Be back perhaps in November...
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Based on the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Writer(s): Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
Director: David Fincher
Director of Photography: Claudio Miranda
Editor(s): Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall
Composer: Alexandre Desplat
Lead Actor: Brad Pitt
Year: 2008
How do I tackle, in a review, a film as epic as this? By epic, the meaning is not large in terms of sets, crowds, action, but in terms of commenting on the grand scheme of life. The charming way in which the film portrays the forward motion of life, whether it goes in reverse or not.
Benjamin Button was born old and grew younger as his days progressed. He was played nearly the whole way through by Brad Pitt, who, in my opinion, was well cast. The melancholy voice he developed, the far away look, and the glint in his eyes suited him well for the part. Even through the makeup and the CGI, facial expressions and diminutive performances were able to come through in the most powerfully subtle ways. Although many times, performance was intentionally just one or two degrees over the top.
Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, the girl who captures Benjamin’s heart from first meeting. Daisy is intrigued by Benjamin but soon finds herself caught up in the hustle and bustle and cares of life. Through growing up in an old peoples home, Benjamin watched as one by one, people died off. He began to realize how nothing lasts. And once more, he finds this with his relationship with Daisy. And then his mother. And then his daughter.
It was a bad choice to give the young daisy Cate Blanchett’s voice. It did not work. The distraction it evoked far outweighed the novelty of it. They were likely way to close to that particular aspect that they let technology’s pros and cons get in the way of what works and makes sense in the broad scheme. In my opinion they should have gone with the young actress’ voice. And besides, voices change so much over time, it would have been completely believable and natural. It at least would be more natural than trying to force Blanchett’s voice on her.
Aside from that, technology was used to the film’s advantage. In fact, in a lot of ways, it was technology, and only technology, that made this film possible. One doesn’t have to be distracted by odd and unnatural things, allowing them to better follow the story. Achieving this continuity and ‘look’ was not easy and the filmmakers went to great lengths to combine all the elements to make one seamless piece, while still preserving the heart of it.
One of my favorite things about this movie, perhaps not surprisingly, is the musical score. What I think is Desplat’s best score to date, ebbs and flows with an elegance and simplicity that suits the picture well, but also can stand solidly by itself. The structure and instrumentation used is testament to the brilliance of the composer. It is simple. Nothing overpowers, and no timbre gets lost. Everything is there for a reason, at the precise time it should be. I have the Criterion Collection DVD which has a great segment on the music. Made me appreciate it all the more, even though I had over 320 plays on the soundtrack prior to watching the movie.
The settings were another thing I loved about the film. The whole idea of revolving around New Orleans was unique and special, from the house, to the blacks, to the jazz. It was one of those elements that make a movie memorable and give it character.
Personally, I think the story would have been fine without the adolescent Benjamin. Toddler and baby, that’s fine. But I think the 5-8 minutes on the 6-12 year old Benjamins could have been better spent on something else.
I think this film had near perfect pacing. Perhaps that can be a tribute to life. How there is a reason for what happens and when it happens, which The Curious Case of Benjamin Button so eloquently and imaginatively tells, showing us that life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forwards. It doesn’t shove its message down your throat, but gives you time to observe it for yourself.
Benjamin Button was born old and grew younger as his days progressed. He was played nearly the whole way through by Brad Pitt, who, in my opinion, was well cast. The melancholy voice he developed, the far away look, and the glint in his eyes suited him well for the part. Even through the makeup and the CGI, facial expressions and diminutive performances were able to come through in the most powerfully subtle ways. Although many times, performance was intentionally just one or two degrees over the top.
Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, the girl who captures Benjamin’s heart from first meeting. Daisy is intrigued by Benjamin but soon finds herself caught up in the hustle and bustle and cares of life. Through growing up in an old peoples home, Benjamin watched as one by one, people died off. He began to realize how nothing lasts. And once more, he finds this with his relationship with Daisy. And then his mother. And then his daughter.
It was a bad choice to give the young daisy Cate Blanchett’s voice. It did not work. The distraction it evoked far outweighed the novelty of it. They were likely way to close to that particular aspect that they let technology’s pros and cons get in the way of what works and makes sense in the broad scheme. In my opinion they should have gone with the young actress’ voice. And besides, voices change so much over time, it would have been completely believable and natural. It at least would be more natural than trying to force Blanchett’s voice on her.Aside from that, technology was used to the film’s advantage. In fact, in a lot of ways, it was technology, and only technology, that made this film possible. One doesn’t have to be distracted by odd and unnatural things, allowing them to better follow the story. Achieving this continuity and ‘look’ was not easy and the filmmakers went to great lengths to combine all the elements to make one seamless piece, while still preserving the heart of it.
One of my favorite things about this movie, perhaps not surprisingly, is the musical score. What I think is Desplat’s best score to date, ebbs and flows with an elegance and simplicity that suits the picture well, but also can stand solidly by itself. The structure and instrumentation used is testament to the brilliance of the composer. It is simple. Nothing overpowers, and no timbre gets lost. Everything is there for a reason, at the precise time it should be. I have the Criterion Collection DVD which has a great segment on the music. Made me appreciate it all the more, even though I had over 320 plays on the soundtrack prior to watching the movie.The settings were another thing I loved about the film. The whole idea of revolving around New Orleans was unique and special, from the house, to the blacks, to the jazz. It was one of those elements that make a movie memorable and give it character.
Personally, I think the story would have been fine without the adolescent Benjamin. Toddler and baby, that’s fine. But I think the 5-8 minutes on the 6-12 year old Benjamins could have been better spent on something else.I think this film had near perfect pacing. Perhaps that can be a tribute to life. How there is a reason for what happens and when it happens, which The Curious Case of Benjamin Button so eloquently and imaginatively tells, showing us that life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forwards. It doesn’t shove its message down your throat, but gives you time to observe it for yourself.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Thin Red Line
Writer: Terrence Malick
Director: Terrence Malick
Director of Photography: John Toll
Editor: Billy Weber, Leslie Jones
Composer: Hans Zimmer
Lead Actors: Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, Elias Koteas
Year: 1998
Set in the Pacific during World War II, The Thin Red Line doesn’t as much deal with the tough issues of war, as it addresses them. Actually, it asks more questions than anything. It focuses primarily on the human struggle within himself on the meaning of conflict. There is a good deal of screen-time devoted to soldier’s reaction and expressions.
There’s also a lot of character narration. The narrations consisted of the soldiers views on the situation they were in. Some were bitter, some were reminiscing, but all knew something just wasn’t right; whether that was the warfare or whether it was the world. What is addressed in the dialog and narration is supported by the images.
When it says it’s R for “realistic war violence”, it means it. They’re not talking about explosions and splattering blood. It’s the dread and the low state of the human emotion in that situation. Some people are cold to it, and some still have a heart.
At first viewing, I thought there were sort of a lot of characters to keep track of. And as if that weren't enough, some of them look similar (to me). Of course Adrian Brody you can spot a mile away, so he wasn’t an issue. The performances were good; particularly Nick Nolte and Sean Penn.
There were a lot of steady cam shots as the soldiers journeyed and approached “the line”. The cameras would move through the tall grass or forest as if it were a soldier. These positions certainly gave a sense of sneaking around. The edit gave many of the clips plenty of elbow room.
I had listened to Hans Zimmer’s score before watching the film. So I was listening to somewhat familiar music in its context. The music is appropriate and well suited to the film. It’s certainly not combat music like you hear in some of Zimmer’s other work. It’s slow, brooding, and rarely epic. There’s a tribal chant that is sung by the Malaysians in the film. I think the islanders are somewhat a symbol of humanity as it should be. And the recognizable tune of the chant is used throughout the film in fitting places. The Malaysians were a people who were not affiliated with the war and yet their world got blown to pieces by it.
The Thin Red Line is quite a memorable work and has come to be my favorite war film. It is very character driven, which makes sense for a film about life and death and meaning.
Director: Terrence Malick
Director of Photography: John Toll
Editor: Billy Weber, Leslie Jones
Composer: Hans Zimmer
Lead Actors: Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, Elias Koteas
Year: 1998
Set in the Pacific during World War II, The Thin Red Line doesn’t as much deal with the tough issues of war, as it addresses them. Actually, it asks more questions than anything. It focuses primarily on the human struggle within himself on the meaning of conflict. There is a good deal of screen-time devoted to soldier’s reaction and expressions.
There’s also a lot of character narration. The narrations consisted of the soldiers views on the situation they were in. Some were bitter, some were reminiscing, but all knew something just wasn’t right; whether that was the warfare or whether it was the world. What is addressed in the dialog and narration is supported by the images.
When it says it’s R for “realistic war violence”, it means it. They’re not talking about explosions and splattering blood. It’s the dread and the low state of the human emotion in that situation. Some people are cold to it, and some still have a heart.
At first viewing, I thought there were sort of a lot of characters to keep track of. And as if that weren't enough, some of them look similar (to me). Of course Adrian Brody you can spot a mile away, so he wasn’t an issue. The performances were good; particularly Nick Nolte and Sean Penn.
There were a lot of steady cam shots as the soldiers journeyed and approached “the line”. The cameras would move through the tall grass or forest as if it were a soldier. These positions certainly gave a sense of sneaking around. The edit gave many of the clips plenty of elbow room.
I had listened to Hans Zimmer’s score before watching the film. So I was listening to somewhat familiar music in its context. The music is appropriate and well suited to the film. It’s certainly not combat music like you hear in some of Zimmer’s other work. It’s slow, brooding, and rarely epic. There’s a tribal chant that is sung by the Malaysians in the film. I think the islanders are somewhat a symbol of humanity as it should be. And the recognizable tune of the chant is used throughout the film in fitting places. The Malaysians were a people who were not affiliated with the war and yet their world got blown to pieces by it.
The Thin Red Line is quite a memorable work and has come to be my favorite war film. It is very character driven, which makes sense for a film about life and death and meaning.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
V for Vendetta
Based on the graphic novel by David Lloyd
Writor: The Wachowski Brothers
Director: James McTeigue
Director of Photography: Adrian Biddle
Editor: Martin Walsh
Composer: Dario Marianelli
Lead Actor/Actress: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman
Year: 2005
Being the week of the 4th, here's a film about freedom. It is set in a future England, the totalitarian government of which is corrupt. Like any fascist regime, its power hungry leaders deceive their people into believing the control and bias governing is for their own good.
The film is anti-God and seems to be anti-Christian. Or maybe its anti-God specifically in relation to government. This stems out of observing how those in power often justify their actions in the name of God.
A man, with nothing more for a name than “V”, has been abused by this corrupt system. He has made it his mission to exact revenge and bring the government down with its ideas. He wears a Guy Fawkes mask. According to the movie, Guy Fawkes was a guy who attempted treason in 1605 by blowing up parliament, which failed. Yet is “idea” lives on, and every 5th of November, it is celebrated, Fawkes being the face of the idea.
V is carrying his touch, and his mask. He is scheming to blow up parliament and bring government back down to where it should be.
The message of the film (at least one) is “unity through strength.” The people are encouraged to rally together and stop accepting injustices. They are like caged birds that don’t know the outside air.
At the start, V is the only one taking action. One might ask, “if freedom is so desirable, why don’t more people get on board with changing the course of power?” Indeed, weak people are very easy people to bring under control. In V for Vendetta, the so called ‘seconds’ of society were tragically taken advantage of and abused (perhaps not unlike the Jews). For some reason or another, perhaps for fear, the people did not make a fuss. Thus, the powers that be got away with it.
When people go against the “law”, unjust though it may be, they are often punished for it. What if people value their life more than their rights? A valid point, though maybe a narrow perspective when considering future generations, especially when viewed through our, dare I say, indoctrinated patriotic mindsets. We are benefiting now from the soldiers who fought WW2, though casualties abounded on both sides. Yet here we are, celebrating our freedom, our comfort. We probably wouldn’t be where we are today, if our freedom wasn’t fought for. Revolution often doesn’t come without a cost.
In V for Vendetta, V prevails. But it’s a movie. What happened in real life? The plan was discovered and Guy Fawkes’ was hanged. 15 known attempts were made to assassinate Hitler. We all know that none of them succeeded. I recently saw last year’s film “Valkyrie”. Gen. Stauffenberg had a plan. He had good motives. He was so close to his goal. His action instead had a greater and opposite reaction. Hitler viewed his escape from harm as a blessing from God on his work.
Maybe God is in control of who rules. Maybe God hoped/hopes that His people would not look to the government as their source of security. Maybe God hoped/hopes His people would reach out with a hand of love and mercy to bless the peoples of the world in a way that would set the kingdom of God apart from the kingdom of the world.
What is human and earthly? “Government controls the world so reform government!” What might be the kingdom of God view? In real history, England was on the brink of revolution, but a few rose up, including the Wesleys, not to try and fix a corrupt worldly government, but pour themselves out for the hurting, to get dirty themselves. Perhaps political revolution was no longer needed. Maybe if the whole church did that, the world would be a better place than the government could ever make it!
As far as the production goes, it’s not entirely easy watching. It is sinister. There are very few good guys. And those who are, you wonder if they really are. Things were often filmed in a rather disturbing way.
And then there's the Wachowski's writing, which is always dialog heavy. It often goes below the surface, and perhaps a bit deep for me at times.
Right off, I thought the mask with a guy talking behind it was intriguing. The smiling face is an amusing juxtaposition. It masks a man full of resentment and an identity lost. His purpose is singular and his expression is singular.
Natalie Portman is not very attractive with no hair.
V’s knife fight at the end was impressive. Really like the stylized way the blades left streaks in the air. Ultimately, aside from the message and the character of V, I’m not sure this film will be entirely memorable.
Writor: The Wachowski Brothers
Director: James McTeigue
Director of Photography: Adrian Biddle
Editor: Martin Walsh
Composer: Dario Marianelli
Lead Actor/Actress: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman
Year: 2005
Being the week of the 4th, here's a film about freedom. It is set in a future England, the totalitarian government of which is corrupt. Like any fascist regime, its power hungry leaders deceive their people into believing the control and bias governing is for their own good.
The film is anti-God and seems to be anti-Christian. Or maybe its anti-God specifically in relation to government. This stems out of observing how those in power often justify their actions in the name of God.
A man, with nothing more for a name than “V”, has been abused by this corrupt system. He has made it his mission to exact revenge and bring the government down with its ideas. He wears a Guy Fawkes mask. According to the movie, Guy Fawkes was a guy who attempted treason in 1605 by blowing up parliament, which failed. Yet is “idea” lives on, and every 5th of November, it is celebrated, Fawkes being the face of the idea.
V is carrying his touch, and his mask. He is scheming to blow up parliament and bring government back down to where it should be.
The message of the film (at least one) is “unity through strength.” The people are encouraged to rally together and stop accepting injustices. They are like caged birds that don’t know the outside air.
At the start, V is the only one taking action. One might ask, “if freedom is so desirable, why don’t more people get on board with changing the course of power?” Indeed, weak people are very easy people to bring under control. In V for Vendetta, the so called ‘seconds’ of society were tragically taken advantage of and abused (perhaps not unlike the Jews). For some reason or another, perhaps for fear, the people did not make a fuss. Thus, the powers that be got away with it.When people go against the “law”, unjust though it may be, they are often punished for it. What if people value their life more than their rights? A valid point, though maybe a narrow perspective when considering future generations, especially when viewed through our, dare I say, indoctrinated patriotic mindsets. We are benefiting now from the soldiers who fought WW2, though casualties abounded on both sides. Yet here we are, celebrating our freedom, our comfort. We probably wouldn’t be where we are today, if our freedom wasn’t fought for. Revolution often doesn’t come without a cost.
In V for Vendetta, V prevails. But it’s a movie. What happened in real life? The plan was discovered and Guy Fawkes’ was hanged. 15 known attempts were made to assassinate Hitler. We all know that none of them succeeded. I recently saw last year’s film “Valkyrie”. Gen. Stauffenberg had a plan. He had good motives. He was so close to his goal. His action instead had a greater and opposite reaction. Hitler viewed his escape from harm as a blessing from God on his work.
Maybe God is in control of who rules. Maybe God hoped/hopes that His people would not look to the government as their source of security. Maybe God hoped/hopes His people would reach out with a hand of love and mercy to bless the peoples of the world in a way that would set the kingdom of God apart from the kingdom of the world.
What is human and earthly? “Government controls the world so reform government!” What might be the kingdom of God view? In real history, England was on the brink of revolution, but a few rose up, including the Wesleys, not to try and fix a corrupt worldly government, but pour themselves out for the hurting, to get dirty themselves. Perhaps political revolution was no longer needed. Maybe if the whole church did that, the world would be a better place than the government could ever make it!
As far as the production goes, it’s not entirely easy watching. It is sinister. There are very few good guys. And those who are, you wonder if they really are. Things were often filmed in a rather disturbing way.
And then there's the Wachowski's writing, which is always dialog heavy. It often goes below the surface, and perhaps a bit deep for me at times.
Right off, I thought the mask with a guy talking behind it was intriguing. The smiling face is an amusing juxtaposition. It masks a man full of resentment and an identity lost. His purpose is singular and his expression is singular.
Natalie Portman is not very attractive with no hair.
V’s knife fight at the end was impressive. Really like the stylized way the blades left streaks in the air. Ultimately, aside from the message and the character of V, I’m not sure this film will be entirely memorable.
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Last Samurai
Writer: John Logan, Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz
Director: Edward Zwick
Composer: Hans Zimmer
Editor: Steven Rosenblum
Director of Photography: John Toll
Lead Actor: Tom Cruise
The Last Samurai has made it to my top 5. What a great story and a near perfect movie. It sort of shows the death of the Japanese culture, which could represent any pure way of life that is drowning. It seems like Japan is westernizing, not modernizing. The story is told in such a way that you sympathize with the Samurai, who, in the movie, are the symbol of the traditional ways. There is something sad about losing a tradition that has existed for 1000 years. So you sympathize with the samurai because they are the only ones still standing up for Japan’s unique culture. Such a small force they were. And so delicate up against the modern machines of war they were fighting against.
The samurai were really a very bloody people. I’m not sure I would have been routing for them in real life. The story may not be accurate in all its portrayals. It may be more Hollywood than history, but a lot of this can be looked at metaphorically.
John Toll’s photography is well done. The sets were beautiful. I especially like the snow scene with Katsumoto and Nathan in the temple’s courtyard. In a snow scene soon after that one, I found a little glitch that I may be able to call my own. As Nathan is carrying wood in his arm, one of the pieces begins to fall just as the scene cuts.
Before watching this film, I was slightly turned-off to find Tom Cruise in the main role. But have to say, it turned out ok. Not sure why I was turned off as I’ve never watched a movie with him. I think just because his appearance and seemingly boring face. The performances were all good. Especially Ken Watanabe playing Kastumoto, the samurai ‘rebel’ leader. He had an authoritative presence and his actions were quick and purposeful. I found out that this was his first film in English. For that, he did exceptionally well. Another performance of note is that of Sosuke Ikematsu playing Higen, the little boy. Good expressions and posture. He also had an emotional scene that he nailed.
Hans Zimmer composed very fitting and effective music for his 100th score. I listened to the score for several months before watching the movie. It definitely stands by itself. It is a rare case when you come to appreciate a piece ‘out of context’, and then wind up appreciating it more when you see it with the picture. That may sound odd but this is the reason for it. Music sometimes can create a mental image or emotion that pictures can’t really do justice too. Or, the image a piece creates may be broader than the musical application in the specific scene in a film.
The end of the battle scene at the end is amazing. It says more than just guns killing people. There’s an end of an era wrapped up in it all. Here are the samurai charging with nothing but blades against these deadly, rapid firing beasts. They did their job. They killed the last samurai. Zimmer’s score here does its part to fill the sequence with meaning. The music with the rapid firing of the guns is a tragic combination. One of the most powerful cinematic moments I’ve seen.
It comes to an end. Katsumoto dies. The enemy bows. Yes, the enemy bows. Perhaps the movie should have ended there. That way our ‘hero’ could have died or stayed alive, depending on what the viewer prefers.
This film is quite bloody when the weapons come out. The filmmakers could have very easily inserted a love scene (for the sake of having one), but they made conscious decision not to. That was a very good decision and one I applaud. Not having it did more to establish the cultural tradition that the whole film is about. It is obvious that Nathan and Taka had a love for each other, and yet there is a reserved distance that Taka maintains and Nathan respects.
Director: Edward Zwick
Composer: Hans Zimmer
Editor: Steven Rosenblum
Director of Photography: John Toll
Lead Actor: Tom Cruise
The Last Samurai has made it to my top 5. What a great story and a near perfect movie. It sort of shows the death of the Japanese culture, which could represent any pure way of life that is drowning. It seems like Japan is westernizing, not modernizing. The story is told in such a way that you sympathize with the Samurai, who, in the movie, are the symbol of the traditional ways. There is something sad about losing a tradition that has existed for 1000 years. So you sympathize with the samurai because they are the only ones still standing up for Japan’s unique culture. Such a small force they were. And so delicate up against the modern machines of war they were fighting against.
The samurai were really a very bloody people. I’m not sure I would have been routing for them in real life. The story may not be accurate in all its portrayals. It may be more Hollywood than history, but a lot of this can be looked at metaphorically.
John Toll’s photography is well done. The sets were beautiful. I especially like the snow scene with Katsumoto and Nathan in the temple’s courtyard. In a snow scene soon after that one, I found a little glitch that I may be able to call my own. As Nathan is carrying wood in his arm, one of the pieces begins to fall just as the scene cuts.Before watching this film, I was slightly turned-off to find Tom Cruise in the main role. But have to say, it turned out ok. Not sure why I was turned off as I’ve never watched a movie with him. I think just because his appearance and seemingly boring face. The performances were all good. Especially Ken Watanabe playing Kastumoto, the samurai ‘rebel’ leader. He had an authoritative presence and his actions were quick and purposeful. I found out that this was his first film in English. For that, he did exceptionally well. Another performance of note is that of Sosuke Ikematsu playing Higen, the little boy. Good expressions and posture. He also had an emotional scene that he nailed.
Hans Zimmer composed very fitting and effective music for his 100th score. I listened to the score for several months before watching the movie. It definitely stands by itself. It is a rare case when you come to appreciate a piece ‘out of context’, and then wind up appreciating it more when you see it with the picture. That may sound odd but this is the reason for it. Music sometimes can create a mental image or emotion that pictures can’t really do justice too. Or, the image a piece creates may be broader than the musical application in the specific scene in a film.
The end of the battle scene at the end is amazing. It says more than just guns killing people. There’s an end of an era wrapped up in it all. Here are the samurai charging with nothing but blades against these deadly, rapid firing beasts. They did their job. They killed the last samurai. Zimmer’s score here does its part to fill the sequence with meaning. The music with the rapid firing of the guns is a tragic combination. One of the most powerful cinematic moments I’ve seen.
It comes to an end. Katsumoto dies. The enemy bows. Yes, the enemy bows. Perhaps the movie should have ended there. That way our ‘hero’ could have died or stayed alive, depending on what the viewer prefers.This film is quite bloody when the weapons come out. The filmmakers could have very easily inserted a love scene (for the sake of having one), but they made conscious decision not to. That was a very good decision and one I applaud. Not having it did more to establish the cultural tradition that the whole film is about. It is obvious that Nathan and Taka had a love for each other, and yet there is a reserved distance that Taka maintains and Nathan respects.
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Runner from Ravenshead
Writer: Joel and Lisa Steege
Director: Joel Steege
Composer: Dane Walker
Year: 2010
The Runner from Ravenshead is an adventurous family produced film about how giving it to Him is better than giving up. It is an allegorical story in which kids represent grown-ups (in some cases) and in which a prison represents the bondages we find ourselves in when we don’t cast them on the Savior. Wardens steadily and relentlessly pursue the fleeing victims, who only wear out and wind up back in prison. We follow the progress of a girl named Sam as she tries to make her escape. The subject matter of this film is one I can’t say I’ve seen dealt with much, let alone in a film.
This is much more than you’d expect from someone’s first independent Christian film! Particularly when the cast is completely children! The Steeges really outdid themselves on this project. There was a lot of thought put into the various aspects…more than we can see on the surface, that’s for sure. Good continuity, great cinematography and and editing. Things were, for the most part, surprisingly well lit. Which is especially not easy in a shadowy forest.
The cast was apparently no more than 5 children, although there are more characters. Don’t expect the same actor/actress to be the same character. Sometimes there are even more than 5 people in the frame, so I’m thinking there must have been a good deal of green screen and frame blending going on.
I’m a believer that kids can be the best talent, if directed well. Something about the imaginations they have. I think they are able to become the character easier. By the fact that these children (and any children) lack the experience and training of an adult professional, means they need to get the inspiration for the role from something else.
There are numerous humorous (like my rhyme?) moments in the film. Funny stunts, comic expressions, and children's antics; it will at the very least get an occasional chuckle out of you. Or if you're like my sister, you'll laugh the whole thing through!
The score hardly gives one a moment’s reprieve. It’s says action, suspense, and grandeur in the first five minutes and doesn’t let off. The music was recorded live with an orchestra, which is not easy to do on a tight budget, believe me. There must have been some committed and talented folks behind that one.
I liked the costumes! I thought they were fun and thoughtfully put together! Kind of like the days of dress-up we did as kids. But they were still natural (cept maybe the facial hair O.o).
Well done Steege family!
(I could critique various things in this film, but anyone can do that).
The cast was apparently no more than 5 children, although there are more characters. Don’t expect the same actor/actress to be the same character. Sometimes there are even more than 5 people in the frame, so I’m thinking there must have been a good deal of green screen and frame blending going on.I’m a believer that kids can be the best talent, if directed well. Something about the imaginations they have. I think they are able to become the character easier. By the fact that these children (and any children) lack the experience and training of an adult professional, means they need to get the inspiration for the role from something else.
There are numerous humorous (like my rhyme?) moments in the film. Funny stunts, comic expressions, and children's antics; it will at the very least get an occasional chuckle out of you. Or if you're like my sister, you'll laugh the whole thing through!The score hardly gives one a moment’s reprieve. It’s says action, suspense, and grandeur in the first five minutes and doesn’t let off. The music was recorded live with an orchestra, which is not easy to do on a tight budget, believe me. There must have been some committed and talented folks behind that one.
I liked the costumes! I thought they were fun and thoughtfully put together! Kind of like the days of dress-up we did as kids. But they were still natural (cept maybe the facial hair O.o).Well done Steege family!
(I could critique various things in this film, but anyone can do that).
Friday, June 18, 2010
Signs
Writer: M. Night Shyamalan
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Director of Photography: Tak Fujimoto
Composer: James Newton Howard
Editor: Barbara Tulliver
Lead Actor: Mel Gibson
Year: 2002
“Signs” perhaps best showcases writer/director M. Night Shyamalan’s unique blend of sci-fi and real life. While there might be aliens or monsters, they are put in a very tangible setting. While the film might be marketed as a “thriller”, it has a deep level of heart. Night asks the question, “If something like this were to happen, how would people react?”The film may start off a little slow, with guys running around corn fields and what not, but give it a chance. A crop circle shows up in the Hess family’s corn field in Philadelphia. This is strange enough, until people are finding these strange “signs” all around the world. Theories arise as to what the cause is. The adults are not so foolish as to believe extra-terrestrials are in fact the ones responsible, but the children fearfully entertain the possibility.
Surprisingly Christian themes arise in the midst of this disturbing tale. We learn that Graham Hess (Gibson’s character), has recently lost his wife in a tragic accident. This has caused the once devout “Father Graham” to loose his faith. He has decided that no one is watching out for them and that everything that happens in life is only coincidence. During this trying experience with an eminent attack from aliens, he hits rock bottom (quite literally). But there in his basement, he ultimately succumbs to the inevitable fact that there is a God.
Through the events following, things happen that cannot be merely coincidence. The only explanation is that someone is watching out for them. We watch as Graham Hess regains his faith through a simple and artistically executed sequence at the end of the movie.
Let’s just say Mel Gibson is a master. His rustic side gives his scenes a real punch. His face is able to contort into any emotion imaginable. A very unique scene with the family around the dinner table is a good example of the kinds of emotions fighting to be realized. In some ways, that scene is a climax; a clash of stress, bitterness, love, and…food. The timing is great, as are the expressions and dialog.
Joaquin Phoenix, who plays Mel’s younger brother, once again acts with a transparent quality, making his character both vulnerable and real. I thought the little boy was too scripted and Rory didn’t really know how to deal with it. Rory did do especially well with his emotional scenes and his asthma attack. Abigail Breslin is pretty cute.There is a very special thing that James Newton Howard does with the score in Signs. Much of the music is built around a repeating three notes. This little motif has many moods. It is played during the scariest moments and then adapted for the moments of great relief. This musical touch, I thought worked quite well. Although I am aware that if I get the soundtrack, I won’t get much more than those three notes. Which seem rather to have been played by the scenes, than to be played for them. Played by the dark and by the light; whichever is dominating at the moment.
Night doesn’t like to use CGI, which I think adds to the sense of reality in his films. At times things may seem low budget in their simplicity. Then there are other things that Night doesn’t like to do. Yes, like any controlling perfectionist, he has a little ego. For instance, he thinks cuts are often used by filmmakers to cover things up, so he uses them as little as possible. I’m not sure if the practice always aids his work, although it does force him and his actors to be precise with the takes, the care of which I think show in his work. It's growing on me.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Hollywood on Fire
Through interviews with several professionals and authorities as well as narration, this insightful documentary dynamically tells the history of Christians in Hollywood. A fascinating history and a history I was very unfamiliar with.It talks about the good, the bad and the ugly of the film industry, particularly that of Hollywood. It’s a hungry giant that continually is asking for more, whether it’s in the form of recognition, fashion, or money. We see in the documentary, how some found that products that were feeding people’s flesh sold well. A quote by Benjamin Franklin is put on the screen (I’m not sure how I never heard it); “He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.” That is just one of the things that threaten to snuff the fragile, flickering flame of those trying to hold onto their faith and values.
The industry apparently went bad after the church, for whatever reason, retreated from it. Maybe Christians felt like they were getting being mistreated. Maybe they felt it was getting too hard. But are Christians bothered by the lack of morals in film? Do Christians want wholesome entertainment? Do they want their views to be reflected in the media? Well guess what? Then they have to make it!! Interestingly, the rise and fall of crime directly followed the rise and fall of corruption in media. It’s a mission field. And thankfully, there are many (although not enough) who are making a difference for the good.
"That the arts can be corrupt does not mean that Christians should abandon them. On the contrary, the corruption of the arts means that Christians dare not abandon them any longer." –Gene Edward Veith.
Me with the brothers who directed "Hollywood on Fire".Friday, June 11, 2010
The Luzhin Defense
Writer: Peter Berry
Director: Marleen Gorris
Director of Photography: Bernard Lutic
Composer: Alexandre Desplat
Editor: Michiel Reichwein
Lead Actors: John Turturro, Emily Watson
Year: 2000
The Luzhin Defense is a beautifully filmed and acted period piece. The film’s screenplay is loosely based on Vladimir Nabokov’s book, “The Defense”. It is the story of a man so absorbed in his game he, in some ways, lost grasp of real life. This left him with an eccentric disposition and a queer way of communicating and relating to others. The match that could leave him with the world championship was the climax of his pursuit. This tournament not only brought him in front of the goal, but also face to face with what his life meant.
The man, Aleksandr Ivanovich (Luzhin) played exceptionally well by John Turturro, was indeed an odd fellow, but at times in a charming kind of way. Certainly this strangeness was one of the major factors for which Natalia fell for him. She was attracted to him despite the intense disapproval of her mother, who clearly missed whatever it was her daughter saw. Natalia liked the idea of marrying a genius, but had her work cut out for her as she would need to expand her love’s exclusive world.
Then Aleksandr’s old chess ‘tutor’ shows up, who seems to have some queer motivations for getting back involved. This man is intent on seeing the outcome of the tournament, which is beginning to weigh heavily both physically and emotionally on the master. Not for the least of reasons is Natalia’s pressure to lay the obsession aside. Poor Aleksandr is being pulled from both arms, the pressure of which causes major ill-affects. It seems the defense Luzhin chooses is to resign.
Interspersed throughout the film were glimpses into John’s childhood, which seemed to be hard for others and thus hard for him. His obsession with chess caused the exclusion of other things. His childhood, as it is with all of us, seemed to shape who the man was. I didn’t always catch the things that were meant to add continuity to the flashbacks (perhaps I’m not as trained at noticing those things), so things seemed a bit choppy to me when we went to see John as a child. But really didn’t bother me or take me out of the film.
I am very familiar with Alexadre Desplat’s music, but hadn’t heard any of it paired with a film, so that was one of the reasons The Luzhin Defense interested me. Once again, the French maestro composes a delightful score. There are moments full of calculated energy, dark and brooding moments, and tense ones. And of course, we wouldn’t have a Desplat score without a waltz.
The locations in the film were wonderful. The outdoor ones especially as we see the Italian lake settings and the hotel grounds that held the tournament. It all suited the film well, without getting too glamorous to cloud the intimate heart the story has.
The love story ends with a crash and crashes to an end. But picks up where it left off in a great, dramatic way. Although the end is heartbreaking, I don’t think one would be entirely disappointed by the finish.
Director of Photography: Bernard Lutic
Composer: Alexandre Desplat
Editor: Michiel Reichwein
Lead Actors: John Turturro, Emily Watson
Year: 2000
The Luzhin Defense is a beautifully filmed and acted period piece. The film’s screenplay is loosely based on Vladimir Nabokov’s book, “The Defense”. It is the story of a man so absorbed in his game he, in some ways, lost grasp of real life. This left him with an eccentric disposition and a queer way of communicating and relating to others. The match that could leave him with the world championship was the climax of his pursuit. This tournament not only brought him in front of the goal, but also face to face with what his life meant.
The man, Aleksandr Ivanovich (Luzhin) played exceptionally well by John Turturro, was indeed an odd fellow, but at times in a charming kind of way. Certainly this strangeness was one of the major factors for which Natalia fell for him. She was attracted to him despite the intense disapproval of her mother, who clearly missed whatever it was her daughter saw. Natalia liked the idea of marrying a genius, but had her work cut out for her as she would need to expand her love’s exclusive world.
Then Aleksandr’s old chess ‘tutor’ shows up, who seems to have some queer motivations for getting back involved. This man is intent on seeing the outcome of the tournament, which is beginning to weigh heavily both physically and emotionally on the master. Not for the least of reasons is Natalia’s pressure to lay the obsession aside. Poor Aleksandr is being pulled from both arms, the pressure of which causes major ill-affects. It seems the defense Luzhin chooses is to resign.
Interspersed throughout the film were glimpses into John’s childhood, which seemed to be hard for others and thus hard for him. His obsession with chess caused the exclusion of other things. His childhood, as it is with all of us, seemed to shape who the man was. I didn’t always catch the things that were meant to add continuity to the flashbacks (perhaps I’m not as trained at noticing those things), so things seemed a bit choppy to me when we went to see John as a child. But really didn’t bother me or take me out of the film.
I am very familiar with Alexadre Desplat’s music, but hadn’t heard any of it paired with a film, so that was one of the reasons The Luzhin Defense interested me. Once again, the French maestro composes a delightful score. There are moments full of calculated energy, dark and brooding moments, and tense ones. And of course, we wouldn’t have a Desplat score without a waltz.
The locations in the film were wonderful. The outdoor ones especially as we see the Italian lake settings and the hotel grounds that held the tournament. It all suited the film well, without getting too glamorous to cloud the intimate heart the story has.
The love story ends with a crash and crashes to an end. But picks up where it left off in a great, dramatic way. Although the end is heartbreaking, I don’t think one would be entirely disappointed by the finish.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Yep, it's a favorite. :)
Writer: John August
Director: Tim Burton
Director of Photography: Philippe RousselotComposer: Danny Elfman
Editor: Chris Lebenzon
Lead Actor: Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore
Year: 2005
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a funny, colorful, and witty story about a boy who goes with a few others to tour the acclaimed Willie Wonka’s chocolate factory. Five “golden tickets” are placed in five chocolate bars which wait to be discovered by five kids. Charlie Bucket was among those who won, either by getting lucky, or by other means.
The film is very pro-family. Charlie’s family is poor and yet tight-nit and loving. Charlie has learned to be content and respectful, which is why he wins big in the end. There are also a number of dysfunctional families portrayed with their ill-effects. Willie Wonka’s own family situation was not ideal. His father was a dentist, and there was no way Charlie was going to get encouragement in his interest in candy. This led to the father and son’s alienation. By the end of the film though, as the family theme is highlighted, there is reconciliation between them.
Then there are the kids who got themselves into trouble. All four besides Charlie didn’t even make it to the end of the tour. It was fitting for each of the unfortunate children to get caught in their own scheming. One girl was extremely demanding of her dad, who tried his best to please his daughter. Something in the factory caught her eye and she pursued getting it. After being advised not to, the thing she wanted (her own greed) caused her to fall down the “garbage chute”. She wound up with a bunch of other “spoiled” friends. It was also pointed out that her parents were the ones who made her that way, and her dad found himself heading down the same chute. Each child, except Charlie, had a similar misfortune happen to them.
Director Tim Burton is known for the way he can create an atmosphere in his films and this is no exception. The settings are so effective, and there were a lot of them. We see the Bucket’s house, which is little more than an old, falling apart shack, in stark contrast to the glamorous rooms and chambers of the factory. The film has a lot of fantastical elements, among which are the symmetrical way in which things were set up and directed. This can be seen in many scenes and locations including the layout of the houses in the town, the way the trucks pulled out of the factory grounds, and the rooms of the factory. Often characters were placed center frame. And of course this balanced environment is probably most evident in the Oompa Loompa’s dance acts.
The ‘camera’ went everywhere. From epic sweeps around the enormous factory (which are probably done using either a miniature or digital model), to inside ones open mouth. There are no limitations on the point of view.
Danny Elfman’s score should not go unmentioned. The music has very present throughout the movie and there was a lot of it. The cues were alive and lush. Then of course you had the Oompa Loompa songs, which were sung entirely by Elfman. Some talent that guy has with his voice (although no doubt much of the voice was significantly post-processed).
The workers in the factory are called Oompa Loompas, who are diligent little people who all look the same. They come to be very prominent in the film. I wondered if they had the right look. It’s an interesting story with Loompa Land and what not, but they were perhaps just a little too strait faced and robotic. That is probably my only complaint. Deep Roy, who plays them, is a short, Hispanic looking fellow. It’s not that he doesn’t work for the role, it’s just, I wonder if another concept for them would have been better. Like a bunch of nerdy guys with hair over their eyes; or little pygmies from Papua New Guinea with afros…mmm, maybe not that.
Besides that little objection, the casting was great. Especially effective was the parents of the winning children. Then we had Christopher Lee as Willie’s father…scary. And of course, Johnny Depp was his witty, animated self.
Tim Burton is known for his dark and gory films, yet Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is quite harmless and likely his most family friendly offering. It has a good moral and message that touches on things like temperance, humility, contentment, and family harmony. The movie is one of a kind with its wonderful fantastical atmosphere and colorful story. This one is definitely on the list as a favorite modern film.
The film is very pro-family. Charlie’s family is poor and yet tight-nit and loving. Charlie has learned to be content and respectful, which is why he wins big in the end. There are also a number of dysfunctional families portrayed with their ill-effects. Willie Wonka’s own family situation was not ideal. His father was a dentist, and there was no way Charlie was going to get encouragement in his interest in candy. This led to the father and son’s alienation. By the end of the film though, as the family theme is highlighted, there is reconciliation between them.
Then there are the kids who got themselves into trouble. All four besides Charlie didn’t even make it to the end of the tour. It was fitting for each of the unfortunate children to get caught in their own scheming. One girl was extremely demanding of her dad, who tried his best to please his daughter. Something in the factory caught her eye and she pursued getting it. After being advised not to, the thing she wanted (her own greed) caused her to fall down the “garbage chute”. She wound up with a bunch of other “spoiled” friends. It was also pointed out that her parents were the ones who made her that way, and her dad found himself heading down the same chute. Each child, except Charlie, had a similar misfortune happen to them.
Director Tim Burton is known for the way he can create an atmosphere in his films and this is no exception. The settings are so effective, and there were a lot of them. We see the Bucket’s house, which is little more than an old, falling apart shack, in stark contrast to the glamorous rooms and chambers of the factory. The film has a lot of fantastical elements, among which are the symmetrical way in which things were set up and directed. This can be seen in many scenes and locations including the layout of the houses in the town, the way the trucks pulled out of the factory grounds, and the rooms of the factory. Often characters were placed center frame. And of course this balanced environment is probably most evident in the Oompa Loompa’s dance acts.The ‘camera’ went everywhere. From epic sweeps around the enormous factory (which are probably done using either a miniature or digital model), to inside ones open mouth. There are no limitations on the point of view.
Danny Elfman’s score should not go unmentioned. The music has very present throughout the movie and there was a lot of it. The cues were alive and lush. Then of course you had the Oompa Loompa songs, which were sung entirely by Elfman. Some talent that guy has with his voice (although no doubt much of the voice was significantly post-processed).
The workers in the factory are called Oompa Loompas, who are diligent little people who all look the same. They come to be very prominent in the film. I wondered if they had the right look. It’s an interesting story with Loompa Land and what not, but they were perhaps just a little too strait faced and robotic. That is probably my only complaint. Deep Roy, who plays them, is a short, Hispanic looking fellow. It’s not that he doesn’t work for the role, it’s just, I wonder if another concept for them would have been better. Like a bunch of nerdy guys with hair over their eyes; or little pygmies from Papua New Guinea with afros…mmm, maybe not that.
Besides that little objection, the casting was great. Especially effective was the parents of the winning children. Then we had Christopher Lee as Willie’s father…scary. And of course, Johnny Depp was his witty, animated self.
Tim Burton is known for his dark and gory films, yet Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is quite harmless and likely his most family friendly offering. It has a good moral and message that touches on things like temperance, humility, contentment, and family harmony. The movie is one of a kind with its wonderful fantastical atmosphere and colorful story. This one is definitely on the list as a favorite modern film.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Post delayed
Wups. I forgot to schedule a post and I'm leaving for the rest of the week. I'll post a review Monday. (I'm thinking about doing a favorite :).
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Book of Eli after 2 theater viewings
On second viewing (at the discount theater with a friend), I find it just as good, if not more. And is now officially a favorite (as I post more favorites, I will label them so). I do take issue with part of the ending, but besides that, it's a very meaningful journey of a film. While it doesn't shy away from violence, it doesn't shy away from God. And I thought the spiritual elements were well timed and not overplayed.
The casting is one area in which the film shines. Denzel is convincingly fervent. Gary Oldman shows a man who bends his will so heavily on others that it eventually springs back and wackes him in the face. He's unflinching and consumed. Mila Kunis may still be getting comfortable with movies (she's mostly been in TV), but she had a fitting posture. I'm glad she got the part over Kristen Stewart, who was first sought for the part. In other words, the conflict in schedules worked out for the good. And Mila's lack of eye shadow gives me more ease. Let's see who else...oh the gang leaders! Can't forget them. Their faces and voices said everything. Also, Ray Stevenson, the leader in Carnegie's gang, showed us he was not just one of the brute squad, he was a man. And lastly, Jennifer Beals' quiet way made her blindness that much more a reality. All this but the casting brilliance goes down to the level of the extras.
Amidst the bleak backdrop of a broken, empty world of desperate survival is this "post-apocalyptic tale which takes one on a journey that doesn't end until the promise is yes and Amen. It's not easy on the eyes to get there though.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Blood Diamond
Writer: Charles Leavitt
Director: Edward Zwick
Director of Photography: Eduardo Serra
Editor: Steven Rosenblum
Composer: James Newton Howard
Lead Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou, Jennifer Connelly
Year: 2007
Blood Diamond concerns the shady history of the diamond trade in Africa and the atrocities that accompany it. Trust me, you'll never think of diamonds in the same way again.
Danny Archer, played by DiCaprio, smuggles diamonds primarily for his own monetary gain. When he runs into a native fisherman named Solomon Vandy (Hounsou), who’s life and family has been torn apart by the warring in his country. Solomon’s primary mission is to recover his family, and could care less about the uber-valuable diamond he has found. Although the two men need each other to accomplish their ends, their motivations clash. Then throw in the perspective of a road weary and discouraged journalist looking for a story (Jennifer’s character), and you have a 3 strand cord that is not easily broken, although the tension is high.
Ed Zwick is a master of a director. Although he does have a thing for messy, intense violence. I always wonder if he doesn’t go overboard, and if he did in any of his films, it would be this one. It is indeed an impressive thing to choreograph. Having never been in the midst of a war, I don’t know if what I’m looking at is realistic. Seeing the amount of bullets being fired, it’s amazing they are able to escape!
Somehow, despite the confusion of the action, Zwick always manages to gain his footing and refocus on why all the mayhem is there. The direction consistently comes back to the heart of people’s motivation, or un-motivation, which is what make stories like this meaningful and interesting.
I love the way Djimon Honsou acts in this film. He's more mature than Gladiator yet still very unpretentious in his style. You can tell that he his directed, but in I kind of like that. The way he delivers his lines and actions is fresh and meaningful.
If there someone on the other end of the spectrum than Djimon it would be DiCaprio. The guy is super confident in his approach, yet is very good and can make that work. His character also calls for a kind of recklessness, which is no doubt why he was casted. If you can see him past the smoke, he’s one committed actor. As the smoke lifts at the end of the film, he becomes an even likeable character, if not under slightly contrived circumstances.
In perhaps one of her most well cast roles, Jennifer Connelly is convincing as a strong-willed journalist.
What is it about black antagonists that is so eerily scary? My oh my, I would be put under a spell just acting along side some of these guys, let alone actually dealing with their characters in real life.
Besides being an epic film, blood diamond is an interesting history, and quite sad, of diamonds. When one realizes the blood shed for these gems, he may not feel super great about buying one. Some diamonds come at a price in more ways than monetarily. There is a very interesting and informative documentary in the special features about how the diamond market works, or doesn't work. In fact, the black market is apparently still thriving.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Back at it
Here I am after a rather unexpected break. I don't have plans to quit anytime soon and will pick up the reviews again this Friday.
Anyways, I don't get paid much for doing this, so the blog may be put lower priority at times. :P
I did recently get to see a preview of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader at the Biola Media Conference. It was a 5 minute (approximately) reel showcasing some footage. They were still working on the effects shots (that are numerous), which is a good thing. :)
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Kite Runner
Based on a Novel by Khaled Hosseini
Writer: David Benioff
Director: Marc Forster
Director of Photography: Roberto Schaefer
Composer: Alberto Iglesias
Editor: Matt Chesse
Lead Actor: Khalid Abdalla
Year: 2007
The Kite Runner is a sad, yet meaningful tale that tells of the life of a boy who grew up in Afghanistan. There are many themes woven together in this movie. I would say the main theme essentially being the power of friendship and standing up for others. I noble message indeed.
The story started as a novel written by an Afghan author named Khaled Hosseini. Soon some producers got involved, and then Marc Forster, the director. Everyone seemed to think the book would make a good film.
The film starts with some cool opening titles, and then cuts to the grown-up main character in San Francisco. He gets a call from an old friend telling him to come back to his land because “there’s a way to be good again”. Hm, what happened? The film goes on to tell.
We find that that the main character betrays his closest friend, Hassan. This leaves him with years of guilt. The boys get separated by war and then a tragedy befalls Hassan. This leaves him with even more shame and regret. Later in his life, he tries “to be good again” and redeem himself. The film indeed has a good ending, a happy ending.
So what’s with the title? Besides it being the name of the movie, it was the first element of Khaled’s book. A number of sequences are built around the kites. They are also apparently a sort of metaphor of being free and above and the reproaches of life. Besides that, the images with the kites are beautiful. There’s a certain life in them that gives the film some real spice and pep (not too mention the party and wedding sequences).
Some of the acting in this film is not the best, but it’s tolerable. The young boys do well. And Baba, the main character’s father, is a star. The orphanage director was well casted and played his part very well. The majority of the film is in Dari (the language of Afghanistan), so that can make it a bit hard to follow at times. There are subtitles, but you have to be quick because they move along.
A favorite scene is when Amir (the main character) and his father are fleeing the country and they get stopped by the soviets. They are in the back of a truck with a number of others and there isn’t enough money to pay the guard. The guard says he’ll let them pass with a half hour with one of the woman as pay. Amir’s father, who is a prominent character in the film, stands up and prevents the man, standing between them and risking his life. The sequence is well executed and well acted. And it really adds to the message of the story.
For all its complexities and locations, the story is well connected and flows seamlessly. It gives you the information you need, but moves along at a good clip, without belaboring unnecessary pieces.
The Kite Runner is an authentic drama that shows human shortcoming and strength. It is raw, yet thoughtful and clear. It portrays a lot of different emotions in a way one can really connect with. There are sad moments, fearful moments, romantic moments, tense moments, joyful moments, and loving moments, all in one, epic, human drama.
The story started as a novel written by an Afghan author named Khaled Hosseini. Soon some producers got involved, and then Marc Forster, the director. Everyone seemed to think the book would make a good film.
The film starts with some cool opening titles, and then cuts to the grown-up main character in San Francisco. He gets a call from an old friend telling him to come back to his land because “there’s a way to be good again”. Hm, what happened? The film goes on to tell.
We find that that the main character betrays his closest friend, Hassan. This leaves him with years of guilt. The boys get separated by war and then a tragedy befalls Hassan. This leaves him with even more shame and regret. Later in his life, he tries “to be good again” and redeem himself. The film indeed has a good ending, a happy ending.
So what’s with the title? Besides it being the name of the movie, it was the first element of Khaled’s book. A number of sequences are built around the kites. They are also apparently a sort of metaphor of being free and above and the reproaches of life. Besides that, the images with the kites are beautiful. There’s a certain life in them that gives the film some real spice and pep (not too mention the party and wedding sequences).Some of the acting in this film is not the best, but it’s tolerable. The young boys do well. And Baba, the main character’s father, is a star. The orphanage director was well casted and played his part very well. The majority of the film is in Dari (the language of Afghanistan), so that can make it a bit hard to follow at times. There are subtitles, but you have to be quick because they move along.
A favorite scene is when Amir (the main character) and his father are fleeing the country and they get stopped by the soviets. They are in the back of a truck with a number of others and there isn’t enough money to pay the guard. The guard says he’ll let them pass with a half hour with one of the woman as pay. Amir’s father, who is a prominent character in the film, stands up and prevents the man, standing between them and risking his life. The sequence is well executed and well acted. And it really adds to the message of the story.
For all its complexities and locations, the story is well connected and flows seamlessly. It gives you the information you need, but moves along at a good clip, without belaboring unnecessary pieces.
The Kite Runner is an authentic drama that shows human shortcoming and strength. It is raw, yet thoughtful and clear. It portrays a lot of different emotions in a way one can really connect with. There are sad moments, fearful moments, romantic moments, tense moments, joyful moments, and loving moments, all in one, epic, human drama.
Friday, March 12, 2010
(500) Days of Summer
Writer: Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber
Director: Marc Webb
Director of Photography: Eric Steelberg
Composer: Michael Danna, Rob Simonsen
Editor: Alan Edward Bell
Lead Actor: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel
Year: 2009
Where shall I begin. There may be more to the “Summer affect” than what meets the eye. The way this film is put together and the way the issues are handled make it not your average rom com.
Tom Hanson is an average guy working at a fluffy greeting card company. Summer Fin is an average girl who shows up to the same place as the secretary. Tom is drawn to Summer at first meeting and they soon find they are alike in many ways…except in one: Tom believes in true love and Summer thinks the whole thing is a myth.
But they still like each other and Tom ultimately has to go along with Summer's desire to "just be friends". He finds it difficult to reconcile that status with his feelings, yet he enjoys every minute of their "friendship". Until Summer begins to doubt their intentions. She feels the relationship is going to far and calls it off. This devastates Tom, even though Summer made it clear in the beginning that she didn't want anything serious.
Then there seems to be a glimmer of hope, only to be completely extinguished in a few short minutes. Ironically, this leaves Tom in the shoes Summer wore at the beginning, believing the whole thing is a joke. Indeed, the two seem to have completely switched places. Although not in the way Tom wished, Summer has found that you know it when you feel it, the thing Tom tried to convince her of at the beginning. From the message of this movie, it seems it's not about "convincing".
I think it goes to show why it is ‘experimental relationships’ can lead to messed up expectations and hearts. For one thing, is it only ‘compatibility’ that warrants a serious relationship? And then, even if we know going in that “it’s just for fun”, is that how humans work? Maybe the message of this is don’t fall for your first attraction? :P
Zooey’s eyes are about as expressive as Joseph’s eyes are not. Blue eyes, white teeth, squinty smile, and heart-shaped birthmark she’s a great candidate for our female icon, if you will (should I mention the fact that she’s 30? Nah). While Joseph is portraying the infatuated and sometimes awkward young man who is not quite as expressive, although we do know when he’s not in a chipper mood. Then off course we have Tom’s friends who are just a hysterical hoot from day 1.
The way this film is put together really keeps one on their toes, which is really going to be required if you want to follow the storyline (usually that is the point of watching a film right?). Maybe it would be better called the storydashes. Instead of seeing things in a linear way, we are jolted all over the “500” days of this relationship. Backward and forward, up and down. There’s going to be no coffee breaks during the duration of this one. Yet it really is an interesting perspective to put it all in perspective, I think.
The end completely got me. I wasn’t expecting that little bit of dialog and it was a laugh out loud moment. No, I’m not going to say what it is. Only that no matter how bad some things look, seasons do change.
Caution should be taken as there are several more-than-suggestive moments in this film.
Director: Marc Webb
Director of Photography: Eric Steelberg
Composer: Michael Danna, Rob Simonsen
Editor: Alan Edward Bell
Lead Actor: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel
Year: 2009
Where shall I begin. There may be more to the “Summer affect” than what meets the eye. The way this film is put together and the way the issues are handled make it not your average rom com.
Tom Hanson is an average guy working at a fluffy greeting card company. Summer Fin is an average girl who shows up to the same place as the secretary. Tom is drawn to Summer at first meeting and they soon find they are alike in many ways…except in one: Tom believes in true love and Summer thinks the whole thing is a myth.
But they still like each other and Tom ultimately has to go along with Summer's desire to "just be friends". He finds it difficult to reconcile that status with his feelings, yet he enjoys every minute of their "friendship". Until Summer begins to doubt their intentions. She feels the relationship is going to far and calls it off. This devastates Tom, even though Summer made it clear in the beginning that she didn't want anything serious.
Then there seems to be a glimmer of hope, only to be completely extinguished in a few short minutes. Ironically, this leaves Tom in the shoes Summer wore at the beginning, believing the whole thing is a joke. Indeed, the two seem to have completely switched places. Although not in the way Tom wished, Summer has found that you know it when you feel it, the thing Tom tried to convince her of at the beginning. From the message of this movie, it seems it's not about "convincing".
I think it goes to show why it is ‘experimental relationships’ can lead to messed up expectations and hearts. For one thing, is it only ‘compatibility’ that warrants a serious relationship? And then, even if we know going in that “it’s just for fun”, is that how humans work? Maybe the message of this is don’t fall for your first attraction? :PZooey’s eyes are about as expressive as Joseph’s eyes are not. Blue eyes, white teeth, squinty smile, and heart-shaped birthmark she’s a great candidate for our female icon, if you will (should I mention the fact that she’s 30? Nah). While Joseph is portraying the infatuated and sometimes awkward young man who is not quite as expressive, although we do know when he’s not in a chipper mood. Then off course we have Tom’s friends who are just a hysterical hoot from day 1.
The way this film is put together really keeps one on their toes, which is really going to be required if you want to follow the storyline (usually that is the point of watching a film right?). Maybe it would be better called the storydashes. Instead of seeing things in a linear way, we are jolted all over the “500” days of this relationship. Backward and forward, up and down. There’s going to be no coffee breaks during the duration of this one. Yet it really is an interesting perspective to put it all in perspective, I think.
The end completely got me. I wasn’t expecting that little bit of dialog and it was a laugh out loud moment. No, I’m not going to say what it is. Only that no matter how bad some things look, seasons do change.
Caution should be taken as there are several more-than-suggestive moments in this film.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Award Predictions
(After the fact)
I'm going to take a whack at who I think is going to take home the Oscar this year. Note that this isn't who I think should, it's who I think will, although those line up fairly often.
I've seen the major hitters (Avatar, Inglourious Bastards, The Hurt Locker, Up), but not everything nominated.
Best Picture
Avatar (The Hurt Locker)
Animated Feature Film
Up
Foreign Language Film
Un Prophete (The Secret in Their Eyes)
Documentary Feature
The Cove
Actor
Jeff Bridges
Supporting Actor
Christoph Waltz
Actress
Sandra Bullock
Supporting Actress
Mo’Nique (Go Baby!)
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire
Writing (Original Screenplay)
Up (The Hurt Locker)
Directing
James Cameron (Kathryn Bigelow)
Art Direction
Avatar
Cinematography
Avatar
Costume Design
Coco Before Chanel (The Young Victoria)
Film Editing
The Hurt Locker
Makeup
Star Trek
Music (Score)
James Horner (Michael Giacchino)
Music (Song)
The Weary Kind
Sound Editing
Up (The Hurt Locker)
Sound Mixing
The Hurt Locker
Visual Effects
Avatar
(It's really a toss-up for me in some cases.)
(14 out of 20. I guess I expected Avatar to trump most everything...but it's certainly ok with me that there was a different story.)
Friday, March 5, 2010
Shine
Writer: Jan Sardi, Scott Hicks
Director: Scott Hicks
Director of Photography: Geoffrey Simpson
Editor: Pip Karmel
Composer: David Hirschfelder
Lead Actor: Geoffrey Rush
Year: 1996
The fiddler on the roof has taken up the piano in Scott Hick’s 1996 film of the up and down life of a peculiar character. The story for the most part is true, based off the real life character of David Hellfgot, who was born in 1947.
The first half of the film shows David growing up and finding his talent as a pianist. All this time he was in the holds of a tight-knit Jewish family residing in Australia. Apparently growing up under different circumstances, the patriarch seemed to think his family had things pretty easy and wanted them to never express any discontent. David’s father was an encourager until his skills began to take him from his grasp. The father and son’s relationship was sacrificed when David chose to expand and move his studies to a prestigious musical college in America.
The second half shows David trying to cope with his mental disorder. Somewhere along the way a couple circuits got disconnected, leaving this talented man in a state of abnormality. The outward evidence of the disorder is a chatterbox 90% of whose dialog is pretty much nonsense.
I suppose Geoffery Rush’s performance was worthy of the Academy Award it got him. I certainly couldn’t mouth that kind of tongue ruckus! Rush quite literally bent to give an accurate portrayal. He played a messed-up man who nonetheless asked for your acceptance and care. He was even somehow likeable.
I would also like to award Noah Taylor, who played the adolescent David. What a presence (and a face) that young actor has! (At least he was young then. Mr. Bucket wasn’t till over ten years later). He was convincing playing the 17 year old boy to a 22 year old college student. They were years that, in a lot of ways, defined the man, which is likely why Noah got a significant amount of screen time. During this time, David found the independence he needed, but may not have been ready for the level of which he got.
It was the filmmakers’ intent to avoid pulling the audience out of the story to analyze the piano performances. They wanted things to be able to flow, which I think was achieved. Geoffrey Rush’s piano training certainly helped in this regard. Then to get everything synced must have been quite the editing job!
Dare I say Shine’s heart exceeds that of A Beautiful Mind? It’s certainly not the same kind of epic filmmaking spectacle, indeed, Shine is a simple film. But I do believe it may touch down on meaningful ground that glitz seems to too often overshadow.
The director, Scott Hicks with David Helfgott
Director: Scott Hicks
Director of Photography: Geoffrey Simpson
Editor: Pip Karmel
Composer: David Hirschfelder
Lead Actor: Geoffrey Rush
Year: 1996
The fiddler on the roof has taken up the piano in Scott Hick’s 1996 film of the up and down life of a peculiar character. The story for the most part is true, based off the real life character of David Hellfgot, who was born in 1947.
The first half of the film shows David growing up and finding his talent as a pianist. All this time he was in the holds of a tight-knit Jewish family residing in Australia. Apparently growing up under different circumstances, the patriarch seemed to think his family had things pretty easy and wanted them to never express any discontent. David’s father was an encourager until his skills began to take him from his grasp. The father and son’s relationship was sacrificed when David chose to expand and move his studies to a prestigious musical college in America.
The second half shows David trying to cope with his mental disorder. Somewhere along the way a couple circuits got disconnected, leaving this talented man in a state of abnormality. The outward evidence of the disorder is a chatterbox 90% of whose dialog is pretty much nonsense.
I suppose Geoffery Rush’s performance was worthy of the Academy Award it got him. I certainly couldn’t mouth that kind of tongue ruckus! Rush quite literally bent to give an accurate portrayal. He played a messed-up man who nonetheless asked for your acceptance and care. He was even somehow likeable.
I would also like to award Noah Taylor, who played the adolescent David. What a presence (and a face) that young actor has! (At least he was young then. Mr. Bucket wasn’t till over ten years later). He was convincing playing the 17 year old boy to a 22 year old college student. They were years that, in a lot of ways, defined the man, which is likely why Noah got a significant amount of screen time. During this time, David found the independence he needed, but may not have been ready for the level of which he got.
It was the filmmakers’ intent to avoid pulling the audience out of the story to analyze the piano performances. They wanted things to be able to flow, which I think was achieved. Geoffrey Rush’s piano training certainly helped in this regard. Then to get everything synced must have been quite the editing job!Dare I say Shine’s heart exceeds that of A Beautiful Mind? It’s certainly not the same kind of epic filmmaking spectacle, indeed, Shine is a simple film. But I do believe it may touch down on meaningful ground that glitz seems to too often overshadow.
The director, Scott Hicks with David HelfgottWednesday, March 3, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Reservation Road
Based on the book by John Burnham Schwartz
Writer: John Burnham Schwartz, Terry George
Director: Terry George
Director of Photography: John Lindley
Editor: Naomi Geraghty
Composer: Mark Isham
Lead Actor: Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Connelly
Year: 2007
Reservation Road is a serious and sad drama about a family tragedy. A young boy is killed in a hit and run accident by Dwight Arno, played by Mark Ruffalo. The movie follows the family of the boy as they grieve and seek revenge, while almost just as much following the one that is sought. This tragic story is driven mostly by the performance of the cast, so we will look at each of the main character’s roles.
Jennifer Connelly is superb in this film. Better than in “A Beautiful Mind” I thought. She was rarely seen without teary eyes and a bed-head, which she tries to hide for the sake of her daughter. (As a side note, the make-up department wisely understood the restraint needed here and was careful not to glamorize things. Although that was a very good call, it was perhaps overly intentional). In the early stages of grappling with the death, Grace, Connelly’s character, desperately searches to see if she could be responsible for this in any way. This of course sends her deeper into grief. But soon her husband comes along side her, and assures her that she is not to blame. Then who is to blame? Well, that’s when Joaquin’s character starts to pulsate.
Director: Terry George
Director of Photography: John Lindley
Editor: Naomi Geraghty
Composer: Mark Isham
Lead Actor: Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Connelly
Year: 2007
Reservation Road is a serious and sad drama about a family tragedy. A young boy is killed in a hit and run accident by Dwight Arno, played by Mark Ruffalo. The movie follows the family of the boy as they grieve and seek revenge, while almost just as much following the one that is sought. This tragic story is driven mostly by the performance of the cast, so we will look at each of the main character’s roles.
Jennifer Connelly is superb in this film. Better than in “A Beautiful Mind” I thought. She was rarely seen without teary eyes and a bed-head, which she tries to hide for the sake of her daughter. (As a side note, the make-up department wisely understood the restraint needed here and was careful not to glamorize things. Although that was a very good call, it was perhaps overly intentional). In the early stages of grappling with the death, Grace, Connelly’s character, desperately searches to see if she could be responsible for this in any way. This of course sends her deeper into grief. But soon her husband comes along side her, and assures her that she is not to blame. Then who is to blame? Well, that’s when Joaquin’s character starts to pulsate.
Ethan Learner, Joaquin’s character, is a strong father and husband who his obviously devastated by the loss of his son. He resorts to putting a lot of energy into finding who he views as “the killer”. This obsession does not help to heal him or his family. Through ‘happenstance’, or rather ‘dramatic effect’, the suspect becomes Learner’s attorney in the case. The suspense builds as Ethan gets little clues that lead to a pointblank confrontation of Dwight. This moment is obviously the climax. All through the movie we’ve seen both sides as people; with their own lives and relationships. Will the man who had this terrible thing happen take it out on the man who did it? Will he see any value worth saving in a broken down life that has little to live for, but that is nonetheless trying?
Mark Ruffalo is caught in a desperate pickle. He knows he’s done wrong, but for the sake of his son, he doesn’t own up immediately. He also knows what the consequences will be if found out. For that reason he puts it off, wanting a little more time with his son, one more chance to redeem the last thing he has (which he now only has half of). We understand Dwight’s battle and Ruffalo portrays the insecurity well.
From a script point of view, I wonder if all the “happenstance” went a little overboard. Not only was the suspect the attorney on his own case, but his ex-wife was the piano teacher of the sister of the lost boy. Is all that a little bit contrived? I wouldn’t say flat out that it doesn’t work. As a dramatic story, I think having it makes for suspense. It puts these two people so close together they get the opportunity to see each other for who they are. And then you get to feel the nakedness the character of Dwight feels when he looks Ethan in the eye. You get to feel Ethan’s suspicion and his journey to discovering the truth.
The score in Reservation Road, composed by Mark Isham, is at the same time thematic and restrained. It undertones and yet let’s you know it’s there. It insulates the emotional thrust of the story. I thought it was quite good. The song by Papercranes at the end credits is good as well.
Although there was a little bit of predictability (which isn’t necessarily bad), I think Reservation Road’s script and direction was fine. The movie is mostly a simple and meaningful story that was brought to life with a very talented cast.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Is Tarantino's latest concoction worth more than it's rough edges?
Ni! ni! ni! ni! ni! ni! ni!
Oh yes, yes, yes, yes. I do believe so.
Here's a few scattered thoughts...
Oh yes, yes, yes, yes. I do believe so.
Here's a few scattered thoughts...
No one should argue Quentin's way with visual storytelling. And way with dialog, it would seem from Inglourious Bastards (indeed there is plenty of chit chat throughout). The script is as well written as anything and better written than most. If you tried to pin this film's genre down, you may find a bit of difficulty.
In some ways it’s a comedy, maybe more precisely a black comedy. Which makes it the twisted thing that it is when mixed with the violence. The elements of performance, gore, and humor are controlled yet really over-the-top.
I liked how I didn’t recognize everyone who showed up in this film. I think it contributed to its authenticity. I did wonder whether “Brad Pitt” got in the way at times. He was great though. More like a scary pitt than a cherry pitt though. And one should watch their back because he's not an all-live pitt either. (Sorry, I'll stop).
I probably got the biggest kick out of the "Italian" trio at the premiere, if you know what I'm saying. Hysterical. I rarely laugh out loud watching a film, but I did there.
As mentioned above, the screenplay for this thing was very well written, although I do have one small complaint. Christhoph Waltz pulled an amazing performance and he has my bet for the Oscar. The problem lies in where his character goes at the very end. The reason it doesn’t completely work for me is because people were playing dress-up and pulling false identities through the whole movie. So by the time it came for Waltz to reveal himself, it wasn’t anything new. It almost seems like a cheap way out the situation in that part of the movie.
I will say though that this is a unique WW2 piece. Unlike any I’ve seen to be sure.
Yeah, peace bro. Right on. Peace. By the way, I don't recommend Inglourious Bastards :P. Not all Rs are the same I suppose. Meaning, it apparently doesn't matter if you show it or not. Eeck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
