It’s Memorial Day Weekend, the old start of the summer movie season. But, that is now the first weekend in May and I’ve already seen the film I wanted to see. I’ve also purchased a “big-ticket” item (aka a 2009 Kia), so I’m too money-challenged and lazy to go away for the weekend.
So I took a trip via my DVD player. I’ve been to New Zealand, to Japan and then to the Bayou of Bon Temps and I must say that, even with the cinematic turbulence, I’m still glad I took the trip.
My first pick was “Once Were Warriors”, a film recommended to me by a friend. The film was made in 1994, but feels more like an 80s film – big hair, big credits, and lots of primary colors. The plot centers on a family in tatters. Beth and her husband have a mess of kids that are delinquents, but given the example of domestic violence, they never really had a prayer. It looks like it was shot low-budget, but eventually the story and the acting sneak up on you. By the time I got to the end, I felt drained but cleansed. I was advised it’s not a very easy film to watch, and that’s true. But it’s worth watching all the same.
Then I watched “Raise the Red Lantern”, one of the films from the Yahoo list. It’s one of the few that I hadn’t seen, and it showed me that dialogue isn’t all that necessary to create a character. It tells the story of a young girl who decides that she’d be best taken care of by becoming a concubine to a rich man. She becomes the “Fourth Mistress”, with her own maid and her own house. Her master then decides which wife to “favor” that evening by having the lanterns lit for all to see. The film then describes the interrelationships of the wives, leading to her tragic fate. The story is captivating and the film is fantastic to watch. I’m also glad I got the reminder that Asian films aren’t strictly horror. It’s an outstanding film.
Lastly, I did my typical long-weekend activity: watched as many episodes of a TV show as possible. In this case, it was HBO’s “True Blood”. Even though Showtime has better shows, this is HBO’s best offering right now, but unfortunately the second season pales in comparison to the first. This one is far more over-the-top and once you distance yourself from the show you realize that the plotlines are allegorical, but stupid. But for some reason you watch it all the same. I do enjoy watching shows a season at a time, as there are no cliffhangers and no time delays. And for the record, yes I will be watching the third season as well (eventually).
Now it’s off to make breakfast and tea and then go to my next international stop – the French Open.
5/31/2010
5/20/2010
Iron Man 2
Second films are usually either a bridge film between films one and three (“The Two Towers”) or, in rare cases, better than the original (“The Godfather II”). The biggest question this month is how does the biggest “middle film” of the summer – “Iron Man II” - fit between those two extremes?
The short answer is: in the middle.
The plot continues where the last one ended. Tony Stark informed the world he’s Iron Man, but he seems to be overstretched. His mental and physical health are failing, and he’s coping in true Stark fashion – not well. Iron Man is one of my favorite superheroes is that he is admittedly flawed and chased by demons. Not to get too bogged down, but one of the reasons that the film works is because it’s multi-leveled. It’s a battle of good vs evil, externally and internally.
The cast is great. The chemistry carries over for the first one and the new additions fold into the mix well. The replacing of Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle works to a certain extent, but doesn’t completely gel. I think had they not made Rhodey a much more stoic character it wouldn’t have worked at all. Mickey Rourke is a creepy catalyst, used as a combination of a walking talking special effect and a plot device. Scarlett is there primarily as eye candy, and of course succeeds.
One of the best highlights for me is the chemistry and dialogue between Downey and Paltrow. The dialogue is structured so that they often talk over each other and talk at the same time – just like the supercouples of the 40s (my favorite). Both actors have a great sense of comedic timing and the screenwriter (who also penned “Tropic Thunder”) knows how to bring it out.
There are a few minute things that were annoying, but those were only idiosyncrasies. For example, the door to Tony’s workshop is passcode accessible only, but apparently EVERY CHARACTER has the passcode. But even more frustrating was what I’ll call “Marvel product placement”, such as the lead ins to the other upcoming films in the Marvel Universe. I know that not only is this film part of a trilogy, but it’s also one in a bigger set of films, but some of this is just stupid. (If you’ve seen it, you know what I mean.) The filmmakers are also adding a teaser after the credits isn’t necessary. Everyone knows what the next films are – either come up with something better, or don’t bother to try.
All in all though, it was great to lose myself in something for over two hours. I
saw it NOT in IMAX, and not in my usual theater. I saw this film in a theater that I haven’t been in for about 15 years, and the film was still fantastic. That is the best testament to the film – I forgot the theatrical experience and just watched and enjoyed the film. Can’t wait for the next one.
The short answer is: in the middle.
The plot continues where the last one ended. Tony Stark informed the world he’s Iron Man, but he seems to be overstretched. His mental and physical health are failing, and he’s coping in true Stark fashion – not well. Iron Man is one of my favorite superheroes is that he is admittedly flawed and chased by demons. Not to get too bogged down, but one of the reasons that the film works is because it’s multi-leveled. It’s a battle of good vs evil, externally and internally.
The cast is great. The chemistry carries over for the first one and the new additions fold into the mix well. The replacing of Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle works to a certain extent, but doesn’t completely gel. I think had they not made Rhodey a much more stoic character it wouldn’t have worked at all. Mickey Rourke is a creepy catalyst, used as a combination of a walking talking special effect and a plot device. Scarlett is there primarily as eye candy, and of course succeeds.
One of the best highlights for me is the chemistry and dialogue between Downey and Paltrow. The dialogue is structured so that they often talk over each other and talk at the same time – just like the supercouples of the 40s (my favorite). Both actors have a great sense of comedic timing and the screenwriter (who also penned “Tropic Thunder”) knows how to bring it out.
There are a few minute things that were annoying, but those were only idiosyncrasies. For example, the door to Tony’s workshop is passcode accessible only, but apparently EVERY CHARACTER has the passcode. But even more frustrating was what I’ll call “Marvel product placement”, such as the lead ins to the other upcoming films in the Marvel Universe. I know that not only is this film part of a trilogy, but it’s also one in a bigger set of films, but some of this is just stupid. (If you’ve seen it, you know what I mean.) The filmmakers are also adding a teaser after the credits isn’t necessary. Everyone knows what the next films are – either come up with something better, or don’t bother to try.
All in all though, it was great to lose myself in something for over two hours. I
saw it NOT in IMAX, and not in my usual theater. I saw this film in a theater that I haven’t been in for about 15 years, and the film was still fantastic. That is the best testament to the film – I forgot the theatrical experience and just watched and enjoyed the film. Can’t wait for the next one.
5/13/2010
Casting...When it Works...And When it Doesn't
For this week’s cinematic adventure, I went somewhere new and then visited an old friend.
First stop was Rob Marshall’s “Nine”. Two obvious reasons I didn’t see this in a theater – Daniel Day Lewis and Katie Hudson. One is enough to make me hide; two is beyond a bad sign. (Nic Cage completes my Cinematic Apocalyptic Trifecta) Other than the aforementioned abominations, the rest of the cast looked stellar: Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz and even Stacy Ferguson (aka Fergie).
“Nine” is loosely based on Fellini’s “8 ½”, which I admit I have not seen. I watched ten minutes and found it boring and pretentious. I felt similarly about “Nine”. I just didn’t see any direction. DDL plays a director about to shoot a movie, with no script and a severe case of writer’s block. He turns to his muses (some real, some not) for inspiration, only to acquire more anxiety and pressure. Each muse gets her own musical number.
I won’t go so far as to say that it was “Mama Mia”-esque bad, because all the actors actually can semi-sing. I felt that Cruz’s number was the best, as she worked the hardest. The best tune was Hudson’s, a dead ringer for her mom in her white go-go boots. Acting-wise, the award goes to Marion Cotillard – the long-suffering, tolerant wife. The weakest link was probably Nicole Kidman as the ex-wive. If you blink or don’t pause when you go to the rest room, you’ll miss her.
Marshall also did one of my favorite films – “Chicago”. I thought it was brilliant, and it’s the only film I’ve seen repeatedly in a theater. (I think I saw it seven times. I can still repeat dialogue and sing every lyric.) “Chicago” still had relevance, as it deals with the idea of celebrity and notoriety. I just didn’t feel that “Nine” had the same kind of hook – or perhaps I just don’t understand “Cinema Italiano”.
The other film this week was a classic – Frank Darabont’s “The Shawshank Redemption”. (#79 on the all-time classic list and # 21 on the modern classic list) This is a case where just about everything about a film works. Unlike the other Darabont-driven Stephen King adaptation “The Green Mile”, this film doesn’t need an all-star cast (or Tom Hanks, thank God). It showcases two of today’s most brilliant actors - Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman.
I’m sure you’ve seen this film, as most people have. It’s clear that the filmmakers tried to get every detail just right – and succeeded on all levels. Most importantly, it’s a faithful Stephen King adaptation. And trust me, I know my King. It’s my favorite adaptation of all his works, and it still can move me to tears. Plus, on the week of my birthday, it’s kinda nice to see that I’m not the only one who’s gotten older.
First stop was Rob Marshall’s “Nine”. Two obvious reasons I didn’t see this in a theater – Daniel Day Lewis and Katie Hudson. One is enough to make me hide; two is beyond a bad sign. (Nic Cage completes my Cinematic Apocalyptic Trifecta) Other than the aforementioned abominations, the rest of the cast looked stellar: Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz and even Stacy Ferguson (aka Fergie).
“Nine” is loosely based on Fellini’s “8 ½”, which I admit I have not seen. I watched ten minutes and found it boring and pretentious. I felt similarly about “Nine”. I just didn’t see any direction. DDL plays a director about to shoot a movie, with no script and a severe case of writer’s block. He turns to his muses (some real, some not) for inspiration, only to acquire more anxiety and pressure. Each muse gets her own musical number.
I won’t go so far as to say that it was “Mama Mia”-esque bad, because all the actors actually can semi-sing. I felt that Cruz’s number was the best, as she worked the hardest. The best tune was Hudson’s, a dead ringer for her mom in her white go-go boots. Acting-wise, the award goes to Marion Cotillard – the long-suffering, tolerant wife. The weakest link was probably Nicole Kidman as the ex-wive. If you blink or don’t pause when you go to the rest room, you’ll miss her.
Marshall also did one of my favorite films – “Chicago”. I thought it was brilliant, and it’s the only film I’ve seen repeatedly in a theater. (I think I saw it seven times. I can still repeat dialogue and sing every lyric.) “Chicago” still had relevance, as it deals with the idea of celebrity and notoriety. I just didn’t feel that “Nine” had the same kind of hook – or perhaps I just don’t understand “Cinema Italiano”.
The other film this week was a classic – Frank Darabont’s “The Shawshank Redemption”. (#79 on the all-time classic list and # 21 on the modern classic list) This is a case where just about everything about a film works. Unlike the other Darabont-driven Stephen King adaptation “The Green Mile”, this film doesn’t need an all-star cast (or Tom Hanks, thank God). It showcases two of today’s most brilliant actors - Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman.
I’m sure you’ve seen this film, as most people have. It’s clear that the filmmakers tried to get every detail just right – and succeeded on all levels. Most importantly, it’s a faithful Stephen King adaptation. And trust me, I know my King. It’s my favorite adaptation of all his works, and it still can move me to tears. Plus, on the week of my birthday, it’s kinda nice to see that I’m not the only one who’s gotten older.
5/06/2010
Film 142: Eve's Bayou
One of the things that people complain about is that there aren’t enough films that have an almost exclusively African-American cast. Really, the only dramas like that today are those made by Tyler Perry, and they are now far too repetitive for their own good. A film made almost fifteen years ago that met this criteria was “Eve’s Bayou”.
When I originally saw this film in 1997, I thought it was impressive. Boasting an all-star cast, this film promised to be a drama/mystery and I enjoyed it. I watched it again thirteen years later and I’ve decided that it’s as hot a mess as the Louisiana bayou for which it is named.
I can’t even tell the direction the filmmakers were taking. At times this film could have been shot in the 1950s (it’s actually set in the 60s), a true Douglas Sirk original, complete with swelling music. Other times it’s got a “Cotton Club” feel to it, an almost seductive quality. But unfortunately, there’s also another part that I can’t really identify that just doesn’t mesh with anything else.
I’m not even sure of the main plot. Is it about a family and its ultimate ruination? Is it about a steamy affair gone wrong? Is it the story of one little girl and the tragic consequences that she believes she caused? Or is it a total mishmash of everything? I’m afraid that it’s the latter.
But there are upsides to the film. The scenery is awesome, just seedy enough to make the main points. The cast is still impressive; it’s a venerable who’s who of Hollywood at that time. Even if the writing isn’t that strong, the cast can overcome those shortcomings. There really isn’t a role that Sam Jackson can’t play, and the philandering scoundrel of a doctor suits him well. Lynn Whitfield nails the part of the indulgent wife and mother.
Debbi Morgan is an odd mix of sister and witchdoctor; it is perhaps her performance that is the weakest of the adults. But the worst casting has to be that of the lead Jurnee Smollett as Eve. She has since grown into a wealth of TV roles, which is good because film just wasn’t her strong suit.
The director, Kasi Lemmons, has since gone on to make another movie with Jackson, “The Caveman’s Valentine”, which I haven’t seen. But I’m really jazzed to see it, either.
As far as one of the “100 Modern Films to See Before You Die” goes – trust me, you can skip this one.
When I originally saw this film in 1997, I thought it was impressive. Boasting an all-star cast, this film promised to be a drama/mystery and I enjoyed it. I watched it again thirteen years later and I’ve decided that it’s as hot a mess as the Louisiana bayou for which it is named.
I can’t even tell the direction the filmmakers were taking. At times this film could have been shot in the 1950s (it’s actually set in the 60s), a true Douglas Sirk original, complete with swelling music. Other times it’s got a “Cotton Club” feel to it, an almost seductive quality. But unfortunately, there’s also another part that I can’t really identify that just doesn’t mesh with anything else.
I’m not even sure of the main plot. Is it about a family and its ultimate ruination? Is it about a steamy affair gone wrong? Is it the story of one little girl and the tragic consequences that she believes she caused? Or is it a total mishmash of everything? I’m afraid that it’s the latter.
But there are upsides to the film. The scenery is awesome, just seedy enough to make the main points. The cast is still impressive; it’s a venerable who’s who of Hollywood at that time. Even if the writing isn’t that strong, the cast can overcome those shortcomings. There really isn’t a role that Sam Jackson can’t play, and the philandering scoundrel of a doctor suits him well. Lynn Whitfield nails the part of the indulgent wife and mother.
Debbi Morgan is an odd mix of sister and witchdoctor; it is perhaps her performance that is the weakest of the adults. But the worst casting has to be that of the lead Jurnee Smollett as Eve. She has since grown into a wealth of TV roles, which is good because film just wasn’t her strong suit.
The director, Kasi Lemmons, has since gone on to make another movie with Jackson, “The Caveman’s Valentine”, which I haven’t seen. But I’m really jazzed to see it, either.
As far as one of the “100 Modern Films to See Before You Die” goes – trust me, you can skip this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)