As I seem to be almost out of Oscar films (I’m hoarding those I haven’t yet seen), I decided to go back to the DVD shelves and pick up some releases I had otherwise missed. I had no set theme, but apparently one arrived anyway.
This week’s theme is the dreams of the American teenager. Original no – but neither is either of these films.
My first film this week is the 2009 remake of “Fame”. As an 80’s kid, I admit to watching the original film (and loving it), and the TV show. I even re-watched the first season on DVD, hoping to indulge nostalgia. I did indeed relive my geeky teenage years, and realized that I’m a still geeky, non-coordinated almost-40 year old. But I’m finally pretty cool with that.
Unlike its predecessors, this is basically “American Idol” set in high school. Talent abounds, but the focus is more on the dancing and singing than the actual acting. (In both story and film) Stereotypically, everyone appears – rappers, a classical pianist, a struggling dancer with money to spare, etc. Even the “teachers” are recognizable “stars” from TV years gone by – Kelsey Grammer, Megan Mullally, Bebe Neuwirth, Charles S. Dutton.
I’m not sure if it’s the times or me that have changed, or both, but in today’s era of “High School Musical”, the Jonas Brothers, et al, this simply doesn’t cut it. I should have paid attention to those people telling me not to watch this one. Sometimes, nostalgia needs to stay untouched.
The second film is “Whip It”, starring Ellen Page. This is Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut, and she’s certainly off to a decent start. Bliss (Page) is a geeky girl stuck in Podunk, Texas (It’s actually Bodeen, but Podunk works too). Poor Bliss has a mom (Marcia Gay Harden) who wants her to be a Beauty Pageant Queen, but Bliss decides that she’s more of a Roller Derby Queen (cue Jim Croce). This film could have been quite bad, but it’s not. By the end, I actually found myself getting into it, rooting for Bliss and her Hurl Scouts to defeat Juliette Lewis and the Holy Rollers.
This film is based on a book, but what makes it work isn’t the narrative. The narrative is actually the worst part of the film. The story isn’t whipped at all, it’s more like cappuccino foam – evaporating even as you’re consuming it.
What stops “Whip It” from becoming another geeky girl rising above/female empowerment/coming age film are the performances – although not Page’s. I would like to see her take on stronger roles, like the underrated “Hard Candy”. The biggest standout is actually Kristen Wiig as Maggie Mayhem, a woman who’s been in Bliss’ shoes and tries to steer her in the right direction.
But as a reformed geeky girl in the back of the room, it’s good to know that my age still doesn’t stop me from appreciating a decently made teen film (just not “Fame”).
“Fame” – Rated PG, 107 minutes (* ½)
“Whip It” – Rated PG-13, 111 minutes (**1/2)
1/20/2010
The Hurt Locker
The first time that I sat down to watch “The Hurt Locker”, I stopped watching it about 20 minutes in. I just wasn’t in a frame of mind to watch “that kind of a movie”. Reread as “a war movie, because I don’t like them and they confuse and upset me”.
The second time I sat down to watch “The Hurt Locker”, I didn’t stop until it was over. Sometimes I think I forgot to breathe. I called out a few times, jumped several, cried once or twice, and at the end, just sat in stunned silence.
James Cameron had it right (bet ya never thought you’d see me type THAT): this is the best directed film of the year, and any and all directorial awards should be handed to Kathryn Bigelow.
Anything else is a downright crime.
What’s so amazing about “The Hurt Locker”? Well, it’s the first war movie not really about the war. It doesn’t try to make a political endorsement or condemnation. It’s just the story of a guy – what makes him tick (pun intended), and how he copes with the aftermaths of his decisions.
War movies are hard to describe. You can’t really say you like them, because isn’t that an indirect statement about your politics? You can usually summarize the plot in a sentence – “The Americans go to Place X. They invade. People get killed. Stuff blows up. War is bad. The End.”
So why did this hit me harder than other war movies? Was it because this war happened in my lifetime? Because I had heard all the press and the backstory, so it couldn’t really BE sensationalized? Because this war is recent enough not to have nostalgia attached to it?
In the end, I’ve realized that the reason this is better than the classic war movies because it’s one of my favorite types of films – it’s CHARACTER DRIVEN. I may not be able to agree with Will James in his decisions or his lifestyle, but in a crazy sort of way I understand it. I won’t go into detail, because that could be construed as a spoiler, and you really should see this film for yourself.
I wish more people would see this film. I wish I had more people to discuss it with. It will reverberate in your head for awhile after you see it. And THAT’S the true hallmark of a great film.
I’m glad I don’t write one of those “Top Ten of” Lists, because I’d have no idea where to rank this. I’m also glad I’m not an Academy voter, because there’s no way I could pick between this and that other character-driven film I loved. But I am glad I’m a movie watcher. And I’m especially glad that they made more than one film this year that was that damn good.
Now if only I can get that Bigelow acceptance speech I didn’t get over the weekend…
"The Hurt Locker", Rated R, 131 minutes (****)
The second time I sat down to watch “The Hurt Locker”, I didn’t stop until it was over. Sometimes I think I forgot to breathe. I called out a few times, jumped several, cried once or twice, and at the end, just sat in stunned silence.
James Cameron had it right (bet ya never thought you’d see me type THAT): this is the best directed film of the year, and any and all directorial awards should be handed to Kathryn Bigelow.
Anything else is a downright crime.
What’s so amazing about “The Hurt Locker”? Well, it’s the first war movie not really about the war. It doesn’t try to make a political endorsement or condemnation. It’s just the story of a guy – what makes him tick (pun intended), and how he copes with the aftermaths of his decisions.
War movies are hard to describe. You can’t really say you like them, because isn’t that an indirect statement about your politics? You can usually summarize the plot in a sentence – “The Americans go to Place X. They invade. People get killed. Stuff blows up. War is bad. The End.”
So why did this hit me harder than other war movies? Was it because this war happened in my lifetime? Because I had heard all the press and the backstory, so it couldn’t really BE sensationalized? Because this war is recent enough not to have nostalgia attached to it?
In the end, I’ve realized that the reason this is better than the classic war movies because it’s one of my favorite types of films – it’s CHARACTER DRIVEN. I may not be able to agree with Will James in his decisions or his lifestyle, but in a crazy sort of way I understand it. I won’t go into detail, because that could be construed as a spoiler, and you really should see this film for yourself.
I wish more people would see this film. I wish I had more people to discuss it with. It will reverberate in your head for awhile after you see it. And THAT’S the true hallmark of a great film.
I’m glad I don’t write one of those “Top Ten of
Now if only I can get that Bigelow acceptance speech I didn’t get over the weekend…
"The Hurt Locker", Rated R, 131 minutes (****)
1/13/2010
"Up in the Air" - Raise The Awards High!
Jason Reitman’s newest film “Up in the Air” is aptly titled, because it is head and shoulders above anything else I saw in 2009.
The more films I watch, the more I realize that film, just like everything else, is subjective. Ask ten people what their favorite films are and not only will you get ten different answers you’ll get ten different genres.
Personally, I’m a character driven film junkie. In order for a film to work for me, it needs an interesting story and characters that I want to learn more about. They need not be familiar or relatable, but they do need to be honest and real.
“Up in the Air” has everything I want in a film – great characters, wonderful acting, witty (but not too witty) writing, a bit of heartbreak and disillusionment, a reality check and a fitting denouement in spades.
At its core is Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man hired to fire people. Ryan loves his job, but loves the detachment (and frequent flyer miles) his job affords him even more.
When a young protégé played marvelously by Anna Kendrick comes up with the idea to save money by replacing the human touch with a human face on a screen, Ryan is tasked with showing her the ropes. Of course, she learns much more than that as does he.
The third member of this surely Oscar-nominated trio is Vera Farmiga who plays a woman that Ryan meets, his female counterpart. She’s also fantastic – just dry enough to spar with Clooney yet welcoming enough to interact with Kendrick.
This film is perfectly cast. Reitman wrote Kendrick’s part with her in mind, and when Clooney discusses his view on marriage, it’s not really clear if it’s Reitman’s words or his. I can’t think of anyone else who could have pulled it off.
“Up in the Air” is also thematic. Reitman juxtaposes downsizing a company and downsizing a life. It also touched on loneliness, love, isolation, happiness, and more. The film actually improves upon discussion. (I even have a post-it on my desk that says “Type with Purpose!”)
The only criticism I can offer is that I would have ended the film two minutes earlier, right before the last scene. If you’ve seen the film, you’ll understand. But then again, that would have made the ending too pat, and that’s why they don’t pay me to direct or write films. (I’d settle for being paid to write about them but oh well…)
This film is what the Academy loves. Given all the press that I’ve read, it’s a contender for the Top Prize. Personally, I think they’re going to spread the wealth this year, and I’m ok with that. I’m just thankful for the experience I had watching this film. Only one or two films a year usually make me think it’s possible for a film to be perfect. The other was “Star Trek”. Here’s hoping the Academy feels similarly.
"Up in the Air" - Rated R, 109 minutes (****)
The more films I watch, the more I realize that film, just like everything else, is subjective. Ask ten people what their favorite films are and not only will you get ten different answers you’ll get ten different genres.
Personally, I’m a character driven film junkie. In order for a film to work for me, it needs an interesting story and characters that I want to learn more about. They need not be familiar or relatable, but they do need to be honest and real.
“Up in the Air” has everything I want in a film – great characters, wonderful acting, witty (but not too witty) writing, a bit of heartbreak and disillusionment, a reality check and a fitting denouement in spades.
At its core is Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man hired to fire people. Ryan loves his job, but loves the detachment (and frequent flyer miles) his job affords him even more.
When a young protégé played marvelously by Anna Kendrick comes up with the idea to save money by replacing the human touch with a human face on a screen, Ryan is tasked with showing her the ropes. Of course, she learns much more than that as does he.
The third member of this surely Oscar-nominated trio is Vera Farmiga who plays a woman that Ryan meets, his female counterpart. She’s also fantastic – just dry enough to spar with Clooney yet welcoming enough to interact with Kendrick.
This film is perfectly cast. Reitman wrote Kendrick’s part with her in mind, and when Clooney discusses his view on marriage, it’s not really clear if it’s Reitman’s words or his. I can’t think of anyone else who could have pulled it off.
“Up in the Air” is also thematic. Reitman juxtaposes downsizing a company and downsizing a life. It also touched on loneliness, love, isolation, happiness, and more. The film actually improves upon discussion. (I even have a post-it on my desk that says “Type with Purpose!”)
The only criticism I can offer is that I would have ended the film two minutes earlier, right before the last scene. If you’ve seen the film, you’ll understand. But then again, that would have made the ending too pat, and that’s why they don’t pay me to direct or write films. (I’d settle for being paid to write about them but oh well…)
This film is what the Academy loves. Given all the press that I’ve read, it’s a contender for the Top Prize. Personally, I think they’re going to spread the wealth this year, and I’m ok with that. I’m just thankful for the experience I had watching this film. Only one or two films a year usually make me think it’s possible for a film to be perfect. The other was “Star Trek”. Here’s hoping the Academy feels similarly.
"Up in the Air" - Rated R, 109 minutes (****)
1/02/2010
Avatar - I can't let it go!
After removing my 3-D glasses at the end of my recent viewing of “Avatar”, I gave a four word review.
Best. Picture. My. Ass.
There’s no denying that James Cameron is an effects wizard, and he’s outdone himself here. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that “Avatar” is a trailblazing film.
That, however, doesn’t make the BEST film – or a GREAT film. It’s not even close to either.
But it will win lots of awards. I wouldn’t be surprised if it won BP. Why? Well, if you’re going to rip off other films (which this does in DROVES), they may as well be BP winners and box-office smashes. The only other question is whether it’s plagiarism if you steal from yourself, which Cameron does – liberally.
Let me count the ways:
• Protagonist Name: Avatar – Jake; Titanic – Jack (There ARE 25 other letters, you know).
• Major Destruction Scene: Avatar – a tree falls; Titanic – a boat sinks (If a tree falls in the forest with pretty colors, does it still matter that it fell?)
• Stupid Amorous One-Liner: Avatar – I See You; Titanic – I’ll Never Let Go (The only thing I want to see is closing credits)
• Key Song: Avatar – My Heart Will Go On (but slower); Titanic – My Heart Will Go On. (With a run time this long, it sure does go on AND on)
• Death of a major character. (Anything more would be a spoiler)
And it’s not just “Titanic”. A rallying battle speech needs only a kilt to be “Braveheart” (complete with foreign accent). Humans moving between worlds are in tanning-like beds (ala “The Matrix”). The “slaves” rally against those trying to colonize/rule them, although Russell Crowe’s “Gladiator” is nowhere to be seen. The ending speech, detailing human-alien relationships and done via voice over, needed only Peter Cullen’s voice to be “Transformers” (Critics HATE Transformers, but the comparison exists just the same.)
I also noticed several large tie-ins with the other effects pioneer of my generation, George Lucas. Just like “Star Wars”, Cameron has brought an entirely new cinematic experience to the screen. He even used Skywalker Studios. And there’s more!
Pandora is a dazzling world – so much so that you don’t want to leave it. When you do leave it and Cameron starts directing humans, it’s clear he’s out of his element. The human characters are stereotypical and one-dimensional. The writing is even worse – laughable at times.
Did I enjoy the “Avatar” experience? Sure. I’m not taking anything away from the trailblazing spirit behind the film, and I’m sure that this film will spawn endless imitations. It’s just a shame that the writing, pacing, and character development aren’t even close to catching up with the technology.
And by the way – it’s not the most fun I had in a theater in 2009. That would have been “Star Trek”, where, upon its conclusion, I had a “O” look on my face and gave a one word review – “Perfect”.
"Avatar" - Rated PG-13, 162 minutes (**) only because the effects were spectacular otherwise it probably would have been a -*
Best. Picture. My. Ass.
There’s no denying that James Cameron is an effects wizard, and he’s outdone himself here. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that “Avatar” is a trailblazing film.
That, however, doesn’t make the BEST film – or a GREAT film. It’s not even close to either.
But it will win lots of awards. I wouldn’t be surprised if it won BP. Why? Well, if you’re going to rip off other films (which this does in DROVES), they may as well be BP winners and box-office smashes. The only other question is whether it’s plagiarism if you steal from yourself, which Cameron does – liberally.
Let me count the ways:
• Protagonist Name: Avatar – Jake; Titanic – Jack (There ARE 25 other letters, you know).
• Major Destruction Scene: Avatar – a tree falls; Titanic – a boat sinks (If a tree falls in the forest with pretty colors, does it still matter that it fell?)
• Stupid Amorous One-Liner: Avatar – I See You; Titanic – I’ll Never Let Go (The only thing I want to see is closing credits)
• Key Song: Avatar – My Heart Will Go On (but slower); Titanic – My Heart Will Go On. (With a run time this long, it sure does go on AND on)
• Death of a major character. (Anything more would be a spoiler)
And it’s not just “Titanic”. A rallying battle speech needs only a kilt to be “Braveheart” (complete with foreign accent). Humans moving between worlds are in tanning-like beds (ala “The Matrix”). The “slaves” rally against those trying to colonize/rule them, although Russell Crowe’s “Gladiator” is nowhere to be seen. The ending speech, detailing human-alien relationships and done via voice over, needed only Peter Cullen’s voice to be “Transformers” (Critics HATE Transformers, but the comparison exists just the same.)
I also noticed several large tie-ins with the other effects pioneer of my generation, George Lucas. Just like “Star Wars”, Cameron has brought an entirely new cinematic experience to the screen. He even used Skywalker Studios. And there’s more!
Pandora is a dazzling world – so much so that you don’t want to leave it. When you do leave it and Cameron starts directing humans, it’s clear he’s out of his element. The human characters are stereotypical and one-dimensional. The writing is even worse – laughable at times.
Did I enjoy the “Avatar” experience? Sure. I’m not taking anything away from the trailblazing spirit behind the film, and I’m sure that this film will spawn endless imitations. It’s just a shame that the writing, pacing, and character development aren’t even close to catching up with the technology.
And by the way – it’s not the most fun I had in a theater in 2009. That would have been “Star Trek”, where, upon its conclusion, I had a “O” look on my face and gave a one word review – “Perfect”.
"Avatar" - Rated PG-13, 162 minutes (**) only because the effects were spectacular otherwise it probably would have been a -*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)