I live-twittered the film Elizabethtown as I was watching it on TNT:
road trip took a little long, was that like a 12-minute montage?
1:41 PM Jun 13th from web
yeah, Clare doing that camera clicking thing and now making that ridiculously accurate book, supercreepy (and superhot)
1:28 PM Jun 13th from web
Oh, so Ben is god and Clarie is with Ben? so this guy's in a 3-way love triangle with god?
1:28 PM Jun 13th from web
apparently, Clare is a fallen angel from god: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/ANSWERMAN/606250305/1023
12:56 PM Jun 13th from web
Clare directing the people out of the fire-sprinkler induced chaos like a flight-attendant, nice touch..and then last look, good too
12:44 PM Jun 13th from web
Susan Sorandon dancing at the funeral was ridiculous but really effective and nearly tear-inducingly touching
12:40 PM Jun 13th from web
Susan Sorandon @ the funeral: I loved mitch b/c i couldn't function w/o him. literally:i'm probably legally retarded
12:33 PM Jun 13th from web
ehh, kind of lazy to intertwine a convo about romance and a convo about business together IMO, so jealous of orlando bloom now, btw
12:21 PM Jun 13th from web
so ben's out of the picture, but why was he in the picture in the 1st place? ewww, are you two making out next to daddy's dead body?
12:19 PM Jun 13th from web
i'm officially sad that kirsten dunst or anyone like her doesn't show up when i'm on a plane, cause yeah, she's stalkeish but iminluvwithher
12:13 PM Jun 13th from web
cameron, why did you write the other guy, ben, in the story?
12:08 PM Jun 13th from web
true story: uncle met my aunt as a flight attendant and rode her flight 20 X before eventually asking her out, maybe he'd like this film?
12:05 PM Jun 13th from web
is alec baldwin coming back into this movie? please comeback, alec and provide some deadpan comic stylings
12:01 PM Jun 13th from web
cameron why have you made judy greer and susan sorandon out to be laurel and hardy? i'm referring to the bumbling fix-a-car scene
11:59 AM Jun 13th from web
i wish i had a soundtrack playing in the background of my life so i could know which phone convos were important and which i could hang up
11:57 AM Jun 13th from web
...that must have been kind of awkward
11:55 AM Jun 13th from web
cameron: remember when u interviewed your idol billy wilder in that book and asked about rock music and he was all like "that's crap"
11:51 AM Jun 13th from web
cameron crowe: i know you love rock music, but stop drowning out the conversations with it
11:49 AM Jun 13th from web
oh, screw it: if kirsten dunst was a flight attendant who showed me obsessive attention n a red eye flight, i'd probably like it too
11:48 AM Jun 13th from web
is kirsten dunst bad at her job, stalkerishly obsessed on 1st site or both? apparently, because she's hot the audience will forgive her
11:45 AM Jun 13th from web
cameron crowe doesn't think much of females so far:flight attendants are pretty girls who only take the job to meet mr. right and...orlando bloom's sister and mother have no idea how to make funeral arrangements
11:37 AM Jun 13th from web
live twittering elizabethtown:hope this movie isn't too sentimental and/or mushy for me at this time of day
11:34 AM Jun 13th from web
Again: Follow me on twitter at okonh0wp or here at www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner
Showing posts with label Movies 2005. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies 2005. Show all posts
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Review of The Island
Island, dir. by Michael Bay (2005), Starring Scarlett Johannson, Ewan MaGregor, Sean Bean, Djimon Hotsou, Ethan Phillips, Michael Clarke Duncan, Steve Buscemi
Michael Bay usually achieves high grosses on films that are rejected by critics and most moviegoers of good taste. Richard Roeper called Bad Boys II the worst picture of the decade. Therefore, it was kind of odd that this 2005 film turned out to be a little bit the opposite: It completely bombed at the box office, making for Bay's lowest film to date, yet it might have been his most interesting film.
"The Island" is a sci-fi film along the lines of GATTACA or I, Robot, set in some dystopian future, where the protagonist comes to the rescue of everything by transcending the limits of what the more rigidly stratified society places on him. It's also incredibly close to the plot of the truly awful Arnold Schwarzenegger film Sixth Day, but that film was so hauntingly abysmal that I don't even want to devote an entire sentence to plot synopsis for fear of the awful memories it will bring up. Nevertheless, the story revolves around a futuristic factory that promises to prolong the lives of its clients through cloning the clinets and using the clones' organs for transplants. The clones live in this isolated world with implanted memories and the idea that there is no life outside of this world. They're made to perform tasks that lead to the operation of the factory, so that saves labor costs. The only salvation for the clones is the belief that they will be taken to a paradise called the island if they're selected in a lottery, but in reality when a clone wins the lottery, that means the client needs an organ and the clone is killed. Ewan MaGregor and Scarlett Johannson play two clones who somehow find out about this outside world and are on the lam from the people who run the factory who view this as a doomsday scenario. So, being a Michael Bay film, this is also an action film, and a great one at that.
As I said earlier, it's by far Michael Bay's most interesting film but the plot leaves a lot to be desired. While I'm a sucker for a good sci-fi film, there seems to a complete ignorance of the fact that we've made a lot of progress in terms of harvesting replacement organs already that doesn't require building entire clones. I also feel like the premise attempts too hard to position the story of two runaway clones as the defining tale of this futuristic society to be a little bit of a stretch. Sean Bean is not playing God and can't make people immortal, because there's a point with many diseases beyond where a single organ replacement can save a life anyway, despite what he claims.
Also, considering the quality of the cast, the acting is a little subpar. Ewan MaGregor has the challenge of playing two people and I applaud him for that, but with the exception of Sean Bean, I don't really feel like anyone gave a remotely memorable performance. Visually, there were a lot of interesting things to look at, but it didn't look like anyone bothered to dress up the exterior shots to look equally as futuristic as the clone factory.
Michael Bay usually achieves high grosses on films that are rejected by critics and most moviegoers of good taste. Richard Roeper called Bad Boys II the worst picture of the decade. Therefore, it was kind of odd that this 2005 film turned out to be a little bit the opposite: It completely bombed at the box office, making for Bay's lowest film to date, yet it might have been his most interesting film.
"The Island" is a sci-fi film along the lines of GATTACA or I, Robot, set in some dystopian future, where the protagonist comes to the rescue of everything by transcending the limits of what the more rigidly stratified society places on him. It's also incredibly close to the plot of the truly awful Arnold Schwarzenegger film Sixth Day, but that film was so hauntingly abysmal that I don't even want to devote an entire sentence to plot synopsis for fear of the awful memories it will bring up. Nevertheless, the story revolves around a futuristic factory that promises to prolong the lives of its clients through cloning the clinets and using the clones' organs for transplants. The clones live in this isolated world with implanted memories and the idea that there is no life outside of this world. They're made to perform tasks that lead to the operation of the factory, so that saves labor costs. The only salvation for the clones is the belief that they will be taken to a paradise called the island if they're selected in a lottery, but in reality when a clone wins the lottery, that means the client needs an organ and the clone is killed. Ewan MaGregor and Scarlett Johannson play two clones who somehow find out about this outside world and are on the lam from the people who run the factory who view this as a doomsday scenario. So, being a Michael Bay film, this is also an action film, and a great one at that.
As I said earlier, it's by far Michael Bay's most interesting film but the plot leaves a lot to be desired. While I'm a sucker for a good sci-fi film, there seems to a complete ignorance of the fact that we've made a lot of progress in terms of harvesting replacement organs already that doesn't require building entire clones. I also feel like the premise attempts too hard to position the story of two runaway clones as the defining tale of this futuristic society to be a little bit of a stretch. Sean Bean is not playing God and can't make people immortal, because there's a point with many diseases beyond where a single organ replacement can save a life anyway, despite what he claims.
Also, considering the quality of the cast, the acting is a little subpar. Ewan MaGregor has the challenge of playing two people and I applaud him for that, but with the exception of Sean Bean, I don't really feel like anyone gave a remotely memorable performance. Visually, there were a lot of interesting things to look at, but it didn't look like anyone bothered to dress up the exterior shots to look equally as futuristic as the clone factory.
Friday, December 28, 2007
The mathematics of Guess Who
Guess Who: 2 ½ (2005): 1 ½ stars (out of 4)
Ashton Kutcher meets his future father-in-law (Bernie Mac) for the first time and laughs arise aplenty from the cultural clashes that occur. This film is a remake of a 1960’s social commentary film, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” but it comes across more as a remake of Meet the Parents with black jokes than it does a message picture. This film is so derivative, in fact, that I can actually be summed up in a mathematical formula:
2/3 (Meet the Parents + Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner -1 – Social Significance – Ben Stiller + My Boss’s Daughter’s Ashton Kutcher) + 1/3 (half-hour sitcom of the UPN) = Guess Who.
So that pretty much sums it up right there. Not only is the picture formulaic, but I can give you this picture in an actual mathematical formula and you could probably predict the plot development at any given point:
And here’s a key to how the plot works:
The movie is supposed to be a loose remake of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, a socially conscious picture from the 1960’s about an interracial couple seeking their parents’ approval. The exponent of -1 is because the racial roles in the film are reversed. I also subtract the social significance because in the 1960’s an interracial couple would have have faced threats to their lives as well as discrimination in employment and housing whereas the worst a 2005 interracial couple would have to face would be arguments over whether to watch BET or CBS. There’s also a little bit of My Boss’s Daughter thrown in. In that film, Kutcher also played a young professional trying to impress his love interest’s father, and it was Kutcher’s very last film, so if you’re wondering if anyone’s getting bored of seeing Kutcher in the same role over and over again, well, apparently not Ashton Kutcher.
In the third act of the film, when both Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher have made their respective love interests so angry that they leave them, then the two have to team up to get them black and Ashton Kutcher “blacks it up” by singing some Barry White to his fiancée to serenade her back. This part significantly deviates a little from the message-less social significance remake/Meet the Parents hybrid and turns into one of those shows on the now deceased UPN filled with clichés.
But nevertheless, this doesn’t rule out any and all merit to the film (it rules out most of it, though). I’m not that much of a stickler for originality anyway. I ended up judging the picture more as a genre film now, in that I’m seeing how it handles the conventions of this same plot that I’ve see in A Guy Thing, Meet the Parents, The In-Laws, My Boss’s Daughter, etc. So here are my notes:
-Ashton Kutcher and the leading lady have no chemistry whatsoever, if the film is going to earn the right to be a remake of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, that would’ve been key. This same thing happened in the Score with Angela Bassett and Robert De Niro or “Executive Decision” with Kurt Russell and Halle Berry and I have yet to see a film with an interracial couple with any chemistry, although I think Pierce Brosnam and Halle Berry came close.
-Bernie Mac was surprisingly good. Judging by his work in Ocean’s 11, where he’s the stereotypical threatening black guy in Ocean’s 11, or a vice presidential candidate with the potential to make Dan Quayle look like a member of MENSA, I might have expected Mac to cater to negative African-American stereotypes, but I felt like he tight roped a thin line between being humorous and being a dignified father figure
-Ok, Bernie Mac going to sleep with Ashton Kutcher was kind of funny, I will admit and the fact that he didn’t just sleep in his bed the first night but every night thereafter was also pretty funny.
-The sideplot of Ashton Kutcher losing his buiness was more interesting than the main plot, and since this plot is so derivative, I might have preferred to see that as the film in retrospect
-The climactic conversation is funny, I’ll give it that
-An akward attempt at slight commentary here: stereotypes with sports, the “I had a black girlfriend, I’m not racist"
-The advantage is that Bernie Mac can be more corrosive or scary which could lead to more comedic situations
Ashton Kutcher meets his future father-in-law (Bernie Mac) for the first time and laughs arise aplenty from the cultural clashes that occur. This film is a remake of a 1960’s social commentary film, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” but it comes across more as a remake of Meet the Parents with black jokes than it does a message picture. This film is so derivative, in fact, that I can actually be summed up in a mathematical formula:
2/3 (Meet the Parents + Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner -1 – Social Significance – Ben Stiller + My Boss’s Daughter’s Ashton Kutcher) + 1/3 (half-hour sitcom of the UPN) = Guess Who.
So that pretty much sums it up right there. Not only is the picture formulaic, but I can give you this picture in an actual mathematical formula and you could probably predict the plot development at any given point:
And here’s a key to how the plot works:
The movie is supposed to be a loose remake of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, a socially conscious picture from the 1960’s about an interracial couple seeking their parents’ approval. The exponent of -1 is because the racial roles in the film are reversed. I also subtract the social significance because in the 1960’s an interracial couple would have have faced threats to their lives as well as discrimination in employment and housing whereas the worst a 2005 interracial couple would have to face would be arguments over whether to watch BET or CBS. There’s also a little bit of My Boss’s Daughter thrown in. In that film, Kutcher also played a young professional trying to impress his love interest’s father, and it was Kutcher’s very last film, so if you’re wondering if anyone’s getting bored of seeing Kutcher in the same role over and over again, well, apparently not Ashton Kutcher.
In the third act of the film, when both Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher have made their respective love interests so angry that they leave them, then the two have to team up to get them black and Ashton Kutcher “blacks it up” by singing some Barry White to his fiancée to serenade her back. This part significantly deviates a little from the message-less social significance remake/Meet the Parents hybrid and turns into one of those shows on the now deceased UPN filled with clichés.
But nevertheless, this doesn’t rule out any and all merit to the film (it rules out most of it, though). I’m not that much of a stickler for originality anyway. I ended up judging the picture more as a genre film now, in that I’m seeing how it handles the conventions of this same plot that I’ve see in A Guy Thing, Meet the Parents, The In-Laws, My Boss’s Daughter, etc. So here are my notes:
-Ashton Kutcher and the leading lady have no chemistry whatsoever, if the film is going to earn the right to be a remake of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, that would’ve been key. This same thing happened in the Score with Angela Bassett and Robert De Niro or “Executive Decision” with Kurt Russell and Halle Berry and I have yet to see a film with an interracial couple with any chemistry, although I think Pierce Brosnam and Halle Berry came close.
-Bernie Mac was surprisingly good. Judging by his work in Ocean’s 11, where he’s the stereotypical threatening black guy in Ocean’s 11, or a vice presidential candidate with the potential to make Dan Quayle look like a member of MENSA, I might have expected Mac to cater to negative African-American stereotypes, but I felt like he tight roped a thin line between being humorous and being a dignified father figure
-Ok, Bernie Mac going to sleep with Ashton Kutcher was kind of funny, I will admit and the fact that he didn’t just sleep in his bed the first night but every night thereafter was also pretty funny.
-The sideplot of Ashton Kutcher losing his buiness was more interesting than the main plot, and since this plot is so derivative, I might have preferred to see that as the film in retrospect
-The climactic conversation is funny, I’ll give it that
-An akward attempt at slight commentary here: stereotypes with sports, the “I had a black girlfriend, I’m not racist"
-The advantage is that Bernie Mac can be more corrosive or scary which could lead to more comedic situations
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Syrianna Review
Syrianna is a riveting political thriller about a very hot button issue, the oil crisis, that few people really know much about beyond the numbers that appear on gas station billboards. It was released at the right time of year so that its inevitable Oscar buzz considerations will give the material added weight which might have been what the exec producers (including the politically active George Clooney and producing partner Steven Sodebergh) were going for. Still, it's not an overtly political film.
It doesn't seek to point fingers at an administration although with our overly polarized political culture today, people are bound to dismiss it as left wing propaganda, and that's unfortunate because a work of art like this deserves to be treated as art rather than politics.The main criticism, as far as I can tell, is that the plot is too complex for the average viewer, but that's partially the point: that the oil crisis is a complex matter and that's why an easy solution isn't in the works. I'll concede that this wasn't necessarily a smart move on the filmmakers' behalf to clutter up the start of the film rather than provide an attention-grabbing opening, but the film gets easier to swallow as it goes along. Matt Damon deals with a strained marriage and the tragedy of his 6-year old son's death but sees an opportunity for an unlikely friendship and business pairing with an enlightened Arab prince. George Clooney plays a CIA operative with an estranged son and wife who treats covert operations and killing like any other 9-to-5 job until he gets betrayed by his government. Jeffery Wright plays a cold and methodical lobbyist hired to find and weed out the corrupt link in an oil merger and he's equally at ease playing a game of racquetball with his suspect as he is calling him out before the board on his corruption. And then there are the two Arab youths looking for jobs who befriend a shady man and eventually become suicide bombers. It's the human dimensions of these stories and the way Stephen Gaughan masterfully weaves them together that make the movie so engaging as the movie moves past a cluttered-up start.
Credit director Gaughan. Making his directorial debut after winning an Oscar as the screenwriter for Traffic, Gaughan appears to be a firm disciple of Stephen Sodebegh's school of film-making, as he copies some of Sodebergh's tricks: showing only parts of conversations to make it appear as though we're coming in midway, on-location shooting with an independent feel, bridging different places together illustrated by text, etc.
It doesn't seek to point fingers at an administration although with our overly polarized political culture today, people are bound to dismiss it as left wing propaganda, and that's unfortunate because a work of art like this deserves to be treated as art rather than politics.The main criticism, as far as I can tell, is that the plot is too complex for the average viewer, but that's partially the point: that the oil crisis is a complex matter and that's why an easy solution isn't in the works. I'll concede that this wasn't necessarily a smart move on the filmmakers' behalf to clutter up the start of the film rather than provide an attention-grabbing opening, but the film gets easier to swallow as it goes along. Matt Damon deals with a strained marriage and the tragedy of his 6-year old son's death but sees an opportunity for an unlikely friendship and business pairing with an enlightened Arab prince. George Clooney plays a CIA operative with an estranged son and wife who treats covert operations and killing like any other 9-to-5 job until he gets betrayed by his government. Jeffery Wright plays a cold and methodical lobbyist hired to find and weed out the corrupt link in an oil merger and he's equally at ease playing a game of racquetball with his suspect as he is calling him out before the board on his corruption. And then there are the two Arab youths looking for jobs who befriend a shady man and eventually become suicide bombers. It's the human dimensions of these stories and the way Stephen Gaughan masterfully weaves them together that make the movie so engaging as the movie moves past a cluttered-up start.
Credit director Gaughan. Making his directorial debut after winning an Oscar as the screenwriter for Traffic, Gaughan appears to be a firm disciple of Stephen Sodebegh's school of film-making, as he copies some of Sodebergh's tricks: showing only parts of conversations to make it appear as though we're coming in midway, on-location shooting with an independent feel, bridging different places together illustrated by text, etc.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
A breakdown of must-see movies this decade
Some of my responses to this article that I made in response to the flooding of views and negative comments I received today in response to this article being selected to the imdb.com hitlist can be found here:
http://sophomorecritic.blogspot.com/2007/06/in-response-to-my-article-on-must-see.html
I think this would be a great topic to debate so i'd love to have everyone contribute your thoughts and lists:
I think that there are movies that are just must-see films. I think since pop culture is getting so much more scattered these are fewer than before. At the same time, there is no current shortage of production resources, in terms of gifted actors, writers and directors; and studios are so market-saavy that they try to market a greater variety and greater volume of their films as must-see films. I'm gonna throw out a list of films which I feel one has to see to consider themselves culturally literate. I haven't personally seen all of these, but at the same time, my film literacy suffers if I miss any of them. For example, I couldn't figure out why Mark Wahlberg is becoming more of a visible star if I haven't seen Departed, I couldn't understand what people are referring to with their Borat jokes and immitations if I haven't seen them onscreen, I couldn't tell you if all five Oscar nominees deserved their nominations without seeing them, and I couldn't render an opinion on whether Entertainment Weekly Magazine were out of their minds when they listed Children of Men as one of the top 25 sci-fi phenomenons of the last 25 years without having seen the film.
2006:
Babel-Quality, Oscar nominee, Performance (acting: Pitt & directorial: Inarritu)
Queen-Water cooler buzz, Oscar nominee, Quality, Performance (acting: Mirren)
Little Miss Sunshine-Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, Quality, Oscar Nominee
Flags of Our Fathers-Sequel, Performance (directorial: Eastwood)
Letters from Iwo Jima-Sequel, Water Cooler buzz, Quality, Performance (directorial: Eastwood)
Departed-Oscar nominee, Quality, Blockbuster, Performance (acting: DiCaprio, Wahlberg and Nicholson & directorial: Scorsese)
Dreamgirls-Oscar contender, Quality (acting: Hudson and Murphy), Blockbuster hype, Adaptation
Da Vinci Code-Water cooler, Blockbuster, Adaptation
Pan's Labyrinth-Performance (directing: Guillermo del Toro), Quality, Oscar contender
Children of Men-Performance (directing: Cuaron), Quality, Oscar contender
Borat-Water cooler buzz, Quality
Casino Royale-Sequel, Quality, Performance (a in Daniel Craig), Blockbuster Hype
Last King of Scotland-Performance (a in Forrest Whitaker)
X-Men 3-Blockbuster, Sequel, Water cooler buzz
Superman Returns-Blockbuster, Sequel/Prequel
Devil Wears Prada-Quality, Performance (acting: Meryl Streep), Adaptation, Water cooler buzz
Prairie Home Companion-Performance (directorial: Rob Altman)
Blood Diamond-Water cooler buzz, Oscar contender
United 93-Quality, Water cooler buzz
World Trade Center-Water cooler buzz
Inconvenient Truth-Quality, Water cooler buzz
V for Vendetta-Quality, Performance (directorial: McTigue)
2005:
Brokeback Mountain-Quality, Oscar Nominee, Performance (a: Heath Ledger), Water Cooler Buzz
Munich-Quality, Oscar Nominee, Performance (d: Spielberg), Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster
Crash-Quality, Water Cooler buzz, Oscar nominee
Capote-Quality, Performance (a: P.S. Hoffman), Oscar nominee
GN&GL-Performance (a: Strathain and d: Clooney), Oscar nominee, Quality
Squid and the Whale-Quality
Sin City-Water cooler buzz, Performance (d: Rodriguez and Tarantino)
Star Wars III-Sequel, Blockbuster hype
Producers-Adaptation
Constant Gardener-Performance (d: Fernando Meirelles), Quality
Match Point-Quality, Performance (d: Woody Allen), Water cooler buzz, Oscar contender
King Kong-Blockbuster, Performance (d: Peter Jackson), Water cooler buzz, Adaptation, Quality, Oscar contender
Syriana-Oscar contender, Water cooler buzz
Chronicles of Narnia-Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz
New World-Performance (d: Terrence Malick)
History of Violence-Quality
40 Year Old Virgin-Quality, Water cooler buzz, Performance (director/writer: Judd Apatow)
Wedding Crashers-Water cooler buzz
Star Wars III-Sequel, Blockbuster
Serenity-Quality, Adaptation
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory-Adaptation, Blockbuster
Fantastic Four-Adaptation, Blockbuster
Batman Begins-Quality, Prequel/Sequel, Water Cooler Buzz
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire-Performance (acting: Ralph Fiennes), Sequel/Prequel, Adaptation
Walk the Line-Sequel/Prequel*, Performance (acting: Phoenix and Whitherspoon), Oscar contender
March of the Penguins-Quality, Water cooler buzz
Hustle and Flow-Performance (a: Terrence Howard), Water cooler buzz
*Walk the Line was not a sequel to anything, but it sort of rode the wave of musical biopics originally started by Ray
2004:
Sideways-Quality, Oscar nominee, performance (d: Alexander Payne)
Ray-Performance (acting: Ray Charles), Oscar nominee, water cooler buzz
Aviator-Performance (directorial: Scorsese and acting: DiCaprio), Quality, water cooler buzz (over whether it would be Scorsese's year or not), Blockbuster
Finding Neverland-Performance (acting: Depp), Quality, Oscar nominee
Million Dollar Baby-Oscar nominee, Performance (acting: Swank and directing: Eastwood), Quality, Water Cooler buzz
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind-Oscar contender, Quality, Performance (acting: Carrey and Winslet)
Phantom of the Opera-Adaptation
Kill Bill Vol. 2-Sequel, Performance (dir: Tarantino and acting: Uma Thurman), Quality
Hotel Rwanda-Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Don Cheadle), Oscar contender
Incredibles-Quality, Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster
Kinsey-Oscar contender, Water cooler buzz, performance (acting: Liam Niesson and Peter Sarsgaard)
Fahrenheit 911-Water cooler buzz, Quality, Blockbuster
Passion of the Christ-Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, performance (directorial: Gibson)
Terminal-Performance (dir: Spielberg and acting: Tom Hanks)
Spiderman 2-Blockbuster, Sequel, Quality, Water cooler buzz
Shrek 2-Blockbuster, Sequel
Manchurian Candidate-Adaptation, Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster hype
Garden State-Water cooler buzz
Napoleon Dynamite-Water cooler buzz
Dodgeball-Water cooler buzz
Anchorman-Water cooler buzz
Mean Girls-Performance (acting: Lindsay Lohan and writing: Tiny Fey)
Supersize Me-Water cooler buzz
Meet the Fockers-Blockbuster, Sequel, Performance (acting: De Niro and Hoffman)
Collateral-Quality
Bourne Supremacy-Sequel
Closer-Oscar contender, Performance (acting: Natalie Portman, Julia Roberts and Clive Owen)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azhkaban-Water cooler buzz, adaptation, sequel, blockbuster
2003:
Lord of the Rings III: Quality, Performance (directorial: Peter Jackson), Oscar nominee, Blockbuster, Sequel, Adaptation
Mystic River: Quality, Performance (acting: Laura Linney, Sean Penn, Marcia Gay Harden and directing: Eastwood), Oscar Nominee
Seabiscuit: Oscar nominee, Quality, Blockbuster
Master and Commander: Performance (acting: Russell Crowe), Quality, Oscar nominee, Adaptation
Lost in Translation: Performance (dir/writer: Coppola and acting: Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson), Oscar Nominee, Quality, Water cooler buzz
X-Men 2: Blockbuster, Sequel
Matrix Reloaded: Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, Sequel
Bend it Like Beckham: Quality
Kill Bill I: Performance (directorial: Tarantino), Water cooler buzz, Quality
In America: Quality
21 Grams: Quality, Performance (acting: Sean Penn), Oscar contender
Last Samurai: Performance (acting: Tom Cruise), Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster hype
Cold Mountain: Oscar contender, Blockbuster hype, Adaptation
Big Fish: Quality, Blockbuster hype
Elf: Performance (acting: Will Ferrell)
School of Rock: Performance (acting: Jack Black)
Finding Nemo: Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster hype
Thirteen: Quality, Water cooler buzz
Pirates of the Caribbean: Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster, Performance (acting: Johnny Depp)
American Splendor: Performance (acting: Paul Giamatti)
House of Sand and Fog: Performance (acting: Ben Kingsley), Oscar contender
Love Actually-Water cooler buzz
Monster-Performance (acting: Charlize Theron)
2002:
Chicago: Oscar Nominee, Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster, Performance (acting: Gere, Zellweger and Zeta-Jones)
Gangs of New York: Oscar nominee, Performance (directing: Martin Scorsese and acting: Daniel Day-Lewis), Water cooler buzz
The Hours: Oscar nominee, Quality, Adaptation
Pianist: Oscar nominee, Performance (directing: Roman Polanski), Water cooler buzz, quality
Lord of the Rings: Two Towers: Oscar nominee, Blockbuster, Sequel, Performance (directing: Jackson), Water cooler buzz, Adaptation
About Schmidt: Performance (writer/director: Alexander Payne and actor: Jack Nicholson), Oscar contender, Quality
Adaptation: Water cooler buzz, Performance (Writer: Charlie Kaufman and actor: Nicholas Cage), Quality
My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster
Catch Me If You Can: Blockbuster
Road to Perdition: Quality, Performance (Acting: Tom Hanks), Water cooler buzz
Far From Heaven: Oscar contender, Performance (Acting: Dennis Quaid and Julianne Moore)
Austin Powers in Goldmember: Sequel
Minority Report: Performance (Dir: Spielberg), Water cooler buzz
Signs: Performance (Dir: M Night Shamylan)
Bowling for Columbine: Water cooler buzz
Die Another Day: Sequel, Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz
8 Mile: Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz
About a Boy: Quality, Performance (Acting: Hugh Grant), Adaptation
Insomnia: Quality, Performance (Acting: Robin Williams), Water cooler buzz
City of God: Quality
Y tu Mama Tambien: Quality
Talk to Her: Quality
Sweet Home Alabama: Water cooler buzz
Unfaithful: Performance (Acting: Dianne Lane)
Bourne Identity: Water cooler buzz
Punch Drunk Love: Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Emily Watson and Adam Sandler)
Harry Potter II: Sequel, Adaptation, Blockbuster
Star Wars II: Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, Sequel, Performance (dir. George Lucas)
Spiderman: Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, Sequel/Prequel, Adaptation
2001:
Godsford Park: Oscar nominee, Performance (Acting: Robert Altman), Quality
Moulan Rouge: Oscar nominee, Performance (Acting: Nicole Kidman, Dir: Baz Luhrmann), Water cooler buzz
A Beautiful Mind: Oscar nominee, Performance (Acting: Jennifer Connelly, Russell Crowe), Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster
In the Bedroom: Oscar nominee, Performance (Acting: Sissy Spacek), Quality
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King: Prequel/Sequel, Adaptation, Quality, Oscar nominee, Water cooler buzz
Mullholland Drive: Performance (Directing: David Lynch), Water cooler buzz
Amilie: Oscar contender, Performance (Acting: Audrey Tatou), Water cooler buzz, Quality
Black Hawk Down: Oscar contender, Water cooler buzz
Momento: Water cooler buzz, Quality
Shrek: Blockbuster
Ali: Performance (Acting: Will Smith), Water cooler buzz
Artificial Intelligence: Blockbuster hype, Performance (dir. Stephen Spielberg, writer: Kubrick), Water cooler buzz
Royal Tannenbaums: Quality, Performance (dir. Wes Anderson)
Training Day: Performance (acting: Denzel Washington)
Zoolander: Water cooler buzz
Hannibal: Sequel/Prequel
Legally Blonde: Water cooler buzz
Man Who Wasn't There: Performance (dir. Joel and Ethan Coen, acting: Billy Bob Thornton), Oscar contender
Monster's Ball: Performance (acting: Halle Berry), Quality
Shallow Hal: Performance (acting: Jack Black), Water cooler buzz
Rush Hour 2: Sequel
I Am Sam: Performance (acting: Sean Penn)
Ocean's 11: Quality
2000:
Gladiator: Oscar nominee, Quality, Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Russell Crowe, directing: Ridley Scott), Blockbuster
Traffic: Oscar nominee, Quality, Performance (director: Stephen Soderbergh)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Water cooler buzz, Oscar nominee, Quality, Performance (dir: Ang Lee)
Chocolat: Oscar nominee
Erin Brockovich: Oscar nominee, Performance (acting: Julia Roberts)
Almost Famous: Quality, Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Kate Hudson and dir/writer: Cameron Crowe), Oscar contender
Wonderboys: Performance (acting: Michael Douglas), Quality, Adaptation
You Can Count on Me: Performance (acting: Laura Linney), Quality
Oh Brother Where Art Thou: Performance (dir. Joel and Ethan Coen)
Contender: Performance (acting: Jeff Bridges and Joan Allen), Oscar contender
X-Men: Prequel/Sequel, Adaptation, Performance (acting: Hugh Jackman), Blockbuster
Requiem for a Dream: Performance (acting: Ellyn Burstyn and directing: Daron Aronofsky)
Cast Away: Quality, Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Tom Hanks), Blockbuster
Mission Impossible II: Sequel, Blockbuster
Remember the Titans: Quality, Water cooler buzz
Quills: Oscar contender
Best in Show: Quasi-Sequel, Water cooler buzz
The Grinch Who Stole Christmas: Adaptation, Blockbuster
Amorres Perros: Quality
High Fidelity: Water cooler buzz, Adaptation
What Lies Beneath-Water cooler buzz
http://sophomorecritic.blogspot.com/2007/06/in-response-to-my-article-on-must-see.html
I think this would be a great topic to debate so i'd love to have everyone contribute your thoughts and lists:
I think that there are movies that are just must-see films. I think since pop culture is getting so much more scattered these are fewer than before. At the same time, there is no current shortage of production resources, in terms of gifted actors, writers and directors; and studios are so market-saavy that they try to market a greater variety and greater volume of their films as must-see films. I'm gonna throw out a list of films which I feel one has to see to consider themselves culturally literate. I haven't personally seen all of these, but at the same time, my film literacy suffers if I miss any of them. For example, I couldn't figure out why Mark Wahlberg is becoming more of a visible star if I haven't seen Departed, I couldn't understand what people are referring to with their Borat jokes and immitations if I haven't seen them onscreen, I couldn't tell you if all five Oscar nominees deserved their nominations without seeing them, and I couldn't render an opinion on whether Entertainment Weekly Magazine were out of their minds when they listed Children of Men as one of the top 25 sci-fi phenomenons of the last 25 years without having seen the film.
My criteria is based mostly on what drew people to the movie theaters at the time the films were released and not as they pertain to whether people needed to see the films on DVD:
-Films that generate a lot of water cooler buzz (either controvoursey, topics of interest, or good word of mouth
-Films that are nominated for Oscars or get strong consideration for Oscar nominations, or in other words.....
-Films which are considered to be of good quality (an oversimplification of this is very good critical acceptance)
-Films which are considered to have a quality performance (acting, directorial, or in rare cases screenwriting
-Sequels/Prequels and other tent poles
-The hype which precedes Blockbusters and/or their how contagious they can be once they start breaking records
2006:
Babel-Quality, Oscar nominee, Performance (acting: Pitt & directorial: Inarritu)
Queen-Water cooler buzz, Oscar nominee, Quality, Performance (acting: Mirren)
Little Miss Sunshine-Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, Quality, Oscar Nominee
Flags of Our Fathers-Sequel, Performance (directorial: Eastwood)
Letters from Iwo Jima-Sequel, Water Cooler buzz, Quality, Performance (directorial: Eastwood)
Departed-Oscar nominee, Quality, Blockbuster, Performance (acting: DiCaprio, Wahlberg and Nicholson & directorial: Scorsese)
Dreamgirls-Oscar contender, Quality (acting: Hudson and Murphy), Blockbuster hype, Adaptation
Da Vinci Code-Water cooler, Blockbuster, Adaptation
Pan's Labyrinth-Performance (directing: Guillermo del Toro), Quality, Oscar contender
Children of Men-Performance (directing: Cuaron), Quality, Oscar contender
Borat-Water cooler buzz, Quality
Casino Royale-Sequel, Quality, Performance (a in Daniel Craig), Blockbuster Hype
Last King of Scotland-Performance (a in Forrest Whitaker)
X-Men 3-Blockbuster, Sequel, Water cooler buzz
Superman Returns-Blockbuster, Sequel/Prequel
Devil Wears Prada-Quality, Performance (acting: Meryl Streep), Adaptation, Water cooler buzz
Prairie Home Companion-Performance (directorial: Rob Altman)
Blood Diamond-Water cooler buzz, Oscar contender
United 93-Quality, Water cooler buzz
World Trade Center-Water cooler buzz
Inconvenient Truth-Quality, Water cooler buzz
V for Vendetta-Quality, Performance (directorial: McTigue)
2005:
Brokeback Mountain-Quality, Oscar Nominee, Performance (a: Heath Ledger), Water Cooler Buzz
Munich-Quality, Oscar Nominee, Performance (d: Spielberg), Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster
Crash-Quality, Water Cooler buzz, Oscar nominee
Capote-Quality, Performance (a: P.S. Hoffman), Oscar nominee
GN&GL-Performance (a: Strathain and d: Clooney), Oscar nominee, Quality
Squid and the Whale-Quality
Sin City-Water cooler buzz, Performance (d: Rodriguez and Tarantino)
Star Wars III-Sequel, Blockbuster hype
Producers-Adaptation
Constant Gardener-Performance (d: Fernando Meirelles), Quality
Match Point-Quality, Performance (d: Woody Allen), Water cooler buzz, Oscar contender
King Kong-Blockbuster, Performance (d: Peter Jackson), Water cooler buzz, Adaptation, Quality, Oscar contender
Syriana-Oscar contender, Water cooler buzz
Chronicles of Narnia-Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz
New World-Performance (d: Terrence Malick)
History of Violence-Quality
40 Year Old Virgin-Quality, Water cooler buzz, Performance (director/writer: Judd Apatow)
Wedding Crashers-Water cooler buzz
Star Wars III-Sequel, Blockbuster
Serenity-Quality, Adaptation
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory-Adaptation, Blockbuster
Fantastic Four-Adaptation, Blockbuster
Batman Begins-Quality, Prequel/Sequel, Water Cooler Buzz
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire-Performance (acting: Ralph Fiennes), Sequel/Prequel, Adaptation
Walk the Line-Sequel/Prequel*, Performance (acting: Phoenix and Whitherspoon), Oscar contender
March of the Penguins-Quality, Water cooler buzz
Hustle and Flow-Performance (a: Terrence Howard), Water cooler buzz
*Walk the Line was not a sequel to anything, but it sort of rode the wave of musical biopics originally started by Ray
2004:
Sideways-Quality, Oscar nominee, performance (d: Alexander Payne)
Ray-Performance (acting: Ray Charles), Oscar nominee, water cooler buzz
Aviator-Performance (directorial: Scorsese and acting: DiCaprio), Quality, water cooler buzz (over whether it would be Scorsese's year or not), Blockbuster
Finding Neverland-Performance (acting: Depp), Quality, Oscar nominee
Million Dollar Baby-Oscar nominee, Performance (acting: Swank and directing: Eastwood), Quality, Water Cooler buzz
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind-Oscar contender, Quality, Performance (acting: Carrey and Winslet)
Phantom of the Opera-Adaptation
Kill Bill Vol. 2-Sequel, Performance (dir: Tarantino and acting: Uma Thurman), Quality
Hotel Rwanda-Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Don Cheadle), Oscar contender
Incredibles-Quality, Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster
Kinsey-Oscar contender, Water cooler buzz, performance (acting: Liam Niesson and Peter Sarsgaard)
Fahrenheit 911-Water cooler buzz, Quality, Blockbuster
Passion of the Christ-Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, performance (directorial: Gibson)
Terminal-Performance (dir: Spielberg and acting: Tom Hanks)
Spiderman 2-Blockbuster, Sequel, Quality, Water cooler buzz
Shrek 2-Blockbuster, Sequel
Manchurian Candidate-Adaptation, Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster hype
Garden State-Water cooler buzz
Napoleon Dynamite-Water cooler buzz
Dodgeball-Water cooler buzz
Anchorman-Water cooler buzz
Mean Girls-Performance (acting: Lindsay Lohan and writing: Tiny Fey)
Supersize Me-Water cooler buzz
Meet the Fockers-Blockbuster, Sequel, Performance (acting: De Niro and Hoffman)
Collateral-Quality
Bourne Supremacy-Sequel
Closer-Oscar contender, Performance (acting: Natalie Portman, Julia Roberts and Clive Owen)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azhkaban-Water cooler buzz, adaptation, sequel, blockbuster
2003:
Lord of the Rings III: Quality, Performance (directorial: Peter Jackson), Oscar nominee, Blockbuster, Sequel, Adaptation
Mystic River: Quality, Performance (acting: Laura Linney, Sean Penn, Marcia Gay Harden and directing: Eastwood), Oscar Nominee
Seabiscuit: Oscar nominee, Quality, Blockbuster
Master and Commander: Performance (acting: Russell Crowe), Quality, Oscar nominee, Adaptation
Lost in Translation: Performance (dir/writer: Coppola and acting: Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson), Oscar Nominee, Quality, Water cooler buzz
X-Men 2: Blockbuster, Sequel
Matrix Reloaded: Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, Sequel
Bend it Like Beckham: Quality
Kill Bill I: Performance (directorial: Tarantino), Water cooler buzz, Quality
In America: Quality
21 Grams: Quality, Performance (acting: Sean Penn), Oscar contender
Last Samurai: Performance (acting: Tom Cruise), Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster hype
Cold Mountain: Oscar contender, Blockbuster hype, Adaptation
Big Fish: Quality, Blockbuster hype
Elf: Performance (acting: Will Ferrell)
School of Rock: Performance (acting: Jack Black)
Finding Nemo: Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster hype
Thirteen: Quality, Water cooler buzz
Pirates of the Caribbean: Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster, Performance (acting: Johnny Depp)
American Splendor: Performance (acting: Paul Giamatti)
House of Sand and Fog: Performance (acting: Ben Kingsley), Oscar contender
Love Actually-Water cooler buzz
Monster-Performance (acting: Charlize Theron)
2002:
Chicago: Oscar Nominee, Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster, Performance (acting: Gere, Zellweger and Zeta-Jones)
Gangs of New York: Oscar nominee, Performance (directing: Martin Scorsese and acting: Daniel Day-Lewis), Water cooler buzz
The Hours: Oscar nominee, Quality, Adaptation
Pianist: Oscar nominee, Performance (directing: Roman Polanski), Water cooler buzz, quality
Lord of the Rings: Two Towers: Oscar nominee, Blockbuster, Sequel, Performance (directing: Jackson), Water cooler buzz, Adaptation
About Schmidt: Performance (writer/director: Alexander Payne and actor: Jack Nicholson), Oscar contender, Quality
Adaptation: Water cooler buzz, Performance (Writer: Charlie Kaufman and actor: Nicholas Cage), Quality
My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster
Catch Me If You Can: Blockbuster
Road to Perdition: Quality, Performance (Acting: Tom Hanks), Water cooler buzz
Far From Heaven: Oscar contender, Performance (Acting: Dennis Quaid and Julianne Moore)
Austin Powers in Goldmember: Sequel
Minority Report: Performance (Dir: Spielberg), Water cooler buzz
Signs: Performance (Dir: M Night Shamylan)
Bowling for Columbine: Water cooler buzz
Die Another Day: Sequel, Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz
8 Mile: Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz
About a Boy: Quality, Performance (Acting: Hugh Grant), Adaptation
Insomnia: Quality, Performance (Acting: Robin Williams), Water cooler buzz
City of God: Quality
Y tu Mama Tambien: Quality
Talk to Her: Quality
Sweet Home Alabama: Water cooler buzz
Unfaithful: Performance (Acting: Dianne Lane)
Bourne Identity: Water cooler buzz
Punch Drunk Love: Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Emily Watson and Adam Sandler)
Harry Potter II: Sequel, Adaptation, Blockbuster
Star Wars II: Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, Sequel, Performance (dir. George Lucas)
Spiderman: Blockbuster, Water cooler buzz, Sequel/Prequel, Adaptation
2001:
Godsford Park: Oscar nominee, Performance (Acting: Robert Altman), Quality
Moulan Rouge: Oscar nominee, Performance (Acting: Nicole Kidman, Dir: Baz Luhrmann), Water cooler buzz
A Beautiful Mind: Oscar nominee, Performance (Acting: Jennifer Connelly, Russell Crowe), Water cooler buzz, Blockbuster
In the Bedroom: Oscar nominee, Performance (Acting: Sissy Spacek), Quality
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King: Prequel/Sequel, Adaptation, Quality, Oscar nominee, Water cooler buzz
Mullholland Drive: Performance (Directing: David Lynch), Water cooler buzz
Amilie: Oscar contender, Performance (Acting: Audrey Tatou), Water cooler buzz, Quality
Black Hawk Down: Oscar contender, Water cooler buzz
Momento: Water cooler buzz, Quality
Shrek: Blockbuster
Ali: Performance (Acting: Will Smith), Water cooler buzz
Artificial Intelligence: Blockbuster hype, Performance (dir. Stephen Spielberg, writer: Kubrick), Water cooler buzz
Royal Tannenbaums: Quality, Performance (dir. Wes Anderson)
Training Day: Performance (acting: Denzel Washington)
Zoolander: Water cooler buzz
Hannibal: Sequel/Prequel
Legally Blonde: Water cooler buzz
Man Who Wasn't There: Performance (dir. Joel and Ethan Coen, acting: Billy Bob Thornton), Oscar contender
Monster's Ball: Performance (acting: Halle Berry), Quality
Shallow Hal: Performance (acting: Jack Black), Water cooler buzz
Rush Hour 2: Sequel
I Am Sam: Performance (acting: Sean Penn)
Ocean's 11: Quality
2000:
Gladiator: Oscar nominee, Quality, Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Russell Crowe, directing: Ridley Scott), Blockbuster
Traffic: Oscar nominee, Quality, Performance (director: Stephen Soderbergh)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Water cooler buzz, Oscar nominee, Quality, Performance (dir: Ang Lee)
Chocolat: Oscar nominee
Erin Brockovich: Oscar nominee, Performance (acting: Julia Roberts)
Almost Famous: Quality, Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Kate Hudson and dir/writer: Cameron Crowe), Oscar contender
Wonderboys: Performance (acting: Michael Douglas), Quality, Adaptation
You Can Count on Me: Performance (acting: Laura Linney), Quality
Oh Brother Where Art Thou: Performance (dir. Joel and Ethan Coen)
Contender: Performance (acting: Jeff Bridges and Joan Allen), Oscar contender
X-Men: Prequel/Sequel, Adaptation, Performance (acting: Hugh Jackman), Blockbuster
Requiem for a Dream: Performance (acting: Ellyn Burstyn and directing: Daron Aronofsky)
Cast Away: Quality, Water cooler buzz, Performance (acting: Tom Hanks), Blockbuster
Mission Impossible II: Sequel, Blockbuster
Remember the Titans: Quality, Water cooler buzz
Quills: Oscar contender
Best in Show: Quasi-Sequel, Water cooler buzz
The Grinch Who Stole Christmas: Adaptation, Blockbuster
Amorres Perros: Quality
High Fidelity: Water cooler buzz, Adaptation
What Lies Beneath-Water cooler buzz
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Cheaper by the Dozen I and II
Cheaper by the Dozen (2003) was one of my favorite movies of that year, even though it's just meant as family entertainment. On the DVD commentary, director Shaun Levy spoke of high ambitions he had when making the movieto really try to reinvigorate the classic family comedy with pathos, and I think he succeeded. The movie is actually quite touching and made me reflect on the value of my own family. Other strengths of the movie were a script that catered to Steve Martin's comic gifts and a talented ensemble of younger kids. Here were my reviews of the two films:
Cheaper by the Dozen (2003):
It's true that the fun of having more than two or three kids is cancelled out by the subsequent responsibility and expense of paying for their college, but when we don't have to pay more than the price of a movie ticket to experience a large family, then it's tons of fun. So, first off, yes, I have to admit that the mere fact that the movie centers around a 14-member extended family makes it enjoyable from the start. I was almost instanteously engaged until over halfway through the movie trying to keep track of who was who, and with such a talented and diverse ensemble, I enjoyed watching all of the development, especially Mark (Forest Landiss), the kid who kind of tied the whole story together. They even found room for overrated stars like Ashton Kutcher and Hillary Duff as one-note characters among the others. I also think that underneath all the comedy there was a lot of moral value within the conflicts between Steve Martin and his family and all those people trying to tear it apart (like the coach and his fame-career-driven attitude and Ashton Kuthcer's character and his narcissism and the bullies at school and Paula Marshall and her preppy conformity).
Cheaper by the Dozen II (2005):
Cheaper by the Dozen II like most sequels, wasnt as good as its predecessor but was a safe movie bet, allowing you to fall back into a familiarity of the first and have some more fun with it. It picks up a couple years after the first installment with changes abound as the oldest daughter is now married and pregnant and with everyone growing up, the Bakers plan to vacation one last time at their old summer nesting grounds before sending off newly graduated Lurraine (Hillary Duff) to New York. Ashton Kutchers out of the picture, while Eugene Levy enters the scene as Steve Martins rival, providing some decent comic relief. Knowing full-well, they cant focus on all twelve kids, Tom Wellings newfound romance and rebelliousness are underdeveloped, while the unfortunate mistake is made of shifting the focus to Hillary Duffs character. Duff basically plays a caricature of herself (or at least her public image) as a teenage diva, who only worked in the first movie because she was only added in at small doses. Theres also a side story with one of the younger siblings having her first crush. Like the first film, this installment relies on Martins physical comedy for laughs with some very relatable moments along the way and in the end, the family wins out over all other forces.
Cheaper by the Dozen (2003):
It's true that the fun of having more than two or three kids is cancelled out by the subsequent responsibility and expense of paying for their college, but when we don't have to pay more than the price of a movie ticket to experience a large family, then it's tons of fun. So, first off, yes, I have to admit that the mere fact that the movie centers around a 14-member extended family makes it enjoyable from the start. I was almost instanteously engaged until over halfway through the movie trying to keep track of who was who, and with such a talented and diverse ensemble, I enjoyed watching all of the development, especially Mark (Forest Landiss), the kid who kind of tied the whole story together. They even found room for overrated stars like Ashton Kutcher and Hillary Duff as one-note characters among the others. I also think that underneath all the comedy there was a lot of moral value within the conflicts between Steve Martin and his family and all those people trying to tear it apart (like the coach and his fame-career-driven attitude and Ashton Kuthcer's character and his narcissism and the bullies at school and Paula Marshall and her preppy conformity).
Cheaper by the Dozen II (2005):
Cheaper by the Dozen II like most sequels, wasnt as good as its predecessor but was a safe movie bet, allowing you to fall back into a familiarity of the first and have some more fun with it. It picks up a couple years after the first installment with changes abound as the oldest daughter is now married and pregnant and with everyone growing up, the Bakers plan to vacation one last time at their old summer nesting grounds before sending off newly graduated Lurraine (Hillary Duff) to New York. Ashton Kutchers out of the picture, while Eugene Levy enters the scene as Steve Martins rival, providing some decent comic relief. Knowing full-well, they cant focus on all twelve kids, Tom Wellings newfound romance and rebelliousness are underdeveloped, while the unfortunate mistake is made of shifting the focus to Hillary Duffs character. Duff basically plays a caricature of herself (or at least her public image) as a teenage diva, who only worked in the first movie because she was only added in at small doses. Theres also a side story with one of the younger siblings having her first crush. Like the first film, this installment relies on Martins physical comedy for laughs with some very relatable moments along the way and in the end, the family wins out over all other forces.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
War of the Worlds (2005) review
Another review borrowed from jmaddy.com. I think this is a most interesting review in the sense that the response to Tom Cruise has grown worse and worse since the film came off. I even praised Tom Cruise's ability
My main concern going into this film was that I've seen it before and I'm not talking about the 1950s movie or the famous 1930s radio broadcast. I was thinking more in this case of the 1997 summer blockbuster hit Independence Day, and while a film being a remake doesn't automatically drive me away, I really couldn't see where this movie could go that its predecessors hadn't already explored.
Independence Day, after all, was a scientifically updated version with state-of-the-art special effects, and it's not like science has gotten THAT much more modern in the last 8 years...I was proved wrong. With Independence Day, director Roland Emmerich managed to recreate H.G. Wells' original "World" vision into a modern epic by showing us things on a truly global scale (he also showed his talent for globally scaled drama in 2004's Day After Tomorrow). War of the Worlds, on the other hand, tells the same story from the point-of-view of a single family's journey through the crisis.
The film's genius lies in how little he wavers from that vision. It's uncompromising in leaving the questions unanswered that this plot naturally lends itself to being asked (such as "what are these aliens doing here?", "where did they come from?", etc.). As a result, we went through the movie experiencing and learning about the danger at the same time the characters were. The effect was so pervasive it feels more than anything else like a 2-hour roller coaster ride, no doubt enhanced by Spielberg's deft camera- work, which for the first time since Jaws reminding us of his unrivaled brand of terror with which he revolutionized blockbusters 30 years ago in Jaws.
As with other films of his, Spielberg adds an estranged- father-and-son plot on top of the main story, with Tom Cruise as custody-sharing blue collar dad Ray Ferrier and Justin Chatwik as the rebellious son, with Dakota Fanning added as a loving young daughter for contrast. The relationships between Cruise and his two kids, both of whom carry significant loads of the script with precision, adds a whole new depth to the action scenes. As for Cruise, for all his crazy antics that have been filling the newspapers lately, he shows definite growth in this role and doesn't just carry this film with a mistimed sparkling grin, but with a convincing-yet-firm performance as a father.
My main concern going into this film was that I've seen it before and I'm not talking about the 1950s movie or the famous 1930s radio broadcast. I was thinking more in this case of the 1997 summer blockbuster hit Independence Day, and while a film being a remake doesn't automatically drive me away, I really couldn't see where this movie could go that its predecessors hadn't already explored.
Independence Day, after all, was a scientifically updated version with state-of-the-art special effects, and it's not like science has gotten THAT much more modern in the last 8 years...I was proved wrong. With Independence Day, director Roland Emmerich managed to recreate H.G. Wells' original "World" vision into a modern epic by showing us things on a truly global scale (he also showed his talent for globally scaled drama in 2004's Day After Tomorrow). War of the Worlds, on the other hand, tells the same story from the point-of-view of a single family's journey through the crisis.
The film's genius lies in how little he wavers from that vision. It's uncompromising in leaving the questions unanswered that this plot naturally lends itself to being asked (such as "what are these aliens doing here?", "where did they come from?", etc.). As a result, we went through the movie experiencing and learning about the danger at the same time the characters were. The effect was so pervasive it feels more than anything else like a 2-hour roller coaster ride, no doubt enhanced by Spielberg's deft camera- work, which for the first time since Jaws reminding us of his unrivaled brand of terror with which he revolutionized blockbusters 30 years ago in Jaws.
As with other films of his, Spielberg adds an estranged- father-and-son plot on top of the main story, with Tom Cruise as custody-sharing blue collar dad Ray Ferrier and Justin Chatwik as the rebellious son, with Dakota Fanning added as a loving young daughter for contrast. The relationships between Cruise and his two kids, both of whom carry significant loads of the script with precision, adds a whole new depth to the action scenes. As for Cruise, for all his crazy antics that have been filling the newspapers lately, he shows definite growth in this role and doesn't just carry this film with a mistimed sparkling grin, but with a convincing-yet-firm performance as a father.
Wedding Crashers (2005) review
This is another review that I'm proceeding to move from another site. I actually gave Wedding Crashers only a so-so review, despite the fact that most people loved it:
From the same comedic team (more or less) that brought you Zoolander, Dodgeball, and Old School, the latest annual installment of a comedy has arrived about people who don’t actually exist (frat boys who technically aren’t college students, professional dodgeball players, etc), but could very easily exist when you think about it.
The comedic team that I’m talking about is combination of at least one guy with the last name Wilson, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn and Will Ferrell who rotate playing the lead, playing the sidekick/rival, not being in the movie at all, and providing a much loved 2-minute cameo. Owen Wilson and Vaughn take the leads as two more characters that guys could easily enjoy vicariously living through for a couple hours: John Beckwith and Jeremy Klein (Wilson) are two divorce lawyers who spend their spare time crashing weddings solely to meet girls.
After years of practice they’ve refined it down to an art. One of the best running comic gags, in fact, is that they have a lengthy rule book that they memorize and regularly cite from in various situations.
The story begins when after a very successful wedding season, shown through a well-made opening montage; the two buddies decide to end off the season with a bang by crashing what will be their most high stakes wedding to date. Why this wedding is a bigger deal to them than any other wedding is beyond me, but nevertheless, the two go to the wedding and both find themselves with bigger messes than they can clean up by wedding’s end. Jeremy falls for one of the bride’s sisters, Claire, and all is going well until he meets her boyfriend. Rachel McAdams (The Notebook) plays Claire a little too lackadaisically charming to come off as anything but clichéd.
John, meanwhile, has such good luck with the bride’s other sister that he manages to have sex with her before the wedding is even over. Unfortunately, she mistakes his love of the chase for true love and his efforts to flee the scene get foiled by his love-struck partner in crime who insists they stick around. This is the point in the movie when, like John, it would be best to flee the scene ourselves.
While the film is lined with sharp and hilarious snippets of dialogue throughout, the story is unevenly paced and it never really gets back to that screwball comedy feel it attains in the film’s first half hour.
If not for the fact that these guys will probably be appearing in movie theaters again in some cameo or comedy vehicle before I even finish mourning their failure, I’d have been disappointed because with a few minor tweaks, I could have seen this movie working. For example, one of the downturns that are used in these types of romantic comedies to prevent the guy and girl from getting together before working things out takes up almost a year of the story and one of the characters gets depressed to the point of feeling suicidal. In this scene and in general, the movie too often drifts a little too far away from lighthearted-comedy mode. Considering how with characters that revel in the joy of taking advantage of girls at weddings, the movie’s tone is quite cynical when you think about it, it wouldn’t be a good idea to get the audience taking the film too seriously at all.
From the same comedic team (more or less) that brought you Zoolander, Dodgeball, and Old School, the latest annual installment of a comedy has arrived about people who don’t actually exist (frat boys who technically aren’t college students, professional dodgeball players, etc), but could very easily exist when you think about it.
The comedic team that I’m talking about is combination of at least one guy with the last name Wilson, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn and Will Ferrell who rotate playing the lead, playing the sidekick/rival, not being in the movie at all, and providing a much loved 2-minute cameo. Owen Wilson and Vaughn take the leads as two more characters that guys could easily enjoy vicariously living through for a couple hours: John Beckwith and Jeremy Klein (Wilson) are two divorce lawyers who spend their spare time crashing weddings solely to meet girls.
After years of practice they’ve refined it down to an art. One of the best running comic gags, in fact, is that they have a lengthy rule book that they memorize and regularly cite from in various situations.
The story begins when after a very successful wedding season, shown through a well-made opening montage; the two buddies decide to end off the season with a bang by crashing what will be their most high stakes wedding to date. Why this wedding is a bigger deal to them than any other wedding is beyond me, but nevertheless, the two go to the wedding and both find themselves with bigger messes than they can clean up by wedding’s end. Jeremy falls for one of the bride’s sisters, Claire, and all is going well until he meets her boyfriend. Rachel McAdams (The Notebook) plays Claire a little too lackadaisically charming to come off as anything but clichéd.
John, meanwhile, has such good luck with the bride’s other sister that he manages to have sex with her before the wedding is even over. Unfortunately, she mistakes his love of the chase for true love and his efforts to flee the scene get foiled by his love-struck partner in crime who insists they stick around. This is the point in the movie when, like John, it would be best to flee the scene ourselves.
While the film is lined with sharp and hilarious snippets of dialogue throughout, the story is unevenly paced and it never really gets back to that screwball comedy feel it attains in the film’s first half hour.
If not for the fact that these guys will probably be appearing in movie theaters again in some cameo or comedy vehicle before I even finish mourning their failure, I’d have been disappointed because with a few minor tweaks, I could have seen this movie working. For example, one of the downturns that are used in these types of romantic comedies to prevent the guy and girl from getting together before working things out takes up almost a year of the story and one of the characters gets depressed to the point of feeling suicidal. In this scene and in general, the movie too often drifts a little too far away from lighthearted-comedy mode. Considering how with characters that revel in the joy of taking advantage of girls at weddings, the movie’s tone is quite cynical when you think about it, it wouldn’t be a good idea to get the audience taking the film too seriously at all.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Review of Bewitched
Will Ferrell's over-the-top comedy gives the movie its moments and Nicole Kidman proves she's just as capable of playing light-hearted fluff as she is at drama, but credit to this movie goes mainly to Nora Ephron. With Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally, You've Got Mail and now Bewitched, the director and co-writer has further solidified herself as one of the few consistently good writers of romantic comedy films.
I read a negative review of this film by the Washington Post that called the movie outdated saying, "Nicole Kidman plays a role ordinary reserved for Meg Ryan, that Meg Ryan herself even stopped playing long ago." On the contrary, I think Nora Ephron makes such solid movies because she is so acutely attuned to the latest trend. You've Got Mail, a movie about two people falling in love over the internet, came out in 1998, well before widespread e-dating. Similarly, Sleepless in Seattle's star-crossed pair find each other through a call-in radio show. Sound familiar? Dr. Laura or the fictional Frasier Crane, maybe?
Considering that this own film's release date is sandwiched between remakes of the Longest Yard, Batman, the Honeymooners, and the Bad News Bears, the Pink Panther, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on the other end, it seems pretty far-fetched to call this picture outdated with all this hysterical nostalgia going on around us.
Ephron's story lines are also well-written and have a screwball comedy sense of fun, this one being no different. In particular, she has a lot of fun playing with her life-imitates-art theme here in her story about a has-been actor trying to reboot his career with a remake of Bewitched casts Nicole Kidman as his costar, who turns out to be an actual witch.
As mentioned previously, Will Ferrell's hilarious ad-libs make their way into the movie and while he's slightly miscast, it isn't too big of an obstacle. Nicole Kidman is excellent as well. Shirley MacLaine makes the most of her small role, especially the scenes she shares with Michael Caine in their romantic subplot
I read a negative review of this film by the Washington Post that called the movie outdated saying, "Nicole Kidman plays a role ordinary reserved for Meg Ryan, that Meg Ryan herself even stopped playing long ago." On the contrary, I think Nora Ephron makes such solid movies because she is so acutely attuned to the latest trend. You've Got Mail, a movie about two people falling in love over the internet, came out in 1998, well before widespread e-dating. Similarly, Sleepless in Seattle's star-crossed pair find each other through a call-in radio show. Sound familiar? Dr. Laura or the fictional Frasier Crane, maybe?
Considering that this own film's release date is sandwiched between remakes of the Longest Yard, Batman, the Honeymooners, and the Bad News Bears, the Pink Panther, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on the other end, it seems pretty far-fetched to call this picture outdated with all this hysterical nostalgia going on around us.
Ephron's story lines are also well-written and have a screwball comedy sense of fun, this one being no different. In particular, she has a lot of fun playing with her life-imitates-art theme here in her story about a has-been actor trying to reboot his career with a remake of Bewitched casts Nicole Kidman as his costar, who turns out to be an actual witch.
As mentioned previously, Will Ferrell's hilarious ad-libs make their way into the movie and while he's slightly miscast, it isn't too big of an obstacle. Nicole Kidman is excellent as well. Shirley MacLaine makes the most of her small role, especially the scenes she shares with Michael Caine in their romantic subplot
Review of Batman Begins
Whatever you think of Batman Begins, you kind of have to give more credit to X-Men and Spiderman for getting it right the first time. The execs at Warner Brothers have changed their minds over what they want to do with this superhero franchise of theirs that they go and retool it every two movies.
So it’s kind of disorienting watching this one, in ways good and bad. For one, I feel a little disappointed in the batmobile: it’s more like a bat tank. Mainly, though, the story’s a lot more complicated with its humongous cast of characters. If I didn’t know any better, I’d guess there’s a rule that anyone who’s ever been nominated for an Oscar gets a coupon for a free role in a Batman movie that everyone’s cashing in on (if you want to know the exact stats, which I hope you do because I spent 10 minutes researching this, 5 actors in this movie have earned 12 oscar nominations between them), and they had to try extra hard to find parts for everyone., which led to some characters who just didn’t need to be there.
Like Morgan Freeman, for example, is a scientist who designs Batman’s gadgets. I love Morgan Freeman but what exactly is he doing there? Doesn’t Q belong with James Bond? Also, who’s the real villain? Aside from making the story confusing, I think part of the fun of Batman is that you have this whacked hero dressed up as a bat and then you have even wackier villains with themes of their own, like a guy who dresses like a Penguin or the Riddler. With the exception of the Scarecrow, this movie doesn’t really have that here. Unfortunately, I didn’t really see the scarecrow that much, anyway. I think the reason for adding someone like crime boss Carmone Falcone was to show us how bad of a place Gotham is. Now Tim Burton didn’t ever need to resort to that. He created such a dark tone that he could show us what Gotham just by showing us a frame of it. I will add, though, that most people who see this movie will probably agree that Commisioner Gordon and Alfred are both two really strong characters in this movie and they add a lot, unlike the other movies where they kind of stand around and look like idiots next to Batman.
So, as I say, the story’s different but as it stands on its own, it really works well. It had the same piecing-together-of-the-puzzle element that the Star Wars III prequels had, which is real cool. If you’ve watched any Batman TV episode or watched any Batman movie, then you can’t help but be intrigued by a movie that answers the questions, where did Batman get the idea for Batman, how did he get the batmobile or the batcave, where did he learn to fight?, etc.
So it’s kind of disorienting watching this one, in ways good and bad. For one, I feel a little disappointed in the batmobile: it’s more like a bat tank. Mainly, though, the story’s a lot more complicated with its humongous cast of characters. If I didn’t know any better, I’d guess there’s a rule that anyone who’s ever been nominated for an Oscar gets a coupon for a free role in a Batman movie that everyone’s cashing in on (if you want to know the exact stats, which I hope you do because I spent 10 minutes researching this, 5 actors in this movie have earned 12 oscar nominations between them), and they had to try extra hard to find parts for everyone., which led to some characters who just didn’t need to be there.
Like Morgan Freeman, for example, is a scientist who designs Batman’s gadgets. I love Morgan Freeman but what exactly is he doing there? Doesn’t Q belong with James Bond? Also, who’s the real villain? Aside from making the story confusing, I think part of the fun of Batman is that you have this whacked hero dressed up as a bat and then you have even wackier villains with themes of their own, like a guy who dresses like a Penguin or the Riddler. With the exception of the Scarecrow, this movie doesn’t really have that here. Unfortunately, I didn’t really see the scarecrow that much, anyway. I think the reason for adding someone like crime boss Carmone Falcone was to show us how bad of a place Gotham is. Now Tim Burton didn’t ever need to resort to that. He created such a dark tone that he could show us what Gotham just by showing us a frame of it. I will add, though, that most people who see this movie will probably agree that Commisioner Gordon and Alfred are both two really strong characters in this movie and they add a lot, unlike the other movies where they kind of stand around and look like idiots next to Batman.
So, as I say, the story’s different but as it stands on its own, it really works well. It had the same piecing-together-of-the-puzzle element that the Star Wars III prequels had, which is real cool. If you’ve watched any Batman TV episode or watched any Batman movie, then you can’t help but be intrigued by a movie that answers the questions, where did Batman get the idea for Batman, how did he get the batmobile or the batcave, where did he learn to fight?, etc.
Review of the Aristocrats:
I'm currently in the process of transferring some old reviews I wrote for a website called J-Maddy the summer before last summer to this website, so here's The Aristocrats (2005):
Last night, I took the metro to Rosslyn, hiked over a mile across the Potomac River into Georgetown and down a ways to go see this movie because Georgetown Lowe’s was the only theater that was showing it, due to the fact that it was banned in the movie theater I worked at. The film I’m talking about is “The Aristocrats”, a really cool documentary where something like 100 comedians (a lot of them famous: Whoppi Golberg, Robin Williams, John Stewart, Kevin Nealon, etc.) are asked to tell the same joke. The documentary also throws in some commentary, interviews, joke swapping sessions, etc.
I know what you’re thinking: doesn’t the same joke get old if everyone tells it? Well, some people I talked to said it kind of did, they should’ve stopped at 50, but the point is, in general the answer is no. The joke is a really open-ended one that each comedian tells differently. Oh yeah, and it’s also a really dirty joke. Really, really dirty. The film takes your mind to new levels of dirtiness that you never even knew existed which is why it’s banned in like 46 states, and you feel kind of like a criminal watching it.
At the same time, that’s the point of the film: that everyone has a dirty place. If the film was made for any single purpose, it would be a crusade against censorship. I think they make their case best by the fact that in their film, the comedian behind the famously corny family sitcom Full House Bob Saget tells a version of the joke so dirty, that he probably had to flee the country immediately afterwards.
Even as you’re disgusted a lot of the time you’re laughing. I think I realized for the first time ever how liberating it is to rearrange your priorities for a couple hours where being politically correct takes a back seat to laughter. When that happened, I knew the film had accomplished its mission.
Last night, I took the metro to Rosslyn, hiked over a mile across the Potomac River into Georgetown and down a ways to go see this movie because Georgetown Lowe’s was the only theater that was showing it, due to the fact that it was banned in the movie theater I worked at. The film I’m talking about is “The Aristocrats”, a really cool documentary where something like 100 comedians (a lot of them famous: Whoppi Golberg, Robin Williams, John Stewart, Kevin Nealon, etc.) are asked to tell the same joke. The documentary also throws in some commentary, interviews, joke swapping sessions, etc.
I know what you’re thinking: doesn’t the same joke get old if everyone tells it? Well, some people I talked to said it kind of did, they should’ve stopped at 50, but the point is, in general the answer is no. The joke is a really open-ended one that each comedian tells differently. Oh yeah, and it’s also a really dirty joke. Really, really dirty. The film takes your mind to new levels of dirtiness that you never even knew existed which is why it’s banned in like 46 states, and you feel kind of like a criminal watching it.
At the same time, that’s the point of the film: that everyone has a dirty place. If the film was made for any single purpose, it would be a crusade against censorship. I think they make their case best by the fact that in their film, the comedian behind the famously corny family sitcom Full House Bob Saget tells a version of the joke so dirty, that he probably had to flee the country immediately afterwards.
Even as you’re disgusted a lot of the time you’re laughing. I think I realized for the first time ever how liberating it is to rearrange your priorities for a couple hours where being politically correct takes a back seat to laughter. When that happened, I knew the film had accomplished its mission.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Jamestown's 400th Anniversary & The New World Review
As a Virginia, I'm actually very excited that Jamestown is celebrating its 400th Anniversary. Time Magazine did a big feature on it and I agree with Time Magazine's assertion in the opening paragraph that Jamestown doesn't get the attention that Plymouth had.
As Virginians, we studied Jamestown closely in our history books, and as Americans, Jamestown is studied to a lesser degree. In pop culture, Jamestown might be best known as the inspiration for two movies set ten years apart.
The first Pocohantas was a 1995 cartoon from Disney starring, among others, Mel Gibson (it now seems like poetic justice, considering his Euro-centric views, that he played a character who learned to be less ignorant) and Christian Bale (which is also ironic considering Bale starred in the New World). It was a typical Disney musical that didn't really distinguish itself from the ones that came before it ("Aladdin" "Beauty and the Beast") or after it ("Mulan"), but it might be the one I have the warmest memories of because of the material. It also did win an oscar for its song (as well as best score) "Colors of the Wind," which its predecessors "The Lion King", "Aladdin", and "Beauty and the Beast" all did, so it wasn't really anything special for Disney at the time.
Exactly 10 years later in 2005, The New World told the story in epic fashion. Those who are passionate about the Jamestown story were incredibly fortunate to have Terrence Malick chose this subject as his material for only his fourth film ever. It was my favorite film of that year.
Malick takes on the story with that sense of imagination while he grounds the visual look with ameticulous attention to historic detail. Thats one thing that really stands out and keeps things interesting during the picture's slower parts, especially for for people who are familiar with Eastern Virginia, seeing this movie is to see exactly what yourhometowns looked like 400 years ago.
A lot of the story, however, is very abstract. The score brilliantly alternates between baroque piano music, what one would imagine to be the music of the Native American tribe, and a serene silence in which nothing but the sounds of nature can be heard. Time seems abstract and sometimes journal entries from John Smith's journal are laid out as voice-over.
I later heard a lecture from a historical consultant for the film who told us that the film was supposed to be like a dream and it was meant to play to an audience who was already familiar with the story. The names John Rolfe, John Smith, and Pocohantas are never mentioned once he said. It would figure then that Terrence Malick saw himself as not a storyteller but a reinterpreter of a story that stands either as historical truth or myth. And by myth, I do mean myth. According to some history majors at the lecture I attended, there was a lack of literate people in the Jamestown colony and there is good evidence to suggest that John Smith's journals were embellished to the point where he might not have even ever met Pocohantas. I found that fascinating.
As Virginians, we studied Jamestown closely in our history books, and as Americans, Jamestown is studied to a lesser degree. In pop culture, Jamestown might be best known as the inspiration for two movies set ten years apart.
The first Pocohantas was a 1995 cartoon from Disney starring, among others, Mel Gibson (it now seems like poetic justice, considering his Euro-centric views, that he played a character who learned to be less ignorant) and Christian Bale (which is also ironic considering Bale starred in the New World). It was a typical Disney musical that didn't really distinguish itself from the ones that came before it ("Aladdin" "Beauty and the Beast") or after it ("Mulan"), but it might be the one I have the warmest memories of because of the material. It also did win an oscar for its song (as well as best score) "Colors of the Wind," which its predecessors "The Lion King", "Aladdin", and "Beauty and the Beast" all did, so it wasn't really anything special for Disney at the time.
Exactly 10 years later in 2005, The New World told the story in epic fashion. Those who are passionate about the Jamestown story were incredibly fortunate to have Terrence Malick chose this subject as his material for only his fourth film ever. It was my favorite film of that year.
Malick takes on the story with that sense of imagination while he grounds the visual look with ameticulous attention to historic detail. Thats one thing that really stands out and keeps things interesting during the picture's slower parts, especially for for people who are familiar with Eastern Virginia, seeing this movie is to see exactly what yourhometowns looked like 400 years ago.
A lot of the story, however, is very abstract. The score brilliantly alternates between baroque piano music, what one would imagine to be the music of the Native American tribe, and a serene silence in which nothing but the sounds of nature can be heard. Time seems abstract and sometimes journal entries from John Smith's journal are laid out as voice-over.
I later heard a lecture from a historical consultant for the film who told us that the film was supposed to be like a dream and it was meant to play to an audience who was already familiar with the story. The names John Rolfe, John Smith, and Pocohantas are never mentioned once he said. It would figure then that Terrence Malick saw himself as not a storyteller but a reinterpreter of a story that stands either as historical truth or myth. And by myth, I do mean myth. According to some history majors at the lecture I attended, there was a lack of literate people in the Jamestown colony and there is good evidence to suggest that John Smith's journals were embellished to the point where he might not have even ever met Pocohantas. I found that fascinating.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
What exactly was the point of Good Night and Good Luck
In retrospect, I think Good Night and Good Luck got nominated because of the novelty factors: Black and White, it had some innovative artistic decicions, etc, as well as the surging popularity of George Clooney at the time.
In truth, it wasn't that much of a film aside from David Strathain's performance and the jazz numbers. It was a film I would describe as narratively bare.
What's more, I don't really agree with this whole "good journalism is dead" theme. Look at Anderson Cooper and Brian Williams. Those guys are thoughtful, inquisitive, highly intelligent, compassionate to the issues that are troubling Americans and I feel highly professional. They've displayed intelligent viewpoints on Iraq long before the rest of the nation did and have continually donated their time to travel away from the anchor desk and cover Katrina to ensure that the nation does not forget that. Brian Williams flew to Virginia Tech within a day of the shootings (either the day of or the day after). Cooper travelled to Iraq and Katrina multiple times. Another great news journalist, Tom Brokaw, had an excellent sense of professionalism and wrote a couple excellent books
The media also did an excellent job on the whole in covering the tsunami disasters that marked the beginning of 2005. I was personally touched with the way the media led our nation to care so deeply for people halfway around the world.
And whose to say that they wouldn't have stood up to Eugene McCarthy if they were around back then. If anything, journalists back then were dumber, because they didn't call out the HUAC sooner, and if everyone EXCEPT for Edward R Murrow bowed to McCarthy, then it doesn't sound like a respectful era.
In truth, it wasn't that much of a film aside from David Strathain's performance and the jazz numbers. It was a film I would describe as narratively bare.
What's more, I don't really agree with this whole "good journalism is dead" theme. Look at Anderson Cooper and Brian Williams. Those guys are thoughtful, inquisitive, highly intelligent, compassionate to the issues that are troubling Americans and I feel highly professional. They've displayed intelligent viewpoints on Iraq long before the rest of the nation did and have continually donated their time to travel away from the anchor desk and cover Katrina to ensure that the nation does not forget that. Brian Williams flew to Virginia Tech within a day of the shootings (either the day of or the day after). Cooper travelled to Iraq and Katrina multiple times. Another great news journalist, Tom Brokaw, had an excellent sense of professionalism and wrote a couple excellent books
The media also did an excellent job on the whole in covering the tsunami disasters that marked the beginning of 2005. I was personally touched with the way the media led our nation to care so deeply for people halfway around the world.
And whose to say that they wouldn't have stood up to Eugene McCarthy if they were around back then. If anything, journalists back then were dumber, because they didn't call out the HUAC sooner, and if everyone EXCEPT for Edward R Murrow bowed to McCarthy, then it doesn't sound like a respectful era.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Definitive top ten list part I: 2005
My take on a definitive list for 2005's top 10 films. This isn't my own personal opinion but what I believe the overall consensus was. Call it "10 Most Successful Films."
2005:
Usually, in my system, the best picture Oscar gets a film an automatic number one spot, at least in the near future. However, it seems
- Crash, Paul Haggis
Crash did win best picture and had an intense following, that included nation’s top film critic Roger Ebert who ranked it #1. It did win the best picture and secured its place in history and while people refer back to Crash’s “upset” as a debate between what should’ve won between “Crash” or “
- Good Night and Good Luck, George Clooney
The debate over rankings 3-5 of the best picture nominees is tough, but Good Night and Good Luck was considered a lock for best picture early on and was recognized by more groups including National Board of Review which gave it the top award, the Golden Globes. It also placed 3rd on movie critic’s top 10.
The debate between
- Capote, Bennett Miller
Capote had an incredibly high rottentomato rating going for it, and it was a frontrunner for the SAG ensemble award, but just because it was garnering praise for an ensemble shouldn’t be equated with best picture buzz, and it appealed to writers like Stephen King who put it high on his top ten list. Was a possible upset contender for screenplay nominee. Its top 5 status was solidified with a directors guild award and Oscar nomination for its director in addition to its picture nomination, considering its director is an unknown.
- Walk the Line, James Mangold
Walk the Line was considered the just-missed the nomination category. It won best musical/comedy and acting prizes for both of its leads. It’s box office returns and word-of-mouth popularity was stronger than any other also-ran. This might have been in part due to it being comparable in quality to last year’s nominee Ray. Slight indications like the hosts of Good Morning America asking “Why not Walk the Line?” and winning “EW’s who got snubbed” poll. It also appeared in place of
- Constant Gardener, Fernando Meirelles
Seven is a tight race between History of Violence and Constant Gardener. Between the two, Constant Gardener was received just a little better based on the more popular reputation of Meirelles (although Cronenberg is going more mainstream, his fan base is very much a small niche). The marriage of Meirelles and novelist La Carre led to a screenplay nom. Constant Gardener was an almost universally liked film with powerful performances that garnered more oscar buzz and better results (including walking away with an Oscar for the film) than History of Violence. It also garnered more total noms than some of the other films with editing and score noms. Its golden globe nom and director nom at the golden globes help its case as well. Also on Rolling Stone’s top 10.
- History of Violence, David Cronenberg
History of Violence didn’t do as well at the Oscars as Constant Gardener squeaking a best supporting actor and screenplay nod. It also didn’t have as much word of mouth, hype, or box office draw as any other top ten contender but those who saw it liked it plenty. It was ranked 2nd on moviecritictop10.com for the year and finished a top one of the entertainment weekly top ten lists. It was just one of three films to get an A- on Entertainment Weekly’s newspaper sampling, made the top ten on Rolling Stone and Premiere’s top 10. It also appeared on 2 of the 3
- Syrianna, Stephen Gaughan
The general critical response was the film was good but a little confusing. Looking at it in more detail, Syrianna did quite well and got a lot of top ten nods. It was Roeper’s top film of the year and Ebert’s 2nd, it placed 10th on moviecritictop10.com, 3rd on Peter Traver’s list and it was on both NBR and AFI’s top 10 nods with NBR’s screenplay award. It also was one of a handful of films to walk away with an award on oscar night and it merited an ensemble nod at the SGA’s and a WGA nod
10. King Kong, Peter Jackson/Match Point, Woody Allen
This is a virtual tie between the two. The main arguments for Woody Allen’s inclusion are its high number of 4 star reviews and overall satisfaction of viewers, the fact that that it’s considered a return to form for Woody Allen and its golden globe nod.
King Kong did walk away with 3 Oscars and transcended the blockbuster genre to get oscar buzz. With the saturatuation of big-budget blockbusters as of late, that is an increasingly hard task to pull off. It’s rotten tomato rating was very high and it placed 5th on moviecritictop10.com’s top 10 list. It’s box office take was pretty high and fitting for a blockbuster.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Review of The Brothers Grimm
The Brother's Grimm might not succeed as the definitive postmodern compendium of fairy tales that Director Terry Gilliam made it out to be. The plot's finer points and its references to fairy tales get easily lost on the viewer. At the same time, the movie works as a playful ride fueled by the odd couple chemistry between its two stars. Heath Ledger and Matt Damon play brothers Will and two witch doctors who travel the 18th Century German countryside offering their services as witch doctors. In reality, they're con artists who elaborately plot hoaxes. The main plot is that the two brothers are forced to play witch doctors for real when they are hired to clean out a forest that they discover is truly haunted. Terry Gilliam, who is somewhat of an acquired taste for being more of an art director than a storyteller, achieves more impressive and less distracting visuals than usual and imbues the film with touches of humor. Overall, the film works.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Review: All the King's Men
This is a review I wrote for All the King's Men that almost, almost got published by the Prince George's Sentinel (in MD) which is a dinky small paper that wouldn't have paid me much and i don't really like their format much anyway, to be honest, but still they were nice enough to offer me the chance to go out of my way to see the movie and write them a review and send it into them. One interesting thing about this review is that, oddly enough, i didn't like the movie, i was planning on writing about the positives and then the negatives but by the time i got through with the positives, i was out of word space, so i just sent it in.:
Admittingly, the bar is set pretty high to start with for All the King’s Men. For one, a picture that was originally acclaimed to the point of winning a best picture oscar doesn’t really call out to be remade unless it can be enhanced with special effects like this past December’s King Kong. The cast is also populated by a cast overstuffed with Oscar-starved actors who armed with dialect coaches are eager to pounce come awards season. Whether this political drama will actually deliver come January is one that most critics are answering no to and while that’s understandable, the film is certainly worth a look.
The 2006 version of All the King’s Men was adapted for the screen by James Carville, well-known political consultant and former host of CNN’s Crossfire. Carville was inspired to delve into screenwriting out of a love for the 1946 book and wrote the screenplay without so much as a glance of the 1949 screen adaptation. Penned by Robert Penn Warren, the Pullitzer Prize-winning novel is a profound epic and by adapting this story to screen, the film benefits from having a classically-concieved story that’s as rich as few other films today are.
The novel is based on the life of Louisiana governor and champion of the poor Huey Long. The title, in fact, comes from the motto “Every man a King” of Long’s Share the Wealth initiative which he used to redistribute wealth and pull people out of depression. Long was a very curious political figure which the movie to some extent mines with its fictitional protagonist Willie Stark. Played by Sean Penn in a thick accent, Stark comes across as a simpleton with petty desires but has the ability and drive to inspire people with profound sayings such as, “Your will is my strength,” and “You work for me because I am the way I am, and you are the way you are and that’s just an arrangement found in the natural order of things.” However, the core of the film really lies within Jude Law’s Jack Burden, a reporter-turned-right-hand-man for Stark who’s torn between loyalty to Stark’s ideals and his godfather (Anthony Hopkins) and best friend (Ruffalo) who both oppose Stark. Law carries the part ably and through him, the story becomes more of a contemplative study of values and Sothern life reminiscent of To Kill a Mockingbird or A Time to Kill. If there is one main weakness to the film however, it’s that a lot of the questions of right and wrong, and whether the symbol of an honest politician is a myth, get muddled up through a somewhat confusing plot and a lack of clarity over who’s doing what to whom and why.
All the King’s Men released in the akward buffer between summer blockbusters and the Oscar-caliber season will understandably suffer but is worth seeing.
Admittingly, the bar is set pretty high to start with for All the King’s Men. For one, a picture that was originally acclaimed to the point of winning a best picture oscar doesn’t really call out to be remade unless it can be enhanced with special effects like this past December’s King Kong. The cast is also populated by a cast overstuffed with Oscar-starved actors who armed with dialect coaches are eager to pounce come awards season. Whether this political drama will actually deliver come January is one that most critics are answering no to and while that’s understandable, the film is certainly worth a look.
The 2006 version of All the King’s Men was adapted for the screen by James Carville, well-known political consultant and former host of CNN’s Crossfire. Carville was inspired to delve into screenwriting out of a love for the 1946 book and wrote the screenplay without so much as a glance of the 1949 screen adaptation. Penned by Robert Penn Warren, the Pullitzer Prize-winning novel is a profound epic and by adapting this story to screen, the film benefits from having a classically-concieved story that’s as rich as few other films today are.
The novel is based on the life of Louisiana governor and champion of the poor Huey Long. The title, in fact, comes from the motto “Every man a King” of Long’s Share the Wealth initiative which he used to redistribute wealth and pull people out of depression. Long was a very curious political figure which the movie to some extent mines with its fictitional protagonist Willie Stark. Played by Sean Penn in a thick accent, Stark comes across as a simpleton with petty desires but has the ability and drive to inspire people with profound sayings such as, “Your will is my strength,” and “You work for me because I am the way I am, and you are the way you are and that’s just an arrangement found in the natural order of things.” However, the core of the film really lies within Jude Law’s Jack Burden, a reporter-turned-right-hand-man for Stark who’s torn between loyalty to Stark’s ideals and his godfather (Anthony Hopkins) and best friend (Ruffalo) who both oppose Stark. Law carries the part ably and through him, the story becomes more of a contemplative study of values and Sothern life reminiscent of To Kill a Mockingbird or A Time to Kill. If there is one main weakness to the film however, it’s that a lot of the questions of right and wrong, and whether the symbol of an honest politician is a myth, get muddled up through a somewhat confusing plot and a lack of clarity over who’s doing what to whom and why.
All the King’s Men released in the akward buffer between summer blockbusters and the Oscar-caliber season will understandably suffer but is worth seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)