'An illusion of a great film'
First of all, yes. I still love Edward Norton, so be prepared for some Norton loving. Secondly, the subtitle might be misleading because I didn't hate this film at all. Lastly, Jessica Biel is still very hot indeed.
The Illusionist is a film that follows a love story between Edward Norton and Jessica Biel and how Norton seeks revenge upon her killer, the Prince of Wales, whom is planning to overthrow his father. Set as a period piece, the costumes and the architecture are well suited to the film. The real problem comes in the cinematagrophy. A lot of the film goes for the old footage look of the variable lighting on the film. This effect is achieved, usually very obviously, with CG effects and a sepia filter. The film tries so hard to recapture this effect that it can be very jolting and create the Verfremsdungeffekt of Brechtian lore. The only problem is that it isn't meant to because there is nothing to learn here. The film has no great meaning. No necessary truths that haven't been told before and it doesn't try to appear that way. Instead, it wants to entertain the audience with a great story and interesting characters. One of the greatest assets of the film is the script, as is the greatest flaw. The script keeps the pacing moving and provides a generic enough background in a manner that is amusing enough to be a good popcorn flick. The twists keep you guessing and even at the end, when the last twist is pulled you are so involved in the world of magic and who-dunit that you can't help but be amazed. With that said, when the last twist occurs, if you think about it, you can easily dislike the main characters. Everything they have done, all they have accomplished is suddenly rubbish and they are terrible people. I don't want to reveal the ending, but let us just say that despite the Prince of Wales being an absolute lout and murderous drunk, royal family murder was common back then and the fate he received was not deserved. Also, a bad idea was the late throw in of the line about democracy and its pitfalls before the Prince of Wales end. Now, however, I am interested in seeing The Prestige for a different view on this approach.
As for the actors, I need not praise Norton. It is well known by all that I love him and think he is a great actor. Sadly, this film doesn't seem to be his strongest work. Much of the film has him being too stoic. The relationship between he and Jessica Biel is believable in fits. Plus, his accent seems slightly off somehow. But, the biggest saving grace, is how well he sells the magic tricks and his disrespectful comraderie with Paul Giamatti's character. These two actors light up the screen and every glance is understood. It is known well before Giamatti ever admits it that he likes Norton's character. The film is worth watching just to see these two do their thing and it makes sense for Neil Burger to focus primarily on them. Giamatti does a great turn as a corrupt police chief who still has some morals. Even Giamatti's scenes with Rufus Sewell's prince vibrate with energy and a nervous passion. Speaking of which, Rufus Sewell, a man known for his villains, has done it again. It is not his most impressive villain, but it is a royal rogue well worth having. It is so easy to hate his character, that it makes the last twist permissible by most audiences probably. However, I would love to see one courageous film maker cast Sewell as a heroic lead and give him the chance to prove his acting chops as a leading man as I suspect he might have in him. Biel, who has professed a desire to do the film simply to do a period film and to go against her natural typecast, is the least likable part of the film. She is beautiful and it completely makes sense why Norton would fall in love with her, but she doesn't seem to make a lot of choices on the screen that don't come across as the, I'm-rich-and-female-without-a-way-to-defend-myself-so-protect-me-and-run-away-with-me variety. One side, I feel that the script just didn't allow her to do anything better with her limited screen time and the plot. However, knowing also that she had trouble holding up her end of the deal in making her affair with Norton believable (he had his problems too!) make me doubt if it was the script. Either way, her part seems mostly forgettable and could have been played by other actresses of the pretty type. Not a good thing. I like her, so I fervently hope her next role makes more of an impact on me than this one did. I might even say I liked her work in Blade: Trinity better.
Conclusion:
Featuring a great cast and plot based off of a short story by Steven Millhauser, The Illusionist is certainly worth a rent. Giamatti turns in another great performance. Norton flexes his acting chops decently well in something a little new for him and Rufus Sewell does what he does best. Biel's lackluster performance is generic so hat it isn't really bad, but not good either. The cinematography may drive you crazy but the films tricks are well done and it does capture a very Victorian turn of the century feel. I especially loved the touch of the ancient Eastern magic that influences Norton's character. For a sophomoric film effort, the first being Interview with the Assasin, Neil Burger creates a great entertaining film that is mindless but feels thought provoking all at the same time. Maybe that is the greatest illusion of all. Or maybe it is the fact that this is a period crime-thriller parading as a chick flick. Either way, it is very enjoyable. But the thought that the last twist negates the love of the characters that I had and feels slightly thrown in to stun audiences and only for that reason, make me slightly annoyed.
3.45 out of 5
Wannabe
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Jesus Camp
'Camp will never be the same again'
A review of a documentary has been a long time coming. About 1 month actually, except back then it was supposed to be for An Inconvenient Truth which I saw and I will bump here by saying it's a pretty good film and deserves the recognition it got. But, it doesn't touch this film. If Al Gore wanted you to care about environmental concerns and the green house effect, possibly by voting, the documentary Jesus Camp will guarantee as a side effect that you will want to vote. I have never seen a more dividing film than Jesus Camp.
The film explores the power and ideals of radical Christian evangelicals and especially their effect on kids. One kid can be seen sporting the tastefully bad mullet of yore while contemplating on how he was saved at the age of 5. The effect of the manipulation of children by evangelicals is scary beyond comprehension and might make this the best horror film of the year. The kids and the adults all are very candid about their goals and experiences and desires. At one point, the directors have a one on one with the now-disgraced-but-then-high-lobbyist Ted Haggert. In the film, kids can be seen crying, having convulsions, speaking in tongues, protesting abortion in Washington (an interesting feat for 7-9 year olds), proselytizing, and having frank conversations about their theological views, most of which sound like vows from parrots. Never before has the scarring effect of a minority been explored on children. The future of America is not only the focus for the film, it is also the focus of the evangelists who place special emphasis on "teaching" their children their ways of the world. Perhaps the best question raised is what makes someone a suitable parent? When children choose to proselytize at an early age to a female because she was painting her nails, it could be cute. But when that same girl later tries to convert several lounging black men only to hear that they are Christian already and then spewing the rascist thought that they must be Muslim, that is when my blood boils. I could spend this entire review yelling and ranting about radical evangelicals and what I consider to be their ridiculous notions of the world, but instead I will focus now on the craft instead of the inflammatory content of the film.
The directors supposedly tried to capture the evangelicals as they actually are. This is a hard claim to dispute because the evangelical adults in the film, when looking back over the same footage that the audience has just seen and been repulsed by, nods and smiles with approval and discuss how the liberals of America will shake in their boots because they will recognize the faith and love of God in these kids. Or some other skewed remark. Never do they seem to be unhappy with the directors footage of convulsing children or streaming tears in prayer. After all, it's all for the Lord right? The truth is, that the film does have a slant against the evangelicals besides the content of the film. Between scenes of following the evangelicals, the directors have spliced in footage of a "liberal" radio host who is following all of the same action and having conversations with his listeners against the evangelicals. In only one of these scenes does he have a conversation with someone who could be labeled sympathetic to the evangelical cause. Also, the choice of the footage can be seen as meant to divide. Instead of following a bunch of tolerable evangelicals to get a better understanding of them, they chose a bunch that causes revulsion. Despite all of this, I feel that the directors have created a film that not only shows radical rightwing evangelicals in their own light, but it could be enjoyed by other rightwing evangelicals for getting the story straight. Notice though, I think moderate and even some conservative evangelicals will be maddened by this film. But someone like the main characters in the movie, will join right in and nod at the more disturbing moments. So please...watch your neighbor when you see it...it's a great way to get to know those around you.
Conclusion:
If I had any complaints, I would say that the film is so dividing that it could easily cause hate for evangelicals. Although I have never had much love for that group, I do recognize that in a country so divided by war, religion, race, and politics we need now more than ever to be able to cohere into a country, which means tolerating each other. On the upside, the film shows the political power of the evangelicals so well that it has convinced me to register and vote just to cancel out at least 1 vote of an evangelical. Eh, who knows? Maybe we can join together politically to take back the crazy Christian government thanks to the film. All I know, is that more people should see this film and see how they feel. How they feel about right of parents to home school, to raise children based on beliefs instead of accepted facts. How they feel about children who have no childhood and spend their lives trying to save others in their own snubbish manner. Doesn't the mullet boy learn great sermon skills? Isn't he talented? Yes, he does and could make a great orator one day. Maybe even...a politician. I realize that I harp on the evangelicals and their power in government. But, this film will make you question not only those few things, but how we interact with evangelicals and whether or not we can still apathetically tolerate a hostile and powerful section of America. I cannot stress enough to you to see this movie and make up your own mind. Now that it is out on DVD, you have little to no excuse. Me, I got Nader's back.
4.8 out of 5
Wannabe
A review of a documentary has been a long time coming. About 1 month actually, except back then it was supposed to be for An Inconvenient Truth which I saw and I will bump here by saying it's a pretty good film and deserves the recognition it got. But, it doesn't touch this film. If Al Gore wanted you to care about environmental concerns and the green house effect, possibly by voting, the documentary Jesus Camp will guarantee as a side effect that you will want to vote. I have never seen a more dividing film than Jesus Camp.
The film explores the power and ideals of radical Christian evangelicals and especially their effect on kids. One kid can be seen sporting the tastefully bad mullet of yore while contemplating on how he was saved at the age of 5. The effect of the manipulation of children by evangelicals is scary beyond comprehension and might make this the best horror film of the year. The kids and the adults all are very candid about their goals and experiences and desires. At one point, the directors have a one on one with the now-disgraced-but-then-high-lobbyist Ted Haggert. In the film, kids can be seen crying, having convulsions, speaking in tongues, protesting abortion in Washington (an interesting feat for 7-9 year olds), proselytizing, and having frank conversations about their theological views, most of which sound like vows from parrots. Never before has the scarring effect of a minority been explored on children. The future of America is not only the focus for the film, it is also the focus of the evangelists who place special emphasis on "teaching" their children their ways of the world. Perhaps the best question raised is what makes someone a suitable parent? When children choose to proselytize at an early age to a female because she was painting her nails, it could be cute. But when that same girl later tries to convert several lounging black men only to hear that they are Christian already and then spewing the rascist thought that they must be Muslim, that is when my blood boils. I could spend this entire review yelling and ranting about radical evangelicals and what I consider to be their ridiculous notions of the world, but instead I will focus now on the craft instead of the inflammatory content of the film.
The directors supposedly tried to capture the evangelicals as they actually are. This is a hard claim to dispute because the evangelical adults in the film, when looking back over the same footage that the audience has just seen and been repulsed by, nods and smiles with approval and discuss how the liberals of America will shake in their boots because they will recognize the faith and love of God in these kids. Or some other skewed remark. Never do they seem to be unhappy with the directors footage of convulsing children or streaming tears in prayer. After all, it's all for the Lord right? The truth is, that the film does have a slant against the evangelicals besides the content of the film. Between scenes of following the evangelicals, the directors have spliced in footage of a "liberal" radio host who is following all of the same action and having conversations with his listeners against the evangelicals. In only one of these scenes does he have a conversation with someone who could be labeled sympathetic to the evangelical cause. Also, the choice of the footage can be seen as meant to divide. Instead of following a bunch of tolerable evangelicals to get a better understanding of them, they chose a bunch that causes revulsion. Despite all of this, I feel that the directors have created a film that not only shows radical rightwing evangelicals in their own light, but it could be enjoyed by other rightwing evangelicals for getting the story straight. Notice though, I think moderate and even some conservative evangelicals will be maddened by this film. But someone like the main characters in the movie, will join right in and nod at the more disturbing moments. So please...watch your neighbor when you see it...it's a great way to get to know those around you.
Conclusion:
If I had any complaints, I would say that the film is so dividing that it could easily cause hate for evangelicals. Although I have never had much love for that group, I do recognize that in a country so divided by war, religion, race, and politics we need now more than ever to be able to cohere into a country, which means tolerating each other. On the upside, the film shows the political power of the evangelicals so well that it has convinced me to register and vote just to cancel out at least 1 vote of an evangelical. Eh, who knows? Maybe we can join together politically to take back the crazy Christian government thanks to the film. All I know, is that more people should see this film and see how they feel. How they feel about right of parents to home school, to raise children based on beliefs instead of accepted facts. How they feel about children who have no childhood and spend their lives trying to save others in their own snubbish manner. Doesn't the mullet boy learn great sermon skills? Isn't he talented? Yes, he does and could make a great orator one day. Maybe even...a politician. I realize that I harp on the evangelicals and their power in government. But, this film will make you question not only those few things, but how we interact with evangelicals and whether or not we can still apathetically tolerate a hostile and powerful section of America. I cannot stress enough to you to see this movie and make up your own mind. Now that it is out on DVD, you have little to no excuse. Me, I got Nader's back.
4.8 out of 5
Wannabe
Little Miss Sunshine
'The Little Train that Shouldn't'
Early last year, in a little place known as Colorado at a small festival called Sundance, a bunch of unheard of films were shown featuring the work of undeveloped talent in what is normally considered an elitist FU to corporate Hollywood by exploring experimental structures and forms in film. Corporate Hollywood felt bad for ignoring the small little guys all the time, so it decided to save money this year on expensive big-budget films and instead help out the little guy. Many of these little guys sold their wares to the now nice Hollywood. In fact, this had been the case for years. From these transactions, a new star was born in 2006, Little Miss Sunshine. The movie built up a lot of buzz for being the film that sold for the most at the festival and for featuring such a great cast including Steve Carell, Greg Kinnear, Alan Arkin, and Toni Collette. After it was put into wide release, the film garnered all sorts of critical praise for its dark comedic style and its acting and story. This praise was not unfounded as it was also a very good commercial success, proving to be one of the breakthough movies of the season. Now, after it has already been released on DVD, it is being nominated for various awards, including an Oscar and just won the SAG award for best ensemble. It is obvious, that if nothing else, the director duo of Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris is here to stay. They have made it over the mountain of indistinguishability to the land of Counterpayne, or Neverland, or California.
They shouldn't.
Having now seen the aforementioned film, I can sing praise for the two for creating a cheap Hollywood film. When I write cheap, I mean literally. The film is much cheaper than a normal Hollywood production. The diss comes in the fact that it is a Hollywood film. The story is simply another look at a common theme among Hollywood films, especially nowadays with television. A dysfunctional family struggles to survive each other. They decide to take a road trip to place their daughter in a beauty contest in California. Terrible events occur and tension mounts into a giant laughable catharsis with the dysfunctional family bonding together and giving a sendup to the well-to-do and rich snobby debutantes of California (and the world!). For a film with such hype and praise, the film disappointed me sadly. The independent feel of the movie doesn't exist, well it does, but it is overruled by the obvious metaphors and symbols and attempts at making a commercial film. The end, while funny, is the only laugh out loud section of the film while the rest is just chuckles and even then, the end works because of the absolute brilliantness of Abigail Breslin and her commitment to her character. Of course, the end event is still a bit overused...yes I know...gripe gripe gripe.
Anyway, when it comes to writing, needless to say, I feel the movie is a decent rehash of other Hollywood films and ideas that have come before it and doesn't offer much. As for directing, I am slightly better off. The film is directed by an unseen hand and at no point does it feel forced. This is an extremely difficult task given the bizarre story and highly unusual for an independent film. The only possible obvious indicator of the directing is the role of Fate in the film. At time, certain events occur and you wonder if it was the directors getting bored and wanting something to spice it up, although I think that is more of the writer's mistake. Despite the nice surety of hand displayed by the duo, the characters don't seem to gel as tightly as necessary to make me believe that they truly care about each other. The closest it ever gets is when Toni Collette breaks down in the hospital. This is also an actor gripe I have for the film. The fact that the two best actors in the film are Alan Arkin and Abigail Breslin, the youngest and oldest respectively, it should give a better idea as to why most of the film simply isn't as interesting. Not only are experimental ideas discouraged in the film, but the directors can barely make a passable family relationship in a Hollywood style. I realize its a new directorial effort, and its not a bad start, but it is not worthy of all the attention.
Next, of course are the actors. As already stated, the two best actors are the youngest and oldest, both of whom have been nominated for an Oscar in their respective categories. While it's nice to see Alan Arkin being nominated, he doesn't deserve it. Well, yes he does a pretty good job as the raunchy mean-spirited but loving drug addict grandfather, but honestly he isn't on screen long enough to deserve the award. This is more a gripe with the Academy whom have a penchant for nominating and at times awarding Oscars to actors who have hardly any time on screen. Judy Dench in Shakespeare in Love pops into mind. Abigail, on the other hand, completely deserves the nod she received. I have not seen such daring childhood acting in a long time. The last scene of the film shows what this little girl can do. She can make a stripping routine seem like a fun respectable performance dance. Maybe its just the fact that she is ridiculously cute. She is! Either way, she does a great job. Then there is Steve Carell. Carell is the new funny man of Hollywood and the fact that he did this film after 40-Year Old Virgin speaks volumes of his character. Carell has proven that he knows how to play a part on the fine line of subtleness and absurdity, and he does so once again. The difference is that this character is so real, that it is hard to laugh. This is actually a good thing as it is refreshing seeing him do something different. It also helps to bring the family and its troubles back to earth. I sensed the possibility of a family the most from him. Unfortunately, it could be argued that he played his character slightly too laid back since many of his jokes come across as mere chuckles instead of the full on laughs as expected by many. Then there is Paul Dano and Toni Collette. Dano does a decent job with the mute character he is given. The real problem is that he seems to hate his family a bit too much so that I can't buy it when later he decides to come back and join them when pleaded to by Abigail's character. He is also kind of unlikable in how smug and mean he is with his retarded notions of Nietzche. Collette is well, for the most part, unreadable. She is the mother, yet she works best in the film for crying or yelling at Greg Kinnear. Other than that, she seems too beat down to be an effective parent of any sort and therefore floats in the background for most of the film. As for Greg Kinnear, he is fairly disappointing for most of the film, playing the typical "I'm an annoying screw-up dad" for most of the film. He only becomes interesting once he recognizes his mistakes and vows to fix them by riding away in the middle of the night to make his stand at holding the crumbling family together. Yet, he gives up too soon and an entire scene of confrontation is wasted. His discovery of character and his decision to become something more pops up again later, but he never seems to truly recover from his "famous lecturerer" ideals until he the last huge scene, and at that point you're laughing to hard to care. It's a typical role for him played with a few twists and it doesn't come out feeling earned. All in all, the cast does okay but as mentioned earlier, fail to gel together to create the sense of family that is 100% necessary for a film of this nature.
Conclusion:
The film has decent direction, some truly amusing momemnts, and one hilarious ending. But the failure of the story to be anything besides run-of-the-mill and film to be daring turns the film into a cheap Hollywood film. The inability of the cast to gel together as an effective family, while partially the point, makes the love and relationships between characters seem tenuous at best. It's a good film, but not Sundance praise worthy, nor worth the amount of money it has garnered off that praise and it's casts acting credits, and especially not worth an Oscar much less a SAG award. I bet that if you watch the movie without having heard any of the ridiculous hype, you will come away with a much better impression than I did. My hope though, is that this year's Sundance produces a more interesting take and film. Oh, and good luck to the duo at topping this film's success with their next.
2.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Early last year, in a little place known as Colorado at a small festival called Sundance, a bunch of unheard of films were shown featuring the work of undeveloped talent in what is normally considered an elitist FU to corporate Hollywood by exploring experimental structures and forms in film. Corporate Hollywood felt bad for ignoring the small little guys all the time, so it decided to save money this year on expensive big-budget films and instead help out the little guy. Many of these little guys sold their wares to the now nice Hollywood. In fact, this had been the case for years. From these transactions, a new star was born in 2006, Little Miss Sunshine. The movie built up a lot of buzz for being the film that sold for the most at the festival and for featuring such a great cast including Steve Carell, Greg Kinnear, Alan Arkin, and Toni Collette. After it was put into wide release, the film garnered all sorts of critical praise for its dark comedic style and its acting and story. This praise was not unfounded as it was also a very good commercial success, proving to be one of the breakthough movies of the season. Now, after it has already been released on DVD, it is being nominated for various awards, including an Oscar and just won the SAG award for best ensemble. It is obvious, that if nothing else, the director duo of Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris is here to stay. They have made it over the mountain of indistinguishability to the land of Counterpayne, or Neverland, or California.
They shouldn't.
Having now seen the aforementioned film, I can sing praise for the two for creating a cheap Hollywood film. When I write cheap, I mean literally. The film is much cheaper than a normal Hollywood production. The diss comes in the fact that it is a Hollywood film. The story is simply another look at a common theme among Hollywood films, especially nowadays with television. A dysfunctional family struggles to survive each other. They decide to take a road trip to place their daughter in a beauty contest in California. Terrible events occur and tension mounts into a giant laughable catharsis with the dysfunctional family bonding together and giving a sendup to the well-to-do and rich snobby debutantes of California (and the world!). For a film with such hype and praise, the film disappointed me sadly. The independent feel of the movie doesn't exist, well it does, but it is overruled by the obvious metaphors and symbols and attempts at making a commercial film. The end, while funny, is the only laugh out loud section of the film while the rest is just chuckles and even then, the end works because of the absolute brilliantness of Abigail Breslin and her commitment to her character. Of course, the end event is still a bit overused...yes I know...gripe gripe gripe.
Anyway, when it comes to writing, needless to say, I feel the movie is a decent rehash of other Hollywood films and ideas that have come before it and doesn't offer much. As for directing, I am slightly better off. The film is directed by an unseen hand and at no point does it feel forced. This is an extremely difficult task given the bizarre story and highly unusual for an independent film. The only possible obvious indicator of the directing is the role of Fate in the film. At time, certain events occur and you wonder if it was the directors getting bored and wanting something to spice it up, although I think that is more of the writer's mistake. Despite the nice surety of hand displayed by the duo, the characters don't seem to gel as tightly as necessary to make me believe that they truly care about each other. The closest it ever gets is when Toni Collette breaks down in the hospital. This is also an actor gripe I have for the film. The fact that the two best actors in the film are Alan Arkin and Abigail Breslin, the youngest and oldest respectively, it should give a better idea as to why most of the film simply isn't as interesting. Not only are experimental ideas discouraged in the film, but the directors can barely make a passable family relationship in a Hollywood style. I realize its a new directorial effort, and its not a bad start, but it is not worthy of all the attention.
Next, of course are the actors. As already stated, the two best actors are the youngest and oldest, both of whom have been nominated for an Oscar in their respective categories. While it's nice to see Alan Arkin being nominated, he doesn't deserve it. Well, yes he does a pretty good job as the raunchy mean-spirited but loving drug addict grandfather, but honestly he isn't on screen long enough to deserve the award. This is more a gripe with the Academy whom have a penchant for nominating and at times awarding Oscars to actors who have hardly any time on screen. Judy Dench in Shakespeare in Love pops into mind. Abigail, on the other hand, completely deserves the nod she received. I have not seen such daring childhood acting in a long time. The last scene of the film shows what this little girl can do. She can make a stripping routine seem like a fun respectable performance dance. Maybe its just the fact that she is ridiculously cute. She is! Either way, she does a great job. Then there is Steve Carell. Carell is the new funny man of Hollywood and the fact that he did this film after 40-Year Old Virgin speaks volumes of his character. Carell has proven that he knows how to play a part on the fine line of subtleness and absurdity, and he does so once again. The difference is that this character is so real, that it is hard to laugh. This is actually a good thing as it is refreshing seeing him do something different. It also helps to bring the family and its troubles back to earth. I sensed the possibility of a family the most from him. Unfortunately, it could be argued that he played his character slightly too laid back since many of his jokes come across as mere chuckles instead of the full on laughs as expected by many. Then there is Paul Dano and Toni Collette. Dano does a decent job with the mute character he is given. The real problem is that he seems to hate his family a bit too much so that I can't buy it when later he decides to come back and join them when pleaded to by Abigail's character. He is also kind of unlikable in how smug and mean he is with his retarded notions of Nietzche. Collette is well, for the most part, unreadable. She is the mother, yet she works best in the film for crying or yelling at Greg Kinnear. Other than that, she seems too beat down to be an effective parent of any sort and therefore floats in the background for most of the film. As for Greg Kinnear, he is fairly disappointing for most of the film, playing the typical "I'm an annoying screw-up dad" for most of the film. He only becomes interesting once he recognizes his mistakes and vows to fix them by riding away in the middle of the night to make his stand at holding the crumbling family together. Yet, he gives up too soon and an entire scene of confrontation is wasted. His discovery of character and his decision to become something more pops up again later, but he never seems to truly recover from his "famous lecturerer" ideals until he the last huge scene, and at that point you're laughing to hard to care. It's a typical role for him played with a few twists and it doesn't come out feeling earned. All in all, the cast does okay but as mentioned earlier, fail to gel together to create the sense of family that is 100% necessary for a film of this nature.
Conclusion:
The film has decent direction, some truly amusing momemnts, and one hilarious ending. But the failure of the story to be anything besides run-of-the-mill and film to be daring turns the film into a cheap Hollywood film. The inability of the cast to gel together as an effective family, while partially the point, makes the love and relationships between characters seem tenuous at best. It's a good film, but not Sundance praise worthy, nor worth the amount of money it has garnered off that praise and it's casts acting credits, and especially not worth an Oscar much less a SAG award. I bet that if you watch the movie without having heard any of the ridiculous hype, you will come away with a much better impression than I did. My hope though, is that this year's Sundance produces a more interesting take and film. Oh, and good luck to the duo at topping this film's success with their next.
2.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Monday, January 29, 2007
Very Brief note on the SAG's.
Okay, after having watched the SAG's, there are several things thatmight affect the outcome slightly. Eddie Murphy and Helen Mirren are basically guaranteed Oscars come Oscar time. Some other stuff happened involving television. Jennifer Hudson for best supporting actress. Honestly, most of the awards this year are uninteresting. There simply has been a lack of mystery as to who will win. Of course, then again maybe I am too laid back when considering the Oscars. Maybe the Academy will opt for some interesting buzz after it decides to give several "gimme" awards to different people. Wouldn't it be great to see Abigail Breslin win for best supporting actress? Kate Winslet for best actress again? Or even to see some unknown lay the smack down on some professionals? Anything besides the shoe-ins? With that being said, I think the SAG's cemented Eddie Murphy and Helen Mirren in their respective categories, neither of which were in much jeopardy anyway. The only real question left for the Oscars is best director and best film. Which was the only category made more interesting by the SAG award for best ensemble (their version of best film, in a way) going to Little Miss Sunshine, the indie dark comedy flick that took over a nation. It really is the movie that could so it seems. Although I have to say that I don't see why. It had an okay ensemble but really shouldn't have won just as Alan Arkin shouldn't be nominated for the minimal screen time he has. In my upcoming review you will be able to see why I was less than interested in Little Miss Sunshine and why I feel it is a ridiculous movie to have received the bump that it did by winning the SAG award. Now, it looks like it has an actual chance at being a contender in the Oscar race for best film. One in which I really hope it does not win.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Comments and picks on the Oscar Noms
well, well. Today was an interesting day. Most critics are of course refering to the shocking upset of no oscar nominations for Dreamgirls for best picture nor best director, a nice slap in the face to the Oscars. However, there are several other interesting picks that leave me to believe this is the year of the dark oscars. Now, the Oscars aren't exactly known to overly love comedies and romance films, but from looking at the picture of this years nominees, it seems that hollywood went out of its way to stick to more dramatic and artistic pieces.
For best actor the Oscar's removed DiCaprio's nomination for The Departed and added Ryan Gosling's depiction in the critically acclaimed indie film, Half Nelson. Whereas for best supporting actor, only Eddie Murphy and Mark Wahlberg's nominations carried over from the Golden Globes. New nominations include Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine, Jackie Earle Haley from Little Children and Djimon Hounsou for Blood Diamond. For best actor, it looks like the same game from the Golden Globes and the expectation is on Forest Whitaker to win again with Ryan Gosling as the dark horse. However, Half Nelson and Gosling's performance were very well praised when released to theaters, so maybe he could pull a Crash-Brokeback scenario for the win. Even though Eddie won in the globes, with the emphasis on darker characters, except alan arkin, I get the feeling that his run might be up in the air. Although Murphy is still in the lead for this, expect Jackie Earle Haley to have a strong possibility too. The underdog being Alan Arkin.
Next come the actresses. For best actress, four of the nominees are culled from the best actress in a drama globes and one is from the comedy section. In other words, even though Merryl Streep is in the running, I highly doubt that by adding her it would stop the train that The Queen is on. Expect Helen Mirren for best actress since Streep has plenty of flashy gold statues. Penelope Cruz is the underdog in this race. For best supporting actress, 4 of the same girls from the golden globes are included, the only exception is Abigail Breslin getting a nod for Little Miss Sunshine instead of Emily Blunt for The Devil Wears Prada. Maybe this was done because the Academy honestly felt that Abigail deserved it more, or maybe it was because they already knew that Merryl Streep would win for best actress...either way, it doesn't add or change much about the supporting actress category for which Jennifer Hudson will surely win. Even though I have yet to see Dreamgirls, I hold out hope that Rinko Kikuchi wins this for Babel, but I think that may be a lost cause. The underdogs for this category are Abigail Breslin and Adriana Barraza.
Next comes the Director category in which it is a really heated and tight race. Many critics choose either Martin Scorcese or Clint Eastwood to gain the win. Although I think Stephen Frears has a nice shot at winning and Inarritu could just as easily come out with it, since Martin and Clint are both well established and loved directors. Plus, in the past, Flags of our Fathers was less than inspiring and there is a history of little love for Scorcese at the Oscars. So why not take that into consideration and announce the coming of a new brilliant director such as Inarritu or Frears? Greenblass for United 93 is the underdog and has little to no chance since he replaced Bobby at the Globes and it might be nominated more as a nod to the great film it was and it's well done recreation of said events. A patriotic move by the Oscars but hardly statue worthy.
Best Picture nominations will prove very interesting and Babel's win at the Globes might actually hurt it here. Then again, Letters From Iwo Jima's small release might hurt it as well. I don't think whoever wins the picture this year will win the director spot and I have a feeling Clint or Martin will win in at least one of these two categories so let us say that this year, Clint is getting old and he is a beloved man. Oscar goes to him for Letters from Iwo Jima if Frears wins the best director. This makes sense, or the other way around, but The Queen will more than likely win in one of the two categories. Either way, Little Miss Sunshine is the darkhorse with no chance and the rest of the category is a guessing game, but a fun one!
Miscellaneous categories include Pan's Labryinth to wipe the foreign film category clean. Also, Cars for animated film. For costume design its a close call between Curse of the Golden Flower, Dreamgirls, and Marie Antoinette with my bet being on Marie Antoinette. Cinematography is a close close call with the strong forerunners being Pan's Labryinth, Children of Men, and The Prestige. The only one i wouldn't bet on would be Black Dahlia. Dreamgirls for art direction. Original song from Dreamgirls, probably 'Listen.' Best original screenplay will probably be The Queen again. Best adapted screenplay will probably go to either the Departed, Children of Men, or interestingly, Borat.
Some other little tidbits include that the globe winners for best original score and best song, were snubbed come oscar time. The Painted Veil is mentioned nowhere and Happy Feet is only included in the animated area. Hell, a song from the documentary An Inconvenient Truth replaced them! Click got nominated for best makeup...wtf? Also, the Pursuit of Happyness song listed in the Globes has been removed from the song category by the academy. See what I mean when I say no Happy? The giant flop Poseidon got nominated for best visual effects. Also, the short film awards are given to some really great films. I have watched a couple of past award winners and nominees and I was very impressed with the quality. More people should see quality short films. And with that, I'm out.
Wannabe
For best actor the Oscar's removed DiCaprio's nomination for The Departed and added Ryan Gosling's depiction in the critically acclaimed indie film, Half Nelson. Whereas for best supporting actor, only Eddie Murphy and Mark Wahlberg's nominations carried over from the Golden Globes. New nominations include Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine, Jackie Earle Haley from Little Children and Djimon Hounsou for Blood Diamond. For best actor, it looks like the same game from the Golden Globes and the expectation is on Forest Whitaker to win again with Ryan Gosling as the dark horse. However, Half Nelson and Gosling's performance were very well praised when released to theaters, so maybe he could pull a Crash-Brokeback scenario for the win. Even though Eddie won in the globes, with the emphasis on darker characters, except alan arkin, I get the feeling that his run might be up in the air. Although Murphy is still in the lead for this, expect Jackie Earle Haley to have a strong possibility too. The underdog being Alan Arkin.
Next come the actresses. For best actress, four of the nominees are culled from the best actress in a drama globes and one is from the comedy section. In other words, even though Merryl Streep is in the running, I highly doubt that by adding her it would stop the train that The Queen is on. Expect Helen Mirren for best actress since Streep has plenty of flashy gold statues. Penelope Cruz is the underdog in this race. For best supporting actress, 4 of the same girls from the golden globes are included, the only exception is Abigail Breslin getting a nod for Little Miss Sunshine instead of Emily Blunt for The Devil Wears Prada. Maybe this was done because the Academy honestly felt that Abigail deserved it more, or maybe it was because they already knew that Merryl Streep would win for best actress...either way, it doesn't add or change much about the supporting actress category for which Jennifer Hudson will surely win. Even though I have yet to see Dreamgirls, I hold out hope that Rinko Kikuchi wins this for Babel, but I think that may be a lost cause. The underdogs for this category are Abigail Breslin and Adriana Barraza.
Next comes the Director category in which it is a really heated and tight race. Many critics choose either Martin Scorcese or Clint Eastwood to gain the win. Although I think Stephen Frears has a nice shot at winning and Inarritu could just as easily come out with it, since Martin and Clint are both well established and loved directors. Plus, in the past, Flags of our Fathers was less than inspiring and there is a history of little love for Scorcese at the Oscars. So why not take that into consideration and announce the coming of a new brilliant director such as Inarritu or Frears? Greenblass for United 93 is the underdog and has little to no chance since he replaced Bobby at the Globes and it might be nominated more as a nod to the great film it was and it's well done recreation of said events. A patriotic move by the Oscars but hardly statue worthy.
Best Picture nominations will prove very interesting and Babel's win at the Globes might actually hurt it here. Then again, Letters From Iwo Jima's small release might hurt it as well. I don't think whoever wins the picture this year will win the director spot and I have a feeling Clint or Martin will win in at least one of these two categories so let us say that this year, Clint is getting old and he is a beloved man. Oscar goes to him for Letters from Iwo Jima if Frears wins the best director. This makes sense, or the other way around, but The Queen will more than likely win in one of the two categories. Either way, Little Miss Sunshine is the darkhorse with no chance and the rest of the category is a guessing game, but a fun one!
Miscellaneous categories include Pan's Labryinth to wipe the foreign film category clean. Also, Cars for animated film. For costume design its a close call between Curse of the Golden Flower, Dreamgirls, and Marie Antoinette with my bet being on Marie Antoinette. Cinematography is a close close call with the strong forerunners being Pan's Labryinth, Children of Men, and The Prestige. The only one i wouldn't bet on would be Black Dahlia. Dreamgirls for art direction. Original song from Dreamgirls, probably 'Listen.' Best original screenplay will probably be The Queen again. Best adapted screenplay will probably go to either the Departed, Children of Men, or interestingly, Borat.
Some other little tidbits include that the globe winners for best original score and best song, were snubbed come oscar time. The Painted Veil is mentioned nowhere and Happy Feet is only included in the animated area. Hell, a song from the documentary An Inconvenient Truth replaced them! Click got nominated for best makeup...wtf? Also, the Pursuit of Happyness song listed in the Globes has been removed from the song category by the academy. See what I mean when I say no Happy? The giant flop Poseidon got nominated for best visual effects. Also, the short film awards are given to some really great films. I have watched a couple of past award winners and nominees and I was very impressed with the quality. More people should see quality short films. And with that, I'm out.
Wannabe
Monday, January 22, 2007
Pan's Labryinth
'Get Lost in the Labryinth'
One of the films recently gaining much acclaim and is now being included as a strong contender for best foreign film if nominated is Guillermo Del Toro's latest film, Pan's Labryinth. At one point, Del Toro described his film as a philosophical horror and at other times an adult fairy tale. Although the film does include fantastical elements, I think the film belongs more to the philosophical horror. This film is the second part of what will be Del Toro's Spanish Civil War trilogy and it takes place on a farm that has been turned into an outpost for the fascists in the Civil War. Since I have never seen the first film of the trilogy, The Devil's Backbone, I will not be able to speak on the thematic elements carried over nor be able to compare them. Instead, I will focus on trying to explain the magic of the film.
The main actors of the film are Ivana Baquero as Ofelia, Sergi Lopez as Captain Vidal, Maribel Verdu as Mercedes, and Doug Jones as the intimidating Pan. The only familiar actors from the cast seem to be Sergi Lopez and Doug Jones. I have seen Jones before in Del Toro's other well-known work, Hellboy, but I can't recall where I have seen Sergi Lopez before. With that said, these two men will turn your undies brown. Sergi Lopez plays the most crazed and conflicted leader short of the main character of Clockwork Orange. As for Doug Jones, well, he has proven once again that he has perfect acting chops to go head to head with Andy Serkis for best costumed actor. I'm also of the impression that he is ridiculously tall. No matter what, both of their characters seem very...sympathetic. Captain Vidal is a torturer and easy to hate, but his passion for his unborn son and for his wife are certainly commendable. His desire to die honorably and to have his legend spread is contemptuous at times and just pathetic at others. But they are never disappointing. In fact, none of the cast disappoints. The chemistry between Ivana Baquero and Maribel Verdu is palpable and the feeling of oppression and constantly being watched is nervewracking throughout mostly due to the actors. It's rare that a film comes when no character is a disappointment, automatically making this film a treasure.
As for direction, the film is about choice and might just be the best argument ever made for joining a psychiatric ward. Ivana has a choice to stay alive in the real world or to join the netherworld from which her essence came. Should she stay with her step-father and the constant danger of the war just to keep her brother and mother alive? Or should she forsake all she has known for a fantasy world? The contrast between the two dimensions is made evident by the amount of horror, magic, and sadness present in both worlds. In the end, the film is about making well informed moral choices and not following blindly as all of the captain's soldiers did when they let the captain brutally torture people. Shot on a budget around 5$ million, the film looks like it was made for 16$ million. The scenery is beautifully caught in various filters and brought to life. At night, the shadows touch every surface and add a bluish cold blue to the world. The pacing and storytelling are all top notch, although now I am curious about the other three key holes in the den of the Pale Man. All in all, for a low budget film, Del Toro proves why he is allowed to direct Hollywood features. Simply put, he is a man who understands characters, story, and the intertwining of all these with cinematography. The only part that revealed it's lack of budget are some of the special effects in the film.
Conclusion:
Del Toro's film is gorgeous, stirring, and brilliantly acted and made. It enslaves the audience to its hypnotic tale and does not disappoint. The only real questionable area is the violence and cruelty. Some of the violence is so abrupt and graphic that the film can be really hard to watch. I know that it is meant to emphasize the point of Ofelia choosing a side, but it can also make the audience decide to either leave early or be disgusted with the rest of the film. For a foreign film in Spanish, it is a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination, where hopefully it will be able to beat the next Letters From Iwo Jima (seriously, how the hell is that a foreign film?). But if you are faint of heart, stay away unless you decide for more adventurous fare.
4.7 out of 5
Wannabe
One of the films recently gaining much acclaim and is now being included as a strong contender for best foreign film if nominated is Guillermo Del Toro's latest film, Pan's Labryinth. At one point, Del Toro described his film as a philosophical horror and at other times an adult fairy tale. Although the film does include fantastical elements, I think the film belongs more to the philosophical horror. This film is the second part of what will be Del Toro's Spanish Civil War trilogy and it takes place on a farm that has been turned into an outpost for the fascists in the Civil War. Since I have never seen the first film of the trilogy, The Devil's Backbone, I will not be able to speak on the thematic elements carried over nor be able to compare them. Instead, I will focus on trying to explain the magic of the film.
The main actors of the film are Ivana Baquero as Ofelia, Sergi Lopez as Captain Vidal, Maribel Verdu as Mercedes, and Doug Jones as the intimidating Pan. The only familiar actors from the cast seem to be Sergi Lopez and Doug Jones. I have seen Jones before in Del Toro's other well-known work, Hellboy, but I can't recall where I have seen Sergi Lopez before. With that said, these two men will turn your undies brown. Sergi Lopez plays the most crazed and conflicted leader short of the main character of Clockwork Orange. As for Doug Jones, well, he has proven once again that he has perfect acting chops to go head to head with Andy Serkis for best costumed actor. I'm also of the impression that he is ridiculously tall. No matter what, both of their characters seem very...sympathetic. Captain Vidal is a torturer and easy to hate, but his passion for his unborn son and for his wife are certainly commendable. His desire to die honorably and to have his legend spread is contemptuous at times and just pathetic at others. But they are never disappointing. In fact, none of the cast disappoints. The chemistry between Ivana Baquero and Maribel Verdu is palpable and the feeling of oppression and constantly being watched is nervewracking throughout mostly due to the actors. It's rare that a film comes when no character is a disappointment, automatically making this film a treasure.
As for direction, the film is about choice and might just be the best argument ever made for joining a psychiatric ward. Ivana has a choice to stay alive in the real world or to join the netherworld from which her essence came. Should she stay with her step-father and the constant danger of the war just to keep her brother and mother alive? Or should she forsake all she has known for a fantasy world? The contrast between the two dimensions is made evident by the amount of horror, magic, and sadness present in both worlds. In the end, the film is about making well informed moral choices and not following blindly as all of the captain's soldiers did when they let the captain brutally torture people. Shot on a budget around 5$ million, the film looks like it was made for 16$ million. The scenery is beautifully caught in various filters and brought to life. At night, the shadows touch every surface and add a bluish cold blue to the world. The pacing and storytelling are all top notch, although now I am curious about the other three key holes in the den of the Pale Man. All in all, for a low budget film, Del Toro proves why he is allowed to direct Hollywood features. Simply put, he is a man who understands characters, story, and the intertwining of all these with cinematography. The only part that revealed it's lack of budget are some of the special effects in the film.
Conclusion:
Del Toro's film is gorgeous, stirring, and brilliantly acted and made. It enslaves the audience to its hypnotic tale and does not disappoint. The only real questionable area is the violence and cruelty. Some of the violence is so abrupt and graphic that the film can be really hard to watch. I know that it is meant to emphasize the point of Ofelia choosing a side, but it can also make the audience decide to either leave early or be disgusted with the rest of the film. For a foreign film in Spanish, it is a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination, where hopefully it will be able to beat the next Letters From Iwo Jima (seriously, how the hell is that a foreign film?). But if you are faint of heart, stay away unless you decide for more adventurous fare.
4.7 out of 5
Wannabe
Children of Men
'The Bleakest Celebration of Life Ever'
Why Alfonso Cuaron's newest film, Children of Men, wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe is almost beyond my comprehension. I say almost because I quickly found out why from my uncle who has a less artistic palate. His response was that it was perhaps the most horrific future he'd ever seen and that it went so fast sometimes that he had no idea what was going on. Well, he's partially right. I would have to say that if you compare the three films by the Triumvirate (Guillermo Del Toro, Alejandro Inarritu, Alfonso Cuaron) from this year you will see the most horrifying films of the past, present, and future respectively. Although Cuaron's film is creepier than the bubonic plague, it's also strangely fascinating and beautiful. As for the hard to follow part, well...older people tend to have trouble following action scenes more so than the younger people.
The story is set in the year 2027 with the premise that mankind has become sterile. No babies have been born for many years, leaving no hope for a future legacy. It begins in England which is one of the last countries not to have fallen completely into ruins. Instead, it has enacted strict immigrant laws and a totalitarian government system to keep everyone and thing in check and functioning smoothly. In fact, the lead character works for the Ministry of Energy, a direct reference to 1984. Then comes along Clive Owen's character who is a burned out political activist and former father who agrees to help his ex in smuggling a young black girl out of the country. However, things go very wrong as his ex-wife dies and her own organization turns on him and he has to make sure the girl flees to a safe place called the Human Project since she is the only pregnant woman left. GRanted that was a really dumbed down version of the script, but the script is amazing. Although based on a book, Cuaron's direction is evident throughout and displays his ability to create beautiful images even in the darkest of times. He also does an excellent job of crafting the film to highlight the troubles of the new coming of the first baby born in so long since everyone wants to manipulate her. He also exhibits the inability of man to stop fighting, especially when Clive Owen's and the girl are walking out and every soldier stops and stares, surprised to see a baby while mood music plays slowly in the background...until somone shoots a rocket into the soldiers from above and destroys the peaceful possibility of hope. The only problem with the story is the idea that if man could have children things would be better, but it seems that even if man became fertile again, mankind has descended too far into darkness to turn back into a civilized society. I don't know if this is Cuaron's fault or not because the movie is based on a book, but if the Prisoner of Azkaban was any indication, Cuaron will cut and edit lots out of an adaptation to make the best visually imaginative movie he can.
But what about the actors? Surely they had some role to play in this film? The answer is yes. All of them. Even the crazy Scottish guy with dreadlocks. They are all significant and important to the story. Even their deaths, which it seems everyone does. Clive Owen's character is played very well and slightly different but on the whole he's a bit too laconic to empathize with, even after he undergoes a transformation and tries to help the girl. Julianne Moore has a short role, but an important one and then she's gone. The real star is Michael Caine. Seeing Michael Caine as the ultimate old hippie is really satisfying. Yes, he grows strawberry hash and such, but he's everyone's best old friend. Him and his lovely disabled wife Jan whom he poisons before he dies, which might just be the most heartbreaking scene in the movie. Michael Caine might be the best damn actor on earth and after watching him in this role, it makes you want to see him again or go and find another film with a similar character. Hats to you Caine for taking a small role and doing so much with it. Unfortunately, the only other major character was the previoously mentioned pregnant girl. Not impressed. She popped that baby right out and was able to get up and run away. A lot of her emotional characteristics fit the bill for the character but at no point in time does it seem realistic for her to be pregnant. Plus, she's kind of aggravating for constantly demanding things and then wandering off to be watched by Owen and her assistant. She doesn't seem to have enough life experiences and I think she needs some before attempting her next role. Although she shows promise, it needs polish first. But overall a great job by the cast.
Conclusion:
Cuaron uses this film and crafts a haunting nightmare of a world. And if you need proof that Cuaron is the real deal, just watch the ridiculously long one-take traveling shot toward the end. Through his storytelling craft, the message of the film comes through quite clear. Without children men revert to their sinful chaotic nature because they have lost their hope and it becomes everyone for themself. In this warring state, man has the capacity to destroy his own values and any hope of a brighter future. By making entire squads of toughmen go quiet when a baby enters the room, Cuaron is able to paint a picture of hope for the men. It also helps to accent the symbolic journey and birthing of Jesus. In the end, it is a sci-fi film stuffed to the gills with visual metaphors, themes, symbolism, and imagery.
4.0 out of 5
Wannabe
Why Alfonso Cuaron's newest film, Children of Men, wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe is almost beyond my comprehension. I say almost because I quickly found out why from my uncle who has a less artistic palate. His response was that it was perhaps the most horrific future he'd ever seen and that it went so fast sometimes that he had no idea what was going on. Well, he's partially right. I would have to say that if you compare the three films by the Triumvirate (Guillermo Del Toro, Alejandro Inarritu, Alfonso Cuaron) from this year you will see the most horrifying films of the past, present, and future respectively. Although Cuaron's film is creepier than the bubonic plague, it's also strangely fascinating and beautiful. As for the hard to follow part, well...older people tend to have trouble following action scenes more so than the younger people.
The story is set in the year 2027 with the premise that mankind has become sterile. No babies have been born for many years, leaving no hope for a future legacy. It begins in England which is one of the last countries not to have fallen completely into ruins. Instead, it has enacted strict immigrant laws and a totalitarian government system to keep everyone and thing in check and functioning smoothly. In fact, the lead character works for the Ministry of Energy, a direct reference to 1984. Then comes along Clive Owen's character who is a burned out political activist and former father who agrees to help his ex in smuggling a young black girl out of the country. However, things go very wrong as his ex-wife dies and her own organization turns on him and he has to make sure the girl flees to a safe place called the Human Project since she is the only pregnant woman left. GRanted that was a really dumbed down version of the script, but the script is amazing. Although based on a book, Cuaron's direction is evident throughout and displays his ability to create beautiful images even in the darkest of times. He also does an excellent job of crafting the film to highlight the troubles of the new coming of the first baby born in so long since everyone wants to manipulate her. He also exhibits the inability of man to stop fighting, especially when Clive Owen's and the girl are walking out and every soldier stops and stares, surprised to see a baby while mood music plays slowly in the background...until somone shoots a rocket into the soldiers from above and destroys the peaceful possibility of hope. The only problem with the story is the idea that if man could have children things would be better, but it seems that even if man became fertile again, mankind has descended too far into darkness to turn back into a civilized society. I don't know if this is Cuaron's fault or not because the movie is based on a book, but if the Prisoner of Azkaban was any indication, Cuaron will cut and edit lots out of an adaptation to make the best visually imaginative movie he can.
But what about the actors? Surely they had some role to play in this film? The answer is yes. All of them. Even the crazy Scottish guy with dreadlocks. They are all significant and important to the story. Even their deaths, which it seems everyone does. Clive Owen's character is played very well and slightly different but on the whole he's a bit too laconic to empathize with, even after he undergoes a transformation and tries to help the girl. Julianne Moore has a short role, but an important one and then she's gone. The real star is Michael Caine. Seeing Michael Caine as the ultimate old hippie is really satisfying. Yes, he grows strawberry hash and such, but he's everyone's best old friend. Him and his lovely disabled wife Jan whom he poisons before he dies, which might just be the most heartbreaking scene in the movie. Michael Caine might be the best damn actor on earth and after watching him in this role, it makes you want to see him again or go and find another film with a similar character. Hats to you Caine for taking a small role and doing so much with it. Unfortunately, the only other major character was the previoously mentioned pregnant girl. Not impressed. She popped that baby right out and was able to get up and run away. A lot of her emotional characteristics fit the bill for the character but at no point in time does it seem realistic for her to be pregnant. Plus, she's kind of aggravating for constantly demanding things and then wandering off to be watched by Owen and her assistant. She doesn't seem to have enough life experiences and I think she needs some before attempting her next role. Although she shows promise, it needs polish first. But overall a great job by the cast.
Conclusion:
Cuaron uses this film and crafts a haunting nightmare of a world. And if you need proof that Cuaron is the real deal, just watch the ridiculously long one-take traveling shot toward the end. Through his storytelling craft, the message of the film comes through quite clear. Without children men revert to their sinful chaotic nature because they have lost their hope and it becomes everyone for themself. In this warring state, man has the capacity to destroy his own values and any hope of a brighter future. By making entire squads of toughmen go quiet when a baby enters the room, Cuaron is able to paint a picture of hope for the men. It also helps to accent the symbolic journey and birthing of Jesus. In the end, it is a sci-fi film stuffed to the gills with visual metaphors, themes, symbolism, and imagery.
4.0 out of 5
Wannabe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
