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+
Monday, May 23, 2011
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
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Movie List 2011: 16.) Paul
Paul
I guess if I had to describe what I thought of Paul in a quick phrase it would be either pretty good or pretty satisfying. Neither of those do anyone any good, but actually they're probably the best way to describe it. And in either case, feeling as I do about the work of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, I'd have to say it was a bit of a disappointment. I was expected another home run here and it just didn't deliver on that level. But it was a good enough time, I suppose. There's a ringing endorsement for you...
So what went wrong...ish? I would suppose it's biggest drawback was a complete lack of bite or edge. See, the thing I love most about Pegg-Frost movies like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz was how edgy they were. It's true, both of their previous efforts had a whole heaping dose of heart as well, but it was balanced by some pretty edgy humor. Or maybe not edgy but biting. Or at the very least untamed. This, well, this was pretty damn tame. And the ratio of heart to edge was skewed way towards heart. On the whole, it made for some pretty nice viewing but there was just something missing. There really weren't any laugh out loud moments in this but there were a lot of chuckles. So if you like chuckling and some clever writing, you very well may like Paul. I did, but I guess my problem was that I was expecting to love it. And it just came up short. You know, the whole lack of edge is doubly surprising considering that the director is Greg Mottola. Yes, this would be the same Greg Mottola who brought you Superbad (one of my all time favorites)... oh and Adventureland (another one I liked but not really a comedy, comedy). Superbad- despite it's heart (yep there it is again)- has some pretty untamed (if you will) comedy and it seemed to come so effortlessly and hilariously. Paul.. well...not so much.
Don't get me wrong, I did really like the movie. I guess I'm running the risk of penalizing a perfectly fine movie because it didn't meet my bloated expectations, but when the previous history includes such awesomely funny flicks as Superbad, Hot Fuzz, and Shaun of the Dead, you can see where one would look towards the next offering with high hopes (unless, well, you hated those movies, I suppose). So yeah, there WAS a lot to like about the movie. Really, there was. Like the typical easy, and often pretty funny chemistry between Frost and Pegg. They were- as is typical of them- fun to just sit back and take in. Then there was the story itself, which was indeed pretty clever (an alien- who crash landed on Earth back in 1947 and became a "guest" of the government- fears that said government wants to harvest his stem cells so he escapes and hatches a plan to be rescued by his people, but in order to make the plan work he needs the help of two British sci-fi junkies on holiday to Comic-Con and all the US southwestern UFO hotspots. The Brits agree to help and some relatively staid chaos ensues). One of the best aspects of the story was all the knowing winks towards some of the best and most iconic sci-fi flicks Hollywood has produced. This, too, is a staple of Frost-Pegg joints and it's always fun to spot those typically clever moments (Wilhelm Scream, anyone?). And besides all that, there was the performances of Jason Bateman and Kristen Wiig. Both did much to steal their scenes. Wiig was particularly awesome as the liberated daughter of a bible-thumping, shotgun toting evangelist. Good stuff.
So yeah, it all amounted to a pretty nice movie. Unfortunately, I was really going to see a "nice" movie. I was hoping to see a frickin' hilarious sci-fi spoof comedy (and when I say spoof, I mean lovingly spoofed. Or even needled. That's another trademark of Pegg-Frost flicks, they aren't particularly base or mean-spirited about their send-ups, but rather are more clever and adoring. The producers of such spoofing crap as Scary Movie should take note... when you aren't out to openly mock the genre you're sending up, it actually works better...). Oh well, you can't win them all. I'm sure over time, I'll come to appreciate Paul for the pretty good or nice movie that it was. Right now, I guess I can't hide some degree of disappointment. I was ready to laugh, not chuckle. I guess there's always the next Pegg-Frost project. I have no idea what it is, but I'm already looking forward to it.
Grade: B+
I guess if I had to describe what I thought of Paul in a quick phrase it would be either pretty good or pretty satisfying. Neither of those do anyone any good, but actually they're probably the best way to describe it. And in either case, feeling as I do about the work of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, I'd have to say it was a bit of a disappointment. I was expected another home run here and it just didn't deliver on that level. But it was a good enough time, I suppose. There's a ringing endorsement for you...
So what went wrong...ish? I would suppose it's biggest drawback was a complete lack of bite or edge. See, the thing I love most about Pegg-Frost movies like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz was how edgy they were. It's true, both of their previous efforts had a whole heaping dose of heart as well, but it was balanced by some pretty edgy humor. Or maybe not edgy but biting. Or at the very least untamed. This, well, this was pretty damn tame. And the ratio of heart to edge was skewed way towards heart. On the whole, it made for some pretty nice viewing but there was just something missing. There really weren't any laugh out loud moments in this but there were a lot of chuckles. So if you like chuckling and some clever writing, you very well may like Paul. I did, but I guess my problem was that I was expecting to love it. And it just came up short. You know, the whole lack of edge is doubly surprising considering that the director is Greg Mottola. Yes, this would be the same Greg Mottola who brought you Superbad (one of my all time favorites)... oh and Adventureland (another one I liked but not really a comedy, comedy). Superbad- despite it's heart (yep there it is again)- has some pretty untamed (if you will) comedy and it seemed to come so effortlessly and hilariously. Paul.. well...not so much.
Don't get me wrong, I did really like the movie. I guess I'm running the risk of penalizing a perfectly fine movie because it didn't meet my bloated expectations, but when the previous history includes such awesomely funny flicks as Superbad, Hot Fuzz, and Shaun of the Dead, you can see where one would look towards the next offering with high hopes (unless, well, you hated those movies, I suppose). So yeah, there WAS a lot to like about the movie. Really, there was. Like the typical easy, and often pretty funny chemistry between Frost and Pegg. They were- as is typical of them- fun to just sit back and take in. Then there was the story itself, which was indeed pretty clever (an alien- who crash landed on Earth back in 1947 and became a "guest" of the government- fears that said government wants to harvest his stem cells so he escapes and hatches a plan to be rescued by his people, but in order to make the plan work he needs the help of two British sci-fi junkies on holiday to Comic-Con and all the US southwestern UFO hotspots. The Brits agree to help and some relatively staid chaos ensues). One of the best aspects of the story was all the knowing winks towards some of the best and most iconic sci-fi flicks Hollywood has produced. This, too, is a staple of Frost-Pegg joints and it's always fun to spot those typically clever moments (Wilhelm Scream, anyone?). And besides all that, there was the performances of Jason Bateman and Kristen Wiig. Both did much to steal their scenes. Wiig was particularly awesome as the liberated daughter of a bible-thumping, shotgun toting evangelist. Good stuff.
So yeah, it all amounted to a pretty nice movie. Unfortunately, I was really going to see a "nice" movie. I was hoping to see a frickin' hilarious sci-fi spoof comedy (and when I say spoof, I mean lovingly spoofed. Or even needled. That's another trademark of Pegg-Frost flicks, they aren't particularly base or mean-spirited about their send-ups, but rather are more clever and adoring. The producers of such spoofing crap as Scary Movie should take note... when you aren't out to openly mock the genre you're sending up, it actually works better...). Oh well, you can't win them all. I'm sure over time, I'll come to appreciate Paul for the pretty good or nice movie that it was. Right now, I guess I can't hide some degree of disappointment. I was ready to laugh, not chuckle. I guess there's always the next Pegg-Frost project. I have no idea what it is, but I'm already looking forward to it.
Grade: B+
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Movie List 2011: 15.) Sucker Punch
Sucker Punch
For the record, I actually saw this on March 30th...for whatever that's worth. So this should be a bit different. I'm already thinking it's going to be downgraded from where I would have had it had I written this right away. I imagine when a lot of folks think about Sucker Punch, what they think starts and stops at five rather scantily clad young ladies kicking all sorts of ass. And yeah, it IS true to a point that that pretty well sums up the movie. But if you can look past that- hard as it might be- you'll find a pretty darn fun and funky graphic novel-type (if that is a type) movie from Zack Snyder- the creative mind behind 300and Watchmen. And just to be crystal clear here, there is nothing about this movie that makes it a candidate for Skinemax (in fact looking only at the fact that the chicks are scantily-clad..ish... you would miss out on the larger question of WHY they are scantily clad. Snyder is trying to make a point here- or so I've read- flimsy as it might be. And while I've read what his point is... it has to do- and I'm paraphrasing here- with women overcoming the notion of being sexual objects... it's all part of the prison they're in... and when you see them dressed in the pseudo-sexual fashion they're there to kick-ass...thus conquering the world they're trapped in, perception and all... or... something like that? I know I've read somewhere where Snyder was defending his wardrobe choices for reasons other than to get 15 year old boys in the seats). ANYWAY, leaving all that aside, I think Snyder has come up with a movie that IS entertaining to say the least.
That said, it's also undeniably stranger...or quirky.. and complicated- probably too complicated for it's own good. Some of it just plain doesn't makes sense. But the action is good. So it has that going for it. I will say that I also liked the style of the film. That- for lack of a better way of putting it- graphic novel-esque style Snyder featured in both 300 and Watchmen. I just dig it. Never seems to get old for me. And I also liked some of the quirks. But what I liked the best was the idea of the world within a world within the mind that he tries to lay out. It's like Inception...super, super lite. Allow me to try to explain:
Because of a family tragedy, the character known only as Baby Doll (it's obviously not her real name) is sent to an insane asylum. I should mention that the movie is set in some indistinct but clearly defined "yesterday" time period...maybe the 1930s or 1940s? Not entirely sure, I just know it wasn't literally yesterday. But it does hearken back to the day when lobotomies were fairly common place and insane asylums were horrific places. See, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is being sent to the asylum by her evil stepfather who is after Baby Doll's share of her mother's inheritance... I think... and through a crooked deal with the chief orderly, evil Step Dad has arranged for Baby Doll to receive a lobotomy, thus taking her out of the picture. Baby Doll gets wise to this and obviously isn't going to take it lightly. It becomes clear that she wants to escape- presumably to teach dear old step daddy a lesson. And this is where things get weird. All of the sudden, we're led into a night club/burlesque/brothel scene where all the asylum inmates are now dancers/prostitutes. Baby Doll is the new addition on scene and she quickly makes acquaintance with a few of the other colorfully named dancers: Amber (Jamie Chung), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Rocket (Jena Malone), and resident tough girl, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish). None of these girls is particularly happy being stuck here in the club/asylum so Baby Doll quickly convinces them to join her in her planned escape. Freedom- it would seem- can be won if the girls can assemble a number of different items and figure out how to use them. We know this because Baby Doll meets a mysterious dude in another realm of her imagination... I think it's her imagination... which she visits when she is forced to do her special dance in the first imaginary realm of the burlesque club/brothel. (All the girls are supposed to dance to win the affections of their potential clients for the other part of the equation). In addition to getting sage-ish advice in this other imaginary realm, this is also where Baby Doll and her accomplices kick the asses of some seriously weird villains ranging from machine gun-toting Samurai warriors to re-animated, dead Germans, to orc-like creatures, to futuristic cyborgs each with the end goal of the battle being to capture one of the items they'll need to escpae. Each of these villains or groups are course figments of Baby Doll's imagination and are really fronts for her dancing episodes- which are themselves distractions (we're back in the first imaginary realm) that allow Baby Doll's cohorts to grab the items they need to escape. One assumes all of this has implications in Baby Doll's real world in the asylum. The question becomes, can Baby Doll escape before the lobotomist comes in five days (he's known as the High Roller in the burlesque realm)?
Yeah, you should be sufficiently confused. Granted my description isn't doing you any favors either, but the movie won't provide you with much aid itself either. How much you enjoy the movie probably depends on how willing you are to forget about trying to make too much sense of it and just roll with the pretty awesome action and quirky style. For my part, I was completely ready to turn my brain most of the way off. And I enjoyed it. It's not all bad in the end, Snyder does a decent job tying everything together, but that does kind of lead to more questions... or perhaps plot holes is a better way of putting it. Again it all depends on how deeply you want to delve into it. I'll again emphasize that I liked the style and the quirk. Beyond that... well, there was also a lot to quibble with besides the confusing and complex... or ridiculous depending on your point of view... story. The ending bothered me. In that I mean the very end of the film. Snyder chooses to smack you over the head with his intended message. I HATE when film makers do that. Look, I know you've made a- probably- needlessly confusing flick, Zack, but I still think I could have figured out the message without you coming out and telling me.
Besides that, the acting was hit or miss, especially in Emily Browning's case. She alternates between genuinely decent acting and cold, emotionless, Barbie-doll-come-to-life expression. She's at her best when she's kicking ass which is often enough to push the rest of her sterile performance to the rear view. I found Vanessa Hudgens to be fairly annoying more than anything else. And Scott Glen as the Wise Man (yeah I just looked it up, the sage-y dude's character was really called the Wise Man) delivered his lines with appropriate sincerity, but some of those lines were absolute, flat-fallen duds. I DID, however, enjoy Jena Malone's and Abbie Cornish's performance. They both displayed a range of emotions and some considerable depth... and I suppose I wouldn't be going out on a limb to say that depth of character- particularly these characters- was a high priority. Well, maybe it was, but it sure didn't come out that way. Oh, and Oscar Isaac played his role of the sleazy chief orderly/night club owner with a great deal of what I can only describe as effortless sleaze. Nicely done, sir.
I'm going to go ahead and stop it here. It seems like the more I think about it, the more I want to seriously downgrade the movie. But it WAS fun. Really it was. Wasn't it? Yeah? I think so. No, it was. At least I thought so at the time I saw it. And that really does count for something. I think when I walked out of the theater I was ready to give the thing an A-. Not so much anymore... but really... to me... it was enjoyable. And that's what a movie should be right?
Grade: B
For the record, I actually saw this on March 30th...for whatever that's worth. So this should be a bit different. I'm already thinking it's going to be downgraded from where I would have had it had I written this right away. I imagine when a lot of folks think about Sucker Punch, what they think starts and stops at five rather scantily clad young ladies kicking all sorts of ass. And yeah, it IS true to a point that that pretty well sums up the movie. But if you can look past that- hard as it might be- you'll find a pretty darn fun and funky graphic novel-type (if that is a type) movie from Zack Snyder- the creative mind behind 300and Watchmen. And just to be crystal clear here, there is nothing about this movie that makes it a candidate for Skinemax (in fact looking only at the fact that the chicks are scantily-clad..ish... you would miss out on the larger question of WHY they are scantily clad. Snyder is trying to make a point here- or so I've read- flimsy as it might be. And while I've read what his point is... it has to do- and I'm paraphrasing here- with women overcoming the notion of being sexual objects... it's all part of the prison they're in... and when you see them dressed in the pseudo-sexual fashion they're there to kick-ass...thus conquering the world they're trapped in, perception and all... or... something like that? I know I've read somewhere where Snyder was defending his wardrobe choices for reasons other than to get 15 year old boys in the seats). ANYWAY, leaving all that aside, I think Snyder has come up with a movie that IS entertaining to say the least.
That said, it's also undeniably stranger...or quirky.. and complicated- probably too complicated for it's own good. Some of it just plain doesn't makes sense. But the action is good. So it has that going for it. I will say that I also liked the style of the film. That- for lack of a better way of putting it- graphic novel-esque style Snyder featured in both 300 and Watchmen. I just dig it. Never seems to get old for me. And I also liked some of the quirks. But what I liked the best was the idea of the world within a world within the mind that he tries to lay out. It's like Inception...super, super lite. Allow me to try to explain:
Because of a family tragedy, the character known only as Baby Doll (it's obviously not her real name) is sent to an insane asylum. I should mention that the movie is set in some indistinct but clearly defined "yesterday" time period...maybe the 1930s or 1940s? Not entirely sure, I just know it wasn't literally yesterday. But it does hearken back to the day when lobotomies were fairly common place and insane asylums were horrific places. See, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is being sent to the asylum by her evil stepfather who is after Baby Doll's share of her mother's inheritance... I think... and through a crooked deal with the chief orderly, evil Step Dad has arranged for Baby Doll to receive a lobotomy, thus taking her out of the picture. Baby Doll gets wise to this and obviously isn't going to take it lightly. It becomes clear that she wants to escape- presumably to teach dear old step daddy a lesson. And this is where things get weird. All of the sudden, we're led into a night club/burlesque/brothel scene where all the asylum inmates are now dancers/prostitutes. Baby Doll is the new addition on scene and she quickly makes acquaintance with a few of the other colorfully named dancers: Amber (Jamie Chung), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Rocket (Jena Malone), and resident tough girl, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish). None of these girls is particularly happy being stuck here in the club/asylum so Baby Doll quickly convinces them to join her in her planned escape. Freedom- it would seem- can be won if the girls can assemble a number of different items and figure out how to use them. We know this because Baby Doll meets a mysterious dude in another realm of her imagination... I think it's her imagination... which she visits when she is forced to do her special dance in the first imaginary realm of the burlesque club/brothel. (All the girls are supposed to dance to win the affections of their potential clients for the other part of the equation). In addition to getting sage-ish advice in this other imaginary realm, this is also where Baby Doll and her accomplices kick the asses of some seriously weird villains ranging from machine gun-toting Samurai warriors to re-animated, dead Germans, to orc-like creatures, to futuristic cyborgs each with the end goal of the battle being to capture one of the items they'll need to escpae. Each of these villains or groups are course figments of Baby Doll's imagination and are really fronts for her dancing episodes- which are themselves distractions (we're back in the first imaginary realm) that allow Baby Doll's cohorts to grab the items they need to escape. One assumes all of this has implications in Baby Doll's real world in the asylum. The question becomes, can Baby Doll escape before the lobotomist comes in five days (he's known as the High Roller in the burlesque realm)?
Yeah, you should be sufficiently confused. Granted my description isn't doing you any favors either, but the movie won't provide you with much aid itself either. How much you enjoy the movie probably depends on how willing you are to forget about trying to make too much sense of it and just roll with the pretty awesome action and quirky style. For my part, I was completely ready to turn my brain most of the way off. And I enjoyed it. It's not all bad in the end, Snyder does a decent job tying everything together, but that does kind of lead to more questions... or perhaps plot holes is a better way of putting it. Again it all depends on how deeply you want to delve into it. I'll again emphasize that I liked the style and the quirk. Beyond that... well, there was also a lot to quibble with besides the confusing and complex... or ridiculous depending on your point of view... story. The ending bothered me. In that I mean the very end of the film. Snyder chooses to smack you over the head with his intended message. I HATE when film makers do that. Look, I know you've made a- probably- needlessly confusing flick, Zack, but I still think I could have figured out the message without you coming out and telling me.
Besides that, the acting was hit or miss, especially in Emily Browning's case. She alternates between genuinely decent acting and cold, emotionless, Barbie-doll-come-to-life expression. She's at her best when she's kicking ass which is often enough to push the rest of her sterile performance to the rear view. I found Vanessa Hudgens to be fairly annoying more than anything else. And Scott Glen as the Wise Man (yeah I just looked it up, the sage-y dude's character was really called the Wise Man) delivered his lines with appropriate sincerity, but some of those lines were absolute, flat-fallen duds. I DID, however, enjoy Jena Malone's and Abbie Cornish's performance. They both displayed a range of emotions and some considerable depth... and I suppose I wouldn't be going out on a limb to say that depth of character- particularly these characters- was a high priority. Well, maybe it was, but it sure didn't come out that way. Oh, and Oscar Isaac played his role of the sleazy chief orderly/night club owner with a great deal of what I can only describe as effortless sleaze. Nicely done, sir.
I'm going to go ahead and stop it here. It seems like the more I think about it, the more I want to seriously downgrade the movie. But it WAS fun. Really it was. Wasn't it? Yeah? I think so. No, it was. At least I thought so at the time I saw it. And that really does count for something. I think when I walked out of the theater I was ready to give the thing an A-. Not so much anymore... but really... to me... it was enjoyable. And that's what a movie should be right?
Grade: B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)