My Blog

A Single Man: The beauty of life

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:09 -0400

Tom Ford, a fashion designer best known for his turnaround of the Gucci label and the creation of his own label, started a production company in 2005. He called it Fade to Black, an ironic title given the manner in which he brings the company’s first feature - A Single Man - to life. A Single Man is anything but a fade to black; it’s a technicolor masterpiece of cinematography and heavy-handed direction.

Is this bad - “heavy-handed direction?” Not when he subject calls for it - and George (the central character of A Single Man) certainly needs some technicolor in his life. He’s lived in a vacuum of pain and despair for some (intentionally-ambiguous) period of time. His lover of sixteen years is gone. His best friend (Charley, played by Julianne Moore) is in love with him and can’t seem to understand that George’s homosexuality is not a temporary state that he could shed at a moment’s notice. His conservative neighbor wants to kill him for being “light in the loafers.” And his house is a vacant series of glass and straight lines - very 50s, very perfectly arranged, very isolating.

A Single Man takes viewers on a journey through a single day in one man’s life, documenting the beauty of the small moments. The color of a girl’s dress in the bank. The waft of smoke that comes out of a man’s mouth at the gas station. The smell of a rare breed of dog. As the audience discovers these things, so does George - who’s missed them all for far too long. These simple objects on this simple day change his life - and remind the viewers in the audience of the frailty and allure of everyday life.

More than anything, Ford uses color to bring these trifles to life on the screen. Contrasting a muted, almost-sepia palette against saturated tones that are so warm they almost hurt to look at, Ford won’t allow his viewer to look away. Whether you want to or not, you will lay witness to the movement in this moment, the steely beauty of this man’s eyes. Ford’s hand reaches from the screen, grabs his viewer by the neck, and turns our heads in the direction he wants us to look.

The film is graced by an incredible ensemble of earnest portrayals by its actors and a solid, true-to-life screenplay that breaks all the rules. There is no rising action here, no conventional climax, no page-twenty conflict or question. Yet, we are captivated by George, due largely to the understated portrayal by Colin Firth - who got screwed out of Best Actor (which isn’t to say Jeff Bridge’s portrayal from Crazy Heart wasn’t phenomenal...). Julianne Moore turns in her usual best as Charley, a woman grasping at straws to keep her mind above water as she lives the existence of an abandoned wife and mother who desperately needs to retain her beauty. Even the most heterosexual male cannot deny the tragedy of Matthew Goode’s Jim, who has but a few minutes on-screen but makes his audience adore him as much as George. And Nicholas Hoult as Kenny turns in the same likeable, disarming charm that made him so awesome in his title role of About a Boy.

Don’t miss A Single Man - especially if you’re a homophobe. Perhaps the beauty and humanity of this story will put your ignorance to rest once and for all.

Inception: Another world, with a few bumps....

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:08:01 -0400

Time and time again, Nolan has proven himself a master of anticipation. He made his first feature film, The Following, for $6,000 at 28 years of age (in 1998). Not only did he get it into Sundance, he was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize! That film grossed less than $50k, but Nolan was noticed - and garnered a $9 million budget for his next picture, which became a cult phenomenon; Memento grossed over $25 million. Since then, he's had budgets and stars falling at his feet to work with him.

His next films - Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight - true to his earlier work, all explore the dark recesses of the human mind in a very stylistic manner that pairs thoughtful viewing with Hollywood sensationalism. Inception is no exception. From its first frame, it demands the full attention of its audience. More than any of Nolan’s worlds before now, this world is complex.

This complexity is both a blessing and a curse. This new world brings with it a novelty; it is so new, so fresh - that audiences spend a great deal of their energy gawking at the sheer cleverness of it all. However, presenting a world this complex requires a truly gifted screenwriter - one who possesses a knack for presenting exposition without it feeling like exposition to the audience. Nolan’s gifts as a director, unfortunately, fall short here, as proven by his the weak second act that doomed Insomnia and the unnecessary fourth act of The Dark Knight that prevented it from being the greatest comic adaptation of all time.

Historically, Nolan has co-written his own screenplays with his brother and/or producer David S. Goyer. The one exception, Insomnia, turned out to be Nolan's weakest film to date. Inception follows this trend. The exposition is blatant, much of the dialogue awkward or weak. Add a sub-par performance or two by your principle cast and the script stands out to even the least discerning audience member. Regardless, the concept at the center of Inception is so fascinating, and the action-packed third act is so captivating, that most viewers will be willing to forgive the script its shortcomings. For after all, the exposition is necessary in order for the audience to make sense of what’s happening.

The star-studded cast, like the screenplay itself, is overshadowed by the feast for the senses that is the film itself. Some have nothing to work with, while others seem to be going through the motions of acting an action picture - not realizing that Inception is so much more. DiCaprio pulls the film along well when it’s action and exposition, but when his character must go through an intense emotional experience - one that should serve as the heart and soul of the film - he’s not up to the challenge. Ellen Page’s architect is the most devicive character ever, existing solely for the sake of exposition; she has nothing to work with. Ken Watanabe is either half-asleep or the sound mixer forgot to turn up the volume on his microphone; half of his dialogue is incomprehensible. Even the lovely Marion Cotillard is somewhat flat.

The true stars of the film are actually those whose names don’t appear on the poster. Cilian Murphy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt turn in solid performances in their roles. Dileep Rao’s race to survive the never-ending van chase is surprisingly believable due to an earnest performance. And Tom Hardy steals the show as the sarcastic, unphase-able Eames. These men all deserve a raise!

Despite a flawed script and some less-than-stellar performances, Nolan’s brilliance as a director - and the fascinating concept itself - overshadow everything. Inception is a gripping roller coaster ride of great technical filmmaking, amazing special effects, and the most fantastically orchestrated (hour-long) climax you’ve ever set eyes to.

Toy Story 3: A fine end to the franchise

Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:20:52 -0400

Historically, the entertainment industry hasn’t had any successful animated franchises. Disney’s great works of old may have had straight-to-video sequels, but never has there been a Toy Story or Shrek that just kept coming back for more. Shrek, despite the genius of the original, has proven why that is; its sequels are as lackluster as the follow-ups to The Matrix. Toy Story, however, has delivered time and time again. Its cast of colorful characters, its adult-meets-child sense of humor and slapstick physical brand of humor reminiscent of Tom & Jerry re-runs, and the sheer cleverness of the scenarios thought up by its writers and directors have combined to make films that are downright fun to watch for all ages. It’s the attention to detail - like Woody putting a single sheet of toilet paper on the toilet seat before he climbs up - that really sells these films.

Toy Story 3 is having a hey-day in the reviews. RottenTomatoes.com gives it a near-perfect 99%. It’s good, but not that good... Perhaps what keeps it from being as great as its predecessors is the fact that its conventions have grown tired. The personification of toys was novel the first time, even the second time, but it’s just not fresh this go-round. Buzz being re-set so he doesn’t remember anything feels manipulative this time, as we’ve seen it before. As a result, the second act of the film lags a bit.

Despite the done-before geriatrics of its parts, John Lasseter and team have oiled the parts as slick as they’ll go - and this engine still runs. The second act might lag, but not before the jolting first act engages you and the third act leaves you wiping your eyes. Lee Unkrich’s direction is humorous, light, and unobtrusive. And the animation remains as solid as ever. Now let’s just pray they don’t make a sequel. Time to come up with a new story, fellas.

Solitary Man: Basing one’s life on “if”

Wed, 7 Jul 2010 11:44:47 -0400

I wonder if the makers of of all these “A <insert ‘alone’ synonym here> Man” films had to change their titles upon hearing of their predecessors. The Coen Brothers’ offbeat A Serious Man and Tom Ford’s stylized A Single Man both came out in the last seven months, and like Solitary Man, depict a man isolated from the world around him. Each does so in a very different light, however, and the lens that co-directors Brian Koppelman & David Levien choose is one of hedonism.

Michael Douglas kicks ass as the cynical, smooth-talking, skeevy womanizer Ben Kalmen. The rest of the cast is equally impressive both in their presence in such a low-profile film and in their performance. Danny DeVito is disarming as Jimmy Merino, the diner-owning sage who understands true friendship. Susan Sarandon is charming as ever as the sassy, take-no-bullshit ex-wife Nancy. Jenna Fischer, in one of her first film leads, holds her own opposite Douglas as his daughter struggling to accept him. Perhaps the film’s strongest performance, however, comes from British actor Imogen Poots, whose turn as the jaded 18 year-old daughter of Ben’s girlfriend - a role that just might garner her a Best Supporting Actress nomination.

The script is painful, yet humorous, cynical, yet light-hearted. The issues being explored here (existentialism, egocentricity, friendship, commitment) are quite heavy, but Brian Koppelman’s screenplay walks the line with finesse and grace.

A solid film. Check it out.

The Last Airbender: Better than reviewers say

Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:35:30 -0400

The aggregated score for The Last Airbender on RottenTomatoes.com is 8%. Yes, that’s out of 100, and yes, that’s an unusually low score. Let’s take a look at some other films that RT scored in the single-digit area: Hilary Swank’s Revelations-inspired horror film, The Reaping; Brendan Fraser’s animal comedy, Furry Vengeance; Roland Emerich’s shameless 10,000 B.C.; Eddie Murphy’s 60th fat-suit film, Norbit. All four of these actually scored 9% - a point higher that M.Night Shyamalan’s first installation of the Avatar TV series (that’s the original Avatar, not James Cameron’s blue people). Meanwhile, last year’s over-long, self-indulgent The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - hated by everyone I’ve spoken to who saw it - garnered a 72% on RT. Even the offensive-to-both-sexes romantic comedy He’s Just Not That Into You scored a 42% - a score nearly five times that of The Last Airbender.

A score of less than 10%, it’s pretty safe to say, means that the collective reviewing community has been deemed the film “trash.” Yet, The Last Airbender is clearly not comparable in quality to Furry Vengeance, nor is it “trash.” So what’s happened here? Why is the industry machine acting so intentionally to tear down yesteryear’s most-loved director of suspense films? While I adore Shyamalan’s first two films, while I hear great things of his personality as a leader, and while I would readily criticize his more recent work, I think the industry has done him an injustice. There’s something rotten in Denmark. Any claims from yours truly about what’s happening would be pure conjecture, so I’ll spare you my theories. But in this instance (as in most, but particularly so here), take the reviews with a grain of salt...

Ironically, The Last Airbender is Shyamalan’s best film since Unbreakable. This isn’t saying much, as Signs, The Village, The Lady in the Water and The Happening were all pretty awful. Yet, even those merit a score greater than 9%. That is, just as Airbender, none were “trash.”

While theories on why critics are blood-thirsty are mere conjecture, it’s clear why audiences are disappointed by the film. The Lord of the Rings changed viewer expectations for fantasy, and Shyamalan boldly ignores this precedent. His fantasy comes from a less dark, more innocent place reminiscent of pre-LOTR fantasy - the fantasy of the 80s, where the protagonist doesn’t bleed even after a fierce beating, where you never see anyone actually fall dead in battle, where the warriors of the great war walk away with no muck on their face or dirt on their clothing. Think 1985’s Legend with an immaculately made-up Tom Cruise, or the thematically-dark-yet-artistically-clean production design for The NeverEnding Story...

Avatar, let’s remember, is based on a cartoon - and Shyamalan is, for all intents and purposes - adapting a children’s story into a feature film. Was his target audience the disappointed thirty-something (who expects the brutality and frightfulness of The Lord of the Rings’ Ring Wraiths) or the innocent eight-year-old (who wants to see the cartoon brought to life)? Food for thought.

I, being a thirty-something, did find the cleanliness of this world a bit distracting. The simplicity by which these characters are living, and the extreme environments in which they live, dictates a more earthy depiction. Shyamalan’s likely- (hopefully?-) intentional neglect of these realities was a distraction. I was willing to look past it, however, and immerse myself in both the folklore of the world, and the wonderful special effects and fantasy of the landscape. The water-benders’ use of ice during fights was really cool, and the design of Aang’s (the title character) tattoos / light-up head was well-realized.

What is distracting, and deserving of great criticism, was the film’s screenplay. Perhaps assuming the child target audience wouldn’t “get it” without on-the-nose statements of intent by every character in the story, Shyamalan’s adaptation is choppy and oftentimes embarrassing for his actors - who have no choice but to look like amateurs saying the lines they’ve been given. Some actors, like Shaun Toub and Dev Patel, manage to rise above their bad dialogue by means of true commitment to their roles (and training). Less seasoned actors, however, do not fare well. Cliff Curtis and Noah Ringer suffer most notably, as does Seychelle Gabriel, the white-haired queen. Shyamalan, a talented director, has been plagued by his weak scripts for the past decade; perhaps it’s time he handed the pen to someone else...

Despite its flaws, and despite the fact that I won’t be recommending it to everyone I know, The Last Airbender is not the heap of trash the reviews are peddling. It is a return to fantasy as it once was - innocent and wide-eyed - and has its place. The entire industry needn’t mimic Peter Jackson every time fantasy is made.

Green Zone: A political film in disguise

Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:05:19 -0400

2004’s The Bourne Supremacy catapulted Paul Greengrass into stardom as a director. He also directed the 2007 follow-up, The Bourne Ultimatum. In between, he directed the documentary-style United 93, which very few people saw - likely due both to its style and its content (the real-life tragedy of 9/11). The Bourne movies weren’t my favorite films, but United 93 was so well-crafted that I gained a respect for Greengrass. Green Zone, his latest project, seems to join the two together. Posing as a Hollywood action film, Green Zone is actually yet another based-on-actual-events political mouthpiece that delivers a critical blow at the Bush administration’s politics in the hunt for WMDs.

While the film never claims to be “Based on actual events” in its titles, it’s pretty true to the mark. The characters here are given other names, but the conspiracy is as clear as Greengrass and Damon’s political point of view; finding WMDs benefitted the government. It justified their war, so they manufactured cause. Of course, this fictitious history lesson isn’t exactly fun to watch. Hence Green Zone’s weak performance at the box office (to date, it’s $4 million short of recouping its $100M budget). Still, if you’re in the mood for bid-budget action, this one at least leaves you thinking...