Revew:
“Capitalism: A Love Story” is the latest installment in Michael Moore’s ongoing populist critiques of America as it stands today. I’ll admit outright that I usually agree with the points that Moore is making in his films but I also must acknowledge I realize his films walk a fine line between documentary and propaganda.
In “Capitalism,” Moore goes after the hot topic of our nation’s Economy and its current downward inclinations. He explores how the drive to maximize profits is a universal trend in corporate America and how that maximization often comes at the expense of the American public.
There is no doubt that money causes people to do outlandish and selfish things, be it on personal or global scales. Moore goes into some disturbing case studies including a privatized juvenile correction facility where a judge would receive payments for every child he sent to the facility. This of course led to many high schoolers having months of their lives taken away and have their records forever tarnished, all for the sake of a judge’s monetary gain.
Moore also emphasizes the most recent financial crisis. In some humorous moments he tries to have experts explain the housing bubble and the precarious financial maneuverings that caused it. No one is successful with a succinct explanation.
I must admit, I agree with the message of this film but I think Moore bites off more than he can chew here. I think he ran into a similar problem with his “Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004). There’s so much to cover that the film inherently becomes a little jumbled and tangential. Its not that what he’s saying doesn’t make sense, its just that his case studies in capitalism are so disparate, its hard to take away anything more than “Greed = Bad.”
His more successful films like “Sicko” (2007) and “Bowling for Columbine” (2002) each pick up one hot issue (healthcare and gun control, respectively) and explore it in focused detail. “Capitalism” tries to do this too, but the problem here is that the issue of capitalism really serves as an umbrella for a vast stew of issues. “Capitalism” is good, but its no powerhouse for economic reform.
Rating:
On a scale of one to ‘Casablanca’ this film is a “Horton Hears a Who” (2008)
Rationalization:
I enjoyed it enough to say that I’d sit through this film again. I think it says a lot of informative, important things. But with most documentaries like this I look for a good thesis. That capitalism begets financial evils is not news to me. Some of the specific cases are astonishing, I’ll admit. But when Moore is pointing his fingers everywhere, I tend to just lose sight of why he’s pointing fingers at all.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Son (2002)
Review:
Jean Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne's film "The Son" resonates louder in my heart and percolates in my mind the more I reflect upon it. It is at once a film that is completely mundane and deeply spiritual. I can't help but wish more people would see it or have the patience to sit through it. "The Son" does not make any direct assertions about its characters or their motivations. It trusts its audience to understand the underlying complexity of its story and realize when expectations have been derailed.
"The Son" is like a parable - told with simplicity but conceived with great meaning. It is the story of Olivier (Olivier Gourmet), a carpenter who teaches at a vocational school for boys. Olivier is a sedate man. You can sense his deep longing and isolation. But it is clear Olivier is a master carpenter and teaches it well, caring deeply for the craft and for his students.
When Francis (Morgan Marinne), a troubled teenage youth recently released from a reformatory institution, is brought to Olivier to become an apprentice Olivier explains he already has too many apprentices. He suggests the boy be taken to the welding shop. Despite this rejection, it is clear from Olivier’s actions after his first meeting with Francis that he has a keen interest in the boy.
Later that day Olivier’s ex wife (Isabella Soupart) comes to tell Olivier she is getting remarried. Their relationship seems uncomplicated but restrained; mature but sad. We don’t ever really learn the specifics of their divorce, but we do learn the catalyst of their separation, which I will not comment upon in this review. Soon after learning of his wife’s new marriage, Olivier changes his mind and decides to take on Francis after all.
That is the setup for the film. More, I will not elucidate upon. I will leave it for you to discover what’s going on with Olivier. But I will say what I think this film is about. It’s about forgiveness - deep forgiveness. Most films treat forgiveness as a mechanism for closure when in reality it’s hardly ever that. Forgiveness is not a simple action with definite parameters; it is a long, illogical process, more often encapsulated by an unconscious decision than a dramatic reconciliation.
I loved “The Son” because it explores the full breadth of forgiveness. It’s the most complicated film about forgiveness I have seen since Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” (1988) and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Olivier being a carpenter wasn’t an accident.
Rating:
On a scale of one to ‘Casablanca’ this film is a “Hiroshima Mon Amour” (1959)
Rationalization:
To create simple art that maintains great depth is a feat few artists can achieve. Many great movies have a tendency towards verbose scripts and elaborate camera work. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact I would like if if there were more movies that have the voluptuous quality of some Woody Allen or Kubrick films, but sometimes a film like “The Son” just hits you so hard that you wonder why anything as elaborate as a crane shot or CGI are necessary at all in movies.
Jean Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne's film "The Son" resonates louder in my heart and percolates in my mind the more I reflect upon it. It is at once a film that is completely mundane and deeply spiritual. I can't help but wish more people would see it or have the patience to sit through it. "The Son" does not make any direct assertions about its characters or their motivations. It trusts its audience to understand the underlying complexity of its story and realize when expectations have been derailed.
"The Son" is like a parable - told with simplicity but conceived with great meaning. It is the story of Olivier (Olivier Gourmet), a carpenter who teaches at a vocational school for boys. Olivier is a sedate man. You can sense his deep longing and isolation. But it is clear Olivier is a master carpenter and teaches it well, caring deeply for the craft and for his students.
When Francis (Morgan Marinne), a troubled teenage youth recently released from a reformatory institution, is brought to Olivier to become an apprentice Olivier explains he already has too many apprentices. He suggests the boy be taken to the welding shop. Despite this rejection, it is clear from Olivier’s actions after his first meeting with Francis that he has a keen interest in the boy.
Later that day Olivier’s ex wife (Isabella Soupart) comes to tell Olivier she is getting remarried. Their relationship seems uncomplicated but restrained; mature but sad. We don’t ever really learn the specifics of their divorce, but we do learn the catalyst of their separation, which I will not comment upon in this review. Soon after learning of his wife’s new marriage, Olivier changes his mind and decides to take on Francis after all.
That is the setup for the film. More, I will not elucidate upon. I will leave it for you to discover what’s going on with Olivier. But I will say what I think this film is about. It’s about forgiveness - deep forgiveness. Most films treat forgiveness as a mechanism for closure when in reality it’s hardly ever that. Forgiveness is not a simple action with definite parameters; it is a long, illogical process, more often encapsulated by an unconscious decision than a dramatic reconciliation.
I loved “The Son” because it explores the full breadth of forgiveness. It’s the most complicated film about forgiveness I have seen since Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” (1988) and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Olivier being a carpenter wasn’t an accident.
Rating:
On a scale of one to ‘Casablanca’ this film is a “Hiroshima Mon Amour” (1959)
Rationalization:
To create simple art that maintains great depth is a feat few artists can achieve. Many great movies have a tendency towards verbose scripts and elaborate camera work. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact I would like if if there were more movies that have the voluptuous quality of some Woody Allen or Kubrick films, but sometimes a film like “The Son” just hits you so hard that you wonder why anything as elaborate as a crane shot or CGI are necessary at all in movies.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Date Night (2010)
At long last the television God’s have listened to the prayers of the viewership and given us what we demand: a team up of TV’s comedy extraordinaires Tina Fey and Steve Carell. Finally, Tina and Steve are not divided by their repective shows and commercial breaks. Finally, Liz Lemon can have repartee with Michael Scott. Finally, we can witness great talents building off each other rather than competing with one another. Finally. And the offering of the God’s is “Date Night,” a pretty damn funny screwball comedy.
Admittedly, “Date Night” is not a work of tremendous genius or a comedy that will forever change the course of the genre, but what it does, it does well – namely it makes us laugh. Tina Fey and Steve Carell play Phil and Claire Foster, a married couple who have settled into the tired routines of work, kids, and sleep. For Phil and Claire, the spark of spontaneity that ignites all romance has long since been put out – and they know it, and it scares them. In an attempt to recharge their old flame, they decide abandon their usual routines and head into New York City one night to try a hot new restaurant. When it becomes clear that they will not be seated without a reservation, Phil and Claire take the reservation of a no-show couple, the Tripplehorns.
After a bottle or two of wine, Phil and Claire are approached by two thuggish looking men and are asked to follow them out of the restaurant. Believing the Fosters are the Tripplehorns, the men demand Claire and Phil turn over a flash drive that they know nothing about. This case of mistaken identity sets off a series of actions and escapes that prove to be at once hilarious and fun. We meet the real Tripplehorns, a tough mob boss, and a former client of Claire’s, a security expert named Holbrooke (Mark Wahlberg) who never wears a shirt.
One of “Date Night’s” strengths is its employment of the secondary characters. Too often in comedies, a secondary character will overshadow the stars and usurp the significance of the main action. Here, the supporting actors like Wahlberg, Ray Liota, James Franco, and Mila Kunis are used in superb moderation. None of their characters stays longer than necessary and so they remain as funny as they can possibly be. Perhaps this is the strength of the screenplay by Josh Klausner or the wise comedic discretion of director Shawn Levy, but whatever it is, it works.
“Date Night” also has the funniest car chase I have seen since “The Blues Brothers” (1980).
And then there is Steve and Tina, who, as per usual, are remarkably funny. They know how to balance real emotions with madcap zaniness. It must be hard to do. We believe the Fosters could be real people, a real couple, and that is why the crazy action that follows them on their date night is so funny. I really hope Tina and Steve will be paired up again in a movie. They could be the next Hepburn and Tracey, albeit not lovers (or so we think)…
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “The Goonies” (1986)
Rationalization:
You gotta give props to a film that doesn’t stretch itself beyond what it is. “Date Night” is an action comedy that realizes how absurd its action is and yet watches with seriousness. There are no false gimmicks to try and make “Date Night” hipper than it is. We simply have great talents at work here that produce a light comedy that makes us laugh real good. I expected nothing more from “Date Night” than to laugh and feel I had not wasted my two hours. I was not disappointed.
Admittedly, “Date Night” is not a work of tremendous genius or a comedy that will forever change the course of the genre, but what it does, it does well – namely it makes us laugh. Tina Fey and Steve Carell play Phil and Claire Foster, a married couple who have settled into the tired routines of work, kids, and sleep. For Phil and Claire, the spark of spontaneity that ignites all romance has long since been put out – and they know it, and it scares them. In an attempt to recharge their old flame, they decide abandon their usual routines and head into New York City one night to try a hot new restaurant. When it becomes clear that they will not be seated without a reservation, Phil and Claire take the reservation of a no-show couple, the Tripplehorns.
After a bottle or two of wine, Phil and Claire are approached by two thuggish looking men and are asked to follow them out of the restaurant. Believing the Fosters are the Tripplehorns, the men demand Claire and Phil turn over a flash drive that they know nothing about. This case of mistaken identity sets off a series of actions and escapes that prove to be at once hilarious and fun. We meet the real Tripplehorns, a tough mob boss, and a former client of Claire’s, a security expert named Holbrooke (Mark Wahlberg) who never wears a shirt.
One of “Date Night’s” strengths is its employment of the secondary characters. Too often in comedies, a secondary character will overshadow the stars and usurp the significance of the main action. Here, the supporting actors like Wahlberg, Ray Liota, James Franco, and Mila Kunis are used in superb moderation. None of their characters stays longer than necessary and so they remain as funny as they can possibly be. Perhaps this is the strength of the screenplay by Josh Klausner or the wise comedic discretion of director Shawn Levy, but whatever it is, it works.
“Date Night” also has the funniest car chase I have seen since “The Blues Brothers” (1980).
And then there is Steve and Tina, who, as per usual, are remarkably funny. They know how to balance real emotions with madcap zaniness. It must be hard to do. We believe the Fosters could be real people, a real couple, and that is why the crazy action that follows them on their date night is so funny. I really hope Tina and Steve will be paired up again in a movie. They could be the next Hepburn and Tracey, albeit not lovers (or so we think)…
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “The Goonies” (1986)
Rationalization:
You gotta give props to a film that doesn’t stretch itself beyond what it is. “Date Night” is an action comedy that realizes how absurd its action is and yet watches with seriousness. There are no false gimmicks to try and make “Date Night” hipper than it is. We simply have great talents at work here that produce a light comedy that makes us laugh real good. I expected nothing more from “Date Night” than to laugh and feel I had not wasted my two hours. I was not disappointed.
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)
Review:
Wes Anderson’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is the director’s first foray into animation and what a fabulous success it is! I will maybe be the first and only one to ever admit such a thing but here I go: I think I liked it better than “Up” (2009). Yes, “Up” is a beautiful and very touching film, a masterpiece of computer animation and a palette of real emotions, but “Fantastic Mr. Fox” has that ‘je ne sais quoi’ that leaves my mind a-flutter after a viewing. Perhaps that ‘je ne sais quoi’ is simply a genuine charisma or maybe its a reassuring quirkiness. Perhaps it’s simply a well fleshed out story with believable anthropomorphic characters. I don’t know really. It just left me with a lot more to think about than most animated films. I loved this film. It is Wes Anderson’s best since “The Royal Tenenbaums” (2001).
Based on the children’s book by Roald Dahl “Fantastic Mr. Fox” spins the tale of Mr. Fox (George Clooney), a natural born chicken thief who is persuaded by his wife, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) to leave behind his life of crime. Several years later though, Mr. Fox is feeling that itch to burglarize again. In his new scheme he involves opossum Kylie (Wallace Wolodarsky) and his capable nephew Kristofferson (Eric Anderson). He plans to rob three mean farmers, Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. All the while he is keeping his reactivated life of crime a secret from his disapproving wife and his odd ball son Ash (Jason Schwartzman).
The basic story from Dahl’s beloved book is maintained in the film, but Anderson in his typical fashion of writing and filming, infuses a lot of humorous eccentricities and style into the story. For instance, Mr. Fox’s nephew Kristofferson (who is not in Dahl’s book) regularly meditates. In a moment where his cousin Ash insults him, Krisofferson withholds his anger and states, “I am going to go meditate for half an hour.” Most writers would have had Kristofferson blow up in an angry fit, or have him cry and run off; how rare, and how specific, to have a character with such faculty over his emotions (especially in a cartoon). Its moments like this that makes “Fantastic Mr. Fox” sparkle.
The animation is also superb and lends itself well to the story. It is stop motion animation - the best (i.e. most fitting) stop motion I have seen since “A Nightmare Before Christmas” (1994). The detail is effervescent. I love a scene in which one of the farmers, digging through the Fox’s layer finds a landscape painting by Mrs. Fox. He holds it up and regards it with such antipathy. If a real person found a landscape painting by a fox they’d be baffled and amazed.
And ultimately, I love the sense of melancholy that runs throughout the movie. It’s very grownup at heart. All of Wes Anderson’s movies are very funny but very melancholy. There’s great sadness behind a lot of his funniest characters. Here, Meryl Streep provides the true melancholia of the film. She is at a loss to change her husband’s ways and she knows it.
I like that this film does not shy away from adult humor. There are cigarettes, alcohol, knife fights, cussing, and serious questions of identity. I found myself very moved the film and wanting to buy it right away. That so rarely happens.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Roman Holiday” (1953)
Rationalization:
“Roman Holiday” (1953) is a film I have always respected for not giving us the easy, expected ending. Instead it gives us the right ending and so the rest of the story is rendered more significant. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is similar. I respect it for going way above and beyond what it could have been. Some other director or writer would have given us a straight rendition of Dahl’s story but Wes Anderson dares to take the right liberties with it. He breathes new and original life into his characters and so too breathes life into anyone who watches this film.
Wes Anderson’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is the director’s first foray into animation and what a fabulous success it is! I will maybe be the first and only one to ever admit such a thing but here I go: I think I liked it better than “Up” (2009). Yes, “Up” is a beautiful and very touching film, a masterpiece of computer animation and a palette of real emotions, but “Fantastic Mr. Fox” has that ‘je ne sais quoi’ that leaves my mind a-flutter after a viewing. Perhaps that ‘je ne sais quoi’ is simply a genuine charisma or maybe its a reassuring quirkiness. Perhaps it’s simply a well fleshed out story with believable anthropomorphic characters. I don’t know really. It just left me with a lot more to think about than most animated films. I loved this film. It is Wes Anderson’s best since “The Royal Tenenbaums” (2001).
Based on the children’s book by Roald Dahl “Fantastic Mr. Fox” spins the tale of Mr. Fox (George Clooney), a natural born chicken thief who is persuaded by his wife, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) to leave behind his life of crime. Several years later though, Mr. Fox is feeling that itch to burglarize again. In his new scheme he involves opossum Kylie (Wallace Wolodarsky) and his capable nephew Kristofferson (Eric Anderson). He plans to rob three mean farmers, Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. All the while he is keeping his reactivated life of crime a secret from his disapproving wife and his odd ball son Ash (Jason Schwartzman).
The basic story from Dahl’s beloved book is maintained in the film, but Anderson in his typical fashion of writing and filming, infuses a lot of humorous eccentricities and style into the story. For instance, Mr. Fox’s nephew Kristofferson (who is not in Dahl’s book) regularly meditates. In a moment where his cousin Ash insults him, Krisofferson withholds his anger and states, “I am going to go meditate for half an hour.” Most writers would have had Kristofferson blow up in an angry fit, or have him cry and run off; how rare, and how specific, to have a character with such faculty over his emotions (especially in a cartoon). Its moments like this that makes “Fantastic Mr. Fox” sparkle.
The animation is also superb and lends itself well to the story. It is stop motion animation - the best (i.e. most fitting) stop motion I have seen since “A Nightmare Before Christmas” (1994). The detail is effervescent. I love a scene in which one of the farmers, digging through the Fox’s layer finds a landscape painting by Mrs. Fox. He holds it up and regards it with such antipathy. If a real person found a landscape painting by a fox they’d be baffled and amazed.
And ultimately, I love the sense of melancholy that runs throughout the movie. It’s very grownup at heart. All of Wes Anderson’s movies are very funny but very melancholy. There’s great sadness behind a lot of his funniest characters. Here, Meryl Streep provides the true melancholia of the film. She is at a loss to change her husband’s ways and she knows it.
I like that this film does not shy away from adult humor. There are cigarettes, alcohol, knife fights, cussing, and serious questions of identity. I found myself very moved the film and wanting to buy it right away. That so rarely happens.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Roman Holiday” (1953)
Rationalization:
“Roman Holiday” (1953) is a film I have always respected for not giving us the easy, expected ending. Instead it gives us the right ending and so the rest of the story is rendered more significant. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is similar. I respect it for going way above and beyond what it could have been. Some other director or writer would have given us a straight rendition of Dahl’s story but Wes Anderson dares to take the right liberties with it. He breathes new and original life into his characters and so too breathes life into anyone who watches this film.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Hot Tub Time Machine (2010)
Review:
Like “Snakes on a Plane” (2006) and “Citizen Kane” (1941) before it, “Hot Tub Time Machine” delivers exactly what the title promises. It’s a zany comedy that tries to be no holds bar but doesn’t quite succeed on the level I wanted it to succeed. Yes, it’s actually pretty funny. I found myself laughing a good deal. But at the end of the day, it felt a little underdeveloped. Perhaps the best part of this movie is in fact the title. The second best part would probably be the fact that someone thought up the rediculous concept of a hot tub time machine. But really, when you think about it, why is a hot tub time machine more ridiculous than a DeLorean time machine? Actually, who am I kidding? It’s way more ridiculous.
So on to the story. Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Webber) and Lou (Rob Corddry) in the 1980s were best friends partying it up at the hottest ski lodge ever. In their adult lives they have drifted apart and become unhappy, unsuccessful bores. Adam is a down and out insurance salesman. Nick has given up his dreams of becoming a famous musician to work at a salon for dogs and Lou has become an alcoholic divorcee. One night during a drunken rock out in his garage, Lou accidentally gives himself carbon monoxide poisoning. Thinking this was a suicide attempt, his doctor’s recommend that Adam and Nick keep an eye on Lou. And so, Adam, Nick, and Lou, accompanied by Adam’s dorky nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) head back up to that ski lodge from their lost youth to bond and cheer each other up. When they arrive though they find that the lodge has not been kept up over the years. It is a musty old place with a one armed bellboy. Even the hot tub has a dead opossum in it.
But nevertheless, the four men decide to get plastered in the hot tub and as tends to happen when you get drunk in a hot tub, they get transported back in time. And so begins the age old foibles of time travel. They realize they cannot alter anything; They must break up with the same girls they broke up with in the past, they must get into the same fights, the same hook ups. But this of course turns out to be a hard roster to follow, especially since Adam, Nick, and Lou know how their lives turn out if they relive their past in the same way.
Some of the ensuing hilarity is purely excellent. I especially liked Nick’s inappropriate phone call to his nine-year old wife. But some of scenarios and jokes didn’t quite work for me. In a movie called “Hot Tub Time Machine” you should be going for broke. There should be nothing redemptive or reassuring about the situation. That’s why I like the movies “Caddyshack” (1980) and “Stripes” (1982) which are in a similar spirit as “Hot Tub” but never move to restore the lives of their characters.
In “Hot Tub,” which is a movie rife with cursing, drugs, sex, and delusions, I wish that they had stayed in the 80s longer than one night and that the friends coming to terms with each other element had been complete eradicated. I wish they would just have gotten into crazy trouble and confusion and left it at that. Also, Chevy Chase wasn’t very funny. Yet still, I laughed. If you see “Hot Tub Time Machine” be in a silly mood, and you shall not be let down.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “E La Nave Va” (1986)
Rationalization:
Not to say this movie isn’t good, but I feel that it doesn’t quite know what it is at times; whether it should try to bestow some meaning to the events its depicting or whether it should just be a ridiculous comedy. When I went in to see “Hot Tub Time Machine” I wanted pure irreverence. What I got was a tad deluded.
Like “Snakes on a Plane” (2006) and “Citizen Kane” (1941) before it, “Hot Tub Time Machine” delivers exactly what the title promises. It’s a zany comedy that tries to be no holds bar but doesn’t quite succeed on the level I wanted it to succeed. Yes, it’s actually pretty funny. I found myself laughing a good deal. But at the end of the day, it felt a little underdeveloped. Perhaps the best part of this movie is in fact the title. The second best part would probably be the fact that someone thought up the rediculous concept of a hot tub time machine. But really, when you think about it, why is a hot tub time machine more ridiculous than a DeLorean time machine? Actually, who am I kidding? It’s way more ridiculous.
So on to the story. Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Webber) and Lou (Rob Corddry) in the 1980s were best friends partying it up at the hottest ski lodge ever. In their adult lives they have drifted apart and become unhappy, unsuccessful bores. Adam is a down and out insurance salesman. Nick has given up his dreams of becoming a famous musician to work at a salon for dogs and Lou has become an alcoholic divorcee. One night during a drunken rock out in his garage, Lou accidentally gives himself carbon monoxide poisoning. Thinking this was a suicide attempt, his doctor’s recommend that Adam and Nick keep an eye on Lou. And so, Adam, Nick, and Lou, accompanied by Adam’s dorky nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) head back up to that ski lodge from their lost youth to bond and cheer each other up. When they arrive though they find that the lodge has not been kept up over the years. It is a musty old place with a one armed bellboy. Even the hot tub has a dead opossum in it.
But nevertheless, the four men decide to get plastered in the hot tub and as tends to happen when you get drunk in a hot tub, they get transported back in time. And so begins the age old foibles of time travel. They realize they cannot alter anything; They must break up with the same girls they broke up with in the past, they must get into the same fights, the same hook ups. But this of course turns out to be a hard roster to follow, especially since Adam, Nick, and Lou know how their lives turn out if they relive their past in the same way.
Some of the ensuing hilarity is purely excellent. I especially liked Nick’s inappropriate phone call to his nine-year old wife. But some of scenarios and jokes didn’t quite work for me. In a movie called “Hot Tub Time Machine” you should be going for broke. There should be nothing redemptive or reassuring about the situation. That’s why I like the movies “Caddyshack” (1980) and “Stripes” (1982) which are in a similar spirit as “Hot Tub” but never move to restore the lives of their characters.
In “Hot Tub,” which is a movie rife with cursing, drugs, sex, and delusions, I wish that they had stayed in the 80s longer than one night and that the friends coming to terms with each other element had been complete eradicated. I wish they would just have gotten into crazy trouble and confusion and left it at that. Also, Chevy Chase wasn’t very funny. Yet still, I laughed. If you see “Hot Tub Time Machine” be in a silly mood, and you shall not be let down.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “E La Nave Va” (1986)
Rationalization:
Not to say this movie isn’t good, but I feel that it doesn’t quite know what it is at times; whether it should try to bestow some meaning to the events its depicting or whether it should just be a ridiculous comedy. When I went in to see “Hot Tub Time Machine” I wanted pure irreverence. What I got was a tad deluded.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Grey Gardens (2009)
Review:
In “The Lion King” (1994) Zazu assures Mufasa that every family has an odd duck like Mufasa’s brother Scar. Zazu says “There’s one in every family sire. Two in mine actually. And they always manage to ruin special occasions.” Oh, how Zazu is right. My family has an odd duck. So does yours. And so did Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. And like Zazu, she had two.
Edith “Big Edie” Bouvier Beale and her daughter Edith “Little Edie” Bouvier Beale were the black sheep of the Bouvier family. Reclusive, hoarding, and unrelentingly odd, the two women became the subject of the lauded documentary “Grey Gardens” (1975). But many people felt the documentary did not explain these two women enough. They were from a well-to-do family. They were related to the first lady. They once had everything. How did they end up living in such squalor? And how did they become so damn strange?
“Grey Gardens” (2009) is an attempt to explain this odd mother-daughter relationship. Directed by Michael Sucsy, the film has two parallel plotlines. One story chronicles the development of the original documentary; how Albert Maysles (Arye Gross) and David Maysles (Justin Louis) came to the Beale’s dilapidated estate and asked if they could film how they lived. Little Edie (Drew Barrymore) agrees to let the young men film she and her mother, inspired by the inept belief this will launch her movie career.
The other story line chronicles the class descent of Little and Big Edie. Both women in their heyday were natural hostesses - a little peculiar, but generally good fun. In the 1940s they lived an extravagant lifestyle of parties and luxury at Grey Gardens, supported wholly by Big Edie’s lawyer husband Phelan Beale (Ken Howard). When Beale divorces Edie for her expensive and promiscuous lifestyle it is the beginning of the end for the mother and daughter. Big Edie, in a strange attempt to maintain her class status stays on at Grey Gardens, even though the small allowance she receives from Beale can hardly maintain the household.
Little Edie meanwhile moves to New York City where she attempts to jumpstart a career in show business. She engages in an affair with a married man and when her father finds out, Edie finds herself exiled to Grey Gardens with her mother. It should also be noted Edie has alopecia. Soon after she moves back to Grey Gardens her hair begins to fall out. Perhaps afraid to return to society with a bald head or afflicted with laziness or the loss of her status and dreams, Little Edie decides to stay on with her mother indefinitely at Grey Gardens.
And in time, it seems the two of them were all but forgotten by the rest of their family. Extreme isolation and utter disregard for housekeeping finally transformed Big and Little Edie into paragons of eccentrics.
Drew Barrymore is the undoubted star of the film. Her depiction of Little Edie embodies the real life Edie so well, at times it’s hard to recognize its really just Drew Barrymore. Jessica Lange also does a stellar job as usual, portraying Big Edie in middle and old age.
“Grey Gardens” has the intention of dispelling the mystery of the Beales and how they came to be as they are depicted in the documentary. In that regard, I think the film fails – as it must – because there’s no rational explanation for why these women ended up this way. How does anyone let their house get to a point where they willingly cohabitate with raccoons? I don’t know, but it happens. We will never know exactly why Little Edie stayed on with her mother for so long and how they lived that way. The Beale’s are bound to remain a mystery, as all eccentrics must.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a little less than “Sling Blade” (1986).
Rationalization:
I like that some people are beyond explanation. They seem to exist to point out that you are in no way as extreme as you thought. Sometimes that’s reassuring, other times its discouraging. I haven’t seen the documentary “Grey Gardens” but now I intend to. I imagine the documentary is more potent than this film because it’s the evidence that these were real people who actually lived in such a way. As it stands though, this is a somewhat illuminating film with great performances. Bravo Drew Barrymore. You’ve finally shaken off “E.T.”
In “The Lion King” (1994) Zazu assures Mufasa that every family has an odd duck like Mufasa’s brother Scar. Zazu says “There’s one in every family sire. Two in mine actually. And they always manage to ruin special occasions.” Oh, how Zazu is right. My family has an odd duck. So does yours. And so did Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. And like Zazu, she had two.
Edith “Big Edie” Bouvier Beale and her daughter Edith “Little Edie” Bouvier Beale were the black sheep of the Bouvier family. Reclusive, hoarding, and unrelentingly odd, the two women became the subject of the lauded documentary “Grey Gardens” (1975). But many people felt the documentary did not explain these two women enough. They were from a well-to-do family. They were related to the first lady. They once had everything. How did they end up living in such squalor? And how did they become so damn strange?
“Grey Gardens” (2009) is an attempt to explain this odd mother-daughter relationship. Directed by Michael Sucsy, the film has two parallel plotlines. One story chronicles the development of the original documentary; how Albert Maysles (Arye Gross) and David Maysles (Justin Louis) came to the Beale’s dilapidated estate and asked if they could film how they lived. Little Edie (Drew Barrymore) agrees to let the young men film she and her mother, inspired by the inept belief this will launch her movie career.
The other story line chronicles the class descent of Little and Big Edie. Both women in their heyday were natural hostesses - a little peculiar, but generally good fun. In the 1940s they lived an extravagant lifestyle of parties and luxury at Grey Gardens, supported wholly by Big Edie’s lawyer husband Phelan Beale (Ken Howard). When Beale divorces Edie for her expensive and promiscuous lifestyle it is the beginning of the end for the mother and daughter. Big Edie, in a strange attempt to maintain her class status stays on at Grey Gardens, even though the small allowance she receives from Beale can hardly maintain the household.
Little Edie meanwhile moves to New York City where she attempts to jumpstart a career in show business. She engages in an affair with a married man and when her father finds out, Edie finds herself exiled to Grey Gardens with her mother. It should also be noted Edie has alopecia. Soon after she moves back to Grey Gardens her hair begins to fall out. Perhaps afraid to return to society with a bald head or afflicted with laziness or the loss of her status and dreams, Little Edie decides to stay on with her mother indefinitely at Grey Gardens.
And in time, it seems the two of them were all but forgotten by the rest of their family. Extreme isolation and utter disregard for housekeeping finally transformed Big and Little Edie into paragons of eccentrics.
Drew Barrymore is the undoubted star of the film. Her depiction of Little Edie embodies the real life Edie so well, at times it’s hard to recognize its really just Drew Barrymore. Jessica Lange also does a stellar job as usual, portraying Big Edie in middle and old age.
“Grey Gardens” has the intention of dispelling the mystery of the Beales and how they came to be as they are depicted in the documentary. In that regard, I think the film fails – as it must – because there’s no rational explanation for why these women ended up this way. How does anyone let their house get to a point where they willingly cohabitate with raccoons? I don’t know, but it happens. We will never know exactly why Little Edie stayed on with her mother for so long and how they lived that way. The Beale’s are bound to remain a mystery, as all eccentrics must.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a little less than “Sling Blade” (1986).
Rationalization:
I like that some people are beyond explanation. They seem to exist to point out that you are in no way as extreme as you thought. Sometimes that’s reassuring, other times its discouraging. I haven’t seen the documentary “Grey Gardens” but now I intend to. I imagine the documentary is more potent than this film because it’s the evidence that these were real people who actually lived in such a way. As it stands though, this is a somewhat illuminating film with great performances. Bravo Drew Barrymore. You’ve finally shaken off “E.T.”
My Left Foot (1989)
Review:
The film that launched the career of Daniel Day Lewis, one of today’s greatest living actors, is a small movie with a very big performance at its core. “My Left Foot” is the biopic of Christy Brown, famed Irish painter and writer who was born with severe cerebral palsy. The only part of his body that Christy Brown had any control over was his left foot and with that left foot he painted haunting portraits and typed his life story. It is an impressive life story, made all the more impressive by how improbable it is.
Christy Brown was born in the slums of Dublin to a large, poor family. Instead of being sent away to a home or becoming a horrible burden to his family, Christy was integrated into his family’s life. In “My Left Foot” these scenes are depicted with much warmth and good humor. As a child Christy was carried up and down stairs by his parents, neighborhood children wheeled him around in a makeshift cart, and in his teenage years he even became an effective goalie for street soccer games.
In one excellent scene, the young Christy picks up a piece of chalk with his left foot and scribbles out the word ‘mother’ on the floor. His whole family is shocked to learn that Christy is an intelligent being, capable of learning and expression. Brenda Fricker plays Christy’s mother with the heartiness and warmth of a mother who loves unconditionally. Perhaps she is the only one who doesn’t seem surprised by Christy’s talents. She knew all along that Christy was more than just a crippled child.
In his later years, a compassionate doctor, Eileen Cole (Fiona Shaw), gives Christy speech therapy and physical therapy. Eileen is instrumental in arranging for Christy’s first art exhibit and his subsequent fame. She also instills in Christy a great love, one that she can’t quite return.
The most significant aspect of “My Left Foot” is Daniel Day Lewis’s performance as Christy. He is completely convincing as a man with cerebral palsy. The performance is in fact so consuming that little else in the film resonates with the same power. There are other great performances in this movie and wonderful little details, but they all seem to fade into the background. It is my theory that if you removed Day Lewis’s performance you’d see that this is a well balanced, even flowing, good film on the whole.
Day Lewis’s performance is so good it’s almost too good. It is the centerpiece of the film but it distracts from everything good that’s in its orbit.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” (2003).
Rationalization:
Just because the success of these films is predicated on the merits of one performance within the film. And also because if you look beyond those performances you can see a perfectly good movie that doesn’t get as much credit as that one performance in it. With “My Left Foot” I loved the performances of Brenda Fricker, Fiona Shaw, and Ray McAnally (as Christy’s father). These performances are part and parcel of Day Lewis’s great success. Sometimes one role in a movie can be like a black hole for everything else in the movie and its just not fair.
The film that launched the career of Daniel Day Lewis, one of today’s greatest living actors, is a small movie with a very big performance at its core. “My Left Foot” is the biopic of Christy Brown, famed Irish painter and writer who was born with severe cerebral palsy. The only part of his body that Christy Brown had any control over was his left foot and with that left foot he painted haunting portraits and typed his life story. It is an impressive life story, made all the more impressive by how improbable it is.
Christy Brown was born in the slums of Dublin to a large, poor family. Instead of being sent away to a home or becoming a horrible burden to his family, Christy was integrated into his family’s life. In “My Left Foot” these scenes are depicted with much warmth and good humor. As a child Christy was carried up and down stairs by his parents, neighborhood children wheeled him around in a makeshift cart, and in his teenage years he even became an effective goalie for street soccer games.
In one excellent scene, the young Christy picks up a piece of chalk with his left foot and scribbles out the word ‘mother’ on the floor. His whole family is shocked to learn that Christy is an intelligent being, capable of learning and expression. Brenda Fricker plays Christy’s mother with the heartiness and warmth of a mother who loves unconditionally. Perhaps she is the only one who doesn’t seem surprised by Christy’s talents. She knew all along that Christy was more than just a crippled child.
In his later years, a compassionate doctor, Eileen Cole (Fiona Shaw), gives Christy speech therapy and physical therapy. Eileen is instrumental in arranging for Christy’s first art exhibit and his subsequent fame. She also instills in Christy a great love, one that she can’t quite return.
The most significant aspect of “My Left Foot” is Daniel Day Lewis’s performance as Christy. He is completely convincing as a man with cerebral palsy. The performance is in fact so consuming that little else in the film resonates with the same power. There are other great performances in this movie and wonderful little details, but they all seem to fade into the background. It is my theory that if you removed Day Lewis’s performance you’d see that this is a well balanced, even flowing, good film on the whole.
Day Lewis’s performance is so good it’s almost too good. It is the centerpiece of the film but it distracts from everything good that’s in its orbit.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” (2003).
Rationalization:
Just because the success of these films is predicated on the merits of one performance within the film. And also because if you look beyond those performances you can see a perfectly good movie that doesn’t get as much credit as that one performance in it. With “My Left Foot” I loved the performances of Brenda Fricker, Fiona Shaw, and Ray McAnally (as Christy’s father). These performances are part and parcel of Day Lewis’s great success. Sometimes one role in a movie can be like a black hole for everything else in the movie and its just not fair.
Anti-Christ (2009)
Review:
First, let me note that I’ve been watching a lot of movies with genital mutilation in them lately. I don’t know exactly what this says about me and my film selections, but suffice it to note they’ve mostly been good movies. There’s been “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover,” “Cries and Whispers,” “Teeth,” and now “Anti-Christ” and I must say, at least in the realm of graphic genital mutilation, “Anti-Christ” takes the cake.
Lars Von Trier has always been a filmmaker with extreme propensities. “Dogville” (2004) for instance was an excruciating experiment in minimalism, boredom, violence, and Americana. I personally found invigorating. Not many directors would dare what Von Trier dares. “Anti-Christ” follows suit.
Divided into a prologue, four chapters and an epilogue “Anti-Christ” tells the story of a couple demented by grief. Willem Dafoe plays a man referred to as he and Charlotte Gainsbourg plays she. In the prologue he and she are enraptured in explicit love making while their young child climbs out of its crib and falls to its death from a window. The couple is tormented by the death of their child. She is hospitalized with a debilitating depression. He, in turn, tries to ease his grief by focusing on the rehabilitation of his wife. He employs a cruel psychological treatment with she, a sadistic type of exposure therapy whereby he uncovers the source of his wife’s pain and fear and then exposes her to it.
Through some probing he finds his wife fears their cabin, called Eden, located in some remote wilderness. The two of them set out to their cabin to try and expel the pain. But the woods are a foreboding playground, filled with ominous animals and satanic omens. She is given up to mad frenzies in Eden and he continues with his vicious treatments. He and She mutually drive each other mad here and this leads to a chapter wrought with terrible sexual violence.
The violence is extreme and has made “Anti-Christ” a truly controversial film. Some critics have gone so far as to call it S&M pornography. Not so. You must measure a film’s violence with its intention and while the violence is horrific it serves an end.
I think my viewing experience of “Anti-Christ” was much enhanced by reading Roger Ebert’s theory about the meaning of the film. Ebert first points out that the literal definition of Anti-Christ means “one opposed to Christ.” In Ebert’s interpretation, the title “Anti-Christ” suggests not so much that there is an Anti-Christ in the film but that the film takes place in a world opposed to the world of Christ – meaning that Eden, instead of being a place of absolute good is a place of absolute evil. So, he and she are the Adam and Eve of an inherently evil world.
I think that’s a good interpretation. I think it also has some intriguing implications for the epilogue. I won’t give away what happens, but perhaps in the epilogue, an era of goodness begins. Just like Adam and Eve herald an evil world into existence, perhaps he and she herald in a good world by their terrible action. Just some thoughts.
“Anti-Christ” is an utterly baffling film without giving it some good thought. I’m a fan of any movie that forces you to think and so I must declare “Anti-Christ” to be a great film. So many films only require you to sit through them. “Anti-Christ” you must first endure and then puzzle over. It is not a movie for the faint of heart. But if you can see beyond the immediate violence and look to the beautiful, terrifying images you will see a movie like no movie you’ve seen before.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Blade Runner” (1982)
Rationalization:
Potent images make up the core of “Anti-Christ.” They will stay with you longer than the immediate shock of gut wrenching violence. Lars Von Trier knows how to construct an aesthetically ripe composition that evokes terror in its weirdness. I loved the animals in “Anti-Christ.” I loved the hands in the tree. I loved the woods. This is a horror movie like “The Shining” in that its not just the terrible things that happen that strike you, it is the entirety of the film. “Anti-Christ” is a fully realized composition; one for the philosophers and theologians to love and hate.
First, let me note that I’ve been watching a lot of movies with genital mutilation in them lately. I don’t know exactly what this says about me and my film selections, but suffice it to note they’ve mostly been good movies. There’s been “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover,” “Cries and Whispers,” “Teeth,” and now “Anti-Christ” and I must say, at least in the realm of graphic genital mutilation, “Anti-Christ” takes the cake.
Lars Von Trier has always been a filmmaker with extreme propensities. “Dogville” (2004) for instance was an excruciating experiment in minimalism, boredom, violence, and Americana. I personally found invigorating. Not many directors would dare what Von Trier dares. “Anti-Christ” follows suit.
Divided into a prologue, four chapters and an epilogue “Anti-Christ” tells the story of a couple demented by grief. Willem Dafoe plays a man referred to as he and Charlotte Gainsbourg plays she. In the prologue he and she are enraptured in explicit love making while their young child climbs out of its crib and falls to its death from a window. The couple is tormented by the death of their child. She is hospitalized with a debilitating depression. He, in turn, tries to ease his grief by focusing on the rehabilitation of his wife. He employs a cruel psychological treatment with she, a sadistic type of exposure therapy whereby he uncovers the source of his wife’s pain and fear and then exposes her to it.
Through some probing he finds his wife fears their cabin, called Eden, located in some remote wilderness. The two of them set out to their cabin to try and expel the pain. But the woods are a foreboding playground, filled with ominous animals and satanic omens. She is given up to mad frenzies in Eden and he continues with his vicious treatments. He and She mutually drive each other mad here and this leads to a chapter wrought with terrible sexual violence.
The violence is extreme and has made “Anti-Christ” a truly controversial film. Some critics have gone so far as to call it S&M pornography. Not so. You must measure a film’s violence with its intention and while the violence is horrific it serves an end.
I think my viewing experience of “Anti-Christ” was much enhanced by reading Roger Ebert’s theory about the meaning of the film. Ebert first points out that the literal definition of Anti-Christ means “one opposed to Christ.” In Ebert’s interpretation, the title “Anti-Christ” suggests not so much that there is an Anti-Christ in the film but that the film takes place in a world opposed to the world of Christ – meaning that Eden, instead of being a place of absolute good is a place of absolute evil. So, he and she are the Adam and Eve of an inherently evil world.
I think that’s a good interpretation. I think it also has some intriguing implications for the epilogue. I won’t give away what happens, but perhaps in the epilogue, an era of goodness begins. Just like Adam and Eve herald an evil world into existence, perhaps he and she herald in a good world by their terrible action. Just some thoughts.
“Anti-Christ” is an utterly baffling film without giving it some good thought. I’m a fan of any movie that forces you to think and so I must declare “Anti-Christ” to be a great film. So many films only require you to sit through them. “Anti-Christ” you must first endure and then puzzle over. It is not a movie for the faint of heart. But if you can see beyond the immediate violence and look to the beautiful, terrifying images you will see a movie like no movie you’ve seen before.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Blade Runner” (1982)
Rationalization:
Potent images make up the core of “Anti-Christ.” They will stay with you longer than the immediate shock of gut wrenching violence. Lars Von Trier knows how to construct an aesthetically ripe composition that evokes terror in its weirdness. I loved the animals in “Anti-Christ.” I loved the hands in the tree. I loved the woods. This is a horror movie like “The Shining” in that its not just the terrible things that happen that strike you, it is the entirety of the film. “Anti-Christ” is a fully realized composition; one for the philosophers and theologians to love and hate.
Teeth (2007)
Review:
A part of me finds it hard to believe this story hasn’t already been made into a movie. Then again, I have a severely limited knowledge of the cult films and borderline pornography that might offer such a precursor to “Teeth” (2007). In any case, to undertake a story like “Teeth” and make it successful you must be audacious and willing to shock. Thankfully, director and writer Mitchell Lichtenstein is up to the challenge and thankfully too, he makes the wise decision to play for laughs.
“Teeth” tells the story of high school student Dawn O’Keefe (Jess Weixler) who has a deep dark secret in a deep dark place. Dawn is a good student very concerned with her chaste image. She speaks at purity rallies promoting abstinence to her peers and in her personal life she shies away from anything that might arouse her sexual appetites. She keeps boys at a distance and doesn’t want to see a movie that has heavy making out in it.
Looming over the tree line of Dawn’s town are two giant smokestacks belonging to a nuclear power plant. It is never mentioned outright but it is implied that the nearby nuclear power plant is having an adverse effect on the locals. Dawn’s mother has developed cancer and Dawn…
Well, Dawn has grown teeth on her vagina. Viscious teeth. Emasculating teeth. Thus, when a male friend tries to sexually assault Dawn he learns about Vagina Dentata the hard way.
Ah yes, the age-old myth Vagina Dentata at last making its way into popular American cinema. I’m happy for it. Finally we’ve come into an age where the vagina can be referenced outright and subsequently turned into the terrifying monster in a movie. But what I really liked about “Teeth” is twofold.
1) The material is presented straight-faced but you can sense the tongue in cheek. Subsequently you laugh at a lot of the horrific emasculations.
2) It exhibits a lot of the implications of the classic monster films. For instance, the society that creates the monster is perhaps worse than the monster itself (this is an idea employed in “Frankenstein” (1931) and “King Kong” (1933) and “E.T.” (1982).
And while “Teeth” is certainly no “Frankenstein,” “King Kong,” or “E.T.” it is good homage to B movies fun. Be warned though, if you think that modesty will compel the filmmakers to not show what you can’t imagine they’d show, they do show it. Get ready.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is approximately two “Air Force One”s better than “Bubba Ho Tep” (2002)
Rationalization:
“Bubba Ho Tep” was weird and OK but ultimately too much. “Teeth” relies on time-tested horror devices, an ancient premise, and moves along confidently and at times hilariously. Will it be remembered with as much reverence as “The Shining” (1980) or “The Descent” (2005)? No. But “Teeth” will go down as one of those camp oddities that future kids will find and watch and thereafter reminisce about how in the olden days movies were so tame and silly.
A part of me finds it hard to believe this story hasn’t already been made into a movie. Then again, I have a severely limited knowledge of the cult films and borderline pornography that might offer such a precursor to “Teeth” (2007). In any case, to undertake a story like “Teeth” and make it successful you must be audacious and willing to shock. Thankfully, director and writer Mitchell Lichtenstein is up to the challenge and thankfully too, he makes the wise decision to play for laughs.
“Teeth” tells the story of high school student Dawn O’Keefe (Jess Weixler) who has a deep dark secret in a deep dark place. Dawn is a good student very concerned with her chaste image. She speaks at purity rallies promoting abstinence to her peers and in her personal life she shies away from anything that might arouse her sexual appetites. She keeps boys at a distance and doesn’t want to see a movie that has heavy making out in it.
Looming over the tree line of Dawn’s town are two giant smokestacks belonging to a nuclear power plant. It is never mentioned outright but it is implied that the nearby nuclear power plant is having an adverse effect on the locals. Dawn’s mother has developed cancer and Dawn…
Well, Dawn has grown teeth on her vagina. Viscious teeth. Emasculating teeth. Thus, when a male friend tries to sexually assault Dawn he learns about Vagina Dentata the hard way.
Ah yes, the age-old myth Vagina Dentata at last making its way into popular American cinema. I’m happy for it. Finally we’ve come into an age where the vagina can be referenced outright and subsequently turned into the terrifying monster in a movie. But what I really liked about “Teeth” is twofold.
1) The material is presented straight-faced but you can sense the tongue in cheek. Subsequently you laugh at a lot of the horrific emasculations.
2) It exhibits a lot of the implications of the classic monster films. For instance, the society that creates the monster is perhaps worse than the monster itself (this is an idea employed in “Frankenstein” (1931) and “King Kong” (1933) and “E.T.” (1982).
And while “Teeth” is certainly no “Frankenstein,” “King Kong,” or “E.T.” it is good homage to B movies fun. Be warned though, if you think that modesty will compel the filmmakers to not show what you can’t imagine they’d show, they do show it. Get ready.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is approximately two “Air Force One”s better than “Bubba Ho Tep” (2002)
Rationalization:
“Bubba Ho Tep” was weird and OK but ultimately too much. “Teeth” relies on time-tested horror devices, an ancient premise, and moves along confidently and at times hilariously. Will it be remembered with as much reverence as “The Shining” (1980) or “The Descent” (2005)? No. But “Teeth” will go down as one of those camp oddities that future kids will find and watch and thereafter reminisce about how in the olden days movies were so tame and silly.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Toy Story (1995)
Review:
Still captivating after all these years, "Toy Story" continues to capture my imagination and impress my eyes. Even in the wake of such Pixar masterpieces as "Wall-E" and "Up," it must be said that "Toy Story" holds its own. The concept that your toys are alive is a thought that has passed through every child's mind, and thus through every adult's mind as well. Its an idea that resonates with our passion to uncover secret worlds, to believe there is more out there than meets the eye. There's something enchanting about the idea - and terrifying. "Toy Story" focuses mainly on the enchanting aspect, but like other good Pixar films, it also chooses to explore the darker side of the fantasy.
But what ingratiates "Toy Story" into our minds foremost is the distinct set of characters the film introduces us to. These are not simply computer generated images, they are fully formed personalities that we can like and understand. There's Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), the toy cowboy with a pull string that makes him talk. He has been Andy's favorite toy for who knows how long. He is the undisputed leader of all the toys. Andy's other toys include a wise cracking Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), a cowardly Dinosaur (Wallace Shawn) and an oddly suggestive Little Bo Peep (Annie Potte).
All is harmonious in the world of Andy's toys. That is, until Andy gets the new hot toy, the action figure Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). Suddenly Woody's place as Andy's favorite toy is severely threatened. Buzz Lightyear is a toy deluded into believing he really is the Buzz Lightyear. But in spite of his delusions, he is everything that Woody is not. He has buttons that let him speak, he's made from sleek, shimmering plastic, and he has the confidence to believe he can fly. Lo and behold, a power struggle begins between Woody and Buzz. This struggle inevitably leads them outside the safe parameters of Andy's room and the two of them become lost toys searching for home.
The odyssey Buzz and Woody go on is fabulous. Its weird and fun. Even Odysseus probably couldn't have spun such a yarn. Woody and Buzz find themselves in a vending machine populated by hilarious three eyed aliens, then they are taken in by the cruel toy torturer Sid and so on.
It is in Sid's house that a darker exploration of living toys comes into the film. We find Sid has created an army of terrifying toy mutations that both Woody and Buzz fear. The mutations are quite eerie and very imaginative creations. Toys can be creepy just as easily as they can be jovial. The Twilight Zone and countless other mannequin stories know this, and thankfully so does Pixar.
It is in Sid's house that Buzz has his existential crisis. Realizing that he is, in fact, a toy Buzz has that all too-human-moment when you realize you are less than you thought.
"Toy Story" is the first film to ever be entirely computer animated. Even by today's standards, it looks good. The characters move smoothly and realistically, carrying real weight in their step just as their faces carry real emotion in their expressions. This film is a miraculous achievement and will likely go down in history with other landmarks in animation like "Snow White" (1937), "Fantasia" (1940) and "Beauty and the Beast" (1992).
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Jurassic Park" (1993).
Rationalization:
The film is wonderful, magical, and inspiring, a real labor of love, but what is perhaps most important about "Toy Story" is the collective importance of the films it gave rise to. Pixar has consistently produced some of the most mind bogglingly great films of the past two decades. Pixar is synonymous with Disney's current credibility. Without Pixar, Disney's output of films over the past decade would be a sad display indeed (admittedly, I have not seen "The Princess and the Frog" (2009)). I am glad "Toy Story" is still in my life though, not quite eclipsed by the later Pixar films. We must remember: "Toy Story" set the high standard of quality for Pixar films, so we must be forever grateful to it.
Still captivating after all these years, "Toy Story" continues to capture my imagination and impress my eyes. Even in the wake of such Pixar masterpieces as "Wall-E" and "Up," it must be said that "Toy Story" holds its own. The concept that your toys are alive is a thought that has passed through every child's mind, and thus through every adult's mind as well. Its an idea that resonates with our passion to uncover secret worlds, to believe there is more out there than meets the eye. There's something enchanting about the idea - and terrifying. "Toy Story" focuses mainly on the enchanting aspect, but like other good Pixar films, it also chooses to explore the darker side of the fantasy.
But what ingratiates "Toy Story" into our minds foremost is the distinct set of characters the film introduces us to. These are not simply computer generated images, they are fully formed personalities that we can like and understand. There's Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), the toy cowboy with a pull string that makes him talk. He has been Andy's favorite toy for who knows how long. He is the undisputed leader of all the toys. Andy's other toys include a wise cracking Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), a cowardly Dinosaur (Wallace Shawn) and an oddly suggestive Little Bo Peep (Annie Potte).
All is harmonious in the world of Andy's toys. That is, until Andy gets the new hot toy, the action figure Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). Suddenly Woody's place as Andy's favorite toy is severely threatened. Buzz Lightyear is a toy deluded into believing he really is the Buzz Lightyear. But in spite of his delusions, he is everything that Woody is not. He has buttons that let him speak, he's made from sleek, shimmering plastic, and he has the confidence to believe he can fly. Lo and behold, a power struggle begins between Woody and Buzz. This struggle inevitably leads them outside the safe parameters of Andy's room and the two of them become lost toys searching for home.
The odyssey Buzz and Woody go on is fabulous. Its weird and fun. Even Odysseus probably couldn't have spun such a yarn. Woody and Buzz find themselves in a vending machine populated by hilarious three eyed aliens, then they are taken in by the cruel toy torturer Sid and so on.
It is in Sid's house that a darker exploration of living toys comes into the film. We find Sid has created an army of terrifying toy mutations that both Woody and Buzz fear. The mutations are quite eerie and very imaginative creations. Toys can be creepy just as easily as they can be jovial. The Twilight Zone and countless other mannequin stories know this, and thankfully so does Pixar.
It is in Sid's house that Buzz has his existential crisis. Realizing that he is, in fact, a toy Buzz has that all too-human-moment when you realize you are less than you thought.
"Toy Story" is the first film to ever be entirely computer animated. Even by today's standards, it looks good. The characters move smoothly and realistically, carrying real weight in their step just as their faces carry real emotion in their expressions. This film is a miraculous achievement and will likely go down in history with other landmarks in animation like "Snow White" (1937), "Fantasia" (1940) and "Beauty and the Beast" (1992).
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Jurassic Park" (1993).
Rationalization:
The film is wonderful, magical, and inspiring, a real labor of love, but what is perhaps most important about "Toy Story" is the collective importance of the films it gave rise to. Pixar has consistently produced some of the most mind bogglingly great films of the past two decades. Pixar is synonymous with Disney's current credibility. Without Pixar, Disney's output of films over the past decade would be a sad display indeed (admittedly, I have not seen "The Princess and the Frog" (2009)). I am glad "Toy Story" is still in my life though, not quite eclipsed by the later Pixar films. We must remember: "Toy Story" set the high standard of quality for Pixar films, so we must be forever grateful to it.
Gorp (1980)
Review:
What a terrible movie. Whoever made this film thinking, “Wow-gee-whiz, this material is comedic” should be brought behind a seedy abandoned warehouse, lectured on the tenants of what is and is not funny, and then promptly shot. After that, if there is a God and he be a righteous God, that person will be condemned to a ring of hell in which he will be tormented by the characters of this movie in the ways that they torment each other in the film.
I admit that I have a soft spot for summer camp movies. Many of the good ones (“Meatballs” (1979) “Wet Hot American Summer” (2001)) present summer camp with a weird, nostalgic zaniness that sometimes borders on anarchy. “Gorp” is also based on that formula, but stretches it to its unfortunate extreme. It is pure anarchy – and I do not mean that in a laudatory way.
There’s not really a story. A group of guys show up at a cabin in the woods. They are to be the waiters at a nearby Jewish summer camp. We meet Kavelli (Michael Lembeck) and Bergman (Philip Casnoff), the most inane and frustrating duo since the guys who starred in “Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla” (1952 and possibly the worst film ever made).
So, we follow Kavelli and Bergman and some of the other waiters around as they hit on the pretty counselors in training and pull pranks on one another. And let me here insert what makes me so upset about this movie. When I say they “hit on the pretty counselors in training” I mean they sneak into their cabins at night with nylon stockings over their heads, peak under the girl’s covers, get undressed…the fodder of rapists-to-be. And let me here note that when I write that they “pull pranks on one another” I mean that they pull a slew of tiring, monotonous, mean-spirited, scatological, meaningless, unfunny pranks on one another. No, actually, “pranks” is too kind of a word. What these boys do to each is sociopathic.
And don’t get me started on the scene where Kavelli and Bergman drug and try to rape the camp nurse. It’s somewhat hard to offend my sensibilities, but a scene like that being passed off as humor comes close. At least in the date rape scene in “Observe and Report” (2009) you could tell the filmmakers were aware that date rape is fundamentally wrong. Here, this movie wants us to conspire with Kavelli and Bergman by condoning and laughing at the action.
“Gorp” is a movie populated with irredeemable grotesques. It tries so very hard to capture the energy and irreverence of films like “Animal House” (1978) and “Meatballs” (1979) and fails greatly. It grasps only the madness of those films, not the method. The only edifying reason you should see this film is to say, “Oh, so that’s what Dennis Quaid/Fran Drescher looked like when they were younger.”
Oh yea, did I mention Dennis Quaid and Fran Drescher are in “Gorp?”
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a two.
Rationalization:
This film is not rated a one because of one scene and one scene only. A rabbi is giving an enthusiastic speech about the Ten Commandments. We then see that he’s giving this speech to a crowd of approximately three young campers. This scene made me think of what a good movie this might have been if given some more thought and development. It could have easily juxtaposed and intermingled the spiritual side of this camp with the blasphemous lives of the staff. That might have developed into something more than the atavistic romp through amorality that is “Gorp.”
What a terrible movie. Whoever made this film thinking, “Wow-gee-whiz, this material is comedic” should be brought behind a seedy abandoned warehouse, lectured on the tenants of what is and is not funny, and then promptly shot. After that, if there is a God and he be a righteous God, that person will be condemned to a ring of hell in which he will be tormented by the characters of this movie in the ways that they torment each other in the film.
I admit that I have a soft spot for summer camp movies. Many of the good ones (“Meatballs” (1979) “Wet Hot American Summer” (2001)) present summer camp with a weird, nostalgic zaniness that sometimes borders on anarchy. “Gorp” is also based on that formula, but stretches it to its unfortunate extreme. It is pure anarchy – and I do not mean that in a laudatory way.
There’s not really a story. A group of guys show up at a cabin in the woods. They are to be the waiters at a nearby Jewish summer camp. We meet Kavelli (Michael Lembeck) and Bergman (Philip Casnoff), the most inane and frustrating duo since the guys who starred in “Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla” (1952 and possibly the worst film ever made).
So, we follow Kavelli and Bergman and some of the other waiters around as they hit on the pretty counselors in training and pull pranks on one another. And let me here insert what makes me so upset about this movie. When I say they “hit on the pretty counselors in training” I mean they sneak into their cabins at night with nylon stockings over their heads, peak under the girl’s covers, get undressed…the fodder of rapists-to-be. And let me here note that when I write that they “pull pranks on one another” I mean that they pull a slew of tiring, monotonous, mean-spirited, scatological, meaningless, unfunny pranks on one another. No, actually, “pranks” is too kind of a word. What these boys do to each is sociopathic.
And don’t get me started on the scene where Kavelli and Bergman drug and try to rape the camp nurse. It’s somewhat hard to offend my sensibilities, but a scene like that being passed off as humor comes close. At least in the date rape scene in “Observe and Report” (2009) you could tell the filmmakers were aware that date rape is fundamentally wrong. Here, this movie wants us to conspire with Kavelli and Bergman by condoning and laughing at the action.
“Gorp” is a movie populated with irredeemable grotesques. It tries so very hard to capture the energy and irreverence of films like “Animal House” (1978) and “Meatballs” (1979) and fails greatly. It grasps only the madness of those films, not the method. The only edifying reason you should see this film is to say, “Oh, so that’s what Dennis Quaid/Fran Drescher looked like when they were younger.”
Oh yea, did I mention Dennis Quaid and Fran Drescher are in “Gorp?”
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a two.
Rationalization:
This film is not rated a one because of one scene and one scene only. A rabbi is giving an enthusiastic speech about the Ten Commandments. We then see that he’s giving this speech to a crowd of approximately three young campers. This scene made me think of what a good movie this might have been if given some more thought and development. It could have easily juxtaposed and intermingled the spiritual side of this camp with the blasphemous lives of the staff. That might have developed into something more than the atavistic romp through amorality that is “Gorp.”
Taking Woodstock (2009)
Review:
Ang Lee’s “Taking Woodstock” is a harmless and competent coming of age story. Its based on the true tale of a young man who convinced his rural community to host what would become the most renowned rock concert in history. Ang Lee’s take on Woodstock is nostalgic, sympathetic and fun but it misses out on the soul of
Eliot Tiber (Henry Goodman) is the son of a poor couple who own a run down motel in upstate New York. Eliot has always been a loyal son, willing to help out the family business in whatever ways he can, in spite of his mother’s incessant penny pinching. When Eliot’s parents can’t pay the mortgage on their motel, Eliot scrambles for a solution to their financial woes. That solution, of course, is Woodstock.
Eliot contacts the festival planner, Billy (Emile Hirsch) and they set about convincing local farmer Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy) to rent his farmland out for the festival. Eventually under the right financial impetus Max agrees to let them use his land, giving Woodstock a definite home. What follows is predictable but still fun to watch – a massive population of hippies descend upon a quiet rural community that had previously been inhabited by conservative Middle American types who were not too keen on the liberal ideals of the hippie movement.
The one outstanding performance of “Taking Woodstock” is Liev Schreiber as Vilma, a transvestite who is hired as security for the Tiber’s motel during the concert. Schreiber provides excellent comic timing while remaining straight faced and in his drag the entire film. If there was a moral axis upon which “Taking Woodstock” rotates, it is likely him. He becomes a much-needed friend and mentor to Eliot.
Ultimately, “Taking Woodstock” is not Ang Lee’s masterpiece. That would likely go to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) or “Brokeback Mountain” (2005). This film is lighter fare. We get some good laughs at the inadvertent drug mishaps and a police officer who, though looking forward to clubbing some hippies, finds himself taken in by the spirit of Woodstock. There are some beautifully made scenes too, like when Eliot, his father and Vilma peaceful regard a placid lake filled with naked people bathing. And then over the trees, they hear the sound of music – Woodstock has begun.
But I think “Taking Woodstock” outstays its welcome. It’s just a little too long. I got the gist at about the 90-minute mark and it went on for another half hour. Also, the music of Woodstock is largely absent. We sadly do not see or hear Hendrix or Joplin’s performances. In the film, the concert itself is depicted as a monolithic entity, a massive all knowing unity that defied every standard America had long held itself too. I suppose that’s a good way to depict Woodstock - in all its glory and haze - but really I missed the music.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Thomas Crown Affair” (1968).
Review:
It looks good and even feels good, but after a time this film feels like a run on sentence, beating you over the head with the changes its protagonist Eliot is obviously going through during the course of Woodstock. That’s not to say it’s not a good coming of age story. It is, and I liked it fundamentally. The last shot is also marvelous and so very, very appropriate. “Taking Woodstock” takes place mostly on the periphery of the concert itself. The last shot and a few other scenes made me wish for a movie that took place deep within the concert itself. What an angelic monster it must have been.
Ang Lee’s “Taking Woodstock” is a harmless and competent coming of age story. Its based on the true tale of a young man who convinced his rural community to host what would become the most renowned rock concert in history. Ang Lee’s take on Woodstock is nostalgic, sympathetic and fun but it misses out on the soul of
Eliot Tiber (Henry Goodman) is the son of a poor couple who own a run down motel in upstate New York. Eliot has always been a loyal son, willing to help out the family business in whatever ways he can, in spite of his mother’s incessant penny pinching. When Eliot’s parents can’t pay the mortgage on their motel, Eliot scrambles for a solution to their financial woes. That solution, of course, is Woodstock.
Eliot contacts the festival planner, Billy (Emile Hirsch) and they set about convincing local farmer Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy) to rent his farmland out for the festival. Eventually under the right financial impetus Max agrees to let them use his land, giving Woodstock a definite home. What follows is predictable but still fun to watch – a massive population of hippies descend upon a quiet rural community that had previously been inhabited by conservative Middle American types who were not too keen on the liberal ideals of the hippie movement.
The one outstanding performance of “Taking Woodstock” is Liev Schreiber as Vilma, a transvestite who is hired as security for the Tiber’s motel during the concert. Schreiber provides excellent comic timing while remaining straight faced and in his drag the entire film. If there was a moral axis upon which “Taking Woodstock” rotates, it is likely him. He becomes a much-needed friend and mentor to Eliot.
Ultimately, “Taking Woodstock” is not Ang Lee’s masterpiece. That would likely go to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) or “Brokeback Mountain” (2005). This film is lighter fare. We get some good laughs at the inadvertent drug mishaps and a police officer who, though looking forward to clubbing some hippies, finds himself taken in by the spirit of Woodstock. There are some beautifully made scenes too, like when Eliot, his father and Vilma peaceful regard a placid lake filled with naked people bathing. And then over the trees, they hear the sound of music – Woodstock has begun.
But I think “Taking Woodstock” outstays its welcome. It’s just a little too long. I got the gist at about the 90-minute mark and it went on for another half hour. Also, the music of Woodstock is largely absent. We sadly do not see or hear Hendrix or Joplin’s performances. In the film, the concert itself is depicted as a monolithic entity, a massive all knowing unity that defied every standard America had long held itself too. I suppose that’s a good way to depict Woodstock - in all its glory and haze - but really I missed the music.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Thomas Crown Affair” (1968).
Review:
It looks good and even feels good, but after a time this film feels like a run on sentence, beating you over the head with the changes its protagonist Eliot is obviously going through during the course of Woodstock. That’s not to say it’s not a good coming of age story. It is, and I liked it fundamentally. The last shot is also marvelous and so very, very appropriate. “Taking Woodstock” takes place mostly on the periphery of the concert itself. The last shot and a few other scenes made me wish for a movie that took place deep within the concert itself. What an angelic monster it must have been.
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie (2004)
Review:
I admire and respect the show “Spongebob Squarepants” because it harkens back to a time when cartoons were pure energy and silliness. The actions of those old cartoons needed no explanations because they defied any plausible elucidation – bugs bunny could pull that mallet out of nowhere simply because he can pull mallets out of nowhere. To understand and enjoy “Spongebob Squarepants,” you must approach it with the same logic. Spongebob is a sea sponge that looks like a kitchen sponge because that’s how it is. He lives in a pineapple under the sea because that’s where he lives. His pet snail meows because that’s the noise it makes.
If you can wrap your head around all that, accept its weirdness and laugh at its absurdity you are ready to enjoy Spongebob and you’ll likely enjoy “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.”
Set in the fictional aquatic settlement of “Bikini Bottom,” the film begins with Spongebob believing he will soon be promoted to manager of a local fast food chain, the Krusty Krab. When his neighbor Squidward receives the promotion instead of him, Spongebob is devastated. His boss Mr. Krabs tells him that he didn’t get the promotion because he’s just a kid. This leads Spongebob to go on a hilarious ice cream bender with his best friend, a starfish named Patrick.
Meanwhile, Plankton, the evil owner of a competing fast food restaurant, steals the crown of King Neptune, king of the sea, as part of a much larger evil scheme. When King Neptune realizes his crown has been stolen, he is furious. Lo and behold, Spongebob and Patrick set off on a mission to find the crown to prove that they’re more than just kids.
This is silly stuff but its good fun and I found myself laughing a lot, sometimes in spite of myself. There are also a plethora of famous names providing voices in this film including Scarlett Johansson, Alec Baldwin, and Jeffrey Tambor. David Hasselhoff has one of the biggest laughs in a cameo appearance that could serve as a shining example of why Spongebob is so weird but also why it works.
I do think the film suffers a little in comparison with its source material. The television show “Spongebob Squarepants” is comprised of 11 minute episodes, a time duration that suits aquatic pandemonium well. At 87 minutes running time “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie” sometimes struggles to keep up its frantic weirdness and defaults into recycled material. Ah, but if you’re going to have a Spongebob movie, this one’s pretty good.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a “The Great Muppet Caper” (1981)
Rationalization:
This is fun stuff but it is by no means the height of its franchise. I’m not sure material like “Spongebob Squarepants” can be transformed into feature length. It relies so heavily on its energy and whimsy, both of which are hard things to keep up in a full-length movie. But to be fair, many kids movies lack energy and whimsy and have no originality. “The
Spongebob Squarepants Movie” has a relative abundance of all those things and so should be cherished.
I admire and respect the show “Spongebob Squarepants” because it harkens back to a time when cartoons were pure energy and silliness. The actions of those old cartoons needed no explanations because they defied any plausible elucidation – bugs bunny could pull that mallet out of nowhere simply because he can pull mallets out of nowhere. To understand and enjoy “Spongebob Squarepants,” you must approach it with the same logic. Spongebob is a sea sponge that looks like a kitchen sponge because that’s how it is. He lives in a pineapple under the sea because that’s where he lives. His pet snail meows because that’s the noise it makes.
If you can wrap your head around all that, accept its weirdness and laugh at its absurdity you are ready to enjoy Spongebob and you’ll likely enjoy “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.”
Set in the fictional aquatic settlement of “Bikini Bottom,” the film begins with Spongebob believing he will soon be promoted to manager of a local fast food chain, the Krusty Krab. When his neighbor Squidward receives the promotion instead of him, Spongebob is devastated. His boss Mr. Krabs tells him that he didn’t get the promotion because he’s just a kid. This leads Spongebob to go on a hilarious ice cream bender with his best friend, a starfish named Patrick.
Meanwhile, Plankton, the evil owner of a competing fast food restaurant, steals the crown of King Neptune, king of the sea, as part of a much larger evil scheme. When King Neptune realizes his crown has been stolen, he is furious. Lo and behold, Spongebob and Patrick set off on a mission to find the crown to prove that they’re more than just kids.
This is silly stuff but its good fun and I found myself laughing a lot, sometimes in spite of myself. There are also a plethora of famous names providing voices in this film including Scarlett Johansson, Alec Baldwin, and Jeffrey Tambor. David Hasselhoff has one of the biggest laughs in a cameo appearance that could serve as a shining example of why Spongebob is so weird but also why it works.
I do think the film suffers a little in comparison with its source material. The television show “Spongebob Squarepants” is comprised of 11 minute episodes, a time duration that suits aquatic pandemonium well. At 87 minutes running time “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie” sometimes struggles to keep up its frantic weirdness and defaults into recycled material. Ah, but if you’re going to have a Spongebob movie, this one’s pretty good.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a “The Great Muppet Caper” (1981)
Rationalization:
This is fun stuff but it is by no means the height of its franchise. I’m not sure material like “Spongebob Squarepants” can be transformed into feature length. It relies so heavily on its energy and whimsy, both of which are hard things to keep up in a full-length movie. But to be fair, many kids movies lack energy and whimsy and have no originality. “The
Spongebob Squarepants Movie” has a relative abundance of all those things and so should be cherished.
Breaking Away (1979)
Review:
This is a great movie. And its great because it seems to have been made with joy and so evokes joy when watched. I left this movie feeling really good. Peter Yates’ “Breaking Away” is equal parts silly and heartfelt. It strikes such a fine balance between these two parts that there’s no wonder this film is so lauded. The AFI has voted it #8 on its list of most inspiring films of all time and again at #8 on its list of best sports movies.
Dennis Christopher plays Dave, a kid who’s passion has recently turned to Italian biking. He dreams of one day racing against the Italian bikers he reveres. Dave bikes around town, exclaiming Italian phrases and singing Italian arias. This new passion completely baffles his father (Paul Dooley) who is a hard-working, nothing-but-American sort of type. He cannot wrap his mind around how his son could be so taken with the Italians.
Dave belongs to a group of friends that include a former high school quarterback named Mike (Dennis Quaid), a short and defensive kid named Moocher (Jackie Earle Haley) and a tall, goofball name Cyril (Daniel Stern). The four of them comprise a group of high school graduates who have stayed in their hometown with no prospects for the future. But while their path is uncertain, the four friends are united by a resentment for the local college kids in the town.
The college kids call the locals “cutters,” referring to the community’s old trade of stone cutting. This relegation has a negative affect on the mindsets of these four boys. They know, just like the college kids know, that this town is a dead end for them. So they try to escape their fate and themselves by putting up facades. The most obvious is Dave’s Italian persona, which he uses to pick up a college girl in one of the film’s many subplots. But the others wear tough guy or funny man facades to hide their feelings of deep inadequacy. But look at me. I'm making this sound like a sad movie. It is anything but that. This is a joyous film, filled with fun, energy, and inspiration. Its also very inspirational.
The flow of the film is oriented around the four protagonists general loafing and the bike races that have become so central to Dave’s life. When he finds out the Italian bikers he idolizes are coming to town, he does everything in his power to ride alongside them. Not many movies have bike racing as their focus, perhaps because bike racing doesn't necessarily involve a lot of drama. But "Breaking Away" makes it riveting. The climactic race is one of the better sporting events I've ever seen depicted in a film.
For every three hundred coming of age stories there may be one that is truly great and honest. This is one of those films. "Breaking Away" is a masterpiece that is completely comfortable and conscious of its merits.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Ben Hur" (1959)
Rationalization:
Well, both movies are about racing...and finding yourself...But really I make the comparison because these are two films where you want to lift up your clenched fist and yell "Yeah!" at some parts. This is a movie that can make you believe in people's goodness and disregard their shortcomings. I wish more movies made me feel so warm.
This is a great movie. And its great because it seems to have been made with joy and so evokes joy when watched. I left this movie feeling really good. Peter Yates’ “Breaking Away” is equal parts silly and heartfelt. It strikes such a fine balance between these two parts that there’s no wonder this film is so lauded. The AFI has voted it #8 on its list of most inspiring films of all time and again at #8 on its list of best sports movies.
Dennis Christopher plays Dave, a kid who’s passion has recently turned to Italian biking. He dreams of one day racing against the Italian bikers he reveres. Dave bikes around town, exclaiming Italian phrases and singing Italian arias. This new passion completely baffles his father (Paul Dooley) who is a hard-working, nothing-but-American sort of type. He cannot wrap his mind around how his son could be so taken with the Italians.
Dave belongs to a group of friends that include a former high school quarterback named Mike (Dennis Quaid), a short and defensive kid named Moocher (Jackie Earle Haley) and a tall, goofball name Cyril (Daniel Stern). The four of them comprise a group of high school graduates who have stayed in their hometown with no prospects for the future. But while their path is uncertain, the four friends are united by a resentment for the local college kids in the town.
The college kids call the locals “cutters,” referring to the community’s old trade of stone cutting. This relegation has a negative affect on the mindsets of these four boys. They know, just like the college kids know, that this town is a dead end for them. So they try to escape their fate and themselves by putting up facades. The most obvious is Dave’s Italian persona, which he uses to pick up a college girl in one of the film’s many subplots. But the others wear tough guy or funny man facades to hide their feelings of deep inadequacy. But look at me. I'm making this sound like a sad movie. It is anything but that. This is a joyous film, filled with fun, energy, and inspiration. Its also very inspirational.
The flow of the film is oriented around the four protagonists general loafing and the bike races that have become so central to Dave’s life. When he finds out the Italian bikers he idolizes are coming to town, he does everything in his power to ride alongside them. Not many movies have bike racing as their focus, perhaps because bike racing doesn't necessarily involve a lot of drama. But "Breaking Away" makes it riveting. The climactic race is one of the better sporting events I've ever seen depicted in a film.
For every three hundred coming of age stories there may be one that is truly great and honest. This is one of those films. "Breaking Away" is a masterpiece that is completely comfortable and conscious of its merits.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Ben Hur" (1959)
Rationalization:
Well, both movies are about racing...and finding yourself...But really I make the comparison because these are two films where you want to lift up your clenched fist and yell "Yeah!" at some parts. This is a movie that can make you believe in people's goodness and disregard their shortcomings. I wish more movies made me feel so warm.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Cries and Whispers (1972)
Review:
“Cries and Whispers” is a painful elegy to death and life and the separations that make them both so terrifying. With this film, Ingmar Bergman continued to prove he was one of a select few film directors who dared look directly into the quagmire of faith and the universe’s indifference.
Set in an old manor at the turn of the 20th century, “Cries and Whispers” is a tale about four women joined together by a common tragedy. Three of the women are sisters. One is a caretaker. Agnes (Harriet Andersson), one of the sisters, is in the final stages of a terminal cancer. It is for her sake that her two sisters come to the manor. They want to take care of her in her last days.
Maria (Liv Ullmann) is the sensual sister. She will provoke Agne’s doctor to rekindle an old affair. Karin (Ingrid Thulin) is the rigid and cold sister, always standing at a distance, almost afraid to approach dying Agnes. Then there is Anna (Kari Sylwan), Agnes' longtime caretaker. She is a woman of faith who cares deeply for the human soul. We see her wake one morning and pray that her dead daughter resides in the salvation of the lord.
Agnes and her death is the centerpiece of “Cries and Whispers.” Ingmar Bergman does not sugarcoat death here. He shows it in all its grim detail, holding the camera on close-ups of Agnes’ agonizing screams and painful expressions. Her death is not an easy thing to watch. Helpless and remote, her sisters witness Agnes suffering but cannot bring themselves to be empathetic or helpful. Only Anna, with her childlike faith and compassion, can provide Agnes with the simple human contact she needs for comfort.
“Cries and Whispers” is a shocking, beautiful film. All four women at one point have a significant flashback that serves to slightly illuminate their current behavior, but ultimately much about them and their relationships is left a mystery. And churning in this mystery are ruminations of illicit sexual behavior, suicidal chaos, and the dread and inescapability of isolation.
Most movies have the distinct feeling of a prose narrative, wrought with detail and insight, conforming to the structure of rising action and denouement. But sometimes a movie will transcend the prosaic tendency and take on the depth and succinctness of poetry. “Cries and Whispers” is one such movie. It is a grand poem of life and death, faith and loss. Bergman, after all, was never one to explore small themes.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (1989).
Rationalization:
Both of these films have end monologues that serve as a sort of unexpected epilogue. And both of these films show you an array of actions that leave you a little baffled, but suddenly the epilogue is given and the whole meaning of the entire movie seems to shift from underneath your mind. With the end of “Cries and Whispers” you realize that this film is not as despairing as it seems. In fact, you could argue that the end affirms that all suffering and death is vindicated entirely by the gift of life.
“Cries and Whispers” is a painful elegy to death and life and the separations that make them both so terrifying. With this film, Ingmar Bergman continued to prove he was one of a select few film directors who dared look directly into the quagmire of faith and the universe’s indifference.
Set in an old manor at the turn of the 20th century, “Cries and Whispers” is a tale about four women joined together by a common tragedy. Three of the women are sisters. One is a caretaker. Agnes (Harriet Andersson), one of the sisters, is in the final stages of a terminal cancer. It is for her sake that her two sisters come to the manor. They want to take care of her in her last days.
Maria (Liv Ullmann) is the sensual sister. She will provoke Agne’s doctor to rekindle an old affair. Karin (Ingrid Thulin) is the rigid and cold sister, always standing at a distance, almost afraid to approach dying Agnes. Then there is Anna (Kari Sylwan), Agnes' longtime caretaker. She is a woman of faith who cares deeply for the human soul. We see her wake one morning and pray that her dead daughter resides in the salvation of the lord.
Agnes and her death is the centerpiece of “Cries and Whispers.” Ingmar Bergman does not sugarcoat death here. He shows it in all its grim detail, holding the camera on close-ups of Agnes’ agonizing screams and painful expressions. Her death is not an easy thing to watch. Helpless and remote, her sisters witness Agnes suffering but cannot bring themselves to be empathetic or helpful. Only Anna, with her childlike faith and compassion, can provide Agnes with the simple human contact she needs for comfort.
“Cries and Whispers” is a shocking, beautiful film. All four women at one point have a significant flashback that serves to slightly illuminate their current behavior, but ultimately much about them and their relationships is left a mystery. And churning in this mystery are ruminations of illicit sexual behavior, suicidal chaos, and the dread and inescapability of isolation.
Most movies have the distinct feeling of a prose narrative, wrought with detail and insight, conforming to the structure of rising action and denouement. But sometimes a movie will transcend the prosaic tendency and take on the depth and succinctness of poetry. “Cries and Whispers” is one such movie. It is a grand poem of life and death, faith and loss. Bergman, after all, was never one to explore small themes.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (1989).
Rationalization:
Both of these films have end monologues that serve as a sort of unexpected epilogue. And both of these films show you an array of actions that leave you a little baffled, but suddenly the epilogue is given and the whole meaning of the entire movie seems to shift from underneath your mind. With the end of “Cries and Whispers” you realize that this film is not as despairing as it seems. In fact, you could argue that the end affirms that all suffering and death is vindicated entirely by the gift of life.
Miracle (2004)
Review:
In 1980 The United States Hockey Team beat the Soviet Union’s team in the winter Olympics, an unprecedented triumph that came to be known as the miracle on ice. The game was seen as a much-needed bolster to American confidence in the midst of the cold war. In the late 1970s America, still shaken by Watergate and suffering from a recession and fuel crisis, was in great need of some affirmation that it could still win the cold war against the seemingly indomitable USSR. The miracle on ice was such an affirmation.
“Miracle”(2004) is the film based on that game and the events leading up to it. Director Gavin O’Connor and writer Eric Guggenheim wisely choose to focus on Herb Brooks (Kurt Russel) the passionate, implacable coach. Russel plays Brooks as a good hearted man determined to meet his goals and bring out the best in his team. Russel gives the finest performance in the film. Really, it’s the only performance.
When Russel is on screen, the film is engaging and has some excellent scenes. One particularly great scene involves an early hockey match. The US team ties the game. Instead of letting them retreat to the locker room Brooks forces them to do countless suicides well into the night. When the janitor of the rink turns off the power, Brooks persists in having his team continue their exercise, always chanting “Again.” This scene is fascinating and pivotal. It shows the semi-fanatical lengths Brooks will take to make his team perform to their potential.
Where “Miracle” slips up is when it shies away from Brooks and looks at the hockey team. The team, of course, is an important element of the movie - after all, they were the ones who won. But the character development of the team members is slight. There are a few problems some of the individual players must overcome, but those problems seem more like filler than relevant information. I found it hard to adequately distinguish the players, let alone care about them.
It might have been wiser to focus solely on Brook’s ruthless passion and treat the team as a unit. But, I suppose this would not be in the spirit of most team sports movies.
One of the most fascinating scenes in the film involves a press conference at the Olympics. Brooks will not let his team speak with the press and so takes all questions himself. A reporter suggests he won’t let his team speak because he wants all the focus on himself. Could that be true? The film suggests that was not his intention, but it may have been interesting to explore that more.
Ultimately, we have a good-looking sports movie here. The hockey scenes are exciting and well done. Even the verging-on-redundant explanations about why this game was so important to America are well done and appreciated. But when it comes to the hockey team itself, I found myself not caring enough.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is an “Blow” (2001)
Rationalization:
For those who love hockey and significant sporting events, this is a fine film. Its success is predicated on how well you can remember or understand the significance of the miracle on ice. It is an important story in American sports history and I think the filmmakers knew whom they were trying to reach in making it. They play it safe by not looking too hard at Brooks or the Russians, instead recalling only what made the event so inspirational. Thus, “Miracle” is inspiring but perhaps a little too simplistic. I would have liked to see this story told from the perspective of the Russian team. That could make for an intriguing movie
In 1980 The United States Hockey Team beat the Soviet Union’s team in the winter Olympics, an unprecedented triumph that came to be known as the miracle on ice. The game was seen as a much-needed bolster to American confidence in the midst of the cold war. In the late 1970s America, still shaken by Watergate and suffering from a recession and fuel crisis, was in great need of some affirmation that it could still win the cold war against the seemingly indomitable USSR. The miracle on ice was such an affirmation.
“Miracle”(2004) is the film based on that game and the events leading up to it. Director Gavin O’Connor and writer Eric Guggenheim wisely choose to focus on Herb Brooks (Kurt Russel) the passionate, implacable coach. Russel plays Brooks as a good hearted man determined to meet his goals and bring out the best in his team. Russel gives the finest performance in the film. Really, it’s the only performance.
When Russel is on screen, the film is engaging and has some excellent scenes. One particularly great scene involves an early hockey match. The US team ties the game. Instead of letting them retreat to the locker room Brooks forces them to do countless suicides well into the night. When the janitor of the rink turns off the power, Brooks persists in having his team continue their exercise, always chanting “Again.” This scene is fascinating and pivotal. It shows the semi-fanatical lengths Brooks will take to make his team perform to their potential.
Where “Miracle” slips up is when it shies away from Brooks and looks at the hockey team. The team, of course, is an important element of the movie - after all, they were the ones who won. But the character development of the team members is slight. There are a few problems some of the individual players must overcome, but those problems seem more like filler than relevant information. I found it hard to adequately distinguish the players, let alone care about them.
It might have been wiser to focus solely on Brook’s ruthless passion and treat the team as a unit. But, I suppose this would not be in the spirit of most team sports movies.
One of the most fascinating scenes in the film involves a press conference at the Olympics. Brooks will not let his team speak with the press and so takes all questions himself. A reporter suggests he won’t let his team speak because he wants all the focus on himself. Could that be true? The film suggests that was not his intention, but it may have been interesting to explore that more.
Ultimately, we have a good-looking sports movie here. The hockey scenes are exciting and well done. Even the verging-on-redundant explanations about why this game was so important to America are well done and appreciated. But when it comes to the hockey team itself, I found myself not caring enough.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is an “Blow” (2001)
Rationalization:
For those who love hockey and significant sporting events, this is a fine film. Its success is predicated on how well you can remember or understand the significance of the miracle on ice. It is an important story in American sports history and I think the filmmakers knew whom they were trying to reach in making it. They play it safe by not looking too hard at Brooks or the Russians, instead recalling only what made the event so inspirational. Thus, “Miracle” is inspiring but perhaps a little too simplistic. I would have liked to see this story told from the perspective of the Russian team. That could make for an intriguing movie
The Hurt Locker (2009)
Review:
What makes "The Hurt Locker" stand out among war pictures is how it can at once achieve something so visceral while not making any real statement for or against war. The film observes war like it observes its characters, without bias or awe. The main idea behind "Hurt Locker" seems to be that war exists and there are people who thrive under its chaotic dominion. "Patton" (1970) had a similar message. War is madness and so must be met and fought and dominated by people who are themselves, to a certain degree, mad
Jeremy Renner plays SSG William James. He is a bomb technician in Iraq in 2004. Every single day is a flirtation with death for James. He must defuse bombs that are found in rubble, cars, and other unspeakable places. One of the strong points of "The Hurt Locker" is that we never find out who is planting these bombs or why, they simply exist as a reality of life in Iraq. The people who have planted the bombs may be watching as James tries to defuse their bombs...but then again, those people watching may just be casual citizens interested in a military operation. Some of the most intriguing parts in "The Hurt Locker" involve those onlookers who may or may not be insurgents. There's a man with a video camera, a renegade taxi driver, some friendly pedestrians, and suicide bombers. Why were thy doing these things? Were they friendly or not? Director Katherine Bigelow and writer Mark Boal are smart to never offer answers.
With this strategy they create a concept of war that is probably more true to life - instead of a well plotted mission, war is depicted as a series of chaotic encounters, each one likely having no connection to anything preceding it. So instead of villains, in this film we have bombs - the almighty symbol of mass destruction, And by extension, war itself becomes the antagonist of the film - not an enemy, not an army, but simply war and its technologies. In the hero's seat we have William James, who is the only one crazy enough to challenge war in all its horrific facades.
But Jame's determination to unarm any bomb at all costs takes its toll on those around him. Men get injured, egos get battered, and nerves are blown. Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) fully realizes the jeopardy James puts other soldiers in. Sanborn is in charge of the bomb squadron's safety and James constantly defies his orders, taking what Sanborn considers to be unnecessary risks. But while Sanborn disapproves of James he also resents James' talent, perhaps even secretly wishing he had the same foolhardy nerve.
In my opinion, one of the best sequences in the film involves James going AWOL. I won't elaborate on the circumstances or what he discovers, but suffice it to say, he happens upon an Iraqi household where he briefly meets a rational professor who has been thrust into an irrational situation. Although its quick, something about this scene stuck with me. James finds himself invading a place that need not be invaded and encounters a man who can be construed as nothing but innocent. This man does not make bombs. This scene works as a good metaphor and serves as one of the few moments that could be construed as making an anti-war statement.
"The Hurt Locker" is tough as nails and employs some elegant suspense. It never becomes preachy because it knows its rightful boundaries. This is a character study of war, one man, and their symbiosis. I would go so far as to say its the best movie yet made about the Iraq war.
Rating:
On a scale of one to "Casablanca" this film is a "Richard III" (1995).
Rationalization:
What drives great man has long been the fascination behind good stories. What drives great men to extremes is often the material of great stories. In many ways, James is as much of an extremist as those who plant the bombs he must defuse. He is dangerous and somewhat reckless. But he's also the best at what he does and he loves it. War is a game that can only be bested by those who can handle the extremes and thrive. Just as the cruel pranks in Altman's "MASH" (1970) were a desultory coping mechanism for the doctors, James' need to defuse any and all bombs at any cost is his way of maintaining control in an otherwise chaotic war.
What makes "The Hurt Locker" stand out among war pictures is how it can at once achieve something so visceral while not making any real statement for or against war. The film observes war like it observes its characters, without bias or awe. The main idea behind "Hurt Locker" seems to be that war exists and there are people who thrive under its chaotic dominion. "Patton" (1970) had a similar message. War is madness and so must be met and fought and dominated by people who are themselves, to a certain degree, mad
Jeremy Renner plays SSG William James. He is a bomb technician in Iraq in 2004. Every single day is a flirtation with death for James. He must defuse bombs that are found in rubble, cars, and other unspeakable places. One of the strong points of "The Hurt Locker" is that we never find out who is planting these bombs or why, they simply exist as a reality of life in Iraq. The people who have planted the bombs may be watching as James tries to defuse their bombs...but then again, those people watching may just be casual citizens interested in a military operation. Some of the most intriguing parts in "The Hurt Locker" involve those onlookers who may or may not be insurgents. There's a man with a video camera, a renegade taxi driver, some friendly pedestrians, and suicide bombers. Why were thy doing these things? Were they friendly or not? Director Katherine Bigelow and writer Mark Boal are smart to never offer answers.
With this strategy they create a concept of war that is probably more true to life - instead of a well plotted mission, war is depicted as a series of chaotic encounters, each one likely having no connection to anything preceding it. So instead of villains, in this film we have bombs - the almighty symbol of mass destruction, And by extension, war itself becomes the antagonist of the film - not an enemy, not an army, but simply war and its technologies. In the hero's seat we have William James, who is the only one crazy enough to challenge war in all its horrific facades.
But Jame's determination to unarm any bomb at all costs takes its toll on those around him. Men get injured, egos get battered, and nerves are blown. Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) fully realizes the jeopardy James puts other soldiers in. Sanborn is in charge of the bomb squadron's safety and James constantly defies his orders, taking what Sanborn considers to be unnecessary risks. But while Sanborn disapproves of James he also resents James' talent, perhaps even secretly wishing he had the same foolhardy nerve.
In my opinion, one of the best sequences in the film involves James going AWOL. I won't elaborate on the circumstances or what he discovers, but suffice it to say, he happens upon an Iraqi household where he briefly meets a rational professor who has been thrust into an irrational situation. Although its quick, something about this scene stuck with me. James finds himself invading a place that need not be invaded and encounters a man who can be construed as nothing but innocent. This man does not make bombs. This scene works as a good metaphor and serves as one of the few moments that could be construed as making an anti-war statement.
"The Hurt Locker" is tough as nails and employs some elegant suspense. It never becomes preachy because it knows its rightful boundaries. This is a character study of war, one man, and their symbiosis. I would go so far as to say its the best movie yet made about the Iraq war.
Rating:
On a scale of one to "Casablanca" this film is a "Richard III" (1995).
Rationalization:
What drives great man has long been the fascination behind good stories. What drives great men to extremes is often the material of great stories. In many ways, James is as much of an extremist as those who plant the bombs he must defuse. He is dangerous and somewhat reckless. But he's also the best at what he does and he loves it. War is a game that can only be bested by those who can handle the extremes and thrive. Just as the cruel pranks in Altman's "MASH" (1970) were a desultory coping mechanism for the doctors, James' need to defuse any and all bombs at any cost is his way of maintaining control in an otherwise chaotic war.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Food Inc. (2008)
Review:
Documentaries like Michael Moore’s documentaries are good for society because, while they can be construed as either populist propaganda, the way it is, or somewhere between the two (the best bet), they at least start a dialogue. In my opinion, sparking people’s interests in pressing, contemporary issues is always good. Not to sound pompous or proselytize, but the foundation of a functioning democracy should be the informed discourse of the public. The documentary has thankful arisen as a powerful mechanism for the proliferation of information.
“Food Inc.” is not a Michael Moore documentary. Its less belligerent, more even tempered. Directed by Robert Kenner, it lays out a portrait of the American food industry that is less than becoming. The film explores how a few giant corporations are solely responsible for over 90% of food in America. Some of these companies practically have unquestioned monopolies over certain foods, crops, and even genes.
The thesis behind “Food Inc.” is that the all of the labels on the food we eat suggest the food comes from an idealized old-timey American farm when in fact it came from a giant processing factory, where contaminations and mistreatment of animals and laborers are just the norm.
With commentary from the likes of Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, the film lays out how the food industry has become revolutionized over the past fifty years, beginning with the rise of fast food and the concept of running restaurants like factories. From there, the food industry grew into a well-oiled machine oriented around expediency and profit, often mowing over the traditional American farmers, forcing them out of business or forcing them to join the ranks of corporate farmers.
This is a startling documentary. It is another entry in a series of documentaries that seeks to show how profiteering corporations trample over the little guys with little to no regard for the country at large. Perhaps the most startling aspect of “Food Inc.” is the testimony of the small time farmers who have been ruined or coerced by these food companies.
If I had to be harsh on “Food Inc.” I would say parts of it are a little disorganized, not flowing naturally from one subject to the next. But “Food Inc.” is successful on a larger scale, painting a harrowing picture of a food system that needs drastic reform.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “21 Grams” (2003).
Rationalization:
Films that force you to see the bigger picture are always important. When taking a panoramic look at something, its best not to sweat the small stuff. “Food Inc.” is a fascinating film and will make you think twice about what you eat. And beyond its prompts for food industry reform, you see that the agenda of “Food Inc.” is also to raise awareness of issues concerning immigration, poverty, public health, and the people sitting in power in our government.
Documentaries like Michael Moore’s documentaries are good for society because, while they can be construed as either populist propaganda, the way it is, or somewhere between the two (the best bet), they at least start a dialogue. In my opinion, sparking people’s interests in pressing, contemporary issues is always good. Not to sound pompous or proselytize, but the foundation of a functioning democracy should be the informed discourse of the public. The documentary has thankful arisen as a powerful mechanism for the proliferation of information.
“Food Inc.” is not a Michael Moore documentary. Its less belligerent, more even tempered. Directed by Robert Kenner, it lays out a portrait of the American food industry that is less than becoming. The film explores how a few giant corporations are solely responsible for over 90% of food in America. Some of these companies practically have unquestioned monopolies over certain foods, crops, and even genes.
The thesis behind “Food Inc.” is that the all of the labels on the food we eat suggest the food comes from an idealized old-timey American farm when in fact it came from a giant processing factory, where contaminations and mistreatment of animals and laborers are just the norm.
With commentary from the likes of Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, the film lays out how the food industry has become revolutionized over the past fifty years, beginning with the rise of fast food and the concept of running restaurants like factories. From there, the food industry grew into a well-oiled machine oriented around expediency and profit, often mowing over the traditional American farmers, forcing them out of business or forcing them to join the ranks of corporate farmers.
This is a startling documentary. It is another entry in a series of documentaries that seeks to show how profiteering corporations trample over the little guys with little to no regard for the country at large. Perhaps the most startling aspect of “Food Inc.” is the testimony of the small time farmers who have been ruined or coerced by these food companies.
If I had to be harsh on “Food Inc.” I would say parts of it are a little disorganized, not flowing naturally from one subject to the next. But “Food Inc.” is successful on a larger scale, painting a harrowing picture of a food system that needs drastic reform.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “21 Grams” (2003).
Rationalization:
Films that force you to see the bigger picture are always important. When taking a panoramic look at something, its best not to sweat the small stuff. “Food Inc.” is a fascinating film and will make you think twice about what you eat. And beyond its prompts for food industry reform, you see that the agenda of “Food Inc.” is also to raise awareness of issues concerning immigration, poverty, public health, and the people sitting in power in our government.
Romance & Cigarettes (2007)
Review:
How does one describe John Tuturro’s “Romance & Cigarettes?” Phrases that come to mind are ‘Blue Collar Fellini,’ ‘Poor Man’s “Moulin Rouge,” maybe even ‘an authentic modern musical.’ Its always hard and fun to describe movies like this, that defy expectations and try for something new. “Romance & Cigarettes” doesn’t consistently work, but when it works, it is magic.
James Gandolfini plays Nick, a heavy smoking steel worker who is having an affair with Tula (Kate Winslet) a kinky and quirky lingerie saleswoman. When Nick’s wife Kitty (Susan Sarandon) finds a poem that Nick wrote for Tula’s nether regions she takes it as an affirmation that Nick is indeed having an affair. Kitty and her three grown daughters (Mary-Louis Parker, Mandy Moore, and Aida Tuturro) gang up against Nick who then storms out of the house to expresses his grief and frustration. How does he express said grief and frustration you might ask? Well, by singing along with Engelbert Humperdinck’s recording of “A Man Without Love.” And when I write singing along, I literally mean the sound recording of the song is playing over the action and James Gandolfini, with all his amateurish vocalization, sings along with the song. Then garbage men enter the scene, also singing and dancing. Throughout the movie there will be singing interludes like this, where main characters take a moment to sing along with the soundtrack.
Director and writer John Tuturro raises some interesting points by constructing his unusual musical in this way. In my review of “Nine” (2009) I said that director Rob Marshall was pioneering the cerebral musical – where musical numbers take place entirely within the minds of its characters - to make a more realistic, accessible musical for today’s audiences. I think Tuturro is going after a similar end. “Romance & Cigarettes” is an intentionally disorganized musical.
If music suddenly descended from the sky and we were divinely imbued with corresponding lyrics, what makes us assume that we would look pretty while singing? Humans are not inherently pretty or organized like most musicals would suggest. We are messy beasts of emotion and action. In all likelihood, if the musical was a fact of reality, it would look something like James Gandolfini singing with garbage men in the street. Choreography is not a natural state of being.
I loved the musical numbers in this film. When “A Man Without Love” was sung, I couldn’t stop laughing for the first thirty seconds. I also particularly liked a song Tula sings under the water, and another song that Christopher Walken, yes, Christopher Walken, sings.
There is a surrealistic edge to this film that I admire greatly. But I found the scenes that flirt with realism to be not nearly as compelling. The acting is all precise and good, the writing is excellent, but I found myself always wanting the film to hurry along to the next musical number. That’s the real problem with this film. It will blast you with surreal energy and riotous humor and you cheer it on and its superb…and then it will languish too long on the ties that bind and everyday tragedies.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Rope” (1948)
Review:
There’s good stuff here. Really good stuff. But when a film is constantly making you think “Give me the payoff, I want my fix, where’s the action” it inherently becomes a distraction to itself. “Romance & Cigarettes” transforms too much. It moves from a raucous sex-musical into an odd dirge, and while they both work on some level, it’s hard to reconcile it as one film with a succinct focus. But insofar as the film does work it’s all in the concept. I love musicals because I think they are so weird. “Romance & Cigarettes” is a conscious affirmation of the weirdness.
How does one describe John Tuturro’s “Romance & Cigarettes?” Phrases that come to mind are ‘Blue Collar Fellini,’ ‘Poor Man’s “Moulin Rouge,” maybe even ‘an authentic modern musical.’ Its always hard and fun to describe movies like this, that defy expectations and try for something new. “Romance & Cigarettes” doesn’t consistently work, but when it works, it is magic.
James Gandolfini plays Nick, a heavy smoking steel worker who is having an affair with Tula (Kate Winslet) a kinky and quirky lingerie saleswoman. When Nick’s wife Kitty (Susan Sarandon) finds a poem that Nick wrote for Tula’s nether regions she takes it as an affirmation that Nick is indeed having an affair. Kitty and her three grown daughters (Mary-Louis Parker, Mandy Moore, and Aida Tuturro) gang up against Nick who then storms out of the house to expresses his grief and frustration. How does he express said grief and frustration you might ask? Well, by singing along with Engelbert Humperdinck’s recording of “A Man Without Love.” And when I write singing along, I literally mean the sound recording of the song is playing over the action and James Gandolfini, with all his amateurish vocalization, sings along with the song. Then garbage men enter the scene, also singing and dancing. Throughout the movie there will be singing interludes like this, where main characters take a moment to sing along with the soundtrack.
Director and writer John Tuturro raises some interesting points by constructing his unusual musical in this way. In my review of “Nine” (2009) I said that director Rob Marshall was pioneering the cerebral musical – where musical numbers take place entirely within the minds of its characters - to make a more realistic, accessible musical for today’s audiences. I think Tuturro is going after a similar end. “Romance & Cigarettes” is an intentionally disorganized musical.
If music suddenly descended from the sky and we were divinely imbued with corresponding lyrics, what makes us assume that we would look pretty while singing? Humans are not inherently pretty or organized like most musicals would suggest. We are messy beasts of emotion and action. In all likelihood, if the musical was a fact of reality, it would look something like James Gandolfini singing with garbage men in the street. Choreography is not a natural state of being.
I loved the musical numbers in this film. When “A Man Without Love” was sung, I couldn’t stop laughing for the first thirty seconds. I also particularly liked a song Tula sings under the water, and another song that Christopher Walken, yes, Christopher Walken, sings.
There is a surrealistic edge to this film that I admire greatly. But I found the scenes that flirt with realism to be not nearly as compelling. The acting is all precise and good, the writing is excellent, but I found myself always wanting the film to hurry along to the next musical number. That’s the real problem with this film. It will blast you with surreal energy and riotous humor and you cheer it on and its superb…and then it will languish too long on the ties that bind and everyday tragedies.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Rope” (1948)
Review:
There’s good stuff here. Really good stuff. But when a film is constantly making you think “Give me the payoff, I want my fix, where’s the action” it inherently becomes a distraction to itself. “Romance & Cigarettes” transforms too much. It moves from a raucous sex-musical into an odd dirge, and while they both work on some level, it’s hard to reconcile it as one film with a succinct focus. But insofar as the film does work it’s all in the concept. I love musicals because I think they are so weird. “Romance & Cigarettes” is a conscious affirmation of the weirdness.
Ordinary People (1980)
Review:
I’m glad I let Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” gestate for a few days in my head before writing this review. I think I had an unfair bias that was dispelled with some time and consideration. My initial interest in the “Ordinary People” was piqued by the fact that it won best picture in 1980 over Martin Scorsese’s “Raging Bull.” This was the same sort of fascination that inspired me to see John Ford’s “How Green Was My Valley” (1941), the film that won best picture over “Citizen Kane.” Both “Citizen Kane” and “Raging Bull” are widely considered to be better films than the ones that beat them out for best picture, and such was the origin of my bias against “Ordinary People.”
I came into the movie and for the first half of the film, all I really could think was “This is not as good as Raging Bull.” I thought it represented just another entry in a rising trend in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which was the socially conscious domestic drama. The socially conscious domestic drama (my own cumbersome term) has its origins going back at least as far as “Rebel Without a Cause” but likely even further. They are the films that try to take a hard and realistic look at how families function and fail. “Rebel Without a Cause” (1955) was a noble attempt to look at teenage displacement and alienation, but it does not stand the test of time. Today it looks innocent and rather hokey. With the renaissance of American film in the late 1960s there started a trend with films like “Bonnie and Clyde” (1967) and “The Graduate” (1967) to attempt to make statements not only about characters but about reality itself. These films tried to dispel the hocus pocus and melodrama of cinema and show something that felt more authentic to the audience. This gave rise to films such as “Easy Rider” (1969), “Midnight Cowboy” (1969) “Five Easy Pieces” (1970), and “Taxi Driver” (1976). But all of those films dealt with the fringes of society, the near socio-paths who can, in some light, be elevated to saints. After a time it is my belief that directors decided the typical family unit should be the focus of films that strive for unflinching reality and so we have the rise of films like “Ordinary People,” who’s title, I think is to ironically suggest that even in the white upper-middle class family unit, there is nothing that approaches normalcy.
The story is tragic. The Jarrett family’s oldest son Buck was killed in a sailing accident, leaving behind Calvin (Donald Sutherland) the shattered father, Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) the emotionally remote mother, and Conrad (Timothy Hutton) the younger brother who has recently tried to commit suicide. This is a family that is trying with all its energy and might to restore some semblance of unity, or at least balance, into their household.
Conrad is the focus of the film. He attempted suicide for reasons that become clearer as the film progresses but at the start of the movie he is a mystery. We sense that he is unstable, perhaps hanging on by a thread. He decides to go see a psychiatrist, Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch). From his sessions with Dr. Berger and from witnessing Conrad’s family interactions we begin to understand how Buck’s death has forced each family member into a different type of isolation. Conrad suffers from a survivor’s guilt, Calvin cannot bring himself to express openly how he feels, and Beth has shut off any sense of motherly love.
The film is finely crafted and the dialogue is astute and gripping. A few times, the story treads close to becoming more of a lifetime movie, but it wisely and quickly shies away from the heart warming routes. Director Robert Redford here proves he understands the craft of great filmmaking. While there is nothing too distinctive about the directing, it stands strongly on its own legs, investing more in the power of the story than in creative shots.
The thing that stuck with me about “Ordinary People” in the days after I watched it was the ending. I won’t say what it is. I’ll only say the ending could have easily been a cop out and instead Redford and screenwriter Alvin Sargent provide a challenging finish. Its something you don’t see too often in the movies – the right ending.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Deer Hunter” (1978)
Rationalization:
I can’t stress the part about having the right ending enough. Yes, this is not a perfect film and certainly “Raging Bull” is better, but the end is so perfect. Frankly, life does not always turn out neatly under benevolent circumstances. In many ways “Ordinary People” reminded me of “Kramer vs. Kramer” (1979) and “Terms of Endearment” (1983) and I would also include those films as socially conscious domestic dramas (I think “Terms of Endearment” is the best example of these films). Anyways, “Ordinary People” is good drama that aptly questions whether family love is unconditional. Like with other great films, it does not come out with the easy answers.
I’m glad I let Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” gestate for a few days in my head before writing this review. I think I had an unfair bias that was dispelled with some time and consideration. My initial interest in the “Ordinary People” was piqued by the fact that it won best picture in 1980 over Martin Scorsese’s “Raging Bull.” This was the same sort of fascination that inspired me to see John Ford’s “How Green Was My Valley” (1941), the film that won best picture over “Citizen Kane.” Both “Citizen Kane” and “Raging Bull” are widely considered to be better films than the ones that beat them out for best picture, and such was the origin of my bias against “Ordinary People.”
I came into the movie and for the first half of the film, all I really could think was “This is not as good as Raging Bull.” I thought it represented just another entry in a rising trend in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which was the socially conscious domestic drama. The socially conscious domestic drama (my own cumbersome term) has its origins going back at least as far as “Rebel Without a Cause” but likely even further. They are the films that try to take a hard and realistic look at how families function and fail. “Rebel Without a Cause” (1955) was a noble attempt to look at teenage displacement and alienation, but it does not stand the test of time. Today it looks innocent and rather hokey. With the renaissance of American film in the late 1960s there started a trend with films like “Bonnie and Clyde” (1967) and “The Graduate” (1967) to attempt to make statements not only about characters but about reality itself. These films tried to dispel the hocus pocus and melodrama of cinema and show something that felt more authentic to the audience. This gave rise to films such as “Easy Rider” (1969), “Midnight Cowboy” (1969) “Five Easy Pieces” (1970), and “Taxi Driver” (1976). But all of those films dealt with the fringes of society, the near socio-paths who can, in some light, be elevated to saints. After a time it is my belief that directors decided the typical family unit should be the focus of films that strive for unflinching reality and so we have the rise of films like “Ordinary People,” who’s title, I think is to ironically suggest that even in the white upper-middle class family unit, there is nothing that approaches normalcy.
The story is tragic. The Jarrett family’s oldest son Buck was killed in a sailing accident, leaving behind Calvin (Donald Sutherland) the shattered father, Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) the emotionally remote mother, and Conrad (Timothy Hutton) the younger brother who has recently tried to commit suicide. This is a family that is trying with all its energy and might to restore some semblance of unity, or at least balance, into their household.
Conrad is the focus of the film. He attempted suicide for reasons that become clearer as the film progresses but at the start of the movie he is a mystery. We sense that he is unstable, perhaps hanging on by a thread. He decides to go see a psychiatrist, Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch). From his sessions with Dr. Berger and from witnessing Conrad’s family interactions we begin to understand how Buck’s death has forced each family member into a different type of isolation. Conrad suffers from a survivor’s guilt, Calvin cannot bring himself to express openly how he feels, and Beth has shut off any sense of motherly love.
The film is finely crafted and the dialogue is astute and gripping. A few times, the story treads close to becoming more of a lifetime movie, but it wisely and quickly shies away from the heart warming routes. Director Robert Redford here proves he understands the craft of great filmmaking. While there is nothing too distinctive about the directing, it stands strongly on its own legs, investing more in the power of the story than in creative shots.
The thing that stuck with me about “Ordinary People” in the days after I watched it was the ending. I won’t say what it is. I’ll only say the ending could have easily been a cop out and instead Redford and screenwriter Alvin Sargent provide a challenging finish. Its something you don’t see too often in the movies – the right ending.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Deer Hunter” (1978)
Rationalization:
I can’t stress the part about having the right ending enough. Yes, this is not a perfect film and certainly “Raging Bull” is better, but the end is so perfect. Frankly, life does not always turn out neatly under benevolent circumstances. In many ways “Ordinary People” reminded me of “Kramer vs. Kramer” (1979) and “Terms of Endearment” (1983) and I would also include those films as socially conscious domestic dramas (I think “Terms of Endearment” is the best example of these films). Anyways, “Ordinary People” is good drama that aptly questions whether family love is unconditional. Like with other great films, it does not come out with the easy answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)