Two great actors + stage script + killer set = appreciably classic film
If you've been following this blog for a while, you will have noticed that I have a fondness for reading the book a movie is based on. In this instance, I wanted to see "the original" before deciding whether or not to see the remake.
First of all, I adore Michael Caine; I want him to be my great uncle (since he's a tad too old to marry). I very much enjoyed watching him be Milo Tindle, even if the character is supposed to be a "jumped-up pantry boy". (Will they put that great line in the remake? I hope so!) The best part was listening to him drift back into his Cockney accent and lingo during his lines; what fun! He does it in such a way that you are not sure at first whether he means to do so. On the other hand, since I find the actor so likable, it was difficult to find his character as despicable as one is supposed to. With Jude Law, however, I feel that I will not have that problem. His bobble-headed self is going to be a person I love to hate. Will the ending be the same? I was disappointed in the original, but I would probably take great satisfaction in the remake. I also think he is going to sink his teeth into being the older character and shred the scenery. I can't wait to see/hear him verbally eviscerate the pretentious Milo; it's going to be fantastic!
I don't have a lot of appreciation for Sir Olivier, since I have not yet had the time to work my way back to his era of cinema. However, based on this movie as my sole evidence, his character was a little over-blown to me, but I think that the actor was having a fantastic time. I can't wait to see what Michael Caine does with the role; hopefully he will be a little less manic, but I can imagine that the scene of him tearing around the house in search of clues is going to be quite satisfying. Olivier played it with a little too much game-ness for what was happening, and not enough desperation for me to really believe that he was in fear. I think that Caine will be better at adding the terror the character is supposed to feel.
I did like the set, even though I found all of the mechanized trinkets more than a little creepy. Their cacophony in the final moments of the movie was perfect, however, and more than a little hellish. I can't wait to see what they are going to do with the Euro-fashionably-bare decor in the update. I will also be pretty interested in seeing whether Inspector Doppler makes his appearance. He is on the cast list, so he must. Who will be in the new portrait of the wandering wife? I really did like the wink-nudge-nudge of the cast list for the original (IMDB-trivia it after you have seen the movie, so as not to spoil things), which has been carried over.
I am ready to see the remake, but I am a tad skeptical. As I mentioned in my blog on The Dark is Rising, some things are just better set in Britain, and I hope that they don't transplant the story to this side of the Pond. Also, will they update Milo's job? There is very little more despicable to a blue-blood Englishman than a hairdresser putting on airs. Is there a more modern equivalent that they will trot out, or will that remain the same? We shall see.
October 22, 2007
October 15, 2007
Michael Clayton
Psychological Drama + splash of Legal Thriller + George Clooney = arresting film
Let me tell you, George Clooney was made to wear suits! I can't explain it better than he just looks fabulous and at home in them, even if he is hauling it up a wooded hill. (No spoilers, but when you do get to that particular scene, I think you will find it tense, but also emotionally satisfying and perhaps oddly compelling; I did.)
"Legal Thriller" is not my cup of tea. I have never read a John Grisham book (although I seem to have seen almost all of the movie adaptations of them.) and don't really intend too. I didn't think A Civil Action was particularly noteworthy, nor did I go gaga over The Insider. Nope, high fantasy is more to my taste. Even though I walked in to the film more than a little biased, I realized that the movie was more an exploration of the characters than a story bogged down in Erin Brockovich-ian chemistry details, minus the flip, sassy fun. "Exploration of character" sounds terribly boring, but Clooney manages to keep his "legal bag man" role real; this guy is actually relate-able and not smarmy, as one would expect.
Tom Wilkinson is cringe-worthy in his manic madness, which only proves to me that he is a good actor, even if I don't always enjoy seeing his characters (Normal, anyone?!? What a spiritually yucky movie). I do have to ask; what was up with the 6 bottles of Lysol on his butcher's block of a kitchen counter? I think they served two purposes:
1) To show how bonkers his character was and
2) To secure more product-placement revenue to offset the production budget.
I personally kept waiting for him to down it all in a fit of suicidal madness, but it wasn't really that kind of movie.
Tilda Swinton was great, as always, but how in the world did they make her look fat? Seriously, she is almost bone. The jacket she was wearing in her last scene did the trick, and was horridly atrocious. Her acting, however, was fantastic! It was fascinating to see her tightly controlled exterior come crashing down. Along the way, we were treated with snippets of scenes of her prepping for her day, working through her carefully-delivered wording as Head Councilor for a multinational corporation. I think Ms. Swinton turned a character who could have been an automaton on the page into someone the audience can almost feel sympathy for.
To me, she is a magnetic curiosity; I feel compelled to watch her. My favorite role of hers was the splendidly andogynous Gabriel in Constantine, but judging from IMDB, she is the go-to actress for indy gender-bending. Terrific; I can hardly think of a better person to do it (although Cate Blanchett may give Tilda a run for her money in I'm Not There.)
--Note: There is more text to follow, but I have recently been informed that my posts are "insanely long", so I will break off here and add a "comment" that contains the rest of my review. I also promise that it will be less gossip-y from here on out, focusing more on the plot and structure of the movie.--
Let me tell you, George Clooney was made to wear suits! I can't explain it better than he just looks fabulous and at home in them, even if he is hauling it up a wooded hill. (No spoilers, but when you do get to that particular scene, I think you will find it tense, but also emotionally satisfying and perhaps oddly compelling; I did.)
"Legal Thriller" is not my cup of tea. I have never read a John Grisham book (although I seem to have seen almost all of the movie adaptations of them.) and don't really intend too. I didn't think A Civil Action was particularly noteworthy, nor did I go gaga over The Insider. Nope, high fantasy is more to my taste. Even though I walked in to the film more than a little biased, I realized that the movie was more an exploration of the characters than a story bogged down in Erin Brockovich-ian chemistry details, minus the flip, sassy fun. "Exploration of character" sounds terribly boring, but Clooney manages to keep his "legal bag man" role real; this guy is actually relate-able and not smarmy, as one would expect.
Tom Wilkinson is cringe-worthy in his manic madness, which only proves to me that he is a good actor, even if I don't always enjoy seeing his characters (Normal, anyone?!? What a spiritually yucky movie). I do have to ask; what was up with the 6 bottles of Lysol on his butcher's block of a kitchen counter? I think they served two purposes:
1) To show how bonkers his character was and
2) To secure more product-placement revenue to offset the production budget.
I personally kept waiting for him to down it all in a fit of suicidal madness, but it wasn't really that kind of movie.
Tilda Swinton was great, as always, but how in the world did they make her look fat? Seriously, she is almost bone. The jacket she was wearing in her last scene did the trick, and was horridly atrocious. Her acting, however, was fantastic! It was fascinating to see her tightly controlled exterior come crashing down. Along the way, we were treated with snippets of scenes of her prepping for her day, working through her carefully-delivered wording as Head Councilor for a multinational corporation. I think Ms. Swinton turned a character who could have been an automaton on the page into someone the audience can almost feel sympathy for.
To me, she is a magnetic curiosity; I feel compelled to watch her. My favorite role of hers was the splendidly andogynous Gabriel in Constantine, but judging from IMDB, she is the go-to actress for indy gender-bending. Terrific; I can hardly think of a better person to do it (although Cate Blanchett may give Tilda a run for her money in I'm Not There.)
--Note: There is more text to follow, but I have recently been informed that my posts are "insanely long", so I will break off here and add a "comment" that contains the rest of my review. I also promise that it will be less gossip-y from here on out, focusing more on the plot and structure of the movie.--
October 12, 2007
The Dark is Rising 2.0
Classic YA book - Arthurian legend + cinematic liberties = pretty good time
As I mentioned in my comment on Lunanshee's posting about this movie, I have read all of the books in this series, and would recommend them to just about anyone. Apparently the actor Ian McShane found them too dense, but I think that YA readers can handle them just fine.
The fly in the ointment for this movie is that it is overshadowed too much by the other "Boy Who Conquered the Forces of Evil." HP may have Voldemort, but I would like to contend that Christopher Eccleston was really creepy as The Rider, particularly when he shows up in his buttoned-down psycho alter ego in Will's world. Still, the comparisons between the two are entirely too easy, to the detriment of a viewer's experience.
I also think that the release date doesn't work in the film's favor. This movie would have done incredibly well at Thanksgiving, not in the no man's land of between summer and holiday movies, with TV's premier week to distract us. As the author for the Chocolate and Vodka blog (see link in response posting) points out, these books/movie are best experienced around the Christmas holidays, when the atmosphere is just right for that brand of British mysticism. I don't know about you guys, but it is warm and sunny here, so it is more difficult to mentally transport oneself to the misty moors of England, or to a quaint village.
That being said, the visuals of the movie were just right. I loved the small town; to me, it was a believable setting. I also think that even though the story bores Ian McShane, he was a passable Merriman Lyon. I always pictured him exuding an omniscient stateliness, so when Frances Conroy (doing her very best Dame Maggie Smith impression) begins to bicker with him about the right way to communicate with a teen boy, I was a little surprised. However, as the movie went on, the interaction between the two leading Old Ones grew on me; they are more or less human too, with their own blind spots. Who does know how to deal with teens? Not many, and that is why they are so interesting yet frustrating. I do think that the writers imbued Will with too much doubt. Book-Will was a little too self-assured for an 11 year-old, but movie-Will reminds me too much of Book-Harry Potter in Order of the Phoenix, when I wanted to tell him to stop whining and get to business. Still, Alexander Ludwig did far better than I expected, and that is always nice.
--See 'comment' for more.--
As I mentioned in my comment on Lunanshee's posting about this movie, I have read all of the books in this series, and would recommend them to just about anyone. Apparently the actor Ian McShane found them too dense, but I think that YA readers can handle them just fine.
The fly in the ointment for this movie is that it is overshadowed too much by the other "Boy Who Conquered the Forces of Evil." HP may have Voldemort, but I would like to contend that Christopher Eccleston was really creepy as The Rider, particularly when he shows up in his buttoned-down psycho alter ego in Will's world. Still, the comparisons between the two are entirely too easy, to the detriment of a viewer's experience.
I also think that the release date doesn't work in the film's favor. This movie would have done incredibly well at Thanksgiving, not in the no man's land of between summer and holiday movies, with TV's premier week to distract us. As the author for the Chocolate and Vodka blog (see link in response posting) points out, these books/movie are best experienced around the Christmas holidays, when the atmosphere is just right for that brand of British mysticism. I don't know about you guys, but it is warm and sunny here, so it is more difficult to mentally transport oneself to the misty moors of England, or to a quaint village.
That being said, the visuals of the movie were just right. I loved the small town; to me, it was a believable setting. I also think that even though the story bores Ian McShane, he was a passable Merriman Lyon. I always pictured him exuding an omniscient stateliness, so when Frances Conroy (doing her very best Dame Maggie Smith impression) begins to bicker with him about the right way to communicate with a teen boy, I was a little surprised. However, as the movie went on, the interaction between the two leading Old Ones grew on me; they are more or less human too, with their own blind spots. Who does know how to deal with teens? Not many, and that is why they are so interesting yet frustrating. I do think that the writers imbued Will with too much doubt. Book-Will was a little too self-assured for an 11 year-old, but movie-Will reminds me too much of Book-Harry Potter in Order of the Phoenix, when I wanted to tell him to stop whining and get to business. Still, Alexander Ludwig did far better than I expected, and that is always nice.
--See 'comment' for more.--
October 10, 2007
Pushing Daisies
I was watching a re-run of the Pushing Daisies premier last week, when I realized that a couple of things were tickling my memory, as well as my sentimental attachments.
First of all, the visual style reminded me of something...the movie Amelie. Great; I loved that movie. No really-- I have seen it in French, Italian and German, I loved it so much. There is the same prevalence of the color green, and the vividness of colors, not to mention quirky characters living in a 'fantastic' atmosphere in which anything can happen. It doesn't hurt that Anna Friel (supporting character Chuck) reminds me strongly of the whimsy that Zooey Deschanel imbues all of her characters with. I also loved the appearance of Ellen Greene (Audrey, from the 1986 version of Little Shop of Horrors) as one of Chuck's aunts. As an aside, I loved her as Sylar's mummy dearest on Heroes and I can't believe it was her in Leon/The Professional! I had no idea, until I just IMDB'd her.
Secondly, I was caught by the narrator's soothing and airy voice. I knew I had heard it before, and as the opening credits appeared at the bottom of the screen, I realized that it was Jim Dale, narrator of the Harry Potter audio books. I adore Mr. Dale's readings of the magical series. I think he does a truly worthy job, and there is only one other (male) voice actor who really comes close to being competition; Roy Dotrice. Incidentally, Mr. Dale has the record for the greatest number of character voices.
In any case, it was delightful to hear a voice I enjoy do the narration for the show, kind of like Ian McKellan's on Stardust.
So, you are probably wondering if I actually liked the show. I did, at least enough to want to watch a little more. It won't supplant Grey's Anatomy or Battlestar Galactica on my Tivo or anything, but it was a good time. I will tune in for more, and I am happy to see that ABC is taking some chances with their programming. I don't, however, believe that the show will make it more than a season. I am happy to be proven wrong though--at least there is no "reality" to the show (read: contest, like Dancing with the Stars).
First of all, the visual style reminded me of something...the movie Amelie. Great; I loved that movie. No really-- I have seen it in French, Italian and German, I loved it so much. There is the same prevalence of the color green, and the vividness of colors, not to mention quirky characters living in a 'fantastic' atmosphere in which anything can happen. It doesn't hurt that Anna Friel (supporting character Chuck) reminds me strongly of the whimsy that Zooey Deschanel imbues all of her characters with. I also loved the appearance of Ellen Greene (Audrey, from the 1986 version of Little Shop of Horrors) as one of Chuck's aunts. As an aside, I loved her as Sylar's mummy dearest on Heroes and I can't believe it was her in Leon/The Professional! I had no idea, until I just IMDB'd her.
Secondly, I was caught by the narrator's soothing and airy voice. I knew I had heard it before, and as the opening credits appeared at the bottom of the screen, I realized that it was Jim Dale, narrator of the Harry Potter audio books. I adore Mr. Dale's readings of the magical series. I think he does a truly worthy job, and there is only one other (male) voice actor who really comes close to being competition; Roy Dotrice. Incidentally, Mr. Dale has the record for the greatest number of character voices.
In any case, it was delightful to hear a voice I enjoy do the narration for the show, kind of like Ian McKellan's on Stardust.
So, you are probably wondering if I actually liked the show. I did, at least enough to want to watch a little more. It won't supplant Grey's Anatomy or Battlestar Galactica on my Tivo or anything, but it was a good time. I will tune in for more, and I am happy to see that ABC is taking some chances with their programming. I don't, however, believe that the show will make it more than a season. I am happy to be proven wrong though--at least there is no "reality" to the show (read: contest, like Dancing with the Stars).
Too amazing not to share
I know that we are supposed to be discussing movies on this forum, but my coworker who loves art found this page for me. He knows that I could just eat up this style of art and that I have an Alphonse Mucha calendar hanging in my office each year. This jewelery is so fantastic that I cannot resist! The photos are excellent, as one would expect of a gallery.
http://www.tademagallery.com/ALL_ArtNouveau.htm
Becoming engaged recently has exposed me to more jewelry than I usually look at. Nothing that I have seen in the stores evokes a reaction as strongly as these pieces do, which makes me wonder if modern is really 'better'. I was astonished, practically floored, by looking at these pictures. Please let me know if you have seen anything lately that reminds you of these; I would love to be wrong. Now I am curious about how much jewelry like this goes for...better not to think about it!
http://www.tademagallery.com/ALL_ArtNouveau.htm
Becoming engaged recently has exposed me to more jewelry than I usually look at. Nothing that I have seen in the stores evokes a reaction as strongly as these pieces do, which makes me wonder if modern is really 'better'. I was astonished, practically floored, by looking at these pictures. Please let me know if you have seen anything lately that reminds you of these; I would love to be wrong. Now I am curious about how much jewelry like this goes for...better not to think about it!
October 8, 2007
Crank sequel?!?!
Seriously? Ick!
I just picked up this little tidbit of instant-IQ-drain at:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/crank/news/1678451/
In the article, they say (about making a sequel's action live up to the first)
"You have to go twice as hard. So that's what we're going to do. "
Gross! What are they thinking?
There is also a comment about how this movie will get made next spring, writer's strike or no. My thought is "Well, you guys don't really have to worry now do you? A poo-flinging monkey can come up with a script better than the original. It is actually in the writer's best interest to be on strike rather than to write such a steaming pile of drivel."
And that's all the mental energy I am going to bestow on so worthless a topic!
I just picked up this little tidbit of instant-IQ-drain at:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/crank/news/1678451/
In the article, they say (about making a sequel's action live up to the first)
"You have to go twice as hard. So that's what we're going to do. "
Gross! What are they thinking?
There is also a comment about how this movie will get made next spring, writer's strike or no. My thought is "Well, you guys don't really have to worry now do you? A poo-flinging monkey can come up with a script better than the original. It is actually in the writer's best interest to be on strike rather than to write such a steaming pile of drivel."
And that's all the mental energy I am going to bestow on so worthless a topic!
Dark is Rising
Seeker: The Dark is Rising is the story of a boy who discovers that he is a key figure in the fight between the Light and the Dark. The film is based on the novel The Dark is Rising (first in the DiS series) by Susan Cooper. Having not read the book, I cannot say exactly how well the adaptation was, but the film was entertaining nonetheless. The acting was decent, not the best I've seen, but by far not the worst and the special effects were very well done. My only real complaint about the film is that there is not very much character development and the story jumps around a bit. However, considering that the intended audience is kids 10-15 years old, I think it is a well done movie. All in all a decent kids' fantasy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
