Change Your Image
DirectedByBrian
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Les Misérables (2012)
Beautiful Music, Shaky Image
A full-bodied cinematic treatment of the unstoppable Broadway hit. Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean is perfect. Russell Crowe sounds a little like he wishes they had lowered his songs by a couple of keys, but is otherwise strong as the embodiment of the Law, Inspector Javert. Anne Hathaway bravely lets the make-up department rob her of all her beauty and drag her interpretation of Fantine into utter despair, but Samantha Barks seems to have insisted that Parisian street urchins like Eponine can manage to look like skin care models while surviving poverty-stricken Parisian winters.
No expense is spared on costumes and sets, and the complications of having actors sing their roles live instead of pre-recorded was worth the results of some very emotional solos - some of which could have benefited from the occasional cut to a different angle.
And thank goodness they had the foresight to replace the pathetic synthesizers of the original cast recording with full orchestration throughout! The music for the film is everything it should have been 20 years ago - and some orchestration is even altered better to reflect the emotions of the moment, such as some very ominous undertones shortly before a key character's suicide.
With all this lush production value, it's a shame someone kept poking me at regular and extended intervals throughout the movie, totally distracting me from the emotional impact. Oh, wait, sorry, that was just the shaky-cam. I know, you're going to say it's irritating how much I complain about that, but in terms of concentrating on the movie and totally losing myself in its embrace, "organic shake" is to my mind as someone's elbow is to my ribs. I can't help it, it's not something that will ever "grow on me" or be an "acquired taste". It is something I do - not - like. It ruined several moments of the film for me, period.
Excessive close-ups and fast cutting during "Master of the House" deprive us of the joy of watching the Thenardiers go about their pick-pocketing. You can see that it is happening, but the deftness of their methodology is obscured and rendered joyless when that should have been one of the most rollicking moments. It was still more rollicking than any other moment in such a heavy musical, but it lacked the pizazz I was looking forward to.
Throw in some shots that violate the Rule of Thirds and Look-space for no apparent or useful reason - in layman's terms, look for characters' heads so low in the screen something just looks like a mistake instead of a well-framed shot - and I am befuddled by what the director and cinematographer were thinking they were adding to the production value with many of their camera choices.
It's a big movie, crafted with care. I cried a couple of times, so for the most part, it works. But it's not perfect, and I can't say I left "amazed" or with any interest in seeing it more than once.
Leatherheads (2008)
Charming and Frivolous Fun
Months ago when I saw an ad for "Leatherheads", my first thought was: How many movies can Hollywood possibly make about football?? We've had "Remember the Titans", "We Are Marshall", "Friday Night Lights", "Rudy", "Radio", "Any Given Sunday", "The Longest Yard" (original and remake), "The Program", "Varsity Blues", "Jerry Maguire", "Hometown Legend", "Facing the Giants", "Necessary Roughness" shall I go on? Even the Marx Brothers fooled around with the sport in "Horse Feathers".
I've seen about half of those, and they vary in entertainment quality; but still, did we really need another one? How many times can we see that plucky underdog team with the inept, quirk-ridden players face insurmountable odds to pull off a nail-biting victory against a cocky, well-organized opponent of legendary status? Apparently one more: With "Leatherheads", George Clooney creates one of the funniest comedies I've seen in years.
Clooney directs himself as "Dodge" Connelly, a pro-football player in the 1920's, when "pro" was a laughable term. In an effort to save the bankrupt sport, Connelly schemes to hire college football hero Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski), whose game skills, coupled with his story of taking out an entire German platoon by himself, has made him America's poster boy.
Reporter Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger) doubts Rutherford's war story and sets out to expose him. But she didn't expect Rutherford to take a liking to her. Nor did she expect Connelly to find her fascinating as well. In the end, it's more than a game between Duluth and Chicago; it's also a fight to the finish over who wins Littleton's affections.
George Clooney directs with the same snappy panache he has on screen. From the opening ragtime drumbeat to the last drive off into the sunset, the film is infused with an immensely buoyant spirit that makes the entire film a viewing pleasure.
The script by Duncan Brantley and Rick Reilly is funny, lively, and frequently clever. Sure, it falls right into line with every other underdog sports story, but it also manages to prove that thought and creativity can still overcome formulaic doldrums. Whiplash conversations between the feisty Connelly and the irascible Littleton had me laughing out loud, and more often than any film in the past twelve months.
The leading trio of Clooney, Zellweger, and Krasinksi are well-cast. Clooney brings back the comical timing and facial mugging that added a dash of zaniness to his roles in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" and "Intolerable Cruelty", and combines it with a suave veneer that makes him an irresistible personality. Miss Zellweger is, basically, her usual self. I've never been fond of her as an actress it's either the voice or the constant pouting expression but she certainly does no harm here. She doesn't quite nail the Rosalind Russell persona she seems to be reaching for, though what she comes up with still works well against Clooney's antics.
John Krasinski, from last year's unforgivable "License to Wed", is dashing and charming as a young college athlete. He has a nice blend of both shyness and confidence, and a killer smile. I have no doubt we'll be seeing much more of him on film screens in the future.
The film is populated with some of today's most versatile character performers, including some of Clooney's fellow Coen Brothers alumni: Wayne Duvall is the Duluth manager with a constant wad of tobacco clogging every sentence he utters; Stephen Root is the team's on-staff flask-toting reporter; Heather Goldenhersh puts in a cameo as a ditsy flapper; and the legendary Jonathan Pryce plays smarmy financier C.C. Frazier.
The combined effect of all the wacky personalities, which includes the entire Duluth team of misfits, results in some of the best screwball comedy moments you're sure to see this decade. Oh, the history of screwball comedy has seen better films, to be sure; but while "Leatherheads" may be pale when compared to the likes of "Bringing Up Baby", it is nonetheless a strong contender in the field. (It is also far less exhausting than listening to Katherine Hepburn rattle off a thousand words a minute.)
The film itself looks beautiful. James Bissell's sets, lit and photographed by Newton Thomas Sigel, are as charming as the actors moving within them. And Randy Newman's toe-tapping ragtime pumps it all up that much more. The whole production evokes a vivid sense of nostalgia, and very much feels like we are back in the 20's even though they didn't have such rich, colorful film stock back then.
I'm not a doom-sayer about our economy, but there's a kind of irony in the fact that the film takes place just four years before the Great Depression. If you're finding yourself cutting back on your entertainment budget and don't want to risk ten bucks until you get a second opinion, allow me to recommend "Leatherheads". Of course we all have differing views on which films are worth the ten bucks, but your face will pretty much have to be chiseled in stone to not crack a few smiles during the film's run. I was still smiling when I reached my car.
One Missed Call (2008)
The Bottom Has Been Scraped
Like many lousy horror films, the premise to "One Missed Call" isn't half bad, though perhaps a bit recycled. In this one, Leann Cole (Azura Skye) receives a strange voice-mail message: Her own voice, panicked, terrified, and screaming. Two days later, she dies in a freak accident, uttering the same words and screams that she heard on her cell phone.
One by one, the members of Leann's circle of friends receive phone messages of themselves moments before death only to end up dying exactly as indicated. Beth Raymond (Shannyn Sossamon) witnesses all this but can't explain it. And when her own phone rings, Beth hears her coming demise and has barely a day to discover who is placing the calls and why.
Whether you liked "The Ring" or not, there was a certain novelty to it at the time. Then came "The Grudge", "Dark Water", "The Skeleton Key", and a dozen others. With "One Missed Call", Hollywood isn't just scraping the bottom of the barrel, they're turning the barrel over and seeing if any residue is clinging to the underside.
Andrew Klavan wrote the screenplay, based on a Japanese novel and script. I can't speak for the quality of his source material, but Klavan does nothing to elevate the story to any level of class. If you thought the original Halloween was ridiculous for having Jamie Lee Curtis run upstairs(!) and hide in a closet(!) to escape her supernatural stalker, then Beth's foray into a hospital's air ducts will have you groaning in sheer disdain.
The acting is decidedly poor. But it's not the kind of lousy acting that speaks ill of the performers. Instead, it feels like director Eric Valette actually requested the delivery we see on-screen. It may have something to do with the fact that Valette is a native Frenchman, that his last film job was six years before, and that "One Missed Call" is his American debut. He's reaching across cultural and linguistic borders for the first time, and it shows.
But there's a bigger problem running through the entire film.
Every film creates its own universe. Some are worlds just like ours, some are complete fantasies. But all of them must create rules of operation, including how the spiritual elements function. Even if the audience isn't aware of the rules, the writer and director must have them in mind.
"One Missed Call" creates rules, and then inexplicably ignores them at random. For example, as the victims each get closer to death, they begin seeing strange apparitions. These apparitions are the same every time, and are actually clues to what is going on. But when one character dies in a Catholic church, in addition to the apparitions she also sees the icons of Mary and the Apostles begin distorting into gruesome figures. It may be a cool visual effect, but it breaks the rules and has nothing to do with anything before or after.
That same death illustrates another violation. All the previous deaths have been made to look like freak accidents, but the girl in the church is visibly strangled by a ghostly figure.
I would suggest the rule-breaking is because the director cared more about cool shots, cheap scares, and phony tension. Our evil spirit moves quickly behind frightened characters, heard only because the sound crew puts in an overused "whhht!" to get us to jump. But the spirit proves that it does not need to materialize at all in order to stalk and kill, so why bother whhht-ing around the place? And if time and space are no obstacle, why travel through the cell phone at all? Why bother warning people they are about to die? And why do all of Beth's friends get two days' warning when Beth only gets one? Why drag the apparitions into it? Why list one of the stars as Ed Burns in the opening credits, and Edward Burns in the end credits? If they can't even get the credits congruent; what hope do we have of anything in between being any good? Instead of playing out the basic premise with care and consistency, Valette and Klavan mash various creepy ideas into the story until what's left horrifies us only because of its sheer stupidity.
300 (2006)
Breaking ground that's already been broken is not "Ground-breaking"
No doubt you've heard of "300" by now? For the past six months, I haven't been able to browse the internet for five minutes without running across the film's blood-spattered logo. And thanks to funding from the Warner Bros. promotions department, you can now save up to 300 pictures on your MySpace page. I'm just waiting for them to send me $300 for sitting through one of the most boring films I've seen in years.
Oh, but wait, I go to movies hoping to see interesting characters do interesting things. Silly me, this is a film for people who like to see brawny men with perfect six-packs slash people open and run them through in slow-motion while blood and slurping sound effects satisfy their blood lust. Never mind a creative story! What was I thinking??
Basically, if you've seen "Gladiator", "Braveheart", "The Patriot", "Troy", "Alexander", "King Arthur", and "Kingdom of Heaven", you've seen "300". The film opens with deep rumblings on ancient instruments while a narrator catches us up on eons of history and tradition in this case, how Spartan warriors were manufactured. And how the Persians want to rule the world, and how the Spartans aren't crazy about that idea, but how their politicians aren't crazy about going out to fight, and how King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) isn't crazy about the politicians.
So Leonidas defies the Council (surprise!) and takes his three hundred Spartans out to fight the Persians, leaving behind (surprise!) a wife and son. The army is (surprise!) outnumbered, but they are (surprise!) better strategists. There are some shifty-eyed traitors (surprise!), and certain key characters will (surprise!) give their lives, driving the ones who cared about them to (surprise!) frenzied madness.
There are rousing speeches that an army of ten thousand can all supposedly hear, long fights that put the plot on hold for ten minutes or more, excited young warriors and crusty old ones, a leader repeatedly yelling "Spartans!" in an English accent (the universal "foreign language"), and even a wheat field for a warrior to walk through. Where's Russell Crowe when you need him?
It's not that any of this is done carelessly or less ably. It's just that it's all been done before. Many times. Somewhere in a Hollywood library there's a book titled "The Epic War Movie Formula", I'm sure of it.
Knowing they had nothing new on their hands, Hollywood fell back on its usual methods for creating novelty out of nothing. I can hear the producers now: "More slow-motion! More blood! More sex!" And that's what we get. Apparently it worked: "300" topped the box office during its first weekend out. The showing I attended was populated with about eight people, all of us male, half of us below 35, and two of them right in front of me going "Oooo!" at each new death.
When Quentin Tarantino created "Pulp Fiction", he said he hoped its success would legitimize violence as an art form. His dream has come true: The fight choreography in "300" borders on a gruesome and ultra-bloody ballet, if ballet were set to electric guitars. This is the first film I've seen based on a Frank Miller graphic novel (highbrow term for "comic book"), and its veneration of gore does not inspire me to rent "Sin City".
Thanks to the wonders of computer imagery we are treated to two decapitations. No need to slyly edit around the part where an actor is replaced by a headless mannequin. Now computer artists can simulate the blade going through the skin tissue and spine, leaving the slightest layer of epidermis to hold the head in place until it tears and the head tumbles to the ground while the neck compulsively spurts out the body's pressurized blood and the corpse collapses, all in glorious slow motion. If that description sounds cool to you and has you licking your lips like Joaquin Phoenix in "Gladiator", fine, go see "300". Just don't come near me or my family.
And certainly don't go expecting to learn any real history. Among other issues: While "The Patriot" consulted the Smithsonian on accurate costuming, "300" apparently consulted Playgirl Magazine. I had no idea ancient Sparta was so chock-full of sexy brainless men who would rather show off their pecs than wear life-saving armor!
While it's never a point of discussion, "300" would also have us believe that the heroic Spartans are the happily married heterosexuals, while any homosexuals and transsexuals are all members of the enemy Persian camp. Interesting that a movie with this unspoken prejudice would be slipping under today's Radar of Tolerance so easily.
So this is what modern movie making has come to. With the way the guys in the audience around me were eliciting grunts of approval over each "awesome" beheading or dismemberment, I figure it won't be long before we're charging admission to let people watch political dissidents and Christians get thrown to lions. I'm glad our culture has become so civilized.
Time Changer (2002)
Good Theme, Problematic Delivery
Despite being a fundamental Christian, I rarely watch Christian films because Christian films have long been synonymous with mediocre acting, a laughable script, and horrid image quality. In renting "Time Changer" I was braced to slog through something embarrassingly bad. I found myself pleasantly surprised.
"Time Changer" begins in 1890, as seminary professor Russell Carlisle is soon to have a book published. Everyone on the faculty is prepared to endorse the work, with one exception: Dr. Norris Anderson objects to Carlisle's contention that it is good to teach the commandments of Christ to all men, saved and unsaved, in the interest of improving society. He tells Carlisle that it is spiritually deadly to convince people to live good lives apart from a saving faith in Christ - they would think they were achieving their own salvation by being good, while instead being destined for Hell.
To prove his point, Anderson invites Carlisle to his barn, where he reveals a time machine. Anderson claims to have already used the machine to see approximately one hundred years into the future. And he believes that what he has seen will change Carlisle's mind about preaching Moralism. Now Anderson proposes that Carlisle see for himself. Anderson pulls the levers, and the incredulous Carlisle finds himself in the 21st century.
After some befuddling encounters with modern technology, Carlisle buys a hot dog from a vendor in the park. A little girl steals the hot dog, and Carlisle apprehends her, reprimanding her and pointing out that stealing is wrong. The girl rebuts with, "Says who?" and departs. Watching after her, Carlisle realizes that his reprimand has held no meaning with her because she does not know or fear the Lord.
This and other encounters with sinful situations drive Carlisle to the very conclusion Dr. Anderson insisted upon: The teaching of morals without the authority of Jesus Christ is dangerous in the way it convinces people that Good Works are enough for a happy existence and a positive afterlife. Carlisle returns to his own time with his eyes opened.
This is by far the best-looking Christian film I have seen. The sets, the costumes, the make-up, and the very actors themselves look good. I felt, at long last, like I was watching a real film that happened to be Christian. But despite its quality production values, "Time Changer" has a long way to go. For this review, I will go straight to what I feel is the most serious issue: The presentation of the theme.
Anderson's theme can be summed up as: Teaching Moralism separate from the authority of Christ as the basis of acceptable spirituality is deadly. I agree! The problem is the film does little to support that theme. The theme is introduced in the conversation between Anderson and the seminary professors, but once Carlisle goes to the future, the theme almost completely disappears. Oh, the script has Carlisle returning to 1890 convinced that Anderson is right, but the arguments presented to the viewing audience do not stack up to make Carlisle's enlightenment legitimate. Carlisle's change is simply tacked on because the screenwriter needed it to be.
In order to examine the theme, we first need a view of the 1890's that is fundamentally different, in moral terms, from the year 2000. We need to see a culture in which Morality is undergirded with the preaching of Christ and His authority. We get none of that.
What we get is an opening scene in which a boy steals another boy's marbles. Carlisle catches him and tells him stealing is wrong. The boy runs away, unconvinced and unrepentant. I'm fine with that scene: It tells me sin existed in 1890. Now to the future, where the girl steals Carlisle's hot dog. He tells her stealing is wrong. She runs away, unconvinced and unrepentant. The script has Carlisle realizing that her unrepentance stems from the fact that he did not tell her by whose authority stealing is wrong, but such a realization makes no sense. What, in this scene, is fundamentally different from the boy stealing marbles in 1890? If anything, this scene just goes to show that sin will remain in this world until Christ returns. But to have our hero reach an epiphany here is irrational based on the set-up.
For any of Carlisle's Encounters With Sin, one wonders what we are to learn. There were people who used the name of the Lord in vain in 1890, I guarantee. Some of them wore outfits that were immodest. They stole. They disobeyed parents. They were apathetic toward the things of God. They were everything Carlisle meets in the year 2000, though maybe slightly more restrained about it. So how exactly does Carlisle's trip to the future bring him to the conclusion that it is because of teaching Moralism without teaching Christ that society is crumbling?
In order for Anderson to be right, he or Carlisle must be able to observe that it is because of teaching Moralism without teaching Christ that the year 2000 is in the state it is in. Aside from one conversation with a Christian librarian about film censorship, no such evidence is presented. What is presented is that sin has, does, and will abound until Christ destroys sin once and for all. The theme is forced on the film because that is what Christiano wants to say, and not because it is the obvious problem.
With the space I have left, I will repeat that this is the best Christian film I have seen so far. And praise the Lord for every Christian who answers the call to a higher standard of service to Christ. I just feel the film's internal logic could be much stronger, which would in turn give it a far greater impact.
A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)
Fun and imaginative -- to a certain extent
The danger in getting excited about an upcoming movie is that one might end up over-anticipating, such that the film, once finally viewed, ends up being not a bad film, but a disappointment in relative terms. Such was my case with "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events."
The film is based on the first three books of the series, which follows the unfortunate tale of the Baudelaire children: Violet, the inventive oldest sister; Klaus, the bookworm; and Sunny, the two-year old biter. These three are suddenly rendered orphans when a fire burns their house to the ground with their parents in it (all of which is off-screen so your tots won't be horrified within the first five minutes). The family banker, Mr. Poe (Timothy Spall), takes the children to live with their closest relative, the eccentric and, we soon discover, sinister Count Olaf (Jim Carrey).
Olaf makes no charade to disguise his real reason for accepting the orphans: He wants the Baudelaire fortune. But since the fortune will not pass to the guardian until the wards die, Olaf sets out to kill them. This is, of course, a dark theme, and one which I would not rush to display before children, although the theater I was in was heavily laden with impressionable youngsters. If there's a plus side, it's that the dark themes of this movie are much more subtle than, for instance, "Addams Family Values," in which Wednesday and Pugsley commit obviously and flagrantly fatal acts upon their newest sibling.
When Olaf's plan to have the children killed by locking them in a car parked on the railroad tracks fails, Mr. Poe removes them from his custody not because Olaf tried to kill them, but because he left the youngest, Sunny, in the driver's seat unattended. Neither Mr. Poe nor any other adults in the film seem to believe the children when they tattle on their uncle.
The second foster parent is Monty Montgomery (Billy Connolly), a reptilian expert, who plans to pack the children off to Peru on a little adventure until Count Olaf shows up disguised as a fellow scientist. I'm not spoiling anything by pointing out that it is indeed Olaf in disguise, because, although the make-up job is quite good, the children announce it is Olaf just seconds after seeing him. Once again, the dim-witted adult (what is the movie trying to say here?) doesn't believe the children for a moment. The grown-ups in the film could have been made a little more intelligent.
The third foster home involves Aunt Josephine (Meryl Streep) who lives practically over the sea, in a shanty that juts out off a high cliff, supported by a rickety collection of beams. There is a comic irony here, because the aunt herself is paranoid about everything ("Don't get too close to the refrigerator it might fall and crush you!") Oh, and Olaf shows up in disguise. (I get the idea this is the format of each book in the entire series.)
I am always hesitant when a film has Jim Carrey cast in anything but a normal human role. When he is given unrestrained freedom, he is unbearable ("Ace Ventura: Pet Detective"). However and this is important when his manic personality has a reason for existing, he can be delightful ("The Mask"). Here, Olaf is a decidedly overboard actor, so Carrey is an appropriate choice. And he is actually more entertaining, I think, when he is playing Olaf in disguise. His Italian scientist and his Irish sailor were entertaining to study as he performed them.
The newcomers as the Baudelaire children are adequate, given that the script does not place them in highly demanding situations. The script and director even seem to have removed opportunities for Miss Browning and Mr. Aiken to really act, such as in the scene where they learn of their parents' deaths and simply stare at the sand on the beach.
Billy Connolly and Meryl Streep seem to have fun in their supporting roles. Other actors are not on screen enough to be noticed, really which is a shame, because Timothy Spall, Jennifer Coolidge, and Catherine O'Hara are such talented and entertaining performers.
The production design by Rick Heinrichs is excellent, evoking the same visual enjoyment I got out of the Harry Potter movies, and anything directed by Terry Gilliam or Tim Burton (a friend of Heinrichs'). Olaf's house is a ghoulish run-down Gothic mansion with carved eyes in several niches and sconces; the countryside is a depressing brown haze; the seaside town is almost a painting.
And now to the disappointments, the largest of which was what I perceived to be anachronisms. The film opens in such a way that I was expecting something that, though modern, would feel old-fashioned and highly stylized. While this was largely achieved, Siberling allowed a few slips, primarily in Carrey's occasional use of "cool" lingo in amongst his more grandiose verbal gestures, and in the casting of Cedric the Entertainer as a police inspector. These are just two examples of the way the film set up a certain unity, and then took a misstep in violating that unity now and then.
The score by Thomas Newman was disappointing. I liked the "western" riff he employed during the train scene and any time Violent got a brainstorm, but otherwise, the film cried out for the comic menace of either Danny Elfman or Alan Silvestri ("Mouse Hunt" what a beautiful Main Title Theme). And Newman's composition for the closing credits was just plain wrong.
From what I saw, the works of Lemony Snicket carry the ingredients to make the kind of film I could positively drool over. But this first work (in what I hope will be an ever-improving series) feels a little undercooked. Which is unfortunate.