Christ, Irwin, do you really think your time on earth is so long that you can give over 3 hours of your existence (including travel tie to the theatre) to sit through something like this?
.
Christ, Irwin, do you really think your time on earth is so long that you can give over 3 hours of your existence (including travel time to the theatre) to sit through something like this?
"Adults" who go to cartoons never cease to amaze me.
Edited By Damien on 1227980630
"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
BOLT
Cast: John Travolta, Miley Cyrus, Susie Essman, Mark Walton, Malcolm McDowell, James Lipton, Greg Germann, Diedrich Bader, Nick Swardson (voices).
Dirs: Byron Howard and Chris Williams.
It's still no PIXAR but John Lasseter's influence is very much evident in this still just a little above okay Disney animated feature. Formulaic to be sure (a mixture of Homeward Bound meets The Truman Show meets action move parody) but quite entertaining. It is a tad too overlong (even at 96 minutes). Susie Essman's voice work is a highlight (funny to actually hear her voice and not hear "FUCK YOU, LARRY!" or "JEFF, YOU FAT FUCK!").
Oscar Prospects: Sound Editing, maybe. Could sneak in Animated Feature.
Although I agree with Mr. Tee that the immigration issue in the Visitor is not portrayed with any complexity, I think that this is not what this movie is really about. I think, like The Station Agent, this movie is about the power of friendship; about lonely, disconnected people finding some connection and some redemption from that. The "plot," in this case the immigration issue, is really incidental. It's simply a device (awkward in parts, yes, especially Jenkin's outburst at the dention center) to show that relationships can be fleeting, yet powerful. The contrivances in the movie to me are forgivable because they are in the service of a deeper message that I found very moving. I see few American movies that are this human. I liked it a lot.
Correct, Mister Tee. My ultra-brief review of "The Visitor" is in the LAST MOVIE SEEN thread, and you've all pretty much covered my reservations.
I thought "The Station Agent" was breathtaking in its utter lack of originality, unoriginal in conception, in characterization, in narrative, in development, in setting, in visual style. But Tom McCarthy had an unerring instinct of what a low-budget indie ensembler was supposed to look like. After all, he clearly studied fifty of them very, very closely before making his own. The result was received, 2nd-hand eccentricity of the safest, warmest, most deliberate sort. Between this and "The Visitor", I'm convinced McCarthy is a computer program, monitoring all the raw data of what makes a low-budget film most effective to audiences of above-average intelligence, below-average discernment and skyrocketing levels of reflexive self-congratulations. At least "The Visitor" manages some initial intrigue as we see the story unfold to wherever it's going and expect the narrative and character development to lead us somewhere interesting. It doesn't, and although the fate of one of its characters is ultimately poignant, it's pretty much a given that it would be, despite all the manipulations it takes to get there. And the biggest reason why this fails is Jenkins, who does whatever he can, I guess, with such a deliberately underwritten character, belying the phrase "less is more". He's pretty much the Chauncy Gardner of college professors, only emotionally one-note rather than bereft of emotions. First he trudges through life despondent and angry, wholly unaware other people exist. By the end of the film, he's on a different note, but still one-note. Now he'll go through life in a state of geeky euphoria, wholly unaware of how ridiculous he looks banging that drum in a business suit. He doesn't come across as someone transformed by some great humanistic experience that changed his life so much as a guy who was just beaned in the back of the head by a two-by-four.
The film fails as a character study because the characters are sliver-thin contrivances. It fails as a film of interpersonal relationships because Jenkins' character is much too passive. He just watches the events unfold before him as do the rest of us, and so there's no true give-and-take between himself and Tarek. (Prof. Vale gains enlightenment and a personality makeover, but what does Tarek take away from this friendship? Nothing, really. Vale is allowed into this strange world of the immigrant and serves as our observer.) It fails as a message film because the deck is way, way stacked. (Remember that scene in the detention center waiting room where Vale has his poorly-written outburst? Embarrassing.) It does engage as a general portrayal of a man unwittingly thrust into a messy situation and watching it play out beyond his control before him, but as I've already mentioned, McCarthy is very effective with the calculated stuff. Thank goodness for the women. Hiam Abbass (who looks only ten years older than her son) displays winning candor and authentic depth of feeling, and Denai Jekesai Gurira is a sort of outside observer herself. She views the proceedings with an aura of skepticism, with a level of mistrust of everything around her, as if even she can't believe what's going on. Needless to say, I found her most disarming.
I think 'The Visitor' is almost tastefully problematic. I understand the hype but I don't agree with it, but by the same token dismissals are just too easy. It is a white man's burden movie but most of those films are prone to histrionics; and, although 'The Visitor' has one of those moments by way of Jenkins' third act outburst, it's rather earned, or rather enough earned. I think it's a minor film that knows its minor and contents itself as such.
I think what it comes down to and the main reason I find it more palatable than I should is that in a scant two films Tom McCarthy has established himself as a filmmaker who extols the virtue of friendship. He's a tasteful die-hard liberal who allows his characters' burdens to be momentarily indignant. Peter Dinklage standing on the stool: "Here I am! Take a look!" Same with Jenkins' admittedly clichéd character. He's fine although I preferred his work in 'Burn After Reading' this year. I don't think he deserves a nomination but it's always nice to see a character actor like him get recognized. So many people have worked with him that that may be enough to prevail.
For what it is, it's not worth getting excited about. For what it could be, it's fine.
My thoughts on The Visitor disappeared when the board went down, so here's take two:
I can see why people liked this film. As Sabin said in another thread, its modesty is a virtue, and it depicts some relatively interesting relationships that aren't often seen in movies. But I thought the material was pretty thin, built on the kind of contrived, O. Henry-type conceit that typically leads to pat storytelling. (Let's put it this way: I predicted what the final scene would be about a half an hour before the movie ended.)
Plus, it's a little troubling morally, yet another film about the immigrant experience in America told from the point of view of the Benevolent White Guy Who Changes Forever After His Noble Liberal Behavior. (There's even a scene with a racist woman seemingly hijacked from Paul Haggis-land.)
There are, indeed, some tender and lovely moments between Hiam Abbas and Richard Jenkins, but I have to side with Mister Tee in thinking that Jenkins has been rather surprisingly heralded. I'd be shocked if he hung on throughout awards season: aside from a brief outburst during the end of the film, there's nothing remotely flashy about the performance. And to me this was less an example of the power of subtlety than solid work by an actor in a pretty thin role. (I didn't really think he fleshed out the character much beyond what was there on the page.)
Has its nice moments, but I think this minor effort is woefully miscast as an awards contender.
Speaking of awards contenders, I also caught up with Kung Fu Panda, which will definitely be nominated for Best Animated Feature. It's nothing to rush out and rent -- the storyline, while amiable, is mostly standard animation fare, though it's thankfully devoid of the potty humor that fills too many kids movies these days. The visuals, though, are pretty beautiful. I was quite impressed by the gorgeous quality of the colors, the detail of the backgrounds, and the imagination of the character work. It's not Pixar, but a film this lush-looking and mostly well-liked should have no problem picking up at least a nomination.
I took the ending more as Jenkins' character mourning the fate of his friend, maybe even defying the authorities to try to do to him what they did to Tariq.
I was hoping for a happy ending to the film with Tariq somehow beating the system with a coda or proviso that this is not how these stories usually end. It's not that I'm opposed to "sad" or "realistic" endings, but why does every film nowadays have to have one? Isn't there room for optimism and hope in movies anymore?
--rain Bard wrote:Do your really think that's going to be the take-away for all but the most smugly self-satisfied audience members? I think more people see/saw it as more like a call to action- so this guy couldn't ultimately enact change, but perhaps we can. It may not be a sentiment that lasts longer than it takes to seal up the Netflix envelope, granted. But it seems more likely than the interpretation you're giving it...
I wouldn't dispute that McCarthy is very much on the side of reform -- as I say, he all but gauzes over the issue to make sure we feel that way. But ending with Jenkins in the subway, having the life he earlier indicated he was hesitant about, creates a vague "at least THIS worked out positively" vibe. It reminded me a bit of the "black man is martyred but white man carries on the crusade" thing for which movies like Cry Freedom and Ghosts of Mississippi were lambasted.
Do your really think that's going to be the take-away for all but the most smugly self-satisfied audience members? I think more people see/saw it as more like a call to action- so this guy couldn't ultimately enact change, but perhaps we can. It may not be a sentiment that lasts longer than it takes to seal up the Netflix envelope, granted. But it seems more likely than the interpretation you're giving it...
I was fairly sure I'd seen Sonic review The Vistor somewhere in this thread, but I can't locate it. I do recall he was mostly unimpressed, and I have to offer my agreement.
The first thing to say is, Tom McCarthy works from a pallette almost as limited as early Jim Jarmusch, without the indie cool. Station Agent got by despite being rather parched because it had fairly vivid actors and characters to compensate for the lack of story. Here, McCarthy has solid-enough actors, but, except for the mother, he's failed to draw much in the way of interesting characters, so the landscape feels pretty barren.
To begin with, Jenkins' character is a hopeless cliche -- the dried-out academic looking to reconnect with life. Then the plot set-up requires us to accept all sorts of contrivances. This one-class professor is somehow able to maintain a luxurious home in CT and a roomy Village apartment? Unless his late wife left him royalties beyond belief, I don't buy it. He comes to his apartment and finds squatters -- two people he's never seen, people likely greatly foreign to his experience -- and he says, fine, stick around? Of course, this is made easier by the fact that Tariq is just about the sweetest, most agreeable and likable guy you could imagine (his girlfriend is a little cooler) -- and then he teaches Jenkins to become an adequate drummer in about three lessons.
So far, a fairy tale...but then it becomes a fairy tale with an unhappy ending, as Tariq, utterly by accident, becomes ensnared in the immigration process, where it's discovered he's in the country illegally. I don't claim to have any special insight on the immigration issue -- I reflexively oppose the GOP/Tancredo view, but find it hard to see how "let anyone in who arrives" can work. In any case, this film doesn't try to engage us on any intellectual/political level. As far as McCarthy is concerned, Tariq is a wonderful guy who should be allowed to stay in the county, and anyone who disagrees is evil. I find it insulting to have a complex issue presented to me this way. Given the way Tariq is characterized, you're programmed almost point by point to think of his incarceration/possible deportation the same way you would a lovable stray dog taken to the pound -- with complete sympathy and, maybe, tears.
That stray dog plot line did evoke tears back in the 20s and 30s, and the variation pulls you in some here; I think it explains why the film was such an unexpected success. (That, and being about the only adult option back in late Spring) And, to be fair, the relationship between Jenkins and the mother (too lazy to look up her name) holds some interest. But what slim pickings. The Jenkins performance has been much touted, but mostly, I think, it falls into that drab, Look how restrained he's being niche -- with the exception of his few scenes near the end, which would have to be his designated clips, were he to be successfully promoted for an Oscar nod.
And the ending -- talk about reinforcing yourself as do-gooder pablum! Tariq is punished, his mother selflessly follows along...but the aging white guy has a fuller life. There's a pleasing moral for middlebrow white audiences to take home.
BURN AFTER READING
Cast: George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Brad Pitt, Tilda Swinton, Richard Jenkins, David Rasche, J.K. Simmons, Elizabeth Marvel, Jeffrey DeMunn.
Dirs: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
Although it's far from their best work (people expecting another No Country for Old Men will be disappointed) this film is still a fun, solid black comedy, the kind only the Coen brothers can make. The cast seem to have fun with their respective roles especially Brad Pitt who's simply freakin' hilarious.
Oscar Prospects: I wouldn't object to a Supporting Actor nom for Pitt.
Watching the film this afternoon I was wondering why Scarlet Johansen has the career that Michelle Williams should rightfully have.
Tits?
When one thinks about Michelle Williams, one doesn't immediately think of 'Dawson's Creek'. Scarlett Johansson is career-handicapped for life. Michelle Williams survived Heath Ledger and the WB. She's fine. We'll have her for decades.
--Sabin wrote:Michelle Williams is fine in a small-ish role as the actress that Caden begins to date and court and spend a small lifetime with but within the constructs of his play. She has a fairly vanilla girlfriend role but she's fine.
Watching the film this afternoon I was wondering why Scarlet Johansen has the career that Michelle Williams should rightfully have.
Yes, I think that's a good idea. I wouldn't want to spoil anything for anyone, but since a lot of the movie rests on the ending, it's worth having a separate thread for those things that are tough to discuss in vague terms.
