Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Archives

LAMB #393

Large Association of Movie Blogs

1001 Movies Club

Grade Scale

  • A+: Never say never
  • A: A masterpiece
  • A-: A near-masterpiece
  • B+: Very good movie
  • B: Good movie but some minor flaws
  • B-: Pretty good but some flaws
  • C+: Slightly above average
  • C: Average
  • C-: Mediocre
  • D: Bad movie!!!
  • F: Atrocious, avoid at all cost!

Best Looking Gals at the Oscars

I hope everyone enjoyed my post about the worst looking gals on Oscars’ Night yesterday. Now let’s move on to the best looking ladies on Oscars’ night. Last I said previously, I thought that every actress looked at least semi-decent. No one attempted to pull off looking like an exotic bird or a cosmopolitan alien. No reports of anyone faceplanting or having a “wardrobe malfunction” either. Pretty miraculous, looking at some of those dresses. As you can see, I have never understood the fascination with really fancy and overly bold dresses. Call me boring but to me, elegant and understated is always the way to go and it’s nice to see that most of the ladies went that way on Sunday.

Cream of the Crop:

Some said it's too simple and boring. Well it's better to look like Kate Winslet rather than look like an ostrich that fell into a can of paint!

Anna Kendrick and her flesh tone dress. Delicious.

The perennially elegant Elizabeth Banks was absolutely stunning and she is funny to boot!

Unlike some, I thought Carey Mulligan looked fine. It helps that she is as cute as a pie.

Lovely Rachel McAdams was the stunner of the night in a really simple, classy and low key way as usual. That's how it's done people!

Penelope Cruz because Jose will hunt me down and axe me if I don't mention her. The blogosphere still can't grasp the fact that you didn't rank her #1 on your list, Jose!

Yes, Kristen Stewart is on both Best and Worst Looking lists. See here, she is forcing almost a ... smile. Why so constipated? Relax and enjoy the good time, who knows how long it will last!

So what do you guys, gals think? Who were the best looking actresses at the Oscars?

Movie News: Weekly Round-Up

Movie News:

Casting News:

  • Robert DeNiro cast in Neil Burger’s The Dark Fields (Variety)
  • Hugh Jackman cast in civil rights movie Selma (USA Today)
  • Jonah Hill replaces Demetri Martin in Moneyball (The Playlist)

  • Rachel McAdams joins Owen Wilson, Marion Cottilard in Woody Allen’s next film (THR): A few weeks ago, I wrote about Owen Wilson teaming up with Red’s beloved Marion Cottilard in this Woody Allen flick and look who is joining them! First Terrence Malick’s movie a few weeks ago, now Woody Allen’s, great to see Rachel get to work with some legendary directors.
  • Benicio Del Toro cast in crime drama Making Jack Falcone (Deadline)
  • Rachel Nichols cast in Marcus Nispel’s Conan (Latino Review): Rachel Nichols was the only reason to watch GI Joe and probably the only reason to see Conan and I’m not speaking in terms of acting chops here…
  • Lenny Kravitz cast in Lee Daniels’ Selma (The Playlist)
  • Liam Hemsworth cast in Arabian Nights (Heat Vision)
  • Anna Faris cast in comedy What’s your Number? (Variety)
  • Jessica Lucas cast in Big Momma’s House 3 (Variety)

  • Liv Tyler, Patrick Wilson, Terrence Howard, Charlie Hunnam join suspense film The Ledge (THR): This sounds like a promising movie with a decent cast. Charlie Hunnam will play a suicidal man ready to jump off a building before noon while Terrence Howard will play the cop trying to convince him that life doesn’t suck!
  • Ryan Gosling join Steve Carrell in new untitled comedy by John Requa and Glenn Ficarra (Variety)
  • Viggo Mortensen joins David Cronenberg again in Talking Cure (Deadline)
  • Mike Vogel and Garrett Hedlund top candidates for Captain America, not Krasinski as reported earlier (Deadline): Does anyone actually have any idea what the hell is going on?

Trailers:

  • Zombie flick Survival of the Dead (First Showing)
  • Legend of the Guardians teaser (Yahoo)
  • The Runaways with Dakota Fanning, Kristen Stewart (Yahoo)
  • Harry Brown with Michael Caine: This is like Taken, check out the trailer! (First Showing)
  • New trailer for Iron Man 2: This almost seem too… full of excess? (Apple)
  • MUST WATCH: Tron Legacy first teaser trailer (First Showing)

Links: Is this a slow week or what?

Movie Review: The Notebook (2004)

Directed by Nick Cassavetes and adapted from the novel of the same name by Nicholas Sparks, The Notebook is a romantic drama that came out of nowhere to become one of the most beloved romantic tearjerker of all-time. (IMDb : 8.0/10). In all truthfulness, this is the only movie to this day that has left me bawling like a freaking pussy a little teary eyed the first time I saw it.

Synopsis (some spoilers): Duke (James Garner) is an elderly man who spends all of his time reading a love story from his notebook to an elderly woman (Genna Rowlands) with an advanced form of Alzheimer’s disease. The story is set in 1940’s North Carolina and is about the tribulations of a young couple. Penniless country-boy Noah (Ryan Gosling) meets Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams), the spoiled daughter of a rich family in vacation in his town, and after some early reticence from her, the two spend an idyllic summer together. Unfortunately, Allie’s parents, more specifically her mother (Joan Allen), are none too keen to have their young daughter mingle with a local blue-collar everyman. The night before Allie leaves, she playfully makes Noah promise to renovate an old crumbling mansion to her liking. The two reluctantly separate and Noah starts writing letters to her every day for a year. The only problem is that she never writes back to him. Heartbroken, Noah enlist in the Army to fight in World War II and seven years go by before he sees her again. Allie has moved on but he hasn’t and he decides to put his mind into rebuilding that old plantation mansion, somehow thinking that if he ever restores it, she will come back to him.

The Notebook is a shamelessly corny and predictable tearjerker that extols the virtue of true love with no regards for what the cynics among us may think or not. This is the kind of old-fashioned movie that doesn’t really get made all too often anymore and it’s a tribute to Nick Cassavetes uncompromising direction that this movie somehow hits the right notes despite taking on all the cliches of its formulaic genre. From the first instant, the movie wants you to surrender to its romantic premises. Reinforced by Aaron Zigman’s excellent musical score, the strikingly lush cinematography by Robert Fraisse has an atmospheric feeling to it that evokes romantic nostalgia. Shots of serene lakes, multicolored sunsets or  flying sea birds give an unhurried feel to the film. The movie is carefully paced, clocking in at 123 minutes which feels just  about right.

We have all seen the characters of The Notebook somewhere before. They are nothing new but each actor was able to give their respective characters a fresh twist that made them more colorful and memorable. Although all the characters initially appear fairly stereotypical, they eventually become fully fleshed out. Even Allie’s mother, played by the always reliable Joan Allen, eventually gets a chance to add another dimension to her initially witch-like character. It’s also refreshing to see that Allie’s fiance, played by the underrated James Marsden, is depicted as a really likable  good guy. Not only does it add a little suspense as to who she is going to pick, but the viewer doesn’t have to wonder why she is engaged to him in the first place.

Numerous well-known actresses auditioned for the part of Allie but it was the then-little-known Rachel McAdams who got her first leading part. Cassavetes said he was extremely demanding of her because he knew the movie would not work if the main female protagonist wasn’t top notch. McAdams simply delivers, lighting up the screen and showing terrific range and depth of emotions. Not only does she achieve striking chemistry with Ryan Gosling but she also does with James Marsden. Her multifaceted character evolves between being a giggly free-spirited city girl, a bratty and spoiled child, a giddy little dynamite stick on springs, and a feisty yet peachy lady of high society. All of this while going through the entire range of human emotions and keeping this girl-next-door femininity that befits her character so perfectly. Allie is just plain utterly delightful and there is no questioning why Noah becomes smitten with her (who wouldn’t?) or why old Duke is still so persistent about reading to her right by her side after all of these years.

Ryan Gosling was offered the job from the onset as he was Cassavetes’ first and only choice for the role of Noah. Gosling has made a living of playing dark, tormented characters and he is extremely adept at underplaying his characters with a naturalistic and genuine touch. The movie was shot backward so Gosling could lose 25 lbs over a few weeks break to play the younger Noah, and you have to admire his dedication which is apparent in his physical transformation. I initially thought he was a little too mellow especially when contrasted to McAdams’ high energy passion but upon reflection, he held his own and that was the way to go. Having him match her energy would have made everything unauthentic. It’s easy to feel sympathy for his character as he is yearning for his beloved one to come back to him. The two share that one thing that is so rare on screen: excellent chemistry which is all the more remarkable given the fact that, at times, they reportedly could not bear the sight of each other on set.

As charming as the two young leads are, it is the legendary James Garner and Genna Rowlands who deliver the final emotional blows. Genna Rowlands, Cassavetes’ mother, nails the blank and confused face of a woman stricken by dementia. She gives just enough hints of hopes to James Garner who is pitch-perfect as her devoted husband who can’t bear to be away from his beloved wife and has to deal with an irreparable loss. Their final scenes together is probably where even the most stone-hearted souls lose it. Freaking old people, I swear.

The movie is far from perfection — the first 10 minutes could easily have been disposed of — but it goes to show you that competent direction and great acting can go a long way to infuse life into some lifeless material. The film is everything that a pure old-fashioned romance movie should be and it feels complete: young budding love, mature love, the perfect guy, a girl to die for, emotional highs and lows, sweet nothings, even a monologue in the rain. The Notebook is just a movie that you should “allow” to get to you with minimal resistance. I bet most people who did not like the movie were not able to get past this initial cynicism that one might have against sappy and melodramatic movies. Whether you believe true love that last a lifetime really exist or not is beside the point. The film is only a great remainder that there is a reason why every single human being on Earth wants to love and be loved.

Featuring exceptional performances from the cast and unapologetic but restrained direction from Nick Cassavetes, The Notebook somehow manages to raise above its overly sappy and trite premises to become a lovely old-fashioned celebration of true love. Maybe it’s too sentimental, manipulative and mushy for some, but isn’t it supposed to be?

B+

Notes: Rated PG-13 for some sexuality. 123 minutes. Quotes and extra material from DVD’s director’s commentary.

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 7.5/10 (13 votes cast)

Movie News: Weekly Round-Up

Movie News:

  • Guy Ritchie abandons DC Comics Lobo to focus on Sherlock Holmes 2 (Hero Complex)
  • George Lucas to direct a CGI-musical with fairies, don’t laugh… It’s true (Heat Vision)
  • Miramax goes belly up (First Showing): RIP Miramax.
  • A Prequel of Bourne trilogy might be made without Matt Damon (Empire)
  • I, Frankenstein to begin shooting in July (First Showing)
  • Johnny Depp will direct a documentary about Keith Richards (The Playlist)
  • New viral website for upcoming movie Repo Men (theunioncares.com)
  • Clash of the Titans, last two Harry Potter movies, Transformers III will be in 3-D (Hollywood Insider)
  • Underworld 4 3D in the works, Kate Beckinsale wants small role only (Bloody Disgusting): This should make Red about as ecstatic as it gets!!
  • New Shutter Island pictures (Collider)
  • Sgt. Rocks may be set in future, not WWII (LA Times)
  • DC Comics looking for potential sequel to Watchmen (Bleeding Cool)

Casting News:

  • Sam Worthington in negotiations to play titular character in Dracula Year Zero (Heat Vision)
  • Keanu Reeves cast in sci-fi romance Passengers (Variety)
  • Zac Effron joins cast of spy thriller Fire (Deadline Hollywood)
  • Mel Gibson in talks to join spy thriller Cold Warrior (THR)

  • Seth Rogen, Michelle Williams to star in Sarah Polley’s Waltz (Deadline Hollywood)
  • Zachary Quinto to star in Steven Spielberg’s biopic (Deadline Hollywood)
  • Olivia Wilde joins cast of Jon Favreau’s Cowboy and Aliens (Heat Vision)
  • Zooey Deschanel to star in half-hour HBO pilot for “Confession of a Groupie” (Deadline)
  • Hugh Jackman cast in Snow Flower and the Secret Fan, Li Bingbing replaces Zhang Ziyi (THR)

  • Biggest news for last: Terrence Malick casts Christian Bale, Javier Bardem, Rachel McAdams in an unnamed romance drama set to begin shooting in fall 2010 (Deadline Hollywood): WOOHOO! Not only does this mean that Terrence Malick is not going to take another 15-yr break but this also means Tree of Life should be nearing completion in post-production! As for the news itself, a fantastic cast for a legendary director! From what I gather, this unnamed movie will be an addition to Tree of Life but obviously, it won’t be clear what the movie is until it hits theater.

Don’t Miss the Jump >>

Continue reading Movie News: Weekly Round-Up »

Sherlock Holmes (2009): OMG BFF ROFL!!

Let’s get it straight right away: Sherlock Holmes, directed by Guy Ritchie, is  quite a riot and one of the most entertaining movie of the year. To be honest, I was quite mortified when I learned that Guy Ritchie ended up at the helm of the movie. Ritchie had been misfiring badly since the awesome Snatch all the way back in 2000 after all. Here, he gives us a movie which suffers from a sloppy screenplay and overbearing editing but is action packed, gorgeous looking and quite funny.

Synopsis: Just fresh off capturing and witnessing the hanging of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), an occult serial killer, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) are stunned to hear rumors that he has resurrected back from the dead and resumed his killing spree. To complicate matters, Watson is planning to get married to pretty Mary Marstan (Kelly Reilly) and move out of good old 221b Baker Street to Holmes great despair. Holmes, hilariously resolved not to let that happen, attempts to sabotage his friend’s proposal while hunting down Lord Blackwood. Holmes perks up considerably though when his tempestuous old love interest, the fetching Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) pops back in town for some mysterious business.

Some “purists”, who should probably re-read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, will complain that the movie is not true to Sherlock Holmes’ essence. However, it is made clear in the written stories that he is a martial art expert and an avid boxer (“The Adventure Of The Empty House“). Why would a man who often puts himself in danger not come into some physical confrontation at one point or another and you know… use his fighting skills? Next, it is often described that Holmes tends to come alive when his mind is kept busy with enigmas but he tends toward depression when his mind idles. Watson is his closest friend so it would not be so far fetched for Holmes to disapprove of Watson’s impending marriage for his own well-being. Guy Ritchie only attempts to break the old preconceptions of the characters while staying faithful to the material, which is actually highly open for interpretation. People have this preconceived image of this stern detective in a deerstalker hat, smoking a pipe, and saying “Elementary, my dear Watson” (which he never does in the novels by the way). I’m glad Ritchie gave a modern face-lift to the character because the original work itself is extremely conducive to a successful movie franchise and would bring a new generation of people to get interested in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work.

Many things are already assumed as the movie begins, keeping Ritchie from having to  go through a laborious introduction of every single aspects of  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work. The best thing going for Sherlock Holmes is the lively homo-erotic relationship between the eccentric Holmes and the proper Watson. The two have been best of friends and been cohabiting for the longest of time. Hence, the upcoming proposal by Watson to Mary Marstan throws a big wrench into that idyllic picture in Holmes’ mind. The casting of the lead roles was simply perfect. It was daring for Guy Ritchie to cast an American actor to play a quintessential British figure and the charismatic Robert Downey Jr doesn’t disappoint: An articulate and quick-witted performer, he is one of the few actors who can play an eccentric genius convincingly. His Sherlock Holmes is unkempt, arrogant, socially awkward and has his vulnerabilities especially his feelings toward Watson and Irene. Holmes is also street-wise, larger than life, and a genius badass altogether. Jude Law gives a strong performance, holding his own opposite Downey. Without Watson, there is no Sherlock Holmes and this describes their relationship in the movie as well. Watson is  not pictured here as some inferior acolyte like in most previous interpretations. He is a smart and tough cookie, an Afghan war veteran who knows how to take care of himself. Downey and Law obviously had great fun shooting the movie and it shows. Together, they have excellent chemistry and absolutely nail the hilarious and constant cat fights they have over anything and everything.

The near-total focus on Holmes and Watson hurts the supporting cast who tends to get lost in Ritchie’s frenzied excess. Nevertheless, the always reliable Eddie Marsan is perfectly cast as Scotland Yard’s hapless inspector Lestrade. Lestrade is rigid and does everything by the book which puts him at odds with Holmes unconventional methods. Lord Blackwood presents an intriguing case because of the arcane and supernatural aura of his character which challenges Holmes’ rigorously scientific mind. British actor Mark Strong showcases another solid job as the character in a role that could easily have been one dimensional. Strong has a deep booming voice which makes him ideal for bad guy’s role and it helps him here to turn his thinly written character into a somewhat worthy adversary.

The first victims in action movies, when it comes to cutting scenes, are usually the women and Guy Ritchie does the ladies no favors with terribly underdeveloped roles for the Irene Adler and Mary Marstan characters. Their story line could have been more compelling if they didn’t disappear for large chunks of the movie at a time. In the stories, it is made clear that Holmes has no interest or respect whatsoever for women except for his weird admiration for Irene Adler, the only woman to ever outwit him fair and square (“A Scandal in Bohemia“). She is here reinvented as an American adventuress with a personal agenda who randomly pops in and out of the movie and it is obvious from the trailer that several of her scenes were left on the cutting room floor to keep the movie at a reasonable duration. Her motives are kept mysterious throughout the movie but it is implied she is being used by some powerful man (guess who?) who is obviously the real bad guy. Aside from looking delicious, poor Rachel McAdams is completely wasted in a thankless supporting role but finds the resource to rise above her lady-in-distress part. She blends her femininity with guile, feisty mischief, and some affecting vulnerability but ultimately isn’t given much of anything to do!!! (Yes, I want to smash my screen with the keyboard). This may be a trick to expand on her character organically in the sequel but it’s not a good one at all!!!! In the meanwhile, the lovely Kelly Reilly is just as underused and given little to work with. Thankfully, she manages to give a spirited turn as Watson’s love interest in a nondescript role.

It’s true that Guy Ritchie has always been more about style than substance and this doesn’t change here as the movie starts with an eye-opening action sequence. Ritchie and his writers, however, were patient and smart enough to stay true to the original material. Sherlock Holmes’ fans will notice the numerous nods to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s material such as Holmes’ prized picture of Irene he stole in “A Scandal in Bohemia” or the references to Holmes’ defining traits and past experiences. The action unravels at a frenzied pace and are a nearly unrelenting mix of action and chase sequences. Much like in Snatch, the action scene progressively ramp up and when you think that you can’t possibly go higher, Ritchie tops it off with an even more extravagant sequence. In terms of solving the mysteries, Ritchie also avoids the laborious dialogues that have become so cliche and uses nifty visual flashbacks instead to great effect. At the end of the day though, it is the lively banter between Downey, Law and McAdams that keeps Sherlock Holmes together and the movie tends to slow down dramatically when Holmes is by himself.

The intermittently sagging and overlong screenplay, written by an army of scribes (ok, more like 4), doesn’t take anything seriously which makes it tough for the viewer to believe that the main characters are ever in serious harm’s way. The plot is easily the weakest part of the movie and felt overly intricate and yet too simplistic for a Sherlock Holmes story. You know what? It’s all right if everyone has no idea what’s going on as long as it unravels neatly because it’s the same way with the written stories. Please don’t dumb it down to the level of a 4th grader. On a good note, the screenwriter did a nice job of setting up the next movie by leaving some parts of the plot open-ended. The movie has a feel reminiscent of Batman Begins in that it’s only a stepping stone to establish the main trio, a couple side characters and the world they live in.

Wait a minute…

The weakness in the plot are somewhat compensated thanks to award-worthy production values. The movie was shot in and around London and its Victorian recreation has a brilliant Gothic feel with the city shown as a slimy, filthy, and murky place. The action sequences are well shot and the climactic scene above the Thames River is a highlight. The costumes and period sets are so painstakingly detailed that they merit a mention. Sherlock Holmes’ costumes are rumpled and bohemian looking to emphasize his lack of personal care. On the other hand, Watson’s clothes are neat and very proper to reflect his military background and his discipline. Irene’s dresses and suits are particularly colorful and detailed to highlight a woman ahead of her time, living on the edge of the law and straddling the line between love and distrust in her relationship with Holmes. The sets were carefully built and if you only take your eyes out of the action for a minute, you will notice the incredible details in the background which contribute to create a breathing, living world. On a final note, the musical score by Hans Zimmer is original, ostentatious, strangely memorable and completes the action on the screen well. I would almost call it a work of genius.

Despite significant screenplay flaws, Sherlock Holmes is a fluffy but entertaining action-oriented interpretation of the beloved characters which will please its targeted 15-30 male-based audience. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law form one of the most entertaining action duo in recent memory and give the audience a nice Christmas gift. Has a new franchise begun? Elementary, my dear Watson!

B+

Notes: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material. 128 minutes.

Related Links: Sherlock Holmes Basics (Yes, I thought of you)

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 8.2/10 (10 votes cast)

The Black Cat in Spider-Man 4?

spiderman_black_catLatest rumor is that Rachel McAdams is in talks to take on the role of Felicia Hardy aka the Black Cat in the upcoming Spider-Man 4. In a way, this may not make real sense since the Black Cat is not really a villain in the comic books, more of a femme fatale love interest. I also don’t see Sam Raimi going back to the villain-by-committee trick he used in Spider-Man 3 with nearly catastrophic effect. However, the Felicia Hardy character would give Spider-Man a new love interest and infuse a breath of fresh air into the franchise as well as give Sam Raimi interesting options down the road such as maybe, just maybe writing out the goddamn Mary Jane character (bye bye Kirsten Dunst please!). I would definitely not be surprised if we see a whole lot less of MJ in the upcoming movie.

A little background on Black Cat: First appearing in Amazing Spider-Man #194, Felicia Hardy is New York’s most famed cat burglar and she manages to escape Spider-Man every time due to some “bad luck” befalling him. It is revealed later that she doesn’t really have any supernatural power and she was just using her wits to place little traps at opportune locations so she could escape. She becomes a bit obsessed with Spider-Man and steals stuff just to get his attention. She goes as far as to let him capture her to profess her love. After some early resistance from Spider-Man, they end up having a significant relationship and she gives up her career as a burglar to fight with Spider-Man. However, after nearly dying at the hands of Dr. Octopus and fearing that Spider-Man would eventually get hurt trying to save her, she became desperate to have superpowers and made a secret pact with Kingpin for some advanced strength and agility abilities as well as a “bad luck” attribute. However, she unknowingly infects Spidey badly with her “bad luck” powers and she decides to dump him for his sake. She then became some sort of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor and helping Spidey numerous times in his fight against crime. As you can see, there isn’t a heavy basis to make Felicia more than a temporary semi-villain.

blackcatrma

The way I see it, knowing Hollywood, Black Cat will only be a side-character and they will cast a male actor for the main bad guy role for your much more traditional action movie. Good guy versus bad guy with a spicy love triangle that serves as an introduction for a recurrent character. This would obviously be the safest and least exciting option. The other possibility is that there is no real villain in Spider-Man 4 and Black Cat would be the main antagonist. Very much like another villain easy to relate to, Spider-Man 2 ’s Doc Ock/Dr. Octavius (by far the best movie of the franchise by the way), Felicia Hardy is a troubled but essentially good character that straddles both sides of the law and ends up redeeming herself. This alternative would obviously require much more significant development of the Black Cat’s character and would have a non-major bad guy come into the picture to advance the plot. Wouldn’t it be fun to see Spider-Man fight your street-level crime for once instead of chasing epic bad guys with insane supernatural powers? This would be more risky but have a ton more potential. It really wouldn’t be hard to make Black Cat an intriguing character that is intertwined with both Spider-Man and Peter Parker. Any way you see it, a simple but well-crafted story is what this franchise needs badly.

Much like switching from the lowly Katie Holmes to the much more talented Maggie Gyllenhaal in the Batman franchise, having Rachel McAdams would work out well for the Spider-Man franchise because she is an actress first and foremost and gets the job done consistently. If this ends up coming to fruition, Black Cat needs to be exponentially better written and developed than Catwoman and much more than a simple ‘girlfriend’ role. Else, just turn it down girl. It would not be anything new.

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Fall/Winter 2009 Movie Preview

I’m a little late for Fall since it’s already mid-October but let’s take a look at the top 10 movies coming the next few weeks that look the most intriguing after a fairly decent summer crop. It’s getting colder, darker, wetter and money is in short supply unless you are a bank executive. Which movies are worth seeing ahead of Award season?

Continue reading Fall/Winter 2009 Movie Preview »

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Movie Review: State of Play (2009)

State of Play is a political thriller directed by Kevin Macdonald and released back in April of 2009. I initially wanted to see it in theater due to the deliriously star-studded cast but ended up not going so I was quite thrilled to get my hands on the DVD. State of Play stands in sharp contrast with the movies we have seen the last few months (or years in fact) because it’s a smart and engaging adult movie about something meaningful and current. Sadly, State of Play could be the last of a dying breed of movies about investigative journalism. Heck I don’t even know if that even exist anymore in real life…

The movie takes place in Washington D.C and starts with the murder of a petty thief and the apparent suicide of an attractive aide intimately involved with rising star congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck). Russell Crowe plays Cal McAffrey, Collins’ friend and an old-school investigative reporter for the Washington Globe who tends to do his job the good old way: with a pen, a notepad and his 16-yr old computer. He is investigating the seemingly unrelated deaths and can’t help but see a big corporate conspiracy in the works. Cal is teamed with Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), a young naive and inexperienced writer who is his complete opposite. She is hip, using the latest technology, and (gasp) blogging away on the newspaper website. Their uneasy rapport evolves as he takes her under his wing, and they attempt to uncover the truth behind those murders. Let’s see: sex, politics, corporate conspiracy, corruption, current events, and a couple inquisitive journalists asking the right questions? Quite different from the mindless comic books movies, bland romantic comedies, and animation films we have seen as of late, isn’t it?

Although State of Play has an intriguing plot, it is more than anything, one of those classy political thriller meet old-school journalism reporting and how this is clashing with this recent culture of blogging and instant news gratification, which is causing the death of newspapers as we know them. This struggle between old and new journalism is represented by the apparent initial tension between Cal and Della. He is a seasoned, middle-aged, reporter who takes all the time he needs to write a story, carefully investigating every lead and getting all the facts needed to print a story. On the other hand, young hip blogger Della comes cheap, churn out stories all day long, and doesn’t necessarily care about getting all the facts straight. Cal doesn’t see Della as a real journalist and has little respect for her initially. This all changes when editor-in-chief Cameron Lynne (Helen Mirren) teams them together on the story, expecting little from Della. Cal quickly finds out that young Della is smarter and more dedicated than he expected, and realizes that no one really showed her what investigative reporting really is. He decides to take her under his wing and she rises under the challenge. The movie also gets you to feel the pressure of having to print sensational stories to sell newspapers in the current environment and the rush of having to meet a deadline.

The main issue with the movie was the ending. Don’t worry, I will not spoil anything but let’s say I was expecting something grandiose and meaningful, not some contrived conclusion after all this major conspiracy development. Worst of all is that we almost got that ending, Cal and Della were already celebrating it, drinking whiskey in paper cups in the wee-hours of the morning but … no! They had to add that questionable twist to conclude the film. Another potential issue is that the plot is very dense and thick which could leave inattentive viewers confused. Lastly, supporting characters could have been developed further but the movie runs at 123 minutes already (It was a 6-hour BBC mini-series by the way)


The movie was finely acted with very solid work from a ridiculously star-studded cast. Russell Crowe turns in a good performance as the crusty and scruffy Cal, carrying some extra weight, sporting long hairs, and displaying some of that wisecracking skills he is so good at (wish there was more). He is torn between loyalty to his friend, and the need to publish a meaningful story. while having to baby-sit a cub reporter. In supporting roles: Helen Mirren played the tumultuous and foul-mouthed editor-in-chief Cameron Lynne convincingly. Rachel McAdams is underused but captures the essence of a cub journalist in over her head, showing that Della is smart and ambitious but at the same time, clueless as a naive rookie reporter who has never done any real field investigation. Robin Wright Penn was given very little screen time but conveyed a ton of subtle elements about her character. Jason Bateman was fantastic as a cynical and slimy PR guy who panics after he realizes he knows too much, and finally it was nice to see Jeff Daniels looking sharp and menacing as the power-broking congressman. Ben Affleck was the only one turning in a less than good performance but he was still OK, a bit too young for his role as a congressman but he did not ruin it like he usually does with one of his trademark expressionless performances. Needless to say, an impressive collection of talent and the main highlight of the movie.

State of Play is a well-acted, well-directed, and smart thriller which is also meaningful and will make you ponder the future of investigative journalism in the age of blogging. Highly recommended!

B+

Notes: The credits were really cool! PG-13, 127 minutes.

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 8.3/10 (3 votes cast)

Movie Review: The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)

The Time Traveler’s Wife is a romantic drama directed by Robert Schwentke, adapted from Audrey Niffenegger’s bestseller of the same name. Adapting a novel with complex elements and undertones to the silver screen is a daunting task and director Robert Schwentke struggled to compromise between satisfying readers of the novel and making the movie accessible to people unfamiliar with the book. Overall, the movie has some significant directing and screenwriting flaws but does make for an unpretentious and above-average romantic tragedy thanks to its two compelling leads.

Synopsis: The Time Traveler’s Wife is the time-defying love story of Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) and Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams). Henry is a librarian afflicted with a genetic disease that causes him to travel through time more or less randomly. Henry’s random and unpredictable escapades are often dangerous, terrifying and sometimes life-threatening ordeals because he ends up buck-naked and starving in unknown places and times. For those reasons, Henry keeps himself in top physical shape and taught “himself” all type of survival skills such as pick-pocketing, street fighting, or picking locks. After a random while, he always goes back to his “present” but is largely unable to affect his future. At age 28, he meets 20-yr old Clare Abshire. He doesn’t know her but she has known him since she was 6 and has been waiting for him all her life and will do so the rest of her life…

The main weaknesses of the movie can be traced back to trying to fit the book into 107 minutes. Director Robert Schwentke and screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin appeared over-matched and took the path of least resistance, oversimplifying the plot and characters. Screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin made some compromises to keep the movie from becoming excessively long or inaccessible to its PG-13 audience, which resulted in significant structural flaws. Even though the movie is nearly two hours long, it feels jumpy and too short as if we are skimming through the plotline. Although the main events and characters of the book were translated to the big screen, non-essential characters such as Kimi or Ingrid were completely omitted and the ending was slightly altered (and I liked it better!). The supporting characters are a mere passing thoughts, the key relationship between Clare and Gomez is one-dimensional. Even the two main characters, Henry and Clare, are under-developed. Ideally, the direction of the movie should have been given to a director with better credentials, and the movie extended up to 140 minutes to develop the characters fully and take advantage of the terrific cast.

Despite those shortcomings, The Time Traveler’s Wife is one of those movies you can’t help but like. It is at heart a simple star-crossed love story with a refreshing sci-fi twist that touches on universal themes such as fate/free will, true love, and loss. A story that focused on the depth of the characters’ love, not its showiness. Their will to move forward and enjoy every minute they have with each other before Henry’s impending fate. This meant more close-up shots and a more realistic exploration of what it means to be Henry and Clare. The movie succeeds in moving the audience thanks in big part to moving performances from the two leads, who surrendered themselves fully to the premise of the novel.

The Time Traveler’s Wife stars the fetching Rachel McAdams as the title character. Most will have missed her terrific performance in the 2008 indie The Lucky Ones and this puts her back on the radar for mainstream audiences. Beside matching the physical description of her character in the book, McAdams has an unusual ability to make underwritten characters feel real and genuinely vulnerable. In less talented hands, Clare could easily have turned into a self-pitying weeper but McAdams infuses her with a quiet strength of spirit. Overcoming a surprisingly thinly written character, she carries the emotional weight of the movie and was luminous portraying Clare’s spirit and unyielding love for Henry’s despite being riddled with some terrible lines once again. Will someone give Rachel McAdams a meatier role for God’s sake??? Eric Bana was a pleasant surprise, exceeding my expectations and making for a solid Henry. Although he does not fit the physical description of the book (Henry is more runner than football player) Bana’s Henry was tormented, introverted, poignant, and more importantly, had solid chemistry with his co-star. The only issue I had was that Henry was mostly a one-note character and it would have helped to have him be a little more lively and eccentric. The supporting cast was solid albeit given very little opportunity to be memorable. Gomez (Ron Livingstone) was a pivotal character in the book but merely a passing thought in the movie. Jane McLean as Charisse, Arliss Howard as Henry’s father, Stephen Tobolowsky as Dr. Kendrick all did a fine job with the small parts they had.

The cinematography has a beautiful stark and cold quality to it which reinforce the tragic nature of the movie. The movie was beautifully shot by Florian Ballhaus and is the strongest attribute of the movie behind its leads. The crafty camera-work (already apparent in the trailer) using motion and placement selection gave a particular tone to his scenes and Schwentke used that to his advantage in the film, giving the movie a light touch of eerie fantasy. The ending of the movie, a fitting play on the beginning of the love story, is sublimely shot and Rachel McAdams absolutely nails it. The CGI effects of Henry’s time traveling are unspectacular but first rate while the overused musical score was melancholic, adding to the tragic tone of the movie.

Enjoy the Time Traveler’s Wife for what it is: an old-fashioned love story with an unusual sci-fi twist. It may not be exactly like the book, it may have been darker and heavier on the sci-fi, and it may have been so much more with better direction. Even so, the premise of the story, and the perfectly-cast leads make this movie well-worth the ride and will keep your imagination lingering long afterward.

Boasting solid performances from Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana, The Time Traveler’s Wife is a structurally flawed but charming, endearing and bittersweet romantic drama nonetheless. I admit it, it got me pretty good ;)

B

Notes: PG-13 for thematic elements, brief disturbing images, brief nudity and sexuality, 107 minutes.

Disclaimer: Comment area may contain spoilers

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 7.8/10 (5 votes cast)

Great Movie: Wedding Crashers (2005)

I’m going to start a new section called Great Movies. Every once in a while when I get bored, I will talk about a movie that I really liked for one reason or another. They may or may not be great movies in your view (they may even be mediocre to you) but somehow those movies really got to me and they never get old even after multiple viewings. Those are movies I would not hesitate to grade an A even though they may be far from being perfect. I will try to convince you the reader that they truly are great movies and hope this gets some discussion going? maybe…

Wedding Crashers, directed by David Dobkin, is one of those movies whose simplistic premise should make for an entertaining but forgettable viewing experience, and to many people: it was. However I thought the movie was great and I loved it. Don’t get me wrong, Wedding Crashers is far from perfection (notably the last fourth of the movie) but I genuinely enjoyed it as it was so carefully crafted.

John Beckwith (Wilson) and Jeremy Grey (Vaughn) are divorce mediators in their mid-30’s with a particularly interesting hobby: Every year, they crash weddings to meet women for one-night stands. At the end of another successful season, Jeremy convinces John to go for one more: the wedding of the daughter of William Cleary, the Secretary of the Treasury’s (Christopher Walken). There, Jeremy and John quickly set their sights on the bridesmaid, Gloria and Claire Cleary (Isla Fischer, Rachel McAdams). Hilarity and romance ensue.


As said earlier, this movie is beautifully crafted. Everything that comes on the screen was meticulously put there. This all begins with the cast from top to bottom, from the leads to the mean grandmother or the butler. The characters are so stereotypical, yet everyone that showed up on screen was special in his or her own way.

  • Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson: They define the notion of greater than the sum of two parts: They are both good actors but together, those guys were hilarious! Plus they don’t really have to play the parts of being older bachelors because they freaking are! Vince Vaughn is a truly gifted comedian with great sense of timing and crisp line deliveries. Owen Wilson is solid but never did it for me before, but he had great chemistry with Vaughn and delivered some homerun lines. Those two completed each other real well. You know the duo was going to be funny and wild and the movie would revolve around them so the real surprise wasn’t them…
  • Rachel McAdams: Although she appeared in only a fraction of the scenes, she stole the show. If you read my movie reviews, you know I tend to harp on mediocre acting on unoriginal characters and maybe it is the screenplay or the writer’s fault. I realize one of the toughest thing to do well is to sell a stereotypical character riddled with bad lines. However, like I said before, good actors find a way to make it ring true and real. Her character, Claire Cleary, was a textbook example of how to turn a bland underwritten daddy’s little girl character with cheesy lines into a special character that felt real and heartfelt. That’s talent! You never really learn much about her character explicitly, yet you know what kind of person she is in a very short time. The great strength of Rachel McAdams is that she makes her characters ring sincerely true, and she can convey her characters background and persona without the viewer ever being told.
  • Isla Fischer: She went way over-the-top with her character, Gloria, and it worked wonderfully. She was truly hilarious and creepy as the clingy psychopath girlfriend. Very good execution although she disappears toward the end.
  • Christopher Walken: Walken has such a great aura and is one of the best in the business at delivering lines, and conveying certain types of emotions with minimum effort. He can make you laugh without ever cracking a single smile. Academy Award winner back in 1979! This guy has been around Hollywood for so long and is still going strong. Amazing career…
  • Jane Seymour: Are you kidding me? Jane Seymour!! Are you freaking kidding me? Can you believe she was already in her mid-fifties back then??? Ok I shut up…
  • Bradley Cooper: Playing ‘Sack’ Lodge, the mean unworthy boyfriend, Cooper is/was such an underrated character’s actor (until the Hangover). Talented actor who really put forth an outstanding job on an horribly shallow part.
  • Keir O’Donnell: His interpretation of Todd Cleary was PURE genius. Too bad they didn’t get him a little more screen time because his character was so hilarious. See where I’m getting? Todd could have been a character so forgettable you wouldn’t even notice him but this guy came in and put in an original spin which added to the movie.
  • Will Ferrell: Cameo appearance by Ferrell, does it get better than that for a raunchy comedy? I mean I don’t usually enjoy his over-the-top comedy over the length of a full movie (except in Anchorman), but in a cameo, he was great (although unneeded)
  • I could go on and on all the way down to the most minimal part. It is so easy to focus on Owen Wilson’s and Vince Vaughn’s characters and dismiss all the supporting cast work when you are not paying attention because when they do a great job, then it feels “normal” but pay attention next time you see the movie and you will see the amount of detail put into each character.


Beyond the cast, the movie thrived on many different aspects. The direction was top-notch as well, leaving a lot of room to the talented cast to add their own marks to each characters and allowing Vaughn and Wilson to work on what they do best: improvisations. Although it is a light summer movie, there is a lot of subtle looks, expressions, layers and runners throughout the film if you are paying attention, which are hallmarks of a finely directed movie. Again, something to pay attention to next time, if you ever watch it again. The cinematography was superb with vibrant colors, sunny sets, and drop-dead gorgeous shots and settings. The musical score and soundtrack fit perfectly with the different moods of the movie.

Finally, the essence of the movie that when you meet that someone special, there is a spark. It’s reassuring to think it’s there, that we won’t just miss each other, and I think we all want to believe in that.

So in all, this is all the little things that come up together to make a great movie and this is why I loved Wedding Crashers! Discuss if you can.

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 9.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Page 1 of 212