The movie has it all: big stars, sprawling story, resplendent score, and beautifully shot by one of the hottest directors in Hollywood. But why did this hyped movie leaving me a bit underwhelmed? Here's 3 reasons:
A) Unlike their perfectly-synched couple in 'Babel', Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett have little chemistry. I suppose this could be attributed to the unusual unfolding of their relationship, but I doubt that would be what the filmmakers intended.
B) Until the magnificent Tilda Swinton kick-starts the movie when she appears after the first hour (its nearly 3 hours long), the movie felt like an aimless string of vignettes....dare I say it: Forrest Gump-ish (same screenwriter). OK, sorry, this good movie does not really deserve that awful comparison.
C) Benjamin seemed more like a plot device than a fleshed-out character. I do not think Pitt is quite enough of a resourceful actor to convey the complicated feelings and situations that he experiences as he ages in reverse from being old at birth to being a newborn at death. It always looked like he was trying to act his "real" age because he was supposed to act that way, not because he actually was that way.
Cate Blanchett was reliably very good as Daisy. Director David Fincher sure knows how to make her look absolutely gorgeous and ethereal. You can't your eyes off of her! The ending seemed quite emotional...more so because I was supposed to feel it, not as much because I actually did feel it. And I'm not quite sure what Hurricane Katrina was doing there. I was actually most affected when Benjamin and Daisy began to slip out of each others' lives, as the movie effectively reaches its denouement about fleeting love and one and only chances. It stayed with me afterwards. The fact that Blanchett's Daisy is the driving character at the end of the movie helps a lot. The score by Andre Desplat was sublime, and it continues his string of impressive work that includes the highly-praised score for 'The Painted Veil'.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Slumdog Millionaire **
“Slumdog Millionaire” is this year’s “Crash”: a manipulative piece of slog that ups the ante of emotions by tying it to a mass “in”, in this case a game show. Sure, the fact that it is set in India gives it a catching angle and interesting gravitas – few Westerners have experienced or seen this type of life. I was primed to be whisked away and entertained. Unfortunately, the movie sets up its shorthand fairly quickly: footnoting the lead character Jamal’s life through the present-day game show questions and game stakes. The fact that the screenwriter does this instead of actually showing me a life and making me care about it because he is a person is almost insulting. And it could have been both, but it is not. Jamal is one of the most vague characters I have ever seen in my life of movie-watching. The same goes for his two compatriots. On top of this, sorry to say, this is one of those movies where kids act and say things to incredulously overpower adult villains. Yep, things like 8-year-olds saying, “You are my destiny” or wrangling out of extreme life and death situations by their wiliness. Please, don’t remind me of the last third of “The Kite Runner”! Let the eye-rolling ensue.
I wanted to connect to a great story and memorable characters, like I did watching the modern masterpiece “City of God”, which it reminded me of at the outset. Instead, director Danny Boyle (the flashy, overrated “Trainspotting”) gave me weak tethers to stock characters and, ironically, given the escalating game show, a flat story arc – and I use the term “arc” loosely. Do I understand who the characters are and why they are that way, good and bad? Nope. Do any of the characters change, affected by people and situations like in real life? Not really. Does the lead make us believe in him for any reason more than we would root for a “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” contestant? Absolutely not. Tellingly, the most interesting characters – and I was grasping for them – were the game show host and the inquisitor who interrogates Jamal about cheating. Both of them show traits of real people: they wanted something, and they showed varying shades of being a person. In fact, I left the theater not caring one iota about how the leads end up (as if its not pre-ordained at the start), but more about these other two people and what may have happened to them. Let me see what these two characters do on the next game show taping. Next contestant please.
I wanted to connect to a great story and memorable characters, like I did watching the modern masterpiece “City of God”, which it reminded me of at the outset. Instead, director Danny Boyle (the flashy, overrated “Trainspotting”) gave me weak tethers to stock characters and, ironically, given the escalating game show, a flat story arc – and I use the term “arc” loosely. Do I understand who the characters are and why they are that way, good and bad? Nope. Do any of the characters change, affected by people and situations like in real life? Not really. Does the lead make us believe in him for any reason more than we would root for a “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” contestant? Absolutely not. Tellingly, the most interesting characters – and I was grasping for them – were the game show host and the inquisitor who interrogates Jamal about cheating. Both of them show traits of real people: they wanted something, and they showed varying shades of being a person. In fact, I left the theater not caring one iota about how the leads end up (as if its not pre-ordained at the start), but more about these other two people and what may have happened to them. Let me see what these two characters do on the next game show taping. Next contestant please.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Duchess ***
Caste system? Check. Heaving bosoms? Check. A woman ahead of her time? Check. All of this and everything else you expect in a bodice-ripper is entertainingly presented in "The Duchess", a star-vehicle movie for actress Keira Knightley and only the second film of British director Saul Dibb. Disguised as a high-brow period-piece, this film's historically-based story would fit smack right in a prime-time soap opera a la Brothers & Sisters or Desperate Housewives, but with great costumes, enhancing score by Oscar-winning composer Rachel Portman, and huge, awesome hair. Oh, and the party scene with longing looks amidst the choreographed group bounce-dancing of the day - gosh, can it get any better?! Knightley shows range, subtlety and wit in playing Georgiana Spencer, Duchess of Devonshire - and distant relative of the former Lady Diana Spencer. Ralph Fiennes as the awkward Duke is at least one dimension short of three - a deficiency of the screenplay. WHY is he the way he is? Nevertheless, very good performances all around - including newcomer-to-me Hayley Atwell - kicked this movie up a notch in roles that could easily have devolved into trite characterizations - and usually do in less movies. A too quick wrap-up left me wanting a bit more of this true-life tragedy, but points for closing it on a truthful note.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
If Only
If a poll were taken to find what people thought was the most pro-Christian film ever made, it would hardly surprise anyone if the most frequently cited film was “The Passion of the Christ”. That movie racked in billions. Millions of people, mostly Christians, flocked to witness Mel Gibson’s exaggerated and wildly fabricated depiction of Christ’s suffering on the day of his crucifixion.
The driving message of the film to its viewers was “It’s all about YOU! Jesus loved you so much that he suffered this brutality for YOU! And now YOU get to go to Heaven. All you have to do is BELIEVE.” To tack on a quote from my evangelical aunt about this notion, “It’s that easy.”
I pose that this film is actually extremely anti-Christian. The Gospels of the Bible make very little of the crucifixion and the suffering he endured at the hands of the Romans. Matthew devotes only 25 verses from the moment of his conviction to his death. Mark and Luke both offer only 21 lines; the Book of John doesn’t even mention it.
The most explicit description of the abuse Jesus received comes from Matthew:
While the Bible has little to say about how greatly Christ suffered for the sake of mankind, it certainly has quite a bit recorded about how Jesus expected us to behave toward another. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” “Love one another”. Gibson gives those ideas a cursory treatment, but clearly they are not the most important lessons of his film. After all, such things are not easy. And in this newly retooled modern Christian era, they are not even necessary. All you have to do is BELIEVE that Christ suffered for YOU, and you’re in Heaven.
I saw a film last night that I would argue is quite possibly the most pro-Christian film ever made; though it is unlikely one would hear many Christians say so. The film is about a socially awkward, yet endearing young man who develops a severe and unusual mental illness. His family and fellow churchgoers, under the guidance of a clever, compassionate psychologist, and encouraged by their church pastor, devote themselves to a slow, effortful course of treatment requiring them to overcome their own ignorance, to refrain from judgment and to put themselves in a position of feeling awkward and ridiculous. The love, care, and compassion of this man’s friends and family is powerful and moving and they succeed in helping this man overcome his illness. It is really quite a lovely film.
Now today’s evangelical Christian will have difficulty latching onto the Christianity of this movie. For one, the young man’s mental illness is that he holds the delusion that a mail-order sex doll is a living woman who has fallen in love with him. But probably even more so, there isn’t a whole lot of overt Jesus in the film. I think I heard his name mentioned once. No one is running around quoting Bible verses (apart from the pastor during his church service); no one is claiming to do His work. No one is talking about being a Christian, they are just simply caring for somebody in need. There is no validation and no self-congratulation; Christians get no vicarious self-satisfaction from watching the film and so I can see how many would be unable to see its Christian foundation. To quote the Good News Film Review: “Silly concept, stupid movie.”
The most disheartening aspect of the film is the utter absurdity of how the film unfolded. I didn’t believe for a moment that this group of people could band together and with the courage of conviction and pure love for a fellow man, pull off what they did. It would take a tremendous amount of compassion, devotion and selflessness. It would take behaving precisely in the manner that Jesus taught in all those pages before he fell into those treacherous Roman hands. It wouldn’t be EASY and it wouldn’t be about YOU.
Lars and the Real Girl ****
The driving message of the film to its viewers was “It’s all about YOU! Jesus loved you so much that he suffered this brutality for YOU! And now YOU get to go to Heaven. All you have to do is BELIEVE.” To tack on a quote from my evangelical aunt about this notion, “It’s that easy.”
I pose that this film is actually extremely anti-Christian. The Gospels of the Bible make very little of the crucifixion and the suffering he endured at the hands of the Romans. Matthew devotes only 25 verses from the moment of his conviction to his death. Mark and Luke both offer only 21 lines; the Book of John doesn’t even mention it.
The most explicit description of the abuse Jesus received comes from Matthew:
And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
While the Bible has little to say about how greatly Christ suffered for the sake of mankind, it certainly has quite a bit recorded about how Jesus expected us to behave toward another. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” “Love one another”. Gibson gives those ideas a cursory treatment, but clearly they are not the most important lessons of his film. After all, such things are not easy. And in this newly retooled modern Christian era, they are not even necessary. All you have to do is BELIEVE that Christ suffered for YOU, and you’re in Heaven.
I saw a film last night that I would argue is quite possibly the most pro-Christian film ever made; though it is unlikely one would hear many Christians say so. The film is about a socially awkward, yet endearing young man who develops a severe and unusual mental illness. His family and fellow churchgoers, under the guidance of a clever, compassionate psychologist, and encouraged by their church pastor, devote themselves to a slow, effortful course of treatment requiring them to overcome their own ignorance, to refrain from judgment and to put themselves in a position of feeling awkward and ridiculous. The love, care, and compassion of this man’s friends and family is powerful and moving and they succeed in helping this man overcome his illness. It is really quite a lovely film.
Now today’s evangelical Christian will have difficulty latching onto the Christianity of this movie. For one, the young man’s mental illness is that he holds the delusion that a mail-order sex doll is a living woman who has fallen in love with him. But probably even more so, there isn’t a whole lot of overt Jesus in the film. I think I heard his name mentioned once. No one is running around quoting Bible verses (apart from the pastor during his church service); no one is claiming to do His work. No one is talking about being a Christian, they are just simply caring for somebody in need. There is no validation and no self-congratulation; Christians get no vicarious self-satisfaction from watching the film and so I can see how many would be unable to see its Christian foundation. To quote the Good News Film Review: “Silly concept, stupid movie.”
The most disheartening aspect of the film is the utter absurdity of how the film unfolded. I didn’t believe for a moment that this group of people could band together and with the courage of conviction and pure love for a fellow man, pull off what they did. It would take a tremendous amount of compassion, devotion and selflessness. It would take behaving precisely in the manner that Jesus taught in all those pages before he fell into those treacherous Roman hands. It wouldn’t be EASY and it wouldn’t be about YOU.
Lars and the Real Girl ****
Saturday, August 16, 2008
FROZEN RIVER ***
Even the title of this movie suggests hardship where life keeps living. Such is the true-to-life tale nurtured from a one-act, into a film short and finally into an impressive feature debut by writer-director Courtney Hunt. Long-time character actress Melissa Leo steps up big-time to play lead protagonist Ray Eddy, a hard-luck woman who is trying to live a decent life and support her two kids. Abandoned by her gambling-addict husband, Ray is the not-so-uncommon working-class American who works hard but gets knocked down by bad decisions and back luck. The fact that director Hunt makes it so compellingly real instead of a "what a stupid 'only-in-the-movies' decision THAT was" sentiment is a testament to both Hunt and also Leo, who imbues Ray with a dignity and honesty that dares you to think it could be any other way. The movie becomes a heart-tugging - and heart-pounding - study of two lives and two cultures, with her acquaintance through circumstance Lila (sympathetically played by Misty Upham) having a backstory of her own. Together, they very nearly convince us that there are no bad decisions, only decisions that must be made. And just when you need it, on Christmas Eve no less, a savior gives you hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
