Change Your Image
samlane86
Reviews
Black Swan (2010)
The Black Swan
The uninitiated might find it odd for "ballet" and "psychological thriller" to describe the same film. I did when I first heard of The Black Swan, though the idea intrigued me. Much of the intrigue was due to the film's director, Darren Aronofsky director of Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, and The Wrestler. With a basic knowledge of the competitive nature of ballet, these descriptors make more sense. After watching The Red Shoes recently, I was even more interested in seeing The Black Swan. I wanted to see how the two films compare.
Natalie Portman plays Nina Sayers, a dancer hoping to be awarded the lead role in a new production of Swan Lake. The director of the production, Thomas Leroy (played by Vincent Cassel), knows she has the precision needed to portray the white swan, but he unsure if she can let go and lose herself in the sensuality required for the evil twin, the black swan. Mila Kunis plays Lily, a new dancer in the company, who possesses all the qualities needed for the black swan. As the film progresses, the pressure on Nina increasingly builds. She is obsessed with dancing both parts perfectly and fears being replaced.
Lily is everything Nina isn't: free spirited and sexual. She is the only dancer not obsessed with perfection and procuring all the lead roles. When Thomas comments on how effortlessly she dances, one can sense Nina's envy. She has practiced for years striving to perfect every step, every move.
Thomas never holds back his criticism, even when it brings his dancers to tears. He plays them against each other. He will stop at nothing to get the performance he wants. He even uses sexual advances to get them in to the state of mind he feels is needed.
Nina still lives with her mother. She sleeps in the same room she likely slept in as a child. It is still decorated with pink, frilled blankets and stuffed animals. Her relationship with her mother, Erica (played by Barbara Hershey), would make even Oedipus worry. Erica is both overly familiar and controlling. She was once a dancer herself and is set on fulfilling her dreams through her daughter.
Ballet is an art that can be life consuming, physically taxing, and, in Nina's case, mentally detrimental. The more obsessed she gets with dancing perfectly as the black swan, the more she loses her mind. She get's paranoid. She has nightmares and hallucinations and can't differentiate between these and reality. No matter what happens, she is never satisfied. When she thinks she didn't get the lead role, she cries at the rejection. When she wins the role, she still cries because of the pressure. She is insecure, always hiding her nervous habits of biting her nails and scratching.
I admire Aronofsky mainly for his reputation. Of his films, all I've seen is The Black Swan and The Fountain. I have yet to watch Pi and Requiem for a Dream, his supposed best work. But, he has impressed me so far. His subject matter is always interesting and unique and he directed The Black Swan expertly. The story parallels aspects of Swan Lake wonderfully. It was skillfully photographed and its effects, especially those involving hallucinations, are quite stunning. And as Nina's mental state deteriorates, he causes the audience to feel just as confused as she is. Was this real? Was that a hallucination? Aronofsky doesn't let on until the very end.
The Black Swan's performances are all top notch. Portman handles the difficulties of her role extremely well including doing most of her own dancing. Kunis is an actress I've enjoyed since first seeing her in Forgetting Sarah Marshall (That's right. I've never seen That70s Show). It's nice she is getting more substantial, dramatic roles.
I don't think comparisons to The Red Shoes are entirely fair. While they are similarly themed films, they take much different approaches. The Black Swan revels in the darkness that The Red Shoes only hinted at comparatively. However, since I've watched both films so recently, comparisons were inevitable. Had I not seen The Red Shoes, I'm not sure I would have appreciated the dancing in The Black Swan. At the same time it left me expecting more. I suspect I'll gain a greater appreciation for The Black Swan when I watch it again and separate it from my thoughts of The Red Shoes.
Stagecoach (1939)
Stagecoach
Stagecoach was released in 1939. It is the story of a stagecoach traveling to Lordsburg, New Mexico during an Apache uprising. The passengers are from all walks of life and are heading to Lordsburg for a variety of reasons. The drunken doctor and the outcast woman are forced out of town by societal prejudice. The whiskey peddler is heading home to his wife and children in Kansas City (Kansas, not Missouri, as he often points out). The banker is sneaking out of town for mysterious reasons. The other woman is going to meet her husband, who is in the cavalry, and the gambler boards at the last minute to protect her. The driver wants to turn back for fear of the Apaches, but the sheriff riding shotgun won't let him stop his pursuit of an escaped convict. Last but not least, John Wayne, the convict, called the Ringo Kid is picked up along the way. He busted out of prison and is going to Lordsburg to avenge the murder of his father and brother by Luke Plumber. These are the main characters, but Stagecoach also has many memorable supporting characters. My favorite has to be the Mexican man at one of the stops who always ends his sentences in "I think" ("Si senora, I think.") I'd forgotten about him over the years.
The film boasts an ensemble cast, most of whom were much more established actors than John Wayne at the time and some of them would go on to be regulars in his later films. Andy Devine, with his always recognizable pre-pubescent like voice, plays the driver. Thomas Mitchell, who plays the doctor, always did the best drunk, it seems like he played one in all of his films. And Claire Trevor plays the outcast woman. Fifteen years later, Wayne and Trevor starred in another film together, The High and The Mighty. This time their star status is reversed. Trevor is an aging, once well- known actress, while Wayne is at the peak of his stardom.
Stagecoach is a significant film for a number of reasons. First, it was John Wayne's breakthrough role. He'd had his first starring role in 1930 in The Big Trail, but then spent to next nine years making low budget B westerns and serials. Stagecoach was another chance at an A list film and one that finally earned him some notoriety. It was also Wayne's first starring role for director John Ford. He had done stunts and bit parts for Ford as early as 1928, but Stagecoach was the real beginning of a lifelong friendship and famed working relationship. They would go on to make another thirteen pictures together over the next twenty-four years, along with various television projects. Stagecoach was also the first time Ford shot in his beloved location of Monument Valley, where he produced a total of nine of his films. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, many consider Stagecoach to be the film that raised, not only John Wayne, but the western genre from B movie to A-list status. And lest you think I overstate the films influence, it is said that Orson Welles viewed Stagecoach around forty times before making his masterpiece. Citizen Kane.
Several years ago, I had a discussion with a co-worker about American History X and its use of black and white photography during the flashbacks. Apparently, the director had said that you always have to have a good reason to use black and white, before explaining his reasons. I accepted this as at the time, but I later began to question it. Why do you have to have a good reason to shoot in black and white? It's not a flaw that technology fixed with the advent of color, it's an equally valid art form. In fact, Welles once said "You know what I say about black and white? It's the actor's friend, because every performance is better in black and white. Name me a great performance in color."
What does this all have to do with Stagecoach? This viewing of it was the first time I've gained a full appreciation for black and white. I'd never realized how much more beautifully pronounced light and shadows can be in black and white. Paying attention to the shadows in the interior shots of the film was quite mesmerizing.
I recently read a journal entry of Roger Ebert's in which he states: "Two of the most wonderful props in film noir were cigarettes and hats. They added interest to a close up or a two-shot." Though not a noir, I found a perfect example of this in Stagecoach. The stagecoach is traveling through some major winds. All the passengers are bundled up with their heads down to fend it off. Just the top of Wayne's hat is shown. He looks up at Trevor, his face still half concealed by the hat, and she looks back at him briefly. It's a wonderful shot in a brief but important moment between the two characters.
Though not his masterpiece (which is debatably,The Searchers), Ford directed Stagecoach masterfully. He utilized Monument Valley perfectly with many beautiful landscape shots. The way he shot the ending is ingenious. The entire climatic shootout is only heard off screen. This may seem like an odd choice, but it is the unexpected and greatly adds to the tension of the scene.
Thanks to time, experience, and Criterion's wonderful restoration, my appreciation for Stagecoach has increased exponentially. I suspect I'll be revisiting more of Wayne and Ford's great movies soon in hopes of a similar new experience
Check out this and other reviews at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com
The Red Shoes (1948)
The Red Shoes
When you watch the film documentaries of Martin Scorsese and read the reviews and commentaries of Roger Ebert, you might hear of names such as Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger and their films The Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes. And when you regard Scorsese and Ebert and their knowledge of film as highly as I do, you take note of their recommendations. Both men, particularly Scorsese who was involved in the restoration of the film, speak very highly of The Red Shoes. Based on this alone, I was interested in watching the film. I did, however, wonder if its subject matter of ballet would interest me. When I finally started the film with mom last night, I enjoyed it, but I must confess, at first I wondered what the high praise was for. Then, fifty-seven minutes into the film, came the first performance of The Red Shoes. It grabbed me and refused to relent. I was even entranced by the dancing. I then understood the acclaim. I shall attempt to convey the wonder of this film, but first a little background information.
The Red Shoes came out in 1948. Its story concerns a dancer, Victoria Page, and a composer, Julian Caster. Both are hired by world renowned ballet producer, Boris Lermontov, with the promise that he will make them great. But this comes with a price: their undivided devotion to their art, to their dream, and to him. The film is about the pursuit of art and dreams and what happens when this is taken to its extreme, to the point of obsession.
The title refers to a fairy tale, by Hans Christian Anderson, that Lermontov is adapting into a ballet. The fairy tale is described by Lermontov like this: "It is the story of a young girl who is devoured with an ambition to attend a dance in a pair of Red Shoes. She gets the shoes and goes to the dance. For a time, all goes well and she is very happy. At the end of the evening she is tired and wants to go home, but the Red Shoes are not tired. In fact, the Red Shoes are never tired. They dance her out into the street; they dance her over the mountains and valleys, through fields and forests, through night and day. Time rushes by, love rushes by, life rushes by, but the Red Shoes go on." Although I have never read Anderson's story, from this description alone, parallels can be seen throughout the film.
Now, let's get back to fifty-seven minutes, the first performance of The Red Shoes. The film in general and this fifteen minute sequence specifically, is beautifully shot, seamlessly edited, and uses light and shadows to wondrous effect. Characters are transformed into other characters, a knife into tree branch. The red shoes are made to stand tip-toed on their own and the ballerina transported from standing by on stage to inhabiting them. A dancer morphs into a dancing newspaper and back again. Shadows grow larger and larger, taller and taller, threatening to attack the ballerina. But, alas, my words cannot do this film justice. Most viewers today, constantly inundated with CGI, would not be able to fully appreciate the brilliant artistry of all this. Again, this was 1948 when you actually had to be creative and achieve your effects in reality not with a computer. I found myself in awe of some of these shots, wondering how they were accomplished.
The films color was also quite stunning for its time. Often the color in movies from this era look unnatural, but in The Red Shoes it is vibrant and full of life. I read that Technicolor considered this one of their best films. But I'm sure the quality of the picture is also due to the restoration process. As usual, Criterion did a marvelous job restoring and transferring the film to DVD. Although it was shot sixty-two years, it looks like it could have been made yesterday.
Anymore, there seems to be a stigma on "old" movies. Do not let this or any preconceptions of the subject matter detract you from seeing The Red Shoes. It is a great film that will stay with you long after it has ended.
Check out my other reviews at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com
Catch-22 (1970)
Catch-22
Catch-22 is a movie I've wanted to watch for quite some time. In fact, I've owned the DVD for years, I found it in the $5.50 bin at Wal-Mart way back when. For one reason or another I've never gotten around to watching it until today. The film is a satire of the absurdity of war, it's commercialization, and of bureaucracy in general. The story, in a nutshell, involves a bombardier who doesn't want to fly anymore missions and desperately tries to get grounded on the grounds of insanity. But, this turns out to be easier said than done.
The cast is one of the most eclectic I've ever seen: Alan Arkin, Art Garfunkel, Bob Newhart, Martin Sheen, Jon Voight, Orson Welles, Bob Balaban, and Charles Grodin, to name a few (it's interesting seeing some of them in such early roles). They play characters with quirky names such as: Major Major, Chaplain Tappman, Milo Minderbinder, and General Dreedle, each with their varying degrees of insanity. The Major who is forced to take over as squadron leader (an unwanted job) refuses to let people in his office to see him while he is in. They can be sent in to see him after he's left, however (which barely scratches the surface of a great sequence of dialogue). The Lieutenant who trades much-needed supplies with other countries, including the enemy, believes they can come out of the war rich. The General who doesn't understand why he can't shoot an insubordinate officer. The Captain who has crash-landed into the sea four times but always manages to survive and fly right back out there, which has a great payoff in the end. With everyones' use of insanity to cope with the horrors of war, I couldn't help but to draw comparisons to M*A*S*H, the film more than the TV show.
Catch-22 was adapted by Buck Henry from a novel, of the same title, authored by Joseph Heller. The story is, effectively, told in a non linear fashion and with recurring flashbacks. As with other satires, many of the situations in the film are absurd, some brilliantly so. And I loved the "who's on first" nature of the dialogue, going in circles, never quite reaching a logical conclusion. However, I'm interested in reading the book sometime. A couple of the characters felt underused in the screenplay, especially Newhart as Major Major and Welles as General Dreedle.
It's director is Mike Nichols, who also did the classic film The Graduate. Though not his best work, it's certainly not his worst either. He opens the film with a beautiful sunrise slowly coming up over a mountainous horizon. All we hear initially is the occasional dog barking or bird chirping. Then, the sound of jet engines roaring. Much of the films opening dialogue is all but drowned out by these sounds of planes starting, taking off, landing, even crashing but the characters carry on, unphased, as if nothing is happening. Nichols' portrayal of humor and violence, often simultaneously, is quite jarring.
Though not quite as good as I was hoping, some of the hilariously insane situations and ingenious dialogue make it well worth a watch...
Check out my other reviews at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com
True Grit (2010)
True Grit
I've long been a huge John Wayne fan and hence I have seen the 1969 version of True Grit countless times over the years. So when I first heard they were planning on "remaking" it, I must confess, I was more than slightly leery. How can they remake a John Wayne movie? And who are they going to get to replace the Duke?. Then, several weeks (or possibly even months) later, I read that the Coen brothers were taking the film's helm. My confidence was massively boosted, as I have also long been a huge fan of "the brothers" (I heard Jeff Bridges refer to them this way, loved it and figured I'd adopt it). But, I still worried about that casting. John Wayne's boots are some big ones to fill. Who could they possibly get? The Dude of course! It's not an obvious choice, but the more I thought about it the more I realized how perfect it would be. After all of this, I awaited this film with much anticipation. I read all of the other casting news. I saw the first productions stills. All of this making me more and more excited. Then, a few months ago, I read the news I'd been waiting for: Teaser trailer for the Coen's True Grit released. And a few days later, they released the full length trailer. Needless to say, my expectations were quite high, to say the least. And boy, were they not let down. But, don't let me get ahead of myself. More on that in a minute.
Before I continue, I want to clear up, what I consider to be, a huge misconception. True Grit is NOT a remake. It is another adaptation of a novel by Charles Portis. It took me a while to come to this too, and yes I realize it is a subtle difference, but it is an important one. Once remake thoughts have been exorcised from your mind, you realize that the casting of Rooster is not as big of a deal as it seems. Jeff Bridges was cast as Rooster Cogburn. He was not cast as John Wayne. I don't think they were ever trying to cast today's John Wayne (this would be impossible because I don't believe that person exists). Now that all of that is cleared up, let's continue.
I don't want to oversell the thing and risk anyone being disappointed, but every aspect of the film was everything I had hoped for. The cast could not have been better. The cinematography, beautiful. The score, with the recurring musical rendition of Leaning on the Everlasting Arms, set the era and mood of the film perfectly. And, what I expected to be a familiar story, actually had quite a few surprises along the way (this version is supposed to slightly closer to the book than the John Wayne version).
Jeff Bridges did not fill the Duke's boots. He went a step further and made the character of Rooster Cogburn his own. Bridges' Rooster is much more rough around the edges, much grittier if you will. And he takes a bit longer to grow on you. But this is how it should be, as it makes the character's transformation throughout the film all the more inspiring.
The supporting cast all manage great performances as well. An aspect of Matt Damon's role as LaBoeuf the Texas Ranger (which I won't divulge here for the sake of spoilers) could have easily become ridiculous, but Damon played it with just enough subtlety to make it believable. Whether purposeful or not, as Lucky Ned Pepper, Barry Pepper (the fact that the actor and character have the same last name always amused me) does a spot on impersonation of Robert Duvall, who played Lucky Ned in the 1969 version. And finally, though a small role, Josh Brolin (the bother's No Country for Old Men star) makes Tom Chaney, the cowardly murderer, very easy to hate.
But the actor that really shines, and almost steals the movie, is newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, the fourteen year old girl trying to catch her father's killer. Steinfeld was thirteen when the movie was shot and she is a revelation. She more than holds her own along side seasoned performers like Bridges and Damon. I noticed on my second viewing of the film, the way Mattie shows no grief over her father's death and instead just gets down to business, is admirable but somewhat disconcerting at the same time. But, as Roger Ebert said in his review she is "the kind of person you'd want guarding your back."
As usual, Roger Deakins, the brothers' regular director of photography, does an excellent job with the cinematography. There are numerous great shots throughout the film. And the sequence with Rooster carrying Mattie towards the end of the movie is stunningly beautiful (this scene nearly made my sister cry).
From my familiarity with the John Wayne version, I was anticipating the "fill your hands, you son of a bitch" scene. When I saw it had arrived, through my excitement, I couldn't stop myself from quoting along with the movie. It's those type of moments that cinema is all about. After watching it with my dad this afternoon, I've now seen True Grit twice and yet, I still can't wait to see it again
Check out my other reviews and whatnot at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com
Bottle Rocket (1996)
Bottle Rocket
Bottle Rocket is not only Wes Anderson's directorial debut, but also Luke and Owen Wilson's first feature film. I have to say, it is a pretty good start for all three men.
It is a very entertaining film in and of itself, but Anderson fans should particularly enjoy seeing where he got his start. It's got many of the earmarks of the greatness that was to come: fantastic writing and dialogue, a number of very memorable character, and a well chosen soundtrack. As I mentioned earlier, this is also the first film Luke and Owen Wilson made and both manage quite good performances. Owen plays Dignan, a man trying to start up a heist team. He is equally enthusiastic and naive but seems to have good intentions. Luke plays Dignan's often reluctant partner in crime who is love stuck by the housekeeper at the motel they stay at. Luke has always been my favorite of the Wilson brothers, but I have to say Owen steals the show in Bottle Rocket. He has many great one liners that he delivers with impeccable comic timing. Two other actors worth noting are Andrew Wilson and James Caan. Andrew Wilson, who plays Future Man, is one of the lesser known Wilson brothers. I can't remember the story of how Anderson got an actor of James Caan's caliber to co-star in his debut film. Caan plays Mr. Henry the boss of "the crew" Dignan so desperately wants to be a part of throughout the film. It's a great, and often hilarious, character in the final act of the film.
Also included on my copy of the movie is the fifteen minute short film, also titled Bottle Rocket, that Anderson and the Wilsons shot two years prior to the feature length film. Its is the same basic story and even contains many identical line and scenes, but it is still an interesting companion to the full length version.
Check out my other reviews and whatnot at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
The Royal Tenenbaums
I've watched this film several times over the years. It was my introduction to the films of Wes Anderson. I've heard many people complain about his movies because they are to slow or boring or not funny. He does definitely have his own unique style and pace that takes some getting used to. I've had to for some of his other films, but The Royal Tenenbaums is always one I've loved from the start.
My first viewing was after borrowing it, along with several other random films whose names escape me at the moment, from my sister and her husband. I loved Anderson's brilliant writing and dialogue. I loved the cast and their characters (with Little Fockers in theatres now, which also stars Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, I can't help but think "Why can't they make more movies like Tenenbaums and less like Fockers?") and the way they refer to each other at times. Gene Hackman calling his children "my darlings" and "my sweet boy" are my favorite instances of this. And I loved the shot of Mordecai, Richie's pet hawk, flying across the cityscape upon his first release with The Rolling Stones "Ruby Tuesday" playing triumphantly in the background. To this day, that remains one of my favorite shots in, not just this movie, but any movie.
I have since bought my own copy of the film after that magical first viewing. I've shared it with my other sister. And this afternoon, I showed it to my dad. Periodically throughout the movie he would say something to the extent of "this is crazy". This is quite an appropriate and accurate assessment. Much of what happens in The Royal Tenenbaums and many of it's character's actions can be defined as crazy, very much so. But what the hey? So often, life IS crazy
Check out my other reviews and whatnot at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
It's a Wonderful Life
I don't know how many times I've see It's a Wonderful Life over the years. But after seeing a clip from it in The Ref a couple weeks ago and after hearing references to it in various findings on the internet, I got a hankering to watch it again over the holiday season (I was a day late for Christmas, but close enough). This was the first time I'd watched it in years, and I was amazed how much more you pick up in such a familiar film when you're older.
I was surprised by the overt sexual overtones in at least two scenes between George and Mary that I was to young to recognize in years past. And, while this was more of a reminder than a realization, the depth of darkness this film reaches is quite shocking, especially for its time. And yet there was always a shimmer of light in that darkness. I was struck by the scene (major spoilers if any of you haven't seen this classic film) when George is contemplating suicide. Even at his darkest hour, at the lowest point in his life, when he sees Clarence jump in, he doesn't give a second thought to go in after him and save him. What a testament to the ultimate goodness of man.
Not only is It's a Wonderful Life a classic holiday film, but it's also an all around great movie for anytime. It is a wonderful story filled with many great characters. It contains many thought-provoking themes on how we effect the lives of others, even if we don't realize it, and what would happen if these effects were taken away or changed.
On a side note, I was extremely disappointed to see that the DVD release of this film includes a colorized edition. It's sad that in this day and age we feel like we have to change things to make them more appealing rather than appreciating it the way it was intended, for it's original artistry.
Check out my other reviews at whatnot at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com
The American (2010)
The American
When I first heard of this movie, two things intrigued me about it: it's director Anton Corbijn, who is U2's photographer, and the poster design, seen above, was reminiscent of one from the 60s or 70s. After the film came out, I heard mixed things about it. I didn't watch it until now partially because of this and partially from lack of access. I heard many people call it slow and boring. Almost everyone said it has an inordinate amount of nudity, but it wasn't nearly as much as I was expecting. However, my two most respected film critics, Roger Ebert and Brad Brevet of ropeofsilicon.com, both gave it glowing reviews, so I was still interested in seeing it. I'm glad I finally did.
I think the reason many people didn't like the film is because they were expecting an action movie, such as the Bourne trilogy, and that is not what this is. The Village suffered a similar fate a few years ago. People were expecting another horror/thriller from M. Night Shyamalan, but that's not quite what they got. The American is not an action movie, though it does have action. It is very suspenseful at times, especially in the beginning and the end. And it is an interesting character study. There are chases, there are shootings, there are killings. But most of this is very subdued (although there is a moment in the first couple minutes that is quite shocking), as is much about this movie.
I also heard several people online say George Clooney's acting in the movie was horrible. I'm not sure where they got this idea. It is a very low key performance and not like his typical roles. But, it is a very good performance.
His character, who goes by several different names throughout the film, is an assassin sent to a small village in Italy for a final job. There he befriends an elderly priest and falls in love with a prostitute. The job is to build a very specific rifle for another assassin. He is well suited for this as he knows guns inside and out scientifically. He even states in the movie that he does what he is good at, though he doesn't seem to particularly enjoy what he is good at. His is a very dangerous job, a very lonely job. The character is paranoid but not frantic and nervous but not uncontrollably so. He defensively jumps at every sound and is constantly looking over his shoulder. He sleeps lightly and with a gun. He is distrusting but still seems to desire companionship, even if he knows this to be a mistake. His boss tells him "Don't make friends. You used to know that." Later, the priest tells him "You cannot deny the existence of hell. You live in it. It is a place without love." Therein lies his conflict.
Butterflies are a recurring theme throughout the movie. Clooney's character has a butterfly tattoo in between his shoulders. He reads a book about butterflies. In one scene he observes a butterfly and even knows that it is endangered. A couple of the characters refer to him as Mr. Butterfly at times. And, according to IMDb, music from Madame Butterfly plays in the background of one scene. I was expecting an explanation, but never got one. Another viewing and some more thought might provide more insight. Or maybe it's just an interesting character trait.
The movie was written, filmed, and scored beautifully. The dialogue was all extremely concise, nothing extraneous that could distract from the characters or the photography. As I said earlier, the film was directed by Anton Corbijn and it was obviously shot with a photographer's eye. Some of the shots of the Italian landscape were especially gorgeous. The film's music was composed by a German musician by the name of Herbert Gronemeyer, his first film since 1983. I found two pieces of the music particularly good. One scene uses something similar to the Joker's theme from The Dark Knight (a violin note played with ever increasing intensity) that really helps build the tension. And one of the chase sequences plays over classical music. I've always loved when movies do that. It's such a great contrast.
They could have just as easily shot this as a typical action movie and it may have still be a fine film. But they didn't and I believe it is a better movie for it. Unfortunately, it is not a movie I would recommend to anyone. It's obviously not the type of movie a lot of people can appreciate in this day and age. But at least it's there for those of us that can
For my other reviews and whatnot check out my blog at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com
Tron: Legacy (2010)
Tron: Legacy
TRON: Legacy is not a terrible movie, but it isn't great either. It is an imperfect movie. I haven't seen the original TRON in years (actually it was the first movie I ever bought on DVD way back when). Maybe if I had re-watched the first movie, I would have had a greater appreciation for this one. In any case, this film involves Sam Flynn investigating his father's disappearance twenty year previous. Through a series of unlikely events, he ends up trapped in the same computer world his father has been stuck in all these years. Together, father and son have to find a way out. Let's talk about what's good about the film first.
It's effects are great for the most part, a vast improvement from the original (obviously, after 28 years). They offer the viewer some nice eye candy. I also quite enjoyed Daft Punk's score for the movie. It is a soundtrack I wouldn't mind owning. And as a homage to the first film, the soundtrack also includes Journey's Separate Ways (Worlds Apart).
The movie has a fairly talented cast. Jeff Bridges and Michael Sheen are enjoyable in basically every part they play, even if this isn't one of their best. Bridges reprises his role of Kevin Flynn from the first film. He has a number of Lebowski-esquire lines, such as: "This guy doesn't dig imperfection." and "You're messing with my whole Zen thing, man." Apparently, Sheen based his performance partially on David Bowie. This really comes through in a fun, albeit small role. Newcomers Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde round out the cast as Sam Flynn and Quorra respectively. Wilde's performance is quite promising. While Hedlund's is just average, and some of his one-liners come off rather cheesy.
As many have said before me, TRON: Legacy's story is where the film really suffers. Again, it's not bad, just wholly unoriginal. You can name any number of films about a utopian society gone awry. And artificial intelligence turning on it's creator dates back at least to 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968. The script even tries to wax philosophical at times, but is never quite able to reach true depth, just scratches the surface.
While, as mentioned earlier, most of the effects are top notch, there are two that aren't quite so effective. The film's 3D was all but nonexistent. So the glasses just served to further darken already dark images. But, 3D is a pet peeve of mine. The de-aging effect, first used for Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in X-Men: The Last Stand and for Jeff Bridges in this film, is one they have yet to perfect. It has always looked very unnatural to me.
What lies between good and bad? Imperfect? Mediocre? Whatever the answer, that's what TRON: Legacy is
For my other reviews and whatnot check out my blog at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com
The Kids Are All Right (2010)
The Kids are Alright
I have always liked the title of this film (named after the song by The Who). It says so much about the story. The kids are alright. Everyone else might be screwed up, but the kids are alright. I think the rebel in me is also attracted to the movie's controversial subject. If you don't know, it is about a lesbian couple, their two teenage children, and what happens when the kids decide they want to meet their biological father.
With a synopsis like that, I'm surprised this film did not create more of a stir than it did. A few years ago, so many people hated Brokeback Mountain, and everyone involved with it, simply because it dared to portray a lifestyle different from their own. I'm ashamed to admit I was one of those people. However, I've grown to believe people should be more open minded, even if they don't completely agree with something. I was still taken aback the first time I heard the kids refer to their parent as moms. I'm not sure what that says about me or our culture. But, I digress.
I don't know how many other people keep up with Oscar buzz like I do. If you do, you might be aware of the hype surrounding this film, especially Annette Bening and Julianne Moore's performances. Knowing all this, I went in with fairly high expectations. These weren't quite met. The first half of the movie was a bit of a let down. But in the second half, it did redeem itself. The Kids are Alright is filled with awkward moments. Movies like this often take some time to adjust to, which might be why it didn't grow on me right away.
Bening and Moore play the lesbian couple, Nic and Jules. Bening has been getting the majority of the Oscar buzz, so I was expecting an American Beauty caliber performance. It didn't quite reach that level, but it was still admirable. As for Moore, I was very impressed with a speech she gives towards the end of the film. The children, Joni and Laser, are played by Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson. Wasikowska was last seen in Alice in Wonderland earlier this year, so it was nice to see her in a normal role. It will be interesting to see how her career progresses. And Hutcherson, well he's come a long ways since 2008's Journey to the Center of the Earth, but I'm still not entirely impressed with his acting. Finally, the sperm donor is played by Mark Ruffalo, the source of most of the film's aforementioned awkward moments.
Controversial subject matter aside, the story was much like other romantic "dramadies". Many of the plot twists were incredibly predicable. But in all fairness, they did lead to some good drama at the end of the film. It was interesting to watch the evolution of the relationship between the kids and their father and it's effects on everyone. From the awkward first meeting on, some relationships bud and bloom, others are severely strained.
In the end, I enjoyed The Kids are Alright, but still not as much as I had hoped. I did get one thing out of the film though. Relationships are hard, no matter what form they take. It's encouraging to know I'm not alone in that
For my other reviews and whatnot check out my blog at: notexactlyaquote.tumblr.com