This blog is moving to a permanent home! My first .com is now ready and I hope all my readers bookmark and let me know what you think!
I now would like to introduce you to my new official review site:
http://www.indiebum.com/
Enjoy, and thank you all so very much
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
A.M.P.A.S.: Two Song Noms Per Film!
One of the most ridiculous Academy Award problems has finally been fixed after years of unfair, worthless, go-to-the-bathroom style category that is "Best Song." The past year is a good example of the cheapness of the category as the Amy Adams film "Enchanted" earned not one but three nominations for best song, shutting out dozens of other worthy film tunes. Last year "Dreamgirls," a film that was adapted from an already existing longtime musical, dominated with three noms as well. Luckily, the smaller films such as "Once" and "An Inconvenient Truth" picked up the actual awards but the overabundance and cheese of the major musical songs took away what could be the magic of the category.
Well, the Academy has ruled that a film can only have two nominated songs in the "Best Song" category and hopefully this means that more deserving artists will get their names out there and just maybe watching the musical performances will feel a little less childish and out of place. The family romp "Enchanted" dominated the musical section of this year's ceremony, albeit the no-holds-barred violent art film "No Country For Old Men" took home the best picture award... riiiight. A.M.P.A.S... who is your audience?
Well, the Academy has ruled that a film can only have two nominated songs in the "Best Song" category and hopefully this means that more deserving artists will get their names out there and just maybe watching the musical performances will feel a little less childish and out of place. The family romp "Enchanted" dominated the musical section of this year's ceremony, albeit the no-holds-barred violent art film "No Country For Old Men" took home the best picture award... riiiight. A.M.P.A.S... who is your audience?
Friday, June 13, 2008
Review: The Incredible Hulk
“You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry…”
Bruce Banner has always lived in a state of fear that his alter ego, the Hulk, will come out through intense, provoked anger. After 2003’s unimpressive “Hulk” directed by Ang Lee and starring Eric Bana as the title hero, many comic fans and filmgoers alike found themselves close to the edge of “hulking out.” When a reboot was announced, the initial thoughts across the Web were either excitedly refreshed or ambiguously indifferent.
The big green brute is back in theaters with French director Louis Leterrier’s resuscitation “The Incredible Hulk” starring a brand new cast, with an oddly familiar tone. By taking cues and staying faithful to the 1978-1982 dramatic television series of the same name Leterrier has crafted a sometimes corny, but guiltily fun popcorn flick that doesn’t disappoint in terms of action and the creation of a new action star: Edward Norton.
“The Incredible Hulk” is not a traditional series reboot, like 2005’s “Batman Begins.” Instead, Banner (Norton) is already five years into his affliction and has been on the run from the villainous General Thaddeus ‘Thunderbolt’ Ross (William Hurt) after a terrible experimental accident in which Banner’s love/Ross’ daughter Betty (Liv Tyler) and the general himself were seriously injured.
Hiding out in Brazil, working day labor in a soda-bottling factory and searching for a cure through an online contact named “Mr. Blue” (Banner’s codename is of course “Mr. Green”) by night, our hero is tracked down by General Ross and a crack squad including the delightfully evil Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth).
After a particularly exciting chase sequence through the packed city of Rio, Banner gets cornered by a group of thugs and the military force, his anger gets the better of him and… well we know what that means. The giant green mass emerges out of the darkness and with one loud roar, we the audience finally find the Hulk movie we’ve been looking for.
Edward Norton is expertly cast as Banner. As portrayed by Bill Bixby in the original television series, the character was a somewhat introverted man, yet always curious and with a slight hint of bitterly removed charm. Norton is the perfect actor for the role due to his slow, somewhat sarcastic tone and his intriguingly grinding attitude. Because of this natural talent, when Banner is close to transformation, the anger portrayed by Norton is quite stirringly realistic. Along with Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent/Superman, Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and most recently Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man (who makes a hilariously wonderful cameo at end of the film), Edward Norton is among the best – and he deserves it.
The supporting performances are also unquestionably strong. William Hurt proves his almost veteran status, with a wonderful performance as General Ross. He does a tremendous job a creating a truly detestable character, one who pisses on ethics and can always been depended on putting himself first above all (even his own daughter).
The underused and often overlooked Tim Roth is absolutely fantastic. While General Ross is the bad guy in the film, Roth’s Blonsky is pure evil. When this militant mongrel first sees the Hulk in action, he becomes addicted to the power he has observed. In cahoots with General Ross and the excited yet gullible Mr. Blue a.k.a. Samuel Sterns (Tim Blake Nelson), Blonsky turns into the twice-as-powerful-as-the-Hulk mutant “Abomination.” With Abomination devastating New York City, our hero must face his ultimate obstacle which will forever change the way he lives. Bruce Banner must learn how to control his alter ego.
The anchor of the film, which truly drags it down in terms of likability, is the tragically wasted performance of Liv Tyler. She’s exceedingly irritating, and her inability to create any agreeable chemistry with Edward Norton is unabashedly annoying. There is a hint of linkage between the two characters at mere moments, but most of the time she is exasperatingly awkward and horribly miscast.
Tyler’s weak performance is also emphasized by the film’s unbelievable overdramatic tones. The original television series featured a lot of melodrama through slow-motion and through the performance of Bixby, but it doesn’t exactly translate well to the screen. There are a lot of excessive moments of exaggeration that work better than the extremely histrionic work that Ang Lee did with “Hulk” in 2003, but the “corny-factor” is a bit distracting at times in this movie. The script, written by Zak Penn with edits by Edward Norton, is sometimes tongue-tied but has a heart and a very well-written lead character.
The melodrama may be a bit preoccupying, but the film’s overall action is what drives the attention of the audience. Featuring work by the aptly titled Gentle Giant Studios, the visual effects are brilliant and cohesive, and the set pieces are marvelously elaborate. Leterrier has only been known to American audiences as the director of the “Transporter” movies, but his masterful eye at action under the direction of a superhero flick shows extreme promise and hopefully Hollywood will take notice.
The summer of 2008 has been very kind to movie fans so far, especially those seeing films produced by Marvel Studios. “Iron Man” is by far the best film of the year so far, and despite its problems, Leterrier’s “The Incredible Hulk” is another Marvel winner and definitely deserves to rampage the box office and get all the “green” it can get its big hulk hands on.
Grade: B+
Bruce Banner has always lived in a state of fear that his alter ego, the Hulk, will come out through intense, provoked anger. After 2003’s unimpressive “Hulk” directed by Ang Lee and starring Eric Bana as the title hero, many comic fans and filmgoers alike found themselves close to the edge of “hulking out.” When a reboot was announced, the initial thoughts across the Web were either excitedly refreshed or ambiguously indifferent.
The big green brute is back in theaters with French director Louis Leterrier’s resuscitation “The Incredible Hulk” starring a brand new cast, with an oddly familiar tone. By taking cues and staying faithful to the 1978-1982 dramatic television series of the same name Leterrier has crafted a sometimes corny, but guiltily fun popcorn flick that doesn’t disappoint in terms of action and the creation of a new action star: Edward Norton.
“The Incredible Hulk” is not a traditional series reboot, like 2005’s “Batman Begins.” Instead, Banner (Norton) is already five years into his affliction and has been on the run from the villainous General Thaddeus ‘Thunderbolt’ Ross (William Hurt) after a terrible experimental accident in which Banner’s love/Ross’ daughter Betty (Liv Tyler) and the general himself were seriously injured.
Hiding out in Brazil, working day labor in a soda-bottling factory and searching for a cure through an online contact named “Mr. Blue” (Banner’s codename is of course “Mr. Green”) by night, our hero is tracked down by General Ross and a crack squad including the delightfully evil Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth).
After a particularly exciting chase sequence through the packed city of Rio, Banner gets cornered by a group of thugs and the military force, his anger gets the better of him and… well we know what that means. The giant green mass emerges out of the darkness and with one loud roar, we the audience finally find the Hulk movie we’ve been looking for.
Edward Norton is expertly cast as Banner. As portrayed by Bill Bixby in the original television series, the character was a somewhat introverted man, yet always curious and with a slight hint of bitterly removed charm. Norton is the perfect actor for the role due to his slow, somewhat sarcastic tone and his intriguingly grinding attitude. Because of this natural talent, when Banner is close to transformation, the anger portrayed by Norton is quite stirringly realistic. Along with Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent/Superman, Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and most recently Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man (who makes a hilariously wonderful cameo at end of the film), Edward Norton is among the best – and he deserves it.
The supporting performances are also unquestionably strong. William Hurt proves his almost veteran status, with a wonderful performance as General Ross. He does a tremendous job a creating a truly detestable character, one who pisses on ethics and can always been depended on putting himself first above all (even his own daughter).
The underused and often overlooked Tim Roth is absolutely fantastic. While General Ross is the bad guy in the film, Roth’s Blonsky is pure evil. When this militant mongrel first sees the Hulk in action, he becomes addicted to the power he has observed. In cahoots with General Ross and the excited yet gullible Mr. Blue a.k.a. Samuel Sterns (Tim Blake Nelson), Blonsky turns into the twice-as-powerful-as-the-Hulk mutant “Abomination.” With Abomination devastating New York City, our hero must face his ultimate obstacle which will forever change the way he lives. Bruce Banner must learn how to control his alter ego.
The anchor of the film, which truly drags it down in terms of likability, is the tragically wasted performance of Liv Tyler. She’s exceedingly irritating, and her inability to create any agreeable chemistry with Edward Norton is unabashedly annoying. There is a hint of linkage between the two characters at mere moments, but most of the time she is exasperatingly awkward and horribly miscast.
Tyler’s weak performance is also emphasized by the film’s unbelievable overdramatic tones. The original television series featured a lot of melodrama through slow-motion and through the performance of Bixby, but it doesn’t exactly translate well to the screen. There are a lot of excessive moments of exaggeration that work better than the extremely histrionic work that Ang Lee did with “Hulk” in 2003, but the “corny-factor” is a bit distracting at times in this movie. The script, written by Zak Penn with edits by Edward Norton, is sometimes tongue-tied but has a heart and a very well-written lead character.
The melodrama may be a bit preoccupying, but the film’s overall action is what drives the attention of the audience. Featuring work by the aptly titled Gentle Giant Studios, the visual effects are brilliant and cohesive, and the set pieces are marvelously elaborate. Leterrier has only been known to American audiences as the director of the “Transporter” movies, but his masterful eye at action under the direction of a superhero flick shows extreme promise and hopefully Hollywood will take notice.
The summer of 2008 has been very kind to movie fans so far, especially those seeing films produced by Marvel Studios. “Iron Man” is by far the best film of the year so far, and despite its problems, Leterrier’s “The Incredible Hulk” is another Marvel winner and definitely deserves to rampage the box office and get all the “green” it can get its big hulk hands on.
Grade: B+
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Harvey Korman Passes Away
A sad day for comedy. I grew up with the films of Mel Brooks, and I always loved Harvey Korman in every film. Even as a little kid, I got his comedy. He reached to all sorts of generations, and he'll never be forgotten. I loved him the most as Count de Monet ("Don't get saucy with me, Bernaise," "Count da money") in "History of the World Part 1" but he also had some of the most memorable Brooksian parts in "High Anxiety" as Dr. Charles Montague and in the classic western spoof "Blazing Saddles" as Hedley Lamarr ("That's Hedley!" "But where would I find such a man?... Why am I asking you?"). Classics. He was also one of the stars of the classic "The Carol Burnett Show"- a show that invented comedy. Harvey Korman has left us at the age of 81.
Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
James Bond… Darth Vader… Indiana Jones… these are some of the best film characters of all time due to both their huge fan base and their undeniable longevity. The latter character has finally returned to the big screen with his fourth installment: “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” But is Indy’s return worthy of celebration? Is it even necessary? Not exactly, but Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford have crafted an admirable bookend to a classic series that unquestionably has many flaws but doesn’t diminish their previous work with Henry Jones Jr., and definitely serves as a enjoyable trip to the theater and into our nostalgic love of that beloved, Fedora-wearing adventurer.
It has been 19 years since we left Indy in his third film, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.” Harrison Ford has certainly gotten a lot older, thus we have a much older Indy. The film opens with a very fun (albeit needless), 1950s-style car chase between a group of teenagers in a sports car against a convoy of army vehicles through the Nevada desert in 1957. The teenagers drive off into the distance as the convoy turns to go to a military facility. The facility is taken over by the convoy – a convoy of KGB army militants. The action of the sequence is excellently shot, and immerses us into Spielberg’s intriguing view of 1950s post-war nostalgia/communist fear.
The Russians pulls up in front of a storage building, and we finally get to see our man Indy. He’s a changed Indy, both physically and mentally, although he still has his signature look and wit. He’s also got a new sidekick named Mac (Ray Winstone) who seems to be the plucky, comic relief.
Indy isn’t too fond of his captors. He has a very pessimistic view towards Russians, as many did during the Cold War. We are introduced to the big bad villain Agent Irina Spalko (portrayed wonderfully by the best actress of our time, Cate Blanchett), a very passionately evil woman who does whatever it takes to get her way. Spalko brings Indy into the building and then forces him to find a crate that she is looking for. Spielberg keeps will the style of the Indy movies by introducing the action very quickly in the film, although we don’t find out what the exact artifact is, that Indy must retrieve, until a little later.
As Indy makes his escape after finding that Mac has turned on him, we get to see Indy’s true feelings about the Russians when he utters a line that is up there with other famous Indy quotes such as “Why’d it have to be snakes?,” “Asps, very dangerous… you go first,” “No ticket,” and “Ah, Venice.” As Spalko offers him his last words, Indy exclaims proudly yet grimly, “I like Ike,” and then makes his excellent escape. The entire sequence in the building looks a little too fake and its studio location is a bit obvious, but it is a lot of fun and besides the next scene in the film it is really the most memorable part of the film.
The next scene is brilliant. As Indy makes his escape he finds himself in a seemingly normal town. He tries to get into one of the houses and finds a family of mannequins watching an endless marathon of “Howdy Doody.” He runs outside and sees an entire town of stiffs, and then in the distance sees a nuclear bomb ready for testing. The scene is unlike any scene we’ve ever seen in an Indiana Jones film, and its awkward placement in the film is a sign of Spielberg’s growth as a director of movies like this. However, the fear on Harrison Ford’s face and the slow realization of his situation is a classic Indy moment and as he hides in the lead-lined refrigerator (a silly choice, but Indy is a superhuman character, so we just laugh along) we feel as though we’re finally back in the Jones universe.
Indy’s artifact of choice in the film is the elusive crystal skull of ancient Peru. The skulls are not as famous as his former treasures (like the lost ark, or the cup of Christ) but it is their otherworldliness that makes them so alluring, especially to Spalko who wants to rule the minds of the world with it.
Indy is never without his supporting characters, who unfortunately are a bit daunting in the film. Shia Labeouf stars as Mutt Williams, a stereotypical 1950s greaser who serves as Indy’s replacement sidekick. Mutt is a very welcome character in the series. Unlike Indy’s former juvenile sidekick, the irritating Short Round from “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” Mutt is the pathetic greaser that we love to watch. There is one particular scene that is especially memorable. As Indy and Mutt climb through a typical Jones-esque crypt, Mutt stumbles upon a hanging piece of dirt that hilariously startles him until he realizes what it is and states, “Oh, it’s just a… thing.” - Another classic Indy moment for the books.
As mentioned earlier, some of the supporting characters are a bit daunting. At many times, there are just too many people on screen at once. There are too many characters to keep track of, which is especially frustrating when we find Indy doing very little during the elaborate chase sequences while all his friends do the work for him. It’s not fun to watch Indy drive as Mutt has a complex sword fight. Karen Allen makes her Indy return as Marion Ravenwood/Williams, and it’s sort of a sad return. When she is reintroduced, there are a few moments that really work with her character, but then through the rest of the film it just seemed as though screenwriter David Koepp through her all of the worst lines. She has a lot of useless moments, and it’s unfortunate because the talent appears to still be there, she’s just getting the bottom-of-the-barrel lines to read.
Other characters, such as the inimitable John Hurt as the brain-dead Professor Oxley or the extremely talented Jim Broadbent as the unmemorable Dean Stanforth are just excessive and useless. Hurt doesn’t really have a lot to work with in the film, and he really doesn’t exercise his real good acting talent until the very end. Ray Winstone’s performance as Mac is also to be desired. He’s terribly clichéd, and his lust for wealth is somewhat pointless.
Blanchett delivers another superb performance as the sickly evil villain. Her accent is perfect, as is the succinct ways that she carries her terrifying lines. She’s the best Indy villain in the entire series, without a doubt. Her character is a bit weak, and her inevitable death seems a bit unoriginal, but Blanchett does the best she can. Luckily for us, her best is the best.
Like the three other films, Harrison Ford is still the best part about Indiana Jones. He still has the unmistakable wit, the godlike ability to survive anything and everything, and even after 19 years of aging he’s still as charming as ever. As Americans, Indy is still a hero to be proud of – a character we can look up to.
The film isn’t perfect by any means. The script is unnaturally weak, and features a horrid ending that raises the “cheesy” level way too high over our comfort level. The films have always been a little cheesy, but they’ve never gone so over-the-top to become as annoying and hackneyed as Koepp’s ending. Also, the entire extra-terrestrial subplot is completely unnecessary.
As for the visual effects, one could not tell that this was made in 2008. The effects are dated, but one can’t help but assume that that was Spielberg and Lucas’ intentions (Spielberg has said he wanted the original aesthetic). Speaking of Spielberg’s aesthetic, this film was actually quite challenging for the Oscar-winning master of the screen. For a director to reacquire an eye that hadn’t been used for the screen since 1989, and has developed a very specific style since then, Spielberg deserves a lot of recognition. The cinematography is exceptionally dated, and it completely fits with the rest of the series (the original films’ D.O.P., Douglas Slocombe, is now retired and Spielberg used Janusz Kaminski, his cinematographer since “Schindler’s List”).
Overall, Indy’s return is a welcome one. His adventure is as enthralling as ever, the effects are intriguing, and one can’t help but get excited. It would have been a little more welcome had a film with such a low level of special effects had been made 15 or 16 years ago, but their choices are still admirable. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is a classic Hollywood-style adventure flick and deserves the gigantic audiences and the piles of cash it is accumulating, but one can’t help but wonder why Spielberg and Lucas decided to bring back their favorite raider. The film should be viewed in terms of sentimentality, which is probably what the filmmakers wanted. In terms of sentiments, the film exceptionally succeeds – and also happens to be a whole lot of fun.
Grade: B
It has been 19 years since we left Indy in his third film, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.” Harrison Ford has certainly gotten a lot older, thus we have a much older Indy. The film opens with a very fun (albeit needless), 1950s-style car chase between a group of teenagers in a sports car against a convoy of army vehicles through the Nevada desert in 1957. The teenagers drive off into the distance as the convoy turns to go to a military facility. The facility is taken over by the convoy – a convoy of KGB army militants. The action of the sequence is excellently shot, and immerses us into Spielberg’s intriguing view of 1950s post-war nostalgia/communist fear.
The Russians pulls up in front of a storage building, and we finally get to see our man Indy. He’s a changed Indy, both physically and mentally, although he still has his signature look and wit. He’s also got a new sidekick named Mac (Ray Winstone) who seems to be the plucky, comic relief.
Indy isn’t too fond of his captors. He has a very pessimistic view towards Russians, as many did during the Cold War. We are introduced to the big bad villain Agent Irina Spalko (portrayed wonderfully by the best actress of our time, Cate Blanchett), a very passionately evil woman who does whatever it takes to get her way. Spalko brings Indy into the building and then forces him to find a crate that she is looking for. Spielberg keeps will the style of the Indy movies by introducing the action very quickly in the film, although we don’t find out what the exact artifact is, that Indy must retrieve, until a little later.
As Indy makes his escape after finding that Mac has turned on him, we get to see Indy’s true feelings about the Russians when he utters a line that is up there with other famous Indy quotes such as “Why’d it have to be snakes?,” “Asps, very dangerous… you go first,” “No ticket,” and “Ah, Venice.” As Spalko offers him his last words, Indy exclaims proudly yet grimly, “I like Ike,” and then makes his excellent escape. The entire sequence in the building looks a little too fake and its studio location is a bit obvious, but it is a lot of fun and besides the next scene in the film it is really the most memorable part of the film.
The next scene is brilliant. As Indy makes his escape he finds himself in a seemingly normal town. He tries to get into one of the houses and finds a family of mannequins watching an endless marathon of “Howdy Doody.” He runs outside and sees an entire town of stiffs, and then in the distance sees a nuclear bomb ready for testing. The scene is unlike any scene we’ve ever seen in an Indiana Jones film, and its awkward placement in the film is a sign of Spielberg’s growth as a director of movies like this. However, the fear on Harrison Ford’s face and the slow realization of his situation is a classic Indy moment and as he hides in the lead-lined refrigerator (a silly choice, but Indy is a superhuman character, so we just laugh along) we feel as though we’re finally back in the Jones universe.
Indy’s artifact of choice in the film is the elusive crystal skull of ancient Peru. The skulls are not as famous as his former treasures (like the lost ark, or the cup of Christ) but it is their otherworldliness that makes them so alluring, especially to Spalko who wants to rule the minds of the world with it.
Indy is never without his supporting characters, who unfortunately are a bit daunting in the film. Shia Labeouf stars as Mutt Williams, a stereotypical 1950s greaser who serves as Indy’s replacement sidekick. Mutt is a very welcome character in the series. Unlike Indy’s former juvenile sidekick, the irritating Short Round from “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” Mutt is the pathetic greaser that we love to watch. There is one particular scene that is especially memorable. As Indy and Mutt climb through a typical Jones-esque crypt, Mutt stumbles upon a hanging piece of dirt that hilariously startles him until he realizes what it is and states, “Oh, it’s just a… thing.” - Another classic Indy moment for the books.
As mentioned earlier, some of the supporting characters are a bit daunting. At many times, there are just too many people on screen at once. There are too many characters to keep track of, which is especially frustrating when we find Indy doing very little during the elaborate chase sequences while all his friends do the work for him. It’s not fun to watch Indy drive as Mutt has a complex sword fight. Karen Allen makes her Indy return as Marion Ravenwood/Williams, and it’s sort of a sad return. When she is reintroduced, there are a few moments that really work with her character, but then through the rest of the film it just seemed as though screenwriter David Koepp through her all of the worst lines. She has a lot of useless moments, and it’s unfortunate because the talent appears to still be there, she’s just getting the bottom-of-the-barrel lines to read.
Other characters, such as the inimitable John Hurt as the brain-dead Professor Oxley or the extremely talented Jim Broadbent as the unmemorable Dean Stanforth are just excessive and useless. Hurt doesn’t really have a lot to work with in the film, and he really doesn’t exercise his real good acting talent until the very end. Ray Winstone’s performance as Mac is also to be desired. He’s terribly clichéd, and his lust for wealth is somewhat pointless.
Blanchett delivers another superb performance as the sickly evil villain. Her accent is perfect, as is the succinct ways that she carries her terrifying lines. She’s the best Indy villain in the entire series, without a doubt. Her character is a bit weak, and her inevitable death seems a bit unoriginal, but Blanchett does the best she can. Luckily for us, her best is the best.
Like the three other films, Harrison Ford is still the best part about Indiana Jones. He still has the unmistakable wit, the godlike ability to survive anything and everything, and even after 19 years of aging he’s still as charming as ever. As Americans, Indy is still a hero to be proud of – a character we can look up to.
The film isn’t perfect by any means. The script is unnaturally weak, and features a horrid ending that raises the “cheesy” level way too high over our comfort level. The films have always been a little cheesy, but they’ve never gone so over-the-top to become as annoying and hackneyed as Koepp’s ending. Also, the entire extra-terrestrial subplot is completely unnecessary.
As for the visual effects, one could not tell that this was made in 2008. The effects are dated, but one can’t help but assume that that was Spielberg and Lucas’ intentions (Spielberg has said he wanted the original aesthetic). Speaking of Spielberg’s aesthetic, this film was actually quite challenging for the Oscar-winning master of the screen. For a director to reacquire an eye that hadn’t been used for the screen since 1989, and has developed a very specific style since then, Spielberg deserves a lot of recognition. The cinematography is exceptionally dated, and it completely fits with the rest of the series (the original films’ D.O.P., Douglas Slocombe, is now retired and Spielberg used Janusz Kaminski, his cinematographer since “Schindler’s List”).
Overall, Indy’s return is a welcome one. His adventure is as enthralling as ever, the effects are intriguing, and one can’t help but get excited. It would have been a little more welcome had a film with such a low level of special effects had been made 15 or 16 years ago, but their choices are still admirable. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is a classic Hollywood-style adventure flick and deserves the gigantic audiences and the piles of cash it is accumulating, but one can’t help but wonder why Spielberg and Lucas decided to bring back their favorite raider. The film should be viewed in terms of sentimentality, which is probably what the filmmakers wanted. In terms of sentiments, the film exceptionally succeeds – and also happens to be a whole lot of fun.
Grade: B
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Summer Has Begun
I'm finally free from my school obligations, and now I'll be on movie-mode for the remainder of the summer. I want to see what Big Bad Hollywood has to offer, of course... but I hope that the arthouse films will continue to bring the hard-edge excellence that I can always depend on (such as the amazing indies of last summer including "Joshua" and "Sunshine," to name a few).
I'll also have a lot of non-2008 write-ups, because I'm really trying to hone my craft as a film scholar/critic and it helps to write on classic DVDs and read your feedback. I really enjoy writing about older cinema, especially in a world of very different filmmaking styles... I like to use my perspective as a fresh key to the past.
Back to '08 - Here's a few films I plan on viewing this summer, both of the industry known as Hollywood to the dark indies that ALWAYS deserve a bigger audience.
MAY:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Indy's return to the screen in surrounded by mysteries that only its title character could unravel... also - mediocre early reviews. No matter what, the movie seems to be in the vein of the original trilogy (unlike another Lucas trilogy sequel... hmm...) and just looks like a whole lot of fun. It also features the best actress working today: Cate Blanchett - As the creepy villain. Spielberg, "Iron Man" jump-started my summer of fun, please don't put a damper on that.
The Visitor - Actor Tom McCarthy's directorial follow-up to one of my favorite films of all time: 2003's indie dramedy "The Station Agent." This is technically an April release, but it's still in theaters so I hope I get to see it before it runs away from my closest arthouse theater. Richard Jenkins is one of our most underrated character actors (a similarity to the film's director) and to see him in a starring role in a serious drama, I can honestly say that this may be an undeniably lovable film.
Mister Lonely - A group of celebrity impersonators live on a island together. An original idea from indie king Harmoney Korine ("Gummo") starring the absolutely gorgeous Samantha Morton as the fake Norma Jean, and Diego Luna as the King of Pop. A very intriguing trailer drew me in, and I can't wait to experience it.
The Tracey Fragments - I feel bad for Ellen Page. She gets a lot of flack from the blogosphere for playing the same character in every film. From what I've seen, this is completely untrue. The trailer for this particular film blew me away. This looks to be a superbly different role - and if it doesn't come to theaters in my area, it's thankfully coming to DVD this summer as well.
The Foot Fist Way - Danny McBride. That name doesn't mean a lot to American audiences... yet? McBride made this extremely indie comedy a few years ago, and with the help of a few friends including some guy named Ferrell this Tae Kwon Do laugh-fest is finally hitting theaters. The trailer isn't completely encouraging, but I have faith. McBride had a small role in the unfortunate-looking "Drillbit Taylor" earlier this year that had me laughing hard (I watched a clip online - I, like many Americans, would never pay to see the movie). Basically, this could be the "Napoleon Dynamite" of the year.
JUNE:
The Happening - M. Night Shyamalan's follow-up to the dreadfully self-indulgent "Lady in the Water" looks... promising. Mark Wahlberg has the potential for leading man status, and this might be the vehicle that brings him the respect he deserves (watch him in "I Heart Huckabees," I guarantee you'll agree with me that the man has talent... and that he's unjustly overlooked because of his rap career that ended over FIFTEEN years ago). Shyamalan has my attention with an interesting premise looks to be a return to form for the once respected auteur.
The Incredible Hulk - I don't have a lot to say about this. It could be terrible, and looks to be only a step above the horrible 2003 Ang Lee travesty... We'll see if the bad trailers will deliver an equally bad film.
Get Smart - I love Steve Carell, although I can't stand his present career path. He hasn't made a good film since "Little Miss Sunshine" and this project - which was announced right after his success with "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" seemed to fit the comic actor like a glove. I'm confident in the cast, let's see how it plays out.
Wall-E - Looks like it could be one of the best films of the year, and possibly Pixar's best. I was in the minority of people who weren't completely fond of "Ratatouille" (it just didn't wow me... I felt as though they had made their first incomplete feature), so for me, "Wall-E" looks to be a reinstatement for my unwavering love for the billionaires that brought us "Toy Story" and "Cars."
JULY
Hellboy II: The Golden Army - I've never read the comic series, but I had a heck of a lot of fun with the first film. After "Pan's Labyrinth's" success, it appears that Guillermo del Toro was given a lot more creative control on this sequel. The trailer was fantastic, the action appears to be flawless... hopefully it's a bit shorter than its predecessor and a bit more cohesive.
The Dark Knight - I can't wait... Do I need to say anything? Sure, Heath's Ledger's death has surrounded this with a shroud that will either turn away the audiences or bring them in droves... but I can't help but feel this will be his greatest performance -adding a bittersweet nature that we've never seen before on the screen. I'm going on the record now as saying that a posthumous Oscar nomination will be perfectly alright...
The Wackness - The Sundance Film Festival always serves some of the best indie-cinema, but unfortunately can bring some disasters. Last year we were told that "Rocket Science" would be the Sundance fave of the year... that turned out to be a total misfire. This film was the critical hit of the fest, and even though the teaser trailer scared me (not in the good way) I'm willing to see if Josh Peck is the new actor of a new generation.
Lou Reed's Berlin - I've been a long-time fan of Mr. Reed and his fantastic music - and a short-time, yet devoted fan of Julian Schnabel. The artist/director brings us the second concert film of the year... this one I might actually see. I could still see "Shine a Light," but I've never really been a big Stones fan, and my perspective may have be misleading so I decided to pass. I guarantee that I totally plan on seeing this.
(no trailer yet)
American Teen - This was another Sundance hit... which boggles my mind. The trailer made it seem like a feature-length MTV series in the vein of shows like "Made" and "My Super Sweet Sixteen." It just appears to be a chance on banking on those shows by making a new docu-genre, that's not really new at all.
AUGUST
Tropic Thunder - Could be the summer's big comedy hit, if "The Foot Fist Way" doesn't get as big an audience as I believe it might. Stiller, Black, Downey (in black-face!), Coogan, and the return of the dreaded Cruise... Could either be a recipe for success or could blow up in their faces. No matter what, Downey seems to be having an amazing year.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars - Looks disappointing, but I can't say no to a Star Wars film in the theater. I wish I had the power to put WHATEVER I wanted into theaters like Lucas... He could film mayonnaise for 10 minutes, and it would be distributed all over the world.
Hamlet 2 - An indie musical comedy starring Steve Coogan as a failed actor who writes a sequel to the bard's tragedy and puts it on a high school stage... forget what I said about "Tropic Thunder" or "Foot Fist Way"... this will be the surprise hit of the summer. Who can say no to a musical film that features songs called "Rock Me Sexy Jesus" and "Raped in the Face?" I can't... I can't. Watch the trailer - it's amazing.
I'll also have a lot of non-2008 write-ups, because I'm really trying to hone my craft as a film scholar/critic and it helps to write on classic DVDs and read your feedback. I really enjoy writing about older cinema, especially in a world of very different filmmaking styles... I like to use my perspective as a fresh key to the past.
Back to '08 - Here's a few films I plan on viewing this summer, both of the industry known as Hollywood to the dark indies that ALWAYS deserve a bigger audience.
MAY:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Indy's return to the screen in surrounded by mysteries that only its title character could unravel... also - mediocre early reviews. No matter what, the movie seems to be in the vein of the original trilogy (unlike another Lucas trilogy sequel... hmm...) and just looks like a whole lot of fun. It also features the best actress working today: Cate Blanchett - As the creepy villain. Spielberg, "Iron Man" jump-started my summer of fun, please don't put a damper on that.
The Visitor - Actor Tom McCarthy's directorial follow-up to one of my favorite films of all time: 2003's indie dramedy "The Station Agent." This is technically an April release, but it's still in theaters so I hope I get to see it before it runs away from my closest arthouse theater. Richard Jenkins is one of our most underrated character actors (a similarity to the film's director) and to see him in a starring role in a serious drama, I can honestly say that this may be an undeniably lovable film.
Mister Lonely - A group of celebrity impersonators live on a island together. An original idea from indie king Harmoney Korine ("Gummo") starring the absolutely gorgeous Samantha Morton as the fake Norma Jean, and Diego Luna as the King of Pop. A very intriguing trailer drew me in, and I can't wait to experience it.
The Tracey Fragments - I feel bad for Ellen Page. She gets a lot of flack from the blogosphere for playing the same character in every film. From what I've seen, this is completely untrue. The trailer for this particular film blew me away. This looks to be a superbly different role - and if it doesn't come to theaters in my area, it's thankfully coming to DVD this summer as well.
The Foot Fist Way - Danny McBride. That name doesn't mean a lot to American audiences... yet? McBride made this extremely indie comedy a few years ago, and with the help of a few friends including some guy named Ferrell this Tae Kwon Do laugh-fest is finally hitting theaters. The trailer isn't completely encouraging, but I have faith. McBride had a small role in the unfortunate-looking "Drillbit Taylor" earlier this year that had me laughing hard (I watched a clip online - I, like many Americans, would never pay to see the movie). Basically, this could be the "Napoleon Dynamite" of the year.
JUNE:
The Happening - M. Night Shyamalan's follow-up to the dreadfully self-indulgent "Lady in the Water" looks... promising. Mark Wahlberg has the potential for leading man status, and this might be the vehicle that brings him the respect he deserves (watch him in "I Heart Huckabees," I guarantee you'll agree with me that the man has talent... and that he's unjustly overlooked because of his rap career that ended over FIFTEEN years ago). Shyamalan has my attention with an interesting premise looks to be a return to form for the once respected auteur.
The Incredible Hulk - I don't have a lot to say about this. It could be terrible, and looks to be only a step above the horrible 2003 Ang Lee travesty... We'll see if the bad trailers will deliver an equally bad film.
Get Smart - I love Steve Carell, although I can't stand his present career path. He hasn't made a good film since "Little Miss Sunshine" and this project - which was announced right after his success with "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" seemed to fit the comic actor like a glove. I'm confident in the cast, let's see how it plays out.
Wall-E - Looks like it could be one of the best films of the year, and possibly Pixar's best. I was in the minority of people who weren't completely fond of "Ratatouille" (it just didn't wow me... I felt as though they had made their first incomplete feature), so for me, "Wall-E" looks to be a reinstatement for my unwavering love for the billionaires that brought us "Toy Story" and "Cars."
JULY
Hellboy II: The Golden Army - I've never read the comic series, but I had a heck of a lot of fun with the first film. After "Pan's Labyrinth's" success, it appears that Guillermo del Toro was given a lot more creative control on this sequel. The trailer was fantastic, the action appears to be flawless... hopefully it's a bit shorter than its predecessor and a bit more cohesive.
The Dark Knight - I can't wait... Do I need to say anything? Sure, Heath's Ledger's death has surrounded this with a shroud that will either turn away the audiences or bring them in droves... but I can't help but feel this will be his greatest performance -adding a bittersweet nature that we've never seen before on the screen. I'm going on the record now as saying that a posthumous Oscar nomination will be perfectly alright...
The Wackness - The Sundance Film Festival always serves some of the best indie-cinema, but unfortunately can bring some disasters. Last year we were told that "Rocket Science" would be the Sundance fave of the year... that turned out to be a total misfire. This film was the critical hit of the fest, and even though the teaser trailer scared me (not in the good way) I'm willing to see if Josh Peck is the new actor of a new generation.
Lou Reed's Berlin - I've been a long-time fan of Mr. Reed and his fantastic music - and a short-time, yet devoted fan of Julian Schnabel. The artist/director brings us the second concert film of the year... this one I might actually see. I could still see "Shine a Light," but I've never really been a big Stones fan, and my perspective may have be misleading so I decided to pass. I guarantee that I totally plan on seeing this.
(no trailer yet)
American Teen - This was another Sundance hit... which boggles my mind. The trailer made it seem like a feature-length MTV series in the vein of shows like "Made" and "My Super Sweet Sixteen." It just appears to be a chance on banking on those shows by making a new docu-genre, that's not really new at all.
AUGUST
Tropic Thunder - Could be the summer's big comedy hit, if "The Foot Fist Way" doesn't get as big an audience as I believe it might. Stiller, Black, Downey (in black-face!), Coogan, and the return of the dreaded Cruise... Could either be a recipe for success or could blow up in their faces. No matter what, Downey seems to be having an amazing year.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars - Looks disappointing, but I can't say no to a Star Wars film in the theater. I wish I had the power to put WHATEVER I wanted into theaters like Lucas... He could film mayonnaise for 10 minutes, and it would be distributed all over the world.
Hamlet 2 - An indie musical comedy starring Steve Coogan as a failed actor who writes a sequel to the bard's tragedy and puts it on a high school stage... forget what I said about "Tropic Thunder" or "Foot Fist Way"... this will be the surprise hit of the summer. Who can say no to a musical film that features songs called "Rock Me Sexy Jesus" and "Raped in the Face?" I can't... I can't. Watch the trailer - it's amazing.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Review: Iron Man
The long days of summer mean something different for many different people. Most get excited for the long days at the beach, sunbathing, travelling, or all of the above. For we, the intrepid moviegoers, summer represents a monstrous pile of Hollywood blockbusters. Usually those films are not exactly worthy of the millions of dollars they will inevitably accrue, but on occasion they are surprisingly good. The summer blockbuster bonanza kicked off last week with the release of the much anticipated, Jon Favreau directed “Iron Man.” Simply put, it can safely be said that the bar for films this summer has been set very high.
Iron Man has never been the most popular comic character. Behind the shadow of Marvel Comic giants like The Hulk, Captain America, and Spider-man, Iron Man has always been seemingly forgotten by the American public. With his big screen debut, there is very little doubt that this REAL man of steel will finally get his close-up.
In the original comic, Tony Stark is a millionaire reaping the benefits of the Vietnam War through Stark Industries, his weapons manufacturing company. Favreau, not intending to create a period piece, moved Stark’s captors to Afghanistan. While in the Middle East, a convoy carrying Stark is attacked and he is kidnapped by terrorists and ordered to create sophisticated weapons. Stark's injuries are dire and shrapnel in his chest threatens to pierce his heart. With his fellow prisoner, Yin Sen (portrayed by Shaun Taub of 2004’s “Crash”), he constructs a powerful chest plate to keep the shrapnel from reaching his's heart, keeping him alive. Stark uses the workshop to secretly design and construct a suit of powered armor. In this new suit he escapes, and returns home to start his journey into the hero he is destined to become: Iron Man.
Robert Downey Jr. stars as Tony Stark/Iron Man in what is the best superhero casting since Christian Bale in 2005’s “Batman Begins.” This is Downey’s best accomplishment as an actor by far (even better than his wondrous Oscar nominated role as the title character in 1992’s “Chaplin”). When Downey is on screen, he shines. In fact, his performance is utterly addictive. He works an excellent balance between his amazing comedic talents with his range as a dramatic actor. It’s very refreshing to see such an underrated actor fit successfully into a role like Tony Stark – a role that could lead to bigger and better parts.
“Iron Man” is also filled with supporting characters that purely enhance the film. Gwenyth Paltrow is particularly well-cast as Tony Stark’s diligent personal assistant Pepper Potts. Paltrow hasn’t had too many major film roles since 2005’s “Proof” and it’s good to see her back on the screen in a very fitting and well-acted performance. Terrence Howard (“Hustle and Flow”) plays Jim Rhodes, Stark’s best friend (and future Iron Man replacement War Machine, although that is not fully developed in this film). Howard is a sufficiently excellent actor and he works very well in the role, although he is not given enough screen time. Finally, the brilliant Jeff Bridges (“The Big Lebowski”) plays the delightfully evil Obadiah Stane a.k.a. Iron Monger. Bridges’ performance is superb with this role and he has crafted an excellent film villain that ranks up with Jack Nicholson’s Joker in “Batman” and Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock in “Spider-man 2.”
The film truly belongs to Downey, but should also be credited for some exceptional special effects. Favreau made a smart investment in hiring George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic to create the visuals. The switches between the usage of these effects and the actual Iron Man suit are exceptionally cohesive and remarkably detailed.
On the outside, “Iron Man” is seemingly your everyday action film but in fact it truly has a brain – and a heart. Featuring a screenwriting team of four credited writers, this film shows honest hard work in filmmaking. A lot of blockbusters are unnecessarily rushed (as was the problem with 2006’s “X-Men: The Last Stand”) and under-produced based on spectacle and mindless entertainment. This script is succinctly perfect, delivering a very consistent and respectful comic book story that can both excite fans and those not familiar with the comics. The film is actually quite structurally similar to the innovative “Batman Begins.” The first 45 minutes serves as an account of why and how Tony Stark finally becomes Iron Man, while the rest provides fast-paced action and never fails at being absolutely enthralling.
Favreau deserves a lot of credit, and hopefully this film will achieve the commercial success that it should. He first gained fame in the mid-nineties after scripting hits like “Swingers” and its follow-up “Made.” In recent years he has become a go-to director with hits like “Elf” and the flawed yet interesting “Zathura.” With “Iron Man,” Favreau (who also appears in the film as Tony Stark’s bodyguard) could be a name that we may soon associate with excellent cinema such as we did with names like Spielberg and Lucas in the ‘70s.
The recent slew of Marvel films such as the extraordinarily disappointing “Spider-man 3” and the horrid “Fantastic 4” travesties can be immediately forgiven after one viewing of this film. This is a wonderful start to what promises to be a summer of excellent Hollywood fare including Spielberg’s upcoming “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” and Christopher Nolan’s intriguing “Batman Begins” follow-up “The Dark Knight.” “Iron Man” is as solid as its title suggests with not one bit of rust to be found.
Grade: A
Originally published in Framingham State College's The Gatepost
Iron Man has never been the most popular comic character. Behind the shadow of Marvel Comic giants like The Hulk, Captain America, and Spider-man, Iron Man has always been seemingly forgotten by the American public. With his big screen debut, there is very little doubt that this REAL man of steel will finally get his close-up.
In the original comic, Tony Stark is a millionaire reaping the benefits of the Vietnam War through Stark Industries, his weapons manufacturing company. Favreau, not intending to create a period piece, moved Stark’s captors to Afghanistan. While in the Middle East, a convoy carrying Stark is attacked and he is kidnapped by terrorists and ordered to create sophisticated weapons. Stark's injuries are dire and shrapnel in his chest threatens to pierce his heart. With his fellow prisoner, Yin Sen (portrayed by Shaun Taub of 2004’s “Crash”), he constructs a powerful chest plate to keep the shrapnel from reaching his's heart, keeping him alive. Stark uses the workshop to secretly design and construct a suit of powered armor. In this new suit he escapes, and returns home to start his journey into the hero he is destined to become: Iron Man.
Robert Downey Jr. stars as Tony Stark/Iron Man in what is the best superhero casting since Christian Bale in 2005’s “Batman Begins.” This is Downey’s best accomplishment as an actor by far (even better than his wondrous Oscar nominated role as the title character in 1992’s “Chaplin”). When Downey is on screen, he shines. In fact, his performance is utterly addictive. He works an excellent balance between his amazing comedic talents with his range as a dramatic actor. It’s very refreshing to see such an underrated actor fit successfully into a role like Tony Stark – a role that could lead to bigger and better parts.
“Iron Man” is also filled with supporting characters that purely enhance the film. Gwenyth Paltrow is particularly well-cast as Tony Stark’s diligent personal assistant Pepper Potts. Paltrow hasn’t had too many major film roles since 2005’s “Proof” and it’s good to see her back on the screen in a very fitting and well-acted performance. Terrence Howard (“Hustle and Flow”) plays Jim Rhodes, Stark’s best friend (and future Iron Man replacement War Machine, although that is not fully developed in this film). Howard is a sufficiently excellent actor and he works very well in the role, although he is not given enough screen time. Finally, the brilliant Jeff Bridges (“The Big Lebowski”) plays the delightfully evil Obadiah Stane a.k.a. Iron Monger. Bridges’ performance is superb with this role and he has crafted an excellent film villain that ranks up with Jack Nicholson’s Joker in “Batman” and Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock in “Spider-man 2.”
The film truly belongs to Downey, but should also be credited for some exceptional special effects. Favreau made a smart investment in hiring George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic to create the visuals. The switches between the usage of these effects and the actual Iron Man suit are exceptionally cohesive and remarkably detailed.
On the outside, “Iron Man” is seemingly your everyday action film but in fact it truly has a brain – and a heart. Featuring a screenwriting team of four credited writers, this film shows honest hard work in filmmaking. A lot of blockbusters are unnecessarily rushed (as was the problem with 2006’s “X-Men: The Last Stand”) and under-produced based on spectacle and mindless entertainment. This script is succinctly perfect, delivering a very consistent and respectful comic book story that can both excite fans and those not familiar with the comics. The film is actually quite structurally similar to the innovative “Batman Begins.” The first 45 minutes serves as an account of why and how Tony Stark finally becomes Iron Man, while the rest provides fast-paced action and never fails at being absolutely enthralling.
Favreau deserves a lot of credit, and hopefully this film will achieve the commercial success that it should. He first gained fame in the mid-nineties after scripting hits like “Swingers” and its follow-up “Made.” In recent years he has become a go-to director with hits like “Elf” and the flawed yet interesting “Zathura.” With “Iron Man,” Favreau (who also appears in the film as Tony Stark’s bodyguard) could be a name that we may soon associate with excellent cinema such as we did with names like Spielberg and Lucas in the ‘70s.
The recent slew of Marvel films such as the extraordinarily disappointing “Spider-man 3” and the horrid “Fantastic 4” travesties can be immediately forgiven after one viewing of this film. This is a wonderful start to what promises to be a summer of excellent Hollywood fare including Spielberg’s upcoming “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” and Christopher Nolan’s intriguing “Batman Begins” follow-up “The Dark Knight.” “Iron Man” is as solid as its title suggests with not one bit of rust to be found.
Grade: A
Originally published in Framingham State College's The Gatepost
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Retrospective: "Harry and Tonto"
There are certain acclaimed films of the seventies that have become somewhat lost behind the shadow of more famous titles such as “The Godfather” and “Rocky.” Films like Cassavetes’ “A Woman Under the Influence”, Ashby’s “Being There” and Mazursky’s “Harry and Tonto” come to mind in this sea of wondrous yet forgotten cinema. The latter of those films is one that I’ve always wanted to see, and I finally decided to fulfill my desire to see “The Honeymooners” Art Carney in the role that brought him his one and only Academy Award. The 1974 film wasn’t too sappy or overdone and it features an extraordinarily moving Carney who displays indisputable lovability and a brilliant relationship with life.
The story is uncomplicated. Carney plays widowed septuagenarian Harry Coombes, a man who lives a simple life and purely adores his cat Tonto. At the beginning of the film, Harry is forced out of his New York apartment. He is literally pulled out by the police, a clever device to show his undying pain of the loss of his wife Annie. This pain is rarely discussed fully through the film, but her loss is undeniably omnipresent. This is where Tonto comes in. Tonto is his safety blanket, and it is their relationship that fashions the film’s tenderness and inarguably blissful nature.
Harry moves in with his son Burt played interestingly guarded by Philip Bruns. The back story between Burt and his father is not developed but is shown through Bruns’ performance and the fascinating way that writer/director Paul Mazursky and co-writer Josh Greenfeld create their dialogue and develop the relationship between Burt and his own family. The term dysfunctional is thrown around a lot in the description of cinematic families, but Burt’s family absolutely fits that definition in this crooked family portrait. His children, albeit almost grown-up, are severely affected by their generation and Burt’s disconnection from their culture. The dinner scene that depicts this rift is intensely affecting.
Burt’s son Norman (Josh Mostel) is especially lost. Paul Dano’s character Duane Hoover in 2006’s “Little Miss Sunshine” owes a lot to Mostel’s performance. Like Duane, Norman has taken a vow of silence due to his misguided views of drugs and their even more misguided association to Zen religions. Norman is constantly discouraged in his search for himself. However, Norman is not too misplaced in the world, especially when he develops his relationship with his grandfather. Harry wakes up in the middle of the night and in a very touching scene, he comforts Norman by simply taking interest.
Feeling trapped Harry picks up Tonto and sets off across country to see his other children. He shares a very warm goodbye with his son (a truly heartbreaking character) and enters the airport ready to set off. Unfortunately his inability to part with his cat and his distrustful relationship with law sends him back out the door and into a cab. The cabbie takes him to the bus station where he sets off for Chicago. Again, Harry’s trip becomes delayed when he gets off the bus to let Tonto relieve himself who then runs off. The bus leaves, and Harry must find his way to Chicago by other means. He buys a car for the low price of $250 (showing the age of the film) and finally finds his way to the Windy City.
On the way to Chicago, Harry picks up an oddball 16-year-old named Ginger (Melanie Mayron in her debut film role). Harry is incredibly dialed into the younger generation. As mentioned before Harry makes an interesting connection with Norman, but it is his relationship with Ginger that is especially intriguing. She brings out his youth, a side he has obviously not seen in years. She is adorably naive, and brings out Harry’s spirit and truly engages him. During their hotel stay, Ginger gets Harry to talk about his life before Annie. Harry describes his first love Jessie Stone, a free-spirited woman who he had loved very much until she left him for Isadora Duncan. This back-story is what realizes Harry’s ability to connect with Ginger and Norman. These two are children of the sixties and seventies, a very sexual era. Harry himself is not unaware of this time period, as he has now admitted that he was part of the roaring twenties. He understands much more than the stiff 1940s parental units that these two have been stuck under and break free from.
This conversation leads to the most moving scene in the film. Ginger persuades Harry to go visit Jessie, who is played by Hollywood legend Geraldine Fitzgerald (“Wuthering Heights”). In a very funny sequence that precedes the unwavering tears that follow, Harry finds the wrong Jessie Stone in an overweight black woman who he has never set eyes on. But he soon finds the real Jessie who hasn’t had a visitor in years in the geriatric home and she suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Jessie can only remember certain things, but not the most important. Fortunately, Harry’s new appreciation for life brought upon by this road trip tells him exactly what to do. He picks her up and graciously dances with her, creating one of the warmest scenes I’ve ever seen on screen.
The rest of the film creates a full circle in terms of the Coombes family. Harry meets his daughter Shirley (Ellen Burstyn) and Eddie (Larry Hagman). Shirley’s relationship with her father is obviously the harshest out of the three children. But she truly loves her father, even though she doesn’t always necessarily like him. Burstyn (who won an Oscar the same year for another film, “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore”) only has a few scenes, but her talent shines through and she fits oddly into the Coombes family. The scene introducing Shirley also brings the return of Norman. He is now speaking, and has visibly found himself after separating himself as far as he can from his discouraging mother and father. We meet a more contented Norman, and we feel even happier when he finds a mutual attraction to Ginger. Their relationship blossoms, and when they leave the screen we hardly feel bad for either of them.
When Harry arrives in L.A., we finally get to meet Eddie. Eddie is a mess. Unlike his brother and sister, he is utterly lost. When he’s introduced he is outwardly alright. He drives a nice car, lives in a cool apartment, and he seemingly is comfortable in the California lifestyle. Harry knows otherwise. When Eddie tries to invite his father to live with him and split the rent, Harry questions his son’s money situation and breaks him down. Eddie disappears from the film at this point, somewhat questionably. We yearn for closure, but unfortunately we must be left worrying about Harry’s regrettably lost son.
The film has a hopeful ending, which oddly takes place after the sad but timely death of Tonto. Tonto’s ubiquitous nature in the film must be broken, in order for Harry to finally live his life freely. Harry meets a comical cat lady who offers him a place to stay. One of the cats (resembling Tonto) runs away across the beach. Harry catches him, but then lets him free when he sees a young child playing in the sand. The camera zooms away but stays in a long shot until the very end of the credits. Harry has the looming fear of death throughout the whole film, and with this child he finally makes a connection with himself. He knows that he kind of screwed up his kids, but he doesn’t have to worry about them. Life moves on, and so will his family.
The film truly belongs to Carney, who brings a layered and lived-in performance to the screen. Harry’s love for life is infectious and his warmth is refreshing. Carney delivers a tour de force performance and is simply unforgettable. It is the performance that carries the film. Mazursky isn’t the most original of directors of his time, and comparisons to Hal Ashby’s “Harold and Maude” must be made. That film was released two years earlier and inspired many directors. Mazursky was obviously one of them. It’s nice to see someone appreciate a filmmaking pioneer, but unavoidable similar styles are a bit distracting. Harry is oddly familiar to the patented character of Maude. His devotion to life is just too recognizable.
“Harry and Tonto” was pleasantly warm and shouldn’t be pushed away in cinema history. 34 years later, it has many themes that are still relatable. Our respect for the elderly is as distant now as it was then and it takes a good film like this one to strike a chord and remind us of our older generations. I found a lot of similarities in Harry to my own grandfather, adding a very different perception to the film from my point of view. I certainly recommend this, and I’m very happy I finally got to meet “Harry and Tonto.”
The story is uncomplicated. Carney plays widowed septuagenarian Harry Coombes, a man who lives a simple life and purely adores his cat Tonto. At the beginning of the film, Harry is forced out of his New York apartment. He is literally pulled out by the police, a clever device to show his undying pain of the loss of his wife Annie. This pain is rarely discussed fully through the film, but her loss is undeniably omnipresent. This is where Tonto comes in. Tonto is his safety blanket, and it is their relationship that fashions the film’s tenderness and inarguably blissful nature.
Harry moves in with his son Burt played interestingly guarded by Philip Bruns. The back story between Burt and his father is not developed but is shown through Bruns’ performance and the fascinating way that writer/director Paul Mazursky and co-writer Josh Greenfeld create their dialogue and develop the relationship between Burt and his own family. The term dysfunctional is thrown around a lot in the description of cinematic families, but Burt’s family absolutely fits that definition in this crooked family portrait. His children, albeit almost grown-up, are severely affected by their generation and Burt’s disconnection from their culture. The dinner scene that depicts this rift is intensely affecting.
Burt’s son Norman (Josh Mostel) is especially lost. Paul Dano’s character Duane Hoover in 2006’s “Little Miss Sunshine” owes a lot to Mostel’s performance. Like Duane, Norman has taken a vow of silence due to his misguided views of drugs and their even more misguided association to Zen religions. Norman is constantly discouraged in his search for himself. However, Norman is not too misplaced in the world, especially when he develops his relationship with his grandfather. Harry wakes up in the middle of the night and in a very touching scene, he comforts Norman by simply taking interest.
Feeling trapped Harry picks up Tonto and sets off across country to see his other children. He shares a very warm goodbye with his son (a truly heartbreaking character) and enters the airport ready to set off. Unfortunately his inability to part with his cat and his distrustful relationship with law sends him back out the door and into a cab. The cabbie takes him to the bus station where he sets off for Chicago. Again, Harry’s trip becomes delayed when he gets off the bus to let Tonto relieve himself who then runs off. The bus leaves, and Harry must find his way to Chicago by other means. He buys a car for the low price of $250 (showing the age of the film) and finally finds his way to the Windy City.
On the way to Chicago, Harry picks up an oddball 16-year-old named Ginger (Melanie Mayron in her debut film role). Harry is incredibly dialed into the younger generation. As mentioned before Harry makes an interesting connection with Norman, but it is his relationship with Ginger that is especially intriguing. She brings out his youth, a side he has obviously not seen in years. She is adorably naive, and brings out Harry’s spirit and truly engages him. During their hotel stay, Ginger gets Harry to talk about his life before Annie. Harry describes his first love Jessie Stone, a free-spirited woman who he had loved very much until she left him for Isadora Duncan. This back-story is what realizes Harry’s ability to connect with Ginger and Norman. These two are children of the sixties and seventies, a very sexual era. Harry himself is not unaware of this time period, as he has now admitted that he was part of the roaring twenties. He understands much more than the stiff 1940s parental units that these two have been stuck under and break free from.
This conversation leads to the most moving scene in the film. Ginger persuades Harry to go visit Jessie, who is played by Hollywood legend Geraldine Fitzgerald (“Wuthering Heights”). In a very funny sequence that precedes the unwavering tears that follow, Harry finds the wrong Jessie Stone in an overweight black woman who he has never set eyes on. But he soon finds the real Jessie who hasn’t had a visitor in years in the geriatric home and she suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Jessie can only remember certain things, but not the most important. Fortunately, Harry’s new appreciation for life brought upon by this road trip tells him exactly what to do. He picks her up and graciously dances with her, creating one of the warmest scenes I’ve ever seen on screen.
The rest of the film creates a full circle in terms of the Coombes family. Harry meets his daughter Shirley (Ellen Burstyn) and Eddie (Larry Hagman). Shirley’s relationship with her father is obviously the harshest out of the three children. But she truly loves her father, even though she doesn’t always necessarily like him. Burstyn (who won an Oscar the same year for another film, “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore”) only has a few scenes, but her talent shines through and she fits oddly into the Coombes family. The scene introducing Shirley also brings the return of Norman. He is now speaking, and has visibly found himself after separating himself as far as he can from his discouraging mother and father. We meet a more contented Norman, and we feel even happier when he finds a mutual attraction to Ginger. Their relationship blossoms, and when they leave the screen we hardly feel bad for either of them.
When Harry arrives in L.A., we finally get to meet Eddie. Eddie is a mess. Unlike his brother and sister, he is utterly lost. When he’s introduced he is outwardly alright. He drives a nice car, lives in a cool apartment, and he seemingly is comfortable in the California lifestyle. Harry knows otherwise. When Eddie tries to invite his father to live with him and split the rent, Harry questions his son’s money situation and breaks him down. Eddie disappears from the film at this point, somewhat questionably. We yearn for closure, but unfortunately we must be left worrying about Harry’s regrettably lost son.
The film has a hopeful ending, which oddly takes place after the sad but timely death of Tonto. Tonto’s ubiquitous nature in the film must be broken, in order for Harry to finally live his life freely. Harry meets a comical cat lady who offers him a place to stay. One of the cats (resembling Tonto) runs away across the beach. Harry catches him, but then lets him free when he sees a young child playing in the sand. The camera zooms away but stays in a long shot until the very end of the credits. Harry has the looming fear of death throughout the whole film, and with this child he finally makes a connection with himself. He knows that he kind of screwed up his kids, but he doesn’t have to worry about them. Life moves on, and so will his family.
The film truly belongs to Carney, who brings a layered and lived-in performance to the screen. Harry’s love for life is infectious and his warmth is refreshing. Carney delivers a tour de force performance and is simply unforgettable. It is the performance that carries the film. Mazursky isn’t the most original of directors of his time, and comparisons to Hal Ashby’s “Harold and Maude” must be made. That film was released two years earlier and inspired many directors. Mazursky was obviously one of them. It’s nice to see someone appreciate a filmmaking pioneer, but unavoidable similar styles are a bit distracting. Harry is oddly familiar to the patented character of Maude. His devotion to life is just too recognizable.
“Harry and Tonto” was pleasantly warm and shouldn’t be pushed away in cinema history. 34 years later, it has many themes that are still relatable. Our respect for the elderly is as distant now as it was then and it takes a good film like this one to strike a chord and remind us of our older generations. I found a lot of similarities in Harry to my own grandfather, adding a very different perception to the film from my point of view. I certainly recommend this, and I’m very happy I finally got to meet “Harry and Tonto.”
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Review: Smart People
What is the price to pay for being excessively smart? For Lawrence Wetherhold (Dennis Quaid) and his daughter Vanessa (Ellen Page), the chances of happiness and sanity are squandered because they are just too smart for their own good. In first time director Noam Murro’s new film “Smart People,” the characters face extremely hard forces of nature that ultimate keep them from the simplicity of being happy. The film isn’t perfect, but it is truly worth of discussion and viewing.
Lawrence Wetherhold is not the most well-liked professor of Victorian literature at Carnegie Mellon University. He’s an incurable grump, with the inability to remember the names of his students or get along with his coworkers. On top of that he has to deal with the arrival of his slacker, adopted brother Chuck (Thomas Haden Church). He also happens to be terrible at parking, which leads his car in the impound lot. Lawrence attempts to retrieve his briefcase by hopping the fence, after which he wakes up light-headed in the hospital. Janet (Sarah Jessica Parker), his doctor, was once a former student of his – but of course he can’t remember.
During the accident Lawrence has a seizure, leaving him legally unable to drive for six months. Unfortunately for Lawrence, this means Chuck has to stay in the picture. Chuck moves in, much to the dismay of Lawrence’s super smart and school obsessed 17-year-old daughter Vanessa.
“Smart People” has the good fortune of having an excellent script from Mark Poirier (his first produced screenplay). The film is a lot smarter than its characters. Lawrence and Vanessa are truly depressed characters and are certainly worthy of our sympathies. Vanessa is an especially sad character, unable to express her emotions in fear of showing her weak side. She’s terribly awkward and as the film progresses we learn that she has no friends and even though she strives to impress her father she never gets the gratitude that she truly deserves. Lawrence is also in an unfortunate situation. His book is deemed by a large percentage of publishers to be “unpublishable” and, recently widowed, he can’t let go and thus his blooming relationship with Janet seems to be going nowhere.
The film is exceedingly depressing but very interesting and rarely lags. Dennis Quaid hasn’t fit so well in a role since his turn as Jerry Lee Louis in “Great Balls of Fire.” His performance feels completely lived-in and behind the scholarly beard, protruding gut, and curmudgeonly attitude, he is completely unrecognizable. Ellen Page, fresh off her Oscar nomination for the wonderful “Juno,” takes a bit of a while to get used to. Her character is quite annoying, although necessarily so, and her performance initially seems a little too forced. The role could have been played by any young actress, but in the second half of the film she truly blossoms into the part.
The stand out performance of the “Smart People” belongs to Quaid, but Thomas Haden Church infuses the humanity and humor that lacks from the rest of the Wetherhold family. Church (Oscar Nominee, 2004’s “Sideways”) has the inimitable talent of delivering his lines in a very comedic way and with perfect timing. Playing Quaid’s poetry writing son James is Ashton Holmes (“A History of Violence”). James is the most level-headed member of the family, and Holmes’ performance is quite fitting but unfortunately not very memorable. Sarah Jessica Parker is also non-memorable and while she performed well enough, she just didn’t fit the part.
There are a few issues that could have been avoided with this film. There are multiple storylines that are never really tied up well, or even at all. Vanessa is a girl with some real psychological problems, and her character’s revelation never really feels merited. She also has an awkward sexual tension with her Uncle Chuck, and the resolution just doesn’t feel deserved. The musical soundtrack also feels a bit awkward. There’s an unwelcome, rambling guitar theme that doesn’t fulfill any emotional gaps, and the surplus of similar pop/folk songs are ill-suited.
“Smart People” is not a film for everybody. At many times it feels a bit too quirky, and the film’s overall depressing nature may turn off a lot of viewers. The performances are top-notch especially due to the odd casting choices. Fans of “Juno” may find themselves interested due to Page, but that film was more upbeat and lighthearted than this film by far. The best part about this movie is the career-changing role for Quaid, who’s been in a bit of a lull lately and it’s a fresh re-ignition of a very talented actor. A very thought-provoking film, “Smart People” is worthy of praise, and isn’t too smart for your average audience.
Grade: B+
Originally published in Framingham State College's The Gatepost
Lawrence Wetherhold is not the most well-liked professor of Victorian literature at Carnegie Mellon University. He’s an incurable grump, with the inability to remember the names of his students or get along with his coworkers. On top of that he has to deal with the arrival of his slacker, adopted brother Chuck (Thomas Haden Church). He also happens to be terrible at parking, which leads his car in the impound lot. Lawrence attempts to retrieve his briefcase by hopping the fence, after which he wakes up light-headed in the hospital. Janet (Sarah Jessica Parker), his doctor, was once a former student of his – but of course he can’t remember.
During the accident Lawrence has a seizure, leaving him legally unable to drive for six months. Unfortunately for Lawrence, this means Chuck has to stay in the picture. Chuck moves in, much to the dismay of Lawrence’s super smart and school obsessed 17-year-old daughter Vanessa.
“Smart People” has the good fortune of having an excellent script from Mark Poirier (his first produced screenplay). The film is a lot smarter than its characters. Lawrence and Vanessa are truly depressed characters and are certainly worthy of our sympathies. Vanessa is an especially sad character, unable to express her emotions in fear of showing her weak side. She’s terribly awkward and as the film progresses we learn that she has no friends and even though she strives to impress her father she never gets the gratitude that she truly deserves. Lawrence is also in an unfortunate situation. His book is deemed by a large percentage of publishers to be “unpublishable” and, recently widowed, he can’t let go and thus his blooming relationship with Janet seems to be going nowhere.
The film is exceedingly depressing but very interesting and rarely lags. Dennis Quaid hasn’t fit so well in a role since his turn as Jerry Lee Louis in “Great Balls of Fire.” His performance feels completely lived-in and behind the scholarly beard, protruding gut, and curmudgeonly attitude, he is completely unrecognizable. Ellen Page, fresh off her Oscar nomination for the wonderful “Juno,” takes a bit of a while to get used to. Her character is quite annoying, although necessarily so, and her performance initially seems a little too forced. The role could have been played by any young actress, but in the second half of the film she truly blossoms into the part.
The stand out performance of the “Smart People” belongs to Quaid, but Thomas Haden Church infuses the humanity and humor that lacks from the rest of the Wetherhold family. Church (Oscar Nominee, 2004’s “Sideways”) has the inimitable talent of delivering his lines in a very comedic way and with perfect timing. Playing Quaid’s poetry writing son James is Ashton Holmes (“A History of Violence”). James is the most level-headed member of the family, and Holmes’ performance is quite fitting but unfortunately not very memorable. Sarah Jessica Parker is also non-memorable and while she performed well enough, she just didn’t fit the part.
There are a few issues that could have been avoided with this film. There are multiple storylines that are never really tied up well, or even at all. Vanessa is a girl with some real psychological problems, and her character’s revelation never really feels merited. She also has an awkward sexual tension with her Uncle Chuck, and the resolution just doesn’t feel deserved. The musical soundtrack also feels a bit awkward. There’s an unwelcome, rambling guitar theme that doesn’t fulfill any emotional gaps, and the surplus of similar pop/folk songs are ill-suited.
“Smart People” is not a film for everybody. At many times it feels a bit too quirky, and the film’s overall depressing nature may turn off a lot of viewers. The performances are top-notch especially due to the odd casting choices. Fans of “Juno” may find themselves interested due to Page, but that film was more upbeat and lighthearted than this film by far. The best part about this movie is the career-changing role for Quaid, who’s been in a bit of a lull lately and it’s a fresh re-ignition of a very talented actor. A very thought-provoking film, “Smart People” is worthy of praise, and isn’t too smart for your average audience.
Grade: B+
Originally published in Framingham State College's The Gatepost
Monday, April 7, 2008
International Film Series: After the Wedding
I wrote this article for my college's paper in an ongoing International Film Series put on by my film professor Dr. Arthur Nolletti Jr.
A Danish import titled, “After The Wedding,” (“Efter bryllupet”), was a revelation at the International Film Series, moderated by Dr. Arthur Nolletti. It created several fans after the credits closed. As Nolletti explained, the director (Susanne Bier) is widely known for making “absurd comedies of errors,” but “Wedding” is far from a comedy. Bier’s film does use comedy as a thematic and character device, but the main goal of portraying real emotions is what made the whole movie so affecting and memorable.
On the surface, “After The Wedding” is essentially a family drama. Fortunately for the viewer, this film is deeper than the conventional American movie in this genre. The story begins with Jacob (Mads Mikkelsen, seen by American audiences as the villain in 2006’s “Casino Royale”), a Danish man working in
When Jacob arrives, he meets the wealthy and magnanimous Jorgen (Rolf Lassgård). During their meeting, Jacob is invited to the wedding of Jorgen’s daughter Anna (Stine Fischer Christensen). The wedding serves as the major turning point for Jacob’s character. This is the point at which “After The Wedding” truly grabs you. Bier and screenwriter Anders Thomas Jensen structure a simple storyline until this point, and then lead you into profound and unexpected territories.
The film takes many surprising routes toward its denouement that are quite miraculous. When Jacob returns to
Lassgård’s performance epitomizes this change. He’s an immensely realistic performer, as shown by one of the most severe and authentic death scenes ever created on film.
Also impressive was Mikkelsen, who showed that he can not only be a great Bond villain, but also an inspiring dramatic actor.
One aspect that had many people asking questions after the film was Bier’s use of extreme close-ups. Many of these close-ups were extremely moving.
There are other instances of the close-up that seem a bit too obvious in their meaning, and thus a bit too over-the-top. The suggestion of emotion is necessary, but the tremendously natural performances of the actors were sufficient enough to carry it off.
The most admirable aspect of the film is its ability to make the viewer think. After the film, it became evident that Bier had created a movie in which every word had meaning. The themes of family, love and whether or not the ends justified the means were explored. Luckily for the viewers, the question of this justification is up to them. Will the choices Jacob makes be the right ones?
The film is a superbly unconventional melodrama that brings us into a new cinematic territory.
For the International Film series, “After the Wedding” was a crowning achievement and a wonderful bookend to the school year. After the screening, Nolletti explained that he was especially interested in watching the audience and “felt they were absolutely enthralled … with the movie.”
He was quite right - in fact, many students found themselves surprised by the film. Freshman Robert Mulligan was “blown away by how good it was.”
A great film can change how people watch movies, and for director Susanne Bier, it can be safely said that she has found a multitude of new fans.
Originally published in Framingham State College's The Gatepost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
