Monthly Archives: November 2009

Finally! A movie I LOVE! All 500 Days.

Posted on by
1

So, I’m slogging through this Oscar season, viewing this movie and that. This one has good costumes. This one has good cinematography. I like that actor. The mental checklist. Who’s going to make it to the Oscar stage this year? Too much thinking, frankly.

Suddenly, (500) Days of Summer comes onto the agenda unexpectedly.

From the very first frame to the very last, I loved this movie. LOVED it. Loved every frame, every moment, every backwards and forwards in time. I’ve seen maybe 100 of this year’s movies by now. This one completely spoke to me. It easily moves to the top of my favorites, and I sure hope it’s remembered at Oscar time. It was a joy to watch.

It’s a love story, but NOT a romantic comedy. The two leads, Joseph-Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are wondrous and gorgeous to watch. We even get a bit of the incredible Zooey singing (she’s one half of the band She and Him when she’s not doing movies; I adore her voice).

It is smart, it is funny, it is interesting, it is well edited. The writers (Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber) should plan their walk right now to the Best Original Screenplay Oscar stage.

There is happiness, there is sadness, there is despair, there is an impromptu dance number that reminded me of the Bollywood end of last year’s “Slumdog Millionaire.” The music, starting from Regina Spektor’s “Us” under the opening credits and every song going forward, was stunning, smart and perfectly chosen.

The plot is simple. Summer is the character Zooey Deschanel plays. And they go through 500 days with her and the male lead (Levitt). And though the ending is not a romantic comedy ending, I actually love the ending. Drama, after all, is all about conflict, and if they’d just walked happily off into the sunset, it wouldn’t be much of a movie. Plus, now that I know the ending, I’d watch it differently the second time around. And YES! I do want to see it again. I can’t say that about many of the movies I’ve been slogging through.

A gorgeous movie about love. Well worth a watch.

Floating Up in the Air

Posted on by
Reply

From the first frame, which shows people being laid off, my mind was saying: “Here it is. This year’s Best Picture.” My theory for a long time is that the Best Picture at the Oscars reflects the mood of the country, our emotional mishigas, whatever it may be. “Up in the Air,” which deals with folks who constantly lay people off is that movie.

Slickly directed by Jason Reitman, “Up in the Air” concerns a perpetual bachelor Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) who loves being airborne more than he loves people. In fact, he’s on a quest to log 10 MILLION miles. Along the way, he meets a similar soul (Vera Fermiga) who travels a lot too.

The soullessness with which Bingham approaches his job is chilling. He’s guided onwards by his boss (the always-wonderful Jason Bateman). A whip-smart young girl (Anna Kendrick) brings new ideas to the company, and Bingham is recruited to take her on the road and show her the ropes.

That Bingham discovers his humanity during the course of this movie is no small feat. But it’s the parade of the jobless that resonates most in this troubling year.

Riding to The Last Station

Posted on by
Reply

Talking with a friend after this movie, we realized that there was no person we could think of that influenced Russian culture positively more than Leo Tolstoy. Why then, has there been no previous movie about his life?

Not sure, but at least we have one now. The Last Station is a lush portrait of the final days of Leo Tolstoy, the “Tolstoyans” around him, and those battling for control of his works (his wife and his acolyte, Chertkov). Unlike a lot of the Oscar movies barreling at us right now, this one is rich with context, subtext and meaning. Like many of the same movies, its central thesis is that it all boils down to LOVE in the end.

Tolstoy, bravely played by the wondrous Christopher Plummer, has his match in his fiery and tempestuous wife, warmly portrayed by Helen Mirren. It is a joy just to watch these two together on screen. There is a scene where they flirt with each other prior to lovemaking involving rooster and chicken sounds that in anyone else’s hands would be ludicrous. To their credit, you watch it and swoon for them.

Add to this mix, the clearly defined portrait of Chertkov by Paul Giamatti. Three very strong characters, all fighting for control make this movie well worth watching. As if all this isn’t enough, we have our lead, played with fierce innocence by James McAvoy (you may remember him from The Last King of Scotland).

All of the acting in this movie is top notch. The direction and writing by Michael Hoffman is superb. We are dropped into a world we may not have known about, but which is fascinating. We see what may be the first version of paparazzi, camped outside Tolstoy’s home. We learn that celebrity may not just corrupt and distort the person, but also the very works one is trying to defend.

The title refers to the final train stop where Tolstoy spends his final days. This movie is well worth a stop on your Oscar film train.

Don’t be blind to the kindness of The Blind Side.

Posted on by
Reply

I have mixed feelings about “The Blind Side.” I know it’s being heavily promoted during televised football games, due to some of its football content. And it’s based on a true story about a real football player. That’s all well and good, except I really don’t care much about football. And to me, the movie lost a lot of its lustre once it veered into football territory. The title is based on some football analogy, which I think boils down to “protect someone (you care about) on their blind side.”

The beauty of the movie lies in just that. As this parade of Oscar hopefuls come trotting by, this is the first one (other than Up, which premiered earlier in the year) which actually has a lot of heart. Our lead is a large black man named Big Mike, later Michael (played by Quinton Aaron), born to a crack-addicted mother and an absent father, who ends up in a private school through the assistance of one person who sticks their neck out for him (due to his potential sports ability).

He is noticed and taken in by rich, white Sandra Bullock and her family. There is no doubt, the way the movie unfolds, that it is a heart to heart connection. But nonetheless, the feeling that is left at the end is along the lines of: well, that’s all well and good for this one particular black man who is saved from his life of crack-hell, but what about the countless others who are not? And that’s really the feeling that I can’t shake about this movie. It so distinctly points out the disparity between the two worlds that it’s very discomforting.

That said, there are many heart-warming and kind moments. Sandra Bullock, being bantered around in Oscar circles for the first time ever with the words, “possible Oscar nominee,” is indeed wonderful and warm as the lead Leigh Anne Touhy. She is quite far from any role I’ve ever seen her in as the high-powered blonde Republican wife.

The movie skirts the issue of race adroitly. Michael is a person who needs Leigh Anne’s help, so she helps him. It is quite wonderful how the story breaks down like that. Simple. Anyone would do this.

So if you need a reminder what it means to show another person love, “The Blind Side” is a great movie to see. Not overly sappy or button-pushing, just sweet and kind. Like Sandra Bullock.

The Life and Love of The Young Victoria

Posted on by
Reply

First this season, we had someone we knew as a crusty dowager (who designed French fashion) find love in her previously unseen youth (Coco Before Chanel). Now we have someone known as a crusty dowager (who ruled Britain) find love in her previously unseen youth (The Young Victoria).

The similarities are astounding. What is joyous about this movie is that, like Coco Before Chanel, the best parts of this movie are the love parts. And there are more of them here.

It’s really a slight bit of a movie, with history flying around the screen, mostly this: lots of people don’t want her to be queen, she becomes queen anyway. Eventually, she marries the man she loves and lives happily with him. Along the way, there is the usual period stuff, fancy costumes and sets, elegant galas and crowns and tiaras.

What makes it refreshing to watch is the energized performance by Emily Blunt as Victoria, mirrored by Rupert Friend as the young Albert. But other than fighting to get to her rightful spot as queen, there isn’t a whole lot of conflict in the movie. Those who oppose her are mostly confined to sidelong glances of scorn here and there.

But the falling in love parts are glorious, and like this season’s Bright Star, the passion of youth in a former time is shown in all its brilliance.

Miranda Richardson, it should be noted, who livens up any period picture, is quite wonderful as the put-upon mother of the queen.

All in all, if you’re in the mood for a period drama with a love story at its core, you won’t do wrong seeing this one. But you might want to look elsewhere for something with a bit more substance.

Public Enemies Least Wanted

Posted on by
Reply

Blissfully, I missed Michael Mann’s Public Enemies the first time around. I wished I’d missed it the second as well. But with Oscar screenings abounding, this one was trotted out again.

It’s a mess.

Which is unusual. Normally I really love and look forward to every Michael Mann movie. Usually you can count on excellent cinematography. Neither is true here.

The main problem of the narrative is that there are really three protagonists (in the sense of whose story are you following), and all three are dislikeable. All three are essentially bad men. One is John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), the notorious criminal. Next is the man hunting our “Public Enemy No. 1,” Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale). The third is J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup).

Dillinger, while charismatic and personable, is a killer and a gangster who robs banks. Purvis pushes his men to inhumane methods in the interest of trapping this one man. The mastermind behind the entire propaganda, Hoover, is seen here laying the seeds for the FBI corruption and disregard of rules to come. So, run this by me one more time: who are we supposed to be rooting for here?

Personally, I’m sick to death of revenge movies. Someone does something bad, someone else spends the entire movie trying to “get him.” Yawn. I also despise shoot ’em ups. So this movie really bored me to tears. If I wasn’t with someone, I would’ve walked out on this one midway through. There is just no point to it.

That said, I will say, there is one scene: where the hunted criminal Dillinger strolls into the “Dillinger division” of the Chicago Police Department, and peruses their bulletin boards. They don’t recognize him at all. It was quite powerful. The rest of the movie? Not so much.

Keep the Fashion Guys Away from the Camera

Posted on by
Reply

You know how they say that everyone “wants to direct”? Sometimes, fashion designers should just stay fashion designers. Even if they have the money and werewithal to produce and finance the film themselves. That being said, if you are struggling with insomnia, you might just want to try a double bill of “A Single Man” and “Bright Star.” Should do the trick.

Both movies are competing in this year’s Oscar derby. (I liked “Bright Star.”)

This review, though, I have to split into two parts. Let me first talk about the problems I had with the film, other than the fact that Tom Ford, fashion designer, wrote, produced and directed it.

Here’s the reason why fashion designers should stay out of film directing. Actual directors are trained in what may seem minor things to the average person. Things like pacing and camera angles and lighting. Watching “A Single Man,” at times is rather like watching a five-year-old let loose with Photoshop and Final Cut Pro. Sure, they might come up with some interesting things occasionally, but compared to the refinement of an actual pro using the same tools, well, it’s just no comparison.

Two words (well, four actually) come up when thinking about this movie: “pet project” and “self-indulgent.”

An example. The main character is grieving a death of his beloved. Through most of the movie, the palette is grey and drab (including his own face being washed out). On the occasions when he feels joy or something special happens, suddenly the palette is more deeply saturated with color and vibrant. It felt like a parlor trick more than a smooth movie technique. You don’t do things just because you can.

As a viewer, to me, the movie felt choppy. Some parts are in black and white, some in vibrant color, some in this “death palette.” It was annoying more than anything.

The movie is taken from a Christopher Isherwood short story, and embellished by Ford.

It rings with a poignancy that is special only to him, like a shared secret on screen.

As to what I liked about the movie, it was deeply grounded by an out-of-stereotype portrayal by Colin Firth. His acting goes a long way toward giving the movie the gravitas it seeks so badly.

Julianne Moore is fabulous, as she always is. Her hairstylist deserves special props.

As a podcaster and content creator, I can appreciate someone’s passion toward a subject. That is always to be encouraged. Although many of the visuals looked too much like an Abercromie and Fitch ad for my taste, and it was almost a lavish parade of gay obsession, I can enjoy the message of “live in the now” that the movie seemed to be saying overall.

Little moments are what seemed to resonate with the grieving lead character the most. A dance here, a party frock there, what is it that turns someone’s mood from despairing to happy?

Watching the movie, to me, was very much like turning the pages of a lovely catalogue. One pretty thing after another. But it just didn’t hold together as a movie.