I saw this movie last weekend, and can't remember many specific details except to say....
It was hilarious. It was clever. And for me, it was every bit as awesome as Shaun of the Dead.
8 out of 10.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Bobby
Bobby deals with the day leading up to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in the US, and loosely with the politics surrounding the event. I say 'loosely' because that really was the problem with Bobby - the whole thing was too loose.
I have a weak spot for this period of American history - the Vietnam war, the political climate in the US, the whole bit. In addition, the cast roll call was outstanding, leading me to believe that I was potentially going to watch an outstanding movie. I had faith in Emilio Estevez to make something great! But as one of my friends said 'that's what you get when you let a brat packer be in charge of a movie'. So true.
The structure itself had potential, it looked at the lives of a number of characters in the Ambassador Hotel, a lot making comment on several notable aspects of the time period. Whilst there were lots of admirable characters and I didn't feel smacked in the face with the lack of subtlety, they just weren't developed properly - I didn't care what happened to any of them. Additionally, there were two glaringly obvious stereotypes in the form of the characters of retired doorman played by Anthony Hopkins, and a spaced out hippie played by Ashton Kutcher.
The movie looked good, but failed to get me in. It began very slowly and stayed slow until a good 3/4 of the way through. It picked up pace and there was a portion of the film that was genuinely very moving, but unfortunately even that tapered off towards the end. The end that encompassed the inevitable flash of the American flag in the last frame.
I was entertained enough for a few hours (another point, it was too long) but in retrospect, the aspects of this film that kept me in were the archival footage, and the political/historical angle, none of which the film makers can take credit for. Anyone as enamoured with this period of history as I, go see it. But if you're not, this film just doesn't cut it, considering the credentials behind it.
7 out of 10.
I have a weak spot for this period of American history - the Vietnam war, the political climate in the US, the whole bit. In addition, the cast roll call was outstanding, leading me to believe that I was potentially going to watch an outstanding movie. I had faith in Emilio Estevez to make something great! But as one of my friends said 'that's what you get when you let a brat packer be in charge of a movie'. So true.
The structure itself had potential, it looked at the lives of a number of characters in the Ambassador Hotel, a lot making comment on several notable aspects of the time period. Whilst there were lots of admirable characters and I didn't feel smacked in the face with the lack of subtlety, they just weren't developed properly - I didn't care what happened to any of them. Additionally, there were two glaringly obvious stereotypes in the form of the characters of retired doorman played by Anthony Hopkins, and a spaced out hippie played by Ashton Kutcher.
The movie looked good, but failed to get me in. It began very slowly and stayed slow until a good 3/4 of the way through. It picked up pace and there was a portion of the film that was genuinely very moving, but unfortunately even that tapered off towards the end. The end that encompassed the inevitable flash of the American flag in the last frame.
I was entertained enough for a few hours (another point, it was too long) but in retrospect, the aspects of this film that kept me in were the archival footage, and the political/historical angle, none of which the film makers can take credit for. Anyone as enamoured with this period of history as I, go see it. But if you're not, this film just doesn't cut it, considering the credentials behind it.
7 out of 10.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Music and Lyrics
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
