| Archives | Business | Entertainment | Health | Living | Maine News | Online Only | Public Records | Sports | Tourism | Travel |
 |
|
| Shop the Coast: | Cars | Classifieds | Dating | Dining | Golf | Jobs | Lodging | Real Estate | Yellow Pages |
|
|
|
|
|
July 28, 2007
A Summary of Summer
July is nearly finshed, as August begins to knock on our door. It all started back on May 4th, when Spider-Man swung into theaters for his third time around. Nearly $335 million dollars later, the film is kind of viewed as a failure, due to its mixed reviews and slightly less than average box office for the series. But it's still the #1 grossing film for the year so far, and will most likely stay that way, despite the fact that the major blockbusters like Harry Potter and Transformers have been very successful.
What else did I see? Posted by Cine Mallory at 11:31 AM | Comments (0) June 13, 2007
Live Free or Die Hard - or The DEATH of the Action film
Release Date: June 27, 2007 WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS? What is wrong with Fox! What is wrong with Bruce Willis? And why on earth is Len Wiseman directing this motion picture? The sum of these pieces has resulted in a crime against cinema - a Die Hard film, not only taking the motto of my current home state, but being rated PG-13. When I was quite young, my parents were big Bruce Willis fans (and pretty much still are)- my mother had one of his albums (that "Blues" stuff), and would frequently see all of his motion pictures. Die Hard was one of these prominent fixtures in the film going habits of my parents. I waited eagerly to see Die Hard and its sequels until I was allowed to, since I was just a young child when they were released in theaters. But now all that stuff that made the Die Hard series so amazing and successful might as well be erased from our memory, according to the stance that Fox has taken with this new film. A PG-13 Die Hard isn't going to incorporate the kinds of things that we expect with such a film- fearless action, badass terrorists, foul-mouthed McClane (and sidekick in some situations), and bullet-heavy life or death situations for our hero. So now, with this watered-down version of the adventures of John McClane, they might as well revoke the title- since this is the state of Live Free or Die, living free includes saying what you want, doing what you want, and being able to live your life as an individual. Die Hard being Die Hard didn't ever include pleasing teenagers to rake in extra cash- it was about surviving against those who want to harm us- and the issues of terrorism in the series hasn't been for the faint of heart. Sorry Bruce- this Die Hard is already dead to me. Posted by Cine Mallory at 04:11 PM | Comments (0) June 12, 2007
Hostel: Part II
YET another unwarranted sequel, to my favorite film of 2006- Hostel: Part II isn't much of a diversion to the first film, but it does re-invent itself in the most simplistic and lazy ways possible- this sequel now stars three american women instead of men. It's the same damn crappy torture flick all over again, but with a slight expansion on the rich-and-bored businessmen we briefly met in the first picture. After a lame beginning sequence tying up the ends of the first feature, we meet three women named Beth, Whitney, and Lorna- played by Lauren German, Bijou Phillips, and Heather Matarazzo- who take the wrong advice from a euro hottie (if we've learned anything, these foreign women can convince americans to do anything). They decide to take a vacation from their abroad education of drawing naked women (surprise, surprise) to check out a spa, but first they must check into that dreaded Slovokian hostel.
The one new element of the film involves the very way that these young, unsuspecting americans meet their grisly end in the hands of perfect strangers- through a mobile phone auction, businessman Todd selects his prey, calling up his buddy Stuart to come along with him so that the two can each enjoy the death of an unsuspecting females. These two new characters don't feel like anything beyond that you'd expect- and director Eli Roth finds easy means to negate these characters at any chance he can, by destroying their manhood both in mental and physical ways. The pair of men are on-screen through Roth just so we have a chance to see some T&A through their actions, not for any deep reasons in examining the mindset of someone who wants to murder someone for their entertainment, as we'd all assume.
Getting back on course with the plot, the nerd of the group Lorna is snatched up first, and meets a disgusting end in the lone bloody (and rather overdone) scene of the film, but from then on, Roth drags us on through the same ups and downs that we already saw in the first film. This Hostel is not exciting, it's not shocking, and it surely isn't funny- the film soon results to tactics that make us want to root for these women, but they've merely become the victims of Roth's desires for content that so-called raises the picture above the horror fare of the past and present.
The ending of the film resorts to shock value content instead of a desired resoultion to the tactics of the Hostel/Torture workers, and why they make such a profit off of these dead Americans. Why actually get somewhere with the story when you can, instead, just execute so-called graphic imagery and call it a day. I don't think that this Hostel is worse than the previous picture, since it does try and clean itself up by not having so much gore and sex revolving around the females (however, this stuff is just left for the guys), but then again, it's more of a let-down because Roth clearly doesn't really know how to do anything with these women besides just get a few them killed and hit the auto-pilot. With the lesser success of this film at the box-office, we might be lucky and not see another Hostel picture. But this is definitely not the end for Eli Roth and his cheap horror.
Posted by Cine Mallory at 12:36 PM | Comments (0) May 05, 2007
Spider-Man 3
Finally. After two years of blockbusters that I couldn't give a crap about, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3 has hit the screen. On a cloudy Friday morning, immediately after I finished my final for my history class, I ran right over to the biggest movie theater in town to catch up on my favorite superhero/comic adaptation series.
As we begin our story, things are just swell as usual for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and his girlfriend Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). She's about to star in a show on Broadway and her bf is there opening night to support her. But from there it's a downward spiral for MJ as she puts on her emo face for the rest of the motion picture. Communication issues aside, Peter and MJ make a great couple- now if only she'd just talk to him more about her real feelings, then we wouldn't have to see Kirsten Dunst try and emote without looking ridiculous. Spider-Man/Peter Parker has problems too though, as his former best friend Harry Osborn has discovered the lair that his father used for all his Goblin technology- Harry wants revenge against Peter because he believes that, in the suit, Parker killed Harry's dad (we all know from the previous films that this is not the case). Harry uses his newfound weaponry against Spider-Man in an all-out duel that's both subtle and totally awesome. Harry does not succeed in killing Peter, and thankfully, from a little bump on his head, we're spared from seeing James Franco try and act "really angry" from some very convenient yet temporary memory loss.
MEANWHILE, Spider-Man saves Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), who's dating Eddie Brock (Topher Grace). Eddie Brock wants to take pictures of Spider-Man for the Daily Bugle, which is Peter Parker's job, right? Also, at the same time, Flint Marko has become the Sandman (in a transformation which is the best CGI sequence of the entire trilogy thus far), yet another villain for Spider-man to deal with. Marko needs money to save his bed-ridden daughter and prove his worth as an ex-con on the run. But it turns out Mr. Marko killed Ben Parker. Is that going to go over well with Peter Parker? Hell to the no- he wants revenge to help Aunt May sleep at night. Oh, and did I forget to mention that a black symbiote landed near Peter Parker, eventually latching on to him, and giving him this broody power to be a total badass as Spidey and a jazz dancing ladies man? PLUS, Eddie Brock is pissed at losing his girlfriend and prospective career at the Daily Bugle, and that symbiote just so happens to like him as well... Still with me? Setting aside the extremely complex plotline, all problems in this 140 minute epic are due to the atrocious script. The errors in the script are so significant that the entire first hour of the motion picture is enough to make you want to leave the theater. I'll go ahead and say that all three major actors Maguire, Dunst, and Franco, do the best of a job they can, despite the script which caused them to have such terrible dialogue and unbelievable emotions. The entire conflicting trifecta story of their characters practically destroys what we thought of them in the two previous films.
However, the side characters that support this flagging juggernaut are given much, much, MUCH better lines and chances with their execution. Topher Grace does a great job as the slick Eddie Brock- Thomas Haden Church's Flint Marko isn't nearly as significant as he should be, but we're able believe him when he tries to convince us that he's not as bad as he seems. And of course, J.K. Simmons' J. Jonah Jameson is hilarious- thankfully, he's give the biggest chance to shine in this film- his ferocious humor is better than ever and gives us something to laugh at to forget the other glaring problems.
If you're able to survive the first awful hour of Spider-Man 3, you'll realize that the picture becomes better as it gets along, resulting in a passable conclusion with big action and little amazing moments along the way. But just how is it that such a successful and excellent film series has become as mediocre as this? So much of Spider-Man being seen on screen is because of the investment in the series from Sony. The more money that can be put into the picture, the bigger and better it gets- but even with a record-breaking first day box-office of nearly $59 million, this series is in big trouble if a film like this is going to be apart of it. Director Sam Raimi had done such great things with the first two pictures- it's just a damn shame that he is partially responsible for the script that he co-wrote with his brother Ivan Raimi and Alvin Sargent. Not enough money in the world can save a bad script. And even though I did like this film with all its flaws, it just goes to show that not even a hero such as Spider-Man can save such a colossal blunder. RATING: B- Posted by Cine Mallory at 07:20 PM | Comments (0) January 07, 2007
Children of Men - In Short
Children of Men, based upon the novel by P.D. James, is a movie that will someday be watched by high school and college students- to be examined for its principles, examples, context, and above all, intent. It's not a perfect film (I'd give it a solid 8/10), but it's definitely an important film, and can strongly recommend it more than anything else released in the previous year. And even with my love and slight biases for Director Alfonso Cuaron, I feel safe enough endorsing this movie for reasons beyond his obviously skilled craft. So drop what you're doing, and go see this mature, thought-provoking motion picture. Posted by madamczyk at 11:41 PM | Comments (0) December 01, 2006
Blood Diamond
With a title like Blood Diamond, you'd assume we'd be talking about an action picture -
I use the word "despicable" to describe this film because almost everything in this film is strategically placed to work our emotions. You might think that this wouldn't be a bad thing, but the way that Director Ed Zwick plays with our hearts couldn't be any more obvious nor laughable -
The more Blood Diamond advanced, the less and less I cared about the issue- seeing Solomon cry in front of his wife and children at the fenced-in camp where they are held, while Maddy Bowen snaps photos of their sadness, as well as the many other young victims who have lost their limbs to the rebels, is a prime example of the intent of this picture- these people are suffering and dealing with pain, while the non-victims stand back and examine for their benefit. It's quite fitting that Ed Zwick would continue his "cultural issue film starring a white man" saga with this devastating and cliché melodrama, which ends with a demise for DiCaprio reminiscent of his freezing near-death state towards the conclusion of Titanic (except this time, it's really funny, and our hearts "won't go on"). Connelly is basically here to support and give face, while Leo has to be the bad guy who wants to do good, as long as he gets something in the end. Only Hounsou's Solomon Vandy is the true winner in this film, with a storybook ending that will make you stand up and cheer (not because of a fitting resolution or the quality of the movie- the filmmakers want you to, dammit). I still can't exactly explain how much I hated this movie without resorting to expletives.
Movies like Blood Diamond are what make me hate Hollywood - the abuse of problems in Africa for use as an issue film (sort of like Tears of the Sun and The Constant Gardener- which are both better films) is becoming extremely tired. And for what cause, if there is any (besides making diamond owners feel guilty)? Consider the release date. Djimon Hounsou will be up for the Best Supporting Actor prize without much effort, since this is awards season. If the film industry is going to churn out movies about problems in the world, they could at least make them not feel like opportunistic garbage. Posted by madamczyk at 07:40 AM | Comments (0) November 28, 2006
Bobby
Bobby is a period ensemble picture that tries hard to feel heartfelt, but instead comes off as anemic. Directed by Emilio Estevez, who even shows up a few times on-screen, Bobby tells the tale of the final day of RFK, but through the eyes of a few dozen other folks. Lindsay Lohan and Elijah Wood played my favorite pair of characters- Lilo plays a young girl who wants to marry a classmate of hers, despite the wishes of her family, to save his life from the draft of Vietnam. Elijah can tell that his bride to be may not love him, but she convinces him otherwise, which does lead to them embracing the fate and even experiencing some infatuation- I liked these two so much, I'd like to see a whole film about their characters.
Sharon Stone's role as a middle-aged hairdresser in The Ambassador Hotel (where this whole picture takes place) is her best role in a long, long time- she's not allowed to spread her legs, but instead find out that her Hotel Manager husband (William H. Macy, who phones in his performance) is having an affair with Switchboard operator Heather Graham (nothing notable here). Add Anthony Hopkins, Lawrence Fishburne, a worn out, slightly depressive couple played by Helen Hunt and Martin Sheen, Freddy Rodriguez, Demi Moore, Joshua Jackson (Charlie from 'Ducks', supporting Coach Bombay), Shia LeBouf, and a bunch of other actors, and you still don't have a stellar picture- Bobby feels like PT Anderson's Magnolia, but really wants to be Altman's Nashville- the sincerity and intent of the picture is completely lost until the final scene where the known tragic event happens. Only then do we really care about the well-being of all these fragmented people, and it's a bit too late for our sake nearly two hours down the line. With a better script, Bobby could have been something other than a multiple segment feature for all these groups of characters, giving them 15 minutes spread through the film to spew their quotations that signify the times and the parallells to the present. It doesn't feel trite, but it becomes all too clear half-way through the film that this is Estevez' format. In the hands of a better director, this picture could have worked with the false script, but if RFK had never been shot, who knows what this world would be like. That is what the film is trying to convey and let us in on, as if you couldn't tell from the beginning. Posted by madamczyk at 07:17 PM | Comments (0) November 15, 2006
Stranger Than Fiction
Stranger Than Fiction is a story within a film about a man named Harold Crick (Will Ferrell). Crick himself has a simple life, as well a bare, slightly beige apartment. He works for the IRS, can calculate any equation in his head, and has a single friend named Dave (Tony Hale), who happens to be a fellow coworker. One morning while brushing his teeth, Harold finds that there is a narrator for his life. This narrator knows what sound the IRS files brushing together reminds Harold of, as well as his many aspirations despite his actions paired with his exterior. The narrator is actually the author named Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson), who is writing a fictional tale of Harold's life... except there is nothing but nonfiction in her story. Harold soon finds out from Karen herself what her intentions are for his life, which causes him to search for her to determine how they can meet- and hopefully change his doomed fate.
Although Harold is played by one of the funniest mainstream actors working today, Stranger Than Fiction is not truly a comedy. It's more of a dramatic examination of a simple man, paired with some slightly unbelievable yet heartfelt romance. Harold encounters Ana (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who he declares an anarchist when she decides to only pay about 78% of her taxes for specific reasons. Her rage and hatred of what Harold has come to audit her for only makes him more infatuated with Ana's aura. Although we are supposed to believe that Harold has strong feelings for her as a human being and a desirable mate, he probably has those sort of thoughts about any woman who yells at him and is slightly attractive at the same time. But of course, since Karen Eiffel is writing about Ana and not any other women in Harold's life, we are given the confirmation of Harold's infatuation with Anarchist Ana.
To assist Harold with his quest to resolve the situation, he meets up with Professor Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman). Even though I was excited to see both actors interact with each other, Hoffman's character is ultimately disappointing, and I was frequently bored with his and Harold's interactions to solve the source of the narrative. Queen Latifah is also quite dull as the assistant named Penny, who is sent in by Karen Eiffel's publisher to cure Karen of writer's block. Director Marc Forster does an okay job balancing the reality of both Harold’s world and the sudden changes he must make to live his life. However, he just isn’t strong enough as a director to really put his stamp on this piece of work, as well as really bring what's on the screen to another level of depth for us to feel and experience. Also, quirky digi-art qualities, no matter how neat they make the footage of the film seem, do not make a movie. In the end, so much of the film feels awfully cute and calm, especially in dealing with Harold and his life, but so much of it is still a let down. Even Emma Thompson feels strangely bland on-screen, especially acting as the somewhat neurotic but mostly hyper chain-smoking Eiffel. Stranger Than Fiction could have been an obscure comedy, even romance, but it just feels like a big 105 minute blob of mush by the end. Although the film feels strangely frustrating and boring in its realm, it did make me tear up at the finale, which is somewhat acceptable as a conclusion, but only in a bored-on-a-rainy-day kind of way. Posted by madamczyk at 09:20 PM | Comments (0) November 08, 2006
Borat
You may be aware of this little movie about a character named Borat, fresh out of the mind of English comedic extraordinaire Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen is famous in Europe for his television show, which generally focuses on his other character Ali G, as well as another named Bruno. Back in 2002, I was exposed to the English version of Cohen's program and wasn't enticed. But now I can safely say that my sense of humor is more apt to his game. Borat the film itself is about the character by the same name, who has been sent to New York City to explore the glorious nation of America with his friend Azamat (played by Kenneth Davitian), all for their even more glorious nation of Kazakhstan. The Kazakhstan which Borat calls home is one laced with racism, sexism, crude attributes and otherwise. Only a fool would take what Borat says about his home as the truth of the nation. And only Cohen could get away with the constant Jew bashing that Borat and his friends partake in. After all, Cohen himself is a Jew - you'd have to have a pole up your ass (or otherwise) to view the activities that Borat enjoys, like The Running of the Jews (heh yes), as significant signs of racism.
From New York, where does Borat go? What can he see and find out about this strange country, where a plantation dinner goes awry, and a Virginian rodeo results in Borat being booed by the audience that previously cheered him for his support of the war "against" terror? A simple mockumentary it is, as Borat's quest of discovery turns into the road where his lust drives him, as he seeks to go across the country to California, to marry his new love Pamela Anderson. Nudity, crudeness, and frank behavior encompass in every single moment of the film, which often feels like a Jackass movie with a plotline. But you know what? I like the Jackass movies- and the plot and development of the character Borat and his discoveries are far from boring. The movie is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended, while it is not for the closed-minded either. Borat is a worthwhile mirror laced with hilarity and observances, most that so often we forget are part of the perception of our own nation. Posted by madamczyk at 08:29 PM | Comments (0) November 02, 2006
Little Children
Yes, I did see this movie called Little Children, and while I did enjoy it very much so, it's kind of hard for me to make a general statement about it, since I didn't come to realize its true meaning until I had come home an hour after viewing the picture. It's one of those films that, if you watch it straight without thinking much at all, you'll think its simplistic, probably dull, and pointless. But if you watch it taking all factors into mind, you might just see something else. Let me give you my perspective- I didn't even know the main plot of this movie before I viewed it- I figured that the plot would revolve around parenting. These parents doing not-so-good things, but it was so much more than that. I find it so much more affective when, thanks to the trailer, not much is given away, yet so much is said. I also didn't know what the poster for this film looked like, thankfully, because that was a major spoiler, even after the fact.
We learn about Brad, this father who stays at home with his son, while his wife Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) wears the pants. Kathy is perfect. Sarah is not. And yet Brad finds himself imagining the kiss between the two of them constantly.
Sarah strives to do her best in her awkward home situation, taking care of her daughter when she'd rather be power walking to escape her- her husband has a simple life and job, which leads him to fantasize about an internet sex object, who sends her a pair of underwear through the mail. He most likely does love Sarah, but just wants an escape, not to insult her but to instead fit his abstract needs that he wouldn't ask of her anyway. After getting to know him better through their days at the local pool, Sarah finds something in Brad- a slight bit of tension paired with a longing attraction- but won't admit it to our faces. When Brad discovers a hint of her attraction for him after sifting through her belongings, he instigates and releases physically through her. Sarah cannot believe what is happening through their mutual affair, but believes it as much as Brad does, although never forgetting her life outside of their steamy afternoons. And where does the conflict meet in the lives of these people? A convicted sex-offender named Ronald McGorvey (Jackie Earle Haley) has moved back into the neighborhood - Brad discovers this when an old buddy of his Larry, a former cop, begins posting signs around the town, allowing people to be aware of the creature now back from jail. Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson are fabulous together, both bringing strong complexities and erotic tension into their suburban exteriors. Their chemistry is awkward at first, much like their characters, but they make it believable. We want to see them together, not just as afternoon lovers. Winslet is often a great actress- she compliments Wilson, who is at the best of his career, perfectly. However, it is Jackie Earle Haley's performance as McGorvey that is to be seen, as it is possibly the best performance of the year so far. So often his character is in control of himself, and only through his simple admission of his problems are we let into his reality. Will this performance be remembered come Oscar season? I doubt it.
Little Children is not without faults, and surely isn't as impactful as you'd expect, but the embrace of satire, comedy, and drama, mixed with the magnificent work on and off screen elevate these flaws. The narration provided by Will Lyman could be seen as a negative for most, but I personally loved it. So often these characters have feelings, and while they can express them through movements without speaking, the thought process of what needs to be said without a character saying it still works quite well. Todd Field's direction is stellar, much like his previous picture In The Bedroom, and sets the film apart from any other dramatic release this year. I hope that Field continues to follow his masterful path set so far, but doesn't lose his fresh quality by subjecting his talent to what he isn't suited for in the future. Posted by madamczyk at 03:52 AM | Comments (0) October 25, 2006
Running with Scissors
I've never read Augusten Burroughs' "personal memoirs" (as the previews so willingly must insist), and after seeing the film with the same name, I kind of want to. Not because the film left things unanswered or made me feel captivated by the story - it was because it's hard for me to imagine that a movie like this can exist, as well as be based upon something regarded as worthy of being adapted for the silver screen.
The synopsis is as follows :
Annette Bening is a good actress, right? Well, that's questionable, since she still doesn’t have that damn Oscar, which she’s totally begging for here as Augusten's mother Deirdre Burroughs. She just seems to have taken her character Carolyn Burnham from American Beauty and put her through drug addiction- one such addiction that is oddly unenthusiastic, typical, and weak. Evan Rachel Wood does what she does best - play the young sex pot who can emote as much as a Mr. Potato Head. Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes, and Brian Cox, however, are probably the only unscathed beings from their parts, as their characters are so crazy that we accept it, just to get along with the rest of the picture. I will say that Paltrow's insanity did bring a slight smile to my face, as well as Fiennes' pouty photographer who beds Augusten. Joseph Cross' Augusten is sort of in the middle ground- he will go unscathed, and most likely lost in the mix. But the others? They're just minimal side characters who show up once in a while to say something goofy. You know what? I'm not even going to elaborate beyond that because its just not worth your time or my own. The ENTIRE movie is a wash. Oh, and you know what? I just forgot that Alec Baldwin was even in the picture. That's how insignificant he is, much like this entire film. A silly, terrible, boring, flat, and rather contrived exercise in dysfunction. Thank goodness for free screenings. Posted by madamczyk at 11:41 PM | Comments (0) October 24, 2006
Shortbus
Flash back to 1979 - Penthouse Publisher Bob Guccione attempts to blend real sex with drama in the epic historical disaster Caligula. Now, in 2006, John Cameron-Mitchell's Shortbus is a film that tackles the issues of sexuality and relationships head-on, with nearly every actor in the movie taking part in a sexual act that isn't simulated. Is it porn? I'm going to say no, but there will be others that disagree. After all, sex is a major, intricate part of real life and Shortbus doesn't want you to forget it.
So where do these four conflicted souls meet to work their lives out? None other than Shortbus, the orgy/brothel/sanctuary/salon with a conscious thought process and much awareness to so-called sexual "dysfunctions," giving pleasure to those who need it, either with others or with others watching. Nobody at Shortbus rides the big yellow Schoolbus, and the palace opens itself to them, giving their pain and needs a home to feel what they want and do as they please. The film Shortbus is not afraid of the problems that hamper the main and supporting characters. In a day and age where movies can be edited for content, Mitchell's film wants to rip the rug off the stain on the floor and expose the open wound of not only these people, but for their New York City. The love note that the film gives to these oppressed feelings and the undeveloped ground-zero leaves both with nothing but respect, and exposure that is anything but judgmental. You will not find a stereotypical gay couple or a frigid married female or a slutty S&M goddess. Too often perception puts on the blinders and prevents the reality to be brought out in front of us on film- and that's the beauty of this movie. Often these are not actors playing people with problems, but actors putting a face to what we chose not to face in others and ourselves. While not all of us have issues with our sexuality or in the act of sex or just with other people- are we so sure of it? Can we look inside our core, accept who we are and face the issue without degrading ourselves?
Posted by madamczyk at 10:39 PM | Comments (0) October 19, 2006
Marie Antoinette
As far as scenester directors go, Sofia Coppola is a silent leader of the pack. Her two previous films, "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lost in Translation" defined a new era of film fans through her subtle masterworks which contained lush visuals and "hipster" music, with undeniably talented screen stars providing some of their best roles to date. Marie Antoinette does take advantage of these factors through this historical drama of sorts about a young Austrian who will one day be queen of France, but it's a step backwards for Coppola, despite her immense talent and blend of composition.
To an extent, Kirsten Dunst is quite right for Antoinette. Her youth and unease of transition are evident and well played at first, but somewhere along the line where Marie has to be a provocateur, she doesn't seem so right anymore. The dress-up sets in and she's just sort of moving along with the flow. But that's not to say that Marie doesn't do the same herself when settling in to her position as Queen. However, in comparison to her partner Jason Schwartzman as Louis the 16th, we can see which young actor is playing the role and which of them is simply playing. Schwartzman, in every scene that he appears, manages to be totally interesting, obtuse, and never boring.
If you can survive the first timid 20 minutes of the film without a hitch, you're probably one who is suited for Marie Antoinette- otherwise, head for the exit immediately. The film is often beautiful, well-shot, swiftly edited, and easy, but it's a lack of development through the script that neglects these facts, leaving the remaining parts of the movie to fulfill nothing more than a music-video context. So much could have been done on the part of Coppola through dialogue, but it's just not there. While looking and observing is nice to do at times, it shouldn't be the main focus for a film like this. The underdeveloped examination of characters makes the film seem fluffy ... is the movie nothing more than an excuse to pair Bow Wow Wow's "I Want Candy" with a sequence of fancy footwear? Maybe. But it's still fun to see someone like Rip Torn dress up to play Louis the 15th, as well as Asia Argento as his mistress Madame du Barry and Comtesse de Noailles played by the tightly wound and luminous Judy Davis.
While it is evident that Sofia Coppola can handle the transition between a big budget period pic from her subtle character dramas, she still has her work cut out for her in the future. Antoinette in the end fails because behind the veneer of history, the film is empty without a real, fully developed script. And while the film isn't anything for the average viewer to easily consider, I wouldn't put it past anyone else if they did end up skipping it. At 123 minutes, Marie Antoinette isn't really worth the effort and time, even with the interest for Marie herself or the love for Coppola's previous work. Posted by madamczyk at 11:38 PM | Comments (0) September 18, 2006
School for Scoundrels
Last week, I found myself in a position I didn't think I would ... not ever, in my life.
The premise behind School for Scoundrels is, that in order for ANY man, even those classified as a "loser," to get any woman he desires, that man must not be himself. This does work for Roger, but only up to a certain point. His instructor Dr. P (Billy Bob Thornton) tells all the men in the class that they must LIE, LIE, LIE to any woman to impress her. Of course, as you'd assume, this works for the men for a while and against them in the end. But all does end well - and this simplistic tale of stupidity and the affects of idiocy, as well as honesty, is actually not half bad at all. You'll know what's going to happen every single time (or you get the sense of what the filmmakers want to accomplish act-by-act), and yet, it just works. I'll admit - I only saw this movie because it was free, even though it looked like a carbon copy of Anger Management, and I branded it as so from the first time I saw a trailer for it. And now after seeing the movie, it wasn't a bad assumption at all. But the difference between the two movies is Anger Management was and is, in my opinion, a total waste of time.
Thornton's Dr. P is the same angry bastard that he played in Bad Santa- or any other movie where he spent a considerable amount of time yelling at people. This doesn't really matter by the end of the movie, because it does confirm that Thornton is good at, yes, that said yelling. Throw in a decent cameo and you have yourself a satisfying byproduct of Director Todd Phillips. Phillips, I believe, is best at his game when tackling the PG-13 crowd, which he does better here than in his previous effort Starsky and Hutch, as well as his gross-out R-rated frat films Road Trip and Old School. It surprises me as well how much SFS doesn't rely on what I call typical "physical" comedy, which to the average person is when you laugh when someone gets knocked in the head or falls down, only from the result some kind of object hitting them. SFS has one scene that does use complete physical comedy, but it's also paired with good comedic writing, so all is forgiven completely.
Genuine gags and humor aside, it's not going to win any Oscars or end up on my year end Top 10 list, but I'm not going to deny School For Scoundrels is a funny movie that I enjoyed greatly. Will you like it too? Maybe. Will you remember it years after you see it? Probably not. But I think it's worth spending your buck on. Posted by madamczyk at 11:45 PM | Comments (2) August 18, 2006
Snakes On a Plane
As both a film fan and a so-called Snake cult member, I was, in a word, floored. Somehow the movie manages to be the perfect blend of straight comedy, drama/horror- and all the campy stuff we fans sooo desperately wanted. Samuel L. Jackson’s role as Agent Flynn is awesome. The persona he holds in his most memorable previous roles is revamped masterfully, making his performance just perfect. It’s kind of remarkable that his character would have been watered down PG-13 FBI agent dealing with the goofy, stereotypical-yet-charming passengers and all those Snakes- all if it wasn't for the change in Director and the "cult" status being taken seriously by the filmmakers. The awesome snake attacks I viewed as graphic content almost didn't happen. And when a movie has a present-time midnight-showing/1950s matinee quality, you really can’t cheat on the "horror with a side of cheese" feeling so expertly done here.
The plotline of Snakes attacking innocent people on said plane is not without reason as well- a young hawaiian surfer dude witnesses a murder while riding his dirt bike, executed by the eeeevil Eddie Kim (he’s like, bad and stuff). This witness needs protection- and the only person to do so will be Agent Nelville Flynn. But in order to take this twenty-something surfer Sean to give his much needed testimony on trail, he has to be escorted back to the mainland by Agent Flynn. However, Eddie Kim obviously doesn’t want Sean arriving at LAX safely... thus, Snakes on the Plane. Airport security can’t trace the cold blooded suckers, and with a timed release, away they go, through the cargo hold, and seeking out their prospective victims. All kinds of horrible things happen, and along with their leader Agent Flynn, the passengers strike back, with idiocy, hilarity, as well as other kinds of things one would hope to see in any kind of movie... except this one. Smarts? Heartfelt moments? You bet, as well as other welcomed surprises and groovy memorable moments.
So is your hard earned money worth spending on Snakes On a Plane? Sure. Go for it. It’s not the “fans only” motion picture I thought it would be - almost any individual can enjoy it on some level, as long as they’re not suffering from Ophidiophobia. As far as comedy, it works. Horror/Thriller? Yes. And a far-fetched fanboy masterpiece? Most definitely. Posted by madamczyk at 12:45 AM | Comments (0) August 16, 2006
Inside the "In" Joke : Snakes On a Plane
Coming August 18th, get ready for the best bad movie ever ... how is that so? Think of the title. Read it to yourself. Snakes on a plane. Still don't get it? Say it to yourself again, but picture Samuel L. Jackson fighting the snakes on a plane. Doesn't work? That's ok. Snakes on a Plane has gone from being simply a movie about ... snakes, on a plane... to a preemptive cult phenomenon. The best example of the Snakes cult is the website Snakes on a Blog, but what really got the motor running for the net were the first few fan trailers. Just check out Youtube.com, type "Snakes on a plane" into the search engine, and you'll find all the media you need. It all started with a simple audio trailer that sprung up somewhere on the net... I believe it was the imdb.com forums- then that inspired first few fan video trailers came out made completely from scratch- not a single frame from the movie they were based upon had been released, so fans had to get creative. The filmmakers caught wind of the trailers, especially the audio trailer, which contained a line uttered by Samuel L. Jackson ... "I've had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane!" the alleged line was so inspiring, the filmmakers reshot some of the movie, to make it an R rating, just so that fans could have the dialogue they so desperately wanted.
So come Friday the 18th, will Snakes on a Plane live up to the anti-hype that the movie has? Will it be the bad/good movie that so many people think it will be? We'll just have to wait and see. Snakes Related Video through Time: Samuel L. Jackson talks Snakes with Ellen And just for fun, here's the faux trailer I made for a class I took at college. The project to do with the video was the marketing of a future summer movie... and here's the focus I had for the trailer cotent and its intended audience. Enjoy! Posted by madamczyk at 12:58 PM | Comments (1) July 21, 2006
Kevin Smith's Clerks II
In case you didn't know, Good Morning America critic Joel Siegel stormed out of a screening of Clerks II not even 40 minutes into his viewing, disrupting the mood with his negative opinion being voice loudly for all to hear. "Time to go!" he yelled as he stood up and proceeding to walk out, passing dozens of critics and writers on his way to the door. And his tirade continued all the way out, as he yelled over the film's dialogue that this was the first time "in thirty (expletive) years" he had walked out on a film. The apparent reason for Siegel's vulgar outburst? A line of dialogue in the film - well, one of many, actually - about sex between a woman and a donkey. Later in the screening, one other unnamed critic appeared to make an early departure. In Kevin Smith's response to the report from his website, he stated the following :
I'll be honest and say that it takes a lot for me to be offended. Not even Kevin Smith's previous films caused me to have a red-flag when viewing his latest View Askew entry Clerks II, which is rated R for for pervasive sexual and crude content including aberrant sexuality, strong language and some drug material. Strong rating? Sure it is. But it's not a stupid movie wanting to cash-in. Oh yeah, there's meaning in all of this "trash," as Joel Siegel may say. In all its unrelenting raunch-humor driven glory, Clerks II is a masterpiece - BUT it's not as good as the the original. Sorry Kevin- you just can't touch that level anymore, especially with this version being not only in color, but with familiar faces, a big mainstream theatrical feel, and throwbacks to popular culture that is more relevant to a wider audience. But the success of this sequel is also through the acknowledgment of the fact that more than 10 years have gone by.
Dante and Randal now work at the fast food joint Mooby's, some time after their beloved RST video and Quick-Stop convenience duo go up in flames. So does this loss stop their antics? Hardly. Their life and the universe is easy fodder for their daily lives, even when Dante is engaged to a chick who "wouldn't even talk to him in high school" - although things have changed, it's still the same song and dance. But this song is more conscious of expectations, time passed, and potential. Dante questions his "profession," while Randal questions other important topics, including the uprising of the "fanboy," and why his fellow coworker, the 19 year old bible thumper Elias, hasn't done anything physical with women at his age. While Elias may be a new character and somewhat of a stereotype, he's easily my favorite element of the movie. Everything to do with him is obscure and crude, but still allows him to be himself, even when he's excessively being made fun of. Jay and Silent Bob hang out on the side of Mooby's, because they don't really have a choice. Their outlook on life is slightly different, after both of them find Jesus (seriously, but not seriously)- a slight redemption paired with their recent exit from rehab. Mooby's manager Becky is the mediator for all the foul-mouthed gents at the fast-food shack, and she holds her own against the powerful words exchanged, both totally insensitive and grotesque. Becky may be the best-written female character in any movie Kevin Smith has made- with her cutesy smiles and big heart of gold, she never feels out of touch, especially for the significance she has.
So where exactly is the conflict? The real driving force for the need of Clerks II? It's all about figuring it out. Where do the characters go from here? Not much further than they were before, and the obvious "lessons learned" hover over the story like a tight-fitting halo. Kevin Smith knows what to do with Dante and his problems, and still has a blast in this throwback to the initial clerkdom and slacker years of the 90s, which he might as well take credit for interpreting better than anyone else, because nobody does it better and no films have the comedic quality that he infuses into his projects. A sequel for Clerks may be kind of hypocritical and seemingly useless, but it's still damn brilliant.
NOTE : all italicized content from - viewaskew.com/news/jul06/1.html Posted by madamczyk at 03:06 PM | Comments (1) July 09, 2006
Five Good Reasons Why I Won't See THE DEAD MAN'S CHEST
This post isn't about persuading you or anyone else on why to not see the latest installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean series - My mom said to me, as my siblings were about to leave to see the movie, "Mal, why aren't you going? You can write a review!" ... that's just the thing: I can't. Although there are obviously millions of fans, both big, small, and very much of the Tiger Beat type, I strongly disliked the first Pirates installment, and really couldn't bring myself to see this new sequel. However, it's not just the issue of presumption, taste, whatever.
#1. MRS. DEPP #2. "Gone is Depp's unpredictability and much of the humor and originality of the first movie." #3. 150 minutes x $6.75 or $8.75, etc.
I just don't like Pirates. So call me a hater, but at the end of the day, I still don't like Pirates. But what do I dislike more than Pirates? Jerry Bruckheimer- but let's save that for later.
Posted by madamczyk at 07:18 PM | Comments (7) July 01, 2006
Superman Returns
... an unnecessary sequel. Yes, it surely is. But seeing Superman portrayed by Brandon Routh is almost worthy of bringing to the screen. However, Routh's sharp look and mild, but effective acting is the best thing about this underwhelming take on the familiar and much-loved Man of Steel.
Kevin Spacey fills the shoes previously vacated by Gene Hackman quite well, but the script doesn't give him enough opportunities to crack some wit, as well as have the snarky dialogue that makes Lex so different from other Comic-book villains. Lex's drive this time around is to obliterate Superman by stealing precious crystals from what is left of the planet of his origin - Krypton - as well as using pieces of Kryptonite against him, AND create his own continent of it, so that the rest of the world will bow down to him and his new body of land. A truly far-fetched plan for any person to be successful, but it does work in the story, unlike some of the other developments and use of characters.
As far as superhero movies go, Superman Returns is lacking of what makes films of the genre great. The vibrant characters, the futuristic qualities set in a modern time frame, action-packed scenarios, and the ability to be affecting to the audience, with both emotions and human touches. But the film has practically no balance between the emotions of the characters- especially the "return" of the sexual tension between Lois Lane and Superman/Clark Kent- and the parts where Superman does his job. Director Bryan Singer has already made his mark with the first two X-Men films, but the problems that I have with those films do linger here, although in a different environment- all things to do with excitement, paying attention to characters, and allowing conflict to be not only meaningful, but have real reason and presentation that involves discussion. Or in simple terms, suffering from total blandness.
Do I hope that they continue the series with another Superman sequel? Yes, but only if there's an overhaul in acting, story, and direction - replace Kate Bosworth and Bryan Singer, and also give both the new Lois and the next film some real enthusiasm with the script. Despite the obvious issue of the script, most of the actors really do the best to their ability- even Routh's Clark Kent leaves much to be desired, not through his acting, but from what he's given to work with. The underwhelming nature of this film makes the 2 hour and 37 minute runtime drag, even though the story and pacing move quickly along. It seems to be that this time around, Superman never really seems to fly, despite getting off the ground. Posted by madamczyk at 06:01 PM | Comments (0) June 08, 2006
The Omen in '06
In our current times, we are at war in the middle east, there is a lack of trust for our own nation's leader, and most people are scared about the rise of gas prices affecting their own funds. Plenty of worry from these facts can be placed upon the average person, but that all is nothing compared to the evil forces contained in the remake of the 1976 film The Omen. The birth of the "beast" himself has come into the world on the fateful day of June 6th, and in the very same hospital lies the future parents of another child born around the exact same time - but the father of this child is a person of power, as the United States' Ambassador for Italy, and he has been alerted that his own newborn child has died. And to add more insult to injury, his wife probably won't be able to conceive in the future. So what does this father do in a fragile situation? He takes the advice of a priest in the hospital, and places the child born to an unwed mother who has no known relatives in the hands of his wife, claiming it to be their son. This son is the perfect child - Damien, the Antichrist himself - and it just so happens that Damien's genes come from jackal, providing his presence at all times to be evil as hell (literally).
Does this sound like an absurd plot? Absolutely. And it still is today on film as it was nearly 30 years earlier with the release of the original film. Back then, The Omen starred Gregory Peck and Lee Remick, as Robert and Katharine Thorn, the unsuspecting parents, and they are now replaced by Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles. Schreiber's Robert isn't as full of presence and frustration as Peck was, and it's quite obvious that Julia Stiles was miscast as Katharine, but neither is as faulty as the casting of Damien himself. Harvey Stephens gave looks that could kill as Damien in the original, but the remakes devil child, played by Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick, doesn't seem to have a grasp on looking truly chilling - he more often looks constipated instead of unholy. But casting difference and letdowns aside, the remake of The Omen isn't a bad film at all, especially considering that the original material isn't something I consider to be either scary, nor truly well-made.
Okay, so, here's the deal. This version of The Omen is a well-shot, swiftly composed, and thoroughly explained. Clarity of reason for events is executed plainly, and it's quite easy for anyone without biblical familiarity to understand why Damien is just so evil. But why should you see this movie if you already like the original? Two reasons : Death scenes, and Mia Farrow. Firstly, the death scenes are what I like the best out of all of the movies in The Omen trilogy. And mostly, the remake gets them right, keeping the disturbing impact intact. But a few deaths are still disappointing/overdone, and one major death completely discards all of the elements that made the same scene great in the original. Either way, decapitations, hangings, etc... I find a strange pleasure in all of them (maybe because of the attachment of the original and its enjoyment from my youth). And Mia Farrow. Rosemary herself slides in the backdoor of the Thorn's home as the new nanny Mrs. Baylock. What makes Farrow so scary isn't the force or stare of her character, but her seemingly innocent love for taking care of children. Her vacant eyes paired with her wide smile will create chills up and down your spine - and her means to protect Damien, when his future role as the Antichrist is threatened, are devilishly enjoyable. It's the kind of casting and performance execution that any film fan can applaud.
Now with the positive aspects to the film itself, there are some directorial issues. The pacing of the first half of the film is a bit rushed, and lacks the unveiling of events that the original contains, having more obvious anticipation for negativity, instead of an organic tone of uncertain fear for the characters. Seemingly safe-bet Pete Postlethwaite's Father Brennan is a really tired character who drains the life off the screen - Postlethwaite isn't right for the role at all - his character is too concerned, instead of truly furious over the capabilities of Damien. However, in a supporting role, David Thewlis is actually quite good as the photographer Keith who discovers scary things in his photos, which are taken of those who's lives are at risk. Dislikes aside, The Omen is a surprising remake. It's chills, thrills, gore, violence, and satanic undertones work quite well. The film has almost everything you need for a convincing horror movie - and it's production values aren't very cheap at all. It may not be the greatest horror movie made, nor does it even majorly improve upon the original. And there's absolutely no reason for this version of The Omen to exist, but even when all parts aren't exactly up to par, in the end, it's a damn good time. Posted by madamczyk at 03:53 PM | Comments (0) June 01, 2006
SummerFilm at The Music HallAlas, Summertime is here. And with that comes films both new and old, all presented at The Music Hall in Portsmouth, NH. Usually, TMH is the one place in southern NH that is always playing smaller indie american/foreign/hard-to-find films, and SummerFilm fest seems to have the right mix of "gotta see" films that almost any film fan would like. But in my own quest to see almost everything worthwhile, I feel a bit let down by the content this year. I won't bore you with my rants, but anyway... here's the best of the bunch - the sure fire bets - and some really disappointing choices (well, in my opinion). MUST SEE FILMs Despite being well-recieved films, don't think of waiting 'til DVD for some of the following, because these will probably be lost in the shuffle at Blockbuster, or maybe just not be available for general renting there at all (psst... get Netflix!). See these films now while you still can!
Best of Youth Pt. 1 - Playing June 19th and 20th [7:30pm both dates]
Umberto D. - Playing July 26th - [7:30pm] An Inconvenient Truth
They've got familiar faces, straightforward plots (maybe), and should be pretty easy to swallow. A lighter fare for the average viewer. THE MUPPET MOVIE - Playing June 4th - 6th [7:30pm all dates - 2pm showing June 4th]
BRICK - Playing July 6th [7:30pm] and July 7th[7pm, 9:15pm]
NEIL YOUNG - HEART OF GOLD - Playing July 19th [7:30pm]
WORDPLAY -
LADY VENGEANCE -
ON GOLDEN POND - Playing August 30th [2pm and 7:30pm]
PLEASE, don't look at most of the following as just "foreign" films. They might not be extremely critically acclaimed, nor be accessible for all viewers, but if you want to give it a try, it might be just right for your taste. Click the titles of the films below for information. THE TWO OF US - Playing June 14th [7:30pm] SOMERSAULT - Playing July 17th, 18th [7:30pm both dates] THREE TIMES - Playing July 23rd - 25th [7:30pm all dates] I AM CUBA - WATER - MOUNTAIN PATROL - THE DEATH OF MR. LAZARESCU - Playing August 16th [2pm and 7:30pm] ARMY OF SHADOWS -
Just because it's playing at The Music Hall, doesn't mean you need to see it there. MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS Want some more information about The Music Hall, as well as what other things are happening at the theater? Check out their website : Music Hall Online Posted by madamczyk at 08:34 PM | Comments (0) May 24, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
NOTE : Due to the film itself, and some issues at hand about how to put my opinion in words, yes, this review is a bit past due from when I actually saw the movie. I have one word for you : Dud. BUT
I don't know who Ron Howard is kidding - but obviously he doesn't care about the critical reception. The movie has a built-in audience from the millions of people who have read the novel, and the success of this movie only depended on the fact that it would be released. I can't really put into words how much I hated this movie. Sure, it's a by-the-numbers, calculated, cliché, predictable, and underwhelming journey that even Indiana Jones would roll his eyes at. But I don't feel like those words are enough to explain my utter hatred and despair for the money I lost seeing this .. "film."
However, what amazes me more than the sheer crappiness of the feature is the screenplay. Are people really reading this book and praising it? Or has Akiva Goldsman (the balding fellow above, shown with actor Paul Bettany, the hammy Albino) really pulled a fast one on Dan Brown? Line after line was amazingly bad. Tom Hanks said nothing memorable, and Audrey Tautou's lovely voice seemed strained by the contrived melodrama she was spewing. Only Ian McKellan seemed to do something with the dialogue, and definitely was one of the more well done and positive aspects of the film in general. But should I be surprised? No. Absolutely not. Mr. Goldsman wrote the brilliant screenplay to the gem Batman and Robin, which might as well be best known for the lines that Arnold Schwarzenegger himself got to say in his role as Mr. Freeze, such as Cheesy, yes. If you haven't seen The Da Vinci Code in theaters yet, and you're thinking about it, go ahead. But it's still 150 minutes of your life you will never, EVER get back. Time that could be spent with loved ones, or enjoying life to the fullest extent. So if you're going decide to throw away your precious time to see it, I suggest DVD, because it's a long, long, LONG 150 minutes... and you might want the fast-forward button... or hopefully press the POWER button to shut the awfulness off. There are so many movies being released this summer, and if any of them are like "Da Vinci," oh, what an awful summer this will be. Posted by madamczyk at 10:14 PM | Comments (3) May 06, 2006
Mission : Impossible 3
The following contains a review of the first "blockbuster" film of the summer - Mission Impossible 3. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to think that Tom Cruise is believable as the main character Ethan Hunt. Cruise's Hunt this time around is about to be married to Julia (Michelle Monaghan), and is seemingly going through his life with ease because he no longer is an agent at the IMF. He simply trains new agents, so that he has less to worry about. You wouldn't guess that however if you did meet Ethan Hunt in person : Ethan Hunt has lost every compassionate, believable bone in his body, and has become a wired, troublesome prick experiencing, um, the real world. But there's more than just a problem with Tom Cruise in this movie. Nearly every action sequence and plot line has been done before not just in the previous M:I films, but in other pictures from the genre.
Bad guy Owen Davian wants The Rabbit's Foot. Why? Well, it's an object of power ... I guess. It's never explained, and this unit/device/tech tool basically drives this movie for some reason. It's not very fair to the audience to present new eye-candy agents to the IMF team, such as Keri Russell, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and Maggie Q, as well as awesome actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Davian - and then not develop their presence at all. Hoffman looks especially bored on screen. However, seeing him be bored is more pleasant than seeing Cruise trying to convince us that he's not senile.
If this movie has any agenda, it's to present Tom Cruise as a guy who can have a stable relationship with a woman, besides his questionable employment (Hunt tells Julia that he works for the highway system or something... but it doesn't matter. It's dialogue - this movie wants to entertain you with visuals). We see them laugh at a party. They kiss. They sleep together naked. And they get married suddenly, because that Ethan Hunt is a lovable kooky guy who digs his chick. THEN they consummate their marriage in a medical storage area of the hospital that his chick works at. Do we really need to see that? No. Absolutely not. The relationship between Ethan and Julia is about as believable as ... well, take a guess. After taking a single movie advertising course here at college, that was focused on the agenda of films, it seems obvious to me that Tom Cruise had the following goals for this movie :: 1. Prove that you can love a woman Could the fact that Monaghan looks like a certain Cruise fiancee/baby momma be a coincidence? Really- you shouldn't have to have me tell you this. Especially since her character was only added before shooting after numerous rewrites of this script, after many directorial issues at hand. Posted by madamczyk at 09:30 PM | Comments (1) May 01, 2006
United 93
How do you critique a documentary. How do you critique nonfiction. A film such as United 93 doesn't belong in the same multiplex as Stick It! or Scary Movie 4 - Can we learn from this motion picture which shows what happened on 9/11 to those innocent passengers and flight crew, and to what effect the event has on the terrorists?
Paul Greengrass' direction is tight, timid, and aware of everything possibly happening in the moments of the doomed flight while projected upon the screen. The film is well shot, easy to follow, and never makes the event theatrical - as I said, it just happens. One part of the film that I enjoyed greatly and did not even expect to see was the events unfolding for the air-traffic controllers, as portrayed by some who even went through the exact thing they are reenacting from 9/11. Showing what information, both truth and speculative and how it was handled - as well as how NORAD even dealt with it, is surprisingly vital and effective. I was hesitant about seeing this in general because .. well, who wants to see innocent people on a plane that has been hijacked? But I wanted some sense of what it was like on 9/11. I never really had an emotional experience connected to it - I was in the eye doctors office and felt so removed - people around me cried but I did not. When I got home sometime in the early afternoon, I didn't know what to make of the images on television. That said, United 93 has place for me now to help me better understand the feelings of those who suddenly found out what happened, and what it was like to lose someone you know or were related to who was lost. It's a kind of devastation that unfortunately only happens in the worst of situations. And thankfully, there is nothing on screen that I felt to be out of placed or overdone to do with the emotional weight.
Posted by madamczyk at 07:49 PM | Comments (0) April 28, 2006
Hard Candy
So we all know that meeting people over the internet and then in person can be risky, yes? Hayley (the luminous Ellen Page) is meeting Jeff (the clean-cut, sharp eyed Patrick Wilson). Hayley and Jeff have been chatting for about three weeks, both being quite eager to meet the other, which they do in a coffee shop. Jeff is impressed by Hayley, and vice versa. Both of them trade off their equal likes and dislikes, discussing music, literature, as well as Jeff's career as a photographer. Soon after, Jeff is driving Hayley to his house so that he can let her listen to a Goldfrapp bootleg, and shoot her with his camera. What Hayley knows about Jeff however is something she soon wants to expose us to - his lifestyle, home, and art are questionable, disturbing, but still safe to the untrained eye. Hayley is both the prey and the bait - she suspects that Jeff has committed crimes against girls her own age, having full intent of giving Jeff what he deserves. But through the entire process of Hayley getting back at Jeff, he almost never relents with the conviction that he is innocent. Patrick Wilson's performance is convincing and expertly questionable - do we sympathize with him or not? Are there two sides to his life or is he who he is to outsiders? Ellen Page's Hayley is equally amazing, but really gives the film bite, force, and fury where needed - she never, ever lets her guard down, infusing her character with wit and brain power almost no character her age on screen has ever had previously. But with great conviction does come questions : is Jeff the person Hayley is sure he is? And is Hayley even fit to take on the situation she has pulled herself and Jeff into?
However, after I left the film I felt strangely aware that I had seen this movie before. Back in 1994, Roman Polanski's Death and the Maiden hit the screen with a similar complexity in a set place. Sigourney Weaver's character in that film was convinced that the abusive past she suffered was at the hands of her sudden house guest Ben Kingsley.. or was it? A similar situation of torture and trial was presented in that film - which to me is an amazing achievement in emotional acting with force and strenuosity. Is it a coincidence that Ellen Page sort of emulates a young Sigourney Weaver in appearance and performance ? Probably. Despite the fact that both films are quite similar, separate they do not need each other to be successful in their own right. Hard Candy is a film that begs to be seen and pleases, with the devastation and fear for a victim and the predator in a seemingly controlled situation. Posted by madamczyk at 09:54 PM | Comments (0) The Devil and Daniel Johnston
According to the documentary The Devil and Daniel Johnston, Mr. Johnston was once a musical genius who unfortunately suffered various mental and psychological breakdowns. Although you and I probably only first heard of Mr. Johnston from viewing the trailer or hearing the title for this movie, Daniel Johnston is a familiar, telling tale of a human being capable of so much but unfortunately was his own worst enemy. I once came to my own personal conclusion that it was very hard for a documentary to be bad. I found this recently broken with the film Enron : The Smartest Guys in the Room, which was extremely interesting but together unsatisfying. The Devil and Daniel Johnston sort of lingers in the area of dissatisfaction with the constant reminder that Daniel was musician whom people were captivated by. When the camera is set upon Daniel himself with various home movies and performances, we don't need to hear the others comment on his well-being or career - Daniel Johnston is a human being who has had a lot of awful things happen to him and his mental state which can ultimately be the reasoning for him not being a household name today. You can see the years of pain and suffering in his eyes - if the film had let Daniel be more of a voice for himself, it could be flawless. But unfortunately the film suffers from one-to-many summarizations from friends and family, even though they play such a major role in his life so far. With my own issues of interview put aside, The Devil and Daniel Johnston is a worthwhile venture into the mind of a now music savant. The average person may not like his music upon a first listen, but through his pain and creativity, Daniel created a sound his own full of descriptive, poetic lyrics - the key to his music was only found through his voice, which isn't exactly the most beautiful thing in the world, but has a passionate tone which is organic and somewhat refreshing. I was once told that life is a process - every experience must be taken in and realized before we can get to the next step. Daniel Johnston took his music and made it no matter what his circumstances were, until his own health go in the way. To me, the true test of a musician is drive. And Daniel Johnston is a talented person who may be forgotten simply because of his own self, which years ago had an intention of being remembered by every soul he encountered. Maybe with this documentary, there will be a future place for Daniel's music and soul - long after his own struggle is lay to rest. Posted by madamczyk at 01:16 PM | Comments (0) April 20, 2006
Friends with Money
The answer is no. She can't act. And even when she's given a pretty minimal role, where it could have been easy for any other actress to add depth where there isn't, she does nothing but simply speak her lines, either while smiling or frowning. I honestly don't get it - she could hold her own for years with other "friends" and seemingly did a good job in The Good Girl, but somehow, she doesn't have the capability to emote more than a Cabbage Patch doll. Outside of Aniston's meek role, FRIENDS WITH MONEY is just an OK look at three rich friends with one lesser-off friend. Catherine Keener has a nice role as Christine, who starts to question her marriage to David (Jason Isaacs). Joan Cusack shows up every once in a while to play Franny, who's married to Matt (Greg Germann). Their storyline and characters serve almost no purpose except to be an example of what the other couples want and to aid them in conversation... well, sometimes.
But the really deep and fleshed out couple is Aaron and Jane (Simon McBurney and Frances McDormand), who are not only interesting, but are individually conflicted people who are trying to deal with the world around them. While Aaron just wants a few adult male friends (leading to some tired quips questioning his sexuality), Jane cannot and doesn't want to take the crap that is thrown at her everyday. She stops washing her hair, confronts a mother of a playmate of her son, and even has a totally justified but abrupt retail breakdown. Her character may be overwrought and off-key with the other female leads, but McDormand makes Jane absolutely enjoyable and hilarious. She tones her down when she needs to, and gives the mostly dull film some refreshing qualities.
Sure, Friends With Money is a really weak effort from Nicole Holofcener (who made the film Lovely And Amazing, which *almost* lives up to its title), but somehow it's still worth seeing because of the relationship between Aaron and Jane. They're continuously honest with each other and make |
