Showing posts with label Tom Hanks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Hanks. Show all posts

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

Larry Crowne: directed by Tom Hanks; written Tom Hanks and Nia Vardolos

I pay so little attention to general critical consensus that it was mere happenstance which led me to the Rotten Tomatoes page of Larry Crowne where I saw what a critical tongue lashing it had taken. And, in a way, I think that Larry Crowne is one of those films which exposes all that is wrong with the mob psychology tendencies that tend to overtake film criticism at times. For the record, I’d hardly intimate that it’s an excellent film but what’s interesting about Larry Crowne is that despite its cast of generally big names from Tom Hanks to Julia Roberts to Taraji P. Henson to Bryan Cranston and son on, the film is comfortable being a commendable dramedy about a man – somewhat tritely – finding “himself”. Hanks and Roberts are stars of such great megawatts that by default one demands that a film of theirs be an unbridled success, anything less is an unmitigated failure. And, Larry Crowne is far from a massive successive but I curse the black-and-white world where because it’s not a success it means that it’s a failure.

I would guess that much of the trouble comes in the way that it was advertised. The scant bits of ads I paid attention to seemed to pitch the film as some sort of zeitgeist film looking at how unemployment is affecting the middle class. And, true, the film begins with Larry getting fired but it’s as much about unemployment as Hanna is about hunting animals. It’s a showcase for Tom Hanks to play his good natured good guy as he tries to fit into college. And the film rolls ago in that sometimes too comfortable way, but it is surprisingly unwilling to pander to the most obvious of stereotypes. True, Larry will meet a group of madcap students (somewhat) and he’ll fall in love but the way in which everything comes off as not the least bit clichéd is particularly impressive, even if Hanks is nothing special.

For me, the film is about Julia Roberts. She plays an unrelentingly bitter professor and she’s not quite the leading lady, even if she’s not quite supporting and as the object of Larry’s affection she’s a bit wasted but the film cares about her (as it does about most of its characters). More importantly, she’s fun in the role. She approaches with a winning gusto and say what you will about Julia – she’s fun to watch. There’s a scene where she enters a classroom she doesn’t want to be in and for a few seconds feels she might have the luck to not have to teach them. The myriad of emotions that runs through her face at not having to have human contact is interesting to watch, and even though her trajectory from bitter to smitten is a bit too “la-de-da” – the film tries to approach it with so much honesty, I can’t hate it too much.
It would seem that my grade subverts everything I’ve said so far, but I don’t consider the actual grade a particularly bad one. It’s a passable summation, as is the entire film. Larry Crowne is nowhere bad as it’s being made out to be. True, on occasion it might approach its protagonist with a significant amount of blandness but never mistake the sometimes pervading treacly feeling for a lack of caring. Perhaps I would have liked for it to have a bit more gumption in its cabals but in the long-run it perseveres as – mostly – honest look at a middle-aged man at a turning point. Hardly riveting, but certainly not abysmal.


C+

Friday, 10 December 2010

I’ve said before that I don’t care for Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks. I’ve also said that the two remind me of each other, both exude that slight tinge of cockiness, they both have their two Oscars and both are widely and (wildly) loved. It’s strange, though, when they teamed up for Philadelphia in 1993 I actually like them together. I often think I don’t like Philadelphia, but I saw it again this past week and I realise that even though I have a distinct resentment of the case of the stolen Oscar that belonged to Anthony Hopkins (or at the very least, Liam Neeson) Philadelphia is a fine film – and Tom Hanks is excellent in it. It would probably seem a bit archaic now, the struggle of a man who was fired for having HIV/AIDS but for more than its implications of society then, and its potential historical worth Jonathan Demme's Philadelphia is significant, even on a purely cinematic level.
Something that I thought of while watching, that I think is often overlooked – is Mary Steenburgen. I’m a fan of Steenburgen, from her often forgotten work in Melvin & Howard (incidentally, the Oscar winning role which Jonthan Demme also directed) to her rewarding supporting turn in Joan of Arcadia. She’s such a naturally warm person I’m always impressed that she pulls off the steely lawyer-role in Philadelphia. Perhaps, it’s not quite searing but playing such a stock character I always consider her performance a notable part of the film. Philadelphia is filled with interesting supporting turns. From Antonio Banderas’ turn as Hanks’ lover – I’m always used to him as playing brash or at the very least suave – it’s nice to watch him being not the least bit assertive. Or Jason Robards and Bradley Whitford, both riddled with the usual stock villains – but still very much realistic portrayals, in their ways and acting legends like Joanne Woodward showing up just to stay in the background, but still make an impact.
Of course, the film belongs to Hanks and Washington – the former more than the latter, naturally. What strikes me about both men is how I’m most impressed with them when they shut up. True, both moments seem to be a little obvious, still...there’s that moment in the library where Washington's Miller watches Hanks’ Beckett dealing directly with his problem. Denzel Washington isn’t a subtle actor, but his starkness works well in the scene. You see the wheels turning in his head, but you’re supposed. For Hanks, it’s a quieter scene – it probably doesn’t even have that much significance narrative-wise. It’s just a scene of him standing on the street, the snow falling and his face is that of a man completely broken. I’m often unwilling to believe I’m watching anyone but Tom Hanks when he acts, and it makes me think that the reason is because when he’s out of makeup Tom Hanks is too obviously Tom Hanks. I’m not an advocator for prosthetics enhancing performance, but it’s as if when I’m forced to forget Hanks’ physicality I’m more willing to believe in his performance. I don’t know...whatever it is, Philadelphia works. Deliberate? Yes. Manipulative? At times...but still, I’ll ignoring my issues with who deserved what Oscar (at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter) – it’s one worth seeing.
                   
What do you think of Hanks? Of Washington? Philadelphia?

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

"Run, Forrest!"

Hello folks. If you've been reading the LAMB you've probably seen that the latest film to be re-casted by the LAMBs is the 1994 Forrest Gump in my ongoing feature LAMB Casting. So I'm extending the invitation once again how can you recast Forrest Gump and make it better. Just send me your re-imagined casting ideas for the main cast: say, I wasn't too big on Hanks performance, though it was good for what it was. Just send me your thoughts on who should play the main characters: Forrest Gump (originally Tom Hanks); Jenny Curan (originally Robin Wright Penn), Lt. Dan Taylor (originally Gary Sinise), Private Benjamin Bufford (originally Mykelti Williamson) and Mrs. Gump (originally Sally Field) at email dangerous.liaison231(@)yahoo.com - (removed parentheses).

Friday, 17 September 2010

There’s no love lost between me and Tom Hanks. I’ve said it before; he’s the white version of Denzel Washington – another double Oscar winner that I’m generally apathetic towards. I have a slight prejudice for Hanks’ comedic side and in all its silliness I’m particularly fond of his work in 1984’s forgotten gem Splash. Splash is one of those films that I spent a lot of time re-watching as a child and there’s a large possibility that childhood appreciation has just poured over into young adulthood.
Splash is simple, Allen happens upon a mermaid – Madison. Madison’s mermaid characteristics show up whenever her legs touch water, when they turn to tails and scales. It doesn’t take a genius to know what Splash will end with, even if the “how” might be a slight - slight – surprise. It’s a romantic comedy in the loosest of senses, although it wouldn’t be inapt to call it a fairy tale. True, Splash has a charming screenplay on its side but it’s Daryl Hannah and Tom Hanks who turn it into the pseudo-classic it is. I’ve never been greatly appreciative of Hannah’s talent, but she and Hanks are lovely together. Today, I’m balk at the idea of Hanks and Hannah in an actual film together, but 25 years ago they seem brilliant together.
It’s weird, there’s an onslaught slew of romantic comedies that are neither funny or interestingly romantic, Splash is hilarious – veering on melodrama at times, but mostly just hilarious...and really, which comedy is worse off having Eugene Levy and John Candy? None, I tell you; none. I don’t have any significant dislike for the eighties, it’s definitely not my least favourite decade, even though it’s given a bad rep. I think Splash is a good one. It's probably my favourite Ron Howard film.
        
Es tu?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
 

FREE HOT VIDEO | HOT GIRL GALERRY