I'm afraid there may be something seriously wrong with me because I want to see Yours, Mine and Ours. It has to be bad, doesn't it? Probably full of toilet humor and poorly executed slapstick. Maybe I want to see it because I have a soft spot for the original, which starred Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball. I don't know if my friends realize that I like family-themed films. My mom knows and she doesn't understand. But how can you not like With Six You Get Eggroll, The Parent Trap, or Look Who's Talking? These aren't necessarily good movies, nor are they movies I would put on my Netflix© cue, but if any of them come on TV, I can't turn them off. I sit there and watch to the bitter end each and every time. I'm afraid not even the little sister (not my actual sister) may be willing to sit through this one with me. If I have to go alone, I will. You know what they say: the heart wants what the heart wants. My heart wants to see Dennis Quaid and a million little kids running around. (Oddly, I do not find the remake of Cheaper by the Dozen appealing in the least. The original was ok.)
The appeal of these films, and similar tv shows, is that somehow these wacky blended families make it work. The are meant to be together, they find happiness and the kids all love each other. Or, in the case of "The Parent Trap"it was all a big misunderstanding and true love conquers all. It also provided wish fulfillment: I always wanted a twin sister.
I finally went to see "Yours, Mine and Ours" with work friend, Nancy. It turns out that Nancy has the same love of blended family type of films (and the same complete lack of interest in Cheaper by the Dozen, despite the presence of Steve Martin) as I do. Don't know what her excuse is, she comes from an intact family.
We went to see it at Union Station. As we walked to our theater, we were a little concerned by the mobs of small children surrounding us. Apparently, they were all there to see Narnia or Harry Potter because we had the theater completely to ourselves. We chatted and heckled loudly through the entire film. I had very, very low expectations and was completely satisfied by the experience. A pig played a supporting role in the film causing me to say more than once, "Everything is funnier with a pig."
Friday, December 23, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Syriana (2005)
I'm sure Syriana is a fine movie (or maybe not), but all I cared about was getting to the non-subtitled parts so I could close my eyes. Perhaps it wasn't the best movie to see on almost no sleep. I have to say that it doesn't speak well for the film that it didn't get me to perk up at all. And I didn't like it enough to see it again.
I was expecting a satisfyingly complicated plot. I like that. This plot--well, it wasn't complicated as much as it was opaque. I'm not even sure what the point was. To figure that out, I'd need to see it again. And I don't want to. My buddy, Spesh, who is the Political Commissar for film (meaning he decides whether a film has good politics and I argue with him about it), was disappointed in its politics, but I'm not sure why. The Commissar doesn't need to explain his opinions. I was just disappointed. Those high expectations will get you every time.
I was expecting a satisfyingly complicated plot. I like that. This plot--well, it wasn't complicated as much as it was opaque. I'm not even sure what the point was. To figure that out, I'd need to see it again. And I don't want to. My buddy, Spesh, who is the Political Commissar for film (meaning he decides whether a film has good politics and I argue with him about it), was disappointed in its politics, but I'm not sure why. The Commissar doesn't need to explain his opinions. I was just disappointed. Those high expectations will get you every time.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Walk the Line (2005)
I liked Walk the Line. Reese Witherspoon's performance was one of the best things about the movie. She always good, even when the movie she's in is crap. In this case, she picked a good movie and made it better. She is an interesting actresses to watch, mostly because of the underlying intelligence she brings to every role. Joaquin Phoenix was no slouch either and had the lost, sexy appeal of the real Johnny Cash.
A choice bit of dialogue:
Johnny Cash (to Sam Phillips): Do you have a problem with the Air Force?
Sam Phillips: No.
Johnny Cash: Well, I do.
Cash sings "Folsom Prison Blues" and you get exactly how much he hated being in the Air Force.
The movie is full of light, small touches--and some bombastic ones too. A good amount of time is devoted to showing Phoenix and Witherspoon perform, but their chemistry is as palpable on stage as off, so it works. They did all their own voice work and it was the right way to go. There is nothing inventive or unique in the plot or structure of this bio-pic, but the leads are enchanting and watchable.
The best part of the movie is that it does a lot of showing and little telling. Not much time is wasted on exposition, you are plunged right into the action. The technique allows us to connect the dots, but the guiding hand of the director doesn't leave much room for drawing the wrong conclusions.
Cash was an imperfect man who never pretended to be anything else. His story is worth seeing for that reason alone.
A choice bit of dialogue:
Johnny Cash (to Sam Phillips): Do you have a problem with the Air Force?
Sam Phillips: No.
Johnny Cash: Well, I do.
Cash sings "Folsom Prison Blues" and you get exactly how much he hated being in the Air Force.
The movie is full of light, small touches--and some bombastic ones too. A good amount of time is devoted to showing Phoenix and Witherspoon perform, but their chemistry is as palpable on stage as off, so it works. They did all their own voice work and it was the right way to go. There is nothing inventive or unique in the plot or structure of this bio-pic, but the leads are enchanting and watchable.
The best part of the movie is that it does a lot of showing and little telling. Not much time is wasted on exposition, you are plunged right into the action. The technique allows us to connect the dots, but the guiding hand of the director doesn't leave much room for drawing the wrong conclusions.
Cash was an imperfect man who never pretended to be anything else. His story is worth seeing for that reason alone.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Shop Girl (2005)
Directed by Anand Tucker
Written by Steve Martin
Cast
Claire Danes: Mirabelle
Steve Martin: Ray Parker
Jason Schwartzman: Jeremy
The story is simple. A young women works at the glove counter at Saks in Los Angeles. She is bored. She is from Vermont, which seems to be the explanation for any of her un-L.A. like behavior. She is also an unprolific but talented artist.
She meets Jeremy in the laundry mat. She meets Ray Parker at work. Each of them woos her. Jeremy in a awkward and unsentimental way. Ray in a smooth, older guy way--with nice dinners at restaurants and overnight visits to a designer-furnished personality-free house.
The heart of this movie is cold. The people move around each other but they never touch. The core of the film is Mirabelle's relationship with Ray Parker. They have different ideas of what the relationship means. It's a common trope in all films about relationships. He wants something with no expectations and sex. She wants...well, it's never stated. There is one scene where she describes the relationship to her girlfriends--it's the only time we know that she has a life outside her apartment, Ray's house and Saks--and she seems giggly and excited about the potential of the new romance. But that's it. The rest of the time she says nothing, expects nothing from Ray and gladly accepts whatever he offers without asking for anything.
The film is about the way people don't connect. How sex ties them together, but only in an illusory way. It's an anomic, glum view of the world where real connections don't exist. The acting was fine, the film was slow and the message was vague. There is a happy ending but this is far from a happy film.
Written by Steve Martin
Cast
Claire Danes: Mirabelle
Steve Martin: Ray Parker
Jason Schwartzman: Jeremy
The story is simple. A young women works at the glove counter at Saks in Los Angeles. She is bored. She is from Vermont, which seems to be the explanation for any of her un-L.A. like behavior. She is also an unprolific but talented artist.
She meets Jeremy in the laundry mat. She meets Ray Parker at work. Each of them woos her. Jeremy in a awkward and unsentimental way. Ray in a smooth, older guy way--with nice dinners at restaurants and overnight visits to a designer-furnished personality-free house.
The heart of this movie is cold. The people move around each other but they never touch. The core of the film is Mirabelle's relationship with Ray Parker. They have different ideas of what the relationship means. It's a common trope in all films about relationships. He wants something with no expectations and sex. She wants...well, it's never stated. There is one scene where she describes the relationship to her girlfriends--it's the only time we know that she has a life outside her apartment, Ray's house and Saks--and she seems giggly and excited about the potential of the new romance. But that's it. The rest of the time she says nothing, expects nothing from Ray and gladly accepts whatever he offers without asking for anything.
The film is about the way people don't connect. How sex ties them together, but only in an illusory way. It's an anomic, glum view of the world where real connections don't exist. The acting was fine, the film was slow and the message was vague. There is a happy ending but this is far from a happy film.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
I thought the acting was fantastic. I hate him, but Clint Eastwood is good. I like Hillary Swank, and though some of her dialog was creaky, she was a completely believable character. You felt the pain of these characters. And, did I mention Morgan Freeman? Outstanding. The only thing to criticize in this film was the ending, which was something less than believable. Some of the dialog and the transformation arc were problematic--but still, there was a good deal of humor, some touching pathos and those really fine performances. I didn't love it, but I sure liked a lot of things about it. I would recommend it.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
In Good Company (2004)
I knew it wouldn't be great and it had some pretty serious flaws. Topher Grace is fantastic. His face is so fluid and expressive, slipping from sincere to slick to heartbroken in one wipe. He is young and adorable and I wonder if he'll get better looking as he ages, gets weathered, puts on a bit of weight. I prefer the slightly older mid-thirties look these days, but I could live with the extreme youthfulness of Topher (though a more pretentious nickname I can't imagine). Scarlett Johansson is also pretty fantastic. She's got a perfect body and a pretty, blank face--but it's that mouth, her lips that are the unavoidable focus of her face. I also love Dennis Quaid and the almost believably middle-aged Marg Helgenberger.
Unfortunately, the core of the movie is hollow. The theme is to find something in life that is meaningful to you and work at it. Choose to do what you love. That's a great theme and Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid) is the exemplar of it. A company man at the same sales job for 23 years, master of the soft sell, who true believes in his product. Great. But--he's an ad man. An AD MAN. And the movie is holding that up as the ideal job with meaning? Really? His product is ad space in a Sports Illustrated type of magazine--how, exactly, does advertising in Sports Illustrated make the world a better place? Or, is the movie simply saying that if you think advertising in Sports Illustrated makes the world a better place then you are a good person for selling the ad space. Sorry, doesn't track.
Also, Dan acts towards his daughter like a jealous boyfriend. Carter Duryea (Topher Grace), who is Dan's new boss after a corporate take-over, starts a secret affair with Dan's daughter, Alex. That it is secret at first makes sense, but the continuing secret doesn't. He's maybe six years older than she is (her age is not clear, she's either 18 or 20, so he's either 8 or 6 years older), which, while not exactly cool, hardly seems shocking. And, for God's sake, it's Scarlett Johansson, so she acts like she's 40, while seeming as innocent as a 5 year old. The minor dénouement of the picture happens when Dan follows Carter to an assignation with Alex--lunch in a fancy New York restaurant. Wow, that's pretty scandalous. Dan's question to his daughter is, "Are you sleeping with him?" Luckily, she's too smart to answer directly and eventually says, "Dad, what do you want me to say?" Dan then tells Carter to stand up and when Carter does Dan slugs him. Carter falls to the floor and professes his love for Alex. She runs out of the restaurant after her DAD! Is this bordering on incestuous or what?
If it were me, well, my dad might not like the guy and he would let me know, but punching him?? Ridiculous. But, when Carter says he loves Alex, I believed him. I didn't believe Dan punching him. I believed Alex running after Dad. And when Dan says he liked Alex better when she was five she responds, appropriately, that it is a terrible thing to say. One thing for the script--while not a good movie, they don't fool around trying to turn a clever phrase. The characters get to speak in pretty much regular human language, at least the middle class American version of it.
There is also an upside-down morality to the work-place story. Dan several times has the option of quitting in support of his (former) employees. He never does, but he is still heroisized. Maybe because he has two kids, a pregnant wife and a second mortgage he's not expected to make a sacrifice. At the end, when he is restored to his old job and rightful power, partially due to Carter's willingness to sacrifice his own job, he does NOTHING to save Carter. It takes Dan a whole month to offer Carter his job back.
What is the focus of this picture? The romance? The office? The bucolic suburb? The city versus the suburb? (Classic worn out trope of the bad city (NYU) versus the safe country (anonymous SUNY campus). Is it a coming of age story (Alex)? A redemption story (Carter)? A revenge story (Dan)? I like the idea of all of these themes floating around in the same picture, but this one doesn't figure out how to bring them together in a way that resonates.
Unfortunately, the core of the movie is hollow. The theme is to find something in life that is meaningful to you and work at it. Choose to do what you love. That's a great theme and Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid) is the exemplar of it. A company man at the same sales job for 23 years, master of the soft sell, who true believes in his product. Great. But--he's an ad man. An AD MAN. And the movie is holding that up as the ideal job with meaning? Really? His product is ad space in a Sports Illustrated type of magazine--how, exactly, does advertising in Sports Illustrated make the world a better place? Or, is the movie simply saying that if you think advertising in Sports Illustrated makes the world a better place then you are a good person for selling the ad space. Sorry, doesn't track.
Also, Dan acts towards his daughter like a jealous boyfriend. Carter Duryea (Topher Grace), who is Dan's new boss after a corporate take-over, starts a secret affair with Dan's daughter, Alex. That it is secret at first makes sense, but the continuing secret doesn't. He's maybe six years older than she is (her age is not clear, she's either 18 or 20, so he's either 8 or 6 years older), which, while not exactly cool, hardly seems shocking. And, for God's sake, it's Scarlett Johansson, so she acts like she's 40, while seeming as innocent as a 5 year old. The minor dénouement of the picture happens when Dan follows Carter to an assignation with Alex--lunch in a fancy New York restaurant. Wow, that's pretty scandalous. Dan's question to his daughter is, "Are you sleeping with him?" Luckily, she's too smart to answer directly and eventually says, "Dad, what do you want me to say?" Dan then tells Carter to stand up and when Carter does Dan slugs him. Carter falls to the floor and professes his love for Alex. She runs out of the restaurant after her DAD! Is this bordering on incestuous or what?
If it were me, well, my dad might not like the guy and he would let me know, but punching him?? Ridiculous. But, when Carter says he loves Alex, I believed him. I didn't believe Dan punching him. I believed Alex running after Dad. And when Dan says he liked Alex better when she was five she responds, appropriately, that it is a terrible thing to say. One thing for the script--while not a good movie, they don't fool around trying to turn a clever phrase. The characters get to speak in pretty much regular human language, at least the middle class American version of it.
There is also an upside-down morality to the work-place story. Dan several times has the option of quitting in support of his (former) employees. He never does, but he is still heroisized. Maybe because he has two kids, a pregnant wife and a second mortgage he's not expected to make a sacrifice. At the end, when he is restored to his old job and rightful power, partially due to Carter's willingness to sacrifice his own job, he does NOTHING to save Carter. It takes Dan a whole month to offer Carter his job back.
What is the focus of this picture? The romance? The office? The bucolic suburb? The city versus the suburb? (Classic worn out trope of the bad city (NYU) versus the safe country (anonymous SUNY campus). Is it a coming of age story (Alex)? A redemption story (Carter)? A revenge story (Dan)? I like the idea of all of these themes floating around in the same picture, but this one doesn't figure out how to bring them together in a way that resonates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
