Darn – I’m running through reviews I’ve stalled on for too long and it’s on this one that I find myself confronted with an entirely blank space, no notes or anything, lol. This is another ’08 movie that came along just as I’d really given up on the year as being capable of producing more than a handful of genuinely great movies and really surprised me. As with Changeling, my main prejudicial hang-up on viewing the trailers and promotional materials etc was that the production design of this movie looked to be almost a brick wall to me getting engaged with anything it had to say. The mere look of Meryl Streep in costume just kinda made me smirk. I was pleasantly surprised, then, that within about 10 minutes these characters could’ve been wearing anything. There’s a combination of great acting, dialogue, music, and a wonderful participation of the very elements themselves here, the wind always beating at the windows and leaves and threatening to whip up a very physical frenzy to counter the emotional one we’re witnessing, that makes this movie an electric treat from start to finish. It goes without saying that Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffmann are fantastic – but even Amy Adams, though I doubt she’ll ever top her performance in Junebug since that role was so perfectly matched to what (the more I see of her now) was clearly just herself, has some fantastic moments as the impressionable innocent caught between one extreme of the past and another of the future. The most special thing about this movie is the very fact you never discover just exactly what the truth of the matter is – it’s genuinely just about how these things spin out of control by themselves once the corrosive key words of the time are spoken. It’s an actor’s showcase more than anything, but that most of these other elements are in place too is the icing on the cake.
Posts Tagged ‘Fifties’
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Thursday, May 22nd, 2008The best way of summing up this is simply to say … they do make ‘em like they used to afterall. Having refreshed myself with the first three movies this week, I (along with I’m sure dozens others in the audience) got a nostalgic thrill simply from the familiar opening credits style to John Williams’ imminent strings (the Paramount logo, I won’t go into; nor the catalog of other spoilers I could let slip – normally I don’t care about such things, but this is one that would be too cruel to spoil … I won’t even add certain tags to this post until a few months time). We’re taken to a familiar location – familiar to us, but not to Jones, who appears in those iconic fragments you’ve seen in the trailer. This opening sequence ultimately leads to a classic Indy escape involving, of all things, a refridgerator. Oh, and a gopher.
Sure, the plot at times beggars belief: even when you’ve suspended your disbelief sufficiently as to enjoy these movies (watching the original trilogy in preparation is definitely recommended). In fact, I found it quite strange that even Jones – having witnessed the wrath of God, a man’s heart removed by supernatural means, and the Holy Grail in previous installments – is found saying such things as, “That’s just a legend!” in skeptical tones … maybe it’s an age thing.
But for all of its flaws – and there are plenty – as a sequel, this has everything even demanding moi hoped/expected. There are creepy crawlies (an eye-watering, itch-fit-inducing amount, beware!), waterfalls (count ‘em), car chases, quicksand, vineswinging, snakes (of course), skeletons, cobwebbed caves, and more. There’s a little old-age lamenting, Last Crusade themes slipping into John Williams’ score, which is admittedly the least original of the whole series, and the ending owes something to that unforgettable face-melting finale to Raiders (I must admit, I wish this had been a bit more graphic). You even get a little peak of something in that familiar location at the start (I’ve probably said too much now – oh well). I’m not sure if that shot was slight overkill. I’m not sure if a lot of it was overkill, lol.
All told, however, I couldn’t take the inner child grin off my wide-eyed face for the duration. The visual effects are at once nostalgic in their rear-projected glory, but startling in their modern sensibility. There’s a moment with Shia LaBeouf astride two speeding vehicles that literally took my breath away. Janusz Kaminski apparently studied the work of the earlier movies’ cinematographer Douglas Slocombe, and it paid off, from those wonderful opening credits on it really looks like an Indy movie, but again, there’s the modern touch, Kaminski’s visceral jittercam slipping in where it’s needed. It’s like everything else about the movie – it’s all the best parts of all that came before and then something extra. It’s bound to please fans and newcomers, in the fans’ case no matter what their favourite installment has been to date, but I don’t think it will displace that fave in most cases. Likewise, as expected, it’s the best film I’ve seen so far this year; though I would hope it doesn’t stay that way. All in all, it’s a helluva ride if you’re prepared to go with it.
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg [Les Parapluies de Cherbourg]
Monday, April 7th, 2008I watched this today because it’s one of those movies I can watch any time but it was midway that I realised maybe I’d subconsciously chosen it for another reason. It connects to a lot of the movies I’ve watched recently and the feelings I’ve had watching them – from Enchanted to Penelope to Riding in Cars with Boys the other day, I even found similarities to Once here this time around. I’d never watched the introduction on the DVD of this movie before, and in it, Geoff Andrew says some things about the ending that my gut instinct disagreed with a lot, dismissing the romance at the start as meaningless teenage meanderings and such, as if the romance between Guy and Geneviève was never meant to bloom nor could have possibly bloomed, even if he’d returned to her in time. I took as much issue with that idea as I have recently with this idea that innocence lost can never be regained, etc, that I won’t go into yet again.
But as the movie went on, I did find myself looking at it in a different way from before – dare I say it, with some aging mature wisdom on my side. There are a lot of questions I’ve had over this movie in the past, like for example why I continue to love it so much when so many of the characters do things that I would never usually find acceptable. Everybody in the movie is in some way “after something” that they never ask for directly and honestly – both Guy and Geneviève in some way give up waiting for their love, the less said about Geneviève’s mother the better, Madeleine never declares her obvious love for Guy, and Roland Cassard, though perhaps the most admirable character in the movie, is always presented as a bit of a slimeball who looks down on the others – here to the rescue, yes, but through little real effort on his part. I think in the end it’s this full package of flawed characters illustrating perhaps precisely how “people things” tend to transpire whether we like them or not. Even Geneviève’s mother has a lot of pearls of wisdom, though delivered a little harshly (not to mention shrilly lol) at times.
But in the end, any amount of babble like this becomes fairly moot once you’re faced with the movie itself. From the opening title onwards – that rain falling as though from the camera itself on the people of Cherbourg, as though we the audience are already crying on the movie – this movie is simply pure magic that I could bawl through from beginning to end. The music is sublime, the colours are eye-popping, and the characters are, as I hopefully illustrated above, surprisingly complicated given the context. It has the most conflicted but beautiful ending I’ve ever seen, and I still react to it today as I did over 10 years ago when I first saw it: my stomach almost physically churns and tightens, I’m overjoyed but crushed, tears fall down my face over a wretchedly human smile on my lips. This movie isn’t beautiful … it’s beauty. If this review reads like a mess than it’s just an illustration of how the movie affects me, lol, and probably an explanation of why there hasn’t previously been a review of it here despite it being one of my all-time faves.
Fido
Thursday, March 20th, 2008“We can’t afford a zombie! We’re barely keeping up with funeral payments!”
Anyone for Shaun of the Dead meets Monster House? I looked forward to seeing this from the moment I heard about it (which, given it came out in 2006, was a little late I guess) … a kind of post-zombie movie set in the Fifties, just when you thought nothing new could be done with the genre. Zombies have been domesticated in a manner similar to the way we see them at the end of Shaun, and poor suburban mom Carrie-Ann Moss is hysterically ashamed at being the only family in the street without one to do the gardening etc.
Considering the number of children in it and the bright colour scheme, it’s actually surprisingly gory in places – I expected something a lot more family friendly but of course wasn’t disappointed by this surprise
It’s nothing spectacular but it’s certainly unpredictable and fun. It would make a great double bill with any Fifties metaphor for a world rotting beneath its glossy sheen, but I’m inclined to think a more perfect companion would be last year’s Blood Car.
Mandy aka Crash of Silence
Thursday, February 7th, 2008LOL additional – shows how much I’d given up even looking for this movie in the right places – it is now available on DVD, so apologies for bitching about the rights owners … I still got it cheaper from eBay, that’s what counts
lol
Finally got hold of a nice digital copy of this – so stupid of me ditching all my VHS including this all those years ago assuming it’d be easy to find again; I don’t think it’s been on TV yet this millennium, grr, and the eBay auctions have been equally sparse, never coming close to as low a price I finally got it for this week.
This is an even more beautiful movie than I remember – you know exactly how dedicated the film makers are when you see the year – 1952 – coupled with the credit “advice on the tuition of the deaf” on the opening scroll. It’s by far the smartest “old” movie I’ve ever seen, so ahead of its time it even beat the first dramatic adaptation of Helen Keller’s story by 5 years. Just watch the sublimely subtle way the headmistress of the school gestures at Jack Dawkins’ Searle to look at her when he’s speaking during a meeting, and her growing frustration at the others who don’t. It leaves you better than any movie I’ve seen with this heightened awareness of what people with disabilities have to put up with – like, even during the movie I watched after this, I was looking at peoples’ lips and realising how often it’s really impossible to follow what someone is saying without the sounds they’re making. There’s this fantastic visual motif in the movie of people with their backs turned on people – every time you see it it carries some significance, right from the first use of it with the overwhelmingly touching reveal about the headmistress.
But all this intelligence and consideration doesn’t mean the movie isn’t full of heart too. Another visual motif is that of the camera simply tracking in on Mandy’s face, often coupled by the sound fading out, that face often streaming with tears; her confusion is profoundly communicated to us in this way. The movie is so good overall that I’d completely forgotten how adorable Mandy Miller was here, let alone the performance she gives which is so beautiful and real I still find myself checking up online whether she actually was deaf (she wasn’t – you might know her better as the voice singing “Nelly the Elephant” hehe
) Those frowning, curious eyes staring silently over the wall at the other kids playing, it’s just one of the most moving images I’ve ever seen.
There’s the sharp, almost brassy humour of the best friend of Mandy’s mother, too – again remembering this is the early Fifties (note the solicitor’s scene: “Striking a woman is always a mistake – heaven knows they often ask for it but the courts take a dim view,” lol) – fearlessly putting Searle in his place, “I’ve already told her you’ve got no manners so you’ve no need to demonstrate it, now get on with it and show her around!” lol. In this frank talk and the whole issue of the broken family rearing its head towards the end of the movie, again the movie is just years ahead of anything else I’ve seen from the time.
The acting ensemble is all-round perfect. It’s easy to focus on the child’s performance in a movie like this, but Mandy Miller’s is really just the center of a whirlwind of talent on display here. If the end credits aren’t a little obscured by your tears, you should probably get your ducts checked
I’ve seen a ton of the better known Ealing productions but this one remains by far the best in my opinion. Anyone involved with children – parents, teachers, whatever – could really learn a lot from this movie, the deaf thing doesn’t even come into it, if you’ve a child in your life you owe it to yourself and them to seek this one out, and anyone with the power practically has a duty to make it widely available again.
Evening
Sunday, December 30th, 2007I hate to say it, ‘cos this movie’s so vaginal it’s stifling (you can practically smell the perfume in some scenes) and I’m sure someone out there will decide my response is thus because I haven’t got one – but though it’s beautifully photographed (the very first shot got me very excited; it was either that or Michael Cunningham’s name in the credits) and scored, this is like The Notebook with all semblance of a story plain sucked out.
The most notable thing about it is the casting – Meryl Streep’s own daughter Mamie Gummer as her younger self passes at least half an hour for the audience wondering, is that nose plastic, is the whole thing some new kind of CG … or does she really look like her mum?? lol. And though not so visually startling, the casting of Natasha Richardson as Vanessa Redgrave’s daughter is a nice touch too. In the context of such an empty 2 hours, though, it resembles too much nothing but a gimmick. One of the posters kinda says it all – the cast names dwarf the movie’s title and even mask the beautiful backdrop art. Definitely see The Notebook instead. After this and Away From Her, I might have to dig it out again myself. This one’s only saving grace is that it is, I’ll admit, nice to find another movie that’s so much slower and quieter than much that’s been released this year. That alone, though – though many will try to convince you otherwise, not to mention all the men’s men who’ll try to like it to get some sex – is not enough to make a movie worth watching.


![Teething [2007]](http://ambival.net/images/teething.jpg)
![Karma Shot [2008]](http://ambival.net/images/karmashot.jpg)