Movie Roundup- January through now
A lot of this content is seriously overdue, I've been meaning to post about some of this for over a month now. So this is kind of a massive post of varying degrees and forms of film geekness. Which I have been drafting over two days. ...Yeah.
For the first time:
Australia
I don't get why it was pretty much a flop. Is it Luhrman's best film? Well, no. But seriously, how are you supposed to follow Moulin Rouge! anyway? Australia is a very different film than his previous work. It's his tribute to the great studio-era historical epics and westerns. Could the script have stood a little more work? Yeah. Could it have been cut down a little? Probably, but with that question one feels compelled to point out that studio-era historical epics seemed pretty loathe to sacrifice any running time. Was it well directed? Yes, if in a somewhat more traditional way than, say, Romeo + Juliet. It's a gorgeous film. Was it well acted? My god, yes. At first, I was iffy on whether Brandon Walters, the kid, really deserved all the good things being said about him. He did. Jackman, in spite of being somewhat limited by the character, really pulled through towards the end of the film. And Kidman, my god, Kidman. The number one impression I walked away from that movie with was that Kidman is amazing and I adore her.
Australia, and by extention everyone in it, takes a little while to find its feet. It does, I admit, start out more "passable and pretty" than anything. But once Lady Ashley reaches the ranch and finds her husband dead, the film knows what it wants to do (even if there's a lot of that) and the actors, most notably Kidman, really begin to inhabit and shine in their roles.
The most interesting aspects to me, other than the brilliance of Nicole Kidman, were two things in particular. First, the whole movie makes it clear that Luhrman has genuine respect and fondness for the Aborigine people. His handling of things relating to them, most notably the Lost Generation stuff, does not come across as political correctness, but as the most sincere part of the plot. Second, the way Luhrman can actually sell me on a love scene. Now, this isn't really surprising. Yes, I have a tendency to want to ignore love scenes in favor of getting back to the actual plot, but I've never had that desire with a Luhrman movie. But the thing was, I didn't really believe in Sarah and Drover for a while, it felt more like plot inevitability than chemistry. But their love scene was handled with such a...tender but mature sensibility, and seemed to show them so well, that I was completely sold on the couple thereafter.
I liked it. I am glad I paid the money to see it in theatres.
Moonstruck
This was what we watched the weekend I went home. It's an interesting case. There was a portion of my brain that clung to logic and was screaming "You hardly know each other! Wait a year or two to talk about marriage!" But most of my brain was screaming "Shut up this is a fun movie!" at the former part.
Whether I should or not, I go with the larger portion of my brain. Moonstruck is very enjoyable romantic comedy, which manages to successfully mix some very down-to-earth elements with ones that are completely over the top. It keeps a sweetly laid-back pace, orchestrates its finale very well, and has a good deal of respect for some of its characters, most notably the heroine and her mother. Which brings me to the point of Cher's character and performance. I really like her character, in fact she...somehow reminded me of Susan Sto Helit (especially earlier in the movie). And Cher was really just perfect, she was entirely believable and never lost sight of the character for a second. The movie would not work without her giving such a grounded performance at the heart of it.
So, I liked this quite a bit. Besides, you just have to love a comedy where Nicholas Cage is cast as the romantic hero, because...that's just inherently hilarious.
5 cm per Second
Watched it in anime club. And first, I want to ask...did anyone else find the characters in this movie (especially as they were in the first story) kind of Salingerian? Please tell me it's not just me.
Beyond that, this is a wonderful film to look at. The colors and lighting are gorgeous, and Shinkai's really got a gift for framing a shot well, in fact his mise en scene often goes very well with the plot or emotion. The characterization wasn't bad, I particularly liked the girl in the second section.
But...it bothered me. Really bothered me. And this is why- must we really have a whole movie about the ways in which a guy pines and self-destructs because of his first love? Yes, I realize that by the end he's most likely moving on, but...why couldn't we get the girl's story? Why couldn't one part of the movie focus on how she was well adjusted and didn't cut herself off from other people and found someone she wanted to marry? Is that somehow not romantic enough? What's wrong with a story about the effects of second love to accompany a story about first love?
It was a very well done movie. I actually wouldn't mind owning it. But once it was over, I sat back and thought a bit, and was just...bothered. Maybe the timing for my watching was somehow wrong.
Slumdog Millionaire
A truly fascinating film. I loved the variety in the cinematography, the color palettes, the soundtrack, the range of issues dealt with without making them all that melodramatic, and the looks, however limited or in depth, into the motivations of the characters. While it can be violent or gross at times, it's in a way that is perfectly in step with the world. This is a movie that does reach out and make you involved, even if you're pretty sure you know the ending. I really feel it's at its best when it's showing some small insight into one of the characters, whether it's Jamal or...the charming celebrity host, and whether the insight is pleasant or not. ...I should point out that extends to the insights into worldview (i.e. the boys' reaction to the Taj Mahal). And I like the love story element in this, which is interesting given that I had watched 5 cm the previous night and had such problems.
The biggest problem I had with it, and this might have been the print at the theatre, I don't know, was that the quality of the film being used seemed to change at different points, and while at first I thought there was a pattern to it, it devolved into me not seeing a pattern.
Anyway, I definitely understand where all the praise is coming from. I'm actually interested in checking out the book, Q and A, if I get a chance. And the homage to Bollywood that is the first part of the closing credits? Marvelous and charming.
Frost/Nixon
One of those movies I would actually gladly have paid twice the ticket price for. This was wonderfully well constructed and acted. The narrative structure is just really well built, and I liked the imitation of documentaries that was included. It's a very informed and informative movie without ever sacrificing the drama of what's going on. I agree with the L.A. Times rather than the NY Times as far as direction goes, I think Howard did a good job of opening up the play while maintaining a contained tension where it was really called for by the script. You can understand that it would work well as a play, still, but that doesn't mean it's not a strong piece of filmmaking as well. I also rather liked Howard's lighting.
Of course, the movie ultimately rests on the ability of Langella and Sheen (no relation to Martin or Charlie) to be completely convincing and fascinating. And boy, do they deliver. Langella's is the better performance, but personally, I actually wasn't sure of that until the very climactic scene. They are both that good. Langella nails Nixon, but Sheen displays a wonderful subtlety and makes for a Frost who really is almost as interesting as Nixon.
This isn't a film you really have to see in theatres, I admit. But I encourage people to anyway, because it deserves the support. It deserves it so much.
Rewatches:
The Bourne Supremacy
I think a flaw in judgement I'm prone to display is that once I decide on a hierarchy for the parts of a series, I can tend to sell the part I've reached the conclusion is weakest shorter than it often deserves. I need to fix that, and I can start by not doing it again with The Bourne Supremacy. I've been passing over Supremacy in regards to rewatches, and that is a mistake, because Supremacy is really very good, and very close to not being the one I consider weakest of the three.
I realized several things from rewatching. One is that I've nailed down a major reason I'm inclined to cut Greengrass a break as far as criticizing his camerawork goes. I just love how he uses sound, and good sound direction can go a long way with me. Specifically, I love that he doesn't overproduce in regards to sound, he lets important scenes really speak for themselves. He doesn't pump music into fight scenes, you've already got percussion with the guys hitting each other and running into things. And he allows key dramatic scenes to speak for themselves too, he doesn't introduce a distraction from the voices of the actors, the sound of shifting cloth. I like that. He'll use music afterwards, or beforehand, and use it well, but he limits it nicely. (On the subject of music, though, I do think Supremacy has the best soundtrack of the three.) Also, this movie may actually be the most interesting prism through which to view the character of Bourne. Things have been shot to hell for him again, and this time there's less light at the end of the tunnel than there was in the first movie. He's also dealing with a greater number of emotional issues/conflicts than in Identity, and he hasn't yet gotten the focus that he has in Ultimatum. It's a very cruel time in his life, but very interesting. I also realized that one of the ways you can tell someone is evil in the second two movies? If they underestimate Pam and think they can use her. People who do that are both evil and screwed.
Thank You For Smoking
You know, I had forgotten that this movie really starts out being that hilariously politically incorrect and just maintains it through the whole thing.
...I actually should have more to say on this one than I do, but the main thing is that it's just so cynically funny. And, of course, has an all star cast led by an almost too good Aaron Eckhart. It's got tons of different elements that maybe shouldn't all work together but do because they're all so amusing and tied together with wonderfully solid comedic direction and Eckhart's charm. I just love it.
And it's a great way to relax after a very hard time on a comparative economic diplomacy midterm.
Michael Clayton
My favorite movie of 2007 was The Bourne Ultimatum. Yeah, I know, shocking. But Michael Clayton came very close, and it mostly comes down to Gilroy's plot beating out Gilroy's other plot. But if I'm honest? Michael Clayton is the better film. There are a variety of reasons for that, but the chief three are George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, and Tom Wilkinson. (Please note, I'm not saying that the cast of Ultimatum is not amazing, but the structure of Ultimatum doesn't allow for the kinds of performances Clayton makes possible.) I was just sitting in awe at the totally full and believable performances that these people give. Perhaps because I was focusing on the plot a bit more when I saw it in theatres, I hadn't quite remembered that the actors were as amazing as they are. There are a lot of interesting layers to Michael present in the script, but Clooney just adds more facets and so much depth to the character. Swinton is remarkably believable, ensuring that even if you can't quite find her character sympathetic (nor should you), you understand her. Wilkinson is alternately rather disturbing and rather sympathetic, with the occasional surprising moment of badassness, all of which are effects his character should have.
And I just have to mention how much I love Gilroy's attention to logical detail. When the assassins break into someone's house and kill him there? They wear shower caps while committing the crime. Pretty? No. Such a cool and intelligent detail? Hell yes.
I do have problems with it here and there, of course. I do think the part with the horses was a little on the pretentious side. But any problem is more than outweighed by the excellent parts of the movie. And the first part of the credits...that is, in a way, one of the best things I've ever seen done in a film (and you need someone as able as Clooney to pull it off).
And a few thoughts on trailers I've recently seen. Just...because.
The International: Either this will flop because people will know that banks are too stupid to pull off this kind of DANGEROUS CONSPIRACY shit, or it'll be a hit because people are angry and paranoid enough to buy such a completely ridiculous plot premise. I am interested in seeing how this fares purely because of what it might say about the current mindset of the American consumer.
State of Play: Reporters plus cops plus politics. Yeah, this looks like one I'm going to want to see. Especially with people like Russell Crowe and Helen Mirren in it. And even more especially because guess who one of the scriptwriters is? ...Tony Gilroy.
Duplicity: As much as it possible for me to have confidence in a movie before it comes out, I have confidence in this one. Why? ...Tony Gilroy (I swear I didn't mean for this to turn into a Gilroy fangirl post). Spies! Corporate warfare! As a comedy! Written and directed by Gilroy! I know my confidence in Gilroy isn't really based on enough evidence, but...I still have it. I will probably being seeing this on the day it's released if I can and if it's not completely trashed by the L.A. Times.
For the first time:
Australia
I don't get why it was pretty much a flop. Is it Luhrman's best film? Well, no. But seriously, how are you supposed to follow Moulin Rouge! anyway? Australia is a very different film than his previous work. It's his tribute to the great studio-era historical epics and westerns. Could the script have stood a little more work? Yeah. Could it have been cut down a little? Probably, but with that question one feels compelled to point out that studio-era historical epics seemed pretty loathe to sacrifice any running time. Was it well directed? Yes, if in a somewhat more traditional way than, say, Romeo + Juliet. It's a gorgeous film. Was it well acted? My god, yes. At first, I was iffy on whether Brandon Walters, the kid, really deserved all the good things being said about him. He did. Jackman, in spite of being somewhat limited by the character, really pulled through towards the end of the film. And Kidman, my god, Kidman. The number one impression I walked away from that movie with was that Kidman is amazing and I adore her.
Australia, and by extention everyone in it, takes a little while to find its feet. It does, I admit, start out more "passable and pretty" than anything. But once Lady Ashley reaches the ranch and finds her husband dead, the film knows what it wants to do (even if there's a lot of that) and the actors, most notably Kidman, really begin to inhabit and shine in their roles.
The most interesting aspects to me, other than the brilliance of Nicole Kidman, were two things in particular. First, the whole movie makes it clear that Luhrman has genuine respect and fondness for the Aborigine people. His handling of things relating to them, most notably the Lost Generation stuff, does not come across as political correctness, but as the most sincere part of the plot. Second, the way Luhrman can actually sell me on a love scene. Now, this isn't really surprising. Yes, I have a tendency to want to ignore love scenes in favor of getting back to the actual plot, but I've never had that desire with a Luhrman movie. But the thing was, I didn't really believe in Sarah and Drover for a while, it felt more like plot inevitability than chemistry. But their love scene was handled with such a...tender but mature sensibility, and seemed to show them so well, that I was completely sold on the couple thereafter.
I liked it. I am glad I paid the money to see it in theatres.
Moonstruck
This was what we watched the weekend I went home. It's an interesting case. There was a portion of my brain that clung to logic and was screaming "You hardly know each other! Wait a year or two to talk about marriage!" But most of my brain was screaming "Shut up this is a fun movie!" at the former part.
Whether I should or not, I go with the larger portion of my brain. Moonstruck is very enjoyable romantic comedy, which manages to successfully mix some very down-to-earth elements with ones that are completely over the top. It keeps a sweetly laid-back pace, orchestrates its finale very well, and has a good deal of respect for some of its characters, most notably the heroine and her mother. Which brings me to the point of Cher's character and performance. I really like her character, in fact she...somehow reminded me of Susan Sto Helit (especially earlier in the movie). And Cher was really just perfect, she was entirely believable and never lost sight of the character for a second. The movie would not work without her giving such a grounded performance at the heart of it.
So, I liked this quite a bit. Besides, you just have to love a comedy where Nicholas Cage is cast as the romantic hero, because...that's just inherently hilarious.
5 cm per Second
Watched it in anime club. And first, I want to ask...did anyone else find the characters in this movie (especially as they were in the first story) kind of Salingerian? Please tell me it's not just me.
Beyond that, this is a wonderful film to look at. The colors and lighting are gorgeous, and Shinkai's really got a gift for framing a shot well, in fact his mise en scene often goes very well with the plot or emotion. The characterization wasn't bad, I particularly liked the girl in the second section.
But...it bothered me. Really bothered me. And this is why- must we really have a whole movie about the ways in which a guy pines and self-destructs because of his first love? Yes, I realize that by the end he's most likely moving on, but...why couldn't we get the girl's story? Why couldn't one part of the movie focus on how she was well adjusted and didn't cut herself off from other people and found someone she wanted to marry? Is that somehow not romantic enough? What's wrong with a story about the effects of second love to accompany a story about first love?
It was a very well done movie. I actually wouldn't mind owning it. But once it was over, I sat back and thought a bit, and was just...bothered. Maybe the timing for my watching was somehow wrong.
Slumdog Millionaire
A truly fascinating film. I loved the variety in the cinematography, the color palettes, the soundtrack, the range of issues dealt with without making them all that melodramatic, and the looks, however limited or in depth, into the motivations of the characters. While it can be violent or gross at times, it's in a way that is perfectly in step with the world. This is a movie that does reach out and make you involved, even if you're pretty sure you know the ending. I really feel it's at its best when it's showing some small insight into one of the characters, whether it's Jamal or...the charming celebrity host, and whether the insight is pleasant or not. ...I should point out that extends to the insights into worldview (i.e. the boys' reaction to the Taj Mahal). And I like the love story element in this, which is interesting given that I had watched 5 cm the previous night and had such problems.
The biggest problem I had with it, and this might have been the print at the theatre, I don't know, was that the quality of the film being used seemed to change at different points, and while at first I thought there was a pattern to it, it devolved into me not seeing a pattern.
Anyway, I definitely understand where all the praise is coming from. I'm actually interested in checking out the book, Q and A, if I get a chance. And the homage to Bollywood that is the first part of the closing credits? Marvelous and charming.
Frost/Nixon
One of those movies I would actually gladly have paid twice the ticket price for. This was wonderfully well constructed and acted. The narrative structure is just really well built, and I liked the imitation of documentaries that was included. It's a very informed and informative movie without ever sacrificing the drama of what's going on. I agree with the L.A. Times rather than the NY Times as far as direction goes, I think Howard did a good job of opening up the play while maintaining a contained tension where it was really called for by the script. You can understand that it would work well as a play, still, but that doesn't mean it's not a strong piece of filmmaking as well. I also rather liked Howard's lighting.
Of course, the movie ultimately rests on the ability of Langella and Sheen (no relation to Martin or Charlie) to be completely convincing and fascinating. And boy, do they deliver. Langella's is the better performance, but personally, I actually wasn't sure of that until the very climactic scene. They are both that good. Langella nails Nixon, but Sheen displays a wonderful subtlety and makes for a Frost who really is almost as interesting as Nixon.
This isn't a film you really have to see in theatres, I admit. But I encourage people to anyway, because it deserves the support. It deserves it so much.
Rewatches:
The Bourne Supremacy
I think a flaw in judgement I'm prone to display is that once I decide on a hierarchy for the parts of a series, I can tend to sell the part I've reached the conclusion is weakest shorter than it often deserves. I need to fix that, and I can start by not doing it again with The Bourne Supremacy. I've been passing over Supremacy in regards to rewatches, and that is a mistake, because Supremacy is really very good, and very close to not being the one I consider weakest of the three.
I realized several things from rewatching. One is that I've nailed down a major reason I'm inclined to cut Greengrass a break as far as criticizing his camerawork goes. I just love how he uses sound, and good sound direction can go a long way with me. Specifically, I love that he doesn't overproduce in regards to sound, he lets important scenes really speak for themselves. He doesn't pump music into fight scenes, you've already got percussion with the guys hitting each other and running into things. And he allows key dramatic scenes to speak for themselves too, he doesn't introduce a distraction from the voices of the actors, the sound of shifting cloth. I like that. He'll use music afterwards, or beforehand, and use it well, but he limits it nicely. (On the subject of music, though, I do think Supremacy has the best soundtrack of the three.) Also, this movie may actually be the most interesting prism through which to view the character of Bourne. Things have been shot to hell for him again, and this time there's less light at the end of the tunnel than there was in the first movie. He's also dealing with a greater number of emotional issues/conflicts than in Identity, and he hasn't yet gotten the focus that he has in Ultimatum. It's a very cruel time in his life, but very interesting. I also realized that one of the ways you can tell someone is evil in the second two movies? If they underestimate Pam and think they can use her. People who do that are both evil and screwed.
Thank You For Smoking
You know, I had forgotten that this movie really starts out being that hilariously politically incorrect and just maintains it through the whole thing.
...I actually should have more to say on this one than I do, but the main thing is that it's just so cynically funny. And, of course, has an all star cast led by an almost too good Aaron Eckhart. It's got tons of different elements that maybe shouldn't all work together but do because they're all so amusing and tied together with wonderfully solid comedic direction and Eckhart's charm. I just love it.
And it's a great way to relax after a very hard time on a comparative economic diplomacy midterm.
Michael Clayton
My favorite movie of 2007 was The Bourne Ultimatum. Yeah, I know, shocking. But Michael Clayton came very close, and it mostly comes down to Gilroy's plot beating out Gilroy's other plot. But if I'm honest? Michael Clayton is the better film. There are a variety of reasons for that, but the chief three are George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, and Tom Wilkinson. (Please note, I'm not saying that the cast of Ultimatum is not amazing, but the structure of Ultimatum doesn't allow for the kinds of performances Clayton makes possible.) I was just sitting in awe at the totally full and believable performances that these people give. Perhaps because I was focusing on the plot a bit more when I saw it in theatres, I hadn't quite remembered that the actors were as amazing as they are. There are a lot of interesting layers to Michael present in the script, but Clooney just adds more facets and so much depth to the character. Swinton is remarkably believable, ensuring that even if you can't quite find her character sympathetic (nor should you), you understand her. Wilkinson is alternately rather disturbing and rather sympathetic, with the occasional surprising moment of badassness, all of which are effects his character should have.
And I just have to mention how much I love Gilroy's attention to logical detail. When the assassins break into someone's house and kill him there? They wear shower caps while committing the crime. Pretty? No. Such a cool and intelligent detail? Hell yes.
I do have problems with it here and there, of course. I do think the part with the horses was a little on the pretentious side. But any problem is more than outweighed by the excellent parts of the movie. And the first part of the credits...that is, in a way, one of the best things I've ever seen done in a film (and you need someone as able as Clooney to pull it off).
And a few thoughts on trailers I've recently seen. Just...because.
The International: Either this will flop because people will know that banks are too stupid to pull off this kind of DANGEROUS CONSPIRACY shit, or it'll be a hit because people are angry and paranoid enough to buy such a completely ridiculous plot premise. I am interested in seeing how this fares purely because of what it might say about the current mindset of the American consumer.
State of Play: Reporters plus cops plus politics. Yeah, this looks like one I'm going to want to see. Especially with people like Russell Crowe and Helen Mirren in it. And even more especially because guess who one of the scriptwriters is? ...Tony Gilroy.
Duplicity: As much as it possible for me to have confidence in a movie before it comes out, I have confidence in this one. Why? ...Tony Gilroy (I swear I didn't mean for this to turn into a Gilroy fangirl post). Spies! Corporate warfare! As a comedy! Written and directed by Gilroy! I know my confidence in Gilroy isn't really based on enough evidence, but...I still have it. I will probably being seeing this on the day it's released if I can and if it's not completely trashed by the L.A. Times.