Music and Lyrics is the latest in a long of Hugh Grant specials, where he plays the smarmy but ultimately delightful English fop, who manages to make a lof of mistakes but still get the girl. OMG I totally just spoiled the ending, but cmon, we all knew it anyway.
In this particular incarnation of the tried and true formula, Hugh Grant is a fading 80s pop star left to do shows at theme parks for middle aged women, and Drew Barrymore is the girl who has come to water his plants who he teams up with to write a song for Cora, the movie's version of Christina Aguilera or Brittney Spears. They end up falling in love, obviously.
I love Hugh Grant. And I love Drew Barrymore. Really I do. But put the two of them together and you have the worst case of lack of onscreen chemistry I have seen in a long time. Unfortunately I could never bring myself ot believe that these two characters would like each other, even considering their delightful quirks. Kiryn pointed out to me that early on, Drew Barrymore's character was made out to be a hypochondriac, which could have made a hilarious sub plot, however it was just ditched about a third of the way through. In fact her character was just outright irritating. Hugh Grant didn't even come out as particularly loveable and damn, he's looking old. The popstar character could have been made into a hilarious charicature, and that was experimented with but it never came through for me.
Some funny moments, but really, i was waiting for this to finish most of the time - it failed to suck me in the way a lot of romantic comedies do (as a light piece of entertainment).
6.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Little Children (partial spoiler)
I saw this movie last night, and didn't know what to think before I went in. I expected the performances to be good, but other than that I had heard many different things - the styles were weird, the narration was irritating, the preview was misleading etc.
All of these things contained a grain of truth. The preview was very misleading - it makes it look like a tense drama/thriller, and it is not, although by I hadn't been so physically stressed in a movie for a long time. The narration was certainly obvious, but I found it strangely endearing. There were definitely two distinct styles blended into one film, but despite a few jarring moments, it worked for me. And the performances were a triumph - Kate Winslet and Jackie Earle Haley fully deserve their Oscar nominations.
This film focuses on American suburbia and its inhabitants, primarily young families. Done, right? Not so much apparently. This quirky blend of black comedy and discomforting drama still retains a sense of individuality. It addresses marriage, adultery, depression, lonliness and aside from all these themes, the very real issues of a sex offender living in a community of children. The sex offender issue is the main player in a very real subplot that was so strong it was in fact in danger of stealing the film from the main story line of adultery and longing for something more.
This film began slowly and artfully built up the tension even through several laugh out loud moments, black comedy, and some very jarring collisions of genres. The tension built up to such a point that I was almost SURE it was going to have my favourite 'everyone loses' ending. But once again, like Breaking and Entering, it seemed to 'cop out'. To me it seemed that everyone got to take the easy option, albeit not the one their reckless passion led them to want. However after some furious emailing with David today, it would seem that there is another take on the ending - that everyone did lose, and things ended as they should have. You'll need to decide that one for yourself - to me, to end in such a way was just a massive waste of my tooth grinding stomaching tensing stress.
Overall, this film has many surprising aspects - most of all, that I still like it despite what i considered to be an unsatisfactory ending.
8.
All of these things contained a grain of truth. The preview was very misleading - it makes it look like a tense drama/thriller, and it is not, although by I hadn't been so physically stressed in a movie for a long time. The narration was certainly obvious, but I found it strangely endearing. There were definitely two distinct styles blended into one film, but despite a few jarring moments, it worked for me. And the performances were a triumph - Kate Winslet and Jackie Earle Haley fully deserve their Oscar nominations.
This film focuses on American suburbia and its inhabitants, primarily young families. Done, right? Not so much apparently. This quirky blend of black comedy and discomforting drama still retains a sense of individuality. It addresses marriage, adultery, depression, lonliness and aside from all these themes, the very real issues of a sex offender living in a community of children. The sex offender issue is the main player in a very real subplot that was so strong it was in fact in danger of stealing the film from the main story line of adultery and longing for something more.
This film began slowly and artfully built up the tension even through several laugh out loud moments, black comedy, and some very jarring collisions of genres. The tension built up to such a point that I was almost SURE it was going to have my favourite 'everyone loses' ending. But once again, like Breaking and Entering, it seemed to 'cop out'. To me it seemed that everyone got to take the easy option, albeit not the one their reckless passion led them to want. However after some furious emailing with David today, it would seem that there is another take on the ending - that everyone did lose, and things ended as they should have. You'll need to decide that one for yourself - to me, to end in such a way was just a massive waste of my tooth grinding stomaching tensing stress.
Overall, this film has many surprising aspects - most of all, that I still like it despite what i considered to be an unsatisfactory ending.
8.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (aka. even Dustin Hoffman couldn't save this one for me)
Where to start....this film is about a French dude with a heightened sense of smell, who becomes a creepy perfumer, determined to capture the scent of innocence for all eternity. Obviously the best way to do this is kill virgins and gather their scent. With animal fat. Duh.
That's really all there is to the premise of the movie. I'll start with a couple of good things. Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman were in it. Why? I have no idea. Dustin Hoffman's character was one of the only things I liked about it, but was inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the film. What I would really love to know is what possessed the two of them to agree to be in this disaster of a movie. Maybe they'd both read the book - I've had several people tell me it's excellent. If you are one of these people then DON'T SEE THE FILM IT WILL RUIN IT FOR YOU!
I have nothing else nice to say so let the ranting begin.
Kiryn pointed out that the director also did the music, some of the writing and a few other things, and perhaps the problem was he was too involved in the film to be able to see its flaws. It's many flaws. I think Kiryn is too kind - I want to know how Tom Twyker (who is now on my list) could watch this back and think that it was ok. All my petty problems aside, even the special effects were crap. Honestly.
The film was narrated - but inconsistently. When the narration kicked in, not only was it naff but the tone was too light for the subject matter and tone of what we were watching. This was further compounded by the fact that the narration always seemed to come in during crowd scenes - maybe in a devious attempt to distract the viewer from the fact that they were incredibly contrived and pathetic - especially the 'ecstacy of the peasants' scene at the end (phrase stolen from Kiryn). Not only were the performances of the extras bad, but the lead performance was terrible. He didn't say much at all, which can work if everything else is in place. It wasn't.
It seems from my rant thus far that there was nothing subtle about this film. Not so! Apparently, the time for the director to attempt to redeem himself with a bit of subtlety was 10 minutes from the end, with a vague and meaningless montage of the first killing - so vague it seemed to have no place at all. Additionally, the final fate of the main character was very obscure - and by this stage, my brain was so bludgeoned with lameness that I didn't care to work it out. The rest of the film was not subtle and the tail end of a two and a half hour film (yes, two and a half hours, but that's a whole rant in itself) was not the time to attempt to make it so.
But seriously for a second, I think the real flaw of this film lay in the translation of the concept from book to screen. I tend to believe that it's much easier to suspend disbelief when reading. It can be done in film, but it takes a damn good director to translate that to film. It just didn't work here. Without fantastic direction who is going to believe that some weedy, stalking psycho can follow his nose half way across France to find the final 'note' of innocence for his master perfume? No one. I could rant more about what wasn't believable but it would spoil the ending.
This, like Marie Antoinette (which I have decided since, was nothing but a vehicle for gorgeous but not particularly original costumes) was a serious case for me of wondering how the makers could watch it back on the big screen and think it was any good.
Oh, and there was an orgy. WTF?
Three words. Three point five.
That's really all there is to the premise of the movie. I'll start with a couple of good things. Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman were in it. Why? I have no idea. Dustin Hoffman's character was one of the only things I liked about it, but was inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the film. What I would really love to know is what possessed the two of them to agree to be in this disaster of a movie. Maybe they'd both read the book - I've had several people tell me it's excellent. If you are one of these people then DON'T SEE THE FILM IT WILL RUIN IT FOR YOU!
I have nothing else nice to say so let the ranting begin.
Kiryn pointed out that the director also did the music, some of the writing and a few other things, and perhaps the problem was he was too involved in the film to be able to see its flaws. It's many flaws. I think Kiryn is too kind - I want to know how Tom Twyker (who is now on my list) could watch this back and think that it was ok. All my petty problems aside, even the special effects were crap. Honestly.
The film was narrated - but inconsistently. When the narration kicked in, not only was it naff but the tone was too light for the subject matter and tone of what we were watching. This was further compounded by the fact that the narration always seemed to come in during crowd scenes - maybe in a devious attempt to distract the viewer from the fact that they were incredibly contrived and pathetic - especially the 'ecstacy of the peasants' scene at the end (phrase stolen from Kiryn). Not only were the performances of the extras bad, but the lead performance was terrible. He didn't say much at all, which can work if everything else is in place. It wasn't.
It seems from my rant thus far that there was nothing subtle about this film. Not so! Apparently, the time for the director to attempt to redeem himself with a bit of subtlety was 10 minutes from the end, with a vague and meaningless montage of the first killing - so vague it seemed to have no place at all. Additionally, the final fate of the main character was very obscure - and by this stage, my brain was so bludgeoned with lameness that I didn't care to work it out. The rest of the film was not subtle and the tail end of a two and a half hour film (yes, two and a half hours, but that's a whole rant in itself) was not the time to attempt to make it so.
But seriously for a second, I think the real flaw of this film lay in the translation of the concept from book to screen. I tend to believe that it's much easier to suspend disbelief when reading. It can be done in film, but it takes a damn good director to translate that to film. It just didn't work here. Without fantastic direction who is going to believe that some weedy, stalking psycho can follow his nose half way across France to find the final 'note' of innocence for his master perfume? No one. I could rant more about what wasn't believable but it would spoil the ending.
This, like Marie Antoinette (which I have decided since, was nothing but a vehicle for gorgeous but not particularly original costumes) was a serious case for me of wondering how the makers could watch it back on the big screen and think it was any good.
Oh, and there was an orgy. WTF?
Three words. Three point five.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Stranger Than Fiction
Who woulda thunk it - Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffmann and Queen Latifah in a movie together. A good movie. A really really good movie.
Will Ferrell is Harold Crick, an auditor for the IRS (taxman!). Emma Thompson is a writer with writers block who is trying to work out how to kill her main character, Harold Crick. Harold is a real person and can hear her narration in his head. Dustin Hoffmann is the literary professor he consults to try to work out this little....problem.
The concept of this movie does not really ask for real life belief. It asks for a temporary suspension of disbelief, and delivers the material to allow it. Dustin Hoffmann's character is really at the heart of this movie, and the musings he delivers on literary conventions in order to get the core of the issue really tie the movie together. The interplay of the conventions with the film making conventions used in the film are clever, hilarious and suitably understated.
Will Ferrell gives the performance of his career thus far, and even his tender fascination with the anarchist baker (yes, an anarchist baker) played by Maggie Gyllenhaall is sweet and just lovely to watch. Emma Thompson is as always, sublime (lady crush alert). Maggie Gyllenhaal will win an Oscar one day - she is destined for great things and a pleasure to watch. Queen Latifah once again proves she is serious about her acting, and Dustin Hoffmann in my opinion completes the film.
And to top it off, it was riddled with one liners. I am never above one liners.
Fantastic - 9.5.
Will Ferrell is Harold Crick, an auditor for the IRS (taxman!). Emma Thompson is a writer with writers block who is trying to work out how to kill her main character, Harold Crick. Harold is a real person and can hear her narration in his head. Dustin Hoffmann is the literary professor he consults to try to work out this little....problem.
The concept of this movie does not really ask for real life belief. It asks for a temporary suspension of disbelief, and delivers the material to allow it. Dustin Hoffmann's character is really at the heart of this movie, and the musings he delivers on literary conventions in order to get the core of the issue really tie the movie together. The interplay of the conventions with the film making conventions used in the film are clever, hilarious and suitably understated.
Will Ferrell gives the performance of his career thus far, and even his tender fascination with the anarchist baker (yes, an anarchist baker) played by Maggie Gyllenhaall is sweet and just lovely to watch. Emma Thompson is as always, sublime (lady crush alert). Maggie Gyllenhaal will win an Oscar one day - she is destined for great things and a pleasure to watch. Queen Latifah once again proves she is serious about her acting, and Dustin Hoffmann in my opinion completes the film.
And to top it off, it was riddled with one liners. I am never above one liners.
Fantastic - 9.5.
Notes on A Scandal
For those of you who don't know, this was a film about the teacher in the UK (Sheba, played by Cate Blanchett) who had an affair with her 15 year old student (Stephen) and got found out. Seemingly terrible premise for a movie, yes? I thought so, but figured if Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett had both read the script and agreed to be in it, then it must be ok.
And 'ok' is the understatement of the century. This film was phenomenal. The tension built up slowly through the first third, but once it did, it stayed tense. The score played a large part in that, it deserves the Oscar nomination it has since received. Not once was the premise unbelieveable for me, thanks in a large part to the Oscar nominated performances of Judi Dench (lead) and Cate Blanchett (supporting). I have never seen Judi Dench so good, and the on screen chemistry between her and Cate Blanchett was like nothing I have ever seen before.
Creepy and pathetic old women are a grossly under represented category in film, and Judi Dench has set the benchmark sky high, playing this role to perfection. Her obsession with Sheba was creepy, but never became comical. I particularly enjoyed the 'is she or isn't she gay' angle. Once a bit of history was revealed, it seems that her character had behaved in this way with sparkling younger women before, and had never been attached to a man or a woman. Which led me to the interesting conclusion that her obsession was nothing to do with her sexuality, because her sexuality is something she had never fully explored. I find issues of sexuality absolutely intriguing, and love to seem them delicately and subtely explored in film.
Another theme also running through this movie was the one of the seductive attraction of youth. Sheba was much younger than her husband, obviously Stephen (the student) was much younger than Sheba. In turn, Judi Dench's character was seemingly irresistably attracted to younger women, in a sexual way or not. Even Sheba's daughter Polly had an older boyfriend. In the aspect, some of the relationships turned out well, some not so well. Some remained tender and some turned violent. The film never preached on these aspects.
Note on a Scandal was almost flawless. The score, the direction, the performances - especially the performances. The casting was impeccable. I can't emphasise enough how satisfying this movie experience was. Thought provoking but never moralising and suggesting answers - loved it.
9.5
And 'ok' is the understatement of the century. This film was phenomenal. The tension built up slowly through the first third, but once it did, it stayed tense. The score played a large part in that, it deserves the Oscar nomination it has since received. Not once was the premise unbelieveable for me, thanks in a large part to the Oscar nominated performances of Judi Dench (lead) and Cate Blanchett (supporting). I have never seen Judi Dench so good, and the on screen chemistry between her and Cate Blanchett was like nothing I have ever seen before.
Creepy and pathetic old women are a grossly under represented category in film, and Judi Dench has set the benchmark sky high, playing this role to perfection. Her obsession with Sheba was creepy, but never became comical. I particularly enjoyed the 'is she or isn't she gay' angle. Once a bit of history was revealed, it seems that her character had behaved in this way with sparkling younger women before, and had never been attached to a man or a woman. Which led me to the interesting conclusion that her obsession was nothing to do with her sexuality, because her sexuality is something she had never fully explored. I find issues of sexuality absolutely intriguing, and love to seem them delicately and subtely explored in film.
Another theme also running through this movie was the one of the seductive attraction of youth. Sheba was much younger than her husband, obviously Stephen (the student) was much younger than Sheba. In turn, Judi Dench's character was seemingly irresistably attracted to younger women, in a sexual way or not. Even Sheba's daughter Polly had an older boyfriend. In the aspect, some of the relationships turned out well, some not so well. Some remained tender and some turned violent. The film never preached on these aspects.
Note on a Scandal was almost flawless. The score, the direction, the performances - especially the performances. The casting was impeccable. I can't emphasise enough how satisfying this movie experience was. Thought provoking but never moralising and suggesting answers - loved it.
9.5
For Your Consideration
I saw three films today, and had a really late night last night. I am prone to falling asleep in cinemas when I am tired, even during a really good movie.
Yet strangely, 'For Your Consideration' (by the same people as A Mighty Wind and Best in Show ie. hilarious mockumentaries) is the only one I fell asleep in today. And it wasn't the last of the day either. It just failed to grab my attention, and therefore I feel as though I can't rate it because well, I didn't see all of it.
I do remember a few laugh out loud moments though, but no one woke me up and no one i saw it with really thought it was anything special either.
To the people i saw it with - please post comments!
omg. I fell asleep.
The End.
Yet strangely, 'For Your Consideration' (by the same people as A Mighty Wind and Best in Show ie. hilarious mockumentaries) is the only one I fell asleep in today. And it wasn't the last of the day either. It just failed to grab my attention, and therefore I feel as though I can't rate it because well, I didn't see all of it.
I do remember a few laugh out loud moments though, but no one woke me up and no one i saw it with really thought it was anything special either.
To the people i saw it with - please post comments!
omg. I fell asleep.
The End.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Pan's Labyrinth
I had heard an awful lot of hype about this movie before I saw it, whih never seems to work too well for me. I'd heard it was disturbing, gory, moving etc etc etc. I didn't really find it any of those things - except gory. When stuff like this happens I worry that I see too many films and I have genuinely become desensitised.
So as everyone has probably heard by now, this is a war movie/fairy tale hybrid. The combination intrigued me and I think it actually worked really well. The fairy tale sequences fell into the more grounded 'war' part nicely, acting as a sort of escape for Ofelia, the little girl who had come to live with a Captain because her mother had married him. None of the roles were ever overplayed, despite the fact there was ample opportunity for it because of the fairy tale side of the movie.
The whole thing was suitably mystical, and believable from a number of levels. The realists among us can chose to believe the fairy tale parts were her escape, and those more willing to believe in magic can believe that she really did experience these things. The mythical characters were all delightful without being disgustingly sweet - even most of the monsters, except one which was totally gut turning for me for some reason (probably because Catherine had given me a heads up hehe). And the fantasy side had the suitably grim edge that I think really works well in all things fairy tale.
The war side of the film was where most of the gore came in. Some things are just very graphic, and there is a lot of shooting, and viewing of the aftermath of post WWII style violence. I did have to look away more than once.
I found this film to be just as I imagined it would have been. Nothing out of this world spectacular, but entertaining and mythical to the point where I could just lose myself in it for a couple of hours. I would really be interested in seeing what other people have to say about it - I think i'm just on the cusp of really loving this film.
EDIT - I am no longer on the cusp of loving this film. After a day to think about it, I was too underwhelmed to give it any more than 7.5. Sure it was good, but it could have been great. See the comment posted for further clarifications...i agree with both, I think the 'moral' discussed in the second one was dealt with too subtley for a film of this nature, so much so that it was lost.
7
So as everyone has probably heard by now, this is a war movie/fairy tale hybrid. The combination intrigued me and I think it actually worked really well. The fairy tale sequences fell into the more grounded 'war' part nicely, acting as a sort of escape for Ofelia, the little girl who had come to live with a Captain because her mother had married him. None of the roles were ever overplayed, despite the fact there was ample opportunity for it because of the fairy tale side of the movie.
The whole thing was suitably mystical, and believable from a number of levels. The realists among us can chose to believe the fairy tale parts were her escape, and those more willing to believe in magic can believe that she really did experience these things. The mythical characters were all delightful without being disgustingly sweet - even most of the monsters, except one which was totally gut turning for me for some reason (probably because Catherine had given me a heads up hehe). And the fantasy side had the suitably grim edge that I think really works well in all things fairy tale.
The war side of the film was where most of the gore came in. Some things are just very graphic, and there is a lot of shooting, and viewing of the aftermath of post WWII style violence. I did have to look away more than once.
I found this film to be just as I imagined it would have been. Nothing out of this world spectacular, but entertaining and mythical to the point where I could just lose myself in it for a couple of hours. I would really be interested in seeing what other people have to say about it - I think i'm just on the cusp of really loving this film.
EDIT - I am no longer on the cusp of loving this film. After a day to think about it, I was too underwhelmed to give it any more than 7.5. Sure it was good, but it could have been great. See the comment posted for further clarifications...i agree with both, I think the 'moral' discussed in the second one was dealt with too subtley for a film of this nature, so much so that it was lost.
7
The Last King of Scotland
Let me start this with an actual rant. I am sick to death of actors who play essentially one dimensional characters getting nominated for awards. Meryl Streep in Devil Wears Prada kicked off this hatred, but it's now been further compounded by Forrest Whittaker (spelling, whatever) in this film. Ok, so it was a historically prominent character. Charming but insane. All that. But honestly, I don't see that it was deserving of an Oscar nomination. It'll be an outrage if he wins. Furthermore, I really don't see this as a lead role, which is what he has been nominated for - to me, it was supporting.
Onwards!
For those of you who don't know, this is a film about a young Scottish doctor in the 70s who goes to Uganda to do some medical work at a mission. Due to a strange turn of circumstances, he ends up the personal physician and sometime political advisor of Idi Amin, the leader of the regime at the time which killed 300 000 Ugandans. Boyish, happless and arrogant, the trappings and new found status of his role keep him largely blind to what is going on around him for quite some time, and when he discovers, it's almost too late. The British government wants him to kill Idi Amin, and he simply wants to get out of the country.
I'll have to invoke my favourite cop out commentary for this film - something just didn't sit right with me. I'm not sure what it was, but I felt as though a film dealing with such subject matter should ellicit a more passionate response from me. And it just didn't. The first 2/3s were spent setting the scene and showing the trappings of life as the physican of Idi Amin. Only almost imperceptible hints of what was to come were given. So imperceptible that they almost weren't there, and not in a good way.
The tone rapidly takes a downward and sinister turn - too rapidly I think. I get that the film makers were probably trying to do some kind of commentary about how the doctor had kept himself in the dark for so long, and then suddenly it all came out when it was almost too late. But I'm afraid to say that I think that for an audience to invest (omg overused term alert) in the progression of a film, there needs to be a smoother (or if not smoother, at the very least, neater) transition to the second part of the film.
To me, this film didn't really say anything. It wasn't solid enough to give a decent commentary of 'young white guy goes to Africa to do some outreach work to make himself feel like a hero, but it all goes horribly wrong and he learns a lesson' but it also wasn't strong enough to be a meaningful historical commentary, from whatever angle. I suppose on a higher 'theme' level it was trying to talk about how people can hide from the truth depending on their point of view - but thematically, that angle was never developed either. The subject matter also deserved a grittier treatment.
I'm not sure I understand what this film was trying to do - and I'm not sure the film makers did either.
7
Onwards!
For those of you who don't know, this is a film about a young Scottish doctor in the 70s who goes to Uganda to do some medical work at a mission. Due to a strange turn of circumstances, he ends up the personal physician and sometime political advisor of Idi Amin, the leader of the regime at the time which killed 300 000 Ugandans. Boyish, happless and arrogant, the trappings and new found status of his role keep him largely blind to what is going on around him for quite some time, and when he discovers, it's almost too late. The British government wants him to kill Idi Amin, and he simply wants to get out of the country.
I'll have to invoke my favourite cop out commentary for this film - something just didn't sit right with me. I'm not sure what it was, but I felt as though a film dealing with such subject matter should ellicit a more passionate response from me. And it just didn't. The first 2/3s were spent setting the scene and showing the trappings of life as the physican of Idi Amin. Only almost imperceptible hints of what was to come were given. So imperceptible that they almost weren't there, and not in a good way.
The tone rapidly takes a downward and sinister turn - too rapidly I think. I get that the film makers were probably trying to do some kind of commentary about how the doctor had kept himself in the dark for so long, and then suddenly it all came out when it was almost too late. But I'm afraid to say that I think that for an audience to invest (omg overused term alert) in the progression of a film, there needs to be a smoother (or if not smoother, at the very least, neater) transition to the second part of the film.
To me, this film didn't really say anything. It wasn't solid enough to give a decent commentary of 'young white guy goes to Africa to do some outreach work to make himself feel like a hero, but it all goes horribly wrong and he learns a lesson' but it also wasn't strong enough to be a meaningful historical commentary, from whatever angle. I suppose on a higher 'theme' level it was trying to talk about how people can hide from the truth depending on their point of view - but thematically, that angle was never developed either. The subject matter also deserved a grittier treatment.
I'm not sure I understand what this film was trying to do - and I'm not sure the film makers did either.
7
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Dreamgirls
Once upon a time, there was an inoffensive movie with lots of great music and costumes. It was entertaining and lots of fun and has this great new actress who is a total shoe in for Best Supporting Actress at the Oscars because not only can she sing, which Mr Oscar loves, but apparently she can also act. And that's really all I can say about this movie.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. I love music, I love the particular style of music, and I love musical theatre. But therein lies the problem. Was this a movie with music? Or was it a musical? Did the songs replace the dialogue, and really tell the story? Or was it an fairly unsurprising movie with great songs and musical numbers to augment the script? Unfortunately I'm not sure Dreamgirls ever made up its mind. The styling suffered the same issues - some sequences were very stylised in true 'musical' form, but other were just a film with some great numbers.
But does any of this really matter?
Not really. Dreamgirls was fantastic to look at, the costuming in particular was spectacular. The decor, the lighting, the girls, everything - was gorgeous (side note OMG Beyonce is hott). The music, no matter how it was used, was great in its own right. Although the first performance of one particular song about family was laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame but every musical/film with music needs a laaaaaaaaaaaaame number.
There were some moving moments, but nothing to take away from the happy, fun musical goodness. And with that, there really isn't much more I can say about Dreamgirls. I won't go into the plot, everyone knows what it was about. It was a little long, but there was singing which more than compensates in my book.
Anyway.
We all knew it was going to turn out well, and honestly, as much as I go on about 'important' films and gritty realistic endings - sometimes the world just needs a feelgood musical.
With awesome costumes.
And Beyonce.
7.5
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. I love music, I love the particular style of music, and I love musical theatre. But therein lies the problem. Was this a movie with music? Or was it a musical? Did the songs replace the dialogue, and really tell the story? Or was it an fairly unsurprising movie with great songs and musical numbers to augment the script? Unfortunately I'm not sure Dreamgirls ever made up its mind. The styling suffered the same issues - some sequences were very stylised in true 'musical' form, but other were just a film with some great numbers.
But does any of this really matter?
Not really. Dreamgirls was fantastic to look at, the costuming in particular was spectacular. The decor, the lighting, the girls, everything - was gorgeous (side note OMG Beyonce is hott). The music, no matter how it was used, was great in its own right. Although the first performance of one particular song about family was laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame but every musical/film with music needs a laaaaaaaaaaaaame number.
There were some moving moments, but nothing to take away from the happy, fun musical goodness. And with that, there really isn't much more I can say about Dreamgirls. I won't go into the plot, everyone knows what it was about. It was a little long, but there was singing which more than compensates in my book.
Anyway.
We all knew it was going to turn out well, and honestly, as much as I go on about 'important' films and gritty realistic endings - sometimes the world just needs a feelgood musical.
With awesome costumes.
And Beyonce.
7.5
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Volver
Well. I had heard nothing but raves about this movie, but still knew basically nothing going into it. Which I like doing occasionally, but I was so surprised by elements of this film that I could have done with a bit of background I think. On a very basic level, this movie is about three generations of Spanish women reconnecting over a series of events in their life.
But on another level, the film was a whole bunch of contradictions. Colourful, but dark. Quirky humour, but serious themes. Superstitions galore addressed, but with a healthy dose of realism. I'm still not entirely convinced that it all worked well, but I do know that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I liked that a whole series of events happened at the beginning, and it was not entirely evident how they were all connected. But as more characters were introduced, all the stories came together as one, and despite the underlying theme of 'women and family becoming empowered' or similar, it was never soppy. I like it when it's not soppy.
I particularly appreciated the way some delicate issues were addressed, particularly that of child sexual abuse. Whilst it was obvious what was being dealt with, the movie never got bogged down in the gritty details, but rather the way that the aftermath was dealt with. Not of say of course that gritty details don't have a place, but it's not what this film was about. Somehow the quirky aspects of this film never took away from the seriousness that other parts deserved. A fine balance to strike indeed.
Having said that, something I can't put my finger on just didn't sit properly with me in this film. Maybe it's my lack of experience with the Spanish culture and not being able to fully invest (omg most overused term ever) in the beliefs and superstitions surrounding death that did pervade a lot of this movie. Who knows. But overall, it was delightful.
7
But on another level, the film was a whole bunch of contradictions. Colourful, but dark. Quirky humour, but serious themes. Superstitions galore addressed, but with a healthy dose of realism. I'm still not entirely convinced that it all worked well, but I do know that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I liked that a whole series of events happened at the beginning, and it was not entirely evident how they were all connected. But as more characters were introduced, all the stories came together as one, and despite the underlying theme of 'women and family becoming empowered' or similar, it was never soppy. I like it when it's not soppy.
I particularly appreciated the way some delicate issues were addressed, particularly that of child sexual abuse. Whilst it was obvious what was being dealt with, the movie never got bogged down in the gritty details, but rather the way that the aftermath was dealt with. Not of say of course that gritty details don't have a place, but it's not what this film was about. Somehow the quirky aspects of this film never took away from the seriousness that other parts deserved. A fine balance to strike indeed.
Having said that, something I can't put my finger on just didn't sit properly with me in this film. Maybe it's my lack of experience with the Spanish culture and not being able to fully invest (omg most overused term ever) in the beliefs and superstitions surrounding death that did pervade a lot of this movie. Who knows. But overall, it was delightful.
7
Breaking and Entering (contains spoilers)
Let it be known that I had very low expectations of this movie. I am the first to admit that I really only went for a perve at Jude Law. Fortunately I was pleasantly surprised. The basic premise is that Jude Law (I think his character's name was Will) has a new fancy pants landscape design warehouse office full of expensive computers in the middle of Kings Cross in London. Some little punks break in twice very early on in its running. The parallel story is Jude's home life with his Swedish partner, and Bea, his partner's (and his really, but not biologically) daughter, who is having a lot of problems and its made out as though she is possibly autistic or OCD. Anyway.
Basically Will becomes obsessed with finding the people that break in. He tracks down the 15 year old kid, and through quite devious means, meets his mother (Juliette Binoche). Basically he starts and affair with the mother partially in response to his screwed up home life (him and his partner are becoming increasingly distant) and partially, we are lead to believe, to bring him closer to the kid who is part of the crime ring that has broken in to his office.
The movie had plenty of interesting twists, and lots of interesting takes on his home life, his work life, his relationship with his daughter and his wife it. It had some quirky moments, like his friendship with the prostitute he befriends while staking out his office at night time. And towards the end, it genuinely looked to me as though everything was going to fall apart for everything and there was going to be one of the best movie endings - the 'everything has gone to shit' ending. As Catherine put it 'I like it when people reap what they sow'.
But, there was a serious lack of chemistry between Jude Law and Juliette Binoche's characters, making the affair seem disjointed and unrealistic. For such a convoluted situation, everything all tied up far too neatly at the end, to the point where I actually felt extreme disappointment at what I think was a total cop out of an ending.
All in all, this movie was actually pretty engrossing until the end - despite the lack of chemistry the atmosphere was created well and the fact that the kid and his mother were Bosnian (and a little of the background was offered by way of explanation for their behaviour) added a lot of depth. But as soon as it became evident that the ending was going to be a cop out, I couldn't invest anything more in this film.
6.5
Basically Will becomes obsessed with finding the people that break in. He tracks down the 15 year old kid, and through quite devious means, meets his mother (Juliette Binoche). Basically he starts and affair with the mother partially in response to his screwed up home life (him and his partner are becoming increasingly distant) and partially, we are lead to believe, to bring him closer to the kid who is part of the crime ring that has broken in to his office.
The movie had plenty of interesting twists, and lots of interesting takes on his home life, his work life, his relationship with his daughter and his wife it. It had some quirky moments, like his friendship with the prostitute he befriends while staking out his office at night time. And towards the end, it genuinely looked to me as though everything was going to fall apart for everything and there was going to be one of the best movie endings - the 'everything has gone to shit' ending. As Catherine put it 'I like it when people reap what they sow'.
But, there was a serious lack of chemistry between Jude Law and Juliette Binoche's characters, making the affair seem disjointed and unrealistic. For such a convoluted situation, everything all tied up far too neatly at the end, to the point where I actually felt extreme disappointment at what I think was a total cop out of an ending.
All in all, this movie was actually pretty engrossing until the end - despite the lack of chemistry the atmosphere was created well and the fact that the kid and his mother were Bosnian (and a little of the background was offered by way of explanation for their behaviour) added a lot of depth. But as soon as it became evident that the ending was going to be a cop out, I couldn't invest anything more in this film.
6.5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
