I should have guessed that this was a Rob Marshall film. First of all, the man is a sucker for musicals. Second, it so closely resembles the far superior "Chicago" in pattern and substance its almost a crime. The Only difference being that instead of focusing on 1920's women murder convicts (also an adaptation, by the way) it focuses on an Italian film producer in the 1960's who apparently needs the love and attention of not one, not two, but several women make his masterpiece.
It seems that the main character has some serious "mommy" issues, as evident in the first 20 minutes of the movie, which lends to his artistic ability, as well as his need for approval and attention from every woman he meets. Now, he IS Italian, so I should probably cut him some slack, but, his constant fantasies in song is a little off-putting to be honest. I guess I'm just a sucker for the "John Wayne" type of leading man, not a singing, dancing, dreaming-in-song protagonist. But what do I know. I'm not Italian.
Anyway, through all this philandering, merriment, and pre-production of the most important movie of his career, Guido (Daniel Day Lewis) finds himself losing his wife, coincidentally and surprisingly the most important woman in his life (who has put up with all his screwing every actress and writer, and, lets face it, everything else that comes his way wearing a skirt) which drives him to stop the production of the film altogether. He falls into a bout of self-pity, not working, and figuring out how to get his wife back.
In a nutshell, this movie is about a man's journey to success in the 1960's (ish?) Italian film industry, as well as an inner struggle to basically grow up and figure out what's really important in life. It is a depiction of a man's struggle to have what he wants and what he needs all at the same time. Without giving up the ending, he knows deep down he wants his wife, but needs to produce his film. At first I had my suspicions that it had a post-modern, "do what's good for you, no matter what the cost" theme, and in the end, I was right. I had the romantic hope that Guido would inevitably realize that his wife would prove most important in his life, but the ending leaves it up to individual interpretation, I suppose, depending on what his final decision was regarding the script at the end.
Technically, the singing, dancing, etc, was amazing. Of course I would not have expected anything else from a cast like this. I love Nicole Kidman's voice, ever since "Moulin Rouge". Penelope Cruz in my book is a glorified extra at best in most films, but I was surprised to see that she actually can sing, and of course, shake her ass like a pro. Kate Hudson is probably the best part, in that she is absolutely amazing. I never thought she could sing, or dance like she does for that matter. Fergie of course can sing and dance and blah blah blah, and to be honest her scene was reminiscent of a "black-eyed-peas" video set in a different time period, so, nothing really new or out of character for her. But my absolute favorite is Marion Cotillard as Duido Cotillard's wife. Great voice and amazing appeal. Also Daniel Day Lewis does a great job of projecting the male psyche of being perpetually, in a word, skeezy, but definitely in character. The acting was great, with amazing lyrics and vocals, but as far as the screenplay goes, not my favorite... I give it a 7 out of 10... I pegged it as a renter and I was definitely right.
\
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
The "Twilight" saga... a combination liturature/movie critique in progress
Just let me begin by saying, I was probably the biggest critic of this...series, epic, whatever you want to call it. I thought it was absolutely ridiculous that anyone could get that insanely stoked over vampires and ware wolves. But, on a long drive I was coaxed into listening to the first book in the series, and on the drive back I was desperate to start the second.
My skepticism about this series stemmed from not only the fact that it was primarily marketed as a "teen read", but also because the only decent Vampire movie ever made, and I still stand by this as far as quality film making goes, is "Interview With A Vampire". Every other vampire movie before and since either lacked the quality to make it enjoyable and watchable, or was just downright bad. And, in getting into this series, I really needed to put my suspension of disbelief into practice, but once I did, it really was easy to get sucked in.
Twilight- my brief Story critique of the beginning of the saga
The first book started slowly, but sucked me in to the story before I knew what happened. Not because the writing was particularly outstanding, but because the characters were absolutely intriguing to me, and this book, being the first in the series, needed to be more of a character introduction to set up for the following books. I think Bella is an idiot, in that she is 17, and all 17 year olds are somewhat stupid, wreckless, and flighty. So bravo to Stephanie Meyer there for effectively bringing me back to that mental state. Bella, a teenage girl who moves to a small town in Washington state to live with her father, falls for the most intriguing, mysterious, and dangerous guy at school Edward Cullen. Edward turns out to be a vampire who wants nothing more than to eat her ("suck her blood"). He wants her so badly, in fact, he has to leave and go "hunt" in order not to publicly expose himself to the rest of society for what he truly is by jumping on her and biting her in the middle of class. When he finally returns, he needs to get her in small doses to be able to trust himself around her, and struggles with whether or not they should even associate. By the second act of the movie, he realizes he can no longer leave her alone. He becomes so infatuated with her, that he takes it upon himself to be her personal guardian,and eventually falls in love with her.
Edward is in my mind one of the and most dynamic and complex literary villains. Over one-hundred years old, eternally in a 17 year-old's body, he is so captivated by Bella's scent that he can hardly control himself. He's never wanted to partake of a human being so badly as he wants her... she is described as his own personal brand of heroine. he belongs to a "family" of vampires who have made a truce with the natives in the area (who are the only ones who know what they truly are, and have an age old rivalry with them because the ancestors of these particular indians are ware wolves) that they would only hunt animals, not humans, which is put in jeopardy the further he carries on his relationship with Bella. his lust for her blood quickly turns into infatuation- "the lion falls in love with the lamb", (a Biblical reference which I will go into a little bit later), describes their relationship. He is soon able to put aside his innermost desires and natural instincts to attack her because his only goal as far as she is concerned is to love her and keep her safe.
While some might view this aspect of Edward's character as being "too perfect" or "unrealistic", it is the perfect depiction of real love, even Biblical love. The love depicted is that of one denying an innermost desire for the sake and good of another, which is absolute, perfect love. Time and time again throughout the series Edward tries, sometimes in vain, to selflessly think of Bella's safety and happiness over his own comfort and desires. He even denies her begging to make her a vampire as well (for as long as possible, anyway) in order to save her soul, so that she does not face the same fate he does of eternal damnation. This is the ultimate self sacrifice as far as his character is concerned, which is why i find him to be such an intriguing villain.
The graphic for this novel, which is also seen in the movie, is two hands grasping an apple, a reference to Genesis when Eve is tempted by the forbidden fruit... a direct parallel to both Bella and Edward's plight in the story. So their relationship in essence is one of mutual obsession, and equal risk to both parties; Bella risks being eaten, and Edward risks exposing him and his family and losing everything.
In addition to Edward, the entire Cullen "family" are some of my favorite characters. They are not the same as the other vampires who give into their lust for blood, what Carlisle, the leader of the family, believes to be what damns them to hell. Though they all have bitten and killed humans because after all, they are vampires, they try their best to go against that nature and only hunt animals. The reason I think this family is so endearing is because they portray human's innate need for redemption. Just as this clan strives to live their 'lives' as the undead in a way that will somehow redeem them from their fate to live forever as soulless killers, we as sinners strive to be redeemed from the fall in the garden of Eden.
Now, this is not that far of a reach considering the author, Stephanie Meyer belongs to the Mormon Church, and the inception of this series came to her in a dream (similar to how her religion was born). The only difference in the parallels between the fictional depiction and reality is that the Cullen's were in theory able to save themselves. Once they decided to become different, their 'salvation' (being their ability to stay pure) was purely autonomous, (a more "Mormon" based ideal) where as in the Christian faith we are saved through belief in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.
Aside from that theological observance, i actually cannot wait to read the other books, and that's really saying something, because I am SO not a reader. And like I said, If you're looking for Dickens or Austen caliber literature, you will be sorely disappointed. But if you want an easy quick read that will completely suck you in to the story and either make you fall in love with a vampire or a ware wolf... due to my lack of homage paid to the ware wold thread in the story (which is still noteworthy, just not nearly as interesting to me personally) I'm sure you can probably tell which side I am on.
The Movies "Twilight", New Moon" and "Eclipse"
I am going to categorize my critique into "story" (above) and "movies" (collectively) for one basic reason; the books go into way more detail and give you the essence of the story (the best part of this little project) where as the movies merely strive to depict the story. This is a little bit of uncharted territory for me in that I am usually the one who won't read the book, I'll just see the movie. Not only would I rather spend two hours getting the gist of the story visually rather than spend days reading it, I am always afraid that the book will minimize the impact of the movie. In this case, as I am sure would be the same in most others as well, i was right. As much as I love the art and beauty of a story told to me through light and sound, i have to admit that here the story carried most of the value. Not to say that I didn't enjoy the movies, I did. I would have enjoyed them a whole lot more if I were teenager, but I suspect I would have enjoyed them a whole lot less had I not read the book first and had the story to fall back on.
Lets start with the most obvious aspect, the acting. Dear lord. Kristen Steward (Bella) has far too many personal idiosyncrasies; it makes me think she's really not comfortable in front of a camera. Of course, I should probably give her the benefit of the doubt considering she was probably 16 when these movies started production. Taylor Lautner (Jacob) has a fantastic bod, but pretty faces don't always make for great actors. There were a few saving graces in the main cast, including Peter Facinelli (Carlisle), Anna Kendrick (Jessica) and Robert Pattinson (Edward). The rest of the supporting cast, especially in the first movie, seemed to be trying way to hard to be convincing. I think they might have gotten it together by "Eclipse" though. Everything seemed a lot less forced.
On to more good news, I thought the adaptation from the book was good. It cut out a lot of the story, but that was to be expected, and the director still made it enjoyable and entertaining.
I thought the cinematography was great, I loved the gloomy blue-ish gray hue carried throughout the whole movie, save the last scene which was actually very warm, and made Edward look nearly alive. The gloom throughout helped set the eerie small town feel, and contributed to the believability that vampires would actually reside there, and also effectively highlighted Robert Pattison's paleness. Clearly I have fallen prey at least in some measure to the Twilight-mania sweeping the nation, absurd as I know it is, and hopefully after I'm finished reading ALL these books (which will probably be around the same time the last of the movies comes out, circa 2013) I will not have let my mind turn into mush indulging in my new guilty pleasure... Oh well, there could be worse things, right?
My skepticism about this series stemmed from not only the fact that it was primarily marketed as a "teen read", but also because the only decent Vampire movie ever made, and I still stand by this as far as quality film making goes, is "Interview With A Vampire". Every other vampire movie before and since either lacked the quality to make it enjoyable and watchable, or was just downright bad. And, in getting into this series, I really needed to put my suspension of disbelief into practice, but once I did, it really was easy to get sucked in.
Twilight- my brief Story critique of the beginning of the saga
The first book started slowly, but sucked me in to the story before I knew what happened. Not because the writing was particularly outstanding, but because the characters were absolutely intriguing to me, and this book, being the first in the series, needed to be more of a character introduction to set up for the following books. I think Bella is an idiot, in that she is 17, and all 17 year olds are somewhat stupid, wreckless, and flighty. So bravo to Stephanie Meyer there for effectively bringing me back to that mental state. Bella, a teenage girl who moves to a small town in Washington state to live with her father, falls for the most intriguing, mysterious, and dangerous guy at school Edward Cullen. Edward turns out to be a vampire who wants nothing more than to eat her ("suck her blood"). He wants her so badly, in fact, he has to leave and go "hunt" in order not to publicly expose himself to the rest of society for what he truly is by jumping on her and biting her in the middle of class. When he finally returns, he needs to get her in small doses to be able to trust himself around her, and struggles with whether or not they should even associate. By the second act of the movie, he realizes he can no longer leave her alone. He becomes so infatuated with her, that he takes it upon himself to be her personal guardian,and eventually falls in love with her.
Edward is in my mind one of the and most dynamic and complex literary villains. Over one-hundred years old, eternally in a 17 year-old's body, he is so captivated by Bella's scent that he can hardly control himself. He's never wanted to partake of a human being so badly as he wants her... she is described as his own personal brand of heroine. he belongs to a "family" of vampires who have made a truce with the natives in the area (who are the only ones who know what they truly are, and have an age old rivalry with them because the ancestors of these particular indians are ware wolves) that they would only hunt animals, not humans, which is put in jeopardy the further he carries on his relationship with Bella. his lust for her blood quickly turns into infatuation- "the lion falls in love with the lamb", (a Biblical reference which I will go into a little bit later), describes their relationship. He is soon able to put aside his innermost desires and natural instincts to attack her because his only goal as far as she is concerned is to love her and keep her safe.
While some might view this aspect of Edward's character as being "too perfect" or "unrealistic", it is the perfect depiction of real love, even Biblical love. The love depicted is that of one denying an innermost desire for the sake and good of another, which is absolute, perfect love. Time and time again throughout the series Edward tries, sometimes in vain, to selflessly think of Bella's safety and happiness over his own comfort and desires. He even denies her begging to make her a vampire as well (for as long as possible, anyway) in order to save her soul, so that she does not face the same fate he does of eternal damnation. This is the ultimate self sacrifice as far as his character is concerned, which is why i find him to be such an intriguing villain.
The graphic for this novel, which is also seen in the movie, is two hands grasping an apple, a reference to Genesis when Eve is tempted by the forbidden fruit... a direct parallel to both Bella and Edward's plight in the story. So their relationship in essence is one of mutual obsession, and equal risk to both parties; Bella risks being eaten, and Edward risks exposing him and his family and losing everything.
In addition to Edward, the entire Cullen "family" are some of my favorite characters. They are not the same as the other vampires who give into their lust for blood, what Carlisle, the leader of the family, believes to be what damns them to hell. Though they all have bitten and killed humans because after all, they are vampires, they try their best to go against that nature and only hunt animals. The reason I think this family is so endearing is because they portray human's innate need for redemption. Just as this clan strives to live their 'lives' as the undead in a way that will somehow redeem them from their fate to live forever as soulless killers, we as sinners strive to be redeemed from the fall in the garden of Eden.
Now, this is not that far of a reach considering the author, Stephanie Meyer belongs to the Mormon Church, and the inception of this series came to her in a dream (similar to how her religion was born). The only difference in the parallels between the fictional depiction and reality is that the Cullen's were in theory able to save themselves. Once they decided to become different, their 'salvation' (being their ability to stay pure) was purely autonomous, (a more "Mormon" based ideal) where as in the Christian faith we are saved through belief in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.
Aside from that theological observance, i actually cannot wait to read the other books, and that's really saying something, because I am SO not a reader. And like I said, If you're looking for Dickens or Austen caliber literature, you will be sorely disappointed. But if you want an easy quick read that will completely suck you in to the story and either make you fall in love with a vampire or a ware wolf... due to my lack of homage paid to the ware wold thread in the story (which is still noteworthy, just not nearly as interesting to me personally) I'm sure you can probably tell which side I am on.
The Movies "Twilight", New Moon" and "Eclipse"
I am going to categorize my critique into "story" (above) and "movies" (collectively) for one basic reason; the books go into way more detail and give you the essence of the story (the best part of this little project) where as the movies merely strive to depict the story. This is a little bit of uncharted territory for me in that I am usually the one who won't read the book, I'll just see the movie. Not only would I rather spend two hours getting the gist of the story visually rather than spend days reading it, I am always afraid that the book will minimize the impact of the movie. In this case, as I am sure would be the same in most others as well, i was right. As much as I love the art and beauty of a story told to me through light and sound, i have to admit that here the story carried most of the value. Not to say that I didn't enjoy the movies, I did. I would have enjoyed them a whole lot more if I were teenager, but I suspect I would have enjoyed them a whole lot less had I not read the book first and had the story to fall back on.
Lets start with the most obvious aspect, the acting. Dear lord. Kristen Steward (Bella) has far too many personal idiosyncrasies; it makes me think she's really not comfortable in front of a camera. Of course, I should probably give her the benefit of the doubt considering she was probably 16 when these movies started production. Taylor Lautner (Jacob) has a fantastic bod, but pretty faces don't always make for great actors. There were a few saving graces in the main cast, including Peter Facinelli (Carlisle), Anna Kendrick (Jessica) and Robert Pattinson (Edward). The rest of the supporting cast, especially in the first movie, seemed to be trying way to hard to be convincing. I think they might have gotten it together by "Eclipse" though. Everything seemed a lot less forced.
On to more good news, I thought the adaptation from the book was good. It cut out a lot of the story, but that was to be expected, and the director still made it enjoyable and entertaining.
I thought the cinematography was great, I loved the gloomy blue-ish gray hue carried throughout the whole movie, save the last scene which was actually very warm, and made Edward look nearly alive. The gloom throughout helped set the eerie small town feel, and contributed to the believability that vampires would actually reside there, and also effectively highlighted Robert Pattison's paleness. Clearly I have fallen prey at least in some measure to the Twilight-mania sweeping the nation, absurd as I know it is, and hopefully after I'm finished reading ALL these books (which will probably be around the same time the last of the movies comes out, circa 2013) I will not have let my mind turn into mush indulging in my new guilty pleasure... Oh well, there could be worse things, right?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Valentine's Day
First just let me say I think Garry Marshall has done some great work, and I am truly a fan of a lot of what he has done. Pretty Woman is still one of the best chick flicks of all time. His latest endeavor has fallen short in my opinion. Maybe going into it my expectations were just too high. Honestly, how can you go wrong with a cast that huge, and a director who has cranked out some of the best romantic comedies of our time? I think that it was just too much for the old boy to handle. It did have all of the classic signs of a Garry Marshall film. For instance, the use of three or four of the same actors he always employs in his movies, including Hector Elizondo; a walk-on self cameo, witty lines, and of course, a happy ending...or rather endINGS in this case.
The entire time I was watching it I was comparing it to "Love Actually", which follows the same pattern of having many intertwined "mini-stories" instead of one main linear plot. The main difference between the two (other than one being British made, and the other made in the good old U.S.A) is that in "Valentine's Day", the only common thread among all the characters was the day February 14th. In "Love Actually", the theme throughout was "love is all around, it may come in different forms, but it's still there". In short, I felt that it seriously lacked cohesion. The lines were great, and most of the mini-stories were great in themselves, but I feel as an audience we didn't get to see enough character and overall story development to enjoy it like we should.
There were a few non-predictable plot lines that I actually liked. My favorite was Julia Robert's role of a soldier on her way home to visit her son for only a few hours before returning to active duty. The outcome of Robert's character's journey actually evoked tears, and I loved it.
The other plot line that I thought actually held something more than either devastation or predictability was the one between Topher Grace and Ann Hathaway. I won't give it away, but when he finally came around (with the help of Hector Elizondo and Shirley McClain) he realized that when you really love someone, you have to love all of them, not just the parts you like.
Among the muuuultiple other plot lines there were some good messages as well, such as forgiveness, the value of abstinence, the fact that single people actually CAN have fun on Valentines Day; and sometimes, it doesn't matter how beautiful someone is, they can still be totally awful people underneath.
Which leads me to a funny point I just realized about the movie. They took McDreamy, McSteamy, and Bradley Cooper and took the dreamy, steamy and hotness right out of them by making one character a lying, cheating scumbag, and the other two gay... talk about disappointment!
Anyway, I really DID want to like it, and I'm not saying it was terrible. I'm just saying it was predictable and made it difficult to get involved with any of the characters to a decent degree. Outside of one or two of them, the characters were basically flat and seemed to serve more as place-holders than anything else. this is one of the main reasons it was difficult to enjoy. By making it difficult to really get involved with the characters, I felt like I was just watching a bunch of people I didn't really care about go through their day. When it comes down to it, that was the main problem. No cohesion between the characters, and no real connection between the characters and the audience. I rate this one a renter for a night in alone. C+, B- at best.
Other fun points I noticed:
- Taylor Swift was annoying as HELL, and I feel like the movie served as a plug for her music. This was disappointing because I do like her... yet more proof that singers SHOULD NOT try to act (as if we needed more proof after Justin Timberlake, PDiddy, and JLo)
-Jessica Beil should retire, or just model- she can't act.
- no matter how big of a jerk he plays, Patrick Dempsey still has the ability to make the female masses swoon.
The entire time I was watching it I was comparing it to "Love Actually", which follows the same pattern of having many intertwined "mini-stories" instead of one main linear plot. The main difference between the two (other than one being British made, and the other made in the good old U.S.A) is that in "Valentine's Day", the only common thread among all the characters was the day February 14th. In "Love Actually", the theme throughout was "love is all around, it may come in different forms, but it's still there". In short, I felt that it seriously lacked cohesion. The lines were great, and most of the mini-stories were great in themselves, but I feel as an audience we didn't get to see enough character and overall story development to enjoy it like we should.
There were a few non-predictable plot lines that I actually liked. My favorite was Julia Robert's role of a soldier on her way home to visit her son for only a few hours before returning to active duty. The outcome of Robert's character's journey actually evoked tears, and I loved it.
The other plot line that I thought actually held something more than either devastation or predictability was the one between Topher Grace and Ann Hathaway. I won't give it away, but when he finally came around (with the help of Hector Elizondo and Shirley McClain) he realized that when you really love someone, you have to love all of them, not just the parts you like.
Among the muuuultiple other plot lines there were some good messages as well, such as forgiveness, the value of abstinence, the fact that single people actually CAN have fun on Valentines Day; and sometimes, it doesn't matter how beautiful someone is, they can still be totally awful people underneath.
Which leads me to a funny point I just realized about the movie. They took McDreamy, McSteamy, and Bradley Cooper and took the dreamy, steamy and hotness right out of them by making one character a lying, cheating scumbag, and the other two gay... talk about disappointment!
Anyway, I really DID want to like it, and I'm not saying it was terrible. I'm just saying it was predictable and made it difficult to get involved with any of the characters to a decent degree. Outside of one or two of them, the characters were basically flat and seemed to serve more as place-holders than anything else. this is one of the main reasons it was difficult to enjoy. By making it difficult to really get involved with the characters, I felt like I was just watching a bunch of people I didn't really care about go through their day. When it comes down to it, that was the main problem. No cohesion between the characters, and no real connection between the characters and the audience. I rate this one a renter for a night in alone. C+, B- at best.
Other fun points I noticed:
- Taylor Swift was annoying as HELL, and I feel like the movie served as a plug for her music. This was disappointing because I do like her... yet more proof that singers SHOULD NOT try to act (as if we needed more proof after Justin Timberlake, PDiddy, and JLo)
-Jessica Beil should retire, or just model- she can't act.
- no matter how big of a jerk he plays, Patrick Dempsey still has the ability to make the female masses swoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)