Archive for Movies & TV

Monday Movie Review: Duplicity

April 6, 2009 / / Comments Off on Monday Movie Review: Duplicity

Duplicity (2009) 9/10
Ray (Clive Owen) is former MI6 agent. Claire (Julia Roberts) is a former CIA agent. In 2002 they met, slept together, and she stole some papers from him. Now they’re corporate spies on the same team. Or are they? Written and directed by Tony Gilroy.

There is something delightfully retro about Duplicity. It feels like a charming caper from the sixties, like the original Thomas Crown Affair. It’s in the bounciness of the filming, especially when scenes are entered via split screen. There’s a smartness and a sense of ease, as if nothing that happens is all that serious, even though the stakes are high.

I saw a review that likened Duplicity to a screwball, and I can definitely see that; it’s especially similar to His Girl Friday. Owen and Roberts are certainly a better physical and personal match for Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell than for Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway! But it’s mostly the rapid-fire romance, and romantic humor, juxtaposed with a gritty, even dark, story.

This may sounds as if Duplicity is kitsch. It is not. The core story, of corporate espionage, is told in an almost naturalistic style. None of the cast, other than the two leads, have dazzling movie star good looks. The CEO rivals are played by Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, and the other security agents and tech geeks are equally unbeautiful. The blend of the sparkling stars with the rest of the cast isn’t quite seamless, and is the only place I’d fault the film.

We open in Dubai. Ray and Claire meet, flirt, make love, and he wakes up alone. Then it’s the present day, and we don’t know quite what’s going on. Throughout the film, we learn more and more. From 2002, the flashbacks move steadily forward, until, in the end, we see exactly how the present events fit with Ray and Claire’s past history. It’s not confusing, except inasmuch as you don’t know the whole plot—but why should you? The reveal is part of the pleasure, and each time information is revealed, you know more. It’s not The Usual Suspects, with a final twist that reverses the previous movie, or Swordfish, with a final twist that pretends to explain everything but is just more gobbledygook. It’s a steady, bit-by-bit accumulation of knowledge throughout a dizzying sequence of events. Delightful.

And the thing is, there’s a real story being told here. Tony Gilroy is interested in the workings of trust and distrust, of love and eroticism, and of how they all interact as understood by two spies in a relationship that may or may not be real. It’s a good story, well-told, and a lot of fun as well.

Andy Hallett: Dead at age 33

March 30, 2009 / / 5 comments

I am so sad and shocked about this. Andy Hallett, who played Lorne on Angel: The Series, has died at the age of 33 after a long battle with heart disease.

He took a character who was basically a joke and imbued him with enormous soul. He was the guy you rooted for; despite being green-skinned and horned, he was the “regular guy” in the crew when everyone else was all dark and twisty. And clearly, this was Hallett’s tremendous presence.

He will be missed. May he be born again to those who loved him.

Monday Movie Review: The Hunger

March 30, 2009 / / 7 comments

The Hunger (1983) 7/10
Miriam (Catherine Deneuve) and John (David Bowie) are ancient vampires living in modern (1983) Manhattan. Although Miriam is immortal, John begins to age after hundreds of years of youth. Then they discover Sarah (Susan Sarandon), a doctor researching the cause of aging. Directed by Tony Scott.

I know I saw this movie in the theater. I remember being in a theater in 1983 or 1984 (might have been second run) and seeing this, and yet I remembered nothing about it except finding it confusing.

It is confusing, no doubt about that. The stylized use of inter-cutting is dizzying, and the mechanics of the plot are left largely to the imagination. And yet, and yet, and yet…The Hunger is something like an encapsulation of everything that fascinates about vampirism. It is sexy, artsy, and dark. It lavishly favors style over substance, and makes that a virtue. In fact, where The Hunger is weakest is in trying so hard to have a plot at all. It works best as a visual and sensory trip outside the confines of what-the-hell-is-this-anyway.

It’s kind of ahead of its time, really. It was before Michelle Belanger. It was not before Anne Rice (Interview with the Vampire was published in 1976), but certainly before she was her own cottage industry. Yet here is The Hunger, showing a connection between vampires and a dark nightclub scene that would later morph into Goth. Miriam and John go out, listen to Bauhaus, dance with New Wavers dressed all in black, go home with two of them, have sex with them, and eat them. That there is nudity is absolutely right; this is absorption is the sensual experience.

…and depending on your tastes, you may hate this movie. Because there is all this artsy inter-cutting, and there is this stupidly obtuse plot, and a lot of veils, a lot of gauze, and crumbly corpses. This is definitely a matter of taste.

The movie mostly stumbles in showing Sarah’s side of things; her age laboratory is thinly drawn—a bunch of white coats and monkeys—and I could have done with less lab and more Miriam and John. But one scene, in which John visits Sarah’s facility, is perhaps the best and most haunting the film has to offer.

Plus there’s the sex. Because it’s definitely true that any movie in which Catherine Deneuve has naked encounters with both David Bowie and Susan Sarandon is worth seeing.

Monday Movie Review: Things We Lost in the Fire

March 23, 2009 / / One comment

Things We Lost in the Fire (2007) 7/10
Audrey (Halle Berry) and Brian (David Duchovny) are happily married, but fight over Brian’s friend Jerry (Benicio del Toro). Jerry is a drug addict whom Audrey distrusts, but Brian insists on helping. When Brian is killed, Jerry and Audrey need each other’s help to mourn.

Things We Lost in the Fire is a beautiful movie, in that it is gorgeously filmed, and that it is about its characters, and doesn’t go for easy answers. The thing that is most remarkable about the script here is that Jerry and Audrey are individuals, they are not “the widow” and “the junkie,” and I think ninety percent of writers who attempted this script would make them exactly that.

On the down side, it’s also a very self-conscious movie. For every exquisite shot, there’s a look-at-me-I’m-exquisite shot. And while these look-at-me shots are genuinely beautiful, waving at the camera detracts from the story.

The same could be said for the script, with writing that occasionally underlines that the story will not play out in a conventional way. There is one conversation, between Jerry and one of the Burke children, that is more or less, “I want this story to follow conventional movie arcs.” “But it won’t.” And it was smartly written, make no mistake, but a little obvious.

And yet, I am so touched by the vulnerability of these people. Audrey, who is wealthy and apparently competent, and strong and smart, all these things, and yet broken, and not broken because her husband died, but broken because she’s a human being with parts that break, those parts we all have, and losing her husband removed all the veneer from the brokenness. Berry is at her best in these vulnerable roles. Give her a superhero or someone street smart to play and she’s flat and relies on her beauty and a certain snappiness, but give her some pain and some weakness and she sinks deep into her huge round eyes and digs in. This is her best work since Monster’s Ball.

Del Toro, on the other hand, really isn’t an uneven actor. He’s always this good. And Duchovny? I have no idea why he gets as much work as he does, but he doesn’t detract.

The pacing is slow, sometimes glacial, but it works. This isn’t an action movie, it’s a story of healing, and of not healing, and it’s lovely.

Important information on how to watch a movie

March 18, 2009 / / Comments Off on Important information on how to watch a movie

This weekend, I met my son’s girlfriend. But wait, that’s not the information. This sophisticated young lady, who has taken film history classes, had never seen Four Weddings and a Funeral. So that’s what we did. We laughed, we cried, we bitched about Andie MacDowell.

So I taught her my trick. Here’s how it works: You take Four Weddings and a Funeral, and you stand it next to Notting Hill. Then you squint really hard.

The result is Four Weddings and a Funeral, starring Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts. The perfect movie.

Monday Movie Review: Watchmen

March 16, 2009 / / Comments Off on Monday Movie Review: Watchmen

Watchmen (2009) 6/10
In an alternative timeline, it is 1985. Richard Nixon is in the fifth term of his presidency, the world is at the brink of nuclear war, and masked heroes have been made illegal. Most heroes retired, but Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) has refused, and continues to function as a vigilante. When The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is killed, Rorschach suspects that someone may be going after “masks;” his efforts to contact other retired heroes sets off a chain of events. Directed by Zack Snyder.

Full disclosure: I’ve read the graphic novel Watchmen maybe four times. Maybe five. I can’t review the movie as-is, I can’t un-read the novel I’ve read, or remove the knowledge of it from my brain. I’m not one of those geeked-out people who can’t abide any deviation from the original: Movies are their own medium, and slavish recreations of books in movie form tend to be soulless and flat. Nonetheless, there’s no way to refrain from comparison, and I won’t try.

It’s possible that Zack Snyder wanted to make a unique movie, using the graphic novel as a jumping-off point, sort of Hitchcock to DuMaurier, but that doesn’t explain his absolute visual commitment to the original, down to specific frames, which makes every change seem deliberate and glaring.

The visual styles, despite this commitment, are very different. Snyder is a slick, pretty storyteller with a lot of whiz-bang. Moore’s story and Gibbons’ illustrations are gritty and hyper-realistic. In the book, the costumes look (as costumes will) a little goofy, and that’s part of the point. In the movie they look gorgeous.

The original is a deeply violent and unsettling work. The film ups the ante on all the violence. In a film struggling to fit in a complex story, where a lot had to be cut out, you have to wonder why every fight is so extended, why the camera lingers (as the comic did not) on dripping gore in scene after scene. I think it’s counter-productive, for example, for Rorschach to tell his “origin” story, which is horrifically violent, after so much film violence that (a) Snyder has to make it even more violent, and (b) its impact is reduced after an hour of numbing horror.

» Read more..

The geek at the next table

March 9, 2009 / / 5 comments

So I had lunch at Panera, and a guy at the next table is speaking in a deep, rolling Seth Rogen voice which is impossible to ignore, and I take a peek, and he looks a little like Rogen too. He’s replete with geek markers, from his grooming to his clothes to his mannerisms. And yes, I got all that from just a peek (plus verbal mannerisms). He appears to be in his early 30s, but I’m bad at that.

So it becomes clear very quickly that he’s talking about having seen Watchmen. And soon it also becomes clear that he doesn’t know the material. Hasn’t read the graphic novel. Is confused about the basic premise. And I’m thinking, what kind of geek are you? Not a comic book geek. Then he says he doesn’t know the name of the actor playing Rorschach. And I think, not a movie geek.

Then he starts talking about the trailer to the new Terminator movie, which he saw in Watchmen, and he’s got all kinds of details about that. So what is that? Highly specialized Terminator geek? Blow-things-up geek? I’m confused.

Geeks should know Watchmen. Just should.

Monday Movie Review: Hounddog

March 9, 2009 / / 6 comments

Hounddog (2007) 7/10
Lewellen (Dakota Fanning) is a poor southern girl in the 1950s, obsessed with Elvis. Her father (David Morse), whom she hates and adores, beats her. Her grandmother (Piper Laurie) preaches to her. The void in her might be filled by singing, or by her father’s new girlfriend (Robin Wright Penn), or not at all.

Moments, it seems, after filming wrapped on Hounddog, word got out that it featured a scene of Dakota Fanning (then 13) being raped. Mired in controversy, the film was unable to find distribution. I’m not sure what the availability is now. I saw it as part of an event at the family shelter where I volunteer.

You can definitely find fault with Hounddog. There are times that the filming is absolutely beautiful, and times when it’s so self-conscious you just want to roll your eyes. There’s a difference between being good with the camera, and showing me you’re good with the camera. Director Deborah Kampmeier doesn’t always know the difference. The plot relies heavily on a Magical Negro, some of the symbolism is as heavy-handed as the camera work, the resolution is painted as a happy ending but clearly isn’t, and I found a real confusion in the sense of place (like, where are they exactly? What state? And where is the concert venue at which Elvis sings, which is so important to the story?).

For all these flaws, Hounddog is a movie worth seeing. It has a clear story to tell, about coming of age, about snakes in the grass, about all the forces in the world lined up to prevent a pretty together girl from becoming a pretty together woman. A lot of the symbolism is effective and compelling, and there’s something effective about the sultry effect of a hot Southern summer; it’s atmospheric and hypnotic. The use of music is excellent; because Lewellen is connecting to herself through Elvis, that’s crucial, but the soundtrack stretches past the obvious.

David Morse always knocks my socks off, he is one of my favorite actors, and he doesn’t disappoint here. He begins as a quietly threatening force, and when an accident changes him, he is persuasive in that role as well. Dakota Fanning is a striking young actress; she has some of the natural power of Jodie Foster at that age. In fact, the whole cast is remarkable.

And what of the rape? There is nothing explicit shown; no underage nudity, although you may have otherwise, and no prurience. This story is Lewellen’s, and the experience is hers. It’s painful to watch, but it’s a pivotal crisis and the story can’t be told without it.

Monday Movie Review: Once Upon a Time in Mexico

March 2, 2009 / / One comment

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003) 6/10
Former hitman El Mariachi (Antonio Banderas) accepts a job offer from deranged CIA agent Sands (Johnny Depp) because the target is the man who killed his wife (Salma Hayek). Directed by Robert Rodriguez.

I don’t usually watch cooking shows, but there was this one time I was watching Emeril, and he took out the pork he’d been cooking, and I was all “mmmm,” and then he spooned the vegetable dish that he’d prepared on top of the pork and I thought “Oh wow!” and then he dished the sauce that he’d made on top of the pork and vegetables, and I thought YUM!” and then he took the lovely raw sliced somethingorother he’d made and piled it on top and I thought “ehhhh” and then he spooned ANOTHER sauce on top of THAT and I thought “Yuck.”

This is exactly like watching Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

The movie is a sequel to Desperado which, in turn, followed El Mariachi (which I didn’t see, but I’m told Desperado is more a remake than a sequel). Desperado is a rather elegant affair, simplistic in the beauty of its sex, violence, and cartoonish hyper-reality. It is there to be beautiful and vulgar and bold, and it strips away any unnecessary elements (like, say, dialogue) to achieve that end. There are some oddball characters weaved in (Cheech Marin, Steve Buscemi, Quentin Tarantino), but their participation is limited. This is a movie about El Mariachi, his guns, his lover, and his guitar. Period.

Whereas Once Upon a Time in Mexico is about the kitchen sink. There’s El Mariachi and his quest for revenge, and there are guns, and there’s even a guitar. There’s also a one-eyed bartender (Marin), a deranged CIA agent, an evil drug-runner (Willem Dafoe), an expatriate American with a little dog (Mickey Rourke), a gung-ho border patrol agent (Eva Mendes), a plot to assassinate the president of Mexico, another plot to assassinate the assassin, at least 3 different revenge plots, a depressed former FBI agent, and an alcoholic hitman.

I’m tired just typing it all.

What happens is that all the fun gets swallowed up by a movie that can’t decide which fun to have. Like standing in the middle of an amusement park spinning around from all the choices, but never getting on any of the rides. Ten minutes here and ten minutes there are sections of a great movie that didn’t get made. It’s sloppy work.

You can’t fault any of the actors, each of whom is given a chance to do a little bit (or a lot) of bravura performance. You can see why they wanted to. It looks like it was a lot of fun for them. And it’s probably the kind of movie that’s a lot of fun to find while channel-surfing. It’s made for skimming. But to actually sit through it, intentionally watching it from beginning to end, is not, in the end, any fun.

Movie review will be late

March 2, 2009 / / Comments Off on Movie review will be late

I need to link it up, and all of a sudden, IMDb is behind a firewall. Heavens!

« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
zeeReputation Theme