The thing about most movies is that they have something wrong with them. Even good ones have holes -they have great cinematography but the plot drags (hello The Darjeeling Limited), or great direction without a great score (Vicky Cristina Barcelona's biggest weakness is that for two days after I left the theatre I was humming, "Barcelona, barcelona... Barcelona, barcelona... Barcelona, barcelona...").
You leave the theatre thinking - it's almost a ten but I can't get past that one actor - or that one scene - or something about the style.
It's really rare that a film comes along that's a ten in every way - or even a nine and a half in every way - and that is why people are talking about Slumdog Millionaire.
It's a "feel-good" movie with such a huge dose of unpleasant realities that it could never be cheesy - and for most of us, it's an education about the harsh realities of India's slums. It's breathtakingly shot, has moments of wonderful humour and physical comedy, but has high adventure and tragedy as well.
It's well-directed, well-acted and well-written without having any of those elements be in your face. It's both artistic and entertaining. The end is a little obvious but it's a story about a journey, not a story about a destination.
It's the kind of film that would appeal to virtually everyone and lives outside genre. Easily one of the best movies of the year.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Monday, November 24, 2008
Twilight
I went to the movies by myself on the weekend - haven't done that in years. I wanted to see Twilight and I couldn't think of anyone to go see it with because as far as I know, none of my friends are Twilight junkies.
And the thing about a film made from a book you like is, you want to see it with a junkie or with no one.
I don't really get why I like Twilight. The books are poorly written, with cheesy dialogue, somewhat obvious plots (particularly the first book), fantasy that borrows so heavily from previous mythology as to be barely original, and a plethora of two-dimensional characters.
But even though I can see all that, something keeps bringing me back to these books - and therefore I wanted to see the movie.
The movie is pretty much the same - the characters are underdeveloped, the romance blooms to quickly to really be believable, and there are some definite groaner lines in the dialogue. But like, the book, there was just something about it that really appealed to me.
One line could pretty much sum it up: if you like the book, I think you'll like the movie. If you don't like the book, don't bother.
Can't wait for New Moon.
And the thing about a film made from a book you like is, you want to see it with a junkie or with no one.
I don't really get why I like Twilight. The books are poorly written, with cheesy dialogue, somewhat obvious plots (particularly the first book), fantasy that borrows so heavily from previous mythology as to be barely original, and a plethora of two-dimensional characters.
But even though I can see all that, something keeps bringing me back to these books - and therefore I wanted to see the movie.
The movie is pretty much the same - the characters are underdeveloped, the romance blooms to quickly to really be believable, and there are some definite groaner lines in the dialogue. But like, the book, there was just something about it that really appealed to me.
One line could pretty much sum it up: if you like the book, I think you'll like the movie. If you don't like the book, don't bother.
Can't wait for New Moon.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Blindness
Sometimes, after I see a film, it sticks with me for a few days and I can't stop dwelling on it. The Matrix was like that for me - it was just so much to wrap your head around. Blindness, though having nowhere near the complexity of a film like the Matrix, had a similar staying power.
I thought that film had an interesting premise, but I did not expect the raw, emotional trip that it took me on. I loved the film, in a way, for making me think about some hard ideas, and for presenting a Lord-of-the-Flies-esque scenario but leaving me with a little more hope.
The film's successes are surprising. It is about societal breakdown, about the naked, animal savagery within us all, and it does make one consider questions on the nature of humanity. There is one exchange where Mark Ruffalo's character discovers in horror that one of the inmates of the concentration-camp like facility in which they reside was in fact, born blind, and is using that as an advantage over the other inmates. He is in shock, convinced that above all, someone born blind should have empathy about what it is like to lose sight. "He's just blind," says Gael Garcia Bernal's character. "Not good, not bad, just blind." In some ways, that is the best line of the movie, in a way, because it is a foil to the preachiness.
That is where Blindness loses me a little. Ok, I get it, I get it, they are not only physically but spiritually blind. They must go blind to truly learn to see. Blah blah. This lesson, this moral, would be so much more potent if the film gave off a feeling of the blindness, and this is where the very medium of film seems to be stunting the story. How do you get across a character's shock, the horror of going blind, when we can't see from their point of view, because that would be nothing? In some ways, the story is better suited to radio, and definitely to print, where the suddenly visionless horror can at least be described. That is the main weakness of the film for me - I was spending time afterwards dwelling on what it would be like to be in a society that is breaking apart, but not really thinking about what it would feel like to be blind. There needed to be more emphasis on the individual horror each character would be experiencing, and not just the collective horror of society and its reaction.
There were also simply too many holes in the story. The filmmaker is so focused on the antics between the two wards, I think he forgets about how much of an advantage Julianne Moore's character, who remains sighted, should have had and there were pivotal plot points where I found myself wondering "Why doesn't she just . . . ?" To borrow a phrase from my boyfriend, the story forsook reality for the sake of allegory, and unfortunately, without the reality, you don't believe the allegory.
Still, the staying power the film had is worth something. It is visually stunning, and is worth seeing, forewarned that it is at times disturbing, simply for the shots of empty city streets covered in overturned garbage and people stumbling around.
Ironic, though, isn't it, to make a film that is focused on stunning visuals, about the blind?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Woody Allen's latest film is a lovely piece of cinematography, starring Barcelona as a city on the cusp between ancient architecture and stylish modern art.
The film capitalizes on such beautiful clichés. Scarlett Johanssen plays the adventurous and artsy blonde while Rebecca Hall plays the sensible brunette, choosing a formulaic life over a passionate one and regretting it as she goes.
The characters are inspiring in their lack of originality. We've seen wild girls and sensible girls before but the beauty of the film is that each girl, in her own way, is painstakingly aware of how normal her life is and laments that it isn't something more.
Johanssen's character keeps telling people throughout the film that she doesn't know what she wants from love, she only knows what she doesn't want.
I think beyond the picturesque quality of the city, the majestic quality of the art and architecture and gardens and seascapes, and the beauty of the stars, Woody Allen has found a kernel of truth.
Even though his film stars impossibly beautiful people in an impossibly beautiful setting speaking in an impossibly Woody Allen kind of way, which makes me take it with a rather large mouthful of salt, he has connected characters in a real way to a longing for impossible love, and to a longing to be stars.
These women in this film are unhappy, in a Woody Allen way, despite their golden lives and opportunities, because, like Mena Suvari in the equally picturesque, unhappy film American Beauty, they feel that they will always be ordinary.
The film capitalizes on such beautiful clichés. Scarlett Johanssen plays the adventurous and artsy blonde while Rebecca Hall plays the sensible brunette, choosing a formulaic life over a passionate one and regretting it as she goes.
The characters are inspiring in their lack of originality. We've seen wild girls and sensible girls before but the beauty of the film is that each girl, in her own way, is painstakingly aware of how normal her life is and laments that it isn't something more.
Johanssen's character keeps telling people throughout the film that she doesn't know what she wants from love, she only knows what she doesn't want.
I think beyond the picturesque quality of the city, the majestic quality of the art and architecture and gardens and seascapes, and the beauty of the stars, Woody Allen has found a kernel of truth.
Even though his film stars impossibly beautiful people in an impossibly beautiful setting speaking in an impossibly Woody Allen kind of way, which makes me take it with a rather large mouthful of salt, he has connected characters in a real way to a longing for impossible love, and to a longing to be stars.
These women in this film are unhappy, in a Woody Allen way, despite their golden lives and opportunities, because, like Mena Suvari in the equally picturesque, unhappy film American Beauty, they feel that they will always be ordinary.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Dark Knight
I actually saw the Dark Knight the day it came out, but unlike all the fans crying "Oscar! Greatest movie of all time!", I wanted to let it percolate a bit before trying to form an opinion on it.
While I agree that Heath Ledger was brilliant, I'm somewhat amused by the reams of commentary declaring that as an actor, he was so dedicated to his craft and never did anything for a paycheque. Come on, guys. When "10 things I hate about you" came out, I was 13. I was the target audience for that movie, and although it fills me with nostalgia, it was in no way a movie an actor would take out out of dedication to the craft. Heath Ledger did that movie to build up some exposure in the States, and it worked.
I'm not trying to lessen his performance, I'm just trying to throw out some perspective for all the people who see a good performance and develop amnesia about films like, say, Casanova, which were clearly about making money and for which no one w
as calling Oscar. Actually, I was still working in the video store when Brokeback Mountain came out and amid all that hype I was seriously tempted to put "10 things I hate about you" on a big display next to "Bubble Boy" just to show that many serious actors get their starts in much less serious fare.
But, in all fairness, Heath Ledger was very, very good, and so was Aaron Eckhart. I'm surprised to say it, but the disappointing one for me was Maggie Gyllenhaal. Obviously she was a huge step up from Katie Holmes' wooden performance in Batman Begins, but still, the role was in no way memorable. It's not her fault - she's a terrific actress - but it was a two dimensional character, without much substance, and that's too bad.
It's too bad because while the Dark Knight was very good, possibly the best comic book movie ever, and an excellent crime drama, it is still falling into the one-girl action movie trap. This is to be expected, I guess, but with the casting of Maggie Gyllenhaal, I had my hopes up that they were going to do more with it than that.
There are exceptions to the rule of course, but nearly every big-budget action movie is a male-dominated, testosterone-fueled affair. Each has one pretty girl in it, whose is there to provide eye candy to the guys, possibly showcase the hero's sensitive side, and who exists as a romantic foil to the hero. Women, within the world of action films, do not exist on their own. Bruce Wayne can exist as a fully developed character without Rachel Dawes, but Rachel exists only for Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent.
Of course, this is not always the case. Lara Croft, for example, exists on her own. But Lara Croft can get away with it because people will pay 10 bucks to see Angelina Jolie with Double-Ds and guns strapped to her legs. And Lara Croft is not a serious movie.
All I'm saying is that it would be nice to see action movies where women, regardless of whether or not they are the heroes, exist on their own, have fully formed characters without having to be sexy, and are basically just characters. Full people. Like men.
And when I see that, that's the movie I'll say has dared to be different. That's the one I'll give a ten.
That being said, The Dark Knight gets a nine.
It's a brilliant crime drama exploring hero-villain dynamics in a way that is fresh and unusual. It forces viewers to examine our own desensitization to violence because of the way Heath Ledger makes horrific events seem a bit, well, funny. I think that's the key ingredient in why Heath Ledger's Joker is so good. He's definitely darker than Jack Nicholson, yes, but Jack Nicholson played it in a campy, self-amused way that didn't really get the audience on side. Heath Ledger's Joker is scary because at times you find yourself laughing with him a bit. And pulling out the slightly sadistic side of an audience and then making them aware of it is a pretty mind-numbing psychological trick - one I'm not sure I've ever seen done in a movie.
And that, I think, is the genius of the Dark Knight.
While I agree that Heath Ledger was brilliant, I'm somewhat amused by the reams of commentary declaring that as an actor, he was so dedicated to his craft and never did anything for a paycheque. Come on, guys. When "10 things I hate about you" came out, I was 13. I was the target audience for that movie, and although it fills me with nostalgia, it was in no way a movie an actor would take out out of dedication to the craft. Heath Ledger did that movie to build up some exposure in the States, and it worked.
I'm not trying to lessen his performance, I'm just trying to throw out some perspective for all the people who see a good performance and develop amnesia about films like, say, Casanova, which were clearly about making money and for which no one w
as calling Oscar. Actually, I was still working in the video store when Brokeback Mountain came out and amid all that hype I was seriously tempted to put "10 things I hate about you" on a big display next to "Bubble Boy" just to show that many serious actors get their starts in much less serious fare.But, in all fairness, Heath Ledger was very, very good, and so was Aaron Eckhart. I'm surprised to say it, but the disappointing one for me was Maggie Gyllenhaal. Obviously she was a huge step up from Katie Holmes' wooden performance in Batman Begins, but still, the role was in no way memorable. It's not her fault - she's a terrific actress - but it was a two dimensional character, without much substance, and that's too bad.
It's too bad because while the Dark Knight was very good, possibly the best comic book movie ever, and an excellent crime drama, it is still falling into the one-girl action movie trap. This is to be expected, I guess, but with the casting of Maggie Gyllenhaal, I had my hopes up that they were going to do more with it than that.
There are exceptions to the rule of course, but nearly every big-budget action movie is a male-dominated, testosterone-fueled affair. Each has one pretty girl in it, whose is there to provide eye candy to the guys, possibly showcase the hero's sensitive side, and who exists as a romantic foil to the hero. Women, within the world of action films, do not exist on their own. Bruce Wayne can exist as a fully developed character without Rachel Dawes, but Rachel exists only for Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent.
Of course, this is not always the case. Lara Croft, for example, exists on her own. But Lara Croft can get away with it because people will pay 10 bucks to see Angelina Jolie with Double-Ds and guns strapped to her legs. And Lara Croft is not a serious movie.
All I'm saying is that it would be nice to see action movies where women, regardless of whether or not they are the heroes, exist on their own, have fully formed characters without having to be sexy, and are basically just characters. Full people. Like men.
And when I see that, that's the movie I'll say has dared to be different. That's the one I'll give a ten.
That being said, The Dark Knight gets a nine.
It's a brilliant crime drama exploring hero-villain dynamics in a way that is fresh and unusual. It forces viewers to examine our own desensitization to violence because of the way Heath Ledger makes horrific events seem a bit, well, funny. I think that's the key ingredient in why Heath Ledger's Joker is so good. He's definitely darker than Jack Nicholson, yes, but Jack Nicholson played it in a campy, self-amused way that didn't really get the audience on side. Heath Ledger's Joker is scary because at times you find yourself laughing with him a bit. And pulling out the slightly sadistic side of an audience and then making them aware of it is a pretty mind-numbing psychological trick - one I'm not sure I've ever seen done in a movie.
And that, I think, is the genius of the Dark Knight.
Friday, August 1, 2008
I haven't actually seen it but here's a pre-emptive review, anyway, of High School Musical 3
I know that the internet is already full of commentary on the Hollywood disease of summer sequelitis, but hey, that never stopped anyone from throwing their own two cents in.
I was at Mamma Mia! on Tuesday night, and of course there were trailers for some truly awful looking movies, including (gasp!) High School Musical 3. As soon as the trailer started, I knew what it was, just not which number it was.("What is this, High School Musical 8?" I snickered to my friend, who snickered back. . . but I actually wasn't sure. It would have not in the least surprised me to discover that there were 8 High School Musical movies. Why am I surprised that it's only 3? I feel like I've seen more in the video store. Maybe it used to be a show and it's on DVD. . .)
In any case, it feels somewhat ridiculous that despite the fact that I have 1)never watched High School Musical 2)Never watch the Disney channel 3)Don't find Zac Efron appealing in any way, I still find myself knowing 1)that high school musical exists and 2)who Miley Cyrus is. (And yes, I know she's not in HSM, but she inhabits the same camp.)
I bet my mother doesn't know who Zac Efron is. I wish I didn't. What I don't get is how the older generation avoids having to fill their brain with these useless facts. Is it because HSM isn't being marketed to them? 'Cause I really hope it's not being marketed to me, either. If there are 20-somethings out there who can't wait for this movie, well. . . I'll try not to pass judgement. We all have our guilty pleasures.
It's just even guilty pleasures for me have to be somewhat . . . good.
I don't get it. What's the appeal? Even the trailer was almost painful to sit through. And okay, maybe Zac Efron isn't so cute to me because he's about 12, and for sure, I remember my Leonardo Dicaprio posters from my own adolescense fondly, but look at the movies my teen idol was in. The Basketball Diaries, Titanic, What's Eating Gilbert Grape? These films had some substance.
I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like what's being marketed to teens is just getting dumber. And I don't think teens are getting dumber. So maybe it's time for Hollywood to step up, ditch High School Musical 16, ditch Zac Efron, possibly ditch multi-million dollar making Miley, and hire some real actors.
Anyway Mamma Mia was proof that something can be campy, light, fluffy, based on disco music, and still have beauty in it, if you hire real actors and have a little more than dollar signs in your eyes.
I was at Mamma Mia! on Tuesday night, and of course there were trailers for some truly awful looking movies, including (gasp!) High School Musical 3. As soon as the trailer started, I knew what it was, just not which number it was.("What is this, High School Musical 8?" I snickered to my friend, who snickered back. . . but I actually wasn't sure. It would have not in the least surprised me to discover that there were 8 High School Musical movies. Why am I surprised that it's only 3? I feel like I've seen more in the video store. Maybe it used to be a show and it's on DVD. . .)
In any case, it feels somewhat ridiculous that despite the fact that I have 1)never watched High School Musical 2)Never watch the Disney channel 3)Don't find Zac Efron appealing in any way, I still find myself knowing 1)that high school musical exists and 2)who Miley Cyrus is. (And yes, I know she's not in HSM, but she inhabits the same camp.)
I bet my mother doesn't know who Zac Efron is. I wish I didn't. What I don't get is how the older generation avoids having to fill their brain with these useless facts. Is it because HSM isn't being marketed to them? 'Cause I really hope it's not being marketed to me, either. If there are 20-somethings out there who can't wait for this movie, well. . . I'll try not to pass judgement. We all have our guilty pleasures.
It's just even guilty pleasures for me have to be somewhat . . . good.
I don't get it. What's the appeal? Even the trailer was almost painful to sit through. And okay, maybe Zac Efron isn't so cute to me because he's about 12, and for sure, I remember my Leonardo Dicaprio posters from my own adolescense fondly, but look at the movies my teen idol was in. The Basketball Diaries, Titanic, What's Eating Gilbert Grape? These films had some substance.
I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like what's being marketed to teens is just getting dumber. And I don't think teens are getting dumber. So maybe it's time for Hollywood to step up, ditch High School Musical 16, ditch Zac Efron, possibly ditch multi-million dollar making Miley, and hire some real actors.
Anyway Mamma Mia was proof that something can be campy, light, fluffy, based on disco music, and still have beauty in it, if you hire real actors and have a little more than dollar signs in your eyes.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Currently in Theatres: Wanted
I think I'm becoming less and less of a "girly" movie sort of person. I still like romantic comedies, but I'm becoming more and more attracted to action flicks, and the hype for Wanted had me interested from the start. To be sure, the plot sounded like a rip-off of the Matrix, but it promised plenty of gratuitous violence, wicked special effects, and actors I really like, so I was there. Looking around the theatre before the film started, I was wondering if I'd made a huge mistake - there were not a lot of girls in that theatre.
I really enjoyed the action and effects in Wanted - it was like a cross between the Matrix and CSI, with bullets colliding in midair or spinning into their victims with a sickening crunch. But it lacked the mind-twist that made the Matrix such a good film.
I'm comparing them because they are similar films really - skinny white nerd unhappy with his life (Keanu Reeves is replaced by James McAvoy, Hollywood's new favorite), is recruited to underground organization (The Matrix's freedom fighters are replaced by "The Fraternity"), by hot white girl (Angelina Jolie instead of Carrie-Anne Moss), and taken to the cool black leader (Morgan Freeman instead of Laurence Fishburne.) Skinny white nerd winds up becoming the coolest guy in town and shooting everything up in a dazzling display of pyrotechnics which somehow turns out to be the right thing to do that is going to save the world and all that jazz.
Action movies like this are in a way a form of fantasy - they exist in a separate world - and what the Matrix had going for it was that it recognized that and abided by Melodie's Cardinal Rule of Fantasy: the world has to have rules and make sense within itself.
It doesn't matter what the rules are, but in order for a fake world to work, to be something people can escape into and enjoy, it has to follow its own rules. In the world of The Matrix, Keanu Reeves can suddenly do lightning-fast martial arts and he can stop bullets in mid-air, because the rules of the world provide for that - the world is a computer program, you just have to know how to manipulate it, blah blah blah.
The problem with Wanted (and actually, the subsequent Matrix films, in my opinion) is that you can never quite suspend your disbelief because it isn't following any rules. It never explains why its protagonists can curve bullets and escape from canyons - it just says "believe that they can," and without an explanation, my mind refuses to believe it.
Still, it was pretty cool, and definitely worth a trip to the theatre if you like some gratuitous violence and naked Angelina Jolie with your popcorn. I would also like to point out that despite James McAvoy's rising star, Morgan Freeman remains, without a doubt, the actual coolest guy in town.
I really enjoyed the action and effects in Wanted - it was like a cross between the Matrix and CSI, with bullets colliding in midair or spinning into their victims with a sickening crunch. But it lacked the mind-twist that made the Matrix such a good film.
I'm comparing them because they are similar films really - skinny white nerd unhappy with his life (Keanu Reeves is replaced by James McAvoy, Hollywood's new favorite), is recruited to underground organization (The Matrix's freedom fighters are replaced by "The Fraternity"), by hot white girl (Angelina Jolie instead of Carrie-Anne Moss), and taken to the cool black leader (Morgan Freeman instead of Laurence Fishburne.) Skinny white nerd winds up becoming the coolest guy in town and shooting everything up in a dazzling display of pyrotechnics which somehow turns out to be the right thing to do that is going to save the world and all that jazz.
Action movies like this are in a way a form of fantasy - they exist in a separate world - and what the Matrix had going for it was that it recognized that and abided by Melodie's Cardinal Rule of Fantasy: the world has to have rules and make sense within itself.
It doesn't matter what the rules are, but in order for a fake world to work, to be something people can escape into and enjoy, it has to follow its own rules. In the world of The Matrix, Keanu Reeves can suddenly do lightning-fast martial arts and he can stop bullets in mid-air, because the rules of the world provide for that - the world is a computer program, you just have to know how to manipulate it, blah blah blah.
The problem with Wanted (and actually, the subsequent Matrix films, in my opinion) is that you can never quite suspend your disbelief because it isn't following any rules. It never explains why its protagonists can curve bullets and escape from canyons - it just says "believe that they can," and without an explanation, my mind refuses to believe it.
Still, it was pretty cool, and definitely worth a trip to the theatre if you like some gratuitous violence and naked Angelina Jolie with your popcorn. I would also like to point out that despite James McAvoy's rising star, Morgan Freeman remains, without a doubt, the actual coolest guy in town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
