I picked The Savages based on cast members Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I don't generally pick movies based on cast, as it tends to get you in trouble (see Samuel L. Jackson's The Great White Hype). But Linney and Hoffman have a pretty decent track record. However, I'd never heard of writer/director Tamara Jenkins and I know that I saw a trailer for this film quite a while ago (filming was completed in the spring of 2006), which can be a bad omen. Frankly, I was afraid it would suck.
The movie tells the story of siblings Jon & Wendy Savage, who are left to care for their once abusive father Lenny, played by Philip Bosco, when he begins to exhibit signs of dementia. The film explores the conflict between their not-too-fond feelings for their father and the responsibility they feel to care for him, as well as the unrealized expectations of their own lives, both personally and professionally. Sounds like a downer, eh?
But it's damned funny. Jenkins tells the story in such a way that lets you laugh out loud, even though you feel completely miserable about how things are going. She treats the material with great respect (the Q&A revealed the semi-autobiographical nature of the film), and you'll probably hear sniffles from fellow audience members if you're not a weeper yourself. The script is tight, the acting top notch, and the chemistry between Linney, Hoffman and Bosco never runs afoul.
This movie will not be a major hit, as it's so hard to motivate people to go see something that seems like such a downer. But go see it, you won't regret it. I'm guessing it'll be out sometime around the holidays, riding the wave of holiday depression to a few more box office dollars. My imdb rating: 8/10.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Q&A, but not C
One of the things I love most about the festival are the Question & Answer period they frequently have following a film. It's interesting to hear insight from the director and cast members.
My new pet peeve is "The Commenter". Invariably, there are one or two in the audience who can't overcome their need to baste the director in praise, and they must declare it in front of the entire audience. It's great that you enjoyed the film. The rest of us are hear for the Q&A. Write a letter or something.
My new pet peeve is "The Commenter". Invariably, there are one or two in the audience who can't overcome their need to baste the director in praise, and they must declare it in front of the entire audience. It's great that you enjoyed the film. The rest of us are hear for the Q&A. Write a letter or something.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Review: Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Elizabeth: The Golden Age is the follow-up to Elizabeth, released in 1998. Director Shekhar Kapur and lead Cate Blanchett are back together after the original became a surprise hit. Indian director, Australian actress, English Queen. Would'vethunkit? But it worked, and since then Cate has become a widely respected actress.
The first film covered Queen Elizabeth's rise to power, while this film focuses on England's conflict with Spain and that whole Spanish Inquisition thing. I keep hearing "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!".
So Spain decides to invade England and kill The Virgin Queen (or "that whore", King Philip of Spain's pet name for her... I'm sure that the subtitles lose something in translation) in retaliation for beheading her cousin Mary Queen of Scots, a Catholic, in retaliation for attempting to assassinate Elizabeth. Apparently, that was the justification they'd been waiting for to invade England and replace Elizabeth with a new queen, Philip's child. Anyway, Mary's body then picks up her own head, jumps on a horse, and rides across the ocean to kick some serious Spaniard butt. Okay, that last sentence was all a lie, but if you do see this film, I promise you'll see a horse swim.
Anyway, Spain's military is far superior to England's and sends an armada to conquer them. All that stands between the huge fleet and England is hunky Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) and a thunderstorm and... well, if you don't know what happens I won't spoil it for you.
I have much internal conflict to work out here. I like Kapur (who introduced the film and did an extensive Q&A afterward) and deeply admire Blanchett. But the film didn't always work for me. The script was a little clunky in places, lacking flow from one scene to the next. I'm still trying to work out if it was the script or merely editing. Cate seemed to be overacting in spots. I'm not saying it was a bad movie, but certainly it fell short of my expectations. I'll probably be burned at the stake for saying so. It's been nice knowing you all. My imdb rating: 7/10.
The first film covered Queen Elizabeth's rise to power, while this film focuses on England's conflict with Spain and that whole Spanish Inquisition thing. I keep hearing "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!".
So Spain decides to invade England and kill The Virgin Queen (or "that whore", King Philip of Spain's pet name for her... I'm sure that the subtitles lose something in translation) in retaliation for beheading her cousin Mary Queen of Scots, a Catholic, in retaliation for attempting to assassinate Elizabeth. Apparently, that was the justification they'd been waiting for to invade England and replace Elizabeth with a new queen, Philip's child. Anyway, Mary's body then picks up her own head, jumps on a horse, and rides across the ocean to kick some serious Spaniard butt. Okay, that last sentence was all a lie, but if you do see this film, I promise you'll see a horse swim.
Anyway, Spain's military is far superior to England's and sends an armada to conquer them. All that stands between the huge fleet and England is hunky Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) and a thunderstorm and... well, if you don't know what happens I won't spoil it for you.
I have much internal conflict to work out here. I like Kapur (who introduced the film and did an extensive Q&A afterward) and deeply admire Blanchett. But the film didn't always work for me. The script was a little clunky in places, lacking flow from one scene to the next. I'm still trying to work out if it was the script or merely editing. Cate seemed to be overacting in spots. I'm not saying it was a bad movie, but certainly it fell short of my expectations. I'll probably be burned at the stake for saying so. It's been nice knowing you all. My imdb rating: 7/10.
Review: Just Buried
Just Buried was one of my "let's roll the dice on a random Canadian flick" picks. The writer/director Chaz Thorne makes his feature directorial debut with this flick, which is a familiar sounding plot about a guy named Rollie who inherits a bankrupt funeral home. At first completely accidentally, then increasingly less so, he starts killing people to pump up the business.
The movie runs in the farcical lane for the most part, but attempts to wander into the realm of suspense flick. Some of the jokes make you laugh, others made you uncomfortable to be in the room with the filmmaker when they fell flat. The running gag with the bloody nose, for instance, just didn't play as well as I'm sure they would have hoped.
In the end, I didn't completely guess the ending, so I'll give it at least that much credit.
If I knew anything about the game of craps, I'd tie in my opening line of the review by throwing out some reference to a number that was harmless; not a winner for most, not a loser for most, just kind of there (Clint, I could use a hand here). But I don't, so I'll just throw out my imdb rating: 5/10.
The movie runs in the farcical lane for the most part, but attempts to wander into the realm of suspense flick. Some of the jokes make you laugh, others made you uncomfortable to be in the room with the filmmaker when they fell flat. The running gag with the bloody nose, for instance, just didn't play as well as I'm sure they would have hoped.
In the end, I didn't completely guess the ending, so I'll give it at least that much credit.
If I knew anything about the game of craps, I'd tie in my opening line of the review by throwing out some reference to a number that was harmless; not a winner for most, not a loser for most, just kind of there (Clint, I could use a hand here). But I don't, so I'll just throw out my imdb rating: 5/10.
Review: Joy Division
I scheduled Joy Division knowing full well it could be a rescreening of a crappy Joy Division doc released on DVD in 2006. But, unable to attend the screening for Control, I decided to give it a whirl. And I'm glad I did.
This documentary was excellent, offering unprecedented interviews with the remaining members of Joy Division, lead singer Ian Curtis' mistress and other key players in their history, never before released video and audio footage of the band, and a great deal of background information. We had the added bonus of a Q&A with the director, Grant Gee, and extra-special guest Joy Division bassist Peter Hook.
Much of the documentary focused on iconic lead singer Ian Curtis' life, poetry, illness, depression and subsequent suicide. Regarding that tragedy, an audience member asked Peter Hook if he fells he's had closure. "No, I haven't had closure. I don't ever want closure. I want Ian back." It's apparent, though, that the members of the band, finally opening up about those times, have come to some sort of peace. They're famous for being dodgy and avoiding any unnecessary attention. But now they speak openly and confidently about all that happened. And, they've begun once again playing the music of Joy Division live (and sound good doing it).
I'll openly admit that you might not at all be interested the film if you're not a fan of the band (and I doubt you are). But, if you are, or you enjoy a little post-punk history lesson, add this to your Netflix list when it makes it out on DVD, likely next year sometime. My (admittedly fan friendly) imdb rating: 9/10.
This documentary was excellent, offering unprecedented interviews with the remaining members of Joy Division, lead singer Ian Curtis' mistress and other key players in their history, never before released video and audio footage of the band, and a great deal of background information. We had the added bonus of a Q&A with the director, Grant Gee, and extra-special guest Joy Division bassist Peter Hook.
Much of the documentary focused on iconic lead singer Ian Curtis' life, poetry, illness, depression and subsequent suicide. Regarding that tragedy, an audience member asked Peter Hook if he fells he's had closure. "No, I haven't had closure. I don't ever want closure. I want Ian back." It's apparent, though, that the members of the band, finally opening up about those times, have come to some sort of peace. They're famous for being dodgy and avoiding any unnecessary attention. But now they speak openly and confidently about all that happened. And, they've begun once again playing the music of Joy Division live (and sound good doing it).
I'll openly admit that you might not at all be interested the film if you're not a fan of the band (and I doubt you are). But, if you are, or you enjoy a little post-punk history lesson, add this to your Netflix list when it makes it out on DVD, likely next year sometime. My (admittedly fan friendly) imdb rating: 9/10.
Review: Religulous: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles
In earlier posts, I mispelled the title of this one "Religious". The actual title is Religulous, a combination of the words "religious" and "ridiculous". This review isn't really a film review. We got to see a ten-minute trailer of the work-in-progress documentary Bill Maher and Larry Charles, followed by a 45-minute live conversation with the two men, more clips from the movie, and then a Q&A with the audience. It was often hilarious, sometimes insightful, and altogether entertaining. I can't wait to see the film, which is in post-production and should be out sometime this spring.
The movie looks like it will be Bill Maher traveling around the world talking to people of various sects of the big three western faiths (Christianity, Judaism & Muslim). When asked if they had a hard time, knowing who he was, getting people to talk on camera, Bill answered, "No. [People of faith] are media whores, just like everyone else."
The clips were pretty hilarious. One audience member criticized them for displaying the imagined transcript of a text message typed by a Muslim Cleric ("Death to Bill Maher. LOL :-)") when their conversation was interrupted by a seemingly anachronistic 21st century gadget. I thought the gag worked pretty well. Some people have no sense of humor. Most of the humorous moments, though, stood completely on their own, without embellishment.
In conversation, the two men discussed their religious backgrounds. Bill is the son of a Catholic father and Jewish mother. Larry is the son of a secular Jewish couple, but grew up in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, admitted wanting at one time to be a Rabbi, much to his father's dismay. Bill made the point that he's not without spirituality, but that he finds many aspects of religion to be a bit preposterous. He went on to say that exploring his own spirituality to be "on his long-term to do list", right behind "getting laid and smoking more weed". Ah, Bill...
The movie looks like it will be Bill Maher traveling around the world talking to people of various sects of the big three western faiths (Christianity, Judaism & Muslim). When asked if they had a hard time, knowing who he was, getting people to talk on camera, Bill answered, "No. [People of faith] are media whores, just like everyone else."
The clips were pretty hilarious. One audience member criticized them for displaying the imagined transcript of a text message typed by a Muslim Cleric ("Death to Bill Maher. LOL :-)") when their conversation was interrupted by a seemingly anachronistic 21st century gadget. I thought the gag worked pretty well. Some people have no sense of humor. Most of the humorous moments, though, stood completely on their own, without embellishment.
In conversation, the two men discussed their religious backgrounds. Bill is the son of a Catholic father and Jewish mother. Larry is the son of a secular Jewish couple, but grew up in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, admitted wanting at one time to be a Rabbi, much to his father's dismay. Bill made the point that he's not without spirituality, but that he finds many aspects of religion to be a bit preposterous. He went on to say that exploring his own spirituality to be "on his long-term to do list", right behind "getting laid and smoking more weed". Ah, Bill...
Review: Lust, Caution
The buzz on Ang Lee's Lust, Caution is that the MPAA was slapping the film with an NC-17 rating and that Ang Lee and company were not fighting it. After seeing it, I'm not surprised by either fact. It's an understatement to say that some scenes are rather steamy, and if near pornographic sex scenes make you uncomfortable, perhaps you'll wait for this one on DVD or skip it altogether. The scenes serve a purpose, though; I did not personally find them gratuitous in nature.
A little side commentary: it is a little odd that you can show any sort of murder in explicit nasty detail -- blood, guts, eye-gouging, decapitation, etc. -- and that's R, but please don't let the children see, say, more natural acts. I'm not saying kids should see this movie. Frankly, they'd likely be bored. I'm just noting how much more easily our society deals with one topic than the other.
This story, written by Eileen Chang over a 20+ year period, follows a young and talented high school drama club member named Wang Jiazhi, who somewhat reluctantly joins the resistance against the Japanese occupation of China in the late 30's. Their group is young and naive and probably gets closer to success than they should have when Mr. Yee, a Chinese bureaucrat collaborating with the Japanese, becomes enamoured with young Wang. Years later, the same group finds themselves integrated with a more organized resistance movement, where the real fireworks start.
I overheard some film goers saying that beautiful newcomer Wei Tang was chosen from 10,000 women who auditioned for the part, and that doesn't surprise me. She pulls off a wonderfully complex role skillfully, and is as convincing as a young, naive school girl as she is as a young woman impersonating a low-end sophisticate wife of an exporter. We see her learning to act, dealing with abandonment by her father, learning to woo (and do other things with) men, think on her feet in high-stakes espionage, and make seemingly idle chit-chat with high society women who have nothing better to do than shop and play Mahjong.
The one complaint I heard from one couple in the theatre was that it took over an hour "for the movie to get started". Some people have no appreciation for plot and character development. Had Lee rushed the plot, it never would have worked. I thought the movie worked wonderfully as a suspense movie, keeping you guessing until the very end. My imdb rating: 9/10.
A little side commentary: it is a little odd that you can show any sort of murder in explicit nasty detail -- blood, guts, eye-gouging, decapitation, etc. -- and that's R, but please don't let the children see, say, more natural acts. I'm not saying kids should see this movie. Frankly, they'd likely be bored. I'm just noting how much more easily our society deals with one topic than the other.
This story, written by Eileen Chang over a 20+ year period, follows a young and talented high school drama club member named Wang Jiazhi, who somewhat reluctantly joins the resistance against the Japanese occupation of China in the late 30's. Their group is young and naive and probably gets closer to success than they should have when Mr. Yee, a Chinese bureaucrat collaborating with the Japanese, becomes enamoured with young Wang. Years later, the same group finds themselves integrated with a more organized resistance movement, where the real fireworks start.
I overheard some film goers saying that beautiful newcomer Wei Tang was chosen from 10,000 women who auditioned for the part, and that doesn't surprise me. She pulls off a wonderfully complex role skillfully, and is as convincing as a young, naive school girl as she is as a young woman impersonating a low-end sophisticate wife of an exporter. We see her learning to act, dealing with abandonment by her father, learning to woo (and do other things with) men, think on her feet in high-stakes espionage, and make seemingly idle chit-chat with high society women who have nothing better to do than shop and play Mahjong.
The one complaint I heard from one couple in the theatre was that it took over an hour "for the movie to get started". Some people have no appreciation for plot and character development. Had Lee rushed the plot, it never would have worked. I thought the movie worked wonderfully as a suspense movie, keeping you guessing until the very end. My imdb rating: 9/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
people had nothing better to do.