Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[wendybeth]

I agree, NA. I got the movie for Christmas and watched it one time. I didn't hate it, but I didn't feel compelled to watch it again.

[mousepod]

Every year around this time, we try to watch as many of the Oscar nominees as we can. Of the 40 or so movies, we'd only seen eight, so this month is going to be jam-packed with mainstream movies.

Last night, we watched The Illusionist. Since is was nominated for cinematography, we decided that we would concentrate on the lighting and color palette of the film. On that level, the movie did not disappoint. The plot, for the first half of the movie, was predictable (and telegraphed), but the wonderful acting of Norton and Giamatti kept my attention. In the second act, the plot became less plausible, yet so much more interesting. While the

Spoiler:

Usual Suspects

ending was slightly ridiculous, it was also entirely satisfying. Not a bad start for my catch-up month.

[flippyshark]

I just saw Letters From Iwo Jima, which I found absorbing and impressive, and its two and a half hours flew by. The audience I was with (which looked to include lots of veterans) were audibly disgruntled for the first hour or so, apparently not realizing that this entire movie was going to be presented from the Japanese soldiers' perspective.

A few old men boo'ed the first couple of times the characters said anything about Americans. (The first mention, a man digging a trench turns to his friend and says, "This is a terrible island, we should just give it to the Americans." And then someone shouts Boo! Them was hardly fightin' words.) One group walked out halfway through.

For those who remained, I think they warmed to it. It's hardly anti-American, or pro-Imperial Japan. As such, it deserves favorable comparison to Das Boot.

War films are a magnet for cliche and melodrama, and this one is no exception, (a flashback involving a dog had me shaking my head - bringing in a dog for emotional impact is cheap) but mostly, Clint Eastwood keeps things understated and straightforward. Ken Watanabe, as commanding General Kuribayashi, is fantastic. (The movie is based, in part, on letters he wrote to his son.) Kuribayashi practically wears a halo here, he's so honorable.

I haven't seen Flags of Our Fathers, but I overheard audience members, at the end, saying that Letters From Iwo Jima was their favorite out of the two.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Has anybody else seen Venus?

Edited to add: I scrolled way up and saw that Steve had.

I love O'Toole-- and indeed, it is a fitting last performance (I assume it will be, anyway.) But the movie itself didn't reach me. I think perhaps it has to do with being generally disgusted that attraction to barely-legal really never goes away for most men.

(Yes, I do find it ironic that one of my favorite movies is Harold and Maude. I felt that had less to do with objectifying a child and more with falling in love with ideals. Nevertheless, sex between a youngin' and an octogenarian occurred in H&M, while it's only danced aroundin Venus.)

Anything with the girl-- whose performance did not interest me-- left me cold. Anything with his friends or his ex wife was a delight; Vanessa Redgrave was completely lovely and, I felt, mistakenly ignored for awards season. But then, that best supporting actress category is pretty chock-full this year.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I watched "The Devil Weas Prada" tonight. What a terribl predictable film! Not that I wasn't entertained for the whole two hours, Streep is always fascinating to watch, the fashion was fun and Hathaway is very luminious, but - was that book REALLY as popular as I think it was and why?

I cna't tell you why, but I am 100% with you on the film, in fact, I could not watch to the end, I finally gave it up and want that time back, never gonna happen. I love Streep, I think she is an American treasure, but totally wasted in this, no challenge for her and I was shocked at her nominations for it. It was a walk through performance, fun, but a walk through.

[innerSpaceman]

Venus is for awesome. A sweet and wonderful and inspiring movie.

I seriously hope Peter O'Toole wins the Oscar. (I think he's likely to take it as a de-facto "lifetime achievement," if nothing else. But he merits it legitimately.)

[innerSpaceman]

I, too, am SHOCKED Meryl Streep is nominated for best actress. And I am one who finds Devil Wears Prada a delightful piece of fluff. There's nothing wrong with it ... it's a comedy, and it's cute and it's funny.

But best actress? Um, no. There was no work for her at all in this role. And she really did not have a lead role, despite being the titular character. (heheh, I said "titular").

I don't know what the Academy might have been thinking, except that perhaps it's some sort of law that Streep must be nominated. (Frankly, she did a much finer piece of acting in Prairie Home Companion.)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by mousepod

In the second act, the plot became less plausible, yet so much more interesting. While the ... ending was slightly ridiculous, it was also entirely satisfying. Not a bad start for my catch-up month.

The first part of the movie interested me. The second part is where it lost me completely.

Spoiler:

Once they hooked reunited I suspected they'd fake her death. Once she was "dead" I knew they had and the rest of the movie was just a bore with that knowledge never even remotely called into doubt.

So far for me it has been a four-movie weekend. Two on DVD, two in theaters.


Saw Smokin' Aces on Friday. This is the new "aren't we hip" action thriller where a dozen hired guns are competing to kill Jeremy Piven in a Lake Tahoe penthouse. I love that the location was moved from the stereotypical Las Vegas to that little four casino cluster at the Nevada-California border on Lake Tahoe. Just gave it a nice low-rent feel that went with the mood of the movie. I suspect it was filmed there because Vegas would have been too expensive but nice nonetheless. There are definitely some good moments of the film but it really doesn't have any of the payoff you'd expect, the movie isn't much more than attitude and in this regard really reminds me of last year's mildly satisfying Kiss Kiss Bang Bang which also won a lot of points for style but negative points for story. One big surprise about the movie, which I didn't realize until hours afterwards is:

Spoiler:

At no point in the movie do any of the competing assassins battle with each other. Also, I can't decide if killing Ben Affleck immediately after the set up is a sign of filmmaking bravado or a sign of the state of Affleck's career.

Finally, as much as the actor might prefer otherwise, but after being the the photographer on Suddenly Susan and Bat Manuel on the shortlived live-action The Tick, you just can't sell being a hard-boiled assassin. Sorry.

Second up for the weekend was Little Children, my Oscar-nominated pick-up for the weekend. First of all, let me say that this movie has reinforced my belief that it should be federal law that Kate Winslett appear nude in all movies, at least one. There is a point in the movie where Winslett and Jennifer Connolley are compared purely on appearance and while I'll agree there was some competition before Connolley lost 30 pounds (10 of it from her boobs it appears) that is simply no longer true.

The performances are great, particularly from Winslet (a woman who is started to find herself inexplicably living the life of a suburban stay-at-home mom) and Jackie Earle Haley as a sex offender trying live in suburbia. So no complaints about those two nominations from me. Haley is particularly suprising as he is 45 years old and really hasn't had much of a career in front of the camera. Really, his most prominent role to date is as Kelly Leak in the many Bad News Bears movies when he was a kid. Prior to this year, his last non-TV movie was 1993's Maniac Cop 3, which I am sure we all remember fondly.

Unfortunately, while the performances are great the movie doesn't really do much. It is more of a painting, filling out the details of an at-first tranquil scene than a story. That isn't a bad thing by any means, but I'd categorize this as a "quiet little film" and a lot of people want more than that.

Then we came home and watched Alien vs. Predator. Last weekend we were in Reno and Lani saw an AVP slot machine which prompted her to say "I'd like to see that." So I added it to the top of the Netflix queue and she actually sat down to watch it yesterday (most of the time when she says I should get a specific movie from Netflix she takes weeks to get around to it). It sucked, but I'm guessing you all knew that. But I learned something about Lani, she knew a lot more about the mythology fo Alien and Predator than I did.

Then as a night cap I watched Cast a Giant Shadow finally, which I've had from Netflix for about a month now. Cast a Giant Shadow is a 1966 movie telling the story of Mickey Marcus an American officer who helped establish the new nation of Israel's military as a power to be reckoned with. It has some good dialogue (after being told he should go to Israel to help because he's Jewish: "I'm an American, that is my religion. The last time I was at Temple I was 13. I gave a speech and got 42 fountain pens. I don't have to go again, I have enough pens.")

It was interesting to watch, especially with another 40 years of futility since it was made (and 60 since the events depicted). I've always found Kirk Douglas to be a mixed bag as an actor but this is one of his better performances. Being a movie of the late '60s it also benefits from more realistic language while not yet going full bore into graphic violence.

[innerSpaceman]

I hope I don't get in trouble with the mods for saying this, but I think Alex has ice water in his veins.

Firstly, imo, the point of The Illusionist was not it's mystery plot of "is it magic or fakery?" It's the romance of the story, no matter which plot point is true. mousepod alluded earlier to the unique art direction and cinematography of sepia-like imagery to evoke the time period and mood, and the sterling performances of Giamanni and Norton. I think Rufus Sewell was really good, too. Taken as a romance piece and not a mystery, I think the film turned out just perfect.


Secondly, the theme is the thing about Little Children, and not its lack of lots of plot. It's an exploration of adult immaturity and how that might -or might not- be grown out of or otherwise escaped. I'll agree with Alex that Winslet and Hailey were deservedly nominated for Oscars. But I must differ about the film as a whole. The script and direction are brilliant. It's a character piece, not a plot machine. That said, there is a distinct story being told, and a fascinating one - in this humble reviewer's opinion.



.

[Alex]

I did not see any romance in The Illusionist. There was zero chemistry. There was only love because we were told that there characters are in love. And with the few people I've talked to about the film, none of them really mention the romance but rather how blown away they were by the "reveal." I certainly won't claim to be the most romantic guy in the world (and since most movie romance rings false, it is difficult for movies to so move me) but I felt absolutely nothing of this romance. For example, the passion (though not romance) between Brad and Sarah in Little Children is real and moving.

I also agree with you on what the theme of Little Children is, but I don't think it really goes anywhere with that theme. Rather it paints a picutre of people who realize that they've got issues of immaturity (primarily the desire for escapism) to deal with but doesn't show them actually dealing with them. That is all left (except for one character) for after the credits roll and over dinner Lani and I had a nice discussion about what we though Brad and Sarah did the next day.

But ultimately, in my view, it is a movie that asks a question, not one that answers a question.

I said "unfortunately" before saying the movie doesn't do much without appropriate clarification. I meant "unfortunately for its chances of being seen by many people" more than "unfortunatley because I think this is a bad thing." Little Children is simply not the kind of movie most people enjoy watching. I think they should, and I did, but they don't.