Ugh . . . I still don’t know what to make of this film. I walked away feeling queasy, uncomfortable and frustrated. I can’t rightly dismiss it because it reveals such great promise, but Little Children’s bizarrely alchemical mix of earnest melodrama (think Eugene O’Neill) and black comedy/satire (A.M. Homes, Tom Perrota) just didn’t add up for me (imagine Douglas Sirk directing an episode of “Desperate Housewives†and you get the idea). Still, Todd Field can direct. There is this one montage sequence at a local swimming pool that is so beautifully shot and cut; it is easily the most elegantly edited sequence of the year. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Field isn’t afraid to slow things down; he palpably lingers on moments (I’ll never look at Hummel figurines in the same way again) and the way he uses rhythm to generate specific moods is exemplary. Additionally, Field’s confident utilization of long takes and beautifully orchestrated tracking shots as well as his eye for unique and dynamic compositions makes him one of America’s most exciting young filmmakers. He is also generous with actors; each and every performance in the film is bold and exploratory (Phyllis Somerville I’m talking to you). So why didn’t I like the film? Continue reading Little Children
Category: overrated
Dreamgirls
The most remarkable thing about this film is how old fashioned it is. Bill Condon has managed to “reinvent” the musical by simply ignoring MTV, and for that I guess many a purist are quite satisfied. The camera doesn’t move so much; the editing is not pushed to front and center; performers are allowed to sing and emote in full and medium shots. There is little razzle-dazzle (Krieger and Eyen ain’t no Kander and Ebb, that’s for certain and Bill Condon ain’t no Baz Luhrmann for that matter). Is it entertaining? Sure, in fits and starts. Continue reading Dreamgirls
good night and good luck
do we already have a thread on this? i just finished watching this and found it terribly dull. i cannot believe that this got a best picture nomination or that so many smart people told me to watch it. perhaps it plays much better on a big screen, i don’t know. i do know that i felt no tension of any kind, felt no dramatic interest, and didn’t get the connection between the film’s narrative and its aesthetic, which frankly reeked of “good taste”. the opening scene looked a bit like a cross between ads by calvin klein and debeers diamonds, and the shiny beauty of the cinematography (not to mention the songs and score) muted for me the impact of what was being said. yes, it is a worthy story, and in these days of non-journalism, a necessary reminder of a time when the television news was worth watching, but it is not a great film by any means.
oh, and leland palmer is in it. i kept waiting for him to be possessed by bob and smash edward r. murrow’s face into a wall, but no such luck.
anyone else seen it?
Strictly Ballroom
Because we’ve become entranced by that dance show on TV–how could they get rid of Lisa Rinna? Jerry Rice sucks!–I decided to (re)watch Strictly Ballroom. Pete swears we watched it before, but I don’t remember it. I think I might have started watching then went to bed. Because it is just that dull. I forced my way to the end this time. There’s too much love story and too much earnestness for it to be a mockumentary, but some scenes just don’t play any other way. In fact, I think the cartoonishness undermines Fran’s transformation. We’re supposed to like her, to root for her, but she’s surrounded by these women in crazy make-up with stupid hairdos–it’s too easy to come out on top. And why would anyone want to be on top of that? The more realistic stuff (the contemporary dance scenes, the Paso Doble “the dance for the man!”) just seems out of place in the garishness of the father’s story.
match point
critics seem to be crazy about match point: check out the rave reviews. unfortunately, i don’t have enough knowledge of woody allen’s work to be able see this film in the context of his career, nor a special fondness for the guy.
i have no idea what he was trying to do in match point. if the idea is that life is 10% talent and 90% luck, er, okay. if the idea is that scarlett johansson and jonathan rhys meyers are gorgeous, i’m with you, woody, though i have to say you have always creeped me out, and scarlett is TWENTY, for fuckssakes!
i don’t know, dude. affairs are hard to get out of, the high life is hard to throw to the winds, passion leads us to dark places, and babies have a nasty way of popping up if you fuck enough. thing is, none of this interests me very much. or maybe it’s just the way you present it, woody. Continue reading match point
capote
last night i saw capote, because neither simon nor our friend jennie wanted to see brokeback mountain (don’t ask). i enjoyed the movie while it was going, though i was a bit weary during the last third. but simon and jennie talked me out of liking it in about 15 minutes of conversation after the movie’s end. here is our collective thought on capote:
philip seymour hoffman is a great actor who handles his first major (or first, period) lead role with great aplomb and artistry. he is actually magnificent. i guess the director knew hoffman was his best asset, because every other shot is a close-up of his smooth, babyish, pink face. i actually find him quite fetching, so i didn’t Continue reading capote
the motorcycle diaries
has this not been discussed here yet? we finally got around to watching it this weekend. our expectations were high–partly based on the recommendations of others, but mostly on just how much we’d both liked central station. however, i found the motorcycle diaries to be curiously uninvolving. perhaps it is a built-in problem with any biopic of an iconic figure, especially of the “early life of” sub-genre that the film’s present can’t help but serve as background material for the spectacular myth–providing a series of aha! moments: “so, that’s when he began to think about oppression” etc.. it is also a problem if the “early life of” doesn’t complicate the myth: it turns out che was always a noble sort. without this narrative tension what you have is a lovely travel advertisement for the andes. and maybe that advertisement looks so much better on the big screen that these other issues pale–i don’t know. central station was also visually stunning, but went over similar political ground far more dialectically (oooh!) and movingly.
but i sense disagreement in the ranks (and i don’t know yet what sunhee thought of it–i’ll try to get her to post).
Shiri (and action-melodrama)
Shitty.
You liked this, Arnab? The camera did so many 360 turns I thought they had it rigged to a toilet. Okay, it wasn’t awful. But it wasn’t good, either. I don’t like it when there’s so much crying in an action movie. Suck it up, you fuckers. Sublimate your sadness in a good old-fashioned ass-whupping, like the rest of us.
I far prefer the action of “Nowhere to Hide” and the thriller politics of “J.S.A.” (and Park’s later films–“Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance” and “OldBoy”–are even better).
looking for shylock
last night: william shakespeare’s “the merchant of venice”
this is a handsome production which will likely finally be remembered only for pacino’s against all odds, restrained performance as shylock, giving us a hint of what might have become of him had scarface never happened. the film, of course, has a higher ambition than that and that is to take the play and make it about anti-semitism rather than a play shot through with the racism of its time from which only its poetry somewhat ambivalently rescues it (which is how i read it when i read it last). this sort of shift of emphasis in production is, i suppose, par for the course in the theater and i don’t really have a huge objection to it. but there are specific things that happen at the very beginning of the film that are not in the play, and which, while not huge, make me question if this is william shakespeare’s the merchant of venice. (and there are larger problems too–of which, more below.)
Continue reading looking for shylock
closer
we watched this some weeks ago. i didn’t blog about it then because i thought sunhee–who liked it more than i did–would; but she didn’t. then yesterday we were at a party where a number of people raved about it. i heard what they had to say but remained largely unmoved. has anyone else seen it? it is about four (beautiful) people in london who fall in and out of love over the course of a few years. i found parts of it funny and touching and it is a stylish production (in the way that mike nichols’ films are) but other than clive owen’s performance there’s nothing here i would recommend to anyone. beautiful people fall in love, are shallow, cheat, swap partners, get back together, have control issues and deal with them differently. on the whole i had a hard time caring about any of them or any of it. in many ways it goes over a lot of the same ground as “we don’t live here anymore” (did we discuss that here?) but i preferred that film (which i didn’t like that much either).
someone want to convince me otherwise?