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 -*
12/26/2009
Invictus
I usually don’t like sports films. I find them predictable. It’s obvious from the start who’s going to win the match/game/contest. If it wasn’t, then why make a movie in the first place?
Then I saw “Invictus” and promptly changed my mind.
“Invictus” isn’t a story about rugby – and that’s good, because I know nothing about rugby. It’s not even a political statement – although it certainly could be construed as one. “Invictus” is a story about a county that wasn’t ready to embrace change, until they were given a reason.
Directed by Clint Eastwood, and superbly acted by Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon as Team Captain Francois Pienaar, “Invictus” details the quest of the South African rugby team to capture the World Cup in the mid 1990s, right after Mandela’s election and the end of apartheid. Within the boundaries of a “sports film”, Eastwood once again crafts a simple story on a grand scale transcending cliché to make an extremely moving film. The only slight misstep is the ending – the last match is necessary for dramatic purposes, but far too long for someone who has no clue how the game progresses.
Even though I don’t like sports films, I love sports. I’ll watch just about anything – baseball, football, tennis, even an NBA game. The more sports I watch, the more I realize that in today’s era, athletes (at least the ones that I hear about) aren’t loyal to anything but the Almighty Dollar. And don’t even get me started on the illegal activities of athletes. So I can’t really relate to an idea of a nation supporting one team.
We do have our national Olympic team. But most people (myself included) don’t know about these athletes and don’t care. I usually don’t watch the winter Olympics, as I don’t watch most of those sports. And the summer games are even worse. You have the same professional athletes you watch regularly competing on an international stage, which most do anyway daily. It just doesn’t make sense.
Now combine that with politics (and let me climb on my own soapbox). About a year ago, America was united by promise. A year later, it seems that people are becoming disillusioned. People wanted immediate change in a place where putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage just won’t work. And the racist population (and more than one “news” network) continues to make slurs and allegations to micromanage something that will take years to undo. Be patient people – it took us over a decade to get here; it’ll certainly take more than a year to dig out.
Why do I do my Oscar quirk annually? Because I’m neurotic of course, but also because every now and then I force myself to watch something I wouldn’t normally watch, and end up beyond pleasantly surprised in the bargain. I hope the Academy will think so as well.
“Invictus” – Rated PG-13, 134 minutes (*** ½)
Then I saw “Invictus” and promptly changed my mind.
“Invictus” isn’t a story about rugby – and that’s good, because I know nothing about rugby. It’s not even a political statement – although it certainly could be construed as one. “Invictus” is a story about a county that wasn’t ready to embrace change, until they were given a reason.
Directed by Clint Eastwood, and superbly acted by Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon as Team Captain Francois Pienaar, “Invictus” details the quest of the South African rugby team to capture the World Cup in the mid 1990s, right after Mandela’s election and the end of apartheid. Within the boundaries of a “sports film”, Eastwood once again crafts a simple story on a grand scale transcending cliché to make an extremely moving film. The only slight misstep is the ending – the last match is necessary for dramatic purposes, but far too long for someone who has no clue how the game progresses.
Even though I don’t like sports films, I love sports. I’ll watch just about anything – baseball, football, tennis, even an NBA game. The more sports I watch, the more I realize that in today’s era, athletes (at least the ones that I hear about) aren’t loyal to anything but the Almighty Dollar. And don’t even get me started on the illegal activities of athletes. So I can’t really relate to an idea of a nation supporting one team.
We do have our national Olympic team. But most people (myself included) don’t know about these athletes and don’t care. I usually don’t watch the winter Olympics, as I don’t watch most of those sports. And the summer games are even worse. You have the same professional athletes you watch regularly competing on an international stage, which most do anyway daily. It just doesn’t make sense.
Now combine that with politics (and let me climb on my own soapbox). About a year ago, America was united by promise. A year later, it seems that people are becoming disillusioned. People wanted immediate change in a place where putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage just won’t work. And the racist population (and more than one “news” network) continues to make slurs and allegations to micromanage something that will take years to undo. Be patient people – it took us over a decade to get here; it’ll certainly take more than a year to dig out.
Why do I do my Oscar quirk annually? Because I’m neurotic of course, but also because every now and then I force myself to watch something I wouldn’t normally watch, and end up beyond pleasantly surprised in the bargain. I hope the Academy will think so as well.
“Invictus” – Rated PG-13, 134 minutes (*** ½)
12/19/2009
A Culinary Masterpiece - in my kitchen and out!
Given the fact that Golden Globe nominations came out this week (among others), the Oscar hunt is now underway. I am, of course, behind. As I write this, there is a blizzard – always a good time to catch up on cleaning, writing, reading and of course film. Did I mention that I haven’t finished my Christmas baking yet either? As a way to cross numerous things off my list simultaneously, I watched my first film of the week – “Julie and Julia”.
Not only did it motivate me to bake, it also made me realize that it’s pretty freaky to see yourself in your idiocy and neuroses portrayed onscreen (and I don’t mean Meryl Streep).
“Julie and Julia” is a combination of two true stories – one from Julia Child, the reknown chef, and the other of Julie Powell, a lost married woman from Queens who gets it in her head that it’d be a great idea to cook herself through Mrs. Child’s French cookbook within one year and then share her story via her blog.
I know that Meryl Streep has gotten numerous accolades for her portrayal of Child, and I guess they’re well-deserved. The problem I have is that this is Meryl Streep. Does anyone really expect anything OTHER than her nailing the mannerisms, diction, etc perfectly? Can’t say I’m even close to being shocked.
Maybe it’s because it’s Amy Adams’ Julie Powell’s story which is new to me that made me like her character. Or the fact that Julie’s quest for culinary mastery is quite similar to my own Oscar Quest which I embark on annually (and usually finish, thank you very much). Or maybe it’s just because Amy Adams is so darn cute (as a friend tells me often). For all of those reasons, I think that “Julie and Julia” is one of the best films I’ve seen this year. This is quite a switch, because when this film was released in theaters I had almost no interest in it, and felt I could wait until the DVD release.
In addition to Streep and Adams, the other actor in this film is fantastic. Stanley Tucci plays Paul, Julia’s husband. I have no idea what their actual story was, as I didn’t read any of the source material, but he comes across as a loving, supportive, nurturing husband who would love his wife no matter what. I find that extremely refreshing to see onscreen.
I usually don’t notice the editing within a film unless it is a device within the story itself. That’s exactly what happens here. The juxtaposition of these two stories shows how closely these two align – regardless of where or when the stories are set. This concept is also underscored by the screenplay.
Every once in a while it’s nice to get a cinematic surprise. Here’s hoping that the endless dozens of cookies I have yet to bake are just as effective.
PS - Not long after I watched this film, I got my "501 Must See Movies" and notated that I had 269 left to see. We'll see if that actually goes anywhere! =)
"Julie and Julia" - Rated PG-13, 123 minutes, ***1/2
Not only did it motivate me to bake, it also made me realize that it’s pretty freaky to see yourself in your idiocy and neuroses portrayed onscreen (and I don’t mean Meryl Streep).
“Julie and Julia” is a combination of two true stories – one from Julia Child, the reknown chef, and the other of Julie Powell, a lost married woman from Queens who gets it in her head that it’d be a great idea to cook herself through Mrs. Child’s French cookbook within one year and then share her story via her blog.
I know that Meryl Streep has gotten numerous accolades for her portrayal of Child, and I guess they’re well-deserved. The problem I have is that this is Meryl Streep. Does anyone really expect anything OTHER than her nailing the mannerisms, diction, etc perfectly? Can’t say I’m even close to being shocked.
Maybe it’s because it’s Amy Adams’ Julie Powell’s story which is new to me that made me like her character. Or the fact that Julie’s quest for culinary mastery is quite similar to my own Oscar Quest which I embark on annually (and usually finish, thank you very much). Or maybe it’s just because Amy Adams is so darn cute (as a friend tells me often). For all of those reasons, I think that “Julie and Julia” is one of the best films I’ve seen this year. This is quite a switch, because when this film was released in theaters I had almost no interest in it, and felt I could wait until the DVD release.
In addition to Streep and Adams, the other actor in this film is fantastic. Stanley Tucci plays Paul, Julia’s husband. I have no idea what their actual story was, as I didn’t read any of the source material, but he comes across as a loving, supportive, nurturing husband who would love his wife no matter what. I find that extremely refreshing to see onscreen.
I usually don’t notice the editing within a film unless it is a device within the story itself. That’s exactly what happens here. The juxtaposition of these two stories shows how closely these two align – regardless of where or when the stories are set. This concept is also underscored by the screenplay.
Every once in a while it’s nice to get a cinematic surprise. Here’s hoping that the endless dozens of cookies I have yet to bake are just as effective.
PS - Not long after I watched this film, I got my "501 Must See Movies" and notated that I had 269 left to see. We'll see if that actually goes anywhere! =)
"Julie and Julia" - Rated PG-13, 123 minutes, ***1/2
12/14/2009
A hodgepodge of good films - you just have to look a bit.
This week’s slate consists of three very different films – 1 theatrical and 2 DVD releases – all of which are worth seeing.
First up is “Brothers”. This remake of a Danish film stars Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire and Jake Gylenhaal. Maguire plays Sam, who goes off to fight in Iraq, only to be taken prisoner and held as a POW. On the home front his wife Grace (Portman) is informed that he died in action. As life starts to go on, her brother-in-law Tommy (Gylenhaal) discovers that he may indeed be a family man – in his brother’s family. When Sam returns home from the dead, all bets are off. What could have been a woman’s melodrama unexpectedly has some substance, primarily due to the performances of Maguire and Portman. Maguire channels a pair of Nicholson performances – “The Shining” and “A Few Good Men”. Portman is her usual solid self as the glue who holds everything together. The other good performance here is Sam Shepard, playing Sam and Tommy’s father. He’s great at playing an ass. For some reason I cannot explain or understand, the last third of this film is extremely affecting – I found myself in tears. I recommend the film, but I recommend more that you bring tissues.
Next up is “Cheri”. I’ve never hidden my adoration of Michelle Pfeiffer. I think she’s one of the best actresses of this generation, and I respect her and her work greatly. I hope to look that good at her age. This film is a period piece, a flip side to her “Dangerous Liasons” performance. She is the older woman (a courtesan, actually) who becomes enamored with a much younger man. As the relationship progresses, we see how maturity doesn’t have a thing to do with age. In addition to Pfeiffer, there’s also support from Kathy Bates as another courtesan. The direction by Stephen Frears is also fantastic. The last minute and a half is a closeup of Pfeiffer’s face (similar to the ending of “Wolf”), and she’s got quite a bit of aging makeup on. Not many actresses would be brave enough to even try the shot, but Pfeiffer just radiates.
Finally is “World’s Greatest Dad”. In light of all the heat that Robin Williams is getting regarding his latest Disney fiasco, it’s a shame that people didn’t really see this EXTREMELY dark satire, directed by Bobcat Goldthwait. At times extremely funny, at times disconcerting, and always right on the nose, Williams plays Lance, a high school teacher with no life who suddenly becomes a celebrity when his son commits suicide. What could be extremely dark ends up revealing something about us as a culture relating to celebrity as its effects. It might not sound good, but trust me, it is.
That’s all I’ve got for this week. Catch me next week when who KNOWS what I’ll end up seeing (although I can guarantee it WON’T be “Avatar”).
First up is “Brothers”. This remake of a Danish film stars Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire and Jake Gylenhaal. Maguire plays Sam, who goes off to fight in Iraq, only to be taken prisoner and held as a POW. On the home front his wife Grace (Portman) is informed that he died in action. As life starts to go on, her brother-in-law Tommy (Gylenhaal) discovers that he may indeed be a family man – in his brother’s family. When Sam returns home from the dead, all bets are off. What could have been a woman’s melodrama unexpectedly has some substance, primarily due to the performances of Maguire and Portman. Maguire channels a pair of Nicholson performances – “The Shining” and “A Few Good Men”. Portman is her usual solid self as the glue who holds everything together. The other good performance here is Sam Shepard, playing Sam and Tommy’s father. He’s great at playing an ass. For some reason I cannot explain or understand, the last third of this film is extremely affecting – I found myself in tears. I recommend the film, but I recommend more that you bring tissues.
Next up is “Cheri”. I’ve never hidden my adoration of Michelle Pfeiffer. I think she’s one of the best actresses of this generation, and I respect her and her work greatly. I hope to look that good at her age. This film is a period piece, a flip side to her “Dangerous Liasons” performance. She is the older woman (a courtesan, actually) who becomes enamored with a much younger man. As the relationship progresses, we see how maturity doesn’t have a thing to do with age. In addition to Pfeiffer, there’s also support from Kathy Bates as another courtesan. The direction by Stephen Frears is also fantastic. The last minute and a half is a closeup of Pfeiffer’s face (similar to the ending of “Wolf”), and she’s got quite a bit of aging makeup on. Not many actresses would be brave enough to even try the shot, but Pfeiffer just radiates.
Finally is “World’s Greatest Dad”. In light of all the heat that Robin Williams is getting regarding his latest Disney fiasco, it’s a shame that people didn’t really see this EXTREMELY dark satire, directed by Bobcat Goldthwait. At times extremely funny, at times disconcerting, and always right on the nose, Williams plays Lance, a high school teacher with no life who suddenly becomes a celebrity when his son commits suicide. What could be extremely dark ends up revealing something about us as a culture relating to celebrity as its effects. It might not sound good, but trust me, it is.
That’s all I’ve got for this week. Catch me next week when who KNOWS what I’ll end up seeing (although I can guarantee it WON’T be “Avatar”).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)