Based on the best seller by Kathryn Stockett and adapted and directed by her childhood friend Tate Taylor, The Help is a personal film that is affecting in its depiction of social injustice in the treatment of black females who served as nannies and maids in the Old South during the turbulent 1960’s. As an ensemble piece, it features a host of memorable, Oscar caliber performances.
A black female, Aibileen (Viola Davis), in Jackson, Mississippi, during the 1960’s relates a story of life during that period where white families relied on black housekeepers to cook, clean and even raise their white children. These housekeepers in effect became second mothers to these children and did so for generations. Aibileen works in one such household, as does her combative friend, Minny (Octavia Spencer), who works for the stern Hilly (grandly played for nastiness by Bryce Dallas Howard). Fresh from college, Skeeter (Emma Stone) has a reunion of sorts with her old friends (including Hilly) from the community. Absent is the local outcast, Celia (Jessica Chastain), who is shunned by the group. Dreaming of being a writer, Skeeter has been curious about the life of these house servants and the injustices and humiliating treatment they must face that border on outright racism that has been passed down from family to family. Even as a child, Skeeter has fond memories of her own housekeeper Constantine (Cicely Tyson) who left one day under mysterious circumstances. Encouraged by her publisher, she decides to write a book based on the experiences of these servants. Under the fear of being discovered and fired (or worse), one by one these black women come forth to tell their stories. When civil rights activist, Medgar Evers, is murdered, it creates a firestorm of violence as these women risk everything to get the truth in print, and the results will forever alter their lives.
As a chronicle of a lesser known civil rights issue and injustice, this film offers some interesting insights into a modern form discrimination. While most of the white community is portrayed as villains and almost caricatures, perhaps that’s just the point: that such a backwards culture existed not that long ago. There are a number of subplots including the attempts to set up Skeeter on a blind date and Celia’s awkward attempts hide her domestic inadequacies from her husband by hiring a maid. Then there is the fate of Skeeter’s Constantine that is heartbreaking.
As much as the acting is superior across the board, the film does not quite work as a whole as well as one would hope. The narrative seems a bit uneven so things don’t flow smoothly from scene to scene. It’s the only thing that keeps the film from being even better than it is. In a way the parts or scenes are better than the whole, and many of those scenes are quite good and authentic. Despite its serious subject, the film does have its humorous moments especially in the infamous confrontation between Minny and Hilly where justice is served! It is the highlight of the film.
There are any number of performances that shine particularly Davis (a standout), Spencer, Howard, Chastain, and Stone. Even Sissy Spacek has a witty, offbeat role as an elderly mom at odds with her daughter Hilly. But it’s the film’s moments that will stay with you; they buoy The Help into our hearts.
***1/2 of **** stars
Vertigo
Vertigo
Friday, February 24, 2012
A Genius Is Rediscovered in HUGO
Martin Scorsese has a deep love for movie history and film preservation. Both passions are imbued in Hugo, a charming tale of a child’s personal search that leads to a treasure of memories and redemption.
At a Paris train station in 1931 a young boy, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) lives a solitary existence. The train inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) lurks about looking for stray children to send to the local orphanage. One day Hugo notices an elderly watchmaker (Ben Kingsley) who sits lonely and silent. Joined by a curious girl, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), the two join forces to investigate the old man and learn that there is much more to him than meets the eye. Add to this a mysterious mechanical man built by Hugo’s father and known as an automaton whose cryptic writings may provide clues to the past. But how to unlock these secrets? What the young couple finds will lead them back to the old man as there seem to be a surprising connection, and through the old man, a remarkable past is rejuvenated that will harken back to the birth of movies.
As the mysterious, old man, Ben Kingsley provides the gravitas to flesh out a character that at first seems dull and lonely, whose past catches up and reveals a lifetime of hope and genius heretofore forgotten by the public until Hugo and Isabelle rediscover it. The kids are well cast although Hugo comes across a bit of an oddball whereas Isabelle is a sweet girl who compliments him. Cohen, quite effective in a villainous role, is properly mean and threatening until he has a change of heart near the end, and you wish there had been more of him because his character evolves toward the end.
In fact the whole heart concept permeates Hugo. There is the budding love between Hugo and Isabelle, the old man’s romance in his past, and even the hint of love from a flower girl. There is the heart shaped key that unlocks the automaton’s mechanism. The automaton serves as a static character, a kind of Pinocchio in scenes where Hugo talks to it in the absence of his father. Above all, it’s all about a love for movies past and present.
It is clear how much Scorsese loves movies in smaller, intimate scenes as when Hugo and Isabelle sneak into a Harold Lloyd film or when he shows snippets from earlier moving images. The main thrust of Hugo’s plot provides Scorsese the excuse to restage classic kinescope and film clips. It’s like reliving history. Film buffs will love these moments as Scorsese lovingly and painstakingly recreates early silent film. We see history and magic being made simultaneously!
A minor problem with the film is that it feels a bit uneven at times, and you never feel fully engaged with the characters as much as you want to be. Hugo and his friend Isabelle should be the focus all the way, but the film seems to occasionally stray from their journey. As a couple, they are more tentative and reserved than Harry Potter and his friend Hermione in the Harry Potter series. It lacks a strong emotional center. One wonders how a director like Steven Spielberg or Tim Burton would have interpreted the story.
Technical and production quality are superb. This is a fully realized fantasy world especially with the overall design and art direction and costumes within the train station and immediate neighborhood. Even the visual effects work well within the story without being a distraction.
The film does works for both children and adults. Hugo in a way represents the painful and joyous past that people keep hidden until it is released by patience and love.
*** of **** stars
At a Paris train station in 1931 a young boy, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) lives a solitary existence. The train inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) lurks about looking for stray children to send to the local orphanage. One day Hugo notices an elderly watchmaker (Ben Kingsley) who sits lonely and silent. Joined by a curious girl, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), the two join forces to investigate the old man and learn that there is much more to him than meets the eye. Add to this a mysterious mechanical man built by Hugo’s father and known as an automaton whose cryptic writings may provide clues to the past. But how to unlock these secrets? What the young couple finds will lead them back to the old man as there seem to be a surprising connection, and through the old man, a remarkable past is rejuvenated that will harken back to the birth of movies.
As the mysterious, old man, Ben Kingsley provides the gravitas to flesh out a character that at first seems dull and lonely, whose past catches up and reveals a lifetime of hope and genius heretofore forgotten by the public until Hugo and Isabelle rediscover it. The kids are well cast although Hugo comes across a bit of an oddball whereas Isabelle is a sweet girl who compliments him. Cohen, quite effective in a villainous role, is properly mean and threatening until he has a change of heart near the end, and you wish there had been more of him because his character evolves toward the end.
In fact the whole heart concept permeates Hugo. There is the budding love between Hugo and Isabelle, the old man’s romance in his past, and even the hint of love from a flower girl. There is the heart shaped key that unlocks the automaton’s mechanism. The automaton serves as a static character, a kind of Pinocchio in scenes where Hugo talks to it in the absence of his father. Above all, it’s all about a love for movies past and present.
It is clear how much Scorsese loves movies in smaller, intimate scenes as when Hugo and Isabelle sneak into a Harold Lloyd film or when he shows snippets from earlier moving images. The main thrust of Hugo’s plot provides Scorsese the excuse to restage classic kinescope and film clips. It’s like reliving history. Film buffs will love these moments as Scorsese lovingly and painstakingly recreates early silent film. We see history and magic being made simultaneously!
A minor problem with the film is that it feels a bit uneven at times, and you never feel fully engaged with the characters as much as you want to be. Hugo and his friend Isabelle should be the focus all the way, but the film seems to occasionally stray from their journey. As a couple, they are more tentative and reserved than Harry Potter and his friend Hermione in the Harry Potter series. It lacks a strong emotional center. One wonders how a director like Steven Spielberg or Tim Burton would have interpreted the story.
Technical and production quality are superb. This is a fully realized fantasy world especially with the overall design and art direction and costumes within the train station and immediate neighborhood. Even the visual effects work well within the story without being a distraction.
The film does works for both children and adults. Hugo in a way represents the painful and joyous past that people keep hidden until it is released by patience and love.
*** of **** stars
A Boy’s Quest in EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE
Ambitious in concept, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is the love story of a troubled boy whose bond with his father transcends death and events beyond his understanding. Director Stephen Daldry (Billy Elliott, The Hours) has put together an interesting study in post trauma and rediscovery. It doesn’t always work, but it still registers on an emotional level.
A funeral signals the death of a family member and a boy’s alienation to the world. In flashbacks, Oskar (Thomas Horn), who has trouble communicating and may have Asperger Syndrome, adores his father (Tom Hanks) who challenges him with riddles and treasure hunts to meet people outside his apartment. Both father and mother (Sandra Bullock) are loving parents, and the world becomes an interesting laboratory for exploration and discovery. Life is idyllic until 9/11 when everything changes and Oskar is witness to his father’s last moments trapped in one of the Twin Towers. A year later, looking in his father’s closet, he discovers a key in an envelope with the letters ‘black’. Who or what does the key belong to? Oskar sets out to find out by systematically tracking down every ‘Black’ in the phone book and visiting each person for a clue. This big scavenger hunt is at best a daunting task.
His grandmother who lives across the street has a mysterious renter (Max Von Sydow) who does not speak and can only communicate by jotting on a note pad or displaying ‘yes’ and ‘no’ written on each hand. The renter takes a liking to Oskar and accompanies him on his quest. This is a search that proves overwhelming as each person they find has a story too. When all hope seems lost, the road leads back to that fateful September morning and opens Oskar to the truth about his parents and himself.
At first you wonder if this hunt will be meaningful and be rewarded or if it is a waste of time. Oskar’s obsession keeps him connected to his father; to fail is to lose whatever he has left of that relationship. In a way, it is about trying to make sense of his father’s death and coming to terms with it. It is also about the forgiveness of guilt that nearly consumes Oskar.
You kind of think that at some point a miracle may occur or that something profound may happen, but what does reveal itself does not quite answer all the questions, and maybe that’s just the point to the film, that life is part mystery and we never truly understand its riddle.
When you take stock of all the people that Oskar encounters, you realize that every one of them can sympathize or has suffered some kind of loss, and how they react to that in relation to Oskar shows how the trauma of loss can be a common bond. You wish you could learn more about some of these people.
Von Sydow gives a memorable performance without uttering a word as the renter who has a personal, family secret. Why does he remain mute? Was he a survivor of something so traumatic like the concentration camps of Europe that he does not speak? In a supporting role, Viola Davis is effective playing a character who figures prominently at the beginning and the end.
In the end, Oskar has learned something about himself and his family, and through his journeys, he has matured in a new post-9/11 world. Ultimately, the revelation at the end is bittersweet and that without the power of forgiveness, closure is incomplete. It also speaks to a part of humanity that we all share.
*** of **** stars
A funeral signals the death of a family member and a boy’s alienation to the world. In flashbacks, Oskar (Thomas Horn), who has trouble communicating and may have Asperger Syndrome, adores his father (Tom Hanks) who challenges him with riddles and treasure hunts to meet people outside his apartment. Both father and mother (Sandra Bullock) are loving parents, and the world becomes an interesting laboratory for exploration and discovery. Life is idyllic until 9/11 when everything changes and Oskar is witness to his father’s last moments trapped in one of the Twin Towers. A year later, looking in his father’s closet, he discovers a key in an envelope with the letters ‘black’. Who or what does the key belong to? Oskar sets out to find out by systematically tracking down every ‘Black’ in the phone book and visiting each person for a clue. This big scavenger hunt is at best a daunting task.
His grandmother who lives across the street has a mysterious renter (Max Von Sydow) who does not speak and can only communicate by jotting on a note pad or displaying ‘yes’ and ‘no’ written on each hand. The renter takes a liking to Oskar and accompanies him on his quest. This is a search that proves overwhelming as each person they find has a story too. When all hope seems lost, the road leads back to that fateful September morning and opens Oskar to the truth about his parents and himself.
At first you wonder if this hunt will be meaningful and be rewarded or if it is a waste of time. Oskar’s obsession keeps him connected to his father; to fail is to lose whatever he has left of that relationship. In a way, it is about trying to make sense of his father’s death and coming to terms with it. It is also about the forgiveness of guilt that nearly consumes Oskar.
You kind of think that at some point a miracle may occur or that something profound may happen, but what does reveal itself does not quite answer all the questions, and maybe that’s just the point to the film, that life is part mystery and we never truly understand its riddle.
When you take stock of all the people that Oskar encounters, you realize that every one of them can sympathize or has suffered some kind of loss, and how they react to that in relation to Oskar shows how the trauma of loss can be a common bond. You wish you could learn more about some of these people.
Von Sydow gives a memorable performance without uttering a word as the renter who has a personal, family secret. Why does he remain mute? Was he a survivor of something so traumatic like the concentration camps of Europe that he does not speak? In a supporting role, Viola Davis is effective playing a character who figures prominently at the beginning and the end.
In the end, Oskar has learned something about himself and his family, and through his journeys, he has matured in a new post-9/11 world. Ultimately, the revelation at the end is bittersweet and that without the power of forgiveness, closure is incomplete. It also speaks to a part of humanity that we all share.
*** of **** stars
The Remarkable Lessons of MONEYBALL
Truth may be stranger than fiction, but when the sports world is shaken by a methodology that will revolutionize the business of baseball, it becomes an amazing story born out of need. Adapted from the Michael Lewis’ bestseller by Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) and Steven Zaillian (Schindler’s List) and directed by Bennett Miller (Capote), Moneyball is a fascinating look at how the sport of baseball was turned on its head and its implications that reverberate to this day. It’s also about the bond a father has with his daughter that is stronger than any contract.
In 2001, Oakland Athletics general manager and former player Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) is trying to keep his star players from being bought by financially wealthier teams like the New York Yankees. Desperate to field a winning team with a hopelessly limited budget, he happens upon an analyst for the Cleveland Indians named Peter Brand (a winning Jonah Hill) who has statistics to back up his theory that the best players are not necessarily the costliest ones. Rather than compete with the big teams, Beane realizes that the underrated players who are statistically on base the most will translate into runs scored and ultimately wins. The remarkable thing is that these players can be obtained at bargain basement salaries. The concept goes against conventional wisdom and immediately creates friction among the veteran scouts and even the A’s manager (played to perfection by Philip Seymour Hoffman). A former star recruit himself, Beane blew his chance for stardom at an early age and is now sharing custody of his teenage daughter with his ex-wife (Robin Wright). He loves his girl and fears that losing his job will force him to move farther away from her. As the team begins to show signs of becoming a winning organization, a remarkable string of wins begins that will make history and have far reaching consequences for the game of baseball.
This is one of the best roles Pitt has ever had. The dialogue is perfectly suited to him, and he delivers flawlessly. It’s the kind of role you could easily picture with a younger Robert Redford. When he says things that stun his personnel staff by deviating from common practice and status quo, it is a hoot. I mean he really shakes things up because he is willing to try just about anything to win games, and it also means changing a culture of losing into a winning attitude. Just watching the negotiations and deal making behind the scenes is fascinating. You also get a realistic perspective from the clubhouse as players come and go, but these are people too with families, and the film does not shortchange this point of view.
What elevates this film from its novel plotline is the genuine relationship between Billy and his daughter that influences his priorities. He isn’t just a general manager but a father, and the film never loses this perspective to its credit. When the team’s fortunes change dramatically by the end, an astonishing opportunity presents itself to Billy that puts him at a career crossroads, and the baseball world takes notice.
Even non-baseball enthusiasts may find this a fascinating story because it is character driven with strong performances by its cast. (Sports movies get made with semi-regularity, but when did a studio make a film about personnel management of a major sports team?) When you think about the recent championship success of teams like the Boston Red Sox and look at this film, the connections are mind boggling. And while this new age in personnel management is a story onto itself, the one constant through it all is a father’s love for his daughter. Top notch all the way.
**** of ****stars
In 2001, Oakland Athletics general manager and former player Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) is trying to keep his star players from being bought by financially wealthier teams like the New York Yankees. Desperate to field a winning team with a hopelessly limited budget, he happens upon an analyst for the Cleveland Indians named Peter Brand (a winning Jonah Hill) who has statistics to back up his theory that the best players are not necessarily the costliest ones. Rather than compete with the big teams, Beane realizes that the underrated players who are statistically on base the most will translate into runs scored and ultimately wins. The remarkable thing is that these players can be obtained at bargain basement salaries. The concept goes against conventional wisdom and immediately creates friction among the veteran scouts and even the A’s manager (played to perfection by Philip Seymour Hoffman). A former star recruit himself, Beane blew his chance for stardom at an early age and is now sharing custody of his teenage daughter with his ex-wife (Robin Wright). He loves his girl and fears that losing his job will force him to move farther away from her. As the team begins to show signs of becoming a winning organization, a remarkable string of wins begins that will make history and have far reaching consequences for the game of baseball.
This is one of the best roles Pitt has ever had. The dialogue is perfectly suited to him, and he delivers flawlessly. It’s the kind of role you could easily picture with a younger Robert Redford. When he says things that stun his personnel staff by deviating from common practice and status quo, it is a hoot. I mean he really shakes things up because he is willing to try just about anything to win games, and it also means changing a culture of losing into a winning attitude. Just watching the negotiations and deal making behind the scenes is fascinating. You also get a realistic perspective from the clubhouse as players come and go, but these are people too with families, and the film does not shortchange this point of view.
What elevates this film from its novel plotline is the genuine relationship between Billy and his daughter that influences his priorities. He isn’t just a general manager but a father, and the film never loses this perspective to its credit. When the team’s fortunes change dramatically by the end, an astonishing opportunity presents itself to Billy that puts him at a career crossroads, and the baseball world takes notice.
Even non-baseball enthusiasts may find this a fascinating story because it is character driven with strong performances by its cast. (Sports movies get made with semi-regularity, but when did a studio make a film about personnel management of a major sports team?) When you think about the recent championship success of teams like the Boston Red Sox and look at this film, the connections are mind boggling. And while this new age in personnel management is a story onto itself, the one constant through it all is a father’s love for his daughter. Top notch all the way.
**** of ****stars
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS -A Valentine to the City of Lights
One of the most productive and sought after directors (by actors), Woody Allen, has made dozens of films that deal with the often turbulent relationships between men and women. Almost exclusively a New Yorker by heart, Allen has begun a renaissance of sorts with his exploration of European settings in particular Paris, France, and although his films of the past decade have varied in quality, his latest, Midnight in Paris, is a standout and represents the writer/director at the top of his game.
Opening with a spectacular collage of vignettes, Paris never looked more enticing or romantic (Manhattan redux). At the fabled Giverny, Monet’s source of inspiration, an American couple, Gil (Owen Wilson) and Inez (Rachel McAdams) are engaged to be married and yet squabble constantly. An idealist, He is smitten by the culture and history of Paris, and one night while strolling the streets alone, a vintage car drives by and gives him a ride to a café. Gil realizes that he has been transported to 1920’s Paris and is mingling with the celebrities of its heyday including some famous American ex-patriots like Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Gil is struggling with a novel and needs some advice, so who better than Gertrude Stein (amusingly played by Kathy Bates) to critique the manuscript? Upon his return to present day Paris, Gil wonders if it was all a dream but the scene repeats itself the next evening at midnight when he meets Pablo Picasso and the beautiful Adriana (Marion Cotillard), who captures Gil’s fancy. Thinking that Gil has lost his mind, Inez begins to show interest in another male friend. Meanwhile Gil is obsessed with Adriana, and as the couple visits the Moulin Rouge, they find themselves transported to an even earlier, romantic period in French history. Gil finds that Adriana has her own ideas about life, and he is about to find true love in the unlikeliest of places.
This is Allen in high gear and, though it does not necessarily rank among his best, it certainly is a throwback to his vintage period of Manhattan and the film that this will be most compared to The Purple Rose of Cairo, with its similar combination of wistful fantasy, storybook romance, and sophisticated comedy. You do wonder how Gil and Inez could ever become a couple considering how much they bicker about most everything. It’s also interesting how Allen uses a bit of sleight of hand by focusing our attention on Gil and Adriana that we miss an obvious connection. Such is love.
Gil is a surrogate for Allen’s inner voice. (One could even picture a younger Allen actually performing the role.) He is also a romantic in contrast to Inez’s friends who are intellectuals. As for Paris, it plays a supporting role as its landmarks are adoringly featured throughout the film without detracting from the characters or story. It is clear Allen is smitten with the City of Lights as he was with his home base of New York City.
There are some amusing scenes including the fate of a private investigator hired to follow Gil and ends up caught up in a different time running for his life. When Gil listens to old Cole Porter recordings or sees Picasso paintings in a museum, the joke is that he actually has met these men in real life! In another scene, Gil suggests to a young director, Luis Bunuel, a film idea which is the plot to The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie that he will make many years later (and win an Oscar). As Salvador Dali, Adrien Brody hams it up to great effect in a brief scene.
Sure Allen has made some good films recently like Match Point and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, but it’s been a long while since he made anything as imaginative, comedic, and romantic at the same time. Vive le Woody Allen!
***1/2 of ****stars
Opening with a spectacular collage of vignettes, Paris never looked more enticing or romantic (Manhattan redux). At the fabled Giverny, Monet’s source of inspiration, an American couple, Gil (Owen Wilson) and Inez (Rachel McAdams) are engaged to be married and yet squabble constantly. An idealist, He is smitten by the culture and history of Paris, and one night while strolling the streets alone, a vintage car drives by and gives him a ride to a café. Gil realizes that he has been transported to 1920’s Paris and is mingling with the celebrities of its heyday including some famous American ex-patriots like Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Gil is struggling with a novel and needs some advice, so who better than Gertrude Stein (amusingly played by Kathy Bates) to critique the manuscript? Upon his return to present day Paris, Gil wonders if it was all a dream but the scene repeats itself the next evening at midnight when he meets Pablo Picasso and the beautiful Adriana (Marion Cotillard), who captures Gil’s fancy. Thinking that Gil has lost his mind, Inez begins to show interest in another male friend. Meanwhile Gil is obsessed with Adriana, and as the couple visits the Moulin Rouge, they find themselves transported to an even earlier, romantic period in French history. Gil finds that Adriana has her own ideas about life, and he is about to find true love in the unlikeliest of places.
This is Allen in high gear and, though it does not necessarily rank among his best, it certainly is a throwback to his vintage period of Manhattan and the film that this will be most compared to The Purple Rose of Cairo, with its similar combination of wistful fantasy, storybook romance, and sophisticated comedy. You do wonder how Gil and Inez could ever become a couple considering how much they bicker about most everything. It’s also interesting how Allen uses a bit of sleight of hand by focusing our attention on Gil and Adriana that we miss an obvious connection. Such is love.
Gil is a surrogate for Allen’s inner voice. (One could even picture a younger Allen actually performing the role.) He is also a romantic in contrast to Inez’s friends who are intellectuals. As for Paris, it plays a supporting role as its landmarks are adoringly featured throughout the film without detracting from the characters or story. It is clear Allen is smitten with the City of Lights as he was with his home base of New York City.
There are some amusing scenes including the fate of a private investigator hired to follow Gil and ends up caught up in a different time running for his life. When Gil listens to old Cole Porter recordings or sees Picasso paintings in a museum, the joke is that he actually has met these men in real life! In another scene, Gil suggests to a young director, Luis Bunuel, a film idea which is the plot to The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie that he will make many years later (and win an Oscar). As Salvador Dali, Adrien Brody hams it up to great effect in a brief scene.
Sure Allen has made some good films recently like Match Point and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, but it’s been a long while since he made anything as imaginative, comedic, and romantic at the same time. Vive le Woody Allen!
***1/2 of ****stars
The Moments of Existence in The TREE OF LIFE
The Tree of Life is the latest film by reclusive director Terrence Malick (Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line) whose previous films displayed a simple narrative abetted by haunting imagery. This film takes a step further by telling its story in grand strokes of imagery. Though its technique may lead some to wonder the point of this exercise and dismiss it as confusing, others will hail it an ambitious masterwork. Let the viewer beware.
One family deals with a personal loss as it ponders the meaning of life through the point of view of its oldest son (Sean Penn), now an adult in the business world. Celestial forces of nature signal the very creation and existence of the universe and provide a majestic background to the birth and evolution of life on earth. We witness the beginnings of an American family from the Midwest in mid-twentieth century. Led by a stern, proud father (Brad Pitt), and a doting mother (Jessica Chastain), three sons experience the joys and pains of growing up. Through a rapid series of short scenes, this tapestry of sounds and images forms a mosaic of life’s precious moments. All the while a voice asks the great questions of life and God.
Certainly the most ambitious film in the enigmatic director’s career, it is also the most challenging. This is pure cinema, and it is remarkable how the film is able to communicate visually albeit without much in the way of lengthy dialogue. These fragments of life almost seem surreal as if from a Fellini film. In a way it is kind of an experimental film on a grand scale. It seems to ask, ‘what is the purpose of existence amid great loss’? (Despite being a very spiritual film, creationists might not like the premise of some of the scenes that strongly suggest an evolutionary development of life on earth.)
Those who are able to decipher the abstract nature of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey will likely have a clue on how to access the style and meaning of this film. Indeed, some of the impressive visuals were created by Douglas Trumbull (Blade Runner) who did the 2001 special visual effects and helped to realize Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki has captured some stunning visuals of landscapes and life that are at times overwhelming in their beauty. The musical score alternates between classical and operatic pieces although one almost expects a minimalist, Philip Glass-type score to pop up.
There are many unanswered questions. Which brother died and how? And what is the background of the oldest brother as adult? How has the father changed since the loss of his son and how does this affect the family? As much as the oldest son asks for answers, we want more information and must settle for pieces from a larger puzzle.
The film serves as a search for meaning and hope amid the vastness of existence. As we see the father teach his sons about manners, chores, music, fighting, and death, we may see something in our own common, shared experiences. Life is portrayed as a series of events that sometimes blur over time.
This exploration of the meaning of life may prove to be too abstract and a turn off for some, but to those who are open to a visual experience unlike any other, it may prove to be a fascinating exercise in pure cinema. Kubrick would be proud.
*** of **** stars (for those that are game for a sensory experience)
One family deals with a personal loss as it ponders the meaning of life through the point of view of its oldest son (Sean Penn), now an adult in the business world. Celestial forces of nature signal the very creation and existence of the universe and provide a majestic background to the birth and evolution of life on earth. We witness the beginnings of an American family from the Midwest in mid-twentieth century. Led by a stern, proud father (Brad Pitt), and a doting mother (Jessica Chastain), three sons experience the joys and pains of growing up. Through a rapid series of short scenes, this tapestry of sounds and images forms a mosaic of life’s precious moments. All the while a voice asks the great questions of life and God.
Certainly the most ambitious film in the enigmatic director’s career, it is also the most challenging. This is pure cinema, and it is remarkable how the film is able to communicate visually albeit without much in the way of lengthy dialogue. These fragments of life almost seem surreal as if from a Fellini film. In a way it is kind of an experimental film on a grand scale. It seems to ask, ‘what is the purpose of existence amid great loss’? (Despite being a very spiritual film, creationists might not like the premise of some of the scenes that strongly suggest an evolutionary development of life on earth.)
Those who are able to decipher the abstract nature of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey will likely have a clue on how to access the style and meaning of this film. Indeed, some of the impressive visuals were created by Douglas Trumbull (Blade Runner) who did the 2001 special visual effects and helped to realize Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki has captured some stunning visuals of landscapes and life that are at times overwhelming in their beauty. The musical score alternates between classical and operatic pieces although one almost expects a minimalist, Philip Glass-type score to pop up.
There are many unanswered questions. Which brother died and how? And what is the background of the oldest brother as adult? How has the father changed since the loss of his son and how does this affect the family? As much as the oldest son asks for answers, we want more information and must settle for pieces from a larger puzzle.
The film serves as a search for meaning and hope amid the vastness of existence. As we see the father teach his sons about manners, chores, music, fighting, and death, we may see something in our own common, shared experiences. Life is portrayed as a series of events that sometimes blur over time.
This exploration of the meaning of life may prove to be too abstract and a turn off for some, but to those who are open to a visual experience unlike any other, it may prove to be a fascinating exercise in pure cinema. Kubrick would be proud.
*** of **** stars (for those that are game for a sensory experience)
The Nobility of WARHORSE
The courage of a horse and its bond with a young man amid the horrors of war serves as the backdrop to a saga of loyalty and survival in Warhorse, Steven Spielberg’s take on World War I and its effect on a British family. Adapted from a novel and inspired by the stage play of the same name, this is old fashioned filmmaking that could have easily been made 50 years ago back when epic war dramas like Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago ruled the screens.
A teenage boy, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), and a colt, Joey, form a bond amid the English countryside. Albert’s mother (Emily Watson) worries over the house being repossessed as his father (Peter Mullan), an alcoholic and war veteran, struggles to harvest crops from the harsh land. Threatened with eviction, Joey is sold to the army to assist in the fighting in Europe during World War I. Heartbroken, Albert vows to find Joey and be reunited. We can see early on that Joey is a special horse who is smart and brave whether he submits to being a plow horse, outracing a motor car, or lugging German war machines up a mountain. As the years pass from 1914-1918 and the war amasses its destructive toll on men and animals on both sides, Joey’s ownership changes hands, but through it all, he finds a succession of kind souls to watch over him. When Albert joins the battle, an unlikely series of events will bring him closer to Joey.
Joey is an allegory to slavery as he is being sold as a commodity to hard labor and taken as property by either side in the war. The story is primarily told through his eyes, and each set of people Joey encounters has a personal story: the British officer who makes a promise to bring Joey back to his rightful owner, a young German soldier who dotes protectively over his brother, or a German farm girl who is cared for by her grandfather. In wartime, making friends and losing them is a way of life, and Joey is no different whether it is a human or fellow mare. Some common themes emerge from all these people, namely their affection for Joey and the toll that war exacts on loved ones.
Production values are superior especially the vivid cinematography by Janusz Kaminski who employs color schemes especially at the end that emulate the palettes of Gone with the Wind. Irvine is ideally cast as the son who refuses to give up on his horse and friend.
There are not a lot of the trademark Spielberg moments that you expect; Clint Eastwood could have been the director without much difference. There are memorable scenes that resonate including a tragic charge by British cavalry on a German position and an auction with an army ‘band of brothers’ pitching in for a worthy cause. Then there is the harrowing, desperate escape by Joey that culminates in him getting tangled in barbed wire in No Man’s Land and help coming from an unlikely source which results in a most unusual standoff. Such scenes may seem clichéd but register nonetheless.
The ending does have an emotional payoff, but there are some missed opportunities along the way. There are relationships that could have been developed more like Albert’s father who is a one dimensional character but has suffered trauma from a previous war. The possibility of romance for Albert during a race between Joey and a car carrying a pretty girl never develops. Spielberg also meant this as an antiwar film as in the scenes of brutal trench warfare where Albert witnesses his own comrades die, but such scenes are relatively brief and do not linger like his World War II saga, Saving Private Ryan.
Warhorse is about the bringing together of a family torn apart by war. It’s about the common humanity that unites strangers. It’s also about a boy turned man and his love for his horse.
*** of **** stars
A teenage boy, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), and a colt, Joey, form a bond amid the English countryside. Albert’s mother (Emily Watson) worries over the house being repossessed as his father (Peter Mullan), an alcoholic and war veteran, struggles to harvest crops from the harsh land. Threatened with eviction, Joey is sold to the army to assist in the fighting in Europe during World War I. Heartbroken, Albert vows to find Joey and be reunited. We can see early on that Joey is a special horse who is smart and brave whether he submits to being a plow horse, outracing a motor car, or lugging German war machines up a mountain. As the years pass from 1914-1918 and the war amasses its destructive toll on men and animals on both sides, Joey’s ownership changes hands, but through it all, he finds a succession of kind souls to watch over him. When Albert joins the battle, an unlikely series of events will bring him closer to Joey.
Joey is an allegory to slavery as he is being sold as a commodity to hard labor and taken as property by either side in the war. The story is primarily told through his eyes, and each set of people Joey encounters has a personal story: the British officer who makes a promise to bring Joey back to his rightful owner, a young German soldier who dotes protectively over his brother, or a German farm girl who is cared for by her grandfather. In wartime, making friends and losing them is a way of life, and Joey is no different whether it is a human or fellow mare. Some common themes emerge from all these people, namely their affection for Joey and the toll that war exacts on loved ones.
Production values are superior especially the vivid cinematography by Janusz Kaminski who employs color schemes especially at the end that emulate the palettes of Gone with the Wind. Irvine is ideally cast as the son who refuses to give up on his horse and friend.
There are not a lot of the trademark Spielberg moments that you expect; Clint Eastwood could have been the director without much difference. There are memorable scenes that resonate including a tragic charge by British cavalry on a German position and an auction with an army ‘band of brothers’ pitching in for a worthy cause. Then there is the harrowing, desperate escape by Joey that culminates in him getting tangled in barbed wire in No Man’s Land and help coming from an unlikely source which results in a most unusual standoff. Such scenes may seem clichéd but register nonetheless.
The ending does have an emotional payoff, but there are some missed opportunities along the way. There are relationships that could have been developed more like Albert’s father who is a one dimensional character but has suffered trauma from a previous war. The possibility of romance for Albert during a race between Joey and a car carrying a pretty girl never develops. Spielberg also meant this as an antiwar film as in the scenes of brutal trench warfare where Albert witnesses his own comrades die, but such scenes are relatively brief and do not linger like his World War II saga, Saving Private Ryan.
Warhorse is about the bringing together of a family torn apart by war. It’s about the common humanity that unites strangers. It’s also about a boy turned man and his love for his horse.
*** of **** stars
Monday, September 26, 2011
Mid Atlantic Nostalgia Convention with Overflowing Memories
A star studded lineup of film and TV stars of yesteryear descended on Hunt Valley, MD,this past weekend as the 6th Annual Mid Atlantic Nostalgia Convention was held amid a sea of vendors with an overwhelming array of posters, books and assorted memorabilia toys and tidbits.
Headlining the celebrities was Oscar winner Patty Duke who is guesting on TVs new Hawaii Five O in October as an Alzheimer-stricken mother of a crime victim. I asked her about an early 1970's made for TV movie that won awards and acclaim, My Sweet Charlie, and she agreed that it needed release but that it was likely tied up over legal rights. I also told her how I enjoyed her son-Sean Astin's work (Lord of the Rings trilogy, 24). She was such a nice person as was her staff. You get a feeling about some people being genuinely sweet and giving, well that's what you get with her.
Among the other notables who attended and signed autographs and posed for pictures were Michael Constantine and Karen Valentine both from TV's Room 222, Tony Dow from Leave It To Beaver, Davy Jones of The Monkees, and several others.
The merchandise for sale ranged from inexpensive cards and toys to collectibles at several hundred dollars! In fact the variety and selection was downright overwhelming at times. Guess I'll have to come back next year for more as this relatively young convention is growing by leaps and bounds.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Monster Mania Con 20 with Celebs and Trinkets
Director John Carpenter was the highlight of the 20th Monster Mania Convention held in Hunt Valley, MD, this weekend. His early films are cult classics including Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween, Escape from New York, and The Thing remake. When asked if he and frequent star Kurt Russell will reunite, he did not know except that Russell was still alive so who knows? Other stars included Anthony Michael Hall (TV's The Dead Zone and films 16 Candles and The Breakfast Club), P.J. Soles (Carrie, Halloween, and Rock n' Roll High School), veteran Joe Tukel (Paths of Glory, The Shining, and Blade Runner) ,Ernie Hudson (Ghostbusters, The Crow) and many more.
There were plenty of vendors selling movie and TV memorabilia and horror related makeup, props, and paraphenalia. The attendence was good and a good time was had by all it seems.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
X MEN: FIRST CLASS Is a Grand Beginning
The super hero genre in movies has been loading up with adaptations from DC and Marvel Comics primarily from the glorious Silver Age of Comics. In most cases, these incarnations have taken on a stunning visual realism with state of the art technology and pyrotechnics, but what separates the cream of the crop like Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight from the rest is great acting and a superior script. Having scored less than impressive results with X Men: Wolverine and Last Stand, the reboot of the franchise, X Men: First Class, is a prequel that reinvigorates with a fresh cast, elaborate script (Ashley Miller and Jack Stentz) and solid direction by Matthew Vaughn (Kick Ass) who has proven himself in this genre.
During World War II, a young boy, Erik, is separated from his parents by ruthless Nazis and tormented by a sadistic doctor, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), who forces Erik to unleash his power of magnetism over metal. Meanwhile in a mansion in New York, a young, telepathic Charles Xavier befriends a fellow mutant named Raven who can morph into any person. Years later in 1962, an adult Erik (Michael Fassbinder) searches the world for Sebastian to exact revenge even as Charles is thriving at Oxford University. In Las Vegas, CIA agent Moira McTaggert (Rose Byrne) infiltrates a strip club and spies Sebastian Shaw planning to engineer a Cold War conflict with the Russians. Sebastian is aided by a roster of evil mutants including Emma Frost (January Jones). Moira and the CIA seek the help of Xavier who realizes that there are other mutants in the world, and he must seek them out. As Erik closes on Sebastian, he comes in contact with Charles, now realizing he, too is not alone as a mutant, and joins forces with Charles’ growing roster of young mutants including an increasingly restless Raven AKA Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence). Each discovered mutant has a distinctive power and a unique name or moniker (Charles becomes Professor X and Erik is Magneto). After a deadly attack by Sebastian and his mutants at a CIA compound, Charles and an ever vengeful Erik set about to train their raw recruits to face Sebastian as he steers the Russians on a collision course with the Americans in Cuba. With a global war imminent, Sebastian reveals a deeper, more insidious plan that could mean the end of humanity. The action filled climax is a visual feast that has a stunning display of military might versus the mutant super powers and sets the stage for betrayal and realigning allegiances.
This is a handsomely mounted production, with visual effects that serve the story and its super mutants in ways that could not be convincingly rendered a generation before. When a young Erik displays destructive power in front of his Nazi captors, it harkens back to Drew Barrymore’s burning apocalypse in Firestarter. Lending realism to otherwise unworldly characters, the dialogue frequently switches to German, Russian, French and Spanish as the setting dictates, and the fashion styles and news footage lend an air of period authenticity, although trying to integrate events like the Cuban Missile Crisis requires some suspension of disbelief.
The film succeeds in portraying the mutants as a metaphor for racial discrimination and being treated as commodities by each respective side of the impending war. There are moral dilemmas as these kids express feelings and doubts including the question of whether they should accept being different or conform to the human race. Witness the interesting parallels with the Nazi genocide of World War II, and how Erik ironically assumes some of the corrupt evil from Sebastian, the very individual he hates.
This is a very attractive, talented group of actors led by McAvoy (Atonement), sounding like a grown up Harry Potter with a commanding presence and a deliciously charming Fassbender (quite effective in Inglourious Basterds) who is destined to conquer heroic or villainous roles for years to come. Bacon is featured prominently and has a field day hamming it up as the scheming Sebastian who is clearly modeled after Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. The scenes as Charles and Erik search for mutants are quite fun, and there are a couple of clever cameos.
The film has echoes of traditional James Bond films with its iconic evil characters bent on world domination. That’s not a bad thing. Whether the box office will garner a direct sequel remains to be seen. Perhaps the one thing lacking is that it does not engage the audience the way films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Spiderman did. The same sort of thing plagued the original Lara Croft: Tomb Raider film, only more so. What comic book enthusiasts will savor is a fairly entertaining recreation of what we know as the X Men, and while things don’t perfectly mesh with the original X Men canon, this is a slick, intelligent attempt to rejuvenate a franchise much as J. J. Abrams’ Star Trek relaunched that series.
*** of **** stars (add ½ * for Marvel fanatics)
During World War II, a young boy, Erik, is separated from his parents by ruthless Nazis and tormented by a sadistic doctor, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), who forces Erik to unleash his power of magnetism over metal. Meanwhile in a mansion in New York, a young, telepathic Charles Xavier befriends a fellow mutant named Raven who can morph into any person. Years later in 1962, an adult Erik (Michael Fassbinder) searches the world for Sebastian to exact revenge even as Charles is thriving at Oxford University. In Las Vegas, CIA agent Moira McTaggert (Rose Byrne) infiltrates a strip club and spies Sebastian Shaw planning to engineer a Cold War conflict with the Russians. Sebastian is aided by a roster of evil mutants including Emma Frost (January Jones). Moira and the CIA seek the help of Xavier who realizes that there are other mutants in the world, and he must seek them out. As Erik closes on Sebastian, he comes in contact with Charles, now realizing he, too is not alone as a mutant, and joins forces with Charles’ growing roster of young mutants including an increasingly restless Raven AKA Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence). Each discovered mutant has a distinctive power and a unique name or moniker (Charles becomes Professor X and Erik is Magneto). After a deadly attack by Sebastian and his mutants at a CIA compound, Charles and an ever vengeful Erik set about to train their raw recruits to face Sebastian as he steers the Russians on a collision course with the Americans in Cuba. With a global war imminent, Sebastian reveals a deeper, more insidious plan that could mean the end of humanity. The action filled climax is a visual feast that has a stunning display of military might versus the mutant super powers and sets the stage for betrayal and realigning allegiances.
This is a handsomely mounted production, with visual effects that serve the story and its super mutants in ways that could not be convincingly rendered a generation before. When a young Erik displays destructive power in front of his Nazi captors, it harkens back to Drew Barrymore’s burning apocalypse in Firestarter. Lending realism to otherwise unworldly characters, the dialogue frequently switches to German, Russian, French and Spanish as the setting dictates, and the fashion styles and news footage lend an air of period authenticity, although trying to integrate events like the Cuban Missile Crisis requires some suspension of disbelief.
The film succeeds in portraying the mutants as a metaphor for racial discrimination and being treated as commodities by each respective side of the impending war. There are moral dilemmas as these kids express feelings and doubts including the question of whether they should accept being different or conform to the human race. Witness the interesting parallels with the Nazi genocide of World War II, and how Erik ironically assumes some of the corrupt evil from Sebastian, the very individual he hates.
This is a very attractive, talented group of actors led by McAvoy (Atonement), sounding like a grown up Harry Potter with a commanding presence and a deliciously charming Fassbender (quite effective in Inglourious Basterds) who is destined to conquer heroic or villainous roles for years to come. Bacon is featured prominently and has a field day hamming it up as the scheming Sebastian who is clearly modeled after Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. The scenes as Charles and Erik search for mutants are quite fun, and there are a couple of clever cameos.
The film has echoes of traditional James Bond films with its iconic evil characters bent on world domination. That’s not a bad thing. Whether the box office will garner a direct sequel remains to be seen. Perhaps the one thing lacking is that it does not engage the audience the way films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Spiderman did. The same sort of thing plagued the original Lara Croft: Tomb Raider film, only more so. What comic book enthusiasts will savor is a fairly entertaining recreation of what we know as the X Men, and while things don’t perfectly mesh with the original X Men canon, this is a slick, intelligent attempt to rejuvenate a franchise much as J. J. Abrams’ Star Trek relaunched that series.
*** of **** stars (add ½ * for Marvel fanatics)
Monday, June 06, 2011
A BRIDESMAIDS To Celebrate
TV’s Saturday Night Live has long been a proving ground for some of the top comedians who have often gone on to greater fame. Witness John Belushi (Animal House), Eddie Murphy (Beverly Hills Cop, Trading Places), Bill Murray (Ghostbusters, Stripes), Will Ferrell (Anchorman), and Tina Fey (30 Rock) among many. Certainly a few have failed in films like Deuce Bigelow, The Ladies Man, and MacGruber. Current female SNL player, Kristen Wiig, joins the ranks of the former with Bridesmaids, an occasionally gross, yet heartfelt tale of self worth and ultimately love. After numerous supporting roles in popular films like Adventureland and Whip It, she has made the big leap into stardom, and she co-wrote the screenplay too!
Annie (Wiig) is an insecure, single woman working a miserable job at a jewelry store and whose love life consists of impersonal sexual romps with a narcissistic playboy (Jon Hamm). Her dreams of a bakery having failed recently, she has horrible roommates and a doting mother (Jill Clayburgh) nearby. When her best friend, Lillian (Maya Rudolph) announces her engagement and asks her to be her bridesmaid, Annie prepares the female bridal party for gowns, showers, and the reception. When Lillian’s wealthy, ‘perfect’ friend, Helen (Rose Byrne), elbows her way for attention and begins to take over the wedding preparations, Annie becomes jealous and overdoes things in a display of one-upsmanship (or rather womanship). In a series of confrontational events, Annie sinks further into verbal ineptitude and embarrassment in front of her best friend. Along the way she gets pulled over by an Irish cop, Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd), who takes a fancy to her; what puzzles her is why any man would be nice to her? It all culminates at a pre-wedding reception where Annie unleashes her anger and frustration. Things get worse for her at work and her apartment, and as her world comes crashing down and she becomes an outsider to her best friend’s wedding, Annie’s fate takes a dramatic turn amid friendship and love.
Audiences have been well aware of Wiig’s physical and whimsical skills as a skit comedienne. What this film does is show an entirely different spectrum of her abilities as an actress and writer (with Annie Mumolo directed by Paul Feig). By playing a sympathetic character with flaws and yearnings and surrounding herself with a roster of talented actresses, Wiig has positioned herself as an every woman who has had life’s ups and downs, but mostly downs and creating such pathos that the payoff at the end is more satisfying. The scenes between Wiig and O’Dowd, who make a terrific couple, are genuine and really hold the story on a firm emotional footing. As one of Lillian’s friends, Melissa McCarthy (Mike & Molly) steals every scene she is in and provides the film with some of its funniest moments in support. Even Byrne shines as the manipulative, scheming friend while Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey round out the wedding party. As Annie’s mom, Clayburgh performs a sweet, final career note; this was her last film. Jon Hamm is only in a few scenes but is quite effective as a chauvinist jerk.
There are numerous funny moments. A toast to Lillian and her fiancé by Annie and Helen develops into dueling testimonials that become silly and outrageous. When Annie gets stopped by a policeman, she displays her talent for physical comedy in conducting a drunk test. A scene where she sits at her mom’s home alone watching a video of Castaway’s scene of Tom Hanks losing his ‘best friend’ Wilson is a hoot. On the plane when Annie mixes prescription medication and alcohol, she becomes obnoxiously and amusingly uninhibited, and there is a running gag with McCarthy who thinks her seat companion is really an air marshal. Bridesmaids a film that is honest and direct about its subject matter and its consenting adults, and it has moments that are crude such as the food poisoning scene at the wedding boutique and some sexual gymnastics between Wiig and Hamm.
The film is a bit uneven in places but when it hits the right notes especially towards the end, when a major character like Annie undergoes a transformation, it feels genuine and at times heartfelt, and we are the beneficiaries of something more than a pedestrian comedy. When her relationship with Lillian is threatened, Annie reacts in exaggerated, desperate behavior. She even has trouble accepting true intimacy from a good man because she has never been treated so nice. It’s really about Annie being able to connect in a meaningful way with another human being. In fact, Annie’s plight and desperation shares its DNA with Bridget Jones’s Diary.
With its predominantly female cast, this Judd Apatow (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up) co-produced film delivers the laughs with feeling. Don’t think of this as just a ‘chick flick’ but rather an entertaining, contemporary comedy that contains just a bit more estrogen. And do stay for the closing credits if you want a bit of raunchy fun.
*** of **** stars (Add ½* for Wiig fans)
Annie (Wiig) is an insecure, single woman working a miserable job at a jewelry store and whose love life consists of impersonal sexual romps with a narcissistic playboy (Jon Hamm). Her dreams of a bakery having failed recently, she has horrible roommates and a doting mother (Jill Clayburgh) nearby. When her best friend, Lillian (Maya Rudolph) announces her engagement and asks her to be her bridesmaid, Annie prepares the female bridal party for gowns, showers, and the reception. When Lillian’s wealthy, ‘perfect’ friend, Helen (Rose Byrne), elbows her way for attention and begins to take over the wedding preparations, Annie becomes jealous and overdoes things in a display of one-upsmanship (or rather womanship). In a series of confrontational events, Annie sinks further into verbal ineptitude and embarrassment in front of her best friend. Along the way she gets pulled over by an Irish cop, Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd), who takes a fancy to her; what puzzles her is why any man would be nice to her? It all culminates at a pre-wedding reception where Annie unleashes her anger and frustration. Things get worse for her at work and her apartment, and as her world comes crashing down and she becomes an outsider to her best friend’s wedding, Annie’s fate takes a dramatic turn amid friendship and love.
Audiences have been well aware of Wiig’s physical and whimsical skills as a skit comedienne. What this film does is show an entirely different spectrum of her abilities as an actress and writer (with Annie Mumolo directed by Paul Feig). By playing a sympathetic character with flaws and yearnings and surrounding herself with a roster of talented actresses, Wiig has positioned herself as an every woman who has had life’s ups and downs, but mostly downs and creating such pathos that the payoff at the end is more satisfying. The scenes between Wiig and O’Dowd, who make a terrific couple, are genuine and really hold the story on a firm emotional footing. As one of Lillian’s friends, Melissa McCarthy (Mike & Molly) steals every scene she is in and provides the film with some of its funniest moments in support. Even Byrne shines as the manipulative, scheming friend while Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey round out the wedding party. As Annie’s mom, Clayburgh performs a sweet, final career note; this was her last film. Jon Hamm is only in a few scenes but is quite effective as a chauvinist jerk.
There are numerous funny moments. A toast to Lillian and her fiancé by Annie and Helen develops into dueling testimonials that become silly and outrageous. When Annie gets stopped by a policeman, she displays her talent for physical comedy in conducting a drunk test. A scene where she sits at her mom’s home alone watching a video of Castaway’s scene of Tom Hanks losing his ‘best friend’ Wilson is a hoot. On the plane when Annie mixes prescription medication and alcohol, she becomes obnoxiously and amusingly uninhibited, and there is a running gag with McCarthy who thinks her seat companion is really an air marshal. Bridesmaids a film that is honest and direct about its subject matter and its consenting adults, and it has moments that are crude such as the food poisoning scene at the wedding boutique and some sexual gymnastics between Wiig and Hamm.
The film is a bit uneven in places but when it hits the right notes especially towards the end, when a major character like Annie undergoes a transformation, it feels genuine and at times heartfelt, and we are the beneficiaries of something more than a pedestrian comedy. When her relationship with Lillian is threatened, Annie reacts in exaggerated, desperate behavior. She even has trouble accepting true intimacy from a good man because she has never been treated so nice. It’s really about Annie being able to connect in a meaningful way with another human being. In fact, Annie’s plight and desperation shares its DNA with Bridget Jones’s Diary.
With its predominantly female cast, this Judd Apatow (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up) co-produced film delivers the laughs with feeling. Don’t think of this as just a ‘chick flick’ but rather an entertaining, contemporary comedy that contains just a bit more estrogen. And do stay for the closing credits if you want a bit of raunchy fun.
*** of **** stars (Add ½* for Wiig fans)
Friday, February 25, 2011
2010 OSCAR PREDICTIONS by Clint
Some of the top categories are pretty easy to predict but with the Oscars you never know for sure. I’ve seen all Best Picture nominees so the rest are guesses. (I am leaving the shorts categories alone.) Enjoy!
BEST PICTURE-The juggernaut among critics awards for The Social Network has given way to a film that tugs on one’s heart- The King’s Speech.
BEST DIRECTOR- David Fincher has paid his dues. Photo finish here with Tom Hooper hoping to ride the wave of The King’s Speech. And where the *%#! is Christopher Nolan’s name?
BEST ACTOR- Colin Firth’s time has come.
BEST ACTRESS-Natalie Portman gave a great performance in a physically demanding role of a lifetime. Sorry Annette.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-Christian Bale thinned out and carried the heart of The Fighter. Geoffrey Rush has a chance.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-Melissa Leo gets recognized for her body of work and a marvelous role-if only she hadn’t taken out those self ads. Hailee Steinfeld could pull an upset.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-The Kings Speech
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-The Social Network
BEST ANIMATED FILM-Toy Story 3
BEST FOREIGN FILM- Biutiful
BEST FILM EDITING-The Social Network
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY-True Grit’s Deakins finally gets his due.
BEST ART DIRECTION-Inception with Alice in Wonderland coming strong
BEST SOUND-Inception
BEST SOUND EFECTS EDITING-Inception
BEST COSTUME DESIGN-Alice in Wonderland
BEST MUSICAL SCORE-Inception but this is wide open
BEST SONG-127 Hours (although I hold out hope a Toy Story will finally win one.)
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS-Inception
BEST DOCUMENTARY-Exit Through the Gift Shop
BEST MAKEUP-The Wolf Man
The biggest tally may go to Inception with as many as 5 Oscars.
BEST PICTURE-The juggernaut among critics awards for The Social Network has given way to a film that tugs on one’s heart- The King’s Speech.
BEST DIRECTOR- David Fincher has paid his dues. Photo finish here with Tom Hooper hoping to ride the wave of The King’s Speech. And where the *%#! is Christopher Nolan’s name?
BEST ACTOR- Colin Firth’s time has come.
BEST ACTRESS-Natalie Portman gave a great performance in a physically demanding role of a lifetime. Sorry Annette.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-Christian Bale thinned out and carried the heart of The Fighter. Geoffrey Rush has a chance.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-Melissa Leo gets recognized for her body of work and a marvelous role-if only she hadn’t taken out those self ads. Hailee Steinfeld could pull an upset.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-The Kings Speech
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-The Social Network
BEST ANIMATED FILM-Toy Story 3
BEST FOREIGN FILM- Biutiful
BEST FILM EDITING-The Social Network
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY-True Grit’s Deakins finally gets his due.
BEST ART DIRECTION-Inception with Alice in Wonderland coming strong
BEST SOUND-Inception
BEST SOUND EFECTS EDITING-Inception
BEST COSTUME DESIGN-Alice in Wonderland
BEST MUSICAL SCORE-Inception but this is wide open
BEST SONG-127 Hours (although I hold out hope a Toy Story will finally win one.)
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS-Inception
BEST DOCUMENTARY-Exit Through the Gift Shop
BEST MAKEUP-The Wolf Man
The biggest tally may go to Inception with as many as 5 Oscars.
Domestic Life in THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
The nuclear family takes on a different spin when both parents are same sex and the kids are the product of a male sperm donor in The Kids Are All Right. When traumatic upheaval and revelations strike such a family, the results can be amusing and also tragic. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore highlight an insightful script about domesticity turned on its head.
Nic (Bening) and Jules (Moore) are lesbian parents of two teens, Joni and Laser. One day the children research and contact their biological father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo), who agrees to meet his progeny. After an awkward first meeting, things actually go well as the new family connections are explored by the kids and their newly found father. The couple of Nic and Jules are a contrast; Nic is the physician who is totally controlling while Jules is still trying to find herself with a new business of landscaping. Laser hangs with the wrong crowd and begins to realize that he deserves better through his bond with Paul. Joni is trying to assert herself as an adult and prepares to go to college. The moms show a parental responsibility to watch over their children and want to meet the dad. When Paul hires Jules to do work on his restaurant landscape, the two connect. As Paul’s influence begins to overcome the family, Nic feels left out. But there is an attraction between Jules and Paul that leads to a torrid affair, and when Nic discovers the truth, the family is torn apart. Into this mix are two maturing children whose emotions will be tested throughout.
The roles are well acted especially by Benning as a betrayed spouse, and in particular, her scene of revelation about Jules is a marvel of expressiveness and devastating heartbreak. This culminates in a powerful moment with all the principals present at Paul’s dinner table. Moore gives solid support and shines in her heartfelt plea to her family near the end. The ensemble is well cast particularly Ruffalo whose almost bystander role is suddenly elevated to catalyst and disruptor of the family’s dynamic.
The story has a nice balance of serious tones and comedic elements born out of the situations. The themes work on several levels like ingredients of a zesty recipe: the family chemistry, the couple of Nic and Jules, the kids’ developing bond with Paul, Paul and Jules, and shake and mix well. Everyone has needs and wants, and the strongest is a need to belong to a family and the need to connect with another human being whether it be Laser and his friends, Paul and Jules, Paul and his children, and Nic and Jules. Amid the conflicts, no one escapes unscathed. There are no real heroes or villains here, only hard truths about life and relationships.
The fact that two lesbians are having the conflict over infidelity may seem novel on the surface, but it could easily have been a heterosexual couple. In fact the notion of two lesbians virtually disappears as we witness and understand this family unit with its warts and all. It could be any family when you think about it. The fact that both Benning and Moore play their respective spousal roles so convincingly is a testament to their acting skills playing off an excellent script by Stuart Blumberg and Lisa Cholodenko, who also directs. The ending rings true and shows not only how far the relationships have come, but how that foundation, despite some serious challenges, is strong enough to survive. Life moves on, and there is hope for the future.
There are not a lot of loose ends in this story although, toward the end, it would be nice to get a bit more resolution to Ruffalo’s character. The film does contains a couple of brief explicit sex scenes without which this would essentially be a PG rated film. There is little to quibble about, and the viewer gets to experience one of the more insightful domestic dramas in recent years.
*** or **** stars
Nic (Bening) and Jules (Moore) are lesbian parents of two teens, Joni and Laser. One day the children research and contact their biological father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo), who agrees to meet his progeny. After an awkward first meeting, things actually go well as the new family connections are explored by the kids and their newly found father. The couple of Nic and Jules are a contrast; Nic is the physician who is totally controlling while Jules is still trying to find herself with a new business of landscaping. Laser hangs with the wrong crowd and begins to realize that he deserves better through his bond with Paul. Joni is trying to assert herself as an adult and prepares to go to college. The moms show a parental responsibility to watch over their children and want to meet the dad. When Paul hires Jules to do work on his restaurant landscape, the two connect. As Paul’s influence begins to overcome the family, Nic feels left out. But there is an attraction between Jules and Paul that leads to a torrid affair, and when Nic discovers the truth, the family is torn apart. Into this mix are two maturing children whose emotions will be tested throughout.
The roles are well acted especially by Benning as a betrayed spouse, and in particular, her scene of revelation about Jules is a marvel of expressiveness and devastating heartbreak. This culminates in a powerful moment with all the principals present at Paul’s dinner table. Moore gives solid support and shines in her heartfelt plea to her family near the end. The ensemble is well cast particularly Ruffalo whose almost bystander role is suddenly elevated to catalyst and disruptor of the family’s dynamic.
The story has a nice balance of serious tones and comedic elements born out of the situations. The themes work on several levels like ingredients of a zesty recipe: the family chemistry, the couple of Nic and Jules, the kids’ developing bond with Paul, Paul and Jules, and shake and mix well. Everyone has needs and wants, and the strongest is a need to belong to a family and the need to connect with another human being whether it be Laser and his friends, Paul and Jules, Paul and his children, and Nic and Jules. Amid the conflicts, no one escapes unscathed. There are no real heroes or villains here, only hard truths about life and relationships.
The fact that two lesbians are having the conflict over infidelity may seem novel on the surface, but it could easily have been a heterosexual couple. In fact the notion of two lesbians virtually disappears as we witness and understand this family unit with its warts and all. It could be any family when you think about it. The fact that both Benning and Moore play their respective spousal roles so convincingly is a testament to their acting skills playing off an excellent script by Stuart Blumberg and Lisa Cholodenko, who also directs. The ending rings true and shows not only how far the relationships have come, but how that foundation, despite some serious challenges, is strong enough to survive. Life moves on, and there is hope for the future.
There are not a lot of loose ends in this story although, toward the end, it would be nice to get a bit more resolution to Ruffalo’s character. The film does contains a couple of brief explicit sex scenes without which this would essentially be a PG rated film. There is little to quibble about, and the viewer gets to experience one of the more insightful domestic dramas in recent years.
*** or **** stars
A Girl’s Indomitable Spirit in WINTER’S BONE
Winter’s Bone, adapted by independent director Debra Granik and Anne Rosellini from the novel by Daniel Woodrell, is a small, low budget film with a courageous lead character. This is one of those small films that features strong performances particularly by newcomer Jennifer Lawrence.
In a rural part of the country, a teenage girl, Ree (Jennifer Lawrence), raises her family which includes her younger brother and little sister. While most girls her age are attending high school, she has to assume the role of sister and parent. Life is grueling and tough for Ree who cares for her siblings even as her mother is depressed and dysfunctional and her father, who has had scrapes with the law, is missing from a bond hearing. Unfortunately the family’s house has been put up as collateral for his bail and is in danger to be taken by the bail bondsman. Ree has to rely on the kindness and donations of food and supplies from neighbors, and when her home is about to be repossessed, her whole family is in danger of having their fragile world destroyed. Threatened with her family’s survival and determined not to lose her home, she sets out to find her father by questioning friends and family. It seems that there is a little family blood everywhere, and people might know more than they let on. Her uncle, Teardrop (John Hawkes), is a menacing, uncooperative person. She follows leads that are dead ends and wild goose chases. She is at the end of her rope and desperate. What can she do? Is her father dead or on the run? Her search leads to some really bad people who are local crime lords, and her punishment at the hands of those she thought were friends is graphic and ruthless. Her situation is nearly an impossible one for anyone much less a teenager. Then help from an unlikely source begins to shed light on the fate of her father as her family’s future hangs in the balance.
Family is all important to Ree. She is put in what seems to be a hopeless situation with no options. Undeterred, she will not let her family be broken up. She has to not only act and think like an adult, but to grow up fast and also teach her brother and sister about the basics of life including hunting and cooking. She cherishes her siblings and despite her dad’s criminal background and what it has done to the family, she clings to his clothing and belongings especially his guitar which also serves as a symbolic bond with her uncle. You ask yourself just what would you do in this situation? How would you survive? You respond to her plight by watching how she reacts to her circumstances.
The lack of a budget does not hinder the film due to its subject matter and focusing on the individual characters. This is a very linear narrative with no parallel action. Some of the dialogue which reflects the local dialects is at times hard to understand. The unknown faces lend a very authentic feel as if these people really live this life. The rural countryside is filmed as a very foreboding presence and is itself a powerful character. The film employs frequent handheld camerawork that lends an immediacy and documentary feel which work in the film’s favor. Even the film’s colors are a darker hue which adds to the somber tone.
Lawrence really impresses in one of her first starring roles on film. The story rests on her shoulders, and she is more than up to the task. John Hawkes is believable as her uncle, and what’s fascinating is his character’s development and his dramatic changes over the course of the story.
It is a kind of downer of a film as the odds are stacked against Ree, and while Winter’s Bone is not for everyone with its solemn, serious themes, for those willing to immerse themselves in an intimate, realistic tale of loyalty and survival and a young girl who bravely carries on, it is an inspiration.
*** of **** stars
In a rural part of the country, a teenage girl, Ree (Jennifer Lawrence), raises her family which includes her younger brother and little sister. While most girls her age are attending high school, she has to assume the role of sister and parent. Life is grueling and tough for Ree who cares for her siblings even as her mother is depressed and dysfunctional and her father, who has had scrapes with the law, is missing from a bond hearing. Unfortunately the family’s house has been put up as collateral for his bail and is in danger to be taken by the bail bondsman. Ree has to rely on the kindness and donations of food and supplies from neighbors, and when her home is about to be repossessed, her whole family is in danger of having their fragile world destroyed. Threatened with her family’s survival and determined not to lose her home, she sets out to find her father by questioning friends and family. It seems that there is a little family blood everywhere, and people might know more than they let on. Her uncle, Teardrop (John Hawkes), is a menacing, uncooperative person. She follows leads that are dead ends and wild goose chases. She is at the end of her rope and desperate. What can she do? Is her father dead or on the run? Her search leads to some really bad people who are local crime lords, and her punishment at the hands of those she thought were friends is graphic and ruthless. Her situation is nearly an impossible one for anyone much less a teenager. Then help from an unlikely source begins to shed light on the fate of her father as her family’s future hangs in the balance.
Family is all important to Ree. She is put in what seems to be a hopeless situation with no options. Undeterred, she will not let her family be broken up. She has to not only act and think like an adult, but to grow up fast and also teach her brother and sister about the basics of life including hunting and cooking. She cherishes her siblings and despite her dad’s criminal background and what it has done to the family, she clings to his clothing and belongings especially his guitar which also serves as a symbolic bond with her uncle. You ask yourself just what would you do in this situation? How would you survive? You respond to her plight by watching how she reacts to her circumstances.
The lack of a budget does not hinder the film due to its subject matter and focusing on the individual characters. This is a very linear narrative with no parallel action. Some of the dialogue which reflects the local dialects is at times hard to understand. The unknown faces lend a very authentic feel as if these people really live this life. The rural countryside is filmed as a very foreboding presence and is itself a powerful character. The film employs frequent handheld camerawork that lends an immediacy and documentary feel which work in the film’s favor. Even the film’s colors are a darker hue which adds to the somber tone.
Lawrence really impresses in one of her first starring roles on film. The story rests on her shoulders, and she is more than up to the task. John Hawkes is believable as her uncle, and what’s fascinating is his character’s development and his dramatic changes over the course of the story.
It is a kind of downer of a film as the odds are stacked against Ree, and while Winter’s Bone is not for everyone with its solemn, serious themes, for those willing to immerse themselves in an intimate, realistic tale of loyalty and survival and a young girl who bravely carries on, it is an inspiration.
*** of **** stars
TRUE GRIT and a Girl’s Mission
Joel and Ethan Coen (No Country for Old Men, Fargo) have extended their filmmaking prowess into new territory by adapting Charles Portis’ famous novel, True Grit, and their interpretation is a refreshing take on the western genre and compares favorably to the memorable John Wayne starring version of 1969. Purists who thought it would be sacrilege to remake a western classic have little to fear. Thanks to a smart script and strong acting, True Grit comes off as a very solid film with some similarities and noticeable differences from the original film.
Told in flashback by a woman’s voice, a 14 year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) wants to avenge the murder of her father at the hands of Tom Chaney (a grizzled Josh Brolin), and she arrives in a small town to hire Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), an aged, hard drinking veteran lawman who has done his share of killing and more. Mattie is not one to be trifled with and as another pursuer, Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), realizes, not one to intimidate. Headstrong, she has grit herself. Together the trio search for Chaney and seek out a lead in another outlaw, Ned Pepper (an unrecognizable Barry Pepper). As friction mounts among the searchers, LeBoeuf strikes out on his own, and Cogburn and Mattie come upon a cabin. There, a couple of outlaws are smoked out, and this leads to Ned Pepper and his gang. Can Chaney be far behind? It all culminates in a final confrontation between Cogburn and Ned Pepper as Mattie comes face to face with her quarry and LeBoeuf reenters the scene with violent results.
Bridges (Crazy Hearts) is utterly convincing in making this version of Rooster Cogburn his own persona. He portrays him as a proud, grumpy curmudgeon who just may be a crack shot and smarter than he lets on. This takes nothing away from the over the top performance of John Wayne who won an Oscar for his rendition. You could almost see Tommy Lee Jones in this role. We gets bits and pieces of Cogburn’s past, and some of the tales make you wonder if they are utter fabrications or sheer exaggeration. Steinfeld is a marvel in her first movie role. She embodies Mattie as a take charge gal who will not be deterred and has enough smarts and spunk to strike a hard bargain with any man. Witness her amusing negotiations with a horse trader and wearing him down. Damon (Good Will Hunting) does well in a supporting role and adds more nuance than Glen Campbell’s version of LaBoeuf did in the older version. Brolin and Pepper have what amount to small but memorable screen time as the bad guys.
The dynamics of the trio are interestingly portrayed as LeBoeuf and Cogburn face off and trade barbs, while Mattie asserts herself every chance she gets. You even think there might be a hint of attraction between Mattie and LeBoeuf. The arc of LeBoeuf’s character deviates from the 1969 film significantly especially at the climax. The only negative is that his fate is left open ended and unresolved.
Much of the film is superior to the older version. There is really only one scene that would suffer in comparison to the original film, and that is the climactic charge by Cogburn against the bad guys. Bridges does well but he is not John Wayne. The scene lacks the heroic, mythic feel of Wayne. Also, when Bridges is shown in closeup carrying Mattie to safety, it seems a bit phony. But those are minor observations. A final sequence shows what happens many years afterward and serves as a melancholy postscript, and it has a final feel of a film like Unforgiven. The film could easily work without it though.
Thanks to the Coens, the authentic sounding dialogue, which is laced with humorous moments including a shooting contest between Cogburn and LeBoeuf, is peppy and sharp, a marked improvement from standard western fare. There are times when Bridges’ drawling and inflections are hard to understand but you get the gist anyway through context and body language. Technical crafts are standout especially a good musical score by Carter Burwell and beautiful cinematography by veteran Roger Deakins (A Beautiful Mind).
The Coen brothers must have been drawn to the quirky characters and the language of the novel, and while this is certainly not their best film, it is a very entertaining western with some standout performances.
*** or **** stars
Told in flashback by a woman’s voice, a 14 year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) wants to avenge the murder of her father at the hands of Tom Chaney (a grizzled Josh Brolin), and she arrives in a small town to hire Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), an aged, hard drinking veteran lawman who has done his share of killing and more. Mattie is not one to be trifled with and as another pursuer, Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), realizes, not one to intimidate. Headstrong, she has grit herself. Together the trio search for Chaney and seek out a lead in another outlaw, Ned Pepper (an unrecognizable Barry Pepper). As friction mounts among the searchers, LeBoeuf strikes out on his own, and Cogburn and Mattie come upon a cabin. There, a couple of outlaws are smoked out, and this leads to Ned Pepper and his gang. Can Chaney be far behind? It all culminates in a final confrontation between Cogburn and Ned Pepper as Mattie comes face to face with her quarry and LeBoeuf reenters the scene with violent results.
Bridges (Crazy Hearts) is utterly convincing in making this version of Rooster Cogburn his own persona. He portrays him as a proud, grumpy curmudgeon who just may be a crack shot and smarter than he lets on. This takes nothing away from the over the top performance of John Wayne who won an Oscar for his rendition. You could almost see Tommy Lee Jones in this role. We gets bits and pieces of Cogburn’s past, and some of the tales make you wonder if they are utter fabrications or sheer exaggeration. Steinfeld is a marvel in her first movie role. She embodies Mattie as a take charge gal who will not be deterred and has enough smarts and spunk to strike a hard bargain with any man. Witness her amusing negotiations with a horse trader and wearing him down. Damon (Good Will Hunting) does well in a supporting role and adds more nuance than Glen Campbell’s version of LaBoeuf did in the older version. Brolin and Pepper have what amount to small but memorable screen time as the bad guys.
The dynamics of the trio are interestingly portrayed as LeBoeuf and Cogburn face off and trade barbs, while Mattie asserts herself every chance she gets. You even think there might be a hint of attraction between Mattie and LeBoeuf. The arc of LeBoeuf’s character deviates from the 1969 film significantly especially at the climax. The only negative is that his fate is left open ended and unresolved.
Much of the film is superior to the older version. There is really only one scene that would suffer in comparison to the original film, and that is the climactic charge by Cogburn against the bad guys. Bridges does well but he is not John Wayne. The scene lacks the heroic, mythic feel of Wayne. Also, when Bridges is shown in closeup carrying Mattie to safety, it seems a bit phony. But those are minor observations. A final sequence shows what happens many years afterward and serves as a melancholy postscript, and it has a final feel of a film like Unforgiven. The film could easily work without it though.
Thanks to the Coens, the authentic sounding dialogue, which is laced with humorous moments including a shooting contest between Cogburn and LeBoeuf, is peppy and sharp, a marked improvement from standard western fare. There are times when Bridges’ drawling and inflections are hard to understand but you get the gist anyway through context and body language. Technical crafts are standout especially a good musical score by Carter Burwell and beautiful cinematography by veteran Roger Deakins (A Beautiful Mind).
The Coen brothers must have been drawn to the quirky characters and the language of the novel, and while this is certainly not their best film, it is a very entertaining western with some standout performances.
*** or **** stars
The Majestic Roar of THE KING’S SPEECH
As a document of a little known history of pre-World War II England, The King’s Speech is a fascinating, heart rending dramatization of King George VI, who assumed the throne despite a debilitating speech problem at a time when his country needed him the most. Well directed by TV veteran Tom Hooper (John Adams) from a lifelong project by screenwriter David Seidler, it boasts Colin Firth’s (Bridget Jones Diary, A Single Man) best performance as the beleaguered king and award caliber support by Geoffrey Rush (Shine, Elizabeth) and Helena Bonham Carter (Alice in Wonderland, Room With a View).
In 1925, Prince Albert (Colin Firth), who is second in line to the throne, gives a speech through BBC radio at Wembley Stadium in England, and it goes poorly as he hesitates and stumbles his words much to the astonishment of the crowd. He has a stuttering problem that is revealed in the most public and humiliating way. By the 1930’s in London, Albert is subjected to a multitude of therapies and remedies that range from speaking with a mouthful of marbles to smoking! His frustration grows until he abandons any hope of solving his affliction. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), seeks out an obscure, Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who feels confident he can cure the prince. A struggling actor himself, Logue has a playful sense of humor that does not ingratiate himself with the future King of England. It is a humbling process, but he slowly brings the prince out of his timid and isolated shell. They work on a progression of methods which includes utilizing recordings and headphones and delves into Albert’s childhood. The therapy sessions are not without setbacks but a bond develops into a strong friendship. As 1936 approaches, King George V dies, and when The Prince of Wales (Guy Pierce) abdicates the throne to be with an American divorcee, the title and responsibility fall on Prince Albert who is desperate not to be placed in this position when England needs a leader. As the clouds of war approach Europe, Prince Albert is named King George VI on December 12, 1936. With England on the brink of declaring war on Germany, and a radio broadcast to all of England and the world, George summons Logue to coach him through the most important speech of his life. With Logue at his side to guide his every word, George speaks to the nation.
Hooper does a very straightforward job without having to resort to flashy camerawork but instead lets his actors do what they do best-act! This long gestating screenplay started with Seidler as a child stutterer listening to radio broadcasts of the king, and it was not until his widow, the Queen Mother, died that he had her conditional consent to tackle the story. It does play a bit with facts but never loses sight of the core relationship of the two disparate men and how a common actor taught a prince to be king. Technical production is excellent all around from the impressive period costumes and art direction to the dramatic score and dark hued cinematography.
It is the interplay and war of wills between Firth and Rush that is the delicious center of this relationship based story. Reunited after having costarred in Shakespeare in Love, both actors are at the top of their game, and part of the fun is that despite the seriousness of the therapy, there are humorous moments to savor. Carter plays ‘less is more’ in one of her more conventional roles, and she is quite convincing as royalty. Some nice turns are made by acting royalty, Michael Gambon, Guy Pierce, Derek Jacobi, and Claire Bloom among others.
The story adds texture in the family details by revealing George V as a domineering father. The troubles of George VI are shown in intimate scenes with his children as he tries to read a story but is handicapped by his impediment. The documentary footage of Hitler’s mastery of public speaking is studied with fascination and almost envy by George. It is an ironic yet telling scene. Logue adores his own family, and his down to earth persona is in sharp contrast to George VI’s more formal yet heartfelt affections for his family. There is a good contrast made of the King’s life from that of the common man. In the scene where George VI is crowned King, he must address his court and realizes that everyone, even his own family, will now treat him differently. Life will never be the same again. When George VI makes his speech at the end, we see that he is learning to be a king.
As a piece of history, The King’s Speech is thoroughly engaging, but what makes it affecting is one man’s triumph over adversity with the support of a loving wife and the friendship of a unique therapist.
**** of **** stars
In 1925, Prince Albert (Colin Firth), who is second in line to the throne, gives a speech through BBC radio at Wembley Stadium in England, and it goes poorly as he hesitates and stumbles his words much to the astonishment of the crowd. He has a stuttering problem that is revealed in the most public and humiliating way. By the 1930’s in London, Albert is subjected to a multitude of therapies and remedies that range from speaking with a mouthful of marbles to smoking! His frustration grows until he abandons any hope of solving his affliction. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), seeks out an obscure, Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who feels confident he can cure the prince. A struggling actor himself, Logue has a playful sense of humor that does not ingratiate himself with the future King of England. It is a humbling process, but he slowly brings the prince out of his timid and isolated shell. They work on a progression of methods which includes utilizing recordings and headphones and delves into Albert’s childhood. The therapy sessions are not without setbacks but a bond develops into a strong friendship. As 1936 approaches, King George V dies, and when The Prince of Wales (Guy Pierce) abdicates the throne to be with an American divorcee, the title and responsibility fall on Prince Albert who is desperate not to be placed in this position when England needs a leader. As the clouds of war approach Europe, Prince Albert is named King George VI on December 12, 1936. With England on the brink of declaring war on Germany, and a radio broadcast to all of England and the world, George summons Logue to coach him through the most important speech of his life. With Logue at his side to guide his every word, George speaks to the nation.
Hooper does a very straightforward job without having to resort to flashy camerawork but instead lets his actors do what they do best-act! This long gestating screenplay started with Seidler as a child stutterer listening to radio broadcasts of the king, and it was not until his widow, the Queen Mother, died that he had her conditional consent to tackle the story. It does play a bit with facts but never loses sight of the core relationship of the two disparate men and how a common actor taught a prince to be king. Technical production is excellent all around from the impressive period costumes and art direction to the dramatic score and dark hued cinematography.
It is the interplay and war of wills between Firth and Rush that is the delicious center of this relationship based story. Reunited after having costarred in Shakespeare in Love, both actors are at the top of their game, and part of the fun is that despite the seriousness of the therapy, there are humorous moments to savor. Carter plays ‘less is more’ in one of her more conventional roles, and she is quite convincing as royalty. Some nice turns are made by acting royalty, Michael Gambon, Guy Pierce, Derek Jacobi, and Claire Bloom among others.
The story adds texture in the family details by revealing George V as a domineering father. The troubles of George VI are shown in intimate scenes with his children as he tries to read a story but is handicapped by his impediment. The documentary footage of Hitler’s mastery of public speaking is studied with fascination and almost envy by George. It is an ironic yet telling scene. Logue adores his own family, and his down to earth persona is in sharp contrast to George VI’s more formal yet heartfelt affections for his family. There is a good contrast made of the King’s life from that of the common man. In the scene where George VI is crowned King, he must address his court and realizes that everyone, even his own family, will now treat him differently. Life will never be the same again. When George VI makes his speech at the end, we see that he is learning to be a king.
As a piece of history, The King’s Speech is thoroughly engaging, but what makes it affecting is one man’s triumph over adversity with the support of a loving wife and the friendship of a unique therapist.
**** of **** stars
Heart and Soul of THE FIGHTER
OK, you may think, “another boxing film about a nobody who becomes somebody”, right? Don’t underestimate The Fighter as another boxing film. It has heart and good acting, but most of all, it is authentic. This film purposely avoids sentiment and going for easy, weepy moments. Rocky this is not. This pet project of producer and star Mark Wahlberg has been years in the making and the payoff here is a gallery of great performances by talented actors who do justice to their real life counterparts.
This true story centers on boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) who struggles to be a junior welterweight champion with training by his half-brother and former fighter, Dicky Ekland (an emaciated Christian Bale). Dicky lives his dashed dreams through Micky and has his own problems with drug addiction and other criminal activities. The extended family includes a supportive father and a controlling mother, Alice (Melissa Leo). Micky’s life changes when he meets a bartender, Charlene (Amy Adams), who believes in him. When the opportunity comes to take his career to the next level and work with professional trainers and management in Las Vegas, Micky’s relationship with Dicky is jeopardized and causes a mighty rift with his family especially his ‘manager’ Alice who feels betrayed. To make matters worse, Dicky gets in trouble with the law and must serve prison. He still lives in the past, clinging to memories of boxing Sugar Ray Leonard in 1978. Micky is so torn when a seemingly winnable fight switches his intended opponent to one who is much heavier at the last minute, that he contemplates quitting altogether. Riddled with guilt, he becomes reclusive until Charlene intercedes. He begins to fight again and amasses a series of wins until he is one step away from a championship if he can overcome a challenger, Sanchez, and Dicky offers tips on how to fight him. Faced with a chance to really make something of his career, Micky must choose between his new handlers and Dicky who taught him everything he knows about boxing. It could mean a championship in the end.
The film works on different levels of relationships: Micky and Charlene, Micky and his family, but most of all the film rests on the bond between the two brothers. There is a good sense of family life and local flavor. Micky and Dicky grew up local athletes and resident celebrities of sorts in a blue collar town where everybody knows each other. When Micky and Charlene challenge Alice, there is a tumultuous change of dynamics and a tense battle of wills. The best scene and also a turning point in the story happens when Dicky confronts Charlene about her own shortcomings, and everything in a way comes full circle as each person must look within to missed opportunities and not achieving their dreams. It is an honest, pivotal moment that validates Dicky’s character who, surprisingly, still knows a thing or two about boxing. Ironically Micky and Dicky’s scenes recall Marlon Brando and Rod Steiger as brothers in On the Waterfront also about a washed up fighter.
The fight scenes are quite convincing and well edited, and when you have a well chiseled actor like Wahlberg (The Departed), a kind of modern day John Garfield, you accept him as a boxer without question. Bale (The Dark Knight) really inhabits his portrayal of a proverbial loser, and he looks the part having shed substantial weight. Was this once the boy who enchanted us in Steven Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun? Come to think of it, Spielberg has another young alumnus in Adams (Catch Me If You Can) who makes the most of her role as a bright, headstrong woman who supports Micky and butts heads with Alice and her daughters literally. Leo (Frozen River) is quite good as the proud matriarch whose influence and authority is threatened.
The film tells its story as directed by David O. Russell (Three Kings) in workman like manner. It’s almost the kind of film Clint Eastwood makes these days. The story and relationships are strong enough to easily carry the film without resorting to sentimentality. Indeed, there is a thrilling moment ringside where a shot almost follows through with Alice and Charlene hugging, but Russell cuts away to another unglamorous shot. Bravo for not taking the easy way out although there are a couple of scenes could have been extended more. It’s also nice to see the real life brothers in the end credits, and you know that the film has done their lives justice. The original screenplay and story had a lot of writers involved, and the result is a heck of a remarkable comeback story and a family that would not quit.
***1/2 of **** stars
This true story centers on boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) who struggles to be a junior welterweight champion with training by his half-brother and former fighter, Dicky Ekland (an emaciated Christian Bale). Dicky lives his dashed dreams through Micky and has his own problems with drug addiction and other criminal activities. The extended family includes a supportive father and a controlling mother, Alice (Melissa Leo). Micky’s life changes when he meets a bartender, Charlene (Amy Adams), who believes in him. When the opportunity comes to take his career to the next level and work with professional trainers and management in Las Vegas, Micky’s relationship with Dicky is jeopardized and causes a mighty rift with his family especially his ‘manager’ Alice who feels betrayed. To make matters worse, Dicky gets in trouble with the law and must serve prison. He still lives in the past, clinging to memories of boxing Sugar Ray Leonard in 1978. Micky is so torn when a seemingly winnable fight switches his intended opponent to one who is much heavier at the last minute, that he contemplates quitting altogether. Riddled with guilt, he becomes reclusive until Charlene intercedes. He begins to fight again and amasses a series of wins until he is one step away from a championship if he can overcome a challenger, Sanchez, and Dicky offers tips on how to fight him. Faced with a chance to really make something of his career, Micky must choose between his new handlers and Dicky who taught him everything he knows about boxing. It could mean a championship in the end.
The film works on different levels of relationships: Micky and Charlene, Micky and his family, but most of all the film rests on the bond between the two brothers. There is a good sense of family life and local flavor. Micky and Dicky grew up local athletes and resident celebrities of sorts in a blue collar town where everybody knows each other. When Micky and Charlene challenge Alice, there is a tumultuous change of dynamics and a tense battle of wills. The best scene and also a turning point in the story happens when Dicky confronts Charlene about her own shortcomings, and everything in a way comes full circle as each person must look within to missed opportunities and not achieving their dreams. It is an honest, pivotal moment that validates Dicky’s character who, surprisingly, still knows a thing or two about boxing. Ironically Micky and Dicky’s scenes recall Marlon Brando and Rod Steiger as brothers in On the Waterfront also about a washed up fighter.
The fight scenes are quite convincing and well edited, and when you have a well chiseled actor like Wahlberg (The Departed), a kind of modern day John Garfield, you accept him as a boxer without question. Bale (The Dark Knight) really inhabits his portrayal of a proverbial loser, and he looks the part having shed substantial weight. Was this once the boy who enchanted us in Steven Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun? Come to think of it, Spielberg has another young alumnus in Adams (Catch Me If You Can) who makes the most of her role as a bright, headstrong woman who supports Micky and butts heads with Alice and her daughters literally. Leo (Frozen River) is quite good as the proud matriarch whose influence and authority is threatened.
The film tells its story as directed by David O. Russell (Three Kings) in workman like manner. It’s almost the kind of film Clint Eastwood makes these days. The story and relationships are strong enough to easily carry the film without resorting to sentimentality. Indeed, there is a thrilling moment ringside where a shot almost follows through with Alice and Charlene hugging, but Russell cuts away to another unglamorous shot. Bravo for not taking the easy way out although there are a couple of scenes could have been extended more. It’s also nice to see the real life brothers in the end credits, and you know that the film has done their lives justice. The original screenplay and story had a lot of writers involved, and the result is a heck of a remarkable comeback story and a family that would not quit.
***1/2 of **** stars
The Agony and Ecstasy of 127 HOURS
Based on the harrowing tale of survival by Aron Ralston and adapted by Simon Beaufoy and director Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later), 127 Hours challenges the viewer to share in a difficult, life changing event that most people could never contemplate. It’s quite a feat to engage and emotionally move an audience focused solely on one person in one place. For an actor to pull this off is a great testament to James Franco’s acting skills and physical prowess as well as Boyle’s ingenuity behind the camera.
In April, 2003, Aron Ralston (Franco) escapes the rat race of the city to go hiking in a remote terrain. After parking his car, he goes mountain biking and then by foot deeper into isolation. There, he comes upon two hikers, Megan and Kristi, who are a bit lost. He tells them that the earth with its rocks and mountains is always moving. How prophetic! Aron guides the women and puts them on the right track after a brief adventure in a cave and a sparkling pool of water. Later, he proceeds on his trek of solitude and, while climbing between a narrow ravine, slips, and as he falls, a large bolder tumbles and pins his arm against the wall. Trying everything possible to dislodge the rock, he finds he is hopelessly trapped with limited supplies. No one knows where he is because he was didn’t care enough to mention it to family or friends. He is a confident, even cocky explorer whose cavalier attitude changes through this ordeal. He displays some amazing resourcefulness in such moments as when he erects a mini tent to protect his head from the elements. As he waits in vain for help that is not coming, he contemplates his survival skills and evaluates his life and relationships. Life is precious, and he must do whatever he can to survive even if it means the unthinkable.
The entire film works despite the fact it centers exclusively on one actor. (The Spirit of St. Louis is another that comes to mind.) Franco accomplishes the difficult task by making us care for an arrogant, free spirit who knows no fear. The film focuses on minute details that could easily be glossed over. The simplest of acts become a tortuous struggle as when his pocket knife falls and he must retrieve it while still pinned. A drink of water from his ever shrinking supply becomes an agonizing death watch. The flashback scenes give us some background into his family life and a former girlfriend. He even fantasizes a vision of a boy, a son that he will perhaps have someday? He regrets the things left undone or unsaid and resolves to make changes in his life if he makes it out alive. The fact that we know the outcome does not at all diminish the agony we feel for him in close quarters and his determination to survive. In a way the big rock is a kind of metaphor for his life. What should be a liberating journey becomes a test of survival, and as the hours go by and one day bleeds into the next, we become a part of his limited world complete with cracks of sunlight and an occasional bird or insect. After awhile you wonder if we really see images he is seeing, or if it is nothing more than a mirage or hallucination. During his ordeal he uses his mini video camera to document his plight and to report on his situation and feelings. The camera becomes a sort of confessor for him.
Yes, the scene where he must separate himself from the rock is excruciating but never exploitive. The subsequent scenes where he makes his way back to civilization and encounters other hikers are powerfully heart wrenching yet life affirming. It packs a punch and wrings you emotionally as Franco finds salvation when all hope is seemingly lost. By film’s end we breathe a collective sigh of relief. Yet it is the cumulative effect of emotions and our shared experience with him that are truly affecting.
Boyle utilizes handheld cameras and crisp editing to keep things moving along in a methodically paced narrative. It is ironic at how the beautiful landscape is in sharp contrast to the horror that Aron must experience. The film may set a record for having the longest running time before displaying its first title card. There is a nice epilogue which alludes to his prophetic visions from before. This is not a morbid exercise in claustrophobia or grossness but rather a realistic recreation of the triumph of the human spirit against impossible odds and the bleakest of settings.
*** of **** stars
In April, 2003, Aron Ralston (Franco) escapes the rat race of the city to go hiking in a remote terrain. After parking his car, he goes mountain biking and then by foot deeper into isolation. There, he comes upon two hikers, Megan and Kristi, who are a bit lost. He tells them that the earth with its rocks and mountains is always moving. How prophetic! Aron guides the women and puts them on the right track after a brief adventure in a cave and a sparkling pool of water. Later, he proceeds on his trek of solitude and, while climbing between a narrow ravine, slips, and as he falls, a large bolder tumbles and pins his arm against the wall. Trying everything possible to dislodge the rock, he finds he is hopelessly trapped with limited supplies. No one knows where he is because he was didn’t care enough to mention it to family or friends. He is a confident, even cocky explorer whose cavalier attitude changes through this ordeal. He displays some amazing resourcefulness in such moments as when he erects a mini tent to protect his head from the elements. As he waits in vain for help that is not coming, he contemplates his survival skills and evaluates his life and relationships. Life is precious, and he must do whatever he can to survive even if it means the unthinkable.
The entire film works despite the fact it centers exclusively on one actor. (The Spirit of St. Louis is another that comes to mind.) Franco accomplishes the difficult task by making us care for an arrogant, free spirit who knows no fear. The film focuses on minute details that could easily be glossed over. The simplest of acts become a tortuous struggle as when his pocket knife falls and he must retrieve it while still pinned. A drink of water from his ever shrinking supply becomes an agonizing death watch. The flashback scenes give us some background into his family life and a former girlfriend. He even fantasizes a vision of a boy, a son that he will perhaps have someday? He regrets the things left undone or unsaid and resolves to make changes in his life if he makes it out alive. The fact that we know the outcome does not at all diminish the agony we feel for him in close quarters and his determination to survive. In a way the big rock is a kind of metaphor for his life. What should be a liberating journey becomes a test of survival, and as the hours go by and one day bleeds into the next, we become a part of his limited world complete with cracks of sunlight and an occasional bird or insect. After awhile you wonder if we really see images he is seeing, or if it is nothing more than a mirage or hallucination. During his ordeal he uses his mini video camera to document his plight and to report on his situation and feelings. The camera becomes a sort of confessor for him.
Yes, the scene where he must separate himself from the rock is excruciating but never exploitive. The subsequent scenes where he makes his way back to civilization and encounters other hikers are powerfully heart wrenching yet life affirming. It packs a punch and wrings you emotionally as Franco finds salvation when all hope is seemingly lost. By film’s end we breathe a collective sigh of relief. Yet it is the cumulative effect of emotions and our shared experience with him that are truly affecting.
Boyle utilizes handheld cameras and crisp editing to keep things moving along in a methodically paced narrative. It is ironic at how the beautiful landscape is in sharp contrast to the horror that Aron must experience. The film may set a record for having the longest running time before displaying its first title card. There is a nice epilogue which alludes to his prophetic visions from before. This is not a morbid exercise in claustrophobia or grossness but rather a realistic recreation of the triumph of the human spirit against impossible odds and the bleakest of settings.
*** of **** stars
Darkness at the Soul of BLACK SWAN
Director Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream) has done some offbeat films but has always elicited strong performances from his leads. Perhaps his greatest achievement is getting an Oscar worthy performance from Natalie Portman in Black Swan, a film that does an impressive job of depicting a psychological downward spiral of a competitive ballerina in the role of a lifetime.
Nina Sayers (Portman) works hard at her craft and gets the coveted starring role in Swan Lake. Doted on by her mother (Barbara Hershey in an unusual role) and pushed to extremes by her ballet director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), she begins to feel threatened and becomes delusional and loses touch with reality. A new arrival, Lily (Mila Kunis), understudies her and becomes not only her friend and night scene companion, but also her main competitor and threat. Is she undermining her on purpose or is Nina just imagining it all? As opening night approached, the visions become even more disturbing to the point that Nina is at the brink of her sanity and the curtain opens on the most important moment of her life.
Portman projects a complex series of conflicting emotions including anxiety, jealousy, and even guilt as if she does not deserve the lead. Guided by Aronofsky, she soars as she has never done before. Not only does she perform a substantial amount of physically demanding ballet, but we see things through her eyes and feel her pains. Does she really commit the horrible acts she thinks she may have done or is it all in her warped mind? It’s not a pleasant journey. There is extremely disturbing use of mirror images that reflect Nina’s face and become Lily in the next instant in jarring and unexpected fashion. Is Nina seeing Lily or is it a reflection of her own self? A moment that shows the various pieces of wall art at her home coming alive in nightmarish figures is truly unnerving.
Kunis as Lily brings enough menace to her role. Winona Ryder has a supporting role of a retiring, vindictive ballerina, Beth MacIntyre, who ends up in the hospital. A scene where Nina worships Beth is reminiscent of Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in the dressing room scene of All About Eve. Beth is bitter and even self abusive which kind of foreshadows what awaits Nina. Cassell is effective as the ballet director whose sexism and unusual methods are suspect but never his quest for the absolute best for his production. Hershey registers as an overly concerned, controlling mom.
The film does a good job of showing the mental and physical toll that rehearsal and practice take on a performer, and to make matters worse, the angst exhibits itself seemingly on Nina’s body in distorted and grotesque manifestations. The physical mutations would probably amuse and please the likes of David Cronenberg and David Lynch. As Leroy demands more than what she shows in technique, she knows she has to give everything in her soul and more to satisfy the ballet’s demands. There is an interesting dichotomy showing two sides of a ballerina’s psyche with the repressed, uptight Nina whose frigidity is counterpointed by the free spirited and sensual Lily. Lily evens brings out her sexuality and inner yearning that seems all too real, or is it a dream? Something that is never mentioned or shown is if Nina is a virgin or ever had a real boyfriend. Then there is the duality within Nina of White and Black Swans in which the dark side must emerge if she is to fully inhabit the lead role.
Much of the film recalls other memorable films that bend reality like The Fight Club or Affliction, and Nina’s descent into madness has striking similarities to Roman Polanski’s classic Repulsion whose woman descends into psychological delusions and paranoia.
Aronofsky’s use of camera work is startling as it works in concert with Portman’s performance, and when you see the change in her eyes near the end, it is stunning. The film employs lots of handheld shots with cinematographer Matthew Libatique to visualize a subjective viewpoint for Nina. The score by Clint Mansell is well done with a touch of foreboding. Both of them are Aronofsky veterans. The final scene as Nina readies to perform the last act as she morphs into the Black Swan to complete her transformation is haunting. The final shot is unforgettable. Some viewers may be turned off by its repellent imagery but others will be astonished by a powerful depiction of madness at any price.
***1/2 of **** stars
Nina Sayers (Portman) works hard at her craft and gets the coveted starring role in Swan Lake. Doted on by her mother (Barbara Hershey in an unusual role) and pushed to extremes by her ballet director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), she begins to feel threatened and becomes delusional and loses touch with reality. A new arrival, Lily (Mila Kunis), understudies her and becomes not only her friend and night scene companion, but also her main competitor and threat. Is she undermining her on purpose or is Nina just imagining it all? As opening night approached, the visions become even more disturbing to the point that Nina is at the brink of her sanity and the curtain opens on the most important moment of her life.
Portman projects a complex series of conflicting emotions including anxiety, jealousy, and even guilt as if she does not deserve the lead. Guided by Aronofsky, she soars as she has never done before. Not only does she perform a substantial amount of physically demanding ballet, but we see things through her eyes and feel her pains. Does she really commit the horrible acts she thinks she may have done or is it all in her warped mind? It’s not a pleasant journey. There is extremely disturbing use of mirror images that reflect Nina’s face and become Lily in the next instant in jarring and unexpected fashion. Is Nina seeing Lily or is it a reflection of her own self? A moment that shows the various pieces of wall art at her home coming alive in nightmarish figures is truly unnerving.
Kunis as Lily brings enough menace to her role. Winona Ryder has a supporting role of a retiring, vindictive ballerina, Beth MacIntyre, who ends up in the hospital. A scene where Nina worships Beth is reminiscent of Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in the dressing room scene of All About Eve. Beth is bitter and even self abusive which kind of foreshadows what awaits Nina. Cassell is effective as the ballet director whose sexism and unusual methods are suspect but never his quest for the absolute best for his production. Hershey registers as an overly concerned, controlling mom.
The film does a good job of showing the mental and physical toll that rehearsal and practice take on a performer, and to make matters worse, the angst exhibits itself seemingly on Nina’s body in distorted and grotesque manifestations. The physical mutations would probably amuse and please the likes of David Cronenberg and David Lynch. As Leroy demands more than what she shows in technique, she knows she has to give everything in her soul and more to satisfy the ballet’s demands. There is an interesting dichotomy showing two sides of a ballerina’s psyche with the repressed, uptight Nina whose frigidity is counterpointed by the free spirited and sensual Lily. Lily evens brings out her sexuality and inner yearning that seems all too real, or is it a dream? Something that is never mentioned or shown is if Nina is a virgin or ever had a real boyfriend. Then there is the duality within Nina of White and Black Swans in which the dark side must emerge if she is to fully inhabit the lead role.
Much of the film recalls other memorable films that bend reality like The Fight Club or Affliction, and Nina’s descent into madness has striking similarities to Roman Polanski’s classic Repulsion whose woman descends into psychological delusions and paranoia.
Aronofsky’s use of camera work is startling as it works in concert with Portman’s performance, and when you see the change in her eyes near the end, it is stunning. The film employs lots of handheld shots with cinematographer Matthew Libatique to visualize a subjective viewpoint for Nina. The score by Clint Mansell is well done with a touch of foreboding. Both of them are Aronofsky veterans. The final scene as Nina readies to perform the last act as she morphs into the Black Swan to complete her transformation is haunting. The final shot is unforgettable. Some viewers may be turned off by its repellent imagery but others will be astonished by a powerful depiction of madness at any price.
***1/2 of **** stars
The Phenom of THE SOCIAL NETWORK
As a chronicle of events leading to the creation of the social networking site Facebook, touching nearly every computer user in the world, The Social Network is a fascinating take on Mark Zuckerberg, a maverick, whose brilliant mind is matched by his arrogance. Directed by David Fincher (Se7en, The Fight Club) from an excellent screenplay by Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing) and based on the book, The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, this is a fascinating study of a success story complete with intrigue and subterfuge. In this case, the incidents play on a very human level. You would think this would make an excellent made for television HBO movie, but Sorkin and Fincher have created a remarkable, cinematic vision of an inventor, albeit a troubled one.
In the fall of 2003, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is portrayed as a computer genius at Harvard University with few social graces. What we know now as Facebook had its modest beginnings as a response to a failed relationship with a girl. Needing to vent some anger, Mark modifies a campus website and with the help of his buddy, Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), a concept is born for socializing on the internet. When web traffic to the site spikes to record numbers, people begin to take notice, and a phenomenon is born. A group of Harvard students enlist Mark to develop his site with their financial backing, but when they discover that he is working on his venture without them, they become incensed and contemplate legal action. Mark and Eduardo become popular ‘rock stars’ on campus as the new Facebook spreads like an epidemic to other college campuses like Yale, Columbia, and Stanford. Soon, the company approaches critical mass and the milestone of being able to monetize the site and turn a profit. Napster creator, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), reaches out to the growing network because he understands its vast potential. Mark becomes enamored and captivated by Sean’s leadership and vision and is drawn to Silicon Valley much to Eduardo’s consternation. But with Sean’s guidance comes his lavish, illicit lifestyle which has potential consequences for all. As the company expands to the whole country and becomes a global presence, it seeks more capital, and the ensuing growing pains will test friendships and lead to betrayals and litigation. By the end, everyone is suing to get a piece of the action. We’re not talking millions of dollars at stake but staggering numbers that far exceed normal comprehension.
Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland, Zombieland) is perfectly cast as Mark Zuckerberg, a high energy geek running around a snowy campus in his shorts and flip flops and is quick to respond to his critics with venomous sarcasm. Making us fascinated with such an unsavory character is testament to his performance. Justin Timberlake is excellent as the charismatic entrepreneur Sean, who is portrayed as a narcissistic, lecherous Svengali and mentor to Mark. Andrew Garfield lends very strong support as Eduardo, Mark’s roommate.
The film’s pace is rapid and driven, not a slow spot at all. Its structure incorporates flashbacks and flash forwards in a masterful display of film editing. The story works as a kind of techie mystery especially from the point of view of a legal deposition that frames the events of the past. Every major player gets a scripted point of view Rashomon style. All through the narrative, you keep wondering if Mark knows more than he lets on. Is he naïve or is he a schemer or both? Was the betrayal of Eduardo orchestrated by Mark or was it the machinations of Sean? It is never truly clear as to Mark’s culpability. This is success, but at what price?
There’s very little to gripe about in this film. A short scene with Eduardo’s psychotic girlfriend is shocking but ultimately pointless. Were the filmmakers trying to show his poor judge of character? Also, I noticed a scene where the actors talk in the supposed cold with digital condensation coming from their mouths; so how come the extras don’t have any? A major subplot showing Eduardo’s initiation to the elite Phoenix Club never makes clear whether Mark had a hand in his acceptance.
With its fascinating subject matter, the script begs your attention and participation. Sorkin has done a marvelous job of bringing a book to life and complemented with Fincher’s acumen. The dialogue is stunning in its blatant display of Zuckerberg’s intelligence and rebellious streak. The result is a chronicle of a techie generation with not one false note and a thoroughly engrossing screenplay that has Oscar written all over it. Fincher is proving himself to be a great director when given superior material, and his branching out from thrillers to more mainstream fare has been remarkable (as in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). One can only wonder the goodies that await movie audiences as he explores further.
**** of **** stars
In the fall of 2003, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is portrayed as a computer genius at Harvard University with few social graces. What we know now as Facebook had its modest beginnings as a response to a failed relationship with a girl. Needing to vent some anger, Mark modifies a campus website and with the help of his buddy, Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), a concept is born for socializing on the internet. When web traffic to the site spikes to record numbers, people begin to take notice, and a phenomenon is born. A group of Harvard students enlist Mark to develop his site with their financial backing, but when they discover that he is working on his venture without them, they become incensed and contemplate legal action. Mark and Eduardo become popular ‘rock stars’ on campus as the new Facebook spreads like an epidemic to other college campuses like Yale, Columbia, and Stanford. Soon, the company approaches critical mass and the milestone of being able to monetize the site and turn a profit. Napster creator, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), reaches out to the growing network because he understands its vast potential. Mark becomes enamored and captivated by Sean’s leadership and vision and is drawn to Silicon Valley much to Eduardo’s consternation. But with Sean’s guidance comes his lavish, illicit lifestyle which has potential consequences for all. As the company expands to the whole country and becomes a global presence, it seeks more capital, and the ensuing growing pains will test friendships and lead to betrayals and litigation. By the end, everyone is suing to get a piece of the action. We’re not talking millions of dollars at stake but staggering numbers that far exceed normal comprehension.
Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland, Zombieland) is perfectly cast as Mark Zuckerberg, a high energy geek running around a snowy campus in his shorts and flip flops and is quick to respond to his critics with venomous sarcasm. Making us fascinated with such an unsavory character is testament to his performance. Justin Timberlake is excellent as the charismatic entrepreneur Sean, who is portrayed as a narcissistic, lecherous Svengali and mentor to Mark. Andrew Garfield lends very strong support as Eduardo, Mark’s roommate.
The film’s pace is rapid and driven, not a slow spot at all. Its structure incorporates flashbacks and flash forwards in a masterful display of film editing. The story works as a kind of techie mystery especially from the point of view of a legal deposition that frames the events of the past. Every major player gets a scripted point of view Rashomon style. All through the narrative, you keep wondering if Mark knows more than he lets on. Is he naïve or is he a schemer or both? Was the betrayal of Eduardo orchestrated by Mark or was it the machinations of Sean? It is never truly clear as to Mark’s culpability. This is success, but at what price?
There’s very little to gripe about in this film. A short scene with Eduardo’s psychotic girlfriend is shocking but ultimately pointless. Were the filmmakers trying to show his poor judge of character? Also, I noticed a scene where the actors talk in the supposed cold with digital condensation coming from their mouths; so how come the extras don’t have any? A major subplot showing Eduardo’s initiation to the elite Phoenix Club never makes clear whether Mark had a hand in his acceptance.
With its fascinating subject matter, the script begs your attention and participation. Sorkin has done a marvelous job of bringing a book to life and complemented with Fincher’s acumen. The dialogue is stunning in its blatant display of Zuckerberg’s intelligence and rebellious streak. The result is a chronicle of a techie generation with not one false note and a thoroughly engrossing screenplay that has Oscar written all over it. Fincher is proving himself to be a great director when given superior material, and his branching out from thrillers to more mainstream fare has been remarkable (as in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). One can only wonder the goodies that await movie audiences as he explores further.
**** of **** stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)