Posts Tagged ‘age’

Sundays and Cybele aka Les dimanches de Ville d’Avray

Sundays and Cybele aka Les dimanches de Ville d’Avray

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

It’s a long time since a movie so quickly became what I’m sure will ultimately be one of my permanent all-time faves, and this one has been sitting in my must-see queue for far too long, almost a year which is crazy considering how long and how badly I wanted to see it following various recommendations.

To me, this is one of the best versions, if not the best version, of the “Lolita story”. I have to explain what that means to me because I know some would be quick to disagree because of all the controversy about the “original” Lolita and direct adaptations thereof. I use Lolita as a shorthand for any story that has this complicated type of relationship between an older man and younger girl… some are sexual, some are not, but they all bring something to the table of what I think one of the most important discussions to be had, and Sundays and Cybele brings heaps to that table.

The movie’s closest recent relative is probably John Duigan’s Lawn Dogs, which bears the same unique quality as Sundays in that the relationship concerned is immediately made somewhat more “appropriate” by the older man being a kind of child himself, a victim of the horrors of war resulting in amnesia. He comes across Cybele (whose name is never actually given until a crucial moment at the end; one could argue the French original title would probably make the whole thing more poignant) sort of accidentally but the nature of his attraction is immediately clear… there’s nothing lecherous here whatsoever, just a lonely man who finds happiness in a beautiful child’s face and then finds that she needs him too. Of course, as in life, not everyone sees it that way.

There is a beauty to the second act, which mostly concerns the man’s regular Sunday meetings with Cybele, which I haven’t seen in a long time and is hard to put into words. As they walk along the river in what seems to be a constantly thickening haze, sometimes seen in the reflection of concentric circles on the water surface (“We’re in our home now,” Cybele says over this image), I lost myself in this movie as I have in few others, and truly didn’t want it to end. Though the movie takes a tragic turn, it’s these earlier, happier scenes that will stay with me, like the best kind of summer romance movies, you almost feel like you had an affair with Cybele too, and no matter where the movie ends, nothing can take those moments away. Cybele not only refuses to tell anybody else her real name at the movie’s emotional climax, but denies the name given to her previously by the orphanage, leaving us the viewers as the only ones left who really “knew her”. Like I say it’s a rare film that breaks through the screen and touches me so powerfully.



Toy Story 3

Toy Story 3

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

This is one of those reviews that’s kind of easy to write but at the same time kinda hard. Easy because I know exactly what I thought of it, hard because it’s all been said up to a month previously by other people, lol. As you probably have heard, this is pretty much one of the best movies of the year, it’s practically unanimous, and I’m glad to say that for once I agree with such a widespread view.

It’s kind of crazy to think that I’ve now seen every part of this trilogy in the cinema and even when I saw the first one, I wasn’t exactly a kid at 15. I remember taking my sister to see it, I remember loving the music (I was into all Disney music bigtime at the time) but probably more than anything revelling in the sheer hi-techery of the whole thing (“the whole movie was made on a computer!!”)

When Toy Story 2 was released, I forget what level of anticipation I really had for it. I was in the middle of college and pretty much high on Disney after Tarzan (I’d end up doing my final dissertation on Disney). What I remember is badly wanting my own Jessie doll after the movie, her story being the one that really resonated most with me.

I saw the first part again when it was re-released in 3D… part two never made it to our cinema in that form, or I just missed it, but these are movies that are always fresh in my mind. The 3D worked, I thought, pretty well in that re-release, but more than anything it was just awesome to see it on a huge screen again, and projected digitally. It felt strangely pure or something (as opposed to, say, a 70mm oldie being projected digitally).

I didn’t necessarily doubt this installment would be as great as people were saying (I’d seen the trailer and it really boded well on the emotional front). But having recently seen that first one and once again realise just how perfect it is, on top of the wonders that Pixar have given us even in the 11 years since part 2, I didn’t put my expectations too high.

Well I’ve seen Toy Story 3 twice now… first in a dodgy download version because I simply needed to see it before I read too much about it and spoiled it for myself. I trusted, as I always do, that if the movie was as good as people were saying, the quality of the presentation would not make a huge difference to the story, and I wasn’t wrong. Like many people, I bawled not just like a baby but like someone with serious mental problems LOL.

This movie has some serious emotional weight, like the most recent of Pixar’s productions Wall•E and Up. What’s different here, however, is how those emotions are spread throughout the picture. There are two intense emotional beats towards the end of the movie, but the melancholic undertones are there right from the moment (after a “fantasy” opening similar to the way the first two movies open) we re-enter Andy’s bedroom, through the POV of his mom holding a video camera.

I won’t talk about those two parts at the end, except to say that they worked just as well on my flat laptop screen as they did in enormous 3D. My opinion of 3D remains the same as I think I’ve said before, and it’s just exactly the same as my opinion of seeing movies on the big screen in general. It’s always nice to see movies larger than life, but it’s simply not always possible. Almost all of us have more favourite movies that we’ve never seen on the big screen than ones that we have, so I’m pretty sure we can all agree that if a movie is good enough it doesn’t necessarily need a big screen projection. It’s nice, it adds to the experience, it immerses you more, but it doesn’t change the quality of the film.

I’m still only giving the movie 4 hearts right now because I’m remembering the original and how absolutely perfect that was right down to the screenplay structure etc, and I feel like to a certain extent those massive emotional punches at the end throw this instalment off-balance in a similar way to those last two Pixar productions I mentioned (though by nowhere near as much… plus they made me cry a lot more). I’m in near total agreement however with those calling the trilogy as it stands one of the best trilogies of all time. The consistency over 15 years really is incredible, not to mention the sheer uniqueness of this world… and while I’ve really focussed like everyone else on the huge emotional impact of this one, it has just as much excitement, humour, thrills and invention as the others.

I wanted to say something about Jessie but I can’t find anywhere above to slip it in lol. Like I said I had a huge crush on Jessie after the second movie, and she had the big emotional moment of that movie that really made me love it most, in her backstory with Emily (cleverly echoed here in Lotso’s story; though Lotso of course reacts very differently to being left behind). I had actually almost forgotten how much I loved her so much that she wasn’t even a factor in my excitement about seeing part 3. Then she appeared and I just fell in love all over again. There’s more made of the funny relationship between her and Buzz that began in the second movie, and in the midst of this are some insanely stylised, romantically-lit shots of her that just wowed me. It’s her face that really carries the first of those aforementioned emotional punches at the end and all I need to do is recall that face and her hand reaching out to start crying all over again. This is a wonderful, wonderful addition to a practically perfect series of movies. But you know that already.

Oh yes: another extra thing to mention as I won’t write it anywhere else… moreso for me than the 3D among reasons to see this movie on the big screen is the short that precedes it. I always forget that Pixar put these shorts before all their features and this one like so many of them is so great it threatens to supplant the memory of the movie. It’s called “Day & Night” and combines 2D and 3D animation in an ingenious way that really can’t be described well to anyone who hasn’t seen it. It’s about conflicting ideas and perspectives from the broadest scale to the most specific (you could argue it’s simply about the co-existence of 2D and 3D cinema). It has insane technique and a great message in the perfect balance that the best of Pixar has to offer. I’ll be very disappointed if it isn’t at least nominated for an Oscar next year (likewise, of course, the feature it precedes!)



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.