being a long time guy ritchie fan, i've wondered what he could do on a larger scale- a bigger story, bigger toys and bigger numbers with more zeros. yet when i heard he was to direct a version of sir arthur conan doyle's creation, i was skeptical, weren't you? sherlock holmes solves crimes cleverly in his head- all neat as a pin. ritchie's movies involve too cool for school thugs very violently running their own little intersecting pocket worlds-very messy and very small scale. matthew vaughn, (director of "layer cake", longtime friend, actor and producer on ritchie's prior films) in an interview on "layer cake"'s dvd bonus features complained so much about how ritchie ran a set that when vaughn had a chance to direct he did everything the opposite. so, i was also worried, so much so that while watching this movie i wondered just how much ritchie actually did to make it what it is. well, whatever he did or didn't do, the result, "sherlock homes", is a lot of fun.
One good thing about all the advance year long hype of ritchie taking on such a well known character was that by the time i went to the theater to see it i knew that the holmes story line was really just a suggestion and that i had actually warmed up to the idea of a messier sherlock. (sherlock holmes was a neat freak and a misogynist while dr. watson was around mostly to administer the injections of cocaine.) while basil rathbone and nigel bruce play cleaned up versions of these characters perfectly, the modern version needed some vamping to garner a new audience- this holmes comes with his own batmanesque utility belt. i'm glad they skipped the cocaine references so as not to glamorize that practice for this younger fanbase. although one of my favorite holmes related movies is "the seven percent solution" in which holmes (nicol williamson) and sigmund freud (alan arkin) another famous cocaine addict, join forces to solve a crime or whatever, who cares? it's fun.
in "sherlock holmes", producer joel silver puts together some of my favorite things- guy ritchie, robert downey jr, jude law and eddie marsan (the best thing to come out of pbs's recent offering of dicken's "little dorritt"), who play holmes, watson and the ever incompetent chief of police, lestrad. and sherlock of course. i have read all of doyle's holmes stories and have just finished another book in which holmes is in his 90's, retired, raises bees in the countryside, while going in and out of demetia- in other words, i'm a big fan of sherlock holmes. the screenplay is tight and the supporting cast is great, however i have a problem with rachel mccadams playing sherlock's erstwhile love who's meant to be a clever career criminal. she looks seventeen. beautiful, yes, and she translates well to a period piece (not like carmen diaz in "gangs of new york" or carmen diaz in any movie really) but too young to be so experienced. and if she looks 17 now, when sherlock/downey, looking 50ish now, and she first hooked up she must have been 12. surely there's an older actress out here who could have played this role and who wouldn't have distracted me into doing math during the film.
there are a lot of ritchie touches in the presentation of the action such as fights in stop motion photography, that translate very well in a big budget action yet period piece. so despite all my skeptiscism, worrying and wondering i have to hand it to guy ritchie for turning out another fun, watchable, smart, and cool looking action film. it is a guy ritchie movie after all.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
it's complicated
it's complicated, is the latest product offered by auteur nancy meyers- the previous being "what women want", "the holiday", and "somethings gotta give". "it's complicated" is most comparable to the latter- in fact it's really the same movie- a successful middle-ager finds herself, despite herself, falling for a bloated self-centered, self-involved, and manipulative man after a long dry spell just as a better and devoted man steps up to her plate. it's actually very simple and very one note.
i call this film a product because it is very well packaged- pretty people wearing pretty clothes in pretty sets, which is almost all i want in a movie, but this one is missing the one key ingredient, these pretty people need to be doing something interesting. here they don't-ever. and then meyers wraps this package up in a big red bow by force feeding us a very predictably boring ending. if you've seen the trailer and any appearance on any talk show with clips then you've seen the best parts of this film. you really don't need to spend your money. it's too long, alec really really needs to drop at least 50 -100 lbs ( he too convincingly plays someone eight years older than he ), and steve needs to stop playing the lovelorn sad sack.
the screenplay is missing the all important secondary plot line and leaves so much potential in the cast unmined. rita wilson, mary kay place, and alexandra wentworth play meryl's cheering section but are given nothing to do. john krasinski plays a future son-in law who unwittingly becomes a party to an affair between his divorced future in-laws and is just thrown in from time to time to get a guffaw. the friends have no lives or histories of their own to offer any interest or advice and krasinki's character was so poorly introduced i thought he was one of the kids for most of the film.
meryl streep looks beautiful, i love alec and he does a great job, as does steve. there are laugh out loud moments but like i said if you own a tv- you've seen them. a great cast, a good idea, meyers just dropped the ball by focusing all her energy on the one plot point, which is rarely enough to sustain a film for as long as she tries here. meyers has found a niche market in the middle ager world. it is nice seeing romantic comedies without any twenty year olds, or even thirty year olds. but she needs to develop another story line or go off to a retreat somewhere and purge herself of this one. else in 2 years we'll see yet another version of this story starring michelle pfeiffer and william shatner with greg kinear as the devoted mr. right.
i call this film a product because it is very well packaged- pretty people wearing pretty clothes in pretty sets, which is almost all i want in a movie, but this one is missing the one key ingredient, these pretty people need to be doing something interesting. here they don't-ever. and then meyers wraps this package up in a big red bow by force feeding us a very predictably boring ending. if you've seen the trailer and any appearance on any talk show with clips then you've seen the best parts of this film. you really don't need to spend your money. it's too long, alec really really needs to drop at least 50 -100 lbs ( he too convincingly plays someone eight years older than he ), and steve needs to stop playing the lovelorn sad sack.
the screenplay is missing the all important secondary plot line and leaves so much potential in the cast unmined. rita wilson, mary kay place, and alexandra wentworth play meryl's cheering section but are given nothing to do. john krasinski plays a future son-in law who unwittingly becomes a party to an affair between his divorced future in-laws and is just thrown in from time to time to get a guffaw. the friends have no lives or histories of their own to offer any interest or advice and krasinki's character was so poorly introduced i thought he was one of the kids for most of the film.
meryl streep looks beautiful, i love alec and he does a great job, as does steve. there are laugh out loud moments but like i said if you own a tv- you've seen them. a great cast, a good idea, meyers just dropped the ball by focusing all her energy on the one plot point, which is rarely enough to sustain a film for as long as she tries here. meyers has found a niche market in the middle ager world. it is nice seeing romantic comedies without any twenty year olds, or even thirty year olds. but she needs to develop another story line or go off to a retreat somewhere and purge herself of this one. else in 2 years we'll see yet another version of this story starring michelle pfeiffer and william shatner with greg kinear as the devoted mr. right.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
armored
one of my movie going partners called me up and said he wanted to see, "armored". As justification, he quoted the new york times as calling it "a b movie with soul". but he admitted the real reason he wanted to see it was that the director's name is nimrod. nimrod antal. i felt i had seen the whole movie when i watched the trailer, but it was his turn to pick the movie. so, reluctantly i went.
i was pleasantly surpised when at the end i found that i actually liked this film. it offers the usual suspects of b caper movies- matt dillon, lawrence fishburne, fred ward, skeet ulrich and jean reno- all of whom are usually scene chewers (except reno). i always think fishburne plays all his parts as othello would- othello as a fry cook, othello as a bank robber, othello as a bank guard. skeet ulrich has been called the poor man's johnny depp for the resemblance and his own over the top acting. (amaury nolasco plays his partner and also stars with the real depp in the upcoming "the rum diary". i wonder if he got confused...) fred ward is posey- he hits his marks, stops, poses, then delivers his lines. matt dillon, well face it- the man looks like a muppet version of himself- with that flat forehead, sticky hair, bushy independently active eyebrows and huge mouth that jerks back his head everytime he talks. the unwitting hero of the film is a relative newbie, columbus short, who had to keep it believable- a war hero turned superman under impossible situations. in this film they all did very good jobs- a feat i attribute to the director.
i loved some of the camerawork- the aerial view of a buick regal for instance, it's beautiful car with awesome lines that just needs to be seen from above. there is also a running scene that follows our hero through portholes. the editing is tight, the suspense is on a short leash that tugs the story along at just the right pace. this is one movie that is better than the trailer.
good job nimrod.
i was pleasantly surpised when at the end i found that i actually liked this film. it offers the usual suspects of b caper movies- matt dillon, lawrence fishburne, fred ward, skeet ulrich and jean reno- all of whom are usually scene chewers (except reno). i always think fishburne plays all his parts as othello would- othello as a fry cook, othello as a bank robber, othello as a bank guard. skeet ulrich has been called the poor man's johnny depp for the resemblance and his own over the top acting. (amaury nolasco plays his partner and also stars with the real depp in the upcoming "the rum diary". i wonder if he got confused...) fred ward is posey- he hits his marks, stops, poses, then delivers his lines. matt dillon, well face it- the man looks like a muppet version of himself- with that flat forehead, sticky hair, bushy independently active eyebrows and huge mouth that jerks back his head everytime he talks. the unwitting hero of the film is a relative newbie, columbus short, who had to keep it believable- a war hero turned superman under impossible situations. in this film they all did very good jobs- a feat i attribute to the director.
i loved some of the camerawork- the aerial view of a buick regal for instance, it's beautiful car with awesome lines that just needs to be seen from above. there is also a running scene that follows our hero through portholes. the editing is tight, the suspense is on a short leash that tugs the story along at just the right pace. this is one movie that is better than the trailer.
good job nimrod.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
an education
"an education" is a true story based on the lynn barber book about an episode in her teen years in which she and all around her learned many different lessons. nick hornby ("about a boy") wrote the screenplay and did a good job of keeping the movie sweet by rounding off some of the edges in barber's book. "an education" is set in provincial england, on a street of row houses, about a middle class family who's sole focus in life is to get their bright, talented, only daughter into oxford. the sad result of all this good education would be a position as a teacher, civil servant or a good marriage. but the girl has bigger dreams of a life in paris, listening to jazz, purchasing art, reading existentialism and smoking fancy french cigarettes- above all, having fun. all of which seem like pipe dreams until older man david comes along and makes all these dreams come true.
carey mulligan is perfect as, jenny, the little girl who plays at being a young woman only to find herself a little girl again yet more grown up than her parents. she wears all of it very well. peter skarsgaard is one of my favorite actors plays the predatory charmer who almost has himself under his own spell. alfred molina as the spineless father is a little over the top. rosamund pike does a scary believable job as the vacuous and decorous girlfriend of david's hip business partner played by dominic cooper- love him!. emma thompson is dead on as the dead end head mistress of jenny's all girl school and olivia williams is convincing as the favorite teacher who wants more for her.
the clothes are wonderful, the hair and makeup are 60's funtastic. what's not fun is the stark reminder just how limited women's options were in the 60's. and how in their eagerness to see jenny married, which would, of course, make oxford unnecessary and thus negating her whole life's purpose, her parents failed miserably to protect and guide her.
if you don't see this in the theaters, put it on your rent list.
carey mulligan is perfect as, jenny, the little girl who plays at being a young woman only to find herself a little girl again yet more grown up than her parents. she wears all of it very well. peter skarsgaard is one of my favorite actors plays the predatory charmer who almost has himself under his own spell. alfred molina as the spineless father is a little over the top. rosamund pike does a scary believable job as the vacuous and decorous girlfriend of david's hip business partner played by dominic cooper- love him!. emma thompson is dead on as the dead end head mistress of jenny's all girl school and olivia williams is convincing as the favorite teacher who wants more for her.
the clothes are wonderful, the hair and makeup are 60's funtastic. what's not fun is the stark reminder just how limited women's options were in the 60's. and how in their eagerness to see jenny married, which would, of course, make oxford unnecessary and thus negating her whole life's purpose, her parents failed miserably to protect and guide her.
if you don't see this in the theaters, put it on your rent list.
pirate radio
a friend and i went to go see "an education" this saturday and mistakenly arrived at the theater an hour early. we ducked into the theater for "pirate radio" instead. an hour later we went back to "an education."
"pirate radio" is a big mess. it's set in 1966, when england has banned rock and roll from british radio stations spawning a fleet of ships off the british coast who's inhabitants spend their days broadcasting rock and roll, getting high, and talking about getting laid- all in the name of freedom. the other set in the film is inside the british governmental offices where politicians all but curl their handle bar mustaches while plotting to curtail these offshore activities- all in the name of decency. there's a subplot of a young man being sent to live on the boat with his godfather (nighy) and his quest to lose his virginity (women are ferried in regularly) and a secret sub sub plot that the godfather might really be his father, so it's meant to be a coming of age film as well.
"pirate radio" aka "the boat that rocked" is a waste of such a highly regarded and awarded cast which includes phillip seymour hoffman (truman), bill nighy(underworld, love actually), kenneth branagh( hamlet, henry 5) and rhy ifans (notting hill). the characters are too broad and we have absolutely no chance to warm up to them. as an audience we are dropped on the the ship in the night during a storm and immediately are shown everyone's worst side. and after an hour we had yet to be shown anyone's good side. the script has anacranistic dialog which is very distracting, the editing is clumsy and the directing seems without purpose.
don't bother. spend your money on the soundtrack- great selection of 60's music.
"pirate radio" is a big mess. it's set in 1966, when england has banned rock and roll from british radio stations spawning a fleet of ships off the british coast who's inhabitants spend their days broadcasting rock and roll, getting high, and talking about getting laid- all in the name of freedom. the other set in the film is inside the british governmental offices where politicians all but curl their handle bar mustaches while plotting to curtail these offshore activities- all in the name of decency. there's a subplot of a young man being sent to live on the boat with his godfather (nighy) and his quest to lose his virginity (women are ferried in regularly) and a secret sub sub plot that the godfather might really be his father, so it's meant to be a coming of age film as well.
"pirate radio" aka "the boat that rocked" is a waste of such a highly regarded and awarded cast which includes phillip seymour hoffman (truman), bill nighy(underworld, love actually), kenneth branagh( hamlet, henry 5) and rhy ifans (notting hill). the characters are too broad and we have absolutely no chance to warm up to them. as an audience we are dropped on the the ship in the night during a storm and immediately are shown everyone's worst side. and after an hour we had yet to be shown anyone's good side. the script has anacranistic dialog which is very distracting, the editing is clumsy and the directing seems without purpose.
don't bother. spend your money on the soundtrack- great selection of 60's music.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
paranormal activity
"pararnormal activity" is an e-ticket scary ride. oren peli, an israeli director, had an idea, $11,000.00, 7 days, and 2 eager fledgling actors willing to both act in and shoot his film. he got his film premise from unusual activity he experienced first hand shortly after moving into a house in rancho bernardo, ca, a burb of san diego. he researched, wrote and edited it all himself. he then screened his product at 2 horror film fests with such success and buzz that dreamworks came knocking. speilberg fully intended to give the story the hollywood treatment and completely remake it, but after viewing it he realized it was the perfect horror film just the way it was. the story goes that while watching a copy of paranormal activity in his home, the door to an unused extra bedroom shut and locked itself and a locksmith had to be called. steven returned his copy of the dvd in a garbage bag presumably to protect himself from the demon posessed disc.
peli capitalizes brilliantly on the very accurate premise that what you can't see is far scarier than any cg monster. a profitable fact witnessed by the maker of "the blair witch project"- i was actually freaking out over oddly arranged sticks! my dad's favorite scary movie was the 1951, "thing from another world" in which a polar station is terrorized by something they never see. he was very disappointed in the 1982 remake, "the thing", that actually shows the monster. In 1942, Val Lewton made the crazy sucessful, "cat people", in which all the scary monsters are seen only in shadow. some of peli's other influences were "the entity", also one of my favorites, in which barbara hershey is harrassed by an invisible being with the single purpose of terrifying her and "the others" in which nicole kidman and her children are spooked by spooks or is it the other way around? he prefers the film in which the story starts simply and the suspense builds. and that almost never happens anymore. horror films have turned into gorefests that aren't scary, just disturbing when you think how many people pay to see bloodier ways to torture and kill other people, ie: "saw 1-12". that's the scary part about these films, that people out there actually think that they are entertaining.
if you want a good scare, paranormal activity is the film for you. when i saw it, there were some very talkative teenagers in the theater, but shortly into the movie, it was dead quiet. there are a few spots that were titling the cheesy meter and i knew that the backstory wasn't true. yet, it scared me so much afterward i was afraid to go into my car alone, i stopped by a friend's house because i didn't want to go to my house alone, and i still sleep with the lights on. plus i'm writing this revew from the library because i don't want to think about this film at home or i won't sleep at all.
this is a dark ride.
peli capitalizes brilliantly on the very accurate premise that what you can't see is far scarier than any cg monster. a profitable fact witnessed by the maker of "the blair witch project"- i was actually freaking out over oddly arranged sticks! my dad's favorite scary movie was the 1951, "thing from another world" in which a polar station is terrorized by something they never see. he was very disappointed in the 1982 remake, "the thing", that actually shows the monster. In 1942, Val Lewton made the crazy sucessful, "cat people", in which all the scary monsters are seen only in shadow. some of peli's other influences were "the entity", also one of my favorites, in which barbara hershey is harrassed by an invisible being with the single purpose of terrifying her and "the others" in which nicole kidman and her children are spooked by spooks or is it the other way around? he prefers the film in which the story starts simply and the suspense builds. and that almost never happens anymore. horror films have turned into gorefests that aren't scary, just disturbing when you think how many people pay to see bloodier ways to torture and kill other people, ie: "saw 1-12". that's the scary part about these films, that people out there actually think that they are entertaining.
if you want a good scare, paranormal activity is the film for you. when i saw it, there were some very talkative teenagers in the theater, but shortly into the movie, it was dead quiet. there are a few spots that were titling the cheesy meter and i knew that the backstory wasn't true. yet, it scared me so much afterward i was afraid to go into my car alone, i stopped by a friend's house because i didn't want to go to my house alone, and i still sleep with the lights on. plus i'm writing this revew from the library because i don't want to think about this film at home or i won't sleep at all.
this is a dark ride.
Friday, November 6, 2009
the men who stare at goats
George Clooney and Ewan McGregor star in the latest version of a buddy picture or a road movie- a buddies on the road movie. Crosby and Hope meet Falk and Arkin in "The In-laws On the Road to Iraq". (I kept expecting Clooney's Falk to yell out to McGregor's Arkin, "Serpentine!!") The film is funny and imaginative. While watching it, I thought, "this is a good movie, I'm enjoying this." But when it was over I was left thinking - "eh." The ending was flat. And yet I really can't expect more than that because any road picture is about the journey not the destination, so this picture can be forgiven for it's dead end. Who can remember why Bing and Bob went anywhere? The point was for them to go.
If you've seen the trailer than you know the plot: the army experiments with creating psychic soldiers-real life jedi warriors- with a variety of successes. As a history student I read about these episodes and know that this is based in some truth. For instance- the U.S. only began these experiments because they found out that the Russians had opened a military psychic research division which they began only because they read and believed an article the French wrote about the U.S. doing it. This is true and illustrates the mental capacity with which we are dealing. And then we've all heard about the military's LSD research.
But the story isn't really the point, it's a boys club having fun. Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey, Robert Patrick and Stephen Lang are other club members who play their very one dimensional parts with lots of relish. Clooney has carved out a niche for himself playing this kind of zealous nut job on a mission. I have to say, as much as I love Ewan McGregor, the choice of him in this role was distracting. In this movie there was a lot of discussion about jedi warriors and Clooney's charactor told McGregor's character to find the jedi inside of him. Ewan played Obi-Wan Kenobi for chrisstsake. You don't tell Obi-Wan to find his inner jedi. It diverted my attention and pulled me out of the movie. Maybe they thought it would be ironic or funny, but no, it was annoying. Maybe one reference with a big wink to the camera would have been ok, but Clooney kept trying to teach Obi-Wan how to do jedi mind tricks!!! Big mistake in casting.
So, as a movie, The Men Who Stare at Goats, is not great. But for a laugh it does the job.
PS- For my animal sensitive readers, there are some incidences in which animals are threatened with violence but nothing is done on camera- it's all in reference. What I found more disturbing was all the footage of George W. Bush- much scarier.
If you've seen the trailer than you know the plot: the army experiments with creating psychic soldiers-real life jedi warriors- with a variety of successes. As a history student I read about these episodes and know that this is based in some truth. For instance- the U.S. only began these experiments because they found out that the Russians had opened a military psychic research division which they began only because they read and believed an article the French wrote about the U.S. doing it. This is true and illustrates the mental capacity with which we are dealing. And then we've all heard about the military's LSD research.
But the story isn't really the point, it's a boys club having fun. Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey, Robert Patrick and Stephen Lang are other club members who play their very one dimensional parts with lots of relish. Clooney has carved out a niche for himself playing this kind of zealous nut job on a mission. I have to say, as much as I love Ewan McGregor, the choice of him in this role was distracting. In this movie there was a lot of discussion about jedi warriors and Clooney's charactor told McGregor's character to find the jedi inside of him. Ewan played Obi-Wan Kenobi for chrisstsake. You don't tell Obi-Wan to find his inner jedi. It diverted my attention and pulled me out of the movie. Maybe they thought it would be ironic or funny, but no, it was annoying. Maybe one reference with a big wink to the camera would have been ok, but Clooney kept trying to teach Obi-Wan how to do jedi mind tricks!!! Big mistake in casting.
So, as a movie, The Men Who Stare at Goats, is not great. But for a laugh it does the job.
PS- For my animal sensitive readers, there are some incidences in which animals are threatened with violence but nothing is done on camera- it's all in reference. What I found more disturbing was all the footage of George W. Bush- much scarier.
Friday, October 16, 2009
the invention of lying
the invention of lying is about a world without lies: people not only always tell the truth but they believe everything they hear and say because they know it is the truth. it is a land of no imagination. ricky gervais created this world, a feat which does take imagination, there's just not enough to make a whole movie. the invention of lying is a half of a movie. it has a funny premise that works for awhile and then goes nowhere for a long time. this movie is too long. there is a whole storyline that should have been edited out as it adds nothing but time and for a comedy that's death. timing is the key to anything funny. there are a lot of nice surprise cameos that i won't spoil for you if you decide to see it, but even they all happen in the first half of the film.
the invention of lying is also sometimes awkward. while i like ricky gervais, i have to remember that he is the creator of the office- the original british version, which i don't like because it's mean and has 30 minutes of awkward situations which for me is not a funny combination. some of this theory of comedy has spilled into this movie. not only does everyone tell blunt truths, but they do it compulsively as though the whole population has blunt truth turrettes- they constantly spit out awkwardly inappropriate things. sometimes it is very funny, but when it's not it's like someone throwing a log under the wheels of a car as it's going down the highway- very jarring and completely unnecessary. it ruins the flow of the film. with some good editing, this film could have been saved.
at 12.00 for a movie ticket nowadays, save your money for a whole movie. unless you find a bargain matinee for 6.00, then it might be worth it, laughs are precious and we need to grab them when we can.
the invention of lying is also sometimes awkward. while i like ricky gervais, i have to remember that he is the creator of the office- the original british version, which i don't like because it's mean and has 30 minutes of awkward situations which for me is not a funny combination. some of this theory of comedy has spilled into this movie. not only does everyone tell blunt truths, but they do it compulsively as though the whole population has blunt truth turrettes- they constantly spit out awkwardly inappropriate things. sometimes it is very funny, but when it's not it's like someone throwing a log under the wheels of a car as it's going down the highway- very jarring and completely unnecessary. it ruins the flow of the film. with some good editing, this film could have been saved.
at 12.00 for a movie ticket nowadays, save your money for a whole movie. unless you find a bargain matinee for 6.00, then it might be worth it, laughs are precious and we need to grab them when we can.
Friday, September 25, 2009
rentables
can't think of what to rent? these days there is a dearth of hollywood product that makes renting movies frustrating and often fruitless endeavors. i have compiled a list of movies that you might have missed over the past years but are still worth seeing. i will continue to update this list as i find or think of movies to add, so keep checking this entry out as it gets pushed down the line into the archives due to newer blog new entries. feel free to offer suggestions of your own. i have organized my choices according to genre.
action
romeo is bleeding-1993- gary oldman (i love him!) plays a new york detective with questionable morals who makes questionable choices involving the mob, roy scheider, and 3 women- his wife, annabella sciorra, his mistress, juliette lewis, and an insane assassin, lena olin. very violent, very edgy, but very original.
boondock saints-1999-willem dafoe is genius as a detective determined to find out who's behind a spree of violence, and the irish brothers, sean patrick flanery and norman reedus, who unwittingly stumble into the mix and come out, well, saints. i'm very much looking forward to the sequel this winter.
true romance-1993- awesome and fun shoot 'em up written by quentin tarantino and directed by tony "the only way i like women in my movies is naked or dead, preferably both" scott starring christian slater, patricia arquette, christopher walken, brad pitt, samuel l. jackson, gary oldman (love him!), val kilmer, dennis hopper, saul rubinek, james gandolfini, tom sizemore and bronson pinchot. with all the above how could you lose?
the professional-1994-gary oldman (still love him) is and an insane bad guy/cop/drug dealer hunting down a 12 year old witness(natalie portman) to a massacre who enlists the aid of a neighbor/professional assassin (jean reno). very violent and bloody. oldman really gets into this role and proves, once again, that he can sweat with the best of them.
i'm assuming you've seen reservoir dogs
action that goes in a lot of different directions but makes sense in a way you never saw coming in the end
lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels-1998- guy ritchie's first film and it's genius and violent- jason statham(love him!) in this british film about a high stakes card game that doesn't go as planned.
go- 1999- katie holmes, jay mohr, scott wolf, taye diggs and many more. different perspectives of a drug deal. comedy and violence.
shallow grave- 1994- ewan macgregor in a british film about how you never really know your roommates- violent and funny.
snatch- 2000-guy ritichie again, with brad pitt who needs subtitles- violent- not quite as good as his first, but few movies are as good as guy ritchie's first. includes jason statham, dennis farina and benecio del toro.
i'm assuming you've seen pulp fiction
comedy
you've probably all ready seen all the funny movies but this british one tickled
hot fuzz- 2007- simon pegg, martin freeman and bill nighy. an uptight city cop gets sent to a rural beat and chuckles ensue.
ghost town-2008- ricky gervais is a genius. this movie has some laughs so rent it why don't cha? tea leoni, greg kinear and various funny people star in a story about a dentist who doesn't like people and cherishes his alone time. after he dies for 7 minutes during a procedure, he is constantly surrounded by dead people who want him to finish their unfinished business for him. and he has to...
Costume/period pieces
age of innocence-1993-one of martin scorsese's best. edith wharton's story narrated by joanne woodward starring michelle pfeiffer, daniel day lewis and winona ryder. fits all my criteria for a good film- beautiful people in beautiful clothes and beautiful settings behaving not so beautifully (even the food is beautiful!)
the wings of the dove-1997- helena bonham carter, linus roache (love him), michael gambon, elizabeth mcgovern, and charlotte rampling. henry miller's tale of a dependent woman trying to have love and independence together no matter who it hurts until it hurts her. and then it's a matter of watching to see who cries uncle first.
portrait of a lady-1996-jane campion directs this henry miller book. nicole kideman, john malkovich, barbra hershey, martin donovan, johm geilgud, shelly winters, richard e. grant, christian bale, mary-louis parker, viggo mortenson and shelley duvall. this has one of my favorite lines, when describing viggo mortenson's character, mary louise parker's character says, "i've never seen an ugly man look so handsome." don't let the offbeat opening credits chase you away, watch it and then tell me what you think the ending means...
lady jane-1986-helena bonham carter and carey elwes play lady jane grey and gilbert dudley, the hapless children of dangerously ambitious parents during the scramble for power in post king henry viii's court. helena and carey were the same ages of the characters they played, 15 and 19. there are some historical inaccuracies (gilbert dudley was really a waste of space asshole who never redeemed himself) but since when does history get in the way of a good story?
an ideal husband-1999-oscar wilde's play starring rupert everett, jeremy northam, cate blanchette, julianne moore and minnie driver about secrets, lies and blackmail in the perfect (?) marriage and what it really takes to be the ideal husband.
white mischief- 1988- greta saachi, charles dance, joss ackland, sarah miles, geraldine page, and trevor howard star in this true story of a love triangle and murder in an affluent 1940's kenyan circle of british ex-pats. again, a perfect combination of beautiful people, beautiful settings, beautiful clothes, and bad, bad behavior...
i'm assuming you've seen all the jane austens-pride and prejudice (bbc and hollywood versions) sense and sensibility, mansfield park, emma and persuasion.
drama- lightish
the lookout-2007-joseph gorden levitt, jeff daniels and isla fisher. really good and not nearly as depressing as any synopsis would suggest: a high school star athelete is permanently brain damaged in an accident, becomes a janitor at a bank and finds himself in the middle of a robbery plot. and yet not depressing...
i've loved you so long-2008-kristin scott thomas in a french film, yes with subtitles, about a women who after serving a prison term goes to live with her sister. much lighter than it sounds and there is no cirque de soleil french film weirdness. it's quite entertaining.
dear frankie( aka the stranger)-2004- scottish film- gerard butler (love him). i suggest using the english subtitles because of the accents. sweet romanctic story of a little boy who believes in the existence of a loving yet absent merchant marine father because his mother writes letters and has them posted from around the world to him. and of course the day comes when pretend daddy's real ship comes to town. the mommy, not wanting her son to be disappointed, enlists the help of "the stranger"(butler). we never get to know his name, but what happens next is worth watching- well, the whole movie is worth watching.
what the ?- reality benders
donnie darko-2001-high school new boy in town jake gyllenhaal follows a rabbit down a hole and comes up with his own version of life. includes sister maggie gyllenhaal, drew barrymore, holmes osbourne, and mary mcdonnell. i almost didn't adopt my cat because he looked too much like this spooky bunny...cult classic and a must see.
the lathe of heaven-1980- bruce davison plays george orr, a man who goes to a psychiatrist for sleep issues. the doctor discovers that when george dreams, things happen. he tries to use this power for good, but the results are often more than he bargained for. but then it's easy for us to say what's what, because we've seen the world after april...
brainstorm-1983- natalie wood's final film, in fact she died before principle filming was completed so they had to rewrite it. i can't imagine what it was supposed to be becuase this version is pretty good. also stars christopher walken (that's why he was on that boat with her, they were working together at the time) as her scientist husband who invents a virtual reality machine that proves to be too real. louise fletcher and cliff robertston also star.
action
romeo is bleeding-1993- gary oldman (i love him!) plays a new york detective with questionable morals who makes questionable choices involving the mob, roy scheider, and 3 women- his wife, annabella sciorra, his mistress, juliette lewis, and an insane assassin, lena olin. very violent, very edgy, but very original.
boondock saints-1999-willem dafoe is genius as a detective determined to find out who's behind a spree of violence, and the irish brothers, sean patrick flanery and norman reedus, who unwittingly stumble into the mix and come out, well, saints. i'm very much looking forward to the sequel this winter.
true romance-1993- awesome and fun shoot 'em up written by quentin tarantino and directed by tony "the only way i like women in my movies is naked or dead, preferably both" scott starring christian slater, patricia arquette, christopher walken, brad pitt, samuel l. jackson, gary oldman (love him!), val kilmer, dennis hopper, saul rubinek, james gandolfini, tom sizemore and bronson pinchot. with all the above how could you lose?
the professional-1994-gary oldman (still love him) is and an insane bad guy/cop/drug dealer hunting down a 12 year old witness(natalie portman) to a massacre who enlists the aid of a neighbor/professional assassin (jean reno). very violent and bloody. oldman really gets into this role and proves, once again, that he can sweat with the best of them.
i'm assuming you've seen reservoir dogs
action that goes in a lot of different directions but makes sense in a way you never saw coming in the end
lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels-1998- guy ritchie's first film and it's genius and violent- jason statham(love him!) in this british film about a high stakes card game that doesn't go as planned.
go- 1999- katie holmes, jay mohr, scott wolf, taye diggs and many more. different perspectives of a drug deal. comedy and violence.
shallow grave- 1994- ewan macgregor in a british film about how you never really know your roommates- violent and funny.
snatch- 2000-guy ritichie again, with brad pitt who needs subtitles- violent- not quite as good as his first, but few movies are as good as guy ritchie's first. includes jason statham, dennis farina and benecio del toro.
i'm assuming you've seen pulp fiction
comedy
you've probably all ready seen all the funny movies but this british one tickled
hot fuzz- 2007- simon pegg, martin freeman and bill nighy. an uptight city cop gets sent to a rural beat and chuckles ensue.
ghost town-2008- ricky gervais is a genius. this movie has some laughs so rent it why don't cha? tea leoni, greg kinear and various funny people star in a story about a dentist who doesn't like people and cherishes his alone time. after he dies for 7 minutes during a procedure, he is constantly surrounded by dead people who want him to finish their unfinished business for him. and he has to...
Costume/period pieces
age of innocence-1993-one of martin scorsese's best. edith wharton's story narrated by joanne woodward starring michelle pfeiffer, daniel day lewis and winona ryder. fits all my criteria for a good film- beautiful people in beautiful clothes and beautiful settings behaving not so beautifully (even the food is beautiful!)
the wings of the dove-1997- helena bonham carter, linus roache (love him), michael gambon, elizabeth mcgovern, and charlotte rampling. henry miller's tale of a dependent woman trying to have love and independence together no matter who it hurts until it hurts her. and then it's a matter of watching to see who cries uncle first.
portrait of a lady-1996-jane campion directs this henry miller book. nicole kideman, john malkovich, barbra hershey, martin donovan, johm geilgud, shelly winters, richard e. grant, christian bale, mary-louis parker, viggo mortenson and shelley duvall. this has one of my favorite lines, when describing viggo mortenson's character, mary louise parker's character says, "i've never seen an ugly man look so handsome." don't let the offbeat opening credits chase you away, watch it and then tell me what you think the ending means...
lady jane-1986-helena bonham carter and carey elwes play lady jane grey and gilbert dudley, the hapless children of dangerously ambitious parents during the scramble for power in post king henry viii's court. helena and carey were the same ages of the characters they played, 15 and 19. there are some historical inaccuracies (gilbert dudley was really a waste of space asshole who never redeemed himself) but since when does history get in the way of a good story?
an ideal husband-1999-oscar wilde's play starring rupert everett, jeremy northam, cate blanchette, julianne moore and minnie driver about secrets, lies and blackmail in the perfect (?) marriage and what it really takes to be the ideal husband.
white mischief- 1988- greta saachi, charles dance, joss ackland, sarah miles, geraldine page, and trevor howard star in this true story of a love triangle and murder in an affluent 1940's kenyan circle of british ex-pats. again, a perfect combination of beautiful people, beautiful settings, beautiful clothes, and bad, bad behavior...
i'm assuming you've seen all the jane austens-pride and prejudice (bbc and hollywood versions) sense and sensibility, mansfield park, emma and persuasion.
drama- lightish
the lookout-2007-joseph gorden levitt, jeff daniels and isla fisher. really good and not nearly as depressing as any synopsis would suggest: a high school star athelete is permanently brain damaged in an accident, becomes a janitor at a bank and finds himself in the middle of a robbery plot. and yet not depressing...
i've loved you so long-2008-kristin scott thomas in a french film, yes with subtitles, about a women who after serving a prison term goes to live with her sister. much lighter than it sounds and there is no cirque de soleil french film weirdness. it's quite entertaining.
dear frankie( aka the stranger)-2004- scottish film- gerard butler (love him). i suggest using the english subtitles because of the accents. sweet romanctic story of a little boy who believes in the existence of a loving yet absent merchant marine father because his mother writes letters and has them posted from around the world to him. and of course the day comes when pretend daddy's real ship comes to town. the mommy, not wanting her son to be disappointed, enlists the help of "the stranger"(butler). we never get to know his name, but what happens next is worth watching- well, the whole movie is worth watching.
what the ?- reality benders
donnie darko-2001-high school new boy in town jake gyllenhaal follows a rabbit down a hole and comes up with his own version of life. includes sister maggie gyllenhaal, drew barrymore, holmes osbourne, and mary mcdonnell. i almost didn't adopt my cat because he looked too much like this spooky bunny...cult classic and a must see.
the lathe of heaven-1980- bruce davison plays george orr, a man who goes to a psychiatrist for sleep issues. the doctor discovers that when george dreams, things happen. he tries to use this power for good, but the results are often more than he bargained for. but then it's easy for us to say what's what, because we've seen the world after april...
brainstorm-1983- natalie wood's final film, in fact she died before principle filming was completed so they had to rewrite it. i can't imagine what it was supposed to be becuase this version is pretty good. also stars christopher walken (that's why he was on that boat with her, they were working together at the time) as her scientist husband who invents a virtual reality machine that proves to be too real. louise fletcher and cliff robertston also star.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Documentary summer
there just hasn't been many good movies out there this summer. and the only ones i've enjoyed lately have been documentaries. i hope that doesn't mean i'm getting very old...nah, hollywood is just putting out a lot of crap. even good old standbys like harry potter were disastrous disappointments.
i have seen 2 very good documentaries, "it might get loud" and "the september issue" and am looking forward to two more, "good hair" and "capitalism, a love story".
it might get loud follows jimmy page, the edge and jack white and is totally worth the trip. put it on your rental list.
the september issue documents the creation of the largest vogue issue of the year from start to finish. it's the real devil wears prada and i will see it again.
good hair is by chris rock and he takes us into the world of black hair- what black women have to go through to get - good hair. watch the trailer, it's more entertaining than it sounds-. opening oct 2.
capitalism: a love story is by michael moore as he goes after aig. i love him and am looking forward to seeing his take on this economical disaster we're living through. also opening oct 2.
i have seen 2 very good documentaries, "it might get loud" and "the september issue" and am looking forward to two more, "good hair" and "capitalism, a love story".
it might get loud follows jimmy page, the edge and jack white and is totally worth the trip. put it on your rental list.
the september issue documents the creation of the largest vogue issue of the year from start to finish. it's the real devil wears prada and i will see it again.
good hair is by chris rock and he takes us into the world of black hair- what black women have to go through to get - good hair. watch the trailer, it's more entertaining than it sounds-. opening oct 2.
capitalism: a love story is by michael moore as he goes after aig. i love him and am looking forward to seeing his take on this economical disaster we're living through. also opening oct 2.
Friday, September 18, 2009
love happens
'love happens' is mis-titled. it should be 'death happens' or 'bad movies happen.' this movie is classified as a dramedy- my friend called it a dramadary. so what i had in my head was an image of a camel trudging through the sahara throughout this long, bleak, nothing new, nothing interesting landscape of a film.
aaron eckhart and jennifer aniston literally bump into each other and the romance begins. this also signals the end of any hope of seeing anything original. he's the tony robbins of grieving encamped in a hotel for a weekend seminar and she's the hotel's florist who makes bad relationship choices. at one point her friend tells her that she's tired of watching her repeatedly date the same kind of guy while being disappointed that it never works out. i half expected the friend to break character, shake her, slap her and yell, "snap out of it, jennifer!!"
there were goofs (movie mistakes)- a badge was turned the wrong way but was magically righted in the next second, and jennifer's scarves were always re-adjusting themselves when the camera cut away from her. also aaron wore the same tie twice only in different colors. these are all details that would have gone unnoticed had there been anything else more interesting happening on the screen.
there are tears. there are sad stories of loss after all, but they are telegraphed as we are dragged through the seminar focusing on the story of the one familiar face in a sea of extras (john carroll lynch who played drew's brother steve in the drew carey show). he plays the participant who has to be talked into staying but gets the most out of the seminar and teaches others along the way. in the end of course, it's aaron's character who has the biggest breakthrough, in front of everyone, including his father (martin sheen) who's timing for showing up at this one moment is nothing short of miraculous.
unusual words play a key part in getting aaron and jennifer's characters together. she writes them behind pictures in his hotel and he finds them. the word that kept popping into my head was, mawkish, which means-sentimental in an nauseatingly insipid way.
don't go- don't rent.
aaron eckhart and jennifer aniston literally bump into each other and the romance begins. this also signals the end of any hope of seeing anything original. he's the tony robbins of grieving encamped in a hotel for a weekend seminar and she's the hotel's florist who makes bad relationship choices. at one point her friend tells her that she's tired of watching her repeatedly date the same kind of guy while being disappointed that it never works out. i half expected the friend to break character, shake her, slap her and yell, "snap out of it, jennifer!!"
there were goofs (movie mistakes)- a badge was turned the wrong way but was magically righted in the next second, and jennifer's scarves were always re-adjusting themselves when the camera cut away from her. also aaron wore the same tie twice only in different colors. these are all details that would have gone unnoticed had there been anything else more interesting happening on the screen.
there are tears. there are sad stories of loss after all, but they are telegraphed as we are dragged through the seminar focusing on the story of the one familiar face in a sea of extras (john carroll lynch who played drew's brother steve in the drew carey show). he plays the participant who has to be talked into staying but gets the most out of the seminar and teaches others along the way. in the end of course, it's aaron's character who has the biggest breakthrough, in front of everyone, including his father (martin sheen) who's timing for showing up at this one moment is nothing short of miraculous.
unusual words play a key part in getting aaron and jennifer's characters together. she writes them behind pictures in his hotel and he finds them. the word that kept popping into my head was, mawkish, which means-sentimental in an nauseatingly insipid way.
don't go- don't rent.
Friday, September 11, 2009
it might get loud
it did get loud- and loving it.
davis guggenheim (an inconvenient truth) turned his camera to the world of music and the language shared by players of the electric guitar across 40 years. he was shocked to have his first three choices of guitarists agree to participate-jimmy page, who became a producer of this documentary, the edge, and jack white. in this film, guggenheim talks to all three separately in and about their hometowns searching for the spark that set each on his own particular musical bent. he then puts them together and we get to watch. not being particularly musical, i have always envied the special connection musicians have, that short hand they share- the way they can play together and not only make sense but make music. here, watching these strangers meet, it is beautiful and special to see. and the cool thing is, they know it too.
in the 70's, i was in college, discovered drugs and led zepplin. i had the best stereo with huge cerwin vega speakers- all woofer and mid range, no tweeter. we used to rip off the foam and watch the woofer crank, which it enthusiastically did to "when the levee breaks". their music was a personal experience. they were my led zepplin. i have all their albums still and was blessed to see them in concert twice in one month- indoors and out. led zepplin were gods. in this film, it was such a treat to see this god, jimmy page, pouring through his own album collection for that one 45 he bought as a teenager that sent him over the edge and the delighted expression on his face as he played it. the god has a god of his own.
the early footage of zepplin at headley grange while filming led zepplin 4, and the oh so bad footage of early u2 performances are worth the price of admission alone. there is also a lot of footage of those musicians who inspired each guitarist: skiffle(?), the ramones, and southern blues artists.
davis guggenheim (an inconvenient truth) turned his camera to the world of music and the language shared by players of the electric guitar across 40 years. he was shocked to have his first three choices of guitarists agree to participate-jimmy page, who became a producer of this documentary, the edge, and jack white. in this film, guggenheim talks to all three separately in and about their hometowns searching for the spark that set each on his own particular musical bent. he then puts them together and we get to watch. not being particularly musical, i have always envied the special connection musicians have, that short hand they share- the way they can play together and not only make sense but make music. here, watching these strangers meet, it is beautiful and special to see. and the cool thing is, they know it too.
in the 70's, i was in college, discovered drugs and led zepplin. i had the best stereo with huge cerwin vega speakers- all woofer and mid range, no tweeter. we used to rip off the foam and watch the woofer crank, which it enthusiastically did to "when the levee breaks". their music was a personal experience. they were my led zepplin. i have all their albums still and was blessed to see them in concert twice in one month- indoors and out. led zepplin were gods. in this film, it was such a treat to see this god, jimmy page, pouring through his own album collection for that one 45 he bought as a teenager that sent him over the edge and the delighted expression on his face as he played it. the god has a god of his own.
the early footage of zepplin at headley grange while filming led zepplin 4, and the oh so bad footage of early u2 performances are worth the price of admission alone. there is also a lot of footage of those musicians who inspired each guitarist: skiffle(?), the ramones, and southern blues artists.
although guggenheim takes them back to england, ireland and chicago, we can see they were all on the same road. with all 3, it was just about getting what's in their heads out through their guitars. page's was a divine inspiration road to his craft. he really just had to get out of his own way. the edge's street was paved in modern technology, synthesizers and layering. white is of the perspiration school of music; it's all about challenging himself. if it isn't a struggle then he's not happy. each musician experiments to get that sound out there- page developed the double necked guitar so he could play stairway to heaven on stage or used a bow on his electric guitar, the edge surrounds himself with boxes that only he and his tech understand, and white has a harmonica mike installed on a retractable cord in his guitar. whatever it takes to get that sound out.
i found myself teary eyed reminiscing about much this music was a part of my life. how after john bonham died and led zepplin ended, it wasn't until a roommate brought home a record by an obscure irish band that i felt that void filled. my sister turned me on to the white stripes whose simplicity and clever lyrics made them an easy favorite. i can't say i feel as connected to jack white's music as i was to zepplin or u2, but i came away from this film impressed most by his talent. he's so bloody insane. i enjoyed seeing page on such a personal level. even my friend, who at the beginning of the film thought page was a poser, was impressed. my feelings about the edge stay pretty much the same. i didn't learn much of anything new but i still enjoyed hearing about the beginning of u2. i was a little concerned though, while hearing the edge talk i thought he was putting led zepplin down. but that fear was squashed when as after they were all put together and page stood up to play "whole lotta love", the edge rushed over to get a closer look - and he had that same look on his face that page had while listening to that one 45 of his youth. the edge was tickled pink. white too, was sitting in front of page holding his guitar by the neck reverently in front of him as if offering it in an 'i'm not worthy pose'. they were all on the same page (excuse the pun). you will want to watch the credits, as while they roll they all learn and play "the weight" together- it's f***ing great.
these are 3 men who had no choice but to be musicians. they were born that way. i admire that singularity of purpose and drive. john lennon said, " if i had the chance to do it over again, i'd be a fucking fisherman" and clapton was quoted once as saying the same. no way would any of these men even consider it. they just can't. they have to get that sound out of their heads. and it might get loud.
i found myself teary eyed reminiscing about much this music was a part of my life. how after john bonham died and led zepplin ended, it wasn't until a roommate brought home a record by an obscure irish band that i felt that void filled. my sister turned me on to the white stripes whose simplicity and clever lyrics made them an easy favorite. i can't say i feel as connected to jack white's music as i was to zepplin or u2, but i came away from this film impressed most by his talent. he's so bloody insane. i enjoyed seeing page on such a personal level. even my friend, who at the beginning of the film thought page was a poser, was impressed. my feelings about the edge stay pretty much the same. i didn't learn much of anything new but i still enjoyed hearing about the beginning of u2. i was a little concerned though, while hearing the edge talk i thought he was putting led zepplin down. but that fear was squashed when as after they were all put together and page stood up to play "whole lotta love", the edge rushed over to get a closer look - and he had that same look on his face that page had while listening to that one 45 of his youth. the edge was tickled pink. white too, was sitting in front of page holding his guitar by the neck reverently in front of him as if offering it in an 'i'm not worthy pose'. they were all on the same page (excuse the pun). you will want to watch the credits, as while they roll they all learn and play "the weight" together- it's f***ing great.
these are 3 men who had no choice but to be musicians. they were born that way. i admire that singularity of purpose and drive. john lennon said, " if i had the chance to do it over again, i'd be a fucking fisherman" and clapton was quoted once as saying the same. no way would any of these men even consider it. they just can't. they have to get that sound out of their heads. and it might get loud.
highly recommend. sadly in very limited distribution, i had to travel to see it. put it on your rental list for when it's released on dvd.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
inglourious basterds or have i outgrown tarantino?
when asked why he misspelled the word bastards in the title of his new film, quentin tarantino said he thought it was appropriate that the word 'terd' should be a part of the word 'bastard'. the journalist asking the question didn't have the heart to explain to the otherwise genius auteur that that's not how 'turd' is spelled...
well, quentin tarantino needs to get used how turd is spelled because it is the best word to describe his newest film. inglourious basterds is a big fat steaming turd.
i was looking forward to the arrival of this palm d'or winning latest work by someone i consider to be brilliant but sometimes overestimated (grindhouse) starring someone i consider to be beautiful and often underestimated (kalifornia, fight club etc...). i was in there rooting for the boys until about half way through the endless first scene when i found i just couldn't sustain the thrill. quentin had worn me out by opening his film with a 20 minute scene that could have lasted about only 5 minutes and still conveyed everything it needed to- which was to introduce 2 main characters, bad nazi and jew with a vengeance- a dynamic that we knew going into the film. each new scene in this movie is introduced as a chapter and after this one, a fellow theater member groaned, "how many chapters are there?" a valid question as i had all ready nodded off once.
i don't understand the point of this film. my sister suggested it is a fantasy. yes, it is but that doesn't explain it. it's as though quentin wanted to make a film about an american crew out to rain down violence on bad guys and he needed bad guys with whom no one would sympathize. so who are the baddest of the bad ever? nazis, of course. who couldn't enjoy a film depicting scores of nazis being beaten to death with a bat, scalped, and being machine gunned to shreds? you would think that would be a no brainer, but not so fast grasshopper. in order for such a tale to qualify as a good film there has to be a story, a reason(built in with this choice of baddies, granted) and it has to make sense. here tarantino shows hundreds of nazis in a burning theater being mowed down with bullets like rats and quentin has managed to make me feel sorry for the nazis! it's his fault, he wrote and directed this well, turd. the violence is just too, too. i am a huge fan of reservoir dogs and pulp fiction so i am no wuss. but, here practically everyone is wiped out just because he can. there has to be some scale to the violence, that's why kill bill volume 1 is just ok but kill bill volume 2 is a masterpiece. you have to know when and when not to pull the trigger. kill your darlings, quentin, not your entire cast...
speaking of cast, they were very good. especially, christoph waltz as the bad nazi. he won best actor at cannes and will be nominated again at oscar time. brad was terrific as always. my favorites included til schweiger as hugo stiglitz, daniel bruhl as fredrick zoller, eli roth as the bostonian donny donowitz, diane kruger as actress bridget von hammersmark,...you know, the whole cast was great. Except, i have to say, the insertion of mike myers was very distracting. sorry mike, you may be a fine actor, but your persona is too large for you to disappear successfully into a role.
so, to answer my own question, no, i don't think i've outgrown quentin tarantino. i think quentin is stuck. he's regressed to making a 14 year old's idea of a good shoot 'em up film. what he needs to remember (cause nobody does it better) that if you make a good shoot 'em up film it will appeal to all ages. the key words here are "a good film". i will forgive the bad spelling but not a bad film.
well, quentin tarantino needs to get used how turd is spelled because it is the best word to describe his newest film. inglourious basterds is a big fat steaming turd.
i was looking forward to the arrival of this palm d'or winning latest work by someone i consider to be brilliant but sometimes overestimated (grindhouse) starring someone i consider to be beautiful and often underestimated (kalifornia, fight club etc...). i was in there rooting for the boys until about half way through the endless first scene when i found i just couldn't sustain the thrill. quentin had worn me out by opening his film with a 20 minute scene that could have lasted about only 5 minutes and still conveyed everything it needed to- which was to introduce 2 main characters, bad nazi and jew with a vengeance- a dynamic that we knew going into the film. each new scene in this movie is introduced as a chapter and after this one, a fellow theater member groaned, "how many chapters are there?" a valid question as i had all ready nodded off once.
i don't understand the point of this film. my sister suggested it is a fantasy. yes, it is but that doesn't explain it. it's as though quentin wanted to make a film about an american crew out to rain down violence on bad guys and he needed bad guys with whom no one would sympathize. so who are the baddest of the bad ever? nazis, of course. who couldn't enjoy a film depicting scores of nazis being beaten to death with a bat, scalped, and being machine gunned to shreds? you would think that would be a no brainer, but not so fast grasshopper. in order for such a tale to qualify as a good film there has to be a story, a reason(built in with this choice of baddies, granted) and it has to make sense. here tarantino shows hundreds of nazis in a burning theater being mowed down with bullets like rats and quentin has managed to make me feel sorry for the nazis! it's his fault, he wrote and directed this well, turd. the violence is just too, too. i am a huge fan of reservoir dogs and pulp fiction so i am no wuss. but, here practically everyone is wiped out just because he can. there has to be some scale to the violence, that's why kill bill volume 1 is just ok but kill bill volume 2 is a masterpiece. you have to know when and when not to pull the trigger. kill your darlings, quentin, not your entire cast...
speaking of cast, they were very good. especially, christoph waltz as the bad nazi. he won best actor at cannes and will be nominated again at oscar time. brad was terrific as always. my favorites included til schweiger as hugo stiglitz, daniel bruhl as fredrick zoller, eli roth as the bostonian donny donowitz, diane kruger as actress bridget von hammersmark,...you know, the whole cast was great. Except, i have to say, the insertion of mike myers was very distracting. sorry mike, you may be a fine actor, but your persona is too large for you to disappear successfully into a role.
so, to answer my own question, no, i don't think i've outgrown quentin tarantino. i think quentin is stuck. he's regressed to making a 14 year old's idea of a good shoot 'em up film. what he needs to remember (cause nobody does it better) that if you make a good shoot 'em up film it will appeal to all ages. the key words here are "a good film". i will forgive the bad spelling but not a bad film.
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Ugly Truth vs The Awful Truth
Both of these are titles of romantic comedies. One of these is a timeless treasure and the other one isn't. Guess which is which...
The Awful Truth stars Cary Grant and Irene Dunne, directed by Leo McCarey. It was made in 1937 and is in black and white. No one works, everyone is rich and the wardrobe is sometimes as entertaining as the dialog-- the shoulders on one white mink coat are almost as tall as Irene's head. This is a boy has girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back formula. It was considered somewhat racy for it's time. The subject matter was infidelity. The movie opens up with Carey Grant trying to get a tan so he can go home after a week "in Florida" in an attempt to not be caught inflagranti. He returns to his house bearing a basket of oranges only to find his wife not at home. She shows up soon after walking the walk of shame still wearing the previous evening's evening wear, followed closely by her "music teacher." and they're off...
There is some slapstick-ish physical comedy- a first for Carey Grant, which made him so uncomfortable he begged more than once to be released from his contract. This film was such a hit and became a major career turn for Grant. Irene Dunne plays his charming, socialite wife, trying to get on post divorce all the while knowing that Carey's still the one for her and is willing to embarrass herself to get him back. And all the while being a lady.
The Ugly Truth is just that...ugly. It's a romantic comedy that relies entirely on raunchy humor for it's comedy and two stock characters for it's romance. She's the semi-virgin career woman waiting for the inner slut to unleashed. He's the anachronistic (please god!) chauvinist pig with whom she's forced to work in order to save her precious career and who volunteers to unleash her. Katherine Heigl is beautiful but still underused ("Knocked up" and "27 Dresses") and can pull off this role. Gerard (JERod sounds like Herod) Butler is also beautiful, must also have wanted to make a car payment, and can also pull off this role. But that's all you can expect from either of them.
Here is the first problem. In order for a romantic comedy to work, it's the viewer who must be romanced and amused. Neither character is fresh or charming so I don't care if they get together or not. And while I have been accused of being somewhat prudish (my older friends just did a spit take)...no one needs to hear that a man is only nice to a woman "because he wants to stick his dick in your ass."
I did laugh a few times, but mostly out of shock not due to any clever dialog. I tried to excuse this film by comparing it as "The Awful Truth" of today, but no, it doesn't wash. The only real comparison of these two films is the similarity of the titles. One deals with the awful realities of some marriages and the other is just truthfully ugly.
If you must see "The Ugly Truth"-rent it. It might be easier to watch in private. Better yet, rent "The Awful Truth" and just enjoy.
The Awful Truth stars Cary Grant and Irene Dunne, directed by Leo McCarey. It was made in 1937 and is in black and white. No one works, everyone is rich and the wardrobe is sometimes as entertaining as the dialog-- the shoulders on one white mink coat are almost as tall as Irene's head. This is a boy has girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back formula. It was considered somewhat racy for it's time. The subject matter was infidelity. The movie opens up with Carey Grant trying to get a tan so he can go home after a week "in Florida" in an attempt to not be caught inflagranti. He returns to his house bearing a basket of oranges only to find his wife not at home. She shows up soon after walking the walk of shame still wearing the previous evening's evening wear, followed closely by her "music teacher." and they're off...
There is some slapstick-ish physical comedy- a first for Carey Grant, which made him so uncomfortable he begged more than once to be released from his contract. This film was such a hit and became a major career turn for Grant. Irene Dunne plays his charming, socialite wife, trying to get on post divorce all the while knowing that Carey's still the one for her and is willing to embarrass herself to get him back. And all the while being a lady.
The Ugly Truth is just that...ugly. It's a romantic comedy that relies entirely on raunchy humor for it's comedy and two stock characters for it's romance. She's the semi-virgin career woman waiting for the inner slut to unleashed. He's the anachronistic (please god!) chauvinist pig with whom she's forced to work in order to save her precious career and who volunteers to unleash her. Katherine Heigl is beautiful but still underused ("Knocked up" and "27 Dresses") and can pull off this role. Gerard (JERod sounds like Herod) Butler is also beautiful, must also have wanted to make a car payment, and can also pull off this role. But that's all you can expect from either of them.
Here is the first problem. In order for a romantic comedy to work, it's the viewer who must be romanced and amused. Neither character is fresh or charming so I don't care if they get together or not. And while I have been accused of being somewhat prudish (my older friends just did a spit take)...no one needs to hear that a man is only nice to a woman "because he wants to stick his dick in your ass."
I did laugh a few times, but mostly out of shock not due to any clever dialog. I tried to excuse this film by comparing it as "The Awful Truth" of today, but no, it doesn't wash. The only real comparison of these two films is the similarity of the titles. One deals with the awful realities of some marriages and the other is just truthfully ugly.
If you must see "The Ugly Truth"-rent it. It might be easier to watch in private. Better yet, rent "The Awful Truth" and just enjoy.
Movies they should have shown me before they were released
There are some films that miss the mark so badly I lose sleep- sometimes many nights worth- trying to figure out what went wrong and who’s to blame. I watch them over and over in order find the answers. The first film in this series was one I was crushed by what the studio offered as representation of this story.
Twilight
I’m a huge fan of the series- read it twice- so I had probably higher than usual hopes for this first installation. Just as the credits started to roll, I was already cringing and ten minutes into the film I was sliding down in my seat- embarrassed enough to tell my friend that I owed him one.The first thing to realize about this series is that it is a love story- classic and timeless. It’s not a vampire and werewolf story. I believe Summit approached this story as a throw away teenage flick and it shows. It served up a very one dimensional film that was only received well because of the legions of fans of the books and the prettiness of the leads. "Twilight" the book deserves much more than this. It is a classic tale which is why it appeals to women of all ages- "Twilight" may be about teenagers but so is "Romeo and Juliet". If you haven’t read it- do.
I will start with what they got right- which most of the cast. Some people seem to have been born to play some roles and Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart are two such people. I love Billy Burke as Bella’s father, Ashley Greene even sounds like I imagined Alice Cullen would, Kellan Lutz works well as big and lovable Emmett Cullen, and Elisabeth Reaser is perfect as Esme Cullen. I was surprised they didn’t hire Graham Greene to play Jacob’s father (although he will be playing Harry Clearwater in “New Moon”) but I just love Gil Birmingham in this role anyway. Michael Walsh does a great job as the boy with a crush next door and Anna Kendrick works well with him as the girl who wishes she was the object of that crush. Even the much questioned casting of Taylor Lautner as the young Jacob fits- I do reserve judgment on how well he grows with the character but I agree with Summit’s choice to not recast this role. That would have been too jarring. Taylor can get taller as needed with efx just like Hagrid is bigger than everyone else in Harry Potter.
But I had problems with (didn’t everyone?) Nikki Reed as Rosalie Hale- so not the most delicate and beautiful creature ever born. She looks as though she could go toe to toe with Ida Lupino in any of her many prison movies. Granted, who could play this part? I don’t know- but while I was first watching this movie I kept imagining Rachelle Lefevre(Victoria) and Nikki trading roles. I know it’s more who you know in Hollywood than talent sometimes ( Nikki Reed and Catherine Hardwicke the director are very good friends) but I would be embarrassed to take a role if it was such a bad fit and I’m embarrassed for Nikki everytime she's on the screen. Jackson Rathbone as Jasper Hale actually made me laugh in one scene when he wasn’t supposed to. His character is supposed to look uncomfortable around humans but he looked very much like Edward Scissorhands as he was being introduced to Bella. But after 30 viewings of the film I’ve become used to him. And lastly Peter Facinelli as Dr. Carlisle Cullen bothered me, but I've come to realize that was more a hair and makeup issue- c’mon- too blonde, too white and that lipstick- it was just too too much. And the lighting- he’s actually green in the hospital. I’m used to him in the role now and can’t picture anyone else. Actually, the hair and makeup is bad all around. Everyone is just too white and the lipstick too red. And most times the white face is just on the face, leaving the neck mortally skin colored. Edward often has a five o’clock shadow. Can vampires grow facial hair? I’m thinking not- they are dead after all.
I feel they should take everything that was right with the film, fix the bad, and go back and do it all over again. I feel cheated.
When breaking down all that goes into a movie the first place to always look for success or failure is the script. There is not enough back story- it is all very surface. There are a lot of short cuts taken, theoretically in the interest of a tighter film, but really the whole product just ends up being that- one big short cut. In some projects the depth was in the script to begin with but the director or editor cut it out. Sometimes even the actors muck about with the script, so I always watch the deleted scenes for clues.
There is one scene that was “cut for pacing” as explained by Catherine Hardwicke, that takes place at the diner where Bella asks her father about the Cullens. Here he explains The Cullen family's history in town and relationships with the town’s people which would have brought some much needed depth and roundness. But it was cut in favor of a scene in which the local drunk reminisces with Bella about being the town Santa. Nothing was learned there. It was a waste of time if pacing was really the concern.
Also, there was a scene in the book in which Bella reacts dramatically to the smell of blood during a blood typing lab at school and Edward assists her in the nurses office- I was bothered it wasn’t in the movie- a missed opportunity for bonding and irony ( she’s afraid of blood but falls in love with a vampire, wants to be one). I wondered if Stephanie Meyer, the author, even tried to stand up for her material or was she just overwhelmed by the whole process. Why didn’t they bring up Jasper's extra power? Why didn’t they bring into the group dynamic the fact that the Cullens thought Bella was just another simple mortal and that she repeatedly proved to them that she was above average in many ways- impressing even them and their hundreds of years of experience? This would have given her a relationship with Edward's family members other that of just his girlfriend. So many opportunities for added dimension were never explored. “New Moon” is going to have to spend a lot of time in exposition to make up for the abysmal lack of it in “Twilight”.
Was it Summit’s fault for not allotting enough money or shooting time? In the extras on the DVD the tight shooting schedule came up a lot, which explains why some scenes are just second rate. Kristen Stewart tends to mumble and sometimes you can’t understand her on the first go around. More takes would have helped. And those special effects- wow- very “Land of the Lost”. Again, I slunk further into my seat when Edward threw Bella on his back for that first trip up the mountain. I saaw on the DVD that filming the special effects for this scene was a painful process- the actors had to straddle a wire as it was pulled along a line up the grade. So much discomfort for them to do, so much discomfort for us to watch. Please oh please, Summit, spend more time on these effects in future films.
As, I said earlier, the tone of the film was badly set as the opening credits started to roll. The scene of Bella in her mom’s car on the way to the airport, the shot of the airplane taking off are so “B” stock footage looking bad- we did not need to see this. We can figure out for ourselves how she got from Arizona to Washington- her step father even says they have a plane to catch. Again, if time was such an issue, this is not where they should have spent it. The air to ground shot of the landscape of Arizona is a nice idea but I don’t like the shots they chose. The beginning should have gone from Bella and her mom at the car to a swooping shot lowly across some flat Arizona geography to rising up over the mountains and clouds of Washington. Boom- "Twilight".
But, what really killed any chances for "A" territory for me was the music. Now before you stone me to death, I’m a big fan of the soundtrack CD. But some of the choices made to accent key moments were what sunk this film from an “A” to a “B”. About 10 minutes into the film, Bella walks into her biology class passing a fan that shoots her distinctive aroma directly up Edward’s nose. The whole scene is dragged down by the distractingly bad spaghetti western score. This is where I first sunk in my seat and apologized to my friend. Music can make or break a film and it definitely does damage to this project. I also object to the rifts that were chosen to punctuate the scene where Edwards pushes the van out of harm’s way. When he gets up and leaves, the music is just second rate, tacky, again I cringed and sunk lower into my seat. By the end of the movie I was sitting on my neck! My final musical complaint is the choice of piece for Bella’s lullaby. I would love to hear the other choices not taken, which included a piece by Robert Pattinson. He did have 2 very good and well placed songs included in the film, “Never Think” one he wrote along with Sam Bradley, played and sang, and one he sings and plays, “Let Me Sign”. In Carter Burwell’s “Bella’s Lullaby” there’s not really a whole tune that can be hummed here. Parts are really lovely and haunting but mostly it’s “Chopsticks”. More than 30 viewings have not changed my feelings here- I cringe at these parts every time.
So, the fault lies with Summit. They hired the producers (a long list) who hired the director Catherine Hardwicke and the screenwriter, Melissa Rosenberg. It also lies with Stephanie Meyer for letting her material be stunted. The producers also hired the hair and makeup and stunt coordinators or they at least were in charge of those who hired them- and they found their their work acceptable. Ultimately it’s the producers who are responsible for the whole finished product- that’s why the ‘best movie’ academy award is given to the producer of the winning film. There are too many areas that are bad to focus on one to place all the blame. In the making of “Twilight” not enough of the right people in the right places took this story seriously enough to give it the right treatment.
Why, you ask, if I am so disappointed with this movie have I seen it so many times and will continue to watch it many more? Because I look at the movie “Twilight” as I would anything new in my life. I might have had high hopes for it in the beginning, but have come to realize that if I want it in my life I must accept it as it is. I cannot change it now, but I will continue to hope that the next one will meet my expectations.
I very much look forward to the opening of “New Moon” in November of 2009.
PS- I mentioned Rachelle Lefevre earlier- she played Victoria in “Twilight” and will play her again in “New Moon” but has been replaced in “Eclipse”- which is very Victoria intense. Bryce Dallas Howard, Ron’s little girl, has taken the roll and I am very disappointed in this decision. Rachelle has stated that she was shocked that Summit fired her and Summit has issued statements that Rachelle has only herself to blame. I can’t help thinking that Bryce wanted to be a part of the series (what young actor doesn’t?) and asked daddy to get her the role. It’s the only answer that makes sense if you read both Rachelle’s (http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/07/29/twilight-rachelle-lefevre-stunned-by-summits-recast-of-victoria-for-eclipse/) and Summit’s (http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/07/29/summit-entertainment-fights-back-against-rachelle-lefevre/) statements. We will know for sure if Ron Howard either directs or produces a feature for Summit in the near future.
Twilight
I’m a huge fan of the series- read it twice- so I had probably higher than usual hopes for this first installation. Just as the credits started to roll, I was already cringing and ten minutes into the film I was sliding down in my seat- embarrassed enough to tell my friend that I owed him one.The first thing to realize about this series is that it is a love story- classic and timeless. It’s not a vampire and werewolf story. I believe Summit approached this story as a throw away teenage flick and it shows. It served up a very one dimensional film that was only received well because of the legions of fans of the books and the prettiness of the leads. "Twilight" the book deserves much more than this. It is a classic tale which is why it appeals to women of all ages- "Twilight" may be about teenagers but so is "Romeo and Juliet". If you haven’t read it- do.
I will start with what they got right- which most of the cast. Some people seem to have been born to play some roles and Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart are two such people. I love Billy Burke as Bella’s father, Ashley Greene even sounds like I imagined Alice Cullen would, Kellan Lutz works well as big and lovable Emmett Cullen, and Elisabeth Reaser is perfect as Esme Cullen. I was surprised they didn’t hire Graham Greene to play Jacob’s father (although he will be playing Harry Clearwater in “New Moon”) but I just love Gil Birmingham in this role anyway. Michael Walsh does a great job as the boy with a crush next door and Anna Kendrick works well with him as the girl who wishes she was the object of that crush. Even the much questioned casting of Taylor Lautner as the young Jacob fits- I do reserve judgment on how well he grows with the character but I agree with Summit’s choice to not recast this role. That would have been too jarring. Taylor can get taller as needed with efx just like Hagrid is bigger than everyone else in Harry Potter.
But I had problems with (didn’t everyone?) Nikki Reed as Rosalie Hale- so not the most delicate and beautiful creature ever born. She looks as though she could go toe to toe with Ida Lupino in any of her many prison movies. Granted, who could play this part? I don’t know- but while I was first watching this movie I kept imagining Rachelle Lefevre(Victoria) and Nikki trading roles. I know it’s more who you know in Hollywood than talent sometimes ( Nikki Reed and Catherine Hardwicke the director are very good friends) but I would be embarrassed to take a role if it was such a bad fit and I’m embarrassed for Nikki everytime she's on the screen. Jackson Rathbone as Jasper Hale actually made me laugh in one scene when he wasn’t supposed to. His character is supposed to look uncomfortable around humans but he looked very much like Edward Scissorhands as he was being introduced to Bella. But after 30 viewings of the film I’ve become used to him. And lastly Peter Facinelli as Dr. Carlisle Cullen bothered me, but I've come to realize that was more a hair and makeup issue- c’mon- too blonde, too white and that lipstick- it was just too too much. And the lighting- he’s actually green in the hospital. I’m used to him in the role now and can’t picture anyone else. Actually, the hair and makeup is bad all around. Everyone is just too white and the lipstick too red. And most times the white face is just on the face, leaving the neck mortally skin colored. Edward often has a five o’clock shadow. Can vampires grow facial hair? I’m thinking not- they are dead after all.
I feel they should take everything that was right with the film, fix the bad, and go back and do it all over again. I feel cheated.
When breaking down all that goes into a movie the first place to always look for success or failure is the script. There is not enough back story- it is all very surface. There are a lot of short cuts taken, theoretically in the interest of a tighter film, but really the whole product just ends up being that- one big short cut. In some projects the depth was in the script to begin with but the director or editor cut it out. Sometimes even the actors muck about with the script, so I always watch the deleted scenes for clues.
There is one scene that was “cut for pacing” as explained by Catherine Hardwicke, that takes place at the diner where Bella asks her father about the Cullens. Here he explains The Cullen family's history in town and relationships with the town’s people which would have brought some much needed depth and roundness. But it was cut in favor of a scene in which the local drunk reminisces with Bella about being the town Santa. Nothing was learned there. It was a waste of time if pacing was really the concern.
Also, there was a scene in the book in which Bella reacts dramatically to the smell of blood during a blood typing lab at school and Edward assists her in the nurses office- I was bothered it wasn’t in the movie- a missed opportunity for bonding and irony ( she’s afraid of blood but falls in love with a vampire, wants to be one). I wondered if Stephanie Meyer, the author, even tried to stand up for her material or was she just overwhelmed by the whole process. Why didn’t they bring up Jasper's extra power? Why didn’t they bring into the group dynamic the fact that the Cullens thought Bella was just another simple mortal and that she repeatedly proved to them that she was above average in many ways- impressing even them and their hundreds of years of experience? This would have given her a relationship with Edward's family members other that of just his girlfriend. So many opportunities for added dimension were never explored. “New Moon” is going to have to spend a lot of time in exposition to make up for the abysmal lack of it in “Twilight”.
Was it Summit’s fault for not allotting enough money or shooting time? In the extras on the DVD the tight shooting schedule came up a lot, which explains why some scenes are just second rate. Kristen Stewart tends to mumble and sometimes you can’t understand her on the first go around. More takes would have helped. And those special effects- wow- very “Land of the Lost”. Again, I slunk further into my seat when Edward threw Bella on his back for that first trip up the mountain. I saaw on the DVD that filming the special effects for this scene was a painful process- the actors had to straddle a wire as it was pulled along a line up the grade. So much discomfort for them to do, so much discomfort for us to watch. Please oh please, Summit, spend more time on these effects in future films.
As, I said earlier, the tone of the film was badly set as the opening credits started to roll. The scene of Bella in her mom’s car on the way to the airport, the shot of the airplane taking off are so “B” stock footage looking bad- we did not need to see this. We can figure out for ourselves how she got from Arizona to Washington- her step father even says they have a plane to catch. Again, if time was such an issue, this is not where they should have spent it. The air to ground shot of the landscape of Arizona is a nice idea but I don’t like the shots they chose. The beginning should have gone from Bella and her mom at the car to a swooping shot lowly across some flat Arizona geography to rising up over the mountains and clouds of Washington. Boom- "Twilight".
But, what really killed any chances for "A" territory for me was the music. Now before you stone me to death, I’m a big fan of the soundtrack CD. But some of the choices made to accent key moments were what sunk this film from an “A” to a “B”. About 10 minutes into the film, Bella walks into her biology class passing a fan that shoots her distinctive aroma directly up Edward’s nose. The whole scene is dragged down by the distractingly bad spaghetti western score. This is where I first sunk in my seat and apologized to my friend. Music can make or break a film and it definitely does damage to this project. I also object to the rifts that were chosen to punctuate the scene where Edwards pushes the van out of harm’s way. When he gets up and leaves, the music is just second rate, tacky, again I cringed and sunk lower into my seat. By the end of the movie I was sitting on my neck! My final musical complaint is the choice of piece for Bella’s lullaby. I would love to hear the other choices not taken, which included a piece by Robert Pattinson. He did have 2 very good and well placed songs included in the film, “Never Think” one he wrote along with Sam Bradley, played and sang, and one he sings and plays, “Let Me Sign”. In Carter Burwell’s “Bella’s Lullaby” there’s not really a whole tune that can be hummed here. Parts are really lovely and haunting but mostly it’s “Chopsticks”. More than 30 viewings have not changed my feelings here- I cringe at these parts every time.
So, the fault lies with Summit. They hired the producers (a long list) who hired the director Catherine Hardwicke and the screenwriter, Melissa Rosenberg. It also lies with Stephanie Meyer for letting her material be stunted. The producers also hired the hair and makeup and stunt coordinators or they at least were in charge of those who hired them- and they found their their work acceptable. Ultimately it’s the producers who are responsible for the whole finished product- that’s why the ‘best movie’ academy award is given to the producer of the winning film. There are too many areas that are bad to focus on one to place all the blame. In the making of “Twilight” not enough of the right people in the right places took this story seriously enough to give it the right treatment.
Why, you ask, if I am so disappointed with this movie have I seen it so many times and will continue to watch it many more? Because I look at the movie “Twilight” as I would anything new in my life. I might have had high hopes for it in the beginning, but have come to realize that if I want it in my life I must accept it as it is. I cannot change it now, but I will continue to hope that the next one will meet my expectations.
I very much look forward to the opening of “New Moon” in November of 2009.
PS- I mentioned Rachelle Lefevre earlier- she played Victoria in “Twilight” and will play her again in “New Moon” but has been replaced in “Eclipse”- which is very Victoria intense. Bryce Dallas Howard, Ron’s little girl, has taken the roll and I am very disappointed in this decision. Rachelle has stated that she was shocked that Summit fired her and Summit has issued statements that Rachelle has only herself to blame. I can’t help thinking that Bryce wanted to be a part of the series (what young actor doesn’t?) and asked daddy to get her the role. It’s the only answer that makes sense if you read both Rachelle’s (http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/07/29/twilight-rachelle-lefevre-stunned-by-summits-recast-of-victoria-for-eclipse/) and Summit’s (http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/07/29/summit-entertainment-fights-back-against-rachelle-lefevre/) statements. We will know for sure if Ron Howard either directs or produces a feature for Summit in the near future.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
movies to see before they go away part two
500 days of summer
this one just opened so hopefully word of mouth will push the limited distribution into longer stays and more theaters.
this is the best romantic comedy i've seen in many years. there's no formula, it's not cutsie or trite. it manages to be funny before the movie even starts. and all this without a scottish lout talking about female parts (the ugly truth)or an old old beloved actress embarrassing herself by literally whooping it up in the forest with indian feathers(the proposal). nothing is contrived and it is all believable. the leads are terrific- joseph gordon- levitt ("the lookout" and "3rd rock from the sun") and zooey deschanel ("elf" and "the tinman"). jgl is fast becoming my favorite leading man, even though sometimes he looks so much like heath ledger it catches my heart. the supporting cast is also strong without getting cartoonish as in other films of this genre.
the script is well written and the pace and editing are just right. no small feat as it was in the hands of a music video director, marc webb, and the team that wrote "pink panther 2", scott neustadter and michael h. weber. not auspicious beginnings, no, but if that's what paying your dues looks like it hollywood these days it's worth it. for whatever reason the mix here is just right. it's a romantic comedy in which nothing is too heavy handed or too light. ok, i'm reminded that there is one scene that takes some movie license but i argue that it fits- doesn't everyone feel like this when love first blooms? i do! see it and then tell me if it's true for you. this is a real romance set in real time and yet it still delivers magic.
highly recommend.
this one just opened so hopefully word of mouth will push the limited distribution into longer stays and more theaters.
this is the best romantic comedy i've seen in many years. there's no formula, it's not cutsie or trite. it manages to be funny before the movie even starts. and all this without a scottish lout talking about female parts (the ugly truth)or an old old beloved actress embarrassing herself by literally whooping it up in the forest with indian feathers(the proposal). nothing is contrived and it is all believable. the leads are terrific- joseph gordon- levitt ("the lookout" and "3rd rock from the sun") and zooey deschanel ("elf" and "the tinman"). jgl is fast becoming my favorite leading man, even though sometimes he looks so much like heath ledger it catches my heart. the supporting cast is also strong without getting cartoonish as in other films of this genre.
the script is well written and the pace and editing are just right. no small feat as it was in the hands of a music video director, marc webb, and the team that wrote "pink panther 2", scott neustadter and michael h. weber. not auspicious beginnings, no, but if that's what paying your dues looks like it hollywood these days it's worth it. for whatever reason the mix here is just right. it's a romantic comedy in which nothing is too heavy handed or too light. ok, i'm reminded that there is one scene that takes some movie license but i argue that it fits- doesn't everyone feel like this when love first blooms? i do! see it and then tell me if it's true for you. this is a real romance set in real time and yet it still delivers magic.
highly recommend.
Friday, August 7, 2009
movies to catch before they go away part one
the hurt locker-
the first good movie i saw this summer. i had heard nothing of this movie before i went except that it was about a bomb squad in iraq. expecting a bloody documentary, i was immediately corrected when i recognized the actor playing the leader of the squad. i'm not going to spoil the very nice surprises injected by the sprinkling of very famous actors throughout the movie. i enjoyed these discoveries- why would i ruin it for you? the little before seen main cast make the most of this star making arena. jeremy renner, anthony mackie and brian geraghty are so very good at what they do i might have believed it was a documentary- except i actually had seen them in previous films. i do see a lot of movies...
i give kudos to kathryn bigelow for directing this decidedly all male project- made about men, for men in a manly way- but by a woman. well done! she proves that storytelling is genderless.
speaking of story- this movie is more a 'period of time in the life of..' piece than a bonafide story- it's storyish or story adjacent. and the end it is a bit, "staff sargent james- bombman". still it is very entertaining, well acted, and very well put together. highly recommend.
violence factor is low- not a lot of gore. very tolerable even for the squeamish (my movie partner is very blood sensitive and he didn't flinch that i noticed) there are 2 shots of wounded (but alive) cats that i could have done without. i can't sand to see animals in distress- people not so much. now quit reading and go see this movie!
the first good movie i saw this summer. i had heard nothing of this movie before i went except that it was about a bomb squad in iraq. expecting a bloody documentary, i was immediately corrected when i recognized the actor playing the leader of the squad. i'm not going to spoil the very nice surprises injected by the sprinkling of very famous actors throughout the movie. i enjoyed these discoveries- why would i ruin it for you? the little before seen main cast make the most of this star making arena. jeremy renner, anthony mackie and brian geraghty are so very good at what they do i might have believed it was a documentary- except i actually had seen them in previous films. i do see a lot of movies...
i give kudos to kathryn bigelow for directing this decidedly all male project- made about men, for men in a manly way- but by a woman. well done! she proves that storytelling is genderless.
speaking of story- this movie is more a 'period of time in the life of..' piece than a bonafide story- it's storyish or story adjacent. and the end it is a bit, "staff sargent james- bombman". still it is very entertaining, well acted, and very well put together. highly recommend.
violence factor is low- not a lot of gore. very tolerable even for the squeamish (my movie partner is very blood sensitive and he didn't flinch that i noticed) there are 2 shots of wounded (but alive) cats that i could have done without. i can't sand to see animals in distress- people not so much. now quit reading and go see this movie!
julie/julia
the joy of movies has been re-found in the story of a 50's cooking guru and her modern day counter part. it's my third good movie in a row, after quite a stretch of duds (from "the proposal" to"cheri" to "harry potter the 6th").
julie/julia is a feast for the ears as much as the eyes and soul. i laughed out loud, i was that tickled, every time meryl streep uttered a julia childish syllable. her work here is spot on as she inflates the zepplin sized persona and she is once again ("doubt") ablely counterbalanced by amy adams. stanley tucci is well cast as her ahead of his era adoring husband who manages to anchor her without crashing her to the ground. an enviable marriage indeed.
i was worried when as i entered the theater, i was told this film is a nora ephron project- a fact i'm sure i had heard, but must have supressed. i'm still bruised after "bewitched" and i was leery of cutsie formulaic schmaltz. but have no fear, there is none of that here. this is her best yet.
meryl streep said in an interview when asked if she'd watched the old julia child cooking shows to prep for this role that she hadn't, but she did remember dan akroyd's saturday night live skits: wait for it, it's worth it!http://www.hulu.com/watch/3523/saturday-night-live-the-french-chef
it's a very fine line between impersonation and portrayal, a task made more difficult when the object was so very flamboyant. while watching ms streep present julia child, what i saw was a large woman eager to enjoy as much in this life as she possibly could- largely in a large way. and i enjoyed watching her do it. meryl streep will be getting her 14th academy award nomination for this role. i look forward to seeing the performance this year that will beat her, cause i haven't seen it yet.
julie/julia is a feast for the ears as much as the eyes and soul. i laughed out loud, i was that tickled, every time meryl streep uttered a julia childish syllable. her work here is spot on as she inflates the zepplin sized persona and she is once again ("doubt") ablely counterbalanced by amy adams. stanley tucci is well cast as her ahead of his era adoring husband who manages to anchor her without crashing her to the ground. an enviable marriage indeed.
i was worried when as i entered the theater, i was told this film is a nora ephron project- a fact i'm sure i had heard, but must have supressed. i'm still bruised after "bewitched" and i was leery of cutsie formulaic schmaltz. but have no fear, there is none of that here. this is her best yet.
meryl streep said in an interview when asked if she'd watched the old julia child cooking shows to prep for this role that she hadn't, but she did remember dan akroyd's saturday night live skits: wait for it, it's worth it!http://www.hulu.com/watch/3523/saturday-night-live-the-french-chef
it's a very fine line between impersonation and portrayal, a task made more difficult when the object was so very flamboyant. while watching ms streep present julia child, what i saw was a large woman eager to enjoy as much in this life as she possibly could- largely in a large way. and i enjoyed watching her do it. meryl streep will be getting her 14th academy award nomination for this role. i look forward to seeing the performance this year that will beat her, cause i haven't seen it yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)