Confession: I watched this movie because Jodie Foster is too damn cute on the cover. We’ll see how my DVD cover instincts turn out judging a movie as a whole.
Foster plays Erica Bain, a radio show host doing a “life on the streets,” “slice of life,” “heavy prose” presumably public radio show that I typically hate in real life. She’s dating a swarthy doctor, and we get a tidy little, multi-cultural romance developing when on a walk through the park at night with their dog, they run into thugs and... BAM! They’re brutally mugged, very graphically portrayed. A weird emergency room scene then occurs intermixed with a flashback of the couple’s lovemaking.
With the PC/artistic overtones coupled with the gratuitous violence and sex, I’m beginning to think this movie is going to suck.
Terence Howard appears as a detective investigating the crime, and, well, he’s great, and the movie barometer’s plummet has slowed.
Erica wakes up after 3 weeks to a world drastically changed, and, well, she’s mad as hell. Apparently the police work is so top-notch that they’ve confused a mugging into a domestic dispute and are blaming Erica with beating her fiance to death with a pipe. I guess fingerprints, blood, fabric and DNA samples aren’t part of the investigative routine. I nitpick. Yet, she’s free to go home. I guess they’re just in the habit of making knowingly baseless accusations.
Oh, shit. Another flashback lovemaking scene. The barometer’s descent quickens. WE GET IT, OKAY? SHE MISSES HIM. BUT?! I DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH! WE LEARN HE PLAYED GUITAR FOR HER IN THIS BLURRED FLASHBACK? HELL, I MISS HIM TOO!
She goes to a gun store that she referenced by a photograph at an art exhibit (wtf?). They won’t sell her a gun immediately, but a dude approaches her outside and immediately sells her a gun in an alley? Hey - her fortunes are turning, no?
Some random women tells her she shouldn’t smoke because it could kill her. She doesn’t care! This Nubian earth mother tells her that she needs to figure out how to live. Profound!
Now Erica is in a convenience store. Dear God, please don’t... but God answers my prayer with a “no,” because, of course, she’s witness to a robbery in progress, and she pumps a few rounds into the perp.
I’m thinking a lovemaking flashback is due? Wait for it... wait for it... she stumbles back to her apartment and takes a shower in her clothes. My bad, not a flashback, but a stupid public radio prose monologue ruminating on the need to persevere.
I’m done. I gave it 40 minutes. Lesson? Don't judge a DVD by its cover.
In summation, I'll quote Christopher Orr, from the New Republic:
"The Brave One is not merely the most morally repellent film of the year, but a contender for the stupidest."
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Upon viewing Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” I found myself questioning my attention span. I had trouble following the plot, characters and keeping the thread going. To be fair, I sometimes have the attention span of a 4-year old, but this film was too long and complicated for a Western - even the always-questionable narration didn’t help to hold things together.
Regarding the film’s postive aspects, there are several nice cinematogrophic touches: blurred shots that looked like old photographs, long sweeping panaromas of praries, and an overall grandiose feel. Most of the acting is very good, but, unfortunately, I think the most important role was miscast. Brad Pitt doesn’t provide, ironically, the charisma that the character demands. He has certain tics that he seems to fall upon that don’t fit the gravitas of the role. Casey Affleck is very good, although some might find his portrayal off-putting due to the quirks he incorporates - I feel this works, for the most part. Garret Dillahunt is excellent, as usual, as Ed Miller. Sam Shepard, as usual, is fantastic as Frank James. I’m divided on Sam Rockwell’s and Jeremy Renner’s performances. I think this movie also suffers from too many well-known actors. This brings up a reoccurring question concerning casting. Do you cast talented, well-known, actors or do you roll the dice with unknown actors? I feel that there is an abundance of talent out there, and a little more effort spent in finding a fresh face would have served this movie.
Fresher faces might have served, but not saved, the film because the story is too meandering and opaque. I felt you never truly understood the character’s motivations. You understand why the gang, including Robert Ford, wish to be part of the James’ gang, and you learn Ford’s hero-worship of James began at a young age. However, you’re never really sure what’s motivating Liddil and Miller’s betrayal. There’s a greed motive, but given the expressed notoriety of James being able to flush out those disloyal to him as well as the promise of future rewards being in James’s gang, why betray him? The most fascinating part of the story is after the assassination when Robert Ford is not greeted as a hero, but is somewhat reviled, yet, at the same time, goes on to star in a NYC play, recreating the assassination to rapturous audiences for over a year before his inevitable downfall.
In the end, though, this movie has aspirations of being a Western that breaks conventions, but fails. There aren’t any gunfights, there’s a lot of slow, lyrical shots, attempts to document the celebrity surrounding Jesse James Robert Ford, etc., that puts this solidly as an anti-Western, but it just didn't capture this viewer by turning the traditional Western on its head. With its 2 hours and 40 minutes running-time, it’s unfortunate that the most interesting part of the film doesn’t happen until after Robert Ford has pulled the trigger - the last 10 minutes. I agree with one review that said that this movie doesn’t know if it wants to eliminate or hold up the outlaw-hero.
Regarding the film’s postive aspects, there are several nice cinematogrophic touches: blurred shots that looked like old photographs, long sweeping panaromas of praries, and an overall grandiose feel. Most of the acting is very good, but, unfortunately, I think the most important role was miscast. Brad Pitt doesn’t provide, ironically, the charisma that the character demands. He has certain tics that he seems to fall upon that don’t fit the gravitas of the role. Casey Affleck is very good, although some might find his portrayal off-putting due to the quirks he incorporates - I feel this works, for the most part. Garret Dillahunt is excellent, as usual, as Ed Miller. Sam Shepard, as usual, is fantastic as Frank James. I’m divided on Sam Rockwell’s and Jeremy Renner’s performances. I think this movie also suffers from too many well-known actors. This brings up a reoccurring question concerning casting. Do you cast talented, well-known, actors or do you roll the dice with unknown actors? I feel that there is an abundance of talent out there, and a little more effort spent in finding a fresh face would have served this movie.
Fresher faces might have served, but not saved, the film because the story is too meandering and opaque. I felt you never truly understood the character’s motivations. You understand why the gang, including Robert Ford, wish to be part of the James’ gang, and you learn Ford’s hero-worship of James began at a young age. However, you’re never really sure what’s motivating Liddil and Miller’s betrayal. There’s a greed motive, but given the expressed notoriety of James being able to flush out those disloyal to him as well as the promise of future rewards being in James’s gang, why betray him? The most fascinating part of the story is after the assassination when Robert Ford is not greeted as a hero, but is somewhat reviled, yet, at the same time, goes on to star in a NYC play, recreating the assassination to rapturous audiences for over a year before his inevitable downfall.
In the end, though, this movie has aspirations of being a Western that breaks conventions, but fails. There aren’t any gunfights, there’s a lot of slow, lyrical shots, attempts to document the celebrity surrounding Jesse James Robert Ford, etc., that puts this solidly as an anti-Western, but it just didn't capture this viewer by turning the traditional Western on its head. With its 2 hours and 40 minutes running-time, it’s unfortunate that the most interesting part of the film doesn’t happen until after Robert Ford has pulled the trigger - the last 10 minutes. I agree with one review that said that this movie doesn’t know if it wants to eliminate or hold up the outlaw-hero.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Midnight in Paris
"Midnight in Paris," Woody Allen's current, in-theaters release is what I see as the perfect summer movie: not too long, doesn't take itself too seriously, but is also very clever and has only the slightest hint of fluff.
It is somewhat over-the-top, fanciful, and has a certain element that I've always deemed a deal-breaker (hint: it's not that it's a romantic comedy, although this isn't a positive, either). I'm not going to tell you what that element is as this movie needs to be seen the first time without any preconceptions. What I knew before viewing it was that it was a Woody Allen film, took place in Paris (duh), starred Rachel McAdams and Owen Wilson, and, yeah, was a romantic comedy. It's a comedy, and there's romance(s), but the lion's share of the comedy is unrelated to romance. Not knowing anything more about this amplified my first watch tremendously.
I had so much fun that I'm considering going back and watching it again, albeit knowing what happens.
It is very unique, clever, well-acted, and really surprised me. I'm still not a huge fan of McAdams, but she certainly does better with a well-written script. I'll try and remember to do a longer review once I feel free to discuss it at length.
Go see it! Especially if you're a fan of literature! I've said too much.
It is somewhat over-the-top, fanciful, and has a certain element that I've always deemed a deal-breaker (hint: it's not that it's a romantic comedy, although this isn't a positive, either). I'm not going to tell you what that element is as this movie needs to be seen the first time without any preconceptions. What I knew before viewing it was that it was a Woody Allen film, took place in Paris (duh), starred Rachel McAdams and Owen Wilson, and, yeah, was a romantic comedy. It's a comedy, and there's romance(s), but the lion's share of the comedy is unrelated to romance. Not knowing anything more about this amplified my first watch tremendously.
I had so much fun that I'm considering going back and watching it again, albeit knowing what happens.
It is very unique, clever, well-acted, and really surprised me. I'm still not a huge fan of McAdams, but she certainly does better with a well-written script. I'll try and remember to do a longer review once I feel free to discuss it at length.
Go see it! Especially if you're a fan of literature! I've said too much.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Consent to Kill
After the upheaval that is moving your stuff from one structure to another, I desperately need to get back in a routine of writing.
Without further ado, I'll discuss my encounter with "Consent to Kill," a spy thriller written by Vince Flynn.
This novel had a Tom Clancy, "best seller" air to it, and I wouldn't normally have read it, but an acquaintance of mine, Florian, recommended it highly.
Unfortunately, my instincts were correct. This is a ridiculous book. Mitch Rapp is the super spy who doesn't like to answer to anyone and frequently doesn't. His wife is the White House correspondent for NBC. His enemies are assassins trafficking hundreds of millions of dollars. He's the only one who truly understands what it takes to protect our freedom! If only the bureaucracy and petty minds would get out of his way!
Time to get back to "A History of Western Philosophy." It has more intrigue than this pulp moon pie.
Without further ado, I'll discuss my encounter with "Consent to Kill," a spy thriller written by Vince Flynn.
This novel had a Tom Clancy, "best seller" air to it, and I wouldn't normally have read it, but an acquaintance of mine, Florian, recommended it highly.
Unfortunately, my instincts were correct. This is a ridiculous book. Mitch Rapp is the super spy who doesn't like to answer to anyone and frequently doesn't. His wife is the White House correspondent for NBC. His enemies are assassins trafficking hundreds of millions of dollars. He's the only one who truly understands what it takes to protect our freedom! If only the bureaucracy and petty minds would get out of his way!
Time to get back to "A History of Western Philosophy." It has more intrigue than this pulp moon pie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)