As the Oscar season winds down, I finally saw one of the films that I’d missed - “Crazy Heart”. “Crazy Heart” has been regaled primarily for the performances of the leads – Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gylenhaal. Bridges plays Bad Blake, a country music star has-been. He’s a drunk and an unrepentant loser – just like the heroes of many country songs. Gylenhaal plays Janey, the young ladies who captures his heart and blah blah blah blah.
This film could firmly live in cliché-land. You know how it goes – loser country singer redeems himself though the love of a good woman. Or, loser country singer takes young woman down with him and they both drown in misery.
The charm of this film is that it lies between the two clichés, and in the difference becomes a real story with effortless performances all the way around, and a surprise or two.
Everyone knows that Jeff Bridges can sing. If you don’t, watch “The Fabulous Baker Boys”. But for a surprise – he’s not the only one that does. Performances are genuine, Bridges’ and that of Colin Farrell, who is great in this film. He’s always done good work when in the background, and this is no exception (although he does look like a Billy Ray Cyrus clone).
The film gets a bit bogged down though, during the repetitive song performances. There are only maybe 4 songs, and it’s like an ipod stuck on repeat. I understood the point they were identifying, but I don’t feel that many performances were necessary.
Bridges does make the acting look effortless. He put on some pounds to play this role, and he threw all he had into it. The Oscar that he will win is well deserved. Gylenhaal’s performance is understated, but the perfect counterpoint to Bridges’. I’ve heard it said that she’s the heart of the movie, but I disagree with that. The heart of the movie is actually Gylenhall’s son Buddy – he’s the heart and ultimately the catalyst of the film.
“Crazy Heart” is also a film about growth. All of these characters grow and learn something. Personally, I learned that I’ve outgrown country music. The lyrics to all of the songs (with the exception of the nominated song) are repetitive, mundane, and actually boring. But seriously, characters that work need to have some conflict/struggle that they’ve fought against and defeated. That’s clearly here.
But the best thing about the film is the lack of a “pat” ending. What could have gone one of two ways ends up going neither. That’s where my personal comfort lies – in knowing that it’s more real if it’s not obvious. It’s why “Casablanca” is my 2nd favorite film. The ending adds an authenticity to the entire film that makes it better than most I’ve seen lately.
I am glad for the accolades that this film has, and I’m glad that I saw it, but it’s not one of my top 10. Now I’m off to listen to some good old rock and roll music.
"Crazy Heart" - Rated R, 112 minutes (***)
2/28/2010
2/23/2010
Shutter Island = Semi-Cringeworthy
When I first saw the trailer for “Shutter Island”, I wasn’t that impressed. It didn’t look very coherent, and although I love Dennis Lehane’s work, I wasn’t 100% sure I could get into the movie.
Then I started reading early reviews, and I changed my mind.
Even after leaving the theater, I still cut the film some slack. Maybe you just need to let it marinate before it hits you. So I gave it a few days.
It’s been three days, and I can honestly say that my initial instincts were right. And I’m sticking by this. I should have passed.
I know that some people are claiming this is a masterpiece, yet another in the line of Martin Scorsese’s “I Can Do No Wrong” school. You’ll get no argument from me that Mr. Scorsese is a genius. He’s also the best film scholar EVER – no doubt and one of the best directors of ANY time. But, sorry, this one is a misfire.
“Shutter Island” takes place in a sanitarium. That much I got. To go into the story any more may or may not infringe on spoiler territory, so I won’t really try. I will say that Leonardo DiCaprio (not a big fan) does an admirable job here of a bizarroland script. Mark Ruffalo was also very good, and the performances themselves aren’t an issue.
I wouldn’t dream of saying anything against the way Scorsese shoots the film. There’s simply nobody better to frame a shot or set a mood. However, there were too many things thrown in there that simply made me go “Huh”? Even after speaking to people about the film, I understand where he was going, but it didn’t make me like the film more.
In food metaphors, think of deveining Shyamalan, julienning Hitchcock, and garnishing with David Lynch. It’s THAT all over the place. There’s a supposed “twist” ending, although I got that part 10 minutes in. The coolest part about the film is the very last 20 minutes or so, where they tie up some dialogue to some action. That took thought and imagination.
My biggest criticism of the film isn’t the script though – it’s the pacing. It’s SO slow. It crawls. I actually wanted to hit a fast forward button to hurry it along. The second biggest criticism is that even if you can’t tell the difference between reality and delusions (I get that’s the point and I’m ok with that), why do you have to have different ACTORS? That made the mud even murkier. Instead of trying to figure out how a character fit the story, I spent 10 minutes deducing it was Emily Mortimer, not Emily Watson.
But I didn’t hate the film. How could I? It’s Scorsese! And even though I consider it a misfire, it’s still worth a watch – if for no other reason than to
discuss and dissect it afterwards, and watch the one of the greatest directors ever dabble in his craft. Because even a so-so Scorsese beats 75% of what's out there.
"Shutter Island", Rated R, 138 minutes (**)
Then I started reading early reviews, and I changed my mind.
Even after leaving the theater, I still cut the film some slack. Maybe you just need to let it marinate before it hits you. So I gave it a few days.
It’s been three days, and I can honestly say that my initial instincts were right. And I’m sticking by this. I should have passed.
I know that some people are claiming this is a masterpiece, yet another in the line of Martin Scorsese’s “I Can Do No Wrong” school. You’ll get no argument from me that Mr. Scorsese is a genius. He’s also the best film scholar EVER – no doubt and one of the best directors of ANY time. But, sorry, this one is a misfire.
“Shutter Island” takes place in a sanitarium. That much I got. To go into the story any more may or may not infringe on spoiler territory, so I won’t really try. I will say that Leonardo DiCaprio (not a big fan) does an admirable job here of a bizarroland script. Mark Ruffalo was also very good, and the performances themselves aren’t an issue.
I wouldn’t dream of saying anything against the way Scorsese shoots the film. There’s simply nobody better to frame a shot or set a mood. However, there were too many things thrown in there that simply made me go “Huh”? Even after speaking to people about the film, I understand where he was going, but it didn’t make me like the film more.
In food metaphors, think of deveining Shyamalan, julienning Hitchcock, and garnishing with David Lynch. It’s THAT all over the place. There’s a supposed “twist” ending, although I got that part 10 minutes in. The coolest part about the film is the very last 20 minutes or so, where they tie up some dialogue to some action. That took thought and imagination.
My biggest criticism of the film isn’t the script though – it’s the pacing. It’s SO slow. It crawls. I actually wanted to hit a fast forward button to hurry it along. The second biggest criticism is that even if you can’t tell the difference between reality and delusions (I get that’s the point and I’m ok with that), why do you have to have different ACTORS? That made the mud even murkier. Instead of trying to figure out how a character fit the story, I spent 10 minutes deducing it was Emily Mortimer, not Emily Watson.
But I didn’t hate the film. How could I? It’s Scorsese! And even though I consider it a misfire, it’s still worth a watch – if for no other reason than to
discuss and dissect it afterwards, and watch the one of the greatest directors ever dabble in his craft. Because even a so-so Scorsese beats 75% of what's out there.
"Shutter Island", Rated R, 138 minutes (**)
2/15/2010
Asian Cinema At Its Best
Whenever American cinema seems stale to me (and it often does), I’m always game for globe hunting. When globe hunting, I usually end up in Asia, which is what I did this past week. Usually I indulge in Asian horror before the Americans dumb it down beyond recognition, but I decided to branch out even further, into a non-Miyazaki anime and an Oscar-winning drama.
My first film this week is 2006’s “The Girl who Leapt through Time”. This is an animated film and was one of the first films to receive the Japanese Animation Award. It’s the story of young girl who discovers she can slip in and out of time at will. But while time-hopping, she learns the more important lesson that all actions have consequences.
This is actually a movie that I hope American never revamps, because to touch it in any way would be a crime. The story is much deeper than anything Pixar or Disney could come up with, and the drawings are still extremely colorful and interesting. The plot had me hanging on repeatedly and I ended up in tears.
I’m a big fan of Miyazaki’s work, and I’m now very glad to know there are others out there who did the same thing. I found the film by default on a website listing the Top 10 films of that year. I’ll be trying to get my hands on the others.
The second film this week is “Departures”. This film won last year’s Foreign Language Film Oscar, beating out a personal favorite, France’s “The Class”. At the time, I didn’t understand that, but now I wholeheartedly agree. This isn’t one of the best Asian films I’ve seen – it’s one of the best films I’ve EVER seen.
“Departures” tells the tale of a young, married cellist. When his current orchestra shuts down due to lack of funds, he has to change careers abruptly in order to continue to support his family. Finding a very generalized want ad asking only for people to work with departures, he applies and is hired. The catch is that the boss is actually a mortician, and the departures are for the departed.
What could be a very depressing film is actually quite moving. The ceremonies that are conducted by those left behind are nothing short of amazing. I wish they did something like that in this country – I’d be all for it. It’s rare that a film both honors a culture and transcends it at the same time, but this one completely pulls it off.
It’s an unexpectedly weepy drama, and I ended up with red swollen eyes the next day, but it’s completely worth it. I can’t recommend it enough – whether you can stand the subtitles or not.
So when you’re sick of the snow and ice that’s here, feel free to take a trip – on me. I promise you that you won’t regret it!
"The Girl Who Leapt Through Time" - Unrated, 98 minutes (****)
"Departures" - Rated PG-13, 130 minutes (****)
My first film this week is 2006’s “The Girl who Leapt through Time”. This is an animated film and was one of the first films to receive the Japanese Animation Award. It’s the story of young girl who discovers she can slip in and out of time at will. But while time-hopping, she learns the more important lesson that all actions have consequences.
This is actually a movie that I hope American never revamps, because to touch it in any way would be a crime. The story is much deeper than anything Pixar or Disney could come up with, and the drawings are still extremely colorful and interesting. The plot had me hanging on repeatedly and I ended up in tears.
I’m a big fan of Miyazaki’s work, and I’m now very glad to know there are others out there who did the same thing. I found the film by default on a website listing the Top 10 films of that year. I’ll be trying to get my hands on the others.
The second film this week is “Departures”. This film won last year’s Foreign Language Film Oscar, beating out a personal favorite, France’s “The Class”. At the time, I didn’t understand that, but now I wholeheartedly agree. This isn’t one of the best Asian films I’ve seen – it’s one of the best films I’ve EVER seen.
“Departures” tells the tale of a young, married cellist. When his current orchestra shuts down due to lack of funds, he has to change careers abruptly in order to continue to support his family. Finding a very generalized want ad asking only for people to work with departures, he applies and is hired. The catch is that the boss is actually a mortician, and the departures are for the departed.
What could be a very depressing film is actually quite moving. The ceremonies that are conducted by those left behind are nothing short of amazing. I wish they did something like that in this country – I’d be all for it. It’s rare that a film both honors a culture and transcends it at the same time, but this one completely pulls it off.
It’s an unexpectedly weepy drama, and I ended up with red swollen eyes the next day, but it’s completely worth it. I can’t recommend it enough – whether you can stand the subtitles or not.
So when you’re sick of the snow and ice that’s here, feel free to take a trip – on me. I promise you that you won’t regret it!
"The Girl Who Leapt Through Time" - Unrated, 98 minutes (****)
"Departures" - Rated PG-13, 130 minutes (****)
2/06/2010
The Blind Side
As I write this, it is both the day before the Super Bowl and the day of the biggest blizzard in recent years. The snow is so deep here you can barely see the cars.
Since I have one Best Picture Nominee left to watch, before the snow set in, I finally went to watch “The Blind Side”. It’s a good thing I didn’t go outside to shovel snow today, because I’m still tired from shoveling the two hours of bullshit in this film.
“The Blind Side” is the true story of Michael Oher, an African American boy taken in by a wealthy white family led by Leigh Ann Tuohy (Sandra Bullock, in a not-even-Oscar-stratosphere performance). Leigh Ann is a “cracker jack”, which basically means that she gets away in the Film World with things that would NEVER happen in the Real World. Think Julia Roberts’ Erin Brockavich character with a southern accent and more expensive clothes.
Leigh Ann takes on all comers, from calling Michael’s high school coach during a game, to a verbal alternation with a drunken fan during a game and even sparring with some drug dealers. All cower in her wake – due to her fierce stare? That’s about all she’s got – except for the aforementioned nice clothes.
This film is based on a book. It’s obvious to me (and to Michael Oher, given some of his recent comments), that there was MAJOR dramatic license taken with the material. Case in point, Leigh Ann’s husband is played by Tim McGraw. But pictures of the “real” family show Sean roughly fifty pounds heavier. And box office defeats realism! Also, allegedly Michael knows nothing about the game of football as he goes to stay with the Tuohys – the same game he actually started playing at age eight.
The film is loaded with clichéd, stilted, we-are-not-racist dialogue, such as “You changed his life”. Beat. Wait for it… “No, he changed mine”. There’s also racism apparent during the football game, when the redneck officials flag Michael’s coach after Michael’s opponent kicks him in the head. There’s racism in the south? Say it ain’t so, hoss.
I’m not even really sure whose story this is supposed to be – his or hers. According to the press that this film has been given (and Bullock’s own Golden Globe Acceptance speech), it’s hers. But last time I checked it was more about him. Or maybe I’m wrong.
If the Academy hadn’t expanded to 10 films, this film would NEVER have gotten the BP Nod. Everyone agrees with this – and everyone is right. If the argument is that the Academy wants more films that people actually saw, then why not include “Transformers 2”? It seemed about as realistic as this did.
Do I admire what Leigh Ann did by taking in a troubled youngster? Of course – it’s an admirable thing to do. But what I don’t get is why Hollywood needs to make oxymoronically fictionalize the truth.
Or maybe that’s exactly the way it all happened, even if one of the protagonists of the film disagrees. But then again, he’s not really THAT important. Is he?
Since I have one Best Picture Nominee left to watch, before the snow set in, I finally went to watch “The Blind Side”. It’s a good thing I didn’t go outside to shovel snow today, because I’m still tired from shoveling the two hours of bullshit in this film.
“The Blind Side” is the true story of Michael Oher, an African American boy taken in by a wealthy white family led by Leigh Ann Tuohy (Sandra Bullock, in a not-even-Oscar-stratosphere performance). Leigh Ann is a “cracker jack”, which basically means that she gets away in the Film World with things that would NEVER happen in the Real World. Think Julia Roberts’ Erin Brockavich character with a southern accent and more expensive clothes.
Leigh Ann takes on all comers, from calling Michael’s high school coach during a game, to a verbal alternation with a drunken fan during a game and even sparring with some drug dealers. All cower in her wake – due to her fierce stare? That’s about all she’s got – except for the aforementioned nice clothes.
This film is based on a book. It’s obvious to me (and to Michael Oher, given some of his recent comments), that there was MAJOR dramatic license taken with the material. Case in point, Leigh Ann’s husband is played by Tim McGraw. But pictures of the “real” family show Sean roughly fifty pounds heavier. And box office defeats realism! Also, allegedly Michael knows nothing about the game of football as he goes to stay with the Tuohys – the same game he actually started playing at age eight.
The film is loaded with clichéd, stilted, we-are-not-racist dialogue, such as “You changed his life”. Beat. Wait for it… “No, he changed mine”. There’s also racism apparent during the football game, when the redneck officials flag Michael’s coach after Michael’s opponent kicks him in the head. There’s racism in the south? Say it ain’t so, hoss.
I’m not even really sure whose story this is supposed to be – his or hers. According to the press that this film has been given (and Bullock’s own Golden Globe Acceptance speech), it’s hers. But last time I checked it was more about him. Or maybe I’m wrong.
If the Academy hadn’t expanded to 10 films, this film would NEVER have gotten the BP Nod. Everyone agrees with this – and everyone is right. If the argument is that the Academy wants more films that people actually saw, then why not include “Transformers 2”? It seemed about as realistic as this did.
Do I admire what Leigh Ann did by taking in a troubled youngster? Of course – it’s an admirable thing to do. But what I don’t get is why Hollywood needs to make oxymoronically fictionalize the truth.
Or maybe that’s exactly the way it all happened, even if one of the protagonists of the film disagrees. But then again, he’s not really THAT important. Is he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)