Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Gwyneth Paltrow, Marion Cotillard, Jennifer Ehle, Elliott Gould, John Hawkes
Dir. Steven Soderbergh
Scr. Scott Z Burns
It made me squirm in my undoubtedly germ-ridden cinema seat, wondering about the dozen people who had sat in it before me. It made me not want to touch anything on my way home, certainly not my own face. And it made me wash my hands at least three times the amount I usually do for the rest of the evening. And while this movie is certainly compelling and may well creep you out, at the end of the day you won’t care too much about who dies and how quickly. Soderbergh’s failing here is a lack of emotional connection.
Contagion follows the spread of a deadly and frightening virus – airborne and killing the infected within days. The medical community, notably the CDC and WHO, race to find the origins of the virus and a cure. It doesn’t take long for society to come apart at the seams as millions die.
I suspect Contagion might bore some, but I found it compelling and tense and tightly plotted. The issue I have, as I had with Soderbergh’s award-winning Traffic, is too many strands create a disconnect for the audience. And especially in this film, because we come to care about very few in this story. Sure, the cast is all-star and largely excellent. But we merely scan their lives. The exception – Matt Damon’s character, who loses his wife and stepson and turns neurotic in order to protect his remaining daughter – is a welcome relief and truly tugs at the heartstrings. His reaction to being told his wife has died is wonderful writing and acting.
As I say, the acting here is top-notch. Notably, Damon and Winslet shine, possibly because they are simply given more to work with. Jude Law, as a blogger and conspiracy theorist, has a ridiculous and random accent that I just couldn’t stand. I think he was supposed to be Australian? Whatever it was, it was awful. Cotillard is charming as ever but woefully underused.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed this film. It’s smart and compelling and frightening. I guess I just wanted more – more emotion, more character development, more to truly make me care. Contagion is like a documentary with plenty of famous faces. It’s clinical, but maybe that’s the whole point?
-------------------------------
Dr Ian Sussman: Blogging is not writing. It’s just graffiti with punctuation.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
Drive
Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Bryan Cranston, Ron Perlman
Dir. Nicolas Winding Refn
Scr. Hossein Amini (based on book of same name by James Sallis)
It’s a little like something I can’t quite put my finger on. Maybe Lost in Translation, but with even less dialogue, much more violence and no Bill Murray. Or maybe like The Machinist, but with a healthier leading man and not nearly as surreal. Whatever it is, I can’t really decide whether I liked it or not. On the other hand, I’m not sure Drive is a movie you’re supposed to “like”. Sure, you’ll read about the bursts of violence that I think some will find too hard to stomach. But this isn’t a movie about violence. It’s about something else. It’s about putting things right.
Ryan Gosling plays a mechanic and stunt driver by day (his character has no name, simply credited as Driver), and a getaway driver by night. He lives alone, doesn’t talk much and, you guessed it, drives like he was born to. Striking up a friendship with young mother Irene (Mulligan) and her son who live next door, the Driver finds himself dragged into her ex-con husband’s shady past when he agrees to help him out in a heist. As you can imagine, it all goes horribly wrong and the Driver must do everything he can to protect Irene and her son. There’s more to the story than meets the eye and I have to admit that impressed me, what with such little dialogue and such slow burn mood-setting.
I’m not sure what genre exactly this movie falls into. For my money, it’s kind of a horror. Not one with scary monsters or chainsaw-wielding madmen. But there is horror nonetheless and it creeps up on you, seeps into your bones and lingers long after the credits have rolled. And, in this way, Drive feels much more akin to The Thing than to a crime thriller. Refn is defying genres and asking his audiences to simply keep up.
Of course all of this creepiness and atmosphere and tension relies heavily on a cast who gets it. Gosling certainly does. He’s been in his share of quirky and challenging films, but Drive was surely a whole different kettle of fish for him. He is outstanding. Understated, sure, menacing, innocent, worldly, true and so much more. And when that vein pulses in his forehead and he turns on the violence, boy, I was scared. Mulligan is quietly compelling. Cranston gives a great turn as the Driver’s boss, a broken yet hopeful man. Perlman, as gangster Nino, is rough and horrid and wonderful. Brooks gives a masterful turn as gangster Bernie Rose – charismatic and chilling, a brilliant combo.
Drive is not going to be everyone’s cup of tea – it’s a moody outing. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of people to whom I would recommend this film. The critical acclaim and the stellar cast are not enough to mitigate what is a decidedly violent film. I don’t think I would see it again. But that feeling it left me with – completely freaked out in the most menacing way – was well worth the price of admission.
--------------------------
Driver: If I drive for you, you get your money. That's a guarantee. Tell me where we start, where we're going and where we're going afterwards, I give you five minutes when you get there. Anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours, no matter what. Anything a minute either side of that and you're on your own. I don't sit in while you're running it down. I don't carry a gun. I drive.
Dir. Nicolas Winding Refn
Scr. Hossein Amini (based on book of same name by James Sallis)
It’s a little like something I can’t quite put my finger on. Maybe Lost in Translation, but with even less dialogue, much more violence and no Bill Murray. Or maybe like The Machinist, but with a healthier leading man and not nearly as surreal. Whatever it is, I can’t really decide whether I liked it or not. On the other hand, I’m not sure Drive is a movie you’re supposed to “like”. Sure, you’ll read about the bursts of violence that I think some will find too hard to stomach. But this isn’t a movie about violence. It’s about something else. It’s about putting things right.
Ryan Gosling plays a mechanic and stunt driver by day (his character has no name, simply credited as Driver), and a getaway driver by night. He lives alone, doesn’t talk much and, you guessed it, drives like he was born to. Striking up a friendship with young mother Irene (Mulligan) and her son who live next door, the Driver finds himself dragged into her ex-con husband’s shady past when he agrees to help him out in a heist. As you can imagine, it all goes horribly wrong and the Driver must do everything he can to protect Irene and her son. There’s more to the story than meets the eye and I have to admit that impressed me, what with such little dialogue and such slow burn mood-setting.
I’m not sure what genre exactly this movie falls into. For my money, it’s kind of a horror. Not one with scary monsters or chainsaw-wielding madmen. But there is horror nonetheless and it creeps up on you, seeps into your bones and lingers long after the credits have rolled. And, in this way, Drive feels much more akin to The Thing than to a crime thriller. Refn is defying genres and asking his audiences to simply keep up.
Of course all of this creepiness and atmosphere and tension relies heavily on a cast who gets it. Gosling certainly does. He’s been in his share of quirky and challenging films, but Drive was surely a whole different kettle of fish for him. He is outstanding. Understated, sure, menacing, innocent, worldly, true and so much more. And when that vein pulses in his forehead and he turns on the violence, boy, I was scared. Mulligan is quietly compelling. Cranston gives a great turn as the Driver’s boss, a broken yet hopeful man. Perlman, as gangster Nino, is rough and horrid and wonderful. Brooks gives a masterful turn as gangster Bernie Rose – charismatic and chilling, a brilliant combo.
Drive is not going to be everyone’s cup of tea – it’s a moody outing. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of people to whom I would recommend this film. The critical acclaim and the stellar cast are not enough to mitigate what is a decidedly violent film. I don’t think I would see it again. But that feeling it left me with – completely freaked out in the most menacing way – was well worth the price of admission.
--------------------------
Driver: If I drive for you, you get your money. That's a guarantee. Tell me where we start, where we're going and where we're going afterwards, I give you five minutes when you get there. Anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours, no matter what. Anything a minute either side of that and you're on your own. I don't sit in while you're running it down. I don't carry a gun. I drive.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
One Day
Anne Hathaway, Jim Sturgess, Rafe Spall, Patricia Clarkson, Ken Stott
Dir. Lone Scherfig
Scr. David Nicholls (based on his book of the same name)
I really wanted to like this movie. I haven’t seen a good romantic tear-jerker since I can’t remember when. So, with tissues at the ready, I waited for the lights to dim and cinematic magic to begin. But, it didn’t. Well, it did, in fleeting moments. But, by the end, I felt somehow cheated and distant. There is a lot to like in One Day – it certainly doesn’t lack ambition – but, unfortunately, it simply doesn’t deliver that ultimate slam-dunk to your heart.
After one day together (15th July 1988), aspiring writer Emma (Hathaway) and wealthy playboy Dexter (Sturgess) begin a lifelong friendship. Through the years that follow, we encounter Emma and Dexter on many 15th of Julys – sometimes spending the day together, sometimes apart. Sometimes with a significant other, sometimes alone. Sometimes lonely. Through ups and downs, fights, tears and laughter … you get the picture. Always gravitating towards each other, whether that’s the healthy option or not. If you’ve read the book, I assume you know what happens. For those who haven’t, let’s just say, there was the need for a tissue at least once.
The journey for the audience through the 90s and 00s is a treat. Trends and fashions – good and mostly bad – are on display. This movie certainly looks good and doesn’t suffer from a lack of nostalgic warm fuzzies. There is also a real effort to develop these key characters, in every aspect of their lives. And while there is depth to Emma and Dexter, the rest of the cast are largely two-dimensional plot devices. This depth did not translate into a real connection with these characters however and, even after all they go through, I felt strangely distant. By the end, it was all overly sentimental and melancholic. I wasn’t uplifted, though I suspect I was supposed to have been. I was simply a little sad and, frankly, a little bored.
The talent on display in One Day is very good indeed. Hathaway is funny and enchanting, although her accent is all over the place. She carries a sadness with her, which was very compelling. Sturgess is less nuanced than Hathaway, but appealing nonetheless. Dexter’s personal growth is more dramatic than Emma’s and Sturgess gets it right. Clarkson and Stott, as Dexter’s parents, are a delightful bonus. I think I was most impressed by Spall, who plays Emma’s love interest Ian. Always living in the shadow of Dexter, he plays Ian with a wit and melancholy and anger that was surprising and engaging.
This isn’t a terrible movie. Far from it. But it just doesn’t seem to deliver. If you want to witness something truly special from this director, see An Education.
-----------------------------
Dexter: I'd still like to read that poetry. What rhymes with Dexter?
Emma: Prick. It's a half rhyme.
Dir. Lone Scherfig
Scr. David Nicholls (based on his book of the same name)
I really wanted to like this movie. I haven’t seen a good romantic tear-jerker since I can’t remember when. So, with tissues at the ready, I waited for the lights to dim and cinematic magic to begin. But, it didn’t. Well, it did, in fleeting moments. But, by the end, I felt somehow cheated and distant. There is a lot to like in One Day – it certainly doesn’t lack ambition – but, unfortunately, it simply doesn’t deliver that ultimate slam-dunk to your heart.
After one day together (15th July 1988), aspiring writer Emma (Hathaway) and wealthy playboy Dexter (Sturgess) begin a lifelong friendship. Through the years that follow, we encounter Emma and Dexter on many 15th of Julys – sometimes spending the day together, sometimes apart. Sometimes with a significant other, sometimes alone. Sometimes lonely. Through ups and downs, fights, tears and laughter … you get the picture. Always gravitating towards each other, whether that’s the healthy option or not. If you’ve read the book, I assume you know what happens. For those who haven’t, let’s just say, there was the need for a tissue at least once.
The journey for the audience through the 90s and 00s is a treat. Trends and fashions – good and mostly bad – are on display. This movie certainly looks good and doesn’t suffer from a lack of nostalgic warm fuzzies. There is also a real effort to develop these key characters, in every aspect of their lives. And while there is depth to Emma and Dexter, the rest of the cast are largely two-dimensional plot devices. This depth did not translate into a real connection with these characters however and, even after all they go through, I felt strangely distant. By the end, it was all overly sentimental and melancholic. I wasn’t uplifted, though I suspect I was supposed to have been. I was simply a little sad and, frankly, a little bored.
The talent on display in One Day is very good indeed. Hathaway is funny and enchanting, although her accent is all over the place. She carries a sadness with her, which was very compelling. Sturgess is less nuanced than Hathaway, but appealing nonetheless. Dexter’s personal growth is more dramatic than Emma’s and Sturgess gets it right. Clarkson and Stott, as Dexter’s parents, are a delightful bonus. I think I was most impressed by Spall, who plays Emma’s love interest Ian. Always living in the shadow of Dexter, he plays Ian with a wit and melancholy and anger that was surprising and engaging.
This isn’t a terrible movie. Far from it. But it just doesn’t seem to deliver. If you want to witness something truly special from this director, see An Education.
-----------------------------
Dexter: I'd still like to read that poetry. What rhymes with Dexter?
Emma: Prick. It's a half rhyme.
In Time
Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser
Dir & Scr. Andrew Niccol
There’s a lot to like in the overarching premise of this movie. At first, it grabs your attention and you’re drawn to the futuristic world in which, literally, time is money. But In Time never lives up to its intriguing beginnings and falls flat as both a thriller and social commentary. And, much worse than that, I have retained little from this good-looking but unsatisfying film.
Set some time in the future, In Time presents us with a world in which people cease to age at 25 and their clock start ticking. Time must be earned or bought in order for people to survive more than the year they are gifted at 25. Social inequality runs rampant as the world is divided into time zones, with (supposedly) only so much time to go around. Timberlake plays Will Salas, a 28-year-old living day-to-day in the badlands of Dayton. When he suddenly finds himself with over a century to play with, he infiltrates the land of the privileged (and time-rich) in New Greenwich. He is soon on the run, with uber-wealthy Sylvia Weis (Seyfried) as his hostage. Together, they attempt to right some wrongs.
In Time certainly moves along at a clip. The plot suffers, but the audience is rarely left with time to question. There’s also no doubt that this film looks very good indeed – Niccol has an eye for the future, as seen in his much superior future-flick Gattaca. In Time is all greys and blues and cool and slightly steam-punk. The eerie glow of green from the clock on everyone’s forearm is a lovely touch, used to good effect by Niccol. Everyone is 25 (or younger) and mostly beautiful – there is a feeling at times that you’re watching a Calvin Klein ad rather than a movie, but who is going to complain too much about that?
The acting on offer is mixed. Timberlake is, at times, quite good. Seyfried is not. And the chemistry between them is heated but unbelievable. The real standout performance comes from Murphy, as Time Keeper Leon. For me, Murphy is a welcome addition to any film and In Time is no exception – we get from him the haunted and nuanced performance I wanted to see from Timberlake. The rest of the cast are solid if somewhat forgettable.
If you’re after an entertaining Saturday afternoon flick, then In Time may well fit the bill. There are good ideas flying around and the first half is pretty darn solid. But there isn’t a lot of heart or smarts on offer.
-------------------------
Philippe Weis: But, hasn't evolution always been unfair? It's always been survival of the fittest. This is merely Darwinian capitalism. Natural selection.
Dir & Scr. Andrew Niccol
There’s a lot to like in the overarching premise of this movie. At first, it grabs your attention and you’re drawn to the futuristic world in which, literally, time is money. But In Time never lives up to its intriguing beginnings and falls flat as both a thriller and social commentary. And, much worse than that, I have retained little from this good-looking but unsatisfying film.
Set some time in the future, In Time presents us with a world in which people cease to age at 25 and their clock start ticking. Time must be earned or bought in order for people to survive more than the year they are gifted at 25. Social inequality runs rampant as the world is divided into time zones, with (supposedly) only so much time to go around. Timberlake plays Will Salas, a 28-year-old living day-to-day in the badlands of Dayton. When he suddenly finds himself with over a century to play with, he infiltrates the land of the privileged (and time-rich) in New Greenwich. He is soon on the run, with uber-wealthy Sylvia Weis (Seyfried) as his hostage. Together, they attempt to right some wrongs.
In Time certainly moves along at a clip. The plot suffers, but the audience is rarely left with time to question. There’s also no doubt that this film looks very good indeed – Niccol has an eye for the future, as seen in his much superior future-flick Gattaca. In Time is all greys and blues and cool and slightly steam-punk. The eerie glow of green from the clock on everyone’s forearm is a lovely touch, used to good effect by Niccol. Everyone is 25 (or younger) and mostly beautiful – there is a feeling at times that you’re watching a Calvin Klein ad rather than a movie, but who is going to complain too much about that?
The acting on offer is mixed. Timberlake is, at times, quite good. Seyfried is not. And the chemistry between them is heated but unbelievable. The real standout performance comes from Murphy, as Time Keeper Leon. For me, Murphy is a welcome addition to any film and In Time is no exception – we get from him the haunted and nuanced performance I wanted to see from Timberlake. The rest of the cast are solid if somewhat forgettable.
If you’re after an entertaining Saturday afternoon flick, then In Time may well fit the bill. There are good ideas flying around and the first half is pretty darn solid. But there isn’t a lot of heart or smarts on offer.
-------------------------
Philippe Weis: But, hasn't evolution always been unfair? It's always been survival of the fittest. This is merely Darwinian capitalism. Natural selection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)