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.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
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)