Friday the 13th
directed by Sean C. Cunningham
written by Victor Miller
starring Betsy Palmer, Adrienne King, Jeannine Taylor, Robbi Morgan, Kevin Bacon, Harry Crosby, Laurie Bartram, Mark Nelson, Peter Brouwer
Ah, this most famous of slasher flicks still manages to create a well-crafted and thoroughly engrossing slaughter fest by employing exquisite music, editing, and limited character development. The audience doesn’t care about most of these people. Joy is made pronounced by the various methods of death featured in this film.
It’s a standard that has been aped by thousands since its first release in 1980. It’s an exceedingly simple story. Unwitting councilors gather at Camp Crystal Lake where terrible things have happened nearly a quarter of a century ago. A young boy drowns and the next year two councillors in heat are butchered by a knife-wielding maniac. Fast forward to modern times and the stage is set for some grisly death action.
The film does not disappoint. It routinely jacks up the tension and nothing that occurs is obvious. It’s greatest asset is its music by Harry Manfredini. It’s reminiscent of Bernard Herrman’s score from “Psycho” without sounding at all derivative. It wholly adds to the intensity of the scenes when the killer is suspected to be at large. It often sounds like knives slashing but can also be hauntingly beautiful particularly late in the film. It’s a gorgeous and threatening soundtrack which intensifies the horror being depicted on screen.
Basically, the only legitimate reason to view this type of film is to revel in the body count and to note the new and invigorating methods used to dispatch the victims. In this film the range is limited to blades, arrows, and axes. Admittedly, those killed are not missed and their loose living seems to warrant their quick demises. Indeed, it’s always the sexually active kids in these films who get offed first. If you are fucking or trying to fuck you will die and one can always support the killer in this puritanical obliteration of teen agers who submit to the edicts of their hormones and try to have it off. Sex is the enemy here and every remnant of its existence must be destroyed. All that is left is the one girl who remains chaste and she alone is forced to fight off the monster in order to survive.
The atmosphere here is maintained throughout. Even twenty eight years after it’s release, this film still manages to create chills in an audience who imagine’s itself inured to every aspect of teen age death cinema. We have seen it all and nothing that will ever be released again can ever quite satiate our thirst for blood. No matter how graphic and relentless the Saw Franchise becomes, no matter how intricate its methodical desecration of flesh untrammeled there will never be another scene that will truly shock us. Yet here we have a film that continues to haunt due to the simplicity of its plea. It’s all in the editing and score. A maniacal killer on a rampage means nothing to us now. The faceless killer with no set plan other than elimination no longer possesses the novelty or the mystery that once must have given audiences quite a healthy shock. So, what can we possibly do to afford a return to that time when such a thing spoke to us in a primal, cathartic sense?
What does a collection of young, healthy bodies mean to us as a people? Innocence is sacrificed for the sake of amusement and we relish each execution because they bring us closer to an understanding of ourselves. We want the poor councillors to reach a heartless, grisly end and celebrate the methods that are used in their unholy deaths. What is behind this? Do we hold the same values against all victims of unceremonious violation? I can’t imagine the same enthusiasm for the senseless murder during the many holocausts that have plagued mankind. Can not the average viewer identify at least somewhat with those who are hacked to pieces for our amusement?
Still, it all comes down to presentation. This film tries to offer us a well-healed portrait of the victims but it doesn’t work in the end. We are introduced to them but never really get a grasp on their personalities. They remain as faceless as the killer and their deaths subsequently hold no weight. Therefore, we exult when they are finally reduced to ash. This film satisfies a queer longing we all harbor to kill indiscriminately and without remorse. To combine the sexual furor of the knife entering flesh with the ultimate termination of life is a carnal rule. None of these victims suffer. They are merely props for our untoward desires and we celebrate each falling with a discreet appreciation for the facilitator of these deeds. We make heroes of our violators.
Jeannine Taylor provides one of the seminal coital orgasmic faces ever to grace the primacy of celluloid. It’s all the best that she dies soon after.
Overall, this film continues to forge a legitimate impact upon those who apprehend it nakedly. Taken as it is it is a classic in visceral horror and generates enough shocks to ensure its legacy. It’s not particularly difficult to comprehend its appeal after all these years. There really hasn’t been anything quite like it since its release. The music alone is worthy of perpetual investigation because it does everything to set up the scenes of terror scattered throughout the film. The deaths are immaterial as none of the slaughtered possess anything beyond a modicum of personality. Subsequently the consensual argument is that they wholly deserve to die for simply being ciphers without any redeeming characteristics. It’s a joy to witness the end of so many hapless creatures. They all deserve to be treated like so much meat.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Film Review--The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
directed by Scott Derrickson
written by David Scarpa
based on the 1951 screenplay by Edmund H. North
starring Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Jaden Smith, John Cleese, Kathy Bates, Jon Hamm
Promoted as a “reimagining” of the classic 1951 original, this film updates the Nuclear War terror threat to include issues regarding human kind’s continual assault on the planet and it’s resources.
The same basic concept is in place and only the specifics have been modified. In this version a giant orb approaches earth instead of a typical looking spacecraft. It has knocked out a key satellite so nothing can be done to prevent it from entering earth’s atmosphere. Instead of landing in Washington D.C. like the original, this one lands in Central Park in New York City. An alien creature emerges and a woman named Helen Benson (Connelly) who is an astrobiologist at Princeton reaches out to touch his hand. Before she can do so the invader is shot down with a single bullet. His name is, of course, Klaatu (Reeves) and he has come to investigate human kind’s unwitting destruction of its home planet.
The film builds tension and atmosphere by creating an air of mystery surrounding the orb and especially its interior. Klaatu emerges from a placenta like substance and grows into his adult form rapidly. He is queried and tested but reveals nothing due to his insistence that he speak to the U.N. council. He is denied access by Secretary of Defense Regina Jackson (Bates) who would rather he speak to her directly because she has the President’s ear. With the help of Helen he escapes and becomes a fugitive wanted by just about every military and civilian operation throughout the country.
Keanu Reeves is perfectly cast here as a wholly objective, unemotional alien being who takes some time adjusting to his human form. Reeves moves so methodically throughout this film that the end result is something akin to poetry. His maneuverings possess a hypnotic quality as his monotone voice soothes the audience into sympathizing with his character. His Klaatu possesses a terrible aspect that is far more pronounced than in the first film. This Klaatu comes with the understanding that man kind is inherently violent and destructive and will destroy itself if left to its own devices. It’s essentially the same attitude as the original but in this one human beings are held accountable for an ongoing desecration of the planet that has resulted from years of mismanagement. In the 1951 version, mankind’s thirst for blood and addiction to war and whole scale annihilation is linked to the potential destruction of the planet by deliberate means. Today man kind is simply pig ignorant of its impact on Earth and continues to pursue a course of death unabated.
The special effects certainly drive this film and the overall aesthetic of the picture is alluring and consistently dynamic. Unfortunately, the personal story that would be at its center is overshadowed by the large scale aspect that blots out any value the interpersonal relationships might otherwise have enjoyed. We have a mother and her son and they are left to represent all of mankind. But their story lacks any significant drive and the end result is a story without moorings. In the end they prove to be poorly drawn and as generic and meaningless as just about every human being who is cinematically caught up in a cataclysm of this sort. The characters are drab ciphers who are given no depth and no purpose. They are merely alleged victims who must navigate themselves around the line of fire.
The military and police forces are branded as thoroughly hysterical in this film and it’s rather enjoyable to see them scramble about because they have absolutely no idea what is happening or how to stop it. We live in an age where we demand that our military be forceful and aggressive against any and all threats to our autonomy. In this film, the technology that supports every military and governmental exercise is brought to its knees revealing just how helpless mankind it without its gadgets. The film can be read as a warning to humans about what would happen if an electrical storm wiped out everything from our vaunted computer data banks. No more credit cards. No defense system. No air traffic control. This film hints at this and they could have gone much further with this idea. Indeed, in my estimation the wholesale destruction of the earth is merely threatened and naturally everyone returns to live another day. It’s disappointing to sense that an opportunity has been lost. If this film took its pro-environment message more seriously it would have brought much more hell upon the heads of allegedly innocent civilians. The promise is empty and the film collapses as it tries to tell its story.
The film is at its best when Klaatu and his massive robot companion GORT pose a direct threat to the continuation of the human race. Just the threat that GORT represents is enough for the film to accelerate its progress. Once it becomes a human interest story–once Klaatu begins to see another side of humans–it’s like a giant wind balloon has burst leaving nothing but debris. I understand that human kind must be saved from itself but this film gives mankind the same choices it had before the arrival of Klaatu. What was really the point? In the first one humans were threatened by Klaatu who clearly stated that their own fascist police force were given absolute authority and strike at every instance of hostility they encounter. The idea in that film was that mankind is incapable of guiding itself and if it steps out of line it will be severely punished. Here there is no lesson to be learned. The alien shows up, takes a few samples, and returns to his planet as mysteriously as he arrived.
The film unsurprisingly tells much of its story through the eyes of a rebellious child. Jacob Benson (Smith) is initially wary of Klaatu and doesn’t trust him. Gradually he comes to understand Klaatu and eventually accepts him. Jacob takes the place of Bobby Benson from the first film and Smith’s performance is far less grating than the original actor’s. He is nuanced and genuinely likable in this role but that doesn’t necessary translate to a necessary character.
It is all but impossible to imagine an actress who can compete with Patricia Neal in the role of Helen Benson. Fortunately Jennifer Connelly understands the pitfalls and makes no attempt to follow in Neal’s footsteps. The film makers understand this as well by giving this Helen a lucrative and important job that puts her right at the center of the action. Helen is vital and her work has the capacity to forge a new understanding of the potentialities of extra planetary lifeforms. Patricia Neal’s character was merely a secretary and played no role in the action that surrounded her.
Overall, this film captures the essence of the first film but sacrifices its humanity in the process. By the end it feels like humanity ought to be wiped out for their hubris and disregard for plant and animal life. Nothing is presented in this film that warrants the continuation of the human race. Humans are depicted as blind cows silently chewing their cud as the planet quickly dies. Perhaps it’s an exaggeration as we still do not fully comprehend on a local level the severity of the damage we have actually done. This film clearly suggests that there is a problem and that no alien race is going to come visit us to warn us about our impending doom if we don’t clean up our act. It is stated by Professor Barnhardt (Cleese) that it is at the precise moment of a catastrophe, whilst one is looking over a precipice that mankind is able to change. The impact of what we are doing to harm Planet Earth hasn’t approached critical mass and until then there will be no great upheaval and all natural systems will continue to disintegrate.
directed by Scott Derrickson
written by David Scarpa
based on the 1951 screenplay by Edmund H. North
starring Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Jaden Smith, John Cleese, Kathy Bates, Jon Hamm
Promoted as a “reimagining” of the classic 1951 original, this film updates the Nuclear War terror threat to include issues regarding human kind’s continual assault on the planet and it’s resources.
The same basic concept is in place and only the specifics have been modified. In this version a giant orb approaches earth instead of a typical looking spacecraft. It has knocked out a key satellite so nothing can be done to prevent it from entering earth’s atmosphere. Instead of landing in Washington D.C. like the original, this one lands in Central Park in New York City. An alien creature emerges and a woman named Helen Benson (Connelly) who is an astrobiologist at Princeton reaches out to touch his hand. Before she can do so the invader is shot down with a single bullet. His name is, of course, Klaatu (Reeves) and he has come to investigate human kind’s unwitting destruction of its home planet.
The film builds tension and atmosphere by creating an air of mystery surrounding the orb and especially its interior. Klaatu emerges from a placenta like substance and grows into his adult form rapidly. He is queried and tested but reveals nothing due to his insistence that he speak to the U.N. council. He is denied access by Secretary of Defense Regina Jackson (Bates) who would rather he speak to her directly because she has the President’s ear. With the help of Helen he escapes and becomes a fugitive wanted by just about every military and civilian operation throughout the country.
Keanu Reeves is perfectly cast here as a wholly objective, unemotional alien being who takes some time adjusting to his human form. Reeves moves so methodically throughout this film that the end result is something akin to poetry. His maneuverings possess a hypnotic quality as his monotone voice soothes the audience into sympathizing with his character. His Klaatu possesses a terrible aspect that is far more pronounced than in the first film. This Klaatu comes with the understanding that man kind is inherently violent and destructive and will destroy itself if left to its own devices. It’s essentially the same attitude as the original but in this one human beings are held accountable for an ongoing desecration of the planet that has resulted from years of mismanagement. In the 1951 version, mankind’s thirst for blood and addiction to war and whole scale annihilation is linked to the potential destruction of the planet by deliberate means. Today man kind is simply pig ignorant of its impact on Earth and continues to pursue a course of death unabated.
The special effects certainly drive this film and the overall aesthetic of the picture is alluring and consistently dynamic. Unfortunately, the personal story that would be at its center is overshadowed by the large scale aspect that blots out any value the interpersonal relationships might otherwise have enjoyed. We have a mother and her son and they are left to represent all of mankind. But their story lacks any significant drive and the end result is a story without moorings. In the end they prove to be poorly drawn and as generic and meaningless as just about every human being who is cinematically caught up in a cataclysm of this sort. The characters are drab ciphers who are given no depth and no purpose. They are merely alleged victims who must navigate themselves around the line of fire.
The military and police forces are branded as thoroughly hysterical in this film and it’s rather enjoyable to see them scramble about because they have absolutely no idea what is happening or how to stop it. We live in an age where we demand that our military be forceful and aggressive against any and all threats to our autonomy. In this film, the technology that supports every military and governmental exercise is brought to its knees revealing just how helpless mankind it without its gadgets. The film can be read as a warning to humans about what would happen if an electrical storm wiped out everything from our vaunted computer data banks. No more credit cards. No defense system. No air traffic control. This film hints at this and they could have gone much further with this idea. Indeed, in my estimation the wholesale destruction of the earth is merely threatened and naturally everyone returns to live another day. It’s disappointing to sense that an opportunity has been lost. If this film took its pro-environment message more seriously it would have brought much more hell upon the heads of allegedly innocent civilians. The promise is empty and the film collapses as it tries to tell its story.
The film is at its best when Klaatu and his massive robot companion GORT pose a direct threat to the continuation of the human race. Just the threat that GORT represents is enough for the film to accelerate its progress. Once it becomes a human interest story–once Klaatu begins to see another side of humans–it’s like a giant wind balloon has burst leaving nothing but debris. I understand that human kind must be saved from itself but this film gives mankind the same choices it had before the arrival of Klaatu. What was really the point? In the first one humans were threatened by Klaatu who clearly stated that their own fascist police force were given absolute authority and strike at every instance of hostility they encounter. The idea in that film was that mankind is incapable of guiding itself and if it steps out of line it will be severely punished. Here there is no lesson to be learned. The alien shows up, takes a few samples, and returns to his planet as mysteriously as he arrived.
The film unsurprisingly tells much of its story through the eyes of a rebellious child. Jacob Benson (Smith) is initially wary of Klaatu and doesn’t trust him. Gradually he comes to understand Klaatu and eventually accepts him. Jacob takes the place of Bobby Benson from the first film and Smith’s performance is far less grating than the original actor’s. He is nuanced and genuinely likable in this role but that doesn’t necessary translate to a necessary character.
It is all but impossible to imagine an actress who can compete with Patricia Neal in the role of Helen Benson. Fortunately Jennifer Connelly understands the pitfalls and makes no attempt to follow in Neal’s footsteps. The film makers understand this as well by giving this Helen a lucrative and important job that puts her right at the center of the action. Helen is vital and her work has the capacity to forge a new understanding of the potentialities of extra planetary lifeforms. Patricia Neal’s character was merely a secretary and played no role in the action that surrounded her.
Overall, this film captures the essence of the first film but sacrifices its humanity in the process. By the end it feels like humanity ought to be wiped out for their hubris and disregard for plant and animal life. Nothing is presented in this film that warrants the continuation of the human race. Humans are depicted as blind cows silently chewing their cud as the planet quickly dies. Perhaps it’s an exaggeration as we still do not fully comprehend on a local level the severity of the damage we have actually done. This film clearly suggests that there is a problem and that no alien race is going to come visit us to warn us about our impending doom if we don’t clean up our act. It is stated by Professor Barnhardt (Cleese) that it is at the precise moment of a catastrophe, whilst one is looking over a precipice that mankind is able to change. The impact of what we are doing to harm Planet Earth hasn’t approached critical mass and until then there will be no great upheaval and all natural systems will continue to disintegrate.
Film Review--The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
directed by Robert Wise
written by Edmund H. North
based on a story by Harry Bates
starring Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal, Hugh Marlowe, Sam Jaffe, Billy Gray, Frances Bavier, Lock Martin
This serious foray into the nature of war is a classic black and white science fiction wonder. It promotes a definite anti-war message at a time when the world’s superpowers were routinely humoring the most succinct method of wiping each other out. Tensions were high and this film expresses the populace’s fear that death and mayhem could strike at any time.
An pacifist being from an alien planet lands on Earth with an urgent message for those who would use atomic missiles to eradicate each other and in so doing threaten the autonomy of all the planets in the sky.
Klaatu (Rennie) and his massive robot Gort (Martin) land in President’s Park in Washington D.C. Klaatu removes a device that would have allowed the President to study life on all other planets but it is shot out of his hand by a shaky soldier who also wounds him in the shoulder. Gort destroys a great number of weapons and proceeds to hold down the same spot for the next week or so. Klaatu is taken to the hospital where he quickly heals and escapes. He finds himself at a boarding house where he checks in as Carpenter. He befriends Bobby (Gray), the young son of a woman named Helen Benson (Neal) and spends time with the kid getting a look around town.
The film employs a striking, almost metallic aesthetic to create a harrowing landscape consumed with fear, terror and a legitimate sense of danger. The populace becomes greatly paranoid that their pat little world has come under attack. The military is prepared to fight an all out war to eliminate the threat and return life back to what it perceives to be normal.
The message here is that mankind is foolishly engaged in pointless wars that do nothing but great and lasting harm to the planet. Klaatu represents a peaceful approach to all hostilities and wants the people of the earth to understand that war does not serve their interests in the end. The film was made during the Cold War where international governments held others in contempt and war was sought as a clear cut method of quashing the interests of those who posed a direct challenge to the order. Klaatu has come to share a less destructive alternative and warns earth’s inhabitants that the pursuance of war will ultimately lead to their destruction.
Gort is a menacing robot encased in a metal that cannot be penetrated. It is the same material that the space ship is made of and the paltry attempts to break through it are thwarted. Gort is from an interplanetary police force and he is programmed to eradicate all acts of hostility with lasers that shoot out of his eyes. Klaatu warns that the use of the atomic bomb will be viewed as an antagonistic act and will be dealt with by extreme force. There is a tremendous amount of hope in this film that mankind can possibly learn how to deal with conflict in a more equanimous manner that does not lead to unnecessary loss of life and great bloodshed. It’s a film that promotes world peace as an ideal state that ought to be within our grasp. Still, it vehemently expresses a clear picture of international politics that seems destined to carry out its scare tactics until the bitter end. It’s hopeful but at the same time realistic about man’s ability to put down its weapons and approach difficult situations with a cool head.
Stylistically this film is exquisitely shot from start to finish. There is a haunting quality to the cinematography by Leo Tovey who brings forth a deeply melancholic aesthetic that is heightened by the black and white photography.
Klaatu possesses great abilities that far transcend the abilities of modern science. He knows everything there is to know about atomic energy including its dangerous aspects; he has the foresight to comprehend all of the implications of war craft and his people have determined that such insufferable games are ultimately harmful to everyone and must be avoided at all cost. He meets Professor Jacob Bardhardt (Jaffe) and is able to help him with an important scientific equation that the Professor has been engage with for more than a week. Together they agree to hold a conference with a number of brilliant men whose work is often perverted for the war machine against their better judgement. It’s the idea that science can be used for both harm and good and the scientists need to fully grasp the capabilities of their discoveries to bring much destruction upon the heads of the inhabitants of the earth.
Patricia Neal prowls about with her smouldering sexuality and deep, silky voice. She’s buttoned up and impossible and her eyes are tormented with great fear as she attempts to comprehend the true identity of Carpenter. There is no sustained attraction between the two because Helen is committed to a relationship with Tom Stevens (Marlowe) who himself becomes privy to important information that he uses for his own grandiosity in an effort to bring Klaatu to justice. Neal taps into Helen’s carnal nature as she becomes the bearer of great secrets with the potential to cause imminent destruction to mankind with no remorse. It’s a threat that seems to excite and propel her forward as she becomes embroiled in grave circumstances with an intense, biblical payoff for the lot of mankind.
The fear of imminent death hangs over every scene in this film. There is a legitimate sense that mass destruction could break out at any time. Gort is put in a defensive position and becomes irritated and ready to strike and ostensibly destroy the earth. Helen is instructed by Klaatu to utter the famous phrase “Klaatu barada nikto” in order to switch Gort off of kill mode and return him to a state of stability. It’s harrowing to consider just how close the planet comes to annihilation in this film as it continues to point its death rockets at the sky.
Michael Rennie injects a real humanity into Klaatu/Carpenter. There is a decisive warmth to the character as he struggles in frustration to convince the earth’s master of the need to revise their keen interest in blowing each other apart. As mentioned Patricia Neal is exceedingly intense in this film which is ably conveyed with her posture and mannerisms.
Overall, this is a spell binding science fiction classic that continues to educate audiences about the fallacy of war. It offers a clear warning to the world’s leaders about the ultimate ends of war. It’s blatant message seeps into the skin and challenges the viewer to attempt to rationalize their own views regarding peace or conflict. There is a tremendous energy to this film as the threat stirs up trouble and agitates the population into activity. Nothing brings people together like impending doom.
directed by Robert Wise
written by Edmund H. North
based on a story by Harry Bates
starring Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal, Hugh Marlowe, Sam Jaffe, Billy Gray, Frances Bavier, Lock Martin
This serious foray into the nature of war is a classic black and white science fiction wonder. It promotes a definite anti-war message at a time when the world’s superpowers were routinely humoring the most succinct method of wiping each other out. Tensions were high and this film expresses the populace’s fear that death and mayhem could strike at any time.
An pacifist being from an alien planet lands on Earth with an urgent message for those who would use atomic missiles to eradicate each other and in so doing threaten the autonomy of all the planets in the sky.
Klaatu (Rennie) and his massive robot Gort (Martin) land in President’s Park in Washington D.C. Klaatu removes a device that would have allowed the President to study life on all other planets but it is shot out of his hand by a shaky soldier who also wounds him in the shoulder. Gort destroys a great number of weapons and proceeds to hold down the same spot for the next week or so. Klaatu is taken to the hospital where he quickly heals and escapes. He finds himself at a boarding house where he checks in as Carpenter. He befriends Bobby (Gray), the young son of a woman named Helen Benson (Neal) and spends time with the kid getting a look around town.
The film employs a striking, almost metallic aesthetic to create a harrowing landscape consumed with fear, terror and a legitimate sense of danger. The populace becomes greatly paranoid that their pat little world has come under attack. The military is prepared to fight an all out war to eliminate the threat and return life back to what it perceives to be normal.
The message here is that mankind is foolishly engaged in pointless wars that do nothing but great and lasting harm to the planet. Klaatu represents a peaceful approach to all hostilities and wants the people of the earth to understand that war does not serve their interests in the end. The film was made during the Cold War where international governments held others in contempt and war was sought as a clear cut method of quashing the interests of those who posed a direct challenge to the order. Klaatu has come to share a less destructive alternative and warns earth’s inhabitants that the pursuance of war will ultimately lead to their destruction.
Gort is a menacing robot encased in a metal that cannot be penetrated. It is the same material that the space ship is made of and the paltry attempts to break through it are thwarted. Gort is from an interplanetary police force and he is programmed to eradicate all acts of hostility with lasers that shoot out of his eyes. Klaatu warns that the use of the atomic bomb will be viewed as an antagonistic act and will be dealt with by extreme force. There is a tremendous amount of hope in this film that mankind can possibly learn how to deal with conflict in a more equanimous manner that does not lead to unnecessary loss of life and great bloodshed. It’s a film that promotes world peace as an ideal state that ought to be within our grasp. Still, it vehemently expresses a clear picture of international politics that seems destined to carry out its scare tactics until the bitter end. It’s hopeful but at the same time realistic about man’s ability to put down its weapons and approach difficult situations with a cool head.
Stylistically this film is exquisitely shot from start to finish. There is a haunting quality to the cinematography by Leo Tovey who brings forth a deeply melancholic aesthetic that is heightened by the black and white photography.
Klaatu possesses great abilities that far transcend the abilities of modern science. He knows everything there is to know about atomic energy including its dangerous aspects; he has the foresight to comprehend all of the implications of war craft and his people have determined that such insufferable games are ultimately harmful to everyone and must be avoided at all cost. He meets Professor Jacob Bardhardt (Jaffe) and is able to help him with an important scientific equation that the Professor has been engage with for more than a week. Together they agree to hold a conference with a number of brilliant men whose work is often perverted for the war machine against their better judgement. It’s the idea that science can be used for both harm and good and the scientists need to fully grasp the capabilities of their discoveries to bring much destruction upon the heads of the inhabitants of the earth.
Patricia Neal prowls about with her smouldering sexuality and deep, silky voice. She’s buttoned up and impossible and her eyes are tormented with great fear as she attempts to comprehend the true identity of Carpenter. There is no sustained attraction between the two because Helen is committed to a relationship with Tom Stevens (Marlowe) who himself becomes privy to important information that he uses for his own grandiosity in an effort to bring Klaatu to justice. Neal taps into Helen’s carnal nature as she becomes the bearer of great secrets with the potential to cause imminent destruction to mankind with no remorse. It’s a threat that seems to excite and propel her forward as she becomes embroiled in grave circumstances with an intense, biblical payoff for the lot of mankind.
The fear of imminent death hangs over every scene in this film. There is a legitimate sense that mass destruction could break out at any time. Gort is put in a defensive position and becomes irritated and ready to strike and ostensibly destroy the earth. Helen is instructed by Klaatu to utter the famous phrase “Klaatu barada nikto” in order to switch Gort off of kill mode and return him to a state of stability. It’s harrowing to consider just how close the planet comes to annihilation in this film as it continues to point its death rockets at the sky.
Michael Rennie injects a real humanity into Klaatu/Carpenter. There is a decisive warmth to the character as he struggles in frustration to convince the earth’s master of the need to revise their keen interest in blowing each other apart. As mentioned Patricia Neal is exceedingly intense in this film which is ably conveyed with her posture and mannerisms.
Overall, this is a spell binding science fiction classic that continues to educate audiences about the fallacy of war. It offers a clear warning to the world’s leaders about the ultimate ends of war. It’s blatant message seeps into the skin and challenges the viewer to attempt to rationalize their own views regarding peace or conflict. There is a tremendous energy to this film as the threat stirs up trouble and agitates the population into activity. Nothing brings people together like impending doom.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Film Review--The Spirit
The Spirit
written and directed by Frank Miller
basic on the comic by Will Eisner
starring Gabriel Macht, Eva Mendes, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Louis Lombardi, Sarah Paulson, Dan Gerrity, Stana Katic
When a comic is tranferred to a cinematic product, there are just so many expectations that must be met to satisfy the hard core fans who devote a great deal of time creating their own film in their heads. I can imagine how disappointed these folks are with this product as it possesses nothing save a blind stab at style and a convoluted story that cannot possibly be what the late great Mr. Eisner had in mind.
Every type of male fuck fantasy is on display here. There’s Sand Saref (Mendes) as an international jewel thief who used to be the Spirit’s (Macht) , --then known as Denny Colt– primary lust object. His most recent flame is Dr. Ellen Dolan (Paulson) who stays late at the hospital in the hope that her former lover might need a bit of stitching up. Her body is enveloped in classy formal attire and one imagines the hell kitty that clamors to be released. The Spirit meets Plaster of Paris (Paz Vega), an exotic dancer with a fierce temper who he appears to have intimate knowledge of. Silken Floss (Johannson) is a bespectacled charmer with tremendous power who scares most men into flight. As sexy as Johannson has ever been on screen, it’s the threat of instant death that she brings to the promise of any encounter. Still, she doesn’t look all that convincing with a gun but the idea is certainly stimulating. Miller even brings in a female cop named Morgenstern (Katic) who naturally caters to every little boy’s longing to be punished severely by a hot woman in uniform.
The story ostensibly involves the Octopus’s (Jackson) attempt to secure a vase containing the blood of Heracles which he believes will make him immortal so he can then rule the earth. Sand Seref (Mendes) retrieves it and he wants it back. She purrs and pants and is the most carnal female character since Michelle Pfeiffer’s Cat Woman. But she doesn’t quite rescue the film from it’s graceless demise. A fierce body, no matter how appetizing, cannot make an otherwise dismal film passable. Still, it’s enjoyable to look at and fuels the imagination as long as it appears on the screen.
Samuel L. Jackson chews through his role like a surly dog chewing through a phone book. He doesn’t as much act as careen wildly through his lines, spraying them with all the tenacity of an AK 47. It’s clear that he is enjoying himself ostensibly because it’s much easier to play a cartoon character than one filled with actual depth and emotion. Here, he’s a bona fide lunatic who as the Octopus has eight of everything including guns. He is exceedingly enjoyable to watch simply because he’s so vacuous and the audience doesn’t have to worry about trying to understand him. Who cares when a character is this over-the-top? He fits in well with all the better cinematic villains who always sear the flesh more readily than the lousy heroes. The Octopus is an agent of pure, animal death and charmingly efficient at capturing his quarry.
In this film, the Spirit is certainly not aptly named as he lacks energy, vitality, and any legitimate drive. He’s spiritless, to be sure, and drags the story down whenever he’s on the screen. All his posturings are bland and empty and provide no lasting entertainment value in the end. When compared to the Octopus he comes up exceedingly short and the film suffers for it.
Another aspect of the story involves the Spirit’s longing for Sand who disappeared when they were teenagers because she wanted diamonds, sports cars and cold hard cash and didn’t see herself getting these things on a cop’s piddling salary. Her father is shot dead and she claims to a reporter that she hates cops. Then she vanishes from Denny’s life and he never sees her again until she shows up in Central City which she also claims to loathe.
The Spirit is presented as a nattily attired lady killer who has done most of the doable broads the city over. He has an effect on women that sees them practically disrobing upon even the most innocent contact between them. They move as if they are ready right then and there to spread themselves open to receive the great Spirit in order to make themselves more pure and perhaps even holy. The Spirit is a less witty James Bond although he’s never afforded the luxury of gadgetry and doesn’t have much time for high society. He’s far less elegant as well and not as graceful. James Bond would never be caught with his pants down as the Spirit is in one memorable scene.
The film’s look is certainly slick and unnatural. The City doesn’t come off here as necessarily corrupt or satanic in its presentation. It’s dark but not terribly so. It doesn’t appear as another character as Gotham is in the Batman series. It’s just there and the Spirit considers it to be a woman to whom he has pledged his heart. No mere woman can reach him in the same way his city has and he pledges his loyalty to her for always and for ever.
Death comes in the immaculate shape of Lorelei Rox (Jaime King) who beckons the Spirit and almost captures him on two separate occasions. She is yet another female form who lures her prey and dances with them before devouring them.
The most ludicrous moment in the film happens when Silk Floss and the Octopus appear wearing Nazi uniforms as he boisterously champions Death. It’s utterly preposterous and means nothing in the end and one wonders after the motivation to include it in the film. It might have something to do with the Nazi uniform fetish but it still does not inform the narrative. It’s a purely stylistic choice although it seems designed to equate the Octopus with Adolf Hitler as his image is prominently displayed in the scene. Plus the uniforms are wonky and Scarlett Johannson looks exceedingly uncomfortable.
The performances in this film come across at various levels of believability. As mentioned, Samuel L. Jackson conveys his character’s megalomaniacal nature in the black and white sense which the villains are presented here. The Octopus is bad but he’s got so much energy and panache that he comes across as much more urgent and likable than his adversary ever could be.
Scarlett Johannson affects a method of speaking that seems quite odd. Her performance seems rather wooden at times but perfectly appropriate at others. She is mostly convincing playing her role because she infuses it with a stark, underlying brutality that she might employ any time an inconvenience accosts her. Sarah Paulson is slinky and seductive as perhaps the most sexually alluring doctor to appear on screen in quite some time. Her performance is predicated on her physicality and lines in this case don’t much matter. It is also unimportant what Eva Mendes says in this film. Besides it’s almost impossible to hear her above the rumbling of those dreaded hormones. The way she says everything sounds like phone sex, anyway, so the whole package is fully realized and she does her job admirably. Gabriel Macht delivers his part with the proper amount of disassociation. His flat reading is perhaps necessary for this sort of role but it does nothing to improve his character’s presence in the film. His personality is absent and subsequently his actions have no real meaning.
Overall, this film lacks the spirit that might have imbued it with a great cataclysm that could have elevated it to a level reserved for great films that capture the essence of their source material without sacrificing the story to style. The only aspects of interest in the film come from the ubiquitous displays of sex and death. Rarely are these aspects presented so clearly and they lend themselves to a dynamic that nearly redeems the film were it not for the overall lack of a viable narrative. The film is occasionally pretty to look at but doesn’t accentuate the obvious primal slant brought forth through the general focus on succulent female sexuality. Yes, the women in this film are ably portrayed and their physicality exploited favorably. Similarly, the character of the Octopus presents an intriguing conveyor of immediate fatality and his cartoonish maneuverings bring a demonstrable urgency to the film. Ultimately, however, the characters lack definable personalities that make them memorable rather than being merely ciphers. The Octopus is vital because Samuel L. Jackson cuts loose and turns him into a gleefully satanic death merchant. Elsewhere, even the girls prove to be little more than embodiments of sexual desire. They aren’t otherwise fascinating or intriguing. They don’t do anything that remotely matters. But neither does anyone in this feeble production.
written and directed by Frank Miller
basic on the comic by Will Eisner
starring Gabriel Macht, Eva Mendes, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Louis Lombardi, Sarah Paulson, Dan Gerrity, Stana Katic
When a comic is tranferred to a cinematic product, there are just so many expectations that must be met to satisfy the hard core fans who devote a great deal of time creating their own film in their heads. I can imagine how disappointed these folks are with this product as it possesses nothing save a blind stab at style and a convoluted story that cannot possibly be what the late great Mr. Eisner had in mind.
Every type of male fuck fantasy is on display here. There’s Sand Saref (Mendes) as an international jewel thief who used to be the Spirit’s (Macht) , --then known as Denny Colt– primary lust object. His most recent flame is Dr. Ellen Dolan (Paulson) who stays late at the hospital in the hope that her former lover might need a bit of stitching up. Her body is enveloped in classy formal attire and one imagines the hell kitty that clamors to be released. The Spirit meets Plaster of Paris (Paz Vega), an exotic dancer with a fierce temper who he appears to have intimate knowledge of. Silken Floss (Johannson) is a bespectacled charmer with tremendous power who scares most men into flight. As sexy as Johannson has ever been on screen, it’s the threat of instant death that she brings to the promise of any encounter. Still, she doesn’t look all that convincing with a gun but the idea is certainly stimulating. Miller even brings in a female cop named Morgenstern (Katic) who naturally caters to every little boy’s longing to be punished severely by a hot woman in uniform.
The story ostensibly involves the Octopus’s (Jackson) attempt to secure a vase containing the blood of Heracles which he believes will make him immortal so he can then rule the earth. Sand Seref (Mendes) retrieves it and he wants it back. She purrs and pants and is the most carnal female character since Michelle Pfeiffer’s Cat Woman. But she doesn’t quite rescue the film from it’s graceless demise. A fierce body, no matter how appetizing, cannot make an otherwise dismal film passable. Still, it’s enjoyable to look at and fuels the imagination as long as it appears on the screen.
Samuel L. Jackson chews through his role like a surly dog chewing through a phone book. He doesn’t as much act as careen wildly through his lines, spraying them with all the tenacity of an AK 47. It’s clear that he is enjoying himself ostensibly because it’s much easier to play a cartoon character than one filled with actual depth and emotion. Here, he’s a bona fide lunatic who as the Octopus has eight of everything including guns. He is exceedingly enjoyable to watch simply because he’s so vacuous and the audience doesn’t have to worry about trying to understand him. Who cares when a character is this over-the-top? He fits in well with all the better cinematic villains who always sear the flesh more readily than the lousy heroes. The Octopus is an agent of pure, animal death and charmingly efficient at capturing his quarry.
In this film, the Spirit is certainly not aptly named as he lacks energy, vitality, and any legitimate drive. He’s spiritless, to be sure, and drags the story down whenever he’s on the screen. All his posturings are bland and empty and provide no lasting entertainment value in the end. When compared to the Octopus he comes up exceedingly short and the film suffers for it.
Another aspect of the story involves the Spirit’s longing for Sand who disappeared when they were teenagers because she wanted diamonds, sports cars and cold hard cash and didn’t see herself getting these things on a cop’s piddling salary. Her father is shot dead and she claims to a reporter that she hates cops. Then she vanishes from Denny’s life and he never sees her again until she shows up in Central City which she also claims to loathe.
The Spirit is presented as a nattily attired lady killer who has done most of the doable broads the city over. He has an effect on women that sees them practically disrobing upon even the most innocent contact between them. They move as if they are ready right then and there to spread themselves open to receive the great Spirit in order to make themselves more pure and perhaps even holy. The Spirit is a less witty James Bond although he’s never afforded the luxury of gadgetry and doesn’t have much time for high society. He’s far less elegant as well and not as graceful. James Bond would never be caught with his pants down as the Spirit is in one memorable scene.
The film’s look is certainly slick and unnatural. The City doesn’t come off here as necessarily corrupt or satanic in its presentation. It’s dark but not terribly so. It doesn’t appear as another character as Gotham is in the Batman series. It’s just there and the Spirit considers it to be a woman to whom he has pledged his heart. No mere woman can reach him in the same way his city has and he pledges his loyalty to her for always and for ever.
Death comes in the immaculate shape of Lorelei Rox (Jaime King) who beckons the Spirit and almost captures him on two separate occasions. She is yet another female form who lures her prey and dances with them before devouring them.
The most ludicrous moment in the film happens when Silk Floss and the Octopus appear wearing Nazi uniforms as he boisterously champions Death. It’s utterly preposterous and means nothing in the end and one wonders after the motivation to include it in the film. It might have something to do with the Nazi uniform fetish but it still does not inform the narrative. It’s a purely stylistic choice although it seems designed to equate the Octopus with Adolf Hitler as his image is prominently displayed in the scene. Plus the uniforms are wonky and Scarlett Johannson looks exceedingly uncomfortable.
The performances in this film come across at various levels of believability. As mentioned, Samuel L. Jackson conveys his character’s megalomaniacal nature in the black and white sense which the villains are presented here. The Octopus is bad but he’s got so much energy and panache that he comes across as much more urgent and likable than his adversary ever could be.
Scarlett Johannson affects a method of speaking that seems quite odd. Her performance seems rather wooden at times but perfectly appropriate at others. She is mostly convincing playing her role because she infuses it with a stark, underlying brutality that she might employ any time an inconvenience accosts her. Sarah Paulson is slinky and seductive as perhaps the most sexually alluring doctor to appear on screen in quite some time. Her performance is predicated on her physicality and lines in this case don’t much matter. It is also unimportant what Eva Mendes says in this film. Besides it’s almost impossible to hear her above the rumbling of those dreaded hormones. The way she says everything sounds like phone sex, anyway, so the whole package is fully realized and she does her job admirably. Gabriel Macht delivers his part with the proper amount of disassociation. His flat reading is perhaps necessary for this sort of role but it does nothing to improve his character’s presence in the film. His personality is absent and subsequently his actions have no real meaning.
Overall, this film lacks the spirit that might have imbued it with a great cataclysm that could have elevated it to a level reserved for great films that capture the essence of their source material without sacrificing the story to style. The only aspects of interest in the film come from the ubiquitous displays of sex and death. Rarely are these aspects presented so clearly and they lend themselves to a dynamic that nearly redeems the film were it not for the overall lack of a viable narrative. The film is occasionally pretty to look at but doesn’t accentuate the obvious primal slant brought forth through the general focus on succulent female sexuality. Yes, the women in this film are ably portrayed and their physicality exploited favorably. Similarly, the character of the Octopus presents an intriguing conveyor of immediate fatality and his cartoonish maneuverings bring a demonstrable urgency to the film. Ultimately, however, the characters lack definable personalities that make them memorable rather than being merely ciphers. The Octopus is vital because Samuel L. Jackson cuts loose and turns him into a gleefully satanic death merchant. Elsewhere, even the girls prove to be little more than embodiments of sexual desire. They aren’t otherwise fascinating or intriguing. They don’t do anything that remotely matters. But neither does anyone in this feeble production.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Film Review--Marley & Me
Marley & Me
directed by David Frankel
written by Scott Frank and Don Roos
based on the book by John Grogan
starring Owen Wilson, Jennifer Aniston, Eric Dane, Kathleen Turner, Alan Arkin
Much of the interest in this film comes via Marley the dog’s mad capers and very naughty antics as he proceeds to tear to shreds anything that he can gain access to. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is drab, dismal, and utterly devoid of even a semblance of energy.
John Grogan (Wilson) and his wife Jennifer (Aniston) are a typical couple who live a quiet life without any serious complications. John surprises Jennifer and takes her blindfolded to a dog kennel where she chooses Marley who is cheaper than the other dogs ostensibly for disciplinary reasons. Marley is a bit more rambunctious than other labs and makes his presence felt on the very first day he is home. The film early on is basically a series of scenes where Marley acts up and destroys this or that thing. Then he grows up and soon enough the Grogans have three moppets to attend to. That’s about it, really.
Nothing particularly noteworthy occurs in this film. John becomes a columnist for his local paper and eventually takes a job as a reporter in Philly. Jennifer quits her job to take care of the kids full time. Without Marley to spruce things up this would be an almost unwatchable film. It’s just an excruciatingly boring family who have been reduced to a life with no color, no adventure. Yes, they seem to be living a full life or at least the life that nature demands out of humans. They have spawned and have moved into a sizable home where they can slowly degenerate together and eventually say goodbye to the children who along with the dog provide the only real entertainment the family can muster. Perhaps that is enough. Perhaps it’s everything. If so then the film could have at least shown how such an admirable life can be infused with a little demonstrable joy. The kids are great but it doesn’t mean that there can’t be thrills along the way.
Marley is charming in his way despite his penchant for eating non-food items he finds all over the house. As long as the dog is on screen, the film maintains its energy but as soon as it turns to the humans it quickly dissipates. It’s as simple as that. There just isn’t a story here that is worth telling. The kids are annoyingly cute and certainly draw in the families who want to see something that reflects their lives back to them. Kids love funny dog behavior especially when the dog in question is doing things he isn’t supposed to. Admittedly it is great fun to watch Marley misbehave but his stunts do nothing to enliven the people in the film.
Building a film around a nearly psychotic dog is a fine idea if one creates a vital and entertaining story as well. This is an example of how this process can go horribly wrong. These are dead characters who bring nothing to the film and it’s a shame because this could have been a very effective comedy in the right hands. Instead we have a story that doesn’t matter and many scenes of a temperamental canine who is easily the most charismatic character in the entire film.
Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston are capable actors who both have demonstrated their abilities to play a wide range of emotions. Here they cruise along gamely without straying from a particular middling course. Their characters seem resigned to their fates and perhaps this is the accepted way to deal with as many life changes as happen to this family over a relatively short period of time. Kids tend to become the entire focus and it is certainly true in this case. Yet, the parents in this scenario just seem to fade away and their personalities wither. Yes, it’s a family and most families aren’t particularly thrilling all the time but in this case the life seems to be sucked out of the parents and it doesn’t make for a very compelling film in the end.
Of course, this film could have been much more if it dared to examine the pressures that are a necessary component of the familial dynamic. It just doesn’t dig deep enough into the struggles and distress that are experienced routinely in the relationship and as one attempts to provide a sensible structure for the little ones as they grow into little independent selves with their own agendas and secret wants. In this film the children are merely props and none of them come off as singular personalities in their own right. They are just there to look appropriately cute when the scene calls for it but otherwise their presence is not truly felt. After all, this is a film about man’s best friend for better or worse and the dog takes center stage.
The film follows a natural course straight through to the end. It stays with Marley and focuses on every stage of his life. He naturally ages and his interests in causing chaos wane dramatically. The final twenty minutes of this film are deeply moving and suggest what kind of film this might have been if it weren’t attempting to please such a wide audience. It’s dark and brooding and serious concerns are dealt with appropriately. It’s difficult, painful and worth holding on to. If only the film could have been made independently on a smaller budget with a film maker who understands the importance of creating characters who aren’t utterly overshadowed by the manic opportunism displayed by the film’s bona fide star. Then it might have had real bite and it’s conclusion subsequently would have possessed more weight. Instead we are left with many engrossing moments that all involve a dog doing what dogs do when following the edicts of their instinct but little else.
Overall, this is a film that works very hard to reach a wide swathe of the movie going public. It is the kind of film that leaves no traces once it has been seen and the next big family entertainment presents itself. There was potential for a more probing type of story but this was thwarted by a flimsy plot that loses itself somewhere along the way. The dog is not the problem, of course. He routinely pulls out all the stops and his tomfoolery routinely brings down the house. Still, there is much more than a hyperactive dog to a story worth telling. There must be characters worth engaging with. There must be moments that truly connect with people in a way that is indescribable. Sure this is passable entertainment and the dog garners laughs from the children. But there is nothing to hold on to here. There is nothing worth remembering.
directed by David Frankel
written by Scott Frank and Don Roos
based on the book by John Grogan
starring Owen Wilson, Jennifer Aniston, Eric Dane, Kathleen Turner, Alan Arkin
Much of the interest in this film comes via Marley the dog’s mad capers and very naughty antics as he proceeds to tear to shreds anything that he can gain access to. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is drab, dismal, and utterly devoid of even a semblance of energy.
John Grogan (Wilson) and his wife Jennifer (Aniston) are a typical couple who live a quiet life without any serious complications. John surprises Jennifer and takes her blindfolded to a dog kennel where she chooses Marley who is cheaper than the other dogs ostensibly for disciplinary reasons. Marley is a bit more rambunctious than other labs and makes his presence felt on the very first day he is home. The film early on is basically a series of scenes where Marley acts up and destroys this or that thing. Then he grows up and soon enough the Grogans have three moppets to attend to. That’s about it, really.
Nothing particularly noteworthy occurs in this film. John becomes a columnist for his local paper and eventually takes a job as a reporter in Philly. Jennifer quits her job to take care of the kids full time. Without Marley to spruce things up this would be an almost unwatchable film. It’s just an excruciatingly boring family who have been reduced to a life with no color, no adventure. Yes, they seem to be living a full life or at least the life that nature demands out of humans. They have spawned and have moved into a sizable home where they can slowly degenerate together and eventually say goodbye to the children who along with the dog provide the only real entertainment the family can muster. Perhaps that is enough. Perhaps it’s everything. If so then the film could have at least shown how such an admirable life can be infused with a little demonstrable joy. The kids are great but it doesn’t mean that there can’t be thrills along the way.
Marley is charming in his way despite his penchant for eating non-food items he finds all over the house. As long as the dog is on screen, the film maintains its energy but as soon as it turns to the humans it quickly dissipates. It’s as simple as that. There just isn’t a story here that is worth telling. The kids are annoyingly cute and certainly draw in the families who want to see something that reflects their lives back to them. Kids love funny dog behavior especially when the dog in question is doing things he isn’t supposed to. Admittedly it is great fun to watch Marley misbehave but his stunts do nothing to enliven the people in the film.
Building a film around a nearly psychotic dog is a fine idea if one creates a vital and entertaining story as well. This is an example of how this process can go horribly wrong. These are dead characters who bring nothing to the film and it’s a shame because this could have been a very effective comedy in the right hands. Instead we have a story that doesn’t matter and many scenes of a temperamental canine who is easily the most charismatic character in the entire film.
Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston are capable actors who both have demonstrated their abilities to play a wide range of emotions. Here they cruise along gamely without straying from a particular middling course. Their characters seem resigned to their fates and perhaps this is the accepted way to deal with as many life changes as happen to this family over a relatively short period of time. Kids tend to become the entire focus and it is certainly true in this case. Yet, the parents in this scenario just seem to fade away and their personalities wither. Yes, it’s a family and most families aren’t particularly thrilling all the time but in this case the life seems to be sucked out of the parents and it doesn’t make for a very compelling film in the end.
Of course, this film could have been much more if it dared to examine the pressures that are a necessary component of the familial dynamic. It just doesn’t dig deep enough into the struggles and distress that are experienced routinely in the relationship and as one attempts to provide a sensible structure for the little ones as they grow into little independent selves with their own agendas and secret wants. In this film the children are merely props and none of them come off as singular personalities in their own right. They are just there to look appropriately cute when the scene calls for it but otherwise their presence is not truly felt. After all, this is a film about man’s best friend for better or worse and the dog takes center stage.
The film follows a natural course straight through to the end. It stays with Marley and focuses on every stage of his life. He naturally ages and his interests in causing chaos wane dramatically. The final twenty minutes of this film are deeply moving and suggest what kind of film this might have been if it weren’t attempting to please such a wide audience. It’s dark and brooding and serious concerns are dealt with appropriately. It’s difficult, painful and worth holding on to. If only the film could have been made independently on a smaller budget with a film maker who understands the importance of creating characters who aren’t utterly overshadowed by the manic opportunism displayed by the film’s bona fide star. Then it might have had real bite and it’s conclusion subsequently would have possessed more weight. Instead we are left with many engrossing moments that all involve a dog doing what dogs do when following the edicts of their instinct but little else.
Overall, this is a film that works very hard to reach a wide swathe of the movie going public. It is the kind of film that leaves no traces once it has been seen and the next big family entertainment presents itself. There was potential for a more probing type of story but this was thwarted by a flimsy plot that loses itself somewhere along the way. The dog is not the problem, of course. He routinely pulls out all the stops and his tomfoolery routinely brings down the house. Still, there is much more than a hyperactive dog to a story worth telling. There must be characters worth engaging with. There must be moments that truly connect with people in a way that is indescribable. Sure this is passable entertainment and the dog garners laughs from the children. But there is nothing to hold on to here. There is nothing worth remembering.
Film Review--Yes Man
Yes Man
directed by Peyton Reed
written by Nicholas Stoller, Jarrad Paul, Andrew Mogel
starring Jim Carrey, Zooey Deschanel, Terence Stamp, Bradley Cooper, John Michael Higgins, Rhys Darby, Danny Masterson, Fionnula Flanagan, Molly Sims, Sasha Alexander
Billed as yet another excuse for Jim Carrey to jack up his lunatic maneuverings for the masses, this is actually a rather affecting film about loneliness and the abject fear of dying alone and miserable. It slices into the carcass of doubt and resignation and reveals ultimately a love story worth believing in.
Carl Allen (Carrey) is something of a grumpus. He’s been working a tiresome job at a bank for five years. His life is rather empty and he turns down nearly every effort to socialize. Indeed, he passes on every opportunity that comes his way and satisfies himself by staying home alone watching videos and ignoring the pleas of his friend Peter (Cooper) who wants to drag him out into the light. One day he is accosted by his friend Nick (Higgins) who introduces him to a seminar hosted by a man named Terrence Bundley (Stamp) that he claims changed his life. Carl begrudgingly makes his way to the seminar and is immediately shamed for being a “No Man”. Bundley abuses him and forces him to utter a word that has been foreign to him for quite some time. That word is, of course, “Yes” and thereafter Carl agrees to everything that presents itself.
Circumstances arise that lead Carl to his destiny. She is Allison (Deschanel), a rambunctious, adventurous girl who introduces Carl to a world he scarcely knew existed. He agrees to every proposition she makes and quickly morphs into a can-do man who is apt and seemingly interested in all that he apprehends. This is Carrey at his best. He possesses a thrilling energy that pushes the film forward and leads his character into novel territory that brings him out of himself at last. Carrey is fine here when he’s playing for actual emotions instead of the easy laughs he so often elicits by playing the rubber-faced fool. Fortunately in this film the histrionics are kept to a minimum and Carrey is allowed to act for once. He’s aging and the lunacy can only take him so far. Here he provides evidence that he has the capacity to present a more complex character who is filled with need and longing.
Allison is presented as a legitimate eccentric who sees the world through a unique prism. She is just the girl to bring Carl out of his shell and it’s convenient that he has simultaneously discovered a method of committing to chance occurrences he would normally ignore. He would never have met her if he were the old Carl who would not have put himself in a position to do so. Zooey Deschanel certainly provides a legitimate reason to stay fully engaged with this film. Her character adds a grounded sensibility that belies her off-kilter persona. Allison knows who she is and does pretty much what she wants to not because she feels she is compelled to by some wonky schemer who has tapped into a mass audience of gullible types who greedily want more of life’s pleasures to fall into their lap. Deschanel turns Allison into a lovely little minx who can be rather dangerous at times if one isn’t prepared to engage her fully. It’s the unpredictable nature of Allison that makes her so endearing and Deschanal provides her with a quiet intensity and a delectably intoxicating sensuality that she masks with nervousness and a touch of shyness.
The film’s attempted skewering of the self-help movement is tame but it still comes across in the character of Terrence Bundley. His over-the-top presentation mocks the intense and comical seriousness with which these types approach their particular panacea for solving all of life’s irritating inconsistencies. Bundley represents the legions of would-be gurus who imagine themselves as having discovered a method for creating a workable life plan that trumps any similar attempts in that field. Bundley is the only consistently amusing character in this film as Carrey pratfalls and other attempts at physical comedy just don’t possess the same magic they once did.
Jim Carrey is superbly suited for this type of role although it doesn’t offer the viewer any legitimate insight into the character’s motivations. All we learn is that Carl is a lonely bastard who has shunned the world after divorcing Stephanie (Sims). He has become socially phobic and rejects the world in order to dwell on his own pain. We don’t get much of an idea just how dreadful Carl’s outlook is as the film merely shows Carl alone in his apartment sleeping on the couch and watching films. This is supposed to be an indication that he is failing somehow just because he has chosen a path of isolation and disengagement. He is presented as lowly because he won’t interact with strangers at parties he knows instinctively drain his energy and offer him little in terms of incentives to further expand his social network. The “new” Carl is just a more manic version of the old model. He’s more prone to hysterics and exhibits himself much like a manic depressive who is experiencing a psychotic manic episode. By saying yes to everything he puts himself in harm’s way as someone could ask if they could cut off his head and based on his interpretation of the covenant he would have to allow such an act to occur.
The film takes a turn that leads to a realization which makes sense in the context of the film. It recognizes the traps in place for anyone who blindly follows any course without discerning the potential risks involved. It also allows that saying yes to everything blinds a person to their actual motivations and blurs their intent. Carl is a child who like Veruca Salt wants the world and wants it now. He spends the bulk of the film in a flurry of activity forced to march and unable to slow down long enough to make a rational decision regarding any choice he makes. His will to power is enslaved by a pet program that he is incapable of thwarting simply because he has convinced himself that he must obey it’s edicts no matter how he feels to the contrary. He subjects himself to experiences that he would, under normal circumstances, shy away from. Such a position lends itself to either growth or devastation.
Overall, this film is highly entertaining and contains performances that work well with the material. It’s light on the ballyhoo and gives Jim Carrey an opportunity to come off as a legitimate personality with emotions that feel real and necessary. At its core there is an old fashioned love story and the two leads work naturally together and make for a believable couple who play off each other considerably well. This is a couple that we want to see succeed. Much of this has to do with Zooey Deschanel’s work in this film. As always she is entirely delightful and thoroughly engaging from start to finish. Terrence Stamp plays the lunatic fringe effectively and his cult resonates throughout the picture. The film articulates the idea that blind subservience to any ideal can wreak havoc if one loses their ability to make up their own mind.
directed by Peyton Reed
written by Nicholas Stoller, Jarrad Paul, Andrew Mogel
starring Jim Carrey, Zooey Deschanel, Terence Stamp, Bradley Cooper, John Michael Higgins, Rhys Darby, Danny Masterson, Fionnula Flanagan, Molly Sims, Sasha Alexander
Billed as yet another excuse for Jim Carrey to jack up his lunatic maneuverings for the masses, this is actually a rather affecting film about loneliness and the abject fear of dying alone and miserable. It slices into the carcass of doubt and resignation and reveals ultimately a love story worth believing in.
Carl Allen (Carrey) is something of a grumpus. He’s been working a tiresome job at a bank for five years. His life is rather empty and he turns down nearly every effort to socialize. Indeed, he passes on every opportunity that comes his way and satisfies himself by staying home alone watching videos and ignoring the pleas of his friend Peter (Cooper) who wants to drag him out into the light. One day he is accosted by his friend Nick (Higgins) who introduces him to a seminar hosted by a man named Terrence Bundley (Stamp) that he claims changed his life. Carl begrudgingly makes his way to the seminar and is immediately shamed for being a “No Man”. Bundley abuses him and forces him to utter a word that has been foreign to him for quite some time. That word is, of course, “Yes” and thereafter Carl agrees to everything that presents itself.
Circumstances arise that lead Carl to his destiny. She is Allison (Deschanel), a rambunctious, adventurous girl who introduces Carl to a world he scarcely knew existed. He agrees to every proposition she makes and quickly morphs into a can-do man who is apt and seemingly interested in all that he apprehends. This is Carrey at his best. He possesses a thrilling energy that pushes the film forward and leads his character into novel territory that brings him out of himself at last. Carrey is fine here when he’s playing for actual emotions instead of the easy laughs he so often elicits by playing the rubber-faced fool. Fortunately in this film the histrionics are kept to a minimum and Carrey is allowed to act for once. He’s aging and the lunacy can only take him so far. Here he provides evidence that he has the capacity to present a more complex character who is filled with need and longing.
Allison is presented as a legitimate eccentric who sees the world through a unique prism. She is just the girl to bring Carl out of his shell and it’s convenient that he has simultaneously discovered a method of committing to chance occurrences he would normally ignore. He would never have met her if he were the old Carl who would not have put himself in a position to do so. Zooey Deschanel certainly provides a legitimate reason to stay fully engaged with this film. Her character adds a grounded sensibility that belies her off-kilter persona. Allison knows who she is and does pretty much what she wants to not because she feels she is compelled to by some wonky schemer who has tapped into a mass audience of gullible types who greedily want more of life’s pleasures to fall into their lap. Deschanel turns Allison into a lovely little minx who can be rather dangerous at times if one isn’t prepared to engage her fully. It’s the unpredictable nature of Allison that makes her so endearing and Deschanal provides her with a quiet intensity and a delectably intoxicating sensuality that she masks with nervousness and a touch of shyness.
The film’s attempted skewering of the self-help movement is tame but it still comes across in the character of Terrence Bundley. His over-the-top presentation mocks the intense and comical seriousness with which these types approach their particular panacea for solving all of life’s irritating inconsistencies. Bundley represents the legions of would-be gurus who imagine themselves as having discovered a method for creating a workable life plan that trumps any similar attempts in that field. Bundley is the only consistently amusing character in this film as Carrey pratfalls and other attempts at physical comedy just don’t possess the same magic they once did.
Jim Carrey is superbly suited for this type of role although it doesn’t offer the viewer any legitimate insight into the character’s motivations. All we learn is that Carl is a lonely bastard who has shunned the world after divorcing Stephanie (Sims). He has become socially phobic and rejects the world in order to dwell on his own pain. We don’t get much of an idea just how dreadful Carl’s outlook is as the film merely shows Carl alone in his apartment sleeping on the couch and watching films. This is supposed to be an indication that he is failing somehow just because he has chosen a path of isolation and disengagement. He is presented as lowly because he won’t interact with strangers at parties he knows instinctively drain his energy and offer him little in terms of incentives to further expand his social network. The “new” Carl is just a more manic version of the old model. He’s more prone to hysterics and exhibits himself much like a manic depressive who is experiencing a psychotic manic episode. By saying yes to everything he puts himself in harm’s way as someone could ask if they could cut off his head and based on his interpretation of the covenant he would have to allow such an act to occur.
The film takes a turn that leads to a realization which makes sense in the context of the film. It recognizes the traps in place for anyone who blindly follows any course without discerning the potential risks involved. It also allows that saying yes to everything blinds a person to their actual motivations and blurs their intent. Carl is a child who like Veruca Salt wants the world and wants it now. He spends the bulk of the film in a flurry of activity forced to march and unable to slow down long enough to make a rational decision regarding any choice he makes. His will to power is enslaved by a pet program that he is incapable of thwarting simply because he has convinced himself that he must obey it’s edicts no matter how he feels to the contrary. He subjects himself to experiences that he would, under normal circumstances, shy away from. Such a position lends itself to either growth or devastation.
Overall, this film is highly entertaining and contains performances that work well with the material. It’s light on the ballyhoo and gives Jim Carrey an opportunity to come off as a legitimate personality with emotions that feel real and necessary. At its core there is an old fashioned love story and the two leads work naturally together and make for a believable couple who play off each other considerably well. This is a couple that we want to see succeed. Much of this has to do with Zooey Deschanel’s work in this film. As always she is entirely delightful and thoroughly engaging from start to finish. Terrence Stamp plays the lunatic fringe effectively and his cult resonates throughout the picture. The film articulates the idea that blind subservience to any ideal can wreak havoc if one loses their ability to make up their own mind.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Film Review--The Tale of Despereaux
The Tale of Despereaux
directed by Sam Fell and Robert Stevenhagen
written by Will McRobb, Gary Ross, and Chris Viscardi
based on the book by Kate DiCamillo
starring Matthew Broderick, Dustin Hoffman, Emma Watson, Tracey Ullman, Kevin Kline, William H. Macy, Stanley Tucci, Ciarán Hinds, Robbie Coltrane, Christopher Lloyd, Sigourney Weaver, Richard Jenkins
This charming animated film creates enough magic to undercut its occasional melancholy tone. It’s a bit dark in spots for the young ones dealing as it does with sadness, longing and heartbreak.
An odd mouse named Despereaux (Broderick) is born in the Kingdom of Mouseland. He is so unlike the other mice who are innately terrified of everything and tend to cower or scamper when they are frightened. Despereaux loves to draw cats on his notebooks and considers carving knives to be beautiful. His radical approach to mouse life gets him into serious trouble and he is sent into the dungeon to fight it out with the rats.
This is a story about bravery, chivalry and clear purpose. Despereaux considers himself a gentleman and carries himself as any self-respecting creature might if born into a world where such an attribute was celebrated rather than scorned. No matter what his instructors and parents do to persuade him into groupthink he shuns their attempts and continues to view his world with wonder and amazement. There is nothing worth fearing according to this worldview. Everything that appears is merely made fearsome by how one approaches it. It’s a valuable lesson for the kiddies who also learn that there are many emotions experienced by all that are not pleasant in the slightest and can lead a person into an exceedingly dark and lonely place devoid of sunshine, love and value.
Despereaux’s principal error is to follow his instincts away from the codified life that he is expected to lead. His adventures take him as far from home as is considered possible and from the moment he sees her–the Lady Pea (Watson)–he realizes he has apprehended a vision unlike any other he is likely to experience. Some may call it love but it is much more than that. It is ceremonial and consumed with every sacred thing a poor mouse can imagine. She becomes for him a testament to everything that is grand and noble and he expresses his intent to finish a fairy tale he has clandestinely been reading instead of eating as is traditional amongst mice.
Princess Pea is fraught with longing. Ever since her father the King banned soup–considered so precious that an entire day is devoted to its honor–from the realm as well as all rats, it has not rained and the sun has hidden itself behind dark, ominous clouds. The Princess wants things to be the way they used to be and confesses her desires to her new mouse friend. The film explores the Princess’s agony through a rather grey prism. Her mother the Queen has recently died because a soup-mad rat named Roscuro (Hoffman) has fallen into her soup bowl causing her to have a heart attack. The lonely King plays mournfully on his lute and becomes utterly despondent, such is the extent of his grief.
The film is substantially downcast throughout. Sorrow and torment hang over every frame as Despereaux finds himself trapped in a place very much unlike any he has ever known. He is forced to deal with filthy, rotten rats in order to fulfil his destiny and serve the Princess in the proper manner as befitting her crown.
There are a few characters who colorfully enhance the story and provide it with a sense of purpose. Andre (Kline) is the master chef who annually prepares the great soup on the special day and takes tremendous pride in his work. When the King bans soup he becomes despondent at suddenly having his pride stripped from him as well as his livelihood. Miggery Sow (Ullman) is a tragic girl who has experienced many injustices in her young life. Her father gives her away to a man who abuses her in an undisclosed fashion. She slops pigs until that fateful day when she is sold to another man for the same price he gets for one of his pigs. Mig finds herself at the castle and eventually becomes the Princess’s personal slave/assistant/fetcher. She dreams of one day herself becoming a Princess but otherwise curses her lot.
The greatest of all secondary characters is the Lord of the Rats, Botticelli (Hinds) who demands great awe from his subjects and who preaches evil as a doctrine that ought to be followed to the letter. Botticelli is basically Count Orlok from F. W. Murnau’s film “Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror”. He has the same beady little eyes; long, pointy nose; and his posture is very much in line with that affected by Max Schreck, the actor who brought this early version of Dracula to life.
A toxic message that can be extracted from this film and something that narrator Sigourney Weaver addresses are that there are great perils attached to any effort to take away something that is perfectly natural. It’s a very simple concept with profound implications. There are many things that are natural to a person but perhaps should not be publically practiced in any realm. To some persons the most ghastly practices are “natural” but not in any way acceptable to the society in which they reside. Vile acts of the most unmentionable horror, as embodied by Botticelli, are nearly universally viewed as loathsome but to the practitioners of these acts they seem quite normal. To allow such behaviors to run amok would perhaps create a world utterly devoid or reason or understanding. Yet again, what is considered here is a natural that is healthy and life-affirming and not decrepit and rotten. The film certainly supports the former as it applies to proper society as a whole.
The performances in this film all serve the material gallantly. Matthew Broderick captures his character’s appreciation of the many mysteries unfolding all around him. One gets a real sense of Despereaux’s vitality and his thirst for life. Ciarán Hinds is perfectly demonic in all the right ways and his totemic performance creates a giddy embodiment of everything the wee ones are inculcated to fear and despise. Emma Watson brings a quiet desperation to her regal character. Princess Pea is a sullen, lonely girl who Watson portrays with a legitimate sense of piety and grace. Tracy Ullman gives her character a sense of decency born aloft after many sorry years of neglect and abuse. Ullman subtly reveals the vulnerability of Mig and provides her with a great deal of sympathy.
Overall, this film might be targeted at children but its themes will resonate with grown ups as well. There is a substantially maudlin quality to this film that comes through in many scenes where the characters are struggling to right themselves after various tragedies have befallen them. Certainly, it’s an enchanting picture about a cute mouse with enormous ears and huge eyes but it’s really a bit more than that. The sorrows are realistically conveyed and the lasting impression is one that is informed by concerns that include loneliness, ennui, and a definite sense of despair. Certainly, the film itself is a celebration of uniqueness as well as honor, decency, and perseverance. It’s also about the necessity of forgiveness in a world that is often devoid of such bold and often difficult measures.
directed by Sam Fell and Robert Stevenhagen
written by Will McRobb, Gary Ross, and Chris Viscardi
based on the book by Kate DiCamillo
starring Matthew Broderick, Dustin Hoffman, Emma Watson, Tracey Ullman, Kevin Kline, William H. Macy, Stanley Tucci, Ciarán Hinds, Robbie Coltrane, Christopher Lloyd, Sigourney Weaver, Richard Jenkins
This charming animated film creates enough magic to undercut its occasional melancholy tone. It’s a bit dark in spots for the young ones dealing as it does with sadness, longing and heartbreak.
An odd mouse named Despereaux (Broderick) is born in the Kingdom of Mouseland. He is so unlike the other mice who are innately terrified of everything and tend to cower or scamper when they are frightened. Despereaux loves to draw cats on his notebooks and considers carving knives to be beautiful. His radical approach to mouse life gets him into serious trouble and he is sent into the dungeon to fight it out with the rats.
This is a story about bravery, chivalry and clear purpose. Despereaux considers himself a gentleman and carries himself as any self-respecting creature might if born into a world where such an attribute was celebrated rather than scorned. No matter what his instructors and parents do to persuade him into groupthink he shuns their attempts and continues to view his world with wonder and amazement. There is nothing worth fearing according to this worldview. Everything that appears is merely made fearsome by how one approaches it. It’s a valuable lesson for the kiddies who also learn that there are many emotions experienced by all that are not pleasant in the slightest and can lead a person into an exceedingly dark and lonely place devoid of sunshine, love and value.
Despereaux’s principal error is to follow his instincts away from the codified life that he is expected to lead. His adventures take him as far from home as is considered possible and from the moment he sees her–the Lady Pea (Watson)–he realizes he has apprehended a vision unlike any other he is likely to experience. Some may call it love but it is much more than that. It is ceremonial and consumed with every sacred thing a poor mouse can imagine. She becomes for him a testament to everything that is grand and noble and he expresses his intent to finish a fairy tale he has clandestinely been reading instead of eating as is traditional amongst mice.
Princess Pea is fraught with longing. Ever since her father the King banned soup–considered so precious that an entire day is devoted to its honor–from the realm as well as all rats, it has not rained and the sun has hidden itself behind dark, ominous clouds. The Princess wants things to be the way they used to be and confesses her desires to her new mouse friend. The film explores the Princess’s agony through a rather grey prism. Her mother the Queen has recently died because a soup-mad rat named Roscuro (Hoffman) has fallen into her soup bowl causing her to have a heart attack. The lonely King plays mournfully on his lute and becomes utterly despondent, such is the extent of his grief.
The film is substantially downcast throughout. Sorrow and torment hang over every frame as Despereaux finds himself trapped in a place very much unlike any he has ever known. He is forced to deal with filthy, rotten rats in order to fulfil his destiny and serve the Princess in the proper manner as befitting her crown.
There are a few characters who colorfully enhance the story and provide it with a sense of purpose. Andre (Kline) is the master chef who annually prepares the great soup on the special day and takes tremendous pride in his work. When the King bans soup he becomes despondent at suddenly having his pride stripped from him as well as his livelihood. Miggery Sow (Ullman) is a tragic girl who has experienced many injustices in her young life. Her father gives her away to a man who abuses her in an undisclosed fashion. She slops pigs until that fateful day when she is sold to another man for the same price he gets for one of his pigs. Mig finds herself at the castle and eventually becomes the Princess’s personal slave/assistant/fetcher. She dreams of one day herself becoming a Princess but otherwise curses her lot.
The greatest of all secondary characters is the Lord of the Rats, Botticelli (Hinds) who demands great awe from his subjects and who preaches evil as a doctrine that ought to be followed to the letter. Botticelli is basically Count Orlok from F. W. Murnau’s film “Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror”. He has the same beady little eyes; long, pointy nose; and his posture is very much in line with that affected by Max Schreck, the actor who brought this early version of Dracula to life.
A toxic message that can be extracted from this film and something that narrator Sigourney Weaver addresses are that there are great perils attached to any effort to take away something that is perfectly natural. It’s a very simple concept with profound implications. There are many things that are natural to a person but perhaps should not be publically practiced in any realm. To some persons the most ghastly practices are “natural” but not in any way acceptable to the society in which they reside. Vile acts of the most unmentionable horror, as embodied by Botticelli, are nearly universally viewed as loathsome but to the practitioners of these acts they seem quite normal. To allow such behaviors to run amok would perhaps create a world utterly devoid or reason or understanding. Yet again, what is considered here is a natural that is healthy and life-affirming and not decrepit and rotten. The film certainly supports the former as it applies to proper society as a whole.
The performances in this film all serve the material gallantly. Matthew Broderick captures his character’s appreciation of the many mysteries unfolding all around him. One gets a real sense of Despereaux’s vitality and his thirst for life. Ciarán Hinds is perfectly demonic in all the right ways and his totemic performance creates a giddy embodiment of everything the wee ones are inculcated to fear and despise. Emma Watson brings a quiet desperation to her regal character. Princess Pea is a sullen, lonely girl who Watson portrays with a legitimate sense of piety and grace. Tracy Ullman gives her character a sense of decency born aloft after many sorry years of neglect and abuse. Ullman subtly reveals the vulnerability of Mig and provides her with a great deal of sympathy.
Overall, this film might be targeted at children but its themes will resonate with grown ups as well. There is a substantially maudlin quality to this film that comes through in many scenes where the characters are struggling to right themselves after various tragedies have befallen them. Certainly, it’s an enchanting picture about a cute mouse with enormous ears and huge eyes but it’s really a bit more than that. The sorrows are realistically conveyed and the lasting impression is one that is informed by concerns that include loneliness, ennui, and a definite sense of despair. Certainly, the film itself is a celebration of uniqueness as well as honor, decency, and perseverance. It’s also about the necessity of forgiveness in a world that is often devoid of such bold and often difficult measures.
Film Review--High Lonesome
High Lonesome
directed by Jeff Bleckner
written by H. Haden Yelin
starring Lou Gossett Jr., Joseph Mazzello, William Fichtner, Evan Rachel Wood, Don Swayze, James Greene, David Hart, William Lucking
This character study focuses its attention on the lives of an old black farmer, a boy who is out on his own and a racist sheriff in an occasionally engaging but mostly sentimental work.
Louis Gossett Jr has a fine turn as Walter Osgood, a man who has lived on his Grandfather’s farm all his life. He’s an upstanding citizen who pays his seed fees early every year and who is respected after a fashion by some members of the community. But mostly he’s tolerated and wished to leave just like the rest of the blacks left town seven years ago after being forced out by the Klan and others. Walter refuses to leave tries simply to harvest a decent crop for the year. However, his perpetually drunk sharecropper Reuben Cantwell (Swayze) sets his crops and barn alight and ruins the entire harvest which makes the bank nervous forcing their hand to demand payment within thirty days. Then on top of all that, Cantwell’s son Charlie (Mazzello) shows up in the woods acting scared and tripped out. He says his Pa ran off with his little sister Tessa (Wood) and he has no idea where they are. During a rain storm Walter brings little Charlie into his house and warms him up. This is naturally the beginning of a tight bond between the two that is threatened at all sides.
So, the film deals primarily with Charlie playing cute and pining for his sister Tessa. Joseph Mazzello plays Charlie as a bit of an annoyance. Charlie is not developed as a character; rather he is presented merely as a stereotypical young boy who finds himself out of sorts and needs an adult’s help, particularly a father figure. His own father is a wreck of a man who threatens to bolt his kiddies inside the shack and burn them up in it. Indeed, after he sets Walter’s place on fire he does the same to his own home suggesting that he has made good on his word. But, Charlie then emerges on Walter’s property to let the audience know that Tessa survived and is being held somewhere ghastly by her no-good family. Later we are told that Reuben sold Tessa for who knows what sordid activity for $300. The thoughts of what she might be doing or what might be being done to her are disturbing and have no place in such a family-friendly film such as this.
Walter is in dire straights and will probably lose his farm if something magical isn’t done. But of course that isn’t going to happen as, like most films, this is a crowd pleaser and designed strictly to satisfy the mythical audience who apparently harp for happy, insipid endings where everything works out for everyone except whatever villains are still villains by the end. This one certainly delivers on that front.
In retrospect it is probably quite easy to lay out how this film is going to proceed from a limited number of potential outcomes. It follows a formula and the end result is nauseating and dull. It lacks an emotional punch although there is a single passing moment right at the end that is effective in its ability to manipulate the audience into a specific reaction that actually pays off.
This film generates little tension although one does become concerned primarily with the plight of little Tessa because there are just so many sinister possibilities although it is obvious that the film is going to choose the least unnerving option. Charlie is a dopey boy with dopey ears and just the kind of “aw gee shucks” cuteness that grates on the nerves after perhaps five minutes of exposure. It doesn’t matter in the end what happens to him although we know he will not come to harm and will be comfortable and safe. It’s all so dismal. Who are these films truly designed for? Are they meant as morality tales for the children? I would hope that kids are not so easily duped by such heavy handed tactics as are on display in this film.
Yes, racism is bad and the Klan had a habit of performing cruel deeds on the flesh of those they deemed inappropriate for their community. Walter is a thorn in their side because he refuses to play nice like the rest of them and get out of town. He’s “uppity” and subsequently special force is required to “persuade” him to leave. I suppose he’s suppose to represent the eternal Will of black folk as well as their indomitable spirit in the face of great and lasting turmoil. In that case, Walter could be exchanged for any type of black worker who refuses to leave a town who clearly demonstrates their collective desire that they move on as quickly as possible. He is stubborn because he is tied to the land and doesn’t know any other life. Early on it is demonstrated that local farmers understandably resent Walter because he is able to keep his farm and they are losing theirs. It isn’t clear just how much racism plays into this attitude but it is suggested that it enforces the preexisting racist perspective directed toward Walter.
The Sheriff (Fichtner) instructs Walter of his proper place and leads the KKK on a raid of Walter’s farm where he is bound to a tree and whipped mercilessly with a switch. Charlie is snatched away by the Sheriff although he escapes shortly thereafter and returns to Walter and helps him tend to the stripes on his back. The Sheriff slowly undergoes a transformation although it isn’t made explicit whether he retains the same core beliefs about blacks or if he responds strictly out of a respect for Walter that has recently blossomed. Regardless, his change seems forced and unnatural.
This film is probably best remembered as one of Evan Rachel Wood’s earliest appearances. Otherwise it’s fairly enjoyable and features a fine turn by Louis Gossett Jr. There are moments of clarity in the film and certain characters resonate for a time but overall the story is too simple and lacks nuance and style. Certainly it is a TV movie so it can be forgiven of lacking a particular aesthetic but the lack of urgency throughout the film cannot be forgiven. There are also too many easy routes taken in this film that lead precisely where its creators want them to lead. Ultimately, it’s a film that aims to please everyone while satisfying noone save those who like their history lessons handed to them in easily digestible form.
directed by Jeff Bleckner
written by H. Haden Yelin
starring Lou Gossett Jr., Joseph Mazzello, William Fichtner, Evan Rachel Wood, Don Swayze, James Greene, David Hart, William Lucking
This character study focuses its attention on the lives of an old black farmer, a boy who is out on his own and a racist sheriff in an occasionally engaging but mostly sentimental work.
Louis Gossett Jr has a fine turn as Walter Osgood, a man who has lived on his Grandfather’s farm all his life. He’s an upstanding citizen who pays his seed fees early every year and who is respected after a fashion by some members of the community. But mostly he’s tolerated and wished to leave just like the rest of the blacks left town seven years ago after being forced out by the Klan and others. Walter refuses to leave tries simply to harvest a decent crop for the year. However, his perpetually drunk sharecropper Reuben Cantwell (Swayze) sets his crops and barn alight and ruins the entire harvest which makes the bank nervous forcing their hand to demand payment within thirty days. Then on top of all that, Cantwell’s son Charlie (Mazzello) shows up in the woods acting scared and tripped out. He says his Pa ran off with his little sister Tessa (Wood) and he has no idea where they are. During a rain storm Walter brings little Charlie into his house and warms him up. This is naturally the beginning of a tight bond between the two that is threatened at all sides.
So, the film deals primarily with Charlie playing cute and pining for his sister Tessa. Joseph Mazzello plays Charlie as a bit of an annoyance. Charlie is not developed as a character; rather he is presented merely as a stereotypical young boy who finds himself out of sorts and needs an adult’s help, particularly a father figure. His own father is a wreck of a man who threatens to bolt his kiddies inside the shack and burn them up in it. Indeed, after he sets Walter’s place on fire he does the same to his own home suggesting that he has made good on his word. But, Charlie then emerges on Walter’s property to let the audience know that Tessa survived and is being held somewhere ghastly by her no-good family. Later we are told that Reuben sold Tessa for who knows what sordid activity for $300. The thoughts of what she might be doing or what might be being done to her are disturbing and have no place in such a family-friendly film such as this.
Walter is in dire straights and will probably lose his farm if something magical isn’t done. But of course that isn’t going to happen as, like most films, this is a crowd pleaser and designed strictly to satisfy the mythical audience who apparently harp for happy, insipid endings where everything works out for everyone except whatever villains are still villains by the end. This one certainly delivers on that front.
In retrospect it is probably quite easy to lay out how this film is going to proceed from a limited number of potential outcomes. It follows a formula and the end result is nauseating and dull. It lacks an emotional punch although there is a single passing moment right at the end that is effective in its ability to manipulate the audience into a specific reaction that actually pays off.
This film generates little tension although one does become concerned primarily with the plight of little Tessa because there are just so many sinister possibilities although it is obvious that the film is going to choose the least unnerving option. Charlie is a dopey boy with dopey ears and just the kind of “aw gee shucks” cuteness that grates on the nerves after perhaps five minutes of exposure. It doesn’t matter in the end what happens to him although we know he will not come to harm and will be comfortable and safe. It’s all so dismal. Who are these films truly designed for? Are they meant as morality tales for the children? I would hope that kids are not so easily duped by such heavy handed tactics as are on display in this film.
Yes, racism is bad and the Klan had a habit of performing cruel deeds on the flesh of those they deemed inappropriate for their community. Walter is a thorn in their side because he refuses to play nice like the rest of them and get out of town. He’s “uppity” and subsequently special force is required to “persuade” him to leave. I suppose he’s suppose to represent the eternal Will of black folk as well as their indomitable spirit in the face of great and lasting turmoil. In that case, Walter could be exchanged for any type of black worker who refuses to leave a town who clearly demonstrates their collective desire that they move on as quickly as possible. He is stubborn because he is tied to the land and doesn’t know any other life. Early on it is demonstrated that local farmers understandably resent Walter because he is able to keep his farm and they are losing theirs. It isn’t clear just how much racism plays into this attitude but it is suggested that it enforces the preexisting racist perspective directed toward Walter.
The Sheriff (Fichtner) instructs Walter of his proper place and leads the KKK on a raid of Walter’s farm where he is bound to a tree and whipped mercilessly with a switch. Charlie is snatched away by the Sheriff although he escapes shortly thereafter and returns to Walter and helps him tend to the stripes on his back. The Sheriff slowly undergoes a transformation although it isn’t made explicit whether he retains the same core beliefs about blacks or if he responds strictly out of a respect for Walter that has recently blossomed. Regardless, his change seems forced and unnatural.
This film is probably best remembered as one of Evan Rachel Wood’s earliest appearances. Otherwise it’s fairly enjoyable and features a fine turn by Louis Gossett Jr. There are moments of clarity in the film and certain characters resonate for a time but overall the story is too simple and lacks nuance and style. Certainly it is a TV movie so it can be forgiven of lacking a particular aesthetic but the lack of urgency throughout the film cannot be forgiven. There are also too many easy routes taken in this film that lead precisely where its creators want them to lead. Ultimately, it’s a film that aims to please everyone while satisfying noone save those who like their history lessons handed to them in easily digestible form.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Film Review--Slumdog Millionaire
Slumdog Millionaire
directed by Danny Boyle
written by Simon Beaufoy
based on the novel by Vikas Swarup
starring Dev Patel, Anil Kapoor, Madhur Mittal, Freido Pinto, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, Ayush Mahesh, Khedekar, Mahesh Manjrekar, Ankur Vikal, Irrfan Khan, Rubiana Ali
Slumdog Millionaire is a deceptively simple story told intricately and with great subtlety about the vagaries of love and the complications that often arise when one makes a concerted effort to gain it.
Jamal Melik (Patel) as the film opens is being detained by police and tortured because they as well as the officials at the Indian import of the American game show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” think that he cheated. He has risen from the slums of Mumbai to being one question away from winning 20 million rupees and the host, Prem Kumar (Kapoor) believes it is impossible for such a lowly person to know all the answers. One by one Jamal goes through the questions and the film reveals the moments in his life where he learned them. We are provided with instances that go back to just before Jamal and his brother Salim’s (Mittal) mother is murdered by Anti-Muslim zealots. The boys become orphans and get by doing anything and everything to survive. Mostly they live amidst the trash heaps and ingeniously devise methods of stealing whatever isn’t nailed down from tourists who are necessarily charmed by dirty Indian children who play up their impoverished state for their rubes.
The film is a thrilling portrait of a most degenerate area in a vast and grand country that is slowly pulling itself into the 21st century. This is not the travel book version of India. It’s a filthy and crumbling place consumed with wretchedly attired beggar children who are maltreated and groomed in various illicit ways in order to make as much money as possible singing for passerby.
One day during a rainstorm the boys have found cover. A young girl their age is being pelted by the rain and Jamal invites her up. She is also an orphan girl and the three become inseparable–the three muskateers. Her name is Latika and Jamal quickly forms an attachment to her. When a man named Maman (Vikal) takes the children to an orphanage they imagine they have landed in a place where they will be cared for and fed well. Unfortunately they are unaware of Maman’s vicious techniques for making the children into the most effective beggars on the streets. After a terrifying incident the boys escape but Latika is left behind. Jamal pledges to go back for her and several years later he makes good on his word.
The agonies of poverty and deprivation are exploited to full effect in this film. There are scenes where swarms of children fan out in order to bleed money from as many sympathetic persons as possible. It’s grimy, horrific and a necessary portrait of the underbelly of India and draws attention to its problems with keeping abreast of the terrible conditions which many of its citizens reside. The film suggests that this problem will have to be effectively addressed if India is going to continue to ascend onto the World’s stage.
Throughout this film there is a tremendous energy that coupled with bright, intoxicating colors create a portrait of a country on the move. The slums are vibrant places consumed with life and viability. They are not demonized nor are their inhabitants treated as victims. Rather, the situation is merely presented without any commentary and the viewer can make up their own mind about how they perceive the conditions under which life is brought forth. This is an exceedingly open film replete with joy, passion, and a forthright urgency that is dynamic and explosive. Yet it doesn’t shy away from disclosing a much darker world that has arisen as a necessary side effect of the progress that is pushing forward relentlessly.
The narrative demonstrates how Jamal climbs up the ranks on his way to the potential big payoff. Each question brings him closer to what is presented as his destiny and this is directly tied into Latika (Pinto) and everything she means to him. The film is a series of gains and losses as Latika repeatedly slips from Jamal’s grasp as he struggles on in the hope of bringing her near to him once again.
Salim takes a decidedly different path from his brother that is set from the moment he first picks up a gun. He develops into a key member of crime boss Javed’s (Manjrekar) syndicate. His presence is felt throughout the film as a grim counterpart to all the riotous thrills that Jamal has realized with his successful run on the game show. The very end of the film shows two very different outcomes for each brother that work exceedingly well within the context of the story. Salim becomes a hard man embroiled in a life beset with terror, fear, and ruthlessness. Salim is lost at some point in the story. He falls into a lifestyle that is broken and degrading. There is not one instance where Salim and his ilk are glamorized. It’s a brutal life and Salim has chosen it for himself and seems unable or unwilling to walk away.
The tension surrounding the execution of the final answer in the contest is decisive and pronounced. The film builds it expertly throughout and the result is entirely in doubt to the very end. It could have gone either way and essentially it doesn’t much matter how it turns out. Immediately after Jamal is crouched low and leaning up against a building. He doesn’t appear to be particularly charmed by his enormous victory. He is looking for Latika because ultimately it was for her that he even attempted to go after the money. He says that he participated only because he hoped she was watching. Much of his life he has burned for this one person and nothing can divest him of the drive to find her at last. Their tormented relationship is as profoundly moving as anything that has been seen this year. The agony is pervasive and the earnestness with which Jamal seeks Latika is immersed in a poetry that all great love stories must contain if they are going to move the audience into that place that all such stories reside. This film masterfully sets up this dynamic and makes it matter to an audience that is looking to be so moved.
The film reveals a tremendous hunger throughout India as 90 million people tune in to see if Jamal has what it takes to win the game. That’s the equivalent of the American Super Bowl which is easily the highest rated show in any year.
Latika is a character who is lifted out of the slums only to find herself subjected to type of bondage that makes her into a deeply sympathetic character that the audience roots for. Freido Pinto, in her first film, captures the innocence and world weary aspect of her character with a sturdy ease that is vital to Jamal’s arc. She must be presented as someone worth pining for and Pinto does this through her gentle portrayal of Latika and her genuine approach to the character’s inherent longing. Latika grows up over the course of the film into a woman who has experienced great pain and suffering. There is a sense that both Jamal and Latika are two people who have been driven to one another to realize a grace that they have heretofore been deprived of. They truly need each other and the film makes this fact a driving force of its narrative.
The performances in this film are convincing and thoroughly natural. Dev Patel has a haunted countenance throughout the film which convey’s his character’s bewilderment and mounting sorrow over the possibility of losing his one true love. Patel captures Jamal’s intensity and focus. He is so good and generating a lasting hope that is carried through the duration of the film. His is a story that has a necessity about it that Patel brings enthusiastically to his role. Madhur Mittel’s character carries a tremendous weight on his shoulders that is made manifest in the final moments of the film. Salim is presented throughout the film as the more adventurous of the two who exploits his position as the eldest in his relationship with Jamal. Salim disappears into the fabric of the film only to arrive at a strange destination that is in direct opposition to how Jamal has come to live his life. As mentioned Freida Pinto carries herself with a decisive purpose as Latika maneuvers her way through her conflicting and occasionally stifled life. Anil Kapoor has all the charisma and affability one could possibly expect of a successful game show host. His character carries much of the film with his contagious charm coupled with abrasiveness that gives him bite and sets him up as an example of what a corrosive and slightly inhospitable host can bring to such a circus. Much of the film’s power comes from the two young actors playing Jamal and Salim as children. They are convincing in their roles as impoverished dreamers who pounce on any opportunity to improve the quality of their lives.
Overall, this is a masterful telling of a story that has a lasting, eternal quality. The characters are realistically drawn and the film never falls into the quagmire of sentimentality. It is never simplistic although the main thrust to the story is perhaps one of the simplest driving factors in any film that wants to present a credible romantic entanglement. These are would be lovers torn apart over the course of a dozen or so years struggling to finally reach a place where their love can be actualized. This is a film about brotherhood and respect. Jamal finds himself one question away from national celebrity. Already there is a sense of how his accomplishments have garnered him tremendous media coverage. But Jamal is not unduly affected by this attention and proceeds to approach the game with the same calm temerity with which he approaches the rest of his life.
directed by Danny Boyle
written by Simon Beaufoy
based on the novel by Vikas Swarup
starring Dev Patel, Anil Kapoor, Madhur Mittal, Freido Pinto, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, Ayush Mahesh, Khedekar, Mahesh Manjrekar, Ankur Vikal, Irrfan Khan, Rubiana Ali
Slumdog Millionaire is a deceptively simple story told intricately and with great subtlety about the vagaries of love and the complications that often arise when one makes a concerted effort to gain it.
Jamal Melik (Patel) as the film opens is being detained by police and tortured because they as well as the officials at the Indian import of the American game show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” think that he cheated. He has risen from the slums of Mumbai to being one question away from winning 20 million rupees and the host, Prem Kumar (Kapoor) believes it is impossible for such a lowly person to know all the answers. One by one Jamal goes through the questions and the film reveals the moments in his life where he learned them. We are provided with instances that go back to just before Jamal and his brother Salim’s (Mittal) mother is murdered by Anti-Muslim zealots. The boys become orphans and get by doing anything and everything to survive. Mostly they live amidst the trash heaps and ingeniously devise methods of stealing whatever isn’t nailed down from tourists who are necessarily charmed by dirty Indian children who play up their impoverished state for their rubes.
The film is a thrilling portrait of a most degenerate area in a vast and grand country that is slowly pulling itself into the 21st century. This is not the travel book version of India. It’s a filthy and crumbling place consumed with wretchedly attired beggar children who are maltreated and groomed in various illicit ways in order to make as much money as possible singing for passerby.
One day during a rainstorm the boys have found cover. A young girl their age is being pelted by the rain and Jamal invites her up. She is also an orphan girl and the three become inseparable–the three muskateers. Her name is Latika and Jamal quickly forms an attachment to her. When a man named Maman (Vikal) takes the children to an orphanage they imagine they have landed in a place where they will be cared for and fed well. Unfortunately they are unaware of Maman’s vicious techniques for making the children into the most effective beggars on the streets. After a terrifying incident the boys escape but Latika is left behind. Jamal pledges to go back for her and several years later he makes good on his word.
The agonies of poverty and deprivation are exploited to full effect in this film. There are scenes where swarms of children fan out in order to bleed money from as many sympathetic persons as possible. It’s grimy, horrific and a necessary portrait of the underbelly of India and draws attention to its problems with keeping abreast of the terrible conditions which many of its citizens reside. The film suggests that this problem will have to be effectively addressed if India is going to continue to ascend onto the World’s stage.
Throughout this film there is a tremendous energy that coupled with bright, intoxicating colors create a portrait of a country on the move. The slums are vibrant places consumed with life and viability. They are not demonized nor are their inhabitants treated as victims. Rather, the situation is merely presented without any commentary and the viewer can make up their own mind about how they perceive the conditions under which life is brought forth. This is an exceedingly open film replete with joy, passion, and a forthright urgency that is dynamic and explosive. Yet it doesn’t shy away from disclosing a much darker world that has arisen as a necessary side effect of the progress that is pushing forward relentlessly.
The narrative demonstrates how Jamal climbs up the ranks on his way to the potential big payoff. Each question brings him closer to what is presented as his destiny and this is directly tied into Latika (Pinto) and everything she means to him. The film is a series of gains and losses as Latika repeatedly slips from Jamal’s grasp as he struggles on in the hope of bringing her near to him once again.
Salim takes a decidedly different path from his brother that is set from the moment he first picks up a gun. He develops into a key member of crime boss Javed’s (Manjrekar) syndicate. His presence is felt throughout the film as a grim counterpart to all the riotous thrills that Jamal has realized with his successful run on the game show. The very end of the film shows two very different outcomes for each brother that work exceedingly well within the context of the story. Salim becomes a hard man embroiled in a life beset with terror, fear, and ruthlessness. Salim is lost at some point in the story. He falls into a lifestyle that is broken and degrading. There is not one instance where Salim and his ilk are glamorized. It’s a brutal life and Salim has chosen it for himself and seems unable or unwilling to walk away.
The tension surrounding the execution of the final answer in the contest is decisive and pronounced. The film builds it expertly throughout and the result is entirely in doubt to the very end. It could have gone either way and essentially it doesn’t much matter how it turns out. Immediately after Jamal is crouched low and leaning up against a building. He doesn’t appear to be particularly charmed by his enormous victory. He is looking for Latika because ultimately it was for her that he even attempted to go after the money. He says that he participated only because he hoped she was watching. Much of his life he has burned for this one person and nothing can divest him of the drive to find her at last. Their tormented relationship is as profoundly moving as anything that has been seen this year. The agony is pervasive and the earnestness with which Jamal seeks Latika is immersed in a poetry that all great love stories must contain if they are going to move the audience into that place that all such stories reside. This film masterfully sets up this dynamic and makes it matter to an audience that is looking to be so moved.
The film reveals a tremendous hunger throughout India as 90 million people tune in to see if Jamal has what it takes to win the game. That’s the equivalent of the American Super Bowl which is easily the highest rated show in any year.
Latika is a character who is lifted out of the slums only to find herself subjected to type of bondage that makes her into a deeply sympathetic character that the audience roots for. Freido Pinto, in her first film, captures the innocence and world weary aspect of her character with a sturdy ease that is vital to Jamal’s arc. She must be presented as someone worth pining for and Pinto does this through her gentle portrayal of Latika and her genuine approach to the character’s inherent longing. Latika grows up over the course of the film into a woman who has experienced great pain and suffering. There is a sense that both Jamal and Latika are two people who have been driven to one another to realize a grace that they have heretofore been deprived of. They truly need each other and the film makes this fact a driving force of its narrative.
The performances in this film are convincing and thoroughly natural. Dev Patel has a haunted countenance throughout the film which convey’s his character’s bewilderment and mounting sorrow over the possibility of losing his one true love. Patel captures Jamal’s intensity and focus. He is so good and generating a lasting hope that is carried through the duration of the film. His is a story that has a necessity about it that Patel brings enthusiastically to his role. Madhur Mittel’s character carries a tremendous weight on his shoulders that is made manifest in the final moments of the film. Salim is presented throughout the film as the more adventurous of the two who exploits his position as the eldest in his relationship with Jamal. Salim disappears into the fabric of the film only to arrive at a strange destination that is in direct opposition to how Jamal has come to live his life. As mentioned Freida Pinto carries herself with a decisive purpose as Latika maneuvers her way through her conflicting and occasionally stifled life. Anil Kapoor has all the charisma and affability one could possibly expect of a successful game show host. His character carries much of the film with his contagious charm coupled with abrasiveness that gives him bite and sets him up as an example of what a corrosive and slightly inhospitable host can bring to such a circus. Much of the film’s power comes from the two young actors playing Jamal and Salim as children. They are convincing in their roles as impoverished dreamers who pounce on any opportunity to improve the quality of their lives.
Overall, this is a masterful telling of a story that has a lasting, eternal quality. The characters are realistically drawn and the film never falls into the quagmire of sentimentality. It is never simplistic although the main thrust to the story is perhaps one of the simplest driving factors in any film that wants to present a credible romantic entanglement. These are would be lovers torn apart over the course of a dozen or so years struggling to finally reach a place where their love can be actualized. This is a film about brotherhood and respect. Jamal finds himself one question away from national celebrity. Already there is a sense of how his accomplishments have garnered him tremendous media coverage. But Jamal is not unduly affected by this attention and proceeds to approach the game with the same calm temerity with which he approaches the rest of his life.
Film Review--Bedtime Stories
Bedtime Stories
directed by Alan Shankman
written by Matt Lopez and Tim Herlihy
starring Adam Sandler, Keri Russell, Guy Pearce, Richard Griffiths, Courtney Cox, Russell Brand, Teresa Palmer, Lucy Lawless, Jonathan Morgan Heit, Laura Ann Kesling, Jonathan Pryce
OK, on paper this film looks like a no brainer. It features an outstanding cast and was co-written by former SNL scribe and the author of pretty much every funny Sandler moment, Tim Herlihy. How could such a thing possibly go wrong? Well, fairly easily apparently. This film takes a hard right into oncoming traffic straight away and the rest of the film is spent picking pieces of glass and metal out of the faces of the unwitting who were just hoping to make it home in time to cook dinner.
The story is anemic and poorly constructed. It is told as a fairy tale with the requisite happy ending where everyone but those determined to be evil triumph and everyone in the audience is supposed to cheer. I just don’t see the point. This film is heading in one direction and nothing like taste or subtlety or nuance is going to stop it. Still, it has so much potential that it gleefully wastes on annoyances that do nothing to pad the already flailing script that is hacking blood and pissing razor blades.
The story begins with Skeeter’s (Sandler) father Marty (Pryce) selling his meager motel to a developer named Barry Nottingham (Griffiths) on the condition that he allow Skeeter to run it when he’s able to do so. Nottingham proceeds to turn Marty’s motel into a gigantic, glamourous hotel and indeed amasses two dozen others. Fast forward to the present and Skeeter is the hotel’s fix-it man who dreams of one day running the hotel. His arch enemy is Kendall (Pearce), a suck up who indeed is awarded the coveted position. Meanwhile Skeeter starts telling stories to his niece Bobbi (Kesling) and nephew Patrick (Heit) and they mysteriously start coming true. Skeeter manipulates the stories in his own life for fun and profit. Naturally, he’s a buffoon so things don’t exactly go according to plan until the end when everything magically works out and didn’t you just love it?
This film wastes so many great talents that it makes one hope that all the primary actors demanded massive payments up front. That is the only way they could have possibly agreed to become involved in this project. I just can’t figure out what Keri Russell, Guy Pearce, and Richard Griffiths are doing in this thing. Money is the only plausible explanation. Basically they have all sold their souls to Mammon and should really be ashamed of themselves. Who corrupted these enormously talented actors? How did they end up here upon reading the script?
Everything in this film is a mess. The special effects are wonky, Adam Sandler does not look good either as a cowboy, a knight, a peasant, or a Greek charioteer. He’s best when he’s just being an ass which is what he does better than anybody. Some of the best moments are simply Sandler reacting to some dumb thing that has happened. There just isn’t enough of that in this film. It’s a deadly serious family film designed for ages 3 to 6. Everyone else should stay the hell away from the theater and knit some ghastly sweater for your Aunt Pissy. On second thought, do not torture your young children with this pablum. Take them to the museum or to a botanical garden. Read them books, take them to the zoo. Teach them how to think critically by playing games above their grade or learning level. Anything but this film.
So, it turns out that only the kiddies can make their stories happen in real life. It’s as dull as it sounds and the children aren’t necessarily that cute. They are typical film moppets and should really be neither seen nor heard. But if that were to happen then the film would lose all it’s charm and wit. You know it’s trouble when all the clever lines are coming out of the mouth of a five year old girl. I take back the cute comment. These tots know how to play cute when the film needs that extra jolt of sentimentality. They manipulate the audience expertly into buying into the filth that makes up most of the film. We are supposed to believe in these munchkins and care about what happens in their drab, miserable little lives. Well, I didn’t.
This whole film hinges on old man Nottingham’s decision to tear down a school where naturally our two little babes attend in order to build an even bigger hotel. Kendall is his right hand man and proves himself to be quite dastardly which makes him into a blase, typical villain. Does he succeed? Is the hotel erected? Yawn and double yawn. It doesn’t much matter but we all know the answer to these questions. It’s a fairy tale after all albeit a wholly ineffectual one. But who can cheer against the kiddies? These sweet darlings are the pure face of innocence and deserve not to be bussed to a wretched hell hole clean on the other side of town where their bucolic lives will be torn asunder and they will most likely be subjected to any number of cruelties. Such a wicked man, that Nottingham. Greed and callousness have turned him into a mean ogre who doesn’t give a jot about the community he wants to raze solely for grandiosity and an opportunity to erect an even more ghastly monument to his fledgling primacy.
There is a bright spot in this film and it comes in the form of Keri Russell. She is such a delightful presence in this film that it’s easy to extract her from the mess and imagine an entirely different film centering around her character. Jill is as doe-eyed as the kids and her genuinely sweet natured persona shines through in everything Russell does in this film. Russell is such a delightful presence that it is exceedingly upsetting to accept that she somehow managed to end up participating in this sour, soul-draining cinematic torture session. Despite everything she shines as a beacon of light amidst much darkness and shallow posturing. She offers the only modicum of hope in an otherwise dank and dismal film devoid of meaning and a shred of integrity.
The performances in this excruciating and vile movie are uniformly wasted and held hostage by what passes for a plot. Yet, none of them save one even appear to giving freely of themselves or making a collective effort to rescue this film from its concerted hell. Guy Pearce flails about looking lost and confused for much of the film. It seems obvious that he would rather be anywhere but where he has contractually agreed to place himself for the duration of this film. His character is underwritten and over exaggerated and he comes off as a lousy antagonist who nevertheless is the catalyst for much of the second half of the film. Courtney Cox also seems absent from this film. Her performance proves how impossible it is under the best of circumstances for actors to rise above a tawdry script. It isn’t necessarily terrible but rather it lacks drive and nuance. This is a film that firmly comes down on the side of broad humor that essentially fails at every turn. As mentioned Keri Russell gives the only natural and believable performance in the film. Somehow she manages the nearly impossible and conveys a full fledged character with vitality and urgency. Adam Sandler plays the same role he’s been playing for well over a decade. He’s a man boy who is rather daft but magically pulls everything together at the end to save the day. He is good as always as garnering some laughter out of asides and goofy faces which simply cannot carry a film. Russell Brand merely prances about like a tit and seems to be terrified of something he cannot name. Poor Richard Griffiths, clearly slumming in America after a distinguished career in British films, grunts a lot and makes a series of sour faces that demonstrate precisely what he thinks about this film. Teresa Palmer knows how to toss her head the right way and how to walk and she is fabulous eye candy and makes the film watchable in a strictly superficial sense when she’s on screen. Lucy Lawless looks constipated for much of the film although her ball breaker character is good for a bit of a laugh now and again.
Overall, this film is another example of Hollywood scraping the bottom of the barrel and coming up with a gooey, thick morass that they vainly attempt to form into a passable film. Everyone in this thing comes across as trapped in a degrading exercise to see who can lower themselves the most in terms of creative viability. Yet there is room to go further down and no doubt all of these actors will find a way to put this embarrassment behind them and move on to work more worthy of their talents. They will manage to live this down and it will soon be nothing but a blight in careers filled with great roles and worthwhile films. Still, we are presently suffering through this film and its hackneyed ending that serves nobody in the end.
directed by Alan Shankman
written by Matt Lopez and Tim Herlihy
starring Adam Sandler, Keri Russell, Guy Pearce, Richard Griffiths, Courtney Cox, Russell Brand, Teresa Palmer, Lucy Lawless, Jonathan Morgan Heit, Laura Ann Kesling, Jonathan Pryce
OK, on paper this film looks like a no brainer. It features an outstanding cast and was co-written by former SNL scribe and the author of pretty much every funny Sandler moment, Tim Herlihy. How could such a thing possibly go wrong? Well, fairly easily apparently. This film takes a hard right into oncoming traffic straight away and the rest of the film is spent picking pieces of glass and metal out of the faces of the unwitting who were just hoping to make it home in time to cook dinner.
The story is anemic and poorly constructed. It is told as a fairy tale with the requisite happy ending where everyone but those determined to be evil triumph and everyone in the audience is supposed to cheer. I just don’t see the point. This film is heading in one direction and nothing like taste or subtlety or nuance is going to stop it. Still, it has so much potential that it gleefully wastes on annoyances that do nothing to pad the already flailing script that is hacking blood and pissing razor blades.
The story begins with Skeeter’s (Sandler) father Marty (Pryce) selling his meager motel to a developer named Barry Nottingham (Griffiths) on the condition that he allow Skeeter to run it when he’s able to do so. Nottingham proceeds to turn Marty’s motel into a gigantic, glamourous hotel and indeed amasses two dozen others. Fast forward to the present and Skeeter is the hotel’s fix-it man who dreams of one day running the hotel. His arch enemy is Kendall (Pearce), a suck up who indeed is awarded the coveted position. Meanwhile Skeeter starts telling stories to his niece Bobbi (Kesling) and nephew Patrick (Heit) and they mysteriously start coming true. Skeeter manipulates the stories in his own life for fun and profit. Naturally, he’s a buffoon so things don’t exactly go according to plan until the end when everything magically works out and didn’t you just love it?
This film wastes so many great talents that it makes one hope that all the primary actors demanded massive payments up front. That is the only way they could have possibly agreed to become involved in this project. I just can’t figure out what Keri Russell, Guy Pearce, and Richard Griffiths are doing in this thing. Money is the only plausible explanation. Basically they have all sold their souls to Mammon and should really be ashamed of themselves. Who corrupted these enormously talented actors? How did they end up here upon reading the script?
Everything in this film is a mess. The special effects are wonky, Adam Sandler does not look good either as a cowboy, a knight, a peasant, or a Greek charioteer. He’s best when he’s just being an ass which is what he does better than anybody. Some of the best moments are simply Sandler reacting to some dumb thing that has happened. There just isn’t enough of that in this film. It’s a deadly serious family film designed for ages 3 to 6. Everyone else should stay the hell away from the theater and knit some ghastly sweater for your Aunt Pissy. On second thought, do not torture your young children with this pablum. Take them to the museum or to a botanical garden. Read them books, take them to the zoo. Teach them how to think critically by playing games above their grade or learning level. Anything but this film.
So, it turns out that only the kiddies can make their stories happen in real life. It’s as dull as it sounds and the children aren’t necessarily that cute. They are typical film moppets and should really be neither seen nor heard. But if that were to happen then the film would lose all it’s charm and wit. You know it’s trouble when all the clever lines are coming out of the mouth of a five year old girl. I take back the cute comment. These tots know how to play cute when the film needs that extra jolt of sentimentality. They manipulate the audience expertly into buying into the filth that makes up most of the film. We are supposed to believe in these munchkins and care about what happens in their drab, miserable little lives. Well, I didn’t.
This whole film hinges on old man Nottingham’s decision to tear down a school where naturally our two little babes attend in order to build an even bigger hotel. Kendall is his right hand man and proves himself to be quite dastardly which makes him into a blase, typical villain. Does he succeed? Is the hotel erected? Yawn and double yawn. It doesn’t much matter but we all know the answer to these questions. It’s a fairy tale after all albeit a wholly ineffectual one. But who can cheer against the kiddies? These sweet darlings are the pure face of innocence and deserve not to be bussed to a wretched hell hole clean on the other side of town where their bucolic lives will be torn asunder and they will most likely be subjected to any number of cruelties. Such a wicked man, that Nottingham. Greed and callousness have turned him into a mean ogre who doesn’t give a jot about the community he wants to raze solely for grandiosity and an opportunity to erect an even more ghastly monument to his fledgling primacy.
There is a bright spot in this film and it comes in the form of Keri Russell. She is such a delightful presence in this film that it’s easy to extract her from the mess and imagine an entirely different film centering around her character. Jill is as doe-eyed as the kids and her genuinely sweet natured persona shines through in everything Russell does in this film. Russell is such a delightful presence that it is exceedingly upsetting to accept that she somehow managed to end up participating in this sour, soul-draining cinematic torture session. Despite everything she shines as a beacon of light amidst much darkness and shallow posturing. She offers the only modicum of hope in an otherwise dank and dismal film devoid of meaning and a shred of integrity.
The performances in this excruciating and vile movie are uniformly wasted and held hostage by what passes for a plot. Yet, none of them save one even appear to giving freely of themselves or making a collective effort to rescue this film from its concerted hell. Guy Pearce flails about looking lost and confused for much of the film. It seems obvious that he would rather be anywhere but where he has contractually agreed to place himself for the duration of this film. His character is underwritten and over exaggerated and he comes off as a lousy antagonist who nevertheless is the catalyst for much of the second half of the film. Courtney Cox also seems absent from this film. Her performance proves how impossible it is under the best of circumstances for actors to rise above a tawdry script. It isn’t necessarily terrible but rather it lacks drive and nuance. This is a film that firmly comes down on the side of broad humor that essentially fails at every turn. As mentioned Keri Russell gives the only natural and believable performance in the film. Somehow she manages the nearly impossible and conveys a full fledged character with vitality and urgency. Adam Sandler plays the same role he’s been playing for well over a decade. He’s a man boy who is rather daft but magically pulls everything together at the end to save the day. He is good as always as garnering some laughter out of asides and goofy faces which simply cannot carry a film. Russell Brand merely prances about like a tit and seems to be terrified of something he cannot name. Poor Richard Griffiths, clearly slumming in America after a distinguished career in British films, grunts a lot and makes a series of sour faces that demonstrate precisely what he thinks about this film. Teresa Palmer knows how to toss her head the right way and how to walk and she is fabulous eye candy and makes the film watchable in a strictly superficial sense when she’s on screen. Lucy Lawless looks constipated for much of the film although her ball breaker character is good for a bit of a laugh now and again.
Overall, this film is another example of Hollywood scraping the bottom of the barrel and coming up with a gooey, thick morass that they vainly attempt to form into a passable film. Everyone in this thing comes across as trapped in a degrading exercise to see who can lower themselves the most in terms of creative viability. Yet there is room to go further down and no doubt all of these actors will find a way to put this embarrassment behind them and move on to work more worthy of their talents. They will manage to live this down and it will soon be nothing but a blight in careers filled with great roles and worthwhile films. Still, we are presently suffering through this film and its hackneyed ending that serves nobody in the end.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Film Review--Quantum of Solace
Quantum of Solace
directed by Marc Forster
written by Neal Purvis, Paul Haggis and Robert Wade
starring Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton, Jeffrey Wright, David Harbour, Jesper Christensen, Anatole Taubman
Alas James Bond comes back to us tarred and broken, in a state of primal fury directed at whomever killed his girl Vesper (Eva Green). In this sequel to 2005's exceedingly successful “Casino Royale” we get a tormented character who has morphed into a relentlessly cold killing machine. This Bond is macho for its own sake. He possesses all of the terrible longing that has heretofore lain only on the surface. He is riddled with shame and anguish and wants desperately to smash some expensive thing to bits.
Bond kills blindly in this installment. He exists in his own head outside the realm of all control and seeks to carry out his own, undisclosed mission, on his own terms without having to first run into the steel-coated reservations of M (Dench). In this film still smarting over his girl’s demise he is informed about an Operation called Quantum that are so secretive that neither the British Secret Service or the CIA has any intelligence on them. One of their officers is a man named Dominic Greene (Amalric) who runs a front ecological organization called Greene Planet. He and his cronies are working with the Bolivian General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio) who they plan on propping up in government after a successful coup in exchange for a plot of desert land.
Bond is filthy throughout much of this film as his face and shirt are routinely speckled with dirt. He seems rawer and more unbalanced than before and this is really a continuation of “Casino Royale”. This Bond seems psychologically wounded as several shots show him grimacing as if banged up after a nasty fall. He’s still a totemic figure who looks smashing in a tux and can bed any woman he fancies but he comes off as perhaps somewhat tired of the same bloody games. It’s almost a meta rationale in this film. The Bond character has become bored with what Bond usually does in the course of his general routine. Have the writers written this into the script or has Daniel Craig added these little askew glances and eye rolls himself to express a type of ennui that the character is now experiencing. Regardless, he doesn’t look particularly delectable in many scenes and seems to be going for that been sleeping in trash cans and drinking my own piss look.
So, Bond meets a woman named Strawberry Fields (Arterton). Granted it isn’t a classic Bond double entendre in the league of, say, Plenty O’ Toole, but it still works for the character. I can see her emerging on a brisk March morning from a quick dip in an exceedingly cold river and running naked through a field with something or other growing that doesn’t necessarily have to be strawberries. Anyway, she’s delectable and one expects Bond to eat her up and naturally he does. It’s quick, meaningless and both of them just shrug their shoulders and move on. Then Fields disappears and we don’t hear from her until she shows up very dead and absolutely covered in black gold. It’s a tremendous ode to “Goldfinger” and it’s quite lovely to see a lass smothered as she is. So, we have another thing Bond touches turning to shit.
One of the reasons M wants Bond’s guns and official spy gear is because he can’t stop shooting people who are actually valuable to the investigation. There is a bit of cruelty to this Bond as he guns down his adversaries. In the Sean Connery Bond films he seems downright jaunty in his executions of justice and never seemed to take anything too seriously. Killing was a blast, a sport, and he shot people as if it were all a laugh. Then Roger Moore came in after George Lanzenby’s quick turn, and started his humorless, mechanical forays into doing his duty for the Queen. It’s only gotten more institutionalized and matter-of -fact since then. Now we have Daniel Craig with that terribly serious look in his eye as if all the joy has completely gone out of the exercise.
The great strong Bond woman in this film is played by Olga Kurylenko who is quickly making a name for herself as a mercurial, slightly reserved vixen who probably scares most men she meets. In this film her Character Camille starts off giving Bond a ride and she continues to do so for the rest of the film. Camille is exceedingly dangerous and Kurylenko makes her irresistibly so in the process of making us fall in love with her. She’s a top notch Bond girl and certainly one of the best utilized and smartest.
There are few, if any, gadgets in this film which is a trend that has continued through several reinventions of the Bond character over time. Occasionally, he is forced to interact with his world sans the toys that have traditionally given him a considerable edge over his less tech savvy foes. In this one we get a fabulous computerized touch system that allows the MI6 to keep abreast of any situation that interests them on a global scale. It certainly looks terrifying and glorious while making the Brits at least appear to know what they are doing. It cements the film in a grave reality which may or may not reflect present events.
This Bond seems less sexually motivated than earlier versions. He doesn’t have that impish charm which got Sean Connery’s Bond laid so many times. He also doesn’t practically rape women like Roger Moore’s version. He’s certainly a ladies man but he doesn’t reduce all women to a slavish, giggling schoolgirl with a terrible crush on the big, bad super Agent who knows what it feels like to kill a man. Women are just part of the job and he knows which ones are worth sleeping with and which ones he should cast from his mind. The earlier Bonds did not discriminate and wasted valuable time mounting their pretties from behind and discussing the merits of Yeats over Swinburne. This turn sees Strawberry Fields spilling info whilst on her back receiving her Majesty’s Secret Service.
The performances in this film sometimes exceed the expectations one attaches to films of this nature. Mostly this commendation applies to Mathieu Amalric whose languid interpretation of his character is both nuanced and terrifying. One just can’t ascertain what Dominic is planning and Amalric gives us no clues to help us decide in this sense. He is supposed to be a bad guy who wants to make life even more difficult for a great number of exceedingly poor people. We are supposed to root against him and pray that some untoward end befalls him. However, there is a spry aspect to his character that Amalric reveals with his eyes. The character actually possesses a tremendous amount of focused energy which makes him an able match in the tradition of Blofeld and Largo. He is fully capable of matching Bond at every turn and this film proves him to be a physically able adversary which seems to spring from a previously unknown source but instead it has been there all along and Amalric brilliantly gives us hints all along. Daniel Craig masters the low key version of Bond who is driven by something beyond the actualities of his job. Craig shows us a vulnerability and a slight helplessness in a few scenes that are mostly played out with his eyes. This is a film of eyes and secret codas being expressed by these fine actors. Jeffrey Wright is almost comatose as Felix Leiter, the CIA man who’s listening to all comers. He appears to be on some sort of cold medication and comes off as terribly depressed. It’s a strange and fantastic interpretation of the character and gives him a solidity and a peculiar vitality that he carries with him for the length of the film. It’s a seriousness that underlines the severity of the mission he is undertaking.
Overall, this film does a credible job with the Bond legend. It carries it fairly well and creates a fascinating story replete with characters that come of as real and necessary. The Bond character is a bit more damaged in this installment than in the past. We no longer have an infallible Bond who makes all the right moves without demonstrating a single iota of emotion. Connery was having a bit of a joke and Moore thoughtlessly went about his missions without concerning himself with trifles such as feelings. This Bond is tortured and it’s exciting to anticipate just how much more fucked up he can be in the next one. This is a Bond who is very close to disappearing to himself completely. He’s swayed a bit from his proper course and I’d like to see this aspect of his character further exploited. The days of Candy darlings and easy answers are over. This Bond, as an extension of Casino Royale, can shine a new light on many more discordant paths ahead. Bond should fall further into the quagmire of his mind. He should slip down into a realm populated with his own ghosts. We have a Dark Night. We need to further investigate the basic Satanic nature of James Bond.
directed by Marc Forster
written by Neal Purvis, Paul Haggis and Robert Wade
starring Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton, Jeffrey Wright, David Harbour, Jesper Christensen, Anatole Taubman
Alas James Bond comes back to us tarred and broken, in a state of primal fury directed at whomever killed his girl Vesper (Eva Green). In this sequel to 2005's exceedingly successful “Casino Royale” we get a tormented character who has morphed into a relentlessly cold killing machine. This Bond is macho for its own sake. He possesses all of the terrible longing that has heretofore lain only on the surface. He is riddled with shame and anguish and wants desperately to smash some expensive thing to bits.
Bond kills blindly in this installment. He exists in his own head outside the realm of all control and seeks to carry out his own, undisclosed mission, on his own terms without having to first run into the steel-coated reservations of M (Dench). In this film still smarting over his girl’s demise he is informed about an Operation called Quantum that are so secretive that neither the British Secret Service or the CIA has any intelligence on them. One of their officers is a man named Dominic Greene (Amalric) who runs a front ecological organization called Greene Planet. He and his cronies are working with the Bolivian General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio) who they plan on propping up in government after a successful coup in exchange for a plot of desert land.
Bond is filthy throughout much of this film as his face and shirt are routinely speckled with dirt. He seems rawer and more unbalanced than before and this is really a continuation of “Casino Royale”. This Bond seems psychologically wounded as several shots show him grimacing as if banged up after a nasty fall. He’s still a totemic figure who looks smashing in a tux and can bed any woman he fancies but he comes off as perhaps somewhat tired of the same bloody games. It’s almost a meta rationale in this film. The Bond character has become bored with what Bond usually does in the course of his general routine. Have the writers written this into the script or has Daniel Craig added these little askew glances and eye rolls himself to express a type of ennui that the character is now experiencing. Regardless, he doesn’t look particularly delectable in many scenes and seems to be going for that been sleeping in trash cans and drinking my own piss look.
So, Bond meets a woman named Strawberry Fields (Arterton). Granted it isn’t a classic Bond double entendre in the league of, say, Plenty O’ Toole, but it still works for the character. I can see her emerging on a brisk March morning from a quick dip in an exceedingly cold river and running naked through a field with something or other growing that doesn’t necessarily have to be strawberries. Anyway, she’s delectable and one expects Bond to eat her up and naturally he does. It’s quick, meaningless and both of them just shrug their shoulders and move on. Then Fields disappears and we don’t hear from her until she shows up very dead and absolutely covered in black gold. It’s a tremendous ode to “Goldfinger” and it’s quite lovely to see a lass smothered as she is. So, we have another thing Bond touches turning to shit.
One of the reasons M wants Bond’s guns and official spy gear is because he can’t stop shooting people who are actually valuable to the investigation. There is a bit of cruelty to this Bond as he guns down his adversaries. In the Sean Connery Bond films he seems downright jaunty in his executions of justice and never seemed to take anything too seriously. Killing was a blast, a sport, and he shot people as if it were all a laugh. Then Roger Moore came in after George Lanzenby’s quick turn, and started his humorless, mechanical forays into doing his duty for the Queen. It’s only gotten more institutionalized and matter-of -fact since then. Now we have Daniel Craig with that terribly serious look in his eye as if all the joy has completely gone out of the exercise.
The great strong Bond woman in this film is played by Olga Kurylenko who is quickly making a name for herself as a mercurial, slightly reserved vixen who probably scares most men she meets. In this film her Character Camille starts off giving Bond a ride and she continues to do so for the rest of the film. Camille is exceedingly dangerous and Kurylenko makes her irresistibly so in the process of making us fall in love with her. She’s a top notch Bond girl and certainly one of the best utilized and smartest.
There are few, if any, gadgets in this film which is a trend that has continued through several reinventions of the Bond character over time. Occasionally, he is forced to interact with his world sans the toys that have traditionally given him a considerable edge over his less tech savvy foes. In this one we get a fabulous computerized touch system that allows the MI6 to keep abreast of any situation that interests them on a global scale. It certainly looks terrifying and glorious while making the Brits at least appear to know what they are doing. It cements the film in a grave reality which may or may not reflect present events.
This Bond seems less sexually motivated than earlier versions. He doesn’t have that impish charm which got Sean Connery’s Bond laid so many times. He also doesn’t practically rape women like Roger Moore’s version. He’s certainly a ladies man but he doesn’t reduce all women to a slavish, giggling schoolgirl with a terrible crush on the big, bad super Agent who knows what it feels like to kill a man. Women are just part of the job and he knows which ones are worth sleeping with and which ones he should cast from his mind. The earlier Bonds did not discriminate and wasted valuable time mounting their pretties from behind and discussing the merits of Yeats over Swinburne. This turn sees Strawberry Fields spilling info whilst on her back receiving her Majesty’s Secret Service.
The performances in this film sometimes exceed the expectations one attaches to films of this nature. Mostly this commendation applies to Mathieu Amalric whose languid interpretation of his character is both nuanced and terrifying. One just can’t ascertain what Dominic is planning and Amalric gives us no clues to help us decide in this sense. He is supposed to be a bad guy who wants to make life even more difficult for a great number of exceedingly poor people. We are supposed to root against him and pray that some untoward end befalls him. However, there is a spry aspect to his character that Amalric reveals with his eyes. The character actually possesses a tremendous amount of focused energy which makes him an able match in the tradition of Blofeld and Largo. He is fully capable of matching Bond at every turn and this film proves him to be a physically able adversary which seems to spring from a previously unknown source but instead it has been there all along and Amalric brilliantly gives us hints all along. Daniel Craig masters the low key version of Bond who is driven by something beyond the actualities of his job. Craig shows us a vulnerability and a slight helplessness in a few scenes that are mostly played out with his eyes. This is a film of eyes and secret codas being expressed by these fine actors. Jeffrey Wright is almost comatose as Felix Leiter, the CIA man who’s listening to all comers. He appears to be on some sort of cold medication and comes off as terribly depressed. It’s a strange and fantastic interpretation of the character and gives him a solidity and a peculiar vitality that he carries with him for the length of the film. It’s a seriousness that underlines the severity of the mission he is undertaking.
Overall, this film does a credible job with the Bond legend. It carries it fairly well and creates a fascinating story replete with characters that come of as real and necessary. The Bond character is a bit more damaged in this installment than in the past. We no longer have an infallible Bond who makes all the right moves without demonstrating a single iota of emotion. Connery was having a bit of a joke and Moore thoughtlessly went about his missions without concerning himself with trifles such as feelings. This Bond is tortured and it’s exciting to anticipate just how much more fucked up he can be in the next one. This is a Bond who is very close to disappearing to himself completely. He’s swayed a bit from his proper course and I’d like to see this aspect of his character further exploited. The days of Candy darlings and easy answers are over. This Bond, as an extension of Casino Royale, can shine a new light on many more discordant paths ahead. Bond should fall further into the quagmire of his mind. He should slip down into a realm populated with his own ghosts. We have a Dark Night. We need to further investigate the basic Satanic nature of James Bond.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Film Review--Twilight
Twilight
directed by Catherine Hardwicke
written by Melissa Rosenberg
based on the novel by Stephanie Meyer
starring Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke, Ashley Greene, Nikki Reed, Jackson Rathbone, Kellan Lutz, Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser, Rachelle Lefevre
Oh the sodden teen romance. In this film it is so innocent and vain and so jacked up with hormonal energy drinks that it blinds the viewer into buying the Harliquen Romance nature of it all.
Based on the internationally acclaimed series of books by Stephanie Meyer this is the first in what will surely be a long enduring franchise of films that will no doubt please a large portion of its target audience. For those of us who have not read a single line, we must judge the film on strictly cinematic terms. Ultimately, it’s a single snapshot of a faraway place and naturally the image will fade and completely disappear over time.
The story involves two very different type of creatures. We are first introduced to an awkward and clumsy girl named Bella who is moving from her Mother’s place in Phoenix to live with her Dad in Forks, Washington. She’s the new girl at school and it seems everyone ogles her and treats her like an exotic object for their consumption. She sees a group of students traipsing lazily into the lunchroom and is informed that they are the Cullen clan and that they are infinitely strange. Naturally her eye is caught by one of the Cullens–a mysterious, intense boy named Edward. They share a table in biology class and he ignores her. Tortured she becomes possessed by the need to understand him. Thus begins the angst filled romance that the film is built around.
Edward and his family are vampires who only suck the blood out of animals. They are polite, cultured, and seemingly quite reasonable. They welcome Bella into their home and most of them treat her like a welcomed guest. Bella is completely into the Vampire aesthetic and longs to be just like them without comprehending the implications that such a transformation would warrant.
The film certainly contains a number of lovely images and the camera takes full advantage of coastal Washington to create a quaint, tempered atmosphere that is exploited at every turn. It is gorgeous to look at and creates a definite sense of place but the story proper lacks the equivalent of what is behind Edvard’s tremendous eyes. Indeed, it is his eyes which are truly the focus of this film. He scans and penetrates and even has the ability to scare off intruders just by staring at them. At times, though, it seems that young Mr. Pattinson, who routinely soaks panties worldwide, is forcing the issue a bit too much. His eyes tend not so much to smoulder but rather to most likely cause him eye strain. He appears to be trying so hard to look intense and foreboding that it comes off as just a bit too much. Still, for the most part, these eyes are the eyes of an exceedingly dangerous character. Bella knows this but her blossoming teen aged lust must be satiated at all costs.
Yes, it’s all about teen lust. The longing, self-reproach, pestering need to feel and touch everything, the tingling of the object of utter devotion and fascination. It’s all here and oft times it feels right. That first kiss, the lingering, the hope all drive these two to a near fatal embrace. Yet, the romance does not quite carry the film to where it needs to go. There is poetry here but it gets cramped by an insistence on the superficial aspects of their interaction. There is nothing truly worth dying for in their embrace. These are simply two kids caught up in the slick beast of carnal necessity and nothing else. At times it’s sappy and subsequently the energy is sucked out of the scene. The film insists that we follow them into the grave if necessary but it lacks the fear and terror that any worthy vampire film possesses as a matter of course. There is no agony, no blistering sorrow at play as the vampire gets closer to the throat of the one he most wants to devour. The film lacks tension when it needs it the most although the scene where Bella exposes her throat to Edward does have a giddy awareness of the possibilities inherent in every attempt to unmask the vampire Mythos. It’s the closest thing to the sacred in the entire film. The wrecked path of vampires, the unquenchable thirst for blood, the haunted nature of every displaced fiend–are not properly examined here. It’s the fated romance of two adolescents and it feels as if it has been taken straight from any number of teen-related television programs.
Yet, the relationship is delicately filmed and oh so slow to develop. It takes its time and there are scenes where hunger drives each of them to a line they are not yet ready the cross. Then in the next scene they roam a bit further until the inevitable kiss and presumably everything else that must follow. One can only wonder what sex with a charismatic, impossibly strong vampire would do to the poor girl. Could she actually stand being mounted by a boy with Edward’s special talents? The tension would have to be unbearable and it’s difficult to imagine what the release would feel like. Can vampires copulate in the traditional way or is sex secondary to the thrill of the chase?
Edward mentions that he has killed before and this knowledge sits fine with Bella. He could probably tell her he raped babies and it wouldn’t matter. Bella is a girl who is so utterly controlled by her attraction that she is blind to anything that would send up red flags in the minds of every other girl. Still, this aspect of the film is never satisfactorily explored. We never really understand why Bella has so given up herself to a force that tricks her into thinking it is benign. Can this possibly be love? Or is it merely lust diluted with sentimentality?
For all its flaws, this film delivers on its promise and gives teen aged girls precisely what they want if they ever know what they want. It provides the fantasy that there is an Edward out there for every girl who deserves to be treated like a princess and obsessed over. It’s a fairly uncomplicated story of young lust and what teenage girl can’t relate to that? The film relies on the ability of the audience to believe in something much stronger than mere human emotion. It wants to tap into a more primal, urgent and daemonic source that necessitates all power, lust, greed, etc. But it remains on the surface happy to touch lightly on the darker, more aggressive elements of Vampires and their kin.
The performances in this film give slavish fans precisely what they deserve. They aren’t particularly memorable but they do what is expected of them. The two young leads effectively stare into each others eyes as directed and they are both obviously the benefactors of impressive genes so they are not too difficult to look at. They actually seem to be striving for an opportunity to demonstrate a less defanged story that might be able to tear out a still beating heart. Rachelle Lefevre plays Victoria, one of the rival vampires and she’s vital and demanding and perfect for what will come next.
Overall, this is a passable first telling of the book series but there just isn’t enough depth of character to make it into anything more. It tells a simple story about human-vampire scaldings but neither the tone or the style of the film reveals anything particularly novel that would have imbued the story with the essence of the mystical. For a supernatural story there is very little that comes off as magical. The relationship that we are supposed to want so desperately just doesn’t seem particularly special. Ultimately there is just nothing much to lose.
directed by Catherine Hardwicke
written by Melissa Rosenberg
based on the novel by Stephanie Meyer
starring Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke, Ashley Greene, Nikki Reed, Jackson Rathbone, Kellan Lutz, Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser, Rachelle Lefevre
Oh the sodden teen romance. In this film it is so innocent and vain and so jacked up with hormonal energy drinks that it blinds the viewer into buying the Harliquen Romance nature of it all.
Based on the internationally acclaimed series of books by Stephanie Meyer this is the first in what will surely be a long enduring franchise of films that will no doubt please a large portion of its target audience. For those of us who have not read a single line, we must judge the film on strictly cinematic terms. Ultimately, it’s a single snapshot of a faraway place and naturally the image will fade and completely disappear over time.
The story involves two very different type of creatures. We are first introduced to an awkward and clumsy girl named Bella who is moving from her Mother’s place in Phoenix to live with her Dad in Forks, Washington. She’s the new girl at school and it seems everyone ogles her and treats her like an exotic object for their consumption. She sees a group of students traipsing lazily into the lunchroom and is informed that they are the Cullen clan and that they are infinitely strange. Naturally her eye is caught by one of the Cullens–a mysterious, intense boy named Edward. They share a table in biology class and he ignores her. Tortured she becomes possessed by the need to understand him. Thus begins the angst filled romance that the film is built around.
Edward and his family are vampires who only suck the blood out of animals. They are polite, cultured, and seemingly quite reasonable. They welcome Bella into their home and most of them treat her like a welcomed guest. Bella is completely into the Vampire aesthetic and longs to be just like them without comprehending the implications that such a transformation would warrant.
The film certainly contains a number of lovely images and the camera takes full advantage of coastal Washington to create a quaint, tempered atmosphere that is exploited at every turn. It is gorgeous to look at and creates a definite sense of place but the story proper lacks the equivalent of what is behind Edvard’s tremendous eyes. Indeed, it is his eyes which are truly the focus of this film. He scans and penetrates and even has the ability to scare off intruders just by staring at them. At times, though, it seems that young Mr. Pattinson, who routinely soaks panties worldwide, is forcing the issue a bit too much. His eyes tend not so much to smoulder but rather to most likely cause him eye strain. He appears to be trying so hard to look intense and foreboding that it comes off as just a bit too much. Still, for the most part, these eyes are the eyes of an exceedingly dangerous character. Bella knows this but her blossoming teen aged lust must be satiated at all costs.
Yes, it’s all about teen lust. The longing, self-reproach, pestering need to feel and touch everything, the tingling of the object of utter devotion and fascination. It’s all here and oft times it feels right. That first kiss, the lingering, the hope all drive these two to a near fatal embrace. Yet, the romance does not quite carry the film to where it needs to go. There is poetry here but it gets cramped by an insistence on the superficial aspects of their interaction. There is nothing truly worth dying for in their embrace. These are simply two kids caught up in the slick beast of carnal necessity and nothing else. At times it’s sappy and subsequently the energy is sucked out of the scene. The film insists that we follow them into the grave if necessary but it lacks the fear and terror that any worthy vampire film possesses as a matter of course. There is no agony, no blistering sorrow at play as the vampire gets closer to the throat of the one he most wants to devour. The film lacks tension when it needs it the most although the scene where Bella exposes her throat to Edward does have a giddy awareness of the possibilities inherent in every attempt to unmask the vampire Mythos. It’s the closest thing to the sacred in the entire film. The wrecked path of vampires, the unquenchable thirst for blood, the haunted nature of every displaced fiend–are not properly examined here. It’s the fated romance of two adolescents and it feels as if it has been taken straight from any number of teen-related television programs.
Yet, the relationship is delicately filmed and oh so slow to develop. It takes its time and there are scenes where hunger drives each of them to a line they are not yet ready the cross. Then in the next scene they roam a bit further until the inevitable kiss and presumably everything else that must follow. One can only wonder what sex with a charismatic, impossibly strong vampire would do to the poor girl. Could she actually stand being mounted by a boy with Edward’s special talents? The tension would have to be unbearable and it’s difficult to imagine what the release would feel like. Can vampires copulate in the traditional way or is sex secondary to the thrill of the chase?
Edward mentions that he has killed before and this knowledge sits fine with Bella. He could probably tell her he raped babies and it wouldn’t matter. Bella is a girl who is so utterly controlled by her attraction that she is blind to anything that would send up red flags in the minds of every other girl. Still, this aspect of the film is never satisfactorily explored. We never really understand why Bella has so given up herself to a force that tricks her into thinking it is benign. Can this possibly be love? Or is it merely lust diluted with sentimentality?
For all its flaws, this film delivers on its promise and gives teen aged girls precisely what they want if they ever know what they want. It provides the fantasy that there is an Edward out there for every girl who deserves to be treated like a princess and obsessed over. It’s a fairly uncomplicated story of young lust and what teenage girl can’t relate to that? The film relies on the ability of the audience to believe in something much stronger than mere human emotion. It wants to tap into a more primal, urgent and daemonic source that necessitates all power, lust, greed, etc. But it remains on the surface happy to touch lightly on the darker, more aggressive elements of Vampires and their kin.
The performances in this film give slavish fans precisely what they deserve. They aren’t particularly memorable but they do what is expected of them. The two young leads effectively stare into each others eyes as directed and they are both obviously the benefactors of impressive genes so they are not too difficult to look at. They actually seem to be striving for an opportunity to demonstrate a less defanged story that might be able to tear out a still beating heart. Rachelle Lefevre plays Victoria, one of the rival vampires and she’s vital and demanding and perfect for what will come next.
Overall, this is a passable first telling of the book series but there just isn’t enough depth of character to make it into anything more. It tells a simple story about human-vampire scaldings but neither the tone or the style of the film reveals anything particularly novel that would have imbued the story with the essence of the mystical. For a supernatural story there is very little that comes off as magical. The relationship that we are supposed to want so desperately just doesn’t seem particularly special. Ultimately there is just nothing much to lose.
Film Review--Un conte de Noël (A Christmas Tale)
Un conte de Noël (A Christmas Tale)
directed by Arnaud Desplechin
written by Arnaud Desplechin and Emmanuel Bourdieu
starring Catherine Deneuve, Jean-Paul Roussillon, Anne Consigny, Mathieu Amalric, Melvil Poupaud, Hippolyte Girardot, Emmanuelle Devos, Chiara Mastroianni, Laurent Capelluto, Emile Berling
The absolute torture inherent in the grueling relationships of a derelict family is exploited in this choice French drama directed by renowned film maker Arnaud Desplechin.
The Vuillard family is held together by exceedingly fragile strings that nevertheless can choke the life out of anyone who steps too far out of line. Junon is the steady, officious matriarch of the clan who discovers she is dying of leukemia, the same disease that took her first son when he was seven. There is a possibility that the fact that she carries the same gene that killed her son might contribute to her subsequent depression but it’s never discussed or disclosed. Still, she mopes about and her presence always creates a heaviness that is exhausting and almost blinding. Still, underneath the weight there is a tremendous warmth that is equally formidable. She somehow manages to keep the family from completely falling apart.
There are two essential riffs in this family. Sister Elizabeth (Consigny) claims to despise her younger brother Henri (Amalric) for something the film does not reveal. She reaches such a point of frustration with him that she banishes him from the family for six years upon clearing up some debts that he owed regarding a studio. The film documents his return to the clan and their ongoing conflict. Still, considering the mental and physical energy that Elizabeth puts into separating herself from Henri it is clear that she doesn’t loathe him nearly as much as she appears to. The other disordered relationship occurs between Henri and Junon. This pair claim to never have loved each other although they seem to share a strong bond that can only occur between a mother and her child. They don’t go at each other directly in this film and project their jabs in subtle ways. But there is an obvious warmth between them that cannot be denied. Indeed this is a family whose love for one another has become obscured yet remains the core impetus of their interaction with one another.
Henri is what might conveniently be labeled the “black sheep” of the family. He is prone to loud proclamations that usually have to do with how underappreciated he is by the rest of the family. Amalric plays him with a certitude and a blistering intensity so profoundly vital that he seems to be perpetually on the verge of some great soliloquy or a sordid and loopy nervous breakdown. He’s given such eloquent words that one imagines him tormented in some dingy hotel with a bottle and a notepad pouring out years of agonies and disruptions. Henri is a fascinating character and it’s impossible to take one’s eyes off of Amalric.
Junon’s cancer hangs over everyone’s head. She requires a bone marrow donor and two matches are found: Henri and Elizabeth’s son Paull (Berling). This creates a tremendous amount of tension as Elizabeth cannot bear to have her son put through such a dangerous operation but she can’t believe that Henri could actually go through with it. It’s perfectly strange that Henri would indeed subject himself to the extraction but his resolution further suggests that he holds a different set of opinions regarding his mother.
Abel Vuillard, Papa, watches the dramas unfolds and only occasionally interjects himself into them. He is a vital paternal presence who clearly has seen his way through many similar situations and knows the value of noncommital observation. As his family tears into one another in various assaults he merely allows the torments to play themselves out until he sees an opportunity to speak. He is not soft. He does speak up and it roars like thunder. He chooses his inroads and capitalizes on them as his basic position is to remain in the foreground and take advantage of openings that present themselves. Henri is not so diplomatic, of course. He takes control of conversations and lambasts his parents with a silly analogy that is clearly designed to hurt them. He hurls himself verbally at Elizabeth and they tear into each other’s throats like two horny rams fighting over a ewe. It’s a glorious sight to watch these two ram their horns into one another as it is clear that neither one has either the strength or the intention to put the other one away. It’s a fight that is exhausting and you expect them to sort out their differences by film’s end but everything is left as open as it was the first moment Elizabeth eyed Henri who had returned after a long absence that Elizabeth had initiated.
Youngest son Ivan (Poupaud) is presented as someone capable of getting to the bottom of things and solving disagreements but he doesn’t do much of that in this film. He doesn’t save anyone from themselves or create bridges between people. What he does is some ultra slick Dj-ing at a club where the kids find themselves bored as they are sitting about the house. Otherwise he isn’t connected to the main drama and his position proves rather irrelevant to the overall thrusts of the narrative. There is another character named Simon (Capelluto) who seems to have no role in the film. He is presented as having a long term obsession with Ivan’s wife, Sylvia (Mastroianni) which culminates in them sleeping together ostensibly with Ivan’s approval. These scenes are peripheral and lead to frustration over a two and a half hour running time that could have been cut by forty five minutes and been more potent. As it stands the narrative weakens as the film progresses and the tenacity with which the combatants charge at each other ceases to make its mark on the viewer.
Elizabeth is perpetually in mourning for something she cannot name throughout this film. Eventually the waterworks and sniveling grate on the nerves although I imagine we’re supposed to be with her all the way to the end. Her crying and self-loathing make for an interesting side note but overall they irritate the senses. Again, some editing might have helped make these scenes more ghastly and profoundly nuanced. Instead they just seem to be redundant and occasionally hackneyed.
The performances in this film are all quite good. Mathieu Amalric is positively exquisite with his performance. He electrifies the screen whenever he makes an appearance. He projects his character’s conflicts quite convincingly and turns out to be the only character one wants to follow out the door and into the rest of his life. Amalric is so good physically in this film. Just the way he moves his body is extraordinary. Catherine Deneuve certainly makes her character’s psychological distress believable. In this film she expresses a strength that Junon has to fight to achieve and it’s clear on screen that she does so admirably. Jean-Paul Roussillon as Abel projects a strange combination of passivity and totemic presence. He’s clearly the strong bull who has established a fortress for those to whom he is deeply grateful to enjoy. He’s a giant of a man who writes music and clearly possesses a deep appreciation for fine arts. Anne Consigny presents a hapless character who is grasping at straws. Her performance is uniformly excellent even if the character is an annoying as hell twit and deserves whatever sack of dung falls on her head in the future.
Overall, this film is certainly worth seeing if not a bit too long. It meanders in the middle but there are definitely many parts to the film that are moving and thrilling in their own way. The film has a decisive look and everything is sharply photographed. Ultimately, it’s a film about tormented people who happen to get stuck together out of tradition or some pathetic need to be recognized by people who seem the least willing to see you in the end. There is a childishness about these people but ultimately they are enjoyable as gross examples of the choices humanity makes to torture itself.
directed by Arnaud Desplechin
written by Arnaud Desplechin and Emmanuel Bourdieu
starring Catherine Deneuve, Jean-Paul Roussillon, Anne Consigny, Mathieu Amalric, Melvil Poupaud, Hippolyte Girardot, Emmanuelle Devos, Chiara Mastroianni, Laurent Capelluto, Emile Berling
The absolute torture inherent in the grueling relationships of a derelict family is exploited in this choice French drama directed by renowned film maker Arnaud Desplechin.
The Vuillard family is held together by exceedingly fragile strings that nevertheless can choke the life out of anyone who steps too far out of line. Junon is the steady, officious matriarch of the clan who discovers she is dying of leukemia, the same disease that took her first son when he was seven. There is a possibility that the fact that she carries the same gene that killed her son might contribute to her subsequent depression but it’s never discussed or disclosed. Still, she mopes about and her presence always creates a heaviness that is exhausting and almost blinding. Still, underneath the weight there is a tremendous warmth that is equally formidable. She somehow manages to keep the family from completely falling apart.
There are two essential riffs in this family. Sister Elizabeth (Consigny) claims to despise her younger brother Henri (Amalric) for something the film does not reveal. She reaches such a point of frustration with him that she banishes him from the family for six years upon clearing up some debts that he owed regarding a studio. The film documents his return to the clan and their ongoing conflict. Still, considering the mental and physical energy that Elizabeth puts into separating herself from Henri it is clear that she doesn’t loathe him nearly as much as she appears to. The other disordered relationship occurs between Henri and Junon. This pair claim to never have loved each other although they seem to share a strong bond that can only occur between a mother and her child. They don’t go at each other directly in this film and project their jabs in subtle ways. But there is an obvious warmth between them that cannot be denied. Indeed this is a family whose love for one another has become obscured yet remains the core impetus of their interaction with one another.
Henri is what might conveniently be labeled the “black sheep” of the family. He is prone to loud proclamations that usually have to do with how underappreciated he is by the rest of the family. Amalric plays him with a certitude and a blistering intensity so profoundly vital that he seems to be perpetually on the verge of some great soliloquy or a sordid and loopy nervous breakdown. He’s given such eloquent words that one imagines him tormented in some dingy hotel with a bottle and a notepad pouring out years of agonies and disruptions. Henri is a fascinating character and it’s impossible to take one’s eyes off of Amalric.
Junon’s cancer hangs over everyone’s head. She requires a bone marrow donor and two matches are found: Henri and Elizabeth’s son Paull (Berling). This creates a tremendous amount of tension as Elizabeth cannot bear to have her son put through such a dangerous operation but she can’t believe that Henri could actually go through with it. It’s perfectly strange that Henri would indeed subject himself to the extraction but his resolution further suggests that he holds a different set of opinions regarding his mother.
Abel Vuillard, Papa, watches the dramas unfolds and only occasionally interjects himself into them. He is a vital paternal presence who clearly has seen his way through many similar situations and knows the value of noncommital observation. As his family tears into one another in various assaults he merely allows the torments to play themselves out until he sees an opportunity to speak. He is not soft. He does speak up and it roars like thunder. He chooses his inroads and capitalizes on them as his basic position is to remain in the foreground and take advantage of openings that present themselves. Henri is not so diplomatic, of course. He takes control of conversations and lambasts his parents with a silly analogy that is clearly designed to hurt them. He hurls himself verbally at Elizabeth and they tear into each other’s throats like two horny rams fighting over a ewe. It’s a glorious sight to watch these two ram their horns into one another as it is clear that neither one has either the strength or the intention to put the other one away. It’s a fight that is exhausting and you expect them to sort out their differences by film’s end but everything is left as open as it was the first moment Elizabeth eyed Henri who had returned after a long absence that Elizabeth had initiated.
Youngest son Ivan (Poupaud) is presented as someone capable of getting to the bottom of things and solving disagreements but he doesn’t do much of that in this film. He doesn’t save anyone from themselves or create bridges between people. What he does is some ultra slick Dj-ing at a club where the kids find themselves bored as they are sitting about the house. Otherwise he isn’t connected to the main drama and his position proves rather irrelevant to the overall thrusts of the narrative. There is another character named Simon (Capelluto) who seems to have no role in the film. He is presented as having a long term obsession with Ivan’s wife, Sylvia (Mastroianni) which culminates in them sleeping together ostensibly with Ivan’s approval. These scenes are peripheral and lead to frustration over a two and a half hour running time that could have been cut by forty five minutes and been more potent. As it stands the narrative weakens as the film progresses and the tenacity with which the combatants charge at each other ceases to make its mark on the viewer.
Elizabeth is perpetually in mourning for something she cannot name throughout this film. Eventually the waterworks and sniveling grate on the nerves although I imagine we’re supposed to be with her all the way to the end. Her crying and self-loathing make for an interesting side note but overall they irritate the senses. Again, some editing might have helped make these scenes more ghastly and profoundly nuanced. Instead they just seem to be redundant and occasionally hackneyed.
The performances in this film are all quite good. Mathieu Amalric is positively exquisite with his performance. He electrifies the screen whenever he makes an appearance. He projects his character’s conflicts quite convincingly and turns out to be the only character one wants to follow out the door and into the rest of his life. Amalric is so good physically in this film. Just the way he moves his body is extraordinary. Catherine Deneuve certainly makes her character’s psychological distress believable. In this film she expresses a strength that Junon has to fight to achieve and it’s clear on screen that she does so admirably. Jean-Paul Roussillon as Abel projects a strange combination of passivity and totemic presence. He’s clearly the strong bull who has established a fortress for those to whom he is deeply grateful to enjoy. He’s a giant of a man who writes music and clearly possesses a deep appreciation for fine arts. Anne Consigny presents a hapless character who is grasping at straws. Her performance is uniformly excellent even if the character is an annoying as hell twit and deserves whatever sack of dung falls on her head in the future.
Overall, this film is certainly worth seeing if not a bit too long. It meanders in the middle but there are definitely many parts to the film that are moving and thrilling in their own way. The film has a decisive look and everything is sharply photographed. Ultimately, it’s a film about tormented people who happen to get stuck together out of tradition or some pathetic need to be recognized by people who seem the least willing to see you in the end. There is a childishness about these people but ultimately they are enjoyable as gross examples of the choices humanity makes to torture itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)