SPOTLIGHTS
|
|
|
|
|
| Buttons, Goats, Humbugs, and a Late Education... |
| Posted by Chad Webb on 11.14.2009 |
| |
|
| |
The Box - This is Richard Kelly's third strike, and in my book, he's out. I've never been a fan of Kelly's work. I think each of his films ultimately suffers from the same problem. They rely on confusing the audience to win praise. Kelly leaves just enough plot holes and includes just enough perplexing elements that few will end up understanding all that occurred. People defend it so intensely because they don't understand it. That's not good filmmaking, it's lazy. I have the same problems with some of David Lynch's efforts. It is possible to make a complex film that one cannot understand fully during the first sitting. However, the goal of the filmmaker is to convince the viewer that he had a specific plan and intention in mind for every aspect. Charlie Kaufman is a master at this. That is not the case with Richard Kelly. I honestly don't think he knows why he includes half the absurd ingredients he does. The first hour of The Box sets up a nifty and gripping thriller. As I sat there, I thought "Damn, I'm gonna end up liking this." I thought that too soon because Kelly throws that monkey wrench in there, and like a house of cards, it all collapses onto itself. What a shame. An intriguing premise is ruined because of Kelly's inability to craft an accessible piece of work. He does have talent, but he has yet to prove to me that his films deserve respect. He has a knack for establishing chemistry with actors that I never thought would possess it as a pair. One of the few enjoyments of Southland Tales was that the Rock and Sarah Michelle Gellar worked well together. The same can be said of James Marsden and Cameron Diaz, who lend wonderful performances. Frank Langella is also terrific as Arlington Steward, and his CGI face looks appropriately computerized and creepy (especially from the side). I discovered from a Q&A after the film that The Box contains a hefty portion of autobiographical portions from Kelly's life, and you can tell what those are if you look closely because that material is effective. The foot deformity, the relationship of the family, and the child’s involvement all seem organic. Unfortunately, Kelly thinks he must add his spin on an already riveting story, and that almost totally devastates things. He includes a lot of weird scenes with liquid, and a pool acts as a portal of some sort. He calls that the super swimming pool. That was his name for it. The end tries to redeem what happened previously, but when you think about it all, Kelly's sci-fi additions did not need to be there at all. If we were only supposed to end up at the final image, why did he tack on all that nonsensical sci-fi? He also has a way with music. The score is provided by members of the superb band Arcade Fire, and many of the songs that play naturally during the storyline are well placed. He said he wanted to make a Hitchcockian thriller, which makes me laugh because this was a total failure in that regard. I think people give Richard Kelly way too much credit and assume he is so smart, but I'm here to tell you that is not the case. Final Rating = 5.0/10.0
The Men Who Stare at Goats - This comedy was marketed in a most brilliant way. They made this seem like it was a comedy from the Coen brothers. In truth, it is far from that because the humor here does not possess the intelligence, the edge, or the timing that the Coens usually provide. Quickly you realize that what sounded like a genius premise on paper is a failure in execution because it is S-T-U-P-I-D. You're watching, and it hits you like a ton of bricks. This is lame. What goes on has no point, and a plot with no point does not necessarily mean it will be poor, but in this case, it is. That can go either way. Aside from a lack of meaning, the jokes are interchangeable, as if they are distracting us from the fact that the main story has no trajectory. It reminded me of Family Guy in this way, which is funny on occasion, but from a writing standpoint, it is weak. A handful of sequences induce chuckles, but not nearly enough. There is no witty way to criticize this film. Most of it is just plain and simply not funny. Plus, much of the time, Director Grant Heslov is unsure on what type of humor he wants to focus on. You have one-liners, slapstick, screwball, and even some dark stuff, and none of it really sticks. George Clooney has inherent comedic abilities, but they are not taken advantage of here. His character should be fascinating, but he's not. How true the story is, I do not know, or care, but watching Ewan McGregor follow this loony around without ever questioning him is silly and retarded. McGregor tries really hard here, but seems lost because the script is unbalanced. Jeff Bridges plays a character that is more like The Love Guru than the Dude (from The Big Lebowski), which is certainly what the studio wanted us to think. I almost feel sorry for Bridges. Kevin Spacey can be very funny at times, but he is bogged down with a cartoonish villain role. One scene has him talking about how much he loves Twizzlers, but it means nothing. He just says that for no reason. This is Heslov's mainstream debut, but he does have some other directorial credits. I got the feeling he was relying on the talented cast to win over the audience with their status rather than supplementing that with smart writing and adept timing. This shows you need a strong General behind the scenes controlling the troops, and Heslov is not that at all. I was shocked when I saw the running time because it felt as if it dragged so slowly. The ageless music from Boston does not belong here. The best parts were Clooney's non lethal weapon and the bit of trivia on how most soldiers do not shoot to kill, but other than that, this is a gigantic letdown, and it has one of the worst final scenes of the year. Final Rating = 4.5/10.0
A Christmas Carol - We have seen well over 50 adaptations of the story by Charles Dickens. So many different thespians have thrown their hats into the ring to play Ebenezer Scrooge, and I am sure many more will in the future. The best version will always be the 1951 adaptation starring Alistair Sim, but this time Robert Zemeckis tackles the tale with Jim Carrey as Scrooge, and many other characters, including the ghosts. Zemeckis reunites with Disney for the first time since Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. This is also in 3D, which I cannot avoid since my nearest theater now uses it. Luckily Zemeckis understands 3D as good, if not better than, everyone else. The 3D was a nice bonus here, but not needed. Zemeckis infuses this universe with brilliant visuals, and his motion capture technology has a come a long way. If you see this and still complain about the eyes, then this technology just isn't for you because it looks outstanding here. What makes the Zemeckis spin on Scrooge a bit different is not just the visuals, but the attention to action, which is the primary focus. Each visit with a spirit is filled some truly spectacular and thrilling sequences such as a tour through Scrooge's childhood village, a Heavenly scan of the town in a floating room, and finally a creepy glimpse at his grave. The action mixes with the drama very well. Zemeckis knows that he must lay the ground work so we despise Scrooge before his journey. When his experiences are over with the spirits, it really makes the happy ending a lot funnier. Since this is Jim Carrey, you will have some humor, but not an excessive amount. Carrey disappears into each character, especially Scrooge, and his trademark shtick is not the focus. Carrey is perfect for Scrooge. He has the quirky mannerisms, the frame, and the face. Normally the part is given to any old actor, but Carrey is easily one of the best in the role. Gary Oldman is a wonderful Bob Cratchet, Colin Firth is solid as Scrooge's nephew, and you also have Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn, and Cary Elwes in multiple roles each. Zemeckis takes this classic story and injects his masterful visual touch that really makes it stand out. This is a haunting, riveting, and even moving film that I greatly enjoyed. It's not perfect. The ghosts are bizarre, and I'm not sure how positive or negative that is. This is not an emotionally charged drama, but it does have some poignant areas. The most important goal was to make sure this version was distinctive and memorable apart from the rest, and Zemeckis succeeds, while also supplying an entertaining effort for the holidays. Final Rating = 8.0/10.0
An Education - What we have here is a performance movie. If the acting was half as good, An Education would have come and gone with barely any recognition. The plot is formulaic, and in the end, everything wraps up nice and tidy. It is this familiar structure that prevents the film from achieving anything close to a four-star status, but in truth, I enjoyed watching An Education from start to finish because the efforts of the cast were so immersive and exemplary. Carey Mulligan is a sensation as Jenny, wonderfully sinking into this coming-of-age tale. A little spunk can go a long way, and Mulligan takes that ball and sprints with it. Jenny is smart as a whip, and is not afraid to talk back to her folks, but she is a child at heart. That is crucial so we believe it when she is drawn in by David. Peter Sarsgaard is an under appreciated talent who occasionally chooses mediocre scripts that fail to accentuate his strengths. That is not an issue here as David is one hell of a smooth operator, and Sarsgaard turns the charm way up so the viewer can be seduced by him as well. The other notable performance is from Alfred Molina, grabbing a thin father role and making it a three-dimensional, profound, and towering piece of work from an actor that is customarily a joy to watch. Cara Seymour, Dominic Cooper, Sally Hawkins, Emma Thompson, Olivia Williams, and Rosamund Pike are all solid in their supporting capacities, but it is the top three who give the picture its power. John de Borman’s cinematography, Odile Dicks-Moreaux’s costume design, Andrew McAlpine’s production design, Ben Smith’s art direction, and Anna-Lynch Robinson’s set decoration are all so exquisitely detailed, vivid, and magnificent. The hard work those men and women put forth are important because it all augments the mediocre premise. That does not mean Director Lone Scherfig goes without credit. She captures the nuances of the time and place marvelously, which are important to the story in more ways than one. She also does a superb job of shaping the acting. Mulligan is exactly the sort of actress that should have a long and healthy career. The buzz surrounding her contribution is to the point where it is not too intense, nor too weak. The use of jazz and French music is adept, and to distract us from the obvious twists and turns concerning David, the film glides under a very optimistic guise throughout the running time. When a person like David sweeps you off your feet, one must face this statement: “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” Unfortunately Jenny doesn’t do that, and it’s a situation we’ve seen many times previously. The characters must be gullible, but remain so on a level that does not seem ridiculous to the audience. For the most part, An Education succeeds in this area. It is a fun little film where merely relishing in the performances is satisfying enough. Mulligan’s Jenny is the center, and she shines bright enough for a recommendation. Final Rating = 8.0/10.0
|
| |
|
