/page/2
Though this was not the first modern horror film to use parody (Dawn of the Dead, An American Werewolf in London are examples), the lengths to which is goes are wildly imaginative. Just like Re-Animator spoofed the sci-fi/horror genre, Evil Dead 2 takes on the slasher film genre and sends it up way before the Scream/I Know What You Did Last Summer/Scary Movie cash cows. For those who liked the “tree” sequence in the first Evil Dead movie, imagine it being magnified over and over again. Using the stop motion animation technique in a deliberately crude fashion, Evil Dead 2 is still wildly imaginative. A person tries to fight off their own severed hand. Visions appear from nowhere. The first sequence in speeded up time is dizzily unnerving. If you don’t like slasher films (believe me this is a hell of a lot better than any Friday the 13th film, take your pick) or if you’re one of those old blue haired types ranting about “video nasties” then stay away. However, if you want a good, gorey and even sometimes scary descent into madness then Evil Dead 2 is for you. For real film fanatics, one might note (though on a far more intellectual level)the sense of the world collapsing and turning against the protagonist(s) of the film can also be found (albeit much more arty and far less gorey) in the films of Jan Svankmeyer. As for the casual horror buff, Evil Dead II is a classic of the subgenre of splatter films with a sense of humor which would be taken to new heights with Rob Zombie’s “The Devil’s Rejects”. Leave the lights on.

Though this was not the first modern horror film to use parody (Dawn of the Dead, An American Werewolf in London are examples), the lengths to which is goes are wildly imaginative. Just like Re-Animator spoofed the sci-fi/horror genre, Evil Dead 2 takes on the slasher film genre and sends it up way before the Scream/I Know What You Did Last Summer/Scary Movie cash cows. For those who liked the “tree” sequence in the first Evil Dead movie, imagine it being magnified over and over again. Using the stop motion animation technique in a deliberately crude fashion, Evil Dead 2 is still wildly imaginative. A person tries to fight off their own severed hand. Visions appear from nowhere. The first sequence in speeded up time is dizzily unnerving. If you don’t like slasher films (believe me this is a hell of a lot better than any Friday the 13th film, take your pick) or if you’re one of those old blue haired types ranting about “video nasties” then stay away. However, if you want a good, gorey and even sometimes scary descent into madness then Evil Dead 2 is for you. For real film fanatics, one might note (though on a far more intellectual level)the sense of the world collapsing and turning against the protagonist(s) of the film can also be found (albeit much more arty and far less gorey) in the films of Jan Svankmeyer. As for the casual horror buff, Evil Dead II is a classic of the subgenre of splatter films with a sense of humor which would be taken to new heights with Rob Zombie’s “The Devil’s Rejects”. Leave the lights on.

1 year ago  1 note View high resolution

Being a fan of Richard Ayoade from “The Mighty Boosh” and “The IT Crowd,” I was eager to check out his feature film debut “Submarine.” As the writer and director of this offbeat coming-of-age story, Ayoade demonstrates a deft hand balancing a narrative that is simultaneously outrageous and surprisingly grounded. Championed by Ben Stiller (who takes an executive producer credit), the movie has moments of laugh-out-loud humor to be sure—but it is much more than a conventional teenage romp. I hate using the term quirky as a descriptor. Quirk, as I’ve often and loudly proclaimed, is the curse of independent cinema. Too many times, eccentric characters and unbelievable situations abound in quirky coming-of-age stories that drain real life relatability out of the comedy. “Submarine,” however, employs a real restraint. Its deadpan tone and clever script are its strongest assets in conveying a story that, despite its occasional wackiness, presents identifiable dilemmas and believable protagonists.Set in contemporary Wales, “Submarine” introduces a high school outsider played by Craig Roberts. Roberts contends with the traditional angst of a boy of fifteen. Trying to navigate the pitfalls of school and, in the process, score his first real girlfriend—Roberts has an understated charm that is pivotal to the success of the film. Even at his most gloriously frustrating, Roberts always holds the story together as one of the most strikingly original heroes I’ve seen in a while. In addition to his blossoming romance with a very challenging partner, his life faces further upheaval as his parent’s marriage seems to be on the brink of destruction. His mother (the always reliable Sally Hawkins) is spending a lot of time with an old paramour who happens to be a neighbor (Paddy Considine). Befuddled dad (Noah Taylor) seems ill-equipped to deal with this new set of circumstances so Roberts becomes both sleuth and mischief maker in a scheme to keep things on track.In truth, there is nothing in the plotting of “Submarine” that you haven’t seen in countless other films. But despite this, the movie still feels very fresh and original. A lot of credit must go to a terrific central performance. But Yasmin Paige as the tough, yet vulnerable, love interest is such a complex and interesting character as well. Hawkins and Taylor make a perfect pair of opposites and Considine has a lot of fun with a new-age self-help psychic ninja shtick (you just have to see the movie). Although quite humorous, this is not always what I would describe as a laugh riot. It has an understated cleverness and much of the amusement derives from uncomfortable situations. If I had to compare the film’s sardonic tone to that of another filmmaker, the closest relation in my mind would be Wes Anderson at his most restrained. An easy recommendation, Ayoade has scored a winner and I look forward to future endeavors.

Being a fan of Richard Ayoade from “The Mighty Boosh” and “The IT Crowd,” I was eager to check out his feature film debut “Submarine.” As the writer and director of this offbeat coming-of-age story, Ayoade demonstrates a deft hand balancing a narrative that is simultaneously outrageous and surprisingly grounded. Championed by Ben Stiller (who takes an executive producer credit), the movie has moments of laugh-out-loud humor to be sure—but it is much more than a conventional teenage romp. I hate using the term quirky as a descriptor. Quirk, as I’ve often and loudly proclaimed, is the curse of independent cinema. Too many times, eccentric characters and unbelievable situations abound in quirky coming-of-age stories that drain real life relatability out of the comedy. “Submarine,” however, employs a real restraint. Its deadpan tone and clever script are its strongest assets in conveying a story that, despite its occasional wackiness, presents identifiable dilemmas and believable protagonists.

Set in contemporary Wales, “Submarine” introduces a high school outsider played by Craig Roberts. Roberts contends with the traditional angst of a boy of fifteen. Trying to navigate the pitfalls of school and, in the process, score his first real girlfriend—Roberts has an understated charm that is pivotal to the success of the film. Even at his most gloriously frustrating, Roberts always holds the story together as one of the most strikingly original heroes I’ve seen in a while. In addition to his blossoming romance with a very challenging partner, his life faces further upheaval as his parent’s marriage seems to be on the brink of destruction. His mother (the always reliable Sally Hawkins) is spending a lot of time with an old paramour who happens to be a neighbor (Paddy Considine). Befuddled dad (Noah Taylor) seems ill-equipped to deal with this new set of circumstances so Roberts becomes both sleuth and mischief maker in a scheme to keep things on track.

In truth, there is nothing in the plotting of “Submarine” that you haven’t seen in countless other films. But despite this, the movie still feels very fresh and original. A lot of credit must go to a terrific central performance. But Yasmin Paige as the tough, yet vulnerable, love interest is such a complex and interesting character as well. Hawkins and Taylor make a perfect pair of opposites and Considine has a lot of fun with a new-age self-help psychic ninja shtick (you just have to see the movie). Although quite humorous, this is not always what I would describe as a laugh riot. It has an understated cleverness and much of the amusement derives from uncomfortable situations. If I had to compare the film’s sardonic tone to that of another filmmaker, the closest relation in my mind would be Wes Anderson at his most restrained. An easy recommendation, Ayoade has scored a winner and I look forward to future endeavors.

1 year ago  1 note View high resolution

1 year ago  1 note

First let’s give acting credit where it is due. Yes, the two male actors do a wonderful job. but the jump out of your seat and yell bravo performance certainly goes to keira knightly as first jung’s patient and then freud’s. she opens the movie as a psychiatric patient being forcibly conveyed to jung’s clinic. She covers the gamut of range of emotion because she starts out as patient and ends up as therapist.Fassbender and Mortenson do the more restrained jobs that playing jung and freud would require. There are strong emotions running between the two men but as analysts this must be conveyed in their typical observational and subdued style. For example, freud has a number of problems with jung and they aren’t sexual! first and foremost, he envies him that he is married to one of the wealthiest women in europe. next, freud suffers from all the coming thunder of being a Jew in a Germany which will erupt against Jews. Jung has no such religious or ethnic background to constantly battle.They only knew one another for seven years and then parted over divisive beliefs in where psychoanalytic practice should develop. They knew one another before the world wars broke out in europe. Both are regarded as giants in the psychiatric field. few people, at least in america, receive either straight jungian or freudian therapy today. The major factor is that the cost of rendering such treatment does not fit within our health care system. however, all branches of treatment used today feature the basic precepts established by these two men.I am not surprised that david cronenberg directed. This subject matter needed a very visionary old hand. I think he succeeded very well in bringing a potentially difficult subject to the screen. I’ve always been fascinated by this subject and these men so it was not hard for me to love this movie. If you barely know who they are, you may not have my enthusiasm for it. Although it is hard to imagine how anyone could not love keira knightley’s performance.

First let’s give acting credit where it is due. Yes, the two male actors do a wonderful job. but the jump out of your seat and yell bravo performance certainly goes to keira knightly as first jung’s patient and then freud’s. she opens the movie as a psychiatric patient being forcibly conveyed to jung’s clinic. She covers the gamut of range of emotion because she starts out as patient and ends up as therapist.

Fassbender and Mortenson do the more restrained jobs that playing jung and freud would require. There are strong emotions running between the two men but as analysts this must be conveyed in their typical observational and subdued style. For example, freud has a number of problems with jung and they aren’t sexual! first and foremost, he envies him that he is married to one of the wealthiest women in europe. next, freud suffers from all the coming thunder of being a Jew in a Germany which will erupt against Jews. Jung has no such religious or ethnic background to constantly battle.

They only knew one another for seven years and then parted over divisive beliefs in where psychoanalytic practice should develop. They knew one another before the world wars broke out in europe. Both are regarded as giants in the psychiatric field. few people, at least in america, receive either straight jungian or freudian therapy today. The major factor is that the cost of rendering such treatment does not fit within our health care system. however, all branches of treatment used today feature the basic precepts established by these two men.

I am not surprised that david cronenberg directed. This subject matter needed a very visionary old hand. I think he succeeded very well in bringing a potentially difficult subject to the screen. I’ve always been fascinated by this subject and these men so it was not hard for me to love this movie. If you barely know who they are, you may not have my enthusiasm for it. Although it is hard to imagine how anyone could not love keira knightley’s performance.

1 year ago  7 notes View high resolution

British filmmaker Lynne Ramsay’s third feature after ‘Ratcatcher’ (1999) and ‘Morvern Callar’ (2002) is an adaptation of Lionel Shriver’s best-selling book of the same name, but there’s nothing remotely literary about Ramsay’s long-awaited comeback. She ditches the novel’s structure of an American wife, Eva (Tilda Swinton), writing letters to her husband, Franklin (John C Reilly), in the wake of their son committing a terrible crime, but keeps the book’s darting back and forth in time as we come to understand more of the woman, marriage and family that bore a killer.Words firmly take a back seat in favour of the haunting power of image and sound as Ramsay turns Shriver’s novel into mesmerising and provocative cinema. ‘We Need to Talk about Kevin’ is intense, first-person storytelling as Ramsay and Swinton draw us into the head and world of Eva, just as Ramsay did with Samantha Morton in ‘Morvern Callar’. Yet there’s also a cutting portrait of a family at its heart that makes home life feel like civil war as Ramsay runs with Shriver’s bold ideas about the alienation of parenthood and its devastating effect on love and marriage. Only in its latter stages does the film settle down – a little – into longer scenes and the need to resolve what happened to Kevin. He’s played by a staggeringly creepy Ezra Miller, who inherits the same know-it-all, spooky demeanour of a younger actor, Jasper Newell, earlier in the movie.The film is at its best in its first hour or so, when it is most daring. The opening sees Eva’s sleeping dream of being carried aloft at a Spanish tomato festival morph into a waking nightmare of her modest house being attacked with red paint. Tomatoes become paint until soon, via ketchup, there are hints of sirens and blood. Sound design is as rigorously and creatively employed: a prisoner’s scream turns into a baby’s cry turns into the wail of a drill.The film is full of such clever, teasing juxtapositions as thematic links are made between past and present. A distant Christmas for Eva spent in the bosom of her family dissolves to Christmas present and her solitary life as a teen prisoner’s mother and public outcast. We’re never sure whether what we see is the reality of events or Eva’s memory of them. Context is limited and Ramsay’s take on this story is far removed from social commentary or explanation. This is a portrait of a family, channelled through the memories and feelings of the mother herself.Ramsay challenges even Pedro Almodóvar for an evocative use of red and the look of her film, as shot by Seamus McGarvey, is fragmented, often blurry, close-up, full of detail, preferring to show Eva’s nervous feet as she exits a courthouse  – Swinton is a physically awkward presence throughout – rather than her face. If some of the family scenes feel like a domestic war movie, with subtle talk of competitions and victories (‘Well, you won,’ says Eva to Kevin on the mini-golf course), others feel like a horror movie: a scene in which Eva drives through her area at Halloween is chilling.‘We Need to Talk about Kevin’ is thought-provoking, confident and fearless. It’s experimental but never alienating and horrific in all the right ways. It’s great to have Ramsay back behind the camera after too long an absence. Bring on the next one.  A must see.

British filmmaker Lynne Ramsay’s third feature after ‘Ratcatcher’ (1999) and ‘Morvern Callar’ (2002) is an adaptation of Lionel Shriver’s best-selling book of the same name, but there’s nothing remotely literary about Ramsay’s long-awaited comeback. She ditches the novel’s structure of an American wife, Eva (Tilda Swinton), writing letters to her husband, Franklin (John C Reilly), in the wake of their son committing a terrible crime, but keeps the book’s darting back and forth in time as we come to understand more of the woman, marriage and family that bore a killer.

Words firmly take a back seat in favour of the haunting power of image and sound as Ramsay turns Shriver’s novel into mesmerising and provocative cinema. ‘We Need to Talk about Kevin’ is intense, first-person storytelling as Ramsay and Swinton draw us into the head and world of Eva, just as Ramsay did with Samantha Morton in ‘Morvern Callar’. Yet there’s also a cutting portrait of a family at its heart that makes home life feel like civil war as Ramsay runs with Shriver’s bold ideas about the alienation of parenthood and its devastating effect on love and marriage. Only in its latter stages does the film settle down – a little – into longer scenes and the need to resolve what happened to Kevin. He’s played by a staggeringly creepy Ezra Miller, who inherits the same know-it-all, spooky demeanour of a younger actor, Jasper Newell, earlier in the movie.

The film is at its best in its first hour or so, when it is most daring. The opening sees Eva’s sleeping dream of being carried aloft at a Spanish tomato festival morph into a waking nightmare of her modest house being attacked with red paint. Tomatoes become paint until soon, via ketchup, there are hints of sirens and blood. Sound design is as rigorously and creatively employed: a prisoner’s scream turns into a baby’s cry turns into the wail of a drill.

The film is full of such clever, teasing juxtapositions as thematic links are made between past and present. A distant Christmas for Eva spent in the bosom of her family dissolves to Christmas present and her solitary life as a teen prisoner’s mother and public outcast. We’re never sure whether what we see is the reality of events or Eva’s memory of them. Context is limited and Ramsay’s take on this story is far removed from social commentary or explanation. This is a portrait of a family, channelled through the memories and feelings of the mother herself.

Ramsay challenges even Pedro Almodóvar for an evocative use of red and the look of her film, as shot by Seamus McGarvey, is fragmented, often blurry, close-up, full of detail, preferring to show Eva’s nervous feet as she exits a courthouse  – Swinton is a physically awkward presence throughout – rather than her face. If some of the family scenes feel like a domestic war movie, with subtle talk of competitions and victories (‘Well, you won,’ says Eva to Kevin on the mini-golf course), others feel like a horror movie: a scene in which Eva drives through her area at Halloween is chilling.

‘We Need to Talk about Kevin’ is thought-provoking, confident and fearless. It’s experimental but never alienating and horrific in all the right ways. It’s great to have Ramsay back behind the camera after too long an absence. Bring on the next one.  A must see.

1 year ago  4 notes View high resolution

Pulp Fiction was a groundbreaking film in a couple of different ways. It was an independent release and its success opened the door up for all kinds of maverick filmmakers and companies to release films that otherwise would have never been made. It also had a profound stylistic influence. It was a hip movie with sharp dialogue, graphic violence, cool soundtrack and intricate plotlines. In the wake of its success, many movies try to copy this style, but most failed as they lacked Quentin Tarantino’s unique vision. Mr. Tarantino was able to pull John Travolta out of a decade long funk and directed him to the finest performance of his career and one that garnered his second Academy Award nomination. He also pushed Bruce Willis to a stellar performance that showed he was more than just an action hero. The cast is first rate including a beguiling Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Harvey Keitel, Eric Stolz, Rosanna Arquette and Christopher Walken. The best performance of all is given by Samuel L. Jackson who is absolutely amazing. It was a crime that he did not win the Academy Award for the role. Pulp Fiction is broken up into three parts and includes flashbacks, flash-forwards and twists and turns and some mysteries that are never revealed. It is a rare film that is both stylish and full of substance.

Pulp Fiction was a groundbreaking film in a couple of different ways. It was an independent release and its success opened the door up for all kinds of maverick filmmakers and companies to release films that otherwise would have never been made. It also had a profound stylistic influence. It was a hip movie with sharp dialogue, graphic violence, cool soundtrack and intricate plotlines. In the wake of its success, many movies try to copy this style, but most failed as they lacked Quentin Tarantino’s unique vision. Mr. Tarantino was able to pull John Travolta out of a decade long funk and directed him to the finest performance of his career and one that garnered his second Academy Award nomination. He also pushed Bruce Willis to a stellar performance that showed he was more than just an action hero. The cast is first rate including a beguiling Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Harvey Keitel, Eric Stolz, Rosanna Arquette and Christopher Walken. The best performance of all is given by Samuel L. Jackson who is absolutely amazing. It was a crime that he did not win the Academy Award for the role. Pulp Fiction is broken up into three parts and includes flashbacks, flash-forwards and twists and turns and some mysteries that are never revealed. It is a rare film that is both stylish and full of substance.

1 year ago  2 notes View high resolution

How a director like SCORSESE can view the final version without cringing is beyond me…..sure the visuals are okay…..they must have taken about 99 % of the budget as not a cent seems to have been spend on little things like…  STORY….. DIALOGUE….. ACTING or anything else that would normaly make an engaging movie…..this is painfully boring and amazingly long…..it seemed like a 6 hour movie when it finally finished…..it could have been a 30 minute display of how CGI is shit.  Dialogue or actors… it could have been all right, but at over 2 hours it is a criminal waste of money and resources

How a director like SCORSESE can view the final version without cringing is beyond me…..sure the visuals are okay…..they must have taken about 99 % of the budget as not a cent seems to have been spend on little things like…  STORY….. DIALOGUE….. ACTING or anything else that would normaly make an engaging movie…..this is painfully boring and amazingly long…..it seemed like a 6 hour movie when it finally finished…..it could have been a 30 minute display of how CGI is shit.  Dialogue or actors… it could have been all right, but at over 2 hours it is a criminal waste of money and resources

1 year ago 

Martha Marcy May Marlene marks the debut of two talents, the director, Sean Durkin, and the actress, Elizabeth Olsen. Both actor and director show a kind of assured performance that seems relegated to those who are either new to a scene, when talent has been building up for some time and only now has had a chance to unveil itself, or to older creative types, who have enough success behind them that they no longer fear failure (the in-between is usually the tricky part). Elizabeth Olsen (and here I’m required to tell you that she is the younger sister to the famed Full House Olsen twins) plays Martha, a girl who has spent an indeterminate amount of time in a cult hidden away in upstate New York. She eventually flees the confines of the commune and is taken in by her sister and brother-in-law who own a spacious lake house in Connecticut.From here the film is divided into two narratives, one chronicling Martha’s ordeal in the Manson-like collective and the other detailing her return to polite society at her sister’s place. We learn from the former narrative that the cult takes in runaways and is overseen by a charismatic leader, Patrick, played by John Hawkes. While the cult members bandy about pseudo-New Wave jargon, we hear talk of energies, the specific philosophy of the cult remains vague. As one might expect, Patrick has intimate access to most of the women, as do the other men on the compound, to varying degrees. The cult members share duties taking care of children and tending to a garden, and they hope one day to go fully off the grid.The second narrative follows Martha as she attempts to reconnect with her sister Lucy and return to normalcy. For Martha, the lake house is an even more foreign world than the cult. She still plays by the rules set up for her by Patrick. She goes skinny dipping in the middle of the day. And when she feels lonely in her bedroom, she has no qualms about lying down on the foot of Lucy’s bed, even if her sister is in mid-coitus. As Martha’s actions become increasingly bizarre, her brother-in-law puts more pressure on Lucy to hand her sister over to an institution. As we learn what Martha has gone through, it becomes more and more difficult to sympathize with Lucy and her husband’s frustrations. But while Lucy’s husband, Ted, often comes off as a prick (tellingly, he has a well enunciated British accent), it is hard to blame Lucy’s reticence to take on the responsibility of handling Martha on her own.Even though the two narratives are chronologically back to back—the story of Martha’s time in the cult followed by her time with her sister—neither is prized over the other. In fact, it is difficult for me to describe events that occur at the compound as flashbacks because for Martha these events do not exist in the past. She carries the trauma with her. Durkin, the director, excises most establishing shots from the movie, making it difficult to tell whether the next scene begins at the lake house or the compound. The title of the film is a series of names the main character goes by. Her birth name is obviously Martha. She is given the name Marcy May by Patrick when she joins the cult. And Marlene is a communal name used by all the women in the cult to answer the phone. Martha is a woman who has been stripped of her ego and exists in the liminal space between “is” and “was.”Elizabeth Olsen does a fantastic job of portraying a woman who has undergone immense pain. While this trauma does not always manifest itself, it always lingers underneath the surface of her performance. Likewise, Durkin imbues even the most mundane scenes with a sense of tension. It is far, far too early to tell where either Olsen or Durkin’s career will go at this point, but I would be interested in seeing the two work together again. Regardless, I have a feeling plenty more will come from both of these talents.

Martha Marcy May Marlene marks the debut of two talents, the director, Sean Durkin, and the actress, Elizabeth Olsen. Both actor and director show a kind of assured performance that seems relegated to those who are either new to a scene, when talent has been building up for some time and only now has had a chance to unveil itself, or to older creative types, who have enough success behind them that they no longer fear failure (the in-between is usually the tricky part). Elizabeth Olsen (and here I’m required to tell you that she is the younger sister to the famed Full House Olsen twins) plays Martha, a girl who has spent an indeterminate amount of time in a cult hidden away in upstate New York. She eventually flees the confines of the commune and is taken in by her sister and brother-in-law who own a spacious lake house in Connecticut.

From here the film is divided into two narratives, one chronicling Martha’s ordeal in the Manson-like collective and the other detailing her return to polite society at her sister’s place. We learn from the former narrative that the cult takes in runaways and is overseen by a charismatic leader, Patrick, played by John Hawkes. While the cult members bandy about pseudo-New Wave jargon, we hear talk of energies, the specific philosophy of the cult remains vague. As one might expect, Patrick has intimate access to most of the women, as do the other men on the compound, to varying degrees. The cult members share duties taking care of children and tending to a garden, and they hope one day to go fully off the grid.

The second narrative follows Martha as she attempts to reconnect with her sister Lucy and return to normalcy. For Martha, the lake house is an even more foreign world than the cult. She still plays by the rules set up for her by Patrick. She goes skinny dipping in the middle of the day. And when she feels lonely in her bedroom, she has no qualms about lying down on the foot of Lucy’s bed, even if her sister is in mid-coitus. As Martha’s actions become increasingly bizarre, her brother-in-law puts more pressure on Lucy to hand her sister over to an institution. As we learn what Martha has gone through, it becomes more and more difficult to sympathize with Lucy and her husband’s frustrations. But while Lucy’s husband, Ted, often comes off as a prick (tellingly, he has a well enunciated British accent), it is hard to blame Lucy’s reticence to take on the responsibility of handling Martha on her own.

Even though the two narratives are chronologically back to back—the story of Martha’s time in the cult followed by her time with her sister—neither is prized over the other. In fact, it is difficult for me to describe events that occur at the compound as flashbacks because for Martha these events do not exist in the past. She carries the trauma with her. Durkin, the director, excises most establishing shots from the movie, making it difficult to tell whether the next scene begins at the lake house or the compound. The title of the film is a series of names the main character goes by. Her birth name is obviously Martha. She is given the name Marcy May by Patrick when she joins the cult. And Marlene is a communal name used by all the women in the cult to answer the phone. Martha is a woman who has been stripped of her ego and exists in the liminal space between “is” and “was.”

Elizabeth Olsen does a fantastic job of portraying a woman who has undergone immense pain. While this trauma does not always manifest itself, it always lingers underneath the surface of her performance. Likewise, Durkin imbues even the most mundane scenes with a sense of tension. It is far, far too early to tell where either Olsen or Durkin’s career will go at this point, but I would be interested in seeing the two work together again. Regardless, I have a feeling plenty more will come from both of these talents.

1 year ago  3 notes View high resolution

There’s a sequence in this dreadfully slow and boring movie that’s worth bigging up because it’s better than five-stars. I’d even go as far as saying that it’s a serious contender for a top-ten placing in the best ‘acting’ ever put on screen. Gary Oldman has been almost comatose cold for most of the movie (as befits his character) - but then about halfway through the dense unfolding plot - he sits down with Benedict Cumberbatch (how good is he) at his home with a bottle of spirits and both get quietly blotto. Loosened up and now distinctly human, George Smiley (Oldham’s MI5 character) then regales a story to Cumberbatch about how he met and sussed out a fanatical Russian spy. Oldham isn’t just good in it - he’s absolutely sensational. And the camera barely comes off him for maybe six or seven minutes. It’s a huge amount of dialogue to remember and stay in the moment as he recounts it. If you’re wondering why he was Oscar nominated - this extraordinary segment is surely the reason why.Mark Strong puts in the best performance of his career too - there are times when I swear you can literally see what his character is thinking - beautifully subtle work. Colin Firth and Tom Hardy are superb also. The rest of the top-notch cast are the cream of British actors - an A-list to die for - and all honour that. But as you’ve probably gathered from a slew of one-star reviews (some of them even openly hostile) - “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” has still somehow managed to feel like having your teeth pulled - and without the payoff either.

There’s a sequence in this dreadfully slow and boring movie that’s worth bigging up because it’s better than five-stars. I’d even go as far as saying that it’s a serious contender for a top-ten placing in the best ‘acting’ ever put on screen. Gary Oldman has been almost comatose cold for most of the movie (as befits his character) - but then about halfway through the dense unfolding plot - he sits down with Benedict Cumberbatch (how good is he) at his home with a bottle of spirits and both get quietly blotto. Loosened up and now distinctly human, George Smiley (Oldham’s MI5 character) then regales a story to Cumberbatch about how he met and sussed out a fanatical Russian spy. Oldham isn’t just good in it - he’s absolutely sensational. And the camera barely comes off him for maybe six or seven minutes. It’s a huge amount of dialogue to remember and stay in the moment as he recounts it. If you’re wondering why he was Oscar nominated - this extraordinary segment is surely the reason why.

Mark Strong puts in the best performance of his career too - there are times when I swear you can literally see what his character is thinking - beautifully subtle work. Colin Firth and Tom Hardy are superb also. The rest of the top-notch cast are the cream of British actors - an A-list to die for - and all honour that. But as you’ve probably gathered from a slew of one-star reviews (some of them even openly hostile) - “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” has still somehow managed to feel like having your teeth pulled - and without the payoff either.

1 year ago  1 note View high resolution

Last year Michelle Williams deservedly received her second Academy Award nomination for Blue Valentine, and now she is nominated for the role of Marilyn Monroe. I liked this movie enormously, and was disappointed that it did not get nominated for Best Picture instead of Extremely Loud and Incredibly close, a dubious choice.Nevertheless politics being what it is if MWWM was nominated it might give the appearance of Weinstein Studios having too much sway with the Academy Awards, as they also released the Artist with 11 nominations, and the appalling Iron Lady whose only redeeming grace is Meryl Streeps nominated performance, and last year had The Kings Speech.What Michelle Williams and the movie delivers is a very delicately nuanced and multi dimensional portait of Marilyn that we have not seen previously, those shifts in personality, her ability to be vunerable, to charm, to seduce and manipulate, and if you are Larry Olivier the ability to frustrate your ambition to make an incredible movie. In a perhaps ironic twist in view of recent events we see the entourage of people who can’t say no or risk punishment or exclusion.So we have a young wideeyed man who through connections gets his first job in the business working for Olivier, and responsible for keeping things even with Marilyn. If you’re like me you wonder if he will be drawn too far into the web of Marilyn, and if the obvious siren attraction of Marilyn will be his doom. They grow close and here is where the movie takes some liberties on the book on which it’s based, but the will they won’t they aspect will keep you guessing after the final credits roll. The movie captures the period very well.Although most attention has focused on the performance of Michelle Williams, I loved the performance of Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier. He listened to Oliver on audio to perfect the mannerisms and the lines, and even had the exact same shoes custom made to fit the part.It seems fitting that someone who has spent a career following in Olivier’s footsteps, acting Shakespeare and bringing the plays to the screen, may finally get the Academy Award for walking in his shoes.It’s clear here that he is a superior actor, and perfectly achieves both his theatrical mannerisms and intonations particularly rolling the R’s, and all the grand subtleties of the theatrical master. At the end of the movie he delivers a portion of a soliloquy from Prospero in The Tempest. This for me was like a spiritual experience, it was so sublime. Naturally, I hope that he wins although Christopher Plummer appears to the stern competition this year winning several awards in the runup including the Golden Globe.

Last year Michelle Williams deservedly received her second Academy Award nomination for Blue Valentine, and now she is nominated for the role of Marilyn Monroe. I liked this movie enormously, and was disappointed that it did not get nominated for Best Picture instead of Extremely Loud and Incredibly close, a dubious choice.

Nevertheless politics being what it is if MWWM was nominated it might give the appearance of Weinstein Studios having too much sway with the Academy Awards, as they also released the Artist with 11 nominations, and the appalling Iron Lady whose only redeeming grace is Meryl Streeps nominated performance, and last year had The Kings Speech.

What Michelle Williams and the movie delivers is a very delicately nuanced and multi dimensional portait of Marilyn that we have not seen previously, those shifts in personality, her ability to be vunerable, to charm, to seduce and manipulate, and if you are Larry Olivier the ability to frustrate your ambition to make an incredible movie. In a perhaps ironic twist in view of recent events we see the entourage of people who can’t say no or risk punishment or exclusion.

So we have a young wideeyed man who through connections gets his first job in the business working for Olivier, and responsible for keeping things even with Marilyn. If you’re like me you wonder if he will be drawn too far into the web of Marilyn, and if the obvious siren attraction of Marilyn will be his doom. They grow close and here is where the movie takes some liberties on the book on which it’s based, but the will they won’t they aspect will keep you guessing after the final credits roll. The movie captures the period very well.

Although most attention has focused on the performance of Michelle Williams, I loved the performance of Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier. He listened to Oliver on audio to perfect the mannerisms and the lines, and even had the exact same shoes custom made to fit the part.

It seems fitting that someone who has spent a career following in Olivier’s footsteps, acting Shakespeare and bringing the plays to the screen, may finally get the Academy Award for walking in his shoes.

It’s clear here that he is a superior actor, and perfectly achieves both his theatrical mannerisms and intonations particularly rolling the R’s, and all the grand subtleties of the theatrical master. At the end of the movie he delivers a portion of a soliloquy from Prospero in The Tempest. This for me was like a spiritual experience, it was so sublime. Naturally, I hope that he wins although Christopher Plummer appears to the stern competition this year winning several awards in the runup including the Golden Globe.

1 year ago  1 note View high resolution

Saw it yesterday, can’t stop thinking about it. Not the most perfect movie ever made, but certainly watchable and moves along at a rapid pace. Newcomer child-actor Thomas Horn did a fantastic job of acting as he had to run the gamut of heavy emotions, he being beset with a huge guilt that he has not the age experience to deal with, hence his tantrums and minor transgressions. Horn should have been nominated for an Academy Award. His explosionn of emotion towards Von Sydow’s character of what he was trying to accomplish was the best scene in the movie and great acting by Horn. I predict a big future for him. I’m not familiar with Foer’s books, but found this story credible and I’d see this movie twice.Great cinematography, a beautiful scene was of the NY sidewalk at night with everyone posting pictures of missing loved ones. The quiet dignity of those courageous survivors and I think I could actually feel the heat of the lit candles under the pictures. I felt as if I was there. Hanks and Bullock barely have any screen time, but the job got done just the same.

Saw it yesterday, can’t stop thinking about it. Not the most perfect movie ever made, but certainly watchable and moves along at a rapid pace. Newcomer child-actor Thomas Horn did a fantastic job of acting as he had to run the gamut of heavy emotions, he being beset with a huge guilt that he has not the age experience to deal with, hence his tantrums and minor transgressions. Horn should have been nominated for an Academy Award. His explosionn of emotion towards Von Sydow’s character of what he was trying to accomplish was the best scene in the movie and great acting by Horn. I predict a big future for him. I’m not familiar with Foer’s books, but found this story credible and I’d see this movie twice.

Great cinematography, a beautiful scene was of the NY sidewalk at night with everyone posting pictures of missing loved ones. The quiet dignity of those courageous survivors and I think I could actually feel the heat of the lit candles under the pictures. I felt as if I was there. Hanks and Bullock barely have any screen time, but the job got done just the same.

1 year ago  9 notes View high resolution

This film is primarily a feel-good white liberal take on racial segregation, the worn-out formula of painting all whites with traditional values as slave-owning racists who deserve whatever they get, long-suffering blacks who can do no wrong, and the one “good” white person who saves the blacks from the other, evil whites. Hollywood has been making variations of the same tired movie for half a century now. It’s the classical neo-liberal trade-off — you want to simultaneously vilify whites as a race and get whites to buy tickets, so you show one of them championing the Hollywood version of the black cause. It’s both insulting to whites, the vast majority of whom have nothing to answer for, and insulting to blacks, because it paints them as being unable to succeed without liberal whites to save them. 

This film is primarily a feel-good white liberal take on racial segregation, the worn-out formula of painting all whites with traditional values as slave-owning racists who deserve whatever they get, long-suffering blacks who can do no wrong, and the one “good” white person who saves the blacks from the other, evil whites. Hollywood has been making variations of the same tired movie for half a century now. It’s the classical neo-liberal trade-off — you want to simultaneously vilify whites as a race and get whites to buy tickets, so you show one of them championing the Hollywood version of the black cause. It’s both insulting to whites, the vast majority of whom have nothing to answer for, and insulting to blacks, because it paints them as being unable to succeed without liberal whites to save them. 

1 year ago  View high resolution

Being the fan of Sophia Coppola that I am, `Somewhere’ was my most anticipated film 2010. I literally could not wait to see it, so much so that I downloaded it to my computer months before it was released in theaters near me so that I could watch it. For me, `Somewhere’ doesn’t quite live up to my expectations. First things first, this is not a bad film at all. In fact, it is a very good film. Some of my friends have noted that they feel this is Coppola’s most mature offering, and in many ways I totally agree. She has a beautiful knack for fleshing out the humanity in her stories with such graceful subtlety. She masters that here, allowing the fluid movement of the scenes to do most of the talking. While some would make sweeping statements that this is, `by far’, we worst film, I can only half agree. While she shows definite maturity here, this is my least favorite of her films. In that same respect though, I can’t say `by far’ since the film is a very good film. I just found it too familiar. Coppola often regurgitates similar themes in her films, but she manages to make them feel fresh and unique to her own style. She doesn’t quite manage that here. It drips with style (it is beautiful to look at and it moves with the grace and fluidity that we expect from Coppola) but it feels too rehashed to be anything monumentally moving. It felt like ‘Lost in Translation’ lite. I really liked it, and the performances are beautifully detailed, but the film itself reaches short of the greatness I was expecting. The idea of being lost within your own life and trying to find an outlet, anything really to save you from yourself, is a great idea, but Sophia has done that four times over now and it shows on this film that she is running out of ways to make it feel soulfully individualized. This just felt somewhat halfhearted. And yet, I can’t help but admit that had `Lost in Translation’ not been released on ‘03 I’d probably be lauding this particular film as a masterpiece and placing it at the top of my personal ballot for Best Picture last year. Like I said, it’s very good, but it is also very familiar.

Being the fan of Sophia Coppola that I am, `Somewhere’ was my most anticipated film 2010. I literally could not wait to see it, so much so that I downloaded it to my computer months before it was released in theaters near me so that I could watch it. 

For me, `Somewhere’ doesn’t quite live up to my expectations. 

First things first, this is not a bad film at all. In fact, it is a very good film. Some of my friends have noted that they feel this is Coppola’s most mature offering, and in many ways I totally agree. She has a beautiful knack for fleshing out the humanity in her stories with such graceful subtlety. She masters that here, allowing the fluid movement of the scenes to do most of the talking. While some would make sweeping statements that this is, `by far’, we worst film, I can only half agree. While she shows definite maturity here, this is my least favorite of her films. In that same respect though, I can’t say `by far’ since the film is a very good film. I just found it too familiar. Coppola often regurgitates similar themes in her films, but she manages to make them feel fresh and unique to her own style. She doesn’t quite manage that here. It drips with style (it is beautiful to look at and it moves with the grace and fluidity that we expect from Coppola) but it feels too rehashed to be anything monumentally moving. It felt like ‘Lost in Translation’ lite. I really liked it, and the performances are beautifully detailed, but the film itself reaches short of the greatness I was expecting. 

The idea of being lost within your own life and trying to find an outlet, anything really to save you from yourself, is a great idea, but Sophia has done that four times over now and it shows on this film that she is running out of ways to make it feel soulfully individualized. 

This just felt somewhat halfhearted. 

And yet, I can’t help but admit that had `Lost in Translation’ not been released on ‘03 I’d probably be lauding this particular film as a masterpiece and placing it at the top of my personal ballot for Best Picture last year. Like I said, it’s very good, but it is also very familiar.

1 year ago  View high resolution

There’s nothing that I enjoy more than an adult political thriller with its smarts, scandal and cynicism front and center. Therefore, I was over-the-moon in anticipation for George Clooney’s “The Ides of March.” Director Clooney has assembled one of the year’s most impressive casts including Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, and Clooney himself. It’s a dream team and every performance is exemplary. And yet, despite the heavy hitters at the top of their game, the actual story behind “The Ides of March” is pretty familiar and, frankly, a tad underwhelming. I certainly wanted to and expected to like this movie, even love it, but it simply offers little new to the well-worn genre of political drama. Adapted from the 2008 play “Farragut North” by Beau Willimon, the narrative revolves around a Democratic primary with the standard amount of political hubris and idealistic disillusionment. It’s really a very tight story highlighting the arc of Gosling’s character and while the limited scope might have made for a focused play, it seems all so less-than-shocking (even typical or expected) on the big screen.Gosling plays a principled staffer working for Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) as he fights to attain his party’s nomination in the Democratic primary. Taking place almost exclusively on the campaign trail, we see that Gosling’s idealism, savvy, and energetic commitment have made him invaluable to the presidential candidate. He works alongside Hoffman (in another characteristically great performance), spars with Giamatti from the rival candidate’s camp, flirts with Wood as a beautiful young intern, is cagey with Tomei as an ambitious reporter, and trades nuggets of wisdom with the great man Clooney. Over the course of the primary, however, Gosling will come to confront the truth inherent in our political system and in humanity. If you place someone on a pedestal, they are surely in for a fall. But Gosling must grow up quick, open his eyes, and determine if he will be defeated by his disillusionment or become complicit in the complexities of the political machine.In a year in which Ryan Gosling could do no wrong, it’s easy to recommend his versatility. Here, it is easy to see the brash young brilliance of his character, but that just makes his naivete all the more startling. The “shocking” turning point of the film is hardly shocking at all if one watches the news with any regularity, and yet it seems to completely undermine this insanely intelligent and politically astute character. And just as things ramp up for a turn-around, the film ends without a huge degree of payoff. I just feel that we’ve covered this corruption of innocence angle so many times, nothing felt particularly surprising or revelatory about “The Ides of March.” I would still recommend the film, especially for the performances, but it lacks the groundbreaking allure that would define it as a classic. Clooney is terrific and full of easy charm as the candidate, Giamatti gets all the best lines (that must be in all of his contracts), and Hoffman is easily our most steadfast and reliable character actor. I just wish they, along with the great Gosling, had more to say that hadn’t been said countless times before.

There’s nothing that I enjoy more than an adult political thriller with its smarts, scandal and cynicism front and center. Therefore, I was over-the-moon in anticipation for George Clooney’s “The Ides of March.” Director Clooney has assembled one of the year’s most impressive casts including Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, and Clooney himself. It’s a dream team and every performance is exemplary. And yet, despite the heavy hitters at the top of their game, the actual story behind “The Ides of March” is pretty familiar and, frankly, a tad underwhelming. I certainly wanted to and expected to like this movie, even love it, but it simply offers little new to the well-worn genre of political drama. Adapted from the 2008 play “Farragut North” by Beau Willimon, the narrative revolves around a Democratic primary with the standard amount of political hubris and idealistic disillusionment. It’s really a very tight story highlighting the arc of Gosling’s character and while the limited scope might have made for a focused play, it seems all so less-than-shocking (even typical or expected) on the big screen.

Gosling plays a principled staffer working for Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) as he fights to attain his party’s nomination in the Democratic primary. Taking place almost exclusively on the campaign trail, we see that Gosling’s idealism, savvy, and energetic commitment have made him invaluable to the presidential candidate. He works alongside Hoffman (in another characteristically great performance), spars with Giamatti from the rival candidate’s camp, flirts with Wood as a beautiful young intern, is cagey with Tomei as an ambitious reporter, and trades nuggets of wisdom with the great man Clooney. Over the course of the primary, however, Gosling will come to confront the truth inherent in our political system and in humanity. If you place someone on a pedestal, they are surely in for a fall. But Gosling must grow up quick, open his eyes, and determine if he will be defeated by his disillusionment or become complicit in the complexities of the political machine.

In a year in which Ryan Gosling could do no wrong, it’s easy to recommend his versatility. Here, it is easy to see the brash young brilliance of his character, but that just makes his naivete all the more startling. The “shocking” turning point of the film is hardly shocking at all if one watches the news with any regularity, and yet it seems to completely undermine this insanely intelligent and politically astute character. And just as things ramp up for a turn-around, the film ends without a huge degree of payoff. I just feel that we’ve covered this corruption of innocence angle so many times, nothing felt particularly surprising or revelatory about “The Ides of March.” I would still recommend the film, especially for the performances, but it lacks the groundbreaking allure that would define it as a classic. Clooney is terrific and full of easy charm as the candidate, Giamatti gets all the best lines (that must be in all of his contracts), and Hoffman is easily our most steadfast and reliable character actor. I just wish they, along with the great Gosling, had more to say that hadn’t been said countless times before.

1 year ago  3 notes View high resolution

Although overly dramatic at times, Battleground warrants attention as a legitimate WWII film centering on the plight of a 101st Airborne platoon during the strategic battle at Bastogne. Nominated for six Oscars and winner of two (Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography), Battleground captures the physical and emotional hardships endured by combat footsoldiers facing extreme adverse conditions. The dialogue exchanges among the grunts draws the viewer into a soldier’s world of fear, survival, and death. Van Johnson and John Hodiak are given top billing, but it is James Whitmore as the tobacco spitting platoon leader Kip who steals every scene he is in. Whitmore walks, talks, and looks like a seasoned veteran of numerous tours of duty. Director William Wellman intersperses actual WWII footage, but he could have improved some of the fabricated battle scenery. For instance the snow used in certain sets is unconvincing. To Wellman’s credit the carbine shots, grenade explosions, and the mortar volleys are authenticated with gritty realism. Wellman should also be lauded for the emotionalism in which he draws from his characters. The platoon soldiers are not faceless battle weary men; instead each one is given the latitude to express his individuality. The scene where a soldier takes a drag from a cigarette and immediately experiences blurred vision hints at drug use on the front lines. Wellman had the courage to include this frame and surprisingly it slipped past the scrutiny of the Breen Commission. Remember this was 1946, Mr. Breen and the Motion Picture Production Code were extemely conscious of material that might be deemed Un-American to the movie going public. Other scenes where Holly (Van Johnson) desires sex with the French girl are sugar coated and poorly orchestrated. Battleground was definitely a forerunner for films such as Hamburger Hill and Saving Private Ryan which depict the comradeship among soldiers engaged in the horrors of battle.

Although overly dramatic at times, Battleground warrants attention as a legitimate WWII film centering on the plight of a 101st Airborne platoon during the strategic battle at Bastogne. Nominated for six Oscars and winner of two (Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography), Battleground captures the physical and emotional hardships endured by combat footsoldiers facing extreme adverse conditions. The dialogue exchanges among the grunts draws the viewer into a soldier’s world of fear, survival, and death. Van Johnson and John Hodiak are given top billing, but it is James Whitmore as the tobacco spitting platoon leader Kip who steals every scene he is in. Whitmore walks, talks, and looks like a seasoned veteran of numerous tours of duty. Director William Wellman intersperses actual WWII footage, but he could have improved some of the fabricated battle scenery. For instance the snow used in certain sets is unconvincing. To Wellman’s credit the carbine shots, grenade explosions, and the mortar volleys are authenticated with gritty realism. Wellman should also be lauded for the emotionalism in which he draws from his characters. The platoon soldiers are not faceless battle weary men; instead each one is given the latitude to express his individuality. The scene where a soldier takes a drag from a cigarette and immediately experiences blurred vision hints at drug use on the front lines. Wellman had the courage to include this frame and surprisingly it slipped past the scrutiny of the Breen Commission. Remember this was 1946, Mr. Breen and the Motion Picture Production Code were extemely conscious of material that might be deemed Un-American to the movie going public. Other scenes where Holly (Van Johnson) desires sex with the French girl are sugar coated and poorly orchestrated. Battleground was definitely a forerunner for films such as Hamburger Hill and Saving Private Ryan which depict the comradeship among soldiers engaged in the horrors of battle.

1 year ago  View high resolution

Though this was not the first modern horror film to use parody (Dawn of the Dead, An American Werewolf in London are examples), the lengths to which is goes are wildly imaginative. Just like Re-Animator spoofed the sci-fi/horror genre, Evil Dead 2 takes on the slasher film genre and sends it up way before the Scream/I Know What You Did Last Summer/Scary Movie cash cows. For those who liked the “tree” sequence in the first Evil Dead movie, imagine it being magnified over and over again. Using the stop motion animation technique in a deliberately crude fashion, Evil Dead 2 is still wildly imaginative. A person tries to fight off their own severed hand. Visions appear from nowhere. The first sequence in speeded up time is dizzily unnerving. If you don’t like slasher films (believe me this is a hell of a lot better than any Friday the 13th film, take your pick) or if you’re one of those old blue haired types ranting about “video nasties” then stay away. However, if you want a good, gorey and even sometimes scary descent into madness then Evil Dead 2 is for you. For real film fanatics, one might note (though on a far more intellectual level)the sense of the world collapsing and turning against the protagonist(s) of the film can also be found (albeit much more arty and far less gorey) in the films of Jan Svankmeyer. As for the casual horror buff, Evil Dead II is a classic of the subgenre of splatter films with a sense of humor which would be taken to new heights with Rob Zombie’s “The Devil’s Rejects”. Leave the lights on.

Though this was not the first modern horror film to use parody (Dawn of the Dead, An American Werewolf in London are examples), the lengths to which is goes are wildly imaginative. Just like Re-Animator spoofed the sci-fi/horror genre, Evil Dead 2 takes on the slasher film genre and sends it up way before the Scream/I Know What You Did Last Summer/Scary Movie cash cows. For those who liked the “tree” sequence in the first Evil Dead movie, imagine it being magnified over and over again. Using the stop motion animation technique in a deliberately crude fashion, Evil Dead 2 is still wildly imaginative. A person tries to fight off their own severed hand. Visions appear from nowhere. The first sequence in speeded up time is dizzily unnerving. If you don’t like slasher films (believe me this is a hell of a lot better than any Friday the 13th film, take your pick) or if you’re one of those old blue haired types ranting about “video nasties” then stay away. However, if you want a good, gorey and even sometimes scary descent into madness then Evil Dead 2 is for you. For real film fanatics, one might note (though on a far more intellectual level)the sense of the world collapsing and turning against the protagonist(s) of the film can also be found (albeit much more arty and far less gorey) in the films of Jan Svankmeyer. As for the casual horror buff, Evil Dead II is a classic of the subgenre of splatter films with a sense of humor which would be taken to new heights with Rob Zombie’s “The Devil’s Rejects”. Leave the lights on.

Being a fan of Richard Ayoade from “The Mighty Boosh” and “The IT Crowd,” I was eager to check out his feature film debut “Submarine.” As the writer and director of this offbeat coming-of-age story, Ayoade demonstrates a deft hand balancing a narrative that is simultaneously outrageous and surprisingly grounded. Championed by Ben Stiller (who takes an executive producer credit), the movie has moments of laugh-out-loud humor to be sure—but it is much more than a conventional teenage romp. I hate using the term quirky as a descriptor. Quirk, as I’ve often and loudly proclaimed, is the curse of independent cinema. Too many times, eccentric characters and unbelievable situations abound in quirky coming-of-age stories that drain real life relatability out of the comedy. “Submarine,” however, employs a real restraint. Its deadpan tone and clever script are its strongest assets in conveying a story that, despite its occasional wackiness, presents identifiable dilemmas and believable protagonists.Set in contemporary Wales, “Submarine” introduces a high school outsider played by Craig Roberts. Roberts contends with the traditional angst of a boy of fifteen. Trying to navigate the pitfalls of school and, in the process, score his first real girlfriend—Roberts has an understated charm that is pivotal to the success of the film. Even at his most gloriously frustrating, Roberts always holds the story together as one of the most strikingly original heroes I’ve seen in a while. In addition to his blossoming romance with a very challenging partner, his life faces further upheaval as his parent’s marriage seems to be on the brink of destruction. His mother (the always reliable Sally Hawkins) is spending a lot of time with an old paramour who happens to be a neighbor (Paddy Considine). Befuddled dad (Noah Taylor) seems ill-equipped to deal with this new set of circumstances so Roberts becomes both sleuth and mischief maker in a scheme to keep things on track.In truth, there is nothing in the plotting of “Submarine” that you haven’t seen in countless other films. But despite this, the movie still feels very fresh and original. A lot of credit must go to a terrific central performance. But Yasmin Paige as the tough, yet vulnerable, love interest is such a complex and interesting character as well. Hawkins and Taylor make a perfect pair of opposites and Considine has a lot of fun with a new-age self-help psychic ninja shtick (you just have to see the movie). Although quite humorous, this is not always what I would describe as a laugh riot. It has an understated cleverness and much of the amusement derives from uncomfortable situations. If I had to compare the film’s sardonic tone to that of another filmmaker, the closest relation in my mind would be Wes Anderson at his most restrained. An easy recommendation, Ayoade has scored a winner and I look forward to future endeavors.

Being a fan of Richard Ayoade from “The Mighty Boosh” and “The IT Crowd,” I was eager to check out his feature film debut “Submarine.” As the writer and director of this offbeat coming-of-age story, Ayoade demonstrates a deft hand balancing a narrative that is simultaneously outrageous and surprisingly grounded. Championed by Ben Stiller (who takes an executive producer credit), the movie has moments of laugh-out-loud humor to be sure—but it is much more than a conventional teenage romp. I hate using the term quirky as a descriptor. Quirk, as I’ve often and loudly proclaimed, is the curse of independent cinema. Too many times, eccentric characters and unbelievable situations abound in quirky coming-of-age stories that drain real life relatability out of the comedy. “Submarine,” however, employs a real restraint. Its deadpan tone and clever script are its strongest assets in conveying a story that, despite its occasional wackiness, presents identifiable dilemmas and believable protagonists.

Set in contemporary Wales, “Submarine” introduces a high school outsider played by Craig Roberts. Roberts contends with the traditional angst of a boy of fifteen. Trying to navigate the pitfalls of school and, in the process, score his first real girlfriend—Roberts has an understated charm that is pivotal to the success of the film. Even at his most gloriously frustrating, Roberts always holds the story together as one of the most strikingly original heroes I’ve seen in a while. In addition to his blossoming romance with a very challenging partner, his life faces further upheaval as his parent’s marriage seems to be on the brink of destruction. His mother (the always reliable Sally Hawkins) is spending a lot of time with an old paramour who happens to be a neighbor (Paddy Considine). Befuddled dad (Noah Taylor) seems ill-equipped to deal with this new set of circumstances so Roberts becomes both sleuth and mischief maker in a scheme to keep things on track.

In truth, there is nothing in the plotting of “Submarine” that you haven’t seen in countless other films. But despite this, the movie still feels very fresh and original. A lot of credit must go to a terrific central performance. But Yasmin Paige as the tough, yet vulnerable, love interest is such a complex and interesting character as well. Hawkins and Taylor make a perfect pair of opposites and Considine has a lot of fun with a new-age self-help psychic ninja shtick (you just have to see the movie). Although quite humorous, this is not always what I would describe as a laugh riot. It has an understated cleverness and much of the amusement derives from uncomfortable situations. If I had to compare the film’s sardonic tone to that of another filmmaker, the closest relation in my mind would be Wes Anderson at his most restrained. An easy recommendation, Ayoade has scored a winner and I look forward to future endeavors.

First let’s give acting credit where it is due. Yes, the two male actors do a wonderful job. but the jump out of your seat and yell bravo performance certainly goes to keira knightly as first jung’s patient and then freud’s. she opens the movie as a psychiatric patient being forcibly conveyed to jung’s clinic. She covers the gamut of range of emotion because she starts out as patient and ends up as therapist.Fassbender and Mortenson do the more restrained jobs that playing jung and freud would require. There are strong emotions running between the two men but as analysts this must be conveyed in their typical observational and subdued style. For example, freud has a number of problems with jung and they aren’t sexual! first and foremost, he envies him that he is married to one of the wealthiest women in europe. next, freud suffers from all the coming thunder of being a Jew in a Germany which will erupt against Jews. Jung has no such religious or ethnic background to constantly battle.They only knew one another for seven years and then parted over divisive beliefs in where psychoanalytic practice should develop. They knew one another before the world wars broke out in europe. Both are regarded as giants in the psychiatric field. few people, at least in america, receive either straight jungian or freudian therapy today. The major factor is that the cost of rendering such treatment does not fit within our health care system. however, all branches of treatment used today feature the basic precepts established by these two men.I am not surprised that david cronenberg directed. This subject matter needed a very visionary old hand. I think he succeeded very well in bringing a potentially difficult subject to the screen. I’ve always been fascinated by this subject and these men so it was not hard for me to love this movie. If you barely know who they are, you may not have my enthusiasm for it. Although it is hard to imagine how anyone could not love keira knightley’s performance.

First let’s give acting credit where it is due. Yes, the two male actors do a wonderful job. but the jump out of your seat and yell bravo performance certainly goes to keira knightly as first jung’s patient and then freud’s. she opens the movie as a psychiatric patient being forcibly conveyed to jung’s clinic. She covers the gamut of range of emotion because she starts out as patient and ends up as therapist.

Fassbender and Mortenson do the more restrained jobs that playing jung and freud would require. There are strong emotions running between the two men but as analysts this must be conveyed in their typical observational and subdued style. For example, freud has a number of problems with jung and they aren’t sexual! first and foremost, he envies him that he is married to one of the wealthiest women in europe. next, freud suffers from all the coming thunder of being a Jew in a Germany which will erupt against Jews. Jung has no such religious or ethnic background to constantly battle.

They only knew one another for seven years and then parted over divisive beliefs in where psychoanalytic practice should develop. They knew one another before the world wars broke out in europe. Both are regarded as giants in the psychiatric field. few people, at least in america, receive either straight jungian or freudian therapy today. The major factor is that the cost of rendering such treatment does not fit within our health care system. however, all branches of treatment used today feature the basic precepts established by these two men.

I am not surprised that david cronenberg directed. This subject matter needed a very visionary old hand. I think he succeeded very well in bringing a potentially difficult subject to the screen. I’ve always been fascinated by this subject and these men so it was not hard for me to love this movie. If you barely know who they are, you may not have my enthusiasm for it. Although it is hard to imagine how anyone could not love keira knightley’s performance.

British filmmaker Lynne Ramsay’s third feature after ‘Ratcatcher’ (1999) and ‘Morvern Callar’ (2002) is an adaptation of Lionel Shriver’s best-selling book of the same name, but there’s nothing remotely literary about Ramsay’s long-awaited comeback. She ditches the novel’s structure of an American wife, Eva (Tilda Swinton), writing letters to her husband, Franklin (John C Reilly), in the wake of their son committing a terrible crime, but keeps the book’s darting back and forth in time as we come to understand more of the woman, marriage and family that bore a killer.Words firmly take a back seat in favour of the haunting power of image and sound as Ramsay turns Shriver’s novel into mesmerising and provocative cinema. ‘We Need to Talk about Kevin’ is intense, first-person storytelling as Ramsay and Swinton draw us into the head and world of Eva, just as Ramsay did with Samantha Morton in ‘Morvern Callar’. Yet there’s also a cutting portrait of a family at its heart that makes home life feel like civil war as Ramsay runs with Shriver’s bold ideas about the alienation of parenthood and its devastating effect on love and marriage. Only in its latter stages does the film settle down – a little – into longer scenes and the need to resolve what happened to Kevin. He’s played by a staggeringly creepy Ezra Miller, who inherits the same know-it-all, spooky demeanour of a younger actor, Jasper Newell, earlier in the movie.The film is at its best in its first hour or so, when it is most daring. The opening sees Eva’s sleeping dream of being carried aloft at a Spanish tomato festival morph into a waking nightmare of her modest house being attacked with red paint. Tomatoes become paint until soon, via ketchup, there are hints of sirens and blood. Sound design is as rigorously and creatively employed: a prisoner’s scream turns into a baby’s cry turns into the wail of a drill.The film is full of such clever, teasing juxtapositions as thematic links are made between past and present. A distant Christmas for Eva spent in the bosom of her family dissolves to Christmas present and her solitary life as a teen prisoner’s mother and public outcast. We’re never sure whether what we see is the reality of events or Eva’s memory of them. Context is limited and Ramsay’s take on this story is far removed from social commentary or explanation. This is a portrait of a family, channelled through the memories and feelings of the mother herself.Ramsay challenges even Pedro Almodóvar for an evocative use of red and the look of her film, as shot by Seamus McGarvey, is fragmented, often blurry, close-up, full of detail, preferring to show Eva’s nervous feet as she exits a courthouse  – Swinton is a physically awkward presence throughout – rather than her face. If some of the family scenes feel like a domestic war movie, with subtle talk of competitions and victories (‘Well, you won,’ says Eva to Kevin on the mini-golf course), others feel like a horror movie: a scene in which Eva drives through her area at Halloween is chilling.‘We Need to Talk about Kevin’ is thought-provoking, confident and fearless. It’s experimental but never alienating and horrific in all the right ways. It’s great to have Ramsay back behind the camera after too long an absence. Bring on the next one.  A must see.

British filmmaker Lynne Ramsay’s third feature after ‘Ratcatcher’ (1999) and ‘Morvern Callar’ (2002) is an adaptation of Lionel Shriver’s best-selling book of the same name, but there’s nothing remotely literary about Ramsay’s long-awaited comeback. She ditches the novel’s structure of an American wife, Eva (Tilda Swinton), writing letters to her husband, Franklin (John C Reilly), in the wake of their son committing a terrible crime, but keeps the book’s darting back and forth in time as we come to understand more of the woman, marriage and family that bore a killer.

Words firmly take a back seat in favour of the haunting power of image and sound as Ramsay turns Shriver’s novel into mesmerising and provocative cinema. ‘We Need to Talk about Kevin’ is intense, first-person storytelling as Ramsay and Swinton draw us into the head and world of Eva, just as Ramsay did with Samantha Morton in ‘Morvern Callar’. Yet there’s also a cutting portrait of a family at its heart that makes home life feel like civil war as Ramsay runs with Shriver’s bold ideas about the alienation of parenthood and its devastating effect on love and marriage. Only in its latter stages does the film settle down – a little – into longer scenes and the need to resolve what happened to Kevin. He’s played by a staggeringly creepy Ezra Miller, who inherits the same know-it-all, spooky demeanour of a younger actor, Jasper Newell, earlier in the movie.

The film is at its best in its first hour or so, when it is most daring. The opening sees Eva’s sleeping dream of being carried aloft at a Spanish tomato festival morph into a waking nightmare of her modest house being attacked with red paint. Tomatoes become paint until soon, via ketchup, there are hints of sirens and blood. Sound design is as rigorously and creatively employed: a prisoner’s scream turns into a baby’s cry turns into the wail of a drill.

The film is full of such clever, teasing juxtapositions as thematic links are made between past and present. A distant Christmas for Eva spent in the bosom of her family dissolves to Christmas present and her solitary life as a teen prisoner’s mother and public outcast. We’re never sure whether what we see is the reality of events or Eva’s memory of them. Context is limited and Ramsay’s take on this story is far removed from social commentary or explanation. This is a portrait of a family, channelled through the memories and feelings of the mother herself.

Ramsay challenges even Pedro Almodóvar for an evocative use of red and the look of her film, as shot by Seamus McGarvey, is fragmented, often blurry, close-up, full of detail, preferring to show Eva’s nervous feet as she exits a courthouse  – Swinton is a physically awkward presence throughout – rather than her face. If some of the family scenes feel like a domestic war movie, with subtle talk of competitions and victories (‘Well, you won,’ says Eva to Kevin on the mini-golf course), others feel like a horror movie: a scene in which Eva drives through her area at Halloween is chilling.

‘We Need to Talk about Kevin’ is thought-provoking, confident and fearless. It’s experimental but never alienating and horrific in all the right ways. It’s great to have Ramsay back behind the camera after too long an absence. Bring on the next one.  A must see.

Pulp Fiction was a groundbreaking film in a couple of different ways. It was an independent release and its success opened the door up for all kinds of maverick filmmakers and companies to release films that otherwise would have never been made. It also had a profound stylistic influence. It was a hip movie with sharp dialogue, graphic violence, cool soundtrack and intricate plotlines. In the wake of its success, many movies try to copy this style, but most failed as they lacked Quentin Tarantino’s unique vision. Mr. Tarantino was able to pull John Travolta out of a decade long funk and directed him to the finest performance of his career and one that garnered his second Academy Award nomination. He also pushed Bruce Willis to a stellar performance that showed he was more than just an action hero. The cast is first rate including a beguiling Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Harvey Keitel, Eric Stolz, Rosanna Arquette and Christopher Walken. The best performance of all is given by Samuel L. Jackson who is absolutely amazing. It was a crime that he did not win the Academy Award for the role. Pulp Fiction is broken up into three parts and includes flashbacks, flash-forwards and twists and turns and some mysteries that are never revealed. It is a rare film that is both stylish and full of substance.

Pulp Fiction was a groundbreaking film in a couple of different ways. It was an independent release and its success opened the door up for all kinds of maverick filmmakers and companies to release films that otherwise would have never been made. It also had a profound stylistic influence. It was a hip movie with sharp dialogue, graphic violence, cool soundtrack and intricate plotlines. In the wake of its success, many movies try to copy this style, but most failed as they lacked Quentin Tarantino’s unique vision. Mr. Tarantino was able to pull John Travolta out of a decade long funk and directed him to the finest performance of his career and one that garnered his second Academy Award nomination. He also pushed Bruce Willis to a stellar performance that showed he was more than just an action hero. The cast is first rate including a beguiling Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Harvey Keitel, Eric Stolz, Rosanna Arquette and Christopher Walken. The best performance of all is given by Samuel L. Jackson who is absolutely amazing. It was a crime that he did not win the Academy Award for the role. Pulp Fiction is broken up into three parts and includes flashbacks, flash-forwards and twists and turns and some mysteries that are never revealed. It is a rare film that is both stylish and full of substance.

How a director like SCORSESE can view the final version without cringing is beyond me…..sure the visuals are okay…..they must have taken about 99 % of the budget as not a cent seems to have been spend on little things like…  STORY….. DIALOGUE….. ACTING or anything else that would normaly make an engaging movie…..this is painfully boring and amazingly long…..it seemed like a 6 hour movie when it finally finished…..it could have been a 30 minute display of how CGI is shit.  Dialogue or actors… it could have been all right, but at over 2 hours it is a criminal waste of money and resources

How a director like SCORSESE can view the final version without cringing is beyond me…..sure the visuals are okay…..they must have taken about 99 % of the budget as not a cent seems to have been spend on little things like…  STORY….. DIALOGUE….. ACTING or anything else that would normaly make an engaging movie…..this is painfully boring and amazingly long…..it seemed like a 6 hour movie when it finally finished…..it could have been a 30 minute display of how CGI is shit.  Dialogue or actors… it could have been all right, but at over 2 hours it is a criminal waste of money and resources

Martha Marcy May Marlene marks the debut of two talents, the director, Sean Durkin, and the actress, Elizabeth Olsen. Both actor and director show a kind of assured performance that seems relegated to those who are either new to a scene, when talent has been building up for some time and only now has had a chance to unveil itself, or to older creative types, who have enough success behind them that they no longer fear failure (the in-between is usually the tricky part). Elizabeth Olsen (and here I’m required to tell you that she is the younger sister to the famed Full House Olsen twins) plays Martha, a girl who has spent an indeterminate amount of time in a cult hidden away in upstate New York. She eventually flees the confines of the commune and is taken in by her sister and brother-in-law who own a spacious lake house in Connecticut.From here the film is divided into two narratives, one chronicling Martha’s ordeal in the Manson-like collective and the other detailing her return to polite society at her sister’s place. We learn from the former narrative that the cult takes in runaways and is overseen by a charismatic leader, Patrick, played by John Hawkes. While the cult members bandy about pseudo-New Wave jargon, we hear talk of energies, the specific philosophy of the cult remains vague. As one might expect, Patrick has intimate access to most of the women, as do the other men on the compound, to varying degrees. The cult members share duties taking care of children and tending to a garden, and they hope one day to go fully off the grid.The second narrative follows Martha as she attempts to reconnect with her sister Lucy and return to normalcy. For Martha, the lake house is an even more foreign world than the cult. She still plays by the rules set up for her by Patrick. She goes skinny dipping in the middle of the day. And when she feels lonely in her bedroom, she has no qualms about lying down on the foot of Lucy’s bed, even if her sister is in mid-coitus. As Martha’s actions become increasingly bizarre, her brother-in-law puts more pressure on Lucy to hand her sister over to an institution. As we learn what Martha has gone through, it becomes more and more difficult to sympathize with Lucy and her husband’s frustrations. But while Lucy’s husband, Ted, often comes off as a prick (tellingly, he has a well enunciated British accent), it is hard to blame Lucy’s reticence to take on the responsibility of handling Martha on her own.Even though the two narratives are chronologically back to back—the story of Martha’s time in the cult followed by her time with her sister—neither is prized over the other. In fact, it is difficult for me to describe events that occur at the compound as flashbacks because for Martha these events do not exist in the past. She carries the trauma with her. Durkin, the director, excises most establishing shots from the movie, making it difficult to tell whether the next scene begins at the lake house or the compound. The title of the film is a series of names the main character goes by. Her birth name is obviously Martha. She is given the name Marcy May by Patrick when she joins the cult. And Marlene is a communal name used by all the women in the cult to answer the phone. Martha is a woman who has been stripped of her ego and exists in the liminal space between “is” and “was.”Elizabeth Olsen does a fantastic job of portraying a woman who has undergone immense pain. While this trauma does not always manifest itself, it always lingers underneath the surface of her performance. Likewise, Durkin imbues even the most mundane scenes with a sense of tension. It is far, far too early to tell where either Olsen or Durkin’s career will go at this point, but I would be interested in seeing the two work together again. Regardless, I have a feeling plenty more will come from both of these talents.

Martha Marcy May Marlene marks the debut of two talents, the director, Sean Durkin, and the actress, Elizabeth Olsen. Both actor and director show a kind of assured performance that seems relegated to those who are either new to a scene, when talent has been building up for some time and only now has had a chance to unveil itself, or to older creative types, who have enough success behind them that they no longer fear failure (the in-between is usually the tricky part). Elizabeth Olsen (and here I’m required to tell you that she is the younger sister to the famed Full House Olsen twins) plays Martha, a girl who has spent an indeterminate amount of time in a cult hidden away in upstate New York. She eventually flees the confines of the commune and is taken in by her sister and brother-in-law who own a spacious lake house in Connecticut.

From here the film is divided into two narratives, one chronicling Martha’s ordeal in the Manson-like collective and the other detailing her return to polite society at her sister’s place. We learn from the former narrative that the cult takes in runaways and is overseen by a charismatic leader, Patrick, played by John Hawkes. While the cult members bandy about pseudo-New Wave jargon, we hear talk of energies, the specific philosophy of the cult remains vague. As one might expect, Patrick has intimate access to most of the women, as do the other men on the compound, to varying degrees. The cult members share duties taking care of children and tending to a garden, and they hope one day to go fully off the grid.

The second narrative follows Martha as she attempts to reconnect with her sister Lucy and return to normalcy. For Martha, the lake house is an even more foreign world than the cult. She still plays by the rules set up for her by Patrick. She goes skinny dipping in the middle of the day. And when she feels lonely in her bedroom, she has no qualms about lying down on the foot of Lucy’s bed, even if her sister is in mid-coitus. As Martha’s actions become increasingly bizarre, her brother-in-law puts more pressure on Lucy to hand her sister over to an institution. As we learn what Martha has gone through, it becomes more and more difficult to sympathize with Lucy and her husband’s frustrations. But while Lucy’s husband, Ted, often comes off as a prick (tellingly, he has a well enunciated British accent), it is hard to blame Lucy’s reticence to take on the responsibility of handling Martha on her own.

Even though the two narratives are chronologically back to back—the story of Martha’s time in the cult followed by her time with her sister—neither is prized over the other. In fact, it is difficult for me to describe events that occur at the compound as flashbacks because for Martha these events do not exist in the past. She carries the trauma with her. Durkin, the director, excises most establishing shots from the movie, making it difficult to tell whether the next scene begins at the lake house or the compound. The title of the film is a series of names the main character goes by. Her birth name is obviously Martha. She is given the name Marcy May by Patrick when she joins the cult. And Marlene is a communal name used by all the women in the cult to answer the phone. Martha is a woman who has been stripped of her ego and exists in the liminal space between “is” and “was.”

Elizabeth Olsen does a fantastic job of portraying a woman who has undergone immense pain. While this trauma does not always manifest itself, it always lingers underneath the surface of her performance. Likewise, Durkin imbues even the most mundane scenes with a sense of tension. It is far, far too early to tell where either Olsen or Durkin’s career will go at this point, but I would be interested in seeing the two work together again. Regardless, I have a feeling plenty more will come from both of these talents.

There’s a sequence in this dreadfully slow and boring movie that’s worth bigging up because it’s better than five-stars. I’d even go as far as saying that it’s a serious contender for a top-ten placing in the best ‘acting’ ever put on screen. Gary Oldman has been almost comatose cold for most of the movie (as befits his character) - but then about halfway through the dense unfolding plot - he sits down with Benedict Cumberbatch (how good is he) at his home with a bottle of spirits and both get quietly blotto. Loosened up and now distinctly human, George Smiley (Oldham’s MI5 character) then regales a story to Cumberbatch about how he met and sussed out a fanatical Russian spy. Oldham isn’t just good in it - he’s absolutely sensational. And the camera barely comes off him for maybe six or seven minutes. It’s a huge amount of dialogue to remember and stay in the moment as he recounts it. If you’re wondering why he was Oscar nominated - this extraordinary segment is surely the reason why.Mark Strong puts in the best performance of his career too - there are times when I swear you can literally see what his character is thinking - beautifully subtle work. Colin Firth and Tom Hardy are superb also. The rest of the top-notch cast are the cream of British actors - an A-list to die for - and all honour that. But as you’ve probably gathered from a slew of one-star reviews (some of them even openly hostile) - “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” has still somehow managed to feel like having your teeth pulled - and without the payoff either.

There’s a sequence in this dreadfully slow and boring movie that’s worth bigging up because it’s better than five-stars. I’d even go as far as saying that it’s a serious contender for a top-ten placing in the best ‘acting’ ever put on screen. Gary Oldman has been almost comatose cold for most of the movie (as befits his character) - but then about halfway through the dense unfolding plot - he sits down with Benedict Cumberbatch (how good is he) at his home with a bottle of spirits and both get quietly blotto. Loosened up and now distinctly human, George Smiley (Oldham’s MI5 character) then regales a story to Cumberbatch about how he met and sussed out a fanatical Russian spy. Oldham isn’t just good in it - he’s absolutely sensational. And the camera barely comes off him for maybe six or seven minutes. It’s a huge amount of dialogue to remember and stay in the moment as he recounts it. If you’re wondering why he was Oscar nominated - this extraordinary segment is surely the reason why.

Mark Strong puts in the best performance of his career too - there are times when I swear you can literally see what his character is thinking - beautifully subtle work. Colin Firth and Tom Hardy are superb also. The rest of the top-notch cast are the cream of British actors - an A-list to die for - and all honour that. But as you’ve probably gathered from a slew of one-star reviews (some of them even openly hostile) - “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” has still somehow managed to feel like having your teeth pulled - and without the payoff either.

Last year Michelle Williams deservedly received her second Academy Award nomination for Blue Valentine, and now she is nominated for the role of Marilyn Monroe. I liked this movie enormously, and was disappointed that it did not get nominated for Best Picture instead of Extremely Loud and Incredibly close, a dubious choice.Nevertheless politics being what it is if MWWM was nominated it might give the appearance of Weinstein Studios having too much sway with the Academy Awards, as they also released the Artist with 11 nominations, and the appalling Iron Lady whose only redeeming grace is Meryl Streeps nominated performance, and last year had The Kings Speech.What Michelle Williams and the movie delivers is a very delicately nuanced and multi dimensional portait of Marilyn that we have not seen previously, those shifts in personality, her ability to be vunerable, to charm, to seduce and manipulate, and if you are Larry Olivier the ability to frustrate your ambition to make an incredible movie. In a perhaps ironic twist in view of recent events we see the entourage of people who can’t say no or risk punishment or exclusion.So we have a young wideeyed man who through connections gets his first job in the business working for Olivier, and responsible for keeping things even with Marilyn. If you’re like me you wonder if he will be drawn too far into the web of Marilyn, and if the obvious siren attraction of Marilyn will be his doom. They grow close and here is where the movie takes some liberties on the book on which it’s based, but the will they won’t they aspect will keep you guessing after the final credits roll. The movie captures the period very well.Although most attention has focused on the performance of Michelle Williams, I loved the performance of Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier. He listened to Oliver on audio to perfect the mannerisms and the lines, and even had the exact same shoes custom made to fit the part.It seems fitting that someone who has spent a career following in Olivier’s footsteps, acting Shakespeare and bringing the plays to the screen, may finally get the Academy Award for walking in his shoes.It’s clear here that he is a superior actor, and perfectly achieves both his theatrical mannerisms and intonations particularly rolling the R’s, and all the grand subtleties of the theatrical master. At the end of the movie he delivers a portion of a soliloquy from Prospero in The Tempest. This for me was like a spiritual experience, it was so sublime. Naturally, I hope that he wins although Christopher Plummer appears to the stern competition this year winning several awards in the runup including the Golden Globe.

Last year Michelle Williams deservedly received her second Academy Award nomination for Blue Valentine, and now she is nominated for the role of Marilyn Monroe. I liked this movie enormously, and was disappointed that it did not get nominated for Best Picture instead of Extremely Loud and Incredibly close, a dubious choice.

Nevertheless politics being what it is if MWWM was nominated it might give the appearance of Weinstein Studios having too much sway with the Academy Awards, as they also released the Artist with 11 nominations, and the appalling Iron Lady whose only redeeming grace is Meryl Streeps nominated performance, and last year had The Kings Speech.

What Michelle Williams and the movie delivers is a very delicately nuanced and multi dimensional portait of Marilyn that we have not seen previously, those shifts in personality, her ability to be vunerable, to charm, to seduce and manipulate, and if you are Larry Olivier the ability to frustrate your ambition to make an incredible movie. In a perhaps ironic twist in view of recent events we see the entourage of people who can’t say no or risk punishment or exclusion.

So we have a young wideeyed man who through connections gets his first job in the business working for Olivier, and responsible for keeping things even with Marilyn. If you’re like me you wonder if he will be drawn too far into the web of Marilyn, and if the obvious siren attraction of Marilyn will be his doom. They grow close and here is where the movie takes some liberties on the book on which it’s based, but the will they won’t they aspect will keep you guessing after the final credits roll. The movie captures the period very well.

Although most attention has focused on the performance of Michelle Williams, I loved the performance of Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier. He listened to Oliver on audio to perfect the mannerisms and the lines, and even had the exact same shoes custom made to fit the part.

It seems fitting that someone who has spent a career following in Olivier’s footsteps, acting Shakespeare and bringing the plays to the screen, may finally get the Academy Award for walking in his shoes.

It’s clear here that he is a superior actor, and perfectly achieves both his theatrical mannerisms and intonations particularly rolling the R’s, and all the grand subtleties of the theatrical master. At the end of the movie he delivers a portion of a soliloquy from Prospero in The Tempest. This for me was like a spiritual experience, it was so sublime. Naturally, I hope that he wins although Christopher Plummer appears to the stern competition this year winning several awards in the runup including the Golden Globe.

Saw it yesterday, can’t stop thinking about it. Not the most perfect movie ever made, but certainly watchable and moves along at a rapid pace. Newcomer child-actor Thomas Horn did a fantastic job of acting as he had to run the gamut of heavy emotions, he being beset with a huge guilt that he has not the age experience to deal with, hence his tantrums and minor transgressions. Horn should have been nominated for an Academy Award. His explosionn of emotion towards Von Sydow’s character of what he was trying to accomplish was the best scene in the movie and great acting by Horn. I predict a big future for him. I’m not familiar with Foer’s books, but found this story credible and I’d see this movie twice.Great cinematography, a beautiful scene was of the NY sidewalk at night with everyone posting pictures of missing loved ones. The quiet dignity of those courageous survivors and I think I could actually feel the heat of the lit candles under the pictures. I felt as if I was there. Hanks and Bullock barely have any screen time, but the job got done just the same.

Saw it yesterday, can’t stop thinking about it. Not the most perfect movie ever made, but certainly watchable and moves along at a rapid pace. Newcomer child-actor Thomas Horn did a fantastic job of acting as he had to run the gamut of heavy emotions, he being beset with a huge guilt that he has not the age experience to deal with, hence his tantrums and minor transgressions. Horn should have been nominated for an Academy Award. His explosionn of emotion towards Von Sydow’s character of what he was trying to accomplish was the best scene in the movie and great acting by Horn. I predict a big future for him. I’m not familiar with Foer’s books, but found this story credible and I’d see this movie twice.

Great cinematography, a beautiful scene was of the NY sidewalk at night with everyone posting pictures of missing loved ones. The quiet dignity of those courageous survivors and I think I could actually feel the heat of the lit candles under the pictures. I felt as if I was there. Hanks and Bullock barely have any screen time, but the job got done just the same.

This film is primarily a feel-good white liberal take on racial segregation, the worn-out formula of painting all whites with traditional values as slave-owning racists who deserve whatever they get, long-suffering blacks who can do no wrong, and the one “good” white person who saves the blacks from the other, evil whites. Hollywood has been making variations of the same tired movie for half a century now. It’s the classical neo-liberal trade-off — you want to simultaneously vilify whites as a race and get whites to buy tickets, so you show one of them championing the Hollywood version of the black cause. It’s both insulting to whites, the vast majority of whom have nothing to answer for, and insulting to blacks, because it paints them as being unable to succeed without liberal whites to save them. 

This film is primarily a feel-good white liberal take on racial segregation, the worn-out formula of painting all whites with traditional values as slave-owning racists who deserve whatever they get, long-suffering blacks who can do no wrong, and the one “good” white person who saves the blacks from the other, evil whites. Hollywood has been making variations of the same tired movie for half a century now. It’s the classical neo-liberal trade-off — you want to simultaneously vilify whites as a race and get whites to buy tickets, so you show one of them championing the Hollywood version of the black cause. It’s both insulting to whites, the vast majority of whom have nothing to answer for, and insulting to blacks, because it paints them as being unable to succeed without liberal whites to save them. 

Being the fan of Sophia Coppola that I am, `Somewhere’ was my most anticipated film 2010. I literally could not wait to see it, so much so that I downloaded it to my computer months before it was released in theaters near me so that I could watch it. For me, `Somewhere’ doesn’t quite live up to my expectations. First things first, this is not a bad film at all. In fact, it is a very good film. Some of my friends have noted that they feel this is Coppola’s most mature offering, and in many ways I totally agree. She has a beautiful knack for fleshing out the humanity in her stories with such graceful subtlety. She masters that here, allowing the fluid movement of the scenes to do most of the talking. While some would make sweeping statements that this is, `by far’, we worst film, I can only half agree. While she shows definite maturity here, this is my least favorite of her films. In that same respect though, I can’t say `by far’ since the film is a very good film. I just found it too familiar. Coppola often regurgitates similar themes in her films, but she manages to make them feel fresh and unique to her own style. She doesn’t quite manage that here. It drips with style (it is beautiful to look at and it moves with the grace and fluidity that we expect from Coppola) but it feels too rehashed to be anything monumentally moving. It felt like ‘Lost in Translation’ lite. I really liked it, and the performances are beautifully detailed, but the film itself reaches short of the greatness I was expecting. The idea of being lost within your own life and trying to find an outlet, anything really to save you from yourself, is a great idea, but Sophia has done that four times over now and it shows on this film that she is running out of ways to make it feel soulfully individualized. This just felt somewhat halfhearted. And yet, I can’t help but admit that had `Lost in Translation’ not been released on ‘03 I’d probably be lauding this particular film as a masterpiece and placing it at the top of my personal ballot for Best Picture last year. Like I said, it’s very good, but it is also very familiar.

Being the fan of Sophia Coppola that I am, `Somewhere’ was my most anticipated film 2010. I literally could not wait to see it, so much so that I downloaded it to my computer months before it was released in theaters near me so that I could watch it. 

For me, `Somewhere’ doesn’t quite live up to my expectations. 

First things first, this is not a bad film at all. In fact, it is a very good film. Some of my friends have noted that they feel this is Coppola’s most mature offering, and in many ways I totally agree. She has a beautiful knack for fleshing out the humanity in her stories with such graceful subtlety. She masters that here, allowing the fluid movement of the scenes to do most of the talking. While some would make sweeping statements that this is, `by far’, we worst film, I can only half agree. While she shows definite maturity here, this is my least favorite of her films. In that same respect though, I can’t say `by far’ since the film is a very good film. I just found it too familiar. Coppola often regurgitates similar themes in her films, but she manages to make them feel fresh and unique to her own style. She doesn’t quite manage that here. It drips with style (it is beautiful to look at and it moves with the grace and fluidity that we expect from Coppola) but it feels too rehashed to be anything monumentally moving. It felt like ‘Lost in Translation’ lite. I really liked it, and the performances are beautifully detailed, but the film itself reaches short of the greatness I was expecting. 

The idea of being lost within your own life and trying to find an outlet, anything really to save you from yourself, is a great idea, but Sophia has done that four times over now and it shows on this film that she is running out of ways to make it feel soulfully individualized. 

This just felt somewhat halfhearted. 

And yet, I can’t help but admit that had `Lost in Translation’ not been released on ‘03 I’d probably be lauding this particular film as a masterpiece and placing it at the top of my personal ballot for Best Picture last year. Like I said, it’s very good, but it is also very familiar.

There’s nothing that I enjoy more than an adult political thriller with its smarts, scandal and cynicism front and center. Therefore, I was over-the-moon in anticipation for George Clooney’s “The Ides of March.” Director Clooney has assembled one of the year’s most impressive casts including Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, and Clooney himself. It’s a dream team and every performance is exemplary. And yet, despite the heavy hitters at the top of their game, the actual story behind “The Ides of March” is pretty familiar and, frankly, a tad underwhelming. I certainly wanted to and expected to like this movie, even love it, but it simply offers little new to the well-worn genre of political drama. Adapted from the 2008 play “Farragut North” by Beau Willimon, the narrative revolves around a Democratic primary with the standard amount of political hubris and idealistic disillusionment. It’s really a very tight story highlighting the arc of Gosling’s character and while the limited scope might have made for a focused play, it seems all so less-than-shocking (even typical or expected) on the big screen.Gosling plays a principled staffer working for Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) as he fights to attain his party’s nomination in the Democratic primary. Taking place almost exclusively on the campaign trail, we see that Gosling’s idealism, savvy, and energetic commitment have made him invaluable to the presidential candidate. He works alongside Hoffman (in another characteristically great performance), spars with Giamatti from the rival candidate’s camp, flirts with Wood as a beautiful young intern, is cagey with Tomei as an ambitious reporter, and trades nuggets of wisdom with the great man Clooney. Over the course of the primary, however, Gosling will come to confront the truth inherent in our political system and in humanity. If you place someone on a pedestal, they are surely in for a fall. But Gosling must grow up quick, open his eyes, and determine if he will be defeated by his disillusionment or become complicit in the complexities of the political machine.In a year in which Ryan Gosling could do no wrong, it’s easy to recommend his versatility. Here, it is easy to see the brash young brilliance of his character, but that just makes his naivete all the more startling. The “shocking” turning point of the film is hardly shocking at all if one watches the news with any regularity, and yet it seems to completely undermine this insanely intelligent and politically astute character. And just as things ramp up for a turn-around, the film ends without a huge degree of payoff. I just feel that we’ve covered this corruption of innocence angle so many times, nothing felt particularly surprising or revelatory about “The Ides of March.” I would still recommend the film, especially for the performances, but it lacks the groundbreaking allure that would define it as a classic. Clooney is terrific and full of easy charm as the candidate, Giamatti gets all the best lines (that must be in all of his contracts), and Hoffman is easily our most steadfast and reliable character actor. I just wish they, along with the great Gosling, had more to say that hadn’t been said countless times before.

There’s nothing that I enjoy more than an adult political thriller with its smarts, scandal and cynicism front and center. Therefore, I was over-the-moon in anticipation for George Clooney’s “The Ides of March.” Director Clooney has assembled one of the year’s most impressive casts including Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, and Clooney himself. It’s a dream team and every performance is exemplary. And yet, despite the heavy hitters at the top of their game, the actual story behind “The Ides of March” is pretty familiar and, frankly, a tad underwhelming. I certainly wanted to and expected to like this movie, even love it, but it simply offers little new to the well-worn genre of political drama. Adapted from the 2008 play “Farragut North” by Beau Willimon, the narrative revolves around a Democratic primary with the standard amount of political hubris and idealistic disillusionment. It’s really a very tight story highlighting the arc of Gosling’s character and while the limited scope might have made for a focused play, it seems all so less-than-shocking (even typical or expected) on the big screen.

Gosling plays a principled staffer working for Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) as he fights to attain his party’s nomination in the Democratic primary. Taking place almost exclusively on the campaign trail, we see that Gosling’s idealism, savvy, and energetic commitment have made him invaluable to the presidential candidate. He works alongside Hoffman (in another characteristically great performance), spars with Giamatti from the rival candidate’s camp, flirts with Wood as a beautiful young intern, is cagey with Tomei as an ambitious reporter, and trades nuggets of wisdom with the great man Clooney. Over the course of the primary, however, Gosling will come to confront the truth inherent in our political system and in humanity. If you place someone on a pedestal, they are surely in for a fall. But Gosling must grow up quick, open his eyes, and determine if he will be defeated by his disillusionment or become complicit in the complexities of the political machine.

In a year in which Ryan Gosling could do no wrong, it’s easy to recommend his versatility. Here, it is easy to see the brash young brilliance of his character, but that just makes his naivete all the more startling. The “shocking” turning point of the film is hardly shocking at all if one watches the news with any regularity, and yet it seems to completely undermine this insanely intelligent and politically astute character. And just as things ramp up for a turn-around, the film ends without a huge degree of payoff. I just feel that we’ve covered this corruption of innocence angle so many times, nothing felt particularly surprising or revelatory about “The Ides of March.” I would still recommend the film, especially for the performances, but it lacks the groundbreaking allure that would define it as a classic. Clooney is terrific and full of easy charm as the candidate, Giamatti gets all the best lines (that must be in all of his contracts), and Hoffman is easily our most steadfast and reliable character actor. I just wish they, along with the great Gosling, had more to say that hadn’t been said countless times before.

Although overly dramatic at times, Battleground warrants attention as a legitimate WWII film centering on the plight of a 101st Airborne platoon during the strategic battle at Bastogne. Nominated for six Oscars and winner of two (Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography), Battleground captures the physical and emotional hardships endured by combat footsoldiers facing extreme adverse conditions. The dialogue exchanges among the grunts draws the viewer into a soldier’s world of fear, survival, and death. Van Johnson and John Hodiak are given top billing, but it is James Whitmore as the tobacco spitting platoon leader Kip who steals every scene he is in. Whitmore walks, talks, and looks like a seasoned veteran of numerous tours of duty. Director William Wellman intersperses actual WWII footage, but he could have improved some of the fabricated battle scenery. For instance the snow used in certain sets is unconvincing. To Wellman’s credit the carbine shots, grenade explosions, and the mortar volleys are authenticated with gritty realism. Wellman should also be lauded for the emotionalism in which he draws from his characters. The platoon soldiers are not faceless battle weary men; instead each one is given the latitude to express his individuality. The scene where a soldier takes a drag from a cigarette and immediately experiences blurred vision hints at drug use on the front lines. Wellman had the courage to include this frame and surprisingly it slipped past the scrutiny of the Breen Commission. Remember this was 1946, Mr. Breen and the Motion Picture Production Code were extemely conscious of material that might be deemed Un-American to the movie going public. Other scenes where Holly (Van Johnson) desires sex with the French girl are sugar coated and poorly orchestrated. Battleground was definitely a forerunner for films such as Hamburger Hill and Saving Private Ryan which depict the comradeship among soldiers engaged in the horrors of battle.

Although overly dramatic at times, Battleground warrants attention as a legitimate WWII film centering on the plight of a 101st Airborne platoon during the strategic battle at Bastogne. Nominated for six Oscars and winner of two (Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography), Battleground captures the physical and emotional hardships endured by combat footsoldiers facing extreme adverse conditions. The dialogue exchanges among the grunts draws the viewer into a soldier’s world of fear, survival, and death. Van Johnson and John Hodiak are given top billing, but it is James Whitmore as the tobacco spitting platoon leader Kip who steals every scene he is in. Whitmore walks, talks, and looks like a seasoned veteran of numerous tours of duty. Director William Wellman intersperses actual WWII footage, but he could have improved some of the fabricated battle scenery. For instance the snow used in certain sets is unconvincing. To Wellman’s credit the carbine shots, grenade explosions, and the mortar volleys are authenticated with gritty realism. Wellman should also be lauded for the emotionalism in which he draws from his characters. The platoon soldiers are not faceless battle weary men; instead each one is given the latitude to express his individuality. The scene where a soldier takes a drag from a cigarette and immediately experiences blurred vision hints at drug use on the front lines. Wellman had the courage to include this frame and surprisingly it slipped past the scrutiny of the Breen Commission. Remember this was 1946, Mr. Breen and the Motion Picture Production Code were extemely conscious of material that might be deemed Un-American to the movie going public. Other scenes where Holly (Van Johnson) desires sex with the French girl are sugar coated and poorly orchestrated. Battleground was definitely a forerunner for films such as Hamburger Hill and Saving Private Ryan which depict the comradeship among soldiers engaged in the horrors of battle.

About:

Hi, my name is Al, and I am a 22 year old film student at Columbia College. I love to make films, watch films, and talk about films. So, I decided I'm going to post on all the films I watch in 2012. Inevitably, writing reviews, or my own radical personal opinions/critiques/compliments. You've been warned.

Following: