| by Allan Stackhouse |
The Blue Tooth Virgin is a wonderful gem of an indie film released to DVD earlier this year. Director and writer Russell Brown with two handfuls of a production crew created a great character-driven story about what can happen when you criticize a friend's work. Anyone who is in a creative field will enjoy or at least be able to appreciate the screenwriting storyline. Stars Austin Peck and Bryce Johnson truly shine in this charming film.
Russell teamed with the amazing, oft teamed with Gus Van Sant, editor Curtiss Clayton (To Die For, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and Drugstore Cowboy). At first, I couldn't figure out what made this film so good. Luckily, there is a featurette included on the DVD that explained some of Curtiss Clayton's editing process. To make these dialogue-heavy, non-moving scenes more interesting, Curtiss would limit the focus on each character, not to the point where it would be just a bunch of back and forth boring cutting. The edits were made with regard to the emotion and tone the director was going for.
The characters in this film are so strong and defined in The Blue Tooth Virgin. Sam, played by former Days of Our Lives and As the World Turns actor Austin Peck, is a struggling writer who once saw success and is thirsty for success again. His friend David, played by familiar TV face Bryce Johnson, has always had it easy and lives a cushy life as a writer for a magazine. The conflict that develops between these two characters begins with Sam's request for David to read his recently finished screenplay titled The Blue Tooth Virgin. David HATES Sam's script and, just from the dialogue in the film surrounding it, it sounds horrible. David experiences a desire to be completely honest with Sam and then changes his mind, which of course Sam takes offense to and gets particularly nasty about it. The script proves to be an interesting test of their friendship.
The poor quality of Sam's script leads to even more hilarious characters. There are two confidants, one for David and one for Sam. Sam turns to expensive script doctor Zena, played wonderfully and eccentrically by Karen Black. Their dialogue is actually kind of off-putting at first but through the course of this initial uncomfortableness, it turns out to be all part of the process, a great reveal for both Sam and the audience. David's confidant is Dr. Christopher, played by Roma Mafia, who's just as no nonsense as David if not more. She is inclined to believe what David is telling her and sympathizes with what he is going through. Both of these characters added humor to the film but also an opportunity for David and Sam to develop outside of their conversations with each other.
I'm absolutely thrilled that E1 decided to distribute this, despite its release from 2008, because the film serves as an example of the fruit of independent filmmaking. A small cast of professionals, actors, and locations made a funny, engaging, and emotionally honest film that I am very happy to have come across.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
New on Blu: A Prophet
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Someone raved about this movie some time ago so I admit that my perspective wasn’t completely fresh when I watched French writer/director Jacques Audiard’s A Prophet. The experience for me was a mildly entertained one but that could very well be because I completely lost interest in the film after the first act.
The great thing about A Prophet's script is that its conflict is set up so quickly. Malik El Djebena is sentenced to six years in prison and is almost immediately propositioned to kill someone or be killed. His appearance doesn’t entirely fit the dominating white presence in the prison nor the growing Arab one, allowing him to navigate both worlds. He does not have a choice about it because of the Corsican gang practically running the place, receiving instruction on specifically how to perfrom the kill as well. His attempts to get out of it are met with failure. These consistent and well-crafted raises in stakes were well-directed and enthralling.
This act's end unfortunately proved to be the peak of drama for the entire film. It is just after this incredibly exciting string of scenes that the plot becomes very watery and altogether unimportant. The film seemed to shoot its wad and then expected these slower paced scenes to be able to carry the rest of the film which, for me, was entirely unsuccessful. The end of the film attempts to regain the first act’s momentum with Malik’s sudden decision to improvise upon learning that his final targets are not going to exit their vehicle. This scene is actually quite brilliant stylistically with its choice of angles, slow motion footage, and sound design but even these traits cannot make up for the lack of interest I had when watching the scenes that lead up it.
The suspense built by the scene where Malik kills Reyeb is thick, that is not in question. The scene in which he kills him of course doesn't go to plan, further building the suspense. He earns the protection of Cesar Luciani. Malik’s climb up the gang ladder by turning into a porter for the Corsicans and then running favors for Cesar, his boss, and Jordi, his business associate in drug sales, did not prove to be anywhere near the stakes of his first foray into the prison world.
As the title states, we are made to believe during the film that Malik is a prophet of some sort but even that isn’t completely fleshed out. It as actually only addressed in the scene where he predicts the car accident. The drug dealer is in awe of his "gift" but there’s no other scenes to support the idea built by this one. Why have it at all? Why not have it earlier? Why not more consistently reference it?
As much as I wanted to enjoy this film, I simply could not. If you’re up for a well-crafted gangster movie, you will likely enjoy A Prophet more than I did. The recurring subject of race doesn’t completely translate for me but perhaps there are some nuances in gang-related subject matter that are ultimately foreign to me.
2.5/5
Someone raved about this movie some time ago so I admit that my perspective wasn’t completely fresh when I watched French writer/director Jacques Audiard’s A Prophet. The experience for me was a mildly entertained one but that could very well be because I completely lost interest in the film after the first act.
The great thing about A Prophet's script is that its conflict is set up so quickly. Malik El Djebena is sentenced to six years in prison and is almost immediately propositioned to kill someone or be killed. His appearance doesn’t entirely fit the dominating white presence in the prison nor the growing Arab one, allowing him to navigate both worlds. He does not have a choice about it because of the Corsican gang practically running the place, receiving instruction on specifically how to perfrom the kill as well. His attempts to get out of it are met with failure. These consistent and well-crafted raises in stakes were well-directed and enthralling.
This act's end unfortunately proved to be the peak of drama for the entire film. It is just after this incredibly exciting string of scenes that the plot becomes very watery and altogether unimportant. The film seemed to shoot its wad and then expected these slower paced scenes to be able to carry the rest of the film which, for me, was entirely unsuccessful. The end of the film attempts to regain the first act’s momentum with Malik’s sudden decision to improvise upon learning that his final targets are not going to exit their vehicle. This scene is actually quite brilliant stylistically with its choice of angles, slow motion footage, and sound design but even these traits cannot make up for the lack of interest I had when watching the scenes that lead up it.
The suspense built by the scene where Malik kills Reyeb is thick, that is not in question. The scene in which he kills him of course doesn't go to plan, further building the suspense. He earns the protection of Cesar Luciani. Malik’s climb up the gang ladder by turning into a porter for the Corsicans and then running favors for Cesar, his boss, and Jordi, his business associate in drug sales, did not prove to be anywhere near the stakes of his first foray into the prison world.
As the title states, we are made to believe during the film that Malik is a prophet of some sort but even that isn’t completely fleshed out. It as actually only addressed in the scene where he predicts the car accident. The drug dealer is in awe of his "gift" but there’s no other scenes to support the idea built by this one. Why have it at all? Why not have it earlier? Why not more consistently reference it?
As much as I wanted to enjoy this film, I simply could not. If you’re up for a well-crafted gangster movie, you will likely enjoy A Prophet more than I did. The recurring subject of race doesn’t completely translate for me but perhaps there are some nuances in gang-related subject matter that are ultimately foreign to me.
2.5/5
Monday, October 11, 2010
New on Blu: Iron Man 2
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Iron Man 2 is one of the worst movies I've seen all year. I was bored to tears with this, desperately hoping something interesting or exciting would happen but to no avail. Theexcuse idea that this film was rushed is not acceptable here nor ever, especially to someone who staunchly supports Marvel's many forms of media. X-Men: The Last Stand was given the rush job but it was at least somewhat palatable while this was completely bland, boring, and not even close to even a Michael Dudikoff B-movie. I look forward to these blockbusters every year because they're around my birthday and I couldn't be more glad that I skipped Iron Man 2 when it was in theaters.
The problems, many as they are, root from the script. There is no distinction between acts, the first act running right through the second, providing scene after scene of an unmasked Iron Man doing this an an unmasked Iron Man doing that. Jon Favreau, from his close personal relationship with RDJ, let him do whatever he wanted and the results were annoying and indulgent. It's absolutely bewildering to me as to why the successful fusion of Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby (Children of Men) and Arthur Marcum and Matt Holloway's scripts was discontinued and placed in the untrained and unworthy hands of Justin Theroux. I'm sure some great chemistry happened between RDJ and Justin on the set of Tropic Thunder, which Justin also wrote, but this change of gears did not work.
Sam Rockwell had a completely wasted performance in this film. He is sooooo talented and, similar to Hugo Weaving in The Wolfman, he had absolutely no character to work with. His character, Justin Hammer's, depiction as a rival to Tony Stark has no arc and is one of the many points of erosion in Iron Man 2's armor. A bumbling technological rival who isn't even funny as half of the conflict in the script? No. Sorry. Did not work. Even the scene with Sam's amazing dance moves served little to cover up the film's failure in capturing my interest. Just as ill developed is the conflict of Tony's palladium core keeping him alive and killing him alive at the same time. This was posed so poorly constructed that I couldn't have cared any less about it. And how does the film resolve this conflict? Instantaneously when his new atomic number 118 core is placed, which took all of 2 minutes to create! This notion of having to accept super hero movies as these flashy movies where nothing really happens is so condescending, especially when there is so much source material to work with and ideally improve.
The fight scenes amount to a whopping THREE and all are SO short: one where Iron Man fights War Machine, one where Ivan Vanko (another snoozer villain) attacks Tony in Monaco, and one where both Iron Man and War Machine fight some drones. The first one is so unwarranted. A million reasons or villains could have been used to have a fight scene with Iron Man, the star of the film, but what's the motivation: Rhodey needs to cool Iron Man down. WTF?!?!?!?! This so strongly stinks of machismo and does absolutely nothing for the plot of the story. The second one provided at least some drama, having Tony out of his suit but the battle is over as soon as he suits up. Why can't the drama be created when he's in the suit? The final fight scene, when Iron Man and War Machine get to show off in all of their technologically advanced mechanical glory is shown in a brief three minutes. I have absolutely no investment in the scene because 1. they're machines that don't even look cool and 2. because the film has didn't set up any attachments or feelings for me to feel.
I absolutely hated the portrayal of women as lapdogs for their male counterparts in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts was so unbelievably naggy in this film. A woman of education, power, and beauty is still nothing but a blabbermouth in the end according to this film. Even Gwyneth's idle dialogue that opened some scenes sounded very forced and unnatural, which is hard to stomach being a fan of hers. Scarlett Johansson did what she could but the misdirection and poor editing sank whatever potential she had. On paper, Justin Theroux may have thought he was making her a character to be admired: multilingual, well-educated, trained for combat, etc., but the focus of her role is always at tthe whim of men. Even her fight scene left much to be desired. A good edit could have saved her but it was so unbelievably awful. During Black Widow's main fight scene, there are so many cuts for such a small amount action.
Just to let me rant for a sec, Garry Shandling had SO many injectables in his face I was surprised it was moving at all during the panel scene in the beginning of the film. The distance from Tony may have saved him a little bit but the last scene of the film where he smiles between Tony and Rhodey has some frightening closeups. Looking young and good for the camera is one thing but to the point where the result is horrific is not good for the film. Jon Favreau should have seen this.
The only redeeming element to this film was Samuel L. Jackson. His presence is stoic and restrained, with lines to match his presence and body language. Nick Fury's scene time across all of the Marvel films can be counted in seconds yet I found his character here to have the most development and purpose. In retrospect, that's unbelievable since Pepper, Tony, and Rhodey all had a whole - and might I add good - film's worth of development to rely upon.
Even the high resolution of Blu-ray was not enough for me to enjoy this film/piece of garbage. I'm honestly heartbroken by its severely low quality. I can remember some years ago, feeling enthralled and inspired by Jon Favreau's humor and insights when he hosted Dinner for Five but this film let me down at almost every point. Maybe that man still exists somewhere but Iron Man 2 has to be one of his biggest failures in quality to date.
Iron Man 2 is one of the worst movies I've seen all year. I was bored to tears with this, desperately hoping something interesting or exciting would happen but to no avail. The
The problems, many as they are, root from the script. There is no distinction between acts, the first act running right through the second, providing scene after scene of an unmasked Iron Man doing this an an unmasked Iron Man doing that. Jon Favreau, from his close personal relationship with RDJ, let him do whatever he wanted and the results were annoying and indulgent. It's absolutely bewildering to me as to why the successful fusion of Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby (Children of Men) and Arthur Marcum and Matt Holloway's scripts was discontinued and placed in the untrained and unworthy hands of Justin Theroux. I'm sure some great chemistry happened between RDJ and Justin on the set of Tropic Thunder, which Justin also wrote, but this change of gears did not work.
Sam Rockwell had a completely wasted performance in this film. He is sooooo talented and, similar to Hugo Weaving in The Wolfman, he had absolutely no character to work with. His character, Justin Hammer's, depiction as a rival to Tony Stark has no arc and is one of the many points of erosion in Iron Man 2's armor. A bumbling technological rival who isn't even funny as half of the conflict in the script? No. Sorry. Did not work. Even the scene with Sam's amazing dance moves served little to cover up the film's failure in capturing my interest. Just as ill developed is the conflict of Tony's palladium core keeping him alive and killing him alive at the same time. This was posed so poorly constructed that I couldn't have cared any less about it. And how does the film resolve this conflict? Instantaneously when his new atomic number 118 core is placed, which took all of 2 minutes to create! This notion of having to accept super hero movies as these flashy movies where nothing really happens is so condescending, especially when there is so much source material to work with and ideally improve.
The fight scenes amount to a whopping THREE and all are SO short: one where Iron Man fights War Machine, one where Ivan Vanko (another snoozer villain) attacks Tony in Monaco, and one where both Iron Man and War Machine fight some drones. The first one is so unwarranted. A million reasons or villains could have been used to have a fight scene with Iron Man, the star of the film, but what's the motivation: Rhodey needs to cool Iron Man down. WTF?!?!?!?! This so strongly stinks of machismo and does absolutely nothing for the plot of the story. The second one provided at least some drama, having Tony out of his suit but the battle is over as soon as he suits up. Why can't the drama be created when he's in the suit? The final fight scene, when Iron Man and War Machine get to show off in all of their technologically advanced mechanical glory is shown in a brief three minutes. I have absolutely no investment in the scene because 1. they're machines that don't even look cool and 2. because the film has didn't set up any attachments or feelings for me to feel.
I absolutely hated the portrayal of women as lapdogs for their male counterparts in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts was so unbelievably naggy in this film. A woman of education, power, and beauty is still nothing but a blabbermouth in the end according to this film. Even Gwyneth's idle dialogue that opened some scenes sounded very forced and unnatural, which is hard to stomach being a fan of hers. Scarlett Johansson did what she could but the misdirection and poor editing sank whatever potential she had. On paper, Justin Theroux may have thought he was making her a character to be admired: multilingual, well-educated, trained for combat, etc., but the focus of her role is always at tthe whim of men. Even her fight scene left much to be desired. A good edit could have saved her but it was so unbelievably awful. During Black Widow's main fight scene, there are so many cuts for such a small amount action.
Just to let me rant for a sec, Garry Shandling had SO many injectables in his face I was surprised it was moving at all during the panel scene in the beginning of the film. The distance from Tony may have saved him a little bit but the last scene of the film where he smiles between Tony and Rhodey has some frightening closeups. Looking young and good for the camera is one thing but to the point where the result is horrific is not good for the film. Jon Favreau should have seen this.
The only redeeming element to this film was Samuel L. Jackson. His presence is stoic and restrained, with lines to match his presence and body language. Nick Fury's scene time across all of the Marvel films can be counted in seconds yet I found his character here to have the most development and purpose. In retrospect, that's unbelievable since Pepper, Tony, and Rhodey all had a whole - and might I add good - film's worth of development to rely upon.
Even the high resolution of Blu-ray was not enough for me to enjoy this film/piece of garbage. I'm honestly heartbroken by its severely low quality. I can remember some years ago, feeling enthralled and inspired by Jon Favreau's humor and insights when he hosted Dinner for Five but this film let me down at almost every point. Maybe that man still exists somewhere but Iron Man 2 has to be one of his biggest failures in quality to date.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Review: The Social Network
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Chalk up another marvel by David Fincher. The Social Network is an absolutely captivating tale of the rise of Facebook and the subsequent falls of those allegedly involved in its inception. This is one of the best films I've seen all year, despite the sweltering conditions of the Arclight in Hollywood Friday night. I remember my staunchly negative mindset during the film's promotion, thinking it was ridiculous to make a film about something so seemingly rudimentary as Facebook. How wrong I was. The tale that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director David Fincher spin is a gripping one of genius, betrayal, and social networking.
Aaron Sorkin wonderfully adapted Ben Mezrich's The Accidental Billionaires, forming entrancing monologues and witty dialogue for every character. Mark himself had some great lines but the incredulous expressions of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss really took the cake. The script is driven by dialogue but it doesn't turn into exposition; it actually moves the story along and doesn't serve as patches for the plot. The story is riveting. Mark Zuckerburg is a genius programmer who's on the verge of developing what we know today as Facebook. The film is split between with lawsuit scenes, held in private offices. Each timeline feeds the other, adding drama to one and reason to the other. This is a brilliant and masterfully executed form of storytelling.
The music and score added to the hypnotic nature of the film. Trent Reznor is new to scores but found himself working again with Atticus Ross who produced for Nine Inch Nails albums, for whom Trent Reznor is the lead singer. That particular genre is light in my iPod but the post-industrial and dark ambient sounds for which they are both known could not have worked any better in the film. Under many scenes of dialogue was a piece of music that echoed the figurative darkness of the scenes. This attention to sound made the experience of watching the film so complete.
I particularly enjoyed the restraint in the depiction of Mark Zuckerburg's character. The film didn't demonize him, at least I didn't find that it did. Mark, in the film, is a genius, seemingly getting into Harvard on the merits of his own intelligence rather than the nepotism of the Winklevosses. In a matter of just a year, he coded his way to the top of social networking. His ousting of Eduardo Saverin from Facebook was a really dirty thing to do but the film forces sympathy when Eduardo and Mark address each other at their hearing.
The film is also a marvel technically. I could have sworn Armie Hammer had a twin brother but did not see another actor credited with his last name in the opening credits. After the film, I found out Josh Pence acted as the body double for Tyler Vinklevoss. Armie Hammer's face was then digitally placed over Josh's. The effect is seamless and a marvel in technology. Josh Pence and Armie Hammer expertly mimicked the other's actions, completely pulling the wool over my eyes. This effect is, I'll dare say, perfect. Perhaps I'd be able to point out a mistake after the movie is released on Blu but this act of having a stand in for a twin has come a LONG way since the old days of “double screen.”
The only flaw of the film was in Justin Timberlake's casting. Perhaps the producers felt that they needed a name to sell the film but, as talented as Justin is in everything else he does (singing, song writing, dancing, clothing design, comedic acting), he did not have the dramatic chops to convey the paranoia, seduction, and seriousness of Sean Parker. Sean's character starts off harmlessly enough but I still get the sense that Justin's focus is still too much on the delivery instead of getting into the character, which again, he does with ease for his many appearances on Saturday Night Live. Take for instance one of my favorites, Robin Gibb. His tone is kept timid and his straight face is retained throughout almost the entire sketch. In the scenes with Sean Parker, Justin's tone is always the same when expressing the breadth of his emotions.
In the end, I don't feel the film is either a sob story for Eduardo Saverin nor a witch hunt for Marc Zuckerburg. I believe the film was more about the bitter end of a friendship brought on by success. This theme is a common one in films about bands or musicians but to have the subject matter be about something that half a billion people use was a surprising parallel for me. The film is interestingly framed with Mark Zuckerburg talking with a girl who feels sorry for him. I feel this film is incredibly relevant to the youth of today because it illustrates the cost of losing oneself in a business, relationship, drugs, etc. after forsaking those that helped you get there in the first place.
4.5/5
Chalk up another marvel by David Fincher. The Social Network is an absolutely captivating tale of the rise of Facebook and the subsequent falls of those allegedly involved in its inception. This is one of the best films I've seen all year, despite the sweltering conditions of the Arclight in Hollywood Friday night. I remember my staunchly negative mindset during the film's promotion, thinking it was ridiculous to make a film about something so seemingly rudimentary as Facebook. How wrong I was. The tale that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director David Fincher spin is a gripping one of genius, betrayal, and social networking.
Aaron Sorkin wonderfully adapted Ben Mezrich's The Accidental Billionaires, forming entrancing monologues and witty dialogue for every character. Mark himself had some great lines but the incredulous expressions of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss really took the cake. The script is driven by dialogue but it doesn't turn into exposition; it actually moves the story along and doesn't serve as patches for the plot. The story is riveting. Mark Zuckerburg is a genius programmer who's on the verge of developing what we know today as Facebook. The film is split between with lawsuit scenes, held in private offices. Each timeline feeds the other, adding drama to one and reason to the other. This is a brilliant and masterfully executed form of storytelling.
The music and score added to the hypnotic nature of the film. Trent Reznor is new to scores but found himself working again with Atticus Ross who produced for Nine Inch Nails albums, for whom Trent Reznor is the lead singer. That particular genre is light in my iPod but the post-industrial and dark ambient sounds for which they are both known could not have worked any better in the film. Under many scenes of dialogue was a piece of music that echoed the figurative darkness of the scenes. This attention to sound made the experience of watching the film so complete.
I particularly enjoyed the restraint in the depiction of Mark Zuckerburg's character. The film didn't demonize him, at least I didn't find that it did. Mark, in the film, is a genius, seemingly getting into Harvard on the merits of his own intelligence rather than the nepotism of the Winklevosses. In a matter of just a year, he coded his way to the top of social networking. His ousting of Eduardo Saverin from Facebook was a really dirty thing to do but the film forces sympathy when Eduardo and Mark address each other at their hearing.
The film is also a marvel technically. I could have sworn Armie Hammer had a twin brother but did not see another actor credited with his last name in the opening credits. After the film, I found out Josh Pence acted as the body double for Tyler Vinklevoss. Armie Hammer's face was then digitally placed over Josh's. The effect is seamless and a marvel in technology. Josh Pence and Armie Hammer expertly mimicked the other's actions, completely pulling the wool over my eyes. This effect is, I'll dare say, perfect. Perhaps I'd be able to point out a mistake after the movie is released on Blu but this act of having a stand in for a twin has come a LONG way since the old days of “double screen.”
The only flaw of the film was in Justin Timberlake's casting. Perhaps the producers felt that they needed a name to sell the film but, as talented as Justin is in everything else he does (singing, song writing, dancing, clothing design, comedic acting), he did not have the dramatic chops to convey the paranoia, seduction, and seriousness of Sean Parker. Sean's character starts off harmlessly enough but I still get the sense that Justin's focus is still too much on the delivery instead of getting into the character, which again, he does with ease for his many appearances on Saturday Night Live. Take for instance one of my favorites, Robin Gibb. His tone is kept timid and his straight face is retained throughout almost the entire sketch. In the scenes with Sean Parker, Justin's tone is always the same when expressing the breadth of his emotions.
In the end, I don't feel the film is either a sob story for Eduardo Saverin nor a witch hunt for Marc Zuckerburg. I believe the film was more about the bitter end of a friendship brought on by success. This theme is a common one in films about bands or musicians but to have the subject matter be about something that half a billion people use was a surprising parallel for me. The film is interestingly framed with Mark Zuckerburg talking with a girl who feels sorry for him. I feel this film is incredibly relevant to the youth of today because it illustrates the cost of losing oneself in a business, relationship, drugs, etc. after forsaking those that helped you get there in the first place.
4.5/5
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Review: Me & Orson Welles
| by Allan Stackhouse |
For the younger generation out there that is only seeing Me & Orson Welles for Zac Efron, they will be treating themselves not only to ninety minutes of Zac's statuesque looks but also to a classic film made in modern times. Orson Welles is a legend in early filmmaking and for this film to come along to remind - or introduce - us of his existence is terrific as not only a concept but also as an ode to to someone who helped forge modern filmmaking. I found this film funny, charming, and altogether very entertaining. Though the story line was on the simpler side, the drama played out quickly and succinctly.
I am the first to admit that I do not like period pieces because of the incessant melodrama and the poor choices in cinematography with characters so irritatingly pompous that they make me want to destroy something. However, this film had excellent cinematography, enough to convey a classic time without some stupid bleached out effect. The set design more than successfully created an old American environment and time. Its entire existence pleases me because nothing about it is "modern" but it still holds up as a film. The love story is a little on the dated side but it fits for this generation because there can be more to an adult love story than sex. The story follows Richard Samuels, played by Zac Efron, in his quest to become part of Orson Welles' theater production of Julius Caesar. A concurrent love story develops when Richard becomes interested in Claire Danes' Sonja Jones.
English actor Christian McKay fabulously portrayed theater director and actor Orson Welles. Just from the few movies and articles I've come across of Orson Welles, I gathered that this portrayal was wholly accurate while Christian did add some of his own panache to the role. His delivery of lines for the distinct fashion that Orson Welles spoke was spot on. While Richard's character was the only one to have any significant arcs, Claire Danes provided a great a supporting character to Richard.
Of Richard Linklater's previous works, I've only seen Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly but I found those brilliant and I think him incredibly versatile to have produced such avant garde films to a completely traditional film with Me and Orson Welles. The performances he garnered from the cast and the consistent building up of each character provided scenes that never lost their connectivity and never ceased to be interesting. In fact, I didn't pause the film once throughout my viewing of it.
The consistent conflict of the film is launching Julius Caesar, the play. Orson continuously pushes the opening date back, at the chagrin of the theater owner. All of the characters are trying to get ahead in this film: Orson wants to produce the best play that ever existed, Richard wants respect and the affections of Sonja, and Sonja wants to climb the theater ladder. These characters, having distinct motivations, were instrumental in creating such a complete film.
I found the story to be interesting because it's a cautionary tale of what life in theater or entertainment can potentially be like. It is entirely too rare for someone in entertainment to be looking out for anyone other than themselves. Zac Efron makes this mistake when he quits the play. Orson does come crawling back to him but only for the sake of opening day. After the first show, Orson sends him packing and doesn't even do it to his face. This might villainize the persona of Orson Welles but I believe it to be an accurate portrayal of what a man of genius can be like.
Narratively, the ending is appropriate. It doesn't tie things up in a nice bow, and what kind of message would it send to viewers about theater if it did? A bad one.
Despite my overall reluctance to watch this in theaters, I'm glad that I gave this film a chance. Even if you have absolutely no idea who Orson Welles was or don't care who he is, the film stands on its own two feet and proves itself as a cautionary tale while not restorting to any ridiculous gimmicks. The acting is great and the characters are interesting; a marvelous effort by director Richard Linklater.
For the younger generation out there that is only seeing Me & Orson Welles for Zac Efron, they will be treating themselves not only to ninety minutes of Zac's statuesque looks but also to a classic film made in modern times. Orson Welles is a legend in early filmmaking and for this film to come along to remind - or introduce - us of his existence is terrific as not only a concept but also as an ode to to someone who helped forge modern filmmaking. I found this film funny, charming, and altogether very entertaining. Though the story line was on the simpler side, the drama played out quickly and succinctly.
I am the first to admit that I do not like period pieces because of the incessant melodrama and the poor choices in cinematography with characters so irritatingly pompous that they make me want to destroy something. However, this film had excellent cinematography, enough to convey a classic time without some stupid bleached out effect. The set design more than successfully created an old American environment and time. Its entire existence pleases me because nothing about it is "modern" but it still holds up as a film. The love story is a little on the dated side but it fits for this generation because there can be more to an adult love story than sex. The story follows Richard Samuels, played by Zac Efron, in his quest to become part of Orson Welles' theater production of Julius Caesar. A concurrent love story develops when Richard becomes interested in Claire Danes' Sonja Jones.
English actor Christian McKay fabulously portrayed theater director and actor Orson Welles. Just from the few movies and articles I've come across of Orson Welles, I gathered that this portrayal was wholly accurate while Christian did add some of his own panache to the role. His delivery of lines for the distinct fashion that Orson Welles spoke was spot on. While Richard's character was the only one to have any significant arcs, Claire Danes provided a great a supporting character to Richard.
Of Richard Linklater's previous works, I've only seen Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly but I found those brilliant and I think him incredibly versatile to have produced such avant garde films to a completely traditional film with Me and Orson Welles. The performances he garnered from the cast and the consistent building up of each character provided scenes that never lost their connectivity and never ceased to be interesting. In fact, I didn't pause the film once throughout my viewing of it.
The consistent conflict of the film is launching Julius Caesar, the play. Orson continuously pushes the opening date back, at the chagrin of the theater owner. All of the characters are trying to get ahead in this film: Orson wants to produce the best play that ever existed, Richard wants respect and the affections of Sonja, and Sonja wants to climb the theater ladder. These characters, having distinct motivations, were instrumental in creating such a complete film.
I found the story to be interesting because it's a cautionary tale of what life in theater or entertainment can potentially be like. It is entirely too rare for someone in entertainment to be looking out for anyone other than themselves. Zac Efron makes this mistake when he quits the play. Orson does come crawling back to him but only for the sake of opening day. After the first show, Orson sends him packing and doesn't even do it to his face. This might villainize the persona of Orson Welles but I believe it to be an accurate portrayal of what a man of genius can be like.
Narratively, the ending is appropriate. It doesn't tie things up in a nice bow, and what kind of message would it send to viewers about theater if it did? A bad one.
Despite my overall reluctance to watch this in theaters, I'm glad that I gave this film a chance. Even if you have absolutely no idea who Orson Welles was or don't care who he is, the film stands on its own two feet and proves itself as a cautionary tale while not restorting to any ridiculous gimmicks. The acting is great and the characters are interesting; a marvelous effort by director Richard Linklater.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Coco Avant Chanel
| by Allan Stackhouse |
If you're completely lost when it comes to the French language, remember that avant means before in English. The French language film is immediately framed in a time when women were not treated as equals in society. It tells a tale of Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel's past, avant she becomes the household name she is today. Unfortunately, the events in this tale are not particularly interesting. As much as I cared about Chanel's character, the dramatic elements in the film that acted as the focus of the film were not very deep or meaningful.
Gabrielle and her sister Adrienne work in a brothel as singers when the majority of the female employees there work as prostitutes. The male patrons treat them as objects and Étienne Balsan expresses his distaste in Gabrielle's bold attitude. Gabrielle despises this weak image of women, expressing her disgust of it to the general. I found it hypocritical of her to have so vehemently denied the old image and roles of women yet slip into them herself later in the film.
I was largely disappointed with cinematography in this film. Perhaps the standard definition should take the blame but I noticed many opportunities where better uses of lighting and focus could have done wonders. The shot at the end with the models going down the staircases with mirrors was a golden opportunity to show something interesting instead of just a medium shot with Coco in focus and the models walking past her as she observes them. The lighting was basic and overly diffused, a technique that's so stereotypical of period pieces. Perhaps not having been able to see this film in high definition was a good thing since the image would have been clearer but the focuses and shots would look just as bland as they were.
Regarding the clothing as a visual tool, this was done very seldom. Her claim to fame being a fashion designer, I was expecting more of an appropriate use of this instead of just this recurring element that sets up drama with the other character but not here career. In one scene, Coco observes the clothing among the gentry-folk.
The catalyst to the explosion of Coco's design creativity is evidently placed on Boy's death. This was troubling for me because whatever momentum that Coco had left as a woman and designer after her willingness to be his mistress was gone at the action's of someone else, not through her own willingness. Because Boy died, she will now become the designer she was destined to become. If this was actually what happened, fine. However, as a film, this does not play out well. I think it's sending the message that men, no matter how independent women are, will always be needed by women in order to get further in life. Perhaps this was true at the time but the concept does not work here.
In the middle of the second act, I began to find this film overly pretentious with the characters' constant dance around what everyone was actually trying to say. Whether the love triangle between Coco, Balsan, and Boy happened in real life or not, I found this indirect way of speaking and doing things to be very irritating and stereotypical of period pieces. If you can stomach this old form of speaking and handling relationships, perhaps you will enjoy this film. The refrain from saying what anyone really wanted to set up long and irritating conversations that promoted this turn of the century melodrama.
As a side note, when you think of fashion's most famous houses, do you think of Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, Ralph Lauren, Gianni Versace? What do all of those have in common? They're male-headed houses ironically for women's fashion. The text at the end of the film reads something to sort of, “She achieved success in a man's world.” This is a great fact to know but there was not enough of this in the film. What was there were these constant looks of disgust or disapproval.
The elements that I did find interesting were her interest in fashion, her relationship with her sister. Multiple times throughout the film, Coco mentions her parents and her time at the orphanage, the story always different than the last time. Did she experience shame over this? Adrienne came in and out of the story and her storyline was not concluded. Her last appearance in the film is at Coco's house/studio
I was not “gripped” by this film in the least, even though whoever wrote the back of the DVD claimed that it would be. The drama that's also touted in the film I found to be very pretentious and uninteresting. Where there was a lot of opportunity to make this film more visually pleasing, the film chose instead to focus on the melodramatic elements of Coco's story instead of playing up her independence and drive to succeed.
If you're completely lost when it comes to the French language, remember that avant means before in English. The French language film is immediately framed in a time when women were not treated as equals in society. It tells a tale of Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel's past, avant she becomes the household name she is today. Unfortunately, the events in this tale are not particularly interesting. As much as I cared about Chanel's character, the dramatic elements in the film that acted as the focus of the film were not very deep or meaningful.
Gabrielle and her sister Adrienne work in a brothel as singers when the majority of the female employees there work as prostitutes. The male patrons treat them as objects and Étienne Balsan expresses his distaste in Gabrielle's bold attitude. Gabrielle despises this weak image of women, expressing her disgust of it to the general. I found it hypocritical of her to have so vehemently denied the old image and roles of women yet slip into them herself later in the film.
I was largely disappointed with cinematography in this film. Perhaps the standard definition should take the blame but I noticed many opportunities where better uses of lighting and focus could have done wonders. The shot at the end with the models going down the staircases with mirrors was a golden opportunity to show something interesting instead of just a medium shot with Coco in focus and the models walking past her as she observes them. The lighting was basic and overly diffused, a technique that's so stereotypical of period pieces. Perhaps not having been able to see this film in high definition was a good thing since the image would have been clearer but the focuses and shots would look just as bland as they were.
Regarding the clothing as a visual tool, this was done very seldom. Her claim to fame being a fashion designer, I was expecting more of an appropriate use of this instead of just this recurring element that sets up drama with the other character but not here career. In one scene, Coco observes the clothing among the gentry-folk.
The catalyst to the explosion of Coco's design creativity is evidently placed on Boy's death. This was troubling for me because whatever momentum that Coco had left as a woman and designer after her willingness to be his mistress was gone at the action's of someone else, not through her own willingness. Because Boy died, she will now become the designer she was destined to become. If this was actually what happened, fine. However, as a film, this does not play out well. I think it's sending the message that men, no matter how independent women are, will always be needed by women in order to get further in life. Perhaps this was true at the time but the concept does not work here.
In the middle of the second act, I began to find this film overly pretentious with the characters' constant dance around what everyone was actually trying to say. Whether the love triangle between Coco, Balsan, and Boy happened in real life or not, I found this indirect way of speaking and doing things to be very irritating and stereotypical of period pieces. If you can stomach this old form of speaking and handling relationships, perhaps you will enjoy this film. The refrain from saying what anyone really wanted to set up long and irritating conversations that promoted this turn of the century melodrama.
As a side note, when you think of fashion's most famous houses, do you think of Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, Ralph Lauren, Gianni Versace? What do all of those have in common? They're male-headed houses ironically for women's fashion. The text at the end of the film reads something to sort of, “She achieved success in a man's world.” This is a great fact to know but there was not enough of this in the film. What was there were these constant looks of disgust or disapproval.
The elements that I did find interesting were her interest in fashion, her relationship with her sister. Multiple times throughout the film, Coco mentions her parents and her time at the orphanage, the story always different than the last time. Did she experience shame over this? Adrienne came in and out of the story and her storyline was not concluded. Her last appearance in the film is at Coco's house/studio
I was not “gripped” by this film in the least, even though whoever wrote the back of the DVD claimed that it would be. The drama that's also touted in the film I found to be very pretentious and uninteresting. Where there was a lot of opportunity to make this film more visually pleasing, the film chose instead to focus on the melodramatic elements of Coco's story instead of playing up her independence and drive to succeed.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
New on Blu: The Book of Eli
| by Allan Stackhouse |
If you're like me, you didn't bother to see this film. It may have interested you at the time of its release but it just wasn't enough to get twelve or however many dollars out of you to see some Denzel. Even with my $12 in tact, Denzel delivers in The Book of Eli. Not only is his acting great but the technical elements were visually stunning as well. I unfortunately had to rent this on DVD because the Blu-ray copies were out at Blockbuster but even displayed with an upscaled image, the cinematography was well done.
In its first eight minutes, there is no dialogue. Nothing but Eli's actions and the disarray and shambles of his surroundings tell a story. There are no people around him except the dead. Everything is barren, indicating some sort of post-Apocalyptic event. He searches in a cautious manner, despite the silence, for something we come to find out are shoes. This dependence on setting, props, costume, and cinematography to set up the story is brilliant. I wish more films would rely more on those features to tell their stories.
Eli as a character is complex - he is a fighter, intelligent, and religious. There is a scene where he slowly drifts into the shadow from a tunnel and, as just a silhouette, quickly dispatches seven armed hijackers. The action is beautiful. Body parts fall and blood flies from Eli's whetted blade. Eli is established early on as an anti-hero. He does not allow the hijackers female member to come with him. At the point when Eli sees a couple getting murdered, he does nothing except recite, “Stay on the path” while the woman screams for her life. This reluctance to assist others despite a small amount of effort to do so asks the viewers if he's really a hero or if his quest is really that important.
The fight scene in the bar was lively on its own with heads being offed left and right but the camera's movement adds another layer of dimension to it instead of this angle after that angle and another angle to feature this move, etc. The camera completes two 360s, mixed with some rotating closer angles, before Eli dispatches the last of his attackers.
The conflict of the film is centered around the book, its value worth taking lives to protect. That importance is unfortunately manifested in a very melodramatic manner in the film's second and third acts. Gary Oldman's Carnegie hurting Solara's mother (Jennifer Beals) to get her to tell him what Eli had? Call me very bored. The action fortunately makes up for it with its revelation that Eli is bullet proof, simply walking away from the gunmen and using no more than 1 or 2 bullets to dispatch each one. The reasoning behind this being holy is acceptable but the revelation that Eli was blind the entire time was too much.
One actor's acting that I did not appreciate was Jennifer Beals'. Her vacuous stare into nothingness and ability to still walk around unaided was so distracting. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized she was blind. There could have been any number of things to help indicate to the viewer that she was visually impaired but I found the question to nag me like a mosquito. I understand that this was to give Carnegie his final blow but we see it coming and we don't care because it was so poorly constructed in the first place. Gary Oldman's performance is way too over the top. It's abundantly theatrical in comparison to Denzel Washington and Mila Kunis' restraint.
The sepia tones helped to give the sense of a barren atmosphere. It's not explained what exactly has happened to the earth, which is fine since the story is not a dying human race story. The brownish tones indicate some sort of massive pollution or something going wrong with the sun. The visual storytelling in this film was very well done. In one scene, Solara stops in the middle of their walk, still reeling from her attack. Eli comforts her, revealing growth in his character.
I was a little confused as to what the message the film was trying to convey. Was it save the environment? Save religion? I don't know. This ends up being the film's downfall. The story is not particularly exciting. Eli is trying to get to the copy of the bible to the west so it can do what? Save themselves despite the country being laid to waste? There's no actual stakes in this film which is very unfortunate since it was complemented by rich images and terrific action sequences.
Despite my high marks for its technical achievements, I didn't completely enjoy The Book of Eli as a film. The film's entire focus is on the importance of this book which, in the end, did nothing. Talk about anticlimactic. Had the story's choice been to use this anticlimax to highlight a more tangible or visual purpose, I would have understood. The film ends with book being published and placed on a shelf. Okay, so it's just going to sit there? It's not going to be spread to the masses and change the ways of the vagrants in the few and small towns that still exist? This importance completely gets away from the film when it could have easily provided an appropriate conclusion for an otherwise okay film.
As a side note, I adore that Allen and Albert Hughes, two African American brothers, are making a name for themselves with their now second big budget film but if they expect to make films higher than their average 6.8 rating on IMDb, they are going to have to be more aware of the direction of the story.
If you're like me, you didn't bother to see this film. It may have interested you at the time of its release but it just wasn't enough to get twelve or however many dollars out of you to see some Denzel. Even with my $12 in tact, Denzel delivers in The Book of Eli. Not only is his acting great but the technical elements were visually stunning as well. I unfortunately had to rent this on DVD because the Blu-ray copies were out at Blockbuster but even displayed with an upscaled image, the cinematography was well done.
In its first eight minutes, there is no dialogue. Nothing but Eli's actions and the disarray and shambles of his surroundings tell a story. There are no people around him except the dead. Everything is barren, indicating some sort of post-Apocalyptic event. He searches in a cautious manner, despite the silence, for something we come to find out are shoes. This dependence on setting, props, costume, and cinematography to set up the story is brilliant. I wish more films would rely more on those features to tell their stories.
Eli as a character is complex - he is a fighter, intelligent, and religious. There is a scene where he slowly drifts into the shadow from a tunnel and, as just a silhouette, quickly dispatches seven armed hijackers. The action is beautiful. Body parts fall and blood flies from Eli's whetted blade. Eli is established early on as an anti-hero. He does not allow the hijackers female member to come with him. At the point when Eli sees a couple getting murdered, he does nothing except recite, “Stay on the path” while the woman screams for her life. This reluctance to assist others despite a small amount of effort to do so asks the viewers if he's really a hero or if his quest is really that important.
The fight scene in the bar was lively on its own with heads being offed left and right but the camera's movement adds another layer of dimension to it instead of this angle after that angle and another angle to feature this move, etc. The camera completes two 360s, mixed with some rotating closer angles, before Eli dispatches the last of his attackers.
The conflict of the film is centered around the book, its value worth taking lives to protect. That importance is unfortunately manifested in a very melodramatic manner in the film's second and third acts. Gary Oldman's Carnegie hurting Solara's mother (Jennifer Beals) to get her to tell him what Eli had? Call me very bored. The action fortunately makes up for it with its revelation that Eli is bullet proof, simply walking away from the gunmen and using no more than 1 or 2 bullets to dispatch each one. The reasoning behind this being holy is acceptable but the revelation that Eli was blind the entire time was too much.
One actor's acting that I did not appreciate was Jennifer Beals'. Her vacuous stare into nothingness and ability to still walk around unaided was so distracting. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized she was blind. There could have been any number of things to help indicate to the viewer that she was visually impaired but I found the question to nag me like a mosquito. I understand that this was to give Carnegie his final blow but we see it coming and we don't care because it was so poorly constructed in the first place. Gary Oldman's performance is way too over the top. It's abundantly theatrical in comparison to Denzel Washington and Mila Kunis' restraint.
The sepia tones helped to give the sense of a barren atmosphere. It's not explained what exactly has happened to the earth, which is fine since the story is not a dying human race story. The brownish tones indicate some sort of massive pollution or something going wrong with the sun. The visual storytelling in this film was very well done. In one scene, Solara stops in the middle of their walk, still reeling from her attack. Eli comforts her, revealing growth in his character.
I was a little confused as to what the message the film was trying to convey. Was it save the environment? Save religion? I don't know. This ends up being the film's downfall. The story is not particularly exciting. Eli is trying to get to the copy of the bible to the west so it can do what? Save themselves despite the country being laid to waste? There's no actual stakes in this film which is very unfortunate since it was complemented by rich images and terrific action sequences.
Despite my high marks for its technical achievements, I didn't completely enjoy The Book of Eli as a film. The film's entire focus is on the importance of this book which, in the end, did nothing. Talk about anticlimactic. Had the story's choice been to use this anticlimax to highlight a more tangible or visual purpose, I would have understood. The film ends with book being published and placed on a shelf. Okay, so it's just going to sit there? It's not going to be spread to the masses and change the ways of the vagrants in the few and small towns that still exist? This importance completely gets away from the film when it could have easily provided an appropriate conclusion for an otherwise okay film.
As a side note, I adore that Allen and Albert Hughes, two African American brothers, are making a name for themselves with their now second big budget film but if they expect to make films higher than their average 6.8 rating on IMDb, they are going to have to be more aware of the direction of the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)