First, I'd like to note that the line to get into this movie was huge. Part of this was surely French movie theaters insistence on not letting anyone into a movie more than a few minutes before, but the theater was almost full. This film only had a limited release in the US, which means that it probably didn't show anywhere in my home town and got a week or two in the little indie theater in Lawrence(God bless 'em). This movie nearly filled a theater on a movie premier day with plenty of other things going on. That's kind of cool.
Beyond that, I was happy in general to find this movie a little more plot-driven than Jeff Nichols' last film, Take Shelter, not because I prefer that (I clearly do not), but because it's good to see indie filmmakers with the ability to produce a balanced oeuvre. This movie is practically a thriller. It isn't quite as full of twists and turns as the trailer would have us believe, but it tells a complex and fulfilling story about someone really growing up. Let's break it down.
For wit, I gave it a 9. I went up and down on this, but I stuck with a 9 because of comparisons with Jaws and Punch Drunk Love, both of which I watched last weekend, and I recognized less points where I felt like things were said so well I was taken aback. Less, not none. Comparing Vincent Cassel in Mesrine or Joaquin Phoenix in The Master with Matthew McConaughey in anything seems unfair. Not that Matthew is disappointing. He is at the awesome height of surprising quality that I got when he first appeared on Eastbound and Down. This will be the last time I underestimate him. He demands sympathy for his character and a certain fellow-feeling. You know that he isn't totally on the up-and-up, but you absolutely feel his pain.
Reese Witherspoon is even a bit surprising, but I attribute that mostly to the writing. The story flows with an ease that I remarked about in Jaws. It is all-encompassing. When you are watching it, it is reality. All credit not given to the engrossing screenwriter goes to the two young actors who drove the film from beginning to end: Tye Sheridan as Ellis and Jacob Lofland as Neckbone. Their natural chemistry, helping someone like me, who hasn't talked to his childhood best friend much recently, a real reminder of what it is to not remember not knowing someone and to trust them implicitly and to really defy any attempt to create hierarchy between you. Neither one has a long history in acting, but Tye's credit in a Terrence Malick film is nothing to scoff at. His performance is as layered as it can be in a clear bildungsfilm.
Sarah Paulson and Ray McKinnon played his parents and both had their moments without standing out. Sam Shepard was great, but his best moment was in being clearly upstaged by Tye. The only other character who did much for me was Michael Shannon as Galen, Neck's uncle. He has his one or two scenes where he clearly is the point of attraction. Early on, in his first appearance, just after we've been told he's 'doing it,' he follows a young lady out apologetically explaining, "Some people are okay with that kind of thing in the bedroom. Now we know you're not, I'll keep that in mind." Later, he brings his character around from the irresponsible uncle/guardian when he warns Ellis not to "get Neck in any trouble (he) can't get him out of." Michael absolutely nails it, giving the most nuanced adult performance.
Enough said about wit, I turn to wisdom, which was a 9.5. I had to give this a good bit of thought. It seemed clearly above Moonrise Kingdom which I gave a 9.5, because it doesn't have that obvious glaring defect. The ideas are clearly said, though not simply told. We learn that those we love sometimes fail us but that doesn't mean Love has failed us. We learn that all actions, whether they be seeking revenge (no matter where in the chain you may fall) or infidelity, have consequences, sometimes dire ones. But we also learn that sometimes things turn out for the best because of our most selfless acts. All these seem good to me, even unassailable, but they simply weren't enough to put this film in the class of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Nice Guy Johnny, which I gave 10's.
The last is wonder and I gave it a 9.5 for its portrayal of the swampy rivery wilderness of Arkansas. It gave it the romanticism it deserves and gave some great shots of moving down the river. The music was good too, if unobtrusive. Not least the somewhat ironic use of "Help Me, Rhonda" for the closing credits. There was some obnoxious over-cutting between various figures during dramatic dialogue. I prefer staying with one character until there's a break in the dialogue. I can settle for not seeing the character talking if the other character's reaction is more interesting. It just felt nervous about missing something.
If there is a theater near you showing this, I would suggest it. There's nothing approaching a sex scene and though some people get shot, it's pretty tame. Neck can't stop talking about "titties," but it's nearly endearing by the end. Enjoyez!
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Jaws** (1975) 9, 9, 10, 28
This weekend I was blessed by the opportunity to see an old classic again in good company. If you haven't seen Jaws go ahead and do it. Unless you're squeamish about blood, because there's a lot of it. Let's break this one down.
I gave it a 9.5 for wit because this film is a veritable treasure trove of one-liners and the cast absolutely acts every one of them. I'll give you a smattering. Hooper the marine biologist, when a bunch of people going after the shark make fun of him, "Ha, ha - they're all gonna die." Chief Brody, when the massive shark first pokes his head out of the water, "You're gonna need a bigger boat." Brody again when one of the locals starts bugging him about something, "That's some bad hat, Harry." The film manages to craft at least a couple really dynamic and powerful characters in Brody, Hooper, and Quint within the bounds of this shark-story thriller.
Roy Scheider gives an easy and free performance, leaving you sure that he could never be anyone else. This whole film is really one of complete immersion. Whether he's reacting to a smack in the face, asking his young son for a kiss, or gazing in fear at the water where the shark just was, I never felt the pull of the real world while he was onscreen.
Richard Dreyfuss is amiable and fun. Really helping to lighten a mood that could easily get too heavy. Robert Shaw, who plays Quint really sucks you in with his monologues too. He has too big ones: first when he scratches the chalkboard to get everyone's attention and then offers to go after the shark. That monologue is worth a great many movies I've seen. The second is his narration of attack by sharks on a sinking ship during WWII. He really gives you the most engrossing sort of campfire story I think any film pulls off.
The background artists really make this film though. It truly is all about atmosphere. A couple problems with the non-descript and lackluster ending, which practically qualifies as a plot-hole.
The wisdom is a simple 9. It has a clear message: don't value economy and money over people's lives be cautious and respect the power of nature. But this seems something over-simplistic. It may not have been meant to teach a great lesson, but that seems like a bit of a flaw.
The ten here is for Spielberg and his ability to make a terrifying shark movie with so little shark. The little boy's flailing body and the red water bubbling under him is far more frightening than the best moments of the animatronic shark. That and John Williams, the absolute best for-screen composer ever. He is truly a magician. That 10 doesn't feel hard to justify. That is rare.
I hope those few who haven't seen this classic can get the bug, otherwise enjoy.
I gave it a 9.5 for wit because this film is a veritable treasure trove of one-liners and the cast absolutely acts every one of them. I'll give you a smattering. Hooper the marine biologist, when a bunch of people going after the shark make fun of him, "Ha, ha - they're all gonna die." Chief Brody, when the massive shark first pokes his head out of the water, "You're gonna need a bigger boat." Brody again when one of the locals starts bugging him about something, "That's some bad hat, Harry." The film manages to craft at least a couple really dynamic and powerful characters in Brody, Hooper, and Quint within the bounds of this shark-story thriller.
Roy Scheider gives an easy and free performance, leaving you sure that he could never be anyone else. This whole film is really one of complete immersion. Whether he's reacting to a smack in the face, asking his young son for a kiss, or gazing in fear at the water where the shark just was, I never felt the pull of the real world while he was onscreen.
Richard Dreyfuss is amiable and fun. Really helping to lighten a mood that could easily get too heavy. Robert Shaw, who plays Quint really sucks you in with his monologues too. He has too big ones: first when he scratches the chalkboard to get everyone's attention and then offers to go after the shark. That monologue is worth a great many movies I've seen. The second is his narration of attack by sharks on a sinking ship during WWII. He really gives you the most engrossing sort of campfire story I think any film pulls off.
The background artists really make this film though. It truly is all about atmosphere. A couple problems with the non-descript and lackluster ending, which practically qualifies as a plot-hole.
The wisdom is a simple 9. It has a clear message: don't value economy and money over people's lives be cautious and respect the power of nature. But this seems something over-simplistic. It may not have been meant to teach a great lesson, but that seems like a bit of a flaw.
The ten here is for Spielberg and his ability to make a terrifying shark movie with so little shark. The little boy's flailing body and the red water bubbling under him is far more frightening than the best moments of the animatronic shark. That and John Williams, the absolute best for-screen composer ever. He is truly a magician. That 10 doesn't feel hard to justify. That is rare.
I hope those few who haven't seen this classic can get the bug, otherwise enjoy.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Shakespeare In Love** (1998) 9, 8, 9.5, 26.5
This film won Best Picture at the Oscars in '99. I don't agree with this, especially given the quality of its competition. It's on this, in part, that I'll try to base my review.
For wit, I'm going to give it a 9. I don't have a rating recorded for Life Is Beautiful (1997), but I can infer from my memory of it from at least four years ago the last time I saw it, a memory better than movies I saw last month, that it is at the very least a 9.5 for wit. That film is heartbreakingly funny and perfectly acted. Shakespeare In Love is by contrast of a considerably lower caliber in its humor and its pathos, this despite taking numerous lines from some of the better works of someone I think may be the greatest writer who ever lived, at least in his own language. I am annoyed by the low quality of some of the puns, not only anachronistic in the extreme, which is forgivable, but poorly constructed and unimaginative. I can only hope that the more tawdry bits don't come from Tom Stoppard, of whom I'm a fan. That said, some of the best bits are plays on Shakespearean in-jokes. I think its funny when Shakespeare clearly steals lines from the world around him. I like his interaction with Marlowe and John Webster.
I also think the acting is great. Tom Wilkinson stands out from the very beginning, really adding the umph from the supporting cast. His character's transformation and complexity are hilarious and heartwarming. Geoffrey Rush is as weasley as he's ever been yet endearing in his own way, especially when he ensures various characters that things will be alright, magically, somehow. Joe Roberts, the little boy who plays John Webster, is great, even if his character is overused. The wealth of great actors playing interesting characters is one of the movie's saving graces. Joseph Fiennes as a fun version of the Bard, Gwyneth Paltrow as a ridiculous lady-love, Martin Clunes as Burbage, Sandra Reinton as Rosalind, Simon Callow as the Master of Revels, Dami Judi as Elizabeth, Imelda Staunton as the Nurse, Colin Firth as Wessex, Ben Affleck as Ned Alleyn, Rupert Everett as Marlowe, Jim Carter as the man playing the Nurse. They all weave something beautiful and funny, even if it does get crowded.
Wisdom is a tricky point. Historical evidence, which as a Shakepeare enthusiast, I am far to aware of for a movie reviewer, continually shows that not only did most of Shakespeare's plays not come from life, their plots are almost always unoriginal and stolen and the lines are a result of the writing prowess of Shakespeare, not some magical muse who inspired him to write a great romance about teenagers in his late twenties, early thirties. This post-Romantic theory of authorial inspiration is even problematic when applied retrospectively to the Romantics themselves, how much more to people who preceded them by centuries? This and the insistently extra-marital inspiration for what Shakespeare chooses to make intra-marital sex scenes gives this film a sour taste as far as wisdom goes. For all that I still give it a 8, which puts it on par with something like Mammoth (2009), which displays some understanding of the world of extra-marital sex and international power relations, but still seems largely to miss the point.
For wonder, it doesn't seem overgenerous to give a 9.5. The spectacle is great on a lot of levels from dance to costume to setting. If not for the language, this movie might have been a great period piece.
Overall, this is not a high encouragement for those who haven't seen it to pick it up, but it still has a place in my heart next to Anonymous (2011), the even less plausible and more outlandish Oxfordian version of the Shakespeare story. They stand out as attempts to read Shakespeare differently, which though not always good reading, it rarely fails to make an interesting story.
For wit, I'm going to give it a 9. I don't have a rating recorded for Life Is Beautiful (1997), but I can infer from my memory of it from at least four years ago the last time I saw it, a memory better than movies I saw last month, that it is at the very least a 9.5 for wit. That film is heartbreakingly funny and perfectly acted. Shakespeare In Love is by contrast of a considerably lower caliber in its humor and its pathos, this despite taking numerous lines from some of the better works of someone I think may be the greatest writer who ever lived, at least in his own language. I am annoyed by the low quality of some of the puns, not only anachronistic in the extreme, which is forgivable, but poorly constructed and unimaginative. I can only hope that the more tawdry bits don't come from Tom Stoppard, of whom I'm a fan. That said, some of the best bits are plays on Shakespearean in-jokes. I think its funny when Shakespeare clearly steals lines from the world around him. I like his interaction with Marlowe and John Webster.
I also think the acting is great. Tom Wilkinson stands out from the very beginning, really adding the umph from the supporting cast. His character's transformation and complexity are hilarious and heartwarming. Geoffrey Rush is as weasley as he's ever been yet endearing in his own way, especially when he ensures various characters that things will be alright, magically, somehow. Joe Roberts, the little boy who plays John Webster, is great, even if his character is overused. The wealth of great actors playing interesting characters is one of the movie's saving graces. Joseph Fiennes as a fun version of the Bard, Gwyneth Paltrow as a ridiculous lady-love, Martin Clunes as Burbage, Sandra Reinton as Rosalind, Simon Callow as the Master of Revels, Dami Judi as Elizabeth, Imelda Staunton as the Nurse, Colin Firth as Wessex, Ben Affleck as Ned Alleyn, Rupert Everett as Marlowe, Jim Carter as the man playing the Nurse. They all weave something beautiful and funny, even if it does get crowded.
Wisdom is a tricky point. Historical evidence, which as a Shakepeare enthusiast, I am far to aware of for a movie reviewer, continually shows that not only did most of Shakespeare's plays not come from life, their plots are almost always unoriginal and stolen and the lines are a result of the writing prowess of Shakespeare, not some magical muse who inspired him to write a great romance about teenagers in his late twenties, early thirties. This post-Romantic theory of authorial inspiration is even problematic when applied retrospectively to the Romantics themselves, how much more to people who preceded them by centuries? This and the insistently extra-marital inspiration for what Shakespeare chooses to make intra-marital sex scenes gives this film a sour taste as far as wisdom goes. For all that I still give it a 8, which puts it on par with something like Mammoth (2009), which displays some understanding of the world of extra-marital sex and international power relations, but still seems largely to miss the point.
For wonder, it doesn't seem overgenerous to give a 9.5. The spectacle is great on a lot of levels from dance to costume to setting. If not for the language, this movie might have been a great period piece.
Overall, this is not a high encouragement for those who haven't seen it to pick it up, but it still has a place in my heart next to Anonymous (2011), the even less plausible and more outlandish Oxfordian version of the Shakespeare story. They stand out as attempts to read Shakespeare differently, which though not always good reading, it rarely fails to make an interesting story.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Iron Man 3* (2013) 9, 9, 9.5, 27.5
I know it's been forever since I wrote a review on here. I apologize. I have only seen one movie since my last review on March 19th. For those who know me, this is nearly unbelievable. But I am a grad student. And busy. I saw Warm Bodies (2013) and I liked it but never got around to reviewing it. See above about busyness. But here I return for the first of Marvel's Phase Two films. As a big fan of Marvel Comics and the Marvel Studios adaptations, I was surprised to find I did not have any ratings for any of the phase one films on my list, so I get to start from scratch here.
For those of you in America, this film comes out tomorrow, on my birthday and I hope you get to read this before you go see it. To begin with, after Iron Man 2 (2010), I was skeptical as to what good could come next. I have been a fan of Jon Favreau since Made (2001) and that movie alone proved to me that he could direct. I loved Iron Man (2008), but something was lost in the sequel. I don't blame Favreau, though I guess someone did. Not knowing the new director from Adam, I came in with a healthy skepticism. But it was confounded. Overall, if you're still on the fence, go. I'll try to elucidate the why if my solid word doesn't convince you.
For wit, I gave the film a 9. This is a standard. Maybe if it hadn't been so close to In the Name of the Father (1993), which I also gave a 9, I could have let it go higher, but comparing any actor to Daniel Day-Lewis is a losing game. A shining leading pair in Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow is certainly a plus. I don't mean to downgrade them. They are genuinely better than the core cast of The Dark Knight (2008). I don't say that lightly, but Christian Bale and Maggie Gyllenhaal genuinely don't make that movie and in this one, the leading pair are very strong, with hints of greatness. But like the aforementioned superhero powerhouse, it's the supporting cast that seals the deal. In this analogy, Don Cheadle and Jon Favreau are Gary Oldman, solid but not scene-stealers. The big three for me are Guy Pearce, Sir Ben Kingsley, and Ty Simpkins. That's going up. Who's Ty Simpkins? I'll get to him.
First, Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian. This is him at his Memento best. He really works his charm and his ability to be disgusting here. Appreciate it. Ben is the Mandarin and if you've seen the trailer, you ought to already be excited. But if your worried, as I was, that he seems very similar to Heath Ledger's Joker, you'll be pleasantly surprised, as I was. I won't ruin the twist, but it gives Sir Ben the chance to show his full range. Lastly, Ty. This little guy is probably my favorite part. A pretty minor character, but he has that essential point in Tony Stark's rebirth, a bit too much like The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but they do it their own way. Plus I've been reading some of the comic source material and who knows whether Matt Fraction or the Nolans wrote this first?
The writing is good, solid, but not nearly as fantastic and flawless as it could have been, but fun all the way through.
For wisdom, I opted for the 9. I don't think that Tony is the wisest character or even that his platitudes are ingenious, but I do think they are more or less correct. The message is simple and clear, exactly like most of these Marvel Studios films have been and there's nothing wrong with that. They lack the complexity and depth of the Dark Knight Trilogy, but I forgive them for failing to meet that awesome standard. The simple version of this films idea is reaping and sowing, karma. It is a truth of life that most of our problems end up being our fault, in one way or another. And this is played out like a morality play. Sweet and to the point with explosions. Just like a morality play.
Lastly, the explosions and the music and the special effects. It's all great and I hope you enjoy the sheer scale of it. Wonder is a 9.5 for all the enjoyable things that I can't be more specific about because I saw it a week ago. Enjoy! Why are you still reading this? It hasn't come out yet in your country? Sorry. Take your time.
For those of you in America, this film comes out tomorrow, on my birthday and I hope you get to read this before you go see it. To begin with, after Iron Man 2 (2010), I was skeptical as to what good could come next. I have been a fan of Jon Favreau since Made (2001) and that movie alone proved to me that he could direct. I loved Iron Man (2008), but something was lost in the sequel. I don't blame Favreau, though I guess someone did. Not knowing the new director from Adam, I came in with a healthy skepticism. But it was confounded. Overall, if you're still on the fence, go. I'll try to elucidate the why if my solid word doesn't convince you.
For wit, I gave the film a 9. This is a standard. Maybe if it hadn't been so close to In the Name of the Father (1993), which I also gave a 9, I could have let it go higher, but comparing any actor to Daniel Day-Lewis is a losing game. A shining leading pair in Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow is certainly a plus. I don't mean to downgrade them. They are genuinely better than the core cast of The Dark Knight (2008). I don't say that lightly, but Christian Bale and Maggie Gyllenhaal genuinely don't make that movie and in this one, the leading pair are very strong, with hints of greatness. But like the aforementioned superhero powerhouse, it's the supporting cast that seals the deal. In this analogy, Don Cheadle and Jon Favreau are Gary Oldman, solid but not scene-stealers. The big three for me are Guy Pearce, Sir Ben Kingsley, and Ty Simpkins. That's going up. Who's Ty Simpkins? I'll get to him.
First, Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian. This is him at his Memento best. He really works his charm and his ability to be disgusting here. Appreciate it. Ben is the Mandarin and if you've seen the trailer, you ought to already be excited. But if your worried, as I was, that he seems very similar to Heath Ledger's Joker, you'll be pleasantly surprised, as I was. I won't ruin the twist, but it gives Sir Ben the chance to show his full range. Lastly, Ty. This little guy is probably my favorite part. A pretty minor character, but he has that essential point in Tony Stark's rebirth, a bit too much like The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but they do it their own way. Plus I've been reading some of the comic source material and who knows whether Matt Fraction or the Nolans wrote this first?
The writing is good, solid, but not nearly as fantastic and flawless as it could have been, but fun all the way through.
For wisdom, I opted for the 9. I don't think that Tony is the wisest character or even that his platitudes are ingenious, but I do think they are more or less correct. The message is simple and clear, exactly like most of these Marvel Studios films have been and there's nothing wrong with that. They lack the complexity and depth of the Dark Knight Trilogy, but I forgive them for failing to meet that awesome standard. The simple version of this films idea is reaping and sowing, karma. It is a truth of life that most of our problems end up being our fault, in one way or another. And this is played out like a morality play. Sweet and to the point with explosions. Just like a morality play.
Lastly, the explosions and the music and the special effects. It's all great and I hope you enjoy the sheer scale of it. Wonder is a 9.5 for all the enjoyable things that I can't be more specific about because I saw it a week ago. Enjoy! Why are you still reading this? It hasn't come out yet in your country? Sorry. Take your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)