I truly have trouble with Republicans. Well, staunch conservative republicans anyway. Mostly because of the growing # of evangelical republicans. Growing up in a heavy democratic household it's probably expected, but I actually didn't care about contemporary politics until I was well into high school, at which point I would have voted for George Bush if I could. He seemed much more relatable than the frosty monotone nature of Al Gore. Plus, I felt at the time that a good political leader should be a good person at all times. I didn't grasp the understanding of a president can be good in certain arenas or good in the house but bad in senate, etc. So when Clinton cheated on Hillary, I felt that he had disgraced our country to the whole world and that we would now be the brunt of all the jokes. And we were, but not because he cheated on his wife, but because of how strongly we reacted. Lets face these facts people, Clinton was impeached and threatened with being kicked out of office for lying to the public about whether or not he had sex with Monica Lewinski. At the time, I was all for it, but looking back now, I don't see how they relate. His cheating and consequently lying to the public is very human and completely understandable in that it is his and Hillary's personal issues. It is not the public's issues. But we make it our issue just to have something to do. So gossip mags can sell and people will tune in to news stations again. Then we get offended because we feel that we shouldn't lie if we were put in the same spot. It really makes no sense. I have to admit that I don't know if Kerry would have been an acceptable reality instead of Bush, but I do know that I am tired and fed up with all of the things occurring in Washington. I never support war since mankind has figured out that it is impossible to really quell a guerilla war without massive firearms, deaths, and many years. Historically, once a country is captured and rebelling, it is a bad idea to remove the empirial country from power resulting in immediate chaos. We'd like to claim that by at least touching these other countries and influencing them in such a manner that it gives them suport to be raised up to a more stable and higher democratic power later. Like India and England, which I admit is not my strong point. Is the rise of India as a national power due to its early influence of England? Or because of the population burgeoning which eventually produced Gandhi and other great national India leaders? I don't know. People like to have very clear and defined things they can point to and say cause and effect. When the truth is that there are usually thousands of causes that produce 1 effect and that the rest aren't seen. Or even better, the cause that they think made the effect is really a front. This is why we use science to try and figure out to the best that we can outside of our conflicting and containing morals how the world works that God gave us. People want to believe that science is evil and don't understand it either because they can't or don't want to try, when the truth could be that by researching science people are discovering God and reveling in his beauty. Nothing is more amazing to me than knowing that everything out there has a function, that millions on billions of things work together to make every day as glorious as the next. I'm not saying that everyone should grab a microscope and set about to work. I'm not even saying you have to believe in science, or God. I just find it ridiculous that people cannot tolerate each other. I struggle with the fact that for a long time I thought all atheists were going to hell, but some of the best people in my life were atheists. Staunch atheists. Since that point in time, I haven't quite cleared up this problem in my own mind, but I've come to the realization that I don't have to. The only thing God wanted from us was to get along and treat each other well. The idea of being the capitol on the hill and a shining light to the world, that requires tolerance and love for all human beings and not persecution and oppression. Homosexuals choose I lifetsyle I don't agree with personally and maybe biologically our body pieces aren't meant to fit that way, but that doesn't mean we have to hate those who are different or even try to force them into bowing to Jesus or Allah or whomever. They are people who have chosen their own path and we should offer them a different one, but if they are not receptive or looking for a different path, then don't force it on them. Be a good person to all those around you and not just the ones like you. Love your enemy. all that. Yes people need things to overcome, but if we set ourselves to overcoming each other then some will win and many will lose. I say this now because as a kid I remember thinking how great the world is and how much I enjoy living in it. As a married adult, the best I can feel is happily complacent and only with my wife. I no loger love the world or the majority of those who live in it because I feel they have the inability to love me and others around me. I am trying to overcome my sadness of these facts, but groups, especially online, who use their time and day to create political hate groups, creating new bad-mouthed stereotypes like conservative and liberal, really accomplish nothing. America is on the verge of war I feel and it is on the verge of war with itself. I fervently wish that we as Americans can stop the bickering and loyalty to an individual party and come together to discuss our problems and possible solutions. This can never be achieved with everyone pointing fingers and disregarding information that is of no use to them, even if it refutes their claims. In my dream, America is whole, happy, and a shining light to the world because it has come together to discuss the issues before it decided to pick candidates for elections. It makes me sad to no end to know that it is now and will always be a dream.
Wannabe
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Hellboy: Sword of Storms
'Part 1 of an Animated weekend'
Hellboy is everywhere. That is my official mantra now. The comic book series by Mike Mignola became popular a while back due, in my mind, mostly to Mignola's amazing sense of art. Each page is beautifully drawn and created in a style I could only hope to dream in with jagged edges and long drawn out caricatures that never seem to make sense realistically, but which meld together to form a mood using a minimalist style of color. I came a little late to the game, but I have read one of the Hellboy books at least and I have to admit that Mignola is also very talented at writing scripts. In fact, he has convinced me to like Hellboy. The concept of Hellboy previously had never appealed to me. A giant red apocalyptic demon that clobbers things and looks slightly like a monkey becomes good and works with a team of paranormal investigators to fight evil. Honestly, looking back over what I wrote, I don't know why it didn't appeal to me, but the concept just seemed too cheesy. Which is how it should be since Mignola meant it to be a throwback to the pop art and characters of Universal's monster days. Guillermo Del Toro has often compared Hellboy to a modern day monster worthy of Universal's golden monster halls. In fact, Del Toro loved the character so much that he directed the first Hellboy movie with Ron Perlman, Doug Jones, and Selma Blair in the main roles. He will be returning to this role once again soon since his next project now that Pan's Labryinth is complete, is to direct the sequel to Hellboy. How does all of this tie together? Well, apparently when making the first film, Del Toro really pushed to get the series made into an animated series. He pushed so hard that they are making several animated films, the first of which is the subject of this review.
What's important to remember is that Mignola has made sure that each incarnation of Hellboy stands on its own visually and continuity wise. Stories might be interchanged between mediums, as one segment of Sword of Storms animates a popular short story from the comics of Hellboy in Japan fighting body-less flying vampiric heads. Even though this idea irks me because I want just one continuity, the change of styles in each of the incarnations is so complete that each incarnation of Hellboy is beautiful and uniquely different enough to feel that they warrant their own universe. At first in this film, it is slightly sad to be watching the movie only to realize that it is not done in Mignola's signature art style. But this small sadness is soon rectified by the quirky Ben 10 art style and the amazing detail put into tyhe coloring and shading. Visually, the animation falls between new age cell-shading and japanime and old fashioned caricatures. It's beautiful. Thankfully, the animation is in the hands of the veteran animator Tad Stones who is better remembered for Darkwing Duck and the two sequels to Aladdin. The character designs for this new universe, now to be known as the Animated Hellboy universe, were made by relative newcomer lovingly referred to as Cheeks. Tad Stones has expressed a lot of interest in doing multiple movies of Hellboy, the next one being Blood and Iron, and I have to agree. I hope they are able to keep up a continuing series of these DVDs. Not only are they shown on Cartoon Network, but the DVD contains loads of valuable extras about the creation of the animation and story behind the film.
Now as for the story itself. It involves Japanese folklore, a favorite of mine, and it does a pretty good job with it. The folklore and the traveling samurai idea of Hellboy in ancient mystical Japan is very eye-catching. The wandering samurai tales presented in the film are done beautifully and are fun to watch. The real flaw in the story comes from watching Hellboy's sidekicks without him around. Abe Sapien and Liz together just can't seem to carry a scene. Also, the writer tends to fall back on Liz's ability to just burn the hell out of everything. Sapien is an interesting character but his ability is eh and he is really quite weak. Their stories are too comical and pathetic in comparison to Hellboy's classic nonchalant beat the crap out of everything plan. My only other complaint is that the script couldn't decide whether it was for grown-ups or not. It's true that Hellboy doesn't curse a lot and rip out throats or anything. He's not Lobo. But, the content and themes and styles of the comic book and both incarnations are so dark that it needs to be written more for adults and it should leave out more of the "knowing looks" actions and little cutesy moments that are in a lot of traditional children programming. If any American production has the possibility of becoming the first animated movie to be taken seriously, this is it, and I feel that Stones and Weinstein don't enforce that enough. At times, Matt Wayne's script feels very adult action oriented and then at other times it drifts back to children land. In other words, the tone is wishy-washy, an understandable mistake for a first film, that hopefully will be fixed by the second film.
As for voice acting, all of the original actors from the film reprise their roles and it proves in this film more than ever that Ron Perlman is Hellboy. He just is, that simple. The one liners are perfectly delivered and every one does a marvelous job. The real problem is that Selma Blair doesn't have a very distinguishable voice. She could have been any voiceover actor and I wouldn't have known. Doug Jones however is great as Abe Sapien and I was glad to hear more of that character since it was such a smallish role in the Del Toro film. The voice acting brings the characters to life, although the sections that I mentioned as being cutesy and annoying, is reflected in the actor's speech that they also realize how silly those scenes are. It makes me unable to bear waiting to see Hellboy 2.
Conclusion:
The story is great, the animation is great, and the voice acting is wonderful. Now if only they could make Abe Sapien and Liz's tales either more interesting or of more importance. Also, they need to decide what tone to take with the animated version and its targeted demographic. Despite these flaws, Sword of Storms is a welcome and wonderful creation and addition to the collection of Hellboy universes.
4.2 out of 5
Wannabe
Hellboy is everywhere. That is my official mantra now. The comic book series by Mike Mignola became popular a while back due, in my mind, mostly to Mignola's amazing sense of art. Each page is beautifully drawn and created in a style I could only hope to dream in with jagged edges and long drawn out caricatures that never seem to make sense realistically, but which meld together to form a mood using a minimalist style of color. I came a little late to the game, but I have read one of the Hellboy books at least and I have to admit that Mignola is also very talented at writing scripts. In fact, he has convinced me to like Hellboy. The concept of Hellboy previously had never appealed to me. A giant red apocalyptic demon that clobbers things and looks slightly like a monkey becomes good and works with a team of paranormal investigators to fight evil. Honestly, looking back over what I wrote, I don't know why it didn't appeal to me, but the concept just seemed too cheesy. Which is how it should be since Mignola meant it to be a throwback to the pop art and characters of Universal's monster days. Guillermo Del Toro has often compared Hellboy to a modern day monster worthy of Universal's golden monster halls. In fact, Del Toro loved the character so much that he directed the first Hellboy movie with Ron Perlman, Doug Jones, and Selma Blair in the main roles. He will be returning to this role once again soon since his next project now that Pan's Labryinth is complete, is to direct the sequel to Hellboy. How does all of this tie together? Well, apparently when making the first film, Del Toro really pushed to get the series made into an animated series. He pushed so hard that they are making several animated films, the first of which is the subject of this review.
What's important to remember is that Mignola has made sure that each incarnation of Hellboy stands on its own visually and continuity wise. Stories might be interchanged between mediums, as one segment of Sword of Storms animates a popular short story from the comics of Hellboy in Japan fighting body-less flying vampiric heads. Even though this idea irks me because I want just one continuity, the change of styles in each of the incarnations is so complete that each incarnation of Hellboy is beautiful and uniquely different enough to feel that they warrant their own universe. At first in this film, it is slightly sad to be watching the movie only to realize that it is not done in Mignola's signature art style. But this small sadness is soon rectified by the quirky Ben 10 art style and the amazing detail put into tyhe coloring and shading. Visually, the animation falls between new age cell-shading and japanime and old fashioned caricatures. It's beautiful. Thankfully, the animation is in the hands of the veteran animator Tad Stones who is better remembered for Darkwing Duck and the two sequels to Aladdin. The character designs for this new universe, now to be known as the Animated Hellboy universe, were made by relative newcomer lovingly referred to as Cheeks. Tad Stones has expressed a lot of interest in doing multiple movies of Hellboy, the next one being Blood and Iron, and I have to agree. I hope they are able to keep up a continuing series of these DVDs. Not only are they shown on Cartoon Network, but the DVD contains loads of valuable extras about the creation of the animation and story behind the film.
Now as for the story itself. It involves Japanese folklore, a favorite of mine, and it does a pretty good job with it. The folklore and the traveling samurai idea of Hellboy in ancient mystical Japan is very eye-catching. The wandering samurai tales presented in the film are done beautifully and are fun to watch. The real flaw in the story comes from watching Hellboy's sidekicks without him around. Abe Sapien and Liz together just can't seem to carry a scene. Also, the writer tends to fall back on Liz's ability to just burn the hell out of everything. Sapien is an interesting character but his ability is eh and he is really quite weak. Their stories are too comical and pathetic in comparison to Hellboy's classic nonchalant beat the crap out of everything plan. My only other complaint is that the script couldn't decide whether it was for grown-ups or not. It's true that Hellboy doesn't curse a lot and rip out throats or anything. He's not Lobo. But, the content and themes and styles of the comic book and both incarnations are so dark that it needs to be written more for adults and it should leave out more of the "knowing looks" actions and little cutesy moments that are in a lot of traditional children programming. If any American production has the possibility of becoming the first animated movie to be taken seriously, this is it, and I feel that Stones and Weinstein don't enforce that enough. At times, Matt Wayne's script feels very adult action oriented and then at other times it drifts back to children land. In other words, the tone is wishy-washy, an understandable mistake for a first film, that hopefully will be fixed by the second film.
As for voice acting, all of the original actors from the film reprise their roles and it proves in this film more than ever that Ron Perlman is Hellboy. He just is, that simple. The one liners are perfectly delivered and every one does a marvelous job. The real problem is that Selma Blair doesn't have a very distinguishable voice. She could have been any voiceover actor and I wouldn't have known. Doug Jones however is great as Abe Sapien and I was glad to hear more of that character since it was such a smallish role in the Del Toro film. The voice acting brings the characters to life, although the sections that I mentioned as being cutesy and annoying, is reflected in the actor's speech that they also realize how silly those scenes are. It makes me unable to bear waiting to see Hellboy 2.
Conclusion:
The story is great, the animation is great, and the voice acting is wonderful. Now if only they could make Abe Sapien and Liz's tales either more interesting or of more importance. Also, they need to decide what tone to take with the animated version and its targeted demographic. Despite these flaws, Sword of Storms is a welcome and wonderful creation and addition to the collection of Hellboy universes.
4.2 out of 5
Wannabe
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Some Like It Hot
CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT!
Before beginning to go into a review of this film, I think it only fair to clarify my point of view on older movies. Classics are usually great films that are so powerful they could start an entire genre or catapult at least one person to glory. Many are critically acclaimed and "deserve" to be studied and discussed over. Others are simply great examples of quality film-making. Either way, I cannot discuss the effect most classics had on audiences because I was simply not around for a lot of them. Instead, I must evaluate the film based on its own merit and how it relates to modern society. One other thing to know about me is that when approaching the artistic debate of modern or contemporary vs classical or traditional...I tend to fall more in the modern category. Lastly, if you ever see the CLASSIC ALERT! warning, then you had better believe it is a classic. Now then, Let's begin.
Some Like It Hot is a comedy released in 1959 starring the famous Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon. All of whom are now deceased. It was directed by the great and critically lauded and studied director/writer, Billy Wilder. The same man who created the Spirit of St. Louis, Sunset Boulevard, and Double Indemnity among countless others. Critics have loved this film unrelentingly over the years, although I always seem to get it confused with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Now that I've seen it, I can give you a better idea as to why these critics always have it among their must-own lists. It's just damn good.
Okay, so plotwise, by today's standards, it's not a hard story to figure out. Two struggling musicians in Prohibition America see a murder by the local gang boss of Chicago and need to escape quick. To get away, they decide to dress up like females and join an all girl band on its way to the beach for three weeks. Thus hilarity ensues with all sorts of fun sexual gags and farcical elements. Back in the day, a film was merely a vehicle for a director or actor, so the script was taken much less seriously. You want a western? Go put a bunch of people on horses in the desert and create a conflict. It was that easy. Despite the modern day apparent simplicity of the script's plot, the script does an amazing job of making everything feel fresh and new. I am willing to bet that when this film was released, that this old plot idea was brand new and novel. It shows in the actor's portrayals and in the fun scenes and writing. Nowadays, most actors and writers of these sorts of films probably don't give it their all because they know they are simply copycatting something older, which really takes away from the enjoyment. But this film is so well staged and written that there are plenty of jokes and laughs to be had that in a more modern movie would come across as cliche and half-assed. That's an impressive feat for an almost fifty year old movie. The gags feel crisp, the jokes are laughable, and the characters and arcs are all in the story. Simple, but effective is a very good strategy for a film.
As for the directing, from the little that I know of Mr. Wilder, he was a very effective editor. He has been known to say that he never understood all of the directors who would spend so much time cutting and editing. Studios liked to work with him because he already knew in his head what he wanted before he shot a scene so that it cost few retakes and he could edit it quickly for distribution and thereby cut down on a lot of the costs that other directors incurred. That, and he always loved to include a seductress type character in his films. As for Some Like It Hot, the film almost never slows down and the editing is done effectively enough to get the story across. Sure it's not flashy tricky editing like in a horror film or something, but it works and even I have to allow some leeway for older films. With all of that being said, Wilder constructs some fun giant scenes like the orgy scene on the train and the gangster party in the hotel that only a true great director could have done and kept the film under budget. Definately worthy of the praise.
Since the film is older and the editing much more primitive, a lot of the charm of the movie falls on the brunt of the actors and their ability to hold the audiences interest. Sometimes, this can be bad since I can't remember the last time that I saw a black and white film on TV and didn't feel the need to instantly find something more interesting. However, the truth is that if you stick with the characters, it does slow things down somewhat, but it also gives a better payoff by creating a greater connection to the characters. The same happens in this film. To start with, Marilyn Monroe, the seductress of this film plays the now stereotypical blonde bombshell. She's not too bright, likes to party and drink, wants to find love, and is willing to date jerks. Yep, she's a shoe in. The problem is, as seductive as she is, something about her hair never looks real. She seems plastered over in makeup and hairspray, which makes sense, but it detracts from her beauty especially in an age used to seeing Britneys and Aguileras around any newstand. Perhaps the most shocking thing is her waist! There are several less than flattering side shots of Monroe, and she is not fat, instead she is a healthy naturally good looking weight. Something Hollywood actresses need to aspire to. Scarlett Johannson could have divided in two and fit inside her and lets not even discuss the Olsen twins or Kate Moss. It was very refreshing to see a sexy beautiful healthy lady playing that same role. Maybe there is something to this whole role model thing.
While Monroe can play the romantic ditz well, she has the problem of the old acting style. In today's world, we are so used to nuance and assuming things based on looks that is seems corny to watch an older film where the acting style was more showy because they didn't have an established history to build on like we curently do. This acting style problem comes back to bite each of the main actors in the cast, except one. In this case, it hurts Marilyn's ditz act by coming across a lot of times as simply, I'm dumb and pretty, want me? Other than that, she is excellent and quite good at being clumsy too. Truth be told, I watched the film because someone told me that you could see her nipple at one point. I missed it, so if someone finds out, there is a comment section. The other two actors play the buddy roles as two musicians. Out of the two musicians, I liked Jack Lemmon least. Yea, I know, that's pretty harsh. But honestly, his laugh he created for his character is ridiculously ANNOYING. Plus he does it ALL THE TIME!! Other than that though, he just doesn't seem as well fleshed out as a character. Several times he comes up with great ideas or suggestions to help them out, but they never do them unless Tony Curtis later suggests them. In fact, throughout the film, Lemmon keeps asking Curtis why he follows him and why he listens to him. Before you are even halfway through the movie, you will also be wondering why the hell he stays and helps Curtis' character. Curtis plays the saxophone gambling lout who has a relationship going on with whomever he needs to, He never listens to Lemmon and he always thinks the best thing to do is gamble the money away they have until they are literally freezing because the had to sell their own jackets. It makes no sense why Lemon follows Curtis, even if they are friends. The only time where something similar to answer arrives is when Curtis looms up from the tub and looks like he is about to belt Lemmon. The reasoning then is, Curtis is a mean guy who rules with an iron fist and Lemmon is the jokester willing to put with it in the name of friendship. The other problem with Lemmon's character is how quickly he seems to change on everything. In the beginning, Curtis is the lout. But once they get on the train, Lemmon is making sexual suggestions right and left that almost turn him into a scary predator in a modern setting. Despite the inconsistencies in his character, Lemmon does develop a great rapport with Curtis and his energy and enthusiasm give the film a life. Although no one can beat Tony Curtis in this film. His acting and skill is simply head and shoulders above the rest. His character is always believable despite any inconsistencies and he can always hit the right note for a good laugh. He never comes across as grating and his romance with Monroe is well done that he becomes a very likable character in the end. If nothing else, watch this film to see the Mrs. Doubtfire skills of the 50's.
Conclusion:
Minimal sets, I think I saw the same one twice at one point, well used and well edited in the film prove Billy Wilder's excellence. Also, the simple story does its job by providing some great lines and laughs while keeping the pace going. The actor's carry their brunt admicably, especially Tony Curtis. And it features two men in drag, which does not look too good on Lemmon! Despite the film's flaws, it holds up remarkably well in modern times and is still surprisingly fun to watch and enjoy. Also, a great film for women's rights activists of yore. A classic indeed.
4.1 out of 5
Wannabe
Before beginning to go into a review of this film, I think it only fair to clarify my point of view on older movies. Classics are usually great films that are so powerful they could start an entire genre or catapult at least one person to glory. Many are critically acclaimed and "deserve" to be studied and discussed over. Others are simply great examples of quality film-making. Either way, I cannot discuss the effect most classics had on audiences because I was simply not around for a lot of them. Instead, I must evaluate the film based on its own merit and how it relates to modern society. One other thing to know about me is that when approaching the artistic debate of modern or contemporary vs classical or traditional...I tend to fall more in the modern category. Lastly, if you ever see the CLASSIC ALERT! warning, then you had better believe it is a classic. Now then, Let's begin.
Some Like It Hot is a comedy released in 1959 starring the famous Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon. All of whom are now deceased. It was directed by the great and critically lauded and studied director/writer, Billy Wilder. The same man who created the Spirit of St. Louis, Sunset Boulevard, and Double Indemnity among countless others. Critics have loved this film unrelentingly over the years, although I always seem to get it confused with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Now that I've seen it, I can give you a better idea as to why these critics always have it among their must-own lists. It's just damn good.
Okay, so plotwise, by today's standards, it's not a hard story to figure out. Two struggling musicians in Prohibition America see a murder by the local gang boss of Chicago and need to escape quick. To get away, they decide to dress up like females and join an all girl band on its way to the beach for three weeks. Thus hilarity ensues with all sorts of fun sexual gags and farcical elements. Back in the day, a film was merely a vehicle for a director or actor, so the script was taken much less seriously. You want a western? Go put a bunch of people on horses in the desert and create a conflict. It was that easy. Despite the modern day apparent simplicity of the script's plot, the script does an amazing job of making everything feel fresh and new. I am willing to bet that when this film was released, that this old plot idea was brand new and novel. It shows in the actor's portrayals and in the fun scenes and writing. Nowadays, most actors and writers of these sorts of films probably don't give it their all because they know they are simply copycatting something older, which really takes away from the enjoyment. But this film is so well staged and written that there are plenty of jokes and laughs to be had that in a more modern movie would come across as cliche and half-assed. That's an impressive feat for an almost fifty year old movie. The gags feel crisp, the jokes are laughable, and the characters and arcs are all in the story. Simple, but effective is a very good strategy for a film.
As for the directing, from the little that I know of Mr. Wilder, he was a very effective editor. He has been known to say that he never understood all of the directors who would spend so much time cutting and editing. Studios liked to work with him because he already knew in his head what he wanted before he shot a scene so that it cost few retakes and he could edit it quickly for distribution and thereby cut down on a lot of the costs that other directors incurred. That, and he always loved to include a seductress type character in his films. As for Some Like It Hot, the film almost never slows down and the editing is done effectively enough to get the story across. Sure it's not flashy tricky editing like in a horror film or something, but it works and even I have to allow some leeway for older films. With all of that being said, Wilder constructs some fun giant scenes like the orgy scene on the train and the gangster party in the hotel that only a true great director could have done and kept the film under budget. Definately worthy of the praise.
Since the film is older and the editing much more primitive, a lot of the charm of the movie falls on the brunt of the actors and their ability to hold the audiences interest. Sometimes, this can be bad since I can't remember the last time that I saw a black and white film on TV and didn't feel the need to instantly find something more interesting. However, the truth is that if you stick with the characters, it does slow things down somewhat, but it also gives a better payoff by creating a greater connection to the characters. The same happens in this film. To start with, Marilyn Monroe, the seductress of this film plays the now stereotypical blonde bombshell. She's not too bright, likes to party and drink, wants to find love, and is willing to date jerks. Yep, she's a shoe in. The problem is, as seductive as she is, something about her hair never looks real. She seems plastered over in makeup and hairspray, which makes sense, but it detracts from her beauty especially in an age used to seeing Britneys and Aguileras around any newstand. Perhaps the most shocking thing is her waist! There are several less than flattering side shots of Monroe, and she is not fat, instead she is a healthy naturally good looking weight. Something Hollywood actresses need to aspire to. Scarlett Johannson could have divided in two and fit inside her and lets not even discuss the Olsen twins or Kate Moss. It was very refreshing to see a sexy beautiful healthy lady playing that same role. Maybe there is something to this whole role model thing.
While Monroe can play the romantic ditz well, she has the problem of the old acting style. In today's world, we are so used to nuance and assuming things based on looks that is seems corny to watch an older film where the acting style was more showy because they didn't have an established history to build on like we curently do. This acting style problem comes back to bite each of the main actors in the cast, except one. In this case, it hurts Marilyn's ditz act by coming across a lot of times as simply, I'm dumb and pretty, want me? Other than that, she is excellent and quite good at being clumsy too. Truth be told, I watched the film because someone told me that you could see her nipple at one point. I missed it, so if someone finds out, there is a comment section. The other two actors play the buddy roles as two musicians. Out of the two musicians, I liked Jack Lemmon least. Yea, I know, that's pretty harsh. But honestly, his laugh he created for his character is ridiculously ANNOYING. Plus he does it ALL THE TIME!! Other than that though, he just doesn't seem as well fleshed out as a character. Several times he comes up with great ideas or suggestions to help them out, but they never do them unless Tony Curtis later suggests them. In fact, throughout the film, Lemmon keeps asking Curtis why he follows him and why he listens to him. Before you are even halfway through the movie, you will also be wondering why the hell he stays and helps Curtis' character. Curtis plays the saxophone gambling lout who has a relationship going on with whomever he needs to, He never listens to Lemmon and he always thinks the best thing to do is gamble the money away they have until they are literally freezing because the had to sell their own jackets. It makes no sense why Lemon follows Curtis, even if they are friends. The only time where something similar to answer arrives is when Curtis looms up from the tub and looks like he is about to belt Lemmon. The reasoning then is, Curtis is a mean guy who rules with an iron fist and Lemmon is the jokester willing to put with it in the name of friendship. The other problem with Lemmon's character is how quickly he seems to change on everything. In the beginning, Curtis is the lout. But once they get on the train, Lemmon is making sexual suggestions right and left that almost turn him into a scary predator in a modern setting. Despite the inconsistencies in his character, Lemmon does develop a great rapport with Curtis and his energy and enthusiasm give the film a life. Although no one can beat Tony Curtis in this film. His acting and skill is simply head and shoulders above the rest. His character is always believable despite any inconsistencies and he can always hit the right note for a good laugh. He never comes across as grating and his romance with Monroe is well done that he becomes a very likable character in the end. If nothing else, watch this film to see the Mrs. Doubtfire skills of the 50's.
Conclusion:
Minimal sets, I think I saw the same one twice at one point, well used and well edited in the film prove Billy Wilder's excellence. Also, the simple story does its job by providing some great lines and laughs while keeping the pace going. The actor's carry their brunt admicably, especially Tony Curtis. And it features two men in drag, which does not look too good on Lemmon! Despite the film's flaws, it holds up remarkably well in modern times and is still surprisingly fun to watch and enjoy. Also, a great film for women's rights activists of yore. A classic indeed.
4.1 out of 5
Wannabe
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
The Illusionist
'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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
