Posts Tagged ‘age’

New York, I Love You

New York, I Love You

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

I had a gut feeling I wouldn’t be as crazy for this as I was for Paris, je t’aime as I simply don’t feel the same connection to this city (which I haven’t visited) as I do for Paris (which I have, multiple times). In addition to this, the directors list for this one – Jiang Wen, Mira Nair, Shunji Iwai, Yvan Attal, Brett Ratner, Allen Hughes, Shekhar Kapur, Natalie Portman, Fatih Akin and Joshua Marston – does not really wow as much as the list for “Paris…” – which included segments by the Coens, Wes Craven, Gus Van Sant, Alfonso Cuarón, Tom Tykwer, Alexander Payne and Isabel Coixet.

Overall I was surprised how tonally it felt so similar to the Paris movie – which certainly makes a case for an argument of producer as author, they being the only solid connection between the two movies – and some of the shorts work really well. I made something of a point of not looking up the credits of this movie before watching so I can assure you when I tell you that, it has nothing to do with names when I say my favourite of all was easily the one directed by Shekhar Kapur and written by the late Anthony Minghella. It’s a poetic musing with the stunning Julie Christie, John Hurt and Shia LeBeouf that’s hard to describe as anything but beautiful and worth watching the whole movie for on its lonesome.

The problem with the movie – and I guess I have to admit I can’t really qualify this since, like I said, I haven’t been to NYC yet – is that it really doesn’t ever feel like it’s necessarily about New York at all, as much as the Paris movie felt it was about Paris. It could be about multicultural Anywhere. Maybe that was partly the point, but it seems a kind of senseless waste of the location and title to me.



Scrooge – A Christmas Carol [1951]

Scrooge – A Christmas Carol [1951]

Monday, January 4th, 2010

My second review of an adaptation of this book this year and I’m afraid I’m going to come out sounding like a bit of a Scrooge myself. As you’ll know if you’ve been reading a month or more, I didn’t much like Robert Zemeckis’ new 3D animated version, especially not it’s last third. Since writing that review I saw the Muppet version for the umpteenth time and James Cameron’s Avatar in 3D, which collectively made me think even less of Zemeckis’ take not only on Dickens’ novel but also on 3D and motion/performance-capture cinema. So, we come to this, the one which Mark Kermode mentions glowingly on his show every Christmas (he likes the Muppet one too, it must be said) as being one of the best.

I don’t know what to say. I tried reading the original book again this year and stopped after the first ghost because I just know it too well. While one can’t deny that this is probably one of the greatest stories ever told, there’s just something after so many tellings that feels like all the energy and creativity in the storytelling has been snuffed out. I find myself turning to the more out-there versions, Scrooged, The Muppets, because all the nobler, “accurate” adaptations just feel like painting by numbers… almost like going to a very, very boring church, just point by point like an upmarket school nativity.

This is a version I’ll watch much sooner again than Zemeckis’ (if only because, for shame, this particular viewing was of the Five broadcast colorized version – I’ll likely get the Blu-ray for next year and give it a fighting chance). I was surprised by just how much I thought invented in Zemeckis’ version was not only present here but, when I looked back, actually in Dickens’ own words to begin with. I’d prefer Bill Murray or The Muppets and Paul Williams’ songs any day, though, and it’s Christmas so I really don’t care how that makes me sound :-P



Up

Up

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

I’m loathe to say it, but even on a second viewing (which I felt necessary for this movie before reviewing), I still had a real failure of disbelief suspension in parts that made total connection with the movie ultimately impossible, thus preventing me from giving it the high rating that’s best moments have me wishing I could give. Don’t get me wrong – Up is a beautiful movie, and if it turns out to be the first computer animated movie to be nominated for Best Picture as I’ve heard it might, I’ll be pleased (heck, anything’s better than 4/5 of last year’s nominees) – but there is a definite, undeniable lack of consistency here which I’ve felt before in Pixar movies but never so much as I did here.

It begins, as you’ve probably heard, with a sweeping view of the “curmudgeonly” (as he appears in the trailer: actually, I was pleasantly surprised by how lovable and involved the character is) hero’s life up to, as Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode might describe it, an “unpleasant event” which I won’t reveal except to say that the cut that follows the end of this opening is really where my problem with the movie begins. It’s a tactless cut, from 10 minutes of film making that has been proven to make the most hardened viewer bawl their eyes out, that those children who actually understand it will need days to recover from, into quirky, light comedy. I found myself even on the second viewing at this point wanting to shake the screen, “you just can’t do this following what you just showed me!”

But settle into the rest of the story you must, and what lies beyond this heartbreakingly real opening is a world you really couldn’t foresee. The trailer shows all of the unlikely rabble you’ll meet joining our elderly hero as he tries to navigate his balloon-lifted house to a “land lost in time” where he and his childhood sweetheart once dreamed they’d live. There’s an overweight scout just looking to get his “assisting the elderly” badge, a giant and ludicrously colourful bird and a dog equipped with a hi-tech collar that enables him to talk.

It’s not the unlikely nature of these characters’ presence that bugged me, and I grew to love all of them and they all have moments that hook into the movie’s foremost philosophy. What bothers me is that none of this gels with the genuinely gutwrenching reality of the way the story starts. There’s nothing to suggest, in the manner of The Wizard of Oz did, say, that when Carl’s house takes off that we’ve entered any kind of fantasy; and there’s so much that follows this point, slapdash treatment of physics etc (Carl seems unbelievably spritely considering he relies so much on a stick, eg), that really took me out of the flow of the movie. I know that some reading this will feel I’m being even more curmudgeonly than Carl seems in the trailer … but I don’t say this like it totally ruined the movie for me, because it didn’t; I won’t, however, avoid saying it just because I know how those people will read it. I just would’ve expected Pixar to make all of these shifts in tone, from the absurdly distressing to the distressingly absurd, gel better. It’s not the first time, either.

It’s hard to get mad at the movie, though, and while other computer animated (especially 3D) movies are still being made that rely on the tried and true combined with celebrity voices, you have to bow down to Pixar for continuing to make movies like this that make you think, while the end credits roll, “I can’t believe they got away with selling that as a kids movie,” lol. It is, if only for it’s most emotional moments, easily one of the studio’s best; but like so many of their “best” (for me, they have yet to top Finding Nemo) it’s mostly of predictably high quality. Pixar have such a high and consistent standard I feel compelled to demand more from them. They have proven over and over that they have enormous reserves of creativity and originality, but here more than anywhere it feels like they have just thrown it slapdash at a wall with little of the old Disney storytelling machine to hold it together. I would love if they would try to reign it in and try to distill it down more for their next project, because they really should be making flawless movies by now.



Twilight Zone: The Movie

Twilight Zone: The Movie

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

Alright, no more dallying, it’s time to catch up on all the stuff I’ve been watching since my unplanned absence, lol. This one was watched on a sort of whim – I’d just finished watching all the Masters of Horror episodes and found myself still in the mood for anthological story telling, and this particular movie had been mentioned once or twice on those DVDs’ extras. I enjoyed this movie a heck of a lot more than expected, especially Steven Spielberg’s segment.

I’ve seen little if any of the original episodes that most of these stories are based on (though I’d of course seen parodies of the William Shatner “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet”) so I came to pretty much the whole movie fresh – the bookends sequence is kind of corny and the first story didn’t do a lot for me at all but the wonder of Spielberg’s, the nuttiness of Dante’s and the manic performance in the third story more than made it worth the watch. Jerry Goldsmith’s score is fantastic, too.



Orphan

Orphan

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

If you look at my list of tags on the left of this site, where font size indicates the number of posts with that tag, you’ll see that two tags in particular have stood out like sore thumbs ever since I added the feature to the site, cuties which I use wherever a notable young actress (sometimes actor) is present, and horror, which is self-explanatory. Anyone who has read my reviews or plain known me long enough will know that when both these elements are present, I will assuredly be in line :)

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this movie at all. I’d seen no trailers, read few comments, knew no plot details other than what the poster told me, that “There’s something wrong with Esther …” The girl on that poster, Isabelle Fuhrman (last seen as actually one of the more memorable aspects of the otherwise disappointing Hounddog), frankly didn’t even catch my eye due to the strange symmetry they’d given to her face. So I went in knowing only that it was a horror movie with a little girl in it, which really wasn’t too bad a start.

Though it’s ultimately a little too long, more of which in a moment, this movie doesn’t waste its time in telling its audience up front that it’s not going to be a half-assed version of this type of story. The opening, a nightmare sequence, is truly one of the more unpleasant things I’ve seen in recent movies, and the half hour that follows, leading up to a grieving mother’s final decision to adopt an older child, drew me in completely. Within 15 minutes I had that feeling I long for in movies, that I was in good hands and that I really would willingly accept anything director Jaume Collet-Serra (he of the House of Wax remake, which – don’t hold it against me but – I also quite liked) wanted to throw at me.

There’s an awkward half hour or so following Esther’s entry into the readymade family waiting for her where I genuinely feared they had dropped the ball. Isabelle Fuhrman hooked me completely in her very first scene, having a stern and troubling face that melts away the moment she smiles, but even she here is hard to watch as scenes seemed to go nowhere, unfinished, setting things up but leaving so much unsaid as to be annoying.

Fortunately, this disjointedness doesn’t go on for too long. Soon enough, Esther shows her true colours. This is ultimately the movie that Omen IV could have, should have, been. It’s Debbie Jellinsky from Addams Family Values: The Early Years. It’s Foetal Attraction. It’s all those things and it goes all the places that make you go, “No … they’re not gonna go there, are they?” Yes.

Maybe this is where I say too much but the thing I loved most about the movie in the end was how, much like I did in The Children, I kinda couldn’t help but be on Esther’s side much of the time. The scenes at school, for instance; the punishment of a bully (to be honest, when they said that girl only broke her ankle I felt a little let down lol); the way she completely fools her foster mom’s psychiatrist (marvellously played by the marvellous Margo Martindale, btw) who is clearly full of psychobabble, and the ensuing misunderstanding as all the blame and mental issues fall to the completely wrong person, the mother. I love the inevitability of these stories of manipulation, horrible though it may be when it happens in real life. I can’t help but be kind of happy for Esther, too, when she uses her intellect to flatly prove her case. It’s just like the Revenge of the Sith / Matrix Revolutions thing all over again I guess … sometimes, evil just plain got a point LOL.

Anyway, the movie is surely not for everyone. Even I kind of wanted to leave after the wretching first 5-10 minutes and in particular Esther’s abuse of the youngest of her new family is rough to bear – like everywhere else in the movie, Collet-Sera pulls no punches here and the story goes wherever such a person as Esther would truly take it, and that’s to be admired in my book, especially in a movie as otherwise slick and “mainstream” as this is. It will shock those expecting the usual top ten horror movie especially in the UK with its 15 rating. For me it is easily the best movie (in an admittedly short list, I admit) I have seen all year, if only for its flat out rageousness. The acting, particularly by young Fuhrman who I’ll be looking out for in future, but also by Vera Farmiga and the ever-reliable (albeit always the same) Peter Sarsgaard, is perfect; and the moments when it is in full sway more than make up for any hokiness in the storytelling and its slight overlength. Really, any modern horror movie that has the impact this had on me after two weeks of watching the “Masters of Horror” series has gotta be doing something very right indeed, lol.



The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

“I couldn’t take my eyes off you. I thought you were mesmerising.”

Whoops, I almost forgot this one, and I know, I promised it much much sooner.

I saw this movie on New Year’s Eve and, honestly, I really very nearly hated it. I was all ready to post my review, parts of which I’ll admit to in the coming words, stamp 2 hearts on it, and be done. I didn’t get around to it, same way I haven’t got around to this one. In the 24 hours that followed, what can I say but that the movie persisted in haunting me. I just kept being filled with this feeling that my response had not been true … I just knew I needed to see it again before I finally committed to any kind of opinion on it.

And I couldn’t have been more right.

Like all of Fincher’s movies since Fight Club, this movie is unsurprisingly flawless in the technical department. You knew that part already, I’ve just got to get it out of the way. But the only part that really had an impact on me that first time watching was the last 20-30 minutes … the real final tumbling down in age of Benjamin – ironically a part of the movie relatively devoid of the make-up and trickery. It’s there that the movie truly became something for me so much more than the idea of the whole movie seemed when conveyed in print – when I found myself really feeling physically discombobulated by the impossible things happening on the screen.

The last thing to pique my interest in the movie before that first time watching was something Roger Ebert wrote in his review that doubles as a fine summary of what the movie is about:

“In the film, Benjamin (Brad Pitt) as an older man is enchanted by a younger girl (Cate Blanchett). Later in the film, when he is younger and she is older, they make love. This is presumably meant to be the emotional high point. I shuddered. No! No! What are they thinking during sex? What fantasies apply? Does he remember her as a girl? Does she picture the old man she loved?”

My jaw kinda dropped at that … this of course occurred to me in slightly less appalled terms when I first heard about the movie but didn’t really imagine that much would be made of this little aspect of the slightly dubious story. Of course, the point is, you can’t ignore this aspect of a story like this, lol. One of its central conceits is that age is meaningless … that everything is fleeting and that everything happens when it is meant to happen. All of this really struck me more on that second viewing – the moment of Cate Blanchett later in life in the swimming pool, Brad Pitt telling her that she chose a path in life that has a very narrow window of success … that even if she hadn’t failed due to her accident, she would still be swimming in that pool because she’d still be too old to be a dancer; that, contrasted with Tilda Swinton’s failed journey across the channel, only to actually succeed in old age; that idea Benjamin touches towards the end of the movie that it’s never too late to start something … indeed, to throw it all out and start again. Some of this stuff when I first watched it really didn’t impress me: the incredibly Sliding Doors-ish explanation of the umpteen events that could’ve gone differently and averted Blanchett’s accident, for instance. Second time around, I just found it mesmerizing. Everything about it, I just watched the whole thing with the same agog expression on my face that I had in those last 30 minutes the first time. And I can’t wait to see it again.



Gran Torino

Gran Torino

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

Well holy cow, finally one more glint of hope in a year of things that “just didn’t quite do it for me”. This movie reminded me a lot of David Mamet’s Redbelt in that, as I suppose is to be expected by now of director Clint Eastwood, there’s simply not a wasted moment from start to finish. The characters are painted in strokes so broad that in any other hands it would be laughable – an old coot, disrespectful yung ‘uns, just about everyone a stick-in-the-mud of some variety, but the overall impact of it all is just impossible to ignore. When news first came out about the movie around this time last year, a lot of people, me included, got excited it could be another Dirty Harry – and frankly, it may as well be. I didn’t see the second half of this movie coming quite so brutally as it does, especially as there are far more lighter, even laugh out loud funny, moments in the first hour than expected. Eastwood is as fantastic in the central role as he is behind the camera – having praised Frank Langella for Nixon I really look forward to the Best Actor category at this year’s Oscars as I simply couldn’t choose between these two amazing performances. This really is one of the best movies I’ve seen this year – and there ain’t many of those. The closing song almost had me in tears as much as the similar song at the end of Grace is Gone.



Sex and the City

Sex and the City

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

“Charlotte has pudding in her Prada …”

Umm, yes, excuse me where’s my award? I actually watched it. LOL. Oh you ain’t heard nothin’ yet …

I didn’t realise while watching Mamma Mia and being swept away even more there than I imagined I might be (which was a lot) that it might need to become a new term for cinematic surprise. For – and I hope this significantly shocks anyone who knows me – I was most definitely Mamma Mia’d by this movie.

I never had any interest in the TV series – I’ve probably watched at most a third of three separate episodes, never making it beyond an ad break, lol. But I’m not a woman (not the kind “They” talk about, anyways …) or a gay man so that’s the way it should be, right? ;-) The movie sets up most things however, even while really even that wouldn’t be necessary because SATC is just one of those things you know of even if you avoided it like the plague for the last 10 years. It still surprised me how well the movie stands alone to a relative newcomer.

I still find it shallow – yes, even when, as I’m told, that means I’m “not getting it”. I get it. But call it principals, call it whatever you want, I decided a long time ago that I would never fall to the ease of telling jokes based on bad feeling, insult humour and the like – that line in West Side Story always resonated with me when Tony and Maria first meet and he asks if she’s making a joke by giving him the time of day, and she replies, “I’ve not yet learned to joke that way; I think now I never will.” And that’s me. So I don’t find much of these kinds of comedy amusing in the slightest even while I understand how most people do because it’s easier than taking that miserably honest stand. I could go on and on about such things as the image of the little girl surrounded by girl talk and repeating everything they say and why such rituals are the reason all these gender stereotypes perpetuate and over time become acceptable and so on and so on … but surprisingly, these weren’t my overriding thoughts while watching the movie. Like I said, there was a point at which these thoughts simply got Mamma Mia’d to one side LOL.

I think it was Mark Kermode initially (but I think a lot of people came running to his side and I assumed I’d be there with them when I ultimately watched the movie) who said the movie is just as shallow as ever and nothing more than a parade of labels etc devoid of meaning. Sure enough you get in the first hour what amounts to a filmed photoshoot of various designer wedding dresses and a parade of name dropping and product placement. But in the end I truly have to question exacty where those who can call a movie shallow that ends in the line, “dressed head to toe in Love – the only label that never goes out of style,” came to that conclusion.

For it’s in the second hour where the movie becomes what I kind of hoped it might’ve been but never once thought it would be. It’s kinda like Clerks II, the ten years later thing; “can we keep this act going like we used to? Yes, no, maybe?” It’s like what I wanted from Bratz which, though I loved it still, could’ve been just that little bit more questioning of the little things that are perhaps “wrong” about Bratz dolls. This movie shows the SATC girls’ tried and true lifestyles falling apart just a little with age. There are moments with each of them where they look downright hideous on the screen, and that’s okay. It really does go hand and hand with Mamma Mia in showing that there’s life after youth afterall.

Yep, I’m as shocked as you are. It’s far from the worst movie of the year. I laughed more than once; I cried more than once. I cried over a handbag LOL. But it’s what that handbag (err, purse) means in that moment, being given to someone who isn’t always clad in labels, that makes you cry. When Sarah Jessica Parker says, “it was the best money I ever spent” it’s got nothing to do with Louis Vuitton. This movie really does have something to say, and it really deserves a lot more effort to understand than most critics have given it – it’s their job afterall, if you ask me. Kermode asked listeners to write in to the Five Live show with their credentials and stuff, like in an effort to find intelligent people who saw this movie and enjoyed it. Well, I could mention my degree – whoops, I just did – but I’m still not as smart as he is when it comes to talking and writing about movies. I know that there’s something in this movie that’s worthwhile, but I’ve probably failed miserably at conveying that … but it’s not my job; I would love if someone like him could see this movie the way I saw it and talk about it. ‘Cos all I can really say about it is I loved it.

Jennifer Hudson and the little “sex!” girl were awesome too (and that’s really saying something about the little girl after that “coloring” scene was played to death in the promotional run-up to the movie’s release), I just realised I forgot to mention them.