| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother - PG | January 3, 2010 | N/A | ||||
| Without a Clue - PG | January 3, 2010 | N/A | ||||
| Sherlock Holmes - PG-13 | January 3, 2010 | N/A | ||||
| Crank - R | December 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| The Bourne Ultimatum - PG-13 | December 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Baby Mama - PG-13 |
We watched Baby Mama last night and I was pleasantly surprised. Its premise looked very stupid to me, but the film actually had a bit of complicated character development and entertaining interaction between Fey and Poehler. The Tina Fey juggurnaut rolls on. * As my wife put it at the end of the film: once you have children, movie children look idyllic in a kind-of insulting way. * Fey?s character showed a great balance of modern womanhood, neither stereotyped nor falling into those stereotypes. I thought, early on, that the pressure of the impending baby would result in her deciding that corporate life wasn?t worth it?not so. * The only downside of the Greg Kinnear love interest story is that it was so obvious. Because he?s the first other big star to show up in the film (save Steve Martin), it?s telegraphed from a mile away. And of course, he couldn?t just be a guy who opened a juice store, he had to be a former-corporate lawyer who opened a juice store. * The film?s not very friendly to the uneducated. But should it be? I wonder if there are people who saw this movie and found it insulting, or if everyone sees themselves as not Amy Pohler?s character. * A great battle of the superstar side characters: Steve Martin vs. Sigourney Weaver. I give it to Steve by a hair. Or rather, a magnificent ponytail reminiscent of Tim Robbins? High Fidelity mane. * How is it that IVF comes up three times in three different media in 24 hours? First we watch Baby Mama, then I read that A.J. Jacobs and his wife Julie conceived their twins via IVF in The Year of Living Biblically, and then this morning we heard on the news about the mother of six who gave birth to octuplets yesterday via IVF. Jeebus. All in all, this movie surprised me pleasantly. Much like Mean Girls, which I also didn?t think I would enjoy, the movie starts from the place of a specific genre and then pushes forward into unlikely territory via complicated characters and/or plot development. |
December 15, 2009 | N/A | |||
| I, Zombie - Unrated |
I, Zombie makes an early stab at a theme that would be quite popular in the most recent slate of zombie films. It's most clear descendants are movies like American Zombie, Zombie Honeymoon, and Zombies Anonymous. All three films follow I, Zombie's lead in thinking about what it would be like to be a conscious zombie. In some ways, this film explores that issue more intimately than do the later films. The film follows Brian, a graduate student who gets bitten by a zombie and finds himself turned into one. He has an uncontrollable hunger for people and is slowly rotting as he hides away from the world. It's a grim tale of desperation and sorrow, with lots of lingering shots focused on Brian's painful life hiding in his flat. A few other thoughts: * While the film contemplates the question of what it would be like to become a zombie quite well, it veers quite far from the recipe necessary for an enjoyable zombie film. There's not much tension as Brian never seems in any sort of danger. A persistant detective (ala Zombie Honeymoon) would have made the story a bit more exciting. * The gloomy desperation and haunted narrative reminds me a lot of An American Werewolf in London, which also considers the spiritual tragedy of becoming a monster. * This movie has one of the more horrifying consequences of rotting I've seen in a zombie film, made much worse by the emotional depth of the scene in which it occurs. * There's not a whole lot of action or excitement in the film. Instead, its matter-of-fact cinematography and shallow narrative arc short circuit most of the horror-pleasure that one finds in these films. In so doing, I could see it being pretty unsatisfying for people looking for more conventional fare. That said, I think it makes a fine companion to those other films I mentioned above. * The makeup effects and dream sequences are impressive and solid. Overall, it's worth seeing, but more recent films do the same work in a more entertaining way. |
December 15, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - PG | December 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Twilight - PG-13 | December 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| For Your Consideration - PG-13 | December 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Easy Virtue - PG-13 | December 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| An Unreasonable Man - Unrated |
This film takes a hard look at Ralph Nader, his rise to prominence as an advocate for consumer change, his twenty year crusade against the corporatization of Washington, and his two presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004. Nader is a complicated man who speaks truth to power and has done a lot for the people of our country. I admire him a lot and nearly voted for him in 2000 (when I lived in Florida!). I decided not to for political gamesmanship reasons, but I strongly disagree with the people who blame him for Bush. I feel like the two party system is terrible and we need change, and we won?t get it voting for the same old same old. My favorite moment in the film is the oscillation between the bitter former Nader fans who blame Nader for spoiling the election and the political scientist who studied Nader?s movements and declared that his strategy was not at all about spoiling. Rabid opinion versus hard fact always makes for good cinema. |
December 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Pirate Radio (The Boat That Rocked) - R |
When I was a kid, we would occasionally have nights when my mom was extra tired or in a hurry or just wanted a simple meal, and we?d have apple slices and cheese for dinner. It tasted really good and was actually pretty healthy. But it wasn?t a complex flavor, just something you like. Pirate Radio is like eating apples and cheese for dinner. The film tells the story of a rebel radio station off the coast of Britain in 1966, when the BBC only played 2 hours of rock and roll per day. The Pirate Radio boats would sit just outside British waters and broadcast music that would be listened to by many Britons (excepting the cartoonishly stuck-up parliamentarians, apparently). The film follows the adventures of the rag-tag broadcast crew aboard ?Radio Rock.? One review I read criticized the film for its caricatures and shallow characters; I can see the validity of the claim, but ultimately it?s an ensemble movie that doesn?t seek to describe a specific character?s journey, but rather to capture the spirit of an era. In that regard, it succeeds for me. Some other thoughts: * The cast were just delightful. We saw a return of the old Richard Curtis standbys Emma Thompson (briefly), Bill Nighy, and Rhys Ifans (a personal favorite). We also have Phillip Seymour ?Rue the Day? Hoffman, Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz), Rhys Darby (Flight of the Conchords? Murray), Catherine Parkinson and Chris O?Dowd (The IT Crowd), and Kenneth Branagh sporting a tiny mustache. The ensemble worked really well, with each person getting a few moments to shine but none overwhelming the story. It reminded me most of Curtis? Love, Actually, which has a similar distributed feeling. * I spent the whole movie pondering ?Bob,? played by Ralph Brown. There was something about him that was familiar, but I?ll be damned if I could figure it out. Finally, having returned to IMDB, I discover that he played the legendary roadie Del Preston, in Wayne?s World 2. Check it out below. * The film grabs on to an old canard about revolutionary radio ? the idea of lots of people from different walks of life listening to the broadcast. Some other films that do this, off the top of my head: the old Shadow movies jumped from teens necking in cars to businessmen and cafe owners listening to news updates; Elf features a television broadcast at the end of the film that jumps from little girls? bedrooms to biker bars and board rooms; Scrooged visits all its characters in the same way. Of course, we musn?t forget Pump Up the Volume. But the movie this most reminded me of was Private Parts. The jokes about the deejay wielding sexual powers over his listeners became especially prevalent once Gavin (Rhys Ifans) showed up and started (nearly) licking the microphone. Howard Stern?s movie also regularly bounced from listener to listener, highlighting the grocer with a radio over his stand or the business woman listening in her office. The clips for Pirate Radio could have been borrowed from Stern?s film, except for the period clothing. * The least effective part of the film, for me, was the cartoonish villainy of Branagh?s character. It?s pretty ridiculous, especially the scene at his house during Christmas dinner. * I thought the film?s sexual politics and relationships were the most serious part of the film. The main character?s easy forgiveness of his dream-girl?s betrayal gave me pause, but reflects the adolescent sex drive, perhaps. Chris O?Dowd brings the most powerful performance of the film in the happy/sad/cruel moment shortly after he marries his dream girl. Jenny and I decided that Curtis excels at crafting these tiny nuggets of intense emotion: c.f. Emma Thompson?s discovery of her husband?s wandering eye in Love, Actually. * As a media scholar, I can?t help but ponder the role of the government and the place of broadcasters in the film. The movie makes much of the public?s love for the radio station and its rebel attitude. But the government also uses, as an excuse, the deaths of some sailors whose distress call was drowned out by the pirate radio stations. The henchman, named Twat, calls it the ?smoking gun? they can use to shut down the stations and the film follows their evil machinations from there. But I had two thoughts: 1) the reasonable liberty-loving approach would have been to designate an emergency band in which no radio stations may broadcast; this solution isn?t available in this film because it?s a caricature, not the place for reasonable debate. 2) the film placed no emphasis or stress on those deaths. While the villains were cartoonish, they had a point?the behavior of the pirate radio stations was to blame for that distress call going awry and it?s a shame the film didn?t make space for that thought. Overall, Pirate Radio offers an enjoyable meal that won?t make you ponder the splendor of the universe or the justice of the world. It won?t make you a better person. But you?ll probably be happy to have watched it. And it might get you to dust off those back-catalog mp3s or to check out a record from The Kinks. |
November 27, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Die Nacht der lebenden Loser (Night of the Living Dorks) - Unrated |
Imagine that you found the excised bits of an early American Pie script. Then, having recently enjoyed such teen zombedies as Idle Hands or My Boyfriend?s Back, you would make Night of the Living Dorks, or perhaps Boy Eats Girl. As I said, this film reminds me a lot of other teen zombie comedies, particularly in that its ?heroes? find zombie-hood to be a mixed bag, taking moments to enjoy their newfound strength (ala Spider-man in the wrestling ring), but they also find themselves driven to, well, eat people. Some other thoughts: * If you decide to watch this movie, hold on to at least the 30 minute mark. The beginning is absolutely terrible. I nearly turned it off. The sex jokes are really awful, not only in their stupidity, but in their ham-handedness. * I like the idea that people react differently to being zombified ? some give in to it more easily than others. The three characters continue their own paths: the uber-nerd who nurses his grudges manages to play out that insecurity, while the normal guy gets to be more normal and the stoner/sex fiend becomes more stonery/sex fiend-y. * The goths are pretty funny in the movie, especially the part where Phillip chastises them for their crappy skills: they use frozen chicken and one of their mother?s hair for the mystical rites. And they draw a six-point star of David instead of a pentagram on the ground. * It?s amusing that the bully in the film wears a sweater over his shoulders like Troy from The Goonies. * The recurring theme of using a staple-gun to reattach body parts that have fallen off is pretty funny. * I watched this streaming on Netflix, which was okay except that it was dubbed instead of subtitled. The goofy performances in the dubbing were pretty distracting, frankly. I would have preferred subtitles. Overall, pretty mediocre. Not better or worse than Boy Eats Girl, but definitely not the best zombie comedy out there. |
October 26, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Journey to the Center of the Earth (Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D) - PG |
I didn?t expect much of this movie, since it made very little money and it has Brendan Frasier, an actor I like but who inexplicably dooms any movie he signs on to act in. It?s also hard to watch a movie like this without scoffing a lot. A. LOT. Some thoughts: * I think the movie yielded too much initiative to the 3D. There are several moments where these weird choices in cinematography suddenly remind me that, oh yeah, this movie was produced in 3D and they had to have some pop-out moments. But these were always gimmicky. Who needs em? * The scientific ideas in the film were pretty preposterous, of course. But I also found a number of smaller serious concerns: if the ?air pocket? regularly heats up to 200 degrees F, how does it sustain a large biosphere of diverse organisms? And where are all the other mid-size prey animals for the giant carnivorous plants and T-Rexes to feed on? * Vernians are people who believe that Jules Verne wasn?t writing Science Fiction, but science fact. These are not a fictional group concocted for the sake of the movie, but real people, with a website. Delusional people, but real, apparently. * Stupidest moment? When they find an old abandoned mine with creaky, rusty old mine cars that they happily hop into and careen nearly to their deaths. Really? Sigh. * And at the end of the movie they imply that there?s some serious writing being done based on the journey, but they brought back, um, ZERO pieces of evidence. Yeah, they?re gonna get published on that. * Oh, and did I mention that these giant underground caves are well lit by, um, they don?t say. But they?re well lit. Sunny, even. Not worth watching. Just watch Indiana Jones or National Treasure (which at least has a goofy charm this movie misses). |
October 25, 2009 | N/A | |||
| CSA: Confederate States of America - PG-13 |
This mockumentary presents itself as a San Fransisco-Area television broadcast of a formerly-banned BBC (renamed the ?BBS?) documentary about the C.S.A. The idea is that the Confederate ambassador to France and England persuaded them to enter the war on behalf of the south and thus the South won. The movie unfolds in a Ken Burns style, with stand-ins for people from the Civil War documentary and a regular update of the events up to today. The film is broken up by commercials from the modern C.S.A. landscape, in which a modern slave state still exists (or did well into the late 20th century). The film is an interesting challenge, as it?s both funny and apt, with strong critique of our culture and our tendencies. The timeline is mostly believable, and the racist commercials really challenge the viewer. I?m reminded quite a bit of Bamboozled, which also takes on modern racism, but even more shockingly. The layer of mockumentary makes the film less gut-churning and discomfiting, though it still raises some interesting questions. A few other thoughts: * The production values are really great. The bits of traditional Americana worked into the film succeed marvelously. For instance, the film re-uses a JFK speech from 1960 in which he characterizes our struggle with USSR as one about ?freedom and slavery,? to suggest that JFK was an abolitionist. Also a gem: the clip of the 1940s movie ?I Married an Abolitionist.? * I thought the plotline about the prominent American family whose sons regularly have a role in the government was a bit contrived ? it doesn?t really have an analogue. * The bit at the end detailing some of the key imagery that resided in modern American consumer culture is particularly shocking. The two most shocking products to me: Niggerhair tobacco (a real brand that existed until the 1950s) and Darkie toothpaste (which was eventually changed to ?Darlie? but was still sold over seas as ?Black Man Toothpaste?). Good lord. The film also mentions Coon Chicken, which we all remember from Ghost World. * One downside to this alternate history approach is that it varies things enough that it would be hard to bring this film back to talk about the actual plight of systemic racism and racial inequality still in play in our culture, particularly now that we have a black president and are suddenly ?post-racial.? |
October 24, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Game - R | October 20, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| The Invention of Lying - PG-13 |
We saw the Ricky Gervais/ Jennifer Garner movie The Invention of Lying this weekend and enjoyed it thoroughly. The film tells the story of a world in which human beings never evolved the ability to lie. We say what we believe to be the truth. Until R.G.?s character suddenly can say something ?that isn?t.? (Truth, of course, not being a concept until untruth exists.) The film is cute and interesting, with some very compelling acting and a surprising turn toward religion (surprising, that is, if you haven?t read reviews like this one?oops). Some additional thoughts: * Gervais and Garner both rock this movie. Its exceptional supporting cast works as well, with small parts or cameos from Louis C.K., Christopher Guest, Tina Fey, Rob Lowe, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Tambor, John Hodgman, and more. * The film makes you ponder what it means to lie: is it more than telling a deliberate untruth? In the film, people seem unable to restrain themselves from saying what they think. It?s what some people have called radical honesty. For example, when Gervais picks up Garner for a date, she tells him that she?s not attracted, and later a waiter comments that she?s out of his league. But the things we generally think of as common courtesy fall by the wayside in this world. People are unable to follow the dictum ?if you don?t have anything nice to say?.? To not say anything would be a lie. * Advertising and storytelling in the film are very funny, as neither has any artifice of fiction. Ads are prosaic, such as the Coke ad in which the CEO tells us ?We would like you to keep buying Coke. It?s popular.? Stories can only be told about real events, though there?s no acting or dramatic interpretation, just a guy reading to the camera. The literature scholar in me balked at the idea that a summarizing of historical events can be neutral; summarizing events is lying about them, but you have to let it go somewhere. * This bullet is a mild Spoiler: One of the bigger lies Gervais tells is the story of Heaven. The film takes an interesting track in which it explores how the ?lie? of religion shapes the world. There are lots of funny jokes there, but also some really interesting bits of thinking about what it means to have religious faith and how it shapes our daily interactions with the world. Overall, an interesting film that?s entertaining and cute. It?s not uncomfortable in the way Gervais? television shows tend to be. A good literary accompaniment is James Morrow?s City of Truth, which plays out a similar thought experiment. |
October 20, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Grand - R |
The Grand follows a group of poker players at a ?World Series of Poker? type event as they make their way to the final table of a winner-takes-all $10million tournament. Told and shot in mockumentary style, it?s not bad ? in fact there are some moments that are very funny and good ? but it didn?t knock me out. I think the main problem with the film goes to the heart of the narrative. Ultimately, it?s a story about these wacky characters trying to win a poker tournament, so the core conflict often gets resolved in the ?flop.? And I couldn?t really give a rat?s ass about poker. That said, it?s entertaining at moments here and there, with solid, hilarious bits and some bits that just don?t work. One element that makes it work is its overwhelming recognizable cast: Woody Harrleson, David Cross, Dennis Farina (Get Shorty?s Dennis Farina), Cheryl Hines, Larry Kind (Ira from Mad About You), Chris Parnell (from 30 Rock), and Ray Romano. There are also many bit players I recognized: Werner Herzog, Jason Alexander, Michael McKean, Gabe Kaplan, Judy Greer, Hank Azaria, and Barry Corbin. And most of these people have at least a couple funny moments. It?s worth a watch if you don?t go out of your way to do it, or if you like poker more than I do. |
October 12, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Airport - G | September 30, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| The Spiderwick Chronicles - PG |
We enjoyed The Spiderwick Chronicles moderately. The film tells the story of a bummed-out teenage boy who stumbles upon a magical book that gives insight into the world of magical creatures. It is, of course, a very valuable book being sought by a malevolent Nick Nolte ogre monster demon. (He?s almost as scary as his mugshot photo.) Adventures ensue. One could see the film as a couple things: a parable about the knowledge children are sometimes forced to learn?the divorce at the center of Jared?s trauma seems like a real-world piece of knowledge he?d be happier not knowing about; it can also be read as a discussion of the dangers of discovery and knowledge. Spiderwick?s book was carefully assembled over years of work and, while illuminating the secrets of the magical world, it also exposes that world (and ours) to incredible danger. One can?t help but see the parallels to scientific research. So the decision to defend the book is interesting in this regard (though the plot makes the book impossible to destroy). A few additional thoughts: * I haven?t read the book, so I didn?t find myself noticing the distinctions between the film and its source material. I did find myself comparing the creatures in this story to their renderings in Harry Potter. Jenny also found connections to another book series, Fablehaven. * They do a great job of keeping the kids in real danger all along. From about the first 15 minutes on, the danger to the kids is both real and pretty darn scary. Solid. * The kid-is-angry-about-the-divorce was a little heavy handed, but it worked okay. Freddie Highmore does an excellent job playing the twin boys at the center of the story. Most remarkably, because of makeup, haircuts, etc that made them look slightly different, I didn?t even realize it was just one person playing both boys until the end of the film. * The magical creatures looked a bit plastic (as many computer-generated creatures do these days), but the seams were smooth and pretty much invisible. I couldn?t see the wires. At the same time, the menace of the frog-like goblins and the horrible troll are real and well-created. The moment when one of the brothers gets bitten on the leg (and a semi-circle of tooth-marks appears, bloody) made me wince, and the effect of the tomato-sauce bombs on the goblins really works well. * We couldn?t help but wonder how the next chapter might evolve, given the story?s pretty solid conclusion. Oh, I suppose another menace will arise from the magical world. * And as for good plot construction, there are a number of clever elements that work very well. Our favorite? The older sister who constantly practices fencing and suddenly has a real use for her swordsmanship. Nice. Worth watching, but probably not worth going out of your way to see. |
September 5, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Foul Play - PG |
We enjoyed this outing from early in the careers of both Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase. It?s a strange movie, with a schizophrenic attitude that?s hard to place. Foul Play tells the story of a lonely librarian and a police detective who fall in love as they try to uncover the assassination plot in which the librarian has become entangled. Some thoughts: * The early parts of the film feel very Hitchcockian, with mysterious corpses turning up and vanishing, evil albinos hiding in libraries, and so on. * But as the film goes on, it gets this strange injection of humor that seems completely out of character for the earlier film. As the movie ended, we decided that two scripts, one a classic thriller drawn on early spy movies like The 39 Steps or The Man Who Knew Too Much, the other a Zucker brothers parody of the same. * In the more serious vein, there are some pretty intense chase sequences and some startling moments. In the other, we have a cackling snake, an old-man versus old-woman rumble in the living room, dirty old ladies playing Scrabble, and the senseless beating of a dwarf. * Given the early banter between Chase and Hawn, I expected the Chase character to be a bit more Fletch than he ended up being. Oh well. There were some amusing bumbles anyhow. * How come albinos always end up being henchmen in movies? I can only think of three other albinos in movies (offhand): the keeper of the cave of doom in The Princess Bride (henchman), the tall assassin in The Untouchables (henchman, but perhaps not an albino), and the kid in Powder (not a henchman). * I was trying to decide if a moment in the non-PC 1970s film was racist or not. Two elderly Japanese people ended up in the back of the car being driven crazily through the San Fransisco streets. Once they figured out CC was a cop (?Kojack, bang! bang!?), they thought it was a riot. They laughed uproariously and waved American flags. Admittedly, they caricatured Japanese-ness, but their particular ethnicity fit because the sequence was cross-cut with a production of The Mikado and the extra-digetic chase music drew on that opera for its themes. One could also suggest a diegetic logic for Japanese tourists to be present, as San Francisco (and California in general) are a big draw for Japanese tourists. Finally, I feel like ANY non-English speaking old people could have fit a similar niche for humor. These reasons aside, I still felt a little askew about the scene. * I need to see some more Burgess Meredith movies. |
August 18, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus - R |
Of course, you were as excited for this film as I was when you saw the Youtube trailer. Some thoughts: * I don?t mind my movie science shaky, but I like them to try, at least. My biggest complaint has to do with the classification. The scientists unblinkingly call this shark a Megalodon. Megalodons are the biggest documented predatory fish in history, reaching upwards of 60 feet in length. But this shark is more like 1200 feet. Or more. Look at the picture of the shark holding the sub in its mouth. They mention that this is a Sea Wolf sub (part of a ?Wolf pack?). The sea wolf sub is 350 feet long. By the looks of this image, the shark has to be at least four times as long or more than the sub. That?s fine. I don?t mind the ridiculous size, but give the biologists a line like ?We?ve never seen anything like this!? Also, notice the changing scale: the shark isn?t too much bigger than the plane, but it absolutely dwarfs the submarine. * Lorenzo Lamas and Deborah(!) Gibson do fine in their roles, as do the other players. I think it would be fun to do a movie so shamelessly entertaining. * Most of the dialogue is entirely utilitarian. It?s too bad they couldn?t get the script a bit more punch. There were a few good lines though? Alan Baxter: And now what activity do we see? (Points to the radar screen.) Emma McNeil: None. Alan Baxter: Score one for Ms. Fancypants. Crewman: All five ships destroyed by Octopus, sir. Alan Baxter (referring to a plan to use pheromones to attract the beasts): How do you know this plan will work? Lamar Sanders: If you?d been frozen for millions of years, you?d be pretty horny, wouldn?t you? * The film had a vaguely environmentalist message, ala Godzilla. The low-frequency sonar beacon covertly dropped by a navy pilot in the arctic is what actually breaks the monsters loose. Emma McNeil wonders if we are reaping what we?ve sown. Probably not worth watching unless you know ahead of time that you like this sort of thing, in which case I look forward to your comments. |
August 18, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Arsenic and Old Lace - Unrated |
When I was in college, I went to a high school production of Arsenic and Old Lace in which the boy playing Dr. Einstein did a very creditable Peter Lorre impression in the part. As we watched, I wondered if Lorre was in the film version of the play, or if the boy just thought it would fit the role well. Having now seen the film (via ?Watch Instantly?), I?m interested in the King and I problem ? I wonder if anyone plays that role without a nod to Lorre? (There?s an episode of, um, Seinfeld?, in which a man playing the King of Siam in the stage play of the King and I complains that he?s continually asked why he isn?t bald. ?Yul Brenner was bald, not the King!? he exclaims. Anyhow, Arsenic and Old Lace works well as a filmed version of a play. It has all the enjoyable elements of that original work, from the exasperated theatre critic to the neglected new bride to the dotty old ladies to the Teddy Roosevelt charging up the stairs. But it also does nothing beyond what the play does. (Scratch that ? I don?t know if the cab driver is in the play.) But it does hardly anything beyond the play, and this is its failing. Forgetting that filmic storytelling needs to be vibrant in a different way than the theatre does, Arsenic comes up short in its staging. It occurs to me that this could make a great horror film with just a little twist in the presentation of the ladies and the inflection of the nephew. What if Mortimer were the schemer and Jonathan was a misunderstood homebody who loves his aunts? What if the aunts were hateful women hiding behind a mask of civility, and Teddy were disturbingly deranged rather than delightfully deranged? I wonder what that staging might look like. I wonder if the dialogue could survive given just a different inflection and staging. |
July 27, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Brüno (Bruno) - R |
There?s a brilliant moment toward the end of Sacha Baron Cohen?s Brüno in which a rabid crowd of UFC fans suddenly shifts from screaming in glee at the impending beating of a gay man to screaming in anger. As I watched the caricatured homophobes roaring, gasping and, in one particularly amazing shot, looking distinctly crushed ? as if something inside had died ? I couldn?t help but remember Andy Kaufman?s infamous turn as a heel in the professional wrestling circuit. Brüno complicates the easy relationship we usually have to humor. While many of the jokes in Borat were easier to laugh at directly, Brüno often pulls its humor from making both the audience and its victims uncomfortable. And while Borat was a caricature of a racist homophobe, Brüno becomes the caricature of the flamboyant gay man, provoking his subjects as their target rather than as fellow traveler. The film also has an over-the-top sexual component that far exceeds what you might expect to see in any mainstream film. Frankly, I?m surprised they were able to get an R rating. But as Owen Gleiberman pointed out in his Entertainment Weekly review, such moments play more to Brüno?s personality; he is who he is. The funniest moments go back to Baron Cohen?s bread-and-butter, the improv interview. At several points in the film, he follows his old formula of starting with something within the scope of semi-reasonable behavior and then twisting his victims further and further out past the edge of all reason. As you leave the film, you?ll find yourself arguing with your companions about which parts were real ? there are moments that feel like they must have been staged. Which begs the question, what is this movie? Is it documentary? Is it a prank film? Is it fiction, of a piece with The Bicycle Thief and other Neorealist films shot on location among non-actors? |
July 23, 2009 | N/A |
267 ratings
33 reviews
