|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Carey Mulligan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carey Mulligan. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Last year when I heard that the (allegedly) seminal novel Never Let Me Go was being adapted to film I was torn whether or not I should read it first. Generally, the trend is to always read the novel first because the book will never be a complete adaptation, but that’s the very reason that – where I can help it – I always ignore the literary version of any work until after I’ve seen the film. And yet, when the credits rolled for Never Let Me Go I couldn’t help but feel that I’d only been given a fraction of the story. I had that palpable of something – not quite disappointment, but dissatisfaction... Our story is set at Hailsham, a school, we know there’s something amiss from the way the children walk around almost as automatons – and it’s not because they’re “British”. We soon realise that the entire student population are clones of real people, the clones exist to provide body parts to their originals – and after a few operations they eventually die, before reaching middle age. Cloning is the sort of thing that’s become a bit too blasé to root a story, overexposure to the topic is probably the reason. The theme of cloning soon becomes secondary to a love triangle. Ruth, we discern immediately is not someone to root for – her child version has unusually quick eyes and a gait evocative of Briony Tallis. Kathy is our heroine, a seemingly pleasant girl who takes a liking to the school misfit Tommy. The two seem like a fine pair, until one day she happens upon Tommy and Ruth in an embrace...and we flash forward a decade or so later and the story continues.
There was a bad taste in my mouth for a good deal of the film’s second half, I’m not sure if Ishiguro’s novel or Alex Garland’s adaptation is to blame but to balance the already tired cloning premise against the increasingly tawdry love triangle deprives the film of all the poignancy that the actors keep trying to inject into it. And what’s exasperating is that the film has all the makings of being a good one. The costume designs are way less ornate and much more sensible that you’d anticipate, the art direction is inspired, its beautifully shot and the acting is fine...but all those parts does not a good film make. Garland, and director Mark Romanek, to their credit, frames the film beautifully (almost a bit too meticulously at times, truth be told). The three acts unfold fluidly – from Hailsham, to the cottages where the trio are in a sort of limbo in between adulthood and childhood and the final act where everything comes to a close. The unfortunate thing about his framing technique, though, is we end up seeing the film so distinctly as three acts and not one whole. The first act is fair, the second act is lovely and the third act is a disappointment. And the thing is, as good as the second act it epitomises the film’s fatal flaw – Ruth.
I sort of hate how the performances of the trio have become judged, Carey has been given the highest laurels by critics, the blogosphere has given their confidence to Garfield – but for me Keira Knightley emerges as the strongest of the trio, and it’s unfortunate that her performance won’t be able to go very far because she’s saddled with a character that’s so narrowly constricted it’s difficult to watch at times, even if she’s giving the film’s best performance. The film is already suffering from having a pedestrian love-story triangle and having Ruth as the impetus that prevents the affiliation between Tommy and Kathy from thriving. Thus, those last twenty minutes from the film where Ruth is expelled and Tommy and Kathy continue their journey feels violently flat. I’m all for a movie having us guessing until the end, but the “resolution” that the film reaches feels forced and makes so many of more interesting of the plot-points of the second act redundant. One of the film’s strongest sequences occurs as the gang accompanies the gang to a downtown location to seek out the woman who may be her original, the resulting revelation of whether or not the woman is Ruth’s original is handled beautifully – but in retrospect it all seems for naught because the issues raised from the confrontation are never addressed again.
There’s no denying that Never Let Me Go is a movie with promise, and there’s no doubt that something will pique your interest about it. Sally Hawkins, with about fifteen minutes of screen time, carves a multifaceted character that I kept hoping would reappear, the chemistry among the lead trio is splendid even if I’m not altogether convinced of the Carey/Andrew dynamic...but potential doesn’t make a good film. Technically superb, but maddeningly hollow (like another much feted 2010 entry) Never Let Me Go would have benefited from a more innovative script.
C+ (B-?)
Monday, 1 November 2010
It’s not a bad thing in itself that when Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps finished I couldn’t help wondering what was Stone’s point of making the movie. It’s a question that goes either way. But when I consider my reasons for asking it and examine the general blandness of the sequel to 1988’s Wall Street it’s almost definitely a bad thing. One of the issues with this it, though not as grave as some of the others it has, is that it has no significant purpose as a legitimate “sequel”. Knowledge of the original might increase understanding, but only marginally. Tonally they bear little resemblance and if I was to judge Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps with its predecessor as a drawing board the grade might end up being even more dreadful, essentially it’s not so much a sequel but a spin-off.
The film is about Jacob an aspiring investment banker intent on making his mark in the business, he’s in a relationship with Winnie whose father is the infamous Gordon Gekko. I like Shia LeBoeuf and maybe I’m still disillusioned but I like to think that he’ll be of good use sometime in the near future. He doesn’t fare well here. I’m not sure if he’s lacking the talent for the role, or if Stone’s writing is just that disjointed. Whatever it is, there’s little reason for us to have any faith in him – the ostensible leading man. It has nothing to do with the general douchiness of his character, villains can be protagonists, but Jacob/Shia has no charisma – it’s a wonder a two hour film could be crafted around him – but consider how that two hour film ended up, it’s probably not that big of a wonder why. They aren’t exactly filled with riveting moments. There’s a scene, a little over half way through the film, there’s an emotional confrontation of sorts between Carey Mulligan and Michael Douglas. The two do fairly well, but it’s nothing especial. What’s most at fault is Loeb's screenplay and Stone's direction which really seems hackneyed at the best of times. It doesn’t allow for character building instead going for the most generic of plot points and resulting in a film that’s devoid of any real emotion. We’re treated to a death within the first thirty minutes, but we can’t be blamed for feeling nothing at it, or at it the imminent threats meted out to our main characters. There’s little that identifies them as real persons.
It’s this sort of emotionless way that pervades the entire film culminating in a generally bland experience. Sure, when the credits role as we see two characters reconcile I smiled – not because I cared about them, but after two hours of drudgery at least someone came out of looking better for it.
D+
(NOTE: Excuse the slight weirdness of the review, I posted a real one earlier in the day...or I thought I did, maybe blogger swallowed it.)
Saturday, 25 September 2010
I’m shamelessly slow on the uptake. It wasn’t until I watched Scott Pilgrim vs the World that I finally put the pieces together regarding Johnny Simmons who’ve I’ve already seen in two movies this year – but didn’t realise. He was rather impressive in the relatively underrated Jennifer’s Body and I remember Ryan praising his turn in The Greatest. I kind of glossed over his performance in the latter, but despite the definite inadequacies in the script the acting in The Greatest really is all-round goodness and Simmons is a good addition. What with the trimester of Aaron Johnson (also in the The Greatest, then Kick-Ass and Nowhere Boy) it’s good seeing some good young men coming up in the business since they’re almost always overshadowed by the women.
People seem to be taking to Andrew Garfield recently and Josh Hutchinson seems like another one to watch out for. I’m still holding out that Shia LeBoeuf will someday impress me (though I used to think the same thing about Freddie Muniz, so who knows)? I’ve managed to come around on Michael Cera owing to him being perfectly casted in Scott Pilgrim vs the World even if I think he’s a cheap doppelganger for Paul Dano. I struggle to find good very young male actors – thespians like the Bens (Whishaw and Foster) and James McAvoy are already cemented as impressive actors for me – and they’ll soon be over thirty, whereas the younger women are constantly impressing from the very young like Saoirse and Abigail (even though I wonder if her turn in Little Miss Susnhine) was a fluke. I don’t care for Ellen Page or Chloe Moretz at all, but they’re both still considered a relatively valuable commodity. Mia Wasikowska is making waves, Evan Rachel Wood and Jena Malone (twins separated at birth) were impressing as children, though they’ve both been in slumps lately and Keira and Scarlett and Carey are still young despite each having done impressive work already.
I don’t know why the odds seem to be in favour of the women, perhaps I’m just prejudiced towards them...either way, let me return to my original point. I’m hoping Johnny Simmons has a strong career ahead of him (look at all that digression).
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
 |
| No need to worry Carey...you're on the list... |
 |
| ...You too Ben... |
An Education (complicatedly, and inadequately, reviewed) is a coming-of-age pseudo drama about a 16 year old school girl in Twickenham, England. And Bright Star (semi-reviewed along with A Single Man and Crazy Heart) tells the story of the last few years of John Keats – poetic royalty – life. Both films garnered most notices (Oscar aside, grrr) for the performances of their leading ladies and considering that Carey and Abbie were one / two in my Actress profile of the last year – the accolades weren’t underserved. I mentioned Carey’s turn in my Performances of the Decade feature as I did with Ben Whishaw (as the eponymous Keats). Both actors have a knack for expert facial expressions. I’d love to see Abbie, Ben and Carey in a movie together.
Technically, there’s little that’s similar between the two – but it’s odd how Cara Seymour and Kerry Fox both give brilliant (albeit short) supporting turns as the mothers of our heroines, and Paul Schneider and Alfred Molina (#1/#2 on my Supporting Actor List) were unjustly ignored for performances that seemed overwrought but were more expertly executed than some seemed to realised. There’s also the fact that both pieces were directed by women. Sure, Kathryn Bigelow was the woman everyone was going wild for last year, but it’s a pity Scherfig and especially Jane Campion couldn’t be more appreciated for their contributions (Campion also wrote the screenplay).
Which do you prefer?
And herein ends another day of the MEME…
Thursday, 24 June 2010
The ReEducation of Andrew:…or How I Never Learned to Write a Review
0 comments Posted by 2011 at 12:04Remember, An Education? Of course you do. Care Mulligan’s coming of age in London from Lone Scherfig that I fell deeply for… I’m still deeply rooted in my affection for An Education even if I never mustered up the time to critically review it (not here, not here, not here not even here). It’s nice to see that “education” fever is still in the air though, I’ve been reading more and more reviews of it and the most recent one struck me as well written (though I disagree with so much). Carson of the very intelligent Are the Hills Going to March Off (how have I never heard of this blog?) gave it quite the tongue lashing a few weeks ago that made me give my kneejerk long-ass comment, which immediately reminded me of what I said after just seeing An Education. I have a feeling that it strikes me so much because it seems like something that I would see happening. No I do not live in Twickenham (or England) and I do not attend (and never have attended) a girls’ school or private school, still it struck me as all very natural and more importantly – personal.
I noted that the opening credits before as particularly jaunty and irreverent (remember this post; I never got around to posting my favourite endings, but all in due time). When I watched it a month ago with some friends and my two sisters a friend of mine who had seen snippets of the middle asked me, “Is this the same film?” I guess the opening credits are misleadingly, but I still applaud Scherfig’s choice. There is only one scene in An Education I’d admit to disliking in particular, and that’s the one just after the credits – not that the cello conversation – the residual snippets of Jenny in class. I do love how Carey sits up to answer about Mr. Rochester (I really don’t like Jane Eyre) but it seems too much like hitting us over the head. Do we have to open with Jenny showing up her schoolmates? Incidentally…that was probably me in high school. I did love English Lit. But this isn’t sounding review-like, is it? I know. An Education has that effect on me.
For the record, I’d like to say that I think Cara Seymour is excellent here, as time goes by I’m wondering if she’s my favourite supporting player in the film (including Pike, Molina, Sarsgaard, Cooper, Thompson and Williams). On that note, how much people are in this movie? It seems as if it’s just about Jenny but the characters exist in their own realm, sans Jenny. It’s not a situation where I don’t buy them as realistic. These persons are all real, and I can imagine them before and after Jenny. Ah yes, but I was speaking of Cara Seymour. She has a knack for winsome facial reactions (like mother, like daughter) and even in that first cello scene that’s all Mulligan vs Molina I can’t help watching her. She’s like a Helen who has taken the highroad…and settled down. That single moment of her having some alone time with Jenny where she scrubs the spot is too short, and really An Education is just too short, I wish we had more time with her. Dare I say – sequel? She’s such an obvious mediator; like at Jenny’s “party” where Graham has his fateful exit, (remember Matthew Beard?) she’s just realistic, with that bland looking sponge cake and all. Yet, she’s not particularly meek in the face of her husband. Of course we all balk at Alfred Molina (unless we’re Vianne and opening a Cholaterrie during Lent, but I digress) but even when she’s following his orders Seymour always has that exasperated look on her face that’s mixed with amusement. Maybe it’s because I’m reading it at the moment but her dedication to her husband strikes me as similar to Linda’s faith in the misguided Willy in Death of A Salesman.
We look so good, and he still hasn't mentioned me.
More than a few people have confessed to being less than impressed with Scherfig’s blandness in direction which is a sentiment I can’t help but be puzzled at. I think of the indulgency of Daniels in Precious and wonder why his indulgence is fine because it’s in-your-face. I don’t doubt, though, Scherfig may do well with a light romance (circa 19th century). I’m no fan of overused close-ups, but she thrives when she has all her actors in a room. Like the first table meeting of the three musketeers and Jenny, or both of Graham’s visits to the Mellor house. She knows who to cut to and when, even if we don’t and gets the reactions that are not at all studied. With expression, I of course turn to Carey because she like making faces. Really, I can’t say that Audrey comparisons strike me…I suppose they do have that same pixie look, but when it comes to expressions she reminds me of the other Hepburn. Not in physicality, per se, but in that way that Kate is termed a self-conscious beauty – isn’t Carey the same? Who knows? Perhaps she’s cold and calculating and is just an excellent pretender…but she definitely pulls the wool over my eyes.
My A-Level papers were better than this review
I suppose I must examine that final “prosaic” monologue of A-Level studying, but I have no issues with the choice. Is it really too much to give Scherfig credit, juxtaposing Jenny’s earlier days of reckless abandonment (almost) against the extreme triteness (ostensibly, at least) of studying? Naturally if I take that route I’ll eventually meet up with the roadblock of the film’s contrasting messages. But I don’t find it worrisome (or even evident). Jenny’s obviously going to be learning from her education with David, and not just those pedestrian ones like being careful with men. Is it too much to take her final monologue seriously? Sure, she seems as wide-eyed and tasteless as all those other girls; but she’s had a taste of the other side. And neither is superior to the other, but Jenny knows who she is. As she makes that visit to Mrs. Stubbs and looks around the room with the placid decorations she realises that, perhaps, that’s all she’d ever need. After all, this is the education of Jenny…not Helen.
There… a thousand words and I still haven’t reviewed it (or talked about the excellence of Dominic Cooper). Tut, tut, tut. My writing teacher would balk at this plethora of words with no structure. I guess I’m just unable to review it....It's still an A for me, though.
Get educated yourself…these bloggers actually knew where they were going with their reviews. I do like reading people's archives...
Andrew (not me)
The Pretentious Know It All (not me, either)
Friday, 28 May 2010
Monday, 22 March 2010
A Few Thoughts on The Greatest, Carey Mulligan and Susan Sarandon
0 comments Posted by 2011 at 18:40I won’t lie that after having been thrilled by Carey in An Education I was anxiously awaiting her next film – I’d only had Never Let Me Go and Wall Street 2 on my radar so in a way The Greatest snuck up on me. The film was filmed some time ago, awaiting distribution for some time. He film was the story of Susan Sarandon and Pierce Brosnan (a surprisingly believable couple) and their journey through and out of grief. Carey Mulligan plays the girlfriend of their dead teenaged son, and the mother of his unborn child. It’s a plot as run of the mill as a hundred, and the attraction of The Greatest is not its story. The thing is: there are some sweet moments in it though. The tale of the reluctant romance between Carey and Aaron Johnson as Bennett (the dead boy) is handled nicely. Sometimes their story – told in flashbacks – resonates more than the present story.
Though Susan is a favourite actress of mine, my interest was more piqued at the thought of seeing Carey in a different role. With her pixie haircut (that looks consistently dishevelled) she brings a certain innocence to Rose. The role is devoid of the routine abrasiveness of Jenny, and perhaps of the prodigious way too. She is a bit wise beyond her years and there’s a luminosity about her that’s decidedly attractive. Rest assured, Carey’s no one hit wonder. True, the film is clunky and it prevents from being truly excellent. She’s not. But she manages to excel in a number of scenes. Opposite Susan and especially Pierce she excels, and there’s a particular call a friend pays to her mother where here reactive skills seem on point.
The thing is, The Greatest still isn’t very good. I didn’t feel any disappointment after seeing it, and I didn’t feel as if I’d wasted my money. It’s a harmless film, and I won’t NOT recommend. But it’s not “unmissable”. But it boasts good performances from the entire cast, it’s just not certain what type of film it wants to be.
C+
Monday, 8 March 2010
It’s usually logical that the more recent we’ve seen a film; the more likely we are to remember it. But, that doesn’t usually work for me. My favourites don’t always end up being my favourites instantaneously but grow into treasures after months (sometimes years) of careful perusal. I suppose, for this reason, I should have just excised 2009 performances from being eligible for consideration but it wouldn’t be performances of the decade with nine years. And I couldn’t leave out Carey or this inclusion, which is not merely coincidental but well deserved.
#10 Ben Whishaw in Bright Star (2009)
Bright Star has not been wholly loved by you bloggers? And I suppose that it’s not really the story of Keats – but that doesn’t make the performance any less laudable. It’s good regardless of what category you place it in. Right?
Saturday, 6 March 2010
I’ve been very against type this awards season. Even for me. I’ll be concluding my year in review picks soon and you can already see they’re different from the usual awards’ pick, and since most people seem to agree that (for the most part) the awards’ picks are the right picks I’m pretty much out on a limb. Still, if there’s one of the main picks I can get completely on board with, it’s this one,
#11 Carey Mulligan in An Education (2009)
After my pandering reviews of An Education someone asked why I liked Carey’s performance so much. I couldn’t come up with an answer. She is, after all, on my list of favourite performances this decade…but still…I can’t encapsulate it. I like Meryl’s because she’s subtle, Catherine because she’s fearless, I admire Julia’s tenacity and on and on. But, I can’t pin down my appreciation of Carey’s Jenny down to a particular x factor. If pushed, the biggest compliment I can pay her is that I feel as if I’ve known Jenny for years. Carey’s performance comes forth in the little things, like with the people you know. You don’t think of your friends in terms of good or evil, it’s the little things – and it’s the same with Jenny. It’s like a moment early on: Graham’s appearance at that catastrophic tea party. Scherfig realises the talent on her hand and even at moments that are seemingly inopportune moments the camera focuses on her. When Graham says “I’ll probably take a year off, do a bit of travelling” – the wince on Carey’s face, almost imperceptible, is beautiful moment from hers. Or earlier, as the stupid boys Graham at the Youth Orchestra her withering glance at them is not accidental but not exaggerated
The challenge that Carey is faced with is to balance Jenny’s maturity (scholastically) against her immaturity on the more worldly aspects of life. She is overwhelmed by David. Notice how her face lights up as she meets him (for the second time) on the road. I love how thrown she is when he enquires about supper – “The trouble is, we’ll already have eaten”. I love the juvenility of her line reading hair, regardless of how we perceive David to be (the best of us probably no he’s no good from the inception) Carey sells Jenny’s infatuation with him, and she makes it so fluid that we don’t doubt that this was the same young lady who was just “…I’m going to smoke and listen to Jacques Brel and wear black…” I say it all the time, but I love it when an actor can convince us of the unsaid. When we’re so under their spell that we believe we can hear their thoughts – that’s when the performance becomes convincing for me, and that’s what Carey does.
The pivotal scene opposite Emma Thompson comes up so often in conversations about Carey that the goodness of it has become somewhat incidental – but it isn’t. It’s not that Jenny has suddenly become fearless, but it’s a slow build-up as she realises that Mrs. Walters – even – is not as imposing as she seems. Her reading of “And you’re aware, I suppose, that our lord was Jewish” is slow and deliberate, as if she now realises who she’s dealing with. Of course in a year of so many great performances that other monologue is the one everyone’s remembering, but you know where my allegiances lie. Every time she reaches “there’s no life or colour in it or fun in it.” I pause to think, it’s not just lines but true feelings. Of course her sincerity here only makes the actual end culmination more unfortunate. It’s the reason that I like the film so much. It seems so common from a distance, but it’s not glib but completely sincere. The film is completely Carey’s and even the moments that are not truly hers – like Alfred’s confession – still focus on her. Her flood of tears is as moving as his poignant ‘confession’.
But I’m not saying anything new here, you know that I am smitten with Carey’s Jenny. But what say you? Worthy of a spot in the top 15 or no?
Thursday, 4 February 2010
I know I promised I’d be posting the nominees for my 2009 awards this week, but circumstances have prevented me. I’ll get that to that as soon as possible; by the end of next week probably. However, in the meantime I’ll take a break from Season Two of my running Forgotten Characters’ feature to take a look at the Forgotten Characters of 2009.
One simple way to become a forgotten character is to be an unknown actor in a nondescript role. It’s a sure-fire to become forgotten – even if your film goes on to become an Oscar nominee and whatnot. Last year we had a few forgotten characters (who I’ll hopefully cover over the next few weeks) and none of them epitomises that like this next entry:
Matthew Beard in An Education
As Graham
We first meet Graham as he and Jenny practise their violin, then subsequently he questions Jenny about the upcoming Sunday dinner at her house. Graham’s chronic nervousness is palpable. He’s the typical reticent schoolboy. His next scene for tea at the Mellor’s his most screen time as Graham suggests taking a year off to Jack who begins his tirade. Beard’s facial expressions are appropriate and a bit sad when we consider his situation. We may never have experienced it, but the situation of the self-conscious school boy facing the irate father is not a new one. I love Mulligan’s expression as he makes his response in that inaccurate French of his: “Mr. Mellor…I’m not a teddy boy. I’m an homme serieux. Jeune. An homme jeune serieux home.” We later see Graham as Jenny brushes him off, as her friend says she doesn’t have time for boys. His final appearance at that catastrophic birthday meeting is sad. I love his expression as he pulls out his uninventive (but useful) present – the Latin dictionary. His last appearance as he tries to catch Jenny’s eye amid the hubbub of David’s arrival is quite pathetic actually.
Still, Graham’s appearance in An Education is not extraneous. Jenny is such an anomaly because despite her prodigious educational talent she is still a hopeless schoolgirl; the type of schoolgirl who passes over the Grahams in the world for the Davids. It doesn’t make her a villain, it just highlights her immaturity. An Education is wrought with short appearances from actors but at the end of it all as I see Jenny riding on her bike at Oxford I couldn’t help but wonder what had become of Graham…
What are your thoughts on Beard's Graham? Is he justly forgotten? …Or a sympathetic oaf?
Friday, 29 January 2010
Forgotten Characters was probably the lone lucid feature that I had on my blog, even if I’ve done nothing to reignite it recently. I’m still ignoring the overwhelming chatter of Oscar predictions that abound but what better way to incite Forgotten Characters fever than by looking at someone who’s probably getting a nomination come Tuesday. A favourite of mine last year:
Carey Mulligan in Pride & Prejudice
As Ms. Kitty Bennett
I’ve already waxed about my overwhelming affinity to Pride & Prejudice. I remarked that as far as the sisters go the show belongs completely to Ms. Knightley with Rosamund Pike as a worthy ally. The other sisters don’t get that much legwork, which of course is the reason for their forgotten status. Kitty is the youngest of the Bennett girls, most noted for being the ally of her sister Lydia, played by a pleasant Jena Malone [the fourth sister]. The film opens to the two chattering incessantly about the imminent Mr. Bingley. We see them as they shrieking anticipate the ball and along with their similarly vacuous mother go out to see the regiment marching, their own Elizabethan version of watching celebrities, I suppose.
Carey’s significant moment comes somewhere in the middle of the film, and is ridiculously silly. Lydia is offered the chance to go away for a Holiday and Kitty is both annoyed that she’s been denied a chance at this “adult” occasion and the thought of losing he rally. She descends into hysterics as Lydia maliciously chatters about the prospective experience. Carey is a good crier – as we saw in An Education – although here her crying needs to be definitively histrionic. It is. Hilariously so. Pride & Prejudice is the story of Elizabeth Bennett, not of the Bennett girls. However, Joe Wright crafts it all so beautifully that for some moment each of the girls gets their chance to shine. Nevertheless I still can’t think of Carey in it without remembering her and Jena Malone’s irrepressible giggling as Mr. Collins proposes to Eliza. And, I suppose, that’s how it should be.
FORGOTTEN CHARACTERS: Season One
Miranda Richardson in The Hours
Cate Blanchett in The Talented Mr. Ripley
Ethan Hawke in Training Day
Marilyn Monroe in All About Eve
Sean Bean in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
John Castle in The Lion in Winter
Waylon Payne in Walk the Line
Thursday, 21 January 2010
This is residual, I should have gotten this list up a week ago. But I said I'd post them so here they are. The forty performances that I am looking forward to this year, divided by category. Track back to Parts One, Two, Three and Four for more Information
Lead Actors
Johnny Depp in The Rum Diary
Leonardo DiCaprio in Inception
Leonardo DiCaprio in Shutter Island
Aaron Eckhart in Rabbit Hole
Colin Farrell in London Boulevard
Colin Farrell in Ondine
Ralph Fiennes in Coriolanus
Colin Firth in The King’s Speech
Ethan Hawke in Brooklyn’s Finest
Lead Actresses
Cate Blanchett in Robin Hood
Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole
Keira Knightley in London Boulevard
Keira Knightley in Never Let Me Go
Helen Mirren in The Tempest
Julianne Moore in The Kids Are All Right
Natalie Portman in Black Swan
Julia Roberts in Eat, Pray, Love
Rachel Weisz in Agora
Supporting Actors
Colin Farrell in The Way Back
Rupert Grint in Deathly Hallows I
Ed Harris in The Way Back
Djimon Honsou in The Tempest
Anthony Hopkins in You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger
Brad Pitt in Tree of Life
Mark Ruffalo in The Kids Are All Right
Mark Ruffalo in Shutter Island
Geoffrey Rush in The King’s Speech
Supporting Actresses
Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech
Diane Keaton in Morning Glory
Emily Mortimer in Shutter Island
Carey Mulligan in Never Let Me Go
Vanessa Redgrave in Coriolanus
Saoirse Ronan in The Way Back
Sissy Spacek in Get Low
Kerry Washington in Mother & Child
Diane Wiest in Rabbit Hole
What say you. Which performances are at the top of your list?
Monday, 18 January 2010
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
So after Parts One, Two and Three I'm finally read to unveil the ten films I'm anticipating the most for 2010. I suppose many weren't all too pleased with 2009. I've not decided as yet, though they were not the decade's worst. But with a new decade beginning I hope 2010 impresses more than it disappoints. These are the ten films that have had be salivating for quite some time.
I’ll admit that I’m not the biggest Nolan fan although the sheer bravura of The Prestige, as imperfect as it was, left me convinced that he could do great things. Sure this has Leonardo DiCaprio and Marion Cotillard [in what's probably a small role]; but I'm not certain if this is going to be that film that makes me love him. I really don't know much about this film, other than it's scientifically charged plotwise, and involves a ton of blackmail. That's not much to go on, but I'll see how it goes.
Julianne Moore and Annette Bening star as lesbian lovers with two children. When the sperm donor father enters the picture, drama ensues, naturally. Seeing Julianne and Annette play off each other could be something especial. I’ve been wanting Mark Ruffalo to get some love for some time now. After his eclectic turn in You Can Count On Me he’s showed up doing underrated work in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Zodiac and Reservation Road. Hopefully this doesn’t become too generic. I have high hopes.
Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley [two of the Bennett sisters] star is this supernatural drama, based on a somewhat acclaimed novel. The story centres on a group of English friends who find out that the exclusive private school which they attend is simply a front for harvesting organs. It does sound a bit like The Island, but I'm still expecting this to be good. It will be nice to see Keira and Carey team up again with Sally Hawkins in a small role.
Here it is, another Annette Bening piece. Naomi Watts, Kerry Washington and Samuel Jackson. The drama surrounds a woman [Bening] searching for the daughter she gave up for adoptions decades ago. Washington co-stars as a woman searching for a child to adopt. This was screened to good reviews last year and though I don’t want to jinx her [again] notices predicted an Oscar showing for Ms. Warren Beatty herself. I’ll see what happens. Still, regardless of whether or not Oscar recognises this. I’m keeping my eye on it.
This is pure fanboy. I tried to adjust and adjust, but it ends up in my top ten because regardless of the quality I am dying to see this. I’ve read the book so much that my hardcover copy is becoming tattered. I mean, I hate to sound like a nerd, but I’m just way too excited for this. I hope that they finally give Rupert Grint something notable to do than just act as some sort of inane form of comic relief.
Alice in Wonderland is one of the most original, entreating but simultaneously thought provoking. I have to admit that the previous live action version was a guilty pleasure, and with all his broodiness and his macabre self I can’t resist Tim Burton. Sure, I love him more when he’s toned down [Big Fish] but I love him any way. Helena Bonham Carter as The Red Queen is the type of wonderful casting that’s just scintillating. This looks like it’s going to be the most entertaining movie experience of the year to come.
Cate Blanchett and Russell Crow are a duo I would pay good money to see. The Aussies. Ridley Scott is an underrated director who has yet to win an Oscar. I warrant it won’t be for this, but I’m all ready to see a new incarnation of Robin Hood. It’s anyone’s guess if it’ll be able to combat with Errol Flynn/Olivia de Havilland, but visually thus far it look satisfying and my anticipating will remain untempered until I see it.
This film is important because it marks the return of Nicole Kidman to cinema. Not that Nine wasn’t cinema, but it wasn’t a lead role. Aaron Eckhart and Nicole Kidman star as a husband and wife who cope with the death of her child. Perhaps, that alone sounds generic – but adapted from a Award winning play [which earned Cynthia Nixon a Tony]: I don't think so. Diane Wiest costars as her mother with Sandra Oh and Tammy Blanchard in supporting roles.
This was actually coasting along as my number one for some time until…My reasons for anticipating this are multitudinous. Scorsese and DiCaprio have impressed me three times in the last decade, add that to Michelle Williams – whom I like, though I didn’t like her Brokeback turn, Emily Mortimer [underrated in Match Point], Mark Ruffalo [underrated in everything he does], the wonderful Patricia Clarkson and Ben Kingsley and you have what looks like one hell of cast. Scorsese is one of those directors that just work for me, and the chances are that I’m going to like what he does. I’m just not sure if I’m going to love it or worship it.
Helena Bonham Carter and Colin Firth star as the parents of Queen Elizabeth II, Michael Gambon, Geoffrey Rush, Timothy Spall and Guy Pearce costar. The film centres on George VI, who in the 1940’s has developed a nervous stutter. With the help of unorthodox speech therapist [Rush] who helps to work on the “king’s speech’, George eventually loses the stutter leading his country through the horrid 1940s. It’s a weird premise, duly noted. But the film’s cast is top notch – Helena Bonham Carter in particular needs a good role. And the director Tom Hooper won an Emmy for his adaptation of the first Elizabeth’s life. It’s being distributed by the Weinstein Company who are probably hoping for Oscar love, which I am too actually. I suppose it’s a weird choice for my number one, but I have really high hopes for this – obviously.
So were there any surprises? I'll be back with the performances I'm looking forward to.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Well we're getting slowly, but surely. Now for top half of the forty films that I'm anticipating for this year. By this time, these are the films that I'm expecting very much of. So here's the next ten. I hope you read Part One and Part Two.
Ethan Hawke probably takes the crown as the most underrated actor of his generation. He has a lead role in this cop drama which looks as if it could be a sleeper hit, and I’m hoping for that. I don't really know what it's about, which should make it somewhat lower on the list. But, that's me. Richard Gere and the talented Don Cheadle costar and the film is directed by Antoine Fuqua of Training Day fame. Here's to this.
I'm worried that this will not be completed for this year: three Weisz films this year does seem to be much. Weisz and Collin Farrell star as two broken people who share a tentative romance. The book is a bit of a thriller. This could be a good low-key drama, if it gets done.
Woody Allen. That’s enough to make me watch.The film centres on a family and the drama in their lives which isn't much, but Woody never lets on about his films - plot wise. I sure would have liked if Nicole Kidman was still attached, but the cast still looks strong. Anthony Hopkins, Naomi Watts and Antonio Banderas are actors I like and Josh Brolin is rising in my esteem, so I'm particularly hopeful for this. I like Woody's drama as much as his comedy actually.
I’m still not sure if it’s only this country that doesn’t have this or not. Is this even a 2010 release? Well, it’s Rachel Weisz who is enough of a pull for me, but the entire premise is quite interesting and it looks to be quite a provocative drama and it's directed by Amenabar who was the director of the underrated, but wonderful The Others.I expect this to be a good one.
As The Mad Hatter said it’s Iron f***ing man. Of course it’s not that high on my list, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t expecting this to be good. Robert Downey Jr. is a whole lot of fun, Gwyneth Palthrow is fun when she’s having fun, Mickey Rourke is flippantly cool. And then there’s Scarlett: va va voom. It’s wrong that she’s my biggest draw her, but she is. Blame it on the hormones, but Scarlett Johansson in leather. Count me in.
To be honest, I was not a big fan of the first Wall Street since Michael Douglas is still a question as far as I’m concerned and Charlie Sheen is just ugh. Still, I’m interested to see what Oliver Stone can do twenty years after the fact and with Susan Sarandon and Carey Mulligan joining on with Shia LeBouef, who I believe has more potential than we can discern from Transformers, I’m excited for this. The plot follows Gekko [Douglas] who is now out of prison and trying to repair relationships with his estranged Daughter [Mulligan].
This could have been higher, but form here on out it's all a toss up. William Monahan, writer of the almost perfect The Departed adapts this novel and makes his directorial debut with this piece. It centres on a reclusive actress [Keira Knightley] who befriends a London criminal played by Collin Farrell. Yes, this is Colin's fourth film in my top 40. Told you, he's going to be having quite a year. I'm very excited for this. Keira Knightley is broadening her horizons, and I like it. She's underrated, same goes for Farrell. I'm unsure about Monohan, I hope his debut is not too gratuitous.
So the top ten is a few posts away? Any one here you expected to crack the ten? Which Farrell film are you looking forward to more? Waiting for Agora? Black Swan?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
