Change Your Image
smiley_pat77
Reviews
Winter's Bone (2010)
it's built to be driven by both plot and character but only achieves one of the two.
The character of Ree is something to behold. To see the world she lives in will astound you enough, let alone how she manages to live in it. She is mighty and fierce but yet so human. She does not back down even though she often can't handle the fight. She is naive perhaps, but if she wasn't then she wouldn't be a believable 17-year-old.
Her future has very little promise. She is left with a mentally invalid mother and two younger siblings to raise. Her initial desire to join the army establishes a vague notion that she has aspirations for her life, but more importantly it solidifies the commitment she is willing to make to help her family. By the end of the ordeal that is the plot of "Winter's Bone", her path becomes more uncertain than ever. She says to her brother and sister, "I would be lost without the weight of you two on my back." That phrase resonates with you and couldn't be anymore accurate (or unsubtle). She is someone who knows nearly nothing else in life but surviving and helping her siblings survive. Yet she is determined to do those things right and well in a community where so much is wrong.
This character is truly a tribute to those youth whose lives are in some way restricted by their habitat or any circumstances beyond their control. The backbone and discipline they have is both astounding and heartbreaking. Jennifer Lawrence knows the age of her character and plays her accordingly with the appropriate amount of wariness but yet youthful optimism. She gives us hope for the character's future based on her determination but yet leaves us with uncertainty towards the stability of that hope in the years to come.
The plot to "Winter's Bone", while substantial enough and full of intensity at moments, really doesn't do much for the film with its disappointing lack of compelling mystery that you would expect given the premise. It winds up playing a supporting role with its partially unmotivated pacing that seems to do little but continue to further the story in an adequately efficient, even if not preferable, manner. The ending will intrigue you but the journey there just isn't as memorable.
What you will take away from the film is a look at the world Bree is confined to and her ability to stay afloat in it. Unfortunately, this is a story that is built to be driven by both plot and character but only achieves one of the two.
The Lovely Bones (2009)
I was in my own "In-between"
Before seeing "The Lovely Bones", I thought that, perhaps, all the negative reviews were a result of misunderstood subject matter. Maybe it was too original for people. Maybe it didn't resemble any of the conventions they anticipated it to and so they simply rebelled against wrapping their mind around it. And then I saw the movie and realized there is nothing to be misunderstood when you simply can't understand the film in the first place.
I've become accustomed to long movies from Peter Jackson, but at a mere 2 hours and 15 minutes the Subjective Time in this one is by far the longest. The movie is poorly structured without any sort of discernible arch... or at least one that I cared about. It's like the whole thing is cut up into sequences and scenes that were assembled apart from the whole and then strung together by a few very weak threads. The shifts and switchbacks are jarring and untamed. I read the book and I don't know if I could tell you what this movie is about. I found myself in my own "In-between" as I tried to decide whether it was worth trying to enjoy or should I just give up.
Part of the brilliance of "King Kong" (2005) was that it was a massive film that was given a level tenderness. It took its time. Everything could be absorbed appropriately and the emotions ran high. Jackson, however, takes a major step backwards as "The Lovely Bones" seems to have been treated as if it was established as a tender story and he desired to make it massive. It's excessively stylized and over-dramatized for something with the level of tragedy and humanity it's suppose to have. None of the emotions that it wanted me to attain were earned.
For a character-driven story, the characters have very little presence. This is a family tragedy without the family. There is no sense of the supposed coping that happens. This should have been about a family's journey towards a world without one of their own and the connections that result. There should have been despair and heart ache over the life the characters longed for and wanted but were denied at no fault of their own. Instead I ached for the movie I longed for but was denied at the fault of the filmmakers.
I will forever believe this is a story that could make a great film. In this case, it didn't happen. Nowhere close, even if it does have good singular moments. I will stand for the visuals in this film. The effects are good and the cinematography rather splendid but it's annoyingly edited. Much of the imagery is beautiful. The opening scenes play out effectively enough for the most part, particularly when Susie realizes what's happened to her as she sees her murderer in a bathtub with her own blood everywhere. Maybe I'm just thankful that the scene took place while I could still digest what was happening.
Unfortunately by the time Susie's sister, Lindsey, breaks into the killer's lair, a scene that on its own achieves a desired level of suspense, things were just too awry and I had simply stopped caring at a point about 45 minutes sooner. Alternatively, I listened to the rumbling of "Avatar" playing in the adjacent theatre, wishing that I had instead chosen to see it for a 4th viewing.
Dear John (2010)
I felt it at least wanted to do something profound at times
I really felt this movie desired to say something profound. Particularly as the ending didn't seem to specifically aim for a sentimental and teary-eyed moment as other films based on Nicholas Sparks books have done. Actually, I'll be more specific and call out "A Walk to Remember" for its watered down, flat, pathos-centered denouement. Even the very well handled adaptation of "The Notebook" sought to create some waterworks in its final moments, but that movie earned the right for that opportunity. But "Dear John" aims to end on a more thoughtful note about the timing of relationships in our lives and the affect of those timings. It wants to leave us pondering the "what if's" of life and how it's never too late to bring them back into play. The problem is that we aren't provided a story with enough depth to fully support these themes.
I was very thankful not to see the conventional third act that is present in movies like "The Proposal" or "A Walk to Remember" even if the rest of the movie plays out in a typical manner. The opening voice-over and montage is very effective, but any momentum you have coming off of it is killed by a rather lame inciting incident. The characters proceed to fall in love over the course of a couple weeks. Though they do have a slight argument when Savannah proposes that John's dad might have autism (why this wouldn't have been a fairly logical hypothesis to John, given his dad's behavior, I don't know), but they overcome this and begin a pen pal relationship when John goes abroad with the Army Special Forces.
9/11 happens and John decides to extend his time in the army. Consequentially, Savannah argues the decision claiming that she should have a say in the matter. But at this point these characters have only spent a couple weeks together in person so how can either really claim to have a decent stake in the other's decisions?
John reenlists and ends up spending the next 6 or 7 years in the army. All the while whatever longing these two have for each other is not truly illustrated. The movie plays out as if these are characters that have lived a chunk of their life together and are trying to hold on to it when the focus needs to be more on a longing for the potential they have for a relationship and the desire to carry out that potential. (For more on this, see "Atonement" [2007])
At one point it seems as if the script is going to perform a pleasant trick on us and demonstrate that it's really about something other than these supposedly star-crossed lovers, but then that excitement tapers off and the movie walks back into being more of what we expected it to be. I was very excited though to see that it wasn't trying to indulge me superficially during the last half hour or so. The lone tearful scene was well earned, even if not built up to its fullest.
This film didn't so much disappoint me as it did just fail to fully satisfy me. It at least wanted to be something with meaning and purpose, and that I must be thankful for because there are so many stories put into production that lack that quality.
Valentine's Day (2010)
Watch it only once, if that
Most formulaic romantic comedies tend to have only a handful of interesting peaks to create the skeleton that furthers the story, with the meat, more often than not, tending to be nothing but puny fluff. But what makes Valentine's Day interesting, is that it has about a dozen story lines going on at once, so there really is no time for moments of pure fluff. Almost every scene is forced to serve a purpose or else there won't be a chance for the story to play out. It's as if 8 or 10 different films are combined into one digestible whole to spare us the gruesome filler of wannabe comedy.
That's not to say that any or all of the plots are even all that interesting. The cleverest and most charming would be the one with Anne Hathaway and Topher Grace (there are way too many well-known actors in this movie to bother citing character names... in fact the characters probably should have just been named after the actors) as a couple only 2 weeks into their relationship. The most hollow would be one with Emma Roberts and Carter Jenkins as a teenage couple planning to give up their virginity during lunch hour on a school day. Surprise: mishaps occur and it doesn't work out so they decide to hold off. The consolation: "At least we can make out."
There are plenty of cliché moments, some slightly more deserved than others, but some of the dialogue plays out fairly decently. The smartest thing that writer Kathrine Fugate did was intertwine these stories in as many possible places to the point that I think it kept me distracted enough to avoid cynical developments. I was too busy piecing together the stories in my head. But the scenes are organized intuitively enough. Quite often I found myself trying to remember what was going on in the storyline of a character related to one on display when all of a sudden, there they were in the next scene! Also, the transitions between plot lines were fairly smooth and allowed for things to progress relatively well. On an interesting note, Taylor Swift showed some acting chops as a ditsy high school blonde.
I'll probably never watch this movie again. There is nothing to gain from ever watching it again. None of the many stories are very well developed to sustain me another time through. But it worked well the first time. Valentine's Day seems to have been made simply to provide couples a holiday-relevant option at the movie theatre and the chance to go "Ohh, it's *insert celebrity*!" on more occasions in one sitting than ever before. But if you are seeing it post- February 14th, then do not necessarily count on a favorable experience.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Doesn't hinder the potential for Iron Man 3
It is harsh, inappropriate, and perhaps a bit exaggerated to compare this sequel to the likes of the third installment in the Spider-Man franchise, but I couldn't help but think of how both just seem to deflate any momentum their potential sagas have going. The difference is that while "Spider-Man 3" was over done and downright laughable at times, "Iron Man 2"is just simply... done. There is little to hate about the film, but not much to really like.
This installment lacks the episodic quality most superhero films require. There is too much downtime and too few points of interest to allow for a wide enough landscape to justify the two hours worth of material. After the exhilarating sense of discovery we experienced on the first film, the sequel needs some emotional draw and high risk scenarios. By the time you reach the super charged final battle sequence it is simply too little, too late.
The film also seems to assume that everyone who saw the original installment stayed past the credits to see Samuel L. Jackson's cameo. The introduction of Nick Fury is nonexistent and it comes off as mildly silly to have this character with an eye-patch (however cool it may look) suddenly come into the scene if you are unfamiliar with the background, which for the most part, I am. The beauty of the original was its accessibility to the masses who aren't familiar with the lore of Iron Man, but this installment lacks that same quality.
The menace that was Obadiah in the original is not given an adequate replacement. Mickey Rourke serves well as Whiplash but the role is reduced to a minimal two main sequences. Justin Hammer is played well by Sam Rockwell but his character's antics and goals are kind of silly and don't really raise the stakes very high. Also, isn't Natasha suppose to become Black Widow or something? Is there not suppose to be a hint that she's going to go through a transformation of some sort? I'm not even sure who Black Widow is but I kind of expected to get some sort of nod in that general direction. That disappointed me. I know nothing about the lore of the comics, so forgive me if I had inappropriate expectations.
It's a worthy enough sequel that doesn't carry the franchise forward very much, but also doesn't really hinder the potential for an Iron Man 3.
The Road (2009)
They are each "the other's world entire"
This is a difficult experience. It's a disturbing disaster film because you don't actually see the disaster. This brilliantly focuses the story into a character-driven experience. What haunts you is the unknown, but what consumes you is the hope and love the two main characters share. All this is attributable to Cormac McCarthy, but to have it actually translated onto the screen requires some skill, particularly from the cast.
The performances are what sell it. Viggo Mortensen as "Man" and Kodi Smit-McPhee as "Boy" avoid all of the clichés that could have cheapened the experience. Mortensen gives off a hint of determination while drowning in desperation that is at its peak in flashback scenes with his wife, "Woman" (played by Charlize Theron). Smit-McPhee plays a boy that is unlike any child in any other film. While he is open and optimistic to everything unfamiliar, he is also skeptical and fearful, because this man is all he has ever known. He is of another world because he knows nothing of our world.
What ruins the experience is the pacing. Anything based on work from McCarthy must be given time to be absorbed. McCarthy writes in prose and avoids certain punctuation for the purpose of being more direct and using "simple declarative sentences." He believes in not "blocking the page up with weird little marks." So why block this film up with more cuts than what it needs? To be simple is to be real and to be real requires as few edits as possible.
Director John Hillcoat and editor John Gregory should have learned a lesson from the Coen brothers (a.k.a. Roderick Jaynes) and slowed the tempo for this movie down. It might not be fair of me to hold the same standards for "The Road" as "No Country for Old Men," but the attitude and rhythm of the books (or at least the pieces I have read of them) are very much similar. The Coen brothers were successful because they submitted completely to McCarthy's narrative tone. Hillcoat and Gregory, on the other hand, are a bit more traditional in their approach and it clashes with their story.
Nevertheless, the visuals, the writing, and the acting all come together and manage to bring this collaborative struggle between a father and son to the screen and truly give a sense of each being "the other's world entire." I have not read the book, but after seeing this film I am now inspired to and know that I must. Given that, I render the film a success.
A Single Man (2009)
This is not the same "single" you post on facebook
To describe the main character as "single" perhaps brings about the same connotation associated with a facebook relationship status. But to describe George (Colin Firth) in such a way, while true, would be trivial. He is a man apart from this world entirely, seeming to feel as if he has no place.
The main course of action takes place over the span of a single day. With the death of his partner, he is consumed by melancholy and dreads mornings (although apparently this was the case even before his lover died). He puts up a facade at work and amongst friends but it seems that there is an internal cause beyond his widowed state that is never quite fully brought to the surface. As a homosexual he considers himself a minority, but in 1962 he is not a minority that is feared. He is one that is, as he describes in one of his classes, invisible.
Throughout the movie, George throughly buys into this idea. People all around him are reaching out, inviting him to do this or that or simply to be with him, but he stays away from any of that. A visual used throughout has George drowning as he tosses and turns in a large body of water, unable to break free. What finally pulls him out and allows him to find a breath of air is one of his students. They spend an evening together after running into each other (although in fairness the student was looking for him) at a bar and George finds friendship and bliss in this outing. He experiences a rare "moment of clarity."
The screenplay is insightful and poignant and Colin Firth brings the emotions to the audience. He convinces us that he has a great sorrow but that it almost seems bottled, for his character faces internal struggles. The problem is that we never get a chance to dive fully and completely into these sorrows. The narrative arch feels restrained by the 101 min running time.
Many of the visuals are aesthetically desaturated but obtain their color when George interacts with another person and notices little bits of beauty. There is much to admire about human interaction and George knows it, but yet he avoids camaraderie in much of the film. George is a smart person and I'm convinced that something else that is not hinted at troubled this character.
This film won't ever get a sliver of the amount of mainstream attention as "Brokeback Mountain" ever got, but it's characters are more convincing. The love they share for another is indeed the love for another human that anyone can share, and not merely lust-based. The pain George goes through is universal. I felt it, but not as much as I would have had it been on the screen longer.
2012 (2009)
...it does need leave the audience to ponder anything fresh...
When I saw some of the shots in the trailer and particularly in the 5 minute escape from LA scene that was posted online, my jaw must have been about mid-chest. To see such a thorough obliteration of a city with the visual details that were in that scene was downright terrifying. Consequently, I was legitimately excited to see this film, if only for the look of it. The problem with that mindset is that only paves the way for disappointment later on.
I suppose "2012" is almost like a trophy date: fun to look at, but once you become acquainted the luster diminishes. If collapsing freeways, an exploding national park, and converging tsunamis large enough to consume entire continents ever could be described as lush, this is it. But for something that looks so rich how is it that I end up feeling cheap by the end of it?
I was not only OK with the protagonists narrowly escaping LA during a cataclysmic earthquake, I was thrilled by the excitement of it. In fact it was necessary to establish these main characters, out of all 6 billion people in the world, as being worthy of our attention. But to have yet another narrow escape in the same plane after the eruption of the Yellowstone caldera and again in Las Vegas when the ash cloud catches up to them is simply annoying and quite honestly, dumb.
The fatal flaw is that while the buildup was indeed ominous, the Mayan prediction of the 2012 phenomenon, the one thing that is responsible for this film coming to fruition, seems to have only been included as an initial thought to give the rest of the movie a little extra credibility. The last two hours proceeds to have it shoved to the back burner. There is not even a mention of any dates during the course of the plot other than that it is the year 2012. The winter solstice never plays a role. The galactic alignment that will occur is mentioned briefly and the predicted solar maximum is included, but everything else seems to orbit around crust displacement theory.
"2012" insults the Mayan's abilities as astrologers by giving their prediction of the "end of the world" the ultimate Western treatment. The destruction of the Earth is not my problem. My problem is that there is no theme to support it. The Mayans merely predicted the end of our current cycle to occur in 2012. New Age theories talk about a shift in attitude, particularly Western materialism. The film sort of, kind of, perhaps, maybe explores these ideas. The people who do make it aboard the "arks" that are built to save humanity are those who are privileged enough to purchase tickets so of course, there is a sense of elitism and some conflict between a couple main characters calling for a more humane attitude. But by the time the credits roll, there isn't any real hope for change in the human species. More importantly it doesn't leave the audience to ponder anything fresh about our current 2009 society and what kind of changes we might like to see.
(500) Days of Summer (2009)
You're lucky if...
You're lucky if once a year you find a pleasant gem like this one that has you cheering as you walk out of the theatre, not only for its uplifting nature but its artistic insight.
(500) Days of Summer is, in many ways, a psychological study of the affect a romantic relationship has on a person. Chronologically, this film is out of whack, to say the least. But not until now am I realizing just how much this movie traveled back and forth across its story's timeline. There is a smooth flow to the chaos. We start with Tom (Joseph Gordon- Levitt) in a sad state (to put it mildly) and go from there, traversing the mountains and valleys of the relationship from Tom's emotional perspective.
Director Marc Webb doesn't take a defining approach to the story. This seemed to bother Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal, as the film was "searching for a style." But how else do you expect to portray a relationship? It can't be told in just one way. There are too many dimensions to it all and too many emotions to convey.
The title has been listed two ways, one with the parenthesis surrounding the 500 and one without. I prefer to use the parenthesis. Just to say "500 Days of Summer" seems to label those 500 days of the relationship between Tom and Summer as a sum of sorts. It's like looking at the relationship as a whole and ignoring the individual elements that make it that whole. This movie examines those individual elements and contrives an epic journey that is universal in all aspects.
Tom is all of us. Watch this film and you will find yourself feeling what he feels because you've been there before. Summer (wonderfully casted as Zooey Deschanel) has that child- like look in her eyes that makes you melt. You can't help but fall for her pleasant demeanor and be heartbroken when you realize Tom is ultimately not what she wants.
The Proposal (2009)
It is what it is...
It is what it is. You know the premise and you know how it's all going to end. The key is how do you get there?
Maybe it's not fair to compare characters in one story to characters in another, but I'm going to do it anyway. Sandra Bullock's Margaret Tate, a boss who is despised by her inferiors, is reminiscent of Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada (2006, dir by David Frankel). But where the latter was given exemplification throughout to back-up the claims of hatred, the former fails. First-time screenwriter Pete Chiarelli doesn't take the screen time, nor story time, to put his characters on display. Very quickly we find ourselves in Alaska, admittedly a visually pleasant device in the film, where everything unfolds within a single weekend. And apparently a 4-day weekend.
Betty White enters as the energetic, but somewhat senile, grandmother to provide some life to this otherwise plain romantic comedy. Also, fans of "The Office" will recognize Oscar Nunez, whose character provides a few bright moments as a running gag.
Yes, I laughed. At best, there's some fun slapstick moments (of course it's always more fun when you are surrounded by 150 laughing audience members in a theatre). But when the humor starts to fade into the supposed climax, the realization of how awkward it is sets in. The characters on the screen say they are in love, but I'm not feeling it. Yes, they have learned something about each other and care for each other as human beings, perhaps with potential romantic interest, but not the sort of love that enables two people to spend the rest of their lives with one another. And because of the legal situation that sparks the inciting incident, these two don't even have a chance to let their relationship truly form. Essentially they've just jumped directly into marriage without any idea of what to expect from one another.
For a comedy film, that's a dismal conclusion to arrive at.
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)
Sometimes we are just another dead rat behind a Chinese restaurant
When I see movies, I simply shoot for story's that seem worth telling and one's that seem to be told well. I don't give much thought to the genre or target audience of the film. Thus, I was initially surprised to see several children in the theatre for this movie until I remembered the source material. By the time the end credits were rolling, I wanted to ask the kids in the theatre whether they enjoyed the movie or not. I couldn't help but wonder how I would have felt had I seen it when I was 7, 8, or 9. It would have had an odd effect on me, indeed.
This is not a traditional animated film, even if it does use one of the more traditional forms of animation. It is not always straightforward and direct nor does it even try to keep the senses fully satisfied during every second. In fact, the soundtrack can be very quiet at times with only simple, low level foley effects added in to what would otherwise be silent stretches with no music to dictate the emotions with. I can imagine that I probably would not have enjoyed it as a child, because my taste was limited to what fulfilled my superficial expectations.
But kids should be taken to see this just so they can experience something different, yet in a familiar format. There is a lot that's expressed with these characters. Much of the narrative deals with finding one's identity. Mr. Fox asks:
"Why a fox? Why not a horse, a beetle, or a bald eagle?"
But nevertheless he is a fox, and in his attempt to live up to his desire of being "fantastic," he does what he does best and hatches up a master plan to steal from some rather mean farmers who in turn seek vengeance. This gets not only Mr. Fox, but the surrounding community running for their lives. Meanwhile, his son deals with insecurity after the arrival of his perfect cousin.
The script is witty, at times hilarious, and layered and Anderson makes nice use of the photography. His quirky direction is fitting to the main idea presented: we are all different, but "there is something fantastic about that." We have our abilities and inabilities and I suppose we can change how we feel about them. In the end, we just are who we are and do what we do and sometimes it might mean that no matter what we do to redeem ourselves, we are just another dead rat behind a Chinese restaurant.
Up in the Air (2009)
Ryan Bingham is not Juno MacGuff.
Ryan Bingham is not Juno MacGuff. Don't see this movie just because the guy who did Juno did this too. If you have that mindset, it will disappoint. Juno is a character who starts out aimless and finds a more defined path for her life. Ryan starts out with a defined path for his life but winds up aimless by the end. The effect is unsettling and even unsatisfying if you're looking for a more traditional comedy.
What is great about Jason Reitman is that he shoots for the edit in this film. Every shot is carefully planned for both comedic and dramatic purposes. One scene in particular could be used to study directing and editing. It simply has Bingham going through a security check at an airport, but every little step involved with that procedure is shot and cut in rapid, harmonious succession with sound effects that make those blunt gray containers seem like weapons. Bingham is a warrior.
Several scenes include large American Airline posters in the background that read: "We Value your Loyalty." This underlines the defining concept of the film. Loyalty is a limited resource. Everyone has it invested in something, but what's going to provide the most return? There is much to be said about relationships, with characters that are loyal, disloyal and even indifferent, and the need "to make a connection" (as the tagline so cleverly tells us). This is a timeless story centered around the American Dream but yet is a snapshot of our time and the result of the current economy. People need to see this. It will reach out to them.
It is clear that "Juno" was what it was because of Reitman. He brings a certain level of humanity to everything he does. Up in the Air deserves the title of Best Picture. It's the most all-around complete film of the year.
The Princess and the Frog (2009)
Tiana goes for the American Dream
Not until the final month do we get this decade's first truly satisfying feature length animated musical from Disney (although there's only been a handful of attempts). This is a rebirth of Disney film-making in the traditional sense. To watch this movie is to watch something magical that hasn't happened in nearly a dozen years.
There are a variety of opinions concerning which Disney films of the Disney Renaissance era are better than others, but I'm going to take it upon myself to say that the last great traditional animated film was The Lion King in 1994. Good films still came out and Alan Menken continued to put together some wonderful soundtracks for the remainder of the decade, but the new millennium has not shown much promise.
What really sells The Princess and the Frog is that it tells a story worth telling (take note Dreamworks) and tells it well. As the second American protagonist (after Pocahantas), Tiana stands apart from many of the other Disney princesses as being the first to seek the American Dream. She aspires to own a restaurant and works two jobs to save up enough money for the down payment. Unlike Ariel, Belle and Jasmine, she does not dream of an escape from her current lifestyle. She is satisfied until she hits a roadblock with her plans which then cues our inciting incident.
Along the way she learns to place family and relationships above her personal dreams. A very modern message to say the least. There is a particularly powerful moment when the villain tempts her with a virtual tour of the restaurant she desires to have and a flashback with her father.
Two years ago, Enchanted reminded us of what we were missing out on. For those of us whose childhood took place during the Renaissance era, it was a refreshing and extremely nostalgic experience to see Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz at work again. The filmmakers for that movie knew it too. The way in which the sequence for the catchy number "That's How You Know" plays out was... well, enchanting. My only disappointment with "The Princess and the Frog" is that it lacks a really moving score from Randy Newman and while the musical numbers are fun and energetic, what's missing is the one song that encompasses the emotions of the film the way "Beauty and the Beast" did for Beauty and the Beast or "A Whole New World" did for Aladdin.
Alan Menken will fortunately be back with 2010's Repunzel. However, that movie will involve CGI with the "intention to look and feel like traditional hand-drawn animation" (a curious description indeed). Time will tell if Disney can get any momentum going off the wake of The Princess and the Frog, a film that deserves to take its place amongst the studio's numerous animated greats.
An Education (2009)
...it will make you ponder what your "education" in life has consisted of.
When you see this film (and you should) don't expect it to impress you on a superficial level. It won't satisfy the senses, the storyline won't necessarily leave you in awe, and the characters don't seem to go through the motions of intense dramatic moments that you would maybe expect to propel a character-driven piece (for example, I would say Rachel Getting Married undoubtedly had moments with intense drama). This is an internal story of a girl who wants to discover the world and when given the opportunity, lunges at it. Now, when put bluntly like that, you can probably guess that consequences resulting from her naivety will result. But this is life and it happens to us all.
Carey Mulligan's performance as Jenny doesn't make this character memorable for being a rarity, but rather she embodies all of us during our teenage years in the sense that her character is ready to commence adulthood and will do anything to get the process going. She is warm and charming, giddy and anxious, but yet she exerts as much caution as she knows how. What is most memorable is her laugh. You'll be happy and excited for her when she's happy and excited and you'll feel deeply for her when her world comes crashing down.
Gradually, Jenny begins to compromise herself and even though you know disaster lurks around the corner, it all seems rather acceptable while you're along for the ride. Her parents seem to fall into this same trap. As Jenny's father, Alfred Molina gives a superb take as a man who comes off as having plenty of confidence but finds himself torn down when his daughter is discovered to have been taken advantage of.
My lone complaint is that very little running time (in fact, probably only a handful of minutes) is devoted to Jenny's eventual redemption at the end of the film to really give the sense that something significant was accomplished. Nevertheless, when you see this movie you will see yourself in some way or another. You will watch something that you have either experienced or will experience and it will make you ponder what your "education" in life has consisted of.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Here we are again...
Here we are again with an installment to this potentially epic saga that has produced another bittersweet result.
The visuals are lush: Bruno Delbonnel's photography is impressive but yet pleasingly subtle, the art design (particularly that of the cave) is glorious, and the effects are admirable. Nicholas Hooper's score, though not as sweeping as John Williams' early work, yet again proves to be an elegant addition. The scene that takes place within the cave is incredibly engaging and is given the scale it deserves.
As enjoyable as much of the film is, for those of us who know better, there is an unpleasant aftertaste that arrives when the credits come up. We know the source material. We know all the plot devices and characters. We know every line of dialogue and every intricate bit of action that's expected to occur. Yet we don't care about any of this as much as we care about the emotions that come with them. David Yates and his cast and crew do what they can with the script they have been given. However, Steve Kloves yet again (as he did particularly in installments 3 & 4) chooses to make undesirable omissions.
My distaste for his contribution to this series does not stem from the exclusion of subplots and supporting characters or the supposed misinterpretation of what I think people and places should look like. I accept the film as its own entity. What I cannot remain ignorant to is when there are certain emotions that should exist that simply aren't there.
When the climax of the film came I realized it had not been earned. There was simply not enough build. Here was a chance to explore what sent the "greatest dark wizard of all-time" on his descent into hell and we miss out on it. There is no sense of discovery and mystery on the past of this satanic character. All we really learn is the bare necessities to allow the story to continue.
There is no speculation and curiosity, or even any thorough explanation, on the identity of the "Half-Blood Prince" that the film draws its title from. It merely becomes a matter of fact. There is no hint at the heart-breaking betrayal that occurs. There are no pains of weak desperation.
Instead time was allotted on an unmotivated destruction of the Weasley's home that ultimately was never assigned any true purpose.
Like all the Potter films, the core of everything is there and it will please and charm in many ways. However, there was a depth that could have been explored but was only glanced at, tears that could have been shed but merely lingered in the eyes, and a horribly dark horizon that could have been painted by the end but was only hinted at.
Cyrus (2010)
The beauty of Cyrus...
The beauty of Cyrus is its ability to take a premise that has been achieved before in more contrived and artificial manners and give it a sense of verisimilitude. The laughs are not necessarily "roll on the floor" kind of laughs because they are not set up in the way most movies set them up. They are fused with real development and real emotion.
The actors will be recognized most for selling their small scale reactions and intriguing us in the process but the Duplass brothers deserve ample credit for their style which provides an allowance for improvisational responses. Rather than just create an outline though, they write a full script then allow for the improv to compliment it. Given their previous work, and now this little gem, their method seems to work very well as their writing lays down the foundation of the characters and their development but is still open to input that will enhance the realism.
This movie is all about the normal American. It's focus is not on the drama but on the lack of it. It considers the desire and need for comfort, enjoyment, and uninterrupted companionship in those moments between all the points of stress. Each character has their path that makes them happy and the conflict simply comes along when they are held back from that path. It's appropriate for that is the way of life for the average person and films are not usually about truly average sort of people, just about those with average lives. The characters struggled but they dealt the way we all deal and gave off the impression that they wanted to enjoy life and did everything in their power to do so.
Fascinatingly and oddly enough, the film could also be described in a manner contrary than what I have already done. For there is drama and it is dealt with in extremes at times. The story ultimately becomes one major stress point as the characters deal with their conflicts in a complicated manner. What's important though is that we don't come away from the experience feeling that anything has been complicated or dramatized for our sake. Yet, I would hardly call it slice of life for it's not that clean. It's more like a bulging lump that got craftily sculpted into something wonderfully aesthetic. The structure is tidy enough but only because we deem it so, just as we do with all memorable events.
I hope and anticipate the Duplass brothers to one day be a force to be reckoned with but only if they avoid seeing themselves as such. They are character-centric not only in their writing but in the way they direct their films. The storyline in Cyrus was relatively simple, but one day these guys will take their methods and stumble upon a story where the stakes are much higher and when they do it will indeed be something grand.