Thor
You know, I was 99% sure that this movie was going to suck. Maybe even 99.9% sure. For one thing, the previews reminded me of Masters of the Universe, the 1987 He-Man film. I'm no entirely sure why they reminded me of a movie I barely remember but they did. And furthermore, the only thing I remember about Masters of the Universe is that even though I was five (or six or seven) when I saw it, I still thought that that movie sucked. I think it was the whole costuming and setting of the Asgard part of the film (Asgard being Thor's- the Norse God of Thunder- home). It just looked really, really hokey, particularly in the glimpses seen in the trailer. Then there was the fact that Kenneth Branagh was involved as the film's director. I don't know very much about Branagh other than that he is a noted and/or go-to Shakespearean actor... at least in terms of Shakespearean movies. And that led me to believe that Thor was going to be overblown and way, way, way too serious in tone. Unnecessarily serious. And knowing what little I do about the comic book this was being adapted from, I knew that the wrong tone could take this movie from hokey/dumb but at least somewhat enjoyable to absolutely absurd and an utter waste of time. So yeah it had that going for it... Oh yeah and there was the fact that my brother-in-law (the same one who is responsible for me being able to see all these movies) got to see an advanced screening of the movie in April and described it as "an absolute dog". Now, I don't see my brother-in-law as a super-hero movie type of guy, so I would have been surprised if he liked it, but he really, really seemed to dislike it. It's kind of hard not to be influenced by that. Combined with the other strikes it had against it, I was dead-set that this was going to be one massive whiff of a movie.
And? Well... it wasn't bad at all. Actually, it was pretty darn good. It was fun. A lot of fun. The tone was light for the most part... though it did have to buckle down and be... epic... in select parts of the movie. In general, though, it just didn't take itself- as a film- too seriously... which was refreshing. It'd be way too easy when dealing with the story of gods to devolve into overly dramatic, blustery crap. But somehow and someway, Branagh steered the movie away from that. If I were going to describe it succinctly, I'd say that it was an action/adventure/fish-out-of-water flick. Lots of fun.
That isn't to say that it wasn't blemish free. Oh, there were blemishes. The costumes and setting for Asgard was a shitty as I thought it'd be. The garb sported by the Asgardians was reminiscent of the clothes featured on the gods of Clash of the Titans... just a little less... shimmery... here. They looked like something Michael Bay would have been jealous of/eager to incorporate into his next 13-year-old's wet dream of a summer movie. (And he might, because that's how re rolls) Add to that that the gods of Asgard were blustery Shakespearean types and the whole Asgard scene kind of came off as silly. But I suppose it was necessary. As my brother (who saw the movie with me) pointed out- there wasn't a lot they could have done with the costumes. They were supposed to be gods, after all. Same, I suppose, goes with the dialogue. Gods, of course, can't speak like mortals. They must sound like classic Shakespeareans, minus the iambic pentameter.
Other than that, the only thing the movie has going against it was the kind of ridiculously named Frost Giants as one of the main group of villains in the story. Not only does Frost Giants sound ridiculous, they were actually kind of ridiculously feeble as far as villains go in the movie. Kind of like Shredder's Foot Clan foot soldiers from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Very dispensable. Of course, this is kind of a petty criticism. After all, the rest of the story- which is mostly a set-up for bigger things- is pretty tight.
So, in addition to not having a lot going against it, it did have a lot going for it. The acting was spot on. Chris Hemsworth may not be able to do anything else, but he sure delivered on Thor. Natalie Portman was almost slumming it here, but she proved to be a great asset. In the hands of a lesser actress, Portman's Jane Foster (an astrophysicist... and Thor love interest) would probably have been an annoying and weak character. Kat Dennings was also solid, providing some light but appreciated comic banter. Then there was Sir Anthony Hopkins... he played the Zeus-like Odin well... he was much better here than he had been in many of his other recent flicks.. but boy did he look awful. Which is partly a product of the role, but sadly I also think time is catching up to Hopkins. He just doesn't command the screen like he once used to. He was ok here, but ultimately he was a bit of a weak link. Not too weak though, but noticeable.
And hey, welcome back to the silver screen, Rene Russo!... even though you had something like three lines, you delivered them with goddess-y...ummm... gusto? No, gusto is right... grace? Yeah, that'll do.
Add to the performances a story that was about as good as you'll get for a movie that is essentially pretext. Thankfully, the movie wasn't burdened with an overly solemn origin-story. Sure, the origin element was there, but the audience was mercifully brought up to speed fairly early on, and from then on it was a father-son/king-prince redemption story. Son does wrong, father is disappointed, son must redeem himself. And in this case scheming, jealous, red-headed stepchild of a brother (Thor's brother, Loki) inserts his machinations into the plot to add complexity. It all amounted to a tight plot- nothing overly complex, but with enough riffs on the theme to keep it interesting...more so, especially because of the light tone that accompanied the story (the tone kind of reminded me of the first three Indiana Jones movies... yeah, I know, an odd comparison but an apt one, I'd say). Nicely played, really.
So yeah, who'd have thought that this "absolute dog" of a movie knew so many nifty tricks. I still can't really believe that it didn't suck. But, well, it didn't. It was fun. And that counts for a whole lot.
Grade: A-
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Movie List 2011: 22.) Water for Elephants
Water for Elephants
Saw this one a few days ago, but as I'm sitting in a hotel room in Pennsylvania trying to wind down from a rough nine and a half hours of driving, I decided it would be a good time to write the entry. Let me start off by saying that I was a huge fan of the book. Loved it. I thought Sara Gruen did an excellent job creating a wonderful cast of deeply developed characters who exist in an incredibly interesting time and place. It was vivid storytelling at its best. So, I was really looking forward to seeing the movie adaptation. Generally when I like the book, I also expect to like the movie- and I think more often than not, I do end up liking the movie as well as the book, if not more so. So, long story short, I fully expected to love the hell out of this movie. And at first, I did. I came out of it thinking that director Francis Lawrence and crew did a wonderful job capturing the spirit of the novel and the essence of the time and place that serve as the story's setting. I also thought it was gorgeously shot and the casting was spot on. Reese Witherspoon was stunning as circus star Marlena. Robert Pattinson gave one of his best performances as the circus's vet, Jacob (As an aside: I really like Pattinson as an actor and I'm really rooting for him to do well. I kind of get tired of the backlash against young actors who take on roles that are popular with the so-called tween audience....I mean, particularly if they show they can act. Yes, Twilight isn't for everyone... and I also don't think it's a great showcase for either Pattinson or Kristen Stewart's skills as actors... but I really do believe that both have some incredible chops. I'm just hoping they can find the roles...and separation from previous roles to show their stuff) And Christoph Waltz gave another incredible (and manic) performance as August, the ringleader of the Benzini Brothers Circus. (In terms of an incredibly short plot synopsis, Water for Elephants is the story of Jacob finding love in the midst of a Depression-era circus and the chaos that ensues therein.... including an absolutely horrific circus disaster...good stuff).
At any rate, all that did work. And I hold to it even now. That said, the more I thought about it, the more I soured on the movie a bit. It's not that it was bad, it's more that it was incomplete. Some folks may be a bit upset that the film makers decided to make August a composite character of the book's August and Uncle Al- that did not bother me so much. Nor did other condensing efforts. That's not what I meant by incomplete. What was really lacking from the film version of the story was the rich character development that Gruen brought to her book. In the movie, relationships seemed to materialize out of nowhere or out of improbable situations. Anyone who read the book would know that Jacob and Kinko/Walter had a tense relationship for a while during the story and it took some doing for the tension to melt and a friendship to be forged. In the movie, the tension is more hinted at and the resolution/friendship was more abrupt. Much of the Jacob-Walter relationship was merely skipped over. And this was true of a number of other plot developments (another example: older Jacob's conversation with the circus manager...I imagine that if you hadn't read the book, the end of the movie might be a bit confusing... and abrupt... if not completely unbelievable). I understand that when trying to condense hundreds of pages of a novel into a two hour plus movie, tough decisions have to be made, and Lawrence and company did do an admirable job condensing a lot of the plot without losing the core spirit of the story. That said, I think I might have been a little lost if I had not read the book...or, at the very least, I'm sure I would have been a little confused, and I probably wouldn't have liked the movie as much as I did. I was able to connect a number of dots that Lawrence only really hinted at...or winked at... in the movie. The end result was a story that felt...I don't know... rushed... and perhaps a bit cobbled together. To take it a bit further, I really don't think you'd be able to enjoy the movie as much without reading the book. I wonder what someone who hadn't read the book before seeing the movie would think. My best guess is that they would think it was ok...tops.
And yet... I really did like the movie. Again, I loved how Lawrence and crew were able to capture the spirit of the book... and it's really that spirit that makes the book such a fun read. The movie just comes off with a feel that I really liked. And I'm very big on a movie feeling right. I think I've mentioned that before... I love "feel" movies. Whatever that means... (sorry, I'm beginning to feel sufficiently wound down here... and am getting damn tired). Is it fair for me to grade this on a curve? As a companion to the book, I think it did well... without that though....? In the end, it was a lot of fun, I liked the performances, and it felt right. So yeah... it was pretty good... regardless of the need for the book...right? My gut/heart says this was an A- movie. My head says solid B. Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't over-think it...
Grade: A- (for now?)
Saw this one a few days ago, but as I'm sitting in a hotel room in Pennsylvania trying to wind down from a rough nine and a half hours of driving, I decided it would be a good time to write the entry. Let me start off by saying that I was a huge fan of the book. Loved it. I thought Sara Gruen did an excellent job creating a wonderful cast of deeply developed characters who exist in an incredibly interesting time and place. It was vivid storytelling at its best. So, I was really looking forward to seeing the movie adaptation. Generally when I like the book, I also expect to like the movie- and I think more often than not, I do end up liking the movie as well as the book, if not more so. So, long story short, I fully expected to love the hell out of this movie. And at first, I did. I came out of it thinking that director Francis Lawrence and crew did a wonderful job capturing the spirit of the novel and the essence of the time and place that serve as the story's setting. I also thought it was gorgeously shot and the casting was spot on. Reese Witherspoon was stunning as circus star Marlena. Robert Pattinson gave one of his best performances as the circus's vet, Jacob (As an aside: I really like Pattinson as an actor and I'm really rooting for him to do well. I kind of get tired of the backlash against young actors who take on roles that are popular with the so-called tween audience....I mean, particularly if they show they can act. Yes, Twilight isn't for everyone... and I also don't think it's a great showcase for either Pattinson or Kristen Stewart's skills as actors... but I really do believe that both have some incredible chops. I'm just hoping they can find the roles...and separation from previous roles to show their stuff) And Christoph Waltz gave another incredible (and manic) performance as August, the ringleader of the Benzini Brothers Circus. (In terms of an incredibly short plot synopsis, Water for Elephants is the story of Jacob finding love in the midst of a Depression-era circus and the chaos that ensues therein.... including an absolutely horrific circus disaster...good stuff).
At any rate, all that did work. And I hold to it even now. That said, the more I thought about it, the more I soured on the movie a bit. It's not that it was bad, it's more that it was incomplete. Some folks may be a bit upset that the film makers decided to make August a composite character of the book's August and Uncle Al- that did not bother me so much. Nor did other condensing efforts. That's not what I meant by incomplete. What was really lacking from the film version of the story was the rich character development that Gruen brought to her book. In the movie, relationships seemed to materialize out of nowhere or out of improbable situations. Anyone who read the book would know that Jacob and Kinko/Walter had a tense relationship for a while during the story and it took some doing for the tension to melt and a friendship to be forged. In the movie, the tension is more hinted at and the resolution/friendship was more abrupt. Much of the Jacob-Walter relationship was merely skipped over. And this was true of a number of other plot developments (another example: older Jacob's conversation with the circus manager...I imagine that if you hadn't read the book, the end of the movie might be a bit confusing... and abrupt... if not completely unbelievable). I understand that when trying to condense hundreds of pages of a novel into a two hour plus movie, tough decisions have to be made, and Lawrence and company did do an admirable job condensing a lot of the plot without losing the core spirit of the story. That said, I think I might have been a little lost if I had not read the book...or, at the very least, I'm sure I would have been a little confused, and I probably wouldn't have liked the movie as much as I did. I was able to connect a number of dots that Lawrence only really hinted at...or winked at... in the movie. The end result was a story that felt...I don't know... rushed... and perhaps a bit cobbled together. To take it a bit further, I really don't think you'd be able to enjoy the movie as much without reading the book. I wonder what someone who hadn't read the book before seeing the movie would think. My best guess is that they would think it was ok...tops.
And yet... I really did like the movie. Again, I loved how Lawrence and crew were able to capture the spirit of the book... and it's really that spirit that makes the book such a fun read. The movie just comes off with a feel that I really liked. And I'm very big on a movie feeling right. I think I've mentioned that before... I love "feel" movies. Whatever that means... (sorry, I'm beginning to feel sufficiently wound down here... and am getting damn tired). Is it fair for me to grade this on a curve? As a companion to the book, I think it did well... without that though....? In the end, it was a lot of fun, I liked the performances, and it felt right. So yeah... it was pretty good... regardless of the need for the book...right? My gut/heart says this was an A- movie. My head says solid B. Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't over-think it...
Grade: A- (for now?)
Monday, May 23, 2011
Movie List 2011: 21.) Everything Must Go
Everything Must Go
If I'm being honest, I have to admit that I pretty much have no use for Will Ferrell. I can handle him in small doses.... or rather the characters he typically portrays. Man child after shrieking man child on parade. I've only really liked him in a couple of movies: Anchorman and Stranger Than Fiction. The best I can offer after that was that he was ok in Melinda and Melinda and Wedding Crashers. Anything else? No thanks. And that includes most of his work on Saturday Night Live. (I should mention though that I haven't seen Elf and Old School- two movies that many of my friends thoroughly enjoyed). So, going into Everything Must Go, I was kind of geared up to hate it, but I did reserve a little room to actually enjoy it because by all accounts, Ferrell was playing against type in a movie that was only vaguely comedic; at the very least that was an interesting angle. I still thought I wasn't going to like it though. And the verdict? Not bad really. And the verdict on Ferrell? Somewhere between damn solid and straight up awesome... much to my surprise. Turns out, he can act...like a grown up... like a desperate grown up at that. And it's pretty cool to see. And what else is pretty cool? Limited Ferrell nudity. Nice.
So what, besides playing someone his own age- physically AND emotionally- made it different for Ferrell. For starters, a world of subtlety. He acted more with looks and tone than with what he was saying and doing. Again, this would seem to be a departure for Ferrell- a master of over-the-top physical/raunchy comedy. Turns out Ferrell has some soul, and here he isn't afraid to share it with you. It turned out to be the perfect casting in this role if for no other reason than it was so unexpected. Who'd have thought he could have pulled off the tole of Nick Halsey, the down-on-his-luck alcoholic whose life spirals into a seemingly endless series of basements over the course of 5 or so days. He loses his job. His wife leaves him. She tosses all his stuff onto the lawn and locks him out of the house- forcing him to live on the lawn.. under the auspices that he is holding a yard sale. He relapses into the vast pit of alcoholism he has desperately tried to climb out of. And so on and so forth. Every time you think he's finally ascending out of the basement, the stairs get pulled out from him and he's hitting rock bottom once more. What's interesting here is how Ferrell makes you FEEL his desperation. The vacant stares. The overwhelming listlessness he brings to Nick. It's like you can see the dark rain cloud hanging over his head. And through it all Ferrell barely breaks a sweat. Perhaps his true genius is how he he somehow makes his character kind of despicable but simultaneously easy to relate to. It's no small feat.
Too bad that his cast mates struggle to keep pace. Rebecca Hall does a decent job at turning on the charm as Nick's newly arrived neighbor. Laura Dern playing one of Nick's long lost high school classmates is probably best able to match Ferrell's performance, but she's really only in the movie for a glance or two. C.J. Wallace (Biggie Smalls' kid) as Nick's young friend is clearly learning how to be an actor at this point. And Michael Pena just falls flat as Nick's homicide detective AA sponsor. On the whole, the cast wasn't bad, but the just didn't seem as inspired as Will Ferrell. Which seems so damn odd to write.
Also lacking inspiration was the movie's pacing. Perhaps it was meant to draw more attention to Nick's slow decline to the bottom, but the movie trudged on so... damn... slowly... that at points it was actually boring. And that is a cardinal sin for a movie. Watching Ferrell play against type was cool and all, but let's get this thing rolling... and it never did take off until the very end of the movie... which is a shame because the story is actually pretty cool at its core. Kind of makes you wonder what you would do if you just kept hitting rock bottom... and unfortunately, the movie gives you plenty of time to think this out. At least until the end. I really liked how they tied the story up. Really cool. And while it kind of took it in the direction I thought it would, it got there in such a way as to make the ending work. All good stuff indeed.
In the end, I guess I have to question whether Ferrell really was that good. Did he really elevate the movie as much as I think he did, or was I just so surprised to see any glimmer of talent and true acting that I am wildly overrating the movie. Is this his Bill Murray in Lost in Translation moment? My gut says it is. And for now that's going to have to be good enough... if only it weren't so darn slow...
Grade: B+
If I'm being honest, I have to admit that I pretty much have no use for Will Ferrell. I can handle him in small doses.... or rather the characters he typically portrays. Man child after shrieking man child on parade. I've only really liked him in a couple of movies: Anchorman and Stranger Than Fiction. The best I can offer after that was that he was ok in Melinda and Melinda and Wedding Crashers. Anything else? No thanks. And that includes most of his work on Saturday Night Live. (I should mention though that I haven't seen Elf and Old School- two movies that many of my friends thoroughly enjoyed). So, going into Everything Must Go, I was kind of geared up to hate it, but I did reserve a little room to actually enjoy it because by all accounts, Ferrell was playing against type in a movie that was only vaguely comedic; at the very least that was an interesting angle. I still thought I wasn't going to like it though. And the verdict? Not bad really. And the verdict on Ferrell? Somewhere between damn solid and straight up awesome... much to my surprise. Turns out, he can act...like a grown up... like a desperate grown up at that. And it's pretty cool to see. And what else is pretty cool? Limited Ferrell nudity. Nice.
So what, besides playing someone his own age- physically AND emotionally- made it different for Ferrell. For starters, a world of subtlety. He acted more with looks and tone than with what he was saying and doing. Again, this would seem to be a departure for Ferrell- a master of over-the-top physical/raunchy comedy. Turns out Ferrell has some soul, and here he isn't afraid to share it with you. It turned out to be the perfect casting in this role if for no other reason than it was so unexpected. Who'd have thought he could have pulled off the tole of Nick Halsey, the down-on-his-luck alcoholic whose life spirals into a seemingly endless series of basements over the course of 5 or so days. He loses his job. His wife leaves him. She tosses all his stuff onto the lawn and locks him out of the house- forcing him to live on the lawn.. under the auspices that he is holding a yard sale. He relapses into the vast pit of alcoholism he has desperately tried to climb out of. And so on and so forth. Every time you think he's finally ascending out of the basement, the stairs get pulled out from him and he's hitting rock bottom once more. What's interesting here is how Ferrell makes you FEEL his desperation. The vacant stares. The overwhelming listlessness he brings to Nick. It's like you can see the dark rain cloud hanging over his head. And through it all Ferrell barely breaks a sweat. Perhaps his true genius is how he he somehow makes his character kind of despicable but simultaneously easy to relate to. It's no small feat.
Too bad that his cast mates struggle to keep pace. Rebecca Hall does a decent job at turning on the charm as Nick's newly arrived neighbor. Laura Dern playing one of Nick's long lost high school classmates is probably best able to match Ferrell's performance, but she's really only in the movie for a glance or two. C.J. Wallace (Biggie Smalls' kid) as Nick's young friend is clearly learning how to be an actor at this point. And Michael Pena just falls flat as Nick's homicide detective AA sponsor. On the whole, the cast wasn't bad, but the just didn't seem as inspired as Will Ferrell. Which seems so damn odd to write.
Also lacking inspiration was the movie's pacing. Perhaps it was meant to draw more attention to Nick's slow decline to the bottom, but the movie trudged on so... damn... slowly... that at points it was actually boring. And that is a cardinal sin for a movie. Watching Ferrell play against type was cool and all, but let's get this thing rolling... and it never did take off until the very end of the movie... which is a shame because the story is actually pretty cool at its core. Kind of makes you wonder what you would do if you just kept hitting rock bottom... and unfortunately, the movie gives you plenty of time to think this out. At least until the end. I really liked how they tied the story up. Really cool. And while it kind of took it in the direction I thought it would, it got there in such a way as to make the ending work. All good stuff indeed.
In the end, I guess I have to question whether Ferrell really was that good. Did he really elevate the movie as much as I think he did, or was I just so surprised to see any glimmer of talent and true acting that I am wildly overrating the movie. Is this his Bill Murray in Lost in Translation moment? My gut says it is. And for now that's going to have to be good enough... if only it weren't so darn slow...
Grade: B+
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Movie List 2011: 20.) The Beaver
The Beaver
A lot of the talk about The Beaver revolved around the question of whether art was imitating life here. Mel Gibson plays a horribly depressed, rapidly failing man who is hitting rock bottom when a discarded beaver puppet starts him on his path to recovery. Mel Gibson is- it would seem- an alcoholic, maybe depressed man who happens to be rapidly flailing while his once stellar career is hitting rock bottom. Yeah, I can see parallels. The only question is: will Mel- puppet or not- save his own ass in real life? Who knows. But the parallels make it hard to divorce Mel Gibson, the actor, from... and you know what?...I have to look up the name of the character he played on screen. Not good. Walter Black. Gibson's character was Walter Black/The Beaver (a fine Michael Caine impression if I ever 'eard one- though I wish they would have just gotten Michael Caine to voice the beaver...but that would have caused difficulties for the story).
I wanted to say that the difficulty separating the actor from the character he portrays wasn't that big of a distraction. Clearly, I'm wrong...or hopeful. It was. Or perhaps, I, and a number of others like me, didn't. So, Mel Gibson has moved in with good friend (and the movie's director and lead actress) Jodie Foster, and they've adopted Anton Yelchin (who was pretty damn solid here) and some no-name moppet direct from the Hollywood Moppet Stock Drawer. His job was to be cute, and so far as kids go, he succeeded, I suppose. So Mel needs help and the Beaver puppet is the answer. And then complications ensue. Will Mel recover enough to right his career? Will somebody just get this guy into a padded cell? What the hell is going on out there? The problem here is both the story and the folks who bring it to life. Foster really is a friend of Gibson's and has said she supports him and just wants him to get his life back together. Yelchin really was Gibson's son for like 6 months in the early 1990s... no just kidding. Yelchin and his on-screen love interest played by Jennifer Lawrence, were the best things about the movie. I actually would have liked to have just seen a movie revolving more around their storyline. Guess I'll just have to go rent Charlie Bartlett. At any rate, all I'm saying is that I just kept thinking: what do you suppose Gibson is thinking this whole time? Does he see the parallels? (Not that they are really that great- Walter Black is depressed. Mel Gibson is fucked up. Is he an alcoholic? I suppose. But he's bringing a lot of this on himself). Does he see he needs to get better? Will he? And so on and so forth. So, yes, it was distracting. But that doesn't mean that everyone isn't giving it their all. They do. It's just that Foster and Gibson never really fade into their characters. And that's tough to ignore.
Gibson, for his part, can still be magnetic on screen. He draws you in and holds your attention. Maybe thats because there is also something equally magnetic about an inevitable car wreck unfolding before your eyes, I don't know. But he was engaging. As Mel Gibson. I don't know. The guys said and done some shitty things, but he has talent. Talent shouldn't equal forgiveness- automatic forgiveness. But people need a shot to make amends. So, I hope for his sake he does. In the meantime, he probably shouldn't jump at too many more crazy-dude roles. Too close to home.
But enough dwelling on the one aspect of the film that everyone-naturally-dwells on. The story itself wasn't so great. It was akin to a less homier version of Lars and the Real Girl (a movie a liked a lot). You know, the Ryan Gosling-starring flick about a guy and the sex doll that snaps him out of his mental issues. The Beaver may display something darker about mental illness, but it still doesn't do any kind of justice to the issue of depression and mental illness. I think Foster was going for a vibe of laugh til you think... then cringe, but to me, it just all seemed wrong. Can't all these people see that this guy is seriously fucked up? He needs professional help. The movie hinted that Foster's character (looking up the name again) Meredith had done everything she could to help him out, and that Walter had tried all the pills and docs he could handle. So he starts talking to himself through a hand puppet... which he claims a doctor wrote off on (the doc didn't). And so he jabbers on to himself (and the movie never makes it seem imaginary- you are meant to think Walter is talking to himself and the folks in the movie are meant to see Walter is talking to himself in a funky accent) and things seem to get better... on the surface. Which is what I don't get. People were allowing things to get better. If Mel Gibson- in real life- started talking to himself through a puppet... and went on TV shows and everything doing so, he gets committed. Plain and simple. Walter Black in Foster's world? He goes on the Today show and becomes a phenomenon. Hmmm. A world of enablers. It just didn't add up for me. But maybe I'm over thinking it. Foster does try to bring some reality to it at the end, but she never really ties it together in any way. Well she tries, but I don't think it's done so well. Add to all that some issues with story development (there's really not much back story- Walter just turned into a sad sack of crap and tried everything), pacing, and overt/unnecessary/frustrating messages (everyone is fucked up somehow- Yelchin has daddy issues and Lawrence has her family issues- but it'll all be ok if we have someone to leeeeeaaaaannnn onnnnnnnnnnnnn. Way to rev up the platitude machine, Jodie). The whole movie is aiming for something... some kind of significant meaning... but it just doesn't get there. Or maybe, by the end, I just didn't care. Or it was off the mark. Well, clearly the movie was off the mark. But I wonder how different it'd have been if Mel wasn't so intent on career suicide. Who knows. As it was, I just couldn't get beyond the life versus art bit... and it's never a good sign when you have to check out imdb to remember the names of the lead characters from a movie you just finished watching about an hour ago... is it?
Grade: C-
A lot of the talk about The Beaver revolved around the question of whether art was imitating life here. Mel Gibson plays a horribly depressed, rapidly failing man who is hitting rock bottom when a discarded beaver puppet starts him on his path to recovery. Mel Gibson is- it would seem- an alcoholic, maybe depressed man who happens to be rapidly flailing while his once stellar career is hitting rock bottom. Yeah, I can see parallels. The only question is: will Mel- puppet or not- save his own ass in real life? Who knows. But the parallels make it hard to divorce Mel Gibson, the actor, from... and you know what?...I have to look up the name of the character he played on screen. Not good. Walter Black. Gibson's character was Walter Black/The Beaver (a fine Michael Caine impression if I ever 'eard one- though I wish they would have just gotten Michael Caine to voice the beaver...but that would have caused difficulties for the story).
I wanted to say that the difficulty separating the actor from the character he portrays wasn't that big of a distraction. Clearly, I'm wrong...or hopeful. It was. Or perhaps, I, and a number of others like me, didn't. So, Mel Gibson has moved in with good friend (and the movie's director and lead actress) Jodie Foster, and they've adopted Anton Yelchin (who was pretty damn solid here) and some no-name moppet direct from the Hollywood Moppet Stock Drawer. His job was to be cute, and so far as kids go, he succeeded, I suppose. So Mel needs help and the Beaver puppet is the answer. And then complications ensue. Will Mel recover enough to right his career? Will somebody just get this guy into a padded cell? What the hell is going on out there? The problem here is both the story and the folks who bring it to life. Foster really is a friend of Gibson's and has said she supports him and just wants him to get his life back together. Yelchin really was Gibson's son for like 6 months in the early 1990s... no just kidding. Yelchin and his on-screen love interest played by Jennifer Lawrence, were the best things about the movie. I actually would have liked to have just seen a movie revolving more around their storyline. Guess I'll just have to go rent Charlie Bartlett. At any rate, all I'm saying is that I just kept thinking: what do you suppose Gibson is thinking this whole time? Does he see the parallels? (Not that they are really that great- Walter Black is depressed. Mel Gibson is fucked up. Is he an alcoholic? I suppose. But he's bringing a lot of this on himself). Does he see he needs to get better? Will he? And so on and so forth. So, yes, it was distracting. But that doesn't mean that everyone isn't giving it their all. They do. It's just that Foster and Gibson never really fade into their characters. And that's tough to ignore.
Gibson, for his part, can still be magnetic on screen. He draws you in and holds your attention. Maybe thats because there is also something equally magnetic about an inevitable car wreck unfolding before your eyes, I don't know. But he was engaging. As Mel Gibson. I don't know. The guys said and done some shitty things, but he has talent. Talent shouldn't equal forgiveness- automatic forgiveness. But people need a shot to make amends. So, I hope for his sake he does. In the meantime, he probably shouldn't jump at too many more crazy-dude roles. Too close to home.
But enough dwelling on the one aspect of the film that everyone-naturally-dwells on. The story itself wasn't so great. It was akin to a less homier version of Lars and the Real Girl (a movie a liked a lot). You know, the Ryan Gosling-starring flick about a guy and the sex doll that snaps him out of his mental issues. The Beaver may display something darker about mental illness, but it still doesn't do any kind of justice to the issue of depression and mental illness. I think Foster was going for a vibe of laugh til you think... then cringe, but to me, it just all seemed wrong. Can't all these people see that this guy is seriously fucked up? He needs professional help. The movie hinted that Foster's character (looking up the name again) Meredith had done everything she could to help him out, and that Walter had tried all the pills and docs he could handle. So he starts talking to himself through a hand puppet... which he claims a doctor wrote off on (the doc didn't). And so he jabbers on to himself (and the movie never makes it seem imaginary- you are meant to think Walter is talking to himself and the folks in the movie are meant to see Walter is talking to himself in a funky accent) and things seem to get better... on the surface. Which is what I don't get. People were allowing things to get better. If Mel Gibson- in real life- started talking to himself through a puppet... and went on TV shows and everything doing so, he gets committed. Plain and simple. Walter Black in Foster's world? He goes on the Today show and becomes a phenomenon. Hmmm. A world of enablers. It just didn't add up for me. But maybe I'm over thinking it. Foster does try to bring some reality to it at the end, but she never really ties it together in any way. Well she tries, but I don't think it's done so well. Add to all that some issues with story development (there's really not much back story- Walter just turned into a sad sack of crap and tried everything), pacing, and overt/unnecessary/frustrating messages (everyone is fucked up somehow- Yelchin has daddy issues and Lawrence has her family issues- but it'll all be ok if we have someone to leeeeeaaaaannnn onnnnnnnnnnnnn. Way to rev up the platitude machine, Jodie). The whole movie is aiming for something... some kind of significant meaning... but it just doesn't get there. Or maybe, by the end, I just didn't care. Or it was off the mark. Well, clearly the movie was off the mark. But I wonder how different it'd have been if Mel wasn't so intent on career suicide. Who knows. As it was, I just couldn't get beyond the life versus art bit... and it's never a good sign when you have to check out imdb to remember the names of the lead characters from a movie you just finished watching about an hour ago... is it?
Grade: C-
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Movie List 2011: 19.) The Conspirator
The Conspirator
I don't like seeing historical movies as much as one might think. I am, after all, the director of a historical society and all. And yet... well, it's just tough. I've always taken the approach that you shouldn't go to movies expecting a history lesson. If you think the movie posits an interesting theory with regard to a historical event then, I would think, you should hit the books. Use the movie as an inspiration to learn more about a topic. I do think a movie should at least try to get the skeletal framework and some crucial details of the history being presented correct. I'm really not a fan of seeing glaringly obvious costume or prop problems. That said, I'm also not too picky; I don't head to movies to see what inaccuracies I can pick out. So, I suppose, if I do notice one, the filmmakers have royally screwed up. But generally, what fun is it to pick apart a movie while it unfolds on screen. It is only entertainment after all. I suppose the larger issue, and the thing that filmmakers need to keep in mind, though, is that not everyone thinks like I do. Some people actually do take what they see on the big screen as historical fact. And this can be extremely troubling, leading to a lot of difficulties for folks in professions like mine. I guess if I had a message to filmmakers who favored historical accounts/fiction, I'd just remind them to do their best and be careful with the story they are telling because others won't.
So all that leads me to the Conspirator, the courtroom... errr... military tribunal room drama revolving around the case of Mary Surratt, the woman who owned the boardinghouse where John Wilkes Booth and company convened to scheme the demise of President Abraham Lincoln. As far as I can tell.. and I'll admit to being a little out of my league here... the film's director- the legendary Robert Redford- didn't play particularly loosely with the basic history here. Well, let me clarify.. in terms of the basic facts, it doesn't appear that he played particularly loosely... in terms of bias? Well, that's a whole other can of worms, isn't it? The story basically follows Surratt's lawyer, former Union officer Fred Aiken and his quest to allow for Mary to be tried in civilian court, rather than the hasty military tribunal set up to try all the conspirators in the assassination plot. Aiken is no Southern sympathizer here, he just gradually becomes wedded to the idea of justice- appropriate justice- for all, and the idea of a military tribunal and the related biases of the judges who sit therein, is less than appealing to Aiken. After all, as the judge/generals already have their minds made up, doesn't that make the whole process a sham? Where is the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Certainly the idea declines to make an appearance in front of the tribunal.
Even casual students of history should know the rest. Despite Aiken's best (and in the case of the film, impassioned) efforts, Surratt's tribunal hearing holds, and the inevitable verdict- that she is guilty, and thus condemned to death- comes to fruition. If Redford has his way, however, what students of this particular movie don't know is whether justice had been served. Well, actually, to take it a step further, it is evident that Redford has come to the conclusion that justice was a long ways off from being served. And further, it's pretty evident that Redford wants you to really question whether Surratt deserved to have been arrested or implicated at all. Whether that's the result of his personal belief, sloppy handling of bias, or just plain bad film making is harder to ascertain. In the end, the way Redford directs it, it would be hard for an audience NOT to feel some degree of sympathy for Surratt. The problem is, however, from what I've read and been taught, this just wasn't that clear cut of a case. At least in terms of whether her role- whatever that was- called for her to be sentenced to death. If we're taking the approach of Major League Baseball or National History Day, then Surratt was clearly guilty- no questions asked- after all, judges (or umpires) decisions are final.
The more I think about though, the more I question whether Redford was consciously trying to make a judgement on Surratt's guilt in the conspiracy. The problem is that the end result- the finished movie- certainly tilts towards her being one hell of a lot less guilty than the tribunal thought. What I do think Redford was not-so-subtly trying show was that the her whole trial made a mockery of the justice system. And, because he did so much to show that her trial was a sham, he made it very difficult to see anything other than that the verdict was a sham. I think he was more of the mind to encourage audiences to question the verdict and Surratt's role in the conspiracy without making a specific judgement himself. But again, as I've said, his handling of the trial did this effort no favors. Nor did his handling of the characters... more on that later.
So, why would Robert Redford make a movie to show that a case handled 146 years ago was a sham? I find it hard to believe that the pretty-damn liberal Redford wasn't trying to make a comment on the current debate as to whether the government should hand terrorist cases over to military tribunals. In this case, it seems clear that he is arguing that tribunals do not equate to justice. I could be wrong, but it just seemed to have such a heavy message regarding what does amount to true justice that it's hard not to draw parallels. I really don't know Redford's stand on the issue for a fact though. I just find it hard to believe there isn't some farther reaching message being delivered here: we've been down this road before, and look where it took us. So as a propaganda piece? Eh, I'd rather not judge it on that criteria, particularly because I'm making an assumption here. Let me say this though: I'm not a huge fan of how biased the film was. Redford certainly portrayed the tribunal as only a few notches above medieval justice, adding heaps of nefarious overtones. Again, he wanted to leave no doubt as to what his message was: this was a mockery of the justice system, no question about it. Even if that is true, this level of subtly is usually left to the likes of Paul Haggis, and while I'm not saying Redford is some master tactician of screen messages, I would have hoped he would have avoided the use of a sledgehammer to get his point across. He didn't. Out came the mallet, off I turned. I always have felt that guiding your audience to your message- allowing them to discover it- while being a more risky endeavor, is the more rewarding. But, here, Redford leaves nothing to chance.
And that isn't the only problem with the movie. I'm not entirely sure whether it was Redford's directing, James Solomon's screen-writing, or Robin Wright's idea of how Surratt should be played, but the end result is Mary Surratt as messianic martyr. Everything Surratt says and does just comes out so heavy and significant- like she's some kind of royalty. It was just too much. Add to that that some of the dialog just seemed out of place in the movie... would they have really said some of what they said that way?... and that a couple of actors (Justin Long- forever known to me as the Mac dude from the Apple commercials- and Alexis Bledel) looked really out of place here and you have the beginnings of a messy, eye-roll inducing movie. A few instances of overly-dramatic-to-the-point-of-corny lighting occasions seal the deal: the movie just wasn't that great. That isn't to say there weren't great performances: James McAvoy was reliably good- desperate, insecure, cocky, righteous, emotional, in all the right places; Tom Wilkinson did what he always does- give a great, understated performance, and Kevin Kline disappeared into the role of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton... it's just too bad Redford made him such a bastard (why is it always so black and white? Stanton may have been a bastard, true, but why leave no doubt?).
The best I can say is that, at least for me, the movie wasn't particularly boring. Sloppy and boring would have been unforgivable. Sloppy and at least moderately entertaining? A disappointment, sure. But not a devastation.
Grade: C
I don't like seeing historical movies as much as one might think. I am, after all, the director of a historical society and all. And yet... well, it's just tough. I've always taken the approach that you shouldn't go to movies expecting a history lesson. If you think the movie posits an interesting theory with regard to a historical event then, I would think, you should hit the books. Use the movie as an inspiration to learn more about a topic. I do think a movie should at least try to get the skeletal framework and some crucial details of the history being presented correct. I'm really not a fan of seeing glaringly obvious costume or prop problems. That said, I'm also not too picky; I don't head to movies to see what inaccuracies I can pick out. So, I suppose, if I do notice one, the filmmakers have royally screwed up. But generally, what fun is it to pick apart a movie while it unfolds on screen. It is only entertainment after all. I suppose the larger issue, and the thing that filmmakers need to keep in mind, though, is that not everyone thinks like I do. Some people actually do take what they see on the big screen as historical fact. And this can be extremely troubling, leading to a lot of difficulties for folks in professions like mine. I guess if I had a message to filmmakers who favored historical accounts/fiction, I'd just remind them to do their best and be careful with the story they are telling because others won't.
So all that leads me to the Conspirator, the courtroom... errr... military tribunal room drama revolving around the case of Mary Surratt, the woman who owned the boardinghouse where John Wilkes Booth and company convened to scheme the demise of President Abraham Lincoln. As far as I can tell.. and I'll admit to being a little out of my league here... the film's director- the legendary Robert Redford- didn't play particularly loosely with the basic history here. Well, let me clarify.. in terms of the basic facts, it doesn't appear that he played particularly loosely... in terms of bias? Well, that's a whole other can of worms, isn't it? The story basically follows Surratt's lawyer, former Union officer Fred Aiken and his quest to allow for Mary to be tried in civilian court, rather than the hasty military tribunal set up to try all the conspirators in the assassination plot. Aiken is no Southern sympathizer here, he just gradually becomes wedded to the idea of justice- appropriate justice- for all, and the idea of a military tribunal and the related biases of the judges who sit therein, is less than appealing to Aiken. After all, as the judge/generals already have their minds made up, doesn't that make the whole process a sham? Where is the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Certainly the idea declines to make an appearance in front of the tribunal.
Even casual students of history should know the rest. Despite Aiken's best (and in the case of the film, impassioned) efforts, Surratt's tribunal hearing holds, and the inevitable verdict- that she is guilty, and thus condemned to death- comes to fruition. If Redford has his way, however, what students of this particular movie don't know is whether justice had been served. Well, actually, to take it a step further, it is evident that Redford has come to the conclusion that justice was a long ways off from being served. And further, it's pretty evident that Redford wants you to really question whether Surratt deserved to have been arrested or implicated at all. Whether that's the result of his personal belief, sloppy handling of bias, or just plain bad film making is harder to ascertain. In the end, the way Redford directs it, it would be hard for an audience NOT to feel some degree of sympathy for Surratt. The problem is, however, from what I've read and been taught, this just wasn't that clear cut of a case. At least in terms of whether her role- whatever that was- called for her to be sentenced to death. If we're taking the approach of Major League Baseball or National History Day, then Surratt was clearly guilty- no questions asked- after all, judges (or umpires) decisions are final.
The more I think about though, the more I question whether Redford was consciously trying to make a judgement on Surratt's guilt in the conspiracy. The problem is that the end result- the finished movie- certainly tilts towards her being one hell of a lot less guilty than the tribunal thought. What I do think Redford was not-so-subtly trying show was that the her whole trial made a mockery of the justice system. And, because he did so much to show that her trial was a sham, he made it very difficult to see anything other than that the verdict was a sham. I think he was more of the mind to encourage audiences to question the verdict and Surratt's role in the conspiracy without making a specific judgement himself. But again, as I've said, his handling of the trial did this effort no favors. Nor did his handling of the characters... more on that later.
So, why would Robert Redford make a movie to show that a case handled 146 years ago was a sham? I find it hard to believe that the pretty-damn liberal Redford wasn't trying to make a comment on the current debate as to whether the government should hand terrorist cases over to military tribunals. In this case, it seems clear that he is arguing that tribunals do not equate to justice. I could be wrong, but it just seemed to have such a heavy message regarding what does amount to true justice that it's hard not to draw parallels. I really don't know Redford's stand on the issue for a fact though. I just find it hard to believe there isn't some farther reaching message being delivered here: we've been down this road before, and look where it took us. So as a propaganda piece? Eh, I'd rather not judge it on that criteria, particularly because I'm making an assumption here. Let me say this though: I'm not a huge fan of how biased the film was. Redford certainly portrayed the tribunal as only a few notches above medieval justice, adding heaps of nefarious overtones. Again, he wanted to leave no doubt as to what his message was: this was a mockery of the justice system, no question about it. Even if that is true, this level of subtly is usually left to the likes of Paul Haggis, and while I'm not saying Redford is some master tactician of screen messages, I would have hoped he would have avoided the use of a sledgehammer to get his point across. He didn't. Out came the mallet, off I turned. I always have felt that guiding your audience to your message- allowing them to discover it- while being a more risky endeavor, is the more rewarding. But, here, Redford leaves nothing to chance.
And that isn't the only problem with the movie. I'm not entirely sure whether it was Redford's directing, James Solomon's screen-writing, or Robin Wright's idea of how Surratt should be played, but the end result is Mary Surratt as messianic martyr. Everything Surratt says and does just comes out so heavy and significant- like she's some kind of royalty. It was just too much. Add to that that some of the dialog just seemed out of place in the movie... would they have really said some of what they said that way?... and that a couple of actors (Justin Long- forever known to me as the Mac dude from the Apple commercials- and Alexis Bledel) looked really out of place here and you have the beginnings of a messy, eye-roll inducing movie. A few instances of overly-dramatic-to-the-point-of-corny lighting occasions seal the deal: the movie just wasn't that great. That isn't to say there weren't great performances: James McAvoy was reliably good- desperate, insecure, cocky, righteous, emotional, in all the right places; Tom Wilkinson did what he always does- give a great, understated performance, and Kevin Kline disappeared into the role of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton... it's just too bad Redford made him such a bastard (why is it always so black and white? Stanton may have been a bastard, true, but why leave no doubt?).
The best I can say is that, at least for me, the movie wasn't particularly boring. Sloppy and boring would have been unforgivable. Sloppy and at least moderately entertaining? A disappointment, sure. But not a devastation.
Grade: C
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Movie List 2011: 18) Win Win
Win Win
Another one I saw back in April... I think this one was on the 21st.
You know, I think this was one of the first Paul Giamatti flicks that I was a little unsure about heading in. By that I mean, I wasn't sure whether I was going to like it. Usually- like with Barney's Version and Sideways- I expect to like his films. This one looked like it was on a one-way track to Sugarland. It just looked like one of those forcibly feel-good movies that make you horribly sick by the end. But, hey, a horribly saccharine movie with Paul Giamatti may not be all that saccharine at all. And you know what? It was.. in the end. The path it took to get to Sugarland was both surprising and disappointing. Let me put it this way... a whole shit-load of wrongs can, in the right circumstance, add up to a right. Nice.
Let me also put it another way- if you're a fan of moral bankruptcy, this movie is for you. Every character has skeletons or flaws- I know, we all do, but not to the level displayed here. Giamatti plays a noble yet also extremely oily lawyer who agrees to take on the guardianship of an old man apparently beginning to suffer from dementia or senility. He takes up this task, solely to cash in on the rather large stipend attached to the role... yeah, he needs the money for all the right reasons.. the economy is down, his practice is struggling and he has a wife and kid to take care of. But still, not only does he take the role and the money- he then ships his charge off to a nursing home against the old man's wishes. Nice. But wait, doesn't the (financially loaded) old man have any family to royally fuck him over? Well, yes, he does, a daughter... whose stuck for a few months in drug rehab. Turns out though that the daughter has a son (the old man's grandson) who in addition to being almost completely devoid of nearly any kind of emotion is also a spectacular wrestler... which is awesome for Giamatti's Mike because he just happens to be the wrestling coach at the local high school. But then Kyle (the grandson) isn't actually eligible to wrestler for Mike because he's only here visiting his grandfather.... that is, until Mike sees how good a wrestler he is and insists on taking the kid in and enrolling him in school for the semester. After all, Mike's team absolutely sucks and this kid is a wrestling god. Win win right? Yeah I suppose so, but through the course of the story you gradually begin to realize that everyone is an asshole. Mike uses people and is oily. The old man was a horrific father. The old man's daughter is an emotional mess and druggie. Kyle is- as I mentioned devoid of all emotions... well except anger... oh and he has a massively checkered past which he keeps from his new foster parents. Mike's wife (Amy Ryan- the only one, in my opinion working to elevate the movie) is super aggressive and wants to beat everyone up. Even Mike and Jackie's young daughter is whiny and annoying. Sorry if I gave too much a way. I don't think I did though; I'm not really delving into specifics. You'll see. What it amounts to? Win Win for everyone despicable character on the screen, just plain Lose for the audience, which, if they're like me, were rooting for everyone to get theirs by the end of the movie. SPOILER ALERT: no one does. But then you could probably figure all that out from the overly sweet trailers for the movie.
Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad, except that director Thomas McCarthy and company missed an opportunity to create a decently deep or complex movie about trying to make ends meet- both financially and emotionally- in hard times... or what goes on behind the public facade of your typical suburban family when the shit hits the fan. Something along those lines. Because, in truth, they do have some meaty ideas to work with. But they just plain miss the mark. They go for sentimental... but why should we care about these shit heads? Sentimentality only truly works if there's a heaping load of empathy... but then why would I want to empathize here? Well maybe I would if they tried harder not to make these people so slimy. I get it, we all struggle. But come on...
On a quick note, I should mention that there's nothing really wrong with Giamatti's performance here. But his penchant for playing pseudo-neurotic and/or grumpy dudes may be starting to wear thin. Come on, man, let's have some variety, because I know he's a damn, damn good actor he probably has it in him to be less... I dunno schlubby. Oh and another note on a performance here: the blank slate that was Kyle was McCarthy's idea and he pushed for Alex Shaffer's one note performance, then great job, kid. If this is the best Shaffer can do... well either he should be confined to playing emotionless robots the rest of his career or maybe it's time for him to hang up his thespian shoes... whatever the hell that means.
So yeah there you have it... how can I sum this up in the same manner as a big time critic... oh, hey, how about using a wrestling metaphor. Win Win is a movie that gets pinned before it ever gets into the ring? No, huh? Yeah well, it's the best I can do.
Grade: C-
Another one I saw back in April... I think this one was on the 21st.
You know, I think this was one of the first Paul Giamatti flicks that I was a little unsure about heading in. By that I mean, I wasn't sure whether I was going to like it. Usually- like with Barney's Version and Sideways- I expect to like his films. This one looked like it was on a one-way track to Sugarland. It just looked like one of those forcibly feel-good movies that make you horribly sick by the end. But, hey, a horribly saccharine movie with Paul Giamatti may not be all that saccharine at all. And you know what? It was.. in the end. The path it took to get to Sugarland was both surprising and disappointing. Let me put it this way... a whole shit-load of wrongs can, in the right circumstance, add up to a right. Nice.
Let me also put it another way- if you're a fan of moral bankruptcy, this movie is for you. Every character has skeletons or flaws- I know, we all do, but not to the level displayed here. Giamatti plays a noble yet also extremely oily lawyer who agrees to take on the guardianship of an old man apparently beginning to suffer from dementia or senility. He takes up this task, solely to cash in on the rather large stipend attached to the role... yeah, he needs the money for all the right reasons.. the economy is down, his practice is struggling and he has a wife and kid to take care of. But still, not only does he take the role and the money- he then ships his charge off to a nursing home against the old man's wishes. Nice. But wait, doesn't the (financially loaded) old man have any family to royally fuck him over? Well, yes, he does, a daughter... whose stuck for a few months in drug rehab. Turns out though that the daughter has a son (the old man's grandson) who in addition to being almost completely devoid of nearly any kind of emotion is also a spectacular wrestler... which is awesome for Giamatti's Mike because he just happens to be the wrestling coach at the local high school. But then Kyle (the grandson) isn't actually eligible to wrestler for Mike because he's only here visiting his grandfather.... that is, until Mike sees how good a wrestler he is and insists on taking the kid in and enrolling him in school for the semester. After all, Mike's team absolutely sucks and this kid is a wrestling god. Win win right? Yeah I suppose so, but through the course of the story you gradually begin to realize that everyone is an asshole. Mike uses people and is oily. The old man was a horrific father. The old man's daughter is an emotional mess and druggie. Kyle is- as I mentioned devoid of all emotions... well except anger... oh and he has a massively checkered past which he keeps from his new foster parents. Mike's wife (Amy Ryan- the only one, in my opinion working to elevate the movie) is super aggressive and wants to beat everyone up. Even Mike and Jackie's young daughter is whiny and annoying. Sorry if I gave too much a way. I don't think I did though; I'm not really delving into specifics. You'll see. What it amounts to? Win Win for everyone despicable character on the screen, just plain Lose for the audience, which, if they're like me, were rooting for everyone to get theirs by the end of the movie. SPOILER ALERT: no one does. But then you could probably figure all that out from the overly sweet trailers for the movie.
Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad, except that director Thomas McCarthy and company missed an opportunity to create a decently deep or complex movie about trying to make ends meet- both financially and emotionally- in hard times... or what goes on behind the public facade of your typical suburban family when the shit hits the fan. Something along those lines. Because, in truth, they do have some meaty ideas to work with. But they just plain miss the mark. They go for sentimental... but why should we care about these shit heads? Sentimentality only truly works if there's a heaping load of empathy... but then why would I want to empathize here? Well maybe I would if they tried harder not to make these people so slimy. I get it, we all struggle. But come on...
On a quick note, I should mention that there's nothing really wrong with Giamatti's performance here. But his penchant for playing pseudo-neurotic and/or grumpy dudes may be starting to wear thin. Come on, man, let's have some variety, because I know he's a damn, damn good actor he probably has it in him to be less... I dunno schlubby. Oh and another note on a performance here: the blank slate that was Kyle was McCarthy's idea and he pushed for Alex Shaffer's one note performance, then great job, kid. If this is the best Shaffer can do... well either he should be confined to playing emotionless robots the rest of his career or maybe it's time for him to hang up his thespian shoes... whatever the hell that means.
So yeah there you have it... how can I sum this up in the same manner as a big time critic... oh, hey, how about using a wrestling metaphor. Win Win is a movie that gets pinned before it ever gets into the ring? No, huh? Yeah well, it's the best I can do.
Grade: C-
Movie List 2011: 17.) Source Code
Source Code
It's actually been a couple of weeks since I saw Source Code. I think it was something like April 18th or so... I suppose this write up will be interesting...
So what do I remember thinking about the movie? Generally, I guess, that it was pretty good. Decent. It was engaging and engrossing and all that jazz- definitely entertaining and even a bit of a thinker. But I guess its on that last part where I felt that the film kind of fell a part a bit- the more I thought about it, the less impressed I was and the more confusing and/or unbelievable I found it. I know, I know, its a sci-fi movie, and almost by definition it needs to push at the restraint of reality... a lot. And I know I always harp on about the willful suspension of disbelief most viewers need to engage in in order for movies to be enjoyable, but damn it, Duncan Jones crafts a movie that at first glance seems- with a little help from scientific evolution... and not terribly far-reaching scientific evolution at that- as though it could happen.
I don't want to reveal too many details here though. Some of the twists and turns and slow-building realizations are what made this movie fun to dive into. And, then again, those same twists and turns are what also hold it back in my mind. I will say this much though: the movie revolves around the quest of Jake Gyllenhaal's (Army officer? Marine officer, I can't remember) Colter Stevens being injected into the last 8 minutes of some working schlub's life so that he can discover the identity of the person who planted the bomb on the Chicago commuter train that killed said schlub, said schlub's woman friend, and a bundle of other schlubs. Can't find the bomber in the first effort? No worries, Colter, you're going back in... again and again and again until you get the job done.
Yes, I know, I said it could happen. And nothing about the paragraph above indicates any sense of reality or possibility as we know it now or in any sense of the immediate future. It's not that Colter manages to invade the last 8 minutes of someone's life that seemed somewhat realistic, it's how he does it that, for awhile at least, seemed plausible. Again, don't want to it into it here... but trust me, at least in the state of mind I was in at the time- under the influence of hefty allergy medication- it seemed plausible.. until you looked at the next level. Wish I could say more but you'll have to just keep your eyes peeled for it, if you decide to check the movie out. And really you have nothing to lose in doing so- it wasn't boring by any stretch. Quite entertaining actually. Just wish I hadn't bought into it so much when drugged then questioned it so much after coming back to my senses. It probably was best viewed strictly in the realm of science fiction- but then again- the world of Star Wars or the Jetsons never makes an appearance; you're meant to think that everything that happens in the film can happen right now. So maybe it does set it self up for disappointment...
I guess disappoint, though, is just too strong a word. Or rather too strong a word to describe the entire movie. It definitely had a lot going for it: taut thrills, a genuine sense of urgency that drove the movie, good action, good performances (Gyllenhaal, and Vera Farmiga- particularly. Much, much less so with Jeffrey Wright's turn as some sort of socially awkward scientist. Seemed he took acting lessons from a cartoon...), and even some exploration of such thought provoking topics as: death and reality vs. alternate reality. All good stuff. But darn it. The plot seems to fall apart when considering the basic premise of how Colter goes after the bomber. Would love to know if anyone else saw it that way. Wish I could delve into it more now, but to even try to describe it would give away too much of the film... well, I think anyway. And I don't want David Bowie (Duncan Jones' father) swooping in and snagging my nieces or nephews the next time I babysit (which would be... the first time I babysat...solo anyway).
So, I suppose the movie would best be described as a lot of hit, but one nagging miss. Not that I think it's too much Duncan Jones' fault. If anything the film's timeliness and believability- both in the better part of the plot and most of the performances- make the one essential, but unbelievable part of the movie seem like an even bigger problem. The rest of the movie is almost too good for the too complex part. And that's not all bad. I'm not ready to give up on Jones at all. I've heard great, great things about his first feature, Moon, and I'm really looking forward to seeing it as well as whatever else he comes up with in the near future. Every director has some "almost" films in their repertoire. Perhaps this Jones' ... and if this is the worst he does, he'll go down as one HELL of a director when it's all said and done.
Grade: B
It's actually been a couple of weeks since I saw Source Code. I think it was something like April 18th or so... I suppose this write up will be interesting...
So what do I remember thinking about the movie? Generally, I guess, that it was pretty good. Decent. It was engaging and engrossing and all that jazz- definitely entertaining and even a bit of a thinker. But I guess its on that last part where I felt that the film kind of fell a part a bit- the more I thought about it, the less impressed I was and the more confusing and/or unbelievable I found it. I know, I know, its a sci-fi movie, and almost by definition it needs to push at the restraint of reality... a lot. And I know I always harp on about the willful suspension of disbelief most viewers need to engage in in order for movies to be enjoyable, but damn it, Duncan Jones crafts a movie that at first glance seems- with a little help from scientific evolution... and not terribly far-reaching scientific evolution at that- as though it could happen.
I don't want to reveal too many details here though. Some of the twists and turns and slow-building realizations are what made this movie fun to dive into. And, then again, those same twists and turns are what also hold it back in my mind. I will say this much though: the movie revolves around the quest of Jake Gyllenhaal's (Army officer? Marine officer, I can't remember) Colter Stevens being injected into the last 8 minutes of some working schlub's life so that he can discover the identity of the person who planted the bomb on the Chicago commuter train that killed said schlub, said schlub's woman friend, and a bundle of other schlubs. Can't find the bomber in the first effort? No worries, Colter, you're going back in... again and again and again until you get the job done.
Yes, I know, I said it could happen. And nothing about the paragraph above indicates any sense of reality or possibility as we know it now or in any sense of the immediate future. It's not that Colter manages to invade the last 8 minutes of someone's life that seemed somewhat realistic, it's how he does it that, for awhile at least, seemed plausible. Again, don't want to it into it here... but trust me, at least in the state of mind I was in at the time- under the influence of hefty allergy medication- it seemed plausible.. until you looked at the next level. Wish I could say more but you'll have to just keep your eyes peeled for it, if you decide to check the movie out. And really you have nothing to lose in doing so- it wasn't boring by any stretch. Quite entertaining actually. Just wish I hadn't bought into it so much when drugged then questioned it so much after coming back to my senses. It probably was best viewed strictly in the realm of science fiction- but then again- the world of Star Wars or the Jetsons never makes an appearance; you're meant to think that everything that happens in the film can happen right now. So maybe it does set it self up for disappointment...
I guess disappoint, though, is just too strong a word. Or rather too strong a word to describe the entire movie. It definitely had a lot going for it: taut thrills, a genuine sense of urgency that drove the movie, good action, good performances (Gyllenhaal, and Vera Farmiga- particularly. Much, much less so with Jeffrey Wright's turn as some sort of socially awkward scientist. Seemed he took acting lessons from a cartoon...), and even some exploration of such thought provoking topics as: death and reality vs. alternate reality. All good stuff. But darn it. The plot seems to fall apart when considering the basic premise of how Colter goes after the bomber. Would love to know if anyone else saw it that way. Wish I could delve into it more now, but to even try to describe it would give away too much of the film... well, I think anyway. And I don't want David Bowie (Duncan Jones' father) swooping in and snagging my nieces or nephews the next time I babysit (which would be... the first time I babysat...solo anyway).
So, I suppose the movie would best be described as a lot of hit, but one nagging miss. Not that I think it's too much Duncan Jones' fault. If anything the film's timeliness and believability- both in the better part of the plot and most of the performances- make the one essential, but unbelievable part of the movie seem like an even bigger problem. The rest of the movie is almost too good for the too complex part. And that's not all bad. I'm not ready to give up on Jones at all. I've heard great, great things about his first feature, Moon, and I'm really looking forward to seeing it as well as whatever else he comes up with in the near future. Every director has some "almost" films in their repertoire. Perhaps this Jones' ... and if this is the worst he does, he'll go down as one HELL of a director when it's all said and done.
Grade: B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)