Blue Valentine is a beautiful and heartbreaking film by relative new-comer Derek Cianfrance. It is blue in tone and subject matter, but also in appearance. It is the story of Dean and Cindy (Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams) who meet and fall madly in lust and then start a family and then begin to dislike one another. It's a film about the beginning and end of a relationship - beginning and end because it is beautifully constructed where we see both story lines moving along together intermittently.
The film begins with Dean and Cindy in their (somewhat-suburban-looking) home looking after their little daughter Frankie (who seems to be about five or so). They seem to share the same space, but never totally connect. It is clear that Dean's approach to fatherhood is to be Frankie's best friend and to make her laugh. When it comes to eating breakfast, he wants to entertain her, while Cindy wants to be a responsible grown-up and wants her to eat. He really just wants to entertain everyone, considering charisma is really all he's dealing with. He's not a particularly smart guy, nor is he responsible. He's romantic, to a point, but also charming as hell.
Then there is a flash-back to maybe five or six years earlier, where both Dean and Cindy are single and embarking on their lives in different places. He gets a job as a mover in Williamsburg, Brooklyn and and she's a college student in Philadelphia looking to get an education and maybe go on to med school. The two meet by chance and he asks her out. She demurs, but ultimately accepts his offer; they fall madly for one another. Back in the present day, they are struggling to keep their family together, deciding they will go on a weekend sex jaunt to rekindle whatever low embers they might still have for one another.
More than anything, this film is about the two performances of the two lead actors. I think Gosling and Williams are two of the best actors of their generation (both are now 29). (Gosling is fabulous in Half Nelson and more fabulous in Lars and the Real Girl; Williams is amazing in Wendy and Lucy and also in the not-wonderful Mammoth) (Oh, and there's a very clever allusion to Wendy and Lucy in the opening of the film, if you've seen that one.) Both act from a very elemental, ground level position. Their actions are generated from the cores of their souls, rather than more method people who seem (to me) to act from the shoulders up. Both of them move along with a constant slow boil of energy, waiting to overflow the pot.
But Cianfrance's direction with writing by him, Joey Curtis and Cami Delavigne helps a lot too in setting a tone for the film. These people are sub-hipsters - they're not rich enough to be hipsters. Dean is a high school drop-out who moves from lifting boxes for a living to house painting; Cindy doesn't go to med school, but becomes a nurse and seems to be the responsible breadwinner in the family. Most of the scenes of the two of them are intimate and dark... and blue in color. When they get to their cheesy sex hotel, they're in a sci-fi-themed room that has a dark moonscape on the wall. Most of the shots here are with a handheld camera, putting us right in the middle of the action.
As heartbreaking as this film is, I found it less intense and a bit too cutesy with the formal construction. As an alternate presentation, I would offer Maren Ade's film from earlier this year, Everyone Else. I think in the long term, that film is more powerful and more deep-burning because it has no formal flair like this one has with the back-and-forth past-present stuff. There we see the couple madly in love at the beginning slowly falling out of love through the course of the film. We realize their relationship is over basically at the same time they realize it. I think this is more painful to experience (if we're judging effective filmmaking on painfulness). Here we see the relationship is basically over at the beginning and see how it got to that point. I think the former is more commanding.
There also is something annoyingly super hip here about the presentation, say, with the music. One of the main songs is Dean on a ukulele on the street serenading Cindy (early in their relationship) with You Always Hurt the One You Love (get it?! get it?!!) in a very Spike Jones style. Then there's the really, really, really wonderful Penny & The Quarters song You and Me (which I had never heard before, but LOVE!). Both of these are old-fashioned in an overly precious, hipsterish way. I think this almost hurts the cause of the film a bit by confusing us to think that Dean is a hipster... when, again, he's just honestly poor and wears ratty t-shirts because that's what he has available to him. Something doesn't work here for me about how he's very salt-of-the-earth and white trash, but he's also cute and likable because we could imagine hanging out with him on Bedford Ave with expensive mix drinks.
I'm being very picky, I know. There is a lot to like in this film and I appreciate the fresh voice Cianfrance gives us here. This is a very good film and is very powerful. The acting is amazing (I think Williams is a bit better than Gosling because she's not as showy) and the atmosphere is indelible. This is a film well worth watching (though I would still recommend one sees Everyone Else as well, as I think it is a more successful version of the same general story).
Stars: 3 of 4
Love Story etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
Love Story etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
30 Aralık 2010 Perşembe
29 Aralık 2010 Çarşamba
The Strange Case of Angelica (Wednesday, December 29, 2010) (166)
So, how many movies did you make last year? None? Oh, well, Manoel de Oliveira who just turned 102 made two movies. You suck, you lazy-ass loser!
Following on the heels of The Eccentricities of a Blond-Haired Girl, Oliveira comes back with The Strange Case of Angelica, a similarly magical, lyrical and lovely tale of love and loss. It is very similar to Eccentricities in its style and format, it also feels like a film version of a short story (though not as short as the former), and also stars leading man Ricardo Trepa.
He plays Isaac, a Jewish man with no traditional roots in a small coastal town. One night he's asked to visit the house of the village's wealthiest family and photograph their recently deceased twenty-something daughter. The moment he sees her in her death bad, he falls in love with her. When he takes her picture, he imagines she's looking right at him and smiling. He becomes obsessed with her and can't concentrate on his work without thinking of her. All he wants to do is spend eternity with her, but, of course, she's dead and he's living, so there are some basic problems with that idea.
The film is lovely and poetic in an unusually dramatic and beautiful way. Oliveira seems to have made a film that feels more 1920s than 2010s. He uses almost only static shots, perfectly composed and amazingly full of interest in life. Some shots go on for 10 or more minutes, most have action pass in front of them and tension arises when we don't know what is coming in front of the lens next. He does occasionally tilt the camera or crane it up, but these shots are few and far between. It feels like an UFA picture from before the sound era. Add a bit of wonderful color and you have almost the same film.
Oliveira also uses music in a wonderful way, with most of the score as a solo pianist playing mournful and sentimental tunes. The sounds work wonderfully as Isaac sadly suffers without the love of Angelica. Oliveira also uses traditional workman songs to break up the tone a bit. They give a wonderful texture to what we see on screen.
This feels to me to be a chicken and hare situation. Oliveira is clearly well established (he made his first film in 1931) and it seems like he's not running, but slowly walking here. He knows how to make an excellent movie; he's seen all the tricks and knows them well. He doesn't do anything flashy (other than some silly ghosty double exposure stuff), but he does it right and does it well.
I am very interested in the idea that this and Eccentricities are supposed to be viewed together or in close succession. That film dealt with the capriciousness of love and the fickleness of lovers. This film deals with the eternality of love and the deep, strong attachments people have to it - even if totally constructed in their heads.
I also wonder if Isaac in this film is Oliveira himself. The character is a man obsessed by photographic images of his lover. In the winter of his life (easy for me to say... he could live another 20 years at this rate), the director could be a man looking back at the photographs he's taken, having fallen in love with them. I think it is clearly significant that the man is a photographer.
I like how it is the same actor in both films and that he plays a different, but not totally dissimilar, characters in each. In Eccentricities he was a man shackled to his family and the role he was supposed to play in the greater story of his genetic line. Here he is an outsider (a Jew) who is somewhat not tied down by the heavy burden of local expectations. He is a total free agent without any duty. I think together the two films show us two sides of the same coin. Love can be fast and thoughtless and hard to figure out, or it can be deep and unwavering and without borders.
Stars: 3.5 of 4
29 Kasım 2010 Pazartesi
Inspector Bellamy (Monday, November 29, 2010) (150)
On it's surface, Claude Chabrol's Inspector Bellamy is a murder mystery investigation movie, a story of a cop who gets pulled out of his vacation and into a twisted tale of a crime of passion. It is really not that at all, but rather a tale of love, lust and aging, an examination of family ties and devotion to loved ones.
In Chabrol's final film (having died in September) we see Paul Bellamy (Gérard Depardieu), a famous detective who has written about his years on the police force, is on vacation with his wife Françoise in the South of France. He is contacted by a man who explains a very complicated romantic story involving the apparent murder of a homeless man, insurance fraud, facial reconstruction surgery, and a passionate extra-marital affair. The man hopes Bellamy can investigate his story and prove that he is not guilty of murder.
Bellamy is close to retirement and he and his wife are looking to spending more quiet time together, doing crossword puzzles and having dinner with friends. Bellamy's drunk, ne'er-do-well brother, Jacques, barges into their quiet life at this moment and begins to stir up their regular lives. Bellamy is a consummate cop, always digging, never trusting, never shitting down.
Depardieu gives one of his best performances, probably his best since his wonderful performance in Berri's Jean de Florette. He's an old man who still has a lot of life in him (and quite a sex drive). He's bitter and cynical, but very sympathetic and sometimes very funny.
We cannot forget that the film is the work of a master filmmaker. Chabrol takes the whole mystery genre and uses the structure as a McGuffin, a cinematic red herring. The film is not really a mystery at all (at least the mystery is rather the secondary story), but a story of a man coming to terms with the third season of his life and the messed-up nature of humanity. The script by Chabrol and Odile Barski is really wonderful, full of depth, love and humor.
Chabrol uses a wonderful a wonderful score written by his son Matthieu to set a rather sweet, nostalgic and light tone to the film. He uses lots of playful first-person point-of-view shots, somewhat ironically, as if we are Bellamy, walking through his house. The cinematography by Eduardo Serra is simple and straightforward, but very nice.
This film is really about nostalgia and old age, I think. It's about a man coming to terms with his own mortality, his own history and his own humanity. It has a slightly unusual structure (most of the film is the mystery story, but that is really the background), but is very sweet and interesting.
Stars: 3 of 4
In Chabrol's final film (having died in September) we see Paul Bellamy (Gérard Depardieu), a famous detective who has written about his years on the police force, is on vacation with his wife Françoise in the South of France. He is contacted by a man who explains a very complicated romantic story involving the apparent murder of a homeless man, insurance fraud, facial reconstruction surgery, and a passionate extra-marital affair. The man hopes Bellamy can investigate his story and prove that he is not guilty of murder.
Bellamy is close to retirement and he and his wife are looking to spending more quiet time together, doing crossword puzzles and having dinner with friends. Bellamy's drunk, ne'er-do-well brother, Jacques, barges into their quiet life at this moment and begins to stir up their regular lives. Bellamy is a consummate cop, always digging, never trusting, never shitting down.
Depardieu gives one of his best performances, probably his best since his wonderful performance in Berri's Jean de Florette. He's an old man who still has a lot of life in him (and quite a sex drive). He's bitter and cynical, but very sympathetic and sometimes very funny.
We cannot forget that the film is the work of a master filmmaker. Chabrol takes the whole mystery genre and uses the structure as a McGuffin, a cinematic red herring. The film is not really a mystery at all (at least the mystery is rather the secondary story), but a story of a man coming to terms with the third season of his life and the messed-up nature of humanity. The script by Chabrol and Odile Barski is really wonderful, full of depth, love and humor.
Chabrol uses a wonderful a wonderful score written by his son Matthieu to set a rather sweet, nostalgic and light tone to the film. He uses lots of playful first-person point-of-view shots, somewhat ironically, as if we are Bellamy, walking through his house. The cinematography by Eduardo Serra is simple and straightforward, but very nice.
This film is really about nostalgia and old age, I think. It's about a man coming to terms with his own mortality, his own history and his own humanity. It has a slightly unusual structure (most of the film is the mystery story, but that is really the background), but is very sweet and interesting.
Stars: 3 of 4
30 Eylül 2010 Perşembe
The Eccentricities of a Blond-Haired Girl (Thursday, September 30, 2010) (125)
Manoel de Oliviera made The Eccentricities of a Blond-Haired Girl when he was 100-years old (he's now 102). He started making movies in the 1930s in the silent era and is still working today. None of this really really means anything significant, but it's impressive as hell - especially considering how good a movie this is.
More than anything, this is a visual pleasure to behold. Oliviera's use of color, texture and scale is absolutely masterful, making this one of the most beautiful works I've seen in a long time. Based on a short story by Jose Maria de Eca de Queiroz, the 19th Century Portuguese novelist, this movie basically plays like a short story at only 64 minutes long. And like a good short story the economical use of dialogue, explication, detail and atmosphere is the key here.
Macario is a young accountant who works in his uncle's fabric store. At work above the shop one day he looks out the window and sees a girl in the window facing him across the street, Luisa, keeping cool by waving a fan on herself. At first he notices the fan, but then he notices the girl. She's only a few years younger than he is and is absolutely gorgeous. Immediately he falls in love with her.
After meeting her and meeting her family, he wants to ask her to marry him, but his traditional uncle doesn't want her to distract him from his work. The very conservative man feels that it is inappropriate for the two to date and also worries that he is not very good at his work and throwing a woman into his life might make him make more mistakes. He must prove to his uncle and to Luisa's family that he is a good, honest man who can take care of himself financially and use good judgment.
One thing that is a bit surprising about the film, but something that I really liked, is that the story is basically not updated at all from the old-fashionedness of the short story. We basically are watching a 19th Century story played out in modern times. The very mannered acting and dialogue underlines this point and shows how that much has changed in the world in the past 200 years, still some similar things remain.
There is a gorgeous quality to the photography here (by Sabine Lancelin) that has incredibly rich colors in each and ever shot - turning each set-up into a beautiful painting. This is not super intense colors, like you might find in a Fassbinder film, but rather single bold colors that fit in naturally to the other tones of a room or landscape. In some cases it's just a simple yellow curtain by the window in the corner, in other cases, it's the pinkish tone of a building exterior.
It seems like as much time went into showing amazing textures to us as well. One of my favorite elements in the film is the nearly-tactile travertine frame around the window that Luisa stands in. This beautiful texture meshes amazingly with the plaster wall of the building that surrounds it. Making this whole set-up even more wonderful size of the window (almost bigger than human-sized) and the frame the window creates within the overall shot. It's a simple thing, but it's absolutely gorgeous. If this were a painting in a museum it would be a masterpiece.
There is an interesting element of memory and idealization in this film that is very important. We see many wide-angle shots with incredibly deep focus. This reminds us of how deep memories go and how for Macario beautiful things (beautiful girls) can be idealized and remain perfect forever.
I appreciate how small and gentle this film is. It is technically tremendous but also has a beautiful, simple story as well.
Stars: 4 of 4
More than anything, this is a visual pleasure to behold. Oliviera's use of color, texture and scale is absolutely masterful, making this one of the most beautiful works I've seen in a long time. Based on a short story by Jose Maria de Eca de Queiroz, the 19th Century Portuguese novelist, this movie basically plays like a short story at only 64 minutes long. And like a good short story the economical use of dialogue, explication, detail and atmosphere is the key here.
Macario is a young accountant who works in his uncle's fabric store. At work above the shop one day he looks out the window and sees a girl in the window facing him across the street, Luisa, keeping cool by waving a fan on herself. At first he notices the fan, but then he notices the girl. She's only a few years younger than he is and is absolutely gorgeous. Immediately he falls in love with her.
After meeting her and meeting her family, he wants to ask her to marry him, but his traditional uncle doesn't want her to distract him from his work. The very conservative man feels that it is inappropriate for the two to date and also worries that he is not very good at his work and throwing a woman into his life might make him make more mistakes. He must prove to his uncle and to Luisa's family that he is a good, honest man who can take care of himself financially and use good judgment.
One thing that is a bit surprising about the film, but something that I really liked, is that the story is basically not updated at all from the old-fashionedness of the short story. We basically are watching a 19th Century story played out in modern times. The very mannered acting and dialogue underlines this point and shows how that much has changed in the world in the past 200 years, still some similar things remain.
There is a gorgeous quality to the photography here (by Sabine Lancelin) that has incredibly rich colors in each and ever shot - turning each set-up into a beautiful painting. This is not super intense colors, like you might find in a Fassbinder film, but rather single bold colors that fit in naturally to the other tones of a room or landscape. In some cases it's just a simple yellow curtain by the window in the corner, in other cases, it's the pinkish tone of a building exterior.
It seems like as much time went into showing amazing textures to us as well. One of my favorite elements in the film is the nearly-tactile travertine frame around the window that Luisa stands in. This beautiful texture meshes amazingly with the plaster wall of the building that surrounds it. Making this whole set-up even more wonderful size of the window (almost bigger than human-sized) and the frame the window creates within the overall shot. It's a simple thing, but it's absolutely gorgeous. If this were a painting in a museum it would be a masterpiece.
There is an interesting element of memory and idealization in this film that is very important. We see many wide-angle shots with incredibly deep focus. This reminds us of how deep memories go and how for Macario beautiful things (beautiful girls) can be idealized and remain perfect forever.
I appreciate how small and gentle this film is. It is technically tremendous but also has a beautiful, simple story as well.
Stars: 4 of 4
24 Eylül 2010 Cuma
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (Friday, September 24, 2010) (120)
OK - so this film is the sequel to Oliver Stone's 1987 movie Wall Street - but rather than calling it Wall Street 2 (or Wall Streetest?) Stone gave it a long title that basically means nothing. I never considered money to be able to sleep, so that now I find out it never sleeps I'm sorta like, "No duh, dude". Oh - and this movie is set during the 2008 Wall Street collapse, because, you know, there were greedy people then who made a lot of money on things failing and stuff. Ugh.
This is a pretty complicated story, so bear with me. Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf) works as a trader in an investment house that is basically Lehman Brothers. His father-figure and mentor is and old guy named Louis Zabel (Frank Langella) who also has a seat on the New York Fed Board (or something). His company is going down the tubes because of toxic assets and the Board is trying to help him sell it. Ultimately he jumps in front of a subway train and dies. Jake, a bit lost and sad because his girlfriend, Winnie Gekko (Carey Mulligan - yay two Carey Mulligan movies in a row!), is out of town working on her blog.
Jake meets Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas again) when he's on a book tour and gets to talking to him. It seems Winnie doesn't like her dad because he's an asshole and was locked up in jail when she was growing up. Gekko wants to get back with his daughter, so he makes a deal with Jake that he will help Jake take down Bretton James (Josh Brolin), a guy Gekko says led Zabel to kill himself (and also a guy Gekko himself had dealings with in the Bud Fox days). There are a bunch of crosses and double crosses and proposals and bankruptcies and pregnancies and nothing all that incredibly exciting.
This is really one of the worst scripts for a movie I can remember in a long time. Every line sounds like a canned cliche ready-made for a fortune cookie - not that that was not the case with the first Wall Street movie ("who am I?," Bud Fox asks looking off his midtown balcony).
The acting here is also pretty terrible, from LaBeouf, Douglas, Mulligan, Brolin, Langella - everyone. Because Stone is such an egomaniac, he has himself in two small cameo moments as well as Vanity Fair's Graydon Carter. (Was that a deal to get good press from VF? Ridiculous.) In the most surprising performance, Susan Sarandon, as Jake's mom who is under water on three houses on Long Island (Get it?! Oh, I get it!) is terrible and ridiculous beyond words here. She has a silly New Yawk accent and looks jittery and unhinged. Very sad.
Somehow Stone thought that we would forget what city the movie was set in, as every single scene begins with helicopter overhead shots of Manhattan (in the day, at night, downtown, uptown, midtown). It's really dumb and amateurish.
The only mildly good element in the film is that most of the music is from David Byrne's last album "Everything that Happens will Happen Today". It's weird to credit a director for using music from a two-year-old album, but it is good stuff and sounds better than the dialogue, so I guess we should be grateful.
Other than the use of old music, there is nothing good here. It's a sequel that is so dumb it ruins whatever good memories I have from the original (which was, honestly, not all that brilliant either). It would be like making a sequel to Citizen Kane if Rupert Murdoch were to die. I'm not interested in how you can oversimplify financial info, Oliver. Just tell a good story. I don't care that you think you once created this Harry Lime-like super-villain; Gordon Gekko is at best two-dimensional and not very interesting (if anything, Bud Fox was the interesting character in the first film, not Gekko). This is basically just big-scale public masturbation by Stone and not worth ever watching.
Stars: .5 of 4
This is a pretty complicated story, so bear with me. Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf) works as a trader in an investment house that is basically Lehman Brothers. His father-figure and mentor is and old guy named Louis Zabel (Frank Langella) who also has a seat on the New York Fed Board (or something). His company is going down the tubes because of toxic assets and the Board is trying to help him sell it. Ultimately he jumps in front of a subway train and dies. Jake, a bit lost and sad because his girlfriend, Winnie Gekko (Carey Mulligan - yay two Carey Mulligan movies in a row!), is out of town working on her blog.
Jake meets Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas again) when he's on a book tour and gets to talking to him. It seems Winnie doesn't like her dad because he's an asshole and was locked up in jail when she was growing up. Gekko wants to get back with his daughter, so he makes a deal with Jake that he will help Jake take down Bretton James (Josh Brolin), a guy Gekko says led Zabel to kill himself (and also a guy Gekko himself had dealings with in the Bud Fox days). There are a bunch of crosses and double crosses and proposals and bankruptcies and pregnancies and nothing all that incredibly exciting.
This is really one of the worst scripts for a movie I can remember in a long time. Every line sounds like a canned cliche ready-made for a fortune cookie - not that that was not the case with the first Wall Street movie ("who am I?," Bud Fox asks looking off his midtown balcony).
The acting here is also pretty terrible, from LaBeouf, Douglas, Mulligan, Brolin, Langella - everyone. Because Stone is such an egomaniac, he has himself in two small cameo moments as well as Vanity Fair's Graydon Carter. (Was that a deal to get good press from VF? Ridiculous.) In the most surprising performance, Susan Sarandon, as Jake's mom who is under water on three houses on Long Island (Get it?! Oh, I get it!) is terrible and ridiculous beyond words here. She has a silly New Yawk accent and looks jittery and unhinged. Very sad.
Somehow Stone thought that we would forget what city the movie was set in, as every single scene begins with helicopter overhead shots of Manhattan (in the day, at night, downtown, uptown, midtown). It's really dumb and amateurish.
The only mildly good element in the film is that most of the music is from David Byrne's last album "Everything that Happens will Happen Today". It's weird to credit a director for using music from a two-year-old album, but it is good stuff and sounds better than the dialogue, so I guess we should be grateful.
Other than the use of old music, there is nothing good here. It's a sequel that is so dumb it ruins whatever good memories I have from the original (which was, honestly, not all that brilliant either). It would be like making a sequel to Citizen Kane if Rupert Murdoch were to die. I'm not interested in how you can oversimplify financial info, Oliver. Just tell a good story. I don't care that you think you once created this Harry Lime-like super-villain; Gordon Gekko is at best two-dimensional and not very interesting (if anything, Bud Fox was the interesting character in the first film, not Gekko). This is basically just big-scale public masturbation by Stone and not worth ever watching.
Stars: .5 of 4
13 Ağustos 2010 Cuma
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Friday, August 13, 2010) (100)
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a wildly fun take on dating in the video-game age. Based on the graphic novels by Bryan Lee O'Malley, smartly adapted by Michael Bacall and video game/comic book lover Edgar Wright (whose Spaced series is totally brilliant and serves as a wonderful corollary to this film) and directed by Wright, this film is totally fresh and funny, taking itself seriously enough to connect with the characters, but being silly enough to know what its doing at all times.
Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a dorky bassist in a dorky emo punk rock band. He is in a year-long recovery from a long-term girlfriend who broke his heart when she dumped him. He starts seeing a girl much younger than him who becomes more of a buddy than a sexual partner (because she's too young for him). All of his band mates and friends mock him for his lame non-sexual relationship.
One day he meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who he falls in love with immediately. They go on a few dates and he soon learns that she has seven exes who she broke up with over the years. These exes have formed a league of villains whose mission it is to destroy Scott and re-take Ramona's heart.
On his team, Scott has his gay best friend, Wallace (Kieran Culkin), his sister, Stacey (Anna Kendrick) and a passel of hangers-on. As he fights successive exes, he is wrapped up in his own nerdy self-doubt and never totally confident in his actions. He's the anti-super hero and totally relatable every-man.
Typical of Wright's earlier work, this film uses 1980s and 1990s video game references throughout to enhance the dramatic moments. When he defeats each ex, their bodies turn into coins that he can collect to move up to a "new level". Small, clever details decorate each scene, so when he goes to take a leak in the bathroom, we see his "pee level" go from 10 to 0, or when he gets a jolt of self-confidence, he wins an "extra life".
Wright also uses a wonderful score by Nigel Godrich, a frequent collaborator of Radiohead and Beck, that uses 64-bit sound effects and musical cues to underline critical moments in the story. Perhaps it's a bit obvious to use Nintendo sound cards to make some of the music, but it still works well in this context.
Michael Cera is a bit annoying as an actor (and has super-annoying hair here) mostly because he plays the same dweeby role over and over again. He's always the less-than-confident-but-secretly-brilliant teen or twenty-something - and he remains that in this movie. But I think he's very sympathetic here and helps convey the emotional story very well. At one point he worries that because Ramona changes the color of her hair without much thought that she might be flaky and could dump him with as much thought as well. This is funny because we have all been in this position of self-doubt and vulnerability - and that is exactly who he is in every movie.
This is a very light and easy movie and a ton of fun. Wright has a fantastic ability to mix a geeky tech theme into a very realistic emotional world, making a story that is both reminiscent of childhood feelings of deficiency with a more heady barrage of cultural references. Even as a person who really never had a deep connection with video games or comic books, this film totally works for me. Dating is like a bad video game where you constantly just miss the ledge and always fall into the lava pool - but then you get a new life and begin again from the last saved level.
Stars: 3 of 4
Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a dorky bassist in a dorky emo punk rock band. He is in a year-long recovery from a long-term girlfriend who broke his heart when she dumped him. He starts seeing a girl much younger than him who becomes more of a buddy than a sexual partner (because she's too young for him). All of his band mates and friends mock him for his lame non-sexual relationship.
One day he meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who he falls in love with immediately. They go on a few dates and he soon learns that she has seven exes who she broke up with over the years. These exes have formed a league of villains whose mission it is to destroy Scott and re-take Ramona's heart.
On his team, Scott has his gay best friend, Wallace (Kieran Culkin), his sister, Stacey (Anna Kendrick) and a passel of hangers-on. As he fights successive exes, he is wrapped up in his own nerdy self-doubt and never totally confident in his actions. He's the anti-super hero and totally relatable every-man.
Typical of Wright's earlier work, this film uses 1980s and 1990s video game references throughout to enhance the dramatic moments. When he defeats each ex, their bodies turn into coins that he can collect to move up to a "new level". Small, clever details decorate each scene, so when he goes to take a leak in the bathroom, we see his "pee level" go from 10 to 0, or when he gets a jolt of self-confidence, he wins an "extra life".
Wright also uses a wonderful score by Nigel Godrich, a frequent collaborator of Radiohead and Beck, that uses 64-bit sound effects and musical cues to underline critical moments in the story. Perhaps it's a bit obvious to use Nintendo sound cards to make some of the music, but it still works well in this context.
Michael Cera is a bit annoying as an actor (and has super-annoying hair here) mostly because he plays the same dweeby role over and over again. He's always the less-than-confident-but-secretly-brilliant teen or twenty-something - and he remains that in this movie. But I think he's very sympathetic here and helps convey the emotional story very well. At one point he worries that because Ramona changes the color of her hair without much thought that she might be flaky and could dump him with as much thought as well. This is funny because we have all been in this position of self-doubt and vulnerability - and that is exactly who he is in every movie.
This is a very light and easy movie and a ton of fun. Wright has a fantastic ability to mix a geeky tech theme into a very realistic emotional world, making a story that is both reminiscent of childhood feelings of deficiency with a more heady barrage of cultural references. Even as a person who really never had a deep connection with video games or comic books, this film totally works for me. Dating is like a bad video game where you constantly just miss the ledge and always fall into the lava pool - but then you get a new life and begin again from the last saved level.
Stars: 3 of 4
22 Temmuz 2010 Perşembe
Around a Small Mountain (Thursday, July 22, 2010) (80)
I have written before about how much I've liked some of the new work by great French New Wave directors. That Agnes Varda, Alain Resnais, Jean-Luc Godard and Jacques Rivette are still working in their 70s and 80 is amazing by itself. Around a Small Mountain, sadly is not a wonderful film and suggests to me that Rivette might be on the way to losing his chops. It's wildly elliptical, with such a dull story that even if the narrative was clearer, it wouldn't even be that interesting.
One day Jane Birkin, Kate, is stuck on the side of the road with her SUV not running. A rich Italian man, Vittorio, pulls his Porsche up next to her and silently fixes her engine. He then drives off without any comment. She is pulling a circus tent as she works for a small troupe of clowns, acrobats and strongmen that plays through the the South of France. The Italian falls in with the circus, befriending the players in an effort to win Kate's heart.
Throughout the film, Rivette cuts several times to weird Brechtian sequences where the actors speak directly to us in the audience or have these weird mini-plays (on a stage with dramatic lighting) explaining background secondary stories. All of these seem like a bit much, as the whole film is so small, a good percentage of it becomes these meta-stories. They just didn't work for me.
I guess the story is rather sweet, if totally banal. The Italian man is rather lost in life, we have to imagine (though we find out almost nothing about him, really), and he feels safe and at home in the circus with other lost souls. I think my main objection is that the story never really develops very much. None of the characters grow or change and the fact that the story focuses on these particular scenes and days comes off as rather random. There is no real sense of forward movement or any kind of inertia.
It is clear that Rivette is a master. The Brechtian bits alone are daring and interesting (and I give all sorts of credit to any filmmaker who breaks rules). I just wanted a bit more. More of a story, more analysis of the characters, more of a conclusion. The film sorta ends with a silly open question that doesn't really go anywhere and this is frustrating more than thought-provoking.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
One day Jane Birkin, Kate, is stuck on the side of the road with her SUV not running. A rich Italian man, Vittorio, pulls his Porsche up next to her and silently fixes her engine. He then drives off without any comment. She is pulling a circus tent as she works for a small troupe of clowns, acrobats and strongmen that plays through the the South of France. The Italian falls in with the circus, befriending the players in an effort to win Kate's heart.
Throughout the film, Rivette cuts several times to weird Brechtian sequences where the actors speak directly to us in the audience or have these weird mini-plays (on a stage with dramatic lighting) explaining background secondary stories. All of these seem like a bit much, as the whole film is so small, a good percentage of it becomes these meta-stories. They just didn't work for me.
I guess the story is rather sweet, if totally banal. The Italian man is rather lost in life, we have to imagine (though we find out almost nothing about him, really), and he feels safe and at home in the circus with other lost souls. I think my main objection is that the story never really develops very much. None of the characters grow or change and the fact that the story focuses on these particular scenes and days comes off as rather random. There is no real sense of forward movement or any kind of inertia.
It is clear that Rivette is a master. The Brechtian bits alone are daring and interesting (and I give all sorts of credit to any filmmaker who breaks rules). I just wanted a bit more. More of a story, more analysis of the characters, more of a conclusion. The film sorta ends with a silly open question that doesn't really go anywhere and this is frustrating more than thought-provoking.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
12 Temmuz 2010 Pazartesi
Remember Me (Monday, June 12, 2010) (73)
Remember Me begins very well. There is a n'er-do-well kid Tyler Hawkins (Robert Pattinson) who bumps around Greenwich Village with a loser roommate drinking, working at the Strand and auditing classes at NYU. He and the roommate get arrested one night for talking back to a nasty cop and his rich dad (Pierce Brosnan) bails him out of the lock-up.
It seems he and his father don't get along well because his father is a sonofabitch and unloving. His family has been shattered by the suicide of his older brother several years before and all Tyler cares about now is his 11-year-old sister, Caroline (Ruby Jerins). When his roommate realizes that the daughter of the asshole cop, Ally (Emilie de Ravin), is a classmate of theirs, he gets Tyler to ask her out on a date, in hopes of getting revenge on her father. Of course the two fall madly in love with one another and their love story begins.
The script is pretty terrible. It's so recycled that you spend most of the film waiting for things you *know* are going to happen (like the big reveal when Tyler admits to Ally that he only asked her out to get back at her father, or the blow up when Tyler confronts his father for being a piece of shit). It's pretty awful.
Still, there are some moments in the film that I could only classify as *great*. After Tyler and Ally have sex, there is an overhead shot looking down at the two of them lying in bed (possibly an hour or so later). She rolls over to him and starts cuddling, and then they begin to go at it again. This might sound rather typical, but I gotta admit, I don't know if I've seen a frank sex moment like this in a long time (mostly on-screen sex is hot and then over and then a cut to the next scene). When real people (kids) have sex, they frequently cuddle after - and sometimes begin to go at it again.
As amazing as it sounds, the best thing in the film is the acting and the chemistry the actors have with one another. I have ranted in the past about how Robert Pattinson is a bad actor, but he is really believable and honest here. I totally bought that he is a semi-depressed kid looking for direction in his life. His loudest moments (like when he confronts his father about being a schmuck) are really good and reminiscent of Joaquin Phoenix at his best (or of Michael Shannon).
But more than his great performance is how he interacts with the other actors. He and Emilie de Ravin are absolutely magical together. They seem totally madly in love with each other. She's great too - though I only know her from Lost (where I thought she was generally overdone as the crazy Claire) and Brick (where she was good, but overshadowed by other more fantastic actors). Perhaps the most surprising acting comes from 11-year old Ruby Jerins. She's earnest and fragile and clearly very precocious. Her relationship with Pattinson is magnetic and fantastic. I look forward to seeing more from her in the future.
Of all the non-Americans playing New Yorkers here, surprisingly Brosnan (who I normally think is great) has the hardest time with his accent. He's supposed to have been born in Brooklyn, but his accent is somewhere between Ireland and the gutter. That's not the only problem with his character - he's totally ridiculously written. He's the worst father on earth and as a named partner of a law firm, is not able to get out of the office for a few minutes to go to his daughter's art show. This is so silly it's distracting. His character could have been a jerk without being this much of a jerk. This is just hard to buy.
But it does come back to the writing. The film has one of the worst endings in the history of cinema. It's cheap and ridiculous. There is no reason this couldn't just be a nice, if banal, love story. Instead it's a trite story with a horrible ending. How sad.
Stars: 2 of 4
It seems he and his father don't get along well because his father is a sonofabitch and unloving. His family has been shattered by the suicide of his older brother several years before and all Tyler cares about now is his 11-year-old sister, Caroline (Ruby Jerins). When his roommate realizes that the daughter of the asshole cop, Ally (Emilie de Ravin), is a classmate of theirs, he gets Tyler to ask her out on a date, in hopes of getting revenge on her father. Of course the two fall madly in love with one another and their love story begins.
The script is pretty terrible. It's so recycled that you spend most of the film waiting for things you *know* are going to happen (like the big reveal when Tyler admits to Ally that he only asked her out to get back at her father, or the blow up when Tyler confronts his father for being a piece of shit). It's pretty awful.
Still, there are some moments in the film that I could only classify as *great*. After Tyler and Ally have sex, there is an overhead shot looking down at the two of them lying in bed (possibly an hour or so later). She rolls over to him and starts cuddling, and then they begin to go at it again. This might sound rather typical, but I gotta admit, I don't know if I've seen a frank sex moment like this in a long time (mostly on-screen sex is hot and then over and then a cut to the next scene). When real people (kids) have sex, they frequently cuddle after - and sometimes begin to go at it again.
As amazing as it sounds, the best thing in the film is the acting and the chemistry the actors have with one another. I have ranted in the past about how Robert Pattinson is a bad actor, but he is really believable and honest here. I totally bought that he is a semi-depressed kid looking for direction in his life. His loudest moments (like when he confronts his father about being a schmuck) are really good and reminiscent of Joaquin Phoenix at his best (or of Michael Shannon).
But more than his great performance is how he interacts with the other actors. He and Emilie de Ravin are absolutely magical together. They seem totally madly in love with each other. She's great too - though I only know her from Lost (where I thought she was generally overdone as the crazy Claire) and Brick (where she was good, but overshadowed by other more fantastic actors). Perhaps the most surprising acting comes from 11-year old Ruby Jerins. She's earnest and fragile and clearly very precocious. Her relationship with Pattinson is magnetic and fantastic. I look forward to seeing more from her in the future.
Of all the non-Americans playing New Yorkers here, surprisingly Brosnan (who I normally think is great) has the hardest time with his accent. He's supposed to have been born in Brooklyn, but his accent is somewhere between Ireland and the gutter. That's not the only problem with his character - he's totally ridiculously written. He's the worst father on earth and as a named partner of a law firm, is not able to get out of the office for a few minutes to go to his daughter's art show. This is so silly it's distracting. His character could have been a jerk without being this much of a jerk. This is just hard to buy.
But it does come back to the writing. The film has one of the worst endings in the history of cinema. It's cheap and ridiculous. There is no reason this couldn't just be a nice, if banal, love story. Instead it's a trite story with a horrible ending. How sad.
Stars: 2 of 4
8 Temmuz 2010 Perşembe
Twilight Saga: Eclipse (Thursday, July 8, 2010) (70)
So this is the third installment of the Twilight movies and I'm pretty sure I'm happy I never read the books - and sorta regretting watching all the movies now. The story is going deeper and deeper into dull teeny melodrama, stuff that isn't even that fresh, with a story that is based on dumb stuff and ridiculous bad choices.
In this one, there is a mysterious band of wild young vampires on the loose in the Pacific Northwest killing people like crazy. It seems they might have designs on capturing Bella, though it is not totally clear why. Meanwhile, she is still moody and somehow is torn between vampire Edward (to whom she's engaged, more or less) and Native American wolf-boy Jacob, who basically can offer her nothing.
The Cullens, Edwards "family", are worried that if she is not made a vampire soon, the Volturi, the head king-judges of the vamp world, will be upset and seek to punish or kill her and them. They are also worried about this wild band of murdering vampires and arrange an elaborate battle with the young vampire army that is coming to take (or kill) Bella.
This whole story about the wild vampire army seems totally dumb and unnecessary, not to mention the fact that (sorry for the spoiler) the Cullens basically beat them all without even breaking a sweat. The reason for this fight in the first place is that Edward killed the boyfriend of some vampire chick in the first movie and she is getting revenge. To say this story line is tertiary would be an exaggeration. That is is brought up to the front so much is a mark of a terrible script and story.
That Bella has to decide between Jacob and Edward is dumb. She has basically never shown more than mere friendship to Jacob (ok, fine, they kisses a few times) and has always been in love with Edward. She says she's still totally in love with Edward, but Jacob doesn't believe her for some reason. Clearly all hell will break loose with the Volturi if she picks Jacob and doesn't become a vampire - but nobody ever breaks her options down like this. This is bad teen romantic melodrama at its worst.
Director David Slade (who previously did the indie piece Hard Candy, and that's about it) gives the film no particular look or feel at all. The first film had very nice photography and the second one had a nice indie rock soundtrack, but this one has neither. It's basically as dead as the story - just a lot of stuff happening on screen but not elegant or pretty or interesting at all.
Even worse than the writing is the acting. I don't know how this franchise could come out with three of the worst acting leads in a generation, but it has done just that. Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson are both laughable in their difficulty with basic emotions and line reading. Kristen Stewart rises to a new level of mediocrity with her craft. She is dead behind the eyes and doesn't even play a melancholy teen well. I hope to god that after this terrible series of films is done, Hollywood will wake up to the fact that she can't act and stop casting her in stuff. She's still young and if she keeps working for the rest of her life, it will be a very sad thing for me.
Stars: .5 of 4
In this one, there is a mysterious band of wild young vampires on the loose in the Pacific Northwest killing people like crazy. It seems they might have designs on capturing Bella, though it is not totally clear why. Meanwhile, she is still moody and somehow is torn between vampire Edward (to whom she's engaged, more or less) and Native American wolf-boy Jacob, who basically can offer her nothing.
The Cullens, Edwards "family", are worried that if she is not made a vampire soon, the Volturi, the head king-judges of the vamp world, will be upset and seek to punish or kill her and them. They are also worried about this wild band of murdering vampires and arrange an elaborate battle with the young vampire army that is coming to take (or kill) Bella.
This whole story about the wild vampire army seems totally dumb and unnecessary, not to mention the fact that (sorry for the spoiler) the Cullens basically beat them all without even breaking a sweat. The reason for this fight in the first place is that Edward killed the boyfriend of some vampire chick in the first movie and she is getting revenge. To say this story line is tertiary would be an exaggeration. That is is brought up to the front so much is a mark of a terrible script and story.
That Bella has to decide between Jacob and Edward is dumb. She has basically never shown more than mere friendship to Jacob (ok, fine, they kisses a few times) and has always been in love with Edward. She says she's still totally in love with Edward, but Jacob doesn't believe her for some reason. Clearly all hell will break loose with the Volturi if she picks Jacob and doesn't become a vampire - but nobody ever breaks her options down like this. This is bad teen romantic melodrama at its worst.
Director David Slade (who previously did the indie piece Hard Candy, and that's about it) gives the film no particular look or feel at all. The first film had very nice photography and the second one had a nice indie rock soundtrack, but this one has neither. It's basically as dead as the story - just a lot of stuff happening on screen but not elegant or pretty or interesting at all.
Even worse than the writing is the acting. I don't know how this franchise could come out with three of the worst acting leads in a generation, but it has done just that. Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson are both laughable in their difficulty with basic emotions and line reading. Kristen Stewart rises to a new level of mediocrity with her craft. She is dead behind the eyes and doesn't even play a melancholy teen well. I hope to god that after this terrible series of films is done, Hollywood will wake up to the fact that she can't act and stop casting her in stuff. She's still young and if she keeps working for the rest of her life, it will be a very sad thing for me.
Stars: .5 of 4
2 Temmuz 2010 Cuma
Mademoiselle Chambon (Friday, July 2, 2010) (63)
Madamoiselle Chambon opens with a delightful scene of a young husband and wife sitting in a park helping their son with his grammar homework. Being that its French grammar, the rules are complicated and impossible to follow. They all sit there scratching their heads as they try to parse a sentence. The boy, about 8 years old, ultimately comes up with the right answer after the father and mother both fail to get it. This sets up a beautiful story of a loving father who always try to do the right thing, until unexpected things get in the way.
The father, Jean (played by Vincent Lindon) is a stone mason who one day helps out his wife by picking up their son at school. As he arrives he sees the eponymous teacher, Véronique, (played by the lovely Sandrine Kiberlain) and pauses for a moment as he realizes he's attracted to her. She has a similar reaction to him, but that is that and he leaves with his son. She ultimately finds a way to be alone with him and the two have a few interactions filled with extreme sexual tension, but never fulfilled as they both know that an affair would be disastrous to his family. Still, they are magnetically drawn to one another and both are lost in their fantasies about the other.
The direction and writing by Stéphane Brizé is really wonderful (and it's extra special that she is from Rennes, a town I lives in during my junior year of high school). She allows the characters to sit and think for minutes on end - not allowing the shots to become uncomfortable, but letting us see their full thought process working inside their heads. This is a slow film with very little action, but it never gets dull. Both main characters are totally appealing and sympathetic. You can't blame them for falling in love, but also understand the difficult situation they are in. The beautiful long shots of them staring off into their deep thoughts make us feel closer to them. We all feel like we could be in such a situation in our own lives.
Of course a large part of the reason we can sympathize with them is that the acting is so fantastic. Vincent Lindon is wonderful as a loving father and husband who gets stuck in this world where he doesn't want to hurt his family, but doesn't want to live without Véronique either. There is a beautiful scene where he uncomfortably describing his work to the kids in the class. He is not used to talking about what he does and clearly is not much of a thinking man. He is immediately sympathetic, like a lost puppy out in the world for the first time.
Sandrine Kiberlain is equally fabulous in her role as the proud, strong-willed teacher who has a habit for leaving a town before she can make any connections, always trying to escape her over-bearing Parisian mother and her failed career as a violinist. She is also vulnerable emotionally, but also smart and forthright.
I think this film is an analysis of different kinds of people in France. We see that Jean and his family who live in the South are a tight unit (despite his cheating heart), where he and his wife will do anything for their son. They both work blue-collar jobs, but are proud and happy with a loving family (Jean takes care of his crotchety old father as well).
Véronique, who comes from Paris, is less outwardly expressive, even keeping her talent as a violinist to herself (clearly she's ashamed because she has disappointed her family to some degree). At one moment we hear an answering machine message from her mother who is arrogant, cold and judgmental - a far cry from Jean and his wife.
I think this is a beautiful film - and a very French one too. I love the long, long takes looking at Véronique thinking about what her next move might be, knowing that she and Jean have very limited options. The ending is a bit neat, but I think it's nice and works well with the story to that point. I think Brizé deserves a lot of credit for making such a beautiful, interesting film.
Stars: 3.5 of 4
The father, Jean (played by Vincent Lindon) is a stone mason who one day helps out his wife by picking up their son at school. As he arrives he sees the eponymous teacher, Véronique, (played by the lovely Sandrine Kiberlain) and pauses for a moment as he realizes he's attracted to her. She has a similar reaction to him, but that is that and he leaves with his son. She ultimately finds a way to be alone with him and the two have a few interactions filled with extreme sexual tension, but never fulfilled as they both know that an affair would be disastrous to his family. Still, they are magnetically drawn to one another and both are lost in their fantasies about the other.
The direction and writing by Stéphane Brizé is really wonderful (and it's extra special that she is from Rennes, a town I lives in during my junior year of high school). She allows the characters to sit and think for minutes on end - not allowing the shots to become uncomfortable, but letting us see their full thought process working inside their heads. This is a slow film with very little action, but it never gets dull. Both main characters are totally appealing and sympathetic. You can't blame them for falling in love, but also understand the difficult situation they are in. The beautiful long shots of them staring off into their deep thoughts make us feel closer to them. We all feel like we could be in such a situation in our own lives.
Of course a large part of the reason we can sympathize with them is that the acting is so fantastic. Vincent Lindon is wonderful as a loving father and husband who gets stuck in this world where he doesn't want to hurt his family, but doesn't want to live without Véronique either. There is a beautiful scene where he uncomfortably describing his work to the kids in the class. He is not used to talking about what he does and clearly is not much of a thinking man. He is immediately sympathetic, like a lost puppy out in the world for the first time.
Sandrine Kiberlain is equally fabulous in her role as the proud, strong-willed teacher who has a habit for leaving a town before she can make any connections, always trying to escape her over-bearing Parisian mother and her failed career as a violinist. She is also vulnerable emotionally, but also smart and forthright.
I think this film is an analysis of different kinds of people in France. We see that Jean and his family who live in the South are a tight unit (despite his cheating heart), where he and his wife will do anything for their son. They both work blue-collar jobs, but are proud and happy with a loving family (Jean takes care of his crotchety old father as well).
Véronique, who comes from Paris, is less outwardly expressive, even keeping her talent as a violinist to herself (clearly she's ashamed because she has disappointed her family to some degree). At one moment we hear an answering machine message from her mother who is arrogant, cold and judgmental - a far cry from Jean and his wife.
I think this is a beautiful film - and a very French one too. I love the long, long takes looking at Véronique thinking about what her next move might be, knowing that she and Jean have very limited options. The ending is a bit neat, but I think it's nice and works well with the story to that point. I think Brizé deserves a lot of credit for making such a beautiful, interesting film.
Stars: 3.5 of 4
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)