A collection of my idiosyncratic thoughts & film reviews. I find spending time sitting in the dark watching far too many films back to back a deeply relaxing experience. International, Indy, Hollywood, Vampires - I have very flexible tastes...
The Italian film series at SIFF ended on a light note with this multi-character interwoven romantic comedy. Sorta like Crash but with all the negative stuff taken out. Oh, sure there is the stalker ex-boyfriend copy threatening to injure the new boyfriend, but that as all the stories are ended on a relatively light note.
Once you start watching you get the point right away. There are lots of characters, and they're linked in a variety of ways - not all of which become apparent quickly. Some are lovers, some are ex's, some are friends of ex's or neighbors, etc. It's not always laugh out loud humor (though there are a few very funny moments), and we're not given a ton of time to fall in love with all the characters - but there's just enough to make this a likable affair. Not being a Hollywood production I will say that not everyone's situation works out completely, and there is a touch of tragedy mixed in. So the festival description (below) was fairly accurate;
"Juggling multiple storylines with aplomb, this mostly comic study of the vagaries of romantic entanglement focuses on five different couples and the ups and downs of their relationships. From a divorce attorney going through a brutal break-up with his wife to a French youngster smitten with his Italian girlfriend, co-writer/director Brizzi presents a wide variety of besotted characters looking for love. With a grand assembly of noteworthy actors, this charming film suggests that there is an ex in everyone’s past who can’t (or won’t) be forgotten."
This isn't necessarily going to stay with me in a deep way - but I had a good time seeing it in a very busy week of film. That's gotta be saying something, even if I admittedly may have a lower bar for this sort of romantic nonsense. ;-) And heck - how often are you going to see a movie where you're rooting for a woman to run off with her priest. I've included the trailer below - Italian only - sorry, couldn't find the subtitled one. I think you can pretty clearly get the point and judge if it's the sort of thing you'd want to see.
The final night of the New Italian Cinema Festival at SIFF Cinema was very solid. Two very different movies, one serious and one fun and both delivered for me on their promise. First up was the deadly serious The Italian Girl. The director was in attendance and he described his pleasure at returning to Seattle to present the dramatized version of a story he presented in documentary form roughly 10 years earlier at SIFF. He also told an amusing anecdote about how on his first trip to the area his hotel room had featured a copy of the Kama Sutra in place of a bible. But that's neither here nor there..
So here's the description of the "true events" as described in the festival program
"One November morning in 1991, 17-year-old Rita (Veronica D'Agostino) approached the Chief Prosecutor of Palermo, intent on vindicating her father and brother’s mafia-related deaths. From that day forward Rita’s days are numbered. According to Sicilian tradition, the daughter of a mafia family should observe the rule of silence. But Rita is not like the others, and she openly rebels against the traditional male-dominated organization. Repudiated and threatened by her boyfriend, her hometown, and even her mother (Lucia Sardo), Rita is forced to leave Sicily and move to Rome"
I can't speak for the documentary, having never seen it. But the dramatic version (the director claimed most of it is true) made for a fairly powerful movie. Not knowing anything about the case it had some twists that I was genuinely surprised at. In fact I think not knowing helped so much that I'm reluctant to really describe the details at all in case you get a chance to see it. The casting and the performances seemed right on - and the female lead got to play out an arc of learning and acceptance deeper than one tends to see in mafia films. I'll also say, as a compliment, that this in no way feels like a documentary. You're getting a full narrative motion picture that's professionally done both from the story and technical perspectives. Solid B+ work.
Earlier today I was going through the blog to put together a list of all the movies I've seen so far in theaters in 2009. That's my precursor to trying to pick a top 10 list for 2009 - though usually I end up with a top 15-20, numbers are so arbitrary. I'll also be looking for a few of the worst and some guilty pleasures - things I got a huge kick out of but maybe aren't for everyone (or even for myself under different circumstances).
I knew I'd seen a lot of movies. If you'd asked me to guess I would have said I saw approaching 200 films a year in the theater. But I was slightly surprised that I've already seen 228 films in theaters representing at least 45 countries (some are multi-country productions). Wow, that seems like a lot to me. I know there are folks that see more. But after a point degrees of crazy are still nuts. I'm going to go with it's only a problem if one's friends and family think it's a problem. And frankly, I'm not asking.
Of course the year's ain't quite over either...
I now have drafts of my top 10, other favorites, worst films, and a list of guilty pleasures. Actually my worst films list isn't too bad given how many things I've seen. Regular readers of the blog may be surprised to learn that my choice for worst film is not"Last Chance Harvey." :-) I'm going to wait until I see the rest of the "big films" being released over the next month before saying more.
Yes, that is a creepy promo photo. Let's get that out of the way up front. But he doesn't look like that through the entire film so it's tolerable. :-)
This is based on the true story of a socially aware French street clown who ends up in Romania. While there he notices the plight of the large numbers of street children that congregate at the train stations. It's a very tough existence. They live in the sewers and scratch by any way they can. As one would expect they're taken advantage by everyone around them - with exploitation of every sort on display. Miloud (the clown) befriends them often taking serious risks to do so. Working with local humanitarian groups he tries to reach the children through street performance with the goal of helping them gain respect for themselves and possibly a living through performing. At least that's what I think the point is - it's never 100% spelled out. He has a fair amount of success, but also some heartbreaking failures. In the end he forms a troupe that travels internationally and appears to have saved the lives of some of the participants. It's OK as a biopic and for learning about a form of humanitarian relief I hadn't seen nor thought about before. As a film I didn't get a strong sense of what drove Miloud or feel very connected with the character.
The House in the Clouds had the misfortune in my mind of both sounding like something Sandra Bullock would star in and sitting between me and the midnight screening of New Moon. On a different day I think it's entirely possible I would have loved this film. As things stood I liked it, but wasn't quite in the mood for the loosely woven road movie feel at the time.
The film starts off introducing us to two very different brothers living in Italy. The younger is a jazz musician who's pretty easygoing. At the film start he's about to head off to New York with his girlfriend without the benefit of a job or really any money. Not the planner this one. Then there's the older brother who lives in the house their father left them when he abandoned them and raises dogs. He's of course the organized, serious one. When they find out their father is both alive and has sold the house out from under them they set off to find him. Ostensibly to deal with the house, but meeting him will force them to confront their feelings for him.
The father lives in Morocco - so part of the film feels like a road movie. They have less trouble than you'd think locating him through the man he sold the house to. It turns out he's a bit like the younger son, if perhaps less responsible. Self absorbed, a self titled artist and quite broke. None of this seems to bother him - he's focused on the moment, his much younger girlfriend and taking life a day at a time. This doesn't sit well with the older brother, and the younger I suppose is getting a look at what he'll end up with if he stays on his current path. The brothers were likable, and the father had enough charm to make you not be angry with him the entire film. The backdrops are beautiful and often coupled with interesting musical selections.
Conclusions aren't forced down your throat. It's shot sort of as a slice of life road movie. We see what's happening over a week or so, witness some learning and possibly growth but there's no HUGE drama or wrapped up conclusions. If that sounds good to you, and you aren't too sleepy when you go (it's not a fast) film might be worth keeping an eye out for.
Different from Whom? was one of the two "light" movies from the New Italian Cinema series, both of which I enjoyed in different ways. Not altogether unpredictable I still enjoyed the bright photography, good chemistry and easy humor. The presence of no mafia figures nor deaths was another plus.
Piero is a councilman in Italy who at the start is primarily focused on gay and lesbian issues. He's a sharp dresser, articulate and seems to have an extended loving group of family and friends. His partner is concerned that he's a bit of a playboy, but other than that he seems to have a solid if unexceptional political life. Due to some wacky local (and possibly uniquely Italian) politics he ends up his parties surprise candidate for Mayor. The establishment who goofed up to put him in that spot are chagrined and also extremely concerned he'll be crushed by the incumbent candidate. The current mayor is the focus of a current joke about how his main strategy is an anti-crime wall. It's clearly ineffectual but serves as a great prop for press conferences - building the wall, painting the wall, re-dedicating the wall, etc.
In an attempt to broaden Piero's appeal the party pairs him with a more family oriented candidate. Who of course ironically has no family and trouble with relationships. The pair start off frosty but after some compromises and a shared love of shopping (I said it was amusing, not stereotype free) they hit it off. Their improved tolerance for each other and a series of events grossly misinterpreted by the press send their candidacy soaring. But the strange bedfellow's closeness threaten both Piero's relationship and everyone's world views.
I think if you go in looking for light romantic comedy/farce that features adults vs. teenagers you're likely to enjoy. There's a very colorful and bright style of photography used that's a good match for the subject matter. This won't be winning an Oscar anytime soon, but I think you could do worse seeing this film given an opportunity. I laughed, didn't think excessively and liked the fact that the ending was slightly different than what you might think reading the description.
Historical lesbian love story in beautiful Sicily. Nothing sounds wrong with that. At least that's what I was thinking when I drove in to see Sea Purple. It's not as though I completely invented that perception of the film. In my defense here's a short excerpt from the festival catalog
"Growing up in 19th-century Sicily, rebellious Angela (Valeria Solarino) finds herself attracted to her best friend Sara (Isabella Ragonese). As deep friendship turns to romantic passion, her strict quarry boss father demands that the relationship cease and that she marry one of his workers. Refusing, Angela is locked in a cellar until her father determines a potential way for them both to get what they want."
OK - so maybe the part about the locked in the cellar should have clued me in. It all starts off sort of how I thought it would. Lots and lots of shots of the idyllic island and the sea around it. Angela's father is the foreman of the local quarry and they seem relatively well off. Sure, it seems that Dad occasionally brutally takes out financial losses by clumsy workers by taking liberties with their wives - but that must just be the way things are on the island. Angela and Sara run around and play with the other boys and girls and seem close as can be. When Sara's family moves away Angela stares out into the sea seemingly for years until she comes back. When Angela does come back she convinces Sara on what she's been missing out on and a little romance takes place. Things get worse then they get better then life goes on. Just a weird little movie about those quirky Sicilians. And allegedly sexy to boot - based on the description.
From a film making perspective there's probably nothing technically wrong here. All the photography makes the most of the scenery, the story is clear enough, nobody is mumbling, etc. But I just cannot say I liked the film. The "sexiness" came across as clinical and I just had no patience for the behavior of the father - which I think we were supposed to see as finding a compromise for himself to deal with the daughter's non-conformist behavior.
Had to say more without introducing huge spoilers - if you'd like to hear the rest of my random ranting it's after the jump. You have been warned...
A week or so ago I attended seven of the eight films comprising the New Italian Cinema film festival. It's a program that's been shown in New York and San Francisco arriving in Seattle to play at SIFF Cinema. I took a chance and bought a pass. Only missed one - so that bet seemed to pay off at $40 for the 7 films.
Things started out with a screening of Fortàpasc. It follows the last four months in the life of a young journalist whose reporting on the Camorra resulted in his assassination. Based on a true story it was introduced by the director as a sad story, but not necessarily a sad movie. The movie almost forces you to compare it with Gomorrah though they really are very different films. It's not quite the sweeping vision that Gomorrah is, instead focusing on the one reporter's life which is just taking off when he's tragically murdered. As based on true events slice of life biopic the film generally worked for me.
It's an interesting film and the director's description was accurate in that it follows the reporters zeal for life, love, and getting the story. Only towards the end does he start to understand how much danger he may actually be in. Interestingly, much as we've seen on The Wire - the trouble tends to start when you follow the money.
The title is an Italianized version of "Fort Apache" which the city in the film is compared two a couple of times. You're free to speculate whether that's a reference to the original or the version that came out in early 80's. Either way it's probably a good description of the lawless environment. I liked the film for the performances while I was watching it. Not sure it's going to make a strong long term impression though.
Screening Notes:As part of opening night there was also a very nice party in Seattle Center's Alki room (the future expanded home of the SIFF organization). The spread included quite a few good pastries, some meats/cheeses/bread and assorted chocolates. A surprising highlight was the appearance of Finamoré serving a cold and tasty limoncello from the Seattle based company. Oh - and that I got in at all. It wasn't clear if my pass included admission as I didn't really stop to ask I suppose technically I may have been crashing.
George Clooney completes his recent series of films about life, love and existential angst playing a fox who's part accidental philosopher and part member of the Ocean's 11 crew. In an amazing visual world made through stop motion photography by Wes Anderson based (somewhat) on the book by Roald Dahl. The standard set of Anderson's actor collective makes an appearance including Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray and others. Meryl Streep even makes an appearance to prove her great performance in Mama Mia! wasn't just a fluke.
Mr. Fox is a semi-reformed professional chicken thief who retired to the (perhaps) more honorable profession of journalism after the birth of his son. Stretched a bit financially to move to better digs ("I don't want to live in a hole in the ground anymore") or just maybe craving adventure he plans one last big score (conveniently split into three parts). The capers themselves and the impact on his community forms the story. Newer trailers seem to make the film into almost an action adventure event - I suppose to appeal more to younger audiences. It's somewhere between that and the more traditional 'you're there for the journey not the destination' Wes Anderson fare. It is intended for kids - I'm not sure what age exactly though. I think super young ones might just enjoy the look. Somewhat older ones would probably still be bewildered at the discussions at times. Some of the better jokes are clearly for adults - but the youngsters in the audience when I saw it seemed to be having a good time. I'd guess even kids would pick up on the being different is OK, having an extended family is good and people (or at least animals) should embrace their true nature themes. Or at least one out of those three. Thankfully it's not chock full of the negative/destructive messages of something like New Moon. Just teasing Marina. ;-)
Visually it's a real treat. Very skillfully done and the beauty of the production is a large part of the reason to go. I just kept wanting to reach out and touch the animals. Watching will remind you why the whole 3D phenom is somewhat dubious as a cinematic must have. This is a fully realized world and having the things jump off the screen would probably take away from the experience. I hope Mr. Fox is eligible for an art direction Oscar and not just an animated one - it is a true work of art that deserves a lot of kudos. Even if you don't generally like stop animation it's worth considering this one. Earlier in the year I spoke very well of the advances in the field demonstrated in $9.99 which uses claymation. The looks are completely different, but taken together it's clear that the technique has breached any earlier constraints that limited it's ability to tell a story.
The voice acting is also very good. Which to me means it fits the characters and I quickly forgot I was listening to famous actors. I can't say this was one of my favorites of the year for story or dialog. It's at heart a kids movie. Even if the script is clearly a cut above. It is however one of the most creative movies in terms of visuals I've seen this year and it's worth checking out. If you have a child to bring that's just a bonus.
Oh, if you're not going to the film - at least try the trailer below. It includes what I thought was one of the funniest part of the movie as Owen Wilson describes the "simple" rules of Whackbat. Listening to it seems eerily similar to my personal experience every time someone tries to explain Cricket to me.
Set in 1962 the film spans a pivotal day in the life of George Falconer, an English professor in LA. Through flashback we learn of his partner's tragic and sudden death in an auto accident. He's clearly heartbroken and the fact that he can't share his feelings with anyone clearly is not helping things. How he'll deal with the loss seems to become a study with how he lived his life to date. Even though he's focused on the day ending with suicide it's a surprisingly positive - or at least not utterly depressing story. Given the constraints of the film's structure I felt the view of George's life was surprisingly rounded. Both the visuals, the dialog, and the unspoken body language of the actors give an impressive sense of an era and environment where his homosexuality was frowned upon (to put it mildly) but also understood to exist. There are some potentially positive influence's in George's life and they add the 'will he go through with it before he recognizes them' tension that keeps you involved in the film vs. just resigned to the outcome. Though what the outcome is I refuse to say.
Colin Firth owns this movie - his performance carries the film and makes it work throughout. The academy award talk is much deserved and I do feel he should be nominated for the performance. An example - a lesser film would have the character just telling us that dressing as the official George in the morning is similar to putting on a costume. Firth does that early on in voice over. Only late in the film did I realize we're getting to see the real unguarded George as he lets his hair down with longtime friend Julianne Moore truly showing the reality of how deeply he's suppressing parts of his personality. It's the sort of performance that doesn't call attention to these changes but your brain recognizes them naturally. I've never disliked Firth's performances - but this role gives him a chance to act that I hadn't really made not of previously.
The visuals are great in what I suspect is a Mad Men sorta way (yes, I keep being told I should watch but I don't. When everyone who tells me it's great catches up on The Wire then I'll capitulate). And all the supporting roles are well done. But it's Colin's performance that makes it completely watchable and makes even the cynical viewer (OK, at least me) care whether he ends the day the way he starts off intending to. I wasn't 100% satisfied with the ending - though I can see why they'd want to go the way they did. But I liked it far more than I expected as a piece of film-making. Well done - and a great start to SIFF's Award Buzz - benefit screenings series.
Marketing Notes: There's some interesting discussions on the web around the marketing of this film - specifically whether there's an attempt to "de-gay" the movie around Oscar time in part by highlighting the relationship between Firth and Moore. In some ways it's sorta sad that folks feel they need to do that to drive audiences (or Academy voters) into theaters. But if it gets more folks in to see a movie they might not otherwise then perhaps it's not the worst thing in the word.
I'd tried to see this new film from Jason Reitman during the Telluride film festival back in September. It was announced as a sneak preview ahead of it's official premiere in Toronto. The morning of the show I got there a full 2+ hours ahead of the scheduled start thinking it was a crazy time to go and I'd probably be waiting by myself for a bit. As it turned out by the time I made it to the theater the line was so long it was clearly going to be a situation where folks were turned away. After trying to shave the odds by asking "you guys know Clooney isn't here - right?" to no avail I went running down the mountain for plan B. After the screening I'd heard mixed things from attendees so I didn't really know what to think of having missed it. I was pretty surprised at the fervor of the folks on line so early, if only because it was clearly going to get a release this year. Under those circumstances I wasn't too bummed at having missed it. So a week or so ago when SIFF sent me an invite for a preview screening of the film I was happy, but a little nervous about the line standing situation. As it turned out the crowd was pretty well calibrated for the theater and I got a good seat for pretty minimal waiting. Some SIFF friends who'd missed the original invite were even able to snag some last minute tix the same day.
The description of the film sounded as though it could/should be a comedy. George Clooney plays a traveling consultant whose job it is to fire people. He spends most of his time on the road and seems to love it that way. On off days he sometimes gives motivational speeches to groups where he advises them to unburden their figurative life backpacks - minimizing constraints and weights on their lives (such as relationships, possessions, etc.) When we meet Clooney he does have a life goal - and that's to become the 7th person ever to accumulate 10 million frequent flyer miles with American Airlines. This goal is challenged when a new younger employee of the firm (Anna Kendrick) has champions a plan to conduct the firings by teleconference instead of face to face. He thinks it's wrong for the business, and at the same time doesn't want to be off the road (those miles won't fly themselves). His boss sends him on what may be his last road trip with Kendrick along to show her the ropes.
While it could have been a comedy - and it does definitely have its funny moments - it is not one. There's a deeply serious undertone both about the nature of having and losing a job and the impact of Clooney's life choices on him. Taken as a whole they made for a fairly satisfying film. Though perhaps more for the package than the "message" - at least for me.
Clooney is a pleasure to watch. Even though I know the film is trying to tell us that his lifestyle is a one way ticket to misery and depression it's hard not to be somewhat seduced by him. His job may be disturbing but he takes is seriously and appears to be rather good at it. He certainly doesn't leave anyone happy in his "transition" meetings - but there are times you almost believe he's sincere in trying to get people to look at the loss of their job as an opportunity. I suspect there will be more than one person in the theater nodding along when he asks a man, "How much did they first pay you to give up on your dreams?" With a lesser actor this film simply would not have worked. He has a somewhat estranged relationship (largely just due to neglect) with his sisters. But he at least feels some sense of obligation to them as he begrudgingly agrees to take pictures of a cardboard cutout of his sister and her fiance at various spots along his travels. They can't afford a honeymoon and they're putting together a virtual trip collage for their wedding - "like that movie with the gnomes." And of course it won't surprise anyone that the impending marriage becomes and important part of the story.
The professional relationship between Kendrick and Clooney works, even though it's a variation of the standard 'she's naive but turns out to be good and through learning earns his respect while herself learning valuable life lessons' theme. She's the voice of the positive influence of relationships to his empty backpack theory of life. Their arguments and differences are the source of a fair amount of the (often cynical) comedy. For example regarding the case for not dying alone Clooney takes the fairly standard "everyone dies alone" argument and points out that (paraphrasing) in the case of the cult with the purple sneakers and the kool-aid they did all die together, "so there are options."
Almost all the acting is equally strong - I'm leaving out some of the details purposefully on Clooney's no strings attached road relationship with Vera Farmiga. She plays a female version of him and the two of them together are great onscreen. The film does have enough of a story arc and growth of the characters to keep me engaged, but not enough growth that I take it as a syrup coated cop out. Meaning I respected the film for the way it left things. Just be aware it's not quite the feel good movie of the year. Though with Precious and The Road in contention for the Oscars perhaps it is relatively speaking.
Beyond the dialog and performances the film has many additional nice touches. While it probably could have worked with a less slick setup the overall production values are a nice bonus. From the amazingly crisp aerial photography as Clooney spans the nation to the soul re-imagining treatment of This Land is Your Land over the opening credits it's a well put together film.
All in all a solid way to spend two hours in a theater - you could do far worse. I can see why it's very likely to end up on the best film short list (though it wouldn't be my pick for the #1 slot). Now I've got literally 9 other films to post notes on - so that's it for this one.
Kids, if there's only one lesson you learn from Shakespeare, consider making it this one. Before you decide to kill yourself over the untimely demise of your one true love, take the extra time to make really, really sure they're dead. Yes, I get it - some of the spontaneity will be gone if you don't off yourself immediately. Either via the conveniently left draught of poison or handing yourself off the the council of vampires that will take care of things for you. But seriously, isn't that loss of romantic immediacy worth it given the possibility of mixed messages causing you to get it wrong. That Edward almost makes this amateur mistake is pretty surprising. All those years and he's never read Romeo and Juliet - or seen an episode of Three's Company? Maybe that's just the difference between reading and understanding.
For those living under a rock or interred at Guantanamo Bay the last several years the film New Moon is the cinematic version of the second in the Twilight series of books. In this universe main character Bella has a torrid, yet until the very end unconsummated (and seriously co-depended relationship) with a much older man. That he's a 109 year old occasionally sparkly vampire makes it interesting and not quite as creepy as it sounds. OK, still pretty creepy and I could probably fill an entire post and a half about how it seems to me a really bad role model for today's youth. But to quote my enabler on this whole Twilight thing, "the books are terrible ... you must read them!" Truer words have never been spoken.
In the latest installment of the series we join the cast of characters fairly soon after the end of the last film. Edward and his vampire "family" have saved Bella from danger, she's back at school and the two of them are an item. Did I mention he and most of the extended vampire clan are still in High School (for the 10th time)? - if that doesn't scream village of the damned I don't know what does. She's seriously stressed about aging compared to Edward and is consistently bugging him to "change her." He, ever the gentleman is worried about her virtue, errr, I mean soul and playing seriously hard to get. Bella's seems generally annoyed throughout the film - about the whole refusing to turn her into the undead thing, people giving her birthday gifts, and/or (possibly) the extremely heavy handed use of metaphor throughout the film. After a nearly life threatening paper cut at her 18th birthday party (long story - she bleeds, is almost killed by Jasper a family member with bloodlust control issues and sporting the worst hair style since William H. Macy in Bart Got a Room forcing Edward to save her - OK, not so long) Edward decides the best thing he can do is split town to ensure she's not hurt by him. Conveniently forgetting he's also supposed to stick around to protect her from the evil vamps that still want to kill her from the first film. Regardless, he jets out of town with only the lamest of explanations leaving Bella in a near suicidally depressed stupor. It's so bad that she doesn't even notice the camera crew circling around slowly for 3 months to document the change of seasons over several months out her window as she sits catatonically in a chair.
Eventually she gets herself out of the house and starts spending time with Jacob - the son of her father's friend and the other hearthrob of the film. His presence helps her deal with her grief and loneliness. Unfortunately, his sexual frustration turns him into a werewolf. But that's good, because becoming a werewolf (along with other young men of his tribe similarly shirt challenged) keeps the area relatively safe from vampires. Meanwhile Bella realizes that putting herself in dumb and dangerous situations causes her to see visions of Edward warning her through exceedingly cheesy special effects which sounded somewhat more reasonable in the book when you didn't have to actually look at them. So of course being Bella she consistently seeks out these situations in order to see him more. Until a super contrived situation causes Edward to think she's dead. At which point he goes to Italy to try to die at the hands of the vampire elite. This is all important in the book, but may be confusing to someone who hasn't read it. But that's OK - because clearly there are enough people who have to carry the movie. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, as the later books are quite a bit better. Hey, I said this was entertaining - not that it makes a lot of sense...
There's lots of guys running around half naked, turning into werewolves plus over the top vampire vamping. Not to mention lots of teenage moping. So basically, a little something for everyone short of zombies. I'm not going to bother getting seriously into the details as either you likely already know the entire story, don't really care, or are still planning to see the film and deserve to have some surprises.
While I seem to be physically incapable of writing seriously about this film you shouldn't mistake that for me saying it's bad. For fans I'd put it in the B range. That said, I definitely enjoyed the first movie more than the second. It's hard for me say why exactly, but I largely suspect that it's because I hadn't read any of the books before seeing the first one. So I was able to experience it without fully knowing where it was going and revel both in it's charms and equally entertaining weak points. But if you didn't enjoy the first film I can't see why you'd like New Moon. Just for contrast - If you want to experience what a truly negative review sounds like I'd encourage you to try this one - while you may agree or disagree I think you'd have to definitely put it in the not boring category.
Almost forgot - I was pleasantly surprised to see that I recognized from personal experience the theater where Bella and guy pals go to see "Face Punch" - it's actually the Ridge Theater in Vancouver, Canada. I've been there previously as it's a venue for VIFF - the lobby is pretty distinctive. Though rarely (at least in my limited experience) has werewolves in attendance.
Screening notes: In order to try and get the full communal madness effect I went to see New Moon at a midnight screening Thurs night. On the downside seeing it so late and after two films in the SIFF New Italian Cinema series left me dragging myself to through all of Friday. But I did get to see it with a packed house full of folks that screamed their heads off every time a shirtless wolf pack member appeared onscreen. As well as every time Robert Pattinson appeared onscreen to hone his presentation for upcoming auditions in mumblecore dramas. It also meant I waited on the longest line I've seen since Superman played at the Kings Plaza mall in Brooklyn. In this case though without my cousin Kenny to help out I actually waited on the line. It was actually sorta fun - the line moved quickly once they got started even though it went from the third floor in Bellevue Square Lincoln Center all the way down to the garage levels (picture to the left). They seemed to fill every one of the large theaters in the facilities entry area - which must number in the several thousand seats. I think this movie may make some money after all.
Sunday night I finally decided to go see the Amelia Earhart biography starring Hilary Swank and directed by Mira Nair. The film has some pluses. Overall it's a good story, the flying footage is beautifully shot and Hilary Swank seems well suited to the role. But it's not what I would call a very engaging film - with the exception of the finale which manages to pull drama out of an ending that we all know is coming. The rest of the time it's a fairly run of the mill bio-pic with occasionally very simplistic dialog of an 'old timey film' nature. I just never felt I got a sense of connection with the characters or felt I understood their experiences any better than I would from reading a high level account of Earhart's life. Not at all bad - just uninspiring. Which given the nature of who it's about is somewhere between ironic and sad.
Based on true events (at least according to the film) concerning the availability of Rock & Roll on British Radio in the mid to late 60's. Public airwaves would play none of it. The only free access to it was via unlicensed transmitters playing it from floating stations anchored offshore. According to the film the people loved it and the government hated it. Today they'd probably just send in goons from the RIAA with government backing. But apparently in the 60's they'd just impotently fume about it for most of the film until they passed a law to shut it down in time for a dramatic showdown to provide some much needed excitement on the last reel.
I had real hopes for this film. I wasn't expecting high art. But with a killer soundtrack, some good actors and a claimed pedigree including Four Weddings and a Funeral's "creators" at least decent writing. The soundtrack basically is there - though played in fairly short segments - generally too short to really get into the music. The bigger problem is that I was, for lack of a fancier word, uninterested. Even bored at times. It's almost as though they spent so much licensing the great music there wasn't anything left to write the script. Or maybe it's just that heroic DJ's are a hard sell to me. Little is done in the way of character development - so maybe I could care more but I don't have the incentive to here. Good music, a few solid moments, but largely (and sadly) forgettable. 'nuff said
First a warning. Normally I try to avoid any spoilers in my film notes. But in this case I'm going to break my own rule. So read at your own risk.
The film is about the end of the world and the funniest film about the death of billions of people you're ever likely to see. It seems the Mayans were right and the world ends in 2012 -sort of. Humanity gets a tip off ahead of the end through a government scientist (ChiwetelEjiofor) who has outsourced the actual research to an academically superior group in India. Based on this early knowledge the government springs into action led by Oliver Platt playing a chief of staff type role and the film's designated government ass. They have a plan - it's not a perfect one, but it's biblically themed enough for them to try and wrap a two and a half hour script around it.
In addition to those officially anointed to be saved (government types and rich people) there are the "regular guy" stories we follow along with throughout the film. Included amongst these stories is that of John Cusack who through hrough a series of coincidences that would make Dickens blush and movie star luck finds out about the apocalypse (partially from Woody Harrelson in his 2nd best role of the year) and tries to save his extended family. Which includes of course his cute kids, ex-wife and her new husband. Bet you can guess how that turns out...
The film makes a half hearted swipe at the "big questions." Such as 'How will mankind react?', 'Is there a solution to stop the disaster?', and will Oliver Platt once again play a character marginalized in the final moments of the film? All to be somewhat answered if you're willing to commit 2.5 hours of your time. Though frankly, mostly it's about watching stuff blow up / disintegrate while we're encouraged to worry about 3-4 people surviving as we watch millions die around them. The caring about all of them is a hard sell at times when one of them is Amanda Peet.
It's a technically well made film, with a goofy script that the actors try to play straight - mostly to comic effect. The special effects are quite good and while I was admittedly laughing as the ex-husband with no flying experience piloted a plane out of California while dodging falling buildings I did stop to acknowledge it was realistic looking lunacy. Almost all of it is pretty darn predictable. Right down to the scientist's inevitable relationship with the President's daughter in true Love Boat "love for Isaac" episode fashion. I am impressed though that this may be the first end of the world disaster film with a hook at the end for a sequel (wherein what remains of the world super powers head off to re-exploit Africa with due to their imperialist leanings and possible technical dominance).
At times though the viewing experience was akin to putting your head in a bucket and having people kick it for two and a half hours only to have it fall off periodically so you can wonder out-loud, "is that Danny Glover playing the president?" Didn't they get the memo that sci-fi is now moving on to female presidents?
All said though I liked it more than I thought I would - though admittedly went in with sub basement expectations. One could do worse than seeing 2012 - I'm surprised to see myself write. I just wish the'd given this one to Werner Herzog - he might have turned in a true masterpiece. There's a point towards the end that I felt exhibited a dire need for random iguanas. Oh - and perhaps Jeff Goldblum and his alien fighting Mac laptop. Especially when the guys next to me punctuated an on screen speech with their own conclusion of "this will be our Independence Day." (which for the record was way better than the script's line)
Outside of the film itself - Someday I'd almost like to see Oliver Platt in a film where people actually listen to him. Though I'm not really sure if I feel bad for him or I'm channeling feelings for Bill Richardson when I say that.
Screening notes: this was a huge screening in terms of turnout. Was very skeptical about making it in once I saw the line. But thanks to TVOROnFilm who both provided the invite and good company on the queue everything worked out.
Almost forgot some other fun things in the film. Such as when Cusack reprises a line from Say Anything asking his wife if she remembered what having fun was. And the ability to get product placements in for both bed wetting aids for young kids AND Bentley motors into the same film. I could go on and on - but I'm going to force myself to stop here.
First off, I think it has to be said that it's possible you might like this movie a lot more if one's a big soccer fan. Overall I'm positive on it but it's not the sort of film that I think will leave me with a strong lasting impression. Ostensibly it's a "sports" film but there's a twist in that very little soccer is played on screen. It's really more about the personality of a famous coach, how that personality in almost his undoing and his lifelong relationship with his assistant/secret weapon without whom he seemed prone to tragic failure.
Brian Clough was initially a coach of smaller time soccer teams with a passion for the big time. With the help of his assistant coach he enjoys smashing success managing to move up to the first division and win there. Through flashback we learn about some of his formative experiences - most significantly perceiving himself as slighted by the coach of Leeds United during a cross division match. We follow along as he often lets his obsession with proving himself against this coach by beating Leeds get the better of him. Eventually he takes a job coaching them himself - a time seemingly devoted to telling them how much he despises their style of play. An interesting motivational strategy if I do say so myself. Loud, and extremely sure of himself he may have been a celebrity ahead of his time, but for a variety of reasons you can see plainly he's guaranteed to rub the Leeds United club the wrong way. Whether he'll figure it out in time and if not how he'll realize where his true strengths lie form the "drama" of the story. I found Cloughs likable even though he's clearly flawed. Not knowing the history involved I was curious where things were going to end up. I enjoyed the performances and the sense of the period the movie effectively portrayed. So overall a solid, interesting film. Just not one I feel especially inspired to write more about tonight...
A compelling film that kept my attention focused even though what was happening on screen made me consistently want to look away. Or apologize to the characters on behalf of "humanity." The film follows two people in their struggle to make a living with dignity. The first is a Ukrainian woman. A nurse by training, she's consistently shortchanged on her pay and forced to look elsewhere for money. After a painful attempt at online web cam porn she moves to Austria in search of better paid, but less skilled work than she's capable of. The second main character is a younger working class Austrian with similarly bleak job prospect. After trying a few different gigs with spectacular lack of success he eventually takes a job driving a truck across the border into the Ukraine. Even the trucking job isn't a good match, though partially that's because of his differing views of life with his partner (and stepfather). It's not an easy job when you're forced to watch your new "Dad" amuse himself by using the almighty power of the euro to humiliate the women they meet.
The camera is unflinching in what at times feels like a documentary as it captures one degradation after another. Only the characters ability to endure without seeming completely crushed makes it watchable. I've read the two leads are not professional actors - though I'd not have guessed as such.
The sexually focused scenes were some of the most unpleasant takes on the subject I've seen since "Eyes Wide Shut" (though it's clearly intentional in this film and debatable as to intent in the other). While often painful each shot of the movie appears meticulously thought out. The opening shot following the nurse as she walks to work contrasting the beautiful snow with a backdrop of smoke belching nuclear reactors is beautiful as well as evocative of some of the films themes. As presented you're free to leave with your own thoughts about the power imbalance between old and new Europe. Just not likely to conclude that the folks in this story are doing especially well by it. And there's no way it's not going to at least make you think a bit about their world.
The film is on the long side (2 hrs, 15 min) and slowly paced. But I felt more that it was unrushed than too long. Depending on your mood though you may see it differently.
A journalist heartbroken by the loss of his wife to another man goes looking for adventure. To him that means trying to into Iraq to do some reporting on the post war environment. In Kuwait he meets a slightly off kilter version of George Clooney. He claims to be a psychic spy, part of an army program started after Vietnam to explore paranormal means of warfare. It's based on a non-fiction books alleging to explore the subject in more detail.
Before press started appearing for this film I hadn't heard of the book from which the film is derived. Though off and on I've read stories about the government experimenting with "remote sensing" - visualizing a scene with accuracy somewhere else in the world through special mental powers. Sorta one lone gunman short of an X-Files episode stuff. Sounded interesting enough and when the film opens with the hilarious yet thought provoking title card "More of this is true than you would believe" seemed were looking good. The film is very funny at times, but lacks both the depth and a story arc that would have made it unforgettable. What we're left with is several great actors having a blast, some good laughs, and the odd conflicting sense at the end of "that seemed a bit long" and "is that it?" I do recommend the film, it's just not as terrific as it seems like it could/should be.
Ewan McGregor plays the journalist in question - and approaches the role largely straight. Some folks joked he's in the film only to at some point ask the Clooney character to clarify his description of these psychic warrior with the question, "what's a jedi warrior?" But although he comes across was way naive he does a reasonable job - though as mainly glue in the story doesn't have the best role of the bunch.
Kevin Spacey is well cast with his best role since the robot in Moon as the Yoko Ono / jerk of the "New Earth Warriors." He also gets one of the best lines in the film - congratulating a newly married couple with, "shame it doesn't work out." He's been recruited into the program having met another participant at "a spoon bending party." His skills turn out to be as dubious as those of Uri Geller. Though as in the Bush administration for folks in the the army's psychic division belief seems to be more important than facts. So of course he's upwardly mobile.
The flashbacks to the program's creation under the leadership of Jeff Bridges (seemingly reprising his character"The Dude" in uniform) are by far the best part of the movie. Especially the Gymkata style montage that tracks his immersion into new age culture after Vietnam as he defines the requirements for the paranormally inspired troops). The best part of the story is clearly in the past - and most of the humor as well. Not to mention probably the most random Angela Lansbury reference ever committed to film.
In the "present" - McGregor meets up with Clooney and traipses through the Iraqi desert in the mission driven part of the film. Clooney delivers a very funny, carefully unhinged performance. It's been a while so I may be misremembering but his presence and the weird feel reminded me of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. So what's the problem? Basically everyone individually is good, the filming is fine, and it's a damn intriguing subject. It's just that script is perhaps a little less satirically sharp than I expected. That combined with the mishmash ending and a few slow spots left it not quite being all it could be. A phrase incidentally credited to The Dude in the film. I do think it's worth catching, eventually - at least on video. Just lower your expectations a bit and you'll be fine. Though if you get a chance to see it in the theater it's not going to likely be a choice you kick yourself for.
In case you're curious the title comes from the "dark side" technique the men try when they come under Spacey's command. The goal is to stare so intently at a goat that you stop its heart. You can almost see how such a group might have been reactivated in the search for Bin Laden. Almost makes as much sense as invading the wrong country.
Screening note: saw this courtesy of SIFF. Thanks to them the screening had two very special guests in attendance. No, none of the human actors, but actual goats, who I assume were not told too much about the film's themes beforehand. They were residents of the New Moon Farm Goat Rescue Sanctuary. I believe the sanctuary wanted to get the word out about their good work for assistance/donations. Or perhaps they were just tired of only getting web traffic from lost Twihards searching for the other New Moon. Regardless, turns out a goat in a movie theater is just as cute as a goat anywhere else.
Andrew Bujalski one of the kings of mumblecore has created a simple little movie that just follows folks existing through a series of time. The "story" gives us a chance to follow along as twins, one in a wheelchair one not, deal with parents, problems and make life decisions. We're plopped directly into the middle of the story and are forced to play catchup for the first 30 minutes or so. Or at least I was. And not just because I had a hard time following some of the dialog. I'd blame that on the film - but this seems to happen so often to me at Northwest Film Forum that I'm not sure if I should really blame this on the whole Mumblecore things or not. Regardless, eventually you start to get a sense (understanding is too strong a word) for what may have gone on before the camera started. I don't actually think that's a bad thing - as it feels far more natural and provides a positive challenge to understand the characters more than a very traditional narrative would. I sort of like that there's not a need shown to explain each and every aspect of their lives to the audience.
I could talk a bit about what they're doing and what they're up to. But too much detail is going to really take away from sorting through it all and forming your own opinion. One co-owns a store and is dealing with a difficult business partner, the other seems a bit more adrift and is looking for work. Will the scenes we see playing out amount to something huge in their lives, a pivot around which they'll be successful or failures, or sound and fury signifying nothing? If you need to know the answer to that when you leave the cinema then may not be your film. It's more a chance to peek into their lives as a voyeur and draw your own conclusions. For what it was I enjoyed the experience, liked the characters and felt my brain was engaged.
Though I've got to admit, I didn't even realize they were twins (let alone sisters) for a while. If you're not accepting of a bit of confusion - really just don't go. And if you must go, avoid turning to your partner to ask about the character's relationships. They probably aren't 100% sure either.
I'd intended originally to see this movie at the Telluride film festival where it premiered. On the plus side there was an extended Q&A available with the film's star Viggo Mortensen. On the negative I figured there was going to be a huge crowd and I didn't want to end the festival on a downer film. So I decided to wait. On Thursday I lucked into a screening during the day courtesy of SIFF.
The film is set in a post apocalyptic America. The reason for the world dying is unclear, and the specifics aren't really all that important. Almost all animals have died and vegetation is on its way out too. Surviving humans have no electricity, no technology and only the food that has survived since the disaster. The worst instincts of human survival have set in and people are resorting to cannibalism to feed themselves. The strong are victimizing the weak and the concept of "being good" seems to be the stuff of legend. Into this universe comes "The Man" who is on the road South to warmer climates with his son in tow. Over time via flashback the birth of the son and the fate of his wife (Charlize Theron) are explained.
The trailer makes it look as if it's an action adventure sort of thing. It's really not. Much slower paste, and most of the horror (with some exceptions) comes from the ever present fear/paranoia that's haunting everyone. Part of the man's training of his son is on what to do to survive, but at the same time he's nearly constantly also encouraging him not to be afraid to kill himself if he's about to be captured (and presumably eaten). It's a desolate world they live in, and human contact is few and far between. When interaction does occur it's always colored by deep (and reasonable) mistrust of anyone who is not family. More of the film is about this tension than "action" sequences of the sort in the trailer. Come to think about it it's possible that every action sequence is in the trailer.
I haven't read the book the film is based on. Many who've both read the book and seen the film suggest the onscreen version suffers in comparison. Perhaps then it's lucky I'm coming to this material fresh. Given some of the conversations I've had with folks who had seen it I went with not highest of expectations. No avoiding the fact. This is a grim movie - but it's well made with strong performances by Mortensen and the boy who plays his son (they're in practically every scene). The father tries to maintain hope of a sort in his son that they're going to a better place. Though once you take a look at their environment you rapidly begin to reset your expectations about how positive things could possibly end up. My HS English teacher never got tired of saying something about the road being a metaphor for life (or was that the river in Huck Finn?). That seems to apply here and as such I watched not really with a focus on their destination but on what the journey consisted of. Not that the destination will leave you shocked - though it's possibly a bit more positive than I expected.
In summary I found it a reasonably interesting, well acted, well shot film - even though I'm not sure I really needed to see a movie about the end of the world. Probably far better in the storytelling/film sense then the upcoming 2012 blockbuster end of the world porn. And not as depressing as Precious.
Finally, does anyone know if Viggo has some sort of recent contract rider that demands Guy Pearce always appear in his films if only briefly?
Screening note: From what I could tell the main reason for this screening was to give Christian clergy in the Seattle area a chance to see this film ahead of the official release. The note I got mentioned that there'd be a post-film discussion facilitated by a pastor. Which made me wonder just how disturbing was this film going to be? But from a bit of eavesdropping before the film, and the fact they were giving out "sermon notes" (and the fact they said this) I eventually determined the purpose was to use the film as material for discussion with their congragations. I can see how the whole film could certainly be used as a discussion of morality, ethics and life/death (the film's environment almost seems like Purgatory too). Unfortunately, I didn't get to stick around for this discussion as I had to beat it back to the office. If by some miracle (joke intended) someone eventually gets a chance to hear one of the derived sermons (or was in the audience) I'd love to hear about it.
Adam Goldberg (who I still haven't fully forgiven for The Hebrew Hammer - an awesome concept that just didn't rise to the occasion) stars in this film set in the NYC art scene. The film managed to bring a level of depth that I didn't expect and my opinion of it has been evolving upwards the more I reflect on it.
Goldberg plays Adrian Jacobs, a moody self-involved experimental musician. He makes a living playing the piano in restaurants and clearly hates himself for it. His passion is the creation of what to me comes across as dreadful noise. What I suspect is more accurately supposed to be referred to as atonal music. One of his best lines is a rant at a party along the lines of "harmony was invented as a conspiracy to sell pianos." This music doesn't exactly draw rock star crowds - but that's to be expected for someone whose signature move appears to be rattling a chain in a bucket. His brother is an artist as well - a painter of relatively bland, non threatening works of abstract color that are in vogue at hotels, doctor's offices etc. He's a commercial success but longs for acceptance in the art world. Yep - the grass is always greener. They could take this path - but thankfully generally don't make it the main point of the film.
It's easy to laugh at Goldberg's performances and the film seems designed to initially encourage you to do so. And laugh you will. We meet the experimental art scene in NY when the gallery owner that manages his brother's sales attends a performance and is struck by Goldberg's work. He's invited to perform at her gallery. We get a sense as to the financial underpinnings of the scene - some money comes from "collectors" occasionally purchasing work from the very experimental main gallery, though the real money is coming from more mainstream sales of the "back room" (aka Goldber's brother's paintings). The pieces in the gallery also initially come across as laughable (for example bizarrely posed taxidermy) - though every once in a while there was something that struck me as truly interesting looking. Not that I'd want it in my living room - but this is clearly a different sort of art. There's a bunch of the standard stereotypes thrown in, most notably the rich collector who buys works he doesn't like as a financial investment or for the feeling of belonging the purchases buy him with the hip scene. There are lots of what I believe are intended laughs in the beginning from the art and the lifestyles of those involved.
Goldberg starts up a relationship with the gallery owner. But while she genuinely seems to respect his music he finds the visual art just as laughable as most folks would find his music. This creates friction with her of course. At the same time the film somehow managed to twist my thinking around where I was wondering "should I really be laughing at this" - even in the face of some of the "art" becoming so minimalist it became hard to imagine purchasing. My takeaway was that in the midst of the uncomfortable, ridiculos and occasionally ugly works there probably is some true genius mixed in. Though perhaps with quite a lot of hot air and hype mixed in. The surest sign of this for me was when Goldberg attends a tribute to one of his musical heroes. That music while clearly not danceable is interesting and impressive enough that I was able to understand what Goldberg's character is shooting for - even if he's not at all able to achieve it.
So I give the film positive marks for having me leave the film with a slightly different view than I went in with. And a few jokes about blowhard art folks who have no appreciation for past masters but no tolerance for criticism of their work is always amusing. I didn't love it - but I thought it was interesting. Clearly art is in the eye of the beholder (sorry couldn't resist). And thanks to the folks at SIFF who made this free preview available I'm glad I went. Especially as I'd wanted to catch this in Palm Springs back in January.
This is one of those films that struck me cute in the trailer but if figured it couldn't sustain. Then I read some reviews that called it mean. Given these two things it took me a while to get out to see it. And I mainly went because it was playing nearby. So I was pleasantly surprised when I found it pretty decent overall with an unexpected anti-religious streak to rival that of Religulous. Possibly the most bluntly logic vs. faith argument I've ever seen in a commercial Hollywood film. Not that it's mean spirited about it, just that it strongly takes a religion is the opiate of the people approach to things. More on that in a sec...
The film is set in a world where humans have not evolved the ability to lie. Or more accurately to utter anything untrue. Not to spare someone's feelings, not to commit fraud, not even to write an entertaining story. Apparently there's truth in the joke "it's not lying, it's a gift for fiction." The people of this world are just like us, but their movies involve watching someone read an account of historical moments. Admittedly, that may be better than some films I've seen in recent years - but overall it seems their world is is suffering. There are some flaws with the way the setup is presented in the movie- for example just because you can't lie doesn't mean you have to blurt out every feeling and embarrassing action. But having the characters do so must make the humor writing easier (and the first meeting of the film's obligatory romantic interests so much funnier).
As you'd expect, while such candor has some upsides it can also make things incredibly painful, especially if there's anything at all imperfect about you. The main character is a middle aged man (Ricky Gervais) without the body of a movie star and a job he's not exactly rising in. So his prospects are pretty grim, especially in the female companionship department. After losing his job in a moment of desperation he suddenly evolves the ability to lie. Fame and fortune quickly follow. How exactly are some of the more amusing aspects of the film.
Later in the film he accidentally creates the concept of religion (I'll leave the details to the film). At which point one of the core messages of the movie starts up - that religions were created by (possibly) well meaning people to explain the randomness of the universe and the inevitability of death. In doing so they make their point similarly to Bill Maher's earlier film but significantly change the tone of the film.
Oh, yeah - the more directly on the surface main story is his attempt to get Jennifer Garner who sort of likes him but can't get past his visual appearance. That's one of those mystifying things where she does "grow" over the course of the film. But at the same time she's so unpleasant it's hard to understand why he wants her after a while.
Overall it made me laugh, though the second half's turn while appreciating the effort (and the ability to get the film made) turned it into a lesser comedy. It's no Liar Liar companion piece is all I'm saying. Lot's of well known actors showing up in small roles gives you something to do ("hey, is that Ed Norton") if you get bored. Overall in the B- range to me. No reason to avoid it on video - that's for sure.
The Italian film series at SIFF ended on a light note with this multi-character interwoven romantic comedy. Sorta like Crash but with all the negative stuff taken out. Oh, sure there is the stalker ex-boyfriend copy threatening to injure the new boyfriend, but that as all the stories are ended on a relatively light note.
