Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, Paul Schneider, Kelli Garner, Patricia Clarkson
Dir. Craig Gillespie
Scr. Nancy Oliver
Lars and the Real Girl is an odd, endearing film. The subject matter could have easily led to a crass movie, filled with off-colour jokes and gutter appeal. Instead, the film is a touching story of loneliness, growth and, ultimately, love. Top-notch acting abounds in Lars and the Real Girl, with excellent performances from an impressive cast. It’ll make you giggle, that’s for damn sure, but this film may also see you unexpectedly shed a tear.
Lars and the Real Girl tells the story of Lars Lindstrom, a 30-year-old introvert living in his brother’s garage, who, despite working every day, is trying his best to avoid all human contact. Oblivious to the girl at work with a crush on him, blind to how much people care about him, Lars is an odd boy – human physical contact actually causes him physical pain, and he clearly has issues with intimacy of any kind. So, when Lars tells his brother and his wife that a girl he met on the internet is coming to stay and could she sleep in their guest room, they are both stunned and ecstatic. When the girl turns out to be Bianca – a real doll – they are just plain stunned. What comes next is testament to the fact there is still goodness in the world, though you have to be prepared to suspend much disbelief to actually buy that an entire town would play along with Lars’s delusion (even if they are Canadian).
This film succeeds because it doesn’t go where most would expect it to go – Lars doesn’t want to have sex with his real doll (although she is anatomically correct). He wants a companion who won’t leave him or die. He wants to be normal, or at least live the delusion of being normal. He doesn’t want to be alone. We’ve all been there. So, we have a story with heart. Sure, there’s a few laughs along the way – how could there not be! Maybe it’s a bit precious – cynics might have a hard time sitting through this film. But if you’re looking for something to warm the cockles of your heart, this is the one.
The acting in Lars and the Real Girl is, without exception, brilliant. Ryan Gosling is a revelation in the lead role. A perfect performance as one of the most insular characters you will ever see. The scenes between him and Doctor Dagmar (who, under the guise of “treating” Bianca, plays counsellor to Lars) are outstanding. Dagmar is played by the fantastic Patricia Clarkson and she is simply sublime. When she delivers the line “sometimes I get so lonely I forget what day it is and how to spell my name” I had to stop myself from bursting into tears. Lars’s brother, Gus, and his wife, Karin, are played by Paul Schneider (a near unknown to me) and Emily Mortimer (an extremely prolific and lovely Brit), and they are both wonderful. Mortimer especially gives a heartfelt and gutsy performance. A great turn also from Kelli Garner as Lars’s colleague Margo.
Lars and the Real Girl won’t be to everyone’s taste. A charming film, some will find a little too hard to swallow. But I heartily recommend Lars. The acting is great, the script is smart and witty, and the story restored my faith in human kindness and acceptance. For a while, anyway.
----------------
Lars: [after giving some flowers to Bianca] See, they're even fake so they'll never die.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
3:10 to Yuma
Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Peter Fonda, Gretchen Mol, Ben Foster, Alan Tudyk, Logan Lerman
Dir. James Mangold
Scr. Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt & Derek Haas (based on the short story by Elmore Leonard)
3:10 to Yuma is a sharp, action-packed, somewhat uneven western, with some good acting and a rubbish ending. Crowe and Bale are perfectly on-song, and are supported by a strong cast. I like a good western, and 3:10 to Yuma is close enough to being one to have entertained me. Don’t expect cinematic brilliance, but do expect a good night out.
Dan Evans (Bale), a small-time, struggling, one-legged rancher and Civil War veteran signs on to join a small group of men whose job it is to make sure outlaw Ben Wade (Crowe) catches the 3:10 train to Yuma, where he will be tried and hung for a slew of hold-ups and murders. The film follows their journey, and focuses on the battle of wills between Evans and Wade – Wade trying to corrupt the rancher; Evans trying his darnest to get Wade on that train and collect his $200 reward. Tagging along for the ride is, among others, Evans’ teenage son (Lerman) who has long since lost respect for his father and starts to see Wade as someone worth looking up to. Hot on their tail is Wade’s gang, led (in Wade’s absence) by the psychotic Charlie Prince (Foster), hell-bent on freeing Wade and killing anyone who gets in their way.
As in any good western, there is much of a moral nature to ponder – is Wade all bad? Is Evans all good? What will a man do when he is pushed to his limit? Evans is, by far, the most interesting and complex character and his journey is extremely compelling. Wade seems more clear-cut, but in the end, changes in a way that is simply unbelievable - sorry, I just didn’t buy it. The ending of 3:10 to Yuma does not entirely ruin what has come before, but it does make you exclaim “WTF?!” and feel slightly ripped off by the filmmakers. This would have been a finer film if it had ended differently. Just don’t ask me how I would have ended it …
The acting in this film is very solid indeed. There are some great turns by the supporting cast. Peter Fonda is simply a joy to watch, as a weathered and grizzly bounty-hunter. Alan Tudyk injects some humour and light to an otherwise heady story. Gretchen Mol gives an excellent performance as Evans’ wife. Ben Foster is chilling as Wade’s showy and ruthless right-hand man. Lerman is very good as William, the wide-eyed teenage son of Evans. The film really does hinge, however, on the performances of and relationship between Crowe and Bale. Crowe was clearly having fun as the confident, badass Wade and plays the role with relish. Bale, tackling a more nuanced and morally ambiguous character, is simply excellent in this film. More proof, if any was needed, that Bale is one of the finest actors of his generation. The film benefits from the almost tangible chemistry between Crowe and Bale.
The “shoot-em-up” in 3:10 to Yuma is perhaps a bit heavy-handed in parts. And it wasn’t as dusty and grimy as it perhaps should have been. But, all in all, this film feels and looks like a western of old. It could certainly have been 15 minutes or so shorter – perhaps they could have cut out the bad ending altogether! But these criticisms aside, I enjoyed this film and recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the western genre.
-----------------
Ben Wade: You ever read the bible, Dan? I read it one time. I was eight years old. My daddy just got hisself killed over a shot of whiskey and my mama said "we're going back East to start over". So she gave me a bible, sat me down in the train station, told me to read it. She was gonna get our tickets. Well, I did what she said. I read that bible from cover to cover. It took me three days. She never came back.
Dir. James Mangold
Scr. Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt & Derek Haas (based on the short story by Elmore Leonard)
3:10 to Yuma is a sharp, action-packed, somewhat uneven western, with some good acting and a rubbish ending. Crowe and Bale are perfectly on-song, and are supported by a strong cast. I like a good western, and 3:10 to Yuma is close enough to being one to have entertained me. Don’t expect cinematic brilliance, but do expect a good night out.
Dan Evans (Bale), a small-time, struggling, one-legged rancher and Civil War veteran signs on to join a small group of men whose job it is to make sure outlaw Ben Wade (Crowe) catches the 3:10 train to Yuma, where he will be tried and hung for a slew of hold-ups and murders. The film follows their journey, and focuses on the battle of wills between Evans and Wade – Wade trying to corrupt the rancher; Evans trying his darnest to get Wade on that train and collect his $200 reward. Tagging along for the ride is, among others, Evans’ teenage son (Lerman) who has long since lost respect for his father and starts to see Wade as someone worth looking up to. Hot on their tail is Wade’s gang, led (in Wade’s absence) by the psychotic Charlie Prince (Foster), hell-bent on freeing Wade and killing anyone who gets in their way.
As in any good western, there is much of a moral nature to ponder – is Wade all bad? Is Evans all good? What will a man do when he is pushed to his limit? Evans is, by far, the most interesting and complex character and his journey is extremely compelling. Wade seems more clear-cut, but in the end, changes in a way that is simply unbelievable - sorry, I just didn’t buy it. The ending of 3:10 to Yuma does not entirely ruin what has come before, but it does make you exclaim “WTF?!” and feel slightly ripped off by the filmmakers. This would have been a finer film if it had ended differently. Just don’t ask me how I would have ended it …
The acting in this film is very solid indeed. There are some great turns by the supporting cast. Peter Fonda is simply a joy to watch, as a weathered and grizzly bounty-hunter. Alan Tudyk injects some humour and light to an otherwise heady story. Gretchen Mol gives an excellent performance as Evans’ wife. Ben Foster is chilling as Wade’s showy and ruthless right-hand man. Lerman is very good as William, the wide-eyed teenage son of Evans. The film really does hinge, however, on the performances of and relationship between Crowe and Bale. Crowe was clearly having fun as the confident, badass Wade and plays the role with relish. Bale, tackling a more nuanced and morally ambiguous character, is simply excellent in this film. More proof, if any was needed, that Bale is one of the finest actors of his generation. The film benefits from the almost tangible chemistry between Crowe and Bale.
The “shoot-em-up” in 3:10 to Yuma is perhaps a bit heavy-handed in parts. And it wasn’t as dusty and grimy as it perhaps should have been. But, all in all, this film feels and looks like a western of old. It could certainly have been 15 minutes or so shorter – perhaps they could have cut out the bad ending altogether! But these criticisms aside, I enjoyed this film and recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the western genre.
-----------------
Ben Wade: You ever read the bible, Dan? I read it one time. I was eight years old. My daddy just got hisself killed over a shot of whiskey and my mama said "we're going back East to start over". So she gave me a bible, sat me down in the train station, told me to read it. She was gonna get our tickets. Well, I did what she said. I read that bible from cover to cover. It took me three days. She never came back.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Michael Clayton
George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack, Austin Williams
Dir. Tony Gilroy
Scr. Tony Gilroy
Michael Clayton is a slow burning, intriguing legal thriller, not flawless but as fine a movie of its type as you’ll see this year. Clooney goes from strength to strength as an actor and in this film he is top-notch. With a strong supporting cast and a smarter-than-average script, you won’t be disappointed by Michael Clayton.
Michael Clayton is a “fixer”, a “janitor” – that guy in a law firm that makes a mess disappear. And what a mess he is faced with in this film – a senior partner strips off in a hearing and generally, well, goes bonkers while in charge of a case that has the potential, if unsuccessful, to bring the law firm down. Clayton is given the job of containing the crazy partner, who is perhaps not as crazy as it first appears. Without spoiling too much of the action, let’s just say there is murder, there is extortion, there’s an explosion (yay!), and there’s a healthy dose of second-guessing and intrigue. The pace may be a little slow in some places for adrenaline-junkie movie-goers, but it sits well with the complex story and gives us ample time to get to know the characters and care about what happens to them.
The acting in Michael Clayton is very good indeed – in particular, a triumvirate of exceptional performances. A brilliant turn from Wilkinson as the manic depressive Arthur Edens – there is no doubt this character is unbalanced but Wilkinson doesn’t let the role become too showy. He plays Edens with an undercurrent of intelligence and compassion. An equally fantastic performance from Swinton, who plays corporate counsel Karen Crowder, a woman thriving in a man’s world and, in the end, thriving just a little too well and a little too ruthlessly. Swinton has a magnetism about her. The final scene between her and Clayton is worth the price of admission. A very well deserved supporting actress Oscar win. And then we have George; lovely, lovely George. I truly believe that Clooney will be remembered in the same breath as the likes of Redford and Newman – an extremely talented leading man with much more than just good looks. And Michael Clayton is perhaps the best example of this – Clooney shines in the title role. Clayton is a morally ambiguous character and right until the final breath, we are not entirely sure on which side of the moral fence he will fall (perhaps it would have been more interesting if he fell on the opposite side than he did, but never mind). Clooney plays this flawed man superbly. In a weaker Oscar year, I would have put money on him winning.
This is not a perfect film, by any means, but it is one I heartily recommend. It’s a movie about ethics, about big business, about the lengths people will go to. If you’re in the mood for “27 Dresses”, don’t see this film. But if you want to be taken on a compelling and intriguing journey, see Michael Clayton.
----------------------------------
Michael Clayton: You are the senior litigating partner of one of the largest, most respected law firms in the world. You are a legend.
Arthur Edens: I'm an accomplice!
Michael Clayton: You're a manic-depressive!
Arthur Edens: I am Shiva, the god of death.
Dir. Tony Gilroy
Scr. Tony Gilroy
Michael Clayton is a slow burning, intriguing legal thriller, not flawless but as fine a movie of its type as you’ll see this year. Clooney goes from strength to strength as an actor and in this film he is top-notch. With a strong supporting cast and a smarter-than-average script, you won’t be disappointed by Michael Clayton.
Michael Clayton is a “fixer”, a “janitor” – that guy in a law firm that makes a mess disappear. And what a mess he is faced with in this film – a senior partner strips off in a hearing and generally, well, goes bonkers while in charge of a case that has the potential, if unsuccessful, to bring the law firm down. Clayton is given the job of containing the crazy partner, who is perhaps not as crazy as it first appears. Without spoiling too much of the action, let’s just say there is murder, there is extortion, there’s an explosion (yay!), and there’s a healthy dose of second-guessing and intrigue. The pace may be a little slow in some places for adrenaline-junkie movie-goers, but it sits well with the complex story and gives us ample time to get to know the characters and care about what happens to them.
The acting in Michael Clayton is very good indeed – in particular, a triumvirate of exceptional performances. A brilliant turn from Wilkinson as the manic depressive Arthur Edens – there is no doubt this character is unbalanced but Wilkinson doesn’t let the role become too showy. He plays Edens with an undercurrent of intelligence and compassion. An equally fantastic performance from Swinton, who plays corporate counsel Karen Crowder, a woman thriving in a man’s world and, in the end, thriving just a little too well and a little too ruthlessly. Swinton has a magnetism about her. The final scene between her and Clayton is worth the price of admission. A very well deserved supporting actress Oscar win. And then we have George; lovely, lovely George. I truly believe that Clooney will be remembered in the same breath as the likes of Redford and Newman – an extremely talented leading man with much more than just good looks. And Michael Clayton is perhaps the best example of this – Clooney shines in the title role. Clayton is a morally ambiguous character and right until the final breath, we are not entirely sure on which side of the moral fence he will fall (perhaps it would have been more interesting if he fell on the opposite side than he did, but never mind). Clooney plays this flawed man superbly. In a weaker Oscar year, I would have put money on him winning.
This is not a perfect film, by any means, but it is one I heartily recommend. It’s a movie about ethics, about big business, about the lengths people will go to. If you’re in the mood for “27 Dresses”, don’t see this film. But if you want to be taken on a compelling and intriguing journey, see Michael Clayton.
----------------------------------
Michael Clayton: You are the senior litigating partner of one of the largest, most respected law firms in the world. You are a legend.
Arthur Edens: I'm an accomplice!
Michael Clayton: You're a manic-depressive!
Arthur Edens: I am Shiva, the god of death.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
There Will Be Blood
Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier, Ciarán Hinds, Kevin J. O'Connor
Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson
Scr. Paul Thomas Anderson (based on the novel “Oil” by Upton Sinclair)
The title of this film didn’t lie – there certainly was blood. Literal blood of man and figurative blood of Jesus. Blood spilled accidentally and not so accidentally. Misfortune. Murder. Revenge. Cruelty. And then there was Day-Lewis, who gave such a phenomenal performance that you found yourself rooting for perhaps one of the most unlikeable and ruthless characters to ever appear on screen. There Will Be Blood is a crazy, emotionally draining, brilliant film – a film that may alienate and disturb as many people as it will engage.
There Will Be Blood follows the journey of Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis), from humble beginnings in the oil business, to absolute fortune and success. Lured to the small community of Little Boston by the promise of an ocean of oil, Plainview goes about setting up shop and buying as much land as possible. Along the way to making his fortune, he develops an extremely odd relationship with the local preacher, has tragedy strike his young son, and encounters his long, lost brother from another mother. Among other things. There Will Be Blood is a story of family, of ego, of revenge, of hatred. And, of course, that ocean of oil.
It’s been a while since we’ve been treated to a film by Paul Thomas Anderson. And what an interesting list of films he has to his name. The only word I can think of to link There Will Be Blood, Punch-Drunk Love, Magnolia and Boogie Nights – arguably his most well known endeavours – is, well, different. Anderson’s work has not universally been greeted with acclaim – Punch-Drunk Love, for instance, was bagged by many (a little unfairly, in my opinion). But it’s clear he has a unique vision and There Will Be Blood is perhaps his finest and most original work to date.
The best decision Anderson made on this film was to cast Day-Lewis in the lead. Day-Lewis hasn’t been seen for a while either – Gangs of New York in 2002 was his last major role. There’s no doubt that we’re used to seeing Day-Lewis give memorable and powerful performances, but his turn in this film will blow you away. Day-Lewis’s Plainview is a truly ruthless and despicable man. He is a man consumed by hatred for, well, pretty much everyone. He is a man who just cannot handle being told, by anyone, what he should or should not do. He is greedy and cruel. And yet, by the end of the film, you will find yourself on his side. You will be delighted by his victories. And why is this? Well, I’m not entirely sure. Day-Lewis is so very compelling to watch, and perhaps that is part of the reason. But it must also have something to do with the ruthlessness inside each of us. It must be because we also like to win. All I know is that every time I thought Plainview was going to redeem himself, was going to finally do the right thing, he didn’t – why is it that we assume there is goodness in everyone? Plainview chose the evil option at every turn and this made him completely unlikeable. I found this man and his journey so utterly disturbing, and yet so incredibly intriguing.
The supporting cast in There Will Be Blood is very good indeed. Dillon Freasier, as Plainview’s son, gives a very mature and nuanced performance for such a young actor. I hope he’s not allowed to watch the movie he was in! Kevin J. O'Connor’s snivelling performance as Plainview’s brother, Henry, is excellent. Much, much credit must go to Paul Dano who plays preacher Eli Sunday – in many ways a character just as disturbed and disturbing as Plainview. The scenes between Dano and Day-Lewis are undoubtedly the highlights of the film. I first saw Dano give a brilliant performance in Little Miss Sunshine and continue to be impressed by this young actor. I hope the good roles keep heading his way.
There Will Be Blood won’t be everyone’s cup of tea. I think it’s strange pace may bore some. I think the madness may confuse others. But, please, try and stick with it. This is one of the most original and compelling movies I have seen in a long time. You won’t necessary like it – I’m not sure “enjoyment” is a word that springs to mind – but you will find yourself drawn into an engaging and disturbing tale of the worst in us all.
----------------------------------------
Daniel Plainview: Drainage! Drainage, Eli! Drained dry, you boy! If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and I have a straw and my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!
Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson
Scr. Paul Thomas Anderson (based on the novel “Oil” by Upton Sinclair)
The title of this film didn’t lie – there certainly was blood. Literal blood of man and figurative blood of Jesus. Blood spilled accidentally and not so accidentally. Misfortune. Murder. Revenge. Cruelty. And then there was Day-Lewis, who gave such a phenomenal performance that you found yourself rooting for perhaps one of the most unlikeable and ruthless characters to ever appear on screen. There Will Be Blood is a crazy, emotionally draining, brilliant film – a film that may alienate and disturb as many people as it will engage.
There Will Be Blood follows the journey of Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis), from humble beginnings in the oil business, to absolute fortune and success. Lured to the small community of Little Boston by the promise of an ocean of oil, Plainview goes about setting up shop and buying as much land as possible. Along the way to making his fortune, he develops an extremely odd relationship with the local preacher, has tragedy strike his young son, and encounters his long, lost brother from another mother. Among other things. There Will Be Blood is a story of family, of ego, of revenge, of hatred. And, of course, that ocean of oil.
It’s been a while since we’ve been treated to a film by Paul Thomas Anderson. And what an interesting list of films he has to his name. The only word I can think of to link There Will Be Blood, Punch-Drunk Love, Magnolia and Boogie Nights – arguably his most well known endeavours – is, well, different. Anderson’s work has not universally been greeted with acclaim – Punch-Drunk Love, for instance, was bagged by many (a little unfairly, in my opinion). But it’s clear he has a unique vision and There Will Be Blood is perhaps his finest and most original work to date.
The best decision Anderson made on this film was to cast Day-Lewis in the lead. Day-Lewis hasn’t been seen for a while either – Gangs of New York in 2002 was his last major role. There’s no doubt that we’re used to seeing Day-Lewis give memorable and powerful performances, but his turn in this film will blow you away. Day-Lewis’s Plainview is a truly ruthless and despicable man. He is a man consumed by hatred for, well, pretty much everyone. He is a man who just cannot handle being told, by anyone, what he should or should not do. He is greedy and cruel. And yet, by the end of the film, you will find yourself on his side. You will be delighted by his victories. And why is this? Well, I’m not entirely sure. Day-Lewis is so very compelling to watch, and perhaps that is part of the reason. But it must also have something to do with the ruthlessness inside each of us. It must be because we also like to win. All I know is that every time I thought Plainview was going to redeem himself, was going to finally do the right thing, he didn’t – why is it that we assume there is goodness in everyone? Plainview chose the evil option at every turn and this made him completely unlikeable. I found this man and his journey so utterly disturbing, and yet so incredibly intriguing.
The supporting cast in There Will Be Blood is very good indeed. Dillon Freasier, as Plainview’s son, gives a very mature and nuanced performance for such a young actor. I hope he’s not allowed to watch the movie he was in! Kevin J. O'Connor’s snivelling performance as Plainview’s brother, Henry, is excellent. Much, much credit must go to Paul Dano who plays preacher Eli Sunday – in many ways a character just as disturbed and disturbing as Plainview. The scenes between Dano and Day-Lewis are undoubtedly the highlights of the film. I first saw Dano give a brilliant performance in Little Miss Sunshine and continue to be impressed by this young actor. I hope the good roles keep heading his way.
There Will Be Blood won’t be everyone’s cup of tea. I think it’s strange pace may bore some. I think the madness may confuse others. But, please, try and stick with it. This is one of the most original and compelling movies I have seen in a long time. You won’t necessary like it – I’m not sure “enjoyment” is a word that springs to mind – but you will find yourself drawn into an engaging and disturbing tale of the worst in us all.
----------------------------------------
Daniel Plainview: Drainage! Drainage, Eli! Drained dry, you boy! If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and I have a straw and my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Juno
Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Allison Janney, JK Simmons, Olivia Thirlby
Dir. Jason Reitman
Scr. Diablo Cody
Juno is a damn fine film. You’ll laugh – both giggles and big belly laughs. You might even cry. You’ll feel warm fuzzies, and you’ll care what happens to the characters. This little movie will do perhaps the best thing a movie can do – it’ll make you feel good.
This film tells the story of 16-year-old Juno MacGuff, a quirky, smart, funny teenager who finds herself in a pickle – she’s pregnant and knows that she’s not ready for motherhood. After chickening out at the abortion clinic, Juno decides to have the baby and goes about trying to find the perfect adoptive parents. Enter Vanessa and Alan Loring, who live in a perfect house in a perfectly planned community and are desperate to be a perfect mum and dad. But all, as always, is not as it seems. Juno is mostly a movie about figuring out what is important in life; whether it be parenthood, following your dreams, or finding love.
The performances in this film, without exception, are absolutely brilliant. Much has been said about young Ellen Page, who plays Juno. She’s already won a bunch of awards for this role and is also up for the Oscar for Best Actress. And while there are a few performances I can think of which may prevent her from winning the big one (most especially Marion Cotillard’s wonderful Edith Piaf), there is no doubt that Page gives a flawless performance as Juno. This movie works, in the main, because the lead is a character who is quirky without being a freak, smart without being intimidating, funny without being too mean. And much of the credit for creating such an approachable main character has to go to Page. Juno is awfully mature for a 16-year-old, but this doesn’t seem out of place or odd – Page gives Juno a mature edge, while retaining those sometime teenage traits of fear, wonder, cattiness and confusion.
Just as fantastic in Juno is the stellar supporting cast. In my opinion, Allison Janney is one of the funniest actresses working today and, as Juno step-mother Bren, she is simply wonderful in this film. Equally great is JK Simmons as Juno’s father. Who wouldn’t want these parents? Sure, they’re mildly crazy, but their love and support for their wayward daughter never falters. It’s so nice to see parents on film who actually get on with their children because, shock horror, it does actually happen. Both Simmons and Janney have some wonderful dialogue and scenes – they’re a treat to watch. In the youngster stakes, there are a couple of great performances by Olivia Thirlby, as Juno’s best friend Leah – she’s a riot – and Michael Cera, as Juno’s sometime boyfriend and partner in baby-making Bleeker. Bleeker is a tad dorkish, there’s no question, but he’s not a social outcast or freak. Instead, he’s a slightly awkward but completely sincere and loveable teen – Cera absolutely nails every scene and you can’t help but love this goofy guy. Rounding off the cast is Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman as the seemingly perfect Vanessa and Mark, the couple Juno is pinning her hopes on to provide for her baby. Garner is surprisingly good in this role – I am not usually a fan, but here she is both steely and vulnerable in her desperation to be a mum. Bateman, whose long-lost career seems to be going from strength to strength, is fantastic – he completely nails the early mid-life crisis sufferer, Mark, a man who perhaps isn’t ready to settle down and give up on his late teen dreams of being a rock star. Here’s a guy most of us can relate to – the feeling of being trapped by a life that seems to be moving along without your permission is all too common. And, man, he’s definitely finally grown into his slightly goofy looks.
The dialogue in Juno is incredibly funny and undeniably memorable. The turn of phrase and expressions seem so original and fresh and had me laughing out loud. Below, instead of the usual single quote I provide, are a few – I just couldn’t decide on one. Like Clueless in the 90s, Juno will undoubtedly introduce (or reintroduce) a few choice phrases and words into the teenage lexicon. A couple of good ones: “honest to blog”, “wizard” (which I am assured is actually very old indeed), “they call me the cautionary whale”, “I'm forshizz up the spout”, and so on.
Juno is a teenage flick, with a twist. It doesn’t stick to the usual, tired teenage stereotypes and, instead, these teens are highly individual. It heartens me. Juno is funny and sweet – see it.
--------------------------------
Vanessa: Your parents are probably wondering where you are.
Juno: Nah... I mean, I'm already pregnant, so what other kind of shenanigans could I get into?
***
Juno: Ow, ow, fuckity-ow! Bren, when do I get that spinal tap thing?
Bren: It's called a spinal block. And you can't have it yet, honey. The doctor said you're not dilated enough.
Juno: You mean I have to wait for it to get worse? Why can't they just give it to me now?
Bren: Well, honey, doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream...
***
Mac: In my opinion, the best thing you can do is find a person who loves you for exactly what you are. Good mood, bad mood, ugly, pretty, handsome, what have you, the right person will still think the sun shines out your ass. That's the kind of person that's worth sticking with.
Dir. Jason Reitman
Scr. Diablo Cody
Juno is a damn fine film. You’ll laugh – both giggles and big belly laughs. You might even cry. You’ll feel warm fuzzies, and you’ll care what happens to the characters. This little movie will do perhaps the best thing a movie can do – it’ll make you feel good.
This film tells the story of 16-year-old Juno MacGuff, a quirky, smart, funny teenager who finds herself in a pickle – she’s pregnant and knows that she’s not ready for motherhood. After chickening out at the abortion clinic, Juno decides to have the baby and goes about trying to find the perfect adoptive parents. Enter Vanessa and Alan Loring, who live in a perfect house in a perfectly planned community and are desperate to be a perfect mum and dad. But all, as always, is not as it seems. Juno is mostly a movie about figuring out what is important in life; whether it be parenthood, following your dreams, or finding love.
The performances in this film, without exception, are absolutely brilliant. Much has been said about young Ellen Page, who plays Juno. She’s already won a bunch of awards for this role and is also up for the Oscar for Best Actress. And while there are a few performances I can think of which may prevent her from winning the big one (most especially Marion Cotillard’s wonderful Edith Piaf), there is no doubt that Page gives a flawless performance as Juno. This movie works, in the main, because the lead is a character who is quirky without being a freak, smart without being intimidating, funny without being too mean. And much of the credit for creating such an approachable main character has to go to Page. Juno is awfully mature for a 16-year-old, but this doesn’t seem out of place or odd – Page gives Juno a mature edge, while retaining those sometime teenage traits of fear, wonder, cattiness and confusion.
Just as fantastic in Juno is the stellar supporting cast. In my opinion, Allison Janney is one of the funniest actresses working today and, as Juno step-mother Bren, she is simply wonderful in this film. Equally great is JK Simmons as Juno’s father. Who wouldn’t want these parents? Sure, they’re mildly crazy, but their love and support for their wayward daughter never falters. It’s so nice to see parents on film who actually get on with their children because, shock horror, it does actually happen. Both Simmons and Janney have some wonderful dialogue and scenes – they’re a treat to watch. In the youngster stakes, there are a couple of great performances by Olivia Thirlby, as Juno’s best friend Leah – she’s a riot – and Michael Cera, as Juno’s sometime boyfriend and partner in baby-making Bleeker. Bleeker is a tad dorkish, there’s no question, but he’s not a social outcast or freak. Instead, he’s a slightly awkward but completely sincere and loveable teen – Cera absolutely nails every scene and you can’t help but love this goofy guy. Rounding off the cast is Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman as the seemingly perfect Vanessa and Mark, the couple Juno is pinning her hopes on to provide for her baby. Garner is surprisingly good in this role – I am not usually a fan, but here she is both steely and vulnerable in her desperation to be a mum. Bateman, whose long-lost career seems to be going from strength to strength, is fantastic – he completely nails the early mid-life crisis sufferer, Mark, a man who perhaps isn’t ready to settle down and give up on his late teen dreams of being a rock star. Here’s a guy most of us can relate to – the feeling of being trapped by a life that seems to be moving along without your permission is all too common. And, man, he’s definitely finally grown into his slightly goofy looks.
The dialogue in Juno is incredibly funny and undeniably memorable. The turn of phrase and expressions seem so original and fresh and had me laughing out loud. Below, instead of the usual single quote I provide, are a few – I just couldn’t decide on one. Like Clueless in the 90s, Juno will undoubtedly introduce (or reintroduce) a few choice phrases and words into the teenage lexicon. A couple of good ones: “honest to blog”, “wizard” (which I am assured is actually very old indeed), “they call me the cautionary whale”, “I'm forshizz up the spout”, and so on.
Juno is a teenage flick, with a twist. It doesn’t stick to the usual, tired teenage stereotypes and, instead, these teens are highly individual. It heartens me. Juno is funny and sweet – see it.
--------------------------------
Vanessa: Your parents are probably wondering where you are.
Juno: Nah... I mean, I'm already pregnant, so what other kind of shenanigans could I get into?
***
Juno: Ow, ow, fuckity-ow! Bren, when do I get that spinal tap thing?
Bren: It's called a spinal block. And you can't have it yet, honey. The doctor said you're not dilated enough.
Juno: You mean I have to wait for it to get worse? Why can't they just give it to me now?
Bren: Well, honey, doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream...
***
Mac: In my opinion, the best thing you can do is find a person who loves you for exactly what you are. Good mood, bad mood, ugly, pretty, handsome, what have you, the right person will still think the sun shines out your ass. That's the kind of person that's worth sticking with.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jamie Campbell Bower
Dir. Tim Burton
Scr. John Logan (based on musical by Stephen Sondheim & Hugh Wheeler)
Tim Burton, as wonderfully original as he is, tends to split audiences and critics right down the middle. This film is no exception and my own opinion of it changes from minute-to-minute. There is little doubt that Sweeney Todd in Burton’s hands is a sight to behold, but something nags at me – something just doesn’t work. I can’t fault the vision and the execution of that vision. But, still, this film seems to lack something that might have made it great.
The film is a grim telling of the story of Benjamin Barker – a happily married barber, with a beautiful wife and child, who is arrested and sent away by a jealous and powerful man, Judge Turpin. Fifteen years later, a much changed man, Barker returns to London as the evil and disturbed Sweeney Todd, intent on revenge. Teaming up with pie shop owner, Mrs Lovett, Todd re-establishes his barber business and sets out to find his daughter and inflict much suffering on not only Turpin, but all the evil in London. Cue much blood, murder, accidental cannibalism and singing – the retelling of a not-so-typical and hugely successful Broadway musical.
Without a doubt, the best thing about Sweeney Todd is the way it looks and feels – Burton gives us a London so dark and grimy that you can almost smell the urine in the streets and feel the dirt under your fingernails. This film is an absolute visual treat – Burton brilliance comes from the way in which he can create a world, real or otherwise, and make us truly live it.
The acting here is okay. Depp and Burton are somewhat of a dream-team and I imagine Depp was Burton’s one and only choice to play Sweeney Todd. Burton is lucky that Depp not only does dark extremely well, but also that he has a healthy set of lungs in him – he’s not a phenomenal singer, but he does the job well enough and never slips out of character. It’s certainly not Depp’s best performance in a Burton film (both Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood would feature highly above this one), but I can’t imagine anyone else as Burton’s Sweeney Todd. A much better performance, in my view, is that given by Helena Bonham Carter as the morally dubious and often hilarious Mrs Lovett. Humour is integral in this dark tale, and many of the laughs come from Bonham Carter. And, boy, can she belt out a tune. Alan Rickman, as Judge Turpin, is a tad flat and perhaps doesn’t get enough screen time to really develop his character. In fact, the same might be said for the remainder of the cast, with the exception of Sacha Baron Cohen who shines in his small role. Apart from Sweeney and Mrs Lovett, we don’t really know enough about the rest of the characters – I just didn’t care about them and, therefore, when Sweeney cut their throats it was, well, a bit ho-hum.
The musical numbers in Sweeney Todd were a mixed bag. A couple were pretty good – catchy and clever. But many were just a bit boring, with uninspiring melody and predictable lyrics. I guess this is less a fault of the movie and more a criticism of the original musical. I didn’t exit the cinema humming a song (in fact, I could hardly recall one at all), and that’s a pretty essential element of a good musical film for me.
I’m glad I saw Sweeney Todd – the dark subject matter and humour and feel appealed to me greatly. And I was wowed by Bonham Carter and aspects of Depp’s performance. But, overall, this film wasn’t the thrill it could have been. And a word of warning – if you’re squeamish, avoid like the plague.
------------------------
Sweeney Todd: [holding up one of his razors] At last! My arm is complete again!
Dir. Tim Burton
Scr. John Logan (based on musical by Stephen Sondheim & Hugh Wheeler)
Tim Burton, as wonderfully original as he is, tends to split audiences and critics right down the middle. This film is no exception and my own opinion of it changes from minute-to-minute. There is little doubt that Sweeney Todd in Burton’s hands is a sight to behold, but something nags at me – something just doesn’t work. I can’t fault the vision and the execution of that vision. But, still, this film seems to lack something that might have made it great.
The film is a grim telling of the story of Benjamin Barker – a happily married barber, with a beautiful wife and child, who is arrested and sent away by a jealous and powerful man, Judge Turpin. Fifteen years later, a much changed man, Barker returns to London as the evil and disturbed Sweeney Todd, intent on revenge. Teaming up with pie shop owner, Mrs Lovett, Todd re-establishes his barber business and sets out to find his daughter and inflict much suffering on not only Turpin, but all the evil in London. Cue much blood, murder, accidental cannibalism and singing – the retelling of a not-so-typical and hugely successful Broadway musical.
Without a doubt, the best thing about Sweeney Todd is the way it looks and feels – Burton gives us a London so dark and grimy that you can almost smell the urine in the streets and feel the dirt under your fingernails. This film is an absolute visual treat – Burton brilliance comes from the way in which he can create a world, real or otherwise, and make us truly live it.
The acting here is okay. Depp and Burton are somewhat of a dream-team and I imagine Depp was Burton’s one and only choice to play Sweeney Todd. Burton is lucky that Depp not only does dark extremely well, but also that he has a healthy set of lungs in him – he’s not a phenomenal singer, but he does the job well enough and never slips out of character. It’s certainly not Depp’s best performance in a Burton film (both Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood would feature highly above this one), but I can’t imagine anyone else as Burton’s Sweeney Todd. A much better performance, in my view, is that given by Helena Bonham Carter as the morally dubious and often hilarious Mrs Lovett. Humour is integral in this dark tale, and many of the laughs come from Bonham Carter. And, boy, can she belt out a tune. Alan Rickman, as Judge Turpin, is a tad flat and perhaps doesn’t get enough screen time to really develop his character. In fact, the same might be said for the remainder of the cast, with the exception of Sacha Baron Cohen who shines in his small role. Apart from Sweeney and Mrs Lovett, we don’t really know enough about the rest of the characters – I just didn’t care about them and, therefore, when Sweeney cut their throats it was, well, a bit ho-hum.
The musical numbers in Sweeney Todd were a mixed bag. A couple were pretty good – catchy and clever. But many were just a bit boring, with uninspiring melody and predictable lyrics. I guess this is less a fault of the movie and more a criticism of the original musical. I didn’t exit the cinema humming a song (in fact, I could hardly recall one at all), and that’s a pretty essential element of a good musical film for me.
I’m glad I saw Sweeney Todd – the dark subject matter and humour and feel appealed to me greatly. And I was wowed by Bonham Carter and aspects of Depp’s performance. But, overall, this film wasn’t the thrill it could have been. And a word of warning – if you’re squeamish, avoid like the plague.
------------------------
Sweeney Todd: [holding up one of his razors] At last! My arm is complete again!
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Charlie Wilson’s War
Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Om Puri
Dir. Mike Nichols
Scr. Aaron Sorkin (based on the book by George Crile)
This may earn me a few enemies, but I’m not a Tom Hanks fan. Well, “80s Tom Hanks” was great … but since then his movies usually take themselves too seriously or are just plain rubbish. I nearly didn’t see Charlie Wilson’s War for this very reason. But a slew of good reviews and Oscar-talk made me give in. And I’m glad I did. This is a perfectly paced, smartly acted, entertaining film. It didn’t feel very real or convincing, but was a joy to watch nonetheless. And Tom Hanks, I have to admit, was mighty fine.
Charlie Wilson’s War tells the story of Charlie Wilson, a Congressman from the Second District of Texas, who was known more for his partying than his politics. But, despite what the trailer leads you to believe (that Charlie is a moron), Wilson is in fact a smart, savvy politician. Yes, his office is filled with beauties, but these girls are as smart and savvy as their boss. Yes, he drinks whiskey like it’s going out of fashion, but he also checks the wires and shows a more than passing interest in global goings-on. Enter Joanne Herring (Roberts) – the fourth richest woman in Texas – who asks Wilson to help the Afghani people (who are suffering after being invaded by the Russians), and, well, we have a serious plot on our hands, which includes the CIA, the Pakistanis, the Jews, and a whole lot of American money. This is, somewhat unbelievably, a true story – the Afghani people defeated the powerful Russian because a Texan congressman saw to it they were trained and armed. But while this true story doesn’t feel all that “true”, it’s a ripper of a story nonetheless.
Mike Nichols is on fine form here, directing this film at a brisk pace and getting some great performances out of his cast. Credit too must go to screenwriter Sorkin, no stranger to compelling political tales as a regular writer on The West Wing, who does a great job in keeping the audience glued to the action which, in the wrong hands, could have easily been complex or tedious – this is certainly a dialogue-intensive script. Instead, this film feels fresh and crisp.
There are some excellent performances in Charlie Wilson’s War. Tom Hanks is spot-on as Wilson – despite appearances and reputation, Wilson is a man with intellect and integrity. Hanks pulls off this difficult mix expertly. In order for the film to succeed, we have to really like Wilson and root for his hugely optimistic and unbelievable plans. In Hanks’ hands, Wilson is damn-near loveable. Julia Roberts, as Herring, gives a lovely turn (wearing more make-up and hairspray in this one film than all her other films combined, I suspect) – she, like Wilson, is a somewhat paradoxical character, and Roberts understands what she needs to do to make Herring both unnerving and endearing. Despite this heady star-power, the real star of the show is Philip Seymour Hoffman, as CIA agent Gust Avrakotos. Like Wilson and Herring, Avrakotos is more than meets the eye – an unattractive, overweight agent, with serious anger management issues, Gust isn’t exactly typical CIA material. But his mind is sharp as a tack and he gets things done. Hoffman is absolutely brilliant in this role – it is as if it was written solely for him. The scenes between Hanks and Hoffman are a joy to watch (especially the first time their characters meet) – the delivery, the timing, the chemistry; it’s a rare thing to see. It’s a tight race this year, but my money is on Hoffman to get the best supporting actor Oscar nod. The remainder of the cast is equally excellent in this film – notably Amy Adams as Wilson’s right-hand-woman and Om Puri who gives a great performance as Pakistan’s President Zia.
There are some somewhat heavy-handed, but ultimately poignant and certainly necessary, messages in this film. About what nations choose to throw money at and what they choose to ignore. About the extent of America’s responsibility for the current situation in Afghanistan. About the nature of politics in general. Perhaps a dose of subtlety might not have gone amiss here. But, on the other hand, these things need saying and they need to be said loudly.
Charlie Wilson’s War is, in the end, a highly entertaining film. What you choose to make of it or take from it is your own business. But see it – you won’t be disappointed.
------------------------
Joanne Herring: Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?
Charlie Wilson: Well, tradition mostly.
Dir. Mike Nichols
Scr. Aaron Sorkin (based on the book by George Crile)
This may earn me a few enemies, but I’m not a Tom Hanks fan. Well, “80s Tom Hanks” was great … but since then his movies usually take themselves too seriously or are just plain rubbish. I nearly didn’t see Charlie Wilson’s War for this very reason. But a slew of good reviews and Oscar-talk made me give in. And I’m glad I did. This is a perfectly paced, smartly acted, entertaining film. It didn’t feel very real or convincing, but was a joy to watch nonetheless. And Tom Hanks, I have to admit, was mighty fine.
Charlie Wilson’s War tells the story of Charlie Wilson, a Congressman from the Second District of Texas, who was known more for his partying than his politics. But, despite what the trailer leads you to believe (that Charlie is a moron), Wilson is in fact a smart, savvy politician. Yes, his office is filled with beauties, but these girls are as smart and savvy as their boss. Yes, he drinks whiskey like it’s going out of fashion, but he also checks the wires and shows a more than passing interest in global goings-on. Enter Joanne Herring (Roberts) – the fourth richest woman in Texas – who asks Wilson to help the Afghani people (who are suffering after being invaded by the Russians), and, well, we have a serious plot on our hands, which includes the CIA, the Pakistanis, the Jews, and a whole lot of American money. This is, somewhat unbelievably, a true story – the Afghani people defeated the powerful Russian because a Texan congressman saw to it they were trained and armed. But while this true story doesn’t feel all that “true”, it’s a ripper of a story nonetheless.
Mike Nichols is on fine form here, directing this film at a brisk pace and getting some great performances out of his cast. Credit too must go to screenwriter Sorkin, no stranger to compelling political tales as a regular writer on The West Wing, who does a great job in keeping the audience glued to the action which, in the wrong hands, could have easily been complex or tedious – this is certainly a dialogue-intensive script. Instead, this film feels fresh and crisp.
There are some excellent performances in Charlie Wilson’s War. Tom Hanks is spot-on as Wilson – despite appearances and reputation, Wilson is a man with intellect and integrity. Hanks pulls off this difficult mix expertly. In order for the film to succeed, we have to really like Wilson and root for his hugely optimistic and unbelievable plans. In Hanks’ hands, Wilson is damn-near loveable. Julia Roberts, as Herring, gives a lovely turn (wearing more make-up and hairspray in this one film than all her other films combined, I suspect) – she, like Wilson, is a somewhat paradoxical character, and Roberts understands what she needs to do to make Herring both unnerving and endearing. Despite this heady star-power, the real star of the show is Philip Seymour Hoffman, as CIA agent Gust Avrakotos. Like Wilson and Herring, Avrakotos is more than meets the eye – an unattractive, overweight agent, with serious anger management issues, Gust isn’t exactly typical CIA material. But his mind is sharp as a tack and he gets things done. Hoffman is absolutely brilliant in this role – it is as if it was written solely for him. The scenes between Hanks and Hoffman are a joy to watch (especially the first time their characters meet) – the delivery, the timing, the chemistry; it’s a rare thing to see. It’s a tight race this year, but my money is on Hoffman to get the best supporting actor Oscar nod. The remainder of the cast is equally excellent in this film – notably Amy Adams as Wilson’s right-hand-woman and Om Puri who gives a great performance as Pakistan’s President Zia.
There are some somewhat heavy-handed, but ultimately poignant and certainly necessary, messages in this film. About what nations choose to throw money at and what they choose to ignore. About the extent of America’s responsibility for the current situation in Afghanistan. About the nature of politics in general. Perhaps a dose of subtlety might not have gone amiss here. But, on the other hand, these things need saying and they need to be said loudly.
Charlie Wilson’s War is, in the end, a highly entertaining film. What you choose to make of it or take from it is your own business. But see it – you won’t be disappointed.
------------------------
Joanne Herring: Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?
Charlie Wilson: Well, tradition mostly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)