All French women are gorgeous and in all honesty I have a hard time watching a French film these days without falling in love with the lead starlet. Oh - and then there's Catherine Deneuve. There are no words do describe her magnificence. Now at 66, she remains on of the screens most gorgeous, most talented actors.
I realized after I got out of The Girl on the Train that my appreciation for Deneuve and the lead, Emilie Dequenne (hubba hubba), probably colored my view of the piece overall. It is a good movie, but there are some major problems with the script. Director and co-writer Andre Techine does a very nice job introducing stylized elements and music into the piece, but the story meanders in unnecessary directions until it finally settles on the real point at the end of the second act.
In the film, (which was based on a true story) young Jeanne lives at home with her mother in the Paris suburbs. She's totally beautiful and men hit on her constantly. One day on the train she meets a guy who sweeps her off her feet. He's a collegiate wrestler, is good looking and seems to have a good head on his shoulders. The two fall in love and move into a room over a garage where he gets a job as the night watchman. It soon comes out that the garage is a front for drug runners and when the boyfriend gets into trouble, Jeanne's life spins out of control.
Meanwhile, she and her mother are concerned about a rash of anti-Semitic attacks occurring on the RER train (they're Catholic, not Jewish, but they're still interested). The lawyer involved in these infractions is an old flame of Deneuve - and a rich an powerful man now. As her life begins to fall apart, Jeanne cuts and hits herself to claim that she too was attacked on the train because a group of youths thought she was Jewish. This brings the two old lovers back together to get to the bottom of the girl's story.
The problem is that there are about six movies buried in here. There is a story about Deneuve and her ex-beau-cum-rich-Jewish-lawyer; there is a story about a mother nagging her daughter about getting her life in order; there is a story about a young couple in love and things going bad for them; there is a story about the Jewish lawyer's son being a disappointment to him. It's just too much and not tight enough.
Techine has a really beautiful style (I also liked The Witnesses from 2008 as well). He uses pop music very well throughout, stopping the action to show people dancing to the radio (somewhat similar to what Cedric Klapisch does as well). There are a lot of stylized elements used throughout that are nice to see. This is a nice change, I think, from the very style-less, script-focused films that have come out of France in recent years (see: The Christmas Tale and The Summer Hours, both of which are virtually anonymous).
I think with a re-tooled scrip this could have been a really great movie. Instead it's good, but not great... except for the female actors who look amazing.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
31 Ocak 2010 Pazar
Creation (Sunday, January 31, 2010) (8)
This film tells the story of Charles Darwin's scientific research and journey of faith in advance of publishing his masterwork, On the Origin of Species. As he set out on his scientific studies, he was simply a curious researcher with a strong faith and loving wife. His daughter died tragically in the middle of his studies and he could not square the horrible malady she suffered with his understanding of God or the fact that what he saw on the ground led him to believe that plants and animals developed without divine assistance.
This created a tremendous amount of tension between him and his wife (a woman of unyielding faith), especially as his scientific colleagues were pressuring him to publish his findings after years of struggling with the ramifications.
The film, directed by Jon Amiel (with script from John Collee), is told in a terrible, choppy way, where Darwin's memories of his daughter, his fantasies of her still being alive and his present struggle are all inter cut to make figuring out the narrative mind boggling. It is not clear to me why the script couldn't have been more straightforward. There really isn't anything positive added to the film by this jumpy chronology and it's mostly just frustrating.
Paul Bettany, as Darwin, and Jennifer Connelly, as Mrs. Darwin, are both good in their roles, though it seems almost like they less important than the complicated script. Overall this is a disappointment of a movie. It's interesting from a historical point of view but it's a mess as a viewing experience.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
This created a tremendous amount of tension between him and his wife (a woman of unyielding faith), especially as his scientific colleagues were pressuring him to publish his findings after years of struggling with the ramifications.
The film, directed by Jon Amiel (with script from John Collee), is told in a terrible, choppy way, where Darwin's memories of his daughter, his fantasies of her still being alive and his present struggle are all inter cut to make figuring out the narrative mind boggling. It is not clear to me why the script couldn't have been more straightforward. There really isn't anything positive added to the film by this jumpy chronology and it's mostly just frustrating.
Paul Bettany, as Darwin, and Jennifer Connelly, as Mrs. Darwin, are both good in their roles, though it seems almost like they less important than the complicated script. Overall this is a disappointment of a movie. It's interesting from a historical point of view but it's a mess as a viewing experience.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
30 Ocak 2010 Cumartesi
Still Bill (Saturday, January 30, 2010) (6)
OK - let's face it - Bill Withers is one of the greatest singer-songwriters of the 20th Century. He basically didn't write any bad songs and most of his work is excellent. Ain't No Sunshine, Lovely Day, Sweet Wanomi, Grandma's Hands, Use Me, Lean on Me and Just the Two of Us are just a few of the amazing songs he wrote and performed for more than a decade. This documentary tells his story from being raised in rural West Virgina, to making aircraft toilets in California, to hitting big in the 1970s and ultimately moving out of the music business in the 1980s. Now in his 70s, he talks here frankly about his life choices and his career.
Withers has many deep thoughts throughout the film, talking about his dislike of the music industry white 'blacksperts' who think they understand R&B music better than black people do themselves and talking about his aversion to the 'fame game'. He says how 'on the way to wonderful you might pass through alright - and that might be as far as you go'. How clear and concise! He seems to lead a comfortable life in the hills above Los Angeles and certainly makes a good amount of money each year from publishing rights. He is a family man who has two kids that he loves dearly.
The film, directed by Damani Baker and Alex Vlack, sadly lacks any real structure and flails about with small episodes that don't totally connect well. This is especially apparent as it bounces back and forth between the past and the present. A strictly chronological narrative would have been much easier - even inter-cut with contemporary interviews.
The big questions for Withers since his departure from the music world has been whether or not he would write another hit song. In this film, he works with a young Latin artist, Raul Midon, to write a Spanglish song dedicated to a Cuban friend of his. The song is really not very good and this sequence is actually pretty annoying and they write this turd. This scene is especially bad in light of one that shortly follows it where Withers' daughter Kori sings a song she has written. She totally blows him out of the water as she sings a fantastic piece.
All of this seems to add up to nothing. Yes, it does illuminate stuff about a lesser known man, but it's not easy to get through and is frequently frustrating. I think the directors would have been well advised to start with a general idea of a structure and worked from there. It seems like they threw random scenes on screen with no regard for the flow or our reactions. It's very disappointing for a film about such a great musician. The best part of the movie is Withers' music. I think one would be better served by listening to his records rather than watching this movie.
Stars: 2 of 4
Withers has many deep thoughts throughout the film, talking about his dislike of the music industry white 'blacksperts' who think they understand R&B music better than black people do themselves and talking about his aversion to the 'fame game'. He says how 'on the way to wonderful you might pass through alright - and that might be as far as you go'. How clear and concise! He seems to lead a comfortable life in the hills above Los Angeles and certainly makes a good amount of money each year from publishing rights. He is a family man who has two kids that he loves dearly.
The film, directed by Damani Baker and Alex Vlack, sadly lacks any real structure and flails about with small episodes that don't totally connect well. This is especially apparent as it bounces back and forth between the past and the present. A strictly chronological narrative would have been much easier - even inter-cut with contemporary interviews.
The big questions for Withers since his departure from the music world has been whether or not he would write another hit song. In this film, he works with a young Latin artist, Raul Midon, to write a Spanglish song dedicated to a Cuban friend of his. The song is really not very good and this sequence is actually pretty annoying and they write this turd. This scene is especially bad in light of one that shortly follows it where Withers' daughter Kori sings a song she has written. She totally blows him out of the water as she sings a fantastic piece.
All of this seems to add up to nothing. Yes, it does illuminate stuff about a lesser known man, but it's not easy to get through and is frequently frustrating. I think the directors would have been well advised to start with a general idea of a structure and worked from there. It seems like they threw random scenes on screen with no regard for the flow or our reactions. It's very disappointing for a film about such a great musician. The best part of the movie is Withers' music. I think one would be better served by listening to his records rather than watching this movie.
Stars: 2 of 4
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009) (Saturday, January 30, 2010) (221)
This documentary shows the rise and fall of Daniel Ellsberg, the defense wonk who ultimately made the Pentagon Papers public, illuminating truths about the Vietnam War and how the defense department did not believe it was a winnable effort. The story focuses mostly on Ellsberg and his career path from the Defense Department to the RAND Corporation onto and off the ground in Vietnam and around the United States.
This is a very interesting story and one that the directors Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith tell very well. It could be rather complicated and difficult to understand, but here is told told in a straightforward, unflinching way. It lays out the complex diplomatic and military struggle as a clear narrative and shows that what Ellsberg did in outing the secret papers.
The biggest problem with the film is that it does show Ellsberg to be a contemporary superhero, which is somewhat hard to digest. He's shown as the only guy in the world who did this one heroic thing. He's also seen as a mad genius who risks his family's well being on this obsessive quest to tell the world what he learned. I would have much preferred a bit more restraint, possibly showing him as a career bureaucrat (which he was, albeit a well informed one with a good soul) who did a single daring thing. I don't need the hero worship - it's a bit silly. It also makes Ellsberg seems like a narcissist, which makes him harder to like.
This film is one of the five documentaries nominated for the feature doc category in the Oscars and it might be one of the best of that group (I did like Burma VJ and the Cove as well). Still, I wish the directors showed more of the contrary point of view, allowing me to see on my own that what Ellsberg did was a good thing (giving up state secrets and all).
More than anything, I appreciate how this is a subtle condemnation of Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, George Tenet and any number of Bush-era defenders who didn't speak up in the lead-up to the Iraq War, but sat silently in their offices. It doesn't matter that they now regret their silence. Today they are as guilty as Bush, I think. Ellsberg's story shows another path they could have taken.
Stars: 3 of 4
This is a very interesting story and one that the directors Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith tell very well. It could be rather complicated and difficult to understand, but here is told told in a straightforward, unflinching way. It lays out the complex diplomatic and military struggle as a clear narrative and shows that what Ellsberg did in outing the secret papers.
The biggest problem with the film is that it does show Ellsberg to be a contemporary superhero, which is somewhat hard to digest. He's shown as the only guy in the world who did this one heroic thing. He's also seen as a mad genius who risks his family's well being on this obsessive quest to tell the world what he learned. I would have much preferred a bit more restraint, possibly showing him as a career bureaucrat (which he was, albeit a well informed one with a good soul) who did a single daring thing. I don't need the hero worship - it's a bit silly. It also makes Ellsberg seems like a narcissist, which makes him harder to like.
This film is one of the five documentaries nominated for the feature doc category in the Oscars and it might be one of the best of that group (I did like Burma VJ and the Cove as well). Still, I wish the directors showed more of the contrary point of view, allowing me to see on my own that what Ellsberg did was a good thing (giving up state secrets and all).
More than anything, I appreciate how this is a subtle condemnation of Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, George Tenet and any number of Bush-era defenders who didn't speak up in the lead-up to the Iraq War, but sat silently in their offices. It doesn't matter that they now regret their silence. Today they are as guilty as Bush, I think. Ellsberg's story shows another path they could have taken.
Stars: 3 of 4
Off and Running (Saturday, January 30, 2010) (5)
The set-up for this documentary is fantastic: A black girl is adopted by a single Jewish lesbian who meets another single lesbian who has an adopted black son and the two settle in to a married life together in Brooklyn. They ultimately adopt a Korean son and live as a multi-ethnic upper-middle-class family with three self-identified Jewish children. At some point in her high school years, the girl, a nationally rated star track runner, discovers tidbits about her personal history and biological family who gave her up and begins to rebel against the loving mothers who raised her. Wow!
Sadly, the film does not live up to it's potential wonderfulness. Part of my problems are with the true history of the girl, Avery, and the fact that there is not a magical end to her personal story (the filmmakers had no control over this, of course), but part of my problem is that the film goes off track story-wise and veers in a direction it should not.
Avery is a gregarious, compelling young woman who speaks frankly about her feelings and thoughts on her story. We see her struggling with the desire to learn about her birth mother and her birth family, while remaining respectful to her adoptive mothers. Her mothers decided to put her into public high school after she spent her elementary years in a private Jewish day school. In public school, she looks like just another black girl - despite the fact that she is Jewish and has a more uncommon nuclear family story. As she develops a group of mostly black friends and an understanding of a shadow life she could have lived in Texas with her birth family, she struggles with her identity, which suddenly doesn't feel natural to her.
As this is happening, director Nicole Opper unwisely focuses on Avery's mothers who fight to understand their daughter's mindset. In the end, we only see Avery explaining her feelings in retrospect rather than as she is experiencing them (for all I know she wouldn't talk to the filmmaker as she was dealing with the situation - in any event, it feels strange). This movie is really Avery's story - so a whole act barely dealing with her (just dealing with her absence) doesn't really work well.
In my view, part of biographical documentary making is dumb luck - one needs the subject to have a good, compelling story and one cannot do anything if the story falls apart in the middle. That Avery makes tragic decisions cannot be changed by the filmmaker, but Opper or editor Cheree Dillon should have steered the story in a better direction. The focus on the mothers and the family is totally the filmmakers' fault - not that of Avery or any ethereal force.
Avery's mothers come off as aloof and somewhat unkind to the girl's delicate situation. This is also sort of unfair, I think, as I'm sure they are doing what they are doing because they're hurt, threatened and love their daughter deeply. Still, they come off as very white and superficial. Avery also comes off as foolish and rash. Again, I think a good amount of these feelings come from the true chronology itself, but I don't think it's all that fair to the people involved. Why do I want to watch a film where all the priciple people are unlikable?
All in all, I think this is a big wasted opportunity. This is a good example of a badly executed documentary. I this is also a good example of how a good editor can tell many stories with the good footage, some interesting and some off the mark. Unfortunately the story told here is not the best one, I think.
Stars: 1 of 4
Sadly, the film does not live up to it's potential wonderfulness. Part of my problems are with the true history of the girl, Avery, and the fact that there is not a magical end to her personal story (the filmmakers had no control over this, of course), but part of my problem is that the film goes off track story-wise and veers in a direction it should not.
Avery is a gregarious, compelling young woman who speaks frankly about her feelings and thoughts on her story. We see her struggling with the desire to learn about her birth mother and her birth family, while remaining respectful to her adoptive mothers. Her mothers decided to put her into public high school after she spent her elementary years in a private Jewish day school. In public school, she looks like just another black girl - despite the fact that she is Jewish and has a more uncommon nuclear family story. As she develops a group of mostly black friends and an understanding of a shadow life she could have lived in Texas with her birth family, she struggles with her identity, which suddenly doesn't feel natural to her.
As this is happening, director Nicole Opper unwisely focuses on Avery's mothers who fight to understand their daughter's mindset. In the end, we only see Avery explaining her feelings in retrospect rather than as she is experiencing them (for all I know she wouldn't talk to the filmmaker as she was dealing with the situation - in any event, it feels strange). This movie is really Avery's story - so a whole act barely dealing with her (just dealing with her absence) doesn't really work well.
In my view, part of biographical documentary making is dumb luck - one needs the subject to have a good, compelling story and one cannot do anything if the story falls apart in the middle. That Avery makes tragic decisions cannot be changed by the filmmaker, but Opper or editor Cheree Dillon should have steered the story in a better direction. The focus on the mothers and the family is totally the filmmakers' fault - not that of Avery or any ethereal force.
Avery's mothers come off as aloof and somewhat unkind to the girl's delicate situation. This is also sort of unfair, I think, as I'm sure they are doing what they are doing because they're hurt, threatened and love their daughter deeply. Still, they come off as very white and superficial. Avery also comes off as foolish and rash. Again, I think a good amount of these feelings come from the true chronology itself, but I don't think it's all that fair to the people involved. Why do I want to watch a film where all the priciple people are unlikable?
All in all, I think this is a big wasted opportunity. This is a good example of a badly executed documentary. I this is also a good example of how a good editor can tell many stories with the good footage, some interesting and some off the mark. Unfortunately the story told here is not the best one, I think.
Stars: 1 of 4
AVATAR İZLE FİLMİ FULL İZLEMEK İÇİN
JAMES CAMERON UN GİŞE REKORU KIRAN FİLMİ
AVTAR
AVTAR
Alternatif 1
videoweed izlemek için tıklayın
Alternatif 2
Novamov izlemek için tıklayın
Alternatif 3
Movshare izlemek için tıklayın
Çocuklar için Çizgilfilm - Alvin ve Sincaplar
HARİKA BİR ÇİZGİ FİLM
Alternatif 1
Videoweed izlemek için tıklayın
Alternatif 2
Movshare izlemek için tıklayın
29 Ocak 2010 Cuma
THE MESSENGER: The Film Babble Blog Review
THE MESSENGER (Dir. Oren Moverman, 2009)
There have been many movies in which we see Army men appear at folks' homes to give notice of the deaths of soldiers. It is usually a brief scene with little spoken, but here these men, in the form of Ben Foster as a Staff Sgt. recently deployed from Iraq, and Woody Harrelson as a Captain whose war was Desert Storm, get their own movie.
There have been many movies in which we see Army men appear at folks' homes to give notice of the deaths of soldiers. It is usually a brief scene with little spoken, but here these men, in the form of Ben Foster as a Staff Sgt. recently deployed from Iraq, and Woody Harrelson as a Captain whose war was Desert Storm, get their own movie.
Under Harrelson's gruff mentoring, Foster learns quickly that a stint as a member of the Casualty Notification service can be as almost as wrenching and painful as front line combat.
Harrelson deals with this by going by strict protocol. He sternly tells Foster to speak only to the next of kin and avoid physical contact: "In case you feel like offering a hug or something - don't". Foster replies "I'm not going to be offering any hugs, sir."
Foster's life in the downtime is pretty dire. He is love with a girl named Kelly (Jena Malone) who is marrying somebody else and he spends his time in his dark dumpy apartment drinking while blasting heavy metal music. He becomes infatuated with housewife Samantha Morton to whom he has delivered bad news.
Morton takes the news of her dead husband reasonably well, even shaking Foster and Harrelson's hands while saying: "I know this can't be easy for you". On their walk away from her, Harrelson calls this response "a first". Foster's infatuation with Morton is initially creepy - he sits in his car watching her through the window and he follows her at the mall. Once he makes contact with her some of the creepiness dissolves but uneasiness remains as they flirt on the faint edge of a relationship.
Morton's eyes hint at a back story that we never hear but we don't need to - the emotional terrain of lives lost and those left behind sets the film's entire tone. Unfortunately this semblance of a plot involving Morton is abandoned for a large chunk of THE MESSENGER.
Foster and Harrelson go off and get drunk, get in a fight, and crash former flame Malone's reception in a pointless display of untamed testosterone for too much of the sloppy narrative. This is a shame because Morton's scenes are the most moving. There are some other powerful passages in this film, mostly in the first half's house calls (Steve Buscemi has an intense cameo as a heartbroken father of a fallen son), but the film is too disjointed and detached to have the searing impact it aims for.
Moverman's movie just glosses the surface of the psyche of these disturbed men. Foster has proven time and time again that he has the chops to create fully realized characters - witness Six Feet Under and his scene stealing turn in 3:10 TO YUMA - but this soldier is just a sketch and so is its story. As a supporting player, Harrelson is on more solid ground but still suffers from familiarity - the older brother feel of his character is not unlike his turn in ZOMBIELAND.
Though I wasn't feeling it, THE MESSENGER is sure to be regarded as a noble effort. Its attempt to delve into this tense territory is admirable and its sincere tone is intact throughout its running time, but I was too often distracted by its shrugging sensibility in place of a statement.
Audiences of late have tended to stay away from downer Iraq war related film fare. This time out it's going to be especially hard to blame them.
More later...
No Impact Man: The Documentary (2009) (Friday, January 29, 2010) (220)
This film follows the year-long life experiment of Colin Beavan, the self-proclaimed No Impact Man, as he tries to avoid any carbon-based energy sources for an entire year. To do this he and his wife and baby daughter have to give up carbon-based things like electric lights, refrigerators, cars, elevators, televisions and supermarkets with their mass-produced food. (Special exceptions are made for a laptop, so Beavan can blog about his experience, and trains, so the family can travel to Upstate New York to visit organic farms. What would a self-imposed rule be without a few exceptions?)
We see chronologically how Beaven and his wife Michelle Conlin make behavioral changes to show they can live a no-impact life. Some of the sacrifices are easy (no TV, no junk food) and some are harder (no refrigerator), but the couple deals with the situation in a very grown-up way. They fight on camera, but make up on camera as well. At times they both seem unfair to the other and unfairly attacked by the other. It's as much an interesting relationship expose as it is an environmental one.
This is not a polemic - it merely shows one family's journey. At no point does Beaven suggest that everybody should do what his family is doing. This is simply a document of an experiment. (Not giving anything away, but there is a suggestion at the end that the family will keep some behaviors and give up others returning partly to life as it was before).
The film is also very unapologetic. Both Beaven and Conlin are aware that they seem like twee urban elitist eco-wonks and the reaction they get as they embark on their project is nothing if not negative, sarcastic and cynical. Beaven and family, who got a good amount of New York-based media attention during the project as a result of his blog, were featured in a New York Times article and many other eco-blogs (the fact that they were giving up toilet paper was the most talked-about element of the project). They talk openly about the criticism against them - and sometimes talk to those criticizing them. There is something very post-modern about the subjects of the documentary talking about how they are being portrayed in the documentary about themselves.
It is interesting to make a documentary about a blogger. There is really no need for it as it is simply media about media. All you need to do is read Beaven's blog and you will might understand much of what you get from the film. Still, there is a kindness and humanity to the movie that might not come across on the computer. Beaven is a good husband and father; Michelle is a good mother and wife. They struggle as individuals with their own pitfalls and struggle together as a unit.
It is a shame that film is called No Impact Man, a title that comes from the blog, because the film is really about a no impact family. This not only shows the non-carbon impact of the people, but also shows the no impactness of the relationship between the members as well. It shows us how in the middle of busy urban lives, there should be time to stop and smell the relative roses. Go to a park or a museum in the city; enjoy spending time with your family; share a dinner with friends and neighbors; enjoy life and, if possible, don't hurt Mother Earth. How nice.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
We see chronologically how Beaven and his wife Michelle Conlin make behavioral changes to show they can live a no-impact life. Some of the sacrifices are easy (no TV, no junk food) and some are harder (no refrigerator), but the couple deals with the situation in a very grown-up way. They fight on camera, but make up on camera as well. At times they both seem unfair to the other and unfairly attacked by the other. It's as much an interesting relationship expose as it is an environmental one.
This is not a polemic - it merely shows one family's journey. At no point does Beaven suggest that everybody should do what his family is doing. This is simply a document of an experiment. (Not giving anything away, but there is a suggestion at the end that the family will keep some behaviors and give up others returning partly to life as it was before).
The film is also very unapologetic. Both Beaven and Conlin are aware that they seem like twee urban elitist eco-wonks and the reaction they get as they embark on their project is nothing if not negative, sarcastic and cynical. Beaven and family, who got a good amount of New York-based media attention during the project as a result of his blog, were featured in a New York Times article and many other eco-blogs (the fact that they were giving up toilet paper was the most talked-about element of the project). They talk openly about the criticism against them - and sometimes talk to those criticizing them. There is something very post-modern about the subjects of the documentary talking about how they are being portrayed in the documentary about themselves.
It is interesting to make a documentary about a blogger. There is really no need for it as it is simply media about media. All you need to do is read Beaven's blog and you will might understand much of what you get from the film. Still, there is a kindness and humanity to the movie that might not come across on the computer. Beaven is a good husband and father; Michelle is a good mother and wife. They struggle as individuals with their own pitfalls and struggle together as a unit.
It is a shame that film is called No Impact Man, a title that comes from the blog, because the film is really about a no impact family. This not only shows the non-carbon impact of the people, but also shows the no impactness of the relationship between the members as well. It shows us how in the middle of busy urban lives, there should be time to stop and smell the relative roses. Go to a park or a museum in the city; enjoy spending time with your family; share a dinner with friends and neighbors; enjoy life and, if possible, don't hurt Mother Earth. How nice.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
27 Ocak 2010 Çarşamba
Four Seasons Lodge (2009) (Wednesday, January 27, 2010) (219)
Four Seasons Lodge is a small documentary about a Jewish Catskills bungalow camp where a group of several dozen Holocaust survivor families spend their summers. Now in their 70s, 80s and 90s, these men and women look back at their pre-War lives, reflect on the painful memories of life in the concentration camps and play politics in and around the community.
The summer the film was shot was an important one in its history as the members had previously voted to close and sell the camp to an outside group. As the summer proceeds, many of them have second thoughts despite the vocal grumblings of the camp president who spends his days doing upkeep on the failing infrastructure.
The structure of the film is very straightforward as we see the opening ceremony party on the first night of the summer and follow individual guests throughout getting each one's story. We see how each of these people survived their terrible histories and lived to create successful lives in the U.S. We see how some have re-married and some have created lives of mutual care with dear friends.
There is a certain comedic element to the film, which might on paper seem like a dramatic story. Both the camp president and superintendent are asked to work the entire day to make the fastidious guests happy. They constantly make faces at the camera and back-handed comments. All of this is done with love after twenty-some years of knowing everybody. Old people are funny - especially when dancing and telling jokes. There's something sweet and kitschy about the borscht-belty comedians and singers who come to the camp to entertain the people.
In the end, this is a cousin to films like A Walk on the Moon and Dirty Dancing, but not a replacement for them. This shows one reality of a camp in this region, but it is clearly a specific one connected to the Holocaust. The survivors each have their own stories and their own perspective on the War. This is a very nice film, if not totally brilliant.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
The summer the film was shot was an important one in its history as the members had previously voted to close and sell the camp to an outside group. As the summer proceeds, many of them have second thoughts despite the vocal grumblings of the camp president who spends his days doing upkeep on the failing infrastructure.
The structure of the film is very straightforward as we see the opening ceremony party on the first night of the summer and follow individual guests throughout getting each one's story. We see how each of these people survived their terrible histories and lived to create successful lives in the U.S. We see how some have re-married and some have created lives of mutual care with dear friends.
There is a certain comedic element to the film, which might on paper seem like a dramatic story. Both the camp president and superintendent are asked to work the entire day to make the fastidious guests happy. They constantly make faces at the camera and back-handed comments. All of this is done with love after twenty-some years of knowing everybody. Old people are funny - especially when dancing and telling jokes. There's something sweet and kitschy about the borscht-belty comedians and singers who come to the camp to entertain the people.
In the end, this is a cousin to films like A Walk on the Moon and Dirty Dancing, but not a replacement for them. This shows one reality of a camp in this region, but it is clearly a specific one connected to the Holocaust. The survivors each have their own stories and their own perspective on the War. This is a very nice film, if not totally brilliant.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
26 Ocak 2010 Salı
Serious Series Addiction: The Wire, Lost, & The Prisoner (1967)
-->
Despite this being “Film Babble Blog” I do babble about TV shows every now and then. This is one of those times.
I had only 2 New Year’s resolutions this year – to exercise more and to finish all 5 seasons of The Wire. I dug my wife’s old exercise bike out of the garage and set it in front of the TV so I could do both. I had begun The Wire sometime last year but put it on the back burner, not because I didn’t like it but because of the many movies that were ahead of it on my list of priorities.After hearing so many folks refer to it as “the greatest TV series ever” I decided it was time to fully see what all the fuss is about. Over the last few weeks I’ve been pedaling away on the bike devouring one episode after another of David Simon’s exemplary
I am now on season 5 episode 4 and have lost over 10 pounds in the process.
I learned that a friend of mine was also making his way through The Wire after he got the full series as a Christmas gift. Talking to him on IM he spoke of other friends that were catching the bug as well. Then, just this week, Onion AV head writer Nathan Rabin posted a piece for their ongoing “Better Late Than Never” feature about finally watching the show’s first season so it seems the show is slowly but surely searing its way into our collective pop culture psyche.
If you’ve never seen The Wire – it can be a daunting undertaking because it’s very complex with a lot of characters and can be hard to follow at first. It seemingly gives equal time to the good, the bad, and the ugly from sleazy politicians to the cops on the beat right down to the lowest level druggie scum with a level of authenticity that’s astounding. It stands with The Sopranos as a novelistic epic and as one of the most engrossingly addictive shows ever.
I noticed that J.J. Abrams’ popular FOX television show Lost was just added so since I’d never seen it I decided to give it a whirl.
Well, I’ve watched most of season 1 and while I certainly think it’s entertaining in a Gilligan's Island as if written by Stephen King way, I’m not sure if I’m going to keep on plowing through. With their 6th season starting next week, there’s no way I can catch up anytime soon and the idea of trying just tires me out thinking about it. But once I finish The Wire, who knows?
I’ve only watched a few episodes of the new Blu ray edition (very nice looking transfer) of the series and so far it’s been a real treat. Former spy Patrick McGoohan trapped in an idyllic seaside village in which large creepy white balls descend and suffocate those who try to escape, the show earns its cool cult status right from its snazzy swinging start. Check out its awesome opening sequence:
So those are some shows that have been keeping me from the movies lately. Don’t worry though - I’ve got some fine babble concerning actual films coming soon so please stay tuned.
More later...
24 Ocak 2010 Pazar
İzlediğiniz En İyi 5 Film
Arkadaşlar hayatınızda izlediğiniz en iyi beş filmi bizimle paylaşmanızı bekliyoruz. Filmlerin türü önemli değil.
NEWYORKTA BEŞ MİNARE VİDEOSU
MAHSUNUN YENİ FİLMİ KASIM 2010 DA SİNEMALARDA
MAHSUN KIRMIZIGÜL - MUSTAFA SANDAL - YAVUZ BİNGÖL
MAHSUN KIRMIZIGÜL - MUSTAFA SANDAL - YAVUZ BİNGÖL
Köpekbalığı ve Volkan Kızın Maceraları
SHARKBOY TAYLOR mex LAVA GİRL MACERALARI
3D GÖZLÜKLERİNİZLE İZLEYEBİLİRSİNİZ
3D GÖZLÜKLERİNİZLE İZLEYEBİLİRSİNİZ
Winx Club Filmi - Stella Miusa Tecna Flora
Kayıp Kırallağın Sırrı
Stella Miusa Tecna Layla Bloom ve Floranın Maceraları
Stella Miusa Tecna Layla Bloom ve Floranın Maceraları
21 Ocak 2010 Perşembe
A Life Of Quiet Desperation Fashionably Rendered
A SINGLE MAN (Dir. Tom Ford, 2009)
College professor George Falconer (Colin Firth) lives his life in a neat orderly manner. Every item is his home is arranged appropriately and every piece of clothing he wears is impeccably pressed.
Firth is living what Thoreau called a life of "quiet desperation" (a quotation our lead is undoubtedly aware of and not just because he teaches English) ever since his lover Jim (Matthew Goode - seen in flashbacks) of 16 years died in an automobile accident 8 months previous. It's Los Angeles 1962, in the days after the Cuban missile crisis, and the influence of beat culture is strong on Firth's students, but the fear of war and total annihilation is stronger. Firth's inner torment distances him from the communal worries of the day. From the outset of the film we see that he has decided to get through the routine of one last day before he takes his own life. He buys bullets for his handgun and tries to figure the best way to kill himself without leaving too big a mess for his maid.
Firth's dignity and poise is intact as he flirts with a Spanish hustler (Jon Kortajaren) in a liquor store parking lot and as he converses with one of his students (Nicholas Hoult) who may be interested in more than class consultation.
However Firth does lose his well cultivated composure during a dinner visit with long-time friend and ex-lover Charly (Julianne Moore) who has had a thing for him for years. Moore ponders the relationship he had with Jim; "wasn't it really just a substitute for something else?" Firth jumps up and exclaims: "There is no substitute for Jim anywhere!"
There is a washed out quality to the film - grey grainy tones make up most shots but color rushes in with red hues heightened when sensuality is implied. With such subtle touches abounding, it's a definitive "art film" that's an impressive debut for a Fashion Designer best known for magazine layouts. Firth's performance is an intensely nuanced balance of grace and pain. It's some of the sharpest acting out there now and it will be shocking if he's not nominated.
Maybe not an Oscar, but Ford's direction deserves notice too for it recalls the work of Julian Schnabel while showing its own promise in illustrative invention. Although a bit slow paced, A SINGLE MAN has its indulgences in check and is a quietly absorbing work of refined beauty. It's a passionate portrait of grief that knows that there isn't a substitute for a lost lover any more than there is a substitute for life.
More later...
19 Ocak 2010 Salı
My Fuhrer (2009) (Tuesday, January 19, 2010) (218)
The tag-line of this film is "The bastard love child of Chaplin's Great Dictator & Mel Brooks' The Producers". This is about right, although I think it's much closer to Brooks than Chaplin (and anyhow, the Chaplin film is not one of his best, aside from the iconic scene of the Hitlerian dictator bouncing an earth-like beach ball around the office).
It is a very weird, small comedy about a Jewish acting teacher who is hired by the Nazis to coach Hitler in preparation for a major speech he is giving in 1945. As the Nazi forces begin to lose in post-D-Day Europe, Hitler gets more and more depressed until he finally loses his speaking mojo. Goebbles, knowing the Fuhrer needs to address his people in order to restore some pride and joy in the country, takes Adolf Grunbaum out of the concentration camp and gets him to work with Hitler on his public delivery. Grunbaum is, of course, faced with the moral dilemma of helping his people's greatest enemy, but is taken in by Hitler's kindness to him and his almost pitiful innocence. He leverages his work to get his family our of the camps as well, but then faces pressure from them to take action to kill the dictator.
The tone of the movie is very strange. It's a very silly, over-the-top comedy that has some very sad, touching moments in it as well. Hitler is portrayed as a bumbling fool and an almost childlike relationship to the world. His high command keep information from him and spy through holes in paintings around the office wall. It is in fact a very Brooksian view of the guy - really he's just a punching bag, and we mostly laugh because we can laugh at him, rather than because his actions are necessarily funny or clever.
It is never clear that this story is either historical or fantasy - it doesn't go nearly as far as Inglorious Basterds in showing that it's all a big fake joke, but it also doesn't totally seem all that serious. Writer/director Dani Levy, a Jewish man from Switzerland, seems to be mostly retaliating over a grudge (OK, a grudge is not really what it is), more than giving us any real incisive critique or comedic piece.
Grunbaum is played by Ulrich Mühe (who beautifully played the Stasi agent from The Lives of Others a few years ago). He is very good, as are most of the other actors. But they are somewhat left out flapping in the wind with the film lacking much of a story. I didn't really feel there was anything for them to grab onto thematically or tonally throughout. Are all the characters other than Hitler supposed to be straight men and the whole thing is some massive joke (that goes rather above my head)? Are these great dramatic performances or comedic ones? This is mostly a silly and small movie - two adjectives that don't fit well naturally in connection to the Holocaust. I don't think it's terribly successful or insightful.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
It is a very weird, small comedy about a Jewish acting teacher who is hired by the Nazis to coach Hitler in preparation for a major speech he is giving in 1945. As the Nazi forces begin to lose in post-D-Day Europe, Hitler gets more and more depressed until he finally loses his speaking mojo. Goebbles, knowing the Fuhrer needs to address his people in order to restore some pride and joy in the country, takes Adolf Grunbaum out of the concentration camp and gets him to work with Hitler on his public delivery. Grunbaum is, of course, faced with the moral dilemma of helping his people's greatest enemy, but is taken in by Hitler's kindness to him and his almost pitiful innocence. He leverages his work to get his family our of the camps as well, but then faces pressure from them to take action to kill the dictator.
The tone of the movie is very strange. It's a very silly, over-the-top comedy that has some very sad, touching moments in it as well. Hitler is portrayed as a bumbling fool and an almost childlike relationship to the world. His high command keep information from him and spy through holes in paintings around the office wall. It is in fact a very Brooksian view of the guy - really he's just a punching bag, and we mostly laugh because we can laugh at him, rather than because his actions are necessarily funny or clever.
It is never clear that this story is either historical or fantasy - it doesn't go nearly as far as Inglorious Basterds in showing that it's all a big fake joke, but it also doesn't totally seem all that serious. Writer/director Dani Levy, a Jewish man from Switzerland, seems to be mostly retaliating over a grudge (OK, a grudge is not really what it is), more than giving us any real incisive critique or comedic piece.
Grunbaum is played by Ulrich Mühe (who beautifully played the Stasi agent from The Lives of Others a few years ago). He is very good, as are most of the other actors. But they are somewhat left out flapping in the wind with the film lacking much of a story. I didn't really feel there was anything for them to grab onto thematically or tonally throughout. Are all the characters other than Hitler supposed to be straight men and the whole thing is some massive joke (that goes rather above my head)? Are these great dramatic performances or comedic ones? This is mostly a silly and small movie - two adjectives that don't fit well naturally in connection to the Holocaust. I don't think it's terribly successful or insightful.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
Big Fan (2009) (Tuesday, January 19, 2010) (217)
Big Fan is a small gritty drama about a loser parking lot attendant (Patton Oswalt) who is obsessed with the New York Giants. He works nights and spends time in his booth listening to sports talk radio and writing long slams at the Giants' next opponents that he reads on air when he calls in to the show. One night, he sees his favorite player pumping gas near his house in Staten Island. He and his buddy follow the guy into Manhattan and into a strip club. When Oswalt approaches the player to talk to him, the player beats the crap out of him. Oswalt then has to decide whether he will press charges against the player and possibly hurt his beloved team by getting the player suspended.
The story is very clever, tight and follows a pretty honest, realistic path for any superfans around the world (I could easily see a similar story playing out in England with soccer or Canada with hockey, for instance). It moves along quickly and keeps a good pace throughout. There are a few details, though, in the script (or in the direction) that are frustrating and badly executed (like how Oswalt doesn't make his calls to the radio station from a mobile phone outside of his mother's house where he lives, rather than in his childhood bedroom where his mother can hear him and get upset that he's keeping her awake). This is the first directing gig for Robert D. Siegel (who also wrote this film as well as The Wrestler) and perhaps with a bit more time, small things like this will be ironed out in his work.
Oswalt's performance is really great (he had a fabulous 2009, by the way, with this and two supporting performances in Observe and Report and The Informant!). He is pitiful but likable and is totally convincing in his blind dedication to his team and his sad life. He knows it's sad, but it's good for him. He's lazy and somewhat limited, but he enjoys the power and attention he gets from his nightly talk radio calls. He likes being seen as someone who knows something about stuff and enjoys the power he feels from his minor celebrity with listeners.
I think part of what makes the movie enjoyable is that we all know people roughly like Oswalt. We see the guy at work with the football team flag or schedule; we know friends who travel out of town for their team (even for a sure loss); we know people who do fantasy leagues sports and are obsessed with minutiae of sports. This movie feels like a plausible scenario in the modern world of superfandom and it's intimate, small-budget look lends a nice patina to the little story.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
The story is very clever, tight and follows a pretty honest, realistic path for any superfans around the world (I could easily see a similar story playing out in England with soccer or Canada with hockey, for instance). It moves along quickly and keeps a good pace throughout. There are a few details, though, in the script (or in the direction) that are frustrating and badly executed (like how Oswalt doesn't make his calls to the radio station from a mobile phone outside of his mother's house where he lives, rather than in his childhood bedroom where his mother can hear him and get upset that he's keeping her awake). This is the first directing gig for Robert D. Siegel (who also wrote this film as well as The Wrestler) and perhaps with a bit more time, small things like this will be ironed out in his work.
Oswalt's performance is really great (he had a fabulous 2009, by the way, with this and two supporting performances in Observe and Report and The Informant!). He is pitiful but likable and is totally convincing in his blind dedication to his team and his sad life. He knows it's sad, but it's good for him. He's lazy and somewhat limited, but he enjoys the power and attention he gets from his nightly talk radio calls. He likes being seen as someone who knows something about stuff and enjoys the power he feels from his minor celebrity with listeners.
I think part of what makes the movie enjoyable is that we all know people roughly like Oswalt. We see the guy at work with the football team flag or schedule; we know friends who travel out of town for their team (even for a sure loss); we know people who do fantasy leagues sports and are obsessed with minutiae of sports. This movie feels like a plausible scenario in the modern world of superfandom and it's intimate, small-budget look lends a nice patina to the little story.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
SKOR PEŞİNDE - GERÇEKTEN GÜZEL FİLM
Hiç sıkılmadan ve gülerek izlediğim nadir gençlik filmlerinden biri. Kafa dağıtmak için bire bir. Herkese tavsiye ederim.
THE BOOK OF ELI: The Film Babble Blog Review
THE BOOK OF ELI (Dirs. Albert and Allen Hughes, 2010)
Here we go again with another cinematic rendering of a post apocalyptic world - apparently for those who thought THE ROAD didn't have enough action.
A bearded grizzled Denzel Washington walks the ashy terrain listening to Al Green on an old beat-up iPod and avoiding Road Warrior-ish highjackers hiding in the rubble.
When he is confronted by a crusty crew of them, we see that he is a machete-brandishing bad ass who leaves his attackers in a pile of their own limbs; SAMURAI ASSASSIN-style.
We only get a few hints as to what happened to the Earth. Washington mentions "the wars", "the flash" and at one point says "the sky opened up, the sun came down" so obviously they want to keep it vague. I can go along with that fine, but after hearing that it's been 30 winters since this all went down I couldn't get over wondering how he recharges that iPod battery.
On his journey west (post apocalyptic folk are always traveling to the Californian coast) Washington comes upon the supposed king of the crud covered thugs - an oily Gary Oldman (one of the only lively elements present) who chews the sleazy scenery as he seeks "the Book". The book is, of course, the Bible (The King James Version) and Washington has the last copy on his person and he ain't sharing it. He'll quote from it to Mila Kunis as one of Oldman's slaves, but he will not give it up to anybody.
Suffice to say this causes some friction. Friction in the form of gun battles with heavy artillery and yep, big explosions. Washington is determined and seemingly indestructible in his efforts to protect "the Book", but his real strengths as an actor are buried here.
Though Washington is one of the executive producers on this project, his role as the stoical Eli is stiff and passionless. He's one of the finest actors working today, but here his charisma is literally missing in action.
Despite this the movie itself should've gone for more mindless spectacle instead of the religious pretension it tries to pull off. Its hokey thematics bring to mind another post apocalyptic anomaly - THE POSTMAN. In Kevin Costner's notorious 1997 flop, a drifter finds a mailbag and sets about delivering the letters inside which in turn helps to rebuild society.
The Bible in THE BOOK OF ELI fulfills the same purpose - it's a glorified MacGuffin, but unlike most MacGuffins, it's importance grows in the last third of the film. Washington and the Hughes Brothers are reaching here to tell the story of a righteous prophet, and there are a few times where its sepia-tinted tones are appealing, but mostly the underwritten yet overdone enterprise loudly falls flat.
As a beginning of the year B-movie THE BOOK OF ELI is sure to make major bank from movie-goers looking for diversion. But stone cold boredom is what they're really going to get.
More later...
Here we go again with another cinematic rendering of a post apocalyptic world - apparently for those who thought THE ROAD didn't have enough action.
A bearded grizzled Denzel Washington walks the ashy terrain listening to Al Green on an old beat-up iPod and avoiding Road Warrior-ish highjackers hiding in the rubble.
When he is confronted by a crusty crew of them, we see that he is a machete-brandishing bad ass who leaves his attackers in a pile of their own limbs; SAMURAI ASSASSIN-style.
We only get a few hints as to what happened to the Earth. Washington mentions "the wars", "the flash" and at one point says "the sky opened up, the sun came down" so obviously they want to keep it vague. I can go along with that fine, but after hearing that it's been 30 winters since this all went down I couldn't get over wondering how he recharges that iPod battery.
On his journey west (post apocalyptic folk are always traveling to the Californian coast) Washington comes upon the supposed king of the crud covered thugs - an oily Gary Oldman (one of the only lively elements present) who chews the sleazy scenery as he seeks "the Book". The book is, of course, the Bible (The King James Version) and Washington has the last copy on his person and he ain't sharing it. He'll quote from it to Mila Kunis as one of Oldman's slaves, but he will not give it up to anybody.
Suffice to say this causes some friction. Friction in the form of gun battles with heavy artillery and yep, big explosions. Washington is determined and seemingly indestructible in his efforts to protect "the Book", but his real strengths as an actor are buried here.
Though Washington is one of the executive producers on this project, his role as the stoical Eli is stiff and passionless. He's one of the finest actors working today, but here his charisma is literally missing in action.
Despite this the movie itself should've gone for more mindless spectacle instead of the religious pretension it tries to pull off. Its hokey thematics bring to mind another post apocalyptic anomaly - THE POSTMAN. In Kevin Costner's notorious 1997 flop, a drifter finds a mailbag and sets about delivering the letters inside which in turn helps to rebuild society.
The Bible in THE BOOK OF ELI fulfills the same purpose - it's a glorified MacGuffin, but unlike most MacGuffins, it's importance grows in the last third of the film. Washington and the Hughes Brothers are reaching here to tell the story of a righteous prophet, and there are a few times where its sepia-tinted tones are appealing, but mostly the underwritten yet overdone enterprise loudly falls flat.
As a beginning of the year B-movie THE BOOK OF ELI is sure to make major bank from movie-goers looking for diversion. But stone cold boredom is what they're really going to get.
More later...
My Girlfriend Is An Agent || free download dvd movies
Runtime......: 113 Min
Genre........: Action | Comedy | Romance
Size.........: 1.45 GB
Source.......: DVD5 R3
Resolution...: 720x304
SA...........: BVOP: YES QPEL: NO GMC: NO
Framerate....: 23.976 NTSC
Video........: 1368 Kbps
Audio........: 448 Kbps
Language.....: Korean
Encoder......: oZi
Subtitles....: English - Korean
Description:
An international crime syndicate is plotting to steal a biochemical
weapon from Korea, and two secret agents have been deployed
to stop them - sultry super agent Soo Ji (Kim Ha Neul) and bumbling
rookie Jae Joon (Kang Ji Hwan). Soo Ji and Jae Joon are actually
former lovers who split bitterly because of Soo Ji's constant lying
to conceal her work. Now they're bickering away on the same
mission, still unaware of the other's true identity!
Download:
Code:
http://rapidshare.com/files/
287886604/My.Girlfriend.Is.An.Agent.
DVDRip.XviD-BiFOS.MtbX.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/287890010/
My.Girlfriend.Is.An.Agent.DVDRip.
XviD-BiFOS.MtbX.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/287891770/
My.Girlfriend.Is.An.Agent.DVDRip.
XviD-BiFOS.MtbX.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/287890520/
My.Girlfriend.Is.An.Agent.DVDRip.
XviD-BiFOS.MtbX.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/287890087/
My.Girlfriend.Is.An.Agent.DVDRip.
XviD-BiFOS.MtbX.part5.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/287897625/
My.Girlfriend.Is.An.Agent.DVDRip.
XviD-BiFOS.MtbX.part6.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/287890757/
My.Girlfriend.Is.An.Agent.DVDRip.
XviD-BiFOS.MtbX.part7.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/287887945/
My.Girlfriend.Is.An.Agent.DVDRip.
XviD-BiFOS.MtbX.part8.rar
Code:
http://www.mediafire.com/?e2dgxdexqq1
http://www.mediafire.com/?hcwmyrunnj9
http://www.mediafire.com/?dnotxmwit00
http://www.mediafire.com/?zypmrvwmzhc
http://www.mediafire.com/?4omgwhjewgm
http://www.mediafire.com/?j2ymnmmmt4n
http://www.mediafire.com/?k0ywymmi5tj
http://www.mediafire.com/?gwzndun2104
http://www.mediafire.com/?2gdxwtkzxqj
http://www.mediafire.com/?uj3tmzzi2ct
http://www.mediafire.com/?njaiqojhjmx
http://www.mediafire.com/?34vm2x05mmm
http://www.mediafire.com/?dilqzzhvozk
http://www.mediafire.com/?kih4n0ldoyl
The Princess and The Frog || free download dvd movies
The Princess and The Frog 2009 DVDRScreener x264 AVI 350MB
Download Here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MVDX0E3L
17 Ocak 2010 Pazar
The Best and Worst Films of 2009
So here it is - my Top Ten list for movies released in New York City in 2009. Out of 214 films seen in the year these are the best. Forgive me for listing so many honorable mentions, but I couldn't hold back and, hey - it's my freaking list, so I can do what I want. You might notice that some of the films did not necessarily get four stars from me when I first saw them. I guess I should say that some movie stick with me a bit longer than the time it takes to write the blog, some of them getting a bit better and more solid over time. I've linked to the reviews, when available. Of course films that I saw before June (before I began this blog) don't have reviews. I'm thrilled with this list - I think it was a pretty solid year for movies and these are all really fabulous.
Best Films of 2009
1) Police, Adjective
Best Films of 2009
1) Police, Adjective
2) Hunger
3) 24 City
4) The Sun
5) In a Dream
6) Katyn
8) Hurt Locker
9) Two Lovers
Honroable Mentions:
Medicine for MelancholyWorst Films of 2009
1) Julia2) Antichrist
3) Avatar
4) Tyson
5) Gamorrah
6) Lymelife
9) Orphan
THE LOVELY BONES: The Film Babble Blog Review
THE LOVELY BONES (Dir. Peter Jackson, 2009)
“I was fourteen years old when I was murdered on December 6th, 1973.” So says Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) at the beginning of this adaptation of Alice Sebold’s 2002 best seller. Ronan’s voice-over comes not from beyond the grave, but from she calls “the blue horizon between heaven and earth.” There’s no mystery to how she got there - a creepy neighbor (Stanley Tucci) in her family’s Norristown, Pennsylvanian suburb lured her into an underground bunker he built in a nearby field.
In the months afterwards her disappearance throws her parents (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz) into domestic disarray while her sister (Rose McIver) starts to suspect Tucci. Ronan, well cast with her ocean colored eyes, watches her family from the mythic realm, which is not unlike the vivid ultra-colorful heaven of WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, as she walks from one spectacular landscape to the next hoping to reconcile the messy end of her life and move on.
LORD OF THE RINGS visionary Peter Jackson keeps the camera moving with swooping crane shots and cuts with a good sense of juxtaposition, but the story is too drawn out to create much suspense. It’s an immaculately made movie, but it appears to be missing enough soul to really pull us in and make us care. It also suffers from a strongly misplaced thread involving Susan Sarandon as the Mrs. Robinson-esque alcoholic grandmother with her bouffant hair, mink coats, and always present cigarette dangling from her fingers. A montage in which she attempts to help out and clean house should’ve been edited out – I understand that they felt the film needed some sort of comic relief, but this really feels forced.
Though overwrought at times, Wahlberg puts in a decent performance, at least better than in THE HAPPENING, as the obsessed father who constantly calls upon an investigating detective (Michael Imperioli from The Sopranos) to run checks on every possible suspect.
It seems that they look into everybody in town before they get to Tucci, which is surprising since he lives across the street from the victim’s family. “These were the lovely bones that had grown around my absence: the connections - sometimes tenuous, sometimes made at great cost, but often magnificent.” Ronan’s concluding musings are apt, for there is magnificence in this film - visually speaking that is.
Otherwise, the connections are too tenuous and its pace is too plodding. I haven't read the book on which it's based, but I suspect that its most stirring passages were too cerebral to be translated to the big screen.
At least as far as this film adaptation goes, THE LOVELY BONES is sadly a supremely unsatisfying experience.
More later...
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)