Exit Through the Gift Shop
I have to be honest here. I thought this movie was really fucking boring. I didn't care about the idiot filming everyone and I don't really care about Banksy. I like what he does in theory but I don't have jerk off over him like everyone else in this movie. It all felt really self-aggrandizing. It really pissed me off at the end where the filmmaker turns into a horrible artist named Mr. Brainwash who puts out bullshit art pieces that are just poor reproductions of Andy Warhol. It's a snooze-fest.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
The King's Speech
The King's Speech
Going into The King's Speech I knew it was going to be good, and it was, and I knew it was going to look good, and it did. I knew the performances were going to be good and they were. Colin Firth was particularly good as the Duke of York but can anyone remember a time when Colin Firth wasn't particularly good? Helena Bonham Carter's performance as his wife was more commanding for me since I usually don't like her. She's no candidate for an I Hate You or anything but I just don't enjoy her work all that much. Probably because I hate Fight Club and new Tim Burton movies. She was restrained and powerful in the King's Speech. Geoffrey Rush was fine as well in the role of unconventional speech therapist but I almost always find his performances bordering on hammy. Often he just crosses the line into honey baked territory.
Tom Hooper is a young director who has a lot of promise. He has the distinction of making a soccer movie that I was able to watch and generally enjoy, The Damned United. I say generally because the movie was about soccer which is insipid. In the King's Speech he does some really good things. There are some great images of London in the thirties and a speech that the future king tries to give at Wembley Stadium is particularly tense and nerve wracking.
The movie overall lacks some intensity. It is funny on occasion and dramatic when it should be but it lacks small scale suspension that makes good movies great movies. The whole time I was watching it I knew he was going to be able to deliver the speech at the end of the movie. There's no way they would've made a movie like this to watch him fail in the end. So there was no suspense there. I suppose the conflict between Colin Firth's Duke of York and Geoffrey Rush's speech therapist was supposed to be bigger than it seemed to me but their conflict was tied into that last speech that we all knew he was going to deliver and I never felt their relationship was in danger. There was also never any possibility that he wasn't going to be the king since the name of the movie is The King's Speech and any hemming and hawing he did about not wanting to be the king seemed really futile. But even with those flaws, this is still a quality movie that will probably garner a few academy award nominations. But no Movie Goer awards.
Going into The King's Speech I knew it was going to be good, and it was, and I knew it was going to look good, and it did. I knew the performances were going to be good and they were. Colin Firth was particularly good as the Duke of York but can anyone remember a time when Colin Firth wasn't particularly good? Helena Bonham Carter's performance as his wife was more commanding for me since I usually don't like her. She's no candidate for an I Hate You or anything but I just don't enjoy her work all that much. Probably because I hate Fight Club and new Tim Burton movies. She was restrained and powerful in the King's Speech. Geoffrey Rush was fine as well in the role of unconventional speech therapist but I almost always find his performances bordering on hammy. Often he just crosses the line into honey baked territory.
Tom Hooper is a young director who has a lot of promise. He has the distinction of making a soccer movie that I was able to watch and generally enjoy, The Damned United. I say generally because the movie was about soccer which is insipid. In the King's Speech he does some really good things. There are some great images of London in the thirties and a speech that the future king tries to give at Wembley Stadium is particularly tense and nerve wracking.
The movie overall lacks some intensity. It is funny on occasion and dramatic when it should be but it lacks small scale suspension that makes good movies great movies. The whole time I was watching it I knew he was going to be able to deliver the speech at the end of the movie. There's no way they would've made a movie like this to watch him fail in the end. So there was no suspense there. I suppose the conflict between Colin Firth's Duke of York and Geoffrey Rush's speech therapist was supposed to be bigger than it seemed to me but their conflict was tied into that last speech that we all knew he was going to deliver and I never felt their relationship was in danger. There was also never any possibility that he wasn't going to be the king since the name of the movie is The King's Speech and any hemming and hawing he did about not wanting to be the king seemed really futile. But even with those flaws, this is still a quality movie that will probably garner a few academy award nominations. But no Movie Goer awards.
Monday, December 27, 2010
True Grit
True Grit
Sometimes a movie comes along and you get exactly what you expected. This is one of those times. When I heard that the Coen Brothers were remaking this I was pretty excited. I'm a big fan of the novel and the original is one of John Wayne's best. So, needless to say, I expected something great. And I pretty much got it, I'd call it near great. I don't think the Coens did anything revolutionary though. It wasn't as striking as their last couple of movies and I felt them going through the motions in a few spots. I'm also not sure why both movies refused to shoot this movie in the region where the book was set. In this version at least they acknowledge that they are supposed to be in Arkansas. It just doesn't really look like Arkansas, at all. I've always felt like the novel was more of a Southern one instead of a Western one but both movies have a distinct Western feel. The Western in film has a much greater tradition than Southern films which exist sort of nebulously (Try and think of five off the top of your head). Ultimately it isn't too big a deal I suppose. The ending kind of slipped away from them too. I felt like there was a great point to end the movie but they pushed it a bit further and the ending felt forced. I was pretty let down by this because their last two good movies had two of the best final scenes in recent memory. But still I loved the movie.
The main question I had going into this movie was would Jeff Bridges be able to put the movie on his back and carry it the way John Wayne did? I'm not the biggest John Wayne fan. But in the right role, he works. And sometimes the role is so perfect he becomes mesmerizing. True Grit is one of those times, so is the Searchers and The Longest Day. Jeff Bridges is a different sort of actor. Seeing a second take on the role makes me think there isn't a lot of room to wiggle on this character and that John Wayne was actually better than I remember him being. I'll probably watch it again soon to confirm my suspicion.
The other performances in the Coen's version far outshine those in the original. Matt Damon was especially fun to watch in the new one. Just about everything he said cracked me up and Hailee Steinfeld was great as Mattie. Also Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper steals every second he's on the screen. They're precious few but he makes the most of them. The only weak link to me was Josh Brolin. It's such a small role that his presence sort of distracted me. He also uses a weird muppet voice.
True Grit secured a spot on my ten best of the year and didn't sully the Coen Brother's fine reputation which it had the potential to do. Although with this movie being as good as it is, their next one will surely be a dud. They've never put three great movies together in a row. They almost achieved it recently but Burn After Reading (it came out between No Country and A Serious Man) was one their worst. Also Fargo and Lebowski was followed by O Brother, Where Art Thou? which I seriously cannot stand, and preceded by Hudsucker Proxy which I should've liked more than I did but was kind of a mess. We'll see if they can keep it together next time out.
Sometimes a movie comes along and you get exactly what you expected. This is one of those times. When I heard that the Coen Brothers were remaking this I was pretty excited. I'm a big fan of the novel and the original is one of John Wayne's best. So, needless to say, I expected something great. And I pretty much got it, I'd call it near great. I don't think the Coens did anything revolutionary though. It wasn't as striking as their last couple of movies and I felt them going through the motions in a few spots. I'm also not sure why both movies refused to shoot this movie in the region where the book was set. In this version at least they acknowledge that they are supposed to be in Arkansas. It just doesn't really look like Arkansas, at all. I've always felt like the novel was more of a Southern one instead of a Western one but both movies have a distinct Western feel. The Western in film has a much greater tradition than Southern films which exist sort of nebulously (Try and think of five off the top of your head). Ultimately it isn't too big a deal I suppose. The ending kind of slipped away from them too. I felt like there was a great point to end the movie but they pushed it a bit further and the ending felt forced. I was pretty let down by this because their last two good movies had two of the best final scenes in recent memory. But still I loved the movie.
The main question I had going into this movie was would Jeff Bridges be able to put the movie on his back and carry it the way John Wayne did? I'm not the biggest John Wayne fan. But in the right role, he works. And sometimes the role is so perfect he becomes mesmerizing. True Grit is one of those times, so is the Searchers and The Longest Day. Jeff Bridges is a different sort of actor. Seeing a second take on the role makes me think there isn't a lot of room to wiggle on this character and that John Wayne was actually better than I remember him being. I'll probably watch it again soon to confirm my suspicion.
The other performances in the Coen's version far outshine those in the original. Matt Damon was especially fun to watch in the new one. Just about everything he said cracked me up and Hailee Steinfeld was great as Mattie. Also Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper steals every second he's on the screen. They're precious few but he makes the most of them. The only weak link to me was Josh Brolin. It's such a small role that his presence sort of distracted me. He also uses a weird muppet voice.
True Grit secured a spot on my ten best of the year and didn't sully the Coen Brother's fine reputation which it had the potential to do. Although with this movie being as good as it is, their next one will surely be a dud. They've never put three great movies together in a row. They almost achieved it recently but Burn After Reading (it came out between No Country and A Serious Man) was one their worst. Also Fargo and Lebowski was followed by O Brother, Where Art Thou? which I seriously cannot stand, and preceded by Hudsucker Proxy which I should've liked more than I did but was kind of a mess. We'll see if they can keep it together next time out.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Fighter
The Fighter
When I first heard about this movie I was really excited. I'm a well known Mark Wahlberg apologist but this movie actually appeared to be good. I had the hopes that all of the acting talent in the movie would push it past the average sports movie cliches. I'm not entirely sure that it did. I'm not even sure it's much better than the last sports movie that Wahlberg did, Invincible. I know that it was a Disney movie and by it's very nature (Disney plus sports movie) it should be schmaltzy and uplifting but I thought it was pretty good. And The Fighter is really no less schmaltzy and uplifting. It just has better performances. Although there was a lot of "acting."
A lot of people are hailing Christian Bale's performance as remarkable. I couldn't get past the fact that I was watching him act. I just felt like I was watching Christian Bale play Dicky Eklund and not simply Dicky Eklund on the screen. I suppose he is pretty good but I thought it was a little over the top. It was Melissa Leo who really acted the shit out of her role. She was amazing as their mother. It was a comparable performance to the one she delivered in Frozen River. Amy Adams was good too. She has a bigger range than I think she has shown us and I bet she's an Oscar winner before too long. But most of the movie rests on Wahlberg's shoulders. He handles it well enough. He actually looks like a boxer. The role doesn't offer him too much to work with but he does it capably.
The highlights of the movie were definitely the boxing scenes. They are the most realistic I've seen in a movie. The Raging Bull and Killer's Kiss scenes were more stylized and probably better but these felt more like a boxing match. And Wahlberg looks like he can actually box. I remember the fight at the end of the movie where he wins the belt (no surprise even if you aren't a boxing fan) and it was a good replication. After watching this movie I started thinking about Rocky and my theory that the only reason anyone really likes the movie is because he loses in the end. Sylvester Stallone's whole career is based on that decision. Good move, Sly. Except now we're the ones suffering.
When I first heard about this movie I was really excited. I'm a well known Mark Wahlberg apologist but this movie actually appeared to be good. I had the hopes that all of the acting talent in the movie would push it past the average sports movie cliches. I'm not entirely sure that it did. I'm not even sure it's much better than the last sports movie that Wahlberg did, Invincible. I know that it was a Disney movie and by it's very nature (Disney plus sports movie) it should be schmaltzy and uplifting but I thought it was pretty good. And The Fighter is really no less schmaltzy and uplifting. It just has better performances. Although there was a lot of "acting."
A lot of people are hailing Christian Bale's performance as remarkable. I couldn't get past the fact that I was watching him act. I just felt like I was watching Christian Bale play Dicky Eklund and not simply Dicky Eklund on the screen. I suppose he is pretty good but I thought it was a little over the top. It was Melissa Leo who really acted the shit out of her role. She was amazing as their mother. It was a comparable performance to the one she delivered in Frozen River. Amy Adams was good too. She has a bigger range than I think she has shown us and I bet she's an Oscar winner before too long. But most of the movie rests on Wahlberg's shoulders. He handles it well enough. He actually looks like a boxer. The role doesn't offer him too much to work with but he does it capably.
The highlights of the movie were definitely the boxing scenes. They are the most realistic I've seen in a movie. The Raging Bull and Killer's Kiss scenes were more stylized and probably better but these felt more like a boxing match. And Wahlberg looks like he can actually box. I remember the fight at the end of the movie where he wins the belt (no surprise even if you aren't a boxing fan) and it was a good replication. After watching this movie I started thinking about Rocky and my theory that the only reason anyone really likes the movie is because he loses in the end. Sylvester Stallone's whole career is based on that decision. Good move, Sly. Except now we're the ones suffering.
Rare Exports
Rare Exports
I don't know, man, I guess, whatever. That was my exact reaction after seeing this one. It started off okay but pretty much took a shit two thirds of the way through. Maybe it was all just too Finnish.
I don't know, man, I guess, whatever. That was my exact reaction after seeing this one. It started off okay but pretty much took a shit two thirds of the way through. Maybe it was all just too Finnish.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Killer Inside Me
The Killer Inside Me
Jim Thompson adaptations are always difficult sells to me. There is something about his writing that is really hard to capture on film. The Sam Peckinpah version of the Getaway is probably the best. Or maybe the Grifters. But neither really achieve the level of scum that Jim Thompson novels do and I think both play it really safe with the material. Then there is The Killer Inside Me (The new one, there's an older version I haven't seen with Stacey Keach in the lead role).
I think Michael Winterbottom is the first director to get the look right. The idyllic setting and scenery of this movie is the only balance to Lou Ford's violent misogyny. Unfortunately it can't outweigh it by any stretch of the imagination. The novel, which I read years ago, is interesting because of how far you delve into the head of the character. You realize pretty quick that you are dealing with a sickening narrator and you keep reading in the manner of a car accident, so gruesome and unceasing. In the book you cannot get away from Lou Ford, he is unrelenting. In the movie he is simply there on screen, he is not alive the way he is in the book. This is what the movie lacks, access to the killer inside of Lou Ford. At one point he says to a friend, "I'm always standing with my legs on both sides of the fence," or something to that effect but you don't buy it because you can't see it. Winterbottom's only real attempt to capture it is the sort of meek narration that Lou Ford provides and a few flash backs. It isn't enough. You need to be immersed in the character for it to work. Otherwise he is just a misogynist psychopath.
The other issue with being separated from the character Lou Ford is that the women in the movie seem to continue to faun over him as he beats them. In the book you know you are inside of him and you would expect a character such as Lou Ford to believe such a thing. In the movie however they just seem like helpless women, especially Joyce played by Jessica Alba, who can't help it. It sort of gives us a dim view of Michael Winterbottom's feelings toward women. It doesn't seem intentional however, just an unfortunate by product of adapting the novel to film.
Casey Affleck is pretty amazing in the role however. I don't think any of the folly of the movie falls on is shoulders. He is scarier to me than Christian Bale was in American Psycho. In fact, I think the Killer Inside Me makes American Psycho look particularly cartoonish. The scenes of brutality against the two women characters are shown full force. They are particularly hard to watch. When I heard they were making this movie I wondered about those two scenes and how they would handle them. I didn't expect they would do it like this. They are real terrifying scenes and to think of a man actually doing this to a woman makes me feel sick. I didn't get any of that with American Psycho. I think Casey Affleck is one of the small handful of actors making good choices in films these days. He was great in The Assassination of Jesse James as well as Lonesome Jim and Gerry. He's also the best part of Good Will Hunting because he masturbates into an old baseball mitt (offscreen).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)