What?
Once you cut through some of the nonsense, it seems like it might be a sort of sweet love story in there somewhere maybe if you look really hard. But there's a lot of nonsense. A lot.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
All the King's Men (1949)
Oh my. This one isn't so much fun to watch given the political climate for the past 8 years or given the current election's turn straight into theatre of the absurd. The basic idea is that the good guy from a small town who is self-educated wants to change his small town, does so to a small extent, but then gets hoodwinked into running for governor to split the vote. Once he learns of the double-cross he really runs for governor and all hell breaks loose. He goes bad, of course, running his political machine on corruption, intimidation, coercion, and murder and basically gets away with it all. A little too familiar for comfort at this particular moment so I can see why Sean Penn et al remade it a few years ago and I can understand why it didn't do so well. It lacks hope of any sort--the only hopeful character is killed during his assassination of the governor--and points to the fact that we can all be corrupted or follow along with corruption to make our individual lives easier. Ugh. I need an Obama poster about right now.
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
This one is part of J's "see all the Best Picture Oscar winners" project. It was super boring and historically questionable. Supposedly, it's the story of Thomas More who famously refused to publicly condone Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn. The film, however, seems to just skip over important information whenever it sees fit and it lacks the majesty one expects from a movie about royalty or those connected to royalty. Well, and to be honest, it doesn't help when The Tudors did it better and I saw that series before this film.
The Darjeeling Limited (2007)
Hmmm. I'm not sure what to think about this movie. I adore The Royal Tenenbaums so I really wanted to like it but Darjeeling just didn't do it for me. First, the opening Hotel Chevalier was just odd. It didn't add anything two seconds of dialogue couldn't clear up. Second, and most importantly, I didn't care about any of these characters until the scene in which the brothers try to save the children from the river--and that's a good ways into the film. After that point, I cared but I had no investment in the movie prior to that point. But, after that scene, I don't feel like my caring paid off. I intellectually got the absurdity and all of the film but if I have no investment in the characters and, thus, no investment in the film, the absurdity doesn't work either. And, on a minor note, for whatever reasons, I just couldn't buy Owen Wilson as an older brother. It didn't work for me. Throughout the movie, I was mentally making Adrian Brody the oldest. Something about the sibling dynamic just didn't read quite right for Wilson to be the oldest.
Bus Stop (1956)
Another one of my what's on tv on a Saturday morning movies. I like Marilyn Monroe just fine, even in all of her sexpot stereotyped questionable acting, but this one was a bit of a departure at least from the roles I'm used to seeing her in. She's still a sexpot. Hard to hide that. But here she's a down on her luck, dreamer of a "showgirl" in a tiny nowhere town who longs to go to Hollywood to really start her career--no one seems to have told her that she can't sing worth a damn. One week (or weekend?) a rodeo is in town--a big championship sort of rodeo--and a clueless cowboy, Bo, ventures off his ranch for the first time to compete. He's clueless about life in general, just taking whatever it is he wants in the loudest possible way, and even more clueless about women. He's looking for his "angel" whom he will presumably club over the head and drag back to his cave, er, ranch. Instead of finding a nice girl to be his "angel," he sets his sights on Cherie (which she pronounces as French as a Southern accent possibly can and which Bo pronounces "Cherry"). He immediately assumes she'll marry him regardless of her protestations to the contrary. Hilarity ensues, sort of. What's disturbing about this one [plot spoiler] is that as soon as Bo apologizes for his horrible treatment of her, Cherie agrees to marry him and give up all of her Hollywood dreams to go live on his ranch in the middle of nowhere.
I liked the movie well enough but the gender roles are disturbing and the implications questionable.
I liked the movie well enough but the gender roles are disturbing and the implications questionable.
Burn after Reading (2008)
Ok, so I'm a Cohen Brothers fan now. Having somehow missed all of their movies prior to No Country (which I respect but admittedly didn't like very much) and only very recently seen O' Brother, Burn was a seal the deal sort of movie in terms of my liking those two. I detect another list of movies I'm going to be "required" to watch now. Sigh.
This one is a tad dark but hilarious which may say a lot about the content of my soul. Regardless, J.K. Simmons is perfect and Clooney and Pitt's faces are hilarious. As is Pitt's Flock of Seagulls gone wrong hair. Now I just want to to see it again.
This one is a tad dark but hilarious which may say a lot about the content of my soul. Regardless, J.K. Simmons is perfect and Clooney and Pitt's faces are hilarious. As is Pitt's Flock of Seagulls gone wrong hair. Now I just want to to see it again.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Implacable Order of Things by Jose Luis Peixoto (2007 English translation, 2000 original)
Peixoto is a Portuguese author who is apparently award winning and well-liked and etc. I picked this one up because the cover was interesting (an orange colored tree on a yellow field with a blue sky with clouds, but all upside down, with blue swirly things around it all) and within the text the devil appeared as a character and there were a pair of Siamese twins joined by one pinky finger. Interesting, right?
I can't quite describe this book. It's sort of typical in terms of magical realism: a small country town with characters who can age to be 150, strange things can happen, a giant lives there, a chest in a fancy house talks, the devil performs weddings, one of the Siamese weds and has a baby, and there is a maternal line of blind prostitutes, among other things.
The plot line is too twisty to describe. The narrator switches frequently, sometimes with each paragraph, and while there is a visual break the reader sometimes can't be certain of the narrator until well into the passage, if ever. I think the chest that talks may be a narrator sometimes and it certainly has philosophies that seep into other character's narrations. There are two books. The first describing the life of and lives of those surrounding Jose (all of these Jose's, including the author's name should have accents over the e as should the i of Luis in the author's name). Jose is a shepherd (literally, of sheep), is married and has a son. His wife is tormented and raped incessantly by the giant. The first book is Jose's downfall. The second half follows the life of Jose's son Jose and the lives of those who surround him and the second book is the downfall of Jose (Jr.).
The book is a tad odd. I'm not quite sure I like it. I'm certain that I don't like one thing [SPOILER ALERT] and that's the end. The final chapter is the end of the world. Literally. Everything disappears. The penultimate chapter ends with the impending climax of the three participants in a lover's triangle approaching each other. So, we get the rising action but no real climax and certainly no denouement. Argh! I also wish the devil had been more of a character and that the talking chest had more of an explanation/role in the story. I don't know that I'd recommend the book unless I had to specifically offer a Portuguese author, of which I know no others . . .
I can't quite describe this book. It's sort of typical in terms of magical realism: a small country town with characters who can age to be 150, strange things can happen, a giant lives there, a chest in a fancy house talks, the devil performs weddings, one of the Siamese weds and has a baby, and there is a maternal line of blind prostitutes, among other things.
The plot line is too twisty to describe. The narrator switches frequently, sometimes with each paragraph, and while there is a visual break the reader sometimes can't be certain of the narrator until well into the passage, if ever. I think the chest that talks may be a narrator sometimes and it certainly has philosophies that seep into other character's narrations. There are two books. The first describing the life of and lives of those surrounding Jose (all of these Jose's, including the author's name should have accents over the e as should the i of Luis in the author's name). Jose is a shepherd (literally, of sheep), is married and has a son. His wife is tormented and raped incessantly by the giant. The first book is Jose's downfall. The second half follows the life of Jose's son Jose and the lives of those who surround him and the second book is the downfall of Jose (Jr.).
The book is a tad odd. I'm not quite sure I like it. I'm certain that I don't like one thing [SPOILER ALERT] and that's the end. The final chapter is the end of the world. Literally. Everything disappears. The penultimate chapter ends with the impending climax of the three participants in a lover's triangle approaching each other. So, we get the rising action but no real climax and certainly no denouement. Argh! I also wish the devil had been more of a character and that the talking chest had more of an explanation/role in the story. I don't know that I'd recommend the book unless I had to specifically offer a Portuguese author, of which I know no others . . .
The Man Who Forgot How to Read: A Memoir by Howard Engel (2007)
I'm sure I've never said this about a book and I'll probably never say it again: I wish there were more science.
The memoir is about a voracious reader and detective fiction author who awakes one morning to find himself unable to read the newspaper. He thinks it looks like a foreign language. He's taken to the hospital and finds out he's had a stroke and it's affected the language center of the brain. He has alexia sine agraphia which more or less means he can't read but he can write. The memoir goes through his experience in the hospital, in the rehab center, and then back at home.
My problems with the book are numerous. First, I don't feel like the condition itself is explained at all. Why can he write but not read? Why can he read sometimes? How does the rehab work? How can he learn to read again? What's going on? How did the stroke cause it? Etc. The reader only gets to see the effects of the condition but never understands the beast itself. I understand that Engel himself may not have understood at the time but surely he's found some information. He visited and wrote to Oliver Sachs who I'm sure told him something. I would like that information.
Second, I understand that the memoir is written by a man whose memory is impaired and who has a condition that preempts his reading with any ease. But at points the author contradicts himself and on many many many many many many . . . occasions the author repeats himself. This gets annoying in such a small book (157pages). And then, in the afterword, Oliver Sachs repeats information already given and Sachs offers new information that seems to contradict the author's narration. While I understand why this may be the case, a couple of foot or end notes would be helpful in creating a more complete picture of the situation.
All in all, it's not a terribly compelling read which is unfortunate.
The memoir is about a voracious reader and detective fiction author who awakes one morning to find himself unable to read the newspaper. He thinks it looks like a foreign language. He's taken to the hospital and finds out he's had a stroke and it's affected the language center of the brain. He has alexia sine agraphia which more or less means he can't read but he can write. The memoir goes through his experience in the hospital, in the rehab center, and then back at home.
My problems with the book are numerous. First, I don't feel like the condition itself is explained at all. Why can he write but not read? Why can he read sometimes? How does the rehab work? How can he learn to read again? What's going on? How did the stroke cause it? Etc. The reader only gets to see the effects of the condition but never understands the beast itself. I understand that Engel himself may not have understood at the time but surely he's found some information. He visited and wrote to Oliver Sachs who I'm sure told him something. I would like that information.
Second, I understand that the memoir is written by a man whose memory is impaired and who has a condition that preempts his reading with any ease. But at points the author contradicts himself and on many many many many many many . . . occasions the author repeats himself. This gets annoying in such a small book (157pages). And then, in the afterword, Oliver Sachs repeats information already given and Sachs offers new information that seems to contradict the author's narration. While I understand why this may be the case, a couple of foot or end notes would be helpful in creating a more complete picture of the situation.
All in all, it's not a terribly compelling read which is unfortunate.
The Seven Year Itch (1955)
I thought I'd seen this movie but it quickly became apparent that I'd just seen the one iconic scene a bazillion times.
The premise is that a man who has been married for seven years is left alone in New York to work for the summer while his wife takes their son on vacation as is custom every year. This summer, however, Marilyn Monroe is renting the apartment upstairs and causes a little confusion. Sexually charged hijinks ensue in the midst of dream sequences while the married man bumbles about her in real life.
It's an interesting movie but I'm not quite sure what to think of it.
The premise is that a man who has been married for seven years is left alone in New York to work for the summer while his wife takes their son on vacation as is custom every year. This summer, however, Marilyn Monroe is renting the apartment upstairs and causes a little confusion. Sexually charged hijinks ensue in the midst of dream sequences while the married man bumbles about her in real life.
It's an interesting movie but I'm not quite sure what to think of it.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Lucky Number S7evin (2006)
I've been terrible at keeping up with this--I watched this one the other day. Another it was on tv so I watched it movie. This one is ok-ish. It tries a little too hard to be clever when it's not. And it tries a little too hard to have a surprise twist ending when I figured out the "surprise" at the outset of the movie. But it's fun. Josh Hartnett is hot enough and Lucy Liu is cute and quirky and then you have Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, and Ben Kinsley to add to the watchable-ness. Not a bad watch but not something to run out to buy.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The Ballad of Jack and Rose (2005)
I've often seen that this is playing on TV and not watched it for one reason or another. It's about a squemish topic: incest and child molestation. I might have missed the first few minutes. I started it once but couldn't quite pay enough attention to grasp Daniel Day-Lewis's accent. Regardless, it was on again the other day when I could pay attention, see the whole thing, and deal with the subject matter. I'm very happy I did.
The movie is billed as one in which a young girl, Camilla Belle, deals with her attraction to her father, Lewis. They live on an unpopulated island "off the east coast" in the remains of a commune from the 60s (the father had a hand in developing it). The girl's mother is gone and she rarely sees anyone but her father. No TV and rare outside influence. That sounds a tad reductive and simple. But the movie is actually a look into that life with the complication that the father is dying of a heart disease and he has to face the fact that he's leaving his daughter without a way in the world. He's isolated her so much that she has little hopes of surviving in the real world. The father brings in a woman he's been sleeping with (who lives on the mainland), Catherine Keener, and her two sons, an obsese possible gay older son and a rebellious younger son, Paul Dano. Meanwhile, Beau Bridges is a property developer encroaching on the isolated commune much to Lewis's dismay.
What the viewer gets is a look into a complicated relationship between father and daughter when the daughter is coming of age. It's really quite well done and a thoughtful movie.
The movie is billed as one in which a young girl, Camilla Belle, deals with her attraction to her father, Lewis. They live on an unpopulated island "off the east coast" in the remains of a commune from the 60s (the father had a hand in developing it). The girl's mother is gone and she rarely sees anyone but her father. No TV and rare outside influence. That sounds a tad reductive and simple. But the movie is actually a look into that life with the complication that the father is dying of a heart disease and he has to face the fact that he's leaving his daughter without a way in the world. He's isolated her so much that she has little hopes of surviving in the real world. The father brings in a woman he's been sleeping with (who lives on the mainland), Catherine Keener, and her two sons, an obsese possible gay older son and a rebellious younger son, Paul Dano. Meanwhile, Beau Bridges is a property developer encroaching on the isolated commune much to Lewis's dismay.
What the viewer gets is a look into a complicated relationship between father and daughter when the daughter is coming of age. It's really quite well done and a thoughtful movie.
Collateral (2004)
I only watched this because it's on the list. I thought it would be stupid from the first preview and I was right.
First, Cruise is just not a good actor. He's just not.
Second, Foxx isn't really so convincing either.
Third, the story is contrived. Really, how likely is it that a cab driver meets a woman in the justice department and really connects with her (first, that part is highly unlikely in LA) and then the assassin who hijacks his car and time is after her for the last hit of the night? Of course it has to be the last hit because that gives the cab driver enough time to stop being a pansy and become the hero. Of course. The story is perfectly circular and it's annoying. It's especially annoying because the cab driver only goes to save someone when it's the woman he supposedly connected with. The assassin has killed several people up to this point. What would be really heroic would be for the cab driver to save the second person to be killed regardless of whether he knew the person--to save a person just for the sake of saving him/her--instead of waiting around until it's someone he knows
Fourth, I'm not buying the assassin with something of a conscience.
First, Cruise is just not a good actor. He's just not.
Second, Foxx isn't really so convincing either.
Third, the story is contrived. Really, how likely is it that a cab driver meets a woman in the justice department and really connects with her (first, that part is highly unlikely in LA) and then the assassin who hijacks his car and time is after her for the last hit of the night? Of course it has to be the last hit because that gives the cab driver enough time to stop being a pansy and become the hero. Of course. The story is perfectly circular and it's annoying. It's especially annoying because the cab driver only goes to save someone when it's the woman he supposedly connected with. The assassin has killed several people up to this point. What would be really heroic would be for the cab driver to save the second person to be killed regardless of whether he knew the person--to save a person just for the sake of saving him/her--instead of waiting around until it's someone he knows
Fourth, I'm not buying the assassin with something of a conscience.
Vicky Christina Barcelona (2008)
I am not a Woody Allen fan. I liked Sweet and Lowdown but I just could not appreciate Annie Hall or Purple Rose of Cairo or Broadway Danny Rose . . . and I have so many more to watch on the list. Ugh.
I didn't dislike VCB the way I dislike those listed above. This definitely isn't an Allen Allen film. He's not in it and it doesn't focus on his particular neuroses the whole film. That said, I still didn't like it. My dislike is more a product of the quality of acting. Scarlett Johansson (Christina) and Rebecca Hall (Vicky) fell superbly flat in my opinion. There is a conversation between the two in a restaurant before, during, and after Javier Bardeem (Juan Antonio) approaches them that was so stilted it was painful to watch. Women just don't talk in those cadences. The words may be the same but the performances were terrible. I also really bristled at the voiceover narration. It was condescending and obvious and really didn't add anything to the film. I understand the irony and postmodernism and blah blah blah of the narration and the fact that the narrator holds a great deal of disdain for all of the characters but, ugh, I was just annoyed.
Javier Bardeem is good but the only thing that redeems the movie in the least for me is Penelope Cruz. I don't hold a particular liking for her but in this film she is absolutely genius. Genius. The best work I've seen of her. I can't describe it well but when she's on screen, she somehow enlivens the other performances. The movie is worth seeing just for Cruz.
I didn't dislike VCB the way I dislike those listed above. This definitely isn't an Allen Allen film. He's not in it and it doesn't focus on his particular neuroses the whole film. That said, I still didn't like it. My dislike is more a product of the quality of acting. Scarlett Johansson (Christina) and Rebecca Hall (Vicky) fell superbly flat in my opinion. There is a conversation between the two in a restaurant before, during, and after Javier Bardeem (Juan Antonio) approaches them that was so stilted it was painful to watch. Women just don't talk in those cadences. The words may be the same but the performances were terrible. I also really bristled at the voiceover narration. It was condescending and obvious and really didn't add anything to the film. I understand the irony and postmodernism and blah blah blah of the narration and the fact that the narrator holds a great deal of disdain for all of the characters but, ugh, I was just annoyed.
Javier Bardeem is good but the only thing that redeems the movie in the least for me is Penelope Cruz. I don't hold a particular liking for her but in this film she is absolutely genius. Genius. The best work I've seen of her. I can't describe it well but when she's on screen, she somehow enlivens the other performances. The movie is worth seeing just for Cruz.
Pineapple Express (2008)
Apatow has definitely figured out how to make comedies that I love. Somehow he can have vomit scenes, unnecessary vaginal shots, and gross boy jokes and I still like all of his movies. I liked Pinapple Express but I'll have to admit, not as much as the other ones.
James Franco is definitely a highlight. He just went for full-on ugly. And it was genius. Seth Rogen is kind of hit and miss for me. I like him most of the time but sometimes he's just a little too much that guy who smokes too much pot and smells funny. It was a funny caper film but I think Franco may have saved it from being just another Cheech and Chong film.
It's worth a watch--but only after all of the other Apatow.
James Franco is definitely a highlight. He just went for full-on ugly. And it was genius. Seth Rogen is kind of hit and miss for me. I like him most of the time but sometimes he's just a little too much that guy who smokes too much pot and smells funny. It was a funny caper film but I think Franco may have saved it from being just another Cheech and Chong film.
It's worth a watch--but only after all of the other Apatow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)