So the whole document-every-movie-in-2011 didn't work out that well, did it? I was thinking of trying again with 2012, and here we are, February and I'm making my first post, which will be a quick catch-up of movies I remember having seen since the new year began.
THE ARTIST
Good, but felt more like an interesting cinematic exercise than anything really emotionally engaging. I was super tired the night I saw it, though, so that might have affected my enjoyment. I did think that the movie looked beautiful and that the two leads were super engaging, but it didn't really have the oomph I expected it to. Maybe a victim of super high expectations.
HAYWIRE
Super fun action movie with excellent fight sequences. Gina Carano isn't a good actress but she has tremendous screen presence and she carries off the action sequences super well. The plot was kind of all over the place, and it seemed silly at times, but it was overall a really fun movie with tremendous performances from Michael Douglas, Michael Fassbender, and Antonio Banderas. Really enjoyed it.
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
I saw this in the theater in 3D because I was taking my cousin to the movies and this was what she wanted to see. I continue to dislike 3D but the movie was still a fun experience; the songs are excellent and I hadn't seen the movie in so long that I'd forgotten some plot points. Good fun.
ONE FOR THE MONEY
I read the first seven or so Stephanie Plum movies, but it's been so long since I looked at one that I was lucky not to have really specific expectations going in. The movie felt low-budget and frustrating in a lot of ways because there were some elements that worked well (Katharine Heigl) or almost well (the wacky supporting cast) and a couple of big elements that didn't work at all (the male romantic lead). The movie has a 3% freshness on rotten tomatoes and while I can't defend it as a GOOD movie, it wasn't the kind of movie I'd expect a 3% fresh movie to be. Entertaining enough.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Monday, March 14, 2011
Catch Up
Okay, so I am kind of APPALLINGLY behind on this whole blogging-about-movies-I've-seen thing. Part of the problem was that I saw a whole bunch of stinkers in a row, which tested my resolve - and my resolve failed. But since I do want to keep writing about non-stinkers, a quick review of the less-than-awesome flicks I've seen since I last posted, with quick one- or two-sentence reviews!
GNOMEO AND JULIET
Forgettible kids' movie. The Elton John music was fun, and the female character was a little more well-drawn than I expected, but overall it was just kind of there. A few laughs, but no big ones, and I wasn't super emotionally invested. Also, it was in 3D and I still really dislike 3D, so that may have hampered my enjoyment of the movie.
NO STRINGS ATTACHED
Forgettable and bland romantic comedy that tried to up its hip quotient by being a little raunchier than you'd expect. Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman were both fine, but the chemistry wasn't really there, and the climactic scene where they finally get back together is so overwrought it almost made me want to laugh. There were a few nice, genuine moments in the movie but for the most part it felt like the creators were reacting to the romantic comedy genre and going left where most romcoms go right (she'll be the commitment-phobe! and we'll let them have lots of sex!) without building any kind of coherent story or relationships.
JUST GO WITH IT
Mean-spirited and dated romantic comedy that totally embraced what it was: an Adam Sandler movie and a romantic comedy. The one thing it had over NSA was that Jennifer Aniston is a talented comedic actress and she really sold some sequences. WHY can't she get a decent movie? WHY? THIS IS THE GREAT MYSTERY OF OUR TIME. I have liked Adam Sandler in other romcoms - The Wedding Singer and 50 First Dates in particular - but in this one his character lacked any of the warmth and vulnerability he displayed so well in those two movies. He has maybe one decent sequence in the whole movie where I thought there was a chance the guy wasn't a total asshole. But all in all, kind of a disappointment.
HALL PASS
I've enjoyed a fair number of Farrelly Brothers movies, so I went in with an open mind and for the most part the movie delivered, with likable characters and the expected gross-out humor, but it kind of felt like a watered-down version of their usual formula. There were some moments of inspired lunacy - like the inexplicably, unexpectedly malevolent barista - but for the most part it felt kind of muted, and so for me it doesn't belong in the same bizarre-but-hilarious category as Dumb & Dumber or There's Something About Mary (or even Stuck on You).
UNKNOWN
It's impossible to talk about this movie in any meaningful way without spoiling it, so I'll just say: I've seen the same story done better in a different movie, and I spent most of the movie thinking about how much I loved that other movie, which is never a good sign. Some sequences felt over-long and draggy, and January Jones was straight-up terrible.
GNOMEO AND JULIET
Forgettible kids' movie. The Elton John music was fun, and the female character was a little more well-drawn than I expected, but overall it was just kind of there. A few laughs, but no big ones, and I wasn't super emotionally invested. Also, it was in 3D and I still really dislike 3D, so that may have hampered my enjoyment of the movie.
NO STRINGS ATTACHED
Forgettable and bland romantic comedy that tried to up its hip quotient by being a little raunchier than you'd expect. Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman were both fine, but the chemistry wasn't really there, and the climactic scene where they finally get back together is so overwrought it almost made me want to laugh. There were a few nice, genuine moments in the movie but for the most part it felt like the creators were reacting to the romantic comedy genre and going left where most romcoms go right (she'll be the commitment-phobe! and we'll let them have lots of sex!) without building any kind of coherent story or relationships.
JUST GO WITH IT
Mean-spirited and dated romantic comedy that totally embraced what it was: an Adam Sandler movie and a romantic comedy. The one thing it had over NSA was that Jennifer Aniston is a talented comedic actress and she really sold some sequences. WHY can't she get a decent movie? WHY? THIS IS THE GREAT MYSTERY OF OUR TIME. I have liked Adam Sandler in other romcoms - The Wedding Singer and 50 First Dates in particular - but in this one his character lacked any of the warmth and vulnerability he displayed so well in those two movies. He has maybe one decent sequence in the whole movie where I thought there was a chance the guy wasn't a total asshole. But all in all, kind of a disappointment.
HALL PASS
I've enjoyed a fair number of Farrelly Brothers movies, so I went in with an open mind and for the most part the movie delivered, with likable characters and the expected gross-out humor, but it kind of felt like a watered-down version of their usual formula. There were some moments of inspired lunacy - like the inexplicably, unexpectedly malevolent barista - but for the most part it felt kind of muted, and so for me it doesn't belong in the same bizarre-but-hilarious category as Dumb & Dumber or There's Something About Mary (or even Stuck on You).
UNKNOWN
It's impossible to talk about this movie in any meaningful way without spoiling it, so I'll just say: I've seen the same story done better in a different movie, and I spent most of the movie thinking about how much I loved that other movie, which is never a good sign. Some sequences felt over-long and draggy, and January Jones was straight-up terrible.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Black Swan
To say that Black Swan moved me would be an understatement. I could feel my heart pounding during the last twenty minutes of the movie, and when it was over, I spent a few minutes sitting in my car before starting to drive home, waiting for myself to settle down. Finally I just had to start driving, because if I waited for myself to settle down, I would have been the weird lady who spent three hours sitting in the theater parking lot.
Black Swan explores a lot - the quest for perfection in art, the world of ballet, the slow unraveling of a fragile mind - through the journey of Nina Sayers as she attempts to take on the dual roles of the White and Black Swan in a production of Swan Lake. The story hinges on a simple central question: Can Nina master the two roles?
When we see ballet dancers, what strikes us is their bodies, their ability to spin on their toes and leap into the air and move with an unnatural grace. I could see a lesser movie focusing on these elements when trying to answer the central question of the movie, using lengthy practice montages and maybe an injury late in the second act to add dramatic tension. There would probably be a signature special move someplace in the choreography that Nina Just Can’t Get - maybe a special backbend, or a series of nine spins instead of eight - and a big part of the tension would be whether Nina could get the move down by opening night.
What makes Black Swan special is that it recognizes that the bodies of ballet dancers don’t set them apart from the rest of us; their bodies are just a reflection of their commitment to their art, and it’s that commitment, that willingness to give themselves over to something greater in the pursuit of a specific kind of art, that we see reflected in their physical forms. Black Swan explores that commitment - what it means, what it costs - through Nina’s struggles, in a way that takes the story beyond the world in which it’s staged. Yes, it’s a movie about ballet, but it’s also about the pursuit of greatness in any kind of art. It’s about how the things we love can consume us.
Natalie Portman’s performance as Nina defines the movie. We see the world of the movie as Nina sees it and - more importantly - how she experiences it. I’ve never had strong feelings about Natalie Portman as an actress, but she blew me away in this movie; there’s a transparency to her performance, an openness, that drew me in from the very beginning and carried through to the movie’s last moments.
Black Swan explores a lot - the quest for perfection in art, the world of ballet, the slow unraveling of a fragile mind - through the journey of Nina Sayers as she attempts to take on the dual roles of the White and Black Swan in a production of Swan Lake. The story hinges on a simple central question: Can Nina master the two roles?
When we see ballet dancers, what strikes us is their bodies, their ability to spin on their toes and leap into the air and move with an unnatural grace. I could see a lesser movie focusing on these elements when trying to answer the central question of the movie, using lengthy practice montages and maybe an injury late in the second act to add dramatic tension. There would probably be a signature special move someplace in the choreography that Nina Just Can’t Get - maybe a special backbend, or a series of nine spins instead of eight - and a big part of the tension would be whether Nina could get the move down by opening night.
What makes Black Swan special is that it recognizes that the bodies of ballet dancers don’t set them apart from the rest of us; their bodies are just a reflection of their commitment to their art, and it’s that commitment, that willingness to give themselves over to something greater in the pursuit of a specific kind of art, that we see reflected in their physical forms. Black Swan explores that commitment - what it means, what it costs - through Nina’s struggles, in a way that takes the story beyond the world in which it’s staged. Yes, it’s a movie about ballet, but it’s also about the pursuit of greatness in any kind of art. It’s about how the things we love can consume us.
Natalie Portman’s performance as Nina defines the movie. We see the world of the movie as Nina sees it and - more importantly - how she experiences it. I’ve never had strong feelings about Natalie Portman as an actress, but she blew me away in this movie; there’s a transparency to her performance, an openness, that drew me in from the very beginning and carried through to the movie’s last moments.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Green Hornet
My problems with The Green Hornet can be pretty well summed up by how I felt Seth Rogen's screen persona worked with the movie and against it. For the first half of the movie, it works well, because Britt Reid starts out as a spoiled rich kid - lazy and immature and occasionally callous, traits Seth Rogen plays well because he's admirably unafraid to appear unsympathetic onscreen (probably my favorite aspect of his screen persona). He also gives the character some nice notes of humor and vulnerability, and flashes of an almost childlike enthusiasm. All of these aspects come together most successfully in Britt's scenes with Kato, the mechanic on his father's estate who later becomes his partner in crime-fighting. In those early scenes, Seth Rogen captures the joy of a little kid discovering a new friend, one who turns out to be super awesome at lots of things and has access to amazing toys
I liked Jay Chou's performance as Kato, even though there were times where I found his dialogue difficult to understand. But in some ways this worked for me; his reserve and inscrutability balanced nicely against Seth Rogen's more open performance, and the times when Kato did express himself forcefully seemed to have a greater weight because of how quietly earlier scenes had been played. I felt that Chou gave Kato an air of loneliness that made his willingness to connect with Britt Reid convincing.
The movie works best in these early scenes, when Britt and Kato are first getting to know each other and begin their accidental foray into crime-fighting. In the first half, the movie operates as a comedy riffing on superhero movies, taking scenes and moments we've seen before and undercutting them in clever but not mean-spirited ways. The movie seems to know that the audience has seen and loved this type of movie before, and is ready for something different. It's fun at the beginning when Britt and Kato stumble through crime-fighting, asking their administrative assistant what the next move of the Green Hornet will likely be because they don't know it themselves, and celebrate the joy of having discovered a purpose for their lives.
The movie falls apart when it starts to take things seriously and transition into being an actual superhero movie rather than a comedic commentary on one. Part of the problem is Seth Rogen, who's never able to transition out of his typical persona into true Hero Mode. There's a clear moment where we're supposed to believe that His Character Gets It, but the epiphany is set up badly and lacks the kind of emotional punch necessary to make the change believable. The events in the movie surrounding this change - a falling out with Kato, realizing the costs of his behavior to innocent people, etc - feel like obligatory plot points more than organic storytelling, and so you never get that cathartic "Aha!" moment that's supposed to come when a movie's hero discovers and decides to take his true path.
Another problem is the movie's pacing, which drags near the end so badly that I wanted the movie to end ten minutes before it actually did. I also felt that the villain reflected the movie's jumbled tone, in that he alternated between being menacing and being cartoonish, and as a result didn't really work well at either.
The Green Hornet ended up having enough laughs and interesting set pieces that I didn't regret spending the money to go see it, but also frustrated me a bit because I feel like there were enough good things there to make a great movie. Michel Gondry has a few sequences where he gets to show off his artistry, but the movie lacks the kind of emotional punch and cohesiveness I'd expect from a director of his caliber - I wasn't surprised to read recently that he didn't have final cut of the movie and that he at times had to defer to Seth Rogen's take on the movie. I can't help feeling that that was a mistake, even though one of the things Gondry didn't want in the movie but had to film because Rogen wanted it (Britt and Kato singing in the car together) ended up being one of my favorite moments in the movie. All in all: a mixed bag.
I liked Jay Chou's performance as Kato, even though there were times where I found his dialogue difficult to understand. But in some ways this worked for me; his reserve and inscrutability balanced nicely against Seth Rogen's more open performance, and the times when Kato did express himself forcefully seemed to have a greater weight because of how quietly earlier scenes had been played. I felt that Chou gave Kato an air of loneliness that made his willingness to connect with Britt Reid convincing.
The movie works best in these early scenes, when Britt and Kato are first getting to know each other and begin their accidental foray into crime-fighting. In the first half, the movie operates as a comedy riffing on superhero movies, taking scenes and moments we've seen before and undercutting them in clever but not mean-spirited ways. The movie seems to know that the audience has seen and loved this type of movie before, and is ready for something different. It's fun at the beginning when Britt and Kato stumble through crime-fighting, asking their administrative assistant what the next move of the Green Hornet will likely be because they don't know it themselves, and celebrate the joy of having discovered a purpose for their lives.
The movie falls apart when it starts to take things seriously and transition into being an actual superhero movie rather than a comedic commentary on one. Part of the problem is Seth Rogen, who's never able to transition out of his typical persona into true Hero Mode. There's a clear moment where we're supposed to believe that His Character Gets It, but the epiphany is set up badly and lacks the kind of emotional punch necessary to make the change believable. The events in the movie surrounding this change - a falling out with Kato, realizing the costs of his behavior to innocent people, etc - feel like obligatory plot points more than organic storytelling, and so you never get that cathartic "Aha!" moment that's supposed to come when a movie's hero discovers and decides to take his true path.
Another problem is the movie's pacing, which drags near the end so badly that I wanted the movie to end ten minutes before it actually did. I also felt that the villain reflected the movie's jumbled tone, in that he alternated between being menacing and being cartoonish, and as a result didn't really work well at either.
The Green Hornet ended up having enough laughs and interesting set pieces that I didn't regret spending the money to go see it, but also frustrated me a bit because I feel like there were enough good things there to make a great movie. Michel Gondry has a few sequences where he gets to show off his artistry, but the movie lacks the kind of emotional punch and cohesiveness I'd expect from a director of his caliber - I wasn't surprised to read recently that he didn't have final cut of the movie and that he at times had to defer to Seth Rogen's take on the movie. I can't help feeling that that was a mistake, even though one of the things Gondry didn't want in the movie but had to film because Rogen wanted it (Britt and Kato singing in the car together) ended up being one of my favorite moments in the movie. All in all: a mixed bag.
I Love You Phillip Morris
I Love You Phillip Morris works on a lot of levels - it's funny, well-paced, smart, at times quite romantic, and most of all, an exceptionally well-done character study of a con man. Movies about con men tread a fine line because the nature of what con men do is pretty repulsive - tricking people - but at the same time fascinating because of the skill and raw nerve necessary to be successful. ILYPM plays to both sides of this line, allowing the viewer to be drawn in by Stephen J. Russell's charismatic persona (well played by Jim Carrey), while never fully allowing the viewer to forget the true nature and costs of his actions.
I've always liked Jim Carrey as an actor and he does a great job in this movie, playing a man without a true center, who bounces from persona to persona, soaking up the approval of those around him as much as he does their money. He seems as at home playing the church organ as he does leading a new convict through a prison or running a presentation in a board room - maybe because he has no true self, any that he chooses to take on fits just as comfortably.
The central relationship in the movie between Russell and a man he meets in prison, Phillip Morris (played by Ewan MacGregor with a kind of gentle sweetness that manages to be endearing without being cloying), and the love story works both as a romance and as another way to see into Russell's character. Is it true love, or is having a grand passion just another role that Russell has chosen to take on? Is it something he truly feels, or is this just the role he's most comfortable in? The movie brings up a lot of these questions and doesn't really answer them, but not in an unsatisfying way - because by the end of it, you're not sure if Russell himself would know the answers.
I've always liked Jim Carrey as an actor and he does a great job in this movie, playing a man without a true center, who bounces from persona to persona, soaking up the approval of those around him as much as he does their money. He seems as at home playing the church organ as he does leading a new convict through a prison or running a presentation in a board room - maybe because he has no true self, any that he chooses to take on fits just as comfortably.
The central relationship in the movie between Russell and a man he meets in prison, Phillip Morris (played by Ewan MacGregor with a kind of gentle sweetness that manages to be endearing without being cloying), and the love story works both as a romance and as another way to see into Russell's character. Is it true love, or is having a grand passion just another role that Russell has chosen to take on? Is it something he truly feels, or is this just the role he's most comfortable in? The movie brings up a lot of these questions and doesn't really answer them, but not in an unsatisfying way - because by the end of it, you're not sure if Russell himself would know the answers.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The King's Speech
I posted a few days ago about worrying that my anticipation of True Grit would prevent me from enjoying it, that my expectation of a great movie would prevent me from enjoying a good one. Luckily, True Grit turned out to be just as good as I hoped it would be. Unluckily, what I feared would play out with True Grit played out on a small scale with The King's Speech - which stinks! Because the movie really is very good, with exceptional performances from Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter. But when you go into a movie expecting it to be great and transcendent and all of those good words you associate with movies you love and remember for a long time, you find yourself focusing on the ways the movie wasn't-great-and-transcendant instead of focusing on all the ways it was really quite good. Or at least that's what I do.
I'll try not to do that as much here. So first, the positives!
I'll try not to do that as much here. So first, the positives!
- Colin Firth. So great. I read an article about the movie where Geoffery Rush said that what he found most impressive about Colin Firth's performance was that he didn't play a man with a stutter, he played a man desperate to communicate. Anyone who's watched A Single Man or even that scene in Pride and Prejudice where Mr. Darcy watches Elizabeth Bennett play the piano knows that Colin Firth excels at expressing powerful emotions hid behind deep reserve. What impressed me here was how well he played the less reserved moments in this movie; Bertie's angry fits, high-handed set-downs, admittedly bad temper. I could see an actor being precious with these moments, trying to underscore the character's noble suffering, but instead he plays them as a man who's frustrated and angry, who acts out in unpleasant, unattractive, but very human ways. His performance made the movie for me.
- Helena Bonham Carter made me regret wondering out loud earlier this year if she could do anything other than Wacky Women in Tim Burton Movies. She's wonderfully warm and charming in all of her scenes, even - and maybe especially - the scenes where she displays a bit of royal haughtiness, such as when she refers to Wallis Simpson as That Woman, or her gracious decline of an invitation to dinner at the Logues' house. I really found myself wanting to see more of her. I would totally watch the prequel to this movie, or a sequel, focusing on these characters. Bertie and Elizabeth: A Love Story. Who's with me?
- Call me corny, but I kind of dug that the ultimate stakes of this movie concerned a person's desire to live up to what others expected of him, needed from him. It's kind of a romantic, old-fashioned desire, and it was kind of refreshing to see in a movie today.
- The final scene worked tremendously well in tying together a lot of the threads of the movie in a satisfying way. NGL: I got a bit choked up!
- This probably sounds super picky, but there were a few showy camera angles that distracted me from the scenes as I watched them. I tend to feel like if you're noticing what the director is doing in a scene, then the director has messed up. That happened a couple of times and pulled me out of the movie in ways I didn't really care for.
- Geoffery Rush gives a charismatic performance as Lionel Logue, but I felt like the journey of his character through the movie wasn't as well drawn as I'd have liked. He's introduced as a former actor, shown auditioning for and failing to get a part in a play. By the end the actor thread has kind of been dropped, aside from how the revelation of how acting led to him becoming a speech therapist. I couldn't tell if we were supposed to take his journey to be one of moving away from his attachment to his old profession to embracing the meaning in his second one, or maybe that wasn't meant to be a thread at all? I'm not sure. I felt like the movie would have been elevated into great-transcendent-awesome if I'd had a bit more of a handle on his character.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Country Strong
I didn't have a burning desire to see Country Strong, but when my aunt asked me to go, I said yes pretty easily. The movie looked like it might be bland and predictable, but I usually enjoy a comeback story, especially one featuring catchy tunes. Who doesn't like a good comeback story, right?
Answer: The people who made Country Strong!
I don't feel like it's a spoiler to let this cat out of the bag, since I really feel like the marketing of the movie indicates that this will be an inspiring comeback tale, and it's really not.
What is it? In short: A hot mess.
Before I get into the bad stuff, some good things:
Most of all the movie frustrated me because it had the potential to be a more successful movie. Capable actors, decent singers, a premise that's worked before. But at every turn it felt like the screenwriter/director/whoever-called-the-shots took what s/he thought would be the most unexpected/daring/dark choice instead of the choice that would be the most meaningful or truthful. The ending in particular didn't work for me, and since I haven't decided how I'm going to deal with spoilers here, I'll just say that it left a bad taste in my mouth to the point that I found myself actively telling people I knew not to see it, which I almost never do. That's how much it disappointed me.
Answer: The people who made Country Strong!
I don't feel like it's a spoiler to let this cat out of the bag, since I really feel like the marketing of the movie indicates that this will be an inspiring comeback tale, and it's really not.
What is it? In short: A hot mess.
Before I get into the bad stuff, some good things:
- Gwyneth Paltrow gives a good performance as a brittle, falling-apart, desperate country singer working at a comeback she's not ready for. The praise does come with a bit of a caveat - she sings well, but lacks the ease when performing onstage that you'd expect of the kind of performer she's playing. You could make the argument that the stiffness works with her character's "journey" and all that, but the truth is that I found her the least believable when she was supposed to be the most comfortable. The moments when she melted down onstage worked far better for me than the scenes when she supposedly triumphed. But really that's a minor complaint, since what she does in her other scenes makes up for that stiffness. Most of all she impressed me with her ability to access a kind of desperate vulnerability, a raw neediness, that made her the most interesting part of the movie. Which makes the fact that she's not really the focus of the movie all the more frustrating!
- Some of the music sounds all right - Country Strong in particular turns out to be super catchy, and a catchy tune should be commended.
- I coveted one of the sweaters Gwyneth wore in a couple of scenes.
- Pretty much everything else.
Most of all the movie frustrated me because it had the potential to be a more successful movie. Capable actors, decent singers, a premise that's worked before. But at every turn it felt like the screenwriter/director/whoever-called-the-shots took what s/he thought would be the most unexpected/daring/dark choice instead of the choice that would be the most meaningful or truthful. The ending in particular didn't work for me, and since I haven't decided how I'm going to deal with spoilers here, I'll just say that it left a bad taste in my mouth to the point that I found myself actively telling people I knew not to see it, which I almost never do. That's how much it disappointed me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)