Because we all love lists, don't we?
Top Ten Pre-2012 Movies Seen on Netflix in 2012
1. Margin Call - watched it six times, enjoyed it every time.
2. Traffic
3. Amelie
4. The Limey
5. The Secret Life of Bees
6. Out of Sight
7. Moneyball
8. Hanna
9. Taking Woodstock
10. Tell No One
Also Enjoyed
Bernie, The Adventures of Tintin, London Boulevard, The Girl Who Played With Fire, Bronson, Charade, The Wedding Banquet, The Women on the Sixth Floor, El Bulli, Eat Drink Man Woman, Tortilla Soup, Blackthorn, Being Elmo, Billy Elliot, War Horse, My Week With Marilyn, J. Edgar, My Life So Far, Water for Elephants, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Mamma Mia, Erin Brockovich, Solaris, Dan in Real Life, Dark City, Burke and Hare, 30 Minutes or Less, The Warriors, Crazy Heart, Mr. Brooks, Sexy Beast, American History X, The Rum Diary, The Informant!, Shine, The Reader, Attack the Block, Fracture, Midnight in Paris, 50/50, The Ides of March, Iris, The Help, Under the Tuscan Sun, Kinsey, A Single Man.
Meh
Muriel's Wedding, Anonymous, The Shipping News, The Good German, A Dangerous Method.
Showing posts with label Netflix 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netflix 2012. Show all posts
Monday, December 31, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
"The Way"
The story of "The Way" is simple - Martin Sheen plays a well-to-do doctor (ophthalmologist) who, while on the golf course one day, receives a call from overseas that his nearly estranged son (played by his real son, Emilio Estevez) has died, while attempting to make the pilgrimage on the El camino del Santiago - The Way of St. James. When he travels to France to retrieve the remains, he decides - somewhat on a whim, so it would seem - to have the remains cremated, and to make the pilgrimage himself, spreading his son's ashes along the way. And along the way, he meets a number of interesting characters, three who join him - a fat and sometimes jolly Dutchman, a Canadian woman who is wound so tight that you expect her to implode at any moment, and a talkative Irish writer who...well, can't stop talking. Naturally, they all have their stories, and their reasons for making the trek.
While directed by Estevez, the movie clearly belongs to Sheen. You could argue that he's simply channeling Josiah Bartlet, but there's little doubt in my mind that the movie's emotional impact - and there are quite a few moments that grab you and tighten the throat - is due solely to his presence as an actor, and his ability to raise even the most potentially trite moments to something that is emotional, affecting, and entirely believable. Even at those moments when you're saying to yourself that what you're seeing on the screen is too good to be true, that moments like that don't happen in real life, Sheen is there to bring things back to Earth.
It's not a great film, but it's certainly an earnest one, and well worth watching.
While directed by Estevez, the movie clearly belongs to Sheen. You could argue that he's simply channeling Josiah Bartlet, but there's little doubt in my mind that the movie's emotional impact - and there are quite a few moments that grab you and tighten the throat - is due solely to his presence as an actor, and his ability to raise even the most potentially trite moments to something that is emotional, affecting, and entirely believable. Even at those moments when you're saying to yourself that what you're seeing on the screen is too good to be true, that moments like that don't happen in real life, Sheen is there to bring things back to Earth.
It's not a great film, but it's certainly an earnest one, and well worth watching.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Manhattan, 33 years later
Watching it again after a very long time - I'm not sure I've seen it since the late '80s - I was surprised at how my reaction to it has changed over the years. When it was released, I thought it was his best movie, and perhaps even his masterpiece. Looking at it now, I'd still include it among his best, but not anywhere near the level of "Hannah and Her Sisters" or "Annie Hall."
The look of the film remains spectacular - the cinematography by Gordon Willis is magnificent, and Allen makes the most of the scenery - its almost as if the city is an unnamed character in the story.
It's the humans I had a problem with - not a single one of them seemed real to me. Allen's character is exactly what you would expect it to be, but Diane Keaton alternates between annoying and exasperating, and Michael Murphy is such a loser that I wanted to smack him in the face by movie's end. Of the primary cast, the only one who seems like a real person - and acts like a real adult, despite her age - is Mariel Hemingway. But frankly, the romance between Allen and Hemingway, what with all that occurred in real life since then, struck me as more than a little creepy. Generally I don't have a problem with age-gap relationships, but something about 42m/17f just seems wrong - even if the 17 year old is more emotionally mature than her elder.
There are a lot of great, even classic moments in the movie, but in the end it adds up to less than the sum of its parts. Mind you, my judgment is in comparison to other Allen classics, and not movies in general.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
The Longest Netflix Wrapup Ever
For the sake of completion, some quick thoughts - in some cases, very quick - on movies we've watched on Netflix or Netflix Streaming in the past few months, and I didn't say anything about.
The Secret Life of Bees - Really, really good. I hope that Dakota Fanning doesn't spend the rest of her career in stuff like the "Twilight" movies. Although only 14 when this was filmed, she is fully formed as an actress, and completely convincing as Lily Owens, a young girl on a quest to find out more about her dead mother in 1964 South Carolina. Queen Latifah, Alicia Keys, Sophie Okonedo are all outstanding as the Boatwright sisters, and Paul Bettany is frightening as Lily's angry, limited father. Jennifer Hudson rounds out the cast as Rosaleen, the family maid and cook who joins Lily on her journey.
Muriel's Wedding - Some sharp edges and a very interesting performance from a very young Toni Colette make this more interesting than your usual "young women coming of age/ugly duckling" story.
Step Up - Entirely predictable but entertaining "rags to riches" dance story starring Channing Tatum. I don't know what he thinks about this one today, but at least he met his wife while filming it.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close - This one certainly generated a lot of strong opinions. Not entirely unsuccessful, but not entirely believable either. The young boy's quest never quite rang true for me, mostly because the sight of a young boy wandering around New York City seemed a little too good to be true. The most effective (and affecting) scenes are the flashbacks with Tom Hanks, although Viola Davis, Jeffrey Wright and Max Von Sydow all turned in strong supporting performances. And, Sandra Bullock did the best she could with a somewhat thankless role.
Mamma Mia! - Fun, light, and entertaining. Sort of like ABBA music.
The Women on the Sixth Floor - French film; the women in question are the day workers who, as hard as their employers may want to deny it, are also human beings with lives and feelings of their own. Sometimes it ventures into melodrama, but overall very good.
The Girl Who Played With Fire - Noomi Rapace was pretty good in this role as well, folks. The story is not quite as strong as the first book/film, but still very good and well worth watching.
Lost in Translation - One of my favorite movies. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannson are amazing.
Bronson - Volcanic performance by Tom Hardy as a man with anger issues. And trust me, "anger" doesn't do his issues justice. Hard to watch at times, but fascinating for that performance alone. And, apparently based on a true story. The stylistic kind of film that Nicholas Winding Refn has become famous for.
Dan in Real Life - I used to say that I couldn't understand why Steve Carell was so popular, but over time (and watching a lot more of "The Office" than I had at the time) I've really come to appreciate him. He's very good in this, the story of a family coming together at the family compound, bringing with them all of their quirks and their issues. Dan meets woman, quickly falls in love with woman, and then finds out woman (Juliette Binoche) is his brother's girlfriend. Dane Cook is also good as the brother, and the always reliable Dianne Weist and John Mahoney are excellent as the quirky parents. And of course, they all live happily ever after.
Taking Woodstock - Very enjoyable Ang Lee film about the days leading up to Woodstock, focusing on the young man (Demetri Martin) who played a key role in making it all happen, even though he wasn't quite sure what was happening around him a good part of the time.
Dark City - Nice slice of dark science fiction. We watched the director's cut, which wisely omitted the ridiculous voice-over that pretty much gives everything away in the movie's first few minutes.
Burke and Hare - Odd little movie starring Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis as 19th century grave robbers who figure out a way to make a little money with their schemes. Directed by John Landis, of "Animal House" fame. Not bad, but a bit on the strange side.
30 Minutes or Less - Directed by Ruben Fleischer, but not as good as "Zombieland," his previous effort. Two dimwitted would-be criminal masterminds strap a bomb onto the chest of Jesse Eisenberg, who then has to rob a bank for them - or else. One of those movies that tries to find humor in situations that aren't really funny, and it only works about half the time. Aziz Ansari is the best part of it.
The Warriors - Pretty famous cult movie, but I'd never seen it before. Interesting to see an old film like this and compare those who were supposed to become stars with those who really did. Glad I saw it, but I won't be putting it on my regular rotation.
I may have missed a couple, but that pretty much brings me up to date.
The Secret Life of Bees - Really, really good. I hope that Dakota Fanning doesn't spend the rest of her career in stuff like the "Twilight" movies. Although only 14 when this was filmed, she is fully formed as an actress, and completely convincing as Lily Owens, a young girl on a quest to find out more about her dead mother in 1964 South Carolina. Queen Latifah, Alicia Keys, Sophie Okonedo are all outstanding as the Boatwright sisters, and Paul Bettany is frightening as Lily's angry, limited father. Jennifer Hudson rounds out the cast as Rosaleen, the family maid and cook who joins Lily on her journey.
Muriel's Wedding - Some sharp edges and a very interesting performance from a very young Toni Colette make this more interesting than your usual "young women coming of age/ugly duckling" story.
Step Up - Entirely predictable but entertaining "rags to riches" dance story starring Channing Tatum. I don't know what he thinks about this one today, but at least he met his wife while filming it.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close - This one certainly generated a lot of strong opinions. Not entirely unsuccessful, but not entirely believable either. The young boy's quest never quite rang true for me, mostly because the sight of a young boy wandering around New York City seemed a little too good to be true. The most effective (and affecting) scenes are the flashbacks with Tom Hanks, although Viola Davis, Jeffrey Wright and Max Von Sydow all turned in strong supporting performances. And, Sandra Bullock did the best she could with a somewhat thankless role.
Mamma Mia! - Fun, light, and entertaining. Sort of like ABBA music.
The Women on the Sixth Floor - French film; the women in question are the day workers who, as hard as their employers may want to deny it, are also human beings with lives and feelings of their own. Sometimes it ventures into melodrama, but overall very good.
The Girl Who Played With Fire - Noomi Rapace was pretty good in this role as well, folks. The story is not quite as strong as the first book/film, but still very good and well worth watching.
Lost in Translation - One of my favorite movies. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannson are amazing.
Bronson - Volcanic performance by Tom Hardy as a man with anger issues. And trust me, "anger" doesn't do his issues justice. Hard to watch at times, but fascinating for that performance alone. And, apparently based on a true story. The stylistic kind of film that Nicholas Winding Refn has become famous for.
Dan in Real Life - I used to say that I couldn't understand why Steve Carell was so popular, but over time (and watching a lot more of "The Office" than I had at the time) I've really come to appreciate him. He's very good in this, the story of a family coming together at the family compound, bringing with them all of their quirks and their issues. Dan meets woman, quickly falls in love with woman, and then finds out woman (Juliette Binoche) is his brother's girlfriend. Dane Cook is also good as the brother, and the always reliable Dianne Weist and John Mahoney are excellent as the quirky parents. And of course, they all live happily ever after.
Taking Woodstock - Very enjoyable Ang Lee film about the days leading up to Woodstock, focusing on the young man (Demetri Martin) who played a key role in making it all happen, even though he wasn't quite sure what was happening around him a good part of the time.
Dark City - Nice slice of dark science fiction. We watched the director's cut, which wisely omitted the ridiculous voice-over that pretty much gives everything away in the movie's first few minutes.
Burke and Hare - Odd little movie starring Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis as 19th century grave robbers who figure out a way to make a little money with their schemes. Directed by John Landis, of "Animal House" fame. Not bad, but a bit on the strange side.
30 Minutes or Less - Directed by Ruben Fleischer, but not as good as "Zombieland," his previous effort. Two dimwitted would-be criminal masterminds strap a bomb onto the chest of Jesse Eisenberg, who then has to rob a bank for them - or else. One of those movies that tries to find humor in situations that aren't really funny, and it only works about half the time. Aziz Ansari is the best part of it.
The Warriors - Pretty famous cult movie, but I'd never seen it before. Interesting to see an old film like this and compare those who were supposed to become stars with those who really did. Glad I saw it, but I won't be putting it on my regular rotation.
I may have missed a couple, but that pretty much brings me up to date.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
"Amelie"
As usual, I'm about two months behind in writing about the movies we've watched on Netflix. I'm going to start with the one that we saw just last night, because it was so good.
"Amelie" was released in 2001, and heaven only knows why I've never seen it until now. It reminded me a great deal of two movies that I liked a lot - "Moulin Rouge!," and "Hugo." All three are examples of how the best movies can transport you with their magic into an entirely different world - a world where whimsy rules, and logic is put on the back burner. The things that you see on the screen aren't necessarily realistic, but you don't really care because from the first scenes, a tone is struck that tells you to set your cynicism aside, and enjoy the ride. And if you're lucky, you might learn a lesson or two that you can take back into the real world.
Amelie Poulain is a young woman who, sheltered from a good portion of the outside world because of her father's mistaken belief that she has a heart defect, has created a magical world of her own. It is a world where she seeks to right the small injustices that we all encounter every day, and to help those who are missing something from their lives - love, adventure, family - make those connections.
"Amelie" is a small miracle, in that it sustains that sense of movie magic from first frame to last. Along the way, we meet an impressive cast of characters - those who live in her apartment building, those who work with her at the corner bistro where she is a waitress, and mysterious figures who cross her path - such as the man who creates a scrapbook of photos he has scrounged from the waste bins of photo booths across the city. Mysteries abound - who is that man who has left behind so many photos across the city? Why does the man who never leaves her apartment building paint the same painting over and over again?
The cast is uniformly excellent, especially Audrey Tatou in the title role. And the movie is a visual treat, as director Jean-Pierre Jeunet paints a canvas that is as magical as the story which fills it.
When done poorly, movies like this are an embarrassment. But when done well, like "Amelie," they tend to remind us why we go to the movies in the first place.
"Amelie" was released in 2001, and heaven only knows why I've never seen it until now. It reminded me a great deal of two movies that I liked a lot - "Moulin Rouge!," and "Hugo." All three are examples of how the best movies can transport you with their magic into an entirely different world - a world where whimsy rules, and logic is put on the back burner. The things that you see on the screen aren't necessarily realistic, but you don't really care because from the first scenes, a tone is struck that tells you to set your cynicism aside, and enjoy the ride. And if you're lucky, you might learn a lesson or two that you can take back into the real world.
Amelie Poulain is a young woman who, sheltered from a good portion of the outside world because of her father's mistaken belief that she has a heart defect, has created a magical world of her own. It is a world where she seeks to right the small injustices that we all encounter every day, and to help those who are missing something from their lives - love, adventure, family - make those connections.
"Amelie" is a small miracle, in that it sustains that sense of movie magic from first frame to last. Along the way, we meet an impressive cast of characters - those who live in her apartment building, those who work with her at the corner bistro where she is a waitress, and mysterious figures who cross her path - such as the man who creates a scrapbook of photos he has scrounged from the waste bins of photo booths across the city. Mysteries abound - who is that man who has left behind so many photos across the city? Why does the man who never leaves her apartment building paint the same painting over and over again?
The cast is uniformly excellent, especially Audrey Tatou in the title role. And the movie is a visual treat, as director Jean-Pierre Jeunet paints a canvas that is as magical as the story which fills it.
When done poorly, movies like this are an embarrassment. But when done well, like "Amelie," they tend to remind us why we go to the movies in the first place.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Grading the Summer Soderberghs
Traffic - A+
Out of Sight - A
The Limey - A
Erin Brockovich - A-
Contagion - A-
Haywire - A-
Solaris - A-
The Informant! - B
The Good German - C
Out of Sight - A
The Limey - A
Erin Brockovich - A-
Contagion - A-
Haywire - A-
Solaris - A-
The Informant! - B
The Good German - C
Surprise! A Soderbergh Double Feature
And the only thing we forgot was the popcorn.
How the hell I went so many years without seeing "Out of Sight" is beyond me, because this kind of movie is right up my alley - an exceedingly well-made crime thriller, based on a book written by one of the masters of the genre, Elmore Leonard. Maybe I just couldn't believe that Jennifer Lopez had the chops to pull it off.
Well, she did, and J-Lo, I apologize for doubting you. Lopez' performance in "Out of Sight" is so good that it makes me wonder what might have happened if she had decided to focus her efforts on high quality motion pictures instead of fairly pedestrian cinematic fare and a decidedly pedestrian musical career. But hey, it's not too late - now that she's off of "Idol," maybe it's time to refocus on what she does best.
And then of course, there is this guy named George Clooney, who is at his best in roles like this, a likeable but flawed character. It sounds a bit pandering to say that he oozes charm, but it is what it is, folks. Given that the movie was made in 1998, you can almost see the machinations going on in his head, figuring out exactly what it is that was about to make him the closest thing that this generation has to a Cary Grant.
The screenplay crackles with wit, and the supporting cast is stellar - Ving Rhames as Clooney's buddy from prison, Dennis Farina as the loving dad of Lopez whose idea of a great birthday present is a new gun, Don Cheadle in scary mode as an ex-boxer, ex-con who doesn't shy away from doing whatever he needs to do to make the next score, Steve Zahn doing what Steve Zahn does best, and even Albert Brooks as a millionaire ex-con, showing that "Drive" wasn't a fluke.
And yes, the seduction scene is as good as everyone says. And notable, because of the way it treats both characters with respect.
And then we moved on to "Contagion," another example of how Soderbergh can crossover between genres with ease. The premise of the movie is very simple - a killer virus is spreading, faster than our best scientists can figure out how to stop it (or even figure out exactly what it is), and leaving few untouched as it travels across the globe and infects the good, the bad and everything in between.
In the wrong hands this could have been a ridiculous enterprise, but an incredible A-list cast of thousands (Matt Damon! Gwyneth Paltrow! Lawrence Fishburne! Kate Winslet! Marion Cottilard! Jude Law! Jennifer Ehle! Elliot Gould! Demetri Martin! Hundreds of other recognizable faces!) makes an investment in the proceedings, and never leaves the viewer thinking that they wished, just maybe, that they hadn't signed up for this one.
Soderbergh and his scenarist Scott Burns made an inspired decision when they began the outbreak on Day 2 - this amplifies the mystery aspect of the story, and creates a situation where the viewer is no smarter than the scientists who are struggling to come up with answers. This eliminates the possibility of an "idiot plot," because we have no way of knowing whether the characters are making the right choices. It was also wise to kill off one of the major potential saviors of the story, because this just raises the stakes that much higher. And it was also wise to focus as much on the societal impacts of the outbreak, so we can see that there really isn't as much of a gap between "normal" and "chaos" as we might imagine.
Two more excellent films in a career notable for its accomplishment and its output. Well done.
How the hell I went so many years without seeing "Out of Sight" is beyond me, because this kind of movie is right up my alley - an exceedingly well-made crime thriller, based on a book written by one of the masters of the genre, Elmore Leonard. Maybe I just couldn't believe that Jennifer Lopez had the chops to pull it off.
Well, she did, and J-Lo, I apologize for doubting you. Lopez' performance in "Out of Sight" is so good that it makes me wonder what might have happened if she had decided to focus her efforts on high quality motion pictures instead of fairly pedestrian cinematic fare and a decidedly pedestrian musical career. But hey, it's not too late - now that she's off of "Idol," maybe it's time to refocus on what she does best.
And then of course, there is this guy named George Clooney, who is at his best in roles like this, a likeable but flawed character. It sounds a bit pandering to say that he oozes charm, but it is what it is, folks. Given that the movie was made in 1998, you can almost see the machinations going on in his head, figuring out exactly what it is that was about to make him the closest thing that this generation has to a Cary Grant.
The screenplay crackles with wit, and the supporting cast is stellar - Ving Rhames as Clooney's buddy from prison, Dennis Farina as the loving dad of Lopez whose idea of a great birthday present is a new gun, Don Cheadle in scary mode as an ex-boxer, ex-con who doesn't shy away from doing whatever he needs to do to make the next score, Steve Zahn doing what Steve Zahn does best, and even Albert Brooks as a millionaire ex-con, showing that "Drive" wasn't a fluke.
And yes, the seduction scene is as good as everyone says. And notable, because of the way it treats both characters with respect.
And then we moved on to "Contagion," another example of how Soderbergh can crossover between genres with ease. The premise of the movie is very simple - a killer virus is spreading, faster than our best scientists can figure out how to stop it (or even figure out exactly what it is), and leaving few untouched as it travels across the globe and infects the good, the bad and everything in between.
In the wrong hands this could have been a ridiculous enterprise, but an incredible A-list cast of thousands (Matt Damon! Gwyneth Paltrow! Lawrence Fishburne! Kate Winslet! Marion Cottilard! Jude Law! Jennifer Ehle! Elliot Gould! Demetri Martin! Hundreds of other recognizable faces!) makes an investment in the proceedings, and never leaves the viewer thinking that they wished, just maybe, that they hadn't signed up for this one.
Soderbergh and his scenarist Scott Burns made an inspired decision when they began the outbreak on Day 2 - this amplifies the mystery aspect of the story, and creates a situation where the viewer is no smarter than the scientists who are struggling to come up with answers. This eliminates the possibility of an "idiot plot," because we have no way of knowing whether the characters are making the right choices. It was also wise to kill off one of the major potential saviors of the story, because this just raises the stakes that much higher. And it was also wise to focus as much on the societal impacts of the outbreak, so we can see that there really isn't as much of a gap between "normal" and "chaos" as we might imagine.
Two more excellent films in a career notable for its accomplishment and its output. Well done.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
It's Soderbergh's World...We Just Live In It
In the past week we entered Phase II of our Summer Soderbergh Festival, and were rewarded with three winners that demonstrate the versatility of the man who may be the most prolific filmmaker this side of Woody Allen.
We started with "Solaris," a 2002 remake of a 1972 Russian film treasured by an impressive cadre of serious cinephiles. I'd never heard of it until I read that it was going to be remade, but then again it's not as if I watch a lot of Russian films.
"Solaris" is the kind of science-fiction that engages the mind and poses thought-provoking questions instead of offering a lot of special effects and action sequences (I don't have a problem with those kinds of movies, but it's nice to have some of the other kind every now and then). George Clooney is very good as Chris Kelvin, a psychologist who is clearly struggling following the death of his wife. After we see some scenes of Kelvin's daily life, he receives a message from his friend Dr. Gibarian, who is aboard a space station above the planet Solaris. Without going into details, Gibarian pleads with Kelvin to join him on the station, but when he arrives one of the first things he finds is that Gibarian is dead. All that appears to be left from the crew are Dr. Gordon (Viola Davis), and Snow (Jeremy Davies) - and both are pretty messed up, to put it lightly. Snow warns Kelvin that when he finally goes to sleep, he might want to consider locking his door.
When Kelvin finally does sleep, he is visited by his dead wife, who seems to know everything about him and herself, except how she got there. How she got there is the riddle posed by the movie, and as the plot advances we eventually learn that perhaps our assumptions about intelligent life and its purpose are far away from anything we might have imagined. The movie posits a compelling premise dealt with in previous stories, including "Star Trek: Generations" and Alan Moore's brilliant Superman story, "For the Man Who Has Everything" - provided the opportunity to live the life of our dreams, what would we choose? And is that dream life any less "real" than life itself?
We then moved on to what surely is Soderbergh's biggest hit, "Erin Brockovich" - the movie that won Julia Roberts an Oscar, and deservedly so. Amazingly enough I had never seen it, and was more than duly impressed. Movies like this are proof that movies designed to be popular entertainment can also be artistically rewarding. From Roberts down, the cast is perfect, especially Albert Finney as the lawyer who eventually learns to take Brockovich seriously, even as her outfits and demeanor become more outrageous. Another winner.
And last night we moved to "The Limey," almost the polar opposite of "Brockovich" - opposite in the sense that with this movie, Soderbergh was clearly taking advantage of his success to make the kind of movie that he wanted to make - a movie developed and crafted around an actor who during his career has been as great as he has been under-appreciated - Terence Stamp. Stamp is breathtaking in the role, playing a English thief recently out of prison, known simply as "Wilson," who travels to the states to find out who was responsible for his daughter's death, and take vengeance on those parties. Similar to Ben Kingsley in "Sexy Beast," Stamp is a force of nature - wreaking havoc on all those who cross his path. Those in his path include Peter Fonda, somewhat wimpy as a Phil Spector type rock mogul, and Barry Newman, mostly known for TV roles but riveting in the role of enforcer and all around nasty guy. The always reliable Luis Guzman is also outstanding, as a friend of the daughter who helps Wilson in his quest. Good stuff.
Not all of Soderbergh's movies are great, but he should always get the benefit of the doubt because he is constantly testing himself, and trying new things. There's few genres that he isn't comfortable working in, and when you see one of his movies, you're assured of seeing something interesting.
We started with "Solaris," a 2002 remake of a 1972 Russian film treasured by an impressive cadre of serious cinephiles. I'd never heard of it until I read that it was going to be remade, but then again it's not as if I watch a lot of Russian films.
"Solaris" is the kind of science-fiction that engages the mind and poses thought-provoking questions instead of offering a lot of special effects and action sequences (I don't have a problem with those kinds of movies, but it's nice to have some of the other kind every now and then). George Clooney is very good as Chris Kelvin, a psychologist who is clearly struggling following the death of his wife. After we see some scenes of Kelvin's daily life, he receives a message from his friend Dr. Gibarian, who is aboard a space station above the planet Solaris. Without going into details, Gibarian pleads with Kelvin to join him on the station, but when he arrives one of the first things he finds is that Gibarian is dead. All that appears to be left from the crew are Dr. Gordon (Viola Davis), and Snow (Jeremy Davies) - and both are pretty messed up, to put it lightly. Snow warns Kelvin that when he finally goes to sleep, he might want to consider locking his door.
When Kelvin finally does sleep, he is visited by his dead wife, who seems to know everything about him and herself, except how she got there. How she got there is the riddle posed by the movie, and as the plot advances we eventually learn that perhaps our assumptions about intelligent life and its purpose are far away from anything we might have imagined. The movie posits a compelling premise dealt with in previous stories, including "Star Trek: Generations" and Alan Moore's brilliant Superman story, "For the Man Who Has Everything" - provided the opportunity to live the life of our dreams, what would we choose? And is that dream life any less "real" than life itself?
We then moved on to what surely is Soderbergh's biggest hit, "Erin Brockovich" - the movie that won Julia Roberts an Oscar, and deservedly so. Amazingly enough I had never seen it, and was more than duly impressed. Movies like this are proof that movies designed to be popular entertainment can also be artistically rewarding. From Roberts down, the cast is perfect, especially Albert Finney as the lawyer who eventually learns to take Brockovich seriously, even as her outfits and demeanor become more outrageous. Another winner.
And last night we moved to "The Limey," almost the polar opposite of "Brockovich" - opposite in the sense that with this movie, Soderbergh was clearly taking advantage of his success to make the kind of movie that he wanted to make - a movie developed and crafted around an actor who during his career has been as great as he has been under-appreciated - Terence Stamp. Stamp is breathtaking in the role, playing a English thief recently out of prison, known simply as "Wilson," who travels to the states to find out who was responsible for his daughter's death, and take vengeance on those parties. Similar to Ben Kingsley in "Sexy Beast," Stamp is a force of nature - wreaking havoc on all those who cross his path. Those in his path include Peter Fonda, somewhat wimpy as a Phil Spector type rock mogul, and Barry Newman, mostly known for TV roles but riveting in the role of enforcer and all around nasty guy. The always reliable Luis Guzman is also outstanding, as a friend of the daughter who helps Wilson in his quest. Good stuff.
Not all of Soderbergh's movies are great, but he should always get the benefit of the doubt because he is constantly testing himself, and trying new things. There's few genres that he isn't comfortable working in, and when you see one of his movies, you're assured of seeing something interesting.
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Son of More Netflix Reviews
Or if you prefer, more Netflix reviews from Son #2. This is the last batch, and then I've got several others to catch up on myself. I guess we've watched a lot of movies this summer.
Attack the Block (2011,
dir. By Joe Cornish). It’s always nice to see an original addition to the
science fiction/alien/horror genre. Especially one that isn’t trying too hard.
The film involves a gang of teenagers that find themselves protecting their
neighborhood from some genuinely scary invading aliens, furry beasts with creepy
glow-in-the-dark teeth. It works because the film opens up with the audience by
despising the group of kids until the invasion begins to take place, when you will
cheer for them through the whole thing. The cast is great, with newcomer
John Boyega as a gang leader who shows us why he is the way he is, and Jodie
Whittaker as a nurse befriended by the boys (though after a rocky start). Most memorable is Nick Frost as a stoner who doesn’t really know what is going
on. It’s nice to see something new in this day and age of remakes and sequels.
The Reader (2008,
dir. By Stephen Daldry). An astonishing film that tells the story Michael Berg, who, as a boy, had an affair with a
woman twenty years his senior. This was not an ordinary affair because during
their meetings, Michael would have to read to Hanna, played by a devastating
Kate Winslet. Without revealing too much of the story, the pair are forced to
go their separate ways until Michael learns the hard way that Hanna was a member
of the SS, and she is imprisoned as a result. Years later, the duo are back in
each other’s lives, with neither knowing what they truly want. David Kross
portrays Michael as a teenager and Ralph Fiennes plays him as an adult. While I thought that Kross was very good, I felt that Fiennes’ parts of the
film were stronger and Fiennes’ plays tired, middle-aged man perfectly. Kate
Winslet won the Oscar for her performance and rightly so because she is so believable as Hanna that you will think that she is Hanna. Subtle and
thought-provoking.
Being Elmo (2001,
dir. By Constance Marks). If you are deterred by the thought of watching a documentary
about the origins and puppeteer of Elmo, you are in for a pleasant surprise.
The film centers around Kevin Clash, a man who has always loved puppets, and
loved even more to put smiles on children’s faces. Really. We see clips of
Kevin as a teenager performing in his neighborhood and for disabled children at
hospitals. What was most fascinating to watch was how quick his ascent was in
the “muppet world” and how accepting puppet-builder Kermit Love was to take him
under his wing. Even better are the behind-the-scenes of Sesame Street and the
parts covering Clash’s relationship with Jim Henson. We see the dedication and
respect that the performers have for their craft, and the audience shares that
respect. You’ll finish the movie just as Kevin Clash would have wanted you to:
with a smile on your face.
Shine (1996, dir.
By Scott Hicks). Flawed but not bad by any means I think is an accurate way to
describe Shine. Telling the story of
incredibly gifted pianist David Helfgott, the narrative switches between
young-adult David and older David, played respectively by Noah Taylor and
Geoffrey Rush. It is seen that young David was physically and mentally abused
by his father, Peter, played here perfectly Armin Muller Stahl (also good in
Eastern Promises). Peter suffers living with his own failures and appears, in
my opinion, to despise that his son is more talented than he. Eventually, David
manages to get a scholarship and go to a prestigious music school where he
begins to work on an extremely difficult piano piece and his mental breakdown
begins. As an adult, David is seen to be incredibly difficult to manage but
still is able to impress with his piano talents. I found this part
substantially weaker than the first half; one of the reasons is that I did not
really care for David all that much. I attribute this to not really being a fan
of the “idiot savant” drama and was pretty annoyed by David. Geoffrey Rush won
an Oscar for his performance and I’m sorry to say it but I don’t think he
earned it; one, for this type of performance being done numerous times before
and two, he was in less of the film than I thought he would be in. Not great
but not awful. I must note that all the piano playing sequences are very well
done, and the music is wonderful.
JV comments: I don't have much to add to any of the above reviews, except that I largely agree with all of them.
Friday, August 03, 2012
Closing the Movie Backlog
Some more reviews from Son #2:
American History X (1998, dir. by Tony Kaye). Tony Kaye’s excellent drama about an ex-skinhead trying to prevent his brother from following in his footsteps never ceases to be intriguing and provocative but still is hard to watch at moments. The film stars Edward Norton in the lead and he is dynamite; at no point is he not believable as the troubled Derek. Also good is Edward Furlong as his also troubled brother who has to decide whether he too wants to become a Neo Nazi skinhead. The movie does not feel like it’s trying to make a profound moral statement but is simply conducting a character study instead. Tony Kaye has reportedly disowned the movie because it was not edited the way he had intended but knowing what it is, I don’t think it would have made that huge of a difference. So Mr. Kaye, chill out, you still made a pretty darn good film.
American History X (1998, dir. by Tony Kaye). Tony Kaye’s excellent drama about an ex-skinhead trying to prevent his brother from following in his footsteps never ceases to be intriguing and provocative but still is hard to watch at moments. The film stars Edward Norton in the lead and he is dynamite; at no point is he not believable as the troubled Derek. Also good is Edward Furlong as his also troubled brother who has to decide whether he too wants to become a Neo Nazi skinhead. The movie does not feel like it’s trying to make a profound moral statement but is simply conducting a character study instead. Tony Kaye has reportedly disowned the movie because it was not edited the way he had intended but knowing what it is, I don’t think it would have made that huge of a difference. So Mr. Kaye, chill out, you still made a pretty darn good film.
JV comments: It's not a perfect film, but it does have that extra, hard-to-define "oomph" that sets it apart from your run of the mill fare. Edward Norton is amazing - for someone who at first glance looks so slight, his presence is so commanding that you really believe that he can be the dominating force that he is in the story. Also worth noting are the scenes in prison when he slowly becomes friends with an African-American inmate, particularly the scene where they debate the relative merits of the Magic Lakers and the Bird Celtics.
A Dangerous Method (2011,
dir. by David Cronenberg). Having been directed by David Cronenberg and bragging
the talent of Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen, Vincent Cassel, and Keira
Knightley, you would think this film would be in the ranks of the director’s
last efforts: A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. Unfortunately, it is
not. This is not by any means a bad movie; it’s well-acted (despite a hammy
turn from Knightley), beautifully shot and scored. But unless you are
interested in the relationship between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud and an
unstable woman who compromises that relationship then this movie probably isn’t
for you.
JV comments: I had trouble staying awake, which is never a good sign. I thought A History of Violence was a masterpiece and that Eastern Promises was not far behind, so this came as a bitter disappointment - particularly given the stellar cast. For a Cronenberg film, it felt remarkably sterile.
Dave (1993, dir. by
Ivan Reitman). The Kevin Kline charm is at full strength during this film, and
it makes it all the more irresistible. Kline stars as Dave Kovic, the head of a
temp agency who finds satisfaction by helping others and by impersonating
unpopular president Bill Mitchell, also played by Kline. That is why he finds
himself in the position of playing the president full time after Mitchell suffers
a debilitating stroke. Originally hired to just play the part, Dave finds
himself in the position to bring helpful change to his country while preventing
his sinister chief of staff, a constantly angry Frank Langella. If you can
suspend your disbelief, which should not be hard, you will be enthralled the
rest of the way. The supporting cast is great with Kevin Dunn as Dave’s hopeful
Communications Director, Sigourney Weaver as Mitchell’s estranged wife who
begins to lighten up, Ving Rhames as a serious secret service agent, and Ben
Kingsley as the Vice President who was not respected by his boss during Mitchell’s time in
office. Also great are the many actual media personalities who share their
opinion over the film’s course. When movies are this fun, why not suspend your
disbelief?
JV comments: I've always liked Kevin Kline, and this has always been a favorite of mine. You don't hear Ivan Reitman's name bandied about much when it comes to discussion of great directors, but there is a reason that films like this one, "Ghostbusters," and "Kindergarten Cop" have held up so well. They may not be the most ambitious films ever made, but they hit their targets.
Mr. Brooks (2007,
dir. by Bruce A. Evans). Intensely creepy, but never ceases to be fascinating. Kevin Costner is at his best as the man with the perfect life, Earl Brooks. We
see Earl is a very successful and respected business man who really does have
it all: a beautiful wife and daughter, a beautiful home, and a man named Marshall who only
he sees, an imaginary "friend" who is constantly trying to persuade him to murder people. Marshall is
played by a devilish and never better William Hurt. Apparently, Mr. Brooks is
the on-and-off again thumbprint killer who has been at large for several years.
Mr. Brooks finds his perfect life thrown out of control when Mr. Smith, played
by a surprisingly good Dane Cook, arrives and demands that he take him on his
next murder run or he will turn him into the police. Also on the scene are a tough
cop played by Demi Moore who has been following the killings for quite a while
and is dealing with her own life’s troubles, and the aforementioned daughter who seems to be
keeping many different things a secret. While I found that those parts of the
film were kind of interesting, the best parts were when Earl was interacting
with Marshall and Mr. Smith; they bring creepy to a whole new level.
JV comments: This was a huge surprise - Kevin Costner playing against type, and doing it very effectively. And S#2 is right, the scenes between Costner and Hurt are marvelous. This is the kind of film that sometimes leads to bigger and better things for those involved in the writing and directing.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
The Mind of Steven Soderbergh (by Son #2)
This summer we've had a mini-Soderbergh film festival. We still have a ways to go, but below are Son #2's reviews of those that we've seen so far. My comments are below each review.
Haywire (2012) Soderbergh succeeds again, in that
he has crafted the most realistic spy thriller I have ever seen, uses yet
another ensemble cast effectively, and manages to bring MMA fighter Gina Carano
convincingly to the forefront. Carano plays Mallory Kane, a very skilled spy who
has been betrayed and burned by her boss, played by the always-great Ewan
McGregor. Not exactly breaking any new ground, but the execution is flawless.
All, and I mean all of the action scenes are done wonderfully, from beautifully
choreographed fights, to amazing chase sequences. Kudos to the supporting cast
as well. Channing Tatum (improving) and Michael Fassbender are very good as
agents who find out that it isn’t always smart to follow orders. Michael
Douglas and Antonio Banderas excel as suits who you never know exactly what
their intentions are. Bill Paxton is also very good as Mallory’s father who is
still working on coming to terms with his daughter’s profession. Finally,
Carano fares well against her skilled co-stars and will have you routing for Mallory
all the way. Very re-watchable and adding to the awesome factor is that all the
actors did their own stunts. Awesome.
JV: This was outstanding - pure adrenaline from start to finish. I can't quibble with anything he wrote here, and I'd love to see another installment at some point.
The Informant! (2009). A good film but not a
great one, The Informant! isn’t completely lacking. Matt Damon is Mark
Whitacre, a super-white, naïve, goofy executive at a lysine processing plant,
and is wonderful. Damon gained thirty pounds to play doughy Whitacre and is
completely believable in the role. Also great are Scott Bakula and Joel McHale
as the FBI agents who are constantly exhausted by the energetic Whittacre.
Where the film falters is that it can be a bit boring at times and is kind of
confusing until the end. Whittacre does serve as the narrator after all. What I
will say about Soderbergh is that he is great at making all his characters, no
matter how minor, believable, and he can bring out a good performance in most
actors. I would go as far to say that he rivals the Coen brothers in that his
minor characters are that good. Not his best but far from his worst.
JV: "Super-white?" Yeah, I guess that describes Damon's character accurately. For me, this one suffered from an identity crisis - it wasn't quite sure it wanted to be a satire, a comedy, or a straight drama, and ultimately ended up being a little less than the sum of its parts.
Traffic (2000). Falling under the category of long
ensemble dramas (that’s a genre right?), this film manages to be engaging at
all times. And when I say ensemble, I mean ensemble; flippin’ everyone is in
this movie: Michael Douglas, Amy Irving, Topher Grace, Don Cheadle, Benicio del
Toro, Salma Hayek, James Brolin, Albert Finney, Catherine-Zeta Jones, Luis
Guzmán, Dennis Quaid, Benjamin Bratt, Viola Davis, John Slattery, EVERYONE. Even better (and more surprising) is that they’re all fantastic. Soderbergh is
incredibly skilled at making all his characters believable and intriguing. The
film follows three storylines all involving the illegal drug trade. One of them
is from the perspective of Michael Douglas as the U.S. drug czar who discovers
that his daughter has developed a serious drug addiction; his sections are
especially haunting. The next storyline involves Catherine Zeta-Jones as the
wife of a drug lord who is being prosecuted, so she is forced to take the reins
of an empire she was unaware of. At the same time, Don Cheadle and Luis Guzmán
are DEA agents trying to put her husband behind bars and take away her life of
luxury. Zeta-Jones’ transformation is remarkable. The final storyline has
Benicio del Toro, in a much-deserved Oscar winning role, as a Mexican police
officer who tries to be a good cop while surrounded by corruption. The stories are all linked in some way and all have
satisfying conclusions. Soderbergh won Best Director, an award I believe was
equally well-deserved.
JV: I haven't seen all of his films yet, but so far this is clearly Soderbergh's masterpiece. According to Wikipedia, Soderbergh's original cut clocked in at 3 hours, 10 minutes, and I would love to see that version. Each of the stories is compelling, and even given its length (even with the studio cuts, 2 hours, 20 minutes) it never flags for a moment. I liked "Gladiator" a lot, but this should have won the Best Picture Oscar.
The Good German (2006). One of Soderbergh’s experiments, this
one is basically his own version of "Casablanca," and ends up being
hit-and-miss. The presentation is beautiful; Soderbergh used filmmaking techniques
of the 1940s and succeeds in crafting a film that looks like it could have been
made during the time period. George Clooney, in his usual top form, plays a war
correspondent who is thrust into a mystery involving the murder of his driver
and an old flame whose actions are questionable. They are played by Tobey
Maguire and Cate Blanchett, respectively, who also are very good. Maguire plays
"angry young officer" very well while Blanchett shows us the nuances of a wife
who simply wants to save her husband. Beau Bridges is also memorable as a
general who doesn’t really seem to care what’s going on. Unfortunately, the
film falters because it ends up being boring, confusing until the exposition,
and we feel no connection to the characters. Style seemed to be what Soderbergh
favored in this instance.
JV: OK, I admit it - I slept through most of this one. But none of what I saw during my waking moments made me want to watch it again. Not every experiment works, after all.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
"Crazy Heart" - A Testament to the Greatness of Jeff Bridges
That Jeff Bridges is one of the greatest actors of his generation is not in dispute. But even considering his lofty status, what Bridges accomplishes in “Crazy Heart” is nothing short of remarkable. This is a movie that, with a lesser actor at the helm, could have fallen flat on its face. The story – about a down and out, living day-to-day country singer – is nothing that we haven’t seen before. Don’t get me wrong; the movie’s screenplay has strong elements and it’s well executed – but it’s nothing particularly special. What makes the overall experience special is the performance of Bridges – his acting, his singing, his just being there – a performance that is probably worth three stars just on its own. The thing is, you never get the feeling that Jeff Bridges is acting or playing a character. When the wonderfully named Bad Blake is on screen – well, that’s who you’re seeing, that’s who you’re listening to, that’s who you’re alternately feeling sorry for or cheering on. It’s just a guy named Bad Blake, a guy with a lot of faults who can sing and can write a song as if his life depended on it. And for most of the movie, it does.
Also worthy of mention is Colin Farrell, who turns in a surprisingly believable performance as a country singer himself. The movie should have given him more to do; I would have loved to see a few more scenes that filled in some of the blanks in the relationship between Tommy Sweet, the flavor of the moment, and Bad Blake, the crusty old codger to whom he owes everything. Sweet is smart enough to know that he needs Blake’s songs to put him over the top, but the movie could have done a better job with that relationship. As far as Maggie Gyllenhaal, who plays Bad’s love interest, goes – well, she’s fine, but she’s not much more than that. That portion of the story, especially the parts with her young son, is entirely predictable – which can be death for a movie like this. And one is never quite clear what she sees in Bad, aside from his talent – for most of the movie the guy is pretty messed up, a disaster waiting to happen. And finally, the most honorable of mentions to the legendary Robert Duvall, who is wonderful in a small role as one of Bad’s oldest friends. Duvall’s inclusion in “Crazy Heart” is probably not accidental, given that he once played a very similar character himself (and carried off a gold statue of his own for the trouble), but it’s very welcome.
In the end, “Crazy Heart” is a very good movie, with a magnificent performance. Even if you don’t like country music, it’s well worth a watch just to watch Jeff Bridges do his job.
Monday, July 16, 2012
"Sexy Beast"
Son #2's Review:
Sexy Beast (2000,
dir. By Johnathon Glazer). An unconventional
heist film (the heist gets about three minutes of screen time) that manages to
remain interesting, funny, and tense within its short running time of 89 minutes. The cast is great,
especially Ben Kingsley as Don Logan, a psychopathic gangster who doesn’t like
taking no for an answer. Ray Winstone is also excellent as an ex-safe cracker
who simply wants to live out the rest of his life relaxing poolside at his home
in Spain but instead finds his paradise lost when Don pays a visit. Ian McShane also makes a brief yet memorable appearance as a mob
boss who radiates calm but remains intimidating. Overall, definitely worth
seeing. Also worth mentioning is the fact that there is some great swearing in it.
Also worth mentioning is that so many of the characters had strong accents that we had to
turn on the subtitles in order to know what they were saying
JV's comments:
To get a full appreciation of Ben Kingsley's performance, imagine if Alec Baldwin's incendiary scene in Glengarry Glen Ross had been stretched out over the course of an entire movie. To say that Kingsley radiates danger doesn't do him justice. It's hard to imagine that this is the same actor who portrayed Gandhi all those years ago (or Georges Melies in Hugo, for that matter). Even when he's the smallest guy in a scene (which is just about every scene), he takes complete command of what's happening. It's a cliche, but in this movie he's a force of nature - there's no other way to describe it. Without question, one of the best performances in a career full of great ones.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
"Hanna"
Son #2's review:
Hanna (2011, dir.
By Joe Wright) Joe Wright never fails to impress; even with films like The Soloist, you still get a satisfying
output from him. Hanna is one of his best, but I don’t know where I would rank
it next to Pride and Prejudice or Atonement. Either way he is one of the
best filmmakers working today. Saoirse Ronan, who also always seems to impress,
stars as Hanna, a teenager living in Finland’s wilderness with her father,
played by Eric Bana, who we see training her to be a skilled assassin in
league with Jason Bourne. Hanna’s father has actually been training her to face
Marissa Wiegler, a CIA operative who seems to want Hanna for some purpose and
who is played by a never better Cate Blanchett. The film follows Hanna and
Wiegler through a thrilling but deadly game of cat-and-mouse, and contains
beautiful moments when the naïve Hanna interacts with the world she has never
seen. The supporting cast is also superb, with the reliable Tom Hollander as a
creepy assassin hired by Wiegler, as well as Olivia Williams and Jason Flemyng
as a gypsy family that Hanna meets during her journey. The film is a marvel to
watch as well, with Hanna traveling through many different locations
effortlessly, performing many magnificent stunts, the best occurring in a container
park. At no point did I have trouble suspending my disbelief for Hanna is just so well done. Also worth
noting is that the film has a great score by The Chemical Brothers. Joe Wright
has proved himself more than needed.
JV's comments: No doubt about it, Joe Wright is establishing himself as a filmmaker as varied and diverse as Steven Soderbergh. None of his four major films has much in common with the others, yet they are all successful, to varying degrees. As good as the famous BBC version (the Colin Firth as Darcy version) of "Pride and Prejudice" was, when I feel the need to get my periodic fix for the story, it is his version that I turn to. "Hanna" is the outlier among the four films mentioned above, and over time it may come to be regarded as his most successful. It succeeds entirely on its own terms, being one of the best thrillers in recent years - a thriller with a good deal more soul than your run of the mill action flick. Good stuff indeed.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
"The Rum Diary"
Son #2's review:
The Rum Diary (2011,
dir. Bruce Robinson). An interesting film in that it really does not have a plot
except simply following Johnny Depp’s character, aspiring author Paul Kemp, through Puerto Rico and the
(sometimes) entertaining shenanigans he gets into. The only thing that could be
called a plot involves a rich businessman played by Aaron Eckhart who wants
Kemp to help him with a real-estate scam while at the same time teasing Kemp
with his attractive girlfriend, played by Amber Heard. I thought the best moments were when Kemp was interacting with his fellow employees at the
newspaper. A grumpy editor (played by a scene-stealing Richard Jenkins)
contributes part of the fun, but even better are Michael Rispoli and Giovanni
Ribisi as his drink-seeking roommates/co-workers. Watching Rispoli and Depp try
LSD is a highlight as well as them all three of them drinking “470 proof
alcohol”. Sometimes, it feels worth watching just to see Depp stagger
glassy-eyed through Puerto Rico which is fine but the film runs at two hours
and drags. At times, it feels like a stoner buddy comedy and others, a
journalism drama. Ultimately, it ends up being a mixed bag.
JV's comments: I think that about sums it up. Not everything that Hunter S. Thompson wrote fell into the "genius" category, after all. As noted above, the movie can't really decide what it wants to be - hard-hitting cultural/political drama, or drinking-buddy comedy. By trying to have it both ways, it doesn't entirely succeed at either. But even with all that, worth watching just for Depp's performance, as well as those that S#2 mentions above.
Monday, July 09, 2012
Netflix Reviews Back - With a Special Guest Blogger
It has not gone unnoticed that the only thing I've written about lately (although it does seem to be popular) is the "95 Songs of Summer" series. So Son #2 offered to write some reviews of the ever-increasing backlog of movies that we've seen on Netflix. Sounded good to me; so tonight we start with the first of what will be quite a few. Son #2's review comes first, followed by any comments I might have to offer.
JV's comments: Can't disagree with anything here. The movie is brilliant, and while I won't quibble with Al Pacino's Oscar nomination, Jack Lemmon and Alec Baldwin probably deserved one more. A lot of people today believe this is Lemmon's best performance, which is saying quite a lot when you consider his history. And some might quibble that Baldwin was in the movie for less than 10 minutes, but trust me - they are 10 of the most incendiary minutes ever committed to film. The acting is so good in this film that one could reasonably argue that Kevin Spacey gives the 6th-best performance - behind all those mentioned above, as well as Jonathan Pryce, who plays a nice enough guy who gets suckered by Pacino into buying something he doesn't want, doesn't need, and probably can't afford - the name of the game, with this crew.
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992,
dir. By James Foley). Brilliant. Brilliant acting, writing, swearing, you name
it, this film probably has it. The film stars Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin,
and Jack Lemmon as four real estate salesman who work without consciences (and
filters) and find different times to disrespect their exasperated boss played
by Kevin Spacey. The film centers around two days in the life of these men;
they’ve just been threatened by a higher-up that if they don’t meet a sales
quota then they are going to be fired. Thus the panic ensues. Harris imbues
his character with an angry, “it’s not my fault I’m unsuccessful” attitude and
his encounters with the other characters are tense and explosive. Arkin’s
character is at the total opposite of the spectrum as an unconfident failure
who just hopes to keep his job. Lemmon and Pacino occupy different spectrums as
well as Lemmon is the defeated man still hoping to make a living and Pacino as
the success he once was. The movie is best remembered for the monologue from
the higher-up played by an arrogant and unforgiving Alec Baldwin. The film, simply
put, is brilliant.
JV's comments: Can't disagree with anything here. The movie is brilliant, and while I won't quibble with Al Pacino's Oscar nomination, Jack Lemmon and Alec Baldwin probably deserved one more. A lot of people today believe this is Lemmon's best performance, which is saying quite a lot when you consider his history. And some might quibble that Baldwin was in the movie for less than 10 minutes, but trust me - they are 10 of the most incendiary minutes ever committed to film. The acting is so good in this film that one could reasonably argue that Kevin Spacey gives the 6th-best performance - behind all those mentioned above, as well as Jonathan Pryce, who plays a nice enough guy who gets suckered by Pacino into buying something he doesn't want, doesn't need, and probably can't afford - the name of the game, with this crew.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Digging Out From Under the Netflix Backlog
Oh well, I'm only [almost] two months behind.
We had a mini-Ryan Gosling festival in April, With "Fracture" and "Crazy, Stupid Love." The former is a court drama/psychological thriller directed by Gregory Hoblit, a director who got his start in TV ("Hill Street Blues," "NYPD Blue") and can nearly always be counted on to spin an entertaining tale. On that score "Fracture" comes through in spades, with Anthony Hopkins (teetering on the brink of hamming it up, but never quite crossing the line) playing a brilliant structural engineer with strong sociopathic tendencies who shoots his wife after discovering that she's having an affair with a police detective. His character, Ted Crawford, confesses to the crime at the scene, and Gosling's character, Willy Beachum, is brought in to prosecute the seemingly open and shut case. Beachum is on his way to bigger and better things, but learns quickly enough that Crawford is playing him, and realizes that he is now enmeshed in a game of wits which, if lost, may cost him his career. Gosling does well in a role that requires him to play second fiddle to the charismatic Hopkins, and the movie bogs down only when it strains near the end to manipulate the plot in ways that strain credulity, in order to allow the "good guy" to win.
Gosling is not the main character in "Crazy, Stupid Love" (that honor goes to Steve Carell), but he steals just about every scene he's in as Jacob, who on the spectrum of young, good looking guys falls somewhere between Lothario and lounge-lizard. When Carell's wife (Julianne Moore) stuns him with her request for a divorce, he stumbles his way through his life, landing in a pick-up spot bar where he sticks out like a sore thumb. Although he quite obviously still pines for his wife and that life, with Gosling's help he manages to remake himself into something that, frankly, he isn't really suited for
This is one of those movies with sub-plots layered on top of sub-plots - it's sort of like a long episode of "Love, American Style" with all the stories taking place at once. So you've got a storyline involving Emma Stone, you've got another involving Carell's son and the babysitter he loves, who of course has a crush on Carell, and then you've got glorified extras like Kevin Bacon and Marisa Tomei, both of whom are largely wasted. The funniest moments make this worth seeing, and it's probably worth seeing just to see Gosling's star continue to ascend, but overall it's a bit less than the sum of its parts.
We had a mini-Ryan Gosling festival in April, With "Fracture" and "Crazy, Stupid Love." The former is a court drama/psychological thriller directed by Gregory Hoblit, a director who got his start in TV ("Hill Street Blues," "NYPD Blue") and can nearly always be counted on to spin an entertaining tale. On that score "Fracture" comes through in spades, with Anthony Hopkins (teetering on the brink of hamming it up, but never quite crossing the line) playing a brilliant structural engineer with strong sociopathic tendencies who shoots his wife after discovering that she's having an affair with a police detective. His character, Ted Crawford, confesses to the crime at the scene, and Gosling's character, Willy Beachum, is brought in to prosecute the seemingly open and shut case. Beachum is on his way to bigger and better things, but learns quickly enough that Crawford is playing him, and realizes that he is now enmeshed in a game of wits which, if lost, may cost him his career. Gosling does well in a role that requires him to play second fiddle to the charismatic Hopkins, and the movie bogs down only when it strains near the end to manipulate the plot in ways that strain credulity, in order to allow the "good guy" to win.
Gosling is not the main character in "Crazy, Stupid Love" (that honor goes to Steve Carell), but he steals just about every scene he's in as Jacob, who on the spectrum of young, good looking guys falls somewhere between Lothario and lounge-lizard. When Carell's wife (Julianne Moore) stuns him with her request for a divorce, he stumbles his way through his life, landing in a pick-up spot bar where he sticks out like a sore thumb. Although he quite obviously still pines for his wife and that life, with Gosling's help he manages to remake himself into something that, frankly, he isn't really suited for
This is one of those movies with sub-plots layered on top of sub-plots - it's sort of like a long episode of "Love, American Style" with all the stories taking place at once. So you've got a storyline involving Emma Stone, you've got another involving Carell's son and the babysitter he loves, who of course has a crush on Carell, and then you've got glorified extras like Kevin Bacon and Marisa Tomei, both of whom are largely wasted. The funniest moments make this worth seeing, and it's probably worth seeing just to see Gosling's star continue to ascend, but overall it's a bit less than the sum of its parts.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Warm Up Acts
When I was growing up I was a DC Comics kid, probably because it was Batman who got me interested in comics in the first place. About the only Marvel title I read was Spider-Man, so I've never been much of an expert on the Marvel Universe.
So for someone like me, it was important to see "Thor" and "Captain America" before venturing into what looks like will be the blockbuster of the summer (although the Caped Crusader may have a thing or two to say about that). I found both to be solid stand-alone action flicks, but having now seen "The Avengers" (review forthcoming), it's hard to think about either as anything but the act that warms up the crowd for the headliner. But then again, I've seen some pretty good warmup acts in my time, including The English Beat for Talking Heads and Kings of Leon for Bob Dylan.
Of the two, I'd have to give the nod to "Thor" - director Kenneth Branagh brings a sense of humor to the proceedings, and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. Chris Hemsworth is just fine as Thor, and Tom Hiddleston shows enough chops to prove that he deserved to become the bad guy in "Avengers." We can debate the reasons that Natalie Portman was in the movie, but she's certainly a lot better here than she was in any of the Star Wars prequels.
As a hero, Captain America is a bit on the dull side - not unlike Superman in the DC world, he's a bit on the earnest side (although he develops a bit of cynicism after waking up just in time to join his fellow Avengers). But Tommy Lee Jones makes a good addition as a grizzled old army veteran, and Hugo Weaving is always good for a strong villain, although his work here doesn't quite match his villainy in the "Matrix" movies.
These are not classic comic book adaptations, but they're both good and if you're only a casual fan of the Avengers universe, it's definitely a good idea to see them both before you tackle the behemoth.
So for someone like me, it was important to see "Thor" and "Captain America" before venturing into what looks like will be the blockbuster of the summer (although the Caped Crusader may have a thing or two to say about that). I found both to be solid stand-alone action flicks, but having now seen "The Avengers" (review forthcoming), it's hard to think about either as anything but the act that warms up the crowd for the headliner. But then again, I've seen some pretty good warmup acts in my time, including The English Beat for Talking Heads and Kings of Leon for Bob Dylan.
Of the two, I'd have to give the nod to "Thor" - director Kenneth Branagh brings a sense of humor to the proceedings, and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. Chris Hemsworth is just fine as Thor, and Tom Hiddleston shows enough chops to prove that he deserved to become the bad guy in "Avengers." We can debate the reasons that Natalie Portman was in the movie, but she's certainly a lot better here than she was in any of the Star Wars prequels.
As a hero, Captain America is a bit on the dull side - not unlike Superman in the DC world, he's a bit on the earnest side (although he develops a bit of cynicism after waking up just in time to join his fellow Avengers). But Tommy Lee Jones makes a good addition as a grizzled old army veteran, and Hugo Weaving is always good for a strong villain, although his work here doesn't quite match his villainy in the "Matrix" movies.
These are not classic comic book adaptations, but they're both good and if you're only a casual fan of the Avengers universe, it's definitely a good idea to see them both before you tackle the behemoth.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
For Specific Tastes
Two that won't appeal to everyone, but would probably be enjoyed a great deal by those with an interest in the subject matter.
The premise of "Captains" is very simple - William Shatner interviewing the actors who have played Captains on "Star Trek" - Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Chris Pine. If you don't give a whit about "Star Trek," there's no reason for you to see this movie, unless you have an intense (and probably unhealthy) fascination with the ego and personality of William Shatner. But if you are a Trekkie, or Trekker, or just casual fan of the show, it's worth spending a couple of hours with. Shatner is a surprisingly good interviewer, with an interesting technique - he talks about himself a lot, but in doing so creates a conversational atmosphere that makes it easy for the subjects to open up. It's an interesting mix of people (Christopher Plummer, a memorable villain as a Klingon in "The Undiscovered Country" is also thrown in for good measure), and throughout we learn that Stewart really is as classy as he's always seemed, that Brooks is a bit of strange duck, that Mulgrew is refreshingly open about the costs of success, that Bakula is just as down-to-earth as one might imagine, and that Pine seems to be having fun enjoying the ride. As is Shatner - after all, he's got to be one of the quintessential "laughing all the way to the bank" stories of our time.
The premise of "elBulli" is equally simple. For those not into food, cooking, or fine dining, elBulli was a world-famous restaurant in Spain, a Michelin 3-star restaurant renowned for being one of the birthplaces of molecular gastronomy. It was a very tough ticket - according to the page linked above, the restaurant would receive 2 million requests for the roughly 8,000 dining opportunities available during its six-month season. If you were lucky enough to be rewarded with a table, you would pay roughly $325 per person for a 35-course meal, and (I imagine) leave quite satisfied.
The movie takes simplicity to a new level - basically, the director and crew just turned the cameras on, and filmed some of the 42 chefs experimenting with new dishes and developing them to a point where they felt comfortable taking them to Ferran Adria, the man in charge. There's no narration, and no "question and answer" type of scenes - just experimenting, cooking, and preparing the restaurant. When it comes to running his crew, Ferran is the polar opposite of Gordon Ramsay. He's soft-spoken, never seems to raise his voice, and simply has to raise his hand and call for quiet to get everyone's attention. But it's clear that he's a hard man to please - in one example, he simply tells his chefs, "this is not good - please bring me only good things." Inherent in that simple statement is the notion that Ferran knows they know the difference; he sees no need to explain to them why the dish is not good.
Perhaps not for everyone, but both worth seeking out.
The premise of "Captains" is very simple - William Shatner interviewing the actors who have played Captains on "Star Trek" - Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, Scott Bakula, and Chris Pine. If you don't give a whit about "Star Trek," there's no reason for you to see this movie, unless you have an intense (and probably unhealthy) fascination with the ego and personality of William Shatner. But if you are a Trekkie, or Trekker, or just casual fan of the show, it's worth spending a couple of hours with. Shatner is a surprisingly good interviewer, with an interesting technique - he talks about himself a lot, but in doing so creates a conversational atmosphere that makes it easy for the subjects to open up. It's an interesting mix of people (Christopher Plummer, a memorable villain as a Klingon in "The Undiscovered Country" is also thrown in for good measure), and throughout we learn that Stewart really is as classy as he's always seemed, that Brooks is a bit of strange duck, that Mulgrew is refreshingly open about the costs of success, that Bakula is just as down-to-earth as one might imagine, and that Pine seems to be having fun enjoying the ride. As is Shatner - after all, he's got to be one of the quintessential "laughing all the way to the bank" stories of our time.
The premise of "elBulli" is equally simple. For those not into food, cooking, or fine dining, elBulli was a world-famous restaurant in Spain, a Michelin 3-star restaurant renowned for being one of the birthplaces of molecular gastronomy. It was a very tough ticket - according to the page linked above, the restaurant would receive 2 million requests for the roughly 8,000 dining opportunities available during its six-month season. If you were lucky enough to be rewarded with a table, you would pay roughly $325 per person for a 35-course meal, and (I imagine) leave quite satisfied.
The movie takes simplicity to a new level - basically, the director and crew just turned the cameras on, and filmed some of the 42 chefs experimenting with new dishes and developing them to a point where they felt comfortable taking them to Ferran Adria, the man in charge. There's no narration, and no "question and answer" type of scenes - just experimenting, cooking, and preparing the restaurant. When it comes to running his crew, Ferran is the polar opposite of Gordon Ramsay. He's soft-spoken, never seems to raise his voice, and simply has to raise his hand and call for quiet to get everyone's attention. But it's clear that he's a hard man to please - in one example, he simply tells his chefs, "this is not good - please bring me only good things." Inherent in that simple statement is the notion that Ferran knows they know the difference; he sees no need to explain to them why the dish is not good.
Perhaps not for everyone, but both worth seeking out.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
"Margin Call"
Well, so much for keeping up with the posting. But you can't force the words to come out; they're either there or they're not. Also, I find that the more writing I have to do that is work-related, the less able I am to come up with anything even marginally entertaining for the ol' blog.
But that changes today! At least, for today.
The first item to come off the backlog is "Margin Call," a movie released last fall that didn't receive anywhere near the amount of attention that it deserved. A thriller of sorts, "inspired by real events," the movie unfolds over the course of one 24-hour period at a major financial firm in New York City - the kind that we all know so well and love so much in this day and age.
Let's start by talking about the cast. It's a powerhouse cast with a lot of hardware up on the mantel, names like Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons, Demi Moore, Paul Bettany, Stanley Tucci, Simon Baker and Zachary Quinto (plus, the added bonus of Quinto's eyebrows). That's a great cast for what appears to have been an unknown director - one J.C. Chandor, unknown at least to me - and Chandor gets the most out of his team.
The story begins with a scene reminiscent of "Up in the Air," which depicts the layoff of Stanley Tucci, the firm's risk manager. Unbeknownst to his superiors, Tucci has been doing some research on the firm's recent investment strategies, and he leaves his work with Quinto, with the ominous warning, "be careful." That evening, while most of what remains of the staff are out celebrating the fact that they didn't get laid off, Quinto digs into the research, and quickly realizes that the firm is built on a house of cards, one that is about to come tumbling down.
One by one, he shepherds this information up the ladder - to Bettany, to Spacey, to Baker and Moore, and then finally to the firm's CEO, Irons - who plays the role with a gusto equal to his voice portrayal of Scar in "The Lion King." In the wee small hours of the morning, a strategy is worked out, heads roll, and the next morning, the traders go into action. It's probably not much of a spoiler to say that the solution for the firm isn't exactly in the best interest of the other trading firms, the consumer, or the public at large.
All in all, this is excellent work by a great team. I look forward to seeing what Mr. Chandor has to offer in the future.
But that changes today! At least, for today.
The first item to come off the backlog is "Margin Call," a movie released last fall that didn't receive anywhere near the amount of attention that it deserved. A thriller of sorts, "inspired by real events," the movie unfolds over the course of one 24-hour period at a major financial firm in New York City - the kind that we all know so well and love so much in this day and age.
Let's start by talking about the cast. It's a powerhouse cast with a lot of hardware up on the mantel, names like Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons, Demi Moore, Paul Bettany, Stanley Tucci, Simon Baker and Zachary Quinto (plus, the added bonus of Quinto's eyebrows). That's a great cast for what appears to have been an unknown director - one J.C. Chandor, unknown at least to me - and Chandor gets the most out of his team.
The story begins with a scene reminiscent of "Up in the Air," which depicts the layoff of Stanley Tucci, the firm's risk manager. Unbeknownst to his superiors, Tucci has been doing some research on the firm's recent investment strategies, and he leaves his work with Quinto, with the ominous warning, "be careful." That evening, while most of what remains of the staff are out celebrating the fact that they didn't get laid off, Quinto digs into the research, and quickly realizes that the firm is built on a house of cards, one that is about to come tumbling down.
One by one, he shepherds this information up the ladder - to Bettany, to Spacey, to Baker and Moore, and then finally to the firm's CEO, Irons - who plays the role with a gusto equal to his voice portrayal of Scar in "The Lion King." In the wee small hours of the morning, a strategy is worked out, heads roll, and the next morning, the traders go into action. It's probably not much of a spoiler to say that the solution for the firm isn't exactly in the best interest of the other trading firms, the consumer, or the public at large.
All in all, this is excellent work by a great team. I look forward to seeing what Mr. Chandor has to offer in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)