Winter's Bone
And that's 10 for 10. Went out with a bang too. A hell of a riveting bang. Haunting. Dismal. Gritty. Bleak. Engrossing. Gripping. And above all, great cinema. All certainly describe Winter's Bone. The story is akin to any number of thrillers or crime thrillers. Someone has to find/prove something before time runs out and something horrible happens. And there are- of course- a number of individuals who are definitely invested in that someone NOT finding what he or she needs to find. In this case, 17-year-old Ree needs to find her meth-cooking father in a matter of a few days or she looses her primitive Ozarks house- the same house that allows her to provide for her ailing mother and younger and dependent brother and sister; this house is ALL they have besides each other. For Ree, finding her Dad is a matter of life and death for her family. She has no choice, she simply has to find her dad or at least find out what happened to him. Along the way, Ree runs a foul of some fairly nasty elements- folks who know what happened to her Dad, but it's in their best interest not to share this information. These are people who can make life even more hellish for Ree. But given no other choice, she's got to do what she's got to do- as unfathomable as that is.
The story of Ree doing what she has to do plays out in such a fantastically gripping manner. It's hard to look away even though there are definitely times you'd really like to. The tension here plays very much like a gangster pic. The only difference is that here, the bleak existence of the Ozarks stands in for the mean streets and shady corners of NYC and New Jersey. The sense that something could go horribly wrong at any moment still very much permeates the story. You just can't help but stay glued to the screen waiting to see if things will take that turn for the worst. Masterful story telling here. It really is. What's interesting is that despite seeing how absolutely shitty her existence in this utterly depressing world is, you never for a second question why Ree needs to do anything and everything in her power to hold on to what little she has. It might have been easy to think: why bother? How much worse can things get? But, no. Here- through the incredible performance of Jennifer Lawrence, you can sense and FEEL why this matters to Ree. Lawrence leaves no doubts about Ree's determination and desperation; she absolutely disappears into her role much to the benefit of the viewing audience. It's mesmerizing to watch. Kudos to Lawrence for making her character... I don't know.. real.
Actually, yeah, real. That's the one thing that sets this film apart from lesser crime thrillers. It feels real and true. It feels easier to relate to somehow...which is odd because most of the folks who will end up seeing this will never know what it feels like to live in such conditions and to be backed into such an impossible corner. The way the story is told and the virtuoso performance by Lawrence go along way into providing that feeling of empathy.
There's not a lot to dislike about Winter's Bone, other than it really SHOULD be a harder movie to watch. But, as I've mentioned above, the challenge is actually in trying to look away. Oh, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention John Hawkes' incredible performance as Ree's uncle, Teardrop. Hawkes brought an amazing amount of intensity and life to the role- it was stunning to watch. Much like the movie on the whole. It's definitely one that will stick with me for some time... and I mean that in the best possible way. Well done Debra Granik and company, well done.
Grade: A+
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
New to Me 2011: 2.) Toy Story 3
Toy Story 3
Continuing my quest to see all the Best Picture nominees before the Academy Awards show... The main question swirling in my mind before watching Toy Story 3 was whether it truly belonged in the Best Picture nominee race. Well, actually, I should say whether it belonged as a nominee, I doubt anyone thinks it has a serious shot at winning the prize. Including me, after having seen it. There is no question that this is a very clever and very well done animated feature. But one of the ten best of 2010? Um, no, sorry.
It definitely is one of the best animated movies I've seen in a while. (Not THE best, that honor still goes to Wes Anderson's fantastic Fantastic Mr. Fox). In comparison to last year's apparently token animated Best Picture nominee, Up, there really isn't much of an argument: Toy Story 3 is better by leaps and bounds. And that's saying something- Up was a pretty good movie in its own right. Here's the deal with both of them, and animated movies in general: they're just lacking something. I'm not saying that they can't be considered among the best movies of the year, but there's just something in my mind that keeps a step or two below the best live-action movies. Is it the screen presence of actors and actresses? The depth of performance? I'm not entirely sure what it is, but I just can't get into animated movies like I do live-action flicks. Let me say this, though, the best animated movies certainly kick the shit out of the run-of-the-mill live-actioners... I'm looking at you, The Tourist. But when comparing the creams of the crops, the best live-action movies blow away animated fare. So, no, I don't think the tenth slot should have gone to Toy Story 3; not over Shutter Island or The Town or Get Low and certainly not over Blue Valentine. Or how about this? How about switching Toy Story 3 out for a truly original and incredibly well done live-actioner that borders on animated: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World? In any event, I don't think Toy Story 3 belongs in the discussion.
I know that sounds pretty darn narrow-minded of me. And it may be true. I don't want to be a...I dunno... genre-ist when it comes to movies, but again, I just can't get all that attached to animated movies...outside of Fantastic Mr. Fox, that is. (Though that might have more to do with Wes Anderson- I'll follow him where ever he's willing to take me- a damn expert storyteller). Regardless, in this case, while I thought it was good, I just don't think Toy Story 3 was everything it was cracked up to be. So literally, in any event, I don't think it merits Best Picture consideration. But, then again, I'm not a member of the Academy.
Anyway, enough of my comparing it to the opinions of other people, and enough of the negative thinking. It REALLY was a good movie. The thing that stands out most about it is how damn well-written and clever the story is. Andy (the little-boy owner of the motley group of toys from the first two movies) is all growed up now and heading to college, the toys, well there headed for a whole heaping dose of uncertainty. One thing leads to another and they're shipped off via donation to a day care center. Adventure ensues when the toys ultimately decide that being with Andy- even if that means waiting around in the attic until Andy's kids come around- is where they're meant to be. So they have to find their way around the misguided forces of a duplicitous teddy bear in order to find their way home.
Great, imaginative stuff. It's the kind of story that could only be dreamed up by folks who have the brains of grown-ups but the hearts of little children. It kind of makes you wonder whether the creative forces behind the movie would be the most fun people to hang out with... or the most annoying. Either way, I was happy to hang out with their product for just shy of two hours. See, the Toy Story franchise was really the first in the new breed of animated movies- or rather the first in the next step of animated movie evolution- both in technology and in the story lines. Traditional animated gave way to computer generated animation and plots that had only brief moments that resonated with both children and adults fell aside for entire movies that genuinely engaged adult and child audiences. The Toy Story movies were always able to harness the power of thinly veiled real, adult issues in a package that was replete with a sense of wonder and adventure that kids were able to get into. Toy Story 3 really manages to bring this feat to perfection. Sure, there are goofy stunts and genuine child-level excitement going on, but the movie also tackles, and tackles well, such weighty issues as sense of purpose, love and loss, and, I suppose, growing up and moving on. All told through the toys point of view. Like I said, a little something for almost anyone watching.
This isn't to say that th movie doesn't stumble at times. It was predictable. It, of course, had to rely on some level of silliness to keep the kids engaged. And it also had a few too many "Full House"-type morality lesson moments. But on the whole even these issues were minimal. I just happen to really dislike the Full House-y moments. I will say this, though. If this was the end of the franchise as I understood it to be (it doesn't have to be, they did leave a window open, I suppose), it was one of the most touching and satisfying endings of a franchise you'll find. And it's always awesome to nail the ending. Couldn't think of a better way to have finished it myself.
In the end, my issue with animated issues may just be that- MY issue. I generally like edgier stuff, more original stuff, things that make me think more. I'm also a big fan of subtlety and nuance... and quirkiness. While there is some of all that to some animated movies- and Toy Story 3 specifically, there may just not be enough. I don't know. Maybe it really does boil down to that certain- je ne sais quoi. But animated movies (at least animated movies that weren't hatched from Wes Anderson's noggin) just don't seem to resonate as well with me. I'm not saying I don't like them. I just don't like them as much. Or, maybe it's just the animated movies I've seen. I don't know. And I don't need to know. I like what I like. Including Toy Story 3 (especially the story/writing- I have no beef with its adapted screenplay nod). Yeah, I don't want to bury that point. I DID like Toy Story 3, it was good, it just wasn't as good- to me- as some folks made it out to be. Nothing wrong with that, to each his or her own.
Grade: A-
Continuing my quest to see all the Best Picture nominees before the Academy Awards show... The main question swirling in my mind before watching Toy Story 3 was whether it truly belonged in the Best Picture nominee race. Well, actually, I should say whether it belonged as a nominee, I doubt anyone thinks it has a serious shot at winning the prize. Including me, after having seen it. There is no question that this is a very clever and very well done animated feature. But one of the ten best of 2010? Um, no, sorry.
It definitely is one of the best animated movies I've seen in a while. (Not THE best, that honor still goes to Wes Anderson's fantastic Fantastic Mr. Fox). In comparison to last year's apparently token animated Best Picture nominee, Up, there really isn't much of an argument: Toy Story 3 is better by leaps and bounds. And that's saying something- Up was a pretty good movie in its own right. Here's the deal with both of them, and animated movies in general: they're just lacking something. I'm not saying that they can't be considered among the best movies of the year, but there's just something in my mind that keeps a step or two below the best live-action movies. Is it the screen presence of actors and actresses? The depth of performance? I'm not entirely sure what it is, but I just can't get into animated movies like I do live-action flicks. Let me say this, though, the best animated movies certainly kick the shit out of the run-of-the-mill live-actioners... I'm looking at you, The Tourist. But when comparing the creams of the crops, the best live-action movies blow away animated fare. So, no, I don't think the tenth slot should have gone to Toy Story 3; not over Shutter Island or The Town or Get Low and certainly not over Blue Valentine. Or how about this? How about switching Toy Story 3 out for a truly original and incredibly well done live-actioner that borders on animated: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World? In any event, I don't think Toy Story 3 belongs in the discussion.
I know that sounds pretty darn narrow-minded of me. And it may be true. I don't want to be a...I dunno... genre-ist when it comes to movies, but again, I just can't get all that attached to animated movies...outside of Fantastic Mr. Fox, that is. (Though that might have more to do with Wes Anderson- I'll follow him where ever he's willing to take me- a damn expert storyteller). Regardless, in this case, while I thought it was good, I just don't think Toy Story 3 was everything it was cracked up to be. So literally, in any event, I don't think it merits Best Picture consideration. But, then again, I'm not a member of the Academy.
Anyway, enough of my comparing it to the opinions of other people, and enough of the negative thinking. It REALLY was a good movie. The thing that stands out most about it is how damn well-written and clever the story is. Andy (the little-boy owner of the motley group of toys from the first two movies) is all growed up now and heading to college, the toys, well there headed for a whole heaping dose of uncertainty. One thing leads to another and they're shipped off via donation to a day care center. Adventure ensues when the toys ultimately decide that being with Andy- even if that means waiting around in the attic until Andy's kids come around- is where they're meant to be. So they have to find their way around the misguided forces of a duplicitous teddy bear in order to find their way home.
Great, imaginative stuff. It's the kind of story that could only be dreamed up by folks who have the brains of grown-ups but the hearts of little children. It kind of makes you wonder whether the creative forces behind the movie would be the most fun people to hang out with... or the most annoying. Either way, I was happy to hang out with their product for just shy of two hours. See, the Toy Story franchise was really the first in the new breed of animated movies- or rather the first in the next step of animated movie evolution- both in technology and in the story lines. Traditional animated gave way to computer generated animation and plots that had only brief moments that resonated with both children and adults fell aside for entire movies that genuinely engaged adult and child audiences. The Toy Story movies were always able to harness the power of thinly veiled real, adult issues in a package that was replete with a sense of wonder and adventure that kids were able to get into. Toy Story 3 really manages to bring this feat to perfection. Sure, there are goofy stunts and genuine child-level excitement going on, but the movie also tackles, and tackles well, such weighty issues as sense of purpose, love and loss, and, I suppose, growing up and moving on. All told through the toys point of view. Like I said, a little something for almost anyone watching.
This isn't to say that th movie doesn't stumble at times. It was predictable. It, of course, had to rely on some level of silliness to keep the kids engaged. And it also had a few too many "Full House"-type morality lesson moments. But on the whole even these issues were minimal. I just happen to really dislike the Full House-y moments. I will say this, though. If this was the end of the franchise as I understood it to be (it doesn't have to be, they did leave a window open, I suppose), it was one of the most touching and satisfying endings of a franchise you'll find. And it's always awesome to nail the ending. Couldn't think of a better way to have finished it myself.
In the end, my issue with animated issues may just be that- MY issue. I generally like edgier stuff, more original stuff, things that make me think more. I'm also a big fan of subtlety and nuance... and quirkiness. While there is some of all that to some animated movies- and Toy Story 3 specifically, there may just not be enough. I don't know. Maybe it really does boil down to that certain- je ne sais quoi. But animated movies (at least animated movies that weren't hatched from Wes Anderson's noggin) just don't seem to resonate as well with me. I'm not saying I don't like them. I just don't like them as much. Or, maybe it's just the animated movies I've seen. I don't know. And I don't need to know. I like what I like. Including Toy Story 3 (especially the story/writing- I have no beef with its adapted screenplay nod). Yeah, I don't want to bury that point. I DID like Toy Story 3, it was good, it just wasn't as good- to me- as some folks made it out to be. Nothing wrong with that, to each his or her own.
Grade: A-
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Movie List 2011: 10.) Barney's Version
Barney's Version
Let me start off by saying that the trailer for the movie was better than the movie itself. And it's because of that trailer that I had been looking forward to seeing Barney's Version for months. I guess with that kind of build up and anticipation, it'd be hard to have it deliver, but then, I've had movies even surpass my inflated expectations before. This was not one of those movies.
I'm not saying that Barney's Version was a bad movie; it wasn't. It just wasn't as good as I thought it'd be. From the previews, it looked like it'd be a wholly unique story of one man's battle against himself and his surroundings as he tried to forge the life he wanted for himself. And it looked damn funny to boot. In reality, while it did tell the story of one man's battle against himself and his surroundings, it was neither particularly funny (it DID have its moments) nor tremendously unique (but again, it had its moments). In the end, it was a movie that had- to be fair- more hits than misses, but when I was expecting a grand slam, a solid and productive single to left just seems less satisfying.
So yeah. The story really does boil down to a man's struggle with himself and the course his life takes. At various times, Paul Giamatti's Barney is selfish, noble, giddy, disgruntled (a lot of disgruntled), in control, losing his mind, and so on and so forth. The range of emotions and scenarios plays out as Barney is confronted with a tell-all book about a crime he insists he didn't commit. The "Version" the title refers to is Barney's take- through yo-yoing between flashback and the present - on his life and how he both struggled to get to where he wanted to be and his battle with himself to stay there and all this is filtered through his relationships with his three wives and his best friend. Lots of things happen and through it all Barney always is faithful to being himself... for better or worse... even when he doesn't want to be. I'm trying not to lay it all out on the table for anyone who happens to read this. Watching how his life unravels is the best part of the movie. And in that there are some awesome moments and great surprises.
But there's also some elements that are frustratingly unoriginal and run of the mill. I think one of the most annoying aspects of the movie is how the failed relationships in Barney's life play out- particularly with his second wife. I don't think they needed to make Minnie Driver's character so shrill and annoying. But she was, so you can see where Barney would want to move on to wife number three. You can see that the two were never right for each other from the moment they first meet. The whole thing was clearly Barney's version of what the ideal life would and perhaps should be. And, it wasn't. I don't know. By the end of it, you can kind of find yourself rooting for Barney to break up with her... she's... just... so... I don't know... vapid and materialistic. But I think the stronger play would have been to humanize her more. Look, these two just don't belong together. And no matter how you dice it, Barney's gotten himself into trouble here by just going with some preconceived flow. Do you have to make her out to be such a bitch? Yes, I think the very end of their relationship was a nice twist, but I think it would have been a stronger story if Barney really had a choice. But, as you'll see in the movie. He doesn't. Not that you'll have a problem with it besides what you already would have depending on your tolerance for divorce. After all, she's horrible and if he stays with her, man it'll suck for him.
This is often something movies get wrong... at least in my mind. It's the ultimate in suck when you meet the person of your dreams just after you've cornered yourself with someone else. Of course, in conventional movie-making, the person who is cornered needs to break free and get with the love of his or her life. And you, the viewer, have to be left with no doubt that the person newly in love has made the right decision to break free. And so, the film maker proceeds to villain-ize the cornerer. And usually they err on the side of mega-bitch/asshole-dom rather than showing it for what it is- not quite right. I think the best I've seen come to reality in this plot line was Sleepless in Seattle. Of course Meg Ryan HAS to leave Bill Pullman's character. He's not the one, but he's not a bad guy... just kind of a wuss. Unfortunately, even there you kind of get it... I mean, you're supposed to get it, but is life really ever that cut and dry? Don't get me wrong, I get that you have to show why someone would be even open to falling in love with someone else. These things don't generally happen to people who are overly happy, but do they ALWAYS have to make it so damn clear. Can't they just set it up as these folks were just not right... or are no longer right for each other without turning the other person into a monster. At least in Barney's Version, you see that Barney is every bit to blame for where he is as his second wife, but in the end, the slathered the bitchiness on a touch too thick for my taste. Could have added some complexity there.
And that may be splitting hairs too. I just found it annoying that a film that at times seemed so willing to side step typical movie convention would fall into that sort of almost cliched plot point. It had its other moments too. I found the whole way they dealt with the crime he insists he didn't commit to be a little unsatisfying. It involves a bad situation no matter what happened, and you never get the feeling that Barney was particularly affected by it one way or the other. Yes, Barney could be the foremost self-centered prick, but you'd think he'd feel something more than he seemed to. Ok, I just wrote this huge bit about how I thought the ending made the entire movie confusing... or at the very least missed a golden opportunity to rise to the rank of one hell of a thought provoking flick... but I thought by including all that here, I'd have revealed too much. I don't like ruining the movies for the four or five of you who read this... so it's always a tough balancing act. I think what I did write stepped over that line too much. Suffice it to say that -after spending some time really thinking about it- I think the ending made the movie a little confusing... and also might have missed the opportunity to really step it up.
But enough of focusing on the negatives. At its best the movie was a fascinating look at a guy's life journey including all the battles he has with himself and those he lets in close to him. As someone who often struggles with himself and who he is, I can relate to some of this... though I don't think I could be as big of a prick as Barney can be if I tried... really hard. There were also a number of fantastic scenes and parts of the movie. I loved the way they portrayed Barney's relationship with his third wife. The idea of how they came together and built up a life was awesome to see. I also loved Barney's relationship with his Dad (played by a superb Dustin Hoffman). These are the types of things- the tone, the development of some of the relationships, the over all feel of most of the movie and the casting- that director Richard J. Lewis and company got right. Particularly the casting. Besides Dustin Hoffman and Paul Giamatti (he's really perfected the art of playing the discontented schlub... so much so that despite playing the role over and over again, it never seems to get old), Minnie Driver (despite the lack of complexity the writers allowed for her character), Scott Speedman (holy cow, didn't see that coming) and Rosamund Pike all deliver great performances. In fact, I'd go so far to say that Dustin Hoffman and maybe even Speedman are worthy of Oscar consideration. (Ok, maybe I'm going overboard with Speedman- he was good and I had never seen him in anything else that I can recall, but he just didn't seem like he'd be all that great an actor... so when he delivers? Perhaps I should tone it down... no... wait... I'll stick to it he deserved at least some passing consideration for Best Supporting Actor... if even only for a second...but certainly Dustin Hoffman was good enough to snag a nod... particularly over Mark Ruffalo).
I guess what I have to figure out is whether I'm penalizing Barney's Version for not being as incredibly awesome as I had thought it would be. I wasn't bored and being boring is- in my mind- the biggest sin a movie and its creators can commit. So it has that going for it. It also had a solid story told... pretty well. And some great acting. Hmm. But it just wasn't as satisfying as I would have hoped. Overall? Pretty good... I suppose.
Grade: B+
Let me start off by saying that the trailer for the movie was better than the movie itself. And it's because of that trailer that I had been looking forward to seeing Barney's Version for months. I guess with that kind of build up and anticipation, it'd be hard to have it deliver, but then, I've had movies even surpass my inflated expectations before. This was not one of those movies.
I'm not saying that Barney's Version was a bad movie; it wasn't. It just wasn't as good as I thought it'd be. From the previews, it looked like it'd be a wholly unique story of one man's battle against himself and his surroundings as he tried to forge the life he wanted for himself. And it looked damn funny to boot. In reality, while it did tell the story of one man's battle against himself and his surroundings, it was neither particularly funny (it DID have its moments) nor tremendously unique (but again, it had its moments). In the end, it was a movie that had- to be fair- more hits than misses, but when I was expecting a grand slam, a solid and productive single to left just seems less satisfying.
So yeah. The story really does boil down to a man's struggle with himself and the course his life takes. At various times, Paul Giamatti's Barney is selfish, noble, giddy, disgruntled (a lot of disgruntled), in control, losing his mind, and so on and so forth. The range of emotions and scenarios plays out as Barney is confronted with a tell-all book about a crime he insists he didn't commit. The "Version" the title refers to is Barney's take- through yo-yoing between flashback and the present - on his life and how he both struggled to get to where he wanted to be and his battle with himself to stay there and all this is filtered through his relationships with his three wives and his best friend. Lots of things happen and through it all Barney always is faithful to being himself... for better or worse... even when he doesn't want to be. I'm trying not to lay it all out on the table for anyone who happens to read this. Watching how his life unravels is the best part of the movie. And in that there are some awesome moments and great surprises.
But there's also some elements that are frustratingly unoriginal and run of the mill. I think one of the most annoying aspects of the movie is how the failed relationships in Barney's life play out- particularly with his second wife. I don't think they needed to make Minnie Driver's character so shrill and annoying. But she was, so you can see where Barney would want to move on to wife number three. You can see that the two were never right for each other from the moment they first meet. The whole thing was clearly Barney's version of what the ideal life would and perhaps should be. And, it wasn't. I don't know. By the end of it, you can kind of find yourself rooting for Barney to break up with her... she's... just... so... I don't know... vapid and materialistic. But I think the stronger play would have been to humanize her more. Look, these two just don't belong together. And no matter how you dice it, Barney's gotten himself into trouble here by just going with some preconceived flow. Do you have to make her out to be such a bitch? Yes, I think the very end of their relationship was a nice twist, but I think it would have been a stronger story if Barney really had a choice. But, as you'll see in the movie. He doesn't. Not that you'll have a problem with it besides what you already would have depending on your tolerance for divorce. After all, she's horrible and if he stays with her, man it'll suck for him.
This is often something movies get wrong... at least in my mind. It's the ultimate in suck when you meet the person of your dreams just after you've cornered yourself with someone else. Of course, in conventional movie-making, the person who is cornered needs to break free and get with the love of his or her life. And you, the viewer, have to be left with no doubt that the person newly in love has made the right decision to break free. And so, the film maker proceeds to villain-ize the cornerer. And usually they err on the side of mega-bitch/asshole-dom rather than showing it for what it is- not quite right. I think the best I've seen come to reality in this plot line was Sleepless in Seattle. Of course Meg Ryan HAS to leave Bill Pullman's character. He's not the one, but he's not a bad guy... just kind of a wuss. Unfortunately, even there you kind of get it... I mean, you're supposed to get it, but is life really ever that cut and dry? Don't get me wrong, I get that you have to show why someone would be even open to falling in love with someone else. These things don't generally happen to people who are overly happy, but do they ALWAYS have to make it so damn clear. Can't they just set it up as these folks were just not right... or are no longer right for each other without turning the other person into a monster. At least in Barney's Version, you see that Barney is every bit to blame for where he is as his second wife, but in the end, the slathered the bitchiness on a touch too thick for my taste. Could have added some complexity there.
And that may be splitting hairs too. I just found it annoying that a film that at times seemed so willing to side step typical movie convention would fall into that sort of almost cliched plot point. It had its other moments too. I found the whole way they dealt with the crime he insists he didn't commit to be a little unsatisfying. It involves a bad situation no matter what happened, and you never get the feeling that Barney was particularly affected by it one way or the other. Yes, Barney could be the foremost self-centered prick, but you'd think he'd feel something more than he seemed to. Ok, I just wrote this huge bit about how I thought the ending made the entire movie confusing... or at the very least missed a golden opportunity to rise to the rank of one hell of a thought provoking flick... but I thought by including all that here, I'd have revealed too much. I don't like ruining the movies for the four or five of you who read this... so it's always a tough balancing act. I think what I did write stepped over that line too much. Suffice it to say that -after spending some time really thinking about it- I think the ending made the movie a little confusing... and also might have missed the opportunity to really step it up.
But enough of focusing on the negatives. At its best the movie was a fascinating look at a guy's life journey including all the battles he has with himself and those he lets in close to him. As someone who often struggles with himself and who he is, I can relate to some of this... though I don't think I could be as big of a prick as Barney can be if I tried... really hard. There were also a number of fantastic scenes and parts of the movie. I loved the way they portrayed Barney's relationship with his third wife. The idea of how they came together and built up a life was awesome to see. I also loved Barney's relationship with his Dad (played by a superb Dustin Hoffman). These are the types of things- the tone, the development of some of the relationships, the over all feel of most of the movie and the casting- that director Richard J. Lewis and company got right. Particularly the casting. Besides Dustin Hoffman and Paul Giamatti (he's really perfected the art of playing the discontented schlub... so much so that despite playing the role over and over again, it never seems to get old), Minnie Driver (despite the lack of complexity the writers allowed for her character), Scott Speedman (holy cow, didn't see that coming) and Rosamund Pike all deliver great performances. In fact, I'd go so far to say that Dustin Hoffman and maybe even Speedman are worthy of Oscar consideration. (Ok, maybe I'm going overboard with Speedman- he was good and I had never seen him in anything else that I can recall, but he just didn't seem like he'd be all that great an actor... so when he delivers? Perhaps I should tone it down... no... wait... I'll stick to it he deserved at least some passing consideration for Best Supporting Actor... if even only for a second...but certainly Dustin Hoffman was good enough to snag a nod... particularly over Mark Ruffalo).
I guess what I have to figure out is whether I'm penalizing Barney's Version for not being as incredibly awesome as I had thought it would be. I wasn't bored and being boring is- in my mind- the biggest sin a movie and its creators can commit. So it has that going for it. It also had a solid story told... pretty well. And some great acting. Hmm. But it just wasn't as satisfying as I would have hoped. Overall? Pretty good... I suppose.
Grade: B+
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Movie List 2011: 9.) Biutiful
Biutiful
The cinema revolution, it would seem, is coming from the south. As in south of the border. While the Hollywood system seems to be content to trot out retreads and wholly unoriginal ideas to make their millions, a crop of Mexican directors strive to create a hybrid of art and entertainment- thinking people's movies- complete with stories that will stick with you well after you've left the theater.
Well... that's my understanding, at least. I haven't had the pleasure of viewing much from this up and coming group of Mexican-born filmmakers. But, from what I've heard, movies from the likes of Pedro Almodovar (Broken Embraces, Volver, Bad Education), Guillermo Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy), and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Babel, 21 Grams, Amores Perros...and, yes, Biutiful)- among others- are not to be missed. From what I understand they all share distinct qualities of originality, truthfulness, and complexity. This all sounds good to me. Of the three I've listed, I'm only really familiar with the work of Del Toro. I enjoyed the heck out of Hellboy (Though I've only seen the first one) and Pan's Labyrinth is in my top five all-time favorite movies. I had also heard incredible things specifically about Inarritu's Amore Perros and Almodovar's Volver and Bad Education. All of these are on my "to-see" list. Needless to say, when the opportunity presented itself to check out Inarritu's latest, I jumped all over it. The added bonus in seeing Biutiful was that I got to check another Oscar nominated flick off the list (Best Actor- Javier Bardem and Best Foreign Language Film).
Biutiful certainly lived up to my expectations in a lot of ways. It was gritty, original, and above all else engrossing. That said, the story itself made for a difficult movie to watch. Depressing as all get out and often wrenching or devastating... but most importantly it was thought-provoking and, in the end, haunting. I should also add that it was often a bit confusing. Allow me to explain. The movie follows the last days of Uxbal (played by a never-better Javier Bardem), a scoundrel with a heart of gold... or working towards a heart of gold. Uxbal is a scraper. Never had much opportunity to make a good life for himself, but he's doing what he can to survive and provide for his two young children. Doing what he can includes falling into the center of a complex crime pyramid that includes illegal immigrants (to Spain), counterfeit goods, questionable construction deals, and a whole lot of scheming. And when I say he falls at the center, he really is the sole person responsible for keeping the often tenuous situation from imploding. And, as if life wasn't complicated enough, Uxbal finds out that he is dying of an aggressive case of rapidly spreading cancer. Add in an emotional wreck of a wife and the ability to commune with the dead (an ability he uses to make some money on the side) and life- or what's left of it- is nothing short of impossible. And yet, Uxbal keeps trudging on and along the way does what he can to atone for the atrocities he participates in. Like I said, scoundrel with a heart of gold. Complications arise as Uxbal's last days draw nearer and everything begins to come crashing down.
So yeah, that's the story. The tumultuous last months of a dying man whose life is falling apart- despite his efforts to keep it all together. Not the way you'd typically think you'd like to spend two and a half hours. But, like I mentioned before it was engrossing as all get out. The primary reason for this is Javier Bardem. He is flat-out mesmerizing here. He nails it: the desperation and longing, the slowly burning and slowly dying fire of a man who just wants something better for the people he cares for... and he knows that's virtually impossible. Bardem makes you feel the suffering, makes you feel his yearning for the redemption of his increasingly lost soul. Of all the haunting aspects of the movie, Bardem's performance is what linger's with the most intensity. The look in his eyes. But... it's not all doom and gloom. Bardem and Inarritu do an excellent job of capturing and showing the moments that make this struggle essential to Uxbal. In fact, witnessing the puzzle of this character's life-being able to put together the pieces of why he is who he is- is one of the best parts of the film. Rarely do filmmakers allow you to come to these places. Usually, it's all obvious or explained away too easily. Not here.. much to the audience's benefit.
This isn't to say that Inarritu crafts a perfect movie. Far from it. Yes, it is unique and spellbinding- for the most part, but it was also confusing, frustrating, and at times painfully slow. I know that Inarritu is hinting at some deeper meaning to this all. Maybe it's lost in translation. I don't know but I definitely felt like I was missing something in the end. I loved the character study and the film's willingness to explore existential questions. But was Inarritu trying to give some subtle...or hell even not so subtle and definitive answers. Can't say I picked up on it entirely. I have an idea of what it all means, but I can't say I can easily explain it. So do I actually know? That, I don't know. I guess there's nothing wrong with it, but it left me with a vague sense of confusion at the end. I suppose it just means that I'm going to have to think on it more- and considering how the thing is sticking with me, it shouldn't be difficult.
What's more of a problem is the pace. At times the movie moves incredibly slowly. Well, I shouldn't say at times. It IS an incredibly slow movie. It seems to bog down needlessly at times. I don't know if this was by design to help us better soak in the experience... if so, that might be overkill. Bardem gets the job done well enough in his performance there really wasn't any need to stall the story at certain points. I wouldn't say that it was ever really boring, per se, but it was walking a little too close to that line... and for such an otherwise engaging movie, that was a little frustrating.
In the end though, the pros outweigh the cons considerably. What's left is a largely gripping movie dominated by a hypnotic lead performance. I'll certainly take that any day of the week. Definitely looking forward to discovering what else these upstart Mexican filmmakers have in store.
Grade: A-
The cinema revolution, it would seem, is coming from the south. As in south of the border. While the Hollywood system seems to be content to trot out retreads and wholly unoriginal ideas to make their millions, a crop of Mexican directors strive to create a hybrid of art and entertainment- thinking people's movies- complete with stories that will stick with you well after you've left the theater.
Well... that's my understanding, at least. I haven't had the pleasure of viewing much from this up and coming group of Mexican-born filmmakers. But, from what I've heard, movies from the likes of Pedro Almodovar (Broken Embraces, Volver, Bad Education), Guillermo Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy), and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Babel, 21 Grams, Amores Perros...and, yes, Biutiful)- among others- are not to be missed. From what I understand they all share distinct qualities of originality, truthfulness, and complexity. This all sounds good to me. Of the three I've listed, I'm only really familiar with the work of Del Toro. I enjoyed the heck out of Hellboy (Though I've only seen the first one) and Pan's Labyrinth is in my top five all-time favorite movies. I had also heard incredible things specifically about Inarritu's Amore Perros and Almodovar's Volver and Bad Education. All of these are on my "to-see" list. Needless to say, when the opportunity presented itself to check out Inarritu's latest, I jumped all over it. The added bonus in seeing Biutiful was that I got to check another Oscar nominated flick off the list (Best Actor- Javier Bardem and Best Foreign Language Film).
Biutiful certainly lived up to my expectations in a lot of ways. It was gritty, original, and above all else engrossing. That said, the story itself made for a difficult movie to watch. Depressing as all get out and often wrenching or devastating... but most importantly it was thought-provoking and, in the end, haunting. I should also add that it was often a bit confusing. Allow me to explain. The movie follows the last days of Uxbal (played by a never-better Javier Bardem), a scoundrel with a heart of gold... or working towards a heart of gold. Uxbal is a scraper. Never had much opportunity to make a good life for himself, but he's doing what he can to survive and provide for his two young children. Doing what he can includes falling into the center of a complex crime pyramid that includes illegal immigrants (to Spain), counterfeit goods, questionable construction deals, and a whole lot of scheming. And when I say he falls at the center, he really is the sole person responsible for keeping the often tenuous situation from imploding. And, as if life wasn't complicated enough, Uxbal finds out that he is dying of an aggressive case of rapidly spreading cancer. Add in an emotional wreck of a wife and the ability to commune with the dead (an ability he uses to make some money on the side) and life- or what's left of it- is nothing short of impossible. And yet, Uxbal keeps trudging on and along the way does what he can to atone for the atrocities he participates in. Like I said, scoundrel with a heart of gold. Complications arise as Uxbal's last days draw nearer and everything begins to come crashing down.
So yeah, that's the story. The tumultuous last months of a dying man whose life is falling apart- despite his efforts to keep it all together. Not the way you'd typically think you'd like to spend two and a half hours. But, like I mentioned before it was engrossing as all get out. The primary reason for this is Javier Bardem. He is flat-out mesmerizing here. He nails it: the desperation and longing, the slowly burning and slowly dying fire of a man who just wants something better for the people he cares for... and he knows that's virtually impossible. Bardem makes you feel the suffering, makes you feel his yearning for the redemption of his increasingly lost soul. Of all the haunting aspects of the movie, Bardem's performance is what linger's with the most intensity. The look in his eyes. But... it's not all doom and gloom. Bardem and Inarritu do an excellent job of capturing and showing the moments that make this struggle essential to Uxbal. In fact, witnessing the puzzle of this character's life-being able to put together the pieces of why he is who he is- is one of the best parts of the film. Rarely do filmmakers allow you to come to these places. Usually, it's all obvious or explained away too easily. Not here.. much to the audience's benefit.
This isn't to say that Inarritu crafts a perfect movie. Far from it. Yes, it is unique and spellbinding- for the most part, but it was also confusing, frustrating, and at times painfully slow. I know that Inarritu is hinting at some deeper meaning to this all. Maybe it's lost in translation. I don't know but I definitely felt like I was missing something in the end. I loved the character study and the film's willingness to explore existential questions. But was Inarritu trying to give some subtle...or hell even not so subtle and definitive answers. Can't say I picked up on it entirely. I have an idea of what it all means, but I can't say I can easily explain it. So do I actually know? That, I don't know. I guess there's nothing wrong with it, but it left me with a vague sense of confusion at the end. I suppose it just means that I'm going to have to think on it more- and considering how the thing is sticking with me, it shouldn't be difficult.
What's more of a problem is the pace. At times the movie moves incredibly slowly. Well, I shouldn't say at times. It IS an incredibly slow movie. It seems to bog down needlessly at times. I don't know if this was by design to help us better soak in the experience... if so, that might be overkill. Bardem gets the job done well enough in his performance there really wasn't any need to stall the story at certain points. I wouldn't say that it was ever really boring, per se, but it was walking a little too close to that line... and for such an otherwise engaging movie, that was a little frustrating.
In the end though, the pros outweigh the cons considerably. What's left is a largely gripping movie dominated by a hypnotic lead performance. I'll certainly take that any day of the week. Definitely looking forward to discovering what else these upstart Mexican filmmakers have in store.
Grade: A-
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
New To Me 2011: 1.) Shaun of the Dead
Shaun of the Dead
I'm not really sure it makes a ton of sense to comment on movies that have been around as long as some of the ones I plan on seeing this year. In previous years, I just assigned the movies a letter grade and went about my business. So, not sure this is going to work. But what the hell...might as well give it a go.
I've wanted to see Shaun of the Dead for quite some time. Heard awesome things about it right when it came out, and a lot of people I know love this movie. My interest in it didn't really pick up until I saw Edgar Wright's excellent buddy cop flick, Hot Fuzz. Sheer awesomeness. At that point I knew I needed to see his earlier work, Shaun of the Dead. Of course, nearly four years later and I hadn't gotten around to seeing it...until now.
What a freaking awesome movie. Man, I love Wright's work. The comedy is dead on- particularly the wry, witty dialog. Just. Plain. Awesome. I was actually laughing out loud watching it. And, as I think I've mentioned elsewhere, I almost never do that. It was perfect. The thing about it...and they mention this in the featurette included on the DVD... it isn't like a typical spoof movie. Something like Scary Movie. Hell even Space Balls. It's not like they were openly mocking the genre they were spoofing. It's more that they inserted a comedy into a zombie movie. There was a distinct lack of ridiculous antics and lame puns. This is the kind of comedy I really enjoy. Restrained and subtle. I don't need Adam Sandler making all sorts of idiotic noises or speaking like a deranged four year old... no, one well-timed line of wry British dialog hits the mark a lot better. Definitely more high brow than a lot of what passes for comedy these days. I don't know, for me, it hit the mark. I really enjoyed it.
Not only did I love the writing and the typical Edgar Wright style, the casting was dead on as well. The chemistry between Simon Pegg's Shaun and Nick Frost's Ed was incredible to watch. This should come as no surprise considering the two were once roommates and remain close friends. I'd pretty much watch anything with them in it. Kate Ashfield, Lucy Davis, and Dylan Moran as Shaun's girlfriend, Liz and her friends Dianne and David respectively, round out the awesome cast. I guess the thing that made it all work is that no one really seemed to take themselves too seriously... but at the same time they were all committed to making a somewhat sophisticated movie. It was like they knew it was ridiculous but they were going to have a good time putting out a good product. It seemed effortless...which made it damn cool.
I'm struggling a little to really explain why I loved it. I don't know, it just worked. Wright and Pegg as a writing combo have proven to be winners... well they're at least 2 for 2 (having teamed up to write Hot Fuzz as well) in my book and I hope they have a few more tricks up their sleeves as well. Actually I've enjoyed all of the work I've seen from Wright and Pegg separately as well. Wright was again fantastic helming Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and Pegg was excellent in the only other role I've seen him in as a young Scotty in JJ Abrams' reboot of Star Trek. So yeah, definitely hope they keep the good times rolling... but as for Shaun of the Dead... I highly recommend checking it out if you haven't yet. Really wish I had gotten around to it earlier. (Hell, I've even had the DVD from Netflix since June...)... but in the end, I suppose it was well worth the wait. Awesome, awesome movie.
Grade: A+
I'm not really sure it makes a ton of sense to comment on movies that have been around as long as some of the ones I plan on seeing this year. In previous years, I just assigned the movies a letter grade and went about my business. So, not sure this is going to work. But what the hell...might as well give it a go.
I've wanted to see Shaun of the Dead for quite some time. Heard awesome things about it right when it came out, and a lot of people I know love this movie. My interest in it didn't really pick up until I saw Edgar Wright's excellent buddy cop flick, Hot Fuzz. Sheer awesomeness. At that point I knew I needed to see his earlier work, Shaun of the Dead. Of course, nearly four years later and I hadn't gotten around to seeing it...until now.
What a freaking awesome movie. Man, I love Wright's work. The comedy is dead on- particularly the wry, witty dialog. Just. Plain. Awesome. I was actually laughing out loud watching it. And, as I think I've mentioned elsewhere, I almost never do that. It was perfect. The thing about it...and they mention this in the featurette included on the DVD... it isn't like a typical spoof movie. Something like Scary Movie. Hell even Space Balls. It's not like they were openly mocking the genre they were spoofing. It's more that they inserted a comedy into a zombie movie. There was a distinct lack of ridiculous antics and lame puns. This is the kind of comedy I really enjoy. Restrained and subtle. I don't need Adam Sandler making all sorts of idiotic noises or speaking like a deranged four year old... no, one well-timed line of wry British dialog hits the mark a lot better. Definitely more high brow than a lot of what passes for comedy these days. I don't know, for me, it hit the mark. I really enjoyed it.
Not only did I love the writing and the typical Edgar Wright style, the casting was dead on as well. The chemistry between Simon Pegg's Shaun and Nick Frost's Ed was incredible to watch. This should come as no surprise considering the two were once roommates and remain close friends. I'd pretty much watch anything with them in it. Kate Ashfield, Lucy Davis, and Dylan Moran as Shaun's girlfriend, Liz and her friends Dianne and David respectively, round out the awesome cast. I guess the thing that made it all work is that no one really seemed to take themselves too seriously... but at the same time they were all committed to making a somewhat sophisticated movie. It was like they knew it was ridiculous but they were going to have a good time putting out a good product. It seemed effortless...which made it damn cool.
I'm struggling a little to really explain why I loved it. I don't know, it just worked. Wright and Pegg as a writing combo have proven to be winners... well they're at least 2 for 2 (having teamed up to write Hot Fuzz as well) in my book and I hope they have a few more tricks up their sleeves as well. Actually I've enjoyed all of the work I've seen from Wright and Pegg separately as well. Wright was again fantastic helming Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and Pegg was excellent in the only other role I've seen him in as a young Scotty in JJ Abrams' reboot of Star Trek. So yeah, definitely hope they keep the good times rolling... but as for Shaun of the Dead... I highly recommend checking it out if you haven't yet. Really wish I had gotten around to it earlier. (Hell, I've even had the DVD from Netflix since June...)... but in the end, I suppose it was well worth the wait. Awesome, awesome movie.
Grade: A+
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Movie List 2011: 8.) 127 Hours
127 Hours
Trying to get all the Academy Awards Best Picture Nominees watched by the time the ceremony rolls around at the end of the month. I'm not entirely sure I would have gotten around to seeing 127 Hours otherwise. It's not that I thought it was going to be terrible; it is, after all, a Danny Boyle movie, and in my experience with Danny Boyle movies, they're usually a good time. It's just that I knew it would be a tough one to watch. And, of course, the difficulty all boils down to one scene... and if you know the story, you know what scene I'm talking about.
My first thought when I heard about the movie was that it would make for one damn compelling watch, especially since they cast James Franco as trapped adventurer Aron Ralston. Franco has always been interesting to me... yes, even in Tristan and Isolde. He exudes a certain very watchable charm on the screen. So, this had the makings of a more interesting version of the Tom Hanks flick, Cast Away. (Not that Hanks doesn't bring his own charm, and I did enjoy that movie, but in the battle of Danny Boyle vs Robert Zemeckis in the arena of interesting movies? I'm taking Boyle...Zemeckis's efforts on Back to the Future notwithstanding). But then I started thinking about it more... the whole thing is going to boil down to one excruciating and pivotal point in the story... oh heck, if you don't know the story by now... look, the dude cuts his own arm off to get free of the boulder that he is trapped under... and it's that scene... a scene I knew they were going to have to show- in what detail, who knew... but there were plenty of stories of people fainting at viewings...it's that scene that just dominated my mind as I weighed whether I should see it. I'm not usually one swayed by gore or violence. I don't know, maybe I'm desensitized or I'm able to tell fiction from reality or whatever. I can handle violence. And a pretty decent amount of gore or explicit violence. It really doesn't affect me. But somehow, this was different. I think it has more to do with the fact that since you know this is based on a true story it's really easy to put yourself in Ralston's shoes. I AM the type of person who, when watching sports and such, sees a someone blow out a knee and immediately my knee starts tingling. This is real. I can imagine how it feels... or at least I think I can. So, what it all came down to this: was self-amputation something I really wanted to experience? (Entertainment Weekly critic Owen Gleiberman...well, I think it was Owen... wrote something similar to this in his review of the movie. He agreed that it was hard to get the inevitable scene out of your mind, but to truly engage the movie you had to try to go on Ralston's ride with him...or something to that effect... I do know that he commented on the amputation scene's domination of the back of the viewers mind).
Well, I can't say it is something I wanted to experience, but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences took that dilemma out of my hands by handing it a Best Picture nomination. Discomfort was no match for my desire to see all nominees.
Despite Gleiberman saying I should try to take my mind off of what was to come, I found it hard not to be thinking about it. What was my reaction to it going to be? How was it going to be shot? When was it going to happen? And so on. I mean, that really is the story here right? Well, I suppose there was more to it and Danny Boyle does attempt to make this more than a one-scene movie. Even if Ralston had somehow managed to free himself of that boulder without having to hack off his arm... with a dull multi-tool no less... his ordeal would have been harrowing to say the least. 127 hours of dwindling hope, food, water. You really have to have a will to survive to make it through that. What kind of person could possibly summon the will and spirit to get through this? Even just hanging on to the point where self-surgery is the only option? Answering these questions is where Boyle does his best work. He really tries to get you in the head of Ralston. He wants you to get a feel for who this person is and how he managed to get through this. And in the moments where I could forget... somewhat... what was coming (let me try to express this better... I wasn't worried about the gore... I wasn't afraid that I was going to hork or pass out or anything... just wasn't looking forward to watching this guy do it... inevitably I'm going to put myself in his shoes and well it's just going to be hard to watch... IF that is, the scene was done well... and let me spare you the suspense... yes, it was graphic, but I thought it was done very well) I was easily able to engage the story and the study of this character. Boyle makes an intriguing movie out of this journey into Ralston's head. You really do get a sense of the person he is... and the measure of his will. This also makes it easy to try and put yourself in his shoes and see how you measure up...or how you think you would measure up. It's all very engaging.
As I mentioned though, the inevitable scene does come and it was hard to watch. I was actually squirming. I rarely do that. And again, it's not that I hard to look away because you can see what the inside of an arm looks like... it's more that I got that tingling sensation in MY arm and it's all done in such a way as to encourage you to FEEL Ralston's pain. Not literally, of course, but through some mental/emotional connection. And that was hard to watch. But damn it, a guy's got to do what a guy's got to do. And so he does. And there's your story.
All that aside, this had to have been a somewhat difficult film to make. You have several challenges here: it's basically a one-man show so if you cast the wrong actor, there's no one else to save it for you. Also, a one-man story where the one man spends the vast bulk of the movie stuck in one place can quickly turn boring if it isn't presented in an intriguing way. Finally, you really have to be concerned with over-doing the uplifting parts. Yes, this is a feel-good story in the end. Another of the triumph of the human spirit-type stories... the ordinary dude achieving the extraordinary and all that jazz. You go to heavy on the sugar and you're going to turn people off. There's got to be a balance. All of this, plus you have to get the amputation scene just right so it doesn't devolve solely into satisfaction for the morbidly curious.
On most counts Boyle and Franco deliver. Especially Franco. Definitely a great choice to play the roll. He didn't seem to have any problems being able to embody Aron Ralston, bring to life both the positive and the negative sides of his character. Ralston, much like anyone else, is imperfect. Just because he was able to get himself out of a situation most of us couldn't have survived doesn't mean he's Superman. And Franco does a great job of showing us the depth of this persona. (And, I suppose some credit there goes to Boyle). Boyle also does his part and delivers a watchable movie that while it is heavy on the triumphs, it doesn't avoid the darker moments of desperation. I did have some problems with the style though. Boyle incorporates some of that spastic, edgy shooting style that made Trainspotting the unique movie it was. It doesn't work at all times here. In fact, at times it was just too much... headache-inducing.... I know he had to make the movie interesting, but I'm not sure that bringing in the jiggling or rushed footage was the way to go. The best parts of the movie are where he let's us into the mind of Franco... the flashbacks, the hallucinations, the video-diaries. The way he presents these are what makes the movie engaging. So... I don't know. I'm glad I saw it. It WAS a great story... and a pretty good movie. But in the end... even casting the fact that the crucial scene was going to gnaw at me no matter who made the movie... I think that Boyle could have done better. I don't mean that it was a bad movie by any stretch. It just wasn't amazing in the way that Slumdog Millionaire was. Yeah. I know. You can't hit a home run every time up. There's nothing wrong with a solid double every now and again.
Grade: A-
Trying to get all the Academy Awards Best Picture Nominees watched by the time the ceremony rolls around at the end of the month. I'm not entirely sure I would have gotten around to seeing 127 Hours otherwise. It's not that I thought it was going to be terrible; it is, after all, a Danny Boyle movie, and in my experience with Danny Boyle movies, they're usually a good time. It's just that I knew it would be a tough one to watch. And, of course, the difficulty all boils down to one scene... and if you know the story, you know what scene I'm talking about.
My first thought when I heard about the movie was that it would make for one damn compelling watch, especially since they cast James Franco as trapped adventurer Aron Ralston. Franco has always been interesting to me... yes, even in Tristan and Isolde. He exudes a certain very watchable charm on the screen. So, this had the makings of a more interesting version of the Tom Hanks flick, Cast Away. (Not that Hanks doesn't bring his own charm, and I did enjoy that movie, but in the battle of Danny Boyle vs Robert Zemeckis in the arena of interesting movies? I'm taking Boyle...Zemeckis's efforts on Back to the Future notwithstanding). But then I started thinking about it more... the whole thing is going to boil down to one excruciating and pivotal point in the story... oh heck, if you don't know the story by now... look, the dude cuts his own arm off to get free of the boulder that he is trapped under... and it's that scene... a scene I knew they were going to have to show- in what detail, who knew... but there were plenty of stories of people fainting at viewings...it's that scene that just dominated my mind as I weighed whether I should see it. I'm not usually one swayed by gore or violence. I don't know, maybe I'm desensitized or I'm able to tell fiction from reality or whatever. I can handle violence. And a pretty decent amount of gore or explicit violence. It really doesn't affect me. But somehow, this was different. I think it has more to do with the fact that since you know this is based on a true story it's really easy to put yourself in Ralston's shoes. I AM the type of person who, when watching sports and such, sees a someone blow out a knee and immediately my knee starts tingling. This is real. I can imagine how it feels... or at least I think I can. So, what it all came down to this: was self-amputation something I really wanted to experience? (Entertainment Weekly critic Owen Gleiberman...well, I think it was Owen... wrote something similar to this in his review of the movie. He agreed that it was hard to get the inevitable scene out of your mind, but to truly engage the movie you had to try to go on Ralston's ride with him...or something to that effect... I do know that he commented on the amputation scene's domination of the back of the viewers mind).
Well, I can't say it is something I wanted to experience, but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences took that dilemma out of my hands by handing it a Best Picture nomination. Discomfort was no match for my desire to see all nominees.
Despite Gleiberman saying I should try to take my mind off of what was to come, I found it hard not to be thinking about it. What was my reaction to it going to be? How was it going to be shot? When was it going to happen? And so on. I mean, that really is the story here right? Well, I suppose there was more to it and Danny Boyle does attempt to make this more than a one-scene movie. Even if Ralston had somehow managed to free himself of that boulder without having to hack off his arm... with a dull multi-tool no less... his ordeal would have been harrowing to say the least. 127 hours of dwindling hope, food, water. You really have to have a will to survive to make it through that. What kind of person could possibly summon the will and spirit to get through this? Even just hanging on to the point where self-surgery is the only option? Answering these questions is where Boyle does his best work. He really tries to get you in the head of Ralston. He wants you to get a feel for who this person is and how he managed to get through this. And in the moments where I could forget... somewhat... what was coming (let me try to express this better... I wasn't worried about the gore... I wasn't afraid that I was going to hork or pass out or anything... just wasn't looking forward to watching this guy do it... inevitably I'm going to put myself in his shoes and well it's just going to be hard to watch... IF that is, the scene was done well... and let me spare you the suspense... yes, it was graphic, but I thought it was done very well) I was easily able to engage the story and the study of this character. Boyle makes an intriguing movie out of this journey into Ralston's head. You really do get a sense of the person he is... and the measure of his will. This also makes it easy to try and put yourself in his shoes and see how you measure up...or how you think you would measure up. It's all very engaging.
As I mentioned though, the inevitable scene does come and it was hard to watch. I was actually squirming. I rarely do that. And again, it's not that I hard to look away because you can see what the inside of an arm looks like... it's more that I got that tingling sensation in MY arm and it's all done in such a way as to encourage you to FEEL Ralston's pain. Not literally, of course, but through some mental/emotional connection. And that was hard to watch. But damn it, a guy's got to do what a guy's got to do. And so he does. And there's your story.
All that aside, this had to have been a somewhat difficult film to make. You have several challenges here: it's basically a one-man show so if you cast the wrong actor, there's no one else to save it for you. Also, a one-man story where the one man spends the vast bulk of the movie stuck in one place can quickly turn boring if it isn't presented in an intriguing way. Finally, you really have to be concerned with over-doing the uplifting parts. Yes, this is a feel-good story in the end. Another of the triumph of the human spirit-type stories... the ordinary dude achieving the extraordinary and all that jazz. You go to heavy on the sugar and you're going to turn people off. There's got to be a balance. All of this, plus you have to get the amputation scene just right so it doesn't devolve solely into satisfaction for the morbidly curious.
On most counts Boyle and Franco deliver. Especially Franco. Definitely a great choice to play the roll. He didn't seem to have any problems being able to embody Aron Ralston, bring to life both the positive and the negative sides of his character. Ralston, much like anyone else, is imperfect. Just because he was able to get himself out of a situation most of us couldn't have survived doesn't mean he's Superman. And Franco does a great job of showing us the depth of this persona. (And, I suppose some credit there goes to Boyle). Boyle also does his part and delivers a watchable movie that while it is heavy on the triumphs, it doesn't avoid the darker moments of desperation. I did have some problems with the style though. Boyle incorporates some of that spastic, edgy shooting style that made Trainspotting the unique movie it was. It doesn't work at all times here. In fact, at times it was just too much... headache-inducing.... I know he had to make the movie interesting, but I'm not sure that bringing in the jiggling or rushed footage was the way to go. The best parts of the movie are where he let's us into the mind of Franco... the flashbacks, the hallucinations, the video-diaries. The way he presents these are what makes the movie engaging. So... I don't know. I'm glad I saw it. It WAS a great story... and a pretty good movie. But in the end... even casting the fact that the crucial scene was going to gnaw at me no matter who made the movie... I think that Boyle could have done better. I don't mean that it was a bad movie by any stretch. It just wasn't amazing in the way that Slumdog Millionaire was. Yeah. I know. You can't hit a home run every time up. There's nothing wrong with a solid double every now and again.
Grade: A-
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Movie List 2011: 7.) The Way Back
The Way Back
This one was kind of frustrating. It had all the goods to be an absolute knock-out of a movie: great cast doing great things, intriguing story, a capable director... and yet... somehow, it came up short of awesome. I'm not saying it was bad... but not great... not as great, anyway, as it could have been. And I'm having a tough time putting my finger on what exactly went wrong. And how wrong did it go?
What didn't go wrong was the story. Good stuff usually. A group composed of mixed nationalities (but led by the eternally optimistic and determined Pol, Janusz- Jim Sturgess giving it his all and doing some fine work) escapes from a Soviet prison camp (in Siberia) and flees to India... on foot. Typically stirring stuff here- the triumph of the human will and all that jazz. Nothing wrong with the story. Or the cast- which gave great performances all the way around. I already mentioned (in passing parenthetical) that Jim Sturgess brought his A game to great effect. Colin Ferrell was delightfully just unhinged enough as the Russian criminal who escapes prison to flee the gambling debt he wracked up in the camp. Ed Harris brought a great deal of stoicism and just the right touch of humanity to his part of the tough old American. And Saoirse Ronan, playing an escaped Polish orphan, again offered a glimpse of the fantastic actress she's becoming. She's not quite to the point of amazing yet- but she's getting there, and here she was able to both hijack a number of her scenes and keep the movie going at points where it bogged down. Oh and I have to give a shout out to Mark Strong, the every villain. Here he's not so much evil as he is a garden variety scoundrel.. if that. Don't want to ruin it, but he's definitely not heroic...again. I don't recall, however, ever seeing him play the good guy. Kind of makes you wonder if he's a horrible person away from the set. Or, is he a super nice guy tapping in to his inner bad dude...over and over again. There really wasn't anything wrong with his performance (though I think his accent was the least polished) just kind of amusing.
So yeah, nothing wrong with the acting... in fact for a lot of the movie it's the great performances, particularly Harris, Ronan, and the mesmerizing Sturgess that keep you engaged in the movie. But then, why would you want to look away from the movie? It has the goods right? I think, despite the fact that the story in and of itself is intriguing, the way Peter Weir tells it..or lets it unravel.. is..well...lacking. Again, it's hard to pinpoint what exactly was lacking...but it was missing something...or some things. I guess one issue was the pacing of the movie. It definitely lacked a consistent pace. At times, it just seemed to get bogged down in details... it just stalled. And at other times, it just jumped around abruptly-an issue that was definitely on display with the ending. Actually the ending offered a worst of both worlds in terms of the pace. The movie just kind of coasted to the end and then all of the sudden- credits. Well, not that abrupt. There is definitely closure. But, you went from the meat of the story to the finish so.... and I know this is going to sound odd... deliberately and suddenly. Let's see how to put it better... you just kind of coasted to the end...without really knowing it was the end (other than knowing that the thing was a shade over 2 hours and a vague sense that the timer should be up)...and buy the time you realized it was the end, he credits are rolling. Look not ruin anything but a group of the guys get to India. And it's like all of a sudden there they are. No build up to it. It was odd.
I don't know... maybe the abrupt ending speaks to what might have been the core of what was missing about this movie. Heart? An emotional attachment? Yeah, maybe the latter. Everything in how the story was told and presented just seemed a little detached. It's almost like the audience is never given the chance... or is expected to really engage the characters on the screen. Rather than experiencing the story on a deeper level you're kind of left just watching this mixed bag of folks taking a walk. You see the triumph of the human spirit and will to live. Good, but ordinary people, becoming extraordinary if for no other reason than to take another step (of course you see it; it's hard not to this will to go on and what it means to these people is consistently plastered all over Sturgess's face). But somehow you don't feel it. You get close to attachment in some of the scenes presided over by Ronan. And maybe that was her role her- to make these people more human. I don't know. But again, this feeling was- for me- fleeting and inconsistent. And maybe because of this detachment (and I'm not saying that all movies HAVE to grab you- really grab you- to be great... but it helps) there seems to be a lack of substance behind the story. What does this all matter? It's hard to say. It really just devolves into a group of people taking a long, arduous walk. For what? Freedom, of course. But what does that mean? Weir starts trying to show you what freedom means to these guys, but he never quite gets there. And its frustrating. You know it's important... it has to be. I don't know. It's definitely a movie that tries to show that it's not the destination that's important but the journey, but you never get a real great sense of what that journey is...other than the physical Siberia to India footpath express.
Again, I'm not saying that all of this lack of attachment (for lack of a better way of putting it) sinks the movie entirely. It's just frustrating and makes it difficult to express how exactly this one falls short. And in that I mean falls short of greatness. Not goodness. It's a pretty good movie on the whole. It just should have been better.
Grade: B+
This one was kind of frustrating. It had all the goods to be an absolute knock-out of a movie: great cast doing great things, intriguing story, a capable director... and yet... somehow, it came up short of awesome. I'm not saying it was bad... but not great... not as great, anyway, as it could have been. And I'm having a tough time putting my finger on what exactly went wrong. And how wrong did it go?
What didn't go wrong was the story. Good stuff usually. A group composed of mixed nationalities (but led by the eternally optimistic and determined Pol, Janusz- Jim Sturgess giving it his all and doing some fine work) escapes from a Soviet prison camp (in Siberia) and flees to India... on foot. Typically stirring stuff here- the triumph of the human will and all that jazz. Nothing wrong with the story. Or the cast- which gave great performances all the way around. I already mentioned (in passing parenthetical) that Jim Sturgess brought his A game to great effect. Colin Ferrell was delightfully just unhinged enough as the Russian criminal who escapes prison to flee the gambling debt he wracked up in the camp. Ed Harris brought a great deal of stoicism and just the right touch of humanity to his part of the tough old American. And Saoirse Ronan, playing an escaped Polish orphan, again offered a glimpse of the fantastic actress she's becoming. She's not quite to the point of amazing yet- but she's getting there, and here she was able to both hijack a number of her scenes and keep the movie going at points where it bogged down. Oh and I have to give a shout out to Mark Strong, the every villain. Here he's not so much evil as he is a garden variety scoundrel.. if that. Don't want to ruin it, but he's definitely not heroic...again. I don't recall, however, ever seeing him play the good guy. Kind of makes you wonder if he's a horrible person away from the set. Or, is he a super nice guy tapping in to his inner bad dude...over and over again. There really wasn't anything wrong with his performance (though I think his accent was the least polished) just kind of amusing.
So yeah, nothing wrong with the acting... in fact for a lot of the movie it's the great performances, particularly Harris, Ronan, and the mesmerizing Sturgess that keep you engaged in the movie. But then, why would you want to look away from the movie? It has the goods right? I think, despite the fact that the story in and of itself is intriguing, the way Peter Weir tells it..or lets it unravel.. is..well...lacking. Again, it's hard to pinpoint what exactly was lacking...but it was missing something...or some things. I guess one issue was the pacing of the movie. It definitely lacked a consistent pace. At times, it just seemed to get bogged down in details... it just stalled. And at other times, it just jumped around abruptly-an issue that was definitely on display with the ending. Actually the ending offered a worst of both worlds in terms of the pace. The movie just kind of coasted to the end and then all of the sudden- credits. Well, not that abrupt. There is definitely closure. But, you went from the meat of the story to the finish so.... and I know this is going to sound odd... deliberately and suddenly. Let's see how to put it better... you just kind of coasted to the end...without really knowing it was the end (other than knowing that the thing was a shade over 2 hours and a vague sense that the timer should be up)...and buy the time you realized it was the end, he credits are rolling. Look not ruin anything but a group of the guys get to India. And it's like all of a sudden there they are. No build up to it. It was odd.
I don't know... maybe the abrupt ending speaks to what might have been the core of what was missing about this movie. Heart? An emotional attachment? Yeah, maybe the latter. Everything in how the story was told and presented just seemed a little detached. It's almost like the audience is never given the chance... or is expected to really engage the characters on the screen. Rather than experiencing the story on a deeper level you're kind of left just watching this mixed bag of folks taking a walk. You see the triumph of the human spirit and will to live. Good, but ordinary people, becoming extraordinary if for no other reason than to take another step (of course you see it; it's hard not to this will to go on and what it means to these people is consistently plastered all over Sturgess's face). But somehow you don't feel it. You get close to attachment in some of the scenes presided over by Ronan. And maybe that was her role her- to make these people more human. I don't know. But again, this feeling was- for me- fleeting and inconsistent. And maybe because of this detachment (and I'm not saying that all movies HAVE to grab you- really grab you- to be great... but it helps) there seems to be a lack of substance behind the story. What does this all matter? It's hard to say. It really just devolves into a group of people taking a long, arduous walk. For what? Freedom, of course. But what does that mean? Weir starts trying to show you what freedom means to these guys, but he never quite gets there. And its frustrating. You know it's important... it has to be. I don't know. It's definitely a movie that tries to show that it's not the destination that's important but the journey, but you never get a real great sense of what that journey is...other than the physical Siberia to India footpath express.
Again, I'm not saying that all of this lack of attachment (for lack of a better way of putting it) sinks the movie entirely. It's just frustrating and makes it difficult to express how exactly this one falls short. And in that I mean falls short of greatness. Not goodness. It's a pretty good movie on the whole. It just should have been better.
Grade: B+
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Old Favorites: 1.) Groundhog Day
Groundhog Day
Yeah perhaps it's a little predictable, but I had to kick off a look at some of my all-time favorite movies by watching Groundhog Day on Groundhog Day. It seems that as much as I like the movies I like, it's hard for me to be motivated to rewatch them when I have the ability to watch any number of new movies so often. Almost seems a waste. That said, I'm glad I got started. So, sometimes hokey motivation is the best kind of motivation. I mean, what would be better than watching Groundhog Day on Groundhog Day? (Well, surviving what could be some nasty icy roadways out there... hence this is a blog entry about Groundhog Day and not 127 Hours). But really, it was awesome to see this one again.
I think the reason I absolutely love Groundhog Day (besides how utterly ridiculous it is to build a movie with this plot around this day- awesome) is Bill Murray. This was the movie that catapulted Murray up to the top of my favorite actors list. I can't imagine anyone being able to come close to delivering the goods in this role. He taps his inner cantankerous dick and lets the good times roll from there. The humor is pitch perfect for the heady subject matter being dealt with. It's a mixture of dry and dark and ultimately subtle and underplayed. These, it would appear are Bill Murray specialties. So many awesome quotable lines...one liners. And the best of them are all delivered by Murray. I do wish I knew how often he ad-libbed. I can only imagine how many of the genius lines were coming from his mad sense of humor... but then, maybe it wasn't the lines but the delivery that made them great. I don't know, either way, this has got to be way up there in terms of Bill Murray's best performances. It was like Harold Ramis and company created a world where Murray could just go with it. Here's the set up, Bill, go nuts...
Within reason. I guess one of the other things that seems quaintly refreshing about the movie is that it's rated PG... not even PG-13. It doesn't devolve into raunch to get the laughs. (Don't get me wrong- one of my all-time favorite movies is Superbad... a movie built on a firm foundation of teenage raunch). Perhaps that's where the refreshing quality comes from; the movie relies on wit and nuance to make people laugh. And that's hard to do, but somehow this quirky flick gets it did.
Actually, if you start thinking about it... and they mention this on the DVD's making-of doc... it's kind of a miracle the movie ever was made. A darkish comedy built around an absurd situation like a constantly recurring Groundhog Day that tackles existential issues and questions of time and self? Sounds...interesting? Well yeah, actually it does. But let's not get too heady here. The fact that it's not a cookie-cutter movie is really gravy. This is Bill Murray's incredibly restrained yet incredibly fun party. I'm just happy to have stopped by.
Actually Murray isn't the only one who gives a perfect performance here either. Andie MacDowell is the perfect foil for Murray's Phil: sweet, but not dumb or overly naive. Rita's the right guy to make Phil want to be a better person...if he really does want to be a better person. Chris Elliott also gives what has to be his best performance as Phil and Rita's camera guy, Larry. Elliott is usually an actor you can never have too little of in a movie. Annoying, dumb, distracting. But somehow, perhaps taking a page from Murray's book, he manages an admirable restraint in his performance too, and the result is some pretty decent moments. Still, I'd say he's the weakest link here. Not so, however, with Stephen Tobolowsky as Ned Rierson...Ryerson... Reierson...not sure how the last name is spelled. Tobolowsky is perfect for the part. He plays Ned as just the perfect mix of believably annoying and over-the-top irritating, and he come damn close to stealing several of his scenes.
Now, this isn't to say that Groundhog Day is perfect. I think the ending is a bit mushy for what had been- at times- an incredibly dark comedy (I mean, Phil offs himself in several different ways at several different times in the movie). It'a not that it didn't tie the movie together well...it did, but perhaps in just a little too sweet a way. A reflection of Harold Ramis's sunny, care-free persona (at least that's what is hinted at in the making-of)? I don't know. I also don't know how it would have been better...but that's not my job right? The music/score was also a bit tough at times...the "I'll Be Your Weatherman" song playing over the opening credits was waaaaay cheesy. Perhaps it was a reflection of the movie's time (1993)? And yet...that doesn't sound like I remember 1993 sounding... So let's just say that both some of the music and some of the clothes/hair styles just didn't hold up well over the years. The look and sound may not have been timeless but that's a tall order for a film to fill and perhaps unnecessary too. I don't know... I do wish that it would have held up a little better in those departments... it was just a little... I don't know...distracting.
What wasn't distracting and what did hold up extremely well were the absolutely perfect performances (again, especially Bill Murray) and the awesome story. Oh and one of my all-time favorite movie scenes. The one where Bill Murray's Phil coldcocks Ned after a few of the same run-ins. "Phil?" "Ned Ryerson.." Punch. Come on, we all wanted to do it at that point. And the look on Murray's face was priceless as he laid Ned out. I laughed out loud. By myself. In the dark. I never do that...except watching that scene. Nice. (well I guess there are probably other instances too... but still, it's rare).
I guess it'd be really hard to say where this movie falls for me. Top ten? No. Probably not. Probably not top 25 either, but beyond that it's in the discussion. Not that there is anything wrong with that. For me, the difference between a top 10 movie and top 100 aren't that great. I just love movies. Especially good ones...or rather ones that I think are good (what?). And to me, this is a hard one not to love.
Yeah perhaps it's a little predictable, but I had to kick off a look at some of my all-time favorite movies by watching Groundhog Day on Groundhog Day. It seems that as much as I like the movies I like, it's hard for me to be motivated to rewatch them when I have the ability to watch any number of new movies so often. Almost seems a waste. That said, I'm glad I got started. So, sometimes hokey motivation is the best kind of motivation. I mean, what would be better than watching Groundhog Day on Groundhog Day? (Well, surviving what could be some nasty icy roadways out there... hence this is a blog entry about Groundhog Day and not 127 Hours). But really, it was awesome to see this one again.
I think the reason I absolutely love Groundhog Day (besides how utterly ridiculous it is to build a movie with this plot around this day- awesome) is Bill Murray. This was the movie that catapulted Murray up to the top of my favorite actors list. I can't imagine anyone being able to come close to delivering the goods in this role. He taps his inner cantankerous dick and lets the good times roll from there. The humor is pitch perfect for the heady subject matter being dealt with. It's a mixture of dry and dark and ultimately subtle and underplayed. These, it would appear are Bill Murray specialties. So many awesome quotable lines...one liners. And the best of them are all delivered by Murray. I do wish I knew how often he ad-libbed. I can only imagine how many of the genius lines were coming from his mad sense of humor... but then, maybe it wasn't the lines but the delivery that made them great. I don't know, either way, this has got to be way up there in terms of Bill Murray's best performances. It was like Harold Ramis and company created a world where Murray could just go with it. Here's the set up, Bill, go nuts...
Within reason. I guess one of the other things that seems quaintly refreshing about the movie is that it's rated PG... not even PG-13. It doesn't devolve into raunch to get the laughs. (Don't get me wrong- one of my all-time favorite movies is Superbad... a movie built on a firm foundation of teenage raunch). Perhaps that's where the refreshing quality comes from; the movie relies on wit and nuance to make people laugh. And that's hard to do, but somehow this quirky flick gets it did.
Actually, if you start thinking about it... and they mention this on the DVD's making-of doc... it's kind of a miracle the movie ever was made. A darkish comedy built around an absurd situation like a constantly recurring Groundhog Day that tackles existential issues and questions of time and self? Sounds...interesting? Well yeah, actually it does. But let's not get too heady here. The fact that it's not a cookie-cutter movie is really gravy. This is Bill Murray's incredibly restrained yet incredibly fun party. I'm just happy to have stopped by.
Actually Murray isn't the only one who gives a perfect performance here either. Andie MacDowell is the perfect foil for Murray's Phil: sweet, but not dumb or overly naive. Rita's the right guy to make Phil want to be a better person...if he really does want to be a better person. Chris Elliott also gives what has to be his best performance as Phil and Rita's camera guy, Larry. Elliott is usually an actor you can never have too little of in a movie. Annoying, dumb, distracting. But somehow, perhaps taking a page from Murray's book, he manages an admirable restraint in his performance too, and the result is some pretty decent moments. Still, I'd say he's the weakest link here. Not so, however, with Stephen Tobolowsky as Ned Rierson...Ryerson... Reierson...not sure how the last name is spelled. Tobolowsky is perfect for the part. He plays Ned as just the perfect mix of believably annoying and over-the-top irritating, and he come damn close to stealing several of his scenes.
Now, this isn't to say that Groundhog Day is perfect. I think the ending is a bit mushy for what had been- at times- an incredibly dark comedy (I mean, Phil offs himself in several different ways at several different times in the movie). It'a not that it didn't tie the movie together well...it did, but perhaps in just a little too sweet a way. A reflection of Harold Ramis's sunny, care-free persona (at least that's what is hinted at in the making-of)? I don't know. I also don't know how it would have been better...but that's not my job right? The music/score was also a bit tough at times...the "I'll Be Your Weatherman" song playing over the opening credits was waaaaay cheesy. Perhaps it was a reflection of the movie's time (1993)? And yet...that doesn't sound like I remember 1993 sounding... So let's just say that both some of the music and some of the clothes/hair styles just didn't hold up well over the years. The look and sound may not have been timeless but that's a tall order for a film to fill and perhaps unnecessary too. I don't know... I do wish that it would have held up a little better in those departments... it was just a little... I don't know...distracting.
What wasn't distracting and what did hold up extremely well were the absolutely perfect performances (again, especially Bill Murray) and the awesome story. Oh and one of my all-time favorite movie scenes. The one where Bill Murray's Phil coldcocks Ned after a few of the same run-ins. "Phil?" "Ned Ryerson.." Punch. Come on, we all wanted to do it at that point. And the look on Murray's face was priceless as he laid Ned out. I laughed out loud. By myself. In the dark. I never do that...except watching that scene. Nice. (well I guess there are probably other instances too... but still, it's rare).
I guess it'd be really hard to say where this movie falls for me. Top ten? No. Probably not. Probably not top 25 either, but beyond that it's in the discussion. Not that there is anything wrong with that. For me, the difference between a top 10 movie and top 100 aren't that great. I just love movies. Especially good ones...or rather ones that I think are good (what?). And to me, this is a hard one not to love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)