Movies are hyped in many ways - some by the internet, others by ubiquitous television or print ads, and still others by the rumor of the “O” word. Most people find out about films through their trailers. When I saw the trailer for Ben Affleck’s “The Town”, I knew I would see it, but I also thought that the trailer gave away the whole film.
I’m glad that it didn’t. The trailer only shows PART of the story – and not even all the best parts.
Much has been said about Affleck (or as I affectionately call him “Affleckted”). Affleck isn’t that great of an actor. I read last week that he’s this generation’s Clint Eastwood, an actor who can do both. This is his showcase, and as much as I hate to admit it, he succeeds beautifully.
Most of this material isn’t particularly new, and in all honestly, the first few minutes drag. I was actually thinking for a few minutes that this film had fallen victim to being overhyped, and that audiences were just so starved for a film with some substance that they would eat any scraps they were tossed.
But as the story develops, and the characters evolve, the film becomes its own entity, with Affleck’s own stamp. It is indeed an ode to Boston, with all its good and bad. It is about brotherhood, and redemption, and consequences. It’s a sometimes heavy-handed drama, but also a dynamic action movie. It’s an ensemble film that still has one clear lead.
It’s not at all surprising this film has succeeded. The cast is fantastic. Jeremy Renner (who needs to be nominated) continues doing stellar work as Affleck’s best friend and counterpart, the catalyst of the entire film. Jon Hamm trades in his Don Draper attitude for FBI blue (and unfortunately, plaid) and shows that he can act (and curse) with the best of them. Rebecca Hall plays the bank teller who gets her heart and vault money stolen. The only question mark is Blake Lively – her character exists only for one scene, nowhere near enough to see if she has depth.
The weakest performance is really Affleck’s, and who could blame him? I’m sure that people will tout him for an acting nod, but I don’t really see how it is deserved. His direction and framing of the film surely overshadow the acting performance. He’s ok, but he has melodramatic moments. But given the strength of the chases and the look and feel of the entire film, I’ll forgive him.
Is “The Town” the best film I’ve seen this year? Surely not. That would still be Christopher Nolan’s “Inception”. When the bar has been set that high, it should be difficult for anything to surpass it. But I do readily concede this film could be a solid contender – there are ten slots, after all. But as a start of the fall (read that as “Grown Up”) cinematic season, it certainly is a solid start.
9/19/2010
Easy A earns its grade
The combination of John Hughes’ untimely passing and my advancing age made me believe the days of leaving a theater energized by a “Don’t You Forget About Me”-esque anthem were long gone. Then I saw “Easy A”, a film that updates classic literature and classic cinema.
Initially, I expected fluff. I’m on vacation this week, and the last thing I wanted to see on my first day off was a heavy drama (next week is a whole other ballgame). Ironically enough, the theater I attended I frequented in high school – so often the ushers knew me by sight. They could still know me by sight – because I was one of maybe five people there.
Even opening credits were impressive, both visually and contextually. The lead actress, Emma Stone, isn’t listed until last (sign of a solid ensemble). The supporting cast is actually award worthy – Patricia Clarkson, Thomas Hayden Church, Stanley Tucci and Lisa Kudrow, all of whom have the gift of comedic timing. But casting and writing are two different things.
Writing a screenplay for this kind of film means that a very fine line has to be tread, between what is “funny” and what is “marketable”, two vastly different things. Recent “hysterical” comedies were just "tolerable". “The Hangover”? I laughed maybe twice. “Super Bad”? Self-explanatory. Making it even more difficult is updating "The Scarlet Letter", a difficult story that I actually did read in high school. But the writer here got it right on all counts, taking the high school cliché of the “made up partner” and to a whole new level, with quite amusing results.
I’ll attribute that also to the performances. Amanda Bynes is hysterical as the Evangelical Bible-Thumping Maryann. Bynes, the current Brett Favre of the Hollywood set, nails every single scene that she’s in with an over the top, but still completely deadpan delivery. Take out the religious reference, and she’s like so many girls I knew in high school (which some people never grew out of).
But this film lives and dies with the performance of Emma Stone. She’s been around for only three years (per imdb), but this girl has serious potential. She gives Olive a vulnerability, but also a directness and frankness absent in 80s comedies. In those comedies, the girls were cute but not really smart, which was considered part of their charm. As the former geeky girl in the back of the room, it’s nice to see a female protagonist finally get her due. Because of Stone, I will now be seeing “The Help”, an initial pass.
The only down side is one all these comedies have – are we really expected to believe these actors are in high school? They all look like they are in their mid twenties! But I guess you can’t have everything.
“Easy A” is the breath of fresh air needed to cleanse the cinematic palate after a dead summer season. This now leads me directly into the fall adult movie slate – and “The Town”!
Initially, I expected fluff. I’m on vacation this week, and the last thing I wanted to see on my first day off was a heavy drama (next week is a whole other ballgame). Ironically enough, the theater I attended I frequented in high school – so often the ushers knew me by sight. They could still know me by sight – because I was one of maybe five people there.
Even opening credits were impressive, both visually and contextually. The lead actress, Emma Stone, isn’t listed until last (sign of a solid ensemble). The supporting cast is actually award worthy – Patricia Clarkson, Thomas Hayden Church, Stanley Tucci and Lisa Kudrow, all of whom have the gift of comedic timing. But casting and writing are two different things.
Writing a screenplay for this kind of film means that a very fine line has to be tread, between what is “funny” and what is “marketable”, two vastly different things. Recent “hysterical” comedies were just "tolerable". “The Hangover”? I laughed maybe twice. “Super Bad”? Self-explanatory. Making it even more difficult is updating "The Scarlet Letter", a difficult story that I actually did read in high school. But the writer here got it right on all counts, taking the high school cliché of the “made up partner” and to a whole new level, with quite amusing results.
I’ll attribute that also to the performances. Amanda Bynes is hysterical as the Evangelical Bible-Thumping Maryann. Bynes, the current Brett Favre of the Hollywood set, nails every single scene that she’s in with an over the top, but still completely deadpan delivery. Take out the religious reference, and she’s like so many girls I knew in high school (which some people never grew out of).
But this film lives and dies with the performance of Emma Stone. She’s been around for only three years (per imdb), but this girl has serious potential. She gives Olive a vulnerability, but also a directness and frankness absent in 80s comedies. In those comedies, the girls were cute but not really smart, which was considered part of their charm. As the former geeky girl in the back of the room, it’s nice to see a female protagonist finally get her due. Because of Stone, I will now be seeing “The Help”, an initial pass.
The only down side is one all these comedies have – are we really expected to believe these actors are in high school? They all look like they are in their mid twenties! But I guess you can’t have everything.
“Easy A” is the breath of fresh air needed to cleanse the cinematic palate after a dead summer season. This now leads me directly into the fall adult movie slate – and “The Town”!
9/14/2010
He's A (not quite that real) "Solitary Man"
Get any two cinephiles together and eventually the topic of “what makes a good movie” comes up. Depending upon the person, the answer could be a plethora of things – the right actor (or actress), a certain director, a framing technique. Sometimes the answer is as simple as genre.
For me, it’s all about the writing and the character development. If I don’t care about the characters, I won’t care about the film. It’s that simple. I might care about the story or its resolution, but if I don’t care about the people involved, I’m not wasting my time. I need to feel strongly about the characters.
That feeling doesn’t have to necessarily be positive though. There are just as many memorable characters that I hated with a passion – like “Forrest Gump”. What everyone thought as a loveable, kindhearted buffoon I just found a tedious one-dimensional bore.
I have noticed, though, that there seems to be a growing media movement – characters usually hated have been “softened” somehow, thus creating the anti-hero. It’s all over the programs you see (or at least the ones I watch most often). Some people say it got popular with Tony Soprano and then went to the Walter Whites and Don Drapers of the world. How does that transition into film?
All of this brings me to “Solitary Man”, the newest effort from Michael Douglas. Here he plays a complete cad of a man, the cliché at the end of the bar who still thinks the 20 year olds are checking him out as they laugh at him behind his back. Almost every relationship he has is toxic – from his daughter to his new love to his grandson. But it hasn’t always been like that (and anything more would be a spoiler).
This supporting cast looked awesome on paper. There’s Danny DeVito, Susan Sarandon and Jenna Fischer. All of these actors are certainly competent, but ultimately it’s Douglas’ film and his performance that is the core. His performance is solid, but the writing is the downfall of the film.
Did I want to hit him? Yes. But did I eventually feel sorry for him? Yes, and that didn’t work for me. In a television show, I have 13, 22 or 24 episodes or more with a character. It’s like getting to know someone in real life – sometimes they’re fantastic, sometimes annoying and sometimes boring. But to flip flop your opinion in just 2 hours? It’s just not believable.
The best part of the film is the last line and the cut to black. It’s an example of almost perfect writing. It’s a shame that the rest of the film didn’t pack that kind of punch. It will be interesting to contrast this film with “Greenberg”, which I will try to watch soon.
For me, it’s all about the writing and the character development. If I don’t care about the characters, I won’t care about the film. It’s that simple. I might care about the story or its resolution, but if I don’t care about the people involved, I’m not wasting my time. I need to feel strongly about the characters.
That feeling doesn’t have to necessarily be positive though. There are just as many memorable characters that I hated with a passion – like “Forrest Gump”. What everyone thought as a loveable, kindhearted buffoon I just found a tedious one-dimensional bore.
I have noticed, though, that there seems to be a growing media movement – characters usually hated have been “softened” somehow, thus creating the anti-hero. It’s all over the programs you see (or at least the ones I watch most often). Some people say it got popular with Tony Soprano and then went to the Walter Whites and Don Drapers of the world. How does that transition into film?
All of this brings me to “Solitary Man”, the newest effort from Michael Douglas. Here he plays a complete cad of a man, the cliché at the end of the bar who still thinks the 20 year olds are checking him out as they laugh at him behind his back. Almost every relationship he has is toxic – from his daughter to his new love to his grandson. But it hasn’t always been like that (and anything more would be a spoiler).
This supporting cast looked awesome on paper. There’s Danny DeVito, Susan Sarandon and Jenna Fischer. All of these actors are certainly competent, but ultimately it’s Douglas’ film and his performance that is the core. His performance is solid, but the writing is the downfall of the film.
Did I want to hit him? Yes. But did I eventually feel sorry for him? Yes, and that didn’t work for me. In a television show, I have 13, 22 or 24 episodes or more with a character. It’s like getting to know someone in real life – sometimes they’re fantastic, sometimes annoying and sometimes boring. But to flip flop your opinion in just 2 hours? It’s just not believable.
The best part of the film is the last line and the cut to black. It’s an example of almost perfect writing. It’s a shame that the rest of the film didn’t pack that kind of punch. It will be interesting to contrast this film with “Greenberg”, which I will try to watch soon.
9/05/2010
Babies Are Funny - No Matter Where They Are
The more I watch, the more I have to watch. I say that often. Given that video stores are dead, Netflix is forced to be a month behind, and time is in short supply, I readily admit I’m getting further behind. Keeping an accurate queue now seems like more pressure, so I’ve stopped. What I needed was to watch something light by not stupid or insulting, so I came across one of the plethora of films I’ve missed lately – “Babies”.
This documentary made me laugh so hard I cried – and I don’t even have kids.
The film follows four babies from their first breath to their first steps. They are located all over the world, in Nambia, Mongolia, Tokyo and San Francisco. The film is the brainchild of two Frenchmen – can it get any more international? The lack of dialogue (and subtitles) underscores the main point of the film, which is that there are certain universal truths.
Sibling rivalry always exists. Kids like to eat dirt. Discovering your feet (and the power of your lungs) is cool. Music is fun to move to. Toys can be confusing. It’s not easy to figure out how to be walk. Pets are good playmates, especially if you get to pet them really hard. Dogs have interesting mouths. And so on.
But even though there are universal truths, the cultural differences are also greatly apparent. And this is my biggest flaw with the film, although I readily stipulate it’s my American Pride getting in the way of my objectivity. Out of all the couples in the US, do you really have to use some self-indulgent, late-in-life parents with every conceivable yuppie thing imaginable for their child? Right down to a shot of Daddy playing with his daughter in bed while Mommy sits next to him reading “Be the Parent You Want to Be”? Seriously? We’re better than that – aren’t we?
It seemed to me that the cutest child (with the best parents) was in Tokyo. Both Mom and Dad were invested in their child; she went everywhere they did. Education was stressed, even at the age of one. (I’m saving my “American Educational System” rant for the release of “Waiting for Superman”.) The child was stimulated, well-taken-care-of, and disciplined when needed. She’s also adorable.
After the film, there was a bonus section with the filmmakers showing the film to the families, then updating the stories of the kids by showing footage of the now four year olds. I know that this film isn’t really an original idea – the Brits did it years ago with the “7 Up” series, chronicling the lives of several children through adulthood and beyond. It would also be interesting if they did something like this throughout America, showing different cultures and customs within our own country, but then again that’s my American Pride showing through.
But “Babies” is still the funniest film all year. I’d highly recommend that you not miss it, like I almost did.
This documentary made me laugh so hard I cried – and I don’t even have kids.
The film follows four babies from their first breath to their first steps. They are located all over the world, in Nambia, Mongolia, Tokyo and San Francisco. The film is the brainchild of two Frenchmen – can it get any more international? The lack of dialogue (and subtitles) underscores the main point of the film, which is that there are certain universal truths.
Sibling rivalry always exists. Kids like to eat dirt. Discovering your feet (and the power of your lungs) is cool. Music is fun to move to. Toys can be confusing. It’s not easy to figure out how to be walk. Pets are good playmates, especially if you get to pet them really hard. Dogs have interesting mouths. And so on.
But even though there are universal truths, the cultural differences are also greatly apparent. And this is my biggest flaw with the film, although I readily stipulate it’s my American Pride getting in the way of my objectivity. Out of all the couples in the US, do you really have to use some self-indulgent, late-in-life parents with every conceivable yuppie thing imaginable for their child? Right down to a shot of Daddy playing with his daughter in bed while Mommy sits next to him reading “Be the Parent You Want to Be”? Seriously? We’re better than that – aren’t we?
It seemed to me that the cutest child (with the best parents) was in Tokyo. Both Mom and Dad were invested in their child; she went everywhere they did. Education was stressed, even at the age of one. (I’m saving my “American Educational System” rant for the release of “Waiting for Superman”.) The child was stimulated, well-taken-care-of, and disciplined when needed. She’s also adorable.
After the film, there was a bonus section with the filmmakers showing the film to the families, then updating the stories of the kids by showing footage of the now four year olds. I know that this film isn’t really an original idea – the Brits did it years ago with the “7 Up” series, chronicling the lives of several children through adulthood and beyond. It would also be interesting if they did something like this throughout America, showing different cultures and customs within our own country, but then again that’s my American Pride showing through.
But “Babies” is still the funniest film all year. I’d highly recommend that you not miss it, like I almost did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)