Sheesh, was it ever a bad year for the movies. But, it wasn't really a good year for anything.
Last year, I had a tough time narrowing down my list. In 2007, I couldn't stop at 10; I named my 25 top movies. This year, I struggled to come up with 10 I thought merited a spot on my list.
But, my favorite movie of the year is so good (I've seen it thrice) that it almost makes up for the dearth of good movies. Almost.
1. The Hangover. Hilarious, and it stands up to repeated viewings. It's also the movie that made Bradley Cooper the matinee idol he deserves to be. Why does an outrageous comedy about a lost night in Vegas rank as my #1? Because, 10 years from now when I'm flipping through channels (or having my robot do it for me), this is the movie I'll want to stop and see.
2. An Education. Carey Mulligan (nominated for an Oscar for best actress, and with good reason) plays an Oxford-bound high school girl who falls under the spell of a sophisticated older man (Peter Sarsgaard) in 1960s London.
3. A Serious Man. The Coen brothers ruminate on nothing less than fate, our place in the universe and the existence of God. A modern retelling of Job, with a lead actor (Michael Stuhlbarg) who should've been nominated for an Oscar.
4. Up. Of course, you'll appreciate the message that we should live our dreams before it's too late. Kids will love the colorful story, the crusty curmudgeon and the eager young Scout who unwittingly tags along on the adventure of a lifetime.
5. The Disappearance of Alice Creed. One of two closing night films at The Toronto International (TIFF) Film Festival. I'll tell you what the director of TIFF said when he introduced the film: "I hope you know nothing about this movie. It deserves to be seen as I first saw it. Let it grab you by the jugular from the first frame and not let up until the last." Twisted, suspenseful and, at times, laugh-out-loud funny. Oh, and there are only three actors in the entire thing. They tear it up. This is the movie Quentin Tarantino might make, if he didn't have a budget.
6. The Blind Side. This movie has more heart than any I saw this year. Let's all be thankful Julia Roberts turned down the role that seems custom-made for Sandra Bullock. This one's for anyone who likes football, brassy Southern matriarchs and/or happy endings.
7. Broken Embraces. Colorful, mysterious, multilayered. There's a movie-within-a-movie, shady characters with questionable motives, a blind former movie director left only with memories of his gorgeous muse/leading lady (Penelope Cruz) and, of course, given that Pedro Almodovar wrote and directed, themes of love -- romantic, paternal and maternal. In Spanish with subtitles.
8. Food, Inc. A horrifying documentary that shows us where our food really comes from. It has the power to change the way you live.
9. Bruno. Thoroughly offensive, and thoroughly hilarious. Sacha Baron Cohen plays Bruno, an over-the-top Austrian model who wants to be famous in America. Once Bruno realizes that all the Hollywood leading men are straight (He points to Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Kevin Spacey), he goes in search of someone who can convert him. To say that "things get weird" just doesn't do it justice.
10. Shall We Kiss? Such a simple question, yet it takes nearly two wondrous hours for the leading lady to explain (in flashbacks) to the man she's attracted to why it may be better if they didn't kiss. In French with subtitles.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Broken Embraces
I've just seen Pedro Almodovar's latest movie and loved it enough -- and had enough questions about the twisted plot -- to have sat through the very next showing.
Not since Alfred Hitchcock cast Grace Kelly in a string of movies has a director been as smitten with a leading lady as Almodovar is with Penelope Cruz. And, it's easy to see why. Not since Rear Window has an actress looked more radiant.
Cruz plays Lena, a would-be actress and love interest of both a film director and a wealthy Venezuelan businessman. Here's where it gets confusing. Lena is starring in a movie directed by one lover and financed by the other. That Lena is romantically interested only in the film director (known first as Mateo and later -- after an accident that leaves him blind -- as Harry Caine) is irksome to her sugar daddy. He assigns his dorky, pimply teenage son to follow them around on set and try to catch them in the midst of shenanigans -- on tape.
That tangled business was all 16 years ago. The movie opens in the present, but the past is still very much haunting the characters.
Harry has long since quit directing, but he is still a screenwriter. And, he still has an eye for the ladies. He uses his handicap to seduce lovely young things and bring them back to his apartment, where his disapproving assistant (who hides secrets of her own) comes and goes as she pleases.
I haven't even gotten to the mysterious guy who shows up one day wanting to write a screenplay with Harry on a theme that sounds eerily familiar to him.
Almodovar weaves his dense story together beautifully. The melancholy score and his characteristic vibrant color palette add to the drama. Visually stunning, impeccably acted and a marvelous, layered story that is a treat to unravel ... see it.
Not since Alfred Hitchcock cast Grace Kelly in a string of movies has a director been as smitten with a leading lady as Almodovar is with Penelope Cruz. And, it's easy to see why. Not since Rear Window has an actress looked more radiant.
Cruz plays Lena, a would-be actress and love interest of both a film director and a wealthy Venezuelan businessman. Here's where it gets confusing. Lena is starring in a movie directed by one lover and financed by the other. That Lena is romantically interested only in the film director (known first as Mateo and later -- after an accident that leaves him blind -- as Harry Caine) is irksome to her sugar daddy. He assigns his dorky, pimply teenage son to follow them around on set and try to catch them in the midst of shenanigans -- on tape.
That tangled business was all 16 years ago. The movie opens in the present, but the past is still very much haunting the characters.
Harry has long since quit directing, but he is still a screenwriter. And, he still has an eye for the ladies. He uses his handicap to seduce lovely young things and bring them back to his apartment, where his disapproving assistant (who hides secrets of her own) comes and goes as she pleases.
I haven't even gotten to the mysterious guy who shows up one day wanting to write a screenplay with Harry on a theme that sounds eerily familiar to him.
Almodovar weaves his dense story together beautifully. The melancholy score and his characteristic vibrant color palette add to the drama. Visually stunning, impeccably acted and a marvelous, layered story that is a treat to unravel ... see it.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
A Single Man
You know how sometimes, when you're at Starbucks for a latte, you see the pastries and muffins in the case ... and since you're kinda hungry anyhow, you order one? And then, you're inevitably disappointed that it's totally tasteless and that you just wasted money and calories on something you never should have expected to be good.
But, then you're not mad at Starbucks, are you? You're mad at yourself because Starbucks is a coffee shop -- not a patisserie.
A Single Man is the cinematic equivalent of the muffin you paid for and then want to give back. But, are you mad at Tom Ford, the uber-sexy sophisticated designer-turned screenwriter/producer/director? No. With his design pedigree, gorgeous clothes (one presumes; an unpaid movie critic can scarcely afford designer threads), perpetual razor stubble and shirt unbuttoned to reveal the perfect amount of chest hair, Tom can be commended for trying to expand his brand.
He makes a hell of a set designer. Every single detail is perfection. Every frame is worthy of Vogue. From the glass house George (Colin Firth) lives in to the bouffant curls and frosty lipstick worn by Charley (Julianne Moore), the early 1960s have rarely looked more authentic. The movie is gorgeous to look at. And not much else.
Firth plays a bereft English professor who's trying to figure out if life is worth living after the unexpected death of Jim (Matthew Goode), his partner of 16 years. The partner is seen only in flashbacks -- a few scenes that drag on far too long -- where it's established that this is indeed a couple in love and cozily comfortable with one another.
Julianne Moore shows up in a handful of scenes -- one dinner scene that seems to take place in real time -- as George's best friend and former lover. She's a well-dressed, pathetic drunk who probably isn't reason enough for George to decide not to end it all.
But, maybe the boy toy student of George's will turn out to be his Reason to Live. I'm not going to trouble myself to learn the name of the "actor" who plays this kid. His performance is so wooden, it's hard to imagine he'll be showing up in anything else.
At one point, George meets a hot, Spanish gigolo outside a liquor store, and they notice the lovely color L.A.'s smog has turned the sky. The gigolo says something like, "Sometimes, there can be something awful about a thing of beauty."
An apt metaphor for this movie. Beautiful to look at, but decidedly awful.
Let Starbucks stick to coffee and Tom Ford to design. Storytelling is not the man's forte. Skip it.
But, then you're not mad at Starbucks, are you? You're mad at yourself because Starbucks is a coffee shop -- not a patisserie.
A Single Man is the cinematic equivalent of the muffin you paid for and then want to give back. But, are you mad at Tom Ford, the uber-sexy sophisticated designer-turned screenwriter/producer/director? No. With his design pedigree, gorgeous clothes (one presumes; an unpaid movie critic can scarcely afford designer threads), perpetual razor stubble and shirt unbuttoned to reveal the perfect amount of chest hair, Tom can be commended for trying to expand his brand.
He makes a hell of a set designer. Every single detail is perfection. Every frame is worthy of Vogue. From the glass house George (Colin Firth) lives in to the bouffant curls and frosty lipstick worn by Charley (Julianne Moore), the early 1960s have rarely looked more authentic. The movie is gorgeous to look at. And not much else.
Firth plays a bereft English professor who's trying to figure out if life is worth living after the unexpected death of Jim (Matthew Goode), his partner of 16 years. The partner is seen only in flashbacks -- a few scenes that drag on far too long -- where it's established that this is indeed a couple in love and cozily comfortable with one another.
Julianne Moore shows up in a handful of scenes -- one dinner scene that seems to take place in real time -- as George's best friend and former lover. She's a well-dressed, pathetic drunk who probably isn't reason enough for George to decide not to end it all.
But, maybe the boy toy student of George's will turn out to be his Reason to Live. I'm not going to trouble myself to learn the name of the "actor" who plays this kid. His performance is so wooden, it's hard to imagine he'll be showing up in anything else.
At one point, George meets a hot, Spanish gigolo outside a liquor store, and they notice the lovely color L.A.'s smog has turned the sky. The gigolo says something like, "Sometimes, there can be something awful about a thing of beauty."
An apt metaphor for this movie. Beautiful to look at, but decidedly awful.
Let Starbucks stick to coffee and Tom Ford to design. Storytelling is not the man's forte. Skip it.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Young Victoria
The Chronic Critic would be satisfied with just about any costume drama featuring palace intrigue and machinations by wicked courtiers. But, to throw in a love story on top of the powdered wigs and corsets, well, she's practically in heaven.
Victoria and Albert were a rare -- for royals -- love match. Watching the soon-to-be-queen (Emily Blunt) be wooed by, and fall for, Albert (Rupert Friend) is a pure delight. There are other suitors, to be sure, and a domineering mother (Miranda Richardson) who'd rather see one of her own advisers become the ruler of England. But, the headstrong Victoria will not be denied her destiny.
She means to rule England wisely and doesn't need a husband to tell her what to do. Albert means to be treated as an equal. Victoria and Albert have some pretty radical ideas (for the 1830s) about the arts, housing for the poor and social justice. The pair is not just good for one another; they're good for the empire. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's famous campaign line about his and Hillary's political partnership, the country was getting two for the price of one.
Blunt exhibits her impressive range with this role. It's easy to forget she first came to prominence as the put-upon assistant in The Devil Wears Prada. Friend is a gentle, vulnerable and worthy suitor.
As you'd expect, the sets are grand, the vistas sweeping and the music soaring. But, what really makes this movie worth seeing is the royal romance. See it.
Victoria and Albert were a rare -- for royals -- love match. Watching the soon-to-be-queen (Emily Blunt) be wooed by, and fall for, Albert (Rupert Friend) is a pure delight. There are other suitors, to be sure, and a domineering mother (Miranda Richardson) who'd rather see one of her own advisers become the ruler of England. But, the headstrong Victoria will not be denied her destiny.
She means to rule England wisely and doesn't need a husband to tell her what to do. Albert means to be treated as an equal. Victoria and Albert have some pretty radical ideas (for the 1830s) about the arts, housing for the poor and social justice. The pair is not just good for one another; they're good for the empire. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's famous campaign line about his and Hillary's political partnership, the country was getting two for the price of one.
Blunt exhibits her impressive range with this role. It's easy to forget she first came to prominence as the put-upon assistant in The Devil Wears Prada. Friend is a gentle, vulnerable and worthy suitor.
As you'd expect, the sets are grand, the vistas sweeping and the music soaring. But, what really makes this movie worth seeing is the royal romance. See it.
Monday, December 28, 2009
It's Complicated
In writer/director Nancy Meyers' world, people are attractive and well-dressed. All the interiors -- homes, offices and bakeries -- are straight out of House Beautiful. Friends hoot and holler over good food and fine wine. Everyone has the means to live a life filled with high-end things, and the world is bathed in a soft, honey-colored light. It's a lovely place to visit. But, it doesn't come close to being a facsimile of real life.
But, that's what people seem to love about Meyers' movies. They're escapist fantasy for the upper crust. The Holiday and As Good as it Gets were unbearably bad, despite the gorgeous sets and wardrobes. It's Complicated is an improvement over the other two, but there was really nowhere to go but up.
Alec Baldwin is great fun to watch as Meryl Streep's lovable scoundrel of an ex-husband. He's remarried to a young hottie (played by Lake Bell) and has a rascally stepson, Pedro. He and the missus are also trying to get pregnant -- at her insistence.
Jane Adler (Streep) lives in a picture-perfect home, but she wants to add a new wing with a "real" kitchen. (The rest of us would be happy with her stainless steel double oven; high-end, oversized fridge and marble island that's always topped with a vase of fresh herbs and flowers.) Enter Steve Martin, an affable architect who's designing the new wing -- and vying with Mr. Adler for his ex-wife's affections.
Hijinks ensue.
The three Adler children are equally bland, and Jane's best friends (played by Mary Kay Place, Rita Wilson, a.k.a. Mrs. Tom Hanks and Alexandra Wentworth, a.k.a. Mrs. George Stephanopolous) are so same-y as to be interchangeable. Their scenes of wine drinking, secret-swapping and cackling are positively cloying.
If you're predisposed to like this sort of thing -- and plenty of people (mostly women ages 35 and up) are -- you will not be disappointed. It's a well-acted, inoffensive, lovely-to-look-at trifle that you'll likely forget as soon as you leave the theater. Just because I've got the holiday spirit, I'll give this one a very lukewarm recommendation. If you're planning to see it, anyway, then ... see it.
But, that's what people seem to love about Meyers' movies. They're escapist fantasy for the upper crust. The Holiday and As Good as it Gets were unbearably bad, despite the gorgeous sets and wardrobes. It's Complicated is an improvement over the other two, but there was really nowhere to go but up.
Alec Baldwin is great fun to watch as Meryl Streep's lovable scoundrel of an ex-husband. He's remarried to a young hottie (played by Lake Bell) and has a rascally stepson, Pedro. He and the missus are also trying to get pregnant -- at her insistence.
Jane Adler (Streep) lives in a picture-perfect home, but she wants to add a new wing with a "real" kitchen. (The rest of us would be happy with her stainless steel double oven; high-end, oversized fridge and marble island that's always topped with a vase of fresh herbs and flowers.) Enter Steve Martin, an affable architect who's designing the new wing -- and vying with Mr. Adler for his ex-wife's affections.
Hijinks ensue.
The three Adler children are equally bland, and Jane's best friends (played by Mary Kay Place, Rita Wilson, a.k.a. Mrs. Tom Hanks and Alexandra Wentworth, a.k.a. Mrs. George Stephanopolous) are so same-y as to be interchangeable. Their scenes of wine drinking, secret-swapping and cackling are positively cloying.
If you're predisposed to like this sort of thing -- and plenty of people (mostly women ages 35 and up) are -- you will not be disappointed. It's a well-acted, inoffensive, lovely-to-look-at trifle that you'll likely forget as soon as you leave the theater. Just because I've got the holiday spirit, I'll give this one a very lukewarm recommendation. If you're planning to see it, anyway, then ... see it.
Up in the Air
Why the fuss over this one? It's not even an easy movie to like, much less love.
People have called it a movie for our sad economic times. It does speak to our country's booming unemployment rate, but exactly what director Jason Reitman wants to say about it is left, well ... up in the air.
George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a suave hired gun who fires people for a living. And, if he doesn't necessarily enjoy the firings, he sure loves the perks that go along with his frequent-flying life. He has no attachments to anyone or anything, and he likes it that way. He goes from one sterile hotel to the next. Even the Omaha apartment he calls home looks as impersonal as a room at the Hilton. It's to Clooney's credit that this character he plays is actually likable.
Into Ryan's perfect world walks Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a 23-year-old hotshot out to create a new, more efficient technological process to fire people. Kendrick is a terrific actress, but her part's not written in a way that's worthy of her. I didn't find it believable that her buttoned-up, career-obsessed character would talk down to or berate her would be-mentor, Ryan. In the real corporate world, she might stab him in the back -- but she wouldn't likely be so confrontational with someone with that much seniority.
Ryan is enjoying his commitment-free, nomadic life when he meets Alex (Vera Farmiga), who is, seemingly, his female equivalent. She is as eager for a no-strings-attached "relationship" as Ryan is, but he grows a little too fond of her. Her dated, modified Farrah hairdo got on my last nerve, and I didn't find her a worthy match -- on any level -- for Ryan. Bad casting.
Speaking of bad casting, I didn't believe that Clooney's character was genetically related to his alleged sisters. How this handsome, sophisticated charmer shares a gene pool with his two frumpy, dopey sisters is beyond me. No wonder he doesn't want to maintain family ties with these gals.
The laughs are few and far between. Zach Galifianakis (of The Hangover fame) provides a welcome chuckle in his one brief sequence as a vengeful, terminated employee. But, this film really isn't the comedy it's made out to be.
It's been called a latter-day It's a Wonderful Life, yet our hero is more of an anti-hero than George Bailey. The characters in this movie may learn some tough lessons, but they're not necessarily going to heed them.
Throughout the movie, George and Anna speak in platitudes to the employees they're firing. They try to convince them that being fired will ultimately be a good thing -- maybe the best thing that's ever happened to them. None of the employees is buying that line. That's why the faux heart-warming ending is so jarring. Newly fired ex-employees talk about how getting fired made them realize it's family that really matters and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Our hero, Ryan, doesn't even believe that line. So, what does Reitman want the audience to believe? I have no idea. The contradictory messages, mediocre script and poor casting choices force me to say: Skip it.
People have called it a movie for our sad economic times. It does speak to our country's booming unemployment rate, but exactly what director Jason Reitman wants to say about it is left, well ... up in the air.
George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a suave hired gun who fires people for a living. And, if he doesn't necessarily enjoy the firings, he sure loves the perks that go along with his frequent-flying life. He has no attachments to anyone or anything, and he likes it that way. He goes from one sterile hotel to the next. Even the Omaha apartment he calls home looks as impersonal as a room at the Hilton. It's to Clooney's credit that this character he plays is actually likable.
Into Ryan's perfect world walks Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a 23-year-old hotshot out to create a new, more efficient technological process to fire people. Kendrick is a terrific actress, but her part's not written in a way that's worthy of her. I didn't find it believable that her buttoned-up, career-obsessed character would talk down to or berate her would be-mentor, Ryan. In the real corporate world, she might stab him in the back -- but she wouldn't likely be so confrontational with someone with that much seniority.
Ryan is enjoying his commitment-free, nomadic life when he meets Alex (Vera Farmiga), who is, seemingly, his female equivalent. She is as eager for a no-strings-attached "relationship" as Ryan is, but he grows a little too fond of her. Her dated, modified Farrah hairdo got on my last nerve, and I didn't find her a worthy match -- on any level -- for Ryan. Bad casting.
Speaking of bad casting, I didn't believe that Clooney's character was genetically related to his alleged sisters. How this handsome, sophisticated charmer shares a gene pool with his two frumpy, dopey sisters is beyond me. No wonder he doesn't want to maintain family ties with these gals.
The laughs are few and far between. Zach Galifianakis (of The Hangover fame) provides a welcome chuckle in his one brief sequence as a vengeful, terminated employee. But, this film really isn't the comedy it's made out to be.
It's been called a latter-day It's a Wonderful Life, yet our hero is more of an anti-hero than George Bailey. The characters in this movie may learn some tough lessons, but they're not necessarily going to heed them.
Throughout the movie, George and Anna speak in platitudes to the employees they're firing. They try to convince them that being fired will ultimately be a good thing -- maybe the best thing that's ever happened to them. None of the employees is buying that line. That's why the faux heart-warming ending is so jarring. Newly fired ex-employees talk about how getting fired made them realize it's family that really matters and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Our hero, Ryan, doesn't even believe that line. So, what does Reitman want the audience to believe? I have no idea. The contradictory messages, mediocre script and poor casting choices force me to say: Skip it.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Invictus
The Chronic Critic is no sports fan, but she does love a good sports movie. From One on One (starring 1970s heartthrob Robby Benson) to Rocky and from Prefontaine (and Without Limits -- another movie about Steve Prefontaine, the greatest sprinter the world has ever seen) to the recent The Blind Side, this critic has been known to get teary in sports movies about sports she doesn't even pretend to understand.
Invictus is not among those movies.
This critic is not immune to Matt Damon's charms (or impressive arms and abs), and she believes Morgan Freeman to be perhaps the most benevolent and welcome screen presence of our times. So, to pan a movie with two great stars whose subject is Nelson Mandela -- a political prisoner/president/modern-day hero -- doesn't please her in the least.
But, the presence of (and solid performances by) Damon and Freeman cannot compensate for a dull script, lackluster characters, uniformly wooden performances by the supporting cast and repetitive scenes. (How many times do we have to watch Mandela shake hands with each member of the rugby team?)
We never get to know Damon's character, nor any of his teammates. (It's a little hard to root for a team you care nothing about.) The movie would have us believe that crime, the economy and other ills were of little concern to Mandela. Dammit, he just wanted the national rugby team to win the World Cup. And, then the country's blacks and whites would be united and everyone would live happily ever after.
Clint Eastwood has directed movies both remarkable (Million Dollar Baby) and forgettable (Gran Torino). Invictus falls into the latter category. Skip it.
Invictus is not among those movies.
This critic is not immune to Matt Damon's charms (or impressive arms and abs), and she believes Morgan Freeman to be perhaps the most benevolent and welcome screen presence of our times. So, to pan a movie with two great stars whose subject is Nelson Mandela -- a political prisoner/president/modern-day hero -- doesn't please her in the least.
But, the presence of (and solid performances by) Damon and Freeman cannot compensate for a dull script, lackluster characters, uniformly wooden performances by the supporting cast and repetitive scenes. (How many times do we have to watch Mandela shake hands with each member of the rugby team?)
We never get to know Damon's character, nor any of his teammates. (It's a little hard to root for a team you care nothing about.) The movie would have us believe that crime, the economy and other ills were of little concern to Mandela. Dammit, he just wanted the national rugby team to win the World Cup. And, then the country's blacks and whites would be united and everyone would live happily ever after.
Clint Eastwood has directed movies both remarkable (Million Dollar Baby) and forgettable (Gran Torino). Invictus falls into the latter category. Skip it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
