07 March 2010
Sorry that I'm late to live-blog the Academy Awards, but here it is: what the fuck is Taylor Lautner doing at the Oscars? I can understand Ephron...he's been in some halfway decent movies that are not connected with a pop culture phenomenon.
The Best Supporting Actor: Christof Waltz. Well-deserved. But there wasn't a bad bunch of actors in that group. They all deserved it.
Best Animated Feature: "Up" was great. But "Coraline" and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" were both, well, fantastic.
Finally, to end my first live-blog update, God, if You grant one Oscar wish this year, please do NOT let Sandra Bullock win.
Reactions?
The Best Supporting Actor: Christof Waltz. Well-deserved. But there wasn't a bad bunch of actors in that group. They all deserved it.
Best Animated Feature: "Up" was great. But "Coraline" and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" were both, well, fantastic.
Finally, to end my first live-blog update, God, if You grant one Oscar wish this year, please do NOT let Sandra Bullock win.
Reactions?
21 December 2009
Metropolitan
Sorry for being so late with my updates. Life just gets away from you sometimes, “know what I mean?” But I recently have been watching some movies that made me think, “I must let the world know, even if the world doesn’t care, what I think about these movies.”
The good folks at Criterion have been on a tear recently, with some good movies being released. First up was Whit Stillman’s “The Last Days of Disco,” the third, and final, installment, in his "urban haute bourgeoisie" trilogy. But not having seen the first two films that he wrote and directed, I had to wait for those to come from Netflix. While I believe I would have appreciated “TLDoD” even had I not seen his previous films, I just prefer to see, especially in a trilogy (even if it is a loose one), a director’s previous films so I can see a little bit of his evolution and ease myself into his oeuvre.
His first movie, “Metropolitan,” honestly took me by surprise. I had read a little about it beforehand, but mostly just the blurb on Wikipedia or on the Netflix disc sleeve.
A tale of idle rich trust-fund babies, one may wonder why this movie would be any interesting to watch. The dialogue is all the reason you need.
From the first moments of this film I “got it.” The dialogue was sharp and witty as one character convinces another to share a cab that he doesn’t want to go to a place he wasn’t going to go to, just so that there will be no “ill feelings” and consequently they will all be travelling in the same way, making the ride more economical.
It is in this way that Tom Townsend gets an introduction into the “Sally Fowler Rat Pack.” This group of Northeastern prep school—cum—Ivy League graduates comes together during the cotillion season. Tom is a socialist (not just any type however, he’s a Fourierist) who is open about his disapproval of upper crust snobs. Despite feeling like an outsider (he does not, after all, own his own tuxedo and must rent one), he finds that he naturally fits with their group. This is a world that Nick Carraway would be at home in. Even as one of the girls in this group develops a crush on Tom, he is still having trouble getting over the preppie girl who broke his heart years before.
This movie had some of the funniest lines and situations I’ve seen in a while, delivered with such aplomb and exactness. Unfortunately, while some will retain their cleverness out of context, I fear that most of them would not. One of my favorite exchanges, however, is when two characters are discussing whether or not the fact that a social experiment turned town no longer exists means that it failed. As one character points out, we all cease to exist, yet we are not all failures.
The direction in this movie is pitch perfect. In this case, writing the movie you’re that will become your first directorial effort obviously helped Stillman. He had a vision in his head, and not only was he able to write it well enough to earn an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay, but he was able to execute it and turn his vision into reality. The lines and scenes, as outlandish as they can seem on the surface, are delivered with the right amount of deadpan-ish emotion.
But most intriguing is the world these characters inhabit. As this movie was made in 1990, it doesn’t have cell phones, the Internet, or so many of the things that make today’s world so markedly different from the world of 20 years ago. Included in selling this world is the conviction with which these characters commit to what they are saying. This world also includes the belief that they are, to put it bluntly, doomed as a class. They have been born, bred, and raised in upper class society. And so there is a feeling that they won’t be able to compete in the real world, that their trust funds and sense of security has left them with an underdeveloped sense of motivation and the hunger needed to excel in a competitive world. It is actually this self-awareness that gives them depth. They know they truly aren’t that important, even though they act like aristocracy. It’s just the world they inhabit, but they know it’s on the way out. Without it they would just be a bunch of self-righteous young turks with nothing put forward; but with that self-awareness, the knowledge that their world will not last, we begin to understand, if not sympathize with, them. And that makes all the difference.
It is difficult for me to really say what rating I would give this film. I am going to settle on 8.5/10. It is stronger than most of the 8's I have, but a 9? I'm not so sure about that. All in all, I immensely enjoyed this film for the dialogue, the acting, and the absurd but down to earth situations.
If you like quirky, understated movies, then I would definitely give this (and the other films by Stillman, but I'll get to those later) a shot.
The good folks at Criterion have been on a tear recently, with some good movies being released. First up was Whit Stillman’s “The Last Days of Disco,” the third, and final, installment, in his "urban haute bourgeoisie" trilogy. But not having seen the first two films that he wrote and directed, I had to wait for those to come from Netflix. While I believe I would have appreciated “TLDoD” even had I not seen his previous films, I just prefer to see, especially in a trilogy (even if it is a loose one), a director’s previous films so I can see a little bit of his evolution and ease myself into his oeuvre.
His first movie, “Metropolitan,” honestly took me by surprise. I had read a little about it beforehand, but mostly just the blurb on Wikipedia or on the Netflix disc sleeve.
A tale of idle rich trust-fund babies, one may wonder why this movie would be any interesting to watch. The dialogue is all the reason you need.
From the first moments of this film I “got it.” The dialogue was sharp and witty as one character convinces another to share a cab that he doesn’t want to go to a place he wasn’t going to go to, just so that there will be no “ill feelings” and consequently they will all be travelling in the same way, making the ride more economical.
It is in this way that Tom Townsend gets an introduction into the “Sally Fowler Rat Pack.” This group of Northeastern prep school—cum—Ivy League graduates comes together during the cotillion season. Tom is a socialist (not just any type however, he’s a Fourierist) who is open about his disapproval of upper crust snobs. Despite feeling like an outsider (he does not, after all, own his own tuxedo and must rent one), he finds that he naturally fits with their group. This is a world that Nick Carraway would be at home in. Even as one of the girls in this group develops a crush on Tom, he is still having trouble getting over the preppie girl who broke his heart years before.
This movie had some of the funniest lines and situations I’ve seen in a while, delivered with such aplomb and exactness. Unfortunately, while some will retain their cleverness out of context, I fear that most of them would not. One of my favorite exchanges, however, is when two characters are discussing whether or not the fact that a social experiment turned town no longer exists means that it failed. As one character points out, we all cease to exist, yet we are not all failures.
The direction in this movie is pitch perfect. In this case, writing the movie you’re that will become your first directorial effort obviously helped Stillman. He had a vision in his head, and not only was he able to write it well enough to earn an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay, but he was able to execute it and turn his vision into reality. The lines and scenes, as outlandish as they can seem on the surface, are delivered with the right amount of deadpan-ish emotion.
But most intriguing is the world these characters inhabit. As this movie was made in 1990, it doesn’t have cell phones, the Internet, or so many of the things that make today’s world so markedly different from the world of 20 years ago. Included in selling this world is the conviction with which these characters commit to what they are saying. This world also includes the belief that they are, to put it bluntly, doomed as a class. They have been born, bred, and raised in upper class society. And so there is a feeling that they won’t be able to compete in the real world, that their trust funds and sense of security has left them with an underdeveloped sense of motivation and the hunger needed to excel in a competitive world. It is actually this self-awareness that gives them depth. They know they truly aren’t that important, even though they act like aristocracy. It’s just the world they inhabit, but they know it’s on the way out. Without it they would just be a bunch of self-righteous young turks with nothing put forward; but with that self-awareness, the knowledge that their world will not last, we begin to understand, if not sympathize with, them. And that makes all the difference.
It is difficult for me to really say what rating I would give this film. I am going to settle on 8.5/10. It is stronger than most of the 8's I have, but a 9? I'm not so sure about that. All in all, I immensely enjoyed this film for the dialogue, the acting, and the absurd but down to earth situations.
If you like quirky, understated movies, then I would definitely give this (and the other films by Stillman, but I'll get to those later) a shot.
11 May 2009
The whole truth and nothing but...
It's a real shame when a good movie goes unnoticed. Good movies rarely get DVD only releases, so when it does happen one needs to pay attention. For all the crap that gets released into theaters (see Knowing, Paul Blart), why is it that some quality movies still cannot get released?
Nothing But The Truth is one such film. Rod Lurie (The Contender, TV's Commander-in-Chief) has crafted a very solid, very tight, suspenseful political thriller.
Using the Valerie Plame scandal as a framework, Nothing But The Truth is about a reporter (Kate Beckinsale) who outs a covert CIA agent (Vera Farmiga) and is sent to jail when she will not reveal her source. Matt Dillon plays the special prosecutor, Alan Alda as her attorney, and David Schwimmer as her husband. Even Noah Wyle gets a meaty role. The casting is perfect. Beckinsale and Farmiga are two of the best actresses we have around. Someone needs to get these two nominations (and wins) for Best (Supporting, if applicable) Actress awards.
Matt Dillon plays a predator waiting in the weeds for the right time to pounce. As the special prosecutor, his one job is to find the source, with no limits on money he can spend or anything to distract him. When we first meet him he is a very charming country lawyer, but he is tenacious in the courtroom. One of his best roles. Alan Alda is perfect as always, conveying a sense of emotion and sympathy with his client. In fact, his character grows the most throughout the story.
Although using Valerie Plame/Judith Miller as a framework, this work is a pure piece of fiction. And what a great work of fiction it is. It keeps you on your toes, you can guess at what's going to happen but there are still those moments where you are shocked.
Despite its strengths, the ending is a little lackluster; it leaves you asking yourself, "What? She went to jail for that!?" And it leaves you wondering if she went to jail for a principle (The First Amendment), or to protect her specific source. Some may see that as a strength of the film, but I'm not sure it is.
Over all, a very solid 7/10. Very nearly a 7.5, but certainly not any higher than that.
Hope you check this one out. It deserves your attention!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
