So we've come to that part of the year where we are less than a week away from the Academy Awards and it is time for me to lay down some predictions. By this point every critic in the country has announced his or her predictions of who will win and who should win an Oscar in every category and Premiere Magazine even interviewed several people who got to vote and revealed who these three nameless individuals voted for and why. Fairly interesting. Anyway, I have a difficult time separating the will and the should and all I'm left with are my picks.
Best Picture: Million Dollar Baby
In my mind Clint Eastwood's film blows everything else out of the water. It gives the viewer an emotional wallop and combines great performances with a script that did not change once during production (rare) and direction where less truly is more. The movie has an unfounded controversy regarding the third act which to me is based more on a reviewer disagreeing with the actions of a character and then suggesting that the movie supports and promotes that viewpoint. I don't think it does. I think the wrong choice was made, but that it was the choice these characters would have made.
Best Director: Clint Eastwood
Sure, Martin Scorsese has never won a Best Director Oscar, and was perhaps unfairly shut out for Raging Bull and Goodfellas (in particular Raging Bull). Sure, Eastwood has won before. But if we are judging the movie itself and the work the director did to bring it to life, Eastwood has to win over Scorsese. I'd love to see Scorsese win an Oscar, but not for The Aviator. The movie wasn't as good as Million Dollar Baby and I don't think his work was as good as Eastwood's. Besides, Alfred Hitchcock never won Best Director and nobody thinks less of him.
Best Actor: Jamie Foxx
Is there any doubt about this? As far as I can tell Foxx became Ray Charles. I didn't get any sense of Jamie Foxx on screen until Ray took off his glasses late in the movie. Great performance. My heart, however, lies with Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda.
Best Actress: Hilary Swank
She's going to join the multiple Oscar winner's club and for this and Boys Don't Cry, Swank was overwhelmingly powerful and sympathetic. From what I've heard, Annette Bening is being overrated in Being Julia in a role that isn't great in a film that wasn't that good. I'll be watching it from Netflix in the near future, but I dont' see how Swank can be overlooked. She was just that good.
Best Supporting Actor: Clive Owen
Odds are Morgan Freeman will win this one and Thomas Haden Church may be the other contender, but Clive Owen in Closer was stunning. He was brimming with raw masculinity and passion and proved himself a man where Jude Law was just a boy. As there were no lead roles in Closer, Owen could have been Best Actor rather than Supporting, but then Jude Law was also a supporting player. I have to pick Owen because he was just so stinking good in this movie, but watch Morgan Freeman pick up the award for his typically solid work in Million Dollar Baby. Freeman is always good.
Best Supporting Actress: Virginia Madsen
Cate Blanchett may very well win for The Aviator, but Madsen truly was the heart of Sideways. She made a good movie even better and without Madsen I don't think Sideways would have been nearly as good or as sympathetic as it turned out to be. As much as I like Natalie Portman and would be happy if she wins, I think Virginia Madsen truly deserves this award. Hopefully this will help turn her career around and more of these roles will be offered to her. Side note: Sandra Oh, Madsen's costar was not nominated here but did quite a good job in Sideways. Great ensemble cast there.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
X-Files
TNT has been showing re-runs of the X-Files weekly. They've been airing starting on tuesday night at 11 pm through wednesday morning at 4 or 5 am, and then four more episodes in the wee hours of thursday morning. Typically about ten episodes a week. What is good about this is that the episodes have been airing in consecutive order. So, when I started recording them on the DVR starting with Season 4 I've been able to watch them in the original broadcast order and work my way through the storylines of the show.
I'm midway through Season 8 right now and have been fairly well immersed in the X-Files for a couple of months now. I have some 17 episodes currently recorded and needing to be watched, plus the episodes coming this week. After next week I should have all the episodes recorded and will be able to finally chip away at my recorded list. Until now it seems I've just been replacing the episodes I watch in a week with the new ones that come the next week. It's been a neverending cycle which has kept my DVR's memory at close to 90% capacity every week.
It'll be a little sad when this is all done because it is an excellent show, but it will give me the chance to get back to the shows I have coming from Netflix. I'm part of the way through the mini-series From the Earth to the Moon, plus i need to get back into Alias, 24, Angel, The Sopranos, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Shows that I want to start include Firefly, The West Wing, Six Feet Under, and Band of Brothers. I've got quite a bit I want to watch here.
Season 8 is an interesting season for the X-Files. Mulder(David Duchovney)is essentially out of the show and will barely make appearances for the rest of the run (as I understand it). Introducing John Doggett (Robert Patrick) as a new agent is growing on me and he's doing a great job, but his role has pretty well reversed the dynamic of the duo where Mulder was believing in everything supernatural (and often being right) and Scully (Gillian Anderson) needs the scientific proof. The roles are reversed and Scully is playing Mulder's role (she is uneasy in it, but has seen too much over seven years with Mulder) and Doggett doesn't believe. It works, but it isn't the same, and I know that we're going to get another agent, Reyes, at some point which probably means less Scully. Scully has always been the heart of the show and we've seen the mysteries and conspiracies from her eyes. That'll be a little strange. I'm mostly curious as to how this will all get wrapped up (well, that and if there really will be a second X-Files movie).
I'm midway through Season 8 right now and have been fairly well immersed in the X-Files for a couple of months now. I have some 17 episodes currently recorded and needing to be watched, plus the episodes coming this week. After next week I should have all the episodes recorded and will be able to finally chip away at my recorded list. Until now it seems I've just been replacing the episodes I watch in a week with the new ones that come the next week. It's been a neverending cycle which has kept my DVR's memory at close to 90% capacity every week.
It'll be a little sad when this is all done because it is an excellent show, but it will give me the chance to get back to the shows I have coming from Netflix. I'm part of the way through the mini-series From the Earth to the Moon, plus i need to get back into Alias, 24, Angel, The Sopranos, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Shows that I want to start include Firefly, The West Wing, Six Feet Under, and Band of Brothers. I've got quite a bit I want to watch here.
Season 8 is an interesting season for the X-Files. Mulder(David Duchovney)is essentially out of the show and will barely make appearances for the rest of the run (as I understand it). Introducing John Doggett (Robert Patrick) as a new agent is growing on me and he's doing a great job, but his role has pretty well reversed the dynamic of the duo where Mulder was believing in everything supernatural (and often being right) and Scully (Gillian Anderson) needs the scientific proof. The roles are reversed and Scully is playing Mulder's role (she is uneasy in it, but has seen too much over seven years with Mulder) and Doggett doesn't believe. It works, but it isn't the same, and I know that we're going to get another agent, Reyes, at some point which probably means less Scully. Scully has always been the heart of the show and we've seen the mysteries and conspiracies from her eyes. That'll be a little strange. I'm mostly curious as to how this will all get wrapped up (well, that and if there really will be a second X-Files movie).
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Oscar Season
Is there really a better time of the year for movies than Oscar Season? Not in my book. For whatever reason, all of the best movies come out in September through February (some movies get a limited release in December just to qualify for the Oscars, then open wide later). It's how I get to see Hotel Rwanda and Million Dollar Baby on consecutive weekends and that is priceless.
But what I really like about this time of the year is just that because of all of the award shows leading into the Oscars, there is a lot of discussion about movies. Sure there is discussion all year, but how much do I really want to hear about The Day After Tomorrow and Eurotrip?
It's all about the Oscars. What are the chances of the actor I like scoring a nomination? In the case of Natalie Portman, apparently very good. Will Scorsese finally win Best Director? I hope not. Is there a better movie this year than Million Dollar Baby? No, but Hotel Rwanda, Maria Full of Grace, and Closer were all excellent. Will Hilary Swank win a second Best Actress Oscar and deny Annette Bening a second time? I hope so.
It'll keep me up and in front of the tv watching all 6 hours of the Academy Awards television broadcast while I should be sleeping because I have to work the next day.
And then it'll keep me mentally complaining for the next couple of months (or years if I think about Titanic winning Best Picture over L.A. Confidential).
But what I really like about this time of the year is just that because of all of the award shows leading into the Oscars, there is a lot of discussion about movies. Sure there is discussion all year, but how much do I really want to hear about The Day After Tomorrow and Eurotrip?
It's all about the Oscars. What are the chances of the actor I like scoring a nomination? In the case of Natalie Portman, apparently very good. Will Scorsese finally win Best Director? I hope not. Is there a better movie this year than Million Dollar Baby? No, but Hotel Rwanda, Maria Full of Grace, and Closer were all excellent. Will Hilary Swank win a second Best Actress Oscar and deny Annette Bening a second time? I hope so.
It'll keep me up and in front of the tv watching all 6 hours of the Academy Awards television broadcast while I should be sleeping because I have to work the next day.
And then it'll keep me mentally complaining for the next couple of months (or years if I think about Titanic winning Best Picture over L.A. Confidential).
Movie Review: Million Dollar Baby (2004)
A film by Clint Eastwood
The more I think about this movie, the more I love it. I am fully convinced that Clint Eastwood is becoming a better filmmaker with each passing year.
Million Dollar Baby is a movie about Frankie (Eastwood), a grizzled old "cut-man" who owns a boxing gym. He is the type of man who was old school when the old school was new school. Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) is a woman who wants Frankie to train her as a boxer, but being old school, Frankie won't. She's paid her dues at the gym for the next six months, so he'll let her stay, but he's not going to train her.
But because there won't be much of a movie if he doesn't, he does decide to train her. Maggie is all guts and determination and she really doesn't have anything else going for her in her life. Her family would be the definition of white trash, and Maggie is only one small but important step away from that. She has desire to be more.
To say more would really spoil the feel of this movie. Routinely funny and moving, "Million Dollar Baby" is a nearly perfect movie. Wherever you think the movie is going to go, it doesn't go there. "Million Dollar Baby" is not a movie about boxing, it is a movie about a boxer. There is a significant difference and the difference is likely what makes this movie so good.
Morgan Freeman, Hilary Swank, and Clint Eastwood all turn in what may be the best work of their career and that is saying something. Everyone feels absolutely perfect as their characters and Swank in particular does a fantastic job in becoming Maggie Fitzgerald. It doesn't feel like Swank is playing a role, it feels like she is Maggie. The other women who Swank boxes against do a great job making Swank look like the real deal, so the praise really goes to everybody in the movie.
There are difficult decisions made in this movie and each one falls in line with what the characters might actually do. "Million Dollar Baby" does not take a wrong step once and this is a movie that actually surpasses any hype it has been given.
Grade: A
The more I think about this movie, the more I love it. I am fully convinced that Clint Eastwood is becoming a better filmmaker with each passing year.
Million Dollar Baby is a movie about Frankie (Eastwood), a grizzled old "cut-man" who owns a boxing gym. He is the type of man who was old school when the old school was new school. Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) is a woman who wants Frankie to train her as a boxer, but being old school, Frankie won't. She's paid her dues at the gym for the next six months, so he'll let her stay, but he's not going to train her.
But because there won't be much of a movie if he doesn't, he does decide to train her. Maggie is all guts and determination and she really doesn't have anything else going for her in her life. Her family would be the definition of white trash, and Maggie is only one small but important step away from that. She has desire to be more.
To say more would really spoil the feel of this movie. Routinely funny and moving, "Million Dollar Baby" is a nearly perfect movie. Wherever you think the movie is going to go, it doesn't go there. "Million Dollar Baby" is not a movie about boxing, it is a movie about a boxer. There is a significant difference and the difference is likely what makes this movie so good.
Morgan Freeman, Hilary Swank, and Clint Eastwood all turn in what may be the best work of their career and that is saying something. Everyone feels absolutely perfect as their characters and Swank in particular does a fantastic job in becoming Maggie Fitzgerald. It doesn't feel like Swank is playing a role, it feels like she is Maggie. The other women who Swank boxes against do a great job making Swank look like the real deal, so the praise really goes to everybody in the movie.
There are difficult decisions made in this movie and each one falls in line with what the characters might actually do. "Million Dollar Baby" does not take a wrong step once and this is a movie that actually surpasses any hype it has been given.
Grade: A
Monday, January 31, 2005
Mini-Review: The Station Agent (2003)
Not to be harsh, but I only knew this movie as the one starring a dwarf where I believe Patricia Clarkson was nominated for an Oscar. I wasn't too interested in seeing it at the time, but since I'm trying to see all those critically acclaimed movies of 2003 so I can finally finish my top 10 list and be honest about it, I rented this from Netflix.
It's a story about Fin (Peter Dinklage, i believe), a dwarf who used to work in a model train shop until his friend, the owner dies. Fin inherits from his friend an old train depot in New Jersey and he goes to live there by himself.
What follows is a slow moving, gradual picture of his life and how Fin builds a friendship with a very outgoing guy named Joe, and a woman named Olivia (Clarkson).
It's a story about Fin (Peter Dinklage, i believe), a dwarf who used to work in a model train shop until his friend, the owner dies. Fin inherits from his friend an old train depot in New Jersey and he goes to live there by himself.
What follows is a slow moving, gradual picture of his life and how Fin builds a friendship with a very outgoing guy named Joe, and a woman named Olivia (Clarkson).
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Movie Review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
A film by Michel Gondry
From the very creative mind of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman comes "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", one of the best movies of 2004. The narrative is kind of disjointed, but that is par for the course with a Kaufman script. The first scenes of the movie are really from quite a bit later chronologically, but at first we do not know quite how these first scenes fit into the story or why. Not long into the movie we learn that Joel (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet) had a relationship, but when it ended Clementine decided to have a new procedure done which can remove a person's memories of another person (or another thing). So, as far as Clementine now knows, she and Joel have never met. When Joel learns about this he has the same procedure done to remove all memories of Clementine.
At this point, the movie loses all sense of chronology, but it is makes more sense. The following scenes are Joel's memories as they are being erased, so his unconscious is reliving the memories and remembering both the good and the bad of his relationship with Clementine. At some point Joel decides that these are memories he doesn't want to lose. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is a very original look at love and relationships and what it could mean to really try and make a relationship work. The film is uncompromising in how it reveals Joel and Clementine, but at the same time it is very tender and sweet. Co-starring Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood, and Kirstin Dunst, the movie never makes a wrong turn. With a subject that could easily have mad a very bad movie, Michel Gondry instead makes a very good one. In a refreshing change of pace Jim Carrey plays the straight man to Kate Winslet's far crazier Clementine.
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is one of the most original, well acted, and simply excellent movies of the year. It deserves a place on any critics Top 10 list and is well worth watching. Grade: A-
From the very creative mind of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman comes "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", one of the best movies of 2004. The narrative is kind of disjointed, but that is par for the course with a Kaufman script. The first scenes of the movie are really from quite a bit later chronologically, but at first we do not know quite how these first scenes fit into the story or why. Not long into the movie we learn that Joel (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet) had a relationship, but when it ended Clementine decided to have a new procedure done which can remove a person's memories of another person (or another thing). So, as far as Clementine now knows, she and Joel have never met. When Joel learns about this he has the same procedure done to remove all memories of Clementine.
At this point, the movie loses all sense of chronology, but it is makes more sense. The following scenes are Joel's memories as they are being erased, so his unconscious is reliving the memories and remembering both the good and the bad of his relationship with Clementine. At some point Joel decides that these are memories he doesn't want to lose. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is a very original look at love and relationships and what it could mean to really try and make a relationship work. The film is uncompromising in how it reveals Joel and Clementine, but at the same time it is very tender and sweet. Co-starring Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood, and Kirstin Dunst, the movie never makes a wrong turn. With a subject that could easily have mad a very bad movie, Michel Gondry instead makes a very good one. In a refreshing change of pace Jim Carrey plays the straight man to Kate Winslet's far crazier Clementine.
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is one of the most original, well acted, and simply excellent movies of the year. It deserves a place on any critics Top 10 list and is well worth watching. Grade: A-
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Movie Review: The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
A film by Roland Emmerich
Yes, "The Day After Tomorrow" is the latest in a long tradition of disaster movies and it managed to spawn the rather dreadful television movie "Category Six". The premise here is that after decades (centuries, even) of devastating the environment through industry the world is facing a climate shift. Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) is a scientist who has been warning anyone who will listen that we have to start thinking about the future right now and not leave the Earth a worse mess for future generations to deal with after it is too late. Hall believes that similar, severe climate shifts have happened several times throughout the history of this planet. In Jack's prediction, however, he admits that this may be decades if not centuries away. For there to be any sort of a movie, however, we know that this drastic climate shift is about to happen in the immediate future.
Jack Hall is dismissed by the Dick Cheney look-a-like Vice President, but from the beginning of the movie we have been seeing some strange weather. The air temperature dropped so quickly over Scotland that helicopters little froze in midair and dropped. The pilots also physically froze in place. Maybe cryogenics will be able to help them out in the future. Likewise, there are reports of bizarre weather all over the planet and it is becoming apparent that something is very wrong. Not too far into the movie government officials start believing Jack and have Jack and his staff work out a forecast model for what this storm is going to do. The only potential forecast that Jack has is what he believes happened tens of thousands of years ago. With this forecast he sees that the climate shift is going to be harsher and quicker than anyone would imagine possible.
"The Day After Tomorrow" is not just about death and destruction and pretty special effects, but there is a side-story revolving around his son, Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal). Sam is a high school student and is incredibly bright. He is in New York City for some sort of a Quiz Bowl Championship. On his team is a girl he is very interested in named Laura (Emmy Rossum), but he is too shy/scared to talk about his feelings for her. When the climate shift occurs, they are trapped in New York after the city floods, then freezes. From talking to his father, Sam knows that the deep freeze which knocked out the helicopters is headed for New York and anyone caught outside will not survive it.
As good of a job as Emmy Rossum did in "The Phantom of the Opera" she is given nothing to do here other than be the love interest of Sam, and this entire subplot is unnecessary. Honestly, most viewers know that these disaster movies are never very good, but we watch them to see wanton destruction and some special effects. Surprisingly, the discussion about what is going on with the weather is actually interesting and is one of the better parts about the movie. I think it is because the characters are taking the issue seriously and there is nothing campy or horribly unrealistic about it. If the absurd is taken seriously, the absurd becomes believable. But even that pales in the absurdity of Jack trying to travel from Washington D.C. to New York City to rescue Sam after the Climate Shift and before the Hard Freeze. That part is just too absurd for words.
Dennis Quaid is a very good actor and his work puts this whole discussion into the realm of the believability, and I have been enjoying his recent work since "The Rookie". Gyllenhaal is a bit old for his role here, but he is fine as is Rossum who has nothing to do. The reason we watch this movie, however, is the destruction. It looks good (well, as good as the destruction of our planet can look). The trouble is just that all of the climate stuff is done in the first half of the movie, so that the rest of it is just anti-climactic.
A movie like "The Day After Tomorrow" makes me wonder what happens after the movie ends. What happens to all these people now that the climate has stabilized? Is there is a shift in ecological responsibility? Will there be new world powers since half of America (and Europe) is under ice? Of course, the movie doesn't answer the questions, but it is something to think about after the movie is over. The reason I think about the questions is also because the movie itself wasn't that good. It isn't supposed to be, or, at least I don't think it is supposed to be good. It is a special effects bonanza in the tradition of disaster movies. In that sense, it is no worse than anything that has come before and it looks better (though "Deep Impact" is still far superior to any recent disaster movie). If you like disaster movies (despite their lack of narrative or performance quality), then this should be entertaining. If you want an Oscar Caliber film, then look elsewhere. Grade: C-.
Yes, "The Day After Tomorrow" is the latest in a long tradition of disaster movies and it managed to spawn the rather dreadful television movie "Category Six". The premise here is that after decades (centuries, even) of devastating the environment through industry the world is facing a climate shift. Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) is a scientist who has been warning anyone who will listen that we have to start thinking about the future right now and not leave the Earth a worse mess for future generations to deal with after it is too late. Hall believes that similar, severe climate shifts have happened several times throughout the history of this planet. In Jack's prediction, however, he admits that this may be decades if not centuries away. For there to be any sort of a movie, however, we know that this drastic climate shift is about to happen in the immediate future.
Jack Hall is dismissed by the Dick Cheney look-a-like Vice President, but from the beginning of the movie we have been seeing some strange weather. The air temperature dropped so quickly over Scotland that helicopters little froze in midair and dropped. The pilots also physically froze in place. Maybe cryogenics will be able to help them out in the future. Likewise, there are reports of bizarre weather all over the planet and it is becoming apparent that something is very wrong. Not too far into the movie government officials start believing Jack and have Jack and his staff work out a forecast model for what this storm is going to do. The only potential forecast that Jack has is what he believes happened tens of thousands of years ago. With this forecast he sees that the climate shift is going to be harsher and quicker than anyone would imagine possible.
"The Day After Tomorrow" is not just about death and destruction and pretty special effects, but there is a side-story revolving around his son, Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal). Sam is a high school student and is incredibly bright. He is in New York City for some sort of a Quiz Bowl Championship. On his team is a girl he is very interested in named Laura (Emmy Rossum), but he is too shy/scared to talk about his feelings for her. When the climate shift occurs, they are trapped in New York after the city floods, then freezes. From talking to his father, Sam knows that the deep freeze which knocked out the helicopters is headed for New York and anyone caught outside will not survive it.
As good of a job as Emmy Rossum did in "The Phantom of the Opera" she is given nothing to do here other than be the love interest of Sam, and this entire subplot is unnecessary. Honestly, most viewers know that these disaster movies are never very good, but we watch them to see wanton destruction and some special effects. Surprisingly, the discussion about what is going on with the weather is actually interesting and is one of the better parts about the movie. I think it is because the characters are taking the issue seriously and there is nothing campy or horribly unrealistic about it. If the absurd is taken seriously, the absurd becomes believable. But even that pales in the absurdity of Jack trying to travel from Washington D.C. to New York City to rescue Sam after the Climate Shift and before the Hard Freeze. That part is just too absurd for words.
Dennis Quaid is a very good actor and his work puts this whole discussion into the realm of the believability, and I have been enjoying his recent work since "The Rookie". Gyllenhaal is a bit old for his role here, but he is fine as is Rossum who has nothing to do. The reason we watch this movie, however, is the destruction. It looks good (well, as good as the destruction of our planet can look). The trouble is just that all of the climate stuff is done in the first half of the movie, so that the rest of it is just anti-climactic.
A movie like "The Day After Tomorrow" makes me wonder what happens after the movie ends. What happens to all these people now that the climate has stabilized? Is there is a shift in ecological responsibility? Will there be new world powers since half of America (and Europe) is under ice? Of course, the movie doesn't answer the questions, but it is something to think about after the movie is over. The reason I think about the questions is also because the movie itself wasn't that good. It isn't supposed to be, or, at least I don't think it is supposed to be good. It is a special effects bonanza in the tradition of disaster movies. In that sense, it is no worse than anything that has come before and it looks better (though "Deep Impact" is still far superior to any recent disaster movie). If you like disaster movies (despite their lack of narrative or performance quality), then this should be entertaining. If you want an Oscar Caliber film, then look elsewhere. Grade: C-.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Movie Review: The Aviator (2004)
A film by Martin Scorsese
I go into a Martin Scorsese picture hoping to have my expectations blown away. With classic films like "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" Scorsese was still able to exceed expectations and a lesser work such as "Bringing Out the Dead" was far better than expected. There is always the potential for greatness with Scorsese, and I always hope for the best but expect something less. "Gangs of New York" did not deliver. With "The Aviator" critics were once again saying this could be the year for Scorsese, this could be the picture. It's not. "The Aviator" is a biopic focusing on part of the life of Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio), a wealthy filmmaker and aviator, a true American genius with all the success and tragedy that this entails. The movie is good, and the performances better, but "The Aviator" is less than the sum of its parts not greater.
The film opens with a young boy being told by his mother about these diseases that are outside, that there are epidemics raging in town. That young Howard is not safe. Now we push forward to the late 1930's when Howard Hughes is older, but still a young man. He is directing a movie called "Hell's Angels", an incredibly ambitious film about World War I. Personally financed by Hughes, the film ran way over any expected budget and took three years to complete (compare this to the 18 months of Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" which was said to be extremely long and demanding). "The Aviator" shows the rise of Howard Hughes. He is already wealthy from a drill bits business, but he has a grander dream. His movie is a success, he spends his time with famous movie stars including a star of "Hell's Angels" Jean Harlow (Gwen Stefani), Katherine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett), and Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale), and the rise of Howard Hughes continues as he becomes more and more successful in aviation. He designs planes, flies planes and eventually becomes owner of TWA airlines.
Not to stretch the analogy of Howard Hughes the Aviator too thin or make too obvious of a cliche, but perhaps Hughes flew too near the sun and though he kept trying to fly higher, he was to be brought back down to earth. Hughes was a mess of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and full of little nervous tics because of his OCD compulsion about cleanliness. I suppose that the suggestion Scorsese is making here is that his compulsions stem from those childhood moments where his mother admonishes him that the world is not clean, not safe. I question that, but there is no doubt that Hughes suffered from his mania. It kept him from truly living a normal existence, though it got worse as he aged and as success was replaced by failure.
After buying TWA so that he can make a different, new kind of airplane, he gets into the world of airlines. Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin) of Pan Am works with Senator Brewster (Alan Alda) to put Pan Am at an advantage compared to the upstart TWA. Hughes fights this and it is perhaps the whole ordeal with Pan Am and the Government which begins the fall of Howard Hughes.
"The Aviator" is a very big, broad movie. It covers a large period of time in the life of Howard Hughes, though not his entire life. It is a long movie, and perhaps a little bit too long. More than halfway through the movie, "The Aviator" begins to feel its length. It feels long and while I'm not sure what could have been trimmed, something could have been.
What helps "The Aviator" to rise above other movies is the performances. Every actor in this movie is quite excellent. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of the strongest performances in his career and for the first time he was believable as an older man. I bought him as an adult, and this was one of my biggest concerns. John C Reilly is perpetually solid as Hughes' business man Noah Dietrich. The real heart of the movie, however, is Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn. She seems to give both the movie and Howard Hughes a sense of morality and direction. She is the power driving the film, and perhaps his life. Life after Hepburn began her lifelong romance with Spencer Tracy became the other part of the Decline of Howard Hughes. Blanchett may very well deserve an Oscar Nomination for her work here, but she never gives a bad performance in any film.
This film is an instance of every part being so good, especially the acting, but these parts somehow do not quite come together to make the masterpiece "The Aviator" almost was. Everything is in place, but it doesn't quite connect. Inexplicable, perhaps, and this movie will likely wind up on "Best of" lists and may very well earn an Oscar Nomination, but it doesn't live up to what it almost was. And that is disappointing. The acting is worth the price of admission, but the film itself is only a Grade: B.
I go into a Martin Scorsese picture hoping to have my expectations blown away. With classic films like "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" Scorsese was still able to exceed expectations and a lesser work such as "Bringing Out the Dead" was far better than expected. There is always the potential for greatness with Scorsese, and I always hope for the best but expect something less. "Gangs of New York" did not deliver. With "The Aviator" critics were once again saying this could be the year for Scorsese, this could be the picture. It's not. "The Aviator" is a biopic focusing on part of the life of Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio), a wealthy filmmaker and aviator, a true American genius with all the success and tragedy that this entails. The movie is good, and the performances better, but "The Aviator" is less than the sum of its parts not greater.
The film opens with a young boy being told by his mother about these diseases that are outside, that there are epidemics raging in town. That young Howard is not safe. Now we push forward to the late 1930's when Howard Hughes is older, but still a young man. He is directing a movie called "Hell's Angels", an incredibly ambitious film about World War I. Personally financed by Hughes, the film ran way over any expected budget and took three years to complete (compare this to the 18 months of Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" which was said to be extremely long and demanding). "The Aviator" shows the rise of Howard Hughes. He is already wealthy from a drill bits business, but he has a grander dream. His movie is a success, he spends his time with famous movie stars including a star of "Hell's Angels" Jean Harlow (Gwen Stefani), Katherine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett), and Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale), and the rise of Howard Hughes continues as he becomes more and more successful in aviation. He designs planes, flies planes and eventually becomes owner of TWA airlines.
Not to stretch the analogy of Howard Hughes the Aviator too thin or make too obvious of a cliche, but perhaps Hughes flew too near the sun and though he kept trying to fly higher, he was to be brought back down to earth. Hughes was a mess of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and full of little nervous tics because of his OCD compulsion about cleanliness. I suppose that the suggestion Scorsese is making here is that his compulsions stem from those childhood moments where his mother admonishes him that the world is not clean, not safe. I question that, but there is no doubt that Hughes suffered from his mania. It kept him from truly living a normal existence, though it got worse as he aged and as success was replaced by failure.
After buying TWA so that he can make a different, new kind of airplane, he gets into the world of airlines. Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin) of Pan Am works with Senator Brewster (Alan Alda) to put Pan Am at an advantage compared to the upstart TWA. Hughes fights this and it is perhaps the whole ordeal with Pan Am and the Government which begins the fall of Howard Hughes.
"The Aviator" is a very big, broad movie. It covers a large period of time in the life of Howard Hughes, though not his entire life. It is a long movie, and perhaps a little bit too long. More than halfway through the movie, "The Aviator" begins to feel its length. It feels long and while I'm not sure what could have been trimmed, something could have been.
What helps "The Aviator" to rise above other movies is the performances. Every actor in this movie is quite excellent. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of the strongest performances in his career and for the first time he was believable as an older man. I bought him as an adult, and this was one of my biggest concerns. John C Reilly is perpetually solid as Hughes' business man Noah Dietrich. The real heart of the movie, however, is Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn. She seems to give both the movie and Howard Hughes a sense of morality and direction. She is the power driving the film, and perhaps his life. Life after Hepburn began her lifelong romance with Spencer Tracy became the other part of the Decline of Howard Hughes. Blanchett may very well deserve an Oscar Nomination for her work here, but she never gives a bad performance in any film.
This film is an instance of every part being so good, especially the acting, but these parts somehow do not quite come together to make the masterpiece "The Aviator" almost was. Everything is in place, but it doesn't quite connect. Inexplicable, perhaps, and this movie will likely wind up on "Best of" lists and may very well earn an Oscar Nomination, but it doesn't live up to what it almost was. And that is disappointing. The acting is worth the price of admission, but the film itself is only a Grade: B.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Movie Review: X-Files: Fight the Future (1998)
A film by Rob Bowman
Set shortly after Season 5 of the "X-Files" television program, "X-Files: Fight the Future" is the first film (and to date, only) dealing with the "X-Files" characters and storylines. This film is steeped in the mythology of the series, which means that it deals with the government conspiracy and the cover ups of aliens, and all of the deep mythology which drives the show. The X-Files are closed and FBI Agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) have been reassigned and are currently working on a called in bomb threat in a government building. The case has the feel of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah building, and when the bomb goes off the wreckage looks like just that. But this is only the beginning as things quickly do not add up and Mulder is off on another chase for "The Truth" while Scully has to try to scientifically back up (or disprove, which she never can) Mulder's wild theories.
While the series can explore grand conspiracies and big stories on each episode, these stories tend to be revealed slowly over the course of multiple episodes and multiple seasons. Giving the viewer an "X-Files" movie means that we are likely to be given a grander story all at one time, and this is exactly what we get. This movie works on two levels. A viewer with no experience with the "X-Files" can enjoy the movie on its own merits. This is the way that I first experienced the film when it was released in the theatres in 1998. It wasn't until years later I started watching the show on DVD and worked my way up to the movie and had a completely different experience. For longtime fans of the show, this movie works as an extended episode (or one of the two episode story arcs). It just operates on a larger scale than is possible on episodic television.
Viewers with no "X-Files" experience can watch a movie involving a government conspiracy and something do with extra-terrestrials. Fans of the series will get explanations for the origins of the black oil, the bees, a greater look at the extent of the conspiracy (difficult to explain without spoiling it), and a very good long episode of the show. There are explosions and danger and a trip to Antarctica with a reveal that has to be seen to be believed. This movie rewards fan of the show, but leaves as many questions as it answers. This particular storyline will not be resolved until midway through Season 6.
While enjoyable, I would not recommend this movie for those who are not fans of the "X-Files". It works on its own, but truly rewards viewers of the series. I would highly recommend this movie to those who already enjoy the show or are just discovering it. But for those viewers, I would make sure that you have seen the episodes through Season 5 as this is where it fits into the chronology. For fans of the show, this movie should just be considered a two hours episode of "The X-Files", and it is a good one.
Set shortly after Season 5 of the "X-Files" television program, "X-Files: Fight the Future" is the first film (and to date, only) dealing with the "X-Files" characters and storylines. This film is steeped in the mythology of the series, which means that it deals with the government conspiracy and the cover ups of aliens, and all of the deep mythology which drives the show. The X-Files are closed and FBI Agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) have been reassigned and are currently working on a called in bomb threat in a government building. The case has the feel of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah building, and when the bomb goes off the wreckage looks like just that. But this is only the beginning as things quickly do not add up and Mulder is off on another chase for "The Truth" while Scully has to try to scientifically back up (or disprove, which she never can) Mulder's wild theories.
While the series can explore grand conspiracies and big stories on each episode, these stories tend to be revealed slowly over the course of multiple episodes and multiple seasons. Giving the viewer an "X-Files" movie means that we are likely to be given a grander story all at one time, and this is exactly what we get. This movie works on two levels. A viewer with no experience with the "X-Files" can enjoy the movie on its own merits. This is the way that I first experienced the film when it was released in the theatres in 1998. It wasn't until years later I started watching the show on DVD and worked my way up to the movie and had a completely different experience. For longtime fans of the show, this movie works as an extended episode (or one of the two episode story arcs). It just operates on a larger scale than is possible on episodic television.
Viewers with no "X-Files" experience can watch a movie involving a government conspiracy and something do with extra-terrestrials. Fans of the series will get explanations for the origins of the black oil, the bees, a greater look at the extent of the conspiracy (difficult to explain without spoiling it), and a very good long episode of the show. There are explosions and danger and a trip to Antarctica with a reveal that has to be seen to be believed. This movie rewards fan of the show, but leaves as many questions as it answers. This particular storyline will not be resolved until midway through Season 6.
While enjoyable, I would not recommend this movie for those who are not fans of the "X-Files". It works on its own, but truly rewards viewers of the series. I would highly recommend this movie to those who already enjoy the show or are just discovering it. But for those viewers, I would make sure that you have seen the episodes through Season 5 as this is where it fits into the chronology. For fans of the show, this movie should just be considered a two hours episode of "The X-Files", and it is a good one.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Movie Review: Maria Full of Grace (2004)
A film by Joshua Marston
Maria Alvarez (Catalina Sandino Moreno) de-thorns roses at a flower plantation in a small Colombian town. She recently learned that she is pregnant by her boyfriend whom she does not love nor does he love her. After being poorly treated by her employer, Maria quits her job and needs to find work. Maria helps to support her family, which includes her sister and nephew. Her sister doesn't work. The only job options are to return to the flower plantation or travel many miles away to get work in a city. She meets a young man named Franklin (John Alex Toro) who suggests another option: Maria could work as a mule.
A mule is the person who transports drugs from Colombia to America. In the case of the mules in "Maria Full of Grace", the mules swallow 60 or more pellets filled with heroin and transport the drugs inside of the mule. There is still great risk: the mule can still be caught by customs and submit to an X-Ray which will reveal the pellets; a pellet can break open inside the mule, essentially sentencing the person to death; or the mule can lose a pellet by using the bathroom. Losing a pellet can result in horrible consequences for the family of the mule, as the drug lord threatened Maria and her family. American may be the Land of Opportunity, but "Maria Full of Grace" shows why a Colombian girl with no criminal leanings would choose to enter this life. The opportunities are simply not there in Colombia. A mule could buy a house for her family with just one paycheck.
This film does not shy away from graphically showing us what can happen to those who traffic drugs across the border. We see every possible consequence to being a mule, from the good to the horribly bad. While Joshua Marston does not hand us a moral judgment on Maria, I don't see that there is any way that he is giving any sort of approval to the life of a mule, either. I just know that those characters which chose to continue in that life are not going to have an easy or very long life. Sooner or later time and reality will catch up. The mule is a beast or burden and will not long live a life of luxury.
Catalina Sandino Moreno did a fantastic job as Maria. It is difficult to believe that this was only her first role in a movie (much like Bryce Dallas Howard in "The Village", only this movie is actually good). Moreno is so self assured in "Maria Full of Grace", but also frightened or unsure when circumstances call for it. We get why a basically moral young woman would make the decision she did. For Maria being a mule is not entering a life of crime, but rather an opportunity in a land of no opportunities. Moreno truly is the star of this movie and I would love to see her nominated for this performance.
"Maria Full of Grace" is one of the year's best films and it is moving, heartbreaking, and even uplifting. Second time director Joshua Marston looks to have a very good future ahead of him if he can keep making movies as good as "Maria Full of Grace". The story and the performances really make this foreign language movie shine. Grade: A
Maria Alvarez (Catalina Sandino Moreno) de-thorns roses at a flower plantation in a small Colombian town. She recently learned that she is pregnant by her boyfriend whom she does not love nor does he love her. After being poorly treated by her employer, Maria quits her job and needs to find work. Maria helps to support her family, which includes her sister and nephew. Her sister doesn't work. The only job options are to return to the flower plantation or travel many miles away to get work in a city. She meets a young man named Franklin (John Alex Toro) who suggests another option: Maria could work as a mule.
A mule is the person who transports drugs from Colombia to America. In the case of the mules in "Maria Full of Grace", the mules swallow 60 or more pellets filled with heroin and transport the drugs inside of the mule. There is still great risk: the mule can still be caught by customs and submit to an X-Ray which will reveal the pellets; a pellet can break open inside the mule, essentially sentencing the person to death; or the mule can lose a pellet by using the bathroom. Losing a pellet can result in horrible consequences for the family of the mule, as the drug lord threatened Maria and her family. American may be the Land of Opportunity, but "Maria Full of Grace" shows why a Colombian girl with no criminal leanings would choose to enter this life. The opportunities are simply not there in Colombia. A mule could buy a house for her family with just one paycheck.
This film does not shy away from graphically showing us what can happen to those who traffic drugs across the border. We see every possible consequence to being a mule, from the good to the horribly bad. While Joshua Marston does not hand us a moral judgment on Maria, I don't see that there is any way that he is giving any sort of approval to the life of a mule, either. I just know that those characters which chose to continue in that life are not going to have an easy or very long life. Sooner or later time and reality will catch up. The mule is a beast or burden and will not long live a life of luxury.
Catalina Sandino Moreno did a fantastic job as Maria. It is difficult to believe that this was only her first role in a movie (much like Bryce Dallas Howard in "The Village", only this movie is actually good). Moreno is so self assured in "Maria Full of Grace", but also frightened or unsure when circumstances call for it. We get why a basically moral young woman would make the decision she did. For Maria being a mule is not entering a life of crime, but rather an opportunity in a land of no opportunities. Moreno truly is the star of this movie and I would love to see her nominated for this performance.
"Maria Full of Grace" is one of the year's best films and it is moving, heartbreaking, and even uplifting. Second time director Joshua Marston looks to have a very good future ahead of him if he can keep making movies as good as "Maria Full of Grace". The story and the performances really make this foreign language movie shine. Grade: A
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Book Review: The Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
If I said that "The Time Traveler's Wife" was a non-conventional love story with time travel, that description would not come close to accurately describing this novel. It is a non-conventional love story with time travel at its heart, but the novel is so much more than that, and it is also different. Clare met Henry when she was 6 and he was 38. When Henry met Clare, he was 28 and she was 20. How is such a thing possible? Henry is afflicted with what will come to be called Chrono Displacement Disorder. Or, to put it plainly: involuntary time travel. Ever since he was a child Henry has involuntarily time traveled when he is in a period of great emotional stress. He doesn't know why, or how. When Clare meets Henry for the first time, he has known Clare for years and he knows that they will marry when she is older (and he is younger). When Henry meets Clare for the first time, she has known an older Henry all of her life. "The Time Traveler's Wife" is their love story and it is an exceptional one.
This novel is told from the perspective of both Henry and Clare in alternating viewpoints. Niffenegger lets us know at the beginning of each perspective exactly when this event is happening and how old both Clare and Henry are in each perspective. This is vitally important otherwise "The Time Traveler's Wife" would not make any sense. While it seems at first that the story is being told without any apparent order or structure, it soon becomes clear that the structure is Clare. Since she does not have Chrono Displacement Disorder, she ages normally and does not flit back and forth between the years. The structure of the novel follows Clare from when she is a child and first meeting Henry through she teenage years to their life together as adults. The structure follows Clare's life and her timeline. Henry pops in and out of her life from age 6 through 18 and he is sometimes in his 40's, other times a younger man in his thirties. This is why Niffenegger's telling us the ages of the characters is so vital. Henry may or may not know some events in Clare's life because for him, depending on his age, they haven't happened yet. This allows the reader to discover things about Clare and Henry as Henry learns them. Sometimes he knows that something happened because Clare references it, but it is only later that he discovers what it was when he time travels.
"The Time Traveler's Wife" is a very moving novel. Watching Henry and Clare struggle to fit a normal relationship into their lives despite Henry's time travel can be heart wrenching despite the fascination with when Henry will go next and what we will learn about their past together. Audrey Niffenegger has done such a great job constructing this novel and making sure that it has a very firm structure that even the unrealistic idea of involuntary time travel (as if building a time machine wouldn't have been strange enough for Niffenegger) seems realistic and grounded in reality. This novel feels real and true.
I don't know that I can praise "The Time Traveler's Wife" enough or even adequately. The best praise that I know how to give is to say that from time to time I encounter a book that blows me away, that I don't want to put down, and that is so magical that I am simply absorbed into the story. It's a rare book that completely levels me and gets instantly elevated to one of my favorite books. "The Time Traveler's Wife" is such a novel.
This novel is told from the perspective of both Henry and Clare in alternating viewpoints. Niffenegger lets us know at the beginning of each perspective exactly when this event is happening and how old both Clare and Henry are in each perspective. This is vitally important otherwise "The Time Traveler's Wife" would not make any sense. While it seems at first that the story is being told without any apparent order or structure, it soon becomes clear that the structure is Clare. Since she does not have Chrono Displacement Disorder, she ages normally and does not flit back and forth between the years. The structure of the novel follows Clare from when she is a child and first meeting Henry through she teenage years to their life together as adults. The structure follows Clare's life and her timeline. Henry pops in and out of her life from age 6 through 18 and he is sometimes in his 40's, other times a younger man in his thirties. This is why Niffenegger's telling us the ages of the characters is so vital. Henry may or may not know some events in Clare's life because for him, depending on his age, they haven't happened yet. This allows the reader to discover things about Clare and Henry as Henry learns them. Sometimes he knows that something happened because Clare references it, but it is only later that he discovers what it was when he time travels.
"The Time Traveler's Wife" is a very moving novel. Watching Henry and Clare struggle to fit a normal relationship into their lives despite Henry's time travel can be heart wrenching despite the fascination with when Henry will go next and what we will learn about their past together. Audrey Niffenegger has done such a great job constructing this novel and making sure that it has a very firm structure that even the unrealistic idea of involuntary time travel (as if building a time machine wouldn't have been strange enough for Niffenegger) seems realistic and grounded in reality. This novel feels real and true.
I don't know that I can praise "The Time Traveler's Wife" enough or even adequately. The best praise that I know how to give is to say that from time to time I encounter a book that blows me away, that I don't want to put down, and that is so magical that I am simply absorbed into the story. It's a rare book that completely levels me and gets instantly elevated to one of my favorite books. "The Time Traveler's Wife" is such a novel.
Movie Review: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
A film by Wes Anderson
If you have seen one of Wes Anderson's previous three films ("Bottle Rocket", "Rushmore", or "The Royal Tenenbaums") then you have a very good idea what sort of movie "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" is. "The Life Aquatic" is a very quirky sort of comedy and it is very similar to Anderson's previous movies, though with a bigger budget which he uses for special effects that would only fit in a Wes Anderson movie. The basic plot of the movie is that Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) is an oceanographer in the mold of a Jacques Cousteau. Steve makes documentary films about his voyages and discoveries and once he was very famous and successful. Now his films are not making very much money at all. On his last expedition, one of his crew, an old friend, was killed by some sort of shark that Zissou names a "jaguar shark". While such a creature would not normally exist, the movie spends its time showing us increasingly exotic and unlikely sea creatures (and this is where the effects budget went).
At a screening of his latest film, Zissou announces the subject of his next: he is going to track down the jaguar shark which killed his friend, and kill it. When asked what the scientific value of this would be, he answers simply, "Revenge". This, from an oceanographer. Around this time, Steve also meets a man claiming to be his son, Ned (Owen Wilson). Steve immediately takes to Ned, and invites him to be a part of Team Zissou. Steve and his crew set out to sea to track the jaguar shark and everything that can go wrong does go wrong. To be honest, Team Zissou feels like a bunch of amateurs.
As with any Wes Anderson movie, the plot is not why we watch the movie. The reason we go to a Wes Anderson movie is the humor, the absurd interaction of the characters and increasingly odd situations. There is a tone, a general ambiance to a Wes Anderson movie, and "The Life Aquatic" has it in spades. Everyone speaks in a dry, slightly ironic manner where no dialogue feels real (except for that of Cate Blanchett's character). This has worked in "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" because it seemed to fit the characters and the situation. Simply, I believed the situations and the actions of the characters in those movies (as I did in "Bottle Rocket"). There was a deeper sense of intelligence in the humor in Anderson's previous work that is missing here. There is a lot of humor here, like the interns that continually are being tortured by Zissou, the red hats and the fact that everyone carries a glock. But, whatever it was that held "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" together is missing here. Instead we have several action sequences (really), an attack by pirates, and a three legged dog. The cast also includes Angelica Huston, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Michael Gambon, and Bud Cort.
A Wes Anderson movie usually takes several viewings for everything to really seep in and sometimes just to get exactly what is going on in the movie, and perhaps "The Life Aquatic" will be far more rewarding on the second or third viewing. But this movie was a bit of a let down in the theatre. I loved "The Royal Tenenbaums" and really enjoyed "Rushmore", but "The Life Aquatic" seemed somewhat pointless and this was one of my most anticipated movies of the year. Grade: B-
If you have seen one of Wes Anderson's previous three films ("Bottle Rocket", "Rushmore", or "The Royal Tenenbaums") then you have a very good idea what sort of movie "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" is. "The Life Aquatic" is a very quirky sort of comedy and it is very similar to Anderson's previous movies, though with a bigger budget which he uses for special effects that would only fit in a Wes Anderson movie. The basic plot of the movie is that Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) is an oceanographer in the mold of a Jacques Cousteau. Steve makes documentary films about his voyages and discoveries and once he was very famous and successful. Now his films are not making very much money at all. On his last expedition, one of his crew, an old friend, was killed by some sort of shark that Zissou names a "jaguar shark". While such a creature would not normally exist, the movie spends its time showing us increasingly exotic and unlikely sea creatures (and this is where the effects budget went).
At a screening of his latest film, Zissou announces the subject of his next: he is going to track down the jaguar shark which killed his friend, and kill it. When asked what the scientific value of this would be, he answers simply, "Revenge". This, from an oceanographer. Around this time, Steve also meets a man claiming to be his son, Ned (Owen Wilson). Steve immediately takes to Ned, and invites him to be a part of Team Zissou. Steve and his crew set out to sea to track the jaguar shark and everything that can go wrong does go wrong. To be honest, Team Zissou feels like a bunch of amateurs.
As with any Wes Anderson movie, the plot is not why we watch the movie. The reason we go to a Wes Anderson movie is the humor, the absurd interaction of the characters and increasingly odd situations. There is a tone, a general ambiance to a Wes Anderson movie, and "The Life Aquatic" has it in spades. Everyone speaks in a dry, slightly ironic manner where no dialogue feels real (except for that of Cate Blanchett's character). This has worked in "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" because it seemed to fit the characters and the situation. Simply, I believed the situations and the actions of the characters in those movies (as I did in "Bottle Rocket"). There was a deeper sense of intelligence in the humor in Anderson's previous work that is missing here. There is a lot of humor here, like the interns that continually are being tortured by Zissou, the red hats and the fact that everyone carries a glock. But, whatever it was that held "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" together is missing here. Instead we have several action sequences (really), an attack by pirates, and a three legged dog. The cast also includes Angelica Huston, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Michael Gambon, and Bud Cort.
A Wes Anderson movie usually takes several viewings for everything to really seep in and sometimes just to get exactly what is going on in the movie, and perhaps "The Life Aquatic" will be far more rewarding on the second or third viewing. But this movie was a bit of a let down in the theatre. I loved "The Royal Tenenbaums" and really enjoyed "Rushmore", but "The Life Aquatic" seemed somewhat pointless and this was one of my most anticipated movies of the year. Grade: B-
Friday, December 31, 2004
The Best Books of 2004
The only criteria for inclusion on this list is that I actually read the book in 2004. This explains why a book by Isaac Asimov is included. The only order that this list is in is the order in which I read the books.
1. The Middle of the Night - Daniel Stolar
2. Legends II - Robert Silverberg (editor)
3. A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson
4. Absolutely American - David Lipsky
5. Martin Dressler - Steven Millhauser
6. The Fortress of Solitude - Jonathan Lethem
7. Four Souls - Louise Erdrich
8. Truth and Beauty - Ann Patchett
9. I, Robot - Isaac Asimov
10. Angels and Demons - Dan Brown
11. Fray - Joss Whedon
12. The Complete Peanuts: 1950 - 1952 - Charles Schulz
13. To Be the Man - Ric Flair
14. The Coma - Alex Garland
15. Shutter Island - Dennis Lehane
16. Created in Darkness by Troubled Americans - Dave Eggers (editor)
17. The Plot Against America - Philip Roth
18. Generation Kill - Evan Wright
19. The Partly Cloudy Patriot - Sarah Vowell
20. Alexander Hamilton - Ron Chernow
21. The Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
Every one of these books are worth reading, though each for a very different reason than the other. The list can also be found here
1. The Middle of the Night - Daniel Stolar
2. Legends II - Robert Silverberg (editor)
3. A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson
4. Absolutely American - David Lipsky
5. Martin Dressler - Steven Millhauser
6. The Fortress of Solitude - Jonathan Lethem
7. Four Souls - Louise Erdrich
8. Truth and Beauty - Ann Patchett
9. I, Robot - Isaac Asimov
10. Angels and Demons - Dan Brown
11. Fray - Joss Whedon
12. The Complete Peanuts: 1950 - 1952 - Charles Schulz
13. To Be the Man - Ric Flair
14. The Coma - Alex Garland
15. Shutter Island - Dennis Lehane
16. Created in Darkness by Troubled Americans - Dave Eggers (editor)
17. The Plot Against America - Philip Roth
18. Generation Kill - Evan Wright
19. The Partly Cloudy Patriot - Sarah Vowell
20. Alexander Hamilton - Ron Chernow
21. The Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
Every one of these books are worth reading, though each for a very different reason than the other. The list can also be found here
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Movie Review: The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
A film by Joel Schumacher
This movie is an adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's long running Broadway musical "The Phantom of the Opera". I imagine that most people have at least heard of the musical and that it has something to do with a phantom, and an opera, and that there is singing. To be perfectly honest, that is the extent of my knowledge and experience of the stage musical. Because of this lack of experience with the stage version, I had no preconceived notions of what "Phantom" should look like, or sound like, but only that it is supposed to be good and it has been wildly successful. Andrew Lloyd Webber himself was involved in the casting of this project, especially in regards to Emmy Rossum as Christine.
"The Phantom of the Opera" begins with an auction in an old opera house where there is a chandelier which the auctioneer tells us featured prominently in the famous fracas with a "phantom of the opera" and that perhaps time will finally exorcise the phantom. When the enormous chandelier is revealed we are greeted with a powerful blast of music as the dust and cobwebs and decay of the opera house are blown back and we see the opera house return to its former glory of years past. The movie now takes us back to the time where the Phantom did, in fact, haunt the opera house. When the resident diva of the opera, Carlotta (Minne Driver) is nearly hurt in an accident, a young girl from the chorus, Christine (Emmy Rossum) takes the lead with little time to rehearse or prepare. She is a success and the new talk of the opera world and Raoul (Patrick Wilson), the patron of the new owners of the opera house is smitten with her. It also seems that Christine and Raoul knew each other as children.
Something strange happens next. Christine is reluctant to dine with Raoul because her mysterious teacher wouldn't be happy, but we don't know who the teacher is (though we can guess). When Raoul leaves her dressing room, the door locks, the candles blow out and we hear a voice sing out to Christine. It is her teacher. It is the Phantom (Gerard Butler). Christine finally meets the Phantom, her teacher, and they spend some time together as he admonishes her about being faithful to him and his music and sings about "the music of the night". Except for Christine, everybody else wants to be rid of the Phantom and thus begins the heart of the movie where Raoul and the Phantom both want Christine, Christine is initially unsure of her desires, and the Phantom continues to haunt and attack the opera if things do not go exactly the way he demands (and they don't).
It seems unfair to criticize a movie based on a Broadway musical/rock opera of being "too theatrical". Considering the origins of this movie, it only makes sense for it to be "theatrical". Still, Gerard Butler flaps his cape at the camera more than one too many times. It is as if he were trying out for the role of Count Dracula in some campy remake where he isn't supposed to be serious. Except that he is supposed to be serious. Which brings me to my next point: Butler as The Phantom isn't terribly menacing. He is too pretty. His mask seems more of a fashion accessory than something that is just covering up being disfigured. Only when he is in the shadows and attacking people in secrecy do we truly get menace from Butler. It is the unseen that brings the most tension to the character. Butler has a nice voice and on some songs he sounds impressive, but much of his work here is absolutely ordinary. Patrick Wilson, on the other hand, is no better. He doesn't seem the sort of man who would impress Christine and there is no scene, no chemistry that shows us why they are interested in each other except that they knew each other as children. The looming face off between Raoul and the Phantom just doesn't work for me. The movie seemed long, a bit dull, and repetitive.
There is much to praise in this movie, however. The first thing that must be pointed out is that this is a beautiful looking movie. It looks incredible. The sets are fantastic, the costume design, the use of colors, all of it is just perfect. Every scene change brings another fantastic image to the screen. This is a gorgeous movie to look at. The second praiseworthy part of this film is Emmy Rossum as Christine. I don't know what Christine is supposed to look like or act like on stage, but here she radiates such an innocence that it is easy to see why the Phantom wants Christine for himself and why Raoul would be physically attracted to her. Christine is pure. Rossum can also sing quite well. Her voice is what carries the movie as far as it can be carried. The final bit of praise goes to the rest of the cast (excluding Butler and Wilson). They are all excellent, including Minnie Driver as the diva Carlotta. Perfectly overplayed (which is an odd thing for me to say considering my problems with Butler).
"The Phantom of the Opera" has quite a few things going for it, and I am quite sure that fans of the stage musical will be equally happy with this movie. I wasn't quite so happy. I am giving "Phantom" a very generous B- for the performance of Emmy Rossum and the look of the movie.
This movie is an adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's long running Broadway musical "The Phantom of the Opera". I imagine that most people have at least heard of the musical and that it has something to do with a phantom, and an opera, and that there is singing. To be perfectly honest, that is the extent of my knowledge and experience of the stage musical. Because of this lack of experience with the stage version, I had no preconceived notions of what "Phantom" should look like, or sound like, but only that it is supposed to be good and it has been wildly successful. Andrew Lloyd Webber himself was involved in the casting of this project, especially in regards to Emmy Rossum as Christine.
"The Phantom of the Opera" begins with an auction in an old opera house where there is a chandelier which the auctioneer tells us featured prominently in the famous fracas with a "phantom of the opera" and that perhaps time will finally exorcise the phantom. When the enormous chandelier is revealed we are greeted with a powerful blast of music as the dust and cobwebs and decay of the opera house are blown back and we see the opera house return to its former glory of years past. The movie now takes us back to the time where the Phantom did, in fact, haunt the opera house. When the resident diva of the opera, Carlotta (Minne Driver) is nearly hurt in an accident, a young girl from the chorus, Christine (Emmy Rossum) takes the lead with little time to rehearse or prepare. She is a success and the new talk of the opera world and Raoul (Patrick Wilson), the patron of the new owners of the opera house is smitten with her. It also seems that Christine and Raoul knew each other as children.
Something strange happens next. Christine is reluctant to dine with Raoul because her mysterious teacher wouldn't be happy, but we don't know who the teacher is (though we can guess). When Raoul leaves her dressing room, the door locks, the candles blow out and we hear a voice sing out to Christine. It is her teacher. It is the Phantom (Gerard Butler). Christine finally meets the Phantom, her teacher, and they spend some time together as he admonishes her about being faithful to him and his music and sings about "the music of the night". Except for Christine, everybody else wants to be rid of the Phantom and thus begins the heart of the movie where Raoul and the Phantom both want Christine, Christine is initially unsure of her desires, and the Phantom continues to haunt and attack the opera if things do not go exactly the way he demands (and they don't).
It seems unfair to criticize a movie based on a Broadway musical/rock opera of being "too theatrical". Considering the origins of this movie, it only makes sense for it to be "theatrical". Still, Gerard Butler flaps his cape at the camera more than one too many times. It is as if he were trying out for the role of Count Dracula in some campy remake where he isn't supposed to be serious. Except that he is supposed to be serious. Which brings me to my next point: Butler as The Phantom isn't terribly menacing. He is too pretty. His mask seems more of a fashion accessory than something that is just covering up being disfigured. Only when he is in the shadows and attacking people in secrecy do we truly get menace from Butler. It is the unseen that brings the most tension to the character. Butler has a nice voice and on some songs he sounds impressive, but much of his work here is absolutely ordinary. Patrick Wilson, on the other hand, is no better. He doesn't seem the sort of man who would impress Christine and there is no scene, no chemistry that shows us why they are interested in each other except that they knew each other as children. The looming face off between Raoul and the Phantom just doesn't work for me. The movie seemed long, a bit dull, and repetitive.
There is much to praise in this movie, however. The first thing that must be pointed out is that this is a beautiful looking movie. It looks incredible. The sets are fantastic, the costume design, the use of colors, all of it is just perfect. Every scene change brings another fantastic image to the screen. This is a gorgeous movie to look at. The second praiseworthy part of this film is Emmy Rossum as Christine. I don't know what Christine is supposed to look like or act like on stage, but here she radiates such an innocence that it is easy to see why the Phantom wants Christine for himself and why Raoul would be physically attracted to her. Christine is pure. Rossum can also sing quite well. Her voice is what carries the movie as far as it can be carried. The final bit of praise goes to the rest of the cast (excluding Butler and Wilson). They are all excellent, including Minnie Driver as the diva Carlotta. Perfectly overplayed (which is an odd thing for me to say considering my problems with Butler).
"The Phantom of the Opera" has quite a few things going for it, and I am quite sure that fans of the stage musical will be equally happy with this movie. I wasn't quite so happy. I am giving "Phantom" a very generous B- for the performance of Emmy Rossum and the look of the movie.
Movie Review: Spanglish (2004)
A film by James L Brooks
When Flor's (Paz Vega) husband leaves her she is forced to emigrate from Mexico to America to find work so she can support herself and her daughter Cristina (Shelbie Bruce). After initially finding a lower paying job in a Mexican enclave within Las Angeles, Flor finds work as a housekeeper for Deborah (Tea Leoni). Deborah is a wealthy, self-absorbed society woman who doesn't really think of the feelings of other people. She is also absolutely crazy in a manic sort of a way. Her husband, John (Adam Sandler) is the normal one. He is a very successful chef and will soon be an even more successful chef when a top critic gives him a fantastic review. But, he is a committed family man who deeply loves his daughter Bernie (Sarah Steele) and while he must love his wife for some reason, he is very frustrated with her because her callous disregard for the feelings of Bernie even though Deborah thinks she is doing the right thing.
Into this strange, messed up family comes Flor. She is gentle, and kind, and she doesn't speak a lick of English. Translation and communication comes through Cristina, stuck between the excitement of a new way of life provided by Deborah (she treats Cristina better than she does her own daughter) and the steady tranquil traditions of her mother. The conflict of "Spanglish" comes in the form of Deborah. Deborah will whisk Cristina away for a day long excursion without asking permission from Flor. Her hurtful comments towards Bernie is upsetting John almost as much as Bernie. Deborah is paying little attention to her own husband or to her family except as they might relate towards her and her wishes. It is no wonder that we see a budding friendship (could it be more?) between John and Flor. John, like Flor, is gentle and kind and loving and is being hurt by his wife far more than he deserves.
There is no true narrative here in the sense that "Spanglish" does not directly follow a storyline. What we have is a movie about the relationships between these characters, most of whom are very likeable. The crazy thing is that we want John to leave his wife because we know that he would be very happy with Flor and that they would treat each other well. We want their children to get the love and attention they deserve. We know that Flor's presence has been nothing but a good thing to John's family and that she is a positive influence with how steady and responsible she is. If there is a villain here it is Deborah because she is just so unlikeable, yet at heart she must be a good person for John to have married her in the first place. We only barely see glimpses of her heart, though.
"Spanglish" has quite a bit going for it. The movie has a stellar cast which also includes Cloris Leachman has Deborah's alcoholic mother Evelyn. Leachman has all the best lines in the movie and I will be surprised if she doesn't pick up an Oscar nomination for her work here. She steals every scene she is in. The idea of an alcoholic mother could be a very harsh character, but in "Spanglish" Evelyn is so good natured that one could almost believe that it was Deborah that drove her mother towards the bottle. Another highlight in this movie is Cristina's translations of conversations between her mother and John. Not only does Cristina translate the words and the passion of Flor, but also the gestures and so we get a bit of perfect physical comedy with a younger girl saying very adult things.
The only real problem with "Spanglish" is that despite the strength of all of its parts, the film itself doesn't come together to make a whole that is nearly as good. We have a film about several wonderful characters working through their problems, but it doesn't amount to very much. I can't explain it. "Spanglish" is a nice movie, a decent movie and is filled with a certain amount of heartwarming material, but perhaps because of Deborah and the conclusion, it never really delivers the promise or the pedigree of the filmmakers. Grade: B-
When Flor's (Paz Vega) husband leaves her she is forced to emigrate from Mexico to America to find work so she can support herself and her daughter Cristina (Shelbie Bruce). After initially finding a lower paying job in a Mexican enclave within Las Angeles, Flor finds work as a housekeeper for Deborah (Tea Leoni). Deborah is a wealthy, self-absorbed society woman who doesn't really think of the feelings of other people. She is also absolutely crazy in a manic sort of a way. Her husband, John (Adam Sandler) is the normal one. He is a very successful chef and will soon be an even more successful chef when a top critic gives him a fantastic review. But, he is a committed family man who deeply loves his daughter Bernie (Sarah Steele) and while he must love his wife for some reason, he is very frustrated with her because her callous disregard for the feelings of Bernie even though Deborah thinks she is doing the right thing.
Into this strange, messed up family comes Flor. She is gentle, and kind, and she doesn't speak a lick of English. Translation and communication comes through Cristina, stuck between the excitement of a new way of life provided by Deborah (she treats Cristina better than she does her own daughter) and the steady tranquil traditions of her mother. The conflict of "Spanglish" comes in the form of Deborah. Deborah will whisk Cristina away for a day long excursion without asking permission from Flor. Her hurtful comments towards Bernie is upsetting John almost as much as Bernie. Deborah is paying little attention to her own husband or to her family except as they might relate towards her and her wishes. It is no wonder that we see a budding friendship (could it be more?) between John and Flor. John, like Flor, is gentle and kind and loving and is being hurt by his wife far more than he deserves.
There is no true narrative here in the sense that "Spanglish" does not directly follow a storyline. What we have is a movie about the relationships between these characters, most of whom are very likeable. The crazy thing is that we want John to leave his wife because we know that he would be very happy with Flor and that they would treat each other well. We want their children to get the love and attention they deserve. We know that Flor's presence has been nothing but a good thing to John's family and that she is a positive influence with how steady and responsible she is. If there is a villain here it is Deborah because she is just so unlikeable, yet at heart she must be a good person for John to have married her in the first place. We only barely see glimpses of her heart, though.
"Spanglish" has quite a bit going for it. The movie has a stellar cast which also includes Cloris Leachman has Deborah's alcoholic mother Evelyn. Leachman has all the best lines in the movie and I will be surprised if she doesn't pick up an Oscar nomination for her work here. She steals every scene she is in. The idea of an alcoholic mother could be a very harsh character, but in "Spanglish" Evelyn is so good natured that one could almost believe that it was Deborah that drove her mother towards the bottle. Another highlight in this movie is Cristina's translations of conversations between her mother and John. Not only does Cristina translate the words and the passion of Flor, but also the gestures and so we get a bit of perfect physical comedy with a younger girl saying very adult things.
The only real problem with "Spanglish" is that despite the strength of all of its parts, the film itself doesn't come together to make a whole that is nearly as good. We have a film about several wonderful characters working through their problems, but it doesn't amount to very much. I can't explain it. "Spanglish" is a nice movie, a decent movie and is filled with a certain amount of heartwarming material, but perhaps because of Deborah and the conclusion, it never really delivers the promise or the pedigree of the filmmakers. Grade: B-
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Movie Review: Sylvia (2003)
A film by Christine Jeffs
"Sylvia" is a film about the life of the American poet Sylvia Plath (Gwyneth Paltrow). The film begins with Plath in college and being all upset about the review of her poetry in a magazine (it might have been a university magazine, but that is never made clear). Soon after she is told about another young poet named Ted Hughes (Daniel Craig). They meet and fall in lust, and despite the title of the movie being "Sylvia" the movie quickly becomes about Sylvia and Ted. Perhaps this is my greatest problem with "Sylvia", that we don't see Sylvia Plath as her own woman. Instead we see Sylvia Plath only in relation to Ted Hughes. I do not know too much about the life of Plath, but since her journals were posthumously published, and she is the author of "The Bell Jar", "Ariel" and won the Pulitzer Prize (also posthumously) for her collected poetry, surely she was a strong enough personality to actually be the subject of a movie which is supposedly about her. But, perhaps I'm wrong about that.
This is a depressing movie. Sylvia Plath was fairly depressive in her own life, and "Sylvia" gets this right. She is manic and unstable and emotionally beat down by Ted Hughes. Her marriage of ups and downs is mostly downs and apparently she is never able to find her focus in writing, though she does manage to publish a couple of books of poetry. She is still overshadowed by her more successful husband. At this point, I think "I" want to stick my head in an oven. It feels like Plath gets yanked around from place to place and is her own emotional rollercoaster and gets no emotional support from her husband who ends up cheating on her anyway.
We never really get to see Sylvia writing her poetry, or speaking her poetry, or using any of her intellectual talents other than in one early scene which sets up the lust between Plath and Hughes. The reason for this is probably because Sylvia Plath's daughter would not permit the filmmakers to use any of her mother's poetry, which meant that only whatever could be legally used outside of that permission was used. This left us with only a couple of brief lines of poetry from a very famous poet. This unquestionably harms the movie because we have no sense in why Plath is famous and remembered. All we have is what we see and hear in the movie and that is a depressed poet who doesn't write is having an unhappy life. Let me see "that" movie!
The problem is not the casting. Gwyneth Paltrow does an excellent job in portraying Sylvia Plath and she even looks remarkably like the pictures I have seen of Sylvia Plath. Daniel Craig does a fine job of Ted Hughes, though I have no sense of comparison. The problem is that this is a very dreary movie and it gives us no reason to care for these characters, especially the heroine. "Sylvia" is dull, it is boring. This was a good role for Gwyneth Paltrow to play, but she would have been better served in a different movie about Sylvia Plath. Grade: C-
"Sylvia" is a film about the life of the American poet Sylvia Plath (Gwyneth Paltrow). The film begins with Plath in college and being all upset about the review of her poetry in a magazine (it might have been a university magazine, but that is never made clear). Soon after she is told about another young poet named Ted Hughes (Daniel Craig). They meet and fall in lust, and despite the title of the movie being "Sylvia" the movie quickly becomes about Sylvia and Ted. Perhaps this is my greatest problem with "Sylvia", that we don't see Sylvia Plath as her own woman. Instead we see Sylvia Plath only in relation to Ted Hughes. I do not know too much about the life of Plath, but since her journals were posthumously published, and she is the author of "The Bell Jar", "Ariel" and won the Pulitzer Prize (also posthumously) for her collected poetry, surely she was a strong enough personality to actually be the subject of a movie which is supposedly about her. But, perhaps I'm wrong about that.
This is a depressing movie. Sylvia Plath was fairly depressive in her own life, and "Sylvia" gets this right. She is manic and unstable and emotionally beat down by Ted Hughes. Her marriage of ups and downs is mostly downs and apparently she is never able to find her focus in writing, though she does manage to publish a couple of books of poetry. She is still overshadowed by her more successful husband. At this point, I think "I" want to stick my head in an oven. It feels like Plath gets yanked around from place to place and is her own emotional rollercoaster and gets no emotional support from her husband who ends up cheating on her anyway.
We never really get to see Sylvia writing her poetry, or speaking her poetry, or using any of her intellectual talents other than in one early scene which sets up the lust between Plath and Hughes. The reason for this is probably because Sylvia Plath's daughter would not permit the filmmakers to use any of her mother's poetry, which meant that only whatever could be legally used outside of that permission was used. This left us with only a couple of brief lines of poetry from a very famous poet. This unquestionably harms the movie because we have no sense in why Plath is famous and remembered. All we have is what we see and hear in the movie and that is a depressed poet who doesn't write is having an unhappy life. Let me see "that" movie!
The problem is not the casting. Gwyneth Paltrow does an excellent job in portraying Sylvia Plath and she even looks remarkably like the pictures I have seen of Sylvia Plath. Daniel Craig does a fine job of Ted Hughes, though I have no sense of comparison. The problem is that this is a very dreary movie and it gives us no reason to care for these characters, especially the heroine. "Sylvia" is dull, it is boring. This was a good role for Gwyneth Paltrow to play, but she would have been better served in a different movie about Sylvia Plath. Grade: C-
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Movie Review: King Arthur (2004)
A film by Antoine Fuqua
While the myth and legend of King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table have been around in one form or another for centuries, there is little solid historical evidence that there was an actual King named Arthur or what his exploits may or may not have been, or even what century he may or may not have lived in. The title cards at the start of the movie makes a new claim of accuracy with historical basis, but from watching documentaries on the History Channel before "King Arthur" was released theatrically, it seems that this movie offers one of many possible interpretations on the Arthur Legend. No retelling of the legend is going to be completely accurate, assuming there was an Arthur, so take this movie with a grain of salt and as entertainment.
Many of the other movies about Arthur deal with a magic sword being pulled out of a stone, and powerful magic being wielded by Merlin (John Boorman's "Exaclibur"), and there is even a musical "Camelot", not to mention the rather bad but strangely enjoyable "First Knight". Forget every other Arthurian movie that you have seen thus far because "King Arthur" is nothing like those movies. There is no magic, no knights bursting into song, and no Richard Gere. This is a darker, more realistic movie from the director of "Training Day".
"King Arthur" is set in the fifth century. Rome is the de facto ruler of Britain, though via proxy. Roman Knights hold sway in Britain, enforcing the law for Citizens and keeping the "barbarians" away. In this movie, the Knights that are in Britain were originally from Sarmatia, a tribe far to the East. These Sarmatians, having lost their battle against Rome have accepted as a term of their surrender that all of their male children will serve in the Roman Army. These men are serving under Lucius Artorius Castus, or Arthur (Clive Owen). Along with Arthur are the other "legendary" knights and Sarmatians Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), and Bors (Ray Winstone). Together, with other unnamed knights, the Sarmatians protect their corner of Britain and their tour of duty will be over with the arrival of the Bishop Germanius (Ivano Marescotti). The Bishop has other ideas. He will only release the knights after they fulfill one more task. They must ride north, into territory occupied by the Woads (native Britons) where there is a Saxon Army on the brink of invasion, and rescue a young man whom the Pope in Rome is grooming as his successor. Only then with Arthur and his men be free to return to Sarmatia. They argue, the grumble, the get angry, and they submit.
On the way they encounter Merlin (Stephen Dillane), no longer a sorcerer, but a leader of a tribe of Woads. Upon rescuing the boy, Arthur also rescues a young woman named Guinevere (Keira Knightley). Guinevere is not the refined princess who's beauty ruined Camelot, but a Woad prisoner who is starving and abused. She is freed by Arthur, befriended even though she is a barbarian, and through their discussions Arthur begins to question his place as a Roman. Arthur is part Briton, part Sarmatian, so his world is not the same as that of Bors or Lancelot. Guinevere also is a warrior, able to shoot her bow with great skill and once, late in the movie, she charges into battle with sword drawn (her scenes with the swords are the least convincing when she tries to match power and strength with men. Keira Knightley is a small woman).
The battle scenes are done more in the style of "Braveheart", though with a surprisingly lack of blood and visible brutality. Clive Owen's Arthur is a solid leader, though one lacking in charisma. He seems the leader who has earned the trust of his men over a long period of time by being a strong warrior, brave, intelligent, and always faithful, but not with this force of his personality. That is good for a leader, bad for a leading man. Owen was fantastic in "Closer", but his powerful personality is pushed to the side here. Everybody else in the movie is acceptable and believable in their roles, and Keira Knightley was just fine as a different sort of Guinevere right up until the part where she parried a sword swung by a much larger man. She was best when using the bow and when using her agility in battle. She lost me when she used strength to win in battle.
This Director's Cut Edition restored scenes that needed to be cut from the theatrical release and reportedly adds a bit more brutality to the battles. This was evident near the end, but not so much early on in the movie. Not having seen the theatrical release, I am not able to comment on the differences between the two versions of "King Arthur".
This isn't a bad movie. It is "Braveheart" light with some of the actors from "Braveheart". After "Training Day" I honestly expected something more from Antoine Fuqua, but it was nice that he did not provide a conventional Arthur movie. If reports of his struggle with the studio to make "his" movie are to believed, "King Arthur" had the potential to be something better than it turned out to be, even with a Director's Cut. While not a bad movie, "King Arthur" should not get a grade of much above a C+. It is decent enough, but nothing special.
While the myth and legend of King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table have been around in one form or another for centuries, there is little solid historical evidence that there was an actual King named Arthur or what his exploits may or may not have been, or even what century he may or may not have lived in. The title cards at the start of the movie makes a new claim of accuracy with historical basis, but from watching documentaries on the History Channel before "King Arthur" was released theatrically, it seems that this movie offers one of many possible interpretations on the Arthur Legend. No retelling of the legend is going to be completely accurate, assuming there was an Arthur, so take this movie with a grain of salt and as entertainment.
Many of the other movies about Arthur deal with a magic sword being pulled out of a stone, and powerful magic being wielded by Merlin (John Boorman's "Exaclibur"), and there is even a musical "Camelot", not to mention the rather bad but strangely enjoyable "First Knight". Forget every other Arthurian movie that you have seen thus far because "King Arthur" is nothing like those movies. There is no magic, no knights bursting into song, and no Richard Gere. This is a darker, more realistic movie from the director of "Training Day".
"King Arthur" is set in the fifth century. Rome is the de facto ruler of Britain, though via proxy. Roman Knights hold sway in Britain, enforcing the law for Citizens and keeping the "barbarians" away. In this movie, the Knights that are in Britain were originally from Sarmatia, a tribe far to the East. These Sarmatians, having lost their battle against Rome have accepted as a term of their surrender that all of their male children will serve in the Roman Army. These men are serving under Lucius Artorius Castus, or Arthur (Clive Owen). Along with Arthur are the other "legendary" knights and Sarmatians Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Gawain (Joel Edgerton), Galahad (Hugh Dancy), and Bors (Ray Winstone). Together, with other unnamed knights, the Sarmatians protect their corner of Britain and their tour of duty will be over with the arrival of the Bishop Germanius (Ivano Marescotti). The Bishop has other ideas. He will only release the knights after they fulfill one more task. They must ride north, into territory occupied by the Woads (native Britons) where there is a Saxon Army on the brink of invasion, and rescue a young man whom the Pope in Rome is grooming as his successor. Only then with Arthur and his men be free to return to Sarmatia. They argue, the grumble, the get angry, and they submit.
On the way they encounter Merlin (Stephen Dillane), no longer a sorcerer, but a leader of a tribe of Woads. Upon rescuing the boy, Arthur also rescues a young woman named Guinevere (Keira Knightley). Guinevere is not the refined princess who's beauty ruined Camelot, but a Woad prisoner who is starving and abused. She is freed by Arthur, befriended even though she is a barbarian, and through their discussions Arthur begins to question his place as a Roman. Arthur is part Briton, part Sarmatian, so his world is not the same as that of Bors or Lancelot. Guinevere also is a warrior, able to shoot her bow with great skill and once, late in the movie, she charges into battle with sword drawn (her scenes with the swords are the least convincing when she tries to match power and strength with men. Keira Knightley is a small woman).
The battle scenes are done more in the style of "Braveheart", though with a surprisingly lack of blood and visible brutality. Clive Owen's Arthur is a solid leader, though one lacking in charisma. He seems the leader who has earned the trust of his men over a long period of time by being a strong warrior, brave, intelligent, and always faithful, but not with this force of his personality. That is good for a leader, bad for a leading man. Owen was fantastic in "Closer", but his powerful personality is pushed to the side here. Everybody else in the movie is acceptable and believable in their roles, and Keira Knightley was just fine as a different sort of Guinevere right up until the part where she parried a sword swung by a much larger man. She was best when using the bow and when using her agility in battle. She lost me when she used strength to win in battle.
This Director's Cut Edition restored scenes that needed to be cut from the theatrical release and reportedly adds a bit more brutality to the battles. This was evident near the end, but not so much early on in the movie. Not having seen the theatrical release, I am not able to comment on the differences between the two versions of "King Arthur".
This isn't a bad movie. It is "Braveheart" light with some of the actors from "Braveheart". After "Training Day" I honestly expected something more from Antoine Fuqua, but it was nice that he did not provide a conventional Arthur movie. If reports of his struggle with the studio to make "his" movie are to believed, "King Arthur" had the potential to be something better than it turned out to be, even with a Director's Cut. While not a bad movie, "King Arthur" should not get a grade of much above a C+. It is decent enough, but nothing special.
Movie Awards
Roger Ebert had a great idea. He is tracking the winners of all the major critical awards here. This way we can try to see which movies have been voted best picture and make Oscar predictions from the list. It's a really good idea, especially for the acting categories. We see that a movie like Sideways has been cleaning up, but Million Dollar Baby is making a strong showing. I'll be checking in on this one periodically.
Ebert on Million Dollar Baby
Roger Ebert has written a beautiful review of Million Dollar Baby. It is writing like this that reminds me why he is considered one of the top film reviewers in America and one of the most respected. It is an example why he won the Pulitzer Prize for his film criticism. Ebert's review only deepens my desire to see this movie, which was already the #1 movie I wanted to see (now that i've seen Closer).
If everything I have heard about Million Dollar Baby is right, and Ebert seems to agree, you are looking at the movie that is going to get an abundance of Oscar Nominations in every category it possibly can. And it may very well win a whole bunch, too.
If everything I have heard about Million Dollar Baby is right, and Ebert seems to agree, you are looking at the movie that is going to get an abundance of Oscar Nominations in every category it possibly can. And it may very well win a whole bunch, too.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Movie Review: Finding Neverland (2004)
A film by Marc Forster
J.M Barrie (Johnny Depp) is something of a failed playwright. His latest play has just flopped on opening night. The audience was bored and left the theatre saying how dreadful it was. His relationship with his wife, Mary (Radha Mitchell) is chilly and loveless. But James Barrie still has an incredibly fertile imagination, turning the mundane into something more spectacular and wondrous, if only in his mind. While writing in a park James encounters the Davies family with one of the boys lying under the bench Barrie is sitting on. This boy is pretending to have been imprisoned by the king, George (Nick Roud), who is really just his older brother. Barrie, unlike what most adults would do, plays right along with the scene and tries to bargain young Michael (Luke Spill) out of jail. Immediately Barrie seems to form a friendship with the family, performing a little play with his dog for the family, which includes the mother Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet) and her other two sons Peter (Freddie Highmore) and Jack (Joe Prospero). Barrie spends more and more time with the Davies, befriending Sylvia and playing make believe with the children. From this relationship we see instances of Barrie's imagination taking hold and the creation of aspects of "Peter Pan".
Three of the boys join in and play every game with James Barrie, but young Peter does not. Still grieving and resentful at the death of his father, Peter will not play. In talking with James, however, Peter starts to come out of his shell. It is clear that this friendship, which is entirely innocent of anything romantic (in the case of Sylvia) or otherwise is of great comfort both to the Davies family as well as to James Barrie. There is conflict, of course. Sylvia's mother, Mrs Emma Du Maurier (Julie Christie) disapproves because of Barrie's behavior but also because she feels that the friendship will only cause a scandal and ruin any chance of Sylvia's being able to remarry into "Society". Barrie, of course, is married. This is the other major conflict. Mary is resentful of the time Barrie spends away from her, but it is also clear that their relationship is not working even before he met Sylvia and her family. They were already sleeping in separate bedrooms (though that may have been a cultural thing, I am not sure).
While all of this is happening, the producer of Barrie's plays, Charles Frohman (Dustin Hoffman) is trying to get Barrie's new play financed and is very worried when he sees what it is. It is a play about fairies and children with an alligator and a grown man who must dress up in a dog costume. Since these plays are shown to the "High Society", it is a play destined to flop. Coming from the twenty first century, we also know it is destined to become a classic in "Peter Pan".
Rated PG, "Finding Neverland" is a wonderful family film. In fact, that is the exact word that came to mind as I walked out of the theatre: Wonderful. There is truly a sense of wonder about J.M. Barrie and his imagination which created Neverland. His friendship with the Davies comes off as genuine and heartfelt and entirely natural. Johnny Depp's performance carries the movie, though Winslet and the four children are also to be commended for how well "Finding Neverland" has turned out. Depp is much more restrained here than in most of his other movie, but he still is able to shine through with a quirkly personality that feels appropriate to Barrie. "Finding Neverland" is a very imaginative movie, beautifully shot, with enough scenes of Barrie's imagination to override what could have otherwise been a drab London. This is clearly one of the best movies of the year.
J.M Barrie (Johnny Depp) is something of a failed playwright. His latest play has just flopped on opening night. The audience was bored and left the theatre saying how dreadful it was. His relationship with his wife, Mary (Radha Mitchell) is chilly and loveless. But James Barrie still has an incredibly fertile imagination, turning the mundane into something more spectacular and wondrous, if only in his mind. While writing in a park James encounters the Davies family with one of the boys lying under the bench Barrie is sitting on. This boy is pretending to have been imprisoned by the king, George (Nick Roud), who is really just his older brother. Barrie, unlike what most adults would do, plays right along with the scene and tries to bargain young Michael (Luke Spill) out of jail. Immediately Barrie seems to form a friendship with the family, performing a little play with his dog for the family, which includes the mother Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet) and her other two sons Peter (Freddie Highmore) and Jack (Joe Prospero). Barrie spends more and more time with the Davies, befriending Sylvia and playing make believe with the children. From this relationship we see instances of Barrie's imagination taking hold and the creation of aspects of "Peter Pan".
Three of the boys join in and play every game with James Barrie, but young Peter does not. Still grieving and resentful at the death of his father, Peter will not play. In talking with James, however, Peter starts to come out of his shell. It is clear that this friendship, which is entirely innocent of anything romantic (in the case of Sylvia) or otherwise is of great comfort both to the Davies family as well as to James Barrie. There is conflict, of course. Sylvia's mother, Mrs Emma Du Maurier (Julie Christie) disapproves because of Barrie's behavior but also because she feels that the friendship will only cause a scandal and ruin any chance of Sylvia's being able to remarry into "Society". Barrie, of course, is married. This is the other major conflict. Mary is resentful of the time Barrie spends away from her, but it is also clear that their relationship is not working even before he met Sylvia and her family. They were already sleeping in separate bedrooms (though that may have been a cultural thing, I am not sure).
While all of this is happening, the producer of Barrie's plays, Charles Frohman (Dustin Hoffman) is trying to get Barrie's new play financed and is very worried when he sees what it is. It is a play about fairies and children with an alligator and a grown man who must dress up in a dog costume. Since these plays are shown to the "High Society", it is a play destined to flop. Coming from the twenty first century, we also know it is destined to become a classic in "Peter Pan".
Rated PG, "Finding Neverland" is a wonderful family film. In fact, that is the exact word that came to mind as I walked out of the theatre: Wonderful. There is truly a sense of wonder about J.M. Barrie and his imagination which created Neverland. His friendship with the Davies comes off as genuine and heartfelt and entirely natural. Johnny Depp's performance carries the movie, though Winslet and the four children are also to be commended for how well "Finding Neverland" has turned out. Depp is much more restrained here than in most of his other movie, but he still is able to shine through with a quirkly personality that feels appropriate to Barrie. "Finding Neverland" is a very imaginative movie, beautifully shot, with enough scenes of Barrie's imagination to override what could have otherwise been a drab London. This is clearly one of the best movies of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)