaulted by a scorpion-like creature that attaches itself to his face. No matter what the other crew members try, there is no way to remove the face hugge from Kane's visager. Eventually though, the thing dies and falls off of his face. The formerly afflicted Kane wakes up and all seem to be well again.
Well, things only go downhill from there. A vicious little phallic creature violently bursts from Kane's chest and disappears. The crew obviously freak out. They decide to hunt all over the enormous ship for the creature and guess what? People start disappearing. This thing ain't E.T.
Sigourney Weaver gives a fine performance as Ripley, the heroine of the film. Though she does not yet possess the intense leadership skills she exhibits in "Aliens" (1986) she is a well reasoned character that tries to act logically in a chaotic situation. Ian Holme also gives an excellent and chilling performance in the film, and I will leave it at that.
Ultimately "Alien" is a film about the inevitability of demise and how unhelpful outer space can be. As monster movies go, "Alien" is akin to "Halloween," "Jaws," and even "Aguirre." But then again, none of those monsters had two mouths.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Twister" (1996)
Rationalization:
I know what you're thinking. "Alien" is way better than "Twister." And you're right. But "Twister" struck a deep chord with me when I saw it in theaters as a ten year old boy. "Alien," while a superior film, strikes that exact same chord. Its a deeply embedded chord - one no one really wants to acknowledge but everyone has it and when something strikes it, it resonates like a gong. I'll tell you what that chord is - its the inevitability of bad things happening to you and the fact that you cannot stop them from coming. Aliens, twisters, shark attacks, murders, tragic falls, death - all are potentially out there in your future, looming like dark shadows. You have no way of knowing. In all likelihood you will not be murdered or attacked by a shark, but you never know. And the acknowledgment of those possibilities is what makes movies (and the news) so scary.
Now that I think about it, the film "Open Water" (2004) struck that same chord as"Twister" and "Open Water" is a way better movie. I suppose I could change my rating, but here's my reason not to - "Open Water" goes a step further than "Alien" and "Twister." In "Alien" and "Twister" there are survivors, if you catch my drift.
"Open Water" is a dark, dark movie. Hopefully I'll review it soon!
"In space, no one can hear you scream."
The scream, of course, is an intuitive noise (with evolutionary incentive) that announces your imperiled genes to the world. The point of screaming is to effectively survive a situation - If you scream while struggling to swim, it is more likely a lifeguard will come save you. Now in space though, no one can hear you scream. There is no help coming. No life guard. Indeed, the barren magnitude of space is no playground for evolution.
And so with the dominance of silence throughout the first third of the film, Ridley Scott creates settings that are not only claustrophobic but also foreboding in their indifference. There is nothing in 'Alien' that is helpful to Ripley or the other humans. In immutable space, a perfect creature remains perfect and a human being remains mortal and fragile. It is a recipe for disaster.
The premise of the film is simple. A gigantic spaceship transporting an unspecified mineral to earth responds to an SOS call from a distant planet. While investigating the distress signal, one of the crew members Kane (John Hurt) is assaulted by a scorpion-like creature that attaches itself to his face. No matter what the other crew members try, there is no way to remove the face hugge from Kane's visager. Eventually though, the thing dies and falls off of his face. The formerly afflicted Kane wakes up and all seem to be well again.
Well, things only go downhill from there. A vicious little phallic creature violently bursts from Kane's chest and disappears. The crew obviously freak out. They decide to hunt all over the enormous ship for the creature and guess what? People start disappearing. This thing ain't E.T.
Sigourney Weaver gives a fine performance as Ripley, the heroine of the film. Though she does not yet possess the intense leadership skills she exhibits in "Aliens" (1986) she is a well reasoned character that tries to act logically in a chaotic situation. Ian Holme also gives an excellent and chilling performance in the film, and I will leave it at that.
Ultimately "Alien" is a film about the inevitability of demise and how unhelpful outer space can be. As monster movies go, "Alien" is akin to "Halloween," "Jaws," and even "Aguirre." But then again, none of those monsters had two mouths.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Twister" (1996)
Rationalization:
I know what you're thinking. "Alien" is way better than "Twister." And you're right. But "Twister" struck a deep chord with me when I saw it in theaters as a ten year old boy. "Alien," while a superior film, strikes that exact same chord. Its a deeply embedded chord - one no one really wants to acknowledge but everyone has it and when something strikes it, it resonates like a gong. I'll tell you what that chord is - its the inevitability of bad things happening to you and the fact that you cannot stop them from coming. Aliens, twisters, shark attacks, murders, tragic falls, death - all are potentially out there in your future, looming like dark shadows. You have no way of knowing. In all likelihood you will not be murdered or attacked by a shark, but you never know. And the acknowledgment of those possibilities is what makes movies (and the news) so scary.
Now that I think about it, the film "Open Water" (2004) struck that same chord as"Twister" and "Open Water" is a way better movie. I suppose I could change my rating, but here's my reason not to - "Open Water" goes a step further than "Alien" and "Twister." In "Alien" and "Twister" there are survivors, if you catch my drift.
"Open Water" is a dark, dark movie. Hopefully I'll review it soon!
Up (2009)
Review:
The best thing about ‘Up’ is perhaps its fantastical logic and its strict adherence to physics that while maybe not sound we can still believe in - of course a house can be carried by balloons and of course when a few balloons pop, the house will be less buoyant!
Pixar is a miracle. I’ll just come out and say it. Not since the earliest pictures of Disney’s Golden Age have we been thrown into animated worlds so visionary that they kindle in our imaginations the ruminations of what we must have felt in childhood when beholding something truly marvelous – the first time we went to the aquarium for instance.
Visionary is a word I do not use lightly, and yet, I must apply it to many Pixar films – “Finding Nemo” (2003) and “Wall-E” (2008) just to name two. While watching ‘Up’ I found myself cataloguing the strongest images of the film and how I would use those images to decorate a future Criterion Collection Edition of the film. There was an abundance of inspiration.
The story is simple and profound. Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) is a man who always dreamed of being a great explorer, but like so many would-be explorers, he chose to settle down with a wife and build a life with her. They lived in the house in which they first met as children and this home becomes the iconic symbol of Carl’s whole life - all it was, all it is, and all it can be. When Ellie dies, Carl becomes a bitter recluse, hanging on to his home as his last connection to his wife.
With the encroachment of construction projects and soon the law, it becomes increasingly clear to Carl that he will be forced to vacate the home he treasures so dearly. But instead of submitting to the forces that be, Carl decides he will use his house as a means of escape. Using thousands of balloons, he transforms his home into a buoyant vessel and heads for Paradise Falls in South America, the place where he and his wife always dreamed of visiting.
There is one complication to his plan though. A little boy has inadvertently stowed away by crawling under Carl’s porch immediately before take off. This is Russell (Jordan Nagai), a Wilderness Scout who’s one wish is to get a merit badge for assisting the elderly. Inspired to help Carl in any way he can, Russell becomes an unlikely sidekick in the old man’s quest to get to South America.
The rest of the story involves Russell and Carl coming into conflict with an aged explorer named Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) and his quest for an elusive South American bird. This plot is fun and involves talking dogs, but it is almost tangential to the real theme of the film which is the process of letting go the past while still treasuring it.
“Up” is a beautiful film. The colors combined with the minute detail allow for a divine viewing experience. After it’s over you feel like you’ve eaten a rainbow. Pixar has done it again. Some people/companies are prone to masterpieces and Pixar is certainly amongst the ranks.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Rushmore” (1998)
Rationalization:
It’s hard to imagine that there could be a theme other than ‘growing up’ in film. No matter who we are, at what age, or in what place, we are perpetually in a state of growing up (and hopefully growing wiser). The forward current of time makes it so. I think the title ‘Up’ is not only referring to the motion of Carl’s house but to his and Russell’s growth throughout the story. Inevitably, part of growing up is letting go of things and it’s perhaps how we accept our losses that informs how we grow. “Up” is an incredibly wise movie and it is not afraid to explore scary topics like aging and death in terms that children can understand. On the whole, I think “Wall-E” (2008) will be better remembered for its ruthless social critique and beautiful love story, but my guess is that “Up” will hold its own for many years to come.
The best thing about ‘Up’ is perhaps its fantastical logic and its strict adherence to physics that while maybe not sound we can still believe in - of course a house can be carried by balloons and of course when a few balloons pop, the house will be less buoyant!
Pixar is a miracle. I’ll just come out and say it. Not since the earliest pictures of Disney’s Golden Age have we been thrown into animated worlds so visionary that they kindle in our imaginations the ruminations of what we must have felt in childhood when beholding something truly marvelous – the first time we went to the aquarium for instance.
Visionary is a word I do not use lightly, and yet, I must apply it to many Pixar films – “Finding Nemo” (2003) and “Wall-E” (2008) just to name two. While watching ‘Up’ I found myself cataloguing the strongest images of the film and how I would use those images to decorate a future Criterion Collection Edition of the film. There was an abundance of inspiration.
The story is simple and profound. Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) is a man who always dreamed of being a great explorer, but like so many would-be explorers, he chose to settle down with a wife and build a life with her. They lived in the house in which they first met as children and this home becomes the iconic symbol of Carl’s whole life - all it was, all it is, and all it can be. When Ellie dies, Carl becomes a bitter recluse, hanging on to his home as his last connection to his wife.
With the encroachment of construction projects and soon the law, it becomes increasingly clear to Carl that he will be forced to vacate the home he treasures so dearly. But instead of submitting to the forces that be, Carl decides he will use his house as a means of escape. Using thousands of balloons, he transforms his home into a buoyant vessel and heads for Paradise Falls in South America, the place where he and his wife always dreamed of visiting.
There is one complication to his plan though. A little boy has inadvertently stowed away by crawling under Carl’s porch immediately before take off. This is Russell (Jordan Nagai), a Wilderness Scout who’s one wish is to get a merit badge for assisting the elderly. Inspired to help Carl in any way he can, Russell becomes an unlikely sidekick in the old man’s quest to get to South America.
The rest of the story involves Russell and Carl coming into conflict with an aged explorer named Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) and his quest for an elusive South American bird. This plot is fun and involves talking dogs, but it is almost tangential to the real theme of the film which is the process of letting go the past while still treasuring it.
“Up” is a beautiful film. The colors combined with the minute detail allow for a divine viewing experience. After it’s over you feel like you’ve eaten a rainbow. Pixar has done it again. Some people/companies are prone to masterpieces and Pixar is certainly amongst the ranks.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Rushmore” (1998)
Rationalization:
It’s hard to imagine that there could be a theme other than ‘growing up’ in film. No matter who we are, at what age, or in what place, we are perpetually in a state of growing up (and hopefully growing wiser). The forward current of time makes it so. I think the title ‘Up’ is not only referring to the motion of Carl’s house but to his and Russell’s growth throughout the story. Inevitably, part of growing up is letting go of things and it’s perhaps how we accept our losses that informs how we grow. “Up” is an incredibly wise movie and it is not afraid to explore scary topics like aging and death in terms that children can understand. On the whole, I think “Wall-E” (2008) will be better remembered for its ruthless social critique and beautiful love story, but my guess is that “Up” will hold its own for many years to come.
Office Space (1999)
Review:
I feel like I have inhabited the world of "Office Space". I would like to say it was in large part an exaggeration of office life, but its not. It gave me chills as it made me laugh.
“Office Space” is Mike Judge’s opus to the banality of life inside a cubicle. The sanitary, grey universe of office space in which Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston) must work is driving him crazy. He confesses to a hypno-psychiatrist that each day he spends at work is worse than the last day and so every day he is living through the worst day of his life. Every day Peter is bombarded with mundane questions like whether he got the memo about using a new cover sheet. If he seems down trodden his co-workers ask if he has a case of ‘the Mondays.’ Life for him is a living hell. Actually, a living purgatory may be more like it.
When visiting a hypno-psychiatrist, Peter is put into a trance and told to act without inhibitions. The psychiatrist conveniently dies of a heart attack while Peter is in the trance and thus a new Peter is born – one without the submission reflex, a man driven to act out. When asked to work on a Saturday, Peter decides to skip work. When he’s questioned by efficiency experts about what his job, he tells them he has no motivation and so only works fifteen minutes a week. When he goes fishing, he decides to gut the fish at his desk.
This onset of rebellious behavior leads Peter to ask out Joanna (Jennifer Aniston) the waitress he sees every day at a local restaurant. She agrees to a date and promptly becomes the romantic subplot of the movie.
Later, when Peter finds out two of his best friends at the company (David Herman as Michael and Ajay Naidu as Samir) are going to be laid off, they conspire to put a computer virus into the company’s system that would steal a few pennies each day. As one character notes, this is a crime lifted from “Superman III” and some guys from the 70s who got arrested.
The funniest part of “Office Space” is the first act when we are introduced to Peter’s prosaic existence and then his subsequent lashing out. Once the crime plot is revealed, I feel the movie loses some momentum. This could have been a comic tour de force if it hadn’t felt the need to introduce a plot. I would have liked “Office Space” better if instead of the crime scheme, we simply watched a story where Peter’s bad behavior in fact gave him promotion after promotion until he had some kind of inevitable fall.
But “Office Space” is funny enough. I liked it. I also really like Milton, the character who had his origins in Mike Judge’s SNL cartoons and inspired this film. Milton is a down trodden employee who never gets cake and keeps getting his cubicle moved. Ultimately, all he really wants is to keep his stapler. Its nice that he triumphs in the end. We all have a right to our stapler.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Batman Returns”
Rationalization:
There is an inner rage in this film that is very compelling. When stripped away from its white-gray palette “Office Space” is as red as Milton’s stapler and angry as Milton’s disposition. I think “Office Space” has become such a hit because it speaks to two embedded (and opposing) desires in the American (if not the human) spirit: 1) to scream out to the universe that your existence matters 2) to be lazy. The inanity of office life does all it can to crush both those desires and it does it in the name of making more money. “Office Space,” presents a dystopia that we can believe in because we have seen it or lived in it. Thank God at least that we can sometimes laugh at it.
I feel like I have inhabited the world of "Office Space". I would like to say it was in large part an exaggeration of office life, but its not. It gave me chills as it made me laugh.
“Office Space” is Mike Judge’s opus to the banality of life inside a cubicle. The sanitary, grey universe of office space in which Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston) must work is driving him crazy. He confesses to a hypno-psychiatrist that each day he spends at work is worse than the last day and so every day he is living through the worst day of his life. Every day Peter is bombarded with mundane questions like whether he got the memo about using a new cover sheet. If he seems down trodden his co-workers ask if he has a case of ‘the Mondays.’ Life for him is a living hell. Actually, a living purgatory may be more like it.
When visiting a hypno-psychiatrist, Peter is put into a trance and told to act without inhibitions. The psychiatrist conveniently dies of a heart attack while Peter is in the trance and thus a new Peter is born – one without the submission reflex, a man driven to act out. When asked to work on a Saturday, Peter decides to skip work. When he’s questioned by efficiency experts about what his job, he tells them he has no motivation and so only works fifteen minutes a week. When he goes fishing, he decides to gut the fish at his desk.
This onset of rebellious behavior leads Peter to ask out Joanna (Jennifer Aniston) the waitress he sees every day at a local restaurant. She agrees to a date and promptly becomes the romantic subplot of the movie.
Later, when Peter finds out two of his best friends at the company (David Herman as Michael and Ajay Naidu as Samir) are going to be laid off, they conspire to put a computer virus into the company’s system that would steal a few pennies each day. As one character notes, this is a crime lifted from “Superman III” and some guys from the 70s who got arrested.
The funniest part of “Office Space” is the first act when we are introduced to Peter’s prosaic existence and then his subsequent lashing out. Once the crime plot is revealed, I feel the movie loses some momentum. This could have been a comic tour de force if it hadn’t felt the need to introduce a plot. I would have liked “Office Space” better if instead of the crime scheme, we simply watched a story where Peter’s bad behavior in fact gave him promotion after promotion until he had some kind of inevitable fall.
But “Office Space” is funny enough. I liked it. I also really like Milton, the character who had his origins in Mike Judge’s SNL cartoons and inspired this film. Milton is a down trodden employee who never gets cake and keeps getting his cubicle moved. Ultimately, all he really wants is to keep his stapler. Its nice that he triumphs in the end. We all have a right to our stapler.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Batman Returns”
Rationalization:
There is an inner rage in this film that is very compelling. When stripped away from its white-gray palette “Office Space” is as red as Milton’s stapler and angry as Milton’s disposition. I think “Office Space” has become such a hit because it speaks to two embedded (and opposing) desires in the American (if not the human) spirit: 1) to scream out to the universe that your existence matters 2) to be lazy. The inanity of office life does all it can to crush both those desires and it does it in the name of making more money. “Office Space,” presents a dystopia that we can believe in because we have seen it or lived in it. Thank God at least that we can sometimes laugh at it.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Nine (2009)
Review:
Where to begin? I’ll start with a confession. I entered this film with multiple biases. First of all, I love “Fellini’s 8 ½” (1963) upon which the story of “Nine” is based. In fact, “8 ½” would be on my short list for favorite movies ever. Second, I participated in the musical “Nine” when I was in high school so I am very familiar with the music and how the stage play works.
The problem with “Nine” is that it tries too hard be “8 ½” with the songs of “Nine” jolted in. The remarkable thing about the tony award winning play “Nine” is that it so strategically incorporates the whimsy and grace of “8 ½” with its muisc while maintaining its own independent world, its own life. The film “Nine” relies too heavily on “8 ½” while simultaneously sacrificing the most thought provoking aspects of both Fellini’s film and the stage musical.
“Nine” is the story of Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis), an Italian director who is supposed to make a new movie but finds himself bankrupt of ideas. Feeling pressured to do his job he flees Rome and heads to a luxury spa. Eventually all the people he ran away from come to the spa in search of him. This includes his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard), his mistress (Penelope Cruz), his costume designer Lilli (Judy Dench), and a fashion reporter (Kate Hudson) and various other producers and writers.
This influx of people creates chaos in Guido’s mind and he finds it all the harder to cope. He longs for the actress Claudia (Nicole Kidman) to arrive in Italy. Guido believes that she will be the catalyst for his inspiration.
“Nine” was directed by Rob Marshall who’s previous film “Chicago” was hailed as a return to the big budget musical. Marshall has developed a way of making musical numbers seem plausible to a modern audience that does not take kindly to their characters bursting out in a bawdy chorus line. Instead of having the songs occur in the actual space-time reality of the film’s narrative, Marshall uses his character’s imaginations as the playground for the musical. I call it the Cerebral Musical technique.
In “Nine” when a song is about to begin, the camera usually does a close up on Guido and then we are in his mind where it’s safe to have a song. But this doesn’t work for me. It worked for “Chicago” but not for “Nine.” These are musicals of different calibers. Part of the fun of the stage “Nine” and “8 ½” was never being sure when you were descending into fantasy or dealing with reality. In Marshall’s “Nine” it is made painfully obvious.
Also, some of the best songs from the musical were cut out, including “The Bells of St. Sebastian,” and “Simple” and they are replaced with lesser songs like “Cinema Italiano.”
The exclusion of these essential songs essentially removes the theme of Guido’s inner battle with sexuality and catholic guilt that drives both 8 ½ and the staged “Nine.” We are never clearly led to understand this story is about a man grappling with the child inside of him. It’s very frustrating really.
I think it says a lot that they cut out the song “Nine” from the movie “Nine.”
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a nine.
Rationalization:
This movie looks really good. Some of the cinematography is wondrous and some of the choreography is superb. But these things do not a good film make. To have a good movie you need good characters that, in some capacity, deliver ideas. “Nine” only has the skeleton of the ideas that are so thoroughly fleshed out in “8 ½.” Marshall and his writers have exchanged substance for gloss, and that just doesn’t fly in my books.
Where to begin? I’ll start with a confession. I entered this film with multiple biases. First of all, I love “Fellini’s 8 ½” (1963) upon which the story of “Nine” is based. In fact, “8 ½” would be on my short list for favorite movies ever. Second, I participated in the musical “Nine” when I was in high school so I am very familiar with the music and how the stage play works.
The problem with “Nine” is that it tries too hard be “8 ½” with the songs of “Nine” jolted in. The remarkable thing about the tony award winning play “Nine” is that it so strategically incorporates the whimsy and grace of “8 ½” with its muisc while maintaining its own independent world, its own life. The film “Nine” relies too heavily on “8 ½” while simultaneously sacrificing the most thought provoking aspects of both Fellini’s film and the stage musical.
“Nine” is the story of Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis), an Italian director who is supposed to make a new movie but finds himself bankrupt of ideas. Feeling pressured to do his job he flees Rome and heads to a luxury spa. Eventually all the people he ran away from come to the spa in search of him. This includes his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard), his mistress (Penelope Cruz), his costume designer Lilli (Judy Dench), and a fashion reporter (Kate Hudson) and various other producers and writers.
This influx of people creates chaos in Guido’s mind and he finds it all the harder to cope. He longs for the actress Claudia (Nicole Kidman) to arrive in Italy. Guido believes that she will be the catalyst for his inspiration.
“Nine” was directed by Rob Marshall who’s previous film “Chicago” was hailed as a return to the big budget musical. Marshall has developed a way of making musical numbers seem plausible to a modern audience that does not take kindly to their characters bursting out in a bawdy chorus line. Instead of having the songs occur in the actual space-time reality of the film’s narrative, Marshall uses his character’s imaginations as the playground for the musical. I call it the Cerebral Musical technique.
In “Nine” when a song is about to begin, the camera usually does a close up on Guido and then we are in his mind where it’s safe to have a song. But this doesn’t work for me. It worked for “Chicago” but not for “Nine.” These are musicals of different calibers. Part of the fun of the stage “Nine” and “8 ½” was never being sure when you were descending into fantasy or dealing with reality. In Marshall’s “Nine” it is made painfully obvious.
Also, some of the best songs from the musical were cut out, including “The Bells of St. Sebastian,” and “Simple” and they are replaced with lesser songs like “Cinema Italiano.”
The exclusion of these essential songs essentially removes the theme of Guido’s inner battle with sexuality and catholic guilt that drives both 8 ½ and the staged “Nine.” We are never clearly led to understand this story is about a man grappling with the child inside of him. It’s very frustrating really.
I think it says a lot that they cut out the song “Nine” from the movie “Nine.”
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a nine.
Rationalization:
This movie looks really good. Some of the cinematography is wondrous and some of the choreography is superb. But these things do not a good film make. To have a good movie you need good characters that, in some capacity, deliver ideas. “Nine” only has the skeleton of the ideas that are so thoroughly fleshed out in “8 ½.” Marshall and his writers have exchanged substance for gloss, and that just doesn’t fly in my books.
W. (2008)
Review:
No human life can be reduced to a thesis and adhere to reality. This is the truth of a life’s complexity and the source of most biopics’ shortcomings. It’s a bit simplistic to argue that a few specific moments in a particular year can inform the actions of a few other moments in the future. As it stands though, “W.” comes off as a compelling biopic of a man we all know so well.
“W.” doesn't give an objective account of the rise (and fall) of President George W. Bush. It is steeped in the liberal vantage point typical to an Oliver Stone film. Bush (played with a spot on impersonation by Josh Brolin) is depicted as a lost young man, perpetually stuck in the shadow of his father and ambitious brother. He drinks Jack Daniels straight from the bottle, he leads women on, and he can never settle on a career. He dreams of becoming a baseball star and winds up in politics – mostly to impress George Sr. (James Cromwell). Such is the rise of President Bush.
The fall we are all familiar with. Never a great political mind or public speaker, Oliver Stone depicts Bush in his presidency as a fish out of water; a man easily manipulated by those around him, including Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfus) and Karl Rove (Tobey Jones). Stone presents Cheney and Bush as men intent on war in Iraq for very different reasons. Cheney has oil on his mind. Bush has a family vendetta to attend to.
When things start to deteriorate in Iraq, Bush is a fish out of water left to dry in the sun. He cannot bring himself to admit his wrongs because they are derived from a personal agenda that would compromise the already defunct legitimacy of his presidency.
All the players in “W.” maintain marvelous impersonations of their real life counterparts. The only exception to this would be Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice, whose voice is an exaggerated and grating rendition of Rice’s real cadence.
At the end of the day, “W.” is a mesmerizing character study. Made and released in the last days of the Bush Administration, there was great potential for this film to be inflammatory or insensitive. As it stands, Oliver Stone looks at President Bush with a generous, sympathetic eye. But maybe the film is too simplistic in portraying Bush as a man driven solely by the need to impress his father and maintain a family legacy. Then again, maybe all biopics are too simplistic. Who’s to say?
Regardless, many men never quite find their way in this world and it’s nothing to hold against them. But not many men also become President of the United States – and maybe we can hold that against him.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Bringing Out the Dead.”
Rationalization:
That driven men driving at the wrong thing can be dangerous could be one message construed from this film. Another message could be that it is better for everyone to try and understand a person before coming to a sweeping judgment about their malevolence. There is no doubt Bush was a bad president and no doubt that decisions he made in office led to hundreds or thousands of deaths in the middle east. But you can’t rest an entire war on one man’s shoulders. Oliver Stone’s “W.” implores you to see Bush as a fallible man before a figurehead and lets you connect the dots.
No human life can be reduced to a thesis and adhere to reality. This is the truth of a life’s complexity and the source of most biopics’ shortcomings. It’s a bit simplistic to argue that a few specific moments in a particular year can inform the actions of a few other moments in the future. As it stands though, “W.” comes off as a compelling biopic of a man we all know so well.
“W.” doesn't give an objective account of the rise (and fall) of President George W. Bush. It is steeped in the liberal vantage point typical to an Oliver Stone film. Bush (played with a spot on impersonation by Josh Brolin) is depicted as a lost young man, perpetually stuck in the shadow of his father and ambitious brother. He drinks Jack Daniels straight from the bottle, he leads women on, and he can never settle on a career. He dreams of becoming a baseball star and winds up in politics – mostly to impress George Sr. (James Cromwell). Such is the rise of President Bush.
The fall we are all familiar with. Never a great political mind or public speaker, Oliver Stone depicts Bush in his presidency as a fish out of water; a man easily manipulated by those around him, including Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfus) and Karl Rove (Tobey Jones). Stone presents Cheney and Bush as men intent on war in Iraq for very different reasons. Cheney has oil on his mind. Bush has a family vendetta to attend to.
When things start to deteriorate in Iraq, Bush is a fish out of water left to dry in the sun. He cannot bring himself to admit his wrongs because they are derived from a personal agenda that would compromise the already defunct legitimacy of his presidency.
All the players in “W.” maintain marvelous impersonations of their real life counterparts. The only exception to this would be Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice, whose voice is an exaggerated and grating rendition of Rice’s real cadence.
At the end of the day, “W.” is a mesmerizing character study. Made and released in the last days of the Bush Administration, there was great potential for this film to be inflammatory or insensitive. As it stands, Oliver Stone looks at President Bush with a generous, sympathetic eye. But maybe the film is too simplistic in portraying Bush as a man driven solely by the need to impress his father and maintain a family legacy. Then again, maybe all biopics are too simplistic. Who’s to say?
Regardless, many men never quite find their way in this world and it’s nothing to hold against them. But not many men also become President of the United States – and maybe we can hold that against him.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Bringing Out the Dead.”
Rationalization:
That driven men driving at the wrong thing can be dangerous could be one message construed from this film. Another message could be that it is better for everyone to try and understand a person before coming to a sweeping judgment about their malevolence. There is no doubt Bush was a bad president and no doubt that decisions he made in office led to hundreds or thousands of deaths in the middle east. But you can’t rest an entire war on one man’s shoulders. Oliver Stone’s “W.” implores you to see Bush as a fallible man before a figurehead and lets you connect the dots.
Its Complicated (2009)
Review:
Like Bergman’s “Scenes from a Marriage” or Allen’s “Hannah and Her Sisters” (1986) Nancy Meyer’s “Its Complicated” suggests that love runs very deep, even in a troubled or divorced marriage. Unfortunately, “Its Complicated” is not a masterpiece like the other two, but it’s still good for a laugh.
Meryl Streep plays Jane, a ten year divorcee who has not yet found her sea legs for dating. She lives alone in a beautiful villa in California. For a living she owns and runs a successful bakery. Alec Baldwin is her enticing ex-husband Jake who has married a younger woman and is presently unhappy with the marriage. While away at their son’s graduation in New York City, circumstances allow for Jane and Jake to meet at a hotel bar, have some drinks, ruminate about old times, and inevitably they have sex.
This pairing startles Jane who has now become ‘the other woman.’ Initially she resists Jake’s seductions back in California but is soon convinced that this affair could be a welcome change to her perfunctory routines and static sex life. And then of course, the love triangle becomes complete when Jane’s architect Adam (Steve Martin) elicits a romantic interest in her. Now the question becomes clear: Can Jane rehabilitate her failed marriage or should she move on, once and for all?
Alec Baldwin does a tremendous job in “Its Complicated.” Usually Meryl Streep is an indomitable presence in her films, but Baldwin here gives her a run for her money. Steve Martin also does a good job here in playing the nice and low key Adam. I like Steve Martin so much more when he pairs down his energy. When he’s acting in a comedic frenzy, I usually end up feel dazed and weary of him. John Krasinksi also does a good job of playing a son-in-law to be who knows more than he should.
As Romcoms go, I find movies like “Its Complicated” more interesting. When they deal with middle aged people rather than twenty somethings, films tend to hit upon deeper issues of love and fidelity. If they are written well, middle aged characters tend to have a better grasp on life and what it means to need and want and lose love. They have a certain earnest quality that seems trite in the young, beautiful faces of a typical Romcom. This is why I prefer Woody Allen’s romantic comedies to almost all others.
“Its Complicated” is fun and enjoyable. You can see where it’s heading from a mile away but if you can overlook that and just enjoy some good ol’ Alec Baldwin, you’ll have a nice time.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “My Cousin Vinny”
Rationalization:
You know when you’re at home and its raining out, you don’t really want to read so you turn on the TV knowing that there certainly will be something on to appease your lethargy and you got to HBO or Showtime and there’s a movie on and you go “Oh yea, this movie” and though you’re not that committed to the idea of watching it, you get sucked in and wind up watching the whole thing? That’s this movie.
Like Bergman’s “Scenes from a Marriage” or Allen’s “Hannah and Her Sisters” (1986) Nancy Meyer’s “Its Complicated” suggests that love runs very deep, even in a troubled or divorced marriage. Unfortunately, “Its Complicated” is not a masterpiece like the other two, but it’s still good for a laugh.
Meryl Streep plays Jane, a ten year divorcee who has not yet found her sea legs for dating. She lives alone in a beautiful villa in California. For a living she owns and runs a successful bakery. Alec Baldwin is her enticing ex-husband Jake who has married a younger woman and is presently unhappy with the marriage. While away at their son’s graduation in New York City, circumstances allow for Jane and Jake to meet at a hotel bar, have some drinks, ruminate about old times, and inevitably they have sex.
This pairing startles Jane who has now become ‘the other woman.’ Initially she resists Jake’s seductions back in California but is soon convinced that this affair could be a welcome change to her perfunctory routines and static sex life. And then of course, the love triangle becomes complete when Jane’s architect Adam (Steve Martin) elicits a romantic interest in her. Now the question becomes clear: Can Jane rehabilitate her failed marriage or should she move on, once and for all?
Alec Baldwin does a tremendous job in “Its Complicated.” Usually Meryl Streep is an indomitable presence in her films, but Baldwin here gives her a run for her money. Steve Martin also does a good job here in playing the nice and low key Adam. I like Steve Martin so much more when he pairs down his energy. When he’s acting in a comedic frenzy, I usually end up feel dazed and weary of him. John Krasinksi also does a good job of playing a son-in-law to be who knows more than he should.
As Romcoms go, I find movies like “Its Complicated” more interesting. When they deal with middle aged people rather than twenty somethings, films tend to hit upon deeper issues of love and fidelity. If they are written well, middle aged characters tend to have a better grasp on life and what it means to need and want and lose love. They have a certain earnest quality that seems trite in the young, beautiful faces of a typical Romcom. This is why I prefer Woody Allen’s romantic comedies to almost all others.
“Its Complicated” is fun and enjoyable. You can see where it’s heading from a mile away but if you can overlook that and just enjoy some good ol’ Alec Baldwin, you’ll have a nice time.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “My Cousin Vinny”
Rationalization:
You know when you’re at home and its raining out, you don’t really want to read so you turn on the TV knowing that there certainly will be something on to appease your lethargy and you got to HBO or Showtime and there’s a movie on and you go “Oh yea, this movie” and though you’re not that committed to the idea of watching it, you get sucked in and wind up watching the whole thing? That’s this movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)