When Batman Begins (2005) reenergized the franchise with its dark, brooding vision and Zen beginnings, it looked like the followup could be primed for even better results. The higher expectations have not only been met, but are exceeded in The Dark Knight. Featuring a diabolical performance by the late Heath Ledger, this is a terrific film that takes the franchise to darker places, and it is a milestone in comic adaptations and certain to alter the course of such films in the future.
An elaborate bank heist is engineered by the ruthless Joker who is stealing from and toying with the mobsters of Gotham City. Batman (Christian Bale), the caped crusader, watches over the city aiding police Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman). Although Batman is an outcast in society, his true identity is billionaire Bruce Wayne, Gotham’s revered benefactor. A new ‘face’ in the form of District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), has arrived to clean up crime. Dent is a supremely confident, dynamic ‘white knight’ who means business, and he is dating Wayne’s former love, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). As Wayne Enterprise’s Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) upgrades his armor and weaponry, Batman must confront the Joker, who consolidates his power and rule over Gotham’s mobs and begins to target city officials including Dent for assassination. When Dent sets himself as bait for The Joker, Batman must chase down and save the district attorney and Rachel from certain death. Meanwhile, a new villain emerges from an unlikely source. Racing against time, Batman is forced into a life and death choice, and he must decide if he should make a sacrifice that will forever change the course of Gotham’s heroic avenger.
Directed by Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins, Momento) in arguably his most accomplished work, this mature, psychological movie takes its themes seriously and weaves subplots upon subplots. For instance, how does a group of people respond when its morality and survival instincts are tested to the limit? You may be surprised and thrilled by the answers. The plot twists are so numerous, you wonder, ‘am I really watching an action picture?’ By the end, the franchise is launched into a new, uncertain direction. Bravo to the filmmakers for not playing it safe.
Whenever Ledger is onscreen, he is simply terrific. There is not one false note or boring moment as he lights up the screen. With his body language, every inflection and facial expression all working in concert to create a horrifying persona, he is so convincing, you cannot imagine that it is Heath Ledger. He is complemented, as are the other leads, with a well written script full of memorable lines. This Joker is a far cry from previous incarnations (Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson) of the clown prince of crime. When Wayne tries to fathom The Joker’s motivations, Alfred counsels him and states, “Some men want to watch the world burn.” This Joker is grounded in real evil and is thus all the more menacing. We get bits and pieces of Joker’s sordid, traumatic past, which are totally credible in explaining his origins. Essentially an urban terrorist, he threatens the innocent and causes them to live in fear, and he kills with no remorse. There is no logic to his acts, and yet he is a brilliant, clever strategist. Batman follows his own set of rules, but must he sink to Joker’s level in order to combat him?
If The Joker is like the devil, then Batman is almost a Christ-like figure, one with self doubt and who is willing to protect the innocent even if it means taking on or absorbing the sins and pain of the world around him. Christian Bale continues to impress by portraying dual characters (Bruce Wayne/Batman) effectively and playing off the likes of Freeman and Caine, who make the most of their supporting roles. Eckhart is convincing as Dent, a role much more developed and utilized than in Batman Forever. Gyllenhaal (replacing Katie Holmes) does quite well as Wayne’s former flame. Oldman is very good as Gordon which is quite the change of pace from having previously played evil villains (JFK). In fact, Oldman, Freeman, and Caine form the moral compass of the film.
With a talented cast bringing well rounded characters to the screen, Nolan keeps things grounded and never loses track of his story. A Gotham car chase and Hong Kong escape are breathtaking sequences yet wholly believable. You don’t think of anything as computer generated or overdone, which is remarkable in this age of special effects. Are you listening Michael Bay (Armageddon, Con Air)? There are several well composed shots that are iconic and haunting. The hardware is eye-catchy including the Batmobile and a scooter like none you’ve ever seen. Pacing is methodical but it seems a bit choppy and jumpy by cramming in so much narrative material into a 2.5 hour running time. The camerawork is at times quite fluid and dazzling by enhancing the mood or (in The Joker’s case) madness.
There are a couple of moments that are a bit misleading or confusing such as an assassination attempt that may have claimed a key character’s life. And the villain’s fate is sort of, how shall I put this, left hanging? But these are tiny quibbles in a film vastly richer than any comic book adaptation (Spiderman 2 and Iron Man are in this elite company) to date. Rated PG-13, this is essentially an R rated film in spirit and not for younger children. It is creepy and sustains an overall dark, violent mood throughout. Go see The Dark Knight for a multi-layered story that challenges and surprises. Go see the wonderful acting and writing led by maestro Nolan. But most of all go see a burst of genius that was Ledger’s brilliant, last hurrah.
**** of **** stars
Vertigo
Vertigo
Friday, July 25, 2008
Saturday, July 05, 2008
WALL-E Brings Pathos to Computer Animation
Pixar has produced some of the best animation in the past decade with its computer-generated features (Toy Story, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo) that have been marked by strong storylines and vivid characters. The tradition continues in an impressive way with Wall-E. This deceptively simple tale is transformed by the emotional content told almost entirely through visuals.
A polluted Earth has become uninhabitable for 700 years, and one of its only residents is Wall-E, a small robot whose solitary mission is to be a mobile, trash compactor. In his work, he also finds and collects trivial, odd artifacts of mankind’s past such as a Rubik’s cube. He comforts himself with an old video, Hello Dolly, and as he learns about humans and his yearning for love, it becomes his idyllic vision of happiness amid an insulated, dull existence. Along his travels, he comes across a unique find, a live plant! One day a spaceship lands and deposits a robot probe. Fascinated by this kindred machine, Wall-E follows and eventually befriends this unit known as Eve. Eve has a directive that will hopefully return humans to Earth if only it can sustain life, and Wall-E’s plant figures immeasurably. Eve is returned to her mother ship with Wall-E frantically chasing after his newly found love. On a spaceship acting as a living city for its machine-dependent, overweight humans, little robots are not only the caregivers, but in control. Wall-E and Eve must figure a way to return the humans to earth and find happiness even if it means making the ultimate sacrifice.
Wall-E’s innocence and childlike wonder (think E.T.), as exemplified by how he introduces himself to everyone he meets, could almost have sprung from Steven Spielberg’s imagination. It’s in the small details that enrich Wall-E as a character. He brings to mind an amalgam of past robots like Star Wars’ R2-D2 and the little robots in Silent Running, and his fears and joys are expressed through body language and squeals. When he shuts down each night to sleep, he rocks himself as a child would. He is clumsy around Eve, and when he takes her to his makeshift home of robot parts and paraphernalia, he is like a little kid. Ironically, he is the catalyst to bring the humans back home.
Writer and director, Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo), takes a huge risk by basing the film’s premise almost entirely on a song from Hello Dolly. I can’t think of an animated film that relied so much on visual storytelling. Even Fantasia and Allegro Non Troppo were collections of musical sequences not narrative features. In a way, this film is almost too sophisticated in its display and execution for little kids but is just right for adults. Remarkably, this is a tale with nary a spoken word by the principals. One has to think of silent films to approach this achievement. The operative word here is pathos like the best of Charlie Chaplin’s little tramp and, amazingly, this film earns its stripes by emoting body language, action, and sound effects. Yet most of the characters aren’t even human!
Fred Willard has an amusing small role as the corporate president. Sigourney Weaver, as the ship’s computer voice, is an inspired choice since, like Eve, she was a female hero (in the Alien movies) and had to deal with computer voices in those films. The animation is almost 3-D in its rich detail and simulated, fluid camerawork. The interior of the mother ship, the Axiom, is a futuristic view of a commercialized (think Blade Runner) city in space.
Yes, it is a thinly veiled message for all those ‘save the earth’ and ‘think green’ people, but that never detracts from the main theme of saving humanity amid a touching love story. There are moments when you think a scene could have played out a bit better, but that is minor. It is likely that Wall-E’s reputation will grow over time as a shining example of stretching the art form by challenging and trusting its audience. Bravo to the folks at Pixar for taking a chance and for entertaining and moving us.
***1/2 of **** stars (preceded by a winning short, Presto)
A polluted Earth has become uninhabitable for 700 years, and one of its only residents is Wall-E, a small robot whose solitary mission is to be a mobile, trash compactor. In his work, he also finds and collects trivial, odd artifacts of mankind’s past such as a Rubik’s cube. He comforts himself with an old video, Hello Dolly, and as he learns about humans and his yearning for love, it becomes his idyllic vision of happiness amid an insulated, dull existence. Along his travels, he comes across a unique find, a live plant! One day a spaceship lands and deposits a robot probe. Fascinated by this kindred machine, Wall-E follows and eventually befriends this unit known as Eve. Eve has a directive that will hopefully return humans to Earth if only it can sustain life, and Wall-E’s plant figures immeasurably. Eve is returned to her mother ship with Wall-E frantically chasing after his newly found love. On a spaceship acting as a living city for its machine-dependent, overweight humans, little robots are not only the caregivers, but in control. Wall-E and Eve must figure a way to return the humans to earth and find happiness even if it means making the ultimate sacrifice.
Wall-E’s innocence and childlike wonder (think E.T.), as exemplified by how he introduces himself to everyone he meets, could almost have sprung from Steven Spielberg’s imagination. It’s in the small details that enrich Wall-E as a character. He brings to mind an amalgam of past robots like Star Wars’ R2-D2 and the little robots in Silent Running, and his fears and joys are expressed through body language and squeals. When he shuts down each night to sleep, he rocks himself as a child would. He is clumsy around Eve, and when he takes her to his makeshift home of robot parts and paraphernalia, he is like a little kid. Ironically, he is the catalyst to bring the humans back home.
Writer and director, Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo), takes a huge risk by basing the film’s premise almost entirely on a song from Hello Dolly. I can’t think of an animated film that relied so much on visual storytelling. Even Fantasia and Allegro Non Troppo were collections of musical sequences not narrative features. In a way, this film is almost too sophisticated in its display and execution for little kids but is just right for adults. Remarkably, this is a tale with nary a spoken word by the principals. One has to think of silent films to approach this achievement. The operative word here is pathos like the best of Charlie Chaplin’s little tramp and, amazingly, this film earns its stripes by emoting body language, action, and sound effects. Yet most of the characters aren’t even human!
Fred Willard has an amusing small role as the corporate president. Sigourney Weaver, as the ship’s computer voice, is an inspired choice since, like Eve, she was a female hero (in the Alien movies) and had to deal with computer voices in those films. The animation is almost 3-D in its rich detail and simulated, fluid camerawork. The interior of the mother ship, the Axiom, is a futuristic view of a commercialized (think Blade Runner) city in space.
Yes, it is a thinly veiled message for all those ‘save the earth’ and ‘think green’ people, but that never detracts from the main theme of saving humanity amid a touching love story. There are moments when you think a scene could have played out a bit better, but that is minor. It is likely that Wall-E’s reputation will grow over time as a shining example of stretching the art form by challenging and trusting its audience. Bravo to the folks at Pixar for taking a chance and for entertaining and moving us.
***1/2 of **** stars (preceded by a winning short, Presto)
Monday, June 23, 2008
The Wisdom of KUNG FU PANDA
Looking for an animated film that the whole family can watch and enjoy? Then the summer has a good selection in Kung Fu Panda, a magical tale of talking animals, martial arts, eastern philosophy, and good versus evil. It is also voiced by several well known stars not the least of which is the force of nature that is Jack Black.
Panda bear Po (Jack Black) works for his father’s noodle business in ancient China but yearns for something more. His interest in martial arts leads him to being an accidental selection as the ‘chosen one’ to defend the local town from a vengeful leopard Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a former student of the wise, martial arts teacher, Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). As the ‘chosen one’, Po is given the sacred Dragon Scrolls and is trained by Shifu in the ways and technique of Kung Fu much to the consternation of the Furious Five, the current crop of warriors. Po presents the ultimate challenge both physically and mentally to Shifu until the master hits on an unorthodox idea. As Tai Lung approaches and the Furious Five attempt to defend the town, Po must learn the ways of the true warrior. As he begins to mature and learn about himself, he becomes the last line of defense.
This story nicely blends serious themes with moments of comedic fun. What is refreshing in the humor is that it is organic and timeless without resorting to pop references (as in Shrek)-no small feat. It also depicts the ancient Chinese warriors with not only martial arts prowess, but abilities to defy gravity as in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Children will find a wondrous, far away land populated by real people in the guise of animal characters. It is a believable world with real feelings of yearning, tradition, envy, and bravery.
A somewhat more subdued Jack Black does a fine job emoting and realizing the young Po. Dustin Hoffman is quite good as the wise sage, a sort of Asian Yoda (or the other way around). It’s rather hard to believe the star power behind the other voices including Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, and Seth Rogen. The movie could have worked just as well without them.
The movie actually gets better in the middle and toward the end, not that long a wait. Its basic themes of destiny and loyalty are universal. As Master Shifu says, “there are no accidents.” The animation and creative use of camera angles and zooms are breath taking at times. You kind of wish the script had just a bit more substance and this would have become a treasured classic. As it is, Kung Fu Panda is a delightful, inoffensive adventure with something for all ages.
*** of **** stars
Panda bear Po (Jack Black) works for his father’s noodle business in ancient China but yearns for something more. His interest in martial arts leads him to being an accidental selection as the ‘chosen one’ to defend the local town from a vengeful leopard Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a former student of the wise, martial arts teacher, Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). As the ‘chosen one’, Po is given the sacred Dragon Scrolls and is trained by Shifu in the ways and technique of Kung Fu much to the consternation of the Furious Five, the current crop of warriors. Po presents the ultimate challenge both physically and mentally to Shifu until the master hits on an unorthodox idea. As Tai Lung approaches and the Furious Five attempt to defend the town, Po must learn the ways of the true warrior. As he begins to mature and learn about himself, he becomes the last line of defense.
This story nicely blends serious themes with moments of comedic fun. What is refreshing in the humor is that it is organic and timeless without resorting to pop references (as in Shrek)-no small feat. It also depicts the ancient Chinese warriors with not only martial arts prowess, but abilities to defy gravity as in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Children will find a wondrous, far away land populated by real people in the guise of animal characters. It is a believable world with real feelings of yearning, tradition, envy, and bravery.
A somewhat more subdued Jack Black does a fine job emoting and realizing the young Po. Dustin Hoffman is quite good as the wise sage, a sort of Asian Yoda (or the other way around). It’s rather hard to believe the star power behind the other voices including Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, and Seth Rogen. The movie could have worked just as well without them.
The movie actually gets better in the middle and toward the end, not that long a wait. Its basic themes of destiny and loyalty are universal. As Master Shifu says, “there are no accidents.” The animation and creative use of camera angles and zooms are breath taking at times. You kind of wish the script had just a bit more substance and this would have become a treasured classic. As it is, Kung Fu Panda is a delightful, inoffensive adventure with something for all ages.
*** of **** stars
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Indiana Jones Rides Again in THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
The question that begs to be asked is if the latest installment of Indiana Jones is any good? The answer is yes, and one needn’t fret over another letdown like The Phantom Menace, which undermined the original Star Wars trilogy. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, far from perfect, gets the job done and carries on its tradition of high adventure in satisfying fashion.
In 1957 Nevada, mysterious soldiers persuade Dr. Henry ‘Indiana’ Jones Jr. (Harrison Ford) to locate an important crate amidst a large warehouse of X-Files type of treasures. A ruthless Russian, Irinia Spalko (Cate Blanchett), leads her troops in an obsessive search for a mythic, crystal skull of unknown origin that may have potential psychic powers if it is joined with other skulls hidden in a lost city in the South American jungle. Meanwhile at his college, Professor Jones meets young ‘Mutt’ Williams (Shia LaBeouf) who needs Indy’s help to rescue his mentor, Dr. Oxley, and his mom, Marion. It seems they, too, have been hunting for the skull. Pursued by Russian agents, Indiana and Mutt attempt to rescue their comrades while discovering clues about the crystal skull. During the journey, certain truths emerge, and Indy must confront his past and a former love. As Irina closes in, who will survive when the enigmatic skulls are reunited and unleash their hidden, unworldly power?
The screenplay by David Koepp cobbles previous stories and ideas from a battery of writers. While it has more heart than any Lara Croft film by far, one wishes that original writer, Lawrence Kasdan, had a final rewrite to punch up the emotional content to compliment the action. I do like, however, that they tease you with the possibility that Mutt may or may not be Indy’s son and if Indy will ‘get the girl’. Bravo to the filmmakers for confronting these issues head on by story’s end.
Harrison Ford may be 65 years of age, but he looks great and does most of his own stunts! (To put things in perspective, John Wayne was 62 in True Grit and Cary Grant was 59 in Charade.) Shia LaBeouf is more than able as his new sidekick with a greased comb and an attitude, and Karen Allen is most welcome as Marion, able to take charge and hold her own. Cate Blanchett is appropriately sinister and alluring as the deadly Irina. Unfortunately other talents are not well developed, leaving in its lurch, John Hurt as Oxley, Jim Broadbent as a college dean, and Ray Winstone as an older sidekick with his own agenda.
While Raiders of the Lost Ark had countless, memorable action scenes, this film has a few of its own. There are the usual barrage of bloodless shootouts, fistfights, and bits of customary nastiness with bugs, snakes and skeletons not to mention the exciting climax where you just know the greedy, evil commies will get theirs. Naturally, some of the scenes strain credibility in being quite implausible and unrealistic (as in plunging from a waterfall or two or three), but it is all in good fun. The hair raising escapes are like a well oiled machine particularly in an exhilarating but impossible chase in the jungle as major characters leap among three, count ‘em three moving vehicles! And if it feels like parts of the story seem familiar, keep in mind that the filmmakers are paying homage to the Saturday morning serials of their youth. Other referenced movies come to mind like Forbidden Planet and Journey to the Center of the Earth.
Production values are top notch. Veteran composer John Williams rekindles the musical cues, and Michael Kahn’s editing pushes the limits of nail biting suspense. A couple scenes look a little sloppy and don’t come off as well as they should, and although there are some slow spots with confusing dialogue and murky exposition, there is always a marvelously choreographed action scene waiting around the corner. For example, the opening sequence is vintage Indiana Jones as Spielberg builds up a grand entrance for his star and puts him in immediate peril. Later, there is an anxious moment when Jones is about to be caught in an atomic blast and must use his wits to survive. What has always made the character so likeable is that he is fallible. Even Indy’s mistakes and hiccups can be humorous and exciting, as evidenced in a sinking pit where he must come to grips with a childhood fear.
Lucas and Spielberg proved that lightning could strike three times in a row in the 1980’s (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, and The Last Crusade), and now they have done it a fourth time. I put this film on par with the later chapters. Viewers who keep in mind how the 1950’s timeline lends itself to more science fiction elements, will understand that, while every Indy saga ends with a supernatural event, this one is grounded in the ‘watch the skies’ frame of mind. It is this conceit that may throw off a few fans of the older films.
The door is left open for more adventures, but the film does wrap things in a neat bow. You wish that they would just leave well enough alone and gracefully end on a high note. Indeed, the last, parting shots are terrific for fans. As with the previous chapters, this film is likely to improve with repeated viewings. I seem to recall liking the first one and then savoring it considerably more over time. Indiana Jones ages like fine wine. Drink up.
*** of **** stars
In 1957 Nevada, mysterious soldiers persuade Dr. Henry ‘Indiana’ Jones Jr. (Harrison Ford) to locate an important crate amidst a large warehouse of X-Files type of treasures. A ruthless Russian, Irinia Spalko (Cate Blanchett), leads her troops in an obsessive search for a mythic, crystal skull of unknown origin that may have potential psychic powers if it is joined with other skulls hidden in a lost city in the South American jungle. Meanwhile at his college, Professor Jones meets young ‘Mutt’ Williams (Shia LaBeouf) who needs Indy’s help to rescue his mentor, Dr. Oxley, and his mom, Marion. It seems they, too, have been hunting for the skull. Pursued by Russian agents, Indiana and Mutt attempt to rescue their comrades while discovering clues about the crystal skull. During the journey, certain truths emerge, and Indy must confront his past and a former love. As Irina closes in, who will survive when the enigmatic skulls are reunited and unleash their hidden, unworldly power?
The screenplay by David Koepp cobbles previous stories and ideas from a battery of writers. While it has more heart than any Lara Croft film by far, one wishes that original writer, Lawrence Kasdan, had a final rewrite to punch up the emotional content to compliment the action. I do like, however, that they tease you with the possibility that Mutt may or may not be Indy’s son and if Indy will ‘get the girl’. Bravo to the filmmakers for confronting these issues head on by story’s end.
Harrison Ford may be 65 years of age, but he looks great and does most of his own stunts! (To put things in perspective, John Wayne was 62 in True Grit and Cary Grant was 59 in Charade.) Shia LaBeouf is more than able as his new sidekick with a greased comb and an attitude, and Karen Allen is most welcome as Marion, able to take charge and hold her own. Cate Blanchett is appropriately sinister and alluring as the deadly Irina. Unfortunately other talents are not well developed, leaving in its lurch, John Hurt as Oxley, Jim Broadbent as a college dean, and Ray Winstone as an older sidekick with his own agenda.
While Raiders of the Lost Ark had countless, memorable action scenes, this film has a few of its own. There are the usual barrage of bloodless shootouts, fistfights, and bits of customary nastiness with bugs, snakes and skeletons not to mention the exciting climax where you just know the greedy, evil commies will get theirs. Naturally, some of the scenes strain credibility in being quite implausible and unrealistic (as in plunging from a waterfall or two or three), but it is all in good fun. The hair raising escapes are like a well oiled machine particularly in an exhilarating but impossible chase in the jungle as major characters leap among three, count ‘em three moving vehicles! And if it feels like parts of the story seem familiar, keep in mind that the filmmakers are paying homage to the Saturday morning serials of their youth. Other referenced movies come to mind like Forbidden Planet and Journey to the Center of the Earth.
Production values are top notch. Veteran composer John Williams rekindles the musical cues, and Michael Kahn’s editing pushes the limits of nail biting suspense. A couple scenes look a little sloppy and don’t come off as well as they should, and although there are some slow spots with confusing dialogue and murky exposition, there is always a marvelously choreographed action scene waiting around the corner. For example, the opening sequence is vintage Indiana Jones as Spielberg builds up a grand entrance for his star and puts him in immediate peril. Later, there is an anxious moment when Jones is about to be caught in an atomic blast and must use his wits to survive. What has always made the character so likeable is that he is fallible. Even Indy’s mistakes and hiccups can be humorous and exciting, as evidenced in a sinking pit where he must come to grips with a childhood fear.
Lucas and Spielberg proved that lightning could strike three times in a row in the 1980’s (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, and The Last Crusade), and now they have done it a fourth time. I put this film on par with the later chapters. Viewers who keep in mind how the 1950’s timeline lends itself to more science fiction elements, will understand that, while every Indy saga ends with a supernatural event, this one is grounded in the ‘watch the skies’ frame of mind. It is this conceit that may throw off a few fans of the older films.
The door is left open for more adventures, but the film does wrap things in a neat bow. You wish that they would just leave well enough alone and gracefully end on a high note. Indeed, the last, parting shots are terrific for fans. As with the previous chapters, this film is likely to improve with repeated viewings. I seem to recall liking the first one and then savoring it considerably more over time. Indiana Jones ages like fine wine. Drink up.
*** of **** stars
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Downey Triumphant as the Invincible IRON MAN
Although not as well known as other Marvel Comic icons as Spiderman or X Men, this film adaptation of Iron Man works due to the sure hand of director Jon Favreau (Swingers, Elf) who cleverly mixes action, drama, humor, and a totally winning performance by comeback actor, Robert Downey Jr. In terms of a first film showing a superhero’s origin, it is the one of the best to date.
Billionaire industrialist Tony Stark is a weapons manufacturer whose cavalier attitude and playboy appetite are matched only by his sheer genius in technology. On a tour of his weaponry in Afghanistan, he is wounded in the heart by shrapnel and captured by rebels who order him to build a super weapon of mass destruction. With the help of another civilian, Stark changes up and instead builds a powerful suit of high tech armor that sustains his weak heart and enables his escape but not without a price. Guilt ridden and traumatized by his experiences, Stark has a literal change of heart and alters the militaristic direction of his company much to the chagrin of his elder partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). A couple of friends, his assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and military liaison, Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard), stick loyally by Stark’s side despite his earlier predilections. Intent on improving and perfecting his Iron Man suit, Stark experiments with its design and takes dangerous risks. His mission is to utilize his Iron Man technology to fight the evil in the world, starting first in Afghanistan. When the truth comes out about what Stark Industries is really doing with weapons sales, it leads to a deeper conspiracy and a battle of titans as Iron Man meets an old foe.
Buffed and in terrific physical condition, Downey is quite convincing as the prodigy whose initial devil-may-care attitude must undergo a transformation. (It is not without irony that the role and the person should merge in light of Downey’s real life, personal setbacks.) The movie rests on his shoulders, and he makes the most of his role. Bridges is great at playing a businessman with a sinister agenda. Paltrow strikes sparks with Downey and you yearn for more scenes with the two of them. The same goes for Howard as Stark’s best friend. What is a little hard to swallow is how Pepper and Rhodes could put up with such a pompous persona in the early goings.
Favreau has an amusing bit part as an assistant to Stark. Further, the robotic voice that assists Stark in his technological work is actor Paul Bettany! And yes, Stan (the man) Lee, one of the comic book creators, has a fleeting cameo.
The scenes, which show Stark developing his updated Iron Man suit and test-driving it, are realistic and at times amusing. The Iron Man suit 2.0 is a marvel of construction and is the coolest thing imaginable. There is no way that this concept of a hero could have been rendered as convincingly even a few years ago. My how movie magic has caught up with these stories finally and done them justice. It is clever how the film incorporates the original Iron Man design (which brings to mind a sort of poor man’s version of Robocop) and progresses through its more modernized version. Pure fans of the original comic (including myself) are thrilled at the reverence paid to the classic beginnings.
There is an aerial battle between American fighter jets and Iron Man that is a lot of fun. The special effects, while being among the most realistic and cleverly used in any action film, are well integrated with the strong narrative. Despite the eye candy, you get the feeling that the filmmakers never lose sight of what the story is about and how to stay focused on the characters. The pacing is excellent.
In terms of subplots, the Afghan conflict hits close to home with the current war in Iraq. Also, the secret government agency S.H.I.E.L.D. gets an introduction as support for Stark and figures to have a bigger role in future Marvel movies; don’t forget to stay until the credits are done for a bonus. The film has an edge about it in dialogue and theme, and is better for it especially in the final scene, which is surprising and has implications for future adventures.
I would put this film on par with Batman Begins and Spiderman, not bad company. While not as emotionally stirring as the best moments of X Men United or Spiderman 2, this is only the first of what likely will be a long running franchise. If the sequel can maintain the same quality as this effort, we could be in for the best superhero movie yet! And lest there be any doubt about Favreau’s ability to take on comic heroes, don’t worry; he understands what they mean and how to do them justice. He ‘get’s it’!
***1/2 of **** stars
Billionaire industrialist Tony Stark is a weapons manufacturer whose cavalier attitude and playboy appetite are matched only by his sheer genius in technology. On a tour of his weaponry in Afghanistan, he is wounded in the heart by shrapnel and captured by rebels who order him to build a super weapon of mass destruction. With the help of another civilian, Stark changes up and instead builds a powerful suit of high tech armor that sustains his weak heart and enables his escape but not without a price. Guilt ridden and traumatized by his experiences, Stark has a literal change of heart and alters the militaristic direction of his company much to the chagrin of his elder partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). A couple of friends, his assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and military liaison, Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard), stick loyally by Stark’s side despite his earlier predilections. Intent on improving and perfecting his Iron Man suit, Stark experiments with its design and takes dangerous risks. His mission is to utilize his Iron Man technology to fight the evil in the world, starting first in Afghanistan. When the truth comes out about what Stark Industries is really doing with weapons sales, it leads to a deeper conspiracy and a battle of titans as Iron Man meets an old foe.
Buffed and in terrific physical condition, Downey is quite convincing as the prodigy whose initial devil-may-care attitude must undergo a transformation. (It is not without irony that the role and the person should merge in light of Downey’s real life, personal setbacks.) The movie rests on his shoulders, and he makes the most of his role. Bridges is great at playing a businessman with a sinister agenda. Paltrow strikes sparks with Downey and you yearn for more scenes with the two of them. The same goes for Howard as Stark’s best friend. What is a little hard to swallow is how Pepper and Rhodes could put up with such a pompous persona in the early goings.
Favreau has an amusing bit part as an assistant to Stark. Further, the robotic voice that assists Stark in his technological work is actor Paul Bettany! And yes, Stan (the man) Lee, one of the comic book creators, has a fleeting cameo.
The scenes, which show Stark developing his updated Iron Man suit and test-driving it, are realistic and at times amusing. The Iron Man suit 2.0 is a marvel of construction and is the coolest thing imaginable. There is no way that this concept of a hero could have been rendered as convincingly even a few years ago. My how movie magic has caught up with these stories finally and done them justice. It is clever how the film incorporates the original Iron Man design (which brings to mind a sort of poor man’s version of Robocop) and progresses through its more modernized version. Pure fans of the original comic (including myself) are thrilled at the reverence paid to the classic beginnings.
There is an aerial battle between American fighter jets and Iron Man that is a lot of fun. The special effects, while being among the most realistic and cleverly used in any action film, are well integrated with the strong narrative. Despite the eye candy, you get the feeling that the filmmakers never lose sight of what the story is about and how to stay focused on the characters. The pacing is excellent.
In terms of subplots, the Afghan conflict hits close to home with the current war in Iraq. Also, the secret government agency S.H.I.E.L.D. gets an introduction as support for Stark and figures to have a bigger role in future Marvel movies; don’t forget to stay until the credits are done for a bonus. The film has an edge about it in dialogue and theme, and is better for it especially in the final scene, which is surprising and has implications for future adventures.
I would put this film on par with Batman Begins and Spiderman, not bad company. While not as emotionally stirring as the best moments of X Men United or Spiderman 2, this is only the first of what likely will be a long running franchise. If the sequel can maintain the same quality as this effort, we could be in for the best superhero movie yet! And lest there be any doubt about Favreau’s ability to take on comic heroes, don’t worry; he understands what they mean and how to do them justice. He ‘get’s it’!
***1/2 of **** stars
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Oscar Predictions for 2007
OK, I admit to having limited viewings of the nominees for 2007 so I will base my picks on what I did see and also make an educated guess. I confess to having only seen the best picture nominees and few of the other nominated films.
PICTURE-Atonement might have won in the past, but this kind of film doesn’t win anymore. There Will Be Blood is hailed as a Citizen Kane of sorts but it worked for some and really turned off others. Juno is that little film that could but, like Little Miss Sunshine from year’s past, won’t make it here. Michael Clayton is wonderful but its nominations are award in itself for this kind of film. I can get past its abrupt ending and admire No Country for Old Men (think The Departed which had an unsatisfying end) which should win.
DIRECTOR-Coen brothers get their dues for No Country for Old Men.
ACTOR-Daniel Day-Lewis towers above them all.
ACTRESS-I will stick my neck out even though Julie Christie is the favorite; I will go with my heart and pick upset winner Marion Cotillard’s knockout job in La Vie en Rose.
SUPPORTING ACTOR-Javier Bardem period.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS-toughest, most unpredictable category….Tilda Swinton could get the consolation award for Michael Clayton
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-Juno!
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-No Country for Old Men
The rest of the tech categories should evenly split such films as Transformers, Sweeney Todd, Atonement, Bourne Ultimatum, and La Vie en Rose.
ANIMATED-Ratatouille
SONG-Once gets its just due
SCORE-Atonement
MAKEUP-La Vie en Rose
VISUAL EFFECTS-Transformers
EDITING-Bourne Ultimatum should win in the tradition of Bullitt and all great action films.
CINEMATOGRAPHY-Atonement
ART DIRECTION-Sweeney Todd
FOREIGN FILM-Counterfeiters
COSTUME-Sweeney Todd
SOUND MIXING-Bourne Ultimatum
SOUND EDITING-Bourne Ultimatum
DOCUMENTARY-Sicko
Have not seen any of the short subject so I won’t hazard a guess.
The totals award count should go to No Country for Old Men with at least 4 awards.
ENJOY!
PICTURE-Atonement might have won in the past, but this kind of film doesn’t win anymore. There Will Be Blood is hailed as a Citizen Kane of sorts but it worked for some and really turned off others. Juno is that little film that could but, like Little Miss Sunshine from year’s past, won’t make it here. Michael Clayton is wonderful but its nominations are award in itself for this kind of film. I can get past its abrupt ending and admire No Country for Old Men (think The Departed which had an unsatisfying end) which should win.
DIRECTOR-Coen brothers get their dues for No Country for Old Men.
ACTOR-Daniel Day-Lewis towers above them all.
ACTRESS-I will stick my neck out even though Julie Christie is the favorite; I will go with my heart and pick upset winner Marion Cotillard’s knockout job in La Vie en Rose.
SUPPORTING ACTOR-Javier Bardem period.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS-toughest, most unpredictable category….Tilda Swinton could get the consolation award for Michael Clayton
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-Juno!
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-No Country for Old Men
The rest of the tech categories should evenly split such films as Transformers, Sweeney Todd, Atonement, Bourne Ultimatum, and La Vie en Rose.
ANIMATED-Ratatouille
SONG-Once gets its just due
SCORE-Atonement
MAKEUP-La Vie en Rose
VISUAL EFFECTS-Transformers
EDITING-Bourne Ultimatum should win in the tradition of Bullitt and all great action films.
CINEMATOGRAPHY-Atonement
ART DIRECTION-Sweeney Todd
FOREIGN FILM-Counterfeiters
COSTUME-Sweeney Todd
SOUND MIXING-Bourne Ultimatum
SOUND EDITING-Bourne Ultimatum
DOCUMENTARY-Sicko
Have not seen any of the short subject so I won’t hazard a guess.
The totals award count should go to No Country for Old Men with at least 4 awards.
ENJOY!
MICHAEL CLAYTON and His Conscience
Tony Gilroy, who has scripted all three Jason Bourne adaptations recently and helped revive the spy genre, has his directorial debut of his script in Michael Clayton, and the results are nothing short of spectacular with a story that harkens back to the conspiracy laden, morality plays of the 1970’s and passionate acting to boot by a strong cast.
Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a fixer of problems for a leading law firm which experiences a crisis as its leading legal mind, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has a breakdown as he defends an industrial giant, U-North, from a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. U-North’s corporate counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) grows worried and later realizes that Edens may have some other agenda in mind, a trump card of sorts, that may threaten U-North, and she orders a couple of men to eliminate the problem. Add to this Clayton’s own woes as he owes loan sharks big money. As Clayton attempts to help Edens, a tragedy occurs which reverberates with Clayton’s own values and tests his resolve to delve deeper into an insidious world of corporate greed and murder. How far he is willing to go to save his own skin or find justice even if it risks his well being brings him to a defining point in his life.
You know this movie has a high minded agenda and stamp of quality when some of the producers include Steven Soderbergh (Erin Brockovich), Sydney Pollack (Absence of Malice), Anthony Minghella (The English Patient), and Clooney (Syriana) himself. Production values from camerawork to music are all topflight. Gilroy proves a sure-handed director and the film feels like the work of a veteran director of thrillers in the mode of The Insider or any John Grisham adaptation. like The Firm.
Clooney does a very good job as Clayton, a man who solves problems for a law firm. A smart, talented man who knows the legal business, he also is human with a mysterious past. He is far from perfect with shortcomings including a gambling problem and debt, which makes him more identifiable to the audience. Tom Wilkinson (In the Bedroom) is quite convincing with his American accent as the legal giant who has apparently lost his mind (like Bulworth or Network’s Howard Beale), and Tilda Swinton’s company woman, is so good, you wish there were more of her. Swinton’s talent is on the rise after such films as The Deep End. Sydney Pollack has been displaying his acting chops lately and proves to be equally adept at character roles (Tootsie, Eyes Wide Shut) as he is at directing.
The film is quite strong and when it reaches its bravura, concluding scene, it rises to the occasion and elevates the plot to lofty heights and rarefied air. It is a supremely crowd pleasing moment and cinches Michael Clayton as not only an interesting thriller and mystery, but an intelligent, literate morality play highlighting a talented writer now director and its ever shining star.
***1/2 of **** stars
Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a fixer of problems for a leading law firm which experiences a crisis as its leading legal mind, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has a breakdown as he defends an industrial giant, U-North, from a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. U-North’s corporate counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) grows worried and later realizes that Edens may have some other agenda in mind, a trump card of sorts, that may threaten U-North, and she orders a couple of men to eliminate the problem. Add to this Clayton’s own woes as he owes loan sharks big money. As Clayton attempts to help Edens, a tragedy occurs which reverberates with Clayton’s own values and tests his resolve to delve deeper into an insidious world of corporate greed and murder. How far he is willing to go to save his own skin or find justice even if it risks his well being brings him to a defining point in his life.
You know this movie has a high minded agenda and stamp of quality when some of the producers include Steven Soderbergh (Erin Brockovich), Sydney Pollack (Absence of Malice), Anthony Minghella (The English Patient), and Clooney (Syriana) himself. Production values from camerawork to music are all topflight. Gilroy proves a sure-handed director and the film feels like the work of a veteran director of thrillers in the mode of The Insider or any John Grisham adaptation. like The Firm.
Clooney does a very good job as Clayton, a man who solves problems for a law firm. A smart, talented man who knows the legal business, he also is human with a mysterious past. He is far from perfect with shortcomings including a gambling problem and debt, which makes him more identifiable to the audience. Tom Wilkinson (In the Bedroom) is quite convincing with his American accent as the legal giant who has apparently lost his mind (like Bulworth or Network’s Howard Beale), and Tilda Swinton’s company woman, is so good, you wish there were more of her. Swinton’s talent is on the rise after such films as The Deep End. Sydney Pollack has been displaying his acting chops lately and proves to be equally adept at character roles (Tootsie, Eyes Wide Shut) as he is at directing.
The film is quite strong and when it reaches its bravura, concluding scene, it rises to the occasion and elevates the plot to lofty heights and rarefied air. It is a supremely crowd pleasing moment and cinches Michael Clayton as not only an interesting thriller and mystery, but an intelligent, literate morality play highlighting a talented writer now director and its ever shining star.
***1/2 of **** stars
A Bold NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Starting with the film noir hit, Blood Simple, co-directors and screenwriters, Joel and Ethan Coen have had a productive output of auteur films that range from manic comedies (O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Raising Arizona) to thoughtful crime dramas (Fargo, Millers Crossing). With their latest, No Country for Old Men, they have excelled at personal filmmaking that just misses the mark by not delivering a more pronounced ending. Under the trappings of a mystery and then chase thriller, this film is an exercise in movie making at its best while taking chances with conventional characters and plot. It also features splendid performances by Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem.
Set in 1980 after the Vietnam War, an aged sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), talks of a long line of lawmen in his family. One day, in the desert a welder named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) comes upon the remnants of a drug deal gone badly and a case of money and decides to take it. It turns out that some Mexicans are on his trail and mean business. So does a mysterious stranger, a clever, psychotic assassin, Anton (Javier Bardem). And the chase is on with Mexicans, the law, and worst of all, Anton, in pursuit. Moss sends his wife Carla to her mom’s, and he hightails it to an obscure motel. Apparently a syndicate has hired Anton to get the money and dispatch anyone who gets in the way, but Anton has other ideas and begins to eliminate not just the Mexican competition, but nearly everyone connected with him! Anton’s weapons of choice are a lethal air gun and the largest silencer rifle ever. He methodically hunts down Moss through detective work and a tracking device. You know that despite his resourcefulness, Moss is simply overmatched. Meanwhile, the syndicate hires another hitman, Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) to recover the money and eliminate Anton. All the while, Bell is adding up the clues and the growing trail of bodies to form an ominous picture of what is happening and what is to become. As much as he tries to help Moss and his wife, he cannot compete with the likes of Anton. By the end, Bell contemplates retirement knowing a killer is on the loose.
Josh Brolin really makes a strong impression as the doomed Moss. His character reminds one of a younger Kris Kristofferson. Not since Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs has there been a hideously terrifying character as Bardem’s hitman, Anton. His calm, dispassionate killer is surely inspired by past movie villains as the ones in Point Blank and The Terminator. Yet, in his own strange way, Anton has his code and motivation. He even gives his potential victims a second chance based on random luck. And he is most unforgiving if he is crossed.
There are a number of well constructed scenes to enjoy including a marvelous one at a convenience store which illustrates Anton’s manic state, and a moment in a Mexican hotel that is unbearably tense as Moss is cornered in his room by someone who could be Anton.
The cinematography by Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption) is quite effective as it illustrates a desolate, barren landscape in which this cat and mouse game is played out.
There are a couple problems with the films narrative, however. While it is good that the film attempts and mostly succeeds at being unique and offbeat, a few things are confusing like what really happens toward the end at a motel as Moss waits for his wife. What happens to the money? Some killings are off screen or suggested, and you have to make assumptions based on the context of a given scene.
The abrupt conclusion is a bit baffling; it won’t work for most audiences, and even the most ardent cinephile may need to digest the last several minutes to make sense of it. Pay attention to the film’s underlying theme. Reread the title of the film and understand that it is about the tradition of the lawmen being displaced by a new world order. Jones does a voice over at the beginning and he concludes it with a melancholy lament and recounting of a disturbing dream. If only the structure of the film could convey that more clearly, there would have been a better narrative flow to its finale. Some may call the device brilliant, but it does not work as it may have been intended. But don’t let this slip deny the pleasures of a marvelous ensemble of actors and some great camerawork. It could easily be the Coen brothers’ best work to date, and that is something to truly appreciate.
***1/2 of **** (mostly for Bardem and the terrific narrative until the unconventional, confusing ending)
Set in 1980 after the Vietnam War, an aged sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), talks of a long line of lawmen in his family. One day, in the desert a welder named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) comes upon the remnants of a drug deal gone badly and a case of money and decides to take it. It turns out that some Mexicans are on his trail and mean business. So does a mysterious stranger, a clever, psychotic assassin, Anton (Javier Bardem). And the chase is on with Mexicans, the law, and worst of all, Anton, in pursuit. Moss sends his wife Carla to her mom’s, and he hightails it to an obscure motel. Apparently a syndicate has hired Anton to get the money and dispatch anyone who gets in the way, but Anton has other ideas and begins to eliminate not just the Mexican competition, but nearly everyone connected with him! Anton’s weapons of choice are a lethal air gun and the largest silencer rifle ever. He methodically hunts down Moss through detective work and a tracking device. You know that despite his resourcefulness, Moss is simply overmatched. Meanwhile, the syndicate hires another hitman, Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) to recover the money and eliminate Anton. All the while, Bell is adding up the clues and the growing trail of bodies to form an ominous picture of what is happening and what is to become. As much as he tries to help Moss and his wife, he cannot compete with the likes of Anton. By the end, Bell contemplates retirement knowing a killer is on the loose.
Josh Brolin really makes a strong impression as the doomed Moss. His character reminds one of a younger Kris Kristofferson. Not since Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs has there been a hideously terrifying character as Bardem’s hitman, Anton. His calm, dispassionate killer is surely inspired by past movie villains as the ones in Point Blank and The Terminator. Yet, in his own strange way, Anton has his code and motivation. He even gives his potential victims a second chance based on random luck. And he is most unforgiving if he is crossed.
There are a number of well constructed scenes to enjoy including a marvelous one at a convenience store which illustrates Anton’s manic state, and a moment in a Mexican hotel that is unbearably tense as Moss is cornered in his room by someone who could be Anton.
The cinematography by Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption) is quite effective as it illustrates a desolate, barren landscape in which this cat and mouse game is played out.
There are a couple problems with the films narrative, however. While it is good that the film attempts and mostly succeeds at being unique and offbeat, a few things are confusing like what really happens toward the end at a motel as Moss waits for his wife. What happens to the money? Some killings are off screen or suggested, and you have to make assumptions based on the context of a given scene.
The abrupt conclusion is a bit baffling; it won’t work for most audiences, and even the most ardent cinephile may need to digest the last several minutes to make sense of it. Pay attention to the film’s underlying theme. Reread the title of the film and understand that it is about the tradition of the lawmen being displaced by a new world order. Jones does a voice over at the beginning and he concludes it with a melancholy lament and recounting of a disturbing dream. If only the structure of the film could convey that more clearly, there would have been a better narrative flow to its finale. Some may call the device brilliant, but it does not work as it may have been intended. But don’t let this slip deny the pleasures of a marvelous ensemble of actors and some great camerawork. It could easily be the Coen brothers’ best work to date, and that is something to truly appreciate.
***1/2 of **** (mostly for Bardem and the terrific narrative until the unconventional, confusing ending)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Oil and Family in THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Having been praised for his Altmanesque work on such multi-character and interweaving storyline films as Boogie Nights and Magnolia, Paul Thomas Anderson has set out for completely new territory, and the results, while not necessarily commercially palatable for mainstream audiences, is a unique tale of greed, power, and the loss of one’s soul in There Will Be Blood. Adapted loosely from Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil, this is truly a labor of love by Anderson, who has elicited a stunning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis.
A struggling oil miner in 1898, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), slaves away on a dig until it begins to yield oil. Years later, he raises a child as his son amid the rural setting and buys oil fields while paying little or nothing for them. One day a stranger, Paul, offers to sell his family’s land knowing there is some oil. Plainview sets forth to this property in the guise of a hunter and makes an offer to the religious family. The elder son, Paul’s brother Eli (Paul Dano), is mistrustful. Eventually Plainview gets his land, begins to pump oil, and coddles the locals in a public relations sleight of hand. Although not a religious man, he subjugates his convictions to secure needed land rights. As Eli becomes a rising force of religious zeal, Daniel becomes a wealthy oil baron. Enter a mysterious man who has family ties to Plainview, and the quest for money and power takes on another aspect that complicates matters. Plainview’s thirst for oil will stop at nothing until he is eaten away to a vindictive, monstrous self, setting the stage for a macabre reunion with an old face.
This is a slice of the industrial revolution and the horrors of quality control in keeping with author Sinclair’s The Jungle. The period setting, with its raw, forbidding environment and dangerous existence, is vividly realized. This was a time where greedy men dealt with their own kind for personal gain, and women stood their place. Its antecedents are other similarly themed films like Giant, Greed, and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, while it’s lack of warmth and stark visuals would have impressed director Stanley Kubrick. It was a time where future billionaire’s were in the making. As such it is a fascinating history and culture lesson all at once. Is this how the West was really won? Is this the darker side to Manifest Destiny?
Aside from watching Plainview’s amassing of wealth, the core relationship he has with his son, who witnesses much of his machinations, is an interesting one. Plainview at times shows paternal affection only to betray any semblance of loyalties and love for the prospect of oil. In fact, the film is filled with betrayals such as the way Plainview cheats families out of their potential wealth and a gut wrenching scene with his son on a train. It is a bleak film, but you’ve got to admire the singular vision with which Anderson and Lewis convey this character. We are fascinated by Plainview, but we don’t have to like him.
There is a scene that illustrates Plainview’s willingness to sacrifice his beliefs (or non-beliefs) in order to gain more oil fields. Set in a small church, this baptism scene is the highlight of the film and goes so over the top that it is a hoot. Further, when Plainview makes a play for land rights among sellers, his pitch becomes canned and rehearsed like a well ‘oiled’ commercial. He is a selfish con man, a liar, and a cheat. As much as you want to find something redeeming about him, it never fully emerges. He is also a most unforgiving and vengeful man in the worst way.
Former Oscar winner (My Left Foot) Lewis, like legendary actor Paul Muni, has limited his film output over the years. That he chose to do this based on Anderson’s script speaks highly of the attraction of other high profile stars (e.g. Tom Cruise in Magnolia or Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love). Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine) is pretty compelling as Eli, quite a weird, and ominous figure. The cinematography (Robert Elswit) recalls Days of Heaven. The minimalist score (Jonny Greenwood) is a bit unusual as it almost becomes an accompanying sound effect than theme.
The movie does have some impressive, opening minutes that are visual without talking. Some of the dialogue has a sadistic bite to it while the staging of scenes lends itself to a strong theatricality; despite its wide expanse of land setting, it has a claustrophobic feel. The pace of the film, which may test the audience’s patience, is quite deliberate and almost slows to a halt, but Lewis surprises and fascinates at every turn. Watch out for the bizarre ending which may perplex some viewers. Although some may not appreciate it, others will simply relish this informal history lesson in the making of a turn-of-the-century mogul as personified by an acting giant who is about to add another gold statuette to his collection.
*** of **** stars (**** for Lewis’ performance)
A struggling oil miner in 1898, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), slaves away on a dig until it begins to yield oil. Years later, he raises a child as his son amid the rural setting and buys oil fields while paying little or nothing for them. One day a stranger, Paul, offers to sell his family’s land knowing there is some oil. Plainview sets forth to this property in the guise of a hunter and makes an offer to the religious family. The elder son, Paul’s brother Eli (Paul Dano), is mistrustful. Eventually Plainview gets his land, begins to pump oil, and coddles the locals in a public relations sleight of hand. Although not a religious man, he subjugates his convictions to secure needed land rights. As Eli becomes a rising force of religious zeal, Daniel becomes a wealthy oil baron. Enter a mysterious man who has family ties to Plainview, and the quest for money and power takes on another aspect that complicates matters. Plainview’s thirst for oil will stop at nothing until he is eaten away to a vindictive, monstrous self, setting the stage for a macabre reunion with an old face.
This is a slice of the industrial revolution and the horrors of quality control in keeping with author Sinclair’s The Jungle. The period setting, with its raw, forbidding environment and dangerous existence, is vividly realized. This was a time where greedy men dealt with their own kind for personal gain, and women stood their place. Its antecedents are other similarly themed films like Giant, Greed, and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, while it’s lack of warmth and stark visuals would have impressed director Stanley Kubrick. It was a time where future billionaire’s were in the making. As such it is a fascinating history and culture lesson all at once. Is this how the West was really won? Is this the darker side to Manifest Destiny?
Aside from watching Plainview’s amassing of wealth, the core relationship he has with his son, who witnesses much of his machinations, is an interesting one. Plainview at times shows paternal affection only to betray any semblance of loyalties and love for the prospect of oil. In fact, the film is filled with betrayals such as the way Plainview cheats families out of their potential wealth and a gut wrenching scene with his son on a train. It is a bleak film, but you’ve got to admire the singular vision with which Anderson and Lewis convey this character. We are fascinated by Plainview, but we don’t have to like him.
There is a scene that illustrates Plainview’s willingness to sacrifice his beliefs (or non-beliefs) in order to gain more oil fields. Set in a small church, this baptism scene is the highlight of the film and goes so over the top that it is a hoot. Further, when Plainview makes a play for land rights among sellers, his pitch becomes canned and rehearsed like a well ‘oiled’ commercial. He is a selfish con man, a liar, and a cheat. As much as you want to find something redeeming about him, it never fully emerges. He is also a most unforgiving and vengeful man in the worst way.
Former Oscar winner (My Left Foot) Lewis, like legendary actor Paul Muni, has limited his film output over the years. That he chose to do this based on Anderson’s script speaks highly of the attraction of other high profile stars (e.g. Tom Cruise in Magnolia or Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love). Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine) is pretty compelling as Eli, quite a weird, and ominous figure. The cinematography (Robert Elswit) recalls Days of Heaven. The minimalist score (Jonny Greenwood) is a bit unusual as it almost becomes an accompanying sound effect than theme.
The movie does have some impressive, opening minutes that are visual without talking. Some of the dialogue has a sadistic bite to it while the staging of scenes lends itself to a strong theatricality; despite its wide expanse of land setting, it has a claustrophobic feel. The pace of the film, which may test the audience’s patience, is quite deliberate and almost slows to a halt, but Lewis surprises and fascinates at every turn. Watch out for the bizarre ending which may perplex some viewers. Although some may not appreciate it, others will simply relish this informal history lesson in the making of a turn-of-the-century mogul as personified by an acting giant who is about to add another gold statuette to his collection.
*** of **** stars (**** for Lewis’ performance)
Friday, February 08, 2008
ATONEMENT and the Power of Love and Lies
With the sweep of an epic and the intimacy of romance, Atonement comes across as a pretty good piece of period filmmaking until its devastating truths elevate the film to even greater heights. Joe Wright, who is becoming the torchbearer to period filmmakers, Ivory and Merchant (Room with a View), has been down this path before with his terrific Pride and Prejudice.
It is 1935 at a wealthy estate in England where two sisters contemplate life. The older sister, Cecilia (Keira Knightley), is at odds with the housekeeper’s grown son, Robbie (James McAvoy). The younger sister, Briony (Saoirse Ronan), is an impressionable teen and budding writer. Cecilia’s brother, Leon, arrives with a male friend, Paul, who takes keen interest in some children staying at the home. One evening, a passion erupts between Cecilia and Robbie that is interrupted by Briony. Later that night a girl is brutally assaulted by an unknown assailant. The subsequent allegations will have tragic consequences. The story shifts between London where Cecilia is a nurse and Dunkirk where Robbie fights to survive the early stages of World War II. The couple struggle to be reunited from afar even as a maturing Briony comes to terms with her past deeds. It is only later in life that she faces her guilt by paying tribute to the undying love of a tragic couple.
Atonement sets out to be an ambitious undertaking of love corrupted by outside forces and those from within as it spans the decades. It shows how mere words can hurt in ways that cannot be imagined. In this, the plot is not dissimilar to The Children’s Hour where a child’s words hurt deeply. The story focuses less about the horror and effects of war, and more on the purging and cleansing of sins. Briony chooses to deal with her misrepresentations and redeems herself with a final act of poetic justice (think Titanic), even if it takes a lifetime.
The film suffers a bit from confusing points of view as seen through the eyes of Briony by replaying the same scene to depict her point of view. What remains somewhat unclear are her motives. Is she jealous of the love between Cecilia and Robbie or is she making wild assumptions based on distortions?
The acting is quite good with teen Saoirse Ronan a standout as Briony. In fact, all three actresses who play Briony at various stages of life are a splendid tandem (much like the tandems in Shine or TV’s Life with Judy Garland).
Almost functioning as a Greek tragedy, the film most people will compare this to is The English Patient, which is ironic because there is a scene that has a television interviewer played by Patient’s director, Anthony Minghella! Atonement benefits from some good cinematography (Seamus McGarvey), which depicts some startling, surreal imagery especially in a tracking shot that says all that need be said of the horrifying evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk. The editing flashes back and forth to make a point or give background, and yet you wonder what is real or imagined. The musical score (Dano Marianelli) is in keeping with the dramatic mood quite nicely.
By the finale, we get to have an ending of sorts. Is it reality or the fabrication of an author’s guilt-ridden imagination? One thing is for sure: the feelings of longing and love are real. Atonement is like reading an epic romance novel with a bit of Jane Austen thrown in for good measure. As such, it’s pretty compelling.
***1/2 of **** stars (for romantics)
It is 1935 at a wealthy estate in England where two sisters contemplate life. The older sister, Cecilia (Keira Knightley), is at odds with the housekeeper’s grown son, Robbie (James McAvoy). The younger sister, Briony (Saoirse Ronan), is an impressionable teen and budding writer. Cecilia’s brother, Leon, arrives with a male friend, Paul, who takes keen interest in some children staying at the home. One evening, a passion erupts between Cecilia and Robbie that is interrupted by Briony. Later that night a girl is brutally assaulted by an unknown assailant. The subsequent allegations will have tragic consequences. The story shifts between London where Cecilia is a nurse and Dunkirk where Robbie fights to survive the early stages of World War II. The couple struggle to be reunited from afar even as a maturing Briony comes to terms with her past deeds. It is only later in life that she faces her guilt by paying tribute to the undying love of a tragic couple.
Atonement sets out to be an ambitious undertaking of love corrupted by outside forces and those from within as it spans the decades. It shows how mere words can hurt in ways that cannot be imagined. In this, the plot is not dissimilar to The Children’s Hour where a child’s words hurt deeply. The story focuses less about the horror and effects of war, and more on the purging and cleansing of sins. Briony chooses to deal with her misrepresentations and redeems herself with a final act of poetic justice (think Titanic), even if it takes a lifetime.
The film suffers a bit from confusing points of view as seen through the eyes of Briony by replaying the same scene to depict her point of view. What remains somewhat unclear are her motives. Is she jealous of the love between Cecilia and Robbie or is she making wild assumptions based on distortions?
The acting is quite good with teen Saoirse Ronan a standout as Briony. In fact, all three actresses who play Briony at various stages of life are a splendid tandem (much like the tandems in Shine or TV’s Life with Judy Garland).
Almost functioning as a Greek tragedy, the film most people will compare this to is The English Patient, which is ironic because there is a scene that has a television interviewer played by Patient’s director, Anthony Minghella! Atonement benefits from some good cinematography (Seamus McGarvey), which depicts some startling, surreal imagery especially in a tracking shot that says all that need be said of the horrifying evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk. The editing flashes back and forth to make a point or give background, and yet you wonder what is real or imagined. The musical score (Dano Marianelli) is in keeping with the dramatic mood quite nicely.
By the finale, we get to have an ending of sorts. Is it reality or the fabrication of an author’s guilt-ridden imagination? One thing is for sure: the feelings of longing and love are real. Atonement is like reading an epic romance novel with a bit of Jane Austen thrown in for good measure. As such, it’s pretty compelling.
***1/2 of **** stars (for romantics)
Monday, January 21, 2008
JUNO’S Touching, Growing Pains
An interesting phenomenon is happening slowly in Hollywood. The offspring of some of the movie industry’s best directors have begun to assert themselves with their own, distinct voices. Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation), whose father is Francis Coppola of The Godfather fame, Nick Cassavetes (The Notebook) whose father John Cassavetes pioneered independent films, and now Jason Reitman whose father is Ivan Reitman of Ghostbusters fame, have all proven that talent can be in the genes. Reitman has perfectly realized his vision of a coming-of-age drama, Juno, based on a fabulous script by newbie, Diablo Cody. This small, original film has enough intelligence and creative filmmaking to stand among bigger budgeted studio releases as among the best of 2007.
Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) is a sixteen year old high schooler whose planned sexual encounter results in an unplanned pregnancy that causes a sensation among her classmates and at home with her dad and stepmom. A smart, sassy-mouthed loner, Juno, after deliberating on whether or not to abort the unborn, takes matters in her own hands and decides to donate her baby to an adopting, yuppie couple, Mark and Vanessa. Life is not so easy as situations change suddenly, and the dynamics of Mark and Vanessa throw everything into a tailspin as Juno’s life becomes much more complicated. Wondering if couples can ever really stay together and if true love can exist, Juno makes some hard, mature choices in her life.
The movie is presented in a unique format with actual, script lines subtitling the bottom of every shot. It’s almost as if the DVD extras are being used onscreen. This device, while interesting, can be a bit annoying too. A series of ballads punctuate and underscore the narrative much like Cat Stevens did in Harold and Maude. It does enhance the story and mood. The structure of the narrative is sectioned by the seasons beginning with autumn.
High school life is portrayed in a convincing manner with the behaviors and interplay dead on target. Some individual scenes like Juno’s parents first hearing and fearing what big announcement Juno has in store for them, or the confrontation with the ultrasound technician are pretty amusing. And there are quiet, introspective moments like between Juno and her dad or with her ‘boyfriend’ Bleeker that are quite touching.
Ellen Page already made her mark with the recent Hard Candy and showed her versatility in X Men-The Last Stand, but to exhibit that rare combination of drama and humor in a believable manner is quite a feat. There is not one false note in her impressive performance. You begin to place yourself in her position and empathize through her joy and pain. The rest of the cast is strong, and each has good portions of dialogue to capitalize upon. J .K. Simmons is quickly becoming a go-to character actor as Juno’s dad, and you wish Allison Janney had a bit juicier part to fly with as the stepmom. Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman are quite good as the prospective, adoptive parents. Michael Cera (Superbad) and Olivia Thirlby make convincing schoolmates.
We discover with Juno that life can be full of unexpected surprises and twists, and it is how we deal with those events that can have a profound and lasting effect on one’s future and happiness. (I can’t wait for writer Cody’s next story.) When you think about it, the screenplay rings true throughout without being preachy or awkward; it just sounds like it could really happen. That’s what makes Juno a terrific slice of life tale, a deceptively simple story with a rich core of acting and words. Oscars love this kind of independent jewel.
***1/2 of **** stars
Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) is a sixteen year old high schooler whose planned sexual encounter results in an unplanned pregnancy that causes a sensation among her classmates and at home with her dad and stepmom. A smart, sassy-mouthed loner, Juno, after deliberating on whether or not to abort the unborn, takes matters in her own hands and decides to donate her baby to an adopting, yuppie couple, Mark and Vanessa. Life is not so easy as situations change suddenly, and the dynamics of Mark and Vanessa throw everything into a tailspin as Juno’s life becomes much more complicated. Wondering if couples can ever really stay together and if true love can exist, Juno makes some hard, mature choices in her life.
The movie is presented in a unique format with actual, script lines subtitling the bottom of every shot. It’s almost as if the DVD extras are being used onscreen. This device, while interesting, can be a bit annoying too. A series of ballads punctuate and underscore the narrative much like Cat Stevens did in Harold and Maude. It does enhance the story and mood. The structure of the narrative is sectioned by the seasons beginning with autumn.
High school life is portrayed in a convincing manner with the behaviors and interplay dead on target. Some individual scenes like Juno’s parents first hearing and fearing what big announcement Juno has in store for them, or the confrontation with the ultrasound technician are pretty amusing. And there are quiet, introspective moments like between Juno and her dad or with her ‘boyfriend’ Bleeker that are quite touching.
Ellen Page already made her mark with the recent Hard Candy and showed her versatility in X Men-The Last Stand, but to exhibit that rare combination of drama and humor in a believable manner is quite a feat. There is not one false note in her impressive performance. You begin to place yourself in her position and empathize through her joy and pain. The rest of the cast is strong, and each has good portions of dialogue to capitalize upon. J .K. Simmons is quickly becoming a go-to character actor as Juno’s dad, and you wish Allison Janney had a bit juicier part to fly with as the stepmom. Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman are quite good as the prospective, adoptive parents. Michael Cera (Superbad) and Olivia Thirlby make convincing schoolmates.
We discover with Juno that life can be full of unexpected surprises and twists, and it is how we deal with those events that can have a profound and lasting effect on one’s future and happiness. (I can’t wait for writer Cody’s next story.) When you think about it, the screenplay rings true throughout without being preachy or awkward; it just sounds like it could really happen. That’s what makes Juno a terrific slice of life tale, a deceptively simple story with a rich core of acting and words. Oscars love this kind of independent jewel.
***1/2 of **** stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)