Once in a while, a movie comes out changing the way that you look at film as a whole. In 1993, it was “Jurassic Park”; in 1999, “The Matrix”. Last year it was “Avatar”. Usually I hate these films, thinking they are showy and hollow instead of multi-dimensional, or rehashes of old stories with pretty effects thrown in for attention.
I’m extremely overjoyed to report that “Inception” is the EXception. And it comes as no surprise at all that it’s delivered courtesy of the greatest director working today (sorry, Marty) – Christopher Nolan.
If you are only familiar with Nolan as the director of “The Dark Knight”, you may walk out of “Inception” feeling like you’ve been hit by a truck. I admit it’s not the always the easiest film to follow. The general gist (and that’s all I’ll reveal) is the main character, Cobb, (Leonardo DiCaprio, minus the additional ‘r’) plays a manipulator of the mind (the worst kind) who steals and exploits your secrets as you sleep. Revealing more would ruin the experience (which, depending on your pov, may or may not be “fun”).
This is the Nolan of the ultimate mind-fuck. But whereas “The Following” and “Memento” messed with your mind, this film also messes with your heart. (I will admit I did cry.) Cobb is a troubled soul with demons as always, but one of his ghosts is personified as his wife, Mal (the wonderful Marion Cotillard).
The reason why it’s difficult to really describe “Inception” is because I don’t really think I’ve ever seen anything like it. The premise is original and stays with you long after you leave the theater, two and a half hours after you sat down. The cast is amazing, from Leo to Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Ellen Page and on and on. The effects are awesome, as the viewer and the characters are literally tossed every which way.
Here’s a note about the ending: whatever you think it is, that’s what it is. And that’s both the whole point and the greatest gift. It has no big bow, and if you expect one, don’t bother. This film requires your attention from start to finish, and if you don’t give it, then you won’t get it.
The only downside of the film (a really small one at that), is that DiCaprio’s portrayal of Cobb is quite a bit similar to one he gave earlier this year, in that pile of dreck called “Shutter Island”. When “Inception” ended, my first thought was that this was what SI SHOULD have been. But, upon further reflection, it’s what ALL films should be – and directors (and writers, as Nolan also penned it).
Given that the Oscars now have expanded to 10 films for Best Picture (which many call “The Dark Knight Rule”), I feel safe in saying that Nolan is a LOCK for a nomination, as is the film. I can’t wait to see if any film can “top” it.
7/23/2010
7/20/2010
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - B.H. (Before Hollywood)
Hollywood is all abuzz about “The Millenium Trilogy”. Based upon a series of novels by the late Steig Larsson, they revolve around the exploits of hacker extraordinaire Lisabeth Salander and her cohort Mikhail Blomkvist. I have not yet read these books, which is a bit unusual.
Why? Because the films have already been made – in Sweden. The first in the set, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, was released theatrically at the close of last year.
That’s right – LAST YEAR. How ridiculous is that? I know that Hollywood counts on the memories of the cinematic public to be short, but THAT SHORT? How insulting.
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a gritty, grainy looking film, like something from the 70s or 80s. It’s supposed to be that way. For the first ten minutes of its rather long 2.5 hour run time, it’s a neat trick. About halfway through you can’t help but wonder what they’re going to do when they have a decent sized budget.
The story is extremely interesting, although I can’t really see it translating to the States well. Blomkvist is a respected journalist who is accused of and jailed for libel against a very powerful organization. He needs to clear his name. In the meantime, he is also hired by a dying tycoon to find out who killed his lost relative.
What makes the story work isn’t really the premise - which can get outlandish and dated at times - it’s the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist. Both of these people are damaged and alone, and you don’t need subtitles to see it. I attribute this to the performances of both the leads. There are lots of chase scenes created by someone who actually knows how to choreograph such things. And even though there are times that you need a bit of a leap of faith to get past the obvious clichés, it’s still a great idea. By the end, you do want to know what happens to the characters going forward. I think it also helps that both are unknown to me. If you put established actors in these roles (*cough * Mulligan and Craig), I don’t see it working as well.
I’m sure there will things needing “updating” or “revision”. The original title of the film is “Millenium #1: Men Who Hate Women”. Parts of it are EXTREMELY misogynistic and violent. There are a few scenes that will have to be scaled down – only one of which isn’t necessary to advance the story. American audiences can’t handle it.
The other two films have already been completed and released in Sweden. The second is about to hit US audiences soon. The third has no US release date yet (possibly because the book was just released here a few months ago). I think I’ll stay with the foreign version for now, before I look to the “updated” or “revamped” version. The only Glamorizing I’m interested in right now belongs on “True Blood”.
Why? Because the films have already been made – in Sweden. The first in the set, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, was released theatrically at the close of last year.
That’s right – LAST YEAR. How ridiculous is that? I know that Hollywood counts on the memories of the cinematic public to be short, but THAT SHORT? How insulting.
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a gritty, grainy looking film, like something from the 70s or 80s. It’s supposed to be that way. For the first ten minutes of its rather long 2.5 hour run time, it’s a neat trick. About halfway through you can’t help but wonder what they’re going to do when they have a decent sized budget.
The story is extremely interesting, although I can’t really see it translating to the States well. Blomkvist is a respected journalist who is accused of and jailed for libel against a very powerful organization. He needs to clear his name. In the meantime, he is also hired by a dying tycoon to find out who killed his lost relative.
What makes the story work isn’t really the premise - which can get outlandish and dated at times - it’s the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist. Both of these people are damaged and alone, and you don’t need subtitles to see it. I attribute this to the performances of both the leads. There are lots of chase scenes created by someone who actually knows how to choreograph such things. And even though there are times that you need a bit of a leap of faith to get past the obvious clichés, it’s still a great idea. By the end, you do want to know what happens to the characters going forward. I think it also helps that both are unknown to me. If you put established actors in these roles (*cough * Mulligan and Craig), I don’t see it working as well.
I’m sure there will things needing “updating” or “revision”. The original title of the film is “Millenium #1: Men Who Hate Women”. Parts of it are EXTREMELY misogynistic and violent. There are a few scenes that will have to be scaled down – only one of which isn’t necessary to advance the story. American audiences can’t handle it.
The other two films have already been completed and released in Sweden. The second is about to hit US audiences soon. The third has no US release date yet (possibly because the book was just released here a few months ago). I think I’ll stay with the foreign version for now, before I look to the “updated” or “revamped” version. The only Glamorizing I’m interested in right now belongs on “True Blood”.
7/11/2010
The sun (and moon) have set on "Eclipse"
Let the record show – “I’m SO over ‘The Twilight’”, as in “The Twilight Phenomenon”. I’ve read all the books, and I did enjoy them (except for the last one, which I think was only written for money and is basically softcore porn repackaged). I wasn’t Team Jacob, nor was I Team Edward; I’ve always been firmly Team Bella.
But after seeing “Eclipse”, I’m just done with the whole thing. These aren’t films anymore or even stories. They are just Mighty Marketing Juggernauts. It’s Fad Gone Wild, and I don’t want anything more to do with it.
Maybe the reason I’m over it is because I’ve grown up. When I read the books, I was in a totally different place in my life than I am now. Plus, everyone agrees that books are usually better than movies. I can forgive the poorly written dialogue in the books, because after all they are really young adult novels. They shouldn’t BE that great, and they aren’t. And I’ve always been an advocate of a female empowerment message, especially for young girls.
Translating it to film, however, is a whole other story. A friend of mine told me that the audience for “Eclipse” is 60% teenage girls, 20% cougar females, and 20% gay boys. I fit into none of these categories, and actually laughed out loud during Taylor Lautner’s entrance, where I felt the only thing missing was porn music. (Although, during my “New Moon” showing, there was a collective gasp when he took off his shirt for the first time, which I also found laughable.)
Is it a bad film? No – I’ve certainly seen worse. Is it a good film? Not really – I’ve certainly seen better. That’s why this column is a bit difficult to write – it’s always hard to do the “blah” films. The story is passable, but the dialogue is HORRENDOUS, and it’s delivered even worse. Kristen Stewart has gone from brooding to simpering, Pattinson is officially annoying and Lautner seems too young to really consider. They still haven’t improved the glistening effect of the vampires in the sun; and the meadow now has WAY too much yellow. And when did vampires become porcelain?
But before you think I’m completely negative about it, there are some good things. Each film in the series has brought a bigger budget, which is obvious. The effects are getting better. The wolves look awesome. The fight choreography seems better. The scenery is spectacular as always. I like the fact that this volume gives a back story on some of the supporting characters, and is a showcase for someone other than the Big Three to shine.
I know that they need one more film to tie up the plotline with the Volturri. Please note I said ONE, not two. That’s another example of milking it. I don’t care if Scorsese himself directs it – two films just aren’t needed.
But apparently more money is. I just don’t think the next one will get mine.
But after seeing “Eclipse”, I’m just done with the whole thing. These aren’t films anymore or even stories. They are just Mighty Marketing Juggernauts. It’s Fad Gone Wild, and I don’t want anything more to do with it.
Maybe the reason I’m over it is because I’ve grown up. When I read the books, I was in a totally different place in my life than I am now. Plus, everyone agrees that books are usually better than movies. I can forgive the poorly written dialogue in the books, because after all they are really young adult novels. They shouldn’t BE that great, and they aren’t. And I’ve always been an advocate of a female empowerment message, especially for young girls.
Translating it to film, however, is a whole other story. A friend of mine told me that the audience for “Eclipse” is 60% teenage girls, 20% cougar females, and 20% gay boys. I fit into none of these categories, and actually laughed out loud during Taylor Lautner’s entrance, where I felt the only thing missing was porn music. (Although, during my “New Moon” showing, there was a collective gasp when he took off his shirt for the first time, which I also found laughable.)
Is it a bad film? No – I’ve certainly seen worse. Is it a good film? Not really – I’ve certainly seen better. That’s why this column is a bit difficult to write – it’s always hard to do the “blah” films. The story is passable, but the dialogue is HORRENDOUS, and it’s delivered even worse. Kristen Stewart has gone from brooding to simpering, Pattinson is officially annoying and Lautner seems too young to really consider. They still haven’t improved the glistening effect of the vampires in the sun; and the meadow now has WAY too much yellow. And when did vampires become porcelain?
But before you think I’m completely negative about it, there are some good things. Each film in the series has brought a bigger budget, which is obvious. The effects are getting better. The wolves look awesome. The fight choreography seems better. The scenery is spectacular as always. I like the fact that this volume gives a back story on some of the supporting characters, and is a showcase for someone other than the Big Three to shine.
I know that they need one more film to tie up the plotline with the Volturri. Please note I said ONE, not two. That’s another example of milking it. I don’t care if Scorsese himself directs it – two films just aren’t needed.
But apparently more money is. I just don’t think the next one will get mine.
6/29/2010
Lowering Prices Doesn't Have to Mean Lowering Standards
Ever notice that the cheaper a film becomes to watch, the more likely you are to watch it? To me, very few films are worth spending the IMAX-ish money at my local theater. However, for those films on the bubble, there are daily matinees and my local Cineplex does have a 6.00 Wednesday special. But lately it’s not a money issue, but a time one.
But tonight I caught a break. Leaving work at 6:30 gave me enough time to watch and review a film in the same night. That’s not usual practice, but I do have a self-imposed 4 monthly post deadline to hit. I wanted a film requiring little thought, but still seemed interesting. After reviewing the new movies menu from my soon-to-be-ex cable company, I selected “Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief”.
I knew this was the possible start of a franchise, with the studio thinking it will replace the OTHER franchise about the young wizards. This film has two major selling points for me. The first was that I HAVEN’T read the source material. I have this bad habit of being a voracious reader. By the time the movie has come out, I have already read the book which usually ruins the film. (Case in point: I’m currently reading “The Passage”, which has already been optioned by Ridley Scott.) The second is that I am familiar with the background of the story.
I found it entertaining to see how they incorporated the myths I read as a child in a modern setting. I loved the parade of cameos; even the credits were a kick to watch. The adults in the film are truly an ensemble; and are more recognizable that the ones in the OTHER franchise. But the film belongs to the three leads (Why does it always have to be three, btw?) who were complete unknowns to me. I thought the acting was solid, the writing was above average, and the ideas themselves were extremely entertaining.
The other thing worth mentioning is the use of special effects. Most of the time effects bore me. I find them fake and distancing to the audience. But here they actually worked. I’m not sure if that’s because of the state I’m in, or if it’s because of the world the filmmakers put me in, but either way it was successful.
This is what I’d consider a true family film. It doesn’t pander down to children, and it’s intelligent enough to hold the attention of adults. I guess that’s why it was one of the first well-reviewed films of 2010. In a summer saturated with stories I’ve already heard or couldn’t care less about, it was very nice to finally see a film that was original, in its own way.
If they do decide to make this into a franchise (and I have no doubt that they will), I’m all for it. And I PROMISE not to read the books!
But tonight I caught a break. Leaving work at 6:30 gave me enough time to watch and review a film in the same night. That’s not usual practice, but I do have a self-imposed 4 monthly post deadline to hit. I wanted a film requiring little thought, but still seemed interesting. After reviewing the new movies menu from my soon-to-be-ex cable company, I selected “Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief”.
I knew this was the possible start of a franchise, with the studio thinking it will replace the OTHER franchise about the young wizards. This film has two major selling points for me. The first was that I HAVEN’T read the source material. I have this bad habit of being a voracious reader. By the time the movie has come out, I have already read the book which usually ruins the film. (Case in point: I’m currently reading “The Passage”, which has already been optioned by Ridley Scott.) The second is that I am familiar with the background of the story.
I found it entertaining to see how they incorporated the myths I read as a child in a modern setting. I loved the parade of cameos; even the credits were a kick to watch. The adults in the film are truly an ensemble; and are more recognizable that the ones in the OTHER franchise. But the film belongs to the three leads (Why does it always have to be three, btw?) who were complete unknowns to me. I thought the acting was solid, the writing was above average, and the ideas themselves were extremely entertaining.
The other thing worth mentioning is the use of special effects. Most of the time effects bore me. I find them fake and distancing to the audience. But here they actually worked. I’m not sure if that’s because of the state I’m in, or if it’s because of the world the filmmakers put me in, but either way it was successful.
This is what I’d consider a true family film. It doesn’t pander down to children, and it’s intelligent enough to hold the attention of adults. I guess that’s why it was one of the first well-reviewed films of 2010. In a summer saturated with stories I’ve already heard or couldn’t care less about, it was very nice to finally see a film that was original, in its own way.
If they do decide to make this into a franchise (and I have no doubt that they will), I’m all for it. And I PROMISE not to read the books!
6/27/2010
My job is driving me (and my film choices) CRAZY!
I really must apologize to my Readership of Six for my absence of late. Unfortunately, my job had been driving me crazy. I’ve been working many more hours than normal, and by the time I finally do come home I’ve been far too tired and too brain dead to actually watch anything, or even form a complete thought.
I can’t guarantee either of that right now, but I’ll give it the old college try. It seems that unconsciously, this idea of going crazy has manifested itself in my viewing choices this week, in very odd ways.
In addition to being sick of working, I’m also sick of the lack of good film choices, as I’ve whined about repeatedly. When all else fails, I find myself turning to my TV, and thus On Demand. While perusing my On Demand selections, I found Turner Classic Movies On Demand (YAY!). While reviewing the list, I came across a gem starring Olivia de Havilland from the late 1940s entitled “The Snake Pit”. Ironically enough, this film tells the story of Virginia Cunningham, a woman who is in an asylum with no idea why she’s there or even who she is.
Honestly, prior to this, I’d seen de Havilland in a total of two films – “The Heiress” and “GWTW”. The latter is possibly the most OVERRATED film ever, but that’s another story for another time. I liked “The Heiress”, but unfortunately her character is a bit on the mousy side for me. This film, however, showed what it’s like when a true star takes over the screen. The film did something that most recent films haven’t done; it held my interest the entire time. Even though I had to break it into two sessions due to my schedule, as soon as I woke up my first thought was finishing it. I’m glad I did.
I guess that taught me a lesson – when all else fails, go back to the 40s.
For my second film this week, I had one of the most memorable recent home viewing experiences of late. I watched “The Crazies”, which is a remake of George Romero’s early film of the same name (which should explain why this is familiar). I watched this film on my laptop in the dark after a VERY long day. As I was watching the film, the skies began to darken. As the characters are on the run and happen to be stuck in a car wash, the storm started and my apartment (located on the third floor corner of my building) began to be getting pelted with rain, thunder and lightning hit and it was GREAT! The movie was actually decent and it made me very happy.
So although I don’t feel cinematically satisfied yet, I’m definitely on my way. I feel much better. But most importantly, work MAY be looking up. And even if it’s not, at least a few days vacation are coming soon. (FIOS, here I come!)
I can’t guarantee either of that right now, but I’ll give it the old college try. It seems that unconsciously, this idea of going crazy has manifested itself in my viewing choices this week, in very odd ways.
In addition to being sick of working, I’m also sick of the lack of good film choices, as I’ve whined about repeatedly. When all else fails, I find myself turning to my TV, and thus On Demand. While perusing my On Demand selections, I found Turner Classic Movies On Demand (YAY!). While reviewing the list, I came across a gem starring Olivia de Havilland from the late 1940s entitled “The Snake Pit”. Ironically enough, this film tells the story of Virginia Cunningham, a woman who is in an asylum with no idea why she’s there or even who she is.
Honestly, prior to this, I’d seen de Havilland in a total of two films – “The Heiress” and “GWTW”. The latter is possibly the most OVERRATED film ever, but that’s another story for another time. I liked “The Heiress”, but unfortunately her character is a bit on the mousy side for me. This film, however, showed what it’s like when a true star takes over the screen. The film did something that most recent films haven’t done; it held my interest the entire time. Even though I had to break it into two sessions due to my schedule, as soon as I woke up my first thought was finishing it. I’m glad I did.
I guess that taught me a lesson – when all else fails, go back to the 40s.
For my second film this week, I had one of the most memorable recent home viewing experiences of late. I watched “The Crazies”, which is a remake of George Romero’s early film of the same name (which should explain why this is familiar). I watched this film on my laptop in the dark after a VERY long day. As I was watching the film, the skies began to darken. As the characters are on the run and happen to be stuck in a car wash, the storm started and my apartment (located on the third floor corner of my building) began to be getting pelted with rain, thunder and lightning hit and it was GREAT! The movie was actually decent and it made me very happy.
So although I don’t feel cinematically satisfied yet, I’m definitely on my way. I feel much better. But most importantly, work MAY be looking up. And even if it’s not, at least a few days vacation are coming soon. (FIOS, here I come!)
6/13/2010
Some much needed down time
I took this weekend to do something I don’t normally do – rest. I’ve had a horrible week at work, and there are at least two more to go. During my down time I started reading a new novel on my Nook. About fifteen pages into it, I thought to myself “So THAT’S why I read as much as I can - because every now and then, I’ll come across something THAT good.”
I wish I felt the same way about film right now, but unfortunately there isn’t anything THAT good. In fact, there isn’t really anything good at all. (If you know anything that is good, email me PLEASE!)
I also decided that for this week’s films I didn’t want anything with too much of a plot or requireding much thought. I turned to Redbox for assistance, and came out with Mel Gibson in “Edge of Darkness”. During the film, one of the characters says “She deserved so much better”, and I couldn’t have said it better myself. Going in, I knew the general plot. Gibson (sporting an intermittent Boston accent) plays a dad who watches his daughter murdered and tries to hunt down her killer. Unfortunately, instead of a murder mystery or a “who done it” (which I thought I was getting), it’s actually a government conspiracy story. SERIOUSLY? I know there’s such a thing as suspending belief, but there’s only so much a girl can let go. Gibson does look bereaved, but maybe that’s because he actually was affiliated with this goop. For the last third, I really only paid half attention and the last scenes seem so stupidly symbolic that I thought I was watching a cancelled CBS TV show instead of a film.
The next day I read some more, cleared my head and decided to give it another go. The film was from one of my favorites, Dario Argento. It’s called “Giallo”, starring Adrien Brody. (I know, I was surprised too.) It’s a typical Argento story – there’s a rash of murders in the city and pretty women are dropping like flies. Enter our hero, a troubled detective, who eventually catches the killer, who was actually revealed in the beginning of the film. There are also multiple cool death scenes. After the recent misfires by Argento, I really enjoyed this film. It may have been my mood today, but I found it entertaining. The run time of about 90 minutes also helps. There was something comforting about this film, an almost 80s look with an almost film noir feel. There also isn’t all that much gratuitous nudity, which was a welcome surprise. It’s a great film to watch while you’re on autopilot.
I’d love to stay and gripe some more, but I do hear my novel calling me, as well as tonight’s finale of “Breaking Bad”. I’m not giving up cinematic hope though. Summer’s slate might suck, but fall’s not THAT far away – it just feels that way.
I wish I felt the same way about film right now, but unfortunately there isn’t anything THAT good. In fact, there isn’t really anything good at all. (If you know anything that is good, email me PLEASE!)
I also decided that for this week’s films I didn’t want anything with too much of a plot or requireding much thought. I turned to Redbox for assistance, and came out with Mel Gibson in “Edge of Darkness”. During the film, one of the characters says “She deserved so much better”, and I couldn’t have said it better myself. Going in, I knew the general plot. Gibson (sporting an intermittent Boston accent) plays a dad who watches his daughter murdered and tries to hunt down her killer. Unfortunately, instead of a murder mystery or a “who done it” (which I thought I was getting), it’s actually a government conspiracy story. SERIOUSLY? I know there’s such a thing as suspending belief, but there’s only so much a girl can let go. Gibson does look bereaved, but maybe that’s because he actually was affiliated with this goop. For the last third, I really only paid half attention and the last scenes seem so stupidly symbolic that I thought I was watching a cancelled CBS TV show instead of a film.
The next day I read some more, cleared my head and decided to give it another go. The film was from one of my favorites, Dario Argento. It’s called “Giallo”, starring Adrien Brody. (I know, I was surprised too.) It’s a typical Argento story – there’s a rash of murders in the city and pretty women are dropping like flies. Enter our hero, a troubled detective, who eventually catches the killer, who was actually revealed in the beginning of the film. There are also multiple cool death scenes. After the recent misfires by Argento, I really enjoyed this film. It may have been my mood today, but I found it entertaining. The run time of about 90 minutes also helps. There was something comforting about this film, an almost 80s look with an almost film noir feel. There also isn’t all that much gratuitous nudity, which was a welcome surprise. It’s a great film to watch while you’re on autopilot.
I’d love to stay and gripe some more, but I do hear my novel calling me, as well as tonight’s finale of “Breaking Bad”. I’m not giving up cinematic hope though. Summer’s slate might suck, but fall’s not THAT far away – it just feels that way.
6/07/2010
Hoarding Oscar's Leftovers
During my annual Oscar Quest, there are usually two or three films that I miss, due to time or money. I hoard these films until DVD release, where I hope to savor them like the fresh strawberry apple tart I just ate for dessert. Usually they are the “acting” films, with some career-defining performance that I missed while running through the Ten Best Pic Wanna-Bes.
This week I watched two of these films – “The Messenger” and “The Young Victoria”.
“The Messenger” was Woody Harrelson’s latest Oscar bid, where he plays a jaded American soldier given the most unwanted of jobs. He and his partner (played by Ben Foster) have to notify the next of kin about the death of their loved one. It’s not an easy task, and it could have made a fascinating character study, and for awhile it is. There are several bit parts and cameos, including Steve Buscemi as a father who becomes combative after finding out about his loss.
Unfortunately, though, the film suffers because it isn’t really sure which direction to follow. Then again, neither do the characters. It gets the most weighted down when addressing the love story between Foster and Samantha Morton, who plays a wife left behind to raise a child. I found this part of the film completely implausible and unnecessary. I wanted to see more of Foster’s interactions with Harrelson, who is extremely good in the film, but I can’t say I expected anything less. Harrelson’s proven that he has a huge range. He’s always exciting to watch. I do think eventually he’ll get one, but he might have to have a long career in order to do it.
Next up was “The Young Victoria”. I admit that I have a bias towards all things British, and it is usually an Oscar rule that playing a British Queen will get at least Oscar buzz. In this case, the buzz was all about Emily Blunt, playing the title role. This is supposed to be her “role of a lifetime”, but I think that at her age, there is still many roles for her to play. This film isn’t your typical period piece, running several hours with multiple boring crises. It’s more a coming of age story for a young woman who just happens to be the Queen of England. The best part of this film is the pacing; the run time is not even two hours, which is just enough time to get a fine mist of a story as opposed to the usual British downpour. Blunt is fantastic; but I do have trouble buying her as an eighteen year old. The rest of the cast is solid. I found it to be a very pleasant film, but not a great film.
Here’s hoping that next week brings brighter films, but then again the next film on the list is “Schindler’s List”, so I can’t exactly promise anything. I just hope that great films don’t continue to be so hard to find.
This week I watched two of these films – “The Messenger” and “The Young Victoria”.
“The Messenger” was Woody Harrelson’s latest Oscar bid, where he plays a jaded American soldier given the most unwanted of jobs. He and his partner (played by Ben Foster) have to notify the next of kin about the death of their loved one. It’s not an easy task, and it could have made a fascinating character study, and for awhile it is. There are several bit parts and cameos, including Steve Buscemi as a father who becomes combative after finding out about his loss.
Unfortunately, though, the film suffers because it isn’t really sure which direction to follow. Then again, neither do the characters. It gets the most weighted down when addressing the love story between Foster and Samantha Morton, who plays a wife left behind to raise a child. I found this part of the film completely implausible and unnecessary. I wanted to see more of Foster’s interactions with Harrelson, who is extremely good in the film, but I can’t say I expected anything less. Harrelson’s proven that he has a huge range. He’s always exciting to watch. I do think eventually he’ll get one, but he might have to have a long career in order to do it.
Next up was “The Young Victoria”. I admit that I have a bias towards all things British, and it is usually an Oscar rule that playing a British Queen will get at least Oscar buzz. In this case, the buzz was all about Emily Blunt, playing the title role. This is supposed to be her “role of a lifetime”, but I think that at her age, there is still many roles for her to play. This film isn’t your typical period piece, running several hours with multiple boring crises. It’s more a coming of age story for a young woman who just happens to be the Queen of England. The best part of this film is the pacing; the run time is not even two hours, which is just enough time to get a fine mist of a story as opposed to the usual British downpour. Blunt is fantastic; but I do have trouble buying her as an eighteen year old. The rest of the cast is solid. I found it to be a very pleasant film, but not a great film.
Here’s hoping that next week brings brighter films, but then again the next film on the list is “Schindler’s List”, so I can’t exactly promise anything. I just hope that great films don’t continue to be so hard to find.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)