There should be an oscar for best trailer, because I rarely see entire> movies that are as good as these two minute segments, Simply put, Sarah and I have seen quite a few good ones we thought we would talk a little bit about them:
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-PqqifyjA
Ari: I am on the verge of crying each time I watch this trailer. It's not particularly sad, and I don't know what it is, maybe the Acrade Fire song or the perfect editing or simply that this is one of the first books I ever read. I could not think of anyone more perfect than Spike Jones to take a ten sentence book and adapt it into a two hour epic. In short, I'm so fucking excited for this.
Sarah: HOE MY GAWD this trailer...Unlike Ari I was not on the verge of crying when I saw this trailer...because I actually did kind of cry.Well, it was only one tear, but it rolled down my cheek really slowlyand dramatically. I totally agree with everything Ari said...Greatediting, great music, great kid, great great great great great. I amsooooo excited theanticpation is killing me.
AWAY WE GO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21lpEqbRxk
Ari: I heard about this movie about a year ago and I remember thinking that it just sounded to good to be true -- Sam Mendes directing Dave> Eggers script about a thirtysomething couple (John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph) figuring out their next step in life. But alas, its real and I could not be more excited. I love every single person involved in this and early screenings are getting positive responses. Im a little worried about getting "Juno Syndrome" (i.e. setting expectations way too high), but I can't think of anything else that loks quite as perfectly a balance of> comedy and drama. I'm pretty pumped for this.
Sarah: Meh... I mean, ya Sam Mendes and Dave Eggers..wow... but I don't know I saw the trailer and I'm not that in to it. I feel like I've seen this story a million times, Garden State round two? But I'm sure it's going to be really feel good, and I will probably like it, but this trailer did not make me go insane for it.
What do you think?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Gender Politics Aboard Battlestar Galactica: A look at Seasons One and Two
Welcome aboard the Galactica, where anxieties run high and the question of whether you’ll live or die creates a never-ending feeling of suspense. The frackin’ Cylons, trying to obliterate the human race, are flying over-head, and we need to make a light speed jump to escape Now! Now! Now! So, welcome aboard, but don’t get too comfortable.
Right now I am on season two of BSG and I am OBESSED. I was immediately sucked in to this high-anxiety drama, and I always anticipate the next episode before I have even finished the one I’m watching. Upon viewing this show, however, I could not help but notice the odd gender dynamics that have developed in “the future” that are projected on to the crew of the Battlestar. A friend originally described BSG to me as a “soap opera for men” because it’s about inter-galactic wars, but still involves relationships. The more I watched, the more I found this description to be accurate.
The first thing that became immediately apparent in regards to the strange gender relationships was that all of the females holding any kind of power aboard the ship (the viper pilots, the deck hands, and other members of the crew) are referred to as “Sir.” The use of this title on BSG connotes that only a man is truly worthy of respect, and thus we should be blind to a woman’s gender while she is doing a “man’s work.” While this bothered me, I hoped to find solace in the fact that this future is at least progressive since the President of the human colonies is a Madame. Through season one, though, I am sorry to say that I was disappointed in the way that this particular female was portrayed. One of the fears Americans have of a female presidency is that the stereotypes of a woman will be acted out and that she will be emotional and unprofessional on the job. To me, this is utter nonsense and a prejudice that needs to be overcome. That is why when the Madame President on Battlestar was portrayed in this very way I almost felt personally offended. Through the first season President Laura Roslin (a former school teacher) takes on a passive role in comparison to the powerhouse of Commander Adama, and it is unclear as to whether her word really counts for anything at all. In one scene she even has a business talk while wearing a nightgown. By season two, the President takes on a more active role, but her decisions are rash and based on visions and hallucinations. She takes an emotional and religious angle to the presidency and this is a binary opposition to Commander Adama’s practical rational “manly” way of doing things. To be fair, I have only seen two seasons of BSG and I have faith that in seasons three and four Rosalin will gain more legitimate power because even towards the end of season two, she becomes a more serious force to be reckoned with.
While the emotional rashness of women can be found in the President, their manipulative seductive “nature” can be found in the tall blonde Cylon who haunts Dr. Gaius Baltar. The Cylons are a race of robots originally created by the humans. They have evolved and are now able to copy every aspect of the human being: from their appearance to their emotions. The blonde Cylon (who comes to be known as #6) is one of these “skin job toasters.” She is your typical Barbie doll: tall, bleach blonde, model-skinny, big lips, perfect skin, face…the works. Her Cylon mission is to win over Vice President Baltar so that she can gain access to the colonial government and destroy it from the inside. Her tactics for winning over her man include sex and…and not really anything else. This highly sexualized creature wears slinky red dresses and other revealing garments that accentuate her breasts and hips. She manipulates by threatening VP Baltar, and taunts his masculinity, telling him to “be a man” and make decisions, which will earn him more power. Now this character would not bother me so much if it were not for the fact that all the main Cylons featured, in season two, are women. Women=evil is a popular message that we have had to live with since Eve took that fatal bite.
#6’s traits are mirrored in a few other female characters on the show. For example, Ellen (the wife of Colonel Saul Tigh) has that same conventional blonde look and seems to be responsible for reawakening her husband’s bad habits and alcoholic tendencies. She is very manipulative in that very “female way,” meaning she will use her sexuality to get what she wants, and takes advantage of the fact that she is the wife of a man that has power. Granted, in a society where women are not given much power to being with, it can be hard to assert oneself in other ways in order to have any input in major decisions. Still, it makes me sad to see women taking on these roles in a show that is meant to take place in the distant future.
On a brighter note, there are several females who act totally independent of men. My favorite character, Kara ‘Starbuck’ Thrace is one of these women. She is an example of someone who is strong, respected, gutsy, and powerful but avoids the label bitch (A very challenging thing for a woman in power to do). Even though Kara is all of these things she is not just “one of the guys” and manages to hold on to her feminity (even though her sensitivity seems to be stunted at times).
Although BSG seems to be infested with gender issues almost as much as it is infested with Cylons, I still love it. Like I said, I have faith that the show will turn around these female characters and make them into multi-dimensional people. By the end of season two I could already see many of the women evolving, so I will not give up hope!
I can only conclude by saying…If you have not started watching this show, being…immediately…before the Cylons take over the world.
- Sarah B.
Right now I am on season two of BSG and I am OBESSED. I was immediately sucked in to this high-anxiety drama, and I always anticipate the next episode before I have even finished the one I’m watching. Upon viewing this show, however, I could not help but notice the odd gender dynamics that have developed in “the future” that are projected on to the crew of the Battlestar. A friend originally described BSG to me as a “soap opera for men” because it’s about inter-galactic wars, but still involves relationships. The more I watched, the more I found this description to be accurate.
The first thing that became immediately apparent in regards to the strange gender relationships was that all of the females holding any kind of power aboard the ship (the viper pilots, the deck hands, and other members of the crew) are referred to as “Sir.” The use of this title on BSG connotes that only a man is truly worthy of respect, and thus we should be blind to a woman’s gender while she is doing a “man’s work.” While this bothered me, I hoped to find solace in the fact that this future is at least progressive since the President of the human colonies is a Madame. Through season one, though, I am sorry to say that I was disappointed in the way that this particular female was portrayed. One of the fears Americans have of a female presidency is that the stereotypes of a woman will be acted out and that she will be emotional and unprofessional on the job. To me, this is utter nonsense and a prejudice that needs to be overcome. That is why when the Madame President on Battlestar was portrayed in this very way I almost felt personally offended. Through the first season President Laura Roslin (a former school teacher) takes on a passive role in comparison to the powerhouse of Commander Adama, and it is unclear as to whether her word really counts for anything at all. In one scene she even has a business talk while wearing a nightgown. By season two, the President takes on a more active role, but her decisions are rash and based on visions and hallucinations. She takes an emotional and religious angle to the presidency and this is a binary opposition to Commander Adama’s practical rational “manly” way of doing things. To be fair, I have only seen two seasons of BSG and I have faith that in seasons three and four Rosalin will gain more legitimate power because even towards the end of season two, she becomes a more serious force to be reckoned with.
While the emotional rashness of women can be found in the President, their manipulative seductive “nature” can be found in the tall blonde Cylon who haunts Dr. Gaius Baltar. The Cylons are a race of robots originally created by the humans. They have evolved and are now able to copy every aspect of the human being: from their appearance to their emotions. The blonde Cylon (who comes to be known as #6) is one of these “skin job toasters.” She is your typical Barbie doll: tall, bleach blonde, model-skinny, big lips, perfect skin, face…the works. Her Cylon mission is to win over Vice President Baltar so that she can gain access to the colonial government and destroy it from the inside. Her tactics for winning over her man include sex and…and not really anything else. This highly sexualized creature wears slinky red dresses and other revealing garments that accentuate her breasts and hips. She manipulates by threatening VP Baltar, and taunts his masculinity, telling him to “be a man” and make decisions, which will earn him more power. Now this character would not bother me so much if it were not for the fact that all the main Cylons featured, in season two, are women. Women=evil is a popular message that we have had to live with since Eve took that fatal bite.
#6’s traits are mirrored in a few other female characters on the show. For example, Ellen (the wife of Colonel Saul Tigh) has that same conventional blonde look and seems to be responsible for reawakening her husband’s bad habits and alcoholic tendencies. She is very manipulative in that very “female way,” meaning she will use her sexuality to get what she wants, and takes advantage of the fact that she is the wife of a man that has power. Granted, in a society where women are not given much power to being with, it can be hard to assert oneself in other ways in order to have any input in major decisions. Still, it makes me sad to see women taking on these roles in a show that is meant to take place in the distant future.
On a brighter note, there are several females who act totally independent of men. My favorite character, Kara ‘Starbuck’ Thrace is one of these women. She is an example of someone who is strong, respected, gutsy, and powerful but avoids the label bitch (A very challenging thing for a woman in power to do). Even though Kara is all of these things she is not just “one of the guys” and manages to hold on to her feminity (even though her sensitivity seems to be stunted at times).
Although BSG seems to be infested with gender issues almost as much as it is infested with Cylons, I still love it. Like I said, I have faith that the show will turn around these female characters and make them into multi-dimensional people. By the end of season two I could already see many of the women evolving, so I will not give up hope!
I can only conclude by saying…If you have not started watching this show, being…immediately…before the Cylons take over the world.
- Sarah B.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Oscar Predictions
BEST PICTURE
Who Should Win: Milk. As much as I enjoyed "Benjamin Button", in the two and a half plus hours, I had quite a few cons that balanced out the many pros. With Milk on the other hand, I can't think about a single change I would've made to the film.
Who Will Win: Slumdog. Of course. Listen, I think this is a fine film and very impressive, but I didn't walk out of that movie head over heels in love with it like everyone else. I won't be made when it wins because it is a pretty good movie, just not Best Picture.
Who Got Snubbed: I would have definitely changed this around by taking out Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionaire and (possibly) The Reader and put in Wall-E, Rachel Getting Married and The Wrestler, all of which are are worthy of getting the little golden guy.
BEST ACTOR
Who Should Win: This is a really neck-and-neck category, but I'm going to say Mickey Rourke has a slight edge over Penn. The raw brutality and honesty he shows is devastating and heartbreaking. It's a close one, though...
Who Will Win: Penn. He's just so fucking good and how he didn't get it a decade ago for "Dead Man Walking" is just unbelievable. The Academy loves him and the role screams Oscar gold.
Who Got Snubbed: No one. I'm pretty satisfied with the nominees this year, and I almost want to say that Leo should have gotten a nom, but in all honesty I think it was Winslet that made him look so good in "Revolutionary Road".
BEST ACTRESS
Who Should Win: I don't think I could be disappointed with anyone (except Angelina) winning. Melissa Leo and Hathaway gave the two best performances, with Winslet close behind and Streep trailing not to far away. If it were up to me, it would be a three-way tie between Leo, Hathaway and Winslet.
Who Will Win: What a bloodbath. This is a close one, but I think it'll go to Winslet, for five reasons.
Who Got Snubbed: Boy, this is an endless list, starting with Sally Hawkins at the top, who's nom got stolen by the latter half (and in way, both) of Bradgelina. Also: Kirsten Scott Thomas in I've Loved You So Long, Kate Winslet in Revolutionary Road, Michelle Williams......... it just goes on and on and on.......
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Who Should Win: Ledger. Michael Shannon is the closest runner up, but Ledger all the way...
Who Will Win: Ledger.
Who Got Snubbed: Bill Irwin in Rachel Getting Married. But really, since the absurd Tom Cruise-Golden Globe fiasco didn't repeat itself, I can't complain.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
Who Should Win: Another close category -- Penelope Cruz's performance has still stuck with me after eight months, and I think that's whats making me say... yeah, I'm going with Cruz.
Who Will Win: I have a feeling Viola Davis will actually take this, but it won't be a surprise to see Cruz or Tomei up on the stage Sunday night. Even Amy Adams has a chance.
Who Got Snubbed: It's a crime that Rosemarie DeWitt wasn't nominated for Rachel Getting Married. She would be my pick to win if she were here. Evan Rachel Wood was brilliant in The Wrestler and completely made me forget about Evan Rachel Wood in Across The Universe, and reminded me of Evan Rachel Wood in Thirteen.
Who Should Win: Milk. As much as I enjoyed "Benjamin Button", in the two and a half plus hours, I had quite a few cons that balanced out the many pros. With Milk on the other hand, I can't think about a single change I would've made to the film.
Who Will Win: Slumdog. Of course. Listen, I think this is a fine film and very impressive, but I didn't walk out of that movie head over heels in love with it like everyone else. I won't be made when it wins because it is a pretty good movie, just not Best Picture.
Who Got Snubbed: I would have definitely changed this around by taking out Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionaire and (possibly) The Reader and put in Wall-E, Rachel Getting Married and The Wrestler, all of which are are worthy of getting the little golden guy.
BEST ACTOR
Who Should Win: This is a really neck-and-neck category, but I'm going to say Mickey Rourke has a slight edge over Penn. The raw brutality and honesty he shows is devastating and heartbreaking. It's a close one, though...
Who Will Win: Penn. He's just so fucking good and how he didn't get it a decade ago for "Dead Man Walking" is just unbelievable. The Academy loves him and the role screams Oscar gold.
Who Got Snubbed: No one. I'm pretty satisfied with the nominees this year, and I almost want to say that Leo should have gotten a nom, but in all honesty I think it was Winslet that made him look so good in "Revolutionary Road".
BEST ACTRESS
Who Should Win: I don't think I could be disappointed with anyone (except Angelina) winning. Melissa Leo and Hathaway gave the two best performances, with Winslet close behind and Streep trailing not to far away. If it were up to me, it would be a three-way tie between Leo, Hathaway and Winslet.
Who Will Win: What a bloodbath. This is a close one, but I think it'll go to Winslet, for five reasons.
Who Got Snubbed: Boy, this is an endless list, starting with Sally Hawkins at the top, who's nom got stolen by the latter half (and in way, both) of Bradgelina. Also: Kirsten Scott Thomas in I've Loved You So Long, Kate Winslet in Revolutionary Road, Michelle Williams......... it just goes on and on and on.......
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Who Should Win: Ledger. Michael Shannon is the closest runner up, but Ledger all the way...
Who Will Win: Ledger.
Who Got Snubbed: Bill Irwin in Rachel Getting Married. But really, since the absurd Tom Cruise-Golden Globe fiasco didn't repeat itself, I can't complain.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
Who Should Win: Another close category -- Penelope Cruz's performance has still stuck with me after eight months, and I think that's whats making me say... yeah, I'm going with Cruz.
Who Will Win: I have a feeling Viola Davis will actually take this, but it won't be a surprise to see Cruz or Tomei up on the stage Sunday night. Even Amy Adams has a chance.
Who Got Snubbed: It's a crime that Rosemarie DeWitt wasn't nominated for Rachel Getting Married. She would be my pick to win if she were here. Evan Rachel Wood was brilliant in The Wrestler and completely made me forget about Evan Rachel Wood in Across The Universe, and reminded me of Evan Rachel Wood in Thirteen.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Review #9: In Theatres - Coraline
NOTE: There Are SPOILERS Below
Here is a quick summary of the film before I get started -->
Coraline is a precocious young girl who moves to a new house in the middle of nowhere with her distant parents. While exploring the eerie house, she stumbles upon a door into another dimension where parents are attentive and the dull mansion grounds are lively. Everything seems perfect right up until Coraline learns that in order to stay in this "Other World", there's just one little she has to do.....
----------------------------------------------
I'm going to try something new and fairly simple-- just do a pro/con list:
GOOD THINGS:
- Voice Acting by every single person in the movie is perfect and I don't think I would have replaced a single person
- Its visually beautiful, especially when Coraline tours the garden her Other Father made for her and when she goes to see her Other Neighbors's show
- I love the Black Cat that helps Coraline -- that character works perfectly - The Other Mother's slow decomposition into the real monster she also worked well
- They added a new character named Wybie -- Wyborn -- as an offbeat kid that has a grandma with a past the ties into Coraline's present predicament
BAD THINGS:
- The Other Father sings the 'They Might Be Giants' song and then kind of melts (literary and metaphorically) away in a sudden and has a... pointblank disturbing transformation into a vegetable-state drone
- It began to be somewhat "video-gamey" when Coraline had to find the the other kids' souls - The theatrical sisters that live downstairs have dialogue that's just a little too eccentric for their characters, which themselves are too eccentric
- As good of the introduction of Wybie and his grandma were, I wish they had delved into his grandma's past even further
Here is a quick summary of the film before I get started -->
Coraline is a precocious young girl who moves to a new house in the middle of nowhere with her distant parents. While exploring the eerie house, she stumbles upon a door into another dimension where parents are attentive and the dull mansion grounds are lively. Everything seems perfect right up until Coraline learns that in order to stay in this "Other World", there's just one little she has to do.....
----------------------------------------------
I'm going to try something new and fairly simple-- just do a pro/con list:
GOOD THINGS:
- Voice Acting by every single person in the movie is perfect and I don't think I would have replaced a single person
- Its visually beautiful, especially when Coraline tours the garden her Other Father made for her and when she goes to see her Other Neighbors's show
- I love the Black Cat that helps Coraline -- that character works perfectly - The Other Mother's slow decomposition into the real monster she also worked well
- They added a new character named Wybie -- Wyborn -- as an offbeat kid that has a grandma with a past the ties into Coraline's present predicament
BAD THINGS:
- The Other Father sings the 'They Might Be Giants' song and then kind of melts (literary and metaphorically) away in a sudden and has a... pointblank disturbing transformation into a vegetable-state drone
- It began to be somewhat "video-gamey" when Coraline had to find the the other kids' souls - The theatrical sisters that live downstairs have dialogue that's just a little too eccentric for their characters, which themselves are too eccentric
- As good of the introduction of Wybie and his grandma were, I wish they had delved into his grandma's past even further
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Review: Nothing But The Truth
FYI, the reason that the post title doesn't say "In Theaters" or "On DVD" is because the production company behind the film, Yari Film Group, filed for Chapter 11 last month. "Nothing But The Truth" was playing in NYC in late December just to qualify for awards season, and has now been showing up at a few awards festivals, but its future is pretty unsure.
Anyway.
“Nothing But The Truth” is a fictionalized account of the Valerie Plame case. Kate Beckinsale plays Rachel Armstrong, a Sun-Times reporter that reveals that an ambassador’s wife is a CIA operative (Vera Farmiga), who went on a mission to Venezuela an wrote a report that the president disregarded concerning the war or something like that…..
That’s the first fault of the film – they don’t spend enough time with Farmiga’s character, even though she is the best and most fascinating person in the entire film. Some flashbacks would’ve been just what it needed.
When Rachel publishes the piece, Erica (Vera Farmiga) is exposed and though she was assured there would be no repercussions, Rachel gets imprisoned. This is because she refuses to reveal her source, who the prosecution wants to jail for releasing the information. For the rest of the film we follow Rachel as she slowly rots in prison, and her life begins to fall apart.
The film begins very strong and remains so up until Rachel’s imprisonment. Noah Wyle and Angela Bassett are also good as her editor and the newspaper’s attorney. But once Rachel is in jail, it focuses more on her seriously stupid husband (David Schwimmer) and her even more idiotic lawyer (Alan Alda). Beckinsale is pretty good, but after all these AP stories about how she’s being “robbed” of an oscar nom because the Yari Film Group went bankrupt, she doesn’t live up to the hype. She’s a fine actress, but the problem is that anyone could have done this role, and I have yet to see what is special about her. Vera Farmiga on the other hand is so so so so soooo great as Erica Van Doren, and I really wish she had gotten more screen time. She is the only one here that I’m really excited to see what she’ll do in the future.
In the end I think it falls flat due to the poor directing. It’s a good movie, enjoyable enough with a few twist without, but it seems that It easily could’ve been great.
VERDICT: Wait for the (If it ever gets released) DVD.
-- Ari S.
Anyway.
“Nothing But The Truth” is a fictionalized account of the Valerie Plame case. Kate Beckinsale plays Rachel Armstrong, a Sun-Times reporter that reveals that an ambassador’s wife is a CIA operative (Vera Farmiga), who went on a mission to Venezuela an wrote a report that the president disregarded concerning the war or something like that…..
That’s the first fault of the film – they don’t spend enough time with Farmiga’s character, even though she is the best and most fascinating person in the entire film. Some flashbacks would’ve been just what it needed.
When Rachel publishes the piece, Erica (Vera Farmiga) is exposed and though she was assured there would be no repercussions, Rachel gets imprisoned. This is because she refuses to reveal her source, who the prosecution wants to jail for releasing the information. For the rest of the film we follow Rachel as she slowly rots in prison, and her life begins to fall apart.
The film begins very strong and remains so up until Rachel’s imprisonment. Noah Wyle and Angela Bassett are also good as her editor and the newspaper’s attorney. But once Rachel is in jail, it focuses more on her seriously stupid husband (David Schwimmer) and her even more idiotic lawyer (Alan Alda). Beckinsale is pretty good, but after all these AP stories about how she’s being “robbed” of an oscar nom because the Yari Film Group went bankrupt, she doesn’t live up to the hype. She’s a fine actress, but the problem is that anyone could have done this role, and I have yet to see what is special about her. Vera Farmiga on the other hand is so so so so soooo great as Erica Van Doren, and I really wish she had gotten more screen time. She is the only one here that I’m really excited to see what she’ll do in the future.
In the end I think it falls flat due to the poor directing. It’s a good movie, enjoyable enough with a few twist without, but it seems that It easily could’ve been great.
VERDICT: Wait for the (If it ever gets released) DVD.
-- Ari S.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
CineramaTrauma Podcast #1: "Doubt
We finally have the much anticipated, long awaited premire episode of the CineramaTrauma Podcast!
To listen, click here.
On CineramaTrauma #1, we will be reviewing "Doubt".
If you have any feedback, please send us an e-mail at cineramatrauma@gmail.com
Enjoy
To listen, click here.
On CineramaTrauma #1, we will be reviewing "Doubt".
If you have any feedback, please send us an e-mail at cineramatrauma@gmail.com
Enjoy
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Review #8 (SPECIAL): A Comprehensive Analysis of "Paranoid Park" (SPOILERS)
(Do Not Read If You Do Not Want "Paranoid Park" or "Mullholland Dr." Ruined)
This is the latest in the line of Gus Van Sant's "experimental" indie films -- others include 2003's Elephant, about a Columbine-like shooting, and 2005's Last Daysa fictionalized account of Kurt Cobain's death.
However, Paranoid Park doesn't parallel a real event. It's about a teen skateboarder, Alex, that tries to fit in with another crowd of boarders that hang out by the east side stake park known as Paranoid Park. Alex is journaling an account of events that lead up to his possible involvement in the murder of a cop. Now, I say possible because even though we do see accidental push an officer onto a railroad track (in gruesome detail), we discover that once or twice, a scene he wrote down is played back and there are a few minuet differences. This leads us to conclude that Alex is an unreliable narrator. He is so lost in the world with no real self-identity and desperately wants to not only fit in with the boarders at Paranoid Park, but also expresses deep desires to experience the unknown. He is similar to Naomi Watts in Mullholland Dr., in the way that he wants to make a reality in which his life has this element that changes him so he doesn't have to face the fact that he is just pain old Alex. Alex wants so desperately to believe that he did it, so he isn't just another figure fading into the background -- and he never tells anyone, because he doesn't need to convince anyone other than himself.
Paranoid Park, much like Van Sant's most recent project, Milk, is almost too modest. There is great "in depth" camera work here, but there are no classic twist and turns. This is a really stuck-up comment to make, but its too bland, too original maybe. If feel is as though there is so many new idea's and characters, but simultaneously think that you take the kids from "Brick", dumb them down, give 1/200th the amount of dialogue and allusions to noir, and you would have Paranoid Park. We spend the film in Alex's head, but it never feels like a true portrayal of the guilt that one might have after committing such a riveting and irrevocable crime. He is the same solemn quiet teenage boy from begining to end, which causes me to ask, what really happend?
-- Ari S.
What do you think? Comment Below
This is the latest in the line of Gus Van Sant's "experimental" indie films -- others include 2003's Elephant, about a Columbine-like shooting, and 2005's Last Daysa fictionalized account of Kurt Cobain's death.
However, Paranoid Park doesn't parallel a real event. It's about a teen skateboarder, Alex, that tries to fit in with another crowd of boarders that hang out by the east side stake park known as Paranoid Park. Alex is journaling an account of events that lead up to his possible involvement in the murder of a cop. Now, I say possible because even though we do see accidental push an officer onto a railroad track (in gruesome detail), we discover that once or twice, a scene he wrote down is played back and there are a few minuet differences. This leads us to conclude that Alex is an unreliable narrator. He is so lost in the world with no real self-identity and desperately wants to not only fit in with the boarders at Paranoid Park, but also expresses deep desires to experience the unknown. He is similar to Naomi Watts in Mullholland Dr., in the way that he wants to make a reality in which his life has this element that changes him so he doesn't have to face the fact that he is just pain old Alex. Alex wants so desperately to believe that he did it, so he isn't just another figure fading into the background -- and he never tells anyone, because he doesn't need to convince anyone other than himself.
Paranoid Park, much like Van Sant's most recent project, Milk, is almost too modest. There is great "in depth" camera work here, but there are no classic twist and turns. This is a really stuck-up comment to make, but its too bland, too original maybe. If feel is as though there is so many new idea's and characters, but simultaneously think that you take the kids from "Brick", dumb them down, give 1/200th the amount of dialogue and allusions to noir, and you would have Paranoid Park. We spend the film in Alex's head, but it never feels like a true portrayal of the guilt that one might have after committing such a riveting and irrevocable crime. He is the same solemn quiet teenage boy from begining to end, which causes me to ask, what really happend?
-- Ari S.
What do you think? Comment Below
Monday, January 12, 2009
Review #7: In Theaters Now - DEFIANCE
If I could describe this film in four words……..These Jews fight back…
“Another sunny day in LA, (I love LA) what a great day for a movie at the Grove (I love the grove),” I thought to myself. And so went my day…I met my mom for a refreshing iced blended caramel at the Grove’s coffee bean and felt excited and in the mood to see this romantic comedy called “Defiance,” My mom had recommended it and had already seen it the day before. Don’t ask me why I thought this movie was a romantic comedy because it is the exact opposite of that. The fact that I am a college-student, who has stopped watching T.V. and never sees movie trailers or posters, probably had something to do with my misconception. The point is: I certainly was not prepared to see what was about to ensue on the screen for the next two and a half hours.
The story (which is a true one by the way) goes like this: The Bielski brothers escape into the Belarussian Forest in order to survive the Nazi occupied Poland. More and more Jews find their way in to the forest and build a community where they must all work and fight to survive.
Man, do I HATE war movies. You could pick a war scene from Forest Gump and drop it in any other war movie and I probably wouldn’t notice. Fight scenes always look so generic to me. They seem to be shot in the same way: lots of ammo, lots of men down, lots of shouting, lots of forest…blah blah blah. Okay, okay okay, so here’s the thing…when you are watching a Holocaust movie these complaints kinda have to be thrown out the window since the fighting is necessary and not gratuitous or excessive. I know that you could say that about a lot of war movies but the thing that really made me forgive this one for being in a genre that I semi-despise was that the scenes of the brothers building the forest camp were much more important than the fight scenes.
Being a Jew, I have been exposed to an extensive amount of films and literature about the Holocaust and was not expecting this movie to be much different from the things I have seen and read. I was pleasantly surprised to finally see a new type of Holocaust survival tale, however. You guessed it; this was the story of the “defiance” of the Jews. Never do we hear of Jews fighting back like they do in this film. The movie did an excellent job of humanizing the killers on both sides, which made the movie all the more interesting, realistic and heart wrenching.
(SPOILER ALERT) You would think that watching Jews kill a Nazi would be sickeningly pleasurable, but this was not the case. In the first scene of Jewish revenge, Tuvia (the eldest Bielski brother) goes in to town to kill the police officer that murdered his father. Although Tuvia’s revenge killing is totally justified the audience is shown the face of the trembling Nazi begging for his life with his wife beside him screaming for mercy. This gives us no chance to revel in the violence. Instead, it puts the audience in a strange position where we relate to that human face of the Nazi, but also know that this terrified face has killed a father, a mother, a son, a daughter…In this way the scenes of violence in “Defiance” are really different than your average war movie.
The images of the helpless human body in the face of death reminded me of David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence” where Cronenberg meticulously creates a scene in which the audience can revel in violence because the victim is deserving of it, but after the fact a close-up shot of the dead body makes us immediately feel disgusted and remember that the villain is still human like us. Even though “Defiance” puts a face to the Nazi, it in no way attempts to make the audience sympathize with the Germans. It is clear that the Jews fight to survive, and the Germans fight to kill…for this reason, Nazis are always the animal regardless of how “human” they are portrayed.
The stories of survival, the fighting, the relationships between the brothers, the loves that blossom in the forest camp, and the community that is built are all naturally woven in to each other and nothing seems forced or over the top.
Overall this movie was worth seeing. SEE IT. Even if you don’t like war movies, or Holocaust movies SEE IT. It’s a true story and an important one that should be told and spread.
-Sarah B.
“Another sunny day in LA, (I love LA) what a great day for a movie at the Grove (I love the grove),” I thought to myself. And so went my day…I met my mom for a refreshing iced blended caramel at the Grove’s coffee bean and felt excited and in the mood to see this romantic comedy called “Defiance,” My mom had recommended it and had already seen it the day before. Don’t ask me why I thought this movie was a romantic comedy because it is the exact opposite of that. The fact that I am a college-student, who has stopped watching T.V. and never sees movie trailers or posters, probably had something to do with my misconception. The point is: I certainly was not prepared to see what was about to ensue on the screen for the next two and a half hours.
The story (which is a true one by the way) goes like this: The Bielski brothers escape into the Belarussian Forest in order to survive the Nazi occupied Poland. More and more Jews find their way in to the forest and build a community where they must all work and fight to survive.
Man, do I HATE war movies. You could pick a war scene from Forest Gump and drop it in any other war movie and I probably wouldn’t notice. Fight scenes always look so generic to me. They seem to be shot in the same way: lots of ammo, lots of men down, lots of shouting, lots of forest…blah blah blah. Okay, okay okay, so here’s the thing…when you are watching a Holocaust movie these complaints kinda have to be thrown out the window since the fighting is necessary and not gratuitous or excessive. I know that you could say that about a lot of war movies but the thing that really made me forgive this one for being in a genre that I semi-despise was that the scenes of the brothers building the forest camp were much more important than the fight scenes.
Being a Jew, I have been exposed to an extensive amount of films and literature about the Holocaust and was not expecting this movie to be much different from the things I have seen and read. I was pleasantly surprised to finally see a new type of Holocaust survival tale, however. You guessed it; this was the story of the “defiance” of the Jews. Never do we hear of Jews fighting back like they do in this film. The movie did an excellent job of humanizing the killers on both sides, which made the movie all the more interesting, realistic and heart wrenching.
(SPOILER ALERT) You would think that watching Jews kill a Nazi would be sickeningly pleasurable, but this was not the case. In the first scene of Jewish revenge, Tuvia (the eldest Bielski brother) goes in to town to kill the police officer that murdered his father. Although Tuvia’s revenge killing is totally justified the audience is shown the face of the trembling Nazi begging for his life with his wife beside him screaming for mercy. This gives us no chance to revel in the violence. Instead, it puts the audience in a strange position where we relate to that human face of the Nazi, but also know that this terrified face has killed a father, a mother, a son, a daughter…In this way the scenes of violence in “Defiance” are really different than your average war movie.
The images of the helpless human body in the face of death reminded me of David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence” where Cronenberg meticulously creates a scene in which the audience can revel in violence because the victim is deserving of it, but after the fact a close-up shot of the dead body makes us immediately feel disgusted and remember that the villain is still human like us. Even though “Defiance” puts a face to the Nazi, it in no way attempts to make the audience sympathize with the Germans. It is clear that the Jews fight to survive, and the Germans fight to kill…for this reason, Nazis are always the animal regardless of how “human” they are portrayed.
The stories of survival, the fighting, the relationships between the brothers, the loves that blossom in the forest camp, and the community that is built are all naturally woven in to each other and nothing seems forced or over the top.
Overall this movie was worth seeing. SEE IT. Even if you don’t like war movies, or Holocaust movies SEE IT. It’s a true story and an important one that should be told and spread.
-Sarah B.
Review #6: In Theatres Now - The Wrestler
A month ago, my friend asked me, "have you heard about this little indie movie with Mickey Rourke about an underdog washed up wrestler?" "No -- is it any good?" "Yeah, it was great, he might even win an oscar for this." "Oh cool. I'll definately check it out. Who directs it?" "Darren Arnofsky."
At this point all I said was "Oh", and then we dropped the subject. Its not that I don't like Arnofsky's films because "Requim for a Dream" was distrubingly brilliant and "The Fountain" was visually stunning, but I knew that I was going to have to strap in for an intense emotional rollarcoster, and considering the last three films I had seen -- Muholland Dr., Eastern Promises, 21 Grams (all crazily coincidentally starring Naomi Watts, who weird is that?) -- and I really didn't want to go see another one of those kinds of movies.
This weekend, after being getting dozens of "Why haven't you seen it yet?" from all different people, I check it out. Talk about a comeback; this is a truely amazing one.
Mickey Rourke so naturally becomes this broken down Wrestler that has to figure out how to keep going once he finds out that due his heart (I know, a pretty cliche metaphor) he can no longer Wrestle. He tries to replace the love he recieved from fans with that of a stripper with a heart of gold (Marisa Tomei), and by rekindling his relationship with the daughter he abandoned years ago (Evan Rachel Wood). The way he wrestles (no pun intended) with trying to live a "normal" life is so moving and truely heart-breaking, you can't help but love this underdog that can't ever seem to make things right. All he does is exist in a somewhat broken life where he can never find his way. In a lot of ways, wrestling is a lot like acting: The film depicts it as being entirely staged, and the men are just actors in play, going onto the same stage every night, using their facial expression, body language, voice and some very disturbing props in these dramatic one acts.
You have to give it to Rourke, who truely deserved to win last night and is even better here than Sean Penn in "Milk". He also shares a lot in common with another brave haunting performance, Melissa Leo in "Frozen River": Both are simultaneously a force-of-nature you don't want to reckon with, and lost souls that desperately needs others in order to even go on.
The Verdict: Run, do not walk, to go see one of the best performances in years.
- Ari S.
At this point all I said was "Oh", and then we dropped the subject. Its not that I don't like Arnofsky's films because "Requim for a Dream" was distrubingly brilliant and "The Fountain" was visually stunning, but I knew that I was going to have to strap in for an intense emotional rollarcoster, and considering the last three films I had seen -- Muholland Dr., Eastern Promises, 21 Grams (all crazily coincidentally starring Naomi Watts, who weird is that?) -- and I really didn't want to go see another one of those kinds of movies.
This weekend, after being getting dozens of "Why haven't you seen it yet?" from all different people, I check it out. Talk about a comeback; this is a truely amazing one.
Mickey Rourke so naturally becomes this broken down Wrestler that has to figure out how to keep going once he finds out that due his heart (I know, a pretty cliche metaphor) he can no longer Wrestle. He tries to replace the love he recieved from fans with that of a stripper with a heart of gold (Marisa Tomei), and by rekindling his relationship with the daughter he abandoned years ago (Evan Rachel Wood). The way he wrestles (no pun intended) with trying to live a "normal" life is so moving and truely heart-breaking, you can't help but love this underdog that can't ever seem to make things right. All he does is exist in a somewhat broken life where he can never find his way. In a lot of ways, wrestling is a lot like acting: The film depicts it as being entirely staged, and the men are just actors in play, going onto the same stage every night, using their facial expression, body language, voice and some very disturbing props in these dramatic one acts.
You have to give it to Rourke, who truely deserved to win last night and is even better here than Sean Penn in "Milk". He also shares a lot in common with another brave haunting performance, Melissa Leo in "Frozen River": Both are simultaneously a force-of-nature you don't want to reckon with, and lost souls that desperately needs others in order to even go on.
The Verdict: Run, do not walk, to go see one of the best performances in years.
- Ari S.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Golden Globe Winners
Can I just say, WHOA!
Boy, I am very pleasently suprised here. Some major upsets here, and whats shocking is that they're in two of the biggest catagories.
Well let's start with Mickey Rourke winning for The Wrestler. I just saw this movie last night and thought to myself that he was just as good as Sean Penn, the major Frontrunner. This probably means the most for the Oscars, since they've both been running neck and neck for the past few weeks. Now the ball is really up in the air.
And Kate Winslet! Not one, but two awards! And can I just say, good for her -- its about time. Well I loved her in "Revolutionary Road" and think she is definately deserving of this award. In all honesty, I don't think that this will repeat at the oscars (though a win for "The Reader" might), but this means a lot for the film itself. It could easily go along for the ride and get noms for quite a few catagories -- now it has a shot at Best Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, Director, Screenplay, and of course Best Actress.
And on the matter, Sally Hawkins' win will definately get her a nom.
Tina Fey's made me laugh so hard I think I almost cried. For those of you who didn't see it, she told every celebrity gossip site that has said shit about her for the past year to suck it. It was just brilliant.
All in all, a pretty good night, though my biggest complaint was that none of the speeches (other than Tina's) were very good.
What did you think?
-Ari S.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Golden Globes Predictions
Golden Globe Predictions
BEST FILM - DRAMA
I have mixed feelings about the films in this Catagory. I’m not sure I care who wins since my two favorite films -- “Rachel Getting Married” and “WALL-E” -- are not included here. “The Reader” is probably the biggest shocker here, but not too suprising. I didn’t go as ape-shit over “Slumdog Millionaire” as everyone else, but thats definately the forerunner here. I have a feeling, though, that “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” could win, considering the Globes have been known to love big “epic” films.
Who Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Who Should Win: (tie) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or Revolutionary Road
BEST ACTOR - DRAMA
At this point, it’s really Sean Penns award. I can’t really imagine an upset happening here, but in terms of nominations, DiCaprio really needed this to stay in the game, so this is a plus for him but unfortunately, not for Richard Jenkins (“The Visitor”).
Who Will Win: Sean Penn
Who Should Win: Sean Penn
BEST ACTRESS - DRAMA
As it has been the past few years, this race is incredibly tight, but I would count out Jolie who will (hopefully) be replaced by either Sally Hawkins or Melissa Leo (“Frozen River”) come Oscar time. It’s clear that Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep are the favorites, but Winslet and Scott Thomas have just as good of a chance at winning. The worst part is that everyone deserves to win -- I’ll just have to hope for a five-way tie.
Who Will Win: Anne Hathaway or Meryl Streep
Who Should Win: (tie) Anne Hathaway, Kristen Scott Thomas, Kate Winslet.... I’d be fin with anyone, really.
BEST FILM - COMEDY
No shockers other than “Sex and the City” missing from this catagory (and from Best Actress - Comedy). I am tempted to say that “Happy-Go-Lucky” is the dominent player, but “Vicky Christina Barcelona” and “Burn After Reading” could eaisly take this.
Who Should Win: Burn After Reading
Who Should Win: Happy-Go-Lucky
BEST ACTOR - COMEDY
I’m suprised that the HPFA even remembered “In Bruges” at all, let only these two performances. This catagory doesn’t matter too much since none of these men are going to the Oscars, but I suppose its probably between Javier Barden and Dustin Hoffman.
Who Will Win: Dustin Hoffman (?)
Who Should Win: I couldn’t care less.....
BEST ACTRESS - COMEDY
Sally Hawkins hands down. No one else even has a chance (though McDormand’s nom could help “Burn After Reading” win.)
Who Will Win: Sally Hawkins
Who Should Win: Sally Hawkins
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
You look at the Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Film nominees and wonder why the Golden Globes and HFPA get so much shit for their nominations -- and then we get a nominee like Tom Cruise in “Tropic Thunder”. The couldn’t nominate Michael Shannon, Emile Hirsch, Eddie Marsen, Bill Irwin or... just about anyone else other than Tom Cruise. Just so absurd...
I guess thats so irrelevant since we’re all 110% about who’ll win.
Who Will Win: Heath Ledger
Who Should Win: Heath Ledger
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Another hard-to-predict catagory, along with the Actress/Drama nominees. Its probably between Davis, Cruz and Winslet. Tomei will make it to the Oscars with them, and theres that open spot left open for either Amy Adams, RoseMarie Dewitt or Taraji P. Henson.
Who Will Win: Kate Winslet
Who Should Win: Penelope Cruz
BEST DIRECTOR
Who Will Win: Danny Boyle
Who Should Win: (tie) David Fincher or Danny Boyle
----------
Look at the full list of Nominees here
What do you think the outcome will be?
- Ari S.
BEST FILM - DRAMA
I have mixed feelings about the films in this Catagory. I’m not sure I care who wins since my two favorite films -- “Rachel Getting Married” and “WALL-E” -- are not included here. “The Reader” is probably the biggest shocker here, but not too suprising. I didn’t go as ape-shit over “Slumdog Millionaire” as everyone else, but thats definately the forerunner here. I have a feeling, though, that “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” could win, considering the Globes have been known to love big “epic” films.
Who Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Who Should Win: (tie) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or Revolutionary Road
BEST ACTOR - DRAMA
At this point, it’s really Sean Penns award. I can’t really imagine an upset happening here, but in terms of nominations, DiCaprio really needed this to stay in the game, so this is a plus for him but unfortunately, not for Richard Jenkins (“The Visitor”).
Who Will Win: Sean Penn
Who Should Win: Sean Penn
BEST ACTRESS - DRAMA
As it has been the past few years, this race is incredibly tight, but I would count out Jolie who will (hopefully) be replaced by either Sally Hawkins or Melissa Leo (“Frozen River”) come Oscar time. It’s clear that Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep are the favorites, but Winslet and Scott Thomas have just as good of a chance at winning. The worst part is that everyone deserves to win -- I’ll just have to hope for a five-way tie.
Who Will Win: Anne Hathaway or Meryl Streep
Who Should Win: (tie) Anne Hathaway, Kristen Scott Thomas, Kate Winslet.... I’d be fin with anyone, really.
BEST FILM - COMEDY
No shockers other than “Sex and the City” missing from this catagory (and from Best Actress - Comedy). I am tempted to say that “Happy-Go-Lucky” is the dominent player, but “Vicky Christina Barcelona” and “Burn After Reading” could eaisly take this.
Who Should Win: Burn After Reading
Who Should Win: Happy-Go-Lucky
BEST ACTOR - COMEDY
I’m suprised that the HPFA even remembered “In Bruges” at all, let only these two performances. This catagory doesn’t matter too much since none of these men are going to the Oscars, but I suppose its probably between Javier Barden and Dustin Hoffman.
Who Will Win: Dustin Hoffman (?)
Who Should Win: I couldn’t care less.....
BEST ACTRESS - COMEDY
Sally Hawkins hands down. No one else even has a chance (though McDormand’s nom could help “Burn After Reading” win.)
Who Will Win: Sally Hawkins
Who Should Win: Sally Hawkins
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
You look at the Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Film nominees and wonder why the Golden Globes and HFPA get so much shit for their nominations -- and then we get a nominee like Tom Cruise in “Tropic Thunder”. The couldn’t nominate Michael Shannon, Emile Hirsch, Eddie Marsen, Bill Irwin or... just about anyone else other than Tom Cruise. Just so absurd...
I guess thats so irrelevant since we’re all 110% about who’ll win.
Who Will Win: Heath Ledger
Who Should Win: Heath Ledger
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Another hard-to-predict catagory, along with the Actress/Drama nominees. Its probably between Davis, Cruz and Winslet. Tomei will make it to the Oscars with them, and theres that open spot left open for either Amy Adams, RoseMarie Dewitt or Taraji P. Henson.
Who Will Win: Kate Winslet
Who Should Win: Penelope Cruz
BEST DIRECTOR
Who Will Win: Danny Boyle
Who Should Win: (tie) David Fincher or Danny Boyle
----------
Look at the full list of Nominees here
What do you think the outcome will be?
- Ari S.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Review #5: Happy-Go-Lucky
A major goal amongst philosophers is to discern what the most important value in life is. Some say love, others say family or respect, but one thirty-year-old elementary school teacher says happiness.
We find an unlikely philosopher in Poppy, the eternally happy protagonist of “Happy-Go Lucky”, who refuses to be sad or waste time lamenting. The opening scene of “Happy-Go-Lucky” perfectly showcases Poppy’s…. well, “poppy-ness” if you will: She daydreams while gliding down a hill on her bicycle towards a market. She parks, and after dawdling in a bookshop, returns to see that her bike has been stolen. Her reaction? “I didn’t even get to say goodbye”, then continues on with her life. There is something that is simultaneously insightful and joyous about seeing the world through Poppy’s eyes, and the whole experience ends up feeling more like you’re spending time with Poppy rather than seeing her life play out.
Poppy lives in London with her flatmate/best friend Zoë and we see nothing more than an average few weeks of Poppy’s life. It’s a nice relief to not see her inheriting forty billion dollars or falling in love with her sister’s fiancée, but just observing what is essentially a character study and slice into Poppy’s life. Other than the pursuit of happiness, an arching theme is teaching. Poppy is currently dealing with a student with violent tendencies tats too young to know how to talk or channel his anger. Poppy herself has just started taking flamenco lessons with a harsh, obdurate, but caring instructor. She is also taking driving lessons (post-bike theft) with a driving instructor, Scott, who is a miserable man that could use some “poppy-ness” in his life, an is a foreshadow to what the angry boy in Poppy’s class might become.
And for those of you who might assume she grew up influenced like this, we see her antonym-like younger sister, pregnant, insecure and one who dwells on the bad, and Poppy’s even younger sister, who is just your average exhausted college student before exams. The possibility of danger or conflict is always lurking in the background, but that’s why this movie is about Poppy interacting and dealing with those who maybe aren’t as fortunate with finding happiness in their lives, and not the other way around.
Sally Hawkins is completely and utterly delightful and brilliant as Poppy. Because Hawkins is completely invested in the character, and creating such a welcoming and natural environment, you wouldn’t mind running to do dry cleaning with Poppy, because that’s how well and engrossing she plays her. Its impossible, and a little sad, to think that Hawkins doesn’t have a little “poppy-ness” in her.
Writer-Director Mike Leigh, thankfully, doesn’t send the message that we should all just be happy, and then all our problems will just disappear – we see Poppy’s faith in people, kindness and humanity challenged all throughout the movie. And after seeing her struggle through all in her way, it’s almost impossible to do anything other than love her, and only wish the best.
The movie ends with Poppy and Zoë in a rowboat on a small lake together. When reminiscing about the recent changes and events in her life, Zoë is there for her. And even though the two a rowing in circles, Leigh leaves the movie on a nice note that sums up the movie: Its ok to go in circles, as long as you have someone go in circles with.
- Ari S.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
REVIEW #4: In Theaters Now - THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Ari S
----
Just off the bat, I'm going to say that I recommend this movie, but you have to see it in theaters. I can’t imagine this being nearly as enjoyable if you’re pausing it to take a phone call every 2 minutes. And if you do choose to see it, be ready to be forgiving of its faults, and be ready to enjoy the nuance of Pitt’s long narrative storytelling accompained with beautiful cinematography and score.
In short, don't go in with any expectations, other than to be intruiged and suprised.
Ok, now the actual review:
"Benjamin Button" is about a man that is born old and dying and ages backwords as everyone and everything around him gets older. The film opens in present day, with a dying Daisy (Cate Blanchett) on her deathbed and her daughter, who is reading Benjamin's diary to her in Daisy's last hours. Brad Pitt plays the title character. We see him raised by Queenie (Tajari P. Henson) who runs and old age home where Benjamin fits in just fine. There he meets the granddaughter of one the residents, Daisy, who grows up to be Cate Blanchett (more on that later). Benjamin spends his adult years traveling the world, though never really in the right place at the right time.
I would have never expected David Fincher, known for crime-dramas such as SE7EN and ZODIAC to be the director of this "epic" -- being the operative word -- /romance. Its hard not to draw similarities between the movie and "Forrest Gump" -- two men who don't fit in with society, both join the navy, have tragic life long loves and have mothers that tell them a variation on the "Life is like a box of chocolates; You never know what you're gonna get" quote. And, if that wasn't enough, both screenplays are by the same man, Eric Roth. Its the end product and the film as a whole that makes "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" quite a different piece of work.
[MINOR SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH -- SKIP TO NEXT IF YOU CHOOSE]
To note the good: Every 20 minutes or so, you come across a scene, thats anywhere from thirty seconds to a minute or two that is so perfectly composed that its so heartbreakingly beautiful it makes you remember why the film works so well as a whole. To name a few -- A blind clockmaker unveils his backwards masterpiece, accompanied with a story of young men dying in war, but shot in reverse; Benjamin taking [SPOILER] his dying father to see the sunrise from the oceanfront porch on the family’s old summer home; Daisy [SPOILER] as an old woman, walking toddler-age Benjamin through a park, giving him a kiss; [SPOILER] The last shot of the movie showing the blind clockmakers piece being swept up in basement flood during Katrina -- I could go on for days about these type of moments.
[SPOILERS ARE OVER]
Pitt is able to hold the film together and to see him as an old man and a young boy, well lets just say the effects are visually stunning. Blanchett is fine, but its almost impossible to buy their relationship in the first half of the film, as they have almost no chemistry. There is one scene in which she tries to seduce him through a sensual ballet act, which would otherwise be utterly beautiful and engaging if she wasn't jammering her yap off about silly crap. Its like Eric Roth made her Poppy from "Happy-Go-Lucky" during the first hour and half of the movie. I think that where the movie seriously falls is that in the end, it tries (but THANKFULLY fails) to be Forrest Gump when it should try to be Big Fish. The one super HUGE issue I had with this movie was that they make no effort to make Cate Blanchett look young. In a scene in New York, she stars in “Carousal” and looks 38 when she is suppose to be 23. Just embarrassing on the filmmakers part, considering the spectacular effects making Pitt so organically old and young.
To sum it up, there is great story telling, beautiful visuals, decent acting and superb direction. The movie always feels like its 75% on the ball, missing one of the above, but as long as you can forgive that one fault it is a thoroughly enjoyable watching experience.
VERDICT: If you do see it, see it in Theaters. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is an aquired taste -- everyone will get something different out of this movie, though maybe some more than others.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Update: "Doubt", "Caché", "Happy-Go-Lucky" and More!
So since Sarah and I just saw Doub (at the grove), we'll probably put up I review sometime this week or next, which'll be either two reviews, or a joint review, or something that we're too lazy to figure out the legistics of yet....
I'm going to try to put up a review of "Caché" and "Happy-Go-Lucky", and maybe we'll try to do some not-figured-out-the-legistics-of joint review comparing "Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" (2004) in a little while.
Plus, at the end of the month or so, we'll probably have our Top Ten of 08 and our Oscar Predictions, so start thinking about yours.
- Ari S.
[Sally Hawkins, depicted above, as the relentlessly optomistic elemtary school teacher in Mike Leigh's "Happy-Go-Lucky".]"
REVIEW #3: Quick Review - MILK
Ari S.
---
MILK, about the life and times of Harvey Milk (wink) is a great piece of art by the original indie-king, Gus Van Sant, about the first openly gay man elected to office. Sean Penn gives an Oscar worthy performance as the title character, and proves his never-ending range of acting. Josh Brolin is superb as Dan White, and would be a serious contender in awards season any other year (if not for Heath Ledger). Contrary to what most critics are saying, I think that it’s not James Franco who stands out after the two men above, but Emile Hirsch, who is the perfectly flamboyant “protégée”, Cleve Jones.
As a whole, the film works really well and it doesn’t feel like what you would expect from Van Sant, nor from a first-time screenwriter.
My only complaint is that I wish they’d have focused on Alison Pill’s character, Anne Kronenberg, someone that they only began to delve into the surface about.
Verdict: Must see
---
MILK, about the life and times of Harvey Milk (wink) is a great piece of art by the original indie-king, Gus Van Sant, about the first openly gay man elected to office. Sean Penn gives an Oscar worthy performance as the title character, and proves his never-ending range of acting. Josh Brolin is superb as Dan White, and would be a serious contender in awards season any other year (if not for Heath Ledger). Contrary to what most critics are saying, I think that it’s not James Franco who stands out after the two men above, but Emile Hirsch, who is the perfectly flamboyant “protégée”, Cleve Jones.
As a whole, the film works really well and it doesn’t feel like what you would expect from Van Sant, nor from a first-time screenwriter.
My only complaint is that I wish they’d have focused on Alison Pill’s character, Anne Kronenberg, someone that they only began to delve into the surface about.
Verdict: Must see
Thursday, January 1, 2009
REVIEW #2 - In Theatres Now: "Frost/Nixon"
Ari S.
---
For those of you expecting to see two brilliant actors reprising their iconic roles from the Tony Award winning play Frost/Nixon in a heart-pounding suspenseful film, with direction by Ron Howard that makes you feel like you are in the room with David Frost and Richard Nixon in the four-part series of interviews, all leading up to a show-stopping conclusion where Nixon admits to a grand sin -- well, mmm…. Not quite. Or at all.
Michael Sheen, who gave a pitch-perfect performance as Tony
Blair in “The Queen”, plays David Frost, a talk show host that comes up with a "wild" idea, that is, to interview Nixon, the superb Frank Langella (above), on TV just months after resigning from office. After getting a crack team of Nixon/Political aficionados together (ie. two guys and his girlfriend) to prepare for the interview, he scourges to find the money to produce the segment and a network to air it. That’s not his only troubles – he has set the last of the four interviews aside to talk with Nixon singularaly about Watergate, hoping to “give him the trial he never had”.
“Frost/Nixon” aspires to be great, a classic even, but falls very, very short. It takes an event that if frankly much less grand that what one would hope. If you ask anyone around the time of the interviews if they remember the world tuning in to see Nixon “confess” his crime, they’ll most likely tell you they have some vague recelection of reading about a blurb about it in that week’s paper. Now, set aside the fact that the event itself is not nearly the extravaganza it sets out to be, but it even fails at trying to be what its not, which maybe by far its biggest letdown.
The only bright light in the entire film is not just a small glimmer, but more like a blinding star --- Frank Langella as Richard Nixon. Langella is magnificent, just magnificent as Nixon, never going into impression-territory, nor adding any fiction to his manner. Langella will surely get an Oscar nomination (though an unlikely win) for his dead-on portrayal of not simple a former president, but as a version of his behind closed doors.
To sum it up, not a terrible movie, but I went in with absolutely no expectations and somehow I left feeling that “Frost/Nixon” didn’t meet my expectations.
Maybe I should set the bar lower next time.
Verdict: Wait till DVD.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
REVIEW #1: On DVD - "Vicky Christina Barcelona"
Javier Bardem chatting up Scarlett Johanson (above) and Rebecca Hall (below) in Vicky Christina Barcelona.
Sarah B.
---If I could describe this movie in four words…BAD until Penelope Cruz
Being an ardent Woody Allen fan I was so excited for his latest film “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.” I was disappointed by his last movie “Scoop” mostly because I hate Scarlett Johansson, but I had heard only good things about “Vicky Cristina” from my girlfriends…”It just made me want to be in Barcelona every single day of my life” said one of them…I thought to myself, ‘maybe this will be like one of the Woody classics that we all love…maybe Scarlett won’t annoy the hell out of me and maybe she’ll go back to her good ole acting days like in “Lost In Translation.” Afterall, the trailer looked amazing….everything you’d want in a movie…Barcelona, romantic competition, etc etc.”
I started the movie only to find my intelligence being insulted from the onset with a stupid voiceover that told me everything that was happening as I saw it. Despite this initial off-putting feature, I still really really wanted to love this movie and give it a fair chance. As the movie continued the usual annoyed feeling came over me every time I saw Scarlett Johansson on the screen. Her droning voice, and flat character made me clench my fists a little… In fact, both of the women characters seemed painfully obvious and simple. Vicky was rational, and Cristina was emotional. Okay…so now what? Well, they both fall in love with this guy who, in my opinion, was not attractive enough. Furthermore, the love that Vicky had for him was not believable. Why would someone so rational and against the idea of spending any time with this guy fall head over heels in love with him after one night. I mean, I understand that a seductive guy can stick in your mind, but when you know he gets around town I would think that Vicky’s “rational” mind could figure out that it was just casual sex. So why was she so annoyingly clingy? All I can say is, thank god for Penelope Cruz. Cruz plays the part of the ex wife of the male love interest. She is hilariously insane, emotional intense, and gorgeous…well, not hilariously gorgeous, just gorgeous. But anyway, once she came on the screen I was captivated and excited for what she was going to do next. The movie started to become less annoying from the moment she came on, but sadly poor Penelope could not totally save it.
I guess the one redeeming quality about this film, besides Penelope of course, was the idea that perhaps Woody Allen meant this to be making fun of girls like Vicky and Cristina. Girls who go to foreign countries to get away from their dreary lives in America to find that one adventurous romantic affair….what happens in Barcelona stays in Barcelona….Maybe the movie was just capitalizing on all of these clichés in an attempt to make a comical satire. Well, I like that idea, but if Woody Allen was trying to do that he certainly failed. The movie took itself entirely too seriously and consequently the humor of the satire could not pull through the seriousness of the characters.
When all is said and done, this is definitely not the worst movie I’ve seen. I could see it again without killing myself, but this is no masterpiece, and I wish Woody Allen would stop being in love with Scarlett Johansson.
------------------------------
Ari's Take (1/01/09):
I too miss the good old days when Johanson gave quality performances in films like "Lost in Translation" and "Girl with the Pearl Earring", but frankly, she seems to just be going downhill from there, barely holding her own when on screen with newcomer Rebecca Hall, let alone the film's two powerhouse actors, Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz.
I think overall I did enjoy the film much more than Sarah due to the performances and Woody's gifted storytelling, but it was nonetheless deeply flawed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
