The Sitter
I'm not going to say that The Sitter was any good. It was ok. Pretty entertaining at times, at other times it was absolutely grating- taking that raunchy/sweet gig to an annoying level. I will say this though: there was something refreshing about the movie. The filmmakers didn't feel the need to tie up all the loose ends. The characters run amok with very few consequences. Whether Noah- the titular babysitter played by Jonah Hill- and the brat pack he's left to babysit actually get away with all the madness they create is left hanging. Which is good. The movie is absurd. To try and tie things up would be far too serious a step for such a ridiculous movie. Will Noah get away with everything that's happened? Who cares. He did for the span of the movie and that's all that's important.
Now this may all seem hypocritical. I don't recall whether I've taken the 2x4 to other movies for not tying up all the plot strands. I may have and I'll stand by it. Usually this type of thing bothers me more in movies that try to tidy everything up and fail to do so. But The Sitter isn't concerned with trying to make a good movie where everything makes sense and represents at least a parallel world to real life, no director David Gordon Green and crew are interested in making a fun movie where a whole bunch of shit happens and everything somehow ends up ok. Does Noah lose a stash of stolen drugs? Yep. Do both a diamond store and fancy restaurant's bathroom get blown up? Yep. Does a car and some Bat Mitzvah money get stolen? Yep. Do they main characters suffer any real, long-term consequences? Nope. And you know what? That's ok. It's actually fine for filmmakers not to take their movie so seriously.
Again, just because I liked that aspect of the film doesn't mean I think it was good. Like I said, it was ok at best. And at worst it was kind of shitty. But I enjoyed it- on some level- for the most part. Mostly, it offered some cheap laughs. Most courtesy of Jonah Hill. He doesn't blaze a new trail for himself as an actor here. He's the usual crass, all-bark-no-bite, semi-loser who doesn't know how uncool he is, but still has a heart of gold under that jackass facade. The caliber of jokes he's charged with pulling off come easily for Hill- the motormouthed stream of put downs and geeky brashness. So in other words, if you liked Hill's character in... say... Funny People or Superbad, then you'll probably find him at least somewhat entertaining here. But, as it often happens in these types of movies, there's little beyond Hill to keep this thing afloat. The only other one who gives a great turn is Sam Rockwell as the likely gay drug lord from whom one of Noah's charges steals a dinosaur egg's worth of blow (the egg is his idea of high-end packaging). Beyond that, the movie doesn't have a lot going for it.
I should say this though, at least the child actors they recruited did have some acting talent. Far too often, filmmakers in a movie of this caliber opt for looks over talent. These three kids could act... too bad they were given such uninspired material.
Actually pretty much everyone was given uninspired material to work with. This is a typical shit constantly hitting the fan movie. The gimmick that is supposed to be the comedic hook is that someone of Hill's typical character profile is left to interact with smarter-than-their-years tykes. Sure, Noah's in charge...riiiiight. It does net a few laughs, but just when things work up to their madcap best, the filmmakers decide they should add a heaping help of neo-Full House to the story. Blithe (a scene-stealing Landry Bender) is obsessed with the famous-for-being-famous crowd an aspires to be nothing more than the next Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian. Slater (Max Records of Where the Wild Things Are fame) is a gay kid who doesn't want to be gay and, as such, is overcome with anxiety. And then there's Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez), the family's adopted South American son. He likes to run away and blow things up. In turn, Noah helps each of these youngsters get to the root of their issues and help them understand that it's ok to be just who they are. Hell, Noah is even out to help his absolute bitch of a girlfriend (Joey Lauren Adams clone, Ari Graynor) come to grips with who she is. Nice work, Danny Tanner. Barf. Could have done without all the contrived heart and good feeling. The movie is at it's best when shit gets destroyed. Everything is out of control. And when Jonah Hill and Sam Rockwell (as an aside, I've never seen a movie in which Rockwell phones it in. Ever. From little-seen indies such as Box of Moonlight to Oscar-bait such as Frost/Nixon to this idiotic fare, Rockwell always seems to bring his A-game. Kudos, my man, kudos.) are sparring or hugging it out on screen. Beyond that, the movie is lacking. Luckily, there is just enough chaos to make The Sitter watchable. Unfortunately, Green and crew failed to heed the time-honored lesson- too much sugar (or artificial sweetener as this case would have it) can make a dish go bad.
Grade: B-
Monday, December 26, 2011
Movie List 2011: 54.) Immortals
Immortals
If you like sword-and-sandal epics where British-accented Greeks run around bloviating about gods and honor while engaging a battle against some neighboring city-state for some really unknown reason, Immortals is the movie for you. It has all that and more! Artsy blood splatters! Gods dressed in ridiculous outfits! Action sequences! A nearly-naked Henry Cavil (for the females)! A pretty damn naked Frieda Pinto (for the males)! It's everything and more that a standard Greeks-and-Gods movie is supposed to be. Including inherently shitty.
I can't think of too many of these movies that I actually liked. 300 comes to mind. But I loved the over-stylized, graphic-novel feel of the movie. The 1981-vintage Clash of the Titans was more of a guilty-pleasure sort of thing. And I'm not sure it was so pleasurable either. I think I like the idea of it more than the movie. One of those I remember as being so awful it's good in a perverse way. Only it probably actually sucks. Badly. And then there was....? Hmm. The new Clash of the Titans? No. Not so hot. Fairly entertaining on some levels I suppose. Spartacus? Ben-Hur? A.) I've never seen either of them (blog-cred drops) and B.) Those were not- to my knowledge- standard sword-and-sandal affairs. Definitely not Greek epics (Romans, both), and they were more historical fiction than mythology. Soooo... yeah. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting, but I think most of these movies generally suck. And Immortals carries that torch brilliantly.
As with most of these types of movies, Immortals' sole reason for being is to showcase fairly good looking people in less than generous amounts of clothing kicking-ass and defending honor. In this case, Henry Cavil's Theseus is sort-of tapped by the gods (see, the gods vow not to interfere in the affairs of humans, lest they lose faith in their own abilities) to help prevent the evil King Hyperion for unleashing the Titans on all of existence. Who are the Titans? Less worthy gods. See, the gods had an epic battle royal with the Titans eons ago and, well, the gods won and trapped the Titans in some mountain. Hyperion (Mickey Rourke, not giving a damn that these types of movies almost require an attempt at a British accent. No, he plays prototypical American enemy. All mugging and faux-intimidation. Think of it as his character in Iron Man 2...without the Russian accent...which might have been welcome here. Really along with Stephen Dorff's riverboat gambler take on the Greek thief, Stavros, these two stick out in a sea of pompous Brits... and not in a good way. After all, when in Rome...er... Greece do as the Grecians do. Don a British accent!) for reasons either I've forgotten, were inadequately explained, or didn't really exist, wants to unleash the Titans on humanity...I think it's so his tribe can rule the world or something. I'm thinking though that the Titans really are only going to care about snagging a rematch with the gods and if they survive that will lay waste to everything and everyone. This all sort of plays out.
Ok, so maybe it is a bit more involved than that. Theseus is a bastard peasant shunned by his own people.... and an incredible warrior. He ends up joining with Dorff's thief-with-heart-of-gold Stavros, as well as a mute priest, and Pinto's virgin oracle. She sees visions...valuable visions... so long as she doesn't get down with anyone. And here I need to make a point... I suppose I should issue a spoiler alert. Ok, so here's the deal with Pinto's Phaedra. She has to remain a virgin to keep having these visions. For much of the story, these visions are crucial. Only these visions will lead Hyperion to the mystical bow that will allow him to unleash the Titans. Hyperion needs Phaedra... and he needs her virginal. See, this particular iteration of the Greek world knows what a powerful weapon Phaedra could be. So these priests ban together to protect her and in so doing provide her with three faux-oracles. The idea being that you never know which one is the true oracle. It's a lot harder to capture four than one, eh? And if you just grab one at random, you have a 25% chance of hitting the vision jackpot. Ah, so, Hyperion's baddies find the monastery where the oracle and her faux friends are being kept and they lay waste to most of the priests and capture the oracles. They also have Theseus and his motley band. (I'm getting to my point...sorry). At one stop, they manage a daring escape, and to ensure that their precious vision-seer can escape with Theseus and the boys, her oracle-lite sisters nobly decide to stay behind and face the consequences of not being an oracle with Hyperion's crew. You can probably guess how this plays out. Hyperion finds out that there is one missing, guesses that it's the true oracle, and decides to torture her sisters in an attempt to get them to weasel Phaedra out. Not such a hot prospect for the sisters. And pretty much by-the-book for such stories. So what's the problem? Oh, not long after Theseus and company escape, Phaedra decides that a.) Theseus is freakin' hot (and he thinks likewise of her) and that her visions aren't really a gift, but more of a curse... sooo... she beds the dude. Yep. Virgin no more, visions no more. Don't worry, Hyperion finds the bow anyway...well...actually Theseus does... that's not what I'm getting at. So her three sisters submitted to torture...and yep....they died...so they could keep her alive and keep her valuable gift intact. And not even a couple of days after her sisters sacrifice themselves to save her because she has this gift, she decides that eh, it's an inconvenience and Henry Cavil... I mean Theseus... is luscious. Anyone else see anything wrong with this? Pretty much makes her one of the most deplorable "heroes" I've seen in a while. Consider the following: these three women were enlisted, implored to give up their lives for the sole purpose of offering this other woman protection...and maybe companionship... but mostly for protection. They then decided themselves to submit to capture and torture to keep Hyperion off her scent for a while. Why? Because she is such a super gal? No. Because she has these valuable visions and they don't want them falling into the wrong hands. So these three women give up everything... including their lives... for Phaedra. Her thanks? She sexes away her gift make their sacrifice irrelevant on a broader scale. They've now sacrificed themselves so some admittedly gorgeous women can traipse about with a standard issue stud. Pretty damn selfish. Did the filmmakers realize that they were creating a horribly selfish character? Probably not. They likely didn't play any of their story-elements forward. Actually this is all pretty clear. They crafted the story on what looked, sounded, or felt good in that moment and failed to connect all the dots. What does that amount to? A really, really up and down story featuring plot holes and inconsistencies. And it also seems particularly empty and substance-less... even for a popcorn flick.
When you add to all that one of the hokiest, corniest, most cringe worthy final sequences (gods and Theseus battling Titans in the sky... they look blatantly super-imposed in the sky...and as though they are fightingeach other in the zero-gravity room at space camp...it's beyond silly and firmly in the dumb range) and you have the makings of an awful movie. Which, actually on the surface is hardly surprising. What is more surprising is how awful the story is. After all, it should be hard to screw this up. Stick to the formula: hero is shunned by is people, hero is tapped to rise above and deliver his people a victory, hero falters a bit, hero has huge showdown with ultimate bad guy, hero defeats bad guy...narrowly, hero score the girl and lives happily ever after. They have all the basic elements of the story but they do nothing to hide the fact that they are attacking the form as though it were a series of checkboxes to be checked. And check they do. Of course they also try to add wrinkles to the formula... and those wrinkles eventually become cracks that sink an already bad movie even further into the shit pot. Ah, but the famed Tarsem Singh and his ability to create a visual carnival is what will save this movie! Or so the thought was. Problem is that a.) Tarsem is probably overrated and b.) he either proves this by giving his best effort and it comes off as an unoriginal, visually unimpressive ... at best flick or by phoning it in and providing the same result... and if he feels he can just skate by and people will drool at his mastery...well... then... he's overrated. You just can't coast, man. Bring me something fresh. Been there and done that? That's a waste of time... which is probably the best way to describe Immortals on the whole.
Grade: D
If you like sword-and-sandal epics where British-accented Greeks run around bloviating about gods and honor while engaging a battle against some neighboring city-state for some really unknown reason, Immortals is the movie for you. It has all that and more! Artsy blood splatters! Gods dressed in ridiculous outfits! Action sequences! A nearly-naked Henry Cavil (for the females)! A pretty damn naked Frieda Pinto (for the males)! It's everything and more that a standard Greeks-and-Gods movie is supposed to be. Including inherently shitty.
I can't think of too many of these movies that I actually liked. 300 comes to mind. But I loved the over-stylized, graphic-novel feel of the movie. The 1981-vintage Clash of the Titans was more of a guilty-pleasure sort of thing. And I'm not sure it was so pleasurable either. I think I like the idea of it more than the movie. One of those I remember as being so awful it's good in a perverse way. Only it probably actually sucks. Badly. And then there was....? Hmm. The new Clash of the Titans? No. Not so hot. Fairly entertaining on some levels I suppose. Spartacus? Ben-Hur? A.) I've never seen either of them (blog-cred drops) and B.) Those were not- to my knowledge- standard sword-and-sandal affairs. Definitely not Greek epics (Romans, both), and they were more historical fiction than mythology. Soooo... yeah. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting, but I think most of these movies generally suck. And Immortals carries that torch brilliantly.
As with most of these types of movies, Immortals' sole reason for being is to showcase fairly good looking people in less than generous amounts of clothing kicking-ass and defending honor. In this case, Henry Cavil's Theseus is sort-of tapped by the gods (see, the gods vow not to interfere in the affairs of humans, lest they lose faith in their own abilities) to help prevent the evil King Hyperion for unleashing the Titans on all of existence. Who are the Titans? Less worthy gods. See, the gods had an epic battle royal with the Titans eons ago and, well, the gods won and trapped the Titans in some mountain. Hyperion (Mickey Rourke, not giving a damn that these types of movies almost require an attempt at a British accent. No, he plays prototypical American enemy. All mugging and faux-intimidation. Think of it as his character in Iron Man 2...without the Russian accent...which might have been welcome here. Really along with Stephen Dorff's riverboat gambler take on the Greek thief, Stavros, these two stick out in a sea of pompous Brits... and not in a good way. After all, when in Rome...er... Greece do as the Grecians do. Don a British accent!) for reasons either I've forgotten, were inadequately explained, or didn't really exist, wants to unleash the Titans on humanity...I think it's so his tribe can rule the world or something. I'm thinking though that the Titans really are only going to care about snagging a rematch with the gods and if they survive that will lay waste to everything and everyone. This all sort of plays out.
Ok, so maybe it is a bit more involved than that. Theseus is a bastard peasant shunned by his own people.... and an incredible warrior. He ends up joining with Dorff's thief-with-heart-of-gold Stavros, as well as a mute priest, and Pinto's virgin oracle. She sees visions...valuable visions... so long as she doesn't get down with anyone. And here I need to make a point... I suppose I should issue a spoiler alert. Ok, so here's the deal with Pinto's Phaedra. She has to remain a virgin to keep having these visions. For much of the story, these visions are crucial. Only these visions will lead Hyperion to the mystical bow that will allow him to unleash the Titans. Hyperion needs Phaedra... and he needs her virginal. See, this particular iteration of the Greek world knows what a powerful weapon Phaedra could be. So these priests ban together to protect her and in so doing provide her with three faux-oracles. The idea being that you never know which one is the true oracle. It's a lot harder to capture four than one, eh? And if you just grab one at random, you have a 25% chance of hitting the vision jackpot. Ah, so, Hyperion's baddies find the monastery where the oracle and her faux friends are being kept and they lay waste to most of the priests and capture the oracles. They also have Theseus and his motley band. (I'm getting to my point...sorry). At one stop, they manage a daring escape, and to ensure that their precious vision-seer can escape with Theseus and the boys, her oracle-lite sisters nobly decide to stay behind and face the consequences of not being an oracle with Hyperion's crew. You can probably guess how this plays out. Hyperion finds out that there is one missing, guesses that it's the true oracle, and decides to torture her sisters in an attempt to get them to weasel Phaedra out. Not such a hot prospect for the sisters. And pretty much by-the-book for such stories. So what's the problem? Oh, not long after Theseus and company escape, Phaedra decides that a.) Theseus is freakin' hot (and he thinks likewise of her) and that her visions aren't really a gift, but more of a curse... sooo... she beds the dude. Yep. Virgin no more, visions no more. Don't worry, Hyperion finds the bow anyway...well...actually Theseus does... that's not what I'm getting at. So her three sisters submitted to torture...and yep....they died...so they could keep her alive and keep her valuable gift intact. And not even a couple of days after her sisters sacrifice themselves to save her because she has this gift, she decides that eh, it's an inconvenience and Henry Cavil... I mean Theseus... is luscious. Anyone else see anything wrong with this? Pretty much makes her one of the most deplorable "heroes" I've seen in a while. Consider the following: these three women were enlisted, implored to give up their lives for the sole purpose of offering this other woman protection...and maybe companionship... but mostly for protection. They then decided themselves to submit to capture and torture to keep Hyperion off her scent for a while. Why? Because she is such a super gal? No. Because she has these valuable visions and they don't want them falling into the wrong hands. So these three women give up everything... including their lives... for Phaedra. Her thanks? She sexes away her gift make their sacrifice irrelevant on a broader scale. They've now sacrificed themselves so some admittedly gorgeous women can traipse about with a standard issue stud. Pretty damn selfish. Did the filmmakers realize that they were creating a horribly selfish character? Probably not. They likely didn't play any of their story-elements forward. Actually this is all pretty clear. They crafted the story on what looked, sounded, or felt good in that moment and failed to connect all the dots. What does that amount to? A really, really up and down story featuring plot holes and inconsistencies. And it also seems particularly empty and substance-less... even for a popcorn flick.
When you add to all that one of the hokiest, corniest, most cringe worthy final sequences (gods and Theseus battling Titans in the sky... they look blatantly super-imposed in the sky...and as though they are fightingeach other in the zero-gravity room at space camp...it's beyond silly and firmly in the dumb range) and you have the makings of an awful movie. Which, actually on the surface is hardly surprising. What is more surprising is how awful the story is. After all, it should be hard to screw this up. Stick to the formula: hero is shunned by is people, hero is tapped to rise above and deliver his people a victory, hero falters a bit, hero has huge showdown with ultimate bad guy, hero defeats bad guy...narrowly, hero score the girl and lives happily ever after. They have all the basic elements of the story but they do nothing to hide the fact that they are attacking the form as though it were a series of checkboxes to be checked. And check they do. Of course they also try to add wrinkles to the formula... and those wrinkles eventually become cracks that sink an already bad movie even further into the shit pot. Ah, but the famed Tarsem Singh and his ability to create a visual carnival is what will save this movie! Or so the thought was. Problem is that a.) Tarsem is probably overrated and b.) he either proves this by giving his best effort and it comes off as an unoriginal, visually unimpressive ... at best flick or by phoning it in and providing the same result... and if he feels he can just skate by and people will drool at his mastery...well... then... he's overrated. You just can't coast, man. Bring me something fresh. Been there and done that? That's a waste of time... which is probably the best way to describe Immortals on the whole.
Grade: D
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Movie List 2011: 53.) J. Edgar
J. Edgar
Nothing like a little lunch hour blogging to get you back on track. I'm currently two movies behind on my reviews here. Best get to work. This will probably be a short one... after all, a dude's gotta eat.
Anyway, here we have J. Edgar, Clint Eastwood's latest directorial effort, a biopic of the life and times of one J. Edgar Hoover. To put it simply, the movie was pretty darn boring. Laborious even... I mean to sit through. Staying awake does take effort. I suppose there was some interesting angles to drive the movie forward, but the problem was that all interest was overwhelmed by a slow plodding plot and a yawn-inducing color palette. (The whole movie seemed to have a gray aura hanging over it.) I think it's about time I admitted to myself that standard biopics are just not for me. I can't think of a single one that I haven't found boring or overindulgent. Far too often, it comes off as though the filmmakers are following one of two routes: deification or iconoclasm. I think the iconoclasts have had their way with Hoover sufficiently enough to that he seems to be regarded as at least flawed- terribly flawed- if not batshit crazy. Eastwood (and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black) aren't treading new ground there. Instead, here, they seem to deify the self-deification of Hoover. An interesting route to take, but still- in execution- ultimately boring.
Ok, so maybe I'm not being particularly fair. Black and Eastwood do take pains to show that Hoover was a very complex cat. You couldn't pigeonhole him entirely as a dude with mommy issues or a closeted gay man who seemed to hate the fact that he was gay or a paranoid champion of some extreme sense of law and order. No, Hoover was more than that...or.. rather all of that mixed into one along with healthy doses of a guy just struggling to find himself and matter in the world. The most interesting thing about the movie is how the tale of Hoover unfolds. Hoover's story unfurls through flashbacks as he dictates his memoirs to a series of FBI-agent authors (the idea being that the paranoid Hoover just couldn't settle on one) during the 1960s. So you have Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) telling the story of his own rise to prominence in the FBI. And how Hoover recalls it is how its seen on screen. ... Oh, there are also pieces of the past that don't make it into the memoirs that the audience is allowed to see- particularly moments involving his more tender times with his trusted aide and would-be lover Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer)- these are seen as Hoover's recollections of the past. Unmentioned to his cascade of authors but not unconsidered by the man himself. So, we see it all: the paranoia, the Communist and gangster hunter, the cross-dressing, the homosexual leanings, the powerful, scheming dictator of the bureau and the insecure momma's boy. They're all there on the screen to behold. And all I could do was yawn.
On the surface, this should have all been interesting to me. I love the idea of trying to get into the heads of complex characters. I can only point to the slow, plodding way everything unfolds, the drab way everything looks, and perhaps the punchless conclusion that seems to want say both that everything you've heard about him is more or less true, but the reasons why- though if you noodle through it you can probably imagine them- are not as simple. Even the question of whose story did we see in the flashbacks, Hoover's authentic story or the one born of his self-aggrandizing imagination is more or less neatly answered. This seems to be a trend in Eastwood's movies: replace subtle teasing with outright clarification... I think playing up the whose story was it anyway angle... without answering it so clearly...would have been a more engaging route to take... or better yet, why not tell Hoover's story through the eyes of multiple people- perhaps including his own- who had to interact with him... who learned to love or loathe him... people who knew him on the surface and people who knew him intimately... then allow all those views to circulate in the viewers' mind and allow them to come to the conclusion on exactly who Hoover was... that might have been the way to go... because it seems as though Hoover was different things to different people, but Eastwood seems more preoccupied with who Hoover was to himself and also why.
A couple of other points here. The performances were generally good. You do, after all, have good actors and actresses working for a respected (if- COUGH- rapidlyloosingthouch-COUGH) director. You'd expect them to bring their A-games for Clint. And they do. DiCaprio makes a somewhat compelling Hoover. He works tirelessly at making him look and sound right, which at times actually makes his performance come off as more of a Hoover impersonation than Leo-as-Hoover. I don't think this is entirely his fault- I think this is where Eastwood is pushing him. He does bring great intensity to the role, but he's just never allowed to disappear into it. Armie Hammer makes for a charming and easy-going Tolson. Naomi Watts completes the Holy Hoover Trinity by giving a game but uncomplicated portrayal of Hoover's trusted assistant Helen Gandy. The real problems with the performances? Particularly Hammer's and Watts'? They're overpowered by some pretty horrific age-ifying makeup. I read all the criticisms of the pretty awful makeup effort on the film. A lot of it seemed to be directed at DiCaprio as Hoover. I was actually pleasantly surprised by how he looked as he aged. It actually blended pretty well. I didn't notice anything other than that it was DiCaprio under all that makeup. I actually think Brad Pitt as older (younger) Ben Button looked far more ridiculous than Leo Hoover. Hammer's older Tolson and Watts' older Gandy on the other hand looked like the work of a hack job. Particularly Hammer. The older Tolson is actually kept off screen for much of the movie but when he makes his appearance you begin to wonder if they used 1960s era makeup to complete his 1960s era look. It just doesn't look right. I've seen better makeup used in kids' Halloween costumes. (What really gives the look away are the eyes. Hammer's look way too young and fresh under the makeup. Or... maybe its the fact that the makeup around his eyes seems to be melting off that makes his eyes pop more... whatever the reason, Hammer's older Tolson looks like a zombie who harvested the fresh young eyes of a teenager. So unnatural). Hammer's young eyes burning through the old-age makeup are about the only thing that popped out of the drab atmosphere. They shouldn't have been a distraction... but with little else to attract my attention...well... that's what I had.
Grade: C-
Nothing like a little lunch hour blogging to get you back on track. I'm currently two movies behind on my reviews here. Best get to work. This will probably be a short one... after all, a dude's gotta eat.
Anyway, here we have J. Edgar, Clint Eastwood's latest directorial effort, a biopic of the life and times of one J. Edgar Hoover. To put it simply, the movie was pretty darn boring. Laborious even... I mean to sit through. Staying awake does take effort. I suppose there was some interesting angles to drive the movie forward, but the problem was that all interest was overwhelmed by a slow plodding plot and a yawn-inducing color palette. (The whole movie seemed to have a gray aura hanging over it.) I think it's about time I admitted to myself that standard biopics are just not for me. I can't think of a single one that I haven't found boring or overindulgent. Far too often, it comes off as though the filmmakers are following one of two routes: deification or iconoclasm. I think the iconoclasts have had their way with Hoover sufficiently enough to that he seems to be regarded as at least flawed- terribly flawed- if not batshit crazy. Eastwood (and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black) aren't treading new ground there. Instead, here, they seem to deify the self-deification of Hoover. An interesting route to take, but still- in execution- ultimately boring.
Ok, so maybe I'm not being particularly fair. Black and Eastwood do take pains to show that Hoover was a very complex cat. You couldn't pigeonhole him entirely as a dude with mommy issues or a closeted gay man who seemed to hate the fact that he was gay or a paranoid champion of some extreme sense of law and order. No, Hoover was more than that...or.. rather all of that mixed into one along with healthy doses of a guy just struggling to find himself and matter in the world. The most interesting thing about the movie is how the tale of Hoover unfolds. Hoover's story unfurls through flashbacks as he dictates his memoirs to a series of FBI-agent authors (the idea being that the paranoid Hoover just couldn't settle on one) during the 1960s. So you have Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) telling the story of his own rise to prominence in the FBI. And how Hoover recalls it is how its seen on screen. ... Oh, there are also pieces of the past that don't make it into the memoirs that the audience is allowed to see- particularly moments involving his more tender times with his trusted aide and would-be lover Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer)- these are seen as Hoover's recollections of the past. Unmentioned to his cascade of authors but not unconsidered by the man himself. So, we see it all: the paranoia, the Communist and gangster hunter, the cross-dressing, the homosexual leanings, the powerful, scheming dictator of the bureau and the insecure momma's boy. They're all there on the screen to behold. And all I could do was yawn.
On the surface, this should have all been interesting to me. I love the idea of trying to get into the heads of complex characters. I can only point to the slow, plodding way everything unfolds, the drab way everything looks, and perhaps the punchless conclusion that seems to want say both that everything you've heard about him is more or less true, but the reasons why- though if you noodle through it you can probably imagine them- are not as simple. Even the question of whose story did we see in the flashbacks, Hoover's authentic story or the one born of his self-aggrandizing imagination is more or less neatly answered. This seems to be a trend in Eastwood's movies: replace subtle teasing with outright clarification... I think playing up the whose story was it anyway angle... without answering it so clearly...would have been a more engaging route to take... or better yet, why not tell Hoover's story through the eyes of multiple people- perhaps including his own- who had to interact with him... who learned to love or loathe him... people who knew him on the surface and people who knew him intimately... then allow all those views to circulate in the viewers' mind and allow them to come to the conclusion on exactly who Hoover was... that might have been the way to go... because it seems as though Hoover was different things to different people, but Eastwood seems more preoccupied with who Hoover was to himself and also why.
A couple of other points here. The performances were generally good. You do, after all, have good actors and actresses working for a respected (if- COUGH- rapidlyloosingthouch-COUGH) director. You'd expect them to bring their A-games for Clint. And they do. DiCaprio makes a somewhat compelling Hoover. He works tirelessly at making him look and sound right, which at times actually makes his performance come off as more of a Hoover impersonation than Leo-as-Hoover. I don't think this is entirely his fault- I think this is where Eastwood is pushing him. He does bring great intensity to the role, but he's just never allowed to disappear into it. Armie Hammer makes for a charming and easy-going Tolson. Naomi Watts completes the Holy Hoover Trinity by giving a game but uncomplicated portrayal of Hoover's trusted assistant Helen Gandy. The real problems with the performances? Particularly Hammer's and Watts'? They're overpowered by some pretty horrific age-ifying makeup. I read all the criticisms of the pretty awful makeup effort on the film. A lot of it seemed to be directed at DiCaprio as Hoover. I was actually pleasantly surprised by how he looked as he aged. It actually blended pretty well. I didn't notice anything other than that it was DiCaprio under all that makeup. I actually think Brad Pitt as older (younger) Ben Button looked far more ridiculous than Leo Hoover. Hammer's older Tolson and Watts' older Gandy on the other hand looked like the work of a hack job. Particularly Hammer. The older Tolson is actually kept off screen for much of the movie but when he makes his appearance you begin to wonder if they used 1960s era makeup to complete his 1960s era look. It just doesn't look right. I've seen better makeup used in kids' Halloween costumes. (What really gives the look away are the eyes. Hammer's look way too young and fresh under the makeup. Or... maybe its the fact that the makeup around his eyes seems to be melting off that makes his eyes pop more... whatever the reason, Hammer's older Tolson looks like a zombie who harvested the fresh young eyes of a teenager. So unnatural). Hammer's young eyes burning through the old-age makeup are about the only thing that popped out of the drab atmosphere. They shouldn't have been a distraction... but with little else to attract my attention...well... that's what I had.
Grade: C-
Monday, December 12, 2011
Movie List 2011: 52.) My Week With Marilyn
My Week With Marilyn
So good I saw it twice. Ok, that's not true. I mean... I did see it twice, but only because the power went out at the theater twice during my first viewing and each time the film kicked back in, it did so sans sound. Felt like I was missing something, so I re-viewed. That said, it was good enough to see twice in my mind. It just was a good movie. A mostly light-hearted movie, but a good movie nonetheless.
Yeah, actually, if I was going to describe it concisely (not sure why I would... there's perfectly good internet space to waste right here) I would say it was a charming flick. It was just hard for me not to like it. The story was interesting and the characters were compelling... oh, yeah, and the performances were fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. Lots to like, in other words.
The story follows the adventures of one, Colin Clark, a self-described self made man who nonetheless milks his parents connections (along with his easy-going nature and general eagerness) to snag a job with Laurence Olivier Productions. His first job? Working as the third assistant director on the Olivier Directed/Produced The Prince and the Showgirl. It also happens to be the flagging (or so he seems to think) Olivier's attempt to stay relevant by working with the incomparable (and incorrigible) Marilyn Monroe. Of course, where ever Marilyn goes a tempest of anxiety, fame, brown-nosers, well-wishers, and controllers follows. The production turns into something of a circus with no master, and Colin and Marilyn eventually fall together into something short of love but- at least to him- more than mere admiration. I should probably point out that all this is based on a "true" story: Colin Clark's on-set diary which was later published as The Prince, The Showgirl, and Me. Of course, exactly how "true" all the events recounted therein are is up for interpretation. Marilyn Monroe was the biggest star of her time; wouldn't you maybe tweak a few details to seem more in her orbit? I might, especially if it meant the successful sale of not one, but two books based on that one precious week. To clarify: I have little doubt that the basic framework presented here is true enough, but did Colin really hold the influence he says he did? Who knows, it's not as though many of the principals are still kicking around. Colin seems to think that while he definitely fell for Marilyn, Marilyn- on some level- returned the favor. Seen through the lens of Director Simon Curtis and Screenwriter Adrian Hodges, though, I think there may be some doubt. Did Marilyn really just use Colin for his earnest companionship? Did he satisfy a need for the moment? If we take Colin at his word, no, it was deeper than that. Curtis and Hodges- whether intentionally or not- muddy the waters. So, I guess, whether intentionally or not, Curtis and Hodges have come up with a compelling story, one that basically asks the viewer: who was Marilyn Monroe? Was she what she was? (or rather portrayed herself as). The filmmakers offer tempting clues, but- at least as far as I can tell no concrete answers.
And why is that? Because it's better that way, for one. But also I think it'd be hard to offer concrete answers on Marilyn when the story runs through Colin. That's actually one of the biggest criticisms that I've read regarding the movie. With Michelle Williams giving such an extraordinary performance as Marilyn Monroe... and, hell with Kenneth Branagh nearly matching her as Olivier, doesn't making Eddie Redmayne's Colin the focal point limit the film? I dunno. Maybe. But I don't think it limits it as much as makes it stronger. With such out-sized, brilliant personas as Monroe and Olivier on display, isn't better to view them through a lens or indirectly. Viewing them full on might be too overpowering, especially Williams' incredible turn. I like to think of it this way, you can't really appreciated the full beauty of the sun by staring directly at it- it'll blind (literally). Sometimes you need to appreciate it by looking at where it shines. So too with Williams performance. (And Branagh's) Too much of either might have cast the film in a different light. Not a better one either. Having both disappear from the screen, live their lives off it, then reappear worked better. Plus too much of a good thing can make things go bad. Williams, in particular, had a tremendous challenge on her hands. How do you portray one of the most distinctive and famous women of all time without falling into the realm of caricature, mimicry, or impersonation? How do you inhabit such a role, make it yours, but stay true to the subject? It couldn't have been easy. But Williams knocks it out of the part with apparent ease. Try looking elsewhere. It's damn near impossible.
All that said, it really isn't Clark's show. It's Marilyn's. All the action revolves around her. All the people want to get in her head (at least...if not also her bed). Everyone on screen wants to just be in her orbit, feel her star power, watch her do her thing, watch her be Marilyn Monroe. You can see what a toll that could take on such a fragile persona as hers. And the film shows her that way. She is manipulated and manipulative (even if she harbors good intentions), she's innocent and damaged. She's a complicated person. Can you ever really get in her head? Can you ever really change her? Make her better? Does she need to be better at all? These are questions the film leaves you grappling with without giving you any outright answers. Oh sure, they give you Colin's take (a lot), they give you her publicist Arthur Jacobs' take (a delightfully sleazy Toby Jones), they give you Olivier's often exasperated take, and her husband Arthur Miller's take to name a few. But the real greatness of the film is that the folks behind it refuse to give you a heavy-handed verdict. You're just left thinking about it, about Marilyn Monroe who she was, what she meant, what could have been, what ultimately was, and with Williams bringing her back to life, you're all too glad to engage these thoughts.
Grade: A
So good I saw it twice. Ok, that's not true. I mean... I did see it twice, but only because the power went out at the theater twice during my first viewing and each time the film kicked back in, it did so sans sound. Felt like I was missing something, so I re-viewed. That said, it was good enough to see twice in my mind. It just was a good movie. A mostly light-hearted movie, but a good movie nonetheless.
Yeah, actually, if I was going to describe it concisely (not sure why I would... there's perfectly good internet space to waste right here) I would say it was a charming flick. It was just hard for me not to like it. The story was interesting and the characters were compelling... oh, yeah, and the performances were fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. Lots to like, in other words.
The story follows the adventures of one, Colin Clark, a self-described self made man who nonetheless milks his parents connections (along with his easy-going nature and general eagerness) to snag a job with Laurence Olivier Productions. His first job? Working as the third assistant director on the Olivier Directed/Produced The Prince and the Showgirl. It also happens to be the flagging (or so he seems to think) Olivier's attempt to stay relevant by working with the incomparable (and incorrigible) Marilyn Monroe. Of course, where ever Marilyn goes a tempest of anxiety, fame, brown-nosers, well-wishers, and controllers follows. The production turns into something of a circus with no master, and Colin and Marilyn eventually fall together into something short of love but- at least to him- more than mere admiration. I should probably point out that all this is based on a "true" story: Colin Clark's on-set diary which was later published as The Prince, The Showgirl, and Me. Of course, exactly how "true" all the events recounted therein are is up for interpretation. Marilyn Monroe was the biggest star of her time; wouldn't you maybe tweak a few details to seem more in her orbit? I might, especially if it meant the successful sale of not one, but two books based on that one precious week. To clarify: I have little doubt that the basic framework presented here is true enough, but did Colin really hold the influence he says he did? Who knows, it's not as though many of the principals are still kicking around. Colin seems to think that while he definitely fell for Marilyn, Marilyn- on some level- returned the favor. Seen through the lens of Director Simon Curtis and Screenwriter Adrian Hodges, though, I think there may be some doubt. Did Marilyn really just use Colin for his earnest companionship? Did he satisfy a need for the moment? If we take Colin at his word, no, it was deeper than that. Curtis and Hodges- whether intentionally or not- muddy the waters. So, I guess, whether intentionally or not, Curtis and Hodges have come up with a compelling story, one that basically asks the viewer: who was Marilyn Monroe? Was she what she was? (or rather portrayed herself as). The filmmakers offer tempting clues, but- at least as far as I can tell no concrete answers.
And why is that? Because it's better that way, for one. But also I think it'd be hard to offer concrete answers on Marilyn when the story runs through Colin. That's actually one of the biggest criticisms that I've read regarding the movie. With Michelle Williams giving such an extraordinary performance as Marilyn Monroe... and, hell with Kenneth Branagh nearly matching her as Olivier, doesn't making Eddie Redmayne's Colin the focal point limit the film? I dunno. Maybe. But I don't think it limits it as much as makes it stronger. With such out-sized, brilliant personas as Monroe and Olivier on display, isn't better to view them through a lens or indirectly. Viewing them full on might be too overpowering, especially Williams' incredible turn. I like to think of it this way, you can't really appreciated the full beauty of the sun by staring directly at it- it'll blind (literally). Sometimes you need to appreciate it by looking at where it shines. So too with Williams performance. (And Branagh's) Too much of either might have cast the film in a different light. Not a better one either. Having both disappear from the screen, live their lives off it, then reappear worked better. Plus too much of a good thing can make things go bad. Williams, in particular, had a tremendous challenge on her hands. How do you portray one of the most distinctive and famous women of all time without falling into the realm of caricature, mimicry, or impersonation? How do you inhabit such a role, make it yours, but stay true to the subject? It couldn't have been easy. But Williams knocks it out of the part with apparent ease. Try looking elsewhere. It's damn near impossible.
All that said, it really isn't Clark's show. It's Marilyn's. All the action revolves around her. All the people want to get in her head (at least...if not also her bed). Everyone on screen wants to just be in her orbit, feel her star power, watch her do her thing, watch her be Marilyn Monroe. You can see what a toll that could take on such a fragile persona as hers. And the film shows her that way. She is manipulated and manipulative (even if she harbors good intentions), she's innocent and damaged. She's a complicated person. Can you ever really get in her head? Can you ever really change her? Make her better? Does she need to be better at all? These are questions the film leaves you grappling with without giving you any outright answers. Oh sure, they give you Colin's take (a lot), they give you her publicist Arthur Jacobs' take (a delightfully sleazy Toby Jones), they give you Olivier's often exasperated take, and her husband Arthur Miller's take to name a few. But the real greatness of the film is that the folks behind it refuse to give you a heavy-handed verdict. You're just left thinking about it, about Marilyn Monroe who she was, what she meant, what could have been, what ultimately was, and with Williams bringing her back to life, you're all too glad to engage these thoughts.
Grade: A
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Movie List 2011: 51.) The Descendants
The Descendants
The Descendants might be about the most perfect movie I've seen this year. It boasts an incredibly compelling story, transcendent performances by a great cast, gorgeous camera work... it has it all. In fact, it might be the best movie I've seen in the last three years. Of course, I could very well be getting ahead of myself. But still, you get the point. It's a movie that is absolutely worth seeing. No doubt about it.
The story follows the emotional roller coaster ride of Goerge Clooney's Matt King- a Hawaiian workaholic attorney. Why the roller coaster? King's wife was involved in a boating accident that has left her in a coma that she likely will not recover from. This alone would be horrific enough, but he also later learns that his wife had been cheating on him; something he was completely unaware of. Adding to all this tumult is the weight of a particularly heavy decision that must be made soon: King is the sole trustee in charge of deciding the fate of a massive chunk of pristine Hawaiian land. The state is forcing the dissolution of the trust preserving the land and the impending sale- if that's the route King follows- stands to have incredibly lucrative consequences for he and his cousins. Of course, there's also the chance that King won't sell the land off to some resort-developer at all- a decision that would please the vast majority of Hawaiians, especially native Hawaiians. So, King has a lot on his mind, including how he's going to manage being a responsible parent to his two young daughters, Alexandra (a magnificent Shailene Woodley) and Scottie (similarly great Amara Miller). King is, after all, a workaholic "back-up parent", how can he manage to take over full-time? Heck, how can he manage to even get through the next several days with all this rolling around his head?
King's journey to find an answer to that question resides at the center of the movie. How can he do it all? And what is he going to do? And while there aren't many surprises, I'm not going to say much more about the plot. It's best to just watch unfold before you. Or rather, it's just better to allow yourself to get sucked in by the riveting tale. There are no frills here. No special effects. No twists and turns. It's just exceptional storytelling and acting at its very best. And you- if you're like me- will hardly be able to pull yourself away from the screen. This is in large part due to the acting clinic delivered by George Clooney. He absolutely inhabits the role of King; disappearing into the tumultuous sea of emotions completely. Clooney is to some, the last true movie star; at least in the sense of Hollywood's Golden Era of the 1950s and 60s. It would seem that it would be difficult for George to completely melt away into Matt, especially since King isn't much more than a regular guy- albeit an extremely wealthy one. But Clooney fades away and the complete character of Matt King emerges, and with that, an emotional, heartfelt, and for lack of a better word, real story ensues.
The reality of it may be the most compelling part of the film. It forces you to empathize, particularly if you've ever been anywhere near any of these situations. It forces the audience to grapple with the complex situations on hand. King isn't saying this is how you handle your life falling to pieces around you, he's saying, this is how I'm doing it, for better or worse. And through the process you see a character come into sharper view. Actually growth is evident through most characters- especially Woodley's Alexandra. I should point out that while the reality of it is nice, it wasn't too real. Not in the sense that it was- say- a documentary. There were just enough fictional situations included to allow you to realize that you were watching a story. But still, the emotions were real, and the characters were realistic.
There's not much more I can say. My only wish was that they either downplayed or took a little of the edge off of Nick Krause's Sid character (Alexandra's best friend... boyfriend?). He may be a bit too crass, a bit too idiotic. But otherwise, I can't find any flaws with the movie. It was a great experience, a once-every-few-years type of movie. Kudos, Alexander Payne, while I thought your film, Sideways, was overrated and About Schmidt was pretty good but not great, this may prove to be your masterpiece. And a hell of a masterpiece it is.
Grade: A+
The Descendants might be about the most perfect movie I've seen this year. It boasts an incredibly compelling story, transcendent performances by a great cast, gorgeous camera work... it has it all. In fact, it might be the best movie I've seen in the last three years. Of course, I could very well be getting ahead of myself. But still, you get the point. It's a movie that is absolutely worth seeing. No doubt about it.
The story follows the emotional roller coaster ride of Goerge Clooney's Matt King- a Hawaiian workaholic attorney. Why the roller coaster? King's wife was involved in a boating accident that has left her in a coma that she likely will not recover from. This alone would be horrific enough, but he also later learns that his wife had been cheating on him; something he was completely unaware of. Adding to all this tumult is the weight of a particularly heavy decision that must be made soon: King is the sole trustee in charge of deciding the fate of a massive chunk of pristine Hawaiian land. The state is forcing the dissolution of the trust preserving the land and the impending sale- if that's the route King follows- stands to have incredibly lucrative consequences for he and his cousins. Of course, there's also the chance that King won't sell the land off to some resort-developer at all- a decision that would please the vast majority of Hawaiians, especially native Hawaiians. So, King has a lot on his mind, including how he's going to manage being a responsible parent to his two young daughters, Alexandra (a magnificent Shailene Woodley) and Scottie (similarly great Amara Miller). King is, after all, a workaholic "back-up parent", how can he manage to take over full-time? Heck, how can he manage to even get through the next several days with all this rolling around his head?
King's journey to find an answer to that question resides at the center of the movie. How can he do it all? And what is he going to do? And while there aren't many surprises, I'm not going to say much more about the plot. It's best to just watch unfold before you. Or rather, it's just better to allow yourself to get sucked in by the riveting tale. There are no frills here. No special effects. No twists and turns. It's just exceptional storytelling and acting at its very best. And you- if you're like me- will hardly be able to pull yourself away from the screen. This is in large part due to the acting clinic delivered by George Clooney. He absolutely inhabits the role of King; disappearing into the tumultuous sea of emotions completely. Clooney is to some, the last true movie star; at least in the sense of Hollywood's Golden Era of the 1950s and 60s. It would seem that it would be difficult for George to completely melt away into Matt, especially since King isn't much more than a regular guy- albeit an extremely wealthy one. But Clooney fades away and the complete character of Matt King emerges, and with that, an emotional, heartfelt, and for lack of a better word, real story ensues.
The reality of it may be the most compelling part of the film. It forces you to empathize, particularly if you've ever been anywhere near any of these situations. It forces the audience to grapple with the complex situations on hand. King isn't saying this is how you handle your life falling to pieces around you, he's saying, this is how I'm doing it, for better or worse. And through the process you see a character come into sharper view. Actually growth is evident through most characters- especially Woodley's Alexandra. I should point out that while the reality of it is nice, it wasn't too real. Not in the sense that it was- say- a documentary. There were just enough fictional situations included to allow you to realize that you were watching a story. But still, the emotions were real, and the characters were realistic.
There's not much more I can say. My only wish was that they either downplayed or took a little of the edge off of Nick Krause's Sid character (Alexandra's best friend... boyfriend?). He may be a bit too crass, a bit too idiotic. But otherwise, I can't find any flaws with the movie. It was a great experience, a once-every-few-years type of movie. Kudos, Alexander Payne, while I thought your film, Sideways, was overrated and About Schmidt was pretty good but not great, this may prove to be your masterpiece. And a hell of a masterpiece it is.
Grade: A+
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Movie List 2011: 50.) The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1
Breaking Dawn, Part 1
Ok, let's get something out of the way straight off: I've always liked Rob Pattinson and Kristen Stewart... and furthermore I've read and enjoyed all four books in the Twilight Series. So, consequently, I'm less likely to be overly hard on the movies, unless they do truly suck. I'm also just as likely not to launch into irrational hatred of the series: sorry to disappoint there. I don't think the series is inherently bad. No, the books may not be masterpieces of writing, but the story was compelling enough to get me to read. Yes, the movies haven't been great as a whole, but I'm going to chalk that up to directors trying to achieve a "Twilight feel" that needed to be seriously revamped after the first installment. No, I do not think that Bella (or Kristen Stewart, for that matter) is a horrible role model. She's just not. She actually shouldn't be considered a role model- good or bad- at all because she's a fictional creation. That said, people look for inspiration in a number of places: Twilight's Forks, WA included. But even if young girls are looking to model their lives after Bella, I think this is a fairly harmless endeavor. What does she do that is so bad? Marries at 18? Yep. That's about it. Sure she is stuck in a love triangle with two supernatural beings- both of whom claim to want to take care of and look after her. What's so wrong with that? The series' author, Stephanie Meyers was writing these books for tween girls. Finding a boyfriend or "boyfriend" at that age is a perfectly rational thing to do. Finding some dreamboat to look after you is rational as well. Actually, I think that's rational at any age- so long as "look after you" equates more to "helping you get through the journey that is life" than "do everything for you and completely strip you of your individuality, voice, and personality". Which approach does Meyers push in the series? The former. The wolf and vampire like Bella because she is who she is- even if the author at times neglects to fully develop that character. They like her flaws and all. And for what it's worth, Bella is constantly railing against the two of them having to take care of her- in a protection sense- from the get go- it's one of the many reasons she uses to argue why she should be changed to a vampire. She got herself into the mess, now she wants to take care of herself so others won't have to. But we all need a traveling companion, right? Twilight also pushes such ideas as accepting folks despite their differences, that important decisions are indeed weighty matters that need to be well-thought, the consequences of NOT thinking through important decisions (you might end up preggers with a half-vampire baby), and the value of love and companionship. Among others. Look, if you hate the idea of Twilight, you're going to disagree with me completely. If you love the idea of Twilight, you're going to think I left off or oversimplified issues to a great degree. I like the series, but nothing more. Is it the greatest bit of teen fiction, worthy of such obsession? Well, I suppose so, if you're one of the obsessed and you have a healthy obsession with it. Why not? It's- again- fairly harmless. Why not get excited about it all? But, it is not- and I believe this wholeheartedly- even in the discussion of worst things to ever happen to this country. What may bother me more is that it appears as though a lot of the hatred seems to be based on how popular the series is. Folks who like more higher-brow works or cult-type literature rail against this because this is what's popular at the expense of classics or should-be-classics. Come on. I doubt that any of you want to let the unwashed masses into your tidy cliques anyway. Or would you rather have it that a bunch of Hunter Thompson obsessives (and no, this is not an appropriate example, but if I started naming legit examples, I'm sure I'd wade in far over my head) showed up to the premiere of the Rum Diary dressed as Gonzo maestro himself? No, I imagine you wouldn't. But all of that is neither here nor there. Why you like or dislike something is inevitably only a tangential issue- that you like or dislike it takes center stage. In the end, we could very well leave it at "to each his own" but that would discourage some really interesting conversations. Just as long as it doesn't devolve into- I just think it and everyone who likes/dislikes it is dumb.
So how about the movie itself. If you're familiar with the series, you know where we're at. Bella and her vampire boyfriend get married, get it on during the honeymoon, and Bella ends up with a nasty lil bun in her oven. Drama ensues. But that's the long and short of it there. It is- as with Harry Potter's final chapter- one book split into two. This makes this episode mostly lead-up and that bothers me to a degree. What else can I give such a movie other than an I for incomplete? Well, actually, I think it would have made a neat story in and of itself. Particularly if they leave it where they left it (SPOILER ALERT and all that nonsense) Bella becoming a vampire to save her life... or something along those lines (after all, she is then essentially dead). If we were left to wonder what kind of vampire Bella would be, what would become of her child, etc., etc. I think that would be a great, if not classic, open-ending. They would need to add a few more hints to get the creative juices flowing, but still... So as it's own story, it's not bad, but considering there is a conclusion in the offing, it's lead-up.
Either way, the way the story is carried out does leave a bit to be desired. It's just ok, at best. By now the framework should be familiar. Wooden-ish acting, melodrama galore, and a borderline-trendy soundtrack. And if you look forward to these aspects, Breaking Dawn 1 won't disappoint. For me, it did disappoint. I really do believe that Stewart and Pattinson (though probably not Taylor Luatner) can and have given better efforts on the Silver Screen. It seems that the films' directors (in this case Bill Condon) are afraid of upsetting the extremely lucrative apple cart... in way that the folks helming the Harry Potter franchise weren't. It do do with a bit of a more substantive overhaul. This films-again- featured the same soap opera-style staging and acting. They added what was- in my mind- a completely unbalanced soundtrack. In that I mean, the soundtrack was way too loud for the movie. By that I don't mean the style or songs, but I mean the audible level of the music was out of balance, out of proportion with the sounds- including the dialog- of the movie. It was almost as though the soundtrack dominated the movie... which of course lent it more of a soap opera feel. This is a bit of a shame considering they brought back elements of the original movie's score- including Bella's Lullaby (as I believe it was called) which seemed to fit the mood of the series just perfectly. But keep it in its proper place.
Again, I think by now, Summit Entertainment has found the formula that works and they aren't about to endanger that. So, on the whole it's much in keeping with the first few Twilight movies. I can say this though, with the exception of a few pretty hokey special effect sequences, the series has never looked better. The vampires and werewolves, and even the regular folks all look more the part. The essential special effects blend in fairly well, and the backdrop of the Pacific Northwest and a few more exotic locales look gorgeous. But other than improving on the look, the film holds the status quo of the series. Personally, I think the story is more compelling than some of the others in the series. So it also has that going for it. It also has Billy Burke bucking the wooden-actor trend in his role as Bella's father, Charlie- always a wry delight. (I really do wish they would let Pattinson and Stewart shine more- Stewart in particular. She was awesome in Into the Wild, Adventureland, and, to a lesser extent, The Runaways. I wish she'd be allowed to showcase her talent more.)
What's more troublesome is the incessant nitpicking-as-criticism going on with this film. I've read a number of articles panning this movie for a lack of realism and believability. There's no way Edward could impregnate Bella. The birth scene is completely unrealistic. There's no way she could bring that baby to term so quickly. There's no way Edward could even have sex with Bella. And so on and so forth. I consider this all a second level of analysis that is completely unnecessary. After all, Stephanie Meyers, Bill Condon, and company have created the baseline of reality with such characters as vampires and werewolves. Vampires and werewolves. Hmmm. Also fortune-telling, mood-influencing, and mind-reading powers. Do we really need to go further there. I've also said the author/filmmaker are responsible in laying out a firm baseline such that the audience knows where exactly to draw the line in terms of their suspension of disbelief. In Meyers/Condon's world of Twilgiht, vampires can have sex, and- although the characters didn't know it at the time, vampires can impregnate humans. And the gestation period flies by. You can't apply real-world standards to this fictional account. No more than you can to other series. Does Spider-Man suck because there's no way a bite from a radioactive spider could turn a nerd into a superhero? Does... Dr. Who suck because scientists have recently pretty much declared time travel to be impossible. Some of these people come off sounding like Brodie's character in Mallrats. They're just thinking it through too much. Like when he offers that Superman could either only have sex with Wonder Woman or be forced to where a kryptonite condom. Otherwise the force of his blowing his super load would fire right through the lucky chick. Don't think too hard on it. In Meyers world, this all works. Does the movie stay true to this? Yeah, mostly. Is the whole world kind of absurd? Well, that question is more on point. And for my part I don't think it is. For the most part.
Just like- for the most part, I don't think this is such a horrible movie. It may not be perfect, but it doesn't even approach the debacles that were Transformers and anything Adam Sandler has been in this year. Those are true shit-cinema at its worst. This? Eh... ok.
Grade: B
Ok, let's get something out of the way straight off: I've always liked Rob Pattinson and Kristen Stewart... and furthermore I've read and enjoyed all four books in the Twilight Series. So, consequently, I'm less likely to be overly hard on the movies, unless they do truly suck. I'm also just as likely not to launch into irrational hatred of the series: sorry to disappoint there. I don't think the series is inherently bad. No, the books may not be masterpieces of writing, but the story was compelling enough to get me to read. Yes, the movies haven't been great as a whole, but I'm going to chalk that up to directors trying to achieve a "Twilight feel" that needed to be seriously revamped after the first installment. No, I do not think that Bella (or Kristen Stewart, for that matter) is a horrible role model. She's just not. She actually shouldn't be considered a role model- good or bad- at all because she's a fictional creation. That said, people look for inspiration in a number of places: Twilight's Forks, WA included. But even if young girls are looking to model their lives after Bella, I think this is a fairly harmless endeavor. What does she do that is so bad? Marries at 18? Yep. That's about it. Sure she is stuck in a love triangle with two supernatural beings- both of whom claim to want to take care of and look after her. What's so wrong with that? The series' author, Stephanie Meyers was writing these books for tween girls. Finding a boyfriend or "boyfriend" at that age is a perfectly rational thing to do. Finding some dreamboat to look after you is rational as well. Actually, I think that's rational at any age- so long as "look after you" equates more to "helping you get through the journey that is life" than "do everything for you and completely strip you of your individuality, voice, and personality". Which approach does Meyers push in the series? The former. The wolf and vampire like Bella because she is who she is- even if the author at times neglects to fully develop that character. They like her flaws and all. And for what it's worth, Bella is constantly railing against the two of them having to take care of her- in a protection sense- from the get go- it's one of the many reasons she uses to argue why she should be changed to a vampire. She got herself into the mess, now she wants to take care of herself so others won't have to. But we all need a traveling companion, right? Twilight also pushes such ideas as accepting folks despite their differences, that important decisions are indeed weighty matters that need to be well-thought, the consequences of NOT thinking through important decisions (you might end up preggers with a half-vampire baby), and the value of love and companionship. Among others. Look, if you hate the idea of Twilight, you're going to disagree with me completely. If you love the idea of Twilight, you're going to think I left off or oversimplified issues to a great degree. I like the series, but nothing more. Is it the greatest bit of teen fiction, worthy of such obsession? Well, I suppose so, if you're one of the obsessed and you have a healthy obsession with it. Why not? It's- again- fairly harmless. Why not get excited about it all? But, it is not- and I believe this wholeheartedly- even in the discussion of worst things to ever happen to this country. What may bother me more is that it appears as though a lot of the hatred seems to be based on how popular the series is. Folks who like more higher-brow works or cult-type literature rail against this because this is what's popular at the expense of classics or should-be-classics. Come on. I doubt that any of you want to let the unwashed masses into your tidy cliques anyway. Or would you rather have it that a bunch of Hunter Thompson obsessives (and no, this is not an appropriate example, but if I started naming legit examples, I'm sure I'd wade in far over my head) showed up to the premiere of the Rum Diary dressed as Gonzo maestro himself? No, I imagine you wouldn't. But all of that is neither here nor there. Why you like or dislike something is inevitably only a tangential issue- that you like or dislike it takes center stage. In the end, we could very well leave it at "to each his own" but that would discourage some really interesting conversations. Just as long as it doesn't devolve into- I just think it and everyone who likes/dislikes it is dumb.
So how about the movie itself. If you're familiar with the series, you know where we're at. Bella and her vampire boyfriend get married, get it on during the honeymoon, and Bella ends up with a nasty lil bun in her oven. Drama ensues. But that's the long and short of it there. It is- as with Harry Potter's final chapter- one book split into two. This makes this episode mostly lead-up and that bothers me to a degree. What else can I give such a movie other than an I for incomplete? Well, actually, I think it would have made a neat story in and of itself. Particularly if they leave it where they left it (SPOILER ALERT and all that nonsense) Bella becoming a vampire to save her life... or something along those lines (after all, she is then essentially dead). If we were left to wonder what kind of vampire Bella would be, what would become of her child, etc., etc. I think that would be a great, if not classic, open-ending. They would need to add a few more hints to get the creative juices flowing, but still... So as it's own story, it's not bad, but considering there is a conclusion in the offing, it's lead-up.
Either way, the way the story is carried out does leave a bit to be desired. It's just ok, at best. By now the framework should be familiar. Wooden-ish acting, melodrama galore, and a borderline-trendy soundtrack. And if you look forward to these aspects, Breaking Dawn 1 won't disappoint. For me, it did disappoint. I really do believe that Stewart and Pattinson (though probably not Taylor Luatner) can and have given better efforts on the Silver Screen. It seems that the films' directors (in this case Bill Condon) are afraid of upsetting the extremely lucrative apple cart... in way that the folks helming the Harry Potter franchise weren't. It do do with a bit of a more substantive overhaul. This films-again- featured the same soap opera-style staging and acting. They added what was- in my mind- a completely unbalanced soundtrack. In that I mean, the soundtrack was way too loud for the movie. By that I don't mean the style or songs, but I mean the audible level of the music was out of balance, out of proportion with the sounds- including the dialog- of the movie. It was almost as though the soundtrack dominated the movie... which of course lent it more of a soap opera feel. This is a bit of a shame considering they brought back elements of the original movie's score- including Bella's Lullaby (as I believe it was called) which seemed to fit the mood of the series just perfectly. But keep it in its proper place.
Again, I think by now, Summit Entertainment has found the formula that works and they aren't about to endanger that. So, on the whole it's much in keeping with the first few Twilight movies. I can say this though, with the exception of a few pretty hokey special effect sequences, the series has never looked better. The vampires and werewolves, and even the regular folks all look more the part. The essential special effects blend in fairly well, and the backdrop of the Pacific Northwest and a few more exotic locales look gorgeous. But other than improving on the look, the film holds the status quo of the series. Personally, I think the story is more compelling than some of the others in the series. So it also has that going for it. It also has Billy Burke bucking the wooden-actor trend in his role as Bella's father, Charlie- always a wry delight. (I really do wish they would let Pattinson and Stewart shine more- Stewart in particular. She was awesome in Into the Wild, Adventureland, and, to a lesser extent, The Runaways. I wish she'd be allowed to showcase her talent more.)
What's more troublesome is the incessant nitpicking-as-criticism going on with this film. I've read a number of articles panning this movie for a lack of realism and believability. There's no way Edward could impregnate Bella. The birth scene is completely unrealistic. There's no way she could bring that baby to term so quickly. There's no way Edward could even have sex with Bella. And so on and so forth. I consider this all a second level of analysis that is completely unnecessary. After all, Stephanie Meyers, Bill Condon, and company have created the baseline of reality with such characters as vampires and werewolves. Vampires and werewolves. Hmmm. Also fortune-telling, mood-influencing, and mind-reading powers. Do we really need to go further there. I've also said the author/filmmaker are responsible in laying out a firm baseline such that the audience knows where exactly to draw the line in terms of their suspension of disbelief. In Meyers/Condon's world of Twilgiht, vampires can have sex, and- although the characters didn't know it at the time, vampires can impregnate humans. And the gestation period flies by. You can't apply real-world standards to this fictional account. No more than you can to other series. Does Spider-Man suck because there's no way a bite from a radioactive spider could turn a nerd into a superhero? Does... Dr. Who suck because scientists have recently pretty much declared time travel to be impossible. Some of these people come off sounding like Brodie's character in Mallrats. They're just thinking it through too much. Like when he offers that Superman could either only have sex with Wonder Woman or be forced to where a kryptonite condom. Otherwise the force of his blowing his super load would fire right through the lucky chick. Don't think too hard on it. In Meyers world, this all works. Does the movie stay true to this? Yeah, mostly. Is the whole world kind of absurd? Well, that question is more on point. And for my part I don't think it is. For the most part.
Just like- for the most part, I don't think this is such a horrible movie. It may not be perfect, but it doesn't even approach the debacles that were Transformers and anything Adam Sandler has been in this year. Those are true shit-cinema at its worst. This? Eh... ok.
Grade: B
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Movie List 2011: 49.) Jack and Jill
Jack and Jill
I saw this turd... something like... three weeks ago now. And other than being busy, I just haven't been looking forward to writing about it. Don't get me wrong, I have no one to blame but myself. I willingly went to see it. Granted, I want to get to 58 movies seen this year and I realize I'm going to have to make sacrifices. This was one of them. It may very well be to take the horse that was Adam Sandler to the cinematic version of the glue factory... (Ok, I just wanted to use that metaphor. I have never really thought highly of Sandler. He's always been more ass than horse..right?)
So yeah, the movie... it follows two Sandlers; one Jack Sadelstein, an ad man at a struggling firm and the other, his twin sister whose sole purpose in life is to annoy the hell out of everyone she comes in contact with. Jill (a Bronx "girl") always visits Jack in L.A. for the Thanksgiving holiday. Jack always hates Jill's visit. The difference this year is that their mother had passed away (one too many visits with Jill perhaps) and so Jill is all alone and looking to stay longer than usual- up to and including Jack's family's planned New Years cruise. As you can imagine as this is a typical Sandler flick- bodily function jokes, stupid voices, and all sorts of grade school-caliber "hilarity" ensue. Oh there's also a plot line involving Jack needing Al Pacino (who overplays a one-note, demented version of himself) to do a ridiculous Dunkin Donuts commercial and Pacino needing to bone Jack's sister. This storyline is played to its limit and then some. In the end, a forced, Full House-esque, appealing to families resolution occurs. And we all leave the theater in a daze of depression.
And that may just be it. This movie was so bad, it killed any sense of emphatic reaction I could have. Some movies, like Transformers, are bad enough to rile me up, this one was bad enough to defeat me. The jokes were flat and redundant. The acting was... well... hardly acting. The story was incredibly unoriginal and predictable... even by Sandler's new low of a standard. The movie was just awful. And I knew all this going in. Well, I knew it would suck going in. The only fun I had was trying to figure out what happened to Sandler. He used to appeal to my generation. Look, I know I'm growing up... and it's quite possible that he's regressing (a midst a sea of cash, mind you), but I can't figure out where the transition (for me) from his being mildly amusing to his being enormously annoying occurred. All such pondering occurred solely within the confines of the first few minutes of the movie. The minute Jill opened his/her mouth, all intelligent thought committed suicide in my brain. And then I just sort of sat there, too defeated to do much but just watch. No cringing, no eye-rolling. Just sitting, waiting for it to end, waiting for the house lights to come on so I could meander out of the theater and on with my life. And so it went. And I quickly forgot anything that might possibly qualify as a finer detail to the movie.
I couldn't, however, forget that shrill shriek that served as Jill's speaking (read: whining, b/c that's all she did through the whole damn thing) voice. What Sandler achieved here was a level of annoyance that went beyond grating and into the realm of physical discomfort. I'm actually proud of myself for not walking out given how terrible that voice was to listen to. And I so wanted to. Right from the first word Jill uttered. But then it would have seemed like I went to the movie just so I could walk out of it within the first half hour. Pleasant thought, but then it wouldn't have qualified for this list. So I took one for the team- my team... of one...me- and stayed to the so sweet it's bitter end.
It's possible that Sandler is a veritable Picasso of fart jokes and grade school humor. Well even if he's not in a traditional sense, I'm sure Picasso doodled some stick figures or something every now and again. Yeah, actually maybe that's just it... maybe this was just some pencil sketch-version of a potty-humor master piece! Yeah... well... no.. no. It actually just plain sucked.
Grade: F
I saw this turd... something like... three weeks ago now. And other than being busy, I just haven't been looking forward to writing about it. Don't get me wrong, I have no one to blame but myself. I willingly went to see it. Granted, I want to get to 58 movies seen this year and I realize I'm going to have to make sacrifices. This was one of them. It may very well be to take the horse that was Adam Sandler to the cinematic version of the glue factory... (Ok, I just wanted to use that metaphor. I have never really thought highly of Sandler. He's always been more ass than horse..right?)
So yeah, the movie... it follows two Sandlers; one Jack Sadelstein, an ad man at a struggling firm and the other, his twin sister whose sole purpose in life is to annoy the hell out of everyone she comes in contact with. Jill (a Bronx "girl") always visits Jack in L.A. for the Thanksgiving holiday. Jack always hates Jill's visit. The difference this year is that their mother had passed away (one too many visits with Jill perhaps) and so Jill is all alone and looking to stay longer than usual- up to and including Jack's family's planned New Years cruise. As you can imagine as this is a typical Sandler flick- bodily function jokes, stupid voices, and all sorts of grade school-caliber "hilarity" ensue. Oh there's also a plot line involving Jack needing Al Pacino (who overplays a one-note, demented version of himself) to do a ridiculous Dunkin Donuts commercial and Pacino needing to bone Jack's sister. This storyline is played to its limit and then some. In the end, a forced, Full House-esque, appealing to families resolution occurs. And we all leave the theater in a daze of depression.
And that may just be it. This movie was so bad, it killed any sense of emphatic reaction I could have. Some movies, like Transformers, are bad enough to rile me up, this one was bad enough to defeat me. The jokes were flat and redundant. The acting was... well... hardly acting. The story was incredibly unoriginal and predictable... even by Sandler's new low of a standard. The movie was just awful. And I knew all this going in. Well, I knew it would suck going in. The only fun I had was trying to figure out what happened to Sandler. He used to appeal to my generation. Look, I know I'm growing up... and it's quite possible that he's regressing (a midst a sea of cash, mind you), but I can't figure out where the transition (for me) from his being mildly amusing to his being enormously annoying occurred. All such pondering occurred solely within the confines of the first few minutes of the movie. The minute Jill opened his/her mouth, all intelligent thought committed suicide in my brain. And then I just sort of sat there, too defeated to do much but just watch. No cringing, no eye-rolling. Just sitting, waiting for it to end, waiting for the house lights to come on so I could meander out of the theater and on with my life. And so it went. And I quickly forgot anything that might possibly qualify as a finer detail to the movie.
I couldn't, however, forget that shrill shriek that served as Jill's speaking (read: whining, b/c that's all she did through the whole damn thing) voice. What Sandler achieved here was a level of annoyance that went beyond grating and into the realm of physical discomfort. I'm actually proud of myself for not walking out given how terrible that voice was to listen to. And I so wanted to. Right from the first word Jill uttered. But then it would have seemed like I went to the movie just so I could walk out of it within the first half hour. Pleasant thought, but then it wouldn't have qualified for this list. So I took one for the team- my team... of one...me- and stayed to the so sweet it's bitter end.
It's possible that Sandler is a veritable Picasso of fart jokes and grade school humor. Well even if he's not in a traditional sense, I'm sure Picasso doodled some stick figures or something every now and again. Yeah, actually maybe that's just it... maybe this was just some pencil sketch-version of a potty-humor master piece! Yeah... well... no.. no. It actually just plain sucked.
Grade: F
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)