Along with King Arthur (2004) and Troy (2004), this film represents a tendency to try to rehistoricize legends. In general, I strongly dislike the trend. It's not totally unlike the way that Snow White and the Hunstman (2012) adultified the Snow White legend. In the case of each of these films, I thought that the actual product outdid the idea. The same goes for Robin Hood. I generally hate the rehistoricizing of Robin Hood especially, because I have so much love for the Robin Hood legend, but a very new and very original story is told here and believably connected to the actual story of the Magna Carta, etc. This does remind me of the obvious historical inaccuracies of Robin Hood (1973), such as King Richard's return from the Crusades.
I will keep this brief as this is a rewatch and my opinion is not super high. Wit is 8.5. I like the line, "Rise and rise again until lambs become lions." This poetic way of advocating persistent revolution is truly beautiful to me. Beyond this, there are some ugly scenes of insistence about Marion riding in battle. That to me is silly beyond silly. It definitely has no historical basis and moreover, why does she need to fight in a battle. Can't she just do other things. She completely fails in battle and if anything proves that she ought not to have been there to begin with. Silly, silly overzealous feminism.
Wisdom leans heavily on its revolutionary aspect for the 8.5. Beyond that, there is some fun anti-corruption messages for the Church that I enjoy. The down-sides are the aforementioned silly feminism, the silly nationalism, and the silly socialism that the movie ends with.
For wonder, 8.5 is an alright. It is determined by being less than Robin Hood (1973), Red Dawn, and Saving Private Ryan. There isn't that much for me to say. Overall, don't rush out and see it, but if you're bored and its there, you might.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The African Queen* (1951) 9, 9.5, 9, 27.5
The African Queen is a rather sappy story of a Canadian ship captain and a female English missionary who find themselves in German East Africa in 1914 at the opening of the First World War. She is living with her brother another Methodist missionary in the village and they are attempting to convert the native people. He has worked for many years at a Belgian mine in the region and has regularly been their mailman. After the Germans move in, they end up escaping together on his ship and try to find a plan to get out of the area dominated by German occupation.
The film has its ups and downs as far as wit goes, but it gets a 9 due to some stellar acting and some powerful scenes. First, I'll give the truest praise where it is due for Humphrey Bogart. Maybe my sampling of his films has hitherto been selective, but he seems to play her very much against type. Bogart in Casablanca, one of my personal favorites, and The Maltese Falcon plays a cool-headed and extremely likable and interesting hero. This could hardly be less what we get here. Here, Bogart plays an uncouth and even silly or simple blackguard named Charlie Allnut. There is really very little in his character to admire. In one of the first scenes, he is at tea with the missionaries, which they got him to with the question, which misled him I fear, of "Would you like something to drink?" After taking tea and some bread and butter, his stomach begins to make noises. He spends the rest of the scene laughing at the noises his stomach makes and being told to take more bread by Katharine Hepburn's character, Rose Sayer. She too plays against type here, as far as I can see. In most of her films, specifically I think of Adam's Rib and the like, she plays the Kate à la Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. She is in this movie a very traditional, even Puritan woman who acts in many ways very conventionally. They both do it very well, but Bogart's portrayal of the slack-jawed mechanic is nearly perfect.
A great scene also comes when the brother missionary is having a fever dream and confesses to his sister that he imagined when taking his final exams in Greek, etc. for hopes of placement in some domestic position in England, he simply gave up and decided that if God wanted him to pass he would. He also confesses a great deal of jealousy and that he wouldn't have taken his sister except that she was so plain that she probably wouldn't get married anyway.
There are also some lesser aspects and scenes that play corny and forced as they go down the river. For this reason, I couldn't raise it above a 9. It placed squarely with films like 12 Angry Men, 28 Days Later, or Arn: The Knight Templar.
That all considered, it's wisdom was above average. First, it is the love story between inequals and near-opposites that attracts me to it. These people who didn't really like each other too much, find themselves lovers after a grueling trek down a supposedly unnavigable river. That love-at-first-true-knowledge that defies both love-at-first-sight theorists and skeptics of true love is something I believe wholeheartedly in. That said, the overtones of British imperial nationalism in this WWI world did knock it down a bit. I am not a fan of nationalism and even less a fan of an idealized WWI.
Finally, the wonder here is a hard one. In 1951, the fact that this was shot largely on location in Africa was huge. That should not be forgotten and I am less interested in special effects with wisdom than pageantry. But I could not get past the scenes on the river. Also, the musical score left something to be desired. Thus the 9.
I would recommend this movie for the aforementioned reasons: beautiful love story, great acting, etc., but there may be better films to pass the day with.
The film has its ups and downs as far as wit goes, but it gets a 9 due to some stellar acting and some powerful scenes. First, I'll give the truest praise where it is due for Humphrey Bogart. Maybe my sampling of his films has hitherto been selective, but he seems to play her very much against type. Bogart in Casablanca, one of my personal favorites, and The Maltese Falcon plays a cool-headed and extremely likable and interesting hero. This could hardly be less what we get here. Here, Bogart plays an uncouth and even silly or simple blackguard named Charlie Allnut. There is really very little in his character to admire. In one of the first scenes, he is at tea with the missionaries, which they got him to with the question, which misled him I fear, of "Would you like something to drink?" After taking tea and some bread and butter, his stomach begins to make noises. He spends the rest of the scene laughing at the noises his stomach makes and being told to take more bread by Katharine Hepburn's character, Rose Sayer. She too plays against type here, as far as I can see. In most of her films, specifically I think of Adam's Rib and the like, she plays the Kate à la Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. She is in this movie a very traditional, even Puritan woman who acts in many ways very conventionally. They both do it very well, but Bogart's portrayal of the slack-jawed mechanic is nearly perfect.
A great scene also comes when the brother missionary is having a fever dream and confesses to his sister that he imagined when taking his final exams in Greek, etc. for hopes of placement in some domestic position in England, he simply gave up and decided that if God wanted him to pass he would. He also confesses a great deal of jealousy and that he wouldn't have taken his sister except that she was so plain that she probably wouldn't get married anyway.
There are also some lesser aspects and scenes that play corny and forced as they go down the river. For this reason, I couldn't raise it above a 9. It placed squarely with films like 12 Angry Men, 28 Days Later, or Arn: The Knight Templar.
That all considered, it's wisdom was above average. First, it is the love story between inequals and near-opposites that attracts me to it. These people who didn't really like each other too much, find themselves lovers after a grueling trek down a supposedly unnavigable river. That love-at-first-true-knowledge that defies both love-at-first-sight theorists and skeptics of true love is something I believe wholeheartedly in. That said, the overtones of British imperial nationalism in this WWI world did knock it down a bit. I am not a fan of nationalism and even less a fan of an idealized WWI.
Finally, the wonder here is a hard one. In 1951, the fact that this was shot largely on location in Africa was huge. That should not be forgotten and I am less interested in special effects with wisdom than pageantry. But I could not get past the scenes on the river. Also, the musical score left something to be desired. Thus the 9.
I would recommend this movie for the aforementioned reasons: beautiful love story, great acting, etc., but there may be better films to pass the day with.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Boy** (2012) 9.25, 9.5, 9.5, 28.25
This film is a new favorite of sorts. It is from the same writer/director as Eagle vs. Shark, Taika Waititi. It is very much in the same comedic vein, which I admit may not be to everyone's taste, though possibly to every cool body's taste. That said, it digs deeper than that film into personal trauma and failure or success in parenting. Eagle vs. Shark is quite deep, in its own way, but there is a greater balance between comedy and tragedy in Boy.
Boy is the story of two young brothers who live with their grandmother and cousins near a small town in New Zealand. The older, Alamein, is called Boy by many of his fellows and begins the film by relating a little bit of his story, mostly comprising the obviously ridiculous, supposed exploits of his father, the elder Alamein. While Boy's grandmother is gone to a funeral for a week, this elder Alamein returns, after being gone many years, with his gang, the Crazy Horses, which consists of two other guys.
As for wit, I gave it a 9. This is -.25 from Eagle vs. Shark, because the dialogue lacks a slight crisp nature and the hole left by Jemaine Clement is not filled properly. There are still some great lines. A teacher near the beginning asking him about a fight at school says, " People call me a dumb honky all the time. I don't go round punching them." When Boy asks, "Why not?" he replies, "Because they're usually children." This one in particular I can't stop laughing at. When he tells Boy that he and his father both had potential, Boy asks what potential means. The teacher answers, "It's 3:30. I'm off the clock," and walks out. Boy's interpretation of potential is a key point throughout the movie and this joke plays into much more serious moments without diminishing the brilliance of the joke. That is just a taste.
Waititi himself plays the father and really does a good job of being easily angry, often oppressively selfish, and still maintain your interest and not become irredeemable. James Rolleston, who plays Boy and Te Aho Aho Eketone-Whitu, who plays Rocky, his little brother, both manage pathos and depth in their acting that is very impressive for kids their ages. Boy has a hopeful, joyful self-enforced ignorance of his dad's acts and their motives. This builds a dramatic irony that is often funny, but is in its place, heart-breaking. Rocky is stand-offish and beautifully opens up as his dad is around more. He shows himself a gentle soul amidst the chaos of his situation. A couple other performances are particularly good, but it feels as if the whole thing has a director-led coherence of tone and aspect that I appreciate.
For wisdom, I cannot but give it a 9.5. This is, I think because of its honesty and its willingness to show this dad who self-aggrandizes and often forgets his kids and is deeply haunted by his wife's death from the perspective of his child. It shows a child grow up and willingly take up making his dad this grand figure for his younger brother, even when he is disillusioned. It shows people wronging and being wronged and a sense of peace coming from everybody getting out their grievances and fears and insecurities. These are not moral people, but their portrayal is beautiful and wise because their faults are shown and then covered over by love.
This film continues the variety and multi-leveled representation of Eagle vs. Shark, including the post-credit sequence which remake the Thriller video in what I assume is traditional Maori style and language (Yes, I put the title of a music video in italics instead of quotes out of respect). The use of Rocky's drawing has a similar effect to Eagle vs. Shark's apple claymation sequence. Music, effects, and the aforementioned credit given to directing earn this one a solid 9.5.
Overall, I definitely suggest this film to anyone, though subtitles may be needed as the New Zealand accent can get thick (I even peaked at the French subtitles the first time when I missed something). It also helps to know the comedic style, reminiscent of Flight of the Conchords, etc.
Enjoyez, mes bons amis!
Boy is the story of two young brothers who live with their grandmother and cousins near a small town in New Zealand. The older, Alamein, is called Boy by many of his fellows and begins the film by relating a little bit of his story, mostly comprising the obviously ridiculous, supposed exploits of his father, the elder Alamein. While Boy's grandmother is gone to a funeral for a week, this elder Alamein returns, after being gone many years, with his gang, the Crazy Horses, which consists of two other guys.
As for wit, I gave it a 9. This is -.25 from Eagle vs. Shark, because the dialogue lacks a slight crisp nature and the hole left by Jemaine Clement is not filled properly. There are still some great lines. A teacher near the beginning asking him about a fight at school says, " People call me a dumb honky all the time. I don't go round punching them." When Boy asks, "Why not?" he replies, "Because they're usually children." This one in particular I can't stop laughing at. When he tells Boy that he and his father both had potential, Boy asks what potential means. The teacher answers, "It's 3:30. I'm off the clock," and walks out. Boy's interpretation of potential is a key point throughout the movie and this joke plays into much more serious moments without diminishing the brilliance of the joke. That is just a taste.
Waititi himself plays the father and really does a good job of being easily angry, often oppressively selfish, and still maintain your interest and not become irredeemable. James Rolleston, who plays Boy and Te Aho Aho Eketone-Whitu, who plays Rocky, his little brother, both manage pathos and depth in their acting that is very impressive for kids their ages. Boy has a hopeful, joyful self-enforced ignorance of his dad's acts and their motives. This builds a dramatic irony that is often funny, but is in its place, heart-breaking. Rocky is stand-offish and beautifully opens up as his dad is around more. He shows himself a gentle soul amidst the chaos of his situation. A couple other performances are particularly good, but it feels as if the whole thing has a director-led coherence of tone and aspect that I appreciate.
For wisdom, I cannot but give it a 9.5. This is, I think because of its honesty and its willingness to show this dad who self-aggrandizes and often forgets his kids and is deeply haunted by his wife's death from the perspective of his child. It shows a child grow up and willingly take up making his dad this grand figure for his younger brother, even when he is disillusioned. It shows people wronging and being wronged and a sense of peace coming from everybody getting out their grievances and fears and insecurities. These are not moral people, but their portrayal is beautiful and wise because their faults are shown and then covered over by love.
This film continues the variety and multi-leveled representation of Eagle vs. Shark, including the post-credit sequence which remake the Thriller video in what I assume is traditional Maori style and language (Yes, I put the title of a music video in italics instead of quotes out of respect). The use of Rocky's drawing has a similar effect to Eagle vs. Shark's apple claymation sequence. Music, effects, and the aforementioned credit given to directing earn this one a solid 9.5.
Overall, I definitely suggest this film to anyone, though subtitles may be needed as the New Zealand accent can get thick (I even peaked at the French subtitles the first time when I missed something). It also helps to know the comedic style, reminiscent of Flight of the Conchords, etc.
Enjoyez, mes bons amis!
Monday, September 24, 2012
Moonrise Kingdom* (2012) 9.5, 9.5, 10, 29
(Disclaimer: I believed that I had published this at least a week ago.)
Though I know most people who would love this movie have already seen it, making my review non-pertinent for previewing this film for potential moviegoers, I am glad that I waited until I moved to France to watch this film. This film is a beautiful ode to young love, such as gives me hope and a measure of excitement in the loneliness that comes from being across the ocean from almost all the people that I've known for more than two weeks. The beauty of this film is hard to overstate, so I'd like to go backwards through my criteria.
For wonder, I have given this film a 10. Here I may refer to what I often call wonder as style, because the word seems more appropriate for Anderson, who has only the rare moment of spectacle in his films. For him, set dressing to the point of obsession with minutiae and an air of pomp are far preferable to the "explosions and gunfights" moments that often give a movie wonder. Wes Anderson has, I think, perfected his sort of style in this film. I compare his overall work in this film to the difference between narrative poetry and a novella. One is not by nature better than the other, but the novella rarely gets the same kind of style points as the narrative poem, excepting the poetic prose of Fahrenheit 451. That said, the key focus of most novellas is building a story that one follows, even if the style is less than exciting. The narrative poem often has no qualms with revealing its story beforehand and "ruining" the end, as its focus is often telling an archetypal story in a new way à la Ovid's Metamorphoses. Here Anderson tells a story that is simple to follow and at times easy to predict. If you've seen Angels in the Outfield, you will see the ending coming in some respects, but you don't care. The use of music is, as always, exquisite but even more so. Set dressing in the Bishop house reminds me of the Belafonte introduction from The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. There is a genuine and overwhelming beauty to the whole work. But on to wisdom.
I compared the wisdom to The Life Aquatic and The Royal Tenenbaums and placed it above both. The 9.5 that I gave it is based upon some simple factors. One, the elegy to young love à la Romeo and Juliet. This is a topic I feel strongly about. The film deals heavily with the pursuit of love in a situation where the conditions and the prevailing temperament are less than ideal. They involve the implementation of idealistic solutions to non-ideal problems. Many who know me will know that I have mixed feelings about young lovers running away to be together and ignoring their families and friends in the process. I mean, when I say that I have mixed feelings that I appreciate the idea and cringe at the consequences and the motives, from personal experience. That is the source of the -.5, but this is somewhat mitigated by the confusing and frustrating nature of the clans from which these young lovers come. I do not want to condone this kind of action by young people, but in some circumstances I think a little radical action is justified. Two, the portrayal of numerous individuals who, though flawed, do admirable things that signal change and a new assumption of responsibility for their actions as well as a new sense of purpose. When Scout Master Ward makes a hero of himself in the end, it is hard not to see his coming into himself and achieving something very real and new, for himself and of course, those he saves. Captain Sharp really fills out. There is some worry that some characters will remain too peripheral to be worthwhile, but no one does. Sharp is also given a huge moral boost. These moral rectifications remind me of the end of The Royal Tenebaums, when various characters recognize a wrong they've committed and vow to fix it. A lot of that is fixed in epilogue, which works there, but in this film there is an expedited sense of positive change that precedes the climax.
The wit is another 9.5. This is equal to The Life Aquatic and just short of The Royal Tenenbaums. This -.5 is again due to the slight predictability of plot. But that should not be seen as any great detraction. Otherwise this might have been a 10 as well. Line after line comes out to me. When Suzy tells Sam that she wishes she had never had a family and Sam leans in, thinks a bit, and says, " I love you, but you have no idea what you're talking about." The simple unambiguous way in which he says he loves her is the province of a heart never broken and never breaking. Her response is even better, nothing more than, "I love you, too."
When Suzy asks about the recently killed with an arrow camp-dog, Snoopy, "Was he a good dog?" Sam answers, "Who's to say?" Larger issues of plot are dealt with equally well, though often with some non-realist methods.The emotional turn of the khaki scouts near the middle of the film is a brilliant turn and completely unexpected. I don't think I ruined that. The writing is probably the best since The Royal Tenenbaums, which I think was the pinnacle of Anderson's writing. This is more flowery, even in the turn of scene and spectacle. That was meant to be an unambiguously positive compliment. Beyond this, what is there to say except, thank you Wes Anderson for another one.
Though I know most people who would love this movie have already seen it, making my review non-pertinent for previewing this film for potential moviegoers, I am glad that I waited until I moved to France to watch this film. This film is a beautiful ode to young love, such as gives me hope and a measure of excitement in the loneliness that comes from being across the ocean from almost all the people that I've known for more than two weeks. The beauty of this film is hard to overstate, so I'd like to go backwards through my criteria.
For wonder, I have given this film a 10. Here I may refer to what I often call wonder as style, because the word seems more appropriate for Anderson, who has only the rare moment of spectacle in his films. For him, set dressing to the point of obsession with minutiae and an air of pomp are far preferable to the "explosions and gunfights" moments that often give a movie wonder. Wes Anderson has, I think, perfected his sort of style in this film. I compare his overall work in this film to the difference between narrative poetry and a novella. One is not by nature better than the other, but the novella rarely gets the same kind of style points as the narrative poem, excepting the poetic prose of Fahrenheit 451. That said, the key focus of most novellas is building a story that one follows, even if the style is less than exciting. The narrative poem often has no qualms with revealing its story beforehand and "ruining" the end, as its focus is often telling an archetypal story in a new way à la Ovid's Metamorphoses. Here Anderson tells a story that is simple to follow and at times easy to predict. If you've seen Angels in the Outfield, you will see the ending coming in some respects, but you don't care. The use of music is, as always, exquisite but even more so. Set dressing in the Bishop house reminds me of the Belafonte introduction from The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. There is a genuine and overwhelming beauty to the whole work. But on to wisdom.
I compared the wisdom to The Life Aquatic and The Royal Tenenbaums and placed it above both. The 9.5 that I gave it is based upon some simple factors. One, the elegy to young love à la Romeo and Juliet. This is a topic I feel strongly about. The film deals heavily with the pursuit of love in a situation where the conditions and the prevailing temperament are less than ideal. They involve the implementation of idealistic solutions to non-ideal problems. Many who know me will know that I have mixed feelings about young lovers running away to be together and ignoring their families and friends in the process. I mean, when I say that I have mixed feelings that I appreciate the idea and cringe at the consequences and the motives, from personal experience. That is the source of the -.5, but this is somewhat mitigated by the confusing and frustrating nature of the clans from which these young lovers come. I do not want to condone this kind of action by young people, but in some circumstances I think a little radical action is justified. Two, the portrayal of numerous individuals who, though flawed, do admirable things that signal change and a new assumption of responsibility for their actions as well as a new sense of purpose. When Scout Master Ward makes a hero of himself in the end, it is hard not to see his coming into himself and achieving something very real and new, for himself and of course, those he saves. Captain Sharp really fills out. There is some worry that some characters will remain too peripheral to be worthwhile, but no one does. Sharp is also given a huge moral boost. These moral rectifications remind me of the end of The Royal Tenebaums, when various characters recognize a wrong they've committed and vow to fix it. A lot of that is fixed in epilogue, which works there, but in this film there is an expedited sense of positive change that precedes the climax.
The wit is another 9.5. This is equal to The Life Aquatic and just short of The Royal Tenenbaums. This -.5 is again due to the slight predictability of plot. But that should not be seen as any great detraction. Otherwise this might have been a 10 as well. Line after line comes out to me. When Suzy tells Sam that she wishes she had never had a family and Sam leans in, thinks a bit, and says, " I love you, but you have no idea what you're talking about." The simple unambiguous way in which he says he loves her is the province of a heart never broken and never breaking. Her response is even better, nothing more than, "I love you, too."
When Suzy asks about the recently killed with an arrow camp-dog, Snoopy, "Was he a good dog?" Sam answers, "Who's to say?" Larger issues of plot are dealt with equally well, though often with some non-realist methods.The emotional turn of the khaki scouts near the middle of the film is a brilliant turn and completely unexpected. I don't think I ruined that. The writing is probably the best since The Royal Tenenbaums, which I think was the pinnacle of Anderson's writing. This is more flowery, even in the turn of scene and spectacle. That was meant to be an unambiguously positive compliment. Beyond this, what is there to say except, thank you Wes Anderson for another one.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
To Rome with Love* (2012) 8.5, 7, 8.5, 24
I am returned. I am skipping at least two very good movies that I have seen since the last one I reviewed, because I have been moving intercontinentally. This has been very traumatic and stressful and I have not written. The first is Melancholia (2011), which I cannot recommend highly enough to anyone that watches heady, cerebral films. I'm sorry that I stole those terms from Netflix, but I miss her. My time with Netflix has long past outlasted any romantic relationship I've ever had and to leave her when I came to France is hard, though not as hard as my family. I do not want to be too autobiographical; I only wanted to explain my long departure and mention these two things.
Melancholia is long and slow and it really uses an absolute non-economy of time to give us a sense of what depression is like and I for one feel a better understanding of it, even when the sense of depression that von Trier, our writer/director by the way, is trying to give us. I would definitely suggest it.
I also watched The Five-Year Engagement (2012) multiple times on my 9 hour plane flight from Houston to Paris. I would definitely rate it with best Judd Apatow-like comedies that have been coming out for a while. Jason Segel co-writes with Nicholas Stoller, the director, who also co-wrote The Muppets with him and co wrote with him and directed Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It does what I remember Judd Apatow talking about with The 40-Year-Old Virgin, whether Apatow succeeded or not with that film. Apatow said that he wanted this unusual story to not be heaping mockery on a strange, awkward character who is just socially awkward, but to show someone who is relatively normal who just happened to be in this situation, through bad luck, etc. In The Five-Year Engagement, one never looks at these people and expects that they will have this awkwardly long engagement, but normal situations, if ones involving some pretty bad luck and behavior, continue to drive back that date at which the wedding will take place. It also manages to encompass five years in one film without skipping about. But this is not a review of The Five-Year Engagement.
I would like to relate my impressions of To Rome with Love, Woody Allen's latest film. First, I should briefly explain my story. I went to a local cinema in Paris called Cinema Lincoln, after the street name, which shows French films and English films with French subtitles. It did not occur to me until I had bought the ticket and the movie had started that this film that is about one third in Italian would have for the Italian parts not English subtitles, but French ones. For me, the situation was exhausting, reading the French subtitles and trying to keep track of the movie as it sped by in Italian. I think I did mildly well, but just so you know what I went through to bring this to you.
To Rome with Love is a lot like many of Allen's recent comedies, like Midnight in Paris, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, or Melinda and Melinda, but with a dash of Paris, Je T'Aime in there. That is, there were various mostly unconnected stories in it, connected only by being in Rome. This is forgivable if done well, but I find it can be annoying. I prefer films about characters and stories to those about ideas or feelings. Meanwhile, I love Intermission, which brings these seemingly unconnected stories together, much like Tolstoy does in Anna Karenina or Hugo in Les Miserables.
As far as wit, I've gone with an 8.5 because I began comparing it to Annie Hall, a 10, which will annoy people, but it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen still. TRwL obviously failed that test and I passed it by Another Earth, a 9.5, then by Arn: The Knight Templar, a 9, and landed it by Branagh's 2006 As You Like It. This seemed right. They are both truly lesser works by great authors and thus still distinguished. It is funny. Allen, Alec Baldwin, Ellen Page, Roberto Benigni, Alison Pill, Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, and Penelope Cruz are all predictably good, but the stand-outs are the Italians I don't know: Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi as the young Italian couple almost don't require translation, Fabio Armiliato plays the shy Italian undertaker who only sings opera well in the shower with a beautiful sense of comedy, and Sergio Stoli stands out as a wise chauffeur for Benigni. I was pleasantly surprised at the way that Allen dove into a surrealist approach without explanation. It's not uncommon for him, but he truly dove, much to my delight.
In terms of wisdom, unfortunately, it does compare well with Annie Hall. The understanding that two people can have meaningless, adulterous sex each without the other's knowledge and not be negatively affected by it is a farce. One perpetrated multiple times. Alec Baldwin's character did spout some interesting wisdom, so I gave it overall a 7.
The music and other wonder might save it if Allen ever did anything else. The style is not bad, but it is too well known to have the same effect it did before. I gave it overall an 8.5 again.
Realistically, this film barely makes over the lip of the reviewable, but I needed to do it. I bet the next film I do will be Moonrise Kingdom, which I plan to watch tomorrow afternoon and I expect much better things. This seems like a return to The Royal Tenenbaums without the loss of depth of cast developed further by The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, a title I insist using the whole of, much like The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Au revoir.
Melancholia is long and slow and it really uses an absolute non-economy of time to give us a sense of what depression is like and I for one feel a better understanding of it, even when the sense of depression that von Trier, our writer/director by the way, is trying to give us. I would definitely suggest it.
I also watched The Five-Year Engagement (2012) multiple times on my 9 hour plane flight from Houston to Paris. I would definitely rate it with best Judd Apatow-like comedies that have been coming out for a while. Jason Segel co-writes with Nicholas Stoller, the director, who also co-wrote The Muppets with him and co wrote with him and directed Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It does what I remember Judd Apatow talking about with The 40-Year-Old Virgin, whether Apatow succeeded or not with that film. Apatow said that he wanted this unusual story to not be heaping mockery on a strange, awkward character who is just socially awkward, but to show someone who is relatively normal who just happened to be in this situation, through bad luck, etc. In The Five-Year Engagement, one never looks at these people and expects that they will have this awkwardly long engagement, but normal situations, if ones involving some pretty bad luck and behavior, continue to drive back that date at which the wedding will take place. It also manages to encompass five years in one film without skipping about. But this is not a review of The Five-Year Engagement.
I would like to relate my impressions of To Rome with Love, Woody Allen's latest film. First, I should briefly explain my story. I went to a local cinema in Paris called Cinema Lincoln, after the street name, which shows French films and English films with French subtitles. It did not occur to me until I had bought the ticket and the movie had started that this film that is about one third in Italian would have for the Italian parts not English subtitles, but French ones. For me, the situation was exhausting, reading the French subtitles and trying to keep track of the movie as it sped by in Italian. I think I did mildly well, but just so you know what I went through to bring this to you.
To Rome with Love is a lot like many of Allen's recent comedies, like Midnight in Paris, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, or Melinda and Melinda, but with a dash of Paris, Je T'Aime in there. That is, there were various mostly unconnected stories in it, connected only by being in Rome. This is forgivable if done well, but I find it can be annoying. I prefer films about characters and stories to those about ideas or feelings. Meanwhile, I love Intermission, which brings these seemingly unconnected stories together, much like Tolstoy does in Anna Karenina or Hugo in Les Miserables.
As far as wit, I've gone with an 8.5 because I began comparing it to Annie Hall, a 10, which will annoy people, but it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen still. TRwL obviously failed that test and I passed it by Another Earth, a 9.5, then by Arn: The Knight Templar, a 9, and landed it by Branagh's 2006 As You Like It. This seemed right. They are both truly lesser works by great authors and thus still distinguished. It is funny. Allen, Alec Baldwin, Ellen Page, Roberto Benigni, Alison Pill, Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, and Penelope Cruz are all predictably good, but the stand-outs are the Italians I don't know: Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi as the young Italian couple almost don't require translation, Fabio Armiliato plays the shy Italian undertaker who only sings opera well in the shower with a beautiful sense of comedy, and Sergio Stoli stands out as a wise chauffeur for Benigni. I was pleasantly surprised at the way that Allen dove into a surrealist approach without explanation. It's not uncommon for him, but he truly dove, much to my delight.
In terms of wisdom, unfortunately, it does compare well with Annie Hall. The understanding that two people can have meaningless, adulterous sex each without the other's knowledge and not be negatively affected by it is a farce. One perpetrated multiple times. Alec Baldwin's character did spout some interesting wisdom, so I gave it overall a 7.
The music and other wonder might save it if Allen ever did anything else. The style is not bad, but it is too well known to have the same effect it did before. I gave it overall an 8.5 again.
Realistically, this film barely makes over the lip of the reviewable, but I needed to do it. I bet the next film I do will be Moonrise Kingdom, which I plan to watch tomorrow afternoon and I expect much better things. This seems like a return to The Royal Tenenbaums without the loss of depth of cast developed further by The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, a title I insist using the whole of, much like The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Au revoir.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)