|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Ewan McGregor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ewan McGregor. Show all posts
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Ewan McGregor has been in search of a good role for 7 years. He was all sorts of brilliant in Big Fish and Down With Love in 2003 and equally satisfying in 2001’s Moulin Rouge. Yet, there’s that distinct sense that his onscreen joviality makes him an easy person to overlook when people are thinking about “good” actors. It makes sense, in that bitterly ironic way, that he gets the task of playing a ghost writer in Roman Polanski’s latest. A ghost writer, deprecatingly referred to as a “ghost” is a man who must be heard (intermittently) but never seen, one of those people who writes but is never credited. He’s given the task of ghosting the memoirs of Adam Lang, a recent prime minister of Britain. It’s only natural that Lang’s past is strewn with secrets and lies especially when his previous ghost-writer was found washed up on the shore of the island he’s currently inhabiting somewhere in the US.
The Ghost Writer puzzled me almost from that onset. Not that it was difficult to understand, it’s consistently comprehensible; but Polanski’s tone seemed immediately too cavalier even supercilious at times as if he was framing a witty social comedy and not a political thriller....a feeling that is only exacerbated when the title card appears so sinisterly at the film’s end and Alexandre Desplat's mocking (and brilliant) score keeps playing. It’s all very slick. I’m not certain that the supposed disparity in tone and form is an accurate judgement of the movie, because the more of I think of it in retrospect I think that perhaps The Ghost Writer is just a smartly executed fantasy. Something I find interesting about the film is that despite the excess of information available, Polanski is never explicit in stressing the potential theme of illusion and reality, the novel is about a ghost of a man after all. It’s probably part of his larger intent to give the audience nothing readymade, but the decision still seems odd.
The Ghost Writer is the type of film that might be even more fulfilling the second time around (even though I’m not especially anxious to see it again, in its entirety). Polanski’s direction is smooth, so smooth that I’m often moved to distrust what he shows us. Like any good mystery, though, there’s a distinct sense of fluidity as the film glides to its closing without the slightest narrative glitches. Of course, that’s a bit of a problem in itself – like that sickening sensation one gets after an especially syrupy drink. Not that it is “treacly”, per se, but Polanski is so tidy that sometimes you wish that he’d be a little less meticulous in the execution and the wrap-up. Still, it’s this selfsame fluidity that makes the performances of the main quarter all the more outstanding. Me (who grew up with a sister devoted to Sex & the City) didn’t recognise Kim Cattrall * until some time into the film’s second act. She’s altogether fascinating, donning a British accent that I can’t help but applaud. Match that against the cold contours of Olivia Williams scrupulously effected politicians’ wife. Even when her character is at her lowest she still manages to exude the cold veneer of her character. Of course, McGregor is every bit as subtle as he needs be, I’ll admit that Brosnan strikes as a bit too garish to do the role full justice, though it’s not as exasperating as I anticipated.
The Ghost Writer does come off as a bit too lithe on its feet, even the potentially shocking end which is less jarring than just vague. But, it works – sometimes too smoothly, but I’m splitting hairs. It’s a good one.
B+
* For the life of me I cannot account for not immediately recognising Cattrall, it's not as if she looks particularly different (unless you count how youthful she comes off.)
Friday, 3 December 2010
"This is what I want, naughty words."
"Oh, it's so bad."
"Don't, don't, don't stop!"
"Give me more, YES!"
Lesson Learned: a)Poetry just may be the most powerful aphrodisiac.
(b) Satine is easily turned on (Christian finds it disturbing)
(c) Elton's John's lyrics are actually useful.
Sunday, 21 March 2010
If all goes well I should be seeing Burton’s Alice in Wonderland next week. I don’t expect the film to be perfect, and I won’t be angry if I don’t love it as much as I wanted to. It seems that so many hate Burton now and with the announcement of his imminent reimagining of The Addams’ Family (which I think could be excellent) the trolls have emerged; but I digress. Whenever I hear the claims of Burton’s lack of restraint I always feel the urge to slag someone off by citing my favourite live action Burton film – an imperfect masterpiece that thrills me as much as it moves me, 2003’s forgotten Big Fish.
Big Fish is a drama, a fantasy, a comedy, a romance and a mystery all rolled into one atypical bundle from Burton. It is the story of Ed Bloom a dying man forever at odds with his son. On his deathbed he tries to explain himself to his son. In this way Big Fish is two stories in one. On the most obvious of levels it’s difficult to believe that Ewan McGregor grew up to become Albert Finney, not because Albert Finney isn’t charming. To be fair Finney’s early work in Tom Jones is not that different from the young Ewan in the film. Finney just gives the feeling of a man whose light has been snuffed out for whatever reasons, even though he’s not unhappy. Jessica Lange plays brilliantly in the small role of Finney’s wife. I’ve always been a fan of Lange and her manner of imbuing so much emotion to a nondescript role is effective. As earnest and delicate as the times in the present are, it’s difficult to deny the sheer (aesthetic) brilliance of Big Fish when it retracts to the past. It’s a fanciful tale, but that’s precisely the point which is why Burton is so effective, but the present moments in their sombreness is done excellently. The visuals are an important of the film, but it’s the not the defining entity. That would be the acting.
Helena Bonham Carter made my top 5 of 2003 for her brilliant performance in a dual role. It’s the most sensitive role Burton has given her and she handles it perfectly. It’s difficult to balance her charm against the beauty and stability of Lohman/Lange and Carter never turns it into a cliché. Ewan McGregor gives his best performance as Ed. It’s that fanciful innocence that suits him, and even the accent tends to get obtrusive in some moments it’s still an absolutely brilliant incarnation and Albert Finney does so much emoting with so little time (this man continues to be excellent even in his old age). Big Fish also features Marion Cotillard in a small role as Billy Crudup’s wife.
I am a fan of Burton so I really can’t say whether or not I’m the most infallible critic, but then who is? Big Fish delights me and it stirs me. It’s an excellent creation and a treasure of the last decade as far as I’m concerned. It features on my list of favourites at #41.
Monday, 4 January 2010
I hope you're not getting tired of my year be year process of reviewing the decade. I care if you do. Honest, I do. No one? Good. So, on to the actors of 2002. I didn't see a few of the films with the outstanding males, and when I did I made some different choices. Oh well. Who wants generic picks?
Supporting Actor
Tier Two
Matt Damon in Ocean’s Eleven
Colin Firth in Bridget Jones' Diary
James Gandolfini in The Mexican
Ed Harris in A Beautiful Mind
Clive Owen in Gosford Park
Damon, Firth and Galdolfini rise above some incredibly stock characters and make magic. Damon especially is a hoot as Linus showing some incredible comedic skills. His rapport with the cast [especially Pitt] is delightful to watch and just makes Ocean's Eleven a success. Harris is good in A Beautiful Mind and Owen only just misses the mark as the enigmatic Parks in Gosford Park.
The Nominees
Sean Bean in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings
Jim Broadbent in Iris
Jim Broadbent in Moulin Rouge
Ian McKellen in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings
Ryan Philippe in Gosford Park
I suppose Philippe seems like a dud here, but if Gosford Park did anything it was proof that he could act. He had an oddly fascinating chemistry with Kristin Scott Thomas and lent a definite charm to the film. So in the battle of Gandalf vs Boromir, Gandalf is the winner. Obviously. Boromir is a mere human. And Jim Broadbent faces off against himself with his Zidler from Moulin Rouge prevailing.
Lead Actor
Tier Two
George Clooney in Ocean’s Eleven
Heath Ledger in A Knight’s Tale
Guy Pearce in Memento
Sean Penn in I Am Sam
Mekhi Phifer in O
Maybe I'm easy on him, but Heath Ledger was oddly charming in A Knight's Tale, and Clooney whom I usually despise works his charm with much aplomb in Ocean's Twelve. Though I never really got into Memento Pearce was fine, and Penn had a tough job with that hammy character in I Am Sam. I'm glad he was nominated at the Oscars actually. He and Phifer are the best of this bottom five.
The NomineesRussell Crow in A Beautiful Mind
Ethan Hawke in Training Day
Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge
Denzel Washington in Training Day
Tom Wilkinson in In the Bedroom
I suppose it is surprising that Crow is there, but I did feel he was one of the truly strong things about the film. Of the two Training Day guys I’ve already pledged my allegiance to Ethan Hawke who emerges as the winner [surprise, no?] with Tom Wilkinson close behind for heart wrenching turn in In the Bedroom. Ewan McGregor secures the bronze for an underrated and exceptional piece of acting in Moulin Rouge.
So, surprised at Ethan Hawke, Sean Bean, Ryan Philippe? Who are your choices?
Thursday, 17 December 2009
So now it's on to the men. I suppose my picks are just about as strange as the men, but I stand by choices especially in the Supporting Actor category that was royally f***ed up. Okay not quite, but still - just saying...
Supporting Actor
Tier ThreeKevin Bacon, Mystic River
Billy Crudup, Big Fish
Djimon Honsou, In America
Derek Luke, Pieces of April
Viggo Mortenson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Okay Viggo had done his best work of the trilogy in the second installment, but they could have thrown him a bone. I can't be too pissed at Honsou's nomination, I like him, but I really wasn't all that blown away. And what made Bacon's work in Mystic River so unimportant?
Tier TwoSean Astin, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Alec Baldwin, The Cooler
Ian McKellen, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Cold Mountain
Cillian Murphy, Girl With a Pearl Earring
I really was not heavy on Oscar buzz back in 2003, but I remember loads of people predicting Sean Astin. For the record I was not a fan of Sam, but damn he carried Frodo up the freakin' mountain and you can't even give him some love. Astin is really good here, depressing, but good. Cillian Murphy was one of the few things I could tolerate in Girl With a Pearl Earring, he is desperately in need of a good role. They could even have thrown a second nomination to Gandalf. Perhaps Hoffman wasn't any good in Cold Mountain. But then again, nah.
The NomineesBilly Boyd, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Benicio Del Toro, 21 Grams
Albert Finney, Big FishDavid Hyde Pierce, Down With Love
Tim Robbins, Mystic River
So two Oscar nominees are here, and three performances that were thoroughly overlooked. I guess my one and two would be Robbins and Del Toro [in that order], they were amazing – I’ve said it before. As I’ve said that Albert Finney, my third choice, was good. Boyd was always my favourite of the hobbits, and his Pippin in this third film was perfect. Of the hobbits, he did the most growing and it was a great performance. Hyde Pierce had amazing comedic timing in the under loved Down With Love.The Actors
Tier ThreeAnthony Hopkins, The Human Stain
Tommy Lee Jones, Missing
Tobey MaGuire, Seabiscuit
Ewan McGregor, Down With Love
Jack Nicholson, Something’s Gotta Give
I probably should rewatch The Human Stain. I don't remember it fondly, but I do remember it with some respect. . McGregor and Tommy Lee Jones are the best of this lot...Ewan just had a great year and yet he was ignored like nobody's business. Gah!
Tier Two Collin Farrell, Phone Booth
Russell Crow, Master & Commander
Ben Kingsley, House of Sand & Fog
William H. Macy, The Cooler
Sean Penn, 21 Grams
Am I crazy with the love for Farrell? It's so weird how Russell picked up almost no traction - they've really fallen out of love with him. Sean Penn is someone else who had quite a year. Luckily they rewarded him for Mystic River. Not that 21 Grams would have been undeserving, but it would have been way too predictable. Kingsley was good of course, hr just didn't make my top 5.
The NomineesJohnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of Black Pearl
Jude Law, Cold Mountain
Ewan McGregor, Big Fish Bill Murray, Lost in Translation
Sean Penn, Mystic River
Well this is pretty easy. Sure Penn and Law battle it out and no one's a winner,because I'm a coward. Ewan gives his best performance that no one seems to care about in Big Fish, so do Depp and Murray actually but people take notice of them. Altogether, it was a very good year for the men - but damn them for not even taking a look at Ewan. Ugh. Fail. So what are your thoughts? McGregor, Law, Penn, Penn. Or, Robbins, Del Toro, Finney?
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Spectacular, spectacular. Zidler, Satine and Christian must convince the Duke to fund their new play, a new play that has not been written. The manic recitative rendition that occurs in the bedroom is beautiful to look at yet absurd at the same time. With his frenzied camera movements and the orgasmic explosion of colours Luhrman does something that may not be quite new but it is rare. And as it is in ‘Spectacular, Spectacular’, so it is in Moulin Rouge!
If Shakespeare had decided to do a musical in his youthful days [re A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Love’s Labour’s Lost] I don’t suppose that Moulin Rouge! would be far off from his creation. The plot of Moulin Rouge! is as absurd as the most bauble like of Shakespeare plays and Elizabethan trifles of the era. Propelled by a sensitive artist, it is about his yearning to experience the bohemian life as he falls for a delectable vamp who may not be as reckless as she pretends. It has a dark, brooding villain looming over it complete with the necessary henchman to carry out his underhand work…and all this occurs under the watchful eyes of our benevolent host – Harry Zidler. This is the Moulin Rouge! Moulin Rouge! should probably come with a warning…leave all propensity to disbelief at the door. Because we really cannot take it as truth, and yet every movement of the characters enthral and we are indeed hooked.
All the virtues and vices of Baz Luhrman come to glorious congregation in Moulin Rouge!’s outrageous scheme. The film is thoroughly his and just as Burton Sweeney Todd was thoroughly his, it is the same for Luhrman. However, despite my love for Moulin Rouge! my appreciation of it does not pitch in until the entrance of Satine. It’s not that Ewan doesn’t do a good job as the lead, because he is phenomenal. And the scenes outside of the Moulin Rouge! are pretty to look at, but it is not until 'Diamonds Are A Girls Best Friends', or possibly 'Diamond Dog's from just before that the charm of what is the Moulin Rouge! really kicks in. Satine’s entrance is one of the most thrilling entrances I can recall on film – musical or not. It is all orchestrated so well with the paleness of Nicole against the dark backdrop of the club. She truly is a sparking diamond.
Moulin Rouge! treads a line that is almost impossible to go along smoothly. The film is an odd mix of hilarity, tragedy, drama and comedy and it doesn’t stay in one tone for too long. It’s a bit of a risk on the creator’s part. This is not the Elizabethan era which demands obtuse comedy to heighten the drama. This is a film of the new millennium. But it works. And no doubt the gameness of the cast is essential. Ewan and Nicole are wonderful as the lead and John Leguizamo, Jim Broadbent, Richard Roxburgh and Caroline O'Connor
all given in top notch performances. This is a true ensemble film, in every sense of the word.
Yes, it gets a bit silly when we think of it. Is there any fatal disease as ubiquitous as consumption in 19th century period pieces? But despite its silliness...or perhaps because of it there is a sweetness and charm to Moulin Rouge! that is not lost on me.And I really do love it. It’s doubtful whether or not Baz will ever be able to helm a film so in keeping with his talents. But regardless, we’ll always have the Moulin Rouge! Truth! Beauty! Freedom!...and the last one escapes me... Whatever, it's #89.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Just had a gander at Down With Love...
Is it a good movie? Or is it a feeble attempt at one?
On good days, I love it... on bad days... I find it pretentious. It can be a little silly - and a tad bit unrealistic... but isn't that the point? Maybe. Still, Renée Zellweger and Ewan McGregor have fabulous chemistry and Sarah Paulson and David Hyde Pierce are very capable as the respective sidekicks. The costumes are a plus too... and the soundtrack warrants a listen including an original song Here's to Love!
I think this is a good film.
Am I wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
