Starring: Bradley Cooper, Robert DeNiro, Abbie Cornish
Directed By: Neil Burger
Run Time: 1 hour 45 minutes
Limitless is about a writer named Eddie Morra (played by Cooper) who is suffering from writer's block, whose girlfriend has just left him, and whose life is falling apart. His life changes after he runs into his ex-brother-in-law, who also happens to be an upscale drug dealer, and is given a funky new drug. While most people only use 10% of their brain, this drug allows you to use 90% of it. Eddie finishes his novel in just a few days, learns several languages, and conquers the stock market while under the influence. His newfound clarity opens doors to new opportunities and new people.
This movie has probably the worst opening scene ever. I think it was supposed to be suspensful and powerful but it was flat, boring, and a little annoying. The voice-over was flat, there was no allure to the text or grab. The pounding in the background was distracting and annoying.
The next couple of scenes also didn't pull me into this movie. I absolutely hated the comic book style in-your-face depictions of what the drug was doing to Eddie. Eddie takes the pill and an X-Ray image of him swallowing the pill floods the screen followed by cartoonish animated renderings highlighting a part of his brain being stimulated by the drug. I did like the quick cut shots of Eddie's brain calculating the scene before him in order to analyze and react to his landlord's wife yelling at him. But then when illuminated letters started dropping all over the room as Eddie typed his novel, I was annoyed again. To over the top. To in your face. We get that this drug enhances his thinking. We get that it makes him super human.
Thankfully the movie rallies into full swing and the comic book style renderings and explanations stop.
I liked that Eddie pulled himself together. I liked that he made something of himself. I did not like that he made such a spectical of himself. He knew someone was looking for the drug. Surely his actions would call attention to himself, put a spotlight on his suspicious rise. And in the end, I thought he would lay low, particularly given all that happened to him and the love of his life. I was disappointed with how far he took it, that he didn't just call it good and fade away. And it really bothered me that his one ambition in life just became a footnote to him. I'm sure he had outgrown his calling and was trying to move up, out, and onto "better" things. It seemed to me that he was abandoning who he truly was. His girlfriend had a point. The drug made him someone else. Not a better person. Someone else.
I guess I did like that Eddie learned something - not the languages he taught himself or the art of reading people or how to construct an algorithm to overtake the stock market - but how to survive. Others before him were not able to make that leap, the leap that could have saved them. But while he did something none before him were able to do, that cocky attitude was off-putting. He seemed so likeable, frizzy hair and all, in the beginning. Where did that cocky attitude come from? All of his success didn't come from within - it came from a pill. That alone should have been enough to humble him.
I hated the ending almost as much as I hated the opening. It ended with a fizzle, with no gotcha, no redeeming moment, no wow. It needed wow to get me to love it. It was an every day moment and then it ended. No climax. Nothing leading up to the ending. No happy wrapped up ending. It just ended. Some movies cut to black with a pow. Some cut to white with an air of mystery. This one figuratively cut to grey. Eh.
I'm not sure if I liked this movie. It was okay. I didn't leave wowed. I didn't leave annoyed or confused or angry or even sad. I probably won't remember much about this movie in a couple of months. It's worth seeing. It was well done (once the comic book graphics stopped popping up). It was well acted. It was an interesting and unique plot. It was well told. It was just missing that something extra. I could have really loved it. So close.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
March Movie #2: Rango
Starring the voices of: Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Ned Beatty
Directed By: Gore Verbinski
Run Time: 1 hour 47 minutes
Rango is about a chameleon (a lizard) who wanders into the gun-slinging Old West town of Dirt. Rango fancies himself an actor and when the townspeople ask about his past, Rango invents one. Little does he know that his story sets him up to be a hero. The townsfolk make him their sheriff. Rango improvs being a sheriff until he inadvertently aids bank robbers who steal the town's water supply, their only supply of water. Now Rango must step up and be the hero he has been pretending to be in order to save the town.
Not all animated movies are for children. Repeat: Not all animated movies are for children. If you watch the first five minutes of this movie, you'll understand that not all animated movies are for children. It's scary and some of the lines/images are not for children. The naked headless Barbie (of whom Rango inquiries, "Are those real?"), the squished armadillo on the road, and the bird chasing a terrified Rango through the desert are all clues that this is not a children's movie. One character is obsessed with the possibility that Rango is going to die. There are many frightening scenes. Picture an old western - like the remake of True Grit - would you take your child to that? Absolutely not (wonderful acting aside; see review of the movie below). This is essentially something like Gunslinger but animated. Just because it's a cartoon does not make the subject and plot suitable for children.
Of course, if you were planning to take your child to this movie (a child that doesn't get scared easily) but decided not to after the smoking controversy, you should forget that controversy and go see it. Several anti-smoking groups are slamming this movie for its rampant depiction of smoking. One: It is only the bad guys smoking and Two: Rango does not smoke (contrary to many sites' claims). He grabs a villian's cigar and eats it and then drinks a shot of cactus juice and burps a fireball at the bad guy. If kids immitate what they see in cartoons, I think there's a much greater risk of them swallowing lit cigars in the hopes of breathing fire at their brothers. I seriously did not notice the smoking and I was watching for it!!
I'm not a huge fan of westerns. I was not a huge fan of this movie. It was decent. Several lines made me laugh. I was more alarmed at how scary it was. The scene at the end with the bird dragging off the turtle made me gasp. And I think I may have nightmares about the scene where the moles come crawling out of the ground surrounding Rango and his gang (I have issues with Zombie-like things).
I loved the homage to Clint Eastwood - from the character to the award statues in the basket. It would have been so excellent if the movie makers had actually gotten Eastwood to voice the character. I think that little bit would have pushed this movie over the edge to greatness. I did love the opening scene (although I thought it was missing a little extra oomph towards greatness) where Johnny Depp was essentially channeling some past characters from other movies (I think I saw a bit of Captian Jack Sparrow as well as Don Juan DeMarco). There was also a small homage to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That bit made me really laugh (although I was feeling very bad for Rango at that point). I also loved Mr. Timms (the fish) and the full circle involving his "character."
I had a suspicion that this movie was going the way of Happy Feet with a non-publicized but then a sprung on you in-your-face message about the environment about water waste/urban sprawl with the animals' water going to keep golf courses in Las Vegas green. It took a sharp detour at that scene, which in a way was nice but also left me wondering why show that part at all.
I'm also not quite certain I understood the different animals living together. According to this movie, only big birds and snakes are bad guys. Little birds and foxes eat all types of little animals but they were cast as townspeople. And why was a bunny the same size as a chameleon? And why did Beans have hair? Yes, she was a girl but she was a lizard. If you wanted to make it obvious she was a girl (aside from the dress), put a bow on her head. Lizards don't have hair... hence what makes them lizards.
So... I'm not sure if I liked this movie. It wasn't bad. It did have me laughing... at times. But I was more concerned with the impact it would have on all the kids at the theater (I think a pre-school was having an outing). There was so much talk of death and the bad guys were truly scary. There were a lot of tough things going on in this movie. Decent but not great.
Directed By: Gore Verbinski
Run Time: 1 hour 47 minutes
Rango is about a chameleon (a lizard) who wanders into the gun-slinging Old West town of Dirt. Rango fancies himself an actor and when the townspeople ask about his past, Rango invents one. Little does he know that his story sets him up to be a hero. The townsfolk make him their sheriff. Rango improvs being a sheriff until he inadvertently aids bank robbers who steal the town's water supply, their only supply of water. Now Rango must step up and be the hero he has been pretending to be in order to save the town.
Not all animated movies are for children. Repeat: Not all animated movies are for children. If you watch the first five minutes of this movie, you'll understand that not all animated movies are for children. It's scary and some of the lines/images are not for children. The naked headless Barbie (of whom Rango inquiries, "Are those real?"), the squished armadillo on the road, and the bird chasing a terrified Rango through the desert are all clues that this is not a children's movie. One character is obsessed with the possibility that Rango is going to die. There are many frightening scenes. Picture an old western - like the remake of True Grit - would you take your child to that? Absolutely not (wonderful acting aside; see review of the movie below). This is essentially something like Gunslinger but animated. Just because it's a cartoon does not make the subject and plot suitable for children.
Of course, if you were planning to take your child to this movie (a child that doesn't get scared easily) but decided not to after the smoking controversy, you should forget that controversy and go see it. Several anti-smoking groups are slamming this movie for its rampant depiction of smoking. One: It is only the bad guys smoking and Two: Rango does not smoke (contrary to many sites' claims). He grabs a villian's cigar and eats it and then drinks a shot of cactus juice and burps a fireball at the bad guy. If kids immitate what they see in cartoons, I think there's a much greater risk of them swallowing lit cigars in the hopes of breathing fire at their brothers. I seriously did not notice the smoking and I was watching for it!!
I'm not a huge fan of westerns. I was not a huge fan of this movie. It was decent. Several lines made me laugh. I was more alarmed at how scary it was. The scene at the end with the bird dragging off the turtle made me gasp. And I think I may have nightmares about the scene where the moles come crawling out of the ground surrounding Rango and his gang (I have issues with Zombie-like things).
I loved the homage to Clint Eastwood - from the character to the award statues in the basket. It would have been so excellent if the movie makers had actually gotten Eastwood to voice the character. I think that little bit would have pushed this movie over the edge to greatness. I did love the opening scene (although I thought it was missing a little extra oomph towards greatness) where Johnny Depp was essentially channeling some past characters from other movies (I think I saw a bit of Captian Jack Sparrow as well as Don Juan DeMarco). There was also a small homage to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That bit made me really laugh (although I was feeling very bad for Rango at that point). I also loved Mr. Timms (the fish) and the full circle involving his "character."
I had a suspicion that this movie was going the way of Happy Feet with a non-publicized but then a sprung on you in-your-face message about the environment about water waste/urban sprawl with the animals' water going to keep golf courses in Las Vegas green. It took a sharp detour at that scene, which in a way was nice but also left me wondering why show that part at all.
I'm also not quite certain I understood the different animals living together. According to this movie, only big birds and snakes are bad guys. Little birds and foxes eat all types of little animals but they were cast as townspeople. And why was a bunny the same size as a chameleon? And why did Beans have hair? Yes, she was a girl but she was a lizard. If you wanted to make it obvious she was a girl (aside from the dress), put a bow on her head. Lizards don't have hair... hence what makes them lizards.
So... I'm not sure if I liked this movie. It wasn't bad. It did have me laughing... at times. But I was more concerned with the impact it would have on all the kids at the theater (I think a pre-school was having an outing). There was so much talk of death and the bad guys were truly scary. There were a lot of tough things going on in this movie. Decent but not great.
Monday, March 7, 2011
March Movie #1: Beastly
Starring: Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Hudgens, Mary-Kate Olsen, Neil Patrick Harris, Peter Krause
Directed By: Daniel Barnz
Run Time: 1 hour 35 minutes
Beastly is a modern take on Beauty and the Beast. When Kyle Kingson (played by Pettyfer) annoys a witch (played by Olsen) with his ego and his "beauty rules and ugly drools" motto, she places a curse on him. He transforms from a handsome, spoiled rich kid to a hideously scarred, self-pitying rich kid. He has to find someone to love him within a year or else he'll stay ugly for the rest of his life.
Um, wow. This movie was bad. Very, very, very bad. So bad that it took me a long, long time to put two and two together - that this movie was twist on Beauty and the Beast. The acting was atrocious. Normally I just say "bad" but this was so many grades below bad. The script was an abomination. The directing was laughable. It was like a bad high school play, written by the choir director who always had dreams of writing for the silver screen and acted by kids who are just using it as a way to get out of detention. There was no real chemistry between any of the characters let alone Lindy (played by Hudgens) and Hunter/Kyle (played by Pettyfer). Vanessa Hudgens couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag even if you left the bag wide open with a flashing neon sign pointing to that opening. I think she ties with Scarlet Johansson with worst actress ever. Ever. The only tolerable moments were those that contained Neil Patrick Harris who plays the blind tutor. I wonder if he knew how truly horrible the rest of the movie was. I think I saw him cringe a couple of times.
Aside from the bad acting (atrocious acting), many of the plot points just didn't work. First of all, we just didn't get to see enough of Kyle being obnoxious to truly understand why the witch cursed him. The scene at the party didn't really seem to bother her nor was it that horrible a prank. I kept waiting for the Carrie pigs-blood version of an "I'm better than you" rant scene but it never came. I suppose Kyle was a jerk but it didn't seem enough to get cursed over. I'm sure there were hundreds of guys just like him at that high school. It screamed "pretty people rule." It wasn't just Kyle.
The time frame seemed to whiz by. Two weeks in a blink of an eye; five months in another blink of an eye. If Kyle was so devoted to his looks, you'd think he wouldn't waste a minute of his ugly imprisoned year. He'd want to do everything in his power to become pretty again. And a year is plenty of time to get a high school girl to fall in love; seven months is, too.
Another implausible plot point - the father giving his daughter to the scarred, heavily tattooed boy who witnessed him murder another man. And if he thought that scarred, heavily tattooed boy could protect his daughter from the drug dealer who vowed revenge, taking her himself to Hunter/Kyle's house seemed ridiculous. If he didn't want the drug dealer to know where his daughter was, he probably shouldn't know where she was, either (because if push came to shove, I'm sure he'd sell her hiding spot out).
And another implausible point - the greenhouse. Um, you don't build a dwelling one complete wall at a time... complete with windows. You build the framework first and once you have the walls attached to the framework, you put the windows in. I know he made it up as he went along because he couldn't figure out the instructions but surely he's seen construction? And what he built was not a greenhouse.
And finally, the most implausible point of them all - the transformation back to Kyle. The final rose had bloomed in his tattoo... (which wasn't fully at a year because he was cursed at night and this was in the afternoon). If magical path cannot be altered, then the events that transpired were out of order for them to lead to his transformation. Not that I'm giving anything away. You know the story of Beauty and the Beast. You know what happens in this movie. And it ends without drama, so unlike Beauty and the Beast. It ends without fanfare. It ends without an overwhelming feeling that these two people have found true love. Or are even in love.
The best parts of this movie are Neil Patrick Harris. He's funny. He's got some great lines and some scene stealing bits. I loved the story about the elephants. It was insanely sweet. It was my favorite moment of the movie. And it was nice to see Mary-Kate Olsen acting again, all grown up. I liked her quirkiness. She added an interesting element to this movie... even though the spell she placed over Kyle was the lamest spell in magical history. Was that even a spell? What was that?
Go see this movie... if you need something to bore you to tears. I thought about just getting up and walking out many, many, many times. It was an abomination to movies. It shouldn't even be called a movie. Bad. So very bad. And, unfortunately, my assessment of Alex Pettyfer's acting ability is not complete (see the review of I Am Number Four). I refuse to count this movie or give it another thought. Ugh.
Directed By: Daniel Barnz
Run Time: 1 hour 35 minutes
Beastly is a modern take on Beauty and the Beast. When Kyle Kingson (played by Pettyfer) annoys a witch (played by Olsen) with his ego and his "beauty rules and ugly drools" motto, she places a curse on him. He transforms from a handsome, spoiled rich kid to a hideously scarred, self-pitying rich kid. He has to find someone to love him within a year or else he'll stay ugly for the rest of his life.
Um, wow. This movie was bad. Very, very, very bad. So bad that it took me a long, long time to put two and two together - that this movie was twist on Beauty and the Beast. The acting was atrocious. Normally I just say "bad" but this was so many grades below bad. The script was an abomination. The directing was laughable. It was like a bad high school play, written by the choir director who always had dreams of writing for the silver screen and acted by kids who are just using it as a way to get out of detention. There was no real chemistry between any of the characters let alone Lindy (played by Hudgens) and Hunter/Kyle (played by Pettyfer). Vanessa Hudgens couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag even if you left the bag wide open with a flashing neon sign pointing to that opening. I think she ties with Scarlet Johansson with worst actress ever. Ever. The only tolerable moments were those that contained Neil Patrick Harris who plays the blind tutor. I wonder if he knew how truly horrible the rest of the movie was. I think I saw him cringe a couple of times.
Aside from the bad acting (atrocious acting), many of the plot points just didn't work. First of all, we just didn't get to see enough of Kyle being obnoxious to truly understand why the witch cursed him. The scene at the party didn't really seem to bother her nor was it that horrible a prank. I kept waiting for the Carrie pigs-blood version of an "I'm better than you" rant scene but it never came. I suppose Kyle was a jerk but it didn't seem enough to get cursed over. I'm sure there were hundreds of guys just like him at that high school. It screamed "pretty people rule." It wasn't just Kyle.
The time frame seemed to whiz by. Two weeks in a blink of an eye; five months in another blink of an eye. If Kyle was so devoted to his looks, you'd think he wouldn't waste a minute of his ugly imprisoned year. He'd want to do everything in his power to become pretty again. And a year is plenty of time to get a high school girl to fall in love; seven months is, too.
Another implausible plot point - the father giving his daughter to the scarred, heavily tattooed boy who witnessed him murder another man. And if he thought that scarred, heavily tattooed boy could protect his daughter from the drug dealer who vowed revenge, taking her himself to Hunter/Kyle's house seemed ridiculous. If he didn't want the drug dealer to know where his daughter was, he probably shouldn't know where she was, either (because if push came to shove, I'm sure he'd sell her hiding spot out).
And another implausible point - the greenhouse. Um, you don't build a dwelling one complete wall at a time... complete with windows. You build the framework first and once you have the walls attached to the framework, you put the windows in. I know he made it up as he went along because he couldn't figure out the instructions but surely he's seen construction? And what he built was not a greenhouse.
And finally, the most implausible point of them all - the transformation back to Kyle. The final rose had bloomed in his tattoo... (which wasn't fully at a year because he was cursed at night and this was in the afternoon). If magical path cannot be altered, then the events that transpired were out of order for them to lead to his transformation. Not that I'm giving anything away. You know the story of Beauty and the Beast. You know what happens in this movie. And it ends without drama, so unlike Beauty and the Beast. It ends without fanfare. It ends without an overwhelming feeling that these two people have found true love. Or are even in love.
The best parts of this movie are Neil Patrick Harris. He's funny. He's got some great lines and some scene stealing bits. I loved the story about the elephants. It was insanely sweet. It was my favorite moment of the movie. And it was nice to see Mary-Kate Olsen acting again, all grown up. I liked her quirkiness. She added an interesting element to this movie... even though the spell she placed over Kyle was the lamest spell in magical history. Was that even a spell? What was that?
Go see this movie... if you need something to bore you to tears. I thought about just getting up and walking out many, many, many times. It was an abomination to movies. It shouldn't even be called a movie. Bad. So very bad. And, unfortunately, my assessment of Alex Pettyfer's acting ability is not complete (see the review of I Am Number Four). I refuse to count this movie or give it another thought. Ugh.
Friday, March 4, 2011
February Movie #9: The Housemaid
Starring: Do-yeon Jeon, Jung-Jae Lee, Seo-Hyeon Ahn, Seo Woo
Directed By: Sang-soo Im
Run Time: 1 hour 56 mins
The Housemaid is the tale about a young woman who takes the job of nanny in the house of one of Korea's richest families. The young nanny quickly learns that money equals power and rich, powerful people can do pretty much anything they want. The husband seduces her; the head maid finds out (she knows everything that goes on in the house) and soon everyone in the house knows. Life becomes miserable for the nanny.
I debated seeing this movie. There were two other movies I thought about watching - Drive Angry (just because the title makes me cringe... and I want to see what Nicholas Cage's hair looks like in this one) or Gnomeo and Juliet. I like kids movies (and because this one's in 3D that means there's gnomes flying at ya' in 3D!). But both of those got poor ratings (go figure) and this one was very high. Plus the main actress (the nanny) won the Korean version of Sundance for best actress. Even if I wouldn't enjoy the movie, at least I'd get some reading done (the subtitles).
This is, I believe, my very first Korean movie. Unfortunately, you don't get to see much of the city or country. Not that it's a travel movie but because it was my first glimpse into the Korean world, it would have been nice to see it. I did like the movie. It was very well done.
I will warn you. There are a couple of scenes that made me blush and look away. Not necessarily for what you see (you don't see much) but because of what is being done and the language. Wow. Very initment language you don't normally hear in the movies.
Those scenes aside, it is a very interesting movie. People who seem cruel or arrogant really aren't. The main maid seems very distant and cold but as you get to see more of her world and how long she's been in that world, you realize that she's not really cold but reserved. She has a lot of secrets in her head, things she's had to deal with and just move on. The husband seems like a cad until one very telling moment. The wife seems nice until she's crossed. The mother-in-law is conniving without much reason. I think there's a backstory to her but that's never shown. And the nanny seems like a scared little rabbit... until she fights back. I'm not quite certain I would have gone that route - for many reasons - but it certainly had an impact. And what an impact it has.
The final end scene - where the family is celebrating Nami's (the child) birthday outside - is very intriguing. Nami is obviously affected by how the nanny fought back. The wife (Nami's mother) seems to have gone insane. And the husband, whom I thought would be affected by it more, seems to have moved on callously. I wonder if he's now so removed from his family because of his wife's interactions with the previous nanny. He certainly is removed from his daughter's life based on the gift he gave her (and how it was presented). They all seemed like a sweet family, distant and yet together, when the movie started. Crazy is how they all ended up.
Good movie. I liked it. Great character development. Very interesting to see the power and wealth and what that makes me people do. I don't think I learned even one Korean word, which is disappointing. But the movie was really powerful. A little slow but good.
Directed By: Sang-soo Im
Run Time: 1 hour 56 mins
The Housemaid is the tale about a young woman who takes the job of nanny in the house of one of Korea's richest families. The young nanny quickly learns that money equals power and rich, powerful people can do pretty much anything they want. The husband seduces her; the head maid finds out (she knows everything that goes on in the house) and soon everyone in the house knows. Life becomes miserable for the nanny.
I debated seeing this movie. There were two other movies I thought about watching - Drive Angry (just because the title makes me cringe... and I want to see what Nicholas Cage's hair looks like in this one) or Gnomeo and Juliet. I like kids movies (and because this one's in 3D that means there's gnomes flying at ya' in 3D!). But both of those got poor ratings (go figure) and this one was very high. Plus the main actress (the nanny) won the Korean version of Sundance for best actress. Even if I wouldn't enjoy the movie, at least I'd get some reading done (the subtitles).
This is, I believe, my very first Korean movie. Unfortunately, you don't get to see much of the city or country. Not that it's a travel movie but because it was my first glimpse into the Korean world, it would have been nice to see it. I did like the movie. It was very well done.
I will warn you. There are a couple of scenes that made me blush and look away. Not necessarily for what you see (you don't see much) but because of what is being done and the language. Wow. Very initment language you don't normally hear in the movies.
Those scenes aside, it is a very interesting movie. People who seem cruel or arrogant really aren't. The main maid seems very distant and cold but as you get to see more of her world and how long she's been in that world, you realize that she's not really cold but reserved. She has a lot of secrets in her head, things she's had to deal with and just move on. The husband seems like a cad until one very telling moment. The wife seems nice until she's crossed. The mother-in-law is conniving without much reason. I think there's a backstory to her but that's never shown. And the nanny seems like a scared little rabbit... until she fights back. I'm not quite certain I would have gone that route - for many reasons - but it certainly had an impact. And what an impact it has.
The final end scene - where the family is celebrating Nami's (the child) birthday outside - is very intriguing. Nami is obviously affected by how the nanny fought back. The wife (Nami's mother) seems to have gone insane. And the husband, whom I thought would be affected by it more, seems to have moved on callously. I wonder if he's now so removed from his family because of his wife's interactions with the previous nanny. He certainly is removed from his daughter's life based on the gift he gave her (and how it was presented). They all seemed like a sweet family, distant and yet together, when the movie started. Crazy is how they all ended up.
Good movie. I liked it. Great character development. Very interesting to see the power and wealth and what that makes me people do. I don't think I learned even one Korean word, which is disappointing. But the movie was really powerful. A little slow but good.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
February Movie #8: I Am Number Four
Starring: Alex Pettyfer, Timothy Olyphant, Teresa Palmer, Dianna Agron, Kevin Durand
Directed By: D.J. Caruso
Run Time: 1 hr 44 minutes
I went into this movie knowing very little about it. From what little I had seen, it looked interesting enough… enough to want to see it (and not see too much beforehand to chance spoiling it). I thought I remembered that Number Four was an alien. About ten minutes into the movie, with goofy alien vibe in full swing (the pursuing aliens were all jacked up), I wondered if I should stay a minute longer or if, perhaps, I should have learned more about the movie before venturing to see it. But then the alien stuff quieted down and some real character development began. This is two different movies meshed together very well. One movie is about a teenage boy trying to fit into a new high school. We’ve seen it before – the new guy gets picked on until he fights back. But when this guy fights back, it’s a little different. The other movie is about an alien on the run from trackers who want to kill him. It’s kind of a sci-fi John Hughes flick.
I rather liked this movie. John, the alien Number Four (played by Pettyfer), is a sweet, smart kid. Incidentally, there’s another movie starring Pettyfer (are you asking yourself “who?” too? You’ll soon know who) coming out soon. Its trailer preceded this movie. I kept thinking through this whole movie, “Is this the same guy in Beastly? If not, they look waaay too similar.” I will need to see that movie (it is on my list) to really assess Pettyfer’s acting ability. He seemed a little simple, a little too reserved, a little too low-key. But that just could have been his way to blend in, in which case his style was very good. I did read he’s from England so the lack of accent was great.
One side note: Can Dianna Agron ever leave high school in Ohio? She’s Quinn on Glee and that takes place in Ohio and this movie also takes place in Ohio. Another side note: Number Six looks like a blonde Kristin Stewart.
I really liked this movie and it’s because of the two movies combined together. I liked the time spent with John the teenager trying to assimilate/blend into his new high school. I liked the Sarah character (played by Agron), although I couldn’t help but think Jeff would be complaining about the teenager’s infatuation with film and film cameras. Do schools really have darkrooms anymore let alone the chemicals needed to develop film? And she was developing her film incredibly quickly in order to post them on her website (which begs the question: Why would she use a film camera to take pictures she’s going to post on her website? There’s a lot of downtime with a film camera).
Although it takes awhile to get there, it’s an incredibly suspenseful movie. The ending is very intense. I liked how some things came together. I loved the dog (he has lots of good moments throughout the movie). If you don’t get to see this one in the theater, it’s a great Saturday night rental.
Directed By: D.J. Caruso
Run Time: 1 hr 44 minutes
I went into this movie knowing very little about it. From what little I had seen, it looked interesting enough… enough to want to see it (and not see too much beforehand to chance spoiling it). I thought I remembered that Number Four was an alien. About ten minutes into the movie, with goofy alien vibe in full swing (the pursuing aliens were all jacked up), I wondered if I should stay a minute longer or if, perhaps, I should have learned more about the movie before venturing to see it. But then the alien stuff quieted down and some real character development began. This is two different movies meshed together very well. One movie is about a teenage boy trying to fit into a new high school. We’ve seen it before – the new guy gets picked on until he fights back. But when this guy fights back, it’s a little different. The other movie is about an alien on the run from trackers who want to kill him. It’s kind of a sci-fi John Hughes flick.
I rather liked this movie. John, the alien Number Four (played by Pettyfer), is a sweet, smart kid. Incidentally, there’s another movie starring Pettyfer (are you asking yourself “who?” too? You’ll soon know who) coming out soon. Its trailer preceded this movie. I kept thinking through this whole movie, “Is this the same guy in Beastly? If not, they look waaay too similar.” I will need to see that movie (it is on my list) to really assess Pettyfer’s acting ability. He seemed a little simple, a little too reserved, a little too low-key. But that just could have been his way to blend in, in which case his style was very good. I did read he’s from England so the lack of accent was great.
One side note: Can Dianna Agron ever leave high school in Ohio? She’s Quinn on Glee and that takes place in Ohio and this movie also takes place in Ohio. Another side note: Number Six looks like a blonde Kristin Stewart.
I really liked this movie and it’s because of the two movies combined together. I liked the time spent with John the teenager trying to assimilate/blend into his new high school. I liked the Sarah character (played by Agron), although I couldn’t help but think Jeff would be complaining about the teenager’s infatuation with film and film cameras. Do schools really have darkrooms anymore let alone the chemicals needed to develop film? And she was developing her film incredibly quickly in order to post them on her website (which begs the question: Why would she use a film camera to take pictures she’s going to post on her website? There’s a lot of downtime with a film camera).
Although it takes awhile to get there, it’s an incredibly suspenseful movie. The ending is very intense. I liked how some things came together. I loved the dog (he has lots of good moments throughout the movie). If you don’t get to see this one in the theater, it’s a great Saturday night rental.
February Movie #7: True Grit
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Hailee Steinfeld
Directed By: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Run Time: 1 hr 50 minutes
When Mattie Ross's (played by Steinfeld) father is murdered by Tom Chaney (played by Brolin) and the local law won't bring him in, Mattie enlists the aid of Marshall Cogburn (played by Bridges). A Texas ranger LaBoeuf (played by Damon), also on the hunt for Chaney, tags along.
I've heard two different opinions on this movie. It's a John Wayne remake. One viewer told me it was a shot-for-shot-line-for-line remake. Quite boring. Another viewer said that this version is an interesting take, a different angle from the original story. The original was showing on AMC the other night so I decided since I've seen the remake, I must watch the original in order to fully assess if I liked the remake. After watching the original, I can say that the remake was much better. The acting in the Coen brothers' version is superb, so many levels above the original. I'm sorry but for as tough and saavy as John Wayne was and always portrayed, I really think Jeff Bridges played a much, much more gruff and intense Mashall Cogburn. Glen Campbell played the original LaBoeuf and there is absolutely no comparison between his acting and Matt Damon's (Matt Damon is better). And the actresses that played Mattie - well, the original Kim Darby was sharp and tough but Hailee Steinfeld had a determination, a driving force, that I just didn't see in the original. The original actress was a little too perky for someone who was bent on revenge. As for the remake being shot for shot identical - heck no! Many of the scenes are in a totally different order and the background settings - which really set the tone for some scenes - were different. Much of the dialog was the same - but not all of it. And don't get me started on the sets. I was painfully aware that the 1969 version was shot on a sound stage. Even the trees were fake! The scenery were obviously sets. Bad sets. Cheap sets. My eyes kept wandering to the background. That's not a tree!
I thought both Bridges and Steinfeld were phenomenal. I was quite impressed with the young actress. She was tough and determined without being bitchy or whiny. She was quite good at taking the lead - from grown men! She lead the search, she stole the show. I liked this movie and it's mostly due to the gruff and gritty Bridges and the forceful Steinfeld.
So, although I risk irking a lot of John Wayne devotees, the remake was much better. Much. The tone IS totally different. The acting is wonderful. And the sets don't look like sets (it seriously was an issue with me). I'm sad that this movie didn't win anything at the Oscars. Little Hailee was my pick. She should have won. If you like Westerns, see this one over the original.
Directed By: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Run Time: 1 hr 50 minutes
When Mattie Ross's (played by Steinfeld) father is murdered by Tom Chaney (played by Brolin) and the local law won't bring him in, Mattie enlists the aid of Marshall Cogburn (played by Bridges). A Texas ranger LaBoeuf (played by Damon), also on the hunt for Chaney, tags along.
I've heard two different opinions on this movie. It's a John Wayne remake. One viewer told me it was a shot-for-shot-line-for-line remake. Quite boring. Another viewer said that this version is an interesting take, a different angle from the original story. The original was showing on AMC the other night so I decided since I've seen the remake, I must watch the original in order to fully assess if I liked the remake. After watching the original, I can say that the remake was much better. The acting in the Coen brothers' version is superb, so many levels above the original. I'm sorry but for as tough and saavy as John Wayne was and always portrayed, I really think Jeff Bridges played a much, much more gruff and intense Mashall Cogburn. Glen Campbell played the original LaBoeuf and there is absolutely no comparison between his acting and Matt Damon's (Matt Damon is better). And the actresses that played Mattie - well, the original Kim Darby was sharp and tough but Hailee Steinfeld had a determination, a driving force, that I just didn't see in the original. The original actress was a little too perky for someone who was bent on revenge. As for the remake being shot for shot identical - heck no! Many of the scenes are in a totally different order and the background settings - which really set the tone for some scenes - were different. Much of the dialog was the same - but not all of it. And don't get me started on the sets. I was painfully aware that the 1969 version was shot on a sound stage. Even the trees were fake! The scenery were obviously sets. Bad sets. Cheap sets. My eyes kept wandering to the background. That's not a tree!
I thought both Bridges and Steinfeld were phenomenal. I was quite impressed with the young actress. She was tough and determined without being bitchy or whiny. She was quite good at taking the lead - from grown men! She lead the search, she stole the show. I liked this movie and it's mostly due to the gruff and gritty Bridges and the forceful Steinfeld.
So, although I risk irking a lot of John Wayne devotees, the remake was much better. Much. The tone IS totally different. The acting is wonderful. And the sets don't look like sets (it seriously was an issue with me). I'm sad that this movie didn't win anything at the Oscars. Little Hailee was my pick. She should have won. If you like Westerns, see this one over the original.
February Movie #6: The Kids Are All Right
Starring: Julianne Moore, Annette Bening, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson
Directed By: Lisa Cholodenko
Run Time: 1 hr 44 minutes
The Kids Are All Right is about a family that consists of two moms and two children. When Joni (played by Wasikowska) turns 18, her younger brother Laser (ya, you read it right) (played by Hutcherson) asks her to connect with their biological donor father. Although Joni has no interest in meeting her father, she does it for Laser and tags along to meet Paul (played by Ruffalo). When the mothers find out, they insist on meeting Paul for themselves. Nic (played by Bening) is a doctor and likes to have control of everything. Jules (played by Moore) is very earthy and touchy-feely. She's a bit flighty but once you see the two women together, you see that the reason she's a bit unstable (Jules floats from job to job) is because Nic is a strong critic. Paul is a chef who owns his own restaurant and grows his own vegetables for his restaurant. He's aloof and a bit anti-establishment, which doesn't sit well with Nic. He asks Jules to landscape his backyard and because of his attention and interest in her ideas and opionins - and willingness to let Jules do what she wants - Jules falls in love with Paul. The already tense and troubled marriage/family begins to implode.
This movie is full of uncertainies - from the characters to the plot to the ending. I'm not sure I got the true sense of the mothers individual personalities. They seemed to blend together. I'm not sure the relationship between Jules and Paul was plausible. She's a lesbian! Yes, she was craving attention and needed affection and that came from a man. On one hand, it's logical that she would fall in love with the person who was finally nice to her but, um, it was a man! I'm not sure if I saw where and how the kids bonded to Paul. I'm not sure I understood the draw for Laser to meet his father. True, he was the only male in the house and may have needed a male influence but it seemed as though he got the attention he needed from his mothers.
I did like the kids. Both seemed very nice, not at all spoiled. Good kids. Decent kids. I liked the relationship Joni and Laser had with one another. I wish they had explained how Laser got his name and which mother was whose (one mother gave birth to one child; the other mother gave birth to the other child). Given the bonds each child had to their mothers, I think I have an idea of which carried whom.
The underlying story - marriage is hard and this is how two people struggle to cope with their differences and their issues - was an interesting story. I wish that had more of a focus. I didn't see how they all bonded with Paul so I didn't care for that aspect of the story. The commentary on marriage was more interesting to me.
This is an okay movie. Well acted... although I don't think any of the actors deserved their nomination (Bening and Moore for best actress; Ruffalo for best actor). I think so much could have been done with this movie. It fell short for me.
Directed By: Lisa Cholodenko
Run Time: 1 hr 44 minutes
The Kids Are All Right is about a family that consists of two moms and two children. When Joni (played by Wasikowska) turns 18, her younger brother Laser (ya, you read it right) (played by Hutcherson) asks her to connect with their biological donor father. Although Joni has no interest in meeting her father, she does it for Laser and tags along to meet Paul (played by Ruffalo). When the mothers find out, they insist on meeting Paul for themselves. Nic (played by Bening) is a doctor and likes to have control of everything. Jules (played by Moore) is very earthy and touchy-feely. She's a bit flighty but once you see the two women together, you see that the reason she's a bit unstable (Jules floats from job to job) is because Nic is a strong critic. Paul is a chef who owns his own restaurant and grows his own vegetables for his restaurant. He's aloof and a bit anti-establishment, which doesn't sit well with Nic. He asks Jules to landscape his backyard and because of his attention and interest in her ideas and opionins - and willingness to let Jules do what she wants - Jules falls in love with Paul. The already tense and troubled marriage/family begins to implode.
This movie is full of uncertainies - from the characters to the plot to the ending. I'm not sure I got the true sense of the mothers individual personalities. They seemed to blend together. I'm not sure the relationship between Jules and Paul was plausible. She's a lesbian! Yes, she was craving attention and needed affection and that came from a man. On one hand, it's logical that she would fall in love with the person who was finally nice to her but, um, it was a man! I'm not sure if I saw where and how the kids bonded to Paul. I'm not sure I understood the draw for Laser to meet his father. True, he was the only male in the house and may have needed a male influence but it seemed as though he got the attention he needed from his mothers.
I did like the kids. Both seemed very nice, not at all spoiled. Good kids. Decent kids. I liked the relationship Joni and Laser had with one another. I wish they had explained how Laser got his name and which mother was whose (one mother gave birth to one child; the other mother gave birth to the other child). Given the bonds each child had to their mothers, I think I have an idea of which carried whom.
The underlying story - marriage is hard and this is how two people struggle to cope with their differences and their issues - was an interesting story. I wish that had more of a focus. I didn't see how they all bonded with Paul so I didn't care for that aspect of the story. The commentary on marriage was more interesting to me.
This is an okay movie. Well acted... although I don't think any of the actors deserved their nomination (Bening and Moore for best actress; Ruffalo for best actor). I think so much could have been done with this movie. It fell short for me.
February Movie #5: 127 Hours
Starring: James Franco
Directed By: Danny Boyle
Run Time: 1 hr 33 minutes
127 Hours is based on a true event. The movie is based on the autobiography called Between a Rock and a Hard Place. Aron Ralston (played by Franco) goes hiking in Utah without telling anyone where he's going. Aron likes to "squeeze" which consists of wriggling through cravasses by using the angle of your body to keep you from plummeting to the ground. As he bounces off angles in a deep cravass, he accidently loosens a boulder. As the two squeeze down the cravass together, when Aaron finally reaches the bottom of the ravine, the boulder lands on top of his arm, wedged between the walls of the cravass. His arm his pinned between the boulder and the mountain. Neither will budge. Aron is all by himself. No one can hear his screams. He tries many different approaches to freeing himself, including chiseling the boulder away with his incredibly dull knife (so dull it won't even cause a scratch to his flesh) and jerry-rigging a pulley to try to hoist the boulder up using his body weight. As the title suggests, Aron is stuck for 127 hours (which is over 5 days) until he finally decides to cut his own arm off. Bear in mind that I mentioned the incredibly dull knife. He doesn't cut the arm off but rather stabs it off.
I only list James Franco in the "starring" section because he pretty much has the screen to himself. Danny Boyle does an incredible job keeping the story interesting with flashbacks and out of body experiences. I liked the fleeting bits by other characters. It helped keep the flow of the movie, particularly given that the story is about a guy trapped by himself for five days. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful. At times, the comic book style multiple split screen becomes a bit distracting but there are a few scenes actually enhanced by the technique. There were other more avant garde were a refreshing way to depict the scene.
I liked the idea of replaying so many aspects leading up to his accident in his head after he was trapped - if only he had told someone where he was going. They might know he's hurt and needs help but after a few days someone would at least start to look for him. So many opportunities were missed that could have helped his situation. If only he had taken his good Swiss army knife with him. If only he had picked up the phone when his mother called instead of ignoring it. He may not have told he was going away for the weekend but the guilt of not talking to her, not giving her his time, grated away at him during his captivity. If only he had picked up the phone when his sister called. If only he had mentioned to his co-worker - a fellow climber - where he was going. He had the map in hand. He knew exactly where he was going. If only he hadn't forgotten that extra bottle of Gatorade, which was sitting on the floor of his truck. But there's nothing like eminent death for one to reasse his foibles. Even if he had gone hiking with someone else may not have solved his situation. It could have worsened it. What if that person were trapped or hurt, too? His water supply surely wouldn't have kept two people alive for that long (he barely had any for himself).
At the end of the movie you see the real Aron Ralston, sans arm, along with a note that says he's still an adventure-seeker (and then many photos of him doing adventurous things... by himself). Given that an ill-prepared outing almost cost him his life, you'd think he'd be a little more cautious, if not respectful of his own life (particularly now that he's a father). He does leave a note now when he goes out. He learned an ounce. Doesn't seem right. I suppose we should be encouraged by his "never say die" attitude and admire his zest - and quest - for life. I've always found going to the grocery store to be an adventure...
I really think this movie should have been nominated for at least cinematography if not director. The visuals are stunning and I think Danny Boyle did a wonderful job keeping the pace flowing as well as interesting. Just for the stabbing his arm off scene, James Franco did indeed deserve his nomination for best actor. While I know he didn't actually have to lose his arm, it takes a lot to convey the turmoil, the angst, and the agony just for the preparation needed to cut off one's own arm. He had nothing else to bounce off of but he managed to keep the engery alive and pique my interest. This movie held my attention... but only because I knew that lurking around the corner was the inevitable cutting off his arm scene.
Directed By: Danny Boyle
Run Time: 1 hr 33 minutes
127 Hours is based on a true event. The movie is based on the autobiography called Between a Rock and a Hard Place. Aron Ralston (played by Franco) goes hiking in Utah without telling anyone where he's going. Aron likes to "squeeze" which consists of wriggling through cravasses by using the angle of your body to keep you from plummeting to the ground. As he bounces off angles in a deep cravass, he accidently loosens a boulder. As the two squeeze down the cravass together, when Aaron finally reaches the bottom of the ravine, the boulder lands on top of his arm, wedged between the walls of the cravass. His arm his pinned between the boulder and the mountain. Neither will budge. Aron is all by himself. No one can hear his screams. He tries many different approaches to freeing himself, including chiseling the boulder away with his incredibly dull knife (so dull it won't even cause a scratch to his flesh) and jerry-rigging a pulley to try to hoist the boulder up using his body weight. As the title suggests, Aron is stuck for 127 hours (which is over 5 days) until he finally decides to cut his own arm off. Bear in mind that I mentioned the incredibly dull knife. He doesn't cut the arm off but rather stabs it off.
I only list James Franco in the "starring" section because he pretty much has the screen to himself. Danny Boyle does an incredible job keeping the story interesting with flashbacks and out of body experiences. I liked the fleeting bits by other characters. It helped keep the flow of the movie, particularly given that the story is about a guy trapped by himself for five days. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful. At times, the comic book style multiple split screen becomes a bit distracting but there are a few scenes actually enhanced by the technique. There were other more avant garde were a refreshing way to depict the scene.
I liked the idea of replaying so many aspects leading up to his accident in his head after he was trapped - if only he had told someone where he was going. They might know he's hurt and needs help but after a few days someone would at least start to look for him. So many opportunities were missed that could have helped his situation. If only he had taken his good Swiss army knife with him. If only he had picked up the phone when his mother called instead of ignoring it. He may not have told he was going away for the weekend but the guilt of not talking to her, not giving her his time, grated away at him during his captivity. If only he had picked up the phone when his sister called. If only he had mentioned to his co-worker - a fellow climber - where he was going. He had the map in hand. He knew exactly where he was going. If only he hadn't forgotten that extra bottle of Gatorade, which was sitting on the floor of his truck. But there's nothing like eminent death for one to reasse his foibles. Even if he had gone hiking with someone else may not have solved his situation. It could have worsened it. What if that person were trapped or hurt, too? His water supply surely wouldn't have kept two people alive for that long (he barely had any for himself).
At the end of the movie you see the real Aron Ralston, sans arm, along with a note that says he's still an adventure-seeker (and then many photos of him doing adventurous things... by himself). Given that an ill-prepared outing almost cost him his life, you'd think he'd be a little more cautious, if not respectful of his own life (particularly now that he's a father). He does leave a note now when he goes out. He learned an ounce. Doesn't seem right. I suppose we should be encouraged by his "never say die" attitude and admire his zest - and quest - for life. I've always found going to the grocery store to be an adventure...
I really think this movie should have been nominated for at least cinematography if not director. The visuals are stunning and I think Danny Boyle did a wonderful job keeping the pace flowing as well as interesting. Just for the stabbing his arm off scene, James Franco did indeed deserve his nomination for best actor. While I know he didn't actually have to lose his arm, it takes a lot to convey the turmoil, the angst, and the agony just for the preparation needed to cut off one's own arm. He had nothing else to bounce off of but he managed to keep the engery alive and pique my interest. This movie held my attention... but only because I knew that lurking around the corner was the inevitable cutting off his arm scene.
February Movie #4: Unknown
Starring: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones, Aidan Quinn
Directed By: Jaume Collet-Serra
Run Time: 1 hr 49 minutes
Unknown is about Martin Harris (played by Neeson) who wakes up in a hospital in Berlin after a car crash. He's been in a coma for four days. He has no passport or any other identification but he does remember who he is. When he returns to his hotel and meets up with his wife (played by Jones), she doesn't recognize him and another man has assumed his identity. Now Martin has to figure out why his wife doesn't recognize him or if he somehow made it all up.
I'm trying to decide how I feel about this movie. The intrigue of who Martin Harris really is - is he really Martin - and why someone would want to steal his identity as well as what the people closest to him would gain from pretending they didn't even know him - was captivating. I do always like to stay one step ahead of these things, trying to guess what's going to happen - and why - before it happens. The chase scenes were very suspensful. I did forget to breathe during the black SUV/taxi city streets car chase. But the dialog, the chemistry, and some of the acting were really atrocious.
Liam Neeson is one of my favorite actors, which is why I went to see this movie. Perhaps it was more the dialog and direction than his acting, but I did not feel his anguish let alone his sincerity while trying to figure out why his wife wouldn't recognize him at the hotel after his car accident. And while we're on the subject of acting, holy crap did January Jones phone it in. She was cardboard. Baloo gives a better performance every day of his life telling me his absolutely starving (even though he ate minutes ago) than January Jones throughout the entire movie. There wasn't a line she spoke that sounded convincing. It was painful to hear her speak.
Even though they were two strangers fighting for their lives, I really didn't feel there was anything, particularly given the ending, between Martin and Gina (played by Kruger). While Kruger's performance was decent and her character was fairly interesting, there just didn't seem to be a connection between the two. I didn't feel that she cared so her reaction to Martin's interaction with his wife at the gallery seemed out of the blue.
I read something that said this movie is a great thriller but that the pieces of the puzzle too conveinently fit together. The twist was different, I'll give it that. I was not expecting that. I bought it. It definitely did explain everything.
So... it's a good movie, just for the thrills and twist. It could have been better. I've seen worse. Trust me. I liked it but it's definitely not going in my collection. A good movie to watch on a plane. It was a decent way to pass a few hours.
Directed By: Jaume Collet-Serra
Run Time: 1 hr 49 minutes
Unknown is about Martin Harris (played by Neeson) who wakes up in a hospital in Berlin after a car crash. He's been in a coma for four days. He has no passport or any other identification but he does remember who he is. When he returns to his hotel and meets up with his wife (played by Jones), she doesn't recognize him and another man has assumed his identity. Now Martin has to figure out why his wife doesn't recognize him or if he somehow made it all up.
I'm trying to decide how I feel about this movie. The intrigue of who Martin Harris really is - is he really Martin - and why someone would want to steal his identity as well as what the people closest to him would gain from pretending they didn't even know him - was captivating. I do always like to stay one step ahead of these things, trying to guess what's going to happen - and why - before it happens. The chase scenes were very suspensful. I did forget to breathe during the black SUV/taxi city streets car chase. But the dialog, the chemistry, and some of the acting were really atrocious.
Liam Neeson is one of my favorite actors, which is why I went to see this movie. Perhaps it was more the dialog and direction than his acting, but I did not feel his anguish let alone his sincerity while trying to figure out why his wife wouldn't recognize him at the hotel after his car accident. And while we're on the subject of acting, holy crap did January Jones phone it in. She was cardboard. Baloo gives a better performance every day of his life telling me his absolutely starving (even though he ate minutes ago) than January Jones throughout the entire movie. There wasn't a line she spoke that sounded convincing. It was painful to hear her speak.
Even though they were two strangers fighting for their lives, I really didn't feel there was anything, particularly given the ending, between Martin and Gina (played by Kruger). While Kruger's performance was decent and her character was fairly interesting, there just didn't seem to be a connection between the two. I didn't feel that she cared so her reaction to Martin's interaction with his wife at the gallery seemed out of the blue.
I read something that said this movie is a great thriller but that the pieces of the puzzle too conveinently fit together. The twist was different, I'll give it that. I was not expecting that. I bought it. It definitely did explain everything.
So... it's a good movie, just for the thrills and twist. It could have been better. I've seen worse. Trust me. I liked it but it's definitely not going in my collection. A good movie to watch on a plane. It was a decent way to pass a few hours.
February Movie #1: The Fighter
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Melissa Leo, Amy Adams, Dendrie Taylor
Directed By: David O. Russell
Run Time: 1 hr 54 minutes
The Fighter chronicles the life of boxer Micky Ward (played by Wahlberg) and his brother Dick Eklund (played by Bale) as Micky works his way to the Welterweight Champion title and as his brother spirals into drugs and the realization that his own boxing career is long over.
Ah, Oscar season. I'll be glad when it's over. I think I always am. It's exciting to see what gets nominated. It's good for me to go see "good for me" movies, which can be a refreshing change from the slap-stick comedies, blood and guts horror movies, and the goofy animated kid flicks. I did not want to see this one when the previews first were aired. I was a little annoyed at "having" to see it. And I did have to see it because there were so many nominations. Quite frankly, I'm not sure any of them are deserved. Yeah, I said it. Christian Bale was so over the top, trying too hard, and just plain goofy/bad acting. I know Dick was strung out on crack and was hogging Micky's spotlight but I don't think he was cartoonish. Ugh. It was annoying. And just because Amy Adam's character swears a lot and punches Micky's sister in the face doesn't mean she was playing tough. Her sweetness, even when swearing and punching, still shone through. I would really like to see Melissa Leo (who plays Dick and Micky's mother) in another movie. I need to compare and contrast her performance with another one. She could have just been playing herself (or a character she plays often). It wasn't noteworthy but in comparison, it just might be.
I do not like boxing so a lot of this movie was tough for me, particularly Micky's fight in Las Vegas. I can handle slasher movies because it's obviously not real (nor do a lot of those types of things happen in real life) but the fight scenes were tough. Without spoiling the movie too much (it is based on real life events), Micky doesn't do well in a lot of his fights. There's a lot of blood. A lot of beat downs.
The one thing that strikes me most about this movie is how tough living in Lowell, MA must be. I'm not sure if they cast people who look older than they are for a reason (to depict how the tough living robs them of their youth) or applied makeup to make them look harsh, but I was absolutely floored when I found out some of the women were Micky's sisters. They looked older than his mother! (And then, later, when I verified on imdb.com, it turns out the actresses who played his sisters were just 10 years younger - some of them - than the woman who played his mother). They were poor. There were 10 of them living in one house. No one seemed to have a good job. They were all just waiting for either Micky or Dick to make it big. So sad.
This movie is sad on so many levels. Micky seemed to live for his family, struggle to put their needs before his so much so that his career took a beating - and so did he - as a result. He let his family take advantage of him, let them steer him incorrectly down the wrong path, because he believed that family came first. And his family took advanatage of that. So sad. He almost didn't make it because of them. They only supported him as long as they benefited from it and when they didn't, they attacked him (literally).
Oooh, one tidbit I learned during my imdb.com search - the man that plays the police chief and his trainer plays himself. That's actually his trainer in real life! So... Lowell police chief, boxing trainer, and now actor. He did a fine job.
So... unless you want to see overacting (cough... Bale) and a lot of family back-stabbing and inner turmoil, not to mention blood splatterings in the boxing ring, you can probably skip this movie. I wasn't wowed by it.
Directed By: David O. Russell
Run Time: 1 hr 54 minutes
The Fighter chronicles the life of boxer Micky Ward (played by Wahlberg) and his brother Dick Eklund (played by Bale) as Micky works his way to the Welterweight Champion title and as his brother spirals into drugs and the realization that his own boxing career is long over.
Ah, Oscar season. I'll be glad when it's over. I think I always am. It's exciting to see what gets nominated. It's good for me to go see "good for me" movies, which can be a refreshing change from the slap-stick comedies, blood and guts horror movies, and the goofy animated kid flicks. I did not want to see this one when the previews first were aired. I was a little annoyed at "having" to see it. And I did have to see it because there were so many nominations. Quite frankly, I'm not sure any of them are deserved. Yeah, I said it. Christian Bale was so over the top, trying too hard, and just plain goofy/bad acting. I know Dick was strung out on crack and was hogging Micky's spotlight but I don't think he was cartoonish. Ugh. It was annoying. And just because Amy Adam's character swears a lot and punches Micky's sister in the face doesn't mean she was playing tough. Her sweetness, even when swearing and punching, still shone through. I would really like to see Melissa Leo (who plays Dick and Micky's mother) in another movie. I need to compare and contrast her performance with another one. She could have just been playing herself (or a character she plays often). It wasn't noteworthy but in comparison, it just might be.
I do not like boxing so a lot of this movie was tough for me, particularly Micky's fight in Las Vegas. I can handle slasher movies because it's obviously not real (nor do a lot of those types of things happen in real life) but the fight scenes were tough. Without spoiling the movie too much (it is based on real life events), Micky doesn't do well in a lot of his fights. There's a lot of blood. A lot of beat downs.
The one thing that strikes me most about this movie is how tough living in Lowell, MA must be. I'm not sure if they cast people who look older than they are for a reason (to depict how the tough living robs them of their youth) or applied makeup to make them look harsh, but I was absolutely floored when I found out some of the women were Micky's sisters. They looked older than his mother! (And then, later, when I verified on imdb.com, it turns out the actresses who played his sisters were just 10 years younger - some of them - than the woman who played his mother). They were poor. There were 10 of them living in one house. No one seemed to have a good job. They were all just waiting for either Micky or Dick to make it big. So sad.
This movie is sad on so many levels. Micky seemed to live for his family, struggle to put their needs before his so much so that his career took a beating - and so did he - as a result. He let his family take advantage of him, let them steer him incorrectly down the wrong path, because he believed that family came first. And his family took advanatage of that. So sad. He almost didn't make it because of them. They only supported him as long as they benefited from it and when they didn't, they attacked him (literally).
Oooh, one tidbit I learned during my imdb.com search - the man that plays the police chief and his trainer plays himself. That's actually his trainer in real life! So... Lowell police chief, boxing trainer, and now actor. He did a fine job.
So... unless you want to see overacting (cough... Bale) and a lot of family back-stabbing and inner turmoil, not to mention blood splatterings in the boxing ring, you can probably skip this movie. I wasn't wowed by it.
January Movie #4: The Mechanic
Starring: Jason Statham, Ben Foster, Donald Sutherland, Tony Goldwyn
Directed By: Simon West
Run Time: 1 hr 40 minutes
Let's start off with the definition of a "mechanic." It's someone who fixes things, and in this scenario, someone who fixes situations/people by killing them. Sometimes the assination is blatant, often times it's made to look like an accident/act of nature. The person is eliminated without causing suspicion. This movie is about a mechanic named Arthur (played by Statham) who is hired to kill his best friend Harry (played by Sutherland). Harry's son Steven (played by Foster) is a bit of a screw-up who can't hold down a job. Steve and Harry don't get along and in fact, Harry considers Arthur to be more of a son to him. After Harry's death, Arthur takes Steve under his wing and shows him the ropes of being a mechanic, just like his father.
I read a review that said this movie is better than the original, which starred Charles Bronson. I'm sure to some that's fightin' words, but come on, was Charles Bronson really an actor? Not that Jason Statham will ever win an Oscar (much less even be nominated) with his acting, but even a little better than Bronson makes the remake a better film. Of course, I haven't seen the original (not much of a Bronson fan myself... I think it's the moustache) but I strongly concur. Any movie with Jason Statham has got to be better than a Charles Bronson flick...
But I digress. One thing that flashed through my head while watching this movie is that Jason Statham's characters always seem to have really, really, really cool houses. Picture the french chateau in The Transporter... until it got blown up. The same happens to this house (not to spoil anything) so it appears as though his really cool houses don't last that long. He also drives really cool cars (and bonus points for driving a Mini Cooper in The Italian Job... which reminds me - when is the sequel coming out, for cryin' out loud?). He always has a shirtless scene, too.
Okay, back to the movie. It's actually really well done. I enjoyed it. It has a pretty straight-forward plot... with a couple of twists. One is completely predictable and the other is a bit unexpected and rather enjoyable as I secretly hoped it would turn out that way. I'm a sucker for a happy ending. The movie is a bit on the gory side. There were a couple of slo-mo blood splatterings and the scene with the garbage disposal made me really happy not to have one. It all looked cool... and perhaps realistic, and that's bothersome. I did have to look away a few times. I thought the Arthur/strange woman in the bar relationship was rather sweet... and of course, there is gratuitous nudity as a result.
This movie, shockingly, has rather well defined characters with ample time to let those characterizations mature. I really relished the bonding scenes between Arthur and Steven, although it took some time to figure out why some it was happening (but it's all neatly explained).
So this is quite a good movie. A little slow to be an action movie with a lot more indulgence into character development than most. Even though the plot is incredibly simple, it's well done and the simplicity is very welcoming. When the credits began to roll, I said to myself, "Wow. That actually was a good movie."
Directed By: Simon West
Run Time: 1 hr 40 minutes
Let's start off with the definition of a "mechanic." It's someone who fixes things, and in this scenario, someone who fixes situations/people by killing them. Sometimes the assination is blatant, often times it's made to look like an accident/act of nature. The person is eliminated without causing suspicion. This movie is about a mechanic named Arthur (played by Statham) who is hired to kill his best friend Harry (played by Sutherland). Harry's son Steven (played by Foster) is a bit of a screw-up who can't hold down a job. Steve and Harry don't get along and in fact, Harry considers Arthur to be more of a son to him. After Harry's death, Arthur takes Steve under his wing and shows him the ropes of being a mechanic, just like his father.
I read a review that said this movie is better than the original, which starred Charles Bronson. I'm sure to some that's fightin' words, but come on, was Charles Bronson really an actor? Not that Jason Statham will ever win an Oscar (much less even be nominated) with his acting, but even a little better than Bronson makes the remake a better film. Of course, I haven't seen the original (not much of a Bronson fan myself... I think it's the moustache) but I strongly concur. Any movie with Jason Statham has got to be better than a Charles Bronson flick...
But I digress. One thing that flashed through my head while watching this movie is that Jason Statham's characters always seem to have really, really, really cool houses. Picture the french chateau in The Transporter... until it got blown up. The same happens to this house (not to spoil anything) so it appears as though his really cool houses don't last that long. He also drives really cool cars (and bonus points for driving a Mini Cooper in The Italian Job... which reminds me - when is the sequel coming out, for cryin' out loud?). He always has a shirtless scene, too.
Okay, back to the movie. It's actually really well done. I enjoyed it. It has a pretty straight-forward plot... with a couple of twists. One is completely predictable and the other is a bit unexpected and rather enjoyable as I secretly hoped it would turn out that way. I'm a sucker for a happy ending. The movie is a bit on the gory side. There were a couple of slo-mo blood splatterings and the scene with the garbage disposal made me really happy not to have one. It all looked cool... and perhaps realistic, and that's bothersome. I did have to look away a few times. I thought the Arthur/strange woman in the bar relationship was rather sweet... and of course, there is gratuitous nudity as a result.
This movie, shockingly, has rather well defined characters with ample time to let those characterizations mature. I really relished the bonding scenes between Arthur and Steven, although it took some time to figure out why some it was happening (but it's all neatly explained).
So this is quite a good movie. A little slow to be an action movie with a lot more indulgence into character development than most. Even though the plot is incredibly simple, it's well done and the simplicity is very welcoming. When the credits began to roll, I said to myself, "Wow. That actually was a good movie."
January Movie #3: The King's Speech
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, Timothy Spall
Directed By:Tom Hooper
Run Time: 1 hr 51 minutes
The King's Speech is about England's second in line prince named Albert (played by Firth), who had a stammering problem that made it difficult for him to make speeches in public. When his brother King Edward (played by Pearce) decides that he'd rather marry a twice divorced woman than sit on the throne, Albert must become king. In an age where radio is flourishing, Albert must be vocally appealing to the public and thus seeks the aid of Lionel Louge (played by Rush).
Ah, Oscar season is upon us. Since both Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are nominated for Oscars (and probably other aspects of the film are, too), I had to see this one. I'm always a sucker for behind-the-scenes look at the lives of the royal family (The Queen was wonderful in that way). It was quite charming to see current Queen Elizabeth as a small child and interesting to see that even though her father was second in line to the throne, her fate would be changed by her uncle's abdiction, too. If her uncle had stayed on the throne and had a child, she would never have been queen.
I was rather awe-struck by the amount of hugs and kisses Bertie (Albert, played by Firth) bestowed upon his children. He seemed like such a warm man, even though his own father instructed his brothers to make fun of his stammering as a child. I found his wife's sense of royality quite interesting. She was more for being proper and correcting those who misunderstood how to behave in front of royal than the man who had actually been raised as royalty. Bertie let things go; Elizabeth (played by Carter) did not. Bertie let Lionel call him Bertie; I highly doubt Elizabeth would have let anyone call her anything other than "Your Royal Highness." In fact, when she first met an awestruck commoner, she replied very simply and straight-forwardly, "It's your royal highness for the initial address and ma'am thereafter."
Although I'm sure any good actor can fake a stammer, I really think Colin Firth did a wonderful job making us feel his pain. His delivery was astounding. The pauses, the look of terror and uncomfort in his eyes. I really felt bad for the poor guy. And considering it was only radio, couldn't someone else have read the speeches for him instead and kept it a royal secret? Of course, he did have a lot of public speaking engagements. If I were in the audience and not knowing any better as a commoner, I totally would have gone right up to him and told him to take his time and tried to hug him... before security hauled me off never to be seen again. It didn't seem as though his audiences were very sympathetic. Perhaps they saw the stammering as a sign of weakness.
This was quite a good movie. A bit slow. I kept waiting for him to give that one perfect speech. Okay, is this it? How about now? Now? By the end I was gritting my teeth and saying, "Okay, now this one better be it." It does drag on a bit. There are a lot of speeches. But the wonderful thing about it is the man kept trying! For most of the movie, he's simply second in line. He's not king or even a glimmer of being king so there's no real push for him to be "cured." He's doing it for himself which is very sweet.
Oooh, ooh! I do find it funny that there are several remarks made in the movie about Lionel being Australian. They make fun of his accent. He's played by an Australian so there are extra jabs in there. The really funny thing is that Guy Pearce, who plays King Edward, is Australian/New Zealander (born in NZ, raised in Australia). No one made fun of his accent!
Although I have yet to see a lot of the other performances that were nominated for Best Actor, I'm inclined to say that Colin Firth deserves the win. I felt his pain. I think that's a sign of a good performance. Good picture for a rainy day (if the Oscar season has already passed you by).
Directed By:Tom Hooper
Run Time: 1 hr 51 minutes
The King's Speech is about England's second in line prince named Albert (played by Firth), who had a stammering problem that made it difficult for him to make speeches in public. When his brother King Edward (played by Pearce) decides that he'd rather marry a twice divorced woman than sit on the throne, Albert must become king. In an age where radio is flourishing, Albert must be vocally appealing to the public and thus seeks the aid of Lionel Louge (played by Rush).
Ah, Oscar season is upon us. Since both Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are nominated for Oscars (and probably other aspects of the film are, too), I had to see this one. I'm always a sucker for behind-the-scenes look at the lives of the royal family (The Queen was wonderful in that way). It was quite charming to see current Queen Elizabeth as a small child and interesting to see that even though her father was second in line to the throne, her fate would be changed by her uncle's abdiction, too. If her uncle had stayed on the throne and had a child, she would never have been queen.
I was rather awe-struck by the amount of hugs and kisses Bertie (Albert, played by Firth) bestowed upon his children. He seemed like such a warm man, even though his own father instructed his brothers to make fun of his stammering as a child. I found his wife's sense of royality quite interesting. She was more for being proper and correcting those who misunderstood how to behave in front of royal than the man who had actually been raised as royalty. Bertie let things go; Elizabeth (played by Carter) did not. Bertie let Lionel call him Bertie; I highly doubt Elizabeth would have let anyone call her anything other than "Your Royal Highness." In fact, when she first met an awestruck commoner, she replied very simply and straight-forwardly, "It's your royal highness for the initial address and ma'am thereafter."
Although I'm sure any good actor can fake a stammer, I really think Colin Firth did a wonderful job making us feel his pain. His delivery was astounding. The pauses, the look of terror and uncomfort in his eyes. I really felt bad for the poor guy. And considering it was only radio, couldn't someone else have read the speeches for him instead and kept it a royal secret? Of course, he did have a lot of public speaking engagements. If I were in the audience and not knowing any better as a commoner, I totally would have gone right up to him and told him to take his time and tried to hug him... before security hauled me off never to be seen again. It didn't seem as though his audiences were very sympathetic. Perhaps they saw the stammering as a sign of weakness.
This was quite a good movie. A bit slow. I kept waiting for him to give that one perfect speech. Okay, is this it? How about now? Now? By the end I was gritting my teeth and saying, "Okay, now this one better be it." It does drag on a bit. There are a lot of speeches. But the wonderful thing about it is the man kept trying! For most of the movie, he's simply second in line. He's not king or even a glimmer of being king so there's no real push for him to be "cured." He's doing it for himself which is very sweet.
Oooh, ooh! I do find it funny that there are several remarks made in the movie about Lionel being Australian. They make fun of his accent. He's played by an Australian so there are extra jabs in there. The really funny thing is that Guy Pearce, who plays King Edward, is Australian/New Zealander (born in NZ, raised in Australia). No one made fun of his accent!
Although I have yet to see a lot of the other performances that were nominated for Best Actor, I'm inclined to say that Colin Firth deserves the win. I felt his pain. I think that's a sign of a good performance. Good picture for a rainy day (if the Oscar season has already passed you by).
January Movie #2: The Green Hornet (in 3D)
Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Tom Wilkinson
Directed By: Michel Gondry
Run Time: 1 hr 48 minutes
Britt Reid (played by Rogen) is the wealthy the son of newspaper owner/editor James Reid (played by Wilkinson). Britt likes to party every night... and not work in the day. When his father is murdered, the newspaper responsibilities fall on Britt's shoulders. As Britt steps into his father's shoes, he learns a lot about the man he thought he knew. For one thing, Kato (played by Chou) makes his father's coffee... and builds funky cars and gadgets. When the two encounter a crime, they decide to team up to be crime fighters. They pose as bad guys to infiltrate the underworld. Their antics get them noticed by the ultimate bad guy.
I'll say this off the bat - I really liked Kato. As for the rest of the movie... it was good. Well, it was okay. For a movie starring Seth Rogen (a svelte Seth Rogen), I didn't laugh once, which was surprising. The opening scene could have been better if James Franco (he has a cameo) wasn't overacting. I wasn't fond of Lenore (played by Diaz). I liked that she was smart and obviously the brains behind the operation but I'm not sure her character provided anything other than satisfying the girl quota. I think every movie has to have a female in it. The chemistry between Rogen and Diaz just did not work. I know the characters were a bit at odds but they seemed like to siloed actors simply sharing a screen, not connecting.
Some of the action scenes were great. The fight between Kato and Britt seemed forced. The scene itself was good (good fighting) but what led up to the fight seemed too simple. Just a short scene ago, the two were calling each other "brother." And suddenly they hate it each. Too quick. Not enough angst. I also had some issues with the end chase scene that ends at the newspaper. So... no one scattering about in the office would put two and two together that the Green Hornet, who just happened to want to publish a scandal, was Britt, the man who would know how to get that published? Very odd.
Long before this movie even started filming, I read that Seth Rogen was sliming down for the roll. His personal trainer kept making him puke. He said he felt like a sell out. He looked good. And then I found it interesting that he was a producer of the movie. So... he had some say in whether or not he needed to drop some weight for the roll, right? He could have been a chubby Green Hornet. It was Kato with the fighting skills.
Decent movie. Loved the end scene where someone gets shot... and then how it gets resolved. That was funny. I will have to see the second one, the one that was strongly alluded to at the end. Maybe that one will be funnier. I hope Seth Rogen stays slim. He looked good.
Directed By: Michel Gondry
Run Time: 1 hr 48 minutes
Britt Reid (played by Rogen) is the wealthy the son of newspaper owner/editor James Reid (played by Wilkinson). Britt likes to party every night... and not work in the day. When his father is murdered, the newspaper responsibilities fall on Britt's shoulders. As Britt steps into his father's shoes, he learns a lot about the man he thought he knew. For one thing, Kato (played by Chou) makes his father's coffee... and builds funky cars and gadgets. When the two encounter a crime, they decide to team up to be crime fighters. They pose as bad guys to infiltrate the underworld. Their antics get them noticed by the ultimate bad guy.
I'll say this off the bat - I really liked Kato. As for the rest of the movie... it was good. Well, it was okay. For a movie starring Seth Rogen (a svelte Seth Rogen), I didn't laugh once, which was surprising. The opening scene could have been better if James Franco (he has a cameo) wasn't overacting. I wasn't fond of Lenore (played by Diaz). I liked that she was smart and obviously the brains behind the operation but I'm not sure her character provided anything other than satisfying the girl quota. I think every movie has to have a female in it. The chemistry between Rogen and Diaz just did not work. I know the characters were a bit at odds but they seemed like to siloed actors simply sharing a screen, not connecting.
Some of the action scenes were great. The fight between Kato and Britt seemed forced. The scene itself was good (good fighting) but what led up to the fight seemed too simple. Just a short scene ago, the two were calling each other "brother." And suddenly they hate it each. Too quick. Not enough angst. I also had some issues with the end chase scene that ends at the newspaper. So... no one scattering about in the office would put two and two together that the Green Hornet, who just happened to want to publish a scandal, was Britt, the man who would know how to get that published? Very odd.
Long before this movie even started filming, I read that Seth Rogen was sliming down for the roll. His personal trainer kept making him puke. He said he felt like a sell out. He looked good. And then I found it interesting that he was a producer of the movie. So... he had some say in whether or not he needed to drop some weight for the roll, right? He could have been a chubby Green Hornet. It was Kato with the fighting skills.
Decent movie. Loved the end scene where someone gets shot... and then how it gets resolved. That was funny. I will have to see the second one, the one that was strongly alluded to at the end. Maybe that one will be funnier. I hope Seth Rogen stays slim. He looked good.
January Movie #1: Black Swan
Starring: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder
Directed By: Darren Aronofsky
Run Time: 1 hr 43 minutes
Black Swan is about a ballerina (played by Portman) who lands the prima ballerina role in Swan Lake. The stress of being the lead plus the newcomer to the troupe (played by Kunis) take its toll on Nina. The line between fiction (of the story of the ballet) and reality become blurred in Nina's mind. She starts seeing things that may not - or may - be there.
I went to the first movie of the year with Jeffrey! This first viewing also brings about the first controversy in our house. If you know the story of Swan Lake, the swan commits suicide at the end because she can't be with the man she loves. The end of this movie is the actual ballet, with Nina as the lead, and the movie ends with ambiguity. If you've seen The Wrestler, which is directed by the same director as this movie, you'll remember that Randy stands on the ropes and then the movie cuts to white. Did he jump and die? Did he not jump and presumably live? Or did he jump and actually live? Black Swan ends very similarly - with Nina as the swan making a swan dive (ha). Her swan dies (while she falls onto some padding designed to catch her fall) in the ballet. We then have to decide if Nina, too, dies. The movie cuts to black, leaving her fate up to the audience. I believe she lived and that her mortality was just in her head as the stress finally consumes her; Jeff believes she died. We do see blood. But, of course, it's not the first time Nina saw blood that wasn't really there (cue the awful, awful scene in the bathroom where she rips back the skin on her finger only to discover a second later that there's nothing wrong with her finger at all).
You may think that it's a bit unconventional to give away the ending - and give it away in the first paragraph of the review - but like I said, if you know the story of Swan Lake, you know the story of Black Swan, minus the insanity and the crazy stage mother. Watch for it yourself and decide (and let me know what you think!).
As I alluded to in my first review paragraph, this movie is a bit of a psychological thriller. It was really intense. Nina, sadly, falls deeper and deeper into a realm where she can't distinguish between reality and stress. Her mother (played by Hershey), a former ballerina herself, fuels the insanity fires. There is a very thin line between reality and imagination. The line becomes almost indistinguishable for Nina... and for the audience. Did that really happen? How much of that happened? It's very intense.
One thing I find fascinating about this movie is that Mila Kunis couldn't dance before this movie. She had to learn it (or as she says, fake it). Interesting.
This is a good movie. I've read some critics ripping on it. Yes, there are some corny lines but the drama, the tension, is fascinating. I liked it. Jeff did, too. We both liked it. That must say something!
Note: And now that Natalie Portman has won the Oscar for Best Actress, you really must see it.
Directed By: Darren Aronofsky
Run Time: 1 hr 43 minutes
Black Swan is about a ballerina (played by Portman) who lands the prima ballerina role in Swan Lake. The stress of being the lead plus the newcomer to the troupe (played by Kunis) take its toll on Nina. The line between fiction (of the story of the ballet) and reality become blurred in Nina's mind. She starts seeing things that may not - or may - be there.
I went to the first movie of the year with Jeffrey! This first viewing also brings about the first controversy in our house. If you know the story of Swan Lake, the swan commits suicide at the end because she can't be with the man she loves. The end of this movie is the actual ballet, with Nina as the lead, and the movie ends with ambiguity. If you've seen The Wrestler, which is directed by the same director as this movie, you'll remember that Randy stands on the ropes and then the movie cuts to white. Did he jump and die? Did he not jump and presumably live? Or did he jump and actually live? Black Swan ends very similarly - with Nina as the swan making a swan dive (ha). Her swan dies (while she falls onto some padding designed to catch her fall) in the ballet. We then have to decide if Nina, too, dies. The movie cuts to black, leaving her fate up to the audience. I believe she lived and that her mortality was just in her head as the stress finally consumes her; Jeff believes she died. We do see blood. But, of course, it's not the first time Nina saw blood that wasn't really there (cue the awful, awful scene in the bathroom where she rips back the skin on her finger only to discover a second later that there's nothing wrong with her finger at all).
You may think that it's a bit unconventional to give away the ending - and give it away in the first paragraph of the review - but like I said, if you know the story of Swan Lake, you know the story of Black Swan, minus the insanity and the crazy stage mother. Watch for it yourself and decide (and let me know what you think!).
As I alluded to in my first review paragraph, this movie is a bit of a psychological thriller. It was really intense. Nina, sadly, falls deeper and deeper into a realm where she can't distinguish between reality and stress. Her mother (played by Hershey), a former ballerina herself, fuels the insanity fires. There is a very thin line between reality and imagination. The line becomes almost indistinguishable for Nina... and for the audience. Did that really happen? How much of that happened? It's very intense.
One thing I find fascinating about this movie is that Mila Kunis couldn't dance before this movie. She had to learn it (or as she says, fake it). Interesting.
This is a good movie. I've read some critics ripping on it. Yes, there are some corny lines but the drama, the tension, is fascinating. I liked it. Jeff did, too. We both liked it. That must say something!
Note: And now that Natalie Portman has won the Oscar for Best Actress, you really must see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)