The trailer actually made me want to stay 100 miles away from the film. The tone suggested these guys traveled all this way only to walk into something horrific/Saw-like. If you can assure me that's not the case, I might give it a try. But I'd have no interest in seeing THAT movie.The Original BJ wrote:The American wasn't the only movie I saw this weekend that featured a trailer that sold the film as something it wasn't. I had the exact same reaction to Catfish, a film I think will generate plenty of buzz when it opens in a couple weeks for its timely and interesting story about a real-life relationship formed on Facebook. It's a difficult movie to really discuss, and so I'll wait to say more until others have seen it, but believe those early critics who have said that the less you know going in, the more you will likely enjoy the movie.
And, honestly, try to avoid the trailer at all costs. Not only does it reveal WAY too much about the story, it also advertises the movie as something that's pretty different from the one you end up getting. I found the movie mostly compelling, but I was definitely NOT blown away -- the story is low-key, and after hearing so much hype and witnessing a trailer which built up certain expectations, there's no way the movie could feel revelatory for me. I have a feeling this is the kind of movie that, if you saw it at Sundance knowing NOTHING about it, you might be knocked out (as so many clearly were), but the later you come to it, the more likely you are to want a little bit more from it.
But there are some interesting aspects to the story, which I think plenty of people will want to discuss, here and elsewhere. But I'll wait until at least the movie opens to open that can of worms.
The Official Review Thread of 2010
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Life During Wartime (Todd Solondz)
It's hard to tell exactly where this movie went wrong. I'd imagine the pitch was on pretty sound standing.
"What if I did a sequel to Happiness, with all the characters entrenched in the uncertainty of wartime America? What if I made a treatise on the nature of forgiveness, our collective short-term memory, and terrorism?"
Sounds good. Maybe great. I'm no big fan of yours but on paper that sounds like it could be the best film of your career.
"What if I recast it with entirely different actors?"
Well, that's a little strange, but in theory it could work. You just face an additional layer on your film that you have to know what to do with. Like, your basic repeated premise is that people don't change, but these characters don't resemble the previous installment's incarnations at all. It's just a little wonky. But in theory it could work.
"What if it went nowhere and every scene was monotonous conversation?"
You get what I'm saying.
Revisiting Happiness again, I became aware of Solondz's penchant for undermining the daring and the brutal with a snarky punchline. In Life During Wartime, several scenes just seem to contain the punchlines. That's really what's wrong with this film. He thinks that he's doing something incredibly powerful, but like all good jokes he needs the set-up. This entire film feels like a punchline to a previous film and even to a previous time. It certainly doesn't look like his previous films, but that's only because it's been DI-ed to death. His performances have never felt so stilted either. They're the performances given by a director who is far too in love with his words.
It takes a little while for everything to come into focus in Life During Wartime. I did not feel an entirely honest scene until Chris Marquette's Billy returned and had an impromptu visit by his father, Bill (this time played by Ciarán Hinds, from a different planet than Dylan Baker...maybe the point, but...?), and the film attempted to tackle something truly interesting about forgiveness, nature, and pretending...all of which felt undercut by Hinds' obsessive love of gum drops. I became aware that if I could not get through this scene (a good one) without being pulled out by something cheap, I never would. If there was some kind of interesting political spectrum within Life During Wartime, I would be more forgiving. But just when you wonder just where the hell something is going, you get your answer and it turns into a crude joke about martyrdom, like Shirley Henderson's Joy being visited by demanding ghosts.
And I can't repeat this enough...it goes nowhere. Life During Wartime feels like a butchered work. Solondz has said many times that he finds the film in editing. He's not unlike Woody Allen in that capacity. Storytelling features entire sections cut entirely out. I wouldn't be surprised if Life During Wartime was a half hour longer. Or if the missing footage filled out the film...but still, who gives a shit?
It's hard to tell exactly where this movie went wrong. I'd imagine the pitch was on pretty sound standing.
"What if I did a sequel to Happiness, with all the characters entrenched in the uncertainty of wartime America? What if I made a treatise on the nature of forgiveness, our collective short-term memory, and terrorism?"
Sounds good. Maybe great. I'm no big fan of yours but on paper that sounds like it could be the best film of your career.
"What if I recast it with entirely different actors?"
Well, that's a little strange, but in theory it could work. You just face an additional layer on your film that you have to know what to do with. Like, your basic repeated premise is that people don't change, but these characters don't resemble the previous installment's incarnations at all. It's just a little wonky. But in theory it could work.
"What if it went nowhere and every scene was monotonous conversation?"
You get what I'm saying.
Revisiting Happiness again, I became aware of Solondz's penchant for undermining the daring and the brutal with a snarky punchline. In Life During Wartime, several scenes just seem to contain the punchlines. That's really what's wrong with this film. He thinks that he's doing something incredibly powerful, but like all good jokes he needs the set-up. This entire film feels like a punchline to a previous film and even to a previous time. It certainly doesn't look like his previous films, but that's only because it's been DI-ed to death. His performances have never felt so stilted either. They're the performances given by a director who is far too in love with his words.
It takes a little while for everything to come into focus in Life During Wartime. I did not feel an entirely honest scene until Chris Marquette's Billy returned and had an impromptu visit by his father, Bill (this time played by Ciarán Hinds, from a different planet than Dylan Baker...maybe the point, but...?), and the film attempted to tackle something truly interesting about forgiveness, nature, and pretending...all of which felt undercut by Hinds' obsessive love of gum drops. I became aware that if I could not get through this scene (a good one) without being pulled out by something cheap, I never would. If there was some kind of interesting political spectrum within Life During Wartime, I would be more forgiving. But just when you wonder just where the hell something is going, you get your answer and it turns into a crude joke about martyrdom, like Shirley Henderson's Joy being visited by demanding ghosts.
And I can't repeat this enough...it goes nowhere. Life During Wartime feels like a butchered work. Solondz has said many times that he finds the film in editing. He's not unlike Woody Allen in that capacity. Storytelling features entire sections cut entirely out. I wouldn't be surprised if Life During Wartime was a half hour longer. Or if the missing footage filled out the film...but still, who gives a shit?
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
THE AMERICAN
Cast: George Clooney, Paolo Boncelli, Violante Placido, Johan Leysen, Thekla Reuten, Samuli Vauramo.
Dir: Anton Corbijn.
Some people were disappointed with this movie since they got in thinking they're gonna get a Bourne-style action flick. What it is is something a little better. This film is more of a quiet, paranoia thriller-cum-character study of an aging assassin's "one last job". It's quite reminiscent of the films of Michelangelo Antonioni, Nicolas Roeg and the Cold War movies of the 70's and 80's. George Clooney gives probably one of his best performances of his career.
Oscar Prospects: I wouldn't mind noms for Best Actor (Clooney), Best Cinematography and Best Original Score.
Grade: B+
Cast: George Clooney, Paolo Boncelli, Violante Placido, Johan Leysen, Thekla Reuten, Samuli Vauramo.
Dir: Anton Corbijn.
Some people were disappointed with this movie since they got in thinking they're gonna get a Bourne-style action flick. What it is is something a little better. This film is more of a quiet, paranoia thriller-cum-character study of an aging assassin's "one last job". It's quite reminiscent of the films of Michelangelo Antonioni, Nicolas Roeg and the Cold War movies of the 70's and 80's. George Clooney gives probably one of his best performances of his career.
Oscar Prospects: I wouldn't mind noms for Best Actor (Clooney), Best Cinematography and Best Original Score.
Grade: B+
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
The American wasn't the only movie I saw this weekend that featured a trailer that sold the film as something it wasn't. I had the exact same reaction to Catfish, a film I think will generate plenty of buzz when it opens in a couple weeks for its timely and interesting story about a real-life relationship formed on Facebook. It's a difficult movie to really discuss, and so I'll wait to say more until others have seen it, but believe those early critics who have said that the less you know going in, the more you will likely enjoy the movie.
And, honestly, try to avoid the trailer at all costs. Not only does it reveal WAY too much about the story, it also advertises the movie as something that's pretty different from the one you end up getting. I found the movie mostly compelling, but I was definitely NOT blown away -- the story is low-key, and after hearing so much hype and witnessing a trailer which built up certain expectations, there's no way the movie could feel revelatory for me. I have a feeling this is the kind of movie that, if you saw it at Sundance knowing NOTHING about it, you might be knocked out (as so many clearly were), but the later you come to it, the more likely you are to want a little bit more from it.
But there are some interesting aspects to the story, which I think plenty of people will want to discuss, here and elsewhere. But I'll wait until at least the movie opens to open that can of worms.
And, honestly, try to avoid the trailer at all costs. Not only does it reveal WAY too much about the story, it also advertises the movie as something that's pretty different from the one you end up getting. I found the movie mostly compelling, but I was definitely NOT blown away -- the story is low-key, and after hearing so much hype and witnessing a trailer which built up certain expectations, there's no way the movie could feel revelatory for me. I have a feeling this is the kind of movie that, if you saw it at Sundance knowing NOTHING about it, you might be knocked out (as so many clearly were), but the later you come to it, the more likely you are to want a little bit more from it.
But there are some interesting aspects to the story, which I think plenty of people will want to discuss, here and elsewhere. But I'll wait until at least the movie opens to open that can of worms.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I'd say Children of Men was given the same treatment, and, going back a ways, the David Caruso remake of Kiss of Death.The Original BJ wrote:I see the film won the weekend box office, which pleases me, but I also see it's getting a D— CinemaScore grade, which suggests word of mouth on this will be really bad.
.....
(When I saw it, several people walked out mid-film, and plenty of others left vocally angry at what they had just seen.) I can't help but feel this box-office/word-of-mouth disconnect is the result of a trailer that sold The American as something it wasn't. While advertised as an action movie, it's really more a drama with spurts of violence peppered throughout.
The problem is, studios have become more and more reliant on a few bankable genres (sci-fi, slambang action, rom-com) that sell themselves with trailers resembling dozens of other recent movies. Hollywood no longer knows how to sell a movie on sheer quality, unless they can connect it to an Oscar campaign (and there they mostly leave it to "specialty divisions"). They'll blame audiences for this, but they're the ones who've, through pure sloth and greed, let the system become inhospitable to anything but cinematic junk food.
That's why they sold The American the way they did, and it may leave the film with a higher gross than any other existing strategy would have.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
There was plenty I found to like about The American, even though there were some big things I didn't like about it. For starters, the overall arc is pretty hoary: a worn-down hit-man wants to finish his one last job before going straight and settling down with...wait for it...a hooker with a heart of gold, who also must be the most doe-eyed, classy-looking hooker in all of Italy. Also, there's some butterfly symbolism that's incredibly heavy handed, which is rather surprising given that...
...much of the movie is pleasingly low-key. And this is what I liked best about it. Although the story may have shopworn elements, the execution is special. Not very much happens plot-wise in the film, but I found myself completely held by much of the picture, as we see, in rich detail, the painstaking process Clooney goes through to build and prepare the weapon he will deliver to an assassin as part of his last assignment. We don't know very much about Clooney's character, and we don't learn much either, but I liked this less-is-more approach: backstory would detract from this clean, spare narrative, and I think the film gains a lot in suspense simply because we don't really know all that much about any of the characters or their motivations.
I see the film won the weekend box office, which pleases me, but I also see it's getting a D— CinemaScore grade, which suggests word of mouth on this will be really bad. You almost want to throw your hands up -- people have been clamoring for serious adult movies all year long, and then we finally get one, and everyone pisses all over it. (When I saw it, several people walked out mid-film, and plenty of others left vocally angry at what they had just seen.) I can't help but feel this box-office/word-of-mouth disconnect is the result of a trailer that sold The American as something it wasn't. While advertised as an action movie, it's really more a drama with spurts of violence peppered throughout. Just about all the action you see in the movie is featured in the trailer. (Owen Gleiberman called it The Bourne Identity as directed by Antonioni, and I thought, that's right on the money.) I can't argue it would have been better box-office-wise to promote it this way -- obviously the ad campaign got butts in seats -- but I also don't think targeting the wrong audience is going to do the movie any favors in the long run either.
Regardless, I liked the movie. It's not a major work, but I settled into its quiet, intriguing groove immediately and was engaged throughout. And it's yet another example of a Clooney's commitment to solid, mainstream adult entertainment.
...much of the movie is pleasingly low-key. And this is what I liked best about it. Although the story may have shopworn elements, the execution is special. Not very much happens plot-wise in the film, but I found myself completely held by much of the picture, as we see, in rich detail, the painstaking process Clooney goes through to build and prepare the weapon he will deliver to an assassin as part of his last assignment. We don't know very much about Clooney's character, and we don't learn much either, but I liked this less-is-more approach: backstory would detract from this clean, spare narrative, and I think the film gains a lot in suspense simply because we don't really know all that much about any of the characters or their motivations.
I see the film won the weekend box office, which pleases me, but I also see it's getting a D— CinemaScore grade, which suggests word of mouth on this will be really bad. You almost want to throw your hands up -- people have been clamoring for serious adult movies all year long, and then we finally get one, and everyone pisses all over it. (When I saw it, several people walked out mid-film, and plenty of others left vocally angry at what they had just seen.) I can't help but feel this box-office/word-of-mouth disconnect is the result of a trailer that sold The American as something it wasn't. While advertised as an action movie, it's really more a drama with spurts of violence peppered throughout. Just about all the action you see in the movie is featured in the trailer. (Owen Gleiberman called it The Bourne Identity as directed by Antonioni, and I thought, that's right on the money.) I can't argue it would have been better box-office-wise to promote it this way -- obviously the ad campaign got butts in seats -- but I also don't think targeting the wrong audience is going to do the movie any favors in the long run either.
Regardless, I liked the movie. It's not a major work, but I settled into its quiet, intriguing groove immediately and was engaged throughout. And it's yet another example of a Clooney's commitment to solid, mainstream adult entertainment.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
THE LAST EXORCISM
Cast: Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell, Iris Bahr, Louis Herthum, Caleb Landry Jones.
Dir: Daniel Stamm.
First and foremost, this is still a distant cry from The Exorcist but still, it's an above-average, very solid film. That is until the last 10 minutes when, at least in my opinion, things fall apart a bit. It seemed to belong in a different movie altogether. However, the film works mostly thanks to excellent central performances of Patrick Fabian and Ashley Bell and some really effective scares.
Oscar Prospects: None.
Grade: B-
DESPICABLE ME
Cast: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, Kristen Wiig, Will Arnett, Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier, Elsie Fisher, Jack McBrayer, Danny McBride, Pierre Coffin (voices).
Dirs: Chris Renaud & Pierre Coffin.
It's no Toy Story 3. It's almost How to Train Your Dragon, however. Steve Carell is pretty damn good as the voice of Gru, the ambitious super-villain turned foster dad. There are lots of solid laughs, inventive visuals and sweetness to go around. It's far from perfect but still marks a vast improvement among the non-PIXAR CGI animated features as of late.
Oscar Prospects: If there are 5 Best Animated Feature nominees, I expect this to make the cut. It also has a shot for Original Song and possibly Score.
Grade: B
Edited By anonymous on 1283602434
Cast: Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell, Iris Bahr, Louis Herthum, Caleb Landry Jones.
Dir: Daniel Stamm.
First and foremost, this is still a distant cry from The Exorcist but still, it's an above-average, very solid film. That is until the last 10 minutes when, at least in my opinion, things fall apart a bit. It seemed to belong in a different movie altogether. However, the film works mostly thanks to excellent central performances of Patrick Fabian and Ashley Bell and some really effective scares.
Oscar Prospects: None.
Grade: B-
DESPICABLE ME
Cast: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, Kristen Wiig, Will Arnett, Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier, Elsie Fisher, Jack McBrayer, Danny McBride, Pierre Coffin (voices).
Dirs: Chris Renaud & Pierre Coffin.
It's no Toy Story 3. It's almost How to Train Your Dragon, however. Steve Carell is pretty damn good as the voice of Gru, the ambitious super-villain turned foster dad. There are lots of solid laughs, inventive visuals and sweetness to go around. It's far from perfect but still marks a vast improvement among the non-PIXAR CGI animated features as of late.
Oscar Prospects: If there are 5 Best Animated Feature nominees, I expect this to make the cut. It also has a shot for Original Song and possibly Score.
Grade: B
Edited By anonymous on 1283602434
Daniel And Ana (Michel Franco)
Brother and sister are kidnapped and forced at gunpoint to have sex together while being videotaped. Afterwards, they mope around a lot. Which is understandable, but doesn’t make for scintillating cinema. Oh, yes, the brother later masturbates into a cocktail and then serves it to a guy at a wedding. In a preface, the director informs us that, except for changing the names, everything in the movie is exactly as it happened in real life. The Mexican Cinema Renaissance hits a speed bump.
2/10
Edited By Damien on 1283392793
Brother and sister are kidnapped and forced at gunpoint to have sex together while being videotaped. Afterwards, they mope around a lot. Which is understandable, but doesn’t make for scintillating cinema. Oh, yes, the brother later masturbates into a cocktail and then serves it to a guy at a wedding. In a preface, the director informs us that, except for changing the names, everything in the movie is exactly as it happened in real life. The Mexican Cinema Renaissance hits a speed bump.
2/10
Edited By Damien on 1283392793
"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
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
SPLICE
Cast: Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley, Delphine Chaneac, Brandon McGibbon, Simona Maicanescu, David Hewlett, Abigail Chu.
Dir: Vincenzo Natali.
Two young scientists splice human DNA into a hybrid of many different animals. What could go wrong? Of course, everything does. This film wasn't as heavily edited here as I feared. I pretty much got the gist of it. The film has this aura of uneasiness around it that really worked for it for the most part plus the central performances of Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley give the film heft and credibility when it could've been just another mad scientist movie. It's far from perfect but a solid effort.
Oscar Prospects: Makeup is a possibility.
Grade: B
Cast: Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley, Delphine Chaneac, Brandon McGibbon, Simona Maicanescu, David Hewlett, Abigail Chu.
Dir: Vincenzo Natali.
Two young scientists splice human DNA into a hybrid of many different animals. What could go wrong? Of course, everything does. This film wasn't as heavily edited here as I feared. I pretty much got the gist of it. The film has this aura of uneasiness around it that really worked for it for the most part plus the central performances of Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley give the film heft and credibility when it could've been just another mad scientist movie. It's far from perfect but a solid effort.
Oscar Prospects: Makeup is a possibility.
Grade: B
-
Johnny Guitar
- Assistant
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
SLIGHT SPOILERS
Ah, Scott Pilgrim...
For me at least, Scott Pilgrim ranks as a partial disappointment because it could have been the most charming love story of the new decade. It's about this douche, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), who broke up with the drummer of his band Sex Bob-Omb in high school, starts dating a high schooler, Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), only to lead her on when he meets the literal girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and must fight her seven evil exes to win the right to date her. This is the single most hipster film you will ever see in your life.
So why does it fail as a love story? Because in the comic book, Scott ends up with Knives with whom he has had an actual relationship steeped in mutual interests, and is on the same emotional level [high school]. In this film...well, it doesn't quite go the direction I've clearly laid out, but it is there. Because the production of the film is leading towards the fact that Scott really never got to know Ramona, this commentary about concrete vs. fantasy is undermined by the ending. I find both endings unsatisfying because Scott doesn't deserve either one. He deserves to be in bed with Kieran Culkin still bitching about what's wrong with his love life. Or if the film was going the direction of Ramona Flowers, I need one scene utterly devoid of ironic detachment where I sense their mutual attraction to each other. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is outstanding in Scott Pilgrim and conveys so much history with her glances that the notion that she would ever date this dweeb is out the window. I can't recall a single more glaring act of heavy-lifting from a romantic interest since Maggie Gyllenhaal in Stranger Than Fiction. I was a fairly big fan of Michael Cera’s in Superbad and Arrested Development, but have been significantly cooling if only because I think his mannerisms have become very lazy. I know lots of people who love his titular performance here but I don’t. I think Jessie Eisenberg or another livelier screen presence could have found a better balance between his dweeb comedy and flying through the air Street Fighter-style. I never quite believed Cera as have this active a mind, or being in this band, or being any kind of lady-killer. This for me a problem because Scott Pilgrim is an incredibly lively character who must be believable as a romantic lead, a mope-monster, and a contestant in Mortal Kombat. Perhaps like Patrick Stewart in the X-Movies, Cera’s casting was all too anticipated that it already feels over. It is worth noting that this is his best work since Superbad and move than a few line-readings had me laughing for quite some time after their delivery.
What the film does get right and what it thrives on is Edgar Wright's mash-up sensibilities. He is the quickest mainstream American filmmaker, but with an eye for detail and moments. Unlike Guy Ritchie, his frenetic style is the furthest thing from hackery. Every rapidly cut shot conveys a humor, emotion, and strings along a narrative that depends on it. Credit the fantastic cast who Wright knows how to make exceptional use of. As with Ghost World, every single performance in Scott Pilgrim feels both calculated and organic. The Nintendo-style graphics that surround Scott & co. may be present in the graphic novel, but it’s Wright that absolutely owns it. I could see some backing off from it, as I myself became a mite wearied halfway through, but this is mostly due to reasons re: the relationship problems I discussed earlier. But it is astonishing that Wright has pulled off this imaginative world as well as he has. Think Scrubs on Ritalin.
Every once in a while, you get a summer movie that is just a blast, a kind of meat and potatoes that reminds you of why you first started sitting down to eat in your teens. Since 1995 when I first lost it at the movies, I felt that way during Toy Story, Face/Off, Men in Black, The Matrix, Spider-Man 1 & 2, The Dark Knight…and Scott Pilgrim joins them. It’s just a blast and the most fun I’ve had at the movies this year. If the opening image of the Universal logo re-done in 8bit with an OMF-recording of the theme is enough to make you laugh, it’s for you. If you’re rolling your eyes already, I’m sure The Kids Are All Right is playing somewhere nearby.
Ah, Scott Pilgrim...
For me at least, Scott Pilgrim ranks as a partial disappointment because it could have been the most charming love story of the new decade. It's about this douche, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), who broke up with the drummer of his band Sex Bob-Omb in high school, starts dating a high schooler, Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), only to lead her on when he meets the literal girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and must fight her seven evil exes to win the right to date her. This is the single most hipster film you will ever see in your life.
So why does it fail as a love story? Because in the comic book, Scott ends up with Knives with whom he has had an actual relationship steeped in mutual interests, and is on the same emotional level [high school]. In this film...well, it doesn't quite go the direction I've clearly laid out, but it is there. Because the production of the film is leading towards the fact that Scott really never got to know Ramona, this commentary about concrete vs. fantasy is undermined by the ending. I find both endings unsatisfying because Scott doesn't deserve either one. He deserves to be in bed with Kieran Culkin still bitching about what's wrong with his love life. Or if the film was going the direction of Ramona Flowers, I need one scene utterly devoid of ironic detachment where I sense their mutual attraction to each other. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is outstanding in Scott Pilgrim and conveys so much history with her glances that the notion that she would ever date this dweeb is out the window. I can't recall a single more glaring act of heavy-lifting from a romantic interest since Maggie Gyllenhaal in Stranger Than Fiction. I was a fairly big fan of Michael Cera’s in Superbad and Arrested Development, but have been significantly cooling if only because I think his mannerisms have become very lazy. I know lots of people who love his titular performance here but I don’t. I think Jessie Eisenberg or another livelier screen presence could have found a better balance between his dweeb comedy and flying through the air Street Fighter-style. I never quite believed Cera as have this active a mind, or being in this band, or being any kind of lady-killer. This for me a problem because Scott Pilgrim is an incredibly lively character who must be believable as a romantic lead, a mope-monster, and a contestant in Mortal Kombat. Perhaps like Patrick Stewart in the X-Movies, Cera’s casting was all too anticipated that it already feels over. It is worth noting that this is his best work since Superbad and move than a few line-readings had me laughing for quite some time after their delivery.
What the film does get right and what it thrives on is Edgar Wright's mash-up sensibilities. He is the quickest mainstream American filmmaker, but with an eye for detail and moments. Unlike Guy Ritchie, his frenetic style is the furthest thing from hackery. Every rapidly cut shot conveys a humor, emotion, and strings along a narrative that depends on it. Credit the fantastic cast who Wright knows how to make exceptional use of. As with Ghost World, every single performance in Scott Pilgrim feels both calculated and organic. The Nintendo-style graphics that surround Scott & co. may be present in the graphic novel, but it’s Wright that absolutely owns it. I could see some backing off from it, as I myself became a mite wearied halfway through, but this is mostly due to reasons re: the relationship problems I discussed earlier. But it is astonishing that Wright has pulled off this imaginative world as well as he has. Think Scrubs on Ritalin.
Every once in a while, you get a summer movie that is just a blast, a kind of meat and potatoes that reminds you of why you first started sitting down to eat in your teens. Since 1995 when I first lost it at the movies, I felt that way during Toy Story, Face/Off, Men in Black, The Matrix, Spider-Man 1 & 2, The Dark Knight…and Scott Pilgrim joins them. It’s just a blast and the most fun I’ve had at the movies this year. If the opening image of the Universal logo re-done in 8bit with an OMF-recording of the theme is enough to make you laugh, it’s for you. If you’re rolling your eyes already, I’m sure The Kids Are All Right is playing somewhere nearby.
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Life During Wartime (through the watch-at-home miracle of Time Warner/IFC)
I was a huge fan of Happiness. I thought it suggested where Woody Allen at his peak might have gone next; easily one of the best original scripts of the 90s.
Storytelling was thus a huge letdown. Even in Happiness, Solondz had had clear misathropy/scuzz issues, and, without full control of his material, those elements came to the fore and created a sour experience.
Life During Wartime lands somewhere in-between. It's, as most know, a sequel, or at least companion piece, to Happiness. I'm not sure how it plays for anyone unaware of the first film. It certainly doesn't measure up, consistently, and once again there are scenes bound to e offputtin for many. But there are a few scenes that play very strongly, and reminded me of why I liked the earlier film so much.
The opening scene is jarring in some ways. It deliberately recalls the Lovitz/Adams restaurant confrontation that opened Happiness -- the Adams character (now played by Shirley Henderson) even says she's experiencing deja vu. But her boyfriend/husband is apparently the obscene phone call-making character played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who was involved with her sister (Lara Flynn Boyle/now Ally Sheedy) in the earlier film. And he's now a black man.
This created real confusion for me -- why did Solondz cast so many replacement actors very like their precessors (the two already noted, Alison Janney replacing Cynthia Stevenson, Renee Taylor taking over for Louise Lasser, even PeeWee Herman doing a comedian-for-comedian swap with Lovitz), but then radically change not one but two characters? The other one's a real doozy: Dylan Baker's child molester is now played by Ciaran Hinds...two actors as distant in physical/personality type as one could imagine. Had this been the only such radical change, I might have taken it as Solondz's metaphor for what a prison term did for Baker. But, in tandem with the (utterly unexplained) Hoffman to black man shift, it makes the writer/director's choices feel random.
Random is, actually, a word that might be applied to much of Life During Wartime. Happiness didn't have the strongest through-line, but it had a coherence lacking here. The film starts as if Henderson's visits to various family members will provide the structure, but then drops the method 2/3 through. There are interesting plot moments, but without some unifying thread it's hard to know what the film is really about -- other than an over-explicated search for "forgiveness". The film is thus one of those that doesn't so much end as stop.
But, as I said, there are strong vignettes. Charlotte Rampling appears for a brief, lacerating encounter. And Hinds' scene looking up his grown son at his college dorm -- which of course recalls the gripping conversations these characters had in Happiness -- is perhas the strongest moment in the film.
What I lked best about it, though: an absolutely lovely title ballad -- an odd couple collaboration between Solondz and Marc Shaiman, given a few bars by Henderson during the flm and then played in its entirety over the credits. Given the often bitter context, the song feels beautifully soothing, and may be the sweetest thing to emerge from such a sour film since More popped up during Mondo Cane.
I was a huge fan of Happiness. I thought it suggested where Woody Allen at his peak might have gone next; easily one of the best original scripts of the 90s.
Storytelling was thus a huge letdown. Even in Happiness, Solondz had had clear misathropy/scuzz issues, and, without full control of his material, those elements came to the fore and created a sour experience.
Life During Wartime lands somewhere in-between. It's, as most know, a sequel, or at least companion piece, to Happiness. I'm not sure how it plays for anyone unaware of the first film. It certainly doesn't measure up, consistently, and once again there are scenes bound to e offputtin for many. But there are a few scenes that play very strongly, and reminded me of why I liked the earlier film so much.
The opening scene is jarring in some ways. It deliberately recalls the Lovitz/Adams restaurant confrontation that opened Happiness -- the Adams character (now played by Shirley Henderson) even says she's experiencing deja vu. But her boyfriend/husband is apparently the obscene phone call-making character played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who was involved with her sister (Lara Flynn Boyle/now Ally Sheedy) in the earlier film. And he's now a black man.
This created real confusion for me -- why did Solondz cast so many replacement actors very like their precessors (the two already noted, Alison Janney replacing Cynthia Stevenson, Renee Taylor taking over for Louise Lasser, even PeeWee Herman doing a comedian-for-comedian swap with Lovitz), but then radically change not one but two characters? The other one's a real doozy: Dylan Baker's child molester is now played by Ciaran Hinds...two actors as distant in physical/personality type as one could imagine. Had this been the only such radical change, I might have taken it as Solondz's metaphor for what a prison term did for Baker. But, in tandem with the (utterly unexplained) Hoffman to black man shift, it makes the writer/director's choices feel random.
Random is, actually, a word that might be applied to much of Life During Wartime. Happiness didn't have the strongest through-line, but it had a coherence lacking here. The film starts as if Henderson's visits to various family members will provide the structure, but then drops the method 2/3 through. There are interesting plot moments, but without some unifying thread it's hard to know what the film is really about -- other than an over-explicated search for "forgiveness". The film is thus one of those that doesn't so much end as stop.
But, as I said, there are strong vignettes. Charlotte Rampling appears for a brief, lacerating encounter. And Hinds' scene looking up his grown son at his college dorm -- which of course recalls the gripping conversations these characters had in Happiness -- is perhas the strongest moment in the film.
What I lked best about it, though: an absolutely lovely title ballad -- an odd couple collaboration between Solondz and Marc Shaiman, given a few bars by Henderson during the flm and then played in its entirety over the credits. Given the often bitter context, the song feels beautifully soothing, and may be the sweetest thing to emerge from such a sour film since More popped up during Mondo Cane.
Winter's Bone--Debra Granik
A disappointment after reading the ecstatic reviews. A very good job creating an alien world in the heartland of America. It was sometimes downright scary when Jennifer Lawrence's character Ree would approach certain houses while on her search. But I was not very impressed with any of the actors, including Jennifer. Competent, but I do not think she has the charisma to carry a film and this entire film is on her shoulders. And the other actors were all cliche hillbillies. And the story is not particularly original (I have heard the novel is a very good read. The author, Daniel Woodrell, supposedly creates wonderful images which I am sure helped Granik.). I am almost positive I have seen the exact same story in a TV movie where the daughter is searching urban crack houses to track down her deadbeat dad and runs across a lot of dangerous characters. Worth seeing but I would wait and put it in your Netflix queue instead of paying ten dollars like I did. But it is good to support independent film
Grade: C+
Edited By kaytodd on 1281893644
A disappointment after reading the ecstatic reviews. A very good job creating an alien world in the heartland of America. It was sometimes downright scary when Jennifer Lawrence's character Ree would approach certain houses while on her search. But I was not very impressed with any of the actors, including Jennifer. Competent, but I do not think she has the charisma to carry a film and this entire film is on her shoulders. And the other actors were all cliche hillbillies. And the story is not particularly original (I have heard the novel is a very good read. The author, Daniel Woodrell, supposedly creates wonderful images which I am sure helped Granik.). I am almost positive I have seen the exact same story in a TV movie where the daughter is searching urban crack houses to track down her deadbeat dad and runs across a lot of dangerous characters. Worth seeing but I would wait and put it in your Netflix queue instead of paying ten dollars like I did. But it is good to support independent film
Grade: C+
Edited By kaytodd on 1281893644
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes