Posts Tagged ‘cuties’

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.



Whip It

Whip It

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Let’s face it, I would’ve seen anything that came with the label “Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut” on it, but I won’t deny I was a little, “ugh” when it turned out to be a movie about skating with Ellen Page in it. I look back on that me and smile pityingly. This is as joyous as you’d expect, a truly old-school “follow your dreams” tale with colourful (and quite surprisingly violent at times) skate scenes a plenty. There’s really not much more to say than that: it aspires to little more than being mildly inspiration but mostly kinetic fun and Drew proves herself more than capable behind the camera. If you’re as crazy about anybody involved as much as I am crazy for Drew (my heart leapt when I realised she was actually in front of the camera too, along with another fave of mine Juliette Lewis), then that’s icing on the cake (which is probably all squished from being thrown at somebody in the movie’s most Drew-ish scene lol).



The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

I was surprised by the emotional path I took through this movie after hearing such a widespread lacklustre response to it elsewhere. I’d been looking forward to it for a long time, since it was announced perhaps, just the idea of Peter Jackson doing a) anything on a “smaller” scale than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and King Kong and b) something that sounded so tonally like one of my favourites of his, Heavenly Creatures. I was slightly annoyed when Saoirse Ronan was cast in a role that sounded to me (though I hadn’t, and still haven’t, read the book it’s based on) perfect for Dakota Fanning – I don’t even know now if that was a real rumour or wishful thinking from me, lol – in any case, subsequent viewings of Atonement warmed me to her as an actress.

The story’s a simple one, kind of Ghost meets What Dreams May Come: a young girl is murdered and views the aftermath from an “in-between” place between earth and heaven, both her and her family unable to move on. Thoughts of revenge are entertained, the girl able to a point to “touch” the real world and send signals to her father in particular, a boy she fell in love with shortly before the incident, and a fellow schoolgirl who has a kind of sixth sense. The movie deals with grief, loss, and moving on quite beautifully as well as adding (I’m told it’s been added in the adaptation process, anyway) a suspenseful thread of the attempt to identify and bring to justice the killer, played quite frighteningly well by Stanley Tucci.

I gave the movie 4 stars at The Auteurs site immediately after the credits rolled but thought of it as a high 4; however the more I think about it, the higher I think that should have been, I feel I’ve been affected by the strange quantity of negative reviews when I can really see nothing wrong with the movie. There’s a turn the story takes at the end where I felt the ending was going to be crushingly unsatisfying, but even that is fixed (hard to explain without spoiling things). I would put the negativity down to it merely being a bad adaptation and that all these negative opinions are coming from fans of the book but it seems too widespread for that explanation… am I the only person who saw the movie but didn’t read the book?

Maybe it’s that people measure Peter Jackson’s work now with a larger scale. I’m certainly one who tends to compare a great artist’s work with what has come before and rate relatively, but one has to remember that in addition to Heavenly Creatures and The Two Towers, he also made King Kong and The Frighteners, both of which this far outweighs. Maybe it’s just that there have been so many great movies and “must-see” movies in the past year and this one drew the short straw. It goes into my favourites, anyway. Saoirse Ronan is phenomenally haunting in the lead, the visual effects used to portray the in-between a really pleasant surprise (it’s not really much “smaller” in these sections than we’re accustomed to from Jackson lol), and there are other notable supporting performances from the likes of Rose McIver (a Power Ranger, I’ve just read, making her all the more impressive here!) as the girl’s sister, a quite mesmerizing turn by Rachel Weisz as her mother. It is a beautifully haunting, sad, yet ultimately strangely uplifting movie that I look forward to seeing again, perhaps after reading the book. I really don’t understand the underwhelming response elsewhere.



One Magic Christmas

One Magic Christmas

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

At last, my “good, new (to me), Christmas movie” for the year :) How come they always come to me at the last minute?

At the heart of this movie is a practically flawless performance by Mary Steenburgen. An angel, played by Harry Dean Stanton, is sent to her with a mission basically to get her back into the Christmas spirit, as she never says “Merry Christmas” to anyone anymore (“Nobody ever means it when they say it anyway,” she tells her 6 year old daughter). Like the best grinchy characters, she’s not a total Scrooge (okay, obviously he wasn’t either, but I like that sentence anyway). We get a sense that she’s “worth” saving despite her current opposition to the Christmas season when we meet her. We see her happily singing in the shower early on, and singing again later on in the street at night in what turns out to be an important scene. We discover a different side of her, this side worth saving, in these private moments shown in harsh contrast alongside her difficult and very real public life. She remembers better times and knows what happiness is … but like a lot of us, she just doesn’t get much.

Midway, when I had already pretty much fallen in love with the movie, it takes a turn I will try not to spoil here but feel compelled to discuss. I’m pretty sure there will be reviews out there that criticise the way it deals with death given that many kids, some perhaps without one or both their parents, will see it and be taken in particularly in the Christmas season. I wondered how JK Rowling, who has always been so final about death even in her magical world, would think of this movie. But despite a little unsettlement at one particular point here, I kinda went with it in the end as it’s more a It’s a Wonderful Life type solution in the end and is more about giving Steenburgen’s character a second chance than giving anybody in the world just anything their heart desires, which let’s face it would be the “bad Disney” many people mistakenly perceive. I would just say, if you plan to watch it with young kids, especially if your family has known death, then take a look at it first yourself and then decide whether to go ahead and watch it together.

All this goes towards saying, wow, what a movie. Its early portion has moments in it where Stanton’s character “intervenes” with events that just goshdarnit make you want to believe in angels at the very least. The grounding of all the fantasy elements in this harsh reality is crucial and missing from so many seasonal movies because filmmakers are so afraid of offending anybody this time of year. This one so goes for it, more than I ever imagined. You watch this and Return to Oz and The Black Cauldron and think “who the heck had a bad day at Disney in 1985 and can I shake their hand?” ‘cos they really nailed the tightrope balance between dark and light at that time. If you’re starved for a great new Christmas movie to watch next year (since it’s a bit late now for this Christmas), and haven’t seen this, put it on top of your list. It mightn’t be great great, but it really goes there.



The Wild Stallion

The Wild Stallion

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Watched, of course, primarily for the presence of Miranda Cosgrove, though that hasn’t always been cause enough alone for me to watch a movie (I still haven’t seen Keeping Up with the Steins and it’s been languishing in my collection for years, lol). This one, however, I pretty much knew I would enjoy as it’s a “girl and horse” movie which I’ve covered here before. It looked to me initially like a tame noughties Wild Horse Hank and that’s a close enough comparison: young girls save the horses from the bad man and “learn things”.

It lacks the wonderful soundtrack and smokey Seventies cinematography but this is a perfectly simple watch if you like this genre as much as I do. It’s pretty much the definition of a 3-heart movie around here: absolutely nothing unique or indispensable, just about everybody concerned (including supporting players like Robert Wagner, Fred Ward and Paul Sorvino) have done better work, and there are better movies to watch first even within the tiny sub-genre … but if it’s your kind of movie, it passes, and Miranda is simply wonderful.



Flesh for Frankenstein [3D]

Flesh for Frankenstein [3D]

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

This was on this week in the UK as part of Channel 4’s 3D week which I’ve become increasingly excited about since I first heard about it (it’s not hard to get me onto a 3D kick really). This was to me the clear star item on their schedule, not just because it had never aired on TV like this before, not just because Mark Kermode (my favourite film critic, who despises the resurgence in 3D of late) called it the best of the old 3D back catalogue, but also because it’s just such a curiosity … I knew nothing of it really except of course some link to Frankenstein and that Andy Warhol was connected to it. I really expected something supertrashy … but as the word “End” appeared on screen at the end, I found myself speechless.

There is something Herschell Gordon Lewis / John Waters / Roger Corman -ish “trashy” about this movie … there’s plenty of gore and gratuitous sex (the camera literally just goes in on a woman’s bare breasts at one point “just because it can and it’s 3D!”) and lines like the insanely brilliant, “To know death… you have to f*ck life in the gall bladder,” and (from a man who just lost his hand), “It’s all your fault!” call to mind the deliberately shambolic humour of The Rocky Horror Picture Show … and yet, there are fleshes of real and genuine art, romance, tragedy in this story that frequently had me with a sort of lump in my throat. I just, I don’t know, felt like I really “got” this one.

I still frankly don’t know what to make of this first viewing except for the certain, that this film is surely unique. I would love to see it again in the better polarized, cinema variety of 3D; failing that, just to see it again without the 3D effect and see if it works on me the same way again that way. The use of 3D is better than most I’ve seen, incidentally; the feeling of depth extends even to scenes that don’t exploit it, though again there’s plenty of that throughout from a grisly beheading (really, if only Tim Burton had been onto 3D when he made Sleepy Hollow …) through to the bats that plague the children as they hide from their father, the aforementioned requisite 3D boobs right to the final extraordinary shot that is best kept to myself as I’m guessing most that read this won’t have seen the movie yet. I just found the experience truly mesmerising, and there’s not much more you can ask for from a movie like this.



In the Loop

In the Loop

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

I watched this after a large catch-up session watching all of the “Thick of It” episodes that had aired before the release of this spin-off movie and I’m not really sure whether it helped by setting me up with the world and style or just hindered by sheer overexposure to it in such a short time. In any case, I didn’t feel the time was entirely wasted. I found myself towards the end of the TV episodes I watched rather unfavourably comparing it to The Office in my mind and I still feel as a whole it is “good” rather than “great” … though that could be that I’m just not interested enough in politics, even if I am far more interested than I was when I first passed on watching the show.

On the “Thick of It” side of things, I have to say I preferred it in TV form. A whole other side of the story is presented in the movie in the shape of America and it’s too much of a leap, while the shooting style remains the same and I found myself thinking how I couldn’t imagine going to the cinema to see something like this. It’s entirely uncinematic, almost anti-cinematic, and I felt compelled before writing this to dig up Mark Kermode’s review and was surprised to find he liked it.

However, there was one unexpected surprise waiting for me here and again I can’t quite decide whether it helped or hindered my appreciation of the film. I had no idea Anna Chlumsky (of My Girl fame) was in this movie, and frankly she steals the movie entirely. I was pretty sure of her impressively honed acting skills in Blood Car but her performance here seals it for me, she has officially survived “the child star thing”, and the double whammy of those two movies shows just how interesting her choices an an actress are going to be. As for “The Thick of It” side of things … I look forward to getting back to the third series of the TV version.



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.