|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label George Clooney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Clooney. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 July 2011
I have massive love for Chocolat. You know, that sweet little Miramax film that popped up randomly at precursors then earned 5 Oscar nominations including Best Picture? Yup, that one. Jose (Movies Kick Ass) gives a fond review of it over at Pop Matters and I couldn't be happier.
Walter (The Silver Screening Room) is traveling back to 1964 for some Oscar retrospection, check out what he thought of the Best Director nominees. How random and ridiculous is it that George Cukor won his Oscar for My Fair Lady of all things - from Holiday, to Little Women, to The Philadelphia Story to Adam's Rib and he wins his Oscar for the movie with the WRONG Hepburn!!!! Oh, Oscars.
I can't remember where I was saying it , but I miss Cate Blanchett desperately. Why is she so scarce? Fritz (Fritz and the Oscars) dedicates a post to her work in The Aviator as he counts down the Supporting Actress winners from worst to best. Cate is his #32.
And while we're on the Oscars' arc, anyone expecting Midnight in Paris to kill at the Oscars? Rumblings abound, but they are just rumblings and silly me I've yet to see it. Ugh. Mike (You Talking To Me) loves it.
I love when film bloggers talk about TV (a plug for my upcoming blog-a-thon) and CS (Big Thoughts From A Small Mind) is wondering who, if anyone, is winning the fight for supremacy between television and cinema.
Richard (Riku Writes) thinks we spend too much time thinking about "greatest" films forgetting those that might not be the best, but are a great deal of fun. He gives us a list of ten.
My two favourite film composers at the moment are Alexandre Desplat and Dario Marianelli, the two most ubiquitous are probably Hans Zimmer and James Horner, in a face-off I'd choose the latter and Luke (Journalistic Skepticism) devotes a write-up to some of his best work. Do you even have to ask which is my favourite...clue: lots of water...
I didn't like Chloe very much when it was released, I still don't really like it even if it has some fairly good acting (and surprisingly well shot). The Mad Hatter (The Dark of the Matinee) writes up on it.
Why do we have so many film bloggers? James D. (Central Florida Film Critic) gives a great reason while trumpeting Tree of Life which I've yet to see. I'm so behind on 2011 viewing, it's ridiculous.
Friday, 22 October 2010
There’s a distinct lack of words flowing for this one, I’m officially stumped. Did I like The American? I can’t be certain? Was it well made? Even more dangerous territory. It gets even more difficult to assess when I essentially called the ending halfway through, although that doesn’t particularly take away from its effect (oddly). The American is about a serial killer (Clooney) who arrives in Italy for a job, that is the only essential portion of the plot. I still exist on general antipathy towards Clooney though I like him on occasion (namely here and here). In deciding whether or not I think Clooney does an impressive job here I have to decide if the film is one that manages to put forth a good performance.
The American is a low-key, sometimes maddeningly so. Even Cairo Time, which sort of thrives on being as minimalist as possible doesn’t evoke that stark sense of bareness. In keeping with the mood Clooney seems to be stripped to the bare essentials. Thus, his performance becomes half action performance and half silent. I’m never inclined to believe I’m watching George Clooney. Obviously, I am but Clooney is the sort of actor who seems to deliberately prevent separation between his celebrity and his character. He realises that it doesn’t here and he does a credible job of accomplishing that separation. The thing is, Clooney accomplishes the creation of a character with aplomb but fails to construct a person. It’s a possibility that this is a deliberate move from Corbijn, but that doesn’t make the experience any more fulfilling.
The American leaves a sort of bad taste in your mouth, though I’m still uncertain if it’s the story or the technique that does so. It’s simultaneously tightly constructed – a little over ninety minutes – and yet it seems to go on forever. Anomalous? Yes. Corbijn has an obvious talent for technique and The American is shot beautifully, though not overtly so. It works in its own way, but I’m not sure if it works for me. So I’m left in one of those unfortunate quandaries when it comes to grading and whatnot. That happened to me with Antichrist last year, one movie experience I’m disinclined to revisit. I’m not against seeing The American again; though I don’t think a second viewing would clear up anything. It’s not that I’m confused, per se, I’m just not unconfused. The American is impressive...that much I can say...
B/B-
Has anyone seen it yet?
Friday, 13 August 2010
The first Michelle Pfeiffer movie I saw was The Witches of Eastwick…the first time I became infatuated with her was with One Fine Day. Admittedly, it was a bit of a vicarious appreciation. My sister, who is not necessarily a cinephile, would always say One Fine Day was her favourite film and single out Michelle as her favourite actress and over time I just got into the habit of doing so too. I recently watched One Fine Day (after re-reading the book) and it’s still as charming as it was – more so probably – than it seemed to me as a child. It’s a day in the life of two single parent divorcees – George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer. The two become entangled in each other’s lives over the course of a fateful day that will of course end nicely.
“Sweet” would probably be the ideal adjective to describe One Fine Day. Maybe it’s because I’m a child of the nineties and I have my own predilection to the decade (come on, the nineties were good) but One Fine Day strikes me as so smart and unforced I’m not sure if the romantic genre has regressed or if my appreciation is clouded by nepotism – perhaps it’s a bit of both. The thing is, I’m usually nonplussed when it comes to the eons of charm George Clooney is supposed to exude. Well, for obvious reasons, I’m impervious but I’m usually unmoved by him. Truly, One Fine Day is Michelle’s show but George’s easiness makes his story as satisfying as hers. Of course, it would be a disservice to talk about the film without mentioning Mae Whitman and Alex D. Linz – the two child actors. The latter does seem to have the upper hand with characterisation, as Michelle's son, but both turn in pleasant performances that improve the film.
We only have a day for the most important blocs in the lives of our leads to be solved, so One Fine Day must resort to (subtle) trickery to tie up the loose ends. There’s a sweet (that word again) moment towards the end where Pfeiffer is at an important meeting while Linz makes faces against the window pane outside. Perhaps the result is unrealistic, who knows, but even in something as “trivial” as a romantic comedy Michelle is always ready to emote. Her inner struggle doesn’t bog the film down and it’s a nice indication of the issues single parents have without being too on the nose about it. It’s not a judgment on working mothers when Michelle makes her inevitable decision. One Fine Day works so well because it’s not trying to suggest any larger than life themes. It’s just a simple film about a man and a woman (and a girl and a boy). I get nostalgic when I think about One Fine Day and its unavoidable happy ending is real enough to be winsome and not maudlin. Sure, I’ll see it for Michelle Pfeiffer but it’s good for other aspects too.
What do you think of One Fine Day?
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
I’m enjoying my last few days of freedom before school reopens (grrr), and it’s all going well. I should be more regular with the links, and there have been so many great bits since.
My favourite post of the week (thus far, I know it’s Tuesday) has to be Ryan’s entry for the Movie Meme focusing exclusively on Joe Wright. I’ll let The Soloist (passable as it was) go; I can’t wait for Hanna.
Jose’s back with a vengeance and he loathed Knight & Day…which saddens me, because I did like it so. It's weird, I'm not usually fond of Cruise, but there it is - seducing me with a laughing Cameron Diaz and a caustic Viola Davis. Speaking of loathing. Know who (else) I loathe? Will Smith. Marshall warns you all from watching Ali...and though it's not horrid, I'd agree with him. (Speaking of Marshall, I only recently interviewed him for the LAMB, Check it out.) And while we're on the topic, I don't like George Clooney either. Fitz does, though, he takes a look at his favourite Clooney performance.
It’s been a while since I saw Sophie’s Choice a film that many believe the greatest performance of all time. Marcy offers up a thoughtful review of it. Is Meryl flawless in it?
I was moderately impressed with Antoine Fuqua’s Brooklyn’s Finest. Frank offers up effusive praise for the crime drama. How many of you have seen it?
What’s the best movie battle? Tough question? Heather doesn’t think so… here's her list.
I have a habit of becoming a dissenter, even if it’s not always deliberate. When I predicted (in my very first post) a lack of BP love for The Dark Knight it was more me hoping than anything else. I didn’t love the film, banana oil almost loathes it. What are your thoughts on her feelings? I'm not the biggest Darren Aronofsky, I wasn't the biggest fan of The Wrestler in 2008 either. I'm probably not a fan at all, though I'll respect the man's talent. Carson reviews his 2008 The Wrestler, his direction is superb though I think the actual film is less so.
I desperately need to see Woody Allen’s Interiors. Alex offers up an analysis of Geraldine Page in Woody’s drama. Slightly OT but I do love Geraldine in Sweet Bird of Youth…
Fletch needs your help with his marriage troubles. Well, not really...but there's a hypothetical situation and he wants your help. It involves Angelina, Brad and Jen...GO. Here's another hypothetical bit. You're going on a date...which movies would you NOT want to watch there? If you just had ate don't look, but Dan's list is full of excellent choices.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
It’s not regarded as a specific genre in and of itself, but it’s always interesting to note how many films tackle that “taboo” subject of growing old. Not coming age as from childhood to maturity, but the (sometimes sudden) realisation that death is imminent, dreams will not be attained and life is not what you wished it would be. It often becomes a question of our mortality. Stephen Frears Chéri is the ultimate example of being disillusioned about growing older, since the subject is that of the aging courtesan Lea de Lonval (played by a magnificent Michelle Pfeiffer). It’s a film that deserved more than it got, I for one was a fan – my review. Lea is growing older and realises that her treasures may not be as…valuable as they once were. The romance she thrusts herself into with the eponymous Chéri is pathetic, funny and poignant all at once and of course that (now notorious) final look in the camera tells more about the old enemy time than quite a few have tried in their entire duration.
The concept of age was a major theme in 17 Again, a surprisingly enjoyable comedy starring (who’d have imagined) Zac Efron. Matthew Perry’s Mike after realising the lack of mobility in his job that his golden years are long gone, and as we all do when the time comes, he yearns for the (assumed) simplicity of his youth. Of course the wrap-up is just a bit too tidy, but he learns in the process that we can never really outrun our problems, no matter how we try. It’s something I wonder if Clooney’s Ryan Bingham was considering. I really couldn’t buy into Up in the Air, the all too pithy scenarios felt much too clinical for me to believe. It’s not to say that Ryan’s epiphany is impossible, so many have probably gone through such a midlife crises but despite it’s numerous faults 17 Again spends its entirety trying to make us buy a change in Mike's temperament, so that when it comes – as tidy as it is – we are inclined to believe. On the other hand with Up in the Air, though I believe it could have happened I was not given any incentive to believe it did. A wedding does not a marriage make and as epiphanies come they are sudden but there’s always an underlying rationale or raison d’être which continues to elude me when it comes to Clonney's Ryan.
I wonder where Larry David’s Boris from Whatever Works would fit into this equation. I suppose Whatever Works is Woody slumming it, but Woody slumming is better than many “excelling”. Still, Whatever Works – as I’ve noted – is not perfect. For the most part, the troubles begin (and end) with David. He’s not the lovable old geezer that we’ve come to expect and require in Woodyland. He’s all too abrasive. But Whatever Works manages to work where Up in the Air doesn’t because Whatever Works has the sense to realise that Boris is not the beginning and end of the narrative. The supporting characters essentially hijack the third act (for the better).
The only thing our other two women Robin Wright Penn’s Pippa Lee and Meryl Streep’s Jane have in common is a daughter played to perfect irritation by the exasperating Zoe Kazan. But then, I’m being too stingy. They both are juggling two men, even if they don’t realise. I wonder what Pippa would say to Jane. Pippa’s husband like Meryl’s ex has an indiscretion with a younger woman. But Winona Ryder is nowhere as savvy (or cutthroat) like Meryl’s foil the lovely Agnes. The Private Lives of Pippa Lee did impress me more, even if it is more of a guilty pleasure type. However despite the review, the first two thirds are quite good. I realise too, that both films depend completely on their leading ladies. Both come to grips with their age, although it is harsher for Pippa considering that she’s no where as exciting as she was in her youths. They both may be juggling two men, but she’s not a bit of slut, but then neither is Jane for that matter. The real slut would have to be Lea, and that’s purely for professional reasons.
The two films which were so easily confused last year A Serious Man and A Single Man. The latter obviously trumps the former for me. Although I’m not acutely certain that either man is really dealing with midlife crises. Both men are teachers; that’s about as far as their similarities go. Larry is the epitomical good guy who bad things happen to, but so is George. Larry looks to religion and George looks to death. I’m not sure either of them finds complete fulfilment. But then again, who does?
At the end of the day Lea’s mirror gaze haunts me the most; but which battle with age leaves you must satisfied…cinematically speaking?
PS. This is the last of the 2009 in Reviews...unless there's a category I've forgotten...
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Wes Anderson’s The Fantastic Mr. Fox, as the name indicates, is a story about a fox; a fantastic one. After his wife’s pregnancy Fox retires from the dangerous world of thievery to become a journalist. The film from a superficial standpoint focuses on the fox and his intimations with his fellow animals, but it is not difficult to see it in a larger sense. Fox questions his place in the world as his wife urges him to be more responsible and his son yearns for acceptance. These themes are glaringly human, and these are the idiosyncrasies that make The Fantastic Mr. Fox succeed.
The animation here is not the typical 2D or 3D form but a stop-motion format that is almost offensively non-realistic. Narrative wise, The Fantastic Mr. Fox is not faultless; although the first half could claim to be. These first forty minutes are outstanding in their exuberance and a cause of profound delight [oxymoron?], but towards the middle and end it falters. The dialogue is still spoken at breakneck pace. In fact it is in the faultier second half that Streep in particular shines as Fox’s wife. However, the story – one already low on actual plot – seems to be spread too thin. Nevertheless, the potential crisis is averted for the satisfying end-result which manages to be cool and sentimental all at once.
The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a strange case. The themes would most likely hold more profundity for adults and the dialogue may go over the head of even the most lucid children but there is a pervasive sense of juvenility about it all. As the credits rolled I could not call it my favourite film – animated or otherwise – of the year. But, for all its adult imitations it was the one that most elicited those elusive memories of childhood.
B+
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Minor Spoilers Ahead
Jason Reiteman is a director I’ve always wanted to like. His debut Thank You For Smoking made my top ten of the year even though it was a flawed film, but I just could not be a fan of Juno regardless of what Ebert and thousands of others claimed. This season’s laurels have been thrown left and right at his Up In the Air – a film I was uncertain of going into it. The film centres on George Clooney ’s Ryan, a man who hopes to attain ten million flyer miles whilst doing his job – firing people. He meets a female version of himself in Vera Farmiga while juggling with the new ingénue at his office played by Twilight star Anna Kendrick. This is Up In the Air.
I wonder if I’m a flawed critic, but then again – who isn’t?. I didn’t think I’d like this going in. Clooney is not a draw for me and other than Farmiga I didn’t really love the whole idea of this film. Up In the Air is the perfect example of a film whose ostensible merits are lost on me. I didn’t expect to be blown away by Clooney’s performance, and I wasn’t. I know that George Clooney only plays George Clooney so I could let that ride, because that’s how it goes. However, I cannot discern even any attempt at layering the character like he attempted in Michael Clayton , which I didn’t like very much either. For the first three quarters of the film we’re led to believe that Ryan is the ultimate bachelor as he mitigates the point of marriage and children. Towards the end after an epiphany, which is altogether too artificial, he reaches out to the woman in his life, and fails. But I can’t care that he’s crush because I’ve seen no change in the character. His face looks sad, but there’s never that personal feeling. That's because Clooney doesn't even look like he's trying Ryan doesn’t really change and the subtlety that the role seems to call for is lost on Clooney.
But on to the women. I mentioned Farmiga was my biggest draw and I was disappointed. Certainly she’s the best thing in the film, but even as she creates Alex as this ultra snazzy and smart woman I can’t deny the fact that she’s obviously acting. It’s the same problem I had with Ellen Page’s Juno . I see an actress acting, and not a person. Mind you with Farmiga it’s better, but still not all there. It’s only until the second half that I distinguish any authentic life in the character and by then the film is so disinterested in her uniqueness that it’s all for naught. Certainly, I may be a bit harsh on her because I expected so much, but this is not as good a performance as she can do. I will admit that her final scene is better than any prior scene. But though it’s enough to make me forgive I can’t forget what went before.
However the most mind boggling element has to be the much lauded Ann Kendrick. I’m in the minority on this one, but I don’t care. Whereas Farmiga and Page were fair to good examples of actors acting, Kendrick doesn’t even do that much for me. It’s an example of a girl trying to act – and failing horribly. That breakdown scene in the airport still confounds me a day and a half later at its insanity Kendrick’s crying makes me cringe, and not from the reality of it – but from the ridiculousness of it all which strikes me as so contrived. Something is probably lost on me, but I really don’t understand how she has turned into the runner up [albeit a distant one] of the supporting race which actually has more to offer than Mo’Nique’s powerhouse turn.
What exactly is it about Up In the Air that makes it a film of the times? Is it because it deals with unemployment? It’s not the first film that asks us to root for the hero who is actually quite despicable but Up In the Air doesn’t even seem to realise that Ryan is despicable. In Thank You For Smoking at least Eckhart knew he wasn’t perfect, that was the whole point of it. When Alex shows her colours I don't feel anything. Why should I? I've spent the entire film feeling that there was no value to this relationship, and Reiteman does nothing to make me rethink that. That pithy final montage of Ryan returning to his ways plays and we can feel Reiteman trying to pull at heart strings – but there’s nothing there to pull. And that scene with the unemployed just feels so peripheral and superfluous. Were we really supposed to be buying that BS Ryan was selling about the goodness of being fired?
Up In the Air works as a pleasant, if uninspired film, but above that I really can't feel like the rest of the population. It just leaves me, unmoved. Reiteman has done his least impressive piece for me here.
Up In the Air works as a pleasant, if uninspired film, but above that I really can't feel like the rest of the population. It just leaves me, unmoved. Reiteman has done his least impressive piece for me here.
C- [D+?]
Speak up. What are your thoughts on UP IN THE AIR?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
