Bronson
The best film of Guy Ritchie's career that he will never do. I saw Pusher and this couldn't be farther from the realism established there. This is essentially a live action cartoon about a total sociopath who must fight to feel anything. It's ultimately a little tedious but a dazzling achievement of some sort. Imagine Chuck Jones directing Raging Bull and you're kind of close. It's ultimately not really about anything and it does wear out its welcome after a while but I admire its tenacity.
The Official Review Thread of 2009
Doesn't the Coco Chanel movie seem like a slam-dunk for Best Costume Design. (The clothes in Bright Star are superb.)Mister Tee wrote:Mostly it was for the potential costume nomination, and let's say right off: stunning costumes. I haven't done Bright Star yet, but these are the best I've seen since The Duchess.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19370
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Wow!!! I coudln't disagree more, Tee. Here's my review from my 10/27 DVD Report on Oscar Guy's main site:
Reuniting the screenwriter, director and one of the stars of Dangerous Liaisons seemed like a good idea on paper, but aside from the musical version of Gigi, French novelist Colette has never been a good source for screen fodder. Stephen Frears’ film of Cheri is no Gigi. The art direction and costume design are exquisite, but they’re only a diversion. The story has no bite. In Gigi, we wanted Louis Jourdan to make an honest woman out of Leslie Caron. In Cheri, we couldn’t care less if Rupert Friend marries happily or not.
Michelle Pfeiffer, still looking fabulous at fifty, is hardly the “old lady” she refers to herself as, as the retired courtesan who trains the son of another courtesan in the ways of love. Friend, with his gym rat physique constantly on display, looks way too modern for his melancholy pre-World War I character. Kathy Bates is a bit too over-the-top as his mother and Anita Pallenberg and Harriet Walker are unrecognizable as two of Pfeiffer’s and Bates’ contemporaries. None of them seem the least bit French at all.
Reuniting the screenwriter, director and one of the stars of Dangerous Liaisons seemed like a good idea on paper, but aside from the musical version of Gigi, French novelist Colette has never been a good source for screen fodder. Stephen Frears’ film of Cheri is no Gigi. The art direction and costume design are exquisite, but they’re only a diversion. The story has no bite. In Gigi, we wanted Louis Jourdan to make an honest woman out of Leslie Caron. In Cheri, we couldn’t care less if Rupert Friend marries happily or not.
Michelle Pfeiffer, still looking fabulous at fifty, is hardly the “old lady” she refers to herself as, as the retired courtesan who trains the son of another courtesan in the ways of love. Friend, with his gym rat physique constantly on display, looks way too modern for his melancholy pre-World War I character. Kathy Bates is a bit too over-the-top as his mother and Anita Pallenberg and Harriet Walker are unrecognizable as two of Pfeiffer’s and Bates’ contemporaries. None of them seem the least bit French at all.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8669
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Did the Netflix catch-up on Cheri.
Mostly it was for the potential costume nomination, and let's say right off: stunning costumes. I haven't done Bright Star yet, but these are the best I've seen since The Duchess. Throw in art direction as deserving, too, and why not score? There were no opening credits, so I had no advance warning, but halfway along I thought, this got to be Alexandre Desplat -- only he provides these lush, old-style scores these days.
I think I liked the movie as a whole a bit better than Penelope/BJ last summer, but the difference may be mostly the "I only spent 3 bucks, not 12" discount from home viewing. It's an enjoyably literate, emotionally complex script, but it also has an agreeably jaunty pace. I'll agree with BJ that it might be too jaunty at the start to set up the essentially bummer ending -- when the movie started, it felt like Gigi without songs. The film deepened, and might have prepared us for a heartbreaking ending, but not one so cold-eyed as we got.
As for Pfeiffer...I've spent most of the past 20 years loving her performances more than most critics. (By me, she'd have half a dozen Oscar nominations, not the measly three she owns) As I watched her here, I lamented her career withdrawal over the past decade. She's still such a vivid actress; this should have been one of several major performances in the era, not the only true major lead she's played in god knows how long. The film seems most interested in using her beauty and contrasting it to her inevitable aging process -- later shots obviously emphasizing her skin's slow wrinkling (as if that'd keep anyone out of her bed!). But she offers so much more. To me, she's one of very few American actresses of her time capable of conveying layers of emotion. In her final scene with Cheri, her face shows both joy at the possibility of him loving her and fear he's about to drop her -- in alternation, and sometimes at the same second, to the point where we're not only sure what she thinks is happening, we're not even sure whch she'd prefer. Many good actresses couldn't pull this off.
I'm not suggesting Pfeiffer should thus be in the running for this year's best actress trophy. Some of the points you guys made, about whether she seems like a courtesan, are probably valid. (Though what about Kathy Bates? Isn't that more of a stretch?) I'm simply saying this is a great actress, and we shouldn't take for granted the opportunity to see her in a significant role.
Mostly it was for the potential costume nomination, and let's say right off: stunning costumes. I haven't done Bright Star yet, but these are the best I've seen since The Duchess. Throw in art direction as deserving, too, and why not score? There were no opening credits, so I had no advance warning, but halfway along I thought, this got to be Alexandre Desplat -- only he provides these lush, old-style scores these days.
I think I liked the movie as a whole a bit better than Penelope/BJ last summer, but the difference may be mostly the "I only spent 3 bucks, not 12" discount from home viewing. It's an enjoyably literate, emotionally complex script, but it also has an agreeably jaunty pace. I'll agree with BJ that it might be too jaunty at the start to set up the essentially bummer ending -- when the movie started, it felt like Gigi without songs. The film deepened, and might have prepared us for a heartbreaking ending, but not one so cold-eyed as we got.
As for Pfeiffer...I've spent most of the past 20 years loving her performances more than most critics. (By me, she'd have half a dozen Oscar nominations, not the measly three she owns) As I watched her here, I lamented her career withdrawal over the past decade. She's still such a vivid actress; this should have been one of several major performances in the era, not the only true major lead she's played in god knows how long. The film seems most interested in using her beauty and contrasting it to her inevitable aging process -- later shots obviously emphasizing her skin's slow wrinkling (as if that'd keep anyone out of her bed!). But she offers so much more. To me, she's one of very few American actresses of her time capable of conveying layers of emotion. In her final scene with Cheri, her face shows both joy at the possibility of him loving her and fear he's about to drop her -- in alternation, and sometimes at the same second, to the point where we're not only sure what she thinks is happening, we're not even sure whch she'd prefer. Many good actresses couldn't pull this off.
I'm not suggesting Pfeiffer should thus be in the running for this year's best actress trophy. Some of the points you guys made, about whether she seems like a courtesan, are probably valid. (Though what about Kathy Bates? Isn't that more of a stretch?) I'm simply saying this is a great actress, and we shouldn't take for granted the opportunity to see her in a significant role.
Tokyo Sonata (Kiyoshi Kurosawa)
I've only seen Pulse and know Kurosawa as a filmmaker of alienation horror films. Tokyo Sonata is a brilliant movie. I have a couple of qualms about the mother's transformation and a few beats along the way, but I found it incredibly moving. A father loses his administrative job incapable of citing any special skills to save his job (as if there could be any!) and begins a comic/tragic search for work. Around him, his mother and son embark on secret lives as they unwittingly search for escape from the inhospitable house he vainly tries to preserve in secret with what ultimately proves to be janitorial work.
This is the first generation in a while all-but guaranteed not to surpass the previous one. Now that the recession hits, that's become an even crueler joke. Tokyo Sonata posits that providing for your children and seeing their gifts nurtured and the virtues found in the house is the greatest pleasure that parents can know. I found myself fighting back tears at the end of this film. It's one of the best I've seen this year.
I've only seen Pulse and know Kurosawa as a filmmaker of alienation horror films. Tokyo Sonata is a brilliant movie. I have a couple of qualms about the mother's transformation and a few beats along the way, but I found it incredibly moving. A father loses his administrative job incapable of citing any special skills to save his job (as if there could be any!) and begins a comic/tragic search for work. Around him, his mother and son embark on secret lives as they unwittingly search for escape from the inhospitable house he vainly tries to preserve in secret with what ultimately proves to be janitorial work.
This is the first generation in a while all-but guaranteed not to surpass the previous one. Now that the recession hits, that's become an even crueler joke. Tokyo Sonata posits that providing for your children and seeing their gifts nurtured and the virtues found in the house is the greatest pleasure that parents can know. I found myself fighting back tears at the end of this film. It's one of the best I've seen this year.
"How's the despair?"
Summer Hours
So effortlessly calculated in what some might refer to as "miniature" that you can leave the theater wondering if "that was all." What else is there really? It's about the past being too inconvenient to hang on to. What's sadder than that? It's expert in what to reveal when. One moment in particular when Frederic is given condolences and then breaks down in his car. We don't need to know anything more. It's a very sad movie peppered with characters that are fully realized and breathe long after the film is over. I could've watched an hour more but really that would betray what the film is really about.
Eric Gautier might be the most gifted cinematographer alive right now. The cast is uniformly superb but Edith Scob in particular is amazing, casting an impression over the film long after he final scene. She's ravishingly beautiful as well.
So effortlessly calculated in what some might refer to as "miniature" that you can leave the theater wondering if "that was all." What else is there really? It's about the past being too inconvenient to hang on to. What's sadder than that? It's expert in what to reveal when. One moment in particular when Frederic is given condolences and then breaks down in his car. We don't need to know anything more. It's a very sad movie peppered with characters that are fully realized and breathe long after the film is over. I could've watched an hour more but really that would betray what the film is really about.
Eric Gautier might be the most gifted cinematographer alive right now. The cast is uniformly superb but Edith Scob in particular is amazing, casting an impression over the film long after he final scene. She's ravishingly beautiful as well.
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6395
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
MICHAEL JACKSON'S THIS IS IT
Cast: Michael Jackson, Kenny Ortega.
Dir: Kenny Ortega.
When I first heard of this project, I thought it's a shameless plot to cash in on the death of Michael Jackson but the end result is more of a loving, bittersweet tribute. It's a fascinating rare look at how Jackson's work style from behind the scenes. It also highlights the hard work put into by the dancers and behind-the-scenes crew. Not a perfect film but it accomplished its goal.
Oscar Prospects: I hear it's not eligible for Documentary Feature. Perhaps for Editing and maybe Original Song ("This Is It"), if its ruled eligible.
Grade: B
Cast: Michael Jackson, Kenny Ortega.
Dir: Kenny Ortega.
When I first heard of this project, I thought it's a shameless plot to cash in on the death of Michael Jackson but the end result is more of a loving, bittersweet tribute. It's a fascinating rare look at how Jackson's work style from behind the scenes. It also highlights the hard work put into by the dancers and behind-the-scenes crew. Not a perfect film but it accomplished its goal.
Oscar Prospects: I hear it's not eligible for Documentary Feature. Perhaps for Editing and maybe Original Song ("This Is It"), if its ruled eligible.
Grade: B
Rembrandt's J'accuse.
Surprisingly accessible for a Peter Greenaway picture, this cheeky documentary makes the case that Rembrandt's painting "The Night Watch" is actually an indictment for murder against some of the prominent citizens on the canvas. Fascinating if over-reaching and over-wrought, it's ultimately kind of goofy. Is it serious or a send up? That's for the individual viewer to decide. Great fun.
6/10
Surprisingly accessible for a Peter Greenaway picture, this cheeky documentary makes the case that Rembrandt's painting "The Night Watch" is actually an indictment for murder against some of the prominent citizens on the canvas. Fascinating if over-reaching and over-wrought, it's ultimately kind of goofy. Is it serious or a send up? That's for the individual viewer to decide. Great fun.
6/10
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8669
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
And, at this point in Ebert's career, it's worth nothing.Greg wrote:FWIW, Roger Ebert gave Antichrist 3 1/2 stars.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps....0219990
You couldn't pay me to see this film.
FWIW, Roger Ebert gave Antichrist 3 1/2 stars.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps....0219990
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps....0219990
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
I doubt anything I say is going to dissuade or persuade anyone from seeing Antichrist. Those who are planning to see it likely have already decided to go, and those who wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole know who they are too. All of that being said, I found Antichrist to be one of the most hideously unpleasant films I've ever had the misfortune to see.
I've often been a fan of von Trier's work in the past -- I think Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, and Dogville are all pretty major works. I get why some don't like him, and he's definitely an acquired taste, but I've often found his provocations rich with ideas, and his bold stylistic choices excitingly adventurous.
Antichrist, though, felt like something else entirely. After the (admittedly intriguing) opening sequence, the first half of the film seems surprisingly tedious. Usually one doesn't expect sheer boredom from von Trier -- even if his tactics offend, his films are usually too nutso not to at least grab you in some way. I kept wondering what all the fuss was about -- what was so shocking about the film -- when it seemed like a mostly dull portrait of a couple grieving.
Ah, but then the moments that so horrified festival-goers start to pop up, and from then on, it's just a nightmare. I'm not a squeamish moviegoer, but I nearly walked out several times during the film just because I couldn't take watching these images. (Let's just say the moments in question involve a log of wood, a wrench, and a pair of scissors -- leave it to your own imagination to imagine what "fun" von Trier has with those.) And it's really not fair to even call this a disturbing movie. Truly disturbing films may have shocking images, but they're used in a way that make the film's ideas and themes the truly unsettling things. I can't see the point to Antichrist -- it just seems like nihilistic nonsense, and I never want to experience any minute of it ever again.
Even the performances are overrated. I've been knocked out by a lot of von Trier's leading ladies, but Charlotte Gainsbourg's Cannes prize had to have been a pity award given to the actress sheerly for allowing herself to be degraded by von Trier in this way. It's an utterly monotonous role -- ditto Dafoe's.
Most unintentionally WTF moment in any movie this year: the CGI fox telling Willem Dafoe "Chaos reigns."
von Trier is not the antichrist but this film seems to have been touched by the devil.
I've often been a fan of von Trier's work in the past -- I think Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, and Dogville are all pretty major works. I get why some don't like him, and he's definitely an acquired taste, but I've often found his provocations rich with ideas, and his bold stylistic choices excitingly adventurous.
Antichrist, though, felt like something else entirely. After the (admittedly intriguing) opening sequence, the first half of the film seems surprisingly tedious. Usually one doesn't expect sheer boredom from von Trier -- even if his tactics offend, his films are usually too nutso not to at least grab you in some way. I kept wondering what all the fuss was about -- what was so shocking about the film -- when it seemed like a mostly dull portrait of a couple grieving.
Ah, but then the moments that so horrified festival-goers start to pop up, and from then on, it's just a nightmare. I'm not a squeamish moviegoer, but I nearly walked out several times during the film just because I couldn't take watching these images. (Let's just say the moments in question involve a log of wood, a wrench, and a pair of scissors -- leave it to your own imagination to imagine what "fun" von Trier has with those.) And it's really not fair to even call this a disturbing movie. Truly disturbing films may have shocking images, but they're used in a way that make the film's ideas and themes the truly unsettling things. I can't see the point to Antichrist -- it just seems like nihilistic nonsense, and I never want to experience any minute of it ever again.
Even the performances are overrated. I've been knocked out by a lot of von Trier's leading ladies, but Charlotte Gainsbourg's Cannes prize had to have been a pity award given to the actress sheerly for allowing herself to be degraded by von Trier in this way. It's an utterly monotonous role -- ditto Dafoe's.
Most unintentionally WTF moment in any movie this year: the CGI fox telling Willem Dafoe "Chaos reigns."
von Trier is not the antichrist but this film seems to have been touched by the devil.
Humpday (Lynn Shelton)
Incredibly strong American film about labels w/r/t the heterosexual male. Who am I in my marriage? Who am I in my life? Who am I in my mind? Ben is a Gen-X-er conflicted about a life un-lived and the fact that he (as portrayed by Duplass) enjoys being the sarcastic voice of reason in his suburban life. Andrew is a veritable vagabond who believes himself an artist by way of Kerouac, but really he has never finished a project and isn't nearly as open-minded as he would like to admit. They're both regressive teenagers in their thirties who treat the women in their life like maternal authority figures they retreat from in different ways, one from fling to fling and the other within a marriage. They also both find validation in competition, and, when one fragile ego faces off against the other in a game of half-court, it starts with them not being able to back down. Then it progresses into them not being able to move forward once they've admitted certain things to each other. Validation through competition leading to revelation...and then...progress is made?
It's also incredibly funny and has the biggest laugh I've had all year when Andrew realizes that he has just let the cat out of the bag, and then a consistent streak through the final act. I have a couple of problems with where the film ultimately ends up which is truthful but ignores one misstep that I think would have been braver: Ben wants it. He clearly fucking wants it. Andrew wants what it means for him as an artist but Ben wants to fuck a guy. The film veers off that track a little for something a little more profound and tragic, but it ignores that this is where the film is going. I'm inclined to give it a slight pass because I admire so much of it.
Incredibly strong American film about labels w/r/t the heterosexual male. Who am I in my marriage? Who am I in my life? Who am I in my mind? Ben is a Gen-X-er conflicted about a life un-lived and the fact that he (as portrayed by Duplass) enjoys being the sarcastic voice of reason in his suburban life. Andrew is a veritable vagabond who believes himself an artist by way of Kerouac, but really he has never finished a project and isn't nearly as open-minded as he would like to admit. They're both regressive teenagers in their thirties who treat the women in their life like maternal authority figures they retreat from in different ways, one from fling to fling and the other within a marriage. They also both find validation in competition, and, when one fragile ego faces off against the other in a game of half-court, it starts with them not being able to back down. Then it progresses into them not being able to move forward once they've admitted certain things to each other. Validation through competition leading to revelation...and then...progress is made?
It's also incredibly funny and has the biggest laugh I've had all year when Andrew realizes that he has just let the cat out of the bag, and then a consistent streak through the final act. I have a couple of problems with where the film ultimately ends up which is truthful but ignores one misstep that I think would have been braver: Ben wants it. He clearly fucking wants it. Andrew wants what it means for him as an artist but Ben wants to fuck a guy. The film veers off that track a little for something a little more profound and tragic, but it ignores that this is where the film is going. I'm inclined to give it a slight pass because I admire so much of it.
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6395
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
THE INFORMANT!
Cast: Matt Damon, Scott Bakula, Joel McHale, Melanie Lynskey, Rick Overton, Tom Papa, Tom Wilson, Clancy Brown, Tony Hale, Ann Cusack, Allan Havey, Rusty Schwimmer.
Dir: Steven Soderbergh.
This movie isn't as consistently laugh-out-loud funny despite what the trailers (thought it does contain some laughs) and the numerous cameos from comedians/comedic actors may suggest. The film does not completely work but Matt Damon's inspired and believable performance makes it worth it. Melanie Lynskey is also great in her supporting work as the wife.
Oscar Prospects: I think Best Actor (Matt Damon), Best Original Score and Best Original Song are its best bet.
Grade: B
Cast: Matt Damon, Scott Bakula, Joel McHale, Melanie Lynskey, Rick Overton, Tom Papa, Tom Wilson, Clancy Brown, Tony Hale, Ann Cusack, Allan Havey, Rusty Schwimmer.
Dir: Steven Soderbergh.
This movie isn't as consistently laugh-out-loud funny despite what the trailers (thought it does contain some laughs) and the numerous cameos from comedians/comedic actors may suggest. The film does not completely work but Matt Damon's inspired and believable performance makes it worth it. Melanie Lynskey is also great in her supporting work as the wife.
Oscar Prospects: I think Best Actor (Matt Damon), Best Original Score and Best Original Song are its best bet.
Grade: B