I made it my goal this year to write one of these entries (I call them columns) per week, or four per month. Unfortunately, I haven’t really been watching many movies lately. The only thing I’ve seen lately was “Ninja Assassin”, a 2 and a half at best. Think a Tarentino bloodbath with a tired and underdeveloped story. Not bad, but not great.
But what I wanted to write about this week are cinematic shifts, both theatrical and DVD, which indiciate the way things are a changin’ – not for the better.
Firstly, four of my local video stores are all closing. While that’s good news if I have extra money and want to score a decent copy of a classic film on the cheap, but not for the fact that Redbox is now the main way for me to rent a DVD.
What I hate the most about this change is that I won't have the opportunity ever again to enter an actual video store. You can laugh at me if you want to because that's a really dorkish thing to say (it is and I am), but I’ve met some great people in a video store. I met the love of my life in a video store (my actual other half, not just the concept of film in general). We still talk about film all the time, and I wouldn’t have even met him if I hadn’t gone there, the idea of which frankly scares the hell out of me. The video store was the one place where I knew that I could always find someone who “knew their shit” (except at Blockbuster), and I’d find some film that I hadn’t heard of that I had to see, which led to another film, and so on.
Gone. And I understand the market had evaporated, and I understand that it’s easier to hit the stream button on Netflix, but I’ll still always miss the mortar-and-stone building. I used to say that Norm had his Cheers, and I had my video store. Now, I guess I have a box. Lucky me.
Secondly, I saw an article over the weekend announcing that theatrical ticket sales are again going to spike – just in time for the summer film season in a few months. Although again I realize that it’s a business decision, this one doesn’t make as much sense. Year over year, the box office is growing, crowds are growing, but the quality of the films on the whole is staying stagnant. There’s yet another remake, or sequel, or unnecessary 3-D epic. Most of these aren’t worth paying 4.99 for, much less the 15.00-17.00 to which they could possibly escalate.
So it looks like I’m going to have to change my habits again. I’ll do my research on the websites I follow to get the upcoming slates, and I’ll watch what I want when I can. My Wii now accommodates streaming Netflix options. But as for the rest of it, there’s nothing to take its place. And I don’t want anything to even try.
3/22/2010
Why Ponyo is better than Pixar
From reading my last post, it’s clear that I’m not thrilled with Disney right now. I’m sick of their endless, mindless marketing and their many-times-told sequels.
Then I sat down and finally watched “Ponyo”.
“Ponyo” is the latest film from Miyazaki, (or Mr. Miyazaki, as my godson used to call him) the Japanese genius who made such great films as “Spirited Away” and “My Neighbor Tortoro”. As with all Miyazaki films, there is an English dubbed version of this film that contains a host of celebrity voices. This time it’s Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, Tina Fey and Liam Niesson, just to name a few.
“Ponyo” is similar to Disney’s breakout hit “The Little Mermaid” in that it tells the story of a female creature (a goldfish) who wants desperately to become human in order to be with her love. But this isn’t really a “true love, happily ever after" thing, it’s more of a being accepted and loved thing.
Young (and not too bright) Souske finds a goldfish one morning on death’s door. He rescues her and names her Ponyo. Souske is raised mostly by his mom Lisa, because his father is a longshoreman and is often away at sea. He goes to school next to the senior center where his mother works.
Ponyo lives under the ocean. Her dad is controlling and threatened by her magical gifts. He wants to keep her in a bubble (literally). When he finds out her plans to become human, he sends all his cohorts to take her back – leaving mindless destruction in his wake.
One of the greatest things about Miyazaki films is that he makes you completely go with the story – no matter how ludicrous it actually is in reality. Just like “Spirited Away”, there are an abundance of cute little creatures coming in and out. But there are just as many ominous ones to balance it out.
The entire opening non-dialogue shot of Ponyo riding jellyfishes to the surface is just magical – and rare in today’s climate.
This is the film I wish “Up” could have been. I’m getting quite tired of Pixar, with their marketing ploys and stupid songs. The stories are repetitive and the creatures are supposed to be realistic but look too and act far too bubbly for my taste. With Japanese animation, it’s not drawn as well, but it is certainly more colorful. That’s a great help when you’re trying to portray the depths of the ocean.
It’s a very charming film, and it’s a crying shame that in all the overextended “Up” hype this film seems to have gotten lost. It did have a theatrical run last summer, and most people (including myself) didn’t make it out there.
But once again I am reminded of Miyazaki’s genius. I’ll be sorry when he stops making films. I guess, since Disney does have the rights to all Studio Ghibli films now, I actually owe Disney for this one. But that still doesn’t make up for everything else, especially Pixar.
"Ponyo" - 101 minutes (****)
Then I sat down and finally watched “Ponyo”.
“Ponyo” is the latest film from Miyazaki, (or Mr. Miyazaki, as my godson used to call him) the Japanese genius who made such great films as “Spirited Away” and “My Neighbor Tortoro”. As with all Miyazaki films, there is an English dubbed version of this film that contains a host of celebrity voices. This time it’s Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, Tina Fey and Liam Niesson, just to name a few.
“Ponyo” is similar to Disney’s breakout hit “The Little Mermaid” in that it tells the story of a female creature (a goldfish) who wants desperately to become human in order to be with her love. But this isn’t really a “true love, happily ever after" thing, it’s more of a being accepted and loved thing.
Young (and not too bright) Souske finds a goldfish one morning on death’s door. He rescues her and names her Ponyo. Souske is raised mostly by his mom Lisa, because his father is a longshoreman and is often away at sea. He goes to school next to the senior center where his mother works.
Ponyo lives under the ocean. Her dad is controlling and threatened by her magical gifts. He wants to keep her in a bubble (literally). When he finds out her plans to become human, he sends all his cohorts to take her back – leaving mindless destruction in his wake.
One of the greatest things about Miyazaki films is that he makes you completely go with the story – no matter how ludicrous it actually is in reality. Just like “Spirited Away”, there are an abundance of cute little creatures coming in and out. But there are just as many ominous ones to balance it out.
The entire opening non-dialogue shot of Ponyo riding jellyfishes to the surface is just magical – and rare in today’s climate.
This is the film I wish “Up” could have been. I’m getting quite tired of Pixar, with their marketing ploys and stupid songs. The stories are repetitive and the creatures are supposed to be realistic but look too and act far too bubbly for my taste. With Japanese animation, it’s not drawn as well, but it is certainly more colorful. That’s a great help when you’re trying to portray the depths of the ocean.
It’s a very charming film, and it’s a crying shame that in all the overextended “Up” hype this film seems to have gotten lost. It did have a theatrical run last summer, and most people (including myself) didn’t make it out there.
But once again I am reminded of Miyazaki’s genius. I’ll be sorry when he stops making films. I guess, since Disney does have the rights to all Studio Ghibli films now, I actually owe Disney for this one. But that still doesn’t make up for everything else, especially Pixar.
"Ponyo" - 101 minutes (****)
3/14/2010
Alice in Wonderland - Redux
Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” made me curiouser and curiouser as its release date approached. I’ve always loved the story. I have memories of the annual Enchanted Forest trip with my cousins and riding the teacups to eventually see the cobwebbed Giant Alice in a much-too-small-room. I even have an old beat up copy of both books on my shelf.
While waiting to go, I unfortunately read press. Reviews were scattered, but most were mediocre. I got suspicious, reminding myself that it is still modern-day Disney infected (wrong word use intentionally).
So when I went on Saturday, my expectations weren’t that high. I wasn’t disappointed, and I was entertained. But I almost fell asleep, as the 108 minutes can drag. I wanted to poke the White Rabbit and ask him to hurry them along.
The entire film is a set of bulls eyes or dead misses. Spot on is Helena Bonham Carter, who makes the big headed Red Queen a complete hoot. She’s great, especially as she yells “Off with his head!” It’s hysterical, but I’d expect nothing less. Unfortunately, the miss for me was my girl Annie Hathaway as the White Queen, who seems to channel a fractured version of Glinda from “The Wizard of Oz”.
I appreciate the filmmakers trying for an original story. I like the fact that they state the obvious – Alice has been here before (as have we). I’m a sucker for all things metaphorical, as this story tends to be. Alice’s current trip starts when she’s offered a marriage proposal she has zero interest in accepting from a total cad of a guy. Through her journey she finds herself and cue female empowerment Disney message, which is fine.
You’ll notice no Depp mention yet. That’s because I’m not really sure how he fits here. You can’t have a Burton without a Depp, just like you can’t have Scorsese without DiC(r)aprio. And yes, he is over the top. But there were a few moments where I thought I was watching Edward Scissorhands – right down to the pout on his white-powdered face. Giving the Hatter an expanded role is ok, but I think it just goes too far.
Mia Wasikowska is fantastic as Alice. I remember watching her on HBO’s “In Treatment” and realizing that she’d go somewhere. This role will put her on the map, and that’s just fine by me. As Alice finally takes control and decides to live her life on her terms, you can’t help but wish her well, a sign of a solid performance.
Although it’s made a boatload of money, this is not a kids movie. Little ones in my showing were bored and talked loud. It’s too story driven to be entertaining for youngsters, and the characters aren’t cartoonish enough to hold their interest. And as stated, it's part of the Evil Disney Modern-Day-Pitching-Everything-Under-the-Sun-Remake-Sequel-Hell Empire.
Was it worth the latest trip to Wonderland? I guess so, but it’s not really a trip that I’d want to repeat, even in 3D.
"Alice in Wonderland" - Rated PG, 108 minutes (**1/2)
While waiting to go, I unfortunately read press. Reviews were scattered, but most were mediocre. I got suspicious, reminding myself that it is still modern-day Disney infected (wrong word use intentionally).
So when I went on Saturday, my expectations weren’t that high. I wasn’t disappointed, and I was entertained. But I almost fell asleep, as the 108 minutes can drag. I wanted to poke the White Rabbit and ask him to hurry them along.
The entire film is a set of bulls eyes or dead misses. Spot on is Helena Bonham Carter, who makes the big headed Red Queen a complete hoot. She’s great, especially as she yells “Off with his head!” It’s hysterical, but I’d expect nothing less. Unfortunately, the miss for me was my girl Annie Hathaway as the White Queen, who seems to channel a fractured version of Glinda from “The Wizard of Oz”.
I appreciate the filmmakers trying for an original story. I like the fact that they state the obvious – Alice has been here before (as have we). I’m a sucker for all things metaphorical, as this story tends to be. Alice’s current trip starts when she’s offered a marriage proposal she has zero interest in accepting from a total cad of a guy. Through her journey she finds herself and cue female empowerment Disney message, which is fine.
You’ll notice no Depp mention yet. That’s because I’m not really sure how he fits here. You can’t have a Burton without a Depp, just like you can’t have Scorsese without DiC(r)aprio. And yes, he is over the top. But there were a few moments where I thought I was watching Edward Scissorhands – right down to the pout on his white-powdered face. Giving the Hatter an expanded role is ok, but I think it just goes too far.
Mia Wasikowska is fantastic as Alice. I remember watching her on HBO’s “In Treatment” and realizing that she’d go somewhere. This role will put her on the map, and that’s just fine by me. As Alice finally takes control and decides to live her life on her terms, you can’t help but wish her well, a sign of a solid performance.
Although it’s made a boatload of money, this is not a kids movie. Little ones in my showing were bored and talked loud. It’s too story driven to be entertaining for youngsters, and the characters aren’t cartoonish enough to hold their interest. And as stated, it's part of the Evil Disney Modern-Day-Pitching-Everything-Under-the-Sun-Remake-Sequel-Hell Empire.
Was it worth the latest trip to Wonderland? I guess so, but it’s not really a trip that I’d want to repeat, even in 3D.
"Alice in Wonderland" - Rated PG, 108 minutes (**1/2)
3/07/2010
Oscar Predictions (pull up a chair)
It’s the day of the Oscars (better late than ever), and a friend of mine who is in my Readership of Six has asked me to type out my Oscar predictions. I’d like to take this opportunity to not only reveal my predictions – such as they are – but to put down my thoughts about all things Oscar-related.
When the Academy went to 10 films, I thought that would add fun to my Oscar hunt. There’d be more films to hunt down, more time to find them, and probably double features would be attended. That wasn’t really the case. This Oscar race for me has actually become boring and anticlimactic – probably because this year's winners are obvious.
I’ve seen all 10 Best Pic nominees. As expected, only a few are actually worthy. Some of the most hyped films simply aren’t. For example, “Avatar”, while a visually stunning film, isn’t even a GOOD film, much less a great one. The story sucks and the acting isn’t relevant. I also think that the Academy is doing their part for race relations, as several of their films have this theme.
“Up in the Air” is extremely Oscar-worthy. It’s got a great script, wonderful direction, and fantastic acting all the way around. Thematically, it’s relevant and it’s one of the few nominees that aren’t that depressing. Probably why the only thing it will win is Best Adapted Screenplay, even though I understand that the book and the movie are a bit far apart.
“Precious” is a complete and utter waste of time. Even as I type that, I’m considering second thoughts. Did I miss something? Is this not as fake and melodramatic as I thought? I know that Mo’Nique will win Best Supporting Actress in a landslide, but I still don’t see it as deserved. (I’d love to see Kendrick, or even Gylenhaal win, but neither will happen.) I may actually sit down and watch this again, but it’s not that high on my list.
“Inglourious Basterds” was a fun romp. It’s a bit long in the tooth (though not as bad as “Shutter Island”) and it could have used a bit of editing, but there’s no doubt that the last third of this packs an explosive and highly dramatic punch. Plus, any film that’s got me to like Brad Pitt deserves something. Alas, though I fear the only thing it will win is Best Supporting Actor for Christoph Waltz. I'd like to see it capture Best Original Screenplay, in the spirit of spreading the wealth.
“Up” is the latest Pixar effort, one of two films on this list that most people probably actually saw, and is one of the reasons that they went to 10 films. Still doesn’t mean it needs to be here, though. For all the people who thought it was heartwarming and moving – it was cute. That’s not the same. Please, please please stop adding cute animal characters when they can’t be bothered to add the same attributes to humans. But then again, for deep children-themed films, I got to the Asian Market. It’s unfortunate, but the Americans just don’t seem to have this concept yet.
“A Serious Man” was one of those films that I wasn’t sure how to take. I really enjoyed it, and I do consider it Oscar bait, but unfortunately this is the “an honor to be nominated” films. The world isn’t ready for a Coen brothers movie like this, but I was. I thought it was funny, even though laughing at loud may not have been appropriate, but that could just be my upbringing.
“An Education” usually would have been Oscar bait, except that it’s really an acting showcase for newcomer Carey Mulligan (who isn’t new for long) and the very creepy Stellan Saarsgard. It’s another one of those films that I didn’t know how to take, primarily because it wasn’t like anything else. Take “Roman Holiday” in a blender, make it a smoothie, and this is what comes out.
“District 9” was brilliant, original, creative and will never in a million years win. This is the good thing about the expansion into 10 films – they did add one that actually needed attention. People either loved this movie or hated it; I know a lot of people who hated it. I hope this means more people will see it.
Ah…”The Blind Side”, which made me wish I was blind and deaf as I watched it. This film is subject to “The Dark Knight” rule, which means that a movie that made a boatload of money and isn’t a kids film had to get in. Unlike TDK, this film doesn’t have a story that’s worth telling (primarily because they seem to change the protagonist) and no one involved thinks that it’s accurate. Do I think Bullock will win? Unfortunately, I do. But I’m cheering with everything in me that Streep wins – and as sick of Streep as I get, I can’t believe I’m typing that. But even if Meryl doesn’t sweep up, she’ll be back again, no matter what film she does.
And last but not least – “The Hurt Locker”. It’s depressing, it’s realistic, it’s fantastic, and it might not be something I ever want to see again, but it needs to win BP, and Director, and most of the technical awards it’s also up for. If you haven’t seen this film, I urge you strongly to see it. And to the idiot who wrote the email that caused all the hoopla – banning you from the Ceremonies tonight isn’t enough. You should be blackballed for the rest of your life. Especially if the Blue People win.
Other Notable Oscar stuff:
• I’m looking forward to Baldwin and Martin hosting, but have no interested in the “It’s Complicated” jokes I’m sure to see.
• Jeff Bridges will win Best Actor, deserve it, look different, and cry.
• Mo’Nique’s acceptance speech will make me want to throw something at my TV.
• If Kathryn Bigelow claims she’s Queen of the World when she accepts, it’ll make my month.
• I’d like to see Jeff Bridges sing the Crazy Heart theme, but that’s not going to happen.
Oscar films I haven't see include: "The Messenger", "The Last Station", "The Young Victoria", "A Single Man", "Nine", "In the Loop", "Fantastic Mr. Fox", and any of the nomiated foreign films.
So that’s it. I appreciate your indulgence in reading this very long and unedited for time post this week. I’ll be eating cheesecake or something else sweet I have no business eating, and I’ll be accepting text messages throughout the show. Enjoy!
When the Academy went to 10 films, I thought that would add fun to my Oscar hunt. There’d be more films to hunt down, more time to find them, and probably double features would be attended. That wasn’t really the case. This Oscar race for me has actually become boring and anticlimactic – probably because this year's winners are obvious.
I’ve seen all 10 Best Pic nominees. As expected, only a few are actually worthy. Some of the most hyped films simply aren’t. For example, “Avatar”, while a visually stunning film, isn’t even a GOOD film, much less a great one. The story sucks and the acting isn’t relevant. I also think that the Academy is doing their part for race relations, as several of their films have this theme.
“Up in the Air” is extremely Oscar-worthy. It’s got a great script, wonderful direction, and fantastic acting all the way around. Thematically, it’s relevant and it’s one of the few nominees that aren’t that depressing. Probably why the only thing it will win is Best Adapted Screenplay, even though I understand that the book and the movie are a bit far apart.
“Precious” is a complete and utter waste of time. Even as I type that, I’m considering second thoughts. Did I miss something? Is this not as fake and melodramatic as I thought? I know that Mo’Nique will win Best Supporting Actress in a landslide, but I still don’t see it as deserved. (I’d love to see Kendrick, or even Gylenhaal win, but neither will happen.) I may actually sit down and watch this again, but it’s not that high on my list.
“Inglourious Basterds” was a fun romp. It’s a bit long in the tooth (though not as bad as “Shutter Island”) and it could have used a bit of editing, but there’s no doubt that the last third of this packs an explosive and highly dramatic punch. Plus, any film that’s got me to like Brad Pitt deserves something. Alas, though I fear the only thing it will win is Best Supporting Actor for Christoph Waltz. I'd like to see it capture Best Original Screenplay, in the spirit of spreading the wealth.
“Up” is the latest Pixar effort, one of two films on this list that most people probably actually saw, and is one of the reasons that they went to 10 films. Still doesn’t mean it needs to be here, though. For all the people who thought it was heartwarming and moving – it was cute. That’s not the same. Please, please please stop adding cute animal characters when they can’t be bothered to add the same attributes to humans. But then again, for deep children-themed films, I got to the Asian Market. It’s unfortunate, but the Americans just don’t seem to have this concept yet.
“A Serious Man” was one of those films that I wasn’t sure how to take. I really enjoyed it, and I do consider it Oscar bait, but unfortunately this is the “an honor to be nominated” films. The world isn’t ready for a Coen brothers movie like this, but I was. I thought it was funny, even though laughing at loud may not have been appropriate, but that could just be my upbringing.
“An Education” usually would have been Oscar bait, except that it’s really an acting showcase for newcomer Carey Mulligan (who isn’t new for long) and the very creepy Stellan Saarsgard. It’s another one of those films that I didn’t know how to take, primarily because it wasn’t like anything else. Take “Roman Holiday” in a blender, make it a smoothie, and this is what comes out.
“District 9” was brilliant, original, creative and will never in a million years win. This is the good thing about the expansion into 10 films – they did add one that actually needed attention. People either loved this movie or hated it; I know a lot of people who hated it. I hope this means more people will see it.
Ah…”The Blind Side”, which made me wish I was blind and deaf as I watched it. This film is subject to “The Dark Knight” rule, which means that a movie that made a boatload of money and isn’t a kids film had to get in. Unlike TDK, this film doesn’t have a story that’s worth telling (primarily because they seem to change the protagonist) and no one involved thinks that it’s accurate. Do I think Bullock will win? Unfortunately, I do. But I’m cheering with everything in me that Streep wins – and as sick of Streep as I get, I can’t believe I’m typing that. But even if Meryl doesn’t sweep up, she’ll be back again, no matter what film she does.
And last but not least – “The Hurt Locker”. It’s depressing, it’s realistic, it’s fantastic, and it might not be something I ever want to see again, but it needs to win BP, and Director, and most of the technical awards it’s also up for. If you haven’t seen this film, I urge you strongly to see it. And to the idiot who wrote the email that caused all the hoopla – banning you from the Ceremonies tonight isn’t enough. You should be blackballed for the rest of your life. Especially if the Blue People win.
Other Notable Oscar stuff:
• I’m looking forward to Baldwin and Martin hosting, but have no interested in the “It’s Complicated” jokes I’m sure to see.
• Jeff Bridges will win Best Actor, deserve it, look different, and cry.
• Mo’Nique’s acceptance speech will make me want to throw something at my TV.
• If Kathryn Bigelow claims she’s Queen of the World when she accepts, it’ll make my month.
• I’d like to see Jeff Bridges sing the Crazy Heart theme, but that’s not going to happen.
Oscar films I haven't see include: "The Messenger", "The Last Station", "The Young Victoria", "A Single Man", "Nine", "In the Loop", "Fantastic Mr. Fox", and any of the nomiated foreign films.
So that’s it. I appreciate your indulgence in reading this very long and unedited for time post this week. I’ll be eating cheesecake or something else sweet I have no business eating, and I’ll be accepting text messages throughout the show. Enjoy!
2/28/2010
Crazy Heart
As the Oscar season winds down, I finally saw one of the films that I’d missed - “Crazy Heart”. “Crazy Heart” has been regaled primarily for the performances of the leads – Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gylenhaal. Bridges plays Bad Blake, a country music star has-been. He’s a drunk and an unrepentant loser – just like the heroes of many country songs. Gylenhaal plays Janey, the young ladies who captures his heart and blah blah blah blah.
This film could firmly live in clich̩-land. You know how it goes Рloser country singer redeems himself though the love of a good woman. Or, loser country singer takes young woman down with him and they both drown in misery.
The charm of this film is that it lies between the two clichés, and in the difference becomes a real story with effortless performances all the way around, and a surprise or two.
Everyone knows that Jeff Bridges can sing. If you don’t, watch “The Fabulous Baker Boys”. But for a surprise – he’s not the only one that does. Performances are genuine, Bridges’ and that of Colin Farrell, who is great in this film. He’s always done good work when in the background, and this is no exception (although he does look like a Billy Ray Cyrus clone).
The film gets a bit bogged down though, during the repetitive song performances. There are only maybe 4 songs, and it’s like an ipod stuck on repeat. I understood the point they were identifying, but I don’t feel that many performances were necessary.
Bridges does make the acting look effortless. He put on some pounds to play this role, and he threw all he had into it. The Oscar that he will win is well deserved. Gylenhaal’s performance is understated, but the perfect counterpoint to Bridges’. I’ve heard it said that she’s the heart of the movie, but I disagree with that. The heart of the movie is actually Gylenhall’s son Buddy – he’s the heart and ultimately the catalyst of the film.
“Crazy Heart” is also a film about growth. All of these characters grow and learn something. Personally, I learned that I’ve outgrown country music. The lyrics to all of the songs (with the exception of the nominated song) are repetitive, mundane, and actually boring. But seriously, characters that work need to have some conflict/struggle that they’ve fought against and defeated. That’s clearly here.
But the best thing about the film is the lack of a “pat” ending. What could have gone one of two ways ends up going neither. That’s where my personal comfort lies – in knowing that it’s more real if it’s not obvious. It’s why “Casablanca” is my 2nd favorite film. The ending adds an authenticity to the entire film that makes it better than most I’ve seen lately.
I am glad for the accolades that this film has, and I’m glad that I saw it, but it’s not one of my top 10. Now I’m off to listen to some good old rock and roll music.
"Crazy Heart" - Rated R, 112 minutes (***)
This film could firmly live in clich̩-land. You know how it goes Рloser country singer redeems himself though the love of a good woman. Or, loser country singer takes young woman down with him and they both drown in misery.
The charm of this film is that it lies between the two clichés, and in the difference becomes a real story with effortless performances all the way around, and a surprise or two.
Everyone knows that Jeff Bridges can sing. If you don’t, watch “The Fabulous Baker Boys”. But for a surprise – he’s not the only one that does. Performances are genuine, Bridges’ and that of Colin Farrell, who is great in this film. He’s always done good work when in the background, and this is no exception (although he does look like a Billy Ray Cyrus clone).
The film gets a bit bogged down though, during the repetitive song performances. There are only maybe 4 songs, and it’s like an ipod stuck on repeat. I understood the point they were identifying, but I don’t feel that many performances were necessary.
Bridges does make the acting look effortless. He put on some pounds to play this role, and he threw all he had into it. The Oscar that he will win is well deserved. Gylenhaal’s performance is understated, but the perfect counterpoint to Bridges’. I’ve heard it said that she’s the heart of the movie, but I disagree with that. The heart of the movie is actually Gylenhall’s son Buddy – he’s the heart and ultimately the catalyst of the film.
“Crazy Heart” is also a film about growth. All of these characters grow and learn something. Personally, I learned that I’ve outgrown country music. The lyrics to all of the songs (with the exception of the nominated song) are repetitive, mundane, and actually boring. But seriously, characters that work need to have some conflict/struggle that they’ve fought against and defeated. That’s clearly here.
But the best thing about the film is the lack of a “pat” ending. What could have gone one of two ways ends up going neither. That’s where my personal comfort lies – in knowing that it’s more real if it’s not obvious. It’s why “Casablanca” is my 2nd favorite film. The ending adds an authenticity to the entire film that makes it better than most I’ve seen lately.
I am glad for the accolades that this film has, and I’m glad that I saw it, but it’s not one of my top 10. Now I’m off to listen to some good old rock and roll music.
"Crazy Heart" - Rated R, 112 minutes (***)
2/23/2010
Shutter Island = Semi-Cringeworthy
When I first saw the trailer for “Shutter Island”, I wasn’t that impressed. It didn’t look very coherent, and although I love Dennis Lehane’s work, I wasn’t 100% sure I could get into the movie.
Then I started reading early reviews, and I changed my mind.
Even after leaving the theater, I still cut the film some slack. Maybe you just need to let it marinate before it hits you. So I gave it a few days.
It’s been three days, and I can honestly say that my initial instincts were right. And I’m sticking by this. I should have passed.
I know that some people are claiming this is a masterpiece, yet another in the line of Martin Scorsese’s “I Can Do No Wrong” school. You’ll get no argument from me that Mr. Scorsese is a genius. He’s also the best film scholar EVER – no doubt and one of the best directors of ANY time. But, sorry, this one is a misfire.
“Shutter Island” takes place in a sanitarium. That much I got. To go into the story any more may or may not infringe on spoiler territory, so I won’t really try. I will say that Leonardo DiCaprio (not a big fan) does an admirable job here of a bizarroland script. Mark Ruffalo was also very good, and the performances themselves aren’t an issue.
I wouldn’t dream of saying anything against the way Scorsese shoots the film. There’s simply nobody better to frame a shot or set a mood. However, there were too many things thrown in there that simply made me go “Huh”? Even after speaking to people about the film, I understand where he was going, but it didn’t make me like the film more.
In food metaphors, think of deveining Shyamalan, julienning Hitchcock, and garnishing with David Lynch. It’s THAT all over the place. There’s a supposed “twist” ending, although I got that part 10 minutes in. The coolest part about the film is the very last 20 minutes or so, where they tie up some dialogue to some action. That took thought and imagination.
My biggest criticism of the film isn’t the script though – it’s the pacing. It’s SO slow. It crawls. I actually wanted to hit a fast forward button to hurry it along. The second biggest criticism is that even if you can’t tell the difference between reality and delusions (I get that’s the point and I’m ok with that), why do you have to have different ACTORS? That made the mud even murkier. Instead of trying to figure out how a character fit the story, I spent 10 minutes deducing it was Emily Mortimer, not Emily Watson.
But I didn’t hate the film. How could I? It’s Scorsese! And even though I consider it a misfire, it’s still worth a watch – if for no other reason than to
discuss and dissect it afterwards, and watch the one of the greatest directors ever dabble in his craft. Because even a so-so Scorsese beats 75% of what's out there.
"Shutter Island", Rated R, 138 minutes (**)
Then I started reading early reviews, and I changed my mind.
Even after leaving the theater, I still cut the film some slack. Maybe you just need to let it marinate before it hits you. So I gave it a few days.
It’s been three days, and I can honestly say that my initial instincts were right. And I’m sticking by this. I should have passed.
I know that some people are claiming this is a masterpiece, yet another in the line of Martin Scorsese’s “I Can Do No Wrong” school. You’ll get no argument from me that Mr. Scorsese is a genius. He’s also the best film scholar EVER – no doubt and one of the best directors of ANY time. But, sorry, this one is a misfire.
“Shutter Island” takes place in a sanitarium. That much I got. To go into the story any more may or may not infringe on spoiler territory, so I won’t really try. I will say that Leonardo DiCaprio (not a big fan) does an admirable job here of a bizarroland script. Mark Ruffalo was also very good, and the performances themselves aren’t an issue.
I wouldn’t dream of saying anything against the way Scorsese shoots the film. There’s simply nobody better to frame a shot or set a mood. However, there were too many things thrown in there that simply made me go “Huh”? Even after speaking to people about the film, I understand where he was going, but it didn’t make me like the film more.
In food metaphors, think of deveining Shyamalan, julienning Hitchcock, and garnishing with David Lynch. It’s THAT all over the place. There’s a supposed “twist” ending, although I got that part 10 minutes in. The coolest part about the film is the very last 20 minutes or so, where they tie up some dialogue to some action. That took thought and imagination.
My biggest criticism of the film isn’t the script though – it’s the pacing. It’s SO slow. It crawls. I actually wanted to hit a fast forward button to hurry it along. The second biggest criticism is that even if you can’t tell the difference between reality and delusions (I get that’s the point and I’m ok with that), why do you have to have different ACTORS? That made the mud even murkier. Instead of trying to figure out how a character fit the story, I spent 10 minutes deducing it was Emily Mortimer, not Emily Watson.
But I didn’t hate the film. How could I? It’s Scorsese! And even though I consider it a misfire, it’s still worth a watch – if for no other reason than to
discuss and dissect it afterwards, and watch the one of the greatest directors ever dabble in his craft. Because even a so-so Scorsese beats 75% of what's out there.
"Shutter Island", Rated R, 138 minutes (**)
2/15/2010
Asian Cinema At Its Best
Whenever American cinema seems stale to me (and it often does), I’m always game for globe hunting. When globe hunting, I usually end up in Asia, which is what I did this past week. Usually I indulge in Asian horror before the Americans dumb it down beyond recognition, but I decided to branch out even further, into a non-Miyazaki anime and an Oscar-winning drama.
My first film this week is 2006’s “The Girl who Leapt through Time”. This is an animated film and was one of the first films to receive the Japanese Animation Award. It’s the story of young girl who discovers she can slip in and out of time at will. But while time-hopping, she learns the more important lesson that all actions have consequences.
This is actually a movie that I hope American never revamps, because to touch it in any way would be a crime. The story is much deeper than anything Pixar or Disney could come up with, and the drawings are still extremely colorful and interesting. The plot had me hanging on repeatedly and I ended up in tears.
I’m a big fan of Miyazaki’s work, and I’m now very glad to know there are others out there who did the same thing. I found the film by default on a website listing the Top 10 films of that year. I’ll be trying to get my hands on the others.
The second film this week is “Departures”. This film won last year’s Foreign Language Film Oscar, beating out a personal favorite, France’s “The Class”. At the time, I didn’t understand that, but now I wholeheartedly agree. This isn’t one of the best Asian films I’ve seen – it’s one of the best films I’ve EVER seen.
“Departures” tells the tale of a young, married cellist. When his current orchestra shuts down due to lack of funds, he has to change careers abruptly in order to continue to support his family. Finding a very generalized want ad asking only for people to work with departures, he applies and is hired. The catch is that the boss is actually a mortician, and the departures are for the departed.
What could be a very depressing film is actually quite moving. The ceremonies that are conducted by those left behind are nothing short of amazing. I wish they did something like that in this country – I’d be all for it. It’s rare that a film both honors a culture and transcends it at the same time, but this one completely pulls it off.
It’s an unexpectedly weepy drama, and I ended up with red swollen eyes the next day, but it’s completely worth it. I can’t recommend it enough – whether you can stand the subtitles or not.
So when you’re sick of the snow and ice that’s here, feel free to take a trip – on me. I promise you that you won’t regret it!
"The Girl Who Leapt Through Time" - Unrated, 98 minutes (****)
"Departures" - Rated PG-13, 130 minutes (****)
My first film this week is 2006’s “The Girl who Leapt through Time”. This is an animated film and was one of the first films to receive the Japanese Animation Award. It’s the story of young girl who discovers she can slip in and out of time at will. But while time-hopping, she learns the more important lesson that all actions have consequences.
This is actually a movie that I hope American never revamps, because to touch it in any way would be a crime. The story is much deeper than anything Pixar or Disney could come up with, and the drawings are still extremely colorful and interesting. The plot had me hanging on repeatedly and I ended up in tears.
I’m a big fan of Miyazaki’s work, and I’m now very glad to know there are others out there who did the same thing. I found the film by default on a website listing the Top 10 films of that year. I’ll be trying to get my hands on the others.
The second film this week is “Departures”. This film won last year’s Foreign Language Film Oscar, beating out a personal favorite, France’s “The Class”. At the time, I didn’t understand that, but now I wholeheartedly agree. This isn’t one of the best Asian films I’ve seen – it’s one of the best films I’ve EVER seen.
“Departures” tells the tale of a young, married cellist. When his current orchestra shuts down due to lack of funds, he has to change careers abruptly in order to continue to support his family. Finding a very generalized want ad asking only for people to work with departures, he applies and is hired. The catch is that the boss is actually a mortician, and the departures are for the departed.
What could be a very depressing film is actually quite moving. The ceremonies that are conducted by those left behind are nothing short of amazing. I wish they did something like that in this country – I’d be all for it. It’s rare that a film both honors a culture and transcends it at the same time, but this one completely pulls it off.
It’s an unexpectedly weepy drama, and I ended up with red swollen eyes the next day, but it’s completely worth it. I can’t recommend it enough – whether you can stand the subtitles or not.
So when you’re sick of the snow and ice that’s here, feel free to take a trip – on me. I promise you that you won’t regret it!
"The Girl Who Leapt Through Time" - Unrated, 98 minutes (****)
"Departures" - Rated PG-13, 130 minutes (****)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)